Comparison of nonlinear response of gravity cantilever retaining walls and mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) wall structures

IF 0.8 Q4 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
Arman Kamalzadeh, M. Pender
{"title":"Comparison of nonlinear response of gravity cantilever retaining walls and mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) wall structures","authors":"Arman Kamalzadeh, M. Pender","doi":"10.5459/bnzsee.55.2.129-137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the past few decades, gravity cantilever retaining walls (GRW) have shown a relatively reliable performance. However, mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) retention systems have grown in popularity as they are cost-effective and have demonstrated resilience through recent seismic events. In this study, utilising 2D finite element (FE) modelling with OpenSees and the Manzari and Dafalias constitutive models, we have compared the seismic behaviour of GRW and MSE systems, both designed for the same conditions, under three earthquake records. These earthquake excitations were recorded on engineering bedrock (Vs > 700 m/s) to avoid complexities of deconvolution. Our investigations indicate that the retained MSE reinforced soil block behaves similarly to a rigid block, while this is not the case for the soil over the foundation heel in the GRW system. In addition, the lateral displacement over the height of the wall for MSE is at about half that of a GRW. In the final section of this paper, we discuss the effect of backfill compaction. It is shown that regardless of the retention system, the backfill density increasing from medium (Dr = 70%) to dense (Dr = 100%) reduces the lateral displacements by at least 50%.","PeriodicalId":46396,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.55.2.129-137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

During the past few decades, gravity cantilever retaining walls (GRW) have shown a relatively reliable performance. However, mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) retention systems have grown in popularity as they are cost-effective and have demonstrated resilience through recent seismic events. In this study, utilising 2D finite element (FE) modelling with OpenSees and the Manzari and Dafalias constitutive models, we have compared the seismic behaviour of GRW and MSE systems, both designed for the same conditions, under three earthquake records. These earthquake excitations were recorded on engineering bedrock (Vs > 700 m/s) to avoid complexities of deconvolution. Our investigations indicate that the retained MSE reinforced soil block behaves similarly to a rigid block, while this is not the case for the soil over the foundation heel in the GRW system. In addition, the lateral displacement over the height of the wall for MSE is at about half that of a GRW. In the final section of this paper, we discuss the effect of backfill compaction. It is shown that regardless of the retention system, the backfill density increasing from medium (Dr = 70%) to dense (Dr = 100%) reduces the lateral displacements by at least 50%.
重力悬臂挡土墙与机械稳定土墙结构的非线性响应比较
在过去的几十年里,重力悬臂挡土墙(GRW)表现出了相对可靠的性能。然而,机械稳定土(MSE)保持系统越来越受欢迎,因为它们具有成本效益,并且在最近的地震事件中表现出了韧性。在这项研究中,利用OpenSees的二维有限元(FE)建模以及Manzari和Dafalias本构模型,我们比较了GRW和MSE系统在三次地震记录下的地震行为,这两种系统都是为相同条件设计的。这些地震激励记录在工程基岩上(Vs>700 m/s),以避免反褶积的复杂性。我们的研究表明,保留的MSE加筋土块的行为类似于刚性块,而GRW系统中地基跟部上方的土壤则并非如此。此外,MSE在墙高度上的横向位移约为GRW的一半。在本文的最后一节,我们讨论了回填压实的影响。研究表明,无论采用何种挡水系统,回填密度从中等(Dr=70%)增加到密实(Dr=100%),横向位移至少减少50%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
17.60%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信