Long term strength and safety in steep soil slopes reinforced by polymer materials

Jewell, Richard; Greenwood, J H

doi:10.1016/0266-1144(88)90020-9

Cited by 34 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The creep rupture tests allowed the plot of the initial portion of geosynthetic A creep rupture curve ( Figure 5). Both the literature (Jewell and Greenwood 1988;Jeon et al 2002;Koerner 2005) Figure 6). Unsurprisingly, the comparison between conventional and accelerated creep tests shows that parameters a and b are both greater at higher temperatures.…”

Section: Testsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Creep behavior of geosynthetics using confined-accelerated tests

França

Bueno

2011

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The creep behavior of geosynthetics has commonly been determined using standardized creep tests, which are time consuming and very expensive. In addition, these tests involve the use of in-isolation specimens. Thus they are not likely to consider the overall effect of soil confinement. Confined creep tests conducted at elevated temperature can be used to address these negative aspects of standardized creep tests. This paper presents a pioneering laboratory apparatus developed in order to conduct confined, accelerated and confined-accelerated creep tests. In addition, preliminary tests were performed to assess the new equipment's capability of conducting confined and accelerated creep tests. These tests were performed using a biaxial geogrid, a woven geotextile, and a nonwoven geotextile. The new equipment allowed different conditions to be reproduced. The creep behavior of the nonwoven geotextile and the geogrid was found to be very sensitive to soil confinement. On the other hand, the woven geotextile presented a creep behavior independent of soil confinement. The geogrid results did not agree with reports in the technical literature. Accordingly, these results showed the importance of characterizing the effect of soil confinement in geosynthetics creep behavior. Additionally, these preliminary results showed the potential of the new device to overcome the main negative aspects of standardized creep tests on geosynthetics.

show abstract

Section: Testsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Creep behavior of geosynthetics using confined-accelerated tests

França

Bueno

2011

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…McGown et al 1984;Christopher et al 1986;Greenwood and Myles 1986;Leshchinsky et al 1997). Generally, the creep rate of polyethylene (PE) is greater than that of polypropylene (PP), which is greater than that of polyester (PET) (den Hoedt 1986;Jewell and Greenwood 1988;Greenwood 1990). The stress-strain behaviour of a geosynthetic is also a function of strain rates (Shrestha and Bell 1982;Rowe and Ho 1986;Bathurst and Cai 1994;Nothdurft and Janardhanam 1994;Boyle et al 1996) and ambient temperature (Wrigley 1987;Jewell and Greenwood 1988;Bush 1990;Koerner et al 1993;Rimoldi and Montanelli 1993;Thornton et al 1998).…”

Section: Creep Of Reinforcement In Embankmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geosynthetic-reinforced embankments over soft foundations

Rowe

Li²

2005

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behaviour of reinforced embankments over conventional soft cohesive soil, ratesensitive soil and peat deposits is reviewed, and recent design and analysis methods are summarized. The findings from both field observations and finite element analyses are presented. Both undrained and partially drained behaviour of reinforced embankments are considered. The use of reinforcement in combination with prefabricated vertical drains is addressed. The effects of both the viscous and inviscous characteristics of reinforcement and foundation soils on embankment behaviour are discussed. It is concluded that the partial consolidation provided by PVDs and the tension mobilized in reinforcement can substantially increase embankment stability. However, creep of geosynthetics can decrease the embankment failure height. The mobilization of reinforcement during and after embankment construction can vary significantly depending on the soil and reinforcement characteristics. Care must be taken in design when a creep-susceptible reinforcement is being used and/or the foundation soil is rate sensitive. Note: This paper is a slightly modified version of the Giroud Lecture presented by R.

show abstract

“…To implement reinforced soil slope techniques, one can first assess the additional shear force needed for slope stability (indicated by the design safety factor) and then analyze the available forces provided by the reinforcement layers or anchors, followed by the selection of the type, number, location, or spacing of the reinforcement within the slope. The life cycle performance of the reinforcement materials has to be considered at the design stage, as such materials may deteriorate over time in the soil owing to exposure to environmental and mechanical loadings (Jewell and Greenwood 1988).…”

Section: Low Masonry or Concrete Walls (With Slope Planting)mentioning

confidence: 99%