Influence of choice of FLAC and PLAXIS interface models on reinforced soil–structure interactions

Yu, Yan; Damians, Ivan Puig; Bathurst, Richard J.

doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.12.009

Cited by 87 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, rather than matching the material properties for the component materials, interfaces and foundation to a particular constructed wall structure, values were selected from prior 2D modelling of walls reported in the literature and the experience of the writers and co-workers with 2D modelling of other MSE walls (e.g. [19,21,23,49,50]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D modelling of strip reinforced MSE walls

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the results of 3D numerical modelling of a 6-m-high mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) wall constructed with concrete panels and steel or polymeric strip reinforcement. These systems pose numerical challenges as a result of the discontinuous reinforcement arrangement which is not the case for MSE walls constructed with continuous reinforcement layer configurations. Details of the numerical approach including modelling of the reinforcement strips, concrete facing panels and compressible bearing pads between panels are described. Examples of numerical predictions for facing deformations, toe loads due to soil down-drag behind the panels, soil and reinforcement settlements, and reinforcement tensile loads are presented. The influence of reinforcement stiffness is demonstrated by comparing numerical predictions for the same MSE wall with relatively inextensible steel strips and with relatively extensible polymeric strips. Of particular interest are the results showing the disruption of earth pressures along vertical and horizontal planes in the reinforced soil zone as a result of the discontinuous strip inclusions, and the vertical load that accumulates on the reinforcement strips close to the connections due to soil settlement behind the facing. The details of the modelling approach used here and the lessons learned provide a benchmark for future similar lines of investigation and for practitioners, particularly as the computational power of desktop computers continues to increase. Keywords 3D modelling Á Finite element modelling Á Mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) walls Á Polymeric strip reinforcement Á Soil retaining walls Á Steel strip reinforcement Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D modelling of strip reinforced MSE walls

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Embankment Model. FLAC can simulate structures made of soil, rock, and other materials that flow plastically when reaching their yield limits [45]. FLAC adopts the finite difference scheme to solve the governing differential equation, which can accurately simulate the yield, plastic flow, softening, and large deformation of materials, especially has unique advantages in the fields of elastic-plastic analysis, large deformation analysis, and simulation of construction process [46].…”

Section: Response Surface Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embankment Seismic Fragility Assessment under the Near‐Fault Pulse‐like Ground Motions by Applying the Response Surface Method

Che

Yin

Zhou

et al. 2021

Shock and Vibration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncertainties of the ground motions and structural parameters are the main factors that limit the accuracy of embankment seismic fragility assessment. In response to the uncertainties of the ground motions, artificial synthesizing method of the near-fault pulse-like ground motions was proposed, and 15 ground motions with the rupture fault distances ranging from 1 to 15 km were synthesized by taking the Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, China, as an example. The Xi’an-Baoji expressway K1125 + 470 embankment was taken as the research object, and a total of 12 structural parameters were selected as the design variables, namely, the elastic modulus, bulk modulus, shear modulus, density, cohesion force, and internal friction angle of the embankment fill and soil foundation, respectively. In response to the uncertainties of these parameters, 3 principal components with large impacts on the embankment seismic fragility were extracted based on the principal component analysis. Mapping relationships among the principal components and embankment seismic damages were analyzed using the uniform design response surface method, and the seismic fragility assessment was carried out and the fragility curves were plotted. The research results are consistent with the actual embankment seismic damage conditions of the Chi-Chi earthquake, indicating that the proposed method is scientific and reasonable. It also shows that it would obviously overestimate the seismic performance in the embankment seismic fragility assessment without considering the uncertainties of the ground motions and structural parameters.

show abstract

“…Numerical approaches to simulate the performance of physical reinforced soil walls using extensible (geosynthetic) or inextensible (e.g., steel) reinforcement can be grouped into two main categories: (a) finite element method -FEM (e.g., Cai and Bathurst 1995;Karpurapu and Bathurst 1995;Rowe and Ho 1997;Rowe and Skinner 2001;Yoo et al 2011;Damians et al 2013Damians et al , 2015Yu et al 2015a) and, (b) finite difference method -FDM (e.g., Bathurst 2005, 2006;Huang et al 2009Huang et al , 2010Abdelouhab et al 2011;Damians et al 2014;Yu et al 2015aYu et al , 2015bYu et al , 2016. Both approaches have been demonstrated to give satisfactory predictions of important performance features of instrumented full-scale walls in the field and in the laboratory Bathurst 2005, 2006;Huang et al 2009Huang et al , 2010Damians et al 2015;Yu et al 2015aYu et al , 2016.…”

Section: R a F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical and numerical modelling of a geogrid-reinforced incremental concrete panel retaining wall

Bathurst

Allen

et al. 2016

Can. Geotech. J.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents the numerical modelling details using the finite difference method (FDM) to simulate the performance of a well-instrumented geogrid-reinforced incremental concrete panel soil retaining wall. Two different constitutive models were investigated for the backfill soil (linear elastic–plastic model and nonlinear elastic–plastic model). Both constant stiffness and strain-dependent secant stiffness models were used for the reinforcement elements. The paper provides valuable lessons to modellers to simulate the performance of this type of earth retaining structure. For example, parametric investigation of the effect of a constant Young’s modulus ranging from 40 to 120 MPa for the linear-elastic Mohr–Coulomb model had only minor influence on the wall facing displacements and reinforcement loads. However, the choice of magnitude of transient compaction pressure near the facing can result in large differences in facing displacements. The paper also demonstrates that the method of construction including the location, sequence, and stiffness of the temporary supports used to construct the wall plays an important role on measured and predicted wall performance. The physical measurements reported in this paper provide a benchmark for numerical modellers to verify other numerical models for walls of the type investigated here.

show abstract

Influence of choice of FLAC and PLAXIS interface models on reinforced soil–structure interactions

Cited by 87 publications

References 16 publications

3D modelling of strip reinforced MSE walls

3D modelling of strip reinforced MSE walls

Embankment Seismic Fragility Assessment under the Near‐Fault Pulse‐like Ground Motions by Applying the Response Surface Method

Physical and numerical modelling of a geogrid-reinforced incremental concrete panel retaining wall

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About