{"title":"可液化场地 T 型挡土墙的地震响应和缓解措施","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.geotexmem.2024.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Focusing on a T-shape cantilever retaining wall in a liquefiable site, a series of shaking table model tests were conducted to investigate the seismic stability characteristics of the wall when using EPS composite soil isolation piles (WEP), EPS composite soil isolation walls (WEW), and backfilled natural fine sand from Nanjing (WSS). The seismic response characteristics of the model ground soil and the retaining wall for the three models were comparatively analyzed regarding the acceleration, displacement, dynamic earth pressure and excess pore water pressure ratio. Moreover, the seismic performance of anti-liquefaction measures in the liquefiable ground with EPS composite isolation structures were discussed from the view of the phase characteristics and energy consumption. The results indicate that under the same peak ground acceleration, the excess pore water pressure in the WEP and WEW models is significantly lower than that in the WSS model. Different from WSS, WEP and WEW exhibit a segmented distribution with the buried depth in acceleration amplification factors. The embedding of isolation structures in liquefiable sites can reduce the wall sliding and rotational displacements by approximately 25%–50%. In addition, the out-of-phase characteristics of dynamic earth pressure increment are evidently different among WEP, WEW and WSS. There is an approximate 180° phase difference between the dynamic earth pressure behind the wall and the inertial force in the WEP and WEW models. EPS composite soil isolation structures show good energy dissipation characteristics, and especially the isolation wall is better than isolation pile. The displacement index of WSS retaining wall is significantly larger than that of WEW and WEP, indicating that EPS composite isolation piles and wall play an important role in the mitigating damage to the retaining wall. This study can provide references for the application of isolation structures in the liquefiable ground soil regarding the seismic stability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55096,"journal":{"name":"Geotextiles and Geomembranes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seismic response and mitigation measures for T shape retaining wall in liquefiable site\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.geotexmem.2024.10.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Focusing on a T-shape cantilever retaining wall in a liquefiable site, a series of shaking table model tests were conducted to investigate the seismic stability characteristics of the wall when using EPS composite soil isolation piles (WEP), EPS composite soil isolation walls (WEW), and backfilled natural fine sand from Nanjing (WSS). The seismic response characteristics of the model ground soil and the retaining wall for the three models were comparatively analyzed regarding the acceleration, displacement, dynamic earth pressure and excess pore water pressure ratio. Moreover, the seismic performance of anti-liquefaction measures in the liquefiable ground with EPS composite isolation structures were discussed from the view of the phase characteristics and energy consumption. The results indicate that under the same peak ground acceleration, the excess pore water pressure in the WEP and WEW models is significantly lower than that in the WSS model. Different from WSS, WEP and WEW exhibit a segmented distribution with the buried depth in acceleration amplification factors. The embedding of isolation structures in liquefiable sites can reduce the wall sliding and rotational displacements by approximately 25%–50%. In addition, the out-of-phase characteristics of dynamic earth pressure increment are evidently different among WEP, WEW and WSS. There is an approximate 180° phase difference between the dynamic earth pressure behind the wall and the inertial force in the WEP and WEW models. EPS composite soil isolation structures show good energy dissipation characteristics, and especially the isolation wall is better than isolation pile. The displacement index of WSS retaining wall is significantly larger than that of WEW and WEP, indicating that EPS composite isolation piles and wall play an important role in the mitigating damage to the retaining wall. This study can provide references for the application of isolation structures in the liquefiable ground soil regarding the seismic stability.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geotextiles and Geomembranes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geotextiles and Geomembranes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266114424001237\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geotextiles and Geomembranes","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266114424001237","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Seismic response and mitigation measures for T shape retaining wall in liquefiable site
Focusing on a T-shape cantilever retaining wall in a liquefiable site, a series of shaking table model tests were conducted to investigate the seismic stability characteristics of the wall when using EPS composite soil isolation piles (WEP), EPS composite soil isolation walls (WEW), and backfilled natural fine sand from Nanjing (WSS). The seismic response characteristics of the model ground soil and the retaining wall for the three models were comparatively analyzed regarding the acceleration, displacement, dynamic earth pressure and excess pore water pressure ratio. Moreover, the seismic performance of anti-liquefaction measures in the liquefiable ground with EPS composite isolation structures were discussed from the view of the phase characteristics and energy consumption. The results indicate that under the same peak ground acceleration, the excess pore water pressure in the WEP and WEW models is significantly lower than that in the WSS model. Different from WSS, WEP and WEW exhibit a segmented distribution with the buried depth in acceleration amplification factors. The embedding of isolation structures in liquefiable sites can reduce the wall sliding and rotational displacements by approximately 25%–50%. In addition, the out-of-phase characteristics of dynamic earth pressure increment are evidently different among WEP, WEW and WSS. There is an approximate 180° phase difference between the dynamic earth pressure behind the wall and the inertial force in the WEP and WEW models. EPS composite soil isolation structures show good energy dissipation characteristics, and especially the isolation wall is better than isolation pile. The displacement index of WSS retaining wall is significantly larger than that of WEW and WEP, indicating that EPS composite isolation piles and wall play an important role in the mitigating damage to the retaining wall. This study can provide references for the application of isolation structures in the liquefiable ground soil regarding the seismic stability.
期刊介绍:
The range of products and their applications has expanded rapidly over the last decade with geotextiles and geomembranes being specified world wide. This rapid growth is paralleled by a virtual explosion of technology. Current reference books and even manufacturers' sponsored publications tend to date very quickly and the need for a vehicle to bring together and discuss the growing body of technology now available has become evident.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes fills this need and provides a forum for the dissemination of information amongst research workers, designers, users and manufacturers. By providing a growing fund of information the journal increases general awareness, prompts further research and assists in the establishment of international codes and regulations.