[雙語翻譯]擋土墻外文翻譯--土工合成材料加筋擋土墻內(nèi)部穩(wěn)定性分析

1、2000 英文單詞， 英文單詞，1.1 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 3150 字文獻出處： 文獻出處：Vlþek, Jozef. Internal Stability Analyses of Geosynthetic Reinforced Retaining Walls[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2014, 91:346-351.Internal Stability Analyses of G

2、eosynthetic Reinforced Retaining WallsJozef VlþekAbstractMonitoring of realized structures shows significant difference between assumed and measured values of the wall displacements and axial forces in geosynthetic

3、reinforcements. This difference is caused by the conservative approach of conventional analytical methods and by the high values of the safety factors of geosynthetic reinforcements that undervalue their strength paramet

4、ers. Therefore, deformation properties of the reinforcements and their interaction with soil environment become more important because strength parameters are not fully reached. Analysis of quantities, such as wall face

5、displacements, axial forces and strains in the reinforcements using analytical methods and numerical modelling, is presented in this paper.Keywords: FEM; geosynthetics; internal stability; retaining wall; soil-reinforcem

6、ent interaction;1. IntroductionUse of geosynthetic materials for reinforcing purposes allows us to replace the massive concrete retaining walls with reinforced earth structures that have advantages in realisation of the

7、structure on soft soils. Reinforced earth structures also withstand the differential settlement very well.Design of these structures includes verification of global and internal stability. Global stability check is based

8、 on the gravity walls theory, with reinforced volume of the soil considered as a rigid block. Several methods of internal stability verification, which were calibrated by the monitoring of real structures, were developed

9、. Beside the static equilibrium, these methods consider the influence of the reinforcement stiffness on overall structure stiffness, axial forces and strains of the reinforcement.Despite the improvements of these methods

10、, outputs of the monitoring mention the differences between assumed and measured strains and axial forces. Divergences are caused by the limitations of the analytical design methods, which verify only static equilibrium

11、without considering deformations.NomenclatureAASHTO The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials FHWAFederal Highway AdministrationHe effective height of the retaining structure (m)J axial ten

12、sile stiffness of the geosynthetic reinforcement (kN/m)Ti axial force in the i-th layer of the reinforcement (kN)? inclination of the resultant of earth pressure (°)Numerical methods are suitable for complex verific

13、ation of the structure stability in terms of both limit states and for the design of the key elements of the structure.Closer look at the recent design approaches indicates that despite the accomplishment of the first li

14、mit state, second limit state is usually not an object of verification and has a small space in the standards. Second limit state is critical for the reinforcement design because of limited strain of the geosynthetic rei

15、nforcing elements. Axial force, acting at considering strain, does not reach series of numerical models was created. Finite element method (FEM) software Plaxis 2D was used to analyze the internal stability in two select

16、ed realized retaining structures (cases A and B) that were monitored using inclinometric and geodetic measurements. Exact knowledge of construction phases, material properties, imposed loads and foundation conditions was

17、 required for calibration of the numerical models [6, 8, 10, and 11]. Same input data were used for analytical calculations according to the above-mentioned methods for internal stability analysis without involving the p

18、artial safety factors. The profiles, where retaining structures reach the highest elevation, were chosen for modelling.Quantities, such as axial forces and their distribution along the reinforcement, facing displacements

19、 and influence of the eccentric load, were considered by the numerical modelling. Mohr-Coulomb model (MC) was chosen as a material model. For mesh generation a 15-noded elements were used and 2D plane strain model was en

20、abled [3].3.1. Modelled structuresAn embankment of an overpass over railway with retaining wall at one of its slopes was modelled in case A. Retaining wall was reinforced with polypropylene geogrids connected to the segm

21、ental precast concrete blocks at the face of the wall. Foundation of the embankment consisted of two layers of polyester uniaxial geogrids with vertical spacing 0.3 m. The foundation of the wall was realized as a reinfor

22、ced concrete block with dimensions 0.6 x 1.2 m (Fig. 1 (a)). Vertical precast geodrains were installed below the base to speed up the consolidation process [7].Second structure was the retaining wall of the parking lot n

23、ear a warehouse. The facing was created using gabion blocks with basic height 1 m connected with geogrids (Fig. 1 (b)).Fig. 1. (a) Scheme of the embankment of the overpass over the railway – case A;(b) Scheme of the reta

24、ining wall of the parking lot – case B.The gabion wall in case B was founded on the reinforced concrete block with dimensions 1.7 x 1.0 m. This block was realized as a bond beam for two rows of micropiles. It was assumed

25、 that the toes of both walls were equally stabilized, which is a general assumption for the overall wall stability.4. Results of modellingHorizontal displacements at the back of the facing elements have similar propagati

26、on for both presented structures (Fig. 2 and 3). Maximum displacements are reached at the level 0.2 to 0.4He what corresponds with the position of the earth pressure resultant at 1/3 of structure height.Axial forces reac