Open Access

Effectiveness of reinforcing an earth structure with a system of counterfort drains over a long-term use


Cite

Figure 1

Landfill cross-section. I – retaining embankment, II – geotechnical layer II, III – geotechnical layer III, IV – geotechnical layer IV, V – municipal waste and VI – organic layer
Landfill cross-section. I – retaining embankment, II – geotechnical layer II, III – geotechnical layer III, IV – geotechnical layer IV, V – municipal waste and VI – organic layer

Figure 2

Landfill retaining embankment: a) damaged, 2004, and b) after repairs with counterforts P1–P5, 2005.
Landfill retaining embankment: a) damaged, 2004, and b) after repairs with counterforts P1–P5, 2005.

Figure 3

Location of the WST probing.
Location of the WST probing.

Figure 4

WST probing results between counterforts P1 and P2: a) WST-1 and b) WST-2.
WST probing results between counterforts P1 and P2: a) WST-1 and b) WST-2.

Figure 5

WST probing results between counterforts P2 and P3: a) WST-3 and b) WST-4.
WST probing results between counterforts P2 and P3: a) WST-3 and b) WST-4.

Figure 6

WST probing results between counterforts P3 and P4: a) WST-5 and b) WST-6.
WST probing results between counterforts P3 and P4: a) WST-5 and b) WST-6.

Figure 7

WST probing results between counterforts P4 and P5: a) WST-7 and b) WST-8.
WST probing results between counterforts P4 and P5: a) WST-7 and b) WST-8.

Figure 8

Changes in the retaining embankment soil liquidity index (mean values from three boreholes).
Changes in the retaining embankment soil liquidity index (mean values from three boreholes).

Figure 9

Stability analysis results (Bishop’s method)
Stability analysis results (Bishop’s method)

Figure 10

Selected stability analysis results (Bishop’s method): a) only the retaining embankment 2004, b) 2009, c) 2011 and d) 2013, 2015 and 2017 (identical results).
Selected stability analysis results (Bishop’s method): a) only the retaining embankment 2004, b) 2009, c) 2011 and d) 2013, 2015 and 2017 (identical results).

Laboratory test results in successive years (mean values from three boreholes).

PropertiesDepth [m]Years
2004200720092011201320152017
Water content, w [%]0.538.1333.8130.7429.6429.0130.1728.13
2.034.1431.4130.7830.0629.4230.2028.46
Plastic limit, wP [%]0.524.7424.0524.1724.0624.6324.2424.24
2.024.8724.1524.1223.9823.9825.0424.26
Liquid limit, wL [%]0.551.1551.0250.4450.5749.6551.0751.11
2.050.6050.8450.6551.2149.8548.9650.05

Parameters of the geotechnical layers used in the stability calculations [26, 27].

Geotechnical layerVolumetric weight, γ [kN/m3]Cohesion, cu [kPa]Angle of internal friction, ϕu [°]
II (sasiCl/Cl, IL = 0.15)20.845.09.9
III (Co and sasiCl/Cl, IL = 0.05)20.646.810.8
IV (Carpathian flysch)22.063.036.0
V (municipal waste)11.010.819.8
VI (organic soil)16.013.03.2

Retaining embankment soil parameters by liquidity index IL used in the stability calculations.

PropertiesYears
2004200720092011201320152017
Liquidity index, IL0.36, C0.27, C0.25, C0.22, C0.21, C/B0.22, C/B0.16, C/B
Unit weight, γ [kN/m3]20.020.020.021.021.021.021.0
Cohesion, cu [kPa]12.014.015.017.024.023.026.0
Angle of internal friction, ϕu [°]12.013.514.014.516.516.317.5
eISSN:
2083-831X
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Geosciences, other, Materials Sciences, Composites, Porous Materials, Physics, Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics