Characterization of Frictional Interference in Closelyspaced Reinforcements in MSE Walls

Characterization of Frictional Interference in Closelyspaced Reinforcements in MSE Walls
--Armin W. Stuedlein, PhD, PE, Principal Investigator, James J. Walters, and Andrew W. Strahler
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
This material was also supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI 1100903.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM & RESULTS
The use of reinforced earth in the United States began in 1972; since then,
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls have grown in popularity, and can be
found along nearly every state and interstate highway corridor. Due to their
inherent flexibility, MSE walls are being constructed to greater heights, in nonlinear geometries, with multiple tiers and with very tight reinforcement spacing.
For example, the four-tier West MSE wall at Sea-Tac International Airport (STIA
see Fig. 1) was recently constructed to 46 m height, and is now the tallest wall in
the Western Hemisphere (Stuedlein et al. 2010a). Tall walls (i.e., greater than 15
m in height) will proliferate due to increasing urbanization, right-of-way issues,
and wetland mitigation; in other words, they offer a sustainable alternative to
conventional grade separation, due to reduced mining and hauling of earth
materials and reduced footprint. However, our understanding of the working
stress behavior, including reinforcement strains and displacements, of tall, single
and multi-tier walls is unsatisfactory. The research proposed herein aims to
address one of several knowledge gaps in the understanding of tall MSE wall
behavior: prediction of reinforcement loads impacted by frictional interference of
closely-spaced reinforcements associated with tall walls and/or walls in
seismically active regions.
In order to determine whether or not frictional interference contributes to

increased loads in MSE walls, the frictional behavior of closely-spaced
reinforcement strips must be compared to the frictional behavior of single
reinforcement strips. The reinforcement strips used in this study were galvanized
ribbed steel strips 50 mm (2 in.) wide by 6 mm (0.24 in.) thick, as shown in
Figure 2. In order to properly evaluate tensile stress-strain behavior of these
reinforcement strips, tension testing was performed on the actual steel strips used
in the 3rd Runway Project, resulting in E = 208 GPa and fy = 526 MPa.
40 mm
6 mm
2 mm
(a)
(e)
(d)
(f)
50 mm
(c)
125 mm
Fig. 4 Views of soil test boxes: (a) single strip pullout box and load frame, (b) view of instrumentation at the front of the
single strip pullout box, (c) external view of large multi-strip pullout box, (d) internal view of the multi-strip pullout
box, where up to nine strips can be tested simultaneously, (e) view of the partially filled large soil box, and (f) view at
front of the large soil box.
6 mm
(a)
(b)
100
The fill material used in this study was a well-graded sandy gravel, identical
to the fill material used in the 3RD Runway Project at SeaTac International
Airport. A comprehensive large-diameter triaxial test program was undertaken to
determine the stiffness and strength of the fill material for comparison to the
pullout test results. Figure 3a, 3b, and 3c shows typical stress-strain, principal
stress ratio-strain, and volumetric strain-strain curves for the densely compacted
fill material, respectively, whereas Figure 3d shows the variation of the friction
angle with effective confining pressure for a range in relative densities of the fill
material.
80
Pulloutload(kN)
Fig. 2 Steel ribbed reinforcement dimensions (a) elevation view, and (b) cross-section.
200-1-2
0
0
10-1-5
Volumetric strain, v (%)
-4
6
8
Axial strain, 1 (%)
10
12
14
1000-1-1
100-1-3
500-1-3
50-1-3
300-1-1
20-1-4
10
200-1-2
10-1-5
60
' = -6.8Log('3/Patm) + 47.9
(b)
(c)
R = 0.96
-3
55
' = -4.7Log('3/Patm) + 45.3
-2
R = 0.97
'd (deg.)
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & APPROACH
Axial strain, 1 (%)
0
0
The research performed investigated the effect of soil-reinforcement interface

behavior on the working stress behavior of tall, single and multi-tiered MSE
walls. In order to substantiate the hypothesis of frictional interference, highquality full-scale experimental data was required. The investigation required the
following interrelated research tasks:
1. Characterization of the soil-reinforcement interface behavior of single steel
strip reinforcements using instrumented pull-out tests;
2. Characterization of the effect of spacing on the shearing resistance of
reinforcements using instrumented multi-strip pull-out tests; and
3. Assess the impact of potential efficiency effects on existing design methods
for the observed STIA wall performance data.
The pull-out test program was conducted in the laboratories at Oregon State
University using specially designed soil test boxes.
50-1-3
20-1-4
Fig 1. Perspective aerial viewed from the northwest of the new third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport.
-1
0
50
' = -2.1Log('3/Patm) + 40.0

R = 0.635
45
'3/Patm = 0.096
40
2
0
Axial strain, 1 (%)

10-1-5
200-1-2
20-1-4
300-1-1
50-1-3
500-1-3
10
(d)
35
100-1-3
1000-1-1
0.1
1
Normalized effective confining pressure, '3 /Patm
Fig. 3 Constitutive behavior of the sandy gravel fill material from large-diameter triaxial strength tests: (a) principal
stress difference versus axial strain, (b) principal stress ratio versus axial strain, (c) volumetric strain versus axial
strain, and (d) peak drained friction angle versus normalized confining stress.
Pullout tests on single and multiple strips were conducted in specially

designed test boxes that could be pressurized to simulate walls up to 20 m (66
feet) in height. Six foot long single strips were placed within compacted fill in
the single-strip pullout test box (Figure 4a and 4b) which measures 2.4 m long,
and is 450 mm in height and width. Pullout tests were conducted by varying the
soil pressure, which can be applied up to 250 kPa, and withdrawing the strip at a
constant rate of 1 mm/min. Figure 5a presents the pullout load-displacement
curves for reinforcement strips as a function of overburden pressure. The rate of
increase in pullout resistance decreases with overburden pressure due to the
suppression of dilation with increased overburden pressure (Figure 5b).
G-1 (Mckittrick 1978)

G-2 (Mckittrick 1978)
SG-1 (Mckittrick 1978)
(Boyd 1993)
4
Current design model
2
0
20
40
60
80
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Effective vertical stress, 'v (kPa)
Fig. 5 Results of single-strip pullout tests: (a) load-displacement response for various overburden pressures, and
(b) apparent friction coefficient as a function of overburden pressures deduced from this and other studies.
100-1-3
1
20kPa1
Pmax
v As
Present study
10
Multi-strip pullout tests were performed in a large, 4 m3 soil box (Fig. 4c

4f) to evaluate the effect of spacing on frictional interference, and therefore load
amplification, in reinforcement strips. A comparison of nine reinforcement strips
spaced at 152 mm (6 in.) and tested at 100 kPa overburden pressure is shown in
Fig. 6; here, it is observed that strips that are confined (strips 4 6) exhibit
greater loads than those that are just partially confined. Additionally, the center
strip (#5) is shown to exhibit 25% greater load than the single strip at the same
overburden pressure (Fig. 5a).
Load multipliers (Fig. 7) can
be used to indicate the increase
in load resulting from spacing
effects, and are defined as the
ratio of the load in a middle
(a)
(b)
(c)
strip divided by the mean
external strip loads in a row or
Fig. 6 Load-displacement responses for multi-strip pullout tests for
column. The effect of horisquare 152 mm (6 in.) spacing and at 100 kPa overburden pressure:
(a) top row, (b) middle row, and (c) bottom row of strips. Note the
zontal spacing on load
larger pullout resistance for the middle row.
amplification is relatively
1.8
1.6
constant for the spacings
1.4
investigated, however, the load
1.2
amplification is sensitive to the
1.0
vertical spacing.
Spacing
0.8
greater than 300 mm (12 in.)
0.6
VerticalDirection100kPa
appear to produce no load
0.4
HorizontalDirection100kPa
0.2
amplification. These findings
0.0
will serve to inform
100
150
200
250
300
350
VerticalandHorizontalSpacing(mm)
future MSE wall designs.
1
LoadMultiplierforCenterStrips
'1 / '3
q = '1 - '3 (MPa)
300-1-1
50kPa2
f*
Displacement(mm)
(b)
500-1-3
75kPa1
40
1000-1-1
100kPa2
150kPa1
60
Pmax = peak pullout load

v = overburden pressure
As = circumferential area
10
200kPa1
20
10
(a)
12
App. friction coeff., f *
20 mm
The goal of this research is to characterize frictional interference in

closely-spaced steel strip reinforcements used in MSE wall construction.
(b)
Fig. 7. Variation in load amplification with reinforcement strip

spacing at 100 kPa overburden pressure.

Characterization of Frictional Interference in Closelyspaced Reinforcements in MSE Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characterization of Frictional Interference in Closelyspaced Reinforcements in MSE Walls

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characterization of Frictional Interference in Closelyspaced Reinforcements in MSE Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characterization of Frictional Interference in Closelyspaced Reinforcements in MSE Walls

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM & RESULTS

In order to determine whether or not frictional interference contributes to

Volumetric strain, v (%)

' = -6.8Log('3/Patm) + 47.9

' = -4.7Log('3/Patm) + 45.3

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & APPROACH

Axial strain, 1 (%)

The research performed investigated the effect of soil-reinforcement interface

' = -2.1Log('3/Patm) + 40.0

Axial strain, 1 (%)

Pullout tests on single and multiple strips were conducted in specially

G-1 (Mckittrick 1978)

Effective vertical stress, 'v (kPa)

Multi-strip pullout tests were performed in a large, 4 m3 soil box (Fig. 4c

q = '1 - '3 (MPa)

Pmax = peak pullout load

App. friction coeff., f *

The goal of this research is to characterize frictional interference in

Fig. 7. Variation in load amplification with reinforcement strip

You might also like