Application of revised design charts for steep reinforced slopes

Jewell, Richard

doi:10.1016/0266-1144(91)90056-3

Cited by 56 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The test was carried out on a reinforced embankment made of type 2 soil that had a higher percentage of fines than the one usually suggested by good engineering practice (Jewell 1991;Cancelli and Cazzuffi 1994) and which is therefore used for ground-reinforced embankment. The goal of this test was to check the results that could be obtained using more "plastic" grounds in the construction of rockfall protection embankments.…”

Section: Results Of Test Nomentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground reinforced embankments for rockfall protection: design and evaluation of full scale tests

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrastructures such as roads and railways as well as urbanised areas, in mountainside regions, can frequently be endangered by rockfalls and, therefore, need to be protected against the impact of rolling blocks. Among the various protection works that can be used, ground reinforced embankments can be considered a feasible technique. A set of full-scale tests on embankments made of ground reinforced by geogrids are presented and discussed. The experiments were performed in a specifically designed and constructed test facility, where concrete blocks up to 9,000 kg in weight were thrown onto a geogrid reinforced embankment at a speed of about 30 m/s. Several embankments made of different geogrid types, different soils and construction layouts were tested at different impact energy levels, permitting a quantitative assessment of the resistance impact of these structures. The experimental results were compared with those obtained from a dynamic finite element method numerical model, and a good agreement was obtained.

show abstract

Section: Results Of Test Nomentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground reinforced embankments for rockfall protection: design and evaluation of full scale tests

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1) Although the log-spiral failure mechanism is the most critical one [1], the translational failure mechanism is considered in this work in order to take into account the soil non-associativity in the limit analysis (see Eqs. (4) and (5)).…”

Section: Problem Definition and Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pseudo-dynamic analysis of seismic stability of reinforced slopes considering non-associated flow rule

Shafiee

2011

J. Cent. South Univ. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The required reinforcement force to prevent instability and the yield acceleration of reinforced slopes are computed under seismic loading by applying the kinematic approach of limit analysis in conjunction with the pseudo-dynamic method for a wide range of soil cohesion, friction angle, dilation angle and horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients. Each parameter threatening the stability of the slope enhances the magnitude of the required reinforcement force and vice versa. Moreover, the yield acceleration increases with the increase in soil shear strength parameters but decreases with the increase in the slope angle. The comparison of the present work with some of the available solutions in the literatures shows a reasonable agreement.

show abstract

“…Many design charts and methods (Schmertmann et al, 1987;Leshchinsky and Boedeker, 1989;Jewell, 1991;Ponterosso and Fox, 1999) have also been developed for the design of reinforced slopes. Numerous numerical and physical studies have been conducted to study the behavior, stability and performance of geosynthetic reinforced retaining structures subjected to various conditions, including layered or soft foundation, differential settlement and limited reinforced space (Rowe and Skinner, 2001;Mandal and Joshi, 1996;Viswanadham and Konig, 2009;Leshchinsky et al, 2004), surcharge loadings (Yoo and Jung, 2008;Yoo and Kim, 2004), seismic loadings (Huang et al, 2011), and low permeable backfill (Raisinghani and Viswanadham, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%