9 Seismic Design of

9.

RETAINING STRUCTURES

Part A:
GRAVITY WALLS

G. BOUCKOVALAS
Professor of NTUA

October 2016

CONTENTS

9.1 DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES for DRY SOIL

9.2 HYDRO-DYNAMIC PRESSURES
9 3 DYNAMIC PRESSURES for SATURATED SOILS
9.3.

9.4 PSEUDO STATIC DESIGN

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.1

9.1 DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES for DRY SOIL
The method of ΜΟΝΟΝΟΒΕ - ΟΚΑΒΕ

kvW
cos θ

cos θ

Active Thrust:

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.2

 why not …….

ΔΚΑΕ = 1.50
1 50 kh1.50
1 50

G.B. 2014 !

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.3

Homework 9.1
For the retaining wall shown in the
figure,
(a) Compute B so that the factors B
of
f safety
s f t against
inst slidin
sliding (FSολ.) and
nd
against overturning (FSαν.) under φ=36deg
static loading are equal to (or γγ=17 kN/m3
hi h than)
higher th ) 1.50.
1 50 6m
δbase =24deg
(b) In the sequel, compute FSολ. και δside=0
FSαν for seismic loading
g with
kh=0.15 and kv=0.
(c) Plot the (FSολ÷ Β) and (FSαν÷ Β)
variation for static
static, as well as
as, for
seismic loading. Comment and
explain the effectiveness of B
increase in the two loading cases.
cases

B
H
Homework
k 9.2
9 2
Repeat Homework 9.1 for the φ=36deg
retaining wall shown in the figure. γγ=17 kN/m3
6m
δbase =24deg
δside= 24deg

2B

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.4

9.2 HYDRO-DYNAMIC PRESSURES
WESTERGAARD (1933)

Hydro-STATIC
y pressures
p

p ws (x)   w  x
H
1
Pws   p ws (x)dx   w H 2
0
2
application
pp
point: Η/3 from base

Hydro DYNAMIC pressures

Hydro-DYNAMIC
7
 p wd (x)  khwH x / H
8
7
 Pwd  k h  w H2   1.17 k h Pws 
12
application
point: 0.40Η from base

ATTENTION !
The excess pore pressures are positive in front of the wall and negative
behind it. Thus the total hydro-dynamic pressure acting on a submerged wall
is twice that given by the Westergard solution!

REMARKS:
Westergaard theory applies under the following assumptions:

free water (no backfill)

vertical wall face
very large (theoretically infinite) extent of water basin
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.5
 Effect of tank width

7
 p wd (x)  Cn k h  w H x / H
8
7
 Pwd  Cn k h  w H 2
12
  1.17 Cn k h Pws 

ό
ό
4 L/H
Cn   1.0
3 1L/ H

(Cn  1.00  L / H  2.70)

application
point:
p 0.40Η from the base

Effect of wall inclination

Zangar (1953) & Chwang (1978)

x x x x 
 p wd ((x, )  Cm ()k h  w   (2  )  (2  ) 
H H H H 

or, 
ή, approximately
ά

7 x
 p wd (x,
(  )  C m ( )  k h  w  
8 H

Westergaard

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.6

 Effect of wall inclination

7 x
 p wdd (x,
(x )  Cm k h  w 
8 H


and
7
 Pwd  Cm k h  w  2
12
( 1.17 Cm k h Pws )


όwhere
(rad )
Cm  0.012 ( )  2.0


application
point: 0.40Η από την βάση

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.7

9.3 DYNAMIC PRESSURES for SATURATED FILL
7
 p wd (x, e,..)  Ce k h  w H x / H
8
7
 Pwd (e,..)  Ce k h  w H 2
12
  1.17 Ce k h Pws 

WATER + BACKFILL

Physical analog (Matsuzawa et al. 1985)

in other words….
Correction factor Ce “free” water
th portion
expresses the ti off
pore water which vibrates
“trapped” water, which
FREELY, vibrates together with
i.e. independently from the the soil skeleton
soil skeleton.
soil skeleton

Hence, dynamic earth pressures are exerted by

the soil skeleton AND the “trapped
trapped water”
water
and consequently (you may prove it easily) the
Mononobe-Okabe relationships apply for :

γ* = γDRYCe+γSAT(1
(1--Ce)
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.8
EXAMPLE:
n=40%,
40% γw=10
10 kN/m
kN/ 3   H2 
Ce  0.5  0.5 tanh log  6  10  6 
Ew=2x106 kPa, T=0.30 sec k
   

Fill
Material Ce > 0.80 
pwd ≈ Westergaard
Wester aard
well graded
gravel
gravel
Ce = 0.20÷0.90 
coarse
sand pwd ≈ Ce·Westergaard
fine sand

silt

Clayey sand Ce < 0 20 

0.20
& gravel pwd ≈ 0

EXAMPLE:
n=40%,
40% γw=10
10 kN/m
kN/ 3   H2 
Ce  0.5  0.5 tanh log  6  10  6 
Ew=2 106 kPa, T=0.30 sec k
   

“Permeable” fill:
Cobbles, gravel,
Coarse sand (Η<20m)

“Semi-permeable» fill:
coarse sand (Η > 20m),
fine sand (H < 20m)

Impermeable fill:
“Impermeable”
silt, clay, clayey or silty sand
and gravel

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.9

SUMMARY of Hydrodynamic Pressures

Hydrodynamic pressures on the y y

Hydrodynamic pressures
p on the
sea-side of the wall fill-side of the wall
7 7
p wd (x)  Cm Cn k h  w  x / H p wd (x)  C m C n Ce k h  w H x / H
8 8
7 7
Pwd  Cm Cn k h  w H 2 Pwd  C m C n Ce k h  w H 2
12 12
  1.17 Cm Cn k h Pws    1.17 Cm Cn Ce k h Pws 
Cm = effect of inclined wall
Cn = effect of water basin length Ce = effect of filll

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.10

9.4 PSEUDO – STATIC DESIGN
General Case . . .

active earth pressure ( γSAT - γW)H2

hydrodynamic pressures

=dynamic earth pressures

with γ* = Ce γDRY + (1-Ce)γSAT

ATTENTION !
Pa computation requires (γκορ-γw) while ΔΡΑΕ computation requires γ*. Thus,
when it is necessary to compute both Pa and ΔΡΑΕΕ with a common unit weight
(e.g. ΕΑΚ 2002) you must use:
the buoyant unit weght (γSAT -γw)
a modified seismic coefficient

*
kh*  kh
 SAT   w

active earth pressure ( γSAT - γW)H2

hydrodynamic pressures

=dynamic earth pressures

with γ* = Ce γDRY + (1-Ce)γSAT

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.11

 active earth pressure ( γSA T - γW)H2

hydrodynamic pressures = 0 (Ce=0)

=dynamic
dynamic earth pressures

with γ* = γSAT (Ce=0)

Clayey sand
Clayey silt
Silty sand
Clayey or silty gravel

active earth pressure ( γSA T - γW)H2

hydrodynamic pressures = 0 (Ce=0)

=dynamic
dynamic earth pressures

kh* ≈ 2.2
2.2 kh

Clayey sand
Clayey silt
Silty sand
Clayey or silty gravel
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.12
 active earth pressure

= hydrodynamic pressure

= dynamic earth pressure

with γγ* = γDRY

sand
sand & gravel
cobbles
ballast

active earth pressure

= hydrodynamic pressure

= dynamic earth pressure

kh* ≈ 1.6 kh

sand
sand & gravel
cobbles
ballast
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.13
 EXAMPLE: What do I do when I am not sure about the permeability
of the fill material?

Vertical & smooth wall

Basin of infinite length Cm = Cn = 0

Fill:
γDRY=16 kN/m3
γSAT= 20 kN/m3

Ce = 0 ÷ 1.0

Total horizontal thrust:

ΣFd = ΔΡΑΕ+Ρ
Ρwd+C
CePwd

impermeable permeable Total overturning

g moment:
fill fill
ΣΜd=0.60H ΔΡΑΕ+0.40Η (1+Ce) Ρwd

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.14

Homework 9.3
For the quay wall shown in the
figure,
(a) Compute B so that the factors B
of
f safety
s f t against
inst slidin
sliding (FSολ.) and
nd
against overturning (FSαν.) under φ=36deg
static loading are equal to (or γγ=17 kN/m3
hi h than)
higher th ) 1.50.
1 50 6m
δbase =24deg
(b) In the sequel, compute FSολ. και δside=0
FSαν for seismic loading
g with
kh=0.15 and kv=0.

N t
Notes:
Solve for two backfill options:
medium-coarse sand (k=10-3m/s) or
silty sand (k=10-5m/s).
For simplicity, assume that the
sea level coincides with the ground
surface.
Compare with Hwk 9.1

B
H
Homework
k 9.4
9 4
Repeat Homework 9.3 for the quay φ=36deg
wall shown in the figure. γγ=17 kN/m3
6m
δbase =24deg
δside= 24deg

2B

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.15

 9 Seismic Design of
9.

RETAINING STRUCTURES

P t B:
Part
WALLS
WITH LIMITED DISPLACEMENET

G BOUCKOVALAS
G. & G.
G KOURETZIS

October 2016

CONTENTS

9.5 PERFECTLY RIGID WALLS (Wood, 1973)

9.6 WALLS WITH LIMITED DISPLACEMENT
(Veletsos & Yunan, 1996)
9.7 SEISMIC CODES

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.16

 Problem outline …..

The Mononobe-Okabe method requires that the retaining wall

can move freely (slide or rotate) so that active earth pressures
develop behind the wall.
Nevertheless, there are cases where the free movement of the
Nevertheless
wall is totally or partially restrained (e.g. basement walls, braced
walls, massive walls embeded in rock like formations) .

Solutions for
perfectly rigid
“perfectly rigid” or
“semi-rigid” walls

9.5 PERFECTLY RIGID WALLS (Wood 1973)

Elastic soil between two rigid walls

Εwall>>Esoil

1. Pseudo static conditions (Τδιεγερ>>4Η/Vs) – quite usual case (why?)

2. plane strain
Assumptions 3. Elastic soil
4. Smooth & rigid walls

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.17

Analytical Solutions for ……..

dynamic earth pressures

h
 1
g

Analytical Solutions for ……..

Overturning moment and base shear

Fp
=F

=Fm

h
1 h
g 1
g

h
2
Feq  FP  h
g M eq  Fm  3
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 g 9.18
Analytical Solutions for ……..

 eq
Application point of the resultant seismic thrust h 
Feq
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
h/H
H

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
L/H

h  L 
 0.55  για  4
H  H 

Analytical Solutions for ……..

Smooth vs. bonded (rough) wall side

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.19

Analytical Solutions for ……..

Extension to harmonic base excitation – Base shear

Static Resonance High frequency excitation

excit Tsoil
 
soil Texcit

Analytical Solutions for ……..

Extension to harmonic base excitation – Overturning Moment

excit Tsoil
 

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS,soil
Texcit University of Athens, 2016
National Technical 9.20
Comparison with Mononobe - Okabe

ξηρή άμμος
Dry sand This is the main reason why the elastic
φ, γ
ν=0.3
solutions of Wood (1973) were put aside
H f more th
for than 30 years… (in
(i connection
ti
with the fact that very limited wall failures
were observed during strong earthquakes)

1 1
Wood Wood
pseudostatic
d i pseudostatic
0.8 0.8

ΔFeq/[γΗ2(ah/g)]
ΔFeq/[γΗ2(ah//g)]

0.6 06
0.6
x3!!
3!!
απλοποίηση απλοποίηση
Seed & Whitman (kv=0) Seed & Whitman (kv=0)
0.4 0.4
Δ
Δ

0.2 0.2
Mononobe-Okabe
Mononobe-Okabe (φ=36ο)
(ah=0.15g)
0 0
28 32 36 40 44 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
φ (deg) ah (g)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.21

9.6 WALLS WITH LIMITED DISPLACEMENT
((displacement
p & rotation,, Veletsos & Yunan,, 1996))

GH 3 Relative translational rigidity of  3 

dw   Dw  E w t w 
Dw the wall-fill system 
 
12 1   2w  

GH 2 Relative rotational rigidity of the
d 
R wall-fill system bonded wall-soil
mass-less
l wallll
Assumptions 5% soil damping
2% wall damping

Analytical solutions for …….

Pseudo-static earth pressures

h Wood 1973

H
(normal. height)

M-O
?

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.22

Analytical solutions for …….

Pseudo-static shear forces & bending moments

h

H

Analytical solutions for …….

Pseudo static
base shear & overturning moment

Wood Wood

S d & Whit
Seed Whitman

Μ-O

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.23

 HWK 9.5:
( ) B
(a) Based
s d on th
the di
diagramss of
f th
the previous
i s slid
slide, d
draw th
the di
diagramss h/H – dW,
where h is the distance from the base of the resultant dynamic pressure.
(b) Compare
p with the solutions of Wood, M-O kai Seed & Whitman

Analytical solutions for …….

Pseudo static displacements…

For a flexible (compared to the fill) concrete wall (dw=20) and a seismic
excitation with amax=0.3g,
g the resulting g displacement
p is U/H=0.13%...

[ U=0.1%
GEORGE
U= 0.1%÷BOUCKOVALAS,
0.4%·H National
÷0.4%· Technical“failure”
for active →Μ-Ο]
University of Athens, 2016 9.24
Analytical solutions for …….

the effect of harmonic excitation frequency on base shear

(AF coefficient
coefficient))

ή Resonance
"στατική" συντονισμός
λύση
υψίσυχνες
ί δ έ
διεγέρσεις
High frequency
2 Vsoil
Static 1  
excitation soil 2H

Analytical solutions for …….

resonance… (Max AF)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.25

Numerical solution - El Centro (1940) earthquake

Variation of amplification factor AF for base shear versus the fundamental soil period
period))

(does this remind something to you?)

Numerical solution - El Centro (1940) earthquake

Average values of the amplification factor AF for base shear and relative displacement

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.26

Limitations . . . .

1. Tensile cracks, at the top of the wall, are not taken into account
(→shear forces and bending moments are under
under-estimated)
estimated)
2. Uniform soil is assumed
(→shear forces and bending moments are over-estimated)

dw=0 dw=0

Note: (1) and (2) above have a counteracting effect for walls with rotational
flexibility dΘ>2

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.27

9.7 SEISMIC CODES

EAK 2002 – Rigid walls

1 5αhγH
1.5α

Wood KoγH 0.5αhγH

Earth press. Dynamic

at rest earth press.

h
 eq   3
g
 Wood
3
M eq  0.58  h
g

ΥΠΕΧΩΔΕ-εγκ.39/99 «Guidelines for the design of bridges»

Walls with limited displacement Rigid walls

0.1%>U/H>0.05% 0.05% > U/H
1.5.α.γ.Η
σE=1.5

ΔPE=α.γ.H
2

ΔPE=0.75.α.γ.H
2

H H

0.58.H
H/2

σE=0.7.α.γ.Η σE=0.5.α.γ.Η

h h
M eq  0.375  3 M eq  0.58  3
g g

reminder:
H
M-O
M O 0 375.α.γ.H2
ΔPE 0.375 h
(U/H>0.1%) 0.60H
M eq  0.225  3
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016
g 9.28
 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS ……….…

1
Wood

0.8 Veletsos & Younan

EAK 2002-εγκ.39/99
ΔFeeq/[γΗ2(ah//g)]

0.6

0.4
M-O

0.2

0
U/H

DIFFERENCES CAN BECOME SIGNIFICANT !

HWK 9.6:
Compute
C t the
th total
t t lbbase
s sh
shear force
f andd overturning
t i momentt which
hi h d
develops
l s att
the base of a 5m high retaining wall during seismic excitation with αmax=0.15g.
The wall is vertical and smooth, while the fill consists of sandy gravel with c=0,
φ=36
36ο, γΞ=17kN/m
17kN/ 3 and d VS=100m/s.
100 / Th The computations
t ti will
ill b
be performed:
f d
(α) for rigid wall,
(β) for a wall with limited deformation (dw=10,
=10 dθ=1),
=1) using the V&Y methodology,
methodology
(γ) for a wall with limited deformation (dw=10, dθ=1), using the seismic code
provisions,
Note: assume pseudo static conditions and neglect the wall mass.

HWK 9.7
9 7
Repeat HWK 9.6 for the extreme case of resonance between soil and excitation.

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.29

 9 Seismic Design of
9.

RETAINING STRUCTURES

Part C:
DISPLACEMENT COMPUTATION
(& PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN)

G. BOUCKOVALAS
Professor of NTUA

October 2016

Problem Outline ….
During a pseudo
pseudo-static
static analysis
analysis, it is very common to obtain FS>1.0.
FS>1 0

khW

PA

However, this does not necessarily mean “failure” of the wall, but
permanent outward displacements (and rotations) rotations). In such cases cases, the
performance of the wall is evaluated using the famous “Newmark
Sliding Block” analysis (follows)National Technical University of Athens, 2016
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, 9.30
NEWMARK (1965): Rankine Lecture on Seismic Slope Displacements

SLIDING BLOCK subjected to pulse acceleration

a/g

W a(t)
ao/g base

μ block

tο tο+Δt t

W  F  W
F
T<μW bl k 
ablock g
W / g

A. RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT OF BLOCK for t < tο

ao a 
(a/g)W
F W  W   o    W
W a(t) g  g 

T=μW

Relative SB acceleration:
a/g F
aSB   ao   g
W / g
ao/g base
Relative SB velocity at t < tο:
block
μ o
VSB  aSB t o  (ao   g )t o

tο Δt
tο+Δt t

Relative SB displacement at t < tο:

1 1
o
SSB  aSBt o 2  (ao   g )t o 2
2 2
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.31
 B. RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT OF BLOCK for t > tο

o
VSB Steadily de‐celerating motion with initial velocity:

W
o
VSB  aSB t o  (ao   g )t o
and de‐celeration:
T=μW F
a'SB   g
W / g
a/g
This motion will last until the SB relative velocity
ao/g base becomes zero, i.e. ……
o
VSB (a   g )t o a
μ block t  '  o  ( o  1 )t o
aSB g g

tο tο+Δt t

During Δt we will have additional relative displacement:

1 ' 1 (ao   g )2 2
SSB  V t  a SB t  ..... 
o 2
to
SB
2 2 g

C. At the end of RELATIVE block‐base sliding, i.e. at t > tο+ Δt

The TOTAL relative displacement will be:

1
W o
SSB  (ao   g )t o 2 +
2
1 (ao   g )2 2
SSB SSB  to = ……
a/g 2 g
1 a
ao/g base SSB  (ao   g ) o t o 2
2 g
μ block

tο tο+Δt t

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.32

 C. At the end of RELATIVE block‐base sliding, i.e. at t > tο+ Δt

The TOTAL relative displacement will be:

1
W o
SSB  (ao   g )t o 2 +
2
1 (ao   g )2 2
SSB SSB  to = ……
a/g 2 g
1 a
ao/g base SSB  (ao   g ) o t o 2
2 g
μ block

tο tο+Δt t
Assuming further that:

ao = amax (peak seismic acceleration) 2 1

μg = aCR (critical seismic acceleration 1 Vmax a a 
SSB  ( 1  CR )  CR 
required
i d tto triger
ti sliding,
lidi i.e.
i FSslide=1.0)
1 0) 2 amax amax  amax 
Vmax (peak seismic velocity), and
to = Vmax/amax

C. At the end of RELATIVE block‐base sliding, i.e. at t > tο+ Δt

The TOTAL relative displacement will be:

1
W o
SSB  (ao   g )t o 2 +
2
1 (ao   g )2 2
SSB SSB  to = ……
a/g 2 g
1 a
ao/g base SSB  (ao   g ) o t o 2
2 g
μ block

tο tο+Δt t
Assuming further that:
2
1 Vmax
 
ao = amax (peak seismic acceleration) 1
μg = aCR (critical seismic acceleration SSB  ( 1  aCR
*
) a*CR
2 amax
required
i d tto triger
ti sliding,
lidi i.e.
i FSslide=1.0)
1 0)
Vmax (peak seismic velocity), and
with *
aCR  aCR / amax
to = Vmax/amax
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.33
 D. For N similar pulses of base motion ……………….

The TOTAL relative displacement will be:

amax
 
1
W   SSB * N with N  a*CR
aCR
SSB
a/g 2
1 Vmax
 
2
 ( 1  aCR
*
) a*CR NEWMARK I
base 2 amax
ao/g

μ block

tο tο+Δt t 2
1 Vmax *
 
2
or,, for veryy small a*CR ((<0.30)) ……  a NEWMARK II
2 amax CR

with *
aCR  aCR / amax

RICHARDS & ELMS (1979):

Gravityy walls under real seismic excitation

δ: friction angle between wall side and fill

φο: friction angle
g between wall base and ground
g

oλ
Even though F.S. < 1.0 (sliding failure)
th
there iis no collapse
ll of
f th
the wall
ll (!!),
(!!)
but development of limited displacements, which may be tolerable ……..
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.34
 αcr=Ng :
critical seismic acceleration
leading to F.S.oλ=1.00
n)
CEMENT (in

range of
numerical Richards-Elms (1979)
analyses Richards & Elms (1997)
E DISPLAC

2
Vmax
 
4
  0.087 a*CR
amax
RELATIVE

a*CR=aCR/amax

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.35

Computation of Relative Sliding ….

NEWMARK (1965)
æVmax
2 ö (1 - a*CR )
δ = 0.50 ⋅ ççç ÷÷ ⋅
. è a ÷ø maxa* 2 CR

.
æVmax
2 ö 1
. δ » 0.50 ç
0 50 ⋅ çç ÷÷ ⋅
è a ÷ø a
* 2
max CR

RICHARDS & ELMS (1979)

æVmax
2 ö 1
ç
δ » 0.087 ⋅ çç ÷÷ ⋅
è a ø÷ a
* 4
max CR

NTUA (1990)
æVmax
2 ö
δ » 0.080 ⋅ t 1.15 ç
⋅ç ÷÷ ⋅ é1 - a* ( 1-a*CR ) ù ⋅ 1
çè a ÷ø êë
max
CR úû a*
CR

Comparison with numerical predictions for actual

earthquakes by Franklin & Chang (1977) . . . .

Newmark
m - I ((1965))
Newmark – II (1965)
Richards & Elms (1979)
( )
CEMENT (in)

NTUA (1990)

άνω όριο
ENT DISPLAC

για διάφορα Μ
Relative Sliding
V a 2m
2a

ïìï ü
0
.
0
8
7

ï
*C
m
x
PERMANE

-
( ) ï
R

ïï ⋅ ⋅ ï
ï
δd

m
i
n

m
a
x

ïï ï
ï
=
V a

í ý
2

ïï ï
0
.
5
0

a
*C
a a
x

- ï
ïï ( ) ïï
R

⋅ ⋅
ïï ï
m
x

î ï
þ

aCR/amax ………… or NTUA (1990)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.36
for EXAMPLE . . . . . .

PEAK SEISMIC ACCELERATION 0 50g

amax = 0.50g

PEAK SEISMIC VELOCITY Vmax = 1.00 m/s (Te ≈ 0.80 sec)

“CRITICAL” or “YIELD” ACCELERATION aCR = 0.33g (=2/3 amax)

Relative Sliding

V a 2m
2a

4
ìï üï

0
.
0
8
7

a
*C
m
x
!
-
ïï
( ) ïï

R
ïï ⋅ ⋅ ïï
δd

m
i
n

m
a
x
= ï ï 9 cm

V a
í ý

2
ïï ïï
0
.
5
0

a
*C
a a
x
-
ïï ( ) ïï

R
⋅ ⋅
ïï ïï

m
x
î þ

for EXAMPLE . . . . . .

PEAK SEISMIC ACCELERATION 0 50g

amax = 0.50g

PEAK SEISMIC VELOCITY Vmax = 0.50 m/s (Te ≈ 0.40 sec)

“CRITICAL” or “YIELD” ACCELERATION aCR = 0.33g (=2/3 amax)

Relative Sliding
V a 2m
2a

ïìï ïüï
0
.
0
8
7

a
*C
m
x

!
-
( )
R

ïï ⋅ ⋅ ïï
δd

m
i
n

m
a
x

ïï ïï
= 2 cm
V a

í ý
2

ïï ïï
0
.
5
0

a
*C
a a
x

-
ïï ( ) ïï
R

⋅ ⋅
ïï ïï
m
x

î þ

THUS
THUS,if we can tolerate some small outwards displacements,
the pseudo static analysis is NOT performed for the peak seismic
acceleration amax, but for the critical acceleration aCR ((& FSslide=1.0))

In other words. . . . Displacement Based Design (PBD)

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.37
 DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN

New design philosophy:

Instead of designing the wall for kh=amax/g, I choose a lower kh* (< kh)
which is a function of the allowable wall displacement δ. In that case,
th required
the i df factor
t of f safety
f t iis F.S.=1.00
F S 1 00

alternatively:
y

kh 1
k *h  with: q w  1/ 4
qw  2
Vmax 
 0.087 
 max  

DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN

In more detail ….
V a 2m
2a

ìï üï
0
.
0
8
7

a
*C
m
x

-
ïï
( ) ïï
R

ïï ⋅ ⋅ ïï
δ

m
i
n

m
a
x

= ï ï
V a

í ý
2

ïï ïï
0
.
5
0

a
*C
a a
x

-
( )
R

ïï ⋅ ⋅ ïï
ïï ïï
m
x

î þ

kh
k *h  with:
qw
1
/
4
V a

1δ
2a

ïìï é ù- ïüï
0
.
0
8
7
m
x

ïï ê ⋅ ⋅ ú ïï
ïï ê ú ïï
m
a
x
qw

m
a
x

ï êë úû ï
=
1
/
2

í ý
V a

1δ
2a

ïï é ù- ïï
0
.
5
0
m
x

ï
ï ê ú ïï
ï ê ⋅ ⋅ ú ïï
m
a
x

ï
ï
î ëê ûú ïþ

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.38

 In accordance with this design philosophy, ΕΑΚ requests that:

  n
kh 
qw
max

g

γn=importance coefficient

2.00 δ(mm)=300a
1 50
1.50 δ(mm)=200a
qw= 1.25 δ(mm)=100a (τοίχοι από Ο.Σ.)

1 00
1.00 anchored
h d flexible
fl ibl walls
ll

0.75 basement walls, etc

HWK 9.5:
F r the gravity
For r vit ret
retaining
inin wall
ll of
f HWKs 9.1
9 1 and/or
nd/ r 9
9.2:
2:
(α) Compute the critical horizontal acceleration aCR, required to trigger sliding
( ) Compute
(b) p FSslide and the corresponding
p g outward displacement
p of the wall for
amax = 1.50 to 4.0 aCR and predominant excitation period Texc=0.40s.

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athens, 2016 9.39