Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction Seminar Vancouver B.C., May 29, 1993 SEISMIC DESIGN OF RETAINING STRUCTURES Geoffrey R. Martin! INTRODUCTION This paper presents a summary of the methods most commonly used for the seismic analysis and design of retaining walls or structures. The discussion includes: 1. Areview of the classical Mononobe-Okabe equations for evaluating earthquake induced lateral earth pressures for yielding walls; 2. A discussion of the concept of design for allowable permanent displacement during earth- quake loading; 3. Brief comments on the complexities introduced by saturated foundation and backfill con- ditions associated with waterfront structures; 4. A review of the seismic design problems specifically related to bridge abutments. Emphasis is placed on relatively simple gravity walls or structures with heights of say less than 30 feet, where earthquake accelerations acting on the wall and backfill soils may be assumed equal to the ground accelerations, More comprehensive reviews of the state-of-the-art for the seismic design of retaining struc- tures may be found in papers by Whitman (1990, 1991) and in a Waterways Experiment Station Report by Ebeling and Morrison (1992). MONONOBE - OKABE ANALYSES ‘The most frequently used method for the calculation of the seismic soil forces acting on a retaining wall is a static approach developed in the 1920's by Mononobe (1929) and Okabe (1926). The Mononobe-Okabe analysis is an extension of the Coulomb sliding-wedge theory tak- ing into account horizontal and vertical inertia forces acting on the backfill soil. This approach ‘was suggested as a standard method for evaluating seismic lateral forces for design of retaining structures by Seed and Whitman (1970). Whitman (1990) notes that whereas the earthquake behavior of retaining walls is more complicated than envisioned in the simple model leading to the Mononobe-Okabe equations, this approach when used with the proper choice of input param- eters and suitable safety factors, still provides a sound basis for design of many retaining struc- tures. The following assumptions are made in developing the Mononobe-Okabe equations: 1. The retaining wall is free to move sufficiently that the soil strength or active pressure con- ditions will be mobilized. (If the abutment is rigidly fixed and unable to move, the soil forces will be very much higher than those predicted by the Mononobe-Okabe analysis. 2. The backfill is cohesionless, with a friction angle 6. 3. ‘The backfill is dry. 1. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California,Limiting equilibrium considerations of the soil wedge behind the abutment (Fig.1) then lead toa value Eg of the force exerted on the soil mass by the abutment (and vice versa), when the abutment is at the point of failure. Eag is given by the expression: Bap = U2¥HPU-K)- Kar @ where the seismic active pressure coefficient K ap is 2 cos? (~ 8B) fae i @+8)sin(@-0-) | ; sin =o cos6-cos*Poos (8+B+0)| 1+ JOE | and where “y= unit weight of soil ky = horizontal acceleration coefficient H = height of soil face vertical acceleration coefficient = angle of friction of soil @= tan! ky/(1-k,) 3 = angle of friction between soil and abutment vackfill slope angle slope of soil face Despite the relative simplicity of the approach, the accuracy of Eq, (1) has been substantiated by model tests (Whitman, 1990, 1991), ‘The value of h, the height at which the resultant of the soil pressure acts on the wall, may be taken as H/3 for the static case with no earthquake effects involved. However, it becomes greater as carthquake effects increase. This has been shown by tests and by theoretical results derived by ‘Wood (1973), who found that the resultant of the dynamic pressure acted approximately at mid- height. Seed and Whitman (1970) suggested that h could be obtained by assuming that the static ‘component of the soil force (computed from Eq. (1) with @ = ky = 0) acts at H/3 from the bottom of the wall, while the additional dynamic effect should be taken to act at a height of 0.6H. For most purposes it would be sufficient to assume the resultant of the soil pressure acts at h= H/2, with a uniformly distributed pressure. Seed and Whitman (1970) suggested a simple approxima- tion for Kap where ky = 0, namely: where Ka = static active earth pressure coefficient. Similar solutions may be made for passive pressure conditions. The equivalent expression for passive force if the abutment is being pushed into the backfill is /2yH?(1-k,).Kpp, Wf sate. Geo ot el (4) Epewhere (5) x cos? (6 - 8+) pe = — SSS cos®8cos*Beos @-p+0)/1 = ee | Note that the maximum thrust occurs when the base acceleration is acting away from the backfill, and this thrust decreases as the base acceleration increases. As the seismic inertia angle @ increases, the values of Kap and Kpp approach each other and become equal when, for a vertical backfill, 6 = 0. ‘Towhata and Islam (1987) suggest a simple approximation for Kp of the form: Kpp = Kp~17/8 kp © where Kp = static passive earth pressure coefficient Richards and Elms (1979) note that although the Mononobe-Okabe expression for active thrust is easily evaluated for any particular geometry and friction angle, the significance of the various parameters is not obvious. Figure 2 shows the variation of Kap; against ky, for different values of 6 and ky; Kg is clearly very sensitive to the value of 6. Also, for a constant value of , Kg doubles as kj, increases from zero to 0.35 for zero vertical acceleration, and thereafter it increases more rapidly. In order to evaluate the increase in soil active pressure due to earthquake effects more easily, Kax con be normalized by dividing by its static value K, to give a thrust factor or magnification ratio (Richards and Elms, 1979). Fr= KapKa a Whereas Fig. 2 shows that K,ag is sensitive to changes in the soil friction angle @, the plots of Fr against ¢ in Fig. 3 indicate that the value of 6 has little effect on the thrust factor until quite sud- denly, over a short range of 6, Fr increases rapidly and becomes infinite for specific critical values of 6. The reason for this behavior may be determined by examining Eq. 2. The contents of the rad- ical must be positive for a real solution to be possible, and for this it is necessary that 2140 =i + arctan ky/(1-ky) (8) This condition could also be thought of as specifying a limit to the horizontal acceleration coeffi- cient that could be sustained by any structure in a given soil. The limiting condition is that ky $ (I-Ky)tan(o-i) 0°For zero vertical acceleration and backfill angle and for a soil friction angle of 35°, the limiting value of ky, is 0.7. Figure 4 shows the effect on Fy of changes in the vertical acceleration coefficient k,. Positive values of ky have a significant effect for values of ky, greater than 0.2. The effect is greater than 10% above and to the right of the dashed line. Kag and Fy are also sensitive to variations in backfill slope, particularly for higher values of horizontal acceleration coefficient. This effect is shown in Figure 4. ‘The effects of abutment inertia are not taken into account in the Mononobe-Okabe analysis. Many current procedures assume that the inertia forces due to the mass of the abutment itself may be neglected in considering seismic behavior and seismic design. This is not a conservative assumption, for those abutments relying on their mass for stability. The effects of wall inertia are discussed further by Richards and Elms (1979) who show that wall inertia forces should not be neglected in the design of gravity retaining walls. DESIGN FOR DISPLACEMENT If peak ground accelerations are used in the Mononobe-Okabe analysis method, the size of gravity retaining structures will often be excessively great. To provide a more economic structure, design for a small tolerable displacement rather than no displacement may be preferable, Tests have shown that a gravity retaining wall fails in an incremental manner in an earthquake. For any earthquake ground motion, the total relative displacement may be calculated using the sliding block method suggested by Newmark (1965). The method assumes a displacement pattern similar to that of a block resting on a plane rough horizontal surface subjected to an earthquake, with the block being free to move against frictional resistance in one direction only., Figure 5 (after Richards and Elms, 1979) shows how the relative displacement relates to the acceleration and velocity time histories of soil and wall. At a critical value of kp, the wall is assumed to begin sliding; relative motion will continue until wall and soil velocities are equal. ‘Newmark (1965) computed the maximum displacement response for four earthquake records, and plotted the results after scaling the earthquakes to a common maximum acceleration and velocity. Franklin and Chang (1977) repeated the analysis for a large number of both natural syn- thetic records and added their results to the same plot. Upper bound envelopes for their results are shown in Fig, 6. All records were scaled to a maximum acceleration coefficient A of 0.5 and a ‘maximum velocity V of 30 in/sec (762 mm/sec). The maximum resistance coefficient Nis the that the displacement envelopes for all the scaled records have roughly the same : shape An approximation to the curves for relatively low displacements (Richards and Elms, 1979) is given by the relation (expressed in any consistent set of units):(10) t= 0087 a where d is the total relative displacement of a wall subjected to an earthquake record whose max- imum acceleration coefficient and velocity are A and V. This is drawn as a straight line on Figure 6. Note that as this expression has been derived from envelope curves, it will overestimate d for most earthquakes. One possible design procedure (after Richards and Elms, 1979) involves choosing a desired value of maximum wall displacement d together with appropriate earthquake parameters, and using Eq. 10 to derive a value of ky, (now a maximum resistance or yield seismic coefficient N) for which the wall should be designed. The procedure is as follows: 1. Decide on an acceptable maximum displacement d. The wall connections, if any, should be detailed to allow for this displacement. 2. Invert Eq, 10 to obtain the value of ky corresponding to d. For A use the effective peak ‘ground acceleration coefficient A given by code recommendations. For all practical pur- poses, V may be taken as approximately equal to 30 A inches per second. We then obtain the expression: ve ten ule Mee johba saa «ay a ky = o67a[S Thus using a specified value of d and code recommendations to define A, ky can be com puted, 3. Use kp to obtain the required wall weight Wy, for horizontal equilibrium (FS. = 1) Richards and Elms illustrate the approach with an example which considers the design of a 16 ft (4.9 m) reinforced concrete wall for a value of A = 0.2. Assuming a displacement of 4 inches (100 mm) is allowed to occur, a value of ky, = 0.063 is obtained from Eq. (11), leading to a required wall weight of 50% of that if a value of ky = 0.2 were used for design. Richards and Elms also note that if this wall were designed with a factor of safety of 1.5 for static earth pressures only, the wall weight would be about the same as the value for ky, = 0.063. Hence, there would be no gain in designing the wall for an allowable displacement greater than 4 inches (100 mm). Elms and Martin (1979) show displacements for given values of A may be obtained by reor- dering Eq. (11) to give: (12) ay d= 02A [=] This expression is shown plotted in Fig. 7. Thus if a wall were simply designed for a static value of, say, half the code acceleration coefficient, ie., if ky = 0.5A, then the displacement to be expected for A = 0.4 would be d = (0.2)(0.4)(0.5)* = 1.3 in. This is a very small displacement, indicating that the design tion coefficient could be lowered further. If we take ky = 0.44,then a displacement of 3.1 inches would result, This degree of displacement could easily be allowed for in the detailing of most retaining wall designs. Based on the above results and allowing for an additional measure of safety, Elms and Martin (1979) suggested that a design acceleration coefficient for use in the Mononobe-Okabe analysis of 0.5 would be adequate for most design purposes, provided that allowance be made for an out- ward displacement of 10 A inches (250 A mm) to occur in the design earthquake. This concept has been adopted in the AAHSTO (1992) seismic design guidelines for bridges. NON- YIELDING WALLS The Mononobe-Okabe analysis assumes that the wall is free to Id laterally a sufficient amount to mobilize peaks soil strengths in the backfill. For granular soils, peak strengths can be assumed mobilized if deflections at the top of the wall are 0.5% of the wall height. For walls that, are restrained against lateral movement, lateral pressures induced by inertia forces in the backfill will be greater than those given by the Mononobe-Okabe analysis method Using elastic theory and assuming that material properties are constant with depth, Wood (1973) founda steady state dynamic thrust approximately equal to yH7a/g where ais the peak base acceleration, The resultant thrust was at a height of about 0.6H corresponding to an approxi- mately parabolic variation of earth pressure with height. Whitman (1991) describes both finite element studies and model experiments which generally led to results in good agreement with ‘Wood's theory. In the case of basement walls which are well braced by floors, it would seem logical to use design earth pressures according to Wood’s theory. However, Whitman (1991) notes that usually basements themselves move relative to foundation soils due to soil structure interaction, and report studies leading to the conclusion that it should suffice, except where structures are founded on a sharp interface between soil and rock, to use the Mononobe-Okabe equations together with expected peak ground accelerations to evaluate design earth pressures during seismic loading. ‘WALLS AT WATERFRONTS ‘Whereas walls supporting dry backfills have performed well during earthquakes, retaining structures associated with port and harbor or waterfront construction have not performed well his- torically. Good summaries of experience, particularly in Japan, are provided by Okamoto (1994) and Werner and Hung (1992). Most of the retaining structure failures can be associated with either liquefaction of backfill or to weak and compressible foundation soils. Because of the analytical difficulties in making reliable predictions of excess pore water pressures induced by earthquake loading on retaining etructuree, prevent decign procedures foous on densifying beckfills ond foun dation soils so as to eliminate the possibility of significant excess pore pressure build up during earthquake loading. In the design of Caisson structures such as shown in Fig. 8, either densification techniques or coarse grained granular backfill is utilized to prevent the liquefaction or excess pore pressure build up problem. However, the question remains as to the water pressure induced on the wall or Caisson through earthquake interaction. Westergaard’s (1933) solution for the case of a vertical wall retaining an infinitely long reservoir of constant depth is commonly utilized for this purpose,where the pressure acting at a depth y below the surface of the water is given by: P= 7/8 ky Yih)! (a3) where yy, is the unit weight of water and h is the total depth of water. The total dynamic force is then given by: P= 7/12 kp Yh? (14) To account for the combined effect of the free water in front of the wall and the water in the pores of a coarse grained backfill, a procedure, as summarized by Seed and Whitman (1970) is as follows: 1, Water pressure forces on the seaward side of the wall would be reduced during the earth- quake by an amount equal to that computed by the Westergaard solution. 2. Water pressure on the landward side of the wall would be increased by an amount equal to 70% of the Westergaard values and act together with the soil as shown in Fig. 8. MODELLING BRIDGE ABUTMENTS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN Bridge abutments come in a variety of sizes and shapes as illustrated in Fig. 9. In addition to acting as a retaining wall for backfill soils, abutments also serve an additional function of provid- ing resistance to deformation along the longitudinal bridge axis to earthquake induced longitudi- nal inertial loads from the bridge deck. In the case of monolithic abutments, such resistance is mobilized immediately, while for a seat type abutment, gap closure is initially required prior to mobilization of resistance. In the case of “Stub-L” and “Cantilever-L” abutments, abutment back walls are allowed to shear off during earthquake loading to protect abutment foundation structures particularly where piles are used. For many highway bridges, abutments attract a large portion of the seismic forces in the longi- tudinal direction and it is now recognized that proper modelling of abutments is a significant fac- tor in the overall evaluation of bridge performance. Caltrans design specifications and AASHTO guide specifications for the seismic design of highway bridges (AASHTO 1992) recognize the nonlinear behavior of abutments due to the failure of backfills and from structural nonlinearity at expansion joints. Load displacement characteristics for typical monolithic and seat type abut- ments are shown in Fig. 10. An iterative design procedure as shown in Fig. 11 (AASHTO, 1992) recommends the following steps for seismic analysis: 1, Assume initial linear abutment stiffness coefficients 2. Conduct dynamic response analysis of the bridge structure and determine the forces and displacements at abutments. 3. Check abutment force capacity. Ifthe peak soil pressure exceeds the soil capacity (assumed equal to maximum passive pressure) the analysis should be repeated with a reduced abutment stiffness to reflect yielding of the backfill soil. Iterations are continued until the force levels are below the acceptable capacity of the abutment, 4. Check abutment displacement. Computed displacements and assumed equivalent linear abutment stiffinesses should be compatible. The converged displacement value of the abut- ment is then checked against an acceptable level of displacement. Caltrans uses a value of0.2 ft in the longitudinal direction based on acceptable damage to abutments during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Excessive deformations may create stability and integrity problems both at the abutment and at supporting bridge bents. Development of the load-displacement characteristics of the abutment backfill system depends on two key parameter 1, The initial abutment-backfill interaction stiffness prior to soil failure; and 2. The ultimate passive capacity of the abutment backfill soil Caltrans specifications (Bridge Design Aids, Section 14) recommend an abutment-backfill inter- action stiffness coefficient of 200 kips/in of deflection per linear foot along the length of the abut- ‘ment wall as a starting for the iterative analysis. This stiffness coefficient is considered appropriate for abutment backfill materials having a velocity of about 800 fi/sec. ‘Wilson (1988) has developed a more generalized expression based on elastic analyses where the longitudinal stiffness coefficient is given by: (is) a- where K, is soil stiffness per unit deflection per unit wall width, B, is the Young's Modulus of the backfill soil, v is Poisson’s ratio of the backfill soil, is a shape factor as shown in Fig, 12. The soil stiffness (K,) from Wilson’s equation can be compared to Caltrans recommendation through ‘an example calculation for the longitudinal stiffness of a typical California abutment and wall- backfill system (Lam et.al., 1991): * Configuration of end wall: 50 ft (15.2 m) wide by 8 ft (2.4 m) high. For this configuration, a shape factor, I of 1.84 is obtained from Figure 12. * Shear wave velocity of backfill: (800 fl/sec or 240 m/sec). + Using a Poisson ratio of 0.3, a Young's modulus corresponding to a shear wave velocity of 800 fi/sec would be about 6.02 x 10° psf (300 MPa). However, a reduction factor is nor- mally needed to adjust for a soil modulus based on shear wave velocity measurement to account for nonlinear soil behavior at higher strain levels. At a typical average shear strain value of about 0.01 percent, a reduction factor of 0.7 would be reasonable. The corre- sponding reduced Young’s modulus is estimated at about 4.34 x 10° psf (210 MPa). + The soil stiffness coefficient K, for the above end wall is estimated at 216 kip/in of deflec- tion/lineal foot of end wall as compared to the 200 kip/in/ft as recommended by Caltrans. It can be concluded that the Wilson’s equation compares favorably with Caltrans recommenda- tions and provides a rational basis for extrapolation to other design conditions. Experience indicates that the 200 kip/in/ft value rarely governs longitudinal stiffness in prac- tice. In most cases, adjustments for the failure capacity of the abutment backfill and gapping effects control the effective longitudinal stiffness. With respect to the passive abutment capacity, normally static values are used for design and reductions due to inertial loading of the backfill soil calculating using the Mononobe-Okabe approach, are neglected. To some extent this assumption reflects the uncertainty in the phase differences between bridge inertial loading and abutment backfill inertial loading.For cohesionless backfill soils, Caltrans recommend a soil capacity of 7.7 kips per sq. ft. (370 kPa) for an 8 ft high abutment wall where backfill soils have a shear wave velocity of about 800 fusec. For an 8 ft high abutment wall, the 7.7 kips per sq. ft. passive capacity can be equated to an earth pressure coefficient of about 15. Based on passive pressure coefficients computed using log spiral failure surfaces as shown in Fig. 13, an earth pressure coefficient of about 15 corresponds to a friction angle of 45° with a wall friction angle of 6/2. This may not be unreasonable, and recent large scale abutment test programs conducted at University of California, Davis tend to support passive capacities of the order of 7 ksf for an 8 ft high wall. The 200 kip/in/ft of stiffness implies about 0.3 inches of movement to mobilize the ultimate capacity of 7.7 ksf for an 8 ft abutment wall, assuming a linear stiffness to failure. Experimental data suggests that a minimum movement of about | inch is necessary to develop the ultimate pas- sive pressure resistance for an 8 ft abutment wall. Hence, the somewhat arbitrary 0.2 ft displ ment criteria adopted by Caltrans and AASHTO implies movement into the fill passive resistance range. CONCLUDING REMARKS In general, results of recent and ongoing research on the behavior of retaining walls under earthquake loading, continue to support the use of the Mononobe-Okabe approach for the analysis of simple yielding walls of heights 30 ft or less. The use of a sliding displacement approach for design, where yield accelerations and associated maximum acceptable displacements for given maximum ground accelerations form the basis for required wall weights and dimensions, is now widely accepted. For walls higher than 30 ft where backfill response may have a significant influence on inertial loads, more careful finite element analysis should be considered. In the case of saturated backfills and waterfront structures in general, wall behavior is clearly complex and influenced by possible excess pore pressure buildup and the undrained stress-strain behavior of saturated soils as perma nent deformations occur. It is hoped that the extensive centrifuge modelling research presently being undertaken on the earthquake behavior of saturated cohesionless soils, will lead to improved design guidelines for the latter class of problems In the case of bridge abutments, ongoing model tests (both field tests and centrifuge tests) will undoubtedly improve our understanding of abutment behavior under earthquake loading, and lead to improved abutment design concepts. REFERENCES 1, AASHTO, 1992. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Fifteenth Edition, Washing- ton, D.C. 2. Caquot, A. and Kerisel J, 1948, Tables for the Calculation of Passive Pressure, Active Pressure and Bearing Capacity of Foundations, Gauthier-Villars, Imprimeur-Libraye du Bureau des Longitudes, de L’Ecole Polytechnique, Paris. 3, Ebeling, Robert M. and Morrison, Ernest B. Jr., (1992), The Seismic Design of WaterfrontRetaining Structures, U.S. Army Technical Report ITL-92-11, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. 4, Elms, D.G. and Martin, G.R., 1979, “Factors involved in the seismic design of bridge abut- ments,” Applied Technology Council Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges, ATC-6-1. 5. Franklin, A.G., and Chang, FK., 1977, Earthquake Resistance of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams, Report 5, Permanent Displacement of Earth Embankments by Newmark Sliding Block Analy- sis, Misc. Paper S-71-17, Soils and Pavement Laboratory, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., Nov. 6. Lam, Ignatius Po; Martin, Geoffrey R., and Imbsen, Roy, 1991, “Modeling bridge foundations for seismic design and retrofitting”, Proceedings, Third Bridge Engineering Conference, Den- ver, Colorado, Transportation Research Record No. 1290, Volume 2, Bridges and Structures. 7. Mononobe, N. and Matsuo, H., 1929. “On the Determination of Earth Pressures during Earth- quakes,” Proceedings, World Engineering Congress, 9. 8, Newmark, N. (1965) “Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments,” Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 139-160. 9. Okabe, S., 1926. “General Theory of Earth Pressures,” Journal of Japan Soci vil Engi- neering, Vol. 12, No.1 10. Okamoto, S. (1984), Introduction to Earthquake Engineering, New York, Wiley, 279-300. 11. Richards, R.J. and D. Geotechnical Engine Ims (1979), “Seismic Behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls”, J. of the ing Division (ASCE) 105(GT4) April, 449-464, 12. Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R. 1970. “Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads,” ASCE Specialty Conf. on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Desi in ing Structure, pp. 103-147. 13. Towhata, I., and Islam, M.S. (1987) “Prediction of Lateral Displacement of Anchored Bulk- heads Induced by Seismic Liquefaction,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 137-147. (2982), “Seismic Respoase of Port and bian Associates Report R-8122-5395, El Segundo, CA, Oct. Harbor Tavitities", Agba- 15, Westergaard, H.M. (1933), “Water Pressures on Dams during Earthquakes”, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 98, 418-72. 16. Whitman, Robert V., 1990. “Seismic Design and Behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls”, Pro- ceedings, Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, Cor- nell University, Ithaca, New York, June, pp. 817-842. 1017. Whitman, R.V. (1991) “Seismic Design of Earth Retaining Structures,” Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 1767-1777. 18. Wilson, John C., 1988, “Stiffness of non-skewed monolithic bridge abutments for seismic analysis,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 16, pp. 867-883. 19. Wood, J. H. (1973), “Earthquake-induced Soil Pressures on Structures”, Rpt. No. EERL 73- 05, CIT, Pasadena, CA. aL—. GRAVITY WALL em DS ag ‘op i ge fl... Naor T= CANTILEVER MALL FIGURE 1: ACTIVE WEDGE FORCE DIAGRAM > SEISMIC. ACTIVE SEISMIC ACTIVE PRESSUR 4 cov 027 03 04 05 MORIZONTAL SEISMIC COEFFICLENT HORIZONTAL SEISMIC COEFFICIENT ky, FIGURE 2: EFFECT OF SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS AND SOIL FRICTION ANGLE ON SEISMIC ACTIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENT 12— v7 ad 1, 0¢ ed . os S20 Zo 1210 8-02 Ben =0 a SOIL FRICTION ANGLE @ SOIL FRICTION ANGLE & FIGURE 3: INFLUENCE OF SOIL FRICTION ANGLE ON MAGNIFICATION RATIO MAGNIFICATION FACTOR Fy MAGNIFICATION FACTOR Fy aeay G62 Baiso 0 “07 10 01 02 03 VERTICAL SEISMIC COEFFICIENT Xy StOPE ANGLE FIGURE 4: INFLUENCE OF VERTICAL SEISMIC COEFFICIENT ON MAGNIFICATION RATIO. AND INFLUENCE OF BACKFILL SLOPE ANGLE ON MAGNIFICATION RATIOTIVM_ONV JOS 4O_ S3IOLSIH aWIL AUSOTAA ONY NOILNVYTI3OOV ONY ANIWZOVIdSIG SAUWISY N3IMI3E NOUS °S 3aNSId AL190734 aun iosaySTANDARDIZED MAX, DISPLACEMERT, 1 — T1714 vecena | pli AL CIT RECORDS ws 84 SEED-IORISS--W ek yoo eeconas (soit sitey ~| — Aut maruant aceoeas OTHER THAN SHM FEAKANOD, 1871--¥15 7.7 ‘ \ : : 7 ; Pe ti ro FIGURE 6: UPPER BOUND ENVELOPE CURVES OF PERMANENT DISPLACEMENTS FOR ALL NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC RECORDS ANALYZED BY FRANKLIN AND CHANG‘St ANY Y JO SNOLWNIBAOS SNORIWA YO INANZOVISIG €€°9 AlWid 34 FINO ¥ ‘INSIOIGd909 NOWLVaETEOOV GNNOYD AVE Lo 3'0 s‘0 ho €'0 20 oO = t ! ! $ or t [| ro TO [a | se —=* / / v/s 29s/u) ur kysojeq yosg st_A aseym dX Of = A Bulwnsso / ‘udyonb3 suy3 puo spsoyoiy) uo pesog / (uawesoidsig jusuow.eg 40} uoLond3 paiy)jcuis / BAST _30N3OISNOD_LN30¥3d-06} (HONI) P ‘LNGNGOVIdSIG LNANVAYad 16yaLVM OINVNAG MOS OINVNAG 0s BALLOV OUVLSONGAH OLLVLSOUNGAH NOLLONS OINVNAG LATERAL PRESSURES ACTING ON CAISSON FIGURE 8:PILE CAP. ARUIFENT eno soraoe bop eee PHO BORO a 7 a courncevee z CANTTEETER“L* ABUIFENT row sone a RDU Foi SES C7 Piel FIGURE 9: TYPICAL ABUTMENT TYPES (AFTER WDSOT BDM)SINSWLNEY JO SOUSINSLOVEVHO INIWFOVIdSIG-dVO1 ‘Ol aaINSH quemgnqy adfy-eag (seusut) voyqoaqzaq c z L quemyngy oTYa TOUCH (sayout) woyzoaq30q " ssanaatus | y 9 YVENIT “NaTvAINOA| & B 8 8. Dat x a ALIOVED TOs eee fan “ | : weyag Prep s 000‘Z (sdyx)° 99708 19MODEL THE BRIDGE W6TH IWvITIAL ABUTMENT DESIGN & STIFFNESS COEFFICIENTS ves REOUCE ABUTMENT STIFFNESS TO ACCOUNT FOR INCREASED LEVEL OF| YIELOING FIGURE 11: CONDUCT ANALYSIS DETERMINE FORCES & DISPLACEMENTS: FauTMenT FORCE ‘CAPACITY EXCEEDED No No ‘ROUTMENT DISPLACEMENTS GREATER THAN, ALLOWABLE. Yes ‘ABUTMENT DESIGN INADEQUATE REDESIGN EVALUATE OVERALL DESIGN ITERATIVE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING ABUTMENT-SOIL_ INTERACTION (AASHT( SPECIFICATIONS) ; oe 200 3.0 2.0 1.0 SHAPE FACTOR, 1 ay ‘ 5 100 to! 102 LOG (L/B) FIGURE 12: SHAPE FACTOR FOR ABUTMENT STIFFNESS graezrees FIGURE 13: ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS FROM ANALYSIS (AFTER CAQUOT AND KERISEL, 1948)