Fig 1 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
![Patterns of collapse [2]](publication/351320748/figure/fig1/AS:1023935361589249@1621136622322/Patterns-of-collapse-2.png)
Source publication
![Fig. 1 Patterns of collapse [2]](publication/351320748/figure/fig1/AS:1023935361589249@1621136622322/Patterns-of-collapse-2_Q320.jpg)
![Fig. 2 Failure case of geosynthetic retaining wall [10]](publication/351320748/figure/fig2/AS:1023935361605633@1621136622349/Failure-case-of-geosynthetic-retaining-wall-10_Q320.jpg)
Reinforced retaining walls are structures constructed horizontally to resist earth pressure by leveraging the frictional force imparted by the backfill. Reinforcements are employed because they exhibit excellent safety and economic efficiency. However, insufficient reinforcement can lead to collapse, and excessive reinforcement reduces economic eff...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... lengths in curved and straight sections Based on the previous 3D numerical analysis, another numerical analysis of the straight and curved sections with reinforcements of different lengths was performed. The horizontal displacement In the curved sections was found to be approximately twice that in the straight sections. Accordingly, as shown in Fig. 10a 1 and 3 m long reinforcements are employed in the straight and curved sections, respectively. The vertical displacements are shown in Fig. 10b. In the curved sections, the vertical displacements are shorter than those shown in Fig. 7a. The horizontal displacements in the straight and curved parts in all cases are shown in Fig. 11. In case 5 ...
Context 2
... with reinforcements of different lengths was performed. The horizontal displacement In the curved sections was found to be approximately twice that in the straight sections. Accordingly, as shown in Fig. 10a 1 and 3 m long reinforcements are employed in the straight and curved sections, respectively. The vertical displacements are shown in Fig. 10b. In the curved sections, the vertical displacements are shorter than those shown in Fig. 7a. The horizontal displacements in the straight and curved parts in all cases are shown in Fig. 11. In case 5 (red line), 1 m and 3 m long reinforcements are used in both straight and curved parts. As shown in Fig. 11b, the same reinforcement ...
Context 3
... as shown in Fig. 10a 1 and 3 m long reinforcements are employed in the straight and curved sections, respectively. The vertical displacements are shown in Fig. 10b. In the curved sections, the vertical displacements are shorter than those shown in Fig. 7a. The horizontal displacements in the straight and curved parts in all cases are shown in Fig. 11. In case 5 (red line), 1 m and 3 m long reinforcements are used in both straight and curved parts. As shown in Fig. 11b, the same reinforcement effect is achieved in the curved parts by employing 3 m long reinforcements; however, in the straight parts, the horizontal displacements decrease by up to 9.72% at the top of the wall (4 m ...
Context 4
... The vertical displacements are shown in Fig. 10b. In the curved sections, the vertical displacements are shorter than those shown in Fig. 7a. The horizontal displacements in the straight and curved parts in all cases are shown in Fig. 11. In case 5 (red line), 1 m and 3 m long reinforcements are used in both straight and curved parts. As shown in Fig. 11b, the same reinforcement effect is achieved in the curved parts by employing 3 m long reinforcements; however, in the straight parts, the horizontal displacements decrease by up to 9.72% at the top of the wall (4 m point) due to the stiffener applied to the curved section. Therefore, it is economical to employ 1 and 3 m long ...
Citations
... The method used in this paper is an analytical method with modeling using Finite Element Analysis [2,[29][30][31]. Analysis data and material strength parameters from the analysis of the Mechanics Laboratory, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta. ...
The use of retaining walls for basements in buildings generally uses the retaining wall that utilizes the weight of the wall itself as reinforcement because the reinforcement is carried out only on the soil’s surface. Using steel in soil nailing construction that is too large can result in the availability of steel running out, considering that steel is a non-renewable material. The soil nailing method in this paper uses bamboo as nails. The method used in this paper is the analytical method. Data bamboo material from the tests carried out in the Laboratory Building Materials Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta. While material data soil obtained from tests carried out at the Soil Mechanics Laboratory Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta. The analytical model is a basement excavation 10 m deep and 20 m wide. Finite element analysis calculations using the Plaxis 8.2 program on retaining walls. The analysis stages at each excavation depth of 2 m. The model obtained that the safety factor value is 4.271; this value is greater than the required safety factor value, namely FS 2, which indicates that soil stability achieve. The analysis results also obtained the achievement of soil stability at each stage of the research. There was no collapse of the bamboo during the analysis stage. The discussion results found that bamboo substitutes steel in soil nailing reinforcement as a retaining wall in basement construction.
... The retaining wall was constructed using poor-quality materials, and the construction techniques used were not in accordance with the design specifications. In another study, Kong et al. (2021) [6] illustrated that inadequate design was the primary cause of retaining wall failure in their case study. The study proposed a remediation plan that involved reconstructing the retaining wall with improved design and construction techniques. ...
... The retaining wall was constructed using poor-quality materials, and the construction techniques used were not in accordance with the design specifications. In another study, Kong et al. (2021) [6] illustrated that inadequate design was the primary cause of retaining wall failure in their case study. The study proposed a remediation plan that involved reconstructing the retaining wall with improved design and construction techniques. ...
This study presents an investigation into the failure of a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining wall in Tennessee, USA. The wall was constructed to support an embankment development, but it failed catastrophically, causing damage to the road and posing a significant safety risk to the public. The investigation involved a comprehensive site visit, field data collection, laboratory testing, and numerical modeling. Our investigation revealed that the failure of the retaining wall was caused by inadequate construction practices. Specifically, the wall was not constructed in accordance with design specifications, and the backfill material used was not properly compacted. The construction issues resulted in the differential settlement of the wall, which ultimately caused it to fail. Based on our findings, we propose a set of recommendations for the design and construction of future retaining walls in similar geotechnical conditions. The recommendations include the proper selection and use of backfill material, proper compaction of backfill, and adherence to design specifications. The results of this study are expected to contribute to the development of improved design standards and construction practices for MSE retaining walls in Tennessee and other regions with similar geotechnical conditions.
... The retaining wall was constructed using poor-quality materials, and the construction techniques used were not in accordance with the design specifications. In another study, Kong et al. (2021) [6] illustrated that inadequate design was the primary cause of retaining wall failure in their case study. The study proposed a remediation plan that involved reconstructing the retaining wall with improved design and construction techniques. ...
... The retaining wall was constructed using poor-quality materials, and the construction techniques used were not in accordance with the design specifications. In another study, Kong et al. (2021) [6] illustrated that inadequate design was the primary cause of retaining wall failure in their case study. The study proposed a remediation plan that involved reconstructing the retaining wall with improved design and construction techniques. ...
This study presents an investigation into the failure of a MSE retaining wall in Tennessee, USA. The wall was constructed to support an embankment development, but it failed catastrophically, causing damage to the road and posing a significant safety risk to the public. The investigation involved a comprehensive site visit, field data collection, laboratory testing, and numerical modeling. This investigation revealed that the failure of the retaining wall was caused by inadequate construction practices. Specifically, the wall was not constructed in accordance with design specifications, and the backfill material used was not properly compacted. The construction issues resulted in the differential settlement of the wall, which ultimately caused it to fail. Based on the findings of this study, a set of recommendations were proposed for the design and construction of future retaining walls in similar geotechnical conditions. The recommendations include the proper selection and use of backfill material, proper compaction of backfill, and adherence to design specifications. The results of this study are expected to contribute to the development of improved design standards and construction practices for MSE retaining walls in Tennessee and other regions with similar geotechnical conditions.
... Another example is the cracking of the reinforced retaining wall of an agricultural industrial complex in Sancheong-gun, Gyeongnam. The failure of reinforced retaining wall in both cases was caused by insufficient soilreinforcement interaction [17]. Therefore, in the construction of reinforced earth structures, the internal and external stabilities such as avoiding geosynthetic pullout failure and overturning, bearing capacity, respectively, must satisfy the relevant specifications and guidelines [4]. ...
In the biocement–geosynthetic system, biocement is combined with geosynthetic to increase the pullout resistance of the geosynthetic and thereby the stability of reinforced soil structures. In this work, several pullout tests were conducted to evaluate the various influential factors for the BG systems, including the biocementation factors such as number of treatment cycles, concentration, and volume of biocement solution, and other factors such as normal pressures, relative densities of soil, and geosynthetic types. The pullout test results revealed that the performance of the BG systems increased with the number of treatment cycles and, to lesser extents, with increases in the concentration and volume of biocement solution. It was identified that the higher interface shear strength was mainly due to the higher calcium carbonate content around the geosynthetic. Hence, for biocementation factors, the most efficient way to improve the performance of the BG systems is to increase the number of treatment cycles. Additionally, the pullout resistance of the BG systems increased with the normal pressures and relative densities of the sand. Furthermore, under the same test conditions, the pullout behavior of the biaxial geogrid BG system was found to be better than that of the geosynthetic strips BG system. Overall, the data presented in this study could be used as a reference to improve the efficiency of the BG systems and further strengthen the stability of reinforced soil structures.
... Numerical models of reinforced soil walls assessed against the results of meticulously constructed and completely instrumented full-scale models are a complementary approach for gathering adequate data to assess the validity of present models or calibrate new design techniques. The synthetic data generated by validated numerical models can then be used to fill knowledge gaps in the available database of physical measurements [37,38]. ...
This article presents the experimental and numerical analysis behavior on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSE) under applied overburden load performed on the 1.5 m high, 0.9 m width, and 1.2 m length reinforced with deformed steel bars embedded in sand alone and tires shred-sand mixture. The study investigates how deformed bars, strength, and geometry affect the failure mechanism. The top of the wall was laden with additional overburden weight at various stages to explore the pre-failure wall behavior. The horizontal displacements were measured using potentiometers of the wall face and by potentiometers placed at the top of the loading plate. The results of the observations were compared to the analysis results derived from a numerical model created using the Plaxis 3D software. Numerical modeling was also applied to assess the behavior of MSE wall (3D model) on the failure mechanism of the walls. The parameters for the numerical models were derived from independent tests results, which were compared with the experimental observations. A good level of agreement with measurements was confirmed for the 3D model with the experimental data. From the results, it was deduced that at 30 kPa and 40 kPa, the tire shred-sand mixture with reinforcement gave a 36% and 58% reduction in face deflection compared to sand with reinforcement. The difference between numerical and experimental values ranges from 12% to 15%.
... Rock bolts are widely employed in reinforcement systems because of their applicability under various geological conditions, especially those of layered rock masses (Tsesarsky 2012;Teng et al. 2018;Taheri et al. 2020). Different applications for rock bolts under different working conditions include ground anchors (Bryson and Romana 2019), retaining wall reinforcement (Kong et al. 2021), and tunnel support (Bizjak and Petkovšek 2004). Nevertheless, the development of anchorage theory continues to lag behind engineering practice. ...
The load transfer characteristics of a tensile anchor in the rock mass with weak interlayers were investigated, considering the nonuniform stress of the horizontally layered rock mass along anchors. An improved shear-slipping model was proposed to describe the stress evolution characteristics of the bolt-rock interface. Based on the improved model, analytical solutions of the axial force, shear stress distribution and load-displacement relationship considering the residual stress stage were established. The effects of the stratigraphic sequence, pulling force and bolt diameter on the stress distribution of the anchorage interface were evaluated by using analytical solutions. The results were verified by applying the finite difference numerical simulation method. The sensitivity of each parameter to the axial force and shear stress of the rock bolt was determined based on calculation of the sensitivity coefficient. The study results show that the axial force and shear stress tend to decrease nonuniformly along the rock bolt towards the anchorage depth. Due to the existence of weak interlayers, the shear stress mutates at the weak and hard rock interface, and the axial force appears to “rebound” at the bottom of the anchored section. Lithology has more significant effects on the axial force and shear stress at the bottom of the anchor than at the top of the anchor. The pulling force is more sensitive to the anchor stress than stratigraphic sequence when the bolt diameter is determined. This study provides a theoretical framework for the fundamental problem of tensile bolts in horizontally or vertically laminated rock masses, providing a theoretical basis for anchor design.
