Review of Studies on Retaining Wall's Behavior on Dynamic / Seismic Condition
Current theories, experimental investigations and numerical findings for retaining walls subject to dynamic excitations are reviewed. Brief features of each method, and experimental and numerical methods are introduced and compared. Tables are listed after each section for a clear and brief view of methods in a categorized manner. Conclusive comments plus current concerns and future expectations of this area are made at last. This review aims at shedding light on the development and concepts of different researches in dynamic retaining wall design and analysis.
Seismic earth pressures on rigid and flexible retaining walls
While limiting-equilibrium Mononobe–Okabe type solutions are still widely used in designing rigid gravity and flexible cantilever retaining walls against earthquakes, elasticity-based solutions have been given a new impetus following the analytical work of Veletsos and Younan [23]. The present paper develops a more general finite-element method of solution, the results of which are shown to be in agreement with the available analytical results for the distribution of dynamic earth pressures on rigid and flexible walls. The method is then employed to further investigate parametrically the effects of flexural wall rigidity and the rocking base compliance. Both homogeneous and inhomogeneous retained soil is considered, while a second soil layer is introduced as the foundation of the retaining system. The results confirm the approximate convergence between Mononobe–Okabe and elasticity-based solutions for structurally or rotationally flexible walls. At the same time they show the beneficial effect of soil inhomogeneity and that wave propagation in the underlying foundation layer may have an effect that cannot be simply accounted for with an appropriate rocking spring at the base. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Time and Heritage
As a historian studying what can be considered a form of intellectual history, I have slowly come to adopt Michel de Certeau’s observation made at the end of the 1980s that ‘objectifying the past, for the last three centuries, has undoubtedly left unconsidered time within a discipline that has continued to use it as a taxonomic instrument’. To a certain degree, time has become commonplace for the historian who has preserved or instrumentalized it. It is not considered because it is inconceivable, but because we do not think of it or, more simply, we do not think about it. As a historian attempting to pay attention to the time I’m living in, I have thus, like many others, noticed the swift development of the category of the present until it has become obvious that the present is omnipresent. This is what I refer to here as ‘presentism’.