Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Soil-Structure Interaction

    Uploaded by

    Fernando Fante
    16 views1 page
    Finite element analyses have shown that construction details and installation sequence can significantly impact retaining wall pressures and bending moments. Propped cantilever walls constructed in clay have shown that numerical models can accurately predict required embedment depths when compared to limit equilibrium methods, but predict higher prop forces and bending moments when initial horizontal stresses are large. Construction sequence is also important, as demonstrated by examples showing earth pressures on retaining walls can be much higher than active pressures if lateral wall movements must be minimized.

    Original Description:

    a

    Original Title

    61_2001_04_0007

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Finite element analyses have shown that construction details and installation sequence can significantly impact retaining wall pressures and bending moments. Propped cantilever walls constructed in clay have shown that numerical models can accurately predict required embedment depths when compared to limit equilibrium methods, but predict higher prop forces and bending moments when initial horizontal stresses are large. Construction sequence is also important, as demonstrated by examples showing earth pressures on retaining walls can be much higher than active pressures if lateral wall movements must be minimized.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    16 views1 page

    Soil-Structure Interaction

    Uploaded by

    Fernando Fante
    Finite element analyses have shown that construction details and installation sequence can significantly impact retaining wall pressures and bending moments. Propped cantilever walls constructed in clay have shown that numerical models can accurately predict required embedment depths when compared to limit equilibrium methods, but predict higher prop forces and bending moments when initial horizontal stresses are large. Construction sequence is also important, as demonstrated by examples showing earth pressures on retaining walls can be much higher than active pressures if lateral wall movements must be minimized.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    situations where the peak strength w ill not be mobilised simulta­ Finite element analyses of retaining walls have

    walls have also shown


    neously along the entire potential failure surface, or throughout the significant implications o f construction details and installa­
    the entire region of failing soil. The most important practical im­ tion sequence. Potts and Fourie (1984, 1985) and Fourie and
    plication of this type of real soil behaviour arises in the case of Potts (1989) have demonstrated such effects for a propped can­
    passive wall failure. For example, Rowe and Peaker (1965) tilever wall in clay. They showed that sophisticated numerical
    demonstrated quite clearly in their experiments that the maxi­ analyses can provide predictions of the depths of embedment re­
    mum force exerted by the wall, and sustained by the retained quired for equilibrium that agree remarkably well with those cal­
    soil, is much less than is calculated on the basis of the available culated using simple lim it equilibrium solutions, regardless of
    peak strength, if strain softening occurs. the initia l value of the horizontal total stress assumed to act in
    the soil. However, in contrast, the values of the prop force and
    7.2.4 Soil-structure interaction maximum bending moment are much higher than values pre­
    As indicated previously, classical solutions for wall pressures as­ dicted by the lim it equilibrium methods whenever the assumed
    sume that the wall itse lf is a perfectly rigid structural member. In initial horizontal stresses are relatively large.
    practice, many walls, particularly those constructed using sheet Finite element analyses reported by various authors, e.g.,
    piling or concrete diaphragm walls, w ill not behave rigidly, but Kutmen (1986), Higgins et al. (1989) and Gunn et al. (1992),
    w ill flex significantly under the influence of the earth pressures have shown the sensitivity of the bending moments calculated
    acting on them. This problem was studied extensively by Rowe for the wall to the details of the construction procedure.
    (1952), who provided a method for estimating the effects of soil-
    structure interaction on the maximum bending moments induced
    in the wall section (see also C IR IA, 1974). W all-soil structural 7.3 Design approaches
    interaction has also been the topic o f much recent research, par­ The first stage in the design process for an earth retaining struc­
    ticularly involving the use of sophisticated numerical modelling, ture is usually an assessment of which type of structure is most
    mostly making use of finite element methods. These more recent appropriate for the problem at hand. This is followed by ide ntifi­
    advances w ill be reviewed separately below. cation of the possible ways in which the structure may fail to
    perform satisfactorily. As mentioned previously, collapse of the
    7.2.5 Construction details structure is not usually the sole consideration. Its behaviour in
    In general, earth pressures at rest are reduced to limiting active service, often well before the collapse condition is approached, is
    values by movement of the wall away from the soil. Movements also of significant concern. The design process may proceed
    of the wall towards the soil of much larger magnitude are needed through various iterations and stages, from preliminary to final
    to increase the at rest pressure to lim iting passive values. The design. Throughout this process calculations are usually required
    extent of wa ll movement relative to the retained soil therefore to identify the lim it states o f the proposed structure, and the de­
    determines the proportion o f the lim it pressure that applies. As sign adjusted so that these conditions are satisfactorily avoided.
    noted by Pullar (1996), this movement may be derived from a As noted by Clayton et al. (1993) and others, the following con­
    variety of sources including deflection of the wall itself, com­ ditions need to be considered:
    pression or translation of the support system (e.g., shoring or an­ - moment equilibrium must be satisfied, i.e., the structure
    chors), movements needed to mobilise a sufficient proportion of should not overturn,
    the passive soil resistance in front of a wall to maintain equilib­ - horizontal force equilibrium must be satisfied, i.e., the struc­
    rium at an intermediate stage of excavation, or simply rigid body ture should not slide,
    rotation or translation o f the wall relative to the soil. Significant - vertical force equilibrium must be satisfied, e.g., bearing ca­
    influences on these possible sources o f wall and soil movement pacity of the soils on which the structure is founded should be
    are the method and sequence of construction adequate,
    Some particular examples of the significance of construction - earth pressures should not overstress any part of the structure,
    sequence on the earth pressures acting on retaining walls have e.g., in bending or shear,
    been identified by several workers, including Potts and Fourie - the general stability of the soil around the structure must be
    (1984) and Clayton et al. (1993). Increasingly, the construction maintained, e.g., slope failure, base failure and overall insta­
    of excavations and retaining systems in urban environments re­ bility must be avoided, and
    quires that lateral wall displacements must be minimized in order - deformations of the structure should be acceptable.
    to prevent damage to adjacent buildings. I f lateral movements Some of these conditions are illustrated in Figure 7.1.
    must be kept small then it is like ly that the wall w ill be required
    to support earth pressures that are much higher than those corre­ It should be clear from the above list of important design con­
    sponding to the active condition. This effect is particularly sig­ siderations that earth retaining structures must be analysed for
    nificant for overconsolidated clays, in which values of the at-rest many different conditions, and therefore in many different ways.
    earth pressure coefficient may be as large as 2. Thus if it is as­ Traditionally, hand calculations have generally been carried out
    sumed that at rest conditions are sustained in the longer term, as using lim it equilibrium methods, i.e., where it is assumed that
    might be the case for a relatively rigid support system, then prop the wall is at a state of failure or collapse. However, with the in­
    forces and bending moments which are many times those calcu­ creasing need to restrict displacements of the retaining structure
    lated on the basis of active pressures w ill be required (Potts and itself as well as the ground adjacent to the structure, more com­
    Fourie, 1984). plex computer analyses have been developed.
    Despite the fact that few designers have, until recently, taken
    the (initial) in situ earth pressures into account, many walls have 7.3.1 Limit equilibrium methods
    not failed. This apparent discrepancy between the conventional The lim it equilibrium techniques include methods based on sim­
    design assumptions and reality has been attributed to the effects ple active and passive earth pressure distributions for cantilever
    of the wall installation process (Clayton et al., 1993), which are wall, and others such as those known as the “free earth support
    particularly significant for excavation walls. This type of wall method” and the “fixed earth support method” for propped or
    usually involves the excavation of a hole (often supported by anchored walls. Each of the latter methods also involves par­
    bentonite slurry) prior to placement o f concrete and reinforcing ticular assumptions about the earth pressures acting on the wall.
    steel. The total horizontal stress on the boundary of this hole w ill A comprehensive review of these methods is included in many
    be reduced as a result o f excavation, and the initia l value may texts, e.g., Clayton et al. (1993).
    not be reinstated by the placement of concrete, even in the long For relatively small earth retaining structures, the lim it analy­
    term. As a consequence, many walls constructed in this manner sis techniques are widely used for design. In most analyses it is
    may not experience full at rest earth pressure conditions. assumed that the wall moves sufficiently to reduce the initia l in

    2586

    You might also like