4.6 Article

Influence of toe restraint conditions on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls using centrifuge model tests

Journal

GEOTEXTILES AND GEOMEMBRANES
Volume 47, Issue 5, Pages 653-661

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103469

Keywords

Geosynthetics; Segmental retaining walls; Centrifugal modelling; Toe restraint; Facing deformations; Reinforcement loads; AASHTO simplified method; Simplified stiffness method

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41572266, 41772289]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current design regulations most often require use of limit equilibrium methods for the internal stability analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) walls. However, the limit-equilibrium based approaches generally over-predict reinforcement loads for GRS walls when comparing with measured data from full-scale instrumented walls under working stress conditions. Wall toe resistance has an important influence on the performance of GRS walls but is ignored in limit equilibrium-based methods of design. This paper reports centrifuge modelling of GRS walls which have different toe restraint conditions but are otherwise identical. The GRS wall models prepared in this study isolate the influence of wall toe resistance on the performance of walls. Based on measured data from four centrifuge wall model tests, a reduction in wall toe resistance (by reducing the interface shear resistance at the base of the wall facing or removing the soil passive resistance in front of the wall toe or both) induces larger maximum facing deformation and reinforcement strain and load. The results also demonstrate that the wall models with typical toe restraint conditions are most likely operated under working stress conditions while those with poor toe restraint conditions may experience (or be close to reach) a state of limit equilibrium.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available