Example Goegrid Reinforced Wall: Prof. Martin Ziegler Aachen University

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall
Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University
Example
Goegrid reinforced wall
Prof. Martin Ziegler

Aachen University
EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures
1/ 16
Geogrid reinforced wall
Fig. 1
Geometry, characteristic loading and required degree of compaction
Table 1
Shear test results for different dry densities of the backfill material
d [g/cm]
1,777
1,725
1,639
1,604
f [kN/m]
82,4
73,4
70,0
67,5
1.1 Determination of characteristic properties

The backfill material properties (sand) such as grain density, proctor density and unit weight
are well known from laboratory tests. The values of grain density and proctor density are
s = 2,65 g/cm and pr = 1,725 g/cm. The value of unit weight is = 18 kN/m.
The friction angle can be estimated subject to vertical pressure and void ratio or dry density
respectively. Based on the results of several shear tests on the backfill material (Table 1) and
the already known grain density the specific void ratio for each dry density can be calculated.
As a result of these calculations Fig. 2 shows the relation between the void ratio and the shear
strength determined during the tests. The curve can be used to estimate the existing shear
strength at a specific void ratio defined by the required degree of compaction DPr.
2/ 16
shear strength f [kN/m]
100
= 100 kN/m = const
75
f 71,5 kN/m
50
25
0
0.4
0.5 DPr = 97% 0.6
0.7
0.8
void ratio e [-]
Fig. 2
f e diagramm
In case of the example the required degree of compaction is Dpr = 97 % and the related void
ratio e can be estimated to:
Therefore the related shear strength can be estimated according to Fig. 2 to approximately
f = 71,5 kN/m. The friction angle can be estimated by plotting the shear strength over the
vertical pressure (Fig. 3). In case of a vertical pressure of v = 100 kN/m and a shear strength
of f = 71,5 kN/m the friction angle for the backfill material is about = 35,5.
shear streng f [kN/m]
100
75
50
25
' 35,5
0
Fig. 3
f 71,5 kN/m
100
vertical pressure [kN/m]
200
f - diagramm
3/ 16
1.2 Ultimate limit state analyses

The analysis of geogrid reinforced retaining structures requires the verification of the following analyses:
Excentricity of resultant load (SLS).
Bearing capacity failure (GEO-2),
Sliding (GEO-2),
Slope failure (GEO-3) and
The retaining structure has to be idealized as a quasi-monolithic soil body. Therefore the fictitious mathematical rear wall can be adopted by the end of the geogrids.
Excentricity of resultant load (SLS)
The friction angle and the unit weight of the soil in situ is determined in laboratory tests to
k = 30 and k = 19 kN/m.
(
(
[
) (
))
)
(
)
) ]
The analysis for the excentricity of the resultant load is verified for permanent actions only as
well as for a combination of permanent and variable actions.
4/ 16
Bearing capacity failure (GEO-2)

The following limit state condition has to be met (according to DIN 1054):
with the design value of the effect normal to the foundation base Nd and the design value of
the bearing resistance Rn,d.
For the decisive soil in situ the analysis is verified.

Sliding (GEO-2)
The following limit state condition has to be met (according to DIN 1054):
with the design value of the effect parallel to the foundation base Hd and the design value of
the sliding resistance Rt,d.
For the decisive soil in situ the analysis is verified.
5/ 16
Slope failure (GEO-3)

Fig. 4 shows the results of the variation of failure mechanisms with GGU Stability. The maximum utilization factor is 0,89. Thus the slope analysis for a quasi-monolithic soil body is
verified.
20
B od e n
18
j ,k
[ ]
c ,k
[k N/ m ]
[k N /m ]
g ,k
B ez e ic h nu n g
3 5 .5 0
3 0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 8 .0 0
1 9 .0 0
F llm a te rial
B o d en
B erechn ungsgrund lagen

mm a x = 0.89
x m = -0.56 m
y m = 11.21 m
R = 12 .81 m
Teilsich erheiten:
- g( j ') = 1.25
- g(c') = 1.25
- g(c u ) = 1.25
- g(W icht en) = 1 .00
- g(S tndig e Einw.) = 1.00
- g(V ernderliche E inw .) = 1 .30
16
14
12
0 .8 9
0 .8 3
0 .7 7
0 .7 1
0 .6 6
0 .6 0
0.89
0 .5 4
10
0 .4 8
p v = 10.0 0
0 .4 2
0 .3 6
0 .3 0
4
0 .2 4
0 .1 8
0 .1 2
0 .0 6
-2
0 .0 1
-4
-10
Fig. 4
-5
10
15
20
results of slope analysis with GGU Stability
1.3 Design of geogrids - calculation of failure mechanism

In order to verify the stability of a geogrid reinforced wall the decisive angle of inclination of
slip surface has to be determined. Therefore different failure mechanisms have to be investigated (Fig. 5). In this case only failure mechanisms with a straight sliding surface and one or
two sliding wedges are examined. The result of the failure mechanisms analysis specifies the
maximum force in each geogrid layer in relation to its anchored length. The anchored length
is defined as the geogrid length lying in the passive area.
6/ 16
Fig. 5
investigated failure mechanisms
The decisive angle of inclination of slip surface results from the maximum utilization factor
for each geogrid layer. The utilization factor is calculated as the relation between the force in
each geogrid layer and the decisive geogrid resistance. The decisive geogrid resistance results
from the minimum of the design value of pull-out and material resistance.
The pull-out resistance is governed by the friction between the geogrid and the backfill material in the passive area (section 3.3.3 [1]). Therefore the design value of pull-out resistance for
each layer can be calculated as
(
with the overburden stress vi,d and the anchored length of layer i LAi.
The composite effect between geogrid and soil is considered by the frictional coefficient fsg,k
which was assumed to be fsg,k = 0,8 tan k. To receive the design value the characteristic
pull-out resistance has to be divided by the partial safety factor B = 1,4 (specified in [2]).
The characteristic short-term material resistance of the geogrids depends on the manufacturers specification respectively the product information. It has to be decreased by five coefficients for the long-term durability (section 3.3.1 [1]). In the present example the applied geogrid has a characteristic short term material strength of RB,k0 = 500 kN/m. Because of the
loss of product-specific test results the reduction factors A1 to A5 have to be taken from [1].
The reduction factors A1 and A4 depend on the polymer used and can be estimated from Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 [1]. In this case polyester (PET) has been employed as geogrid raw material. Therefore A1 is set to 3,5 and A4 is set to 2,0. For mixed-grain and coarse-grained soils
the reduction factor A2 can be set to 2,0 (section 2.2.4.6.2 [1]). According to sections 2.2.4.7.2
7/ 16
and 2.2.4.10.1 a reduction factor A3 and A5 of 1,0 can be adopted. The reduction factors represent
A1 = creepage,
A2 = damages during installation or transportation,
A3 = overlaps,
A4 = environmental influences,
A5 = dynamic stress.
The design value of the material resistance is calculated by dividing the characteristic material
resistance by the partial safety factor M = 1,4 as shown in section 3.4 [1]. Thus the design
material resistance of the geogrids RB,d is calculated as follows:
Fig. 6 shows the course of the medial axial geogridforce in the inactive soil depending on an
increasing angle of inclination of slip surface . The maximum medial axial geogrid force of
3,87 kN/m is achieved for an angle of inclination of slip surface of = 41,6.
In the following the determination of the design value of the geogrid effect is outlined in detail for the decisive angle of inclination of slip surface.
8/ 16
Fig. 6
Course of medial axial geogridforce in inactive soil for an increasing angle

of inclination of slip surface []
Verification of geogrids
At the beginning of the evaluation the design soil parameters according to GEO-3 are determined. The shear parameters are reduced and the design values are increased as shown in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2
Table 3
Design value of soil parameters

characteristic values of
soil parameters
partial factors on soil parameters, BS-P
design values of soil parameters
'k = 35,5
' = 1,25
'd = 29,71
c'k = 0 kN/m2
c' = 1,25
c'd = 0 kN/m2
characteristic values of
actions
partial factors on actions,

BS-P
design values of actions
k = 18 kN/m3
G = 1,0
d = 18 kN/m3
pk = 10,0 kN/m2
Q = 1,3
pd = 13,0 kN/m2
Design value of actions
Instead of calculating the decisive failure mechanism composed of two sliding wedges only
the main sliding wedge with reinforced soil is contemplated. The actions resulting from the
rear wedge are substituted by the correspondent earth pressure. Fig. 7 shows the main sliding
wedge cut clear and the acting forces.
9/ 16
Fig. 7
Main failure mechanism: actions and resistances
Besides dead load and live load Fig. 7 shows the slip surface force Qd which is due to the resultant resistance of friction Rd and the axial force Nd. Furthermore the required pulling force
i,d is shown set in the geogrid direction. This force will now be calculated via a simple
equilibrium consideration.
The dead load of the sliding wedge is calculated by its cross-section area according to the
measured dimensions in Fig. 7 and the unit weight.
-
The live load acting on the sliding wedge is combined to a resulting force Pd.
To calculate the earth pressure on the rear side of the main sliding wedge the coefficients Kagh
und Kaph have to be estimated. Due to the GEO-3 analysis the previously decreased shear parameters have to be used. At the back of the wedge a friction angle a= 2/3d is adopted according to section 7.4.1 [1]. Corresponding to this consideration the earth pressure coefficients are
(
(
[
) (
))
(
)
) ]
10/ 16
The earth pressure caused by dead load affects the wedge on a height of 2,10 m. Thereby the
ordinates of earth pressure and the resultant horizontal earth pressure can be determined.
(
(
)
)
With the angle of wall friction a and the wall inclination the vertical earth pressure can be
estimated to:
(
)
-
The earth pressure caused by live load at the back of the wedge is calculated in the same
manner.
Knowing these values one can create a balance of forces for the sliding wedge as shown in the
force polygon in Fig. 8. As a result of the equilibrium consideration the anchored geogird layers have to absorb the sum of the required pulling force of Ed = 138,8 kN/m.
11/ 16
Fig. 8
balance of forces for the decisive failure mechanism
To determine the design effect for each geogrid layer the total pulling force d has to be split
over the residual length of the anchored geogrid layers LAi. The design effect of each geogrid
layer results from:
To proof the bearing capacity of the geogrids the design effect has to be compared to the minimum of pull-out and material resistance:
The calculation of the pull-out and material resistance are determined as described above.
Exemplary the pull-out resistance for the first layer can be calculated to:
(
12/ 16
The results are shown in Table 4. For this example the first geogrid layer is decisive and the
bearing capacity is ensured for each geogrid layer.
Table 4
bearing capacity for each geogrid layer
layer
LAi
vi,d
Ei,d
RAi,d
RBi,d
Min (RAi,d;RBi,d)
[m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
5,600
144
21,68
657,37
25,5
25,5
5,125
135
19,84
564,01
25,5
25,5
4,650
126
18,00
477,62
25,5
25,5
4,175
117
16,16
398,20
25,5
25,5
3,700
108
14,33
325,75
25,5
25,5
3,225
99
12,49
260,27
25,5
25,5
2,750
90
10,65
201,76
25,5
25,5
2,275
81
8,81
150,22
25,5
25,5
1,800
72
6,97
105,65
25,5
25,5
10
1,325
63
5,13
68,05
25,5
25,5
11
0,850
54
3,29
37,42
25,5
25,5
12
0,375
45
1,45
13,76
25,5
13,8
35,85
Verification of geogrid facing

The design effect of the facing can be determined from the characteristic active earth pressure.
The angle of earth pressure on the facing is assumed to 2/3
lly
ing
elements (table 7.2 [1]). Simplifying the earth pressure distribution for dead actions, it can be
assumed as increasing linearly with depth. Decreasing the earth pressure in lower parts of the
construction is allowed depending on the facing elements and their deformation (calibration
factors G and Q). The earth pressure on the facing at height hi of a reinforcement layer is
(section 7.6 [1]):
The distribution of the design strain of earth pressure on each geogrid layer depends on the
facing elements and can be estimated according to Fig. 9 in this case:
Table 5 shows the results for the design strain of earth pressure between the geogrid layers for
partially deformable facing elements.
13/ 16
Fig. 9
earth pressure on facing for welded steel wire mesh
Table 5
earth pressure on facing between geogrid layers
layer
hi
eagh,d
eaph,d
efacing,i.d
Efacing,i,d
[m]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
8,0
45,1
0,7
3,5
1,0
35,1
17,1
7,5
42,3
0,7
3,5
1,0
33,1
16,1
7,0
39,5
0,7
3,5
1,0
31,2
15,1
6,5
36,6
0,7
3,5
1,0
29,1
14,1
6,0
33,8
0,7
3,5
1,0
27,2
13,1
5,5
31,0
0,7
3,5
1,0
25,2
12,1
5,0
28,2
0,7
3,5
1,0
23,2
11,1
4,5
25,4
0,7
3,5
1,0
21,3
10,2
4,0
22,6
0,7
3,5
1,0
19,3
9,2
10
3,5
19,7
0,7
3,5
1,0
17,3
9,4
11
3,0
16,9
1,0
3,5
1,0
20,4
9,5
12
2,5
14,1
1,0
3,5
1,0
17,6
8,1
13
2,0
11,3
1,0
3,5
1,0
14,8
6,7
14
1,5
8,5
1,0
3,5
1,0
12,0
5,3
15
1,0
5,6
1,0
3,5
1,0
9,1
3,9
16
0,5
2,8
1,0
3,5
1,0
6,3
1,6
k = 18 kN/m, Kagh = Kaqh = 0,232 (= Kaph) , pk = 10 kN/m ,

partial safety factors (BS-P, GEO-2): G = 1,35, Q = 1,5
Furthermore it has to be checked weather the design effect of each geogrid layer Ei,d is greater
than the design effect of the facing Efacing,i,d determined with an undiminished active earth
pressure (g=q=1,0). If the design effect Ei,d is greater than the design effect Efacing,i,d(g=q=1,0)
then the design effect of the facing Efacing,i,d has to be set to Ei,d.
The results for this example show that the design effect of the facing is decisive (Table 6).
14/ 16
Table 6
Decisive design effect of the facing Efacing,i,d
layer
hi
Ei,d
eagh,d
eaph,d
g =q
efacing,i.d
Efacing,i,d
[m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
8,0
21,7
45,1
3,5
1,0
48,6
23,6
7,5
19,8
42,3
3,5
1,0
45,8
22,2
7,0
18,0
39,5
3,5
1,0
42,9
20,8
6,5
16,2
36,6
3,5
1,0
40,1
19,4
6,0
14,3
33,8
3,5
1,0
37,3
18,0
5,5
12,5
31,0
3,5
1,0
34,5
16,6
5,0
10,7
28,2
3,5
1,0
31,7
15,1
4,5
8,8
25,4
3,5
1,0
28,8
13,7
4,0
7,0
22,6
3,5
1,0
26,0
12,3
10
3,5
5,1
19,7
3,5
1,0
23,2
10,9
11
3,0
3,3
16,9
3,5
1,0
20,4
9,5
12
2,5
1,5
14,1
3,5
1,0
17,6
8,1
13
2,0
11,3
3,5
1,0
14,8
6,7
14
1,5
8,5
3,5
1,0
12,0
5,3
15
1,0
5,6
3,5
1,0
9,1
3,9
16
0,5
2,8
3,5
1,0
6,3
1,6
k = 18 kN/m, Kagh = Kaqh = 0,232 (= Kaph) , pk = 10 kN/m ,

partial safety factors (BS-P, GEO-2): G = 1,35, Q = 1,5
The resulting verification of the geogrid facing is pointed out in Table 7. The design effect is
compared to the resistance of the facing and the verification can be achieved for each geogrid
l y T
lu
u
u nstructions and product licenses.
15/ 16
Table 7
verification of geogrid facing

Decisive design
effect on facing
resistance
Efacing,i,d
RMFi,d
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
17,1
24
16,1
24
15,1
24
14,1
24
13,1
24
12,1
24
11,1
24
10,2
24
9,2
24
10
9,4
24
11
9,5
24
12
8,1
24
13
6,7
24
14
5,3
24
15
3,9
24
16
1,6
24
layer
2. Literatur:
[1]
EBGEO, 2nd Edition: Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures
using geosynthetic Reinforcements. German Geotechnical Society (DGGT), 2011
[2]
DIN 1054:2010-12, A 2.4.7.6.3 Table A 2.3
16/ 16

Example Goegrid Reinforced Wall: Prof. Martin Ziegler Aachen University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Example Goegrid Reinforced Wall: Prof. Martin Ziegler Aachen University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Example Goegrid Reinforced Wall: Prof. Martin Ziegler Aachen University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

Prof. Martin Ziegler

EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

Geogrid reinforced wall

Geometry, characteristic loading and required degree of compaction

1.1 Determination of characteristic properties

EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

shear strength f [kN/m]

= 100 kN/m = const

0.5 DPr = 97% 0.6

void ratio e [-]

shear streng f [kN/m]

vertical pressure [kN/m]

EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

1.2 Ultimate limit state analyses

Excentricity of resultant load (SLS).

Bearing capacity failure (GEO-2),

Slope failure (GEO-3) and

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

Bearing capacity failure (GEO-2)

For the decisive soil in situ the analysis is verified.

For the decisive soil in situ the analysis is verified.

EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

Slope failure (GEO-3)

B erechn ungsgrund lagen

results of slope analysis with GGU Stability

1.3 Design of geogrids - calculation of failure mechanism

EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

investigated failure mechanisms

EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

Course of medial axial geogridforce in inactive soil for an increasing angle

Design value of soil parameters

partial factors on soil parameters, BS-P

design values of soil parameters

partial factors on actions,

design values of actions

Design value of actions

EuroGeo5 Valencia: Educational session Geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures

Example: Geogrid reinforced wall

Prof. Martin Ziegler, RWTH Aachen University

Main failure mechanism: actions and resistances