Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
Abstract
A new simplified dynamic analysis method is proposed to predict the seismic sliding displacement of quay walls by considering the
variation of wall thrust, which is influenced by the excess pore pressure developed in backfill during earthquakes. The method uses the
Newmark sliding block concept and the variable yield acceleration, which varies according to the wall thrust, to calculate the quay wall
displacement.
A series of 1 g shaking table tests were executed to verify the applicability of the proposed method, and a parametric study was performed.
The shaking table tests verified that the proposed method properly predicts the wall displacement, and the parametric study showed that the
evaluation of a realistic wall displacement is as important as the analysis of liquefaction potential for judging the stability of quay walls.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Earthquakes; Newmark sliding block method; Seismic design; Shake table tests; Quay walls
1. Introduction
Recent design codes for quay walls demand performance-based designs. To obtain a safe and economical
aseismic design, these codes require that the seismic
performance of the walls be evaluated based on the
permanent wall displacement after an earthquake. The
seismic displacement of the quay walls can be evaluated by
dynamic analyses or simplified dynamic analyses based on
the Newmark sliding block concept. Comprehensive results
for the dynamic behavior of soil and walls can be obtained
from dynamic analyses. However, dynamic analyses not
only require much effort and time but also the proper values
for the various input parameters, which are difficult to
obtain.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C82 2 880 7348; fax: C82 2 875 6933.
E-mail addresses: sungryul@daunet.donga.ac.kr (S.-R. Kim), isjang@
kordi.re.kr (I.-S. Jang), geolabs@snu.ac.kr (C.-K. Chung), geotech@snu.
ac.kr (M.-M. Kim).
1
Tel.: C82 51 200 7622; fax: C82 51 207 4654.
2
Tel.: C82 31 400 6325; fax: C82 31 408 5823.
3
Tel.: C82 2 880 7347; fax: C82 2 875 6933.
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.03.002
452
S.-R. Kim et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 451459
Notation
amax
ay
cB
CSR
Dr
FD
FDF
FDI
FDY
FED
FFWD
FI
FR
FS
FST
FTH
FWD
H
kh
L
M
N
NL
rd
ru
W
fB
gsat
gsub
q
sv
sv 0
tcyc
S.-R. Kim et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 451459
453
(1)
FR Z cB L C W tan fB
(2)
(3a)
(3b)
ay Z
(3c)
Table 1
Evaluation of force components acting on quay walls ([6])
Force component
Evaluation method
454
S.-R. Kim et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 451459
tcyc
a
s
Z max v0 rd
sv0
g sv
(5)
3. Parametric study
3.1. Input parameters
A parametric study was performed using the previously
described model to analyze the wall behavior under various
combinations of input parameters, using the proposed
method. Fig. 3 shows an example quay wall used for the
parametric study. The backfill was made with sand, whose
effective grain size was 0.10 mm. The coefficient of
permeability was 1.0!10K4 m/s. Relative densities of the
backfill (Dr) were varied to be 40, 60, and 70%. The
interface friction angles between the bottom of the wall and
the foundation soil (fB) were varied to 25, 30, 35, and 408.
Input acceleration was a 1 Hz sine wave. The number of
S.-R. Kim et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 451459
455
Fig. 6. Time histories of force components acting on wall (amaxZ0.10 g, DrZ40%, fBZ408).
456
S.-R. Kim et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 451459
Fig. 9. Final displacements of wall with respect to amplitude of input acceleration, relative density of backfill and interface friction angle at bottom of wall.
table tests. The dimension of the soil box was 194 cm long,
44 cm wide, and 60 cm high, and the model wall was
17.5 cm long, 42.0 cm wide, and 26.4 cm high. Fig. 10(a)
shows the test section and the instrumentation and Fig. 10(b)
shows the input acceleration. Eight water pressure transducers, seven accelerometers, three LVDTs, and three load
cells were installed. The three load cells were installed in
shape of a triangle between the back plate and the main body
of the model wall to measure the thrust acting on the backside of the wall. The time histories of the horizontal
displacement and the rotation angle of the wall were
calculated by measuring three relative distance variations
between the wall and the fixed tape measure type LVDTs.
The amplitude of the sinusoidal input motion at 5 Hz was
increased linearly up to 0.2 g during the initial 5 s, and the
final amplitude was maintained for the next 5 s, as shown in
Fig. 10(b).
The model soil was Joomoonjin sand, whose average
particle size was 0.55 mm and uniformity coefficient was
1.37. The maximum and minimum dry unit weights of the
sand were 16.7 and 13.9 kN/m3, respectively. The loose
backfill of 20% relative density was prepared by the water
sedimentation method. The internal friction angle and the
saturated unit weight of the backfill soil were about 308 and
18.9 kN/m3, respectively. The permeability coefficient of the
backfill soil was measured to be 4.1!10K4 m/s by the
constant head permeability test. A dense foundation layer
was made by preshaking the foundation soil. The relative
S.-R. Kim et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 451459
457
Fig. 10. Test section and input acceleration for shaking table test.
458
S.-R. Kim et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 451459
Fig. 12. Comparison between yield acceleration and measured values of input acceleration and wall acceleration.
5. Conclusions
The conclusions of this study are as follows.
1. A new displacement calculation method was proposed
which considers the effect of the excess pore pressure
developed in backfill. This method basically uses the
Newmark sliding block concept but varies the yield
acceleration according to the varying wall thrust.
2. The parametric study showed that the evaluation of
realistic wall displacements under earthquakes is as
important as the analysis of liquefaction potential for
judging the stability of quay walls.
3. It was verified from a series of 1 g shaking table tests that
the proposed method properly predicts the wall displacement.
Acknowledgements
The financial support from the Ministry of Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF) in support of this work is
gratefully acknowledged.
S.-R. Kim et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 451459
References
[1] Richards R, Elms D. Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls.
J Geotech Eng Div 1979;105(4):44964.
[2] Whitman RV, Liao S. Seismic design of retaining walls. Miscellaneous
paper GL-85-1, US Army engineer waterways experiment station,
Vicksburg, MS 1985.
[3] Matasovic N, Kavazanjian Jr E, Giroud JP. Newmark seismic
deformation analysis for geosynthetic interfaces. Geosynthetics Int
1998, Special Issue Geosynth Earthq Eng 1998;5(12):23764.
[4] Giovanni B, Ernesto C, Michele M. Seismic response of submerged
cohesionless slopes. In: Proceedings of the fourth international
conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering,
San Diego, CA. Paper no. 7.07; 2001.
459
[5] Wilson RC, Keefer DK. Dynamic analysis of a slope failure from the 6
August 1979 Coyote Lake, CA, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am
1983;73(3):86377.
[6] Kim SR, Kwon OS, Kim MM. Evaluation of force components acting
on gravity type quay walls during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2004;24(11):85366.
[7] De Alba P, Chan CK, Seed HB. Determination of soil liquefaction
characteristics by large-scale laboratory tests. In: UCB/EERC-75/14,
Berkeley. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California; 1975.
[8] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 1971;97(9):124973.
[9] Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Seismic design code of
Korea, Seoul, Korea; 1997 (in Korean).