Research PaperPerformance-based analysis of cantilever retaining walls subjected to near-fault ground shakings
Introduction
Earthquake ground motions recorded close to a fault plane recognized as near-fault ground motions can be extremely different from motions captured far from the ruptured source. While there are different opinions regarding the near-fault zone location, the most common is restricted within a 20 km distance of the ruptured fault (Bray and Rodriguez-Marek, 2004). Baziar and Rostami (2017) mentioned that the near-fault region is limited by the magnitude of a seismic event that is equal to . Wave propagation effects or the so-called ‘forward-directivity’ (FD) affect near-fault sites. The fault rupture propagation toward a site at a speed that nears the shear wave velocity, oriented perpendicularly to the fault plane, form the FD effect (Somerville, 2003). Most seismic energy demands in FD pulses accumulate at the beginning of the record, which is evident in the large-period pulses in the velocity time history. It is worth noting that the ratio of seismic energy of directivity pulses to the energy of the whole earthquake in near-fault records can be up to 80%. This indicates the importance of near-fault excitations (Mukhopadhyay and Gupta, 2013).
Also, ground shaking in the near-fault zone, parallel to the fault strike with strike-slip mechanism or in the fault-normal direction for dip-slip faults may be affected by a permanent static movement called the ‘fling-step’ (Somerville et al., 1997). The FD effect is a dynamic phenomenon that does not leave permanent ground movements; as observed in the time history, FD produces two sided velocity pulses, while the fling-step, caused by permanent earth displacements, makes one-sided velocity pulses (Bray and Rodriguez-Marek, 2004).
All of the above explanations reveal that near-fault records are inherently different from larger site-to-source recorded shakings and, therefore, require special consideration when designing geotechnical and structural systems. Bertero was the first to report the devastating failure capacities of near-source earthquakes (Bertero et al., 1978). The catastrophic earthquakes of the 1990s such as the Northridge (1994), Kobe (1994) and Chi-Chi (1999) earthquakes led to a wide range of research efforts, aimed at assessing the performance and damage potential of various geotechnical and structural systems subjected to near-fault pulse shakings (Hall et al., 1995, Alavi and Krawinkler, 2000, Garini and Gazetas, 2013, Davoodi et al., 2013).
Gazetas et al. (2009) presented a numerical study on a rigid block that was supported by a frictional contact surface and charged by motions having forward-directivity or fling-step effects. They concluded that the upper-bound sliding displacements from near-source excitations may substantially exceed the values obtained from some of the currently available design charts. Song and Rodriguez-Marek (2014) developed a coupled method for analyzing the sliding-blocks of slopes under near-fault pulse-like and nonpulse-like ground motions. The authors found that the slope is expected to experience larger displacements when near-fault ground motions have pulse-like characteristics. Zou et al. (2017) conducted a numerical analysis and found that the seismic response of concrete face rockfill dams increased with an increasing ratio of the peak ground velocity to the peak ground acceleration (PGV/PGA). Higher values of crest displacement as well as intense damages to the concrete face were among the consequences of near-fault shakings.
It is evident from the literature that near-fault ground motions are susceptible to inducing large displacements on different types of geotechnical structures. Hence, the role of these types of excitations is crucial to consider when designing by performance-based procedures. Retaining walls are an example of a one such system and are widely used for stabilizing excavations in roads and highways, especially for urban areas. Extensive applications lead to constructing retaining structures in seismic regions and areas that are close to active faults. The seismic response of retaining walls is a complicated problem because it involves dynamic soil-structure interactions. Seismically induced lateral displacements, dynamic bending moments and pressures behind the retaining structures are multi-dimensional problems that depend on wall foundation and backfill soil, the inertial and rigidity of the wall itself, and the nature of input excitations.
The classic methods proposed by Okabe, 1924, Mononobe and Matsuo, 1929, known as the Mononobe–Okabe (M-O) as later developed by Seed (1970), are still the main approaches for the design of retaining walls. This method recruits the pseudo-static equilibrium by simplifying earthquake loading as an inertial force, without considering the dynamic characteristics of input earthquake loads and retaining walls. Since then, various researches have been conducted to assess the seismic performance of retaining walls by means of experimental (Nakamura, 2006, Kloukinas et al., 2014, Jo et al., 2017, Candia et al., 2016); numerical and analytical approaches (Veletsos and Younan, 1997, Psarropoulos et al., 2005, Nimbalkar and Choudhury, 2007, di Santolo and Aldo, 2011, Brandenberg et al., 2017, Bakr et al., 2019).
Gazetas et al. (2004) used finite-element modeling to explore the magnitude and distribution of dynamic earth pressure forces on several types of flexible retaining systems. By using dynamic centrifuge experiments performed on cantilever walls and following two-dimensional nonlinear finite-element analysis, Atik and Sitar (2010) concluded that the current design methods based on the M-O theory significantly overestimated the captured dynamic earth pressure forces and moments and mentioned that seismic earth pressures along with cantilever retaining walls can be neglected at accelerations below 0.4 g. By focusing on displacements, Conti et al. (2012) showed that maximum accelerations smaller than the critical limit equilibrium value increase the structural loads, thereby, subjecting the retaining walls to significant permanent displacements. Cakir (2013) analyzed the effect of earthquake frequency content on the seismic response of retaining structures and reported that wall responses are highly dependent on the ratio and can cause a spiked increase or decrease in system displacement by the frequency content variation. Bakr and Ahmad (2018) developed charts and correlated between seismic earth pressure and wall movement. The authors reported that accelerations greater than 0.4g enabled the retaining wall to continue moving without enhancing the dynamic passive earth pressure forces. Mikola et al. (2016) recorded distribution of the seismic earth pressures on cantilever retaining structures using centrifuge tests. Salem et al. (2020) performed a series of two-dimensional finite element methods for analyzing the seismic response of cantilever retaining walls. The sensibility of the system response to the soil constitutive model was studied. A Rigid perfectly plastic (M-C) and an advanced nonlinear elastoplastic model (HSSMALL) were used. The results of the analysis showed that in the M-C model, a larger force than HSSMALL was captured. Furthermore, a higher value of lateral displacement for the 1989 Loma Prieta-UCSC earthquake was recorded in the M-C model. Conti and Caputo (2019) investigated the dynamic response and phase shift between soil and the inertia forces under a real earthquake. Jadhav and Prashant (2020) proposed displacement-based design procedures for cantilever retaining walls. The authors reported that using shear key placed at the heel of cantilever retaining wall was reduced the transitional displacement by 40%. Santhoshkumar et al. (2019) investigated the earth pressure behind cantilever retaining walls using a pseudo-dynamic approach. Zamiran and Osouli (2018) correlated the free-filed PGA to the relative displacement of the wall under real earthquakes. They reported that 50% of walls experienced failure state when input PGA reached to 0.47g for cohesionless backfill.
Reviewing the literature shows that most dynamic studies on retaining walls are limited to the earth pressures and forces that act along with the structures. The number of displacement-based studies of retaining walls is rare. Also, the performance of cantilever retaining walls under near-fault excitations is not yet well understood. The conformity of seismic wall movements in real earthquake scenarios with failures and permissible states are also unknown. So, further research about response and seismic forces behind retaining walls that are motivated by near source motions are needed. Qualitative insight into the performance analysis of retaining walls under near-fault strong ground motions will emphasis on the importance of displacement-based designs.
In this regard, the present research evaluated the results of a series of dynamic 2D finite element (FE) numerical models based on the performance of cantilever retaining structures under near-fault excitations with a focus on seismically induced lateral displacements. Due to the higher damage potential of FD over fling step (Bray and Rodriguez-Marek, 2004, Kalkan and Kunnath, 2006), this research was mainly focused on FD shakings and used fully dynamic time-domain analyses in the process. In the first section and to illustrate the importance of the discrepancies in wall responses under near and far-field ground motions, FD pulses were extracted from the velocity time series of near-fault, main, and residual records and imposed on the verified model. Then, near-fault strong ground motions with a wide range of PGAs from 0.1 g to 0.6 g were applied for different shaking scenarios. The captured movements were compared with the recommended criteria for the performance-based aseismic design of soil retaining structures in the literature. A comprehensive parametric study was applied to assess the effect of different parameters. The effect of the mechanical properties of backfill/foundation soil as well as the frequency content of the ground motion was investigated.
Section snippets
Methodology
Selecting near-fault ground shakings beside the far-field records, as subdivided into pulse-like and non-pulse ground motions, and comparing the structure responses under these types of seismic loads are common procedures widely applied in the literature. This study employs a novel approach called the wavelet analysis. The wavelet approach is a signal processing procedure that decomposes signals such as seismic ground motions (Baker, 2007). Many researchers have evaluated the wavelet analysis
Numerical modelling and calibration
The two–dimensional plane strain dynamic implicit method is applied for the numerical analyses of a cantilever retaining wall using the ABAQUS finite element based software (2014). The shaking table test results obtained by Kloukinas et al. (Kloukinas et al., 2014, Kloukinas et al., 2015) were simulated in the prototype scale to calibrate the results of the numerical modeling.
Response of the cantilever retaining wall to near-fault motions
To better understand the impact of near-fault earthquakes, the results of two famous events with medium and high PGA values, specifically the Landers earthquake, recorded at the Lucerne station, with a PGA equal to 0.725 g and the Chi-Chi event, recorded at the TCU102 station, with a PGA equal to 0.3 g, are compared and presented in this section. The acceleration and velocity time histories of the TCU102 record are depicted in Fig. 5.
Performance-based analysis
A comparison of the results shows that the lateral displacement of the wall was remarkably higher under near-fault ground motions than far-field ground motions. This brings up the concern that perhaps near-fault type of motion imposes a larger movement than the permissible and ultimate values of the displacements mentioned in the literature. Hence, a comprehensive study was employed by imposing different near-fault earthquake scenarios with PGAs ranging from 0.1 g to 0.6 g, to the verified
Parametric study
The verified FE model was used on a prototype scale to examine the effect of various parameters, such as the magnitude of input acceleration, geotechnical properties of backfill and foundation soil as well as the frequency content of the main shocking on seismic responses of the retaining structure.
Conclusion
A series of dynamic finite element numerical models were conducted in the present research to evaluate the performance of cantilever retaining walls. Addressing seismically induced lateral displacements under near-fault excitations were the main part of interest. Due to the fact that forward directivity effect is more destructive than other near-fault effects, this paper concentrated on FD motions using a fully dynamic time-domain analysis. The wall bending moments, top horizontal displacement
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Milad Aghamolaei: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Alireza Saeedi Azizkandi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision. Mohammad Hassan Baziar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision. Sadegh Ghavami: Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References (59)
- et al.
A Finite element performance-based approach to correlate movement of a rigid retaining wall with seismic earth pressure
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
(2018) - et al.
Approximate solution for seismic earth pressures on rigid walls retaining inhomogeneous elastic soil
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
(2017) Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic behavior of cantilever retaining wall including soil-structure interaction
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
(2013)- et al.
Seismic response of retaining walls with cohesive backfill: centrifuge model studies
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
(2016) - et al.
Seismic response of embankment dams under near-fault and far-field ground motion excitation
Eng. Geol.
(2013) - et al.
Displacement–based parametric study on the seismic response of gravity earth-retaining walls
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
(2016) - et al.
Seismic behaviour of flexible retaining systems subjected to short-duration moderately strong excitation
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
(2004) - et al.
Computation of seismic translational and rotational displacements of cantilever retaining wall with shear key
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
(2020) - et al.
Evaluation of the seismic earth pressure for inverted T-shape stiff retaining wall in cohesionless soils via dynamic centrifuge
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
(2017) - et al.
Directivity pulses in near-fault ground motions—I: Identification, extraction and modeling
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
(2013)
Reexamination of mononobe-okabe theory of gravity retaining walls using centrifuge model tests
Soils Found.
Sliding stability and seismic design of retaining wall by pseudo-dynamic method for passive case
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
The effect of backfill cohesion on seismic response of cantilever retaining walls using fully dynamic analysis
Comput. Geotech.
Seismic earth pressures on rigid and flexible retaining walls
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
Seismic loading on cantilever retaining walls: Full-scale dynamic analysis
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse
Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.
Seismic motion response and fragility analyses of cantilever retaining walls with cohesive backfill
Soils Found.
Seismic Failure Analysis for a High Concrete Face Rockfill Dam Subjected to near-Fault Pulse-Like Ground Motions
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.
Fault rupture propagation through sand: Finite-element analysis and validation through centrifuge experiments
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
Finite-element study for seismic structural and global stability of cantilever-type retaining walls
Int. J. Geomech.
Earthquake demand energy attenuation model for liquefaction potential assessment
Earthq. Spectra
Aseismic design implications of near-fault San Fernando earthquake records
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
Backfill and subsoil interaction effects on seismic behavior of a cantilever wall
Geomech. Eng.
A numerical and theoretical study on the seismic behaviour of yielding cantilever walls
Géotechnique
Cited by (10)
Local site conditions and hydromechanical effects in service life of cantilever retaining walls
2023, Engineering Failure AnalysisNumerical investigation and estimation of active earth thrust on gravity retaining walls under seismic excitation
2023, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake EngineeringEffects of pulse-like ground motions and wavelet asymmetry on responses of cantilever retaining wall
2023, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake EngineeringCitation Excerpt :The wall displacements induced by far-field ground motions were inevitably small because the ground motions were artificially generated by subtracting the velocity pulses with considerable seismic energy from the pulse-like ground motions. Nayek and Gade [20] reported that pulse-like ground motions generated larger wall displacements than far-field ground motions, similar to the results of Aghamolaei et al. [19]. In their study, the pulse-like and far-field ground motions used for numerical simulations were scaled to the same PGA value in advance.
Seismic response analysis of slope reinforced by pile-anchor structures under near-fault pulse-like ground motions
2023, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake EngineeringCitation Excerpt :The PHA responses under the pulse-like ground motion is reach to about 1.3 times of that under the no-pulse ground motions in the slope crest. This phenomenon is consistent with the conclusions drawn by many relevant studies about other geotechnical structures (e.g., Refs. [7,12,42,51]) that near-fault pulse-like ground motions can aggravate the seismic responses of systems than that of ordinary ground motions. The amplification coefficient along the elevation inside the slope is shown in Fig. 6 (b).
Reliability evaluation for cantilevered retaining walls considering uncertainty of mainshock-aftershock sequences
2022, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake EngineeringCitation Excerpt :Both sides of the soil are horizontally restrained. The constitutive model of this structure adopts the Mohr Coulomb plastic failure criterion with the isotropic softening elastoplastic perfectly plastic soil model in order to enable a comparison with the examples in reference [41]. The material parameters of the soil come from the reference and are listed in Table 4.