4.7 Article

Mesoscopic pullout behavior of geosynthetics-sand-clay layered reinforced structures using discrete element method

期刊

ACTA GEOTECHNICA
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 2533-2552

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11440-021-01422-3

关键词

Clay; Discrete element method; Geosynthetics; Pullout behavior; Resistance

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [52008285, 52178341, 51809191]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [2021A1515011682]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pullout behavior of a GSCLR structure was studied through discrete element method models, revealing that the ultimate pullout resistance does not continuously increase with the thickness of the sand layer, with an optimal thickness existing.
The geosynthetics-sand-clay layered reinforced (GSCLR) structure has wide application prospects due to its massive adoption of the clay. To date, the coordination between the geosynthetics, sand, and clay is not thorough enough. In light of this, a series of discrete element method models were established for the pullout behavior of a GSCLR structure. The mesoscopic parameters such as the displacement vector, the contact force chain, and the local porosity were analyzed, and the mechanism for the load transfer between the geogrid, sand layer, and clay layer was examined. The thickness and porosity of the sand layer were also considered as the variables. The effects of the various factors on the strength index of the geogrid-sand interface were analyzed. The results showed obvious differences in the movement trend and mesoscopic parameters changes of the sand and clay layer in different regions. The thickness of the shear bands generated in the sand layer was affected by the upper and lower clay layers. At the same pullout displacement, the ultimate pullout resistance of the GSCLR structure did not enlarge continuously with an increase in the thickness of the sand layer, and there was an optimal thickness of the sand layer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据