Lecture Slides - Bearing Capacity Shallow Foundations

CVEN9513
Advanced Foundation Engineering
Image Source: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/concrete-

Wednesday 15:00 – 18:00
(weeks 1-5, 7-10)
footings-reinforcing-rod-new-commercial-1077859382 Image source: https://structville.com/2020/10/sheet-pile-walls-and-their-uses.html
Friday, 10:00-12:00
(weeks 4,7,9)
Course Coordinator & Lecturer

Image Source: https://www.quantity-takeoff.com/types-of-pile-foundation.htm
Dr. Rohit Tiwari PhD, MS(Res), B.Tech (Distinction)

Image Source: http://equipment4all.blogspot.com/2010/11/anchored-
retaining-walls.html
Email : r.tiwari@unsw.edu.au
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction#/media/File:Liquefaction_at_Niigata.JPG 1
Opening Remarks
• Foundation is an essential part of any structure which SAFELY transfer
superstructural loads to the ground.
• Idealizing soil’s constitutive response as an Elastic Material is the most

affordable/misleading way of estimating foundation capacity and settlements.
• Soil Suction has a high influence on its shear strength; therefore, it needs to be
incorporated while evaluating the strength and stability of unsaturated soil.
• Choice of suitable Earth Retaining Structure & Piles depends on several

factors, satisfactory performance of earth retaining structures & piles should be ensure for a
safe and reliable infrastructure.
• Earthquake Resistant Design of foundation system is an essential aspect of modern

performance-based design. 2
Geotechnical Design Criterion
Limit state design of foundations AS2870-2011, AS 4678-2002
1. Strength Criterion (Applied Load should be lesser than the load required for foundation soil failure)
2. Serviceability Criterion (Applied Load should be lesser than the load required for excessive settlement
P
and movement of foundation soil)
Failure Load
Applied Load (P)
Image Source: https://www.structuredfoundation.com/blog/extreme-

example-of-foundation-failure/
Strength Limit Reached
Serviceability Limit Reached
Foundation Settlement
Settlement limit
3
Geotechnical Design Criterion
𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂
Strength Criterion Factor of Safety (F.) =
𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃
1. Global factor of safety method Chances of uncertainty in Design and Construction
2. Load and resistance factor design method
3. Partial factor of safety design method Can you arrange strength reduction
4. Probabilistic method factors for design in
A good design could be a combination of 1, 2, 3 & 4 (Soil, Steel, Concrete).
Global factor of safety method (designing against failure) – Dominant method of 20th Century
1. Simplest method
2. Popular
3. Mostly used for geotechnical design of shallow foundation, pile foundations and retaining walls
𝑅𝑅u Ru = Ultimate load capacity or strength of the foundation

≥ � 𝑃𝑃i F = Safety factor (FS) or Factor of Safety (FOS)
𝐹𝐹
Pi = Applied loading
P https://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=OAMO4S
7mp5M
Safety Factor for Different Geotechnical Problem:

𝐹𝐹 = 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃⁄𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 (𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹)
𝐹𝐹 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 ⁄𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊)
𝐹𝐹 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ⁄𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆) 4
Strength Criterion
1. Global factor of safety method (designing against failure)
• Choice of FS or FOS depends on the ground and foundation type
• Engineering judgement and experience helps in selecting site specific FOS
5
Strength Criterion
2. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) method
Ru = Ultimate load capacity or strength of the foundation
ϕ × 𝑅𝑅u ≥ � 𝑎𝑎i × 𝑃𝑃i
Pi = Applied loading
1. Based on the limit state design in geotechnical engineering.

2. LRFD method is popular in STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
3. Using the Strength reduction (ϕ) and Load (𝑎𝑎i ) factors
4. Strength reduction factors – Estimation/Selection
5. Load factors provided by design codes (Australian Standards)
Strength reduction (ϕ) factors for Pile Design (AS2159)
Strength estimated using the CPT test result may not

represented the strength of a footing/foundation
6
Strength Criterion
3. Partial Factor of Safety Design method
′ 𝑅𝑅′ = Design resistance – from design strength parameters (Soil Strength’s / FOS)
𝑅𝑅 ≥ � 𝑎𝑎i × 𝑃𝑃i Pi = Applied loading,
𝑎𝑎i = Load factors
 European Approach of limit state design in geotechnical engineering.

 Implemented in AS4678-2002 (earth retaining structures). – Section 5.2
Design strength parameters

′ ′
𝑐𝑐design = ϕuc 𝑐𝑐actual
tan ϕ′design = ϕuϕ tan ϕ′actual
Resistance = Capacity = 𝑅𝑅′
7
Strength Criterion
4. Probabilistic method – Susan Lacasse –Rankine Lecture - NGI
• Probability theory in geotechnical engineering
• Not popular in geotechnical engineers – Used for Unusual Projects (Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering)
• Important for Mega projects where small changes can affect the total project cost
• Statistical spread of different governing conditions and design parameters needs to be included in the design
Load, Statistical spread

Probability of Failure
1.0 P
𝜙𝜙 ′
Normal probability distribution function
0.1
0 Statistical spread of 𝛾𝛾, 𝑐𝑐 ′ , 𝜙𝜙 ′ , 𝐸𝐸 ′
2m 5m Knowledge gaps and chances of uncertainty
Footing Width (needs a wide range of experimental data) 8
Strength Criterion
4. Probabilistic method Weibull Distribution for Strength
Strength ≈ 𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒
Iron Chain – each link is identical in both chains
Classical Bell Distribution
F F
F F
P
Which chain will fail first?
𝜙𝜙 ′ Power law 𝜎𝜎 = 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿−𝑚𝑚
Normal probability distribution function
Compressive strength testings on different samples of rocks
UCS Which sample will show higher strength and why?
UCS
UCS
UCS Which sample will
UCS
show higher
strength?
9
Serviceability Criterion
What comes into your mind when you think about
“Serviceability” in Geotechnical Engineering?
Tolerable limits of Settlements?
Does this Tolerable limits of Settlements is same for
every structure if not why?
•The settlement of the foundation should be limited
•Limited settlement and consequences should be

acceptable by all stakeholders
•Settlement can not be eliminated
Image source http://www.understandconstruction.com/steel-frame-

Image source http://www.artistsmasonry.com/advantages-of-brick-walls/
What about the importance level of structure? structures.html
Image source: https://fireprotectionblog.com/fire-protection-schools/
10
Image source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-looks-to-regain-its-
Image Source: https://www.blueapache.com/virus-hits-royal-melbourne-hospital-and-its-not-the-type-they- footing-10-years-after-fukushima/ Image source: https://www.skypoint.com.au/plan-your-visit/facts-and-history/
normally-see/
Serviceability Criterion
Differential Settlement of Foundation
Image Source:
https://www.helifix.co.uk/blog/overcome-damage-
foundation-settlement
Image source:
http://www.seismicresilience.org.nz/topics/seismic-
science-and-site-influences/earthquake-hazards/ground-
settlement/ 11
Serviceability Criterion Sowers (1962) - Buildings
Differential Settlement of Foundation

AS2870 – Limits for differential settlement
Bjerrum (1963) - Buildings P P
Soil Type 1
𝑠𝑠𝑠 Loose, weak clay 𝑠𝑠𝑠
Δ = 𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠
L
Soil Type 2 Δ
Stiff, Over consolidated Clay < 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿, 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 12
𝐿𝐿
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation
Load carried out by foundation:
• Foundations Safely transfer loads to the ground. • Compressive

• Tensile
Choice of foundation depends on: • Torsion, Moment.
1. Ground Conditions
2. Loading Conditions Can you recall some shallow foundation types from
3. Structure Type CVEN9525.
Shallow Foundations:
1. Transfer structural loads to the upper layer of soil P
2. Generally suitable where soils are stable and able to carry the imposed load
3. Has limited thickness and transfer load to the ground through its base
4. Side resistance is generally ignored
Shallow Foundations: Df
• 𝐷𝐷f < 4 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
• 𝐷𝐷f < 3𝑚𝑚
B = Shorter dimension of footing
• 𝐷𝐷f < 𝐵𝐵 (Terzaghi)
qo 13
Type of Shallow Foundation P
Spread Footings
Supports individual columns
Shape can be square, circular, and rectangular
Rectangular footings Df
𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
B = Shorter dimension of footing
L = Longer dimension of footing P L q
Square footings
B=L
B
Pressure (q) below the spread footing (For concentric loading)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑃𝑃)
q=
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 (𝑎𝑎)
14
Type of Shallow Foundation
Strip Footings
• Supports line loads (i.e., load bearing walls or closely spaced columns)
• Length is much longer than footing width
• Suitable for low rise structures
• Represents plane strain conditions (geotechnical design based on unit length), B/L = 0
• Shorter dimension is taken as footing width (B)
Pressure (q) below the strip footing (For concentric loading)
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘/𝑚𝑚
q (kN/m2) =
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐵𝐵 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚
http://www.jbgbuildingsurveying.com.au/about/gallery/domestic/11159947_500702096753112_3798309298955484058_n/
Image source: https://stock.adobe.com/au/search?k=%22strip%20footings%22

Image source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/backflipboy/271792306
15
Type of Shallow Foundation
Mat/Raft Foundation
• Flat slab occupying the plan area of the building
• Economical option for structures with closely spaced columns
• Suitable for low/variable shear strength soils
• Often treated as inverse slab supported by columns and subjected to a pressure “q”
Pressure (q) below the Mat Foundation (For concentric loading)

∑ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
q (kN/m2) =
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Image Source: https://www.quantity-takeoff.com/design-of-raft-foundation.htm
16
Factors Affecting the Choice of Footing Type
Loads (Dead load, live load & Earthquake load)
Geotechnical conditions of the site
Geotechnical strengths of the soils
Type of structure
Climatic conditions
Construction cost and site location

17
Geotechnical Design of Shallow Foundation
Important design criteria

Capacity of the Foundation >> Loads Applied under all combinations in order to
Satisfy the strength/stability and serviceability criterion
Analyses should be performed for:

Stability (Strength Criteria) – Check for ultimate bearing capacity of foundation (qu)
Settlement (Serviceability criterion) - Immediate and long-term settlements of the Foundation
Ultimate bearing capacity of foundation (qu)

Maximum pressure a foundation can apply to the soil (beyond which the soil undergoes
shear failure and excessive settlement with little or no increase in load)
P
Allowable bearing capacity of foundation (qa)

Minimum of the allowable pressure obtained from strength/stability and
serviceability criterion Df
q
18
Bearing Capacity of Foundation
• Is the Limiting load a footing can support
• Beyond which the soil supporting the foundation fails and footing may experience excessive
settlement
General Shear Failure Punching Shear Failure Local Shear Failure

Load per unit area
Load per unit area
Load per unit area

Settlement Settlement
• Formation of continuous failure • Large settlement of the footing Settlement
planes in the ground • Minimum deformation at ground • Somewhere in between the

• Heave on the surface near to surface general and punching shear
footing • Soil below footing is subjected to failure
compression (or consolidates)
• Could result in rapid tilting of the
footing • Soil around the perimeter (vertical • Common in medium dense to
planes) of footing fails in shear
• Common in dense sand or loose sands with high
• Common in loose sand, silt or NC
undrained loading of a footing on soft clay and footings with high compressibility potential
OC clay embedment depth 19
Ultimate limit state analysis
• Based on the assumption that Soil behaves like a –
 rigid plastic (very stiff material) before yielding
 Infinitely soft after yielding or failure
• Maximum failure load can be determined based on equilibrium
Theoretical Solution to the Bearing Capacity of Foundation (General Shear Failure)

• Lower Bound Approach
A stress field is assumed in the ground (which is in the state of failure)
Applied load and bearing capacity is estimated on Force Equilibrium (Stress compatibility)
Ignore deformation in soil (Deformation compatibility)
Underpins most commonly used bearing capacity factors
Used in the design of Foundation, Retaining wall, and slope stability etc
Suitable for small strain geotechnical engineering problems Failure Load
Stress
20
Strain
Theoretical Solution to the Bearing Capacity of Foundation (General Shear Failure)
• Upper Bound Approach
Failure mechanism is assumed based on Displacement Equilibrium (Strain compatibility)
Applied load in equilibrium with the stresses developed by the failure mechanism is
determined
True Bearing Capacity

• Bearing capacity based on the Refinement of Mechanism considered in Upper
Bound and Lower Bound Approach
21
Calculation of bearing capacity of a strip footing based on the lower bound method
𝑐𝑐′
𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣 > 𝜎𝜎ℎ 𝜎𝜎ℎ > 𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣 𝜎𝜎3 = 𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣
𝜎𝜎3 = 𝜎𝜎ℎ 𝜎𝜎1 = 𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣
𝜎𝜎3 = 𝜎𝜎ℎ 𝜎𝜎1 = 𝜎𝜎ℎ
σ1 = 𝑁𝑁ϕ 𝜎𝜎3 + 2c 𝑁𝑁ϕ
𝜎𝜎1 = 𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣 ϕ
𝑁𝑁ϕ = 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡2 45 + �2 = σ1 + 𝑐𝑐 cot ϕ ⁄ σ3 + 𝑐𝑐 cot ϕ
Along the frictionless discontinuity (ab) of height H
(𝜎𝜎1 = 𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣 ) (𝜎𝜎3 = 𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣 ) 𝜎𝜎h −active = 𝜎𝜎ℎ −𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
Integration of stresses over the length H
Stress compatibility based on simplified stress distribution! 22

Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Equation
• A wedge zone immediately below footing

represents an active soil being pushed into the
ground.
• A radial shear zone bounded by a spiral.
Rigid
• A passive zone being pushed laterally and
upward.
𝑁𝑁c 𝑁𝑁q 𝑁𝑁γ
Log spiral
For footing embedded in the ground the effect of overburden pressure is taken into account via surcharge q0 .
The solution was modified to include footings of square and circular shapes.
General Shear Failure - Lower Bound
23
Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Equation
24
General Bearing Capacity – Hansen’s Theory
Ultimate bearing capacity for foundation of other shapes
25
Do not use shape factors in combination with inclination

factors. Use depth factors and inclination factors only in
combination, or shape factors with depth factors and
ground factors and base factors.
26
There are several other relationships to define different bearing capacity factors. The bearing capacity calculated by any set of
these relationships would be equally valid. Among these relationships are those proposed by Vesic (1973) and Mayerhof
(1963). Note that all the relationships give no more than estimates and none of the several sets of relationships has a
significant advantage over any other in terms of a best prediction. It is a good practice to use at least two methods and
compare the calculated values of the bearing capacities. 27
Effects of Eccentric Loading
Eccentric loading significantly

reduces foundation bearing
capacity
Therefore, it is recommended to
avoid eccentric loading on
footings (if possible)
Eccentric loading on
rectangular footing due to a
boundary column 28
Image spurce: New Rara Engineering Consultancy and Research Center Pvt. Ltd.
Effects of Eccentric Loading -Effective width method
• Eccentricity in foundation - when vertical loads are not applied at
foundation center Or Combined with moments
• Eccentric loading – Significant reduction in foundation bearing capacity
For a strip footing of width “B” which is subjected to a vertical load, “P”,
applied with an eccentricity, eB, to the foundation, the effective width,
B', is calculated as: 𝐵𝐵 ′ = 𝐵𝐵 − 2𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵
For rectangular footing of length “L” and subjected to an eccentricity of eL

in “L” direction, the effective length, L’, is defined as: 𝐿𝐿′ = 𝐿𝐿 − 2𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿
All the relevant bearing capacity factors should be calculated using effective dimensions (𝑩𝑩′ ) or (𝑳𝑳′ )
In the case of double eccentricity:

The effective area of the base of the footing (square/rectangular) 𝐴𝐴′ = 𝐵𝐵′ × 𝐿𝐿′
L'= max
𝐿𝐿′ = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚{(L-2eL)
L−2𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 &
& (B-2eB)}
B−2𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵 and B'=
𝐵𝐵′ =min
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚{(L-2eL)
L−2𝑒𝑒𝐿𝐿 &
& (B-2eB)}
B−2𝑒𝑒𝐵𝐵
29
Lateral Earth Resistance
Important facts (foundation with horizontal loads):
Sources of horizontal loads on the footing: • Firstly, check the capacity for sliding (FOSsliding)
(i) Machine foundation • Correlation between resistant earth pressure and
permissible foundation displacements
(ii) Offshore shallow foundations
• In frictional soil the FOSsliding should be
(iii) Earthquake loads calculated for variable vertical load which occurs
(iv) Inclined loading / Eccentric steel connections simultaneously with maximum horizontal load
Lateral earth resistance:

• Mobilized on the footing sides
• A Favourable action for the footing
• Reduces by excavation close to the footing
• Usually ignored in the geotechnical designs of footings
In Cohesionless Soil NC soft cohesive soils NC soils with a large clay content
• Earth resistance mobilized by • Permanent horizontal loads
horizontal displacement needs to be balanced by the
• Provides lesser lateral resistance
• High lateral resistant for higher as NC soft cohesive soils are base resistance
relative density of soil subjected to long term creep • Temporary horizontal loads can
• Tolerable displacement limits of be balanced by the undrained
the footings needs to be shear strength of soil
checked 30
Drained or Undrained Analyses (total or effective stress analyses)
Drained Analyses (Effective Stress Analyses)
• Carried out using effective stresses and the effective strength parameters
𝜎𝜎 ′ = 𝜎𝜎 − 𝑢𝑢 Pore water pressure
Mohr Coulomb 𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒 𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄
Total stress 𝜏𝜏 = 𝒄𝒄𝒄 + 𝜎𝜎 ′ tan 𝜙𝜙′
Effective stress can be obtained for drained / undrained
condition.
In an effective stress analysis “the state of pore pressure in the soil must be known”
Such as:
 Free drainage is available (sands/ gravels),
 Low loading rate compared to the permeability of the soil,
 Analysis is carried out a long time after application of the load on soils with low permeability (when all
excess pore pressures are dissipated) CONSOLIDATION, short and long term loading in sands
Undrained Analyses (Total Stress Analyses)

In total stress analysis “the state of pore pressure in the soil is unknown”
Such as:
 Short term behaviour of footings on clay, Mohr Coulomb 𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒 𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄
 High loading rate compared to the permeability of the soil, 𝜏𝜏 = 𝒄𝒄𝐮𝐮 (𝛟𝛟𝐮𝐮 = 𝟎𝟎)
31
Workshop 1 –Q1
32
Effect of Ground Water
Drained Analysis
Use effective overburden pressure
Unit weight of soil below the foundation is affected by the water table depth Ignore capillary rise and increase
strength due to soil suction
Case 1 Water table is much below the foundation base (d ≥ 𝐵𝐵):
No effect on bearing capacity of foundation γdesign = γtotal or γdry
Case 2 Water table is above the footing base:

Submerged unit weight of foundation soil should be considered γdesign = γ′ = γtotal − γw
Case 3 Water table is close to foundation base 0 < d ≤ 𝐵𝐵

The design unit weight of foundation soil should be considered as
Undrained Analysis
Total unit weight of foundation soil should If water table is above the ground level, then
be considered (foundation soil is above ground water should be applied as
Use total overburden pressure assumed to be saturated) surcharge 33
Effect of Soil Density (Relevant to loose sands) – Local, Punching shear failure
“The failure mechanisms are used to drive the bearing capacity equations”
In case of local and punching shear failure in loose sands,

 Shear strength of a smaller area of the soil is mobilized,
 Results in smaller bearing capacity for the foundations,
 Therefore in order to extend application of the general form of the bearing

capacity equation, the shear strength parameters for loose sand needs to be
reduced,
 These are not strength reductions to introduce a margin of safety.
34
Allowable Bearing Pressure
Gross ultimate bearing capacity
Capacity of the footing above the ground level (BC) from BC equation
𝑞𝑞u(net) 𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑢 − γD
𝑞𝑞a(net) = =
𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 Pressure above the footing
base due to the weight of
Net allowable bearing pressure the footing, soil (if any)
Factor of safety
𝑃𝑃a = 𝑞𝑞a(net) × 𝐴𝐴′

Effective area of the footing
Allowable load applicable
on the footing
35
Footing on Layered Soil
“The bearing capacity equations is based on the assumption of uniform soil below the foundation”
Base soil layers with varying Friction angle, cohesion, stiffness, unit weight properties with depth!
Limited solutions are available for estimation of bearing capacity of layered soils with different
properties (more than 50 difference in friction angle)
Serviceability criterion is critical for layered soils rather than strength criterion
Options for calculating bearing capacity of layered soil

Using the strength properties of the weakest layer in the foundation soil (if additional cost is not important)
Using the strength properties of the weakest layer if it is resting over the harder soil layer
Using the average strength parameters obtained in proportion to the length segments of the potential
failure line. The average unit weight of the soil layers must be obtained in proportion to the area of
different soil layers constrained in the failure zone.
36
Footing on Layered Soil – Advance Analysis
“Assessment of bearing capacity of each soil layer.”
• Lets assume a foundation is resting over a strong layer which is

located above a soft weak layer
• The weak and soil soft layer (B) is close to footing base – source
of weakness
• Maximum allowable pressure on soft soil layer should be checked
– Modification in foundation dimensions Please read the modification
• The total footing load can be assumed to be uniformly distributed of bearing capacity factors for
layered soil
over the base of a truncated pyramid (600 side slopes)
If the soft layer is located at a considerable depth below to footing base

• Foundation failure due to failure of weaker soil layer (B) is UNLIKELY – pressure distributed
over a larger area.
• Serviceability criteria (settlement of foundation due to soft soil layer) needs to be checked &
modify the foundation dimensions if required.
37
Workshop 1 –Q2
38
Selection of Material Parameters
Granular Soils:
•High permeability- drained condition
•Pore pressure due to loading dissipates quickly
•Effective stress condition
•Effective friction angle and zero cohesion
Cohesive Soils:
•Low permeability- undrained condition
•Excess pore pressure requires long time to
dissipates
•Total stress condition
•Undrained shear strength parameter 𝒄𝒄𝐮𝐮 , 𝛟𝛟𝐮𝐮 = 𝟎𝟎
•Effective stress analyses can be performed as
well with c’=0 (often not carried out)
39
Presumptive Values of Bearing Capacity
•Minimum bearing capacities that can be

presumed for a given foundation soil type
•Could be very unconservative
•Good for quotations and desktop studies
•Should be verified for Large Projects
40
Bearing Capacity of Temporary Platforms
Bearing capacity failure of a permeant structure - Low probability
Bearing capacity failure of a temporary platform with high intensity loads – High probability
500 kN
Temporary platform
(gravel, steel plates,
timber sleepers) 500 + γ × 2 𝑚𝑚
𝑞𝑞applied = 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
0.5 x 0.5 m 3.5 × 3.5
1 2m
2m 1.5 m Fill 𝑐𝑐 ′ , 𝜙𝜙 ′
2
3.5 m 3.5 m
Soft clay 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢 , ϕ𝑢𝑢 = 0 41
Settlement of shallow foundations
“Settlement of foundation is due to application of applied stress”
Evaluation of increment in vertical stresses (Soil pressure) Can you recall which design
• At different points under a foundation criteria deals with foundation
• Due to different loadings settlement?
Increment in vertical stresses (Soil pressure)

• Usually expressed as a percentage (%) of the applied stress on the footing
• Wide footings - uniform increment of stresses with depth
• Finite footings - variable increment of stresses with depth
Calculation of Increment in Soil pressure – Theory of Elasticity

• Soil mass is a homogeneous, elastic and isotropic half-space.
• The footing is flexible so that the distribution of pressure on soil beneath the footing is known
42
Stress Changes Below Flexible shallow foundations
Stress due to a concentrated load Stress due to a line load Stress due to a uniform strip loading
2𝑞𝑞𝑧𝑧 3
∆𝜎𝜎z = 𝑞𝑞
3𝑄𝑄𝑧𝑧 3 𝜋𝜋𝑅𝑅4 ∆𝜎𝜎z = 𝛼𝛼 + sin 𝛼𝛼 cos 𝛼𝛼 + 2𝛽𝛽
∆𝜎𝜎z = 𝜋𝜋
2𝜋𝜋𝑅𝑅 5 𝑞𝑞
∆𝜎𝜎x = 𝛼𝛼 − sin 𝛼𝛼 cos 𝛼𝛼 + 2𝛽𝛽
𝜋𝜋
Stress below a uniformly loaded circular area

uniform pressure “q”
At a point just below the centre of circular area Other points below the circular footing
3�
1 2
𝑍𝑍 ∆𝜎𝜎z = 𝑞𝑞 1 − ∆𝜎𝜎z = 𝑞𝑞𝐼𝐼c ⁄100
∆𝜎𝜎z 1 + 𝑟𝑟⁄𝑧𝑧 2
43
Stress below a uniformly loaded circular area
∆𝜎𝜎z 𝑍𝑍
𝑟𝑟
𝑥𝑥
Other points below the circular footing
∆𝜎𝜎z = 𝑞𝑞𝐼𝐼c ⁄100
44
Stress under a corner of a uniformly loaded rectangular area
∆𝜎𝜎z = 𝑞𝑞𝐼𝐼r
Influence Factor
Principle of superposition for estimation of vertical stress below

some points (non-corner)
𝑍𝑍
45
Stress below a uniformly loaded “q” irregular area
"L" shape structure
𝐎𝐎
Point below which stress

needs to be estimated
∆𝜎𝜎z = 0.001𝑞𝑞𝑁𝑁
• Fix the point on the ground below which stress

needs to be estimated
• Place the point at the center of the chart “o”
• Fix the scale “OQ” based on the depth “z”
• Use the scale to draw structural outline
• Count the no. of square inside the drawn
structural outline “N”
46
Components of settlements
Can you think about the settlement in gravel and clays,
Settlement in soil is time dependent which one do you think is faster and why?
Total Settlement of Saturated Soil 𝑺𝑺𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭 = 𝑺𝑺𝐢𝐢 + 𝑺𝑺𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 + 𝑺𝑺𝐬𝐬

Immediate Settlement (Si) Primary Consolidation Settlement (Sc) Secondary Consolidation Settlement (Ss)
• Occurs shortly after the load
application • Due to dissipation of excess pore • Also known as creep – time
water pressure – time dependent dependent
• Foundation on Clay – Settlement
at constant volume and due to • Could be many times Higher than Si • Slow process – rearrangement of
shear deformation soil particles at constant effective
• In most cases dominant component stress
• Foundation on Sand - of settlement for fine grain soils and • Ss is irreversible and depending on
Settlement immediately after the saturated clay. stress level
load application (effective stress
changes rapidly) • Only part of consolidation • Significant in soft clay and organic
settlement which is recoverable soils
• Dominates cohesionless soils
and unsaturated clays • Could be estimated using empirical
• Can be estimated using an formulas and experiment results.
• Most part of Si is Recoverable oedometer test
47
and known as elastic settlement
Calculation of settlement
“Available methods gives approximation of foundation settlement”
• Soil deformation is complex
• Effect of soil structure interaction
• Finite element analyses rely on the soil deformation parameters (modulus of elasticity or
compression index)
• Assumption of only vertical settlement (1 dimensional problem)
𝑆𝑆Rigid = 𝑆𝑆av Eq Flexible Footing

𝑆𝑆av = 0.5 𝑆𝑆centre + 𝑆𝑆edge
𝑆𝑆Rigid = 0.75 𝑆𝑆centre Eq Flexible Footing
• Some analytical elastic solutions are also available for settlement estimation of flexible and rigid footings
48
Calculation of settlement – Theory of Elasticity
σ = Normal Stress,
ε = Normal strain,
γ = Shear Strain
Δ𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎
E = Young s Modulus = (𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑒𝑒 ′ 𝑠𝑠 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿)
′
𝜀𝜀
𝑥𝑥 (𝜎𝜎x𝑥𝑥 , 𝜀𝜀xx ) Δ𝜀𝜀

𝑦𝑦 (𝜎𝜎yy , 𝜀𝜀yy )
• Assumption that soil will behave like an elastic material
• Homogeneous soil or soil stiffness increases linearly with depth

49
The combined normal strains are also a function of

stresses in other two directions
50
𝐸𝐸
𝐺𝐺 = Shear modulus =
2 1 + 𝜐𝜐
Vertical displacement
Vertical displacement for layered soil (change in stresses

should be evaluated at middle height of layer)
51
Calculation of settlement Strip and Rectangular Footing
Footing width (lesser footing dimension)
Applied pressure on the footing
Soil’s Poisson’s ratio
Average settlement of
strip/rectangular footing Influence factors depending on the footing
aspect ratio, depth, thickness of soil layers
Soil’s Young’s modulus
52
Calculation of settlement Circular Footing
Applied pressure on the footing
Radius of the footing
Average settlement of
Circular footing Influence factors depending on the footing
aspect ratio, depth, thickness of soil layers
Soil’s Young’s modulus
53
Calculation of settlement Layered Soil - Superposition Procedure: C
Assumption: Stress distribution in the soil layers is not affected by the
different deformation properties of different layers.
1. The settlement of layer 1 (S1) is calculated assuming that the second layer
is rigid. The material properties of layer 1 are used in this calculation.
2. The settlement of layer 2 is calculated as: s2 = sh,p2 - s1,p2

where:
sh,p2 is the settlement of both layers, assuming that the whole soil has the
properties of layer 2. In this case the depth of soil layer is (H1+H2) and the
properties of the soil are E2 and v2.
s1,p2 is the settlement of layer 1 assuming that it has the properties of layer 2,
E2 and v2.
3. The settlement of the footing on the two layers will be the sum of the
settlements of layer 1 and layer 2, i.e., S = S1+S2
The superposition method could be used for more than two soil layers
54
Calculation of settlement – Choice of Young’s Modulus
Accurate estimation of soil’s Young’s modulus is essential for realistic settlement calculations
The constitutive behaviour (stress-strain) of soil is not linear

Use the Young’s modulus for calculation of elastic settlement of foundations (theory of elasticity)
Based the loading, drainage conditions and soil type different elastic modulus governs for soil’s
Excellent Reading as a career resource -
Duncan, J. M., & Bursey, A. (2013). Soil modulus correlations. In Foundation Engineering in the Face of
Uncertainty: Honoring Fred H. Kulhawy (pp. 321-336).
Modulus for Sandy Soils Modulus for Clay
• Drainage occurs shortly after the load application • Undrained conditions- Immediate settlement (Si)
occurs with no volume change
• Drained parameters should be used – 𝑬𝑬′ , 𝝊𝝊′ to
obtained immediate settlement (Si) • Undrained modulus (Eu) should be used together
with the Poisson’s ratio of 𝝊𝝊 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓 (𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐫 𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐬𝐬𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐭𝐭
• Young’s modulus could be estimated using in-situ 𝐯𝐯𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐢𝐜𝐜 𝐛𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐡𝐡𝐚𝐚𝐯𝐯𝐢𝐢𝐨𝐨𝐮𝐮𝐫𝐫 𝐨𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐨𝐢𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐫 𝐮𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐚𝐢𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐝
test results (Plate load test, SPT correlations), results 𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐢𝐨𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐬𝐬)
of oedometer tests.
• Total final settlement (Stf) occurs after dissipation of
pore pressure (𝑬𝑬′ , 𝝊𝝊′ should be used) Stf = Si + Scf
55
Calculation of settlement – Choice of Young’s Modulus
Helpful in Assignment 2
𝑒𝑒
𝑒𝑒1 𝑚𝑚V
𝑒𝑒2
𝜎𝜎′V1 𝜎𝜎′V2 𝜎𝜎′V

𝜎𝜎′V
56
Consolidation Settlement – 1D Consolidation Settlement of Large Footings
Maximum stress
Assumption of uninform stress across the thickness of soil layer ever experienced
• When the soil is uniformly loaded over a wide area or
• when the dimension of the loaded area is substantially larger
than the thickness of the soil layer
Estimation of foundation (on clay) settlement – (1D consolidation theory)

• Soil (Clay layer) beneath the footing is uniformly loaded
• Soil layer is divided into no. of sub-layers of finite thickness
• The stress and soil properties in sub-layers do not vary significantly log 𝜎𝜎v′
• Settlement of clay layer = ∑ Settlement of sub−layers
Oedometer test
For NC Clay Compression index from
Oedometer test
Final effective stress 𝝈𝝈′𝐟𝐟 = 𝝈𝝈′𝐢𝐢 + 𝚫𝚫𝝈𝝈′
Final consolidation
settlement of a layer of soil
with initial thickness H0 and Change in effective stress at
void ratio e0 the middle of the layer
Initial effective stress at the
middle of the layer 57
Consolidation Settlement – 1D Consolidation Settlement of Large Footings
For OC Clay (𝝈𝝈′𝐢𝐢 < 𝝈𝝈′𝐩𝐩𝐩𝐩 ) and 𝝈𝝈′𝐟𝐟 < 𝝈𝝈′𝐩𝐩𝐩𝐩
Rebound index from
Oedometer test Final effective stress 𝝈𝝈′𝐟𝐟 = 𝝈𝝈′𝐢𝐢 + 𝚫𝚫𝝈𝝈′
Total final consolidation
settlement of a layer of soil
with initial thickness H0 Change in effective stress at
the middle of the layer
Initial effective stress at the
middle of the layer
For OC Clay (𝝈𝝈′𝐢𝐢 < 𝝈𝝈′𝐩𝐩𝐩𝐩 ) and 𝝈𝝈′𝐟𝐟 > 𝝈𝝈′𝐩𝐩𝐩𝐩

Effective pre-consolidation
pressure
58
Consolidation Settlement – Footings with Limited Dimensions
1. Conventional one-dimensional analysis by Terzaghi:
• Total foundation settlement by 1D consolidation theory (vertical strains only)
• Immediate settlement is negligible
Total final settlement Settlement calculated based on
1D consolidation theory
Final consolidation
• The settlement at time t is settlement
2. Modified one-dimensional analysis:

• For soil’s like soft clay immediate settlement is important
• Conventional 1D method overestimates the time dependent consolidation settlement for cases
where the initial settlement is large
Average degree of
consolidation 59
3. Skempton & Bjerrum method:
Factor for reducing settlement
from 1D analysis
4. Elastic methods:
Consolidation settlements (Si & Stf) can be calculated from elastic methods for respective drained
(𝑬𝑬′ , 𝝊𝝊′ ) or undrained (Eu , 𝝊𝝊 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓) conditions
60
Rate of settlement and degree of consolidation
The time dependent consolidation by average degree of consolidation (U)
U in these charts is same as μU determined for Skempton & Bjerrum method
Circular footing of radius

“a” and homogeneous
thickness “h” of soil layer
61
Rate of settlement and degree of consolidation
The time dependent consolidation by average degree of consolidation (U)
U in these charts is same as μU determined for Skempton & Bjerrum method
Strip footing of breadth “2b” and homogeneous thickness “h” of soil layer
62
Secondary consolidation (Creep)
Creep settlement is assumed to vary linearly with the logarithm of time and cab be expressed as:
Time for which the secondary consolidation
is going to be calculated
Secondary consolidation
settlement or creep of a layer Time when 90% of consolidation ends
of soil with initial thickness H0 and creep begins
and void ratio e0
Secondary consolidation index which can be
correlated to the compression index of the soil
S
Quartz sands
creep Calcareous sands
Estimated creep settlement (Ss) is an approximate value-

as the above equation for (Ss) is independent of magnitude and distribution
tp time of stresses
63
Remarks on Calculation of Settlements
• Elastic settlement calculations are based on Theory of Elasticity
• Behaviour of soil under load is nonlinear and soil fails under large stresses and grain crushing
also occurs
• Soils are not homogenous and show various degrees of consistencies
• Soft soil layers are difficult to locate during site investigations
For large/strategic projects
For small/medium projects •Obtain a range of settlements from elastic
•Obtain a range of settlements. analysis
•Elastic settlement needs to be calculated for •Perform finite element analyses
lower and upper stiffness characteristic values considering inelastic properties of soil
https://www.simscrane.com/crane-risk-and-loss-root-causes-2-ground-conditions/ https://www.drymich.com/services/foundation-repair/problem-signs/sticking-windows-doors/ 64
Shallow Foundation Design based on In-Situ Tests
Plate Load Test
• For estimating the stiffness and strength characteristics of soils
• Incremental load on a steel plate is applied (jacking/ dead load)
• Load deformation behaviour of ground is obtained
• The results of plate load tests on a site can be used to estimate footing settlement
Settlement of footing 0.3 m square/ circular plate
Load
of width B The zone of influence of steel plate is
much smaller than the zone of
influence of actual footing
Settlement of the plate of width “p”
Displacement
Condition – SB/Sp can not be more than 4
The above equation may underestimate the settlement of large footing
Unreliable where the soil density varies with depth
When Density variation measure by SPT test results SPT value for the zone of
influence for the footing
SPT value for the zone of influence

for the plate
65
Estimating Soil’s Young’s Modulus (E) based on Plate Load Tests (Square Plate)
Dimension of square plate
Soil’s Poisson’s Ratio
Depth Factor
Settlement measured
Plate tested at depth D below the ground
Warning: The zone of influence of steel plate is much smaller than the zone of influence of
actual footing
66
Penetration Testing – SPT Test SPT Test Equipment and Procedure
• The main features of a Standard Penetration Test are:
a steel sampler, with 50mm outside diameter, 35mm
For estimation of various engineering properties of soils
inside diameter.
as different correlations are available
• The sampler is hammered into the soil with a 63.5kg
Corrections needs to be applied for hammer falling 760mm
• Overburden pressure (when 𝝈𝝈′𝟎𝟎 > 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝐤𝐤𝐤𝐤𝐤𝐤) • The number of blows to drive 3 x 150mm increments
are counted eg. 6,9,7. The SPT 'N' value is the sum of
Effective vertical stress at the depth of test the last two ie. N=16 for this example.
Design • Perform at every 1.5 or 0.5 m depth (or change in

value the material type before 1.5 m interval)
Measured value
• Energy loss (SPT values are corrected to an energy ratio of 60%, N60)
• Very fine sands and silts below the water table

• (overburden correction should not be applied)
• Presence of gravels etc. 67

Estimating Bearing Capacity and Foundation Settlement form SPT Test
Modified Meyerhof method
• Establishment of relation between SPT “N” value and bearing capacity (qa in kPa), foundation settlement
• Conservative approach, overestimation of settlement
Allowable net increase in “B” is footing width which is
the soil pressure embedded to depth “D”
Weighted average SPT value over the Depth factor

footing zone of influence
Parry method
• Estimation of young’s modulus (E) based on SPT value (E=4900N’) which can be used to estimate elastic
settlement of footing
Net pressure at foundation Correction factors depending on foundation depth, width and thickness of
foundation compression 68
base
Estimating Foundation Settlement using Schmertmann Method
Schmertmann (1970 and 1978) proposed a method for estimating vertical settlement of
FOOTINGS ON SAND using CPT test results
• Based on the strain influence approach and elastic theory

• Assumed that the maximum average vertical strain in the soil beneath a loaded foundation of
width B occurs at a depth (below foundation base) of
• B/2 (for square and circular footings), and
• B (for strip footings)
• Zone of influence (strain distribution) is assumed to be significant up to a depth of 2B (for
square or circular footings) or 4B (for strip footings).
• Settlement of a foundation embedded at depth D in sand can be obtained by integrating the
strains over the depth of influence:
Strain influence factor at middle of soil layer
𝑞𝑞a − 𝑞𝑞o Thickness of each soil layer
𝒒𝒒𝟎𝟎
Foundation embedment correction factor = 𝟏𝟏 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓
𝒒𝒒−𝒒𝒒𝟎𝟎 Modulus of elasticity of the soil layers
Overburden stress = 𝛄𝛄𝑫𝑫
𝑡𝑡 Years
Creep correction factor = 𝟏𝟏 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐 log
0.1
Stress at the level of foundation
Strain at depth z below the footing
* The equation in class notes is wrong please use above equation 69

Estimating Foundation Settlement using Schmertmann Method
Young’s modulus of foundation soil using CPT (qc) and SPT (N) data
Variation of strain influence factor Normally consolidated soils
Es = 2.5qc (for square or circular footings) qc (MPa) = 0.4N
Es = 3.5qc (for strip footings)
Over consolidated soils
Es = 6qc
At Z = 0
𝑰𝑰𝐙𝐙𝐙𝐙 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏 (for square or circular footings)
𝑰𝑰𝐙𝐙𝐙𝐙 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐 (for strip footings)
Schmertmann (1978)
Peak value of strain influence factor (𝑰𝑰𝐙𝐙𝐙𝐙 )
For rectangular footings linearly interpolate
those of the square and strip footings
Initial vertical effective stress at the
depth of peak strain 70
CVEN9513
Advanced Foundation Engineering
Week 3:
Earth Retaining Structures
Image source: https://structville.com/2020/10/sheet‐pile‐walls‐and‐their‐uses.html
Image Source: http://equipment4all.blogspot.com/2010/11/anchored‐
retaining‐walls.html
1
Sheet Piles
Important Facts about the Sheet Piles:
(i) Resist horizontal pressures due to retained soil, water & surcharge above the ground
(ii) Derive their stability from the horizontal resistance of the ground (they are driven)
(iii) Additional horizontal support could be proved by:

- anchors, ties, or struts placed at a higher level
(iv) Constructed using connected or semi-connected elements
(v) Popular in Cut and Cover Tunnelling, Basement Excavations, Waterfront Structures
Application of sheet piles:

Temporary Structures Permanent Structures
Retaining walls
Braced cuts
Dock walls
Walls for excavation
Cofferdams River walls piers
Breakwaters
Dry dock walls
Sheet Piles – Some Examples
Braced cuts
Types of Sheet Piles
(i) Wooden sheet piles: only for temporary light structures (H<3m)
(ii) Precast concrete sheet piles: are heavy and bulky
(iii) Steel sheet piles: most widely used:
• Resistance to high driving stress developed in hard soils,
• Easy to increase the pile length
• Light weight,
• Joints are less tends to deform
• Reusable, https://ecochoice.co.uk/retaining‐walls
• Impervious wall can be achieved

• Long service life
https://www.swissboring.com/Technologies/SteelSheetPiling http://www.rivo.com.my/ http://www.rivo.com.my/

Types of Sheet Piles
Sheet Piles – Construction Methods
Construction process highly influence the pressure distribution on the sheet pile wall
Construction method of a backfilled structure
Dredge the in situ soil Backfill up to the level of Backfill up to

in front and back of Drive the sheet piles. the anchor and place the the top of the
the proposed anchor system. wall.
structure.
Sheet Piles – Construction Methods
Construction process highly influence the pressure distribution on the sheet pile wall
Construction method for a dredged structure
Backfill up to the Backfill up to the top of Dredge the

Drive the sheet piles anchor level and place the wall front side of the
the anchor system wall
Walls
Courtesy of
Ross W. Boulanger
(University of California, Davis)
&
James Michael Duncan
(Virginia Tech, Blacksburg)
This row of interlocked steel
sheetpiles will form a
waterfront quay wall for a
port facility.
This close‐up view shows how the individual sheetpiles are
interlocked with the adjacent piles.
A vibrating hammer is used for
installing the sheet piles. The blue
crane on right side is lifting the
vibrating hammer. Notice the
"guides" on the ground surface that
provide alignment for the sheet piles
during installation. Close alignment
is essential for maintaining the
interlocking connection between
sheetpiles.
Steel tie‐rods connect the wall to a deadman anchor
located to the right of this view. The tie rods are being covered
with fill as shown at the top of this photo. The soil to the left of
the wall will later be excavated to some depth, and the tie rods
will then restrain the wall against horizontal movements.
This photo shows a sewer excavation in San Francisco supported by a driven
sheet pile wall, with pipe struts extending across the excavation. Wide flange
beams distribute the loads of the pipe struts to the sheet pile walls. Because
the struts are compression members, their capacities are controlled by
considerations of buckling. Lateral supports reduce the effective lengths of the
struts and increase their capacities.
This photo shows an excavation for
the BART system, beneath Shattuck
Avenue in Berkeley, California. Street
traffic is carried on timbers that
form a roof on the excavation, while
construction of the cut‐and‐cover
tunnel goes on beneath. The work
area is very constricted by the
horizontal H‐beam struts and the
vertical supports for the roadway
over head.
Here the sheet pile wall around a building excavation is supported by pipe
struts. Those in the foreground, which extend from one side of the
excavation to the other, are termed “cross‐lot” braces. In the corner of the
excavation the sheet piles are supported by corner braces. Corner braces
reduce the constriction in part of the working area.
This photo shows the excavation support system for a building in the Embarcadaro
Center in San Francisco. The wall is a slurry trench concrete wall (a concrete wall
constructed in a slurry‐supported trench in the ground). The sides of the excavation
are supported by external supports ‐‐ H‐piles driven through holes in the wall, which
work in tension to hold the wall. The use of external support greatly reduces the
amount of congestion within the excavation, making construction faster and less
costly. Corner braces support the corners of the excavation.
Here the wall is supported by “rakers,” or inclined struts. The bottom ends of the
rakers are braced against the central part of the building foundation slab. The
excavation was carried to full depth at the center first so that the foundation slab
could be poured. Prior to installation of the rakers, the lower part of the slurry trench
concrete wall was supported by an earth berm. The earth berm remains at the far
side of the excavation.
A second, lower, set of rakers was
installed after part of the berm was
excavated. This photo was taken
when the excavation was complete.
It is interesting to see that the
concrete wall, constructed in a
slurry‐supported trench, is very
smooth and of good quality.
This photo shows the excavation
support system for the Getty Center
art museum garage in Los Angeles,
California. The excavation is about 75
feet deep. The sides of the
excavation are supported by soldier
piles and lagging. The soldier piles
are driven before excavation begins,
and the wood lagging is installed as
the excavation proceeds down. On
the sides of the excavation the
soldier pile and lagging wall is
supported by post‐tensioned anchors
drilled and grouted into the soil
around the excavation. The corners
are supported by corner braces.
The weathered rock at the bottom of the Getty
Center excavation is stiff enough to support itself
without lagging.
This is the clam shell excavator used to
excavate the trench in which the wall was
constructed. The width of the wall is equal
to the width of the excavator.
The excavator is aligned by
concrete guide walls
constructed at the surface of
the ground before excavation
begins. The trench walls are
supported by the same type of
bentonite slurry used in drilled
shaft construction.
The steel reinforcement in the
concrete wall was provided by wide
flange beams. The beams were
inserted into the trench three at a
time, as shown in this photo. After the
beams were in place, the concrete was
tremied into the bottom of the trench,
displacing the slurry upward. As the
slurry was displaced upward by the
concrete, it was collected, cleaned,
and re‐used.
This photo shows a close‐up of the wide flange beams as they are lowered into
the trench.
After the concrete had cured, the top of the wall was exposed by
excavation.
The lock wall was supported by
post‐tensioned anchors that were
drilled and grouted into the ground
outside the wall. The anchors use
the same type of pre‐stressing
strands that are used in pre‐
stressed concrete.
This photo shows the head of one of
the anchors after it has been locked
off.
Steel H‐piles were set in columns of
soil‐cement constructed by deep
soil mixing. The soil‐cement acts as
a lagging that spans between the H‐
piles, and retains the soil during the
eventual excavation.
The excavation at the Century Hotel is completed here.
Supports consist of diagonal braces at the corners of the
excavation; this keeps the central part of the excavation free
of obstructions.
The floor of the excavation has
been prepared for construction of a
mat foundation. The ground surface
is covered with a thin layer of
concrete to prevent disturbance
(loosening) of the native soils.
Before placing this concrete cover,
the native soils were carefully
inspected for loose zones and either
compacted or over‐excavated if
necessary.
Another view of the diagonal bracing and the
preparations for the mat foundation.
Notice the steel H‐piles that
reinforce the deep‐soil‐mixed wall
panels can be seen in the walls of
the excavation.
A temporary steel frame structure
was erected along one side of the
excavation, and used as a working
platform (e.g., see the red crane in
the upper left corner of the photo).
&ŝďƌĞƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚĐƵƚƚĞƌ
ĞƌƐŽŝůŵŝǆ
ǆǁĂůůƐ͗
ŶŚĂŶĐĞĚƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĂŶĚĐƌĂĐŬƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ
ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞWƌŽĨĞƐƐŽƌĚƌŝĂŶZ͘ZƵƐƐĞůů
DƌDĂƌŬŚĂƉŵĂŶ;
Ɖ Ŷ;
Ŷ ;;tĂŐƐƚĂĨĨ
Ő ĨĨ WŝůŝŶŐͿ
ƌ,ŽƐƐĞŝŶdĂŝĞďĂƚ;hE^t
; tͿ
DƐ
Ɛ ^ŽŽ
Ɛ Ž dĞŚ
Ś ;hE^tͿ
KƵƚůŝŶĞ
ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚŵŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶ
WĂƌƚϭ͗ĨŝĞůĚƚƌŝĂů
± DŝǆŝŶŐ
± ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐ
± ǆĐĂǀĂƚŝŽŶ
WĂƌƚϮ͗>ĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇƚĞƐƚŝŶŐ
± &ŝďƌĞŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ
± ŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞĂŶĚƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƐ
WĂƌƚϯ͗ŶĂůǇƐŝƐĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶ
± ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ
± ĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ͕ĐŽƐƚƐĂǀŝŶŐƐĂŶĚKϮĞƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐ
ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ
ƵƚƚĞƌ^ŽŝůDŝǆ;^DͿǁĂůůƐ
^ŽŝůŵŝǆĞĚŝŶƐŝƚƵǁŝƚŚĐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚďĞŶƚŽŶŝƚĞ ƐůƵƌƌǇ
DŝǆŝŶŐƚŽŽůŝƐƚǁŽǀĞƌƚŝĐĂůůǇŵŽƵŶƚĞĚĐƵƚƚŝŶŐǁŚĞĞůƐ
ZĞĐƚĂŶŐƵůĂƌƉĂŶĞůƐŽǀĞƌůĂƉƚŽĨŽƌŵĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŽƵƐǁĂůů
ZĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƐŽŝůĂŶĚĐƵƚͲŽĨĨƐĞĞƉĂŐĞ
DŝǆŚĂƐŵŽĚĞƐƚƚĞŶƐŝůĞĂŶĚĐŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƐ
^ƚĞĞůďĞĂŵƐĂŶĚĂŶĐŚŽƌƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ

ƵƚƚŝŶŐǁŚĞĞůƐ ^ƚĞĞůďĞĂŵKǀĞƌůĂƉŽĨƉĂŶĞůƐ dǇƉŝĐĂůůǇŽŶĞŽƌƚǁŽďĞĂŵƐĂƌĞ

ƉůĂĐĞĚĂƚƉĂŶĞůĐĞŶƚƌĞƐ

ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚĐŽŶƚ͘
ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ
ƵŶĚĐŽŶƚ͘
ĚĚŝŶŐĨŝďƌĞƐƚŽ
Ž ŐĞŽŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ
Ž
ŐǇƉƚŝĂŶƐǁĞƌĞĚŽŝŶŐƚŚŝƐϱϬϬϬ
ǇĞĂƌƐĂŐŽ
^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƐƚŝůůƐƚĂŶĚƚŽĚĂǇ
ΖzŽƵƐŚĂůůŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌŐŝǀĞƚŚĞ
ƉĞŽƉůĞƐƚƌĂǁƚŽŵĂŬĞďƌŝĐŬĂƐ
ďĞĨŽƌĞ͛;ǆŽĚƵƐϱ͗ϲͲϳͿ
ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚĐŽŶƚ͘
ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ
ƵŶĚĐŽŶƚ͘
ĚĚŝŶŐĨŝďƌĞƐƚŽ
Ž ŐĞŽŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ
Ž
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐǁŝƚŚ
ĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨƐƚƌĂŝŶ
¾ &ĂŝůƵƌĞƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶƚ͍͍͍
>ŝƋƵĞĨĂĐƚŝŽŶƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ďŽǀĞ͗ƌĂŝŶĞĚƚƌŝĂǆŝĂů ƚĞƐƚƐŽŶ

ůŽŽƐĞƐĂŶĚƐǁŝƚŚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĨŝďƌĞ
ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ ĐŽŶƚĞŶƚƐ;ŝĂŵďƌĂĞƚĂů͕ϮϬϭϬ͘
'ĞŽƚĞǆƚŝůĞƐĂŶĚ'ĞŽŵĞŵďƌĂŶĞƐͿ
WƌĞǀĞŶƚůĂƚĞƌĂů >ĞĨƚ͗ǇĐůĞƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽĐĂƵƐĞ
ůŝƋƵĞĨĂĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĂŶĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĨŝďƌĞƐ
ƐƉƌĞĂĚŝŶŐŝĨůŝƋƵĞĨĂĐƚŝŽŶ ;EŽŽƌŶĂǇ ĂŶĚhǌĚĂǀŝŶĞƐ͕ϭϵϴϵ͕
WƌŽĐ͘'ĞŽƐǇŶƚŚĞƚŝĐƐ͛ϴϵŽŶĨ͘Ϳ
ĚŽĞƐŽĐĐƵƌ
¾ ĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶƚ͍͍͍
>ŝƋƵĞĨŝĞĚƐĂŵƉůĞƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ;ůĞĨƚͿĂŶĚǁŝƚŚ;ƌŝŐŚƚͿĨŝďƌĞƐ;/ďƌĂŝŵ ĞƚĂů͕ϮϬϭϬ͕
'ĞŽƚĞǆƚŝůĞƐĂŶĚ'ĞŽŵĞŵďƌĂŶĞƐͿ
DŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶ
tŚǇŵŝǆĨŝďƌĞƐŝŶƚŽ^DǁĂůůƐ͍
dĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŽĨ^DǁĂůůŵŝǆŝƐŽŶůǇĂĨĞǁŚƵŶĚƌĞĚŬWĂ
ǆƚĞŶƐŝǀĞƐƚĞĞůƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐŝŶŐŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽŵŝŶŝŵŝƐĞďĞŶĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ
ƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞƐƐ͕ĂŶĚůŝŬĞůŝŚŽŽĚŽĨĐƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ
^ƚĞĞůŝƐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶŚĂůĨŽĨƚŚĞĐŽƐƚ
ĂŶŵŝǆŝŶŐďĞĂĚĂƉƚĞĚƚŽŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞĨŝďƌĞƐ͍
ŽĨŝďƌĞƐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ͍
>ĞƐƐƐƚĞĞůĂŶĚĨĞǁĞƌĂŶĐŚŽƌƐ͍
WƌĞǀĞŶƚĐƌĂĐŬŝŶŐͬŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞǁĂƚĞƌƚŝŐŚƚŶĞƐƐ͍
WĂƌƚϭ͗dŚĞĨŝĞůĚƚƌŝĂů
dŚĞŵŝǆŝŶŐ
&ŽƌƚĞ&ĞƌƌŽƉŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞĨŝďƌĞƐŵŝǆĞĚŝŶƚŽ
ϰŵĚĞĞƉƉĂŶĞů
^ŽŝůǁĂƐĨŝŶĞƚŽŵĞĚŝƵŵŐƌĂŝŶĞĚƐĂŶĚĂŶĚ
ƐŝůƚǇƐĂŶĚ
DŝǆĞĚǁŝƚŚƐůƵƌƌǇĂƚǁĂƚĞƌĐĞŵĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŽĨ
Ϭ͘ϴ
ϰϬϬŬŐŽĨĐĞŵĞŶƚĂĚĚĞĚƉĞƌŵϯ ŽĨƐŽŝůǁŝƚŚ
ŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨϲϬϬůŝƚƌĞƐƉĞƌŵĞƚĞƌŽĨǁĂůů
dŚĞŵŝǆŝŶŐĐŽŶƚ͘
ĨƚĞƌƐůƵƌƌǇŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĨŝďƌĞƐŝŶĚŝƐƐŽůǀĂďůĞ
ƉĂƉĞƌďĂŐƐǁĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶĐƵƚƚĞƌ
ƚĞĞƚŚ
&ŝƌƐƚƐƚĂŐĞĂĚĚĞĚϬ͘ϮϱйĨŝďƌĞƐďǇĚƌǇ
ǁĞŝŐŚƚ
^ĞĐŽŶĚƐƚĂŐĞĂĚĚĞĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌϬ͘ϮϱйĨŝďƌĞƐďǇ
ĚƌǇǁĞŝŐŚƚ
^ĂŵƉůĞƐĨŽƌϬй͕Ϭ͘ϮϱйĂŶĚϬ͘ϱйĨŝďƌĞƐ
ǁĞƌĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ
ǆĐĂǀĂƚŝŽŶ
WĂŶĞůǁĂƐƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĂĨƚĞƌϮϰŚƌƐ
ƵƐŝŶŐϮϬƚŽŶŶĞĞǆĐĂǀĂƚŽƌ
ǆĐĂǀĂƚŽƌƵŶĂďůĞƚŽĐƵƚƚŚĞ
ƉĂŶĞů͘dŚĞĨŝďƌĞƐŚĞůĚŝƚ
ƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ͘ ǆĐĂǀĂƚŽƌĐŽƵůĚŽŶůǇ
ƐĐƌĂƉĞƚŚĞĞǆƉŽƐĞĚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞĂŶĚ
ďƌĞĂŬŽĨƉŝĞĐĞƐϱϬƚŽϭϬϬŵŵ
ƚŚŝĐŬ;ƉŝůůŽǁƐŝǌĞͿ
dŚĞƚŽĞŽĨƚŚĞƉĂŶĞůǁĂƐ
ƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĂƐŽŶĞƉŝĞĐĞ͘DŝǆŝŶŐ
ǁĂƐĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞĂůŽŶŐĞŶƚŝƌĞĚĞƉƚŚ
WĂƌƚϮ͗>ĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇƚĞƐƚŝŶŐ
KďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐŽĨůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇƚĞƐƚŝŶŐ
ĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĨŝďƌĞŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚĂƚ
ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĚĞƉƚŚƐ͘ŝĚŵŝǆŝŶŐĐĂƵƐĞĨŝďƌĞƐƚŽŚĂǀĞƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚ
ŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͍
ŽŶĚƵĐƚƵŶĐŽŶĨŝŶĞĚĐŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƚĞƐƚƐĂŶĚŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚƚĞŶƐŝůĞ
ƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƚĞƐƚƐ
ŽŶĚƵĐƚĨůĞǆƵƌĂůƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;ďĞŶĚŝŶŐďĞĂŵͿƚĞƐƚƐ
KƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ
EƵŵďĞƌƐŽĨĨŝďƌĞƐŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐŽŶƚŚƌĞĞŽƌƚŚŽŐŽŶĂůƉůĂŶĞƐ
ǁĞƌĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚ
ƋƵĂůŶƵŵďĞƌƐƉĞƌĂƌĞĂŽŶĞĂĐŚƉůĂŶĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŵŝǆŝŶŐĐĂƵƐĞĚ
ŝƐŽƚƌŽƉŝĐŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ
EƵŵďĞƌƐŽĨĨŝďƌĞƐͬĐůƵƐƚĞƌƐŽĨĨŝďƌĞƐŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŶŐϮϬŵŵǆϮϬŵŵĂƌĞĂƐ
,ŽƌŝǌŽŶƚĂůƉůĂŶĞ ϭϴ͘ϴϰ
sĞƌƚŝĐĂůƉůĂŶĞƉĂƌĂůůĞůƚŽƉĂŶĞůĨĂĐĞ ϭϵ͘ϭϮ
sĞƌƚŝĐĂůƉůĂŶĞƉĞƌƉĞŶĚŝĐƵůĂƌƚŽƉĂŶĞůĨĂĐĞ ϭϴ͘ϯϰ
ŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶĚŝĚŶŽƚǀĂƌǇǁŝƚŚĚĞƉƚŚ
&ŝďƌĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŵƉĂƌĂďůĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŐĂŝŶƐǁŚĂƚĞǀĞƌƚŚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨ
ůŽĂĚŝŶŐ
hŶĐŽŶĨŝŶĞĚĐŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƐ;ϮϴĚĂǇƐͿ
^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐƌĞƐƵůƚĞĚŝŶǀĂƌŝĂďůĞƐĂŵƉůĞĚĞŶƐŝƚŝĞƐ
/ƚŝƐƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƐĞĂĚĚŝŶŐϬ͘ϱйĨŝďƌĞƐ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚďǇ
ϭϬϬйĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƵŶƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŽĨϯ͘ϮϱDWĂ
&ŝďƌĞƐ ĐŽŶƚĞŶƚ;йďǇĚƌǇ hŶĐŽŶĨŝŶĞĚĐŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞ ^ĂŵƉůĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ;ŬŐͬŵϯͿ

ŵĂƐƐŽĨƐŽŝůͿ ƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;DWĂͿ;ϮϴĚĂǇͿ
Ϭ ϭϯ͘Ϭ ϭϴϯϬ
Ϭ ϯ͘Ϯϱ ϭϱϰϬ
Ϭ͘Ϯϱ ϰ͘ϱ ϭϰϬϬ
Ϭ͘Ϯϱ ϳ͘Ϭ ϭϴϭϬ
Ϭ͘ϱ ϭϭ͘ϯ ϭϴϮϬ
Ϭ͘ϱ ϲ͘ϱ ϭϲϬϬ
&ůĞǆƵƌĂůƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƐ;ϮϴĚĂǇƐͿ
&ůĞǆƵƌĂůƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚǁĂƐĂƚůĞĂƐƚϬ͘ϴϰ DWĂ
>ŽĂĚǀĞƌƐƵƐĚĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶǁĂƐŶŽŶͲůŝŶĞĂƌ ĞůŽǁ͗>ŽĂĚǀƐ͘ĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌ
WŽƐƚͲĨĂŝůƵƌĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚǁĂƐĂďŽƵƚϲϬйŽĨƚŚĞƉĞĂŬ ϰͲƉŽŝŶƚďĞŶĚŝŶŐƚĞƐƚ͘ŝƐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ
ŝƐĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĂƚŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚĂƚƚǁŽ
ůŽĂĚŝŶŐƉŽŝŶƚƐ͘^ĂŵƉůĞƐĞĐƚŝŽŶǁĂƐ
ϲϳ͘ϱŵŵĚĞĞƉĂŶĚϯϵ͘ϮŵŵǁŝĚĞ͘
^ƉĂŶƐǁĞƌĞϭϬϬŵŵĂŶĚϯϬϬŵŵ͘
&ŝďƌĞƐ ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ dĞƐƚƚǇƉĞ ĂƚƉĞĂŬ ĂƚϱϬй ĂƚϮϱй

ĐŽŶƚĞŶƚ ;DWĂͿ ʹ ϭϬϬ ŽĨƉĞĂŬʹ ŽĨƉĞĂŬʹ
;йͿ ;ϮϴĚĂǇͿ ;DWĂͿ ϱϬ ;DWĂͿ Ϯϱ ;DWĂͿ

/RDGN1
Ϭ͘ϱ ϭ͘Ϯϳ ϰͲƉŽŝŶƚ ϭϮϱ ϯϯϵ ϯϳϰ

Ϭ͘ϱ ϭ͘Ϭ ϰͲƉŽŝŶƚ ϱϳ͘ϱ ϭϲϵ ϯϯϵ

Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϴϰ ϯͲƉŽŝŶƚ ϵϭ ϭϵϰ Ϯϲϭ
'VLSODFHPHQWPP
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƐ;ϮǇĞĂƌƐͿ

7HQVLOHVWUHQJWK$YHUDJHGD\WHQVLOH

&RPSUHVVLYHVWUHQJWK$YHUDJHGD\

FRPSUHVVLYHVWUHQJWK

VWUHQJWK

7LPHGD\V 7LPHGD\V
&ĂŝůƵƌĞŵŽĚĞĂŶĚĐƌĂĐŬŝŶŐŝŶϰƉŽŝŶƚďĞŶĚŝŶŐ
EŽŶͲůŝŶĞĂƌůŽĂĚǀĞƌƐƵƐĚĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ
sĞƌǇĚƵĐƚŝůĞĂŶĚĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĂƚůĂƌŐĞĚĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ
DĂũŽƌĐƌĂĐŬĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂƐƉĞĂŬƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚǁĂƐĂƚƚĂŝŶĞĚ
ďƐĞŶĐĞŽĨŵŝŶŽƌĐƌĂĐŬƐŝŵƉůŝĞƐŐŽŽĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŝŐŚƚŶĞƐƐǁŽƵůĚďĞŽďƚĂŝŶĞĚ
ĚƵƌŝŶŐƉƌĞͲĨĂŝůƵƌĞůŽĂĚŝŶŐ
WĂƌƚϯ͗ŶĂůǇƐŝƐĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶ
/ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŝƐƐƵĞƐ
ĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚƐŚĂƉĞ
DĂǆŝŵƵŵƚĞŶƐŝůĞ
ƐƚƌĞƐƐǁŝůůďĞŚĞƌĞ ŶĐŚŽƌ
ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞďĞŶĚŝŶŐ ĞŶĚŝŶŐŵŽĚĞϮ͗
ŵŽŵĞŶƚŝƐĂůƐŽĂ
ĞƚǁĞĞŶƐƚĞĞůĐŽůƵŵŶƐ
ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵ͘dĞŶƐŝůĞ
ĨĂŝůƵƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞ tŚĞŶĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŽƵƐĂŶĚ>ͬфϱ͕ŵĂǇĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ǆĐĂǀĂƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞů ĂƐĂĚĞĞƉďĞĂŵƵƐŝŶŐƐƚƌƵƚĂŶĚƚŝĞŵĞƚŚŽĚ
ŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞƐƚƌĞƐƐ
hŶŝĨŽƌŵůǇĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚůŽĂĚY ǁŝůůďĞůĂƌŐĞƐƚĂƚƚŚĞ
ƚŽƉŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĐŚ

ĞŶĚŝŶŐŵŽĚĞϭ͗
/ŶƚŽĞǆĐĂǀĂƚŝŽŶ ZĞĂĐƚŝŽŶ͚ƚŝĞƐ͛
EŽƚĞŶƐŝůĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇĂĐƌŽƐƐũŽŝŶ
ŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĂƌĐŚĞƐ͚ƐƚƌƵƚƐ͛
>
͚ĐƚƵĂů͛ĞĂƌƚŚƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƐŽŶĂŶĐŚŽƌĞĚƌĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘
>ĞĨƚŬϬ сϮ͘Ϭ͖ƌŝŐŚƚ͗ŬϬ сϬ͘ϱ;ĨƌŽŵWŽƚƚƐĂŶĚ&ŽƵƌŝĞ͕ϭϵϴϱ͕'ĠŽƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞͿ
WƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞĨŽƌǁĂůůĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ϭ͘ ZĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƐŽŝůĨƌŝĐƚŝŽŶĂŶŐůĞĨŽƌƐĂĨĞƚǇ
Ϯ͘ &ƌĞĞĞĂƌƚŚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŵĞƚŚŽĚƚŽĐŽŵƉƵƚĞDŵĂǆ
ϯ͘ ZĞĚƵĐĞDŵĂǆ ƚŽĂĚĞƐŝŐŶǀĂůƵĞ͕ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐĨŽƌƐŽŝůʹǁĂůůƐƚŝĨĨŶĞƐƐ
ϰ͘ ^ŝǌĞĂŶĚƐƉĂĐŝŶŐŽĨƐƚĞĞůďĞĂŵƐƚŽƌĞƐŝƐƚďĞŶĚŝŶŐ
ϱ͘ <ĞĞƉƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞƐƐďĞůŽǁ;ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚͿƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ
ϲ͘ ŽŵƉƵƚĞĂŶĐŚŽƌĨŽƌĐĞ
ϳ͘ ƐƐĞƐƐǁĂůůƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƐƚĞĞůďĞĂŵƐ;ŶĞĂƌĂŶĐŚŽƌƐͿ
ŽŵƉƵƚŝŶŐ
ŐD
DŵĂǆ
^ƵƌĐŚĂƌŐĞůŽĂĚƋ
E, ^ƵƉƉŽƐĞD, сϴ͘Ϭŵ͕

ŶĐŚŽƌ E, сϮ͘Ϭŵ͕Ƌ сϭϱŬWĂ
^ĂŶĚ
D, ϯ
I'сϰϬΣ͕JĂǁƚсϭϴŬEͬŵ ͕
, ϯ ϯ
EĞĞĚƚŽĨŝŶĚ, ďǇĞƋƵĂƚŝŶŐ
JďǁƚсϮϬŬEͬŵ ͕JǁсϭϬŬEͬŵ ŽǀĞƌƚƵƌŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞƐŝƚŝŶŐ
ŵŽŵĞŶƚƐƚĂŬĞŶĂďŽƵƚĂŶĐŚŽƌ͕
ǆĐĂǀĂƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞů 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌůĞǀĞů ƚŚĞŶDŵĂǆ ĐĂŶďĞĨŽƵŶĚ
D,

ŽŵƉƵƚŝŶŐ
ŐD
DŵĂǆ
߶ Ԣ ݀݁‫ ݊݃݅ݏ‬ൌ െͳ ሺሺͶͲሻΤͳǤ͵ሻ ൌ ͵ʹǤͺ

;ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝǀĞůǇĂƐƐƵŵĞĚ
݇ܽ ൌ ͲǤ͵Ͳ݇‫ ݌‬ൌ ͵Ǥ͵͹ ƚŚĂƚŝŶƚĞƌĨĂĐĞŝƐĨƌŝĐƚŝŽŶůĞƐƐͿ
ͳ ͳ ʹ
‫ ݃݊݅݊ݎݑݐݎ݁ݒ݋ܯ‬ൌ ݇ܽ ‫ ܪߙݍ‬൬ ߙ‫ ܪ‬െ ߚ‫ܪ‬൰ ൅ ݇ܽ ߛܽ‫ ʹܪ ʹ ߙ ݐݓ‬൬ ߙ‫ ܪ‬െ ߚ‫ܪ‬൰
ʹ ʹ ͵
ͳ
൅ ݇ܽ ሺ‫ ݍ‬൅ ߛܽ‫ܪߙ ݐݓ‬ሻሺͳ െ ߙሻ‫ ܪ‬ቆߙ‫ ܪ‬൅ ቆ ሺͳ െ ߙሻቇ ‫ ܪ‬െ ߚ‫ܪ‬ቇ
ʹ
ͳ ʹ
൅ ሺ݇ܽ ሺߛܾ‫ ݐݓ‬െ ߛ‫ ݓ‬ሻሺͳ െ ߙሻ‫ ܪ‬൅ ߛ‫ ݓ‬ሺͳ െ ߙሻ‫ܪ‬ሻሺͳ െ ߙሻ‫ ܪ‬ቆ ൬ߙ‫ ܪ‬൅ ሺͳ െ ߙሻ‫ ܪ‬െ ߚ‫ܪ‬൰ቇ
ʹ ͵
ͳ ʹ
‫ ݃݊݅ݐݏ݅ݏ݁ݎܯ‬ൌ ሺ ሺߙ‫ ܪ‬൅ ሺ ሺͳ െ ߙሻሻ‫ ܪ‬െ ߚ‫ܪ‬ሻሻሺ݇‫ ݌‬ሺߛܾ‫ ݐݓ‬െ ߛ‫ ݓ‬ሻሺͳ െ ߙሻ‫ ܪ‬൅ ߛ‫ ݓ‬ሺͳ െ ߙሻ‫ܪ‬ሻሺͳ െ ߙሻ‫ܪ‬
ʹ ͵
, сϭϮ͘Ϭŵ͕DŵĂǆ сϯϯϱŬEŵͬŵĂƚϲ͘ϳŵĨƌŽŵƚŽƉ
ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĂŶĐŚŽƌĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇсϭϱϬŬEͬŵ
DŽŵĞŶƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ
DŵĂǆ сϯϯϱŬEŵͬŵĨƌŽŵĨƌĞĞĞĂƌƚŚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŵĞƚŚŽĚ
EĞĞĚƚŚĞĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶůĞƐƐĨůĞǆŝďŝůŝƚǇŶƵŵďĞƌŵU͘ U с,ϰͬ/ ĂŶĚŵ ŝƐ
ŵŽĚƵůƵƐŽĨƐƵďŐƌĂĚĞƌĞĂĐƚŝŽŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞǁŝƚŚĚĞƉƚŚ
Ϭ͘ϱϱŵǁŝĚĞǁĂůůǁŝƚŚƚǁŽϯϲϬhϱϳďĞĂŵƐĞǀĞƌǇϮ͘ϮŵŚĂƐ/ с
ϯϯ͕ϮϬϬŬEŵϮͬŵ; сϮϴϬDWĂ ĨŽƌŵŝǆ͕ сϮϬϬ͕ϬϬϬDWĂ ĨŽƌƐƚĞĞůͿ
ZĞĚƵĐĞĚŵŽŵĞŶƚŝƐƚŚĞŶ
DĚĞƐŝŐŶ сϮϭϴŬEŵͬŵ
Ϭ͘ϲϱ
&ŝŐƵƌĞŶŽƚĞ͗ǀĂůƵĞŽĨϮ͘ϭϲŵƵƐƚďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽ >ŽŐ;ŵUͿсϯ͘ϴ
ŶƵŵĞƌŝĐĂůǀĂůƵĞƐŽŶ,ĂǆŝƐƚŽŵĂŬĞƵŶŝƚƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ
;ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĨƌŽŵZŽǁĞ͕ϭϵϱϱ͕/WƌŽĐĞĞĚ͘Ϳ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇĐŚĞĐŬ
&ŽƌDĚĞƐŝŐŶ сϮϭϴŬEŵͬŵ͕ĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐůŝŶĞĂƌƐƚƌĂŝŶƉƌŽĨŝůĞĂŶĚŶŽ
ĐƌĂĐŬŝŶŐ
± ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞƐƐŝŶƐƚĞĞůŝƐϮϰϬDWĂ͕ďĞůŽǁƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŽĨ
ϰϭϬDWĂ
± ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞƐƐŝŶŵŝǆŝƐϬ͘ϱϰDWĂ͕ďĞůŽǁƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŽĨ
Ϭ͘ϴDWĂ
ĞVĐ͕Đ ŵĂǆ
ŽŵƉƵƚĞ
dǁŽh͛ƐƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶĞĚĂƚƉĂŶĞůĐĞŶƚƌĞƐ͕ĞǀĞƌǇϮ͘Ϯŵ
ĂƌƚŚƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞĂƚĂŶĐŚŽƌĚĞƉƚŚĨŽƵŶĚĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐŬƉ сϰ͘ϲϬ͕ĂŶĚŝƐY
сϵϴŬWĂ
tŝĚĞƐƚĐůĞĂƌƐƉĂŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶďĞĂŵƐŝƐ> сϭ͘ϵŵ
DĂǆŝŵƵŵĐŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞƐƚƌĞƐƐVĐ͕ŵĂǆ ŝŶƐƉĂŶŝƐ;ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇͿ
VĐ͕ŵĂǆ сϬ͘ϱϴDWĂ͕ďĞůŽǁŵŝǆƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŽĨϯ͘ϬDWĂ
tŚĂƚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐǁŝƚŚŶŽĨŝďƌĞƐ͍
dǁŽϯϲϬhϱϳďĞĂŵƐŵƵƐƚďĞƉůĂĐĞĚĞǀĞƌǇϭ͘ϮŵƚŽŬĞĞƉƚĞŶƐŝůĞ
ƐƚƌĞƐƐƚŽϬ͘ϯϭDWĂ͕ƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚůǇďĞůŽǁƚŚĞůŽǁĞƌĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŽĨϬ͘ϱ
DWĂ͘
DĂǆŝŵƵŵĐŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞƐƚƌĞƐƐŶĞĂƌĂŶĐŚŽƌƐŝƐƐƚŝůůǁĞůůďĞůŽǁ
ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ
dŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞƐƐũƵƐƚĂďŽǀĞĞǆĐĂǀĂƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞůŐŽǀĞƌŶƐ
ĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ŽƐƚĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƉĞƌŵŽĨǁĂůů
>ŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽƐƚĞĞůďĞĂŵƐ͕ĨŝďƌĞĂŶĚĂŶĐŚŽƌƐ͕ĂŶĚĂƐƐƵŵĞƐ͗
± Ψϭ͕ϮϬϬhƉĞƌĂŶĐŚŽƌŝŶƐĂŶĚĂďŽǀĞǁĂƚĞƌƚĂďůĞ
± ΨϭϮhƉĞƌŬŐĨŽƌƐƵƉƉůǇĂŶĚŵŝǆŝŶŐŽĨĨŝďƌĞƐ;ŽƌΨϭϬϴƉĞƌŵϯ ŽĨǁĂůůͿ
± Ψϭ͕ϴϰϬhƉĞƌϭϮŵůŽŶŐϯϲϬhϱϳĨŽƌƐƵƉƉůǇĂŶĚŚĂŶĚůŝŶŐŽŶƐŝƚĞ
tŝƚŚĨŝďƌĞƐ;Ϭ͘ϱйďǇĚƌǇǁĞŝŐŚƚͿ tŝƚŚŽƵƚĨŝďƌĞƐ
ĞĂŵƐ ϮΎϭϴϰϬͬϮ͘Ϯсϭ͕ϲϳϬ ϮΎϭϴϰϬͬϭ͘Ϯсϯ͕ϬϳϬ

ŶĐŚŽƌƐ ϭϮϬϬͬϮ͘ϮсϱϱϬ ϭϮϬϬͬϭ͘Ϯсϭ͕ϬϬϬ
&ŝďƌĞƐ ϭϬϴΎϭϮΎϬ͘ϱϱсϳϭϬ Ϭ
dŽƚĂů ΨϮ͕ϵϯϬh Ψϰ͕ϬϳϬh
ŬŐŽĨK
KϮĞŝŶƉƌŽĚƵĐŝŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ
ƐƉĞƌŵŽĨǁĂůů
&ŽƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚĞĞů͕ĐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƉŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞ͕ĂŶĚĂƐƐƵŵĞƐ͗
± ĞŵĞŶƚ͗Ϭ͘ϴϬŬŐKϮĞƉĞƌŬŐ
± ^ƚĞĞů͗ϭ͘ϮϲŬŐKϮĞƉĞƌŬŐ
± WŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞ͗Ϭ͘ϴϬŬŐKϮĞƉĞƌŬŐ
tŝƚŚĨŝďƌĞƐ;ŬŐKϮĞͿ tŝƚŚŽƵƚĨŝďƌĞƐ;ŬŐKϮĞͿ
ĞŵĞŶƚŝŶǁĂůů Ϯ͕ϭϬϱ Ϯ͕ϭϬϱ
WŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞĨŝďƌĞƐ ϱϬ Ϭ
^ƚĞĞůďĞĂŵƐ ϳϴϬ ϭ͕ϰϯϬ
ĞŵĞŶƚŝŶĂŶĐŚŽƌƐ ϭϱ ϮϬ
^ƚĞĞůŝŶĂŶĐŚŽƌƐ ϰϬ ϱϬ
dŽƚĂů Ϯ͕ϵϵϬŬŐKϮĞ ϯ͕ϲϬϱŬŐKϮĞ
ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ
ŝƐĐƌĞƚĞƉŽůǇƉƌŽƉǇůĞŶĞĨŝďƌĞƐĐĂŶďĞŵŝǆĞĚŝŶƚŽ^DǁĂůůƐƚŽ
ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŝƐŽƚƌŽƉŝĐĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ
DŝŶŝŵƵŵƚĞŶƐŝůĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƐǁŝƚŚĂŶĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĨŝďƌĞƐĂƌĞĂƌŽƵŶĚ
Ϭ͘ϱDWĂ ĂŶĚϬ͘ϴDWĂ͕ƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞůǇ
tĂůůĚĞƐŝŐŶĨŽƌŶŽĐƌĂĐŬŝŶŐƐŚŽǁƐƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƐƚĞĞů
ƵƐĂŐĞŝƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞǁŚĞŶĨŝďƌĞƐĂƌĞĂĚĚĞĚ
&ŝďƌĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞϯϵйĐŽƐƚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ;ĂƌŽƵŶĚΨϭϬϬϬhƉĞƌůŝŶĞĂƌ
ŵĞƚĞƌŽĨǁĂůůͿ
&ŝďƌĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞϮϭйKϮĞƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ;ĂƌŽƵŶĚϲϭϬŬŐŽĨKϮĞƉĞƌ
ůŝŶĞĂƌŵĞƚĞƌŽĨǁĂůůͿ
Geosynthetics International
Cost and embodied carbon reductions in cutter soil

mix walls through fibre reinforcement
A. R. Russell1, M. Chapman2, S. H. Teh3 and T. Wiedmann4
1
Associate Professor, Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, UNSWAustralia, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia, E-mail: a.russell@unsw.edu.au
(corresponding author)
2
Project Engineer, Wagstaff Piling Pty Ltd, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia,
E-mail: m.chapman@wagstaffpiling.com.au
3
PhD Student, Water Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSWAustralia,
Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia, E-mail: soohuey.teh@unsw.edu.au
4
Associate Professor, Water Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
UNSWAustralia, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia, E-mail: t.wiedmann@unsw.edu.au
Received 25 May 2016, revised 31 August 2016, accepted 04 January 2017
ABSTRACT: Cutter soil mix (CSM) walls are created by mixing soils with cement and bentonite
slurry to produce a soil–cement mix with modest tensile and compressive strengths. CSM walls may
be stabilised using internal steel beams. Presented here are the results of a CSM wall field trial and
laboratory testing programme. Polypropylene fibres were added to the soil–cement mix in order to
explore whether or not fibres increase wall resistance to bending, reduce the required quantity of steel
and thus reduce cost and embodied carbon. The trial involved mixing fibres into a single CSM wall
panel. Samples were taken and tested at 28 days and 2 years to assess unconfined compressive strengths,
indirect tensile strengths and flexural tensile strengths. The fibre orientation distribution was also
assessed. The testing confirmed that the mixing technique resulted in a uniform orientation distribution
of fibres and significantly improved tensile strength. Also presented is a hypothetical design of a fibre-
reinforced CSM wall supporting an 8 m excavation to show that the steel quantity can be reduced while
maintaining stability. A cost analysis, limited to the steel beams, fibres and anchors, shows that a CSM
wall with 0.5% fibres by dry weight has a cost of $2930 AUD per linear metre of wall. This is
significantly lower than the cost when no fibres were included, which is $4070 AUD per linear metre.
The embodied carbon analysis, limited to the steel beams, fibres, cement and anchors, is also presented.
The analysis shows that a CSM wall with 0.5% fibres by dry weight produces an emissions
saving (having a total of 755 kgCO2e/m3) compared to the CSM wall without fibres (having a total of
929 kgCO2e/m3). Increasing the fibre content from 0.5% does not significantly alter the cost or
embodied carbon when the cement content is constant. However, a higher fibre content does have the
potential to reduce embodied carbon and cost further if an adequate tensile strength can be achieved
with a lower cement content.
KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Fibres, Cutter soil mix wall, Cost, Carbon
REFERENCE: Russell, A. R., Chapman, M., Teh, S. H. and Wiedmann, T. (2017). Cost and
embodied carbon reductions in cutter soil mix walls through fibre reinforcement. Geosynthetics
International. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgein.17.00001]
of the wall, tieback ground anchors may be installed

1. INTRODUCTION
to provide additional shoring capacity (Kvinsland and
Cutter soil mix (CSM) walls may be used as a shoring wall Plum 2010; Lindquist et al. 2010). CSM walls have fewer
and to provide seepage cutoff. They are made by mixing overlapping joints compared to secant pile walls, which
soil in situ with cement and bentonite slurry. reduces potential for leakage. They also have less material
The mixing tool involves two sets of vertically mounted waste than secant pile walls (Brunner et al. 2006). CSM
cutting wheels rotating about a horizontal axis to produce walls are relatively new to ground engineering. They may
rectangular panels of the soil–cement mix. Panels are over- be a viable alternative to walls formed by jet grouting,
lapped to form a continuous rectangular wall. Steel beams plastic diaphragm walls, sheet pile walls and other cut-off
are usually inserted to provide structural stability, par- walls (Gerressen and Vohs 2012). One drawback of
ticularly bending resistance. Following excavation in front CSM walls is the low strength of the soil–cement mix,
1072-6349 © 2017 Thomas Telford Ltd 1
Downloaded by [ University of New South Wales] on [20/02/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
2 Russell, Chapman, Teh and Wiedmann
particularly the tensile strength, which is of the order of up the soil matrix, at the same time as a slurry and air
a few hundred kilopascals. The steel beams and anchors were injected to fluidise the soil. The slurry injection rate
needed to ensure the tensile strength is not exceeded are was 455 litres per cubic metre of untreated soil. The slurry
a significant cost and have very large embodied carbon. had a water to cement ratio of 0.8. This corresponded
If the tensile strength of the CSM wall material could be to 400 kg of cement being added per cubic metre of
increased then fewer steel beams and anchors would be untreated soil. A discrete rectangular column CSM wall
needed, reducing the cost and embodied carbon. panel was formed, measuring 2.4 m long, 0.55 m wide
This paper demonstrates how fibre reinforcement, using and 4 m deep.
discrete flexible polypropylene fibres, may be used in CSM Twisted strands of the fibres were supplied in dissolv-
walls. A field trial used to create a soil–cement–fibre CSM able paper bags (Figure 1). The bags containing the fibres
wall panel is presented, and confirms that uniform mixing were placed between the teeth of the cutter (Figure 1). The
of fibres into a wall panel can be achieved. Laboratory first round of mixing involved placing fibres amounting
tests are conducted on soil–cement–fibre mixed samples, to 0.25% of the dry weight of the premixed soil. The cutter
and the results show the tensile strength increases due to was then lowered into the soil–cement mix, and next
the presence of fibres. rotated to mix in the fibres. The second and final round of
The paper then presents a hypothetical design of CSM mixing involved placing additional fibres, bringing the
wall. The design shows how the elevated strength resulting total amount per dry weight of premixed soil to 0.5%. It
from fibre reinforcement provides resistance to bending was observed that individual fibres separated out from the
in the wall and leads to fewer or smaller steel beams being twisted strands during mixing. It is noted that this
needed for stability. The paper also demonstrates how technique may not be cost effective for mixing fibres
the strength gains translate to cost and embodied carbon into CSM walls on large projects. A more suitable
reductions. Embodied carbon is becoming just as impor- technique may involve adding the fibres to the cement
tant as cost when assessing the viability of design options and bentonite slurry prior to pumping through the CSM
in modern geotechnical infrastructure projects (Inui et al. cutter. Koono et al. (2015) have had success using this
2011; Raja et al. 2015; Shillaber et al. 2015a). approach. In either case, as long as the fibres are deposited
uniformly with depth, and as long as the cutter wheels
are rotated sufficiently, the same fibre-reinforced mix will
result from the technique used here and that of Koono
2. THE FIELD TRIAL AND SAMPLING et al. (2015).
A field mixing trial was conducted by Wagstaff Piling Pty Samples of the wet mix were taken immediately prior
Ltd at a former industrial site in Botany, NSW, Australia. to and immediately after each round of fibre mixing
Forte Ferro polypropylene fibres were mixed into a 4 m and placed in 1 m long, 100 mm diameter plastic tubes.
deep single CSM wall panel. This type of fibre, which is Samples were taken by lowering an open topped sampler
approximately 54 mm long, is usually used to reinforce into the wet mix, removing the sampler when filled, and
concrete. The soil at the site of the trial consisted of fine to pouring its contents into the plastic tubes to cure.
medium grained aeolian sand and silty sand fill, tending 24 h after placing the panel, a 20 t excavator was
from loose to dense at depths greater than 3.2 m below the used to remove it from ground. Initially, the excavator
existing surface level. The water table was below the 4 m attempted to cut into the panel. It was apparent from the
deep trial panel. excavator resistance that the fibre-reinforced CSM wall
A Bauer BCM5 cutter attached to an RGT19 Universal panel had a strength that far exceeded a conventional
Piling Rig was used in the field trial. It comprised two CSM wall panel. The excavator was unable to cut easily
cutting wheels that rotate about the horizontal axis. The into the fibre-reinforced material, and was only able to
cutters were rotated at 35 revolutions per minute to break scrape the exposed surface and break off pieces that were
Figure 1. Twisted strands of fibres as supplied in paper bags (left), fibres in paper bags added to the cutter (centre) and a cut surface of the
soil–cement–fibre mix showing effective mixing and dispersion (right)
Cost and embodied carbon reductions in cutter soil mix walls through fibre reinforcement 3
50 mm to 100 mm thick. The top half of the trial panel fibres provide comparable strength gains whatever the
was broken up by the excavator and the largest pieces were direction of tensile loading. This is a very favorable ori-
collected for subsequent laboratory testing. The bottom entation distribution for CSM walls. As will be discussed
half of the panel was dug out from the ground while below, there are two types of bending that have the potential
remaining intact, and was later cut in to pieces using a to cause cracking in the wall. The fibres having an isotropic
concrete saw for laboratory testing. orientation distribution offer equal resistance to both.
Koono et al. (2015) also observed vertical and hori-
zontal fibre orientations in their fibre-reinforced CSM
3. LABORATORY TESTING AND FIBRE trial, although no quantitative analysis was conducted.
ORIENTATION DISTRIBUTION
ANALYSIS 3.2. Unconfined compressive strength
A program of laboratory testing and analysis was Measured unconfined compressive strengths (SA 2014a)
conducted. are given in Table 1 for eight samples, one with no fibres at
28 days, two with 0.25% of fibres at 28 days, two with 0.5%
(1) The fibre orientation distributions achieved at of fibres at 28 days and three with 0.5% fibres at 2 years.
different depths in the 4 m wall panel were The scoop and plastic tube sampling method resulted
determined using the analytical counting procedure in variable densities of the samples used to assess 28-day
outlined by Diambra et al. (2007). If fibres tended to strengths, listed in Table 1. The largest 28-day strengths
have a preferred orientation because of the mixing were observed for the densest samples. Also, at 28 days,
technique then this would be identified. Samples 0.5% fibres by dry weight of soil had an average strength
analysed had fibre contents of 0.5% by dry weight. of 8.9 MPa, almost three times that of the unreinforced
(2) 28-day unconfined compressive strength tests and strength of 3.25 MPa.
indirect tensile strength tests were conducted on At 2 years, the samples tested were much more uniform
cylinders cut from the tubes (length = 2 × diameter). in their density, as they were cut directly from the exhumed
Samples tested had different fibre contents wall panel, and their strengths were also more uniform.
(0%, 0.25% and 0.5% by dry weight). The unconfined compressive strengths of the samples with
(3) 28-day flexural strength (bending beam) tests on 0.5% fibres at 2 years were, on average, 28.4 MPa. This is
prisms cut from pieces recovered during excavation more than triple the average 28-day strength of 8.9 MPa.
were conducted. Load and deflection up to and The strength gain is mainly due to aging. Significant
beyond failure were recorded to indicate flexural strength gain with time is normal in soil–cement mixes of
tensile strength (also referred to as the modulus of this type. It is important to note that the different sampl-
rupture), stiffness and post failure ductility. Samples ing methods used for the cylinders at 28 days and 2 years
tested had fibre contents of 0.5% by dry weight. may also have contributed to the strength differences.
(4) 2-year unconfined compressive strength tests and Figure 2 shows the unconfined strengths (σUCS) in
indirect tensile strength tests were conducted on unreinforced soil–cement mixes at different times at this
cylinders cut from the intact part of the trial wall site and another site underlain by similar sand soils.
panel (length = 2 × diameter). Samples tested had In recovering samples to generate that data, a similar
fibre contents of 0.5% by dry weight. scoop and plastic tube technique was used and resulted
(5) 2-year flexural strength (bending beam) tests were in comparable variations in sample densities. The data is
conducted on prisms cut from the intact part of the presented where strength on the vertical axis has been
trial wall panel. Load and deflection up to and beyond normalised by the average 28-day strength (σUCS,28-day),
failure were recorded to indicate flexural tensile and the time (t) on the horizontal axis has been made
strength, stiffness and post failure ductility. Samples dimensionless by dividing it by 28 days. Overlaid and
tested had fibre contents of 0.5% by dry weight. indicated by large open circle symbols are the unconfined
compressive strengths measured in the 0.5% fibre-
3.1. Fibre orientation reinforced samples (Table 1). It appears that the same
The fibres are flexible and provide strength through ten-
sion. They have a maximum tensile strength that ranges Table 1. Unconfined compressive strengths
from 570–660 MPa. Therefore, benefits are achieved when
they are orientated in the direction of tensile stresses and Fibres content (% by Unconfined compressive Sample density
strains. dry weight of soil) strength (MPa) (kg/m3)
Fibre orientation was analysed for samples cut from 0 3.25 (28-day) 1540
pieces recovered during excavation. The numbers of fibres 0.25 4.5 (28-day) 1400
intersecting finite areas on three orthogonal planes were 0.25 7.0 (28-day) 1810
counted (as per Diambra et al. 2007). 0.5 11.3 (28-day) 1820
It was determined that the mixing technique used 0.5 6.5 (28-day) 1600
0.5 31.0 (2-year) 1870
resulted in an isotropic fibre orientation distribution, evi- 0.5 21.8 (2-year) 1800
denced by the same number of fibres (per unit area) 0.5 32.3 (2-year) 1870
intersecting the three orthogonal planes. This means the
strength gains apply to both reinforced and unreinforced 3.3. Tensile strength
samples. The time dependent strength can be approxi- Measured indirect tensile strengths (SA 2014b) at 28 days
mated by: and 2 years are given in Table 2 for seven samples, two
σ UCS t with no fibres at 28 days, one with 0.25% fibres at 28 days,
¼ 1 þ 0:65ln ð1Þ
σ UCS; 28-day 28 one with 0.5% fibres at 28 days and three with 0.5% fibres
at 2 years. At 28 days, 0.5% fibres provided a strength of
where t is measured in days. 1.6 MPa, 60% more than the average strength of 1.0 MPa
for the unreinforced samples. The strengths with 0.5%
fibres at 2 years were on average 3.2 MPa, which is double
the 28-day strength of 1.6 MPa.
Compressive strength/average 28-day compressive strength
5.0
Unreinforced soil–cement mix at this site Measured flexural tensile strengths are given in Table 3 for
4.5 0.5% fibre-reinforced soil–cement mix 15 samples, each with 0.5% of fibres by dry weight of soil.
4.0 Unreinforced soil–cement mix at a nearby site Three tests were conducted at 28 days, including one 3-point
bending beam test (ASTM C293/C293M-15 (2015a)) and
3.5
two 4-point bending beam tests (ASTM C78/C78M-15b
3.0 (2015b)). The average 28-day flexural tensile strength was
1.0 MPa. Twelve tests were conducted at 2 years, including
2.5
three 3-point and nine 4-point bending beam tests. The
2.0 average 2-year flexural tensile strength was 2.6 MPa.
Figure 3a plots a typical test result showing load versus
1.5
flexural extension. Figure 3b shows the sample at the end
1.0 of the test. As this was a 4-point bending test, the flexural
0.5
extension plotted is the average of that measured at the
two inner loading points. The cross section of this sample
0 was 97.6 mm deep and 99.8 mm wide. The load versus
0.1 1 10 100
flexural extension response observed was non-linear. Also,
Time/28 days
the post-failure flexural tensile strength was about 30% of
Figure 2. Gains in unconfined compressive strength with time the peak value, indicating a very ductile behavior and an
ability to maintain significant tensile strength at very large
amounts of flexural extension and bending.
Table 2. Indirect tensile strengths Strength gain with time is evident. Figure 4 shows the
indirect and flexural tensile strengths (σT) at different
Fibres content (% by Indirect tensile Sample density
dry weight of soil) strength (MPa) (kg/m3)
times. Strength on the vertical axis has been normalised
by the average 28-day strength (σT,28-day), and the time on
0 1.1 (28-day) 1860 the horizontal axis has been made dimensionless by
0 0.9 (28-day) 1870 dividing it by 28 days. The time dependent strength can be
0.25 1.9 (28-day) 1870 approximated by:
0.5 1.6 (28-day) 1880
σT t
0.5 3.2 (2-year) 1830 ¼ 1 þ 0:45ln ð2Þ
0.5 2.4 (2-year) 1850 σ T; 28-day 28
0.5 3.9 (2-year) 1860
where t is measured in days.
Table 3. Flexural tensile strengths and Young’s moduli
Fibres content (% by dry Flexural tensile strength Test Young’s modulus at peak Young’s modulus at 50% of peak
weight of soil) (MPa) type strength – E100 (MPa) strength – E50 (MPa)
0.5 1.27 (28-day) 4-point 125 339

0.5 1.0 (28-day) 4-point 57.5 169
0.5 0.84 (28-day) 3-point 91 194
0.5 1.98 (2-year) 3-point 155 492
0.5 2.76 (2-year) 3-point 173 496
0.5 2.25 (2-year) 3-point 131 623
0.5 1.81 (2-year) 4-point 170 343
0.5 3.44 (2-year) 4-point 283 709
0.5 3.96 (2-year) 4-point 228 636
0.5 2.95 (2-year) 4-point 226 1691
0.5 1.39 (2-year) 4-point 98 4029
0.5 1.28 (2-year) 4-point 172 1962
0.5 3.41 (2-year) 4-point 230 1896
0.5 2.38 (2-year) 4-point 169 3668
0.5 3.29 (2-year) 4-point 257 4259
14 highly variable prefailure stiffnesses when subjected to

4-point bending.
12
Figure 3a shows the very ductile behavior that was
10 typically observed in the flexural testing program. The
cracking that is evident in a sample in Figure 3b is also
Load (kN)
8
typical. The single crack developed as the peak strength
6 was attained, as was also the case in the Koono et al.
(2015) study. It extended from near the centre of the
4 sample’s underside to the upper sample surface. What is
2 notable is the absence of minor cracks away from the main
crack. From this, it can be implied that reasonable water
0 tightness may be obtained in fibre-reinforced CSM walls
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Flexure extension (mm)
during pre-failure loading. Yi et al. (2015) also observed
(a)
that fibres arrested the propagation of cracks in a fibre-
reinforced cemented sandy silt.
4. ANCHORED WALL DESIGN

A hypothetical wall design is presented here, in which
the strength gain provided by the fibres is incorporated. The
wall is to be used as shoring for an 8 m excavation in
medium dense sand. The water table is assumed to be at the
(b)
excavation level on both sides of the wall. The geometry, soil
Figure 3. Typical load versus deflection response for a 4-point properties and surcharge loading are shown in Figure 5.
bending test on a fibre-reinforced sample (a) and the sample at the In the design, it is assumed that a CSM wall panel without
end of the test (b) fibres has compressive and tensile strengths of 3.0 MPa and
0.5 MPa, respectively, and a Young’s modulus of 280 MPa.
It is also assumed that a CSM wall panel with 0.5% fibres
5.0
Flexural tensile strengths: 0.5% fibre-reinforced soil–cement mix
has compressive and tensile strengths of 3.0 MPa and
4.5 0.8 MPa, respectively, and a Young’s modulus of 280 MPa.
Tensile strength/average 28-day tensile strength
Indirect tensile strengths: 0.5% fibre-reinforced soil–cement mix

Notice the conservative assumption that only the tensile
4.0
strength is increased by the presence of fibres. Also, the
3.5 strengths assumed are lower than the average 28-day values
to introduce further conservatism.
3.0
The design procedure is as follows.
2.5
(1) Use the free earth support method to compute the
2.0 maximum bending moment in the wall as a function
1.5
of wall depth. In doing so the soil friction angle is
reduced by a factor of safety prior to computing the
1.0 active and passive earth pressure coefficients.
0.5
(2) Reduce the maximum bending moment computed
from the free earth support method by some amount
0 to account for the soil–wall interaction, wall
0.1 1 10 100
deflection, and relative stiffness of the soil with
Time/28 days
respect to the wall. The reduced moment becomes the
Figure 4. Gains in tensile strength with time design value. The results of Rowe (1952, 1955) and
Potts and Fourie (1985) are used to quantify the
moment reduction multiplier. The free earth support
3.4. Young’s modulus and rupture pattern method with a moment reduction is a widely used
For each sample tested, Table 3 also lists secant Young’s technique and Muir Wood (2004) gives an example
moduli (E) at the instances when peak strength had been of its use. It is quick and inexpensive to apply in
mobilised (E100) and for when 50% of peak strength had practice, and is especially useful for preliminary
been mobilised (E50). In computing these values for the analyses, checking detailed design analyses, and
4-point tests, shear deformation effects were ignored. On making comparisons between design alternatives.
average, the 2-year E100 was 191 MPa, more than twice (3) Determine the size and spacing of steel beams that
the average 28-day value of 91 MPa. Also, for each sample provide the necessary bending resistance. A strength
at either 28 days or 2 years, E50 was more than double reduction factor is applied to the steel. Iteration may be
E100, and in some cases more than 10 times larger than needed to incorporate the bending stiffness of the wall
E100. In general the fibre-reinforced samples displayed into the moment reduction calculations in step 2.
Surcharge load q
1
Mresisting ¼ kp ðγbwt γw Þð1 αÞH þ γw ð1 αÞH
2
βH

2
Anchor ð1 αÞH αH þ ð1 αÞ H βH
3
Sand
αH
φ' = 40°, γ awt = 18 kN/m3,
ð5Þ
H γ bwt = 20 kN/m3, γ w = 10 kN/m3 H is the total wall depth. αH is the depth of the excavation
and βH is the depth to the anchor (Figure 5). q is the
surcharge load. γw is the unit weight of water. γbwt and γawt
Excavation level Groundwater level are the unit weights of the soil above and below the water
(1–α)H
table, respectively.
Substituting in q = 15 kPa, αH = 8 m, βH = 2 m,
γbwt = 20 kN/m3, γawt = 18 kN/m3, γw = 10 kN/m3, and
Figure 5. Problem considered in hypothetical wall design equating Moverturning and Mresisting, enables the total wall
depth H = 12.0 m to be determined.
(4) Ensure the maximum tensile stress induced does not The maximum bending moment for this set of earth
exceed the tensile strength (after having been reduced pressures and wall depth can then be computed, and is
by some amount for safety). 335 kNm/m. This maximum moment is located at 6.7 m
(5) Determine the maximum tieback anchor force from the top of the wall, or 1.3 m above excavation level.
necessary to provide stability. The required anchor capacity is determined through
(6) Analyse the bending of the CSM wall sections horizontal force equilibrium, and is 150 kN/m.
between steel beams due to arching to ensure To make the moment reduction, as per step 2, it is
adequate strength is available, again after having necessary to know the dimensionless quantity mρ, where
made strength reductions for safety. The location ρ = H 4/EI, E is the effective Young’s modulus of the wall
where bending induced stresses will be largest for a containing the steel beams, I is the moment of inertia of
wall geometry and anchor system like that in Figure 5 the wall containing the steel beams (per metre width), and
is near the anchor connections, as indicated by Potts m is the rate at which modulus of subgrade reaction for the
and Fourie (1985). The earth pressure used in this soil increases with depth. A wall that is 0.55 m wide, and
step of the analysis uses the soil friction angle, which which contains two 360 UB 57 beams every 2.2 m, has an
has not been reduced by a factor of safety to equivalent EI = 33 200 kNm2/m (using E = 200 000 MPa
introduce some conservatism. The passive earth for steel). Assuming m = 10 MPa/m, a value typical for
pressure coefficient is used, representing the worst medium dense sands (Terzaghi 1955), leads to mρ = 6246.
and most conservative case (Potts and Fourie 1985). From Rowe (1955), in particular his Figure 12 (noting a
value of 2.16 must be added to numerical values on
In computing the maximum bending moment for the horizontal axis to make units consistent), this corresponds
problem shown in Figure 5, as per step 1, the soil friction to a moment reduction multiplier of 0.65. The reduced
angle of ϕ′ = 40° is reduced by applying a strength reduction moment in the wall is then 218 kNm/m.
′
factor of 1.3 to give a value for use in design (ϕdesign): The reduced moment is the design moment. The
corresponding maximum tensile stress in the steel
ϕ′design ¼ tan1 ½tanð40°Þ=1:3 ¼ 32:8° ð3Þ beams is 240 MPa, sufficiently below the yield strength
resulting in active and passive earth pressure coefficients of 410 MPa. Also, assuming the soil–cement–fibre mix
of ka = 0.30 and kp = 3.37, respectively (ignoring interface remains linearly elastic and that cracking does not occur,
friction). the maximum tensile stress in the soil–cement–fibre mix is
Summing moments about the anchor, as per the free 0.51 MPa, below the tensile capacity of 0.8 MPa (i.e. the
earth support method, the overturning (Moverturning) and assumption of no cracking is valid). Therefore, the use of
resisting moments (Mresisting) per metre width of wall are: two 360 UB 57 beams every 2.2 m is adequate.
The design will now be progressed by assuming
1 that the two vertical beams are positioned so they have
Moverturning ¼ ka qαH αH βH
2 equal distances to the centre of a wall panel (Figure 6).
One anchor will be located at the centre of the wall
1 2 2 2
þ ka γawt α H αH βH panel, spaced at every S = 2.2 m along the wall, such that
2 3
a single anchor must carry a load of 330 kN. The earth
1
þ ka ðq þ γawt αH Þð1 αÞH αH þ ð1 αÞH βH pressure p normal to the wall at the anchor depth,
2 accounting for the surcharge q = 15 kPa and assuming a
1 passive earth pressure coefficient of kp = 4.60 (correspond-
þ ½ka ðγbwt γw Þð1 αÞH þ γw ð1 αÞH
2 ing to an unfactored ϕ′ = 40°), is
2 p ¼ kp ðq þ γawt βH Þ ¼ 234:6 kPa ð6Þ
ð1 αÞH αH þ ð1 αÞH βH
3
The longest clear span between steel beam webs in con-
ð4Þ necting panels is assumed to be L = 1.5 m. The centre of
Anchor Anchor tensile stress in the steel beams is well below the yield
Compression arch strength. The maximum compressive stress in the wall
Uniformly distributed load p near the anchors also remains well below capacity. It is the
maximum tensile stress in the wall at about 1.3 m above
bA excavation level that governs design.
b' b The effect of the tensile strength of the soil–cement–
F bR
F
fibre mix on the design is also investigated here. To do this,
Joint where wall panels meet additional designs are completed with different sized steel
L beams placed at every 2.2 m. It is assumed that the ratios
S between the maximum tensile strengths in the wall due to
bending and the required tensile strengths of the soil-
Figure 6. Assumed compression arch between steel beams across cement-fibre mixes are constant at 0.635. Table 4 lists
joining wall panels
the steel beam sizes, the corresponding equivalent EI,
moment reduction multipliers, maximum tensile stresses
the longest span is where two panels of the CSM wall join, in the soil–cement–fibre mixes and the required tensile
and no tensile load can be carried across the joint. Instead, strengths of the soil–cement–fibre mixes. In all cases,
the span must act as a deep beam and resist the earth the maximum tensile stresses in the steel beams are well
pressure by compression arching (Figure 6). below the yield strength. Also, the maximum compressive
The arch is parabolic, with a depth bA that is constant stresses in the wall near the anchors remain well below
along the arch length. The arch rise is bR from the capacity.
steel beam’s web. The effective depth of the wall is thus Analysis shows that a soil–cement–fibre mix with
b′ = bA + bR. It is also assumed that bA = bR = b′/2, in a maximum tensile strength of 0.63 MPa requires two
agreement with numerical analysis results of Denies et al. 410 UB 60 beams to be placed every 2.2 m. However,
(2015). if the maximum tensile strength was 1.24 MPa, then two
By taking moments about the top of the arch, it may be 310 UB 40 beams would need to be placed every 2.2 m.
shown that the thrust F (per metre) is given by The analyses of different sized steel beams, which corres-
pond to the different fibre contents, have been conducted
F ¼ pL2 =6b′ ð7Þ assuming that two beams will always be spaced at 2.2 m.
The maximum compressive stress in the arch is then The Bauer BCM5 cutter creates panels with lengths
of 2.4 m, but adjoining panels overlap slightly thus
σ c;max ¼ F =bA ¼ pL2 =3b′2 ð8Þ
reducing the ‘as constructed’ panel lengths to 2.2 m.
For this wall section, b′ is equal to half of the wall Two beams can easily be installed in each 2.2 m long
depth (0.55/2 = 0.275 m) plus half of the beam depth panel to achieve the required bending resistance. The two
(0.36/2 = 0.18 m), that is, 0.455 m. The maximum com- beams would be positioned near the centres of each panel
pressive stress is then 0.84 MPa, well below the soil– and be configured the same way in every panel that
cement–fibre mix compressive strength of 3.0 MPa. is constructed. Locating two beams near the centre of
This design may be repeated for the case when no fibres each panel simplifies the installation of an anchor at the
are included in the wall. Moverturning and Mresisting do not centre of each panel. A less practical assumption would be
change, nor does H or the maximum bending moment. that beams of the same size be used as the tensile strength
There are, however, a number of differences and they are of the fibre-reinforced CSM mix increases, but with an
summarised here. Two 360 UB 57 steel beams must be increased beam spacing. This would result in the beams
placed at every 1.2 m to keep the maximum tensile stresses being configured differently in each 2.2 m long panel. This
in the wall to 0.31 MPa, sufficiently below the 0.5 MPa would complicate the construction, and is the reason why
tensile capacity for the wall material with no fibre this assumption was not adopted. It is important to note
inclusions. The reduced beam spacing means the wall is that, to achieve the required bending resistance, a very
stiffer, having an equivalent EI = 57 500 kNm2/m. This similar steel quantity (mass) is required per linear metre of
corresponds to a moment reduction multiplier of 0.70 and wall, whatever the assumed beam spacing. This is because
a larger design moment of 234 kNm/m. The maximum the amount of bending resistance provided by steel beams,
Table 4. Maximum tensile strengths required in soil–cement–fibre mixes for different sizes of steel beams
Beams (two placed every Equivalent EI Moment reduction Maximum tensile stress in wall Required tensile strength of
2.2 m) (kNm2/m) factor (MPa) soil–cement–fibre mix (MPa)
310 UB 40 19 600 0.600 0.79 1.24

310 UB 46 22 100 0.613 0.72 1.13
360 UB 45 25 900 0.625 0.62 0.98
360 UB 51 29 700 0.638 0.55 0.87
360 UB 57 33 200 0.650 0.51 0.80
410 UB 54 38 100 0.660 0.45 0.70
410 UB 60 43 200 0.670 0.40 0.63
per linear metre of wall, is directly proportional to the
410 UB 60
mass of steel in the beams per linear metre of wall.
AUD
$1870
$2850
0.3%
$550
$430
The 2.2 m beam spacing could not be adopted for the
case where the CSM wall does not contain any fibres.
Instead, the analysis results are presented as a reduction in
the spacing of two 410 UB 60 steel beams, from 2.2 m to
410 UB 54
1.2 m. This is because the 410 UB 60 is the largest
AUD
$1680
$2800
0.4%
$550
$570
steel beam that can be contained within a 0.55 m
wide panel while ensuring sufficient cover. The reduced
spacing corresponds to 3.67 beams being required per
2.2 m long panel, and it is most likely that 4 beams would
360 UB 51
be installed per panel in practice.

AUD
$1490
$2890
0.6%
$550
$850
5. COST ANALYSIS
Table 5. Costs of beams, anchors and fibres per linear metre of wall for designs with fibres (of different contents) and without fibres ($ = AUD)
The costs for the CSM wall designs with and without
360 UB 45
AUD
$1320
$2860
0.7%
$550
$990
fibres are now analysed. The cost analyses are limited to

the steel beams, fibres and anchors.
In this study, the cement contents in the samples
recovered from the field trial, with and without fibres,
are the same, so the costs of cement are omitted from the
310 UB 46
AUD
$1350
$1140
$3040
cost analyses. It is noted that the cement content required

0.8%
$550
to achieve an adequate tensile strength may be lower when

fibres are included in a mix compared to when fibres are
absent, although this has not been explored here. If
different cement contents can be used with different fibre
310 UB 40
AUD
$1190
$1280
$3020
contents, then this would need to be accounted for in a

0.9%
$550
more detailed cost analysis. Also, the costs associated with

the different site construction activities for the CSM walls
with and without fibres are not considered. Large-scale
construction of fibre-reinforced CSM walls may require a
2 × $1840/1.2 = $3070
$1200/1.2 = $1000
mixing technique very different from that used here. The

360 UB 57
associated costs would need to be considered in a more

AUD
$4070
0%
complete analysis.
0
The cost of supplying and handling on site a single 12.0 m

long 360 UB 57 steel beam is assumed to be $1840 AUD.
The cost of an anchor in sand above the water table is
assumed to be $1200 AUD. The cost of supplying fibres and
adding them to the mix is assumed to be $12 AUD per kg, or
$108 × 12 × 0.55 = $710
2 × $1840/2.2 = $1670
$108 AUD per m3 of wall (for an amount corresponding to

$1200/2.2 = $550
0.5% by dry weight). These costs are typical in Australia and

360 UB 57
AUD
$2930
were arrived at based on experience.

0.5%
Using these numbers, for the case where no fibres are

used, the cost of two 360 UB 57 steel beams every 1.2 m
and anchors is $4070 AUD per linear metre of wall. For
the case of a 0.5% fibre content, the cost of two 360 UB 57
steel beams every 2.2 m, anchors and fibres is $2930 AUD
per linear metre of wall. The itemised costs are summar-
Anchors cost per linear metre of wall
ised in Table 5.
Beams cost per linear metre of wall
Fibres cost per linear metre of wall

Total cost per linear metre of wall
The costs for the CSM wall designs with different sized
steel beams are also analysed. The costs of supplying and
Fibre content by dry weight
handling on site single 12.0 m long 310 UB 40, 310 UB

46, 360 UB 45, 360 UB 51, 410 UB 54 and 410 UB 60 steel
beams are assumed to be $1310, $1490, $1450, $1640,
$1850 and $2060 AUD, respectively. For all beam sizes,
the costs of an anchor in sand above the water table is
Beam type
assumed to be $1200 AUD. The cost of supplying fibres

and adding them to the mix is again assumed to be
$12 AUD per kg, or $108 AUD per m3 of wall for 0.5%
by dry weight. It is likely that different fibre contents energy-intensive constituents including the steel in the
would be needed to produce the different maximum beams and anchors, the cement in the wall, and the grout
tensile strengths of the soil–cement–fibre mixes. It was not for the anchors and the polypropylene fibres. The
possible to test samples with a wide variety of fibre embodied carbon differences associated with different
contents, so costs were estimated by assuming that fibre site construction activities due to the inclusion of fibres
contents of 0.9%, 0.8%, 0.7%, 0.6%, 0.4% and 0.3% are not considered. Also, the cement contents are assumed
by dry weight produce the variety of tensile strengths to be the same for all fibre contents.
required for the different beam sizes. The itemised costs Bottom-up analyses are widely used because they enable
and assumed fibre contents are summarised in Table 5. detailed analyses of the environmental impacts of specific
Figure 7 presents the costs graphically. products. However, not all the upstream impacts are incor-
It can be seen in Figure 7 that changing the steel beam porated in the results due to the need to set system boun-
size has only a very minor influence on the cost of the wall. daries (e.g. Inui et al. 2011; Shillaber et al. 2015a). Combined
In this case, the additional costs of achieving a larger tensile hybrid analyses like the one used here merge the benefits of
strength through greater fibre content offset most of the top-down and bottom-up analyses. Combined hybrid
cost savings achieved through using smaller steel beams. analyses offer the high level of detail and specificity
It was mentioned earlier that the steel mass per linear characteristic of bottom-up analyses and also ensure
metre of wall required for bending resistance is very similar system boundary completeness by incorporating the full
for different assumptions of beam size and spacing. The upstream supply chain impacts characteristic of top-down
cost of the steel is directly proportional to the mass of analyses. Combined top-down and bottom-up analyses and
the steel. This means that the steel costs would be similar for software tools are emerging, and practitioners are increas-
different assumptions of beam size and spacing. ingly recognising their value (Lenzen 2002; Suh et al. 2004;
Lenzen and Crawford 2009; Wiedmann et al. 2011). They
have been successfully applied in the computation of total
life cycle emissions of building constructions (Guan et al.
6. EMBODIED CARBON ANALYSIS 2016; Jang et al. 2015) and construction materials such as
An embodied carbon emission analysis is also performed. warm mix asphalt (Rodríguez-Alloza et al. 2015) and
It is a hybrid analysis in that it combines a top-down precast concrete wall panels (Omar et al. 2014).
input-output analysis, which relies on an economy-wide In the analysis, data from input-output tables that
system boundary that captures all the industry interde- capture financial transactions between industries of an
pendencies in the Australian economy to compute economy in a given year in Australia (ABS 2012) are
emissions (Rønning and Brekke 2014), with a bottom-up coupled with environmental impact data from Australian
process analysis, which is detailed in its consideration of Greenhouse Emissions Information System (AGEIS)
specific products and their associated emissions (Suh et al. (Wiedmann and Minx 2008; Kitzes 2013). For this
2004, Wiedmann 2009). CSM wall designs with different work, the latest available financial transaction data is
fibre contents were compared by focusing on their used (corresponding to the period 2008–2009) from the
4500 1350
Cost
Embodied carbon
4000 1200
3500 1050
Embodied carbon (kgCO2e/m3)
3000 900
Cost ($AUD/m)
2500 750
2000 600
1500 450
1000 300
500 150
0 0
310UB40 310UB46 360UB45 360UB51 360UB57 410UB54 410UB60 360UB57
(0.9%) (0.8%) (0.7%) (0.6%) (0.5%) (0.4%) (0.3%) (0%)
Beam type (fibre content)
Figure 7. Costs and embodied carbon of designs involving different beam types and fibre contents
Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab

2016; Lenzen et al. 2014) and is combined with the
emissions per unit

Embodied GHG
(kgCO2e/m3)
process data of the different construction materials from
the Ecoinvent 3.1 and AusLCI databases (Frischknecht
11.5
7.8
520.2
212.7
3.0
755.2
et al. 2005; AusLCI 2015).
The total embodied carbon emissions are calculated using
the Leontief Inverse technique. This technique captures the
total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from
processes across the supply chain from raw material
Basic price per
extraction to the final product (Leontief 1970; Kitzes 2013).

unit in 2009
($/kg)
The carbon footprint is expressed in terms of carbon

1.13
0.29
1.80
1.80
0.29
dioxide equivalent (CO2e). CO2e is a summation of
greenhouse gas emissions including carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), weighted
according to their global warming potentials. 100-year
Sector embodied GHG1
global warming potential (GWP) factors as given by the

emissions per dollar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)

(kgCO2e/$)
fifth assessment report (IPCC 2013) are used.

0.77
4.44
1.26
1.26
4.44
Total embodied carbon emissions values in units of

kgCO2e/$ are converted to physical units (i.e.
kgCO2e/unit) using the basic prices of the CSM wall
components. Basic prices used exclude taxes and margins
such as transport, retail or wholesale costs.
Tables 6 and 7 present the carbon footprints per
dollar/unit based on the quantity and basic price of the
Other polymer product manufacturing
Cement (incl. hydraulic and Portland)
Cement (incl. hydraulic and Portland)
components. The results suggest that the CSM wall with

polypropylene fibres (0.5% by weight) and two 360 UB 57
(excl. adhesive or refractory)
beams every 2.2 m is associated with considerable

BOF steel manufacturing
BOF steel manufacturing
embodied carbon emissions savings (having a total of

755 kgCO2e/m3) compared to the CSM wall without
polypropylene fibres and with two 360 UB 57 beams every
1.2 m (having a total of 929 kgCO2e/m3). The discrepancy
between the carbon footprints of the two CSM wall types
can be attributed mainly to the different amounts of steel
Sector
used, as steel is energy-intensive particularly in regards to

its manufacture. Other analyses of geotechnical infra-
length of 100 mm diameter and 2000 kg/m3
structure projects show that design options involving the

8 m long 36 mm diameter bar per anchor at
every 2.2 m, plus 10 kg steel anchor head
0.4 water cement ratio within a 3 m grouted
2 × 360 UB 57 steel beams at 2.2 m centres
in a 0.55 m thick wall, 56.7 kg/m length
least amount of cement and steel are associated with the

dose = 0.5% by dry weight, assumes soil
lowest carbon footprints (e.g. Inui et al. 2011; Shillaber

et al. 2015b). In Table 8 and Figure 7 it can be seen that
reducing the steel beam size and increasing the fibre
dry density is 1800 kg/m3
contents results in a moderate reduction to the carbon

Ordinary Portland cement
footprint. Further reductions to the carbon footprint

Table 6. Carbon footprint of the CSM wall with fibres
would result through a reduction in cement with increas-

ing fibre contents, although this was not explored here.
Recall that the steel mass per linear metre of wall
Description
required for bending resistance is very similar for different

assumptions of beam size and spacing. The embodied
carbon emissions of the steel are directly proportional to
the mass of the steel. This means that the embodied carbon
Quantity
(kg/m3)
emissions of the steel in the beams would be similar for

93.8
5.06
2.32
400
different assumptions of beam size and spacing.

It is appealing that adding fibres to reduce the steel usage
GHG: Greenhouse gas
in CSM walls results in a lower embodied carbon and lower

Polypropylene fibres
cost. There may be situations when lowering the embodied

Anchors (cement)
Anchors (steel)
carbon in the design of a particular type of geotechnical

Steel beams
infrastructure does not correspond to a lowering of cost.

component
CSM wall
One example of this was demonstrated by Damians et al.

Cement
Total
(2016a, 2016b) who compared gravity, cantilever and

mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) retaining walls.
1
Cost and embodied carbon reductions in cutter soil mix walls through fibre reinforcement
Table 7. Carbon footprint of CSM wall without fibres
CSM wall Quantity Description Sector Sector embodied GHG Basic price per Embodied GHG
component (kg/m3) emissions per dollar unit in 2009 emissions per unit
(kgCO2e/$) ($/kg) (kgCO2e/m3)
Cement 400 Ordinary Portland cement Cement (incl. hydraulic and Portland) 4.44 0.29 520.2
Polypropylene fibres 0 Other polymer product 0.77 1.13 0
manufacturing
Steel beams 171.8 2 × 360 UB 57 steel beams at 1.2 m centres BOF steel manufacturing 1.26 1.80 389.6
in a 0.55 m thick wall, 56.7 kg/m length
Anchors (steel) 6.11 8 m long 36 mm diameter bar per anchor at BOF steel manufacturing 1.26 1.80 13.9
every 1.2 m, plus 10 kg steel anchor head
Anchors (cement) 4.25 0.4 water cement ratio within a 3 m grouted Cement (incl. hydraulic and Portland) 4.44 0.29 5.5
length of 100 mm diameter and 2000 kg/m3 (excl. adhesive or refractory)
Total 929.2
Table 8. Carbon footprint of CSM wall with different beam types and fibre contents
310 UB 40 (two beams 310 UB 46 (two beams 360 UB 45 (two beams 360 UB 51 (two beams 360 UB 57 (two beams 410 UB 54 (two beams 410 UB 60 (two beams
at 2.2 m centres, at 2.2 m centres, at 2.2 m centres, at 2.2 m centres, at 2.2 m centres, at 2.2 m centres, at 2.2 m centres,
0.9% fibres) 0.8% fibres) 0.7% fibres) 0.6% fibres) 0.5% fibres) 0.4% fibres) 0.3% fibres)
CSM wall Embodied GHG1 Embodied GHG Embodied GHG Embodied GHG Embodied GHG Embodied GHG Embodied GHG
component emissions per unit emissions per unit emissions per unit emissions per unit emissions per unit emissions per unit emissions per unit
(kgCO2e/m3) (kgCO2e/m3) (kgCO2e/m3) (kgCO2e/m3) (kgCO2e/m3) (kgCO2e/m3) (kgCO2e/m3)
Cement 520.2 520.2 520.2 520.2 520.2 520.2 520.2

Polypropylene fibres 14.1 12.5 11.0 9.4 7.8 6.3 4.7
Steel beams 149.2 171.6 167.9 190.3 212.7 201.5 223.9
Anchors (steel) 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Anchors (cement) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total 698.0 718.8 713.6 734.4 755.2 742.5 763.3
1
GHG: Greenhouse gas
11
Damians et al. (2016b) showed that if stakeholders give a F thrust in the arch per metre width (N/m)
higher importance to cost than embodied carbon then H total wall depth (m)
classical gravity and cantilever walls may be preferable to I moment of inertia per metre width (m4/m)
the MSE wall, which has a lower embodied carbon. ka active earth pressure coefficient
(dimensionless)
kp passive earth pressure coefficient
7. CONCLUSION (dimensionless)
L longest clear span between steel beam
This study has shown that discrete flexible polypropylene
webs (m)
fibres may be successfully added to a soil–cement mix to
Moverturning overturning moment per metre (Nm/m)
create a fibre-reinforced CSM wall. The tensile strength of
Mresisting resisting moment per metre (Nm/m)
the soil–cement–fibre mix is at least 0.8 MPa when the
m rate at which modulus of subgrade
fibre content is 0.5% by dry weight of soil. This strength
reaction for the soil increases with depth
is significantly higher than the 0.5 MPa observed for an
(Pa/m or N/m3)
unreinforced soil–cement mix. A hypothetical design situ-
p earth pressure normal to the wall at the
ation shows that the increase in tensile strength reduces
anchor depth (Pa or N/m2)
the amount of steel reinforcing required in an anchored
q surcharge (Pa or N/m2)
wall, while ensuring cracking due to maximum bending
S spacing of every two steel beams (m)
moment is prevented. The reduction in steel corresponds
t time (s)
to significant cost reductions and a significantly reduced
αH depth of the excavation (m)
embodied carbon in a CSM wall.
βH depth to the anchor (m)
A range of design options involving different steel beam
γawt unit weight of soil above the water table
sizes and fibre contents were also considered and their
(N/m3)
costs and embodied carbon were computed. It was found
γbwt unit weight of soil below the water table
that the additional costs of achieving a larger tensile
(N/m3)
strength in the soil–cement–fibre mix through the use of a
γw unit weight of water (N/m3)
greater fibre content offsets most the cost savings achieved
ρ measure of wall stiffness (m/Pa or m3/N)
through the use of smaller steel beams. However, using
σc,max maximum compressive stress in the arch
smaller steel beam sizes with greater fibre contents
(Pa or N/m2)
reduced the embodied carbon slightly.
σT tensile strength (Pa or N/m2)
Fibre reinforcement enables a lower energy-intensive
σT,28-day average 28-day tensile strength (Pa or N/m2)
design option to be adopted. This is very appealing, as low
σUCS unconfined compressive strength
energy-intensive designs are key to reducing emissions. In
(Pa or N/m2)
many developed countries around the world, about 30%
σUCS,28-day average 28-day unconfined compressive
of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions stem
strength (Pa or N/m2)
from the built environment (e.g. Australia (ClimateWorks
ϕ′ soil friction angle (°)
2013)). Fibre reinforcement of CSM walls may assist in ′
ϕdesign soil friction angle for use in design (°)
global efforts to keep temperatures from rising and to
meet emissions reduction targets.
Cement was found to be the major contributor to the
embodied carbon of CSM walls. There may be potential
to achieve greater a reduction in embodied carbon if REFERENCES
increasing the fibre content above 0.5% can be associated ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2012). Australian National
with a reduced cement content while ensuring the soil– Accounts, Input–Output Tables, 2008–09. Australian Bureau of
Statistics, Canberra, Australia. See http://www.abs.gov.au/
cement–fibre mix has an adequate tensile strength. More
AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/5209.0.55.001Main+Features12008-
research and field trials are required to explore this. 09?OpenDocument.
ASTM (2015a) C293/C293M-15: Standard test method for flexural
strength of concrete (using simple beam with centre-point loading).
NOTATIONS ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM (2015b) C78/C78M-15b: Standard test method for flexural
Basic SI units are given in parentheses. strength of concrete (using simple beam with third-point
loading). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
b depth of wall (m) AusLCI (2015). The Australian Life Cycle Inventory Database Initiative,
AusLCI. See http://alcas.asn.au/AusLCI/index.php/Datasets/
b′ effective depth of wall (m) Materials.
bA depth of arch (m) Brunner, W., Fiorotto, R., Stötzer, E. & Schöpf, M. (2006). The innovative
bR rise of arch (m) CSM-cutter soil mixing for constructing retaining and cut-off walls.
E Young’s modulus (Pa or N/m2) GeoCongress 2006, American Society of Civil Engineers, Atlanta,
GA, USA, pp. 1–6.
E50 secant Young’s modulus when 50% of
ClimateWorks (2013). Tracking Progress Towards A Low Carbon Economy.
strength had been mobilized (Pa or N/m2) ClimateWorks, Victoria, Australia. See http://climateworks.com.
E100 secant Young’s modulus when 100% of au/project/national-projects/tracking-progress-towards-low-carbon-
strength had been mobilized (Pa or N/m2) economy (accessed 13/02/2017).
Damians, I. P., Bathurst, R. J., Adroguer, E. G., Josa, A. & Lloret, A. through collaborative virtual laboratories. Science of The Total
(2016a). Environmental assessment of earth-retaining wall structures. Environment, 485–486, 241–251.
Environmental Geotechnics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jenge.15.00040. Leontief, W. (1970). Environmental repercussions and the economic
Damians, I. P., Bathurst, R. J., Adroguer, E. G., Josa, A. & Lloret, A. structure: an input-output approach. The Review of Economics and
(2016b). Sustainability assessment of earth-retaining wall struc- Statistics, 52, No. 3, 262–271.
tures. Environmental Geotechnics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jenge. Lindquist, D., Upsall, B. & Horvitz, G. (2010). Cutter soil mixing
16.00004. excavation and shoring in Seattle’s Pioneer Square district. Earth
Denies, N., Huybrechts, N., de Cock, F., Lameire, B., Maertens, J., Retention Conference 3, Finno, R., Hashash, Y. M. A. and
Vervoort, A., de Leeuw, J. & Hoefsloot, F. (2015). Design and Arduino, P., Editors, American Society of Civil Engineers,
quality control of soil mix walls for earth and water retaining Bellevue, WA, USA, pp. 303–310.
structures. In Proceedings of the Deep Mixing 2015 Conference, Muir Wood, D. (2004). Geotechnical Modelling. Spon Press,
Sehn, A., Large, M. E., Marzano, P. and Takahashi, H., Editors, Oxfordshire, UK.
Article 2026, Publication 1013, Deep Foundations Institute. Omar, W. M. S. W., Doh, J. H., Panuwatwanich, K. & Miller, D.
Diambra, A., Russell, A. R., Ibraim, I. & Muir Wood, D. (2007). (2014). Assessment of the embodied carbon in precast concrete wall
Determination of fibre orientation distribution in reinforced sands. panels using a hybrid life cycle assessment approach in Malaysia.
Géotechnique, 57, No. 7, 623–628. Sustainable Cities and Society, 10, 101–111.
Frischknecht, R. J. N., Althaus, H. J., Doka, G., Dones, R., Heck, T., Potts, D. M. & Fourie, A. B. (1985). The effect of wall stiffness on the beha-
Hellweg, S., Hischier, R., Nemecek, T., Rebitzer, G. & Spielmann, M. vior of a propped retaining wall. Géotechnique, 35, No. 3, 347–352.
(2005). The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological Raja, J., Dixon, N., Fowmes, G., Frost, M. & Assinder, P. (2015).
framework. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10, Obtaining reliable embodied carbon values for geosynthetics.
No. 1, 3–9. Geosynthetics International, 22, No. 5, 393–401.
Gerressen, F. W. & Vohs, T. (2012) CSM-cutter soil mixing – worldwide Rodríguez-Alloza, A. M., Malik, A., Lenzen, M. & Gallego, J. (2015).
experiences of a young soil mixing method. Grouting and Deep Hybrid input–output life cycle assessment of warm mix asphalt
Mixing 2012, Johnsen, L. F., Bruce, D. A. and Byle, M. J., Editors. mixtures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New Orleans, LO, USA, 171–182.
pp. 281–290. Rønning, A. & Brekke, A. (2014). 4 – Life cycle assessment (LCA) of the
Guan, J., Zhang, Z. & Chu, C. (2016). Quantification of building building sector: strengths and weaknesses. In Eco-Efficient
embodied energy in China using an input–output-based hybrid Construction and Building Materials, Pacheco-Torgal, F., Cabeza,
LCA model. Energy and Buildings, 110, 443–452. L. F., Labrincha, J. and Maghalães, A. D., Editors. Woodhead
IELab (Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory) (2016) http://ielab.info Publishing, pp. 63–83.
(accessed 10/05/2016). Rowe, P. W. (1952). Anchored sheet-pile walls. ICE Proceedings, 1, No. 1,
Inui, T., Chau, C., Soga, K., Nicolson, D. & O’Riordan, N. (2011). 27–70.
Embodied energy and gas emissions or retaining wall structures. Rowe, P. W. (1955). A theoretical and experimental analysis of sheet-pile
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137, walls. ICE Proceedings, 4, No. 1, 32–69.
No. 10, 958–967. SA (Standards Australia) (2014a). AS 1012.9:2014: Methods of testing
IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) (2013). Climate concrete – compressive strength tests – concrete, mortar and grout
change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working specimens. Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental SA (2014b). AS 1012.10-2000 (R2014): Methods of testing concrete –
Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., determination of indirect tensile strength of concrete cylinders (brasil
Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. or splitting test). Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
and Midgley, P. M., Editors, Cambridge University Press, Shillaber, C. M., Mitchell, J. K. & Dove, J. E. (2015a). Energy and
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1535. carbon assessment of ground improvement works. I: definitions and
Jang, M., Hong, T. & Ji, C. (2015). Hybrid LCA model for assessing background. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
the embodied environmental impacts of buildings in South Engineering, 142, No. 3, 04015084.
Korea. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 143–155. Shillaber, C. M., Mitchell, J. K. & Dove, J. E. (2015b). Energy and
Kitzes, J. (2013). An Introduction to environmentally-extended carbon assessment of ground improvement works. II: working
input-output analysis. Resources, 2, No. 4, 489–503. model and example. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Koono, T., Yonezawa, T., Aoki, M., Gerressen, F. W., Florian, H. & Engineering, 142, No. 3, 04015083.
Kuh, H. (2015). Development of fibre-reinforced soil improvement Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G. J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G.,
using CSM method. In Proceedings of the Deep Mixing Jolliet, O., Klann, U., Krewitt, W., Moriguchi, Y., Munksgaard, J.
2015 Conference, Sehn, A., Large, M. E., Marzano, P. and & Norris, G. (2004). System boundary selection in life-cycle
Takahashi, H., Editors, Article 2110, Publication 1013, Deep inventories using hybrid approaches. Environmental Science &
Foundations Institute. Technology, 38, No. 3, 657–664.
Kvinsland, J. & Plum, B. (2010). Cutter soil mixed wall shoring and seepage Terzaghi, K. (1955). Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.
cut off office building near waterfront. Earth Retention Conference 3, Géotechnique, 5, No. 4, 297–326.
Finno, R., Hashash, Y. M. A. and Arduino, P., Editors, American Wiedmann, T. (2009). Editorial: Carbon footprint and input-output
Society of Civil Engineers, Bellevue, WA, USA, pp. 311–317. analysis – an introduction. Economic Systems Research, 21, No. 3,
Lenzen, M. (2002). A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle 175–186.
assessments: some Australian results. Journal of Cleaner Wiedmann, T. & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint’.
Production, 10, No. 6, 545–572. Ecological Economics Research Trends, 1, 1–11.
Lenzen, M. & Crawford, R. H. (2009). The path exchange method for Wiedmann, T. O., Suh, S., Feng, K., Lenzen, M., Acquaye, A., Scott, K.
hybrid LCA. Environmental Science & Technology, 43, No. 21, & Barrett, J. R. (2011). Application of hybrid life cycle
8251–8256. approaches to emerging energy technologies – The case of wind
Lenzen, M., Geschke, A., Wiedmann, T., Lane, J., Anderson, N., Baynes, power in the UK. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, No. 13,
T., Boland, J., Daniels, P., Dey, C., Fry, J., Hadjikakou, M., 5900–5907.
Kenway, S., Malik, A., Mornan, D., Murray, J., Nettleton, S., Yi, X. W., Ma, G. W. & Fourie, A. (2015) Compressive behaviour
Poruschi, L., Reynolds, C., Rowley, H., Ugon, J., Webb, D. & of fibre-reinforced cemented paste backfill. Geotextiles and
West, J. (2014). Compiling and using input–output frameworks Geomembranes, 43, No. 3, 207–215.
The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com
Allowable settlement, the
difference is in base and shaft
width. The assumption that
the pile is rigid will result
same settlement to the shaft
and base
Use graphs from Das book,
single line rather than three
qpr - Reduced end bearing
capacity to control settlement
CVEN9513 – Advanced Foundation Engineering
Week 8
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Highlights
• Introduction,
• Theory of continental drift and plate tectonics,
• Fault mechanisms,
• Quantification of earthquake size,
• Seismic waves propagation,
• Concept of damping,
• Modal Analysis,
• Constitutive Behaviour of Cyclic loaded soils,
• Liquefaction.
1
Introduction
Earthquake/Ground Shaking
Earthquake is ground shaking due to the propagation of different waves below the
ground or at the ground surface generated due to the rupturing of rocks
https://gifer.com/en/Dn3u
2
Introduction - Earthquake/Ground Shaking
The strength and duration of shaking at a particular site depends on
• the size and location of the earthquake – sites near the source experience
strong shaking.
• Characteristics of the site where the surface waves travels through the soils
Loose sand with high water table

Intact mud stone
Highly weathered rock
Strong 50 km
Bed Rock
500 km
3
Introduction – Seismic Hazards – Structural Hazards
https://www.britannica.com/event/Christchurch-earthquakes-of-2010-2011
4
Introduction – Seismic Hazards – Structural Hazards
https://www.aggregateresearch.com/news/building-collapses-in-its-entirety/ 5
Introduction – Seismic Hazards – Retaining Structure Failure
Gabriel Candia
6
7
https://theconstructor.org/structural-engg/retaining-wall-failure/14230/
8
https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/mdmgpk/march_25_2021_retaining_wall_failure_causes_part/
9
10
Introduction – Seismic Hazards – Liquefaction
https://www.geotech.hr/en/soil-liquefaction/
11
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Toppling-of-an-apartment-building-due-to-liquefaction-
in-Adapazari_fig2_322071524
12
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-liquefaction-terra-firma-mush.html
13
https://depts.washington.edu/liquefy/selectpiclique/kobe95/settlement2.jpg
14
https://depts.washington.edu/liquefy/selectpiclique/nigata64/showabridge.jpg
15
Introduction – Seismic Hazards – Tsunami and Seiche
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00179-3
16
Introduction
2021 Mansfield earthquake, Victoria
Date – 22nd September 2021 at 9:15 AM (UTC +10:00)
Epicenter- Near Woods Point (at a depth of about 10km).
Magnitude - 5.9
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/22/magnitude-
60-earthquake-in-victoria-rocks-south-east-australia
17
Introduction – What Engineers can do?
Understanding the Seismicity of site
Mitigation of Seismic Hazards or their effects
Earthquake Resistant Design of Sub-structures and Super-structures
Understanding the Performance of structure during a design level earthquake
Earthquake Awareness of all the stakeholders – Its REAL!

18
Introduction – Significant Australian Earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Australia
19
Theory of continental drift and plate tectonics
Internal Structure of The Earth Thicknesses
• Crust – 25 to 40 km, could be as low as 5 km
beneath the oceans
• Upper mantle – 720 km thickness
• Lower Mantle – 2171 km thickness
• Outer core – 2259 km thickness
• Inner core – 1216 km radius
Crust –
Continent - 25 to 40 km thick (dense rock)
Below sea- 5 -10 km (lighter rock)
20
Continental drift
Earth was Pangaea 280-380 mi years back.
The Pangaea broke into pieces and slowly

drifted into the present configuration of
continents
Long term deformations were concentrated in
narrow zones between intact crust
First theory to with strong evidence of the

historical movement of continents
Pathway for Plate Tectonics

Theory of continental drift was discredited by earth scientists.
Disagreements on the movement of continents as ocean floor was too strong to
permit continental movement. 21
Plate Tectonics
Subduction
Hypothesis zone boundary
Spreading ridge
Earth surface consist of several large, intact blocks called plates. boundary
The Plates move with respect to each other.
Tectonic plate
Plate movement - Convention current in mantle
Temperature gradient in mantle due to:
•Upper core top in contact with cooler crust – Dense material
•Upper core base in contact with hot outer core – Less dense material
Denser (cooler) material sink in less dense material under gravity

Less dense material begin to rise and get cool eventually.
• Relative deformation of the plate occurs only in narrow zones near their boundaries.
• Deformation can be slow and constant (aseismic) or Spasmodically (seismic)
• More earthquakes near place boundaries
22
Subduction
Plate Tectonics zone boundary
Subduction Zones
23
24
Plate Tectonics
Refer below for a deeper understanding
Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]
25
Elastic Rebound Theory
Relative movement of plates
1. Shear stresses increases near the plate contacts
2. Storage of elastic strain energy near the plate boundaries (strain increases with time)
3.1 Fault fails when the shear stresses exceeds the shear strength of rocks
3.2 Instant/slow releasing of accumulated strain energy
4 .Start another cycle of strain increase
The accumulation of energy could be - few years to 100’s of years
26
Fault Mechanism
Fault
The part of the crust along which the movement between two portions of the
crusts will occur.
Fault length may range

Length: from several meters to hundreds of kilometers
Depth: from the ground surface to depths of several tens of kilometers.
Charles E. Glass Ph.D., P.E., in Interpreting Aerial

Photographs to Identify Natural Hazards, 2013
Fault Orientation
Strike & Dip
27
Geoscience Australia:
Field photograph of part of the fault scarp produced by the 14th October 1968 MW6.5 Meckering earthquake (photo credit Ian Everingham).
28
Fault Movement
Dip Slip Movement
Fault movement mainly in the direction of the dip
Normal fault
Material above the inclined plane (Hanging Wall) moves downward
Results in tensile stresses in the crust – horizontal lengthening
Reverse fault
Material above the inclined plane moves upwards
Results in compressive stresses in the crust – horizontal shortening
Thrust fault
Similar to reverse fault with a small dip angle
Results in higher ground movement
https://gfycat.com
https://gfycat.com
29
Fault Movement
Strike Slip Movement
Fault movement parallel to the strike
Vertical faults results in large movements
Left & Right strike slip fault
https://gfycat.com https://gfycat.com
30
31
Seismic Waves Ruptured Rock generates seismic waves
Body Waves:
Travels through the interior of the earth.
P-waves – Primary Waves – Compressional Waves S- waves – Secondary Waves – Shear Waves
Particle moves in the direction parallel to the wave Sharing deformation in the medium
Can travel through solids and fluids Particle move in the perpendicular direction of wave travel
Faster than shear waves as rocks have high stiffness Can not travel through liquids
https://web.ua.es/en/urs/disclosure/seismic-wave-propagation.html 32
Seismic Waves Ruptured Rock generates seismic waves
Surface Waves:
Result of interaction between body waves and superficial layers of the earth.
More prominent at distances farther from the earthquake source.
Mostly responsible for ground shaking and destruction.
R-waves – Rayleigh Waves L- waves – Love Waves

Result of the interaction of P and S-v wave with earth surface Result of the interaction S-h wave with soft superficial
Similar to wave generated due to rock thrown into a pond layers
https://web.ua.es/en/urs/disclosure/seismic-wave-propagation.html 33
Quantification of Earthquake Size
Earthquake Intensity
1.Qualitative description of earthquake effects
2.Based on the available data of damage and destruction
3.Need to interview the observers
4.Rossi-Forel (RF) scale – Earthquake intensities from I to X (1880)
5.Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) – Mercalli (1931) & Richter (1958)
6.Development of Isoseismal maps
7.Epicenter intensity
34
Earthquake Magnitude
1.Quantitative measure of the earthquake size
2.Based on the recorded data from seismographs
Richter Local Magnitude (1935)

𝑴𝑴𝑳𝑳 = log 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝑨𝑨 , 𝑴𝑴𝑳𝑳 < 6
• Where A is the maximum trace amplitude recorded on a Wood-Anderson seismometer located 100 km from the epicenter of the earthquake
• The measurements should be from a distance much less than 1000 km (hence called local magnitude)
• One whole number increase in magnitude due to the 10 fold increase in measured amplitude
• Can not distinguish between different types of waves.
Surface Wave Magnitude (1936)

Used to estimate earthquake size (M > 6) based on the measurement of surface waves generated by large earthquakes over a long distance (>1000 km).
𝑴𝑴𝒔𝒔 = 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 𝑨𝑨 + 𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥∆ + 𝟐𝟐. 𝟎𝟎
Where A is the maximum ground displacement, ∆ is the epicentral distance
Body Wave Magnitude (1936) – For Deep focal distance
𝒎𝒎𝒃𝒃 = 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥 𝑨𝑨 − 𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝐥𝑻𝑻 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎∆ + 𝟓𝟓. 𝟗𝟗

Where A is the p-wave amplitude in micrometers, 𝑻𝑻 is the period of the p-wave (usually 1 sec)
35
Moment Magnitude
1. Saturation - For large earthquake, the measured ground shaking characteristics become less sensitive to earthquake size
2. Moment magnitude is based on measuring the seismic moment of the earthquake which represents the total amount of energy
transformed by the rupture.
Seismic
moment
log 𝑀𝑀0
𝑀𝑀𝑤𝑤 = − 10.7
1.5
36
Recording of Ground Motion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismometer#/media/File:Kinemetri
cs_seismograph.jpg
37
Epicenter
Epicenter is located by intercept of circles
from more than one monitoring stations
38
Epicenter
Epicenter is the location of the point of initiation of rupture of the
fault line which generates the earthquake
39
Epicenter
40
Ground Motion Parameters
Engineers are Interested in:
1.The magnitude (Acceleration, Velocity, Displacement)
Peak Ground Acceleration 2. Frequency content of ground motion
3.Duration of ground motion
Acceleration – High frequency motion (m/sec2)
Peak Ground Velocity Perform Integration over time
Velocity – Medium frequency motion (m/sec)
Peak Ground Displacement Perform Integration over time
Displacement – Low frequency motion (m)
41
Seismic Hazard Analysis
42
• Quantitative assessment of the seismicity at a site
• A seismicity model that specify the spatial distribution of all earthquakes
• Seismic zoning, marking of active geological faults
• Uncertainty between the earthquake size and temporal and spatial occurrence of future earthquakes
Deterministic Seismic Hazards Analysis (DSHA)

 Based on the cause of earthquake (not effects)
 Simple model to use
Steps
1. Identify the faults near to a proposed site (many potential sources of earthquake)
2. Estimate magnitude (M) of earthquake from each source, estimate distance (R) and attenuation of waves depending on ground type
3. Plot the PGA against the distance from the earthquake source.
4. Adopt the most severe M-R combination earthquake
43
Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Analysis (PSHA)
 Provides hazard curves for probability of exceeding a ground motion parameter within a time period (10 % Probability of exceedance 0.08g PGA in 50 years)
 Allow quantification of uncertainties in size, spatial and temporal distributions of future earthquakes
Steps
1. Identify the faults near to a proposed site (many potential sources of earthquake) – accounting for uncertainty using a probability density function.
2. Quantify the uncertainty in the size of earthquake.
3. Develop M-R combinations for relevant ground motion parameters.
4. Develop seismic hazard curves.
44
45
Seismic Hazard Analysis – Return Period
Return period of 500 years is the most common (default) return period used in earthquake resistant
design of buildings.
• Bridges are typically designed for higher return periods.
• A return period of 1000 years is usually applied to buildings housing a large number of people;
and 1500 years for facilities with a post disaster function (e.g., hospitals).
• Certain key facilities may have to be designed for a Return Period of 2500 (e.g., major
infrastructure critical to transportation and communications).
• Even higher Design Return Periods are required for strategic and exceptional hazardous facilities
such as nuclear power plants.
𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃 𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋
𝟏𝟏
𝟏𝟏 − 𝟏𝟏 − = 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆
𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹
46
Dynamic Equilibrium and Damping
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Concept of damping
A.
https://www.tensarinternational.com/Applications/Earth-Retaining-Walls-and-Slopes/Bridge-Abutments
B.
Xu et al. (2014)
https://usefultravelarticles.com/4353-skyscraper-q1-q1-building-description-and-photos-australia-surfers-paradise.html
Which structure has a higher time period and a higher angular frequency? 54
55
Construction of Response Spectrum
56
57
Modal Analyses
58
Modal Analyses
59
Modal Analyses
60
Modal Analyses
61
Modal Analyses
Frequency Domain analyses
1st = 1.2 Hz
1st = 1.6 Hz
Tiwari & Lam (2021) Lorenzo et al. (2015)

62
Shear Wave Velocity of Soil’s
63
Shear Wave Amplification
64
65
66
67
Site Natural Period (Ts)
68
Average Shear Wave Velocity (Vs)
69
Computation of Site Effects
70
Computation of Site Effects
71
𝐸𝐸
𝐺𝐺 =
2 1 + 𝜐𝜐
72
73
74
75
76
Relate N to V and
check it
First soil period
77
Degradation of
shear stiffness due
to cyclic loading
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Tiwari & Lam (2021)
85
86
87
Due to the
presence of hard
rock, the shear
waves are t rapped
and therefore the
damping is low
In softer rock
layers, the waves
can propagate into
the rock and then
increase damping
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
AS 1170.4, 2007
95
96
97
98
99
Strength of Cyclically Loaded Soils
• Important for slope stability, foundation performance and retaining wall behavior
• Earthquake loading is rapid (undrained behavior of soil governs)
• Failure of Soil Due to:
• Liquefaction,
• Reduction in soil strength
•Higher shear strain
•Excessive ground movement (horizontal, vertical),
Cyclic Shear Strength of Soil

• Cyclic loading mobilizes available shear modulus by increasing shear strain (cyclic)
When the 𝝉𝝉𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚 is small (compare to static shear strength of soil)
Unidirectional shear strain will accumulate slowly results in low 𝛾𝛾avg
Larger 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 for a higher 𝜏𝜏𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
When the 𝝉𝝉𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚 is large (compare to static shear strength soil)

Higher unidirectional shear strain will accumulate results in high 𝛾𝛾avg
Larger 𝛾𝛾𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 for a lower 𝜏𝜏𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝝉𝝉𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜
Cyclic Shear Strength Ratio =
𝑺𝑺𝐮𝐮
100
Strength of Cyclically Loaded Soils
Monotonic Strength of Soil
Static Strength of soil available at the end of earthquake excitation
Saturated Soil
• Undrained shear strain (ultimate) before and after earthquake is same (under same strain rate)
• Due to positive excess pore pressure during earthquake the effective stress (after earthquake) for a soil
element is less than is Effective stress (before earthquake)
• Soil element after earthquake shows more dilative behavior and lower stiffness in the early stages of
monotonic undrained loading
• The strength changes occur at the lower strain range due to the disturbance of soil particles by cyclic
loading
101
Lecture Outline
Liquefaction Basics
Ground Improvement for Liquefaction
Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation
Seismic Performance and Design of Pile Foundation
Workshop 7 Q1, Q2, Q3
Further Reading & Book Source:

Bhattacharya, S., Rolando, P. O., & Lombardi, D. (2019). Seismic design of foundations: concepts
and applications. ICE Publishing.
Das, B. M. (2017). Shallow foundations: bearing capacity and settlement. CRC press.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education India.
1
Liquefaction
• Most interesting, important and controversial topics in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
• The term liquefaction first given by Mogami and Kubo (1953) for deformation of saturated cohesionless soil
under undrained conditions caused by monotonic, transit and repeated disturbance.
• Densification of loose cohesionless soil occur under cyclic loading

• Loose Saturated cohesionless soil shows undrained behaviour under earthquake (rapid loading)
• Densification causes excess pore pressure to increase which decreases the effective stress- reduction of soil
strength
https://geographyandyou.com/what-is-soil-liquefaction/
2
Review of Liquefaction Studies
3
Mechanism of Liquefaction
Concept of Effective Stress and Dilatancy
Effective stress 𝝈𝝈′ = 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝝈𝝈 − 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘 𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑 (𝒖𝒖)
• Earthquake last for 20-30 secs, no time for
drainage
• Pore water pressure increases
• Reduction in effective stress in sands and sand
become softer
• Once the effective stress reached to zero, the
shear strength of soil also becomes zero.
𝜏𝜏 = 𝑐𝑐 ′ + 𝜎𝜎 ′ tan ϕ′
• Sand behaves similar to liquid and large ground

deformation occur
Drained Loading
Undrained Loading
Condition
Condition
Effective stress increases Effective stress reduces

4
Mechanism of Liquefaction
Sand Boling
During Liquefaction, the Excess Pore Water Pressure at Depth "z" = γ − 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 z
𝛾𝛾
The Hydraulic Gradient, i = − 1 = 𝑖𝑖cr (Critical Gradient)
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤
1
at 𝑖𝑖cr mixture of fine sand grain and water is ejected out from the ground
2 4
1
3
5
Liquefaction
Flow Liquefaction Cyclic Mobility
Occurs when the static shear stress (required for the
Occurs when the static shear stress (required for the static equilibrium of a soil mass) is less than the shear
static equilibrium of a soil mass) is greater than the strength of the soil in its liquefied state. This leads to an
shear strength of the soil in its liquefied state. incremental shear strain in soil which grow along with
cyclic shear stress.
Once triggered the large deformation produced by flow
liquefaction are driven by static shear stress. The deformations are driven by both static and cyclic
shear stress are termed as Lateral Spread
The cyclic (earthquake induced) shear stress is simply
brings the soil into an unstable state at which its strength Lateral Spread can occur on a gentle or flat ground
drops sufficiently to allow the static stresses to produce located near the water bodies
flow failure
Rapid (Sudden) failure, spread over a large area Level Ground Liquefaction- A special case of cyclic
mobility Occurs due to the upward flow of water during
Some examples: Failure of Sheffield Dam and Lower San an earthquake (as excess pore water pressure dissipates)
Fernando Dam due to which excessive vertical settlement of soil occurs
6
What Engineers Can Do?
Identification of liquefaction potential soil sites (based on soil conditions and topography)
Geomorphological Survey
Trenches, Pits, Shafts, Adits
Desktop study of similar soil sites
7
Assessment of potential damage and its mechanism
Loss of Bearing capacity due to Liquefaction.

Effective stress disappear which results in failure of foundation soil in strength and serviceability.
As the ground turn into a liquid the foundation tends to submerged inside the ground.
The settlement depends on the structural weight, area and the buoyancy force.
8
Embankment
constructed on
loose sand
deposits
Bearing capacity
failure of the soil
below the
embankment
resulted in the
collapse of Harbor fill was constructed on the sand
highway Constructed on a peat deposit (which have site with high water table (from sea)
high compressibility, w/c 200%)
The base of fill was liquefied during
Before earthquake, the embankment dike earthquake which resulted in the
sank inside the peat soil, hence, loosened excessive shear stresses on the harbor fill
and expended laterally
The submerged dike liquified during the

earthquake
9
Floating of embedded
Structures
10
Gradual settling or
sudden sinking of
ground surface
Ground Subsidence after

Liquefaction
11
Assessment of liquefaction potential (field investigation)
Use of SPT for Assessing Liquefaction Potential
12
13
Use of CPT for Assessing Liquefaction Potential
• Can measure the side friction and tip resistance

• Electric cone can capture pore water pressure
• Seismic cone can measure S-wave propagation with time and determine
shear wave velocity (vs)
14
Assessment of liquefaction potential (lab testing's)
Laboratory Undrained Tests – Undrained Behaviour Under Monotonic Loading
Very Loose Sand

• Shows fully contractive behaviour by reducing volume
• Strain softening until steady state reached at large strains (>20%)
• Constant magnitude of shear stress and volume
• The strain softening response resembles a flow type behaviour
• At large strains (residual strains) the shear stress is independent of
confining pressure
Dense Sand (Slightly denser than loose sand)

• Strain softening followed by strain hardening, sand recovered its
strength and maintain stability
• Flow takes place over a limited range, where the soil changes from
contractive (peak) to dilative behaviour (strain hardening)
• Phase transformation is a state where the soil changes its behaviour
from contractive to dilative.
• Flow known as limited flow or limited deformation
Medium Dense & Dense Sand

• Strain hardening behaviour and increasing shear stress
• Steady state deformation with no flow
15
Assessment of liquefaction potential (lab testing's)
Laboratory Undrained Tests – Undrained Behaviour Under Cyclic Loading
Loose Sand Dense Sand
u
Negligible shear strain at low excess pore water pressure (ru = )
σ′0
Maximum shear strains as ru reaches to 1
16
Assessment of liquefaction potential – Stress Ratio Method
• An empirical approach for assessment of Liquefaction Potential of a site

• Generally estimated using the maximum ground acceleration at a given site
• Decreases with the increment in overburden stress
• Can be estimated using the SPT, CPT and Cyclic triaxial tastings
Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) – The seismic demand of a soil layer Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)- Capacity of soil to resist liquefaction
Two approaches for estimation of stress ratio

1. Use a computer program (Shake 2000)
2. Use the rigid block analogy
Total vertical stress Maximum horizontal acceleration at ground surface
In situ shear stress
Acceleration due to gravity

Initial effective vertical stress
Correction for rigid block idealization

Liquefaction Countermeasures and Ground Improvement
In order to improve the stability and serviceability of ground so that the liquefaction will not occur (ground improvement)
Design of structures for liquefaction scenarios
Ground improvement generally includes

(1) Densification of weak soil strata,
(2) Solidification of loose and low strength soils,
(3) reinforcement and containment,
(4) drainage,
(5) increasing in-situ stress,
(6) Soil replacement.
Boulders to increase in-situ stresses and containment to

the Sydney Airport Runway
18
In order to improve the stability and serviceability of ground so that the liquefaction will not occur (ground improvement)
Design of structures for liquefaction scenarios
Ground improvement generally includes

(1) Densification of weak soil strata,
(2) Solidification of loose and low strength soils,
(3) reinforcement and containment,
(4) drainage,
(5) increasing in-situ stress,
(6) Soil replacement.
Boulders to increase in-situ stresses and containment to

the Sydney Airport Runway
https://www.sydneyimages.com.au/-/aerial-photography-gallery/airports-and-aircraft-aerial-
photography#media_5b3d6fe7-f495-4f54-bed9-f5f748ea347b
19
20
21
22
Stone Columns
(1) Generally constructed using a triangular or square

grid on plan,
(2) Typical spacing 1.5-4 m, diameter 0.6-1.2 m,
(3) Improvement depth range from 4 m to 30 m,
(4) Constructed using crushed coarse aggregates of
various sizes,
(5) Stone column not only densify the site but also
increases the in-situ stress,
(6) Provides drainage path for dissipation of excess pore
water pressure
23
Sand Compaction Piles
(1) Common in Japan and similar to stone columns,

(2) Constructed using a sand filled steel casing,
(3) Compaction to form a high-density sand column
(4) Can also be constructed using the recycled materials
24
(1) Compaction by dropping a large weight (5-20 tones)

Dynamic Compaction
from 12 m - 40 m height,
(2) Hammer impact rearrange the soil particle to form a
denser ground.
(3) Can also be used to dissipate excess pore water
pressure
(4) First stage - compaction of deep ground by providing
high energy impact
(5) Second stage – compaction of shallow ground by
providing lower energy impact
(6) The effective compaction depth is 5 m -10 m, less
effective for soils with higher fine contents
25
Compaction Grouting
(1) Very stiff grout is injected into the soil, results in
coordinated growth of the bulb-shaped grout.
(2) The bulb-shaped grout pushes and displace the
surrounding soil
(3) Grout contain cement-water-silt mix together with
gravel and sand
(4) Grout strength is not important as the purpose is to
densify the ground by displacing the soil
(5) Suitable for ground stabilization in busy areas.
26
Drainage
27
Increasing in-situ stress
Increase in lateral stress
(1) Increasing lateral stress reduces the initial shear stress in the soil – improve liquefaction resistance
(2) Stone column, SCP, compaction piles and compaction grouting may lock in additional lateral stresses to the
soils
Preloading
(1) Involve temporary loading of the soil to consolidate it and increase the lateral stress – improve liquefaction
resistance
(2) By construction of embankment on site and leaving it for some time (consolidation time).
(3) Suitable for silty soils and sands.
(4) Low noise and construction vibrations, require more space
(5) Alternative is to adopt vacuum consolidation
28
Seismic Design of Footings and Piles
29
Introduction
Earthquake induced Foundation failures in past has been observed in soils susceptible to liquefaction, as well as in
soils that did not liquefy.
Tilting and differential settlement of 2 story houses due to

liquefaction (Bhattacharya et al. 2019)
Bearing capacity failure of foundation on (CL/ML)
Michoacan earthqake (1985)
Prakash and Puri. 30

Introduction
The Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand caused significant bearing capacity failure not only of Highrise
commercial buildings but of many residential structures as well.
31
Static bearing capacity of shallow foundations – Recap of Lecture 1
Shallow foundation spread the loads laterally at the contact between the foundation element and the ground.
The load transfer occurs predominantly through the foundation base, and only a small percentage of the load is
transferred through the side of the foundation.
Increasing load on the foundation initiate some settlement; once the load exceeds a certain threshold value, some
portion of the soil enters the plastic range.
Further increase in the load would result in enlargement of the plastic zones within the soil mass to the point that the
free boundary is reached (say the ground surface), when large settlement is possible without any increase in load; at
this point, the soil would have undergone shear failure.
The bearing capacity of the foundation is defined as the maximum value of the load applied that will not cause shear
failure in the soil. The theoretical maximum load (or pressure) that can be supported without failure is called the
ultimate bearing capacity; the allowable bearing capacity is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a factor of safety.
32
Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations
Foundations During Earthquake
Generally in the design the earthquake loads are expressed in terms of equivalent horizontal static loads
which produce the shear loads on the foundations and thus require a shear load capacity evaluation.
The Role of Superstructure

The superstructure can produce additional normal loads (either downward or upward) on the foundations
that are superimposed on the static normal loads. (usually expressed as equivalent static loads)
Estimation of Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations

The methods of evaluating the seismic load capacity of foundations are essentially the same as for static loads. Based
on this pseudo-static concept, many analytical and numerical solutions are available, such as the limit equilibrium
method, limit analysis, methods of characteristics and finite-element analysis, to compute the seismic bearing capacity
factors required for the design of a foundation.
Another approach adopted by many researchers is to determine the reduction in the ultimate bearing capacity by
incorporating pseudo-static seismic forces (e.g. Budhu and Al-Karni, 1993; Dormieux and Pecker, 1995; Sarma and
Iossifelis, 1990).
33
Foundations During Earthquake
Generally, in the design the earthquake loads are expressed in terms of equivalent horizontal static loads
which produce the shear loads on the foundations and thus require a shear load capacity evaluation.
Mechanisms of failure for shallow foundations under

earthquake loading (Knappett et al. 2006)
• Vertical load from superstructure structure

• Horizontal load due to the inertia of the structure.
• In most cases the footing fails by excessive rotation about one corner.
• The failure mechanism becomes smaller by increasing earthquake magnitude (PGA).
• Results in reduction in bearing capacity
34
Bearing Capacity Theory of Continuous Footing- Richard, Elms and Budhu (Static Case)
ϕ = Soils Friction Angle

δ = Wall Friction Angle
Active Zone
Passive Zone
Eq. A
Eq. B
Eq. C
From Eq. A, B and C
35

Eq. D
Eq. E
Active Zone
Passive Zone
Equating right hand sides of Eq. D and E
36

Active Zone
Passive Zone
37
Bearing Capacity Theory of Continuous Footing- Richard, Elms and Budhu (Seismic Case)
38
Workshop 7 (Q1)
Seismic bearing capacity
39
Settlement of Foundation on Granular Soil Due to Earthquake Loading
Condition for Bearing capacity settlement of a foundation
𝑘𝑘h
, neglecting vertical acceleration 𝑘𝑘v = 0
1 − 𝑘𝑘v
kh is a function of
1. FS obtained for ultimate static bearing capacity,
2. Embedment ratio 𝐷𝐷f�𝐵𝐵
3. Soil friction angle ϕ
Richards et al. (1993)
40
Settlement of Foundation on Granular Soil Due to Earthquake Loading
Richards et al. (1993)
𝜙𝜙 = 100 𝜙𝜙 = 200
kh*
𝜙𝜙 = 30 0 𝜙𝜙 = 400
41
Workshop 7 (Q2)
Seismic bearing capacity
42
Settlement of foundation in liquefied ground –Case Studies
1964 Niigata Earthquake – (Mw = 7.5)
Niigata City – The Unconsolidated Sand
The settlement and tilting of many reinforced concrete

buildings due to ground settlement.
Around 340 reinforced concrete buildings in the city were

damaged due to the extensive liquefaction of the loose sand
ground (Kishida, 1966; Ohsaki, 1966; Seed and Idriss, 1967).
Several 3-4 story structures settled more than 1 m, often

accompanied by severe tilting.
A maximum settlement of 3.8 m is noticed in some locations

(Yoshimi and Tokimatsu, 1977).
Yohimi and Tokimatsu (1977) observed that the maximum

settlement of buildings depends on its width (higher area less
settlement) and independent on number of stories and
presence of basement or friction piles.
43
1990 Luzon earthquake – (Mw = 7.7)

Luzon Island (Philippines)
Dugupan City (100 km the Epicenter) -The Saturated Sand Deposits
Severe Liquefaction induced damage in Dugupan city, especially in

the reclaimed regions (filled for the development of the business
center) – poorly compacted nature of reclaimed filled was observed.
Liquefaction developed in top 0-3 m or 0-10 m thick loose sands.
Settlement of buildings was reported form 0.25 m to 2.5 m.
Higher settlement of corner buildings (building with no adjutant

structure) was observed. (Confinement effect is important)
44
2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence– (Mw = 7.1, 6.2)
Christchurch (New Zealand)
Soil-boils and lateral spread were noticed, including

liquefaction induced differential settlement.
Geotechnical Engineers assessed the foundations of 60,000

residential houses for assessment of foundation damage.
16000 houses developed differential settlement > 50 mm.
45
Settlement of foundation in liquefied ground
Centrifuge tests to study Liquefaction
All results
below
building A
46
Settlement of foundation in liquefied ground
When pore water pressure

starts disappearing from
the ground volumetric
changes occur
47
Estimation of Total and Differential Settlement – Due to Liquefaction
Rule of thumb – Local differential settlements as 50% of the total settlement
CPT and SPT tests for estimating post-liquefaction induced reconsolidation settlement, then use rule of thumb.
Ishii and Tokimatsu (1988)

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆v + 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (𝑆𝑆e )
Width of structure Young’s modulus of soil before earthquake
Contact pressure
Young’s modulus of soil after earthquake Dont use!
Influence factor (see lecture 1 slides)
It is hard to calculate E2 accurately, that’s why the validity of above equation is questionable.
48
Estimation of Total and Differential Settlement – Due to Liquefaction
Ishii and Tokimatsu (1988)

Apply 50% rule of
thumb
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 = 𝑆𝑆v × (𝑟𝑟b )
Settlement Due to Volumetric Strain caused by Shaking

Scaling factor accounting shear deformation
Total overburden Use S/D & B/D to read rb value
stress Reduction
Max. ground factor 1 at GL,
acceleration 0.9 at 30 ft
below GL
𝜏𝜏av 𝑎𝑎max 𝜎𝜎0

= 0.65 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟
𝜎𝜎0′ 7.5
g 𝜎𝜎𝜎0 d m
Integrate 𝜀𝜀v over
the foundation
Equivalent shear Effective depth to get Sv
Scale factor for
stress ratio for overburden a stress ratio for
Earthquake stress Earthquake
magnitude of 7.5 magnitude (see
Use with SPT to read ev, table above)
volumetric strain. Integrate over
depth of footing 49
Seismic Performance of Pile Foundation
50
General believe –Pile perform better during

earthquakes
However, failure of pile foundation during an

earthquake is common and not well understood.
Pile may fail in yielding (formation of plastic hinges)

due to excessive lateral forces and moments from
inertial forces
Failure of pile foundation observed in grounds with or
without lateral spreading
In many cases the superstructure remains almost

undamaged, as Piles dissipates the energy from
superstructure until excessive rotation occur
The formation of plastic hinges in pile is independent

of the location of liquifiable soil layer
51
Colin F. Duffield
52
Failure mechanisms of pile-supported structures – Soil with Liquefaction
Case 4:
A liquefiable soil layer resting in
between a non-liquifiable base
Case 1: layer and non-liquefiable crust,
A liquefiable soil layer in between to pile base is in liquefiable layer
non-liquifiable soil layers Sliding/rotation due to bearing
The crust may slide over the top of capacity failure below the pile
liquifiable soil layer
Case 2 & 3:
A liquefiable soil layer resting over a non-liquefiable base
layer
Similar to the pier over river bridge, slide/rotation due to the
inertial forces from superstructure
53
Failure mechanisms of pile-supported structures - Soil without Liquefaction
Due to wave
passage effect
54
Pile Behavior in Liquefiable Soil
Complex Seismic behavior Due to:
1. Consideration of strong motions,
2. The free-field site response,
3. Superstructure behavior,
4. Dynamic characteristics of the system as the earthquake progresses,
5. Soil–pile–superstructure interaction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029617330808
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2475-8876.12033 55
Pile Behavior in Liquefiable Soil – How the Loading on Pile Progress Under Earthquake
Stage 1 (Before Earthquake):
1. Before earthquake shaking static loading (𝑃𝑃gravity ) acts on Piles,
2. 𝑃𝑃gravity depends on the superstructural weight,
3. The pile section is subjected to the axial stresses due to 𝑃𝑃gravity ,
Stage 2 (Earthquake Loading):

1. Inertia of superstructure acts in normal and horizontal directions (𝑉𝑉inertial & 𝐻𝐻inertial ) provides additional loads,
2. Depending on the ground & superstructural movement push (compression) and pull (tension) forces acts on the pile,
3. The 𝑉𝑉inertial & 𝐻𝐻inertial depends on the amplification of seismic forces and time period of earthquake,
4. The inertial forces can be estimated using a site specific response spectrum (AS 1170.4:2004),
5. The banding moment in the pile can be estimated using beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation,
Stage 3 (Earthquake Loading + Soil Liquefied):

1. Pile lost the axial and lateral resistance from the liquefied soil and become a slender laterally unsupported column
2. The natural period of site and superstructure changes significantly (as higher movement and displacement is now
allowed due to change in boundary condition)
3. The 𝑉𝑉inertial & 𝐻𝐻inertial changes significantly with new dynamic characteristics of superstructure
4. Significant settlement and rotation occurs
56
Pile Behavior in Liquefiable Soil – How the Loading on Pile Progress Under Earthquake
Stage 4 (Only when Lateral Spread occurs):
1. Passive pressure in piles during lateral flow of soil,
2. 𝑃𝑃gravity acts in combination of inertial forces.
57
Pile Behavior in Liquefiable Soil – Soil-Pile Interaction During Earthquake
58
Criteria for the design of piles in liquefiable soil layers
Prevention of collapse mechanism when subjected to combined axial and amplified lateral loads
Check for the bending moment and shear force due to the combined axial and earthquake loading
In case of a liquefiable soil layer resting above a hard non liquifiable soil layer, sufficient embedment of pile
inside the non-liquefiable soil layer should be provided (achieving fixity)
Rule of thumb – 3 to 6 times the pile diameter
Pile should be designed for ensuring a minimum diameter satisfying the Euler Buckling Criteria to avoid the
higher displacements and rotations of superstructure due to the formation of plastic hinges
Pile should be considered a part of the superstructure when finding

the structural natural frequencies.
The settlement of pile group under a design level seismic event

should be within the tolerable limits, the settlement should not
initiate end bearing failure of pile.
59
Criteria for the design of piles in non-liquefiable soil layers
The seismic design of piles in non-liquefiable soil layers is generally affected by the interaction between
the dynamic response of structure and oscillations of soil layers.
Different frequency of soil layers and vibrating structure.
The kinematic banding moment at pile soil interface depends on:

(1) Ratio of shear wave velocities of the soil layers at the interface
(2) Pile soil stiffness ratio in the layers
(3) The amplitude and frequency content of the input motion
(4) The location of the soil interface (shallow or deep interface)
(5) Boundary condition of the pile head
Layered soil with the interface located at shallow depth

The location of maximum inertial moment is close to the maximum kinematic moment which results in high
bending stresses acting on the pile
The natural period of the system (structure–pile–soil) along with the ground motion affect the maximum
inertial bending moment, located few diameters below the pile head.
For short & stiff pile - kinematic banding moment dominates the pile design
Long & flexible pile could be subjected to large banding moment at pile head if the seismic frequency is
equal to the frequency of system, large kinematic moment at layer interface when higher modes are
excited by the ground shaking 60
Seismic design of piles – Design Checks and Calculations Required
Shear Failure:
1. Due to the lateral loads (inertial, kinematic or both)
2. More prominent in circular hollow concrete piles (low ductility and shear capacity)
Bending Failure:
1. Due to the lateral loads (inertial, lateral spread, or both)
2. The combination of inertial and lateral load depends on the liquefaction and regaining of strength after the liquefaction
3. Complete process for calculating bending moment in Japanese code of practice for bridges (JRA, 2002)
Buckling Failure:
1. Buckling failure occur in slender piles (due to axial loads - static and dynamic loads) and loss of confining pressure due to liquefaction.
2. More prominent in the piles constructed near slopes.
3. Buckling initiates plastic hinges in piles which leading to structural collapse.
4. Euler method is recommended for calculation of buckling load with a FOS of 3.
Dynamic Failure:
1. Due to the dynamic soil-pile interaction
2. Complicated phenomenon, has a significant effect on the pile’s seismic response.
3. Dynamic properties of soil and structure changes, results in amplification of forces leading to structural failure
Settlement Check:
1. Due to soil liquefaction
2. Densification of loose soils due to high frequency seismic excitations
61
Case Studies - Bending and Settlement Interaction
Bhuj 2001 Earthquake, Mw = 7.7
Govt owned building constructed using the pile

foundation near the Arabian sea.
The pile foundations were resting over the sand

deposits (marine loose sand)
The loose sand liquified results in excessive

settlement and rotation of entire building
Collapse mechanism of a building in Kachchh, India

(Bhuj 2001 Earthquake, Mw = 7.7)
62
Case Studies – Showa Bridge Failure Due to the Dynamics
1964 Niigata Earthquake – (Mw = 7.5)
Back analysis of Showa Bridge shown

modification in structural period due to
liquefaction.
Pile and superstructure excited together after the

initiation of liquefaction Dash et al. (2008)
Most of the Eigen value analyses conducted by

structural engineers consider fixity at
superstructure base (without modelling the
foundations)
This highlights the importance of considering

dynamic analyses for structural design
63
Workshop 7 (Q3)
64
Click icon to add picture
Seismic Design of
Retaining Walls
Dr. Rohit Tiwari

Lecturer, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
UNSW, Sydney 1
Background: Earth Retaining Structures
Earth Retaining Structures,
Essential Part of Highway, Railway, Building, and Harbour Infrastructure.
Cohesionless Backfill Soil
Girder
Seat Type Bridge

Abutment
Base Soil
Free Standing Seat Type Bridge Abutment. Seat Type Bridge Abutment (Pic Courtesy: Mark Rossow)
2
Diaphragm Wall for Building Basement Quay wall for Harbour Infrastructure
(Pic courtesy: PT Indonesia Pondasi Raya Tbk) (Pic courtesy : Roadbridge ltd)
3
Cantilever Retaining
Wall
Rock socketed Pile
Weak Base Soil
Firm Rock
Socket length
Cantilever Retaining Wall Founded on Rock Socketed Pile Foundation.

4
Background: Earthquake Induced Damage to Earth Retaining Structures
Chile Earthquake, 2010

PGA = 0.65g (FHWA-HRT-11-030)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268590571_Seismically_Induced_Lateral_Earth_Pressures_on_Retaining_Structures_and_Basement_Walls/figures?lo=1
Great Kanto (Japan) Earthquake, 1923

Bhuj (India) Earthquake, 2001
PGA = 0.37g (Madabhushi and Haigh, 2005)
5
Background:
Background:Earthquake
Shayo et al., 2009
EarthquakeInduced
Induced Damage toEarth
Damage to EarthRetaining
Retaining Structures
Structures
L'Aquila Earthquake (Italy), 2009

PGA = 0.6g
Chi-Chi Earthquake (Taiwan), 1999

PGA > 0.9g
Loma Prieta Earthquake (USA), 1989

PGA = 1g 6
Earthquake Induced Damage of the earth retaining structures in past earthquakes

Flexural Failure and cracks in base restrained retaining wall
Plastic behaviour of pile foundation for pile supported earth retaining structures
7
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/11030/004.cfm
Earthquake Induced Damage of the earth retaining structures in past earthquakes

Excessive sliding and rotation of free standing retaining walls
Backfill Soil
Base Soil
(Shakal et al., 1994; ICSSC TR18, 1996; Koseki, 1995 & 2002; Tatsuoka et al., 1996 & 1998) 8
Background: Static Loading on Retaining Walls
Cantilever
Retaining Wall
𝐻𝐻 1
𝐾𝐾a 𝛾𝛾𝐻𝐻2
2
𝐻𝐻
WS 3
Ww 𝐾𝐾a 𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾
Heel Slab
Toe Slab Base Soil
(i) At rest state (ko)

Coulomb’s earth pressure theory (1776) Factor of Safety Against Sliding
(ii) Active state (ka)
Rankine earth pressure theory (1857) Factor of Safety Against Overturning
(iii) Passive state (kp)
9
Earthquake Loading on Earth Retaining Structures
Earthquake Loading
Settlement of Backfill Soil
Failure Plane
Static Loading
(Siddharthan et al. 1994)
What Really Happens

During Earthquake Structural Damage Approach Settlement
Background: Earthquake Loading on Retaining Walls
Cohesionless Backfill Soil Dynamic Earth Pressure
Cantilever khWs
Retaining Wall 1
𝐻𝐻 𝐾𝐾AE 𝛾𝛾𝐻𝐻2
2
𝐻𝐻
khWw WS 2
Ww 𝐾𝐾AE 𝛾𝛾𝐻𝐻2
Heel Slab
Toe Slab Base Soil
Modified “Coulomb’s earth

pressure theory (1776)”
Factor of Safety Against Sliding
Mononobe-Okabe Factor of Safety Against Overturning

Equation (1929)
Professor N. Mononobe 11
Professor S. Okabe
Static Earth Pressure Based on Coulomb Method
𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 2 𝛟𝛟′ − 𝛉𝛉
𝑲𝑲𝐀𝐀 = 2
𝛽𝛽 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛅𝛅 + 𝛟𝛟′ 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛟𝛟′ − 𝛃𝛃
𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 2 𝛉𝛉 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛅𝛅 + 𝛉𝛉 1 +
Backfill 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛅𝛅 + 𝛉𝛉 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛃𝛃 − 𝛉𝛉
𝑊𝑊
𝐻𝐻w ϕ
𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 2 𝛟𝛟′ + 𝛉𝛉
𝜃𝜃 𝑲𝑲𝐏𝐏 = 2
𝛿𝛿 𝑅𝑅
𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛅𝛅 + 𝛟𝛟′ 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛟𝛟′ + 𝛃𝛃
𝛼𝛼 𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 2 𝛉𝛉 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛅𝛅 − 𝛉𝛉 1 −
𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛅𝛅 − 𝛉𝛉 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛃𝛃 − 𝛉𝛉
𝛟𝛟′ = Angle of internal friction of the backfill

𝛉𝛉 = Angle of inclination of wall surface from the vertical plane (0 for vertical walls).
𝛅𝛅 = Angle of friction between the backfill and the retaining wall
𝛃𝛃 = Angle of inclination of the backfill from the vertical plane (0 for horizontal backfill)
1 2
𝑷𝑷𝐀𝐀 = 𝑲𝑲 𝛄𝛄 𝑯𝑯
2 𝐀𝐀 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝐖𝐖
12
Seismic Earth Pressure Based on MO Method
𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 2 𝛟𝛟′ − 𝛉𝛉 − 𝛙𝛙
𝑲𝑲𝐀𝐀𝐀𝐀 = 2
𝛽𝛽 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛅𝛅 + 𝛟𝛟′ 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛟𝛟′ − 𝛃𝛃 − 𝛙𝛙
𝑘𝑘v 𝑊𝑊 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛙𝛙𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 2 𝛉𝛉 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛅𝛅 + 𝛉𝛉 + 𝛙𝛙 1 +
𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛅𝛅 + 𝛉𝛉 + 𝛙𝛙 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛃𝛃 − 𝛉𝛉
𝑘𝑘h 𝑊𝑊 Backfill
𝑊𝑊
𝐻𝐻w ϕ
𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 2 𝛟𝛟′ + 𝛉𝛉 − 𝛙𝛙
𝜃𝜃 𝑲𝑲𝐏𝐏𝐏𝐏 = 2
𝛿𝛿 𝑅𝑅
𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛅𝛅 + 𝛟𝛟′ 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛟𝛟′ + 𝛃𝛃 − 𝛙𝛙
𝛼𝛼𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛙𝛙𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 2 𝛉𝛉 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛅𝛅 − 𝛉𝛉 + 𝛙𝛙 1 −
𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛅𝛅 − 𝛉𝛉 + 𝛙𝛙 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛃𝛃 − 𝛉𝛉
𝑲𝑲𝐡𝐡 = Horizontal seismic coefficient, 𝑲𝑲𝐯𝐯 = Vertical seismic coefficient 𝑲𝑲𝐡𝐡

SHOULD K SMALL
HERE
𝛙𝛙 = 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭−1
1 − 𝑲𝑲𝐯𝐯
𝛟𝛟′ = Angle of internal friction of the backfill
𝛉𝛉 = Angle of inclination of wall surface from the vertical plane (0 for vertical walls). Reduction in kh is allowed as the
retaining wall moves away from
𝛅𝛅 = Angle of friction between the backfill and the retaining wall
soil will drop the seismic pressure.
𝛃𝛃 = Angle of inclination of the backfill from the vertical plane (0 for horizontal backfill)
TOTAL EARTH
1 2 PRESSURE, DYNAMIC
𝑷𝑷𝐀𝐀𝐀𝐀 = 𝑲𝑲𝐀𝐀𝐀𝐀 𝛄𝛄𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝑯𝑯𝐖𝐖
2 AND STATIC
COMPONENT
13
The Mononobe-Okabe (MO) method - Limitations
Modification of Coulomb earth pressure theory.
Output is a quasi-static linear pressure.
Constant pressure with the wall movement

What about duration of seismic pressure?
FROM EXPERIMENTS -
NON LINEAR PROFILE (Ishibashi and Fang 1987 & Wilson and Elgamal 2015) kh = horizontal acceleration coefficient
THEORETICAL
PRESSURE PRESSURE vs
SHOULD BE PHI - PSI -
BETA? kv = vertical acceleration coefficient
DISPLACEMENT
FROM EXPERIMENTS,
𝑘𝑘ℎ
PRESSURE DROPS AS
THE WALL DISPLACE. Ψ = 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 � 1 − 𝑘𝑘
MO METHOD DOES 𝑣𝑣
NOT INCLUDE ANY
No answer with ψ − β − φ ≤ 0
EFFECTS FOR EQ
DURATION
(Ishibashi and Fang 1987) (Psarropoulos et al. 2005)

•Workshop 8 Question1
15
Seismic Displacement of Gravity RW – Richard & Elms Method
Richard and Elms (1979) proposed the method based on Newmark’s Sliding Block Model (for slope stability)
Richard and Elms (1979) procedure require to estimate the yield

acceleration – ay (when wall starts to slide) for wall backfill system
(𝑃𝑃AE )h
Backfill When ground motion acts towards backfill, the backfill inertial force
act from backfill to retaining wall
𝐹𝐹h
ESTIMATES THE MAGNITUDE
OF PERMANENT BASE
𝐻𝐻w DISPLACEMENT
(𝑃𝑃AE )v When the earthquake acceleration kh-PGA reached to a yield

acceleration ay
𝑊𝑊 𝑇𝑇 = (𝑃𝑃AE )h + 𝐹𝐹h & 𝑁𝑁 = (𝑃𝑃AE )v + 𝑊𝑊
𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇 = 𝑁𝑁 tan ϕb , 𝐹𝐹h = 𝑎𝑎y
𝑊𝑊
, (𝑃𝑃AE )h = 𝑃𝑃AE cos 𝛿𝛿 + 𝜃𝜃 , 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 (𝑃𝑃AE )v = 𝑃𝑃AE sin 𝛿𝛿 + 𝜃𝜃
g
𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃AE cos 𝛿𝛿 + 𝜃𝜃 − 𝑃𝑃AE sin 𝛿𝛿 + 𝜃𝜃
𝑎𝑎y = tan ϕb − g
𝑊𝑊
PAE needs to be estimated using the MO method, (iterations are required for ay)
Maximum ground velocity Peak Ground Acceleration (kh)

2 3
vmax 𝑎𝑎max
RW Displacement 𝑑𝑑perm = 0.087 4
g 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 Yield acceleration ≥ 0.3 16
•Workshop 8 Question 2
17
Seismic Displacement of Gravity RW – Whitman & Liao Method
Inspired by Richard & Elms procedure, with consideration of deviation in
• Soil friction Angle
• Wall soil interface angle
18
Seismic Displacement of Gravity RW – Finite Element Method
Finite element methods are power tools to estimate the seismic behaviour of retaining walls
The earthquake analyses of retaining wall are complex - dynamic soil structure interaction problem
Finite element simulations looks fascinating and colorful

Rubbish in = Rubbish out (what happened in Singapore)
So how you will ensure that the finite element model is simulating the realistic behavior of retaining wall
soil system?
Does soil need to be modelled elastic/ plastic?

Compare the Experimental and
Numerical Results
How does damping effect the soil behaviour?
Does amplifications could be seen using the finite element models?

19
Stages for the Development of an Effective FE RW Model
1. Perform Shaking Table Investigations on RW (Experiment)
2. Geotechnical Experiment on Backfill (Experiment)
3. FE Modelling of Backfill (Micro Numerical)
4. FE Modelling of RW under Earthquake (Macro Numerical)
5. Compare Experimental and Numerical

1. Perform Shaking Table Investigations on RW (Experiment)
Scale Down Modelling of Earth Retaining Structures
Similitude analysis
• Same Material assumption
• Same Acceleration assumption
• Scaling of time
 ap 
λ a = 1  = 1
 am 
1g environment
 Ep 
(Harris and Sabnis,1999 and Crosariol, V. A., 2010) λ E = 1  = 1
 Em 
EW
Actuator
1. Buckingham Pi Theorem.
2m
2. Cauchy Conditions.
3. True models
22
Understanding the Capability of Scaled Down Models
0.35 m
0.35 m
(a) (b)
𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 = ∆𝐓𝐓𝐓𝐓𝐓𝐓 − ∆𝐁𝐁𝐁𝐁𝐁𝐁𝐁𝐁
3.625 m
Backfill Soil 0 Multiple Pulses 1(a)
0
0
2.75 m 0 y+
0 𝑥̈ 𝑔
0.375 m 0 1 2 3 x+
3.85 m
Stiff Rock Multiple Pulses
Similitude analysis – 10 Scale Down

• Same Material
• Same Acceleration
0.035 m • Scaling of time
(a)
Tabas, Iran Accelerogram
0.3625 m Backfill Soil
0.275 m • Same Material assumption is relaxed

0.0375 m
 Earth Retaining Structures as Massive
0.385
m Rock
 Failure of Structure is mainly due to excessive displacement and rotation
Stiff
 Material failure not common 23
Understanding the Capability of Scaled Down Models
Scaled Down Retaining Wall Base Restrained Aluminium Retaining Wall

Fabricated using Polycarbonate Sheets
0.025 m
(a) (b) (c)
Sand Paper
0.36 m
Sand Paper 0.275 m
0.038 m
0.37 m 24
Shaking Table Experiment on Scaled Down RW model
Compacted to Match Maximum

Dry Density
Aluminium Wall 1.72 m
(4mm thickness)
Accelerometers inside soil
L1
Layers of Foam
Positions from Wall Top

Crushed rock
Laser Transducers L2
0.4 m
L3 Y+
Accelerometers X+
L5 Shaking Table Base
Laser Transducer Direction of Table Movement
Rohit Tiwari, & Nelson Lam (2021). Modelling of Seismic Actions in Earth Retaining Walls and Comparison with Shaker Table Experiment.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 150, 106939. 25
Pluck Test – Free Vibration Response (modal properties, dynamic properties)
Pulse Test – Dynamic Response (seismic displacement/ acceleration, dynamic properties)
Test with Artificial and Historical Accelerograms

26
Pluck Test – Free Vibration Response
Loading Phase Free Vibration Phase
Y+
X+
0.4 m
0
Y+
X+
27
Pluck Test – Free Vibration Response

1st – 19.79 Hz
2nd – 39.94 Hz
Y+
1st – 20.02 Hz
X+
2nd – 39.06 Hz
Loading Phase Free Vibration Phase
28
Pulse Test – Dynamic Response 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 (0.4𝒎𝒎)
𝑽𝑽𝐬𝐬 =
Estimating Shear Wave Velocity 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻
(a) ∆𝑡𝑡
Shear Wave
Sr.
Pulse Applied Velocity
No.
ATop (m/sec)
Y+ 0.4 m
ABase
X+
1. Half Cycle Sine – 20mm Amp 36.36
2. Half Cycle Sine – 50mm Amp 28.57
(b) 3. One Cycle Sine – 35mm Amp 20
∆𝑡𝑡 4. One Cycle Sine – 50mm Amp 33
5. Multiple Pulses – 20 mm Amp 23
6. Multiple Pulses – 25 mm Amp 21.1
29
Pulse Test – Dynamic Response
Pulse Excitation
(a)
(b)
Y+
X+
Input Pulses 30
Y+
X+
(b)
31
Amplification of Horizontal Accelration
32
2. Geotechnical Experiment on Backfill (Experiment)
Characterization of Backfill Soil
D60 = 6 mm
D30 = 4 mm
D10 ≈ 3 mm
Cu = 2.17
Cc = 1.04
∆𝝈𝝈𝐯𝐯
𝑴𝑴𝐬𝐬 =
AS 1289.3.6.1, ASTM C136 ∆𝜺𝜺𝐯𝐯
Cu = 2.17
Cc = 1.04
Particle size distribution curve for the crushed rock. 1-D compression test on crushed rock. CD Triaxial Test on Crushed Rock.
44° Sr. No. Crushed rock property Value (Unit)

1. Maximum dry density 1790 kg/m3
2. D60 size 6 mm
3. D30 size 4 mm
4. Constrained modulus Estimated against given confinement
5. The angle of internal friction 44⁰
6. Poisson’s ratio 0.45
7. Dilation angle 19⁰.
Mohr Circle for CD test on Crushed Rock 34
Understanding the Capability of Finite Element Models
Aluminium Wall
(4mm thickness) 10 mm
1.72 m
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Shaking Table Base
Sr. No. Material Density (Kg/m3) Elastic Modulus (Gpa) Poisson's Ratio
1. Retaining Wall 2700 69 0.33
2. Backfill Soil 1790 0.00290 0.45
3. Angle, Base 7800 200 0.3
4. Base Wood 1000 100 0.3
5. Foam 2000 0.1 0.4
35
3. FE Modelling of Backfill (Micro Numerical)
Constitutive modelling of the backfill soil “Mohr coulomb material model”
𝜃𝜃 = 0
Tension cutoff
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑐 𝑞
Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface

Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface
𝜙 = 20°
𝜃𝜃 = 𝜋𝜋�3
𝜙
Rankine Yield Surface
𝜙 = 90°
𝑐
𝜃𝜃 = 4𝜋𝜋�3 𝜎𝑡
𝜃𝜃 = 2𝜋𝜋�3 𝑇𝑇
Mohr coulomb yield surface at the deviatoric stress plane Mohr coulomb yield surface at the meridional plane
37
Peak
Softening
Plastic Cu = 2.17
Final
Cc = 1.04
Yield Stress
Elastic
Equivalent Plastic Strain
38
Cu = 2.17
Cc = 1.04
Validation of CD test on Crushed Rock
with Calibrated Mohr Coulomb Model
39
20
Modelling Damping of Backfill Soil Present Model
Vucetic and Dobry (1991) PI = 0%
Rayleigh damping – Elastic Soil Column 15
Damping Ratio (%)

10
𝑪𝑪 = 𝜶𝜶 𝑴𝑴 + 𝜷𝜷 𝑲𝑲
1 𝜶𝜶 𝜸𝜸 5
𝑫𝑫 = 𝜷𝜷𝜷𝜷 +
2 𝝎𝝎 𝜸𝜸𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓
𝝃𝝃 = 𝝃𝝃𝒊𝒊 + 𝝃𝝃𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
𝜸𝜸
in Pa 1+ 0
𝑮𝑮
𝜸𝜸𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 0.01 0.1
𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔 = , Shear Strain (%)
𝛒𝛒 in kg/m3
Validation of Damping Model with
𝒇𝒇𝟏𝟏 =
𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔
𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐 𝑻𝑻𝟏𝟏 =
𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 𝜔𝜔𝑛𝑛 = 2𝜋𝜋𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛 Vucetic and Dobry (1991), PI = 0
𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔
𝛂𝛂 = 𝟐𝟐𝛚𝛚𝟏𝟏 𝛚𝛚𝟐𝟐 𝑫𝑫𝟏𝟏 𝛚𝛚𝟐𝟐 − 𝑫𝑫𝟐𝟐 𝛚𝛚𝟏𝟏 ⁄ 𝛚𝛚𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 − 𝛚𝛚𝟐𝟐𝟏𝟏
𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝒔𝒔 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒
𝒇𝒇𝟐𝟐 = 𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐 𝑻𝑻𝟐𝟐 = 𝛃𝛃 = 𝟐𝟐 𝑫𝑫𝟐𝟐 𝛚𝛚𝟐𝟐 − 𝑫𝑫𝟏𝟏 𝛚𝛚𝟏𝟏 ⁄𝛑𝛑 𝛚𝛚𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 − 𝛚𝛚𝟐𝟐𝟏𝟏
𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 𝟑𝟑𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔
40
Aluminium Wall
(4 mm thickness) 1.72 m
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)

Applied Pulses at FE Model Base
(a) (b)
Y+
X+
41
4. FE Modelling of RW under Earthquake (Macro Numerical)
5. Compare Experimental and Numerical

Aluminium Wall
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)

(a) (b)
Y+
X+
43
Aluminium Wall
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)

(a)
(b)
Y+
X+
44
Aluminium Wall
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)

Finite Element (FE) Model
The Shaking Table Experiment at Unimelb
Validation of FE model with

Shaking Table Experiment Results
Y+
Pulse 1(a) X+
45
Aluminium Wall
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)


Y+
Pulse 1(b) X+
46
Aluminium Wall
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)

Y+
Shaking Table Experiment Results X+
Pulse 2(a)
47
Aluminium Wall
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)

Y+
Validation of FE model with X+

Pulse 2(b)
48
Aluminium Wall
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)


Y+
Pulse 3(a) X+
49
Aluminium Wall
Layers of Foam
0.4 m
Backfill Soil
Y+
X+
Base (Wood & Steel)

Y+
Validation of FE model with X+

Pulse 3(b)
50
Detailed Study on Prototype RW Models
Seismic Behavior of Base Restrained Earth Retaining Structures
(a) 0.35 m
(b)
250 mm c/c spacing

Reinforce Concrete
Retaining Wall
D =16 mm,
D =25 mm,
250 mm c/c spacing
3.625 m
Backfill Soil
D =16 mm,
250 mm c/c spacing
2.75 m
3.85 m 0.6 m 2m
Geometrical details of the base restrained RW.
52
0.35 m 25 m
Reinforce Concrete
Retaining Wall
Y+
Backfill Soil 3.625 m
X+
Base Rock 2.5 m
𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴
𝑘𝑘 =
𝑒𝑒
Non-linear Time History Analysis
𝑳𝑳𝐦𝐦𝐦𝐦𝐦𝐦
Dynamic Explicit Solution Scheme ∆𝒕𝒕 = �𝑽𝑽
𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒
𝑐 = 2𝜉 𝑚𝑘𝑘 53
𝜎𝑐
40
Material modelling 𝜎𝑐𝑢

𝜎𝑐0 30
Stress (MPa)
(a) 0.35 m
(b)
250 mm c/c spacing

Reinforce Concrete 𝐸𝐸0 20
Retaining Wall
D =16 mm,
D =25 mm,
250 mm c/c spacing 10
1 − 𝑎𝑎𝑐 𝐸𝐸0
3.625 m
Backfill Soil 0
𝜀𝑐 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
D =16 mm,
250 mm c/c spacing 𝜀𝑐𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝜀𝑐𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 Strain (%)
2.75 m
Uniaxial compression for the CDP Stress-strain behaviour for the concrete
3.85 m 0.6 m 2m 500

Reinforcement Details
400
Stress (MPa)
300
Property – Unit Concrete Steel
3
Density (𝝆𝝆) – kg/m 2400 7800 200
Young’s modulus - GPa 31.62 200
Poisson’s ratio (𝝂𝝂) 0.3 0.3
100
Maximum strength - MPa 40 (fcu) 415 (fst)
Plasticity model Concrete damaged plasticity Von-mises plasticity
0
0 5 10 15 20
Strain (%)
The stress-strain curve for steel.
54
100 m
Domain Size Effects
Backfill Soil
Rock Base
50 m
25 m
Y+ Y+
X+ X+
25 m
55
Parametric Investigations on Base Restrained
RC RW
Synthetic Accelerograms Historical Accelerograms

(GENQKE) (PEER GROUND MOTION DATABASE)
1. M(6.0)-R(28km) – PGA=0.09g 1. San Fernando – PGA=0.1g
2. M(7.0)-R(16km) – PGA=0.4g 2. Fruili – PGA=0.21g
3. M(6.9)-R(10km) – PGA=0.66g 3. Chuetsu-Oki – PGA=0.32g
4. M(7.1)-R(10km) – PGA=0.72g 4. Northridge – PGA=0.43g
5. M(7.3)-R(10km) – PGA=0.74g 5. Tabas, Iran – PGA=0.85g
Crushed rock (University of Melbourne) Dune Sand (Daheur et al., 2018) Fontainebleau (Dano et al., 2004)
1. Density = 1790 kg/m3 1. Density = 1670 kg/m3 1. Density = 1753 kg/m3
2. Partial Constrained Modulus = 15.52 MPa 2. Partial Constrained Modulus = 23.3 MPa 2. Partial Constrained Modulus = 22.9 MPa
3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 44⁰ 3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 33.9⁰ 3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 39⁰
4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 19⁰ 4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 15⁰ 4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 15.2⁰
5. Poisson’s ratio = 0.45 5. Poisson’s ratio = 0.45 5. Poisson’s ratio = 0.3
6. Damping (𝛼𝛼) = 0.89 6. Damping (𝛼𝛼) = 1.12 6. Damping (𝛼𝛼) = 1.15
7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.00017 7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.00013 7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.00013
56
∆𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕
PGA 0.09g Sr. No. PGA (%)
PGA 0.4g 𝑯𝑯𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔
PGA 0.66g
1. 0.09g 0.085
PGA 0.72g
2. 0.12g 0.092
3. 0.21g 0.093
PGA 0.74g 4. 0.32g 0.274
5. 0.4g 0.526
6. 0.42g 0.394
7. 0.66g 1.402
8. 0.72g 2.221
Y+
Top Ux
∆ R (𝑡𝑡) = 𝑈𝑈x (𝑡𝑡) 𝑡𝑜𝑝 − 𝑈𝑈x(𝑡𝑡) 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑟𝑟 9. 0.74g 3.629
10. 0.85g 5.179
X+
Bottom Ux
Formation of the active failure wedge occurs when

∆𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑𝐑 𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐚 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭
> 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐%
𝑯𝑯𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬
(Sherif et al., 1984; Clough and Duncan, 1991).
Relative displacement at the RW top dune sand as the backfill soil.

57
RW Top
Synthetic EQ’s
RW Base
PGA = 0.09g PGA = 0.4g PGA = 0.66g PGA = 0.72g PGA = 0.74g
RW Top
Historical EQ’s
RW Base
Backfill Soil Pressure at different stress states. (Dune Sand Backfill Soil Type)
58
Average 3.36 Average 2.23

4.42
3.98
3.29 3.33 3.30 3.12 3.21 3.40

3.11
2.47
𝐴𝐴X 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴Soil =
𝐴𝐴X 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
Amplification factor (horizontal acceleration), backfill soil type Dune sand.
No Relation Between Applied PGA and 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴Soil

59
Top Ux
Y+
No Significant
X+
Influence of Backfill
Soil was Observed
Bottom Ux
(a) (b)
Summary of the maximum relative displacement at the RW top for different backfill soil type
60
RW Top
Synthetic EQ’s
RW Base
RW Top
Historical EQ’s
RW Base
Residual Deformation at Analysis End, for Different Backfill Soil Types 61

Hand calculations to Estimate Earthquake Induced Elastic Displacement
tWall
𝑊𝑊1𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐾𝐾ℎ 𝑊𝑊𝑤𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑊𝑊2𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐾𝐾𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑟𝑟 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
H 𝑊𝑊1𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝛾𝛾4 𝑊𝑊2𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝛾𝛾4

𝛿𝛿1𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥 = 𝛿𝛿2𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥 =
8𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 30𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
(a) (b) (c)
62
Input Parameters Calculations
1.RW height (H)
2.RW thickness (twall) 1. Find body force at unit height of RW (𝑊𝑊1𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)
3.RW Young’s Modulus (Ewall)
𝑊𝑊1𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐾𝐾ℎ 𝑊𝑊𝑤𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
4.Moment of Inertia (Iwall)
5.Unit weight of backfill soil (γSoil) 2. MO dynamic pressure coefficient (KAE)
6.Unit weight of RW material (γWall)
Cos 2 ϕ − θ − ψ
7.Backfill soil friction angle (ϕ) 𝐾𝐾AE = 2
8.RW soil interface angle (δ) sin δ + ϕ sin ϕ − β − ψ
cos ψCos 2θ cos δ + θ + ψ 1+
9.Peak ground acceleration (khg) cos δ + θ + ψ cos β − θ
10. Amplification factor (AFsoil top)
3. Dynamic soil pressure at RW base (PAE)
tWall 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐾𝐾𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑟𝑟 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
4. Use PAE as triangular load per unit width of RW (𝑊𝑊2𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)
5. Find maximum displacement due to RW body force ( 𝛿𝛿1𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥 )

𝑊𝑊1𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝛾𝛾4
𝛿𝛿1𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥 =
8𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
H
6. Find maximum displacement due to dynamic soil pressure (𝛿𝛿2𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥 )
𝑊𝑊2𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝛾𝛾4
𝛿𝛿2𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥 =
30𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
7. Find maximum elastic displacement of base restrained RW:
𝛿𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥 = 𝛿𝛿1𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥 + 𝛿𝛿2𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑥
63
Maximum
Maximum
PGA Recorded at Displacement
Sr. PGA of Base Displacement by
Details of Base Excitation Shaking Table Base Recorded by
No. Excitation (g) Hand Calculations
(g) Laser Sensor
(mm)
(mm)
M(6)-R(28km)
1. (figure 4-23) 0.093 0.13 0.4 2.29
M(7)-R(16km)
2. (figure 4-23) 0.4 0.28 1.44 3.44
M(7.3)-R(10km)
3. (figure 4-23) 0.74 0.52 4.62 6.07
Tabas, Iran
4. (figure 4-24) 0.85 0.6 4.45 7.38
Multiple pulses (20 mm max dis)
5. (figure 4-20) 0.73 0.62 7.54 7.78
Multiple pulses (25 mm max dis)
6. (figure 4-20) 0.9 0.76 10.24 11.40
Multiple pulses (4 Hz)
7. (figure A-) 1 0.9 21.5 18.8
Multiple pulses (4 Hz)
8. (figure A-) 1.55 1.38 35 33.2 64
𝛿𝛿Max
𝛾𝛾
Comparison of the Maximum Elastic Displacement

Shaking Table Experiment – Hand Calculations 65
Sr. No. Description Value (Units)

1. RW Stem Height 3.625 (m)
2. RW Thickness 0.65 (m) and 0.35 (m)
3. Unit Weight of RW 2400 (kg/m3)
4. Young’s Modulus 31.62 (GPa)
5. Inertia of RW (I) 0.0229 (m4/m) and 0.0036 (m4/m)
6. Unit Weight of Backfill Soil 1790 (kg/m3)
7. Friction Angle Backfill Soil 44⁰
Sr. Details of Base PGA of Base Maximum Displacement Maximum Displacement by

AFSoil
No. Excitation Excitation (g) FE Analysis (mm) Hand Calculations (mm)
M(6)-R(28km)
1. (figure 4-23) 0.093 5.23 3.17 2.55
M(7)-R(16km)
2. (figure 4-23) 0.4 2.75 2.87 2.23
66
Seismic Behavior of Free Standing Earth Retaining Structures
0.6 m 30 m
5m
5.6 m Backfill Soil
3m
4.6 m
Y+ 6.5 m Stiff Rock
X+
2D Plane Strain FE Model of Free Standing Retaining Wall
68
Parametric Investigations on free standing CRW
Synthetic Accelerograms Historical Accelerograms

(GENQKE) (PEER GROUND MOTION DATABASE)
1. M(6.0)-R(28km) – PGA=0.09g 1. San Fernando – PGA=0.1g
2. M(7.0)-R(16km) – PGA=0.4g 2. Fruili – PGA=0.21g
3. M(6.9)-R(10km) – PGA=0.66g 3. Chuetsu-Oki – PGA=0.32g
4. M(7.1)-R(10km) – PGA=0.72g 4. Northridge – PGA=0.43g
5. M(7.3)-R(10km) – PGA=0.74g 5. Tabas, Iran – PGA=0.85g
Dune Sand (Daheur et al., 2018) Fontainebleau (Dano et al., 2004) Crushed rock (University of Melbourne)
3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 33.9⁰ 3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 39⁰ 3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 44⁰
4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 15⁰ 4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 15.2⁰ 4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 19⁰
7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.0002 7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.0002 7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.00022
69
PGA 0.09g
PGA 0.4g
PGA 0.66g
PGA 0.72g
PGA 0.74g
𝑈𝑈x (𝑡𝑡) 𝑡𝑜𝑝

Y+
X+
𝑈𝑈x (𝑡𝑡) 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘
∆R (𝑡𝑡) = 𝑈𝑈x (𝑡𝑡) 𝑡𝑜𝑝 − 𝑈𝑈x (𝑡𝑡) 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘
Displacement of Free Standing CRW,

Backfill Soil type Dune Sand.
70
Damage quantification for CRW
Permissible
Failure Damage Level
Sr. M-R PGA Displacement
Displacement
No. Combination (g) (Huang et al.; Fontainebleau
(Huang et al.; 2009)
2009) Dune Sand Crushed Rock
Sand
1 M(6)-R28(Km) 0.08 No Damage No Damage No Damage
No Damage (Active No Damage (Active No Damage (Active
2 M(7)-R16(Km) 0.4
wedge formation) wedge formation) wedge formation)
3 M(6.9)-R10(Km) 0.66 0.02H = 0.05H = Significant Damage Minor Damage Minor Damage
0.112 mm 280 mm
4 M(7.1)-R10(Km) 0.72 Failure Significant Damage Significant Damage
5 M(7.3)-R10(Km) 0.74 Failure Failure Failure
71
Average 2.42 Average 1.61

2.79 2.82
2.59 2.49 2.47 2.42
2.36 2.20 2.13
1.92
Ax
𝐴𝐴X 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴Soil =
𝐴𝐴X 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
Amplification factor (horizontal acceleration), backfill soil type Dune sand.
No Relation Between Applied PGA and 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴Soil

72
Significant Influence
of Backfill Soil was Y+
Observed X+
Summary of Maximum Residual Displacement of Free Standing CRW for Different Backfill Soil Type 73
Seismic Behavior of RW on Pile Foundation
Shaking Table Experiment on Scaled Down RW model on Piles
Retaining Wall Founded on 𝑈𝑈𝑥𝑥 (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇)
Rock Socketed Piles
Boundary Conditions?
𝑈𝑈𝑥𝑥 (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)
ROTATIONAL BASE.
Scaled Down Retaining Wall

Fabricated using Polycarbonate Sheets
Stabilizing Moment -
0.25 m De-stabilizing Stresses in y Direction
y+ Moment - Stresses in y+
3.6 m 𝛾𝛾 = 1790 kg⁄m3 x Direction
2.75 m 4.48 m Crushed Rock 𝜙 = 44𝜊 x+ x+
0.88 m
Pile Cap
0.7 m
Carlton Sand 𝛾𝛾 = 2004 kg⁄m3

0.5 m 8m 𝜙 = 22.8𝜊
Rock-Socketed Pile
2m Stiff Rock
De-stabilizing Moment
Stresses in y Direction
𝛾𝛾 = 2800 kg⁄m3
10 m
y+ 4
𝑴𝑴 𝐊𝐊 𝜽𝜽 𝒑𝒑 𝐋𝐋𝒑𝒑
x+
𝑲𝑲𝜽𝜽 = 𝝀𝝀𝐊𝐊𝜽𝜽 = = = 𝝀𝝀𝐋𝐋 4
𝜽𝜽 𝐊𝐊 𝜽𝜽 𝒔𝒔 𝐋𝐋𝒔𝒔 75
𝐊𝐊 𝜽𝜽 𝒑𝒑 4
𝐋𝐋𝒑𝒑
𝝀𝝀𝐊𝐊𝜽𝜽 = = = 𝝀𝝀𝐋𝐋 4 ,
𝐊𝐊 𝜽𝜽 𝒔𝒔 𝐋𝐋𝒔𝒔
𝐊𝐊 𝜽𝜽 𝒑𝒑
𝐊𝐊 𝜽𝜽 𝒔𝒔 =
𝝀𝝀𝐋𝐋 4
Mild Steel Rotational Springs Replicating Rotational

Stiffness of Scaled Down RS Pile
0.4 m
0.1 m 0.1 m 0.1 m 0.1 m

0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m 0.05 m
0.025 m
0.055 m 0.055 m
0.221 m
0.36 m
0.037 m 0.037 m 0.037 m 0.037 m 0.055 m 0.055 m
0.37 m
C.G. Line
0.221 m
C.G. Line
0.37 m
Plastic hollow rods
0.149 m
0.038 m
4 mm steel plate
Plan View Elevation View 76

0.025 m
Polycarbonate RW
0.36 m Crushed Rock
0.07 m 0.275 m
.038 m
Calibrated Rotation Springs Stiff Base
Comparison of RW Rotation from Prototype FE Model and

Scaled Down FE Model with Rotational Springs 77
0.4 m
(a)
(b)
Polycarbonate Wall Placed Scaled Down Retaining wall Model

on Rotational Springs With Rotational Base
78
Plastic hollow rods
Rotational Springs Placed at RW Base Polycarbonate Retaining Wall

Placed on Rotational Springs
79
Polycarbonate Wall 1.37 m

(25mm thickness)
Accelerometers inside soil

L1 Layers of Foam
0.25 m
Laser Transducers
0.36 m
L2 Backfill Soil
0.221 m C.G. Line Y+
L3 X+
High Density Foam
L5 Shaking Table Base
Direction of Table Movement
Instrumentation Set-up for Rotational Retaining Wall

80
8
6 PGA = 0.4g PGA = 0.5g UTop(t) Y+
6 UBase(t)
4
Displacement (mm)
4 X+
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4
-4
-6
-6 PGA = 0.4g PGA = 0.5g
-8
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
12 16
PGA = 0.7g PGA = 0.8g
12
8
Displacement (mm)
8
4
4
0 0
-4
-4
-8 Permanent Displacement
-8
-12 PGA = 0.7g PGA = 0.8g
-12 -16
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Applied multiple pulses on scaled down RW model Displacement response of scaled down RW model
(rotational base). (rotational base).
81
Top View (PGA = 0.8g)
Side View (PGA = 0.8g)
82
Maximum Relative Displacement along RW Height.
Y+
X+
83
Seismic Behavior of Earth Retaining Structures
Founded on Rock Socketed Pile Foundation
Pile is not a Plane Strain Problem.
0.8 m 30 m
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 3D Pile = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 2D Pile
7.5 m Backfill Soil
𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 3D Pile = 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2D Pile
5m
1m
1.55 m 0.75 m
2.2 m
23.875 m
Base Soil
1.125 m
0.75 m
8m
Stiff Rock
2D Plane Strain Geometry of Retaining Wall Founded on RS Piles. 84

/71
0.25 m
3.6 Retaining Wall

Retaining
m 3.6 m
Wall
2.75 m
0.88
m 4 Pile Cap 0.88 m 0.5 m
Pile c/c spacing in z
direction 2 m m
Pile c/c spacing in x 0.7 m
direction 1.85 m
Pile Cap
y+
8 Rock-Socketed 8m
x+ m Pile,
z 0.5 m diameter
0.5 m
+
Rock-Socketed Pile
Stiff Rock y+
2m
Stiff Rock
x+
30 10
Acceleration in x Direction (m/sec2)
Applied at Rock Base 8 3D FE Model
∆𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 at Retaining Wall

20 6 2D FE Model
4
10
2
0 0
-2
Top (mm)
-10 -4
-6
-20
Ax -8
-10
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
-30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (sec) Time (sec)
85
Y+
Backfill Soil
Backfill Soil
X+ Shear Modulus (MPa)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
Ariake Clay (Tanaka et al. 2001)
3
0 5
Shear Modulus (MPa)
10 15 20 25 30
6
0
Ariake Clay (Tanaka et al. 2001)
3
9
Depth (m)
6
9
Depth (m)
12 12
15
18 15
21
18
BaseBase
Soil
24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Soil
21
24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Shear Modulus of Base Soil

StiffStiff
RockRock
2D Plane Strain FE mesh of Retaining Wall Founded on RS Piles. 86

Parametric Investigations for RW Founded on Rock Socketed Pile Foundation
Synthetic Accelerograms Base Soil

(GENQKE)-Rock outcrop Ariake Clay (Tanaka et al., 2001)
1. M(6.0)-R(28km) – PGA=0.09g 1. Density = 2600 kg/m3
2. M(7.0)-R(16km) – PGA=0.4g 2. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 46⁰
3. M(6.9)-R(10km) – PGA=0.66g 3. Poisson’s ratio = 0.3
4. M(7.1)-R(10km) – PGA=0.72g 4. Damping (𝛼𝛼) = 0.16
5. M(7.3)-R(10km) – PGA=0.74g 5. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.00096
Backfill Soil Type
Dune Sand (Daheur et al., 2018) Fontainebleau (Dano et al., 2004) Crushed rock (University of Melbourne)
3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 33.9⁰ 3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 39⁰ 3. Friction Angle (ϕ) = 44⁰
4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 15⁰ 4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 15.2⁰ 4. Dilation Angle (ψ) = 19⁰
7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.0003 7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.0003 7. Damping (𝛽𝛽) = 0.00029 87
Serviceable Maximum Elastic
Deflection at Pile Top Deflection at Pile Top
(IRC 78:2014) (Shirato et al., 2009) (a) (b)
Y+
1% Pile Dia = ≥ 4% Pile Dia =
X+
7.5 mm 30 mm
𝑈𝑈𝑥𝑥 (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇)
𝑈𝑈𝑥𝑥 (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇)
Backfill Soil Type –Influence on Pile Deflection
Granular Backfill, High Friction Angle Sand 𝑈𝑈𝑥𝑥 (𝐵𝐵𝑡𝑡𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵) 𝑈𝑈𝑥𝑥(𝐵𝐵𝑡𝑡𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)

Shows Better Performance
∆𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 𝑈𝑈𝑥𝑥 𝑇𝑜𝑝 − 𝑈𝑈𝑥𝑥 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑟𝑟
High Displacement Demands of Piles for Low

PGA.
Maximum Displacement of RW Maximum Deflection at Pile Top

88
(Relative to RW Base) (Relative to Pile Base)
Backfill soil pressure along RW Stem Height at Different Stress States

Backfill Soil – CRUSHED ROCK 89
Ax
Almost Constant AFSoil
< 0.74g (PGA)
Summary of AF (horizontal acceleration) at Backfill Soil Top

90
Conclusions- Shaking Table Experiment
Base Restrained Aluminum Retaining Wall
• Backfill Soil Inertia Plays an Important Role.
• Active State Displacement of RW was Observed for All Cases.
• Amplification of Horizontal Acceleration was Observed.
• Amplification in Backfill Soil is Not Constant with Applied Peak Ground Acceleration.
Rotational Base Polycarbonate Retaining Wall

• Linear Displacement Behavior of RW ≤ 0.5g PGA.
• Wall Soil Separation for High PGA
• Rotational Base Influence the Shear Wave Velocity of the Backfill Soil.
91
Conclusions – Base Restrained RW
(a) 0.35 m
3.625 m
• Backfill Soil Type – Not Significantly affect Seismic Displacement. 2.75 m
3.85 m
• Active State Displacement of RW Due to High Inertia of Backfill Soil.
• Amplification in Backfill Soil – Independent of Peak Ground Acceleration.
• Simplified Hand Calculations can Effectively Estimate Maximum Displacement.
92
/71
Conclusions – Free Standing RW
• Backfill Soil Type – Significantly affect Seismic Displacement.
0.6 m 30 m
5m
5.6 m Backfill Soil
3m
• Granular Soil Shows Better Seismic Performance.

4.6 m
Y+ 6.5 m Stiff Rock
X+
• Significant Damage of Free Standing Retaining Wall for PGA ≥ 0.66g.
• Amplification of Backfill Soil – No Correlation with Applied PGA.
93
Conclusions –RW on RS Piles
• Backfill Soil Type – Significantly affect Seismic Displacement of RS Piles.
• Granular Backfill Soil Shows Lesser Seismic Displacement of RS Piles.
• High Displacement at RS Pile Head for Low PGA’s.
• Amplification of Backfill Soil – Constant with Applied PGA ≤ 0.72g. 0.8 m 30 m
7.5 m Backfill Soil

5m
1m
1.55 m 0.75 m
2.2 m
23.875 m
Base Soil
1.125 m
0.75 m
8m
Stiff Rock
94
Course Closing Remarks
• Foundation strength and serviceability both are equally important for a safe and reliable
structure.
• Soils are highly plastic and stress dependent materials, therefore, elastic
idealization needs to be performed with caution considering all possible
unfavourable scenarios.
• Excavation support systems are the key elements of modern infrastructure;

therefore, their satisfactory performance during the design life needs to be
ensured by the design/site engineers.
• Seismic behaviour of Pile foundations is complex as plastic hinge could be form

anywhere in the Pile, however, higher pile diameters performed well during the
past earthquake.
• Site response analyses and accurate seismic characterization of site is

important in order to assess the realistic seismic loading conditions on
structures. 95
Thank You!
& All the Best for Your Future Endeavours
REFERENCES
Abaqus/Explicit User’s Manual, version 6.13. (2013) Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corporation, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Aggour, M. S., & Brown, C. B. (1973). Retaining walls in seismic areas. Proceedings, 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 2624-2627.
Amirsardari, A., Goldsworthy, H. M., & Lumantarna, E. (2017). Seismic site response analysis leading to revised design response spectra for Australia. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21(6), 861-890.
Anderson, D. G. (2008). Seismic analysis and design of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes, & embankments (Vol. 611). Transportation Research Board.
Angelim, R. R., Da Cunha, R. P., & Sales, M. M. (2016). Determining the elastic deformation modulus from a compacted earth embankment via laboratory and ménard pressuremeter tests. Soils & Rocks, 39(3), 285-300.
Armstrong, R. C. (1992). Engineering and design: Revision of thrust block criteria in TM 5-813-5/AFM 88-10, Vol 5 Appendix C (No. ETL-1110-3-446). Corps of engineers Washington DC.
Arulrajah, A., Ali, M. M. Y., Piratheepan, J., & Bo, M. W. (2012). Geotechnical properties of waste excavation rock in pavement subbase applications. Journal of materials in civil engineering, 24(7), 924-932.
AS 1289.3.6.1 (2009). Australian Standard-Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Method 3.6.1: Soil classification tests - Determination of the particle size distribution of a soil - Standard method of analysis by sieving.
AS 4678 (2002). Australian Standard. Earth-Retaining Structures.
ASTM, C. (2006). Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates. ASTM C136-06.
Bakr, J. A. (2018). Displacement-based approach for seismic stability of retaining structures. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Manchester (United Kingdom).
Bakr, J., & Ahmad, S. M. (2018). A finite element performance-based approach to correlate movement of a rigid retaining wall with seismic earth pressure. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 114, 460-479.
Bhattacharjee, A., & Krishna, A. M. (2015). Strain behavior of backfill soil in rigid faced reinforced soil walls subjected to seismic excitation. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 1(2), 14.
Bolton, M. D., & Steedman, R. S. (1982). Centrifugal testing of microconcrete retaining walls subjected to base shaking. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering Conference, Southampton.
Bowles, J. E. (1982). Foundation Analysis & Design, McGraw–Hill Book Company.
Brown, A., & Gibson, G. (2004). A multi-tiered earthquake hazard model for Australia. Tectonophysics, 390(1-4), 25-43.
Buckingham, E. (1914). On physically similar systems; illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Physical review, 4(4), 345.
Cakir, T. (2013). Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic behavior of cantilever retaining wall including soil–structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 45, 96-111.
Callisto, L., & Rampello, S. (2013). Capacity design of retaining structures and bridge abutments with deep foundations. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 139(7), 1086-1095.
Carreira, D. J., & Chu, K. H. (1985, November). Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in compression. In Journal Proceedings (Vol. 82, No. 6, pp. 797-804).
Chang, M. F. (1997). Lateral earth pressures behind rotating walls. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(4), 498-509.
Chen, L. (2014). Active earth pressure of retaining wall considering wall movement. European journal of environmental and civil engineering, 18(8), 910-926.
Chopra, A. K. (2007). Dynamics of structures theory and application to earthquake engineering. Pearson Education.
Choudhury, D., & Chatterjee, S. (2006). Displacement-based seismic active earth pressure on rigid retaining walls. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, USA, 11, Bundle c, 2006, paper No 0660.
Choudhury, D., Nimbalkar, S. S., & Mandal, J. N. (2006). Comparison of pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic methods for seismic earth pressures on retaining wall. Journal of Indian Geophysical Union, 10 (4), 263-271.
Clough, G. W., & Duncan, J. M. (1971). Finite element analyses of retaining wall behavior. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (ASCE), 97(12), 1657–1673.
Clough, G. W., & Duncan, J. M. (1991). Earth pressures. In Foundation engineering handbook, Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 223-235.
Clough, G. W., & Fragaszy, R. F. (1977). A study of earth loadings on floodway retaining structures in the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake. In Proceedings of the sixth world conference on earthquake engineering, 3.
Crosariol, V. A. (2010). Scale model shake table testing of underground structures in soft clay. Master of Science thesis, California Polytechnic State University, USA.
Daheur, E. G., Goual, I., Taibi, S., & Mitiche-Kettab, R. (2019). Effect of dune sand incorporation on the physical & mechanical behaviour of tuff: (experimental investigation). Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 37(3), 1687-
1701. 97
REFERENCES
Dano, C., Hicher, P. Y., & Tailliez, S. (2004). Engineering properties of grouted sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental engineering, 130(3), 328-338.
Das, B. M., & Sivakugan, N. (2016). Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. Cengage Learning.
Di Santolo, A. S., Penna, A., Evangelista, A., Kloukinas, P., Mylonakis, G. E., Simonelli, A. L., & Taylor, C. A. (2012). Experimental Investigation of Dynamic Behaviour of Cantilever Retaining Walls. In Proceedings of 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon.
Duncan, J. M., & Bursey, A. (2013). Soil modulus correlations. In Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty: Honoring Fred H. Kulhawy, pp. 321-336.
Earth Mechanics, I. N. C. (2005). Field investigation report for abutment backfill characterization. Rep. No. SSRP-05/02.
EN 1992-1-2. (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-Part 1-2: General rules-structural fire design. European Committee for Standardization.
EN 1998-5: 2004: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects.
Ertugrul, O. L., & Trandafir, A. C. (2014). Seismic earth pressures on flexible cantilever retaining walls with deformable inclusions. Journal of Rock Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, 6(5), 417-427.
Eurocode 8 (2005): Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part, 1, 1998-1.
Eurocode, C. E. N. (2004). 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance–Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures & geotechnical aspects EN 1998-5: 2004. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
Gamal, M. E., (1996). Seismic design issues relating to bridge abutments. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, USA.
Geoguide, I. (1993). Guide to retaining wall design. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Government of Hong Kong.
Ghandil, M., & Behnamfar, F. (2015). The near-field method for dynamic analysis of structures on soft soils including inelastic soil–structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 75, 1-17.
Ghosh, P. (2008). Seismic active earth pressure behind a nonvertical retaining wall using pseudo-dynamic analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(1), 117-123.
Hardin, B. O., & Drnevich, V. P. (1972). Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement and parameter effects. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div, 98(sm6).
Hashemnia, K., & Pourandi, S. (2018). Study the effect of vibration frequency and amplitude on the quality of fluidization of a vibrated granular flow using discrete element method. Powder technology, 327, 335-345.
Huang, C. C., Wu, S. H., & Wu, H. J. (2009). Seismic displacement criterion for soil retaining walls based on soil strength mobilization. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 135(1), 74-83.
Iai, S., & Kameoka, T. (1993). Finite element analysis of earthquake induced damage to anchored sheet pile quay walls. Soils and foundations, 33(1), 71-91.
Ichihara, M., & Matsuzawa, H. (1973). Earth pressure during earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 13(4), 75-86.
IRC-78 (2014). Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges. Foundations and Substructure, Indian Roads Congress.
Ishibashi, I., & Fang, Y. S. (1987). Dynamic earth pressures with different wall movement modes. Soils and Foundations, 27(4), 11-22.
Jha, A. (2004). Dynamic testing of structures using scale models. Master Dissertation, Concordia University, Canada.
Ju, S. H., & Ni, S. H. (2007). Determining Rayleigh damping parameters of soils for finite element analysis. International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, 31(10), 1239-1255.
Keykhosropour, L., & Lemnitzer, A. (2019). Experimental studies of seismic soil pressures on vertical flexible, underground structures and analytical comparisons. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 118, 166-178.
Kim, H.-K. & Santamarina, J. C. (2008). Sand-rubber mixtures (large rubber chips). Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45, 1457-1466.
Kloukinas, P., di Santolo, A. S., Penna, A., Dietz, M., Evangelista, A., Simonelli, A. L., & Mylonakis, G. (2015). Investigation of seismic response of cantilever retaining walls: Limit analysis vs shaking table testing. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 77, 432-445.
Koseki, J. (2002). Seismic performance of retaining walls—case histories and model tests. In Proceedings of the Fourth Forum on Implications of Recent Earthquakes on Seismic Risk, Japan: Tokyo Institute of Technology, 95-107.
Koseki, J., Munaf, Y., Sato, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., & Kojima, K. (1998). Shaking and tilt table tests of geosynthetic-reinforced soil and conventional-type retaining walls. Geosynthetics International, 5(1-2), 73-96.
Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., Tatsuoka, F., & Horii, K. (1995). Back analyses of soil retaining walls for railway embankments damaged by the 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu earthquake. Joint Report on, 31-56. 98
REFERENCES
Kuhlemeyer, R. L., & Lysmer, J. (1973). Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div, 99 (Tech Rpt).
Ladd, R. S. (1978). Preparing test specimens using undercompaction. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 1(1), 16-23.
Lam, N. T. K. (1999). Program 'GENQKE' User’s Guide. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Latha, G. M. & Krishna, A. M. (2006). Shaking table studies on reinforced soil retaining walls. Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 36, pp 321-333.
Lee, J., & Fenves, G. L. (1998). Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. Journal of engineering mechanics, 124(8), 892-900.
Li, X., & Aguilar, O. (2000). Elastic earth pressures on rigid walls under earthquake loading. Journal of earthquake engineering, 4(04), 415-435.
Lima, M. M., Doh, J. H., Hadi, M. N., & Miller, D. (2016). The effects of CFRP orientation on the strengthening of reinforced concrete structures. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 25(15), 759-784.
Ling, H. I., Liu, H., & Mohri, Y. (2005). Parametric studies on the behavior of reinforced soil retaining walls under earthquake loading. Journal of engineering mechanics, 131(10), 1056-1065.
Ling, H. I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K., & Liu, H. (2005). Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental engineering,
131(4), 465-476.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., & Oñate, E. (1989). A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int. J. Solids and Structures.
Lumantarna, E., Lam, N., Wilson, J., & Griffith, M. (2010). Inelastic displacement demand of strength-degraded structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 14(4), 487-511.
Madabhushi, S. P. G., & Haigh, S. K. (2005). The Bhuj, India earthquake of 26th January 2001: A field report by Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT).
Matasovic, N., Caldwell, J., & Guptill, P. (2004). The Role of Geotechnical Factors in Northridge Earthquake Residential Damage. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering.
Matsuo, H., & Ohara, S. (1965). Dynamic pore water pressure acting on quay walls during earthquakes. In Proceedings of 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1, 130-140.
Matuo, H. & Ohara, S. (1960). Lateral earth pressure and stability of quay walls during earthquakes. In Proceedings of 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
McManus, K., Traylen, N., Clayton, P. & Wood, J. (2017). Earthquake geotechnical engineering practice, Module 6: Earthquake resistant retaining wall design, New Zealand geotechnical society INC.
Mechanics, E. (2005). Field investigation report for abutment backfill characterization. SSRP, 5, 02.
Mei, G., Chen, Q., & Song, L. (2009). Model for predicting displacement-dependent lateral earth pressure. Canadian geotechnical journal, 46(8), 969-975.
Menetrey, P., & Willam, K. J. (1995). Triaxial failure criterion for concrete and its generalization. ACI Structural Journal, 92(3), 311-318.
Mikola, R. G. & Sitar, N. (2013). Seismic earth pressures on retaining structures in cohesionless soils, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Report No. UCB GT 13‐01.
Monaco, P., & Marchetti, S. (2004). Evaluation of the coefficient of subgrade reaction for design of multi-propped diaphragm walls from DMT moduli. Proceedings International Site Characterization.
Moncarz, P. D., Krawinkler, H. (1981). Theory and application of experimental model analysis in earthquake engineering, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, 1981, Stanford University, California, USA.
Mononobe, N. & Matsuo, H. (1929). On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes. Proceedings, World Engineering Conference, 9(388).
Munoz, H., & Kiyota, T. (2020). Deformation and localisation behaviours of reinforced gravelly backfill using shaking table tests. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 12(1), 102-111.
Murphy, G. (1950). Similitude in Engineering. Ronald Press, New York.
Nadim, F., & Whitman, R. V. (1983). Seismically induced movement of retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109(7), 915-931.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique, 15(2), 139-160.
Okabe, S. (1926). General Theory of Earth Pressure. Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, Japan, 12(1).
Oldecop, L. & Zabala, F. (1996). Shaking table test on small prototype of soil retaining wall. Instituto De Investigaciones Antisismicas, National University of San Juan, Argentina.
Omar, T., & Sadrekarimi, A. (2015). Effect of triaxial specimen size on engineering design & analysis. International Journal of Geo-Engineering, 6(1), 5. 99
REFERENCES
Ortiz, L. A., Scott, R. F., & Lee, J. (1983). Dynamic centrifuge testing of a cantilever retaining wall. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 11(2), 251-268.
Potts, D. M., & Fourie, A. B. (1986). A numerical study of the effects of wall deformation on earth pressures. International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, 10(4), 383-405.
Potts, D. M., & Zdravković, L. (1999). Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering: theory. Thomas Telford.
Prasad, S. K., Towhata, I., Chandradhara, G. P., & Nanjundaswamy, P. (2004). Shaking Table Tests in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Current Science, 87, 10: 1398-404.
Qiang, S. Q., Chunling, X. U., Bing, L., & Liqiang, T. (2009). Slope instabilities in the severest disaster areas of 512 Wenchuan earthquake,17(1), 39-49.
Richards Jr, R., & Elms, D. G. (1979). Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 105(ASCE 14496).
Roesset, J. M. (1970). Fundamentals of Soil Amplification. In seismic design for nuclear power plants. Ed. R.J. Hansen. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 183-244.
Sandri, D. (1997). A performance summary of reinforced soil structures in the greater Los Angeles area after the Northridge earthquake. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 15(4-6), 235-253.
Seed, H. B., Whitman, R. V. (1970). Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads. Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, New York, USA,
103-147.
Seismosoft. (2016). SeismoSignal 2016 – A computer program for signal processing of strong‐motion data.
Shahi, R., Lam, N., Gad, E., Wilson, J., & Watson, K. (2017). Seismic assessment of cold-formed steel stud bracing wall panels using direct displacement based design approach. Bulletin of earthquake engineering, 15(3), 1261-1277.
Shakal, A. F. (1994). CSMIP strong-motion records from the Northridge, California earthquake of January 17 1994.
Shayo, T., & Cheng, U. C. (2009). Caltrans Seismic Design Analysis of Retaining Walls Project.
Sherif, M. A. & Fang, YS. (1984). Dynamic earth pressures on walls rotating about the top. Soils and Foundations, 24(4), 109-117.
Sherif, M. A., Yungshow, F., & Russell, I. (1984). Ka & K0 behind rotating & non-yielding wall. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, 110(1), 113-121.
Shirato, M., Kohno, T., & Nakatani, S. (2009). Geotechnical criteria for serviceability limit state of horizontally loaded deep foundations. In Geotechnical Risk and Safety, CRC Press, 133-140.
Shumway, R. H. (2003). Time-frequency clustering and discriminant analysis. Statistics & probability letters, 63(3), 307-314.
Shumway, R. H. (2003). Time-frequency clustering and discriminant analysis. Statistics & probability letters, 63(3), 307-314.
Siddharthan, R., & Maragakis, E. (1987). Seismic performance of flexible retaining walls supporting dry cohesionless soils. In Developments in geotechnical engineering, Elsevier, 45, 151-165.
Siddharthan, R., El-Gamal, M., & Maragakis, E. A. (1994). Investigation of performance of bridge abutments in seismic regions. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120(4), 1327-1346.
Simonelli, A. L., Carafa, P., Feola, A., Crewe, A. J., & Taylor, C. A. (2000). Retaining walls under seismic actions: Shaking table testing and numerical approaches. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand.
Song, A. (2012). Deformation analysis of sand specimens using 3 D digital image correlation for the calibration of an elasto-plastic model. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, (USA).
Stadler, A. T. (1996). Dynamic centrifuge testing of cantilever retaining walls. University of Colorado at Boulder: Boulder, CO, USA.
Standard, A. (2009). 1289.3. 6.1. Standard method of analysis by sieving in Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes—Soil classification tests—Determination of the particle size distribution of a soil.
Standard, A. S. T. M. D7181-11 (2011). Method for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Compression Test for Soils, 1, 1-11.
Steedman, R. S. (1998). Seismic design of retaining walls. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering, 131(1), 12-22.
Tanaka, H., Locat, J., Shibuya, S., Soon, T. T., & Shiwakoti, D. R. (2001). Characterization of Singapore, Bangkok, and Ariake clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38(2), 378-400.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., & Koseki, J. (1996). Performance of soil retaining walls for railway embankments. Soils and Foundations, 36(Special), 311-324.
Transportation Officials. Subcommittee on Bridges. (2002). AASHTO guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. 100
REFERENCES
Veletsos, A. S., & Younan, A. H. (1997). Dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(2), 161-172.
Vucetic, M., & Dobry, R. (1991). Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 117(1), 89-107.
Wair, B. R., DeJong, J. T., & Shantz, T. (2012). Guidelines for estimation of shear wave velocity profiles. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Wang, L., Chen, G., & Chen, S. (2015). Experimental study on seismic response of geogrid reinforced rigid retaining walls with saturated backfill sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43(1), 35-45.
Watanbe, K., Munaf, Y., Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., & Kojima, K. (2003). Behaviors of several types of model retaining walls subjected to irregular excitation. Soils and Foundations, 43(5), 13-27.
Whitman, R. V., & Liao, S. (1985). Seismic design of gravity retaining walls. US Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, USA.
Wilson, P., & Elgamal, A. (2009). Full-scale shake table investigation of bridge abutment lateral earth pressure. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 42(1), 39-46.
Wilson, P., & Elgamal, A. (2015). Shake table lateral earth pressure testing with dense c-ϕ backfill. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 71, 13-26.
Wood, D. M., Crewe, A., & Taylor, C. (2002). Shaking table testing of geotechnical models. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 2(1), 01-13.
Wood, J. H. (1973). Earthquake-induced soil pressures on structures. Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Technology, (USA).
Wu, Y., & Prakash, S. (2001). Seismic displacement of rigid retaining walls—state of the art. In Proceedings of 4th international conference on recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil dynamics. San Diego,
CA, paper (No. 7.05).
Yang, K. H., Zornberg, J. G., Liu, C. N., & Lin, H. D. (2012). Backfill stress and strain information within a centrifuge geosynthetic-reinforced slope model under working stress and large soil strain conditions. In GeoCongress 2012:
State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 461-470.
Yazdandoust, M. (2017). Investigation on the seismic performance of steel-strip reinforced-soil retaining walls using shaking table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 97, 216-232.
Yazdani, M., Azad, A., & Talatahari, S. (2013). Extended “Mononobe-Okabe” method for seismic design of retaining walls. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2013.
Yimsiri, S., Soga, K., Yoshizaki, K., Dasari, G. R., & O’Rourke, T. D. (2004). Lateral and upward soil-pipeline interactions in sand for deep embedment conditions. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 130(8),
830-842.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education India.
101

Lecture Slides - Bearing Capacity Shallow Foundations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Lecture Slides - Bearing Capacity Shallow Foundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CVEN9513

Advanced Foundation Engineering

Image Source: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/concrete-

Course Coordinator & Lecturer

Dr. Rohit Tiwari PhD, MS(Res), B.Tech (Distinction)

• Idealizing soil’s constitutive response as an Elastic Material is the most

• Choice of suitable Earth Retaining Structure & Piles depends on several

• Earthquake Resistant Design of foundation system is an essential aspect of modern

Image Source: https://www.structuredfoundation.com/blog/extreme-

Strength Limit Reached

Serviceability Limit Reached

𝑅𝑅u Ru = Ultimate load capacity or strength of the foundation

Safety Factor for Different Geotechnical Problem:

1. Based on the limit state design in geotechnical engineering.

Strength estimated using the CPT test result may not

 European Approach of limit state design in geotechnical engineering.

Design strength parameters

tan ϕ′design = ϕuϕ tan ϕ′actual

Resistance = Capacity = 𝑅𝑅′

Load, Statistical spread

•Limited settlement and consequences should be

•Settlement can not be eliminated

Image source http://www.understandconstruction.com/steel-frame-

What about the importance level of structure? structures.html

Image source: https://fireprotectionblog.com/fire-protection-schools/

Differential Settlement of Foundation

Bjerrum (1963) - Buildings P P

Load carried out by foundation:

• Foundations Safely transfer loads to the ground. • Compressive

Image source: https://stock.adobe.com/au/search?k=%22strip%20footings%22

Pressure (q) below the Mat Foundation (For concentric loading)

Image Source: https://www.quantity-takeoff.com/design-of-raft-foundation.htm

Loads (Dead load, live load & Earthquake load)

Geotechnical conditions of the site

Geotechnical strengths of the soils

Construction cost and site location

Important design criteria

Analyses should be performed for:

Ultimate bearing capacity of foundation (qu)

Allowable bearing capacity of foundation (qa)

General Shear Failure Punching Shear Failure Local Shear Failure

Load per unit area

Load per unit area

• Formation of continuous failure • Large settlement of the footing Settlement

planes in the ground • Minimum deformation at ground • Somewhere in between the

Theoretical Solution to the Bearing Capacity of Foundation (General Shear Failure)

True Bearing Capacity

Stress compatibility based on simplified stress distribution! 22

• A wedge zone immediately below footing

General Shear Failure - Lower Bound

Ultimate bearing capacity for foundation of other shapes

Do not use shape factors in combination with inclination

Eccentric loading significantly

For rectangular footing of length “L” and subjected to an eccentricity of eL

In the case of double eccentricity:

Lateral earth resistance:

Undrained Analyses (Total Stress Analyses)

Use effective overburden pressure

Case 2 Water table is above the footing base:

Case 3 Water table is close to foundation base 0 < d ≤ 𝐵𝐵

In case of local and punching shear failure in loose sands,

 Results in smaller bearing capacity for the foundations,

 Therefore in order to extend application of the general form of the bearing

ƵƚƚŝŶŐǁŚĞĞůƐ ^ƚĞĞůďĞĂŵKǀĞƌůĂƉŽĨƉĂŶĞůƐ dǇƉŝĐĂůůǇŽŶĞŽƌƚǁŽďĞĂŵƐĂƌĞ

>ŝƋƵĞĨĂĐƚŝŽŶƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ďŽǀĞ͗ƌĂŝŶĞĚƚƌŝĂǆŝĂů ƚĞƐƚƐŽŶ

߶ Ԣ ݀݁‫ ݊݃݅ݏ‬ൌ െͳ ሺሺͶͲሻΤͳǤ͵ሻ ൌ ͵ʹǤͺ

ĞĂŵƐ ϮΎϭϴϰϬͬϮ͘Ϯсϭ͕ϲϳϬ ϮΎϭϴϰϬͬϭ͘Ϯсϯ͕ϬϳϬ