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

Yıl 2022, , 253 - 272, 31.12.2022

Onur Yavan , Tuğçe Tabak , Ahmet Tuncan

https://doi.org/10.34186/klujes.1183631

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Retaining wall, Clay soil, Dynamic load, Static load, Plaxis 2D program

Kaynakça

• [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., Psarropoulos P.I., Gerolymos A.N., Seismic Behavior Of Flexible Retaining Systems Subjected To Short Duration Moderately-Strong Excitation, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 2005; 25, 537–550.
• [17] Newmark N.N. “Effect of earthquakes on dams and embankments”, Geotechnique, 1965; 15 (2), 139–160.
• [18] Richard R., Elms D.G., Seismic Behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls, J. of Geotech. Eng. ASCE, 1979; 105 (GT4).
• [19] Chin-Chan H., Seismic Displacement Of Soil Retaining Walls Situated On Slope, J. of Geotech. Geo-Environ. Eng. ASCE, 2005; 31 (9), 1108–1117.
• [20] EUROCODE 8 (European pre-standard), Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures-Part 5: Foundations Retaining Structures and Geotechnical Aspects, The Commission of the European Communities, 1994.
• [21] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, (AASHTO) Sections 3 and 7, 2002.
• [22] Wu Y., Prakash S., Effect of Submergence on Seismic Displacement Of Rigid Walls, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 1999.
• [23] JRA, Seismic Design Specifications and Construction of highway Bridges, Japan Road Association, 1996.
• [24] Rafnsson E.A., Prakash S., Stiffness and Damping Parameters for Dynamic Analysis of Retaining Walls, Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Eng. and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis MO, 1991; 3, 1943–2952.
• [25] Wu Y., Displacement-Based Analysis And Design of Rigid Retaining Walls to Real Earthquakes, PhD. Dissertation, University of Missouri-Rolla, 1999.
• [26] Sadzevicius R., Sankauskiene T., Mikuckis F., Limit Deformations of Retaining Walls in Lithuanian Hydro-schemes, Proc. of 4th International Conference Civil Engineering, 2013; I, 336-340.
• [27] Leblebici, T., Investigation of the Behavior of Retaining Walls Built on Water-Saturated Sand Soils Under Static and Dynamic Loads, MSc Thesis, Anadolu University, Institute of Science, Eskişehir, 2021.
• [28] Yavan, O., Behaviour of Retaining Walls which are Constructed in Saturated Clay Soil under Dynamic Loads, MSc Thesis, Anadolu Universi-ty, Institute of Science, Eskişehir, 2015.