Search

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid soil-reinforced dry-cast concrete block retaining wall 6.3-m high was designed using the K-stiffness method as part of a highway-widening project southeast of Seattle, Washington. The amount of reinforcement needed for the original wall design using the K-stiffness method was approximately 50% of that required using the AASHTO simplified method. This paper describes the construction, instrumentation program, and interpretation of the measurements. Geogrid strains were measured using strain gauges and extensometers attached to reinforcement layers. An extensive materials testing program was conducted to characterize the backfill soil properties and geogrid stiffness properties and to calibrate strain gauge readings. The reinforcement loads deduced from the measured strains are compared with Class A, B, and C1 predictions using the AASHTO simplified and K-stiffness methods. These comparisons demonstrate that the simplified method significantly overestimated reinforcement loads, whereas the K-stiffness method provided estimates that were consistent with the measured results. This paper describes lessons learned, the influence of construction activities on wall performance, and the limitations of both methods in estimating connections loads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper reports the results of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) calibration for pullout and yield limit states for steel strip reinforced soil walls under self-weight loading. An important feature of the calibration method is the use of bias statistics to account for prediction accuracy of the underlying deterministic models for reinforcement load, pullout capacity and yield strength of the steel strips, and random variability in input parameters. To improve the accuracy of reinforcement load predictions, small adjustments to current semiempirical American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) load design charts are proposed. Similarly, current empirical-based design charts found in AASHTO and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance documents for the estimation of the pullout resistance factor for smooth and ribbed steel strips are adjusted to improve the accuracy of pullout capacity predictions. The results of calibration lead to a load factor of 1.35 that is consistent with current practice and resistance factors that together give a consistent probability of failure of 1% for all three limit states considered. Furthermore, comparison with allowable stress design (ASD) past practice (AASHTO simplified method) shows that the operational factors of safety using a rigorous LRFD approach give the same or higher factors of safety and lower probabilities of failure. In this study, data for steel strip reinforced soil walls are used as an example to illustrate rigorous reliability theory-based LRFD calibration concepts. However, the general approach is applicable to other reinforced soil wall technologies and calibration outcomes can be updated as more data become available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The grade raising associated with the Third Runway Project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport included construction of tall mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, including the near-vertical, two-tier, 26-m North MSE wall and the near-vertical, four-tier, 46-m tall west MSE wall. Twenty reinforcement strips at critical wall cross sections were instrumented with over 500 strain gauges to monitor strains during and following construction. The reinforcement loads inferred from observed strains are of interest because of their great height and global reinforcement stiffness, which place these walls outside the range in height and stiffness used to calibrate commonly used design methods. This paper presents the development and distribution of reinforcement strains measured during and following the construction of these walls. The reinforcement stresses calculated using the original reinforcement load design methods and design friction angle agreed with those inferred from the measured strains. The accuracy of two standard-of-practice and two alternate design methods is evaluated by comparing the reinforcement loads inferred from measured strains to those calculated using the actual friction angle of the reinforced fill material. Advantages and limitations in these design methods are identified, and recommendations for the improvement of some of these methods are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a response to the discussions made by Robert K. Barrett and Dov Leshchinsky on the authors' paper "The influence of facing stiffness on the performance of two geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls." They appreciate the comments raised by Barrett and Leshchinsky. In doing so, they clarify and elucidate a number of points related to the details and contingents of the test program described in the referring paper. Moreover, they provide various implications to current practice.

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)