Full Text 02

MASTER'S THESIS
Evaluation of the Efficiency of the

Standardized Norrland Method
Analyses with the finite element program PLAXIS on the case of road 685
Vibbyn - Skogså, Boden municipality
Per Gunnvard
2016
Master of Science in Engineering Technology

Civil Engineering
Luleå University of Technology

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
MASTER THESIS
Evaluation of the Efficiency of

the Standardized Norrland Method
Analyses with the finite element program PLAXIS on
the case of road 685 Vibbyn – Skogså, Boden municipality
Per Gunnvard
Luleå University of Technology

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering
PREFACE
PREFACE
The master thesis is the final part of my five year education at the programme Civil
Engineering at Luleå University of Technology, corresponding to 30 credits. The
investigation has been done on behalf of Trafikverket.
I would like to thank my supervisor Hans Mattsson from Luleå University of Technology for
the guidance during these months and for inspiring me to pursue the field of geotechnology. A
special thanks to Nicklas Thun from Trafikverket for giving me the chance to work on this
project and the support during my work. Not to forget Hjalmar Törnqvist, ÅF, for the help
with evaluating the material parameters and being a helpful sounding board. I would also like
to send my appreciation to MRM for providing laboratory data, and my class mates
Alexandra Edlund, Daniel Jergling and Rebecka Westerberg for the insight into their work to
base my work on.
Per Gunnvard
Luleå, February 2016
i
Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Standardized Norrland Method
ii
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Road 685 between Vibbyn and Skogså in the Boden municipality has, due to large quantities
of sulphide soil and a nearby creek, been subjected to large settlements over the years.
Trafikverket allowed for a reinforcement of the road with the settlement reducing method
light embankment piling (also known in Sweden as the Norrland method), where a pile group
consisting of trunks is driven down into the underlying soil, on which the road embankment
will rest. A geogrid is laid in the lower part of the road embankment to stiffen the
embankment material, but also to create a more stable arching between the piles. There have
however been a few questions regarding at what degree the geogrid grants these effects, and
Trafikverket allowed, with the help of Edlund et al. (2015), for finite element computations in
2D. The investigation showed that 1.2 m pile spacing, as used on road 685, is too narrow for
the geogrid to have an impact on the settlements.
With this in mind, the question arouse at Trafikverket if the newly standardized triangular
piling pattern truly is superior to the former, square, pattern (which was used on road 685).
Within this work a number of simulations were done in the finite element program PLAXIS,
based on the work by Edlund et al. (2015), of the road embankment on road 685 with both
triangular and square pile group patterns. The simulations were mainly done in 3D, with 2D
as verification. The results show no difference in settlement reducing ability between
triangular and square patterns. However, a triangular pattern put the geogrid under slightly
more stress. The pile group on road 685 had a narrower spacing between the two outer most
columns to design for a hang-up effect by the adjacent soil when it settled. Based on the
simulations, where the outer distance was constant, the load distribution in a pile row and
displacements in the underlying soil appeared as uneven.
No field measurements were conducted on road 685 to calibrate the simulations, but the
results suggest a piling pattern with equal pile spacing. Depending on the allowed settlements,
with regards to the load on the pile group, there is a potential for an increase of the pile
spacing up to roughly 1.5 m from the standard of 1.2 m as maximum. However, more field
tests, numerical computations and laboratory models are needed to confirm the results.
iii
iv
SAMMANFATTNING
SAMMANFATTNING
Väg 685 mellan Vibbyn och Skogså i Bodens kommun har, p.g.a. stora mäktigheter av
sulfidlera och en närliggande bäck, utsatts för stora sättningar under åren. Trafikverket lät
förstärka vägen med den sättningsreducerande metoden lätt bankpålning (även kallad
Norrlandsmetoden), där en pålgrupp av trästammar slås ner i den underliggande jorden på
vilket vägbanken sedan vilar. Ett geonät läggs till i underkanten av vägbanken för att styva
upp bankmaterialet, men också för att skapa stabilare valvverkan mellan pålarna. Det har dock
funnits en del frågeställningar om hur mycket geonätet uppfyller någon av dessa effekter och
Trafikverket lät med hjälp av Edlund et al. (2015) utföra finita elementberäkningar i 2D.
Utredningen visade att 1,2 m pålavstånd, som det i väg 685, är för litet för att geonätet ska ha
någon större påverkan på sättningarna.
Med bakgrund av detta växte hos Trafikverket frågan om det nyligen standardiserade
triangulära pålningsmönstret verkligen är bättre än det förra, kvadratiska, mönstret (som
användes på väg 685). Inom detta arbete gjordes ett flertal simuleringar med finita
elementprogrammet PLAXIS, med arbetet av Edlund et al. (2015) som grund, av vägbanken
på väg 685 med både triangulära och kvadratiska pålgruppsmönster. Huvudsakligen utfördes
simuleringarna i 3D, med 2D som verifikation. Resultatet visade ingen skillnaden på den
sättningsreducerande förmågan hos triangulära och kvadratiska mönster. Dock påfrestade ett
triangulärt pålningsmönster geonätet aningen mer. Pålgruppen på väg 685 hade ett mindre
avstånd mellan de två yttersta kolumnerna för att dimensionera för en upphängning av den
omkringliggande jorden när den sätter sig. Utifrån simuleringarna, där det yttre avståndet
hölls konstant, uppstod ojämnheter i kraftfördelningen i pålraden samt ojämna sättningar i
jorden under vägbanken.
Inga fältmätningar utfördes på väg 685 för att kalibrera simuleringarna, men resultaten talade
för ett pålmönster med lika avstånd mellan pålarna. Beroende på de tillåtna sättningarna, med
avseende på belastning av pålgruppen, finns det potential att öka pålavståndet till omkring 1.5
m från standarden på max 1.2 m. Dock behövs fler fältundersökningar, numeriska uträkningar
och laboratoriemodeller för att verifiera resultaten.
v
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Aim ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................. 2
2 EMBANKMENT PILING ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 The Norrland method................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 The arching effect ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 The importance of arching ............................................................................................................... 5
2.3.2 Ultimate limit state, ULS .................................................................................................................. 6
2.3.3 Analytical load distribution theories ................................................................................................ 7
2.4 Piling patterns ......................................................................................................................................... 12
3 PLAXIS ...................................................................................................................................................15
3.1 The finite element method ..................................................................................................................... 15

3.1.1 The use of finite elements .............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.2 Interfaces ....................................................................................................................................... 16
3.1.3 Continuum mechanics notation ..................................................................................................... 16
3.2 3D vs 2D .................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.1 Arching ........................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Embedded piles .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.2.3 Geosynthetic reinforcement .......................................................................................................... 20
4 CONSTITUTIVE MODELS .........................................................................................................................21
4.1 Mohr-Coulomb ........................................................................................................................................ 21

4.2 Soft soil .................................................................................................................................................... 23
5 PREVIOUS CASE STUDIES OF THE SITE ....................................................................................................27
5.1 Effects on undrained shear strength ....................................................................................................... 27

5.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 27
5.1.2 Conducted tests ............................................................................................................................. 28
5.1.3 Increase in shear strength ............................................................................................................. 29
5.2 The need of geosynthetic reinforcement................................................................................................ 30
5.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 30
5.2.2 The 2D-model ................................................................................................................................ 30
5.2.3 Results and concluding remarks .................................................................................................... 32
vii
6 MATERIAL PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 35
6.1 Soil parameters ....................................................................................................................................... 35

6.1.1 Constant rate of strain (CRS) .......................................................................................................... 36
6.1.2 Soft Soil parameter evaluation ...................................................................................................... 37
6.1.3 Final input soil material parameters .............................................................................................. 44
6.2 Structural parameters ............................................................................................................................. 46
6.2.1 Geosynthetic reinforcement ........................................................................................................... 48
7 NUMERICAL ANALYSES .......................................................................................................................... 49
7.1 Work layout ............................................................................................................................................. 49

7.1.1 Patterns .......................................................................................................................................... 49
7.1.2 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 50
7.2 The 3D model .......................................................................................................................................... 51
7.2.1 Geometry ....................................................................................................................................... 51
7.2.2 Model size ...................................................................................................................................... 52
7.2.3 Mesh .............................................................................................................................................. 53
7.2.4 Boundary conditions ...................................................................................................................... 54
7.2.5 Calculation stages .......................................................................................................................... 54
7.3 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 55
7.3.1 Arching ........................................................................................................................................... 55
7.3.2 Total and differential settlement ................................................................................................... 57
7.3.3 Pile axial load ................................................................................................................................. 60
7.3.4 Geosynthetic reinforcement axial load .......................................................................................... 66
8 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................................................ 69
8.1 Square vs triangular pattern .................................................................................................................... 69

8.2 The 3D model .......................................................................................................................................... 70
8.3 Material parameters................................................................................................................................ 70
8.4 Future work ............................................................................................................................................. 71
8.4.1 Creep .............................................................................................................................................. 71
8.4.2 Laboratory model test .................................................................................................................... 71
8.4.3 Verification ..................................................................................................................................... 72
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX A – CPT results ............................................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX B – Routine test results .................................................................................................................. 83
APPENDIX C – CRS RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 85
APPENDIX D – 2D model phases ..................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX E – Results of 3D simulated CRS testS .......................................................................................... 101
APPENDIX F – Principal stress directions....................................................................................................... 103
APPENDIX G – Displacement contours .......................................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX H – CALCULATION PROCEDURE USING THE CONCENTRIC ARCHES MODEL .................................. 107
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ix
x
INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Piled embankments are commonly used in Sweden. Outside of Boden, road 685 between
Vibbyn and Skogså is regarded as an important stretch with approximately 80 heavier trucks
per day (Hugosson & Nilsson, 2014). The road suffered from large settlements due to large
quantities of sulphide soil, which is highly compressible. The Swedish road administration,
Trafikverket, decided to reinforce the road to meet the demand for passing of heavier
vehicles. The large quantities of sulphide soil in the area made it suitable to reinforce the
embankment with wooden piles (further explained in chapter 2.2).
The piled embankment on road 685 is constructed according to the Swedish standard TK
Geo 11 (Trafikverket, 2011) for wooden piling, i.e. with a square piling pattern with c/c-
distance 0.8-1.2 m. The cross section is shown in Figure 1.1. The following regulations, TK
Geo 13 (Trafikverket, 2014), changed the standards to a triangular pattern (explained in
chapter 2.2). The basis for this change is the theory of a triangular pattern superseding a
square pattern in displacement reduction. This is further explained in chapter 2.4.
Figure 1.1. Cross section of the piled embankment on road 685 (provided by the contractor, Vectura Consulting
AB).
The embankment is roughly 1.6 m high (from the ground surface) and 16 m wide. The
geosynthetic reinforcement, GR, (shown in Figure 1.1 as three bold horizontal lines) plays an
important role when designing the embankment. It helps distributing the load into the piles
through arching effect between the piles (further explained in chapter 2.3.1). In an
investigation done by Edlund et al. (2015) it was shown that the designed pile spacing on
road 685 was too narrow for the GR to have any effect on the total displacement (their work
is presented in chapter 5.2). Embankment settlements were unnoticeably reduced by adding
the GR. This raised the question of what the optimum pile spacing is, and also if the recently
1
standardized triangular pattern reduces the displacements more efficiently than the previous
used square pattern. In this thesis, the reconstruction of road 685 was used as the basis in an
attempt to answer the questions at hand.
1.2 Aim
Research questions:
 Does a triangular pile installation pattern reduce the settlements of a piled
embankment more than a square pattern?
 What is the best suited installation pattern when using geosynthetic reinforcement?
The tool used to answer the research questions was a finite element program called PLAXIS.
Both 2D and 3D simulations were used.
1.3 Limitations
In some cases of piled embankments, like the one modelled, the wooden piles are typically
driven down into the underlying moraine. Commonly the sulphide soil is lying on top of
moraine. The idea of the method used is almost pure frictional bearing of the piles, no end
bearing, like they are floating. Driving the piles into the moraine gives, depending on the
moraine, a great increase in end bearing capacity. This reduces the total displacement of the
embankment. However, in order to mobilize a full arching effect the displacement needs to
be large enough (further explained in chapter 2.3). The comparison between square and
triangular pattern is based on the theory of the latter yielding stronger arches, therefore the
piles are not extended down to the moraine in the finite element model.
The finite element method contains errors, like other man-made computer models.
Therefore, it is necessary to verify the calculation output with preferably field measurements.
In this thesis however, no verifying field data was available. Instead analytical analyses and
complementary numerical analyses have been done.
The factor of creep is in the case of a compressible soil, like sulphide soil, highly influential.
No field or laboratory tests have been performed as part of this work and the parameters
were derived from back calculation, experience and empirical formulas based on previous
tests. In order to keep the thesis within reasonable time limits, no creep parameters have
been calculated and used.
Temperature has a great impact on the behaviour of a piled embankment. The road is
situated in a part of Sweden with sub-zero temperatures during a large part of the year. The
geosynthetic reinforcement becomes more brittle in sub-zero temperatures and
freezing/thawing of the embankment and adjacent soil might cause a reduced bearing
capacity over time. Also, sulphide soil slightly changes its properties in higher temperatures,
like that of a warm summer. In order to keep this thesis within time schedule, the factor of
temperature was neglected.
2
EMBANKMENT PILING
2 EMBANKMENT PILING
The chapter touches the basics of piled embankment, the light embankment piling method
and some commonly applied analytical analyses.
2.1 Introduction
Traditional embankment piling is used to more or less prevent the displacement of a road or
railway embankment. Piles are installed beneath the planned embankment of granular
material, down onto firm bottom (in best case bed rock). The weight of the embankment and
the traffic load is to some part transferred onto the piles that are carried by cohesion/friction,
instead of fully compressing the soil. This reduces the displacement in the soil and thus of
the embankment as a whole. Pile caps are placed on top of the pile heads in order to increase
the effective area of the piles, transferring more loads onto them. The method is cheaper than
excavating and refilling the looser soil with less settlement susceptive soil.
Soil has low tensile strength. Between the piles the soil has no support and the weight of the
embankment pushes the soil down, generating tensile stresses. As a basal reinforcement, GR
is placed just above the pile caps to increase the tensile strength of the soil. Also the Young’s
modulus is increased, stiffening the embankment.
2.2 The Norrland method

Light embankment piling with wooden piles, also known as the Norrland method, is a
settlement reducing method. The piles are driven to a firmer soil layer (e.g. moraine) instead
of solid bed rock; therefore settlements are not prevented and can still occur to some extent.
The method is often used by Trafikverket along the Norrland coast (from Gävle to
Haparanda) where sulphide soil is most commonly found in Sweden, hence the name. The
method is best suited in cases of embankments constructed on top of clayey soil (e.g.
sulphide soil) since the wooden piles can only be driven into cohesion soil, otherwise they
crack. The method has been used more efficiently than other methods in sulphide soil, due
to both economic and environmental benefits when comparing to e.g. replacing the sulphide
soil with filling material. Sulphide soil is environmentally hazardous when aerated due to
oxidation of sulphide which causes acidic leaching. This makes sulphide soil costly to store
at landfills. Piling the soil requires less excavating.
3
Figure 2.1. The wooden piles installed and cut to preferred height with the concrete pile in the background
(Hugosson & Nilsson, 2014).
The wooden piles are driven into the soil by a wheel loader or excavator. No pile caps are
used. Figure 2.1 shows the installed piles after being cut to preferred height. The space
between the piles may be filled with moraine or silt, and then 2-3 layers of GR are laid on
top of the pile heads (Trafikverket, 2014). The high capillarity of the moraine keeps the piles
saturated, preventing them from rotting. Load distributing layers and the pavement are then
added.
The outer two columns of the pile group in Figure 1.1 have a pile spacing of 1.0 m instead of
1.2 m. When the soil settles the soil will hang-up on the piles, due to negative skin friction,
which in turn increases the load on the piles. The load on the outer most pile columns is
assumed as the largest, due to the largest quantities of subsoil hanging up on the piles. In
order to increase the bearing capacity, with the hang-up in mind, the spacing between the
outer two pile columns is reduced.
A principal sketch of the embankment construction is shown in Figure 2.2. As mentioned,
according to the most recent constructing regulations by Trafikverket (2014), called TK Geo
13, the piles should be installed in a triangular pattern with a c/c-distance of
0.8-1.2 m. Two layers of geogrid helps stiffen the embankment into beam lying on the piles,
making the pile caps unnecessary.
Figure 2.2. Principal sketch of light embankment piling with wooden piles (Trafikverket, 2014).
4
EMBANKMENT PILING
The method of light embankment piling only reduces the settlements; therefore it cannot be
included in bearing or stability calculations. However, through experience Trafikverket has
found a stabilizing effect of the piling. (Hugosson & Nilsson, 2014)
2.3 The arching effect

The following chapter gives an overlook on the theory behind the arching effect and
analytical calculation models that are adopted in a few European piled embankment design
standards, as well as a newly presented model. The main characteristics of some of the
models available in literature are presented below.
2.3.1 The importance of arching

The piles in a piled embankment are there to attract load from the embankment. In Figure 2.3
the load distribution is illustrated.
Figure 2.3. Load parts defined in the reinforced embankment. Arching (A), GR force (B) and subsoil support (C).
(Van der Peet & Van Eekelen, 2014)
The embankment is constructed so that the main load is “rerouted” onto the piles through
arching (load part A), just like the foundations of an ancient roman arch bridge. This requires
a minimum height of the embankment, which Trafikverket (2014) has set to 1.5 m. Without
the arches shaping, the weight of the soil between the piles would almost exclusively transfer
onto the GR and subsoil. Arches allow wider spacing between the piles with equal total
displacement, making it more cost effective to build.
As mentioned previously, GR is often installed in piled embankments. The GR is an
important contribution to the bearing capacity, since it is the main support for the arches
between the piles (load part B). The GR stabilizes the arches as they form and transforms the
load under the arches onto the piles. Constructing the embankment as shown in Figure 2.2
above creates a horizontal beam with increased stiffness, which rests on the piles.
One support that often is neglected, as a “worst case scenario”, is the soft subsoil (load part
C). However, later studies by Zhuang et al. (2013) and Van Eekelen et al. (2011) shows that
the subsoil has a greater contribution to the overall bearing capacity than expected. The
subsoil supports the GR “strips” and “square”, viewed in Figure 2.4.
5
Figure 2.4. GR strips and square in between the piles.
2.3.2 Ultimate limit state, ULS

In order for arches to form, a certain amount of displacement has to occur. In a study by Van
der Peet (2014), this point is called the ultimate limit state (ULS). In Figure 2.5 from the
study, the principal stress direction between two neighbouring piles is shown before and
after ULS is reached. Prior to ULS, the stress directions are somewhat triangular. After the
ULS is reached, a clearly visible arching is formed. The numerical simulation is done in
PLAXIS 3D.
Figure 2.5. Principal stress directions between two neighbouring piles before (a) and after (b) ULS are reached (Van
der Peet & Van Eekelen, 2014).
6
EMBANKMENT PILING
2.3.3 Analytical load distribution theories

Analytical analysis is the basis of engineer calculations. Even though numerical methods get
more common each day, the analytical methods are still needed to verify the numerical
results. The models presented are based on a square piling pattern.
2.3.3.1 Rigid arch models

Content about the rigid arch models is collected from Rogbeck et al. (2003).
In Sweden, the model adopted by TK Geo 13 (Trafikverket, 2014) to calculate the vertical
load transfer on the GR is a so called rigid arch model. It is based on the work done by
Carlsson (1987). The model assumes the formation of an arch in between two piles (or pile
caps). The cross sectional area of the soil under the arch is approximated as a triangle or
wedge, seen in Figure 2.6. The load is equal to the weight of the triangle and is constant on
the whole surface. The model is “rigid” in that sense that the arch shape is fixed, no matter
the displacements. Figure 2.7 shows the area in between the piles affected by one wedge in
3D.
Figure 2.6. The soil wedge held up by the GR. Figure 2.7. Load distribution area in 3D.
The wedge’s top angle is kept constant at 30°, which gives a pre-defined height even if the
embankment on top of the piles is lower. The embankment height is recommended by
Swedish standards as at least 1.2 times the distance between the pile caps (Ruin & Jönsson,
2015). The model does not consider the mechanical properties of the soil, such as the friction
angle of the soil. Van Eekelen et al. (2012) found that a higher friction angle of the fill gives
more arching during consolidation, which implies that the neglecting of the friction angle is
a drawback of the model.
7
2.3.3.2 Arching limit equilibrium models

In Western Europe, the most frequently used analytical models for embankment
reinforcements are the limit state equilibrium models, i.e. the condition of a potential failure
(used in slope stability analyses e.g. Bishop’s method). A stress-arch is assumed to form
between the stiff elements (piles or walls) in order for the model to be in limit state. The
stress on the GR and subsoil is calculated on the equilibrium of a critical part of this arch
(mostly the upper “crown” element). (Van der Peet, 2014)
Three different limit equilibrium models will be further explained below, which are the
model by Hewlett & Randolph, the model by Zaeske and the Concentric Arches model by
Van Eekelen et al. (2013). A 2D schematization of the assumed arches is shown in Figure
2.8.
Figure 2.8. 2D schematization of the (a) Hewlett & Randolph model, (b) Zaeske model and (c) Concentric Arches
model (Van der Peet & Van Eekelen, 2014).
The analytical models assume a limit state. ULS is however not reached at all times
throughout the embankment. In the 3D finite element simulations by Van der Peet (2014),
ULS was only reached in the absence of the support of the soil under the embankment
(subsoil).
Hewlett & Randolph

Content about the Hewlett & Randolph model is collected from Van der Peet (2014).
Adopted by the French ASIRI guideline and suggested in the British BS8006 as an
alternative for the previous empirical model, the Hewlett & Randolph model was developed
in 1988. It is based on tests in which no GR was used.
The arching is assumed as one arch that forms between two piles, limited by two concentric
semi-circular borders. The “crown” and two “toes” of the arch are regarded as the critical
elements. Figure 2.9 illustrates how the arches form on top of the piles.
8
EMBANKMENT PILING
Figure 2.9. An illustration of the arches with crown and toe element according to the Hewlett & Randolph model
(Van Eekelen et al., 2013).
When the embankment is sufficiently high for the arch to fully develop, the entire load from
embankment weight and traffic is transferred onto the piles. The GR is therefore only
subjected to the weight of the soil below the arches. (Van Eekelen et al., 2011)
The pressure on the centre of the GR is based on the equilibrium of the crown element and
the weight of the soil beneath it. Assuming this pressure acts on the entire GR, the remaining
load on the piles is calculated. The tangential stress in the crown is assumed to be equal
throughout the arch, thus the load on the piles can be calculated. The lowest calculated value
of the two pile loads is used as the arching load.
Zaeske
Content about the Zaeske model is collected from Van der Peet (2014).
The Zaeske model (also known as EBGEO/CUR-model) is a widely used equilibrium model
and adopted in e.g. the German EBGEO and Dutch CUR226 guidelines. It was developed in
2001. The theory assumes the formation of multiple arches in the diagonal between piles, as
shown in Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10. The diagonal arch of the Zaeske model with a centred crown element(Van Eekelen et al., 2013).
9
Like the Hewlett & Randolph model, the radial stress in the crown of the upper arch is
extended downwards onto the centre of the GR between the four piles. This stress is assumed
constant over the GR, thus the residual load is equal to the arching load that acts on the piles.
Concentric Arches
Content about the Concentric Arches model is collected from Van Eekelen et al. (2013).
The Concentric Arches model is a newly developed analytical model from 2013 based on the
two models mentioned above. It consists of a set of concentric 3D hemispheres that transfers
their load to a set of 2D arches between adjacent piles. The arches transfer the load onto the
piles. The characteristic of the model is shown in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11. The Concentric Arches model with the load transferred by 3D hemispheres and 2D arches (Van Eekelen
et al., 2013).
The forming of multiple Concentric Arches implies that the inner hemispheres are based on
top of the GR. Assuming that the tangential stress is constant throughout each arch; the
stress on the GR is known for each location. The load on the GR is, in this model, mostly
focused on the strips with and approximately resembles an inverse load distribution. Figure
2.12 shows the formation of the concentric arches, propagating inwards as the GR deforms.
Figure 2.12. Increasing GR deflection results in the arches propagating inwards (Van Eekelen et al., 2013).
10
EMBANKMENT PILING
Comparison between the models

A comparison between numerical results and the three analytical models are shown in Figure
2.13 from the work done by Van der Peet (2014). The numerical analysis is done in PLAXIS
3D and the analytical analyses are performed with the three presented models. The diagram
depicts the stresses from a 3D-calculation. In order to surely reach ULS and form the arches,
the subsoil is removed in the calculations. The tall bar is the vertical stresses on top of the
pile and the three other piles are situated just outside the other three corners (as vaguely
shown in the numerical results), with the GR in the middle.
Figure 2.13. A comparison between the vertical stress distribution for the numerical calculation and the results of
the three analytical models (Van der Peet & Van Eekelen, 2014).
As seen in Figure 2.13, the Hewlett & Randolph model greatly underestimates the load
found in the numerical analysis, since the GR is assumed to take much more of the load. The
Zaeske model is misleading in the triangular load distribution between the piles, since the
stresses in the numerical results shows an inversed triangular load distribution.
The Concentric Arches model captures the inversed triangular load distribution. Based on
the numerical results the model performs equal to, or better than, the Zaeske model in
accuracy and outperforms the Hewlett & Randolph model. From this, the arching of the case
described in this thesis is distinguished using the models of Zaeske or the Concentric Arches
model.
11
2.3.3.3 Geosynthetic reinforcement load distribution

Designing the GR means a load distribution has to be assumed on the GR strip in between
two piles, since the load distribution on the GR strip has a strong influence on the calculated
GR strain (Van Eekelen et al., 2014). Figure 2.14 depicts three different load cases;
triangular, equally distributed and inversed triangular.
Figure 2.14. Distribution of the load on the GR strips: (a) triangle, (b) equally distributed, (c) inversed triangle (Van
Eekelen et al., 2014).
A triangular load distribution is commonly used in analytical models when calculating the
stress in the GR. It is adopted by e.g. German EBGEO and Dutch CUR226 guidelines. The
Zaeske model uses a triangular load distribution, as seen in Figure 2.13. (Van Eekelen et al.,
2012)
British BS8006 and French ASIRI assume an equally distributed load on the GR strip by
adopting the Hewlett & Randolph model. Also, BS8006 assumes no subsoil support to stay
on the safe side. The load distribution results in a deformed GR that is closer to reality than
the triangular load distribution. (Van Eekelen et al., 2011)
In the model tests and field measurements done by Van Eekelen et al. (2014), the load
distribution resembles an inverse triangular more than the other two in cases of no or very
limited subsoil support on the GR strips between adjacent piles. Further, significant subsoil
support leads to a uniform load distribution. It was also shown that the triangular load
distribution overestimates the necessary GR strength of about 50%.
2.4 Piling patterns

The two piling patterns that are discussed is square and triangular pattern. As mentioned,
Trafikverket (2014) suggests using a triangular pattern for light embankment piling. Prior to
that, the standard was a square pattern. The change was based on the theory that the
triangular pattern offers more effective load transfer onto the piles, since the piles are closer
together (as illustrated in Figure 2.15).
Model tests in 2D conducted by Gebreselassie et al. (2010) suggest that a triangular pattern
generates stronger arching. They compared models with a square and triangular piling
pattern, like the ones shown in Figure 2.15. It was found that the vertical stresses were larger
on the piles for the triangular pile group, meaning a larger part of the total load taken up by
the arch. Also, a higher local stress was found in the middle of the GR square, which reflects
a possible base support for the higher arching. The theory is that the smaller spacing in a
12
EMBANKMENT PILING
triangular pattern (as seen in Figure 2.15) results in a shorter span length of the soil arching,
and hence a stronger soil arching is possible. The tributary area that a single pile supports in
a triangular pattern is, as shown in Figure 2.15c, hexagonal in theory.
Figure 2.15. Piling patterns (a) square and (b) triangular and (c) the effective diameter (Gangatharan, 2014).
13
14
PLAXIS
3 PLAXIS
A piled embankment consists of many complicated stress and strain relations due to the
geometry and the difference in material properties. Thus, using analytical analyses to answer
the research question of the most optimum pile pattern becomes difficult. PLAXIS is a
numerical analysis program based on the finite element method (FEM). It is developed for
analysis of deformation, stability and groundwater flow in geotechnical engineering with
implementation of construction elements, e.g. piles or sheet pile walls. PLAXIS offers
modelling in both 2D and 3D.
3D FE modelling is still rare in comparison to 2D. The reason is that the 3D programs, in
general, have yet to find the stability and accuracy of the 2D counterparts. However, 2D
modelling is limited to problems that can be simplified into plane strain or axisymmetric
models.
3.1 The finite element method

3.1.1 The use of finite elements
The finite element method is a numerical technique that divides a model into simpler parts,
finite elements. The elements consist of nodes and stress points, as shown in Figure 3.1. In
the nodes the displacements are calculated and in the stress points the stresses and strains are
calculated. In PLAXIS, the shapes of the elements are triangular.
Figure 3.1. The triangular element in PLAXIS 2D with (a) 15 nodes and (b) 6 nodes (Brinkgreve et al., 2013).
15
The main calculation in PLAXIS is, like FEM programs in general, based on a global
iteration process on the equilibrium equations. It reduces the so called global error to an
error margin of choice. The accuracy is increased by refining the mesh, essentially adding
more measuring points to the iteration process. Thus, the global error is reduced with less
iteration, but every iteration takes longer time.
3.1.2 Interfaces
A tool to give further realistic behaviour when modelling soil-structure interaction is to add
an interface. It consists of a thin zone of joint elements that are added to i.e. plates and
geogrids. As seen in Figure 3.2, the interface splits a node into a so called node pair. The
interaction with the interface consists of two elastic-perfectly plastic springs, one modelling
the gap displacement and the other modelling the slip displacement. Thus, the interface
allows the structure to displace (slipping/gapping) relative to the soil. (PLAXIS, 2012)
Figure 3.2. The principal of interfaces in PLAXIS (PLAXIS, 2012).
3.1.3 Continuum mechanics notation

The finite element method uses continuum mechanics to determine deformations and
stresses. The simulation model is regarded as continues mass and is not allowed to separate
from high stresses. Instead, the soil body collapses when the factor of safety is below one
and the calculation is aborted. This influences the choice of material parameters, since it is
better to use characteristic values and compare the simulation output to the design safety
factor. Using design values may force the model to collapse due to the applied safety factor
being higher than the mobilized safety factor.
3.2 3D vs 2D
PLAXIS 3D keeps many of the features in 2D. The coordinate system is rotated in 3D, with
x- and y-coordinates as the horizontal plane and the z-coordinate being the vertical direction.
It is possible to import 3D CAD models, e.g. topography, into the program. However,
PLAXIS 3D is equally limited as 2D in modifying a model.
16
PLAXIS
Using 2D limits the geometry to plane strain or axisymmetry, as shown in Figure 3.3. In
plane strain the strains out of plane (z-direction) are assumed as zero, therefore the depth of
the model is set as zero. The 2D model is the cross section of an infinitely long model.
Modelling axisymmetrically allows for a circular 3D model by revolving a 2D model 360°
around the vertical axis. This is useful when modelling e.g. a circular footing or a single pile.
Figure 3.3. Example of a plane strain (left) and axisymmetric problem (right) (Brinkgreve et al., 2014).
In 3D, the triangular elements become tetrahedrons. Therefore, one 3D-element has four
sides and edges. A mesh often contains flattened or stretched tetrahedrons. This increases the
difficulty of creating a good quality mesh for the iterations to cope with reducing the global
error. Thin soil layers, sharper edges and close sitting structures are more difficult for the 3D
tetrahedrons to adapt to then 2D triangles. This results in the 3D models becoming less
detailed than the 2D models in general. Due to the increased complexity of a 3D mesh, a 2D
model is more accurate and faster in its computations. Therefore, a 3D model is less
effective to use when the problem can be simplified into a sufficient 2D model.
3.2.1 Arching
By modelling in 2D, arches are able to form in plane. However, plane strain assumes the
strains and displacement as zero in the out of plane-direction. Therefore, only a cross section
of the arch is evaluated in 2D and the influence of adjacent piles out of plane is neglected.
An axisymmetric model is able to simulate simplified 3D problems, since a 2D plane can be
revolved around a pile. The revolution around the y-axis implies that the revolved surface is
continuous. This makes it impossible to simulating a pile group, like the one in Figure 2.15c.
3.2.2 Embedded piles

Embedded pile is a tool that allows the user to add point-bearing, friction piles or a
combination of the two. The pile itself is regarded as linear elastic and its behaviour is
defined using elastic stiffness properties. Modelling of piles in a 2D finite element model
brings limitations because pile-soil interaction is a 3D situation.
In PLAXIS 2D the piles are referred to as embedded pile rows, consisting of plate (surface)
elements due to the plane strain assumption. In PLAXIS 3D the embedded piles consists of a
beam (line) elements. In both cases, the main element is combined with embedded interface
elements to describe the interaction with the soil at the skin and the foot of the pile (hence
17
the name). The 2D plate elements stretches out of plane, as shown in Figure 3.4, making
them behave like beam elements in plane.
Figure 3.4. Embedded piles in 3D reality vs 2D model (PLAXIS, 2014).
In 3D the piles are created by two lines, a geometry line and the embedded pile. When
generating a mesh in PLAXIS, two sets of elements (edges and nodes) are generated along
the geometry line. The pair of sets is then connected with interface elements. The embedded
interface acts as a spring element, using the mechanics of the node-to-node anchors in
PLAXIS. (Sluis, 2014)
The geometry line of the 2D pile shares nodes with the mesh (as seen in Figure 3.2).
However, the embedded interface allows the pile interface elements to flow through the
surrounding mesh. This is most evident in 3D, where the piles pierce the finite elements of
the surrounding soil. Because of the combination of plate and node-to-node anchors, the
embedded pile row element largely overcomes the drawbacks of each component. (PLAXIS,
2014)
Sluis (2014) conducted a validation of the 2D embedded pile rows used in PLAXIS 2D,
comparing the behaviour of a laterally loaded embedded pile in PLAXIS 3D. The model is
presented in Figure 3.5 along with the displacement curves in 2D and 3D. The 3D soil
displacement in the Y-plane (blue dashed line) is averaged (olive dashed line). The dashed
curves in the figure are further presented in the diagram of Figure 3.6. It was found that the
2D soil displacement is an average of the out of plane soil displacement. Figure 3.6 also
shows that the correlation is independent of embedded interface stiffness.
18
PLAXIS
Figure 3.5. 2D vs 3D embedded pile behaviour (Sluis, 2014).
Figure 3.6. 2D soil displacement at surface level for varying interface stiffness, compared to 3D soil displacement
(Sluis, 2014).
The equality of the average out of plane displacement (in 3D modelling) and the in plane
displacement (in 2D modelling) can be explained by realising that the same amount of force
per unit meter is transmitted to the soil in 2D and an equivalent model in 3D. This gives the
same deformations.
A plane strain model can be used in the case of square piling pattern, since every row is the
same. When modelling a triangular pattern, however, every other row is offset in plane. This
contradicts the plane strain assumption of “indefinite” cross section out of plane. By using an
axisymmetric model, only a part of the embankment is modelled. Therefore, an embankment
reinforced with piles in a triangular pattern is a true 3D problem. A limitation with PLAXIS
2D and 3D is that there exists no feature of pile caps, but it would be possible to draw plates
with equivalent dimension on top of the piles.
19
3.2.3 Geosynthetic reinforcement

The geogrid behaves very much the same in 2D and 3D. The main difference is, due to plane
strain, that the out of plane properties is neglected in 2D. It is possible in both cases to have
anisotropic layers of GR in different layers, with one or more layers being stronger in the
direction of the road.
20
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
4 CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
In the FE computations done in PLAXIS, the constitutive models used are the Mohr-
Coulomb and Soft Soil models (both described more in detail below). To the constitutive
models in PLAXIS it is possible to specify undrained behaviour in an effective stress
analysis using effective model parameters. This is done by setting the material models
drainage type as Undrained (A), Undrained (B) or Undrained (C). The pore pressures are
generated on the basis of phreatic levels.
When modelling with Undrained (A), the strength parameters are based on effective
cohesion and friction angle. A non-zero dilatancy may lead to unrealistically large shear
strength. Also, effective stiffness parameters (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio) are
used. The advantage of using effective strength parameters in undrained calculations during
loading is that the increase in shear strength, after consolidation, is obtained. Sometimes this
increase could also have incorrect magnitude, as explained in chapter 4.1 below. (Brinkgreve
et al., 2013)
Some models (e.g. Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening Soil) offer the Undrained (B) drainage
type. The undrained effective stress analysis has a direct input of the undrained shear
strength, i.e. the friction angle is set to zero and the cohesion equals to the undrained shear
strength. Stiffness parameters must be effective values. (Brinkgreve et al., 2013)
Undrained (C) uses a total stress analysis with all parameters specified as undrained.
Stiffness is modelled using an undrained Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. The strength
parameters contain undrained shear strength and a friction angle set to zero. This is only
available when using the Mohr-Coulomb model or the so called NGI-ADP model. An
undrained total stress analysis comes with the disadvantage that there is no distinction made
between effective stresses and pore pressures. As output data, effective stresses is interpreted
as total stresses and the pore pressures is equal to zero. A consolidation analysis therefore
loses its point. (Brinkgreve et al., 2013)
4.1 Mohr-Coulomb
The content about the Mohr-Coulomb model is collected from Bringreve et al. (2013).
Soil behaviour is highly non-linear and irreversible. The Mohr-Coulomb model assumes a
linear elastic perfectly plastic behaviour of the soil, which implies a linear unloading and
reloading (as seen in Figure 4.1). The strains are decomposed into an elastic and a plastic
part.
21
To model the soil behaviour, the following five parameters are used in the
Mohr-Coloumb model:
E : Young’s modulus [kN/m2]
ν : Poisson’s ratio [-]
c : Cohesion [kN/m2]
φ : Friction angle [°]
ψ : Dilatancy angle [°]
where and defines the elasticity and , and defines the plasticity.
Figure 4.1. Basic idea of an elastic perfectly plastic model (Brinkgreve et al., 2013).
To incorporate in a calculation whether or not plasticity occurs, a yield function, f, is used as

a function of stress and strain. In Mohr-Coulomb, the yield surface is not affected by plastic
straining but fully defined by model parameters and the effective stress invariants (yield
criteria f = 0).
In PLAXIS, it is possible to assign undrained behaviour by Undrained (A), (B) and (C).
Undrained behaviour is often modelled incorrectly by constitutive models, i.e. Mohr-
Coulomb. That is because many models are not capable of calculating the right effective
stress path in undrained loading. Figure 4.2 shows the overestimation Mohr-Coulomb does
on a typical soft soil. What happens is that the mean effective stress, , remains constant all
the way up to failure (1). Undrained loading of soft soils is known to follow a stress path (2)
where is significantly reduced as a result of shear induced pore pressure. The maximum
deviatoric stress is overestimated; hence the assumed mobilized shear strength is higher than
the available undrained shear strength.
22
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
Figure 4.2. Illustration of stress paths; reality vs Mohr-Coulomb model (Brinkgreve et al., 2013).
Although the Mohr-Coulomb model only includes a limited number of features of the real
soil behaviour, it is a good first approximation when modelling. The input parameters are
basic parameters, which are often evaluated from field tests or from experience.
4.2 Soft soil

The content about the Soft Soil model is collected from Brinkgreve et al. (2013).
A special quality of soft soils (near-normally consolidated clays, clayey silts and peat) is
their high degree of compressibility. In e.g. oedometer tests, normally consolidated clays
behave ten times softer than normally consolidated sands. In order to mimic the extreme
compressibility and the behaviour that follows, the Soft Soil model contains key features
such as
 stress dependent stiffness (logarithmic compression behaviour),
 distinction between primary loading and unloading-reloading,
 memory for preconsolidation stress.
The Soft Soil model assumes a logarithmic relation between the volumetric strain, , and
the mean effective stress, , as illustrated in Figure 4.3. The plot can be approximated by
two straight lines. The slope of the virgin compression line gives the modified compression
index, , and the slope of the unloading/reloading (swelling) line gives the modified
swelling index, . The position of the swelling line corresponds to the isotropic
preconsolidation pressure, . Stresses larger than the current preconsolidation pressure
cause plastic volumetric strains. The ratio should range between 2.5 and 7.
23
Figure 4.3. Logarithmic relation between volumetric strain and mean stress (Brinkgreve et al., 2013).
and can be obtained from an isotropic compression test including isotropic unloading
(e.g. isotropic triaxial test), as well as a one-dimensional compression test (e.g. oedometer
test). The model is a Cam-Clay type model and there is a relationship to the Cam-Clay
parameters and :
(1)
(2)
where is set as either the initial void ratio or the average void ratio during the test.
In contrary to the Mohr-Coulomb model the yield surface of the Soft Soil model increases in
size in the effective stress space during plastic loading (so called strain hardening
behaviour), whilst the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface remains constant during plastic loading
(i.e. perfectly plastic). The height of the ellipse is determined by the parameter , based on
the critical state frictional angle, . The -line is referred to as the critical state line and
represents stress states at post peak failure. However, in the Soft Soil model failure is not
necessarily related to critical state. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is based on and ,
which might not correspond to the -line. The Soft Soil model is based on a 1D model,
extended to a 3D model on the basis of Modified Cam-Clay ellipses.
24
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
Figure 4.4. Yield surface of the Soft Soil model in p'-q-plane during triaxial stress state (Brinkgreve et al., 2013).
Stress points within the cap and below the Mohr-Coulomb failure line, i.e. the yield contour,
give only elastic strain response. The change in soil behaviour occurs when the stress point is
situated on the cap and the stress increment is directed outwards, which causes plastic
response and an increase of the yield surface (i.e. the ellipse grows). This behaviour is
known as hardening. Meanwhile, the failure line is fixed. In tension, the ellipse extends to
. The value of is determined by volumetric strain following the hardening relation,
and increases exponentially during compaction (decreasing of the volumetric strain).
The basic parameters of the Soft Soil model are:
: Modified compression index [-]
: Modified swelling index [-]
: Cohesion [kN/m2]
: Friction angle [°]
: Dilatancy angle [°]
Poisson’s ratio for unloading/reloading, , the coefficient of lateral stress in normal
consolidation, , and , function of , are advanced parameters. It is recommended to
use the default settings for these parameters in PLAXIS. The parameter determines the
height of the ellipse, shown in Figure 4.4, which is responsible for the ratio of horizontal to
vertical stresses in primary one-dimensional compression, since . can
therefore be chosen such that a known is matched in primary one-dimensional
compression. In addition to the mentioned parameters, the modified creep index, , is used
in the Soft Soil Creep model. An undrained analysis using the Soft Soil model only offers
the Undrained (A) drainage type in PLAXIS, further explained in chapter 0.
The Soft Soil model should be used solely in situations that are dominated by compression.
The utilization of the model in excavation problems is not recommended, since even the
basic Mohr Coulomb is hardly surpassed by it in unloading problems. Although the
Hardening Soil model has better modelling capabilities in general, the Soft Soil model
outperforms it at compression of very soft soils (e.g. sulphide soil).
25
26
PREVIOUS CASE STUDIES OF THE SITE
5 PREVIOUS CASE STUDIES OF THE SITE

Previous academic investigations on road 685, in between Vibbyn and Skogså have been
done by two groups. The first is a master thesis by Hugosson & Nilsson (2014) on behalf of
Trafikverket. They studied the change in undrained shear strength of sulphide soil adjacent
to a light embankment piling.
The second investigation is a development project by Edlund et al. (2015) on behalf of
Trafikverket as part of a course at Luleå University of Technology. The aim was to clarify
the need of geosynthetic reinforcement in a piled embankment, performed according to TK
Geo 13 (Trafikverket, 2014) standards. Tests were conducted using a PLAXIS 2D simulation
of the piled embankment.
It is on the basis of these two investigations this thesis is conducted. The material parameters
are collected from the master thesis by Hugosson & Nilsson (2014). The investigation by
Edlund et al. (2015) provided a first FE model of the piled embankment.
5.1 Effects on undrained shear strength

5.1.1 Introduction
The background of the master thesis by Hugosson & Nilsson (2014) was an improvement
done to an existing culvert bridge situated at the Kippel creek, along road 685. Because of
the sensitive sulphide soil, the bridge settled 2 m causing flooding by the creek. It was
decided to replace the culvert bridge with a concrete bridge, with light embankment pilings
100 m in either direction.
The purpose of the master thesis was to study how the wooden piles affect the undrained
shear strength of the loose sulphide soil. Geotechnical tests, both in the field and laboratory,
were conducted before and after the installation of the piles. Hugosson & Nilsson (2014)
wanted to study the change of the undrained shear strength over time and the cause of a
change.
27
5.1.2 Conducted tests
5.1.2.1 Field tests and sampling

The field tests were conducted at four occasions from October 2013 until January 2014 with
1-1.5 months in between. The first test is the reference point (BH104) used in the pre-
investigations of the construction in August 2012. A total of ten test points were assigned
near the reference point in the centre of the road, approximately 20 m from the concrete
bridge:
 4 piston samples (at four levels per test point)
 3 CPT
 3 piezometers
 2 shear vane tests (one before and one after installation of the piles).
At the reference point a CPT and three piston samples were taken. The locations of the CPT,
piston samples and piezometer test points are shown in Figure 5.1. The CPT results from the
reference point are presented in APPENDIX A.
Figure 5.1. Blueprint of the test point’s locations.
The ground in this area near the bridge consisted mostly of a 10 m thick layer of loose
sulphide silt and sulphide clay, with a filling material closest to the surface. The groundwater
level was assumed relatively high due to the adjacent creek. The soil profile is further
described in detail in chapter 6.1.
5.1.2.2 Laboratory tests

A total of 19 soil samples were taken, where three were from the reference point (results
viewed in APPENDIX B). Routine tests were done on each sample. CRS tests were
conducted on the samples from the reference point (viewed in APPENDIX C) and the 16
later soil samples were tested with direct shear tests.
28
5.1.3 Increase in shear strength

Hugosson & Nilsson observed a distinct increase of the undrained shear strength, both in the
result from the CPT’s (shown in Figure 5.2) and the shear vane tests. SW1301-1304 are the
points where the CPT tests were performed after the installation of the piles. The undrained
shear strength of evaluated from the CPT tests were increased by 50-200 % between the time
before and after the piles were installed.
Figure 5.2. Undrained shear strength collected from CPT results (Hugosson & Nilsson, 2014).
They believe that the undrained shear strength was increase due to the piles displacing a soil
volume corresponding to the pile volume. This action indirectly forces the soil volume into
the adjacent soil, causing a disturbance. In the case of Skogså the pile spacing is 1.2 m,
which results in a relatively large pile to soil ratio within the pile reinforced soil volume. The
disturbed zone is therefore larger compared to cases with wider pile spacing. Hugosson &
Nilsson states that the correlation between the disturbance and increase of undrained shear
strength could be due to three different reasons:
 The sulphide soil is often stratified with particle size varying between silt and clay.
These layers form zones with lower strength. When piling, the layering is in theory
disturbed and a more homogenous structure with fewer weak zones is formed.
Through stirring and structural breakdown, the soil reconsolidates to a firmer
layering with higher strength. However, the disturbance could greatly reduce the
strength depending on sensitivity. Also, the CPT results show a fairly homogenous
structure of the studied sulphide soil.
 Sulphide soil is classified as something in between cohesive and frictional soil. It
contains silt, and sometimes greater fractions, that has an internal friction. A
dominant fraction of silt generates behaviour closer to a frictional soil. Piling in a
29
frictional soil contributes to a compaction of the sulphide soil adjacent to the piles,
which would most likely increase the undrained shear strength. However, the routine
tests show no increase in density.
 The disturbance that occurs when the soil is pushed aside during piling might
contribute to increased vertical stresses and most formerly increased horizontal
stresses on the soil in between the piles. The horizontal stresses acts as a radial
compression of the sulphide soil with subsequent consolidation. The increased pore
pressure changes the stress condition in the adjacent soil. In time the soil
reconsolidates and the effective stresses will increase as the excess pore pressure
reduces to zero. In connection to the decrease of the pore pressure, the soil particle
skeleton carries more of the initial load that was carried by the pore water. If the new
stress condition in the sulphide soil after consolidation exceeds the highest stresses
the soil has ever been subjected to, the soil particle skeleton will be permanently
compressed to a denser structure than it has been before. This would increase the
preconsolidation pressure and thus result in an increase of the undrained shear
strength.
5.2 The need of geosynthetic reinforcement

5.2.1 Introduction
Edlund et al. (2015) investigated the need of geosynthetic reinforcement by simulation of the
road 685 reconstruction as a 2D PLAXIS model of the cross section. A Sigma/W analysis
was done as verification. In this thesis, a PLAXIS 3D model was done to verify their results
and their 2D model was used as the basis when answering the research questions.
5.2.2 The 2D-model

The soil profile is divided into two layers of sulphide soil. As mentioned in chapter 2.2, the
piles are cut-off above the bottom of the trench and the spacing filled with e.g. moraine. In
this model the piles are cut-off in level with the bottom of the excavation and a layer of
moraine was added on top.
The soil parameters were collected mainly from Hugosson & Nilsson (2014) and TK Geo 13
(Trafikverket, 2014). Mohr-Coulomb was used as the constitutive model for the soil. The
structural parameters are the same as the parameters in chapter 6.2. The geosynthetic
reinforcement was simplified as one layer instead of two. The phreatic level is in level with
the ground surface. The model, displayed in Figure 5.3, was 100x40 m in size.
The piles are introduced into the model as embedded pile rows with a c/c-distance of
1.2 m. The three outer pile columns have a spacing of 1.0 m. This is the same pattern as the
one used by the contractor.
30
Figure 5.3. The 2D model by Edlund et al. (2015).
5.2.2.1 Phases
Evaluation of the efficiency of the geosynthetic reinforcement is done by calculating phase
4-8 with and without the geogrid activated. The number of piles is divided in half as a
second analysis. Screenshots of the model during the calculation phases are shown in
APPENDIX D. The following phases were used to simulate the construction of the
embankment, traffic load and consolidation:
1. Initial phase
The computationss are done with K0 procedure, since the initial surface is horizontal.
2. Excavation
Soil is excavated down to the pile cut-off level. Plastic staged construction is used and the
displacements are reset to zero.
3. Piles
The piles are installed as staged construction of one day of consolidation.
4. Foundation
The granular soil foundation is added on top of a 10 cm layer of moraine. The geogrid is
added within the granular foundation, 10 cm above the moraine. The computations are done
with a half day of consolidation with staged construction.
5. Embankment
The last part of the construction, the granular soil embankment, is added. The computations
are done with a half day of consolidation with staged construction. Displacements are reset
to zero.
6. 45 days consolidation
After constructing the piled embankment, the subsoil is left to consolidate for 45 days before
applying the traffic load. Staged construction is used as loading type.
31
7. Traffic load
The traffic load of 20 kN/m is applied on top of the embankment. The computations are done
with one day of consolidation.
8. Final consolidation
To receive the final settlement of the embankment, the subsoil is consolidated until the
excess pore pressure is less than 1 kPa. At this stage, the subsoil is assumed as fully
consolidated.
5.2.3 Results and concluding remarks

The maximum displacement was located at the top of the embankment. With the use of a
geogrid the displacement was 9.4 cm, and 9.8 cm without a geogrid. However, the geogrid
spreads the load over a larger area. Reducing the number of piles by half generates
displacement of 12.4 cm with and 13.4 cm without geogrid. The Sigma/W analysis, with the
full number of piles, gave results with the same trends and magnitude. Their conclusion is
that the pile spacing suggested by TK Geo 13 (Trafikverket, 2014) is too narrow to make
cost effective use of the geogrid.
5.2.3.1 Verification in 3D
In order to verify the results by Edlund et al. (2015), a 3D model was done within this thesis
with the same cross section geometry and material parameters. To generate a mesh with
sufficient quality, the moraine layer was removed in the 3D model and the granular soil
foundation stretched down to the pile cut-off level. The measuring points, A and B, are
shown in Figure 5.4. The locations of both points are the same in the 2D and 3D model. The
results of the comparison of the displacements in point A and B for the 2D and 3D model are
shown Figure 5.5-5.6 The difference between the 2D and 3D model is about 3% when
comparing the displacement in point A and B. The consolidation is however slower in the
3D computations.
Figure 5.4. Measuring point locations.
32
Displacement, point A
Time [day]
0 5000 10000 15000
0,00
0,02
0,04
Geogrid 2D
0,06
No geogrid 2D
0,08
Displacement Geogrid 3D
[cm]
0,10 No geogrid 3D
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
Figure 5.5. Displacement with and without geogrid.
Displacement, point B
Time [day]
0 5000 10000 15000
0,00
0,01
0,02
0,03 Geogrid 2D
0,04 No geogrid 2D
Displacement Geogrid 3D
0,05
[cm]
No geogrid 3D
0,06
0,07
0,08
0,09
0,10
Figure 5.6. Displacement with and without geogrid.
33
34
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
6 MATERIAL PARAMETERS
The material parameters used in the modelling in this thesis are divided into soil and
structural parameters. The soil parameters were evaluated using the field and laboratory
results from Hugosson & Nilsson (2014). The structural parameters were provided by the
contractor, Vectura, and were the same used in the 2D model by Edlund et al. (2015).
Characteristic values were used in the simulations based on the reasoning in chapter 3.1.
6.1 Soil parameters

The soil parameters used were based on the results of the field and laboratory tests presented
by Hugosson & Nilsson (2014), seen in APPENDIX A-C. The test results used were from
the reference point, BH104, mentioned in chapter 5.1.2. The tests performed are CPT,
routine test and CRS test, as mentioned. Soil samples at BH104 were taken at depths of 4.03,
6.03 and 8.03 m.
CPT results suggest that the soil profile consists of filling material (0-1 m) and sulphide soil
(1-13 m) on top of moraine with unknown depth. The sulphide soil ranges from sandy
sulphide-bearing silt (sasiSi) at the top to somewhat silty sulphide clay ((si)SuCl) at the
bottom. The filling material was neglected in the simulations and the upper sulphide soil
layer was assumed to stretch to the surface.
The numerical methods offer a more advanced calculation than the analytical. However,
some simplifications must be done in order for a FE model to be practical. Soil layers with
similar parameters are therefore often combined to make a more time efficient and accurate
simulation. Many thin layers require finer element mesh to get the same accuracy in the
iteration. The field and laboratory tests performed suggest that the behaviour of the soil at
6.03 and 8.03 m depth behaves similar, as seen in Figure 6.1. Thus, the two soil layers were
combined.
35
σ'v [kPa]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
5
4.03 m 6.03 8.03 m
10
15
20
ε [%] 25
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 6.1. CRS test results of the three levels, collected from results in APPENDIX C.
The compression curves of the samples at 6.03 and 8.03 m in Figure 6.1 are closely together.
The combined soil layer should ideally have the curvature in between these two. The
parameters of this layer was an average of the two, but adapted to find the correct behaviour.
6.1.1 Constant rate of strain (CRS)

The piled embankment generates large compression of the underlying soil. The soil
compression properties are normally evaluated in laboratory test, and oedometer is usually
used for fine grained soils. Triaxial tests works for both fine and coarse grained soil.
During a standard oedometer test a soil sample with diameter 50 mm and height 20 mm is
placed in a rigid ring. The ring is laid on top of a filter stone and another filter stone is placed
on top of the ring, as seen in Figure 6.2. The load is applied gradually or with a constant
deformation rate. The gradual load is doubled every 24 hours and the deformation is noted
after each increase of the load.
Oedometer tests with a constant rate of strain (CRS) are most common nowadays. The
Swedish standard of compression rate is 0.0024 mm/min. The test setup in Figure 6.2 is
equal in both standard oedometer and CRS tests, but the bottom drainage is closed in the
latter case and instead the pore pressure is measured. The load applied varies to meet the
compression rate of 0.0024 mm/min. The permeability is recorded during the compression.
(Larsson, 2008)
36
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Figure 6.2. Figure 6.3.

CRS test principal sketch (Larsson, 2008). Stress-tension correlation and compression
modules for CRS tests for clay (Larsson, 2008).
The compression modulus for CRS, , changes during increased stresses, as shown in
Figure 6.3. In the stress interval the modulus is constant, . In the stress
interval the modulus is again constant, . When the modulus
increases as , where is the modulus number that mostly depends
on the soil porosity. For saturated clays (where is the natural water
content), but the relationship has a big spread. (Olsson, 2010)
6.1.2 Soft Soil parameter evaluation

The Soft Soil model is focused mainly on the soil behaviour during compression, e.g.
settlements of a road embankment on clay. The oedometer test captures the soil behaviour
during one dimensional compression. Therefore, oedometer tests (and CRS tests) are suited
for evaluation of Soft Soil model parameters. Figure 6.4 shows three parameter correlations
for primary one dimensional compression with constant strain rate, which is the case of CRS
tests. The breaking point of the two lines is at the preconsolidation pressure.
Figure 6.4. Diagram illustrating the definitions of the various stiffness parameters, where σ is the vertical effective
stress and p' the mean effective stress (Gustafsson & Tian, 2011).
37
Table 6.1 and 6.2 shows mathematical relationships between various stress-strain parameters
for confined compression. The expressions for Soft Soil swelling and compression index are
according to Brinkgreve et al. (2013). An assumption of = 0.2 and = 5-10 is
made. is the one-dimensional compression index and is the one-dimensional swelling
index. The presented mathematical relationships are very sensitive since the choice of the
average vertical stress, σ or σ , greatly effects the calculated values (Olsson, 2010).
Table 6.1. Relationships between various stress-strain parameters for confined compression in the over consolidated
region (Olsson, 2010).
Oedometer modulus Swelling index SS swelling index
Oedometer
modulus
Swelling
index
SS swelling
index
Note, σ denotes an average stress in the range before the preconsolidation pressure.
Table 6.2. Relationships between various stress-strain parameters for confined compression in the normal
consolidated region (Olsson, 2010).
Oedometer modulus Compression index SS compression index
Oedometer
modulus
Compression
index
SS
compression
index
Note, σ denotes the average between the preconsolidation pressure and the current vertical
stress after reaching the preconsolidation pressure.
One dimensional compression tests like CRS tests only allows vertical strain of the test
sample. The volumetric strain therefore equals the vertical strain, and thus
(3)
where = vertical strain,

= volumetric strain,
= void ratio,
38
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
= initial void ratio.

The initial void ratio is calculated by
(4)
where = solid density, assumed as 2.7 t/m3,

= initial water content and = initial bulk density, viewed in Table 6.3, are
taken as average values of the results of the routine tests in APPENDIX B.
Table 6.3. Water content and bulk density of the three soil samples taken from the reference point BH104.
Depth [m] Water content, [%] Bulk density, [t/m3]
4.03 80 1.53
6.03 133 1.35
8.03 119 1.35
In Figure 6.5 the void ratio, , was plotted against the logarithm of the vertical effective
stress, , based on the CRS results in APPENDIX C and equation (3) and (4). The plot was
based on the test results of the soil sample from 4.03 m depth. As seen in Figure 6.4a,
Table 6.1 and 6.2, and can be evaluated through the compression index, , and the
swelling index, , by drawing tangents to the curve on each side of the preconsolidation
pressure. However, this method gives a rough approximation, since the correlations used are
sensitive to the tangent inclination. Also, the ratio of was below the assumed range of
5-10 for the tests at 6.03 and 8.03 m. Therefore, this method was solely used as a first guess
of and .
2,3
log(σ'c)
2,1 Cc
1
1,9
1,7
Cr
e 1,5
1
1,3
1,1
0,9
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
log(σ'v)
Figure 6.5. Plot of e and log(σ v) based on CRS test done on the sample collected at 4.03 m depth at the reference
point, BH104.
39
As a more precise method the CRS tests are back calculated, using the Soft Soil model, to
give the parameters describing the behaviour observed in the performed CRS tests.
Simulations were done, and by varying the parameters this curve would match the CRS test
result. The Soft Soil parameters are five in total, making the back calculation depend on five
variables. This makes the results less predictable and time consuming, since unrealistic
parameters may give the same CRS curve in the simulation as the real test. Deriving the
friction angle and cohesion from CRS is unreliable, since the soil sample in a CRS test does
not go to failure and these parameters are connected to the failure criterion. Therefore, the
cohesion and dilatancy angle were assumed and the friction angle was calculated using the
CPT results in APPENDIX A and the empirical correlation in Figure 6.6. These values are
shown in Table 6.5.
Figure 6.6. Diagram for evaluation of the effective friction angle (here φ’) from CPT results in the case of pore
overpressure during the test (Larsson, 2015).
In Figure 6.6 (Knutsson et al., 1998)

(5)
(6)
where = difference between pore pressure at the current depth and initial pore
pressure at the surface,
= total point pressure at the current depth,
= vertical pressure,
= vertical effective pressure,
= strength parameter based on cohesion and consistency in Figure 6.4, set as
5 kPa for loose/semi-firm silt.
40
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Table 6.4. Evaluation of the strength parameter, , based on soil consistency and effective cohesion
(Larsson, 2015).
Strength parameter Effective cohesion

Evaluated consistency
a [kPa] [kPa]
Loose 0-5 0–3
Semi-firm 5 - 15 3–9
Firm 15 - 30 9 - 20
Table 6.5. Constant parameters for back calculation of the Soft Soil parameters.
Depth [m] [kPa] [°] [°]

4.03 3 0 36
6.03 3 0 36
8.03 3 0 34
6.03 & 8.03 combo 3 0 35*
*Average value of 6.03 and 8.03 m.
It is possible to evaluate cohesion from the CRS test as the horizontal displacement of the
curve after the preconsolidation pressure, in a -diagram (Figure 6.3). This method was
discarded since the soil sample does not go to failure in CRS tests and because it was very
difficult to evaluate cohesion from these tests. The effective cohesion, , was therefore
assumed as 3 kPa based the CPT results in APPENDIX A and Table 6.4. A too high value
would give unrealistically high tensile strength and the chosen value was therefore closer to
zero.
6.1.2.1 SoilTest
There exists a plug-in to PLAXIS 2D and 3D that allows straight forward simulation of
triaxial, oedometer, CRS and DSS (direct simple shear) tests. The computations are based on
the same iterative procedure as the main model computations. The parameters are still input
values with corresponding laboratory diagrams as output, from which parameters can be
evaluated with traditional methods.
When using SoilTest to back calculate the CRS tests in Appendix A3, the output vertical
preconsolidation pressure was slightly lower than the input value (10-15 %). This is a
problem since the preconsolidation pressure plays an important role in Soft Soil modelling.
Also, fitting the SoilTest curves to the curves from laboratory tests proved to be difficult,
since the SoilTest curves were relatively angular. Therefore, a CRS test was modelled and
the SoilTest results were used as a first approximation on the input parameters.
41
6.1.2.2 2D simulation
At first glance a CRS test might seem to be a 3D problem. However, the cylindrical shape of
the soil sample equals a revolved 2D cross section, which is the case of axisymmetric
models. This allows the CRS test to be modelled in 2D, thus reducing the calculation time in
comparison to a 3D model.
When setting up a CRS test as a 2D axisymmetric model in PLAXIS 2D, the vertical
boundaries are fixed in x-direction and free in y-direction. The top is free and bottom fixed
in both x- and y-direction. Only the top boundary is open for drainage. A uniform prescribed
displacement is applied along the top border, corresponding to 0.0024 mm/min.
The 2D model attempt failed when iterating the constant strain stage, possibly due to the lack
of knowledge by the user. Olsson (2010) managed to model a CRS test as an axisymmetric
2D model in PLAXIS in a similar fashion. A 3D model was attempted, described in the next
subchapter. This model gave satisfying iterations.
6.1.2.3 The CRS model

The performed CRS tests were done according to Swedish standards, i.e. the rate of strain is
0.0024 mm/min. In order to keep this rate during the model calculation, the load on top of
the test sample was a so called prescribed displacement. The displacement had a prescribed
magnitude and during the calculation, forces were applied to reach this value at the end of
the active calculation stage. This is the same way as a CRS test is performed, where the load
is adapted to generate 0.0024 mm/min. The displacement corresponded to the compression
of the sample
(7)
where = vertical compression,

= prescribed displacement,
= test sample height, 20mm.
With the prescribed displacement, a time interval was given to the compression stage. This
interval gave a displacement of 0.0024 mm/min.
Table 6.6 shows the test run settings for each sample. Firstly, an initial stage was calculated
with K0 procedure since the sample has a horizontal top surface, after which the
displacements were reset to zero. The actual compression phase was done as a staged
construction with plastic computations. No phreatic level was added since the soil was set as
undrained, using Undrained (A) for the material parameters.
42
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Table 6.6. Test run settings for each sample to provide 0.0024mm/min.
Sample [%] z-displacement [mm] Stage time [min]

4.03 m 38.25 7.65 3188
6.03 m 43.4 8.68 3617
8.03 m 44.45 8.89 3704
6.03 & 8.03 combo 43.9 8.78 3658
To allow vertical compression but no horizontal strains, the mantle of the sample was fixed
in x- and y-direction and free in z-direction. The top was also fixed in x- and y-direction and
prescribed in z-direction according to
Table 6.6.
The mesh had an element size of 3.7 mm (corresponding to the default setting of medium
sized mesh) and the surfaces were refined by a factor of 0.4. A finer mesh gave no
significant difference to the results. The measuring point was placed on the top centre of the
model, marked with a red dot in Figure 6.7. The displacement was relatively evenly graded
through the model, as seen in Figure 6.8.
Figure 6.7. CRS model mesh and test point location. Figure 6.8. Displacement distribution with red as the
prescribed displacement and dark blue as zero.
Plots of the CRS 3D modelling are shown in APPENDIX D. The smoothness of the curves
generated by the 3D model was somewhere in between the SoilTest and laboratory results.
The results along with the routine tests, in APPENDIX B, shows similar behaviour between
the soil at 6.03 and 8.03 m depth, therefore these two were combined into one layer.
43
6.1.3 Final input soil material parameters
Preconsolidation pressure
The preconsolidation pressure was defined using pre-overburden pressure, POP. The
alternative is over consolidation ratio, OCR. They are defined as (Brinkgreve et al., 2013)
(8)
(9)
where = vertical preconsolidation pressure,

= in-situ effective vertical pressure.
The principal of POP and OCR are shown in Figure 6.9. A normal consolidated soil has
and . When evaluating the preconsolidation pressure from the CRS tests,
the soil samples are evenly over consolidated for the three sampling depths. Therefore, POP
is used instead of OCR since the preconsolidation is constant over depth. The
preconsolidation pressure used for each simulation was picked from the corresponding CRS
test.
Figure 6.9. Principals of using (a) OCR and (b) POP to define the preconsolidation pressure (Brinkgreve et al.,
2013).
Permeability
The permeability, , for the sulphide soil is evaluated from the CRS tests in APPENDIX C.
Permeability of the moraine and granular soil was the default values of “medium fine” and
“coarse” soil respectively in PLAXIS.
Summary
The final material parameters are shown in Table 6.7. “Su - top” is the soil material
parameters from 4.03 m depth. “Su - bottom” is the combination of samples from 6.03 and
8.03 m depth. According to Brinkgreve et al. (2013) the ratio should range between
2.5 and 7, and the parameters had a ratio of 2.7 and 3.4 respectively. The given ratio could
be the reason for the unsuccessful evaluation using the correlations in chapter 6.1.2, where
the formulas are based on an assumption of a ratio between 5 and 10.
44
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Table 6.7. Soil Parameters.
Parameter Su - top Su - bottom siTi Granular Unit

Mohr- Mohr-
Material model Soft Soil Soft Soil -
Coulomb Coulomb
Undrained Undrained Undrained
Drainage type Drained -
(A) (A) (A)
15 13.4** 20 20 kN/m3
15 13.4** 20 23 kN/m3
- - 10·103 50·103 kN/m2
- - 0.25 0.2 -
3 3 0 0 kN/m2
36 35** 40 45 °
0 0 0 0 °
0.117 0.136 - - -
0.035 0.05 - - -
2.18 3.49 0.5 0.5 -
0.15* 0.15* - - -
k 2.16·10-4 3.12·10-4** 2.27·10-3 0.6 m/day
POP 38 41 - - kN/m2
*Default values suggested by PLAXIS.

**Average of the values from levels 6.03 and 8.03 m.
45
6.2 Structural parameters
Timber piles
The timber pile material parameters are presented in Table 6.8. Calculated values were given
by equation (10)-(14).
Table 6.8 Input parameters of the timber piles.
Parameter Value Unit

E 2200 MPa
γ 12 kN/m3
Diameter 0.20 m
cu,top 12 kPa
cu,bot 13 kPa
Ttop,max 14.4 kN/m
Tbot,max 15.6 kN/m
Fmax 0 kN
Young’s modulus
The Young’s modulus of the timber piles, E, was set as 2200 MPa corresponding to the
Swedish standard of K12 timber (Carling, 1992).
Weight
The density of the piles, , was given by (Carling, 1992)
(10)
where = Dry density, approximated as 400 kg/m3 (Carling, 1992),

= Water content, set to 200 % since the piles are kept below groundwater
level (Ingströmer & Erik, 1998)
and thus = 1200 kg/m3. This equals to .
Diameter
The pile toe diameter, specified by the contractor Vectura, is 0.15 m. Since timber piles are
conical, the overall pile diameter was approximated as 0.20 m.
46
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Bearing capacity
Vectura has according to Eurocode calculated the structural bearing capacity, RS, as 106 kN.
The geotechnical bearing capacity, RG, was calculated as 107 kN.
PLAXIS defines the geotechnical pile bearing capacity as a combination of skin resistance
and pile toe bearing capacity, where skin resistance is a function of the soils undrained shear
strength. Therefore, the geotechnical bearing capacity was recalculated using (Eriksson, et
al. 2004)
(11)
where = pile length,

= adhesion,
= pile circumference,
= undrained shear strength,
= pile toe bearing resistance,
= pile cross section area.
Embedded pile rows in Plaxis 3D consists of beam elements (lines). The interaction with the
soil is implemented in embedded interface elements along the pile. Thus, the material
parameters of the embedded pile are divided into parameters of the pile and parameters of
the skin resistance and foot resistance. The beam is considered linear elastic. The interaction
of the pile with the surrounding soil at the skin of the pile is described by an elastic-plastic
behavior with a finite strength and is defined by the maximum traction allowed at the skin of
the embedded pile, . The maximum traction is set as force per unit pile length and is
considered independent of pile circumference. Therefore, when applying equation (11) and
neglecting the geometry of the pile and pile base capacity, . Thus
(12)
The skin resistance is assumed linear from the top of the pile to the bottom. and
are evaluated in the soil surrounding the top and bottom of the pile respectively.
PLAXIS defines the total pile bearing capacity, Npile, as (Brinkgreve et al., 2013)
(13)
where the point bearing capacity, , usually is neglected in the case of friction piles in soft
soil (Alén, 2012). Therefore in the input parameters.
47
The undrained shear strength was evaluated from another master thesis about the same
construction site written by Hugosson & Nilsson (2014). They found an increase of the
undrained shear strength after installation of the timber piles, shown in Figure 5.2. However,
the reason for the phenomenon was not established. In this thesis the undrained shear
strength was set as the average of in-situ strength and the one observed after the piles had
been installed.
Adhesion factor of the timber pile, , was calculated using (Eriksson et al., 2004)
(14)
where = Unadjusted adhesion factor, set to 1.0 (full adhesion),

= Factor with respect of pile diameter, usually set to 0.9 for piles with
diameter 0.2-0.35 m and increasing with smaller diameter. In this case
weighted as 1.0 since most part of mobilized skin resistance is along the pile
base (0.15 m in diameter) and the assumed average diameter of 0.2 m,
= Factor with respect of the pile shape, set to 1.2 for downwards decreasing
cross-section (as is the case with timber piles),
= Factor with respect of the soils over consolidation ratio, set to 1.0 due
to the soil being normally consolidated,
= Factor with respect of assumed time until loading after installation, set
to 1.0 which corresponds to >2 months
and thus .
6.2.1 Geosynthetic reinforcement

The GR used is a geogrid called Tensar Basetex 200/50. It is laid in two layers, where one
layer is stronger in the transversal to the road and the other layer is vice versa. However, the
GR was assumed as one elastic isotropic layer with the properties of the two separate layers.
In an article by Van Eekelen et al. (2011) it was found that the difference between a biaxial
GR and two unixial grid layers, separated by a granular material, was very limited. Based on
calculations done by the contractor, according to Eurocode, the combined design tensile
strength equalled to 131.8 kN.
In PLAXIS, the GR elements are based on the material tension stiffness and cross section
areas of the local axis. The stiffness, EA, is defined as (Brinkgreve et al., 2013)
(15)
where = Axial tensile strength,

= The largest allowed axial tension, set as 6 %
and thus = 2197 kN/m.
48
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
7 NUMERICAL ANALYSES
7.1 Work layout
The following chapter contains the work layout of the numerical analyses, which consists of
the chosen patterns and how the results were evaluated.
7.1.1 Patterns
The aim was to examine which pattern is better, square or triangular, and what the optimum
pile spacing should be. The pattern suggested for road 685 by the contractor was a square
pattern with a c/c-distance of 1.2 m and a spacing of 1.0 m between the two outer most
columns.
Figure 7.1 is a sketch of the used square and triangular pile pattern, where is the pile
spacing. The triangular pattern was based on TKGeo 13 (Trafikverket, 2014). For equal c/c-
distance, , and for an outer distance of 1.0 m, . This way four different pile
patterns were modelled. The triangular pattern is generated by offsetting every other pile in
each row of the square pattern with m, creating two “sub-rows”. Thus, the square
pattern and this triangular pattern use the same amount of piles, but the triangular is thought
to generate higher arching effect and further reduce the displacements.
Figure 7.1. Sketch of the a) square and b) triangular pattern.
49
Three rows were used in the 3D model, since it is the minimum amount of rows required to
achieve a hexagonal tributary area around the centred pile, implied by Figure 2.15c. This
triangular pattern does not give equilateral triangles, as Figure 2.15b, but triangles with a top
angle of 53° instead of 60°.
As the pile spacing increases the depth of the model (y-direction) increases accordingly. The
number of piles in one column (11 to start with) is reduced when the total width of the pile
group exceeds 12 m, since the GR (which is 13 m wide) requires 0.8-1.2 m excess width for
proper fastening at the sides. Otherwise the GR will be pulled through the embankment.
7.1.2 Evaluation
In order to differentiate the four patterns, key behaviours were compared. Since no field
measurements of the actual embankment behaviour have been conducted, verifications using
the analytical method of Concentric Arches and a 2D model were used. As a control, a
model without piles was modelled and the degree of settlement reduction for each pattern
was evaluated.
As found by Van der Peet and Van Eekelen (2014), the arches can be observed in the
principal stress direction in a cross section of the FEM simulation. When ULS has been
reached the stresses form arches (as seen in Figure 2.5). Since the aim of the piled
embankment is to receive arches within the embankment, the principal stress directions were
observed to evaluate the effectiveness of different pile spacing.
The light embankment piling method is a settlement reducing method, and therefore it was
viable to compare the total and differential settlements that the different patterns generate.
The displacement contours in the model were compared between the used pile patterns. The
measuring points were placed in locations according to Figure 7.2. Differential settlements
on the pavement (point A and B) were compared. Also, calculations done by the contractor
suggests that the maximum allowed vertical displacement of the subsoil, adjacent to the pile
group, is approximately 10 cm. This is to prevent a larger hang-up on the piles. However,
since no calibrations with field measurements have been available this limit was regarded as
a guide value, rather than a design value, for the displacements in point C.
Figure 7.2. Measuring points (red dots) in the 3D model; A, B and C (counted from the right).
50
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
As stated in chapter 2.3, the load transferred onto the piles is a measurement of the amount
of arching in the embankment. The axial pile load was compared between the different
patterns, both utilization rate (percentage of structural bearing capacity) and the amount of
load carried by the piles. The load distribution along a pile row was compared between the
four patterns to evaluate the effectiveness of closer spacing between the outer columns.
7.2 The 3D model

7.2.1 Geometry
The used soil profile is presented in Table 7.1. The soil parameters are collected from Table
6.7. Based on the CPT results in APPENDIX A, the ground water level was set at 0.5 m
below the surface. Photos taken by Hugosson & Nilsson (2014), e.g. Figure 2.1, as well as
the location of the nearby creek indicates that the chosen groundwater level was correct.
Table 7.1. The soil profile.
Depth [m] Soil type

0-5 Su – top
5-26 Su – bottom
26- siTi
Piles
The length of the piles was an average of the estimated pile lengths from the contractor
(Hugosson & Nilsson, 2014), set as 13 m. With increasing pile spacing the number of piles
in a row was reduced to fit the pile group within the width of the geogrid. The number of
piles, , for each pile spacing used is shown in Table 7.2. In the case of the pattern with
1.0m outer spacing, the spacing was only increased up to 1.6 m since the middle piles would
be too few to give a proper bearing capacity. The equal spacing was increased up 2.0 m to
get the general trends.
Table 7.2. Number of piles, , for each pile spacing used.
Pile spacing
[m] 1.0 m outer spacing equal spacing
1.2 11 11
1.3 11 10
1.4 10 9
1.5 10 9
1.6 10 8
1.8 - 7
2.0 - 7
51
Geogrid
The use of an interface on both sides of the geogrid allows relative displacement between it
and the granular soil. Since the purpose of the geogrid is to interlock with the particles in the
granular soil in the embankment, no interface was used in these simulations. The geogrid
was therefore not allowed to slip and the element nodes were shared between the geogrid
and soil.
7.2.2 Model size

The model size is an important factor in FEM modelling. The size should be large enough so
that the in-situ stresses at the outer boundary are not disturbed due to e.g. excavation. If they
are disturbed, chances might be that the stresses around the added construction are altered. In
order to get a proper modelling, the size should be increased until the outer in-situ stresses
are unchanged during the stages.
The 3D model used in this thesis was 100x30 m, viewed in Figure 7.3. Near the vertical
boundaries, the principal stress was equal to the in-situ stress. Near the bottom horizontal
boundary, the contour was slightly elevated at the centre. However, the same elevation was
viewed in a model with the size of 180x50 m, viewed in Figure 7.4. The smaller model was
regarded as sufficient.
Figure 7.3. Contour of principal total stress, . Model size: 180x30m.
Figure 7.4. Contour of principal total stress, . Model size: 150x80m.
52
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
7.2.3 Mesh
When generating the mesh in PLAXIS the relative size of a mesh element is adapted to the
overall model size. Thus, the same default setting results in different relative element size for
models with different overall size. For this model the element size used was 5.25 m using a
default setting of a medium sized mesh, and the refinement factors are shown in Figure 7.5.
The refined volumes were chosen to refine the mesh in the embankment and pile group,
since these were the areas affected by displacements with the most complex geometry.
The medium sized mesh was the largest element mesh size that generated an overall
sufficient mesh quality. Using a fine mesh setting, with the same refinement factors as in
Figure 7.5, the difference in settlement magnitude was ~3%. Also, the calculation time was
almost doubled when. Therefore, the medium sized mesh was used. The generated mesh is
viewed in Figure 7.6.
Figure 7.5. Element mesh refinement factors.
Figure 7.6. The element mesh.
53
7.2.4 Boundary conditions

The boundary conditions used were the default settings in PLAXIS 2D and 3D, shown in
Figure 7.7 where ui is displacement in i-direction. The horizontal bottom boundary was fully
fixed. The vertical boundaries were fixed in horizontal movement and free in vertical
movement. The top horizontal boundary was free in all directions.
Figure 7.7. Default boundary conditions in PLAXIS 3D (PLAXIS, 2012).
7.2.5 Calculation stages

Construction of the embankment was divided into seven phases. Time was only added to
consolidation phases (which are time dependent) as an approximation of the construction
time in reality. The phreatic level was used for pore pressure computations. The changes of
the model during the phases are the same as the ones in the 2D model with geogrid by
Edlund et al. (2015), viewed in APPENDIX D. The following phases were used to simulate
the construction of the embankment, traffic load and consolidation:
1. Initial phase
The initial soil profile was horizontal at the surface, thus K0-procedure was used when
calculating with staged construction.
2. Excavation
The displacements were reset from the initial stage. The excavation was calculated with one
day time lapse and plastic staged construction.
3. Piles
The piles were installed during one day time interval with plastic staged construction.
54
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
4. Foundation
The foundation, including geogrid, was installed during one day time interval with plastic
staged construction.
5. Embankment
The embankment was installed during one day time interval with plastic staged construction.
6. 45 days consolidation
A 45 day consolidation stage was added before the traffic load was applied to allow the
excess pore pressure from the construction stages to decrease. During phase 2-5 the piled
embankment was constructed. These were a simplification of the real construction stages and
the displacements during these phases were regarded as irrelevant. Therefore, the
displacements were reset to zero in order to neglect the occurred displacements up to the
consolidation.
7. Traffic load
The traffic load was applied as a plastic staged construction with a zero time interval.
8. Final consolidation
In order to reach as good as full consolidation of the sulphide soil, a final consolidation stage
was added with a limit of a minimum excess pore pressure of 1 kPa.
A safety analysis was added at the very end. However, only trivial slip surfaces were found
in the embankment, even with an altered geometry. The analysis of the safety factor was
therefore neglected.
7.3 Results
The results are divided into arching, total and differential settlement, pile axial load and GR
axial load. An analytical analysis was done to verify the pile axial loads. A 2D model was
modelled to verify the results of the arching and total and differential settlements. The 3D
model was based on the 2D model by Edlund et al. (2015). Nevertheless, modifications have
been made of the original model and therefore there was a need for verification. The 2D
model was of the square pattern with equal c/c-distance of 1.2 m, with an identical cross
section as the 3D model.
The final consolidation phase took about ten years to complete, i.e. until the excess pore
pressure decreased to 1 kPa. The time interval is normal for an impermeable soil like
sulphide soil.
7.3.1 Arching
Figure 7.8 and 7.9 show the directions of in the cross section of the models using square
pattern with 1.2 m and 2.0 m spacing. A collection of the cross section of each of the models
can be found in APPENDIX F. The behaviour observed by Van der Peet (2014) (shown in
Figure 2.5), with clearly visible arches between the piles, were absent in all of the models.
Instead, large concentric arches were formed across the whole embankment in between the
outer two pile columns.
55
Figure 7.8. Cross section of the embankment showing the directions of σ1. Square pattern with 1.2 m equal spacing.
Figure 7.9. Cross section of the embankment showing the directions of σ1. Square pattern with 2.0 m equal spacing.
7.3.1.1 Arching in 2D
The absence of arching in the 3D model made it viable to use a 2D model to verify the
results, since 2D makes the computations with a different approach due to the assumption of
plane strain. The result showed several arches forming between the pile heads and the
geogrid, with two of them marked in Figure 7.10. The two centred gaps between the piles
showed no evident arching, which could mean that this part has not reached the ULS. The
arches appeared like concentric arches, mimicking the theoretical behaviour observed by
Van der Peet (2014).
Figure 7.10. Directions of σ1 where the middle of the embankment meets the subsoil. The yellow line is the geogrid.
Observed arches are marked with black lines.
56
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
7.3.1.2 Arching in 3D by mimicking 2D modelling

The arches appearing in the 3D modelling and the verification model in 2D differed in the
size of the arches, where the arches in 2D came closer to the theory of single arches between
adjacent piles. The formation of arches is a result of the hang-up of the soil onto the piles,
which is a function of the size of the hang-up surface and its skin friction. Since PLAXIS 2D
models piles as plate elements stretching out of plane (mentioned in chapter 3.2.2), whilst
PLAXIS 3D uses single piles, it is possible that the hang-up surfaces of the plate elements in
2D become greater than the mantle areas of the single piles in 3D.
To test if single embedded piles in 3D lack the hang-up ability of the plate elements in 2D,
the 3D model with 1.2 m equal c/c-distance and square pattern was remodelled with plates
instead of the piles. As seen in Figure 7.11 the principal stress distribution is somewhat equal
to that of its 3D counterpart with embedded piles, shown in Figure 7.8.
Figure 7.11. Cross section of the embankment showing directions of σ1. Plates in longitudinal direction with 1.2 m
spacing.
7.3.2 Total and differential settlement

The main results are those from the numerical computations in PLAXIS 3D. Verification
was done by using the analytical method Concentric Arches.
7.3.2.1 PLAXIS 3D results

Comparing the displacement results of point A, B and C, plotted in Figure 7.12 and 7.11,
showed no evident difference between a square or triangular pattern. The displacements
were similar between the models with equal spacing and narrower outer spacing up to 1.5 m
pile spacing.
As a guide value, a maximum allowed vertical displacement of 10 cm was used in the
measuring point C, as mentioned in chapter 7.1.2. When reviewing the displacements in
point C for the four patterns the value was approximately 10 cm up to a c/c-distance of 1.5
m, after which it began to increase with greater rate with increased spacing. The differential
settlement, as the difference in displacement between the three measuring points in Figure
7.12 and 7.12, was almost constant with increased pile spacing for both the triangular and
square pattern (for equal spacing as well as 1.0 m outer spacing).
57
Displacement, square pattern

c/c-distance [m]
1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
0,080
0,090
0,100 A-1.0m
0,110 A-Same
B-1.0m
0,120
B-Same
|u| [m] 0,130
C-1.0m
0,140
C-Same
0,150
0,160
0,170
0,180
Figure 7.12. Displacements in the measuring points, with both equal spacing and 1.0 m between the outer columns.
Displacement, triangular pattern

c/c-distance [m]
1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
0,080
0,090
0,100 A-1.0m
0,110 A-Same
B-1.0m
0,120
B-Same
|u| [m] 0,130
C-1.0m
0,140
C-Same
0,150
0,160
0,170
0,180
Figure 7.13. Displacements in the measuring points, with both equal spacing and 1.0 m between the outer columns.
58
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
Since the light embankment piling method is a settlement reducing method, the degree of
settlement reduction was evaluated for each pattern. In Figure 7.14 the average reduced
displacement of the three measuring points was plotted against the c/c-distance. The plot
shows no difference in average settlement reduction when using a triangular or square
pattern. The use of 1.0 m outer spacing resulted in smaller displacement, due to at least one
more pile being used in the pile row. However, at 1.5 m spacing, there is almost no
difference. After this point, the reduced displacement drops.
35%
30%
25%
Reduced 20% Sq-1.0m

displacement Sq-Same
[%] 15%
Tri-1.0m
10% Tri-Same
5%
0%
1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
c/c-distance [m]
Figure 7.14. Average reduced displacement of point A, B and C plotted against the c/c-distance for the four cases.
Contours of the total displacement, , are shown in Figure 7.15-7.15. Red coloured area
shows the maximum displacement. Results showed uneven displacements beneath the
embankment of the smallest pile spacing, as viewed in the centre of the Figure 7.15, for all
four cases. When increasing the c/c-distance of the piles, this displacement contour evened
out. But comparing the 1.6 m equal pile spacing model (Figure 7.16) to the model with 1.6 m
spacing and 1.0 m outer spacing (Figure 7.17), the displacement contours were only evened
out in the case of equal spacing. For the case of narrow outer spacing, there still existed a
differential displacement in the soil beneath the embankment. However, the embankment
itself suffered no uneven settlement at any pile pattern and spacing.
Figure 7.15. Cross section of the embankment showing the total displacement distribution. Square pattern with 1.2
m equal spacing.
59
m equal spacing.
m spacing and 1.0 m outer spacing.
7.3.2.2 Verification using a 2D model

The problem of calculating the displacements was regarded as too complex for an analytical
analysis. A 2D model was made, since the assumption of plane strain results in a different
approach than a 3D model. The 2D model was of the square pattern with equal c/c-distance
of 1.2 m, with an identical cross section as the 3D model.
The displacements in each measuring point, prior to the 45 day consolidation, are larger in
the 2D model than the 3D model. Without resetting the displacements to zero prior to the 45
day consolidation, the results differ by 6% in point A and B.
7.3.3 Pile axial load

The main results are those from the numerical computations in PLAXIS 3D. Verification is
done by using the analytical method Concentric Arches, since the arching observed in the 2D
model followed that theory and not the arch shapes of the Zaeske model.
60
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
7.3.3.1 PLAXIS results

Reviewing the results in general, the greatest forces acting on the piles occurs when applying
the traffic load, before the final consolidation. This could be due the soil being more rigid
prior to consolidation. When the excess pore water pressure disperses, the particle skeleton
of the soil compresses and the piles settles further. Higher load is then carried by the soil in
between the piles, reducing the axial force in the piles.
The utilization rate, plotted in Figure 7.18 against the c/c-distance, is the ratio between the
maximum axial pile force and the structural bearing capacity. The pile force was collected at
the moment after applying the traffic load, since the largest axial force occurred at that point.
100
90
80
70
Utilization rate of 60
the pile bearing Sq-1.0m
capacity [%] 50 Sq-Same
40 Tri-1.0m
Tri-Same
30
20
10
0
1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
c/c-distance [m]
Figure 7.18. Utilization rate of the pile bearing capacity plotted against c/c-distance for the four cases.
The arching effect was evaluated as the percentage of the embankment weight (plus traffic
load) carried by the piles. In Figure 7.19, the percentage is calculated as the weight of the
embankment carried per pile by dividing the average load, carried by the piles, with the
average embankment weight (including traffic load). The load carried by the piles were
collected after the final consolidation, since the largest change of arching occurring would be
after that stage. The results show that there is no evident difference in maximum applied
axial pile load between the use of equal c/c-distance and an outer pile spacing of 1.0 m.
61
100,00
90,00
80,00
70,00
60,00 Sq-1.0m
Weight of
embankment 50,00 Sq-Same
carried by the pile
group [%] 40,00 Tri-1.0m
30,00
Tri-Same
20,00
10,00
0,00
1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
c/c-distance [m]
Figure 7.19. Average weight of embankment carried by one pile plotted against the c/c-distance for the four cases.
To evaluate the necessity of a smaller spacing between the outer columns, the hang-up effect
was evaluated with 1.0 m outer spacing and equal spacing. The plots in Figure 7.20 and 7.20
are the axial pile force of each pile in a row. Since the hang-up effect occurs indirectly
because of settlements in the surrounding soil, the collected axial forces were the ones acting
on the piles after the final consolidation. The results were similar in the three pile rows, and
the middle row was the one plotted.
The square and triangular pattern with equal spacing and 1.0 m outer spacing shows similar
results respectively. The maximum pile force is in the outer pile at narrower pile spacing and
in the centre at wider pile spacing.
62
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
Square, equal c/c-distance

100
90
80 2.0m
1.8m
Axial pile force, 1.6m
70
F [kN]
1.5m
60 1.4m
1.3m
1.2m
50
40
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Distance from center [m]
Figure 7.20. Pile force distribution after final consolidation.
Triangular, equal c/c-distance

100
90
80 2.0m
1.8m
Axial pile force , 1.6m
70
F [kN]
1.5m
1.4m
60
1.3m
1.2m
50
40
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
63
Square, 1.0m outer c/c-distance

80
75
70
65 1.6m
Axial pile force, 1.5m
60
F [kN]
1.4m
55 1.3m
1.2m
50
45
40
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Triangular, 1.0m outer c/c-distance

80
75
70
65 1.6m
Axial pile force , 1.5m
60
F [kN]
1.4m
55 1.3m
50 1.2m
45
40
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
64
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
7.3.3.2 Verification using Concentric Arches

Even though the displacement was regarded as too complex for an analytical method, the
forces transferred onto the piles is possible to calculate. The analytical method used was the
Concentric Arches (CA) method, based on the fact that this model performs better than the
other equilibrium methods described in 0 (Van Eekelen et al., 2013). The rigid arch model
by Carlsson (1987) assumes a fixed height of its triangle that would far exceed the
embankment height of the used cross section (2.2-3.7 m depending on pile spacing), and was
therefore dropped.
The CA model assumes a square pile pattern. Therefore, only the results from square pattern
with equal pile spacing are compared to the results of the CA model. Also, the piles were
assumed fixed to allow the use of the method. Calculations have been done according to Van
Eekelen et al. (2013). Detailed results and equations can be found in APPENDIX D.
The force per pile (A) is, in the CA model, calculated as the force transferred by the arches
onto the piles. Figure 7.24 shows a comparison between the analytical and numerical results.
The analytical analysis gravely overestimated the force per pile in this case and showed a
different trend compared to the numerical FEM simulation in PLAXIS. The reasons for that
might be that the Concentric Arches model is based on the fact that the piles are assumed
fixed. Since the light embankment piling method is a settlement reducing method, the pile
group will settle, and maybe transferring more load onto the subsoil.
180,0
160,0
140,0
120,0
100,0
A [kN/pile]
80,0
60,0
40,0
Simulation Concentric Arches
20,0
0,0
1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2
c/c-distance [m]
Figure 7.24. Force per pile, A, plotted against c/c-distance for the FE simulations and analytical analyses using
Concentric Arches.
When looking at the embankment weight carried by the piles (A%), shown in Figure 7.25,
the analytical analysis subsequently overestimates the weight carried by the piles. While A is
doubled in the analytical analysis, A% is only 50% higher than the numerical results, which
is due to the percentage being calculated differently in CA and the processing of the
65
numerical output results. The CA calculations use an average height of the embankment plus
traffic load as the total load over an area that affects one pile, and therefore calculates the
load on the piles in the centre part of the embankment as a worst case. The numerical pile
force results were summarized over the middle pile row and divided by the actual
embankment weight and traffic load that acted on them and the subsoil. With this in mind
the numerical modelling was regarded as reliable, since the analytical model used simplifies
the model into a segment with equivalent embankment height and rigid piles.
100,00
80,00
60,00
A% [%]
40,00
20,00
Concentric Arches Simulation
0,00
1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2
c/c-distance [m]
Figure 7.25. Percentage of embankment weight carried by the piles, A%, plotted against c/c-distance for the FE
simulations and analytical analyses using Concentric Arches.
7.3.4 Geosynthetic reinforcement axial load

The axial load in the geogrid was collected after final consolidation. Since the final
embankment settlement generated the largest strains, the largest forces in the geogrid were
found at this stage. The maximum transversal tensile force for each piling pattern is shown in
Figure 7.26. The plot also contains results from a simulation without pile reinforcement. As
seen in Figure 7.27, the maximum tensile force was found on the centre line of the road.
Overall, the observed tensile force was higher in the models with triangular pattern, both for
equal spacing and 1.0 m outer spacing. The maximum forces were well below the bearing
capacity of 131.8 kN. For pile spacing larger than 1.6 m, the triangular pattern with equal
spacing showed larger tensile forces than in the geogrid than an embankment without pile
reinforcement. This could be due to the GR strips overlapping near the piles, as shown in
Figure 7.28, and potentially doubles the stresses in these areas.
66
NUMERICAL ANALYSES
18,00
17,00
16,00
15,00 Sq-1.0m
Sq-Same
Ntrans,max 14,00
Tri-1.0m
[kN]
13,00 Tri-Same
No piles
12,00
11,00
10,00
1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
c/c-distance [m]
Figure 7.26. Maximum transversal tensile forces in the geogrid plotted against the c/c-distance.
Figure 7.27. Distribution of transversal tensile forces in the geogrid.
Figure 7.28. GR strip overlapping in triangular piling pattern (Van Eekelen & Bezuijen, 2009).
67
The plot of the longitudinal forces showed irregular changes over increased pile spacing,
with no distinct trends. The magnitudes were only a few percent of the transversal forces,
acting as compression forces at narrower pile spacing and tensile forces at wider pile
spacing. However, the peaks of the longitudinal forces were found near the piles as seen in
Figure 7.29. The peaks are closer together in Figure 7.29b than in Figure 7.29a since the
piles are closer together when viewing the pile group from the side.
a) b)
Figure 7.29. Distribution of longitudinal tensile forces in the geogrid (viewed from the side) for a) square pattern
and b) triangular pattern.
The CA model contains the ability to calculate the axial force in the GR. The feature is based
on the calculation steps applied when analysing the pile axial load, shown in APPENDIX H.
A calculation of the GR axial load was however not included in this thesis, due to lack of
knowledge of how to apply this part of the CA model onto the piled embankment in mind.
68
CONCLUDING REMARKS
8 CONCLUDING REMARKS
8.1 Square vs triangular pattern
The research questions to answer are:
 Does a triangular pile installation pattern reduce the settlements of a piled
embankment more than a square pattern?
 What is the best suited installation pattern when using geosynthetic reinforcement?
The conclusion of the results is that there is no evident difference between the used square or
triangular patterns, other than the axial forces being higher in the geogrid when using a
triangular pattern. The differences were shown when comparing the equal pile spacing to the
one with 1.0 m outer pile spacing. The displacements were overall lower in the latter case.
However, the use of narrower outer pile spacing to counter a hang-up is, according to the
observations, ineffective. The consequence is an uneven pile force distribution in the pile
row, where the maximum pile force still was the same. There were differential
displacements within the soil beneath the embankment, while the equal spacing patterns
evened out the displacements. Comparing the weight carried by the piles showed practically
no advantage of using narrower outer pile spacing, even though at least one more pile is used
in the row since the utilization was the same for the four patterns. The recommendation is to
discard the use of narrower outer pile spacing in favor of equal pile spacing.
There can be no final conclusion of the best suited pile spacing since the results only present
trends, due to the lack of verification. The attempt of the 3D models gave inconclusive
results on at what pile spacing ULS is reached for this specific case, which is the key point at
which arches appear. No actual field measuring have been conducted to verify that the
displacements numerically calculated are close to the reality. However, based on the trends,
the displacement measurements showed that the equal pile spacing was most efficient up to
1.5 m. After this point, the displacements increased at a greater rate. Based on the measured
pile forces, a spacing of 1.5 m or more resulted in a more even distribution in a pile row.
This concludes that the most efficient pile spacing is around 1.5 m for this case.
What it comes down to is what the limit of the embankment settlement is. There existed no
uneven development of settlement on the surface when increasing the pile spacing. No pile
spacing over 1.3 m resulted in a displacement less than 10 cm at the surface of the subsoil
adjacent to the pile group (measuring point C). However, 1.5 m equal c/c-distance resulted in
just above 10 cm displacement. Whether or not the calculated value of 10 cm is the true limit
69
is questionable, due to the lack of large hang-up loads on the outer piles. But if this is the
true limit, than the pile spacing should not exceed 1.5 m.
8.2 The 3D model

Why the smaller arches in between the piles (in line with the theory) appeared in the 2D
model and not in any of the 3D models require further investigation. The work by Van der
Peet (2014) includes PLAXIS 3D models that clearly show the arching in the principal stress
directions. The reason might be that in the model by Van der Peet (2014), the piles are fixed
vertically and the subsoil was removed in able to create the full arching. In the 3D models in
this work the piles were allowed to move vertically and also no subsoil was removed.
Verification using the analytical Concentric Arches (CA) method showed different trends
than the numerical analyses. However, the differences are explainable on the basis of the
limitations of the CA model. While the CA results did not capture the overall behaviour of
the numerical analysis, the results were of the same magnitude at narrow pile spacing. It can
therefore be said that the analytical analyses confirm the numerical results as reasonable
results.
As mentioned in chapter 2.3.3.1, the embankment height should be at least 1.2 times the
piles spacing, according to Swedish standards (Rogbeck et al., 2003). The used embankment
height was roughly 1.6 m, which would allow a maximum pile spacing of 1.33 m. The
models used had the same embankment height to narrow down the variables to only the pile
spacing and pattern.
8.3 Material parameters

The initial attempt to evaluate the modified compression index, , and the modified
swelling index, , (chapter 6.1.2) was according to traditional praxis (Brinkgreve et al.,
2013). Olsson (2010) goes through the same procedure to evaluate these parameters, but
instead used the oedometer modulus, , to calculate the first order of the parameters. He
later back calculated the parameters through a 2D axisymmetric CRS FEM model, much like
the procedure in this thesis. The ratios of the evaluated parameters were 2.7 and 3.34
for each sulphide soil layer, which are within the range between 2.5 and 7 that Brinkgreve et
al. (2013) suggests. Therefore, the evaluation approach of these two parameters for the case
of road 685 should be regarded as correct.
The friction angle was derived empirically and the cohesion was assumed. The Soft Soil
deformation parameters ( and ) are possible to derive from an isotropic compression test
such as a triaxial test. As stated, in a one-dimensional compression test like CRS the soil
does not go to failure, therefore the failure criterion parameters in the Soft Soil model ( and
) are unsuited for evaluation. In a triaxial apparatus, it might be possible to combine an
isotropic compression test and a test with an active axial load that lets the soil sample go to
failure. This, however, needs further investigation.
70
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The initial void ratio was calculated on the basis of density, water content and solid density,
where the latter was assumed. Also, the formula used assumes that the particles are free of
pores and cracks. A proper way of evaluating the void ratio would to base it on the porosity.
Brinkgreve et al. (2013) states that the void ratio is assumed as constant when applied in the
relationships between various stress-strain parameters for confined compression, that is used
to evaluate and . The initial void ratio or an average during the test should be used. In
reality the void ratio will change during a compression test, which is evident in the
conducted CRS tests where it ranges from ~2.2 to ~1.0 from start to finish.
8.4 Future work

8.4.1 Creep
In this thesis the creep factor was neglected. The addition of creep would make the sulphide
soil behave more realistic, since it is an elastic-viscoelastic soil type. Whether or not the
general trends observed would change with Soft Soil Creep instead of Soft Soil is uncertain,
but the magnitude of the displacements would change. The creep parameter, , in the Soft
Soil Creep model can be evaluated from a 24 hour incremental loading (IL) oedometer test
with a doubling of the load every hour (Olsson, 2010).
8.4.2 Laboratory model test

The laboratory model tests performed by Van Eekelen et al. (2012) prove to be a valid test
set-up to measure load distribution, deformation and strains in the GR. Figure 8.1 shows a
side view and top view of the test set-up. A water soaked foam rubber cushion replaces the
subsoil and a tap allows drainage to model the consolidation process. Only four piles are
used to create the square pattern. Sensors are placed at the piles, geogrid and the border
between fill and foam cushion. The top load water cushion spreads the top load evenly on
the fill.
Figure 8.1. Side view and top view of test set-up by Van Eekelen et al. (2012).
71
While the set-up does not capture the behaviour of the in-situ subsoil at the construction site,
it does capture the arching of different pile patterns during consolidation (which is of interest
in the case of light embankment piling). To include in-situ subsoil behaviour, a field test site
is needed.
A test set-up of a triangular pattern is yet to be done. FEM calculation have been performed,
e.g. by Bezuijen & Van Eekelen (2009), but even numerical analyses of triangular piling
patterns are few in number amongst published research. The recommendations from these
researches are that more work needs to be done on triangular patterns to compare it to square
patterns. Since the mechanics of square patterns are covered by several researchers, e.g. by
Van Eekelen et al. (2012), the mechanics of triangular patterns are the next step. This could
be done by changing the position of the piles in the presented set-up above, and adding piles
to allow a hexagonal tributary area (as in Figure 2.15c).
The piles in the light embankment piling method are allowed to settle, which is uncovered by
analytical methods. From the simulations conducted in this thesis, there exists a large
difference in the results between numerical and analytical analyses when comparing the
amount of arching taking place. A test that allows a varied vertical displacement of the pile
group could capture the degree of load transfer onto the subsoil. This could be added to the
model set-up.
8.4.3 Verification
Every site is unique in its own way. The trends observed may not be applicable to other sites
that utilises the light embankment piling method. A test with fewer variables, like the
laboratory test set-up mentioned above, could verify the observed similarity between the
square and triangular pattern.
Whether or not the testing is restricted to numerical FE modelling or not, field tests should
be conducted to calibrate the model. Geometry and parameter simplifications (mesh and
constitutive models) and the risk of calculation error take the numerical analyses further
away from the real case. Therefore there is a need of calibration with field results.
72
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Alén, C., 2012. Pile foundations - Short handbook (Educational material in Geotechnics).
Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology.
Brinkgreve, R. B., Engin, E. & Swolfs, W. M., 2013. PLAXIS 3D Manual, Delft: PLAXIS.
Brinkgreve, R., Engin, E. & Swolfs, W., 2014. PLAXIS 2D Manual, Delft: PLAXIS.
Carling, O., 1992. Dimensionering av träkonstruktioner. Stockholm: Institutet för träteknisk
forskning (In Swedish).
Carlsson, B., 1987. Armerad jord, beräkningsprinciper, Linköping: Terratema AB (In
Swedish).
Edlund, A., Jergling, D. & Westerberg, R., 2015. The arching effect in a road embankment
reinforced with timber piles, Luleå: Luleå University of Technology.
Eriksson, P., Jendeby, L., Olsson, T. & Svensson, T., 2004. Kohesionspålar, Linköping:
Pålkommissionen (In Swedish).
Gangatharan, R., 2014. Comparison between piled embankment and load transfer platform -
rigid inclusion for soft soil, Sydney: Sydney University of Technology, Faculty of
Engineering and Information Technology.
Gebreselassie, B., Lüking, J. & Kempfert, H., 2010. Influence factors on the performance of
geosynthetic reinforced and pile supported embankments. Kassel, Univeristy of Kassel -
Department of Geotechnics.
Gustafsson, P. & Tian, T., 2011. Numerical study of different creep models used for soft
soils, Gothenburg: Chalmers university of Technology.
Hugosson, E. & Nilsson, A., 2014. Träpålnings inverkan på den odränerade
skjuvhållfastheten i sulfidhaltig kohesionsjord, Luleå: Luleå University of Technology (In
Swedish).
Ingströmer, P. & Erik, L., 1998. Hygro-mekaniskt beteende hos trä vid olika
klimatförhållanden. Lund: Faculty of Engineering, Lund University. (In Swedish).
Knutsson, S., Larsson, R., Tremblay, M. & Öberg-Högsta, A.-L., 1998. Information 16 -
Siltjordars egenskaper, Linköping: Statens geotekniska institut, SGI (In Swedish).
Larsson, R., 2008. Information 1 - Jords egenskaper, Linköping: Swedish geotechnical
institute, SGI (In Swedish).
Larsson, R., 2015. Information 15 - CPT-sondering. Linköping, Swedish geotechnical
institute, SGI (In Swedish).
73
Olsson, M., 2010. Report 74 - Calculating long-term settlement in soft clays, Linköping:
Statens geotekniska institut, SGI.
PLAXIS, 2012. PLAXIS Knowledge base. [Online]
Available at: http://kb.plaxis.com/tips-and-tricks/modelling-soil-structure-interaction-
interfaces
[Accessed 27 November 2015].
Available at: http://kb.plaxis.nl/tips-and-tricks/fixities-and-deformation-boundary-
conditions-plaxis-3d-2013
[Accessed 25 February 2015].
Available at: http://kb.plaxis.nl/tips-and-tricks/points-interest-pile-modelling-2d-plane-
strain-model
Rogbeck, Y. et al., 2003. Nordic guidelines for reinforced soils and fills, s.l.: The Nordic
Geotechnical Societies & Nordic Industrial Fund (Swedish version namned SGF 2:2004 at
www.sgf.net).
Ruin, M. & Jönsson, Å., 2015. Förstudie: Jordarmering över olika typer av bankpålning,
Linköping: SGI. (In Swedish).
Sluis, J., 2014. PLAXIS Knowledge base. [Online]
Available at: http://kb.plaxis.nl/publications/validation-and-application-embedded-pile-row-
feature-plaxis-2d
Trafikverket, 2011. Trafikverkets tekniska krav för geokonstruktioner TK Geo 11, Borlänge:
Trafikverket (In Swedish).
Trafikverket, 2014. Trafikverkets tekniska krav för geokonstruktioner TK Geo 13, Borlänge:
Trafikverket (In Swedish).
Van der Peet, T., 2014. Arching in basal reinforced piled embankments, Delft: Delft
University of Technology.
Van der Peet, T. & Van Eekelen, S., 2014. 3D numerical analysis of basal reinforced piled
embankments, Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Van Eekelen, S. & Bezuijen, A., 2009. Piled embankment - Membrane calculation for the
GR. London, 2009 Jubilee symposium on polymer geogrid reinforcement.
Van Eekelen, S., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H. & Van Tol, A., 2012. Model experiments on piled
embankments. Part I. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29 December, Volume 32, pp. 69-81.
Van Eekelen, S., Bezuijen, A. & Van Tol, A., 2011. Analysis and modification of the British
Standard BS8006 for the design of piled embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
Volume 29, pp. 345-359.
74
REFERENCES
Van Eekelen, S., Bezuijen, A. & Van Tol, A., 2013. An analytical model for arching in piled
embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 4 July, Volume 39, pp. 78-102.
Van Eekelen, S., Bezuijen, A. & Van Tol, A., 2014. Validation of analytical models for the
design of basal reinforced piled embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume 43,
pp. 56-81.
Zhuang, Y., Wang, K., Liu, H. & Chu, J., 2013. The contribution of the subsoil in a
reinforced piled embankment. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering,
10 October, 17(1), pp. 269-281.
75
76
APPENDIX A – CPT
APPENDIX A – CPT RESULTS

The CPT results are collected from Hugosson & Nilsson (2014).
77
78
APPENDIX A – CPT
79
80
APPENDIX A – CPT
81
82
APPENDIX B – ROUTINE TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX B – ROUTINE TEST RESULTS

The routine test results are collected from Hugosson & Nilsson (2014).
83
84
APPENDIX C – CRS RESULTS

The CRS results are collected from Hugosson & Nilsson (2014).
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
APPENDIX D – 2D MODEL PHASES

This appendix contain screenshots of the 2D model during the phases of calculation in
PLAXIS 2D. Phases are in the order used in the simulations. The geogrid (horizontal line
within foundation) is used in the viewed model. The model without geogrid is identical
with exception of the geogrid being deactivated throughout the phases.
Figure D. 1. Initial phase: Piles, geogrid and traffic load are deactivated.
Figure D. 2. Phase 2: Excavation.
97
Figure D. 3. Phase 3: The piles are activated.
Figure D. 4. Phase 4: Granular foundation and geogrid are added.
Figure D. 5. Phase 5: Addition of embankment.
98
Figure D. 6. Phase 6: 45 days consolidation.
Figure D. 7. Phase 7: Traffic load added.
Figure D. 8. Phase 8: Final consolidation.
99
100
APPENDIX E – RESULTS OF 3D SIMULATED CRS TESTS
APPENDIX E – RESULTS OF 3D SIMULATED CRS TESTS

Results from the numerical CRS tests with PLAXIS 3D models and SoilTest simulations,
compared to laboratory results.
4.03 m sampling depth

σ'v [kPa]
0 σ'c 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
5 Labdata SoilTest 3D-modelling

10
15
20
ε [%]
25
30
35
40
45
Figure E. 1. CRS test results from laboratory data, SoilTest and 3D-modelling.

σ'v [kPa]
0 σ'c 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
5
Labdata SoilTest 3D-modelling
10
15
20
ε [%] 25
30
35
40
45
50
101

σ'v [kPa]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 σ'c
5 Labdata SoilTest 3D-modelling

10
15
20
ε [%] 25
30
35
40
45
50
Combination of 6.03 and

σ'v [kPa]
0 σ'c 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
5 4,03 - Labdata
10
6,03 - Labdata
15
8,03 - Labdata
20
Combo SoilTest
ε [%] 25
30 Combo 3D-modeling
35
40
45
50
Figure E. 4. CRS test results from SoilTest and 3D-modelling, along with laboratory data of 4.03, 6.03 and 8.03 m
sampling depth.
102
APPENDIX F – PRINCIPAL STRESS DIRECTIONS
APPENDIX F – PRINCIPAL STRESS DIRECTIONS

The figures show the directions of the principal stress, , in the middle cross section of the
3D models with
 square pattern, 1.2 and 2.0 m equal pile spacing,
 square pattern, 1.2 and 1.6 m equal pile spacing with 1.0 m outer spacing,
 triangular pattern, 1.2 and 2.0 m equal pile spacing,
 triangular pattern, 1.2 and 1.6 m equal pile spacing with 1.0 m outer spacing.
Square pattern with equal pile spacing
Figure F. 1. Pile spacing: 1.2 m. Figure F. 2. Pile spacing: 2.0 m.
Square pattern with 1.0 m outer spacing
Triangular pattern with equal pile spacing
103
Triangular pattern with 1.0 m outer spacing
104
APPENDIX G – DISPLACEMENT CONTOURS
APPENDIX G – DISPLACEMENT CONTOURS

Figure G. 1 to G. 8 show the total displacement distribution, , in the middle cross
section of the 3D models with
 square pattern, 1.2 and 2.0 m equal pile spacing,
 square pattern, 1.2 and 1.6 m equal pile spacing with 1.0 m outer spacing,
 triangular pattern, 1.2 and 2.0 m equal pile spacing,
 triangular pattern, 1.2 and 1.6 m equal pile spacing with 1.0 m outer spacing.
Cross sections of the models with triangular pattern are cut through the piles of a sub-row
at a specific y-coordinate. The hang-up was less evident in a cross section cut in the middle
of the model, since it was in between the sub-rows. The piles that the cross sections are cut
through are highlighted with a bold line.
Square pattern with equal pile spacing
Figure G. 1. Pile spacing: 1.2 m. Figure G. 2. Pile spacing: 2.0 m.
Square pattern with 1.0 m outer spacing
Figure G. 3. Pile spacing: 1.2 m. Figure G. 4. Pile spacing: 1.6 m.
Triangular pattern with equal pile spacing
Figure G. 5. Pile spacing: 1.2 m. y = 1.5 m cross section. Figure G. 6. Pile spacing: 1.6 m. y = 2.5 m cross section
105
Triangular pattern with 1.0 m outer spacing
Figure G. 7. Pile spacing: 1.2 m. y = 1.5 m cross section. Figure G. 8. Pile spacing: 1.6 m. y = 2.0 m cross section.
106
APPENDIX H – CALCULATION PROCEDURE
USING THE CONCENTRIC ARCHES MODEL
APPENDIX H – CALCULATION PROCEDURE USING THE

CONCENTRIC ARCHES MODEL
The following calculation of the load distribution was done according to Van Eekelen et al.
(2013). The forces calculated were assumed to act on an area covering the group of one
pile, two GR strips and one GR square, as marked in Figure H. 1. The results of equation
(H1)-(H18) are shown in Table H. 1.
Figure H. 1. Principal sketch of the Concentric Arches model with notations (Van Eekelen et al., 2013).
Table H. 1. Calculation results of force distribution.
Input parameters
Diameter pile 0,2 m
Height embankment 2,5 m
Lateral c/c-distance piles 1,2 m
Longitudinal c/c-distance piles 1,2 m
Unit weight 20 kN/m3
Surcharge load 20 kPa
Cohesion 0 kPa
Internal friction angle 45 °
107
Calculated parameters Equation
Diagonal c/c-distance piles 1,697 m (H12)
Equivalent width pile 0,177 m (H13)
Passive earth pressure

5,828 - (H14)
coefficient
Height 3D hemisphere 0,849 m (H15)
Height 2D hemisphere 0,600 m (H16)

Width of square loaded by 3D
1,023 m (H17)
arches
Length of GR strip loaded by 2D
1,023 m (H18)
arches
Calculation parameter 884,6 kPa/mKp-1 (H7)
Calculation parameter 13,47 kN/m3 (H8)
Calculation parameter 1408,76 kPa/mKp-1 (H9)
Calculation parameter 30,45 kN/m3 (H10)
Determination of the force exerted by the 3D hemispheres on the GR square (no

surcharge load yet: p = 0).
Force inside circle in GR square 3,96 kN/pile
(H5)
Part 1 of force on area inside

Lx3D·Lx3D square, but outside 10,72 kN/pile
circle
(H5)
circle
108
(H5)

Lx3D·Lx3D square, but outside -9,39 kN/pile
circle
(H5)

Lx3D·Lx3D square, but outside -5,16 kN/pile
circle
(H5)
Total force on area inside

circle
(H5)
Force on area inside Lx3D·Lx3D

0,00 kN/pile
square, but outside circle
(H5)
109
Total force on GR square 32,13 kN/pile
(H5)
Determination of the force transferred along the 3D hemispheres to the 2D arches; to be

applied as surcharge load on the 2D arches.
Force transferred Ftransferred 29,35 kN/pile (H11)
Resulting surcharge load on 2D
ptransferred 74,49 kPa (H11)
arches
Determination of the force exerted by the 2D arches on the GR strips (no surcharge load
yet: p = 0) and no load outside the arches on the GR strip.
Total force on GR strips FGRstrips 8,765 kN/pile (H6)
Determination of load distribution (with surcharge load: p = 20 kPa).

Total force on GR FGR = B + C 40,90 kN/pile (H1)
Total force on pile A 59,90 kN/pile (H2)
Total pressure on pile pA 1906,7 kPa (H3)
Percentage of total force
A% 59,4 % (H4)
transferred to the pile directly
(H1)
(H2)
(H3)
where
110
(H4)
(H5)
where
where
(H6)
(H7)
(H8)
(H9)
111
(H10)
(H11)
where
(H12)
(H13)
(H14)
(H15)
(H16)
(H17)
(H18)
112

Full Text 02

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Text 02

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

Full Text 02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASTER'S THESIS

Evaluation of the Efficiency of the

Vibbyn - Skogså, Boden municipality

Master of Science in Engineering Technology

Luleå University of Technology

Evaluation of the Efficiency of

Luleå University of Technology

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2 EMBANKMENT PILING ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 The finite element method ..................................................................................................................... 15

4 CONSTITUTIVE MODELS .........................................................................................................................21

4.1 Mohr-Coulomb ........................................................................................................................................ 21

5 PREVIOUS CASE STUDIES OF THE SITE ....................................................................................................27

5.1 Effects on undrained shear strength ....................................................................................................... 27

6 MATERIAL PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 35

6.1 Soil parameters ....................................................................................................................................... 35

7 NUMERICAL ANALYSES .......................................................................................................................... 49

7.1 Work layout ............................................................................................................................................. 49

8 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................................................ 69

8.1 Square vs triangular pattern .................................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX A – CPT results ............................................................................................................................... 77

APPENDIX B – Routine test results .................................................................................................................. 83

APPENDIX C – CRS RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 85

APPENDIX D – 2D model phases ..................................................................................................................... 97

APPENDIX E – Results of 3D simulated CRS testS .......................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX F – Principal stress directions....................................................................................................... 103

APPENDIX G – Displacement contours .......................................................................................................... 105

2.2 The Norrland method

2.3 The arching effect

2.3.1 The importance of arching

Figure 2.4. GR strips and square in between the piles.

2.3.2 Ultimate limit state, ULS

2.3.3 Analytical load distribution theories

2.3.3.1 Rigid arch models

2.3.3.2 Arching limit equilibrium models

Hewlett & Randolph

Comparison between the models

2.3.3.3 Geosynthetic reinforcement load distribution

2.4 Piling patterns

3.1 The finite element method

Figure 3.2. The principal of interfaces in PLAXIS (PLAXIS, 2012).

3.1.3 Continuum mechanics notation

3.2.2 Embedded piles

Figure 3.4. Embedded piles in 3D reality vs 2D model (PLAXIS, 2014).

Figure 3.5. 2D vs 3D embedded pile behaviour (Sluis, 2014).

3.2.3 Geosynthetic reinforcement

To incorporate in a calculation whether or not plasticity occurs, a yield function, f, is used as

4.2 Soft soil

5 PREVIOUS CASE STUDIES OF THE SITE

5.1 Effects on undrained shear strength

5.1.2 Conducted tests

5.1.2.1 Field tests and sampling

Figure 5.1. Blueprint of the test point’s locations.

5.1.2.2 Laboratory tests

5.1.3 Increase in shear strength

5.2 The need of geosynthetic reinforcement

5.2.2 The 2D-model