Scholarlink

<p>This study compared the global stability of Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls with sustainable backfills using the Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) and Finite Element Method (FEM). A total of 120 models were analyzed, examining backfill type (sand, recycled concrete aggregate, and reclaimed asphalt pavement), reinforcement type, wall height (2–8&#xa0;m), length-to-height ratio, and retained slope angle. Recycled concrete aggregate provided comparable stability to sand (FS ≥ 1.5), while reclaimed asphalt pavement often failed minimum requirements in walls over 6&#xa0;m or with steep slopes. In LEM analyses, geogrids provided higher factors of safety, achieving up to 6.6% improvement in critical conditions. FEM results showed geogrids reduced lateral displacements and earth pressures by 5–6% compared to geotextiles. Both methods showed strong agreement (FS difference &lt; 5%), with FEM identifying failure surfaces initiating at the reinforced zone’s rear. All designs met serviceability limits, with horizontal displacements remaining below 0.21% of wall height. Foundation pressures remained below theoretical values due to soil arching. Recycled concrete aggregate was viable for walls up to 6&#xa0;m, while reclaimed asphalt pavement required geometric modifications. For taller walls or steep slopes, extended reinforcement (length-to-height ratio &gt; 1.0) and hybrid stabilization were recommended.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Numerical Analysis of MSE Walls with Sustainable Backfills Using Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Method

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月27日

查看全文
  • Danny Useche-Infante

摘要

This study compared the global stability of Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls with sustainable backfills using the Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) and Finite Element Method (FEM). A total of 120 models were analyzed, examining backfill type (sand, recycled concrete aggregate, and reclaimed asphalt pavement), reinforcement type, wall height (2–8 m), length-to-height ratio, and retained slope angle. Recycled concrete aggregate provided comparable stability to sand (FS ≥ 1.5), while reclaimed asphalt pavement often failed minimum requirements in walls over 6 m or with steep slopes. In LEM analyses, geogrids provided higher factors of safety, achieving up to 6.6% improvement in critical conditions. FEM results showed geogrids reduced lateral displacements and earth pressures by 5–6% compared to geotextiles. Both methods showed strong agreement (FS difference < 5%), with FEM identifying failure surfaces initiating at the reinforced zone’s rear. All designs met serviceability limits, with horizontal displacements remaining below 0.21% of wall height. Foundation pressures remained below theoretical values due to soil arching. Recycled concrete aggregate was viable for walls up to 6 m, while reclaimed asphalt pavement required geometric modifications. For taller walls or steep slopes, extended reinforcement (length-to-height ratio > 1.0) and hybrid stabilization were recommended.