Journal
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Volume 140, Issue 2, Pages -Publisher
ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001013
Keywords
Retaining structures; Highways and roads; Washington; Soil stabilization; Stiffness; Geogrids; Retaining walls; Stresses; Strains; Design; Soil reinforcement; Simplified method; K-stiffness method
Funding
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
- Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
- Department of National Defence (Canada)
- state department of transportation in the United States: Alaska
- state department of transportation in the United States: Arizona
- state department of transportation in the United States: California
- state department of transportation in the United States: Colorado
- state department of transportation in the United States: Idaho
- state department of transportation in the United States: Minnesota
- state department of transportation in the United States: New York
- state department of transportation in the United States: North Dakota
- state department of transportation in the United States: Oregon
- state department of transportation in the United States: Utah
- state department of transportation in the United States: Washington
- state department of transportation in the United States: Wyoming
Ask authors/readers for more resources
A high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid soil-reinforced dry-cast concrete block retaining wall 6.3-m high was designed using the K-stiffness method as part of a highway-widening project southeast of Seattle, Washington. The amount of reinforcement needed for the original wall design using the K-stiffness method was approximately 50% of that required using the AASHTO simplified method. This paper describes the construction, instrumentation program, and interpretation of the measurements. Geogrid strains were measured using strain gauges and extensometers attached to reinforcement layers. An extensive materials testing program was conducted to characterize the backfill soil properties and geogrid stiffness properties and to calibrate strain gauge readings. The reinforcement loads deduced from the measured strains are compared with Class A, B, and C1 predictions using the AASHTO simplified and K-stiffness methods. These comparisons demonstrate that the simplified method significantly overestimated reinforcement loads, whereas the K-stiffness method provided estimates that were consistent with the measured results. This paper describes lessons learned, the influence of construction activities on wall performance, and the limitations of both methods in estimating connections loads.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available