Finite-element analysis of a piled embankment with reinforcement compared with BS 8006 predictions

Abstract

The British 'Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills' (BS 8006) was substantially revised in 2010, with a further 'Corrigendum' in 2012. Historically, BS 8006 considered arching in a piled embankment, based on an interpretation of the 'Marston' equation. The 2010 revision included an alternative method related to the analysis of arching in a piled embankment, which was proposed by Hewlett and Randolph in 1988, and later itself amended in the 2012 Corrigendum. This contribution considers BS 8006 predictions of reinforcement tension using these methods as a basis for embankment load on the reinforcement, for a wide range of piled embankment geometries. The predictions are compared with results from three-dimensional finite-element analysis, demonstrating encouraging correspondence with the Hewlett and Randolph approach (but noting that the 2010 revision overpredicts the data whereas the 2012 revision underpredicts it). Good predictions of maximum reinforcement sag are also achieved by slight modification of the BS 8006 method.

Finite-element analysis of a piled embankment with reinforcement and subsoil

“…The general distribution of tension in the reinforcement was similar to Zhuang & Ellis (2014). Figure 4 shows the increase in maximum reinforcement tension (T rp ) with embankment height (H e ) in the same format as Zhuang & Ellis (2014).…”

Multilayered low-strength geogrid-reinforced piled embankment

“…As a result, modelling the geogrid inclusion as a continuous membrane has proven to simulate the overall response of the geogrid-reinforced piled embankment reasonably (Gu et al, 2016;Hussein and Meguid, 2016;Liu et al, 2007;Saad et al, 2006;Zhuang and Wang, 2015). The biaxial geogrid in this paper is represented using four-node, full integration, 3D membrane elements and is modelled as an orthotropic elastic material with the non-zero stiffness only in two orthogonal directions (Zhuang and Ellis, 2014).…”

“…A hard contact option provided by Abaqus is again used to simulate the normal interaction between the geogrid and the subsoil, while the tangent behaviour is simulated using the Coulomb friction model with the interface modelled as rough (i.e. interface friction angle equals the friction angle of the embankment fill) (Liu et al, 2007;Perkins, 2000;Zhuang and Ellis, 2014).…”

Numerical study on the effect of rigid inclusions on existing railroads

“…Most of the problems mentioned above arise from a soft subgrade. A variety of ground improvement techniques have been adopted to address soft subgrade‐related issues, among others: grouting [eg,], soil mixing [eg,], micropile [eg,], soil nail [eg,], stone column [eg,], and rigid inclusions . The last one (also known as column‐supported embankment) are gaining more attention every time in geotechnical engineering in general [eg,], and in the railroad industry in particular [eg,].…”

“…A variety of ground improvement techniques have been adopted to address soft subgrade-related issues, among others: grouting [eg, [22][23][24][25] ], soil mixing [eg, [26][27][28][29] ], micropile [eg, [30][31][32] ], soil nail [eg, [33][34][35][36] ], stone column [eg, [37][38][39][40], and rigid inclusions. [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] The last one (also known as column-supported embankment) are gaining more attention every time in geotechnical engineering in general [eg, [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61], and in the railroad industry in particular [eg, [62][63][64][65][66][67] ]. This increasing interest is because this soil improvement technique is based on traditional materials (eg, timber o...…”