Seismic performance of gravity retaining walls

Creative Commons License

Yünkül K., Gürbüz A.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, cilt.52, sa.6, ss.1635-1657, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 52 Sayı: 6
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1002/eqe.3833
  • Dergi Adı: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, PASCAL, Aerospace Database, Applied Science & Technology Source, Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA), Communication Abstracts, Compendex, Computer & Applied Sciences, Geobase, INSPEC, Metadex, DIALNET, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1635-1657
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: amplification factor, dynamic active force, gravity retaining wall, inertial force, phase difference, residual displacement, shaking table test
  • Gazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.In the present study, the seismic performances of gravity retaining walls having both inclined back side and inclined backfill were investigated under sinusoidal acceleration excitations using series of shaking table tests on 750 mm height physical model. The effects of input peak ground acceleration ((Formula presented.)), inclination angle of backfill material (α) and inclination angle of back of the gravity retaining wall (β) on acceleration amplification factor ((Formula presented.)), maximum peak lateral relative ((Formula presented.)) and maximum residual lateral displacement ((Formula presented.)) of the wall, surface settlement ((Formula presented.)) of the backfill material, inertial force ((Formula presented.)) and horizontal dynamic active force ((Formula presented.)) were assessed. It was observed that higher values of the (Formula presented.) were obtained from the experimental results as compared the ones from current seismic design codes. Moreover, the six results of shaking table tests revealed that the phase difference was appeared between the inertial force and dynamic earth pressures. Pseudo-static limit equilibrium methods resulted in over conservative (Formula presented.) results and could not truly reflect the seismic behavior of gravity wall due to the inertial forces and phase difference not taken into consideration.