2001
DOI: 10.1680/geot.51.10.881.41058
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Horizontal slice method of analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The pseudo-dynamic analysis of a typical reinforced soil wall by the method of horizontal slices has been presented and compared with the pseudo-static results using the method of horizontal slices proposed by Shahgholi et al (2001) and the analytical model implemented in the program ReSlope by and Ling et al (1997). In the ReSlope program, the slip surface is assumed to be a log-spiral, whereas a multilinear slip surface is assumed both in the horizontal slice method proposed by Shahgholi et al (2001) and in the present study.…”
Section: Comparison Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The pseudo-dynamic analysis of a typical reinforced soil wall by the method of horizontal slices has been presented and compared with the pseudo-static results using the method of horizontal slices proposed by Shahgholi et al (2001) and the analytical model implemented in the program ReSlope by and Ling et al (1997). In the ReSlope program, the slip surface is assumed to be a log-spiral, whereas a multilinear slip surface is assumed both in the horizontal slice method proposed by Shahgholi et al (2001) and in the present study.…”
Section: Comparison Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the ReSlope program, the slip surface is assumed to be a log-spiral, whereas a multilinear slip surface is assumed both in the horizontal slice method proposed by Shahgholi et al (2001) and in the present study. Table 2 shows the values of the required geosynthetic reinforcement force Ót jmax for different values of k h and ö with â ¼ 908, k v ¼ 0.0, H/ º ¼ 0.167, H/ç ¼ 0.09 and H ¼ 5 m. For ö ¼ 208, when k h changes from 0.0 to 0.1, the required geosynthetic reinforcement force Ót jmax calculated by the pseudo-dynamic method increases by 25%, compared with 16% as computed by the pseudo-static method.…”
Section: Comparison Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…A lot of researchers proposed methods for the stability analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced slopes on the basis of limit equilibrium theory. Some valuable work associated with such analysis has been conducted by Jewell, 1982Jewell, , 1986Jewell, and 1991Milligan and Rochelle, 1984;Rowe and Soderman, 1985;Leshchinsky and Reinschmidt, 1985;Leshchinsky et al 1986;Hird, 1986;Chouery et al, 1989;Leshchinsky and Boedeker, 1989;Koerner, 1990;Low et al, 1990;Greenwood, 1990;Mandal and Labhane, 1991;Wright and Duncan, 1991;Greenwood and Zytynski 1993;Sabhahit et al, 1994;Leshchinsky et al 1995;Mandal and Joshi, 1996;Low and Tang, 1997;Palmeira et al, 1998;Shahgholi et al 2001. Centrifuge model tests have been conducted by Zornberg et al (1998Zornberg et al ( & 2003, Viswanadham and Mahajan (2007) to investigate the mechanical behaviour of reinforced slopes both at failure and in pre-failure states.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%