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.)

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]

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.)

The paper investigates the accuracy of the AASHTO simplified method by using load measurements reported in a large database of full-scale instrumented walls for bar mat, welded wire, and steel strip soil reinforced walls. The accuracy of the AASHTO simplified method is quantified by computing the mean and coefficient of variation of the ratio (bias) of measured loads under operational conditions to predicted loads. The paper shows that for steel strip walls, the AASHTO simplified method is reasonably accurate for granular backfill soils with friction angles less than 45°. For bar mat walls, the method is demonstrated to be slightly conservative. The simplified method underpredicts reinforcement loads at shallow overburden depths for steel strip walls with backfill friction angles greater than 45° due to compaction-related effects. It is concluded that these compaction-induced loads near the wall top do not contribute to internal instability due to pullout. [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.

The paper reports the details of numerical models used to predict the performance of two 3.6 m-high well-instrumented wrapped-face walls. The walls were nominally identical except that the reinforcement material in one wall was a steel welded wire mesh and in the other a biaxial polypropylene geogrid. The backfill soil was modelled using both linear and nonlinear elastic-plastic constitutive models. A general hyperbolic (nonlinear) axial load-strain-time model was used for the reinforcement. The numerical results show good agreement with measured performance features for the welded wire mesh wrapped-face wall. Agreement between numerical predictions of facing displacements and maximum reinforcement loads was less accurate for the very flexible geogrid wrapped-face wall. The discrepancies are believed to be related to the unusually flexible wrapped face used in the geogrid wall construction. Numerically predicted and measured maximum reinforcement loads are compared to loads using the AASHTO reinforcement strength-based design approach (Simplified Method) and the Simplified Stiffness Method which is an empirical reinforcement stiffness-based method. The paper provides physical test data that can be used to benchmark other numerical models, highlights lessons learned during the development of the models, and identifies reasonable expectations for numerical model accuracy for models of similar complexity used to simulate the performance of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall structures under operational conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]