DOCSLIB.ORG

Geotechnical Input for the Design of Retention Structures J.J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geotechnical Input for the Design of Retention Structures J.J Lecture 6 GEOTECHNICAL INPUT FOR THE DESIGN OF RETENTION STRUCTURES J.J. DavidDavid Rogers,Rogers, Ph.D.,Ph.D., P.E.,P.E., P.G.P.G. Karl F. Hasselmann Chair in Geological Engineering Missouri University of Science & Technology for the course GEGE 441441 GeotechnicalGeotechnical ConstructionConstruction PracticePractice StackedStacked cyclopeancyclopean masonrymasonry wallswalls havehave providedprovided excellentexcellent serviceservice forfor manymany centuriescenturies ThisThis isis aa cyclopeancyclopean wallwall usingusing nativenative rockrock andand cementcement mortar,mortar, onon TiogaTioga PassPass highway,highway, justjust outsideoutside YosemiteYosemite NationalNational Park,Park, whichwhich waswas completedcompleted inin 19641964 Masonry walls can be very resilient Masonry gravity retaining wall systems have been constructed since 6600 BC in Jericho. We can learn much from observing what has survived and what has not. The basic objective of early walls was to provide military bastions and protection from attack. Most of these structures were built using rock facing with random fill, as sketched above. StackedStacked masonrymasonry wallwall atat MacchuMacchu Pichu,Pichu, thethe lostlost IncaInca citycity sittingsitting atat anan altitudealtitude ofof 74007400 feetfeet inin thethe PeruvianPeruvian AndesAndes WithoutWithout mortarmortar oror reinforcement,reinforcement, thesethese wallswalls havehave withstoodwithstood centuriescenturies ofof earthquakes,earthquakes, precipitationprecipitation andand neglectneglect Above left: Stacked cyclopean masonry wall in Guatemala Above right: Undulating masonry rock retaining wall about 100 years old in Glenwood Springs, CO. Gravity walls can withstand minor foundation movements and differential settlement Masonry retaining wall in Cincinnati accommodates the grade by employing vertical offsets, or “steps.” Steps are usually employed because there is some sacrifice in load capacity if the wall is built on-grade. The difference in cost can be substantial, while the increased active pressure is usually between 1 and 11 %, for 2% to 20% grades. PartPart 11 GRAVITYGRAVITY WALLSWALLS GravityGravity Walls:Walls: Oldest and Most Common Wall System GravityGravity wallswalls are designed to use their effective weight to resist the lateral pressures engendered by soil backfill, considering seepage, surcharge, and earthquake loads CommonCommon formsforms ofof gravitygravity retainingretaining wallwall systemssystems inin thethe modernmodern eraera ConventionalConventional gravitygravity wallswalls likelike thosethose shownshown atat leftleft areare graduallygradually beingbeing replacedreplaced byby combinationcombination systems,systems, suchsuch asas thethe MechanicallyMechanically StabilizedStabilized EmbankmentEmbankment structure,structure, shownshown atat rightright FourFour basicbasic failurefailure modesmodes areare consideredconsidered inin thethe designdesign ofof gravitygravity retainingretaining systems:systems: basalbasal sliding;sliding; overturning,overturning, tilting/bearingtilting/bearing failurefailure andand globalglobal slopeslope stability.stability. You’dYou’d bebe surprisedsurprised howhow oftenoften #4#4 isis forgottenforgotten oror ignoredignored TheThe mostmost basicbasic requirementrequirement ofof aa gravitygravity PA = active load wallwall isis thatthat thethe resultantresultant against wall thrust, R, must project W = dead weight thrust, R, must project The Resultant Thrust, R, of the wall must fall within middle third withinwithin thethe middlemiddle thirdthird of the base R = resultant vector thrust ofof thethe footingfooting BatteredBattered MasonryMasonry WallsWalls Above left & right: Ancient masonry walls were usually constructed with a healthy batter, and drained through natural gaps. Lower left: modern equivalents are employ weepholes and/or geomembrane drains Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River in Arizona was constructed as a cyclopean masonry gravity dam by the US Reclamation Service in 1903-11 TaperedTapered oror flaredflared toetoe Ancient fortifications, like Hemeji Castle in Japan, which dates to 1346, employed flared walls designed to spread load over a broad area, while discouraging ascent of the increasingly steep face GravityGravity RetainingRetaining WallWall StabilityStability CriteriaCriteria –– ContinuedContinued 2.2. ResistanceResistance toto SlidingSliding T = effective thrust of wall, after subtracting the pore pressure The Bayless Dam near Austin, Pennsylvania failed by basal sliding along a shale foundation in 1911, despite the reservoir being lowered by notching the dam (left). MethodsMethods commonlycommonly employedemployed toto increaseincrease basebase frictionfriction ThoughThough notnot common,common, basalbasal slipslip cancan alsoalso occuroccur ifif thethe footingfooting embedmentembedment isis compromisedcompromised andand thethe basebase ofof thethe footingfooting isis lyinglying withinwithin saturatedsaturated groundground AA moremore complicatedcomplicated checkcheck isis thatthat againstagainst bearingbearing capacitycapacity andand differentialdifferential settlement,settlement, whichwhich cancan resultresult becausebecause ofof eccentriceccentric forcesforces andand inadequateinadequate footingfooting designdesign PassivePassive reactionreaction wedgeswedges formform underunder differingdiffering conditionsconditions ofof soilsoil friction.friction. NoteNote thatthat highhigh frictionfriction soilssoils influenceinfluence aa muchmuch greatergreater areaarea thanthan lowerlower frictionfriction soilssoils ChartChart showingshowing decreasedecrease inin designdesign bearingbearing capacitycapacity versusversus slopeslope setbacksetback versusversus phiphi angleangle ofof foundationfoundation materialsmaterials .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • The Monumental Architecture of Iklaina
    The Monumental Architecture of Iklaina Michael B. Cosmopoulos1 Abstract: The excavations of the Athens Archaeological Society at Iklaina have brought to light a major LH settle- ment that is identified with *a-pu2, one of the district capitals of the Mycenaean state of Pylos. One of the most striking features of the site is its monumental architecture, which includes at least two large buildings, two paved roads, a paved piazza, and massive built stone drains. The presence of this kind of monumentality outside the traditionally defined ‘palaces’, combined with other markers of advanced socio-political complexity, opens up a number of questions regard- ing the processes of the unification of the Mycenaean state of Pylos. In the present paper I review the relevant archi- tectural and stratigraphic evidence and assess its possible implications for this issue. It is concluded that the emergence of monumental architecture at Iklaina could have been initiated either by the Palace of Nestor following a peaceful annexation of Iklaina in the early Mycenaean period, or by the local Iklaina rulers following a period of continuous growth before a forced annexation in LH IIIB. Keywords: Monumentality, state formation, Mycenaean, Pylos, Iklaina Introduction The excavations at Iklaina are conducted under the auspices of the Archaeological Society at Athens.2 Over the course of nine field seasons we have unearthed a significant part of a LH settle- ment, which can be identified with *a-pu2, one of the district capitals of the Mycenaean state of Pylos.3 The site includes three general areas: residential, industrial, and administrative (marked as R, I, and A in Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Retaining Wall Building Permit Requirements
    Retaining Wall Building Permit Requirements This guideline is intended to provide the homeowner/contractor with the basic information needed to apply for a building permit to construct residential retaining walls. These requirements apply to most simple retaining wall projects; however, the Plan Reviewer may determine that unusual circum- stance dictates the need for additional information on any particular project. Phone (314) 822-5823 Building Department 139 S. Kirkwood Rd Fax (314) 822-5898 www.kirkwoodmo.org Kirkwood, MO 63122 Complete cross-sectional drawing of wall Plans for small residential retaining walls A permit is required for any to scale. complying with the design criteria below retaining wall that is more than 2' in may be drawn by the homeowner/ height above the lowest adjacent Elevation view from the low grade side of contractor: (Note: The walls shall not be grade and for retaining walls of any wall drawn to scale. subject to any surcharge loading from steep height located in a natural water slopes, driveways, swimming pools and course or drainage swale. Guardrail details if applicable. Retaining other structures, etc.) walls more than 30”measured vertically to the grade below at any point within The proposed retaining wall is located on a 1. Fill out and sign application for a building 36” horizontally to the edge of the open parcel of land containing a one or two permit. side; are required to have a guardrail or family dwelling. other approved protective measure when 2. Submit two (2) separate copies of your site closer than 2’ to a sidewalk, path, Wood retaining walls not exceeding 6' in plan showing existing structures with the new parking area or driveway on the high height for single tier or 4' in height for retaining wall and its perpendicular distances side.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Retaining Wall Design, 1St Editionthis Link Will Open in New Window
    FOREWORD This Guide to Retaining Wall Design is the first Guide to be produced by the Geotechnical Control Office. It will be found useful to those engaged upon the design and construction of retaining walls and other earth retaining structures in Hong Kong and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere. This Guide should best be read in conjunction with the Geotechnical Manual for Slopes (Geotechnical Control Office, 1979), to which extensive reference is made. The Guide has been modelled largely on the Retaining Wall Design Notes published by the Ministry of Works and Development, New Zealand (1973), and the extensive use of that document is acknowledged. Many parts of that document, however, have been considerably revised and modified to make them more specifically applicable to Hong Kong conditions. In this regard, it should be noted that the emphasis in the Guide is on design methods which are appropriate to the residual soils prevalent in Hong Kong. Many staff members of the Geotechnical Control Office have contributed in some way to the preparation of this Guide, but the main contributions were made by Mr. J.C. Rutledge, Mr. J.C. Shelton, and Mr. G.E. Powell. Responsibility for the statements made in this document, however, lie with the Geotechnical Control Office. It is hoped that practitioners will feel free to comment on the content of this Guide to Retaining Wall Design, so that additions and improvements can be made to future editions. E.W. Brand Principal Government Geotechnical Engineer Printed September 1982 1st Reprint January 1983
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Riprap Revetment HEC 11 Metric Version
    Design of Riprap Revetment HEC 11 Metric Version Welcome to HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment. Table of Contents Preface Tech Doc U.S. - SI Conversions DISCLAIMER: During the editing of this manual for conversion to an electronic format, the intent has been to convert the publication to the metric system while keeping the document as close to the original as possible. The document has undergone editorial update during the conversion process. Archived Table of Contents for HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment (Metric) List of Figures List of Tables List of Charts & Forms List of Equations Cover Page : HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment (Metric) Chapter 1 : HEC 11 Introduction 1.1 Scope 1.2 Recognition of Erosion Potential 1.3 Erosion Mechanisms and Riprap Failure Modes Chapter 2 : HEC 11 Revetment Types 2.1 Riprap 2.1.1 Rock Riprap 2.1.2 Rubble Riprap 2.2 Wire-Enclosed Rock 2.3 Pre-Cast Concrete Block 2.4 Grouted Rock 2.5 Paved Lining Chapter 3 : HEC 11 Design Concepts 3.1 Design Discharge 3.2 Flow Types 3.3 Section Geometry 3.4 Flow in Channel Bends 3.5 Flow Resistance 3.6 Extent of Protection 3.6.1 Longitudinal Extent 3.6.2 Vertical Extent 3.6.2.1 Design Height 3.6.2.2 Toe Depth Chapter 4 : HEC 11 Design Guidelines for Rock Riprap 4.1 Rock Size Archived 4.1.1 Particle Erosion 4.1.1.1 Design Relationship 4.1.1.2 Application 4.1.2 Wave Erosion 4.1.3 Ice Damage 4.2 Rock Gradation 4.3 Layer Thickness 4.4 Filter Design 4.4.1 Granular Filters 4.4.2 Fabric Filters 4.5 Material Quality 4.6 Edge Treatment 4.7 Construction Chapter 5 : HEC 11 Rock
    [Show full text]
  • Subway Station Retaining Walls: Case-Histories in Soft and Hard Soils
    Subway station retaining walls: case-histories in soft and hard soils Vardé, O.(1), Guidobono, R.(2), and Sfriso, A.(3) (1) President, National Academy of Engineering, Buenos Aires, Argentina <[email protected] > (2) Vardé y Asociados, Buenos Aires, Argentina <[email protected]> (3) University of Buenos Aires and SRK Consulting, Buenos Aires, Argentina <[email protected]> ABSTRACT. In the last twenty years, sixteen pile-supported metro stations have been built in Buenos Aires in a wide range of geotechnical conditions. After an initial design of the construction procedures including partial open-trench (in two cases), all subsequent fourteen stations were excavated employing cut&cover techniques. In all cases, vertical bored piles were employed both to support the lateral ground pressure and the loads acting on the roof slab. This paper revisits the geotechnical conditions in Buenos Aires City, describes the procedures employed for the design and numerical analysis of pile-supported excavations and presents the behavior of five recent cases located in widely different geotechnical profiles. The paper ends with a summary of lessons learned which are relevant both for design and construction. 1 INTRODUCTION Buenos Aires metro network opened in 1913, being the first one in the southern hemisphere. Figure 1 shows the excavation procedure for Line A in 1911 (SBASE 2017). Expansion was fast until the 40’s, when it halted for until it was resumed in the late 90’s. The network is formed by six lines, 55km of tunnels and 86 stations, and complemented by two surface lines (Figure 1). Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of GPR Application on Transport Infrastructures: Troubleshooting and Best Practices
    remote sensing Review A Review of GPR Application on Transport Infrastructures: Troubleshooting and Best Practices Mercedes Solla 1,* , Vega Pérez-Gracia 2 and Simona Fontul 3,4 1 CINTECX, GeoTECH research group, Universidade de Vigo, 36310 Vigo, Spain 2 Department of Strength of Materials and Structural Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Campus Diagonal Besós, Barcelona East School of Engineering, EEBE, Av. Eduard Maristany, 16, 08019 Barcelona, Spain; [email protected] 3 Department of Transportation, National Laboratory for Civil Engineering—LNEC, 1700-066 Lisbon, Portugal; [email protected] 4 Civil Engineering Department, NOVA School of Science and Technology, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The non-destructive testing and diagnosis of transport infrastructures is essential because of the need to protect these facilities for mobility, and for economic and social development. The effective and timely assessment of structural health conditions becomes crucial in order to assure the safety of the transportation system and time saver protocols, as well as to reduce excessive repair and maintenance costs. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is one of the most recommended non-destructive methods for routine subsurface inspections. This paper focuses on the on-site use of GPR applied to transport infrastructures, namely pavements, railways, retaining walls, bridges and tunnels. The methodologies, advantages and disadvantages, along with up-to-date research results on GPR in infrastructure inspection are presented herein. Hence, through the review of the published literature, the potential of using GPR is demonstrated, while the main limitations of the method are discussed and some practical recommendations are made. Citation: Solla, M.; Pérez-Gracia, V.; Fontul, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Performance of Rock Block Structures with Observations from the October 2006 Hawaii Earthquake
    4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering June 25-28, 2007 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF ROCK BLOCK STRUCTURES WITH OBSERVATIONS FROM THE OCTOBER 2006 HAWAII EARTHQUAKE Edmund MEDLEY 1, Dimitrios ZEKKOS 2 ABSTRACT Unreinforced masonry construction using blocks of rock is one of the oldest forms of building, in which blocks are stacked, sometimes being mortared with various cements. Ancient civilizations used locally available rocks and cements to construct rock block columns, walls and edifices for residences, temples, fortifications and infrastructure. Monuments still exist as testaments to the high quality construction by historic cultures, despite the seismic and other potentially damaging geomechanical disturbances that threaten them. Conceptual failure modes under seismic conditions of rock block structures, observed in the field or the laboratory, are presented. A brief review is presented of the damage suffered by the culturally vital Hawaiian Pu’ukoholā and Mailekini Heiaus, rock block temples damaged by the Mw 6.7 and 6.0 earthquakes that shook the island of Hawaii on October 15, 2006. Keywords: rock block structures, Hawaii earthquakes, earthquake observations, geomechanical failures INTRODUCTION Construction of unreinforced masonry is common in various earthquake-prone regions, particularly in developing countries, and rural areas of developed countries. This vulnerable type of construction is susceptible to often devastating damage, as evident from the effects of the 2001 Bhuj, India earthquake (Murty et al. 2002), where 1,200,000 masonry buildings built primarily based on local traditional construction practices, either collapsed or were severely damaged. Buildings constructed with adobe and unreinforced masonry suffered devastating damage in the Bam, Iran 2003 earthquake (Nadim et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Yard, Inc. “How-To” for a Rip Rap Wall
    Mr. Yard, Inc. 8997 Columbia Rd., Olmsted Falls, OH 44138 p. (440) 235-2358 f. (440) 235-2359 [email protected] www.mryardoh.com “How-To” for a Rip Rap Wall Retaining walls are built to prevent soil from being lost due to erosion or displacement down a slope. Once built, it can also be used as a beautifying feature. This “how-to” will be on Natural stone retaining walls. 1. Identify the site and choose the type of materials. Different types of material can be used to make a retaining wall; this includes natural stone, wood, bricks & mock stone bricks. Follow the steps below to prep the site and construct the retaining wall of your choice. 2. List the building materials and how much you will need. Example (we will use a 5”-12” Building Stone in our example) : a. Base material (3/4” crushed rock): The base should be 20% wider than the length of the wall and width of the wall (generally figured by rock size)…. Example: a 12” rock has a width of 12”. We are building our wall 40 feet long. So, we figure 40’x1’= 40 sq ft. We want our base to be 20% larger so take 40x20% = 8… 40+8= 48. 48 sqft is the area we want to figure for the base of our wall. Now we need to figure how much ¾” crushed stone we will need for this area. We are going to put our crushed stone down 2” deep. So we take 48 and divide it by 162; 48/162=.30 yards.
    [Show full text]
  • DNR Shoreline Alterations – Riprap
    Shoreline Alterations: Riprap What can I do to keep my shoreline from washing away? If your shoreline is eroding, any of the following events may be destabiliz- ing your soil, resulting in erosion: fluctuating water levels, increased wave or wake action, ice pushes, loss of natural vegetation, and human activity. Protecting your shoreline from erosion may not require you to replace natural shoreline with a high-cost, highly engineered retaining wall or IS AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT riprap. There are affordable, low-impact methods to stabilize your shore- REQUIRED? line and still protect property values, water For most projects constructed below the quality, and habitat. The ordinary high-water level* (OHWL) of Minnesota Department public waters, an individual Public Waters of Natural Resources Work Permit is required by the Minnesota (DNR) encourages you Department of Natural Resources (DNR) . to consider planting native vegetation to Riprap exception: An individual permit control shoreline from the DNR is not required for riprap erosion, enhance placement if the conditions outlined in this aesthetic values, and information sheet are followed. contribute to better water quality in your lake (see Lakescaping information sheet). Both riprap and retain- ing walls can reduce erosion, but they can be expensive and negative- ly affect lakes by creating a barrier Shoreline cross section. between upland areas and the shoreline If you have questions concerning the environment. Riprap Shoreline stabilized with riprap and enhanced contents of this information sheet, contact should only be used with a vegetative buffer. your local DNR Area Hydrologist. See where necessary and contact information on reverse side.
    [Show full text]
  • Inspection of Concrete and Masonry Dams (FEMA Guidelines)
    Inspection of Concrete and Masonry Dams (FEMA Guidelines) Course No: G06-005 Credit: 6 PDH Allen Hughes, P.E. Continuing Education and Development, Inc. 9 Greyridge Farm Court Stony Point, NY 10980 P: (877) 322-5800 F: (877) 322-4774 [email protected] ~~---------~~ Training Aids for Dam Safety "'~~~~--~ MODULE: INSPECTION OF CONCRETE AND MASONRY DAMS "'~--------~--~--------~ Subject-MaHer-Expert Panel Ralph O. Atkinson Bureau of Reclamation, Chairman Jem ,. Chastain Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Samuel M. Huston Tennessee Valley Authority Edward Lonon Corps of Engineers ~------~ PREFACE There are presently more than 80,000 dams in use across the United States. Like any engineering works, these dams require continual care and maintenance, first to ensure that they remain operational and capable of performing all intended purposes, and then to preclude endangering people and property downstream. The safety of all dams in the United States is of considerable national, state, and local concern. Given that, the principal purpose of the TADS (Training Aids for Dam Safety) program is to enhance dam safety on a national scale. Federal agencies have responsibility for the safe operation, maintenance, and regUlation of dams under their ownership or jurisdiction. The states, other public jurisdictions, and private owners have responsibility for the safety of non-Federal dams. The safety and proper custodial care of dams can be achieved only through an awareness and acceptance of owner and operator responsibility, and through the availability of competent, well-trained engineers, geologists, technicians, and operators. Such awareness and expertise are best attained and maintained through effective training in dam safety teChnology. Accordingly, an ad hoc Interagency Steering Committee was established to address ways to overcome the paucity of good dam safety training materials.
    [Show full text]