GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

2010 - 2011

Fabrice EMERIAULT
GENERAL OUTLINE

Introduction

Elements of engineering seismology

Cyclic and dynamic behaviour of soils

Liquefaction of soils

Seismic behaviour of retaining walls

Seismic slope stability and design of earth dams

Seismic behaviour of foundations

Seismic behaviour of buried structures

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF
RETAINING WALLS
SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RETAINING WALLS

Introduction

Pseudo-static approach

Yielding walls

Mononobe – Okabe approach

Effect of water

Estimation of permanent displacements

Non-yielding walls
INTRODUCTION

During earthquakes, forces applied to the retaining wall
include:

Static loading: gravity, active and passive pressures

Transient dynamic pressures: active and passive

Inertial forces

Equilibrium of the wall must be checked under these

loadings

Permanent displacement may also be determined

Same type of analysis with walls of buried infrastructures

(underground parking for example) but without permanent
movements
Failure of a retaining wall
(Taiwan 1999)
PSEUDO-STATIC APPROACH
PSEUDO-STATIC APPROACH

Considers that the earthquake loading can be
represented by additional static:

Vertical acceleration ± σv g

Horizontal acceleration σh g

French code PS92 proposes:

σh = k τ aN/g

σv = 0.4 or 0.3 σh

k depends on the amplitude of the

possible displacement of the wall

τ depends on the topography
PSEUDO-STATIC APPROACH

Considered accelerations can be low compared to
the actual maximum earthquake ground
acceleration

Accelerations depend on the seismic zone and on
the type of structure (according to PS92)
Seismic A B C D
zones
0
Ia 1 1.5 2
Ib 1.5 2 2.5
II 2.5 3 3.5
III 3.5 4 4.5
PSEUDO-STATIC APPROACH

Coefficient k depends on the amplitude of possible
movements and on the site (according to PS92)

Type of retaining wall S1 S2 S3 σv / σh

Yielding walls (gravity walls) 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.4
Non-yielding walls
(buried infrastructures walls)
- AFPS 90 1 1 1 0.3
- PS92 1.3 1.15 0.4
Anchored walls 1.5 2 2.5
PSEUDO-STATIC APPROACH

The sign of the additional vertical acceleration
depend on the considered failure mechanism:

+ for overturning
+ for soil bearing capacity
- for sliding along the base

Use of the different static failure criteria to check

the stability of the wall

Do not forget to add the inertial force to the wall
itself !
YIELDING WALLS
YIELDING WALLS

By definition, the yielding walls will move during EQ and
active and passive limit states can develop.

Stability analysis (Ultimate Limit State):

The main issue is to determine the induced total active

pressure on the wall and its point of application

The induced passive pressure has sometimes to be also
determined

The specific problem of water should be carefully
analysed

Permanent induced displacements (Serviceability Limit

State)
MONONOBÉ – OKABÉ APPROACH

Active pressure

Directly derives from the Coulomb approach (and
subsequent theoretical developments)

Illustration with a linear failure line but more advanced
mechanisms (Caquot Kerisel) can be adopted
 1 2

In the static case: Pas = γ L K as
2
−2
cos (φ − λ ) 
2
sin(φ +δ ) sin(φ − β ) 
with K as = 1+ 
cos(δ + λ )  cos(δ +λ ) cos( β −λ ) 

γ L (1 ± σ v ) K ad
1 2

In the dynamic case: Pad =
2
−2
cos2 (φ − λ − θ )  sin(φ +δ ) sin(φ − β −θ ) 
with K ad = 1+ 
cos θ cos(δ + λ + θ )  cos(δ +λ +θ ) cos( β −λ ) 

Point of application (for moment calculations)

Pad = γ L (1 ± σ v ) K ad = Pas + ∆Pad

1 2

Total active force:
2
1 2

Static active force: Pas = γ L K as
2

Point of application: H/3

γ L [(1 ± σ v ) K ad − K as ]
1 2

Dynamic force: = −
∆Pad Pad Pas =
2

Point of application: between 0.6 and 2/3 of H

16

Passive pressure

Same approach as for the active pressure

γ L (1 ± σ v ) K pd
1 2

Total passive force: P pd =
2
−2
cos (φ + λ − θ ) 
2
sin(φ +δ ) sin(φ + β −θ ) 

With K pd = 1− 
cos θ cos(δ − λ + θ )  cos(δ −λ +θ ) cos( β −λ ) 

Static passive force: P ps

Point of application: H/3

Dynamic force: ∆P pd = P pd − P ps

Point of application: 2/3H
17

Be careful !

negative force (passive pressure arereduced dur to EQ)
EFFECT OF WATER

Saturated soils can be observed behind certain retaining
walls (quay walls for example)

The soil can be permeable or « impervious »:

Impervious: during EQ, water and soil will move in the
same way
Restrained pore pressure conditions

Permeable: during EQ, water and soil will have
different movements
Free pore pressure conditions
+ Hydrodynamic effects

Water can also be present in front of the wall (quay wall)»:

Hydrodynamic effects must be considered

Restrained pore pressure conditions

Unsaturated soil:

Apply the Mononobé-Okabé approach with the apparent
unit weight γ

Saturated soil:

Divide the total active force in 2 contributions:

Water: simply consider the hydrostatic pressure (no

hydrodynamic effect) but with a rotation θ2

Soil skeleton: apply the Mononobé-Okabé approach with
the buoyant unit weight γ’ = γsat - γw

Unsaturated
soil
Water table

Saturated
soil

Free pore pressure conditions (saturated soil)

Divide the total active force in 3 contributions:

1 - Water: hydrostatic pressure with a rotation θ2

2 - Water: hydrodynamic effect with a rotation θ2
but only 70 % of the Westergaard’s theory
to account for the non-simultaneity of soil
and water movements
q( z ) = 0.6 γ w σ h hz

3 - Soil skeleton: apply the Mononobé-Okabé approach

with the buoyant unit weight γ’ = γsat - γw

Unsaturated soil

Water table

Saturated
soil

Hydrodynamic effects

In the case of water outboard of wall (quay walls for example)

Negative pressure !!!

Hydronamic effects according to Westergaard theory:

7

Pressure distribution: q( z ) = γ w σ h hz
8
7

Total force: Q= γ w σ h h2
12
Water level

Point of application: 0.6 h
ESTIMATION OF PERMANENT
DISPLACEMENTS

Richards-Elms method (1979)
2 3
v max a max

Permanent horizontal displacement: d perm = 0.087 4
ay

With ay yield acceleration such that sliding occurs along the

base of the wall ( T = N tan φ )

T = F h + (Pad )h
with (Pad )v
N = W + (Pad )v
(Pad )h
NON-YIELDING WALLS
NON-YIELDING WALLS

Corresponds to the case of buried infrastructures such as
underground parking

No possible movements: the full active or passive pressures
can not be mobilized

Induced active pressure will therefore be larger (from 50
to 100 %) than the theoretical value corresponding to
possible movements

Total active force should be:

Pad = γ H (1 ± σ v )(K ad + K 0 − K as ) = Pas + ∆Pad

1 2
2

With K0 at rest earth pressure coefficient ( K 0 = 1 − sin φ ) for
normally consolidated soils

1

And Pas = γ H 2 K0
2
γ H 2 [(1 ± σ v )(K ad + K 0 − K as ) − K 0]
1
∆Pad =
2

Simplified approach
in PS92:

Pad = γ H (1 ± σ v ) K ad
1 2
2

Effect of water: restrained pore pressure
conditions

Water: hydrostatic pressure

Soil skeleton:

Apply the Mononobé-Okabé approach with the buoyant

unit weight γ’ = γsat – γw

Force applied at H/2

Water level