Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2020, Vol. 14 Issue (3) : 690-705     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0615-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Seismic behavior of cantilever wall embedded in dry and saturated sand
Sanku KONAI, Aniruddha SENGUPTA, Kousik DEB()
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India
Download: PDF(1842 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The embedded cantilever retaining walls are often required for excavation to construct the underground facilities. Significant numbers of numerical and experimental studies have been performed to understand the behavior of embedded cantilever retaining walls under static condition. However, very limited studies have been conducted on the behavior of embedded retaining walls under seismic condition. In this paper, the behavior of a small scale model embedded cantilever retaining wall in dry and saturated sand under seismic loading condition is investigated by shake table tests in the laboratory and numerically using software FLAC2D. The embedded cantilever walls are subjected to sinusoidal dynamic motions. The behaviors of the cantilever walls in terms of lateral displacement and bending moment are studied with the variation of the two important design parameters, peak amplitude of the base motions and excavation depth. The variation of the pore water pressures within the sand is also observed in the cases of saturated sand. The maximum lateral displacement of a cantilever wall due to seismic loading is below 1% of the total height of the wall in dry sand, but in case of saturated sand, it can go up to 12.75% of the total height of the wall.

Keywords embedded cantilever wall      shake table test      FLAC2D      seismic loading      saturated and dry sand     
Corresponding Author(s): Kousik DEB   
Just Accepted Date: 07 April 2020   Online First Date: 14 May 2020    Issue Date: 13 July 2020
 Cite this article:   
Sanku KONAI,Aniruddha SENGUPTA,Kousik DEB. Seismic behavior of cantilever wall embedded in dry and saturated sand[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 690-705.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-020-0615-6
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2020/V14/I3/690
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Sanku KONAI
Aniruddha SENGUPTA
Kousik DEB
sand condition test De (mm) Db (mm) De/H tw (mm) Z (mm) B (mm) maximum amplitude of the base acceleration
dry sand CW1 80 120 0.4 2.4 400 160 0.1g
CW2 80 120 0.4 2.4 400 160 0.15g
CW3 80 120 0.4 2.4 400 160 0.2g
CW4 60 140 0.3 2.4 400 160 0.1g
CW5 100 100 0.5 2.4 400 160 0.1g
saturated sand CWU1 80 120 0.4 2.4 400 160 0.1g
CWU2 80 120 0.4 2.4 400 160 0.15g
CWU3 80 120 0.4 2.4 400 160 0.2g
CWU4 60 140 0.3 2.4 400 160 0.1g
CWU5 100 100 0.5 2.4 400 160 0.1g
Tab.1  List of laboratory shake table tests on dry and saturated sand
Fig.1  Schematic diagram of laboratory test set up for the embedded cantilever walls in (a) dry sand and (b) saturated sand under dynamic loading condition.
Fig.2  Laboratory model test setup with cantilever walls embedded in (a) dry sand (b) saturated sand.
Fig.3  Sinusoidal motions applied at the bottom of the sand in the laboratory experiments and numerical analyses with peak amplitude of (a) 0.1g, (b) 0.15g, and (c) 0.2g.
Fig.4  Grain size distribution of Kansai River sand used in the present study and the boundaries of the liquefaction susceptible sands.
Fig.5  Numerical discretization of the cantilever walls embedded in sand.
sand condition unit weight of sand (kN/ m3) friction angle (f) (degree) shear modulus (G) of sand (kPa) Poisson’s ratio (ms) of sand stiffness (EI) of cantilever wall (N·m2/m)
dry 15.7 38° 2.1 × 103 0.3 7.29
saturated 19.7 38° 1.66 × 103 0.3 7.29
Tab.2  Material parameters used for the numerical analyses
Fig.6  Modulus of degradation curve for Kasai River sand.
Fig.7  Variation of pore pressure ratios (ru) for (a) PP1, (b) PP2, and (c) PP3 with time for CWU1 test.
Fig.8  Comparison of lateral displacements (u/H) of wall: (a) at the end of the cyclic loadings; (b) during cyclic loadings in the dry and the saturated sands.
Fig.9  Comparison of the bending moments (M/γH3) in the wall: (a) at the end of the cyclic loadings; (b) during the cyclic loadings in the dry and the saturated sand
Fig.10  Variation of pore water pressure ratios (ru) at PP3 with time for different peak amplitudes of the base motions.
Fig.11  Lateral displacements of the embedded cantilever wall under different peak amplitudes of the base motions in (a) dry sand and (b) saturated sand.
Fig.12  Bending moments in the embedded cantilever wall under different peak amplitude of base motions in (a) dry sand, (b) saturated sand.
Fig.13  Variation of pore pressure ratios (ru) at PP3 with time for different excavation depths (De/H).
Fig.14  Lateral displacements of the embedded cantilever wall at different depth of excavation in (a) dry sand and (b) saturated sand.
Fig.15  Bending moments in the embedded cantilever wall with different excavation depths (De/H) in (a) dry sand and (b) saturated sand.
1 M D Boscardin, E J Cording. Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1989, 115(1): 1–21
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)115:1(1)
2 A Zahmatkesh, A J Choobbasti. Evaluation of wall deflections and ground surface settlements in deep excavations. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2015, 8(5): 3055–3063
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1419-6
3 T Rabczuk, G Zi, S Bordas, H Nguyen-Xuan. A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(37–40): 2437–2455
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.03.031
4 T Rabczuk, T Belytschko. Cracking particles: A simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(13): 2316–2343
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1151
5 H Ren, X Zhuang, Y Cai, T Rabczuk. Dual-horizon peridynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2016, 108(12): 1451–1476
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5257
6 H Ren, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Dual-horizon peridynamics: A stable solution to varying horizons. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2017, 318: 762–782
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.12.031
7 P Areias, J Reinoso, P P Camanho, J César de Sá, T Rabczuk. Effective 2D and 3D crack propagation with local mesh refinement and the screened Poisson equation. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 189: 339–360
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.11.017
8 S W Zhou, C C Xia. Propagation and coalescence of quasi-static cracks in Brazilian disks: An insight from a phase field model. Acta Geotechnica, 2018, 14: 1–20
9 S Zhou, T Rabczuk, X Zhuang. Phase field modeling of quasi-static and dynamic crack propagation: COMSOL implementation and case studies. Advances in Engineering Software, 2018, 122: 31–49
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.03.012
10 S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. A phase-field modeling approach of fracture propagation in poroelastic media. Engineering Geology, 2018, 240: 189–203
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.04.008
11 S Zhou, X Zhuang, H Zhu, T Rabczuk. Phase field modelling of crack propagation, branching and coalescence in rocks. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 96: 174–192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2018.04.011
12 S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Phase-field modeling of fluid-driven dynamic cracking in porous media. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 350(15): 169–198
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.001
13 S Okabe. General theory of earth pressures. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineering, 1926, 12(1): 311
14 N Mononobe, H Matsuo. On the determination of earth pressure during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the World Engineering Congress. Tokyo, 1929, 9:177– 185
15 R S Steedman, X Zeng. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique, 1990, 40(1): 103–112
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.1.103
16 R J Richards, D Elms. Seismic behavior of gravity retaining wall. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1979, 150(4): 449–464.
17 L Callisto, F M Soccodato. Seismic design of flexible cantilever retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2010, 136(2): 344–354
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000216
18 R Conti, G M B Viggiani, F Burali D’Arezzo. Some remarks on the seismic behaviour of embedded cantilevered retaining walls. Geotechnique, 2014, 64(1): 40–50
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.13.P.031
19 M Khosrojerdi, A Pak. Numerical investigation on the behavior of the gravity waterfront structures under earthquake loading. Ocean Engineering, 2015, 106: 152–160
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.07.003
20 M Tricarico, G S P Madabhushi, S Aversa. Centrifuge modeling of flexible retaining walls subjected to dynamic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 88: 297–306
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sanddyn.2016.06.013
21 S S Chowdhury, K Deb, A Sengupta. Behavior of underground strutted retaining structure under seismic condition. Earthquakes and Structures, 2015, 8(5): 1147–1170
22 A K Flogeras, G A Papagiannopoulos. On the seismic response of steel buckling-restrained braced structures including sand-structure interaction. Earthquakes and Structures, 2017, 12(4): 469–478
23 J H Wood. Earthquake induced sand pressure on structure. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, 1973, 73–05
24 F Nadim, R V Whitman. Seismic induced movement of retaining walls. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1983, 109(7): 915–931
25 W D L Finn, M Yogendrakumar, H Otsu, R S Seedman. Seismic response of a cantilever retaining wall: Centrifuge model test and dynamic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Inc., 1989, 331–431
26 A Veletsos, A H Younan. Dynamic sand pressure on rigid vertical walls. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1994, 23(3): 275–301
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290230305
27 A S Veletsos, A H Younan. Dynamic sand pressures on vertical walls. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Recent Advance in Geotechnicak Earthquake Engineering & Soil Dynamics. Rolla: University of Missouri, 1995, 1589–1604
28 A S Veletsos, A H Younan. Dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1997, 123(2): 161–172
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:2(161)
29 R A Green, C G Olgun, R M Ebeling, W I Cameron. Seismically induced lateral earth pressures on a cantilever retaining wall. In: The 6th US Conference & Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003). Long Beach, CA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2003
30 F Ostadan. Seismic sand pressure for building walls: An updated approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2005, 25(7–10): 785–793
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sanddyn.2004.11.035
31 S P G Madabhushi, X Zeng. Seismic response of flexible cantilever retaining wall with dry backfill. Geomechanics & Geoengineering, 2006, 1(4): 275–289
https://doi.org/10.1080/17486020601039170
32 S P G Madabhushi, X Zeng. Simulating seismic response of cantilever retaining walls. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, 2007, 133(5): 539–549.
33 D Lombardi, S Bhattacharya, F Scarpa, M Bianchi. Dynamic response of a geotechnical rigid model container with absorbing boundaries. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 69: 46–56
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sanddyn.2014.09.008
34 P J Meymand. Shaking table scale model tests of nonlinear sand-pile-superstructure interaction in soft clay. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 1998
35 H B Seed, I M Idriss. Simplified procedure for evaluating sand liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1971, 97(9): 1249–1274
36 R Banerjee, S Konai, A Sengupta, K Deb. Shake table tests and numerical modeling of liquefaction of Kasai River sand. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2017, 35(4): 1327–1340
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0178-z
37 H Tsuchida. Prediction and counter measure against the liquefaction in sand deposits. In: Proceedings of the Seminar of the Port and Harbour Research Institute. Yokosuka: Ministry of Transport, Japan, 1970
38 Itasca. FLAC Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, V. 5.0, User’s Manual. 2005
39 L Callisto, F A Soccodato, R Conti. Analysis of the seismic behaviour of propped retaining structures. In: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Conference. Sacramento, California: Geo-Institute of the ASCE, 2008
40 L Callisto, F M Soccodato. Seismic analysis of an embedded retaining structure in coarse-grained sands. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Gotechnical Engineering. Thessaloniki: Springer, 2007
41 L Callisto, F M Soccodato. Performance-based design of embedded retaining walls subjected to seismic loading. In: Proceedings and Workshop: Eurocode 2009. Brussels: The European Committee for Standardization, 2009
42 L Callisto. Capacity design of embedded retaining structures. Geotechnique, 2014, 64(3): 204–214
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.13.P.091
43 N Janbu. Soil compressibility as determined by Oedometer and Triaxial Tests. In: European Conference on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erd-und Grundbau e.V., 1963
44 R Chattaraj, A Sengupta. Liquefaction potential and strain dependent dynamic properties of Kasai River sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 467–475
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sanddyn.2016.07.023
45 B O Hardin, V P Drnevich. Shear modulus and damping in sands. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1972, 98(7): 667–692
46 M S Aggour, J X Zhang. Degradation of sands due to combined sinusoidal loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2006, 132(12): 1628–1632
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:12(1628)
47 I Ishibashi, X Zhang. Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soil and Foundation, 1993, 33(1): 182–191
https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.33.182
48 S L Kramer. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. New Delhi: Pearson Education, 1996
49 G R Martin, W D L Finn, H B Seed. Fundamentals of liquefaction under cyclic loading. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1975, 101(5): 423–438
50 P Byrne. A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore-pressure model for sand. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. St. Louis, Missouri: University of Missouri-Rolla, 1991, 47–55
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Mohammad Abubakar NAVEED, Zulfiqar ALI, Abdul QADIR, Umar Naveed LATIF, Saad HAMID, Umar SARWAR. Geotechnical forensic investigation of a slope failure on silty clay soil—A case study[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 501-517.
[2] Elmira SHOUSHTARI, M. Saiid SAIIDI, Ahmad ITANI, Mohamed A. MOUSTAFA. Pretest analysis of shake table response of a two-span steel girder bridge incorporating accelerated bridge construction connections[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 169-184.
[3] Chung-Che CHOU, Jun-Hen CHEN. Seismic tests of post-tensioned self-centering building frames with column and slab restraints[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(3): 323-334.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed