- Email: [email protected]
Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2016) 1e3
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Geotextiles and Geomembranes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem
Reply
Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading* Response to discussion by J. T. H. Wu, M. T. Adams, and J. E. Nicks C. Xiao a, J. Han b, *, Z. Zhang c a
School of Civil Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE) Department, The University of Kansas, KS, 66045, USA Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China b c
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 18 June 2016 Accepted 19 June 2016 Available online xxx
1. Terminologies It is hard to know who first used the terminology “GeosyntheticReinforced Soil” or “GRS”. This terminology has been generally used by researchers internationally to refer retaining walls (RW) reinforced by geosynthetic, for example, Tatsuoka et al. (1997) stated that “the study of GRS-RW system started in 1982”. However, the discussers referred a retaining wall with closely spaced reinforcement as GRS but a retaining wall with largely spaced reinforcement as a geosynthetic mechanically stabilized earth (GMSE) wall. Clearly, the terminology “GRS” used by the discussers is specific to a particular system and different from that used by researchers internationally. Our paper (Xiao et al., 2016) has used the terminology “GRS” in the way consistent with that used by researchers internationally. The writers of the paper agree with the discussers that two different systems as shown in Fig. 21 have been successfully used to support bridge footings. Our paper (Xiao et al., 201 has investigated the GRS system as shown on the right side of Fig. 21. In other words, the GRS system referred by the discussers shown on
* The writers of the paper thank the discussers for their interest in our research on geosynthetic-reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading. Their discussion has provided us the opportunity of clarifying a few issues. The writers have addressed all the issues raised by the discussers as follows. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Han).
the left side of Fig. 21 was not the target of our research. The discussers and readers should keep this fact in mind when they read our paper. To be consistent with the terminology in our paper (Xiao et al., 2016) and that used by researchers internationally, the writers decided to refer the design on the left side of Fig. 21 as the GRS wall with closely spaced reinforcement and that on the right side of Fig. 21 as the GRS wall with largely spaced reinforcement in this response. In this response, our study and our paper are both referred to that by Xiao et al. (2016). 2. Offset distance As clearly stated in our paper, the main objectives of this study were “to evaluate the relationship between the ultimate bearing capacity of the strip footing and the offset distance of the strip footing to the wall facing, identify possible failure modes of the wall, and investigate the effect of the mode of connection between geosynthetic and wall facing.” Economy of the GRS wall and the footing was not the objective of our study. Our study did show that the maximum ultimate bearing capacity happened at a certain offset distance of the footing. However, our paper did not make any recommendation that the footing be placed at the location for the maximum ultimate bearing capacity. The footing can be placed at a location (including a location with a zero offset distance) as long as the footing has a sufficient bearing capacity. When the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing with a zero offset distance is lower
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.005 0266-1144/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Xiao, C., et al., Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.005
2
C. Xiao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2016) 1e3
than what is required, other measures may be taken to increase the bearing capacity, for example, extra reinforcement layers may be added under the footing to increase the bearing capacity as shown on the left side of the design in Fig. 22. It should also be pointed out that the ultimate bearing capacity determined by Wu et al. (2006) was based on compression tests of GRS piers with specific backfill and geosynthetic layers at close spacing. In the practice, GRS walls often have retained soil and can be constructed with a wide range of backfill and geosynthetic layers of different spacing, which are different from individual GRS piers tested by Wu et al. (2006). In other words, the results obtained from the individual GRS piers may not be suitable for examining the results obtained in our study.
on the bearing capacity of the footing on the GRS wall, which depends on the width of the footing and the footing embedment because the backfill was sand (i.e., cohesion was equal to zero), in addition to the offset distance of the footing. Self weight of the sand might have an effect on the bearing capacity if the footing is embedded. Since the footing was placed on the top surface of the wall, this effect did not exist. In addition, the failure mode and the bearing capacity have been verified by the limit equilibrium method, which can model a full-scale GRS wall having proper selfweight effect.
3. Facing connection
In the past decades, a number of studies (e.g. Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Dash et al., 2003; Boushehrian and Hataf, 2003; Ghosh et al., 2005) have been conducted to investigate the bearing capacities of geosynthetic-reinforced foundations, which are dependent on different failure modes (Wayne et al., 1998; Han, 2015). Among these failure modes, the failure of soil above the uppermost geosynthetic layer is one of the key failure modes. The bearing capacity of the footing due to this failure mode depends on the ratio of the distance to the uppermost reinforcement layer (z) to the width of the footing (Bf) and the friction angle of the soil. The z/Bf ratio of 0.25e0.3 suggested by the discussers is a typical range for most test results. However, this ratio range was obtained based on the condition that the soil under the footing is semi-infinite halfspace. When a footing is constructed on/or adjacent to a slope or wall facing, this ratio may be different because the slope or the wall facing reduces the bearing capacity of the footing as shown in Figs. 14 and 15 in our paper. El Sawwaf (2005, 2007) investigated experimentally the behavior of footings on reinforced soil slopes, and recommended the depth of the uppermost geogrid be 0.6 times the footing width. It should be pointed out that in the GRS wall with closely spaced reinforcement the uppermost reinforcement is used to increase the bearing capacity of the footing. In our study, the uppermost reinforcement was just part of the GRS wall with largely spaced reinforcement and not used to increase the bearing capacity.
The discussers implied the high failure rate (5%) of modular block walls is caused by the facing connection failure due to large reinforcement spacing. This implication is misleading because most of the failure cases were actually caused by improper handling of water, not by large reinforcement spacing. The writers agree with the discussers that closely spaced reinforcement can reduce the demand for facing connection strength so that frictional connection is often sufficient for GRS walls with closely spaced reinforcement. Jiang et al. (2016) reported the use of secondary reinforcement to reduce the facing connection force. Mechanical connection is still helpful or necessary under some situations, for example, the top two courses of facing blocks, especially with frictional connection, tend to be squeezed out when the footing was close to the back of the wall facing as shown in Fig. 23 in our model test. The main reason is that the weight of facing blocks in the model test could not provide enough vertical load to generate sufficient frictional resistance. This phenomenon has also been observed in the field during the construction of GRS walls with closely spaced reinforcement and frictional connection (i.e., compaction of fill near the wall facing can move the blocks). Nicks et al. (2013) also pointed out the required frictional resistance can be achieved for actual projects through mechanical connection by filling the core with concrete reinforced by steel rebar in top courses of blocks. In fact, the test results in our paper clearly showed that mechanical connection increased the bearing capacity and reduced the lateral deformation of the wall as compared with the frictional connection of facing blocks as shown in Figs. 15 and 16.
5. Distance to the uppermost reinforcement
6. Compaction-induced lateral stress The compaction-induced lateral stress has been recognized by researchers for many years, for example, Duncan and Seed (1986). Huang et al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2013) considered the compaction-induced lateral stresses in their numerical analyses of GRS walls and geocell-stabilized unpaved roads, respectively. Compaction-induced lateral stress is an excellent concept and has been used to ensure numerical results to match experimental data. However, compaction-induced lateral stress is hard to measure in physical model tests and field full-scale tests; therefore, it is often considered as a black box and rarely considered in design in geotechnical engineering, including the calculation of bearing capacity. In addition, compaction-induced stress and its effect may be important for small deformation of soil. This effect degrades at large deformation, which is the focus of our study. 7. Rotation of footing
Fig. 23. Movement of top facing blocks at D/H ¼ 0.15 with frictional connection.
4. Self-weight effect It is well known that the soil in model tests in the laboratory has much lower self-weight than that in the field. This is the limitation of reduced-scale physical model tests. Our study, however, focused
The discussers correctly pointed out that the footing in our model tests was not restrained for rotation. Even though this condition may not be exactly the same as that in the field, it is a common simplification procedure of a field condition for research and conservative design. It is well known that almost all the bearing capacity formulae assume free rotation of a footing (e.g., a general failure mode); therefore, this simplification is acceptable.
Please cite this article in press as: Xiao, C., et al., Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.005
C. Xiao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2016) 1e3
8. Boundary effect Boundary effect is always a concern for physical model tests. Proper minimization of this effect is important for test results. To ensure a plain-strain condition in the model test, a pair of hydraulic jacks were placed on two sides of the box as shown in Fig. 24 to minimize the lateral deformation of the box during the test. It would be ideal if the side friction between the box and the sand was zero. As discussed in our paper, measures were taken to minimize this friction. The limit equilibrium analysis calculated the factor of safety close to 1.0 at the failure of the physical mode under the applied load. This comparison verified that the side friction had an insignificant effect on the stability of the GRS wall under static loading in our study.
Fig. 24. Side support of model box.
9. Serviceability versus limit state The writers of the paper agree with the discussers that serviceability is more important than limit state (i.e., the ultimate state) for actual performance of footings on GRS walls; however, it is common geotechnical practice that footings should be designed to meet both serviceability and limit state requirements. Limit state is often analyzed to ensure a sufficient factor of safety against failure. In addition, serviceability analysis based on an elastic theory is guaranteed valid only when the applied load is lower than the elastic limit, which is often estimated as the ultimate load capacity
3
divided by a factor of safety (2.0e3.0); therefore, the determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of a footing on a GRS wall is still necessary and valuable for applications. References Boushehrian, J.H., Hataf, N., 2003. Experimental and numerical investigation of the bearing capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced sand. Geotext. Geomembranes 21 (4), 241e256. Dash, S., Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T., 2003. Model studies on circular footing supported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft clay. Geotext. Geomembranes 21 (4), 197e219. Duncan, J.M., Seed, R.B., 1986. Compaction-Induced earth pressures under K0conditions. J. Geotechnical Eng. 112 (1), 1e22. El Sawwaf, M.A., 2005. Strip footing behavior on pile and sheet pile stabilized sand slope. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 131 (6), 705e715. El Sawwaf, M.A., 2007. Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand over a soft clay slope. Geotext. Geomembranes 25 (1), 50e60. Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., Bera, A.K., 2005. Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash reinforced with jute- geotextile. Geotext. Geomembranes 23 (2), 144e173. Han, J., 2015. Principles and Practice of Ground Improvement. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, p. 432. ISBN: 978-1-118-25991-7, June. Huang, J., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., Pierson, M., 2013. Refined numerical modeling of a laterally-loaded drilled shaft in an MSE wall. Geotext. Geomembranes 37, 61e73. Jiang, Y., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., Brennan, J.J., 2016. Field instrumentation and evaluation of modular-block MSE walls with secondary geogrid layers. ASCE J. Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Eng. 05016002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001573 (in press). Nicks, J.E., Adams, M.T., Wu, J.T.H., 2013. A new approach to the design of closely spaced geosynthetic reinforced soil for load bearing applications. In: TRB 2103 Annual Meeting, pp. 1e13. Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Uchimura, T., Koseki, J., 1997. Geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls as important permanent structure 1996-1997 Mercer Lecture. Geosynth. Int. 4 (2), 81e136. Wayne, M.H., Han, J., Akins, K., 1998. The design of geosynthetic reinforced foundations. In: Bowders, John J., et al. (Eds.), Design and Construction of Retaining Systems, pp. 1e18. ASCE Geo-Institute Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 76. Wu, J.T.H., Lee, K.Z.Z., Helwany, S.B., Ketchart, K., 2006. Design and Construction Guidelines for GRS Bridge Abutment with a Flexible Facing. NCHRP Report 556. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C. Xiao, C., Han, J., Zhang, Z., 2016. Experimental study on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil model walls subjected to static footing loading. Geotext. Geomembranes 44, 81e94. Yang, X., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R.L., 2013. A three-dimensional mechanistic- empirical model for geocell-reinforced unpaved roads. Acta Geotech. 8 (2), 201e213. Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J.T.H., Saglamer, A., 1994. Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. ASCE J. Geotechnical Eng. 120 (12), 2083e2099.
Please cite this article in press as: Xiao, C., et al., Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.005
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Geotextiles and Geomembranes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem
Reply
Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading* Response to discussion by J. T. H. Wu, M. T. Adams, and J. E. Nicks C. Xiao a, J. Han b, *, Z. Zhang c a
School of Civil Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE) Department, The University of Kansas, KS, 66045, USA Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China b c
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 18 June 2016 Accepted 19 June 2016 Available online xxx
1. Terminologies It is hard to know who first used the terminology “GeosyntheticReinforced Soil” or “GRS”. This terminology has been generally used by researchers internationally to refer retaining walls (RW) reinforced by geosynthetic, for example, Tatsuoka et al. (1997) stated that “the study of GRS-RW system started in 1982”. However, the discussers referred a retaining wall with closely spaced reinforcement as GRS but a retaining wall with largely spaced reinforcement as a geosynthetic mechanically stabilized earth (GMSE) wall. Clearly, the terminology “GRS” used by the discussers is specific to a particular system and different from that used by researchers internationally. Our paper (Xiao et al., 2016) has used the terminology “GRS” in the way consistent with that used by researchers internationally. The writers of the paper agree with the discussers that two different systems as shown in Fig. 21 have been successfully used to support bridge footings. Our paper (Xiao et al., 201 has investigated the GRS system as shown on the right side of Fig. 21. In other words, the GRS system referred by the discussers shown on
* The writers of the paper thank the discussers for their interest in our research on geosynthetic-reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading. Their discussion has provided us the opportunity of clarifying a few issues. The writers have addressed all the issues raised by the discussers as follows. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Han).
the left side of Fig. 21 was not the target of our research. The discussers and readers should keep this fact in mind when they read our paper. To be consistent with the terminology in our paper (Xiao et al., 2016) and that used by researchers internationally, the writers decided to refer the design on the left side of Fig. 21 as the GRS wall with closely spaced reinforcement and that on the right side of Fig. 21 as the GRS wall with largely spaced reinforcement in this response. In this response, our study and our paper are both referred to that by Xiao et al. (2016). 2. Offset distance As clearly stated in our paper, the main objectives of this study were “to evaluate the relationship between the ultimate bearing capacity of the strip footing and the offset distance of the strip footing to the wall facing, identify possible failure modes of the wall, and investigate the effect of the mode of connection between geosynthetic and wall facing.” Economy of the GRS wall and the footing was not the objective of our study. Our study did show that the maximum ultimate bearing capacity happened at a certain offset distance of the footing. However, our paper did not make any recommendation that the footing be placed at the location for the maximum ultimate bearing capacity. The footing can be placed at a location (including a location with a zero offset distance) as long as the footing has a sufficient bearing capacity. When the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing with a zero offset distance is lower
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.005 0266-1144/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Xiao, C., et al., Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.005
2
C. Xiao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2016) 1e3
than what is required, other measures may be taken to increase the bearing capacity, for example, extra reinforcement layers may be added under the footing to increase the bearing capacity as shown on the left side of the design in Fig. 22. It should also be pointed out that the ultimate bearing capacity determined by Wu et al. (2006) was based on compression tests of GRS piers with specific backfill and geosynthetic layers at close spacing. In the practice, GRS walls often have retained soil and can be constructed with a wide range of backfill and geosynthetic layers of different spacing, which are different from individual GRS piers tested by Wu et al. (2006). In other words, the results obtained from the individual GRS piers may not be suitable for examining the results obtained in our study.
on the bearing capacity of the footing on the GRS wall, which depends on the width of the footing and the footing embedment because the backfill was sand (i.e., cohesion was equal to zero), in addition to the offset distance of the footing. Self weight of the sand might have an effect on the bearing capacity if the footing is embedded. Since the footing was placed on the top surface of the wall, this effect did not exist. In addition, the failure mode and the bearing capacity have been verified by the limit equilibrium method, which can model a full-scale GRS wall having proper selfweight effect.
3. Facing connection
In the past decades, a number of studies (e.g. Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Dash et al., 2003; Boushehrian and Hataf, 2003; Ghosh et al., 2005) have been conducted to investigate the bearing capacities of geosynthetic-reinforced foundations, which are dependent on different failure modes (Wayne et al., 1998; Han, 2015). Among these failure modes, the failure of soil above the uppermost geosynthetic layer is one of the key failure modes. The bearing capacity of the footing due to this failure mode depends on the ratio of the distance to the uppermost reinforcement layer (z) to the width of the footing (Bf) and the friction angle of the soil. The z/Bf ratio of 0.25e0.3 suggested by the discussers is a typical range for most test results. However, this ratio range was obtained based on the condition that the soil under the footing is semi-infinite halfspace. When a footing is constructed on/or adjacent to a slope or wall facing, this ratio may be different because the slope or the wall facing reduces the bearing capacity of the footing as shown in Figs. 14 and 15 in our paper. El Sawwaf (2005, 2007) investigated experimentally the behavior of footings on reinforced soil slopes, and recommended the depth of the uppermost geogrid be 0.6 times the footing width. It should be pointed out that in the GRS wall with closely spaced reinforcement the uppermost reinforcement is used to increase the bearing capacity of the footing. In our study, the uppermost reinforcement was just part of the GRS wall with largely spaced reinforcement and not used to increase the bearing capacity.
The discussers implied the high failure rate (5%) of modular block walls is caused by the facing connection failure due to large reinforcement spacing. This implication is misleading because most of the failure cases were actually caused by improper handling of water, not by large reinforcement spacing. The writers agree with the discussers that closely spaced reinforcement can reduce the demand for facing connection strength so that frictional connection is often sufficient for GRS walls with closely spaced reinforcement. Jiang et al. (2016) reported the use of secondary reinforcement to reduce the facing connection force. Mechanical connection is still helpful or necessary under some situations, for example, the top two courses of facing blocks, especially with frictional connection, tend to be squeezed out when the footing was close to the back of the wall facing as shown in Fig. 23 in our model test. The main reason is that the weight of facing blocks in the model test could not provide enough vertical load to generate sufficient frictional resistance. This phenomenon has also been observed in the field during the construction of GRS walls with closely spaced reinforcement and frictional connection (i.e., compaction of fill near the wall facing can move the blocks). Nicks et al. (2013) also pointed out the required frictional resistance can be achieved for actual projects through mechanical connection by filling the core with concrete reinforced by steel rebar in top courses of blocks. In fact, the test results in our paper clearly showed that mechanical connection increased the bearing capacity and reduced the lateral deformation of the wall as compared with the frictional connection of facing blocks as shown in Figs. 15 and 16.
5. Distance to the uppermost reinforcement
6. Compaction-induced lateral stress The compaction-induced lateral stress has been recognized by researchers for many years, for example, Duncan and Seed (1986). Huang et al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2013) considered the compaction-induced lateral stresses in their numerical analyses of GRS walls and geocell-stabilized unpaved roads, respectively. Compaction-induced lateral stress is an excellent concept and has been used to ensure numerical results to match experimental data. However, compaction-induced lateral stress is hard to measure in physical model tests and field full-scale tests; therefore, it is often considered as a black box and rarely considered in design in geotechnical engineering, including the calculation of bearing capacity. In addition, compaction-induced stress and its effect may be important for small deformation of soil. This effect degrades at large deformation, which is the focus of our study. 7. Rotation of footing
Fig. 23. Movement of top facing blocks at D/H ¼ 0.15 with frictional connection.
4. Self-weight effect It is well known that the soil in model tests in the laboratory has much lower self-weight than that in the field. This is the limitation of reduced-scale physical model tests. Our study, however, focused
The discussers correctly pointed out that the footing in our model tests was not restrained for rotation. Even though this condition may not be exactly the same as that in the field, it is a common simplification procedure of a field condition for research and conservative design. It is well known that almost all the bearing capacity formulae assume free rotation of a footing (e.g., a general failure mode); therefore, this simplification is acceptable.
Please cite this article in press as: Xiao, C., et al., Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.005
C. Xiao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2016) 1e3
8. Boundary effect Boundary effect is always a concern for physical model tests. Proper minimization of this effect is important for test results. To ensure a plain-strain condition in the model test, a pair of hydraulic jacks were placed on two sides of the box as shown in Fig. 24 to minimize the lateral deformation of the box during the test. It would be ideal if the side friction between the box and the sand was zero. As discussed in our paper, measures were taken to minimize this friction. The limit equilibrium analysis calculated the factor of safety close to 1.0 at the failure of the physical mode under the applied load. This comparison verified that the side friction had an insignificant effect on the stability of the GRS wall under static loading in our study.
Fig. 24. Side support of model box.
9. Serviceability versus limit state The writers of the paper agree with the discussers that serviceability is more important than limit state (i.e., the ultimate state) for actual performance of footings on GRS walls; however, it is common geotechnical practice that footings should be designed to meet both serviceability and limit state requirements. Limit state is often analyzed to ensure a sufficient factor of safety against failure. In addition, serviceability analysis based on an elastic theory is guaranteed valid only when the applied load is lower than the elastic limit, which is often estimated as the ultimate load capacity
3
divided by a factor of safety (2.0e3.0); therefore, the determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of a footing on a GRS wall is still necessary and valuable for applications. References Boushehrian, J.H., Hataf, N., 2003. Experimental and numerical investigation of the bearing capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced sand. Geotext. Geomembranes 21 (4), 241e256. Dash, S., Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T., 2003. Model studies on circular footing supported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft clay. Geotext. Geomembranes 21 (4), 197e219. Duncan, J.M., Seed, R.B., 1986. Compaction-Induced earth pressures under K0conditions. J. Geotechnical Eng. 112 (1), 1e22. El Sawwaf, M.A., 2005. Strip footing behavior on pile and sheet pile stabilized sand slope. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 131 (6), 705e715. El Sawwaf, M.A., 2007. Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand over a soft clay slope. Geotext. Geomembranes 25 (1), 50e60. Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., Bera, A.K., 2005. Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash reinforced with jute- geotextile. Geotext. Geomembranes 23 (2), 144e173. Han, J., 2015. Principles and Practice of Ground Improvement. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, p. 432. ISBN: 978-1-118-25991-7, June. Huang, J., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., Pierson, M., 2013. Refined numerical modeling of a laterally-loaded drilled shaft in an MSE wall. Geotext. Geomembranes 37, 61e73. Jiang, Y., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., Brennan, J.J., 2016. Field instrumentation and evaluation of modular-block MSE walls with secondary geogrid layers. ASCE J. Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Eng. 05016002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001573 (in press). Nicks, J.E., Adams, M.T., Wu, J.T.H., 2013. A new approach to the design of closely spaced geosynthetic reinforced soil for load bearing applications. In: TRB 2103 Annual Meeting, pp. 1e13. Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Uchimura, T., Koseki, J., 1997. Geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls as important permanent structure 1996-1997 Mercer Lecture. Geosynth. Int. 4 (2), 81e136. Wayne, M.H., Han, J., Akins, K., 1998. The design of geosynthetic reinforced foundations. In: Bowders, John J., et al. (Eds.), Design and Construction of Retaining Systems, pp. 1e18. ASCE Geo-Institute Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 76. Wu, J.T.H., Lee, K.Z.Z., Helwany, S.B., Ketchart, K., 2006. Design and Construction Guidelines for GRS Bridge Abutment with a Flexible Facing. NCHRP Report 556. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C. Xiao, C., Han, J., Zhang, Z., 2016. Experimental study on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil model walls subjected to static footing loading. Geotext. Geomembranes 44, 81e94. Yang, X., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R.L., 2013. A three-dimensional mechanistic- empirical model for geocell-reinforced unpaved roads. Acta Geotech. 8 (2), 201e213. Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J.T.H., Saglamer, A., 1994. Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. ASCE J. Geotechnical Eng. 120 (12), 2083e2099.
Please cite this article in press as: Xiao, C., et al., Experimental study on performance of geosynthetics reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.005