3rd Indo-Japan Workshop on Geotechnics for Natural Disaster Mitigation and Management

13th December 2017, Guwahati, India.

Design of Waterfront Retaining Walls Subjected to Waves and

Earthquakes: A Review
D. Choudhury1, B.G. Rajesh2
1
Institute Chair Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, INDIA. Also, Adjunct Professor, Academy of Scientific and
Innovative Research (AcSIR), CSIR Campus, Chennai, India.
2
Research Associate and former PhD Student, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India.

ABSTRACT
This article discussed the various possible forces that can act on the waterfront retaining wall
during the earthquake and the available methodologies to compute them. The wave forces
acting on the waterfront retaining structures can be branched into non-breaking waves,
breaking waves and broken waves. Hydrodynamic pressure due to seismic shaking plays a
vital role in the stability and must be considered from both seaward and landward sides if the
backfill is permeable. Various guidelines available for the design of waterfront retaining wall
and their limitations are discussed. The recent modified pseudo-dynamic method overcomes
limitations of the pseudo-static method and considers the effect of time, amplification and
damping properties in the analysis. Consideration of excess pore pressure variation with time
in the analysis is challenging and needs further research.

Keywords: Waterfront retaining wall; Wave forces; Tsunami; Earthquake

1. INTRODUCTION

Gravity type waterfront retaining walls are one of the most common marine concrete
structures, which are typically constructed along the shorelines to safeguard ports and harbors.
In the usual environment, i.e., when there is no earthquake, waterfront retaining walls will
continuously be experiencing wave forces which are time dependant in nature [Choudhury
and Rajesh (2014)]. So, first, waterfront retaining walls must be designed for these wave
forces which are transient in nature. Most of the waterfront retaining walls retain the
submerged backfill, in those cases hydrodynamic pressure will be produced in addition to the
lateral earth pressure on the landward side and the hydrodynamic pressure from water on the
seaward side. Due to the simultaneous action of these forces, the design of waterfront
retaining wall becomes challenging to the geotechnical engineers.

Failures of the many waterfront retaining walls can be observed from the past major
earthquakes like Loma Prieta in 1989, Northridge in 1994, Kobe in 1995, Bhuj in 2001, South
Asian Sumatra in 2004 and Tohoku in 2011. In the recent 2015 Gorkha earthquake and 2011
Tohoku earthquakes, the aftershocks are nearly same magnitude as that of mainshocks. In this
context, the selection of various combinations of forces for the seismic design of waterfront
retaining wall needs proper attention. Hence, in the present study, it is intended to discuss the
various forces acting on the waterfront retaining wall, their calculation procedures and their
combinations that need to be considered in the design.

1
2 IJ-GNDMM, 13 December 2017, Guwahati

2. VARIOUS FORCES ACTING ON WATERFRONT RETAINING WALLS

A typical gravity type waterfront retaining wall with top width b, height h.and wall inclination
resting on a rigid foundation as shown in Fig. 1 is considered. The backfill of soil friction
angle is submerged with water to a level of dL. The water height on seaward side is dS. The
wall friction angle is The forces acting on a typical waterfront retaining wall are wave force
Pw, hydrodynamic force PdynS from the seaward side, seismic active earth pressure force Pae,
hydrostatic force PstL, hydrodynamic force from landward side PdynL, weight of the wall W,
seismic inertia forces of wall Qhw and Qvw in horizontal and vertical directions respectively
and uplift force Ub at the base (Fig 1). The forces acting on the waterfront retaining wall
during the earthquake can be divided into three categories viz., the forces due to water present
(on seaward and landward sides), the seismic inertia forces on the wall, and the seismic earth
pressure force.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of various forces acting on waterfront retaining wall

during the earthquake (Rajesh, 2017)

2.1. Forces due to water

Depending on the location of the structure, waterfront retaining walls will be subjected non-
breaking waves, breaking waves and broken waves. Non-breaking waves are also called as
standing waves or pulsating waves. Forces due to non-breaking waves can be approximated as
hydrostatic. Breaking waves exert dynamic forces, which are about 8 to 15 times greater than
that of non-breaking wave forces due to turbulent water and the compression of entrapped air
pockets. Breaking waves are dangerous as they impart very short duration impulse loads.
Design of Waterfront Retaining Walls Subjected to Waves and Earthquakes: A Review 3

Broken waves are those which travel after waves break with less energy towards the shore. In
general, shore structures located in depths where waves will break against them. Nonetheless
in protected regions, or where the fetch is restricted, and when depth at the structure is greater
than about 1.5 times the maximum expected wave height non-breaking or standing waves may
occur [Coastal engineering manual (CEM), 2002]. If the epicenter of an earthquake is located
in offshore, it may trigger tsunami also. In addition to the wave forces, the waterfront
retaining wall will be subjected hydrostatic force, hydrodynamic force and uplift pressure at
the base of the wall. The computational procedures of the above-mentioned forces are detailed
below.

2.1.1. Wave forces

Keeping in view of the vital role played by the waterfront retaining walls in the in the safety
of ports and harbors, one should check the stability of waterfront retaining wall under the
compound action of wave and earthquake forces. The probability of occurrence of design
wave from the seaward side along with the earthquake mainshock may be unlikely but there is
always a possibility of occurrence of the moderate wave along with earthquake mainshock or
consequent foreshocks or aftershocks. The recent 2015 Lamjung and 2011 Tohoku
earthquakes showed the importance of aftershocks which are of comparable magnitude with
main-shocks. Recent studies of Rajesh and Choudhury (2016, 2017a, b, c) highlighted the
divesting nature of compound action of earthquake and wave forces.

Sainflou (1928) investigated the first theoretical studies for the evaluation of wave loads due
to non-breaking waves on the vertical wall and established a formula, for determining wave
pressure due to head-on, fully reflected, standing regular waves. The advantage of Sainflous
(1928) method is the pressure distribution can be approximated by a straight line (Fig.2). This
method is recommended by CEM (2002) for determining the non-breaking wave pressure on
vertical walls. The non-breaking wave pressure using the Sainflous (1928) formula can be
calculated as follows,

Figure 2. The Sainflou (1928) formula for non-breaking wave pressure on vertical wall
(CEM, 2002)

H o
p1 p2 w ghs (1)
hs H o

w gH
p2 (2)
cosh 2 hs / L
4 IJ-GNDMM, 13 December 2017, Guwahati

p3 w g H o (3)

H2 2 hs
o coth (4)
L L

where H = wave height; P1= wave pressure corresponding to wave crest at still water level; P2
= wave pressure at the base of the vertical wall; P3 = wave pressure corresponding to wave
trough at still water level; o = vertical shift in wave crest and wave trough at the wall; w =
water density; hs = water depth at the foot of the wall; L = local wavelength

Goda (1974) recommended a single formula covering both breaking and non-breaking wave
pressures in conjunction with the effect of the presence of rubble mound foundation based on
theoretical and laboratory studies. The author assumed the existence of trapezoidal pressure
distribution along the vertical wall with maximum pressure at still water level (SWL) as
shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3. Pressure distribution on vertical wall according to the Goda (1974) method (CEM,
2002)

* 0.75(1 cos )H max (5)

1 cos 1 2 cos2 gH max

1
p1 (6)
2

p1
p2 (7)
cosh 2 h / L
Design of Waterfront Retaining Walls Subjected to Waves and Earthquakes: A Review 5

p3 3 p1 (8)

Where * = height above SWL (m); p1 = intensity of wave pressure at SWL (kN/m2); p2 =
intensity of wave pressure at sea bottom (kN/m2); p3 = intensity of wave pressure at toe of the
wall (kN/m2); = density of water (t/m3); g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2); = angle
between the line normal to the upright wall and the direction of wave approach; h = water
depth in front of the upright wall (m); L = wavelength of the highest wave;

hb d H max 2d
2
1 4 hL
2
h' 1
1 0.6 3 1 cosh(2 h/ L) ;
2 sin(4 h / L)
; 2 min , ; 1
3hb d H max
h

This method gives the equivalent static load instead of short duration impulsive load for
breaking and non-breaking waves. The Technical Standard and commentaries for port and
harbor facilities in Japan (OCDI, 2002) recommended the Goda (1974) method for calculating
the breaking and non-breaking wave pressures on the vertical wall. The value of Hmax is taken
as 1.8H1/3 in the seaward of the surf zone, whereas within the surf zone it is taken as the
highest of random waves breaking at a distance of 5H1/3 seaward of the wall; H1/3 is the
significant wave height of the design sea state.

Fukui et al. (1962) developed a methodology to determine pressure due to tsunami waves. The
formula proposed by Fukui et al (1962) is given by

2

1 2 Ht H
PtF w d S 2 t K (9)
2 d S dS

where K= 0 (for Ht = 0); 0.2 (for Ht 0). Ht is height of tsunami wave. This methodology
includes the effect of tsunami wave velocity.

Dames and Moore (1980) proposed the following formula to compute the pressure due to
tsunami on waterfront retaining walls

PtC 4.5 w H t
2
(10)

where w is the unit weight of water. Coastal Risk Analysis of Tsunamis and Environmental
Remediation (CRATER, 2006) recommended this methodology to calculate the tsunami force
acting on the waterfront retaining wall.
2.1.2. Hydrostatic pressure
The hydrostatic pressure on the landward side PstL, which acts at the height of dL/3 from the
base of the wall, can be expressed as
6 IJ-GNDMM, 13 December 2017, Guwahati

1
PstL we d L2 (11)
2

where we w ( sat w )ru ; we is the equivalent unit weight of water which is obtained by
modifying w to include the effect of excess pore pressure ratio ru [Ahmad and Choudhury
(2008, 2009, 2010) ; Choudhury and Ahmad (2008); Chakraborty and Choudhury (2014a,b);
Rajesh and Choudhury (2017a)].

2.1.3. Hydrodynamic pressure

The water present on the seaward and landward side exerts additional hydrodynamic pressures
on the waterfront retaining wall due to the shaking of water during the earthquake. The
hydrodynamic pressures from seaward side (PdynS) and dynamic pore water pressure from
landward side (PdynL) can be computed using the methodology of Westergaard (1933), which
are given by,

7
PdynL , PdynS k h w ( d L , d S ) 2 (12)
12

It is to be noted that the dynamic pore water pressure from landward side must be considered
if the backfill is permeable and can be neglected if it is impermeable.

2.1.4. Uplift pressure at the base of the wall

The uplift pressure acting at the base of the wall can be computed using the approach of
Ebeling and Morrison (1992), which is given by,

Ub 0.5 uL uS b h tan (13)

where uL = pore water pressure on the landward side = we d L ; uS = pore water pressure on the
landward side = w d S

2.1.5. Seismic earth pressure

The seismic active earth pressure acting on waterfront retaining wall can be computed using
the pseudo-static method (Mononobe-Okabe method) or the recent modified pseudo-dynamic
method which considers the amplification and damping in the soil [Bellezza (2015), Pain et al.
(2015, 2016, 2017)]. In the pseudo-static method, the expression to calculate the seismic
active earth pressure acting on waterfront retaining wall can be written as [Ebeling and
Morrison (1992)]

1
Pae K ae h2 1 kv (14)
2

where Kae is seismic active earth pressure coefficient.

Design of Waterfront Retaining Walls Subjected to Waves and Earthquakes: A Review 7

is the modified unit weight of the backfill which considers the partial submergence and
excess pore pressure ratio (ru) .

d
2
d
2

L ( sat w )(1 ru ) 1 L d (15)

h h

In the case of the modified pseudo-dynamic method, it was assumed that the seismic
acceleration varies with depth. By considering horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces as
shown in Fig. 4, the seismic active earth pressure on the waterfront retaining wall using
modified pseudo-dynamic method can be expressed as

Ws sin( ) Qhs (t ) cos( ) Qvs (t )sin( ) (16)

Pae (t )
cos( )

Figure 4. Details of different forces acting on the waterfront retaining wall and failure wedge

In Eqn. (16), the seismic horizontal and vertical inertia forces (Qhs and Qvs) in the submerged
backfill (Fig. 4) can be written as

h
Qhs (t ) ms ahs ( z, t )dz (17)
0
8 IJ-GNDMM, 13 December 2017, Guwahati

h
Qvs (t ) ms avs ( z, t )dz (18)
0

where ahs (z, t) and avs (z, t) are horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations (functions of
damping ratio, shear wave velocity and primary wave velocity).

2.1.6. Seismic inertia forces in the wall

Similar to seismic earth pressure, the seismic inertia forces in the wall (Qhw and Qvw) are also
computed using either pseudo-static method or the recent modified pseudo-dynamic method
[Rajesh and Choudhury (2017b)]. In the pseudo-static method, the seismic inertia forces in the
wall are calculated by multiplying the weight of the wall with the equivalent seismic
coefficients (kh and kv). To obtain the same in the modified pseudo-dynamic method, the
seismic accelerations in Eqns. (17) and (18) should be replaced seismic accelerations in wall.

3. DISCUSSION ON AVAILABLE DESIGN METHODOLOGIES

The current seismic design and analyses methodologies on the subject of waterfront retaining
structures can be broadly divided into three categories [Rajesh and Choudhury (2017b)]:
simplified method, simplified dynamic method, and dynamic method. Dynamic methods can
be treated as more sophisticated methods possible to compute the seismic response of the wall
and the soil system. In general, these methods are based on numerical methods such as Finite
element method (FEM) or Finite difference method (FDM) which incorporate soil-structure
interaction in the analysis. The major constraints of these methods are these need great effort,
time and selection of suitable input parameters. Simplified method is conventional pseudo-
static force balance design approach. Simplified method is suggested in the conventional
seismic design codes and guidelines such as Eurocode 8 [EN 1998-5 (2004)], technical
standard and commentaries for port and harbor facilities in Japan [OCDI (2002)], the seismic
design of waterfront retaining structures [Ebeling and Morison (1992), which is a basis of the
design practice in North America] and code of practice for maritime structures by British
Standards [BS 6349 (2000)]. In these simplified methods the influence of earthquake ground
motions is considered by peak ground acceleration (PGA) or an equivalent seismic
coefficient. It is widely accepted in the literature that the pseudo-static method does not
account for the dynamic nature of seismic loading, ignoring the effect of time completely. To
overcome these limitations, researchers have come up with displacement based approaches
and pseudo-dynamic methods which belong to the category of simplified dynamic method.
The displacement-based approaches are based on rigid block model of Newmark. But, it is a
well-known fact that the permanent displacement also depends on the seismic ground motion
parameters such as frequency and duration. Moreover, the empirical formulae proposed for
computing final displacements in the literature do not account for water in front of the wall
and submergence in the backfill, which cause the hydrodynamic force on waterfront retaining
structures. Also, in all the above mentioned methodologies excess pore pressure ratio is either
neglected or assumed as constant. Hence, a proper methodology to account for excess pore
pressure in the analysis is still scarce.
Design of Waterfront Retaining Walls Subjected to Waves and Earthquakes: A Review 9

4. CONCLUSIONS

A brief overview of various forces acting on the waterfront retaining wall along with their
computational methodologies was discussed. The stability of waterfront retaining wall must
be checked under the compound action of earthquake and wave forces. In the case of
permeable backfill, the hydrodynamic pressure from landward side should also be considered
in the analysis. All the design guidelines suggested the use of the pseudo-static method. The
pseudo-static method considers the seismic nature approximately by ignoring the effect of
time, and recent modified pseudo-dynamic method considers time, amplification and damping
properties in the analysis. In all the available design methodologies, the effect of excess pore
pressure is either neglected or considered using a crude approximation.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, S.M. and Choudhury, D. (2008). Stability of waterfront retaining wall subjected to
pseudo-dynamic earthquake forces and tsunami. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami 2:2,
107131.
Ahmad, S. M. and Choudhury, D. (2009). Seismic design factor for sliding of waterfront
retaining wall. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Engineering, ICE, London, 162:GE5, 269-276
Ahmad, S. M. and Choudhury, D. (2010). Seismic rotational stability of waterfront retaining
wall using pseudodynamic method. International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, 10:1,
45-52.
Bellezza, I. (2015). Seismic active earth pressure on walls using a new pseudo-dynamic
approach. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 33:4, 795812.
BS 6349. (2000). Code of practice for maritime structures (Part 1 & 2), British Standards
Institution, U.K.
Chakraborty, D. and Choudhury, D. (2014a). Stability of non-vertical waterfront retaining
wall supporting inclined backfill under earthquake and tsunami. Ocean Engineering 78,
110.
Chakraborty, D. and Choudhury, D. (2014b). Sliding stability of non-vertical waterfront
retaining wall supporting inclined backfill subjected to pseudo-dynamic earthquake
forces. Applied Ocean Research, 47, 174-182.
Choudhury, D. and Ahmad, S. M. (2008). Stability of waterfront retaining wall subjected to
pseudo-dynamic earthquake forces. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, ASCE, 134:4, 252-260.
Choudhury, D. and Rajesh, B.G. (2014). Recent developments in design of waterfront
retaining structures to withstand earthquake and tsunami, Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical Conference (IGC-2014) on Geotechnics for Inclusive Development of India
(GEOIND), JNTU Kakinada, India, 2434-2448.
CRATER (2006). Coastal Risk Analysis of Tsunamis and Environmental Remediation, Italian
Ministry for the Environment and the Territory (IMET). (Italy).
Dames and Moore (1980). Design and construction standards for re- sidential construction in
tsunami prone areas in Hawaii. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
D.C.
Ebeling, R.M. and Morrison, E.E., Jr. (1992). The seismic design of waterfront retaining
structures, U.S. Army Technical Rep. No. ITL- 92-11, Washington, D.C.
EUROCODE 8- EN 1998-5 (2004). Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 5:
Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. CEN European Committee for
10 IJ-GNDMM, 13 December 2017, Guwahati

Standardization, Bruxelles. Belgium.

Fukui, Y., Hidehiko, M.N. and Sasaki, Y. (1962). Study on tsunami. Annual Journal of
Coastal Engineering 9, 5054.
Goda, Y. (1974). New wave pressure formulae for composite breakwater. Proceedings of 14th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, ASCE, New
York, 17021720.
OCDI (2002). Technical Standards and Commentaries for Port and Harbor Facilities in Japan,
Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute, Tokyo, Japan.
Pain, A., Choudhury, D. and Bhattacharyya, S.K. (2015). Seismic stability of retaining wall
soil sliding interaction using modified pseudo-dynamic method. Gotechnique Letters
5:1, 5661.
Pain, A., Choudhury, D. and Bhattacharyya, S. K. (2016). Seismic uplift capacity of
horizontal strip anchors using modified pseudo-dynamic approach. International Journal
of Geomechanics, ASCE, 16:1, 04015025_1-12.
Pain, A., Choudhury, D. and Bhattacharyya, S. K. (2017). Seismic rotational stability of
gravity retaining walls by modified pseudo-dynamic method. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 94:3, 244-253.
Sainflou, G. (1928). Essai sur les digues maritimes verticals. Annales des Ponts et Chausse'es
98:1, 5-48.
Rajesh, B.G. and Choudhury, D. (2016). Influence of non-breaking wave force on seismic
stability of seawall for passive condition. Ocean Engineering 114, 47-57.
Rajesh, B.G. (2017). Seismic Stability of Seawalls Considering Wave Forces, Ph.D. Thesis,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India.
Rajesh, B.G. and Choudhury, D. (2017a). Generalized seismic active thrust on retaining wall
with submerged backfill using modified pseudo-dynamic method. International Journal
of Geomechechanics 17:3, 06016023.
Rajesh, B.G. and Choudhury, D. (2017b). Stability of seawalls using modified pseudo-
dynamic method under earthquake conditions. Applied Ocean Research 65, 154-165.
Rajesh, B.G. and Choudhury, D. (2017c). Seismic passive earth resistance in submerged soils
using modified pseudo-dynamic method with curved rupture surface. Marine
Georesourses & Geotechnology.35:7, 930-938.
USACE (2005). Coastal Engineering Manual, EM-1110-2-1100. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington D.C.
Westergaard, H.M. (1933). Water pressures on dams during earthquakes, Transactions of
ASCE 98, 418-433.