Seismic performance of bar-mat reinforced-soil retaining wall: Shaking table testing versus numerical analysis with modified kinematic hardening constitutive model

Reinforced-soil retaining structures possess inherent flexibility, and are believed to be insensitive to earthquake shaking. In fact, several such structures have successfully survived destructive earthquakes (Northridge 1994, Kobe 1995, Kocaeli 1999, and Chi-Chi 1999). This paper investigates experimentally and theoretically the seismic performance of a typical bar-mat retaining wall. First, a series of reduced- scale shaking table tests are conducted, using a variety of seismic excitations (real records and artificial multi-cycle motions). Then, the problem is analyzed numerically employing the finite element method. A modified kinematic hardening constitutive model is developed and encoded in ABAQUS through a user-defined subroutine. After calibrating the model parameters through laboratory element testing, the retaining walls are analyzed at model scale, assuming model parameters appropriate for very small confining pressures. After validating the numerical analysis through comparisons with shaking table test results, the problem is re-analyzed at prototype scale assuming model parameters for standard confining pressures. The results of shaking table testing are thus indirectly ''converted'' (extrapolated) to real scale. It is shown that: (a) for medium intensity motions (typical of M s E6 earthquakes) the response is ''quasi-elastic'', and the permanent lateral displacement in reality could not exceed a few centimeters; (b) for larger intensity motions (typical of MsE6.5-7 earthquakes) bearing the effects of forward rupture directivity or having a large number of strong motion cycles, plastic deformation accumulates and the permanent displacement is of the order of 10-15 cm (at prototype scale); and (c) a large number of strong motion cycles (N4 30) of unrealistically large amplitude (A¼ 1.0 g) is required to activate a failure wedge behind the region of reinforced soil. Overall, the performance of the bar-mat reinforced-soil walls investigated in this paper is totally acceptable for realistic levels of seismic excitation.

[1]  Jian Fei Chen,et al.  17th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference , 2004 .

[2]  Fumio Tatsuoka,et al.  A Modified Procedure to Evaluate Active Earth Pressure at High Seismic Loads , 1998 .

[3]  Nicholas Sitar,et al.  Centrifuge Model Studies of the Seismic Response of Reinforced Soil Slopes , 2006 .

[4]  Ioannis Anastasopoulos,et al.  Seismic behaviour of flexible retaining systems subjected to short-duration moderately strong excitation , 2004 .

[5]  R. Michalowski,et al.  Triaxial Compression of Sand Reinforced with Fibers , 2003 .

[6]  K. Watanabe,et al.  Evaluation of Seismic Displacement of Reinforced Walls , 2004 .

[7]  Richard J. Bathurst,et al.  Full Scale Testing of Geosynthetic Reinforced Walls , 2000 .

[8]  Panos Dakoulas,et al.  Local‐soil and source‐mechanism effects in the 1986 kalamata (Greece) earthquake , 1990 .

[9]  Takeshi Sato,et al.  Shaking and Tilt Table Tests of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil and Conventional-Type Retaining Walls , 1998 .

[10]  Raj V. Siddharthan,et al.  Seismic Deformation of Bar Mat Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls. I: Centrifuge Tests , 2004 .

[11]  I. M. Idriss,et al.  Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analyses of Cohesionless Soils , 1986 .

[12]  P. Lade,et al.  Influence Zones in Alluvium Over Dip‐Slip Faults , 1984 .

[13]  V. N. Georgiannou,et al.  Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of sand under torsional loading , 2008 .

[14]  Dov Leshchinsky,et al.  Large-Scale Shaking Table Tests on Modular-Block Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls , 2005 .

[15]  Anastasia Kiratzi,et al.  The 14 August 2003 Lefkada Island (Greece) earthquake: Focal mechanisms of the mainshock and of the aftershock sequence , 2005 .

[16]  Jorge G. Zornberg,et al.  Strain Distribution within Geosynthetic-Reinforced Slopes , 2003 .

[17]  太郎 内村.  Seismic Stability Against High Seismic Loads of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Structures , 1998 .

[18]  G. Dobb,et al.  The Kobe earthquake , 1995 .

[19]  Andrew Douglas Gibson.  Physical scale modeling of geotechnical structures at one-G , 1996 .

[20]  F. E. Richart,et al.  Elastic Wave Velocities in Granular Soils , 1963 .

[21]  Craig D. Comartin,et al.  The Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake : Great Hanshin Earthquake Disaster, January 17, 1995 : preliminary reconnaissance report , 1995 .

[22]  Anastasia Kiratzi,et al.  The Cephalonia Transform Fault and its extension to western Lefkada Island (Greece) , 1999 .

[23]  Paul Somerville,et al.  Seismic hazard evaluation , 2000 .

[24]  James K. Mitchell,et al.  Performance of Geosynthetic Reinforced Slopes at Failure , 2000 .

[25]  Mihailo D. Trifunac,et al.  The Rinaldi Strong Motion Accelerogram of the Northridge, California Earthquake of 17 January 1994 , 1998 .

[26]  Fumio Tatsuoka,et al.  PERFORMANCE OF SOIL RETAINING WALLS FOR RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS , 1996 .

[27]  Dov Leshchinsky,et al.  Analyzing Dynamic Behavior of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls , 2004 .

[28]  Steven L. Kramer,et al.  Dimensionality and Directionality Effects in Newmark Sliding Block Analyses , 2004 .

[29]  A. Britto,et al.  Laboratory Seismic Tests of Geotextile Wrap-Faced and Geotextile-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Walls , 1998 .

[30]  地盤工学会.  Special issue on geotechnical aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake , 1996 .

[31]  I. Ishibashi,et al.  UNIFIED DYNAMIC SHEAR MODULI AND DAMPING RATIOS OF SAND AND CLAY , 1993 .

[32]  I. Anastasopoulos,et al.  Asymmetric ‘Newmark’ Sliding Caused by Motions Containing Severe ‘Directivity’ and ‘Fling’ Pulses , 2011 .