EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 644 (2025) E3S Web Conf., 644 (2025) 04008 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 644, 2025
EUROGEO 8 - 8th European Conference on Geosynthetics
Article Number 04008
Number of page(s) 10
Section Design and Modelisation
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202564404008
Published online 01 September 2025
  1. J. Collin, V. Chouery-Curtis, and R. Berg, Field observations of reinforced soil structures under seismic loading. in International symposium on earth reinforcement practice (1992) [Google Scholar]
  2. D. Sandri, A performance summary of reinforced soil structures in the greater Los Angeles area after the Northridge earthquake. Geotext. Geomembr. 15(4-6), 235–253 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(97)10006-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. F. Tatsuoka, Performance of reinforced soil structures during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nambu Earthquake, Special Lecture. in Int. Symp. Earth Reinforcement, IS Kyushu’96 Balkema (1997) [Google Scholar]
  4. H.I. Ling, D. Leshchinsky, and N.N. Chou, Post-earthquake investigation on several geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of Taiwan. Soil. Dyn. Earthquake. Eng. 21(4), 297–313 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00011-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. R. Race, and H. Del Cid, Seismic performance of modular block retaining wall structures during the January 2001 El Salvador earthquake. in Proc., Int. Geosynthetic Engineering Forum 2001, (2001) [Google Scholar]
  6. J. Koseki et al, Seismic stability of reinforced soil walls. in 8th international conference on Geosynthetics (2006) [Google Scholar]
  7. R. Bathurst and K. Hatami, Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall. Geosynt. Int. 5(1-2), p. 127–166 (1998) [Google Scholar]
  8. H.I. Ling et al., Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131(4), 465–476 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(465) [Google Scholar]
  9. J. Takemura, and A. Takahashi, Centrifuge modeling of seismic performance of reinforced earth structures, in Reinforced soil engineering, CRC Press, p. 414–438 (2003) [Google Scholar]
  10. H.I. Ling et al., Analyzing dynamic behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. J. Eng. Mech. 130(8), 911–920 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:8(911) [Google Scholar]
  11. Y. Yu, R.J. Bathurst and T.M. Allen, Numerical modeling of the SR-18 geogrid reinforced modular block retaining walls. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142(5): p. 04016003 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001438 [Google Scholar]
  12. R. Bathurst and K. Hatami, Review of numerical modeling of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. in Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. Balkema, Tucson, AZ, USA (2001) [Google Scholar]
  13. E. Guler, M. Hamderi and M. Demirkan, Numerical analysis of reinforced soilretaining wall structures with cohesive and granular backfills. Geosynt. Int. 14(6): p. 330–345 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2007.14.6.330 [Google Scholar]
  14. H. Liu, C. Hung and J. Cao, Relationship between Arias intensity and the responses of reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to near-field ground motions. Soil. Dyn. Earthquake. Eng. 111, 160–168 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.022 [Google Scholar]
  15. C. Cengiz, E. Kilic, and E. Guler, On the interplay between seismic input energy and reinforcement strain. in 11th International Conference on Geosynthetics–11 ICG. Seoul, South Korea. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  16. D. Vamvatsikos, and C.A. Cornell, Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31(3), 491–514 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141 [Google Scholar]
  17. S. Karafagka, et al., Fragility curves of non-ductile RC frame buildings on saturated soils including liquefaction effects and soil–structure interaction. Bull. Earthquake Eng. 19(15), 6443–6468 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01081-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. European Committee, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures, and geotechnical aspects. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization (2004) [Google Scholar]
  19. S. Akkar and J.J. Bommer, Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the Middle East. Seismol. Res. Lett. 81(2), 195–206 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195 [Google Scholar]
  20. S. Dashti and Z. Karimi, Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate I: The liquefaction hazard in the vicinity of shallow-founded structures. Earthquake Spectra 33(1), 241–276 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1193/103015eqs162m [Google Scholar]
  21. G. Tsinidis et al., Optimal intensity measures for the structural assessment of buried steel natural gas pipelines due to seismically-induced axial compression at geotechnical discontinuities. Soil. Dyn. Earthquake. Eng. 131, 106030 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.106030 [Google Scholar]
  22. J.E. Padgett, B.G. Nielson and R. DesRoches, Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37(5), 711–725 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.782 [Google Scholar]
  23. M.D. Trifunac and A.G. Brady, A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(3), 581–626 (1975) https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0650030581 [Google Scholar]
  24. A. Arias, A measure of earthquake intensity. Seismic design for nuclear plants. 438483 (1970) [Google Scholar]
  25. S. Dashti, et al. Mechanisms of seismically induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136(1), 151–164 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000179 [Google Scholar]
  26. C. Cengiz and E. Guler, Load bearing and settlement characteristics of Geosynthetic Encased Columns under seismic loads. Soil. Dyn. Earthquake. Eng. 136, 106244 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106244 [Google Scholar]
  27. S. Argyroudis and A.M. Kaynia, Analytical seismic fragility functions for highway and railway embankments and cuts. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44(11), 1863–1879 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2563 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.