On-site polymeric strip installation examples: (a) back-to-back wall case, (b) longitudinal bar back anchorage and pegs, and (c) trench and triangle anchorage. (Photographs courtesy of VSL Construction Systems-VSoL ® Retained Earth System [11]).

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... polymeric strips are made from bundled high-tenacity polyester yarns (providing tensile strength) that are encased in a polyethylene sheath (providing interface frictional strength, alignment, and protection of the inner yarns). The strips may be placed in a continuous wrapped arrangement (loops) as in Figure 2a, or placed as single strips (free tail ends). The strips ending at the back of the reinforced backfill (i.e., at L distance from facing) are fixed to the ground using different methods such as rear anchorage bars for the case of continuous strip loops (Figure 2b), using trenches that provide tension during backfilling and compaction (Figure 2c), or single steel triangles or plates attached or clamped to the strips and pegs drilled or staked into the backfill (for continuous and single strips). ...

Context 2

... strips may be placed in a continuous wrapped arrangement (loops) as in Figure 2a, or placed as single strips (free tail ends). The strips ending at the back of the reinforced backfill (i.e., at L distance from facing) are fixed to the ground using different methods such as rear anchorage bars for the case of continuous strip loops (Figure 2b), using trenches that provide tension during backfilling and compaction (Figure 2c), or single steel triangles or plates attached or clamped to the strips and pegs drilled or staked into the backfill (for continuous and single strips). Prior to backfilling over each extensible reinforcement layer, the current construction practice is to apply some tension to the reinforcements with the purpose of removing any slack and to minimize any facing deformation during the mobilization of the reinforcement tensile forces [2,10]. ...

Context 3

... strips may be placed in a continuous wrapped arrangement (loops) as in Figure 2a, or placed as single strips (free tail ends). The strips ending at the back of the reinforced backfill (i.e., at L distance from facing) are fixed to the ground using different methods such as rear anchorage bars for the case of continuous strip loops (Figure 2b), using trenches that provide tension during backfilling and compaction (Figure 2c), or single steel triangles or plates attached or clamped to the strips and pegs drilled or staked into the backfill (for continuous and single strips). Prior to backfilling over each extensible reinforcement layer, the current construction practice is to apply some tension to the reinforcements with the purpose of removing any slack and to minimize any facing deformation during the mobilization of the reinforcement tensile forces [2,10]. ...

Context 4

... shear strain plots show that load transfer between the soil and reinforcement extends to the tail of the reinforcement layers for the pre-tension cases which is not the case for the no-tension case (see Figure 8a). Horizontal earth pressures acting at the back of the facing are presented in Figure 20. Sharp jumps can be observed in the pressure profiles against the facing with higher pretensioning load at the top of the wall and the opposite occurred at the bottom of the wall. ...

Context 5

... results assuming a variable and significantly higher soil-polymeric strength and stiffness interaction than for cases investigated thus far are shown in Figure 22. The data plots show that facing displacements are up to about 30% less when perforated reinforcement strips are used. ...

Context 6

... data plots show that facing displacements are up to about 30% less when perforated reinforcement strips are used. The computed plastic (failure) zones at the end of construction are presented in Figure 23. There is a detectable reduction in the size of the plastic zones for the case with larger R i values (i.e., greater interface of polymeric-soil strength and stiffness) compared with small and constant R i values (see Figure 23a). ...

Context 7

... computed plastic (failure) zones at the end of construction are presented in Figure 23. There is a detectable reduction in the size of the plastic zones for the case with larger R i values (i.e., greater interface of polymeric-soil strength and stiffness) compared with small and constant R i values (see Figure 23a). The horizontal earth pressure generated from the facings is presented in Figure 24. ...

Context 8

... is a detectable reduction in the size of the plastic zones for the case with larger R i values (i.e., greater interface of polymeric-soil strength and stiffness) compared with small and constant R i values (see Figure 23a). The horizontal earth pressure generated from the facings is presented in Figure 24. Record low values were observed when the perforated polymeric strips were used compared with the smooth strips case. ...

Context 9

... low values were observed when the perforated polymeric strips were used compared with the smooth strips case. Small but detectable reductions in reinforcement loads were also detectable for the perforated strips as shown in Figure 25 with the exception of the top layer where soil confining pressure is least. The computed maximum strain for both cases is about 1%, which is a typical maximum value observed in instrumented and monitored field walls under operational (EoC) conditions by Miyata et al. [26]. ...

Context 10

... horizontal earth pressure generated from the facings is presented in Figure 24. ...

Context 11

... low values were observed when the perforated polymeric strips were used compared with the smooth strips case. Small but detectable reductions in reinforcement loads were also detectable for the perforated strips as shown in Figure 25 with the exception of the top layer where soil confining pressure is least. The computed maximum strain for both cases is about 1%, which is a typical maximum value observed in instrumented and monitored field walls under operational (EoC) conditions by Miyata et al. [26]. . ...

Context 12

... results of the simulation show that back-to-back reinforced soil walls behave jointly when they are far apart, and also interact with each other when they are close and overlapping. The FEM results demonstrate that the length of the reinforcement (L = 0.7H) in the overlapping case Figure 25. Reinforcement loads at end of construction (EoC) using different polymeric-soil interface strengths and stiffness (R i -factor) for the D i = 0.6H case with no pre-tensioning. ...