Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of Different Reinforced Load Transfer Platforms on Geosynthetic-Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankment: Centrifuge Model Test

  • Geotechnical Engineering
  • Published:
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope

Abstract

Geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported (GRPS) embankment has been widely utilized in the railways and highways subgrade of soft clay area. The load transfer platform (LTP), consisting of sand layers and one or more layers of geosynthetic, is constantly used at the base of embankment to increase the load transfer to piles and reduce the differential settlement of embankment surface. However, the effect of different reinforced LTPs on the performances of GRPS embankment has not been fully understood. Eight centrifuge model tests were conducted to investigate the effect of five influence factors on deformation and load transfer of embankment, and tensile force of geogrid: placing geogrid or not, the number of geogrid layers, geogrid reinforced position, geogrid stiffness, wrapped-back geogrid setting in LTP. The results showed that the wrapped-back geogrid setting in the LTP was equivalent to anchoring the geogrid at the slope toe of embankment, which strengthened the reinforcement-soil interaction and restricted the pull-out displacement of geogrid to enhance the stiffness for LTP. The LTP reinforced with stiffer geogrid or multi-layer geogrid contributed to increase the stability and load transfer of embankment due to the increase of the integrity stiffness for LTP. When the geogrid was set at the middle of LTP, the performances of the GRPS embankment was enhanced due to the more interfaces between the geogrid and soil to improve the integrity stiffness of the LTP. The two-layer geogrid reinforced in the LTP could be the best choice to enhance the performance of the GRPS embankment under the comprehensive consideration of the performance and economy. The five setting ways of the reinforcement in LTP increased the integrity stiffness of LTP, which provided more methods to enhance the performances of the GRPS embankment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A :

Load transferred directly to the pile top

A′:

Residual load born by the LTP above the soft subsoil

B :

Part of load Pr (Pa)

C :

Remained load (Pa)

c :

Cohesion (Pa)

C c :

Curvature coefficient (dimensionless)

CL:

Lean clay

C u :

Uniformity coefficient (dimensionless)

d :

Thickness of LTP (m)

d 50 :

Mean particle size (m)

E :

Elastic modulus (MPa)

EA :

Compressive stiffness (MPa·mm2)

EI :

Flexural stiffness (MPa·mm4)

E pa :

Pile efficacy above the LTP (dimensionless)

E pb :

Pile efficacy below the LTP (dimensionless)

Es0.1-0.2 :

Compression modulus (MPa)

ep n :

Vertical stress of soil measured by epc n (n=1∼5) (Pa)

GRCS:

Geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported embankments

GRPS:

Geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankments

H :

Embankment height (m)

I m :

Physical quantities of the model

I p :

Physical quantities of the prototype

K :

Degree of compactness (%)

K r :

Relative compaction (dimensionless)

LTP:

Load transfer platform

LVDT:

Linear variable differential transformer

N :

Scaling factor (dimensionless)

P c :

Value of the load on the top of pile cap under LTP in the equivalent area of a single pile (Pa)

P r :

Total loads calculated by both load A′ and the weight of LTP itself (Pa)

PI :

Plasticity index (dimensionless)

q :

Vehicle load (Pa)

s :

Space between adjacent piles (m)

S 1 :

Surface settlement of embankment center measured by LVDT s1 (m)

S 2 :

Surface settlement of embankment shoulder measured by LVDT s2 (m)

S 3 :

Settlement of embankment at slope toe measured by LVDT s3 (m)

S 4 :

Horizontal displacement below the slope toe measured by LVDT s4 (m)

s c :

Pile cap (or beam) spacing (m)

SW:

Well-graded

USCS:

Unified Soil Classification System

γ :

Gravity of embankment fill (kN/m3)

γ′:

Gravity of soil within LTP (kN/m3)

ΔS :

Differential settlement of embankment surface (m)

η :

Ratio of the settlement of embankment at slope toe (measured by LVDT s3) to the horizontal displacement below the slope toe (measured by LVDT s4) (dimensionless)

μ :

Load transfer coefficient (dimensionless)

ν :

Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless)

ρ d :

Dry density (kg/m3)

ρ dmax :

Maximum dry density (kg/m3)

ρ dmin :

Minimum dry density (kg/m3)

φ :

Internal friction angle (°)

ω :

Controlled water content (%)

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this work is gratefully acknowledged from the Natural Science Foundation of China Grant 42067044, Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Grant 2018GXNSFAA294130 and Innovation Project of GUET Graduate Education 2020YCXS123. All the support is greatly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, D., Luo, C., Gao, Z. et al. Effect of Different Reinforced Load Transfer Platforms on Geosynthetic-Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankment: Centrifuge Model Test. KSCE J Civ Eng 26, 630–649 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-0623-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-0623-7

Keywords

Navigation