SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic behavior of cantilever wall embedded in dry and saturated sand

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boscardin M D, Cording E J. Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1989, 115(1): 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zahmatkesh A, Choobbasti A J. Evaluation of wall deflections and ground surface settlements in deep excavations. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2015, 8(5): 3055–3063

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(37–40): 2437–2455

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Cracking particles: A simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(13): 2316–2343

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Ren H, Zhuang X, Cai Y, Rabczuk T. Dual-horizon peridynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2016, 108(12): 1451–1476

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Ren H, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Dual-horizon peridynamics: A stable solution to varying horizons. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2017, 318: 762–782

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Areias P, Reinoso J, Camanho P P, César de Sá J, Rabczuk T. Effective 2D and 3D crack propagation with local mesh refinement and the screened Poisson equation. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 189: 339–360

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zhou S W, **a C C. Propagation and coalescence of quasi-static cracks in Brazilian disks: An insight from a phase field model. Acta Geotechnica, 2018, 14: 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhou S, Rabczuk T, Zhuang X. Phase field modeling of quasi-static and dynamic crack propagation: COMSOL implementation and case studies. Advances in Engineering Software, 2018, 122: 31–49

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zhou S, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A phase-field modeling approach of fracture propagation in poroelastic media. Engineering Geology, 2018, 240: 189–203

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zhou S, Zhuang X, Zhu H, Rabczuk T. Phase field modelling of crack propagation, branching and coalescence in rocks. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 96: 174–192

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou S, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Phase-field modeling of fluid-driven dynamic cracking in porous media. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 350(15): 169–198

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Okabe S. General theory of earth pressures. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineering, 1926, 12(1): 311

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mononobe N, Matsuo H. On the determination of earth pressure during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the World Engineering Congress. Tokyo, 1929, 9:177–185

    Google Scholar 

  15. Steedman R S, Zeng X. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique, 1990, 40(1): 103–112

    Google Scholar 

  16. Richards R J, Elms D. Seismic behavior of gravity retaining wall. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1979, 150(4): 449–464.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Callisto L, Soccodato F M. Seismic design of flexible cantilever retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2010, 136(2): 344–354

    Google Scholar 

  18. Conti R, Viggiani G M B, Burali D’Arezzo F. Some remarks on the seismic behaviour of embedded cantilevered retaining walls. Geotechnique, 2014, 64(1): 40–50

    Google Scholar 

  19. Khosrojerdi M, Pak A. Numerical investigation on the behavior of the gravity waterfront structures under earthquake loading. Ocean Engineering, 2015, 106: 152–160

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tricarico M, Madabhushi G S P, Aversa S. Centrifuge modeling of flexible retaining walls subjected to dynamic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 88: 297–306

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chowdhury S S, Deb K, Sengupta A. Behavior of underground strutted retaining structure under seismic condition. Earthquakes and Structures, 2015, 8(5): 1147–1170

    Google Scholar 

  22. Flogeras A K, Papagiannopoulos G A. On the seismic response of steel buckling-restrained braced structures including sand-structure interaction. Earthquakes and Structures, 2017, 12(4): 469–478

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wood J H. Earthquake induced sand pressure on structure. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, 1973, 73–05

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nadim F, Whitman R V. Seismic induced movement of retaining walls. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1983, 109(7): 915–931

    Google Scholar 

  25. Finn W D L, Yogendrakumar M, Otsu H, Seedman R S. 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

    Google Scholar 

  26. Veletsos A, Younan A H. Dynamic sand pressure on rigid vertical walls. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1994, 23(3): 275–301

    Google Scholar 

  27. Veletsos A S, Younan A H. 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

    Google Scholar 

  28. Veletsos A S, Younan A H. Dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1997, 123(2): 161–172

    Google Scholar 

  29. Green R A, Olgun C G, Ebeling R M, Cameron W I. 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

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ostadan F. Seismic sand pressure for building walls: An updated approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2005, 25(7–10): 785–793

    Google Scholar 

  31. Madabhushi S P G, Zeng X. Seismic response of flexible cantilever retaining wall with dry backfill. Geomechanics & Geoengineering, 2006, 1(4): 275–289

    Google Scholar 

  32. Madabhushi S P G, Zeng X. Simulating seismic response of cantilever retaining walls. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, 2007, 133(5): 539–549.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S, Scarpa F, Bianchi M. Dynamic response of a geotechnical rigid model container with absorbing boundaries. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 69: 46–56

    Google Scholar 

  34. Meymand P J. 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

    Google Scholar 

  35. Seed H B, Idriss I M. Simplified procedure for evaluating sand liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1971, 97(9): 1249–1274

    Google Scholar 

  36. Banerjee R, Konai S, Sengupta A, Deb K. Shake table tests and numerical modeling of liquefaction of Kasai River sand. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2017, 35(4): 1327–1340

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tsuchida H. 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

    Google Scholar 

  38. Itasca. FLAC Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, V. 5.0, User’s Manual. 2005

  39. Callisto L, Soccodato F A, Conti R. 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

    Google Scholar 

  40. Callisto L, Soccodato F M. 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

    Google Scholar 

  41. Callisto L, Soccodato F M. Performance-based design of embedded retaining walls subjected to seismic loading. In: Proceedings and Workshop: Eurocode 2009. Brussels: The European Committee for Standardization, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  42. Callisto L. Capacity design of embedded retaining structures. Geotechnique, 2014, 64(3): 204–214

    Google Scholar 

  43. Janbu N. 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

    Google Scholar 

  44. Chattaraj R, Sengupta A. Liquefaction potential and strain dependent dynamic properties of Kasai River sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 467–475

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hardin B O, Drnevich V P. Shear modulus and dam** in sands. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1972, 98(7): 667–692

    Google Scholar 

  46. Aggour M S, Zhang J X. Degradation of sands due to combined sinusoidal loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2006, 132(12): 1628–1632

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ishibashi I, Zhang X. Unified dynamic shear moduli and dam** ratios of sand and clay. Soil and Foundation, 1993, 33(1): 182–191

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kramer S L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. New Delhi: Pearson Education, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  49. Martin G R, Finn W D L, Seed H B. Fundamentals of liquefaction under cyclic loading. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1975, 101(5): 423–438

    Google Scholar 

  50. Byrne P. 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The funding for this study vide Grant No. SR/S3/MERC-0029/2011 of SERB, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi (India) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, 721302, India

    Sanku Konai, Aniruddha Sengupta & Kousik Deb

Authors
  1. Sanku Konai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aniruddha Sengupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kousik Deb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kousik Deb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Konai, S., Sengupta, A. & Deb, K. Seismic behavior of cantilever wall embedded in dry and saturated sand. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 14, 690–705 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0615-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0615-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation