Evaluation of Vertical Superimposed Stress in Subsoil

Induced by Embankment Loads

Heng Wang1; Ling-Ling Zeng, Ph.D.2; Xia Bian, Ph.D.3; and Zhen-Shun Hong, Ph.D.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper proposes a practical method of determining embankment loads-induced vertical superimposed stress in subsoil by
incorporating the effects of contact stress and soil elastoplastic behavior. The particulate–probabilistic theory is introduced to establish a new
way of determining contact stress for overcoming the assumptions in the traditional trapezoidal stress distribution approach with instantaneous
loading and perfectly flexible loaded area along the base. Then, the Flamant solution is introduced to propose a practical method of determin-
ing the vertical superimposed stress in subsoil. A reduction coefficient of 0.85 is suggested for considering the effect of elastoplastic of subsoil.
The measured values of contact stress and field settlements are compiled from literature available to validate the proposed equations. It is found
that the suggested methods in this study can improve significantly the degree of accuracy of the Osterberg method (Osterberg 1957) in calculat-
ing embankment loads induced settlement. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001325. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Embankment; Contact stress; Elastoplastic; Vertical superimposed stress.

Introduction embankment load horizontal diffusion during the stage construction

(Jiang et al. 2012).
Embankments constructed on compressible soils are often con- On the other hand, the Osterberg method was based on the linear
fronted with settlement problems with various degrees (Leroueil elastic theory (Poulos and Davis 1974; Leroueil et al. 1990). It has
et al. 1990; Loganathan et al. 1993; Olson 1998; Chai and Miura been well documented that the stress transmission in real soil does
2002; Han et al. 2012). Contact stress along the base (s b) and verti- not fit elastic theoretical distribution (Schmertmann 2005; Cicek
cal superimposed stress in subsoil (s s0 ) are essential for determining et al. 2014). Due to the fact that the real soil is elastoplastic while
embankment load-induced settlement. Traditionally, the values of embankment load-induced stresses in subsoil exceeded the yield
s b were calculated by trapezoidal stress distribution method, and stress, the soil plastic irreversible deformation occurred in the real
those of s s0 were determined by the Osterberg method (Leroueil case (Leroueil et al. 1979, 1990; Hong et al. 2006, 2012; Cui et al.
et al. 1990; Chai and Miura 2002). 2013; Bian et al. 2017). This may result in significant miscalculation
Note that the trapezoidal stress distribution approach was estab- of embankment load-induced settlement using the elastic theory.
lished based on the assumptions of instantaneous loading and per- The objective of this study is to propose a practical approach of
fectly flexible loaded area along the base of embankments (Das and estimating the vertical superimposed stress in subsoil with incorpo-
Sobhan 2013; Fang 2013). In practice, the loaded area cannot be rating the effects of the contact stress along the base and the soil
considered as perfectly flexible, and embankments are often stage elastoplastic behavior in subsoil. Firstly, a simple equation was pro-
constructed. Several researchers illustrated that the trapezoidal posed for quantitatively estimating the contact stress along the base
stress distribution method significantly overestimated the stress at with the particulate–probabilistic theory. Then, a practical method
the central portion of embankment base and highly underestimated of calculating vertical superimposed stress in subsoil was proposed
the value near outer edge in comparison with the field measure- using the Flamant solution in integral form. Finally, the validity of
ments (Bozozuk 1972; Jiang et al. 2012; Wu et al. 2015). In addi- the proposed method was discussed by comparing the calculated
tion, loaded area along the base was generally enlarged due to settlement of embankments with the field measurements compiled
from literature.

1 Proposed Equations
Ph.D. Candidate, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, School of
Transportation, Southeast Univ., Nanjing 210096, China (corresponding
author). Email: [email protected] Based on the particulate–probabilistic theory, Harr (1977) devel-
2
Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou Univ., Fuzhou oped a method of estimating the distribution of vertical stresses in
350108, China. Email: [email protected] particulate media. Instead of continuum theory, the particulate and
3
Lecturer, Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics inherently random nature of particles were incorporated in this
and Embankment Engineering, Hohai Univ., Nanjing 210098, China. method. Hence, the vertical force can be propagated from a particle
Email: [email protected]
4
to its neighbor; then random lateral fluctuation can be taken into
Professor, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, School of account. Consequently, load transfer was implemented. For a uni-
Transportation, Southeast Univ., Nanjing 210096, China. Email: zshong@
form normal load P* acting over strip of width 2a, Harr (1977)
seu.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 15, 2017; approved obtained the solution of vertical normal stress as
on June 25, 2018; published online on October 17, 2018. Discussion pe- "    #
riod open until March 17, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted  xþa xa
for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of s ðx; zÞ ¼ P c pffiffiffi  c pffiffiffi (1)
z  z 
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.

© ASCE 04018182-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182

 where the coefficient of lateral stress  = state parameter of the ma- In reality, staged construction is commonly adopted to construct
terial, which can be approximated to be the coefficient of the lateral the embankment on soft subsoil. Fig. 1 shows the cross-sectional
earth pressure at rest (K0) (Bourdeau 1989). Thus,  can be obtained view of the half of a typical axisymmetric embankment. The
from the angle of internal friction ( f ) of granular using Jaky’s for- embankment load applied is divided into several stages, where ai
mula (Jaky 1944). and Dhi represent the average value of half width and fill height at
construction stage i, respectively; hi is the total height of embank-
 ¼ K0 ¼ ð1  sin f Þ (2) ment before construction stage i; s is the width of the top layer; M is
the inclination of side slope; and H is the embankment height.
Assuming that the uniform load P* equals to the stage-loading
Note that c (x*) is the normal cumulative Gaussian distribution
function expressed as
g Dhi, and substituting into Eq. (1), a new equation for calculating
s b under staged construction of embankment can be proposed as
ð x
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 t2 X
n
c ðx Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2 dt (3) s b ðx; H Þ ¼ Ds ðxi ; hi Þ
0 2p
1
"    #
X
n
xi þ ai xi  ai
¼ g Dhi c pffiffiffi  c pffiffiffi (4)
1
hi  hi 

Note that Eq. (4) can be used for determining the values of con-
tact stress along the embankment base. However, the integral form
results in difficulty for calculating the vertical superimposed stress
transferred into subsoil. On the other hand, the polynomial equation
has the advantage in curve-fitting analysis and integral calcula-
tion. Hence, after a trial analysis for the cases in Table 1, a quartic
polynomial equation is suggested as the alternative of Eq. (4),
expressed as

s b ¼ Ax4 þ Bx2 þ C (5)

where A, B, and C = constants that can be obtained by fitting Eq. (5)

with the calculated results in Eq. (4). The comparison between the
results calculated using Eqs. (4) and (5) is plotted in Fig. 2. It is
encouraged that Eq. (4) in integral form can be well replaced by Eq.
Fig. 1. Schematic layout of a half-infinite embankment. (5) in quartic polynomial form, with high fitting accuracy ranging
from 0.92 to 0.99. It should be emphasized that the fitting accuracy

Table 1. Database of embankment geometric parameters

Site Section s (m) H (m) s:H 1:M f (°) Reference

Haidong embankment DK67 þ 620/630 13.4 5 2.7 1:1.5 25 Jiang et al. (2012)
DK67 þ 399 13.7 3.14 4.4 1:1.5
Haidong centrifugal embankment Stage One 19.6 1.2 16.3 1:1.5 25 Jiang et al. (2012)
Stage Two 16 2.4 6.7 1:1.5
Stage Three 12.4 3.6 3.4 1:1.5 Wu et al. (2015)
Stage Four 8.2 5 1.6 1:1.5
Jiaoji centrifugal embankment Stage One 25.5 1.6 15.9 1:1.5 33 Jiang et al. (2012)
Stage Two 18.3 4 4.6 1:1.5
Stage Three 13.5 5.6 2.4 1:1.5 Wu et al. (2015)
Stage Four 7.7 7.5 1.0 1:1.5
Gloucester test fill Stage One 14.5 1.8 8.2 1:1.5 30 Bozozuk (1972)
Stage Two 12.7 2.4 5.3 1:1.5
Stage Three 10.8 3 3.6 1:1.5
Stage Four 9 3.65 2.5 1:1.5
Lime centrifugal embankment Stage Two 17 4 4.3 1:1.0 33 Chen and Yu (2011)
Stage Three 13 6 2.2 1:1.0
Berthierville embankment — 27.4 10.7 2.6 1:1.5 40 Samson and Garneau (1973)
Kars bridge — 22.6 6.1 3.7 1:2.0 30 Law (1974)
New Liskeard embankment — 28 5.48 5.1 1:2.0 30 Stermac et al. (1967)
St Albans test embankment B 7.6 3.3 2.3 1:4.5 30 Karim et al. (2013)
D 7.6 3.3 2.3 1:1.5 30
Morissette et al. (2001)

© ASCE 04018182-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182

 Calculated by Eq. (4) of this method may be case-sensitive. To implement this method, a
Calculated by Eq. (5) trial analysis is required to determine the constants in Eq. (5).
Traditional trapezoidal distribution The elastic Flamant method is introduced for determining the
160
vertical stress in subsoil caused by s b, which can be expressed as
(Flamant 1892)
120 2y3 p
Contact stress ( kPa)

s 0s ¼ (6)
p ðx2 þ y2 Þ2
80
where p* = unit line load. As shown in Fig. 3, s b can be divided into
finite slices with a width of du. Then, each sliced load p* can be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

expressed as
40
p ¼ dp ¼ pðuÞdu ¼ ð Au4 þ Bu2 þ CÞdu (7)

0
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 Hence, s s0 at certain point N (x, y) can be calculated by integrat-
ing the effect of each sliced load p*.
Horizontal distance (m)
2y3 pðuÞ 2y3 ðAu4 þ Bu2 þ CÞ
Fig. 2. Fitting curve of contact stress along the base. ds 0s ¼ h i2 du ¼ h i2 du (8)
p ðu  xÞ2 þ y2 p ðu  xÞ2 þ y2

s s0 at point N (x, y), due to s b over region of width 2 b, are equiv-

alent to the sum of all loads p(u)du acting at x = u (shown shaded).
The elastic solution is
ðb
2y3 ðAu4 þ Bu2 þ CÞ
s 0s ¼ h i2 du (9)
b
p ðu  xÞ2 þ y2

In fact, the irreversible deformation of real soil will occur if the

applied stresses exceed the yield stress (e.g., Leroueil et al. 1979).
Meanwhile, transmission of stress in soils is directly related to the
material properties (Fröhlich 1934; Lamande and Schjonning
2011). The mechanical behavior for soil changes significantly at
preyield and postyield state, especially for the soft clay (Hong et al.
Fig. 3. Typical sketch of distributed load. 2006, 2012; Zeng et al. 2015, 2018; Bian et al. 2016). Hence, the
yielding of soil would change the stress distribution in the soil. In

DK67+620 Field Measured

DK67+630 Field Measured
100 Calculated

80
Contact stress ( kPa)

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30
Horizontal distance (m)

Fig. 4. Comparisons of contact stress along the base for DK67 þ 620/630.

© ASCE 04018182-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182

 this study, a reduction coefficient R* is introduced to incorporate the Note that the admissible empirical coefficient R* = 1.0, which
influence of elastoplastic behavior of subsoil, expressed as represents the results of elastic theory, is first used in Eq. (10) for
ðb trial analysis. Fig. 7 depicts the typical comparisons of vertical
2y3 ðAu4 þ Bu2 þ CÞ superimposed stresses at different steps for Haidong centrifuge
s 0s ¼ R  h i2 du (10)
b
embankment. It can be seen that the proposed equation using R* =
p ðu  xÞ2 þ y2 1.0 yields higher stress than the field measurements. It is important
to note that the difference between the calculated and the measured
Eq. (10) presents the general way of determining s s0 . R* will be vertical superimposed stresses increases as the construction stage
discussed in detail in later sections. continues, up to approximately 22% at Stage Four. This behavior
indicates that when embankment load gradually increases and
exceeds the yield stress of subsoil, the soil elastoplastic behavior
Contact Stress along Embankment Base should be taken into account to determine s b.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

To validate the proposed method for determining s b, we compiled

the data of field measurements from literature for comparison.
Table 1 provides the data sources and the geometric parameters of 160
embankments investigated. Five well-documented embankments Haidong embankment DK67+620/630
were used to develop a database: Gloucester test fill (Bozozuk 1972), 140 Haidong embankment DK67+399

Measured values of contact stress ( kPa)

Haidong centrifugal tests and Jiaoji centrifugal tests (Jiang et al. Haidong centrifugal model +10%
Jiaoji centrifugal model -10%
2012; Wu et al. 2015), and Haidong embankment (Jiang et al. 2012). 120 Gloucester embankment
The typical comparisons between the predicted and the meas-
ured contact stresses along the embankment base are shown in Figs.
100
4 and 5 for the Haidong embankment and the Gloucester test fill,
respectively. It can be observed that the contact stresses along the
base are close to a bell-shaped distribution rather than the trapezoi- 80
dal distribution. Fig. 6 shows the comparison between predicted
and average measured contact stresses for all the cases in Table 1. It 60
is clear that the calculated s b using the proposed method are con-
sistent with the field observations within accuracy of 610%. 40

20
Vertical Superimposed Stress in Subsoil
0
To compare the predicted vertical superimposed stress in subsoil 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
with the field observations, 51 measured data of three centrifuge
Predicted values of contact stress ( kPa)
tests were compiled from the available literature (Jiang et al. 2012;
Chen and Yu 2011; Wu et al. 2015). The databases are also shown
Fig. 6. Comparisons between predicted and average measured contact
in Table 1. The basic properties of subsoil obtained from laboratory
stresses.
tests are listed in Table 2.

Stage One Field Measured

Stage One Calculated
80 Stage Two Field Measured
Stage Two Calculated
Stage Three Field Measured
Stage Three Calculated
60 Stage Four Field Measured
Contact stress ( kPa)

Stage Four Calculated

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20
Horizontal distance (m)

Fig. 5. Comparisons of contact stress along the base for Gloucester test fill.

© ASCE 04018182-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182

 Table 2. Basic properties of subsoils

Density of soil Liquid limit Initial water

Site Soil Depth (m) particles (mg/m3) wL (%) content w0 (%) Cc Reference
Haidong centrifugal embankment Silty clay 0–6.0 2.71 36 26.5 0.18 Xiao (2007)
Silty 6.0–18.0 2.71 26 28.1 0.09
Jiaoji centrifugal embankment Silty clay 0–11.0 2.71 16 12.7 0.09 Wu (2006)
Silty clay 18.0–24.0 2.71 30 22.1 0.13
Lime centrifugal embankment Soft clay 0–25.0 2.70 48 46.5 0.3 Chen and Yu (2011)
Gloucester test fill Soft gray–brown clay 1.5–2.4 2.70 55 60.4 1.7 Bozozuk (1972)
Soft gray clay 2.4–4.9 2.70 57 77.6 1.3
Berthierville embankment Silty clay 1.8–6.1 2.70 81 61.1 1.09 Samson and Garneau (1973)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Silty clay 20.4–30.5 2.70 55 55.3 1.02

Kars bridge Soft gray clay 7.6–10.7 2.71 49 69.2 2.2 Law (1974)
New Liskeard embankment Silty clay 4.6–9.1 2.69 68 60.8 0.94 Stermac et al. (1967)
St Albans test embankment B/D Silty clay 1.5–4.9 2.69 41 60.5 1.5 Tavenas et al. (1974)
Note: The values listed in table are on average.

5
Stage One Field Measured
Stage One Calculated
Stage Two Field Measured
Depth (m)

10 Stage Two Calculated

Stage Three Field Measured
Stage Three Calculated
Stage Four Field Measured
15 Stage Four Calculated

20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Vertical superimposed stress (kPa)

Fig. 7. Typical comparisons of vertical superimposed stress for Haidong centrifugal model.

In order to quantify the effect of soil elastoplastic on load trans- mainly limited to the elastic domain. Eq. (10) can yield the
fer, the empirical coefficient R* of subsoil was back calculated same result as that of the elastic theory with R* = 1.0.
based on the measured data from three centrifuge tests and the cor- 2. If s v0 is larger than s p0 , irreversible plastic deformation will
responding calculated values from Eq. (10) with R* = 1.0. occur in the postyield state. R* = 0.85 is used for considering
Accordingly, R* can be expressed as the effect of soil elastoplastic.
s 0s ðMeasurementÞ
R ¼ (11)
s 0s ðCalculatedÞ Embankment Settlement

Fig. 8 presents the calculated empirical coefficient R* for all the The settlement measurements of several embankments listed in
available databases. It can be observed that the value of R* directly Table 1 are used to validate the proposed method of determining s s0 .
correlates with the compressibility (Cc) of subsoil. For the soil with The detailed settlement data are presented in Table 3.
a higher compressibility, R* value seems more deviated from the The settlement of embankments investigated was monitored
elastic condition, as shown in Fig. 9. Note that the range of R* vary- by the settlement gauges over a long period ranging from 3 to 15
ing with Cc is very narrow based on the limited database, from 0.82 years after construction. Note that the field settlement gauges
to 0.87. For simplification in engineering practice, the average R* = were all located along the centerline of the embankment investi-
0.85 is suggested in this study. That is, the R* value can be deter- gated. For simplicity, an analytic equation of Eq. (12) obtained
mined with the following steps: by the tangent transform (u = ytanu ) was suggested as an alter-
1. Assuming R* = 1.0 in Eq. (10) for trial analysis. Then, the native of Eq. (10) to determine the vertical superimposed
effective vertical stress (s v0 ) in subsoil is calculated as s v0
0
þ s s0 , stresses along the centerline (x = 0). The detailed derivation of
where s v0 represents effective overburden stress. If s v0 is
0 the analytic solution of the proposed method is presented in
smaller than the yield stress (s p0 ), the deformation of subsoil is Appendix.

© ASCE 04018182-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182

 s 0s ¼ R
Measured values of vertical superimposed stress ( kPa) 160
0-11m, Cc=0.09 02  3 1
Jiaoji centrifuge model   b
11-18m,Cc=0.13 B 6 1 u3 b 3y arctan y 7 2y3 A C
140 0-6m, Cc=0.18 B 4
B  þ ðtanu  u Þ h i5  C
Haidong centrifuge model
6-18m, Cc=0.09 B 2 u þ y b 2
2 2
arctan
ðbÞ p C
C
0-25m, Cc=0.30 B y C
120
Lime Soil centrifuge model B C
B C
B 2   3 C
B b arctan C
B b
C
100 B 6 1 u  u  y 7 2y3 B C
 B þ4 2 2
þ  h i 5  C
R*=1.00 B 2 u þ y 2y ðbÞ p C
B b arctan C
B y
C
80
R*=0.80 B C
B C
B  C
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B   b C
B C
B þ C u þ sin2u 
arctan
60 y
C
@  " #
A
p 2 arctan
ðbÞ
y
40
(12)
20
According to Eq. (12), admissible empirical coefficient R* = 1.0
is adopted in trial analysis. If s v0 is larger than s p0 , the value of s s0 is
0 calculated again using Eq. (12) with the value of R* = 0.85.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Note that natural sedimentary clays are generally subjected to
Predicted values of vertical superimposed stress ( kPa)
soils structure effects developed during the depositional and the
postdepositional processes (e.g., Leroueil et al. 1979, 1990;
Fig. 8. Comparisons between the predicted and the measured vertical
Burland 1990), resulting in the vertical yield stress (s p0 ) often
superimposed stress. 0
being larger than the effective overburden pressure (s v0 ) (e.g.,
Schmertmann 1991; Hong et al. 2006). The investigated clays in
1.0 Table 1 are attributed to such cases, as shown in Table 4. It has been
recognized that the soil structure restrains the deformation of natu-
0-11m, Cc=0.09
Jiaoji centrifugal model 11-18m,Cc=0.13 ral clays under effective vertical stress up to the consolidation yield
0-6m, Cc=0.18 stress, consequently resulting in low compressibility of clays until
Haidong centrifugal model the stress level exceeds the consolidation yield stress (e.g.,
6-18m, Cc=0.09
Lime embankment centrifugal model 0-25m, Cc=0.30 Butterfield 1979; Burland 1990; Hong et al. 2012). Accordingly,
0.9
the settlement of natural sedimentary clays under s s0 can be calcu-
lated using the following equations:
R*

H s0 þ s0
S¼ Cr log10 v0 0 s when s 0v0  s 0v  s 0p (13)
1 þ e0 s v0
0.8
!
H s 0p s0 þ s0
S¼ Cr log10 0 þ Cc log10 v0 0 s when s 0v > s 0p
1 þ e0 s v0 sp
0.7 (14)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Cc where H* = thickness of the soil layer; e0 = void ratio, Cr = compres-
0
sion index at preyield state when s v0 ≤ s v0 ≤ s p0 ; and Cc = compres-
Fig. 9. Relationships of average R* against Cc. sion index at postyield state when s v0 > s p0 for natural structured
clays.

Table 3. Summary of settlement date from published studies

Site Depth (m) Settlement (mm) Reference

Gloucester test fill 1.5–2.4 57.1 a
Bozozuk (1972)
2.4–4.9 130.0a
Berthierville embankment 1.8–6.1 1,199.9a Samson and Garneau (1973)
20.4–30.5 151.5a
Kars bridge 7.6–10.7 259.0b Law (1974)
New Liskeard embankment 4.6–9.1 189.1c Stermac et al. (1967)
St Albans test embankment B 0–13.5 599.1c Karim et al. (2013)
St Albans test embankment D 0–13.5 752.4c Morissette et al. (2001)
a
Observed after 7 years.
b
Observed after 15 years.
c
Observed after 3 years.

© ASCE 04018182-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182

 Table 4. Estimated settlements using the proposed method

s s0 (kPa) S (mm)
s p0 0
s v0 Osterberg Proposed Osterberg Proposed
Site H* (m) e0 Cc Cr (kPa) (kPa) solution solution solution solution Reference
Gloucester test 0.9 1.99 1.7 0.17 58 38 46 37 86 65 Bozozuk (1972)
fill 2.5 2.03 1.3 0.16 56 48 43 34 229 186
Berthierville 4.3 1.79 1.1 0.13 44 30 194 164 1,190 1,086 Samson and Garneau (1973)
embankment 8.0 1.44 1.0 0.12 250 190 154 108 482 276
Kars bridge 3.0 1.95 2.2 0.3 105 56 104 82 442 298 Law (1974)
New Liskeard 4.6 1.59 0.94 0.13 110 70 97 71 320 200 Stermac et al. (1967)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

embankment
St Albans test 13.5 1.71 1.5 0.2 68 35 48 40 1,052 726 Tavenas et al. (1974)
embankment B
St Albans test — — — — — — 55 46 1,299 946 Karim et al. (2013)
embankment D

1,500 embankment and the friction angle of fill material. The calcu-
lated contact stresses along the base show a bell-shaped distri-
Proposed solution bution and are consistent with the field observations.
Measured values of settlement (mm)

Osterberg solution 2. A simple method of determining the embankment load-induced

1,200 vertical stresses in subsoil was proposed based on the Flamant
theory. The effect of elastoplastic of subsoil on the embank-
ment load-induced vertical stresses in subsoil can be taken into
900 account by introducing a reduction coefficient R* = 0.85.
3. The calculated settlements using the contact stresses at base
and the vertical stresses in subsoil determined by the proposed
600 equations are consistent with the measured settlements avail-
able from literature. Based on the comparisons in measured set-
tlements, the proposed approach in this study is found to be
superior to the Osterberg method for the cases of normally con-
300
solidated subsoil with Cc = 0.09–2.2.

0 Acknowledgments
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Predicted values of settlement (mm) This study is supported by the National Key R&D Program of
China (2016YFC0800200) and the National Key Basic Research
Fig. 10. Comparisons of settlements between the calculated and the Program of China (973 Program) (2015CB057803).
measured values.
Appendix. Derivation of the Proposed Equation
Fig. 10 shows the comparisons between calculated settlements The proposed methods of determining s s are described as
and field measurements. It can be seen that the predicted settlements ðb
using the proposed method are consistent with the field observa- 2y3 ðAu4 þ Bu2 þ CÞ
s 0s ¼ R  du (15)
tions, indicating the validity of the proposed methods of determin- b p ððu  xÞ2 þ y2 Þ2
ing s s0 and s b. On the other hand, the calculated settlements with
the Osterberg solution are also shown in Fig. 10 for comparisons. It Assuming vertical stress along the centerline of the embank-
can be seen that calculated settlements with the Osterberg method ment, then
are greatly larger than the field measurements for the investigated
cases with Cc = 0.09–2.2. The discrepancy is attributed to the over- x¼0 (16)
estimated values of vertical superimposed stress in subsoil with the
Osterberg solution, as shown in Table 4. Substituting Eq. (16) into Eq. (15) gives
ðb ðb
2y3 AR u4 2y3 BR u2
Conclusions s 0s ¼ du þ du
p b ðu2 þ y2 Þ
2 p b ðu2 þ y2 Þ2
A practical method of estimating vertical superimposed stresses in ð
2y3 CR b 1
subsoil is proposed with incorporating the effects of the contact þ du (17)
stress along the base and the elastoplastic behavior of subsoil on p b ðu þ y2 Þ
2 2

load transfer. The main conclusions are summarized as:

1. A simplified quartic polynomial equation was proposed to esti- Using the integration-by-parts method, for example, the first
mate the contact stress at base using the geometric parameter of term in Eq. (17) becomes

© ASCE 04018182-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182

 ðb ðb!  
2y3 AR u4 2y3 AR 1 1  arctan b
du ¼ u d 2 3
 
p b ðu2 þ y2 Þ
2 p b u þ y2
2 CR sin2u  y
¼ uþ    (22)
! p 2 b
 ð arctan
1 u3 b
y
2y3 AR 3 b u2
¼  2 þ du (18)
p 2 u þ y2 b 2 b u2 þ y2 Combining Eq. (20)–(22), an analytic Eq. (23) as an alternative
of Eq. (15) is expressed as
The tangent transform approach
s 0s ¼ R
02  3 1
u ¼ y tan u (19) b arctan b
B6 1 u 
3  3
2y A C
 þ 3y ðtanu  u Þ h i7
y
B 4 2 5 C
Combining Eq. (18) and Eq. (19) gives B 2 u þ y2 b 2  ðbÞ p C
B C
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

arctan
! B y
C
 ð B 2  3 C
2y3 AR 1 u3 b 3 b u2 B b arctan C
 2 þ B b
C
B 6 1 u  u 
du
p 2 u þ y2 b 2 b u2 þ y2 B þ4 2
y 7 2y3 B C
 þ  h i 5  C
0 1 B 2 u þ y b 2y arctan
2 ð b Þ p C
B C
b ð arctanðbÞ y2 tan2 u  y 1 B y
C
3 B
2y AR B 1 u 3  cos2 u du C B   C
¼   þ3 C B  arctan C
p @ 2 u2 þ y2 b 2 arctanðbÞ A B C
b
y 2
1
B C sin2u   y C
cos2 u @þ uþ  " # A
0 1
p 2 ðbÞ
 arctan
y
 ð b
2y3 AR B 1 u3 b 3y arctan y
¼ @ 2 þ h i tan2 u du C A (23)
p 2 u þ y2 b 2 arctan ðbÞ
y

0  1 Notation
 arctan b
2y3 AR B 1 u3 b 
h iC
3y
þ ð tanu  u Þ
y
¼ @ 2 A (20)
p 2 u þ y2 b 2 arctan
ðbÞ The following symbols are used in this paper:
y
A, B, C ¼ quartic polynomial fitting parameters;
ai ¼ average half width of construction stage i;
By the same integration-by-parts and tangent transform method, b ¼ half width of contact stress distributed over
the second and third term in Eq. (17) become region;
ð ð ! Cc ¼ compression index at postyield state of natural
2y3 BR b u2 2y3 BR 1 b u  ð2uÞ
du ¼ du clay;
p b ðu2 þ y2 Þ
2 p 2 b ðu2 þ y2 Þ2 Cr ¼ compression index at preyield state of natural
ð  ! clay;
2y3 BR 1 b 1 D ¼ coefficient of diffusion;
¼  ud 2
p 2 b u þ y2 e0 ¼ void ratio;
! H* ¼ thickness of the soil layer;
 ð H ¼ embankment height;
2y3 BR 1 u b 1 b 1
¼  2 þ du hi ¼ total height of embankment before construction
p 2 u þ y2 b 2 b u2 þ y2
stage i;
0  1 Dhi ¼ fill height of construction stage i;
 ð b 1
2y3 BR B b arctan y C i ¼ construction stage;
B 1 u  þ 1 h i cos u du C
y 2
¼ @  A K0 ¼ coefficient of the earth pressure at rest;
p 2 u þ y b 2 arctan
2 2 ðb Þ 1
y y2 M ¼ side slope gradient (1V:MH);
cos u
2
0 p* ¼ applied pressure;
 1
  b Dq ¼ fill step-loading;
2y3 BR B 1 u b u arctan y C R* ¼ empirical coefficient;
¼ @ 2 þ  h iA (21)
p 2 u þ y2  2y
b
ðbÞ
arctan S ¼ settlement;
y
s ¼ top width;
s:H ¼ aspect ratio;
ðb ðb t, x* ¼ Gaussian function parameters;
2y3 CR 1 2y3 CR 1
du ¼ !2 du w0 ¼ initial water content;
p b ðu2 þ y2 Þ
2 p b
 2
u wL ¼ liquid limit;
y4 þ1
y s b ¼ contact stress along the base;
 s p0 ¼ yield stress;
ð arctan b y s s0 ¼ vertical superimposed stress caused by embank-
2y3 CR y cos 2u
¼   du ment load;
p arctan
b y4
s v0 ¼ vertical stress in subsoil;
y
0
cos4 u s v0 ¼ effective overburden stress;
 Ds b(x,0) ¼ contact stress along the base caused by step-
ð arctan b
2CR y loading;
¼   cos2 u du
p arctan
b Ds s ¼ vertical superimposed stress increment;
y
 ¼ coefficient of diffusivity;

© ASCE 04018182-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182

 c ¼ cumulative Gaussian distribution function; Jiang, G. L., H. L. Wang, A. H. Li, and C. L. Zhang. 2012. “Experimental
g ¼ unit weight of soil; study on ground reaction under loading of soil subgrade.” [In Chinese.]
m ¼ integral variable; J. China Railway Soc. 34 (6): 69–74.
f ¼ friction angle of fill; and Karim, M. R., F. Oka, K. Krabbenhoft, S. Leroueil, and S. Kimoto. 2013.
“Simulation of long-term consolidation behaviour of soft sensitive clay
tan u ¼ transformed variable, equal to x/y.
using an elasto-viscoplastic constitutive model.” Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 37 (16): 2801–2824.
References Lamande, M., and P. Schjonning. 2011. “Transmission of vertical stress in
real soil profile. Part III: Effect of soil water content.” Soil Tillage Res.
114 (2): 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.10.001.
Bian, X., J.-W. Ding, J. Shi, and S. Qian. 2017. “Quantitative assessment on
Law, K. T. 1974. “Analysis of embankments on sensitive clays.” Ph.D. the-
the variation of compressibility of Wenzhou marine clay during destruc-
sis, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Univ. of Western Ontario.
turation.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21 (3): 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1007
Leroueil, S., J. P. Magnan, and F. Tavenas. 1990. Embankments on soft
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional De Ingenieria on 02/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

/s12205-016-0395-7.
clays. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.
Bian, X., Z.-F. Wang, G.-Q. Ding, and Y.-P. Cao. 2016. “Compressibility
Leroueil, S., F. Tavenas, F. Brucy, P. La Rochelle, and M. Roy. 1979.
of cemented dredged clay at high water content with super-absorbent
“Behaviour of destructured natural clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
polymer.” Eng. Geol. 208: 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo
Eng. 105 (6): 759–778.
.2016.04.036.
Loganathan, N., A. S. Balasubramaniam, and D. T. Bergado. 1993.
Bourdeau, P. L. 1989. “Modeling of membrane action in a two-layer rein-
forced soil system.” Comput. Geotech. 7 (1–2): 19–36. https://doi.org “Deformation analysis of embankments.” J. Geotech. Eng. 119 (8): 1185–
/10.1016/0266-352X(89)90004-9. 1206. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:8(1185).
Bozozuk, M. 1972. “The Gloucester test fill.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Purdue. Morissette, L., M. W. St-Louis, and G. C. Mcrostie. 2001. “Empirical settle-
Burland, J. B. 1990. “On the compressibility and shear strength of natural ment predictions in overconsolidated Champlain Sea clays.” Can.
clays.” Geotechnique 40 (3): 329–378. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot Geotech. J. 38 (4): 720–731. https://doi.org/10.1139/t01-006.
.1990.40.3.329. Olson, R. E. 1998. “Settlement of embankments on soft clays: (The
Butterfield, R. 1979. “A natural compression law for soils.” Geotechnique thirty-first Terzaghi lecture).” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124
29 (4): 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1979.29.4.469. (8): 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:
Chai, J.-C., and N. Miura. 2002. “Traffic-load-induced permanent deforma- 8(659).
tion of road on soft subsoil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 128 (11): Osterberg, J. O. 1957. “Influence values for vertical stresses in semi-infinite
907–916. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:11(907). mass due to embankment loading.” In Proc., 4th Int. Conf. Soil
Chen, J.-F., and S.-B. Yu. 2011. “Centrifugal and numerical modeling of a Mechanics Foundation Engineering, 393–394. London: International
reinforced lime-stabilized soil embankment on soft clay with wick Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
drains.” Int. J. Geomech. 11 (3): 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1061 Poulos, H. G., and E. H. Davis. 1974. Elastic solutions for soil and rock
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000045. mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cicek, E., E. Guler, and T. Yetimoglu. 2014. “Comparison of measured and Samson, L., and R. Garneau. 1973. “Settlement performance of two
theoretical pressure distribution below strip footings on sand soil.” Int. embankments on deep compressible soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 10 (2):
J. Geomech. 14 (5): 06014009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1139/t73-020.
.1943-5622.0000347. Schmertmann, J. H. 1991. “The mechanical aging of soils.” J. Geotech.
Cui, Y. J., X. P. Nguyen, A. M. Tang, and X. L. Li. 2013. “An insight into Eng. 117 (9): 1288–1330. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
the unloading/reloading loops on the compression curve of natural stiff -9410(1991)117:9(1288).
clays.” Appl. Clay Sci. 83-84: 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay Schmertmann, J. H. 2005. “Stress diffusion experiment in sand.” J.
.2013.08.003. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061
Das, B. M., and K. Sobhan. 2013. Principles of geotechnical engineering. /(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:1(1).
Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Stermac, A. G., K. Y. Lo, and A. K. Barsvary. 1967. “The performance of
Fang, H. Y. 2013. Foundation engineering handbook. New York: Springer an embankment on a deep deposit of varved clay.” Can. Geotech. J. 4
Science & Business Media. (1): 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1139/t67-007.
Flamant, M. 1892. “Equilibre d'elasticite-Sur la repartition des pressions Tavenas, F. A., C. Chapeau, P. La Rochelle, and M. Roy. 1974. “Immediate
dans un solide rectangulaire charge transversalement.” CR Acad. Sci. settlements of three test embankments on Champlain clay.” Can.
114: 1465–1468. Geotech. J. 11 (1): 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1139/t74-008.
Fröhlich, O. K. 1934. Druckverteilung im baugrunde. Wien, Austria: Wu, L. J. 2006. “Study on compressibility and consolidation of unsaturated
Springer Science & Business Media. soil and reinforced technique on high-speed railway.” Ph.D. thesis,
Han, J., A. Bhandari, and F. Wang. 2012. “DEM analysis of stresses and Univ. of Southwest Jiaotong.
deformations of geogrid-reinforced embankments over piles.” Int. J. Wu, L. J., G. L. Jiang, and A. H. Li. 2015. “Revision of additional stress in
Geomech. 12 (4): 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943 soils based on the centrifuge model tests.” [In Chinese.] J. Southwest
-5622.0000050. Jiaotong Univ. 15 (6): 662–668.
Harr, M. E. 1977. Mechanics of particulate media: A probabilistic Xiao, H. B. 2007. “Study on settlement behaviour and reinforced technique
approach. New York: McGrawHill. of high-speed railway on deep completely decomposed granite ground.”
Hong, Z. S., Y. Tateishi, and J. Han. 2006. “Experimental study of macro- Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Southwest Jiaotong.
and microbehavior of natural diatomite.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. Zeng, L.-L., Z.-S. Hong, and Y.-J. Cui. 2015. “Determining the virgin com-
132 (5): 603–610. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132: pression lines of reconstituted clays at different initial water contents.”
5(603). Can. Geotech. J. 52 (9): 1408–1415. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014
Hong, Z.-S., L.-L. Zeng, Y.-J. Cui, Y.-Q. Cai, and C. Lin. 2012. -0172.
“Compression behaviour of natural and reconstituted clays.” Zeng, L.-L., Z.-S. Hong, and J. Han. 2018. “Experimental investigations on
Geotechnique 62 (4): 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.046. discrepancy in consolidation degrees with deformation and pore pres-
Jaky, J. 1944. “The coefficient of earth pressure at rest.” J. Soc. Hung. sure variations of natural clays.” Appl. Clay Sci. 152: 38–43. https://doi
Archit. Eng. 78 (22): 355–358. .org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.10.029.

© ASCE 04018182-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(1): 04018182