Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Steedman, R. S. & Zeng, X. (1990). GCotechnique 40, No.

1, IO%112

The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth


pressure on a retaining wall

R. S. STEEDMAN* and X. ZENG*

Centrifuge modelling tests show clearly the phase Des es&s de modele i la centrifugeuse indiquent
change in lateral acceleration in the backfill behind clairemeat le changement de phase de
a retaining wall as shear waves propagate from the l’acceleration laterale dans le remblai derriere un
base of the model towards the ground surface. mur de soutenement pendant que les ondes de cis-
However, design calculations for the dynamic aillement se propagent 1 partir de la base du
lateral earth pressure on a retaining wall which use modhle vers la surface du terrain. Les calculs class-
a pseudo-static approach assume that the backfill iques pour la pression laterale dynamique des
experiences a uniform acceleration throughout. terres sur un mur de soutenement qui emploient un
Researchers have agreed that the total lateral earth methode pseudostatique admettent cependant que
pressure calculated using this approach is approx- le remblai entier subit une acceleration uniforme.
imately correct, but have disagreed over the dis- Les rechercheurs reconnaissent que la pression
tribution of the dynamic increment of pressure. laterale totale des terres calculb par cette me-
The Paper presents an analysis which takes into thode est approximativement correcte, mais ne
account a finite shear wave velocity in the backtill, sont pas d’accord sur la distribution de l’incremeot
thus allowing for the phase change in a prototype dynamique de pression. L’article prbente une
structure. The phase change does not have a sig- analyse qui inclut une velocite finie de l’onde de
nificant influence on the magnitude of the total cisaillement dans le remblai. Le changement de
earth pressure, but it has a marked effect on the phase darts une structure prototype eat ainsi pris en
distribution of the dynamic increment. The result- compte. Le changement de phase est pratiquement
ant pressure is seen to act at a point above one sans influence sur la valeur totale de la pression des
third of the height of the wall. The maximum terres, tandis qu’il prod& un effet marque sur la
dynamic earth pressure and the peak bending distribution de l’increment dynamique. On observe
moment on the wall are approximately in phase que la pression r6sultante s’applique au-dessus du
with the acceleration at mid-depth, and therefore tiers de la hauteur du mur. La pression maximale
this acceleration may be the most appropriate dynamique des terres et le moment maximal de
value to nse for design. The effect of a non-uniform flexion sur le mur se trouvent approximativement
shear modulus distribution is considered, as is the en phase avec I’acdleration a mi-profondeur, de
effect of amplification of acceleration on the dis- sorte que cette acceleration peut rep&enter la
tribution and magnitude of earth pressure. Amplii- valeur la plus convenable a employer dans les
cation of acceleration has an influence similar in calculs de murs. L’article considere l’effet d’une
character to the effect of increasing the acceler- distribution non-uniforme du module de cis-
ation coefftcient in a uniform acceleration field. aillement aussi bien que l’effet de I’amplification de
Centrifuge model test data analysed using this I’acc4eration sur la distribution et la valeur de la
approach show good agreement if the amplification pression des terres. L’amplification de
of motion is taken into account. l’acceleration exerce une influence analogue a
l’effet l’augmentation du coefficient d’acceleration
darts un champ d’acdleration uniforme. Lea don-
&s d’essais sur modele en centrifugeuse analy&es
KEYWORDS: analysis; centrifuge modelling; earth par cette methode sont satisfaisantes, a condition
pressure; ear&quakes; retaining walls; soilstructure que l’amplification du mouvement soit prise en
interaction. compte.

Discussion on this Paper closes 3 July 1990; for further details see p. ii.
* Engineering Department, Cambridge University.
103
104 STEEDMAN AND ZENG

NOTATION in which y is the unit weight of the soil, k, is the


4 d acceleration at depth z, time t vertical acceleration coefficient, and
fa amplification factor
G shear modulus of soil - e - )!I)
cos2(cp
H wall height L = cos e cos2/I cos (S + /? + e)

1
Hd acting point of dynamic force
J
sin (cp+ 6) sin (cp- e - i) 2
rtangle of backfill slope
constant
Km3K,, active and passive earth pressure coef-
x l+
[ c0s(6+p+e)cos(i-p)
(3)

ficients
co?(cp- e+ /I)
K,, =
k,, k horizontal and vertical acceleration cos e cos2/I cos (6 - /? + e)

1
coefficients x l_ sin(cp + 6)sin(cp -e + i) 2

M* dynamic component of bending


[ J CoS(6--fi+@cos(i---8)
(4)
moment
scale of model test where cp is the angle of soil shearing resistance, /I
total active, passive force is the angle of the wall slope, i is the angle of the
initial static force backfill slope, 6 is the angle of wall friction and
force on wall due to the weight of 0 = tan- ‘[k,,/(l - k,)], k, being the horizontal
wedge acceleration coefficient. For the case of k, = i =
P force on wall due to horizontal inertia B = 0, the wedge angle a is given by
AP,” dynamic force increment
PU active earth pressure 2 sin (cp- 0)
tan CL= (5)
P*a earth pressure due to weight of wedge COS (cp - 6) - K,, COS 0 COS (cp + 6)
Pad earth pressure due to horizontal
inertia Okabe’s analysis assumes that a uniform lateral
horizontal inertia force acceleration field exerts D’Alembert forces in the
period of lateral shaking opposite direction, and that these may be added
time to the vertical body forces due to self-weight and
shear wave velocity solved to find a critical wedge angle, u, following
mean shear wave velocity Coulomb. The present analysis assumes that the
weight of soil wedge earth pressure increases linearly with depth, based
coordinates as it is on satisfying force equilibrium, and so the
wedge angle dynamic increment of pressure is also assumed to
angle of wall slope act at H/3 above the base of the wall.
unit weight of soil
angle of wall friction
=t - H/v, PREVIOUS WORK
=tan-‘(kd(l -k,)) To verify this pseudo-static approach, many
shear wave length experiments have been carried out on shaking
density of soil tables, both at lg and on a geotechnical centri-
angle of soil shearing resistance fuge. Shaking table and field experiments have
angular frequency of base shaking been reported by Mononobe & Matsuo (1929),
Ishii et al. (1960), Matsuo & Ohara (1960), Tajimi
(1973), Richards & Elms (1979) and Sim (1979)
and centrifuge experiments have been reported by
INTRODUCTION Ortiz et al. (1981) and Steedman (1983, 1984).
The first studies of the earthquake-induced lateral Seed & Whitman (1970) summarized the previous
force acting on a retaining wall were reported in experimental studies and commented that the
Japan by Okabe (1924) and Mononobe & lateral earth pressure coefficients computed for a
Matsuo (1929). This pseudo-static approach, fol- cohesionless backfill using the Mononobe-Okabe
lowing Coulomb, became known as the equation are in reasonable agreement with the
Mononobe-Okabe equation. The total active and observed values in model tests, but that for
passive earth pressures exerted by a wedge in lim- unanchored retaining structures, most investiga-
iting equilibrium on a retaining structure of tors had found that the point of application of the
height H are given by dynamic increment was at a height of between
H/2 and 2H/3 above the base.
Tajimi (1973) calculated the dynamic earth
Pa,= irH’(l - W,, (1) pressure on a basement wall using two-
P,, = ivH2(l - W,, (2) dimensional wave propagation theory. His theo-
EARTH PRESSURE ON A RETAINING WALL 105
retical solution shows that the earth pressure coefficient may be calculated by considering the
distribution on the retaining wall and the phase equilibrium of stresses, without appeal to the
change in dynamic vibration up the wall is a kinematics of sliding wedges, provided the wall is
function of a dimensionless frequency parameter rough and the soil is in limiting equilibrium
wHJVs, where w is the angular frequency of base (Bolton & Steedman, 1982).
shaking and V, the shear wave velocity. A field An assumption of uniform acceleration
test was carried out on a gravity retaining wall throughout the backfill is an assumption about
3 m high, 0.6 m wide at the top, 1.5 m wide at not only the magnitude but also the phase of the
the bottom and 5 m in length. The test results for acceleration. It would only hold if the soil were
earth pressure distribution and phase change rigid and the shear wave velocity infinite. In prac-
agreed qualitatively with the theoretical predic- tice, the finite shear modulus in the backfill,
tions, but to achieve even a rough quantitative reducing towards the ground surface in a cohe-
agreement a value of shear modulus for the sand sionless backfill, will cause a phase change and an
of around 10 MPa had to be used, which is amplification of motion between the motion at
unreasonably low. the base of the wall and the motion at the ground
However, many of the lg model experiments surface. Fig. 1 shows time histories of acceleration
used a load cell at the top of the wall to measure recorded during a centrifuge model test on the
the outward force, and these results may therefore Cambridge Geotechnical Centrifuge. The acceler-
be more relevant to the behaviour of propped ation near the ground surface lags the base accel-
walls than a cantilever. Centrifuge model tests on eration by some 45”. In terms of amplitude, the
fixed base cantilever walls reported by Steedman acceleration at the ground surface may be only
(1984) suggest that the point of application of the 70% of its peak value at the instant that the base
dynamic force increment lies between H/3 and acceleration reaches its maximum. Clearly, this
H/2 above the base. will have an impact on the dynamic lateral pres-
sure.
ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND LIMITING
EFFECT OF PHASE CHANGE BETWEEN BASE
EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH
AND SURFACE
The Mononobe-Okabe equation is based on
three fundamental assumptions A pseudo-dynamic analysis, which incorporates
a finite shear wave velocity, is developed below
(4 the wall has already deformed outwards sufli- on the initial assumption that the shear modulus
ciently to generate minimum active earth is constant with depth through the backfill, and
pressure that only the phase and not the magnitude of
U4 a soil wedge, with a planar sliding surface acceleration is varying.
running through the base of the wall, is on the For a typical fixed base cantilever wall (Fig. 2),
point of failure with a maximum shear and assuming i = B = k, = 0 for simplicity, H is
strength mobilized along the length of the defined as the height of the retaining wall, and G
sliding surface as the shear modulus of the soil. The shear wave
(4 the soil behind the wall behaves as a rigid velocity V, = (G/p)‘/‘, where p is the density of
body so that accelerations can be assumed to the soil. T = 2x1~ is defined as the period of the
be uniform throughout the backfill at the lateral shaking.
instant of failure. For a sinusoidal base shaking, the acceleration
at depth z and time t is given by
It is generally accepted that very small horizon-
tal strains are required to reach an active state,
and thus condition (a) may be assumed to be
acceptable for the majority of flexible walls. A
report on the nature of dynamic pressure exerted
prior to yield, perhaps behind a rigid wall with a The weight of the wedge is W = y x area AOB
compacted backfill, is in preparation (Steedman
& Bolton, 1990). A planar surface of sliding has
been observed in lg and high g model tests
reported by Murphy (1960) and Bolton & Steed-
Considering the mass of a horizontal element of
man (1985) for walls which may translate out-
the wedge, the horizontal inertia force Qh is given
wards. However, the Mononobe-Okabe approach
by the integral
may also provide useful guidance for the limiting
forces on a wall constrained to rotate and not to
slide, as similar values to the Mononobe-Okabe
solution for the dynamic lateral earth pressure
106 STEEDMAN AND ZENG

Recordings of accelerometers

140
Ir
o ACC3
Tie rod
Anchor beam

0 ACCZ

Retalnmg wall model

30

I7 ACCl

Drydensesand

*BB
Fig. 1. Phase difference of acceleration in centrifuge test

which may be evaluated as which is the definition of the Mononobe-Okabe


solution. For a finite shear wave velocity, follow-
Qt,= -p& (27cH cos oc ing this pseudo-dynamic approach Qh is seen to
be a function of V, and w. Consider now the equi-
librium of the wedge OAB. Resolving forces leads
+ A(sin w[ - sin wt)) (9) to an expression for the total force acting on the
where A = V$J the shear wave length, and < = t wall, P,,
- H/V,. As V, + co, that is if the soil is assumed Qb cos (a - rp) + W sin (a - cp)
to be rigid, then P,, = (11)
cos (6 - a + cp)
yH2k,
=-=k,W (10) The definition of the total lateral earth pressure
max 2 tan a coefficient K,, is

K,, = + (12)
L 0 B(H/tana, H)
I 1 /
and substituting from equations (9) and (ll), an
expression for K,, in terms of Qh and W can be
derived. K,, is seen to be a function of the dimen-
sionless expressions H/Ty,, t/T, and the wedge
angle a. The maximum value of K,, is required,
and optimizing K,, with respect to t/T and a it is
found that K,, is simply a function of H/TK,
which is the ratio of time for a wave to travel the
full height to the period of the lateral shaking.
This result is plotted in Fig. 3 for a range of
values of k,. K,, is seen to vary relatively slowly
with HITI/,. As an example, consider a shear
modulus in the backfill of 20 MPa, giving a shear
wave velocity of 109 m/s, and a wall 10 m high.
For dominant earthquake periods in the range
0.245 s, H/TE is also in the range 0.24.5. The
Fig. 2. Calculating dynamic earth pressure difference between the magnitude of the pseudo-
EARTH PRESSURE ON A RETAINING WALL 107

k,=S% 42.10 ,/

F
./
34.40 ,
31.3”
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
/ /’
H/TV,
_I’/
Fig. 3. Influence of phase change on earth pressure coef-
ficient (0 = 33”, 6 = 16’)
P
\\\\\\\\\
dynamic force calculated using this approach and Fig. 4. Slip wedges in the three calculations (cp = 33”,
6 = 16’, k, = 0.20, H/TV, = 0.30)
the Mononobe-Okabe equation varies between
3% and 10% for a lateral acceleration of 0.29.
For this example, therefore, the influence of the the vertical weight of the wedge and P,, is the
force on the wall due to the horizontal inertia of
wave speed can be neglected. However, for a
higher wall, a smaller shear modulus, or stronger the wedge. The distribution of the lateral pressure
levels of lateral shaking, the error may become p,, can be expressed as
significant.
The analysis also reveals the importance of
correct scaling in model tests. A correct lg
shaking table experiment at l/n scale would cos (a - cp)k,yz
= sin o(t - z/V,)
increase the frequency of excitation by nl” cos (6 - a + cp) tan CL
(Schofield & Steedman, 1988). If G is assumed to
be a function of the square root of confining pres-
sure, and hence approximately of depth, then V,
+ yz sin (a - cp)
tan a cos (6 - a + rp) = Pad + Pa,

in the model will be reduced by the fourth root of


(13)
n for the same soil in model and prototype. Hence
H/TK will also be reduced by n’14. Although a lg which is clearly non-linear. padis the earth pres-
model test would not be invalidated by the intro- sure due to horizontal inertia, and pasthat due to
duction of this error, it would require careful weight of the wedge. Fig. 5 shows the distribution
interpretation. of earth pressure when the total force is a
In trying to interpret the physical significance maximum for H/TVs = 0.3. The acting point of
of the Mononobe-Okabe lateral earth pressure Pad, H, above the base, can be found by taking
coefftcient, Seed & Whitman (1970) separated the moments about the base of the wall. Then, if M,
seismic earth pressure into a static component
Pas* and a dynamic component APat*, defining
P,, = Pa,* + AP,,* (with the asterisks included
simply to identify the Seed & Whitman terms).
Pas* was assumed to be the original static force
and BP,,* the additional increment of dynamic
force. However, it can be seen from Fig. 4 that the 0.4 Mononobe-Okabeequation

dynamic wedge is somewhat larger than the static


wedge, for an ‘outward’ failure, and AP,,* must s

therefore be a function of both the ‘static’ weight


of the increased wedge size and the horizontal
inertia caused by the lateral acceleration. In con-
sidering the point of application of the dynamic
increment this definition is not entirely satisfac-
tory, as AP,,* is the sum of two components, one
due to the vertical weight of the increased wedge 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
size, and one due to the horizontal inertia. PW

A more consistent definition is to let P,, = P,, Fig. 5. Distribution of dynamic earth pressure (q = 33”,
+ Pad, where P, is the force on the wall due to 6 = 16’, Kb = O-20,H/TV, = O-30)
108 STEEDMAN AND ZENG

Dynamic moment rwement

AcceleratIonat mid-height

Baseaccelerat~on
-2O-

Fig. 6. One cycle of acceleration, dynamic force increment and


dynamic moment increment(cp = 33”, 6 = 16’, H/TV, = O-275)

is the dynamic component of the bending Seed & Whitman apparent dynamic increment
moment APa,* and the force increment P,, proposed
JJpad(z)cos 6(H - z) dz herein. The point of application of the total
H =%(z=H)
d (14) lateral force on the wall is a function of the period
PpdCOS 6 = 50 P,, cos 6 of shaking and the stiffness of the soil in addition
2x2H2 cos w[ + 2nAH sin w[ to the ‘pseudo-static’ parameters invoked in the
Mononobe-Okabe equation.
-A2(cos or - cos wt) The dynamic component of bending moment
H,=H-
2z2H cos OIL:+ xA(sin WC- sin wt) acting on a cantilever wall, as a function of depth,
(15) will then be
Thus substituting for padfrom equation (13) and
integrating leads to the expression in equation M,(Z, t) = =pad(z, t) cos 6(Z - z) dz (16)
(15) for H, as a function of HITI/‘, and t. Fig. 6 50
shows time histories of the dynamic force cos (a - q)k,yA2 cos 6

increment, the moment at the base of the wall, the = 4x3 cos (6 - a + cp) tan GI
acceleration at the base of the wall and the accel-
eration at mid-height for the example wall with .[i\(cosw(t-~)-coSWt)
H = lOm, T =0.333 s and V, = 109 m/s. The
time at which the bending moment is a maximum
is no longer coincident with the maximum base -nZ(sinw(t-E)+sinot)]
acceleration. There is also a small phase differ-
ence between the maximum moment and the total (17)
dynamic earth pressure. However, in this
0.60
example, in which a constant shear modulus has
been assumed with depth, the maxima of dynamic 0.55
earth pressure increment and bending moment AP,,’
are approximately coincident with the maximum 0.50 I / /
acceleration at mid-height.
Figure 7 shows the position of the acting point
of the dynamic force P,, at the instant when the
bending moment is a maximum as a function of
H/TV, for k, = 0.2. For the example wall in Fig.
2, the point of application of the dynamic
increment of earth force varies from 0.35 H to
0.42 H above the base, as the period varies from HITV,
0.5 to 0.2 s. However, Fig. 7 also shows a com- Fig. 7. Acting point of dynamic force increment above
parison between the acting point found using the the base(cp = 33”, 6 = 16“, k, = 0.20)
EARTH PRESSURE ON A RETAINING WALL 109

patterns of reflected, refracted and surface waves


in the vicinity of a structure. Taking an average
value of k,, assumed constant over the depth of
the layer, enables an assessment to be made of the
influence of the distribution of shear modulus
-0.01 Time : s

Y
with depth. The influence of a variable acceler-
-0.02 ation is considered below.
- With a constant magnitude of peak acceler-
(a) ation, the acceleration at depth z is given by

A(z, t) = k, sin w

x t _ s (HI-812 _ z1 -8/2)

(21)

The horizontal inertia force is then given by the


integral
(b)
Fig. 8. One cycle of (a) dynamic moment increment and
(b) acceleration (cp = 33’, 6 = 16’, H/TV, = W275)

Fig. 8 shows example time histories of both


dynamic bending moment and acceleration at substituting A(z, t) from equation (21). For values
mid-height and at the base of the cantilever wall of B in the range of interest, equation 22 can only
shown in Fig. 2. The analysis predicts that the be solved analytically for p = 0 and 1 and must
phase difference between the bending moments be solved numerically for intermediate values. K,,
should be smaller than that between the acceler- may then be determined by substituting Qh into
ations at the corresponding locations. equations (11) and (12), as before. However, as the
shear modulus is now varying with depth, it is
Influence ofshear modulus distribution necessary to define an average value
In practice, the shear modulus and shear wave
velocity in the ground vary with depth, and gen- H
erally in sands the variation of shear modulus p,=_=- (23)
At(z = 0)
with depth is expressed as
Optimizing K,, with respect to both t/T and u
G(z) = KzS (0 < B < 1) (18) leads to an expression for K,, as a function of the
dimensionless group H/V, T and /?. This relation-
where K is a constant and z is the depth below
ship is shown in Fig. 9 for /I = 0, 0.5 and 1 with
the ground surface. The shear wave velocity may
K, = 0.2. The effect of phase change due to differ-
then be deduced as a function of depth z
ent distributions of shear modulus on the lateral
earth pressure coeffkient is clearly very small.

0.44 -

where K is a constant. The time increment for the 0.42 -


passage of a wave from the base to a depth z will
then be
rz .4_ k!
At(z) = - 6 0-36-
JH
0.34-

= $z!F4 (fp8/2 _ ,1-a/2) 0.32-


(20)
0.30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6
The variation of acceleration through a soil H/i,

layer of reducing shear modulus will also depend Fig. 9. Earth pressare coefkient with difierent shear
on damping and the interaction of the complex modulus distributions ((p = 33’, 6 = 16’, k, = O-20)
110 STEEDMAN AND ZENG

Infuence of amplification of oibration on K,, The analysis can be carried further to calculate
As a shear wave approaches the ground the influence of amplification on the point of
surface, the vibration in the sand will also be amplification of the dynamic force increment. The
amplified. The exact nature of such an amplifica- distribution of lateral pressure is given by
tion is dependent on many factors, including the
geometry and rigidity of adjacent structures, the ~0s (a - cP)Yfak,
stiffness and damping in the soil, the depth of the P.. = z sin (t - z/V,)
cos (6 - u + cp) tan tl
soil layer and so on. Again, a simplifying assump-
tion is made that the lateral acceleration varies
linearly from the base of the layer to the ground + yz sin (GI- q)
tan a cos (6 - u + cp)
surface, such that k,(z = 0) = fak,(z = H), where
fa is a constant. Returning to the assumption of k,(fa - 1) cos (a - q) A
constant shear modulus throughout the layer, the +Y
tan c( cos (6 - o! + cp) S
acceleration at depth z is given by

X -cos w(t - z/V,)- k sin w(t - z/V,)


H-z [
A(z, t) = 1+ - H

+ & (cos w(t - z/v,) - cos cot)


1
=
x (t - W - z)/v,) (24)

The horizontal inertia force as a function of time Pad + Pas (27)


is then
which is also a non-linear distribution. The acting
point is given by

H = StPadfZ)COS4H - Z) dz

d (28)
P,, cos 6
x [2aH cos 05 + A(sin oc - sin cot)]
which can be solved numerically to show that the
+ hkAfa - 1) variation in H, is negligible for values of the
4n3H tan GI C2nH(nH cos 4
amplification factor fa in the range l-1.8, cover-
ing most field problems.
+ A sin WC) The dynamic increment of bending moment on
+ AZ(cos Wt - cos wi)] (26) a cantilever wall is then given by

Substituting into equations (11) and (12) leads to M,(Z, t) = ‘p.,(z, t) cos S(Z - z) dz (29)
an expression for K,, which may be optimized as 50
a function of H/TVS and fa. Fig. 10 shows the
variation of K,, as a function of H/TV, for a which can also be solved numerically.
range of values of the amplification factor fa. The Figure 11 shows a model of a fixed base canti-
effect of an increase in the amplification factor is lever wall subjected to base shaking using the
seen to be qualitatively similar to an increase in Bumpy Road earthquake actuator on the Cam-
the lateral acceleration coefficient k, (Fig. 3). bridge Geotechnical Centrifuge. Data from the
model are shown in Fig. 12. The tests were
reported by Steedman (1984). From the phase
change in the data of accelerometers ACCl and
0.55
r ACCZ, the average shear wave velocity was
,.,oh deduced to be 180 m/s, which gave a mean shear
modulus in the sand backfill of 57 MPa. The
accelerometers also showed an amplification of

2$wfa_.6= fa=1.4
fa 1.2
acceleration of about lOO%, and hence the ampli-
fication factor fa = 2. The angle of shearing resist-
ance in the backfill was deduced from the static
bending moments in the wall, measured using
fa 1.0 strain gauges in a full bridge configuration. The
0.301 1 8 a * 8 a 8 '
0 0.1 0.2 O-3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 non-dimensional peak dynamic moment distribu-
H/TV, tion is also plotted in Fig. 12, together with the
Fig. 10. Earth pressure coeffkient with different nmplifi- results of a Mononobe-Okabe calculation and the
cation factors (cp = 33,6 = 16, k, = @20) pseudo-dynamic calculation described above. It is
EARTH PRESSURE ON A RETAINING WALL 111

using the pseudo-static Mononobe-Okabe

7
ACC2 _Et
approach and that calculated using the pseudo-
dynamic approach is small. However, the analysis
Irysand backfill predicts that the dynamic increment of earth pres-
sure acts at a point higher than H/3 above the
base, depending on the stiffness of the soil and the
EMT1 period of base shaking as well as the geometrical
and soil strength parameters.
The influence on the magnitude of the dynamic
BMT2 lateral earth pressure coefficient of a non-uniform
distribution of shear modulus with depth is
shown to be negligible in relation to the addi-
BMT3 tional phase change caused by a non-uniform
shear wave velocity. However, amplification of
the lateral acceleration coefficient up through the
BMT4 soil layer has an important effect on the magni-
tude of the lateral earth pressure coefficient, and
this has important consequences for the selection
of a design value for the lateral acceleration coef-

4
BMT5
ficient.
BMT6
Consideration of a finite as opposed to an
BMT7 infinite shear wave velocity has enabled the devel-
opment of a pseudo-dynamic analysis which
throws light on many of the uncertainties left by
the widely used pseudo-static Mononobe-Okabe
eACC1
analysis. The approach is strongly supported by
Fig. 11. Centrifuge test of dynamic moment increment centrifuge dynamic model test data.

clear that the pseudo-dynamic approach provides


good agreement with the test data, both in mag-
nitude and distribution of bending moment.
REFERENCES
CONCLUSIONS Bolton, M. D. & Steedman, R. S. (1982). Centrifugal
For many retaining structures, the difference testing of microconcrete retaining walls subjected to
between the earth pressure coeficient calculated base shaking. Proc. Conf: Soil dynamics and earth-
quake engng, Southampton, 1, 311-329, Rotterdam:
Balkema.
+-Test result Bolton, M. D. & Steedman, R. S. (1985). Modelling the
seismic resistance of retaining structures. Proc. XI
Int. Co& Soil mech found. engng, San Francisco, 4,
1845-1848, Rotterdam: Balkema.
Ishii, Y., Arai, H. & Tsuchida, H. (1960). Lateral earth
Pseudo-dynamic
pressure in an earthquake. Proc. 2nd World Co@
Earthquake engng, 21 l-230. Tokyo:
Matsuo, H. & Ohara, S. (1960). Lateral earth pressure
and stability of quay walls during earthquakes. Proc.
z 2nd World Conf Earthquake engng, 165-187. Tokyo:
s Mononobe, N. & Matsuo, H. (1929). On the determi-
O-6 -
nation of earth pressure during earthquake. Proc.
World Engng Congress 9, 177-185.
Mononobe-Okabe Murphy, V. A. (1960). The effect of ground character-
istics on the aseismic design of structures. Proc. 2nd
World Con& Earthquake engng, 231-247. Tokyo:
Okabe, S. (1924). General theory of earth pressure and
seismic stability of retaining wall and dam. J. Japan
Ciu. Engng Sot., 10, No. 6, Dec.
Ortiz, L. A., Scott, R. F. & Lee, J. (1981). Dynamic cen-
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
trifuge testing of a cantilever retaining wall.
Dynamicmoment nxment 3~hi$H3
Research Report, Soil Mech Lab, CIT, Pasadena.
Fig. 12. Centrifuge test result of dynamic moment Richards, R. & Elma, D. G. (1979). Seismic behaviour of
increment (cp = 47’, 6 = 20”, k, = l&4%, fi = 20, gravity retaining walls. J. Geotech. Engng, Am. Sot.
G = 57 MPu, T = 1-Os) Ciu. Engrs 105, GT4, April, 449464.
112 STEEDMAN AND ZENG

Seed, H. B. & Whitman, R. V. (1970). Design of earth Steedman, R. S. (1983). Centrifuge earthquake data for
retaining structures for dynamic loads. ASCE Spec. retaining walls. Report CUED/D-SOILS TR139,
Co@ on Lateral stresses in the ground and the design Cambridge University Engng Dept.
of earth retaining structures, Cornell 103-147 New Steedman, R. S. (1984). Modelling the behaviour of
York: Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs. retaining walls in earthquakes. PhD Thesis, Cam-
Schofield, A. N. & Steedman, R. S. (1988). Recent devel- bridge University.
opment of dynamic model testing in geotechnical Steedman, R. S. & Bolton, M. D. (1990). Dynamic earth
engineering. Proc. 9th World Con& Earthquake pressure on retaining walls. Report in preparation,
engng, Tokyo-Kyoto, 2-9 August. Cambridge University Engng Dept.
Sim, L. C. (1979). Behaviour of retaining walls under Tajimi, H. (1973). Dynamic earth pressures on basement
seismic loading. Research Report 79-9, Dept Civ. wall. Proc. 5th World Conf: Earthquake engng 2,
Engng, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. 156G1569, Rome.