Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Geofoam blocks
buffer
Numerical analysis (FLAC) showed that the EPS seismic buffer (1 m thick) could reduce seismic forces on the rigid basement walls by up to 50%
PROOF OF CONCEPT
(Bathurst, R.J., Zarnani, S. and Gaskin, A. 2007. Shaking table testing of geofoam seismic buffers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 324-332.)
1.4 m
3
4 5
12
14 6 (50% removed by cutting strips)
3.1
0.6 1.6
0.15
0.15 0.15
XI
Elasticized XI
1.3
0.15
XI
7
Note:
0.34
0.15
XI
Acceleration (g)
0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (s) 60 70 80 90 100
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 39 40 Time (s) 41 42
Acceleration (g)
3-second window
Ftotal
Wall 2 3 buffer density =16 kg/m Wall 7 3 buffer density =1.32 kg/m
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
acceleration (g)
(Zarnani, S. and Bathurst, R.J. 2007. Experimental Investigation of EPS geofoam seismic buffers using shaking table tests, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 165-177.)
modified EPS
maximum
average
range of values reported range of modulus values in the literature based on correlations (Bathurst et al. 2006a) reported by Bathurst et al. (2006)
minimum
0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Numerical study:
actual shaking
Constitutive models
Soil modeled as a purely frictional, elastic-plastic material with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
Perfectly plastic
Elastic
e
Soil M-C model
Elastic 1%
Geofoam
Ftotal
time (s)
time (s)
(Zarnani, S. and Bathurst, R.J. 2008. Numerical modeling of EPS seismic buffer shaking table tests, Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 371-383.)
a)
0.8 EPS type confinement Athanasopoulos et al. (1999)
G / Gmax
0.6
0.4
0.2
D24 - 0 kPa D24 - 30 kPa D24 - 60 kPa Ossa & Romo (2008) D30 - 0 kPa D30 - 30 kPa D32 - 60 kPa D15 - 0 kPa D15 - 20 kPa current study D29 - 0 kPa D29 - 20 kPa Athanasopoulos et al. used in this study (2007) 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
0.0 0.00001
10
100
b)
25
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
a)
0.8
G / Gmax
0.6
0.4
0.2
range of shear modulus values for sand (Seed and Idriss 1970) 0.0 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
b)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00001 range of damping ratio values for sand (Seed and Idriss 1970) fit with FLAC default function
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
Numerical studies: Influence of material constitutive model Comparison of numerical results (RIGID wall)
20 18 16 experimental, Test 1, Rigid control wall numerical (ELM, with hysteresis damping) numerical (linear elastic-plastic, with constant Rayleigh damping)
rigid wall geofoam
a)
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
time (s)
(Zarnani, S. and Bathurst, R.J. 2009. Influence of constitutive model on numerical simulation of EPS seismic buffer shaking table tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 308-312.)
Numerical studies: Influence of material constitutive model Comparison of numerical results (EPS wall)
20 18 16 experimental, Test 2, EPS density = 16 kg/m3 numerical (ELM, with hysteresis damping) numerical (linear elastic-plastic, with constant Rayleigh damping)
b)
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
time (s)
(Zarnani, S. and Bathurst, R.J. 2009. Influence of constitutive model on numerical simulation of EPS seismic buffer shaking table tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 308-312.)
Peak acceleration
0 0.025
0.05
EPS19 EPS22
EPS29 0.7g
9 (m) 45 (m)
0.1
0.2 0.4
1.2
1.4
t = seismic buffer thickness = 0 to 3.6 m # based on ASTM D6817-06 f = predominant frequency of the input excitation and f11 = natural frequency of the wall-backfill system
(t ) u
e t t sin(2 ft)
0.8 0.6 0.4
acceleration (g)
time (s)
38 3 kPa
6.25 MPa 8.33 MPa
Yield (compressive) strength (kPa) Shear strength (kPa) Youngs modulus (MPa)
Poissons ratio
40.7 5.69
0.1
51 6.9
0.12
75 9.75
0.16
250
200
maximum wall force-control case
150
100
50
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
time (s)
E t
Isolation efficiency
peak force (rigid wall) peak force (seismic buffer) peak force (rigid wall)
100%
(Zarnani, S. and Bathurst, R.J. 2009. Numerical parametric study of EPS geofoam seismic buffers, Canadian Geotechnical Journal Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 318-338.)
Design charts
70
a) H = 1 m
60
70
b) H = 3 m
60
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50
50 40 30 20 10 0
100
150
3
200
50
100
3
150
K = E/t (MN/m )
70
K = E/t (MN/m )
1.4f11 EPS19 EPS22 EPS29 70
c) H = 6 m
60
d) H = 9 m
60
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40
50 40 30 20 10 0
60
3
80
100
10
20
30
3
40
50
K = E/t (MN/m )
K = E/t (MN/m )
acceleration (g)
17
40
50
60
Conclusions
Experimental shaking table test results and numerical simulations demonstrated proof of concept for using EPS geofoam material as a seismic buffer to attenuate dynamic earth pressures against rigid retaining walls. The magnitude of seismic load reduction in shaking table models was as high as 40% for the softest geofoam.
The numerical simulations of the experiments showed similar reductions in seismic-induced lateral earth force observed in physical tests.
A verified FLAC numerical model was used to carryout a parametric study to investigate the influence of different parameters on buffer performance and isolation efficiency:
Significant load attenuation occurs by introducing a thin layer of geofoam (> 0.05H) at the back of the wall and the attenuation increases as the thickness of the buffer increases. The least stiff EPS geofoam in this study resulted in the largest load attenuation.
Conclusions
The practical quantity of interest to attenuate dynamic loads using a seismic buffer is the buffer stiffness defined as:
K=E/t
For the range of parameters investigated in this study, K < 50 MN/m3 was observed to be the practical range for the design of these systems to attenuate earthquake loads.
Queen Elizabeth Water Reservoir - Vancouver - Sandwell Engineering Protected with EPS geofoam from Beaver Plastics
Tusen Takk