Comparison of the Lateral Earth Pressure on the Retaining Wall with the Relieving Platform by Model test and Numerical Analysis

유완규,; 김병일,; 문인종,; 박용석,

doi:10.5762/kais.2012.13.5.2382

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The comparison in Yoo et al [18] demonstrates that the lateral earth pressure is high under the shelf, which may result in no decrease or a slight decrease in the acting maximum bending moment of the wall. This results in a small decrease in the reinforcements and in the concrete quantities.…”

Section: Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yoo et al [18,19] measured the earth pressure acting on a wall with one shelf that is extended to the theoretical rupture surface. They constructed their model and simulated the excavation stage with slope angles of 50°and 90°, and subsequently, they installed the wall and inserted the compacted backfill.…”

Section: Brief Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The logical measurements and the solution from the FEM are compatible with these conclusions. In addition, the same distributions of the lateral pressures using the FEM were presented by Yoo et al [18], but they neglected the FEM solutions because the distributions of the FEM were not compatible with their measurements, which were investigated using simple and fixed walls as previously discussed.…”

Section: Effect Of Shelf Widthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparison of lateral earth pressures for a retaining wall with relieving shelf adapted from Yoo et al[18] Solution of Klein[10], adapted from Klein[10]. a Short shelf.b Long shelf…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Retaining walls with relief shelves

Shehata

2016

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cantilever retaining wall with pressure relief shelves is considered as a special type of retaining wall. The concept of providing pressure relief shelves on the backfill side of a retaining wall reduces the total earth pressure on the wall, which results in a reduced thickness of the wall and ultimately in an economic design of a cantilever wall. A limited number of solutions and measurements can be found for this type of wall in the literature. The shapes of the measured earth pressure distributions differ among studies because the model scales were different; for example, the wall during one measurement was permitted to move but was not permitted to move in the other measurements. This paper presents a Finite Element analysis of this type of wall using PLAX-IS2D-AE.01. The reduced total active earth pressure due to the provisioning of shelves is depicted. It was found that the shelves had a significant effect on the resulting earth pressure distribution. The distribution approximately followed the distribution of the solution by Klein (Calculation of retaining walls (in Russian). Vysshaya Shkola, Moscow, 2014). It also followed the shape of the measurements of Yakovlev (Experimental investigation of earth pressure on walls with two platforms in the case of breaking loads relieving on the backfill. Odessa Institute of Naval Engineers, pp 7-9, 1974). A parametric study was conducted to enable a discussion of the effects of the number of shelves, shelf rigidity, and shelf position on the resulting distribution of the lateral earth pressure, wall top movement, and acting maximum flexural moment of the wall. For high retaining walls and for some repair systems for constructed walls that have problems with stability, it is recommended to provide the cantilever wall with a shelf at a third of the wall height from the top of the wall or more shelves at different levels. Suggested updates are provided to enhance the manual solution of Klein in the calculation of the acting maximum bending moment of the wall. Keywords Special retaining structures Á Relief shelves Á Earth pressure Á Repair Á Maximum moment Á High retaining walls

show abstract

Section: Research Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Brief Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effect Of Shelf Widthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparison of lateral earth pressures for a retaining wall with relieving shelf adapted from Yoo et al[18] Solution of Klein[10], adapted from Klein[10]. a Short shelf.b Long shelf…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retaining walls with relief shelves

Shehata

2016

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further studies in relation to model tests and finite element and finite difference numerical analysis were conducted for the retaining wall. For example, model tests were performed to determine the distribution of the earth pressure on the retaining wall with and without the relieving platform which is located at a depth of 0.4 times the wall height from the ground surface [12]. And model test results were compared with the analyzed results by the 2D finite element method and values driven from the theoretical equation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of Influencing Factors on the Deformation of Sheet Pile Wall with a Relieving Platform

Zhang

Wang

Hu³

et al. 2021

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Owing to the complexity of the sheet pile wall with a relieving platform, there are a large number of factors that affect the mechanical and deformation characteristics of the wall structure. Moreover, studying the influencing factors on the deformation of the retaining wall is beneficial in the selection of design parameters and deformation control. 28 groups of test models of the retaining wall structure are designed to analyze the effect on the deformation of rib pillars and determine the reasonable width and buried depth of the unloading board in this paper. The tests are conducted with and without the unloading board, and different widths and buried depths of the unloading board are also considered. The findings show that, without the external load, the reasonable board width and buried depth are 0.70 times and 0.53 times the wall height. With the external load, the reasonable board width is 0.35 times the wall height, and the large board width cannot effectively reduce the deformation of rib pillars, and the reasonable board width is 0.60 times the wall height. When both the external load and board width are relatively small, the reasonable buried depth is 0.53 times the wall height. However, when the external load is large, the reasonable buried depth is 0.70 times the wall height. The results also show that the setting of the unloading board effectively suppresses the deformation of rib pillars and controls the maximum deformation within an allowable range of the specification.

show abstract