Global Stability and Settlement of Segmental Retaining Walls Reinforced with Geogrid

Year 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 4, 41 - 46, 23.07.2016

Anuar Kasa Zamri Chik Mohd Raihan Taha

Abstract

Most of segmental retaining wall design procedures such as NCMA, BS8006, AASHTO and NCHRP do not take into account global stability and foundation settlement in their design calculation. A system to solve the problem and to predict the stability of the wall quickly and accurately by using simple input was planned to be developed. This study used a residual soil that was classified as SC-SM according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Geogrid used in this study had a characteristic strength of 40 kN/m while concrete blocks had a minimum strength of 35 MPa. Simulations were performed using twodimensional FEM to calculate maximum deflection, maximum foundation settlement and maximum surface settlement. In addition, global stability was calculated by using phi/chi reduction method for each design. Prediction was done by using Response Surface Methodology. Mathematical models used for the RSM were MLR (Multiple Linear Regression), Pure Quadratic, Interactions and Full Quadratic. Among all the mathematical models in RSM, output of Full Quadratic was the closest to the target value

Keywords

Prediction, Segmental retaining wall, Geogrid, FEM, RSM

References

• Chiu, H.K. (1987). Reinforced Earth Wall in Malaysia, 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, pp 8/121 - 8/138.
• Yoo, C. & Kim, S.B. (2008). Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load: full-scale load test and 3D finite element analysis. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (6): 460–472.
• Zhang, M.X., Zhou, H., Javadi, A.A. & Wang, Z.W. (2008). Experimental and theoretical investigation of strength of soil reinforced with multi-layer horizontal–vertical orthogonal elements. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (1): 1–13.
• Skinner, G.D. & Rowe, R.K., (2005). Design and behaviour of a geosynthetic reinforced retaining wall and bridge abutment on a yielding foundation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (3): 234–260.
• Al, H.O. & Muhunthan, B. (2006). Numerical procedures for deformation calculations in the reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (1): 52–57.
• Edgar, T.V., Puckett, J.A. & D’Spain, R.B. (1989). Effects of geotextiles on lateral pressure and deformation in highway embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 8: 275–292.
• Faisal, H.A. 1993. Field Behaviour of a Geogrid-Reinforced Slope. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 12: 53-72.
• Wong, K.S., Broms, B.B. & Chandrasekaran, B. (1994). Failure modes at model tests of geotextile reinforced wall. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13 (6–7), 475–493.
• Ho, S.K. & Rowe, R.K. (1996). Effect of wall geometry on the behavior of reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 14 (10): 521–541.
• Kasa, A. & Ali, F. (1997). Reinforced Modular Block Wall with Residual Soil as Backfill Material. Geotropika ’97, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, pp 425 - 431.
• Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M. & Walters, D.L. (2005). Reinforcement loads in geosynthetic walls and the case for a new working stress design method. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (4): 287–322.
• Ingold, T.S. (1982). Reinforced earth. London: Thomas Telford Ltd.
• Kasa, A. (1998). Field behaviour of a reinforced modular block wall with a residual soil as backfill. Msc. Thesis. University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
• Holtz, R.D. (2001). Geosynthetics for soil reinforcement. Ninth Spencer J. Buchanan Lecture, College Station, TX, 9 November, p. 20.
• Montgomery, D.C. (2005). Design and Analysis of Experiments: Response surface method and designs. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
• Plaxis, (2008). Reference Manual. Delft, The Netherlands.
• Guler, E & Hamderi, M. (2002). FEM analysis of reinforced segmental retaining walls with cohesive and granular backfills. Geosynthetics, 103-106
• BS8006 (1995). Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills, British Standards Institution, London