To investigate the seismic response of the steel-strip reinforced soil retaining wall with fullheight rigid facing in terms of the acceleration in the backfill, dynamic earth pressure in the backfill, the displacement...To investigate the seismic response of the steel-strip reinforced soil retaining wall with fullheight rigid facing in terms of the acceleration in the backfill, dynamic earth pressure in the backfill, the displacements on the facing and the dynamic reinforcement strain distribution under different peak acceleration, a large 1-g shaking table test was performed on a reduced-scale reinforced-earth retaining wall model. It was observed that the acceleration response in non-strip region is greater than that in potential fracture region which is similar with the stability region under small earthquake,while the acceleration response in potential fracture region is greater than that in stability region in middle-upper of the wall under moderately strong earthquakes. The potential failure model of the rigid wall is rotating around the wall toe. It also was discovered that the Fourier spectra produced by the inputting white noises after seismic wave presents double peaks, rather than original single peak, and the frequency of the second peak trends to increase with increasing the PGA(peak ground amplitude) of the excitation which is greater than 0.4 g. Additionally,the non-liner distribution of strip strain along the strips was observed, and the distribution trend was not constant in different row. Soil pressure peak value in stability region is larger than that in potential fracture region. The wall was effective under 0.1 g-0.3 g seismic wave according to the analyses of the facing displacement and relative density. Also, it was discovered that the potential failure surface is corresponds to that in design code, but the area is larger. The results from the study can provide guidance for a more rational design of reinforced earth retaining walls with full-height rigid facing in the earthquake zone.展开更多
Because of its excellent seismic performance, reinforced soil retaining walls are increasingly used in civil engineering. Although many countries have published corresponding design codes, the differences between them...Because of its excellent seismic performance, reinforced soil retaining walls are increasingly used in civil engineering. Although many countries have published corresponding design codes, the differences between them are still relatively large. Using the FHWA Code and the Code for Seismic Design of Railway Engineering(CSDRE), stability calculations of reinforced soil retaining walls were carried out and the similarities and differences between these two design codes were analyzed. According to the comparative analysis, the following conclusions are drawn: the inertia force, the earth pressure and the tensile force of reinforcements calculated from the CSDRE are less than those from the FHWA Code, and the safety factor calculated from the former is larger. Although the M-O method is recommended to calculate the dynamic earth pressure, the FHWA Code suggests a higher action point as compared to the CSDRE.展开更多
基金founded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant No.51708163)Research Program of the Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China(Grant No.2013318800020)Doctoral Innovation Fund Program of Southwest Jiaotong University(Grant No.D-CX201703)
文摘To investigate the seismic response of the steel-strip reinforced soil retaining wall with fullheight rigid facing in terms of the acceleration in the backfill, dynamic earth pressure in the backfill, the displacements on the facing and the dynamic reinforcement strain distribution under different peak acceleration, a large 1-g shaking table test was performed on a reduced-scale reinforced-earth retaining wall model. It was observed that the acceleration response in non-strip region is greater than that in potential fracture region which is similar with the stability region under small earthquake,while the acceleration response in potential fracture region is greater than that in stability region in middle-upper of the wall under moderately strong earthquakes. The potential failure model of the rigid wall is rotating around the wall toe. It also was discovered that the Fourier spectra produced by the inputting white noises after seismic wave presents double peaks, rather than original single peak, and the frequency of the second peak trends to increase with increasing the PGA(peak ground amplitude) of the excitation which is greater than 0.4 g. Additionally,the non-liner distribution of strip strain along the strips was observed, and the distribution trend was not constant in different row. Soil pressure peak value in stability region is larger than that in potential fracture region. The wall was effective under 0.1 g-0.3 g seismic wave according to the analyses of the facing displacement and relative density. Also, it was discovered that the potential failure surface is corresponds to that in design code, but the area is larger. The results from the study can provide guidance for a more rational design of reinforced earth retaining walls with full-height rigid facing in the earthquake zone.
基金sponsored by the Project of Science and Technology Research and Development Plan of China Railway Corporation(Grant No.2014G003-C)
文摘Because of its excellent seismic performance, reinforced soil retaining walls are increasingly used in civil engineering. Although many countries have published corresponding design codes, the differences between them are still relatively large. Using the FHWA Code and the Code for Seismic Design of Railway Engineering(CSDRE), stability calculations of reinforced soil retaining walls were carried out and the similarities and differences between these two design codes were analyzed. According to the comparative analysis, the following conclusions are drawn: the inertia force, the earth pressure and the tensile force of reinforcements calculated from the CSDRE are less than those from the FHWA Code, and the safety factor calculated from the former is larger. Although the M-O method is recommended to calculate the dynamic earth pressure, the FHWA Code suggests a higher action point as compared to the CSDRE.
