• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 37
  • 10
  • 7
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • Tagged with
  • 67
  • 67
  • 37
  • 19
  • 18
  • 16
  • 16
  • 13
  • 13
  • 12
  • 12
  • 11
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

Highway cut slope instability problems in Malaysia

Othman, M. Asbi January 1989 (has links)
No description available.
2

Construction on supersoft soils using geogrids

Zakaria, Nor Azazi Bin January 1994 (has links)
No description available.
3

The action of geotextiles in providing combined drainage and reinforcement to cohesive soil

Heshmati, Sohrob January 1993 (has links)
This thesis describes a study into the action of geotextiles in providing combined drainage and reinforcement to cohesive soil and the identification of the interaction of different geotextiles with a cohesive soil. The study involved both experimental and analytical investigations. Fine grained cohesive soil is a complex material. The introduction of geosynthetics providing both drainage and a reinforcement function produce a marked increase in the shear strength characteristics of the clay material. A number of consolidated undrained and consolidated drained triaxial compression tests and Rowe cell consolidation tests were conducted. The objective of the tests was to identify the separate effects (improvement) on the shear strength properties of the cohesive soil (kaolin) provided by the drainage function and separately that provided by the reinforcing function of a number of geotextiles. An Electron Scanning Microscope study was used to investigate the interaction between the cohesive soil and the geosynthetic materials. The study provided qualitative information concerning the relative improvement of the physical properties of a fine grained cohesive soil when used in construction with range of geosynthetic materials. Analysis of the results of the research suggest that geotextile products could offer significant technical, practical and economic advantages when constructed with poor quality soils. The combined function of drainage and reinforcement which could be developed by some geosynthetic materials could be substantial. Combining the functions of drainage and reinforcement in a single material requires the resulting geosynthetic to have special properties. The form of a geocomposite drainage and reinforcement material with these properties is proposed
4

Some Studies On The Analysis Of Reinforced Soil Beds

Raghavendra, H B 08 1900 (has links) (PDF)
No description available.
5

Investigation of Required Tensile Strength Predicted by Current Reinforced Soil Design Methodologies

Phillips, Erin Katherine 01 July 2014 (has links)
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) is a promising technology that can be implemented in walls, culverts, rock fall barriers, and bridge abutments. Its use in walls and abutments is similar to Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSEW) reinforced with geosynthetics. Both GRS and MSEW are reinforced soil technologies that use reinforcement to provide tensile capacity within soil masses. However, the soil theories behind each method and the design methodologies associated with GRS and MSEW technologies are quite different. Therefore, a study was undertaken to compare the required tensile strength predicted by these various reinforced soil design methodologies. For the purposes of this study, the required ultimate tensile strength was defined as the ultimate tensile strength needed in the reinforcement after all applicable factors of safety, load factors, and reduction factors were applied. The investigation explored both MSEW and GRS. GRS has been made an FHWA "Every Day Counts" initiative. Due to the push to implement GRS technology, it is critical to understand how GRS design methods differs from classic MSEW design methods, specifically in the prediction of ultimate tensile strength required. A parametric study was performed comparing five different reinforced soil analysis methods. Two are current MSEW design methods and one was a proposed revision to an existing MSEW design method. The final two were GRS design methods. These design methods are among the most current and/or widely used design references in the United States regarding reinforced soil technology. There are significant differences between the methods in the governing soil theory particularly between GRS and MSEW design methods. The goal of the study was to understand which design parameters had the most influence on calculated values of the required ultimate tensile strength and nominal "unfactored" tensile strength. A base case was established and a reasonable set of parameter variations was determined. Two loading conditions were imposed, a roadway loading scenario and a bridge loading scenario. Based on parametric study findings, conclusions were drawn about which design parameters had the most influence for different design methods. Additionally, the difference in overall predicted required tensile strength was assessed between the various methods. Finally, the underlying soil theory and assumptions employed by the different methods and their influence on predicted required tensile strength values was interpreted. / Master of Science
6

An investigation into the seismic performance and progressive failure mechanism of model geosynthetic reinforced soil walls

Loh, Kelvin January 2013 (has links)
Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls involve the use of geosynthetic reinforcement (polymer material) within the retained backfill, forming a reinforced soil block where transmission of overturning and sliding forces on the wall to the backfill occurs. Key advantages of GRS systems include the reduced need for large foundations, cost reduction (up to 50%), lower environmental costs, faster construction and significantly improved seismic performance as observed in previous earthquakes. Design methods in New Zealand have not been well established and as a result, GRS structures do not have a uniform level of seismic and static resistance; hence involve different risks of failure. Further research is required to better understand the seismic behaviour of GRS structures to advance design practices. The experimental study of this research involved a series of twelve 1-g shake table tests on reduced-scale (1:5) GRS wall models using the University of Canterbury shake-table. The seismic excitation of the models was unidirectional sinusoidal input motion with a predominant frequency of 5Hz and 10s duration. Seismic excitation of the model commenced at an acceleration amplitude level of 0.1g and was incrementally increased by 0.1g in subsequent excitation levels up to failure (excessive displacement of the wall panel). The wall models were 900mm high with a full-height rigid facing panel and five layers of Microgird reinforcement (reinforcement spacing of 150mm). The wall panel toe was founded on a rigid foundation and was free to slide. The backfill deposit was constructed from dry Albany sand to a backfill relative density, Dr = 85% or 50% through model vibration. The influence of GRS wall parameters such as reinforcement length and layout, backfill density and application of a 3kPa surcharge on the backfill surface was investigated in the testing sequence. Through extensive instrumentation of the wall models, the wall facing displacements, backfill accelerations, earth pressures and reinforcement loads were recorded at the varying levels of model excitation. Additionally, backfill deformation was also measured through high-speed imaging and Geotechnical Particle Image Velocimetry (GeoPIV) analysis. The GeoPIV analysis enabled the identification of the evolution of shear strains and volumetric strains within the backfill at low strain levels before failure of the wall thus allowing interpretations to be made regarding the strain development and shear band progression within the retained backfill. Rotation about the wall toe was the predominant failure mechanism in all excitation level with sliding only significant in the last two excitation levels, resulting in a bi-linear displacement acceleration curve. An increase in acceleration amplification with increasing excitation was observed with amplification factors of up to 1.5 recorded. Maximum seismic and static horizontal earth pressures were recorded at failure and were recorded at the wall toe. The highest reinforcement load was recorded at the lowest (deepest in the backfill) reinforcement layer with a decrease in peak load observed at failure, possibly due to pullout failure of the reinforcement layer. Conversely, peak reinforcement load was recorded at failure for the top reinforcement layer. The staggered reinforcement models exhibited greater wall stability than the uniform reinforcement models of L/H=0.75. However, similar critical accelerations were determined for the two wall models due to the coarseness of excitation level increments of 0.1g. The extended top reinforcements were found to restrict the rotational component of displacement and prevented the development of a preliminary shear band at the middle reinforcement layer, contributing positively to wall stability. Lower acceleration amplification factors were determined for the longer uniform reinforcement length models due to reduced model deformation. A greater distribution of reinforcement load towards the top two extended reinforcement layers was also observed in the staggered wall models. An increase in model backfill density was observed to result in greater wall stability than an increase in uniform reinforcement length. Greater acceleration amplification was observed in looser backfill models due to their lower model stiffness. Due to greater confinement of the reinforcement layers, greater reinforcement loads were developed in higher density wall models with less wall movement required to engage the reinforcement layers and mobilise their resistance. The application of surcharge on the backfill was observed to initially increase the wall stability due to greater normal stresses within the backfill but at greater excitation levels, the surcharge contribution to wall destabilising inertial forces outweighs its contribution to wall stability. As a result, no clear influence of surcharge on the critical acceleration of the wall models was observed. Lower acceleration amplification factors were observed for the surcharged models as the surcharge acts as a damper during excitation. The application of the surcharge also increases the magnitude of reinforcement load developed due to greater confinement and increased wall destabilising forces. The rotation of the wall panel resulted in the progressive development of shears surface with depth that extended from the backfill surface to the ends of the reinforcement (edge of the reinforced soil block). The resultant failure plane would have extended from the backfill surface to the lowest reinforcement layer before developing at the toe of the wall, forming a two-wedge failure mechanism. This is confirmed by development of failure planes at the lowest reinforcement layer (deepest with the backfill) and at the wall toe observed at the critical acceleration level. Key observations of the effect of different wall parameters from the GeoPIV results are found to be in good agreement with conclusions developed from the other forms of instrumentation. Further research is required to achieve the goal of developing seismic guidelines for GRS walls in geotechnical structures in New Zealand. This includes developing and testing wall models with a different facing type (segmental or wrap-around facing), load cell instrumentation of all reinforcement layers, dynamic loading on the wall panel and the use of local soils as the backfill material. Lastly, the limitations of the experimental procedure and wall models should be understood.
7

Analyse sismique des ouvrages renforcés par inclusions rigides à l'aide d'une modélisation multiphasique / Seismic analysis of structures reinforced by rigid inclusions using a multiphase model

Nguyen, Viet Tuan 04 February 2014 (has links)
Tandis que l'emploi des techniques de renforcement des structures s'est largement généralisé et diversifié, les méthodes de calcul et de simulation du comportement de telles structures, par nature composites, exigent encore de nombreux développements, tant sur le plan théorique (recours aux techniques d'homogénéisation), que numérique. Ainsi, dans le domaine du génie civil, une modélisation qualifiée de multiphasique a été récemment proposée pour les ouvrages en sols renforcés par inclusions linéaires continues souples (terre armée, géotextiles, etc.) ou raides (inclusions "rigides", pieux, etc.).Ce présent travail a pour but de développer une méthode de calcul rapide et fiable, à travers cette modélisation multiphasique, pour le dimensionnement vis-à-vis de sollicitations dynamiques dans le cas où l'ouvrage est renforcé par un groupe de pieux ou d'inclusions rigides, en se restreignant au cas de l'élastodynamique, c'est à dire d'un comportement élastique linéaire des différents constituants du sol renforcé. Il consiste d'une part à analyser la propagation d"ondes sismiques au sein du massif renforcé et d'autre part à mettre en oeuvre un outil numérique basé sur la méthode des éléments finis pour déterminer les fonctions d'impédance d'un sol renforcé par un réseau régulière d'inclusions vertical. D'où les effets de l'interaction sol-inclusions, ainsi de flexion et de cisaillement des inclusions sont pris en compte. / The reinforcement of structures in becoming an increasingly used technique, although the simulation and design of such structures still require many developpements both in theory (use of homogenization techniques) and numeric. Thus, in the civil engineering domains, a qualified multiphase model has been recently proposed for soil reinforced by continuous linear inclusions flexible (reinforced earth structures, geotextiles, etc. ) or stiff (rigid inclusions, piles, etc.).The present work aims to develop a fast and reliable method of calculation, through such a multiphase model, for the design with dynamic load applied on reinforced soil by a group of piles or rigid inclusions, by restricting the elastodynamic case, that is a linear elastic behavior for both constituents. It consists firstly to analyze the propagation of seismic waves in the solid reinforced and secondly to implement a fem.-based numerical code for determining the impedance functions of a reinforced soil by a regular vertical network inclusions. In this model, the interacton soil-inclusions and also the shear and flexural effects of inclusions are both taken into account.
8

Fluência de geotêxteis / Creep of geotextiles

Costa, Carina Maia Lins 08 July 1999 (has links)
Este trabalho apresenta resultados de ensaios de fluência confinada e não-confinada de geotêxteis não-tecidos agulhados. Algumas dificuldades encontradas durante o desenvolvimento dos equipamentos utilizados para realizar esses ensaios em laboratório são também apresentadas e discutidas. A etapa de investigação sem confinamento envolveu a utilização de geotêxteis de poliéster e de polipropileno. Os resultados confirmaram o grande potencial desses materiais em apresentar fluência assim como a maior susceptibilidade dos geotêxteis de polipropileno. No caso de ensaios com confinamento, tentativas de se tracionar um geotêxtil de polipropileno entre duas camadas de solo revelaram grandes dificuldades para manter a carga aplicada constante ao longo do corpo de prova, em virtude da existência de atrito nas interfaces solo-geotêxtil. Ensaios alternativos retirando-se o solo e envolvendo-se o geotêxtil em uma membrana de látex lubrificada apresentaram bons resultados, comprovando a redução da fluência em relação aos ensaios não confinados e denotando tratar-se de uma solução viável para investigar o real papel do confinamento na fluência dos geotêxteis. / This work presents results of confined and unconfined creep tests on nonwoven needle punched geotextiles. Withdraws found during the equipment development used to perform these tests are also highlighted and discussed. The unconfined tests encompassed the use of polyester and polypropylene geotextiles. Results confirm that these materials have a great potential to creep, being the polypropylene geotextiles the material with the greatest susceptibility. The confined tests where geotextile was placed between two soil layers revealed difficulties in keeping the applied load constant throughout the specimen due to soil-geotextile interface friction. Alternative tests performed without the soil and embedding the geotextile in a lubricated latex membrane showed good results, proving the decrease of creep in relation to unconfined tests. Thus, one can conclude that this is a viable solution towards the investigation of the real role that confinement plays in geotextile creep.
9

Seismic Response Of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Wall Models Using Shaking Table Tests

Adapa, Murali Krishna 02 1900 (has links)
Use of soil retaining walls for roads, embankments and bridges is increasing with time and reinforced soil retaining walls are found to be very efficient even under critical conditions compared to unreinforced walls. They offer competitive solutions to earth retaining problems associated with less space and more loads posed by tremendous growth in infrastructure, in addition to the advantages in ease and cost of construction compared to conventional retaining wall systems. The study of seismic performance of reinforced soil retaining walls is receiving much attention in the light of lessons learned from past failures of conventional retaining walls. Laboratory model studies on these walls under controlled seismic loading conditions help to understand better how these walls actually behave during earthquakes. The objective of the present study is to investigate the seismic response of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall models through shaking table tests. To achieve this, wrap faced and rigid faced reinforced soil retaining walls of size 750 × 500 mm in plan and 600 mm height are built in rigid and flexible containers and tested under controlled dynamic conditions using a uni-axial shaking table. The effects of frequency and acceleration of the base motion, surcharge pressure on the crest, number of reinforcing layers, container boundary, wall structure and reinforcement layout on the seismic performance of the retaining walls are studied through systematic series of shaking table tests. Results are analyzed to understand the effect of each of the considered parameters on the face displacements, acceleration amplifications and soil pressures on facing at different elevations of the walls. A numerical model is developed to simulate the shaking table tests on wrap faced reinforced soil walls using a computer program FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua). The experimental data are used to validate the numerical model and parametric studies are carried out on 6 m height full-scale wall using this model. Thus, the study deals with the shaking table tests, dynamic response of reinforced walls and their numerical simulation. The thesis presents detailed description of various features and various parts of the shaking table facility along with the instrumentation and model containers. Methodology adopted for the construction of reinforced soil model walls and testing procedures are briefly described. Scaling and stability issues related to the model wall size and reinforcement strength are also discussed. From the study, it is observed that the displacements are decreasing with the increase in relative density of backfill, increase in surcharge pressure and increase in number of reinforcing layers; In general, accelerations are amplified to the most at the top of the wall; Behaviour of model walls is sensitive to model container boundary. The frequency content is very important parameter affecting the model response. Further, it is noticed that the face displacements are significantly affected by all of the above parameters, while the accelerations are less sensitive to reinforcement parameters. Even very low strength geonet and geotextile are able to reduce the displacements by 75% compared to unreinforced wall. The strain levels in the reinforcing elements are observed to be very low, in the order of ±150 micro strains. A random dynamic event is also used in one of the model tests and the resulted accelerations and displacements are presented. Numerical parametric studies provided important insight into the behaviour of wrap faced walls under various seismic loading conditions and variation in physical parameters.
10

Fluência de geotêxteis / Creep of geotextiles

Carina Maia Lins Costa 08 July 1999 (has links)
Este trabalho apresenta resultados de ensaios de fluência confinada e não-confinada de geotêxteis não-tecidos agulhados. Algumas dificuldades encontradas durante o desenvolvimento dos equipamentos utilizados para realizar esses ensaios em laboratório são também apresentadas e discutidas. A etapa de investigação sem confinamento envolveu a utilização de geotêxteis de poliéster e de polipropileno. Os resultados confirmaram o grande potencial desses materiais em apresentar fluência assim como a maior susceptibilidade dos geotêxteis de polipropileno. No caso de ensaios com confinamento, tentativas de se tracionar um geotêxtil de polipropileno entre duas camadas de solo revelaram grandes dificuldades para manter a carga aplicada constante ao longo do corpo de prova, em virtude da existência de atrito nas interfaces solo-geotêxtil. Ensaios alternativos retirando-se o solo e envolvendo-se o geotêxtil em uma membrana de látex lubrificada apresentaram bons resultados, comprovando a redução da fluência em relação aos ensaios não confinados e denotando tratar-se de uma solução viável para investigar o real papel do confinamento na fluência dos geotêxteis. / This work presents results of confined and unconfined creep tests on nonwoven needle punched geotextiles. Withdraws found during the equipment development used to perform these tests are also highlighted and discussed. The unconfined tests encompassed the use of polyester and polypropylene geotextiles. Results confirm that these materials have a great potential to creep, being the polypropylene geotextiles the material with the greatest susceptibility. The confined tests where geotextile was placed between two soil layers revealed difficulties in keeping the applied load constant throughout the specimen due to soil-geotextile interface friction. Alternative tests performed without the soil and embedding the geotextile in a lubricated latex membrane showed good results, proving the decrease of creep in relation to unconfined tests. Thus, one can conclude that this is a viable solution towards the investigation of the real role that confinement plays in geotextile creep.

Page generated in 0.0503 seconds