) '}

i
40 RETAINING STRUctuREs ANALYSIS ANO OESIGN LARGE GRAVITYWALLSROTÁTION
1
4\
I
I

acceleration based on average values for fhe various rnction angles, and is de¡'\oted as N following Coulomb, described in detail by Ebeling and Morrison (1992). The key
in the original reference. The units are in/sec for V and ftlsec2 for A, as for Equation 1. assumptionsin this analysisare that: '
i
In this analysis, an allowance for rotation of the wall, contributing to outward a) the wall can be considered as rigid, rotating abovt its outer edge or comer;
movement, was made based on earlier work by Nadim (1980) which suggested that b) the soil behind the wall behaves in a rigid-plastic manner, such that the soil
permanent outward movement ofwalls wruch could tilt may be ofthe order of 50% follows. the wall movement outwards, but prevents inward movement;
greater than for walls which were constrained to slide only. Whitman and Liao c) stresses within the wall and the foundation do nÓt lead to local failure;
concluded that this aspect ofwall behaviour, ie. tilting or rocking, is poorly understood d) vertical accelerations are ignored;. i
and should be the subject of further (centrifuge) model testing and analysis. (The e) rotations are small, ie. errors associated with small changes of geometry can be
Whitman and Liao prediction is compared against data ofrocking walls below.) ignored.' I
:

However, depending on the wall geometry and characteristics, rotation of a
gravity wall may be the critiCa!mode ofbehaviour, 'iriggered'before a sliding threshold'
is reached. In this respect, the use of the sliding mechanism is inappropriate to estimate
the rotational displacement. This paper describes the application of the principIes of a
Newmark approach to the calculation of rocking displacement, ie. the permanent
element of a rotational mode ofbehaviour.
A gravity retaining wall subject to lateral accelerat!on but prevented from sliding
can nevertheless deforIDin a variety of modes.. The wall Clinrotate about its foundation,
if this is not rigid; or it can deform in bending or shear'¡ or it can rock, which will be :
initiated when tre overturning moments exceed the'rightihg moments and provided that
the stress state in the interior of the wall and in the foJndation is acceptable. For the
purposes of this analysis, then, rocking can be definbd as a permanent rotational
movement of: the wall, analagous to sliding, which! would represent permanent
translationalmovement. I

As the 'lateral acceleration is increased, the hori10ntal inertia force on the wall
and the dynamic earth pressure force create an ovetituming moment,sufficient to
overcome the restoring moment created by the wall self-weight. This acceleration is
defined as th~ threshold accelerationin rotation N, =1 lb g, which can be found by
H iterationfrommomentequilibrium
: :
, I

5 , I
Yc h N, M Yc + PAE COS (0+13) li = M g Xc + PAE sin ~o+P) ( B- li sin 13) (4)

The equation ofmotion for the wall is then (tJngI moments about Point O) :

.
'

.. B (5)
R 2.Mo = -YcM(ac).+xcM(acVlcé
Xc
Fig. 1 Rocking of a monolithic wall where le is the polar moment ofinertia ofthe wall, !le is the acceleration ofthe centroid
and é is the angular acceleration ofrotation about Poin~ O. At the centro id ofthe wall,
Rocking Displacement the acceleration has three components, one due to the lateral ground acceleration Ilg, and
one due to the rotation of the structure and the third du¿ to the centrifugal acceleration
Fig.l shows the forces acting on a rigid monolithic gravity retaining wall founded ofthe wall. Expressed vectorially:
on a rigid base at the point of rocking. Considering the imposition of a lateral
acceleration field as pseudo-static, D' Alembert's principie creates a body force opposed
to the direction of the lateral acceleration field, which affects the wall, the ground and
the retained soj(o'The total lateral force on the wall from the soil, P AF., is conventionally
calculated pseudo-statically using the well-known Mononobe-Okabe formulation
ac = a: + (~ x e) - úi ~ (6)
 , ?

') )
I..ARGE GRAVITY WALLS ROTATION 43
42 tmAINING STRUC11JRESANALYSIS AND DESIGN

where ~
~tf¡e vectgr fi"°fIlPoint 0 to the centroid and m is the angulan'..ei~ ef the
Solving for the rotatiónal acceleration e and integrating gives the velocity and
wal1. Thetefore : displacement as :

P AE cos (1'>+13)h -M g xe - P AE sin (1'>+13)(B - h sin 13)

e = 0.21 radlsec2
(7) é =e + é (O)= 0.21 t
=M re2 é -M ag Ye + le é (10)
6 = 6 (O)+ é (O)( + é2t2 = 0.105 (2
from which é can be det~rmined. The velocity of rotation is then givell.by :

For t = 0.5 seconds,6= 1.50. At this point, the lateral acceleration fails below
t
the threshold again, and grávity slow$ the rotational velocity to zero. Equation (9) is
é = fo é dt for é > O (8) reemployed to compute t,he I1ew rotational acceleration e = -0.543 radlsec2(constant
in this simple example as II¡ = O for t > 0.5 sec) which deccelerates the wall until the
=O for é 5 O ratationalvelocityreacheszero at time tI>when: '

é = é (0.5) - 0.543( ti - 0,5 ) =O (11)

and the 'displacement can be ca\culated simply by integrating the velocity over time. On
this basis the model assumes that the rocking displacement starts to accumulate once the
threshold acceleration is exceeded and continues accumulating until the rotational
giving ti = 0.693 seconds, and a maximum rotation angle of:
velocity becomes zero again, which will occur some time after the ground acceleration
has fallen below the threshold in rocking.
!
1; 6 = 6 (0.5) + é (0.5) ( ti - 0.5 ) + ~2 ( 6.5
,
) ( ti - 0.5 )2 = 2.09° (\2)
Model Behaviour

:~or clarity, t~e model is here demonstrated by application to a single pulse of

acceleration which rises instantly to a value ofO.5g, remains constant for 0.5 seconds After t = tI> the model would predict, that the w<ill should start to rolate
backwards into the soil. This moment is interpreted as the instant at which permanent
and th~n¡reduces instantly again to zero. outward mQvernent ceases and the wall and soil '<;ontim.¡eto follow the ground motion
!i
iGonsider the case of a rectangular mass concrete wall founded on a rigid elastically, until thelateral acceleratiólI once agltin exceeds the outward threshold for
founda~ion (as Fig.1 with P =0). Using sample data ofH = lO m, B = 5 m, Ye= 24
rocking. :
I
, l'
kN/m3[ for concrete; y, = 16 kN/IÍI for soil, 0= 20° and <1>
= 40° and adopting the
Unlike the sliding mechanism postulate~ by Newmark, which can effectively
MonOllobe-Okabe solution, P ÁEis simply expressed as :
i:
I
isolate the slipping blockfrom the plane beneath, the rocking model continues to

PAE
:: 1 2" . tranSmitlateral accelerations through the 'pin' ¡ntd the wall. Elastic deflections may then
be expected to be superimposed onto th~ permanent plastic movement predicted by the
! 1 "2 KAE YsfI
"
= 8~0 KAE klV/m :, model throughout the period of rocking, as wil\ be shown below in an exarnination of
, ,
¡ modeldata. !

j
and b' ¡te~ation, assuming the dynamic earth force acts at H/3 above the base, the Validation ofthe model
thres~lq in,rQt4tioncan be cal<julatedas N, = 0.38~ . Rearranging Equation (7), noting i
13= OI!np substituting for x" =B/2, Ye= H/2 and h = H/3 gives:
'1
I!
¡
."
'.' " .'H B. H
Centrifuge tests of a monolithic concret~ wall have,been carried out following
(9) well established principies for dynamic modelling, Schofield (1981), Schofield and
.( Ml"c'l +le) é =,PAE cosi 1'> - - M g - - PAE SIn 1'>B+ M a - Steedman (1988), using the Equivalent Shear Beam model container, ieng and
l' "
: 3 2 g 2
Schofield (1996) and the Bumpy Road earthquake actuator at the Cambridge
l'. I
Geotechnical Centrifuge Centre. The model wall was constructed fram three micro-
.: 'rhe polar moment ofinertia about the centroid, le = Ix + Iy = BH(B2+W)pI12.
concrete blocks laid on top of each other to represent cracked construction joints. A
¡I '

!j
! j
l'
"
l.

! ¡
i
 ) )
44 RETAINÍNG STROc'itrRts ANALYSIS AND DESIGN LARGE GRAVITY WALLS ~OTATION ,45

thin ribbon of glue along the tront (outi) eEigeof the blocks was used to provide a shear this was taken into account in the prediction of t~e threshold acceleration and the
connection, preventing sliding movement aJildtherefore constraining the wall to rock outward movement as this has an important influence on the rocking model. A second
ocl~ . factor also accounted for in the model was the ampIlfication in the soil, which reduced
from 1.82,in earthquake I (EQI) to 1.18 in EQ5j probably related to densification
44.8 m
~ .. (noted above). '

24.0m
Earthquake Peak +ve Peak -ve Peak +ve I Peak -ve Threshold for !
Acceleration Acceleration Velocity ((n/s) Velocity (mis) rotation (%g) i
end walls (%g) (%g)
and shear EQI 150 -15.2 0.110 I -0.106 10.7
!
sheet of
EQ2' 19.8 -19.2 0.133 -0125 11.8
ESB I

model j -17.8 0.132 -0.131 12.9 ;

EQ3 16.4 I

container
EQ4
' 22.5 -17.7 0.147
I
I -0.157 13.9 I

EQ5 21.9 -24.1 0174 ! -0.172 15.0 '

micro-concrete block wall Table 1

Fig. 2 Sectíon through centrifuge model of
a concrete gravity retaining wall
Fig. 2 shows a cross section through the model, expressed in prototype
dimensions (17.6 m high with a base width of 7.4 m). The backfill material was afine
sand (Leighton Buwird 52/100, Specific Gravity 2.65) with a typical partic1e size of
around 0.25 ,mm and an initial void ratío ofO.763 (Relative Density 48%), reducing to
0.698 (Relative Density 67%) after five earthquakes, based on the surface settlement
The permeability ofthe sand was measured as 3.7 x 104 mis at a void ratío ofO.76,
falling to 2.6 x 104 mis at a void ratio of 0.68, which using water in the model is.
equivalent to a field permeability of around 0.03 mis, ie. relatively free draining. The
critical state angle of shearing resistance for Leighton Buzzard sand can be taken as
33 o . A surcharge of 28 kN/m2 was placed on top of the backfill in the form of a solid
aluminium plate, with a 2 mm (model sca1e)gap between the tront edge ofthe plate and
the top of the wall. The strip of glue cementing the blocks together along their front
edge was about 3 mm wide (model scale) and, based on load tests which indicated a
shear strength of 10 MN/m2, provided an additional shear resistance of around 2400
kN/m The backfill was water saturated with a water table at 4.2 m depth below the
ground surface. The test was ron at 80 gravities.
The model wall was subjected to five earthquakes with peak lateral base
accelerations and velocitíes as indicated in Table l. Although the walls were massive in
cross-section, their large height contributed to some amplification of the input motíon,
with an average amplification ofthe peak acceleration of 1.36 at the wall centroid and
I :
The densificatíon observed in the models had two effects which were considered
separately in the analysis ofthe data: firstly the effection strength, which was accounted
for using correlations with relative density developed by Bolton (1986), and secondly
the effect on soil depth behind the wall, which had teduced by 0.8m (4.5%) total afler
the five earthquakes. '
The peak mobilised angle of shearing resistance in the soil can be predicted'as
a function'ofthe effective confining pressure, the r~lative density and the critical stÁte
angle of friction for plane strain or triaxial condit!ons using Bolton(1986). In this
analysis plane strain conditions were adopted, and based on the effective confinihg!
pressure at mid-depth behind the wall (as a typical !meanvalue associated with a zone,
of shearing) the peak value of $ was predicted as!42 o, rising to 47.50 over the five,
earthquakes in the series. The angle offiiction on the back ofthe wall (o) was taken' as
2/3 $. , .
i ,
A number offactors were ignored in the andlysis. Firstly, although the angle'of'
mctíon on the base of the wall is c1earlynot 3ignifi~ant in rocking, even a small ten~ile:
capacity on this surface will have an importan~ effect on the onset of outw~rd
movemen¿ raising the threshold for first yield. No 1ensile capacity was assumed in ihe.
prediction bfthe model behaviour as th~ block s we~e not cemented down, (In a design
case this J.ould
, be a conservative assumptíon.) I,
,
.'. ,,'
. I I I
Secondly, although the use of water as a pore fluid effectively increased ~he,
permeability and reduced the development ofresiduaí excess pore pressure, cyc1icexcbs
pore pressures were observed which reflect the chfnge in effective confining press9rd
 ,'

I
) ) I

46 RETAINING STRUC1URES ANALYSIS AND DESI~ LARGE GI3AVITY WALLS ROTATION 4i

as the shear stress varied through the earthquake shaking. These did not appear to have'
a significant influence on the prediction of outward movement. Similarly, vertical!
accelerations were n~glected as these were small and of a much rugher fTequency than
, aCIf~ration"(%g) the base input motion. Table 1 shows the predicted threshold accelerations f(lr eacJi
30 earthquake.

20 The nature of the earthqua,kes generated using the ESB and the Bumpy Road
earthquake actuator are shown ift Fig. 3 which compares the acceleration near the
ground surface with the base iQput motion for EQ2. Some amplification of the peak
10 1" motion is observed (1.44 in this examp1e)and there is a small phase lag between ground
I r:\ 1

surface and the input motion, as t\XPected. Tbe eaqhquake motion comprises 10 major
° \I E! cycles at a fTequency ofaround 1.5Hz. Stroh~ ground motion with a single dominan~

-10 !i j "¡¡
ftequency and multiple: large cycles is typicaf of soft ground sites and is particularlt
damaging to geotechni~ structures. For tbis reason and also because ofthe ease witb
wruch the data can be exiunined in the time dómain, the 'tone burst' input is considered
ili . to be highlyappropriatéto the validationohnalytical and numericalmodels. !
-2O,/-, SOlj top EQ2
base input In each earthquake cyclic movement of the wall was observed, coupled wit~
-30 incremental non-recoverable outward displacements. This outward movement was
2 4 6 B 10 12 clearly associated with arocking mode ofbehaviour, as displacement transducers at mid-
;°'
Il. ¡ time (seconds) height and at the base ofthe wall shg}Vedreduced and zero displacement respectively.
'1, Thiscan be seen clearly in Fig. 4 whicb shows the outward displacement ofthe top df

i i Fig. 3 Amplification'throughthe soil backfill the wall, of the middlewallblockand of the bottom wallblock for EQ2. :

:' ! .
:. ' 1 .
,
'
'. , The cyclical displacements which are superimposed onto the permanent dr
;! ,[",;
¡ , residual rocking movement are caused by a dynamic elastic interaction betWeen the w~1
, waildtsplacement (inm)
~ ", " and the ground. The magnitude oftypica! reboverable displacements can be ilh-rstratet!
.~
, o.s
,., : ,
l by considering the det1ectionof an e1asticsh~ beam, representing a soil column, under
; :¡ IEQ2' a pseudo-static lateraliacceleration fie)d. r;or a shear modulus G proportional to t~e
!, 0.6,:I [ ,'
square root of depth,the surfacedetlectioncan be expressedas !
,¡ '1 i : L'
JI. . ¡\
i 0.4;. x =l kh Y 82
I' 3 -a b
(13)
II
o.z , '
, i I.
:. "
"~
where Gbis the shear modulus at depth H. For kh = 0.2, this predictsan elasticsurfa¿e
,r . '; ground displacement of around :;:30mm for v,aluesof shear modulus consistent with t~e
bottom block density and strain levels within the sand backfill, which cqmpares favourably with tlje
"1\ order of magnitude of the observed cyclic displacements. !
-O.i lL
'.iO 2 ! 4 6 8 10 12
ii I time (seconds) Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 show the patteni of outward movement in each earthquJe
:!
i¡ compared with the predicted permanent rnOvement using the model described abov~.
1:
" .Fig. 4 Displacement at wall top, middle and base Dynan1iceffects on the displacement transducers will influence the magnitude and pha~e
; ¡ i ¡
of the dynamic response of these transducers to some extent, but the permane?t
.,

, i
¡:
 ) )
48 RETAINING STRUC11tEf ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 49
LARGE GRAVITY WALLS ROT~TlON

acceleration (%)
acceleratlon (%g)
20 30
15 threshold
20
10 .. ......... threshold
5 10

o
o
-5 base input
-10 base input
-10
-15 Lo. EQ1 -20
EQ2
-20 8 10 12
O 2 4 6 -30
O 2 4 6 8 10 12
time (seconds)
time (seconds)

.
wall top displacement (mm)
20
wall top displacement (mm)
50

15 EQ1 40 EQ2
30
10
20
5
10 prediction
o
o
-5 -10
actual
-10 10 12 -20
O 2 4 6 8 O 2 4 6 10 12
time (seconds) time (seconds)

Fig. 6 Base input acceleration, Jnd wall top

Fig. 5 Base input acceleration, and wall top deflection for EarthquakeI 2
deflection for Earthquake 1
 ".'" '''''''-'''' ',r':r'

') ')

50 RETAINING STRUCTURESANALYSISAND DJ!s~ LARGE GRAVITY WALLS ROTATION

1Icd.lerltlon (%) acceleration (%g)

20 30

threshotd
.............----..--.---.....--.-.--.-----.--------.-.------- 20
10 threshold
~. ...~,_......._----
10
o
o

-10
-10
EQ3 EQ4
-20 -20
O 2 4 6 6 1Q 12 O 2 4 6 6 10 12
time (seconds) tlllle (seeonds)
! !
; Yiall top dlsplacement (ni m) wall top displacement (mm)
60
; ,50
i
i40 "EQ3 EQ4
60
. 30

40
;20

'10
20
.-
o
prediction prediction
O
-10 actual actual
-20
2 4 6 6 10 12 O 2 4 6. 6 10 12
time (seconds) time (seconds)

Fig. 7 Base input acceleration, and wall top I

Fig. 8 Base input a~celeration, and wall top
detlection for Earthquake 3
detlection for Earthquake 4
 ') ') I
i

52 RETAININGStR'tJtrt¡~ A~ALYSIS AND DESIGN LARGE GRAVITY WALLS R~TION

I
:
I

movement is accurately indicated. Good agreement is seen between the observed and
the predicted start of the permanent displacement, indicating that the calculation of the
threshold acceleration is close to the actual, and between!the magnitude of the predicted
permanent wall displacements and the observed. THe cumulative residual rocking
displacement .'after five earthquakes was predicted l.
as 68 mm, compared to an actual
acceleration (%g) displacementbf 64 mm. l.
: I
30 I

Thenatureof Ihewallaccelerationafter the ons~tof rockingcan be seenin Fig.

20 10, which compares the base input motion with thelwall top acceleration. Large
negative accelerations are seen to take place as the w¡\1I 'reconnects' with the ground
10
and peak positive accelerations climbabdve the thr~shold as the outward rocking
movement takes place. This amplification of motion h~s an important influence on the
outward movément as it increases the overtuining mome;,t. This was taken into aceount
o
in the analysis, which used the average amplification onlthe positive peak accelerations
of1.36 evaluated at the wall centre ofinertia, as noted abbve. The rounded nature ofthe
-10 peak acceleratlons during rocking contrast Withthe flat!'caps' that have been observed
from experiments studying the sliding of large wall~, Steedman (1984) and occur
-20 because, unlike sliding, the rocking wall reinains attac~ed to the ground at the pino
EQ5
-30 Comparison with design approaches
O 4 6 8 10 12
time (seconds)
In design, it is common to assume a critical stateiangle of shearing resistance for
walltop
. displacement (mm) the soil backfill and for the soil-wall interface. Fig. 11 presents a comparison between
80
the predicted and observed residual rocking displacemen~s ofthe wall, normalised by the
height of the wall, and a 'design line' calculated usíng a value of «1>= = 33 o. (The o
60 EQ5 observed displacements being plotted using predieted:thresholds for simplicity.) The
earthquake record EQ 1 was used for the integration process as representing a typical
40 form ofthe earthquake to w/úch the wall was subjected. Again, there is good agreement .
with the data; such a comparison provídes reassurance as to the general robustness of
20
the model foté predicting permanent rocking displacement.
i
O
Richardsand Elms,and Whitmanand Liao, no~ethe importanceof addressingI
uncertainty in the prediction of permanent displacement. !Two major areas of uncertainty
are the nature ofthe earthquake and the prediction of1the threshold aeceleration. For
-20' actual comparison purposes, the observed residual displacerrients from Eqs 1-5 were plotted
against Equations (1) and (3) in Fig. 12 where the dJta is seen to lie well below the
-40 Whitman and Liao line. Taken together with the pfoposed rocking model, which
O 2 4 6 8 10 12
time (seconds) analysed the particular class of earthquake and the actu,al mechanism of behaviour, this
suggests tha! there is opportunity for reducing conserYatisms in design by elirnination
of uncertainties where these can be evaluated. ThJs an improved estímate of the
Fig.9 Base input acceleration, and wall top permanent rocking dísplacement ofthe large wall in this example was achíeved by use
deflection for Earthquake 5 of a similar form of earthquake to that actually expenenced, and by use of a rocking
model for a wall known to be susceptible to rocking.
 ::;
I I I.
')
I I
¡ ') ¡ I
LARGE GRAVITY WAtLS ROTATION 55'
54 RETAINING STRUCTURES ANALYSIS AND DESroIt I
!
residual dlsplacement (%)
5

atdelÉbti'n ('I.g) . 2 design envelope tor residual

displacement for a typidal
40
earthquake, based on EQ 1
r 0,5

20
0.2
0,1
:0
0,05

I actual (..) residual

0,02
"20 displacement tor EQs 1-5
0.01
0.4 0,5 0.6 ,0.7 0.8 0.9
wall top ."'A
)-40
, threshold .~ '- EQ2
! : base input Fig. 12 Comparison witli conventional design approaches
,'o
-60 6 8 10 12
.' o 2 4
time (seconds)
Conclusions
Fig, 10 Lateral acceleration ofthe wall in rockin¡ !
i , 11 . A rocking model has been deve10ped
'. for the prediction of permanent
I

¡ .. displacementof retainingwalls analagoustQslidingmodelscurrentlyuse<!for desig~

I residual
.
/:
'
rocking dlspl;K:ement (%)
'
purposes. The model'uses a Newmark approach to predicting outward rocking
movement, which is triggered once !ithreshold accelerátion in rotation is exceeded an~
typical design envelope tor residual arrested once the wall velocity and the gro~hd ve!o~ity ~re agáin identical.
""'ir
rocking displacement using scaled '. ,
earthquake record (EQ 1) The model has been validated by comparisol1 with experimental d~ta of a large
gravity wall constrained to rock and subjected to a series of damaging carthquakes. TJ1e
data showed clearly tllat the rocking motidn is comprised of two elements: an elasuc
recoverable movement and a permanent or tesidual rocking displacemenL The rockirig
model showed gooci agreement between the predicted residual displacement of the wl1n
top and the observed displacement, both using general design parameters and speciflc
experimental parameters.
I

Comparison with standard available design,approaches íIIustratethe extent pf

pr~diéted' (O) and actual ( 8) conservatisms inherent in a general ~pproach and suggests that a mechanism-speci~c
0.01
di~placeménts for EQs 1-5 rocking model su¡::has íhat proposed here may be more appropriate to the prediction ,bf
0.7 0.8 0,9 permanent rocking displacement, particularly where thenature ofthe design earthquake
0,5: 0.6
0.4 ¡.r
"
tollA canbedefined. ¡
J
: 1 :
,
Fig, 11 Comparison with design line for rocking
displacement

¡, I
" I
, ¡ I
I

I
'j" ) )
56 RETAINING smUdruRES ANALYSIS AND DESTGN

Acknowledgements

The model was coded using Mathcad with the valuablc assistancc ofDr R E May
and his staff in the Geotechnical Division at Sir AJexander Gibb & Partncrs Ltd. Their
contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

References
I
Bolton M D (1986) Thé strength anll dilatartcy ofsands, Geotcchnique 36, No. 1, pp65- I

78. :
I
i
Ebeling R M and Morrison E E (1992) Theseismic design of waterfront retaining IN-SITD DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF CA\NTILEVER W ALLS
structurcs,US ArrnyCorps ofEngineers, TechnicalReport ITL-92-11,Dcpartmentof i I
the Arrny,WashingtonDC 20314-1000. Sreenivas Alampalli', Member, ASCE, and Ahmed-jW.
I ElgamaF, Member, ASCE
: I
Franklin A G and Chang F K (1977) Earthquake resistance of earth and rockfill dams, I
!
Report 5: Permanent displacements of earth dams by Ncwmark analysis, Misc. Paper S- ~ jI
71-17, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, November. I ,

Full sciJe dynamic testing is undertaken to monitor the vibrational characteristid

Nadim F (1980) Tilting and sliding of gravity retaining walls, SM Thesis, Dept Civil of cantilever }vall-soil systems. Impact hariuner as well as controlled shaker excitatiori
Eng, MIT. at different force levels are employed. Two different reinforced concrete cantileve(
wall-soil systems are studied. The employed testing techniques are described and thd
Newma¡k N M (1965) Effect of earthquakes on dams and embankments, 5th Rankine recorded modal characteristics are presented. Thcse mbdal characteristics may be used
Lecture, Geotechnique 15, No. 2, pp139-160, June. for the purpÓse, of seismic design; and for calibratio~I of computational and/or smaIl
scale laboratory centrifuge models. i
Richards R and Elms D G (1979) Seismic behaviour of gravity retaining walls, Proc I I
I
ASCE, Joumal Geotech Eng Div, 105, GT4, April, pp449-464. Introduction i
I
,
I I
Schofield A N (1981) Dynamic and earthquake geotechnical centrifuge modelling, Proc Damage to wall-backfill systems is often rep~rted after earthquakes (prakasB
Int Conf Recent Adv Geotech Earthquake Eng and Soil Dynamics, Rolla, Vo1.3,
1981, Whitman 1991), mainly due to the phenomenon Qfsoilliquefaction (Whitrnan anq
ppl081-1100. Christian 19QO);with significant financial expenses inirepair or replacement. Recorded
quantitative Iseismic response of wall-backfill sy*tems is virtually nonexistenti
Schofield A N and Steedman R S (1988) Recent development of dynamic model testing
However, thd characteristics ofthis response are being ~creasingly rationalized througli
in geotechnical engineering, Proc 9th World ConfEarthquake Eng, Tokyo-Kyoto.
experimental investigations. A large growing body df shake table and centrifuge test
results have ibeen primarily focussed on wall-soil d~formations under conditions of
Steedman R S (1984) Modelling the behaviour ofretaining walls in earthquakes, PhD
strong dynamic
, excitation and/or soilliquefaction (Matsuo
I and Ohara 1960, Murphy ,
Thesis, Cambridge University. 1960, Sherif et al. 1982, 1984, Ortiz 1982, Ortiz et ¡¡I. 1983, Steedman 1981, 1984¡
Bolton and Steedman 1982, 1984, Andersen et al. 1987, Whitrnan and Ting 1993, Zeng
Whitman R V and Liao S (1985) Seismic design of gravity retaining walls, Misc. Paper
GL-8S-1, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, January.
1993, Alampalli 1990).
,
iI :
I
I
Zeng X and Schofield A N (1996) Design and performance of an equivalent shear beam
container for earthquake centrifuge modelling, Geotechnique 46, No.l, pp83-102, 'Acting Head, Structures Research,Transport~tionR & D Bureau, New York'
March. State Dep~ent of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY
12232-0869. !

2Associate Professor, Departrnent of Civil <0d Environmental Engineering; i

Rensselaer¡Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180-~S90. '

57
 ~ '

) ')

CANTILEVER WALLS DYNAMIC RESPONSE 59

58 RETAINING STRUCTURES ANALYSIS AND DESIG~

t1\is paptr addresses the in-situ dynamic response characteristic..r It:ií'lforced

concrete ca.ntilever retaining structures. Modal parameters (resonan't frequencies,
damping ratios, and associated resonant mode shapes) of two retaining Walls were
measured using different excitation techniques. Such modal parameters may be
employed for the purposes of seismic designo In addition, the recorded mode shapes I
111
displayed a three dimensional response pattem, not accounted for by current analysis 111
o
procedures. In the following sections the employed testing procedures are described, and
salient results of these full scale testing programs are presented within a unified
framework.

Test Structures
~~
~ jf-- ~ awV.lJ u~~
~
:J3C' o~ P¡¡X~:J
0.~
~~
~
..<11
311'>
u

r-i

Two cantilever reinforced concrete retaining wall systems were tested. The first
was a'small wall rigidly attached to the south side ofthe Jonss.on Engineering Center
(Fig. 1) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). The wal1 (referred to hereafter as the
JEC ..vall) was 241 mm thick with a maximum height of 5 m. A soil backfill was
supported by thiswall from the basement elevation to the ground surface (Fig. 1). The (fj
secon~ \vall system,also on the RPI campus, was a long wall (42.7 m) of varying height "',
s::
from fA m to 3.05 m and was 406 mm.thick (Fig. 2). This wall (referred to hereafter "O,
as thd cn wall) supported an elevated parking 101. A construction joint was visible at a..
...
abou~22.7 m from the shoTt end ofthe wall (Fig. 2). s::
al
i. E
Testlilg
.i 'p rocedure o
...
, ¡ :::1
I j (fj
CG
iIn all tests, the structures were excited by an impact hammer
mOurltedon the wail or on the backfill soil. Testingby impact hammerwas less time
consfuning, but iniparted minimal energy at low frequencies (e.g., below 10 Hz).
or a shaking system ..
:J<

'-
o
-
al
:E
O
"C
"- "¡:
Hen~e; for massive structures with resonaht frequencies below 10Hz, the impact '"
'- G
hamrh~rtechniquemaynot be adcquateas an excitationmechanismforthe fundamental <11
.;J.
modJ. !Tests \.vereeonducted on the JEC wall using two different impact hammers and e: .. .c
.J:: "...
0\ 111
a smM! electrndynamic shaker, in order to compare the effectiveness of these methods
'1:>
,in tdtihg wall-soilsystems.For the cn wall, the impact hammer was used, and an in- ~<11 iii
Isitu luÍrmonic shaker was b~ilt at RPI in order to impart significant energy in the low
a.
3:
:freqliency rangeup to 17 Hz.! This sectión describes salient features of the test setup and c: O
W
itesting procedures.: VI -"
<11
;1¡ f;i.
Harnmer and Shaker Tests;
:
>
c:
o
....
i ¡, . i
5
'1:> ...
al
.. c:
.. :::1
,/ ~ typical te~ config~ation is shown in Figure 3. It consists of a dynarnic signal >
QJ es:: el
UJ
ü:
, anal~ierto obtainreal-tim~ frequency domain representations ofthe recorded signals < '"
. wiili 4pe~ified ac~ur~cy tolerances to assure measurements quality; a shaker (or an
imp~<it hammer with a force transducer) for excitation; accelerometers for measurement
of r+~onse;'
l. . amplifiers; signal
. conditioners;and a micro computerwith a floppy and
i:
: (.
I¡
I!
': .C¡: .!
i . :!
 I
I

) 111
.' ')
I

CANTILEVER WALLS DYNAMIG: RESPONSE

60 RETAINING STRUCiU~ES ANALYSIS AND DESIGN I

~;
L

,...
-e 'o
'0 :M S
Il.
:, /
~
Ct!
O
,
,, Accelerometer
1
1 Cables
I
I
I
,
, -e
,, I~ '0
,1 ..,
e
I O Wall
, :¡:;
, (,)
, :;,
...
S'
.....
,
, -1/) Backfill
N 1 e
-=t
I
, O
\1 1. U
-CI
~

e
~ 3=
Q)
:>
e
o
e
o
~>
:¡:; Q)
IV iii
,... >
-e
,...
:, Q)
iii tU

r
~
'0
Il. I
(,)
o.... Figure 3. Schematic of Shaker Test Setup
IV
IX!
o
, (,)
:¡:;
, IV
1
, S
I Q)
, ~
, (,)
, en
1
10
N
,...
-e ...
Q)
:;,
CI
'0
a.
1 e: 1 ü:
, ,
! .
 ~ ')
62 tETAJNING STRUCTURES ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
hard dM< clAve. Whenever possible, at the beginning of each test, te"'totity was
verified t,y comparing frequency response functions (FRF) obtaintd through
interchanging input and output locations. Durir¡.g a test, measurement locations were
chosen in such a way so as to reflect the behavior of the structure in the modes of
interest. Only the dynamic wall response perpendicular to its plane was measured.
In case of impact testing (EIgamal et al. 1990, Alampalli 1990) a 3 lb impulse
hanuner (pCB model 086B20) or a 12 lb impulse sledge hanuner (PCB módel 08~B50)
were used. These hanuners were equipped with a load cell attached to the hanuner tip
to measure input force imparted to the structure. An effort was made to keep the blows
as uniforrp. as possible for repeatability. A PCB accelerometer (model 393C) was used
te measure the output acceleration. Excitation input y¡(t) was imparted at each sampling
point and the resulting acceleration output yo(t)was measured at a stationary point. An
input-output FRF was computed by the analyzer, which also performs signal digitization
using appropriate anti-aliasing filters. This function may be defined as:
l.
FRF (f)= [Yo(f) Y¡'(f)]/ [Yo(f)Y:(f)]
.[ , excitation.
where fdenotes frequency,uppercaseder¡.otesFourier Transform,and (') denotes the
complex conjugate operator. The process was repeated for the same point and the
average,ofa numberof FRFs was finallystoredas the input-outputtransferfunctionfor
this pointi Inspection ofthe Coherence function (y¡) - also computed by the analyzer-
dictated the numberof FRFs to be averaged, where
!1,! ',
yt(f) =!IY¡(f)
I
Y:(f)12 / [iY.(f)12IY¡(f)12]
' ,
ii
in whic~ p.Oq?(f)~ 1.0. A coherence of zero denotes that yo(t) and y¡(t) are unrelated,
wher~ ~
coherence ofunity d~notes that y.(t) i.s related to y¡{t) with no interference or
nojse ef'fects. In this study, i highly satisfactorycoherence of 0.95 or greater was
always ~~hieved.' . constructed flush with ground surfa,ce to prQv.ide a firm base for attachment of the
: ;!',
In bas~ of rand6m excit~tion testing (EIgamal et al. 1990, Alampalli 1990) an
electrodynamic shakef¡(42 lb miucimum vector force, 76 crnlsec velocity and 15.875 cm
peak tol¡:Jeakstroke) manufactUred by Acoustic Power Systems Inc. (model No. 113)
, was used! The HP3562A signal analyzer supplied a control signal to the shaker which
was amplified using a power amplifier (Encore Electronics Inc., model 505 with 700
Watts peak capacity arid a current control feed-back system). Accelerometers (Kistier
model8360A5 with 1V/g sensitivity) were used to measure shaker excitation as well as
, acceler~tion response output at any particular sampling point on the structure. The
shaker :along with an attache4 reaction mass was rigidly mounted at a convenient
location qn the structure. The HP3562A was used to digitize incoming input and output
data frqm the two acceleromeiers, and to calculate input-output FRFs as well as the
associa~ed coherence function (J?easurements at each point were repeated and averaged).
I
l'
l'
CANTILEVER WALLS DYNAMIC RESPONSE 63
This coherence function as mentioned above was used as the data quality control
criterion.
A modal parameter estimation package (Mo,dal 3.0 SE), developed by Structural
Measnring Systems (SMS) was employed for extr11-Ction ofmodal parameters (linearity
and reciprocity for the test structures is assume9).This package offers various options
for curve fitting. Three different options were employed in this investigation and are
discussed by Alampalli (1990) in detail. A different approach for testing and curve
fitting was adopted when harmonic excitation (swept sine mode) was employed. It was
'found when performing such,a test that a substantial amount of time was expended in
trying to achieve a high accuracy variance cO)1vergencetolerance (in this case 1%) in
the frequency bands away from a resonance. In these frequency bands, no significant
:amplification occurs and the signal amplitude approaches that of ambient noise.
Attaining high convergence toleranyes for such low amplitude signals was difficult and
'consumes significant timewith minimal impact on overall quality of the measured FRF.
'In order to reduce the time required, while maintaining highdata quality, the procedure
described by Alampalli and Elgamal (1991) was adopted when testing with swept sine
Lar~e Shaker Test
, An eccentric-mass vibration generator (shaker) developed at RPI (V1.mLaak and
EIgamal 1991) for resonance testing of full-scale struc1ures based on the original
Hudson (1964) design, was used for these tests. Ecceptric mass shakers are part~c;ulally
efficient in producing large dynamic forces at low frequencies. The RPI s.\Jaker was
designed to provide up to 22 kN ofhorizontal force witllln the frequency range 0.5 te
30 Hz. Rotational speed of this shaker was verified to remáin stable at any specified
frequency within a 0.0625 Hz range. Operating spyed was controlled by a calibrated
precision potentiometer. A 1.8 m square (0.45 m thick) reinforced concrete pad was
shaker. Terra Tek (model SSA 102) force bal¡¡nced,accelerometers were used to measure
the horizontal wall and backfill accelerations. The HP3562A signal analyzer was used
to digitize and record time histories; and to calcu,late transfer functions and coherence
functions between the shaker input and response accelerQmeter signals (EIgamal,
Alampalli, and Van Laak 1996). Testing was conducted over several nights in the
absence oftraffic induced vibrations.
Test Results
JE<; Wall
Transfer functions of85 measurement locations along the exposed side ofthe wall
(Fig. 1) were measured (Elgamal et al. 1990, Alampalli 1990). The e.ntire wall was
 ) í )
CANTILEVER WALLS DYNAMIC $SPONSE 65
64 RETAINING sTRuc'J.1!lfa3ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

Table 1. SUItlmary of user defined settings for various excitation mechanisms

tested three times, each time employing a different excitation technique (see Table 1).
employed.
Natural frequencies and damping ratios obtained by curve-fitting the data (up to 100 Hz)
of each test are shown in Table 2. Note thaf the small harnmer even with multiple
,
impacts (Tables 1 and 2) was unable te supply' enough energy to excite the lowest ' Testing Excitation Frequency No.of Coherence Curve-fit
frequency mode. While estimates of natural frequencies were in agreement, a noticeable Device Employed (Hz) Avgs. Value Procedure
difference in estimated damping may be observed (Table 2). The damping ratios shown (Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3) (Note 4)
Range de
in Table 2 were found to depend on the employed curve-fitting algorithmlprocedure and
consequently should be taken as rough estimates. Mode shapes obtained from all three 10
Small Multiple 20-180 0.2 0.9-1.0 @
tests appeared to agree well (first mode was not obtained from the small hammer test) I

Hanuner 'Impact i
with maximum variation of 8% in natural frequencies. Modes obtained by the swept
sine shaker test (the third test) are shown in Fig. 4. Based on the above results, it may (3 lb
be concluded that the results obtained by sledge hammer impact and those obtained by weight) 1
harmonic shaker excitation are in good agreement. Large ¡Single 5-405 0.5 5-10 0.9-1.0 @,$,#
Hammer lmpact
It is noted that the modes shown in Fig. 4 were evaluated in the complex domain (121b
and were found to exhibit a gradual phase change (phase at resonance is not simply 0.0 weight)
or 180.0 degrees) as shown in Fig. 5. Such a phase relation between different points of *
Electro Swept 10-100 0.11 0.98-1.0
';',;¡"'" " the structure may be due to the presence of non-proportional damping mechanism
Magnetic Sine ote S)!
(Ewins 1984), such as that due to radiation. It is also ofinterest to note that non linear
Shaker ,Constant
dynamic re~ponse of the wall was detected when a particular transfer function was
measured severa! times using a shaker force ofvarying amplitude (Fig. 6). The response (with 8 lb Force
is similar, in character to that of a nonlinear yielding system (Jennings 1964, Nayfeh and force)
Mook 1979), and should be a subject of further investigations.
Notes: I
~ , I
1. A force-exponential window was employed with the jarge hammer time domain data
Hi~h FreQJ.IencvTests: Initially, the same test setup as described for the lEC Wall (Alampalli 1990).
was used. Trnnsfer functions of 178 measurement locations along the exposed side of 2. Number ot'averaged signals for each measurement.i
the wall were measured. Dynarnic excitation was imparted using the large 12 lb sledge 3. Value ofthe coherence function in the frequency raj-¡ge ofinterest.
hammer(Table 1). During the curve-fitting phase, it became evident that extremely 4. Different ¿urve fitting techniques were! used, whi¿h are briefly explained in this
high modal coupling existed due to close resonances. In addition, the presence 0[' paper. $ indicates Peak curve fitting method, @ indicatts Rational fraction Polynomial
significant damping smoothed off most peaks in the measured transfer functions. This curve fitter wi\h auto fitting method, # indicates Globali curve fitting techniques, and *
complicated the curve-fitting process and no reliable resonant properties can be obtained indicates the use of the curve fitting algorithm developed by Alampalli and Elgamal
in the low frequency range. At higher frequencies, the natural frequencies and (1991). i :

associatcd mode shapes are given in Figure 7. A rough estimate of dan1ping ratios 5. Integrationat each frequencypoint is done until 1,* variancclimil on thc valuc of
suggested a value of about 8% for most of these modes. frequency response function is met or until ¡he maxim~m integration time (120 seco in
this case) is reached.
I This procedure is repeated for e~h
' average.
Low Frequency Tests: The new large RPI shaker was employed in this case
(Elgamal et al. 1996). A plan view of the shaker and measurement locations on the wall I
and backfill are shown in Figure 8. The shaker horizontal force and aU mcasurements
were oriented in the direction perpendicular to the wall face. Data was recorded starting
at 6 Hz (before the first resonance identified by analysis) and up to 17 Hz using a
frequency increment ofO.125 Hz at points (Fig. 8) 2, 2A, 8, 8A, 8B, 11, IlA, and O (as
 ) )
66 RIITAINING STRUC11JRES ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CANTILEVER WALLS DYNAMIC RESPONSE 67
--,]

~
Table ~atura1 frequencies and damping ratios for JEC wall ~ing three Itf~l1t input
excitation mechanisms.

Modé Natural Frequency(Hz) Damping Ratio (%)

No.:
Hammer Hammer Shaker Hammer Hammer Shaker
¡
; 31b 1-2lb' 181b 31b 12lb 18lb
1 i ----- 22.65: 23.03 ----- 5.86 2.60
, :
2 i 3.25 38.09 37.05 9.97 5.90 4.90
.

3 ' 56.36 54.65 52.16 3.85 5.66 3.86

,
4 71.69 71.96 67.96 3.44 5.31 2.97
'
5 98.07 97.3 94.42 0.56 1.08 3.00
. .
Table 3. Resonant frequencies ofCn System
i
I Resonant Frequecies (Hz)
Mode
:" i Shaker Test, . FEM
(excitation to Soil) (EIgamal et al. 1996)
, . '.

11 ; 6.7 6.67
; .
2: i 8.2 : 7.75
31 9.5-9.7 8.86
10.4 '
¡ , 10.27
4:!
..
,
S' , 11.3 ; 11.75

Table 4.' Observed viscous <hrinpingbyhalf-power bandwidth method.

'
Mode Freqency (Hz) Damping(%)
,
l' 6.7 8.7
2 8.2 15.9
3 9.5-9.7 12.2
4 10.4 8.7
..
5' 11.3 , 6.6
Figure 4. Mode Shapes of JEC Wall in Plan View
 ¡;
¡j
i!
) r')
68 RETAINING STR~ ANALYSISANO OESIGN
CANTILEVER WALLS OYNAMIC RÍ'.SPONSE 69

Plan Vie,w

I ¡
! '
~N2

'.'~

Y;:';"'.
,!'
i

:'~~.
"
"

!
~ In animation.
move

.
in the
node appears to
range Nl-N3. .
, !

Figure 5. VariousStill-Views During JEC Wall Mode 2 Animation

I~,,"
'1,
"';"',
1.0

,
, i
r. . i

!Peak curve-fitting method

¡ is employed.
I

, I
Figure
,
7. Typical ModeShapes pf
I
cn Wall
I

0.0

65.0 Frequency (Hz) 80.0

Figure 6. Transfer Functions DeDictlngNonlinear Yielding
Response
 ",>--'" .-..

') ')

70 M'rAINING STRUCTURES ANALYSIS AND DESIGr-t CANTILEVER WALLS DYNAMIC RESPONSE 71

a reference). The frequency sweep was performed at each measurement point to

determine resonant frequencies at which significant amplification of motion at or nero:
tbe wali bccurred relative to ground motion near the shaker. Once these approximat¡;
Elevation 75.6 m
o ftequencies were determined, a second series of measurements were performed in order
to obtain more precise values of the system resonant frequencies. FinalIy, a high
resolution frequency sweep (df = 0.0625 Hz) was performed around each resonance, as
identified by tbe first set oftests. Peak amplitude response within each frequency band
was taken to denote a system resonant frequency. Once, a resonant frequency was
5:1 Slope
identified with required precision, the system was excited at this frequency and the
corresponding amplitude. ratios and phase 'relationships were measured at a11
Elevation 78.4 m o
measurement points in order to obtain the corresponding resona,nt configuration.

16 o A typical transfer functionis shown in Figure 9. The associated mode sbape,s ¿¡re
0
Backfill
15 1 o~i
B
. shown in Figure 10. Based on this test, the estimated resonant frequer,.cies are shown
o in Table 3 along with those obtained using a calibrated 3 dimensional finite element
model (EIgamal et al. 1996). The results indicated that. the first walI-soil resonant
13 lo
o
frequency was 6.72 Hz. The associated resonant walI configuratibq mimicked tha.t of
12
a cantilever clan1ped plate,'or a one-dimensional (ID) bendinglshe¿¡r beam model a)ong
11 o
E Wall 5:1Slope tbe height. Along the length, the amplitude gradualIy increased with the increase in free
~I 10o¡'O.3mO cantilever wa11height (Fig. 7). The higher resonánt configurations were found to display
.
l
N
~ 36.6 m variation in response alodg the wa11length. Yiscous damping, using the half-power
o method (Ewins 1984), was roughly estimated to:be in the range of6.60 to 15.90 percent
o . (Table 4). AlI the obtained resonant configur~tions showed a gradual phasei variation
ention 75.6 .
along the walIlength (phase at resonance 1s not simply 0.0 or 180 degrees). Such a
. 19.8
m phase relation (Fig. 9) between different points (complex domain modes) may be
o partia11ydue to the presence of non-proportional damping mechanisms (Ewins 1984),
'¡¿'
such as that due to radiation; and may also be influenced by the employed IQJ::alized
o
. :~:!Z)I4'9 m
embedded
shaking mechanism. " .
concrete pad
Discussion and Con~lusions
Stairway , ' I

o Two cantilever reinfbrced concrete retaini~g walI systems were studied ~m'ploying
Elevation 79.2 m forced vibration techniques. Modal parameters'were evaluated in the complex domain.
. Withinthe scopeof this Work,good agreement ~
observedbetweenthe dataobtained
using impact hammer tests andoharmonic shaI<erexcitation tests (above 15 Hz or so).
o;~"'""., ;1/' m
5:1 Slope A harmonically forced transfer function repeat¡jdly measured UI)deran increasing force
level, suggested the presence ofnon-linear yiel~ing behavior. The impact hatnmer was
unable to reliably excite the low frequency 6.1 Hz fundamental mode ofthe large cn
wall. Hence, for massive heavily damped st~cture, an impact hanuner may not be
o o suitable.
Elevation 75.9 m Elevation 75.6 m
The tested retaining walIs were observed to display spatial variability in motíon
o Accelerometer Location along the walIlength as welI as the walI height. Resonant configurations were found
F!gure 8. Schematic Plan-View 01 CIIWall-Soil System
 I

) )
73
I

CANTILEVER WALLS DYNAMIC REsPONSE

I '
72 RETAINING STmJ~tuttES ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
!

1.2
o Pt. 8/shaker
1.0 o Pt. 8A1shaker
6 Pt. 8B/shaker
.2 Baseline
WALL Wall (W)
.. 0.8 Row A
"<> PLAN VIEW BAcKFILL : R"wB
:::1 0.6
o..
¡:::
< 0.4
'\I .\{O.DE 1: 6.7 HZ Baseline

0.2
I
~! ~A
'
w
.0.0
7 8 9 10
B
200
W
A
100
B

O Baseline
]'
a,
<>
MODE 2: 8.2 Hz

B -100
..,
'"
'"
.c
o.. -200

-300 W
MODE 3: 9.1 Hz A
B
-400
7 8 9 10

Frequency (Hertz)
Figure 10. CII Wall-Backfill Mode Sha~es during Shaker Test
iI

Figure 9. Typical Acceleration Transter Function

tor Points 8, 8A, and 8B (O-10 Hz range)
 ')
74 RETAINING STRUCTURES ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
to bear g\gdificbt similarity to those of a clamped plate rather than thosé:df IH:antilever
bell1ll (plane-strain analysis). Such a 3D response pattem is not accounte4 for by current
ap.alysis procedures, and may be of significance in the seiSmic responst of highway
wing-walls ofuneven height.
In general, it is often observed that most seismic energy during earthquakes is
imparted below 10 Hz or thereabout. Hence, many typical highway wall-soil systems
(with h < 10 m) will primarily respond to earthquake loading only in the first mode
along the height. Finally, this testing program suggested a modal viscous damping in
the ra~ge of 8% using the half-power bandwidth method. Thus, for typical situations
of seismic excitation with heights less than 10m, a modal damping of 5% may be a
conservative value.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by NCEER contract No. 90-1506 under NSF Master
contract ECE-86-07591. Dr. Paul Van Laak played a major role in conducting this fuIl-
scale testing programo ' During Earthquakes." Proceedings of Second World Conference on Earthquake
References
Andersen, G. R., Whitrnan, R. V., and Germaine, J. T. (1987). Tilting Response of
Centrifuge-Modeled Gravity Retaining Wall to Seismic Shaking. Research Report R87-
14, Departm,ent of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnologj', MA
Alampalli, S. (1990). Earthq~alw Response of Retaining Walls: Full Scale Testing and
ComputationalModeling. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer
Poljrtechnic Institute, Troy, NY. . Thesis, California Institute ofTechnology, PaSadena, California.
Alarripalli,.S., and EIgamal, A-W.(1991). "An Efficient Procedure for Harmonic Testing
of StNctures." Proceedings of IX Intemational Modal Analysis Conference, Florence,
Italy, 1,664-669. ¡ Dynamics, 11,251-268.
Bolton, M. D., and Steedman, R. S. (1982). "Centrifugal Testing of Micro-Concrete
Retaining Walls Subjected to Base Shaking." Proceedings of Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering Conference, Southampton, 311-329.
Bolton, M. D., and Steedman, R. S. (1984). "Modeling the Seismic resistance of
Retaining Stmctures." Proceedings of 11th Intl. Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 1-4.
l )
CANTILEVER WALLS DYNAMIC RESPONSE 75
Elgarnal, A-W., Alampalli, S., and Van Laak, P. (1990). "Modal Response ofEarth
Retaining Structures." Proceedings oflIX lnternational Modal Analysis Conference,
Kissirnmee, FL, 1,479-486.
EIgamal,A-W., Alampalli, S., and Van Laak, P. (1996). "ForcedVibration ofFull-
Scale Wall-Backfill System." Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE,122(10).
Ewins, DJ. (1984). Modal Testing: Theory and Practice. John Wiley, New York, 1984.
Hudson, D. E. (1964). "Resonance Testing ofFull-Scale Structures." Journpl ofthe
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 90(EM3), 1-19.
Jennings, P.C. (1964). "Periodic Response of a General Yielding Stmcture," Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE.
Matsuo, H., and Ohara, S. (1960). "Lateral Earth Pressure and Stability of Quay Walls
Engng.,Tokyo, Japan, 1,1165-181. :
Murphy, V. A. (1960). "The Effect ofGround Cj1aracteristics on the A,seismic Design
ofStructures." Proceedings ofSecond World Conftrence on Earthqualw Engineering,
Tokyo,Japan, 1,231-24~. I . .
Nayfeh, AH., and Mook, D.T. (1979). Nonline~r Oscillations. Wiley-Interscience.
Oritz, L. A (1982). Dynamic Centrifuge Testing ofCantilever Retaining Walls. Ph.D.
Oritz, L. A., Scott, R. F., and Lee, J. (1983). "Dynamic Centrifuge testing of a
Cantilever Retaining Wall." Journal of Earthqualw Engineering and Structural
Prakash, S. (1981). Soil D)mamics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Sherif, M.A., Ishibashi, 1., and Lee, C.D. (1982). "Earth Pressures Against Rigid
RetainingWalls."Journa'of GeotechnicalEngineeringDivision,ASCE,108(5),679-
695. .
Sherif, M. A, Fang, Y. S., and Sherif, R. 1. (1984). "K, and ~ Behind Rotating and
Non-Yielding Walls." Journal ofGeotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 110(1),
41-56. '
 ,,~
')

76 RETAINING STRUC~ ANALYSISAND DESIGN

Steedman, R. S. (1981). The Effects ofEarthquakes 0/1Model Retaining /Val/s. M. PhiJ.

Thesis, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England.
~

Steedman, R.S. (1984). Modeling the Behavior of Retaining Wal/s in Earthquakes. !

Ph.D. Thesis, CambridgeUniversity, Cambridge, England. ~
~
VanLaak, P., andEIgamal, A-W. (1991). RPI Eccentric Mass In-Situ Shaka. Teclmical I "~~.: j
Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institutc, 1'roy. NY. l.
. ~
.

~ ."o'!"
~,
. ~,
, , '
i'
'
.' "
. ' ' ~.:.o"". ''
' :~ . '
'O

o':'~'"'. :'~
Whitman, R.V., and Christian, 1.1'. (1990). "Seismic Rcsponse ofRctaining Structurcs." . .'j('¡¡¡''';''~''
.
.. ..
"

",
.
. ., .,. o . . ,'
Jf,1 . ~:J~'. . ¡¡'h. . . .,:¡.

Symposium on Seismic Designfor World Port 2020. San Pedro, CA. Seismie Analysis And Model Studíes Of~''A~
',1
Whitman, R.V. (1991). "Seismic Design ofEarthRetainingStructures (state ofthe art K L. Fishmanl and R Riehards, Ir), Members, ASCE
paper)." proceedings ofSecond Intl. Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. St. Louis, Missouri. Abstraet

Whitman, R.V., and 1'ing, N-H. (1993). "Experimental Results ofExperimcnt No. 10."
Verifications ofNumerical Procedures for the Analysis ofSoil Liqucfaction Problems,
Arulanandan, K. and Seott, R.F. (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, 1, 881-891.
Zeng, X. (1993). "Experimental Results ofModel No. 11." Vcrifications ofNul11erical
Procedures for the Analysis ofSoil Liquefaction Problems, Arulanandan, K. and Scott,
R.F. (edh Balkema, Rotterdam, 1,895-908.
An analytie method is descn1>ed for detennmation Qf the most critica1 threshold
acceleration, fur bridge abutments. The method cons/,ders the pOSSl1>ility of slicting,
bearing capaeity, or mixed modes offailure. The authors have updated, and extended
the coupled equations of motíon that appear in the llterature for predíeting seismic
induced permanent deformation. Comparisons bern/een observed and computed
model respollses serve to verifY the ability of the proposed algorithms to predíct
slicting,tilting or mixed modes of deformatíon.Thresholdacceleratíonsare
¡

estimated for a representative sample of 40 bridges ~ ftee-stancting abutments ftom

New York State. It appears that significant numbers ~e at risk for an earthquake with
peak accelerations above 0.15g. This would indícate ~t extencting this easy screening
procedureto other areas in the East and Midwest in mpderate earthquake zones would
be worthwhile. '
I
Introduction ! ji
I

Free-stancting bridge abutments on spread footin~s are susceptible to seismic

degradation oftheir horizontal and vertical capacity to *stain even moderate earthquake
loads. Moreover, ftet>-stanctingdesigns make up the buIk of the inventory of bridge
abutments outside of areas in the West where the percclVedrisk is bigh.
I
For example; of the 40,000 bridge abutments in Ne"f York State almost a11are ftee.
stancting and, more than half are founded on spread f9otings. Abutments founded on!
spread footings are not concentrated within one geogtapbic 10ca1itybut are distn1>uted~
even1y throughout the various regions of the Stat~ [NYSDOT (1991), Younkins!
(1994)]. Ifthe inventory ofbridge abutments in New york is considered typica1ofthe~
Eastem United States and the Midwest, the seismic vulnerability of ftee stanctingbridge ¡
I Geotechnical Engineering Consultant, McMahon &:,Mann Consulting Engineers, j
P.C., 2495 Main S1., Suite 511, Buffal0, NY, 14214, (716) 834-8932.
2 Professor, Department ofCivil Engineering, State "OniversityofNew York @
Buffi.lo. 212Ketter HalL Buffalo. NY 14260, (716),645-2114.

77
 l' ) I
):
I
78 RETAINING STRUCTURES ANALYSIS AND DESIGN , BRIDGE ABUTMENTS SEISMIC ANALYSIS 79
I

I
. i
'.
abutmenu founded on spread footings is a major cause for concem, even with the , constrained to a tjhing mode of failure, but r~ther any pOSSl'blemode of ~i1ure is
moderate 1eve1of seismic risk associated with these regions. allowed. : ;
1
. I

Richards and Ems (1979) show¡:d that a gravity waU designed for a lta6e &ctor ef
safety of I.S would slide in an earthquake a calculable amount \WeQ.everthe lateral
acce1eration exceeded O.lIg. They therefore introduced the displacement based
approach for the seispñc design of ftee standing, gravity wan type bridge abutments since
seisaiic mov~s could not be totally eliminatl:Ciat a reasonable cost even for
moderate ~quakes. Displacement based seismic analysis requi¡:es the determination
of a tb.reshold ~evel of acce1eration beyond which equih'brium is lost (p.S = 1.0)
reIative displacement between the gravity wa1l and foundation soil wiIl occur. The
o~ WoxXby Richards andElms (1979) considered only horizontal equih'brium and
therefore only the sliding mode of defQrmation. However, earthquake damage reports
. and \aboratory t~ indicate ,that wan failure by ro~tion triggered by a 1055of vertical
equilibrium is aIso significant.
These: observations lile verified by recent analytic studies by Richards et al
(1990,1991,1993),Richards:and
l' , Sbi (1991) and ShÍ (1993) which show a dramatic
reduCtion in seismic,bearing éapacity is pOSSl'ble.Thus, beyond a threshold acceleration
leve\J ~ rotation ormixed mqde of deformation can re$U!t. Seismic bearing capacity is
:strongiy dependent. on the leve! of acce1eratiott. the shear tran.sfur ~ the' wan
fuotÜ1gand foundarlon soil, and the shear strength ofthe foundation soil.
.This,I~ tum, ~ea4s~o a gene1m pro~e'for determining threshold accelention leve1s
for ñF. standing gravity waIl bridge ab11tmentsfor all modes offailure. The precedure is
comp~ensive in tliat tbe seismic rotanon of retaining walls can be considered along
wipl. ~e sIi~g plOtle so that sequen~ modes oí movemem ~ be seen to develop
when both borizontal and vertical equilibriumare violated.
, 1; ", " .
Based ~on the work oí Nadim and Whitman (1984), Siddharthan et al. (1992)
. implclpiented coupled equations ofmotion to describe the reIationsbips.between waH
: tran.4ation, rotation, and th4 forces and moments acring on the wall system. In this
papet ~ reviSed ptbcedVe 'for determination 9f permanent displacement of rigid
.W8USI ciue to eaithquu!, excitation wiJl be presented. Coupled sliding and rotation
wi,Ilbe described.;:asbefor~ by Siddbarthan et al (1992), but the posSl'bility of
SeisnÜ.ó10ss ofbearing cipaCity wiII also be included in the analysis. .
i la this paper first the ana1ytic procedure far ekimating threshold accelerations will
I be reviewed,followed,by the equations for e/;timatingseismicinduced permanent
deformation. The anaIysi~ has been verified :based o,nobseJVed p.erformance of
I laboratory models. Details: ofthe bridge abutment modcls and th~ obsérved tesponse
I of mode1sboth with buri~ toes and forced tcirotate about thetop ofthe ~utment
¡ willbe described,Finally.the results ofa surve~ofb¡idgeabutments typical!oítbose
and !i constructedin New York 'State is presented. II
¡ : ,
¡~
I
. i SeismicVulnerabilityOfG¡avityWallBridgeAb~ts , ¡
!A Iimit equilibrium ap~roJchis used to acco~t for increasedlateral earth!pressure
I (Mononobe (1929), Mononobe and Matsou (~n9) and Okab~ (1926» and' reduced
i '~g .capacity(Richards!
et al (1~) an~Sf (1993»d~eto ~ 10a4ing.
~e
! applicauonof the theory for ~ of 5eISID1Cvulnerabi1ity of bndge .abutments 15
discussed in detail by Ftshman et al (1995), FlSIkan and RichardS (1995) imd:Richards
et al (1996). Brief d~ Qfthe analytic procedUre for detet'mination ofthe m6st critical
tbresboldaccelerationwiIlbe reyiewedhere.
, !
'
;
. ' i
Theseismic vulnerabilil:yof gravity waUbridge abutments involves the determination of a
tbreshold acce1eration beyond w.bich perman~ deformation of tbe gravity ,wall wiIl
occur. A thorough seismic analysis must inveStigate the pOSSlOilityof both ,a sliding
mode of failure as well as i1bearing capacÍ!)' failure introducing rotation. The anaIysis
for the sliding &ilure mode is based pn the :theoretical and experimental iwork of
Richards and E1ms(1979), 'and has been ~ do\:umented in the AASHfO (1993) code
provisions and comment~. Seismic bearing c8pacity is a new development as applied
to gravity wa1lbridge abutments so details ofth~ analysis follow. !
Since seismic bearing capacity &ctors are' dependant on gí:ound acCeleration,
determination of the thresb;old acce1eretionrecMres an it~ative procedure. Referríng to
F¡gure 1, it is assumed that there is no cohesionor depthof embedment and that k.= r
For walls free to move at fue top :FDDis zero ora known value and we can:

~Ju~ :th.eiabilityto predict pernwient ~c displacementwith a slidingmode (1) Assume a trial value for k¡. and detennin.e P AEftom the
MononabelOkabe (M-O) anaIySis.
,of raihIrebas
, t alreidy.beeniverified
. . in the laboratory (Lai(1979), Lai and BerriIl
(197~)j Aitke:n(1~82), Steedman (1984), Elms and Woods (1986), Uwabe and
;Mo~ (1988),~ and Richards (1990), Whitman (1990» there is a need to (2) Compute the vertical fo~ resultant, P as:
extena'this !lata'b~Seto incJude studiesof co,.p1edsliding and rotation. The tests
. d~ h~inare an improvementover previous studies (Aitken(1982), Musante P =' FDV+PAESÍJ1(Ow+!3)+Ww (1)
md ÓItigosa(1984), Anderson et al (1987), and Whitman(1990», in the sensethat
the fuúndation soil beneath the abutment is included. and the model is not

,; ! í . . .
.1 ;
1:
I, t!
. It
 \ ) )
81
80 RETAINING STRUct'ÜllF.-SANALYSIS AND DESIGN BRIDGE ABUTMENTS SEISMIC ~NALYSIS
,

ES.D/c = PmB
-: i (6)
P :
- k.Wc'1;",
C;:"'c- ht)

"",lo00"lodct""""Ib,_"'" ¡~ u el. 11m

is: ! '

R_ned 5011p_le..:
.T-T.-ooI__11I (9a) ¡ IfF.S.BIC determined in step (8) is near~ equal to one, and F.s ftoni
. - .. - eoIIlnle"",llrIdIon engle : step (5) is greater than <me, stop th~ iterationproCedure' since the
: assumed value for 1<.is the thresholdva:lue for bearing capacity failure,

:1<.~which occurs first., I "

P
-.
Fouodetlon SollP...",.'.":
T. .on unllwoIght '
+. ooII'ntemallrtclion ono'.
(9b) If F.s determined in step (5) is neárly equal to one and F.s.BICis
greater thJm one, stop the iteration profedure since the aSSU;1ned value
for 1<.is the thresbold valuei fOI slidinglfailure, k¡.. In thiscase when
: sliding occurs first there is stin the potentw for a bearitlg capacity faiIur~
I at a higheraccelerationintro<lucing
a miied mode. . To estimatekw.> k..
~,'''' " Figure 1. Gravity Retaining Wall Bridge Abutment Force Diagram.
,"" set, P and S:.at their constant valuesl for slidmg, cOmpute NTEftom
j,
Compute the resuhant ofthe shear traction to be transferred to the Equation (5) with PtE:: PI B and det~e kw.ftom Figure 2.
(3)
foundation soil as
(9c) J
If neither of the conditions in 9a or 9b Imet, select higher trial value for o

s = FDH + PAECOs(Ow + P)+ kb Ww (2) 1<.and return to step (1). i

.10 . ,', '
!
:i' 1=2:: i I
(4) Computethe factor f using the equation '\ ,: ! I
<:
:: ¡:,.5!! r.

;
f = S/knP (3) '~ 8 :
c:t I ,,: I
"S ¡I; I
(5) Sliding wi1loccur if S =P tanor and therefore
"
c. 6 I ,;
I I : I

'" I! ! 0.5 :
~. !:! I
tan Or (4) ,
:: 4 /:./
I:!: /
i
~O
F.S.lido = bf o... 1,1,' ..... I
o l' "
t 2 /,>'.
~ /,.~.'
where Sr is the interface friction angle between the abutment footing and ~ N.'
thefuundation soil ~
éi5 O 0.6
O 0.2 0.4
Given the friction angle of the foundation soil, 4Ir,and the f factor ftom k.
(6)
step 4, find the seismic ~earing capacity factor ftom Figure 2. Figure 2. Ratio of NTEto NTsaft~ Shi (1993).
,
(7) Compute the seismic bearing capacity PIEusing the equation Before going on to modify this analytic procedure tor FDH~ O, it is important to'
reemphasize that, as in the M-O analysis fur lateral t1riust, the bearing capacity anaIysis¡
PIE_O.5N1EYB
(5) involves only force resultants and equilibrium of farees. Just as we do not know the!
r
position ofthe lateral thrust P AE,we do not know the p:ositionofthe force, P, driving the,
(8) Bearing capacity failure will occur when P = PtE B and therefore: foundation failure. Moment equih'brium is not coilsidered since the anaIysis then
 ) ')

82 RETAINING STRUCTURES ANALYSIS AND DESIG~ BRIDGE ABUTMENTS SEISMIC ANALYSIS 83

becorl1tShighlj indetenninate anq nonlinear. The eccentricity of P and ¡iIIUl\'1emodes Vertical acceleration can beincluded quite easily by using k¡./ (l-kv) instead ofjust k¡.
of rotatibn incllding rocking and liftoff are not considered in the detenn\nation of when computing PAE and NrE/ NJ5. W" becomes (l-kv)W" in the equih"brillm
thresholll accelerations nor are they likely for bridge abutments. Rather the anaIysishas equationS.' For the retaining wa1l problem \\1iere srnall incremental movements
purposely been kept simple at the same level of sopbistication as the M-O analysiswhich accwnuJ.ate,vertical accelerations are not as significant as they are for buildings. This is
is its major component. Eccentricities will be considered in the calcu1ationof becausethere is little correlation betWeen k¡.and kv,That is to say, because of asymmetric
deforn\ations discussed later. resistance of wa1ls (passive in one direction and active in the other), the pulses are as
likelyto raise the threshold acceleration as to reduCe it.
For almtments not fiee to move outward at the top due to the girder connection details
or other reasons, Fou will not be zero and the ana1ysisprocedure must involve the Although the bacldill is usu31ly granular the foundation soíl may have some cohesive
moment equih"briumequation even iflines of action for P AEand P are assumed. For the strength. There may aIso be some depth to the foundation. Either, or both,may be
extreme case, tlle top can be considered pinned and the wall must rotate in the RT mode. includedby using Figures for N.r/N.. and N.r/ Ncs (Shi (1993», and Eqn. 5 in Steps
6 and 7 ofthe procedure for determination ofthreshold accelerations.
However, untilthe base moves, creating the active situation, it acts as a rigíd wal1 For
this case (Wood, 1975) the seismic lateral pressure increment is parabolic gwmg a thrnst Passive Restraint
PREroughly twice the M-O value and o.. is close to zero.
In many instances the base of an abutJ¡1entmay b~ embedded to some depth within the
Therefore, to modify the analytic procedure for wa11s restrained at the top (\\1iere Fou "* foundation soil Effects of foundation embedment include the development ofpassive
O) for determining threshold values: restraint against sliding, and ~ contn"butionto bearing capacity fioro the surcharge. Both
1, ofthese effects rnay ba incorporated into the newIy' developed analytic method.
I ,
~) In step 2 use PRE = 2PAE fioro step 1 and o.. = O. For a wa1lwith
vertical interface Development of passive restraint under conditions of seismic loading has not received
the same level of attention as the active case. Inertia fiom horizontal accelerations,
P. = Fov+Ww (7) driving the abutment to f.ailure, tends to reduce: the passive thrust that rnay develop
within the foundation soil ,The M-O analysis, ,and the seismic fiee field equations
independent of k¡. . developed by Richards et al (1990) d~scribe the: degradation of passive restraint with
, , . increased horizontal acceleration. However, observations ofthe development ofpassive

!b) Assume PRE,= 2PAE acts 0.375H fiom the top and P acts at the
restraint for seismic load,ing eonditions are limited.,
. i
I
,midpointofthe base,B/2.
\
Richards and Elms (1987,1992) performed laboratory experiments to ~aluate
passive soíl resistance during seismic loading. ;They used a shaking table to study
e) Takemomepts about the top ofthe wa1lto determine S rather than using
the passive resistance behind walls wlúch were forced to deform by: rotation about
horizontal equih"brium(Eqn. 2). Fora wa1lwith a vertiC;Üinterface with
¡, the top (RT), rotation about the bottom (RB), imd translation (T). The following is
its ~ter of gr~vity.at Zand X:
a summary of several important conc1usions wlú~h were reached:

I
S = [2rAE(.375Jl)+kbWwZ+P(0.5B)-WwXJ/H
, (8)
. Within the passive regíon, compression ofthe soíl is the first observed
I
1,
,
I
mode of deforrnation. Al; horizontal accelerations increase, forcing the
wall to move further into the soíl, a failure surface develops extending
j d) Iftheyalue of ,Fou is desiredit cannow be computedfiomEqn.2.
;
i;
i'
I
I
;Ihus4 is now pOSSl"blewitjJ. tl$ ana1ytic approac.h to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of
both dKistin
. fioro the base oftl).e wall to the surface.
The line of action ofthe dynamic passive thrust resultant moves
downward as horlzont,al accelerations increase, until the failure surfaceis
'1 . .. g gravity wa11abutments and new d,esigns. The Procedure has purposely
fully develop~d, at which point the ~e of action is located within the
been lCeptsimple and,many refinements are possible. Ahhough we have assumed kv=O
thisisi1~tr~ed.
i'
i (
i'
. bottom third ofthe wall.
For dense cohesionless materials, the faílure wedges move incrementally
when ground accelerations exceed the thre~old acceleration. The active
1:

, ¡
 r.; i) , )
,
84 RETAINING sTRucroRM )f1ALYSIS AND DESIGN BRIDGE ABUTMENTS SEISMIC Al'JALYSIS 85

wedge wi1l settle and move in tontact with the waD, while the passive ¡
W- WR'.. W- ! Y:t
. wedge wi1lmove ahead ofthe waJI and be forced upward.
Within the passive failure zone the shear strength ofthe soil is not a
constant, decreasing fiom the peak toward the residual strength during [. }X)R9«'1J
+ [I., . h-]' - [-g}X),(,'f'1J
-[1- ~O
] _.) +
deformation.
'"
:11
PAII(mH)cos(o~ - PAIIsin(o) [Rcos(TI) + aJ- FDv[a+ ~COS(l1)] - M.
Equations ofMotion
(10)
Nadim (1980), and Nadim and Whitman (1984) employed coupled equations of
11
; motion to study the problem of seismica1lyinduced tilting of gravity retaining walls.
Basedon the work ofNadimandWhitman(1984),Siddharthanet al(1990,1991,
,
: and",i992), developed a method to predict the seismicperformance of
.

retaining. . R',
'" P.'
: walls considering both rotation and translation deformation modes. XII
1CGe AE.

'!

)1
'¡)
'

,:~¡;'''''''"
,

Pae "
~~~'
;.
wR
iW
,
!~"';'¡:-"-"~'<¡?';';S!.""'-"l.~ili"'::'
.

'~~
J.
',R"'':'<;':
f;\~ -1 1
.!
.
H

"}:~'r" : 1''''ifi'~~>#'~'~''':''''~~'~':
ti
, '
r'
" "
;
. ..

N j
S I' b~I
. ! 1,

i
¡,
, Figure 4. Fre~ Body Diagram ofBridge Abutment Model withFixed Connection to
!.!: 'xvmJ
'[; J " YOI\) C.R,
; , B~dge Deck./
;i:';,'~ .1'
.L S
\, '
Mo Siddharthan's~uadons of modon appIyto .a retaining~aJJ.but not a pin-connected
';'(),;:' I
N
bridge abutme!tt shown in Figure 4. The resulting equa/tion ofmotion is equation 11.
'''i, , Figure 3. Free Body Diagram ofBridge Abutment Model with Free Connection to
Bridge Deck.
[1<& + W R2~é
g U
=
g,
-
WXa(t)Rsin(TI) WRcos(TI) .¡!I PAEhcos(6) + Nb
'
¡ . SR

Figure 3 is a fiee body diagram of a retaining wall subjected to seismic forces which' I I (11)
induce active earth pressures in the backfill Inertial forces are applied according to
d'Alembert's principIe. Much like the Richards and Elms (1979) approacb to Values for th¿ normal and shear forces at the abutmeht foundation-soil interface, N
translating walls Newton's fundamentallaws of motion are applied to anive at the and S, respectively, must be determined. The sliding threshold represents the
coupled eqautions ofmodon proposed by Siddharthan et al (1991). Equations 9 and acceleration tIlat the abutment can resist before slidin~. Beyondthe sliding threshold
10 are the coupled equadons ofmotion desCD"bedby Siddharthan et al (1992). accelerationthe shear force, S, is: : : '

Wt .;..¡.+ó) ' W- W- . S =PAEcos(Ow)

+ k..W = Ntan(or) , (12)
~(~)+ -~. ~"""\TI f = -:-(X.(t»+Pf06ca(O)- W- -(Ya(t»~P~9I(O)+FtN ta:(Or) " :
g g ro(°r) ~ g [ g ]
where PAEis 't the limit descn"bed by the ~esbold ac~leration level for sliding, k¡,1.

(9) A newly developed theory descnDing seismic r~duction of bearing capacity:

j¡ (Richards et al (1990, 1991,1993), Richards and JShi (1991), and Shi (1993» ¡
providesthe limitto the normal force, N, at a givenl~el of acceleration. !
, i

,
,~ '

',' 1
 .,..
I

) ) I

86 RETAINING STRUCTURES ANALYSIS AND DESIbrf BRIDGE ABUTMENTS SEISMIC ANALYSIS

81
!
MmtefSfudils embedment compare,! to Model lA. Model IDA was a model retaining waU since aj
deck load was not applied. '
T
Model Testing

Model bridge a'0utments were constructed within a seismic test chambW aitd ~bjeCted
to seisnñc loading vía a shaking uble. Complete details of the test chamber IID.dmodet I
'¡
;
r TU
T
TtI

constIUction bave been described by F"1sbmanet al (1995), Divito (1994) and Drotar - t--c:J T5 ; TI-
."
t ti W(ST
T4 [AST

(1995).:Pridge abutmeBt models were unique in the sense that both tire abutment A9 A'O At1 "'2
; tlO W(ST
foundation and bridge deck' were incorporated. A number of bridge í1lutment models U [AST
"'A7 A8 '"
were tested as described by FLShmanet al. (1995), FLShmanand Richards (1995) and ..1 &-... Al
.2 A6,.'8
Richards et al (1996). Thrpughout the test program geometric, and physical model tt "'.,9
parámeters were varied including basal shear resistance, and details of the connection ti I¡I:: I
betweeu the bridge dcck and the top ofthebridge abuunent. Comparison of obsexved 1," I "'Al .. ..s .....
11' A2 ..
and predicted responses seived to verify the newly developed analytic procedure for , ;
~ I
.
predicting threshold accelerations. In this paper additional resuIts ftom model testing win ¡.
be presented which demonstrate the effect of burying the toe of the abutment, and I A22'" T.st e.. 80..

deformations associated with a restrained conn~on to the bridge deck. The ability of .1
the SeismicIimit analysis and equations of mation to predict the model performance win !
!
Figure 5(b). Instrumeutation for Tespng AbutQJents with Buried Toe.
be 4emonstrated. . I
TABLE L Models with Passive Restra;nt
1:
-()no.~-
_T
_n .. - ~
",
1- -_o.c>.2.-'O
2.'" -i MODEL DECKLOAD{N) DEYfH OF
PASSIVE
. T4
EMBE~MENT
~... . UTIo ~AII-.z:...
.N --'--1- Al. - AII -....-...-Il'",
".
'cm'

.: UTIo Oc& ~~7 lA 356 7.62

°AS--'-1-- Nlo
on.wo- . 0.2310 'iAI3
""" ~~'
llA '592 3.81
ASTM C,IOI .AI ~I-~ °tAJ
J lIlA !O 7.62
.u,T . O%!no - 1--0.07>0 "RlgldF--III..
I
., . I
.
~ , ,- -'..:.-1+¡--0.1500 The model response :was evaluated with respect to dynamic sliding, bearing
I L~
2.21.
,
2.4... J capacity, and overtummg threshold acceltrations. Sliding threshold aecelerations
: 1 f . .. were computedwith and without passiverisuaint. The overtumingmode of faiIur~
I 1i ; existswheu the line of¡action ofthe found~on soil pre~sureresultant is coinciden1
1

I ', ¡,1 ,Figure 5(.I a). Schematic of Seismic Test Chamber. with the toe of th.e f90ting. Predicted and observed W;eshold accelerations are
1
" "
shownin TableII where,! i
. F~ 5(a) is ~.schematicshowing a typical model with passive restraint. The weight of : I .
. th~ abu.tme¡1t was,} 135 N (1.24 kNlm). The connection betweeu the tQP ofthe abutment km. = sliding threshold 'acceleration with no: passive resuamt
an4 thebridge deck was :ftee. F¡gute 5(b) shows the location of instrumentarlon. k..l = sliding threshold: acceleration with passive resuaint
.' ~1acemei1t transducersale designatedas Tl through TU and accelero¡netersare Al k.. = bearing capacity threshoJd accelerati~
thr(¡dg1iA22.i .', : kloO.T.
= threshold acceleration for overtuming
I i .,'.'
m: itJiis study tbree mOdelS, referred to as Models lA. llA, and DIA, were tested. N.O. =not observed. : ' . i

vaiütions betWec:nthe models in¡;luded deck 10ad and depth of embedment as desaibed F"1gures6,7 and 8 present the history of deformationftom pulse testing.for Model~
in' Table L Model nA was configured with an increased deck load and decreased lA, lIA, and lIIA, respectively.Accelerationpulses were appliedin incrementsoe
I
I t; . . I
i i
i:
! ~ ii
i; J
. ,I ¡ .
i
i;
I