## 4 Results and Discussion
### Reinforcement Strain and Lateral Displacement of Sgc Mass
#### 4.1.5 Effect of Surcharge Load on Open Face Lateral Displacement  
The effect of service load on the lateral displacement of the SGC mass is examined here. Figure 7 shows the open face lateral displacement of SGC mass under four different surcharge load \(p\) of 400, 1000, 2000 kPa, and 2500 kPa at the top surface of the specimen, which had been compacted with a compaction load \(q\) of 44 kPa, as it was found in the previous Section 4.1.4 that compaction load has insignificant effect on the lateral displacement. The result of the SGC mass experiment conducted  
Figure 6: Effect of compaction load \(q\) and compaction procedures on open face lateral displacement of SGC mass: for case of \(p\) = 1000 kPa, \(q\) = 20, 44 and 70 kPa: (**a**) Type-I; (**b**) Type-II; (**c**) Type-III (\(w\) = 0.7 m); (**d**) Type-III (\(w\) = 0.35 m); (**e**) Type-III (\(w\) = 0.175 m).  
by Reference [6] is also plotted in this figure. In general, the numerical and the experimental results were in good agreement, in particular, for cases with smaller surcharge loads.  
The maximum open face lateral displacement of the SGC mass (compacted using different compaction procedures) induced during the serviceability stage by various surcharges is tabulated in Table 4. The tabulated results show that the variation between the numerical results of the five compaction procedures is very small, in particular, for compaction procedures Type-II and III.  
We can, for example, plot the profile of the lateral displacement versus depth of the SGC mass under the surcharge load \(p\) of 1000 kPa together with the experimental result of Reference [6], as in Figure 8. The profile shows that compaction procedure Type-II (UDL applied to top and bottom of each soil lift) produced a smooth and the smallest lateral displacement versus depth profile compared to that of Types-I and III. Both the Types-I and III procedures produced a similar jiggered profile, with Type-I showing the most obvious manifestation. The jagger has a width of 0.2 m, corresponded to the thickness of the thickness of each soil lift. In other words, compaction procedure Type-I generated the most lateral displacement at the middle of each soil lift while procedure Type-II generated the least, but at the top and bottom surfaces of each soil lift the generated lateral displacements were pretty  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Comp. Procedures** & **400 kPa** & **1000 kPa** & **2000 kPa** & **2500 kPa** \\ \hline Type-I & 2.91 mm & 12.16 mm & 28.82 mm & 37.07 mm \\ Type-II & 2.84 mm & 11.48 mm & 27.23 mm & 34.90 mm \\ Type-III (\(w\) = 0.70 m) & 2.79 mm & 11.75 mm & 27.29 mm & 35.10 mm \\ Type-III (\(w\) = 0.35 m) & 2.85 mm & 11.74 mm & 27.32 mm & 35.04 mm \\ Type-III (\(w\) = 0.175 m) & 2.80 mm & 11.74 mm & 27.39 mm & 35.03 mm \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Maximum lateral displacement induced during serviceability stage by various surcharges.  
Figure 7: Effect of surcharge load \(p\) and compaction procedures on open face lateral displacement of SGC mass, for \(q\) = 44 kPa, \(p\) = 400, 1000, 2000 and 2500 kPa: (**a**) Type-I; (**b**) Type-II; (**c**) Type-III (\(w\) = 0.7 m); (**d**) Type-III (\(w\) = 0.35 m); (**e**) Type-III (\(w\) = 0.175 m).  
similar. Although the lateral displacement profile induced by compaction procedure Type-II shows the most promising comparison with experimental result, the profiles induced by Type-I and II were also in good agreement with the experimental result. It thus suggested that the consideration of different compaction simulation procedures on the lateral displacement of SGC mass could be neglected in the future numerical simulation for the experimental tests by Reference [6].