A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A continuous sliding movement of a reinforced concrete retaining wall, on Pennsylvania Route 51 north of Pittsburgh, was stopped by the installation of 130 rock anchors. Thirteen load cells and nineteen slope inclinometers were installed to continuously record the anchor loads and the wall and soil movements. In addition, survey readings were taken to measure vertical and horizontal movements of the wall as well as the movements in the highway pavements above the wall. The results from the field testing of rock anchors, evaluation of the performance of Telemac Load Cells, the Remote Systems Load Cells, field data on load deformation, and time-versus-anchor load behavior, are presented. The following conclusions were made: A significant amount (one-half inch to an inch) of permanent set was nesessary for the seating of the rock anchors. The inclinaton (30 degrees) of ROW-B and ROW-C anchors appeared to be excessive, causing downward movements on parts of the wall. An inclination of 15 degrees would have been more desirable. As a nominal load (10 percent of the design loads) on the ROW-C anchors had stabilized, it appeared that ROW-C anchors were not carrying large earth pressure loads and that these anchors probably provided an additional margin of safety. Telemac and Remote System Load Cells appeared to function well once the calibraton was stabilized, but these were well below the desired one-half percent accuracy.
A continuous sliding movement of a reinforced concrete retaining wall, on Pennsylvania Route 51 north of Pittsburgh, was stopped by the installation of 130 rock anchors. Thirteen load cells and nineteen slope inclinometers were installed to continuously record the anchor loads and the wall and soil movements. In addition, survey readings were taken to measure vertical and horizontal movements of the wall as well as the movements in the highway pavements above the wall. The results from the field testing of rock anchors, evaluation of the performance of Telemac Load Cells, the Remote Systems Load Cells, field data on load deformation, and time-versus-anchor load behavior, are presented. The following conclusions were made: A significant amount (one-half inch to an inch) of permanent set was nesessary for the seating of the rock anchors. The inclinaton (30 degrees) of ROW-B and ROW-C anchors appeared to be excessive, causing downward movements on parts of the wall. An inclination of 15 degrees would have been more desirable. As a nominal load (10 percent of the design loads) on the ROW-C anchors had stabilized, it appeared that ROW-C anchors were not carrying large earth pressure loads and that these anchors probably provided an additional margin of safety. Telemac and Remote System Load Cells appeared to function well once the calibraton was stabilized, but these were well below the desired one-half percent accuracy.
Performance Monitoring of a Tieback Wall
1979
69 pages
Report
No indication
English
Ground Movements from Model Tieback Wall Construction
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1994
Tieback Retaining Wall in High Plasticity Expansive Soil
| ASCE | 2016
Failure of Tieback Wall Anchors due to Corrosion
| ASCE | 2007
Tieback Retaining Wall in High Plasticity Expansive Soil
| British Library Online Contents | 2017