Applsci 08 02392

applied
sciences
Article
Settlement Prediction and Differential Settlement
Criterion for Heightening and Thickening Levee
Tao Lan * and Jian Wang
College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering, Hohai University, No. 1, Xikang Road,
Nanjing 210098, China; wang_jian@hhu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: lantao944266569@163.com

Received: 2 November 2018; Accepted: 22 November 2018; Published: 26 November 2018
Abstract: Owing to the pavement cracking of heightening and thickening levees (HTL) caused by
differential settlement, it is necessary to study the settlement prediction and differential settlement
criterion for HTLs. In this study, an HTL was taken as the study object. First, leveling observation
and layered settlement observation were adopted, and a generalized settlement prediction model
(GSPM) that can describe both S-shaped and hyperbolic settlement–time curves was proposed. The
physical meanings of GSPM parameters were analyzed. Moreover, the effectiveness of the GSPM
was verified using field monitoring data. Second, finite element analysis based on a viscoelastic
constitutive model was used to reveal the quantitative relationship between the differential settlement
and horizontal stress of the pavement. On this basis, the differential settlement criterion was obtained.
The results showed that the GSPM can unify the logistic model and hyperbolic model by introducing
two morphological change parameters. In addition, the GSPM can be more widely used, more
accurate, and more stable than the traditional logistic model and hyperbolic model. When an
asphalt concrete pavement (whose ultimate tensile stress is 0.12 MPa) is used, the corresponding
differential settlement criterion is approximately 4.3 cm. The research results can provide a reference
for reasonable differential settlement control for HTLs in order to prevent pavement cracking.
Keywords: settlement prediction; levee; settlement monitoring; viscoelastic analysis; differential

settlement criterion
1. Introduction
Most levees have been constructed from soil, and many years of service may have caused
various types of damage to them. Therefore, it is necessary to reinforce the old levees. Heightening
and thickening of levees is a common method to reinforce old levees, but differential settlement
of the heightening and thickening levee (HTL) may be caused by the uneven foundation and the
compressibility difference between the backfill and the old levee. As a result, excessive differential
settlement may cause cracks on the levee pavement and weaken its flood control capacity further. The
pavement cracking of practical engineering is shown in Figure 1. The cracking shortens the life of the
pavement. In addition, rainwater extending along cracks reduces the stability of the HTL further. In
particular, the transverse cracks caused by differential settlement may bring about a levee breach. The
consequences of a levee breach may be catastrophic. Therefore, it is necessary to study the differential
settlement of the HTL.
At present, settlement prediction [1,2] has been studied by many engineers in structures such as
tunnels [3,4], high-speed railways [5,6], bridges [7,8], and levees [9,10]. In general, settlement prediction
methods can be divided into two categories: Numerical calculations and deducing methods based on
field data. Numerical methods [11] include the finite element method [12] and difference method, but
these methods are limited by the constitutive model, the determination of material parameters, and
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392; doi:10.3390/app8122392 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23
difference method,
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 but these methods are limited by the constitutive model, the determination 2 ofof
22
material parameters, and the boundary conditions. However, deducing methods based on field
monitoring data can overcome these issues. For deducing methods, there are mainly seven types: 1.
the boundary
Hyperbolic conditions.
model [13,14];However, deducing
2. Exponential curvemethods
modelbased on field
[15–17]; monitoring
3. Three data can[18–20];
point method overcome 4.
these issues. For deducing methods, there are mainly seven types:
Asaoka method [21,22]; 5. Logistic curve method [23]; 6. Grey theory method [24,25]; and 7. Neural 1. Hyperbolic model [13,14];
2. Exponential
network [26–28].curve model [15–17]; 3. Three point method [18–20]; 4. Asaoka method [21,22]; 5.
Logistic curve
In fact, the method [23]; 6. Greycurve
settlement–time theoryofmethod
the HTL [24,25];
shows andvariation.
7. NeuralThe network [26–28].
settlement–time curve
In fact, the settlement–time curve of the HTL shows variation.
variation of the HTL may be due to factors such as seepage, erosion, groundwater changes, The settlement–time curve variation
freeze–
of thedeformation,
thaw HTL may beand duethe to factors such as seepage,
initial time-point erosion, groundwater
of monitoring. changes, freeze–thaw
In addition, settlement–time curve
deformation, and the initial time-point of monitoring.
variation has also been shown in a previous study [29] involving an expressway.In addition, settlement–time curve variation
Hence, the
has also been
traditional shown
logistic in a previous
model study [29]
and hyperbolic model involving an expressway.
are inadequate to describeHence, the traditional logistic
the settlement–time curve
model andwhich
variation, hyperbolic
may model
result are inadequateprediction
in settlement to describeerrors,
the settlement–time
such as finalcurve variation,
settlement errorwhich
and
may result in settlement prediction errors, such as final settlement
settlement stability time error. Therefore, finding a settlement prediction model with strong error and settlement stability time
error. Therefore,
adaptability and finding a settlement
strong stability prediction
is still a challenge.model with strong adaptability and strong stability is
still aHowever,
challenge.the differential settlement of the HTL is unavoidable in practical engineering. It must
However,
be pointed out thethatdifferential
differentialsettlement
settlementofthat thedoes
HTL notis unavoidable
cause pavement in practical
crackingengineering.
is acceptable. It
must be pointed
Regrettably, out thatcriterion
the control differential
of thesettlement thatsettlement
differential does not causefor the pavement
HTL is stillcracking
unclear is at
acceptable.
present,
Regrettably, the control criterion of the differential settlement for the HTL
which leads to uncertainty in settlement control. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the differential is still unclear at present,
which leads
settlement to uncertainty
control criterion inforsettlement
the HTL from control. Therefore,
the point of view it is
ofnecessary
the pavement to identify
cracking themechanism.
differential
settlement control criterion for the HTL from the point of view of the
This paper can be divided into two parts. First, a generalized settlement prediction model pavement cracking mechanism.
(GSPM) Thisdescribing
paper can an be divided
S-shapedinto andtwo parts. First,
hyperbolic a generalized settlement
settlement–time prediction
curve is proposed. Inmodel (GSPM)
the first part,
describing
the physical anmeaning
S-shapedof and hyperbolic
the settlement–time
model parameters curve isand
is analyzed, proposed. In the first part,
the effectiveness of thetheGSPM
physical is
meaning of the model parameters is analyzed, and the effectiveness of the
validated using field monitoring data. For the second part, the differential settlement control criterion GSPM is validated using
field
is monitoring
presented baseddata.
on theFor the element
finite second part,method.the differential
The two parts, settlement
which are control
closelycriterion
related, is canpresented
provide
abased on thetofinite
reference element
achieve method.differential
reasonable The two parts, which are
settlement closely
control ofrelated,
the HTL caninprovide
order to a reference
prevent
to achieve reasonable
pavement cracking. differential settlement control of the HTL in order to prevent pavement cracking.
(a) Levee (b) Widening Expressway

Figure
Figure 1. Pavement
Pavement cracking.
cracking.
2. Methodology
2. Methodology
There are
There are some
some differences
differences between
between aa new
new levee
levee and
and an
an HTL.
HTL. For
For an
an HTL,
HTL, thethe compressibility
compressibility
of the
of the old
old levee
levee and
and old
old foundation
foundation isis very
very low.
low. The
The deformation
deformation mainly
mainly arises
arises owing
owing toto the
the backfill
backfill
and new foundation. Hence, the settlement prediction method and settlement control
and new foundation. Hence, the settlement prediction method and settlement control criterion are criterion are
different from those of the new levee.
different from those of the new levee.
This section
This section focuses
focuses onon four
four aspects. They are
aspects. They are aa generalized
generalized model,
model, aa generalized settlement
generalized settlement
prediction model, settlement monitoring, and a finite element method. These
prediction model, settlement monitoring, and a finite element method. These four aspects havefour aspects have aa
certain logical relationship because settlement prediction needs a settlement criterion to
certain logical relationship because settlement prediction needs a settlement criterion to clarify the clarify the
position that
position that needs
needs to
to be
be controlled.
controlled. Hence,
Hence, settlement
settlement prediction
prediction and
and the
the settlement
settlement control
control criterion
criterion
are interdependent.
are interdependent.
2.1. Generalized Model
2.1. Generalized Model
Figure 2 shows the generalized model of the HTL. In fact, there are three ways to increase
the height and thickness. However, heightening and thickening along the downstream slope is
Figure 2 shows the generalized model of the HTL. In fact, there are three ways to increase the
Appl.
heightSci.and 8, 2392
2018, thickness.However, heightening and thickening along the downstream slope is more 3 of 22
common. Hence, the heightening and thickening along the downstream slope is taken as the
generalized model.
more common. Hence, the heightening and thickening along the downstream slope is taken as the
For the HTL, pavement cracks mainly occur on the downstream slope, as shown in Figure 1a. In
generalized model.
fact, there are different kinds of pavement failure. Hence, there are different mechanisms accounting
For the HTL, pavement cracks mainly occur on the downstream slope, as shown in Figure 1a.
for pavement failure, such as leakage, flood scour, and differential settlement (see Figure 1a,b). In
In fact, there are different kinds of pavement failure. Hence, there are different mechanisms accounting
essence, all the pavement failure mentioned above can result from large settlements. In this paper,
for pavement failure, such as leakage, flood scour, and differential settlement (see Figure 1a,b).
pavement cracking is the main research question. The main characteristic of this kind of crack is
In essence, all the pavement failure mentioned above can result from large settlements. In this
located at the junction of the backfill and the old levee. The cracking is due to the differential
paper, pavement cracking is the main research question. The main characteristic of this kind of crack is
settlement.
located at the junction of the backfill and the old levee. The cracking is due to the differential settlement.
The HTL is mainly composed of the old levee, backfill, and pavement. The differential settlement
The HTL is mainly composed of the old levee, backfill, and pavement. The differential settlement
of the HTL may cause early cracking of the pavement, which shortens the life of the pavement and
of the HTL may cause early cracking of the pavement, which shortens the life of the pavement and
reduces the stability of the HTL. The main reasons for differential settlement are as follow: 1. The
reduces the stability of the HTL. The main reasons for differential settlement are as follow: 1. The
compressibility between the old levee and backfill soil is different; 2. The foundation is uneven.
compressibility between the old levee and backfill soil is different; 2. The foundation is uneven.
In general, the compressibility of the backfill is higher than that of the old levee because the
In general, the compressibility of the backfill is higher than that of the old levee because the
compactness of the old levee is high under long-term loading. In turn, the backfill is not compacted
compactness of the old levee is high under long-term loading. In turn, the backfill is not compacted
and has rheological characteristics. Moreover, the consolidation of the backfill is very small,
and has rheological characteristics. Moreover, the consolidation of the backfill is very small, according
according to the author’s settlement monitoring. The settlement of the backfill mainly comes from
to the author’s settlement monitoring. The settlement of the backfill mainly comes from rheology.
rheology. However, the consolidation of the new foundation still exists and is not universal. Hence,
However, the consolidation of the new foundation still exists and is not universal. Hence, this study
this study focuses on the rheology of the backfill.
focuses on the rheology of the backfill.
In this paper, a generalized settlement prediction method is described so that the pavement
In this paper, a generalized settlement prediction method is described so that the pavement laying
laying time can be determined. On this basis, the relationship between the horizontal stress of the
time can be determined. On this basis, the relationship between the horizontal stress of the pavement
pavement and differential settlement will be revealed based on finite element analysis.
and differential settlement will be revealed based on finite element analysis.
After settlement Differential settlement
Heightening
Crack
Rainwater infiltration Backfill
Old levee Thickening
Figure 2. Generalization model of heightening and thickening levees (HTL).
2.2. Generalized Settlement Prediction Model

Figure 2. Generalization (GSPM)
model of heightening and thickening levees (HTL).
The settlement prediction method based on numerical calculation is limited by the constitutive
2.2. Generalized Settlement Prediction Model (GSPM)
model of soil, boundary conditions, determination of parameters, and other factors. Therefore, a
The settlement
generalized prediction
settlement predictionmethod
modelbased
basedon onnumerical
settlementcalculation
monitoringiswas limited by the
adopted constitutive
in this study to
model of soil,
predict settlement.boundary conditions, determination of parameters, and other factors. Therefore, a
generalized
A GSPM settlement prediction
was proposed model
because of thebased on settlement
variability monitoring was curve.
of the settlement–time adopted Thein variability
this study
to predictthe
reduces settlement.
accuracy of settlement prediction. The reasons for the variability of settlement–time
curvesA GSPM was proposed
are as follow: 1. It is because
related toof the
the starting
variability of the
point settlement–time
of the monitoring time.curve. If The variability
the settlement
reduces
during thetheconstruction
accuracy of period
settlement prediction.the
is considered, The reasons for thecurve
settlement–time variability
tends to of an
settlement–time
S-type [30]; if
curves are as follow: 1.
only postconstruction It is related
settlement to the starting
is considered, point of the monitoring
the settlement–time curve tends time.
to aIfhyperbolic
the settlement
type.
during thepostconstruction
2. In fact, construction period is considered,
settlement the settlement–time
can be S-type as well, which may curvebetends
relatedtotoanseepage
S-type during
[30]; if
only postconstruction
the flood season. Seepagesettlement is considered,
deformation, such as the settlement–time
piping and soil flow,curve
may tends
occur to a hyperbolic
during type.
flood season.
2. In fact, postconstruction settlement can be S-type as well, which may be related to
Therefore, the postconstruction settlement from flood season to nonflood season may still be S-shaped. seepage during
the flood season. Seepage
3. Postconstruction deformation,
settlement such
is affected byas piping temperature.
ambient and soil flow, The
mayfreezing
occur during flood season.
and thawing cycle
Therefore, the postconstruction
of soil can cause the settlement–timesettlement
curve tofrom flood as
be S-type season
well. to nonflood
In short, it is season
necessary may to still be S-
propose a
shaped. 3. Postconstruction
generalized settlement
settlement prediction model is affected
to adapt by ambient
to the temperature.
variability The freezing and
of the settlement–time thawing
curve.
2.2.1. Physical Meaning of Parameters
Accurate geotechnical settlement prediction is very difficult, or even impossible, because there
are many influencing factors with a certain degree of randomness and variability. In a sense, the
actual
Appl. Sci.settlement–time
2018, 8, 2392 curve is not always a single form [31], such as hyperbolic or S-type.4 The of 22
traditional settlement prediction model cannot predict both hyperbolic and S-type settlement
simultaneously. Hence, a GSPM that follows Equation Error! Reference source not found. is
2.2.1. Physical
suggested. TheMeaning of Parameters
idea of this model comes from the logistic model and the hyperbolic model. The
denominator of this model is the imitation
Accurate geotechnical settlement of the logistic
prediction is very model, and
difficult, or the
even numerator part
impossible, of GSPM
because is
there
the imitation
are many of the hyperbolic
influencing factors withmodel. The
a certain significance
degree of Equation
of randomness Error! Reference
and variability. source
In a sense, not
the actual
found. is that it does not need to change the model when the concrete fitting operation
settlement–time curve is not always a single form [31], such as hyperbolic or S-type. The traditionalis carried out
because
settlement thisprediction
model hasmodel
already unified
cannot the S-type
predict both model and the
hyperbolic andhyperbolic model. simultaneously.
S-type settlement
Hence, a GSPM that follows Equation (1) is suggested. The −𝑡 idea of this model comes from the logistic
𝑎（1 − 𝑒 𝑏 ）
model and the hyperbolic model. The denominator
𝑦(𝑡) = of this model is the imitation of the logistic model,
(1)
−𝑡
and the numerator part of GSPM is the imitation of𝑑𝑒 the𝑐 hyperbolic
+1 model. The significance of Equation
(1) isHere,
that it
a, does notdneed
b, c, and to change the
are parameters; t is model when
time; y(t) the concrete fitting operation is carried out
is settlement.
because
The this model has
descriptive already
ability unified
of the modelthe S-type
is given inmodel
Figureand the hyperbolic
3. From model.
Figure 3a, parameter a means final
settlement. From Figure 3b, parameter b means the −settlement t stabilization time. The smaller
a (1 − e b )
parameter b is, the shorter the settlement y(tstabilization
)= −t
time will be. Parameters a and b have(1) a
conventional meaning. However, parameter c andded care +different
1 from the traditional logistic model
and hyperbolic model
Here, a, b, c, and dbased on Figure 3c,d.
are parameters; Hence,
t is time; y(t)parameters c and d can be called morphological
is settlement.
change parameters.
The descriptive ability of the model is given in Figure 3. From Figure 3a, parameter a means
−𝑡
finalWhen d = 0, the
settlement. GSPM
From can be
Figure 3b,written as 𝑦(𝑡)
parameter = a (1 the
b means − 𝑒 settlement
𝑏 ). Hence, stabilization
parameter c has no The
time. effectsmaller
when
dparameter b is, the
= 0. This means thatshorter the settlement
the GSPM can describestabilization
a hyperbolictime will be. Parameters
settlement–time curve whena and
d = b0.have
Whena
dconventional
≠ 0, GSPM meaning. However,
can describe parameter
an S-shaped c and d are different
settlement–time curve.from the traditional
Hence, physically, logistic model
parameter d
and hyperbolic model based on Figure 3c,d. Hence, parameters c and d can be called morphological
indicates a morphological switch. Moreover, parameter c also describes settlement stabilization time
change
when d ≠parameters.
0.
Physical meaning of a Physical meaning of b

Settlement mm Settlement mm
Time Day Time Day
100 200 300 400
100 200 300 400
2 2 a 10,b 5,c 0.0001,d 0
a 10,b 25,c 0.0001,d 0
a 10,b 45,c 0.0001,d 0
4 4 a 10,b 65,c 0.0001,d 0
a 10,b 85,c 0.0001,d 0
a 10,b 105,c 0.0001,d 0
6 a 1,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0 6 a 10,b 125,c 0.0001,d 0
a 2,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0 a 10,b 145,c 0.0001,d 0
a 4,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0
8 a 5,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0 8
a 6,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0
a 7,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0
a 8,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0
10 a 10,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0
10
Physical meaning of c Physical meaning of d
Time Day Time Day
100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400
a 10,b 5,c 0.0001,d 0
a 10,b 35,c 0.0001,d 0
2 2 a 10,b 65,c 0.0001,d 0
a 10,b 95,c 0.0001,d 0
a 10,b 95,c 15,d 30
4 4 a 10,b 95,c 35,d 30
a 10,b 95,c 45,d 30
a 10,b 95,c 75,d 30
6 a 10,b 55,c 5,d 30 6
a 10,b 55,c 25,d 30
a 10,b 55,c 45,d 30
a 10,b 55,c 65,d 30
8 a 10,b 55,c 85,d 30
8
a 10,b 55,c 105,d 30
a 10,b 55,c 125,d 30
10 a 10,b 55,c 145,d 30 10
Figure
Figure 3.
3. Descriptive
Descriptive ability
ability of
of this
this model.
model.
−t

When d = 0, the GSPM can be written as y(t) = a 1 − e b . Hence, parameter c has no effect
when d = 0. This means that the GSPM can describe a hyperbolic settlement–time curve when d = 0.
When d 6= 0, GSPM can describe an S-shaped settlement–time curve. Hence, physically, parameter d
indicates a morphological switch. Moreover, parameter c also describes settlement stabilization time
when d 6= 0.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 5 of 22
2.2.2. Further Explanation of Physical Meaning of Parameters

The comparison of different prediction models has been listed in Table 1. The GSPM can describe
both S-shaped and hyperbolic curves because it has four parameters. In fact, the present settlement data
are sufficient to fit four parameters, and the specific fitting method is carried out using Mathematica.
Table 1. Comparison of different prediction models.
Logistic Model Hyperbolic Model

Models GSPM
[29,32,33] [13,14,34,35]
t
a (1− e − b ) y(t) = k
y(t) = t
Expression y(t) = − t a2 e−b1 t +1 a1 +t S ∞
de− c +1
Both S-shaped and
Descriptive ability Only S-shaped curve Only hyperbolic curve
hyperbolic curve
Number of parameters 4 3 2
In this section, the physical meaning of parameters is explained via comparisons with different
models. The following equation symbols are listed in Table 1. The explanation is as follows:
First, the equivalence between the GSPM and logistic model will be discussed. For Equation (1),
t
when b → ∞ then a(1 − e− b ) → a .
When − a = k and d = a2 and 1c = b1 , the GSPM and logistic model are the same, i.e., the logistic
model is a special case of the GSPM. Under these circumstances, the physical meaning of parameters
from the GSPM can be explained from the perspective of the logistic model. Parameters a and k have
the same physical meaning. Parameters d and a2 have the same physical meaning. Parameters c and b1
have the same physical meaning.
Second, the equivalence between the GSPM and hyperbolic model will be discussed.
The hyperbolic model can be written as follows:
t
y(t) = S∞ . (2)
a1 + t
However, when d = 0, the GSPM can be written as:

t
y ( t ) = − a (1 − e − b ). (3)
If the GSPM and the hyperbolic model are the same, then
(
− a = S∞
t . (4)
t
a1 + t = 1 − e− b
Mathematica 11.3 will be used to solve Equation (4) and the result is shown as Equation (5):
t
b=− a1 (5)
ln a1 +t
Equation (5) can demonstrate that the hyperbolic model is a special case of the GSPM. Hence,
the physical meaning of parameters from the GSPM can be explained from the perspective of the
hyperbolic model. Parameters b and a1 have the same physical meaning in such a situation.
Hence, equivalence between the GSPM and previous models (logistic model and hyperbolic
model) has been explained. Moreover, the physical meaning of the GSPM parameters can also be
explained based on the hyperbolic model and logistic model.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 6 of 22
2.2.3. The Significance of GSPM

The significance of GSPM is to unify the logistic model and hyperbolic model by introducing
two morphological
The significancechange parameters.
of GSPM is to unifyThe
thereasons
logistic are
modelas follows:
and hyperbolic model by introducing two
morphological change parameters. The reasons are as follows:
1. Two morphological change parameters (c and d) were introduced into the GSPM (see Figure
1. 3c,d).
Two morphological change parameters (c and d) were introduced into the GSPM (see Figure 3c,d).
−𝑡
−t

2.
2. When
When dd = = 0,
0, the
the GSPM
GSPM can can be writtenasasy(𝑦(𝑡)
bewritten t) ==a𝑎 1(1−−e 𝑒b 𝑏 ). . Moreover,
Moreover, Equation
Equation (5)Error!
can
Reference
demonstrate that the hyperbolic model is a special case of the GSPM. This means that the
source not found. can demonstrate that the hyperbolic model is a special case of the
GSPM.
GSPM can Thisdescribe
means that the GSPMsettlement–time
a hyperbolic can describe a hyperbolic
curve whensettlement–time
d = 0. curve when d = 0.
1
3.
3. When
Whendd≠ 6= −𝑎−=a 𝑘=and
0, 0, 𝑑 =d 𝑎=2 and =1 𝑏1 , the
b1 ,GSPM and logistic model model
are the are
same,
thei.e., the
k and 𝑐 c =
a2 and the GSPM and logistic same,
i.e., themodel
logistic logistic
is model is case
a special a special
of thecase
GSPM.of the GSPM.
Hence, Hence,
GSPM GSPM can
can describe an describe
S-shapedan S-shaped
settlement–
time curve.
settlement–time curve.
2.3. Settlement
2.3. Settlement Monitoring
Monitoring
This monitoring
This monitoringmainly mainlyinvolves ground
involves leveling
ground observation
leveling and internal
observation andsettlement
internal observation.
settlement
The leveling is used for leveling observation, and the multipoint displacement
observation. The leveling is used for leveling observation, and the multipoint displacementmeter is used formeter
internal
is
settlement
used observation.
for internal Figure
settlement 4 shows Figure
observation. the monitoring
4 shows theinstruments.
monitoringThe measuring
instruments. Thepoint layout
measuring
is shown
point in Figure
layout is shown8. The field monitoring
in Figure 8. The field ismonitoring
from 20 October
is from2016 to 1 July
20 October 2017.
2016 to 1The monitoring
July 2017. The
cycle is approximately
monitoring 15 days. The15monitoring
cycle is approximately began whenbegan
days. The monitoring construction was completed.
when construction Hence, the
was completed.
settlement
Hence, the from monitoring
settlement is the postconstruction
from monitoring settlement. settlement.
is the postconstruction
(a) Measuring point (b) Displacement meter

Figure 4. Monitoring instrument.
To obtain
To obtain thethe internal
internal settlement law, aa multipoint
settlement law, multipoint displacement
displacement meter
meter was
was used
used to
to monitor
monitor thethe
internal settlement. It should be noted that the internal settlement monitoring is not independent of
the leveling
the leveling observation.
observation. The The leveling
leveling observation
observation represents
represents the
the absolute
absolute settlement
settlement value,
value, and
and the
the
multipoint displacement meter is a relative settlement value relative to point A and point
displacement meter is a relative settlement value relative to point A and point B, shown B, shown as
Figure
as 8. The
Figure 8. The relationship between
relationship betweenthem is asisfollows
them (Equations
as follows (6) and
(Equations (7)).Reference
Error! The internal absolute
source not
settlement
found. and of the HTL
Error! is equal
Reference to the
source notsurface
found.). level
Thesettlement plus the
internal absolute internal of
settlement relative settlement
the HTL is equal
monitoring
to the surface value.
level settlement plus the internal relative settlement monitoring value.
SiB𝐵 = SB + Si (i = 1, 2, 3) (6)
𝑆𝑖 = 𝑆𝐵 + 𝑆𝑖 (𝑖 = 1,2,3) (6)
SiA𝐴 = S A + Si (i = 4, 5, 6) (7)
𝑆𝑖 = 𝑆𝐴 + 𝑆𝑖 (𝑖 = 4,5,6) (7)
Here, S and S is the absolute settlement of point A and point B, shown in Figure 8.
Here, 𝑆𝐴A and 𝑆𝐵B is the absolute settlement of point A and point B, shown in Figure 8. 𝑆𝑖 (𝑖 =
Si (i = 1, 2 . . . 6) is the relative settlement, relative to the point A and point B shown in Figure 8.
1,2 … 6) is the relative settlement, relative to the point A and point B shown in Figure 8. 𝑆𝐴 and 𝑆𝐵
S A and SB are from the leveling observation. Si (i = 1, 2 . . . 6) is from the multipoint displacement
are from the leveling observation. 𝑆𝑖 (𝑖 = 1,2 … 6) is from the multipoint displacement meter. 𝑆𝑖𝐵
meter. 𝐴SiB and SiA are absolute settlement values.
and 𝑆𝑖 are absolute settlement values.
2.4. Finite Element Analysis

Because of the limitation of the geometric model of the old levee, the traditional stratified
summation method is not suitable. In addition, it is also hard to consider the viscoelastic constitutive
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 7 of 22
2.4. Finite Element Analysis

Because of the limitation of the geometric model of the old levee, the traditional stratified
summation method is not suitable. In addition, it is also hard to consider the viscoelastic constitutive
model of backfill in a traditional stratified summation method. Therefore, the finite element analysis
model of backfill in a traditional stratified summation method. Therefore, the finite element analysis is
is used in this study to analyze the settlement.
used in this study to analyze the settlement.
2.4.1. Viscoelastic Constitutive Model
2.4.1. Viscoelastic Constitutive Model
In fact, there is a difference between the HTL and the new levee. On the one hand, owing to long
In fact, there is a difference between the HTL and the new levee. On the one hand, owing to long
time compaction and consolidation, the compressibility of the old levee and old foundation is very
time compaction and consolidation, the compressibility of the old levee and old foundation is very
low because the consolidation effect of the old levee and the old levee foundation have basically been
low because the consolidation effect of the old levee and the old levee foundation have basically been
completed. For the case study, the deformation of the HTL mainly comes from the rheology of backfill.
completed. For the case study, the deformation of the HTL mainly comes from the rheology of backfill.
Hence, the viscoelastic constitutive model is adopted in this study. The model can describe the
Hence, the viscoelastic constitutive model is adopted in this study. The model can describe the
viscoelastic behavior of shear and volume change. In addition, the differential settlement increases
viscoelastic behavior of shear and volume change. In addition, the differential settlement increases
with time and finally tends to be stable. However, the viscoelastic constitutive model can describe
with time and finally tends to be stable. However, the viscoelastic constitutive model can describe the
the shear and time effect. Hence, the viscoelastic constitutive model is suitable to describe the
shear and time effect. Hence, the viscoelastic constitutive model is suitable to describe the settlement
settlement rules of the HTL.
rules of the HTL.
However, it is very difficult to determine the parameters of the existing complex viscoelastic
However, it is very difficult to determine the parameters of the existing complex viscoelastic
model, and the settlement of the HTL gradually decreases with time and finally tends to be stable.
model, and the settlement of the HTL gradually decreases with time and finally tends to be stable.
Therefore, in this study, it is more appropriate to choose the merchant model to describe settlement.
Therefore, in this study, it is more appropriate to choose the merchant model to describe settlement.
The one-dimensional merchant model is shown in Figure 5. It is composed of a Hook body and
The one-dimensional merchant model is shown in Figure 5. It is composed of a Hook body and
Kelvin body, as shown in Figure 5. Its model parameters include instantaneous elastic modulus 𝐸𝐻 ,
Kelvin body, as shown in Figure 5. Its model parameters include instantaneous elastic modulus EH ,
viscoelastic modulus 𝐸 , and viscous coefficient 𝜂 .
viscoelastic modulus EK𝐾, and viscous coefficient ηK𝐾.
EK
EH
ηK
Figure 5. One-dimensional merchant model [36].

Figure 5. One-dimensional merchant model [36].
2.4.2. Determination of Calculation Parameters
2.4.2. Determination of Calculation Parameters
ABAQUS is one of the most advanced finite element software packages in the world at present,
but itABAQUS is one ofprovide
does not directly the mostthe
advanced
merchantfinite
modelelement
basedsoftware packages in tension–compression
on one-dimensional the world at present,
but it does not
viscoelastic directly provide
parameters. ABAQUS theadopts
merchant model constitutive
an integral based on one-dimensional
equation of sheartension–compression
relaxation modulus
viscoelastic
and parameters.
bulk relaxation ABAQUS
modulus based adopts
on Pronyanseries.
integral
To constitutive equationnumerical
utilize the powerful of shear calculation
relaxation
modulus and bulk relaxation modulus based on Prony series. To utilize the powerful
ability of ABAQUS, it is necessary to establish the relationship between the viscoelastic parametersnumerical
calculation
of ability of ABAQUS,
a one-dimensional merchantitmodel
is necessary
and theto establish the relationship
integral constitutive between
model the viscoelastic
parameters adopted
parameters
by ABAQUS. of a one-dimensional merchant model and the integral constitutive model parameters
adopted by ABAQUS.
A previous study [36] has provided the determination method for parameters. The method is as
A previous study [36] has provided the determination method for parameters. The method is as
follows:
follows: G (0) = G H (8)
𝐺(0) =η𝐺 G (8)
K𝐻
τ1G = (9)
GH 𝜂+𝐾𝐺 GK
𝜏1𝐺 = (9)
𝐺 G+ 𝐺
g1 = 𝐻 H 𝐾 (10)
GH 𝐺+𝐻 GK
𝑔1 = (10)
𝐺 E+ 𝐺
GH = 𝐻 H 𝐾 (11)
2(1 𝐸+𝐻υ H )
𝐺𝐻 = (11)
2(1E+K 𝜐𝐻 )
GK = (12)
2(1 𝐸+𝐾υK )
𝐺𝐾 = (12)
2(1 + 𝜐𝐾 )
𝜂𝐾
𝜂𝐾𝐺 = (13)
2(1 + 𝜐𝐾 )
Here, 𝐺(0) is the instantaneous shear modulus. 𝐺𝐻 , 𝐺𝐾 , and 𝜂𝐾𝐺 are parameters of the shear
viscoelastic parameters of the Merchant model. 𝜐𝐻 and 𝜐𝐾 are the Poisson’s ratio corresponding to
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 8 of 22
the Hook body and the Kelvin body of the merchant model. Usually, 𝜐𝐻 = 𝜐𝐾 = 𝜐.
The material parameters used for calculation are listed in Table 2. The determination of material
ηK
parameters is mainly based on the following ηKG considerations:
= 1. The long-term deformation modulus (13)
2(1 + υK )
of a levee is 30 MPa, based on Table 4; 2. It is assumed that both instantaneous deformation and
viscoelastic
Here, Gdeformation are 50% of total
(0) is the instantaneous sheardeformation
modulus. G[36].
H , GBased ηKGthis
K , andon are assumption,
parameters of 𝐸𝐻the
and 𝐸𝐾
shear
can be determined.
viscoelastic parameters 3. Itof
is the
assumed
Merchantthatmodel.
viscoelastic deformation
υ H and can reachratio
υK are the Poisson’s 90% corresponding
in 1 year [36]. Based
to the
on thisbody
Hook assumption, 𝜂𝐾 canbody
and the Kelvin be determined.
of the merchant model. Usually, υ H = υK = υ.
The material parameters used for calculation are listed in Table 2. The determination of material
parameters is mainly based onTable 2. Materialconsiderations:
the following parameters for calculation.
1. The long-term deformation modulus
of a levee is 30 MPa, based on Table 4; 2. It is assumed Long-Term that both instantaneous deformation and
viscoelastic deformation are Young’s
50% of total Young’s [36]. Based on this assumption, EViscosity
deformation H and EK can
Structure Weight Elastic Poisson
be determined. 3. It is assumed Modulus Modulus
that viscoelastic deformation can reach 90% Coefficient
in 1 year [36]. Based on
Type (kN/m 3) Modulus Ratio
this assumption, ηK can be determined. 𝑬𝑯 (MPa) 𝑬𝑲 (MPa) 𝜼𝑲 (MPa∙d)
(MPa)
Old levee 14.1 30
Table 2. Material parameters for calculation.
0.35
Foundation 14.7 30 0.35
Structure Weight Young’s Modulus Young’s Long-Term Elastic Poisson Viscosity Coefficient
Backfill 14.1 60 60 0.35 9380
Type (kN/m3 ) EH (MPa) Modulus EK (MPa) Modulus (MPa) Ratio ηK (MPa·d)
Pavement
Old levee 14.1
22 1200
30
0.25
0.35
Foundation 14.7 30 0.35
Backfill 14.1 60 60 0.35 9380
2.4.3. Mesh
Pavement of HTL
22 1200 0.25
The 2D mesh is shown in Figure 6. In this study, CPS4R is applied for the calculation. The CPS4R
2.4.3. Mesh ofbilinear
is a 4-node HTL plane stress quadrilateral, reduced integration, hourglass control. In the
calculation,
The 2D the
meshvisco step isin
is shown adopted.
Figure 6. In this study, CPS4R is applied for the calculation. The CPS4R
The pavement width of this model is 10 reduced
is a 4-node bilinear plane stress quadrilateral, m. The slope is 1:3. The
integration, heightcontrol.
hourglass of the old levee
In the is 3.5 m.
calculation,
Thevisco
the heightening is 1 m. The thickening is 4 m. The depth of the foundation is 10 m.
step is adopted.
Figure 6. Mesh
Figure 6. Mesh size
size = 0.25 m.
= 0.25 m.
The pavement width of this model is 10 m. The slope is 1:3. The height of the old levee is 3.5 m.
The criteria to mesh are as follow:
The heightening is 1 m. The thickening is 4 m. The depth of the foundation is 10 m.
 The criteria
technology of free
to mesh mesh
are as generation is adopted, which can guarantee the mesh analysis
follow:
errors and warnings are 0%;
• The technology of free mesh generation is adopted, which can guarantee the mesh analysis errors
 The advancing front algorithm (use mapped meshing where appropriate) is adopted, which can
and warnings are 0%;
guarantee the mesh analysis errors and warnings are 0%;
• The advancing front algorithm (use mapped meshing where appropriate) is adopted, which can
 The element shape is mainly quad-dominated and contains a small number of triangular
guarantee the mesh analysis errors and warnings are 0%;
elements. This can also guarantee the mesh analysis errors and warnings are 0%;
• The element shape is mainly quad-dominated and contains a small number of triangular elements.
 The approximate global size is 0.25 m; for curvature control, the maximum deviation factor is
This can also guarantee the mesh analysis errors and warnings are 0%;
0.1; for minimum size control, the fraction of global size is 0.1.
• The approximate global size is 0.25 m; for curvature control, the maximum deviation factor is 0.1;
for minimum size control, the fraction of global size is 0.1.
In fact, the accuracy of finite element calculation depends on the quality and quantity of mesh.
The four aspects above can guarantee mesh quality. In order to guarantee the accuracy of calculation,
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 9 of 22
In fact, the accuracy of finite element calculation depends on the quality and quantity of mesh.
The four aspects above can guarantee mesh quality. In order to guarantee the accuracy of calculation,
it is necessary to perform a mesh sensitivity analysis. The mesh sizes are 0.25 m, 0.2 m, 0.15 m, and 0.1
it is necessary to perform a mesh sensitivity analysis. The mesh sizes are 0.25 m, 0.2 m, 0.15 m, and
m respectively in the analysis. The results are shown in Figure 7. The three results are almost the same,
0.1 m respectively in the analysis. The results are shown in Figure 7. The three results are almost the
which demonstrates that mesh sizes (0.25 m) in this paper are reasonable.
same, which demonstrates that mesh sizes (0.25 m) in this paper are reasonable.
0.3 0.25m mesh -3.4 0.25m mesh
0.2m mesh
0.2m mesh
Differential settlement (cm)

0.2 0.15m mesh -3.6
0.15m mesh
Horizontal stress (MPa)
0.1m mesh
-3.8 0.1m mesh
0.1
-4.0
0.0
-4.2
-0.1 -4.4
-0.2 -4.6
-4.8
-0.3
-5.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Distance from right side of road (m) Distance from right side of road (m)
(a) Horizontal stress after 1 year (b) Differential settlement after 1 year
Figure 7. Mesh sensitivity analysis.
2.4.4. Boundary
2.4.4. Boundary Conditions
Conditions
Boundary conditions
Boundary conditions are are influenced
influenced by by the
the environment,
environment, adding
adding to to the
the complexity.
complexity. Considering
Considering
all the boundary effects will reduce calculation efficiency and is also unnecessary.
all the boundary effects will reduce calculation efficiency and is also unnecessary. For the monitoring For the monitoring
section, there
section, there are
are several
several facts:
facts: 1.1. Antiseepage
Antiseepage treatment
treatment hashas been
been performed
performed on on the
the upstream
upstream slope.
slope.
Hence, the seepage deformation of the HTL is small. 2. The water
Hence, the seepage deformation of the HTL is small. 2. The water level of the river is under thelevel of the river is under the
foundation during the nonflood season because the monitoring section
foundation during the nonflood season because the monitoring section belongs to the detention belongs to the detention basin.
3. The 3.
basin. consolidation
The consolidationof the old levee
of the oldand
levee oldand
foundation is small.
old foundation is 4. The major
small. 4. The deformation comes
major deformation
from the rheology of the backfill. 4. Because the HTL section studied is not
comes from the rheology of the backfill. 4. Because the HTL section studied is not located at the located at the meizoseismal
area, the dynamic
meizoseismal area,load is not taken
the dynamic load into account
is not takenininto
the account
calculation.
in the calculation.
The main load is the vehicle load at the top of the
The main load is the vehicle load at the top of the HTL. Therefore, HTL. Therefore, the load boundary
the load in thisinstudy
boundary this
only considers the vehicle load at the top of
study only considers the vehicle load at the top of the HTL. the HTL.
Specifically, uniform
Specifically, uniform loadsloads ofof 1010 kPa,
kPa, 1515 kPa,
kPa, and
and 20
20 kPa are applied
kPa are applied to simulate the
to simulate the vehicle
vehicle load
load
on the top of the pavement.
on the top of the pavement.
For the
For the displacement
displacement boundary boundary condition,
condition, the the bottom
bottom of of the
the HTL
HTL isis aa fixed
fixed constraint,
constraint, and
and thethe
head and
head and end
end of
of the
the HTL
HTL is is the
the normal
normal constraint.
constraint.
3. Case Study
3. Case Study
3.1. Case Introduction
3.1. Case Introduction
The case study considers a location at the Songhua River in Harbin, China. The HTL is an
The case study considers a location at the Songhua River in Harbin, China. The HTL is an
important protection infrastructure for the city of Harbin. Harbin is located in the north of China,
important protection infrastructure for the city of Harbin. Harbin is located in the north of China,
which is characterized by seasonally freezing–thawing areas. Moreover, Section II of the monitoring is
which is characterized by seasonally freezing–thawing areas. Moreover, Section II of the monitoring
located in BaCha of the Heilongjiang Province.
is located in BaCha of the Heilongjiang Province.
The case that belongs to the detention basin is along Songhua River. The average height of the
The case that belongs to the detention basin is along Songhua River. The average height of the
levee is 3 m–5 m, and the slope is 1:2–1:5. The existing flood control standards are about once in 15
levee is 3 m–5 m, and the slope is 1:2–1:5. The existing flood control standards are about once in 15
years. The HTL length is not constant along the length. The pavement width of the first-grade HTL is
years. The HTL length is not constant along the length. The pavement width of the first-grade HTL
10 m. The pavement width of the second-grade HTL is 8 m. The pavement width of others is 6 m. For
is 10 m. The pavement width of the second-grade HTL is 8 m. The pavement width of others is 6 m.
most of the HTLs, the slope is 1:3 and the pavement width is 8m.
For most of the HTLs, the slope is 1:3 and the pavement width is 8m.
In this study, heightening and thickening along the downstream slope is chosen for investigation.
In the following text, this case will be taken as a case study. It will proceed from the following 4 aspects.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 10 of 22
3.1.1. Selection of Monitoring Section

According to the design data, the main levee in the Heilongjiang mainstream is the Earth levee,
which accounted for more than 70%. The sand levee accounted for about 18%. The remaining was a
soil–sand mixed levee. The characteristics of each type of levee are outlined in Table 3.
Table 3. Levee characteristics.
Type of Levee Characteristics

Earth levee Good compactness, permeability coefficient 10−5 cm/s, good impermeability.
With sand and gravel, the allowable bearing capacity is greater than 100 kPa, and the permeability stability is
Sand levee
good.
Upper layer is silty soil and clay. The down layer is poorly graded sand, gravel with poor permeability
Mixed levee
stability.
Hence, the earth levee is representative, which is one of reasons for determination of monitoring
section. Moreover, the other reasons were as follow:
1. The backfill here is large. Thickening is approximately 1 m. Heightening is approximately 0.5 m.
2. The monitoring section is near a meandering river and the flow characteristics are more complex
during flood season.
3. The monitoring site is convenient.
4. The monitoring site is an important levee for flood control in Harbin.
3.1.2. Material Parameters

To obtain soil parameters, we performed a site soil test and laboratory test. The soil parameters
awee obtained at the Hohai University laboratory. The soil parameters included density, Young’s
modulus, and other factors. The main apparatuses were balance, cutting ring, high pressure
consolidation apparatus, and triaxial apparatus. The three main test procedures were as follow:
(1) For the determination of dry weight, the main test apparatuses included cutting rings, balances,
and ovens. The specific test steps were as follow: Step 1: Cutting rings and balances were used to
get the density of samples; Step 2: Ovens were used to get the water content of samples; Step 3:
Calculate the dry density of soil samples using the Equation (14):
ρg
γd = . (14)
1+ω
where ω is water content; ρ is density of samples; g is acceleration of gravity;

(2) For the determination of the shear strength index, such as the cohesive and internal friction
angle, the main test apparatus was a triaxial apparatus. The triaxial test was consolidated and
undrained. The reasons for the selection are follow: 1. The soil at the scene belongs to normally
consolidated soil; 2. After completion, there are a large number of vehicles loads on the top of the
HLT. In the consolidated–undrained test, the specimen has been consolidated to a certain water
content under the consolidation pressure and then sheared with constant water content.
(3) For the determination of Young’s modulus, the main test apparatus was a high pressure
consolidation apparatus. The specific steps are as follows: Step 1: Assembly and commissioning
of samples and apparatus; Step 2: Initial pressure (1 kPa) is applied to ensure good contact and
record initial data; Step 3: Apply pressure (12.5 kPa, 25 kPa, 50 kPa, 100 kPa, 200 kPa, 400 kPa) at
all levels and record data; Step 4: Processing test data. The main formula is in Equations (15)–(19)
Gs ρw
e0 = −1 (15)
ρd
1 + e0
e i = e0 − ∆hi (16)
h0
𝜌𝑑
1 + 𝑒0
𝑒𝑖 = 𝑒0 − ∆ℎ𝑖 (16)
ℎ0
𝑒𝑖 − 𝑒𝑖+1
𝑎𝑣 = (17)
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 𝑃𝑖+1 −𝑃𝑖 11 of 22
1 + 𝑒0
𝐸𝑆 = (18)
e𝑎i 𝑣− ei+1
av = (17)
Pi+1 − Pi
(1+𝜇)(1−2𝜇)
𝐸0 = 𝐸𝑆 , (19)
1−μ
1 + e0
where 𝐺𝑠 is relative density; 𝜌𝑤 is density of water; E S = 𝜌 is dry density of soil; 𝑒 is initial void ratio; (18)
av
𝑑 0
ℎ0 is initial height of soil sample; 𝑒𝑖 is void ratio corresponding to load at each level; 𝑃𝑖 is load at
(1 + µ)(1 − 2µ)
each level; 𝑎𝑣 is compression coefficient E0 =of soil; 𝐸𝑆 is compression ES , modulus; 𝐸0 is Young’s (19)
1−µ
modulus; and 𝜇 is Poisson ratio of soil.
where4 G
Table s is the
lists relative
materialdensity; results. of water; ρd is dry density of soil; e0 is initial void
ρw is density
parameter
ratio; h0 is initial height of soil sample; ei is void ratio corresponding to load at each level; Pi is
load at each level; Table av is compression coefficient
4. Material parameters of of
levee ES is
soil;body foundation. modulus; E0 is Young’s
compression
and
modulus; and µ is Poisson ratio of soil.
Monitoring Section Section I Section II
Table 4 lists
Position the material parameter
Levee results.
Foundation Levee Foundation
Low liquid- Low liquid-limit Bad graded fine Low liquid-limit
Category 4. Material
Table limit clay parametersclay of levee body and foundation.
sand clay
Dry weight (kN/m
Monitoring
3 )
Section 14.7 Section14.1
I 14.1 Section II 14.5
Compaction Position 0.91 Levee 0.92
Foundation 0.89
Levee 0.91
Foundation
CohesiveCategory
(kPa) Low
12.5 liquid-limit Low
13.2 liquid-limit Bad graded
0 fine Low liquid-limit
13.2
clay clay sand clay
Internal friction 3
Dry weight (kN/m )
18.1 14.7 19.7 14.1 2414.1 14.5
19.7
angle (°)
Compaction 0.91 0.92 0.89 0.91
Cohesive (kPa) 12.5 13.2 0 13.2
Young’s modulus
Internal friction angle (◦ ) 18.1
30 30 19.7 2624 19.7
28
(MPa)modulus (MPa)
Young’s 30 30 26 28
3.1.3. Measuring Point Layout for HTL

The settlement prediction here is affected by the river, soil constitutive
constitutive model, groundwater
fluctuation, loading and temperature, and other factors. Consequently, it is difficult
fluctuation, loading and temperature, and other factors. Consequently, it is difficult to use a
to use a numerical
numerical
method to method
simulatetothe
simulate the settlement–time
settlement–time rules, the
rules, and hence andfield
hence the field
monitor monitor is adopted.
is adopted.
The measuring
measuring points
pointslayout
layoutfor
forthe
theHTL
HTLareareshown
shown inin
Figure
Figure8. The points
8. The (L1,(L1,
points B, G2,
B, A,
G2,G1,
A,
D4) were used for ground settlement measurement. The points (1–6) were used for internal
G1, D4) were used for ground settlement measurement. The points (1–6) were used for internal settlement
measurement.
settlement measurement.
13731 mm 8000 mm 13106 mm
124.227 m L1 B Monitoring points

G2
122.334 m 1 A
Old levee 2 Backfill G1
119.858 m 3 4 D4
5
6
(a) Section I of HTL

Figure 8. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 12 of 22
River
Section 7+200
Levee L1
top
B
2.8m
2.8m
G2
A
2.8m
2.8m G1
D4 30m D3
30m
D2
30m
D1
25m 25m
Woods J1 J2
(b) Overlook map

Figure 8. Measuring points layout for HTL.
3.1.4. Installation Process

3.1.4. Installation Process of
of Internal
Internal Settlement
Settlement Observation
Observation
The
The leveling
leveling observation and internal
observation and internal settlement
settlement observation
observation methods
methods used
used in
in this
this study
study are
are
shown in Figure 9. The specific installation process of the internal settlement observation was
shown in Figure 9. The specific installation process of the internal settlement observation was as
as follows:
follows:
(1) The single
(1) The single end
end anchor
anchor head
head was
was installed
installed at
at the
the deepest
deepest position;
position;
(2) The
The both
both ends
ends anchor
anchor head
head was
was installed
installed at the middle position. The The differences
differences between single
end anchor
end anchor head
head and
and both
both ends
ends anchor
anchor head
head is the number of pipelines. The The single end anchor
head has
head has no
no pipeline
pipeline outlet,
outlet, so
so itit was
was installed
installed at
at the deepest position;
(3) The
The third
third step
step was to connect the the pedestal
pedestal andand displacement
displacement sensor.
sensor. The most important
consideration in
consideration in this
this step
step is
is the corresponding
corresponding relationship
relationship between
between thethe serial number
number of
displacement
displacementsensorssensorsand andthetheposition
positionofofthetheanchor
anchor head,
head,as as
thethe
displacement
displacementsensor andand
sensor the
the anchor
anchor headhead
will will be buried
be buried in the in HTL;
the HTL;
(4) The
The fourth
fourth step
step was
was totoassemble
assemble the the pedestal.
pedestal. In
Inthis
thisstep,
step,all
alldisplacement
displacement sensors
sensors were
were installed
installed
in
in the
the pedestal.
pedestal. TheThe pedestal
pedestal is is the
the only
only instrument
instrument thatthat will
will be
be outside
outside the levee;
(5) The
(5) The fifth
fifth step
step was
was toto assemble
assemble all all anchor
anchor heads
heads using
using aa hydraulic
hydraulic pipe and plastic
pipe and pipe. The
plastic pipe. The aim
aim
of
of the
the hydraulic
hydraulic pipepipe was
was toto transport
transport hydraulic
hydraulic oil.oil. The
The aim
aim of
of the
the plastic
plastic pipe
pipe was
was to
to make
make
every
every anchor
anchor head
head reach
reach thethe right
right depth;
depth;
(6) The
(6) The sixth
sixth step
step was
was to
to inflate
inflate the
the oil hydraulic pump
oil hydraulic pump (pressure approximately 3–4
(pressure approximately MPa) using
3–4 MPa) using
hydraulic oil. After that, the all instruments can be placed
hydraulic oil. After that, the all instruments can be placed into the hole; into the hole;
(7) The
(7) The paws
paws of of all
all anchor
anchor heads
heads were
were reduced.
reduced. TheThe aim
aim ofof inflating
inflating the
the oil
oil hydraulic
hydraulic pump
pump waswas to
to
shrink the paws of all anchor
shrink the paws of all anchor heads; heads;
(8) A
(8) A hole
hole was
was drilled
drilled on
on the
the spot;
spot;
(9) All instruments were transported to the spot. Transportation in this step required several people
(9) All instruments were transported to the spot. Transportation in this step required several people
because the instruments are very long;
because the instruments are very long;
(10) All instruments were placed into the hole. The hydraulic pipe was to be cut off so that the paws
(10) All instruments were placed into the hole. The hydraulic pipe was to be cut off so that the paws
of all anchor heads would be stuck into the hole wall;
of all anchor heads would be stuck into the hole wall;
(11) Installation was completed.
(11) Installation was completed.
(12) The data collection is shown in Figure 9b.
(12) The data collection is shown in Figure 9b.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 13 of 22
(a) Level gauge (b) Telescoping tube settlement gauge in field
Figure 9. Field monitoring.
The monitoring results are listed in Table

Table 5. The monitoring
5. The monitoring results
results provide
provide basic
basic data for
settlement prediction.
5. Monitoring
Table 5.
Table Monitoring results
results unit:
unit: mm.
mm.
Points
Points
Date G1G1 AA G2 G2 B B
L1 L1
Date
2016/11/3 2016/11/3 0.00
0.00 1.20 −0.51−0.51
1.20 0.12
0.12 −0.51 −0.51
2016/11/182016/11/18 −0.51 −0.31 0.11 0.11
−0.51 −0.31 −0.15
−0.15 −0.22 −0.22
2016/12/3 −0.72 −0.52 −0.25 −0.39 −0.15
2016/12/18 2016/12/3 −0.72 −0.52
−0.89 −1.21 −0.25−1.11
−0.39 −0.15
−0.61 −1.12
2017/1/2 2016/12/18 −0.89 −1.21
−1.39 −1.18 −1.11−1.75
−0.61 −1.12
−0.78 −1.51
2017/1/17 2017/1/2 −1.09 −1.50 −1.75−1.70
−1.39 −1.18 −0.58
−0.78 −1.51 −2.81
2017/2/1 2017/1/17 −1.30 − 1.49 − 2.10
−1.09 −1.50 −1.70 −0.58 −2.81 − 3.60 −4.21
2017/2/15 −1.55 −1.48 −2.03 −3.63 −3.30
2017/2/1 −1.30 −1.49 −2.10 −3.60 −4.21
2017/3/1 −1.50 −1.43 −2.21 −4.98 −5.71
2017/3/16 2017/2/15 −1.55 −1.48
−1.30 −1.61 −2.03−2.41
−3.63 −3.30
−5.23 −5.31
2017/3/31 2017/3/1 −1.50 −1.43
−1.58 −1.80 −2.21−2.63
−4.98 −5.71
−6.10 −5.10
2017/4/15 2017/3/16 −1.72 −1.50 −2.41−2.45
−1.30 −1.61 −5.87
−5.23 −5.31 −5.78
2017/5/1
2017/3/31 − 1.20 − 1.68 − 2.98
−1.58 −1.80 −2.63 −6.10 −5.10 − 6.23 −5.06
2017/5/15 −1.50 −1.79 −2.75 −5.12 −4.78
2017/5/31 2017/4/15 −1.72 −1.50
−1.25 −1.48 −2.45−2.65
−5.87 −5.78
−5.29 −4.70
2017/6/15 2017/5/1 −1.20 −1.68
−1.37 −1.51 −2.98−2.70
−6.23 −5.06
−5.23 −4.51
2017/7/1 2017/5/15 −1.40 −1.60 −2.75−2.61
−1.50 −1.79 −5.33
−5.12 −4.78 −4.63
2017/5/31 −1.25 −1.48 −2.65 −5.29 −4.70
3.2. Settlement Prediction Using GSPM
2017/6/15 −1.37 −1.51 −2.70 −5.23 −4.51
2017/7/1 −1.40 −1.60 −2.61 −5.33 −4.63
In this section, the GSPM is applied to describe the settlement rule of the HTL in order to validate
its effectiveness. The specific method used is the curve fitting using Mathematica.
3.2. Settlement Prediction Using GSPM
3.2.1.InApplication
this section,for
theDifferent
GSPM isSections
applied of
to HTL
describe the settlement rule of the HTL in order to validate
its effectiveness. The the
In this section, specific method used
comparison with isdifferent
the curve fitting using
sections using Mathematica.
GSPM is discussed. Figure 10
provides the comparison with different sections of the HTL. The settlement comparison of the levee
3.2.1.
top Application for
demonstrated thatDifferent
the GSPM Sections of HTL
is suitable for the settlement prediction of the HTL.
In this section, the comparison with different sections using GSPM is discussed. Figure 10
provides the comparison with different sections of the HTL. The settlement comparison of the levee
top demonstrated that the GSPM is suitable for the settlement prediction of the HTL.
The main reasons for the different settlement rules of the HTL are as follow: 1. The soils of
different HTL sections are different; 2. The additional stress of different sections is different; 3. The
environmental factors of different sections are different (for example, some sections may produce
For Section II, the hyperbolic model is not convergent, which shows that the hyperbolic model
is not suitable for predicting the S-shaped settlement–time curve. However, the predicted results of
the GSPM and logistic models were basically consistent, which shows the validity of the GSPM in
predicting the S-shaped settlement–time curve.
From
Appl. Sci. 2018,the above analysis, the GSPM is effective and stable in predicting the hyperbolic and
8, 2392 14 of S-
22
shaped settlement–time curves.
Comparisonof prediction models for Section I Comparison of prediction models for Section II
Time Day
50 100 150 200 250
Time Day
50 100 150 200 250
This paper
5 Logistic model 5
Hyperbolic model
Monitor This paper

10
10 Logistic model
Hyperbolic model
15 Monitor
15
Figure 10. Verification for different

different sections
sections of
of HTL.
HTL.
The
Tablemain reasons
6 presents thefor theanalysis
error differentfor settlement rules of The
different sections. the HTL are as in
bold words follow:
Table 1. The soilsthe
6 represent of
different HTL sections are different; 2. The additional stress of different sections
sum of squares of errors of GSPM, and it is also the minimum error of the three models, which is different; 3. The
environmental
demonstrate that factors of different
the GSPM sections
is suitable for thearesettlement
different prediction
(for example, some
of an HTL.sections may produce
frost heave deformation). In particular, the S-shaped settlement–time curve from Section II is due to
seepage deformation.Table 6. Sum of squares of errors for different sections unit:mm2.
For Section I, the settlement stabilization time is approximately 100 days. In fact, monitoring
Monitor Points Prediction Models Sum of Squares of Errors
data show that the settlement stabilization time is approximately 150 days. Moreover, the settlement
GSPM 25.1
stabilization times of the GSPM and hyperbolic models are close to the measured results. In terms of
Section I Logistic model 35.5
the final settlement prediction, the prediction results of the three models were basically consistent with
Hyperbolic model 27.9
the measured results. Hence, when the logistic model describes the hyperbolic settlement–time curve,
GSPM 53.7
it will result in an error of settlement stabilization time.
Section II Logistic model 55.5
For Section II, the hyperbolic model is not convergent, which shows that the hyperbolic model
is not suitable for predicting the S-shaped settlement–time curve. However, the predicted results of
the GSPM and logistic models were basically consistent, which shows the validity of the GSPM in
3.2.2. Application for Specific Section of HTL
predicting the S-shaped settlement–time curve.
From the above analysis, the GSPM is effective and stable in predicting the hyperbolic and
Ground Settlement Prediction
S-shaped settlement–time curves.
The ground
Table settlement
6 presents the errorrules are given
analysis in Figuresections.
for different 11. The The
following conclusions
bold words can6 be
in Table drawn
represent
from Figure 11: 1. The settlement rules of different points show different
the sum of squares of errors of GSPM, and it is also the minimum error of the three models, which shapes (S-type and
hyperbolic); 2.
demonstrate The
that themeasured points atfor
GSPM is suitable thethe
foot of the slope
settlement show hyperbolic
prediction of an HTL. settlement, while the
measured points on the top of the slope show S-type settlement; 3. The settlement stability time at
the foot of the slope isTable
shorter thanofthat
6. Sum at the
squares of top offor
errors thedifferent
slope; 4.sections unit:mm2 .of the top of the slope
The settlement
is larger than that at the foot of the slope. 5. The GSPM is applicable to settlement prediction, which
Monitor Points Prediction Models Sum of Squares of Errors
is more stable than the hyperbolic model and logistic model.
GSPM 25.1
Section I Logistic model 35.5
GSPM 53.7
Section II Logistic model 55.5
3.2.2. Application for Specific Section of HTL
Ground Settlement Prediction

The ground settlement rules are given in Figure 11. The following conclusions can be drawn from
Figure 11: 1. The settlement rules of different points show different shapes (S-type and hyperbolic);
2. The measured points at the foot of the slope show hyperbolic settlement, while the measured points
on the top of the slope show S-type settlement; 3. The settlement stability time at the foot of the slope
is shorter than that at the top of the slope; 4. The settlement of the top of the slope is larger than that at
11. From monitoring point A, the logistic model has the same problem for predicting the settlement
stabilization time. For the final settlement prediction, the results from the logistic model are less
accurate than those from the other two models.
There are three conclusions based on monitoring points G2, B, and L1: 1. The hyperbolic model
is not suitable for predicting, which is consistent with Section 3.2.1; 2. Both the logistic model and
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392
the
15 of 22
GSPM are suitable for predicting an S-shaped settlement–time curve; 3. For small settlements (0–3
mm), the logistic model can reduce the settlement stabilization time.
the foot
Theof the slope.
GSPM 5. more
can be The GSPM
widelyisused,
applicable
more to settlement
accurate, andprediction,
more stablewhich is more
than the stable than
traditional the
logistic
hyperbolic model and
model and hyperbolic model. logistic model.
Comparison of prediction models for G1 Comparisonof prediction models for A

Settlement mm
Settlement mm
Time Day
50 100 150 200 250 Time Day
50 100 150 200 250
This paper This paper

0.5 0.5 Logistic model
Logistic model
Hyperbolic model
Hyperbolic model
Monitor 1.0 Monitor
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
Comparison of prediction models for G2 Comparison of prediction models for B
Settlement mm
Settlement mm
Time Day Time Day

50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
0.5
This paper
2
1.0 Logistic model
Hyperbolic model
1.5 Monitor
4 This paper
2.0 Logistic model
2.5 Hyperbolic model
6
Monitor
3.0
Comparison of prediction models for L1

Settlement mm
Time Day
50 100 150 200 250
3
This paper
4 Logistic model
Hyperbolic model
5
Monitor
6
Figure 11.
Figure Settlement–timecurve
11. Settlement–time curve for
for ground
ground settlement.
settlement.
Because
Internal of stress
Settlement diffusion, the additional stress at the foot of the HTL is less than that at the top
Prediction
of the HTL, which explains why the deformation at the corner of the HTL is less than that at the top of
the HTL.
Because the HTL is located in a seasonal freezing and thawing area, the temperature in winter
can reach −30 ◦ C. Under winter rainfall, soil at the top of the HTL is easily frozen, and the settlement
of the HTL decreases with the increase of strength. After the ice and snow melts, the soil particles
are rearranged, resulting in thaw settlement [37,38] and accelerated settlement. Therefore, the role
of frozen soil in a seasonal freezing and thawing area can explain the S settlement rules at the top of
the HTL.
For monitoring points G1 and A, the settlement–time curve is hyperbolic, as seen from Figure 11.
From monitoring point A, the logistic model has the same problem for predicting the settlement
stabilization time. For the final settlement prediction, the results from the logistic model are less
accurate than those from the other two models.
There are three conclusions based on monitoring points G2, B, and L1: 1. The hyperbolic model
is not suitable for predicting, which is consistent with Section 3.2.1; 2. Both the logistic model and
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 16 of 22
the GSPM are suitable for predicting an S-shaped settlement–time curve; 3. For small settlements
(0–3 mm), the logistic model can reduce the settlement stabilization time.
The rules
The GSPM ofcan be more
internal widely of
settlement used,
the more accurate,
HTL are and
given in more12.
Figure stable
Thethan the traditional
following logistic
conclusions can
model and hyperbolic model.
be drawn from Figure 12: 1. Settlements within 1 m of the top of the HTL tend to be S-shaped, while
those below 4 m of the depth of the HTL tend to be hyperbolic; 2. The GSPM is also applicable in
Internal Settlement Prediction
describing the law of internal settlement of the HTL. Moreover, the GSPM is more stable than the
Themodel
logistic rules and
of internal settlement
hyperbolic model;of3. the
TheHTL are given
internal in Figure
settlement of the12. Theisfollowing
HTL more thanconclusions
that of the
can be drawn from Figure 12: 1. Settlements within 1 m of the top of the HTL tend to be S-shaped,
top.
whileSimilarly,
those below 4 mto
owing of the
the influence
depth of theof HTL
frozentend
soiltoatbesurface,
hyperbolic; 2. The GSPM
the settlement is also
of the soilapplicable
near the
in describing
surface theS-shaped.
appears law of internal settlement
Because of the HTL.
the residents around Moreover, the GSPM
the monitoring is more
section havestable
the than
habitthe
of
logistic model and hyperbolic model; 3. The internal settlement of the HTL is more
pumping groundwater, the descent of groundwater will cause internal settlement [6,39,40]. than that of the top.
Depth 0.5m at top Depth 1m at top

Time Day Time Day

50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
1
2
2
3 This paper This paper

Logistic model 4 Logistic model
4 Hyperbolic model Hyperbolic model
5 Monitor 6 Monitor
6
Deepth 6m at top Deepth 0.5m at half
Time Day
Time Day 50 100 150 200 250
50 100 150 200 250
This paper
2 Logistic model 0.5
Hyperbolic model
4
Monitor 1.0 This paper
Logistic model
6
Hyperbolic model
1.5
Monitor
8
Deepth 1m at half Deepth 4m at half
Time Day Time Day

50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
0.2 This paper

1 Logistic model
0.4
Hyperbolic model
0.6 2 Monitor
This paper
0.8
Logistic model
3
1.0
Hyperbolic model
Monitor
1.2 4
Figure
Figure 12.
12. Settlement–time
Settlement–time curve
curve for
for internal
internal settlement.
settlement.
Similarly,
Table owing
7 lists to the
the sum of influence
squares ofoferrors
frozenofsoil at surface,
different the settlement
models. of the in
The bold words soil near7the
Table surface
represent
appears S-shaped. Because the residents around the monitoring section have
the sum of squares of errors of GSPM, and it is also the minimum error among the three models,the habit of pumping
groundwater,
which shows thatthe descent
GSPM isofmoregroundwater
stable andwill cause internal
adaptable than thesettlement [6,39,40].
logistic model and hyperbolic model.
That’sTable 7 lists
because the
the sum of
GSPM hassquares of errors of different
more parameters. Hence, themodels. The bold
new model words
needs more in data
Tableto7 fit.
represent
the sum of squares of errors of GSPM, and it is also the minimum error among the three models, which
shows that GSPM Tableis7.more stable
Sum of andofadaptable
squares than thesettlement–time
errors for different logistic modelmodels
and hyperbolic
unit:mm2. model. That’s
because the GSPM has more parameters. Hence, the new model needs more data to fit.
Monitoring Points Prediction Models Sum of Squares of Errors
GSPM 0.32
G1 Logistic model 0.34
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 17 of 22
Table 7. Sum of squares of errors for different settlement–time models unit:mm2 .
Monitoring Points Prediction Models Sum of Squares of Errors

GSPM 0.32
GSPM 0.43
A Logistic model 0.65
GSPM 0.93
GSPM 3.71
B Logistic model 4.48
GSPM 4.43
L Logistic model 4.90
GSPM 3.93
Depth 0.5 m at top Logistic model 5.30
GSPM 5.89
Depth 1 m at top Logistic model 6.70
GSPM 4.02
Depth 6 m at top Logistic model 7.36
GSPM 0.22
Depth 0.5 m at half Logistic model 0.30
GSPM 0.19
Depth 1 m at half Logistic model 0.29
GSPM 2.68
Depth 4 m at half Logistic model 3.07
3.3. Differential Settlement Control Criterion

Although the settlement was predicted in the previous section, the relationship between the
predicted settlement and pavement cracking is still unknown. This will lead to uncertainty in the
settlement control. Hence, the settlement control criterion will be discussed in the following section.
3.3.1. Horizontal Stress of Pavement

Figure 13 shows the horizontal stress distribution of pavement at the top of the HTL. The pavement
cracking is caused by the horizontal tensile stress exceeding the ultimate tensile strength. Therefore, the
horizontal stress distribution of the pavement is a very important factor to prevent pavement cracking.
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2018,
2018,8,8,x2392
FOR PEER REVIEW 18of
19 of23
22
(a) Horizontal stress cloud map under 20-kPa loading (unit: Pa)
30day
60day
90day
0.2
120day
Horizontal stress/MPa
150day
180day
210day
0.0
240day
270day
300day
330day
-0.2 360day
365day
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from the right side of the road/m
(b) Horizontal stress distribution of pavement

Figure
Figure13.
13.Horizontal
Horizontalstress
stressof
ofpavement.
pavement.
3.3.2. From Figure 13a,

Relationship it canHorizontal
between be seen thatStress
the maximum horizontal
of Pavement tensile stress
and Differential appears of
Settlement at HTL
the junction
of the backfill and the old levee, which is basically consistent with the crack location in the actual project.
Figure 14 gives the relationship between the horizontal stress and differential settlement under
The main reason for pavement cracking is the compressibility difference between the backfill and
different load conditions. As mentioned above, the reason for pavement cracking is that the
the old levee owing to the insufficient compaction of backfill. This insufficient compaction of backfill
horizontal tensile stress exceeds the ultimate tensile stress. Hence, the horizontal tensile stress of the
may come from rolling during construction.
pavement is a very important factor to control pavement cracking. Based on Figure 14, when asphalt
The time–space relationship of the horizontal stress of the pavement is shown in Figure 13b. It
concrete pavement (the ultimate tensile stress is 0.12 MPa) is used, the corresponding differential
can be seen from Figure 13b that the horizontal stress of the pavement presents an asymmetric W-type
settlement criterion is approximately 4.3 cm.
in space. The horizontal stress on one side of the old levee is lower than that on the side of backfill,
In fact, the differential settlement of the HTL is inevitable. Objectively, differential settlement
and the maximum tensile stress appears at the joint of the backfill and the old levee.
that does not cause pavement cracking and reduces stability should be acceptable. A differential
settlement control criterion
3.3.2. Relationship betweencan define how
Horizontal much
Stress differentialand
of Pavement settlement needs
Differential to be controlled,
Settlement of HTLwhich
is of great significance to guide engineering construction. Specifically, the settlement prediction value
Figure 14 gives the relationship between the horizontal stress and differential settlement under
should be compared with the settlement control criterion. If the settlement prediction value is higher
different load conditions. As mentioned above, the reason for pavement cracking is that the horizontal
than the settlement control criterion, this section needs to be controlled.
tensile stress exceeds the ultimate tensile stress. Hence, the horizontal tensile stress of the pavement
The control criterion of differential settlement is common in expressway widening projects
is a very important factor to control pavement cracking. Based on Figure 14, when asphalt concrete
[41,42]. Yue-Dong et al. [41] proposed that the postconstruction settlement of the embankment of an
pavement (the ultimate tensile stress is 0.12 MPa) is used, the corresponding differential settlement
expressway splicing section should not exceed 10 cm. Here, 10 cm is the control criterion. Yang En
criterion is approximately 4.3 cm.
Hui [42] proposed a settlement ratio of 2.3‰ as a control criterion for mountainous highways.
The differential settlement control criterion established in this study is not constant, which is the
main difference from previous studies [41,42]. The reasons are as follow: 1. The main cause of
pavement cracking is differential settlement rather than uniform settlement, so it is not appropriate
to use final settlement as the control criterion; 2. Pavement cracking is related to the tensile strength
of the pavement structure. The ultimate tensile strength of different pavements is different. Therefore,
differential settlement criterion should not be constant. Thus, the differential settlement criterion
should be a value relative to the ultimate tensile strength of the pavement.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 19 of 22
differential settlement 0.25 -3.9 differential settlement 0.20

-4.0 -4.0
Differential settlement/cm
0.20
-4.1
-4.2 0.15
-4.2
-4.4 0.15 -4.3
-4.4 0.10
-4.6
0.10
-4.5
-4.8 -4.6
0.05
0.05
-4.7
-5.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time/Day Time/Day
(a) 20 kPa loading (b) 15 kPa loading
-3.7 differential settlement

0.14
-3.8
-3.9 0.12
-4.0
0.10
-4.1
-4.2 0.08
-4.3
0.06
-4.4
-4.5 0.04
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time/Day
(c) 10 kPa loading

Figure
Figure14.
14.Horizontal
Horizontalstress
stressofofpavement
pavementand
anddifferential
differentialsettlement
settlementof
ofHTL.
HTL.
In fact,Limitations
4. Research the differential settlement of the HTL is inevitable. Objectively, differential settlement that
does not cause pavement cracking and reduces stability should be acceptable. A differential settlement
In this study, the pavement cracking problem of an HTL was explored, but there are still some
control criterion can define how much differential settlement needs to be controlled, which is of great
shortcomings.
significance to guide engineering construction. Specifically, the settlement prediction value should be
1.compared
In the finite element
with the calculation,
settlement controlthe deformation
criterion. If theofsettlement
the pavement was coordinated
prediction withthan
value is higher the top
the
of the HTL.
settlement However,
control criterion,the
thisactual failure
section needs mode
to bemay also be the cavity between the road surface
controlled.
and
The the top criterion
control of the HTL. The cavity
of differential may be iscaused
settlement common by in
biological
expresswaycaves, scouring,
widening and [41,42].
projects other
factors.etThis
Yue-Dong kind
al. [41] of pavement
proposed stress
that the distribution under
postconstruction cavity
settlement is not
of the consideredofinan
embankment this study.
expressway
2.splicing
In this study,should
section only the
notapplication
exceed 10 cm. of the generalized
Here, 10 cm issettlement
the control prediction
criterion.model
Yang inEnthe
HuiHTL
[42]
was verified,
proposed and the
a settlement application
ratio of 2.3h asofa other
controlprojects needs
criterion further verification.
for mountainous highways.
The differential settlement control criterion established in this study is not constant, which is
5.the
Conclusions
main difference from previous studies [41,42]. The reasons are as follow: 1. The main cause of
pavement
Aiming cracking
at the is differential
pavement settlement
cracking ratherof
problem than
an uniform settlement,
HTL, field so it is
monitoring notfinite
and appropriate
elementto
use final settlement as the control criterion; 2. Pavement cracking is related to the
analysis were employed to attain settlement prediction and a differential settlement control criterion.tensile strength of
the pavement structure. The
The main conclusions are as follow: ultimate tensile strength of different pavements is different. Therefore,
differential settlement criterion should not be constant. Thus, the differential settlement criterion
(1) Thebe
should monitoring data showed
a value relative that antensile
to the ultimate HTL presents
strength S-shaped and hyperbolic settlement rules,
of the pavement.
and the settlement law within 1 m of the top tends to be S-shaped, while the settlement law
4. Research Limitations
In this study, the pavement cracking problem of an HTL was explored, but there are still
some shortcomings.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 20 of 22
1. In the finite element calculation, the deformation of the pavement was coordinated with the top
of the HTL. However, the actual failure mode may also be the cavity between the road surface
and the top of the HTL. The cavity may be caused by biological caves, scouring, and other factors.
This kind of pavement stress distribution under cavity is not considered in this study.
2. In this study, only the application of the generalized settlement prediction model in the HTL was
verified, and the application of other projects needs further verification.
5. Conclusions
Aiming at the pavement cracking problem of an HTL, field monitoring and finite element analysis
were employed to attain settlement prediction and a differential settlement control criterion. The main
conclusions are as follow:
(1) The monitoring data showed that an HTL presents S-shaped and hyperbolic settlement rules, and
the settlement law within 1 m of the top tends to be S-shaped, while the settlement law inside the
HTL tends to hyperbolic. The settlement law of the S-shape is related to frozen soil. The rule of
hyperbolic settlement is related to the decline of groundwater level.
(2) A GSPM based on field monitoring data of an HTL was proposed. The effectiveness of the GSPM
is validated from the point of view of engineering applications. The physical meanings of model
parameters are analyzed. The GSPM proposed in this paper can be more widely used, more
accurate, and more stable than the traditional logistic model and hyperbolic model.
(3) The quantitative relationship between differential settlement and the horizontal stress of
pavement is revealed using the finite element method. The maximum horizontal tensile stress
appears at the junction of the backfill and the old levee, which is basically consistent with the
crack location in the actual project. On this basis, the differential settlement control criterion for
different pavements can be suggested. For example, when asphalt concrete pavement is used
(whose ultimate tensile stress is 0.12 MPa), the corresponding differential settlement criterion is
approximately 4.3 cm.
In the end, a differential settlement control method for an HTL is also a question worth studying
in the future.
Author Contributions: L.T. and W.J. designed the field monitoring. W.J. provided support for monitoring
instruments. L.T. implemented the field monitoring; L.T. contributed the idea of settlement prediction; L.T. and
W.J. analyzed the data. L.T. wrote the paper.
Funding: This work is supported by the “National Natural Science Foundation of China” (Grant No. 51779084).
We also gratefully acknowledge financial support from it.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Peng Ze-bao and Zhang Peng for their help in the
building and instrumentation of the apparatus. The authors wanted to sincerely thank two anonymous referees’
constructive comments, which improved the quality of our paper significantly. In the end, author also sincerely
thank the editor’s patient and timely reply.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of
this paper.
References
1. Cho, S.E. Probabilistic analysis of seepage that considers the spatial variability of permeability for an
embankment on soil foundation. Eng. Geol. 2012, 133, 30–39. [CrossRef]
2. Lee, J.K.; Jeong, S. Immediate Settlement of Ring Footings Resting on Inhomogeneous Finite Stratum.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 255. [CrossRef]
3. Park, H.; Oh, J.-Y.; Kim, D.; Chang, S. Monitoring and Analysis of Ground Settlement Induced by Tunnelling
with Slurry Pressure-Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018. [CrossRef]
4. Wu, C.; Zhu, Z. Analytical Method for Evaluating the Ground Surface Settlement Caused by Tail Void
Grouting Pressure in Shield Tunnel Construction. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 21 of 22
5. Wang, C.; Wang, B.; Guo, P.; Zhou, S. Experimental analysis on settlement controlling of geogrid-reinforced
pile-raft-supported embankments in high-speed railway. Acta Geotech. 2015, 10, 231–242. [CrossRef]
6. Lee, I.; Choi, Y.-T.; Lee, M.; Chan-Young, Y. Effect of Groundwater Level Variation on Residual Settlement of
Korean High-Speed Railway on Soft Ground. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 3312–3320. [CrossRef]
7. Zhong, H.; Yang, M. Dynamic effect of foundation settlement on bridge-vehicle interaction. Eng. Struct.
2017, 135, 149–160. [CrossRef]
8. Wu, W.; Shan, H.; Yang, S.; Tang, Z. Key Assumption to Evaluate the Mechanical Performance of Widened
Voided-slab Bridge Due to Foundation Settlement. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 1225–1234. [CrossRef]
9. Jin, S.W.; Choo, Y.W.; Kim, Y.M.; Kim, D.S. Centrifuge modeling of differential settlement and levee stability
due to staged construction of enlarged embankment. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 18, 1036–1046. [CrossRef]
10. Cheong, T.S. Design of Levee Breaches for Maximizing the Trapping of Suspended Sediment. KSCE J. Civ.
Eng. 2007, 11, 175–183. [CrossRef]
11. Lu, C.W. A Simplified Calculation Method for Liquefaction-Induced Settlement of Shallow Foundation.
J. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 21, 1385–1405. [CrossRef]
12. Cai, Y.; Chen, Y.; Cao, Z.; Ren, C. A combined method to predict the long-term settlements of roads on soft
soil under cyclic traffic loadings. Acta Geotech. 2018, 13, 1215–1226. [CrossRef]
13. Al-Shamrani, M.A. Applying the hyperbolic method and C-alpha/C-c concept for settlement prediction of
complex organic-rich soil formations. Eng. Geol. 2005, 77, 17–34. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, Q.-Q.; Li, S.-C.; Liang, F.-Y.; Yang, M.; Zhang, Q. Simplified method for settlement prediction of
single pile and pile group using a hyperbolic model. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 12, 179–192.
15. Moubarak, G.; Weiss, N.; Leprince, P.; Luyt, C.E. Application of Exponential Curve Model in Subgrade
Settlement Prediction. Value Eng. 2014, 24, e1.
16. Xiong, C.B.; Fa-Chao, L.I. The Exponential Curve Method Model for Predicting Foundation Settlement in the
Base Pit Vicinity. Geom. Spat. Inf. Technol. 2011, 4, 004.
17. Wang, Z.L.; Wu, K.H.; Li, Y.C.; Yin, Z.Z. A New Empirical Formula Model for Settlement Prediction of
Embankments. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2005, 24, 2013–2017.
18. Chen, S.; Wang, X.; Xu, X.; Yu, F.; Qin, S. Three-point modified exponential curve method for predicting
subgrade settlements. Rock Soil Mech. 2011, 32, 3355–3360.
19. Xing-yun, W.; Shan-xiong, C.; Fei, Y.U.; Bo, Z. Study of applicability of curve fitting methods in small
settlement of subgrade. Rock Soil Mech. 2009, 30, 2763–2769.
20. Chen, S.X.; Wang, X.Y.; Xu, X.C.; Wang, X.G. New method for forecasting subgrade settlement of railway
passenger dedicated line. Rock Soil Mech. 2010, 31, 478–482, 488.
21. Huang, G. Problems and their solutions in predicting soft ground settlement based on Asaoka’s method.
Rock Soil Mech. 2016, 37, 1061–1065.
22. Luo, C. Application of Asaoka Method in Predicting the Settlement of High-Speed Rail Embankments.
Soil Eng. Found. 2013, 2, 021.
23. Fan, H.; Chen, Z.; Shen, J.; Cheng, J.; Chen, D.; Jiao, P. Buckling of steel tanks under measured settlement
based on Poisson curve prediction model. Thin-Walled Struct. 2016, 106, 284–293. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, C.; Peng, Z.; Peng, W. Application of optimized grey discrete Verhulst model in settlement prediction
of foundation pit. J. Central South Univ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 48, 3030–3036.
25. Yu, J.; Liu, L. Sand liquefaction in road subgrade prediction method based on grey whitenization weight
function cluster theory. J. Central South Univ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 45, 269–275.
26. Kim, Y.-S.; Kim, B.-T. Prediction of relative crest settlement of concrete-faced rockfill dams analyzed using an
artificial neural network model. Comput. Geotech. 2008, 35, 313–322. [CrossRef]
27. Yao, Y.-P.; Qi, S.-J.; Che, L.-W.; Chen, J.; Han, L.-M.; Ma, X.-Y. Postconstruction Settlement Prediction of High
Embankment of Silty Clay at Chengde Airport Based on One-Dimensional Creep Analytical Method: Case
Study. Int. J. Geomech. 2018, 18. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, Z.-L.; Li, Y.-C.; Shen, R.F. Correction of soil parameters in calculation of embankment settlement using
a BP network back-analysis model. Eng. Geol. 2007, 91, 168–177. [CrossRef]
29. Zhi-duo, Z.H.U.; Li-hong, Z. Application of Logistic model in settlement prediction during complete process
of embankment construction. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2009, 31, 965–969.
30. Jin-Min, Z.; Mei, G.X. Forecast method of settlement during the complete process of construction and
operation. Rock Soil Mech. 2000, 4, 003.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392 22 of 22
31. Xue, X.; Song, L.-L.; Jia, L.; Le, Y.; Ge, H. New prediction method for post-construction settlement of soft-soil
roadbed of expressway. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2011, 33, 125–130.
32. Wang, Z.-L.; Zheng, M.-X.; Wu, Y.; Yin, Z.-Z. Study on application of logistic curve model to settlement
prediction of roadbed subjected to multilevel loadings. Rock Soil Mech. 2004, 25, 901–903.
33. Xu, H.-Z.; Shi, B.; Li, X.-H. Logistic growth model and its applicability for predicting settlement during the
whole process. Rock Soil Mech. 2005, 26, 387–391.
34. Gupta, R.C. Hyperbolic model for load tests on instrumented drilled shafts in intermediate geomaterials
and rock. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012, 138, 1407–1414. [CrossRef]
35. Rodriguez-Roa, F. Observed and calculated load-settlement relationship in a sandy gravel. Can. Geotech. J.
2000, 37, 333–342. [CrossRef]
36. Gao, C.; Zhao, W.; Ling, J.; Wang, B. Study of index and criterion for settlement control applicable to
cut-and-fill subgrade in mountain-highway. Rock Soil Mech. 2014, 35, 151–158.
37. Kweon, G.; Hwang, T. Deformational characteristics of subgrade soils and subbase materials with freeze-thaw.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2013, 17, 1317–1322. [CrossRef]
38. Qi, J.; Yao, X.; Yu, F. Consolidation of thawing permafrost considering phase change. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2013,
17, 1293–1301. [CrossRef]
39. Soeung, S.; Lee, S.H.; Lee, S.J.; Kim, B.J.; Yune, C.Y. Causing Factors of Additional Settlement in High-Speed
Railways in Korea. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 3842–3851. [CrossRef]
40. Zheng, G.; Dai, X.; Diao, Y.; Zeng, C.-F. Experimental and simplified model study of the development
of ground settlement under hazards induced by loss of groundwater and sand. Nat. Hazards 2016, 82,
1869–1893. [CrossRef]
41. Wu, Y.-D.; Zhang, C.; Zhong, G.-Q. Control of differential settlement of road widening of expressways on
soft soil foundation. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2013, 35, 652–655.
42. Yang, E.-H.; Qiu, Y.-J.; Xiang, K.-M. Research of transverse differential settlement of subgrade allowed by
typical asphalt pavement structure in mountainous highways. Rock Soil Mech. 2010, 31, 3329–3336.
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Applsci 08 02392

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applsci 08 02392

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Keywords: settlement prediction; levee; settlement monitoring; viscoelastic analysis; differential

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2392; doi:10.3390/app8122392 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

(a) Levee (b) Widening Expressway

After settlement Differential settlement

Rainwater infiltration Backfill

Old levee Thickening

Figure 2. Generalization model of heightening and thickening levees (HTL).

2.2. Generalized Settlement Prediction Model

Physical meaning of a Physical meaning of b

2.2.2. Further Explanation of Physical Meaning of Parameters

Table 1. Comparison of different prediction models.

Logistic Model Hyperbolic Model

However, when d = 0, the GSPM can be written as:

2.2.3. The Significance of GSPM

(a) Measuring point (b) Displacement meter

2.4. Finite Element Analysis

2.4. Finite Element Analysis

Figure 5. One-dimensional merchant model [36].

Differential settlement (cm)

3.1.1. Selection of Monitoring Section

Table 3. Levee characteristics.

Type of Levee Characteristics

3.1.2. Material Parameters

where ω is water content; ρ is density of samples; g is acceleration of gravity;

3.1.3. Measuring Point Layout for HTL

13731 mm 8000 mm 13106 mm

124.227 m L1 B Monitoring points

(a) Section I of HTL

(b) Overlook map

3.1.4. Installation Process

(a) Level gauge (b) Telescoping tube settlement gauge in field

Figure 9. Field monitoring.

The monitoring results are listed in Table

Monitor This paper

Figure 10. Verification for different

3.2.2. Application for Specific Section of HTL

Ground Settlement Prediction

Comparison of prediction models for G1 Comparisonof prediction models for A

This paper This paper

Time Day Time Day

Comparison of prediction models for L1

Depth 0.5m at top Depth 1m at top

Time Day Time Day

3 This paper This paper

Time Day Time Day

0.2 This paper

Table 7. Sum of squares of errors for different settlement–time models unit:mm2 .

Monitoring Points Prediction Models Sum of Squares of Errors

3.3. Differential Settlement Control Criterion

3.3.1. Horizontal Stress of Pavement

Distance from the right side of the road/m

(b) Horizontal stress distribution of pavement

3.3.2. From Figure 13a,

differential settlement 0.25 -3.9 differential settlement 0.20

(a) 20 kPa loading (b) 15 kPa loading

-3.7 differential settlement

(c) 10 kPa loading

You might also like