Seismic stability of reinforced slopes: effects of reinforcement properties and facing rigidity

Dynamic behavior of reinforced walls – Horizontal displacement response

“…Tensile stressestrain properties are summarized in Table 1. The reinforcing material used here is identical to that used in the tilting tests reported by Huang et al (2008aHuang et al ( ,b, 2010. They examined the similitude of working stresses (or strains) for the reinforcement between the 0.48 m-high model and the 2 m-high prototype slopes.…”

“…The value of HPGA for these transition points are: a y2 ¼ 0.35 g for f ¼ 3 Hz; a y2 ¼ 0.41 g for f ¼ 6 Hz; a y2 ¼ 0.54 g for f ¼ 15 Hz. Values of a y2 thus determined are compared with that obtained in a pseudo-static tilting test for an identical slope condition (Huang et al, 2008a) in Table 2. Table 2 indicates that values of a y2 decreases with decreasing wave frequencies, and the value of a y2 obtained under a relatively small wave frequency namely, a y2 ¼ 0.35 g is comparable with the value of a y1 obtained in a pseudo-static tilting test (namely, a y1 ¼ 0.36 g).…”

“…As pointed out by Koseki et al (1998), this may be attributable to the transient nature of the dynamic wave and the phase difference among the structural components of the slope. Huang et al (2008a) pointed out that the pseudo-static seismic loading in tilting tests may be deemed as a special case of dynamic loading with an infinitely long wave period (or a rather small wave frequency, f). This issue is to be addressed later based on the test results provided by Huang et al (2008a) and those performed in the present study.…”

“…Huang et al (2008a) pointed out that the pseudo-static seismic loading in tilting tests may be deemed as a special case of dynamic loading with an infinitely long wave period (or a rather small wave frequency, f). This issue is to be addressed later based on the test results provided by Huang et al (2008a) and those performed in the present study.…”

Behavior of soil retaining walls on deformable foundations

“…Therefore, a 4-g (g: gravitational acceleration) condition was achieved in these tests; i.e., the 0.6 m-high model wall used in the tests simulated a 2.4 m-high proto-type wall backfilled with a gravelly soil with a uniform particle size of 7.84 mm (=1.96 mm× 4), which is classified as fine gravel according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). The advantages of using rhombic packing of uniform steel rods as an idealized two-dimensional (2-D) backfill were stated by Huang et al (1999Huang et al ( , 2007Huang et al ( , 2008a as follows:…”