Pseudostatic design methods for seismic design of retaining structures are very widely spread in aseismic design codes worldwide. These methods are based on a crude simplification of reality, nevertheless observational evidence of earth retaining structures designed using such methods based on limit equilibrium show their good overall performance except for some situations where saturated granular backfill is present. The aim of this work is first to critically describe the main tools available today for the analysis and seismic design of flexible retaining structures. Secondly to apply different methodologies to a practical benchmark study case describing all issues related to the correct application of simplified methodologies and issues regarding the sophisticated numerical approaches. Finally results obtained by the simplified and the sophisticated approaches are evaluated and compared Differences, advantages and disadvantages between the simplified and the more sophisticated approaches are illustrated with the aim to give useful indications for an effective aseismic design.

On seismic design and advanced numerical modelling of flexible cantilever walls under earthquake loading including cyclic mobility

2011

Abstract

Pseudostatic design methods for seismic design of retaining structures are very widely spread in aseismic design codes worldwide. These methods are based on a crude simplification of reality, nevertheless observational evidence of earth retaining structures designed using such methods based on limit equilibrium show their good overall performance except for some situations where saturated granular backfill is present. The aim of this work is first to critically describe the main tools available today for the analysis and seismic design of flexible retaining structures. Secondly to apply different methodologies to a practical benchmark study case describing all issues related to the correct application of simplified methodologies and issues regarding the sophisticated numerical approaches. Finally results obtained by the simplified and the sophisticated approaches are evaluated and compared Differences, advantages and disadvantages between the simplified and the more sophisticated approaches are illustrated with the aim to give useful indications for an effective aseismic design.
2011
it
Flexible retaining structures, pseudostatic methods, FEM, FDM, cyclic mobility
Università degli Studi di Catania
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in UNITESI sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14242/245367
Il codice NBN di questa tesi è URN:NBN:IT:UNICT-245367