Performance of Retaining Walls Backfilled with Blend of Sand and Building Derived Materials: A Laboratory Scale Study

Author(s):  
Anasua GuhaRay ◽  
M. Jayatheja
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Je Kim ◽  
Hyuk Sang Jung ◽  
Yong Joo Lee ◽  
Dong Wook Oh ◽  
Min Son ◽  
...  

Reinforced soil retaining wall are ground structures that can be readily seen all around us. The development of reinforcements to these walls and their demand have increased rapidly. These walls are advantageous because they can be used not only in simple construction compared with reinforced concrete retaining walls but also when the height of the wall needs to be higher. However, unlike reinforced concrete retaining walls, in which the walls are integrated and resist the earth pressure on the back, the block-type reinforced earth retaining wall method secures its structural stability by frictional force between the buried land and reinforcements. A phenomenon in which a block is cracked or dropped owing to deformation has been frequently reported. In particular, this phenomenon is concentrated at the curved parts of a reinforced soil retaining wall and is mainly known as a stress concentration. However, to date, the design of reinforced soil retaining walls has been limited by the two-dimensional plane strain condition and has not considered the characteristics of the curved part. There is a lack of research on curved part. Therefore, this research determines the behavioural characteristics of curved-part reinforced soil retaining walls with regard to the shape (convex or concave) and angle (60°, 90°, 120°, and 150°). The displacement generated in the straight part and the curved part was analysed through an Laboratory Scale Test. The results showed that the horizontal displacement of the curved part increases as a convex angle becomes smaller, and the horizontal displacement of the curved part decreases as a concave angle becomes smaller. At the center (D and H have the same length, but H represents the height and D represents the separation distance from the center of the curved part) of the convex curve, the horizontal displacement of the 0.5 D section decreased to 13.8%; it decreased to 41.0% in the 1.0 D section. For concave angles, it was revealed that the horizontal displacement from the center 0.0 D to the 0.5 D section of the curved part increased by 25%, and from the 1.0 D section, by 75%. It was confirmed that the displacement difference was largely based on the value of 0.5 D. It was judged that this can be used as basic data for the design and construction guidelines for reinforced soil retaining wall of reinforced soil retaining walls.


1977 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. F. Anderson ◽  
T. H. Hanna ◽  
S.A. Shah

This paper reports the findings of two series of tests which are part of a continuing study into the behaviour of laboratory scale anchored retaining walls supporting cohesionless soil. In each test field construction was simulated and the behaviour of the wall, anchors, and soil was monitored. The behaviour of a wall supported by horizontal anchors has been examined as the overconsolidation ratio of the retained sand increases. The effect of anchor inclination has also been examined when the wall supports overconsolidated sand. The tests showed that the soil stress history had a very significant effect on the wall and retained sand behaviour.


1982 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. F. Anderson ◽  
T. H. Hanna ◽  
D. A. Ponniah ◽  
S. A. Shah

Laboratory-scale tests simulating field construction procedures have been carried out to examine the behaviour of the soil–wall–anchor system when a rigid retaining wall, restrained by anchors, supports a sand backfill on which there is surface loading. Two main series of tests have been carried out, one with a uniform load applied over the whole backfill surface, and the other with a strip load applied parallel to the wall and at a varying distance from it. In both series of tests the intensity of loading was varied, and in the series with uniform loading on the backfill the effects of varying anchor inclination were studied. During all stages of construction wall movements, earth pressures, anchor loads, wall base reaction, and backfill surface subsidence were monitored. Although a conservative approach was used in the determination of the anchor loads, wall movements, and consequently backfill subsidence, were considerable. Similar movements at full scale could lead to settlement damage in a structure founded on a shallow mat or strip footings on a backfill, so tentative suggestions are made for more conservative earth pressure distribution assumptions for design purposes for the two cases studied.


1970 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. H. Hanna ◽  
G. A. Matallana

Rational design of an excavation support system that incorporates the retaining of the soil mass by a wall which is held by prestressed anchors (tie-backs) located in the retained soil necessitates an appreciation of the influence of construction techniques on performance, an estimation of the magnitude of the ground movements that will take place, and the provision of adequate strength to the structural components of the wall. In this paper, the general subject of tied-back retaining walls is considered and the results of a series of laboratory scale experiments are presented. These data provide the first comprehensive information on the subject and have enabled the basic mechanics of wall behavior to be worked out. In particular it has been shown that the performance of a tied-back retaining wall is conditioned by (1) the depth of the excavation in relation to the ground geometry, (2) the bearing capacity of the base of the wall and, (3) the interaction between the flexible support anchors (their inclination in particular), the retained ground, and the wall.The paper is divided into three parts: the first contains a brief discussion on the tied-back retaining wall with particular reference to the interaction between the anchors, the wall, and the ground; the second part is concerned with a laboratory scale test program; the third part provides a tentative interpretation of the experimental findings and draws attention to the limitation in the present understanding of the subject.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document