Numerical Investigation of Seismic Behaviour for a Flexible Cantilever Retaining Wall with Cohesive Backfill

被引:0
作者
El Yamouni, Bouraida [1 ]
El Khannoussi, Fadoua [2 ]
Khamlichi, Abdellatif [1 ]
机构
[1] Abdelmalek Essaadi Univ, Natl Sch Appl Sci Tetouan, Lab ICST, Res Team 3M, Tetouan, Morocco
[2] Abdelmalek Essaadi Univ, Natl Sch Appl Sci Tetouan, Lab ICST, Res Team AMSCG, Tetouan, Morocco
关键词
Flexible retaining wall; Seismic response; Dynamic earth pressure; Cohesive soil; Analytical methods; Finite element method; SOIL;
D O I
10.4028/p-Z3wyLG
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
In the seismic design of flexible cantilever walls retaining cohesive backfill soil, it is a common practice to neglect the cohesion effect. Dynamic lateral earth pressure is typically evaluated based on approaches primarily intended for cohesionless soils or through analytical pseudo-static methods. Nevertheless, both experimental and theoretical evidence have demonstrated significant effects due to soil cohesion that are not accounted for by these methods. This study involved finite element modelling (FE) of a flexible cantilever wall with a height of 5.4m, supporting homogeneous cohesive backfill under initial static and seismic loadings. The calculated active earth thrust was then compared with values obtained experimentally and through conventional analytical methods. The obtained results indicate that the presence of soil cohesion significantly reduces seismic demands on flexible cantilever retaining walls, resulting in a substantial reduction of seismic active earth pressures and total seismic thrust by up to 50% and 52%, respectively. It also enhances the overall stability of the system by shifting the point of application of seismic thrust toward the base of the wall, thereby increasing the safety margin. In addition, it significantly decreases the wall displacement at the stem top, with reductions of up to 104% compared to the case involving cohesionless backfill. It was observed that the conventional methods recommended by some seismic regulations largely underestimate seismic active pressure.
引用
收藏
页码:125 / 142
页数:18
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] NGA-West2 Database
    Ancheta, Timothy D.
    Darragh, Robert B.
    Stewart, Jonathan P.
    Seyhan, Emel
    Silva, Walter J.
    Chiou, Brian S. -J.
    Wooddell, Katie E.
    Graves, Robert W.
    Kottke, Albert R.
    Boore, David M.
    Kishida, Tadahiro
    Donahue, Jennifer L.
    [J]. EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA, 2014, 30 (03) : 989 - 1005
  • [2] Finite Element Modeling (FEM) vs. Simplified Force-Based Methods for Rigid Retaining Walls Under Earthquake Excitation
    Annapareddy, V. S. Ramakrishna
    Pain, Anindya
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI, 2021, 15 (04)
  • [3] Bakr J., 2018, P MACE PGR C, P29
  • [4] Finite-Element Study for Seismic Structural and Global Stability of Cantilever-Type Retaining Walls
    Bakr, Junied
    Ahmad, Syed Mohd
    Lombardi, Domenico
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS, 2019, 19 (10)
  • [5] Brinkgreve R., 2019, PLAXIS 2D REFERENCE
  • [6] Cakir T, 2020, SIGMA J ENG NAT SCI, V11, P37
  • [7] Seismic response of retaining walls with cohesive backfill: Centrifuge model studies
    Candia, Gabriel
    Mikola, Roozbeh Geraili
    Sitar, Nicholas
    [J]. SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2016, 90 : 411 - 419
  • [8] Dejan I., 2023, P 2 CROAT C EARTHQ E
  • [9] Seismic behavior of an inverted T-shape flexible retaining wall via dynamic centrifuge tests
    Jo, Seong-Bae
    Ha, Jeong-Gon
    Yoo, Mintaek
    Choo, Yun Wook
    Kim, Dong-Soo
    [J]. BULLETIN OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2014, 12 (02) : 961 - 980
  • [10] Seismic Behavior of Retaining Walls: A Critical Review of Analytical and Field Performance Studies
    Khan, Sabahat Ali
    Karray, Mourad
    Paultre, Patrick
    [J]. GEOTECHNICS, 2024, 4 (01): : 54 - 77