Comparison of analysis specifications and practices for diaphragm wall retaining system

• Autorzy: James A. , Kurian B.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/sgem-2018-0004

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Diaphragm walls are deep embedded earth retaining structures. They also act as a part of the foundation. Geotechnical codes of practice from various countries provide procedures for the analysis of deep foundations. Not many standards are available that directly regulate the analysis of diaphragm walls. This paper compares the analysis of diaphragm walls performed using the foundation codes of different countries. Codes including EN 1997-1, BS 8002, BS 8004, BS EN 1538, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, AS 4678, AS 5100.3, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, CAN/CSA S6, IS 9556 and IS 4651 are chosen for the study. Numerical studies and calculations are done using the finite element software Plaxis 2d. Comparative study is performed based on the values of displacements and the forces developed. Study also evaluates the effect of differences in partial safety factors. The outcome of research emphasises the need for development of comprehensive analysis procedures.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

diaphragm wall; numerical analysis; codes; partial factor; total resistance factor

• Wydawca: De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 40, nr 1
• Strony: 21--29
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 26 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

James A.

• Department of Civil Engineering, Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kerala, India, 686666

autor

Kurian B.

• Department of Civil Engineering, Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kerala, India, 686666

Bibliografia

• [1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2012). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington DC.
• [2] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2016). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington DC.
• [3] Bakhoum, M.M., Mourad, S.A. & Hassan, M.M. (2016). Comparison of actions and resistances in different building design codes. J. Adv. Res. 7(5), 757-767. DOI:10.1016/j.jare.2015.11.001.
• [4] British Standards Institution. (2000). British standard: Execution of special geotechnical works - Diaphragm walls. BS EN 1538:2000. London.
• [5] British Standards Institution. (2004). UK National Annex to Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design, General rules. BS NA EN 1997-1:2004. London.
• [6] British Standards Institution. (2015). British standard: Code of practice for earth retaining structures. BS 8002:2015. London.
• [7] British Standards Institution. (2015). British standard: Code of practice for foundations. BS 8004:2015. London.
• [8] Brown, D., Wulleman, T. & Bottiau, M. (2016). A comparison of design practice of bored piles/drilled shafts between Europe and North America. The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute. 10(2), 54-63. DOI:10.1080/19375247.2016.1254375
• [9] Bureau of Indian Standards. (1980). Indian standard: Code of practice for design and construction of diaphragm walls. IS 9556:1980(R2003). New Delhi.
• [10] Bureau of Indian Standards. (1989). Indian standard: Code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbours-Part 2 Earth Pressures. IS 4651 (Part 2):1989. New Delhi.
• [11] Bureau of Indian Standards. (2014). Indian standard: Code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbours-General design considerations. IS 4651 (Part 4). New Delhi.
• [12] Canadian Geotechnical Society. (2006). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual. 4th edition. Canada.
• [13] Canadian Standards Association. (2006). Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. CAN/CSA-S6-06. Ontario.
• [14] Canadian Standards Association. (2014). Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. CAN/CSA-S6-14. Ontario.
• [15] European committee for standardization. (2004). European standard: Eurocode7 Geotechnical Design Part 1: General rules. EN 1997-1:2004. Brussels.
• [16] European committee for standardization. (2004). European standard: Eurocode7 Geotechnical Design Part 2: Ground investigation and testing. EN 1997-2:2004. Brussels.
• [17] Fellenius, B.H. (2014). Piled foundation design as reflected in codes and standards. Proceedings of the DFI-EFFC International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, 21-23 May 2014 (pp 1013-1030). Stockholm.
• [18] Fenton, G.A., Naghibi, F., Dundas, D., Bathurst, R.J.& Griffiths, D.V. (2016) Reliability-Based Geotechnical Design in the 2014 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Can. Geotech. J. 53(2), 236-251. DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2015-0158.
• [19] Khabbaz, H. & Aung, Y. (2015). Anchored wall design: comparing the global and partial factors of safety incorporating the Australian standards. International Journal of Geomate 9(1), 1395-1402. DOI:10.21660/2015.17.4291.
• [20] Lewandowska, A.S. & Czajewska, M.M. (2007). Design of diaphragm walls according to EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2007 (pp 291-296). Madrid: IOS Press.
• [21] Simpson, B. (2000). Partial factors: where to apply them? International Workshop on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering, 18 November 2000. Melbourne.
• [22] Standards Australia. (2002). Australian standard: Earth Retaining Structures. AS 4678-2002. Sydney.
• [23] Standards Australia. (2002). Structural design actionspermanent, imposed and other actions. AS/NZS 1170-1-2002. Sydney.
• [24] Standards Australia. (2004). Australian standard: Bridge design Part 3 Foundations and soil-supporting structures. AS 5100-3-2004. Sydney.
• [25] Tabsh, S.W. (2013). Comparison between reinforced concreto designs based on the ACI 318 and BS 8110 codes. Structural Engineering & Mechanics. 48(4), 467-477. DOI: 10.12989/sem.2013.48.4.467.
• [26] Wijaya, J. & Taiebat, H. (2009). Factor of safety in AS- 4678: Earth retaining structures. Australian Geomechanics Journal. 44 (4), 27-31.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2018).