See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327907075

Seismic Design and Analysis of Reinforced Slopes and Highway Embankments

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 177

1 author:

Evangelos Koukos
Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Design and Analysis of Reinforced Slopes and Highway Embankments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Evangelos Koukos on 27 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SEISMIC DESIGN AND A
ANALYSIS
NALYSIS OF REINFORCED
REINFORCE SLOPES
AND HIGHWAY EMBANKME
EMBANKMENTS

Evangelos KOUKOS1, Antonia BAGGOU2

ABSTRACT

Highway embankments are often constructed using soil strengthening techniques by means of horizontally
placed strips of geosynthetic reinforcement over successive layers of compacted fill material. HA 68/94 Advice
Note gives guidance on design methods for determining the required reinforcement of highway slopes, slo based on
a limit equilibrium approach applied on a twotwo-part wedge mechanism. This type of mechanism has been found to
be particularly suited to the analysis of reinforced soilsoil, as it can take any form provided that the inter-wedge
inter
boundary is vertical and that the base of the lower wedge intersects the toe of the slope.
The currently proposed by HA68/94 approach provides a simple method for obtaining safe and economical
design solutions, yet limited to the evaluation of the reinforced slope design requirements with respect to static
loading only. Nonetheless, seismic loading con conditions
ditions also constitute special conditions to which the reinforced
slopes may be subjected and would require consideration, in addition to the static loading, when performing
internal stability evaluation. Extending the two
two-part wedge mechanism design approach oach to cover an earthquake
loading scenario is of particular interest in this study.
This paper presents the results of an extensive parametric study, performed on a reinforcedreinforce embankment of
varied geometric characteristics and soil properties subjected to a range of seismic accelerations. The
recommended design charts arts and tables
tables, provide a very useful tool for practising engineers in their preliminary
design check as they allow simple hand calculations to be carried out for a quick eestimate
stimate of the reinforcement’s
reinfo
total force and layout geometry required to support an embankment slope under seismic loading.loading

Keywords: Reinforced slopes; Embankments;

mbankments; Internal stability; Two-part
part wedge mechanism;
mechanism Geogrids

1. INTRODUCTION

A limit equilibrium approach is adopted by HA 68/94 for evaluating the internal stability of an
embankment based on a two-part part wedge mechanism
mechanism. This type of mechanism has been found to be
particularly suitable to reinforced soil as it can accommodate any reinfor
reinforcement
cement layout geometry
g and
is preferred as it provides a simple method for obtaining safe and economical design solutions.

1.1 Definition of Two-Part

Part Wedge Mechanism

A typical geometry of the two-part

part wedge mechanism is shown in Figure 1.. The mechanism assumes a
bilineal failure surface too simulate potential slip surfaces within reinforced soil mass and may take any
form provided that the inter-wedgewedge boundary is vertical, and that the base of the lower wedge
intersects the toe of the slope. Three cases of two-part wedge mechanisms can be considered
depending on whether the inter-wedge
wedge boundary lies to the left or right of the crest and also whether
the upper wedge outcrops above the slope or on the slope face.

1
Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport
Transport, Directory of Road Infrastructure, Civil Engineer MSc, Athens,
Athens Greece,
ekoukos75@gmail.com
2
Ministry of Infrastructure
ure and Transport
Transport, Directory of Road Infrastructure, Civil Engineer MSc, Athens,
Athens Greece,
abaggou@yahoo.gr
 Q1

Wedge 1

R'1
q W1 R'12
T1
N'12
N'1
U12

U1 K1 T12
Wedge 1
θ1 K12
Wedge 2
c', φ'
H R'12
γ, ru
Wedge 2 Q2
N'12
θ1
U12
β
Y T12 W2
θ2
K12
Competent bearing material
X T2 R'2

K2
N'2
U2

Figure 1. Geometry of two-part wedge mechanism and forces acting on wedges

The internal and external forces acting on the two wedges are also shown in Figure 1. It is assumed
that driving forces, such as soil’s self weight and any surcharge loads, are in limit equilibrium with
resisting forces such as soil shear strength and reinforcement force. The general formula derived when
resolving forces parallel and perpendicular to the lower surface of each wedge is too complex and
cannot be solved without any assumption. When the conservative assumption of a zero inter-wedge
friction angle is made, the formula is considerably simplified. In this case, the total quantity of
horizontal reinforcement force required for equilibrium, Ttot, is given by the following expression:

𝑇 =𝑇 +𝑇 =

[( )( θ φ′ ) ( φ′ Κ )/ θ ] [( )( θ λ φ′ ) λ ( φ′ Κ )/ θ ]
= ( θ φ′ )
+ ( λ θ φ′ )
(1)

where T1,2 is the sum of reinforcement forces acting on each wedge, W1,2 is the weight of each wedge,
Q1,2 is the total surcharge force on each wedge, U1,2 is the total surcharge force on each wedge, K1,2 is
the cohesion force acting on base of each wedge, λs is the base sliding factor, θ1,2 is the base angle of
each wedge and φ’1,2 is the effective angle of friction acting on the base of each wedge.

1.2 General Concepts of the Design Method

When designing a reinforced soil slope, both the total reinforcement force required Ttot and the overall
dimensions of the zone containing reinforcement, denoted by LT and LB in Figure 2, must be specified.
More specifically, Ttot governs the design tensile strength Td of each reinforcement layer as well as the
minimum number N of reinforcement layers to be used (N=Ttot/Td). Furthermore the determination of
the reinforced zone limits, at the top and at the bottom of the embankment, establishes the required
length of reinforcement at any depth of the slope.
All the above should be considered as a preliminary estimate of the minimum reinforcement
requirements. For practical reasons, it may be desirable to rationalize the final reinforcement lengths
and spacings, which could lead to a greater total quantity of reinforcement being used.
When selecting the design value of strength Td for a polymeric reinforcement, consideration should
also be given to the long term reduction of strength due to factors such as creep, installation damage,
weathering, chemical effects etc. In case of geogrids, the global reduction factor of strength may vary
from 2.5 to 10 according to the BBA certificates or manufacturer’s literature. However, for
preliminary design and routine calculations a safety factor of about 7.0 may be used as a conservative
value.

2
 LT
Le1

Reinforced
Zone

Tmax mechanism

45ο+φ’/2 Tob mechanism

Competent bearing material LB

Figure 2. General concepts of design method

1.2.1 Determination of Ttot

For each one of the three possible cases considered, a spreadsheet may be developed for calculating
Ttot using Εquation 1 and the appropriate algebraic expressions for the main variables as proposed by
HA 68/94 and shown in Figure 3. By a computer search the critical two-part wedge mechanism among
cases 1, 2 and 3 which requires the greatest horizontal reinforcement force Ttot (called the “Tmax
mechanism”) can be identified. Usually case 1 is the most common situation for identifying the “Tmax
mechanism”.

1.2.2 Determination of LT

The “Tmax mechanism” also governs the length of reinforcement LΤ at the top of the slope. More
specifically, as shown in Figure 2, the length of LT is set such that the uppermost reinforcement layer
has just sufficient length Le1, beyond the failure surface of the “Tmax mechanism”, to mobilize its pull-
out resistance. The pull-out length Le1 required is given by:

𝐿 = ( )
(2)

where Td is the design value selected for the reinforcement strength, λp is a non-dimensional pull-out
factor and σ’v represents the normal effective stress acting on the first layer of reinforcement beyond
the failure surface. According to HA 68/94 if LT is less than [LΒ-Χc], where Xc=H/tanβ, then LT should
be set equal to [LΒ-Χc], so that the rear boundary of the reinforcement zone becomes vertical.

1.2.3 Determination of LB

Assuming that a competent bearing material exists beneath the reinforcement zone, the key
mechanism for determining the required length of the reinforcement zone LB at the base of the
embankment is forward sliding on the basal layer of reinforcement. This is called the “Tob
mechanism”.
The “Tob mechanism” is essentially a two-part wedge mechanism with a flat base of the lower wedge
requiring precisely zero reinforcement force for stability. The “Tob mechanism” is simple to define and
locate using Εquation 1 and a trial and error approach by means of a computer search. The length LB is
set equal to the base width X of the “Tob mechanism”. In most cases the critical value of θ1 for
identifying the “Tob mechanism” may be assumed to be (45ο +φ’/2).

3
 q k
Case 1

a Case 1
1 d W1= ½ γ [(a+b)2 cotθ1-a2 cotβ]
W2= ½ γ b X
U1= ½ ru γ [d e+(d+b) f]
e

b H U2= ½ ru γ b m
K1= c’1 (e+f)
θ1 2 K2= c’2 m
Q1= q k
f

Y β
θ2 Q2= Not applicable
m
X

Case 2
q s t

Case 2
1 W1= ½ γ (H-Y)2 cotθ1
W2= ½ γ [2XH-X2 tanθ2 –Η2 cotβ]
U1= ½ ru γ g (H-Y)
2 H U2= ½ ru γ [(H-Y)(X+t)secθ2+j m)]
g

θ1 K1= c’1 g
j K2= c’2 m
Y Q1= q s
β
m θ2 Q2= q t
X

Case 3 q

u
Case 3
a
W1= ½ γ b u
W2= ½ γ b X
U1= ½ ru γ b u secθ1
1 H U2= ½ ru γ b m
b K1= c’1 [u secθ1]
θ1 2 K2= c’2 m
β Q1= Not applicable
Y Q2= Not applicable
θ2 m

where:
a= (H-X tanβ) j= t tanθ2
b= (Η-Υ-a) = X-tanβ -Υ k= [(a+b) cotθ1]-[a cotβ] = (s+t)
d= k tanθ1 m= √(X+Y)
e= k secθ1 s= (a+b) cotθ1
f= [(a+b)/sinθ1]-e = (g-e) t= (k-s)
g= s secθ1 = (a+b)/sinθ1 u= b/(tanθ1-tanβ)

Figure 3. Algebraic Definitions of two-part wedge geometry for the three cases considered (after HA 68/94)

4
2. SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS

The stability of reinforced slopes should be checked for both static and earthquake loading. Seismic
loading acting on embankment slopes is usually incorporated into the calculations by design engineers
using the pseudostatic approach. Such approach was used in this paper to extend the two-part wedge
mechanism design method proposed by HA 68/94 for the earthquake case as well.

2.1 Seismic Stability of Slopes and Embankments

According to Greek Regulation EAK-2000 stability of embankments up to 15-m in height, subjected

to an earthquake load, shall be checked using an additional horizontal seismic acceleration αh acting on
their soil mass, which vary from αΒ at the base up to αK at the top of the embankment.

𝑎 = 0.50 𝑎 (3)

𝑎 = 𝑎 𝛽(𝛵) (4)

where α is the normalised seismic ground acceleration, equals to 0.16 for Seismic Zone I , 0.24 for
Seismic Zone II and 0.36 for Seismic Zone III and β(Τ) is the spectral magnification factor that
corresponds to the fundamental period of the structure. In the absence of a more accurate analysis, T =
2.5 (H/Vs) may be used, where, Vs is the average shear wave velocity in the embankment.

The horizontal component of the effective seismic acceleration acting at the embankment slope αh, is
considered to be the mean average of αΒ and αK. Thus,

( )
𝛼 = = 0.25 𝛼 [1 + 𝛽(𝛵)] (5)

The vertical component of the effective seismic acceleration αv, is assumed to be half of the horizontal.

𝛼 = ±0.50 𝑎 (6)

For embankments higher than 15-m, EAK-2000 suggests that a special geotechnical and seismic
design is required for estimating the design seismic acceleration acting on its mass. However, in the
absence of a detailed and complete seismological study, it is recommended that, the earthquake’s
horizontal components at the existing ground level may be calculated from the design response spectra
formula using suitable values for the factors involved.

2.2 Two-Part Wedge Mechanism Design Method for Seismic Loading

In order to expand the two-part wedge mechanism design method for the earthquake case, in addition
to the existing static forces, pseudostatic seismic forces Fh1 and Fh2 were considered acting at the
centroid of each one of the two wedges and were incorporated into the general formula of Ttot. The
magnitude of each seismic force can be calculated by multiplying the horizontal seismic coefficient αh
with the total weight of each sliding mass. The vertical component of the seismic acceleration was
neglected and was not considered in the calculations performed.
The expression for the total quantity of horizontal reinforcement force required Ttot given in HA 68/94
can be then modified, for the case of seismic loading, as follows:

𝑇 =𝑇 +𝑇 +𝐹 +𝐹 =

[( )( θ φ ) ( φ Κ )/ θ ] [( )( θ λ φ ) λ ( φ Κ )/ θ ]
= + + 𝛼 (𝑊 + 𝑊 ) (7)
( θ ) ( λ θ )

where Fh1,2 is the horizontal seismic force acting at the centroid of each wedge.

5
3. PAPAMETRIC ANALYSIS

This paper presents the results of an extensive parametric study, with more than 240 different cases
analyzed, accounting for a reinforced embankment slope of varied geometric characteristics and soil
properties, subjected to a range of seismic accelerations. Since the scope of this study was to give
guidance on the design requirements for the strengthening of new earthworks, effort was made to
analyse typical cases of embankments that are most likely to be encountered in actual case studies.

3.1 Assumptions and limitations of the analysis

The following assumptions were considered for the parametric analysis performed:

External Geometry
A new highway embankment of 10-m, 20-m and 30-m in height, with a slope angle β ranging from 40o
to 70o, constructed over horizontal ground of a competent bearing material, was considered for the
analysis.

Fill Material
A fill material with a unit weight γ of 20 kN/m3 and typical shear strength properties was considered in
the parametric analysis. More specifically since effective friction angle φ’ usually lies in the range 30o-
35o for granular fills and in the range 20o–25o for low plasticity (i.e. PI<25%) clay fills, φ’ was
selected to vary from 25o-40o. In addition, cohesion c’ of the fill was taken equal to zero, as this is the
normally assumed value for design purposes.

Type of Reinforcement
Horizontally strips of geosynthetics and in particular geogrids placed over successive layers of
compacted fill material were used in the analysis. The first layer of reinforcement was considered to
be placed half a meter below the crest of the embankment while the bottom layer of reinforcement was
considered to be placed at the base of the embankment. When the base of the lower wedge is forward
sliding on the basal layer of horizontally placed reinforcement, then a non-dimensional base sliding
factor λs should be incorporated into the terms of cohesion force K2’ and tangential effective force R2’,
acting on base of wedge 2, shown in Figure 1. Consistently with previously published literature, a
value of 0.80 was selected for factor λs for the case of polymeric geogrids. When there is no horizontal
sliding at the base of wedge 2 the factor λs always reverts to a value of unity.

Pore Water Pressures

No phreatic surface was assumed to be present within the reinforced soil block and therefore no pore
water pressures were taken into account in the calculations.

Surcharge Loads
For simplicity, no surcharge loads were considered. However, in case of highway embankments, some
regulations suggest that a traffic load acting at the crest of the slope should be taken into account in the
analysis of slope stability. In this case, surcharge load can be treated as an equivalent additional
thickness of fill, by substituting H' for H in the calculations, such as: H' = H+(Q/γ), where H is the
actual slope height and γ is the unit weight of fill.

Seismic coefficient
Simple hand calculations using Equation 5, can prove that the design seismic acceleration αh, for a
typical highway embankment with a spectral amplification factor β(T) ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 can
vary from 0.08-0.14 for Seismic Zone I, from 0.12-0.21 for Seismic Zone II and from 0.18-0.32 for
Seismic Zone III. Therefore, for the parametric analysis performed it would be rational to pick 0.10,
0.20 and 0.30 to cover the typical range of design seismic accelerations αh expected.

6
3.2 Modifications in the general formula of Ttot

Due to the assumptions made above, Equation 7 now simplifies to:

[ ( )] [ ( )]
𝑇 = 𝑇 + 𝑇 + 𝐹ℎ1 + 𝐹ℎ2 = ( )
+ ( )
+ 𝛼 (𝑊 + 𝑊 ) (8)

It is evident that the calculation of Ttot under seismic loading depends, apart from the design seismic
acceleration of the slope αh, on the strength of the fill φ’ as well as on the weight of the two wedges
and the geometry of the failure zone (θ1, θ2).
A spreadsheet was developed, based on the equation above, in order to identify Tmax and Tob
mechanisms and calculate Ttot and LB respectively. More specifically, by a trial and error process the
geometry of the failure zone in terms of θ1, θ2 and X was located and the greatest required horizontal
force as well as the maximum required length of reinforcement at the base of the embankment among
cases 1, 2 and 3 were specified for a given embankment geometry and material fill properties.
Spreadsheet validation was also performed by comparison with known results as those available by the
HA68/94 design tables for static loading conditions.

4. RESULTS

The results of the parametric study are presented in the form of design charts and tables (see
Appendix). For a given seismic acceleration αh input values of the embankment slope angle β and the
effective angle of the fill material φ’ would only be required to estimate the reinforcement’s total force
and layout geometry to satisfy internal stability requirements. Obviously linear interpolation is always
recommended for calculating intermediate values.

4.1 Results of Parametric Analysis

After careful evaluation of the results of the parametric analysis, it was verified that the total
reinforcement force required for stability Ttot is directly proportional to the square of the height H of
the embankment. In particular, it was found that the total required reinforcement force was four times
more for a embankment with a height of 20-m and nine times more for a embankment with a height of
30-m compared to the total reinforcement force Ttot required for a 10-m height embankment. Thus, for
presentation purposes, it was convenient to non-dimensionalise the calculated values of Ttot by using
the total force coefficient parameter Kmax where:

𝐾 =𝑇 ⁄(0.50 𝛾 𝛨 ) (9)

Similarly, it was found convenient to normalize the resulting values for the required lengths of the
reinforcement at the bottom and at the top of the embankment with respect to the height H, as it was
proven that the derived lengths LB and [LT-Le1] were directly proportional to the height of the
embankment for the cases analyzed.
The following diagrams summarize the results of the parametric analysis performed:
0,70 0,70 0,70
φ=25
0,60
φ=25 αh=0.10 0,60 φ=30 αh=0.20 0,60
φ=30
φ=35
φ=35
0,50 0,50 φ=40 0,50
φ=40
0,40 0,40 0,40
Kmax

Kmax
Kmax

0,30 0,30 0,30

0,20 0,20 0,20

φ=25
0,10 0,10 0,10 φ=30
φ=35 αh=0.30
0,00 0,00 0,00 φ=40
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
β (deg) β (deg) β (deg)

Figure 4. Variation of Kmax against embankment slope angle β for different seismic coefficients

7
 2,50 2,50 6,00
φ=25
αh=0.10 αh=0.20 αh=0.30
φ=30 5,00
2,00 2,00
φ=35
φ=25
φ=40
4,00 φ=30
1,50 1,50 φ=35
LB/H

LB/H
φ=40

LB/H
3,00
1,00 1,00
2,00

0,50 φ=25
0,50 φ=30 1,00
φ=35
0,00 0,00 φ=40 0,00
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
β (deg) β (deg) β (deg)

Figure 5. Variation of LB/H ratio against embankment slope angle β for different seismic coefficients

1,40 1,40 1,40

φ=25 φ=25
1,20 φ=30 1,20 φ=30 1,20
φ=35 φ=35
1,00 φ=40 1,00 φ=40 1,00
[LT - Le1]/H

[LT - Le1]/H
[LT - Le1]/H

0,80 0,80 0,80

0,60 0,60 0,60

0,40 0,40 0,40 φ=25

φ=30
0,20 0,20 0,20 φ=35
αh=0.10 αh=0.20 φ=40 αh=0.30
0,00 0,00 0,00
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
β (deg) β (deg) β (deg)

Figure 6. Variation of [LB- Le1]/H ratio against embankment slope angle β for different seismic coefficients

The following conclusions can be drawn after evaluating the results above:

Influence of fill material

The total reinforcement force required for stability highly depends on the shear strength of the fill
material. For example as shown in Table 1, in the case of an embankment with slope angle of 70o, Kmax
can be reduced over 50% when using a fill material with an effective friction angle of 40o instead of
25o.
The required length of reinforcement at the base of the embankment is also significantly affected by
the shear strength of the fill material. More specifically for the case described above, LB/H is increased
about 2.5 times for seismic acceleration αh=0.10 and almost 7.0 times for seismic acceleration αh=0.30
when a fill material with an effective friction angle of 25o instead of 40o is used.

Table 1. Influence of fill material strength in case of a very steep slope (β=70ο).

Kmax LΒ/H
αh
(φ’=25ο) (φ’=40ο) (φ’=25ο) (φ’=40ο)
0.10 0,408 0,177 1,06 0,42
0.20 0,516 0,243 1,82 0,53
0.30 0,657 0,324 4,84 0,72

Influence of slope angle

Embankments with very steep slopes require a larger quantities of reinforcement force for stability but
surprisingly reduced lengths of reinforcement at the base when compared to embankments with flatter
slopes, as shown in the example presented at Table 2. The latter conclusion, also observed in the case
of static loading, is attributed to the shallower failure planes that are developed below the slope face in
case of steep slopes.

8
 Table 2. Influence of slope angle in case of fill effective friction angle φ’=30ο.

Kmax LΒ/H
αh ο ο ο
(β=40 ) (β=70 ) (β=40 ) (β=70ο)
0.10 0.151 0.317 1.14 0.73
0.20 0.268 0.409 1.50 1.09
0.30 0.424 0.524 2.36 1.94

Influence of seismic acceleration

It is obvious after evaluating the results of Tables 1 and 2 that Kmax increases almost proportionally to
the seismic coefficient αh for all cases analyzed. On the other hand, LB/H increases substantially for
embankments with fill materials of reduced strength when they are subjected to strong seismic
accelerations.
It should be noted that even for the lowest considered seismic acceleration, the estimated
reinforcement force and lengths greatly exceed those derived in HA68/94 for the case of static loading.
This observations highlights the importance of the current work as in the majority of practical cases,
earthquake loading controls the design.

5. CONCLUSIONS

A preliminary estimate of the reinforcement’s total force and layout geometry required to support a
new embankment slope of certain characteristics under seismic loading is proposed in this paper. The
design charts and tables suggested, in coordination with the design tables given by HA 68/94 for the
case of static loading, can be a very useful tool when performing a preliminary design check to obtain
safe and economical solutions which provide internal stability of the slope. The research also
highlighted that for a given seismic acceleration both the slope geometry (height and inclination) as
well as the strength of the fill play an important role in the evaluation of the reinforced slope design
requirements, affecting significantly the cost of the construction.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of
Greece for giving them the opportunity to participate and present their study at the 16th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

7. REFERENCES

British Standarts Institution (1994). BS8006 Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills.
EAK 2000 (2000). Greek Code for Seismic Resistance Structures
FHWA-NHI-00-043 (2001). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and
Construction Guidelines
HA 68/94 (1994). Design methods for the reinforcement of highway slopes by reinforced soil and soil nailing
techniques. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol. 4, Section 1, Part 4, HMSO
Konstantinidis G., (2010). Guidelines for the Design of Reinforced Embankments of the Egnatia Odos A.E.,
Proceedings of the 6th Hellenic Conference on Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, 29 September
- 01 October, Volos, Greece.
Mouratidis A, (2007). Road Construction: The construction of road works, University Studio Press, Thessaloniki

9
APPENDIX

The results of the parametric analysis are summarized in the Tables below. For each case the geometry
of “Tmax mechanism” (giving X/H, Y/H, θ1) and the corresponding total force coefficient parameter
Kmax are provided as well as the minimum lengths of the reinforcement zone LB and [LT-Le1] required
for internal stability. (Note: The values of [LT-Le1] were determined geometrically given the geometry
of “Tmax mechanism”).

LT

L e1

c'=0
φ'
γ H
ru =0
θ1

Y β
θ2
X
LB

Table I. Two-part wedge solutions for seismic loading with αh=0.10

(ru=0, λs=0.8, c’=0, i=0, θ2≥0)
β φ’ Kmax X/H Y/H θ1 LB/H (LT-Le1)/H
25o 0.259 0.765 0 46.0o 1.47 0.54
40o 30o 0.151 0.617 0 46.0o 1.14 0.39
35o 0.071 0.449 0 45.1o 0.85 0.26
25o 0.293 0.650 0 47.0o 1.37 0.58
30o 0.187 0.543 0 48.0o 1.05 0.45
45o
35o 0.105 0.416 0 47.8o 0.82 0.32
40o 0.047 0.285 0 47.2o 0.58 0.21
25o 0.322 0.553 0 48.0o 1.29 0.61
30o 0.219 0.465 0 49.2o 0.97 0.49
50o
35o 0.137 0.373 0 49.9o 0.77 0.38
40o 0.075 0.277 0 50.3o 0.59 0.27
25o 0.347 0.468 0 48.9o 1.22 0.64
30o 0.247 0.395 0 50.3o 0.90 0.52
55o
35o 0.166 0.325 0 51.5o 0.71 0.42
40o 0.103 0.253 0 52.4o 0.56 0.32
25o 0.369 0.387 0 49.4o 1.16 0.66
30o 0.272 0.332 0 51.3o 0.84 0.55
60o
35o 0.193 0.279 0 53.0o 0.65 0.45
40o 0.128 0.221 0 54.1o 0.52 0.37
25o 0.389 0.316 0 50.0o 1.11 0.68
30o 0.296 0.273 0 52.3o 0.78 0.57
65o
35o 0.217 0.230 0 54.1o 0.59 0.48
40o 0.153 0.187 0 55.6o 0.47 0.40
25o 0.408 0.247 0 50.4o 1.06 0.70
30o 0.317 0.215 0 52.9o 0.73 0.60
70o
35o 0.241 0.183 0 55.0o 0.54 0.51
40o 0.177 0.151 0 57.0o 0.42 0.43

10
View publication stats

Table II. Two-part wedge solutions for seismic loading with αh=0.20
(ru=0, λs=0.8, c’=0, i=0, θ2≥0)
β φ’ Kmax X/H Y/H θ1 LB/H (LT-Le1)/H
25o 0.408 0.890 0 42.1o 2.23 0.81
40o 30o 0.268 0.754 0 44.0o 1.50 0.60
35o 0.157 0.604 0 44.5o 1.14 0.43
25o 0.433 0.755 0 42.7o 2.13 0.84
30o 0.300 0.643 0 45.0o 1.40 0.64
45o
35o 0.193 0.527 0 46.3o 1.05 0.48
40o 0.109 0.403 0 46.6o 0.81 0.35
25o 0.454 0.634 0 43.1o 2.05 0.86
30o 0.327 0.548 0 46.0o 1.32 0.67
50o
35o 0.223 0.455 0 47.6o 0.97 0.53
40o 0.141 0.361 0 48.7o 0.76 0.40
25o 0.472 0.530 0 43.5o 1.98 0.88
30o 0.351 0.457 0 46.5o 1.25 0.70
55o
35o 0.251 0.388 0 48.6o 0.90 0.57
40o 0.169 0.314 0 50.1o 0.70 0.45
25o 0.488 0.439 0 43.9o 1.92 0.89
30o 0.372 0.381 0 47.1o 1.19 0.73
60o
35o 0.275 0.325 0 49.6o 0.84 0.59
40o 0.195 0.267 0 51.4o 0.64 0.48
25o 0.502 0.355 0 44.1o 1.86 0.91
30o 0.391 0.310 0 47.6o 1.14 0.75
65o
35o 0.298 0.266 0 50.3o 0.78 0.62
40o 0.220 0.221 0 52.5o 0.59 0.52
25o 0.516 0.278 0 44.4o 1.82 0.92
30o 0.409 0.244 0 48.1o 1.09 0.77
70o
35o 0.319 0.210 0 51.0o 0.74 0.65
40o 0.243 0.179 0 54.0o 0.53 0.54

Table III. Two-part wedge solutions for seismic loading with αh=0.30
(ru=0, λs=0.8, c’=0, i=0, θ2≥0)
β φ’ Kmax X/H Y/H θ1 LB/H (LT-Le1)/H
25o 0.605 1.036 0 35.2o 5.25 1.26
40o 30o 0.424 0.891 0 40.0o 2.36 0.89
35o 0.278 0.740 0 42.2o 1.52 0.65
25o 0.617 0.871 0 35.4o 5.16 1.27
30o 0.447 0.750 0 40.5o 2.26 0.92
45o
35o 0.309 0.634 0 43.3o 1.41 0.69
40o 0.198 0.513 0 44.9o 1.04 0.52
25o 0.627 0.730 0 35.5o 5.08 1.28
30o 0.466 0.635 0 40.8o 2.18 0.95
50o
35o 0.335 0.537 0 44.0o 1.34 0.73
40o 0.229 0.439 0 46.0o 0.96 0.56
25o 0.636 0.611 0 35.6o 5.01 1.30
30o 0.483 0.529 0 41.1o 2.11 0.97
55o
35o 0.358 0.454 0 44.7o 1.27 0.76
40o 0.256 0.373 0 47.0o 0.89 0.60
25o 0.644 0.505 0 35.7o 4.95 1.31
30o 0.498 0.437 0 41.3o 2.05 0.99
60o
35o 0.379 0.376 0 45.3o 1.21 0.78
40o 0.280 0.315 0 48.0o 0.83 0.63
25o 0.651 0.408 0 35.7o 4.89 1.32
30o 0.512 0.356 0 41.7o 1.99 1.00
65o
35o 0.398 0.307 0 45.8o 1.15 0.80
40o 0.303 0.259 0 48.8o 0.77 0.66
25o 0.657 0.319 0 35.8o 4.84 1.32
30o 0.524 0.278 0 41.9o 1.94 1.02
70o
35o 0.415 0.241 0 46.1o 1.11 0.83
40o 0.324 0.206 0 49.5o 0.72 0.69

11