DOCSLIB.ORG

Mechanically Stabilized Backfill and Properties of Geosynthetics and Geocomposites

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD No. 1474 Soils, Geology, and Foundations Mechanically Stabilized Backfill and Properties of Geosynthetics and Geocomposites A peer-reviewed publication of the Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. 1995 Sponsorship of Transportation Research Record 1474 Transportation Research Record 1474 ISSN 0361-1981 GROUP 2-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ISBN 0-309-06110-5 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Price: $27 .00 Chairman: Michael G. Katona, U.S. Air Force Armstrong Laboratory Subscriber Category Soil Mechanics Section IIIA soils, geology, and foundations Chairman: Verne C. McGuffey Printed in the United States of America Committee on Geosynthetics Chairman: Robert K. Barrett, Colorado Department of Transportation Tony M. Allen, Richard J. Bathurst, Ryan R. Berg, Dave Ta-Teh Chang, Barry R. Christopher, James G. Collin, Jerry A. DiMaggio, Victor Elias, David J. Elton, Stephan M. Gale, Deborah J. Goodings, Karen S. Henry, Dov Leshchinsky, James H. Long, Victor A. Modeer, Jr., Bernard Myles, John E. Steward, Fumio Tatsuoka, Steve L. Webster, Jonathan T. H. Wu Geology and Properties of Earth Materials Section Chairman: Robert D. Holtz, University of Washington Committee on Soil and Rock Properties Chairman: Mehmet T. Tumay, Louisiana Transportation Research Center Roy H. Borden, Dario Cardoso de Lima, Umakant Dash, Andrew R. Dawson, Don J. DeGroot, Eric C. Drumm, David J. Elton, Kenneth L. Fishman, An-Bin Huang, Mary E. Hynes, Hilary I. lnyang, Steven L. Kramer, Rodney W. Lentz, Emir Jose Macari, Paul W. Mayne, Kenneth L. McManis, Victor A. Modeer, Jr., Priscilla P. Nelson, Peter G. Nicholson, Norman I. Norrish, John W. Oglesby, Samuel G. Paikowsky, Sibel Pamukcu, Nader S. Rad, Kaare Senneset, Sunil Sharma, Timothy D. Stark, Ramzi Taha Transportation, Research Board Staff Robert E. Spicher, Director, Technical Activities G.P. Jayaprakash, Engineer of Soils, Geology, and Foundations Nancy A. Ackerman, Director, Reports and Editorial Services Sponsorship is indicated by a footnote at the end of each paper. The organizational units, officers, and members are as of December 31, 1994. Transportation Research Record 1474 Contents Foreword v Part 1-Mechanically Stabilized Backfill Texsol: Material Properties and Engineering Performance 3 Phillip Liausu and Ilan Juran Independent Facing Panels for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 13 George Hearn, Scott Myers, and Robert K. Barrett Biotechnical Stabilization of Steepened Slopes 23 Donald H. Gray and Robbin B. Sotir Experiences with Mechanically Stabilized Structures and 30 Native Soil Backfill Gordon R. Keller Retaining Structure Selection at Project Level 39 Timothy G. Hess and Teresa M. Adams Contracting for Mechanically Stabilized Backfill Walls 46 George A. Munfakh Part 2-Properties of Geosynthetics and Geocomposites Survivability and Durability of Geotextiles Buried in Glenwood Canyon Wall 55 f. R. Bell and Robert K. Barrett Pullout Mechanism of Geogrids Under Confinement by Sandy and 64 Clayey Soils Dave Ta-Teh Chang, Tsung-Sheng Sun, and Fan-Yi Hung One-Dimensional Compression Characteristics of Artificial Soils Composed 73 of Multioriented Geosynthetic Elements Evert C. Lawton, James R. Schubach, Richard T. Seelos, and Nathaniel S. Fox Stress-Strain and Strength Behavior of Staple Fiber and 82 Continuous Filament-Reinforced Sand S. D. Stauffer and R. D. Holtz Influence of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on Granular Soils 96 I. Ismail and G. P. Raymond Limit Condition for Fiber-Reinforced Granular Soils 102 Radoslaw L. Michalowski and Aigen Zhao Reinforcement of Fissured Clays by Short Steel Fibers 108 Luis E. Vallejo and Hankyu Yoo Foreword The 13 papers included in this volume are arranged into two general groups. The first group consists of papers that are related to mechanically stabilized backfill (MSB) materials. These papers focus on ad­ vanced technologies related to MSB and on ownership roles in providing support during the design and construction phases. These papers also discuss performance of MSB applications using case histories. The second group of papers is on properties of geosynthetics and geocomposites. These papers include information on the long-term durability of geosynthetics used as soil reinforcements; the frictional mechanism of geogrid-soil systems on the basis of results from tests on different types of geogrid-soil combinations; and the properties of granular and clayey soils that are reinforced using multioriented geosynthetic elements, staple fiber, continuous filament, and synthetic and steel fibers. v PARTl Mechanically Stabilized Backfill TRANSPORTA.TION RESEARCH RECORD 1474 3 Texsol: Material Properties and Engineering Performance PHILLIP LIAUSU AND !LAN JURAN Texsol is a composite material made of sand and continuous polyester earth retaining walls, particularly on soft compressible soils, with fibers mixed together in situ to form a homogeneous construction mate­ facing slope angles of 65 to 75 degrees; stabilization of earth slopes rial. The fiber content varies between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of the weight in cuts and embankments; steepening of existing slopes for widen­ of sand. The fibers provide for the high cohesion of Texsol and its abil­ ing of motorways; surface protection of man-made and natural ity to sustain large strains without degradation of its mechanical slopes against rock falls and surface erosion due to climate condi­ properties. The sand is well-graded medium course material and pro­ vides for the internal friction resistance of Texsol and its self-draining tions (e.g., freezing temperature); and explosion-resistant facilities characteristics. Substantial testing programs have been conducted by in civil and military installations for storage of explosives and state agencies, universities, and research institutions in France and liquefied gas, offering a remarkable market potential for civil engi­ subsequently in Japan to assess the engineering performance of this neering construction in earthquake zones. composite material and develop relevant design methods for its various This paper presents the main results of the research conducted to fields of application. assess the material properties and engineering performance of Texsol' s structural applications. Texsol is a composite material made of sand and continuous polyester fibers mixed together in situ to form a homogeneous con­ struction material. The fiber content varies between 0.1 and 0.2 per­ MATERIAL PROPERTIES cent of the weight of sand. The fibers provide for the high cohesion of Texsol and its ability to sustain large strains without degradation Sheer Strength Characteristics of its mechanical properties. The sand is well-graded medium course material and provides for the internal friction resistance of The mechanical properties of Texsol depend on the characteristics Texsol and its self-draining characteristics. of the granular material used, thread type, fiber content, production Substantial testing programs have been conducted by state agen­ equipment, and compaction parameters (density and water content). cies, universities, and research institutioµs in France and subse=­ Figure 2 shows the results of triaxial compression tests performed quently Japan to assess the engineering performance of this com­ on samples of Texsol and unreinforced sand under different confin­ posite material and develop relevant design methods for its various ing pressures and the related characteristic failure curves of these fields of application. The research and development programs, as materials. Test results illustrate that the shear modulus of Texsol well as field observations on more than 100 Texsol structures con­ and its hydraulic conductivity are similar to that of the natural sand. structed since 1984, demonstrated that the engineering properties of The main mechanical properties of Texsol are Texsol include high shear resistance with anisotropic mechanically built-in internal cohesion and internal friction angle that are depen­ • Unconfined compressive strength: 500 kPa/0.1 percent of fill dent on the fiber content (1,2), self-draining properties of the sand content ratio by weight; used, low creep potential under normal operating conditions, dura­ • Apparent cohesion of 100 kPa/0.1 percent of fill content ratio bility and sustainable resistance to chemical and biological attacks, by weight; high ductibility and large energy absorption capacity with high • Internal friction angle that is equal or greater than that of the resistance to impact, explosions, and seismic effects (3,4); deforma­ natural sand, with bility and large tolerance to differential settlements; high resistance 0 Texsol = 0 soil + Ll0, to runoff surface erosion (5), and high thermal resistance under (Ll 0 varies from 0 to 10); fire-generated heat up to 600°F (6). In addition, Texsol provides a • Yield strain that is greater than that of the natural sand, indi­ suitable support for plant roots to penetrate and seeds to germinate. cating the ductile behavior of Texsol with Mixed in organic soil, fertilizer, and seeds, the Texsol green method £Texsol = £soil + LlEr enables the hydroseeding of steep natural slopes, excavated slopes, (LlE varies from 0 to 10 percent); embankments, retaining walls, soundproof walls, and so forth, where conventional hydroseeding techniques are impractical. Because of the production process of Texsol, the shear strength Because of its remarkable features, Texsol has been increasingly
Recommended publications
  • GEOSYNTHETICS Our Solutions for the Infrastructure in Mining

    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.
  • Engineering Bulletin 07-009

    Engineering Bulletin 07-009

    To: New York State Department of EB Transportation ENGINEERING 07-009 BULLETIN Expires one year after issue unless replaced sooner Title: HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL (HDM) REVISION NO. 52 CHAPTER 9 - SOILS, WALLS, AND FOUNDATIONS CHAPTER 20.00 –CANTILEVER AND GRAVITY WALLS Distribution: Approved: Manufacturers (18) Surveyors (33) Local Govt. (31) Consultants (34) Agencies (32) Contractors (39) /s/Daniel D’Angelo________________ 3/2/07____ ____________( ) Daniel D’Angelo, P.E. Date Deputy Chief Engineer, Design ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION: Effective Date: This Engineering Bulletin (EB) is effective upon signature. Superseded Issuance(s): No Engineering Instructions or EBs are superseded by this EB. PURPOSE: To announce the availability of Revision No. 52 to the HDM and to rescind HDM Chapter 20.00 –Cantilever and Gravity Walls. TECHNICAL INFORMATION: Chapter 9. HDM users should replace their entire existing Chapter 9 dated June 7, 1995, and revised July 9, 2004, with the updated version dated March 2, 2007. Chapter 9 has been revised to clarify, update, and add material. Although the entire chapter is being issued, not all material has been revised. Noteworthy changes are as follows: . Section 9.3 “Soil and Foundation Considerations” was expanded to include the following: “Embankment Foundation.” This subsection combines previous subsections including “Unsuitable Material” and “Unstable Material.” “Water Quality.” This subsection replaces the previous “Erosion and Sedimentation” subsection. “Excavation Protection and Support.” This subsection replaces the previous “Trench, Culvert, and Structure Excavation” subsection. “Controlled Low-Strength Material (CLSM).” This is a new subsection. “Contract Information” was moved from Section 9.4 to Section 9.7 and Section 9.4 is retitled “Retaining Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes and Walls.” This section incorporates the former HDM Chapter 20.00 “Cantilever and Gravity Walls.” .
  • REDUCED DIG' INSTALLATION GUIDANCE Gravel & Grassed Surfaces

    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
  • GEOTEXTILE TUBE and GABION ARMOURED SEAWALL for COASTAL PROTECTION an ALTERNATIVE by S Sherlin Prem Nishold1, Ranganathan Sundaravadivelu 2*, Nilanjan Saha3

    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.
  • Mechanically Stabilized Embankments

    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.
  • Colorado's Full-Scale Field Testing of Rockfall Attenuator Systems

    Colorado's Full-Scale Field Testing of Rockfall Attenuator Systems

    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C141 October 2009 Colorado’s Full-Scale Field Testing of Rockfall Attenuator Systems TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Vice Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009–2010 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Jeannie G. Beckett, Director of Operations, Port of Tacoma, Washington, Marine Group Chair Paul H. Bingham, Principal, Global Insight, Inc., Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Leanna Depue, Director, Highway Safety Division, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, System Users Group Chair Robert M. Dorer, Deputy Director, Office of Surface Transportation Programs, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Innovative
  • I/ General Description and Characterization of the NBS Entity

    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.
  • Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and Soil Nailing in Brazil

    Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and Soil Nailing in Brazil

    www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees Summer Term 2015 Hochschule Munchen Fakultat Bauingenieurwesen Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and Soil Nailing in Brazil www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 2/60 LAYOUT Details and Analysis of Anchored Walls Details and Analysis of Soil Nailing Examples of Executive Projects www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 3/60 ANCHORED “CURTAIN” WALLS (Tie Back Walls) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 4/60 Introduction Details: • Earth retaining structures with active anchors • A.J. Costa Nunes pioneer work in 1957 • 20 – 30 cm thick concrete wall face tied back • Ascending or descending construction methods • Niche excavation • ACTIVE anchor 4 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 5/60 Excavation Procedure www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 6/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 7/60 Molding Joints www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 8/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 9/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 10/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 11/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 12/60 Stability Analysis Verification of failure modes: • Toe bearing capacity (NSPT < 10) • Bottom failure • Wedge or generalized failure: limit equilibrium analyses • Excessive deformations • Anchor stability and punching • Structural failure • Construction failures (e.g. during excavation) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 13/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 14/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 15/60 Stability Analysis Methodologies Wedge Method: • Kranz (1953) is the pioneer • One or two wedges • Ranke and Ostermeyer (1968) German Method • Nunes and Velloso (1963) Brazilian Method • Hoek and Bray (1981) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees
  • Alternative Bottom Liner System

    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 ...........................................................................................................................
  • Linktm Gabions and Mattresses Design Booklet

    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
  • The New Hampshire High Tunnel Story

    The New Hampshire High Tunnel Story

    The New Hampshire High Tunnel Story NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE New Hampshire January 2011 BACKGROUND National High Tunnel Conservation Benefits Local Foods Initiatives 3-Year Pilot Program High tunnels can provide a number of Growing food locally, especially before significant conservation benefits such as and after the traditional growing season, NRCS offered seasonal high tunnels an increase in plant and soil quality, a helps strengthen the local economy and (officially called “seasonal high tunnel decrease in pesticide use and foliar (leaf) helps ensure the viability and profitability system for crops”) as a conservation disease, and improved energy savings. of small farms. When NH farms succeed, practice for the first time in fiscal year Many farmers who want to grow toma- valuable farmland and cultural heritage are (FY) 2010 as part of a three-year trial to toes without using pesticides often find protected. High tunnels are important tools determine their effectiveness in con- they can only do so successfully if they for enhancing the availability of local food serving water, improving soil health, are grown in a tunnel. Without rainfall, year-round. foliar disease is often reduced because the leaves stay dry. Insects that are com- “As expected, the seasonal high monly a problem in the field may not be “It is phenomenal that winter tunnel pilot has been popular in so in the tunnel because the tunnel tends farmer’s markets in NH have grown New Hampshire. In just one to disrupt their feeding patterns. Other from none four years ago to twenty year, the NRCS-NH helped fund insects that occur in a high tunnel are today.
  • Interface Friction Performance

    Interface Friction Performance

    CONTENTS Acknowledgements 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PVC and HDPE 2.0 Testing Program 2.1 Materials 2.1.1 Geomembranes 2.1.2 Soil 2.1.2.1 Sand 2.1.2.2 Sandy Loam 2.1.2.3 Silty Clay 2.1.3 Geotextile 2.2 Equipment 2.3 Procedure 3.0 Results 3.1 Sand vs Smooth PVC 3.2 Sand vs the Other geomembranes 3.3 Influence of Soil type 3.4 Geomembrane vs Geotextile 4.0 Summary of Results 12 5.0 Discussion 5.1 Failure Modes 5.2 General Observations 5.3 Comparison with existing knowledge 6.0 Conclusions 2 1 References 2 1 APPENDIX A 23 APPENDIX B 29 APPENDIX C 35 APPENDIX D 41 FIGURES Typical cross-sections of modem landfills Schematic representation of stress-strain behaviour of HDPE & PVC Grain-size distribution of Sand, Sandy Loam and Silty clay Reproducibility of test data Sand vs Smooth PVC : Test results Sand vs Smooth HDPE Sandy Loam vs Smooth PVC Silty Clay vs Smooth PVC Non-woven Geotextile vs Smooth PVC Appendix A : Fine Sand vs various Geomembranes Al. Sand vs Smooth PVC A2. Sand vs Textured PVC A3. Sand vs File-finish PVC A4. Sand vs Smooth HDPE A5. Sand vs Textured HDPE Appendix B : Sandy Loam vs various Geomembranes B 1. Sandy Loam vs Smooth PVC B2. Sandy Loam vs Textured PVC B3. Sandy Loam vs File-finish PVC B4. Sandy Loam vs Smooth-HDPE B5. Sandy Loam vs Textured HDPE Appendix C : Silty Clay vs various Geomembranes C1. Silty Clay vs Smooth PVC C2.