Lateral Load Performance Analysis of Dhajji Dewari Using Different Infills

This article describes Dhajji Dewari which is a non-engineered traditional construction method mostly used in the northern parts of Pakistan. This method consists of a timber frame filled with the stones in a mud slurry. This article is aimed to assess the effects of different infills on the lateral load capacity of Dhajji Dewari. For this purpose, three full scale Dhajji Dewari panels were constructed and unidirectional in-plane lateral load was applied. One panel was without infill, two other panels with different type of infills. Results of the experimentation showed that the infill presence effects the lateral load resisting performance of the Dhajji Dewari.

Download Full-text

Lateral Load Capacity and Passive Resistance of Full-Scale Pile Group and Cap

Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board ◽

10.3141/1736-04 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 1736 (1) ◽

pp. 24-32 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Kyle M. Rollins ◽

Andrew E. Sparks ◽

Kris T. Peterson

Keyword(s):

Load Capacity ◽

Pile Group ◽

Lateral Load ◽

Full Scale ◽

Dynamic Resistance ◽

Back Side ◽

Passive Resistance ◽

Passive Pressure ◽

Pile Cap ◽

Measured Resistance

Static and dynamic (statnamic) lateral load tests were performed on a full-scale 3 × 3 pile group driven in saturated low-plasticity silts and clays. The 324-mm outside diameter steel pipe piles were attached to a reinforced concrete pile cap (2.74 m square in plan and 1.21 m high), which created an essentially fixed-head end constraint. A gravel backfill was compacted in place on the back side of the cap. Lateral resistance was therefore provided by pile-soil-pile interaction as well as by base friction and passive pressure on the cap. In this case, passive resistance contributed about 40 percent of the measured static capacity. The measured resistance was compared with that computed by several techniques. The log-spiral method provided the best agreement with measured resistance. Estimates of passive pressure computed using the Rankine or GROUP p-y curve methods significantly underestimated the resistance, whereas the Coulomb method overestimated resistance. The wall movement required to fully mobilize passive resistance in the dense gravel backfill was approximately 0.06 times the wall height, which is in good agreement with design recommendations. The p-multipliers developed for the free-head pile group provided reasonable estimates of the pile-soil-pile resistance for the fixed-head pile group. Default p-multipliers in the program GROUP led to a 35 percent overestimate of pile capacity. Overall dynamic resistance was typically 100 to 125 percent higher than static; however, dynamic passive pressure resistance was over 200 percent higher than static.

Download Full-text

Laboratory Study on the Strength Behaviour of Two Laterally Loaded Adobe Walls

Infrastructures ◽

10.3390/infrastructures4010001 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Brad Weldon ◽

Paola Bandini ◽

Michael McGinnis ◽

Eduardo Dávila ◽

Diego García Vera

Keyword(s):

Water Content ◽

Load Capacity ◽

Lateral Load ◽

Experimental Program ◽

Construction Technique ◽

Wall Strength ◽

New Construction ◽

Load Tests ◽

Traditional Construction ◽

Seismic Forces

Adobe is a traditional construction technique found in historic and new construction throughout the world, often in earthquake-prone regions. Adobe structures are particularly susceptible to seismic forces due to their substantial mass and low tensile capacity. In addition, adobe is affected negatively by moisture that may penetrate from the ground or through the plaster. This paper describes the preliminary findings of an experimental program to investigate the effect of higher water content in the lower part of the wall on the wall strength behaviour under lateral loading. Lateral load tests were conducted on two quarter-scale adobe walls, one in air-dry condition (Wall 1) and another with greater water content in the lower part (Wall 2). The model walls demonstrated similar behaviour during loading in terms of deflections; however, the higher water content in the lower part had a significant effect on the wall strength. The in-plane (lateral) load capacity of Wall 2 was approximately 74% of the capacity of Wall 1.

Download Full-text