بهبود پاسخ لرزه ای دیوارهای حائل تسلیم نشده با استفاده از لایه های کاهنده فشار پلیمری

نوع مقاله : Articles

نویسندگان

1 گروه مهندسی عمران، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشکده مهندسی عمران، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 پژوهشکده مهندسی ژئوتکنیک، پژوهشگاه بین‌المللی زلزله‌شناسی و مهندسی زلزله، تهران، ایران

چکیده

در این مقاله عملکرد لایه های کاهنده فشار پلیمری در بهبود پاسخ دینامیکی دیوارهای حائل بررسی گردیده است. برای این منظور با انجام یک‌سری آزمایش میز لرزه  g1، رفتار دیوار حائل تسلیم نشده در دو حالت با و بدون لایه کاهنده فشار مدل‌سازی شده است. جهت ساخت لایه کاهنده فشار از فوم پلی‌یورتان (PU) استفاده شده که ضمن دارا بودن خصوصیات مکانیکی مناسب، برخی از محدودیت های مصالحی که در تحقیقات گذشته به‌کار برده شده را مرتفع می سازد. نتایج نشان می دهد که اجرای لایه کاهنده فشار از جنس فوم PU، نیروی افقی کل و دینامیکی وارد بر دیوار را به‌ترتیب به‌طور متوسط 30 و 45 درصد کاهش داده است. به‌ازای سختی بی‌بعد یکسان، این نوع فوم در مقایسه با مصالح مشابه نظیر فوم پلی‌استایرن انبساطی (EPS) عملکرد بهتری را حاصل نموده است. همچنین ملاحظه گردیده که این‌ روش در تحریک های متوسط و شدید (دامنه شتاب ورودی بزرگ‌تر از  g24/0) بازدهی بیشتری دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Seismic Response Improvement of Non-yielding Retaining Walls Using Polymeric Seismic Buffers

نویسندگان [English]

  • Iman Golpazir 1
  • Abbas Ghalandarzadeh 2
  • Mohammad Kazem Jafari 3
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Geotechnical Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Isolating the earth structures such as retaining walls, bridge abutments and buried pipes using the compressible materials is a novel solution to reduce the lateral earth pressure. In this technique, a layer of the compressible material with relatively small stiffness and limited thickness is implemented between the retaining wall and the backfill. This material acts as a seismic buffer due to its high compressibility, which absorbs the excess dynamic earth pressure significantly and attenuates the transmitted force to the retaining structure. Choosing the appropriate materials for construction of seismic buffers is based on their physical and mechanical properties as well as cost-effective considerations. Most of the previous studies were focused on some specific materials such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam blocks and tire chips.
This paper investigated the performance of polymeric seismic buffers made from Polyurethane (PU) foam on seismic response of non-yielding retaining walls. PU foam has appropriate properties and eliminates some of limitations on materials used in previous studies. The purpose of current study was to evaluate the applicability of PU foam as a new option for construction of seismic buffers with regard to its benefits. Hence, the behavior of non-yielding retaining walls was investigated in two conditions of with and without presence of the seismic buffers by conducting of a series of 1g shaking table tests. Seismic buffers included PU foam blocks, which were prepared by injecting foam into the cubic molds and spraying a certain amount of water on the specimens. A total of 13 tests were carried out on two models (retaining wall with and without seismic buffer) with changing the input base acceleration from 0.07g to 0.46g. The input motion was a horizontal sinusoidal excitation with a constant frequency of 3.6 Hz, which was applied for 10 seconds to the longitude direction of the model. The model responses including wall force and backfill soil displacement were measured during the excitation in each test.
The results showed that the implementing seismic buffers made from PU foam reduce the total and dynamic horizontal wall forces on average of 30% and 45%, respectively. The force attenuation and backfill soil displacement have an inverse relationship to each other. For an equal Normalized compressible inclusion stiffness, this type of foam has a better performance in comparison with similar materials such as expanded polystyrene foam (EPS). Moreover, it is identifying that the force attenuation is not uniform along the height and the maximum attenuation occurs at the top of the retaining wall. The force distribution is triangular for static conditions. As the peak base acceleration is increased and the contribution of dynamic loads on upper elevations is increased, the force distribution becomes nonlinear. Therefore, at earthquakes with moderate to high intensity, the point of application of total horizontal force is transferred to the upper elevations of the retaining wall. Moreover, it is revealed that the efficiency of this technique increases for moderate to high-intensity earthquakes (acceleration amplitude more than 0.24g).

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • 1g Shaking Table Test
  • Retaining Wall
  • Erath Pressure
  • Seismic Buffer
  • Polyurethane foam
  1. Horvath, J.S. (1995) Geofoam geosynthetic. Horvath Engineering. P.C., Scarsdale, New York, U.S.A.
  2. Inglis, D., Macleod, G., Naesgaard, E. and Zergoun, M. (1996) Basement wall with seismic earth pressures and novel expanded polystyrene foam buffer layer. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Symposium of the Vancouver Geotechnical Society. Canada.
  3. Hazarika, H., Okuzono, S. and Matsou, Y. (2003) Seismic stability Enhancement of rigid nonyielding structures. Proceedings of the 13th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Honolulu, USA.
  4. Bathurst, R.J., Zarnani, S. and Gaskin, A. (2007) Shaking table testing of geofoam seismic buffers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25, 324-332.
  5. Hazarika, H., Kohama, E. and Sugano, T. (2008) Underwater shake table tests on waterfront structures protected with tire chips cushion. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(12), 1706-1719.
  6. Hazarika, H., Yasuhara, K., Kikuchi, Y., Karmokar, A.K. and Mitarai, Y. (2010) Multifaceted potentials of tire-derived three dimensional geosynthetics in geotechnical applications and their evaluation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(3), 303-315.
  7. Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A., Lamote, K. and Athanasopoulos, G.A. (2011) Seismic isolation of earth retaining walls using EPS compressible inclusions - Results from centrifuge testing. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geofoam Blocks in Construction Applications. Lillestrom, Norway.
  8. Ertugrul, O.L. and Trandafir, A.C. (2014) Seismic earth pressures on flexible cantilever retaining walls with deformable inclusions. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6(5), 417–427.
  9. Athanasopoulos, G.A., Pelekis, P.C. and Xenaki, V.C. (1999) Dynamic properties of EPS geofoam: an experimental investigation. Geosynthetics International, 6(3), 171–194.
  10. Zheng-Yi, F. and Sutter, K.G. (2000) Dynamic properties of granulated rubber/sand mixtures. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 23(3), 338-344.
  11. Lee, H.J. and Roh, H.S. (2007) The use of recycled tire chips to minimize dynamic earth pressure during compaction of backfill. Construction and Building Materials, 21(5), 1016-1026.
  12. Trandafir, A.C., Bartlett, S.F. and Lingwall, B.N. (2010) Behavior of EPS geofoam in stress-controlled cyclic uniaxial tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28, 514–524.
  13. Nakhaee, A. and Marandi, M. (2011) Reducing the forces caused by earthquake on retaining walls using granulated rubber-soil mixture. IJE Transactions B: applications, 24(4), 337-350.
  14. Ossa, A. and Romo, M.P. (2011) Dynamic characterization of EPS geofoam. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29, 40–50.
  15. Golpazir, I., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Jafai, M.K. and Mahdavi, M. (2016) Dynamic properties of polyurethane foam-sand mixtures using cyclic triaxial tests. Construction and Building Materials, 118, 104-115.
  16. Sadrekarimi, A., Ghalandarzadeh, A. and Sadrekarimi, J. (2008) Static and dynamic behavior of hunchbacked gravity quay walls. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28(2), 99-117.
  17. ASTM D 2487-10. (2000) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified soil classification system). American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
  18. Haghighat, S. (2001) Investigation of Total Stress and Lateral Strains Ratio Effects on Undrained Behavior of Saturated Sandy Soils by Stress Path Triaxial Tests. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran (in Persian).
  19. Iai, S. (1989) Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid model in 1-g gravitational field. Soils and Foundations, 29, 105-118.
  20. Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A., Lamote, K. and Athanasopoulos, G.A. (2012) Use of EPS geofoam compressible inclusions for reducing the earthquake effects on yielding earth retaining structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 41, 59-71.
  21. Sarsby, R.W., Kalteziotis, N. and Haddad, E.H. (1980) Bedding error in triaxial tests on granular media. Geotechnique, 30(1), 302–309.
  22. Horvath, J.S. (2000) Integral-Abutment Bridges: Problems and Innovative Solutions Using EPS Geofoam and Other Geosynthetics. Research report No. CE/GE-00-2, Manhattan College, Bronx, New York, USA.
  23. Zarnani, S., Bathurst, R.J. (2007) Experimental investigation of EPS geofoam seismic buffers using shaking table tests. Geosynthetics International, 14(3), 165–177.
  24. Dave, T.N., Dasaka, S.M., Khan, N. and Murali Krishna, A. (2013) Evaluation of seismic earth pressure reduction using EPS geofoam. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and geotechnical Engineering, Paris, France.
  25. Horvath, J.S. (2010) Lateral Pressure Reduction on Earth-Retaining Structures Using Geofoams: Correcting Some Misunderstandings. Proceedings of the ER2010: Earth retention conference 3, Washington, USA.
  26. Hazarika, H. (2006) Stress-strain modeling of EPS geofoam for large-strain applications. Geotextiles and geomembranes, 24(2), 79-90.