Geotechnical Earthquake

Engineering
by
Dr. Deepankar Choudhury
Humboldt Fellow, JSPS Fellow, BOYSCAST Fellow
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India.
Email: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in
URL: http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/~dc/

Lecture – 37
 Module – 9

Seismic Analysis and

Design of Various
Geotechnical Structures
IIT Bombay, DC 2
Seismic Design of
Retaining Wall

IIT Bombay, DC 3
 Model proposed by Nimbalkar and Choudhury (2008) for
Seismic Design of Retaining Wall considering wall-soil inertia

Active earth pressure condition

Nimbalkar, S. and Choudhury, D. (2008), “Seismic design of retaining wall considering wall-soil inertia for
active case”, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2(4), pp. 319-328.
 Proposed Design Factors for Retaining Wall
by Nimbalkar and Choudhury (2008)
K ae
Soil thrust factor, FT
Ka

CIE (t )
Wall inertia factor, FI
CIa

cos sin tan b Qhw (t ) Qvw (t ) tan b

where, CIE (t )
tan b Pae (t ) tan b

cos sin tan b

CIa
tan b

Ww (t )
Combined dynamic factor, Fw FT FI
Ww

D. Choudhury, IITB
 Typical Variation of Soil thrust factor FT,
Wall inertia factor FI and Combined dynamic factor Fw
6 0 0
kv=0.5kh, = 30 , = 15 , H/TVs= 0.3, H/TVp= 0.16,
H/TVsw=0.012, H/TVpw=0.0077
5
Combined dynamic factor FW
Wall inertia factor FI
4
Factors FW,FI, FT

Soil thrust factor FT

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
kh

D. Choudhury, IITB Nimbalkar and Choudhury (2008)

 Comparison of Soil thrust factor FT, Wall inertia factor FI
and Combined Dynamic Factor Fw
Present study Richards and Elms (1979)
kh kv
FT FI FW FT FI FW

0.0 0.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.1 0.00 1.231 1.517 1.868 1.221 1.209 1.476

0.05 1.137 1.812 2.060 1.234 1.287 1.588

0.10 1.043 2.160 2.253 1.248 1.376 1.718

0.00 1.527 1.834 2.800 1.500 1.530 2.295

0.2 0.10 1.371 2.347 3.217 1.572 1.806 2.840

0.20 1.256 2.928 3.676 1.669 2.205 3.681

0.00 1.922 1.994 3.832 1.866 2.082 3.885

0.3
0.15 1.892 2.464 4.662 2.114 3.027 6.400

0.4 0.00 2.493 2.021 5.039 2.382 3.255 7.753

0.5 0.00 3.500 1.909 6.683 3.223 7.464 24.059

D. Choudhury, IITB Nimbalkar and Choudhury (2008)

 Model proposed by Nimbalkar and Choudhury (2007) for
Seismic Design of Retaining Wall considering wall-soil inertia

Passive earth pressure condition

Nimbalkar, S. and Choudhury, D. (2007), “Sliding stability and seismic design of retaining wall by pseudo-dynamic
method for passive case”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27(6), pp. 495-505.
 Proposed Design Factors for Retaining Wall
by Nimbalkar and Choudhury (2007)

K ae , pe
FT
Ka, p

CIE (t )
FI
CIa , Ip

cos sin tan b

CIa , Ip
tan b

Ww (t )
Fw FT FI
Ww

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

 Variation of soil passive resistance factor FT, wall inertia
factor FI and combined dynamic factor Fw

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7
Factors FW,FI, FT

0.6
FW-Present study
0.5
FI-Present study
0.4 FT-Present study
0.3

0.2
0 0
kv=0.5kh, = 30 , = 15 , H/TVs= 0.3, H/TVp= 0.16
0.1
H/TVsw=0.012, H/TVpw=0.0086
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
kh

D. Choudhury, IITB Nimbalkar and Choudhury (2007)

 Pseudo-dynamic Method in
Displacement –based analysis
• Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2007) proposed pseudo-dynamic
method to compute the seismic rotational displacements of retaining
wall for passive earth pressure condition. (Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engg,, 2007)

Pseudo-dynamic forces acting on Variation of rotational displacement (θ)

soil–wall system for rotational stability with kh
Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. (2007). Seismic rotational displacement of gravity walls by pseudo-
dynamic method: Passive case. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 27, 242–249. 11
 Provisions in Design Codes
• Indian Design Code
– IS 1893 - Part 5 (1984), provides information regarding
earthquake resistant design for retaining wall for active and
passive case. Use of M-O method.
– Point of application at mid-height for dynamic component.
– Pseudo-static is used, which excludes the deformation criteria.

IS 1893, Indian Standard Criteria for

Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures. Part 5 (fourth revision),
1984.

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India 12

 Codal Provisions
 Indian Design Code
 As per IS 1893 - Part 5 (1984), active earth pressure
exerted against wall can be,
Pa = (1/2) W. H2 Ca
 where Ca is given by,
2

(1 v ) cos 2 ( ) 1
Ca 1
cos cos 2 cos( )
sin( ) sin( i ) 2
1
cos( i ) cos( )

where,αv vertical seismic coefficient - its direction being taken

consistently throughout the stability analysis of wall and equal to (1/2)
αh, where αh horizontal seismic coefficient.

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India 13

 Codal Provisions
• Indian Design Code
• IS 1893 - Part 5 (1984), passive earth pressure exerted against wall
can be,
Pp = (1/2) W. H2 Cp
• where Cp is given by,

(1 v ) cos 2 ( ) 1
Cp 1
cos cos 2 cos( )
sin( ) sin( i ) 2
1
cos( i ) cos( )

where f is soil friction angle, δ friction angle for soil and wall

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India 14

 Provisions in Design Codes
• European Design Code
– Eurocode 8 (2003) explains the design of structures for
earthquake resistance, wherein part 5 explains the procedure
for foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects.

– It is based on pseudo-static method and follows displacement

(for translation and rocking mode) based approach given by
Richards and Elms (1979).

– Eurocode 8 (2003) highlights guidelines to take into account

values of kh and kv in absence of any study.

Eurocode 8, EN 1998, Design provisions for

earthquake resistance of structures. 2003.
D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India 15
 Codal Provisions
• Eurocode 8 (2003)
– It mentions that, in the absence of specific studies, the
horizontal (kh) and vertical (kv) seismic coefficients affecting all
the masses shall be taken as-

S
kh ,
r
kv 0.5kh , if a vg /a g is larger than 0.6
kv = 0.33kh , otherwise

where, kh and kv are seismic horizontal and vertical coefficients, α ratio of the
design ground acceleration on type A ground, ag, to the acceleration of gravity
g, avg is design ground acceleration in the vertical direction, ag is design ground
acceleration on type A ground.

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India 16

 Provisions in Design Codes

• International Building Code

– IBC (2006) categorizes sites into categories namely A, B, C, D,
E, F based on soil profile, shear wave velocity, SPT values and
undrained shear strength values.
– Based on that, the design seismic category should be selected.
– It mentions that retaining walls shall be designed to ensure
stability against overturning, sliding, excessive foundation
pressure and water uplift.

International Building Code (2006),

INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, INC.

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India 17

 Seismic Design of
Waterfront Retaining Wall

IIT Bombay, DC 18
 Applications on Waterfront Retaining Wall / Seawall
-A soil retaining armoring structure, generally massive
- To defend a shoreline against wave attack
-Designed primarily to resist wave action along high value
coastal property

(source: www.mojosballs.com/main.htm)

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

 Available Literature
On Earthquake
On Tsunami/Hydrodynamics
Mononobe-Okabe (1926, 1929)
Madhav and Kameswara Rao (1969) Westergaard (1933)
Richards and Elms (1979) Fukui et al. (1962)
Saran and Prakash (1979) Ebeling and Morrison (1992)
Prakash (1981) Mizutani and Imamura (2001)
Nadim and Whitman (1983) CRATER (2006)
Steedman and Zeng (1990) And few others……
Ebeling and Morrison (1992)
Das (1993)
Kramer (1996)
Kumar (2002)
Choudhury and Subba Rao (2005)
Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)
And many others…………..

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

 Design Solutions for Waterfront Retaining Walls (Sea
Walls) subjected to both Earthquake and Tsunami

(1) For Tsunami attacking the wall (passive case)

(a) Against Sliding mode of failure

(b) Against Overturning mode of failure

(2) For Tsunami receding away from wall (active case)

(a) Against Sliding mode of failure

(b) Against Overturning mode of failure

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay

 Case 1(a): Passive Case – Pseudo-static

CRATER (2006)

Combined effects of tsunami and earthquake

On rigid waterfront retaining wall

Choudhury, D. and Ahmad, S. M. (2007) in Applied Ocean Research, Elsevier, U.K., Vol. 29, 37-44.
 Case 1(a): Passive Case – Pseudo-static (Results)

Factor of safety
against sliding

Factor of safety
against overturning

Choudhury, D. and Ahmad, S. M. (2007) in Applied Ocean Research, Elsevier, U.K., Vol. 29, 37-44.
 Design solutions proposed by Choudhury and Ahmad (2007)

Factor of Safety against Sliding Failure:

Factor of Safety against Overturning Failure:

Choudhury, D. and Ahmad, S. M. (2007) in Ocean Engineering, Elsevier, U.K., Vol. 34(14-15), 1947-1954.
 Typical Results by Choudhury and Ahmad (2007)

Factor of Safety against Sliding

Factor of Safety against Overturning

Choudhury, D. and Ahmad, S. M. (2007) in Ocean Engineering, Elsevier, U.K., Vol. 34(14-15), 1947-1954.
Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining Wall using
Pseudo-Dynamic Method

Ahmad and Choudhury (2008)

ah(z, t) = {1 + (H – z).(fa – 1)/H}ah sin [ {t – (H – z)/Vs}]
av(z, t) = {1 + (H – z).(fa – 1)/H}av sin [ {t – (H – z)/Vp}]
 Active Case with Pseudo-dynamic method

Forces acting on typical seawall subjected to

earthquake and tsunami (active case)
Choudhury and Ahmad (2008) in Jl. of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engg., ASCE, Vol. 134, 252-260.
 Typical Result of Factor of Safety against Sliding

Ahmad and Choudhury (2008)

Ahmad, S. M. and Choudhury, D. (2008) in Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, Singapore, Vol. 2(2), 107-131.
 Comparison of Results

Choudhury and Ahmad (2008)

Choudhury and Ahmad (2008) in Jl. of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engg., ASCE, Vol. 134, 252-260.
 Seismic Design of
Reinforced Soil-Wall

IIT Bombay, DC 30
 Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil – Structure as Multiple Engineering
Application for Earthquake Resistant Earthen Structures
D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India
 A week after the 1995 Kobe Earthquake

GRS RW for a rapid

transit at Tanata

The wall survived!

Ref: Tatsuoka (2010)
24 Jan. 1995
 Typical Design of Earthquake Resistant
Reinforced Soil-Wall (Internal Stability)

Nimbalkar et al. (2006)

Nimbalkar, S.S., Choudhury, D. and Mandal, J.N. (2006), in Geosynthetics International, ICE London, 13(3), 111-119.
 Typical Design of Earthquake Resistant
Reinforced Soil-Wall (Internal Stability)

For H = 5 m, = 300

Reinforcement strength and length required as per Nimbalkar et al. (2006)

Nimbalkar, S.S., Choudhury, D. and Mandal, J.N. (2006), in Geosynthetics International, ICE London, 13(3), 111-119.
 Comparison of Results

Nimbalkar et al. (2006)

Nimbalkar, S.S., Choudhury, D. and Mandal, J.N. (2006), in Geosynthetics International, ICE London, 13(3), 111-119.
 Typical Design of Earthquake Resistant
Reinforced Soil-Wall (External Stability)

Sliding stability

Choudhury et al. (2007) Overturning stability

Choudhury, D., Nimbalkar, S.S., and Mandal, J.N. (2007), in Geosynthetics International, ICE London, 14(4), 211-218.
 Typical Design of Earthquake Resistant
Reinforced Soil-Wall (External Stability)

Length of Reinforcement for

Sliding stability Length of Reinforcement for
Choudhury et al. (2007) Overturning stability
Choudhury, D., Nimbalkar, S.S., and Mandal, J.N. (2007), in Geosynthetics International, ICE London, 14(4), 211-218.
 Comparison of Results

Choudhury et al. (2007)

Choudhury, D., Nimbalkar, S.S., and Mandal, J.N. (2007), in Geosynthetics International, ICE London, 14(4), 211-218.