4.5 Article

Numerical Evaluation of the Behavior of GRS Walls with Segmental Block Facing under Working Stress Conditions

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001235

Keywords

Numerical modeling; Geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) walls; Block facing; Working stress conditions; Compaction efforts; Toe resistance; Facing stiffness; Wall height

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study numerically evaluated the combined effects of different controlling factors (i.e., wall height, stresses induced during backfill compaction, reinforcement stiffness, toe conditions, and facing stiffness) on the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) walls under working stress conditions. The results were compared with values predicted by different currently used methods. It was shown that toe resistance has a major effect on the prediction capability of those design methods. Parametric analyses have shown that the amount of tension in the reinforcement varies with restraint at the base of the block facing. For free-base conditions with a constant value for reinforcement stiffness, the tension in the reinforcements was the same irrespective of the facing stiffness and the wall height. For the fixed-base conditions, the amount of tension in the reinforcements and horizontal toe load varied as a function of the facing stiffness. Comparing individual measurements of reinforcement tension verified the significant effect that the toe restraint has on the amount of tension mobilized in the reinforcements at the bottom of the wall. The results showed that the amount of tension in the reinforcement is a function of the magnitude of the compaction-induced stress and the reinforcement stiffness. These results indicate that the compaction-induced stress does not significantly affect the magnitude of the horizontal toe load. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available