Response of gravity retaining wall with anchoring frame beam supporting a steep rock slope subjected to earthquake loading

Abstract Shaking table test and dynamic numerical analysis are carried out to study the seismic behavior of the gravity retaining wall with anchoring frame beam supporting a steep rock slope (inclined at an angle of 40° with the horizontal) by applying one-directional and bi-directional excitations of Wenchuan motion with different intensities. The horizontal and vertical acceleration responses, the dynamic earth pressure are investigated in shaking table test. A comparative and extensive study is performed in terms of the horizontal and the vertical acceleration responses, the dynamic earth pressure, the axial stress of anchor by means of dynamic numerical analysis with Flac3D code. Results show that both the horizontal and the vertical acceleration amplifications present a dramatic increase at the base of the anchoring frame beam, where the acceleration response is greatly amplified. The bi-directional excitation of Wenchuan motion causes a more intensive acceleration response than the one-directional excitation. The nonlinear behavior of anchoring frame beam is much more obvious than that of gravity retaining wall under earthquake loading. The response of dynamic earth pressure is not in phase as that of the inertial force, and quite a big value of residual earth pressure is induced by earthquake loading. The earthquake loading greatly increases the axial stress of anchor in the free zone. The axial stress of anchor decreases rapidly in anchorage zone and tends to zero within a short length.

[1]  Riccardo Conti,et al.  Some remarks on the seismic behaviour of embedded cantilevered retaining walls , 2014 .

[2]  Ahmed Elgamal,et al.  Shake table lateral earth pressure testing with dense c-ϕ backfill , 2015 .

[3]  Jun Liu,et al.  Large-scale shaking table model tests of aseismic measures for concrete faced rock-fill dams , 2014 .

[4]  Meei-Ling Lin,et al.  Seismic slope behavior in a large-scale shaking table model test , 2006 .

[5]  A. Chopra,et al.  Comparing response of SDF systems to near‐fault and far‐fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions , 2001 .

[6]  Mohammad Kazem Jafari,et al.  Seismic response of embankment dams under near-fault and far-field ground motion excitation , 2013 .

[7]  Shinya Nakamura,et al.  REEXAMINATION OF MONONOBE-OKABE THEORY OF GRAVITY RETAINING WALLS USING CENTRIFUGE MODEL TESTS , 2007 .

[8]  Mario Martinelli,et al.  Displacement – based parametric study on the seismic response of gravity earth-retaining walls , 2016 .

[9]  Lian-heng Zhao,et al.  Seismic active earth pressure of cohesive-frictional soil on retaining wall based on a slice analysis method , 2015 .

[10]  Mohammad Hassan Baziar,et al.  Seismic ground motion amplification pattern induced by a subway tunnel: Shaking table testing and numerical simulation , 2016 .

[11]  M. Hesham El Naggar,et al.  Experimental study on the seismic behaviour of geosynthetic-reinforced pile-foundation system , 2015 .

[12]  Linda Al Atik,et al.  Seismic Earth Pressures on Cantilever Retaining Structures , 2010 .

[13]  Pan Donghua,et al.  On the Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Flood and Drought Hazards of China , 2013 .

[14]  L. Callisto,et al.  An interpretation of the seismic behaviour of reinforced-earth retaining structures , 2015 .

[15]  Erol Guler,et al.  Reduced-Scale Shaking Table Tests on Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Walls with Modular Facing , 2014 .

[16]  Meei-Ling Lin,et al.  Initiation and displacement of landslide induced by earthquake — a study of shaking table model slope test , 2011 .

[17]  Feng Zhang,et al.  Seismic performance of SSPQ retaining wall—Centrifuge model tests and numerical evaluation , 2014 .

[18]  Naoki Shimura,et al.  Seismic performance of reinforced soil wall with untreated and cement-treated soils as backfill using a 1-g shaking table , 2015 .

[19]  Mahmoud Ghazavi,et al.  Analytical and numerical solution for interaction between batter pile group , 2014 .

[20]  Seong-Bae Jo,et al.  Seismic behavior of an inverted T-shape flexible retaining wall via dynamic centrifuge tests , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[21]  M. Mánica,et al.  Assessment of damping models in FLAC , 2014 .

[22]  Alper Turan,et al.  Design and commissioning of a laminar soil container for use on small shaking tables , 2009 .

[23]  Yu-liang Lin,et al.  Numerical analysis on seismic behavior of railway earth embankment: A case study , 2016, Journal of Central South University.

[24]  Yu-liang Lin,et al.  Dynamic behavior of railway embankment slope subjected to seismic excitation , 2013, Natural Hazards.

[25]  Susumu Iai,et al.  SIMILITUDE FOR SHAKING TABLE TESTS ON SOIL-STRUCTURE-FLUID MODEL IN 1g GRAVITATIONAL FIELD , 1989 .

[26]  Wu-ming Leng,et al.  Seismic response of embankment slopes with different reinforcing measures in shaking table tests , 2015, Natural Hazards.

[27]  Panos Kloukinas,et al.  Investigation of seismic response of cantilever retaining walls: Limit analysis vs shaking table testing , 2015 .

[28]  G. Madhavi Latha,et al.  Seismic response of reduced-scale modular block and rigid faced reinforced walls through shaking table tests , 2015 .

[29]  Chen Su,et al.  Shaking-table tests and numerical simulations on a subway structure in soft soil , 2015 .

[30]  Jiuping Xu,et al.  An economic loss assessment framework of a region after Wenchuan earthquake , 2013 .

[31]  Juan M. Mayoral,et al.  Site response effects on an urban overpass , 2011 .