Gabr 2005

GSP 141 International Perspectives on Soil Reinforcement Applications
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Saskatchewan University on 10/04/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Geosynthetic Reinforcement for Soft Foundations: US Perspectives
Mohammed Gabr1 and Jie Han2
1
Professor, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908; PH (919) 515-7904; FAX (919)
515-7908; email: gabr@eos.ncsu.edu.
2
Associate Professor, Civil, Environmental, & Architectural Engineering (CEAE)
Department, the University of Kansas, 2150 Learned Hall, 1530 W. 15th Street, Chester,
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7609; PH (785) 864-3766; FAX (785) 864-5631; email:
jiehan@ku.edu.
Abstract
Geosynthetics have been successfully used as reinforcements for embankments and

shallow foundation on soft soils. Their applications include the use of geosynthetics for
increasing stability of embankments, increasing bearing capacity of footing on soft
foundations, creating construction platforms, and bridging over sinkholes. In recent
years, geosynthetics mats have also been used in combination with pile or column
systems to support embankments over soft foundations. This paper identifies current
practices in the above applications including the most prevalent approaches in the US and
other countries and presents recent advances reported in literature. Gaps in our current
knowledge are identified and possible future directions for research and development are
proposed.
Introduction
Geosynthetics have been successfully used as reinforcement for embankments and

shallow foundation on soft soils. Their applications include increasing stability of
embankments, increasing bearing capacity of footings on soft foundations, creating
construction platforms, and bridging over sinkholes. In the recent years, geosynthetics
mats coupled with aggregates have also been used in combination with pile or column
systems to support embankments over soft foundations. This paper identifies current
Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

International Perspectives on Soil Reinforcement Applications
practices in the above applications including the most prevalent approaches in the US and
other countries, presents recent advances and nature of the work being done, and
identifies gaps in our current knowledge. Ideas for future directions are proposed. The
use of geosynthetics for stability of slopes above foundation level is not a part of this
review. Practice and research work prior to 2000 are considered “current practice” in this
paper, while recent advances refer to findings from the research work and publications
after 2000.
Geosynthetics-Reinforced Embankments
Geosynthetics are used as reinforcement at the base of embankments for increasing their
stability. Jewell (1988) accredited the reinforcement “by reducing the forces causing
failure and increasing the forces resisting failure”.
Current practice. Bonaparte and Christopher (1987) outlined a design methods for
geosynthetic-reinforced embankments over soft soil, which included the overall bearing
capacity of the entire embankment, lateral sliding of a portion of the embankment, and
deep-seated slope stability. Simplified design charts for calculating the bearing capacity
using the bearing capacity factors from Mandel and Salecon (1967) were recommended.
Simplified design charts were also proposed for calculating the required tensile force in
reinforcement due to the lateral sliding resulting from lateral earth pressure by the
embankment fill. The mechanics of geosynthetic-reinforced embankments on soft soils
were also presented by Jewell (1988). Limit equilibrium methods, such as modified
Bishop’s method, are commonly used to evaluate the deep-seated slope stability of the
embankment. Geosynthetic reinforcements are considered providing resisting moments
in the factor of safety calculation.
Rowe and Li (1999) investigated the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced
embankments over soft foundation under undrained and partially drained conditions
using a finite element program incorporating Biot’s consolidation theory. They found
that geosynthetic reinforcement could significantly increase the stability of embankments
under both conditions (undrained and drained). Rowe and Li reported that the effect of
reinforcement stiffness on the failure height of the embankment is greater under partially
drained condition than under undrained condition. On the other hand, the finite element
analysis by Varadarajan et al. (1999) showed that the inclusion of geosynthetic
reinforcement could reduce both horizontal and vertical displacements on the foundation
surface under an undrained condition while it can only reduce the horizontal
displacement, not the vertical displacement, under a drained condition.
Forsman et al (1999) conducted a finite element analysis of the widening of a road
embankment on soft soil reinforced by geosynthetics. The analysis showed that
reinforcement carried horizontal stresses induced by the weight of the new embankment
so that horizontal displacements were reduced. As a result, the cracking of pavements
between the existing and new embankments was minimized.
Recent advances. Current methods are mainly based on limit equilibrium approaches
and have been successfully used for designing many embankments over soft soils against
instability. Most constructed geosynthetic-reinforced embankments have had satisfactory

performance, which implies the appropriateness of current design methods. Recent

research activities have been focused on a number of aspects related to geosynthetic-
reinforced embankments. Li and Rowe (2001) investigated the combined effect of
reinforcement and prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) on embankment performance.
They found that geosynthetic reinforcement can significantly increase the stability of
embankments under partially drained conditions under a construction rate greater than a
threshold rate. For a two-stage construction, the best performance can be achieved by
constructing the first stage as high as possible with the use of geosynthetic reinforcement.
Sharma and Bolton (2001) conducted centrifugal and numerical modeling of reinforced
embankments on soft clay installed with PVDs. They found the existence of PDVs
would slightly increase the maximum tension in reinforcement (perhaps due to
inducement of drained conditions). The effectiveness of geosynthetic reinforcement
becomes significant when induced shear stress is marginally greater than the shear
strength of the soft clay.
Li and Rowe (2002) also investigated the performance of reinforced
embankments on rate sensitive soils using numerical methods. The analyses show that
the creep and stress relaxation of the soils occur a period of time after construction, which
reduce the stability of reinforced embankments. The analyses also indicate that the
viscous properties of soils play an important role in influencing the critical strain rate in
the soils, which corresponds to the critical stage of constructing reinforced embankments.
Gaps and future directions. Limit equilibrium methods are commonly used in the
routine design of geosynthetic-reinforced embankments, which are suitable for ensuring
the stability of the embankments against general failure. However, limit equilibrium
methods cannot be used to evaluate the deformation behavior of reinforced
embankments. It is generally believed that geosynthetic reinforcement can reduce
differential settlements of embankments especially when multiple layers of reinforcement
are used. However, limited research has been conducted on this issue so far.
Development of simplified design methods for vertical and horizontal displacements of
reinforced embankments over soft soils will be useful for practical applications. The
combined use of geosynthetic reinforcement and PVDs shows a promising performance
and further research is necessary. Design and construction guidelines are need for the
use of geosynthetic reinforcement for supporting embankments on soft soils.
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Shallow Foundation
Current practice. Construction of shallow foundation in loose and soft subsurface soil
conditions leads to unacceptable levels of deformation, excessive straining, and failure of
the superstructure. Among the available technologies for soil improvement, the use of
"excavate and replace" has been implemented in practice when soft soils are encountered.
With the introduction of soil reinforcement, it became apparent that geosynthetics can be
used to reinforce the backfill during the "excavate and replace" operation such that
smaller and shallower excavations are utilized in construction. A reduction in the
excavation size provides for significant cost savings and substantial health and safety

benefits due to the shortening of construction and labor time, excavation of shallower and
smaller pits, and the use of less natural fill material. Several studies were conducted in
the past decade to investigate the contribution of geosynthetics (namely geogrids and
geotextiles) to the bearing characteristics of a soil mass supporting a shallow foundation.
Most of the work performed to date has been focused on comparing the bearing capacity
of the foundation with and without geosynthetic reinforcement inclusions. The results
were generally presented in the form of a bearing capacity ratio (BCR), which was
defined as the ratio between the bearing capacity with reinforcement to the bearing
capacity without reinforcement. Critical parameters affecting the performance of the
foundation included B/L, u/B, z/B, h/B, b/B, and l/b where B= width of footing, L =
length of footing, u = depth to the top reinforcement layer, z=reinforcement spacing, h=
total depth of the reinforced mat, b= width of reinforcement, and l=length of
reinforcement (see Figure 1).
B or L
z h
z
b or l
Figure 1. Illustration of Terms Used for Reinforced Soil Foundations
Early work by Binquet and Lee (1975a) presented the results of bearing capacity
tests using a 75mm wide strip footing on sand reinforced with strips of aluminum foil.
The data showed that considerable benefit might be obtained in terms of increasing the
ultimate bearing capacity by the use of a modest amount of reinforcement. Akinmusuru
and Akinbolade (1981) indicated an optimum u/B ratio of 0.5 at which the most gain in
BCR was measured. A decrease in BCR was observed for u/B ratios below and above the
value of 0.5. Fragaszy and Lawton (1984) described laboratory model tests that
incorporated the influence of soil density and reinforcing length on the load-settlement
behavior of sand. Guido et al (1985) indicated an increase in the BCR when geotextile
reinforcement was used with a negligible increase in BCR when u exceeded 1.25 B. In a
second study using geogrid-reinforced sand, Guido et al (1987) reported an increase in
BCR as the u/B ratio decreased with a lower magnitude of such an increase observed for
stiffer geogrids. At u/B of 0.25, a BCR value of 2.0 was estimated using the BX 1300

geogrids versus a BCR value of 2.8 that was estimated using BX 1100 geogrids. This
behavior was observed by others including Gabr and Hart (1998). Miyazaki and
Hirokawa (1992) indicated the presence of a critical u/B ratio for which the maximum
increase in the BCR was obtained. Research conducted by Das et al (1994a,b) utilizing a
model footing supported by geogrid-reinforced sand and clay soils provided data on the
impact of geogrid reinforcement on the bearing capacity of soils. Optimum depth and
width of reinforcing layers as well as optimum location of the first reinforcement layer
were presented based on the results of the experimental program. An increase in the
bearing capacity by a factor as high as four was measured when geogrids were used to
reinforce the test soils.
An experimental prototype study was conducted by Chadbourne (1994) to
investigate the performance of shallow foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. The
testing program was performed at the FHWA Turner Fairbank Research Center and
included three test series using prototype footings that ranged in size from 0.3 m to 0.9 m.
Tentative conclusions were made regarding the effect of geogrids inclusion on the
bearing capacity of the test footings. Chadbourne (1994) found that BCR for u/B of 0.375
(BCR =1.2) was larger than for u/B =0.25 (BCR= 1.02) and tentatively attributed this
difference to the larger overburden pressure. However, under the applied test loads, this
difference in overburden pressure is rendered insignificant compared to the applied test
stress and the BCR values were most probably reflecting the presence of a critical u/B
ratio.
Another study utilizing model tests was carried out by Yetimoglu et al (1994) on
reinforced sand. In this study, a model rectangular footing was used and the contribution
of geogrids to the bearing capacity of the footing was investigated. Measured results
indicated a BCR of approximately 3 due to the inclusion of the geogrid reinforcement.
Finite element analyses (FEA) by Yetimoglue et al (1994) indicated that the increase in
the bearing pressure of the footing due to the inclusion of geogrid reinforcement was a
function of the amount of settlement. A BCR of seven was computed for settlement
magnitude equal to 10% of the footing’s width. It was concluded from the FEA that
increasing the axial stiffness of the geogrids beyond 92 kN/m resulted in a small increase
in the bearing capacity. Ismail and Raymond (1995) conducted a study on a model
footing over granular soil. Results indicated that while a u/B= 0.3125 yielded the stiffest
load-deformation response, the largest increase in bearing capacity was for u/B = 0.5. A
BCR of 2 was measured for two-layer reinforcement and a BCR of approximately 1.5
was measured for one layer of reinforcement.
One of the few studies on large-scale tests in sand was reported by Adams and
Collin (1997). Thirty-four tests were performed on footings constructed in sand pit at the
FHWA Turner Fairbank Laboratory. The footings were 0.3 m x 0.3 m, 0.46 m x 0.46 m,
0.6 m x 0.6 m, and 0.91 m x 0.91 m in size. Several parameters were varied to optimize
the geogrid-reinforced structure. These parameters included number of reinforcement
layers (N), spacing between reinforcement layers (h), plan area of the reinforcement
(b/B), depth to the top layer of reinforcement (u), and soil density. Relative densities
ranged from a low of 12.3% to a high of 42.5%. From the tests, it was determined that
three layers of geogrid outperformed the two and one layer systems. BCR values for the
three-layer system ranged from 1.92 to 2.61, while BCR values for the one and two layer

systems ranged form 1.11 to 1.89. Also, improvement was shown with respect to
differential settlement as long as the footing was centered over the reinforced mattress.
A more recent study by Huang and Menq (1997) was performed to evaluate and
quantify the failure mechanisms associated with footing on reinforced soil. They
indicated that reinforcements with smooth interfaces may not be suitable for support of
footings due to the inadequate surface bonding needed to develop a “quasi-rigid earth
slab under the footing.” A study aimed at investigating the deformation aspects of
reinforced sand was conducted by Gabr et al (1996, 1997, 1998). Based on a number of
plate load tests performed on sand, it was indicated that the state-of-practice elastic
methods (Boussinesq or Westergaard) over predicted the magnitude of the measured
stresses at relatively low surface pressure (28.7 kPa) and underpredicted the measured
stresses at relatively high surface stress (430.5 kPa). Reducing the data in accordance
with the approximate method, higher values of the angle of the stress distribution (")
were estimated for the reinforced sand as compared to the unreinforced samples which
may be indicative of a better attenuation of the stress due to the inclusion of the
reinforcement (Gabr and Dodson, 1998).
In several instances, results from past studies indicated the presence of a critical
u/B ratio for which the maximum increase in the BCR was obtained. This ratio was
estimated to be between 0.25 and 0.75 and depended on the number of reinforcement
layers, spacing, and stiffness. Also, there appears to be little benefit in using more than
three layers of reinforcement.
Current practice is focused on evaluating the increase in the bearing capacity of
the foundation when reinforcement was included. Alternatively, the change in stress
distribution with depth, with the presence of reinforcement, is specified through the use
of a larger stress distribution angle. Most of the previous studies were conducted using
sand as the foundation soil with a plate or reduced-size footing. A discussion related to
the testing of reduced scale footing and the extrapolation to a field scale was presented by
Fellenius and Altaee (1994) and Briaud and Jeanjean (1994) with a discussion on Briaud
and Jeanjean paper presented by Deschamps (1995). Fellenius and Altaee indicated that
settlement of a footing on sand is independent of the footing size and the soil density but
rather related to the sand state parameter as defined by Been and Jefferies (1985) and
Bardet (1986). Data from Briaud and Jeanjean indicated that the issue of scale effect can
be addressed by presenting the load test results in terms of a strain ratio defined as s/B
where s=settlement and B= width of the footing. Deschamps (1995) indicated that while
Briaud and Jeanjean conclusion is true for clay, bearing capacity in sand is dependent on
the size of the footing. However, Briaud and Jeanjean concluded that the “use of the
general bearing capacity theory should be discontinued” and presented data to support
their conclusion.
Recent advances. Recent advance in this area are limited to the introduction of refined
analytical methods as presented by Michalowski (2004), for example, on the use of
kinematics’ approach of limit analysis to estimate limit capacity of strip footing over
reinforced layers. Michalowski developed equations considering slip and rupture modes
of failure and recommended that the strength of reinforcement to be used in design
corresponds to strain not exceeding 5%.

Gaps and future directions. Previous studies were mostly performed using model tests,
and they focused on evaluating the increase in bearing capacity of the shallow foundation
on a reinforced soil mattress. Most studies attempted to isolate particular design
parameters in order to determine their effect on the performance of the foundation. A
challenge to using this approach is that the results of a particular study are only valid for
that soil and reinforcement condition used. There is a dearth of data on the fundamental
mechanics associated with the attenuation of stresses and deformation modes of
geosynthetics-reinforced mats supporting shallow foundations over soft soils. It seems
that experimental testing effort in this area has slowed down considerably especially with
respect to the relatively large size> 3ft footing. Michalowski (2004) pointed out problems
associated with the using results from small-scale testing to verify analytical solutions.
These included boundary and scale effects.
Furthermore, no analytical models are available in the literature to characterize the
load transfer mechanisms and corresponding coupled deformation modes of the
reinforced mat and the soft soils. The use of numerical models in this case is also
impeded due to the lack of input constitutive models describing the behavior of the
reinforced mat over soft soils. There is a need to study the fundamental mechanisms by
which improvements in the load carrying capacity of shallow foundations are manifested
with the presence of soil reinforcement. Specifically:
- definition of the anisotropic mechanistic characteristics of the reinforced mat as a

function of the deformation level and the associated changes in the horizontal
modulus,
- quantification of the nonlinear stress distribution with depth in the presence of
reinforced mass and as a function of the stress level, and component attenuation of
the imposed surface stresses through membrane action and associated subgrade
reaction contribution,
- evaluation of the strain distribution over the reinforced soil mass and the
associated basic mechanics related to the relative stiffness of the reinforced mass
to the backfill and subgrade soils,
- characterization of the pore pressure distribution within the foundation, in cohesive
soils, and its variation as a function of the reinforcing mattress deformation mode,
- development of a comprehensive and systematic analytical model for simulating
the soil-structure interaction of reinforced soil mass supporting shallow foundation
and predicting the stress attenuation with depth, and,
- validation of the developed analytical model through direct comparisons with
results from field experimental programs in order to address concerns associated
with scale and boundary effects.
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Column Supported Embankments
The idea in this application is to use geosynthetics as reinforcements in combination with

pile or column systems to support embankments. There are two different systems: (i) one
or multiple geosynthetic layers placed above piles with caps or columns (Figure 2) and
(ii) geosynthetics-encased soil columns. The first system has been increasingly used and
researched in the recent years worldwide, which will be the focus of the review in this

section. Geotextile-encased sand columns have gained some applications in Europe to

support embankments (for example, Kempfert et al., 1997). The main function of the
geotextile casing is to provide extra confinement to sand columns to prevent the failure
and minimize deformation. In addition, geotextile casing can act as a separator between
the column and the surrounding soft soil. Up to date, the use of this system is limited to
mainly Europe. Some activities have been on going in the United States to initiate the
use of this system.
Embankment Srs 0 Geosynthetics

Geosynthetic reinforced
earth platform
S
Small size
pile caps
Vertical piles
Firm soil or bedrock
Figure 2. Geosynthetic-Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankments
Current practice. Geosynthetic-reinforced embankments over piles with caps or

columns (by ground improvement methods) have been used for more than two decades
and are increasingly used in the past few years around the world including the United
States. They are most suitable for situations in which soft soil is underlain by a stiff layer
or bedrock, new fill with certain thickness, rapid construction, and the need to limit
total/differential settlement. They have been mainly used for bridge approaches and
roadway widening. In Japan, they are used for low embankments over deep mixed
columns to enlarge the column spacing and minimize depression on the surface (Miki,
1997). Timber piles, augered piles, vibro concrete columns, and deep mixed columns are
common systems utilized in this application. Geosynthetics are used in either a single
layer or multiple layers (mostly three layers). A single high-strength geotextile or geogrid
layer functions as a tensioned membrane while multiple low-strength layers spaced in
granular fill form a load transfer platform functioning as a beam. Russell and Pierpoint
(1997) and Han (1999) provided a review of this technology and related design methods.
Design of geosynthetic-reinforced fill platforms above the pile caps or columns
involves the estimation of stresses applied on the geosynthetic layers. This estimation can
be based on soil arching mechanism and the calculation of the required tensile strength of
geosynthetic layers based on their allowable strain level and a membrane theory. Various
soil arching models have been proposed and used in the design, which include Marston
and Anderson (1913) or Terzaghi (1943)’s trench model (for example, British Standard
BS 8006, 1995), two or three-dimensional prism model (for example, Fluet et al., 1986;
Carlsson, 1987; Schmertmann, 1991; Miki, 1997), and semi-spherical crown model
(Hewlett and Randolph, 1988). These models are used for fill platforms containing a

single geosynthetic layer. For multiple geogrid layers in fill platforms, Card and Carter
(1995) suggested that each geogrid layer should be designed to carry the weight of the fill
above within the soil wedge. Granular fill is required for multiple geogrid layers to form
a load transfer platform. In most design methods, the soil resistance underneath
geosynthetic layers is ignored. Tensioned membrane theories are used to calculate the
required tensile strength of geosynthetics based on an allowable tensile strain (Giroud et
al., 1990 and British Standard BS 8006, 1995). Han (1999) reported that percent
coverage of pile caps or columns for most constructed projects ranged from 10% to 30%.
Recent advances. Several research activities have been on going in the United States in
the past few years, which include the FHWA funded project - “Geosynthetic Reinforced
Pile Supported (GRPS) Embankments” by Briaud, the FHWA pooled fund project –
“Column-Supported Embankments” by Collin and Han, the National Deep Mixing
Program project by Han – “Development of Design Charts for Geosynthetic-Reinforced
Embankments over Deep Mixed Columns”, the Virginia Transportation Research
Council funded project - "Columnar Reinforcement of Soft Ground beneath Roadway
Embankments" and the NSF funded project "Deformation-Based Design of Geotechnical
Composite Foundation Systems Incorporating Columnar Support with or without
Geosynthetic Reinforcement" by Filz and industries-sponsored project – “Geosynthetic-
Rammed Aggregate Pier Supported Embankment” by White. This technology has been
adopted in several recent highway projects including the I-95/Route 1 interchange project
reported by Stewart et al. (2004). Several papers and reports have been published to
provide the state of the art or practice review of this technology (for example, Li et al.,
2002; Han, 2003; Collin, 2003; and Han et al., 2004).
Two and three-dimensional numerical methods have been used to analyze these
complicated systems. Han et al. (2005) and Huang et al. (2005) indicate that the
numerical methods can reasonably predict the maximum settlement at the base of the
embankment and the tension in the geosynthetic layers as compared with the measured.
It was previously thought the maximum tension in the geosynthetic layer developed in
the middle of the span between piles or columns. However, recent numerical studies (for
example, Han and Gabr, 2002; Han et al., 2005) and some field studies (for example,
Forsman et al., 1999) both indicated that the maximum tension in a single geosynthetic
layer developed at the edges of the pile caps or columns. Huang et al. (2005) further
found in a three layers system that the maximum tension in the lower layer developed in
the middle of the span; however, the maximum tension in the top layer developed at the
edges of the pile caps). This behavior implies that geosynthetic-reinforced fill platforms
act as a beam. On the other hand, Pham et al. (2004) conducted a numerical analysis of
geosynthetic-rammed aggregate pier supported embankment and found the contribution
of geosynthetic was limited.
Svanø et al. (2000) suggested that load on the geosynthetic reinforcement is
eventually carried by “two” strips between pile caps. These two strips have a width equal
to that of the pile caps and a length equal to pile spacing. They are perpendicular to each
other if piles are installed in a square pattern. This proposed method considered the 3-D
effect. Kempfert et al. (2004) modified Hewlett and Randolph (1988) method and
considered the soil resistance underneath the geosynthetic layer. Collin (2003) detailed
the procedures for designing multiple geogrid layer-reinforced fill platform as a stiffened

beam of reinforced soil that distributes the load from the embankment above and acts as
transfer platform (i.e., stiffened beam) to the columns.
Gaps and future directions. Current design methods for geosynthetic-reinforced

embankments over piles with caps or columns have not been well verified against field
measurements. Limited well-instrumented and documented field studies are available.
No field measurement is available to make direct comparisons with and without
geosynthetics to justify the benefits of using geosynthetics in settlement reduction. The
calculated tension in the reinforcement based on membrane theories at a specified strain
level does not satisfy the strain compatibility. All soil arching models were proposed
based on rigid support, however, they may not be valid for more deformable columns
such as deep mixed and stone columns. No design methods are available to estimate total
and differential settlements of the supported embankments. The influence of creep on the
performance of such system is not well understood.
Accordingly, proposed future directions for geosynthetic-reinforced embankments
over piles with caps or columns are as follows:
- Performance of well-instrumented case studies for justifying the benefits of

geosynthetics, calibrating numerical models, and verifying developed design
methods,
- Development of a strain compatibility method for calculating tension in
geosynthetic reinforcement,
- Development of a soil arching model considering geosynthetic reinforcement and
pile (or column) stiffness,
- development of a guideline for considering foundation soil resistance in the
calculation of tension in geosynthetic reinforcement,
- Development of a design method for multi-layer geosynthetically-reinforced fill
platforms,
- Development of a method for calculating total and differential settlements of such
systems,
- Investigation of differences and relationships of results obtained using 2-D and 3-
D models, and,
- Studying the effect of creep of geosynthetics on the load transfer within the
presumed beam mechanism.
In addition, field studies are necessary to evaluate the constructibility, quality assurance
and control, and performance of geosynthetic-encased soil columns. Design methods are
needed for estimating the required tensile strength of geosynthetics and the equivalent
modulus of the geosynthetic-encased soil columns.
Geosynthetic Reinforced Construction Platforms
Geosynthetics are used as reinforcements in granular fill to form a temporary

construction platform to support construction equipment and traffic over soft soil in order
to avoid the formation of mud waves and excessive ruts.
10

Current practice. Design of geosynthetic-reinforced construction platforms is

commonly based on local bearing capacity or slope stability. The contribution of
geosynthetic layer is increasing the local bearing capacity of soft subgrade. Steward et al.
(1977) suggested the bearing capacity factor, Nc, for unreinforced and geotextile-
reinforced sections equal to 3 and 6, respectively. Instead, Giroud and Noiray (1981)
used 3.14 and 5.14 for the bearing capacity factors of unreinforced and reinforced
sections. A single layer of geosynthetic is commonly used based on this design method.
Slope stability analysis is generally adopted to evaluate the safety of heavy construction
equipment (such as cranes) operated on soft soil. This analysis is similar to that of
embankment over soft soils, however, contact pressures from the equipment play an
important role and are treated as surcharge. Due to the shape and dimensions of the
contact area, it is mostly a 3D stability problem. In practice, however, it is commonly
treated as a 2D stability problem for analysis for simplification. Single or multiple layers
of geosynthetics are usually based on this design method.
Broms (1987) offered guidelines for placing fill over very soft clay using woven
geotextile and preloading as follows: (i) constructing berms or fingers of fills across the
area to be stabilized; (ii) widening the berms until the whole area is covered; and (iii)
increase the height of the fill after the first layer of fill is constructed following the same
placement procedures as previously indicated. Vertical drains can be used to accelerate
the consolidation of the soft foundation.
Geosynthetics are also used at the interface between subgrade (soft soil) and
subbase (granular fill) to support construction traffics. This is commonly referred as
geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads or haul roads. Steward et al. (1977) proposed
design guidelines for geotextile-reinforced unpaved roads. Giroud and Noiray (1981) and
Giroud et al. (1985) also proposed design methods for geotextile or geogrid-reinforced
unpaved roads. In their methods, the required base course thickness for reinforced
unpaved roads was determined in two steps: a first step consisted of calculating the
required base course thickness for an unreinforced unpaved road on the same soil, and the
second step consisted of calculating the difference between the required base course
thickness for the unreinforced and the reinforced unpaved roads.
Since geosynthetic sheets have limited width, they need to be seamed (for
geotextile) or overlapped (for biaxial geogrid) or bodkin-connected (for uniaxial geogrid)
to cover a large area. Flower (1989) detailed a procedure to determine the required seam
strength of geotextile, which is estimated by the residual undrained shear strength
multiplied by the effective length along the advancing mud wave. Empirical guidelines
are commonly adopted to determine the width of biaxial geogrid overlapping based on
the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of subgrade as follows: 1.0m overlapping for CBR
<1.0, 0.3m to 1.0m overlapping for 1.0 < CBR < 3.0, and 0.3m overlapping for CBR >
3.0. For uniaxial geogrid, the junction strength between two geogrid sheets using bodkin
bar can be evaluated using the ASTM Geogrid Junction Strength Test. Leshchinsky
(1993) suggested the actual required tensile strength of geosynthetic should be greater
than the higher value of tension obtained due to the drag force during the construction
and from a stability analysis accounting for the thickness of the working platform, the
height of soil piles dumped by trucks, and the equipment live and dead loads.
11

Recent advances. Tingle and Webster (2003) used field test results to back-calculate the
value of the bearing capacity factor, Nc, using the Steward et al. (1977) method. Thus,
they obtained the following values: Nc = 2.6 for the unreinforced section, Nc = 3.6 for the
geotextile reinforced section, and Nc = 5.8 for the geogrid-reinforced section. Based on
experimental study on geogrid-reinforced base over soft soil conducted by Gabr (2001)
and field tests on unreinforced soil documented by Hammitt (1970), Giroud and Han
(2004a and 2004b) proposed a new design method for geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved
roads. This new design method considers the effects of base quality, torsional rigidity of
geosynthetics, and type of geosynthetics in addition to subgrade properties, number of
passes, rut depth, wheel load, and contact pressure. In this method, the stress distribution
angle decreases with an increase of the number of traffic passes accounting for the
deterioration of subbase course (Figure 3).
Tires
Distribution Initial distribution

at failure Base Distribution
after N passes
Geosynthetic
Subgrade
Figure 3. Variation of Stress Distribution Angles with Number of Traffic Passes
Gaps and future directions. Current design methods for geosynthetic-reinforced

unpaved roads are based on a single reinforcement layer placed at the interface between
subbase and subgrade. In practice, however, multiple layers of geosynthetics are
sometimes used. Development of design methods for multiple layer geosynthetic
reinforced unpaved roads is needed. Two-dimensional limit equilibrium methods are
commonly used for designing geosynthetic-reinforced working platforms under heavy
construction equipment. However, actual field conditions are most likely a three-
dimensional problem. Three-dimensional effects on the stability of geosynthetic
reinforced working platform under heavy construction equipment should be investigated.
Geosynthetics over Subsurface Voids
Geosynthetics are used as reinforcements above sinkholes to bridge over the possible
depression resulting from the existence of sinkholes.
12

Current practice.
Few attempts have been made to develop an analysis methodology for reinforcement
bridging over sinkhole activities. Original work by Terzaghi (1943) and Kezdi (1975),
although was not related to geosynthetics reinforcement bridging, established equations
for arching stresses due to soil over infinitely long and circular voids, respectively. These
equations were utilized by Giroud (1981) along with the tensioned membrane theory to
evaluate the load-carrying capacity of geosynthetics bridging a void. Bonaparte and
Christopher (1987) presented a procedure for supporting roadways embankments over
“weak foundation” using geosynthetics. Giroud et al (1990) extended their earlier work
and that of Bonaparte and Berg (1987) and provided an analysis scheme for soil-
geosynthetic system bridging tension cracks, sinkholes, dissolution cavities, and
depression.
Giroud et al (1990) model included a two-step analysis approach. First, the soil
layer was analyzed using the concept of arching. In this step the pressure on the portion
of the geosynthetic located above the void was determined. The pressure was calculated
for infinitely long voids using Terzaghi's (1943) equation as follows:
H H
-..5 .5
p = 2 b (1 - e b
) + qe b
(1)
Equation 1 is only valid for soils with a friction angle of at least 20º. For a given H/b
ratio, the computed p is the same regardless of H and b values. For example, no
distinction was made for the case of H=20 and b=10 feet versus the case of H=60 feet and
b=30 feet. In the case of a circular void, the pressure at the cavity can be determined by
replacing b with r in equation 1, where r is the radius of the void.
In the second step, the tensioned membrane theory was used to estimate the
tension force as follows:
= pb (2)
where = geosynthetic tension, p = pressure on the geosynthetic, b = width of the

infinitely long void, = dimensionless factor. The dimensionless factor, , was
expressed as follows:
1 y b
= 2 + (3)
4 b 2y
where y = geosynthetic deflection, and b = width of the infinitely long void
The method presented by Giroud et al (1990) is a useful tool for engineers designing soil-
geosynthetic systems resting on subgrades where voids may develop. However,
Equations 2 and 3 were established assuming no strain in the geosynthetic outside the
13

void area. In addition, the geosynthetic must be located directly on the cavity; a
configuration that implies prior knowledge of and construction access to the location of
the cavity.
A finite element analysis was conducted by Drumm et al (1987) to investigate the
effect of bedrock cavities on deformational and stability characteristics of a residual soil
profile. It was assumed in this investigation that the soil spanned a circular cavity in the
bedrock and gravitational forces caused the soil to displace into the cavity. Plain strain
and axisymmetric conditions were assumed in the analysis. Results of the study indicated
that, for large cavities, smaller zones of distressed soil occurred under thick soil cover
than under thin soil cover. In addition, although thick soil deposits resulted in high stress
adjacent to the cavity, the yielded soil area did not extend to the surface.
Drumm et al (1990) extended the 1987 work to analyze a karst site that was under
consideration for the disposal of sanitary and industrial wastes. The results of the finite
element stability analysis indicated that in the region surrounding the void, the principal
stresses rotated due to the arching effects. Drumm presented the results of the finite
element analysis in the form of profile functions similar to those used in mining
engineering. Using hyperbolic elastic relationship to model the soil behavior, the surface
deformation due to the formation of subsurface cavity was given as:
X
( )
-5.46 + 2.04 rv
S(x) = e e 0.56 H
(4)
where = 2.50 and $ = 3.30 and are site specific empirical parameters, x = horizontal
distance from the center of the cavity, and rv= radius of soil void.
Using Finite element analysis, Gabr et al (1994) studied the induced surface displacement
due to a void placed 40 ft (12.2 m) below a landfill load of 480 kN/m2. The use of
geogrid lead to a reduction in the surface total and differential movement mainly due to
the arching effect that lead to redistribution of the stress to the sides of the voids. Agaiby
and Jones (1995) presented the results of a parameters study of the problem using the
computer program FLAC in order to account for large strains associated with such
configurations. The authors identified the contribution of the reinforcement as the fill
height increased and explained arching phenomenon as a function of fill height and
mobilized reinforcement level.
Recent advances. It seems that the most recent studies conducted in this area
(geosynthetics over subsurface voids) were presented in Europe (particularly France and
Germany) in association with the high-speed rail systems. A composite geosynthetics-
soil amended system is generally used to reduce differential settlement and allow time for
repairs in case voids opened up in sinkhole-prone areas. Villiard et al (2000) performed a
comprehensive experimental and numerical study on the use of geosynthetics
reinforcement over voids. The work was focused on evaluating the arching contribution,
with the presence of geosynthetics, to shifting loads and reducing the “sag” over the void.
The ratio of depth to the void (H) to the width of the void (L) was identified as a major
indicator of collapse versus yielding with formation of a stable arch. A design procedure
was proposed by Villiard et al (2000). Alexview et al (2002) presented a study of using
14

geosynthetics reinforcement with cement-stabilized soil block as a part of foundation for

high-speed rail system. The geosynthetics reinforcement was to serve the function of
bridging over potential sinkholes and allow time, albeit at reduced serviceability, to repair
and stabilize the subsurface profile. The design assumptions were verified through
experimental study and finite elements analyses.
Gaps and future directions. The use of geosynthetics over subsurface voids has been
gaining acceptance especially if used in conjunction with other measures such as
chemically stabilized soils and volume grouting. Perhaps one interesting aspect of
utilizing geosynthetics is the possibility of instrumenting it with strain gages and
monitoring the strains with time throughout the service life of the structure. As a
subsurface cavity begins to develop and yielding occurs, a level of warning may be
recited through the strain signal for the implementation of expedient remedial measures.
It seems that no universal design/analysis method currently exists for use of
geosynthetics over subsurface voids. Indeed the complexity of the problem may
necessitate the use of numerical analysis for case-specific study and design. Perhaps
future directions should be focused on the optimization of the arching phenomenon with
composite geosynthetics-stabilized soils systems. Such combination, to an extent,
provides for implementation of gradual yielding to allow sufficient time for deploying
remedial measures. Advances may also be in the area of instrumentations where rational
systems are developed to not only mitigate the occurrence of catastrophic incidents but
also lead to a minimal loss of serviceability.
Conclusions
Current methods for designing reinforced embankments over soft foundations are mostly
based on limit equilibrium approaches, which have been successfully used in practice to
ensure the stability of embankments. Deformations of reinforced embankments over soft
foundations are not well investigated. Combining technologies are promising but require
future research. Most design methods were developed based on a single layer of
reinforcement. Multiple layer reinforcement effects should be explored. Two-
dimensional analyses are commonly used in the current design but three-dimensional
effects should be investigated.
References
Adams, Mike T. and Collin, James G. (1997). “Large Model Spread Footing Load Tests
on Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Foundations,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE 123(1), pp. 66-72
Akinmusuru, J. O. and Akinbolade, J. A. (1981). ”Stability of Loaded Footings on
Reinforced Soil,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 107(6), pp. 819-827.
Agaiby, Sherif W., Jones, and Colin J.F.P. (1995). “Source design of reinforced fill
systems over voids.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32(6), 939-945.
Barden, L. (1963) “Stress and displacements in a cross-anisotropic soil.” Geotechnique,
12(3), 198-210.
15

Bardet, J. P. (1986). “Bonding surface plasticity model for sands,” Journal of

Engineering Mechanics, ASME, 112(11), 1198-1217.
Bassett, R. H. and Last, N. C. (1978). “Reinforcing earth below footings and
embankments,” Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE Annual Convention,
April, Pittsburgh, PA, 202-223.
Been, K., and Jefferies, M. G. (1985). “A state parameters for sand,” Geotechnique,
35(1), 99-112.
Binquet, J. and Lee, K. (1975a). “Bearing capacity tests on reinforced earth slabs.” ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, 101(12), 1241-1255.
Binquet, J. and Lee, K. (1975b). “Bearing capacity analysis on reinforced earth slabs.”
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, 101(12), 1257-1276.
Bonaparte, R., and Berg, R.R., (1987). "The Use of Geosynthetics to Support Roadways
Over Sinkhole Prone Areas", Proceedings of the Second Multidisciplinary Conference
on Sinkholes and the Environmental Impacts of Karst, Orlando, FL, 437-45
Bonaparte, R. and Christopher, B.R. (1987). “Design and construction of reinforced
embankments over weak foundations.” Transportation Research Record, 1153, 25-39.
Briaud, J-L, and Jeanjean, P. (1994). “Load-settlement curve method for spread footings
on sand.” ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Vertical and Horizontal
Deformation of Foundations and Embankment, 2, 1774-1804.
British Standard BS 8006 (1995). Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils
and Other Fills, British Standard Institution, London, 162p.
Broms, B.B. (1987). “Stabilization of very soft clay using geofabric.” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 5, 17-28.
Card, G.B. and Carter, G.R. (1995). “Case history of a piled embankment in London’s
Docklands.” Engineering Geology of Construction, Geological Society Engineering
Geology Special Publication, 10, 79-84.
Carlsson, B. (1987). Reinforced soil, principles for calculation. Terratema AB,
Linköping. (In Swedish)
Chadbourne W. (1994). An Investigation into the Performance of Shallow Spread
Footing in Reinforced Cohesionless Soil. M. S. Thesis, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Tuft University, Boston, 189p.
Collin, J.G. (2003). NHI Ground Improvement manual – Technical Summary #10:
Column Supported Embankments.
Das, B. (1994a). “Bearing capacity of shallow spread footings on geogrid-reinforced
soil.” Report Prepared for Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc., Atlanta, April, 95p.
Das, B. M., Shin, E. C., and Omar, M. T. (1994b). “The bearing capacity of surface strip
foundations on geogrid reinforced sand and clay- a comparative study.” Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, 12 (1), 1-14.
Deschamps, R. J. (1995). “Load-settlement curve method for spread footings on sand.”
Discussion on paper by Briaud and Jeanjean (1994), Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 121(9), 684-685.
Drumm, E.C., Ketell, R.H., Manrod, W.E., and Ben-Hassine, J. (1987). "Analysis of
Plastic Soil in Contact with Cavitose Bedrock", Proceedings of the ASCE conference
on Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
16

Drumm, E.C., Kane, W.F., Ketell, R.H., Ben-Hassine, J., and Scarborough, J.A. (1990).
"Subsidence of Residual Soils in a Karst Terrain", Report No. ORNL/TM-11525, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee.
Fellenius, B. H. and Altaee, A. (1994). “Stress and settlement of footings in sand.” ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Vertical and Horizontal Deformation of
Foundations and Embankment, 2, 1760-1773.
Fluet, J.E., Christopher, B.R., and Slaters, A.R. (1986). “Geosynthetic stress-strain
response under embankment loading conditions.” Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles,
Vienna, Vol. 1, 175-180.
Forsman, J., Honkala, A., and Smura, M. (1999). “Hertsby case: A column stabilised and
geotextile reinforced road embankment on soft subsoil.” Dry Mix Method for Deep
Soil Stabilization, Bredenberg, Holm, and Broms (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, 263 –
268.
Fowler, J. (1989). Geotextile Reinforced Embankments on Soft Foundation. Report GL-
89-30, Geotechnical Lab, WES, Vicksburg, MS.
Fragaszy, R.J. and Lawton, E. (1984). “Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110(10), 1500-1507.
Gabr, M. A. and T. J. Hunter (1994). “Stress-Strain Analysis of Geogrid-Supported
Liners Over Subsurface Cavities,” Journal of Geological and Geotechnical
Engineering, Volume 12, No. 2, June , pp.65-86.
Gabr, M. A. and Dodson, R. (1998). “A study of stress distribution in geogrid reinforced
sand.” American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication GSP
No. 76 , 62-76, Boston, October.
Gabr, M. A., Hart, J.T., and Dodson, R. (1996). "Stress distribution characteristics of
geogrid-reinforced sand using plate load." Technical Report No. 97-002, Department
of Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, November, 23p.
Gabr, M. A. and J. H. Hart (2000). “Load-Deformation Characteristics of Geogrid-
Reinforced Sand Using Plate Load Tests,” American Society for Testing and
Materials, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, June, pp. 245-250.
Gabr, M. (2001). Cyclic Plate Loading Tests on Geogrid Reinforced Roads. Research
Report to Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc., NC State University, 43 p.
Giroud, J.P., Ah-Line, C., and Bonaparte, R. (1985). “Design of unpaved roads and
trafficked areas with geogrids.” Polymer Grid Reinforcement, Thomas Telford
Limited, London, 116-127.
Giroud, J.P., Bonaparte, R., Beech, J.F., and Gross, B.A., (1990). "Design of soil layer-
geosynthetic systems overlying voids." Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9(1), 11-20.
Giroud, J.P. and Han, J. (2004). “Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads –
Part I: theoretical development.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Giroud, J.P. and Han, J. (2004). “Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads –
Part II: calibration and verification.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Giroud, J.P. and Noiray, L. (1981). “Geotextiles-reinforced unpaved road design.” ASCE,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 107(9), 1233-1253.
Guido V. A., Biesaidechi G. L., and Sullivan M. J. (1985). “Bearing capacity of a
geotextile reinforced foundation,” Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 3, 1777-1780.
17

Guido V. A., Knueppel J. D., and Sweeny M. A. (1987). “Plate loading tests on geogrid
reinforced earth slabs,” Proceedings, Geosynthetics’87, New Orleans, 216-225.
Hammitt, G. M. (1970). Thickness Requirement for Unsurfaced Roads and Airfields,
Bare Base Support, Project 3782-65. Technical report S-70-5, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
Han, J. (1999). “Design and construction of embankments on geosynthetic reinforced
platforms supported by piles.” Proceedings of 1999 ASCE/PaDOT Geotechnical
Seminar, Central Pennsylvania Section, ASCE and Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, Hershey, PA, 66-84.
Han, J. (2003). Development of Design Charts for Geosynthetically Reinforced
Embankments on Deep Mixed Columns. Interim Report I – Literature Review, submit
to National Deep Mixing Cooperative Research Program, 123p.
Han, J., Collin, J.G., and Huang, J. (2004). “Recent development of geosynthetic-
reinforced column-supported embankments.” The 55th Highway Geology
Symposium, Kansas City, Missouri, September 7-10, 299-321.
Han, J. and Gabr, M.A. (2002). “A numerical study of load transfer mechanisms in
geosynthetic reinforced and pile supported embankments over soft soil.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 128(1), 44-53.
Han, J., Hunag, J., and Porbaha, A. (2005). “2D numerical modeling of a constructed
geosynthetic-reinforced embankment over deep mixed columns.” Submitted for Geo-
Frontiers Conference.
Harrison, W. J., and Gerrard, C. M. (1972) “Elastic theory applied to reinforced earth.”
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 98(SM12), 1325-1345.
Hewlett, W.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1988). “Analysis of piled embankments.” Ground
Engineering, 21(3), 12-18.
Horvath, J. S. (1994). Discussion on the Paper Entitled“The effect of prestressing on the
settlement characteristics of geosynthetics-reinforced soil,” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 13, 761.
Huang, C.C. and Menq F. Y. (1997) “Deep-footing and wide slab effect in reinforced
sandy ground.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(1),
30-36.
Huang, J., Han, J., and Collin, J. (2005). “Three-dimensional analysis of a geosynthetic-
reinforced pile-supported embankment.” Submitted for possible publication in the 84th
annual Transportation Research Board meeting, Washington, DC.
Ismail I., and Raymond G. P. (1995). “Investigation reveals the interface is not the best
place for geosynthetic reinforcement,” Part I, Geosynthetic Fabrics Report, May, 15-
19.
Jewell, R.A. (1988). “The mechanics of reinforced embankments on soft soils.”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 7, 237-273.
Kempfert, H.G., Gobel, C., Alexiew, D., and Heitz, C. (2004). “German
recommendations for reinforced embankments on pile-similar elements.” Proceedings
of EuroGeo3, Geosynthetic Conference, March 1-3, Munich, Germany.
Kempfert, H.G., Jaup, A., and Raithel, M. (1997). “Interactive behaviour of a flexible
reinforced sand column foundation in soft soils.” Proc. XIVth Int. Conf. on SMFE, 3,
1757-1760.
18

Kezdi, A., (1975). "Lateral earth pressure", Foundation Engineering Handbook, ed. H.F.
Winterkorn & H.Y. Fang., New York, 197-220.
Leshchinsky, D. (1993). “Keynote lecture: Issues in geosynthetic-reinforced soil.” Earth
Reinforcement Practice, Ochiai, Hayashi, and Otani (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, 871-
897.
Li, A.L. and Rowe, R.K. (2001). “Combined effects of reinforcement and prefabricated
vertical drains on embankment performance.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38,
1266-1282.
Li, A.L. and Rowe, R.K. (2002). “Some design considerations for embankments on rate
sensitive soils.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
128(11), 885-897.
Li, Y., Aubeny, C., and Briaud, J.L. (2002). Geosynthetic Reinforced Pile Supported
(GRPS) Embankments (Draft). Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA,
222p.
Marston, A. and Anderson, A.O. (1913). “The theory of loads on pipes in ditches and
tests of cement and clay drain tile and sewer pipe.” Bulletin No. 31, Iowa Engineering
Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa.
Michalowski, Radoslaw L. (2004). “Limit loads on reinforced foundation soils,” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(4), 381-390.
Miki, H. (1997). “Design of deep mixing method of stabilization with low improvement
ratio.” The First Seminar on Ground Improvement in Highways, Bangkok, Thailand,
August, 197-204.
Miyazaki K. and Hirokawa F. (1992) “Fundamental Study of Reinforcement of Sand
Layer in Model Test,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth
Reinforcement Practice, Fukuoka, Japan, 1, 647-652.
Pham, H.T.V., Suleiman, M.T., and White, D.J. (2004). “Numerical analysis of
geosynthetic-rammed aggregate pier supported embankment.” Proceedings of Geo-
Trans 2004 Conference, Los Angles, CA, July.
Rowe, R.K. and Li, A.L. (1999). “Reinforced embankments over soft foundations under
undrained and partially drained conditions.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 17, 129-
146.
Russell, D. and Pierpoint N. (1997). “An assessment of design methods for piled
embankments.” Ground Engineering, November, 39-44.
Schmertmann, J.H. (1991). “A new, empirically based, arching theory and method for the
design loading of a geogrid supporting overburden and spanning a void.”
Schmertmann & Crapps, Inc., October.
Sharma, J.S. and Bolton, M.D. (2001). “Centrifugal and numerical modeling of
reinforced embankment on soft clay installed with wick drains.” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 19(1), 23-44.
Shukla. S. K. and Chandra S. (1994). “A Generalized Mechanical Model for
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Foundation Soil,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 13, 813-
825.
Steward, J., Williamson, R., and Mohney, J. (1977). Guidelines for Use of Fabrics in
Construction and Maintenance of Low-Volume Roads. Report FHWA-TS-78-205,
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington D.C., 9 chapters.
19

Stewart, M.E., Navin, M.P., and Filz, G.M. (2004). “Analysis of a column supported test
embankment at the I-95/Route 1 interchange.” Proceedings of Geo-Trans 2004
Conference, Los Angles, CA, July.
Svanø, G., Ilstad, T., Eiksund, G., and Want, A. (2000). “Alternative calculation principle
for design of piled embankments with base reinforcement.” Proc. 4th International
Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems, Helsinki, June.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 510p.
Tingle, J.S. and Webster, S.L. (2003). “Review of Corps of Engineers Design of
Geosynthetic Reinforced Unpaved Roads.” Presentation and CD-Rom Publication at
the TRB 82nd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 24 p.
Yetimoglu, T. , Wu, J. T. H., and Saglamer, A. (1994). “Bearing capacity of rectangular
footings on geogrid-reinforced sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
120(12), 2083-2099.
Varadarajan, A., Sharma, K.G., and Aly, M.A.A. (1999). “Finite element analysis of
reinforced embankment foundation.” International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 23, 103-114.
Villard, P., Gourc, J.P., and Giraud, H. (2000). “Geosynthetic reinforcement solution to
prevent the formation of localized sinkholes,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(5),
987-999.
20


Gabr 2005

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Gabr 2005

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GSP 141 International Perspectives on Soil Reinforcement Applications

Geosynthetic Reinforcement for Soft Foundations: US Perspectives

Mohammed Gabr1 and Jie Han2

Geosynthetics have been successfully used as reinforcements for embankments and

Geosynthetics have been successfully used as reinforcement for embankments and

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

performance, which implies the appropriateness of current design methods. Recent

Geosynthetic-Reinforced Shallow Foundation

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Figure 1. Illustration of Terms Used for Reinforced Soil Foundations

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

- definition of the anisotropic mechanistic characteristics of the reinforced mat as a

Geosynthetic-Reinforced Column Supported Embankments

The idea in this application is to use geosynthetics as reinforcements in combination with

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

section. Geotextile-encased sand columns have gained some applications in Europe to

Embankment Srs 0 Geosynthetics

Firm soil or bedrock

Figure 2. Geosynthetic-Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankments

Current practice. Geosynthetic-reinforced embankments over piles with caps or

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Gaps and future directions. Current design methods for geosynthetic-reinforced

- Performance of well-instrumented case studies for justifying the benefits of

Geosynthetic Reinforced Construction Platforms

Geosynthetics are used as reinforcements in granular fill to form a temporary

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Current practice. Design of geosynthetic-reinforced construction platforms is

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Distribution Initial distribution

Figure 3. Variation of Stress Distribution Angles with Number of Traffic Passes

Gaps and future directions. Current design methods for geosynthetic-reinforced

Geosynthetics over Subsurface Voids

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

where = geosynthetic tension, p = pressure on the geosynthetic, b = width of the

where y = geosynthetic deflection, and b = width of the infinitely long void

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

geosynthetics reinforcement with cement-stabilized soil block as a part of foundation for

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Bardet, J. P. (1986). “Bonding surface plasticity model for sands,” Journal of

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Copyright ASCE 2005 Soil Reinforcement Applications

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen