D. Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods

Dynamic Earth Pressures - Simplified Methods
Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
○ Lecture Notes
Other Materials
○ Ostadan and White paper
○ Wu and Finn paper
Homework Assignment
1. Use an 1D EQL ground response model and acceleration time history

developed in homework assignment #3 (Matahina Dam - scaled to the
fundamental period of the surrounding soil) to do the following:
a. Calculate the dynamic thrust against a buried rigid wall using the
Ostadan-White method for the new Orson-Spencer Hall structure that
is 10 m below the ground surface, assuming site class C. Use Vs values
consistent with the mid-range of the site class (20 points).
b. Calculate the dynamic pressure distribution to be applied against the
buried structure using the Ostadan-White method for the same
structure. Show this distribution versus depth on a depth plot. (10
points)
2. Use the M-O method to estimate the factor of safety against sliding and
overturning for a gravity wall using the acceleration time history from the
previous homework assignment 3. (20 points)
The wall is a yielding wall retaining wall and is 4 m high and is 1 m thick at
the base and tapers to 0.6 m at the top. The retained backfill behind the is
flat (i.e., horizontal) and has a unit weight of 22 kN/m^3 with a drained
friction angle of 35 degrees and the backfill is unsaturated. Also, the base of
the wall rests on backfill material and is embedded 0.6 m in this material at
its base.
Assume that the horizontal acceleration used in the design is 50 percent of

the peak ground acceleration. You may also neglect the vertical component
of acceleration.
© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 1

Coulomb Theory
Note Eq. 11.13

of Kramer has
an error.

Current Design Practices
Wednesday, November 25, 2020 3:32 PM

Current Design Practices (cont.)
Wednesday, November 25, 2020 3:32 PM
Current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications address seismic design of

retaining wall types as summarized in the following paragraphs:
1. Conventional gravity and semi-gravity cantilever walls (Article 11.6.5). The

seismic design provisions cite the use of the M-O method (specified in Appendix A,
Article Al 1.1.1.1) to estimate equivalent static forces for seismic loads. Reductions
due to lateral wall movements are permitted as described in Appendix A (Al
1.1.1.1).
2. Nongravity cantilever walls (Article 11.8.6). Seismic design provisions are not
explicit. Rather reference is made to an accepted methodology, albeit the M-O
equations are suggested as a means to compute active and passive pressures
provided a seismic coefficient of 0.5 times the site-adjusted PGA is used.
3. Anchored walls (Article 11.9.6). Seismic design provisions are not explicit, and
reference is made to M-O method for cantilever walls. However, Article Al 1.1. I .3
indicates that, For abutments restrained against lateral movement by tiebacks or
batter piles, lateral pressures induced by inertial forces in the backfill will be
greater than those given by the Mononobe-Okabe analysis.
The discussion goes on to suggest using a factor of 1.5 in conjunction with site-
adjusted PGA for design "where doubt exists that an abutment can yield
sufficiently to mobilize soil strength."

Mononobe - Okabe Method - Introduction and Limitations
Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:32 PM
Lateral earth pressure model is belonging to the first group of theories in classical soil
mechanics. Coulomb [1] and Rankine [2] proposed their theories to estimate active and
passive lateral earth pressures. These kinds of theories propose a coefficient which is a
ratio between horizontal and vertical stress behind retaining walls. Using the ratio,
lateral pressure is simply calculated by the horizontal stress integration.
Mononobe-Okabe method (M-O), a seismic version of coulomb theory, was proposed

based on pseudostatic earthquake loading for granular soils for yielding walls. This
method applies earthquake force components using two coefficients called seismic
horizontal and vertical coefficients. Beside other complex theoretical models and
numerical methods, M-O theory is one of the best initial estimates.
The method incorporates the following assumptions (Geraili and Sitar, 2013):
• The backfill soil is dry, cohesionless, isotropic, homogenous and

elastically undeformable material with a constant internal friction angle;
• The potential failure surface in the backfill is a plane that goes through
the heel of the wall;
• The wall is long enough to make the end effect negligible;
• Sufficient rigid body displacement is required to mobilize the active
wedge in the soil.
From <https://geotechsimulation.com/2018/02/18/determination-of-active-seismic-pressure-on-retaining-structures/>
The method has several limitations that stem from the four assumptions listed
above. The method may not provide realistic estimations of seismic pressures if
the retaining structure is flexible and soil material behind the wall is cohesive
and/or nonuniform. In addition, the method estimates some levels of earth
pressure at the ground surface which is not realistic.
From <https://geotechsimulation.com/2018/02/18/determination-of-active-seismic-pressure-on-retaining-structures/>

Mononobe - Okabe - Active Case

Mononobe - Okabe - Active Case (cont.)

Mononobe - Okabe Passive Case

(from AASHTO LRFD
Mononobe - Okabe Application Bridge Design
Specifications, 2012)

Mononobe - Okabe Application (cont.)
(from AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design

Mononobe - Okabe Application (cont.)
A wide variety of computer programs (e.g. SLOPE/W, SLIDE) are commercially

available to perform the required pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis. The
analysis procedure is straight forward, however, determination of a seismic
coefficient that can appropriately represent the characteristics of design
earthquakes is not easy. It is to be noted that seismic coefficient is not equivalent
to the site-adjusted peak ground acceleration (PGA) because acceleration varies
in depth of the sliding block and PGA occurs just at its surface. Therefore, the
equivalent seismic coefficient should be just a percentage of the site-adjusted
PGA. A number of recent publications have provided guidance in the selection of
an appropriate seismic coefficient where the coefficient is a function of;
(i) design earthquake characteristics (Magnitude, M, distance from fault, R, peak

ground velocity, PGV), and
(ii) lateral displacement of the slope.
The selection of appropriate seismic coefficient relies on both local code

requirements and engineering judgement.
From <http://geotechsimulation.com/2018/02/16/seismic-coefficients-for-pseudostatic-slope-stability-analysis/>

Other Methods Allowed within AASHTO
(from AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design

Gravity Wall Example
Friday, May 12, 2017 3:32 PM

Gravity Wall Example
Friday, May 12, 2017 3:32 PM

Cantilevered Wall Example

Cantilevered Wall Example (cont.)

Cantilevered Wall Example (cont.)
Summary Results
static dynamic
F.S. Sliding = 2.29 1.36 FS static 1.25 to 2
F.S. Overturning = 2.97 1.51 FS static 2 to 3
Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Courses\7330\Spreadsheets

©\CantileveredWall.xls>
Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Seed and Whitman - Simplified Method
the base.

Non-Yielding Walls
Observations of the performance of basement walls and retaining structures in

recent earthquakes show that failures of basement or deep excavation walls in
earthquakes are rare even if the structures were not designed for the actual
intensity of the earthquake loading. Failures of retaining structures are most
commonly confined to waterfront structures retaining saturated backfill with
liquefaction being the critical factor in the failures. Failures of other types of
retaining structures are relatively rare and usually involve a more complex set of
conditions, such as sloping ground either above or below the retaining structure,
or both. While some failures have been observed, there is no evidence of a
systemic problem with traditional static retaining wall design even under quite
severe loading conditions. No significant damage or failures of retaining
structures occurred in the recent earthquakes such as Wenchuan earthquake in
China (2008) and, or the large subduction zone earthquakes in Chile (2010) and
Japan (2011).
https://escholarship.org/content/qt8rm5s4dw/qt8rm5s4dw.pdf?nosplash=
16c0ece067cc1493691d9cbd8137fba5
Figure 5.22. Incremental earth pressure time series computed by FLAC on Non-
Displacing Cantilever wall during

Non-Yielding Walls

Non-Yielding Walls (cont.)

Non-Yielding Walls -Observations from Earthquakes

Non-Yielding Walls - Ostadan and White
Assumptions and Method

• Assume the building basemat is founded on rock.
• Input ground motion at basemat elevation.
• The walls of the building are effectively rigid.
• 30 foot-embedment considered
• 5 percent material damping of soil
• Poisson’s ratio of soil = 1/3
• Kinematic SSI is considered.
• Inertial SSI is not considered.
• The solution is derived from SSI analyses using SASSI.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267726105000643?
casa_token=2JnXmGbMGNMAAAAA:7-
b2n1XcTvJdqUpovn0iNtNS2JwcvQnsET6whO-vdJcVktUDC0
_NFzmNtawwOwSyjduh7BbUF6M

Non-Yielding Walls - Ostadan and White (cont.)
Amplitude at low frequency


Recall that M-O method

is only valid for yielding
wall; hence it forms a
lower bound
The use of the low frequency (i.e., long period) amplitude is based on the
findings of the Lotung experiment site (see previous).

L = infinite


Ostadan and White (Steps)
1. Perform seismic ground response analysis (using SHAKE) and obtain the
acceleration response spectrum at the base mat level in the free-field at 30%
damping. This is done using deconvolution analysis.
2. Obtain the total mass using:
m = 0.50 ρ H2 Ψν
3. Obtain the total seismic lateral force by multiplying the mass from Step 2 by the
spectral amplitude of the free-field response (Step 1) at the soil
column frequency.
F = m Sa
where Sa is the spectral acceleration at the base mat level for the free field at
the fundamental frequency of the soil column with 30 percent damping.
4. Calculate the max. lateral earth pressure (ground surface) by dividing the results
for step 3 by the area under the normal soil pressure curve (normalized area =
0.744 H)
5. Calculate the lateral pressure distribution verses depth by multiply the max.
lateral earth pressure by the p(y) function below.
p(y) = - .0015 + 5.05y - 15.84y2 + 28.25y3 - 24.59y4 + 8.14y5
where y is the normalized height (Y/H) measured from the base of the wall.

Ostadan and White (Summary)
• The method was verified by comparing the results of the simple computational
steps with the direct solution from SASSI.
• The verification included 4 different wall heights, 6 different input time histories
and 4 different soil properties.
• The method is very simple and only involves free-field (e.g. SHAKE) analysis and
a number of hand computational steps.
• The method has been adopted by building code (NEHRP 2000) and will be
included in the next version of ASCE 4-98.
• The Ostadan-White method is by no means a complete solution to the seismic
soil pressure problem. It is merely a step forward at this time.
Solution! Perfect isolation!

Deconvolution Analysis
Abstract
Deconvolution is the process that evaluates the seismic motion at depth of a
soil profile, which can then be used as input excitation in soil-structure
interaction (SSI) analyses. Clearly, the reliability of the SSI analysis depends
on the precision of the derived deconvolved motions at depth. In this paper,
the phase-amplitude modification procedure is presented to deconvolve both
horizontal and vertical target (design) surface ground motions in multi-layered,
equivalent-linear viscoelastic media for use in finite element time-domain
structural analyses. The aim is to determine the seismic motions at the
appropriate depth in the soil profile by modifying the target surface ground
motions based on the mathematical model of the system, which is assessed
by analyzing input-output data. The nonlinear behavior of the soil layers is
approximated by employing the equivalent soil properties in the finite element
model. The exact solution of vertical wave propagation, obtained with the
SHAKE software, is used as a guide to obtain the equivalent properties of the
soil layers, and evaluate the damping ratios. The procedure is validated using
a multi-layered soil profile. The numerical results demonstrate that the
convolved surface ground motions from the finite element analysis and the
target ones are in almost perfect agreement, indicating that the approach can
be used for reliable SSI evaluation in finite element time-domain analyses.
From <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0267726117305742>

Deconvolution Analysis (cont.)
Profile for Deconvolution Analyses

1. We recommend that the Vs profile values developed from site-specific
geotechnical investigations.
Performing Deconvolution Analysis Using Shake
1. We recommend that EQL analyses be used to deconvolve the surface motion to

a depth equal to the base mat of the building .
2. When using the Shake program, deconvolution analysis is done by assigning the
spectrally matched input motion to the surface layer (i.e., layer 1) as an
“outcropping” motion.
3. The output object motion at the depth of the basemat should be requested by
the user as an “outcropping rock” motion.
4. In our Shake model, the infinite half space (layer at base mat elevation) has
been assigned the same material, Vs and damping properties that was found in
this layer from the geotechnical investigations.

D. Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamic Earth Pressures - Simplified Methods

Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:32 PM

1. Use an 1D EQL ground response model and acceleration time history

Assume that the horizontal acceleration used in the design is 50 percent of

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 1

Note Eq. 11.13

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 2

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2020

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 3

Current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications address seismic design of

1. Conventional gravity and semi-gravity cantilever walls (Article 11.6.5). The

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2020

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 4

Mononobe-Okabe method (M-O), a seismic version of coulomb theory, was proposed

• The backfill soil is dry, cohesionless, isotropic, homogenous and

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 5

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 6

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 7

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 8

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 9

(from AASHTO LRFD

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 10

A wide variety of computer programs (e.g. SLOPE/W, SLIDE) are commercially

(i) design earthquake characteristics (Magnitude, M, distance from fault, R, peak

(ii) lateral displacement of the slope.

The selection of appropriate seismic coefficient relies on both local code

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 11

(from AASHTO LRFD

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2014

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 12

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2017

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 13

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2017

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 14

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 15

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 16

F.S. Sliding = 2.29 1.36 FS static 1.25 to 2

F.S. Overturning = 2.97 1.51 FS static 2 to 3

Pasted from <file:///C:\Users\sfbartlett\Documents\My%20Courses\7330\Spreadsheets

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 17

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 18

Observations of the performance of basement walls and retaining structures in

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 19

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 20

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 21

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

T-11 Dynamic Earth Pressure - Simplifed Methods Page 22

Assumptions and Method

© Steven F. Bartlett, 2011