Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seismic Displacement of Gravity Retaining Walls: HBRC Journal
Seismic Displacement of Gravity Retaining Walls: HBRC Journal
HBRC Journal
http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj
KEYWORDS Abstract Seismic displacement of gravity walls had been studied using conventional static methods
Gravity walls; for controlled displacement design. In this study plain strain numerical analysis is performed using
Backll; Plaxis dynamic program where prescribed displacement is applied at the bottom boundary of the
Earthquakes; soil to simulate the applied seismic load. Constrained absorbent side boundaries are introduced
Numerical analysis; to prevent any wave reection. The studied soil is chosen dense granular sand and modeled as
Displacement design; elasto-plastic material according to MohrColumn criteria while the gravity wall is assumed elastic.
Limit design By comparing the resulted seismic wall displacements calculated by numerical analysis for six
historical ground motions with that calculated by the pseudo-static method, it is found that numer-
ical seismic displacements are either equal to or greater than corresponding pseudo-static values.
Permissible seismic wall displacement calculated by AASHTO can be used for empirical estimation
of seismic displacement. It is also found that seismic wall displacement is directly proportional with
the positive angle of inclination of the back surface of the wall, soil exibility and with the earth-
quake maximum ground acceleration. Seismic wall sliding is dominant and rotation is negligible for
rigid walls when the ratio between the wall height and the foundation width is less than 1.4, while
for greater ratios the wall becomes more exible and rotation (rocking) increases till the ratio
reaches 1.8 where overturning is susceptible to take place. Cumulative seismic wall rotation
increases with dynamic time and tends to be constant at the end of earthquake.
2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building National Research
Center.
relatively low-frequency ground motions (that is, motions less ratio is less than 0.25, neglect the ground amplication, if
than half of the natural frequency of the unconstrained back- the ratio is approximately 0.5, increase the peak acceleration
ll), which would include many or most earthquake problems. by 2530% and if the ratio is between 0.7 and 1.0, increase
Numerical analyses by nite element numerical model have amax and V (ground velocity) by 50%.
been developed for gravity walls found on dry sand (Al- Based on the previous literature survey the objective of the
Homoud and Whitman [7]) using two-dimensional (2D) nite present work is to carry out modied seismic numerical analy-
element computer code, FLEX. Dynamic analyses in FLEX sis for gravity retaining walls and comparing the resulted dis-
are performed using an explicit time integration technique placements with the corresponding values given by previous
(Green and Ebeling [8]). Other numerical models have been work, also to introduce an additional analysis for both active
developed using FLAC nite difference code. and limited passive earth pressure for the aim of reducing seis-
Gazetas et al. [9] applied numerical models using the com- mic wall displacement to be within the permissible values.
mercial nite-element package ABAQUS for two dimensional
plane-strain conditions. Pseudo-static analysis of gravity retaining walls
Displacement-based analysis considers the earthquake
motion vibrates with the backll soil, and the wall can easily Fig. 1 shows a sketch for a trapezoidal gravity retaining wall of
move from the original position due to this earthquake dimensions A, B and height H undergoing sliding and rocking
motion. The methods available for displacement based analy- displacement. The ground backll is inclined by angle b. The
sis of retaining structures during seismic conditions are based back surface of the wall is inclined by angle h with the vertical.
on the early work of Newmark [10], and Kramer [11]. The The sliding is represented by the translation from point 1 to 10
basic procedure was developed for evaluating the deformation while rocking of the wall is represented by the inclination angle
of an embankment dam shaken by earthquake based on the i with the vertical.
analogy of sliding block-on-a-plane. Richards and Elms [12] MononobeOkabe developed the total static and dynamic
model proposed the basic Newmarks model, developed origi- active coefcient of earth pressure acting on rigid retaining
nally for evaluation of seismic slope stability and modied it walls
for the design of gravity retaining walls.
Some guidelines for permissible displacement based on amax Kh g maximum ground acceleration 1
experience or judgment (Huang [13]) are used for the design
Kh and Kv are coefcients of horizontal and vertical ground
of retaining walls which failed during earthquakes by sliding
accelerations, Kv = 0 or half Kh.
away from the backll or due to combined action of sliding
and rocking displacements. Kh
w tan1 2
The permissible horizontal displacement according to 1 Kv
Eurocode [14] equals 300.amax (mm), while according to
The total active static and dynamic pressure on the back
AASHTO [15] it equals 250.amax (mm), where amax is the max-
surface of the wall is PAE
imum horizontal design acceleration.
Wu and Prakash [16] predict that permissible horizontal 1
displacement equals 0.02 H and the failure horizontal displace- PAE KAE H2 c1 Kv 3
2
ment equals 0.1 H, where H is the height of retaining wall.
JRA [17] suggested that the permissible differential settle- cos2 / h w
ment equals 0.10.2 m, and that the severe differential settle- KAE h qi2
sind; sin;bw
ment P0.2 m (damage needing long term retrot measures). cos w cos2 h cosd h w 1 cosdhw cosbh
Rafnsson and Prakash [18] developed a model for a rigid 4
wall resting on the foundation soil and subjected to a horizon-
tal ground motion and analyzed the problem as a case of com- ay N g
bined sliding and rocking vibrations including the effect of
various important parameters such as soil stiffness in sliding, PAE cosd h PAE sind h tan /b
tan /b g 5
soil stiffness in rocking, geometrical damping in sliding, geo- W
metrical damping in rocking, material damping in sliding,
where: ay = the critical or yield ground acceleration causing
and material damping in rocking. The cumulative displace-
sliding of the wall
ment of retaining walls due to combined sliding and rocking
for negative back slope of walls is smaller compared to the case
of vertical face or positive back slope.
Wu [19] lists the cumulative displacements for gravity walls
4 m to 10 m high walls with a typical granular backll sub-
jected to 3 earthquakes. He found that for 8 m high wall and
base width 4.6 m when subjected to El-Centro earthquake, it
undergoes 0.135 m sliding, 0.286 m rocking with total com-
bined displacement equals 0.42 m. The later value is greater
than the permissible displacement 300 amax = 0.349 300 -
mm = 0.104 m according to the Eurocode.
Nadim [20], Nadim and Whitman [21] recommended deter-
mining the frequency ratio between fundamental ground
motion (f) and fundamental frequency of backll (f1). If the Fig. 1 Seismic displacement of gravity retaining wall.
226 K.M.H.I. Ibrahim
0.32
Numerical wall sliding
0.28 Richard and Elms 12
0.2
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.04
0
El-centro Petrolli Shake Taft Topanga Trasure Yerba
Fig. 4 Comparison between numerical, pseudo-static and permissible sliding with vertical back surface acted upon by different historical
earthquakes.
Top wall seismic displacement (m)
0.30 0.15
Mohr-Column analysis Top seismic wall displacement (m) Zero foundation depth
0.20 Elastic analysis 2 m foundation depth
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.10 0.00
-0.20
-0.05
-0.30
-0.40 -0.10
0 10 20 30 40 50
Dynamic time (s) -0.15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fig. 5 Top wall displacement versus dynamic time in case of Dynamic time (s)
0.15 0.15
Seismic top wall displacement (m)
0.05 0.00
-0.05
0.00
-0.10
-0.05 -0.15
-0.10 -0.20
-0.25
-0.15
-0.30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.35
Dynamic time (s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Dynamic time (s)
Fig. 6 Effect of back wall inclination on seismic wall displace-
ment (El-Centro earthquake). Fig. 8 Effect of earthquake loading on top wall displacement.
0.15 0.26
Wall seismic displacement (m) Top wall disp.
0.24
0.10 Foundation wall disp. El-centro eathquake
displacement (m)
0.05
0.20
0.00
0.18
-0.05
0.16
-0.10 0.14
-0.15 0.12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04 7.E+04 8.E+04
Fig. 9 Top and foundation wall displacement distribution with Fig. 12 Effect of soil stiffness on maximum top wall
dynamic time for El-centro earthquake. displacement.
2.E-03
El-centro earthquake
Seismic wall rotation (degree)
0.10 E=20000kN/m2
E=40000kN/m2
0.05
0.00
Fig. 4 shows the numerical seismic sliding for 8 m high
gravity wall due to phase 2, the pseudo-static displacement cal-
-0.05 culated by Richard and Elms [12] and the permissible displace-
-0.10 ment given by ASSHTO [15]. It is noticed that numerical
seismic wall displacements in case of Petrolli and Shake earth-
-0.15
quakes are nearly equal to those calculated by the pseudo-sta-
-0.20 tic method. In case of El-centro, Taft, Topanga, Treasure and
Yerba earthquakes the numerical seismic wall displacements
-0.25
are greater than the corresponding pseudo-static method. Per-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Dynamic time (s) missible displacements of El-centro and Taft earthquakes are
nearly equal to the corresponding numerical ones, except Pet-
Fig. 11 Effect of soil stiffness on top wall displacement under El- rolli, Shake, Treasure and Yerba earthquakes their permissible
centro earthquake. displacements are relatively smaller. Permissible displacements
only depend on maximum ground acceleration and does not
ments calculated using pseudo-static methods for other earth- consider soil properties, earthquake velocity, soil damping
quakes are shown in Fig. 4. and earthquake fundamental frequency but other methods
It is noticed that if the ground acceleration is nearly equal include.
to or less than the yield acceleration (1.68 m/s2) of the gravity Fig. 5 shows both elastic and elasto-plastic top wall seismic
wall as in case of Taft, Treasure and Yerba earthquakes, the displacement under effect of Petroli earthquake. It is noticed
resulted seismic displacement is nearly zero. that the maximum elastic displacement is 0.2 m while the elas-
to-plastic displacement is 0.33 m.
Numerical wall displacement Fig. 6 shows that for vertical back wall gravity wall the
maximum top displacement is 0.09 m while for inclined back
The static active wall displacement resulted from phase 1 is wall (20.6o ) the maximum top displacement is 0.13 m under
uniform and equals 5.3 103 m for crest and foundation effect of El-centro earthquake at the 23 second. This may be
displacement. due to additional soil mass acting on the inclined back wall.
Seismic displacement of gravity retaining walls 229
Fig. 7 show that 2 m foundation depth reduces the maxi- - In the study, for rigid gravity walls having H/B less than 1.4
mum top displacement from 0.133 m to 0.09 m under effect seismic sliding is dominant while wall rotation is nearly
of El-Centro earthquake. Passive resistance reduces the seismic zero. For greater ratios, the wall becomes more exible
wall displacement. and its rotation increases till overturning and failure takes
Fig. 8 shows the top wall displacement distribution under place.
effect of Taft and Petrolia earthquake for inclined positive
back slope gravity wall. The maximum ground accelerations Conict of interest
are 1.81 and 4.13 m/s2 while the corresponding maximum
top wall displacements are -0.076 and 0.33 m at 55.6 s and None declared.
26.7 s respectively. It is noticed that Taft earthquake total
duration is 66 s and causes residual plastic top wall displace-
ment about -0.03 m while in case of Petroli earthquake the References
residual plastic end displacement is about -0.19 m. The nal
permanent seismic wall displacement is directly proportional [1] N. Mononobe, H. Matuo, On the determination of earth
pressures during earthquakes, Proc. World Engrg. Congr.,
to the maximum ground acceleration.
Tokyo, Japan 1929, 9, paper (388).
Fig. 9 shows the top and foundation wall displacement dis- [2] S. Okabe, General theory of earth pressure and seismic stability
tribution with dynamic time for El-centro earthquake. The of retaining wall and dam, J. Japan Soc. Civ. Engrs., Tokyo,
maximum top wall displacement is 0.133 m occurs at 23.75 sec- Japan 1924, 12(1).
onds while the corresponding foundation displacement is [3] D. Choudhury, K.S. Subba Rao, S. Ghosh, Passive earth pressure
0.095 m. The difference between both displacements divided distribution under seismic condition, 15th Eng. Mechanics
by the wall height represents the wall seismic rotation angle Conference of ASCE, Columbia University, New York, 2002.
as shown in Fig. 10. [4] P. Ortigosa, Seismic earth pressure including soil cohesion, the
Fig. 10 shows the cumulative seismic wall rotation for both 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
El-centro and Petroli earthquakes. The seismic wall rotation Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, 2005.
[5] R.S. Steedman, X. Zeng, The inuence of phase on the
increases gradually with dynamic time and reaches its peak
calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall,
value at end of the earthquake. Geotechnique 40 (1) (1990) 103112.
Fig. 11 shows the seismic top wall displacement with [6] A.S. Veletsos, A.H. Younan, Dynamic modelling and response
dynamic time for three granular soils with youngs modulus of soil-wall systems, J. Geotech. Engrg. ASCE 120 (12) (1994B)
20000, 40000 and 80000 kN/m2. It is noticed that the seismic 21552179.
wall displacement decreases as soil youngs modulus increase. [7] A.S. Al-Homoud, R.V. Whitman, Seismic analysis and design of
Fig. 12, shows that the maximum corresponding seismic rigid bridge abutment considering rotation and sliding incorporating
top wall displacements are 0.236, 0.166 and 0.133 m non-linear soil behaviour, Soil Dynam. Eng. (1999) 247277.
respectively. [8] R.A. Green, R.M. Ebeling, Modelling the dynamic response of
Fig. 13 shows the effect of increasing wall height with cantilever earth-retaining walls using FLAC, Numeric. Model.
Geomech. (2003).
respect to footing breadth. The maximum top wall displace-
[9] G. Gazetas, P. Psarropoulos, I. Anastasopoulos, N. Gerolymos,
ment increases with increasing the wall height. For H/b less Seismic behaviour of exible retaining systems subjected to short
than 1.4 the wall behaves as a rigid body and sliding is domi- duration moderately-strong excitation, Soil Dynam. Earthqu.
nant while rotation is nearly zero. For H/B greater than 1.4 Eng. 25 (2005) 537550.
and less than 1.6 the wall becomes more exible and wall rota- [10] N.N. Newmark, Effect of earthquakes on dams and
tion increases. For H/B equals 1.8 represents the maximum embankments, Geotechnique 15 (2) (1965) 139160.
wall seismic displacement and beyond that it is noticed that [11] S.L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-
overturning failure takes place. Hall, New Jersey, 1996, pp. 466505.
[12] R. Richard, D.G. Elms, Seismic behaviour of gravity retaining
walls, J. Geotec. Engrg. ASCE (1979) 105 (GT4).
Conclusion
[13] Chin-Chan Huang, Seismic displacement of soil retaining walls
situated on slope, J. Geotechn. Geo-Environ. Eng. ASCE 31 (9)
- Some numerical seismic displacements for studied historical
(2005) 11081117.
ground motions are nearly equal to those calculated by the [14] EUROCODE 8 (European pre-standard), Design Provisions for
pseudo-static method and others are relatively greater. Earthquake Resistance of Structures-Part 5: Foundations
- Permissible seismic wall displacement calculated by Retaining Structures and Geotechnical Aspects, The
AASHTO [15] can be used for empirical displacement esti- Commission of the European Communities, 1994.
mation as it depends only on maximum ground accelera- [15] American Association of State Highway and Transportation
tion and does not consider the effect of soil stiffness, Ofcials, Standard Specications for Highway Bridges,
earthquake fundamental frequency and dynamic time. (AASHTO) Sections 3 and 7, 2002.
- Gravity retaining walls with inclined positive back slope [16] Y. Wu, S. Prakash, Effect of submergence on seismic displacement
surface undergoes greater total sliding and rocking dis- of rigid walls, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 1999
Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 1163, 1999.
placements than vertical back walls due to increase in mass
[17] JRA, Seismic Design Specications and Construction of
and inertia horizontal force of backll. highway Bridges, Japan Road Association, 1996.
- The cumulative seismic wall rotation increases gradually [18] E.A. Rafnsson, S. Prakash, Stiffness and damping parameters
with dynamic time and reaches maximum at the end of for dynamic analysis of retaining walls, in: Proc. Of 2nd
earthquake. International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
- Increase in soil exibility increases too much the seismic Earthquake Eng. and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis MO, 1991, vol.
wall displacement. 3, pp. 19432952.
230 K.M.H.I. Ibrahim
[19] Y. Wu, Displacement-based analysis and design of rigid [21] F. Nadim, R.V. Whitman, Coupled sliding and tilting of gravity
retaining walls to real earthquakes, PhD. Dissertation, Uni of retaining walls, J. Geot. Eng. Divis. ASDCE 109 (7) (1983) 915
Missouri-Rolla, 1999. 931.
[20] F. Nadim, A numerical model for evaluation of seismic [22] Plaxis 2D Version 8, R.B.J. Brinkgreve (Ed.), Delft University
behaviour of gravity retaining walls, ScD Thesis, Department of Technology & Plaxis b.v., Netherland, P.O. Box 572, 2600
of Civil Eng., M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, 1982. AN DELFT, Netherlands.