A dual beam model for geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill on an elastic foundation

Zhao, Lin‐Shuang; Zhou, Wangda; Fatahi, Behzad; Li, Xibin

doi:10.1016/j.apm.2016.06.003

Cited by 47 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This load transfer is also referred to as the soil arching effect (Iglesia et al, 2014;Girout et al, 2016;Huckert et al, 2016;Rui et al, 2016;Smith and Tatari, 2016;Villard et al, 2016;Ghazavi et al, 2018;Girout et al, 2018;King et al, 2018;Pham et al, 2018). Usually, a load transfer platform is constructed above the top of the columns to eliminate this differential settlement, and one or several layers of geosynthetic reinforcements (Shukla and Chandra, 1994;Hinchberger and Rowe, 2003;Rowe and Li, 2005;Ariyarathne et al, 2013;Abu-Farsakh et al, 2016;Zhao et al, 2016;Da Silva et al, 2017;Feng et al, 2017a;Ghosh et al, 2017aGhosh et al, , 2017b are sandwiched therein to strengthen the load transfer platform. Some researchers have applied fiber or tire mixtures to improve the strength of this platform (Bordoloi et al, 2015;Zhang et al, 2015aZhang et al, , 2015bDisfani et al, 2017;Bordoloi et al, 2018;Indraratna et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A closed-form solution for column-supported embankments with geosynthetic reinforcement

Zhao

Zhou

Geng

et al. 2019

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A closed-form solution for column-supported embankments with geosynthetic reinforcement

Zhao

Zhou

Geng

et al. 2019

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of the stiffness difference between the piles and the surrounding soils, larger settlement tends to develop for the subgrade fill above the surrounding soft soil, which induces the well-known soil arching effect, with more pressure transferring onto the pile caps (Terzaghi 1943;Hewlett and Randolph 1988;Low et al 1994;Han and Gabr 2002;Chen et al 2008;Heitz et al 2008; van Eekelen et al 2012avan Eekelen et al , 2012bvan Eekelen et al , 2013Chen et al 2014Chen et al , 2016bZhao et al 2016Zhao et al , 2017Wang et al 2018a). After the development of soil arching, the evolution of soil stress inside the track bed may present different patterns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Full-scale model study on variations of soil stress in geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported track bed with water level change and cyclic loading

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a full-scale model investigation on variations of soil stress in a geosynthetic-reinforced pilesupported track bed at various water levels and loading cycles, with four testing procedures: water level rising, cyclic loading at high water level, water level lowering, and cyclic loading at low water level. The soil arching effect was revealed, characterized by higher stress above the pile cap. With the water level rising and loading cycles increasing at high water level, this effect becomes more pronounced, until a peak value of dynamic stress concentration ratio is reached. The stable state of soil arching is obtained earlier near the crown of soil arching, but this arching effect develops more significantly at the foot of soil arching. With the water level lowering and loading at low water level, the soil arching effect remains steady, with slightly changed dynamic stresses in the track bed. The geogrid shows a significant impact on the load transfer mechanism for the quasi-static stress: the quasi-static pile-cap stress presents higher values below the geogrid, whereas the opposite trend is observed for the water-bag (subsoil) area. Nevertheless, this mechanism is not obvious with respect to the dynamic stress, with the values showing no distinct difference above and below the geogrid.Résumé : Cette étude présente une étude de modèle grandeur nature sur les variations des contraintes du sol dans des plates-formes sur pieux renforcées par géosynthétique à différents niveaux d'eau et cycles de chargement, avec quatre procédures d'essai : élévation du niveau d'eau, chargement cyclique à niveau d'eau élevé, abaissement du niveau d'eau et chargement cyclique à niveau d'eau bas. L'effet de voûte du sol a été révélé, caractérisé par une contrainte plus élevée au-dessus du chapeau de pieu. Lorsque le niveau d'eau augmente et que les cycles de chargement augmentent à niveau d'eau élevée, cet effet devient plus prononcé, jusqu'à ce qu'une valeur maximale du rapport de concentration des contraintes dynamiques soit atteinte. L'état stable des voûtes du sol est obtenu plus tôt près du sommet de voûte du sol, mais cet effet de voûte se développe de manière plus significative au pied de voûte du sol. Avec l'abaissement et le chargement du niveau d'eau à un niveau d'eau bas, l'effet de voûte du sol reste stable, avec des contraintes dynamiques légèrement modifiées dans la plate-forme de la voie. La géogrille montre un impact significatif sur le mécanisme de transfert de charge pour la contrainte quasi-statique : la contrainte quasi statique de chapeau de pieu présente des valeurs plus élevées sous la géogrille, tandis que la tendance inverse est observée pour la zone du sous-sol. Néanmoins, ce mécanisme n'est pas évident pour la contrainte dynamique, les valeurs ne montrant aucune différence nette au-dessus et en dessous de la géogrille. [Traduit par la Rédaction] Mots-clés : plate-forme sur pieux renforcée par géosynthétique, niveau d'eau, chargement cyclique, effet de voûte du sol, géogrille de renfort.

show abstract

“…The experimental study conducted by Raymond (2002) and Indraratna et al (2015) indicated the importance of bending stiffness of the reinforcement layer which can be incorporated in analytical models by idealizing it as a beam. This consideration results in a double beam model which were used to simulate pavement or foundation beam lying over geocell improved earth bed subjected to static load (Maheshwari and Viladkar, 2009;Zhao et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2018). Other engineering systems were also studied by utilizing such models to understand the behavior of response under moving load considering perfect contact between the top beam and neighboring material (Hussein and Hunt, 2006;Yuan et al, 2009;Auersch, 2012;Mohammadzadeh et al, 2014;Deng et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling of Rail Tracks on Stone Column Reinforced Tensionless Foundations

Bhatra

Maheshwari

2019

Front. Built Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigates the response of rails on geocell-stone column composite reinforced foundation beds under a moving load. Improved earth bed has been considered to respond only to compressive forces. The granular mat below the rail has been idealized as a Pasternak shear layer and geocell reinforcement as an infinite beam with finite bending stiffness. Soft soil and stone columns have been symbolized by Winkler springs of different stiffnesses. Analysis has been carried out with due consideration to viscous damping in the system. The governing differential equations have been established and simplified for general use with the help of dimensionless parameters. These equations have been solved in presence of appropriate boundary conditions by utilizing Finite difference method in combination with iterative Gauss-Seidel procedure. Inclusion of stone columns has been observed to significantly affect the onset of separation between rail and the soil layer underneath. Various parameters namely, applied load and its velocity, stiffnesses of top, bottom soil layers and stone columns, damping ratio, relative flexural rigidity, depth of placement of geocell, configuration of stone columns have been found to affect the response of soil-foundation system significantly. Improvement in the properties of soil by means of higher value of relative compressibility resulted in typical reduction of 50% in maximum deflection. It has been observed that the region of detachment reduces on increasing the depth of placement of the bottom beam. Sensitivity analysis highlighted the greater sensitivity of upward deflection as compared to the downward deflection of rail with respect to all the parameters except for relative compressibility of the soil and relative stiffness of the stone columns.

show abstract

A dual beam model for geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill on an elastic foundation

Cited by 47 publications

References 32 publications

A closed-form solution for column-supported embankments with geosynthetic reinforcement

A closed-form solution for column-supported embankments with geosynthetic reinforcement

Full-scale model study on variations of soil stress in geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported track bed with water level change and cyclic loading

Modeling of Rail Tracks on Stone Column Reinforced Tensionless Foundations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About