Abstract
This paper presents model examinations directed on geotextile wrap faced reinforced soil walls laying on delicate clayey establishments under dynamic conditions mounted on a shake table. The laminar shear box was utilized as the container to reduce the boundary effect. Surcharge pressure, frequency of shaking, and base acceleration were introduced in a fluctuating way in model tests. All model walls were subjected to 20 cycles of sinusoidal shaking, and the slope was kept at 90°. This research principally features the significance of surcharge pressure on the model wall to evaluate the reinforced wall response and foundation soil at higher depths (higher vertical stress) under seismic loads. The influence of surcharge pressure at different elevations of the retaining wall layers, and horizontal face displacement, acceleration amplification, and pore water pressure are illustrated in this paper. Results indicate that acceleration amplifications at the top of the geotextile wall were inversely proportional to the surcharge pressures. Displacements along the facing were reduced due to an increase in the surcharge pressure because of the overturning mode of failure maximum displacement occurred at the top of the wall. In the overturning mode, the reinforced zone of facing moved outward like a rigid block. It has been found that pore water pressure, acceleration amplification, and horizontal displacement of reinforced soil wall decrease with increasing surcharge pressure. Despite the limitations associated with small-scale tests, the results from this study will stipulate useful guidelines regarding the relative performance of reinforced soil retaining walls under different test conditions with clear implications for design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- DF50 :
-
Dart felt 50 geotextile
- GRS:
-
Geosynthetic reinforced soil
- Dr :
-
Relative density
- UU:
-
Unconsolidated undrain test
- w % :
-
Water content
- LL:
-
Liquid limit
- PL :
-
: Plastic limit
- PI:
-
Plasticity index
- LC:
-
Lean clay
- SP:
-
Poorly graded sand
- α:
-
Scaling factor for sand (Kokusho 1980 and Yu and Richart 1984)
- N :
-
Prototype to model scale factor
- WFSW:
-
Wrap faced sand walls
- Sv :
-
Height of each sand layer
- H :
-
Total sand wall height
- T :
-
The height of clayey soil and reinforced sand wall together
- z :
-
Height of a specific point
- δh/H (%) :
-
Normalized face displacement
- C :
-
Height of clayey soil layer
- Pr% :
-
Pore pressure ration
References
Bilgin Ö, Mansour E (2014) Effect of reinforcement type on the design reinforcement length of mechanically stabilized earth walls. Eng Struct 59:663–673
Bishop AW, Morgenstern N (1960) Stability coefficients for earth slopes. Geotechnique 10(4):129–153
Chakraborty S, Hore R, Shuvon AM, Mazhar MS, Ansary MA (2021) Dynamic responses of reinforced soil model wall on soft clay foundation. Geotech Geol Eng 39:2883–2901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01665-z
Chaudhary B, Hazarika H, Sah B, Krishna AM (2016) Effects of reinforcement on the geo-structure for mitigation of the earthquake effects. Japan Geotech Soc Special Public 2(68):2319–2323. https://doi.org/10.3208/jgssp.IGS-25
Ehrlich M, Mirmoradi SH, Saramago RP (2012) Evaluation of the effect of compaction on the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotext Geomembr 34:108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.05.005
Ertugrul OL, Trandafir AC (2013) Lateral earth pressures on flexible cantilever retaining walls with deformable geofoam inclusions. Eng Geol 158:23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.03.001
Gidday BG, Mittal S (2020) Dynamic response fo wrap-faced cement treated reinforced clayey soil retaining walls. Innovative Infrastruct Solutions 5(2):01–09
Goktepe F, Celebi E, Omid AJ (2019) Numerical and experimental study on scaled soil-structure model for small shaking table tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 119:308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.01.016
Hatami K, Bathurst RJ, El-Emam MM (2005) Acceleration amplification in the backfill of reinforced soil walls with different heights. Proceedings of the 3rd Biot Conference on Poromechanics, Norman, OK, USA, May 2005, (Abousleiman, Cheng & Ulm Eds.), Balkema, London, pp. 725–731
Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2015) 3-Dimensional numerical modelling of geocell reinforced sand beds. Geotext Geomembr 43(2):171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.11.009
Hore R, Chakraborty S, Shuvon AM, Ansary MA (2020) Effect of acceleration on wrap faced reinforced soil retaining wall on soft clay by performing shaking table test. Proc Eng Technol Innov 15:24–34. https://doi.org/10.46604/peti.2020.4485
Hore R, Chakraborty S, Ansary MA (2021a) Seismic response of embankment on soft clay based on shaking table test. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 7:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00246-7
Hore R, Chakraborty S, Shuvon AM, Bari MF, Ansary MA (2021b) Dynamic response of reinforced soil retaining wall resting on soft clay. Transp Infrastruct Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-021-00156-9
Huang CC (2019) Seismic responses of vertical-faced wrap-around reinforced soil walls. Geosynth Int 26(2):146–163. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Kokusho T (1980) Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils Found 20(2):45–60. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.20.2_45
Latha GM, Manju GS (2016) Seismic response of geocell retaining walls through shaking table tests. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2:7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0048-4
Latha GM, Santhanakumar P (2015) Seismic response of reduced-scale modular block and rigid faced reinforced walls through shaking table tests. Geotext Geomembr 43(4):307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.008
Ling HI, Mohri Y, Leshchinsky D, Burke C, Matsushima K, Liu H (2005) Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(4):465–476. https://doi.org/10.1061/~ASCE!1090-0241~2005!131:4~465
Liu H, Wang X, Song E (2011) Reinforcement load and deformation mode of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls subject to seismic loading during service life. Geotext Geomembr 29(1):01–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.06.003
Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 82(1):866–871. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0000001
Murali Krishna A, Madhavi Latha G (2007) Seismic response of wrap-faced reinforced soil-retaining wall models using shaking table tests. Geosynth Int 14(6):355–364. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2007.14.6.355
Panah AK, Yazdi M, Ghalandarzadeh A (2015) Shaking table tests on soil retaining walls reinforced by polymeric strips. Geotext Geomembr 43(2):148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.01.001
Sabermahani M, Ghalandarzadeh A, Fakher A (2009) Experimental study on seismic deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls. Geotext Geomembr 27(2):121–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.09.009
Tafreshi SM, Khalaj O, Dawson AR, Mašek B (2015) Repeated load response of soil reinforced by two layers of geocell. Procedia Earth and Planetary Sci 15:99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2015.08.026
Wang L, Chen G, Chen S (2015) Experimental study on seismic response of geogrid reinforced rigid retaining walls with saturated backfill sand. Geotext Geomembr 43(1):35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.11.006
Xu P, Hatami K, Jiang G (2020) Shaking table study of the influence of facing on reinforced soil wall connection loads. Geosynth Int. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.20.00001
Yazdandoust M (2017) Investigation on the seismic performance of steel-strip reinforced-soil retaining walls using shaking table test. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 97:216–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.03.011
Yazdandoust M (2018) Laboratory evaluation of dynamic behavior of steel-strip mechanically stabilized earth walls. Soils Found 58(2):264–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.sandf.2018.02.016
Yu P, Richart FE Jr (1984) Stress ratio effects on shear modulus of dry sands. J Geotech Eng 110(3):331–345. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:3(331)
Acknowledgements
This research is being partially supported by the Geotechnical and Concrete Laboratory, of the Bangladesh University of Engineering Technology (BUET) and this support is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed equally for the development of this research. Author’s order is arranged in this research paper according to their contributions.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chakraborty, S., Hore, R., Shuvon, A.M. et al. Effect of Surcharge Pressure on Model Geotextile Wrapped-Face Wall Under Seismic Condition. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 46, 4409–4423 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-022-00900-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-022-00900-2