Geo-China 2016 GSP 259 225

Numerical Behavior of Reinforced Soil by Rigid Inclusion

Samia Boussetta1; Mounir Bouassida2; and Mondher Zouabi3

1
Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, BP 37 Le Belvédère, 1002
Tunis, LR14ES03. E-mail: samia.boussetta@gmail.com
2
Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, BP 37 Le Belvédère, 1002
Tunis, LR14ES03. E-mail: mounir.bouassida@fulbrightmail.org
3
Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, BP 37 Le Belvédère, 1002
Tunis, LR14ES03. E-mail: mondher.zouabi@mines-douai.fr

Abstract: This paper aims to assess the numerical predictions of settlement reduction
of compressible soil reinforced by rigid inclusion with experimental results obtained
from experiments conducted in calibration chamber. Loading tests carried out in
calibration chamber are simulated in axisymmetric condition. Numerical computation
focused on settlement variation both for the unreinforced soil and reinforced soil. It
was found the main component of settlement of reinforced soil is quickly stabilized
after loading compared to the settlement of unreinforced soil. Further, the role of
efficiency has been highlighted in showing the benefit of rigid inclusion technique.

INTRODUCTION

The principle of rigid inclusion technique consists of reinforcement of compressible

soils by end-bearing vertical inclusions. Each rigid inclusion is head-covered by mini
slab enabling the concentration of induced vertical stress on inclusions. Rigid
inclusion technique comprises three main components: mattress layer, analogic soil
and the rigid inclusion (Briançon 2002). Numerical modeling of scaled test model is
considered in regard to the behavior of mattress layer, the analogical compressible soil
and the rigid inclusion. The numerical study aims to assess the settlement and
efficiency predictions compared to measurements recorded during applied uniform
stress and imposed displacement loadings on the scaled test model. On the basis of
such a validation the behavior of foundations on reinforced soil by rigid inclusions can
be predicted.
In the framework of ASIRI project (2013), two experimental investigations in
laboratory were conducted at CERMES (ENPC, France) by Dinh (2009) and
Boussetta (2013). Those contributions were devoted to quantify the reduction of
settlement due the reinforcement of compressible soil by rigid inclusions after loading
tests performed in calibration chamber. Experimental investigations also served for
parametric studies to highlight the effect of thickness of mattress layer and the cover

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 259 226

ratio with respect to the prediction of efficiency of rigid inclusions technique in

settlement reduction. Further, focus is made on the comparison between two loading
conditions: applied uniform stress (embankment loading) and imposed displacement
(rigid foundation). The rigid foundation loading revealed better than embankment
loading.
This paper focuses on the prediction of numerical behavior of tests conducted in a
calibration chamber that served for the quantification of settlement reduction and gain
in efficiency due to the reinforcement of compressible soil by rigid inclusion.
Numerical results are presented and, then, interpreted to explain the expected benefits
from the rigid inclusion reinforcement.

INVESTIGATED NUMERICAL MODELS

Numerical simulation has been performed by Plaxis software V9.2D that became of
extensive use for the modeling of various geotechnical applications.
The numerical simulation of the composite cell made up of a compressible soil, rigid
inclusion and mattress layer is conducted in axisymmetric condition.
The justification of constitutive law and inherent geotechnical parameters for the
simulation of constituents of the physical model, i.e. load transfer mattress, analogic
oil and rigid inclusion, is made on the basis of experimental results proposed by Dinh
(2009).
Modeling of the mattress layer for load transfer is described by the Hardening Soil
Model (HSM). Model parameters of HSM were determined from triaxial tests results
as suggested by Brinkgreve and Vermeer (1998). Table 1 presents the geotechnical
parameters of the constitutive material of the mattress layer M1.

Table 1. Geotechnical parameters adopted for model the material M1 (HSM)

c (kPa) ϕ (°) ψ (°) E (MPa) γ (kN/m3)
1 36 7 11.4 16.2

C = cohesion; ϕ = friction angle; ψ = angle of dilatancy; E = Young modulus; γ = unit

weight.
The behavior of compressible soil is described by the Soft Soil Model (SSM). Table 2
shows the oedometer parameters adopted for the compressible soil.

Table 2. Oedometer characteristics of compressible soil (SSM)

e0 Cc Cs σ ′p (kPa)
2.44 0.35 0.08 15

e0 = initial void ratio; Cc = compression index; Cs = swelling index; σp’ = pre-

consolidation pressure.
Numerical investigation addresses two models: the unreinforced soil as the case of
reference and of reinforced soil to show the benefits of rigid inclusions technique. The
unreinforced soil was simulated by the material M1 for the mattress layer of thickness
hm = 10 cm and the compressible soil SP30 of thickness 10.5 cm. Figure 1 illustrates

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 259 227

the axisymmetric model of calibration chamber to simulate the behavior in case of

reinforced soil by rigid inclusion.
This model of reinforced soil comprises the mattress layer made up of soil type
material M1, of thickness hm = 10 cm, the compressible soil (SP3) of thickness 10,5
cm and. The recovery rate, defined by the ratio of rigid inclusion area to that mattress
layer, is equal to 2.22 %.

Axis of
symmetry Cell border

Mattress for load

transfer

Compressible
soil
Rigid Inclusion

Interfaces

FIG.1. Axisymmetric model of calibration chamber with reinforced soil

For the sake of simplicity, the numerical model assumes equal diameter for the rigid
inclusion and the head of inclusion. Remaining parameters in regard to the transfer
mattress, compressible soil and cell border are identical to those of unreinforced soil
case. The characteristics adopted for rigid inclusion, modelled as Mohr-Coulomb
material, are: C = 0.1 kPa; ϕ =5°; E = 100 GPa; γ = 80 kN/m3; ν = 0.2 .
The cell border is also simulated to analyze its influence using interface element.
The metallic cell border is modeled as for the rigid inclusion described above.
Interfaces are characterized by parameter Rint in the range from 0 to 1 with case of
reference that is the unreinforced soil. As the parameter Rint increases the interface is
more rigid. Those interfaces should be introduced as rigid element when Rint = 1.0.
Hence, interface properties including the dilatancy angle, ψi, excepting Poisson’s ratio
νi; are identical to those of compressible soil. Shear strength of interface is defined as:

Cint er = Rint er .cmat (1a)

ϕint er = Rint er .ϕmat (1b)

Cmat and ϕmat denote the cohesion and friction angle of mattress layer respectively.
Real interactions between soil and structural elements, for soil-steel interface it is
recommended to take Rint ≈ 0.5 because of the weak stiffness of soil compared to that
of rigid inclusion.

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 259 228

The top of mattress layer is loaded by increased uniform vertical stress from 0 to 100
kPa. Deformed mesh that resulted from uniform applied load of 100 kPa is shown in
Figure 2.

FIG. 2. Deformed mesh of unit cell model subjected to 100 kPa uniform pressure

NUMERICAL RESULTS

Figure 3 shows the variation of settlement predicted at the unit cell axis and
soil/mattress interface. Significant increase in rate of settlement is observed up to 60
kPa load then the variation of settlement is stabilized from 80 kPa.

FIG. 3. Settlement variation at soil-mattress interface vs applied uniform stress

Figure 4 shows the variation of settlement at soil/mattress interface as a function of the

unit cell’s radius. Settlement is constant over the unit cell radius, then, it abruptly
decreases at the cell border that is assumed as rigid material.

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 259 229

FIG. 4. Settlement variation at soil-mattress interface (material M1)

Figure 5 shows the settlement distribution at soil/mattress interface of reinforced soil

along the radius of composite cell composite. Zero settlement is noted on the rigid
inclusion, the settlement increases up to 6 mm and, then, attains 7.8 mm. When
approaching the cell border that behaves similarly to rigid inclusion the settlement
decreases up to 5 mm (see Figure 3).

FIG. 5. Distribution of settlement at soil/mattress interface of reinforced soil

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 259 230

Figure 6 compares between the recorded variations of settlement in function of

applied load for the unreinforced soil and reinforced soil models. First, very
significant decrease of settlement (from 14.7 to 7.8 mm) is noticed due to the presence
of rigid inclusion and mattress layer. Second, the settlement of reinforced soil by rigid
inclusion is not marked by the threshold observed in case of unreinforced soil when
the applied load reaches 100 kPa.

FIG. 6. Variation of settlement versus applied load for unreinforced and

reinforced soil test model.

PREDICTION OF EFFICIENCY

The applied force at the head of inclusion, Finc, is calculated from Eq (2):
π  σ yyi + σ yyi −1 
Finc =  Fi = σ i Ai = 
2
(r
i
2
−r 2
i −1 ) 
2
 (2)
 
- σ yyi : is the computed vertical stress at inclusion rigid at measurement point N° i;
- Ai: denotes the area attributed to measurement point N° i, this crown area equals:
π
Ai =
2
(r
i
2
− ri 2−1 ) (3)

ri: is the radius of composite cell at measurement point N° i.

The efficiency is, then, calculated from the resultant force over the head of inclusion
from Eq (4):
F Finc
Eeff ( % ) = inc = .100 ( % ) (4)
Ftot ( p + γ hm ) Atot

Atot denotes the area of cross section of calibration chamber subjected at the top of
mattress layer to uniform pressure p.
This resultant force is balanced by the distributions of vertical stress at the head of
rigid inclusion and the shear stress exerted on cylindrical border of rigid inclusion

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 259 231

(Figure 7). Those stress components are taken along section A-A* sketched in figure 8
at -2 cm depth with respect to upper level of rigid inclusion.
The variation of efficiency, as calculated from Eq (4), versus applied load is shown
in Figure 9. It is noticed beyond 80 kPa the efficiency becomes constant. The variation
of efficiency, as calculated from Eq (4), versus applied load is shown in Figure 9 (hs
denotes the thickness of compressible soil). It is noticed beyond 80 kPa the efficiency
becomes constant.

Uniform applied stress

2 cm Shear stress

Rigid inclusion

FIG. 7. Scheme of stresses distribution around the head of rigid inclusion

FIG. 8. Distribution of vertical stress over the head of rigid inclusion

FIG. 9. Variation of efficiency versus applied load

© ASCE
Geo-China 2016 GSP 259 232

This predicted efficiency from Figure 9 leads to conclude that almost of the load
transfer has occurred on the rigid inclusion. Hence the settlement of reinforced soil is
significantly decreased. As such the expected role of reinforcement using the rigid
inclusion technique is beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

The numerical modeling of tests performed on soil reinforced by rigid inclusion in

calibration chamber has been investigated. Numerical study has been conducted in
axisymmetric condition by using Plaxis V9.2D.
It has been found the numerical predictions are in good agreement with recorded
measurements in terms of efficiency and settlement reduction. Therefore adopted
geometrical and physical parameters of the numerical modeling are validated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors appreciate the financial support provided by the French-Tunisian

Committee during the research project “Studying the reinforcement of soft soils by
inclusions” N° CMCU n° 07G 1001.

REFERENCES

Boussetta S. (2013) “Etude des mécanismes de transfert de charge dans les sols
renforcés par inclusions rigides à l’aide d’un modèle physique”. Thèse de doctorat
en génie civil. Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis. Tunisia.
Boussetta S., Bouassida M., Dinh A.Q., Canou J., Dupla J.C., (2012). “Physical
modeling of load transfer in reinforced soil by rigid inclusions”. Int. J. of Geotech.
Eng. (6), 331-341.
Boussetta S., Dinh A.Q., Canou J., Dupla J.-C. et Bouassida M. (2010). “Etude
expérimentale sur modèle physique d’un sol compressible renforcé par une
inclusion rigide”. 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotech. Eng. October 25-27, 2010, Tunisia:
255-264.
Briançon, L. (2002). “Renforcement des sols par inclusions rigides – Etat de
l’art en France et à l’étranger”. IREX, Paris, 185 p.
Brinkgreve R.B.T., and Vermeer, P.A., (1998) “Plaxis- Finite Element Code for Soil
and Rocks Analysis”. Version 8, AA. Balkema, Rotterdam Brookfield.
Dinh A.Q. (2009). “Etude sur modèle physique des mécanismes de transfert de charge
dans les sols renforcés par inclusions rigides. Application au dimensionnement”.
Thèse de doctorat. Ecole des ponts Paris-Tech. France.

© ASCE