Analyses of a pile-supported embankment over soft clay: Full-scale experiment, analytical and numerical approaches M.A. Nunez, L.

Brianc on, D. Dias PII: DOI: Reference: To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date: S0013-7952(12)00319-5 doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.11.006 ENGEO 3487 Engineering Geology 17 March 2012 6 November 2012 17 November 2012

Please cite this article as: Nunez, M.A., Brian con, L., Dias, D., Analyses of a pilesupported embankment over soft clay: Full-scale experiment, analytical and numerical approaches, Engineering Geology (2012), doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.11.006

This is a PDF le of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its nal form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could aect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Analyses of a pile-supported embankment over soft clay: Fullscale experiment, analytical and numerical approaches.

M.A. Nunez, PhD

LGCIE, INSA de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France

L. Brianon, Assistant Professor

Cnam-3SR, Paris, France

D. Dias, Professor

Joseph Fourier University, LTHE, UMR 5564 BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France

Corresponding author:

Dr. Daniel DIAS, Geotechnical professor, Joseph Fourier University, LTHE Laboratory (UMR 5564), Equipe TransPore Tel : +33 (0)4 76 63 51 35, Fax: +33 (0)4 76 82 52 86, e-mail: daniel.dias@ujf-grenoble.fr

KEYWORDS: embankment, reinforcement, geosynthetic, pile, numerical modelling.

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P

T
1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ABSTRACT: The reinforcement of soils using rigid inclusions is a technique used to reduce settlements and to ensure the stability of an embankment built over soft soils. This technique reduces construction delays and is an economical and reliable solution, which has led to its

models and numerical analyses. The reliability of these methods must be validated under in-

This paper presents an analytical and numerical study of full-size experiments at the Chelles test site (France). The work presented in this paper is part of the ASIRI French National

ground improved by rigid vertical piles. The embankment is divided into four zones that

The performance of the embankment support system is assessed by monitoring data (total stresses, horizontal and vertical displacements). Several in-situ and laboratory soil

geotechnical hypothesis used for the numerical model and defined the soil-pile interaction parameters.

Several analytical methods and numerical models were tested to assess the arching effect. Comparisons between the experimental data and these design methods are presented in terms of stress and the settlement efficacy of the improved system. The results show that these methods overestimate the stress efficacy but that the settlement efficacy is a reliable parameter to assess the overall performance of the rigid inclusions technique.

AC

CE

investigations were performed using two axially loaded test piles. These tests verified the

PT

ED

illustrate the influence of the piles and the geosynthetic reinforcements on the soils behavior.

MA

Research Project. The experiment consisted of a 5-m-high embankment built over soft alluvial

NU

SC

situ conditions.

RI P

of these reinforced structures. These methods are mainly based on results from small scale

widespread use. Thus, many design methods have been developed to assess the performance

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 INTRODUCTION

Embankments constructed over soft soils induce a significant load over a large area. The technique of reinforcing soil with columns has proven to be an interesting solution that prevents failure or excessive deformations of embankments (Kempfert et al., 2004, Alexiew & Vogel 2002). This technique combines three components: (1) embankment material, (2) a load transfer platform (LTP), and (3) vertical elements extending from the LTP to the stiff substratum. Optional configurations can be made by adding geosynthetics inside the LTP or

that occurs in the granular material constituting the LTP. This causes homogenization and the reduction of surface settlements. Friction along the piles is also involved in the improvement mechanism, leading to a complex soil/structure interaction phenomenon (Smith 2005, Jenck et al., 2005, Combarieu 2008). Although this technique is widely used, the mechanisms involved are still poorly understood.

This paper presents an analytical and numerical study at the Chelles experimental test site in France that was carried out in 2007. This experiment was part of the ASIRI research project,

(Simon, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to compare the predictions from several design methods to measurements made on a full size experiment in a pile-reinforced embankment to assess their pertinence for design.

2 BACKGROUND

Many authors have been interested in the technique of reinforcing soil using columns. Their papers have mainly been concentrated on transferring loads to the pile head by the 3

AC

which has the ultimate goal of developing guidelines for the use of vertical rigid piles in France

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

pile caps. The surface and embankment loads are partially transferred to the piles by arching

SC

RI P

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
phenomenon of arching. Low et al. (1994), Zaeske (2001), Jenck et al. (2007) and Chen et al. (2008b) developed physical test models to assess the load distribution between piles and foundation soils. However, difficulties arise in reproducing the behavior of the reinforced soil

Other authors have proposed analytical methods to improve the design of this technique. Combarieu (1988, 2008), Chen et al. (2008a), Russell and Pierpoint (1997) and Russell et al.

assess arching on the pile improvement problem (Figure 1.a). Thus, the plane strain formulation proposed by Terzaghi was updated to take into account the three dimensional aspect of the pile problem. An axisymmetric formulation was proposed by Combarieu (1988, 2008) and Chen et al. (2008a), and a three-dimensional formulation was proposed by Russell and Pierpoint (1997). British standards (BS8006, 1995) are also based on arching caused by shear load transfer and have adopted the methods by John (1987) and Jones et al. (1990) for a 2D plane strain design. Their works are based on Marstons formula for soil arching on top of a buried pipe (Marston and Anderson, 1913).

AC

CE

Other analytical methods propose an idealization of the arching effect between piles (Figure 1.b). In these cases, arching phenomenon that develops on the embankment is assumed to have a predefined shape, such as semi-cylindrical domes (Hewlett and Randolph, 1988), spherical shells (Kempfert et al., 2004), or log spiral shells (Naughton, 2007). The new version

PT

Figure 1. Groups of analytical methods.

ED

MA

NU

(2003) modified Terzaghis method based on the trapdoor experiment (Terzaghi, 1943) to

SC

RI P

(Brianon and Simon, 2010).

at a small scale, leading most of the studies to ignore the effect of soil-pile interactions

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of the BS8006 (2010) standard includes the 3D shape analysis developed by Hewlett and Randolph (1987).

by Guido et al. (1987) on geosynthetic reinforced layers. Jenner et al. (1998) and Bell et al.

pile caps. Svano (2000), based on the work of Carlsson (1987), proposed that the slope of the prism varies and depends on the soil characteristics (2.5 < < 3.5 - Figure 1.c). Collin (2007) proposed constructing a rigid geosynthetic reinforced mat. In this configuration, the slope of the sides of the prism will correspond to =1. The geosynthetic layers are individually dimensioned to support the corresponding wedge of soil under the critical height. This will ensure that the entire embankment passes the loads to the piles and induces small structure

A few analytical methods have proposed a global approach to calculate the pile embankment technique. Combarieu (1988), Filz and Smith (2007) and Chen et al. (2008a) presented methodologies to assess the stress distribution at the embankment base (e.g., an adapted Terzaghi method) combined with commonly used techniques to assess the settlement of the soil and the pile. Combarieu (1988) used the principles of negative skin friction (Combarieu, 1974) to calculate the stress distribution in the foundation soil and the one dimensional consolidation formula to assess settlement of the foundation soil. Filz and Smith (2007) used the elastic solution for a solid cylinder (pile) surrounded by a thick walled cylinder (soil) proposed by Poulos and Davis (1974) to calculate the stress distribution and the settlements. In this approach, a Mohr5

AC

CE

PT

settlements if the piles are firmly fixed to the rigid substratum.

ED

MA

NU

SC

(1994) reversed the Guido tests so that the piles punch the mat and form a soil prism over the

RI P

Other analytical approaches are based on an analogy with a plate-loading test, such as those

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Coulomb yield criterion controls slippage and the settlements can optionally be calculated using the one dimensional consolidation formula. Chen et al. (2008a) also combined a modified Terzaghi method, which includes an equal settlement level, with frictional and normal stress

to solve the one dimensional compression case. The solution that assures equilibrium of the

obtained by Randolph and Wroth (1978) to calculate the shear friction stiffness and normal stiffness of the soil under the pile toe, by Teh & Wong (1995) to calculate the ultimate skin

resistance.

Comparisons between these design methods show differences in their load transfer predictions and in the behavior of the reinforced embankment, as mentioned by Russell and Pierpoint (1997), Kempton et al. (1998), Brianon et al. (2004) and Filz & Smith (2007).

Three dimensional calculation methods to assess the influence of geosynthetics (if used) are included in the analytical methods by Kempfert et al. (2004) and Filz & Smith (2007). Kempfert et al. (2004) considered geosynthetic behavior as an elastic cable. Thus, differential equations are defined for the loading system of the geosynthetic reinforcement that includes the foundation-soil effect. Filz & Smiths (2007) methodology to assess geosynthetic tension and strain is based on calculations of the deflection of a geosynthetic material under linear elastic conditions. The deflection calculation also includes the influence of soft soil; thus, the foundation soil contributes to the support of the embankments residual load.

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

friction, and by Terzaghis ultimate bearing capacity formula (1943) for the ultimate toe

NU

SC

system is presented by these authors. The soil behavior conditions used in this method were

RI P

related to the differential settlements and can be included in a system of differential equations

distribution conditions between the foundation soil and the piles. These concepts are all

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Numerical modeling has also been used to understand the physical phenomenon at the origin of the load transfer. Numerical models have been developed to reproduce physical laboratory tests and the behavior of real projects. However, few studies have focused on the bearing

aspect of the system, e.g., load transfer on the embankment, and not on the system as a

In general, analytical methods are interesting and easy-to-use tools to design pile-reinforced embankments; however, few of these methods have been validated with on site measurements. Available data on full-scale experimental models is rare because of the high costs involved. Among the few reported full-scale experiments, such as those presented by Liu

seen:

In-situ soil characterization using cone penetration, vane shear and pressuremeter tests are predominant in these projects, though only odometric and shear tests allow reliable data on the consolidation behavior of soils to be obtained.

All of the experimental projects have investigated only geosynthetic reinforced platforms. Parallel reference tests without any reinforcement (piles or geosynthetics) are not presented. Consequently, it is not possible to assess the natural arching range and the settlement reduction ratio.

AC

CE

PT

et al. (2007), Almeida et al. (2007), and Wachman et al. (2010), some commonalities can be

ED

MA

NU

SC

whole.

RI P

needed to carry out these analyses are rarely available, and studies are often focused on one

capacity of the piles, the tip resistance and the shear resistance of the shaft. Indeed, the data

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

The Chelles test site was described by Brianon et al. (2009) and Brianon & Simon (2012).

consulting these references. In the present paper, only the information required to describe the numerical models and the analytical design is presented.

soils. Soil data has been collected by geotechnical programs in the experimental area. Cone

and were supplemented by odometric and triaxial laboratory tests. The experiment consists of a 5-m-high embankment. Figure 2 shows the general configuration. The embankment was divided into four zones. Three zones were reinforced with vertical piles

Horizontal geosynthetic reinforcements were used in two of these zones (3R and 4R). The piles were driven down through 8 m of compressible soil and were embedded in the stiff gravelsandy layer. The total length of the inclusions averaged 8.4 m. The elastic modulus of the inclusions was 18 GPa, and they had a Poissons ratio of 0.2; these parameters were determined by extensometer recordings. Their specific weight was set to 23kN/m3. The LTPs of zones 3R and 4R were reinforced by a geotextile layer (GTX) and by two geogrids (GGR), respectively, with individual stiffnesses (J) of 750 kN/m and 520 kN/m, respectively. Most of the monitoring concentrated on the stresses and displacements at the pile head level. Settlement transducer devices (T), magnetic settlement plumbs (TM) and earth pressure cells 8

AC

(2R, 3R and 4R), while the fourth (1R) was not improved and was used as a reference.

CE

PT

ED

Penetration Tests (CPT), pressuremeter tests and vane shear tests were performed at the site

MA

The experiment was built prior to a bridge construction project on compressive type alluvial

NU

SC

Details on its construction, ground conditions, and experimental data may be obtained by

RI P

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(EPC) were employed on the central grid located under the axis of the embankment of all four test zones. Lateral displacements were recorded at the embankment toe by inclinometers. The water table was recorded by piezometers. The positions of the monitoring devices are

The Chelles test site has some advantages compared to other experiments on piledembankments. For instance, a reference zone exists where the compressible soil is not

reinforcement, and axially loaded test piles are tested. The reference zones (1R and 2R) permit the direct assessment of the performance of the two zones reinforced by piles and geosynthetic layers (3R, 4R, Figure 2). To accomplish this, the reference zones were submitted to the same loading conditions as the reinforced ones. Piles were implemented in zone 2R, but no additional reinforcement was used.

Figure 2. Plan view of the experimental site and configuration of the tested zones.

3.1 Ground conditions Several in-situ and laboratory soil investigations were performed. In-situ testing, borings, and CPT and pressuremeter tests allowed the geological profile to be defined. Odometric, triaxial and pressuremeter tests were employed to define the soils geotechnical parameters, which are presented in Table 1.

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

improved by piles, the experiment simultaneously tests two different kinds of LTP

SC

RI P

also installed, but they will not be presented in the present paper.

presented on Figure 2. Other devices, such as optical strain sensors in the geosynthetics, were

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Soil parameters.

The final state was obtained less than two weeks after the end of construction. This behavior confirms the rapid consolidation of the alluvial soils, which could be verified from the piezometric recordings. Most of the deformation was recorded during the embankment

3.2 Load test piles

Analyses of the mechanical behavior of single piles submitted to axial loads have shown that

conditions (Said et al., 2009). The fundamental aspects of pile analysis rely on empirical correlations based on experimental observations from laboratory and full scale in-situ testing

along the pile, the axial load and shaft friction so the soil-pile interaction can be determined. Two axially tested piles were built for the Chelles experiment for this purpose. The results of these tests can be found on Figure 6. One of the tested piles did not reach the stiff bedrock (floating pile). The second pile was embedded and penetrates 0.4 m of the stiff gravel-sandy layer. Two sections of the pile with different lateral friction limits qs were identified in the floating test pile. This lateral friction limit corresponds to the maximum load that the soil surrounding the shaft is able to transfer by friction. The maximum end-bearing load could be measured from the embedded test pile. In this test, the bearing capacity of the pile is mainly assured by tip resistance; the measured lateral friction remains under the limits determined on the floating pile. 10

AC

CE

(Randolph, 2003). Instrumented piles permit a direct quantification of the load distribution

PT

ED

the soilpile interface exerts a significant influence on defining the structural stability

MA

NU

SC

construction.

RI P

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4 ANALYTICAL METHODS

Several current design methods permit the calculation of the stress efficacy or the stress reduction ratio by assessing the soil arching between the piles. Most of the methods are formulated for a three dimensional problem (Combarieu, 1988, Russell et al., 2003, Chen et al., 2008a), as is necessary in real applications (Kempton et al., 1998). Other authors only considered a two-dimensional problem (Low et al., 1994). The stress efficacy E of the pile support is defined as the proportion of the embankment weight carried by the piles at their

the foundation soil between the columns to the overall average stress applied by the embankment at the pile head level (2).

ED

FP ' p Ac W AH R

MA

NU

head level (1). The stress reduction ratio is defined as the ratio of the average stress applied to

SC

RI P

(1)

SRR

PT

's H R q0

(2)

These equations are related by

E 1 SRR(1 a s )

AC

CE

(3)

Where FP and p are the load and stress applied to the pile, respectively; W is the weight of the embankment on the tributary surface; A is the surface area of a single inclusion; HR and are the embankment height and density, respectively; s is the stress applied to the foundation soil; and Ac is the area of the pile section.

The results of several analytical methods applied to the Chelles site were compared to the experimental data. The methods used in this paper include the adapted Terzaghi solution given

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
by Combarieu (1988, 2007), the modified Marstons formula (2D) and the Hewlett and Randolph (3D) formula, both of which were adopted in BS8006 (2010), the Kempfert et al. (2004) method adopted by EBGEO (2003) and the Filz and Smith (2007 GeogridBridge method.

The parameters used for the analytical calculations are presented in Table 1. Most of the analytical methods only require the characteristics of the embankment fill. The foundation soil stiffness and the subgrade reaction needed in the GeogridBridge and the EBGEO methods are determined from the non-reinforced zone 1R; thus, Eoed = 2940kPa and ks = 365kN/m2/m. The geometrical configuration and dimensions are presented in Figure 2.

Comparisons between the analytical results and the experimental results are presented in Figure 3. The analytical results show that increasing the embankment height increases the stress efficacy in all cases. For zone 2R, without LTP, all of the analytical methods overestimate the arching effect and therefore the stress efficacy. The smallest difference between the analytical and experimental results at the final state is obtained with Combarieus (2008) approach, which represents an overestimation of 72%. It is important to recall that the majority of these results were obtained without considering the cohesive strength of the embankment, which is only included in Combarieus approach. Okyay and Dias (2010) observed numerically that the stress efficacy of the system increased with an increase in cohesion of the 12

AC

CE

4.2 Analytical results

PT

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P

4.1 Calculation hypothesis.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
embankment fill. Thus, the fact that cohesion is not taken into account in the analytical models results in a lower value of the stress efficacy than in reality.

consider the influence of geosynthetic reinforcement on the stress efficacy calculation.

methods. Although British standard BS8006 considers that a geosynthetic material must be placed over the piles, this method will not be tested on geosynthetic reinforced zones because it cannot calculate the in-situ tension and strain of the geosynthetic material. For design purposes, this standard recommends that the geosynthetic material must be calculated to resist the entire residual embankment load without any support given by the foundation soil, which is clearly not the case in the experiment.

Table 2. Summary of the analytical and experimental results

The analytical results for zones 3R and 4R show that the stress efficacy increases due to the addition of geosynthetics. The calculated increase is greater with the EBGEO approach than with GeogridBridge. At the final state, the stress efficacy increased with EBGEO by 69% and 78% for zones 3R and 4R, respectively, and increased by 37% and 45%, respectively, with

AC

CE

PT

Figure 3. Analytical and experimental results

ED

MA

NU

SC

Consequently, the results of test zones 3R and 4R are only compared to these two analytical

RI P

Of the design methods used in reference zone 2R, only the EBGEO and GeogridBridge methods

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
GeogridBridge. The stress efficacy is higher in zone 4R than in zone 3R because the individual geosynthetic stiffnesses are added to allow for a multi-layer configuration. The EBGEO response also shows that an important gain in stress efficacy is obtained at the beginning of

These results were obtained without taking into account the pile-foundation soil interaction. Only GeogridBridge offers the option of including this effect. If this option is activated, i.e., if

lower due to soil foundation unloading by negative skin friction. Consequently, the foundation soil deformation decreases.

A comparison of the experimental results from zones 3R and 4R (Table 2) shows that GeogridBridge underestimates the stress efficacy in both zones. On the other hand, EBGEO

The horizontal multi-layer reinforcement in the analytical methods is introduced by assuming a global rigidity equal to the multiplication of the individual geosynthetic stiffness by the number of layers. These methods do not take into account the type (geogrid or geotextile) and the setup configuration of the horizontal reinforcements. In fact, the experimental data show that using one GTX layer, with less rigidity, induces a better stress efficacy than two GGR layers. This result is contrary to the results obtained using the analytical formulas and can probably be improved by incorporating a factor that considers the differences between these types of geosynthetics.

AC

CE

gives satisfactory results for zone 4R but considerably underestimates the results for zone 3R.

PT

ED

MA

NU

interface strength characteristics are imposed, the geosynthetic effect on stress efficacy will be

SC

RI P

quite different; in this case, the stress efficacy evolution is constant and linear.

the loading. After this point, a threshold seems to be reached. The GeogridBridge response is

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5 NUMERICAL MODELING

Finite difference numerical models were used to simulate the Chelles experiments. The objective was to precisely model the mechanical behavior of the piled-embankment. The results presented herein were obtained using FLAC3D (Itasca, 2009) from an elementary cell (CE) and a global model (MG) of the site. These models simulate the mechanical behavior of the reinforced subsoil by explicitly considering (i) the geotechnical characteristics of the soils and the interface, (ii) the behavior of the piles, and (iii) the configurations of each test zone.

5.1 Numerical models

The finite difference elementary cells are presented in Figure 4.a & 4.b. The elementary cells mesh consists of about 3200 zones including the interface elements along the piles. The elementary cell presented in Figure 4.a was used for each of the four zones of the

justified by the symmetry conditions of a pile located in the center of a zone (Mestat, 1997). Another numerical model, presented in Figure 4.b, was developed for the test piles. This model

base boundaries at 10 diameters under the piles tip.

The global model was constructed by using multiple coarse elementary cells (Figure 4.c, 4.d and 4.e). This modification induces less than a 5% difference from the original elementary cells. This mesh reduction limits the global model size to 445000 volume elements. The horizontal

AC

presents lateral boundaries placed at a distance of 15 diameters away from the pile axis and

CE

Figure 4. The adopted three-dimensional numerical models.

PT

embankment. This cell represents a quarter of the tributary area of a pile. This simplification is

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and vertical displacements were fixed on the lateral boundaries and at the base of the models, respectively. The embankment fill and the substratum were simulated as a linear elastic, perfectly plastic material with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Soft soils were modeled with

calculations. The simulations were performed using large strain mode to activate the

5.2 Ground compressibility

Figure 5 presents the numerical response in zone 1R compared to the experimental data. Settlements were measured at four different depths corresponding to the positions of the

accurately assessed by the numerical models. Nevertheless, a slight overestimation can be noted in the elementary cell, which is mainly caused by the fact that this configuration cannot

AC

take into account the lateral load dissipation.

5.3 Pile load tests Numerical modeling is often adopted to obtain a deeper understanding of the pile behavior and especially the mechanical behavior of the soilpile system (Bransby and Springman, 1996; Comodromos et al., 2009; Said et al., 2009). For the studied case, the lateral friction limit of the regular piles was determined using the instrumented floating test pile. In the numerical model, 16

CE

PT

magnetic settlement plumbs. As shown in this figure, settlement of the non-reinforced zone is

Figure 5. Non-reinforced area (1R) settlement.

ED

MA

NU

SC

geosynthetic membrane effects.

RI P

to rapid dissipation of the water pore pressure, drained conditions are assumed for all of the

the Modified Cam Clay constitutive model. The piles were considered to be linearly elastic. Due

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
interfaces with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion were placed around the pile shaft. A null friction angle was used for these elements with the cohesion values presented in Table 3 to obtain the constant friction limit in two different sections of the pile. This produced a constant

The simulation results showed that the embedded pile load-displacement curve is reproduced well (Figure 6), validating the hypothesis made about the soft soils shear properties and the bedrocks stiffness and resistance.

These preliminary simulations are complex but are important as they confirm the compressibility and the shear resistance of the soils. The quality of the predictions confirms that the developed models can predict the behavior of the unreinforced zone and of the embedded piles.

Table 3. Interface properties

Figure 6. Load-displacement curves and final load distributions for the test pile (embedded pile).

5.4 Stress and settlement efficacies of the pile-reinforced area

It is a common practice to use the stress efficacy E to evaluate system performance, although this value only shows the rate of load transfer over the piles. Settlement efficacy (ET) will be

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P

friction limit over the two sections of the shaft, as was observed in the experimental response.

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
used to present the results in this section. This parameter is defined as the ratio of settlement with piles to settlement without piles (4).

s wp

gives an overall evaluation of the soil reinforcement. Thus, it takes into account the effects of

Figure 7 presents the efficacies obtained with the numerical models: the elementary cells and

instrumented piles located in each of the three zones. Settlements (Figure 10) were only presented on cross-section BB at the level of the pile heads, i.e., at the original site surface (see

Both the elementary cell and the global models of zone 2R overestimate the experimental stress efficacy. Thus, the settlements are underestimated. The elementary cell simulations of zones 3R and 4R show higher stress efficacies than those of zone 2R due to the presence of horizontal reinforcement layers. However, the measurements of load transfer in these zones were underestimated. On the other hand, the settlement efficacies showed that the models give satisfactory predictions of the performance of the reinforced soil. The use of a global model improves the quality of the predictions. 18

AC

Figure 2).

CE

PT

the global model. The efficacies of the global model were calculated for the three

ED

MA

NU

the tip resistance and the friction along piles and of the compressibility of the subsoil.

SC

where sp and swp are the soil settlement with and without piles, respectively. This parameter

RI P

ET 1

sp

(4)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The symmetry assumption employed to justify the use of elementary cells for the analysis are fulfilled in the center of a regularly reinforced embankment (Jenck et al., 2009a). In an irregular configuration, such as in the present experiment, particular predictions must be made with a

zones (Figure 7 and Table 4). This overloading was also observed in the border piles (Piles F, D,

obtained with the elementary cells. This is explained by the way that stress efficacy was calculated for these piles; the tributary area of the piles in a regular mesh was used even

the experimental and numerical results of the vertical stress above the heads of the center and

submitted to higher stresses.

Table 4. Summary of stress efficacies

AC

Figure 8. Numerical results of stress efficacy on selected edge piles.

CE

Figure 7. Numerical and experimental results of stress efficacies.

PT

ED

edge piles. This figure confirms, experimentally and numerically, that the edge piles are

MA

though the influence area of the border piles is larger than in a regular mesh. Figure 9 presents

NU

SC

E in Figure 2), as shown in Figure 8. In these cases, the stress efficacies are higher than those

RI P

piles in the interior of the embankment are overloaded in the vicinity of the non-reinforced

global numerical model. For example, the global models results show that the instrumented

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 9. Experimental and numerical results of vertical stress applied to the heads of the center and edge piles.

demonstrated that when modeling a group of piles, differential settlement determines the

the embankment. Shear collapse was observed in the subsoil under the tips of the border piles. This caused a decrease in the stress efficacy.

It is important to recall that, as mentioned in the analytical study, a single high-strength geotextile at the bottom resulted in better experimental stress efficacies than a two-geogrid

almost the same (Table 5), demonstrating that the mechanisms of these two configurations are different.

Table 5. Numerical and experimental results of settlement efficacies.

AC

CE

Figure 10. Numerical and experimental results of settlements.

PT

platform over the piles. This occurred even though the settlement efficacies for both cases are

ED

MA

NU

SC

stress efficacy. The border piles follow this rule until a pile collapses during the construction of

RI P

The most relevant displacements were observed on the border piles (Figure 10). Several tests

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 11 shows the experimental measurements made between four piles. These measurements were made at the pile head level and over the LTP for zones 3R and 4R and show that the stress applied over the LTP is the same for both geosynthetic-reinforced zones

Figure 11. Experimental results.

Figure 12.a presents the pile head displacements related to the axial head pile loads. A comparison of the numerical results to the experimental measurements shows that the loading-pile displacements are reproduced well. When the embedded test-pile measurements

describes the embankment piles behavior. This result indicates that the pile load test is an important test to predict the behavior of the piled-embankment fill.

Figure 12.b shows ET with respect to SRR. The numerical results obtained with the global model are represented along with the elementary cell results and the experimental data. The results of the global model were recorded at the center of the embankment along the three pilereinforced zones. This figure shows that the experimentally observed soil stress-settlement tendency is represented well by the numerical models. Another important observation is that a low stress reduction of the reinforced soil causes considerable settlement reduction. Stress efficacy is the traditional parameter to assess the performance of rigid inclusions and to measure arching. Nevertheless, the results show that the settlement efficacy ET is an indicative

AC

CE

PT

were superimposed on the numerical results, it is clear that the toe response approximately

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P
21

that the ways the piles function are different.

but that the stress transmitted to the foundation soil is quite different. This result indicates

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
parameter that illustrates the global performance of the reinforced system. The relationship between these two quantities shows that our case has a settlement efficacy of around 0.8, which is equal to two times the stress reduction ratio of 0.4.

Figure 12. Experimental and numerical responses on the pile head level.

5.4.1 Lateral displacements.

Figure 13 presents the measured and computed lateral displacement profiles for the inclinometers placed at the toe of the embankment in the middle of each zone (Figure 2). The

(1980), which is presented in the French standards for foundations design Fascicule 62-V (1993). This approach, generally called the g(z) method, consists of calculating the lateral

g ( z, t ) G ( Z ).g max (t )

AC

displacement at different depths using formula (5).

CE

PT

numerical and experimental results were compared to the analytical approach of Bourges et al.

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P

T
(5 )

z D

(6 )

G(Z ) 1.83Z 3 4.69Z 2 2.13Z 0.73

(7 )

g max (t ) g max (0) g max (t )

(8 )

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

where z is the depth, D is the thickness of the soil layer and t is the time after the end of the construction of the embankment. G(Z) is a fixed function. gmax(0) and gmax(t) are the maximal lateral displacements induced during the embankments construction and after its completion, respectively. gmax(0) is calculated from the undrained

the measured settlement at the center of the embankment. For our purposes, gmax(t) will be taken from the experimental results and will be used alone to determine gmax(t) for the reinforced zones (2R to 4R). For the non-reinforced zone (1R), gmax(t) includes the construction and post construction displacements.

A comparison of the numerical and experimental results shows qualitatively that the shape of the experimental horizontal displacement curve is represented well by the numerical model. For the 1R zone, a peak is observed two meters below ground level; the behavior is different in the reinforced zone, where the maximum lateral displacement is registered at the surface. Quantitatively, the prediction for zone 1R is very accurate. Nevertheless, the lateral displacements recorded in the pile-reinforced zones are less than the experimental results. This underestimation is directly connected to the low numerical settlement recorded at the center of the embankment.

The analytical approach predicts a peak displacement approximately two meters deep in all zones. The experimental and numerical results show that this prediction is only valid for the non-reinforced zone. The behavior is different in the other zones and cannot be reproduced by

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

SC

shear strength of the soil and the dimensions of the embankment, while gmax(t) depends on

RI P

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
this analytical method. The reason for this is that the methods formulation does not take into account the heterogeneity of the geologic profile. Nevertheless, this method gives a good quantitative prediction for a design that is particularly useful for zone 2R.

Figure 13 and Table 6 show the maximum vertical and lateral displacements and the ratios

and numerical results. As can be seen, the relations between the vertical and lateral displacements in the numerical model are similar to those of the experimental site. This result again confirms the reliability of the developed model. To simulate the behavior of the reinforced soil in the center of the embankment, the observed ratios can easily be applied to assess the maximal lateral displacement even with an elementary cell.

Figure 13. Experimental, analytical and numerical results of lateral displacements..

Table 6. Ratios between settlement and lateral displacement.

6 DISCUSSION

As shown by the results obtained from the different models, due to the 3D nature of the experimental site, only the 3D global model accurately reproduces the experimental behavior 24

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

SC

between these two parameters. These values are presented for the experimental, analytical

RI P

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of the Chelles site. This model fit the experimental measurements while accounting for the complex mechanisms and interactions of the full-scale test. The differences in stress efficacies between the experimental and numerical results in zone 2R

corner of the pile are not allowed to slide around the pile shaft due to the fact that they are connected to the LTP. Some authors, including Chevalier (2008) and Jenck et al. (2009b), have studied load transfer on pile-reinforced soils using discrete modeling. The latter authors

particularly near the pile head. In discrete modeling, the elements can slide along the pile shaft, which will modify the behavior and lead to the smallest values of the stress efficacies. Thus, using the discrete element approach might be an interesting method to simulate the critical behavior around the head of the pile. This problem does not occur in zones 3R and 4R due to the setup of a granular platform reinforced by geosynthetics, and the continuum models response better agrees with reality.

7 CONCLUSION

A full-scale experiment was developed to study a soil reinforcement technique using vertical rigid piles. Compressible alluvial soils intended to support a high embankment were reinforced by concrete piles and geosynthetics. Numerous devices were used to monitor the evolution of the slope. Experience shows that this technique reduces settlements and improves the stability and the performance of structures. Analytical and numerical methods were used to predict the behavior of the embankment.

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

highlighted the differences between the response of discrete and continuum models,

SC

RI P

might be caused by the assumptions of a continuum numerical model. The nodes at the top

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The overall consistency of the experiment has been verified by comparing the data recorded by different sensors placed at similar positions throughout the site. The measurements highlight a significant improvement of load transfer towards the piles when there is a reinforced load

The results show that all of the tested analytical methods overestimate the arching effect in the zone without an LTP. When including an LTP at the base of the experimental embankment, the stress efficacy substantially increases; thus, the analytical results underestimate the

design.

Although the analytical methods give rapid and safe results in traditional pile-reinforced embankments (i.e., with geosynthetics), only a few of these methods have proposed a global method that takes into account the compressibility of soft soil, the negative frictional loading

with real structures. As mentioned in the text, few previous studies take these parameters into account.

The numerical models have the advantage of being able to reproduce the phenomenon that determines the pile-reinforced soils behavior. The numerical simulations showed that the behavior depends not only on soil compressibility but also on the soils shear resistance. Preliminary numerical investigations of the characteristics of soil-pile interaction are required to define reliable simulations of the reinforced soil. Thus, an axially loaded test pile must be part of the preliminary study of a pile-embankment project. The behavior of the non-reinforced area and the soil-pile interaction are correctly predicted by the simulations. On the other hand, when dealing with the pile reinforcement, high stresses were reported over the piles of the zone without the LTP; this resulted in an underestimation 26

AC

CE

PT

and the pile displacements. This is an important limit that can lead to important differences

ED

MA

NU

experimental performance. Consequently, the use of these analytical methods results in a safe

SC

RI P

transfer platform over the piles.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of the settlements in this zone. They also showed that the behavior of the geosynthetics cannot be correctly reproduced with the numerical simulations. Nevertheless, the settlement efficacy results showed that the global predictions were satisfactory. Settlement efficacy

addition, the numerical calculations show that the piles behavior in the reinforced soil

experiment. These kinds of models are the only way to observe the differences between the performance of interior and border piles in a group and the lateral response of the reinforced soil after being submitted to non-homogeneous overburden loads.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is part of a French National Research Project, ASIRI, aimed at formulating guidelines and recommendations for the design of soils reinforced by stiff vertical piles. The authors would like to thank the French National Project (ASIRI) for funding this research within the partnership between Fondasol, IREX, Keller, LCPC, EGIS, Socotec, and Tencate Geosynthetics. This work was made possible thanks to the financial support of Drast and RGCU and the Conseil Gnral de Seine et Marne, who kindly allowed us to use the experimental site.

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

The developed global numerical model took into account the real configuration of the full-scale

SC

conforms to the test piles.

RI P

soil; a modest stress reduction in the soil can led to an important settlement reduction ratio. In

appears to be a convenient parameter to evaluate the global performance of the reinforced

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
REFERENCES

Alexiew, D., Vogel W., 2002. Remblais ferroviaires renforcs sur pieux en Allemagne: Projets phares. Travaux 786. Almeida, M.S.S., Ehrlich, M., Spotti, A.P., Marques, M.E.S., 2007. Embankment supported on piles with biaxial geogrids, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Institution of Civil Engineering, ICE, UK, volume 160 (4), 185-192.

Bell, A. L., Jenner, C. G., Maddison, J. D., Vignoles, J., 1994, Embankment support using geogrids with vibro concrete columns. In: Karunaratne G. P., Chew S. H., Wong K. S. Eds. Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, 5-9 September 1994, Singapour. Vol. 1, pp 335-338.

Bourges, F., Frank, R., Mieussens, C., 1980. Calcul des efforts et des dplacements engendrs par des pousses latrales de sol sur les pieux. Note Technique du Dpartement Sols et Fondations,

Bransby, M. F., Springman, S. M., 1996. 3D finite element modelling of piles groups adjacent to surcharge loads. Computers and Geotechnics 19 (4), 301324. Briancon, L., Kastner, R., Simon, B., Dias, D., 2004. Etat des connaissances : Amlioration des sols par inclusions rigides. ASEP-GI 2004, Paris, pp. 15-43. Brianon, L., Plumelle, C., Canou, J., Dinh, A.Q., Dupla, J.C., Baudouin, G., Thorel, L., Rault G., 2009. Fullscale and small-scale experiments of ground improvement by pile-supported earth platform. In M. Hamza et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, The Academia & Practice of Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Brianon, L., Simon, B., 2010. Full-scale experiments of pile-supported earth platform under a concrete floor slab and an embankment. (Invited speaker) Proceedings of Symposium: New techniques for design and construction in soft clays, May 22-23 2010, Guaruja, Brazil.

AC

CE

PT

Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses, Paris, 17 p.

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P

28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Brianon, L., Simon, B., 2012. Performance of Pile-Supported Embankment over Soft Soil: Full-Scale Experiment. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138 No 4 April 2012. BS8006, British Standards, 1995. Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills.

BS8006-1, British Standards, 2010. Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills. British Standard Institution, London.

1987.

Chen, R.P., Chen, Y.M., Han, J., Xu, Z.Z., 2008a. A theoretical solution for pile-supported embankments on soft soils under one-dimensional compression. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45, 611-623. Chen, Y.M., Cao, W., Chen, R.P., 2008b. An experimental investigation of soil arching within basal

granulaires. Application aux renforcements de sols par inclusions rigides. Thse, Universit Grenoble

Collin, J. G., 2007. The use of geosynthetics to improve the performance of foundations in civil engineering. Geosynthetics in Civil Engineering, R. W. Sarsby, Editor, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 201232. Combarieu, O., 1974. Effet daccrochage et mthode dvaluation du frottement ngatif, Bulletin de Liaison du L.C.P.C. n 71. Combarieu, O., 1988. Amlioration des sols par inclusions rigides verticales. Application ldification des remblais sur des sols mdiocres. Revue Franaise de gotechnique 44, 57-79.

AC

1 Joseph Fourier. (PhD Dissertation in French).

CE

Chevalier, B., 2008. Etudes exprimentales et numriques des transferts de charges dans les matriaux

PT

reinforced and unreinforced piled embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26, 164-174.

ED

MA

NU

Carlsson, B., 1987. Reinforced soil, principles for calculation. (in Swedish). Linkpig : Terratema AB,

SC

RI P

Institution, London, pp. 80121.

Section 8: Design of Embankments with Reinforced Soil Foundation on Poor Ground. British Standard

29

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Combarieu, O., 2008. Remblai sur sol compressible et inclusions rigides. Amlioration de lapproche de dimensionnement. Revue franaise de gotechnique 122, 45-54. Comodromos, E.M., Papadopoulou, M.C., Rentzeperis, I.K., 2009. Pile foundation analysis and design

Fascicule n 62 Titre V 1993. Rgles techniques de conception et de calcul des fondations des ouvrages de gnie civil, Ministre de lEquipement du Logement et des Transport.

Filz, M. G., Smith, M. E., 2007. Net Vertical Loads on Geosynthetic Reinforcement in Column-Supported

Denver, Colorado, USA.

Guido, V. A., Knueppel, J. D., Sweeney, M. A., 1987. Plate loading test on geogrid reinforced earth slabs. In: Proc. of Geosynthetics'87, New Orleans, USA, fvrier 1987. St Paul, MN, USA : Industrial Fabrics Association International, pp 216-225.

4.0 Users Manual. Minneapolis: Itasca. Jenck, O., Dias, D., Kastner, R., 2005. Soft ground improvement by vertical rigid piles. Two-dimensional physical modelling and comparison with current design methods. Soils and Foundations 45(6), 15-30. Jenck, O., Dias, D., Kastner, R., 2007. Two Dimensional Physical and Numerical Modelling of a PileSupported Earth Platform over Soft Soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133 (3), 295-305. Jenck, O., Dias, D. Kastner, R. 2009a. Three-Dimensional Numerical Modeling of a Piled Embankment. International Journal of Geomechanics 9, (3): 102- 112.

AC

CE

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2009. FLAC3D Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions, Ver.

PT

Hewlett, W.J., Randolph, M.F., 1988. Analysis of piled embankments. Ground Engineering 21 (3), 12 18.

ED

MA

NU

Embankments. Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Denver 2007, Soil Improvement (GSP 172), 12 p.,

SC

RI P

using experimental data and 3-D numerical analysis, Computers and Geotechnics 36, 819-836.

30

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Jenck, O, Dias, D, Kastner, R., 2009b. Discrete element modelling of a granular platform supported by piles in soft soil Validation on a small scale model test and comparison to a numerical analysis in a continuum. Computers and Geotechnics 36, 917 927. Jenner, C. G., Austin, R. A., Buckland, D., 1998. Embankment support over piles using geogrids. In: ROWE,

Industrial Fabrics Association International, pp 763-766.

John, N. W. M. Geotextiles. New York : Blackie, Chapman & Hall, 1987.

Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles Geomembranes and related Products, 28 mai 1er juin 1990, Den Haag, Pays-Bas. Rotterdam : Balkema, 1990, vol. 1, pp 155-160. Kempfert, H-G, Gbel, C, Alexiew, D, Heitz, C., 2004. German recommendations for reinforced embankments on pile similar elements. 3rd European Geosynthetic Conference, DGGT (German Geotechnical Society), Vol. 1, pp. 279 285

Kempton, G.T., Russell, D., Pierpoint, N., Jones, C.J.P.F., 1998. Two and three dimensional numerical

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

Jones, C. J. F. P., Lawson C. R., Ayres S D. J. Geotextile reinforced piled embankments. In : Den Hoedt Ed.

SC

RI P

R.K. Ed. Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, 25-29 mars 1998, Atlanta. Roseville, USA:

analysis of the performance of geosynthetics carrying embankment loads over piles. Proc. of the 6 Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, Georgia. Liu, H.L., Ng, C.W.W., Fei, K., 2007. Performance of a geogrid-reinforced and pile-supported highway embankment over soft clay: Case study. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironnemental Engineering 133 (12), 1483-1493. Low, B.K., Tang, S.K. and Choa, V., 1994. Arching in piled embankments. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering., Vol.120, No 11, 19171937.

th

Marston, A., Anderson, A. O., 1913. The theory of loads on pipes ditches and tests of cement and clay drain tile and sewer pipes. Iowa Engineering Experiment Station Armes, 1913, Bull. 31.Mestat, Ph., 1997. Maillages des lments finis pour les ouvrages de gotechnique. Conseils et recommandations. Bulletin des laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses 212, 39-64.

AC

31

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Naughton, P. J., 2007. The significance of critical height in the design of piled embankment. Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Denver 2007, Soil Improvement (GSP 172), 12 p., Denver, Colorado, USA. Okyay, U.S., Dias, D., 2010. Use of lime and cement treated soils as pile supported load transfer

Poulos, H. GC and Davis, E. H., 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Said, I., De Gennaro, V., Frank, R., 2009. Axissymetric finite element analysis of pile loading test.

Simon, B., 2009. Projet national de recherche et dveloppement. Amlioration des sols par inclusions verticales rigides. Travaux 862, 65-72.

Randolph, M. F., Wroth, C. P., 1978. Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded piles. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 104, No. 12, 1465-1488.

Russell D., Pierpoint N., 1997. An assessment of design methods for piled embankments. Ground Engineering 30 (11), 39-44.

Russell, D., Naughton, P.J., Kempton G., 2003. A new design procedure for piled embankments. Proceedings of the 56th Canadian Geotechnical Conference and 2003 NAGS Conference, Vol. 1, Winnipeg, MB, pp. 858-865. Smith, M. E., 2005. Design of bridging layers in geosynthetic-reinforced column supported embankments. Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg. Svano, G., Ilstad, T., Eikund, G., Want, A., 2000. Alternative calculation principle for design of piles embankments with base reinforcement. In: Finnish Geotechnical Society Ed. Proc. of the 4 Int. Conf. of Ground Improvement Geosystem (4th GIGS), 7-9 juin 2000, Helsinki. Teh, C. I., Wong, K. S., 1995. Analysis of downdrag on pile groups. Gotechnique 45, No. 2, 191207.
th

AC

CE

PT

ED

Randolph, M. F., 2003. Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. Gotechnique 53(10), 84775.

MA

NU

Computers and Geotechnics, 36 (1-2), 6-19.

SC

RI P

T
32

platform. Engineering Geology 114, 3444.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Terzaghi, K., 1943.Theoretical soil mechanics. J Wiley and Sons, New York. Wachman, G., Biolzi, L., Labuz, J. F., 2010. Structural behavior of a Pile-Supported Embankment. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvionmental Engineering 136 (1), 26-34. Zaeske, D., 2001. Zur Wirkungsweise von unbewehrten und bewehrten mineralischen Tragschichten ber pfahlartigen Grndungselementen. Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Universitt Kassel, Heft 10 (PhD Dissertation in Dutch)

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P

33

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figures

T
b (s-a)/2

b (s-a)/2

v h t
a dh

v+d v
s-a

v+d v
s-a s-a

aa

SC

t h

v h t
dh

t h

RI P
b
a s-a a

aa

a)

b)

NU

c)

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

Figure 1. Groups of analytical methods.

34

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CE

PT

ED

MA NU S

CR

IP

3R ZONE

4R ZONE
10cm

Zone

Soil reinf orcement No Driven back auger pile

Load transf er platf orm No

No Yes

AC

Geosynthetics

1R
2R 3R

No
20cm 20cm

GGR GTX
20cm 20cm

No Yes

GGR

4R

Yes

Yes

Load transfer platforms Load transfert platforms

Figure 2. Plan view of the experimental site and configuration of the tested zones.

35

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0,6

0,4

Efficacy

0,2

0,0

0,5

1,0

MA
1,5

0,0

NU
2,0 2,5 3,0

SC

RI P
3,5

Experimental BS8006 (2D) BS8006-1 (3D) Combarieu (1988) Combarieu (2007) EBGEO Geogridbridge

h ( s D)

ED

(a)

Zone 2R

0,80

Efficacy

0,60

0,40

AC

CE

PT

1,00

0,20

Experimental EBGEO Geogridbridge

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

0,00

h ( s D)
(b) Zone 3R

T
36

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1,00

0,80

Efficacy

0,40

0,20

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

NU
2,0

0,00

SC

RI P
2,5

Experimental EBGEO Geogridbridge

3,0 3,5

Figure 3. Analytical and experimental results

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

h ( s D)

(c) Zone 4R

T
37

0,60

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 4. The adopted three-dimensional numerical models.

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P
38

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Settlement (m)
0,0
0

-0,1

-0,2

-0,3

-0,4

-2

Depth (m)

-4

Figure 5. Non-reinforced area (1R) settlement.

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

-10

NU

-8

SC

-6

RI P

Experimental

Elementary cell
Global model

T
39

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Axial load, Q0 (kN)
0 0,0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Pile head displacement (cm)

-1,0

Experimental -3,0

-4,0

-5,0

0,0 -1,0 -2,0 -3,0

PT

ED

100

200

MA
(a)
300 400 500

-6,0

NU
600

SC

Numerical calculation

RI P
700

-2,0

Experimental
Numerical calculation

T AC CE
Qp(z) Axial load Qs(z) Cumulated shear load Load along the pile (kN)

z (m)

-4,0 -5,0 -6,0 -7,0 -8,0

(b)

Figure 6. Load-displacement curves and final load distributions for the test pile (embedded pile).

40

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1,0

Numerical results
0,8
MG_2R CE_2R MG_3R CE_3R MG_4R CE_4R

EPC5 EPC10

Stress efficacy

0,6

0,2

SC
0 1 2

0,4

RI P
EPC1 4 5 6

0,0

Embankment height (m)

AC

CE

PT

ED

Figure 7. Numerical and experimental results of stress efficacies.

MA

NU
3

Experimental final results

41

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1,2

F (4R)
1,0

Stress efficacy

0,8

E (3R)
0,6

SC NU
3 4 5

RI P

D (2R)

MG

CE

0,4

(2R)
0,2

0,0 0 1 2

MA

Embankment height (m)

Figure 8. Numerical results of stress efficacy on selected edge piles.

AC

CE

PT

ED

42

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

-2500

Vertical stress on pile head (kPa)

-2000

A (2R)

-1500

MA
2

NU
3

-500

Experimental final results

SC
4 5

-1000

RI P
6
Embankment height (m)

D (2R)

Figure 9. Experimental and numerical results of vertical stress applied to the heads of the center and edge piles.

AC

CE

PT

ED

T
43

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0,00 T22 -0,05

T10

T26-T28

Settlement (m)

MA ED PT
T35-T36 0

-0,10

NU
30

SC
T14-T16
40

-0,15

-0,20

-0,25

-0,30

CE

10

20

RI P
T1 T5-T7

Global model results

Experimental results

T
50 60 70

Slope

1R

4R

3R

2R

Slope

AC

Length (m)

Figure 10. Numerical and experimental results of settlements.

44

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Stress applied on soft soil (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Settlement measured on soft soil (m)

0,00 0,01 0,02

0,03 0,04
0,05 0,06 0,07

NU
0 10

ECP 12 ECP 7

ED

Stress applied on LTP (kPa)

20 30 40 50 60

Settlement measured on soft soil (m)

0,00

0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05

AC

CE

0,01

PT

0,06 0,07

Figure 11. Experimental results.

MA
(a)

ECP 13

ECP 8

(b)

SC

RI P
45

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Axial load (kN)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Vertical displacement (mm)

-5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 3R -40 -45 -50 4R MG CE 2R

NU MA
Toe
2R

SC
Head
Embedded pile load test

Settlement efficacy, ET

0,8

0,6

0,4

AC

CE

PT

0,2

MG
0 0 0,2

ED

(a)

3R CE

4R

0,4

0,6

RI P
0,8 1

Stress reduction ratio, SRR

(b)

Figure 12. Experimental and numerical responses on the pile head level.

T
46

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lateral displacement (mm)

0 0 10 20 30 40 50

-2

-4

Depth (m)

-6

-8

-10

MA ED
(a)

-12

PT

Lateral displacement (mm)

8 12 16 20

0 0

-2

-4

Depth (m)

-6

AC

CE

NU
(b)

Zone 1R

-8

-10

-12

Zone 2R 47

SC
Experimental Analytical method g(z) Numerical results
Experimental Analytical method g(z) Numerical results

RI P

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lateral displacement (mm)
0 0 4 8 12 16 20

-4

Depth (m)

-6

-10

-12

ED

MA
(c) Zone 3R

PT

Lateral displacement (mm)

8 12 16 20

0 0

-2

-4

Depth (m)

-6

AC

CE

NU
(d)

-8

-8

-10

-12

Zone 4R

Figure 13. Experimental, analytical and numerical results of lateral displacements..

SC

Experimental

Analytical method g(z)

Numerical results

RI P
Experimental
Analytical method g(z) Numerical results

T
48

-2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLES

Parameter Density, Thickness, z CC/(1+e 0) Compressibility Indices, CC Swelling Indices, CS Void ratio, e 0 Friction ratio, Cohesion, c Dilatancy, Overconsolidation pressure, p Pressuremeter modulus, EM Pressuremeter limit pressure, Pl Elastic modulus, E Poisson ratio, [kN/m3] [m] [-]

Embankment Load transfer Silty clay fill platform (dry crust) 19.1 21 20 1.7 0.1

SC
Clay 15 0.6 0.2

Table 1. Soil parameters.

RI P
Sandy clays 1 20 4.2 0.06 Sandy clays 2 20 1.5 - 2.5 0.08 Sand and gravel alluvial deposits 20

[-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [] [kPa] [] [kPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [-]

MA
0.2 0.087 0.03 0.013 1 26 0 30

NU
0.54 0.235 0.05 0.022 1.7 26 0

0.1 0.044 0.01 0.005 0.7 26 0

ED

T
0.13 0.056 0.01 0.004 0.6 26 0 33 0 3

CE

PT

36.6 17.3 6.6

36 61 3

34.5 2.3 76.6 0.3

AC

50 0.3

70 0.3

49

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Summary of the analytical and experimental results

Table 3. Interface properties

Interface Depth c [m] [] [kPa] []

qsI 0 to 4 0 45 0

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

qsII

under 4 0 30 0

NU

SC

Experimental Combarieu (1988) BS8006 (2D) BS8006-1 (3D) EBGEO GeogridBridge Combarieu (2007)

Final stress efficacy H=5m 2R 3R 4R 0.18 0.89 0.74 0.45 0.59 0.42 0.41 0.68 0.72 0.35 0.48 0.50 0.31

RI P
2.5 3.28 2.33 2.28 1.94 1.72

Analytical/experimental ratio 2R 3R 4R

0.76 0.54

0.97 0.68

50

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Summary of stress efficacies

Table 5. Numerical and experimental results of settlement efficacies.

CE=Elementary cell, MG=Global model.

Zone 1R 2R 3R 4R

Maximal settlement * Experimental Numerical 260 230 105 67 71 44 64 48

AC

Table 6. Ratios between settlement and lateral displacement.

CE

PT

ED

Zone 2R 3R 4R

Settlement Efficacy Experimental CE MG 0.60 0.87 0.76 0.73 0.87 0.83 0.75 0.87 0.81

MA

NU

SC
Ratio CE 1.45 1.19 1.16 MG 1.27 1.14 1.08
Ratio Experimental Numerical 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.23

CE=Elementary cell, MG=Global model.

g(z) 260 105 71 64

Maximal lateral displacement** Experimental Numerical g(z) 31 25 46 16 10 16 12 8 11 14 11 10

RI P

Zone 2R 3R 4R

Experimental 0.18 0.89 0.74

Efficacy CE 0.46 0.54 0.53

MG 0.50 0.64 0.66

CE 2.55 0.61 0.72

MG 2.77 0.72 0.89

Ratio

g(z) 0.18 0.16

* at the center of the embankment **at the toe of the embankment slope

51

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
HIGHLIGHTS

AC

CE

PT

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI P

Monitoring of a piled supported embankment built over soft alluvial soil. Several analytical and numerical models were tested to assess the arching effect. Comparisons between the experimental data and the design methods. Settlement efficacy is a reliable parameter to assess the embankment performance.

52