Bibliographic citations
Aguirre, R., Linares, M. (2024). Análisis comparativo en el diseño de Muros de suelo reforzado con Sistema Terramesh y Sistema de muro de Gaviones en Chancador Primario [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/674811
Aguirre, R., Linares, M. Análisis comparativo en el diseño de Muros de suelo reforzado con Sistema Terramesh y Sistema de muro de Gaviones en Chancador Primario [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/674811
@misc{renati/419536,
title = "Análisis comparativo en el diseño de Muros de suelo reforzado con Sistema Terramesh y Sistema de muro de Gaviones en Chancador Primario",
author = "Linares Ishihara, Midori Rosa",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2024"
}
To achieve slope stabilization and soil containment in civil engineering projects, various types of reinforced soil structures are used, with the most common being the Terramesh Wall System (SMT) and the Gabion Wall System (SMG). To determine the best option for implementation at the Primary Crusher site, a comparison was conducted between the aforementioned systems. Both designs were executed with a height of 12m at the km500 station, considering the required technical specifications and minimum safety factors as per regulations. The Slide2 software was employed for the SMT design, while the geotechnical software GEO5 was utilized for the SMG design. After performing verification calculations for external stability, the corresponding Factor of Safety (FS) values were determined for each stability method. For SMT, FS overturning=3.52, FS sliding=3.65, and FS loading=14.67 were obtained, while for SMG, FS overturning=4.94 and FS sliding=2.81 were obtained. Both designed walls meet the required conditions to ensure wall stability and satisfy the minimum safety factors required by regulations. However, SMT is chosen due to its practicality in construction methodology and implementation in such projects, its smaller footprint in foundation base requirement, its lower maintenance needs compared to gabions once installed, and its construction cost, which amounts to 30% of the cost of SMG.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License