EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 271 (2019) MATEC Web Conf., 271 (2019) 02001 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 271, 2019
2019 Tran-SET Annual Conference
Article Number 02001
Number of page(s) 6
Section Geotechnical
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201927102001
Published online 09 April 2019
  1. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A., and Bonnier, P.G., (1999). The hardening soil model: formulation and verification. Beyond 2000 in computational geotechnics, 281–296. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abu-Hejleh, N., Wang, T., and Zornberg, J.G., (2000). Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced walls supporting bridge and approaching roadway structures. In: Advances in transportation and geoenvironmental systems using geosynthetics, 218–243. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Adams, M., (1997). Performance of a prestrained geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge pier. Mech. Stab. backfill, 35–53. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ketchart, K., (1997). Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge pier and abutment, Denver, Colorado, USA. Mechanically stabilized backfill, 101–116. [Google Scholar]
  5. Adams, M.T., Lillis, C.P., Wu, J.T.H., and Ketchart, K., (2002). Vegas mini pier experiment and postulate of zero volume change. In: Proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Geosynthetics, 389–394. [Google Scholar]
  6. Adams, M.T., Ketchart, K., and Wu, J.T., (2007). Mini pier experiments: Geosynthetic reinforcement spacing and strength as related to performance. In: Geosynthetics in Reinforcement and Hydraulic Applications, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  7. Saghebfar, M., Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., Chen, Q., and Fernandez, B.A., (2017a). Performance monitoring of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) in Louisiana. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 45(2), 34–47. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Saghebfar, M., Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., Ardah, A., Chen, Q., and Fernandez, B.A., (2017b). Full-Scale Testing of Geosynthetic-Reinforced, Soil-Integrated Bridge System. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2656), 40–52. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Abu-Farsakh, M., Saghebfar, M., Ardah, A., and Chen, Q., (2017). A Case Study on Evaluating the Performance of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS). In: Geotechnical Frontiers, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
  10. Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., and Voyiadjis, G., (2018a). 3D Finite element analysis of the geosynthetic reinforced soil-integrated bridge system (GRS-IBS) under different loading conditions. Transportation Geotechnics, 15, 70–83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., and Voyiadjis, G., (2018b). Numerical Investigation of the Performance of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil– Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) Subjected to Differential Settlement (No. 18-01788). [Google Scholar]
  12. Ardah, A., Abu-Farsakh, M., and Voyiadjis, G., (2017). Numerical evaluation of the performance of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil-Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) under different loading conditions. In: Geotextiles and Geomembranes. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ardah, A., Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., and Voyiadjis, G.Z., (2018). Numerical Evaluation of the Effect of Differential Settlement on the Performance of GRS-IBS. Geosynthetics International, 1–45. [Google Scholar]
  14. Adams, M., Nicks, J., Stabile, T., Wu, J., Schlatter, W., and Hartmann, J., (2011). Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System, Interim Implementation Guide (No. FHWA-HRT-11-026). [Google Scholar]
  15. Ling, P., and Leshchinsky, D., (1996). Mesa Walls: Field Data Reduction, Finite Element Analysis, and Preliminary Design Recommendations. Report to Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc., Atlanta, GA, February 1. [Google Scholar]
  16. Leshchinsky, D., and Vulova, C., (2001). Numerical investigation of the effects of geosynthetic spacing on failure mechanisms in MSE block walls. Geosynthetics International, 8(4), 343–365. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Holtz, R.D., and Lee, W.F., (2002). Internal stability analyses of geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls (No. WA-RD 532.1,). Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Transportation. [Google Scholar]
  18. Guler, E., Hamderi, M., and Demirkan, M.M., (2007). Numerical analysis of reinforced soil-retaining wall structures with cohesive and granular backfills. Geosynthetics International, 14(6), 330–345. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, J., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., and Pierson, M.C., (2013). Refined numerical modeling of a laterally-loaded drilled shaft in an MSE wall. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 37, 61–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mirmoradi, S.H., and Ehrlich, M., (2014a). Modeling of the compaction-induced stresses in numerical analyses of GRS walls. International Journal of Computational Methods, 11(02): 1342002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mellas, M., Mabrouki, A., Benmeddour, D., and Rahmouni, O., (2015). Numerical study of geogrid-reinforced segmental earth retaining wall. Journal of Applied Engineering Science & Technology, 1(2), 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rahmouni, O., Mabrouki, A., Benmeddour, D., and Mellas, M., (2016). A numerical investigation into the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental retaining walls. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 10(5), 435–444. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Wu, J.T., Lee, K.Z., and Pham, T., (2006). Allowable bearing pressures of bridge sills on GRS abutments with flexible facing. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(7), 830–841. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Wu, J.T., Yang, K.H., Mohamed, S., Pham, T., and Chen, R.H., (2014). Suppression of soil dilation—A reinforcing mechanism of soil-geosynthetic composites. Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology, 1(1), 68–82. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, H., (2015). Reinforcement load and compression of reinforced soil mass under surcharge loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141(6), p.04015017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zheng, Y. and Fox, P.J., (2016). Numerical Investigation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutments under Static Loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(5), p.04016004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Zheng, Y. and Fox, P.J., (2017). Numerical Investigation of the Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil– Integrated Bridge System under Static Loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(6), p.04017008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Brinkgreve, R.B.J. (Ed.). (2002). Plaxis: Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses: 2DVersion 8: [user’s Guide]. Balkema. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dantas, B.T. (2004). Working Stress Analysis Method for Reinforced Cohesive Soil Slopes (Doctoral dissertation, D. Sc. Thesis, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro (in portuguese)). [Google Scholar]
  30. Ehrlich, M., and Mirmoradi, S.H. (2013). Evaluation of the effects of facing stiffness and toe resistance on the behavior of GRS walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 40: 28–36. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mirmoradi, S. H., and Ehrlich, M. (2014b). Numerical evaluation of the behavior of GRS walls with segmental block facing under working stress conditions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141(3): 04014109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ardah, A., (2018). Field Instrumentations and Numerical Analysis of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil – Integrated Bridge System (Grs-Ibs). [Google Scholar]
  33. Ling, H.I., Yang, S., Leshchinsky, D., Liu, H., and Burke, C., (2010). Finite-element simulations of full-scale modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls under earthquake loading. Journal of engineering mechanics, 136(5), 653–661. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., and Voyiadjis, G., (2018) Numerical Investigation of the Performance of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil-Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) under Working Stress Conditions. In IFCEE 2018, 76–87. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.