Journals / Kırklareli Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

BEHAVIOR OF RETAINING WALLS CONSTRUCTED IN THE SATURATED CLAY AND WATER-SATURATED SAND SOILS UNDER THE DYNAMIC LOADS

Pages
253–272
Publication Date
2022-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While the 15.0 m height of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 6.0, it cannot be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 5.0 and 7.0.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Since the main purpose of building retaining walls is to hold up the slopes, the calculations are important during the design process.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, behavior of retaining walls constructed in saturated clay soil and water-saturated sand soil have been determined under static and dynamic loads.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While the 15.0 m height of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 6.0, it cannot be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 5.0 and 7.0.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Retaining Wall · Clay Soil · Sand Soil

Abstract

Since the main purpose of building retaining walls is to hold up the slopes, the calculations are important during the design process. Although static loads that affect retaining walls are generally taken into consideration, dynamic effects should also be marked in our country located in the earthquake zone. Within the scope of this study, stability checks were performed by taking the effects to the retaining walls subjected to static and dynamic loads and wall designs were also made. In this study, behavior of retaining walls constructed in saturated clay soil and water-saturated sand soil have been determined under static and dynamic loads. Analyses of static and dynamic behavior of gravity and cantilever walls have been done by Plaxis 2D software packet program. The heights of the walls are selected such as 5.0 m, 10.0 m and 15.0 m. Active earth pressures are calculated by using Rankine active earth pressure theory. Factor of safeties such as overturning, sliding and bearing capacity are selected as 2.0, 1.5 and 3.0, respectively. Three different earthquake loads such as Van, Turkey, Petrolia-California, USA and Volcano-Hawaii, USA are chosen to determine the dynamic behavior of walls. Records of earthquake loads were taken from “United States Geological Survey” (USGS) official web site. Format of earthquake records is “strong motion CD” (.smc) due to Plaxis 2D software packet program. The results of analyses done in the saturated clay showed that 5.0 m and 10.0 m heights of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having the magnitude up to 7.0. 15.0 m height of retaining walls cannot be safely constructed due to the insufficient wall dimensions. The results of analyses done in the water-saturated sand soil showed that 5.0 m height of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having the magnitude up to 7.0. While the 10.0 m height of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 6.0, it cannot be constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 5.0 due to the earthquake acceleration. While the 15.0 m height of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 6.0, it cannot be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 5.0 and 7.0.

Özet

Since the main purpose of building retaining walls is to hold up the slopes, the calculations are important during the design process. Although static loads that affect retaining walls are generally taken into consideration, dynamic effects should also be marked in our country located in the earthquake zone. Within the scope of this study, stability checks were performed by taking the effects to the retaining walls subjected to static and dynamic loads and wall designs were also made. In this study, behavior of retaining walls constructed in saturated clay soil and water-saturated sand soil have been determined under static and dynamic loads. Analyses of static and dynamic behavior of gravity and cantilever walls have been done by Plaxis 2D software packet program. The heights of the walls are selected such as 5.0 m, 10.0 m and 15.0 m. Active earth pressures are calculated by using Rankine active earth pressure theory. Factor of safeties such as overturning, sliding and bearing capacity are selected as 2.0, 1.5 and 3.0, respectively. Three different earthquake loads such as Van, Turkey, Petrolia-California, USA and Volcano-Hawaii, USA are chosen to determine the dynamic behavior of walls. Records of earthquake loads were taken from “United States Geological Survey” (USGS) official web site. Format of earthquake records is “strong motion CD” (.smc) due to Plaxis 2D software packet program. The results of analyses done in the saturated clay showed that 5.0 m and 10.0 m heights of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having the magnitude up to 7.0. 15.0 m height of retaining walls cannot be safely constructed due to the insufficient wall dimensions. The results of analyses done in the water-saturated sand soil showed that 5.0 m height of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having the magnitude up to 7.0. While the 10.0 m height of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 6.0, it cannot be constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 5.0 due to the earthquake acceleration. While the 15.0 m height of retaining walls can be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 6.0, it cannot be safely constructed in the earthquake zones having magnitude of 5.0 and 7.0.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAVAN, O., TABAK, T., TUNCAN, A. (2022). BEHAVIOR OF RETAINING WALLS CONSTRUCTED IN THE SATURATED CLAY AND WATER-SATURATED SAND SOILS UNDER THE DYNAMIC LOADS. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 253–272. https://ajindex.com/articles/869603

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Das B.M. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Pws-Kent Publishing Co., USA (1990)
  2. Cernica J.N. Geotechnical Engineering: Foundation Design. JW&Sons Inc, USA (1994)
  3. Akhlaghi T., Hamidi P., Nikkar A., Investigation of Dynamic Response of Cantilever Retaining Walls Using FEM,. Int. Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research, 2013; 2 (6), pp657-663
  4. Veletsos A.S, Younan A.H., Dynamic Soil Pressures on Vertical Walls, Proc. of 3rd Int. Conf. on Recent Adv. In Geotech. Earthquake Eng. and Soil Dyn., 1995; 3, 1589-1604
  5. Fishman K.L, Richards Jr., Seismic Analysis and Model Studies of Bridge Abutments, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) No. 60. 1996
  6. Steedman R.S, Zeng X., Rotation of Large Gravity Walls on Rigid Foundations under Seismic Loading, ASCE Geotechnical Spec. Publ. No. 60. 1996
  7. Kramer, S.L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, USA. (1996)
  8. Cavalera L., Lipani B., Dynamic Behavior of Reinforced Earth Walls, Proc. of Int. Conf. on Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures, 1996; 2, 113-122
  9. Santolo A.S., Evangelista A., Dynamic Active Earth Pressure on Cantilever Retaining Walls, Computer and Geotechnics, 2011; 38, 1041-1051
  10. Gursoy S., Durmuş A., Investigation of Linear And Nonlinear of Behaviors of Reinforced Concrete Cantilever Retaining Walls According To The Earthquake Loads Considering Soil-Structures Interactions, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2009; 31, 75-91
  11. Li C.S., Gu X.P., Liu Y., Numerical Simulation and Calculation of Earth Pressure For Force Reducing Retaining Wall. Proc. of the Second International Conference on Modelling and Simulation, 2009; 6, 197-202
  12. Cakır T., Evaluation of the Effect of Earthquake Frequency Content on Seismic Behavior of Cantilever Retaining Wall Including Soil–Structure Interaction, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013; 45, 96-111
  13. Harraz A.M., Fafitis A., Houston W.N., Development of Database and Guidelines for the Earthquake Resistant Design of Cantilever Retaining Walls, Structures under Shock and Impact, 2002; 11, 345-356
  14. Al-Homoud A.S., Whitman R.V., Seismic Analysis And Design of Rigid Bridge Abutment Considering Rotation And Sliding Incorporating Non-Linear Soil Behavior, Soil Dynamics Eng., 1999, 247–277
  15. Green R.A., Ebeling R.M., Modeling the Dynamic Response of Cantilever Earth-Retaining Walls Using FLAC. Proc of 3rd International FLAC Symposium. 2003; 333-342
  16. Gazetas G., Psarropoul