No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

El concepto moderno de la técnica de suelo reforzado data de inicios de la década de los 60. En el tiempo en que esta práctica viene siendo empleada y estudiada, ha gozado de gran popularidad debido a sus relativos bajos costos en comparación con sistemas tradicionales equivalentes, el grado de fiabilidad del sistema, su aspecto y su diversidad arquitectónicos. En el año 2001, la Federal Highway Administration de Estados Unidos desarrolló el manual de diseño y construcción de muros TEM, actualmente FHWA-NHI-10-024 y FHWA-NHI-10-25, los cuales brindan instrucciones y recomendaciones para el diseño y construcción de estas estructuras, basados en las instrucciones de la norma AASHTO LRFD. Estas fuentes incluyen una serie de supuestos, entre los cuales se encuentra el asumir la base del muro como una cimentación equivalente. La norma AASHTO LRFD lo establece de la siguiente manera: “(…) se deberá asumir una cimentación equivalente cuya longitud sea la longitud del muro y cuyo ancho sea la longitud de la cinta de refuerzo al nivel de la fundación. Las presiones a soportar deberán ser modeladas empleando una distribución uniforme de carga en la base, aplicado en un ancho efectivo (B’= L-2e)”. AASHTO LRFD (2010). La presente investigación pretende analizar el modo como se realiza la transferencia de esfuerzos al suelo de fundación de un muro de suelo reforzado con el fin de verificar en que modo dicho supuesto es técnicamente correcto, así como analizar la posibilidad de reducir la extensión del refuerzo empleado por medio de una optimización del cálculo a través de un modelo más cercano a la realidad. Para ello, se pretende realizar un Análisis por Elementos Finitos empleando un Modelo Constitutivo que incorpore al modelo el comportamiento no-lineal del suelo, tanto para el material de relleno como para el suelo de fundación. / The modern concept of the reinforced earth technique dates to the early 1960s. In the time this practice has been used and studied, it has enjoyed great popularity due to its relatively low costs compared to equivalent traditional systems, the degree of reliability of the system, its architectural appearance and diversity. In 2001, the United States Federal Highway Administration developed the MSE wall design and construction manual, currently FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-25, which provide instructions and recommendations for the design and construction of these structures, based on the instructions of the AASHTO LRFD standard. These sources include a series of assumptions, among which is the assumption of the base of the wall as an equivalent foundation. The AASHTO LRFD standard states it as follows: “(…) An equivalent footing shall be assumed whose length is the length of the wall, and whose width is the length of the reinforcement strip at the foundation level. Bearing pressures shall be computed using a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective width (B ’= L-2e)”. AASHTO LRFD (2010). The present research aims to analyze the way in which stresses are transferred to the foundation soil of a reinforced soil wall to verify in which way that assumption is technically correct. As well as to analyze the possibility of reducing the extension of the reinforcement used, by means of an optimization of the calculation through a model closer to reality. To do this, it is intended to carry out a Finite Element Analysis using a Constitutive Model that incorporates the non-linear behavior of the soil into the model, both for the filling material and for the foundation soil. / Tesis

No description available.

No description available.

<p dir="ltr">Reinforced concrete elements are vulnerable to sliding against each other when shear forces are transmitted between them. Shear-friction is the mechanism by which shear is transferred between concrete surfaces. It develops by aggregate interlock between the concrete interfaces while reinforcement crossing the shear interface or normal force due to external loads contributes to the shear resistance. Current design provisions used in the United States (ACI 318-19, AASHTO LRFD (2020), and the PCI Design Handbook (2017)) include design expression for shear-friction capacity. However, the value of the reinforcement yield strength input into the expressions is limited to a maximum of 60 ksi. Furthermore, the concrete strength is not incorporated into the primary design expressions. These limits cause the potential contribution of high-strength reinforcement and high-strength concrete in shear-friction applications from being considered. Therefore, a research program was developed to investigate the possibility of improving current shear-friction design practice and addressing these current limits.</p><p dir="ltr">Specifically, an experimental program was conducted to evaluate the influence of high-strength reinforcement and high-strength concrete on shear-friction strength. In addition, a statistical analysis was performed using a comprehensive shear-frication database comprised of past tests available in the literature. The experimental program consisted of two phases. Phase I included 24 push-off specimens to study the influence of the yield strength of the interface reinforcement (Grade 60 and Grade 100) and the number and size of interface reinforcing bars (6-No.4 and 4-No. 5 bars) with three different interface conditions (rough, smooth, and shear-key). Phase II included 20 push-off specimens with rough interfaces to investigate the influence of the yield strength of the interface reinforcement (Grade 60 and Grade 100) and concrete strength (target strengths of 4000 psi and 8000 psi). The influence of these two variables was observed over a range of reinforcement ratios (ρ = 0.55%, 0.83%, 1.11%, and 1.38%).</p><p dir="ltr">The test results showed that the overall shear-friction strength was the greatest for rough interface specimens, followed by specimens detailed with shear keys. The smooth interface specimens had the lowest strengths. The results of both phases of the experimental program indicated that the use of high-strength reinforcement did not improve shear-friction capacity.</p><p dir="ltr">Furthermore, the results from the Phase II tests showed that increasing the concrete compressive strength led to increased shear-friction capacity. The test results from the experimental program were analyzed and compared with current design provisions, which demonstrated room for improvement of current design practice.</p><p dir="ltr">Following the experimental program, a comprehensive shear-friction database was analyzed, and multilinear regression was used to create a model to predict shear-friction strength. Factors were then applied to the model to provide acceptable design expressions for shear-friction strength (less than 5% unconservative estimates). The database was used to evaluate the factored model and current design provisions.</p><p dir="ltr">The research outcomes, especially the expressions for shear-friction strength that were developed and that include consideration of the concrete compression strength, along with the shear-friction tests demonstrating the lack of strength gain with the use of Grade 100 reinforcement, provide valuable information for the concrete community to help direct efforts toward improving current shear-friction design practice.</p>