Probabilistic Quantification of the Effects of Soil-Shallow Foundation-Str…

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Previous earthquakes demonstrated destructive effects of soil-structure interaction on structural response. For example, in the 1970 Gediz earthquake in Turkey, part of a factory was demolished in a town 135 km from the epicentre, while no other buildings in the town were damaged. Subsequent investigations revealed that the fundamental period of vibration of the factory was approximately equal to that of the underlying soil. This alignment provided a resonance effect and led to collapse of the structure. Another dramatic example took place in Adapazari, during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake where several foundations failed due to either bearing capacity exceedance or foundation uplifting, consequently, damaging the structure. Finally, the Christchurch 2012 earthquakes have shown that significant nonlinear action in the soil and soil-foundation interface can be expected due to high levels of seismic excitation and spectral acceleration. This nonlinearity, in turn, significantly influenced the response of the structure interacting with the soil-foundation underneath. Extensive research over more than 35 years has focused on the subject of seismic soil-structure interaction. However, since the response of soil-structure systems to seismic forces is extremely complex, burdened by uncertainties in system parameters and variability in ground motions, the role of soil-structure interaction on the structural response is still controversial. Conventional design procedures suggest that soil-structure interaction effects on the structural response can be conservatively ignored. However, more recent studies show that soil-structure interaction can be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on the soil-structure-earthquake scenarios considered. In view of the above mentioned issues, this research aims to utilise a comprehensive and systematic probabilistic methodology, as the most rational way, to quantify the effects of soil-structure interaction on the structural response considering both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. The goal is achieved by examining the response of established rheological single-degree-of-freedom systems located on shallow-foundation and excited by ground motions with different spectral characteristics. In this regard, four main phases are followed. First, the effects of seismic soil-structure interaction on the response of structures with linear behaviour are investigated using a robust stochastic approach. Herein, the soil-foundation interface is modelled by an equivalent linear cone model. This phase is mainly considered to examine the influence of soil-structure interaction on the approach that has been adopted in the building codes for developing design spectrum and defining the seismic forces acting on the structure. Second, the effects of structural nonlinearity on the role of soil-structure interaction in modifying seismic structural response are studied. The same stochastic approach as phase 1 is followed, while three different types of structural force-deflection behaviour are examined. Third, a systematic fashion is carried out to look for any possible correlation between soil, structural, and system parameters and the degree of soil-structure interaction effects on the structural response. An attempt is made to identify the key parameters whose variation significantly affects the structural response. In addition, it is tried to define the critical range of variation of parameters of consequent. Finally, the impact of soil-foundation interface nonlinearity on the soil-structure interaction analysis is examined. In this regard, a newly developed macro-element covering both material and geometrical soil-foundation interface nonlinearity is implemented in a finite-element program Raumoko 3D. This model is then used in an extensive probabilistic simulation to compare the effects of linear and nonlinear soil-structure interaction on the structural response. This research is concluded by reviewing the current design guidelines incorporating soil-structure interaction effects in their design procedures. A discussion is then followed on the inadequacies of current procedures based on the outcomes of this study.

An investigation into the seismic performance and progressive failure mech…

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls involve the use of geosynthetic reinforcement (polymer material) within the retained backfill, forming a reinforced soil block where transmission of overturning and sliding forces on the wall to the backfill occurs. Key advantages of GRS systems include the reduced need for large foundations, cost reduction (up to 50%), lower environmental costs, faster construction and significantly improved seismic performance as observed in previous earthquakes. Design methods in New Zealand have not been well established and as a result, GRS structures do not have a uniform level of seismic and static resistance; hence involve different risks of failure. Further research is required to better understand the seismic behaviour of GRS structures to advance design practices. The experimental study of this research involved a series of twelve 1-g shake table tests on reduced-scale (1:5) GRS wall models using the University of Canterbury shake-table. The seismic excitation of the models was unidirectional sinusoidal input motion with a predominant frequency of 5Hz and 10s duration. Seismic excitation of the model commenced at an acceleration amplitude level of 0.1g and was incrementally increased by 0.1g in subsequent excitation levels up to failure (excessive displacement of the wall panel). The wall models were 900mm high with a full-height rigid facing panel and five layers of Microgird reinforcement (reinforcement spacing of 150mm). The wall panel toe was founded on a rigid foundation and was free to slide. The backfill deposit was constructed from dry Albany sand to a backfill relative density, Dr = 85% or 50% through model vibration. The influence of GRS wall parameters such as reinforcement length and layout, backfill density and application of a 3kPa surcharge on the backfill surface was investigated in the testing sequence. Through extensive instrumentation of the wall models, the wall facing displacements, backfill accelerations, earth pressures and reinforcement loads were recorded at the varying levels of model excitation. Additionally, backfill deformation was also measured through high-speed imaging and Geotechnical Particle Image Velocimetry (GeoPIV) analysis. The GeoPIV analysis enabled the identification of the evolution of shear strains and volumetric strains within the backfill at low strain levels before failure of the wall thus allowing interpretations to be made regarding the strain development and shear band progression within the retained backfill. Rotation about the wall toe was the predominant failure mechanism in all excitation level with sliding only significant in the last two excitation levels, resulting in a bi-linear displacement acceleration curve. An increase in acceleration amplification with increasing excitation was observed with amplification factors of up to 1.5 recorded. Maximum seismic and static horizontal earth pressures were recorded at failure and were recorded at the wall toe. The highest reinforcement load was recorded at the lowest (deepest in the backfill) reinforcement layer with a decrease in peak load observed at failure, possibly due to pullout failure of the reinforcement layer. Conversely, peak reinforcement load was recorded at failure for the top reinforcement layer. The staggered reinforcement models exhibited greater wall stability than the uniform reinforcement models of L/H=0.75. However, similar critical accelerations were determined for the two wall models due to the coarseness of excitation level increments of 0.1g. The extended top reinforcements were found to restrict the rotational component of displacement and prevented the development of a preliminary shear band at the middle reinforcement layer, contributing positively to wall stability. Lower acceleration amplification factors were determined for the longer uniform reinforcement length models due to reduced model deformation. A greater distribution of reinforcement load towards the top two extended reinforcement layers was also observed in the staggered wall models. An increase in model backfill density was observed to result in greater wall stability than an increase in uniform reinforcement length. Greater acceleration amplification was observed in looser backfill models due to their lower model stiffness. Due to greater confinement of the reinforcement layers, greater reinforcement loads were developed in higher density wall models with less wall movement required to engage the reinforcement layers and mobilise their resistance. The application of surcharge on the backfill was observed to initially increase the wall stability due to greater normal stresses within the backfill but at greater excitation levels, the surcharge contribution to wall destabilising inertial forces outweighs its contribution to wall stability. As a result, no clear influence of surcharge on the critical acceleration of the wall models was observed. Lower acceleration amplification factors were observed for the surcharged models as the surcharge acts as a damper during excitation. The application of the surcharge also increases the magnitude of reinforcement load developed due to greater confinement and increased wall destabilising forces. The rotation of the wall panel resulted in the progressive development of shears surface with depth that extended from the backfill surface to the ends of the reinforcement (edge of the reinforced soil block). The resultant failure plane would have extended from the backfill surface to the lowest reinforcement layer before developing at the toe of the wall, forming a two-wedge failure mechanism. This is confirmed by development of failure planes at the lowest reinforcement layer (deepest with the backfill) and at the wall toe observed at the critical acceleration level. Key observations of the effect of different wall parameters from the GeoPIV results are found to be in good agreement with conclusions developed from the other forms of instrumentation. Further research is required to achieve the goal of developing seismic guidelines for GRS walls in geotechnical structures in New Zealand. This includes developing and testing wall models with a different facing type (segmental or wrap-around facing), load cell instrumentation of all reinforcement layers, dynamic loading on the wall panel and the use of local soils as the backfill material. Lastly, the limitations of the experimental procedure and wall models should be understood.