Acceso abierto

Bearing capacity of tapered walls: Physical modeling and numerical analysis

Worku Firomsa Kabeta

Worku Firomsa Kabeta

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Department of Geotechnical and Hydraulic Engineering, Gdańsk University of TechnologyGdańsk, Poland
Perfil de Orcid
Buscar este autor en
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Kabeta, Worku Firomsa
  
14 ago 2025
Bearing capacity of tapered walls: Physical modeling and numerical analysis's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Descargar portada
Categoría del artículo: Research Article
Publicado en línea: 14 ago 2025
Páginas: 46 - 61
Recibido: 05 dic 2024
Aceptado: 22 may 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2025-0019
Palabras clave
© 2025 Worku Firomsa Kabeta, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Sand preparation process: (a) sand raining technique and (b) prepared strongbox.
Sand preparation process: (a) sand raining technique and (b) prepared strongbox.

Figure 2

Experimental setup layout: (a) section view and (b) plan view at the end of wall installation. All dimensions in mm.
Experimental setup layout: (a) section view and (b) plan view at the end of wall installation. All dimensions in mm.

Figure 3

Experimental setup with model walls and loading frame configuration.
Experimental setup with model walls and loading frame configuration.

Figure 4

Numerical model setup in OPTUM G2.
Numerical model setup in OPTUM G2.

Figure 5

Load at pile head–displacement curves of walls from centrifuge experiments during the installation phase.
Load at pile head–displacement curves of walls from centrifuge experiments during the installation phase.

Figure 6

Effect of boundary conditions (container size) on the load–displacement curves: (a) HMC – lower bound, (b) HMC – upper bound, (c) MC – lower bound, and (d) MC – upper bound.
Effect of boundary conditions (container size) on the load–displacement curves: (a) HMC – lower bound, (b) HMC – upper bound, (c) MC – lower bound, and (d) MC – upper bound.

Figure 7

Effect of mesh density on load–displacement curves: (a) HMC – lower bound, (b) HMC – upper bound, (c) MC – lower bound, and (d) MC – upper bound.
Effect of mesh density on load–displacement curves: (a) HMC – lower bound, (b) HMC – upper bound, (c) MC – lower bound, and (d) MC – upper bound.

Figure 8

Load–displacement curves for different combinations of MC models with associated and non-associated flow rules.
Load–displacement curves for different combinations of MC models with associated and non-associated flow rules.

Figure 9

Effect of dilation cap on the load–settlement curves using (a) HMC model and (b) MC model.
Effect of dilation cap on the load–settlement curves using (a) HMC model and (b) MC model.

Figure 10

Load–displacement curves of the S wall using (a) HMC model, (b) associated MC model, and (c) non-associated MC model.
Load–displacement curves of the S wall using (a) HMC model, (b) associated MC model, and (c) non-associated MC model.

Figure 11

Load–displacement curves for the T1 wall using (a) HMC model, (b) associated MC model, and (c) non-associated MC model.
Load–displacement curves for the T1 wall using (a) HMC model, (b) associated MC model, and (c) non-associated MC model.

Figure 12

Load–displacement curves for the T2 wall using (a) HMC model, (b) associated MC model, and (c) non-associated MC model.
Load–displacement curves for the T2 wall using (a) HMC model, (b) associated MC model, and (c) non-associated MC model.

Figure 13

Failure mechanisms of the straight (S), moderately tapered (T1), and sharply tapered (T2) walls.
Failure mechanisms of the straight (S), moderately tapered (T1), and sharply tapered (T2) walls.

Figure 14

Failure load comparison for S, T1, and T2 walls at the end of installation.
Failure load comparison for S, T1, and T2 walls at the end of installation.

Figure 15

Comparison of numerical and experimental analysis (prototype scale) for (a) non-associated flow rule and (b) associated flow rule.
Comparison of numerical and experimental analysis (prototype scale) for (a) non-associated flow rule and (b) associated flow rule.

Figure 16

Relative installation effects (%) as a function of taper angle.
Relative installation effects (%) as a function of taper angle.

Properties of sand used in OPTUM G2 analysis [25]_

Property MC model HMC model
Young’s modulus (E) 35 MPa
Friction angle (φ′) 31.5° 31.5°
Cohesion (c′) 0 0
Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.3 0.3
Unit weight (γ) 16 kN/m3
Reference Young’s modulus (E 50,ref) 40 MPa
Unloading modulus (E ur,ref) 75 MPa
Earth pressure coefficient (K 0) 0.47 0.47
Dilatancy angle for non-associated flow (ψ) 5.0° 5.37°
Reference stress (p ref) 100 kPa
Hardening parameter (m) 0.5
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
4 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Geociencias, Geociencias, otros, Ciencia de los materiales, Compuestos, Materiales porosos, Física, Mecánica y dinámica de fluidos
RSS Feed de revista