3.9 Article

Case Study of Using Geotextile Mattresses for Temporary Road Construction on Very Soft Soil

Publisher

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40891-022-00365-3

Keywords

Geosynthetic; Geotextile mattress; Land reclamation; Road construction

Funding

  1. Tianjin Science and Technology Committee [20JCJQJC00220]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878446, 52171273, 52108335]
  3. Technology Development Program of Tianjin Municipal Transportation Commission [2021-15]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a case study of using geotextile mattresses (GMs) to construct a temporary road on very soft soil in a land reclamation project in Tianjin, China. The design and construction process of the project are described, highlighting the advantages and considerations of using GMs.
The embankment construction on very soft deposits may face the problems such as excessive lateral movement, the formation of mud waves, and consequential significant differential settlement. A case study of using geotextile mattresses (GMs) to construct a temporary road on very soft soil at a land reclamation project in Tianjin, China, is presented in this paper. The design and construction process of the project are presented. Fourteen layers of GMs filled with sand were piled up to replace the soft soil. The GMs replaced the mud by sinking into the soft soils and stopped until the 12th layer. The bamboo mattresses combined with a geotextile layer are very useful to increase the stiffness of the ground surface especially for the filling of the first few layers of GMs. Care should be exercised to ensure a uniform filling of the GM to avoid significant differential settlement. The prefabricated vertical drains were installed through the GMs to accelerate the dissipation of excess pore water pressures in soils. The average degree of consolidation of soil after 5 months of consolidation can reach 93%.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available