1 / 18

Retaining Walls Damaged in the Chi-Chi Earthquake

Retaining Walls Damaged in the Chi-Chi Earthquake. Y.S. Fang, Y.C. Yang, and T.J. Chen Presented by: Amanda Luksetich Spring 2005. Introduction. September 21, 1999 at 1:47 am Earthquake of magnitude 7.3 on the Richter Scale Near the town Chi-Chi in Taiwan, “Chi-Chi Earthquake”

chill
Download Presentation

Retaining Walls Damaged in the Chi-Chi Earthquake

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Retaining Walls Damaged in the Chi-Chi Earthquake Y.S. Fang, Y.C. Yang, and T.J. Chen Presented by: Amanda Luksetich Spring 2005

  2. Introduction • September 21, 1999 at 1:47 am • Earthquake of magnitude 7.3 on the Richter Scale • Near the town Chi-Chi in Taiwan, “Chi-Chi Earthquake” • 49,542 dwellings completely destroyed • 42,746 dwellings partially damaged • 2,432 people killed, 46 still missing

  3. Chi-Chi Earthquake

  4. Chi-Chi Earthquake • Shaking frequency 1.0-4.0 Hz • Focal depth 8 km • Rupture along Che-Lung Pu fault was 105 km

  5. Seismic Behavior of Gravity Walls • 3 retaining wall failures investigated • Base of wall lacks resistance to dynamic thrust – active wall movement occurs • Wall gradually moves away from backfill • Soil wedge slides along failure plane • Causes tension cracks and settlement in backfill

  6. Site 1 - Introduction • Taiwan Provincial Highway 14 • Built to retain steep excavation for highway construction • Concrete placed in 5 pours • No special treatment provided at construction joints

  7. Site 1 – Failure Analysis • Top layers moved away from backfill along construction joints • Top 2 blocks fell to side ditch • 20 m damage zone • Suspect frictional resistance not adequate at top of wall

  8. Site 1 – Failure Analysis • FS overturning > FS sliding • Sliding failure occurred along construction joint • FS decreases with increasing horizontal ground acceleration • Static FS acceptable • FS < 1 when Kh = 0.24g • Peak Kh observed to be 0.38g and 0.47g • Wall may have moved some with each effective cycle of ground shaking

  9. Site 1 – Failure Analysis • Soil properties influence analysis results • FS increases with increasing friction angle • 20 m failure segment • Locally poor compaction • Weaker soil present • Design Kh only 0.23g • Kh measured up to 0.47g and 0.79g

  10. Site 1 – Recommendations • Wall repaired in 2 months • Shearing reinforcements at construction joints • H-piles to resist potential movement of steep slope • Shearing key to prevent sliding failure along joint (recommended)

  11. Site 2 – Introduction • Provincial Hwy 21 near Sun-Moon Lake • Retain steep slope for highway construction • Close to epicenter • Lateral movement observed • Active soil wedge collapsed, but most of body wall undamaged • 40 km damage zone

  12. Site 2 – Failure Analysis

  13. Site 2 • Unexpected strong ground motion (close to epicenter) • FS against sliding is 1.15 (static), 1.5 required • Short, thick wall should resist overturning well • Bearing capacity failure may occur under seismic load • Settlement will occur if qmax exceeds qult, result in overturning

  14. Site 2 – Failure Analysis • Kh recorded as 0.59g at nearby station • FS bearing capacity slightly less than FS sliding • Overturning wall most likely result of insufficient bearing capacity under the toe Recommendation: Do not neglect stability check for bearing capacity failure

  15. Site 3 – Introduction • Taiwan Cinema Culture Town • Constructed above the Che-Lung Pu fault line • Vertical and horizontal displacements of 2.0 m and 1.3 m, respectively • Body of wall unbroken • Buildings on top of backfill severely damaged • Deformation • Strong ground shaking

  16. Site 3 – Failure Analysis

  17. Site 3 – Failure Analysis • Vertical displacement uplifted backfill, caused overturning • Horizontal displacement caused sliding failure and heave in front of toe • Kh recorded as 0.79g • FS acceptable for static conditions Recommendation: Do not build on or near any active fault lines!!!

  18. Questions?

More Related