Reinforced Soil Structures with Poorly Draining Backfills Part II: Case Histories and Applications

Mitchell, J K

doi:10.1680/gein.2.0011

Cited by 82 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Use of cohesive marginal soils have been of interest for at least two decades, because granular backfills are not always readily available and cohesive backfills are cost effective because they are usually easy to obtain. The experimental and field performance of the reinforced soil walls with poorly draining backfills was extensively reviewed by Zornberg and Mitchell (1994) and Mitchell and Zornberg (1995). Although the corrosion possibility of steel reinforcement, and the low shear strength and moisture instability of cohesive backfills are the main concerns that have precluded extensive usage of cohesive soils in reinforced soil structures, introduction of non corrosive reinforcement i.e., geotextiles and geogrids provided better design and construction opportunities (Zornberg and Mitchell 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, the proper design and construction can result in stable, durable, and economical reinforced soil structures (Zornberg and Mitchell 1994). However, based on the information gathered from the case studies, it was seen that prevention of excess pore water pressure is necessary for good performance (Mitchell and Zornberg 1995). Guler et al (2007) also performed numerical analyses on reinforced soil walls with cohesive backfill material.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Numerical analysis of reinforced soil walls with granular and cohesive backfills under cyclic loads

Güler

Çiçek

Demirkan

et al. 2011

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel approaches to the dynamic analysis of the reinforced soil walls have been reported in the literature. Use of marginal soils reduces the cost of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls if proper drainage measures are taken. Therefore the affect of using cohesive marginal soils as backfill in geosynthetic reinforced retaining structures were investigated in this research. The dynamic response of reinforced soil walls was investigated in a similar focus, using finite element analysis. The results obtained from walls with cohesive backfill were compared to the results obtained from walls with granular backfill. The height of the wall was chosen as 6 m in the two-dimensional plane strain finite element model and the base acceleration was chosen to be a harmonic motion. The effects of various parameters like the backfill type, facing type, reinforcement stiffness, and peak ground acceleration on the cyclic response of reinforced soil retaining walls were investigated. After analyzing the wall response for end of construction and dynamic excitation phases, it was determined that the deformations and reinforcement tensile loads increased during the cyclic load application and that the amount of additional deformation that occurred during cyclic load application was strongly related to backfill soil type, facing type, reinforcement type and peak ground acceleration. It was determined that a cohesive backfill and geotextile reinforcement was a good combination to reduce the deformations of geosynthetic reinforced walls during cyclic loading for medium height walls.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical analysis of reinforced soil walls with granular and cohesive backfills under cyclic loads

Güler

Çiçek

Demirkan

et al. 2011

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is especially the case in earth retention systems involving poorly draining backfills, because of their higher susceptibility to develop positive pore water pressures (Zornberg and Mitchell 1994;Mitchell and Zornberg 1995). Geosynthetic drains have been proposed for use within these backfill soils to reduce the drainage paths.…”

Section: Impact On Reinforced-soil Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geosynthetic capillary barriers: current state of knowledge

Zornberg

Bouazza

McCartney

2010

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides theoretical background, laboratory data and full-scale measurements useful in understanding the interaction between soils and geosynthetics under unsaturated conditions. It also includes an evaluation of the current state of knowledge regarding the hydraulic properties of porous geosynthetics under unsaturated conditions relevant for geosynthetic capillary barrier design. These properties include the water retention curve and the hydraulic conductivity function. In addition, the mechanisms involved in the development of capillary barriers are evaluated to explain the storage of water at the interface between materials with contrasting hydraulic conductivity (e.g. a fine-grained soil and a nonwoven geotextile). Finally, specific applications are presented to illustrate new opportunities and applications that may result from a better understanding of the unsaturated hydraulic properties of geosynthetics. Experimental data are provided illustrating that geosynthetic capillary barriers are superior to soil-only capillary barriers. Based on this observation, it is emphasized that no capillary barrier should be designed without consideration of the enhanced performance offered by the inclusion of nonwoven geotextiles under the fine-grained soil component of the cover.

show abstract

“…Christopher et al (1998) and O'Kelly and Naughton (2008) also suggested the use of geocomposites in reinforced earth structures as a remedial measure, to provide both reinforcement and preferential drainage channels, thereby increasing the factor of safety for the slope. This design approach may even lead to the elimination of external drainage requirements (Mitchell 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studies on the performance of geocomposite reinforced low-permeable slopes subjected to rainfall

Viswanadham

Bhattacherjee

2016

JGS Special Publication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Slope instability due to rainwater infiltration is a common problem in many parts of the world, and causes thousands of deaths and damages to infrastructures annually. The problem becomes severe if the soil within the slope has low permeability, and cannot dissipate the pore water pressure generated during the rainfall event. In recent times, the unavailability of good quality backfill material has led to the use of locally available low-permeability soil in reinforced slopes/walls construction. A viable alternative is the inclusion of geocomposites within the slope, to provide the drainage and reinforcement actions necessary to maintain slope stability against rainfall. In the present paper, the effect of rainfall on the seepage characteristics and global stability of slopes with and without geocomposites was investigated numerically using Geostudio (2012). For this purpose, a typical low-permeable slope having 2V:1H inclination and 7.2 m height was considered, and the change in matric suction in the slope with time was studied by subjecting it to a medium rainfall of intensity 22 mm/hr for a duration of 24 hours. It was observed that, the low-permeable slope exhibited high pore water pressures and low factor of safety under the applied rainfall intensity. However, the same low-permeable slope when provided with geocomposite layers, showed significant lowering of phreatic surface and reduced pore pressures, and was stable even 24 hours after completion of duration of rainfall. A parametric study was also conducted to determine the optimum position of placement of geocomposite layers within the low-permeable slope subjected to rainfall. The results indicated that the placement of gecomposite layers at bottom portion of the slope was found to be most effective, as compared to middle and top positions. The use of dual-function geocomposites within slopes subjected to rainfall thus eliminates the necessity of procuring expensive high-permeability fill materials, thereby economizing the project.

show abstract

Reinforced Soil Structures with Poorly Draining Backfills Part II: Case Histories and Applications

Cited by 82 publications

References 10 publications

Numerical analysis of reinforced soil walls with granular and cohesive backfills under cyclic loads

Numerical analysis of reinforced soil walls with granular and cohesive backfills under cyclic loads

Geosynthetic capillary barriers: current state of knowledge

Studies on the performance of geocomposite reinforced low-permeable slopes subjected to rainfall

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About