
The lateral earth pressure at rest is typically considered in situations where lateral wall movements are negligible. Determining the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (referred to as K0) often relies on established classical equations. However, these equations often overlook the influence of the width of the backfill soil on lateral earth pressure. While this omission is generally acceptable when the backfill soil is wide enough, there are instances where a retaining wall supports backfill soils of limited width, such as basement walls between adjacent buildings. Yet, there is limited research addressing the impact of narrow backfill in such scenarios. We aimed to address this gap by investigating variations in K0 values under different conditions, including backfill width and soil properties. Using ABAQUS for numerical simulations, we refined and validated our model using relevant laboratory experimental data. Subsequently, the validated model was applied to various simulation scenarios. For narrow backfill widths (ranging from 0.1 to 0.7 times the retaining wall height), our findings indicated a general decrease in K0 values with decreasing backfill widths, often smaller than those estimated using classical equations. Additionally, along the depth of the wall, K0 values tended to decrease with increasing depth for narrow backfill widths. These findings contribute to our understanding of the impact of narrow backfill on K0.
Citation: Ningxin Weng, Lei Fan, Cheng Zhang, Guobin Gong, Lihua Tan. At-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient under narrow backfill widths: A numerical investigation[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(2): 274-289. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024016
[1] | Dai Mitsushima . Contextual Learning Requires Functional Diversity at Excitatory and Inhibitory Synapses onto CA1 Pyramidal Neurons. AIMS Neuroscience, 2015, 2(1): 7-17. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.1.7 |
[2] | Sara Arciniegas Ruiz, Eliav Tikochinsky, Vardit Rubovitch, Chaim G Pick, Bernard Attali . Contextual fear response is modulated by M-type K+ channels and is associated with subtle structural changes of the axon initial segment in hippocampal GABAergic neurons. AIMS Neuroscience, 2023, 10(1): 33-51. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2023003 |
[3] | Eduardo Mercado III . Learning-Related Synaptic Reconfiguration in Hippocampal Networks: Memory Storage or Waveguide Tuning?. AIMS Neuroscience, 2015, 2(1): 28-34. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.1.28 |
[4] | Tevzadze Gigi, Zhuravliova Elene, Barbakadze Tamar, Shanshiashvili Lali, Dzneladze Davit, Nanobashvili Zaqaria, Lordkipanidze Tamar, Mikeladze David . Gut neurotoxin p-cresol induces differential expression of GLUN2B and GLUN2A subunits of the NMDA receptor in the hippocampus and nucleus accumbens in healthy and audiogenic seizure-prone rats. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(1): 30-42. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020003 |
[5] | Yoshi Nishitani, Chie Hosokawa, Yuko Mizuno-Matsumoto, Tomomitsu Miyoshi, Shinichi Tamura . Effect of correlating adjacent neurons for identifying communications: Feasibility experiment in a cultured neuronal network. AIMS Neuroscience, 2018, 5(1): 18-31. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2018.1.18 |
[6] | Olakunle J. Onaolapo, Adejoke Y. Onaolapo, Moses A. Akanmu, Gbola Olayiwola . Changes in Spontaneous Working-memory, Memory-recall and Approach-avoidance following “Low Dose” Monosodium Glutamate in Mice. AIMS Neuroscience, 2016, 3(3): 317-337. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.3.317 |
[7] | Marian E. Berryhill . Longitudinal tDCS: Consistency across Working Memory Training Studies. AIMS Neuroscience, 2017, 4(2): 71-86. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2017.2.71 |
[8] | Michaela D Curry, Abigail Zimmermann, Mohammadbagher Parsa, Mohammad-Reza A. Dehaqani, Kelsey L Clark, Behrad Noudoost . A Cage-Based Training System for Non-Human Primates. AIMS Neuroscience, 2017, 4(3): 102-119. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2017.3.102 |
[9] | Monireh Asadi Ghaleni, Forouzan Fattahi Masrour, Narjes Saryar, Alexandra J. Bratty, Ebrahim Norouzi, Matheus Santos de Sousa Fernandes, Georgian Badicu . Effects of an intervention combining physical activity and components of Amygdala and Insula Retraining (AIR) on sleep and working memory among older male adults. AIMS Neuroscience, 2024, 11(4): 421-438. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2024025 |
[10] | Anastasios A. Mirisis, Anamaria Alexandrescu, Thomas J. Carew, Ashley M. Kopec . The Contribution of Spatial and Temporal Molecular Networks in the Induction of Long-term Memory and Its Underlying Synaptic Plasticity. AIMS Neuroscience, 2016, 3(3): 356-384. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.3.356 |
The lateral earth pressure at rest is typically considered in situations where lateral wall movements are negligible. Determining the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (referred to as K0) often relies on established classical equations. However, these equations often overlook the influence of the width of the backfill soil on lateral earth pressure. While this omission is generally acceptable when the backfill soil is wide enough, there are instances where a retaining wall supports backfill soils of limited width, such as basement walls between adjacent buildings. Yet, there is limited research addressing the impact of narrow backfill in such scenarios. We aimed to address this gap by investigating variations in K0 values under different conditions, including backfill width and soil properties. Using ABAQUS for numerical simulations, we refined and validated our model using relevant laboratory experimental data. Subsequently, the validated model was applied to various simulation scenarios. For narrow backfill widths (ranging from 0.1 to 0.7 times the retaining wall height), our findings indicated a general decrease in K0 values with decreasing backfill widths, often smaller than those estimated using classical equations. Additionally, along the depth of the wall, K0 values tended to decrease with increasing depth for narrow backfill widths. These findings contribute to our understanding of the impact of narrow backfill on K0.
According to the World Health Organization, healthy aging is defined as “the process of developing and maintaining functional ability that promotes well-being in the elderly” [1]. Aging causes physiological changes in various systems of the body, especially the nervous system. The set of changes that occur in the brain with age reduces cell-to-cell efficiency (cellular communication), and thus the ability to remember and learn [2]. Although inactivity can lead to decreased physical fitness and the incidence of chronic diseases in older adults [3], regular physical training leads to increased functional activity, improved health, and optimal social relationships, and thus, the opportunity to experience healthy aging [1]. Physical activity enhances [4] and thereby counteracts an age-related cognitive decline [5]. The beneficial effects of exercise activity on brain structure and cognitive function occur through improved levels of neurotrophins in the brain [6].
Neurotrophins, such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and neural growth factor (NGF), have been proposed as key brain health regulators and are involved in neurogenesis, neuronal survival, and synaptic plasticity [5],[7]. NGF is important in neuronal health [8],[9]. Reduced NGF levels have been observed in the hippocampus of older mice and may be implicated in age-related cognitive function [8]. Additionally, NGF helps in the survival and regeneration of neurons during aging and in age-related diseases such as Alzheimer's [10]. Several studies have reported an increase in the NGF protein within the blood and brain after various exercise activities in humans and animals [11]–[14].
The cyclic AMP response element–binding protein (CREB) is a cellular transcription factor that binds to a specific sequences of DNA, called cyclic adenosine monophosphate-responsive elements (cAMP), and either increases or decreases the transcription of upstream or downstream genes [15]. Increased calcium and cAMP concentrations in the hippocampus can lead to phosphorylation and CREB activation. This transcription factor is a component of intracellular signaling events that regulate various biological processes, including memory, and plays an undeniable role in neuroplasticity, long-term memory formation in the brain, and spatial memory [16]. Some genes regulated by CREB include BDNF and NGF. Various studies have shown that different types of exercises have increased CREB expression and improved the memory and cognition of elderly mice [17]–[21].
Currently, training in water is considered a safe and useful alternative to dry training because of the nature of weight intolerance. Because of the high density and viscosity of water, the forces exerted on one's joints are less; therefore, these types of trainings are beneficial for the elderly population [22]. However, studies that evaluated the effects of water training in the elderly are very limited. For instance, training in water improves attention and memory [23]. Ultimately, CREB and BDNF improve hippocampus-dependent memory in older mice [20].
Although the relationship between training and memory has been proven, the pathways involved in this connection and the intensity, the duration, and the type of optimal training remain unknown. Because water training is safe for the elderly, and a combination of resistance and endurance training in water can simultaneously benefit the elderly from the effects of adapting to both resistance and endurance training [24], the role of combined training (resistance and endurance), especially in the elderly, can be a good strategy to achieve these beneficial effects. This study aims to investigate the effects of 10 weeks of combined water training on hippocampal neural plasticity (CREB and NGF) and memory function in elderly rats.
This was an experimental study with a post-test design and a control group. Sixteen 24-month-old male Wistar rats that weighed 315–325 gr were selected and randomly divided into two groups: combined training in water (n = 8) and control (n = 8). The rats were placed at a temperature of 30 ± 1 °C, humidity of approximately 45%, and a cycle of 12 to 12 h; the cages were made of Plexiglas with a net door of dimensions 43 × 27 × 25 cm and provided access to standard food and water. The animals from the training group performed physical training in water with temperatures at 30 °C in a glass container of 100 cm long, 50 cm high, and 50 cm wide [25]. The water depth was adjusted based on the rat body length. No regular physical activity was observed in the control group. For homogenization, during exercise training (i.e., for 30-minutes), they were placed in a water container at a depth of five centimeter.
The study was approved by the research ethics committee of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences (IR. HSU. AEC.1401.004).
The rats alternately performed a combination of resistance and endurance training programs for four days a week (every other day). A mesh metal grating (a distance of 2 cm from each grid similar to the ladder of rat special resistance training) [24] was attached as a ladder to the container wall (Figure 1A). During resistance training in the first week, the animals performed five sessions of familiarity with the water environment and climbing the ladder (Table 1). In the first meeting of the week, the rats' release distance was close to the ladder so as to climb it with the least immersion; in the following sessions, this distance increased. After the familiarization period, the water level was adjusted to approximately 200% of the animal's body length, and the rats were released from a distance of 35 cm to climb the ladder. The selection of this interval was based on the duration of hypoxia under water so as to not exceed 10 seconds over 10 weeks. Weights were attached to the tail of rats by a band; before applying the new training load after two weeks, the weight of the animal was measured on a laboratory scale, and the weight was determined based on the new weight [24].
Similar to resistance training, endurance training was followed by five days a week of familiarity, as shown in Table 1 [26]. After familiarization with the endurance training, the main program was implemented in water with a height equal to 140% of the rat's body length [27]. During endurance training, the glass container was divided into two parts (dimensions 25 × 100 cm), and each rat swam in a separate line (Figure 1B).
Familiarization course of resistance training in water (one week) | Familiarization course of endurance training in water (one week) | |
Session 1 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 10% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 100% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 10 minutes with a water height of 100% of the rat's body length |
Session 2 & 3 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 15% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 120% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 15 minutes with a water height of 120% of the rat's body length |
Session 4 & 5 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 20% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 140% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 20 minutes with a water height of 140% of the rat's body length |
Resistance training Program | Endurance training Program | ||||
Weeks | Set | Repetition | Rest between each set | Amount of weight based on body weight | Duration of continuous swimming |
Week 1 & 2 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 30% | 30 Minute |
Week 3 & 4 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 35% | 35 Minute |
Week 5 & 6 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 40% | 40 Minute |
Week 7 & 8 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 45% | 45 Minute |
Week 9 & 10 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 50% | 50 Minute |
The control group was placed in a 5 cm deep water container for 30 min in order not to differ from the training group in terms of the stress conditions [28].
The working memory was measured using the Y-maze test and alternation percentages. The working memory was assessed by observing and measuring the spontaneous alternation behavior during a working session. The maze was made of Plexiglas; each arm was 15 × 30 × 40, and the arms were connected through a central area. Each rat was placed at the end of one arm of maze (A) and allowed to move freely in the arms for 8 min (Figure 2). The number of animals that entered each arm was recorded. An alternate behavior was considered successful, and a serial entry was added into all arms in the triple sets. Thus, the alternation percentage that determined the spatial memory in the animal according to formula 1 was the number of non-repetitive triad arms divided by the total arms of the triads minus 2; because it was expressed as a percentage, the total data was multiplied by 100 [29].
Formula 1: Spatial memory percentage = number of non-repetitive triad arms/ (total number of triad arms – 2) × 100.
Forty-eight hours after the last training session and 10 to 12 h of fasting, the animals were anesthetized with chloroform, the animal heads were removed, and the hippocampal tissue was separated. The samples were stored at −80 °C, and gene expression was analyzed by Real-Time PCR. First, all the necessary ingredients for the PCR were removed from the freezer, vortexed (Kiagene Co., Iran), spun, and stored on ice. Then, for each gene, a mixture of different PCR components was prepared; after mixing and spinning, 9 µl was distributed into the microtubes of the device, and in each vial, a microliter of cDNA sample was added (the final volume of each PCR reaction was 10 µl).
To extract RNA from the tissues and to evaluate gene expression by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR), biological samples were prepared beforehand. The cell surface area was depleted. The cells were washed with PBS buffer, and after discharging the PBS, a certain amount of triazole (Kiazist Co., Iran) (1 mM of triazole in a container of 10 cm) was poured onto the cells to lyse them. The cell lysate was collected in a 1.5 ml microtube. For non-adhesive eukaryotic and bacterial cells, the existing cell suspension was centrifuged (Hettich Co., Germany), the cell surface was discarded, and the cell sediment was lysed in a certain amount of triazole (1 mM triazole per 5–10 million cells). For bacterial cells, one mM of triazole was added per 10 million cells. The resulting cell lysate was collected in a 1.5 ml microtube.
For converting RNA to cDNA, all the Easy cDNA Synthesis Kit materials (Kiatous, Iran) were removed from −20 °C and the RNA samples were removed from −70 °C and transferred to ice after melting. All materials were shortened and spun before overtaxing. To prepare the reverse transcriptase (RT) mixture, cDNA materials including RT buffer, RT enzyme, Oligo dT primer, and diethyl pyro carbonate (DEPC)-treated water were mixed and then distributed in 9 µl volumes into 0.2 ml microtubes. Prepared microtubes that contained RT mix and the RNA samples were placed in a real-time PCR thermocycler (ABI Stepone Co., USA), and temperature change programs were implemented. The cDNA samples were stored at −20 °C. The sequences of the primers and probes used are presented in Table 2.
Host | Gene | Primer | Oligo | Length |
Rat | CREB | Forward Primer | AAGCAGTGACGGAGGAGCTT | 20 |
Reverse Primer | CATGGATACCTGGGCTAATGTGG | 23 | ||
Rat | GAPDH | Forward Primer | AGGTCGGTGTGAACGGATTTG | 21 |
Reverse Primer | TGTAGACCATGTAGTTGAGGTCA | 23 | ||
Rat | NGF | Forward Primer | ACAGGCAGAACCGTACACAG | 20 |
Reverse Primer | CTATTGGTTCAGCAGGGGCA | 20 |
After the experiment, the data, including the threshold cycle (CT) and replication and melting curves of each gene, were prepared for analysis. The CT numbers of the reference gene and the main gene of each sample were determined, and the relative expression of each gene was calculated using the 2−ΔΔ CT formula to examine the fold-change of each gene.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. The Schapiro-Wilk test was used to normalize the data. In the case of normality independence, a t-test was used; otherwise, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. The Leven test was used to determine the homogeneity of variance. Data were analyzed using the SPSS 22 software at a significance level of P < 0.05.
Table 3 presents the mean and standard deviation of the hippocampal tissue variables, including NGF, CREB, and working memory.
Independent T test | ||||||
Variable | Groups | N | Mean ± std. Deviation | t | P | |
NGF Fold change | Control Training | 8 | 1/01 ± 0/15 | -4/09 | 0/001* | |
8 | 1/32 ± 0/15 | |||||
CREB Fold change | Control Training | 8 | 1/16 ± 0/48 | -2/53 | 0/024* | |
8 | 3/14 ± 2/16 | |||||
Mann-Whitney U test | ||||||
Variable | group | N | Mean ± std. Deviation | Mean Rank | Z | P |
Working memory (%) | control training | 8 | 42/4 ± 60/56 | 6/40 | -0/453 | 0/651 |
8 | 44/4 ± 25/90 | 7/38 |
* Significance at P < 0.05 level
A parametric independent t-test was used to analyze NGF and CREB gene expression, and the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the means for working memory.
NGF gene expression was significantly higher in the training group than in the control group (P = 0.01) (Figure 3 and Table 3). In addition, CREB gene expression in the training group showed a significant increase in the training group compared to the control group (P = 0.024) (Figure 4), which indicates that 10 weeks of combined training increased NGF and CREB gene expression in the hippocampus of elderly rats.
Although the combined training in water increased memory performance, this increase was not statistically significant in the working memory test (P > 0.05) (Table 3).
Several studies have demonstrated that regular exercise may affect neuronal function in older adults [18],[20],[30],[31].
In investigating the relationship between NGF and CREB and their possible activation mechanisms, the activation of the NGF receptor tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA) stimulates three main signaling pathways—Mitogen‑activated Protein kinase (MAPK), PLC-γ, and AKT—which leads to the initiation of a cascade of intracellular events characterized by changes in the expression of the genes responsible for survival, growth, and differentiation. In the MAPK pathway, phosphorylated RSK is transferred to the nucleus for CREB phosphorylation. The CREB transcription factor hereby participates in protein translation and the control of gene transcription [32],[33]. Therefore, in the present study, the increased expression of NGF observed with the combined swimming training may lead to the positive regulation of the expression of downstream proteins such as CREB, and consequently, nerve cell survival and synaptic plasticity.
Our findings showed that the combined training in water had a significant effect on hippocampal CREB gene expression in elderly rats. In line with our results, four weeks of swimming training (6 days Per week for 60 min) during the aging process increased the protein levels and the mRNA expression of CREB [18]. In another study, eight weeks of training in water (five days per week for 30 minutes a day) led to increased CREB, BDNF, and the activation of Sirt-1 signaling pathways in the hippocampus [20]. Additionally, in another study, the CREB levels increased after both aerobic and resistance training protocols [21]. Contrary to our data, high-intensity aerobic training did not negatively affect the CREB pathway or significantly alter memory function in mice [34]. It should be noted that the evaluation of the above research was conducted in the striatum, which is different from our evaluation of the hippocampal tissue. The reason Aguiar et al.'s (2010) results contradict the current study may be due to the type (sprint interval running on a treadmill) and intensity of the training. Another study conducted by the same group (Aguiar 2011) showed that lower intensity aerobic training in older rats improved spatial memory through increased hippocampal CREB [17]. We suggest that training in water or moderate-intensity training has better effects than strenuous training, and that the nature of exercise is effective.
Exercise training is thought to activate neurogenesis through various pathways [35]. One of the important signaling pathways in the brain proposed over the years is the binding of BDNF to its specific receptor in different regions of the hippocampus [36]. The binding of BDNF to its receptor leads to the activation of several signaling pathways, including protein kinase A (PKA), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), and CREB [37]. In accordance, it has been demonstrated that swimming training protocol increased the signaling pathways of CREB and protein kinase B (AKT) activity in the hippocampus of older rats [38]. Therefore, the combined training in water should also be effective in activating the above-mentioned mechanisms.
Moreover, our study showed that the combined training in water significantly increased the hippocampal gene expression of NGF in elderly rats. Although several studies have confirmed the involvement of NGF in learning processes, its role in brain plasticity after exercise training is poorly understood. In this regard, treadmill training in rats for eight weeks has been shown to increase NGF expression and neural survival of the hippocampal gyrus [14]. In another study, moderately-intense forced treadmill training inhibited apoptosis by increasing NGF levels and activating the PI3K signaling pathway in the hippocampus of elderly rats [12]. Contrary to the results of the current study, eight weeks of swimming training (ranging from 5 min in the first week to 60 min in the last week, three sessions per week) had no significant effect on hippocampal NGF and BDNF in mice with Alzheimer's disease [13]. Considering that the exercise protocol of our study was different from that of the above study in both the intensity and the duration (combination of aerobic and strength training in water), different intensities and durations of training protocols may be one of the reasons for the lack of significant changes among our study and the above study.
Exercise training increases hippocampal plasticity in aging through several possible mechanisms, including increased neurotrophic factors such as BDNF (one of the important mediators of crosstalk between contracted skeletal muscles and the brain during exercise training, crucial for neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity) [30], enhanced synaptic plasticity (through activation the cAMP/PKA/CREB signaling pathway) [39], reduced hippocampal atrophy [40], and decreased inflammation and oxidative stress [41]. These findings underscore the importance of physical activity as a non-pharmacological intervention to maintain cognitive health and to prevent age-related decline in brain function.
Aging causes changes in blood vessels in the brain. Due to the narrowing of the arteries and the diminished formation of new capillaries, blood flow to the brain can decrease [42]. Evidence shows that physical activity can improve mental and cognitive performance and plays a role in preventing the decline of cognitive performance [43]. Exercise can indirectly affect the gene expression of neurotrophic factors by affecting the secretion of neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, gamma amino butyric acid, and monoamines [44]. There is a consensus in the literature that physical training has a positive effect on improving memory function; neurotrophins can play a very important role in this scenario, such as neurogenesis, neuronal survival, and synaptic plasticity [45].
Despite the improvements in NGF and CREB gene expression, the findings of the present study showed that the combined water training had an indirect effect on working memory in elderly rats. Some studies have demonstrated that working memory is improved by chronic exercise in older adults [30],[46],[47]. In one investigation, eight weeks of moderately-intense swimming training (30 minutes a day, 5 days a week) improved memory [20]. In another study, 4 weeks of swimming training (6 days a week, 60 min) improved spatial memory in aging rats [18]. The results of the Y-maze test after performing high-intensity exercises on the treadmill showed that there was a memory disorder in the mice [48]. In addition, three studies within a review of human samples showed that aerobic exercises had no significant effect on improving memory [49]–[51]. They reported that among the reasons for the lack of memory improvements may be variations in the training characteristics (such as frequency, intensity, duration, type, and duration of intervention) that could involve mechanisms underlying improving working memory in different ways. Another possible reason for the inconsistent results is the use of different tools and measurement tests, which made it difficult to comprehensively investigate the effect of physical training interventions on working memory using a single instrument [52]. However, considering that the rats in the present study did not have memory disorders, this factor can be considered as one of the mechanisms of the lack of significance of training in water on memory. In addition, environmental influences such as physical training on memory usually take more time to become institutionalized than genetic or hormonal changes that are affected faster than exercise training. One of the limitations of the present study was due to the multi-sectoral nature of working memory and different measurement tools to examine its different dimensions [52] and to examine memory. In addition, one of the primary limitations of this research is the absence of multiple functional tests, particularly those that also evaluate long-term memory. Additional limitaitons of this research include the lack of a young control group and the use of endurance and resistance training groups alone, which make it difficult to accurately discuss the reasons for the observed changes. Further research is required to clarify this.
Our findings suggested that the combined physical training in water and similar protocols had positive effects on gene factors such as NGF and CREB. The conclusions drawn from our study emphasized the importance of further investigating the specific effects of each type of physical activity. This in-depth exploration will serve as a crucial foundation to design more effective and personalized interventions, as well as for the development of health prevention and promotion policies. However, further studies are necessary to delve into the potential of this type of training on memory in order to assess a possible positive impact in preventing the risk factors associated with cognitive decline.
[1] |
Bathurst R, Cai Z (1995) Pseudo-static seismic analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls. Geosynth Int 2: 787–830. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2.0037 doi: 10.1680/gein.2.0037
![]() |
[2] |
Leshchinsky D, Leshchinsky B, Leshchinsky O (2017) Limit state design framework for geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. Geotextiles Geomembranes 45: 642–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.08.005 doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.08.005
![]() |
[3] |
Pain A, Choudhury D, Bhattacharyya S (2017) Effect of dynamic soil properties and frequency content of harmonic excitation on the internal stability of reinforced soil retaining structure. Geotextiles Geomembranes 45: 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.07.003
![]() |
[4] |
Steedman R, Zeng X (1990) The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique 40: 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.1.103 doi: 10.1680/geot.1990.40.1.103
![]() |
[5] |
Huang J, Parsons RL, Han J, et al. (2011) Numerical analysis of a laterally loaded shaft constructed within an MSE wall. Geotextiles Geomembranes 29: 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.11.003 doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.11.003
![]() |
[6] |
Bathurst R, Hatami K (1998) Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall. Geosynth Int 5: 127–166. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.5.0117 doi: 10.1680/gein.5.0117
![]() |
[7] |
Zheng Y, Fox PJ, McCartney JS (2018) Numerical simulation of deformation and failure behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutments. J Geotech Geoenviron 144: 04018037. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001893 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001893
![]() |
[8] |
Garcia‐Suarez J, Asimaki D (2020) Exact seismic response of smooth rigid retaining walls resting on stiff soil. Int J Numer Anal Met 44: 1750–1769. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.3082 doi: 10.1002/nag.3082
![]() |
[9] |
Mojallal M, Ghanbari A, Askari F (2012) A new analytical method for calculating seismic displacements in reinforced retaining walls. Geosynth Int 19: 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2012.12.00010 doi: 10.1680/gein.2012.12.00010
![]() |
[10] |
Xie Y, Leshchinsky B, Yang S (2016) Evaluating reinforcement loading within surcharged segmental block reinforced soil walls using a limit state framework. Geotextiles Geomembranes 44: 832–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.010 doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.010
![]() |
[11] |
Leshchinsky D, Kang B, Han J, et al. (2014) Framework for limit state design of geosynthetic-reinforced walls and slopes. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol 1: 129–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-014-0006-3 doi: 10.1007/s40515-014-0006-3
![]() |
[12] |
Mylonakis G, Kloukinas P, Papantonopoulos C (2007) An alternative to the Mononobe–Okabe equations for seismic earth pressures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27: 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.01.004 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.01.004
![]() |
[13] |
Choudhury D, Nimbalkar S (2007) Seismic rotational displacement of gravity walls by pseudo-dynamic method: Passive case. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27: 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.06.009 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.06.009
![]() |
[14] |
Choudhury D, Nimbalkar S (2005) Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method. Geotechnique 55: 699–702. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2005.55.9.699 doi: 10.1680/geot.2005.55.9.699
![]() |
[15] |
Nimbalkar S, Choudhury D (2007) Sliding stability and seismic design of retaining wall by pseudo-dynamic method for passive case. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27: 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.11.006 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.11.006
![]() |
[16] |
Choudhury D, Nimbalkar SS (2006) Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth pressure behind retaining wall. Geotech Geol Eng 24: 1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-005-1134-x doi: 10.1007/s10706-005-1134-x
![]() |
[17] |
Eskandarinejad A, Shafiee A (2011) Pseudo-dynamic analysis of seismic stability of reinforced slopes considering non-associated flow rule. J Cent South Univ T 18: 2091–2099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-011-0948-3 doi: 10.1007/s11771-011-0948-3
![]() |
[18] | Jaky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J Soc Hung Archit Eng. |
[19] | Saglamer A (1975) Soil parameters affecting coefficient of earth pressure at rest of cohesionless soils. In Proceedings of Istanbul conference on soil/mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 9–16. |
[20] | Bolton MD (2013) A guide to soil mechanics: Universities Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16208-6 |
[21] | Szepeshazi R (1994) ON THE K₀ FACTOR. Period Polytech Civ Eng 38: 127–135. |
[22] |
Schö pfer MP, Abe S, Childs C, et al. (2009) The impact of porosity and crack density on the elasticity, strength and friction of cohesive granular materials: Insights from DEM modelling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46: 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.03.009 doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.03.009
![]() |
[23] |
Rad AB (2018) Static analysis of non-uniform 2D functionally graded auxetic-porous circular plates interacting with the gradient elastic foundations involving friction force. Aerosp Sci Technol 76: 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.01.036 doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2018.01.036
![]() |
[24] |
Cornforth DH (1964) Some experiments on the influence of strain conditions on the strength of sand. Geotechnique 14: 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1964.14.2.143 doi: 10.1680/geot.1964.14.2.143
![]() |
[25] |
Mesri G, Hayat T (1993) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Can Geotech J 30: 647–666. https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-056 doi: 10.1139/t93-056
![]() |
[26] |
Frydman S, Keissar I (1987) Earth pressure on retaining walls near rock faces. J Geotech Eng 113: 586–599. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:6(586) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:6(586)
![]() |
[27] |
Take W, Valsangkar A (2001) Earth pressures on unyielding retaining walls of narrow backfill width. Can Geotech J 38: 1220–1230. https://doi.org/10.1139/t01-063 doi: 10.1139/t01-063
![]() |
[28] | Kniss KT, Yang KH, Wright SG, et al. (2007) Earth pressures and design considerations of narrow MSE walls. Proc Texas Section ASCE Spring 2007. Available from: https://sites.utexas.edu/zornberg/files/2022/03/Kniss_Yang_Wright_Zornberg_2007.pdf. |
[29] |
Handy RL (1985) The arch in soil arching. J Geotech Eng 111: 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:3(302) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:3(302)
![]() |
[30] |
Aggour M, Brown C (1974) The prediction of earth pressure on retaining walls due to compaction. Geotechnique 24: 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1974.24.4.489 doi: 10.1680/geot.1974.24.4.489
![]() |
[31] | Janssen H (1895) Versuche uber getreidedruck in silozellen. Z ver deut Ing 39: 1045. |
[32] | Woodruff R (2003) Centrifuge modeling for MSE-shoring composite walls: University of Colorado. |
[33] |
Safardoost Siahmazgi A, Fathipour H, Jamshidi Chenari R, et al. (2022) Evaluation of the pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity of surface footings on cohesionless soils using finite element lower bound limit analysis. Geomech Geoeng 17: 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2021.1889686 doi: 10.1080/17486025.2021.1889686
![]() |
[34] |
Fathipour H, Tajani SB, Payan M, et al. (2022) Influence of transient flow during infiltration and isotropic/anisotropic matric suction on the passive/active lateral earth pressures of partially saturated soils. Eng Geol 310: 106883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106883 doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106883
![]() |
[35] |
Fathipour H, Payan M, Jamshidi Chenari R, et al. (2021) Lower bound analysis of modified pseudo‐dynamic lateral earth pressures for retaining wall‐backfill system with depth‐varying damping using FEM‐Second order cone programming. Int J Numer Anal Met 45: 2371–2387. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.3269 doi: 10.1002/nag.3269
![]() |
[36] |
Fathipour H, Siahmazgi AS, Payan M, et al. (2020) Evaluation of the lateral earth pressure in unsaturated soils with finite element limit analysis using second-order cone programming. Comput Geotech 125: 103587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103587 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103587
![]() |
[37] |
Fathipour H, Siahmazgi AS, Payan M, et al. (2021) Limit analysis of modified pseudodynamic lateral earth pressure in anisotropic frictional medium using finite-element and second-order cone programming. Int J Geomech 21: 04020258. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001924 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001924
![]() |
[38] |
Mirmoazen SM, Lajevardi SH, Mirhosseini SM, et al. (2021) Active lateral earth pressure of geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls with inherently anisotropic frictional backfills subjected to strip footing loading. Comput Geotech 137: 104302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104302 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104302
![]() |
[39] |
Fathipour H, Payan M, Chenari RJ (2021) Limit analysis of lateral earth pressure on geosynthetic-reinforced retaining structures using finite element and second-order cone programming. Comput Geotech 134: 104119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104119 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104119
![]() |
[40] | Yang KH, Liu CN (2007) Finite element analysis of earth pressures for narrow retaining walls. J Geoeng 2: 43–52. Available from: http://yo-1.ct.ntust.edu.tw/jge/files/articlefiles/v2i2200709051462998162.pdf. |
[41] | Helwany S (2007) Applied soil mechanics with ABAQUS applications: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470168097 |
[42] | Li L, Aubertin M, Simon R, et al. (2003) Modeling arching effects in narrow backfilled stopes with FLAC. Flac and numerical modeling in geomechanics: 211–219. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 115066222 |
[43] | Geotechdata (2023) Geotechnical Parameters. pp. Designed by Geotechdata.info. Developed by Nuevvo. Available from: https://www.geotechdata.info/. |
[44] |
Motta E (1994) Generalized Coulomb active-earth pressure for distanced surcharge. J Geotech Eng 120: 1072–1079. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:6(1072) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:6(1072)
![]() |
[45] |
Lade PV, Duncan JM (1975) Elastoplastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless soil. J Geotech Eng Divi 101: 1037–1053. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0000204 doi: 10.1061/AJGEB6.0000204
![]() |
[46] |
Kodicherla SPK, Gong G, Fan L, et al. (2018) Effects of preparation methods on inherent fabric anisotropy and packing density of reconstituted sand. Cogent Eng 5: 1533363. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2018.1533363 doi: 10.1080/23311916.2018.1533363
![]() |
[47] |
Kodicherla SPK, Gong G, Yang Z, et al. (2019) The influence of particle elongations on direct shear behaviour of granular materials using DEM. Granular Matter 21: 86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-019-0947-x doi: 10.1007/s10035-019-0947-x
![]() |
[48] |
Kodicherla SPK, Gong G, Fan L, et al. (2020) Investigations of the effects of particle morphology on granular material behaviors using a multi-sphere approach. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 12: 1301–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.04.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.04.005
![]() |
[49] | Das BM, Sobhan K (1990) Principles of geotechnical engineering. Available from: http://faculty.tafreshu.ac.ir/file/download/course/1583609876-principles-of-geotechnical-engineering-8th-das.pdf |
[50] |
Goh AT (1993) Behavior of cantilever retaining walls. J Geotech Eng 119: 1751–1770. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:11(1751) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:11(1751)
![]() |
[51] |
Harkness R, Powrie W, Zhang X, et al. (2000) Numerical modelling of full-scale tests on drystone masonry retaining walls. Géotechnique 50: 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2000.50.2.165 doi: 10.1680/geot.2000.50.2.165
![]() |
[52] |
Rowe RK, Skinner GD (2001) Numerical analysis of geosynthetic reinforced retaining wall constructed on a layered soil foundation. Geotextiles Geomembranes 19: 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00014-0 doi: 10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00014-0
![]() |
[53] |
Helwany S, Reardon G, Wu J (1999) Effects of backfill on the performance of GRS retaining walls. Geotextiles Geomembranes 17: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(98)00021-1 doi: 10.1016/S0266-1144(98)00021-1
![]() |
[54] |
Rao P, Chen Q, Zhou Y, et al. (2016) Determination of active earth pressure on rigid retaining wall considering arching effect in cohesive backfill soil. Int J Geomech 16: 04015082. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000589 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000589
![]() |
Familiarization course of resistance training in water (one week) | Familiarization course of endurance training in water (one week) | |
Session 1 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 10% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 100% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 10 minutes with a water height of 100% of the rat's body length |
Session 2 & 3 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 15% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 120% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 15 minutes with a water height of 120% of the rat's body length |
Session 4 & 5 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 20% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 140% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 20 minutes with a water height of 140% of the rat's body length |
Resistance training Program | Endurance training Program | ||||
Weeks | Set | Repetition | Rest between each set | Amount of weight based on body weight | Duration of continuous swimming |
Week 1 & 2 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 30% | 30 Minute |
Week 3 & 4 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 35% | 35 Minute |
Week 5 & 6 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 40% | 40 Minute |
Week 7 & 8 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 45% | 45 Minute |
Week 9 & 10 | 4 | 10 | 1 Minute | 50% | 50 Minute |
Host | Gene | Primer | Oligo | Length |
Rat | CREB | Forward Primer | AAGCAGTGACGGAGGAGCTT | 20 |
Reverse Primer | CATGGATACCTGGGCTAATGTGG | 23 | ||
Rat | GAPDH | Forward Primer | AGGTCGGTGTGAACGGATTTG | 21 |
Reverse Primer | TGTAGACCATGTAGTTGAGGTCA | 23 | ||
Rat | NGF | Forward Primer | ACAGGCAGAACCGTACACAG | 20 |
Reverse Primer | CTATTGGTTCAGCAGGGGCA | 20 |
Independent T test | ||||||
Variable | Groups | N | Mean ± std. Deviation | t | P | |
NGF Fold change | Control Training | 8 | 1/01 ± 0/15 | -4/09 | 0/001* | |
8 | 1/32 ± 0/15 | |||||
CREB Fold change | Control Training | 8 | 1/16 ± 0/48 | -2/53 | 0/024* | |
8 | 3/14 ± 2/16 | |||||
Mann-Whitney U test | ||||||
Variable | group | N | Mean ± std. Deviation | Mean Rank | Z | P |
Working memory (%) | control training | 8 | 42/4 ± 60/56 | 6/40 | -0/453 | 0/651 |
8 | 44/4 ± 25/90 | 7/38 |
* Significance at P < 0.05 level
Familiarization course of resistance training in water (one week) | Familiarization course of endurance training in water (one week) | |
Session 1 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 10% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 100% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 10 minutes with a water height of 100% of the rat's body length |
Session 2 & 3 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 15% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 120% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 15 minutes with a water height of 120% of the rat's body length |
Session 4 & 5 | Climbing the ladder with a weight equal to 20% of the rat's body weight, 3 sets with 8 repetitions and 1 Minute rest between each set with a water height of 140% of the rat's length. | Swimming for 20 minutes with a water height of 140% of the rat's body length |
Host | Gene | Primer | Oligo | Length |
Rat | CREB | Forward Primer | AAGCAGTGACGGAGGAGCTT | 20 |
Reverse Primer | CATGGATACCTGGGCTAATGTGG | 23 | ||
Rat | GAPDH | Forward Primer | AGGTCGGTGTGAACGGATTTG | 21 |
Reverse Primer | TGTAGACCATGTAGTTGAGGTCA | 23 | ||
Rat | NGF | Forward Primer | ACAGGCAGAACCGTACACAG | 20 |
Reverse Primer | CTATTGGTTCAGCAGGGGCA | 20 |
Independent T test | ||||||
Variable | Groups | N | Mean ± std. Deviation | t | P | |
NGF Fold change | Control Training | 8 | 1/01 ± 0/15 | -4/09 | 0/001* | |
8 | 1/32 ± 0/15 | |||||
CREB Fold change | Control Training | 8 | 1/16 ± 0/48 | -2/53 | 0/024* | |
8 | 3/14 ± 2/16 | |||||
Mann-Whitney U test | ||||||
Variable | group | N | Mean ± std. Deviation | Mean Rank | Z | P |
Working memory (%) | control training | 8 | 42/4 ± 60/56 | 6/40 | -0/453 | 0/651 |
8 | 44/4 ± 25/90 | 7/38 |