Shaking table performance of reinforced soil retaining walls with different facing configurations. Issue 3 (June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Xu, Peng; Hatami, Kianoosh; Jiang, Guanlu
• Is Part Of: Geotextiles and geomembranes. Volume 49:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 516
• Page End: 527
• Publication Date: 2021-06
• Subjects: Geosynthetics -- Reinforced soil retaining walls -- Shaking table -- Full-height panel facing -- Hybrid facing -- Seismic response; Membranes (Technology) -- Periodicals; Membranes (Technology); Periodicals; Electronic journals; 624.189
• DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-1144

Abstract

Abstract: In this paper, a new type of MSE wall facing, termed as hybrid facing, is introduced and studied, which is built using a combination of concrete modular blocks and cast-in-place concrete. Two shaking table tests were carried out to compare seismic performances of model reinforced soil retaining walls with full-height vs. hybrid facing configurations. Results of this study show that the stability and performance of the hybrid facing model were similar to those of the full-height panel wall for peak input acceleration magnitudes less than 0.40 g. The amplification factors along the height of the facing were more uniform and smaller in the hybrid facing model as compared to the full-height panel wall, especially at higher peak acceleration amplitudes. Dynamic increment of lateral earth loads acting on the facing in both cases were found to be only 20% of the values calculated using pseudo-static methods. Connection loads in the hybrid facing model were smaller than those in the full-height panel wall, which was attributed to its smaller facing displacements. Highlights: Seismic performances of model MSE walls with different facing configurations are compared using a shake table study. Stability and performance of model walls were found to be similar for peak input accelerations < 0.40 g. Resultants of dynamic increment of lateral earth pressure from the tests were 20% of magnitudes from the M-O method. Resultant connection load in the hybrid facing model was smaller than in the full-height panel case. FHWA method underestimates the point of action of the resultant connection load in both models.