Open Access

ARTICLE

Influence of Various Earth-Retaining Walls on the Dynamic Response Comparison Based on 3D Modeling

Muhammad Akbar¹, Huali Pan^1,*, Jiangcheng Huang², Bilal Ahmed³, Guoqiang Ou¹

1 Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu, 610000, China
2 Institute of International Rivers and Eco-Security, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650500, China
3 Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Doctoral School, Akademicka 2, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, 44-100, Poland

* Corresponding Author: Huali Pan. Email:

Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences 2024, 139(3), 2835-2863. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2024.046993

Received 21 October 2023; Accepted 26 December 2023; Issue published 11 March 2024

Abstract

The present work aims to assess earthquake-induced earth-retaining (ER) wall displacement. This study is on the dynamics analysis of various earth-retaining wall designs in hollow precast concrete panels, reinforcement concrete facing panels, and gravity-type earth-retaining walls. The finite element (FE) simulations utilized a 3D plane strain condition to model full-scale ER walls and numerous nonlinear dynamics analyses. The seismic performance of different models, which includes reinforcement concrete panels and gravity-type and hollow precast concrete ER walls, was simulated and examined using the FE approach. It also displays comparative studies such as stress distribution, deflection of the wall, acceleration across the wall height, lateral wall displacement, lateral wall pressure, and backfill plastic strain. Three components of the created ER walls were found throughout this research procedure. One is a granular reinforcement backfill, while the other is a wall-facing panel and base foundation. The dynamic response effects of varied earth-retaining walls have also been studied. It was discovered that the facing panel of the model significantly impacts the earthquake-induced displacement of ER walls. The proposed analytical model’s validity has been evaluated and compared with the reinforcement concrete facing panels, gravity-type ER wall, scientifically available data, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines results based on FE simulation. The results of the observations indicate that the hollow prefabricated concrete ER wall is the most feasible option due to its lower displacement and high-stress distribution compared to the two types. The methodology and results of this study establish standards for future analogous investigations and professionals, particularly in light of the increasing computational capabilities of desktop computers.

---

Keywords

---