Investigation of the displacement-based seismic performance of geogrid earth-retaining walls using three-dimensional finite element modeling

被引:9
作者
Akbar, Muhammad [1 ]
Huali, Pan [1 ]
Ou, Guoqiang [1 ]
Arshid, Muhammad Usman [2 ]
Ahmed, Bilal [3 ]
Umar, Tariq [4 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Mt Hazards & Environm, Chengdu 610000, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Engn & Technol Taxila, Taxila, Pakistan
[3] Silesian Tech Univ, Fac Civil Engn, Doctoral Sch, Dept Struct Engn, Akad 2,Akad St 5, PL-44100 Gliwice, Poland
[4] Univ West England, Architecture & Built Environm, Bristol BS16 1QY, England
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Seismic analysis; Geogrid earth-retaining (GER); Conventional gravity-type retaining walls; Finite element modeling; Hollow prefabricated concrete structures; PLASTIC-DAMAGE MODEL; CONCRETE; STABILITY; BEHAVIOR; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101802
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
This study evaluates the earthquake-induced movement of geogrid earth-retaining (GER) walls. A thorough investigation was conducted on a GER wall model, utilizing a comprehensive finite element (FE) analysis. This research focuses on investigating and designing hollow prefabricated concrete panels and conventional gravitytype stone masonry GER walls. It also displays comparative studies such as the displacement of the wall, deflection of the wall, lateral pressure of the wall, settlement of the backfill reinforcement, vertical pressure of the backfill, lateral pressure of the backfill, vertical settlement of the foundation, and settlements of soil layers across the height and acceleration of the walls of the GER walls. The FE simulations used a three-dimensional (3D) nonlinear dynamic FE model of full-scale GER walls. The seismic performance of models has also been examined in terms of wall height. It was found that the seismic motion significantly impacts the height of the GER walls. In addition, the validity of the proposed study model was assessed by comparing it to the conventional reinforcement concrete and gravity-type GRE wall and ASSHTO guidelines using finite element (FE) simulation results. Based on the findings, the hollow prefabricated concrete panels were the most practical alternative due to their lower deflection and displacement. Based on the observation, it was also found that the hollow prefabricated GER wall is the most viable option, as the settlement and lateral pressure in the former type are high.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]  
Aashto, 2020, AASHTO LRFD BRIDG DE
[2]  
AFNOR (Association Francaise de Normalisation), 2009, Geotechnical Design-Retaining Structures-Reinforced and Soil Nailing Structures, P94
[3]   New procedure for active earth pressure calculation in retaining walls with reinforced cohesive-frictional backfill [J].
Ahmadabadi, M. ;
Ghanbari, A. .
GEOTEXTILES AND GEOMEMBRANES, 2009, 27 (06) :456-463
[4]   Seismic Response Compression of Various MSE Walls Based on 3D Modeling [J].
Akbar, Muhammad ;
Pan, Huali ;
Ou, Guoqiang ;
Nikitas, Georgios ;
Ahmed, Bilal .
BUILDINGS, 2023, 13 (11)
[5]   Geosynthetic reinforcement stiffness characterization for MSE wall design [J].
Allen, T. M. ;
Bathurst, R. J. .
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 26 (06) :592-610
[6]   Improved Simplified Method for Prediction of Loads in Reinforced Soil Walls [J].
Allen, Tony M. ;
Bathurst, Richard J. .
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 2015, 141 (11)
[7]  
Anderson D.G., 2008, Seismic analysis and design of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes, and embankments, V611
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2013, Abaqus/explicit User's manual, version 6.13.
[9]   Numerical evaluation of the performance of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil-Integrated Bridge System (GRS-IBS) under different loading conditions [J].
Ardah, Allam ;
Abu-Farsakh, Murad ;
Voyiadjis, George .
GEOTEXTILES AND GEOMEMBRANES, 2017, 45 (06) :558-569
[10]   Phasing issues in the seismic response of yielding, gravity-type earth retaining walls - Overview and results from a FEM study [J].
Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A. ;
Vlachakis, V. S. ;
Athanasopoulos, G. A. .
SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2013, 55 :59-70