Indian Geotechnical Conference 2010, GEOtrendz

December 1618, 2010

IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay

A Critical Study on Seismic Design of Retaining Structures

Katdare, A.D. Choudhury, D.

Research Scholar Associate Professor,
E-mail: ameykatdare@iitb.ac.in E-mail: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in

Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai

ABSTRACT
Knowledge of seismic earth pressure is very important for design of retaining structures in the earthquake prone
areas. Knowledge of the wave theories play an important role in the estimation of the additional seismic destabilizing
forces. Many researchers have developed several methods for the calculation of earth pressure and design of
retaining walls in earthquake prone areas. Pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic methods are most popularly used
methods in geotechnical engineering practice. The results obtained by researchers show the advantage of pseudo-
dynamic method over conventional pseudo-static method. In the present paper an overview of the available analytical
solutions for seismic analysis of retaining structures with merits and demerits of each methods and the comparison
between the different methods are expressed in detail.

1. INTRODUCTION idea, there was no design method against earthquake effects.

Determination of seismic earth pressure plays a vital role Since this method works easily with static calculation, it is
in the analysis and design of retaining structures in still widely used. Figure 1 is an example of slope stability
earthquake prone area. Pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic analysis.
methods are most popularly used methods in geotechnical
engineering practice which play an important role in the
estimation of the additional seismic destabilizing forces. K*W
Mononobe and Okabe used the first explicit application of
pseudo-static approach for retaining wall in 1926 and 1929.
This paper describes the methods for the analysis and design
Weight W
of the earth retaining structures for seismic activity. Also,
it summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of these Fig. 1: Example of Elementary Seismic Slope Stability
methods. Analysis (Towahata, 2008)

2. THE PSEUDO-STATIC METHOD A theoretical background of seismic coefficient lies in

In 1920s, the seismic stability of earth structures was
analysed by a pseudo-static approach in which the effects
of an earthquake were represented by constant horizontal
and/or vertical accelerations. The pseudo-static method is
the very old method to design facilities against earthquake
effects. The first explicit application of the pseudo-static
approach to the analysis of seismic of seismic slope stability
has been attributed to Mononobe and Okabe in 1929. But
the details of the pseudo-static approach for slope stability
analysis were described by Terzaghi (1950) (see Kramer,
1996). This method statically applies a force to a designed
facility (pseudo-static method). The magnitude of this force
is specified to be K*W in which K is called the seismic
coefficient and W is the weight of the facility. Before this
the DAlemberts principle of mechanics. When a base of
a structure has an acceleration of A, the effects of this
shaking to the overlying structure is equivalent to a forceof
(A/g)*W in the opposite direction from the acceleration
(Fig. 2); g stands for the acceleration due to gravity.
Static Inertia
Force = AW/g
Acceleration, A
Fig. 2: DAlemberts Principle of Mechanics (Towahata, 2008)
204
Thus, the seismic coefficient of K appears to be
equivalent to A/g.
The value of K depends on the region, seismic activity,
and importance of facilities, local geology and soil conditions.
Different countries have different values of K. Today, the
value of K in Japan is 0.15-0.2 or greater (Towahata, 2008).
The method of seismic coefficient is still in use because
it is simple and the factor of safety can be calculated by the
same way as the conventional static stress calculation. No
advanced analysis is therefore necessary. It made a great
contribution to the improvement of seismic safety. But, the
problems lying in the seismic coefficient are as follows:
1. The real seismic force is cyclic, changing in
direction with time, and its time duration is limited.
In contrast, the seismic coefficient method applies
a force in a static manner. This seismic force
overestimates the risk of earthquake failure.
2. Representation of the complex, transient, dynamic
effects of earthquake shaking by single constant
unidirectional pseudostatic acceleration is vey
crude.
3. At the time of 1994 Northridge earthquake near Los
Angeles, the maximum horizontal acceleration of
1.8g or possibly 1.9g was recorded at Tarzana site.
Within tens of meters from the accelerometer here,
a small hut did not suffer damage (Towahata, 2008).
Was this structure well designed against a
horizontal static force as intense as 1.8 times its
weight?
4. Thus, the relation between K and the maximum
ground acceleration is not clear. Acceleration of
1.9g does not mean K = 1.9. Study on seismic
damage of quay walls led Noda et al. (1975) to
propose
1
Amax 3 earth pressure by using the pseudo-dynamic approach. But
k=
g
/3 (1)
not consider the effect of soil amplication on both the
where A max is the maximum horizontal
acceleration.
Besides the shortcomings of the method, the method
is used because of its simplicity. The method is simple and
straight forward, also has a similarity with limit state
equilibrium analysis which is routinely conducted by
Geotechnical Engineers. Also, the computations are easy
to understand and perform. However, that the accuracy of
the pseudo-static approach is governed by accuracy with
which the simple pseudo-static inertial forces represent the
complex dynamic inertial forces that actually exist in an
earthquake.
3. THE PSEUDO-DYNAMIC METHOD
It is an improvised method which considers the phase
difference due to finite shear and primary waves
A.D. Katdare and D. Choudhury
propagation behind a retaining wall. This method also
considers the effects of horizontal and vertical seismic
accelerations as time, frequency and amplification
dependent parameters for seismic design of retaining
structures. Steedman and Zend (1990) devised this method
to overcome the drawbacks of the pseudo-static method. a
vertical rigid retaining wall supporting a particular value
of soil friction angle () and a particular value of seismic
horizontal acceleration (khg, where g is the acceleration
due to gravity) has been considered.
Choudhury & Nimbalkar (2005) modified this method
by considering the effect of vertical seismic acceleration.
Authors also studied the effects of a wide range of
parameters like wall friction angle, soil friction angle, shear
wave velocity, primary wave velocity and horizontal and
vertical seismic accelerations on seismic active earth
pressure. They also considered that the shear modulus (G)
is constant with depth of a retaining wall throughout
thebackfill and only the phase and not the magnitude of
accelerations are varying along the depth of the wall.
The major conclusions of their work was that the
pseudo-dynamic method gives more realistic non-linear
seismic active earth pressure distribution behind the
retaining wall (Fig.3) as compared to the MononobeOkabe
method using pseudo-static approach.
Fig. 3: Model Retaining Wall Considered by Choudhury and
Nimbalkar (2006) for Computation of Pseudo Dynamic Active
Earth Pressure
Again, in a similar way, Choudhury and Nimbalkar
(2008) developed the theory to estimate the seismic passive
the work done by Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2005) did
shear and primary waves to compute the seismic earth
pressures for both the active and passive cases. In this work,
they have considered the amplification of the soil. The
formulae are modified as,
Hz H z
a h ( z , t ) = 1 + ( f a 1)k h g sin t
H V s (2)
Hz H z
a v ( z , t ) = 1 + ( f a 1)k v g sin t (3)
H V ps
Where Vs and Vp are shear and primary wave velocities
respectively.
H
Qha t = ma ( z )a h ( z , t )dz
0
(4)
A Critical Study on Seismic Design of Retaining Structures
It was observed that effects of the soil parameters are
more pronounced on the passive state of seismic earth
pressure compared to that for the active state.
Shafiee et al. (2010) performed the pseudo-static
analysis for the seismic passive earth thrust on retaining
walls with cohesive backfills. The model is shown in
Figure 4.
Fig. 4: Model Considered by Shafiee et al. (2010)
A rigid retaining wall AB has been considered in this
study with cohesive backfill as an improvent over earlier
studies which consider cohesionless backfill. The slip
surface has been considered to be planer. The final
expression for the seismic passive earth resistance has been
given as,
2 3
x1 + x 2 x3 a h
* tan ( + ) 1 H H H
Ppe = 3
8 tan
2 3
2 tan
+ H y1 + H y 2 H y 3
+ a v tan ( + ) + c* [tan ( + ) + cot ]
In which term c*[tan( + ) + cot ] represents total
passive force corresponding to backfill cohesion. Major
observation was the backfill cohesion has an increasing
effect on Ppe. Also, the effect of amplifaction factor on the
passive force has been found to be negligible.
4. OTHER METHODS
Jain and Scott (1989) analysed the cantilever retaining walls
treating them as Euller-Bernoulli beam. The cantilever wall
is converted as Euler-Bernoulli beam connected to the soil
backfill, modelled by a shear beam, through Winkler
springs. Actually, this is a simple linear model for seismic
analysis of flexible cantilever retaining walls. Analysis has
been carried out with for wall and soil properties (EI, m,
k ,G and ) with depth. The wall is assumed to be fixed at
the base for simplicity. Then expressions for free and forced
vibrations are derived. Which are used to calculate the
moments. These moments are higher than Mononobe-
Okabe method, sighting Mononobe-Okabe methods
limitation.
Wang (2000) used a method of horizontal slices for
determining the active earth pressure distribution for static
case for a rigid vertical retaining wall with horizontal
backfill. Choudhury et al. (2002) extended Wangs
approach for determining the seismic passive earth pressure
distribution for a rigid inclined retaining wall supporting
cohesionless backfill. The model is shown in Figure 5. The
205
seismic passive earth pressure coefficients and their points
of application with corresponding critical failure surfaces
have been determined in this work for different values of
soil friction angles, wall friction angles and wall batter
angles. Moreover, the effect of seismic accelerations both
in the horizontal and vertical directions have been studied.
While doing so, method of slices has been considered,
considering pseudo-static seismic forces. It is observed that
in presence of higher seismic force, even for vertical wall,
the pressure distribution is vertical and the convexity or
concavity of the pressure distribution depends on the wall
batter angle and the magnitude of the seismic acceleration
coefficients.
Psarropoulos et al. (2005) calculated seismic earth
pressures on rigid and flexible retaining walls. Authors have
developed a more general finite-element method of solution.
In this study the numerical verification of the Veletsos and
Younan (1997) has been done, so as to validate the
assumption and define the range of applicability.
(5)
Fig. 5: Analytical Model Considered by Choudhury
et al. (2002)
Presuming plane-strain conditions, the numerical
analysis was two-dimensional, and was performed using
the commercial finite-element package ABAQUS.
The analysis has been performed for two cases viz. for
homogeneous and non- homogeneous soils. The results
agree with results obtained by Veletsos and Younan (1997).
Shukla et al. (2010) gave another method to calculate
seismic active earth pressure on rigid and flexible retaining
wall. Authors have described the derivation of an analytical
expression for the total active force on the retaining wall
for c- soil backfill considering both the horizontal and
vertical seismic coefficients. The results are found to show
good agreement with results of previous researchers. Figure
6 explains the same.
Fig. 6: (a) Trial Failure Wedge and (b) Force Polygon
Considered by Shukla et al. (2010)
206
Atik and Sitar (2010) studied the seismic earth pressures
on cantilever retaining structures. They had an experimental
and analytical program designed and conducted to evaluate
the magnitude and distribution of seismically induced lateral
earth pressures on cantilever retaining structures with dry
medium dense sand backfill. It was observed that dynamic
earth pressures and inertia forces do not act simultaneously
on the cantilever retaining walls.
As a result, designing cantilever retaining walls for
maximum dynamic earth pressure increment and maximum
wall inertia, as is the current practice, is overly conservative
and does not reflect the true seismic response of the wall-
backfill system Lew et al. (2010) have briefly reviewed the
theories which are related to seismic earth pressures based
on available literature. Also, they have supported this study
with their practical experiences in this field. References from
California Building Code, NEHRP, ASCE-SEI-7/05, and
International Building Code have been referred to arrive at
a conclusion that, current design practice for seismic earth
pressures on building basement walls is conservative,
uneconomical, and perhaps unnecessary. In addition, authors
have explained practical experiences from around the world
to support their observations from literature. Experience
showed that many walls performed structurally well during
earthquakes and failure was due to loss of strength of soil due
to liquefaction of any other reason.
5. CONCLUSIONS
1. Pseudo-static method considers the dynamic force
as a steady, onedirectional force, which makes it
least accurate method among other methods.
2. But because of its simplicity and easiness it is
widely practiced by Geotechnical Engineers.
3. Pseudo-dynamic method considers the time
dependant nature of the earthquake force. Hence
has more accuracy as compared with pseudo static
methods.
REFERENCES
Atik, A. L. and Sitar, N. (2010). Seismic earth pressures
on cantilever retaining structures, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
ASCE, 136(10), 13241333.
Barkan, D. D. (1962). Dynamics of Bases and Foundations.
McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, USA.
Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. (2005). Seismic passive
resistance by pseudo-dynamic method, Geotechnique,
55(9), 699702.
Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. S. (2006). Pseudo-
dynamic approach of seismic active earth pressure
behind retaining wall, Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering Springer 24(5), 11031113.
Choudhury, D., Sitharam, T. G. and Subba Rao, K. S.
(2004). Seismic design of earth- retaining structures
and foundations, Current Science, 87(10), 14171425.
A.D. Katdare and D. Choudhury
Choudhury, D., Subba Rao, K. S. and Ghosh, S. (2002).
Passive earth pressure distribution under seismic
condition, 15th Engineering Mechanics Conference of
ASCE, Columbia University, New York.
Choudhury, D. and Subba Rao, K. S. (2002). Seismic passive
earth resistance for negative wall friction, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 39(5), 971981.
Das, B. M. (1993). Principles of Soil Dynamics, PWS-KENT
Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jain, S. K. and Scott, R. F. (1989). Seismic Analysis of
Cantilever Retaining Walls, Transactions of the 10th
International Conference on Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology, Anaheim, USA, 241 - 246.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Lew, M., Sitar, N. and Linda, A. A. (2010). Seismic earth
pressures: Fact or fiction, Earth Retention Conference,
656-671.
Mononobe, N. and Matsuo, H. (1929). On the determination
of earth pressures during earthquakes, Proceeding of the
World Engineering Congress, Vol. 9, 177-185.
Nimbalkar S. S. and Choudhury D. (2008). Effects of body
waves and soil amplification on seismic earth pressures,
Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 2(1), 3352.
Noda, S. Uwabe, T. and Chiba, T. (1975). Relation between
seismic coefficient and ground acceleration for gravity
quaywall , Report of the Port and Harbor Research
Institute, Vol. 14, No. 4. (in Japanese).
Okabe, S. (1926). General theory of earth pressure, Journal
of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, 12(1).
Psarropoulos, P. N., Klonaris, G. and Gazetas, G. (2005).
Seismic earth pressures on rigid and flexible retaining
walls, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25,
795809.
Shafiee, A. H., Eskandarinejad A., Jahanandish, M., (2010).
Seismic passive earth thrust on retaining walls with
cohesive backfills using pseudo-dynamic approach,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.28, 528-535.
Shukla, S. K., Gupta, S. K., Sivakugan, N., (2010). Active
earth pressure on retaining wall for c-f soil backfill under
seismic loading condition, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 135(5), 690-696.
Steedman, R. S., and Zeng, X. (1990). The influence of phase
on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a
retaining wall, Geotechnique, 40(1), 103-112.
Towhata, I. (2008). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,
Springer, Tokyo, Japan.
Veletsos, A., S. and Younan, A. H. (1997). Dynamic response
of cantilever retaining walls, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering Division, ASCE , 123(2),
16172.
Wang, Y. Z. (2000). Distribution of earth pressure on a
retaining wall, Geotechnique, 50(1), 83- 88.