Analysis and calibration of default steel strip pullout models used in Japan

Miyata, Yoshihisa; Bathurst, Richard J.

doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2012.05.007

Cited by 46 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reinforcement elements were assumed to be perfectly bonded to the surrounding soil by assigning R 5 1 (i.e., d 5 f). This approach is consistent with the very high pullout resistance that has been documented for steel strip and steel grid reinforcement materials (Schlosser and Elias 1978;Miyata and Bathurst 2012a;Bathurst et al 2011). It should be noted that interface shear was also assumed to be mobilized between the front of the wall facing and the foundation soil over the embedment depth D 5 1:5 m.…”

Section: Interfacessupporting

confidence: 77%

Vertical-Facing Loads in Steel-Reinforced Soil Walls

Damians¹,

Bathurst

Josa

et al. 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper investigates the influence of backfill soil, foundation soil, and horizontal joint vertical compressibility on the magnitude of vertical loads developed in steel-reinforced soil concrete panel retaining walls at the end of construction. Measurements of toe loads recorded from instrumented field walls are reviewed and demonstrate that vertical toe loads can be much larger than the self-weight of the facing. In extreme cases, these loads can result in panel-to-panel contact leading to concrete spalling at the front of the wall. Vertical loads in excess of panel self-weight have been ascribed to relative movement between the backfill soil and the panels that can develop panel-soil interface shear and downdrag loads at the connections between the panels and the steel-reinforcement elements. A two-dimensional finite-element model is developed to systematically investigate the influence of backfill soil, foundation soil, bearing pad stiffness, and panel-soil interaction on vertical loads in the panel facing. The results show that an appropriately selected number and type of compressible bearing pads can be effective in reducing vertical compression loads in these structures and at the same time ensure an acceptable vertical gap between concrete panels. The parametric analyses have been restricted to a single wall height (16.7 m) and embedment depth of 1.5 m, matching a well-documented field case. However, the observations reported in the paper are applicable to other similar structures. The general numerical approach can be used by engineers to optimize the design of the bearing pads for similar steel-reinforced soil wall structures using available commercial finiteelement model packages together with simple constitutive models.

show abstract

Section: Interfacessupporting

confidence: 77%

Vertical-Facing Loads in Steel-Reinforced Soil Walls

Damians¹,

Bathurst

Josa

et al. 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, external stability modes of failure are possible in field cases, but could not develop due to the size and Table 2. Minimum FOS against pullout failure using measured maximum tensile load, estimated anchorage length (calculated using AASHTO (2014) and PWRC (2014)) and pullout capacity model of Miyata and Bathurst (2012b); layer 1 is the bottom layer of steel strips…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 2 shows estimated FOS values against pullout failure. In situ pullout tests were not carried out on the steel strips in this investigation, but pullout capacity was estimated using the empirical-based three-parameter exponential (default) model proposed by Miyata and Bathurst (2012b). This model was originally calibrated against a database of in situ pullout tests performed on ribbed steel strip specimens reported in the Japanese literature, including tests carried out at PWRI with soils similar to those in the full-scale wall tests described here.…”

Section: Implications For Wall Design and Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of steel reinforced soil walls after footing failure

Bathurst¹,

Miyata²,

Otani³

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two nominal identical 4 m high steel strip reinforced soil walls varying only with respect to reinforcement layer length arrangement were constructed and instrumented in an indoor laboratory environment. A novel feature of the tests was a foundation arrangement that allowed for simulated loss of toe support. Both walls performed well at the end of construction (EOC). Predicted unfactored maximum reinforcement tensile loads at the EOC using four different load models were judged to be conservative (safe for design) based on comparison with measured loads for both walls. Reinforcement loads were observed to increase with decreasing toe support, particularly at the base of the walls. A fully developed composite soil failure mechanism propagating from the heel of the foundation bulkhead and behind the reinforcement layers was observed during excavation of the stepped base wall model. There were no visual indications of soil failure within or behind the wall with longer uniform reinforcement lengths. However, predicted EOC loads for this wall were exceeded for most layers after loss of toe support. Implications for the design, analysis and performance of steel strip reinforced soil walls with similar reinforcement arrangements constructed over initially competent soil foundations and then subject to loss of toe support are identified.

show abstract

“…Hence, the actual effective pullout length of each specimen was L e ¼ 3 m. Some disturbance to the reinforcement loads recorded in each instrumented steel strip may be expected as a (2004) result of pullout testing. The drained pullout test results reported later also appear in a database of steel strip pullout tests compiled by Miyata and Bathurst (2012b) from multiple Japanese sources.…”

Section: Steel Strip Pullout Testingmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…For example, the current Public Works Research Center (PWRC) (2003) method consistently underestimates the plotted measured data points for wall SSW-1 but consistently overestimates the data for walls SSW-2 and SSW-3. The method of Miyata and Bathurst (2012b) is judged to be a better fit to the measured data for walls SSW-1 and SSW-3, but often underestimates measured data points for wall SSW-2. Finally, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2014) load model data points pass reasonably well through the measured data points for walls SSW-1 and 2, but the model predictions are excessively conservative over the bottom half of wall SSW-3.…”

Section: Steel Strip Loadsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of transient flooding on steel strip reinforced soil walls

Miyata

Bathurst

Otani

et al. 2015

Soils and Foundations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents the results of three full-scale tests that were carried out to investigate the influence of transient (cyclic) flooding on the performance of steel strip reinforced soil walls (SSWs). The walls were constructed to a height of 6 m and then flooded and drained to about midheight in four cycles. The walls were constructed with three different granular soils varying with respect to permeability, fines content and shear strength. Earth pressures and reinforcement loads were recorded at end of construction and at the end of each flooding cycle prior to draining. Hence, for the purposes of analysis, the walls were treated as either in a drained or flooded steady state condition. In-situ steel strip pullout tests were also performed. The wall facings were very permeable and thus prevented unbalanced hydrostatic and seepage forces from developing during drawdown that could increase reinforcement strip loads beyond drained condition values. The effects of soil type on measured loads at the connections and peak tensile loads located within the reinforced soil zone are identified. Measured reinforcement tensile loads at end of construction and at the end of peak flood stages are compared to predictions using different analytical models for the (dry) EOC condition. Similar comparisons are made using measured pullout test results and predictions using different pullout models. Implications for current design practice and wall performance in transient flooding environments are reported.

show abstract

Analysis and calibration of default steel strip pullout models used in Japan

Cited by 46 publications

References 6 publications

Vertical-Facing Loads in Steel-Reinforced Soil Walls

Vertical-Facing Loads in Steel-Reinforced Soil Walls

Stability of steel reinforced soil walls after footing failure

Influence of transient flooding on steel strip reinforced soil walls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About