LESSONS FROM THE FAILURE OF FULL-SCALE MODELS AND RECENT GEOSYNTHETICREINFORCED SOIL RETAINING WALLS

F. Tatsuoka; Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo M. Tateyama; Railway Technical Research Institute Y. Tamura ; Integrated Geotechnology Institute Ltd & H. Yamauchi; Penta-Ocean Construction Co.

ABSTRACT
1) Geosynthetic-reinforced soil RWs having a full-height rigid facing have been constructed; - for a total wall length of more than 35 km in Japan; and - as permanent important railway and highway soil retaining structures.

Geogrid

2) Staged construction;
- the wall is first constructed with a help of gabions filled with crushed gravel; and

ORAINAGE

SANDBAG GEOTEXTILE

1) BASE CONCRETE

2) LAYING GEOTEXTILE AND SANDBAG

3) BACKFILL AND COMPACTION 4) SECOND LAYER

5) LAYING COMPLETED

6) CONCRETE FACING ERECTED

 Sand backfill

2) Staged construction;
- the wall is first constructed with a help of gabions filled with crushed gravel; and - then full-height rigid facing is cast-in-place on the wrappedaround wall.
ORAINAGE SANDBAG GEOTEXTILE

1) BASE CONCRETE

2) LAYING GEOTEXTILE AND SANDBAG

3) BACKFILL AND COMPACTION 4) SECOND LAYER

5) LAYING COMPLETED

6) CONCRETE FACING ERECTED

GRS-RWs having a full-height rigid facing constructed by the staged construction procedure
- now supporting railway and highway embankments for a length more than 35 km;

- have become one of the standard wall construction procedures for railways, replacing the conventional procedures; and -no problematic case reported since its introduction.

Locations of major GRS-RWs with a full-height rigid facing constructed by the staged construction procedure (as of April 2000).

BACKGROUND
History of elevated railway and highway structures in Japan;

Gentle slope

could be unstable; could be too deformable; and occupies too large space.

Some cases

More cost-efficiency Sufficiently stable and stiff

(no piles)

GRS-RWs with a full-height rigid facing

1) A very small interaction between a rigid facing and deformable backfill during filling-up and during compacting the backfill;
- Also, large deformation of the supporting ground can be accommodated, without losing the stability of wall.

No pile foundations required for GRS-RWs.

ORAINAGE

2) Full-height rigid facing makes GRSRWs; -stable & rigid (in particular, against load applied on the top of facing or the crest of wall); -durable; and -aesthetically acceptable. equivalent to RC cantilever retaining structures. (to continue)

SANDBAG GEOT EXT ILE

1) BASE CONCRET E

2) LAYING GEOT EXT ILE AND SANDBAG

3) BACKFILL AND COMPACT ION 4) SECOND LAYER

5) LAYING COMPLET ED

6) CONCRET E FACING ERECT ED

Different types of retaining walls

RC RC (gravity) (cantilever)(T-shaped) (reinforced soil)

Conventional type retaining walls: cantilever structures

Reinforced-soil RWs with a full height rigid facing: continuous beams with a number of supports

Load at the base of RW

Conventional type RWs

Wall height: H

Shear load S proportional to H2 Moment : proportional to H3 Conventional type RWs become less cost-effective as H becomes larger, exceeding about 5 m. This is the particular the case in RWs on slopes in mountain areas.

Load at the base of RW

Load equilibrium along the potential failure plane that develops in the unreinforced backfill.
Active earth pressure is resisted by the tensile force developed in the reinforcement at each height of backfill. The role of reinforcement is the same with the conventional wall structure in resisting the earth pressure. but, no large shear load and moment activated at the base of wall structure, because the reinforced soil RW is not a cantilever structure . Then, facing is not necessary ?

Reinforced-soil RWs
The active zone may fail without adequate facing.
Load equilibrium at the facing: The earth pressure acting the back face of the facing confines the backfill, making the backfill stable. The earth pressure is resisted by the connection force of the reinforcement As a continuous beam with many supports, a) Very small shear force and moment working inside the facing structure, making the facing structure much simpler than the wall structure of conventional type RWs. b) Very small shear load and moment at the bas of the facing structure: The shear load and moment does not increase proportionally to the wall height (H). a pile file foundation becomes unnecessary.

Role of facing structure in stabilising the active zone and in developing high tensile force in the reinforcement

Tensile force in case with facing Development of tensile force in the reinforcement connected to facing. Tensile force in case without facing

Goegrid-reinforced soil RW along JR Kobe Line (1992)

Goegrid-reinforced soil RW along JR Kobe Line (1995)

Damaged conventional type RWs (1995): Gravity type and cantilever RC without a pile foundation

Bridge abutment (Seibu Line in Tokyo)

Bridge abutment and pier (Sasaguri Line in Kyushu)

Tie rod

6.4m

3.2m

5m

2500
Applied load (Tie rod tension), P (kN)

2000 1500 1000

1 1a

11 8 5 4 76

11a 12 14

17 15

3 2 16a 10 16 18

500 0
13
(There is no data on broken lines)

Vertical compression, C (mm)

Compression Compression Tie rod of abutment of pier tension (mm) (mm) (kN)

The first train in service. The traffic load is about 400kN (40tf).
0 -5

-10 0.00 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 2 4 6 8 10

Tie rod tension of Pier

Pier with PLPS Abutment without PLPS

12 14

Elapsed time (sec)

Tie rod tension (kN)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500

(5,Sep.1996) Girders placement 16,May 2000 51kN/year Opened to service (3,Aug.1997)

0 -2 Preloading PLPS Pier -4 0.25mm/year -6 -8 -10 Abutment -12 (without PLPS) -14 0 10 20 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Vertical compression (mm)

Elapsed time (day)

Increasing the seismic stability by preloading and prestressing: with and without a ratchet system

Without a ratchet system

With a ratchet system

Shaking table test (700gal, 5Hz, 25sec)

(continued)

3) Full-height rigid facing makes 5. cantilever RC retaining wall GRS-RWs; (a) stable and rigid enough even with relatively short reinforcement; advantageous when reconstructing an existing gentle slope to a vertical wall.
(b)

6.backfilling 3.excavation

1. sheet piles 4. pile foundation

2. anchor

4.wall construction

3.excavation

2. anchor 1. sheet piles

2. (c) 3. existing embankment 1.excavation

A typical latest project at Shinjuku, Tokyo

- reconstruction of an old bridge and associated relocation of two railway tracks for the busiest and most important rapid transits in Japan, Chuo and Yamanote Lines.

GRS-RWs

Abutment

Chuo-Lines

GRS-RWs Box JR Substation Yamate-Lines

Old-Brige Shinjuku 11k300m(A-A) 111,800(GRS-RWs)

Abutment

11k390m(B-B) 75,000

Shin-Okubo 11k460m(C-C) 7,400 84,100(GRS-RWs) 28,500

Life in Japan (Shinjuku)

- One of the most critical and challenging case histories, started 1995 and completed in the beginning of 2000.
Section A-A (11k300m) 11k300m 11k300m
2750 5420 3910

Section B-B (11k390m) 11k300m Yamate-Lines 11k300m Old Brige

Section C-C (11k460m) 11k300m 11k300m

800 2000 3910

3940

5850

Chuo-Lines

Radish Anchor
4770 5050

Why was GRS-RW having a full-height rigid facing selected ?

1) high cost-effectiveness; 2) sufficiently stable and stiff walls to support extremely important railways; 3) relatively soft subsoil; a deep pile foundation is necessary for conventional cantilever RC RWs, but not for GRS-RWs; 4) a very severe space restraint at the site; large construction plants cannot be used. GRS-RW needs only small construction plants.

N0.3(11k442m) T.P+33.50m dep=28.23m

0 10 20 30 40 50

N-value

Volcanic ash clay (fill)

V.A.C (intact) V.A.C (intact) Or Clay Silt Gravel

Yodobashi site, Shinjuku, Tokyo

(continued)

3) Full-height rigid facing makes 5. cantilever RC retaining wall GRS-RWs; (a) stable and rigid enough even with relatively short reinforcement; advantageous when reconstructing an existing gentle slope to a vertical wall.

6.backfilling 3.excavation

1. sheet piles 4. pile foundation

2. anchor

4.wall construction

The use of inferior on-site soil, such as sand including a large amount of fines and even a nearly saturated clay, becomes possible with a help of, for example, a composite geosynthetic having a drainage function of non-woven geotextile component and a high tensile stiffness of woven geotextile component.

(b) 2. anchor 1. sheet piles

3.excavation

2. (c) 3. existing embankment 1.excavation

Composite geosynthetic for use in clayey soils

Woven geotextile (tensile reinforcement)

Non-woven geotextile drainage

Nearly saturated highly weathered tuff Nagano wall

-constructed in 1994 to reconfirm the function of full-height rigid facing;

in conjunction of the construction of proto-type GRS-RWs for 1993 - 1994.

Backfill of nearly saturated clay

RESEARCH TO DEVELOP THE GRS-RW SYSTEM

- started early 1980's by; small-scale static loading and shaking table tests in the laboratory; numerical analysis by LEM & FEM; and full-scale failure tests in the field, since 1982.

FIELD TEST PROGRAM - Three soil types for the backfill;

1) On-site nearly saturated volcanic ash clay (Kanto loam);
Chiba No. 1; Kami-Onda; JR No. 2. Chiba No. 2; Chiba No. 3; and

2) On-site nearly saturated highly weathered tuff ;- Nagano; 3) Sand- JR No. 1.

- Failure tests of wall by;

1) natural rain for a long duration; 2) supplying a large amount of water from the wall crest; and 3) vertical loading at the wall crest.

Chiba No. 1 embankment with clay backfill

- to examine whether vertical stable reinforced clay walls can be constructed;
constructed in 1982 at Chiba Experiment Station, the University of Tokyo;
a non-woven geotextile (spunbonded 100 % polypropylene); - with a drainage function only, without a high tensile rigidity. nearly vertical flat wrappedaround wall face.

-Large deformation already during construction and also for a long period after construction, particularly by heavy rainfalls.

-the real serious problem is with wrapped-around flat walls.

Failure mechanism of Chiba No. 1 embankment:

a) Rain water percolated through the backfill and accumulated in the bottom soil layer, a reduction in the soil suction and further an increase in the positive pore water pressure, making the soil very weak;

b) The wrapping geotextile could not effectively restrain the deformation of flat wall face.
c) Compressive failure behind the wall face proceeded towards deeper places.

The reinforced soil zone above the bottom soil layer settled down and displaced outward as a monolith, creating a shear zone between the reinforced and unreinforced zones.

Lessons from the failure-1:

1) It is very important for the wall stability to prevent a local soil failure in the soil immediately behind the wall face. 2) Flat wrapped-around wall face cannot confine effectively the soil behind the wall face; - cannot be recommended for important structures. - If used, wrapped around wall face of each soil layer should be constructed to be round.
(to continue)

Lessons from the failure-2:

3) A vertical spacing of 80 cm between geotextile layers is too large; i) to effectively drain water from each clay layer and to maintain a high suction in the soil layer*: and ii) to effectively confine the clay backfill, in particular immediately behind the wrapped-around wall face. * The importance of keeping a sufficiently high suction in the backfill soil for the stability of clay wall cannot be over-emphasised.

Chiba No. 2 embankment with clay backfill

to confirm the lessons from the behaviour of Chiba No. 1; and to investigate the effects of gabions at the wall face on the wall stability. - constructed in 1984; - slightly larger than Chiba No. 1 embankment; and - the same types of clay backfill and non-woven geotextile as Chiba No. 1.

- Despite its low stiffness of the non-woven geotextile reinforcement, the reinforced clay walls performed very well for the first year.

- To bring the walls to failure, 70 m3 of water (= 900 mm precipitation) was supplied from a pond on the crest for eight days in October 1985.

Pond made on the crest of Chiba No. 2 embankment and cracks developed by water supply from the pond.

Lessons from the failure: 1) Although gabions were filled with the clay backfill (i.e., Kanto loam), their use at the shoulder of each soil layer was very effective for; - a good compaction of backfill; and - confining the soil near the wall face, maintaining a high soil strength. In the later actual construction projects, gabions are filled with gravel for a much better functioning, not losing costeffectiveness.

2) Major cause for the wall deformation by the artificial rainfall test; - the decrease in the suction; and - the increase in the positive pore water pressure. Effects of pore water pressure should be considered in the stability analysis.

Behaviour of Chiba No. 2 embankment during the artificial rainfall test.

3) Three failure modes:

Cross-section exposed at its demolishing; - lines 1 & 2; critical failure surfaces by the limit equilibrium stability analysis without and with taking into account the pore pressure in cracks.

- R & L: total deformation by the rainfall test. - Ra; deformation only in the last day of the rainfall test. - K; similar data for Kami-Onda embankment.

-Three failure modes;

The safety factors for all these three failure modes should be examined in design.

4) Despite the use of so-called very extensible reinforcement (i.e., a non-woven geotextile), no failure plane and tension cracks in the reinforced zones, as with Chiba No. 1 test embankment.

5)

Practically no creep deformation of the walls after the rainfall test in the second year (1985) : - due to effects of rainfall as preloading.

Behaviour after the artificial rainfall test until its demolishing.

Chiba No. 3 embankment with clay walls

1) constructed in 1986 using the same types of clay backfill soil and non-woven geotextile as before.

Chiba No. 3 embankment with clay walls

2) to confirm the lessons from the previous three tests; by comparing the behaviours of; a) a wrapped-around wall (without gabions); b) a discrete concrete panel wall; and c) a wrapped-around wall (with gabions) covered with a 8 cm-thick shotcrete layer.

Lessons from the failure:

Different behaviours of the three walls according to very different facing rigidities. 1) Reconfirmation; clay walls with flat wrapped-around face without gabions are too deformable to be used as important structures.

10cm SCALE FLEXIBLE SKIN CONTERWEIGHT FILL

6.1m

2) Facing of relatively small discrete panels; - not rigid enough; and - very difficult to compact soil immediately behind the facing and to achieve a good wall face alignment.

12.2m

3) Wall constructed by staged construction; - behaved well; and - much better construction efficiency than with discrete panel facing. Even nearly saturated clay can be used as the backfill when reinforced having a proper drainage function and a tensile rigidity, together with a proper rigid facing. But, 1) a 8 cm-thick shotcrete layer was not rigid enough to keep the wall face deformation small, and 2) shotcrete facing may not be aesthetically acceptable.

JR No. 2 embankment with clay backfill

-constructed at Japan Railway (JR) Technical Research Institute in the beginning of 1988. -to examine the stability of GRS-RWs having a full-height rigid facing; nearly the same wall structure as the final one that was later used in the actual projects.

-Clay backfill (Kanto loam); wi= 120 - 130 %; Sr= 90 %; and d= 0.55 - 0.60 g/cm3. Three types of reinforcement; section a): a non-woven geotextile, as used for the other embankments; section b): a grid sandwiched between two gravel drainage layers; and section c): a composite consisting of non-woven/woven geotextiles.
36.0 7.5 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 13.5

c b (T) (C) (T)

a (C) (T)

6.9

UNIT:m

- A very good and similar performance of the three sections for a long duration, reconfirming thatthe facing type could be much more important than the stiffness of reinforcement for the stability of reinforced soil retaining wall.
7.5 1 3 2 3 36.0 2 3 1 13.5

c b (T) (C) (T)

a (C) (T)

UNIT:m

6.9

Nearly saturated highly weathered tuff Nagano wall

-constructed in 1994 to reconfirm the function of full-height rigid facing;

in conjunction of the construction of proto-type GRS-RWs for 1993 - 1994.

Nearly saturated highly weathered tuff Nagano wall

a) a complete wall height of 2 m for a length of 2 km, supporting a yard for Shinkansen (bullet train); b) the first actual clay wall using a nearly saturated soft clay as a railway structure in Japan,; c) constructed on a thick very soft clay deposit; d) a large ground settlement of about 1 m by preloading before casting-in-place a rigid facing; and e) no pile foundation.

JR No. 1 test embankment with sand backfill

constructed for a period of 1987 - 1988; - to examine the stability of GRW-RWs with sand backfill having a full-height rigid facing. Grid; tensile strength= 2.8 tonf/m. Wall structure; very similar to the one that was subsequently employed for actual projects.

JR No. 1 test embankment with sand backfill

Development of staged construction procedure

ORAINAGE

SANDBAG GEOT EXT ILE

1) BASE CONCRET E

2) LAYING GEOT EXT ILE AND SANDBAG

3) BACKFILL AND COMPACT ION 4) SECOND LAYER

5) LAYING COMPLET ED

6) CONCRET E FACING ERECT ED

Two types of facing;

segment h; a discrete panel facing fixed to gabions filled with gravel.

the other segments; a full-height rigid facing.

1.75 32.6 6.85 3 2 3 2 3 1 10

d (T) c (C)

f (T) e

h (C) (T) g UNIT : m 6.9

Long-term behaviours for about two years:

a) Segment h, having a discrete panel facing; - much larger deformation than that the other walls. b) the other segments, having a full-height rigid facing; -practically nil deformation.

Loading test of No. 1 to failure after very stable behaviour for about two years:

Loading method for JR No. 1 sand embankment

FAILURE AND LESSONS - JR No. 1 embankment:

1) Segment h, having a discrete panel facing; - most deformable and weakest, not relevant to permanent important structures.

2) f (L= 1.5m) vs. d (L= 2.0 m).

Segment f (L= 1.5m); - less stable than segment d; but stable enough against ordinary design loads.

- The current design method; the minimum allowable reinforcement length is equal to or longer than the smaller value of; a) 1.5 m; and b) 35 % of the wall height, on the premise that the wall stability is examined by a proper stability analysis.

3) Failure at the construction joint in the unreinforced facing controlled the yielding of the test wall segments f and d (No. 1 embankment).

The facing used for prototype GRS-RWs is lightly steelreinforced to withstand the design earth pressure, which is equal to the active earth pressure when the backfill soil is not reinforced.

4) Two-wedge failure mode in wall segment h Even with so-called extensible reinforcement, the development of failure plane in a reinforced zone is very difficult !
rigid facing discrete panel facing footing toe

Shear zone observed in segment h having a discrete panel facing.

grid(2m) grid(2m)

wall height=5m

Loading test to failure of JR No. 2 clay wall after very stable behaviour for about two years:

1) Stronger when loaded on the crest close to the wall face due to the effects of reinforcement.

2) When properly reinforced, a clay wall is not very weak, compararable with a sand wall !

3) Gabions as a buffer for the relative settlement between the rigid facing and the backfill soil; - preventing damage to the connection between the facing and the reinforcement.
facing

b)

Cross-section after loading test.

4) Any clear failure plane in the reinforced zone !

facing

a)

Cross-section after loading test.

CONCLUDING REMARK-1 Wrapped-around walls are generally too deformable, particularly when the wall face is finished flat, to be used as permanent important structures allowing a limited amount of deformation.

CONCLUDING REMARK-1 Wrapped-around walls are generally too deformable, particularly when the wall face is finished flat, to be used as permanent important structures allowing a limited amount of deformation.

A rigid facing, in particular a full-height continuous rigid facing to which reinforcements are fixed, helps in increasing the stability of wall and in decreasing the deformation of wall.

CONCLUDING REMARK-2

The construction of sufficiently stable and rigid clay walls as permanent important structures is quite feasible by reinforcing the backfill with a proper composite geotextile having a sufficiently high drainage function and a tensile rigidity and by using a fullheight rigid facing.

CONCLUDING REMARK-2

The construction of sufficiently stable and rigid clay walls as permanent important structures is quite feasible by reinforcing the backfill with a proper composite geotextile having a sufficiently high drainage function and a tensile rigidity and by using a fullheight rigid facing. In the design of GRS-RWs having clay backfill, due consideration of drainage and consolidation of clay soil layers between geosynthetic reinforcement layers is essential.

CONCLUDING REMARK-3 A number of prototype GRS-RWs have been constructed for a total wall length being about 35 km by the staged procedure for the last decade in Japan.
ORAINAGE SANDBAG GEOT EXT ILE

It is significant that so far any problematic case has been reported.

1) BASE CONCRET E

2) LAYING GEOT EXT ILE AND SANDBAG

3) BACKFILL AND COMPACT ION 4) SECOND LAYER

5) LAYING COMPLET ED

6) CONCRET E FACING ERECT ED

Thank you very much for your kind attentions !