BEHAVIOUR OF FIXED CANTILEVER WALLS SUBJECT TO LATERAL SHAKING.

A programme of research on the seismic behaviour of retaining walls has been under way at Cambridge since 1981. Centrifuge tests have presently been conducted both on cantilever walls and isolated mass walls, retaining dry sands of varying grading and density. This paper is devoted to the modelling of fixed-base cantilever walls retaining Leighton Buzzard (14/25) sand of relative density 99% with a horizontal surface level with the crest of the wall. The base of the centrifuge container was used to fix the walls, and to provide a rigid lower boundary for the sand. No attempt was made to inhibit the propagation of compression waves from the side of the container opposite the inside face of the model wall. The detailed analysis of dynamic deflections and bending moments was made difficult by the anelastic nature of reinforced concrete, and the difficulty of measuring bending strains thereon. A supplementary programme of well-instrumented tests on Dural walls of similar stiffness, including the modelling of models, was therefore carried out. Refs.

The decay of Saffman and batchelor turbulence subject to rotation, stratification or an imposed magnetic field

We consider unforced, statistically-axisymmetric turbulence evolving in the presence of a background rotation, an imposed stratification, or a uniform magnetic field. We focus on two canonical cases: Saffman turbulence, in which E(κ → 0) ∼ κ 2, and Batchelor turbulence, in which E(κ → 0) ∼ κ 4. It has recently been shown that, provided the large scales evolve in a self-similar manner, then u ⊥ 2ℓ ⊥ 2ℓ // = constant in Saffman turbulence and u ⊥ 2ℓ ⊥ 4ℓ // = constant in Batchelor turbulence (Davidson, 2009, 2010). Here the subscripts ⊥ and // indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the axis of symmetry, and ℓ ⊥, ℓ //, and u ⊥ are suitably defined integral scales. These constraints on the integral scales allow us to make simple, testable predictions for the temporal evolution of ℓ ⊥, ℓ //, and u ⊥ in rotating, stratified and MHD turbulence.

An examination of strain space versus stress space for the formulation of elastoplastic constitutive models

Several elastoplastic soil models have been proposed over the years that are formulated in strain space rather than stress space due to certain analytical and computational advantages. One such model, BRICK (Simpson 1992), has been continuously utilized and developed for industrial applications within Arup Geotechnics for more than two decades. This paper aims to describe the advantages and difficulties associated with strain space modeling. In addition, it will show how recent advances in modeling the effects of stress history, stiffness anisotropy, strength anisotropy and time-dependence in conventional stress space models can be transferred to the BRICK model. © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London.