Full Text:   <813>

Summary:  <313>

CLC number: 

On-line Access: 2022-11-28

Received: 2022-04-02

Revision Accepted: 2022-07-29

Crosschecked: 2022-11-28

Cited: 0

Clicked: 1023

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714

 ORCID:

Qiang LUO

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3229-5125

Teng-fei WANG

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4079-0687

-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 2022 Vol.23 No.11 P.900-916

http://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A2200192


Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill


Author(s):  Ming WEI, Qiang LUO, Gui-shuai FENG, Teng-fei WANG, Liang-wei JIANG

Affiliation(s):  School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China; more

Corresponding email(s):   w@swjtu.edu.cn

Key Words:  Cantilever retaining wall, Backfill reinforcement, Seismic response, Shaking table test, Dynamic earth pressure, Phase shift


Ming WEI, Qiang LUO, Gui-shuai FENG, Teng-fei WANG, Liang-wei JIANG. Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science A, 2022, 23(11): 900-916.

@article{title="Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill",
author="Ming WEI, Qiang LUO, Gui-shuai FENG, Teng-fei WANG, Liang-wei JIANG",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science A",
volume="23",
number="11",
pages="900-916",
year="2022",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",
doi="10.1631/jzus.A2200192"
}

%0 Journal Article
%T Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill
%A Ming WEI
%A Qiang LUO
%A Gui-shuai FENG
%A Teng-fei WANG
%A Liang-wei JIANG
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A
%V 23
%N 11
%P 900-916
%@ 1673-565X
%D 2022
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/jzus.A2200192

TY - JOUR
T1 - Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill
A1 - Ming WEI
A1 - Qiang LUO
A1 - Gui-shuai FENG
A1 - Teng-fei WANG
A1 - Liang-wei JIANG
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science A
VL - 23
IS - 11
SP - 900
EP - 916
%@ 1673-565X
Y1 - 2022
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/jzus.A2200192


Abstract: 
Physical modelling of cantilever retaining walls with and without backfill reinforcement was conducted on a 1g shaking table to evaluate the mitigation effect of reinforcement on system dynamics (g denotes the acceleration of gravity). The model wall has a height of 1.5 m with a scale ratio of 1/4 and retains dry sand throughout. The input motions are amplified to three levels of input peak base acceleration, 0.11g, 0.24g, and 0.39g, corresponding to minor, moderate, and major earthquakes, respectively. Investigation of the seismic response of the retaining walls focuses on acceleration and lateral displacement of the wall and backfill, dynamic earth pressures, and tensile load in the reinforcements (modeled by phosphor-bronze strips welded into a mesh). The inclusion of reinforcement has been observed to improve the integrity of the wall-soil system, mitigate vibration-related damage, and reduce the fundamental frequency of a reinforced system. Propagation of acceleration from the base to the upper portion is accompanied by time delay and nonlinear amplification. A reinforced system with a lower acceleration amplification factor than the unreinforced one indicates that reinforcement can reduce the amplification effect of input motion. Under minor and moderate earthquake loadings, reinforcement allows the inertia force and seismic earth pressure to be asynchronous and decreases the seismic earth pressure when inertia forces peak. During major earthquake loading, the wall is displaced horizontally less than the backfill, with soil pushing the wall substantially; the effect of backfill reinforcement has not been fully mobilized. The dynamic earth pressure is large at the top and diminishes toward the bottom.

填土加筋与未加筋悬臂式挡墙的振动台试验

作者:魏明1,罗强1,2,冯桂帅1,王腾飞1,2,蒋良潍1,2
机构:1西南交通大学,土木工程学院,中国成都,610031;2西南交通大学,高速铁路线路工程教育部重点实验室,中国成都,610031
目的:1.探讨墙后填土加筋与否对悬臂式挡墙地震响应的影响规律;2.评估填土加筋措施对改善悬臂式挡墙抗震性能的适用性。
创新点:1.设计并制作填土加筋与填土未加筋的悬臂式挡墙模型,开展振动台模型试验的对比研究,并分析填土加筋对悬臂式挡墙地震响应的改善效果;2.分析不同加载幅值作用下,墙-土相互作用的同步特性。
方法:1.开展填土加筋与填土未加筋悬臂式挡墙的振动台模型试验;在模型底部分别输入加速度幅值为0.11g、0.24g及0.39g的正弦波,测试模型的加速度、位移、土压力及筋带拉力等响应量。2.重点分析不同加速度幅值下模型的自振频率及阻尼比、加速度沿高度的放大规律、振动位移以及墙-土相互作用等规律,并对比模型动力特性及响应差异,明确悬臂式挡墙填土加筋的减震效应。
结论:1.填土加筋对悬臂式挡墙的地震响应具有改善作用;加筋模型的加速度、位移、动土压力等响应量较未加筋模型更小。2.基于均方根加速度的放大系数沿高度表现出显著的非线性放大效应,并随加载加速度幅值的增加呈加速增大特征。3.悬臂式挡墙填土加筋可导致墙体所承受地震惯性力与地震土压力存在相位差,大幅降低最不利位移状态时墙体所受地震土压力;试验表明,未加筋模型中墙体惯性力与地震土压力基本同步,而填土加筋后,0.11g及0.24g加载工况下墙-土相互作用的同步性明显降低。

关键词:悬臂式挡墙;填土加筋;地震响应;振动台试验;动土压力;相位差

Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article

Reference

[1]Al AtikL, SitarN, 2010. Seismic earth pressures on cantilever retaining structures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(10):1324-1333.

[2]BathurstRJ, HatamiK, 1998. Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall. Geosynthetics International, 5(1-2):127-166.

[3]BrennanAJ, MadabhushiSPG, 2009. Amplification of seismic accelerations at slope crests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(5):585-594.

[4]BrennanAJ, ThusyanthanNI, MadabhushiSP, 2005. Evaluation of shear modulus and damping in dynamic centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(12):1488-1497. https://doi.‍org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:‍12(1488)

[5]ContiR, MadabhushiGSP, ViggianiGMB, 2012. On the behaviour of flexible retaining walls under seismic actions. Géotechnique, 62(12):1081-1094.

[6]DingGY, ZhouL, WangJ, et al., 2020. Shaking table tests on gravel slopes reinforced by concrete canvas. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 48(4):539-545.

[7]EdinçlilerA, ToksoyYS, 2017. Physical model study of the seismic performance of highway embankments with and without geotextile. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 11(2):1750003.

[8]EftekhariZ, PanahAK, 2021. 1-g shaking table investigation on seismic performance of polymeric-strip reinforced-soil retaining walls built on rock slopes with limited reinforced zone. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 147:106758.

[9]El-EmamMM, BathurstRJ, 2005. Facing contribution to seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 12(5):215-238.

[10]El-EmamMM, BathurstRJ, 2007. Influence of reinforcement parameters on the seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(1):33-49.

[11]ErtugrulOL, TrandafirAC, 2013. Lateral earth pressures on flexible cantilever retaining walls with deformable geofoam inclusions. Engineering Geology, 158:23-33.

[12]ErtugrulOL, TrandafirAC, OzkanMY, 2017. Reduction of dynamic earth loads on flexible cantilever retaining walls by deformable geofoam panels. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 92:462-471.

[13]GaoHM, HuY, WangZH, et al., 2017. Shaking table tests on the seismic performance of a flexible wall retaining EPS composite soil. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 15(12):5481-5510.

[14]GreenRA, OlgunCG, CameronWI, 2008. Response and modeling of cantilever retaining walls subjected to seismic motions. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 23(4):309-322.

[15]HardinBO, DrnevichVP, 1972. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 98(7):667-692.

[16]HatamiK, BathurstRJ, 2000. Effect of structural design on fundamental frequency of reinforced-soil retaining walls. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 19(3):‍137-157.

[17]HuangCC, 2019. Seismic responses of vertical-faced wrap-around reinforced soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 26(2):146-163.

[18]IaiS, 1989. Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid model in 1g gravitational field. Soils and Foundations, 29(1):105-118.

[19]JoSB, HaJG, LeeJS, et al., 2017. Evaluation of the seismic earth pressure for inverted T-shape stiff retaining wall in cohesionless soils via dynamic centrifuge. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 92:345-357.

[20]KamiloğluHA, ŞadoğluE, 2019. A method for active seismic earth thrusts of granular backfill acting on cantilever retaining walls. Soils and Foundations, 59(2):419-432.

[21]KilicIE, CengizC, EdinclilerA, et al., 2021. Seismic behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls backfilled with cohesive soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(5):‍‍1256-1269.

[22]KokushoT, 1980. Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils and Foundations, 20(2):45-60.

[23]KosekiJ, TatsuokaF, MunafY, et al., 1998a. A modified procedure to evaluate active earth pressure at high seismic loads. Soils and Foundations, 38(S1):209-216.

[24]KosekiJ, MunafY, TatsuokaF, et al., 1998b. Shaking and tilt table tests of geosynthetic-reinforced soil and conventional-type retaining walls. Geosynthetics International, 5(1-2):73-96.

[25]KramerSL, 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, USA, p.65-83.

[26]KrishnaAM, LathaGM, 2007. Seismic response of wrap-faced reinforced soil-retaining wall models using shaking table tests. Geosynthetics International, 14(6):355-364.

[27]KrishnaAM, LathaGM, 2009. Seismic behaviour of rigid-faced reinforced soil retaining wall models: reinforcement effect. Geosynthetics International, 16(5):364-373.

[28]KrishnaAM, BhattacharjeeA, 2017. Behavior of rigid-faced reinforced soil-retaining walls subjected to different earthquake ground motions. International Journal of Geomechanics, 17(1):06016007.

[29]LiSH, CaiXG, JingLP, et al., 2021. Lateral displacement control of modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls under horizontal seismic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 141:106485.

[30]LiuH, HanJ, ParsonsRL, 2021. Mitigation of seasonal temperature change-induced problems with integral bridge abutments using EPS foam and geogrid. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(5):1380-1392.

[31]LuXL, ChenC, JiangHJ, et al., 2018. Shaking table tests and numerical analyses of an RC coupled wall structure with replaceable coupling beams. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 47(9):1882-1904.

[32]MononobeN, MatsuoH, 1929. On the determination of earth pressure during earthquakes. Proceedings of the World Engineering Conference, p.177-185.

[33]NakajimaS, OzakiT, SanagawaT, 2021. 1g shaking table model tests on seismic active earth pressure acting on retaining wall with cohesive backfill soil. Soils and Foundations, 61(5):1251-1272.

[34]OsouliA, ZamiranS, 2017. The effect of backfill cohesion on seismic response of cantilever retaining walls using fully dynamic analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 89:‍‍143-152.

[35]RenFF, HuangQQ, WangG, 2020. Shaking table tests on reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to the combined effects of rainfall and earthquakes. Engineering Geology, 267:105475.

[36]SafaeeAM, MahboubiA, NoorzadA, 2021. Experimental investigation on the performance of multi-tiered geogrid mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls with wrap-around facing subjected to earthquake loading. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(1):130-145.

[37]SameeAA, YazdandoustM, GhalandarzadehA, 2022. Effect of reinforcement arrangement on dynamic behaviour of back-to-back mechanically stabilised earth walls. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 22(4):208-223.

[38]SeedHB, WhitmanRV, 1970. Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads. Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, p.103-147.

[39]TatsuokaF, TateyamaM, KosekiJ, 1996. Performance of soil retaining walls for railway embankments. Soils and Foundations, 36(S1):311-324.

[40]TatsuokaF, TateyamaM, MohriY, et al., 2007. Remedial treatment of soil structures using geosynthetic-reinforcing technology. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(4-5):‍204-220.

[41]TatsuokaF, HirakawaD, NojiriM, et al., 2009. A new type of integral bridge comprising geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 16(4):301-326.

[42]VarnierJB, HatamiK, 2011. Seismic response of reinforced soil retaining walls: is PGA-based design adequate? Georisk 2011, p.336-343.

[43]VeletsosAS, YounanAH, 1997. Dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(2):161-172.

[44]WangLY, ChenGX, ChenS, 2015. Experimental study on seismic response of geogrid reinforced rigid retaining walls with saturated backfill sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43(1):35-45.

[45]WatanabeK, MunafY, KosekiJ, et al., 2003. Behaviors of several types of model retaining walls subjected to irregular excitation. Soils and Foundations, 43(5):13-27.

[46]WatanabeK, NakajimaS, FujiiK, et al., 2020. Development of geosynthetic-reinforced soil embankment resistant to severe earthquakes and prolonged overflows due to tsunamis. Soils and Foundations, 60(6):1371-1386.

[47]WilsonP, ElgamalA, 2015. Shake table lateral earth pressure testing with dense c-ϕ backfill. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 71:13-26.

[48]WoodDM, 2004. Geotechnical Modelling. CRC Press, London, UK, p.233-258.

[49]WoodDM, CreweA, TaylorC, 2002. Shaking table testing of geotechnical models. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 2(1):1-13.

[50]XuC, LuoMM, ShenPP, et al., 2020. Seismic performance of a whole geosynthetic reinforced soil-integrated bridge system (GRS-IBS) in shaking table test. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 48(3):315-330.

[51]XuP, HatamiK, JiangGL, 2020. Study on seismic stability and performance of reinforced soil walls using shaking table tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 48(1):82-97.

[52]XuP, HatamiK, JiangGL, 2021. Shaking table performance of reinforced soil retaining walls with different facing configurations. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(3):‍516-527.

[53]YaoJJ, DiDT, JiangGL, et al., 2014. Real-time acceleration harmonics estimation for an electro-hydraulic servo shaking table using Kalman filter with a linear model. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 22(2):‍794-800.

[54]YazdandoustM, 2017. Investigation on the seismic performance of steel-strip reinforced-soil retaining walls using shaking table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 97:216-232.

[55]YuPJ, Richart JrFE, 1984. Stress ratio effects on shear modulus of dry sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 110(3):331-345.

[56]YünkülK, GürbüzA, 2022. Shaking table study on seismic behavior of MSE wall with inclined backfill soils reinforced by polymeric geostrips. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 50(1):116-136.

[57]ZhengY, McCartneyJS, ShingPB, et al., 2018. Transverse shaking table test of a half-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutment. Geosynthetics International, 25(6):582-598.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion

<1>

Please provide your name, email address and a comment





Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE