PSI - Issue 41

Abdoullah Namdar et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 41 (2022) 403–411 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

406

4

displacement and deformation considering all stages of the numerical simulation aids to predict the seismic stability of the embankment-subsoil model. Figure 2 shows three models of the embankment-subsoil. In the first model, the geogrid has not been used in the subsoil. In models 2 and 3, the geogrid was used in the subsoil. In model 2 the center of the geogrid is installed at beneath the end of the embankment toe. In addition, in model 3, the geogrid was installed in the subsoil and the geogrid is not under the embankment.

16 (m)

9 (m)

35 (m)

35 (m)

The first model is without the geogrid

18 (m)

122 (m)

16 (m)

9 (m)

35 (m)

35 (m)

18 (m)

Geogrid location

122 (m)

16 (m)

9 (m)

35 (m)

35 (m)

Geogrid location

18 (m)

122 (m)

Fig. 2. Embankment-subsoil models.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the soil and steel. Material Modulus elasticity, E (MPa) Friction angle, ϕ (deg) Dilatancy angle, ψ (deg)

Ref

Poisson’s ratio, ν

Shear modulus, G (MPa)

Yield stress, Y s (MPa)

Cohesion, C (kPa)

Unit weight, γ (kN/m 3 )

Soil

24

40

2

17

18.5

0.2

-

-

(Valleti et al., 2018)

200,000

-

-

-

-

0.3

77000

250

Steel (A36M)

(AISC, 2009)

Three embankment subsoils were simulated. Figure 2 shows the embankment-subsoil model with dimension in the meter. The thickness of 40 (m) is for the geometry of the embankment and subsoil. The first model is without the geogrid, and models two and three are reinforced using the geogrid beneath the toe of the embankment and at the