Evaluation of the seismic earth pressure for inverted T-shape stiff retaining wall in cohesionless soils via dynamic centrifuge

Jo, Seong-Bae; Ha, Jeong‐Gon; Lee, Jin-sun; Kim, Dong-Soo

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.10.009

Cited by 42 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The limitations of the pseudo-static method based on M-O were assessed by comparing the differences between pseudo-static and true dynamic behaviours in centrifuge tests by many researchers (Nakamura, 2006;Al Atik & Sitar, 2010;Brandenberg et al, 2015;Hushmand et al, 2016;Wagner & Sitar, 2016;Jo et al, 2014Jo et al, , 2017. In this regard, the definition of k h could be further improved in future studies.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Two Major Considerations In Defining K Hmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar conflicts in k h definitions also exist in other codes and guidelines (Werner, 1998;MOT, 1999;CEN, 2004). Thus, the definitions of k h need to be experimentally evaluated for resolving these conflicts, so that a standard definition is possible for future design guidelines using the simplified analysis method (Bolton & Steedman, 1985;Veletsos & Younan, 1997;Iai & Sugano, 2000;Dakoulas & Gazetas, 2008;OCDI, 2009;Bellezza et al, 2011;MOF, 2014;Jo et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of horizontal seismic coefficient for gravity quay walls by centrifuge tests

Lee

Jo³

et al. 2017

Géotechnique Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the simplified analysis of seismic design of gravity quay walls based on the pseudo-static approach, selection of an appropriate horizontal seismic coefficient (k h ) is important for computing the equivalent pseudo-static inertial force. However, there is no unified standard for defining k h . There are conflicts among the existing k h definitions regarding whether it considers (a) the effect of wall height on maximum horizontal acceleration (MHA) used in the determination of k h or (b) the application of correction factor for k h according to seismic performance grade. This paper evaluates the relevance of these conflicts by initially reviewing the k h definitions in the existing codes and guidelines for port structures and then by performing a series of dynamic centrifuge tests on caisson gravity quay walls of different wall heights (5, 10 and 15 m). A review of the existing codes and guidelines has shown that the correction factor for k h should be specified according to the seismic performance grade for the economical design of quay walls. On the other hand, based on the centrifuge tests, it was found that the MHA used in k h calculation and the correction factor for considering seismic performance grade should reflect the effect of wall height.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of Two Major Considerations In Defining K Hmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of horizontal seismic coefficient for gravity quay walls by centrifuge tests

Lee

Jo³

et al. 2017

Géotechnique Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notionally, the vertical seismic acceleration may contribute to the vertical seismic inertia and, as a consequence, may slightly affect the performance response of the cantilever-type retaining wall. However, arguments of several past studies (like Green et al 2008;Cakir 2013;Kloukinas et al 2015;and Jo et al 2017) as well as that of Bakr and Ahmad (2018a) suggest that it is primarily the horizontal seismic acceleration that contributes to the seismic earth pressure force and affects the stability of a retaining wall. The same has been observed through the results of the present study as well as shown later in the results section of this paper.…”

Section: Seismic Loadingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the numerical study presented by Green et al (2008) and the shaking table study presented by Kloukinas et al (2015) show that a critical loading case for the seismic design of a cantilever-type retaining wall is when the earthquake acceleration is applied away from the backfill soil, thereby rendering the retaining wall-soil system in a passive earth pressure condition. This, however, is contradicted by the centrifuge-based study of Jo et al (2017), who reported that a critical loading case for the retaining wall will be the one in which the earthquake acceleration is applied toward the backfill soil, thereby rendering the retaining wall-soil system in an active earth pressure condition. Cakir (2013) investigated the effect of frequency content of earthquake acceleration on the seismic response of a cantilever retaining wall in a three-dimensional space by using the finite-element method (FEM).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For a seismic case, the force-based Mononobe Okabe (M-O) method (Mononobe and Matsuo 1929)-a method primarily based on Coulomb's earth pressure theory (Coulomb 1776)-is widely used to estimate seismic earth pressure for the retaining walls. Although the M-O method is a very straightforward method to use, it has a limitation of not replicating, and hence simulating, the real field behavior and, therefore, at times overestimating the seismic earth pressure (e.g., Nakamura 2006; Al Atik and Sitar 2009;Jo et al 2017;Bakr and Ahmad 2018a). Extensive efforts have been made to study the seismic earth pressure behind a rigid retaining wall (e.g, Choudhury and Katdare 2013;Tang et al 2014;Dey et al 2017;Zhou et al 2018;Rajesh and Choudhury 2017), whereas little attention has been paid to investigate the development of seismic earth pressure behind a cantilever-type retaining wall.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Finite-Element Study for Seismic Structural and Global Stability of Cantilever-Type Retaining Walls

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the structural and global stability of a cantilever-type retaining wall under seismic loading using numerical modelling. A new and robust approach is proposed to compute the seismic earth pressure behind the stem and along a virtual plane passing the heel of the wall. The results show that under different earthquake characteristics and wall geometries, the seismic earth pressure forces may be out of phase, leading to different seismic responses of the wall. The critical scenario for the structural stability is observed when the maximum acceleration is directed toward the backfill soil, and the earthquake frequency content is close to the natural frequency of the wall. In contrast, the critical scenario for the global stability occurs when the maximum acceleration is directed with minimum frequency content. Further, the natural frequency of the wall does not affect the global stability of the wall. However, the duration of the applied earthquake acceleration does affect the global stability of the wall, whereas the structural stability remains unaffected by it. In contrast with the current understanding, the possibility of failure of a cantilever-type retaining wall by horizontal sliding is remarkably increased with time of the applied earthquake acceleration.

show abstract

Seismic performance of gravity retaining walls

Yünkül

Gürbüz

2023

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, the seismic performances of gravity retaining walls having both inclined back side and inclined backfill were investigated under sinusoidal acceleration excitations using series of shaking table tests on 750 mm height physical model. The effects of input peak ground acceleration (𝑃𝐺𝐴), inclination angle of backfill material (𝛼) and inclination angle of back of the gravity retaining wall (𝛽) on acceleration amplification factor (𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐴), maximum peak lateral relative (𝑆 maxpeak(𝑟𝑒𝑙) ) and maximum residual lateral displacement (𝑆 max(𝑟𝑒𝑠) ) of the wall, surface settlement (𝑆 𝑠𝑒𝑡 ) of the backfill material, inertial force (𝑃 𝐼 ) and horizontal dynamic active force (𝑃 𝑑𝑦𝑛ℎ ) were assessed. It was observed that higher values of the 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐴 were obtained from the experimental results as compared the ones from current seismic design codes. Moreover, the six results of shaking table tests revealed that the phase difference was appeared between the inertial force and dynamic earth pressures. Pseudo-static limit equilibrium methods resulted in over conservative 𝑃 𝑑𝑦𝑛ℎ results and could not truly reflect the seismic behavior of gravity wall due to the inertial forces and phase difference not taken into consideration.

show abstract

Evaluation of the seismic earth pressure for inverted T-shape stiff retaining wall in cohesionless soils via dynamic centrifuge

Cited by 42 publications

References 17 publications

Assessment of horizontal seismic coefficient for gravity quay walls by centrifuge tests

Assessment of horizontal seismic coefficient for gravity quay walls by centrifuge tests

Finite-Element Study for Seismic Structural and Global Stability of Cantilever-Type Retaining Walls

Seismic performance of gravity retaining walls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About