Three-Dimensional Analysis of Geosynthetic Reinforcement

Used in Column-Supported Embankments

Laurie Ann Mazursky

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science
In
Civil Engineering

Raymond H. Plaut, Chair

George M. Filz
Kamal B. Rojiani

February 10, 2006

Blacksburg, Virginia

Keywords: Geosynthetic Reinforcement, Plate, Embankment, Piles, Rayleigh-Ritz

Copyright 2006, Laurie Ann Mazursky

 Three-Dimensional Analysis of Geosynthetic Reinforcement
Used in Column-Supported Embankments

Laurie Ann Mazursky

(ABSTRACT)

A geotechnical composite foundation system that has become increasingly popular over
the years is a column-supported, geosynthetic-reinforced embankment. This system
consists of strong columns or piles placed in soft clay, a bridging layer of sand or sand
and gravel, and one or more layers of geosynthetic reinforcement. It is often used in soft
ground situations where there is a need for faster construction and/or where there are
adjacent structures that would be affected by settlement caused by the new embankment.
The geosynthetic reinforcement is placed in the bridging layer to help transfer the load to
the columns and decrease the total and differential settlements. Current methods of
analysis for this material are extremely simplified, and do not thoroughly model the
behavior of the system. Therefore, a more comprehensive analysis needs to be conducted
that will better predict the true effect of the geosynthetic layer or layers.

In this thesis, one geosynthetic layer was considered. Models were developed using two
different computer programs: Mathematica and ABAQUS. In Mathematica, the
Rayleigh-Ritz method was used to approximate the deflections and tensile forces in the
membrane. This method considered the geosynthetic reinforcement as a plate and
minimized the total energy of the system. In ABAQUS, a finite element modeling
program, the membrane was analyzed as a shell, and results were compared with some
results from Mathematica.

A parametric study was completed in Mathematica to determine the effects of different

parameters. The parameters varied involved the geogrid properties (Poisson’s ratio,
modulus of elasticity, and thickness), the vertical load, the soil stiffness above the piles,
the soil stiffness between the piles, the size of the piles, and the distance between the
piles.

iii
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review......................................................1

1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................1
1.2 Literature Review.....................................................................................3
1.2.1 Deformation-Based Design ........................................................3
1.2.2 Vertical Loads on the Geosynthetic Reinforcement ....................3
1.2.3 Geosynthetic Reinforcement ......................................................5
1.2.4 Previous Research......................................................................6
1.3 Overview of Thesis ..................................................................................8

Chapter 2: Mathematica Model and Verification Studies.......................................9

2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................9
2.2 Geometry .................................................................................................9
2.3 Assumptions...........................................................................................10
2.4 Basic Model ...........................................................................................11
2.4.1 Definition of Terms .................................................................11
2.4.2 Energy Equation ......................................................................13
2.4.3 Rayleigh-Ritz Method..............................................................16
2.4.4 Shape Functions.......................................................................17
2.5 Verification Studies................................................................................21
2.5.1 First Example ..........................................................................21
2.5.2 Second Example ......................................................................22

Chapter 3: ABAQUS Model and Verification Study.............................................24

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................24
3.2 Overview of the Software.......................................................................24
3.2.1 Finite Element Analysis ...........................................................24
3.3 Basic Modeling Decisions ......................................................................25
3.4 Verification Study ..................................................................................27

iv
Chapter 4: Mathematica and ABAQUS Comparison Study.................................31
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................31
4.2 The Models ............................................................................................31
4.2.1 The ABAQUS Model ..............................................................32
4.2.2 The Mathematica Model ..........................................................32
4.3 Results ...................................................................................................33

Chapter 5: Parametric Study .................................................................................37

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................37
5.2 Standard Case.........................................................................................37
5.3 Variation in Non-Dimensional Parameter b ............................................42
5.4 Variation in Non-Dimensional Parameter β ............................................50
5.5 Variation in Non-Dimensional Parameter ks ...........................................58
5.6 Variation in Non-Dimensional Parameter qp ...........................................66
5.7 Results in Dimensional Form .................................................................74

Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................81

6.1 Summary and Conclusions .....................................................................81
6.2 Need for Further Research......................................................................84

References....................................................................................................................86

Appendix A: Supporting Information for Convergence Study ................................89

A.1 Printout of Mathematica Program for Final Terms Used.........................89
A.2 Three-Dimensional Plots of the Final Shape Functions Used ..................90

Appendix B: Supporting Information for Verification Studies................................97

B.1 Mathematica Verification Studies...........................................................97
B.1.1 Printout of Mathematica Program for First Example ................97

v
 B.1.2 Printout of Mathematica Program for Second Example ............97
B.2 Input File for ABAQUS Verification Study............................................99

Appendix C: Supporting Information for Comparison Study ............................... 104

C.1 Input File for the ABAQUS Model....................................................... 104
C.2 Printout of the Mathematica Program ................................................... 109

Appendix D: Supporting Information for Parametric Study................................. 110

D.1 Additional Results from Parametric Study............................................ 110
D.2 Printout of Mathematica Program for the Standard Case....................... 114

Vita............................................................................................................................. 116

vi
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Schematic of the Geotechnical Composite Foundation System .................2

Figure 2.1: Layout of Columns and One Unit Cell......................................................9

Figure 2.2: A Unit Cell of the Geosynthetic Reinforcement Model...........................10
Figure 2.3: Elevation View of System ......................................................................11
Figure 2.4: 3-D View of Plate with Coordinate System ............................................12
Figure 2.5: Convergence Study for u ........................................................................20
Figure 2.6: Convergence Study for w .......................................................................20

Figure 3.1: Contour Plot of Downward Deflection, W, in Meters .............................29

Figure 3.2: Contour Plot of Section Moments in the Plate, in Nm/m.........................29
Figure 3.3: Discretization Study for ABAQUS Verification .....................................30

Figure 4.1: Convergence Study for Mathematica Model...........................................33

Figure 4.2: Downward Displacement along the Edge of the Plate Versus X..............34
Figure 4.3: Downward Displacement along the Center of the Plate Versus X ...........34
Figure 4.4: Normal In-Plane Deflection along the Edge of the Plate Versus X..........35
Figure 4.5: Normal In-Plane Deflection along the Center of the Plate Versus X .......35
Figure 4.6: Membrane Force along the Edge of the Plate Versus X ..........................36
Figure 4.7: Membrane Force along the Center of the Plate Versus X ........................36

Figure 5.1: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for Standard Case.....40
Figure 5.2: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for Standard Case .....................................40
Figure 5.3: Contour Plot of w for Standard Case ......................................................40
Figure 5.4: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for Standard Case .....41
Figure 5.5: Contour Plot of u for Standard Case .......................................................41
Figure 5.6: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for Standard Case ....42
Figure 5.7: Contour Plot of nx for Standard Case ........................................................42

vii
Figure 5.8: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.15..............43
Figure 5.9: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for b = 0.15...............................................43
Figure 5.10: Contour Plot of w for b = 0.15................................................................43
Figure 5.11: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.15...............44
Figure 5.12: Contour Plot of u for b = 0.15.................................................................44
Figure 5.13: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.15 .............45
Figure 5.14: Contour Plot of nx for b = 0.15 ...............................................................45
Figure 5.15: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.25..............46
Figure 5.16: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for b = 0.25...............................................46
Figure 5.17: Contour Plot of w for b = 0.25................................................................46
Figure 5.18: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.25...............47
Figure 5.19: Contour Plot of u for b = 0.25.................................................................47
Figure 5.20: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.25 .............48
Figure 5.21: Contour Plot of nx for b = 0.25 ...............................................................48
Figure 5.22: Maximum w Versus b along Edge and Center ........................................49
Figure 5.23: Maximum u Versus b along Edge and Center .........................................49
Figure 5.24: Maximum nx Versus b along Edge and Center........................................49
Figure 5.25: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 2.04 * 1021 ....51
Figure 5.26: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for β = 2.04 * 1021 ....................................51
Figure 5.27: Contour Plot of w for β = 2.04 * 1021......................................................51
Figure 5.28: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 2.04 * 1021.....52
Figure 5.29: Contour Plot of u for β = 2.04 * 1021 ......................................................52
Figure 5.30: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 2.04 * 1021 ...53
Figure 5.31: Contour Plot of nx for β = 2.04 * 1021 .....................................................53
Figure 5.32: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 8.15 * 1021 ....54
Figure 5.33: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for β = 8.15 * 1021 ....................................54
Figure 5.34: Contour Plot of w for β = 8.15 * 1021......................................................54
Figure 5.35: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 8.15 * 1021.....55
Figure 5.36: Contour Plot of u for β = 8.15 * 1021 ......................................................55
Figure 5.37: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 8.15 * 1021 ...56
Figure 5.38: Contour Plot of nx for β = 8.15 * 1021 .....................................................56

viii
Figure 5.39: Maximum w Versus β along Edge and Center ........................................57
Figure 5.40: Maximum u Versus β along Edge and Center .........................................57
Figure 5.41: Maximum nx Versus β along Edge and Center........................................57
Figure 5.42: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 0..................59
Figure 5.43: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for ks = 0 ..................................................59
Figure 5.44: Contour Plot of w for ks = 0....................................................................59
Figure 5.45: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 0...................60
Figure 5.46: Contour Plot of u for ks = 0 ....................................................................60
Figure 5.47: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 0 .................61
Figure 5.48: Contour Plot of nx for ks = 0 ...................................................................61
Figure 5.49: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 1.38 * 109 ....62
Figure 5.50: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for ks = 1.38 * 10......................................62
Figure 5.51: Contour Plot of w for ks = 1.38 * 109 ......................................................62
Figure 5.52: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 1.38 * 109 .....63
Figure 5.53: Contour Plot of u for ks = 1.38 * 109.......................................................63
Figure 5.54: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 1.38 * 109 ...64
Figure 5.55: Contour Plot of nx for ks = 1.38 * 109 .....................................................64
Figure 5.56: Maximum w Versus ks along Edge and Center .......................................65
Figure 5.57: Maximum u Versus ks along Edge and Center ........................................65
Figure 5.58: Maximum nx Versus ks along Edge and Center.......................................65
Figure 5.59: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 1.87.............67
Figure 5.60: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for qp = 1.87 .............................................67
Figure 5.61: Contour Plot of w for qp = 1.87...............................................................67
Figure 5.62: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 1.87..............68
Figure 5.63: Contour Plot of u for qp = 1.87 ...............................................................68
Figure 5.64: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 1.87 ............69
Figure 5.65: Contour Plot of nx for qp = 1.87 ..............................................................69
Figure 5.66: Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 15.33...........70
Figure 5.67: Three-Dimensional Plot of w for qp = 15.33 ...........................................70
Figure 5.68: Contour Plot of w for qp = 15.33.............................................................70
Figure 5.69: Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 15.33............71

ix
Figure 5.70: Contour Plot of u for qp = 15.33 .............................................................71
Figure 5.71: Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 15.33 ..........72
Figure 5.72: Contour Plot of nx for qp = 15.33 ............................................................72
Figure 5.73: Maximum w Versus qp along Edge and Center .......................................73
Figure 5.74: Maximum u Versus qp along Edge and Center........................................73
Figure 5.75: Maximum nx Versus qp along Edge and Center.......................................73
Figure 5.76: Maximum W Versus B along Edge and Center.......................................77
Figure 5.77: Differential Settlement Versus B ............................................................77
Figure 5.78: Maximum W Versus KS along Edge and Center .....................................78
Figure 5.79: Differential Settlement Versus KS ..........................................................78
Figure 5.80: Maximum W Versus QP along Edge and Center .....................................79
Figure 5.81: Differential Settlement Versus QP ..........................................................80

Figure A.1: Shape Function φ1 from Equation 2.30 ...................................................90

Figure A.2: Shape Function φ2 from Equation 2.30 ...................................................90
Figure A.3: Shape Function φ3 from Equation 2.30 ...................................................91
Figure A.4: Shape Function φ4 from Equation 2.30 ...................................................91
Figure A.5: Shape Function φ5 from Equation 2.30 ...................................................92
Figure A.6: Shape Function φ6 from Equation 2.30 ...................................................92
Figure A.7: Shape Function θ1 from Equation 2.31 ...................................................93
Figure A.8: Shape Function θ2 from Equation 2.31 ...................................................93
Figure A.9: Shape Function θ3 from Equation 2.31 ...................................................94
Figure A.10: Shape Function θ4 from Equation 2.31 ...................................................94
Figure A.11: Shape Function θ5 from Equation 2.31 ...................................................95
Figure A.12: Shape Function θ6 from Equation 2.31 ...................................................95
Figure A.13: Shape Function θ7 from Equation 2.31 ...................................................96

Figure D.1: Differential Settlement Versus b........................................................... 111

Figure D.2: Differential Settlement Versus β........................................................... 112
Figure D.3: Differential Settlement Versus ks .......................................................... 112

x
Figure D.4: Differential Settlement Versus qp ......................................................... 112

xi
 List of Tables

Table 1.1: SRR Values (Stewart and Filz 2005) ........................................................5

Table 5.1: The Effect of Varying B .........................................................................76

Table 5.2: The Effect of Varying KS .......................................................................77
Table 5.3: The Effect of Varying QP .......................................................................79

Table D.1: Maximum Values from Parametric Study............................................. 110

Table D.2: Minimum Values from Parametric Study.............................................. 110
Table D.3: Differential Settlements for Each Case ................................................. 111

xii
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Raymond Plaut for his guidance as my
advisor and committee chairman. Dr. Plaut has made considerable contributions to this
research and has taught me a new way of approaching problems. I would also like to
thank my committee members Dr. George Filz and Dr. Kamal Rojiani for their support
and guidance during this research. I appreciate their assistance in reviewing the text.

I would also like to thank Miao Sun and Dhaval Makhecha for helping me learn how to
use ABAQUS. Their willingness to help and share their knowledge is deeply
appreciated.

I want to thank my family for supporting and encouraging me through this endeavor.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my Mom for introducing me to engineering and
encouraging me through all of these years. I also want to thank all of my friends,
especially Dan Berding, who has been with me through it all.

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.
0408281.

xiii
 Chapter 1
Introduction and Literature Review

1.1 Introduction

Geosynthetic-reinforced, column-supported embankments are exceptionally useful when

an embankment is constructed over weak soil. They are also valuable when there are
adjacent structures that are sensitive to differential settlement and when there is a need
for accelerated construction. These complex foundation systems consist of: strong
columns or piles in soft, compressible soil; a bridging layer placed above the columns,
consisting of coarse-grained soil; and one or more layers of geosynthetic reinforcement
placed in the bridging layer. Figure 1.1 shows a schematic of the geotechnical composite
foundation system.

The columns assist in reducing the total settlement in the soil. They can be flexible
columns, semi-rigid columns, or rigid piles (Han and Wayne 2000). Depending on the
diameter, the columns or piles may or may not have pile caps. The bridging layer, which
can be several feet of coarse-grained soil, is placed above the columns, and usually
includes one or more layers of geosynthetic reinforcement. The geosynthetics help
enhance the load transfer to the columns and therefore reduce differential settlement.
They also allow for larger column spacing.

The current design methods for these complex foundation systems are inadequate
because of their simplified assumptions and discrepancies in results. For one, an “equal
strain” method is often assumed when no geosynthetic reinforcement is used, which
states that the vertical strains are equal in the columns and in the soil, independent of the
depth (Broms 1999). This method fails to satisfy vertical stress equilibrium. Second,
there is a large discrepancy in results when calculating the vertical load on the
geosynthetics. There are over five different methods currently used to determine the
load, and they all yield different results. Third, the current modeling of the geosynthetic
reinforcement is extremely simplified, where the reinforcement is typically treated as a

1
one-dimensional cable. This design assumption fails to account for the fact that the
reinforcement is orthotropic. Furthermore, stress concentrations are not accounted for,
nor are the orientations of the piles and geosynthetics. Therefore, the current design
methods are inadequate for attempting to perform dependable deformation-based design
of these kinds of systems.

This research is part of a multiple-tasked project intended to create a more economical

and reliable approach to these kinds of complex foundation systems. In this thesis, a
three-dimensional mathematical analysis of the geosynthetic reinforcement will be
performed.

load from embankment,

structure, and/or live load

geosynthetic bridging layer

reinforcement

piles or
columns
soft soil

bearing
layer

Figure 1.1 Schematic of the Geotechnical Composite Foundation System

2
1.2 Literature Review

1.2.1 Deformation-Based Design

Deformation-based design is widely used in foundation engineering. It is currently used

in the design of such applications as footings, piles, and drilled shafts. However, the only
available method to conduct a deformation-based design for column-supported
embankments is to use three-dimensional numerical analysis.

In order to accurately use deformation-based design, there must be reliable ways to

calculate the differential settlements in the ground. Currently, the design guides fail to
account for the properties of the bridging layer, such as the thickness and the type, when
determining the differential settlements. Furthermore, the geosynthetic reinforcement’s
properties and the soft clay between the piles are not considered. These factors have an
influence on the settlement and should be taken into account.

The “equal strain” assumption is sometimes also a contributing factor to the inaccurate
calculation of differential settlements. This method implies that the settlements in the
soft clay and at the top of the columns are equal, which implies that there are no stress
concentrations in the bridging layer. This is inconsistent with the stress concentrations
that are in the columns, therefore violating vertical stress equilibrium. If equilibrium is
violated, the settlements are not being calculated accurately.

1.2.2 Vertical Loads on the Geosynthetic Reinforcement

There are currently five published methods that calculate the vertical load on the
geosynthetic reinforcement. They all utilize different approximations and arching
theories, and yield extremely different results. Arching effects are important in
determining the amount of load that goes to the columns. Soil arching causes vertical
stresses to be transferred from the soft soil to the columns (Han and Gabr 2002).
Therefore, the vertical stress in the soil between the columns will be less than the vertical

3
stress above the columns. In order to measure this quantity, the stress reduction ratio,
SRR, is calculated for each method. The stress reduction ratio represents the proportion
of the total load that the geosynthetic reinforcement will carry. Each method results in
different SRR values, and therefore they differ greatly on how much reinforcement is
necessary in design.

All of the current methods use assumptions that neglect certain factors. For example,
they all neglect the stiffness of the soft soil and the geosynthetics (Jones et al. 1990).
Furthermore, Stewart and Filz (2005) showed that the compressibility of the soft
foundation soil between columns has an impact on the SRR value, and should be taken
into account.

The five main methods used currently are: BS8006, Adapted Terzaghi’s, Hewlett and
Randolph, Adapted Guido, and Carlsson. These methods account for different factors
including the column size and spacing, embankment height, and the unit weight of the
embankment (Stewart and Filz 2005). A main assumption used in these methods is that
the geosynthetic reinforcement takes the entire load between the columns, and that none
of the load is carried by the foundation soil (Russell and Pierpoint 1997).

As stated previously, there is a large discrepancy in results from each of these methods.
Stewart and Filz (2005) calculated SRR values for different parameters using each of the
five methods, shown in Table 1.1. Here, a represents the pile cap width, s represents the
center-to-center spacing, and H represents the embankment height. This table shows the
disagreement of results between the methods, and that there needs to be a more reliable
method of calculating the vertical load on the geosynthetic reinforcement.

4
 Table 1.1 SRR Values (Stewart and Filz 2005)
SRR
a/s = 0.25 a/s = 0.33 a/s = 0.5
METHOD H/s = 1.5 H/s = 4 H/s = 1.5 H/s = 4 H/s = 1.5 H/s = 4
BS8006 0.92 0.34 0.62 0.23 0.09 0.02
Terzaghi 0.60 0.32 0.50 0.23 0.34 0.13
Hewlett&Randolph 0.52 0.48 0.43 0.31 0.30 0.13
Guido 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.08 0.03
Carlsson 0.56 0.21 0.48 0.18 0.35 0.13

1.2.3 Geosynthetic Reinforcement

Geosynthetic reinforcement has many practical uses in foundation engineering, including

reinforcement, filtration, moisture barrier, and drainage (Zhan and Yin 2001). In
reinforced retaining structures, such as a wall or abutment, the geosynthetic
reinforcement can be used as a linear anchorage. Geosynthetics are also used as
reinforcement in lining systems on a slope to assist in carrying the tensile forces. For
road embankments that are prone to voids, geosynthetic reinforcement can be used to
prevent localized sinkholes. As in the focus of this paper, they can also be used for
column-supported embankments on soft ground to minimize settlement and increase the
bearing capacity of the soft soil (Villard et al. 2002).

A planar polymeric material, geosynthetic reinforcement is comprised of a woven or

nonwoven geotextile or geogrid (Whittle et al. 1993). This synthetic material typically
has a considerable axial stiffness in tension, but lacks much resistance to bending. The
open grid of many geosynthetics allows them to link to the soil and create frictional
resistance, increasing the load carrying capacity.

As mentioned previously, the vertical stress between the columns is assumed to be

carried by the geosynthetic reinforcement. This applied load normal to the surface of the
geosynthetic creates tension in the membrane, creating the membrane effect (Villard and

5
Giraud 1998, Zhan and Yin 2001). Then this load is transferred to the columns through
the vertical component of the tension forces in the membrane (Han and Gabr 2002).
Therefore, through the membrane effect, the geosynthetic reinforcement is assisting in
the load transfer from the embankment to the columns.

1.2.4 Previous Research

Most of the previous analyses of the geosynthetic reinforcement have been extremely
simplified. Many assume that the geosynthetic material is linearly elastic and that the
resistance to bending and compressive forces can be neglected. The geosynthetic is often
treated as a one-dimensional cable that can only carry tension, neglecting the orthotropic
nature of the material, the small bending resistance it can have, stress concentrations
around the columns, and the material’s orientation. Furthermore, many of the methods
use a uniform load, when in reality the load is higher over the columns due to arching of
the soil. Numerous studies have been conducted over the years, and a few of them will
now be briefly discussed.

Agaiby and Jones (1995) conducted an analysis of embankment fill structures reinforced
with geosynthetics to avoid cavities or voids. They modeled the reinforcement as cable
elements that only carried tension and had no flexural rigidity. The model was analyzed
using FLAC, a finite-difference program.

Also utilizing a cable model, Burd (1995) analyzed membrane action for reinforced
unpaved roads over weak soil. A uniform, monotonic load was used in a plane strain
model. This method is appropriate when large deflections are acceptable. The use of
geosynthetics as a separator between the fill above and the soft clay below was also
studied. In the model, slip was allowed between the reinforcement and the soil.

Zhan and Yin (2001) completed an elastic analysis of the interaction between the soil and
the geosynthetic reinforcement. The interaction was analyzed in both the vertical and
horizontal directions, using Winkler springs and horizontal shear springs. The

6
geosynthetic was assumed to be an elastic material that had no bending or shearing
resistance. The results were compared with results from the program FLAC. It was
concluded that a higher stiffness of the geosynthetic would improve the soft ground
settlement.

Villard and Giraud (1998) conducted a three-dimensional model of the soil-geotextile

interaction using finite element analysis. A uniform vertical load was used to analyze
the membrane behavior of the geosynthetic. The model created is useful for anisotropic
material with inelastic behavior, regardless of the type of loading. Triangular finite
elements were used; however, the edges of the elements were modeled as one-
dimensional cables.

In order to determine the importance of including the bending stiffness, Fakher and Jones
(2001) modeled the geosynthetic reinforcement in two different ways. The analysis
included one layer of reinforcement over super soft clay, with a layer of sand above. The
super soft clay is considered to have high water content with little shear strength. The
first model of the geosynthetic was a cable element with no bending stiffness. The
second model was a two-dimensional beam element with an elastic bending stiffness.
The analysis concluded that the bending stiffness of the geosynthetic should be included
for design over super soft clay.

Han and Gabr (2002) carried out a numerical analysis of column-supported embankments
over soft clay. The study investigated the influence of the tensile stiffness of the
geosynthetic, the height of the fill, and the elastic modulus of the pile material. The
system was modeled in FLAC and, for simplicity, only one layer of geosynthetic was
used and a full bond was assumed between the geosynthetic and the soil. Results of the
analysis showed that the tension in the reinforcement was not uniform, and that
maximum tension occurred at the edges of the piles. They also showed that the
maximum tension increased when the tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic increased.

7
1.3 Overview of Thesis

In Chapter Two, the formulation of the model created in Mathematica using the
Rayleigh-Ritz method is discussed. The various shape functions chosen for the program
are shown. Lastly, verification studies are conducted to prove the adequacy of the model
created.

Chapter Three describes the three-dimensional model of the geosynthetic reinforcement

created in ABAQUS. It also includes a verification study of the model to confirm the
sufficiency of the modeling decisions made.

Chapter Four shows a comparison between the two models created in Mathematica and
ABAQUS. Results using the same parameters in each model are compared to show that
the models yield similar results.

A parametric study is conducted in Chapter Five using the Mathematica model. It shows
the effect of different geosynthetic properties, vertical loads, soil stiffnesses, sizes of
piles, and distances between piles.

Chapter Six provides a summary of the procedures and results shown in the thesis, and
describes what can be concluded from the results attained. Furthermore, it proposes
recommendations for research to be conducted in the future on this topic.

Appendix A includes printouts of the Mathematica program used for the convergence
study and three-dimensional plots of the various shape functions used for the deflections.
Appendix B shows supporting information for the verification studies conducted in
Mathematica and ABAQUS. Appendix C includes printouts of the ABAQUS input file
and the Mathematica program created for the comparison between the two models.
Lastly, Appendix D includes a Mathematica program printout of the standard case used in
the parametric study that was conducted and extra results from the study.

8
 Chapter 2
Mathematica Model and Verification Studies

2.1 Introduction

The software Mathematica, Version 5.2, was used to create a model of the geosynthetic
reinforcement and obtain a numerical solution of the problem. Mathematica is a complex
program that has a wide variety of uses including: complex symbolic calculations,
solving differential equations and minimization problems, and numerical modeling of
intricate systems (Wolfram Research 2006). The model created in this program utilizes
the Rayleigh-Ritz method and minimizes the total energy of the system. To prove the
sufficiency of the model, simple cases were analyzed and compared with theoretical
results.

2.2 Geometry

As stated previously, the geosynthetic reinforcement is placed in the bridging layer above
the piles and soft soil. In this thesis, one layer of reinforcement was considered. In order
to simplify the problem, one unit cell of the geosynthetic was modeled, as shown in
Figure 2.1.
L

Unit Cell L

Figure 2.1 Layout of Columns and One Unit Cell

9
Here, L represents the center-to-center spacing of the columns. In the model, circular
columns were used, with a diameter of 2B for each column. In Figure 2.2, a typical unit
cell used for the model is shown.

2B
X

Figure 2.2 A Unit Cell of the Geosynthetic Reinforcement Model

2.3 Assumptions

Many assumptions were made in order to simplify the model created in Mathematica.
The geosynthetic reinforcement was assumed to be a thin, flexible, isotropic plate.
Elastic plate deflections due to bending and stretching were included using the nonlinear
von Kármán equations (Chia 1980, Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger 1959, Szilard
1974). The main assumption of the von Kármán plate theory is that the squares of
rotations and the strains are both small compared to unity. This theory is typically used
for small strains and moderately large rotations of a plate (Chia 1980).

The friction between the geosynthetic reinforcement and the soil was neglected. The soil
above the piles and between the piles was modeled using a Winkler foundation. An
elastic foundation, the Winkler foundation model is a distribution of linear vertical
springs that have a stiffness k (Scott 1981, Selvadurai 1979). The spring stiffness k is

10
also called the basic subgrade modulus. In order to show the variation of stiffness above
the piles and between the piles, different stiffnesses were used for each.

The piles were assumed to be circular and rigid. The vertical load above the geosynthetic
reinforcement was assumed to be non-uniform to account for arching of the soil.
Therefore, the vertical load acting above the piles was greater than the vertical load
between the piles.

2.4 Basic Model

2.4.1 Definition of Terms

As shown in Figure 2.2, X and Y are reference coordinates for the plate. When a term is
in upper-case, it means that it is a dimensional parameter. Lower case will be used when
the equations become non-dimensional. All equations presented incorporate symmetry in
X and Y. Figure 2.3 shows an elevation view of the model.

QP QP
QS

Geosynthetic:
E, h, ν
KP KP
KS

X or Y B
L
Figure 2.3 Elevation View of System

11
As explained previously, B is the radius of the column and L is the center-to-center
spacing of the columns. QP represents the vertical pressure above the piles and QS
represents the vertical pressure between the piles. KP is the stiffness of the soil above the
piles, while KS is the stiffness of the soil between the piles. As defined by Ugural (1999),
the flexural rigidity of a plate, D, is defined as

E h3
D= (2.1)
12 (1 − ν 2 )

where E = modulus of elasticity of plate

h = plate thickness
ν = Poisson’s ratio of plate

Figure 2.4 shows a three-dimensional view of the plate. W(X,Y) represents the out-of-
plane deflection of the plate, where a downward deflection is positive. U(X,Y) is the
normal in-plane deflection in the X direction, where it is positive in the X direction.
V(X,Y) is the in-plane deflection in the Y direction, and is equal to U(Y,X) due to
symmetry.

Y
Z
V(X,Y)

U(X,Y)

W(X,Y) X
Figure 2.4 3-D View of Plate with Coordinate System

12
Once the deflections W, U, and V are approximated, the membrane forces in the plate can
be determined using Equations 2.2 and 2.3:

E h  ∂U ∂V 1   ∂ W   ∂W  
2 2

NX =  +ν +    +ν   (2.2)
(1 − ν 2 )  ∂ X ∂ Y 2   ∂ X   ∂ Y   
 

E h  ∂ U ∂V 1   ∂ W   ∂W  
2 2

NY = ν + +  ν  +   (2.3)
(1 − ν 2 )  ∂ X ∂ Y 2   ∂ X   ∂ Y   
 

where NX = membrane force in X direction

NY = membrane force in Y direction

2.4.2 Energy Equation

The total energy of the system can be represented by four different parts: bending, load
acting on the system, spring stiffness, and membrane forces. This is shown in Equation
2.4:

ET = E B + E Q + E K + E M (2.4)

where ET = total energy in the system

EB = energy from bending in the plate
EQ = potential energy of vertical load
EK = energy stored in the soil
EM = energy from membrane forces in the plate

The formulation of the various parts comes from Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger
(1959). Equations 2.5-2.8 give the formulas for these various energies:

13
 2
D
L L
 ∂2 W ∂2 W
EB = ∫ ∫  +  d X dY (2.5)
2 0 0  ∂ X 2 ∂ Y2 

L L B  B2 − X 2 
E Q = − QS ∫∫ W dX dY − 4 (QP − QS ) ∫  ∫ W dY  dX (2.6)
0 0 0  0 

 B2 − X 2 
( )∫ ∫
L L B
1
E K = KS
2 ∫∫W 0 0
2
dX dY + 2 K p − K S
0

 0
W dY  dX
2


(2.7)

Eh
L L  ∂ U  ∂W 
2 2
 ∂V 1  ∂ W  2 
2

 1
EM =
2 (1 − ν 2 ) 0
∫∫ +   
  ∂ X 2  ∂ X  
+ 
 ∂ Y
+ 
2  ∂ Y
 
 
0


 ∂ U 1  ∂W  2  ∂V 1  ∂W  2
+ 2 ν  +     +   
 ∂ X 2 ∂ X  ∂Y 2 ∂Y  

(1 − ν )  ∂ U ∂V  ∂ W   ∂ W  
2

+  + +    dX dY (2.8)
2  ∂Y ∂ X  ∂ X  ∂Y  

Certain boundary conditions were used due to symmetry properties of the unit cell. The
plate was considered to have no rotation about each edge. Also, normal in-plane
deflection was zero at the edges. The boundary conditions used are shown in Equations
2.9 and 2.10:

∂W
At X = 0, L: = 0 and U = 0 (2.9)
∂X

14
 ∂W
At Y = 0, L: = 0 and V = 0 (2.10)
∂Y
To reduce the number of parameters and make the calculations more general, non-
dimensional parameters were defined. Equations 2.11-2.24 show the definitions of the
non-dimensional parameters (except for α), which are in lower case:

X Y B
x= y= b= (2.11, 2.12, 2.13)
L L L

2 QS L4 W LU
α= w= u= (2.14, 2.15, 2.16)
D α α2

LV 4 K S L4 4 K P L4
v= kS = kP = (2.17, 2.18, 2.19)
α2 D D

 α
2
L2 N X L2 N Y
β = 12   nx = ny = (2.20, 2.21, 2.22)
 h α2 E h α2 Eh

Q ~ 2 L2 E T
qP = P ET = (2.23, 2.24)
QS Dα 2

The total energy of the system using the non-dimensional parameters is

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ET = E B + E Q + E K + E M (2.25)

2
~
1 1
 ∂ 2 w ∂ 2 w
where EB = ∫∫
0 0
 +
 ∂ x2 ∂ y2 
 dx dy (2.26)

 b2 − x 2 
( )∫
1 1 b
~
EQ = − ∫ ∫ w dx dy − 4 q p − 1  ∫0  dx
w dy (2.27)
0 0 0  

15
  b2 − x 2 
( )∫
1 1 b
~ 1
EK = kS
4 ∫ ∫ w dx dy + k p − k S
0 0
2

0


∫0 w 2
dy  dx

(2.28)

1 1  ∂ u 2 2
 ∂ w   ∂ v 1  ∂ w 2 
2
~  1
EM = β ∫ ∫ +    +  +   
  ∂ x 2  ∂ x    ∂ y 2  ∂ y  
0 0


 ∂ u 1  ∂ w 2   ∂ v 1  ∂ w 2 
+ 2ν  +     
 ∂ y + 2  ∂ y  
 ∂ x 2 ∂ x   

(1 − ν )  ∂ u ∂ v  ∂ w   ∂ w 
2

+  + +    dx dy (2.29)
2  ∂ y ∂ x  ∂ x ∂ y 

2.4.3 Rayleigh-Ritz Method

After the formulation of the total energy of the system, the Rayleigh-Ritz method was
used to minimize the energy and give approximate deflections and forces. This energy
method uses a linear combination of assumed deflected shapes, as in Equations 2.30-
2.32:

w ( x , y ) = c0 + c1ϕ1 ( x , y ) + c2ϕ 2 ( x , y ) + K + cnϕ n ( x, y) (2.30)

u ( x , y ) = d 1θ1 ( x , y ) + d 2θ2 ( x , y ) + K + d nθn ( x , y ) (2.31)

v ( x , y ) = e1θ1 ( x , y ) + e2θ2 ( x , y ) + K + enθn ( x, y) (2.32)

The shape functions, φn and θn, must satisfy kinematically admissible boundary
conditions. This means that the functions chosen for w, u, and v must satisfy the

16
boundary conditions that do not involve forces or moments. Once appropriate shape
functions are chosen for the displacements, the approximated deflections that make the
energy a minimum will give the approximate solution at stable equilibrium conditions.

There are a few different ways to find the minimum of the total energy. One way is to
take the first partial derivative of the total energy with respect to each constant (cn, dn, en),
set these derivatives equal to zero, and then solve for the constants to get approximate
deflected shapes. Another way is to use a program to minimize the energy, which was
done in this thesis. In Mathematica, the parameters, deflections, and energy were
defined, and then the NMinimize function was used to find the minimum.

2.4.4 Shape Functions

For the model of the geosynthetic reinforcement, certain boundary conditions needed to
be satisfied when determining the shape functions to use for the deflected shapes. Once
shape functions were chosen that satisfied these boundary conditions, a convergence
study was conducted to ensure that enough functions were included to obtain an accurate
solution.

Equations 2.33-2.35 show the kinematically admissible boundary conditions required for
the shape functions:

∂w ∂w
For w(x,y): = 0 at x = 0, 1 and = 0 at y = 0, 1 (2.33)
∂x ∂y

For u(x,y): u = 0 at x = 0, 1 (2.34)

For v(x,y): v = 0 at y = 0, 1 (2.35)

After much consideration, the shape functions chosen for w, u, and v are shown in
Equations 2.36-2.38. The functions chosen satisfied all of the kinematic boundary

17
conditions above. Three-dimensional plots of each of these functions are presented in
Appendix A. The constants that were then computed in Mathematica were wa through
wg, and ua through ug, which were respectively denoted by c’s and d’s in Equations 2.30
and 2.31.

[ 2 2
] [
w ( x , y ) = wa + wb x 2 (1 − x ) + y 2 (1 − y ) + wc x 2 (1 − x ) + y 2 (1 − y )
2
]
2 2

[ 3 3
] [
+ wd x 3 (1 − x ) + y 3 (1 − y ) + we x 3 (1 − x ) + y 3 (1 − y )
3
]
3 2

[ 4 4
] [
+ w f x 4 (1 − x ) + y 4 (1 − y ) + w g x 4 (1 − x ) + y 4 (1 − y )
4 4 2
] (2.36)

u ( x , y ) = ua x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x ) + ub x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x )(0.25 − y)(0.75 − y)

+ uc x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x )( 0.25 − x )( 0.75 − x )

+ ud x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x )( 0.25 − x)( 0.75 − x )(0.25 − y )(0.75 − y )

+ ue x ( 0.5 − x)(1 − x)( 0.125 − x )( 0.375 − x )( 0.625 − x )( 0.875 − x )

+ u f x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x )(0125

. − y )(0.375 − y )(0.625 − y )(0.875 − y )

+ u g x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x )( 0125

. − x )( 0.375 − x )( 0.625 − x )( 0.875 − x)∗

(0125
. − y )(0.375 − y )(0.625 − y )(0.875 − y ) (2.37)

v ( x, y ) = u ( y, x ) (2.38)

18
These functions were chosen after many calculations with a variety of shapes. Note that
each w function (after the constant term) involves a sum of the form f(x) + f(y) where f is
symmetric about the center of the plate. Each u term is either a function of x or the
product of a function of x and a function of y, and is symmetric in the y direction and
anti-symmetric in the x direction (relative to the center of the plate).

Next, a convergence study was performed in order to determine if enough terms were
included for the displacements. When the energy of the system begins to level out, it can
be concluded that a minimum is approaching. The more terms that are added, the better
the solution and the closer the energy comes to the exact minimum. Since there is
symmetry in x and y, u and v are equivalent to each other. Therefore, convergence
studies were only conducted for w and u.

The following parameters were used for this convergence study:

Square piles instead of circular

k S = 6.91 × 108

k P = 3.455 × 1011

β = 4.077 × 10 21
b = 0.2
ν=0
q p = 187
.

Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show the convergence of the energy for both functions. In Figure 2.5,
3 w terms were used in the program. In Figure 2.6, 7 u terms were used. From the
convergence study, it was determined that 6 w terms, 6 u terms, and 6 v terms should be
sufficient. In the parametric study (Chapter 5), the program worked well with 7 u and v
terms, but had difficulty converging with 7 w terms. Hence it was decided to use 6 w
terms and 7 u and v terms in Chapter 5. The Mathematica program for the final solution
is presented in Appendix A.

19
 u Term Convergence

-6.775
10 1 0 T o tal En erg y

-6.78
-6.785
-6.79
-6.795
-6.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of u Terms

Figure 2.5 Convergence Study for u

w Term Convergence

-6.0
-6.5
10 1 0 T o tal En erg y

-7.0
-7.5
-8.0
-8.5
-9.0
-9.5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of w Terms

Figure 2.6 Convergence Study for w

20
2.5 Verification Studies

In order to validate the model that was formulated, it is imperative that verification
studies be conducted. Two simple examples were analyzed in Mathematica and
compared to theoretical results.

2.5.1 First Example

The first verification study involved a clamped square plate, with no stretching of the
membrane included. A uniform load was applied, and downward deflection and slope
were zero along all four edges. Ugural (1999) stated that the maximum downward
deflection is at the center of the plate and is equal to

p0 a 4
Wmax = 0.00126 (2.39)
D

where Wmax = maximum deflection

po = uniform load
a = plate width
D = flexural rigidity (Equation 2.1)

In the Mathematica program, a simpler model was used to represent this problem. The
only deflection present was w since stretching of the membrane was not included. Since
the downward deflection was zero along all four edges, the w equation used was

[ 2 2
] [
w ( x , y ) = wb x 2 (1 − x ) + y 2 (1 − y ) + wc x 2 (1 − x ) + y 2 (1 − y)
2
]
2 2
(2.40)

The load was taken as unity, and since a uniform load was applied, qp = 1. Also, no soil
stiffness was considered, so kS and kP were both taken as zero. Since no stretching was
included, the membrane part of the energy equation was not included. An accuracy goal

21
of 5 significant digits was used in Mathematica, and the resulting maximum deflection
calculated was 0.0006294. The printout of this program is located in Appendix B. This
value is the non-dimensional deflection, so Equations 2.14 and 2.15 were used to convert
w to W. With the uniform vertical load, plate width, and flexural rigidity all taken as
unity, the maximum W was calculated as 0.001259. The value calculated in Mathematica
agrees with the theoretical maximum deflection of 0.00126.

2.5.2 Second Example

The second example analyzed was similar to the first model; however, stretching was
included this time. The same boundary conditions were used as in the first model. The
same w equation from the first model was used as well. In this case, u and v were
included and Equation 2.41 was used for both:

u ( x , y ) = ua x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x ) + ub x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x )(0.25 − y)(0.75 − y)

+ uc x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x )( 0.25 − x )( 0.75 − x )

+ ud x ( 0.5 − x )(1 − x )( 0.25 − x)( 0.75 − x )(0.25 − y )(0.75 − y ) (2.41)

The parameters used were

β = 5.6 × 10 7
ν = 0.316

After minimizing the energy, a maximum non-dimensional deflection of 0.00044636 was

calculated. The printout of the program used to calculate this is located in Appendix B.

Levy (1942) stated that with ν = 0.316 and QL4/Eh4 = 95.0, then

22
 Wcenter
= 0.912 (2.42)
h

where Q = uniform vertical load

L = plate width
E = modulus of elasticity
h = plate thickness
Wcenter = maximum deflection

The values for the parameters used in Mathematica correspond to those used in Levy
(1942). Using Equations 2.1, 2.14, and 2.15, and the proper values for each parameter,
the maximum non-dimensional deflection calculated from Levy’s result is 0.000444.
This corresponds well with the value calculated in Mathematica, therefore indicating that
the model created is accurate.

23
 Chapter 3
ABAQUS Model and Verification Study

3.1 Introduction

A model of the geosynthetic reinforcement was also created using ABAQUS, a finite
element analysis program. As in the Mathematica model, one layer of the reinforcement
was considered. In order to ensure that the software was used properly, a verification
study was conducted. The results of a simple model created in ABAQUS were compared
to theoretical results in order to gain confidence of the modeling decisions that were
made. A discretization study was then conducted in order to determine the proper
number of elements to use in the model.

3.2 Overview of the Software

ABAQUS, Inc. is one of the top providers of advanced finite element analysis software in
the world. The software ABAQUS can handle a wide array of problems ranging from
simple linear problems to more complicated nonlinear analyses (ABAQUS 2005).

ABAQUS/CAE (Complete ABAQUS Environment) was used to create the model

graphically, run the analysis, and then view the results. ABAQUS/CAE contains nine
modules that divide the modeling tasks into functional units. These modules are: Part,
Property, Assembly, Step, Interaction, Load, Mesh, Job, and Visualization.

3.2.1 Finite Element Analysis

Finite element analysis consists of the discretization of the geometry of a structure using
a group of finite elements. This finite number of elements is joined together by shared
nodes. The collection of nodes and elements is called the mesh, and the number of
elements used is called the mesh density. Then a stress analysis is performed, which

24
calculates the nodal displacements. Once the displacements of the nodes are known, the
stresses and strains in each element can be found.

3.3 Basic Modeling Decisions

The Part module is used to create individual parts and to sketch the geometry of that part.
The part can be deformable, discrete rigid, or analytical rigid. Also, the available shape
features are solids, shells, wires, cuts, and blends. For the geosynthetic reinforcement, a
3D, deformable, planar shell element was chosen. A shell element means that the
thickness of the element is significantly smaller than the other dimensions, which is the
case for the geosynthetic. Once the geometry of the reinforcement was sketched, a
partition was created to distinguish between the parts above the piles and between the
piles.

The Property module is used to define the properties of each part, including the material
and geometry. An elastic, isotropic material was chosen, where Young’s Modulus and
Poisson’s ratio were then defined. Then a section was created, where a homogeneous
shell section was chosen. The shell thickness and associated material were then
specified. Lastly, the number of integration points through the thickness of the shell was
determined. For a homogeneous shell section, the default of three integration points was
used utilizing Gauss quadrature. The section integration can be done before or during the
analysis. For this model, the integration was chosen to be done during analysis, meaning
that section point 1 is the point closest to the bottom surface. This simply means that the
output given will be for the points closest to the bottom and top surfaces of the element.

The Assembly module creates an assembly of the parts in the global coordinate system.
An instance of the shell element was created and assembled into the global coordinate
system.

The Step module allows the user to create analysis steps and output requests. The first
analysis step is Initial, which is the default that is already there. For the model, a Load

25
step was added. There are many types of loads that can be added: static, dynamic, heat
transfer, soils, and geostatic. A static, general load was chosen, and the NLGEOM
command was turned on. This option includes nonlinear effects of large displacements.

The Interaction module is used to specify mechanical and thermal interactions between
regions. This module allowed for the inclusion of an elastic foundation for the soil above
the piles. In the ABAQUS model, the soil stiffness between the piles was neglected. For
the elastic foundation, a stiffness per unit area (Force/Length3) was specified.

Loads, boundary conditions, and fields are created in the Load module. These are step-
dependent, meaning that the analysis step in which they are performed must be specified.
Boundary conditions were created in the Initial step. Mechanical, displacement/rotation
boundary conditions were chosen, where the same conditions shown in Equations 2.9 and
2.10 were used. Next, the load was created in the Load step. A mechanical pressure was
chosen for the load, and the pressure was assumed to be uniform for simplicity. Other
load options include moment, concentrated force, line load, and pipe pressure.

The Mesh module allows the user to create the mesh and choose the number of elements
to use in the analysis. The mesh control and element type defaults were used for the
model. The element type default for a shell section is the S4R element, which is a “4-
node, quadrilateral, stress/displacement shell element with reduced integration and a
large-strain formulation” (ABAQUS 2005). For the model, 1600 elements and 1681
nodes were used in the mesh.

Once the previously discussed modules are complete, the Job module is used to create the
input file and submit the job for analysis. Then the Visualization module is used to view
and interpret the results obtained.

26
3.4 Verification Study

A simple problem was analyzed in ABAQUS to ensure that the modeling decisions made
were correct. This problem is the same as the first verification study from Mathematica
in Section 2.5.1. An initial model was analyzed in ABAQUS using 1600 elements and
the results were compared with theoretical values. Then a discretization study was
conducted to show that as the number of elements increased, the solution for the
maximum deflection grew closer to the theoretical value.

A square, clamped plate with a uniform load, no stretching of the membrane, and no
downward deflection along all four edges was analyzed. Based on linear analysis, the
maximum downward deflection, located at the center of the plate, is given by Ugural
(1999) in Equation 2.39. Ugural (1999) also states that the maximum bending moments
are located in the middle of the fixed edges and are equal to

M max = 0.0513 p0 a 2 (3.1)

where Mmax = maximum bending moment

po = uniform load
a = plate width

The parameters chosen to be used for this model in ABAQUS are:

L= a=1
h = 0.001
E = 35
. × 108
ν = 0.25
Q = p0 = 10

No soil stiffness was considered, so no elastic foundation was added in the model. When
the Load step was added, the NLGEOM command was turned off in order to not account

27
for nonlinear effects. The appropriate boundary conditions were applied in the model for
the clamped plate with no downward deflection along all four edges. Using 1600
elements in ABAQUS, a maximum deflection of 0.4068 meters and a maximum bending
moment in the X direction of 0.461 Nm/m were calculated. Contour plots showing the
downward deflection, W, of the plate and the X direction section moments in the plate
are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. The input file created from this model
containing 1600 elements is shown in Appendix B.

From the parameters chosen, the flexural rigidity, D, was calculated as 0.03111 N-m.
Therefore, the closed-form solution of the maximum deflection was calculated to be
0.405 meters. This matches closely to the ABAQUS model’s value of 0.4068 meters.
Using Equation 3.1, the maximum bending moment, Mmax, was calculated as 0.513
Nm/m, compared to 0.461 Nm/m from ABAQUS. From Equation 3.2, this yielded a
percent error in the maximum bending moment of 10%, which may not be ideal but is
acceptable:

ApproximateValue − TheoreticalValue
%Error = × 100 (3.2)
TheoreticalValue

Next, the discretization study was performed to show how many elements were necessary
to get the proper results. The maximum downward deflection, W, was calculated for
each case in ABAQUS and then plotted against the theoretical value of 0.405 meters.
The following numbers of elements were used in this study: 4, 9, 25, 49, 100, 196, 289,
and 400. Figure 3.3 shows the final plot of number of elements versus maximum
deflection. It can be concluded that using at least 100 elements gave adequate results.
For the final model to be used, 1600 elements were chosen in order to account for the
increasing complexity of the problem.

28
 Figure 3.1 Contour Plot of Downward Deflection, W, in Meters

Figure 3.2 Contour Plot of Section Moments in the Plate, in Nm/m

29
 Discretization Study

ABAQUS Theoretical

Maximum Displacement 0.5

0.4

0.3
(m)

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Elements

Figure 3.3 Discretization Study for ABAQUS Verification

30
 Chapter 4
Mathematica and ABAQUS Comparison Study

4.1 Introduction

A comparison study was conducted between the two different models in order to further
prove the validity of the Mathematica model. The same parameters were used in both
models, and some of them were modified for simplicity. In Mathematica, different
equations for w and u were used since the parameters were different. With these different
parameters, the suitable number of terms found in Section 2.4.4 was no longer applicable
because the program failed to converge to a solution. Therefore, a convergence study
was conducted to ensure that enough terms were used to reach a minimum energy. After
both models were complete, plots of the displacements, W and U, and the membrane
force in the X direction, NX, were compared.

4.2 The Models

The basic parameters chosen for the comparison study were:

L = 0.8 m
B = 0.1 m
h = 0.001 m
E = 7.0 x 1010 N/m2
ν = 0.3
KP = 5.0 x 104 N/m3
KS = 0
QP = QS = 10 N/m2

Also, square piles were used instead of circular piles. This means that the sides of each
square pile have length 2B.

31
4.2.1 The ABAQUS Model

The model created in ABAQUS used the dimensional parameters shown above. The
partitions were created using the size of the piles. Then the elastic foundation was added
over the piles, with no soil stiffness considered between the piles. A uniform pressure of
10 Pa was used as the load for simplicity of the model. Nonlinear effects were included,
so the NLGEOM command was turned on. The appropriate boundary conditions were
applied, from Equations 2.9 and 2.10, and 1600 elements were used in the mesh. The
input file created from the model is shown in Appendix C.

4.2.2 The Mathematica Model

The parameters above are dimensional parameters; therefore, it was necessary to make
some of the parameters non-dimensional. Using Equation 2.1, the flexural rigidity, D,
was calculated to be 6.410 N-m. Then, using Equations 2.13, 2.14, 2.19, and 2.20, the
dimensionless parameters required for the Mathematica model were calculated. They
are:

1
b=
8
α = 1278
.
k P = 1278
. × 10 4
kS = 0

β = 196
. × 10 7
qp = 1

Next a convergence study, shown in Figure 4.1, was performed to determine how many
total terms were necessary to approach a minimum energy. It was concluded that 9 total
terms were sufficient, with 3 w terms and 6 u terms. Trying to add more terms resulted in

32
a failure to converge to a solution. The 9 terms used were the first 3 w terms and the
first 6 u terms from Equations 2.36 and 2.37.

Convergence Study

-1.59

-1.6
103 Total Energy

-1.61

-1.62

-1.63

-1.64

-1.65
4 5 6 7 8 9
Total Number of Terms

Figure 4.1 Convergence Study for Mathematica Model

The program used for the comparison, with the 9 total terms, is shown in Appendix C.
Once the constants were computed, the results had to be converted back to dimensional
parameters in order to compare them with the ABAQUS model. This was accomplished
using Equations 2.15, 2.16, and 2.21. The results from Mathematica were w, u, and nx,
so the equations were used to solve for W, U, and NX.

4.3 Results

The downward displacement, W, was plotted versus X along the edge of the plate and
along a line parallel to the X direction and passing through the center. These two plots
are shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3. Then the normal in-plane deflection in the X direction,
U, was plotted versus X along the edge of the plate and along the line through the center.
These plots are shown in Figures 4.4 and 4.5. Lastly, shown in Figures 4.6 and 4.7, the
membrane force in the X direction, NX, was plotted versus X along the edge and the
centerline. These graphs showed that although there were some differences, the overall

33
results were similar between both models. The plots of W yielded the best results, while
the plots of U and NX were not as close. Therefore it was concluded that the
Mathematica model was sufficient to continue with the parametric study, with the
downward deflection results yielding the most confidence.

W Along the Edge of the Plate Versus X

ABAQUS Mathematica
0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
10 W (m)

-2.0

-2.5
3

-3.0

-3.5

-4.0

-4.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
X (m)

Figure 4.2 Downward Displacement along the Edge of the Plate Versus X

W Along the Center of the Plate Versus X

ABAQUS Mathematica

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
-2.0
103 W (m)

-2.5

-3.0

-3.5

-4.0

-4.5

-5.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
X (m)

Figure 4.3 Downward Displacement along the Center of the Plate Versus X

34
 U Along the Edge of the Plate Versus X

ABAQUS Mathematica
5
4
3
2
1
10 U (m)

0
7

-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
X (m)

Figure 4.4 Normal In-Plane Deflection along the Edge of the Plate Versus X

U Along the Center of the Plate Versus X

ABAQUS Mathematica
4

1
10 U (m)

0
7

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
X (m)

Figure 4.5 Normal In-Plane Deflection along the Center of the Plate Versus X

35
 NX Along the Edge of the Plate Versus X

ABAQUS Mathematica
12

10

8
10-2 NX (N/m)

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
X (m)

Figure 4.6 Membrane Force along the Edge of the Plate Versus X

NX Along the Center of the Plate Versus X

ABAQUS Mathematica
3.5

2.5
10 NX (N/m)

1.5
-2

0.5

-0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
X (m)

Figure 4.7 Membrane Force along the Center of the Plate Versus X

36
 Chapter 5
Parametric Study

5.1 Introduction

Once confidence was gained in the accuracy of the Mathematica model of the
geosynthetic reinforcement, a parametric study was conducted. A standard case was
created using certain parameters, and then some of the parameters were varied one at a
time to show the influence of that variation. Plots of the deflected shapes and membrane
forces were compared, as well as plots of maximum values of each. Then the
dimensionless parameters were analyzed with a set of corresponding dimensional values
in order to interpret the physical results of the changes made. The effects of changing the
dimensional parameters B, KS, and QP on the maximum values of W, U, and NX were
shown. It was also shown how these changes affected the differential settlement, DS.

5.2 Standard Case

The standard case, and all of the subsequent cases, used the model discussed in Chapter
2. Due to the inability of the program to converge to a solution for all of the cases, only
the first 6 w terms from Equation 2.36 were used instead of 7. The u and v equations
remained the same as in Equations 2.37 and 2.38. Circular piles were used for all cases.
The following parameters were used for the standard case:

k S = 6.91 × 108

k P = 3.455 × 1011

β = 4.077 × 1021
b = 0.2
ν=0
q p = 7.667

37
For the parametric study, the parameters b, β, ks, and qp were varied. The parameter b
was varied for 2 cases, b = 0.15 and b = 0.25. The dimensionless parameter β was
changed to 2.039 * 1021 and 8.154 * 1021, equal to half and double the standard case
value, respectively. The soil stiffness between the piles, ks, was varied for 2 different
cases: ks = 0 and ks = 1.38 * 109. Lastly, the ratio of downward loads above the piles and
between the piles, qp, was analyzed for values of 1.87 and 15.33. For each case,
Poisson’s ratio, ν, was kept constant and equal to zero. The non-dimensional soil
stiffness above the piles, kp, was set equal to 500 * ks for each case in order to keep the
ratio between kp and ks constant. The one exception to that was for the case of setting ks
equal to zero, in which case kp remained the value of the standard case. Therefore, for
each parameter varied, at least one value less than the standard case value was analyzed
and one value higher than the standard case value.

Many results were compared for each case. First, plots of w, u, and nx versus x were
created in Microsoft Excel for each case. Each plot had one curve representing the edge
of the plate and one curve along the centerline of the plate. Next, three-dimensional plots
of the downward deflection, w, were created in Mathematica for each case. Contour
plots of w, u, and nx were also created using Mathematica. In these plots, the contours
were varying shades of gray, where the larger values were shown lighter. Lastly,
maximum values of w, u, and nx were compared for each parameter varied. These plots
showed how changing that parameter influenced the maximum deflections and membrane
forces in the plate. Appendix D contains a table that shows the maximum and minimum
values of w, u, and nx along the centerline and edge of the plate for each case. It also
shows the non-dimensional differential settlements for each case and plots showing how
each parameter affects the differential settlement, ds. The differential settlement was
calculated as the maximum downward deflection (which is at the center of the plate)
minus the downward deflection at the corners of the plate.

The program created for the standard case is shown in Appendix D. First, the constants
of the w, u, and v equations were computed using the NMinimize function. Once the
approximate deflections were calculated, the membrane force in the x direction, nx, was

38
obtained using Equations 2.2 and 2.21. Then a three-dimensional plot of w was created
in Mathematica, as well as contour plots of w, u, and nx. Next, tabulated values of w, u,
and nx evaluated at y = 0 and y = 0.5 and ranging from 0 to 1 at 0.01 increments in the x
direction were imported into Excel. These tabulated values were used to find maximum
values along the edge and along the center of the plate and to plot two-dimensional
deflected shapes and membrane forces. Results are shown in Figures 5.1 through 5.7.

Figures 5.1, 5.4, and 5.6 show the plots of w, u, and nx versus x, respectively, along the
edge of the plate and along a line parallel to the x direction and passing through the
center. Dashed lines represent the plots along the edge of the plate, while solid lines
represent the plots along the centerline. This notation will be used for the rest of the
chapter. Figure 5.2 shows the three-dimensional plot of -w, to represent how the plate
looks physically. Lastly, Figures 5.3, 5.5, and 5.7 show the contour plots created in
Mathematica of w, u, and nx, respectively. As mentioned previously, smaller values are
shown as darker shades of gray and larger values are shown as lighter shades.

39
 w Versus x

Edge Center

-1

-2
-109 w
-3

-4

-5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.1 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for Standard Case

0
-0.0001
-0.0002 1
-0.0003 0.8
-0.0004
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
1 0

Figure 5.2 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for Standard Case

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.3 Contour Plot of w for Standard Case

40
 u Versus x

Edge Center

3
2
1
1018 u

0
-1
-2
-3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.4 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for Standard Case

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.5 Contour Plot of u for Standard Case

41
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

5
4
3

1017 nx
2
1
0
-1
-2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.6 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for Standard Case

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.7 Contour Plot of nx for Standard Case

5.3 Variation in Non-Dimensional Parameter b

The definition of b is given in Equation 2.13. It represents the ratio of the radius of the
circular column or pile to the center-to-center spacing of the piles. This parameter was
analyzed at three values: 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25.

The results of the case with b = 0.15 are shown in Figures 5.8 through 5.14. The results
from the case of b = 0.25 are shown in Figures 5.15 through 5.21.

Next, the maximum values of w, u, and nx were calculated along the edge and the
centerline for the three different values of b. The results are shown in Figures 5.22
through 5.24.

42
 w Versus x

Edge Center

0
-0.5
-1

-109 w
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.8 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.15

0
-0.0001 1
-0.0002 0.8
-0.0003
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10

Figure 5.9 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for b = 0.15

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.10 Contour Plot of w for b = 0.15

43
 u Versus x

Edge Center

4
3
2
1018 u 1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.11 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.15

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.12 Contour Plot of u for b = 0.15

44
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

6
4
2
1017 nx

0
-2
-4
-6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.13 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.15

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.14 Contour Plot of nx for b = 0.15

45
 w Versus x

Edge Center

1
0
-1
-109 w

-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.15 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.25

-0.0002 1
0.8
-0.0004
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10

Figure 5.16 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for b = 0.25

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.17 Contour Plot of w for b = 0.25

46
 u Versus x

Edge Center

1
1018 u

-1

-3

-5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.18 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.25

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.19 Contour Plot of u for b = 0.25

47
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

5
3
1017 nx

1
-1

-3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.20 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for b = 0.25

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.21 Contour Plot of nx for b = 0.25

48
 Maximum w Versus b

Edge Center

6
5

109 w,max
4
3
2
1
0
0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25
b

Figure 5.22 Maximum w Versus b along Edge and Center

Maximum u Versus b

Edge Center

4
1018 u,max

0
0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25
b

Figure 5.23 Maximum u Versus b along Edge and Center

Maximum nx Versus b

Edge Center

7
6
5
1017 nx,max

4
3
2
1
0
0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25
b

Figure 5.24 Maximum nx Versus b along Edge and Center

49
Figure 5.22 shows that as b increased, the maximum downward deflection, w, along the
centerline increased while the maximum w along the edge decreased a small amount.
From Figure 5.23, it can be concluded that as b got larger, the maximum u at the
centerline was not affected and the maximum u along the edge decreased at first and then
increased again. Figure 5.24 shows that the maximum membrane force, nx, along the line
passing through the center increased significantly as b increased. Furthermore, the
maximum membrane force along the edge of the plate stayed almost constant, with a
slightly higher value at b = 0.15 than at b = 0.20 and 0.25.

5.4 Variation in Non-Dimensional Parameter β

The parameter β is defined in Equation 2.20, and is a function of the vertical load
between the piles, QS, the center-to-center spacing of the piles, L, the flexural rigidity of
the plate, D, and the plate thickness h. In this section, β was analyzed at the values 2.04 *
1021, 4.08 * 1021 (the standard case), and 8.15 * 1021. All other parameters were kept
constant, meaning they were equal to their values from the standard case.

The results of the case with β = 2.04 * 1021 are shown in Figures 5.25 through 5.31, and
the results of the case with β = 8.15 * 1021 are in Figures 5.32 through 5.38. Figures 5.39
through 5.41 show the maximum values of w, u, and nx versus β.

50
 w Versus x

Edge Center

1
0
-1
-109 w
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.25 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 2.04 * 1021

-0.0002 1
0.8
-0.0004
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1

Figure 5.26 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for β = 2.04 * 1021

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.27 Contour Plot of w for β = 2.04 * 1021

51
 u Versus x

Edge Center

4
3
2
1
1018 u

0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.28 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 2.04 * 1021

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.29 Contour Plot of u for β = 2.04 * 1021

52
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

8
6
4
1017 nx

2
0
-2
-4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.30 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 2.04 * 1021

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.31 Contour Plot of nx for β = 2.04 * 1021

53
 w Versus x

Edge Center

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-109 w -1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.32 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 8.15 * 1021

0
-0.0001 1
-0.0002
0.8
-0.0003
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
1 0

Figure 5.33 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for β = 8.15 * 1021

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.34 Contour Plot of w for β = 8.15 * 1021

54
 u Versus x

Edge Center

2
1.5
1
0.5
1018 u

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.35 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 8.15 * 1021

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.36 Contour Plot of u for β = 8.15 * 1021

55
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

9
7
5
1017 nx

3
1
-1
-3
-5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.37 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for β = 8.15 * 1021

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.38 Contour Plot of nx for β = 8.15 * 1021

56
 Maximum w Versus β

Edge Center

109 w,max
3

0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
21
10 β

Figure 5.39 Maximum w Versus β along Edge and Center

Maximum u Versus β

Edge Center

4.0
3.5
3.0
1018 u,max

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1021 β

Figure 5.40 Maximum u Versus β along Edge and Center

Maximum nx Versus β

Edge Center

8
1017 nx,max

0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
21
10 β

Figure 5.41 Maximum nx Versus β along Edge and Center

57
Figure 5.39 shows that as β got larger, the maximum w along the centerline of the plate
decreased while the maximum w along the edge decreased slightly and then increased.
From Figure 5.40, the maximum u along the centerline slowly increased and then
decreased, and the maximum u along the edge decreased, as β increased. Figure 5.41
illustrates that the change in β had no effect on the maximum nx along the centerline, but
did affect the maximum membrane force along the edge of the plate. As β increased, nx
began to decrease slightly and then increase.

5.5 Variation in Non-Dimensional Parameter ks

The parameter ks is a function of the soil stiffness between piles, KS, the center-to-center
spacing of the piles, L, and the flexural rigidity of the plate, D. Its definition is given in
Equation 2.18. Three different cases were analyzed for ks: ks = 0, ks = 6.91 * 108 (the
standard case), and ks = 1.38 * 109. For the case where the stiffness of the soil between
the piles was neglected (ks = 0), kp was taken as 3.455 * 1011. For all other cases, kp was
taken as 500 * ks in order to keep the ratio between the soil stiffness above the piles and
the soil stiffness between the piles constant.

Figures 5.42 through 5.48 show the results for ks = 0. The results for the case where ks =
1.38 * 109 are shown in Figures 5.49 through 5.55. Figures 5.56 through 5.58 show the
maximum values of w, u, and nx versus ks.

58
 w Versus x

Edge Center

5
0
-5
-109 w -10
-15
-20
-25
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.42 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 0

0
-0.0005 1
-0.001
-0.0015 0.8
-0.002 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10

Figure 5.43 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for ks = 0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.44 Contour Plot of w for ks = 0

59
 u Versus x

Edge Center

50

30

10
1018 u

-10

-30

-50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.45 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.46 Contour Plot of u for ks = 0

60
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

80

60
40
1017 nx

20
0

-20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.47 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.48 Contour Plot of nx for ks = 0

61
 w Versus x

Edge Center

0.5
0
-0.5

-109 w
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.49 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 1.38 * 109

-0.0001 1
0.8
-0.0002
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1

Figure 5.50 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for ks = 1.38 * 109

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.51 Contour Plot of w for ks = 1.38 * 109

62
 u Versus x

Edge Center

0.5
1018 u

-0.5

-1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.52 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 1.38 * 109

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.53 Contour Plot of u for ks = 1.38 * 109

63
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

1.5

1
0.5
1017 nx

0
-0.5

-1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.54 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for ks = 1.38 * 109

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.55 Contour Plot of nx for ks = 1.38 * 109

64
 Maximum w Versus ks

Edge Center

20

15

109 w,max
10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
8
10 ks

Figure 5.56 Maximum w Versus ks along Edge and Center

Maximum u Versus ks

Edge Center

40
1018 u,max

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
8
10 ks

Figure 5.57 Maximum u Versus ks along Edge and Center

Maximum nx Versus ks

Edge Center

80
70
60
1017 nx,max

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
8
10 ks

Figure 5.58 Maximum nx Versus ks along Edge and Center

65
Figure 5.56 illustrates that when ks was zero (no soil stiffness between the piles), the
maximum downward deflection along the centerline of the plate was considerably larger
than in the other cases. As ks increased, the maximum deflections, w, along the
centerline and along the edge both decreased. From Figure 5.57, it can be drawn that as
ks increased, the maximum u along the centerline and the edge decreased together with
almost the same values. They both decreased significantly at first, and then leveled out,
approaching zero. Figure 5.58 shows that as ks increased, the maximum tension force
along the centerline decreased at a rapid rate and then leveled out, while the maximum
tension force along the edge decreased at a slower rate, and then also leveling out and
approaching zero.

5.6 Variation in Non-Dimensional Parameter qp

The parameter qp represents the ratio of the vertical load above the piles to the vertical
load between the piles, and is given in Equation 2.24. This parameter was varied with the
values 1.87, 7.667 (the standard case), and 15.33. All other parameters remained
constant.

Figures 5.59 through 5.65 show the results of the case with qp = 1.87 and Figures 5.66
through 5.72 show the results with qp = 15.33. Lastly, Figures 5.73 through 5.75 show
the maximum deflections and membrane forces versus qp.

66
 w Versus x

Edge Center

1
0
-1
-109 w -2
-3
-4
-5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.59 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 1.87

0
-0.0001
-0.0002 1
-0.0003 0.8
-0.0004
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
1 0

Figure 5.60 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for qp = 1.87

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.61 Contour Plot of w for qp = 1.87

67
 u Versus x

Edge Center

3
2
1
1018 u

0
-1
-2
-3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.62 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 1.87

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.63 Contour Plot of u for qp = 1.87

68
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

5
4
3
2
1017 nx

1
0
-1
-2
-3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.64 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 1.87

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.65 Contour Plot of nx for qp = 1.87

69
 w Versus x

Edge Center

-1

-2
-109 w
-3

-4

-5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.66 Plot of w Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 15.33

0
-0.0001
1
-0.0002
-0.0003 0.8
-0.0004
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
1 0

Figure 5.67 Three-Dimensional Plot of w for qp = 15.33

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.68 Contour Plot of w for qp = 15.33

70
 u Versus x

Edge Center

6
4
2
1018 u

0
-2
-4
-6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.69 Plot of u Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 15.33

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.70 Contour Plot of u for qp = 15.33

71
 nx Versus x

Edge Center

15

5
-5
1017 nx

-15
-25

-35
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x

Figure 5.71 Plot of nx Versus x along Edge and Center of Plate for qp = 15.33

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 5.72 Contour Plot of nx for qp = 15.33

72
 Maximum w Versus qp

Edge Center

5
4

109 w,max
3

1
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
qp

Figure 5.73 Maximum w Versus qp along Edge and Center

Maximum u Versus qp

Edge Center

6
5
1018 u,max

4
3
2
1
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
qp

Figure 5.74 Maximum u Versus qp along Edge and Center

Maximum nx Versus qp

Edge Center

12
10
1017 nx,max

8
6
4
2
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
qp

Figure 5.75 Maximum nx Versus qp along Edge and Center

73
From Figure 5.73, it is shown that the change in qp had little effect on the maximum
downward deflection along the centerline nor along the edge. Figure 5.74 illustrates that
as qp increased, the maximum u along the center slightly increased while the maximum u
along the edge increased more significantly. It can be concluded from Figure 5.75 that
the maximum membrane force nx along the centerline remained almost constant as qp
increased. On the other hand, as qp got considerably large, the maximum membrane
force along the edge increased drastically.

Therefore, each parameter change had a different effect on the non-dimensional

deflections and the membrane forces in the plate. Some variations had little to no effect,
while others changed the deflections or forces significantly.

5.7 Results in Dimensional Form

The results have been presented in terms of non-dimensional parameters. These results
require careful interpretation due to the fact that the definitions of W, U, and NX involve
the parameters L, E, h, and QS. Therefore, the results will now be presented in
dimensional form and the effect of changing B, KS, and QP on the actual deflections and
membrane forces in the plate will be shown.

One set of dimensional parameters that corresponds to the set of non-dimensional

parameters used for the standard case in Section 5.2 is the following:

B = 0.6 m (radius of pile cap)

L = 3.0 m (center-to-center spacing of piles; see Figure 2.2)
h = 1.5 mm (thickness of geosynthetic)
E = 500 MPa (modulus of elasticity of geosynthetic)
ν = 0 (Poisson's ratio of geosynthetic)
KP = 150 MN/m3 (soil stiffness above piles)
KS = 300 kN/m3 (soil stiffness between piles)
QP = 184 KPa (downward pressure on geosynthetic above piles)

74
 QS = 24 KPa (downward pressure on geosynthetic between piles)

Using the definitions of the non-dimensional parameters in Equations 2.11-2.24,

Equations 5.1 through 5.3 expand on the definitions of W, U, and NX, respectively, with
ν = 0:

24 QS L4
W= w (5.1)
E h3

576 QS2 L7
U= u (5.2)
E 2 h6

576 QS2 L6
NX = nx (5.3)
E h5

With the use of the above equations and the numerical values for the standard case in
Table D.1 of Appendix D, the maximum values of the dimensional displacements and
forces were computed for the set of dimensional parameters described above. The
maximum downward deflection W, occurring at the center of the unit cell, was 129 mm.
The maximum downward deflection along each edge of the unit cell (occurring halfway
between piles) was 66 mm. The maximum magnitudes of the in-plane displacement U
(in the X direction) were 0.65 mm along the edges Y = 0 and Y = L, and 0.43 along the
line through the center of the unit cell (Y = L/2). The maximum tension in the X
direction per unit length in the Y direction (i.e., the maximum value of NX) was 2.0 kN/m
along the edges Y = 0 and Y = L, and 2.4 kN/m (165 lb/ft) along the line Y = L/2.
Corresponding results in the Y direction can be obtained from these values using the
symmetry properties of the system.

Using Equations 2.11-2.24 and 5.1-5.3, as well as the results from Table D.1, the
maximum values of W, U, and NX along the edge and centerline of the plate were
computed for varying values of B, KS, and QP. The differential settlement, DS, was
calculated as the maximum deflection in the center of the plate minus the deflection at the

75
corners, and was also computed for the various parameter values. Tables 5.1 through 5.3
show these maximum values for the different dimensional parameter values. For each
case, all other parameters were kept constant and equal to the value for the standard case.
Also, KP was kept as 500 * KS as before, except for the case where KS = 0, where KP
stayed at 150 MN/m3 as for the standard case.

Table 5.1 The Effect of Varying B

Wedge Wcenter DS Uedge Ucenter NXedge NXcenter
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m) (kN/m)
B = 0.45 m 91 91 89 0.97 0.48 2.9 1.1
B = 0.60 m 66 129 126 0.65 0.43 2.0 2.4
B = 0.75 m 57 138 138 1.04 0.48 2.4 4.2

From Table 5.1, it can be seen that as B increases, the maximum downward displacement
along the edge decreases, while the maximum W along the centerline and the differential
settlement increase. When B increases, that means the radius of the pile cap is increased,
which would decrease the length between the piles along the edges, causing the
maximum W along the edges to decrease. This rising of the edge
displacement may help cause the central region of the plate in the
unit cell to absorb more energy and displace further downward. Furthermore, when B is
increased, this means that the vertical load acting above the piles, QP, is being applied to
a larger region, and since QP is of a larger magnitude than the vertical load between the
piles, QS, there is a greater load being applied. However, it should be noted that since B
is larger, the resisting soil stiffness above the piles, KP, has also been increased to act on a
larger region as well. Therefore, these two increases may counteract each other, or the
vertical load above the piles may have more of an impact on the central deflection than
the resisting stiffness above the piles. The maximum in-plane displacement in the X
direction, U, along the edge of the plate decreases and then increases, while the
maximum U along the centerline stays almost the same as B is increased. The tension
force in the plate along the edge decreases and then increases slightly when B increases,
while the tension force along the center increases. Figures 5.76 and 5.77 show the

76
maximum downward deflection along the edge and centerline versus B and the
differential settlement versus B, respectively.

Maximum W Versus B

Edge Center

160
140
120
W (mm)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
B (m)

Figure 5.76 Maximum W Versus B along Edge and Center

Differential Settlement Versus B

160
140
120
100
DS (mm)

80
60
40
20
0
0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
B (m)

Figure 5.77 Differential Settlement Versus B

Table 5.2 The Effect of Varying KS

Wedge Wcenter DS Uedge Ucenter NXedge NXcenter
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m) (kN/m)
KS = 0 224 547 542 11.02 11.01 24.3 48.0
3
KS = 300 kN/m 66 129 126 0.65 0.43 2.0 2.4
KS = 600 kN/m3 40 66 66 0.21 0.08 0.8 0.7

77
Table 5.2 shows that as KS gets larger, the maximum magnitudes of W along the edge
and the center decrease. The differential settlement also decreases as KS is increased.
This makes sense since KS represents the stiffness of the soil between the piles, so as that
stiffness is increased, the deflections will decrease. This is also true for the in-plane
deflections, U, and the maximum tension forces, NX. The stiffer the soil is between the
piles, the less the in-plane deflection will be and the less tension force required in the
plate. When there is no stiffness of the soil accounted for between the piles, the
deflections and tension forces are drastically higher. The maximum downward
displacements and the differential settlement versus KS are shown graphically in Figures
5.78 and 5.79, respectively.

Maximum W Versus K S

Edge Center

600
500
400
W (mm)

300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
3
KS (kN/m )

Figure 5.78 Maximum W Versus KS along Edge and Center

Differential Settlement Versus K S

600

500
400
DS (mm)

300

200
100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
3
KS (kN/m )

Figure 5.79 Differential Settlement Versus KS

78
 Table 5.3 The Effect of Varying QP
Wedge Wcenter DS Uedge Ucenter NXedge NXcenter
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m) (kN/m)
QP = 45 kPa 66 129 128 0.67 0.43 2.1 2.5
QP = 184 kPa 66 129 126 0.65 0.43 2.0 2.4
QP = 368 kPa 66 128 119 1.32 0.64 6.8 2.1

Table 5.3 shows that changing QP has no effect on the maximum downward deflection
along the edge, and a minimal effect on the maximum downward deflection along the
centerline. However, increasing QP causes the differential settlement to decrease. The
maximum deflection U along the edge decreases slightly and then increases as QP is
increased, while the maximum U along the centerline stays the same and then increases
slightly. As QP gets larger, the maximum tension force along the edge stays the same and
then increases significantly, while the maximum tension force along the centerline
decreases slightly. Figures 5.80 and 5.81 show the maximum displacement W along the
edge and along the centerline and the differential settlement versus QP.

Maximum W Versus QP

Edge Center

140
120
100
W (mm)

80
60
40
20
0
45 95 145 195 245 295 345
QP (kPa)

Figure 5.80 Maximum W Versus QP along Edge and Center

79
 Differential Settlement Versus Q P

130

128

126

DS (mm) 124

122

120

118
45 95 145 195 245 295 345
QP (kPa)

Figure 5.81 Differential Settlement Versus QP

80
 Chapter 6
Summary and Conclusions

6.1 Summary and Conclusions

The use of geosynthetic reinforcement in column-supported embankments has become

increasingly popular over the past few years. These geotechnical systems are often used
in soft ground conditions where adjacent structures may be affected by the differential
settlements caused by the new embankment. It is believed that placing one or more
layers of the geosynthetic reinforcement in the bridging layer will help transfer the
embankment load to the piles and reduce the total and differential settlements. The
current methods of analysis for the geosynthetic make many assumptions to simplify the
problem, often compromising modeling the true behavior of the reinforcement.

The goal of this thesis was to reduce the number of assumptions made and try to model
closer to the true behavior of the geosynthetic. Many previous analyses neglected the
bending stiffness of the reinforcement; however, in this thesis the bending stiffness was
included. Furthermore, the geosynthetic is often treated as a one-dimensional cable in
tension. In this paper, a more thorough three-dimensional model of the system was
created. Lastly, a uniform vertical load is often used in the analysis of the geosynthetic
reinforcement, whereas here the arching of the soil was taken into account and thus the
vertical load on the geosynthetic was non-uniform.

In this thesis, one layer of the geosynthetic reinforcement was considered. A square unit
cell was analyzed, with columns at its corners, as shown in Figure 2.1. Two models of
the geosynthetic were created, one using the Rayleigh-Ritz method in Mathematica and
the other using finite element modeling in ABAQUS.

In the Mathematica model, the geosynthetic was assumed to be a linearly elastic, thin,
isotropic plate. With the use of the von Kármán equations, the elastic plate deflections
due to bending and stretching were included. A distribution of uniform vertical springs

81
(i.e., a Winkler foundation) was used to model the soft soil below the geosynthetic layer.
Since the soil above the piles is stiffer than the soil between the piles, different stiffnesses
were used for each. The friction between the geosynthetic and the soil was neglected.
The vertical pressure above the piles was assumed to be non-uniform, with a higher
pressure above the piles than between the piles due to soil arching.

The total energy of the system was formulated including the energy from the bending in
the plate, the potential energy of the vertical load, the energy stored in the soil, and the
energy from the membrane forces in the plate. Certain boundary conditions were used to
account for symmetry in the unit cell of the system. In order to make calculations more
general, the dimensional parameters were converted to non-dimensional parameters, and
therefore a new energy equation was formulated using these dimensionless parameters.
Once the total energy of the system was established, the Rayleigh-Ritz method was used
to minimize the energy and compute approximate deflections and membrane forces. A
linear combination of assumed deflected shapes, or shape functions, was chosen that
satisfied all kinematically admissible boundary conditions. Then a convergence study
was performed to determine the number of terms required to reach a minimum. In order
to gain confidence in the final model created in Mathematica, two verification studies
were performed to compare displacements with theoretical values. In both studies, the
maximum downward displacements agreed well.

Another model was created using ABAQUS, a finite element analysis program. In this
model, a three-dimensional, deformable, planar shell element was chosen to model the
geosynthetic. The material was assumed to be elastic and isotropic. The soil stiffness
was modeled using a Winkler foundation model, but the stiffness between the piles was
neglected. The vertical pressure acting on the geosynthetic was assumed to be uniform
for simplicity. A verification study was conducted to prove the adequacy of the model.
The maximum downward deflection, W, and the maximum bending moment per unit
length in the plate were compared to theoretical values. Then a discretization study was
conducted in order to determine the number of elements required in the mesh to
adequately model the geosynthetic.

82
Once both models were complete and verified with theoretical results, they were
compared with each other. The same parameters were used for each model to be
consistent. Plots of the downward displacement, W, the normal in-plane displacement in
the X direction, U, and the membrane force in the X direction per unit length in the Y
direction, NX, were compared for each model. The displacements, W and U, and the
membrane force, NX, were plotted versus X along the edge of the plate and along a line
parallel to the X direction and passing through the center of the plate. The graphs yielded
similar results, with the plots of W being the closest.

Next a parametric study was conducted using the Mathematica model. A standard case
was defined, from which other parameters were varied. The study was performed using
the dimensionless parameters. Each parameter considered was varied one at a time, with
all other parameters remaining constant. For each case, plots of w, u, and nx were
created, including two-dimensional plots, three-dimensional plots, and contour plots of
the plate. Then maximum values of w, u, and nx were tabulated and plotted versus each
dimensionless parameter to show how the variation of that parameter affected the
maximum value.

In order to show physical results of the parametric study, and because the dimensionless
results are not always easy to interpret, a set of dimensional values was chosen that
corresponded with the standard case. Then using definitions from Chapter 2 and the
maximum values obtained from the dimensionless study, maximum dimensional values
of W, U, and NX, as well as the differential settlement, DS, were calculated for different
values of B, KS, and QP. Therefore, the effect of changing the radius of the piles, the soil
stiffness between the piles, and the vertical pressure above the piles was analyzed.

In general, it was shown that as the radius of the pile cap, B, increased, the maximum
downward displacement along the edge of the plate decreased, while the maximum
downward displacement along the centerline and the differential settlement increased. It
was shown that increasing the stiffness of the soil between the piles, KS, caused the

83
displacements, W and U, the differential settlement, DS, and the membrane force, NX, all
to decrease. It was also concluded that when there was no soil stiffness included between
the piles, these displacements and forces were significantly higher. Changing the vertical
pressure above the piles, QP, seemed to have almost no effect on the downward
displacement, W, and had a small effect on U and NX. The effect of increasing QP was
that it increased the in-plane deflection and the tension force along the edge of the plate
and also seemed to reduce the differential settlement. Therefore it was shown that some
of the parameter changes had a large effect on the displacements and tension forces,
while other parameter changes had less of an effect.

6.2 Need for Further Research

Many modifications could be made to improve and extend the model used in this thesis.
For one, this research assumed that the geosynthetic layer was isotropic. However, some
geosynthetics are orthotropic, and an analysis using an orthotopic model could be
conducted. It would be easy to incorporate an orthotropic model in the Rayleigh-Ritz
procedure used in this thesis.

One geosynthetic was considered in this research, and multiple layers of the geosynthetic
could be modeled in further work. Several layers are often used in practice, sometimes
with geogrids that are oriented differently in different layers. Modeling multiple layers
would be helpful in analyzing how additional layers affect such values as the
displacements and the tension forces in the geosynthetic.

In this thesis, a Winkler foundation model was used for the soil. For future research, it
would be good to include a Pasternak foundation model as well, which includes shear
effects at the interface of the soil and the geosynthetic. Other soil models also could be
analyzed.

Another suggestion for future research would be to include a stiffness of the bridging
layer above the geosynthetic reinforcement. In this research, the only soil model was

84
below the geosynthetic. Since the geosynthetic is typically placed near the bottom of the
bridging layer, it would be good to also include the stiffness of the soil in the bridging
layer into the model. In addition, the model of the embankment load above the bridging
layer could be improved. Rather than just a load on top, the load could act on a plate, so
that the displacement of the plate would be included in the analysis. This would be more
realistic and closer to an actual model of, for example, a road or the bottom of a tank that
rests on the soil.

Another possible avenue for further research is a new type of model for the geosynthetic
reinforcement when a geogrid is used. The geogrid could be represented as a grid of
beams or cables instead of a solid plate. This may be a more realistic model when the
geosynthetic reinforcement has relatively large holes.

Finally, a finite element analysis could be performed. ABAQUS was used here with a
small downward load in a verification study. An attempt was made to increase the load
to practical values. This requires an incremental procedure, since the problem is highly
nonlinear due to coupling between transverse and in-plane displacements. An efficient
way to increase the load was not found, and the attempt was abandoned. Perhaps this
hurdle can be overcome, either with ABAQUS or another finite element software.

Therefore, many improvements could be made to refine the model of the system analyzed
in this thesis, and the work could be extended to cover other cases of column-supported
embankments incorporating layers of geosynthetic reinforcement.

85
 References

ABAQUS (2005). Abaqus: Superior Finite Element Analysis Solutions, ABAQUS,

Incorporated, Providence, Rhode Island (http://www.abaqus.com).

Agaiby, S. W. and Jones, C. J. F. P. (1995). “Design of reinforced fill systems over

voids,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32, 939-945.

Broms, B. B. (1999). “Keynote lecture: Design of lime, lime/cement and cement

columns,” International Conference on Dry Mix Methods: Dry Mix Methods for
Deep Soil Stabilization, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 125-153.

Burd, H. J. (1995). “Analysis of membrane action in reinforced unpaved roads,”

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32, 946-956.

Chia, C. Y. (1980). Nonlinear Analysis of Plates, McGraw-Hill, New York, 54-79.

Fakher, A. and Jones, C. J. F. P. (2001). “When the bending stiffness of geosynthetic

reinforcement is important,” Geosynthetics International, 8, 445-460.

Han, J. and Gabr, M. A. (2002). “Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and

pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128, 44-53.

Han, J. and Wayne, M. H. (2000). “Pile-soil-geosynthetic interactions in geosynthetic-

reinforced platform/piled embankments over soft soil,” Paper No. 000777,
Presentation at 79th Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting,
Washington, D.C.

86
Jones, C. J. F. P., Lawson, C. R., and Ayres, D. J. (1990). “Geotextile reinforced piled
embankments,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, 155-160.

Levy, S. (1942). “Square plate with clamped edges under normal pressure producing
large deflections,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics TN-847,
Washington, D.C.

Russell, D. and Pierpoint, N. (1997). “An assessment of design methods for piled
embankments,” Ground Engineering, November, 39-44.

Scott, R. F. (1981). Foundation Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1979). Elastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation Interaction, Elsevier,

Amsterdam.

Stewart, M. E. and Filz, G. M. (2005). “Influence of clay compressibility on

geosynthetic loads in bridging layers for column-supported embankments,”
Contemporary Issues in Foundation Engineering, GSP 131 (on CD-ROM),
ASCE, Reston, Virginia.

Szilard, R. (1974). Theory and Analysis of Plates: Classical and Numerical Methods,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 216-217.

Timoshenko, S. and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959). Theory of Plates and Shells, Second

Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 259, 419-428.

Ugural, A. C. (1999). Stresses in Plates and Shells, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 79, 165-168.

87
Villard, P. and Giraud, H. (1998). “Three-dimensional modeling of the behavior of
geotextile sheets as membranes,” Textile Research Journal, 68, 797-806.

Villard, P., Kotake, N., and Otani, J. (2002). “Modelling of reinforced soil in finite
element analysis,” International Conference on Geosynthetics, 39-44.

Whittle, A. J., Larson, D. G., Germaine, J. T., and Abramento, M. (1993). “A new device
for evaluating load-transfer in geosynthetic reinforced soils,” Geosynthetic Soil
Reinforcement Testing Procedures, S. C. J. Cheng, ed., ASTM, Philadelphia, PA,
1-15.

Wolfram Research (2006). Mathematica: The Way the World Calculates, Wolfram
Research, Incorporated (http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica).

Zhan, C. and Yin, J. H. (2001). “Elastic analysis of soil-geosynthetic interaction,”

Geosynthetics International, 8, 27-48.

88
 Appendix A
Supporting Information for Convergence Study

A.1 Printout of Mathematica Program for Final Terms Used

Clear[β,kp,b,ν,ks,x,y,wa,wb,wc,wd,we,wf,wg,ua,ub,uc,ud,ue,uf,ug]

ks=0.0691;
kp=500*ks;
β=40.77;
b=0.2;
ν=0;

w[x_,y_]:=wa+wb*(x^2*(1-x)^2+y^2*(1-y)^2)+wc*((x^2*(1-x)^2+y^2*(1-
y)^2)^2)+wd*((x^3)*(1-x)^3+(y^3)*(1-y)^3)+we*((x^3)*(1-x)^3+(y^3)*(1-
y)^3)^2+wf*((x^4)*(1-x)^4+(y^4)*(1-y)^4)+wg*((x^4)*(1-x)^4+(y^4)*(1-y)^4)^2;

u[x_,y_]:=(0.5-x)*(ua*x*(1-x)+ub*x*(1-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y)+uc*x*(1-x)(0.25-
x)*(0.75-x)+ud*x*(1-x)(0.25-x)*(0.75-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y)+ue*x*(1-x)*(0.125-
x)*(0.375-x)*(0.625-x)*(0.875-x)+uf*x*(1-x)*(0.125-y)*(0.375-y)*(0.625-
y)*(0.875-y)+ug*x*(1-x)*(0.125-x)*(0.375-x)*(0.625-x)*(0.875-x)*(0.125-
y)*(0.375-y)*(0.625-y)*(0.875-y));

v[x_,y_]:=u[y,x];

EE[wa_,wb_,wc_,wd_,we_,wf_,wg_,ua_,ub_,uc_,ud_,ue_,uf_,ug_]:=Integrate[(10^-
10)*((D[w[x,y],{x,2}]+D[w[x,y],{y,2}])^2)-(10^-
5)*w[x,y]+0.25*ks*(w[x,y]^2)+β*(((D[u[x,y],x]+.5*(D[
w[x,y],x])^2)^2+(D[v[x,y],y]+0.5*(D[w[x,y],y])^2)^2+0.5*(D[u[x,y],y]+D[v[x,y],x]
+(D[w[x,y],x])*(D[w[x,y],y]))^2)),{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]+Integrate[(kp-ks)*w[x,y]^2-
(80/23)*(10^-5)*w[x,y],{x,0,b},{y,0,b}]

sol =
NMinimize[{EE[wa,wb,wc,wd,we,wf,wg,ua,ub,uc,ud,ue,uf,ug]},{wa,wb,wc,wd,we,wf,wg,
ua,ub,uc,ud,ue,uf,ug},MaxIterations→10000,AccuracyGoal→5]

{-8.873058349847554`*^-10,{ua→5.334025952890744`*^-7,ub→5.382726919128827`*^-
6,uc→3.2411258972992597`*^-6,ud→-3.7499680877362568`*^-6,ue→-
0.000048965478042465235`,uf→-
0.0000378161414921518`,ug→0.00017736736942909034`,wa→-9.75665623190488`*^-
7,wb→0.001931752257389216`,wc→-0.014976180070678932`,wd→-
0.040272816804300705`,we→-0.010348157328988064`,wf→0.22225042078673804`,wg→-
0.000996030590598789`}}

89
A.2 Three-Dimensional Plots of the Final Shape Functions Used

w1[x_,y_]=(x^2*(1-x)^2+y^2*(1-y)^2);
Plot3D[-w1[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

-0.05 1
0.8
-0.1
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1

Figure A.1 Shape Function φ1 from Equation 2.30

w2[x_,y_]=((x^2*(1-x)^2+y^2*(1-y)^2)^2);
Plot3D[-w2[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0
-0.005 1
-0.01 0.8
-0.015 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10

Figure A.2 Shape Function φ2 from Equation 2.30

90
w3[x_,y_]=(x^3*(1-x)^3+y^3*(1-y)^3);
Plot3D[-w3[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0
-0.01 1
-0.02 0.8
-0.03 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10
Figure A.3 Shape Function φ3 from Equation 2.30

w4[x_,y_]=((x^3*(1-x)^3+y^3*(1-y)^3)^2);
Plot3D[-w4[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0
-0.00025 1
-0.0005
-0.00075 0.8
-0.001 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10

Figure A.4 Shape Function φ4 from Equation 2.30

91
w5[x_,y_]=(x^4*(1-x)^4+y^4*(1-y)^4);
Plot3D[-w5[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0
-0.002 1
-0.004
-0.006 0.8
-0.008 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1

Figure A.5 Shape Function φ5 from Equation 2.30

w6[x_,y_]=((x^4*(1-x)^4+y^4*(1-y)^4)^2);
Plot3D[-w6[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0
-0.00002 1
-0.00004 0.8
-0.00006 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1

Figure A.6 Shape Function φ6 from Equation 2.30

92
u1[x_,y_]=x*(0.5-x)*(1-x);
Plot3D[u1[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0.05
0.025
1
0
-0.025 0.8
-0.05 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1
Figure A.7 Shape Function θ1 from Equation 2.31

u2[x_,y_]=x*(0.5-x)*(1-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y);
Plot3D[u2[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0.005
1
0
0.8
-0.005
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1

Figure A.8 Shape Function θ2 from Equation 2.31

93
u3[x_,y_]=x*(0.5-x)*(1-x)*(0.25-x)*(0.75-x);
Plot3D[u3[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0.002
1
0
0.8
-0.002
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1
Figure A.9 Shape Function θ3 from Equation 2.31

u4[x_,y_]=x*(0.5-x)*(1-x)*(0.25-x)*(0.75-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y);
Plot3D[u4[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0.0002
1
0
-0.0002 0.8
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10

Figure A.10 Shape Function θ4 from Equation 2.31

94
u5[x_,y_]=x*(0.5-x)*(1-x)*(0.125-x)*(0.375-x)*(0.625-x)*(0.875-x);
Plot3D[u5[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0.0002
1
0
0.8
-0.0002
0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10

Figure A.11 Shape Function θ5 from Equation 2.31

u6[x_,y_]=x*(0.5-x)*(1-x)*(0.125-y)*(0.375-y)*(0.625-y)*(0.875-y);
Plot3D[u6[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

0.0004
0.0002 1
0
-0.0002 0.8
-0.0004 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
0
1

Figure A.12 Shape Function θ6 from Equation 2.31

95
u7[x_,y_]=x*(0.5-x)*(1-x)*(0.125-x)*(0.375-x)*(0.625-x)*(0.875-x)*(0.125-
y)*(0.375-y)*(0.625-y)*(0.875-y);
Plot3D[u7[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

1´ 10 -6
5´ 10 -7 1
0
-5 ´ 10 -7 0.8
-1 ´ 10 -6 0.6
0
0.2 0.4
0.4
0.6 0.2
0.8
10

Figure A.13 Shape Function θ7 from Equation 2.31

96
 Appendix B
Supporting Information for Verification Studies

B.1 Mathematica Verification Studies

B.1.1 Printout of Mathematica Program for First Example

w[x_,y_]:=wb*(x^2)*((1-x)^2)*(y^2)*((1-y)^2)+wc*(((x^2)*((1-x)^2)*(y^2)*((1-
y)^2))^2);

EE[wb_,wc_]:=Integrate[(D[w[x,y],{x,2}]+D[w[x,y],{y,2}])^2-
w[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

sol = NMinimize[{EE[wb,wc]},{wb,wc},MaxIterations→1000,AccuracyGoal→4]
{-0.0000966641,{wb→0.1918,wc→-7.85165}}

ww[x_,y_]=w[x,y] /. sol[[2]]

ww[0.5,0.5]
0.00062941

B.1.2 Printout of Mathematica Program for Second Example

Clear[β,k,b,ν,k2,x,y,wa,wb,wc,wd,ua,ub,uc,ud,ue]

β=56000000;
ν=0.316;

w[x_,y_]:=wb*(x^2)*((1-x)^2)*(y^2)*((1-y)^2)+wc*(((x^2)*((1-x)^2)*(y^2)*((1-
y)^2))^2);

u[x_,y_]:=(0.5-x)*(ua*x*(1-x)+ub*x*(1-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y)+uc*x*(1-x)(0.25-
x)*(0.75-x)+ud*x*(1-x)(0.25-x)*(0.75-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y));

v[x_,y_]:=u[y,x];

EE[wb_,wc_,ua_,ub_,uc_,ud_]:=Integrate[(D[w[x,y],{x,2}]+D[w[x,y],{y,2}])^2-
w[x,y]+β*(((D[u[x,y],x]+.5*(D[
w[x,y],x])^2)^2+(D[v[x,y],y]+0.5*(D[w[x,y],y])^2)^2+2*ν*(D[u[x,y],x]+0.5*(D[w[x,
y],x])^2)*(D[v[x,y],y]+0.5*(D[w[x,y],y])^2)+0.5*(1-
ν)*(D[u[x,y],y]+D[v[x,y],x]+(D[w[x,y],x])*(D[w[x,y],y]))^2)),{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]

sol =
NMinimize[{EE[wb,wc,ua,ub,uc,ud]},{wb,wc,ua,ub,uc,ud},MaxIterations→1000,Accura
cyGoal→4]

97
{-0.00007394059229707357`,{ua→-5.1966764437809555`*^-8,ub→4.212275672085873`*^-
6,uc→5.613083968793032`*^-6,ud→-
0.00006372106838704831`,wb→0.11419240014751908`,wc→0.01944481053111167`}}

ww[0.5,0.5]
0.000446361

98
B.2 Input File for ABAQUS Verification Study

*Heading
** Job name: Verification Model name: Geosynthetic
*Preprint, echo=NO, model=NO, history=NO, contact=NO
**
** PARTS
**
*Part, name=Part-1
*Node
1, -0.5, -0.5, 0.
2, -0.474999994, -0.5, 0.
3, -0.449999958, -0.5, 0.
4, -0.424999982, -0.5, 0.
5, -0.400000006, -0.5, 0.
6, -0.375, -0.5, 0.
7, -0.349999994, -0.5, 0.
8, -0.324999988, -0.5, 0.
9, -0.299999982, -0.5, 0.
10, -0.275000006, -0.5, 0.
11, -0.25, -0.5, 0.
12, -0.225000009, -0.5, 0.
13, -0.200000003, -0.5, 0.
14, -0.174999997, -0.5, 0.
.
.
.
1666, 0.125, 0.5, 0.
1667, 0.149999991, 0.5, 0.
1668, 0.174999997, 0.5, 0.
1669, 0.200000003, 0.5, 0.
1670, 0.225000009, 0.5, 0.
1671, 0.25, 0.5, 0.
1672, 0.275000006, 0.5, 0.
1673, 0.300000042, 0.5, 0.
1674, 0.325000018, 0.5, 0.
1675, 0.349999994, 0.5, 0.
1676, 0.375, 0.5, 0.
1677, 0.400000006, 0.5, 0.
1678, 0.425000042, 0.5, 0.
1679, 0.450000018, 0.5, 0.
1680, 0.474999994, 0.5, 0.
1681, 0.5, 0.5, 0.
*Element, type=S4r
1, 1, 2, 43, 42

99
 2, 2, 3, 44, 43
3, 3, 4, 45, 44
4, 4, 5, 46, 45
5, 5, 6, 47, 46
6, 6, 7, 48, 47
7, 7, 8, 49, 48
8, 8, 9, 50, 49
9, 9, 10, 51, 50
10, 10, 11, 52, 51
11, 11, 12, 53, 52
12, 12, 13, 54, 53
13, 13, 14, 55, 54
14, 14, 15, 56, 55
15, 15, 16, 57, 56
16, 16, 17, 58, 57
17, 17, 18, 59, 58
18, 18, 19, 60, 59
19, 19, 20, 61, 60
.
.
.
1583, 1622, 1623, 1664, 1663
1584, 1623, 1624, 1665, 1664
1585, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1665
1586, 1625, 1626, 1667, 1666
1587, 1626, 1627, 1668, 1667
1588, 1627, 1628, 1669, 1668
1589, 1628, 1629, 1670, 1669
1590, 1629, 1630, 1671, 1670
1591, 1630, 1631, 1672, 1671
1592, 1631, 1632, 1673, 1672
1593, 1632, 1633, 1674, 1673
1594, 1633, 1634, 1675, 1674
1595, 1634, 1635, 1676, 1675
1596, 1635, 1636, 1677, 1676
1597, 1636, 1637, 1678, 1677
1598, 1637, 1638, 1679, 1678
1599, 1638, 1639, 1680, 1679
1600, 1639, 1640, 1681, 1680
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 1681, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 1600, 1
** Region: (Section-1:Picked)
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 1600, 1

100
** Section: Section-1
*Shell Section, elset=_PickedSet2, material=Material-1,
section integration=GAUSS
0.001, 3
*End Part
**
**
** ASSEMBLY
**
*Assembly, name=Assembly
**
*Instance, name=Part-1-1, part=Part-1
*End Instance
**
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet4, internal, instance=Part-1-1
1, 41, 42, 82, 83, 123, 124, 164, 165,
205, 206, 246, 247, 287, 288, 328
329, 369, 370, 410, 411, 451, 452, 492, 493,
533, 534, 574, 575, 615, 616, 656
657, 697, 698, 738, 739, 779, 780, 820, 821,
861, 862, 902, 903, 943, 944, 984
985, 1025, 1026, 1066, 1067, 1107, 1108, 1148, 1149,
1189, 1190, 1230, 1231, 1271, 1272, 1312
1313, 1353, 1354, 1394, 1395, 1435, 1436, 1476, 1477,
1517, 1518, 1558, 1559, 1599, 1600, 1640
1641, 1681
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet4, internal, instance=Part-1-1
1, 40, 41, 80, 81, 120, 121, 160, 161,
200, 201, 240, 241, 280, 281, 320
321, 360, 361, 400, 401, 440, 441, 480, 481,
520, 521, 560, 561, 600, 601, 640
641, 680, 681, 720, 721, 760, 761, 800, 801,
840, 841, 880, 881, 920, 921, 960
961, 1000, 1001, 1040, 1041, 1080, 1081, 1120, 1121,
1160, 1161, 1200, 1201, 1240, 1241, 1280
1281, 1320, 1321, 1360, 1361, 1400, 1401, 1440, 1441,
1480, 1481, 1520, 1521, 1560, 1561, 1600
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet5, internal, instance=Part-1-1
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
1641, 1642, 1643, 1644, 1645, 1646, 1647
1648, 1649, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656,
1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663

101
 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672,
1673, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679
1680, 1681
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet5, internal, instance=Part-1-1
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 1561,
1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1568
1569, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1575, 1576, 1577,
1578, 1579, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1583, 1584
1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593,
1594, 1595, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600
*Elset, elset=__PickedSurf6_SPOS, internal,
instance=Part-1-1, generate
1, 1600, 1
*Surface, type=ELEMENT, name=_PickedSurf6, internal
__PickedSurf6_SPOS, SPOS
*End Assembly
**
** MATERIALS
**
*Material, name=Material-1
*Elastic
3.5e+08, 0.25
**
** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
**
** Name: BC-1 Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
_PickedSet4, 3, 3
_PickedSet4, 5, 5
_PickedSet4, 6, 6
** Name: BC-2 Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
_PickedSet5, 3, 3
_PickedSet5, 4, 4
_PickedSet5, 6, 6
**
----------------------------------------------------------
------
**
** STEP: Load
**
*Step, name=Load, nlgeom=no

102
*Static
.01, 1., 1e-15, 1.
*CONTROLS, PARAMETERS=LINE SEARCH
5,
*CONTROLS, PARAMETERS=TIME INCREMENTATION
170,170,170,170,170,170,170,20
**
** LOADS
**
** Name: Load-1 Type: Pressure
*Dsload
_PickedSurf6, P, 10.
**
** OUTPUT REQUESTS
**
*Restart, write, frequency=0
**
** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1
**
*Output, field
*Node Output
CF, RF, U
*Element Output, directions=YES
SF,
**
** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1
**
*Output, history, variable=PRESELECT
*End Step

103
 Appendix C
Supporting Information for Comparison Study

C.1 Input File for the ABAQUS Model

*Heading
** Job name: Comparison Study Model name: Geosynthetic
*Preprint, echo=NO, model=NO, history=NO, contact=NO
**
** PARTS
**
*Part, name=Part-1
*Node
1, -0.300000012, -0.300000012, 0.
2, -0.400000006, -0.300000012, 0.
3, -0.400000006, -0.400000006, 0.
4, -0.300000012, -0.400000006, 0.
5, -0.400000006, 0.300000012, 0.
6, -0.300000012, 0.300000012, 0.
7, -0.300000012, 0.400000006, 0.
8, -0.400000006, 0.400000006, 0.
9, 0.300000012, -0.300000012, 0.
10, 0.300000012, -0.400000006, 0.
.
.
.
1670, -0.279999971, 0.0600000024, 0.
1671, -0.279999971, 0.0799999982, 0.
1672, -0.279999971, 0.100000001, 0.
1673, -0.279999971, 0.120000005, 0.
1674, -0.279999971, 0.140000001, 0.
1675, -0.279999971, 0.159999996, 0.
1676, -0.279999971, 0.179999992, 0.
1677, -0.279999971, 0.200000003, 0.
1678, -0.279999971, 0.219999999, 0.
1679, -0.279999971, 0.24000001, 0.
1680, -0.279999971, 0.25999999, 0.
1681, -0.279999971, 0.280000001, 0.
*Element, type=S4R
1, 1, 17, 313, 32
2, 17, 18, 314, 313
3, 18, 19, 315, 314

104
 4, 19, 20, 316, 315
5, 20, 2, 21, 316
6, 32, 313, 317, 31
7, 313, 314, 318, 317
8, 314, 315, 319, 318
9, 315, 316, 320, 319
10, 316, 21, 22, 320
.
.
.
1590, 1671, 1672, 187, 186
1591, 1672, 1673, 188, 187
1592, 1673, 1674, 189, 188
1593, 1674, 1675, 190, 189
1594, 1675, 1676, 191, 190
1595, 1676, 1677, 192, 191
1596, 1677, 1678, 193, 192
1597, 1678, 1679, 194, 193
1598, 1679, 1680, 195, 194
1599, 1680, 1681, 196, 195
1600, 1681, 197, 6, 196
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 1681, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 1600, 1
** Region: (GEOGRID:Picked)
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet2, internal, generate
1, 1600, 1
** Section: GEOGRID
*Shell Section, elset=_PickedSet2, material=GEOGRID,
section integration=GAUSS
0.001, 3
*End Part
**
**
** ASSEMBLY
**
*Assembly, name=Assembly
**
*Instance, name=Part-1-1, part=Part-1
*End Instance
**
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet9, internal, instance=Part-1-1
2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23,
24, 45, 46, 47, 48

105
 57, 58, 59, 60, 69, 70, 71, 72, 139, 140, 141,
142, 143, 144, 145, 146
147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,
158, 159, 160, 161, 162
163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289,
290, 291, 292, 293, 294
295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305,
306, 307, 308, 309, 310
311, 312
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet9, internal, instance=Part-1-1
5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46, 71,
72, 73, 74, 75, 80
85, 90, 95, 100, 255, 260, 265, 270, 275, 280, 285,
290, 295, 300, 305, 310
315, 320, 325, 330, 335, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 365,
370, 375, 380, 385, 390
395, 400, 551, 556, 561, 566, 571, 576, 581, 586, 591,
596, 601, 606, 611, 616
621, 626, 631, 636, 641, 646, 651, 656, 661, 666, 671,
676, 681, 686, 691, 696
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet10, internal, instance=Part-1-1
3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 25, 26, 27,
28, 41, 42, 43, 44
53, 54, 55, 56, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83,
84, 85, 86, 87, 88
89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,
100, 101, 102, 103, 104
105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231,
232, 233, 234, 235, 236
237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247,
248, 249, 250, 251, 252
253, 254
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet10, internal, instance=Part-1-1
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55,
60, 65, 70, 75, 96
97, 98, 99, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 135,
140, 145, 150, 155, 160
165, 170, 175, 180, 185, 190, 195, 200, 205, 210, 215,
220, 225, 230, 235, 240
245, 250, 401, 406, 411, 416, 421, 426, 431, 436, 441,
446, 451, 456, 461, 466
471, 476, 481, 486, 491, 496, 501, 506, 511, 516, 521,
526, 531, 536, 541, 546
*Elset, elset=__PickedSurf8_SPOS, internal,
instance=Part-1-1, generate
1, 1600, 1

106
*Surface, type=ELEMENT, name=_PickedSurf8, internal
__PickedSurf8_SPOS, SPOS
*Elset, elset=__PickedSurf13_SPOS, internal,
instance=Part-1-1, generate
1, 100, 1
*Surface, type=ELEMENT, name=_PickedSurf13, internal
__PickedSurf13_SPOS, SPOS
*End Assembly
**
** MATERIALS
**
*Material, name=GEOGRID
*Elastic
7e+10, 0.3
**
** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
**
** Name: BC-1 Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
_PickedSet9, 1, 1
_PickedSet9, 5, 5
_PickedSet9, 6, 6
** Name: BC-2 Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
_PickedSet10, 2, 2
_PickedSet10, 4, 4
_PickedSet10, 6, 6
**
** INTERACTIONS
**
** Interaction: Int-1
*Foundation
__PickedSurf13_SPOS, F, 50000.
**
----------------------------------------------------------
------
**
** STEP: LOAD
**
*Step, name=LOAD, nlgeom=YES
LOAD
*Static
1., 1., 1e-05, 1.
**
** LOADS
**

107
** Name: Load-1 Type: Pressure
*Dsload
_PickedSurf8, P, 10.
**
** OUTPUT REQUESTS
**
*Restart, write, frequency=0
**
** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1
**
*Output, field
*Node Output
CF, RF, U
*Element Output, directions=YES
SF,
**
** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1
**
*Output, history, variable=PRESELECT
*End Step

108
C.2 Printout of the Mathematica Program

Clear[β,k,b,ν,k2,x,y,wa,wb,wc,wd,ua,ub,uc,ud,ue]

k=12780;
β=19.6*10^6;
b=1/8;
ν=0.3;

w[x_,y_]:=wa+wb*(x^2*(1-x)^2+y^2*(1-y)^2)+wc*((x^2*(1-x)^2+y^2*(1-y)^2)^2);

u[x_,y_]:=(0.5-x)*(ua*x*(1-x)+ub*x*(1-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y)+uc*x*(1-x)(0.25-
x)*(0.75-x)+ud*x*(1-x)(0.25-x)*(0.75-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y))+ue*x*(1-x)*(0.125-
x)*(0.375-x)*(0.625-x)*(0.875-x)+uf*x*(1-x)*(0.125-y)*(0.375-y)*(0.625-
y)*(0.875-y);

v[x_,y_]:=u[y,x];

EE[wa_,wb_,wc_,ua_,ub_,uc_,ud_,ue_,uf_]:=Integrate[(D[w[x,y],{x,2}]+D[w[x,y],{y,
2}])^2-w[x,y]+β*(((D[u[x,y],x]+.5*(D[
w[x,y],x])^2)^2+(D[v[x,y],y]+0.5*(D[w[x,y],y])^2)^2+2*ν*(D[u[x,y],x]+0.5*(D[w[x,
y],x])^2)*(D[v[x,y],y]+0.5*(D[w[x,y],y])^2)+0.5*(1-
ν)*(D[u[x,y],y]+D[v[x,y],x]+(D[w[x,y],x])*(D[w[x,y],y]))^2)),{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]+k*
Integrate[w[x,y]^2,{x,0,b},{y,0,b}]

sol = NMinimize[{EE[wa,wb,wc,ua,ub,uc,ud,ue,uf],-5*10^-6<ua<-0.2*10^-
6,0.000005<ub<0.00003,0.00001<uc<0.00004,0.00002<ud<0.0003,0.0005<wa<0.009,0.002
<wb<0.05,-0.1<wc<-
0.001},{wa,wb,wc,ua,ub,uc,ud,ue,uf},MaxIterations→1000,AccuracyGoal→3]

{-0.0016421369760888835`,{ua→-2.7589828579209333`*^-
6,ub→0.00001602247708117853`,uc→0.000026421818638674048`,ud→0.0000917176190652
4076`,ue→-7.290905207700015`*^-12,uf→-2.80187569456938`*^-
13,wa→0.002380660559075185`,wb→0.014881872882645674`,wc→-
0.04167710881694102`}}

WW[x_,y_]=1.278*ww[x,y]

UU[x_,y_]=2.04161*uu[x,y]

nn[x_,y_]:=(D[uu[x,y],x]+ν*D[vv[x,y],y]+0.5*((D[ww[x,y],x])^2+ν*(D[ww[x,y],y])^2
))/(1-ν^2)

NN[x_,y_]=1.7864*10^8*nn[x,y]

109
 Appendix D
Supporting Information for Parametric Study

D.1 Additional Results from Parametric Study

Table D.1 Maximum Values from Parametric Study

9
10 wedge 109 wcenter 1018 uedge 1018 ucenter 1017 nxedge 1017 nxcenter
b = 0.15 3.29 3.29 3.79 1.87 4.52 1.71
b = 0.20 2.38 4.65 2.55 1.67 3.20 3.84
b = 0.25 2.07 4.99 4.08 1.89 3.76 6.52

β = 2.04 * 1021 3.01 4.78 3.73 1.66 6.41 4.12

β = 4.08 * 1021 2.38 4.65 2.55 1.67 3.20 3.84
β = 8.15 * 1021 3.59 3.62 1.94 0.70 8.44 4.02

ks = 0 8.11 19.79 43.25 43.20 38.11 75.34

ks = 6.91 * 108 2.38 4.65 2.55 1.67 3.20 3.84
ks = 1.38 * 109 1.43 2.39 0.83 0.33 1.31 1.05

qp = 1.87 2.38 4.67 2.61 1.70 3.29 3.92

qp = 7.67 2.38 4.65 2.55 1.67 3.20 3.84
qp = 15.33 2.40 4.62 5.17 2.53 10.70 3.36

Table D.2 Minimum Values from Parametric Study

9
10 wedge 109 wcenter 1018 uedge 1018 ucenter 1017 nxedge 1017 nxcenter
b = 0.15 0.01 2.81 -3.79 -1.87 1.19 -5.03

b = 0.20 0.02 2.30 -2.55 -1.67 -0.40 -1.69

b = 0.25 -0.03 2.07 -4.08 -1.89 -2.37 -0.64

21
β = 2.04 * 10 0.01 2.74 -3.73 -1.66 -0.6 -2.54
21
β = 4.08 * 10 0.02 2.30 -2.55 -1.67 -0.40 -1.69
β = 8.15 * 1021 -0.003 2.53 -1.94 -0.70 -2.05 -3.89

ks = 0 -0.06 8.08 -43.25 -43.20 -18.09 -6.26

8
ks = 6.91 * 10 0.02 2.30 -2.55 -1.67 -0.40 -1.69
ks = 1.38 * 109 0.01 1.31 -0.83 -0.33 -0.25 -0.71

qp = 1.87 -0.01 2.29 -2.61 -1.70 -0.41 -1.75

qp = 7.67 0.02 2.30 -2.55 -1.67 -0.40 -1.69
qp = 15.33 0.10 2.22 -5.17 -2.53 -28.92 -6.13

110
Table D.3 shows the values of w at the corners of the plate and the differential settlement,
ds, of the plate for each case. The differential settlement was calculated as the maximum
deflection, w, in the center of the plate minus the deflection at the corner. Figures D.1
through D.4 show the differential settlement versus each parameter: b, β, ks, and qp.

Table D.3 Differential Settlements for Each Case

9 9
10 wcorner 10 ds
b = 0.15 0.084 3.21
b = 0.20 0.078 4.57
b = 0.25 -0.003 4.99

β = 2.04 * 1021 0.005 4.78

β = 4.08 * 1021 0.078 4.57
β = 8.15 * 1021 0.032 3.59

ks = 0 0.200 19.59
ks = 6.91 * 108 0.078 4.57
ks = 1.38 * 109 0.016 2.37

qp = 1.87 0.045 4.63

qp = 7.67 0.078 4.57
qp = 15.33 0.334 4.29

Differential Settlement Versus b

4
109 ds

0
0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25
b

Figure D.1 Differential Settlement Versus b

111
 Differential Settlement Versus β

109 ds
3

0
2.04 3.04 4.04 5.04 6.04 7.04 8.04
21
10 β

Figure D.2 Differential Settlement Versus β

Differential Settlement Versus ks

20

15
109 ds

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
8
10 ks

Figure D.3 Differential Settlement Versus ks

Differential Settlement Versus qp

4
109 ds

3
2

0
1.87 3.87 5.87 7.87 9.87 11.87 13.87
qp

Figure D.4 Differential Settlement Versus qp

112
Figure D.1 shows that as b increases, the differential settlement increases. Figure D.2
shows that the differential settlement decreases slightly as β is increased. In Figure D.3,
the differential settlement increases significantly as ks gets smaller, and becomes very
large when ks is zero. Figure D.4 shows that changing qp has little effect on the
differential settlement.

113
D.2 Printout of Mathematica Program for the Standard Case

Clear[β,kp,b,ν,ks,x,y,wa,wb,wc,wd,we,wf,wg,ua,ub,uc,ud,ue,uf,ug]

ks=0.0691;
kp=500*.0691;
β=40.77;
b=0.2;
ν=0;

w[x_,y_]:=wa+wb*(x^2*(1-x)^2+y^2*(1-y)^2)+wc*((x^2*(1-x)^2+y^2*(1-
y)^2)^2)+wd*((x^3)*(1-x)^3+(y^3)*(1-y)^3)+we*((x^3)*(1-x)^3+(y^3)*(1-
y)^3)^2+wf*((x^4)*(1-x)^4+(y^4)*(1-y)^4);

u[x_,y_]:=(0.5-x)*(ua*x*(1-x)+ub*x*(1-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y)+uc*x*(1-x)(0.25-
x)*(0.75-x)+ud*x*(1-x)(0.25-x)*(0.75-x)*(0.25-y)*(0.75-y)+ue*x*(1-x)*(0.125-
x)*(0.375-x)*(0.625-x)*(0.875-x)+uf*x*(1-x)*(0.125-y)*(0.375-y)*(0.625-
y)*(0.875-y)+ug*x*(1-x)*(0.125-x)*(0.375-x)*(0.625-x)*(0.875-x)*(0.125-
y)*(0.375-y)*(0.625-y)*(0.875-y));

v[x_,y_]:=u[y,x];

EE[wa_,wb_,wc_,wd_,we_,wf_,ua_,ub_,uc_,ud_,ue_,uf_,ug_]:=Integrate[(10^-
10)*((D[w[x,y],{x,2}]+D[w[x,y],{y,2}])^2)-(10^-
5)*w[x,y]+0.25*ks*(w[x,y]^2)+β*(((D[u[x,y],x]+.5*(D[
w[x,y],x])^2)^2+(D[v[x,y],y]+0.5*(D[w[x,y],y])^2)^2+0.5*(D[u[x,y],y]+D[v[x,y],x]
+(D[w[x,y],x])*(D[w[x,y],y]))^2)),{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]+Integrate[(kp-ks)*w[x,y]^2-
(80/3)*(10^-5)*w[x,y],{x,0,b},{y,0,(((b^2)-(x^2))^0.5)}]

sol =
NMinimize[{EE[wa,wb,wc,wd,we,wf,ua,ub,uc,ud,ue,uf,ug]},{wa,wb,wc,wd,we,wf,ua,ub,
uc,ud,ue,uf,ug},MaxIterations→1000,AccuracyGoal→5]

{-9.355513695964168`*^-10,{ua→1.5968059930715078`*^-
7,ub→5.810473615913341`*^-6,uc→5.122830736277399`*^-6,ud→-
0.000014987132314774225`,ue→-0.00004851446102980464`,uf→-
0.00003464028693206232`,ug→0.0008708721606307048`,wa→7.813690134905015`*^-
6,wb→-0.002492554371583318`,wc→-
0.004096874964045392`,wd→0.01799749437256426`,we→0.05941593403298692`,wf→0.027
20653590533386`}}

ww[x_,y_]=w[x,y] /. sol[[2]]

uu[x_,y_]=u[x,y] /. sol[[2]]

vv[x_,y_]=v[x,y] /. sol[[2]]

nn[x_,y_]=(D[uu[x,y],x]+ν*D[vv[x,y],y]+0.5*((D[ww[x,y],x])^2+ν*(D[ww[x,y],y])^2)
)/(1-ν^2);

Plot3D[-ww[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1}]
ContourPlot[ww[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1},Contours→20]
ContourPlot[uu[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1},Contours→15]
ContourPlot[nn[x,y],{x,0,1},{y,0,1},Contours→10]
0>>basecasewedge.txt
Do[N[-ww[x,0]]>>>basecasewedge.txt,{x,0,1,.01}]
0>>basecasewcenter.txt
Do[N[-ww[x,0.5]]>>>basecasewcenter.txt,{x,0,1,.01}]
0>>basecaseuedge.txt
Do[N[uu[x,0]]>>>basecaseuedge.txt,{x,0,1,.01}]
0>>basecaseucenter.txt
Do[N[uu[x,0.5]]>>>basecaseucenter.txt,{x,0,1,.01}]

114
0>>basecasenxedge.txt
Do[N[nn[x,0]]>>>basecasenxedge.txt,{x,0,1,.01}]
0>>basecasenxcenter.txt
Do[N[nn[x,0.5]]>>>basecasenxcenter.txt,{x,0,1,.01}]

115
 Vita

Laurie Ann Mazursky was born on July 24, 1982 in Twentynine Palms, California to
Jeffrey and Genie Mazursky. After a few years, her family moved to Columbia,
Maryland and eventually settled in Baltimore, Maryland. Laurie graduated from
Pikesville High School in May of 2000. She then attended Vanderbilt University and
graduated Summa Cum Laude in May 2004 with a Bachelor of Engineering degree in
Civil Engineering and Mathematics. In August 2004 she pursued her Master of Science
degree in Civil Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Upon
completion of her degree, she will pursue her career at Sutton-Kennerly & Associates in
Asheville, North Carolina.

116