AFF-Wall Adobe Foundation Flood Protection TM Manufactured Exclusively By:
Every year millions of people lose their homes due to the uncontrollable forces of nature. Amri Village Pakistan 2010
Adobe homes are made primarily of sun dried mud bricks and become vulnerable when faced with flood waters. The foundation loses its structural integrity causing the entire structure to collapse.
The process of making sun dried adobe bricks can be time consuming. A small adobe home can take up to 2 months to construct. ? There has to be a better way!
AFF-Wall is a revolutionary system used in the construction of adobe style homes. Using proven Cellular Confinement technology, the AFF-Wall can dramatically increase the home building process while providing protection against floods and other natural disasters. AFF-Wall
The AFF-Wall System AFF-Wall is a two part system which is simple to use and requires no tools. AFF-Wall panels are connected together and enables the builder to configure the system to any dimension desired. Quickclips AFF-Wall Panel
The AFF-Wall Advantage <ul><li>Easy to use </li></ul><ul><li>Lightweight & Durable </li></ul><ul><li>No Tools Required </li></ul><ul><li>Cost Effective </li></ul><ul><li>No Waste </li></ul><ul><li>Build in Place </li></ul><ul><li>Interlocking Strength </li></ul><ul><li>Increased Load Support </li></ul><ul><li>Increased Installation Time </li></ul><ul><li>Adjustable Design </li></ul><ul><li>Self Contained Reinforcement </li></ul>
Build to any configuration Add on to existing structures at anytime.
<ul><li>HOW IT WORKS </li></ul><ul><li>A Cellular Confinement System when infilled with compacted soil creates a new composite entity that possesses enhanced mechanical and geotechnical properties. When the soil contained within a geocell is subjected to pressure, it causes lateral stresses on perimeter cell walls. The 3D zone of confinement reduces the lateral movement of soil particles while vertical loading on the contained infill results in high lateral stress and resistance on the cell-soil interface. These increase the shear strength of the confined soil, which: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creates a stiff mattress or slab to distribute the load over a wider area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduces punching of soft soil </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increases shear resistance and bearing capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decreases deformation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Confinement from adjacent cells provides additional resistance against the loaded cell through passive resistance, while lateral expansion of the infill is restricted by high hoop strength. Compaction is maintained by the confinement resulting in long term reinforcement. </li></ul>HISTORY Research and development of cellular confinement systems (CCS) began with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in September 1975 to test the feasibility of constructing tactical bridge approach roads over soft ground. Engineers discovered that sand-confinement systems performed better than conventional crushed stone sections. They concluded that a sand-confinement system could be developed that would provide an expedient construction technique for building approach roads over soft ground and that the system would not be adversely affected by wet weather conditions. Cellular Confinement Technology
^ Leshchinksy, D. (2009) “Research and Innovation: Seismic Performance of Various Geocell Earth-retention Systems,” Geosysnthetics, No. 27, No. 4, 46-52 Tests 1 and 2 show that gravity walls made of geocell can perform well under seismic loading . Such gravity systems may be economical for walls up to 3-4m high. Tests 3 and 4 show that a reinforced system, made entirely of geocell and soil, can be effective and likely economical. Since early development with the Corps of Engineers, geocells have been further improved for many other soil-stabilization applications, including the rapid construction of fortified walls in the U.S.’s Mideast combat zones, starting with Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s. Geosynthetics | October 2009 To determine the influence of a geocell layer on the load-settlement behavior and the vertical stresses on the subgrade, large scale model tests were conducted. The results have shown that the geocell layer reduced the vertical stresses on the subgrade about 30 %, distributed the vertical loads over a larger area and improved the bearing capacity of the infill material between 1.1 and 1.7 times Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Technology University of Clausthal. (e-mail: Ansgar.Emersleben@tuclausthal.de)
REFERENCES Al-Quadi I.L. & Hughes J.J. 2000. Field evaluation of geocell use in flexible pavements. Transportation Research Record (TRB) H. 1709, S. 26 - 35 Ben Kurari K. 2000. Implementation of geocells in low bearing capacity roads. Proceedings of the 2nd European Geosynthetics Conference, Session7A , S. 365 -368, Bologna Dash S.K., Krishnaswamy N.R. & Rajagopal, K. 2001. Bearing capacity of strip footings supported on geocellreinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume: 19, Issue: 4, S. 235-256, June, 2001 Dash S.K., Sireesh S. & Sitharam T.G 2003. Model studies on circular footing supported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume: 21, Issue: 4, S. 197-219 Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen - und Verkehrswesen, FGSV Arbeitspapier "Tragfähigkeit" Teil C2 "FWD, Auswertung und Bewertung", AK 4.8.2, Entwurf Stand Februar 2004 Forsman J., Slunga E. & Lahtinen P. 1998. Geogrid and Geocell Reinforced Secondary Road over Deep Peat Deposit. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Vol. 2, S. 773-778, Atlanta Leytland I.V., Aliver Y.A. & Bubnovsky V.V. 2006. Experience on using plastic geocells in the construction of roads under conditions of the arctic of Russia. Proceedings of the 8th international Geosynthetic Conference, S. 705 – 708, Yokohama Meyer N. & Emersleben A. 2005a. Mechanisches Verhalten von bewehrten Böden mit Geozellen. 9. Informations- und Vortragstagung über "Geokunststoffe in der Geotechnik", Sonderheft der Geotechnik, S. 49 - 55. Meyer, N. & Emersleben A. 2005b. Mechanisches Verhalten von bewehrten Böden mit Geozellen. Symposium Geotechnik – Verkehrswegebau und Tiefgründungen, Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Universität Kassel Heft 18, S. 93 – 112 Meyer, N. & Emersleben A. 2005c. Einsatz von Geozellen im Verkehrswegebau. Tiefbau – Ingenieurbau – Straßenbau (TIS) Heft 11, S. 32 – 37 Meyer, N. & Emersleben A. 2006a. Bodenstabilisierung mit Geozellen im Straßenbau. 21. Christian Veder Kolloquium (CVK) – Neue Entwicklungen der Baugrundverbesserung, Heft 28, S. 85-101 Technische Universität Graz (TUG) Meyer, N. & Emersleben A. 2006b. Stabilisierung von mineralischen Tragschichten mit Geozellen. Tiefbau Heft 11, S. 634 – 640 Mhaiskar S.Y. & Mandal, J.N. 1992. Soft Clay Subgrade stabilisation using Geocells. Geotechnical special publications, Vol. 30, S. 1092 – 1103, New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Ullidtz, P. 1998. Modelling Flexible Pavement Response and Performance. Polyteknisk Forlag, Lyngby. Sitharam T.G. & Siressh S. 2005. Behavior of embedded footings supported on geogrid cell reinforced foundation beds. Geotechnical testing journal Vol. 28, No. 5, S. 1-12