DOCSLIB.ORG

GEC 11 Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GEC 11 Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes U. S. Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-024 Federal Highway Administration FHWA GEC 011 – Volume I November 2009 NHI Courses No. 132042 and 132043 Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume I Developed following: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 4th Edition, 2007, Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with with 2008 and 2009 Interims. 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Interims. NOTICE The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. ACCESSION NO. FHWA-NHI-10-024 FHWA GEC 011-Vol I 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE November 2009 Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume I 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Ryan R. Berg, P.E.; Barry R. Christopher, Ph.D., P.E. and Naresh C. Samtani, Ph.D., P.E. 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Ryan R. Berg & Associates, Inc. 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 2190 Leyland Alcove DTFH61-06-D-00019/T-06-001 Woodbury, MN 55125 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED National Highway Institute Federal Highway Administration 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES FHWA Technical Consultants: Rich Barrows, P.E., Silas Nichols, P.E., and Daniel Alzamora, P.E. Technical Consultant: James G. Collin, Ph.D., P.E. 16. ABSTRACT This manual is the reference text used for the FHWA NHI courses No. 132042 and 132043 on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes and reflects current practice for the design, construction and monitoring of these structures. This manual was prepared to enable the engineer to identify and evaluate potential applications of MSE walls and RSS as an alternative to other construction methods and as a means to solve construction problems. The scope is sufficiently broad to be of value for specifications specialists, construction and contracting personnel responsible for construction inspection, development of material specifications and contracting methods. With the aid of this text, the engineer should be able to properly select, design, specify, monitor and contract for the construction of MSE walls and RSS embankments. The MSE wall design within this manual is based upon Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) procedures. This manual is a revision (to LRFD) and an update to the FHWA NHI- 00-043 manual (which was based upon allowable stress design (ASD) procedures). 17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Design, Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), analysis, performance criteria, No restrictions. Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls, Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS), soil reinforcement, geosynthetics, specifications, contracting methods 19. SECURITY CLASSIF. 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. 21. NO. OF PAGES 22 Unclassified Unclassified 306 SI CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME ml millimeters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz l liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.71 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb TEMPERATURE °C Celsius 1.8 C + 32 Fahrenheit °F WEIGHT DENSITY kN/m3 kilonewton / cubic m 6.36 poundforce / cubic foot pcf FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kN kilonewtons 225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce / sq in. psi kPa kilopascals 20.9 poundforce / sq ft psf PREFACE Engineers and specialty material suppliers have been designing reinforced soil structures for the past 35 years. Currently, many state DOTs are transitioning their design of substructures from Allowable Stress Design (ASD) to Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) procedures. This manual is based upon LRFD for MSE wall structures. It has been updated from the 2001 FHWA NHI-00-043 manual. In addition to revision of the wall design to LRFD procedures, expanded discussion on wall detailing and general updates throughout the manual are provided. The primary purpose of this manual is to support educational programs conducted by FHWA for transportation agencies. A second purpose of equal importance is to serve as the FHWA standard reference for highway projects involving MSE wall and reinforced soil structures. This Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE) and Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS), Design and Construction Guidelines Manual which is an update of the current FHWA NHI-00-043, has evolved from the following AASHTO and FHWA references: C AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, 2007, with 2008 and 2009 Interim Revisions. C Earth Retaining Structures, by B.F. Tanyu, P.J. Sabatini, and R.R. Berg, FHWA-NHI-07- 071 (2008). C AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with 2006 Interim Revisions. C Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines, by R.D. Holtz, B.R. Christopher, and R.R. Berg, FHWA HI-07-092 (2008). C Guidelines for Design, Specification, and Contracting of Geosynthetic Mechanically Stabilized Earth Slopes on Firm Foundations, by R.R. Berg, FHWA-SA-93-025, January 1993. C Reinforced Soil Structures - Volume I, Design and Construction Guidelines - Volume II, Summary of Research and Systems Information, by B.R. Christopher, S.A. Gill, J.P. Giroud, J.K. Mitchell, F. Schlosser, and J. Dunnicliff, FHWA RD 89-043 (1990). C Design and Construction Monitoring of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Structures, by J.A. DiMaggio, FHWA, (1994). C AASHTO Bridge T-15 Technical Committee unpublished working drafts for the update of Section 11.0 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. FHWA NHI-10-024 MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I iii November 2009 The authors recognize the efforts and contributions of Messrs. Richard Barrows, P.E., Silas Nichols, P.E., and Daniel Alzamora P.E. who were the FHWA Technical Consultants for this work. The authors also recognize the contributions of the other Technical Consultants on this project. They are: C Tony Allen, P.E. of Washington DOT C Christopher Benda, P.E. of Vermont DOT C James Brennan, P.E. of Kansas DOT C James Collin, Ph.D., P.E. of The Collin Group C Jerry DiMaggio, P.E. of the National Academy of Sciences C Kenneth L. Fishman, Ph.D., P.E. of Earth Reinforcement Testing, Inc. C Kathryn Griswell, P.E. of CALTRANS C John Guido, P.E. of Ohio DOT C Dan Johnston, P.E. of South Dakota DOT C Dov Leshchinsky, Ph.D. of the University of Delaware C Michael Simac, P.E. of Earth Improvement Technologies, Inc. C James L. Withiam, Ph.D., P.E. of D’Appolonia Engineers And the authors acknowledge the contributions of the following industry associations: C Association of Metallically Stabilized Earth (AMSE) C Geosynthetic Materials Association (GMA) C National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) A special acknowledgement of Mr. Jerry A. DiMaggio, P.E. who was the FHWA Technical Consultant for most of the above referenced publications. Mr. DiMaggio's guidance and input to this and the previous works has been invaluable. Lastly, the authors wish to acknowledge the extensive work of the late Victor Elias, P.E. for his vital contributions and significant effort as Lead Author in preparing the earlier two (1997, 2001) versions of this manual, and as the author of the earlier companion manuals on corrosion/degradation of soil reinforcements. Mr. Elias was instrumental in the introduction and implementation of reinforced soil technology in the U.S., as a Vice President for The Reinforced Earth Company from 1974 to 1985. He was instrumental in research, refinement of design methods, and standards of practice and codes for MSE walls, as a Consultant from 1985 until 2006. FHWA NHI-10-024 MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I iv November 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume I CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Scope ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Source Documents ................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.3 Terminology............................................................................................. 1-3 1.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 1-4 1.3 LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) ............................... 1-12 CHAPTER 2 SYSTEMS AND PROJECT EVALUATION ......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GEOSYNTHETICS Our Solutions for the Infrastructure in Mining
    GEOSYNTHETICS Our solutions for the infrastructure in mining Protective Fabrics Geosynthetics Outdoor Fabrics Grass Advanced Composites Advanced Armour OUR ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY TenCate Bidim® S TenCate Polyfelt® TS TenCate Rock® PEC TenCate Miragrid GX TenCate Geosynthetics offers efficient and economical solutions which cover different applications: PORT EXPANSION ROADS & RAILROAD TRACKS DUMPWALL 2 OUR ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY TenCate Geolon® PET TenCate Geolon® PP TenCate Bidim® AR TenCate GeoDetect® S-BR WORKING PLATFORMS TAILING PONDS 3 HAUL ROADS AND WORKING PLATFORMS Your quick and safe access to the mine Access roads, railway tracks and platforms are crucial for the Separation mining activities as all heavy plant and machinery are required Geosynthetics prevent upper granular layers to access the mine. penetrating soft subgrades beneath, so Geosynthetics from TenCate have been used over 40 years to reducing the amount of granular material stabilise temporary and permanent road constructions, required to stabilize a structure. showing significant benefits: • Cost saving and lower environmental impact by the Our solutions: reduction of granular layer thickness to stabilize the TenCate Bidim® S and TenCate Polyfelt® TS platform • No mixing between the granular materials of the road Filtration construction and the subgrade leading to an improved When used as filters, geotextiles permit the bearing capacity and performance free flow of water from a soil mass, while • Stronger platforms over time due to the reinforcement. inhibiting fine particle movement from the soil, thus stabilising the overall structure. TenCate Geosynthetics offer a complete range of products and solutions to fulfil the different functions involved in the Our solutions: construction of trafficked areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Rip-Rap
    RAPPIN’ ABOUT DOT CDGRS MPAA RR 17 WARNING The following material may not be suitable for all Districts. Some of the photos used herein have come from people sitting in this room. Our intent here is NOT to offend anyone, but to promote thought and discussion. Names and locations have been withheld to protect the innocent (and the guilty). DEFINING RIP-RAP RIP-RAP: Graded distribution of large size aggregate Rip-rapped ditch DEFINING RIP-RAP The Engineer’s weapon of choice DEFINING RIP-RAP Highway maintenance manager’s idea of roadside beautification DEFINING RIP-RAP Sending interstellar communications DEFINING RIP-RAP Really Inappropriate Placement of Rock Armoring Practices DEFINING RIP-RAP GABIONS – Wire baskets filled with rip-rap RIP RAP • PROPER PLACEMENT • OVER USE • MISUSE • ALTERNATIVES DEFINING RIP-RAP RIP-RAP : A permanent erosion resistant layer made of stones intended to protect soil from erosion in areas of concentrated runoff -EPA GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES •Stone must be hard, durable and angular •Stone must be resistant to weathering and to water action •Stone must be free from overburden, spoil and organic material GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES • Must be well graded from the smallest to the largest size specified instead of one uniform size • The minimum weight of the stone should be 155 lbs/cu-ft RIPRAP SIZE CHART NSA No. MAX D50 MIN V Max R-2 3 in. 1.5 in. 1 in. 4.5 ft/sec R-3 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 6.5 ft/sec R-4 12 in. 6 in. 3 in. 9.0 ft/sec R-5 18 in.
    [Show full text]
  • REDUCED DIG' INSTALLATION GUIDANCE Gravel & Grassed Surfaces
    ® BODPAVE 85 PAVING GRIDS Data Sheet No : SDI / B85PRD09 Issue 2 'REDUCED DIG' INSTALLATION GUIDANCE Gravel & Grassed Surfaces The ‘Reduced Dig’ method of installation for BodPave ®85 is suitable for pedestrian and light vehicle applications where firm ground conditions already exist. It is particularly advantageous where there are budgetary limitations, restrictions on excavation due to SSSI conservation and archeological issues or Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). BENEFITS OF REDUCED DIG APPLICATIONS Minimal site preparation or variation to existing levels Light vehicle parking and access routes Reduced installation time and costs Pedestrian access & Cycle routes Reduced import of materials and disposal of debris Tree root protection Rapid establishment and usage of site after installation Golf buggy paths and Tow paths Compliant with current guidance for Sustainable Caravan and Leisure site access routes Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Wheelchair and disabled access (DDA compliant) Suitable for grass or gravel surfaces Light aircraft parking and taxiways SITE SUITABILITY BodPave ®85 Where existing ground with Grass or Gravel conditions are firm Sand : Soil (ie: CBR > 7%) Rootzone or BGT100 Gravel Bedding and free draining upper Geotextile filter or where a suitable fabric option hardcore/stone base already exists. DoT (GSB) ‘Type 1’ or reduced fines Where trafficking is ‘Type 3’ Sub-base irregular or occasional Where loads will not Tensar TriAx ™ exceed that of cars TX160 geogrid BGT100 and light vans option Lower Geotextile layer option
    [Show full text]
  • GEOTEXTILE TUBE and GABION ARMOURED SEAWALL for COASTAL PROTECTION an ALTERNATIVE by S Sherlin Prem Nishold1, Ranganathan Sundaravadivelu 2*, Nilanjan Saha3
    PIANC-World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018 GEOTEXTILE TUBE AND GABION ARMOURED SEAWALL FOR COASTAL PROTECTION AN ALTERNATIVE by S Sherlin Prem Nishold1, Ranganathan Sundaravadivelu 2*, Nilanjan Saha3 ABSTRACT The present study deals with a site-specific innovative solution executed in the northeast coastline of Odisha in India. The retarded embankment which had been maintained yearly by traditional means of ‘bullah piling’ and sandbags, proved ineffective and got washed away for a stretch of 350 meters in 2011. About the site condition, it is required to design an efficient coastal protection system prevailing to a low soil bearing capacity and continuously exposed to tides and waves. The erosion of existing embankment at Pentha ( Odisha ) has necessitated the construction of a retarded embankment. Conventional hard engineered materials for coastal protection are more expensive since they are not readily available near to the site. Moreover, they have not been found suitable for prevailing in in-situ marine environment and soil condition. Geosynthetics are innovative solutions for coastal erosion and protection are cheap, quickly installable when compared to other materials and methods. Therefore, a geotextile tube seawall was designed and built for a length of 505 m as soft coastal protection structure. A scaled model (1:10) study of geotextile tube configurations with and without gabion box structure is examined for the better understanding of hydrodynamic characteristics for such configurations. The scaled model in the mentioned configuration was constructed using woven geotextile fabric as geo tubes. The gabion box was made up of eco-friendly polypropylene tar-coated rope and consists of small rubble stones which increase the porosity when compared to the conventional monolithic rubble mound.
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanically Stabilized Embankments
    Part 8 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EMBANKMENTS First Reinforced Earth wall in USA -1969 Mechanically Stabilized Embankments (MSEs) utilize tensile reinforcement in many different forms: from galvanized metal strips or ribbons, to HDPE geotextile mats, like that shown above. This reinforcement increases the shear strength and bearing capacity of the backfill. Reinforced Earth wall on US 50 Geotextiles can be layered in compacted fill embankments to engender additional shear strength. Face wrapping allows slopes steeper than 1:1 to be constructed with relative ease A variety of facing elements may be used with MSEs. The above photo illustrates the use of hay bales while that at left uses galvanized welded wire mesh HDPE geotextiles can be used as wrapping elements, as shown at left above, or attached to conventional gravity retention elements, such as rock-filled gabion baskets, sketched at right. Welded wire mesh walls are constructed using the same design methodology for MSE structures, but use galvanized wire mesh as the geotextile 45 degree embankment slope along San Pedro Boulevard in San Rafael, CA Geotextile soil reinforcement allows almost unlimited latitude in designing earth support systems with minimal corridor disturbance and right-of-way impact MSEs also allow roads to be constructed in steep terrain with a minimal corridor of disturbance as compared to using conventional 2:1 cut and fill slopes • Geotextile grids can be combined with low strength soils to engender additional shear strength; greatly enhancing repair options when space is tight Geotextile tensile soil reinforcement can also be applied to landslide repairs, allowing selective reinforcement of limited zones, as sketch below left • Short strips, or “false layers” of geotextiles can be incorporated between reinforcement layers of mechanically stabilized embankments (MSE) to restrict slope raveling and erosion • Section through a MSE embankment with a 1:1 (45 degree) finish face inclination.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Analysis of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive
    Thesis Analysis Of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive Equations For Maximum And Average Velocities At The Tips Of Transverse In-Stream Structures Submitted by Thomas Richard Parker Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Spring 2014 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher Thornton Steven Abt John Williams Abstract Analysis Of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive Equations For Maximum And Average Velocities At The Tips Of Transverse In-Stream Structures Transverse in-stream structures are used to enhance navigation, improve flood control, and reduce stream bank erosion. These structures are defined as elongated obstructions having one end along the bank of a channel and the other projecting into the channel center and o↵er protection of erodible banks by deflecting flow from the bank to the channel center. Redirection of the flow moves erosive forces away from the bank, which enhances bank stability. The design, e↵ectiveness, and performance of transverse in-stream structures have not been well documented, but recent e↵orts have begun to study the flow fields and profiles around and over transverse in-stream structures. It is essential for channel flow characteristics to be quantified and correlated to geometric structure parameters in order for proposed in-stream structure designs to perform e↵ectively. Areas adjacent to the tips of in-stream transverse structures are particularly susceptible to strong approach flows, and an increase in shear stress can cause instability in the in-stream structure. As a result, the tips of the structures are a major focus in design and must be protected.
    [Show full text]
  • I/ General Description and Characterization of the NBS Entity
    Objects/shapes/ physical projects > On the ground > system for erosion control “vegetation engineering systems for slope erosion control” STRONG SLOPE REVEGETATION (Steeper than 2:1) I/ General description and characterization of the NBS entity I.1 Definition and different variants existing Definition • Stabilizing soils structure on steepened slopes through revegetation in order to minimize or prevent the erosion of soil by wind or rain and landslides, avoiding sedimentation problems Smart slope-vegetated-retaining-wall, Dakota. Furbish 2013. © United Themes. When the slope is really steeped, the most common slope stabilization and erosion prevention method is some kind of retaining slopes method joined with revegetation. The origin of unstable slopes can be natural because of the soil geotechnical properties, or as consequence of human activities that create new cutting slopes or embankments during construction works. When soil is disturbed at a construction site, or the natural vegetation cover is retired, the erosion rate may increase significantly. Proper planning and use of erosion control prevention and mitigation measures can reduce the impact of human-caused erosion. In order to stabilize steepened slopes, some kind of soil retention method is nevertheless needed; joining it with a well-established vegetative cover is one of the most effective methods of reducing erosion in unstable slopes steeper than 2H:1V. The retention method keeps the soil meanwhile vegetation protects soil surfaces from rain generated splash erosion and can help to slow runoff flows across a disturbed ground. 1 / 11 In addition, plant roots hold their soil in place, keeping it from washing away during rainstorms. Lastly, trees help to prevent high winds from blowing away top soil because the trees provide windbreaks, which can prevent high winds.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Three Lateral Earth Pressure
    Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering CHAPTER THREE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE Table of Contents 3 Introduction ........................................................................................... 36 3.1 Definitions of Key Terms ....................................................................... 36 3.2 Lateral Earth Pressure at Rest ............................................................... 36 3.3 Active and Passive Lateral Earth Pressures .............................................. 38 3.4 Rankine Active and Passive Earth Pressures ............................................ 38 3.5 Lateral Earth Pressure due to Surcharge ................................................. 42 3.6 Lateral Earth Pressure When Groundwater is Present ................................ 43 3.7 Summary of Rankine Lateral Earth Pressure Theory ................................. 44 3.8 Rankine Active & Passive Earth Pressure for Inclined Granular Backfill ........ 45 3.9 Coulomb’s Earth Pressure Theory ........................................................... 46 Soil Mechanics II: Lecture Notes Instructor: Dr. Hadush Seged 35 Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering 3 Introduction A retaining wall is a structure that is used to support a vertical or near vertical slopes of soil. The resulting horizontal stress from the soil on the wall is called lateral earth pressure . To determine the magnitude of the lateral earth pressure, a geotechnical engineer must know the basic soil
    [Show full text]
  • AAHS New Objective Grading System to Provide Prognostic Value To
    New Objective Grading System to Provide Prognostic Value to Cubital Tunnel Surgery Cory Lebowitz, DO; Lauryn Bianco, MS; Manuel Pontes, PhD; Mitchel K. Freedman, DO; Michael Rivlin, MD INTRODUCTION TABLE 1: ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC GRADING SYSTEM RESULTS CONCLUSION • The use of electrodiagnostic (EDX) • • 101 patients; 60 male & 41 Electrodiagnostic studies is well documented on its female studies not only aid a value as diagnostic tool, however, little clinical diagnosis of is known about its prognostic value for • Overall quickDASH went from 38 to 41 CuTS but can cubital tunnel surgery (CuTS) provide a framework • We report which EDX results yield • Discovered a cut off of a for the outcome of prognostic value for the surgical Sensory Amplitude of 38 treatment for CuTS based on patients surgery • We form an EDX based grading quickDASH improvement • system for CuTS that is predictive of • Patients with a sensory Specifically when outcome amplitude that was looking at the considered normal MCV across the METHODS based off the literature elbow with the but abnormal (i.e <38) sensory • Patients with CuTS were treated based off our data amplitude surgically with an ulnar nerve failed to improve in decompression +/- transposition their quickDASH • The grading system • Pre & Postoperative quickDASH scores is reproducible and scores and demographics reviewed • 97 patients (96%) fit in to can aid in following • Preoperative EDX reviewed: similar patient for • EMG the grading system • 93.8% inter-observer outcome evaluation • Motor Amplitudes and clinical studies • Motor Conduction Velocities reliability to use the • Sensory Amplitude grading system • Conduction Block • Those with a grade 3 had • Grading system constructed solely on the largest quickDASH EDX: nerve conduction studies and improvement electromyography variable.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Bottom Liner System
    Engineering Report: Appendix C Volume 2 Alternative Bottom Liner System COWLITZ COUNTY HEADQUARTERS LANDFILL PROJECT COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON Alternative Bottom Liner System COWLITZ COUNTY HEADQUARTERS LANDFILL PROJECT COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared for COWLITZ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 2012 Prepared by Thiel Engineering P.O. Box 1010 Oregon House, CA 95962 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Description of GCLs ...................................................................................................................... 3 2 TECHNICAL EQUIVALENCY AND PERFORMANCE ................................................. 5 2.1 The Theory of Composite Liners with Reference to GCLs ....................................................... 5 2.2 Technical Equivalency Issues ....................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Hydraulic Issues ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Linktm Gabions and Mattresses Design Booklet
    LinkTM Gabions and Mattresses Design Booklet www.globalsynthetics.com.au Australian Company - Global Expertise Contents 1. Introduction to Link Gabions and Mattresses ................................................... 1 1.1 Brief history ...............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Applications ..............................................................................................................................1 1.3 Features of woven mesh Link Gabion and Mattress structures ...............................................2 1.4 Product characteristics of Link Gabions and Mattresses .........................................................2 2. Link Gabions and Mattresses .............................................................................. 4 2.1 Types of Link Gabions and Mattresses .....................................................................................4 2.2 General specification for Link Gabions, Link Mattresses and Link netting...............................4 2.3 Standard sizes of Link Gabions, Mattresses and Netting ........................................................6 2.4 Durability of Link Gabions, Link Mattresses and Link Netting ..................................................7 2.5 Geotextile filter specification ....................................................................................................7 2.6 Rock infill specification .............................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Earth Pressure Distributions for Large-Scale Retention Structures
    DETERMINATION OF EARTH PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR LARGE-SCALE RETENTION STRUCTURES J. David Rogers, Ph.D., P.E., R.G. Geological Engineering University of Missouri-Rolla DETERMINATION OF EARTH PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR LARGE-SCALE RETENTION STRUCTURES 1.0 Introduction Various earth pressure theories assume that soils are homogeneous, isotropic and horizontally inclined. These assumptions lead to hydrostatic or triangular pressure distributions when calculating the lateral earth pressures being exerted against a vertical plane. Field measurements on deep retained excavations have shown that the average earth pressure load is approximately uniform with depth with small reductions at the top and bottom of the excavation. This type of distribution was first suggested by Terzaghi (1943) on the basis of empirical data collected on the Berlin Subway and Chicago Subway projects between 1936-42. Since that time, it has been shown that this uniform distribution only occurs when the following conditions are met: 1. The upper portions of the vertical side walls of the excavation are supported in stages as the excavation is deepened; 2. The walls of the excavation are pervious enough so that water pressure does not build up behind them; and 3. The lateral movements of the walls are kept below 1% to 2% of the depth of the excavation. With the passage of time, the approximately uniform pressure distribution evidenced during construction has been observed to transition toward the more traditional triangular distribution. In addition, it has been found that the tie-back force in anchored bulkhead walls generally increases with time. The actual load imposed on a semi-vertical retaining wall is dependent on eight aspects of its construction: 1.
    [Show full text]