This document downloaded from

vulcanhammer.net
since 1997, your source for engineering information for the deep foundation and marine construction industries, and the historical site for Vulcan Iron Works Inc. Use subject to the fine print to the right.

All of the information, data and computer software ("information") presented on this web site is for general information only. While every effort will be made to insure its accuracy, this information should not be used or relied on for any specific application without independent, competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by a licensed professional. Anyone making use of this information does so at his or her own risk and assumes any and all liability resulting from such use. The entire risk as to quality or usability of the information contained within is with the reader. In no event will this web page or webmaster be held liable, nor does this web page or its webmaster provide insurance against liability, for any damages including lost profits, lost savings or any other incidental or consequential damages arising from the use or inability to use the information contained within. This site is not an official site of Prentice-Hall, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Vulcan Foundation Equipment or Vulcan Iron Works Inc. (Tennessee Corporation). All references to sources of equipment, parts, service or repairs do not constitute an endorsement.

Dont forget to visit our companion site http://www.vulcanhammer.org

Form Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

pubhc reporttng burden for gathering and mamtam!ng collection of information, Davis Htghway, Suite 1204,

OMB

No.

0704-0188

this collection of Information IS estimated to average 1 hour per r=wnse. Includlng the time for revlew[n9 In$tructlons. searching e~l$tlng data sources, ardlng this burden est!mate or any other aspect of thts the data needed, and completing and review!ng the collection of Information Send comments r ? or information C@ratlons and Repofts, 1215 Jefferson Including wggfit!ons for reducing this burden. to Washington Headc Wafters Servtces. Dlre~orate Arlington, VA 22202 <302, and to the Off Ice of Management and Budget, paperwork Reductton Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave bhnk) 4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE

I 2. REPORT DATE

I 3. REPORT TYPE ANO DATES COVERED

November 1992

Final report
5. FUNDING NUMBERS

The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining Structures

6. AUTHOR(S)

Robert M. Ebeling and Ernest E. Morrison, Jr.

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) ANO AOORESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

See reverse. Technical Report ITL-92-11 NCEL TR-939

9. SPONSORING /Monitoring AGENCY NAME(S) ANO AOORESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

See reverse.

Il. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13.

ABSTRACT (Maximum 200words)

This technical report deals with the soil mechanics aspects of the design of waterfront retaining structures built to withstand the effects of earthquake loadings. It addresses the stability and movement of gravity retaining walls and anchored sheet pile walls, and the dynamic forces against the walls of drydocks and U-frame locks. The effects of wall displacements, submergence, liquefaction potential, and excess pore water pressures, as well as inertial and hydrodynamic forces, are incorporated in the design procedures. Several new computational procedures are described in this report. The procedures used to calculate the dynamic earth pressures acting on retaining structures consider the magnitude of wall displacements. For example, dynamic active earth pressures are computed for walls that retain yielding backfills, i.e., backfills that unclergo sufficient displacements during seismic (Continued)
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBEROF PAGES

Dynamic earth pressures Earthquake engineering Earth retaining structures

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT

Hydraulic structures Soil dynamics

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT

330
16. PRICE CODE 20. LIMITATION OFABSTRAC1

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED
ISN 7540-01-280-5500

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
Standard Form 298(Rev 2-89)
Pre,crlbed 298-102 by ANSI Std Z39-18

7.

(Concluded).

USAE Waterways Experiment Station Information Technology Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS

39180-6199

9.

(Concluded).

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Port Hueneme, CA 93043

13.

(Concluded).

events to mobilize fully the shear resistance of the soil. For smaller wall movements , the shear resistance of the soil is not fully mobilized and the dynamic earth pressures acting on those walls are greater because the soil comprising the backfill does not yield, i.e., a nonyielding backfill. Procedures for incorporating the effects of submergence within the earth pressure computations, including consideration of excess pore water pressures, are described.

CEWES-ID-P

15

January

1997

Errata

Sheet

No. 1

The

Seismic Design Of Waterfront Retaining Structures

by Dr. Robert M. Mr. Ernest E. Ebeling

Morrison,

Jr.

WES

Technical

Report ITL-92-11 1992

November

Page

209 Figure

7.2:

Replace

with

the

following

figure,

1.0
.9

.8
.7 .6 .5 4 .3 .2

11% L .-

COARSE GRAINED SOILS .

I ,

PEiJETi?ATldh I N JERY c o w PAc-t COARSE G,RAINE 2 SOILS 1 I I 5 6

7 8 10 12 14 16

I 1

1820

5 4 3 6 0 7 0 8 0

ICKI

150

200

(H+D)4 ,N V A L U E OF~= ~

[1

I N2 PER RUNNING FOOT OFWALL LB

PREFACE This report describes procedures used in the seismic design of Funding for the preparation of this report waterfront retaining structures. was provided by the US Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory through the following instruments: NAVCOMPT Form N6830591WROO011, dated 24 October 1990; Amendment #l to that form, dated 30 November 1990; NAVCOMPT Form N6830592WROO013, dated 10 October 1991; Amendment #l to the latter, dated 3 February 1992; and the Computer-Aided Structural Engineering Program sponsored by the Directorate, Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE), under the Structural Engineering Research Program. Supplemental support was also provided by the US Army Civil Works Guidance Update Program toward cooperative production of General geotechnical seismic design guidance for the Corps of Engineers. project management was provided by Dr. Mary Ellen Hynes and Dr. Joseph P. Koester, both of the Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Branch (EESB), Earthquake Engineering and Geosciences Division (EEGD), Geotechnical Laboratory (GL) , under the general supervision of Dr. William F. Marcuson III, Director, GL. Mr. John Ferritto of the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, was the Project Monitor. The work was performed at the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) by Dr. Robert M. Ebeling and Mr. Ernest E. Morrison, Interdisciplinary Research Group, Computer-Aided Engineering Division (CAED), This report was prepared by Information Technology Laboratory (ITL). Dr. Ebeling and Mr. Morrison with contributions provided by Professor Robert V. Whitman of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Professor W. D. Liam Review commentary was also provided Finn of University of British Columbia. by Dr. Paul F. Hadala, Assistant Director, GL, Professor William P. Dawkins of Oklahoma State University, Dr. John Christian of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, and Professor Raymond B. Seed of University of California, Berkeley. The work was accomplished under the general direction of Dr. Reed L. Mosher, Acting Chief, CAED and the general supervision of Dr. N. Radhakrishnan, Director, ITL. At the time of publication of this report, Director of WES was Commander was COL Leonard G. Hassell, EN. Dr. Robert W. Whalin.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY This section summarizes the computational procedures described in this report to compute dynamic earth pressures. The procedures for computing dynamic earth pressures are grouped according to the expected displacement of the backfill and wall during seismic events. A yielding backfill displaces sufficiently (refer to the values given in Table 1, Chapter 2) to mobilize fully the shear resistance of the soil, with either dynamic active earth pressures or dynamic passive earth pressures acting on the wall, depending upon the direction of wall movement. When the displacement of the backfill (and wall) is less than one-fourth to one-half of the Table 1 values, the term nonyielding backfill is used because the shear strength of the soil is not fully mobilized. The procedures for computing dynamic active and passive earth pressures for a wall retaining a dry yielding backfill or a submerged yielding backfill are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 and summarized in Table i and Table ii, respectively. The procedures for computing dynamic earth pressures for a wall retaining a non-yielding backfill are discussed in Chapter 5 and summarized in Table i. The assignment of the seismic coefficient in the design procedures for walls retaining yielding backfills are discussed in detail in Chapter 6 and summarized in Table iii. The assignment of the seismic coefficient in the design procedures for walls retaining non-yielding backfills are discussed in detail in Chapter 8 and summarized in Table iii.

ii

TABLE i DETEIU31NATION OF DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES FOR DRY BACKFILLS

YIELDING BACKFILL

DYNAMIC ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES MONONOBE - OKABE Equivalent Static Formulation (Arango) Simplified Procedure (Seed and Whitman) restricted to: vertical wall and level backfills. approximate if: ~ # 35, ~ + O.

DYNAMIC PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURES MONONOBE - OKABE approximate for 6 > 0. inaccurate for some wall geometries and loading conditions. Equivalent Static Formulation approximate if: KP(/l*,O*) is computed using Coulombs equation, see above comments. approximate if: KP(~*,O*) is computed using Log-Spiral solutions. Simplified Procedure (Towhata and Islam) restricted to: vertical walls and level backfills and6=0. - approximate if: # # 35, ~ # O.

iii

TABLE i - Continued DETERMINATION OF DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES FOR DRY BACKFILLS

NON-YIELDING BACKFILL

UTEIWL SEISMIC FORCE Woods Simplified Procedure - restricted to: k~ constant with depth and ~ = O. Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Using the Finite Element Method

TABLE ii DETERMINATION OF DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES FOR SUBMERGED OR PARTIALLY SUBMERGED BACKFILLS

Select the appropriate technique for either yielding backfill or nonyielding backfill with additional computations as specified by one of the following procedures: Restrained water case Free water case - restricted to soils of high permeability (e.g. k > 1 cm/see)

iv

TABLE iii DESIGN PROCEDURES - ASSIGNMENT OF SEISMIC COEFFICIENT

YIELDING BACKFILL

Preselected Seismic Coefficient Method The approximate value of horizontal displacement is related to the value of the horizontal seismic coefficient. Displacement Controlled Approach The seismic coefficient is computed based upon an explicit choice of an allowable level of permanent horizontal wall displacement.

NON-YIELDING BACKFILL

II

Displacement Of The Wall Is Not Allowed The seismic coefficient is set equal to the peak horizontal acceleration coefficient, assuming acceleration within the backfill -to be constant with depth. Otherwise, consider dynamic finite element method of analysis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . PROCEDURAL SUMMARY TABLE i . TABLE ii TABLE iii CONVERSION CHAPTER 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i ii iii

iv v

NON-SI TO S1 (METRIC)

OF MEASUREMENT

. . .

xvi

GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR WATERFRONT Scope and Applicability . . . . . . . . . Limit States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3

Key Role of Liquefaction Hazard Assessment . Choice of Design Ground Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

3
5

1.4.1 Design Seismic Event . . . . . . 1.4.2 Seismic Coefficients . . . . . . 1.4.3 Vertical Ground Accelerations .

6 7
9 11

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR RETAINING WALLS

2.1 Approaches to Design for Various Classes of Structure

11

2.2 Interdependence between Wall Deformations and Forces Acting on the Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 11

2.2.1 Wall Deformations and Static Earth Pressure Forces . 2.2.2 Wall Deformations and Dynamic Earth Pressure Forces 2.3 Comments on Analyses for Various Cases . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Analysis of Failure Surfaces Passing below Wall . .
2.3.2 Analysis of Post-Seismic Condition . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 STATIC EARTH PRESSURES - YIELDING BACKFILLS . . . . . 3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 RankineTheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

16 18 19 19 21 21 23

vi

PAGE 3.2.1 Rankine Theory - Active Earth Pressures - Cohesionless Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

3.2.2 Rankine Theory - Active Earth Pressures - Cohesive Soils General Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 26 28 28

3.2.3 Rankine Theory - Passive Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Coulomb Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Coulomb Theory - Active Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Coulomb Active Pressures - Hydrostatic Water Table Within
Backfill and Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Coulomb Active Pressures - Steady State Seepage Within Backfill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

33 35

3,3.4 Coulomb Theory - Passive Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4.1 Accuracy Of Coulombs Theory for Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Earth Pressures Computed Using the Trial Wedge Procedure . .

36 36

3.5 Active And Passive Earth Pressure Coefficients from Log

Spiral Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 45 55 55 55 63 64 66

3.6 Surface Loadings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 4 DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES - YIELDING BACKFILLS . . . . . . . .

4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Dynamic Active Earth Pressure Force . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.1 Vertical Position of Pm along Back of Wall . . . . . . .

4.2.2 Simplified Procedure for Dynamic Active Earth Pressures .

4.2.3 Limiting Value for Horizontal Acceleration . . . . . . . . 4.3 Effect of Submergence of the Backfill on the Mononobe-Okabe
MethodofAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66 68 69 72 72

4.3.1 Submerged Backfill with No Excess Pore Pressures . . . . .

4.3.2 Submerged Backfill with Excess Pore Pressure . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Partial Submergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.4 Dynamic Passive Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

PAGE

4.4.1 Simplified Procedure for Dynamic Passive Earth

Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.5 Effect of Vertical Accelerations on the Values for the Dynamic Active and Passive Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . 4.6 Cases with Surface Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 EARTH PRESSURES ON WALLS RETAINING NONYIELDING BACKFILLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . 5.2 Woods Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78 79

133 133 133

CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN EXAMPLES FOR GRAVITY WALLS RETAINING YIELDING BACKFILLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

139 139 140

6.2 Procedure Based upon Preselected Seismic Coefficient . . . .

6.2.1 Stability of Rigid Walls Retaining Dry Backfills which Undergo Movements during Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Stability of Rigid Walls Retaining Submerged Backfills which Undergo Movements During Earthquakes - No Excess Pore Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Stability of Rigid Walls Retaining Submerged Backfills which Undergo Movements During Earthquakes - Excess Pore Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Stability of Rigid Walls Retaining Submerged Backfills which Undergo Movements During Earthquakes - Liquified Backfill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Displacement Controlled Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Displacement Controlled Design Procedure for a Wall Retaining Dry Backfill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Earthquake Induced Displacements for a Wall Retaining Dry Backfill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Displacement Controlled Design Procedure for a Wall Retaining Submerged Backfill - No Excess Pore Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Earthquake Induced Displacements for a Wall Retaining Submerged Backfill - No Excess Pore Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . .

142

148

151

155 158

160

6.3.2

163

6.3.3

164

6.3.4

165

viii

PAGE

6.3.5 Displacement Controlled Design Procedure for a Wall

Retaining Submerged Backfill - Excess Pore Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.6 Analysis of Earthquake Induced Displacements for a Wall Retaining Submerged Backfill - Excess Pore Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF ANCHORED SHEET PILE WALLS . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Summary of the Japanese Code for Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Displacements of Anchored Sheet Piles during Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls - Static Loadings . . . 166

167 203 203 204

205

206 207

7.4 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls for Earthquake

Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls - No Excess Pore Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls - Excess Pore Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Use of Finite Element Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF WALLS RETAINING NONYIELDING BACKFILLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 8.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 An Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A: COMPUTATION OF THE DYNAMIC ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE FORCES FOR PARTIALLY SUBMERGED BACKFILLS USING THE WEDGE METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

217

227 231

233 233 234 247

Al Al A2

A.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 Active Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

G

A.2.1 Calculation of Water Pressure Forces for a Hydrostatic Water Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A2

ix

PAGE A.2.2 Static Water Pressure Forces Acting on the Wedge . . . . . A.2.3 Excess Pore Water Pressures due to Earthquake Shaking with ConstantrU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2.4 Excess Pore Water Pressure Forces Acting on the wedge . . A.2.5 Equilibrium of Vertical Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2.6 Equilibrium of Forces in the Horizontal Direction . . . . A.2.7 Surcharge Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2.8 Static Active Wedge Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3 Passive Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3.1 Calculation of Water Pressure Forces for a Hydrostatic Water Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equilibrium of Vertical Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equilibrium of Forces in the Horizontal Direction . . . . Surcharge Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Static Passive Wedge Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE WESTERGMRD PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING HYDRODYNAMIC WATER PRESSURES ALONG VERTICAL WALLS DURING EARTHQUAKES , . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3

A3 A4 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

A9 A1O A1O A12 Al 3

A.3.2 A.3.3 A.3.4 A.3.5 APPENDIX B:

B1 B2 c1 c1 c1 C2 C2 C5 C6 C7

B.1 The Westergaard Added Mass Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C: DESIGN EXAMPLE FOR AN ANCHORED SHEET PILE WALL . . . . . .

C.1 Design of An Anchored Sheet Pile Wall For Static Loading . . C.1.l Active Earth Pressure Coefficients KA . . . . . . . . . . C.1.2 Factored Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient KP . . . . .

C.1.3 Depth of Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1.4 TieRodForceT~~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1.5 Maximum Moment M~~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1.6Design MomentM~~~i~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE C.1.7 Selection of the Sheet Pile Section . . . . . . . . . . . C.1.8 DesignTieRod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C8 C8 C9 Cll

C.1.9 Design Anchorage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.1.1O Site Anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2 Design of An Anchored Sheet Pile Wall for Seismic Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C12 C12 C12 C12 C12 C18 C19 C21 C23 C24 C24 C27

C.2.1 Static Design (Step 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.2 Horizontal Seismic Coefficient, k~ (Step2) . . . . . . . C.2.3 Vertical Seismic Coefficient, ~(Step3) . . . . . . . . C.2.4 Depth of Penetration (Steps 4 to 6) . . . . . . . . . . .
C.2.5Tie RodForceT~~~ (Step?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.6 Maximum Moment M~~~ (Step 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.7 Design Moment Md~~i~~ (Step 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2.8 Design Tie Rods (Step lO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.2.9 Design of Anchorage (Step 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.2.1O Size Anchor Wall (Step 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.2.11 Site Anchorage (Step 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX D:

COMPUTER-BASED NUMERICAL ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . D1

D.1 SomeKeyReferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D2 D.2 Principal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D2 D.2.1 Total Versus Effective Stress Analysis . . . . . . . . . . D3 D.2.2 Modeling Versus Nonlinear Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . D3 D.2.3 Time Versus Frequency Domain Analysis . . . . . . . . . . D.2.4 l-D Versus 2-D Versus 3-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.2.5 Nature of Input Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.2.6 Effect ofFreeWater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D3 D4 D4 D4

D.3 AFinalPerspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D 4 APPENDIX E: NOTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 xi

LIST OF TABLES

1 2 3 4

5
6 7

C.1
C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 C.9

C.lo C.11
C.12 C.13 C.14 C.15 D.1

Approximate Magnitudes of Movements Required to Reach Minimum Active and Maximum Passive Earth Pressure Conditions . . . . . 16 Ultimate Friction Factors for Dissimilar Materials . . . . . . . 31 Valves of KA and KP for Log-Spiral Failure Surface . . . . . . . 44 Section Numbers That Outline Each of the Two Design Procedures for Yielding Walls for the Four Categories of Retaining Walls Identified in Figure 6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Minimum Factors of Safety When Using the Preselected Seismic Coefficient Method of Analysis 143 Qualitative and Quantitative Descr~p~ion-of ~he Repo~ted Degrees of Damage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Ten Stages of the Analyses in the Design of Anchored Walls for Seismic Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Horizontal Force Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C3 Moments About Tie Rod Due to Active Earth Pressures . . . . . . . C4 Moments About Tie Rod Due to Passive Earth Pressures . . . . . . C4 Calculation of the Depth of Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . C5 Horizontal Force Components for D = 10 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . C5 Moment Internal to the Sheet Pile at y = 12.79 Feet Below C6 the Water Table and About the Elevation of the Tie Rod . . . . Design Moment for Sheet Pile Wall in Dense Sand . . . . . . . . . C7 Allowable Bending Moment for Four ASTM A328 Grade Sheet Pile Sections (o~llOW~~l~ = 0.65 uyi~l~) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C8 Five Horizontal Static Active Earth Pressure Force Components ofPmwithD= 20.24 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C14 Summary of Depth of Penetration Calculations . . . . . . . . . . C18 C19 TieRodForceT~~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moment of Forces Acting Above y .= 15.32 Feet Below the Water C21 Table and About theTieRod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C22 Design Moment for Sheet Pile Wall in Dense Sand . . . . . . . . . Allowable Bending Moment for Four ASTM A328 Grade Sheet pile Sections (~~~~Ow~~~e = ().9 ay~~ld) . . . . . . . . . . . . C22 C23 Required GeometryofTie Rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partial Listing of Computer-Based Codes for Dynamic Analysis ofSoil Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D1
G

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Overall limit states at waterfronts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potential soil and structural failure modes due to earthquake shaking of an anchored sheet pile wall . . . . . . . . . . . Rigid walls retaining backfills which undergo movements during earthquakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal pressure components and anchor force acting on sheetpilewall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of wall movement on static horizontal earth pressures .

. . . . .

4 12 13 14 15

xii

2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

3.5

3.6
3.7

3.8
3.9 3.10 3.11

3.12
3.13 3.14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

4.5 4.6
4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14

4.15

Effect of wall movement on static and dynamic horizontal earth pressures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of wall movement on static and dynamic horizontal earth pressures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Failure surface below wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three earth pressure theories for active and passive earth pressures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computation of Rankine active and passive earth pressures for level backfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rankine active and passive earth pressures for inclined backfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coulomb active and passive earth pressures for inclined backfills and inclined walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coulomb active earth pressures for a partially submerged backfill and a uniform surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coulomb active earth pressures for a backfill subjected to steadystate flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coulomb and log-spiral passive earth pressure coefficients with 6=4/2 - vertical wall and level backfill . . . . . . . . Coulomb and log-spiral passive earth pressure coefficients with 6=4 - vertical wall and level backfill . . . . . . . . . Example of trial wedge procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example of trial wedge procedure, hydrostatic water table . . . Active and passive earth pressure coefficients with wall friction-sloping wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Active and passive earth pressure coefficients with wall friction-sloping backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theory of elasticity equations for pressures on wall due to surcharge loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of an imaginary load to enforce a zero-displacement condition at the soil-structure interface . . . . . . . . . Driving and resisting seismic wedges, no saturation . . . . . . Variation inKmandKw G cos6withk~ . . . . . . . . . . . . Variation in Kmccos 6 with k~, 4, and ~ . . . . . . . . . . . Variation inaw with $ for 6 equal to 4/2, vertical wall and level backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variation in am with + for 6 equal to zero degrees, vertical wall andlevelbackfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variation in dynamic active horizontal earth pressure coefficient with peak horizontal acceleration . . . . . . . . Equivalent static formulation of the Mononobe-Okobe active dynamic earth pressure problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Values of factor Fm for determination of KM . . . . . . . . . PointofactionofPu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Static active earth pressure force and incremental dynamic active earth pressure force for dry backfill . . . . . . . . Limiting values for horizontal acceleration equal to k; . g . . Modified effective friction angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effective unit weight for partially submerged backfills . . . . Variation aP~ with + for 6 equal to 4/2, vertical wall and level backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variation in aPE with @ for 6 equal to zero degrees, vertical wall andlevelbackfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 18 19
22

24 26 29 32 34 37
37 38 40

42 43 46
47 56 58 58

60 60
61 62 63 65

66 67 71 73 75 75

4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20

5.1 5.2

5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1
7.2

7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9

7.10

7.11 7.12 8.1 8.2

Equivalent static formulation of the Mononobe-Okabe passive dynamic earth pressure problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Values offactorFP~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mononobe-Okabe active wedge relationships including surcharge loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Static active earth pressure force including surcharge . . . . . Static active earth pressure force and incremental dynamic active earth pressure force including surcharge . . . . . . . . Model of elastic backfill behind a rigid wall . . . . . . . . . . Pressure distributions on smooth rigid wall for l-g static horizontal body force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resultant force and resultant moment on smooth rigid wall for l-g static horizontal body force . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rigid walls retaining backfills which undergo movements during earthquakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rigid walls retaining dry backfill which undergo movements during earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linear and uniform base pressure distributions . . . . . . . . . Rigid wall retaining submerged backfill which undergo movements during no excess pore water pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rigid wall retaining submerged backfill which undergo movements during earthquakes, including excess pore water pressures . . . Rigid wall retaining submerged backfill which undergo movements during earthquakes-liquified backfill . . . . . . . . Gravity retaining wall and failure wedge treated as a sliding block. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incremental displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forces acting on a gravity wall for a limiting acceleration equal toN*g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decrease in failure surface slope of the active and passive sliding wedges with increasing lateral accelerations . . . . . Reduction in bending moments in anchored bulkhead from wall flexibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free earth support analysis distribution of earth pressures, moments and displacements, and design moment distributions . . Two distributions for unbalanced water pressures . . . . . . . . Measured distributions of bending moment in three model tests on anchored bulkhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anchored sheet pile walls retaining backfills which undergo movements during earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anchored sheet pile wall with no excess pore water pressure due to earthquake shaking . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . Static and inertial horizontal force components of the MononobeOkabe earth pressure forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distributions of horizontal stresses corresponding to APm . . . Horizontal pressure components and anchor force acting on sheetpilewall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic forces acting on an anchor block . . . . . . . . . . . . Anchored sheet pile wall with excess pore water pressures generated during earthquake shaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simplified procedure for dynamic analysis of a wall retaining nonyielding backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linear and uniform base pressure distributions . . . . . . . . . xiv

76 77 80 81 83 134 135 136 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 159 162 207 209 210 211 213 215 217 219 222 222 224 226 232 234

No A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 B.1 C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 D,l Dynamic active wedge analysis with excess pore water pressures Equilibrium of horizontal hydrostatic water pressure forces acting onbackfillwedge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic active wedge analysis including a surcharge loading . . Dynamic active wedge analysis including a surcharge loading . . Dynamic passive wedge analysis with excess pore water pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic passive wedge analysis including a surcharge load . . . Dynamic passive wedge analysis including a surcharge load . . . Hydrostatic and westergaard hydrodynamic water pressures acting along vertical wall during earthquakes . . . . . . . . Anchored sheet pile wall design problem . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal earth pressure components in free earth support design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal active and passive earth pressure components acting on a continuous slender anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design criteria for deadman anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of horizontal stresses corresponding to APm . . . Seismic design problem for a continuous anchor blast . . . . . Simplified procedure for siting a continuous anchor wall . . . Earth retaining structure, soil-structure interaction . . . . . . . . . . .

J2u3Q
Al A3 A7 A8 A9 A12 Al 3 B2 cl C3 Clo Cll C20 C24 C28 D5

.
. . . . . . . . .

xv

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO S1 (METRIC) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT Multiply acceleration of gravity (standard) By 980.665 To Obtain centimeters/second/second feet/second/second inches/second/second meters centimeters/second/second centimeters/second/second centimeters newtons kilonewtons

32.174 386.086
feet feet/second/second gal inches pounds tons

0.3048 30.4838

1.0
2.54 4.4822 8.896

xvi

CHAPTER I GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDEWTIONS FOR WATERFRONT SITES 1.1 Scope and Applicability This manual deals with the soil mechanics aspects of the seismic design of waterfront earth retaining structures. Specifically, this report addresses : * The stability and movement of gravity retaining walls and anchored bulkheads. * Dynamic forces against subsurface structures such as walls of dry docks and U-frame locks. The report does not address the seismic design of structural frameworks of It also does not consider buildings or structures such as docks and cranes. the behavior or design of piles or pile groups. The design of waterfront retaining structures against earthquakes is still an evolving art. The soils behind and beneath such structures often are cohesionless and saturated with a relatively high water table, and hence there is a strong possibility of pore pressute buildup and associated liquefaction There have been numerous instances of phenomena during strong ground shaking. failure or unsatisfactory performance. However, there has been a lack of There also detailed measurements and observations concerning such failures. are very few detailed measurements at waterfront structures that have performed well during major earthquakes. A small number of model testing programs have filled in some of the blanks in the understanding of dynamic response of such structures. Theoretical studies have been made, but with very limited opportunities to check the results of these calculations against actual, observed behavior. As a result, there are still major gaps in knowledge concerning proper methods for analysis and design. The methods set forth in this report are hence based largely upon judgement. It is the responsibility of the reader to judge the validity of these methods, and no responsibility is assumed for the design of any structure based on the methods described herein. The methods make use primarily of simplified procedures for evaluating forces and deformations. There is discussion of the use of finite element models , and use of the simpler finite element methods is recommended in some circumstances . The most sophisticated analyses using finite element codes and complex stress-strain relations are useful mainly for understanding patterns of behavior, but quantitative results from such analyses should be used with considerable caution. The This report is divided into eight chapters and five appendixes. subsequent sections in Chapter 1 describe the limit states associated with the seismic stability of waterfront structures during earthquake loadings, the keY role of liquefaction hazard assessment, and the choice of the design ground motion(s) . Chapter 2 describes the general design considerations for retaining structures, identifying the interdependence between wall deformations and forces acting on the wall. Additional considerations such as failure surfaces 1

passing below the wall, failure of anchoring systems for sheet pile walls, and analysis of the post-seismic condition are also discussed. The procedures for calculating static earth pressures acting on walls retaining yielding backfills are described in Chapter 3. A wall retaining a yielding backfill is defined as a wall with movements greater than or equal to the values given in Table 1 (Chapter 2). These movements allow the full mobilization of the shearing resistance within the backfill. For a wall that moves away from the backfill, active earth pressures act along the soil-wall interface . In the case of a wall that moves towards the backfill, displacing the soil, passive earth pressures act along the interface. Chapter 4 describes the procedures for calculating seismic earth pressures acting on walls retaining yielding backfills. The Mononobe-Okabe theory for calculating the dynamic active earth pressure force and dynamic passive earth pressure force is described. Two limiting cases used to incorporate the effect of submergence of the backfill in the Mononobe-Okabe method of analysis are discussed: (1) the restrained water case and (2) the free water case. These procedures include an approach for incorporating excess pore water pressures generated during earthquake shaking within each of the analyses. The procedures for calculating dynamic earth pressures acting on walls retaining nonyielding backfills are described in Chapter 5. A wall retaining a nonyielding backfill is one that does not develop the limiting dynamic active or passive earth pressures because sufficient wall movements do not occur and the shear strength of the backfill is not fully mobilized - wall movements that are less than one-fourth to one-half of Table 1 (Chapter 2) wall movement values. The simplified analytical procedure due to Wood (1973) and a complete soil-structure interaction analysis using the finite element method are discussed. The analysis and design of gravity walls retaining yielding backfill are described in Chapter 6. Both the pres-elected seismic coefficient method of analysis and the Richards and Elms (1979) procedure based on displacement control are discussed. Chapter 7 discusses the analysis and design of anchored sheet pile walls . The analysis and design of gravity walls retaining nonyielding backfill using the Wood (1973) simplified procedure is described in Chapter 8. Appendix A describes the computation of the dynamic active and passive earth pressure forces for partially submerged backfills using the wedge method. Appendix B describes the Westergaard procedure for computing hydrodynamic water pressures along vertical walls during earthquakes. Appendix C contains a design example of an anchored sheet pile wall. Appendix D is a brief guide to the several types of finite element methods that might be used when considered appropriate. Appendix E summarizes the notation used in this report.

1.2 Limit States

A broad look at the problem of seismic safety of waterfront structures involves the three general limit states shown in Figure 1.1 which should be considered in design. 1) Gross site instability: This limit state involves lateral earth movements exceeding several feet. Such instability would be the result of liquefaction of a site, together with failure of an edge retaining structure to hold the liquefied soil mass in place. Liquefaction of backfill is a problem associated with the site, mostly independent of the type of retaining structure . Failure of the retaining structure might result from overturning, Any of these sliding, or a failure surface passing beneath the structure. modes might be triggered by liquefaction of soil beneath or behind the retaining structure. There might also be a structural failure, such as failure of an anchorage which is a common problem if there is liquefaction of the backfill.

2) Unacceptable movement of retaining structure: Even if a retaining structure along the waterfront edge of a site remains essentially in place, too much permanent movement of the structure may be the cause of damage to Facilities of potential concern facilities immediately adjacent to the quay. include cranes and crane rails, piping systems, warehouses, or other buildings. An earthquake-induced permanent movement of an inch will seldom be of concern. There have been several cases where movements as large as 4 inches have not seriously interrupted operations or caused material damage, The level of tolerable displaceand hence have not been considered failures. ment is usually specific to the planned installation.
Permanent outward movement of retaining structures may be caused by tilting and/or sliding of massive walls or excessive deformations of anchored bulkheads. Partial liquefaction of backfill will make such movements more likely, but this limit state is of concern even if there are no problems with liquefaction.

3) Local instabilities and settlements: If a site experiences liquefaction and yet is contained against major lateral flow, buildings and other structures founded at the site may still experience unacceptable damage. Possible modes of failure include bearing capacity failure, excessive settlements , and tearing apart via local lateral spreading. Just the occurrence of sand boils in buildings can seriously interrupt operations and lead to costly clean-up operations.
The third This document addresses the first two of these limit states. limit state is discussed in the National Research Council (1985), Seed (1987), and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987).

1.3 Key Role of Liquefaction Hazard Assessment

The foregoing discussion of general limit states has emphasized problems due to soil liquefaction. Backfills behind waterfront retaining structures often are cohesionless soils, and by their location have relatively high water Cohesionless soils may also exist beneath the base or on the watertables . side of such structures. Waterfront sites are often developed by hydraulic filling using cohesionless soils, resulting in low density fills that are

noaunn
Oclclouu
v
=
G

.. ... . . . 4 . v

(a.) WATERFRONT STRUCTURES

(b.] GROSS SITE INSTABILITY

00000
v =

(c.) UNACCEPTABLE LATERAL MOVEMENT

v =

,.. G ,.
b.. . .

(d.) LOCAL INSTABILITY: SETTLEMENT

Figure 1.1 Overall limit states at waterfronts

susceptible to liquefaction. Thus, liquefaction may be a problem for buildings or other structures located well away from the actual waterfront. Hence, evaluation of potential liquefaction should be the first step in analysis of any existing or new site, and the first step in establishing criteria for control of newly-placed fill. Methods for such evaluation are set forth in numerous articles, including the National Research Council (1985) and Seed, Tokimatsu, Harder and Chung (1985). The word liquefaction has been applied to different but related phenomena (National Research Council 1985). To some, it implies a flow failure of an earthen mass in the form of slope failure or lateral spreading, bearing capacity failure, etc. Others use the word to connote a number of phenomena related to the buildup of pore pressures within soil, including the appearance of sand boils and excessive movements of buildings, structures, or slopes . Situations in which there is a loss of shearing resistance, resulting in flow slides or bearing capacity failures clearly are unacceptable. How ever , some shaking-induced increase in pore pressure may be acceptable, provided it does not lead to excessive movements or settlements. Application of the procedures set forth in this manual may require evaluation of: (a) residual strength for use in analyzing for flow or bearing capacity failure; or (b) buildup of excess pore pressure during shaking. As a general design principle, the predicted buildup of excess pore pressure should not exceed 30 to 40 percent of the initial vertical effective stress, except in cases where massive walls have been designed to resist larger pore pressures and where there are no nearby buildings or other structures that would be damaged by excessive settlements or bearing capacity failures. With very loose and contractile cohesionless soils, flow failures occur when the residual excess pore pressure ratio reaches about 40 percent (Vasquez and Dobry 1988, or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin 1990).~ Even with soils less susceptible to flow failures, the actual level of pore pressure buildup becomes uncertain and difficult to predict-with confidence when the excess pore pressure ratio reaches this level. Remedial measures for improving seismic stability to resist liquefaction, the buildup of excess pore water pressures, or unacceptable movements , are beyond the scope of this report. Remedial measures are discussed in numerous publications, including Chapter 5 of the National Research Council (1985).

1.4 Choice of Design Ground Motions

A key requirement for any analysis for purposes of seismic design is a quantitative specification of the design ground motion. In this connection, * The word contractile reflects the tendency of a soil specimen to decrease in volume during a drained shear test. During undrained shearing of a contractile soil specimen, the pore water pressure increases, in excess of the pre-sheared pore water pressure value. Dilative soil specimens exhibit the opposite behavior; an increase in volume during drained shear testing and negative excess pore water pressures during undrained shear testing. Loose sands and dense sands are commonly used as examples of soils exhibiting contractile and dilative behavior, respectively, during shear. 5

it is important to distinguish between the level of ground shaking that a structure or facility is to resist safely and a parameter, generally called a seismic coefficient that is used as input to a simplified, pseudo-static analysis .

1.4.1 Design Seismic Event

Most often a design seismic event is specified by a peak acceleration. However, more information concerning the ground motion often is necessary. Duration of shaking is an important parameter for analysis of liquefaction. Magnitude is used as an indirect measure of duration. For estimating permanent displacements, specification of either peak ground velocity or predominant period of the ground motion is essential. Both duration and predominant periods are influenced strongly by the magnitude of the causative earthquake , and hence magnitude sometimes is used as a parameter in analyses. Unless the design event is prescribed for the site in question, peak accelerations and peak velocities may be selected using one of the following approaches : (1) By using available maps for the contiguous 48 states. Such maps may be found in National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (1988). Such maps are available for several different levels of risk, expressed as probability of non-exceedance in a stated time interval or mean recurrence interval. A probability of non-exceedance of 90 percent in 50 years (mean recurrence interval of 475 years) is considered normal for ordinary buildings. (2) By using attenuation relations giving ground motion as a function of magnitude and distance (e.g. attenuation relationships for various tectonic environments and site conditions are summarized in Joyner and Boore (1988) . This approach requires a specific choice of a magnitude of the causative earthquake, requiring expertise in engineering seismology. Once this choice is made, the procedure is essentially deterministic. Generally it is necessary to consider various combinations of magnitude and distance. (3) By a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (e.g. National Research Council 1988). Seismic source zones must be identified and characterized, and attenuation relations must be chosen. Satisfactory accomplishment of such an analysis requires considerable expertise and experience, with input from both experienced engineers and seismologists. This approach requires selection of a level of risk. It is of greatest importance to recognize that, for a given site, the ground motion description suitable for design of a building may not be appropriate for analysis of liquefaction. Local soil conditions: The soil conditions at a site should be considered when selecting the design ground motion. Attenuation relations are available for several different types of ground conditions, and hence the analyses in items (2) and (3) might be made for any of these particular site conditions . However, attenuation relations applicable to the soft ground conditions often found at waterfront sites are the least reliable. The maps referred to under item (1) apply for a specific type of ground condition: soft rock. More recent maps will apply for deep, firm alluvium, after revision of the document referenced in item (l). Hence , it generally is nec-

essary to make a special analysis to establish the effects of local soil conditions. A site-specific site response study is made using one-dimensional analyses that model the vertical propagation of shear waves through a column of soil. Available models include the computer codes SHAKE (Schnabel, Lysmer, and Seed 1972), DESRA (Lee and Finn 1975, 1978) and CHARSOL (Streeter, Wylie, and Richart 1974). These programs differ in that SHAKE and CHARSOL are formulated using the total stress procedures, while DESRA is formulated using both total and effective stress procedures. All three computer codes incorporate the nonlinear stress-strair, response of the soil during shaking in their analytical formulation, which has been shown to be an essential requirement in the dynamic analysis of soil sites. For any site-specific response study, it first w-ill be necessary to define the ground motion at the base of the soil column. This will require an establishment of a peak acceleration for firm ground using one of the three methods enumerated above, and the selection of several representatives time histories of motion scaled to the selected peak acceleration. These time histories must be selected with considerable care, taking into account the magnitude of the causative earthquake and the distance from the epicenter. Procedures for choosing suitable time histories are set forth in Seed and Idriss (1982), Green (1992), and procedures are also under development by the US Army Corps of Engineers. If a site response analysis is made, the peak ground motions will in Depending upon the type of general vary vertically along the soil column. analysis being made, it may be desirable to average the motions over depth to provide a single input value. At each depth, the largest motion computed in any of the several analyses using different time histories should be used. If finite element analyses are made,. it will again be necessary to select several time histories to use as input at the base of the grid, or a time history corresponding to a target spectra (refer to page 54 of Seed and Idriss 1982 or Green 1992). 1.4.2 Seismic Coefficients

A seismic coefficient (typical symbols are k~ and ~) is a dimensionless number that, when multiplied times the weight of some body, gives a pseudostatic inertia force for use in analysis and design. The coefficients k~ and For ~ are, in effect, decimal fractions of the acceleration of gravity (g). some analyses, it is appropriate to use values of k~g or kg smaller than the peak accelerations anticipated during the design earthquake event. For analysis of liquefaction, it is conventional to use 0.65 times the peak acceleration. The reason is that liquefaction is controlled by the amplitude of a succession of cycles of motion, rather than just by the single largest peak. The most common, empirical methods of analysis described in the National Research Council (1985) and Seed, Tokimatsu, Harder, and Chung (1985) presume use of this reduction factor. In design of buildings, it is common practice to base design upon a seismic coefficient corresponding to a ground motion smaller than the design ground motion. It is recognized that a building designed on this basis may 7

likely yield and even experience some nonlife-threatening damage if the design ground motion actually occurs. The permitted reduction depends upon the ductility of the structural system; that is, the ability of the structure to undergo yielding and yet remain intact so as to continue to support safely the normal dead and live loads. This approach represents a compromise between desirable performance and cost of earthquake resistance. The same principle applies to earth structures, once it has been established that site instability caused by liquefaction is not a problem. If a retaining wall system yields, some permanent outward displacement will occur, which often is an acceptable alternative to significantly increased cost of construction. However, there is no generally accepted set of rules for selecting an appropriate seismic coefficient. The displacement controlled approach to design (Section 6.3) is in effect a systematic and rational method for evaluating a seismic coefficient based upon allowable permanent displacement. The AASHTO seismic design for highway bridges (1983) is an example of design guidance using the seismic coefficient method for earth retaining structures .* AASHTO recommends that a value of k h = 0.5A be used for most cases if the wall is designed to move up to 10A (in.) where A is peak ground acceleration coefficient for a site (acceleration = Ag) . However, USe O f kh = 0.5A is not necessarily conservative for areas of high seismicity (see Whitman and Liao 1985). Various relationships have been proposed for estimating permanent displacements, as a function of the ratio k h/A and parameters describing the ground motion. Richards and Elms (1979) and Whitman and Liao (1985) use peak ground acceleration and velocity, while Makdisi and Seed (1979) use peak ground acceleration and magnitude. Values for the ratio V/~~X may be used, both for computations and to relate the several methods. Typical values for the ratio V/~~X are provided in numerous publications discussing ground shaking, including the 1982 Seed and Idriss, and the 1983 Newmark and Hall EERI monographs , and Sadigh (1983). Seed and Idriss (1982), Newmark and Hall (1983), and Sadigh (1973) report that values for the ratio V/~~X varies with geologic conditions at the site. Additionally, Sadigh (1973) reports that the values for the ratio V/~~X varies with earthquake magnitude, the ratio increasing in value with increasing magnitude earthquake. Based upon simplified assumptions and using the Whitman and Liao relationship for earthquakes to magnitude 7, kh values were computed: A=O.2 Displacement < 1 in. Displacement < 4 in. kh=0.13 k~ = 0.10 A=O.4 k h = 0.30 k~ = 0.25

These numbers are based upon V/Ag = 50 in/see/g (Sadigh 1983), which applies to deep stiff soil sites (geologic condition); smaller kh would be appropriate for hard (e.g. rock) sites. The Whitman and Liao study did not directly address the special case of sites located within epicentral regions.

* The map in WSHTO (1983) is not accepted widely as being representative of the ground shaking hazard.

The value assigned to k~ is to be established by the seismic design team for the project considering the seismotectonic structures within the region, or as specified by the design agency. 1.4.3 Vertical Ground Accelerations The effect of vertical ground accelerations upon response of waterfront structures is quite complex. Peak vertical accelerations can equal or exceed However, the peak horizontal accelerations, especially in epicentral regions. predominant frequencies generally differ in the vertical and horizontal comWhere retaining ponents, and phasing relationships are very complicated. structures support dry backfills, studies have shown that vertical motions However, the Whitman have little overall influences (Whitman and Liao 1985). and Liao study did not directly address the special case of sites located For cases where water is present within soils or within epicentral regions. against walls, the possible influence of vertical motions have received little Study . It is very difficult to represent adequately the effect of vertical motions in pseudo-static analyses, such as those set forth in this manual. The value assigned to ~ is to be established by the seismic design team for the project considering the seismotectonic structures within the region, or as specified by the design agency. However, pending the results of further studies and in the absence of specific guidance for the choice of ~ for waterfront structures the following guidance has been expressed in literature: A vertical seismic coefficient be used in situations where the horizontal seismic coefficient is 0.1 or greater for gravity walls and 0.05 or greater for anchored sheet pile walls. This rough guidance excludes the special case of structures located within epicentral regions for the reasons discussed previously. It is recommended that three solutions should be made: one assuming the acceleration upward, one assuming it downward, and the other assuming zero vertical acceleration. If the vertical seismic coefficient is found to have a major effect and the use of the most conservative assumption has a major cost implication, more sophisticated dynamic analyses should probably be considered.

CHAPTER

GENERAL

DESIGN

CONSIDERATIONS for Various

FOR RETAINING

WALLS

2.1 Approaches

to Design

Classes

of Structure

The basic elements of seismic design of waterfront retaining structures are a set of design criteria, specification of the static and seismic forces direction and point of applicaacting on the structure in terms of magnitude, tion, and a procedure for estimating whether the structure satisfies the design criteria. The criteria are related to the type of structure and its function. or it may be sufficient to Limits of tolerable deformations may be specified, assure the gross stability of the structure by specifying factors of safety against rotational and sliding failure and overstressing the foundation. In addition, the structural capacity of the wall to resist internal moments and Structural capacity is a shears with adequate safety margins must be assured. controlling factor in design for tied-back or anchored walls of relatively thin section such as sheet pile walls. Crib walls, or gravity walls composed of blocks of rock are examples of structures requiring a check for safety against sliding and tipping at each level of interface between structural components . Development of design criteria begins with a clear concept of the failure modes of the retaining structure. Anchored sheet pile walls display the most varied modes of failure as shown in Figure 2.1, which illustrates both The more gross stability problems and potential structural failure modes. A failure restricted failure modes of a gravity wall are shown in Figure 2.2. surface passing below a wall can occur whenever there is weak soil in the foundation, and not just when there is a stratum of liquified soil. Retaining structures must be designed for the static soil and water pressures existing before the earthquake and for superimposed dynamic and inertia forces generated by seismic excitation, and for post seismic conditions, since strengths of soils may be altered as a result of an earthquake. Figure 2.3 shows the various force components using an anchored sheet pile wall example from Chapter 7. important With massive walls, it is especially to include the inertia force acting on the wall itself. There are superimposed inertia forces from water as well as from soil. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 consider the evaluation of static and dynamic earth and water pressures. 2.2 Interdependence between Wall Deformations and Forces Acting on the Wall

The interdependence between wall deformations and the static and dynamic earth pressure forces acting on the wall has been demonstrated in a number of tests on model retaining walls at various scales. An understanding of this interdependence is fundamental to the proper selection of earth pressures for analysis and design of walls. The results from these testing programs are summarized in the following two sections. 2.2.1 Wall Deformations and Static Earth Pressure Forces

The relationships between the movement of the sand backfills and the measured static earth pressure forces acting on the wall are shown in Figure 2.4. The figure is based on data from the model retaining wall tests conducted by Terzaghi (1934, 1936, and 1954) at MIT and the tests by Johnson 11

(3 (r

IA

[Ill
w w

\
b \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

c
1-1-

12

Movement

1///4

L
Sliding
Rotation
.

\ v

Overturning

Rotation

Zx?k

\\\

\
Hlock

Bearing

Capacity

e / / /
Movement

/m

\ \ \ \

Liquified ~-

Substrata -

SIip Within

Substrata

Figure

2.2 Rigid walls undergo movements

retaining backfills during earthquakes

which

13

5HEEr W&

PllE HYDRO07N4K WATER PRESSURE>

FES

+ . Y- --+ \
L-d \l I

t-

..ZEJ----_ ,,
----v r-y I }-y [ --.-~ I

L-J

[----I

/ r -----I

II
~ \ \ ---

DREOCE

I *

\ LEVEL _\\

\ \

+ \

p-~ I

\ \

OYNAMIC

iNCREMENTAL ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE

HYDROSTATIC WATER PRESSURE

STATIC ACTIVE E%TH PRESSURE

OYNAMC PHSIVE EARTH PRESSURE

HYDROSTATIC WATER PRESSURE

Figure

2.3

Horizontal

pressure components sheet pile wall

and anchor

force

acting

on

(1953) at Princeton University, conducted under the direction of Tschebotarioff. The backfill movements are presented as the movement at the top of the wall, Y, divided by the height of the wall, H, and the earth pressure forces are expressed in terms of an equivalent horizontal earth pressure coefficient, Kh. Kh is equal to the horizontal effective stress, ah , divided by the vertical effective stress, Uv . The test results in Figure 2.4 show that as the wall is rotated from vertical (Y = O) and away from the backfill, the horizontal earth pressure coefficient acting on the wall decreases from the value recorded prior to movement of the wall. The zero wall movement horizontal earth pressure coefficient is equal to the at-rest value, KO. When the backfill movements at the top of the wall, Y, attain a value equal to 0.004 times the height of the wall, H, the earth pressure force acting on the wall decreases to the limiting value of the . active earth pressure force, PA, and the earth pressure coefficient reduces to the active coefficient, KA. In a second series of tests, the wall was rotated from vertical in the opposite direction, displacing the backfill. The horizontal earth pressure coefficient acting on the wall increased from the KO value. When the backfill movements at the top of the wall, Y, attain a value equal to 0.04 times the height of the wall, H, the earth pressure force acting on the wall increases to the other limiting value of the passive earth pressure force, PP, with a corresponding passive earth pressure coefficient, Kp. The movements required to develop passive earth pressures are on the order of ten times the movements required to develop active earth pressures. With the soil in either the active or passive state, the magnitude of the backfill displacements are sufficient to fullY mobilize the shear strength 14

I PRINCETON TEST RESULTS

4++

Ml I

TEST RESULT KO
,

KP
10
n-

~F 4 I
I [

8 6 5

DENSE SANL

X4

LOOSE SAND

1 \

0.3 0.2

\ LOOSE SAND MEDIUM SAND

IL IL

u
u

0
0.1

1111111111111~1~
0.04 0.02 WALL ROTATION, Y/H 0 0.0020.004

LEGEND
Y - HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT H - HEIGHT OF THE WALL

0.06

After Figure 2.4 Effect of wall

NAVFAC

DM-7.2 horizontal earth pressures

movement

on static

of soil within a wedge of backfill located directly behind the heel of the wall. With the soil wedge in a state of plastic equilibrium, PA or Pp may be computed using either Rankines or Coulombs theory for earth pressures or the The values for KA logarithmic spiral procedures, as described in Chapter 3. placed at a range of densities and Kp measured in above tests using backfills agree with the values computed using the appropriate earth pressure theories. The test results show that the relationship between backfill displacements and earth pressures varies with the relative density of the backfill. Table 1 lists the minimum wall movements required to reach active and passive Clough and Duncan, earth pressure conditions for various types of backfills. easY-tO(1991) and Duncan, Clough, and Ebeling (1990) give the following required to reach the presremember guidelines for the amounts of movements sure extremes; for a cohesionless backfill the movement required to reach the minimum active condition is no more than about 1 inch in 20 feet (A/H = 0.004) 15

and the movement required to reach the minimum than about 1 inch in 2 feet (A/H = 0.04). Table Approximate Active 1

passive

condition

is no more

Magnitudes of Movements Required to Reach Minimum and Maximum Passive Earth Pressure Conditions From Clough and Duncan (1991)

Values I Type of Backfill Act ive 0.001 0.002 0.004

of Y/Ha I Passive 0.01 0.02 0.04 active or maximum

Dense sand Medium-dense Loose sand

sand

Y = movement of top of wall passive pressure, by tilting H - height of wall.

required to reach minimum or lateral translation.

2.2.2

Wall

Deformations

and Dynamic

Earth

Pressure

Forces

The interdependence between wall deformations and the forces acting on the wall has been extended to problems involving dynamic earth pressures in tests on model retaining walls conducted at the University of Washington and at research laboratories in Japan. The University of Washington studies involved a series of static and dynamic tests using an instrumented model retaining wall mounted on a shaking table, as described by Sherif, Ishibashi and Lee (1982), Sherif and Fang (1984a), Sherif and Fang (1984b), and Ishibashi and Fang (1987). The shaking table used in this testing program is capable of applying a harmonic motion of constant amplitude to the base of the wall and the backfill. either In each of the tests, the wall was constrained to translate without rotation, to rotate about either the base or the top of the wall, or some combination of translation and rotation. During the course of the dynamic earth pressure tests, the wall was moved away from the backfill in a prescribed manner while the base was vibrated. Movement of the wall continued until active dynamic earth pressures acted along the back of the wall. Static tests were also carried out for comparison. The active state during the dynamic tests occurred at almost the same wall displacement as in the static tests, at a value of wall rotation equal to 0.001 for the static and dynamic test results that are shown in Figure 2.5 on dense Ottawa sand. This was also the finding in a similar program of testing using a model wall retaining dense sand, as reported by Ichihara and Matsuzawa (1973) and shown in Figure 2.6. The magnitude of these wall movements are in general agreement with those measured in the MIT testing program shown in Figure 2.4 and those values reported in Table 1. There has been relatively little experimental investigation of the dynamic passive case, however, the available results indicate that considerable wall movements are required to reach the full passive condition.

16

0.7

0.6

0.5
g ~ 0.4 W K x 0.3

TEST

NO.1125

0.2

0.1
o 0
(a). 0.6 0.5 :0.4 z 2 0.3 z x 0.2 1 Y TEST NO.102~ OENSE OTTAWA SANO (Y-1.66 GR/CCl 0.0005 Static

0.0010 WALL ROTATION,Y/H

Horizontal Earth

0.0015
Pressure

\
~K ~-Ml u

0.1 0 0
(b). -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 \*r 0 o 0.2
1.4 0.6 0 0.0005 0.0010 WALL ROTATION,
(c).

0.0005 Dynamic

0.0010
WALL ROTATION,Y/H
Horizontal Earth

0.0015
Pressure

0.0015

Y/H

Base
Sherif

From

Acceleration And Fonq

(1983)

Figure

2.5

Effect of wall movement on static horizontal earth pressures

and

dynamic

17

WALL

ROTATION,

Y/H

1.0
~

0.9

i.
0.8

Ill

DURING

VIBRATION

0.7

0.6

0.5
1

0.4
lb-

c)

488 GALS

0.3

%7-t\ \

- ! 480 I
u 1 I I

0.2

\\\

ill
z~n
1 L

I
I

I 13i - 16C

R&VGE OF STATIC HORt Tn~ AI EARTH PRE >butftk 0.1

I ------ ----- ~ -_ 135

-84

0
0

0.1

0.2
MEAN

0.3
WALL

0.4
DISPLACEMENT,

0.5
Y (mm)

0.6

0.7

0.8

From

Ichihara

and Matsuzawa

(1973).

Figure

2.6 Effect of wall movement on static dynamic horizontal earth pressures

and

The Table 1 values are used as rough guidance throughout this report, pending the results from additional research into the relationships between . dynamic earth pressures and wall displacements. 2.3 Comments on Analyses for Various Cases

The greatest part of this report is devoted to the evaluation of static and dynamic earth and water pressures against walls, and the use of these pressures in the analysis of the equilibrium of such walls. Such analyses are presented and discussed in Chapters 6, 7, and 8. The examples and discussion generally presume uniform and cohesionless backfills, The soil strength the displacements. parameters Large used in the analysis must be consistent of smaller

with

displacements,

or an accumulation

18

RCES

Figure

2.7

Failure

surface

below

wall

displacements tend to support the use of residual strength parameters, as compared to peak values. Wall displacements must also be considered when assigning the foundation to structure interface strength parameters. There are two potentially important situations that are not A brief treatment of these illustrated in detail in this manual. appears in the following subsections. 2.3.1 Analysis of Failure Surfaces Passing below Wall discussed cases or

This situation may be a problem if soils of low strength exist below a wall , either because the before-earthquake strength of this material is small as a result of earthquake or because the strength of the soil decreases shaking. Such cases may be studied using principles from the analysis of slope Figure 2.7 shows again the diagram stability (e.g. Edris and Wright 1987). from Figure 2.1, and indicates the inertia forces that must be considered in addition to the static forces. Evaluation of suitable strengths may require careful consideration. Appropriate excess pore pressures should be applied where the failure surface passes through cohesionless soils; see Seed and With cohesive soils, the Harder (1990), Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). possibility of degradation of strength by cyclic straining should be considered. A safety factor ranging from 1.1 to 1.2 is considered satisfactory: provided that reasonable conservative strengths and seismic With a smaller safety factor, permanent coefficients have been assigned. displacements may be estimated using the Makdisi-Seed procedure (Makdisi and Seed 1979) or the Sarma-Ambraseys procedure (Hynes-Griffin and Franklin 1984). 2.3.2 Analysis of Post-Seismic Condition

There are four structure to be less

circumstances that may cause the safety of a retaining following an earthquake than prior to the earthquake.

Any on the landside of the wall. 1. Persistent excess pore pressures such buildup may be evaluated using procedures described in Seed and Harder The period of time during (1990) and Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). which such excess pressures will persist can be estimated using appropriate consolidation theory.

19

2. Residual earth pressures as a result of seismic straining. evidence that such residual pressures may reach those associated with at-rest condition (see Whitman 1990).

There the

is

3. Reduction in strength of backfill (or soils beneath or outside of toe of wall) as a result of earthquake shaking. In the extreme case, only the residual strength (see the National Research Council 1985; Seed 1987; Seed and Harder 1990; Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin 1990; Poulos, Castro, and France 1985; and Stark and Mesri 1992) may be available in some soils. Residual strengths may be treated as cohesive shear strengths for evaluation of corresponding earth pressures.

4. Lowering of water level on waterside of wall water phase of a tsunami. Estimates of possible water tsunamis require expert input.

during the falling level decrease during

The possibility that each of these situations may occur must be considered, and where appropriate the adjusted earth and fluid pressures must be introduced into an analysis of static equilibrium of the wall. Safety factors somewhat less than those for the usual static case are normally considered appropriate.

20

CHAPTER 3.1

STATIC

EARTH

PRESSURES

- YIELDING

BACKFILLS

Introduction

Methods for evaluating static earth pressures are essential for design. They also form the basis for simplified methods for determining dynamic earth pressures associated with earthquakes. This chapter describes analytical procedures for computing earth pressures for earth retaining structures with static loadings. Three methods are described: the classical earth pressure theories of Rankine and Coulomb and the results of logarithmic spiral failure surface analyses. The three failure mechanisms are illustrated in Figure 3.1.

(Rankine 1857) The Rankine theory of active and passive earth pressures determines the state of stress within a semi-infinite (soil) mass that, because of expansion or compression of the (soil) mass, is transformed from an elastic state to a state of plastic equilibrium. The orientation of the linear slip lines within the (soil mass) are also determined in the analysis. The shear stress at failure within the soil is defined by a Mohr-Coulomb shear strength relationship. The resulting failure surfaces within the soil mass and the corresponding Rankine active and passive earth pressures are shown in Figure 3.1 for a cohesionless soil. The wedge theory, as developed by Coulomb (1776), looks at the equilibrium of forces acting upon a soil wedge without regard to the state of stress within the soil mass. This wedge theory assumes a linear slip plane within the backfill and the full mobilization of the shear strength of the soil along this plane. Interface friction between the wall and the backfill may be considered in the analysis. Numerous authors have developed relationships for active and passive earth pressure coefficients based upon an assumption of a logarithmic failure surface, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. One of the most commonly used sets of coefficients was tabulated by Caquot and Kerisel (1948). Representative KA and Kp values from that effort are illustrated in Table 3 and discussed in Section 3.5. NAVFAC developed nomography from the Caquot and Kerisel efforts, and are also included in this chapter (Figures 3.11 and 3.12). Rankines theory, Coulombs wedge theory, and the logarithmic spiral procedure result in similar values for active and passive thrust when the For interface friction between the wall and the backfill is equal to zero. interface friction angles greater than zero, the wedge method and the logarithmic spiral procedure result in nearly the same values for active thrust. The logarithmic spiral procedure results in accurate values for passive thrust The for all values of interface friction between the wall and the backfill. accuracy of the passive thrust values computed using the wedge method diminishes with increasing values of interface friction because the boundary of the failure block becomes increasingly curved. This procedure is illustrated in example 1 at the end of this chapter.

21

-6
L .

(R&
0

-1

L--&.ul-a

--/

t-l-l > (A u-l < m

k-

l--h+

22

3.2

Rankine

Theory

The Rankine theory of active and passive earth pressures is the simplest of the earth pressure theories. It is assumed that the vertical stress at any depth is equal to the depth times the unit weight of the overlying soil plus Horizontal stresses are then any surcharge on the surface of the ground. The found assuming that shear resistance is fully mobilized within the soil. forces and stresses corresponding to these two limiting states are shown in The effects of surFigure 3.2 for a vertical retaining wall of height H. charge and groundwater pressures may be incorporated into the theory. The backfill in Figure 3.2 is categorized as one of three types, accordfrictional (c = O, # > ing to the strength parameters assigned for the soil: O), cohesive (c = Su, @ = O) or a combination of the two (c > 0, ~ > O). Both effective and total stress methods are used in stability analyses of earth retaining structures. In an effective stress analysis the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength relationship defines the ultimate shearing resistance, Tf, of the backfill as
rf

. c + u: tan#

(1)

where c is the effective cohesion, an ris the effective normal stress on the The effecfailure plane, and ~ is the effective angle of internal friction. tive stress, u , is equal to the difference between the total stress, a, and the pore water pressure, u. cl =au (2)

The effective stress is the portion of total stress that is carried by the The internal pore water pressures, as governed by seepage soil skeleton. For conditions, are considered explicitly in the effective stress analysis. the total stress methods of analysis, the strength of the soil is equal to the undrained strength of the soil, SU.
rf =

Su

(3)

The internal pore water pressures are not considered explicitly in the total stress analysis, but the effects of the pore water are reflected in the value of Su. 3.2.1 Rankine Theory - Active Earth Pressures - Cohesionless Soils

Active earth pressures result backfill are sufficient to mobilize soil mass behind the wall.

when the wall movements away from the fully the shearing resistance within the

If the soil is frictional and dry, the horizontal effective stress at any depth is obtained from the vertical effective stress, yZ, using the active coefficient KA:

(4)

23

s] FRICTK)NAL

RESISTANCE,

(b)

COHEslVE

solL,

No

NO COHESION

FRICTIONAL

RESISTANCE

(c)COMEINED

COHESION

ND

FRICTION

ACTIVE 1)
I 1 * I

PRESSURES
(c) T- \ /

&fWEMENT

hORIZONT&

(b) r- \

Y,c, ~A ,( o~ < / 1 PA 4 * PA VA FAILURE SURFACE

f#J

I % I

KA -

T#(45-

4/2)

GA - KAYZ pA - KAY H2/2

Zo - 2c/Y CA - YZ-2C pA - YH2/2-2cH*y

2C2

($) TAN (45* 1#/2) Zo CA = YZ TA.N2(45-@/2)-2C

I

TAN(45-cP /2)

pA - (~)

TA#(45-@/2)-2CH TAN(45- @/2) + 2c2/ Y

PASSIVE d)
A h I 1 L ; * / P + P d i MWEh/ENT ) R

PRESSURES (f) 2C TM(4*

+/2) 0 4 4 P

0 4 0 0

Kp = TAN2(45* 4/2) P
Pp

up
Pp

YZ42C
Y27H22CH

- KPYZ
KpYH2/2

PP -

- Yz ]~2(45*@/2)*2C TAN2(45+@/2)*2CH (~)

TAN(45+~/2)
TAN(45* @/2)

After Figure 3.2 Computation

NAVFAC

DM- 7.2 earth pressures for

of Rankine level

active and passive backfills

24

If there are zero shear stresses on vertical and horizontal Rankine active earth pressure coefficient, KA, is equal to

planes,

the

KA z tan2(45 - 4/2).

(5)

The variation in the active earth pressure is linear with Z, as shown in Figure 3.2 (a). A planar slip surface extends upwards from the heel of the For fricwall through the backfill, inclined at an angle aA from horizontal. tional backfills, a* is equal to (6)

~A

=45+~/2.

PA is the resultant

force

of the u. distribution

and

is equal

to

PAGK A ~~H 1 2

(7)

acting normal to the back of the wall at one- third In these expressions, -y is the dry unit weight.

H above

the heel

of wall.

If the soil is saturated with water table at the surface, the foregoing equations still apply but -y is replaced by ~b, the buoyant unit weight. Equations 4 and 7 give the effective stresses and the active thrust from the mineral skeleton, and water pressures must be added. for a dry frictional backThe Rankine active earth pressure coefficient fill inclined at an angle ~ from horizontal is determined by computing the resultant forces acting on vertical planes within an infinite slope verging on KA is equal as described by Terzaghi (1943) and Taylor (1948) . instability, to

KA z Cosp

(8)

Equation 4 still with the limitation that ~ is less than or equal to ~. applies but is inclined at the backfill slope angle /3, as shown in Figure 3.3. Thus , The distribution of a. is linear with depth along the back of the wall. pA is there are shear stresses on vertical (and hence horizontal) planes. computed using Equation 7. It is inclined at an angle ~ from the normal to the back of the wall, and acts at one-third H above the heel of the wall. 3.2.2 Rankine General Case Theory - Active Earth Pressures - Cohesive Soils -

sure,

For the cases shown in Figure 3.2 (b) and (c), the active cT~, normal to the back of the wall at depth z is equal to 25

earth

pres-

MOVEMENTS . . . . .V . . 44 . ~ ... . v. . .b . , ?-:4:

r H

1
Passive Pressures

V7 PAR

, / Active Pressures

Failure

surface

- Height of Wall ~ - Slope Angle

For Granular
EackFill ~ > 0, C - 0

Figure

3.3

Rankine

active

and passive backfills

earth

pressures

for inclined

(9)

The PA and a* relationships for backfills whose strengths or an effective cohesion and effective angle of internal the figure.

are defined using SU friction are given in

According to Equation 9, tensile stresses develop to a depth ZO at the top of the backfill to wall interface in a backfill whose shear strength is either fully or partially attributed to the cohesion or undrained strength.

gap may form within this region over time. During rainstorms, these gaps will fill with water, resulting in hydrostatic water pressures along the back of the wall to depth ZO. Tensile stresses are set equal to zero over the depth ZO when applying this theory to long term wall designs because c goes to zero with time for clayey soils due to changes in water content. For clayey backfills, retaining walls are designed using Terzaghi and Pecks (1967) equivalent fluid pressure values rather than active earth pressures because earth pressure theories do not account for the effects of creep in clayey backfills (Clough and Duncan 1991). 3.2.3 Rankine Theory - Passive Earth Pressures

The derivation of the Rankine theory of passive earth pressures follows the same steps as were used in the derivation of the active earth pressure relationships . The forces and stresses corresponding to this limiting state are shown in Figure 3.2 (d), (e), and (f) for a vertical wall retaining the three types of soil backfill. The effects of surcharge and groundwater pressures are not included in this figure. To develop passive earth pressures, the wall moves towards the backfill, with the resulting displacements sufficient to fully mobilize the shear resistance within the

26

soil back

mass (Section 2.2.1). The passive earth of the wall at depth z is equal to

pressure,

OP,

normal

to the

-YtzKp+ 2CF

(lo)

and the Rankine equal to

passive

earth

pressure

coefficient,

Kp, for level

backfill

is

Kp = tan2(45 +4/2).

(11)

A planar backfill

slip surface extends upwards from the heel of the wall through the and is inclined at an angle aP from horizontal, where QP is equal to (12)

CYp=45-(#/2.

PP is the resultant

force

of the ap distribution

and

is equal

to

1
P = Kp @i2

(13)

for dry frictional backfills and is normal to the back of the wall at onethird H above the heel of the wall. The Pp and aP relationships for backfills whose strengths are defined using SU or an effective cohesion and effective angle of internal friction are given in Figure 3.2. This procedure is illustrated backfill in example inclined 2 at the end of this chapter. is

equal

KP for a frictional to

at an angle

~ from horizontal

KP = cos~

Cosp + icoszp - Cos%j Cosp Coszp - cos2#

(14)

with the limitation that ~ is less than or equal to ~. Pp is computed using Equation 13. It is inclined at an angle ~ from the normal to the back of the vertical wall, and acts at one-third H above the back of the wall as shown in With c = O, OP from Equation 10 becomes Figure 3.3. (15)

~tzKp.

The distribution of OP is linear with depth along the back inclined at the backfill slope angle /l, as shown in Figure 27

of the wall 3.3.

and

is

3.3

Coulomb

Theory

The Coulomb theory of active and passive earth pressures looks at the equilibrium of the forces acting on a soil wedge, assuming that the wall movements are sufficient to fully mobilize the shear resistance along a planar surface that extends from the heel of the wall into the backfill as shown in Figure 3.4. Coulombs wedge theory allows for shear stresses along the wall to backfill interface. The forces corresponding to the active and passive states of stress are shown in Figure 3.4 for a wall with a face inclined at angle +0 from vertical, retaining a frictional backfill inclined at angle +9. The effects of surcharge and groundwater pressures are not included in this figure. 3.3.1 Coulomb Theory - Active Earth Pressures

In the active case the wall movements away from the backfill are sufficient to fully mobilize the shear resistance within a soil wedge. Coulombs theory assumes that the presence of the wall introduces shearing stress along the interface, due to the downward movement of the backfill along the back of the wall as the wall moves away from the backfill. The active earth pressure force PA is computed using Equation 7 and is oriented at an angle 6 to the normal along the back of the wall at a height equal to H/3 above the heel, as shown in Figure 3.4. The shear component of PA acts upward on the soil wedge due to the downward movement of the soil wedge along the face of the wall. KA is equal to

K~ =

COS2 (+ - 0)
2

Cosze Cos(e + 8)
[

1 +

sln($ + 5) sln(@ COS(6 + e) Cos(p - e) )1

(16)

for frictional backfills. The active earth pressure, u., along the back of the wall at depth z is computed using Equation 4 and oriented at an angle 6 to the normal along the back of the wall. The variation in o~ is assumed linear with depth for a dry backfill, as shown in Figure 3.4. The planar slip surface extends upwards from the heel of the wall through the backfill and is inclined at an angle a* from horizontal. a* is equal to (17)

where C~=i[tan(# -/3)] [tan(# -#3)

+cot(dd)][l+tan(f +d)cot(~ -d)]

and
C2 = 1 +~[tan(b +0)]
G

[tan(~ -/?) +cot(~-~)]~.

28

Mwt?ments -

*..
b

.W.
..4 . . .

.. b
. .

.V

\w
\

W. . .
.

. V..

b.*. . .. * .-.. .
4,.

G e&
w
. .

4 . .

WC7 ) -~

/ A+

Follure surfoc8

b-

W.
v ,. . . .-

. . \

Active

Pressures

L~ P

Passive
Height of WCJII Slope Angle
Inclination of Wall Mgle of Interface

Pressures

Friction

Positive- angles shown for Coulambs for KA* KP, OA and ~p

equations

Figure

3.4

Coulomb

active and passive earth pressures backfills and inclined walls

for

inclined

One widely quoted reference for effective angles of friction along Potyondy (1961) interfaces between various types of materials, 6, is Table 2. and Peterson et. al. (1976) also provide recommendations for 6 values from static direct shear test results. This procedure is illustrated in example 3 at the end of this chapter.

29

3.3.2 Coulomb Surcharge

Active

Pressures

- Hydrostatic

Water

Table

Within

Backfill

and

The distribution of Coulomb active earth pressures for a partially submerged wall retaining a frictional backfill and supporting a uniform surcharge, q, is shown in Figure 3.5. With a hydrostatic water table at height ~ above the base of the wall, the resulting pressures acting along the back of the wall are equal to the sum of (1) the thrust of the soil skeleton as a result of its unit weight, (2) the thrust of the soil skeleton as a result of the surcharge, q, and (3) the thrust of the pore water. The effective weight of the backfill, oWt, above the water table is equal to

(18)

and below

the water

table,

uW~ is equal

to

0~t=7tO(H

-~)+7[Z

- (H-%)].

(19)

where 7 is the effective unit weight pressures, 7 is equal to the buoyant The buoyant unit weight, 7~, is equal

at depth z. unit weight, to

For hydrostatic vb.

pore

water

vb

= 7~

7W.

(20)

Ua is equal unit weight

to the sum of the thrust of the soil skeleton as a result of its and the thrust of the soil skeleton as a result of the surcharge,

C7a =

(uit + q)*KA

(21)

and is inclined at an angle 6 from the normal to the back of the wall. computed using Equation 16 for a level backfill (~ = O) and a vertical face (0 = O). The hydrostatic water pressures are equal to

KA is wall

u=

7W

[z

-(H-%)]

(22)

and is normal to the back of the wall. The total thrust on the wall, P, is equal to the sum of the equivalent forces for the three pressure distributions. Due to the shape of the three pressure distributions, its point of action is higher up the back of the wall than one-third H above the heel. The orientation of the failure surface is not affected by the hydrostatic water pressures and is calculated using Equation 17.

30

Table

2.

Ultimate

Friction Factors for Dissimilar From NAVFAC DM-7.2

Materials

Interface

Materials

Friction Factor, tan 6

Friction angle, 6 degrees

Mass concrete on tile following foundation fmccrials: Clean sound rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gravel-sand mixtures, coarse sand.a. Clean gravel, Clean fine to medium sand, silty medium to coarse
sandT silty or clayey gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clean fine sand, silty or clayey fine to medium sand . ........ .......e.,.~..a ...... ...*.... . ... . . F1.ne sandy silt, nonplastic silt . ... ... .. .. . ... ... Very stiff and hard residual or preconsolidated

0.70 2.55 3.45 0.35

0.30
to

0060 0.55
0.45

35 29 to 31 24 to 29

to

to
to

0.35

19 to 24 17 to 19 22 to 17 to 26 19

clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . clay . . . . . . . . Medium stiff and stiff clay and silty (Hasonry on foundation materiais has same friction
~actors.) Steei sheet ~iles against the following soils: Clean gravei, gravel-sand mixtures, tiell-graded rock fill wit[l spans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . silty sand-gravel mixture, single size Clean sand, hard rock fill *** ** .. . .. . .. .. ... .0 * SilLy saud, gravel or sand K fxcd with silt or clay
G G G G G G G G G G G G G

0.40 to 0.50 o.a30 to 0.35

0.40

22
17 14 11

Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt .................O Fomed concrete or concrete Sllcet pi~lng against tl~e following soils: Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixture, well-graded
rock fill with
G

0.30 0.25 0.20

spans

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

C*4O to 0.50 0.30 to 0.40 0.30 0.25

22

to

26

Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture, single size hard rock fill G SilLy sand, gravel or sand mixed uitll silt or clay Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt *9*** ** Various structural materials: Masonry on masonry, igneous and metamorphic rocks: Dressed soft rock on dressed soft rock ..........
G G 8 G 9., G G * Q . . G G , G G * G * . G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G

17 to 22 17 14

Dressed

hard

rock

on dressed

soft

rocked . . .. .. ..

Dressed hard rock on dressed hard rock .......... grain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Masonry on wood (cross
steel on steei
at sllect pile interlocks . . . . . . . . . . .

0.70 0.65 0.55 0.50 ().30

35 33 29 26 17

31

Surctvrge

= q

Mwements
. .b. . .i . . . G . . .
v.

P
v

w /A
/

w @Q\

. . . .+:; . . ~..
v

b. . * . . v

Frlctlonal

BackFlll 6

.. . . V..
. .
w w

.b.. . .i 4 . . w -, .-d . b

..

.b.. . V.
v.

/ /
/ / ? A
7-

.,
..

HW

..

.b.. .

. . *.

.*
..4.

c Wt
G

kA

q*kA

u= Wt
c~ =

vertical crwt

effective

stress

due

to

weight

of backfill

G kA+q@k

Figure 3.5

Coulomb active earth pressures for a partially submerged backfill and a uniform surcharge

The equation for o~ of a soil whose shear strength is defined in terms of the effective strength parameters c and 4 would be equal to (23) and inclined at an angle 6 from the normal to the back of the wall.

32

3.3.3

Coulomb

Active

Pressures

- Steady

State

Seepage

Within

Backfill

This section summarizes the equations for determining the Coulomb active earth pressure forces and pore water pressures acting on the back of a wall Figretaining a drained backfill that is subjected to steady state flow. ure 3.6 shows a wall with a vertical face retaining a level backfill, supporting a uniform surcharge load, q, and subjected to a constant water infiltration. The wall has a drainage system consisting of a gravel drain below the sand backfill, with weep holes through the wall. Steady state flow may The resultdevelop during a rainstorm of sufficient intensity and duration. ing flow-net is shown in Figure 3.6, consisting of vertical flow lines and horizontal equipotential lines, assuming the drain has sufficient permeability and thickness to be free draining (i.e. with zero pressure head within the drain) . Adjacent to the back of the wall, the flow net has five head drops. With the datum at the base of the wall, the total head at the top of the backfill is equal to the height of the wall, H, and a total head is equal to zero at the weep holes. The drop in total head between each of the five equipotential lines is equal to H/5. Neglecting the velocity head, the total head, h, is equal to h=h,+~ (24)

where

he is the elevation

head,

and hP is the pressure % u = ~.

head

equal

to (25)

With the total head equal to the elevation head for each of the equipotential The seepage lines, hP and the pore water pressure, u, are equal to zero. is equal to gradient,- i, at any point in the backfill (26)

where Ah is the change in total head and Al the length of the flow path over which the incremental head drop occurs. With horizontal equipotential lines, the flow is vertical and directed downward (iY = +i). For steady state seepage conditions, the effective unit weight is equal to

The seepage force is added to the buoyant unit weight when and subtracted with upward flow. For the example shown in equal to positive unity and directed downward, y is equal weight, -yt. The effective weight of the backfill, oWt, is

flow is downward Figure 3.6 with i to the total unit equal to (28)

o~t = -yz =

(yb+~~)z=~toz

An alternative procedure for calculating pressure, aWt, and pore water pressures,

uWt is using the total overburden By Equation 7, we see that with u.

33

Surctmge = q Uwements 4 -I
b . .. .+. . . .

G.:4.-b * .-:1 ,.
. .
T

..+.

Sand d BackFill

;~[ :. .%.: .-.4. ~ w .. .. .* * .s . ... . w w. . .~ 4. .,. ~.e k.

. . .b . ...*. .

. .

4..
.W. .

w..

. .

4 ..4. T i..~: -k

@s\

.-.

Y/

h = 4/5

tiL_d__d_

h=l/5H Mum w

Equlpotentlal

LIna

ati c= Wt
c~ =

kA
effective kA+qe After Lombe stress kA

kA
to weight of backfill

Vertical
qto

due

and Whitman

(1969).

Figure

3.6

Coulomb active earth pressures for a backfill subjected to steady state flow

34

the pore Equation

water pressure 28 relationship

equal to zero, (~ = -y~).

this

procedure

also

results

in the

The resulting pressures acting along the back of the wall are equal to the sum of (1) the thrust of the soil skeleton as a result of its unit weight The and (2) the thrust of the soil skeleton as a result of the surcharge. pore water pressure acting on the wall is equal to zero, with horizontal equipotential lines and the total head equal to the elevation head within the drained backfill. In this case, the effective weight is equal to the total weight. o~ is computed using Equation 21, inclined at an angle 6 from the normal to the back of the wall and equal to the sum of the pressures shown in Figure 3.6. KA is computed using Equation 16, and a~ is computed using Equation 17. Downward vertical steady state seepage in a backfill results in nearly the same earth pressures as are computed in the case of a dry backfill.

In backfills where there is a lateral component to the seepage force or the gradients vary throughout the backfill, the trial wedge procedure, in conjunction with a flow net, must be used to compute PA and aA. Spatial variations in u with constant elevation will alter the location of the critical slip surface from the value given in Equation 17. The trial wedge procedure is also required to find the values for PA and aA when point loads or loads of finite width are placed on top of the backfill. An example using the trial wedge procedure for a retaining wall similar to that shown in Figure 3.6 but with a vertical drain along the back of the wall is described in Section 3.4. 3.3.4 Coulomb Theory - Passive Earth Pressures

The forces and stresses corresponding to the passive states of stress are shown in Figure 3.4 for a wall with a face inclined at angle +8 from verThe effects tical, and retaining a frictional backfill inclined at angle +~. of surcharge and groundwater pressures are not included in this figure. To develop passive earth pressures, the wall moves towards the backfill, with the resulting displacements sufficient to mobilize fully the shear resistance along the linear slip plane. Coulombs theory allows for a shear force along the back of the walls that is due to the upward movement of the backfill as the wall moves towards the backfill. The passive earth pressure force Pp is computed using Equation 13 and oriented at an angle 6 to the normal along the back of the wall at a height equal to H/3 above the heel of the wall, as shon in Figure 3.4. The shear component of Pp acts downward on the soil wedge due This is to the upward movement of the soil wedge along the face of the wall. the reverse of the situation for the shear component of PA. Kp is equal to

KP =
cos20 COS(8 8)

COS2 ($ + e)
2

(29)

1 [

sln(~ + a) sln($ Cos (6 -0) Cos(p

+ -e) ))

for frictional backfills. The passive earth pressure, UP, along the back of the wall at depth z is computed using Equation 15 and oriented at an angle 6 to the normal along the back of the wall. The variation in UP is assumed linear with depth for a dry backfill, as shown in Figure 3.4. The planar slip surface extends upwards from the heel of the wall through the backfill and is inclined at an angle ap from horizontal. ap is equal to 35

ffp = -~ + tan-l

w]
L

(30)
-J

where

c3=J[tan(#
and

+P)][tan(~+p)

+cot(4+0)][l+tan(6

-d)cot(@+

d)]

C4

1 +~[tan(6

- 8)] . [tan(~+~)

+cot(@+O)]j.

This 3.3.4.1

procedure

is illustrated Theory

in example

4 at the end of this Earth Pressure

chapter.

Accuracy

of Coulombs

for Passive

Coefficients

Equations 29 and 30 provide reasonable estimates for KP and the orientation of the slip plane, aP, so long as 6 is restricted to values which are less than 4/2. Coulombs relationship overestimates the value for KP when 6 is greater than 4/2. The large shear component of PP introduces significant curvature in the failure surface. The Coulomb procedure, however, restricts the theoretical slip surface to a plane. When 6 is greater than 4/2, the value for Kp must be computed using a method of analysis which uses a curved failure surface to obtained valid values. Section 3.5 presents a graphical tabulation of KP values obtained by using a log spiral failure surface. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show the variation in the values for Kp with friction angle, computed using Coulombs equation for KP based on a planer failure surface versus a log spiral failure surface analysis. 3.4 Earth Pressures Computed Using the Trial Wedge Procedure

The trial wedge procedure of analysis is used to calculate the earth pressure forces acting on walls when the backfill supports point loads or loads of finite width or when there is seepage within the backfill. The procedure involves the solution of the equations of equilibrium for a series of trial wedges within the backfill for the resulting earth pressure force on the back of the wall. When applying this procedure to active earth pressure problems , the shear strength along the trial slip plane is assumed to be fully mobilized. The active earth pressure force is equal to the largest value for the earth pressure force acting on the wall obtained from the series of trial wedge solutions. The steps involved in the trial wedge procedure are described using the retaining wall problem shown in Figure 3.9, a problem originally solved by Terzaghi (1943) and described by Lambe and Whitman (1969) . A 20 feet high wall retains a saturated sand backfill with # equal to 30 degrees and 6 equal to 30 degrees. The backfill is drained by a vertical gravel drain along the back of the wall, with weep holes along its base. In this problem, a heavy rainfall is presumed to have resulted in steady state seepage within the backfill. The solution for the active earth pressure force

36

12 ~

1 I

11 _ Xa . glo Q o d ,

c. k9 u o o l&8

LEGEND .. ; COULOM8S, -lj/24 LOG-SPIR4, -~24 I I ,/

VI

/ .

-1

%2kfL-u
w7 1

1 1,1,

-1
40

! 1111111111<

-20

35 30 25 ANGLE OF lNTERN/L FRICTION, f$,lN OEGREES

Coulomb and log-spiral passive Figure 3.7 earth pressure coefficients with 6 = 4/2 vertical wall and level backfill

100
90 _ i? +~
IL

I I I I

I I I I

I I I

80 _
70

w o a 3

--LOG-SPRl~,tI=+

E =
g ~3 >

40

o_

1 0, o~~~
20

.0

0:

.- .-.-I 1 I 1
25 30

H./ ./ 1 I 1 1
35

I I I l ,
40

ANGLE OF INTERNA FRICTION,*,IN

OECREES

Coulomb and log-spiral passive Figure 3.8 earth pressure coefficients with 6 = @ vertical wall and level backfill

37

GRAVEL

LX?JVN

SATURATED SAND

THE RETAJNING WKL

ANO ORAN

FLOW

NET FOR STEADY RANFAIL

POtNT
o

INTERVAL hP 4L
0 L2 l.s 3.0 2.1 3.9 2.3
4.8

(hP)avea L
0.9 3.8 7.2 loo 15.4 ?9.0 23.1 14.9 94.3

1
2 3
4

1.7

3.1 5 6 7 8 5.1 4.9 3.5 8.s o 3.8 5.s

FT 2

PORE WATER FORCE FOR a-

45

Static-a

- 94.3

X 62.4

- 5890
10,200

LB/FT
LB/FT

OF WALL

PA

WALL

10,000
(LBjFT) o

/)

FORCE EQUILIBRIUM FOR CASE

a-

45

PLOT OF P VERSUS a

After Terzaghi (1943) Whitman (1969). Figure 3.9 Example of trial wedge

and Lambe

and

procedure

38

on the back of the wall following eight steps.

using

the trial

wedge

procedure,

is outlined

in the

(1) Determine the variation in pore water pressures within the backfill. In graphically this example the flow net for steady state seepage is constructed and is shown in Figure 3.9. (2) Assume an inclination wedge to be analyzed. for the trial slip surface, a, defining the soil

(3) Assume sufficient displacement so the shear strength of the sand is fully For mobilized along the plane of slip, resulting in active earth pressures. this condition, the shear force, T, required for equilibrium along the base of the soil wedge is equal to the ultimate shear strength force along the slip surface. T = fi tan# (31)

(4) Calculate

the total

weight

of the soil within

the trial

wedge,

W.

along the trial slip sur(5) Calculate the variation in pore water pressure is computed at a point by face. Using the flow net, the pore water pressure first solving for hP, using Equation 24, and then computing u using Equation 25. An example of the distribution in u along the trial slip surface for a = 45 degrees is shown in Figure 3.9. (6) Calculate the pore water pressure trial slip surface, inclined at angle resultant of the pore water pressures force , U~~.~iC-., acting normal to the a to the horizontal. U~~~~iC-& is the calculated in step (5) .

(7) Analyze the trial wedge for the corresponding effective earth pressure force, P, acting at an angle 6 = 30 degrees to the normal to the back of the wall. Using the equations of equilibrium (~FX = O and ~FY = 0), the resulting equation for the unknown force P is equal to P=
(w static-~

cosa) tan(a - ~) + Sta~l~_~sins sln6 tan(a 4) + COS6

(32)

Note that because of the presence of the free flowing drain the wall in which the total head equals the elevation head, pressures are equal to zero along the back of the wall.

along the back the pore water

of

(8) Repeat steps 2 through 7 for other trial slip surfaces until the largest The slip surface that maxivalue for P is computed, as shown in Figure 3.9. mizes the value for P corresponds to the critical slip surface, aA = a and p* = P. In this case, aA = 45 degrees, and pA = 10,200 pounds per foot of wall and acts at 6 = 30 degrees from the normal to the back of the wall. Hydrostatic Water Pressures:

Consider the possibility is that the drain shown in Figure 3.9 does not function as intended and hydrostatic pore water pressures develop along the For each slip surface analyzed back of the wall as shown in Figure 3.10. 39

HYLYKE7ATIC WATER TABLE

GRAVEL LMA/N (INEFFECTIVE)

\.+
SATURATED SAND p
~

Y = 131.6
# = 30

pcf

b = 30

WC

RETAJNINGWAIL WITH HYDROSTATIC WATER TAELE AT TOP OF BACKFILL FOR HYDROSTATIC

u static = = \2 YW H 2 2 = 12,480 LEIFT

. h,
..

: T .: 4 . b.,k .

..A. .....4 . . . R + . .W..

. . d. i. .. .

..

WATER TABLE

1/2(62.4)(20)

OF

WALL

NORMAL TO SLIP PLANE

(Refer to Figure = = A2) U static 15,368 L8tFT sin

a = 54.3

static-a static-a

1 543 .

OF WAIL

PLOT OF P VERSUS (1
4500 4000 3500 3000 2500

PA = 4113 LB/FT

a-

2000 1500 1000 500 0 80 I 75 I 70 I 65 I (jO I 55 aA I 50 = 54.3 I 45 I 40 I I

35

30

a , DEGREES

Figure

3.10

Example

of trail water

wedge table

procedure,

hydrostatic

40

using the trial wedge method the effective force P, acting at angle normal for the wall, is given in section A.2 of Appendix A as [ w-u~~~~,.-~ cosa P= COS6 + sin6tan( a - # ) ]tan( a - ~ )

6 to the

(A-21)

The hydrostatic water pressure forces acting normal to the slip surface and respectively, and are normal to the back of the wall are U~t~tiC-@and Ustatic) computed following the procedures described in section A.2.1 and A.2.2 of Otherwise, the solution of the trial wedge analysis to compute Appendix A. the active earth pressure force follows the same eight steps described previously. Using the trial wedge procedure for the problem shown in Figure 3.10, the wedge that maximizes the value for P corresponds to the critical slip surface, aA = 54.34 degrees, and PA = 4,113 pounds per foot of wall which acts at 6 = 30 degrees from the normal to the back of the wall. Although PA for the ineffective drain case (Figure 3.10) is 6,087 pounds per foot less than design load for the effective drain case (Figure 3.9), the total horizontal for the ineffective drain is larger by 7,208 pounds per foot of wall compared to the effective drain case due to the contribution of the water pressure force (USt~tl~== 12,480 pounds per foot of wall). A closed form solution exists for this example, as PA may be calculated The correusing Equation 7, with KA computed using the Coulomb Equation 16. sponding critiCal slip surface aA is given in Equation 17.
3.5

Active

and Passive

Earth

Pressure

Coefficients

from

Log

Spiral

Procedure

A logarithmic spiral failure surface may be used to determine the active and passive pressures against retaining structures when interface friction acts along the back of the wall. Values for the active and passive earth pressure coefficients are presented in Figures 3.11 and 3.12 and Table 3. Figure 3.11 provides values for KA and KP for walls with inclined faces retaining horizontal backfills. Figure 3.12 provides values for KA and KP for walls with vertical faces retaining horizontal or inclined backfills. These figures and Table 3 were assembled from tables of KA and KP values given in Caquot and Kerisel (1948). Kerisel and Absi (1990) have also assembled tables of KA and KP values based on a log-spiral failure surface. The sign convention for the angles are shown in the insert figures in Figures 3.11 and 3.12. Note that the sign convention for 6 is determined by the orientation of the shear stress acting on the wedge of the soil. 6 is positive when the shear is acting upward on the soil wedge, the usual case for active pressures, and negative if the shear acts downward on the soil mass, the usual case for passive pressures. The values for KA and KP from these figures and this table are accurate for all values of 6 less than or equal to ~. These chapter. procedures are illustrated in examples 5 and 6 at the end of this

41

+
REDUCTION FACTOR (R~O?=KP FOR VARIOUS RATIOS OF - %A M 13 12 II 10 n

1A

m W#b:-l
~PLE:
R =.81 I

+=3(P, i9-IO;~.6
I

Kp=R(K@R~#=~)

I MIIIL

\ %A

\ :

LmlL&E ~-

Cllllll

h= KYN2/m+@?aCOS 8ipT=%SN 8 I

ACTIVE ZONE

, r

1 I

1 1

1 1

I
I

tv:l,(w
wc#@:-&

10
ANGLE OF l&L FRICT~,#,gGREES

40

45

Figure

3.11

Active and passive wall friction

earth pressure - sloping wall 42

coefficients

with

REOUCTION FACTOR (R) Of Kp FOR VARIOUS RATIOS OF -al+

1 1 1
J

2-2;:
11111 /1/ w 1/1.

?-,

1 m ,

I %=KPYH --%=J\
.

1A

II
/3/4=-.6

-l-i
I m

1,

lx
w

MSSIVE PREswRE
~+YHV2i~=PPCOS .rwrEcuRvEsswwN FOR 8/+:-1
EXAMPLE: +=25;

8; ff/= ARE
##F-.2

1
I

.Kp:l?(KpFORtb@+)
R=.711 (KpmR&qFiW KO=.711 X362= .

li

:+1

p+JE_!F_.
\.\ -.. . ..

l%=h-~lllllllllll

I &=~S4N8

0 Figure 3.12

I_ I
0

llllllrla~-=-

I -I
k

I I -.
30
#, OEGREES

I .- I
w

II .43

ANGLEOFl

FRICTION,

Active and passive earth pressure coefficients wall friction - sloping backfill 43

with

@co@
maul

Omen . . . mmm
C4COU3

UJ

u4

Omcw . .
Nd

(--l Nt+

Ocwco

I=ma ..< NdaY old

Cnincw . . .
cN r-11-l Lnmm

c
4

e u w

w
OJe Jo In me-1

Inlno ..< m~m writ+

<@m . .

Ocn<
me-la

Ocno Oab
.
u-lmc4

OoCJw

hem

mf=m . .
mad
1

add
1

mom ..< W!nm

cow% . . .
mob
I-If+

I
u-la): . . C-3ooo
4A

Ol+m
mrll=
..!

Lnmm

mFuY . . .
buJm

WOJI-(

mm(-3OM . . .

amwl C--l

&!-lo
000

. mu) . .

lnc=lm

maw . .
Ar -11+

mmm

I
000 000 000

000
dd
1

000
44
1

000
r-l
I

000
!-+ Ar-1 ,

u
f-iwd
4404

2
0 0

-0
I

m
*

dr-tm l-ll+w

C=4ma 41+C=J

add dwm

000

<

000 -arm
4NN

o o o Lnmo
C-iwm

o o o -mm
rlmm

0
d

dma I-it-lw

Km< ?-4Cwm

dam Ada

0 o
m*ol AOJm

o o

o o o

o o

000

000

In

Fmr. $-(NW

mmm
Awm

CNOJCN Nc-od

000

o 0 o

o o o *o Ccl mmm . . . 000

o o

b m

=%Cnd mlNm

000 Ou--la
mmrl

hmo time . . 000

OJdm m=fe . . 000

r.com
.
m<m . . .

m m

000
eJmul 44U-) . . Inlnul u-lab . . df =!+ mme o

000 1=30
m=tm o o

OFIN Lnulr. o o o o

000

000

o o

000

000

000
Ad #

000
d o f-+

u)

r+

.
.0

I
44

3.6 Surface

Loadings

There are three approaches used to approximate the additional lateral earth pressures on walls due to surface loadings; (1) the wedge method of analysis, (2) elastic solutions, and (3) finite element analyses. to Trial wedge analyses, as described in Section 3.4, may be performed account for uniform and irregular surface load distributions for those walls The wedge analysis whose movements satisfy the criteria listed in Table 1. described in Section 3.4 is modified by including that portion of the surface loading between the back of the wall and the intersection of the trial slip surface and the backfill surface in the force equilibrium calculation for each wedge analyzed. The resulting relationship for a vertical wall retaining a partially submerged backfill (for a hydrostatic water table) is given in section A.2.8 of Appendix A. The difficult part of the problem is to deterThe point mine the point of action of this force along the back of the wall. of action of the resulting earth pressure force for an infinitely long line load parallel to the wall may be computed using the simplified procedure described in Article 31 of Terzaghi and Peck (1967). Elastic solutions of the type shown in Figure 3.13 can be used to calculate the increase in the horizontal earth pressure, UX, using either a solution for a point load, a line load or a strip load acting on the surface of an elastic mass, i.e. the soil backfill. Most applications of elastic solutions for surface loadings to earth retaining structures assume the wall to be unyielding (i.e. zero movement horizontally) and zero shear stress induced along To account for the zero the soil to wall interface (Clough and Duncan 1991). wall movements along the soil to wall interface, the computed value for OX using elastic theory is doubled. This is equivalent to applying an imaginary load of equal magnitude equidistant from the soil to wall interface so as to Experiments cancel the deflections at the interface as shown in Figure 3.14. by Spangler (1938) and Terzaghi (1954) have validated this procedure of doubling the OX values computed using the Boussinesq solution for point loads.

The finite element method of analysis has been applied to a variety of earth retaining structures and used to calculate stresses and movements for Some problems involving a wide variety of boundary and loading conditions. key aspects of the application of the finite element method in the analysis of U-frame locks, gravity walls, and basement walls are summarized in Ebeling (1990) .

45

n
t-i \L
a.

%
m > 0.4 m2n

/?#i

c= WH

(mz + flz)z 1

P 0.203n oH- H [ (0.16 G n2)2 1 Line

from

load

(factor

of

two

included)

b.

Strip

load

Terzcighi(1954)

rxTc7

*
z
L

RI - x at 22 loge R2 1

c.

Ramp

load
from Dowkins (1991)

d.

Triangular

load

NOTES: (1) (2) FOR FIGURES EXPRESSED NEGATIVE AT SHALLOW (c) ANO (d) THE ANGLES IN UNITS OF RAJ31ANS. NAY (Z). DEPTHS a Ah10 ~ AJ?E

PRESSURES

f3E COh4PUTE0

Figure

3.13

Theory

of elasticity equations for pressures surcharge loads

on wall

due

to

46

P (FORCE) r-x?

Uo

FYIELDING 7 WAU (u. .o) . .. . . .

a.

Model of un-yielding

wall problem

G

-x-

-
I

1P

----/

1----ALONG THIS LINE, THE HORIZONTAL tXJE TO THE REAL DEFLECTIONS AND 1MAGINAR% LOADSCANCEL (u - O). THE HORIZONTAL STRESSES ARE TWICE AS HIGH AS FOR A SINGIE LOAD.

REAL

LOAD

IMAGINARY

LOAD

b.

Two

point

loads

on an
AND

elastic

half-space

AFTER CLOUGH Figure 3.14 Use zero-displacement

OUNCAN

(1991)

of an imaginary load to enforce condition at the soil-structure interface

47

CHAPTER

3 - EXAMPLES

Contents Example Problems 1 through 6.

Commentary The following examples illustrate the procedures described in Chapter 3. The results of the computations shown are rounded for ease of checking calculations and not to the appropriate number of significant figures. Additionallyj the values assigned to variables in these problems were selected for ease of computations .

48

Example

No.

Reference

Section: backfill

3.2.1

For a wall of height with ~ = 30 degrees

H = 20 ft retaining a dry level cohesionless and 6 = O degrees, -compute KA, a~, and PA.

LKVEUEMTS XTUE WECE h MY CCKStOM-ESS OKXFLL

KA = tan2(450

- 30/2)

(by eq 5)

KA z 1/3

PA +.

;(120pcf)(20ft)2

(by eq 7>

PA = 8,000

lb per

ft of wall

~A

=45

+ 300/2

(by eq 6)

~A

= 60

from

the horizontal ft

hPA = H/3

= 6.67

49

Example

No.

Reference

Section: backfill

3.2.2

For a wall of height with ~ = 30 degrees

H = 20 ft retaining a dry level cohesionless and 6 = O degrees, compute KP, aP, and PP.

iuVEUENTS

RA$KINE PASSWE WELXE

.

. .:. II . . . .. . ..
G

,* . I . . .
b &.

/
+- w=

f ,

Yt- 120pcf
. , .

b-.,.

/-

-Et:
. . . G

. .< I
.
R
m

..

. I #-

lo

l$=tan2(450

+30/2)

(by eq 11)

KP=

3.0

PP =3.0

+(120pcf)(20/)2

(by eq 13)

Pp = 72,000

lb per

ft of wall

CYp= 45 . 300 / 2

(by eq 12)

ap = 30 from hPp =H/3

the horizontal ft

= 6.67

50

Example

No.

Reference

Section:

3.3.1

For a wall of height H = 20 retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with = 30 degrees, 6 = 3 degrees, ~ = 6 degrees, and 0 = O degrees, compute 4 aA, and PA.

KA,

UWEUENTS

/3-6 120 pcf

,* ~. ,.. .. ..
~ ~:.:b:..

.* 4 b .. . 8-0 /
,1; - 3

,Lw.?o
mME wEIXE

.4 b. . 4. . . :!:

T,,

v. . . . .-

;, /i

t:-

K~ =
cos2 (0) COS(O+3)

COS2(30-0) .

1)

11
1 +

(by eq 16)

sln(30+3)sln(30-6 COS(3+O)COS(6-O)

KA = 0.3465 O.3465O +(120 pcf)(20)2 (by eq 7)

PA =

PA = 8316

lb per

ft of wall ][tan(30-6) +cot(30)] [l + tan(3)cot(30)]

c1 = 4[tan(30-6)

c1

= 1.0283
C2

=1

+ [[tan(3)]

c [tan(30-6)

+ cot(30)]]

C2 = 1.11411
~A

= 30 + tan-l -tan(30
L

- 6) + 1.0283 1.11411

1
>

(by eq 17)

~A

57.6

from

the horizontal

51

Example

No.

Reference

Section:

3.3.4

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a dry cohesionless backfill 30 degrees, 6 = 3 degrees, ~ = 6 degrees, and O = O degrees, compute and Pp.
UCVEUENTS B-6 ,/ \ i ,4 /0

with ~ = KP, ~p,

PASSIVE WELKE

KP = COS2(0)COS(3-0)
[

COS2(30+O)

1 -

+ sln COS(3-0) /-(303

+6 sln COS(6-0) -(3 0

1
)2

(by eq 29)

KP = 4.0196

PP =4.0196

Q ;(120pcf)(20

(by eq 13)

PP = 96,470
c~

lb per

ft of wall [tan(30+6) + cot(30)] [1 + tan(3) cot(30)]

={[tan(30+6)]

C3

1.3959 CL =1 + [[tan(3)] . [tan(30+6) + cot(30)]]

C4

1.1288 -30 + tan-l [

Q.p

tan(30+6) + 1.3959 1 .1288

(by eq 30)

Q!p = 32.0

from

the

horizontal

52

Example

No.

Reference

Section:

3.4

For the Example No. 3 problem of a wall retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with ~ = 30 degrees, 6 = +3 degrees, #3 = +6 degrees, and O = O degrees, Compare this value compute KA using the log spiral procedure of Figure 3.12. with the KA value computed in Example No. 3 using the Coulomb relationship. /i/(j = +0.1 KA = 0.35 from and ~/~ = +0.2 ~/# = +0.2 and using the curve for 6 = ~. theory for

Figure

3.12 with

This value for KA agrees with the value computed using Coulombs active earth pressures in Example No. 3 ( KA = 0.3465) .

53

Example

No.

Reference

Section:

3.4

For the Example No. 4 problem of a wall retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with @ = 30 degrees, 6 = -3 degrees*, ~ = +6 degrees, and 6 = O degrees, compute KP. Compare this value with the KP value computed in Example No. 4.

fs/~ =
R

-0.1 and/?/~ = 0.52

= +0.2 and KP (for /?/@ = +0.2) = 8 from Figure 3.12

(for 6/# = -0.1)

KP (for 6/~ = -0.1) =

[R (for 6/@ = -O.l)][KP = 0.52 8 = 4.16

(for ~/#

= +0.2)]

The value for KP is nearly the same as the value computed using Coulombs theory for passive earth pressures in Example No. 4 (Kp = 4.0196) because 6 < ~/2 (Section 3.3.4.1). The resultant force vector Pp acts in the same direction as shown in the Example No. 4 figure. * Note the difference in sign for 6 in the passive earth pressure solution using the Figure 3.12 log spiral solution procedure compared to that used in the Coulombs solution, with signconvention as shown in Figure 3.4.

54

CHAPTER 4.1

DYNAMIC

EARTH

PRESSURES

- YIELDING

BACKFILLS

Introduction

Okabe (1926) and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929) extended Coulombs theory of static active and passive earth pressures to include the effects of dynamic earth pressures on retaining walls. The Mononobe-Okabe theory incorporates the effect of earthquakes through the use of a constant horizontal acceleration in units of g, ah = k~g, and a constant vertical acceleration in units of g, ~ = ~g, acting on the soil mass comprising Coulombs active wedge (or The term k~ is passive wedge) within the backfill, as shown in Figure 4.1. the fraction of horizontal acceleration, ~ is the fraction of vertical acceleration, and g is the acceleration of gravity (1.0 g = 32.174 ft/sec/sec = 980.665 cm/sec/see). In Figure 4.1, positive aV values act downward, and positive ah values act to the left. The acceleration of the mass in the directions of positive horizontal and positive vertical accelerations results in the inertial forces k~W and ~.W, as shown in Figure 4.1, where W is the weight of the soil wedge. These inertial forces act opposite to the direction in which the mass is accelerating. This type of analysis is described as a pseudostatic method of analysis, where the effect of the earthquake is modeled by an additional set of static forces, kh.W and ~W. The Mononobe-Okabe theory assumes that the wall movements are sufficient to fully mobilize the shear resistance along the backfill wedge, as is the To develop the case for Coulombs active and passive earth pressure theories. dynamic active earth pressure force, Pw, the wall movements are away from the backfill, and for the passive dynamic earth pressure force, PP~, the wall movements are towards the backfill. Dynamic tests on model retaining walls indicate that the required movements to develop the dynamic active earth pressure force are on the order of those movements required to develop the static active earth pressure force, as discussed in Section 2.2.2. The Mononobe-Okabe theory gives the net positive kh > 0, Pm is larger than the static static Pp. 4.2 Dynamic Active Earth Pressure Force for Pw to for dry backfills, given by For static and dynamic force. PA, and PPE is less than the

Whitman

The Mononobe-Okabe relationship and Christian (1990), is equal

(33)

and acts at an angle 6 from the normal to the back The dynamic active earth pressure coefficient, KM,

of the wall of height is equal to

H.

55

J
(.%Ou)d Accolorotm

Go,*k,

.fl

-I
V=tanr

kh
-v

4
I

In

\
\l

\l

t.--!i
W(l-kv)

a.

Mononobe-Okabe

(active)

wedge

I Lw

ov=kv.9

b.

Passive

wedge

Figure

4.1

Driving

From EM 1110-2-2502 and resisting seismic

wedges,

no saturation

56

K ~. CO S7)COS% Cos(lj +

COS2(4 - + - 0) r

72(34) + 6) sin(~ + + - * - ~) )1

e + 6)

1 +
H(~$o)

sin(+ Cos

and

the seismic

inertia

angle,

~,

is equal

to

(35)

the angle through which the reThe seismic inertia angle represents sultant of the gravity force and the inertial forces is rotated from a horizonIn the case of a vertical wall (0 = O) retaining vertical. 34 simplifies to tal backfill (~ = O), Equation

K-

= Coslj Cos($ + 6)
L

co,+(() - +)
2
1+

(36)

sin(~

+ 6) sin(~ COS(6 + $)

- *)

Figures 4.2 for certain

and 4.3 give combinations

charts from which of parameters.

values

of Km

may be read

The planar slip surface extends upwards from the heel of the wall through the backfill and is inclined at an angle a~ from horizontal. Qw is given by Zarrabi (1978) to be equal to

(37)

where

[1 + tan($ +*+

O)cot(#

-*-

O)] 1

and

0.7 f

1 kv ----@

0.7 O r 0.6

1 kv -&&O

0.6

-35

@ 35

0.5

0.5

8-0
0.4 %! x T ~ s 0.4

b-o
-8-1/2+

03

0.2 DRY SAND, Y 0.1 : o o (a) 1A.

4-;:4 z

0.2 DRY SAND, Y 0.1 KM o 0.3 kh 0.4 0.5 0 (a) 0.1 8

G

-A. :;; ;4 .. ..O z

a p
K~. 47 P l/2yH2

p al P 1/27H2 0.2 kh

..

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

From

Seed and

Whitman

(1970).

Figure

4.2

Variation

in Km

and Kficos 6 with

k~

0.7
06

1
kv -B=80-1/2c#J O

0.7~

0.6

0.5

0.5

m : >

0.4 03 .

m 0 j?

0.4 03 .

0.2

0.2 +
G

35

0.1 o (a)

0.1 o

kv -o-O 1/2+

(b)
0 0.1 0.2
kh

0.1

4
0.3 ().4 0.5

0.2
kh

0.3

0.4

0.5

From

Seed

and

Whitman

(1970).

Figure

4.3

Variation

in K~cos

6 with

k~, ~, and /?

58

Figures 4.4 and 4.5 give vertical walls retaining

am as a function level backfills.

of ~ for several

values

of ~ for

A limited number of dynamic model retaining wall tests by Sherif and Fang (1983) and Ichihara and Matsuzawa (1973) on dry sands show 6 to range from @/2 to 2#/3, depending upon the magnitude of acceleration. These chapter. procedures are illustrated in examples 7 and 8 at the end of this

The validity of the Mononobe-Okabe theory has been demonstrated by the These tests were conducted at shaking table tests described in Section 2.2.1. frequencies much less than the fundamental frequency of the backfill, so that Figure 4.6 accelerations were essentially constant throughout the backfill. gives a comparison between predicted and measured values of the seismic active pressure coefficient Km. An alternative method for determining the value of Km using tabulated earth pressures was developed by Dr. I. Arango in a personal communication, as Dr. Arango recognized that by rotating described by Seed and Whitman (1970). a soil wedge with a planar slip surface through the seismic inertia angle, the resultant vector, representing vectorial sums of W, kh.W and ~W, becomes vertical, and the dynamic problem becomes equivalent to the static problem, as shown in Figure 4,7. The seismic active pressure force is given by

(38)

where H= actual height of the wall

P =/3+$ 0=9+$ and Cosz(d + +) cos~ cos26 (39)

Fm

@ is computed using Equation 35. Values of FAE are also given as a function of # and 0 in Figure 4.8. KA(~*,Or) is determined from the Coulomb static KA values by Equation 16. An alternative procedure is to approximate KA(~*,d*) by using the static KA values that were tabulated by Caquot and Kerisel (1948) or Kerisel and Absi (1990) as given in Table 3. The product of KA(~*,O*) times FM is equal to Km. These chapter. procedures are illustrate in examples 9 and 10 at the end of this

59

?0G

50

20

Figure 4.4 Variation in aM with # for 6 equal to 4/2, vertical wall and level backfill

10

20

1s

30

Figure 4.5 Variation in am with ~ for 6 equal to zero degrees, vertical wall and level backfill

60

0.8

DENSE
Yavg -

OTTAWA 1.66 g/cc

SAJND

(@0.7

40.9)

yw

1.559

g/cc

0.6

/ / / / 411.699

0.5

w / 1.653 ~z /

0.4

1.667 / 0 I_ /
/ 0.3

KM ilWX BY MONONOBE-OKABE

/ / 164 l@/f651 1.6544 H / ,0

G 1.656

G 1.703

0.2

LEGEND
G0

EXPERIMENT#.lS AT W~L ROTATIONY/H - 0.001

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION COEFFICIENT, ~/g

From

Sherif

and

Fang

(1983).

Figure 4.6 Variation pressure coefficient

in dynamic active horizontal earth with peak horizontal acceleration

61

Equivalent

Static

Problem

Figure

4.7 Equivalent static formulation of the Mononobe Okabe active dynamic earth pressure problem

62

0.9

+ \--. F

.\ .
\*\ \*

0.8

0.5

0.4

0.3 o 5 10 15
w

20

25

30

I FM for determination of Ku

Figure

4.8

Values

of factor

4.2.1

Vertical

Position

of PM

along

Back

of Wall

The Mononobe-Okabe analysis procedure does not provide a means for calAnalytical studies by culating the point of action of the resulting force. Prakash and Basavanna (1969) and tests on model walls retaining dry sands and Lee 1982; Sherif and Fang 1984a; Sherif and Fang (Sherif, Ishibashi, 1984b; and Ishibashi and Fang 1987) have shown that the position of PM along the back of the retaining wall depends upon the amount of wall movement and These limited test results indicate the mode in which these movements occur. that the vertical position of Pu ranges from 0.4 to 0.55 times the height of PM acts at a higher posifrom the base of the wall. the wall, as measured tion along the back of the wall than the static active earth pressure force due to the concentration of soil mass comprising the sliding wedge above midwall height (Figure 4.1). With the static force component of Pm acting below mid-wall height and the inertia force component of Pm acting above mid-wall height, the vertical position of the resultant force, PM, will depend upon the magnitude of the accelerations applied to the mass comprising SOil wedge 63

This was shown to be the case in the Prakish of the moment equilibrium of a Mononobe-okabe analyses are summarized in Figure 4.9. 4.2.2 Simplified Procedure for Dynamic Active

and Basavanna (1969) wedge. The results

evaluation of their

Earth

Pressures

Seed and Whitman (1970) presented a simplified procedure for computing the dynamic active earth pressure on a vertical wall retaining dry backfill. They considered the group of structures consisting of a vertical wall (0 = O) retaining a granular horizontal backfill (~ = O) with # equal to 35 degrees, 6 = 4/2 and ~ equal to zero. Pm is defined as the sum of the initial static active earth pressure force (Equation 7) and the dynamic active earth pressure force increment, Pm = p* + APM
(40)

where

(41)

The

dynamic

active

earth

pressure

coefficient Ku = KA + AK~

is equal

to
(42)

and (43)

Using this simplified procedure, K~ is computed using Equation 16, and AKfi is computed using Equation 43. All forces act at an angle 6 from the normal to the back of a wall, as shown in Figure 4.10. PA acts at a height equal to H/3 above the bee-l of the wall, and APm acts at a height equal to 0.6H. Pm acts at a height, Y, which ranges from H/3 to 0.6H, depending upon the value of k~ .

p*O(:) Y=

Ap~*(O.6H) PM

(44)

The retaining depending height of Matsuzawa,

results of instrumented shake table tests conducted on model walls dense sands show APm acts at a height of between 0.43H and 0.58H, upon the mode of wall movement that occurs during shaking. The the model walls used in the shake table tests, as summarized in Ishibashi, and Kawamura (1985), were 2.5 and 4 feet. 64

/22

/5\

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.2
h

0.3

0.4

Based on Moment Equilibrium for @ 8 300 7.5

KV-O B

-0=0

After Figure

Prakash 4.9

and Basavanna Point of action

(1969) of Pm

PM P~*

APN + APK
G

(0.6H)

Y-

PM

Figure

4.10

Static active earth pressure active earth pressure force

force and incremental for dry backfill

dynamic

Seed and Whitman (1970) approximate the value for am as equal to #, where # equals 35 degrees. Thus, for a wall retaining a dry granular backfill of height H, the theoretical active failure wedge would intersect the top of the backfill at a distance equal to 1.5 times H, as measured from the top of the wall (tan 35 = 1/1.5). This 4.2.3 Limiting procedure Value is illustrated for Horizontal in example Acceleration 11 at the end of this chapter.

Richards and Elms (1979) show that Equations 34 and 36 are limited to cases where (~ - ~) is greater than or equal to ~. Substituting (~ - ~) equal to # into Equation 37 results in am equal to the slope of the backfill (/3), which is the stability problem for an infinite slope. Zarrabi (1978) shows that this limiting value for ~ corresponds to a limiting value for kh, which is equal to
(45)

~*=

(1-~)

tan(+-/?).

men k~ is equal to kh, the shear strength along the failure surface is fully mobilized, and the backfill wedge verges on instability. Values of k~ are also shown in Figure 4.11. This chapter. 4.3 Effect Analysis procedure is illustrated in examples 12 and 13 at the end of this

of Submergence

of the Backfill

on the Mononobe-Okabe

Method

of

The Mononobe-Okabe relationships for Pm, KM, and ~ will differ from those expressed in Equations 33, 34, and 35, respectively, when water is present in the backfill. Spatial variations in pore water pressure with constant elevation in the backfill will alter the location of the critical slip surface and thus the value of Pm, similar to the case of PA that was

66

0.5

0.4

0.3

I!hcv=-;r(i
//

0 Y
v

,~

0.2

Y//
I

.= + ! II /2 (ACCELERATION WNWARD, INERTIA FORCE UPWARD)

KVW

0.1

+0

h 1

YtK:W w
+av

I
0 0 100
15 (O-B)

20

30

Figure

4.11

Limiting

values

for horizontal

acceleration

equals

k: g

67

discussed in Section 3.3.3. the pore water pressures may In addition, increase above their steady state values in response to the shear strains induced within the saturated portion of the backfill during earthquake shaking, as discussed in Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983), Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), Seed and Harder (1990), and Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). The trial wedge procedure of analysis is used to locate the critical slip surface within the backfill and to compute Pm, following the steps described in Section 3.4 and including the excess pore water pressures due to earthquake shaking in the analysis are described in Appendix A. such as the case of In some situations, a hydrostatic water table within the backfill or the case of excess pore water pressures equal to a constant fraction of the pre-earthquake effective overburden pressures throughout the backfill (rU = constant), modified MononobeOkabe relationships may be used to compute Pm. 4.3.1 Submerged Backfill with No Excess Pore Pressures

In this section it is assumed that shaking causes no associated buildup of excess pore pressure. The most complete study of this case appears in Matsuzawa, Ishibashi, and Kawamura (1985), Ishibashi, Matsuzawa, and Kawamura They suggest two limiting conditions (1985), and Ishibashi and Madi (1990). for design: (a) soils of low permeability - say k < 1 x 10-3 cm/sec where pore water moves with the mineral skeleton; and (b) soils of high permeability say k > 1 cm/see, where pore water can move independently of the mineral skeleton. Matsuzawa, Ishibashi, and Kawamura (1985) also suggest a parameter that can be used to interpolate between these limiting cases. However, understanding of case (b) and the interpolation parameter is still very incomplete. Restrained water case: Here Matsuzawa Ishibaski, and Kawamura (1985) make the assumption that pore pressures do not change as a result of horizontal accelerations. Considering a Coulomb wedge and subtracting the static pore pressures, there is a horizontal inertia force proportional to -y~k~and a vertical force proportional to ~b. Thus , in the absence of vertical accelerations , the equivalent seismic angle is: (46)

and

the equivalent

horizontal

seismic

coefficient

is: (47)

khel =

$%
weight

Using k~~l in the Mononobe-Okabe theory together with a unit give Pm, to which the static water pressures must be added. If vertical accelerations are present, Kawamura (1985) recommend using: Matsuzawa,

~~ will

Ishibashi,

and

68

(48)

This is equivalent to assuming that vertical accelerations do affect pore pressures, and then it is not strictly correct to use the Mononobe-Okabe theory. However, the error in evaluating total thrust is small. This procedure is illustrated in example 14 at the end of this chapter.

Free water case: It is difficult to come up with a completely logical set of assumptions for this case. Matsuzawa, Ishibaski, and Kawamura (1985) suggest that the total active thrust is made up of: (1) A thrust from the mineral skeleton, computed using:
(49)

and

h!2

tan-l

l-=]
%2

(50)

where GS is the specific in the equation for Pm.

gravity

of the solids.

A unit

weight

of ~~ is used

(2) The hydrodynamic water pressure force for the free water within fill, PW~, is given by the Westergaard (1931) relationship (Appendix

the backB)

(51)

and acts

at 0.4 H above

the base

of the wall.

The total force behind the wall would also include the hydrostatic water pressure. This procedure is not totally consistent, since the effect of the increased pore pressures is ignored in the computation of the thrust from the mineral skeleton as is the effect of vertical acceleration upon pore pressure. This 4.3.2 procedure is illustrated with Excess in example Pore 15 at the end of this chapter.

Submerged

Backfill

Pressure by

Excess pore pressures generated by cyclic shaking can be represented rU = Au/aV , where Au is the excess pore pressure and OV is the initial

69

vertical stress. While there is no rigorous approach Mononobe-Okabe solution, the following approaches are Restrained water case: weight of soil becomes: Ignoring vertical

for adapting suggested.

the

accelerations,

the effective

unit

7e3

7b(1 -

.)

(52)

while

the effective

unit

weight

of water

is (53)

7W3 = 7W + 7bru The thrust from the soil skeleton, PM, is computed using

ke3 = $%

(54)

and

$e3

= tan-l[~e3]

(55)

together with a unit weight from Equation 52. The effective unit weight of water, Equation 53, is used to compute the static pore pressure. The effect of vertical acceleration may be accounted for by inserting (1-~) in the denominator of Equation 55. As rU approaches unity, 7e3 -> 0 and 7W3 = 7~, so that the fully-liquefied soil is a heavy fluid. It would now be logical to add a dynamic pore pressure computed using Equations 51 and 53. This Alternate procedure Procedure: is illustrated in example 16 at the end of this chapter.

An alternative approach is to use a reduced effective stress friction angle in which the effects of the excess pore water pressures are approximated within the analysis using a simplified shear strength relationship. In an effective stress analysis, the shear resistance on a potential failure surface is reduced by reducing the effective normal stress on this plane by the amount of excess residual pore water pressure, assuming the effective friction angle is unaffected by the cyclic loading. This is equivalent to using the initial, static effective normal stress and a modified effective friction angle, #eq, where

(56)

as shown in Figure 4.12. In the case of ru equal to a constant within the fully submerged backfill, the use of ~e~ in Equations 34 and 38 for KM and KA(~* , L9*) approximating the effects of these excess pore water pressures
70

MOHRS MOHRS

CIRCLE CIRCLE

C - AT CONSOLIDATION a - AFTER CYCLIC

BEFORE

CYCLIC

LOADING

LOADING

U3:

- U3;

Au

ru=~

Uf;
(l-ru) ton@

tan4+6 b

.___Tif

______________

ffa

MOHPS CIRCI!E f fc

C3 ;

of;

C3 ;

uf :

al:

1:

NORMAL

STRESS,

For

the static

stress

path

to failure

from point # afCtan~

r fc

A to point

FS=~f= static
T fc

For

the cyclic

stress

path

to failure
ffa

FS cyclic

from point A / ufCtan~~~ = o~atan~ =

T fc Tfc

to point

= r fc

Figure

4.12

Modified

effective

friction

angle

within the analysis. sing kh~l, A,l (Equations 47 and 46 in Section 4.3.1) and #eq in the Mononobe-Okabe theory together with a unit weight ~~ will give Pm. Calculations by the authors of this report showed that reducing the effective stress friction angle of the soil so as to account for the excess Comparisons pore water pressures when computing a value for Pm is not exact. between the exact value of Pti, computed using 7,3, kh,3, ~,3 in the Mononobeshows this Okabe theory, and the value computed using the ~~~ procedure The magnitude error in the approximation to overpredict the value of Pm. computed value of PM increases with increasing values of rU and increases with decreasing values of kh. The error is largest for the kh equal to O case.

71

This Free water

procedure case: The

is illustrated thrust from

in example the mineral

17 at the end of this skeleton

chapter. using:

may be estimated

%4

= $%

(57)

where

To this thrust are added the dynamic Westergaard using -yW) and a static water pressure computed This 4.3.3 procedure is illustrated in example

water using

pressure (computed 7W3 from Equation 53. chapter.

18 at the end of this

Partial

Submergence by weighing unit above and below the

Situations with partial submergence may be handled weights based on the volume of soil in the failure wedge phreatic surface, as shown in Figure 4.13. This 4.4 Dynamic procedure Passive is illustrated Earth Pressures in example

19 at the end of this

chapter.

The trial wedge procedure of analysis may be used to find the orientation of the critical slip surface that minimizes the value of the earth pressure force acting on the wall for the passive earth pressure problem shown in Figure 4.lb. This minimum earth pressure force corresponds to the dynamic passive earth pressure force, PP~. The orientation of the inertial forces k~.W and ~W that minimize the value of PP~ is directed away from the wall and upwards (Figure 4.lb). This corresponds to the case where the soil wedge is accelerating towards the wall (positive ah values) and downwards (positive ~ values). The Mononobe-Okabe relationship for PP~ for dry backfill, Whitman and Christian (1990), is equal to P PE = PE+(l
-

given

by

q)]H2

(58)

and acts at an angle $ from the normal to the back of the wall of height The dynamic passive earth pressure coefficient, KP~, is equal to

H.

K PE = Cos+cosbcos(tj-e

COS2 (~ -++
r

6)
12

+6)

IL+
172

sin (f#+6)sin(f#-@+ /3) + Cos - 6) Cos (/?)

(59) 1

or

1, = I

h, h .

Y,o ye =

Area1+Y2* Areo

keo2

ye=

(+) 1+ ~-(+s]y
EXACT SOLUTION WHEN r. - 0. APPROXIMATE SOLUTION WHEN r. >0.

NOTES (1) (21

Figure

4.13

Effective unit submerged

weight for partially backfills

In the case of a vertical wall (P = O), Equation 59 simplifies

(0 = O) retaining to

a horizontal

backfill

cos2(# - +)
%E =

(60) Cos+cos(+ + 6) 1 [[ sin(~ + 6) sin(# COS(6 + *) - *) r

The planar slip surface extends upwards from the heel of the wall through the apE is equal to backfill and is inclined at an angle aP~ from the horizontal. (61)

73

where

and

Figures

4.14

and 4.15

give

aP~ as a function

of # for several

values

of ~.

This chapter.

procedure

is illustrated

in example

20 and 21 at the end of this

The Mononobe-Okabe approximates the actual overpredicts the values for 6 and ~.

equation assumes a planar failure surface, which only curved slip surface. Mononobe-Okabes relationship for KP~ and the error increases with increasing values

Rotating the passive soil wedge with a planar slip surface through the seismic inertia angle, the resultant vector, representing vectorial sums of W, k~W, and ~.W, becomes vertical, and the dynamic passive earth pressure force problem becomes equivalent to the static problem, as shown in Figure 4.16. The seismic passive P ~~= resistance is given by (62)

[~(P*,8*) *FP~]O~[Y. (1-~)]H2

where P*= P-$ 9=0-+ and F PE = COS2(0 -v) cos@ COS20 (63)

@ is computed using Equation 35, Values of Fp~ are also given as a function of $ and 0 in Figure 4.17. KP(~*,O*) is determined from the Coulomb static KP values by Equation 29. The Coulomb formulation assumes a planar failure surface which approximates the actual curved failure surface. The planar failure surface assumption introduces errors in determination of Kp and the error increases with increasing values of 6. The error in slip surface results in an overprediction of Kp. Thus the equivalent static formulation will be in error since the product of Kp(@*,O*) times FPE is equal to KPE. An alternate procedure is to approximate Kp(~*,O*) by using the static Kp values tabulated by Caquot and Kerisel (1948) or Kerisel and Absi (1990). Calculations show KPE values by the alternate procedure are smaller than KP~ values by MononobeOkabe. This chapter. procedure is illustrated in examples 22 and 23 at the end of this

74

458

B40 u-

@/2 fl-cf

()-

35\ Is0 m. 25 1# 25 j
20 350 O\ .

pEiiiiiz \ i i i

30

Variation aP~ with @ Figure 4.14 for 6 equal to #/2, vertical wall and level backfill

30

15*

\ 1 I i i I

5*

lo*

150 Y

20

254

30

45

I
/
Cp.5* . tl-fl-o n

409

\ . pE.&

/OjOiPE
-

Jo

G r.. JO..
15 ! .- -+.-.

/-20

25* Variation in aP~ with Figure 4.15 for 6 equal to zero degrees, vertical wall and level backfill @ u :
20

i 1 i i i 1 i i I i i i @J. 5 10

15*

10

o 0

me

150
#

20

25

xl

75

Dynamic

Problem

Equivalent

Static

Problem

Figure

4.16 Equivalent static formulation of the Mononobe Okabe passive dynamic earth pressure problem

This procedure is illustrated in the procedures outlined in Section 4.3. The procedures are used to account for the effect of submergence of the backfill in computing the value of PP~. For example, in the restrained water case of a fully submerged backfill, an effective unit equal to ~~ is assigned to the backfill for the case of ru = O or Equation 52 with rU > 0. KP~ or KP(P*,O*) and FPE are computed using an equivalent seismic inertia angle using Equation 48 for the case of rU = O or Equation 55 with rU > 0. This 4.4.1 procedure is illustrated in example Passive 24 at the end Pressures of this chapter.

Simplified

Procedure

for Dynamic

Earth

Towhata and Islam (1987) recommended a simplified approach for computing the dynamic passive earth pressure force that is similar to the Seed and Whitman (1970) procedure for the dynamic active earth pressure force. They also considered the group of structures consisting of a vertical wall (6= O)
76

1.6

1.5
I

6=30
1.4
4

.0 25 0 ./ ./ 0
-0

1.3

u a
I&

-x
150 ---- .--- *- .- I
1.1
i

I Iw

------1.0

-- .-.

.- .,

-----

---

5 --

-----

0.9

go* <

0.8 0

100

150

20

25

30

Figure

4.17

Values

of factor

FPE

77

retaining a granular horizontal backfill (P = O) with ~ equal to 35 degrees, 6 equal to O, and ~ equal to zero. Equation 65 is presented as developed by Towhata and Islam, while Equations 64, 66, and 67 have been modified by the authors of this report. PP~ is defined as

P PE = Pp - APp~

(64)

where the reduction in the static earthquake shaking is given by

passive

earth

pressure

value

PP due

to

APp~ = ;Vt H 2G AKP~

(65)

for a dry granular backfill. coefficient is equal to

The

dynamic

passive

earth

pressure
(66)

K PE = Kp - AKp~

and

(67)

Using this simplified procedure, Kp is computed using Equation 11 (Rankine), and AKp~ is computed using Equation 67. The incremental dynamic force APp~ acts counter to the direction of Pp, reducing the contribution of the static passive pressure force to PPE . The resulting forces PP (Equation 13) and APpE (Equation 65) act normal to the back of a wall.

This procedure

is

illustrated

in example

25 at the end of this

chapter.

The simplified procedure was developed for vertical walls retaining horizontal backfills with 6 = O. This simplified procedure should not be applied to dynamic passive earth pressure problems involving values of 6 > 0, due to the magnitude of the error involved.
4.5 Effect of Vertical Accelerations Passive Earth Pressures on the Values for the Dynamic Active and

In a pseudo-static analysis the horizontal and vertical accelerations of the soil mass during an earthquake are accounted for by applying equivalent inertial forces k~W and ~W to the soil wedge, which act counter to the direction of the accelerating soil wedges, as shown in Figure 4.1. A positive horizontal acceleration value increases the value of Pm and decreases the value of pPE. The vertical component of acceleration impacts the computed values of both Pm and PPE and Ku and KPE.

Upward accelerations (-~g) result in smaller values of Km and larger values of Pu as compared to the Km and pm values when ~ is set equal to zero. Upward accelerations (-~g) increase the value of PM due to the contribution of the term (1 - ~) in Equation 33. This trend is reversed when
78

the vertical acceleration acts downward (+~g) . Seed and Whitman (1970) and Chang and Chen (1982) showed that the change in the Km value varied with both the value of ~ and kh. Calculations with ~ ranging from 1/2 to 2/3 of the k~ value show that the difference between the computed values of Km with a Seed and nonzero ~ value and ~ equal to zero is less than 10 percent. Whitman (1970) concluded that for typical gravity retaining wall design probThe ~ value lems , vertical accelerations can be ignored when computing KM. has a greater impact on the computed value of PPE than on the value of PM. Chang and Chen (1982) show that the change in the KPE value varies with both the value of ~ and kh. The difference between the values of KPE with a nonzero ~ value and ~ set equal to zero increases with increasing magnitudes of both ~ and kh. This difference can easily be greater than 10 percent. In general, vertical accelerations acting downward (+~g) will decrease the KPE and PPE values from the corresponding KPE and PPE values for which ~ is set equal to zero. The trend is reversed when the vertical acceleration acts upward (-~g). When PPE acts as a stabilizing force for a structure, vertical accelerations should be considered in the computations of the value for PPE. An example is the soil region below the dredge level and in front of an anchored sheet pile wall (refer to the design example in Section C.2 of Appendix C).
4.6

Cases

with

Surface

Loadings the additional lateral (1) the wedge method of

There are two approaches used to approximate earth pressures on walls due to surface loadings; analysis and (2) finite element analyses.

In the case of a uniform surcharge q~, the value of the dYnamic active earth pressure force is computed using the modified Mononobe-Okabe relationships listed in Figure 4.18 and Equation 34 (or Equation 36 for a vertical wall retaining a horizontal backfill) for KM. The point of application of PM along the back of the wall is computed using the procedure outlined in Figures 4.19 and Figure 4.20. In this approximate procedure, the surcharge q. is The replaced by the addition of a layer of soil of height h~ equal to q~/7t. resulting problem is analyzed by adapting the Seed and Whitmans simplified procedure (of section 4.2.2) to the problem of a uniform surcharge loading as outlined in Figure 4.20. This procedure is illustrated in example 26 at the end of this chapter.

Pseudo-static trial wedge analyses may be performed to account approximately for both uniformly and non-uniformly distributed surface loadings, as described in Section A.2 of Appendix A for dynamic active earth pressure problems. These analyses may be performed on walls whose movements satisfy the criteria listed in Table 1. Such analyses will give the total thrust against a wall. The effects of surface loading is included within the wedge analysis by including that portion of the surface loading between the back of the wall and the intersection of the slip surface and the backfill surface in the force equilibrium calculation for each wedge analyzed, as described in Section 3.6 for the static problem. The effect of the earthquake is modeled in the pseudo-static trial wedge analysis by an additional set of static forces, khv, ~W, khv~, and ~W~, where W is equal to the weight of the soil contained within the trial wedge and W. is equal to the weight of surcharge contained within the region located above the trial wedge as shown The difficult part of in Figure A.3 for the active earth pressure problem.

79

\ \ \ \

A \

~..

I
for a vertical

+0 -

kv. g

Pm=KmO

(
(8

1+o

q.

ytH

[ Cos

Cos e +[Yt(l-kv)l (p - e) 1}

wall

O)

retaining

a horizontal

backfill

(/?= O) becomes

PM=Km~ {

l+

2 f?. yCH }

+[YJ1

- kv)]H2

These relationships
as discussed Figure 4.18

are exact when the critical in Chan R and Chen (1982). active

sliding

surface

is planar,

Mononobe-Okabe

wedge relationships loading

including

surcharge

the pseudo-static analysis along the back of the wall

is to determine the point (refer to Appendix A) .

of action

of this

force

Two-dimensional finite element analyses may be used to estimate the dynamic forces against walls as a result of surface loadings. See Appendix for a discussion of available methods.

80

r-------------------> ~-~~~
. Y ,t
Q6

TO

qa

SURMV?GE.

q6

I ++ .

T7

a. Surcharge

t h,

~:1

KA[Yth~

+ Yt*(H

- HW)]

daOT - KA[yth, +(X

Yt .(H

- Hw)

- YW)HW]

b.

Effective

horizontal

earth

pressure

-b-

O degrees

Figure

4.19

Static active earth pressure surcharge (Continued)

force

including

81

E,

E2 =

Es =

E, =

c.

Equivalent

forces

YPA -

E1.~/3(H

- HW)

HW]

E @2(H

- HW)

HW]

E3[l/3Hw]

E4*[l/2Hw]

PA

d.

Resultant

effective

force

and point

of application

Figure

4.19

(Concluded)

82

---
I 1 I I I I I I I I

2! a
G

a<

II

#!

>a

---

II

83

CHAPTER

4 - EXAMPLES

Contents Example Problems 7 through 26.

Commentary
The following examples illustrate the procedures described in Chapter 4. The results of the computations shown are rounded for ease of checking calculations and not to the appropriate number of significant figures. Additionally, the values assigned to variables in these problems were selected for ease of computations.

84

Example

No.

Reference

Section:

4.2

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with ~ = 30 degrees, 6 = 3 degrees, ~ = 6 degrees, 0 = O degrees, k~ = 0.1 (acceleration khg away from the wall and inertia force khw towards the wall) and ~ = 0.067 (acceleration ~g acting downward and inertia force ~W acting upward) , compute Km, Pm, and am.

/3-6
Yt = 120

&OJEMEKTS

>

pcf

CWLOA@ ACTIVE WELEE +Oh.kh.g

ta.k

..9

M
\\w \ \

.4.*

+=

tan-l

0.1 . d

(by eq 35)

+=6.12

KM

= COS(6.12)COS2(0)COS(6

COS2(30-6.12) (by eq 34) .12+3) 1+ [[ sin(30+3) sin(30-6.12-6) COS(3+6.12 )Cos( 6, r

Km

= 0.4268

PM

=0.4268

[120

pcf (1 - 0.067)] (20/)2

(by eq 33)

PM

= 9557

lb per

ft of wall

c lAE =

[tan [d

(30-6.12-6)]

[tan (30-6.12-6)

+cot . I

(30-6.12)]0

[1 +tan(3+6.12)

cot (30-6.12)]

Clm

1.0652

85

Example

No.

7 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.2

cm

= 1 +[[tan(3+6.12)]

[tan(30-6.12-6)

+cot(30-6.12)]]

cm

1.14144

CYAE

=30-

6.12 +tan-l

t-tan(30-6.12 -6) + 1.0652 1 . 14144

(by eq 37)

CYAE

51.58

86

Example

No.

8 ~g

Reference acting

Section: and

4.2

Repeat Example 7 with ~ = -0.067 (acceleration inertia force ~W acting downward) .

upward

(by eq 35)

4=5.35

KM

=
Cos (5,35) COS2(0)COS

COS2(30-5035)
(5.35+3) 1 +

sln {

+3)sln(3 o-5.3 5-6 COS(3+5.35)COS(6) -30 1

(by eq 34)

Km

= 0.4154

PM

= 0.4154

;[(120pcf)(l

+ 0.067

)](20)2

(by eq 33)

PM

= 10,639

lb per

ft of wall

c ME

[tan [d

(30-5.35-6)]

[tan (30-5.35-6)

+cot

(30-5.35)].

[1 + tan(3+5 .35) cot (30-5.35)]

Clm

= 1.0588

c 2AE

=1

+I[tan(3+5.35)]

[tan(30-5 .35-6) + cot(30-5 .35)]]

C2M

= 1.3696

am

= 30-5.35

+ tan- 1 -tan(30-5. 35-6) 1.3696 [

+ 1.0588 1

(by eq 37)

a~ Summarv

= 52.45

Examples 7 and 8 show that when with the weight of the backfill

hw aCtS downward wedge, the computed

(Example

value

8), in conjunction for PM is about

87

Example

No.

8 (Continued) the value of Pm computed

Reference for the case when

Section: ~W acts

4.2

11 percent larger than upward (Example 7) .

88

Example

No.

Reference

Section:

4.2

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 == O degrees, ~ = 5 degrees, 0 = O degrees, kh = 02 (acceleration khg away from the wall and inertia force khoW towards the wall) and ~ = ~g acting upward and inertia force ~W acting down-0.1343 (acceleration ward) , compute Km, Pm, am, and KA(~*,6*).

p=5

UWEUENTS ~

y, -120
+8= 35

pcf

CWLOUB ACTIVE WEDGE

G oh - kh. g

~, w \

..

+ . tan-l

[&]

(by eq 35)

$ =

10

Method

(Km

by Mononobe-Okabe)

Km =
COS(lO) COS2(0)COS(10)

COS2(35-10)
1 + sm 5)sin(3 COS(10)COS(5) 5-1o-5

[1-(3

(by eq 34)

Km

= 0.4044

Pm

=0.4044

;[(120

pcf)

(1 + 0.1343 )](20/)2

(by eq 33)

Pm

= 11,009

lb per

ft of wall

89

Example

No . 9 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.2

c lAE = [ /[tan(35-10-5)]

[tan(35-10-5)

+ cot(35-10)]

*[1 + tan(10)cot(35-10)]

b lAE

1.1217

c2AE

=1

+[[tan(lO)]

[tan(35-10-5)

+ cot(35-10)]1

cm

= 1.4423

a-

= 35-10

+ tan-l

FQRN+
with KA by Log Spiral

(by eq 37)

CYAE

= 52.72

Method

(Equivalent

static

formulation

Method)

p* = /3+7+$= 15 degrees O* = 6+ @ = 10 degrees

Fm

COS2(10) COS(10)COS2(O)

(by eq 39)

Fu

= 0.9848 (from Table

= 0.41 0 0.9848 = 0.404

KA(~*,O*) = 0.41
KM s [KA(~*, O*)Ffi]

3)

pm=[0.404]Q

+[(120pcf)

(1+0.1343

)](20)2

(by eq 38)

PM = 10,998
Method 3

lb per

ft of wall formulation with KA from Coulomb Active wedge

(Equivalent solution) 15

static

p=

0 = 10

from Method

2 calculations

90

Example

No.

9 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.2

KA(~*,e*) = cos2
(10) CoS,(IO)

COS2(35-10)

[1

COS(10)COS(15-1O)

sln(35)sln(35-15

(by eq 16)

KA(~*,O*) = 0.4106
Fu = 0.9848

from Method

2 calculations 0.9848 = 0.4044 (by eq 38)

Km

[KA(~*,8*)Fm]

= 0.4106

P~=[o.4044]

;[(120pcf)

(l+o.1343)](20)

Pm
Summary

= 11,008

lb

per

ft

of

wall

The values the values

for Km and Pw by Equations 34 and 33, respectively, for the product [KA(~*,O*)Fm] and Pm (Equation 38).

are equal

to

91

Example

No.

10

Reference

Section:

4.2

For the example 9 problem, compute the increase in magnitude for the dynamic active earth pressure force above the static active earth pressure value, APm .
Cos

KA =
COS2 (0)
COS (o)

(35)

Sln

(35) sin
Cos (o) Cos

(35-5
(5)

(by eq 16)

KA = 0.2842
p* = 0.2842 . ;

(120 pcf)

(20/)2

(by eq 7)

PA = 6,821 Pm APW APM APm Summary 11,008 = PM

lb per
lb

ft of wall ft of wall (from example 9)

per

- pA - 6,821 lb per ft of wall

= 11,008 = 4,187

The dynamic active earth pressure force is 61 percent greater active earth pressure force for the example 9 problem.

than

the static

92

Example

No.

11

Reference

Section:

4.2.1

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = 17.5 degrees (= 4/2), ~ = O degrees, 8 = O degrees, kh = 0.2 (acceleration khg away from the wall and inertia force k~W towards the wall) and ~ = O, compute Km, PM, and its point of action at elevation Y along the back of the wall using the simplified procedure for dynamic active earth pressures.

KA =
COS2 (o) COS(17 .5)

COS2 (35)
ln Cos

, 73
5 + 17.5) (17.5) sin Cos (o) (35) J

H(3
1 +

(by eq 16)

KA=

0.246 PA = 0.246 + (120 pcf) (20/)2 (by eq 7)

PA = 5,904 6.67

lb per ft of wall, acting at ft (H/3) above the base of the wall. (by eq 43)

AKm

= 0.15 AP~=O.15 (120 pcf) (20/)2 (by eq 41)

APW

= 3,600 lb per ft of wall, base of the wall. Km

acting

at 12 ft (0.6 H) above

the (by eq 42)

= 0.246+0.15

Km

= 0.396
Pm =5,904+3,600

(by eq 40)

Pm

= 9,504

lb per

ft of wall 93

Example

No.

11

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.2.1

(by eq 44)

Y=

8.69

ft

(0.43

H)

above

the

base

of

the

wall

94

Example

No.

12

Reference

Section:

4.2.3

For a wall retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = O degrees, ~ = 15 degrees, 8 == O degrees, and ~ = - k~/2 (acceleration ~g acting upward and inertia force ~W acting downward) , compute kh, ~, am, KM) and Pm. Introducing ~ = - k~*/2 and rearranging, Equation
45

becomes

K=2

2 tan(~ -~) tan( 4-P)

For

(~ - ~) = 20 degrees,

k~ = 0.44494 and ~ Note = - 0.22247 that the use of Figure 4.11 results in the same value for kh.

By Equation By Equation By Equation

35, ~ = 20 degrees 37, am = 15 degrees 34, Kfi = 1.05

95

Example

No.

13 = + k~/2 upward). (acceleration ~g

Reference acting

Section: downward and

4.2.3

Repeat example 12 with ~ inertia force ~oW acting Introducing ~

= + k~*/2 and rearranging,

Equation

45 becomes

k;

2 tan($ - ) 2 +tan(@-P~)

For

(~ - ~) = 20 degrees,

k~ = 0.307931 and ~ = 0.153966 35, ~ 37, am 34, KM = 20 degrees = 15 degrees = 1.05

By Equation By Equation By Equation Summary

Examples 12 and 13 show that for the limiting case of (# - ~) equal to +, the magnitude of kh is dependent upon the orientation of the vertical inertia For these force. Both analyses result in the same values for ~, KM, and aw. limiting cases the slip plane is orientated parallel to the slope of the backfill, am = /3. Additionally, when the inertia force ~W acts downward (example 12) in conjunction with the weight of the backfill wedge, the value computed for Pm is 44 percent greater than the value for Pm when ~W acts upward (example 13) due to the term (1 - ~) in Equation 33.

96

Example

No.

14

Reference

Section:

4.3.1

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a submerged cohesionless backfill with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = 17.5 degrees (= 4/2), 19 = O degrees, 0 = O degrees, k~g away from the wall and inertia force khw towards k~ = 0.2 (acceleration the wall) and ~ = O, compute the earth and water pressure forces acting on Assume a the wall for the case of restrained water within the backfill. hydrostatic water table within the backfill and ru = O.

. Yt = 120 pcf

L..\

Cp= 35

Hydrostatic u static u static

Water
=

Pressure
(62.4

Force (20)2

1/2

pcf)

12,480 lb per ft of wall acting at YUst = 20/3 = 6.67ft. Pressure Force

Dvnamic

Earth

AUWIM1
4.1 = 22.62 degrees efi

(by eq 46)

k-=

A002= 2008 020417

G

(by eq 47)

Method

(KM

by Mononobe-Okabe,

KA by Coulomb)

Ku

=
COS

COS2(35
(22.62) COS (22.62*17.5) 1 +

-22.62)
sin (35 + 17.5) cos(l/.5 sin (35 + 22.62) - 22.62) r (by 36) eq

[[
KM = 0.624

97

Example

No.

14 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.3.1

Pm =0.6240

+ [(120

-62.4)

(1-0)

](20)2

(adapted eq 33)

from

PM (pm). Determine

== 7,188 = PM

lb per

ft of wall lb per ft of wall

(COS 6) = 6,855 of Application

Point

of PM

KA s
COS2(0) . Cos (17.5)

COS2 (35)
1 + [/ sin (35 + 17.5) sin Cos (1/.5) Cos ( (35) 0) T

(by eq 16)

K~ = 0.246

PA = 0.246

(120-62.4)

(20)2

(by eq 7)

PA =

2,834

6.67 Pm APW APm

lb per ft of wall, acting at ft (H/3) above the base of the wall. (adapted from eq 40)

= PA + APfi = Pm - pA

= 7,188 - 2,834 = 4,354 lb per ft of wall acting 12 ft (0.6H) above the base of the wall.
c \

at

2834 Y=

q *

+ 4354 # /188

(().6

20)

(by eq 44)

Y=

9.9

ft.

(0.49

H)

Method

2 - Simplified Substitute

Procedure

(adapted

from

Seed

and Whitman

1970)

k~~l for k~ in Equation

43:

AKE

= 3 z

0.417

=0.313

APa

=0.313

; [120 - 62.4] (20)2

(adapted from eq 41)

98

Example

No.

14

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.3.1

AP~

= 3606 lb per ft of wall, acting at 12 ft (0.6 H) above the base of the wall. 1 calculations,

From Method

p* = 2,834 lb per ft of wall acting at 6.67 ft above the base of the wall. PM 2,834 + 3,606 = 6,440 lb per ft of wall (by eq 40)

(by

eq

44)

9.65

ft (0.48

H)

Summary The simplified procedure of analysis underestimates the Pvalue computed using the Mononobe-Okabe relationship by 10 percent due to the accuracy of the simplified relationship for large kh~l values (refer to the discussion on page 134 of Seed and Whitman 1970).
Static

pore

water

pressures

must

be added

for both

methods.

99

Example

No.

15

Reference

Section:

4.3.1

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a submerged cohesionless backfill with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = 17.5 degrees (= ~/2), ~ = O degrees, 8 = O degrees, kh = 0.2 (acceleration k~g away from the wall and inertia force khw towards the wall) and ~ = O, compute the earth and water pressure forces acting on the wall for the case of free water within the backfill. Assume a hydrostatic water table within the backfill and rU = O.

Hydrostatic u static u static

=

Water
(62.4

Pressure pcf)

Force

112

(20)2

12,480 acting

lb per ft of wall, at YUst = 20/3 = 6.67 Pressure Force 7

= n

ft

Hydrodynamic

Water

Pwd

0.2

(62.4 pcf) (201)2

(by eq 51)

Pw~ = 2,912 Yvd DVnamic = 0.4

lb per

ft of wall,

acting

at

. 20 = 8 ft Force

Earth

Pressure

khe2=

265

02

(by eq 49)

he2

0.32

@e2= tan-1 0-32 H

$02

(by eq 50)

17.74

degrees

100

Example

No.

15 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.3.1

Km

=
Cos (17.74) Cos (17.74

COS2 (35
r

-17.74)
72

+ 17.5)

1 +
N

sin

(35

+ 17.5) cos(l/.5+l/.

sin

(35

- 17.74) 74)

(by 1 36)

eq

Ku

= 0.4965

PM

=0.4965

. ;[(120pcf-62.4pcf)

(1-0)

](20)2

(adapted from eq 33)

PM

= 5,720

lb per

ft of wall lb per ft of wall

(PAE)X = Pm Determine Point

(Cos $) = 5,455 of Application

of Pm

From

the Method KA = 0.246 pm APm AP~

1 calculations and PA = 2,834

in Example lb per

14,

ft of wall. (eq 40)

= p* + AP~ = Pw - pA = 2,886 lb per ft of wall, the base of the wall. acting at 12 ft

= 5,720 - 2,834 (0.6 H) above

Y=

9.4

ft

(0.47

H)

Summary For the restrained water case (Example 14, Method normal to the wall = PM(cos6) + U~t~tiC = 6,855 = 19,335 For the free water = pfi(C0s6) t pwd + case
Ust,atic

1), the total

force

acting

+ 12,480 lb per ft of wall.

wall wall

(Example 15), the total force acting on the 5,455 + 2,912 + 12,480 = 20,847 lb per ft of =

For 8 percent

this dynamic larger total

problem, the free water analysis results in an dynamic earth pressure force acting normal to the wall.

101

Example

No.

16

Reference

Section:

4.3.2

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a submerged cohesionless backfill with 4 = 35 degrees, 6 = 17.5 degrees (= #/2), ~ = O degrees, 6 = O degrees, k~ = 0.2 (acceleration k~g away from the wall and inertia force k~W towards the wall) and ~ = O, compute the earth and water pressure forces acting on the wall for the case of restrained water within the backfill. Assume a hydrostatic water table within the backfill and rU = 0.3. I

Hydrostatic Linear

Water

Pressure

Force with

depth.

pressure

distribution

u static u static

62.4

pcf

(20)2

12,480

lb per 20

ft of wall

acting

at

YUSt s

= 6.67

ft above

the base

Excess Linear

Pore

Water

Pressure

Force with depth for rU = constant.

pressure

distribution

u shear u shear

1
= ~
L

([7b

GrU]H}H
0.3]
G

/ <adapted eq A-9) (20)2

from

$ [( 120 pcf-62.4pcf).

shear

3,456

lb per

ft of wall,

acting

at

Y ush =6.67ft

Hwabove ~ the base [1

of the wall with ~

= H and rU = constant.

102

Example Dvnamic

No.

16 (Continued) Pressure Force -y~~= (120 pcf-62.4pcf) 7.3 = 40.32 pcf

Reference

Section:

4.3.2

Earth

(1-0.3)
(by

eq 52)

-)W3

=62.4pcf 79.68pcf

+ (120 pcf-

62.4 pcf)

0.3

(by eq 53)

-YW3 =

k he3

40 . 32

120pcf pcf

. () 2

(by eq 54)

k he3 =0.595

ies =

tan-1[0.595]

(by eq 55)

$.3 = 30.75 degrees KM =

Cos (30.75) COS2 (35 -30.75)

Cos (30.75

+ 17.5)

1 +

sin (35

[/ KM = 1.033

+ 17.5) Cos (17.5

sin (35 + 30./5)

30.75) T (by eq

36)

PM Pm

=KmQ = 1.033

~ [~es(1 - ~)] Hz
G

(adapted from eq 33)

[40.32

pcf (1 - o)] (20)2

Pm (PM). Determine

= 8,331 = PM(COS6)

lb per ft of wall = 7,921 lb per ft of wall of Pm

Point

of Application

K~ = COS2 (o) Cos (17.5)

COS2 (35)

(by eq 16) 1+ [ sin (35

Cos + 17.5) sin (35) (11.5) Cos (0 ~1

KA = 0.246

PA = 0.246

(40.32 pcf)

(20)2

(adapted eq 7)

from

103

Example

No.

16

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.3.2

p*

1,984

lb per ft of wall,

actingat

6.67 ft

[1
~

above the base of the wall.

AP~=P~-PA

(solve

eq 40

for APN)

APm

= 8,331

- 1,984

= 6,347

lb per

ft of wall,

acting

at 12 ft (0.6 H) above

the base

of the wall.

Y=

10.7

ft (0.54

H)

Summary Excess pore water pressures within the submerged portion of the backfill increased both the effective earth pressures and the total earth and water pressures acting along the back of the wall. Pm increased by 16 percent, from a value equal to 7,188 wall for the case of rU = O (Method 1, example 14) , to a value lb per ft of wall for the case of rU = 0.3 (example 16). The total force acting (Method 1, example 14) = PM ft of wall. lb per ft of equal to 8,331

normal to the wall for the case of rU equal to O (COS 6) + u~ta~l. = 6,855 + 12,480 = 19,355 lb per

force acting normal to the wall for the case of rU equal The total 0.3 (example 16) = PN (cos ~) + Us..tl. + Ushear = 7,921 + 12,480 + 3,456 = 23,857 lb per ft of wall. The total force percent from the case

to

acting normal to the back of the wall increased by 23 of ru equal to O, in the case of rU equal to 0.3.

104

Example

No.

17

Reference

Section:

4.3.2

stress friction angle procedure Repeat Example 16 using the reduced effective to account for excess pore water pressures within the backfill and using rU=0.3.

Hydrostatic From Example u static YUst

Water 16,
=

Pressure

Force

12,480

lb per

ft of wall,

acting

at

=6.67ft

Hw ~ [1

Excess From

Pore Water 16,

Pressure

Force

Example

shear = 3,456 yUSh =6.67 ft

lb per ~

%? [1
Force

ft of wall

acting

at

due torU=

constant.

Dynamic

Earth

Pressure

tan#~q =(1-0.3) 4;, = 26.11

tan35 degrees

(by eq 56)

$,1 = tan-l
+el

= 22.62

120 0.2 (120 - 62 . degrees

G

(by eq 46)

105

Example

No.

17 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.3.2

120 %1 ~e, (120-62 =o.417 = .4)

0.2 (by eq 47)

KM

=
COS

COS2 (26.1
(22.62) COS (22.62 + 17.5) 1 + sin

-22.62)
(26.1 +17.5) COS (17.5 sin (26.1-22 + 22.62) .62) r

[[
KM = 0.928

(by eq
36)

Pm

=0.928

c + [(120

- 62.4)

(1 - o)]

(20)2

(adapted eq 33)

from

PM

= 10,690

lb per

ft of wall lb per ft of wall

(PAE)IC= P~(cos6) Summary

= 10,196

Ihe value of Pm computed using the reduced effective 28 percent larger than the value of PM computed in example

friction 16.

angle

is

106

Example

No.

18

Reference

Section:

4.3.2

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a submerged cohesionless backfill with (water content = 15%) ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = 17.5 degrees (= 4/2) , /3 = O degrees, 8 = O degrees, k~ = 0.2 (acceleration k~g away from the wall and inertia force k~W towards the wall), and ~ = O, compute the earth and water pressure forces acting on the wall for the case of free water within the backfill. Assume a hydrostatic water table within the backfill and r. = 0.3.

= Yt - 120 pcf
($!. G. 35 - 2.65 P u~w~ UsTATc

Hydrostatic

Water

Pressure

Force

static

(62.4

pcf)

(20)2

u static

12,480

lb per 20 3

ft of wall,

acting

at

Yust = Excess Pore Water Pressure

= 6.67 Force

ft

u shear u shear

120 [(

pcf-62.4pcf)0

0.3] . (20)2 actingat

3,456

lbper

Yush =6.67ft ~= Handru

%? [1
T
. (0.2)

ft of wall,

above the base of the wall with

= constant.

Hvdrodvnamic

Water

Pressure 7 PW~ ==

Force

o (62.4 pcf)

(20)2

(by eq 51)

PW~ = 2,912 Ypw~ = 0.4

lb per

ft of wall,

acting

at

G 20=8ft

107

Example Dynamic

No.

18

(Continued) Pressure Force y.3=(120pcf 703 = 40.32 pcf -62.4 pcf)

Reference

Section:

4.3.2

Earth

(1-0.3) (by eq 52)

7~3

=62.4

pcf+

(120 pcf-

62.4 pcf)

0.3

7W3 = 79.68pcf

(by eq

53)

with

a water

content

equal

to 15 percent, Yd = yd =
7t

Ww 120 pcf 1 +0.lb = 104.3 pcf

.
%04

104.35 pcf 40 .32 pcf

0.2

(by eq 57)

~e,

= 0.518

A4

tan-l

$04

= 27.38

0.518 L1 L J degrees

h=
COS (27.38) KM = 0.8136
COS

COS2 (35

-27.38)
12

r
(27.38 + 17.5) 1 +
1[

sin (35

+ 17.5) COS (1/.5

sin (35 - 27.38) + 27.38)

(by e 36)

PM

= 0.8136

. +[(40.32pcf)

(1-0)]

(20)2

(adapted

from

eq 33)

Pm (%)x

= 6,561 = PM

lb per (COS6)

ft of wall lb per ft of wall

= 6,257

108

Example Determine

No.

18 (Continued) of Application of Pm

Reference

Section:

4.3.2

Point

From

example

16, KA = 0.246 p* = 1,984 lbper 6.67ft ~

% [1

ft of wall, actingat the base of the wall.

above

APm APa

= Pm

- pA = 4,577 lb per ft of wall, the base of the wall. \ 1,984 Y=

Y

(solve acting

eq 40 for APm)

= 6,561 - 1,984 (0.6H) above

at 12 ft

~ *

+4,577

(0.6

20)

= 10.4

6 9561 ft (0.52 H) above the base of the wall

Summary For the restrained to the wall

= =

water

case

(example

16),

the total

force

acting

normal

Pm 7,921 23,857

(c0s6)

+ u~t~tl~ + + 3,456

Ushear

+ 12,480 lb per

ft of wall case (example 18), the total force acting normal to

For the wall = PM

=

the free water

(cos6)

+ U~tatlC + u~h~ar + + 3,456

Pwd

6,257

+ 12,480 lb per

+ 2,912

= 25,105

ft of wall

For this problem, the free water analysis results in a 5 percent larger total dynamic earth pressure force acting normal to the wall, as compared against the restrained water case.

109

Example

No.

19

Reference

Section:

4.3.3

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a partially submerged cohesionless backfill with (~ = 12 ft) with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = 17.5 degrees (= 4/2), ~ = O degrees, e = () degrees, k~ = 0.2 (acceleration k~g away from the wall and inertia force k~.W towards the wall) and ~ = O, compute the earth and water pressure forces acting on the wall for the case of restrained water within the backfill. Assume a hydrostatic water table within the backfill and ru = 0.1.

yt - 120 pcf
,,.,,0 .-,.:$ . . .

I
I

HW -12 1 u STATIC

.V .

b. . . . . . .v ..

Hydrostatic

Water

Pressure

Force

u static u static
Y Ust

= =

(62.4 pcf) lbper

(12)2 ft of wall

4,493
%

3=%=4ft

Excess

Pore Water to sections

Pressure A.2.3

Forces and A.2.4 ---of Appendix ----A)

(refer

----

HW t +

SWR - a

U:;:ar= (120 pcf) top shear = 96 psf

(20 - 12) (0.1) (by eq A-7)

110

Example

No.

19 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.3.3

%bl?~ar = U:::ar bot %.hear =

(120

pcf - 62.4 pcf)(12 )(0.1)

(by eqn.

A-8)

165.1 psf

shear

1/2

(96

psf + 165.1

psf)

(12)

(by eq A-9)

u shear = 1,567 lb per ft of wall

Y ~sh Y ush

(96psf) =
=

(12) (12/2)

+1/2

(165.1 psf-96psf) 156/

(12) (12/3)

5.47 ft from the base of the wall

Dynamic Within

Earth

Pressure

Force

the submerged

backfill,

Yes = (120 pcf-62.4pcf) ~e3 =51.8 pcf

(1 -0.1)

(by eq 52)

For the partially

submerged

backfill,

12
7e=~

Ye

[1 = 95.45pcf

(51.8 pcf) +

[[11
2

1-

(120 pcf)

(from

Figure

4.13)

F M-M(02) ke =
(1.257)

(adapted

from

eq 54)

(0.2) =0.251

%4!= tan-l (0.251)

ie= 14.11 degrees

(adapted

from

eq 55)

111

Example Km =

No.

19 (Continued) COS2 (35 - 14.11)

Reference

Section:

4.3.3

2 Cos (14.11) Cos (14.11 + 17.5) 1 + [1 sin (35 + 17.5) sin (35 - 14.11) Cos (1/.5 + 14. 11) (adapted from eq 36)

Km

= 0.4254

PM Pm

(0.4254)

(1/2)[95.45pcf(l-0)]

(20)2

= 8,121

lb per ft of wall

(adapted from eq 33)

Determine

Point

of Application

of PA~

From

example

16,

K~ = 0.246 Determine PA and the point of application. (o~)+wT (o~)BOT.

Find the vertical effective stresses slightly above the water table slightly below the water table (o~)-wT and at the bottom of the wall

TOTAL STRESS

PWP

EFFECTIVE

STRESS

112

Example Vertical

No.

19 (Continued) and Effective Stresses SliEhtlv Above

Reference G.W.T.

Section:

4.3.3

Total

-YJH -

HJ = (120 pcf) (20 -12)

=960psf

u=

%tatic + %hear = 0 960psf

(o~)+w = Uy U=

Vertical

Total

and Effective

Stresses

Slizhtlv

Below

G.W.T.

vt(H

+J

= (120 pcf)

(20 -12)

=960psf

u= u= (O~)-W=Oy

%tatic + %hear =O+7t(H-~)r. O + (120 pcf) -U= (20 - 12) (0.1) = 96psf =864psf

960psf-96psf

Vertical

Effective

Stresses

at the Base

of the Wall

(ay=

(CJ;)-wT+7:3~

=864

psf+

(51.8 psf)

(12)

(u;)OT = 1485.6psf

Determine table wall

the horizontal slightly

active below

effective

stresses

slightly

above

the water of the

(~a+w)) (oaBOT).

the water

table

), and at the bottom (oa-wT

113

Example

No.

19 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.3.3

+WT CTa

=KA

(~~)+wT e psf

(0.246)

(960 psf)

+WT Oa =

236.2

~ -WT
a

=K~(o~)-W=

(0.246)

(864 psf)

~ -WT = 212.5psf a a~T=Ka(o~)BOT= ~BOT = 365.5 psf a (0.246) (1,485.6 psf)

Break the effective stress distribution to find the magnitude of the resultant

diagram into rectangles and triangles force and its point of application.

El =1/20:m

(H-%)

=1/2 ft of wall

(236.2 psf)

(20 -12)

El = 944.8 lbper

YE1=~+l/3(H YEl
=

-IiJ=12

+1/3

(20

-12)

14.67

ft above the base of the wall

E2 = l/2[o~T

-a:wT]~=l/2[365.5psf-212

.5psf]

(12)

E2 = 918 lb per ft of wall

114

Example

No.

19

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

4.3.3

Y~~ =1/3 YE2

=

(IQ

=1/3

(12) the base of the wall

4.00 ft above

Ea = o~m

(%)

= (Zlz.spsf)

(12)

Es = 2,550psf

Y ~~ =1/2

(~)

=1/2

(12) the base of the wall

Y E3 = 6.00 ft above

PA =EI+E2+E3 p* =4,413

=944.8

+918

+2,550

lb per ft of wall

Sum moments YPA

El
=

about

the base

of the wall

and solve

for:

(YE1) + E2 (YE2)+ E3 (YEs)

D

YPA

(944.8)
=

(14.67)

+ (918) (4.00) 4 $413 the base of the wall

+ (2,550)

(6.00)

YPA = 7.44

ft above

APa

p~-pA - 4,413

(solve

eq 40 for APW)

APfi = 8,121 APm

= 3,708 lb per ft of wall, ft (0.6H) above the base

acting at 12 of the wall.

Y= y=

PA (ypA) +APm Pm (4,413) (7.44)

(0.6H)

+ (3,708) 8121 above

(0.6)

(20)

Y = 9.52

ft (0.48H)

the base of the wall.

115

Example No. 20

Reference Section: 4.4

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with ~ = 30 degrees, ~ = 3 degrees, ~ = 6 degrees, d = ()degrees, kh = o-l (acceleration k~g towards-the wall and i~ertia force k~W away from the wall), and ~ = 0.067 (acceleration ~g acting downward and inertia force ~W acting upward), ompute KPE, PPE, and aP~.

MOVEMENT t

CWLOJiB *= a Pr Y-

PASSIVE

WELXE

$.

tan-l

0.1 0.

d
+ O)

(by eq

35)

4=6.118

KPE

COS2 =

(30

- 6.12

2 COS

(6.12)

COS2

(0)

COS

(6.12

- 0 + 3) 1 [1

sin (30 + 3) sin (30 - 6.12 +6) Cos (3 +6.12 COS (6 -

o)

0,1

(b e
5

KPE =3.785

PPE =3.785

(1/2)

[(120 pcf) (1 -0.067)] (20)2 (by eq 58)

PE = 84,754 lb per ft of wall

CSpE

= [

~[tan(30

+ 6 -6.12)]

[tan (30+6-6.12)

+cot (30+0-6.12)].

[l+tan(3
C3PE =

- 0+6.12)

cot(30 +0-6.12)]]

1.4893

116

Example No. 20 (Continued) C4PE= 1 +[[tan (3 -()+6.12)] c [tan (30+6-6.12)

C4PE =

Reference Section: 4.4 +cot(30+O-

6.12)]]

1.4547

fPE

=6.12

- 30 +

tan-l tan (30 + 6 - 6.12) +1.4893 1. /

aPE =30.9

(by eq 61)

117

Example No. 21

Reference Section: 4.4

Repeat Example 20 with ~ = -0.067 (acceleration ~g acting upward and inertia force ~W acting downward).

# .

f_an-l

(1 --

0.1 0.

(by eq 35)

+=5.354

KPE

COS2 (30-5.35 Cos (5.35) COS2 (o) Cos (5.35 - 0 + 3) 1 [/

+0)
2

sin (30 + 3) sin (30 - 5.35 + 6) Cos (3 +5.35- o) COS (6 ~

(b 59)

KPE =3.815

PPE

3.815

(1/2)

[(120 pcf) (1 - (-0.067))] (20)2 (by eq 58)

PPE = 97,695 lbper ft of wall

c~P~= [~[tan(30 + 6 -5.35)] [tan (30+6-5.35)

+cot(30+()-5.35)]o

cot (3()+()- 5.35)]1 [1 +tan (3 -() +5. 3.5)

C3PE

1.4724

c~pE= 1 +[[tan (3 -0+5.35)]

C4PE =

[tan(30+6-

5.35) +Cot (30+0

- 5.35)]]

1.4071

~ PE

=5.35 =31.1

- 30 + tan-l

tan (30 + 6 - 5.35) +1.4724 1.40/1

(by eq 61)

aPE

118

Example No. 21 (Continued)

Reference Section: 4.4

Examples 20 and 21 show that when the inertial force ~ . W acts downward (example 21) the computed value for PP~ is 15 percent larger than PP~ for the case when ~ W acts upward (example 20).

119

Example No. 22

Reference Section: 4.4

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = O degrees, @ = O degrees @ = 5 degrees, k~ = 0.3 (acceleration k~g towards the wall and inertiaforce k~W away from the wall), and ~ = -0.12 (acceleration ~g acting upward and inertia force ~W acting downward) compute KP~, PP~, and aP~.
I
MOVEMENT Yt 120 pcf

apE

Method 1 (KP~by Mononobe - Okabe)

~ .

tan-l

*1
-15+5)

(by eq

35)

+=15.00

KPE

COS2 (35

r
Cos (15) COS2 (5) Cos (15
- 5 + o) 1 1[

72
sin Cos (35 (0 + O) sin (35 - 15 + O) +155) Cos (o 5,1

K PE =

2.847

(by eq 59)

PPE =2.847

(1/2)

(120pcf [1 - (-0.12)]) (20)2 (by eq 58)

PPE = 76,527 lb per ft of wall

c~pE=[4[tan(35+o-15)]

[tan
(sj+o-ls)

+cot(sj+

j-is)].

[1 +tan (O - 5 + 15) cot(35 + 5 - 15)]1

120

Example No. 22 (Continued) C3PE= 1.1217

Reference Section: 4.4

c~p~= l+[[tan(() -5+15)] C4PE= 1.4420

. [tan(35+()-

15) + cot (35 + 5 - 15)]]

(15 - 35) + tan-l tan (35 + O - 15) + 1.1217 4420 1. 1 aPE = 25.8505
~PE =

(by eq 61)

Method 2 (Equivalent Static Formulation with KP by Log-Spiral Method) p*. p-$= 8*=8 -15

-4 = -10

~(~*,8*) = 2.52

(from Table 3)

FPE

COS2 (5 - 15) Cos (15) COS2 (5)

F~E = 1.0117

P~E= PPE
=

[2.52 68,530

(1.0117)]

(1/2)

[(120

[1

(-0.12)1)]

(20)2

(by eq 62)

lbper ft of wall

Summary The values for KPE and PPE computed using Mononobe - Okabe (by Equations 58 and 59) are 12 percent larger than the values for [KP (~, 8*) . FPE] and PPE by Equation 62.

121

Example No. 23

Reference Section: 4.4

For a wall of height H = 20 ft (f? = O degrees, d = 5 degrees) retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = ~, compute the value of PP~ for the case of k~ = 0.3 (acceleration k~g towards the wall and inertia force k~.W away from the wall), and ~ = -0.12 (acceleration ~og acting upward and inertia force ~W acting downward). Note that when using the log-spiral solutions, 6 is set equal to -35 degrees (for Table 3 and Km(~*, 0). Calcu. late the magnitude error in the Mononobe-Okabe solution forrthe value of PP~ (KP~by Equation 59 with 6 - 35 degrees) versus the value of PP~ determined using the equivalent static formulation.

MOVEMENT

? H*2CY UNEAR

Y - 120 pcf
SUP PIANE

apE ~

AS?miw

(by eq 35)
+=15.00

Method 1

(Equivalent Static Formulation with KP by Log-Spiral Method)

J3*.p-4=-15 ~. =d-?j=-lo

KP(@*, O*) =6.97

(from Table 3)

FPE
F PE

cosq5
=

-15)
COS2 (5)

Cos

(15)

1.0117

122

Example No. 23 (Continued) PPE

P PE
[(6.97) 189,546 (1.0117)1 lb per ft (1/2) of wall [120 (1 -

Reference Section: 4.4

(-0.12))1 (20)2

=
=

(by eq 62)

Method 2
APE

(KP~by Mononobe-Okabe Method) COS2(35 -15.0+5) 2

17 =

Cos (15) COS2 (5) Cos (15 5 + 35) 1[

K PE
=

sin (35 + 35) sin (35 - 15 + O) Cos (35 +15- 5) Cos (o 5,1 (by eq 59)

11.507

PPE =11.507

(1/2)

[(120 pcf) (1 - (-0.12))] (20)2 (by eq 58)

PPE = 309,308 lb per ft of wall

Summary The Mononobe-Okabe procedure over predicts the value for Pp~ by 63 percent. The accuracy of the Mononobe-Okabe solution decreases with increasing values of 6.

123

Example No. 24

Reference Section: 4.4

For a wall of height H - 20 ft retaining a submerged cohesionless backfill with ~ = 35 degrees, 6 = 17.5 degrees (= ~/2), ~ = O degrees, d = O degrees, g towards the wall and inertia force kh o W away kh = 0.2 (acceleration k~ from the wall), and ~ = (),compute the passive earth pressure force and water pressure forces acting on the wall for the case of restrained water within the backfill. Assume a hydrostatic water table within the backfill and rU = 0.3.
G

Y Y 1 + u.sh

. .

Hydrostatic Water Pressure Force ustatic = l/2(62.4pcf)(20)2 u static

=12,480

lb per ft of wall, acting atYu~~ = ~

[1

=6.67ft

Excess Pore Water Pressure Force (refer to sections A.2.3 and A.2.4 of Appendix A)

ug~ o

v
A ~

v
=

H=HW

u SHEAR
T

u SHEAR

It

s-m?

- a

top ushear . 0

ushear = [(120pcf - 62.4 pcf) . 20f](0.3) bot ushear = 345.6 psf 1/2(u~:~~r)(HW) 2 = 1/2 (345.6 psf) (20)2 shear = 124

bot

(by eq A-8)

Example No. 24 (Continued)

shear =

Reference Section: 4.4

3,456 lb per ft of wall

Yu,~= 1/3(H) = 6.67 ft from the base of the wall Dynamic Earth Pressure Force Within the submerged backfill, ye3 = (120pcf -62.4 pcf) (1 -0.3) (by eq 52) ~e3 =40.32 pcf

hev [~2::~ffl 02)

khe3=0.595 $,3 =tan-l [0.595] $e3 = 30.75

(by eq

54)

(by eq

55)

KPE

COS2 (35 - 30.75 +0) Cos (30.75) COS2(0) Cos (30.75 - 0 + 17.5)
1.[

sin (35 + 17.5) sin (35 - 30.75 + O) Cos (1/.5 +30./5 - o) Cos (o

0,

KPE

3.518

(by eq 59)

PE

3.518

(1/2)

(40.32

pcf [1 - O]) (20)2

(adapted from eq 58)

PpE = 28,369 lb per ft of wall

125

Example No. 25

Reference Section: 4.4.1

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with @ = 35 degrees, 6 = O degrees, ~ = O degrees, 8 = O degrees, k~ = 0.2 (acceleration k~ o g towards the wall and inertia force k~ . W away from the wall), and ~ = 0, compute the value for PPE using the simplified procedure for dynamic passive earth pressures. I

Since 6 = O, the Rankine equation gives the same result as the Coulomb equation. Kp = tan2 (45 + 35/2) KP= 3.69 Pp = 3.69 (1/2) (120 pcf) (20)2 (by eq 13) (by eq 11)

PP = 88,560 lb per ft of wall, acting at 6.67 ft (1/3 H) above the base of the wall bKP~ = 17/8 (0.2) AKp~ = 0.425 APP~ = 1/2 (120 pcf) (20)2 (0.425) (by eq 65) (by eq 67)

APP~ = 10,200 lb per ft of wall, acting at 13.33 (2/3 H) above the base of the wall. Pp~ = 88,560 - 10,200 Pp~ = 78,360 lb per ft of wall Summary The value of Pp~ computed using the simplified procedure agrees with the value computed using the Mononobe-Okabe relationship (calculations not shown). The simplified procedure is limited to values of 6 = O, vertical walls and level backfills. (by eqn 64)

126

Example No. 26

Reference Section: 4.6

For a wall of height H = 20 ft retaining a submerged cohesionless backfill with surcharge q~ = 500 psf, 4 = 35 degrees, degrees (= 4/2), @ = O 6 = 17.5 degrees, 0 = O degrees, k~ = 0.1 (acceleration k~ I g towards the wall and inertia force k~ . W away from the wall), and ~ = O, compute the active earth pressure force and water pressure forces acting on the wall for the case of restrained water within the backfill. Assume a hydrostatic water table within the backfill and rU = 0.1.

J- __ ___ ___ ___ ---___ _T

h/-=-Y+
A
1

q.

q#5a2psf

rU - 0.1

..
pcf u u

. .

Yt - 120
@
I

SnEm

.
v. -. .

35

STATIC -

..

Hydrostatic Water Pressure Force = 1/2 (62.4 pcf) (20) 2 static = 12,480 lb per ft of wall static YUst = 20/3 = 6.67 (~/3) above the base of the wall. Excess Pore Water Pressure Force Linear pressure distribution with depth for rU = constant. top ushear = top ushear = top ushear = bot ushear = bot ushear =
bot

qs (ru) (500 psf) (0.1) 50 psf [qs + (H - HW) -y~ + HW 7~] ru [500 psf+0 + 20 (120 pcf - 62.4 pcf)] (0.1)

ushear = 165.2 psf

127

Examp1e No. 26 (Continued)

top

Reference Section: 4.6

u

, I
IE1

,. . .
4 . . 9 . ., . 4 ,. ;. . 4 ,. h ~: .

H=

~ I I I w:: ~ I

v. b. b... 4

bot

TOE
1+ psf

show
165.2

SHEAR COMPONENT

OF PORE WATER PRESSURE

El = shear p (%) = (50psf) (20) El = 1,000 lb per ft of wall YEl = ~/2 = 20/2 YEl = 10 above the base of the wall E2 = 1/2(u$~~~r - u~~~ar) ~ s 1/2 (165.2 psf -50 psf) (20) E2 = 1,152 lb per ft of wall YE2 = 1/3 (~) = 1/3 (20) Y~2 = 6.67 above the base of wall u shear = El + E2 =1,000+1,152 ushear = 2,152 lbper ft of wall Y= ush Y= ush (El) (Y~l)+ (Ez) (YEZ) u shear
(1,000) (10) +(1,152) 2 9152 (6.67)

Yush= 8.22

ft above the base of the wall

Dynamic Earth Pressure Force = (120 pcf - 62.4 pcf) (1 - 0.1) _Ye3 Ve3 = 51.84 pcf 7W3 = 62.4 pcf + (120 pcf - 62.4 pcf) (0.1) 7W3 = 68.16 pcf 128 (by eq 53) (by eq 52)

Example No. 26 (Continued)

Reference Section: 4.6

khe3= khe3= 0.2315

(by eq

54)

~e~ = tan-l(0.2315) 4e3 = 13.03 degrees COS2

r

(by eq 55)

KN =
Cos (13.03) Cos (13.03

(35

- 13.03)
12

+ 17.5)

H
1 +

sin (35 + 17.5) sin (35 - 13.03) Cos (1/.5 + 13.03) 1

Km = 0.4069

(adapted from eq 36)

1+

H}
4 Yes H
1+ [

7
2

9 (7,3)

[l-k] .1 7

H2 (51.84 pcf) [l- 0] (20)2

(adapted from Fig 4.18)

PM = (.4069) PM = 8,288

(500 psf) / . (5184 pc) (20)

lb per ft of wall

Determine Point of Application of P~F

COS2 (35 - o)

KA

r l.COS2(0) Cos (o + 17.5) 1 +

1/

sin (35 + 17.5) sin (35 - O) Cos (17.5 + o) Cos (o o)

(by eq 16)

KA e 0.2461

Determine PA and the point of application. Find the vertical effective stress at the ground surface.

129

Example No. 26 (Continued)

%s = 5oopsf

Reference Section: 4.6

=0 static top = 5opsf shear = shear u= static =o+50psf=50psf + shear (O;)top =Oy -u = 5oopsf - 5opsf =450psf

Find the vertical effective stress at the base of the wall. (O;)bot = (Cs;)top +7:3 ~= (Oj)bot = l,487psf 450 psf+(51.84pcf) (20)

Determine the horizontal active effective stress at the ground surface (a~top), and at the bottom of the wall (a~bot) .
~top a = KA(~;)toP

(0.2461)

(450 psf)

~top= 110.8psf a ~botZKA (o~)hot = (0.2461) (l,487psf) a ~bot= 366psf a

Break the trapezoidal effective stress distribution diagram into a rectangle and a triangle to find the magnitude of the resultant force and its point of application.

H-

130

Example No. 26 (Continued) El =ojOp(H) = (110.8 psf) (20) El = 2,216 lb per ft of wall YEl = l/2(H) =1/2 (20) YEl = 10 ft above the base of the wall E2 = 1/2 (a~t- o~op ) (H) =1/2 (366 psf-l10.8psf) E2 = 2,552 lbper ft of wall YE2 = 1/3 (H) =1/3 (20) YE2 = 6.67 ft above the base of the wall PA = El + E2 4,768 lbper ft of wall YPA = YPA
= El (YE1) + E2 (YE2) =

Reference Section: 4.6

(20)

(2216)

(10

)+(2552)

(6.67)

PA 8.22

4768

ft above the base of the wall

APW = PM - pA = 8288 - 4768 AP~ = 3,520 lb per ft of wall Find the Point of Application of AP~R

(solve

eq

40

for APm)

h. =4.17

ft

YAPM

0.6

(H +h~) = 0.6

(20

+ 4.17)

(from Figure 4.20)

YApx

= 14.5

ft above the base of the wall PA (ypA) + Apm (YAPAE). (4768) Pm ft (0.54H)
(8.22) + (3520) 8 2288 (14.5)

Y=Yp~= Y = 10.89

above the base of the wall

131

CHAPTER 5
5.1

EARTH PRESSURES ON WALLS RETAINING NONYIELDING BACKFILLS

Introduction

This part of the report describes two procedures that are used to compute the dynamic earth pressures acting along the back of walls retaining nonyielding backfills due to earthquake shaking. In practical terms, a wall retaining a nonyielding backfill is one that does not develop the limiting dynamic active or passive earth pressures because sufficient wall movements do not occur and the shear strength of the backfill is not fully mobilized - wall movements that are less than one-fourth to one-half of Table 1 wall movement values . Because of this, earth retaining structures such as massive concrete gravity retaining walls founded on firm rock or U-frame locks and dry docks are sometimes referred to as structures retaining nonyielding backfills in the literature. Two procedures for analyzing such cases are a simplified analytical procedure due to Wood (1973) and a complete soil-structure interaction analysis using the finite element method (see Appendix D) .
5.2

Woods Solution

Wood (1973) analyzed the response of a wall retaining nonyielding backthe soil backfill to be an elastic fill to dynamic excitation assming material. He provided normal mode solutions for the case of both a uniform modulus and a modulus varying linearly with depth. Since these solutions are slowly convergent for practical problems Wood (1973) presented approximate procedures based on findings from the normal mode solutions. Wood showed that a static elastic solution for a uniform lg horizontal body force gave very accurate results for the pressures, forces, and moments on the wall under harmonic excitation of frequency f (cyclic frequency) when dynamic amplification effects were negligible. This occurs when fl= f/f, is less than about 0.5 where f is the frequency of motion and f. = V~/4H is the cyclic frequency of the first shear mode of the backfill considered as a semi-infinite layer of depth H. The limiting fldepends on the value of V. and the geometry of the elastic backfill but the value fi< 0.5 covers many practical cases. In cases of wide backfills, the lateral seismic force against the wall when O < 0.5 is given by (68)

acting at a height of 0.63H above the back of the wall. The normal stress distributions along the back of the wall were shown to be a function of (1) Poissons ratio, U, and (2) the lateral extent of the elastic medium behind the wall, expressed in terms of the ratio of the width of the elastic backfill divided by the height of the wall, L/H (see Figure 5.1). Two examples of the variation in the values for the normalized horizontal stresses with normalized elevations above the base of the wall are shown in Figure 5.2. A L/H value equal to 1 corresponds to a narrow backfill placed within rigid containment and a L/H value equal to 10 corresponds to a backfill of great width. The horizontal stresses at any elevation Y along the back of the wall, OX, are normalized by the product of ~H in this figure.
133

HOMKENOUS

EIASTtC

SOIL

OISPLKEMENT

X -0

mm WALL

r
RIGID 60UNDARY L *

Figure 5.1

Model of elastic backfill behind a rigid wall

The resulting distributions for the horizontal stresses are parabolic, with larger values computed along the upper half of the wall, as compared to the values computed along the lower haif. In addition, the results show OX to be larger for wide elastic backfills, as compared to those values computed for narrow elastic backfills. Figure 5.3 shows the corresponding resultant horizontal force, F~r, along the back of the rigid wall and the corresponding seismic moment about the base of the rigid wall, MS=, as a function of u and L/H . Figure 5.3 presents the resultant force and moment in terms of their dimensionless values. F~~ acts at a height

sr

&r

(69)

Fsr

The stresses shown in Figure 5.2 and the forces and moments shown in Figure 5.3 result from the application of a l-g static horizontal body force. The values for OX and Fsr corresponding to other constant horizontal acceleration values are computed by multiplying the OX value from Figure 5.2 and the F.= value from Figure 5.3 by the ratio of the new acceleration value coefficient, kh. Shaking table tests by Yong (1985) using dry sand backfill and one-half meter high walls have confirmed the applicability of Woods simplified procedure when the predominant frequency of shaking is significantly less than the fundamental frequency of the backfill. The measured forces exceeded by a factor of 2 to 3 those predicted by the Mononobe-Okabe theory. The tests 134

L/H=l U-().5 u -0.4 u

G 0.3 U=O.2

L/H=10

1.0

0.8

0.2

fl

-o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 OIMENSIONESS NORMAl STRESS a:/ Y H

OIMENSIONESS NORMAL STRESS

U:/7H

Figure 5.2

Pressure distributions on smooth rigid wall for l-g static horizontal body force

clearly showed the limitations of Woods simplified procedure when this condition is not met. If the dynamic response of the backfill amplifies the accelerations at the level of the base of the backfill,the assumption of constant acceleration is not met and much greater earth pressures can result. Woods (1973) has given two approximate procedures for estimating seismic soil pressures against walls retaining nonyielding backfills when dynamic effects are important; typically when 0 > 0.5. In one procedure the dynamic response is represented by a number of low frequency modes together with a pseudocode called a rigid body mode to represent the combined effects of the higher modes. The other procedure is based on the use of an equivalent two mode system with frequencies and damping ratios predefined to provide the best fit of the full dynamic modal solution. Effective use of these procedures requires at least a broad understanding of Woods general approach to the dynamic response of unyielding retaining structures. Therefore, the reader is referred to Wood (1973) for details on how to implement the approximate dynamic procedure. Woods simplified procedures do not account for: (1) vertical accelerations, (2) the typical increase of modulus with depth in the backfill, (3) the

135

1.2

I
uo.5U-O.4 / ./- -------

1.0

\
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

01

4
L/H

10

0.8

uo.50.6 UO.4 -.-= -.-*9 ~-.. 0.--

0.4

0.2

c1

10

L/H FROM WOOD (1973)

Figure 5.3 Resultant force and resultant moment on smooth rigid wall for l-g static horizontal body force

136

influence of structures or other loads on the surface of the backfill, (4) the phased response at any given time for the accelerations and the dynamic earth pressures with elevation along the back of the wall, and (5) the effect of the reduced soil stiffness with the level of shaking induced in both the soil backfill and soil foundation. These and many other factors are addressed in the procedures used to simulate the dynamic response of earth retaining structures by a complete soil-structure interaction analysis.

137

CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN EXAMPLES FOR GRAVITY WALLS RETAINING YIELDING BACKFILLS
6.1

Introduction

Gravity walls generally are designed assuming that some permanent displacement will occur during the design seismic event. This assumption is implicit in procedures using a seismic coefficient significantly less than the acceleration coefficient corresponding to the design event. Newer methods, such as the displacement controlled approach developed by Richards and Elms (1979) explicitly consider such permanent displacements. If permanent displacements greater than about 1 inch per 20 foot height of wall (Y/H = 0.004, see Table 1) are not permissible, the analyses described in Chapter 8 should be used. The procedures described in this chapter quantify the effect of earthquakes on the backfill by means of inertial forces acting on the soil mass comprising the sliding wedge within the backfill using the Mononobe-Okabe relationships for dynamic active and passive earth pressures. Where significant permanent displacements do occur, it is appropriate to use the MononobeOkabe theory to evaluate static and dynamic earth pressures. As discussed in Chapter 4, there is ample evidence that this theory is correct for dry sand backfills, although supporting evidence is very weak in the case of submerged backfills. With gravity walls, the dynamic increments of earth pressure generally are small compared to the inertia force on the wall itself and changes in water pressure on the poolside of the wall. Hence the exact values for dynamic earth pressures usually are not crucial. The procedures outlined in dynamic forces act simultaneously in the worst this chapter assume that all possible direction. This assumption is likely conservative (Whitman 1990; Anderson, Whitman, and Germaine 1987; Al Homound 1990), but is retained pending more complete studies of case histories from earthquakes. Dynamic finite element analyses seldom are suitable for use during design of gravity walls, but will prove very useful for further research into issues such as the phasing of the various earth and water pressures acting upon a wall. When such studies are made, the wall should be modeled as movable in response to the forces acting upon it, and not as a rigid, nondisplacing wall. The Mononobe-Okabe theory for computing PM and PP~ is described in Chapter 4. The presence of water within the backfill affects not only the static pressures acting on the wall, as discussed in Chapter 3, but also the dynamic pressures. During an earthquake, the saturated portion of the backfill that is below the water table may experience the development of additional pore water pressures due to the shear strains that occur within the backfill during earthquake shaking. These excess pore water pressures reduce the effective stresses within the backfill, resulting in both a reduction in the strength of the soil and adding to the destabilizing forces which act along the back of the wall. The magnitude of the excess pore water pressures generated within the soil during an earthquake can range from zero to the extreme case of pressures that are equal to the pre-earthquake vertical effective stresses, a state that corresponds to the liquefaction of the backfill. For those walls that have a pool of water in front of the wall, the earthquake shaking results in hydrodynamic pressures acting along the submerged portion at the front of the wall. The Westergaard procedure is used for computing the hydrodynamic 139

water pressures, which are superimposed on the static water pressure distribution along the front of the wall. The hydrodynamic pressure force acts to destabilize the wall and acts counter to the direction of the static water pressure force. The seismic stability analysis of rigid walls that undergo movements during earthquakes is categorized as one of four types of analyses, as shown in Figure 6.1 and as listed in Table 4. These categories include rigid walls retaining dry backfills (Case 1), and three categories for rigid walls retaining submerged backfills, depending upon the magnitude of excess pore water pressures that are generated during the earthquake. They range from the case of no excess pore water pressures (Case 2) to the extreme case which corresponds to the complete liquefaction of the backfill (Case 4) and the intermediate case between the two (Case 3). In Figure 6.1, U~~~~iC corresponds to the steady state pore water pressure force acting along the back of the wall and the water pressure force when a pool exists in front of the wall. U~~~~r corresponds to the excess pore water pressure force acting along the back of the wall when excess pore water pressures are generated within the submerged portion of the backfill during the earthquake. HFi~~r~i~ corresponds to the hydrodynamic water pressure force of a liquefied backfill. Procedures for determining the potential for liquefaction within the submerged backfill or the potential for the development of excess pore water pressures are discussed in Seed and Harder (1990) and Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). Experience gained with the evaluation of the stability and safety of existing Case 1 walls subjected to earthquake shaking over the last 20 years have established the validity of both the conventional equilibrium method of analysis and the displacement controlled approach for dry backfills. However, most of the case histories reported in the literature are for walls retaining submerged backfills that had liquified during earthquakes. The procedures outlined in this section for the analysis of the stability of the Case 2 through Case 4 retaining walls are proposed extensions of the procedures used for the analysis of walls retaining dry backfill. The design of gravity walls generally begins with design for static loadings. Then the wall is checked for adequacy during the design seismic event, using the procedures described in the following sections. Adequacy for post-seismic conditions should also be checked, considering the effect of residual lateral earth pressures and any excess pore pressures as discussed in Chapter 2. 6.2 Procedure Based upon Preselected Seismic Coefficient The force equilibrium method of analysis expresses the safety and stability of an earth retaining structure subjected to static and/or dynamic earth and water forces in terms of (1) the factor of safety against sliding along the base of the wall, (2) the ability of the wall to resist the earth and water forces acting to overturn the wall, and (3) the factor of safety against a bearing capacity failure or crushing of the concrete or rock at the toe in the case of a rock foundation. The ability of the retaining wall to resist the overturning forces is expressed in terms of the portion of the wall base remaining in contact with the foundation or, equivalently, the base area remaining in compression (Headquarters, Department of the Army EM 1110-2-2502, Ebeling et.al. 1990; Ebeling et al. 1992). Recommended minimum static and
140

CASE

I: Dry

BackFill

CASE 2: Submerged
Water

Pressures

f3ackFill, No Excess Pore Due to Earthquake.

\
\ \ \
stat\c\ \

/
Px 8

u stmr

\
\

CASE

3: Submerged Water

f3ackFill,

Excess

Pore

Pressures

Due

To Earthquake.

HFtid,c HF,m,d

CASE

4:Liquefied

BackFill.

Figure

6.1 Rigid walls undergo movements

retaining backfills during earthquakes

which

141

Table

4 Section Numbers That Outline Each of the Two Design for Yielding Walls for the Four Categories of Retaining Identified in Figure 6.1

Procedures Walls

SECTION Case Method of Analysis 1 Case

NUMBER 2 Case 3 Case 4

Dry Backfill

Submerged Backfill with rU . 0

Submerged Backfill with rU>O

Liquified Backfill (rU = 1)

Preselected Seismic Coefficient Displacement Controlled Approach for New Wall Design Displacement Controlled Approach for the Analysis of Existing Walls

6.2.1

6.2.2

6.2.3

6.2.4

6.3.1

6.3.3

6.3.5

6.3.2 and minimum settlements Walls

6.3.4

6.3.6 in

dynamic factors of safety Table 5. Post-earthquake

6.2.1 Stability

base contact areas are listed should also be checked. Dry Backfills which Undergo

during

of Rigid Earthquakes

Retaining

Movements

The force equilibrium procedure for evaluating the stability and safety of rigid walls retaining dry backfills, of the type shown in Figure 6.2, is described in Seed and Whitman (1970). described as Case 1 in This analysis, Figure 6.1, is an extension of traditional force equilibrium procedure that is used in the evaluation of the stability and safety of rigid walls under static loadings. The rigid wall is presumed to have undergone sufficient movements so that the active dynamic earth pressure force develops along the back of the wall. The eight steps in the stability analysis of the displaced rigid wall shown in Figure 6.2 are as follows: (1) Select the k~ value Chapter 1. (2) Select the ~ Chapter 1. values to be used in the analysis; see Section 1.4 of

to be used

in the analysis;

see Section

1.4.3

of

wall

Seed and Whitman (1970) found that for typical gravity earth retaining design problems with no toe fill in front of the wall, Pm values varied 142

Table 5 Minimum the Preselected

Factors of Safety When Using Seismic Coefficient Method of Analysis of Engineers EM 111O-2-25O2 (1989)

From

U.S.

Army

Corps

Factor Failure Mode

of Safety Static
1.5

Factor of Safety Earthquake

Sliding
I

1.1 - 1.2
75%

B~/B

100%

(50%-Rock) Bearing*
*check

3 including differential settlements.

>2

for settlements,

In other cases by less than 10 percent (as discussed in Section 4.5). vertical accelerations can contribute to the forces attempting to destabilize the wall (e.g. slender walls) . In general, ~ values other than zero would be included in the analysis when vertical, accelerations impact wall stability.

(3) Compute the dynamic active pressure force using the Mononobe-Okabe relaPfi is computed using equation number tionships as described in Chapter 4. 33, with KM given by Equation 34 and acting at the height as given in Figure 4.7. For a vertical wall retaining a horizontal backfill, Pm may be computed directly or defined in terms of the static force PA and the incremental PA is computed using Equation 7 with KA given by Equainertial force APM. tion 16, using the Seed and Whitmans simplified procedure,and AP~ is comPm is equal to the puted using Equation 41 with AKM given by Equation 43. sum of these two forces (Equation 40) with a point of action, Y, given by For most engineered granular backfills, Equation 44, as shown in Figure 4.8. Table 2 provides a list of ultimate 6 equal to +/2 is a reasonable value. friction angles for a variety of dissimilar materials that may interface with one another. (4) Compute the weight of the wall W and point of application, and using the force Pm and its point of application as determined in step 3, solve for the unknown forces N and T which act along the base of the wall using the horizontal and vertical force equilibrium equations.
The force cross-sectional of the section. section. The
total

W is computed per lineal foot of wall by multiplying the unit area of the wall by a representative value for the unit weight The resultant force acts at the center of mass for the cross

normal

force

between

the wall

and

the foundation

is equal

to

N=W+(PAE)Y

(70)

143

Movements -

/xx\

\/x//

(a)

Slip

planes

KV*O

(b) Effective

Accelerations

-7 t
(c) Forces On Gravity

. Wall

r-=tl-xN
Figure

6.2

Rigid walls retaining during earthquakes

dry backfill which undergo (case 1 in Figure 6.1)

movements

where W = weight of the wall (Pm)Y = the vertical component

of PM.

144

about

The point of action the toe of the wall

of the force

N, X~ is computed

by summing

moments

W(XW) + (Pm)y
XN =

(Xpm) - (pM)x N

(Ypm) -

(kh)yW

(71)

where (P~)~= (PW)Y XPm Yp~ fi, YW Pm Cos( 6 Pm sin( 6 B - (YPm) Y center of wall and + o ) + 0 ) tan 6 mass for the wall, as measured from the base of the wall, respectively. force required the toe of the

= = = =

The horizontal force T is the shear equilibrium of the wall and is equal to

for sliding

T = (PW) ~ + W*k~

(72)

where Wk~ (5) Compute = horizontal the factor inertia of safety force of the wall. sliding, F~.

against

F. =

ultimate shear force shear force required for equlllbrlum

(73)

The ultimate

shear

force

along

the base,

TU1~, is given

by

TUlt = Ntan6~

(74)

where 6b = the base interface friction angle.

(6) Compare the computed factor of safety against sliding to the required factor of safety. Many retaining walls are designed using static active earth For pressures with a factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding along the base. the minimum required factor of temporary loading cases, such as earthquakes, For a ductile wall to foundation safety is equal to 1.1 or 1.2 (Table 5). interface, as the value of F~ approaches the minimum required value, the magnitude of the translation of the structure will increase as the value of FS the displacements will be For a bonded interface, decreases (New-mark 1965). small until the bond is ruptured (at F~ = 1.0) and a brittle failure results. 145

(7) The overturning criterion is expressed in terms of the percentage of base contact area B~/B, where Be is the width of the area of effective base contact. Assuming that the bearing pressure varies linearly between the base of the wall and the foundation, the normal stress is a maximum at the toe (q =
qmax) and a rninirnum at the inner edge (q = 0) as shown

in

Figure

6.3.
(75)

B, = 3*%

An alternative assumption regarding base pressure distribution and contact area was suggested by Meyerhof (1953). Meyerhof assumed a uniform distribution of pressure along the base, resulting in an effective base contact equal to

(76)

Meyerhofs pressure distribution has been used widely for foundations on soil and is most appropriate for foundation materials that exhibit ductile mechanisms of failure. The assumption is less appropriate for brittle materials. Many retaining walls are designed using static active earth pressures with full contact along the base, B~/B ( or B~/B) , equal to 100 percent. For temporary loading cases, such as earthquakes, this criteria is relaxed to a minimum value of 75 percent, 50 percent for rock foundations (Table 5).

(8) For those structures founded on rock, the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure, or crushing of the concrete or the rock at the toe, can be expressed as

(77)

where qU1t is the ultimate bearing capacity or compressive strength of the concrete or the rock at the toe and qmax is the maximum bearing pressure at the toe. For brittle materials like unconfined concrete, the ultimate bearing capacity is equal to the compressive strength of the material. Building codes are commonly used to obtain values for the allowable bearing stress on rock, Alternately, a large factor of safety is applied to the unconfined comqall pressive strength of intact samples. The maximum bearing pressure qm~X is restricted to an allowable bearing capacity q~ll. For ductile foundation materials that undergo plastic failure, the ultimate bearing capacity is greater than the compressive strength of the material, excluding those foundation materials exhibiting a loss in shear resistance due to earthquake-induced deformations or due to the development of residual excess pore water pressures . In these cases, a conventional bearing capacity evaluation is conducted to establish the post-earthquake stability of the structure. In stability analyses in which the vertical accelerations are considered, the force acting downward through the center of mass of the wall that represents the weight of the wall, W, in Figure 6.2, is replaced by the force

146

cl max

2N 3xfq

a.

Linear

base

pressure

distribution

B:

2x~ N
=

q max

2x~

b.

Uniform

base

pressure

distribution

Figure

6.3

Linear and uniform distributions

base

pressure

W(l-&) acting downward. The first term in Equations 70 and 71, W and W& The direction in which are replaced by W.(l-&) and W(l-~)&, respectively. the vertical inertia force, ~W, acts is counter to the direction assigned to Vertical accelerations will also the effective vertical acceleration, &g. affect the values for PM (Equation 33) and KM (Equation 34), as described in

147

Section 4.2. The stability in either direction. This procedure

should

be checked

for the possibility

of ~

acting

is illustrated

in example

27 at the end of this

chapter,

6.2.2 Stability of Rigid Walls Retaining Movements During Earthquakes - No Excess

Submerged Backfills which Pore Water Pressures

Undergo

The presence of water within the backfill and in front of the wall results in additional static and dynamic forces acting on the wall and alters the distribution of forces within the active soil wedge developing behind the wall . This section describes the first of three proposed force equilibrium procedures used in the evaluation of the stability and safety of rigid walls retaining submerged or partially submerged backfills and including a pool of water in front of the wall, as shown in Figure 6.4. This analysis, described as Case 2 in Figure 6.1, assumes that no excess pore water pressures are generated within the submerged portion of the backfill or within the foundation during earthquake shaking. The evaluation of the potential for the generation of excess pore water pressures during the shaking of the submerged soil regions is determined using the procedure described in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). The rigid wall is presumed to have undergone sufficient movements so that the active dynamic earth pressure force develops along the back of the wall. Many of the details regarding the procedures used in the eight steps of the stability analysis of walls retaining dry backfills (Section 6.2.1) are similar to those procedures used for submerged backfills, and the explanations for these common steps are not repeated in this section. The eight steps in the stability analysis of the displaced rigid wall retaining submerged backfill as shown in Figure 6.4 are as follows: (1) Select the k~ value Chapter 1. to be used in the analysis; see Section 1.4 of

(2) Consider
(3)

~,

as discussed

in Section

1.4.3.

Compute Pm using the procedure described in Section 4.3. U~~~tiC is determined from the steady state flow net for the problem. By definition, only steady state pore water pressures exist within the submerged backfill and foundation of a Case 2 retaining structure (rU = O). In the restrained water case of a fully submerged soil wedge with a hydrostatic water table, Pm is computed (Equations 33 and 38) using an effective unit weight equal to ~b. Km (Equation 34) or KA(@*,O*) (Equation 38) are computed using an equivalent horizontal acceleration, k~,l, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, ~~1, given by Equation 47 and 48. In the case of a partially submerged backfill, this simplified procedure will provide approximate results by increasing the value assigned to the effective unit weight based upon the proportion of the soil wedge that is above and below the water table. A more refined analysis may be conducted using the trial wedge procedure (Section 3.4) for the forces shown in Figure 6.4. For most engineered granular backfills, 6 equal to ~/2 is a reasonable value (Table 2).

(4) Compute the weight of the wall W and point of application, and using the force Pm and the point of application as determined in step 3, solve for the unknown forces N and T which act along the base of the wall using the horizontal and vertical force equilibrium equations.

148

The force cross-sectional of the section. section. The

to

W is computed per lineal foot of wall by multiplying the unit area of the wall by a representative value for the unit weight The resultant force acts at the center of mass for the cross

effective

normal

force

between

the wall

and

the foundation

is equal

N1=W+(p~)~-~

(78)

where W = weight (Pm)Y of the wall component water of Pm pressure force along the base of the

= the vertical

U~ = resultant wall

pore

about

The point of action the toe of the wall ~

of the force

N, X~, is computed

by summing

moments

xN/

+ Mpm

- U.,atic (y..t)
LV

~(x.b)

+ pod

(79)

NT

where ~=w(xJ M pm = (Pm)y -WqJy. (Xpm) - (Pm)x (yp~)

% 001 = UPOOJYUP) - uinertia(Yui)

(p#J)x=
(PAE)Y =
XPM=BYp~ Y Ust

pm Cos(
PM sin( (YPM)

6 +

d )

6 + 8 ) tan 8

= Y
=

point

of action of action of action of action

of us,~,l~ of Upool

(from

flow net)

Y up = point Yui = point Yub = point ~,

(= HP/3) B) net)

of Ui~~~ti~ (see Appendix of ub (from flow

YW = center of mass for the wall, as measured from the toe of the wall and the base of the wall, respectively.

149

a~ (a. ) Backfill

YJ

7 =-

Xw
-1

Kh

u tidk

u~

I r
(b. )

-+4
x
Wall and

Pool

Figure 6.4 Rigid wall retaining submerged backfill which undergo movements during no excess pore water pressures (Case 2 in Figure 6.1)

150

The horizontal force the wall and is equal to

T =

T is the shear

force

required

for equilibrium

of (80)

(J?m)x

+ w(~)

+ Ustatic

Upool

+ Uinertla

where Wk~ = horizontal u static

=

inertia

force

of the wall. water pressure force along

resultant steady state the back of the wall. hydrostatic

pore

UPOOI= resultant u Inertia

=

water

pressure force B). for

force

for the pool directed away

hydrodynamic water pressure from the wall (see Appendix

the pool

(5) Compute the factor of safety against sliding, FS, using ultimate shear force along the base, TU1~, is given by

Equation

73.

The

T Ult

N=tan6b

(81)

where fb = the effective base interface friction angle.

(6) Compare the computed factor of safety against sliding to the required factor of safety of 1.1 or 1.2 for temporary loading cases (Table 5).
(7) The stability against overturning is expressed in terms of the base area in compression, B~. Be is computed by either Equation 75 or 76, as described in Section 6.2.1. Many retaining walls are designed using static active earth pressures with full contact along the base, Be/B ( or B,/B), equal to 100 percent. For temporary loading cases, such as earthquakes, this criteria is relaxed to a minimum value of 75 percent, 50 percent for rock foundations (Table 5).
(8) Check discussed 6.2.3

the stability of the wall against in step 8 of Section 6.2.1.

a bearing

capacity

failure,

as

Stability

Movements

During

of Rigid Walls Retaining Submerged Backfills Earthquakes - Excess Pore Water Pressures

which

Undergo

This section describes the second of three proposed force equilibrium procedures for evaluating the stability and safety of rigid walls retaining submerged or partially submerged backfills and including a pool of water in This analysis, described as Case 3 front of the wall, as shown in Figure 6.5. in addition to the in Figure 6.1, assumes that excess pore water pressures, steady state pore water pressures, are generated within the submerged portion The magof the backfill or within the foundation during earthquake shaking. nitude and distribution of these excess pore water pressures depend upon several factors, including the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the

151

site to the fault generating the earthquake and the properties of the submerged soils. The evaluation of the magnitude of the residual excess pore water pressures within the submerged soil regions due to earthquake shaking is determined using the procedure described in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). The rigid wall is presumed to have undergone sufficient movements so that the active dynamic earth pressure force develops along the back of the wall. Many of the details regarding the procedures used in the nine steps of the stability analysis are common to the Case 1 and Case 2 analyses, The nine steps in the stability analysis of Figure 6.5 displaced rigid wall retaining a submerged backfill with excess pore water pressures within the soil regions are as follows:

(1) Select the k~ value Chapter 1.

to be used

in the analysis;

see Section

1.4 of

(2)

Consider

~,

as discussed

in Section

1.4.3.

(3) Compute Pm using the procedure described in Section 4,3. The total pore water pressures existing near the end of earthquake shaking are equal to the sum of the steady state pore water pressures and the residual excess pore water pressures. U~~~~l~ is determined from the steady state flow net for the problem. The post-earthquake residual excess pore water pressures are identified as u~h~~r and AU, respectively, in Figure 6.5 and are determined using the procedures described in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). In the restrained water case of a fully submerged soil wedge with a hydrostatic water table and rU equal to the average value within the backfill, PM is computed (Equations 33 and 38) using an effective unit weight (Equation 52). Km (Equation 34) or KA(~*,O*) (Equation 38) is computed uSing an equivalent horizontal acceleration, kh~3, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, $,3, given by Equations 54 and 55. An alternative approach is to compute Pm using an effective unit weight equal to ~b and a modified effective friction angle, ~~q (Equation 56). KM (Equation 34) or KA03*,8*) (Equation 38) are computed using an equivalent horizontal acceleration, k~~l, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, $~1, given by Equations 47 and 48. In the case of a partially submerged backfill, either of the simplified procedures provides for approximate results by increasing the value assigned to the effective unit weight based upon the proportion of the soil wedge that is above and below the water table. A more refined analysis may be conducted using the trial wedge procedure (Section 3.4) for the forces shown in Figure 6.5. For most engineered granular backfills, 6 equal to @/2 is a reasonable value (Table 2). (4) Compute the weight of the with the forces determined in for the unknown forces N and horizontal and vertical force wall W and corresponding point of application, step 3 and their points of application, solve T which act along the base of the wall using the equilibrium equations.

152

(a. )

Backfill

(b.)

Wall and

Pool

Figure 6.5 Rigid wall retaining submerged backfill movements during earthquakes, including excess pore pressures (Case 3 in Figure 6.1)

which water

undergo

The force cross-sectional of the section. section.

W is computed per lineal foot of wall by multiplying the unit area of the wall by a representative value for the unit weight The resultant force acts at the center of mass for the cross

153

The to

effective

normal

force

between

the wall

and the foundation

is equal

N=W+(Pm)y-Ub

-AU

(82)

where AU = resultant excess of the wall The point of action the toe of the wall xN/ = pore water pressure force along the base

of the force

N , X~Z is computed

by summing

moments

about

Mw +

Mpm

%*

- AU(XDU) - ub(~)
N

+ Mpool

(83)

where

~=w(xJ

-w(kh)y.
(YPAE)

M PAE (Pm)y (xPm) - (pM)x % 001

=UPOO1(YUP) - uinertia(YuJ Ushear(y.sh)

%W=-ustatic(yust)

and

(PAE)X= P~cos(6+e)
(P~)y = Pmsin( (Ypu) 6+8) tan e

XP~=BYp~ = Y

Yu~~ = point

of action of action

of ush~a, of AU force required for equilibrium of

x~ = point

The horizontal force the wall and is equal to T = (pM)x

T is the shear

+w(~)

U.tati.

+ .he.r

Upool

+ .nert,a

(84)

where
shear =

resultant the wall.

excess

pore

water

pressure

force

along

the back

of

Procedures for the computation of values for u~hear, YUs~, AU, and X~u are discussed in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990) . (5) Compute the factor of safety against sliding, F., using Equation ultimate shear force along the base, TU1~, is given by Equation 81. 73. The

(6) Compare the computed factor of safety against sliding to the required factor of safety of 1.1 or 1.2 for temporary loading cases (Table 5).
154

(7) The stability against overturning is expressed in terms of the base area in compression, Be. Be is computed by either Equation 75 or 76, as described in Section 6.2.1. Many retaining walls are designed using static active earth pressures with full contact along the base, B./B ( or B,/B), equal to For temporary loading cases, such as earthquakes, this criteria 100 percent. is relaxed to a minimum value of 75 percent, 50 percent for rock foundations (Table 5).
(8) Check discussed the stability of the wall against in step 8 of Section 6.2.1. a bearing capacity failure, as

for the retaining wall are discussed (9) Additional stability considerations in Chapter 2. Some of the factors to be considered are the potential for strength loss within looser foundation materials and the post-earthquake Post-earthquake stability of redistribution of excess pore water pressures. the wall and post-earthquake settlements should also be considered. This procedure is illustrated in example 28 at the end of this Backfills which chapter.

6.2.4 Stability of Rigid Walls Retaining Movements During Earthquakes - Liquified

Submerged Backfill

Undergo

This section describes the force equilibrium procedure used in the evaluation of the stability and safety of displaced rigid walls retaining submerged or partially submerged backfills and including a pool of water in front as Case 4 in of the wall, as shown in Figure 6.6. This analysis, described Figure 6.1, assumes that the submerged portion of the backfill has liquified (rU = 100%) during the earthquake and that excess pore water pressures (rU < The 100%) are generated within the foundation during earthquake shaking. evaluation of the liquefaction potential for the backfill and the magnitude of are determined the residual excess pore water pressures within the foundation using the procedure described in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). Many of the details regarding the procedures used in the described nine steps of the stability analysis are common to the previously analyses. The steps in the stability analysis of Figure 6.6 displaced rigid wall retaining a liquified backfill with excess pore water pressures within the soil foundation are as follows: (1) Select the k~ value Chapter 1. to be used in the analysis; see Section 1.4 of

(2) Consider
(3) Compute

~,

as discussed acting

in Section along

1.4.3. of the wall, (85)

the forces

the back

Upon liquefaction of the identified as HF~t~tiC and HFi~~rti~ in Figure 6.6. backfill during the earthquake, the earth pressure forces acting along the back of the wall are equivalent to a heavy fluid with a density equal to the total unit weight of the backfill, ~t. The inertial force of the heavy fluid during shaking is approximated using the Westergaard procedure (Appendix B) for the inertia force of a fluid as acting at 0.4H above the base of the wall . 155

Figure 6.6 Rigid wall retaining submerged backfill which undergo movements during earthquakes liquified backfill (Case 4 in Figure 6.1)

HF. Inertia

7 ~~7~H2

(86)

(4) Compute the weight of the with the forces determined in for the unknown forces N and horizontal and vertical force The force cross-sectional of the section. section. The to

wall W and corresponding step 3 and their points

point of application of application; solve of the wall using the

T which act along the base equilibrium equations.

W is computed per lineal foot of wall by multiplying the unit area of the wall by a representative value for the unit weight The resultant force acts at the center of mass for the cross

effective

normal

force

between

the wall

and

the foundation

is equal

N=W-Ub

-AU

(87)

156

about

The point of action the toe of the wall

of the force

N , X~, is computed

by summing

moments

(88)

where Mw = W(XW) - W(kh)yw M HF = -HF static

M pool (yHFS) - Inertia

pOOl(yU~)

inercia(yui)

and YHFS = point Yi = point of action of action of HF~~~~iC ( = H/3) of HF1nertl~ ( = 0.4H)

In the case where excess pore water piessures are generated within the foundation, the steady state flow net i.s used to compute the steady state pore water pressure force U~ along the base of the wall, and the excess pore water pressure force AU is computed using the procedure described in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). The horizontal force T is the shear force required for equilibrium of the wall and is equal to

(89)

(5) Compute the factor of safety against sliding, F., using Equation ultimate shear force along the base, TU1~, is given by Equation 81.

73.

The

(6) Compare the computed factor of safety against sliding to the required factor of safety of 1.1 or 1.2 for temporary loading cases (Table 5).
is expressed in terms of the base area (7) The stability against overturning in compression, Be. B, is computed by either Equation 75 or 76, as described in Section 6.2.1. Many retaining walls are designed using static active earth pressures with full contact along the base, B,/B ( or B,/B), equal to 100 percent. For temporary loading cases, such as earthquakes, this criteria is relaxed to a minimum value of 75 percent, 50 percent for rock foundations (Table 5).
(8) Check discussed

the stability of the in step 8 of Section

wall

against 6.2.1.

a bearing

capacity

failure,

as

(9) Additional stability considerations for the retaining wall are discussed in Chapter 2. Some of the factors to be considered are the potential for strength loss within looser foundation materials and the post-earthquake redistribution of excess pore water pressures. Post-earthquake stability of the wall and post-earthquake settlements should also be considered.

157

6.3

Displacement

Controlled

Approach

The displacement controlled approach incorporates wall movements explicitly in the stability analysis of earth retaining structures. It is, in effect , a procedure for choosing a seismic coefficient based upon explicit choice of an allowable permanent displacement. Having selected the seismic coefficient , the usual stability analysis against sliding is performed, including use of the Mononobe-Okabe equations. No safety factor is applied to the required weight of wall evaluated by this approach; the appropriate level of safety is incorporated into the step used to calculate the horizontal seismic coefficient. This procedure of analysis represents an alternative to the conventional equilibrium method of analysis which expresses the stability of a rigid wall in terms of a preselected factor of safety against sliding along its base, as described in Section 6.2. The analytical procedure that was developed by Richards and Elms (1979) recognizes that for some limiting value of horizontal acceleration, identified as N.g in Figure 6.7, the horizontal inertia force acting on a retaining wall with no toe fill will exceed the shear resistance provided by the foundation along the interface between the base of the wall and the foundation. This implies that although the soil base may be accelerating horizontally at values greater than N.g, the wall will be sliding along the base under the action of the horizontal inertial force that corresponds to the horizontal acceleration N*g. This results in the movement of the soil base relative to the movement of the wall and vice-versa. The relative movement commences at the point in time designated as point a in Figure 6.8 and continues until the velocity of the base is equal to the velocity of the wall, designated as time point b in this same figure. The velocity of the soil base is equal to the integral over time of the soil acceleration, and the velocity of the wall between time points a and b is equal to the integral of the wall acceleration, which is a constant N*g. The relative velocity of the wall, v,, is equal to the integral of the difference between the base acceleration and the constant wall acceleration N*.g between time points a and b, as shown in Figure 6,8. The relative displacement of the wall is equal to the integral of the relative velocity of the wall, which occurs between the two points in time labeled a and b in Figure 6.8. Additional relative displacements occur for the wall between the two latter points in time labeled c and d in Figure 6.8, with the residual relative wall displacements, d~, equal to the cumulative relative displacements computed during the entire time of earthquake shaking. This problem was first studied in detail by Newmark (1965) using the sliding block on a sloping plane analogy, with procedural refinements contributed by Franklin and Chang (1977), Wong (1982), Whitman and Liao (1985), Ambraseys and Menu (1988) and others. Makdisi and Seed (1978) and Idriss (1985, Figure 47), proposed relationships based on a modification to the Newmark permanent displacement procedure to allow for the dynamic response of embankments , The approach has been reasonably well validated for the case of wall retaining dry backfills. The major problem is the selection of a suitable friction angle. This is particularly troublesome when the peak friction angle is significantly greater than the residual friction angle. It is conservative to use the residual friction angle, and this should be the usual practice.

158

FAUIRE WEWE
\ \

7
1 / \ \ \ \ \ \

MOVEMENT

13 ACKFiLL

W* */#

LMTINC ACCELERATIONS

From Whitman Figure 6.7

(1990) wedge

Gravity retaining wall and failure treated as a sliding block

-! 1 l\
l\ t\

-.

N 9

SOIL i4XELERAT10N

WALL
&CELERATION

b,c d ABSOLUTE RELATIVE I I VELOCITY VELOCITY I ox d; o Xo VT o a c1 a _____ IRELATI:E ___ DISPL ACEMENT ----_ --- - - - . I ---- -- --. 1 b: : I k< b ~+{ b b I I I I I I I I c c c c ____ ___ ____ -- --,- ____ 4 ___ I I 0 0 I I 0 I 0/ 0 >, d - -- - --d -_ ____ ___ d _ d t 1 t ? t? t ,~ 9?

From Figure

Elms 6.8

and Richards Incremental

(1990)

displacement

The Richards and Elms procedure was developed using a sliding block analogy to calculate the magnitude of wall displacements in sliding during Whitman and Liao improved this procedure by using earthquake shaking. statistical methods to address the several sources of uncertainty in the 159

displacement controlled procedure, the reader is cautioned against However, relying solely upon this simplified procedure for waterfront structures located within severe seismic environments or epicentral regions, structures with significant deformations, or critical structures. It does not include wall displacements due to post-earthquake settlements or due to creep displacements . The method has not yet been extended to take into account tilting of walls; this matter is discussed by Whitman (1990). Among the uncertainties are the effects of vertical and transverse accelerations , including their influence upon the passive stabilizing force for walls with toe fill. Results of studies by Sharama (1989), as described by Elms and Richards (1990), indicate that the effect of the vertical acceleration component is negligible. Other research as described by Whitman (1979) indicated that the effect of vertical acceleration can be to increase the total displacement by 50 to 100 percent for N*/A > 0.6. Whitman and Liao (1985) determined that the detrimental effects of vertical accelerations on wall stability were offset by consideration of other variables. Sharama (1989), as reported by Elms and Richards (1990), determined that transverse accelerations oriented along the length of the wall contribute to wall displacement. Sliding block displacements must always increase due to transverse accelerations . Displacement increases of 70 percent or higher for N*/A values between 0.5 and 0.9 were found. These additional displacements are based on analysis of a wall with no transverse support other than base friction. A more sophisticated analysis is required to investigate, or to consider the effects of ~ (or vertical acceleration) in the deformations of waterfront structures . The stabilizing force for sliding resistance may be less than the full passive earth pressure force because of insufficient wall displacements. A conservative evaluation of this resistance should be used. The displacement controlled procedure for the analysis of earth retaining structures is categorized as one of four types of analyses, as was done for the conventional equilibrium method of analysis. These categories, that are shown in Figure 6.1, include rigid walls retaining dry backfills (Case 1) and three categories for rigid walls retaining submerged backfills, depending upon the magnitude of excess pore water pressures that are generated during the earthquake. They range from the case of no excess pore water pressures (Case 2) to the extreme case which corresponds to the complete liquefaction of the backfill (Case 4) and the intermediate case between the two (Case 3). This proposed procedure for submerged backfills is not applied to the case of liquified backfills due to the complexity of the post-earthquake behavior within the soil regions. of the In addition, the steps in the application displacement controlled approach to the design of a new wall are distinguished from the steps in the application of the displacement controlled approach to the analysis of an existing wall. Table 4 identifies the appropriate Chapter 6 section that describes either the design of a new wall or the analysis of an existing wall for the first three Figure 6.1 categories of displacement controlled analyses. 6.3.1 Displacement Backfill Controlled Design Procedure for a Wall Retaining Dry

This section describes the application of the displacement controlled approach to the design of a wall retaining dry backfill identified as Case 1 160

in Figure 6.1. Richards and Elms (1979) first applied this analysis procedure to walls that retain dry backfill. The eight steps in the design of the earth retaining structure shown in Figure 6.9 are as follows: (1) Decide upon the value for the permanent relative displacement d. that is acceptable for the wall. on the order of For most walls, displacements several inches would be acceptable. The value for d, must be consistent with the dynamic active earth pressure used in step 5 during the design of the wall (see the discussions in Sections 6.1 and 2.2.2). (2) Select the site specific average peak horizontal acceleration, Ag, and the site specific average peak horizontal velocity, V, within the soil backRefer fill comprising the dynamic active wedge and the retaining structure. to the discussion in Section 1.4 of Chapter 1.
(3) In typical

placement

earth controlled

retaining wall design procedure, ~ = O.

problems,

by Whitman

and Liao

dis-

(4) Calculate the maximum transmissible acceleration, using the Whitman and Liao (1985) relationship
N*=A {

Ng,

coefficient

N*

066-*nFl}

(90)

where Ag = base acceleration in units of in/sec2 V is expressed in units of inches per second d, is expressed in units of inches g = 386 in/sec2 According to Whitman and Liao, this relationship for the maximum transmissible acceleration coefficient, N*, ensures that there will be 95 percent confidence that the prescribed allowable permanent displacement will not be exceeded Equation 90 was derived during an earthquake for the assigned A and V values. using 14 earthquake records. All but two of the records were for earthquakes For severe seismic environments, strucwith magnitudes between 6.3 and 6.7. tures located in epicentral regions, significant deformations, or critical structures , additional calculations should be made using other relationships (see Section 6.2).
(5) Compute the value for the dynamic active earth pressure force pAE using the Mononobe-Okabe relationship described in Section 4.2, or for vertical walls and level backfills, in terms of PA and APm using the simplified When using the relationMononobe-Okabe procedure described in Section 4.2.2. ships for +, Km, AKm, and am, Nk is substituted for kl,, and ~ is set equal Additional comments regarding these calculations are given in steP 3 to zero. in Section 6.2.1.

Horizontal force equilibrium (6) Compute the required weight of wall. requires that the shear stress required for equilibrium, T, (Equation 72) be equal to the ultimate shear force along the base of the wall, TU1t (Equation 74). Setting Equation 72 equal to Equation 74, and introducing the normal force N (Equation 70) and solving for W results in the relationship

161

Mwements

\ \ \ \ \

/zY\

/m

(a)

Slip planes

N-9

N=g

0=0

\ \

,P
a

(b) Limiting

Acceleration

Jd aAE
w.Nm Oh 7 t
t(h~g

4
Y Y

\
4

-Y Nt -a

TOE

G av

=Kv9g
N
(c) Forces On C%ovity

-Y

Wall

Figure

6.9

Forces

acting

on a gravity wall equal to N*g

for a limiting

acceleration

162

~ .

(PAE)X- (pm)y(tan6b)
tan6~ - N

(91)

where

(Pu)y

PM

sin(

6 + 0 ) to be applied 90 (FSW = 1.0). to the wall weight W computed in

(7) No factor of safety needs

step 6 when using Equation

(8) Proportion the geometry of the wall so that the overturning criterion is satisfied. This is expressed in terms of the percentage of base contact area B,/B, where B, is the width of the area of effective base contact, as described in step 7 in Section 6.2.1. For a given trial geometry, the point of action of the normal force along the base, xN, is computed using Equation number 71, followed by the computation of the value of B, using either Equation 75 or 76, depending upon the foundation material. This B, value is then compared to the minimum Be value, which is equal to 75 percent of the base width B for earthquake loading conditions (50 percent for rock foundations) .

This

procedure

is illustrated Induced

in example

29 at the end for a Wall

of this

chapter. Dry

6.3.2 Analysis Backfill

of Earthquake

Displacements

Retaining

This section describes the analysis of the earthquake induced displacements of an existing wall retaining dry backfill, identified as Case 1 in The four steps in the analysis of the earth retaining structure Figure 6.1. shown in Figure 6.9 are as follows:
(1) Determine

ation, site.

the value for the average site specific peak horizontal accelerA-g, and the value for the average peak horizontal velocity, V, at the Refer to the discussion in step 2 of Section 6.3.1. retaining wall design procedure, ~ = O. problems by Whitman and Liao dis-

(2) In typical earth placement controlled

(3) Compute the value for the maximum transmissible acceleration, ficient N*. An iterative method consisting of the following five used to determine the value for N*.

N*g, coefsteps is

(3-A) Using the assumed value for N*, compute the value for the dynamic active earth pressure force Pw using either the MononobeOkabe relationship described in Section 4.2 or in terms of PA and APN assuming the simplified Mononobe-Okabe procedure described in Section 4.2.2 applies. When using the relationships for $, KM, AK-, and au, N* is substituted for kh, and ~ is set equal to zero. Additional comments regarding these calculations are given in step 3 in Section 6.2.1.

163

(3-B) Calculate the value of the shear force required for equilibrium along the base of the wall, T, using Equation 72.
(3-C) Calculate

the value

for the normal

force,

N, using

Equation

70. shear force along the

(3-D) Calculate the value for the ultimate base of the wall, TU1t, using Equation 74.

(3-E) If the value for T is not equal to the value for TUl~, adjust the value used for N* and repeat steps 3-A through step 3-D until T = TU1~. The resulting value for N* is equal to the limit acceleration. (4) Calculate the permanent Liao (1985) relationship relative displacement d, using the Whitman and

. e~p(- ) 4=49; k+;V2

G G

(92)

where Ng = maximum transmissible acceleration in units A-g = base acceleration in units of in/sec2 V is expressed in units of inches per second d~ is expressed in units of inches = 386 in/sec2. g of in/sec2

The value of d~ must be consistent with those movements that are required to develop the dynamic active earth pressure (used in step 3-A). Refer to the discussion in Section 2.2.2. The actual earthquake induced displacement will be of the same relative magnitude as the computed d, value. This procedure is illustrated in example 30 at the end of this for a Wall Retaining chapter. Submerged

6.3.3 Displacement Controlled Design procedure Backfill - No Excess Pore Water Pressures

The displacement controlled approach was originally formulated by Richards and Elms (1979) for gravity walls retaining dry backfills. This section outlines a proposed procedure for extending this method of analysis to problems involving walls retaining submerged backfills that do not develop excess pore water pressures during earthquake shaking, the Case 2 structure of Figure 6.1. A pool of water is also present in front of the retaining wall. The same procedures that were described in the conventional force equilibrium method of analysis to compute the effective earth pressures (PA~) and both steady state pore water pressure forces, U~~~~iC and Ub, and residual excess water pressure forces, U~~~~r and AU, acting on the wall, are used in the displacement controlled design approach. The procedure used to evaluate the liquefaction potential within the backfill and foundation and the magnitude of the residual excess pore water pressures after shaking are described in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990).

This section describes the application of the displacement controlled approach to the design of a wall retaining submerged backfill, identified as Case 2 in Figure 6.1. No excess pore water pressures result from earthquake shaking. There are eight steps in the design of the earth retaining structure shown in Figure 6.4. The first four steps are the same as those listed in Section 6.3.1, with the first being the selection of the value for the permanent relative displacement d~ that is acceptable for the wall. For steps (1) through (4), see Section
6.3.1.

Compute the value for the effective dynamic active earth pressure force (5) Pm using the procedure described in step 3 of Section 6.2.2. When using the relationships for ~, Km, and am, N* is substituted for kh, and & is set equal to zero (a more sophisticated analysis is required to consider kV) .

(6) Compute the required weight of wall. Horizontal force equilibrium requires that the shear stress required for equilibrium, T, (Equation 80) be equal to the ultimate shear force along the base of the wall, TUIL (Equation 81) . Setting Equation 80 equal to Equation 81, and introducing the effective normal force N (Equation 78) and solving for W results in the relationship
w =

(Pfih( - (pm)y(tan6b),+

ustat,c Upcml mrt~a

Ub

(93)

tand~ - N*

where

(PM)Y

PM

sin(

6 + 0 ) to the wall weight W computed in

step

(7) No factor of safety needs to be applied 6 when using Equation 90 (FSW = 1.0).

(8) Proportion the geometry of the wall so that the overturning criterion is satisfied. This is expressed in terms of the percentage of base contact area B,/B, where B, is the width of the area of effective base contact, as described in step 7 in Section 6.2.2. For a given trial geometry, the point of action of the effective normal force along the base, xNI, is computed using Equation 79, followed by the computation of the value for B, using either Equation 75 or 76, depending upon the foundation material. This B, value is then compared to the minimum B, value, equal to 75 percent of the base width B for earthquake loading conditions.
With no residual excess pore water pressures generated within the backfill nor the soil foundation during earthquake shaking, there is no redistriThis implies that bution of excess pore water pressures after the earthquake. the wall displacements are due entirely to inertial effects during the earthquake (and not due to any post earthquake consolidation). Additional wall movements would occur should the foundation soils exhibit creep behavior as discussed in Seed (1987) and Whitman (1985). Creep displacements are not

included in this procedure. 6.3.4 Analysis of Earthquake Induced Displacements for a Wall Retaining Submerged Backfill - No Excess Pore Water Pressures
165

This section describes the proposed procedure for the analysis of the earthquake induced displacements of an existing wall retaining submerged backfill, identified as Case 2 in Figure 6.1. No excess pore water pressures are generated within the backfill and the foundation during earthquake shaking. The four steps in the analysis of Figure 6.4 retaining wall are as follows: For steps (1) and (2), see Section 6.3.2. N*g, coefsteps are

(3) Compute the value for the maximum transmissible acceleration, ficient N*. An iterative method consisting of the following five used to determine the value for N*.

(3-A) Using the assumed value for N*, compute the value for the dynamic active earth pressure force PM using the procedure described in step 3-A of Section 6.2.2. When using the relationships for ~~, Km, AKN, and am, N* is substituted for k~, and ~ is set equal to zero. (3-B) along
(3-C)

Calculate the value the shear force requires the base of the wall, T, using Equation 80.
Calculate

for equilibrium

the value

for the effective

normal

force,

N ,

using

Equation

78.
shear force along the

(3-D) Calculate the value for the ultimate base of the wall, TUl~, using Equation 81.

(3-E) If the value for T is not equal to the value for TUl~, adjust the value used for N* and repeat steps 3-A through 3-D until T = TUlt. The resulting value for N* is equal to the limit acceleration. (4) Calculate the permanent relative displacement d, using Equation 92. The value of dr must be consistent with those movements that are required to develop the dynamic active earth pressure (used in step 3-A), as described in Section 2.2.2. The commentary following step 8 in Section 6.3.3 also applies in this case. 6.3.5 Displacement Backfill - Excess Controlled Design Procedure Pore Water Pressures for a wall Retaining Submerged

This section describes the application of the proposed displacement controlled approach to the design of a wall retaining a submerged backfill that develops excess pore water pressures within the backfill or within the foundation during earthquake shaking, the Case 3 structure of Figure 6.1. A There are nine pool of water is also present in front of the retaining wall. The steps in the design of the earth retaining structure shown in Figure 6.5. first four steps are the same as those listed in Section 6.3.1, with the first being the selection of the value for the permanent relative displacement d, that is acceptable for the wall. For steps (1) through (4) see Section 6.3.1.

(5) Compute the value for the effective dynamic active earth pressure force Pfi using the procedure described in step 3 of Section 6.2.3. When using the
166

relationships equal to zero

for ~~2, KN, and am, (a more sophisticated

N* is substituted for kh, and ~ is set analysis is required to consider ~) .

(6) Compute the required weight of wall. Horizontal force equilibrium requires that the shear stress required for equilibrium, T, (Equation 84) equal to the ultimate shear force along the base of the wall, TU1t (Equation 81). Setting Equation 84 equal to Equation 81, and introducing effective normal force N (Equation 82) and solving for W results in the relationship

be

the

w=

(PAE)X - (Pm)y(tan$b)

.~.~i.

ushear
tan6~ - N*

UPOOI Ulnertla %

Au

(94)

where

(Pm)Y
(7) No

Pm

sin(

6 +

e )
to the wall weight W computed in

step

factor of safety needs to be applied 6 when using Equation 90 (FSW = 1.0).

(8) Proportion the geometry of the wall so that the overturning criterion is satisfied. This is expressed in terms of the percentage of base contact area BJB, where B, is the width of the area of effective base contact, as described in step 7 in Section 6.2.2. For a given trial geometry, the point of action of the effective normal force along the base, xN, , is computed using Equation 83, followed by the computation of the value for B, using either This B, value is Equation 75 or 76, depending upon the foundation material. then compared to the minimum Be value, which is equal to 75 percent of the base width B for earthquake loading conditions.
(9) Compute the additional wall movements that occur as a result of the In this problem, dissipation of the residual excess pore water pressures. residual excess pore water pressures are generated during earthquake shaking within the backfill and/or the soil foundation, resulting in a redistribution The design wall disof excess pore water pressures after the earthquake. placement selected in step 1 results from the inertial forces acting during the earthquake and do not include the post earthquake settlements. The cautions expressed regarding wall stability during the dissipation in step 9 of Section 6.2.3 of these excess pore water pressures as expressed remain applicable. This
6.3.6

procedure

is illustrated

in Example

31 at the end of this for a Wall

chapter. Sub-

merged

Analysis of Earthquake Induced Displacements Backfill - Excess Pore Water Pressures

Retaining

This section describes the proposed procedure for the analysis of the earthquake induced displacements of an existing wall retaining a submerged or backfill that develops excess pore water pressures within the backfill of within the foundation during earthquake shaking, the Case 3 structure
167

Figure 6.1. A pool of water is also present The five steps in the analysis of Figure 6.4 For steps (1) and (2) see Section 6.3.2.

in front of the retaining wall. retaining wall are as follows:

(3) Compute the value for the maximum transmissible acceleration, ficient N*. An iterative method consisting of the following five used to determine the value for N*.

N*g, coefsteps are

(3-A) Using the assumed value for N*, compute the value for the dynamic active earth pressure force PM using the procedure described in step 3 of Section 6.2.3. When using the relationships for ~~z, KM, AKm, and aw, N* is substituted for k~, and ~ is set equal to zero. (3-B) along (3-C) using Calculate the value the shear force requires the base of the wall, T, using Equation 84. Calculate the value Equation 81. for the effective normal for equilibrium

force,

N,

(3-D) Calculate the value for the ultimate base of the wall, TU1~, using Equation 81.

shear

force

along

the

(3-E) If the value for T is not equal to the value for TUl~, adjust the value used for N* and repeat steps 3-A through step 3-D until T = TU1~. The resulting value for N* is equal to the limit acceleration.
(4) Calculate the permanent relative displacement d= using Equation 92.

(5) Compute the additional settlements that occur during the dissipation of the excess pore water pressures and add these computed values to the lateral displacement value calculated in step 4. Note that this value of displacement does not include any creep displacements that may occur within the foundation soils. The resulting displacements must be consistent with those movements that are required to develop the dynamic active earth pressure (used in step 3-A), as described in Section 2.2.2. The case . commentary included in step 9 of Section 6.2.3 also applies in this

168

CHAPTER

6 - EXAMPLES

Contents Example Problems 27 through 31.

Commentary The following examples illustrate the procedures The results of the computadescribed in Chapter 6. tions shown are rounded for ease of checking calculations and not to the appropriate number of significant the wall geometry and values figures. Additionally, for the material properties were selected for ease of computations .

169

Example

No.

27

Reference

Section:

6.2.1

For a wall of height H = 40 ft and base width B = 32 ft founded on rock and retaining a dry dense sand backfill, determine if the wall satisfies the stability criterion listed in Table 5 for a peak horizontal site acceleration equal to 0.3 g. Assume the contact surface between the wall and the foundation rock to be entirely frictional (no bond).

:.
DENSE SAND 8ACKFILL

Y,=120 (#)1. 35 /j

pcf

= c#)/2

ROCK

Step

1 Seismic
g

Determine
ah

Coefficient

=0.3

k~=O.2 Step 2 Seismic Coefficient k<,

Determine

&=o.
Step

3
PAE from Mononobe-Okabe relationships

Determine

~=tan-l 4=11.31

h=-!
0.2

(by eq 35)

e = tan

-1 16 m [1

O =21.8

170

Example

No.

27

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.2.1

KM

= COS(ll, 31)COS2(21.8) COS(ll

COS2 (35-11.31-21.8)
2

.31+21.8+17.

5) 1+ [1-

sln(35 COS (17 .5+11.31+21.8)

sln(35+17.b)

-11.31COS(O-21.8) 0)

Km

= 0.618

(by eq 34)

Pm PM

= 0.618 = 59,328

(1/2)

(120

pcf

[1 - o])

(40)2

(by eq 33)

lb per

ft of wall of PAE

Determine

Point

of Application

KA = COS2(21.8) COS(21.8

COS2(35

-21.8) 2 sin(35 cos(l/.5 + 17.5) sin(35 - O) + 21.8) Cos(o 21. 8,1 (by eq 16)

+ 17.5)

1 + IS

KA = 0.441

PA = (0.441)

(1/2)

(120

pcf)

(40)2 acting at 13.33 ft (1/3 H) above

(by eq 7) the base of

PA = 42,336 lb per the wall pm APm AP~ = p* + APm

ft of wall,

(eq 40)

= 59,328 = 16,992
wall

- 42,336
lb per ft of wall, acting at 24 ft (0.6 H) above the base of the

Y= Y=

(42,336)

(13.33) +(16,992) 59 9328

(24) (by eq 44)

16.4 ftabove

the base of the wall

Step

4 the weight of the wall.

Determine

171

Example

No.

27 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.2.1

POINT

OF

APPLICATION

OF

WI

7
71
Y WI I

x WI

l/2(c)

x WI Y WI

=8FT
- l/2(H)

H%

Y W1 = 20 FT

t
YW2 +

POINT OF APPLICATION OF W2 I

II

x W2 x W2
Y W2

= c
G

+ l/3(B

c)

+----/3.32+

J L
pcf)

TOE

21.33 FT
l/3(H)

x WI

G-

YW2

13.33 FT

WI =

(40)

(16)

(150

WI = 96,000 W2 = (1/2)

lb per (16)

ft of wall (150 pcf)

(40)

W2 = 48,000 w= w= WI + w~ 96,000

lb per

ft of wall

+ 48,000 lb per ft of wall

w = 144,000

172

Example Determine

No.

27 (Continued) Point
WI

Reference of App lication of W

Section:

6.2.1

the Horizontal

(LJ

+W2
w

(%2)
(21.33)

(96,000)

(8) + (48,000) 144 >000

12.44

from the toe of the wall

Determine

the Vertical

Point

of App lication

of W

Yw =

WI

(y~J

+W2

(YW2)

96,000

(20) + (48,000) 144 )000

(13.33)

Yw = 17.78 ft from the base of the wall

Tl
KhW w I H =4&

--lx
N

~ 12.

J
T k x~
xPAf -y

TOE

Determine

the total

normal [sin

force

between

the wall

and

the foundation: (by eq 70)

N = 144,000 N = 181,577

+ (59,328) lb per

(17.5 + 21.8)]

ft of wall

173

Example

No.

27

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.2.1

YPM xp~

-Y - E - (YpK)TAN~

x PM - 25.44

(P~)x (PX

P*

Cos

(8+0)

)x - 45,910 SIN (~+ ~)

L
Determine
(PAE)Y

(PM )Y - PM (PX

)Y - 37,577

the Point sin

of Application

of the Normal

Force

(N) (see Figure)

= (59,328) = 37,577

(17.5

+ 21,8)

(Pw)y

lb per

ft of wall tan (21.8)

Xpfi = 32 xp~

- (16.4)

= 25.44 COS (17.5 + 21.8) ft of wall (see Figure)

(PAE)X = (59,328) (Pw)x Yp~ Yp~ = 45,910 = Y = 16.4

lb per

above

the base

of the wall

%=

(144,000)

(12.44)

+(37,577)

(25.44)

-(45,910) 181 > 577

(16.4)

-(144,000)

(0.2)

(1

%?= 8.16

from the toe of the wall

(by eq 71)

Find

the horizontal
+ (144,000)

shear
(0.2)

force

(T) required

for equilibrium

of the wall. (by eq 72)

T = 45,910 T = 74,710

lb per

ft of wall

174

Example Step Find

6b = 5

No.

27

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.2.1

the ultimate
35, (181,577)

shear

force

along

the base

(TU1~) (from Table 2)

for clean tan lb per factor

127,142 14 1 /10

sound (35)

rock.

TUl~ =

(by eq 74)

TUl~ = 127,142 Compute the

F
s

ft of wall against sliding (F.)

of safety

(by eq 73)

(Vactud

= 1.70

Step

6
factor of safety against sliding to the required factor

Compare the computed of safety

(FS)

r.quir~d

1.2

(from Table o.k.

5)

(F.) a~t~~l> Step

(Fs) ~~~l,~d$ therefore

7
the width of the area of effective base contact (B.) (by eq 75)

Determine
Be = 3

(8.16)

B. = 24.48 For temporary loading or equal to 0.5 (rock structure. cases, such foundation, as earthquakes, B,/B should be greater Table 5) to avoid overturning of the than

B.

24.48
actual T

[1
-E-

[1
B.
T

=0.765

actual

(B~/B)act,Ual> (B./B)r~Wir~~, therefore

o.k.

175

Example Step 8

No.

27 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.2.1

Determine the factors of safety against bearing of both the concrete and rock at the toe. Compute qmax

capacity

failure,

or crushing

qmax

(2/3) 14,835

(N/X~)
lb per

= (2/3)

[(181,577)/(8.16)]

(see Figure

6.3)

qmax

ft of wall

Check

Fb for concrete

Assume

for concrete:
%llt ===

(4,000

psi)

(144

in.2/ft2) ft of wall

%llt - 576,000

lb per

= (Fb)concrete

%t
qmax

576,000
14~83r

(by eq 77)

(Fb)..ncret.e = 38.8

Values Check

of Fb fOr concrete Fh for rock

iS adequate.

Calculations Summary The effect ing table.

omitted.

of vertical

accelerations

on the wall

are

summarized

in the follow-

Example

27 with

varying

k~ = 0.2

k=

o,

+0.1,

-0.1

176

Example

No.

27

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.2.1

Case

Pm

Yp~

F.

B,/B

F~

Vertical Acceleration None Downward Upward

Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

0 +0.1 -0.1

59,328 55,728 63,128

0 -6 +6

16.4 15.89 16.84

0 -3 +3

1.7 1.61 1.79

0 -5 +5

0.765 0.751 0.778

0 -1 +2

38.8 42.0 36.2

0 +8 -7

For structures with borderline values of F., B,/B or Fb, vertical be considered to correctly evaluate wall stability.

accelerations

must

177

Example

No.

28

Reference

Section:

6.

For a wall of height H = 20 ft and base width B = 20 ft founded on weathered roc and retaining a partially submerged cohensionless backfill (HW = 12 ft), determine the wall satisfies the stability criterion listed in Table 5 for a peak horizontal site acceleration equal to 0.3 g. Assume the contact surface between the wall and the foundation rock to act as a granular material (i.e. with no bond), rU is equal 0.1.

Yt - 120 pcf

WEATHERED

RtXK

I---*=2GJ
~

Ste~

1 the seismic coefficient

Determine

ah

=o.3g kh=O.2

Step

Determine

seismic

coefficient

k--

lq/=o.
Step

3
Pm from the Mononobe-Okabe ft of wall relationships 19) of the wall (see Example 19) .

Determine Pm

= 8,121

lb per ft

(see Example the base

YpAE=Y=

9.52
8,121 COS

(0.49

H) above

(pm)X=

(17.5) ft of wall

(PAE)X = 7,745 (pm)Y = 8,121

lb per sin

(17.5) ft of wall

(pAE)y = 2,442 XPAE =B=20ft

lb per

178

Example Determine

No.

28

(Continued) water Pressure force 19)

Reference

Section:

6.2.3

hydrostatic

static

4,493

lb per

ft of wall 19)

(see Example

YUSt = 4 ft

(see Example

Assume 80 Percent of the base in compression (B, = 16 ft) with full uplift pressures ~cting along 4 ft (B - B~)-of the wall to rock interface.

1
v STATIC

b .* . G .
.

Q.

G .

H=i?V

=
r

HW - L? f I

. . .W . G. c.
1

G .

BOT

WEATHERED

~K

(%)r.ct (%)r.ct =-Y. = (~) (B -%) =

1-2
(u~)
WCT

I +8,

(62.4 pcf)

(12) (20 -16)

2,995

lb per ft of wall 20[(2O - 16)/2]

(L&)r..t
(&b)rect

B
=

- [(B -B~)/2]=

18 ft from the toe of the wall

l/2 ~w~Be

(%)triangle

=1/2

(62.4 pcf)

(12) (16)

(h)triangle

5,990

lbper

ft of wall

(kb)triangle = 2/3 B, =2/3(16) (~b)trla~gle= 10-67 t h = (Ub)re.t. + (~)trian~le s 2,995 lbper

(18)

+ 5,990

LJ = 8,985
~b= (2,995)

ft of wall
+(5,990) 8 P985 (10.67)

~b13.11ft

from the toeof

the wall

179

Example Determine
shear =

No.

28

(Continued) pore water pressure force along

Reference the back

Section: of the wall

6.2.3

the excess

1,567

lb per ft above

ft of wall the base of the wall force along the base of the wall

(see ex 19) (see ex 19)

yUSh = 5.47 Determine

the Pore

water

Pressure

Assuming redistribution of excess pore water pressure within the backfill along the interface between the base of the wall and the foundation, the pressure distr ibution will be distributed as discussed for Ub.
bot
shear =

165.1 psf = (165.lpsf)

(see Example

19)

(Au).~.~= U~~~~r (B-Be)

(Au)tria

(4) =6601b/ft (16) n 1,321 lb/ft

= l/2(~b~~.r)(Be) e l/2(165.lpsf)

AU = AUreC~ +AUtria = 660 + 1,321

= 1,981 lb/ft

x DU = 13.11 ft from the toe ofthe wall

Step

4 the wei~ht of the wall

w= w= %=

Compute

and point

of app lication

H(B)~Co~C = (20) (20) (150 pcf) 60,000 lb/ft

B/2 = 20 /2 = 10 from the toe of the wall = 20/2 = 10 from the base of the wall

Yw = H/2

Determine

the effective

normal

force

(N ) between -8,985

the wall -1,981

and

the foundation

~, =60,000 N = 51,476

+2,442

(by eq 82)

Determine

the Point

of ap Plication

of the effective

normal

force

(N )

= 60,000

(10) -60,000

(0.2) (10)

~=480,0001b-ft

180

Example

No.

28

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.2.3

M PAE =2,242

(20) -7,745

(9.52)

M PAE = -24,892 % 001 =0

% w =-(4,493)(4)
% w = -26,544

(1,567)

(5.47)

lb - ft

XN?=

480,000

+ (-24,892

+ (-26,544)

(1,981)

(13.11)

(8,985)

( 13.11)

+0

416 51 >

XN, =

284,800 51 9 416

(by eq 83)

x~?

= 5.53

ft from the toe of the wall

Find

the horizontal

shear

force

(T) required

for equilibrium

of the wall.

T= T=

7,745 25,805

+60,000 lb per

(0.2) +4,493 ft of wall

+1,567

-0+0 (by eq 84)

Step Find

the ultimate

shear

force

along

the base

(TU1~)

6~ = 31

(from Table

2)

T Ult = 51,476 Tul~ = 30,930

tan (31) (by eq 81) lb per ft of wall

181

Example Compute

No.

28

(Continued) of safety against F

s

Reference sliding .1 (F.). z

Section:

6.2.3

the factor

= 30,930
m

(by eq 73)

Stev

(F.)a.tual 1.2
Step
7

= (FJreq~d = 1.2

:.

o.k.

(from Table

5)

Determine

the width

of the area

of effective

base

contact

(B,)

B, =3(5.53) (by eq 75) B.= 16.59

B. = 16.59 x~

=0.83

>0.5reqd

:. o.k.

Calculations show B~/B = 83 percent as compared to the initially assumed value of 80 percent. If the calculated B. value differed sufficiently from the assumed value, it would be necessary to recompute the uplift pressure distribution and repeat the analysis.

Determine the factors of safety against bearing capacity of the concrete and the rock at the toe of the wall. Compute qmax

failure

or crushing

q~~X=

(2/3)

(N/X~z)

=2/3

[1

.%

=6,206

Check

Fb for concrete

Assume

for

concrete: q.lt = 576,000 lbper ft of wall

(see ex 27)

182

Example

No.

28

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.2.3

(Fb)co..rete = ~

quit

576,000

6,206

= 92

(by eq 77)

Value Check

for F~ for concrete Fh for rock

is adequate.

Calculations

omitted.

183

Example

No.

29

Reference

Section:

6.3.1

Design a rectangular wall of height H = 20 ft to be founded on weathered rock and retaining a dense sand backfill for a peak average horizontal site acceleration equal to 0.3 g and a peak average velocity equal to 12 in/see. Assume the contact surface between the wall and the foundation rock to act as a granular material (i.e. with no bond) . Use the displacement controlled design procedure for a wall retaining a dry backfill.

~~1 i
1
4+ . ,

8.$
4

- 8.75

.V ~ 4V . .
v

.:.jo~

WEATHEREO ROCK L,=,+l

Step

Decide

upon

a value

for dr

Minimum value for d,. To achieve active earth pressures behind a 20 ft high wall retaining a dense sand backfill, the minimum wall displacement equals 0.24 inch (Y/H = 0.001 from Table 1). Specify Whitman Step A-g 2 = 0.3 g in/see/see) = 116 in/see/see a maximum allowable and Liao method). wall displacement d~ equal to 0.5 inch (use the

A*g = 0.30(386 A=O.3 v= Step h=o 12 in/see 3

184

Example Step 4

No.

29

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.1

N*

= (0.3).

0.66

914

In

005

n)

116

n/sec2)

{
N*= O.227,

(12 in/sec)2

1}

(by eq 90)

[:=0761

Step

k~ = N* = 0.227
~=o

Use

the simplified

Mononobe-Okabe

procedure,

described

in Section

4.2.2.

AKfi =3/4

(0.227)

=0.170

(by eq 43)

APm

= (0.170)

(1/2) (120 pcf)

(20)2 =4,080

lbperft

of wall

Y A~AE = 0.6H = 0.6 (20) = 12 ft above KA

COS2

from the base of the wall -o)

2

COS2(35 (0) COS

(O +8.75) 1 +

sin (35
COS

+ 8.75)

[[ KA 0.2544

(8./5

sin (35 - O) + o) Cos (o 0,1 (by eq 16)

pA = (0.2544)

(1/2)

(120 pcf)(20)2 (by eq 7)

PA = 6,106

lb per ft of wall

Pm Pm

= 6,106 = 10,186

+4,080

(by eq 40) lb per ft of wall

185

Example

No.

29 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.1

Y=YPU= Y = YPM

6,106

(20/3)

+4,080 10 9 186

(0.6)

(20)

(by eq 44)

= 8.80

ft above the base of the wall

Stev

Compute

the required

weight

of the wall.

(pm)X=10,186cos (PW)Y =10,186

(8.75 +0) sin (8.75 +0)

= 10,068 =l,5501b

lbperft

of wall

per ft of wall

6~ =29

(from

Table

2)

~=

10,068 - 1,550 [tan(29)] tan (29) - 0.22/ lbper ft of wall

(by eq 91)

w = 28,135

Assuming

a rectangular

block

with

H = 20

ft, compute

B.

W = H(B) -yCO~C =9.38 W= ~= =9.5 ofwall

(20)

(9.5)

(150 pcf) =28, 5001bperft =4.75

B/2 =9.5/2 = 20/2

ft from the toe of the wall

YW =H/2

= 10.00 ft above the base of the wall the toe

x PAE =B=9.5ftfrom

Step FSW= Step

7 1.0
8

N =28,500

+l,550

.30,0501bftofwa11

(by eq 70)

186

Example

No.

29

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.1

q=

28,500

(4.75)

+1,550

(9.5)

-10,186 30 9 050

(8.8)

-28,500

(.227)

(lo)

(by

eq

&=-o.141ft

71)

The negative XN value wall , not shear. Try B = 12.5 ft.

indicates

overturning

controls

the design

width

of the

(B/H=

0.60)

W = H(B)yCO~C W = (20) ~=B/2 (12.5) =12.5/2 (150 pcf) = 6.25 = 10.00 ft from = 37,500 lb per ft of wall

ft from ft above

the toe of the wall the base of the wall

YW = H/2 = 20/2
XPW =

B = 12.5

the

toe of the wall

x~

(37,500)

(6.25)

+1,550

(12.5)
the wall

- (10,068) 39 9050

(8.80)

-37,500

(0.227)

(10.00)

~=

2.05 ft from the toeof

(by eq 71)

B. =3

(2.05)

=6.15ft

(by eq 75)

B.

=6.15 actual

ft.=05=

[1
T Check F~

12 . f

[1

e =0.5 T ~e~ d

(from Table

5)

Compute

qmax (see Figure 6.3)

%.x

= 2/3

(39,050/2.05)

= 12,700

lb/ft

187

Example Check

No.

29 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.1

Fb for concrete

Assume

for concrete:

quit

= S76,000

lb/ft

(see

ex

27)

(Fb)concret~

quit = ~

576,000

12, /00

. 45

(by eq 77)

ValUe

for Fb for concrete Fh for rock

is adequate,

Check

Calculations Summary

omitted.

Overturning stability governs the design of the gravity wall (refer to step 7). It would be more efficient to make a gravity wall thinner at top than at the base. Doing so lowers the center of gravity and hence the seismic overturning moment. A T-wall may be more economical for structures of this height. In contrast with gravity walls, the addition of reinforced concrete to the toe of the T-wall increases the overturning resistance with a relatively minor increase in mass (and cost) of the structure.

188

Example

No.

30

Reference

Section:

6.3.2

Compute the value of d, (Equation 92) for a rectangular wall of height H = 20 ft and width equal to 12.5 ft to be founded on weathered rock and retaining a dense sand backfill for a peak average horizontal site acceleration equal to 0.3 g and a peak average velocity equal to 12 in/see. Assume active earth pressure forces acting along the back of the wall and the contact surface between the wall and the foundation rock to act as a granular material (i.e. with no bond) .

Him
I

~m~
4

.
- 8.75
I

.V. o;v . .
. .

t
WEATHERED ROCK J

l.
I

:.JOE
I

t3=12.Y

Step

Ag = 0.3g Ag = 0.3
(386

in/sec2)

= 116

in/sec2

A=O.3 V = 12 in/see

Step k=o

Step

3
(from example 29)

N*

=0.227

Step

3-A
(see ex 29)

Pm

= 10,186

lb per ft of wall

189

Example

No.

30 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.2

Y PAE = 8.80 ft above

the base of the wall

(see Ex 29)

Step

3-B

T =10,068 T = 18,581

+ (37,500)

(0.227) (by

eq 72)

lb per ft of wall

Step

3-C

N =37,500+1,550 (by eq 70) N = 39,050 lb per ft of wall

Step

3-D

b~ = 29

(from

Table

2)

TUlt = 39,050 TUlt = 21,646

tan (29) (by eq 74) lbper ft of wall

Step

3-E the value used for N*

Adjust

F,=-

T ult T

21,646

= ~

165

k~=N*=

(N*)ol~ (F.) = (0.227)

(1.165)

k~ = N* = 0.264 Step 3-A 2nd Iteration

AKfi = 3/4 (0.264)

=0.198

(by eq 43)

190

Example

No.

30 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.2

AP~ APM

= (0.198) = 4,752

(1/2) (120 pcf)

(20)2 (by eq 41)

lb per ft of wall

PA 6,106

lb per ft of wall

(see

ex

29)

Pm Pm

=6,106

+4,752

(by eq 40) = 10,858 lbper ft of wall

(PM))( =10,858
(pAE)y =10,858

cos (8.75

+0)

= 10,732

lbper

ft of wall ft of wall

sin (8.75 +0)

= 1,652 lbper

Step

3-B

2nd

Iteration

T =10,732 T = 20,632

+ 37,500

(0.264)

(by eq 72)

lb per ft of wall

Step

3-C

2nd Iteration

N =37,500+1,652 N = 39,152
lb per ft of wall

(by eq 70)

Step

3-D 2nd Iteration

&b =29

(see

ex

29)

T ULT = 39,152

tan (29) = 21,702

lb per ft of wall

(by eq 74)

Step

3-E 2nd Iteration the value used for N*

Adjust

191

Example

No.

30

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.2

F~=_

TULT = 21,702 T =

=1

05Z1

= N* = (N*)O1, (F.) = (0.264)

(1.1) = 0.290

Step

3-A

3rd

Iteration AKm = 3/4 (0.290) =0.218 (by eq 43)

APfi = (0.218)

(1/2)

(120 pcf)

(20)2 = 5,232 lbperft

of wall

(by eq 41)

PA = 6,106 lb per ft of wall

(see ex 29)

Pm

=6,106

+5,232

=11,338

lbperft

of wall

(by eq 40)

(pw)X=ll,338 (pm)Y =11,338

cos (8.75 +0) sin (8.75 +0)

= 11,206

lbperft

of wall of wall

= 1,725 lbperft

Step

3-B

3rd

Iteration T =11,206 T = 22,081

+37,500

(0,290)

(by eq 72)

lb per ft of wall

Step

3-C

3rd

Iteration

N =37,500+1,725=39,

2251bperft

of wall

(by eq 70)

Step

3-D 3rd Iteration 6~ =29 (see ex 29)

192

Example

No.

30

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.2

T ULT = 39,225

tan (29) = 21,743

lb per ft of wall

(by eq 74)

Step

3-E 3rd Iteration the value used for N* F~= T ULT = 21,743 m T

Adjust

=0.985

Assume TUL~ = T since N* = 0.290.

F~ is less

than

2 percent

from

a value

of 1.0 and use

N* = 0,290 TTT K

=0.967

Step

4 495 (12 in/sec)2 (116 in/sec2)

~=

exp
1

(-9.4=0.967)

(by eq 92)

=0.07

inches

Check

Fb

Calculation Summary

omitted.

The calculated earthquake induced displacement (approximately 1/10 inch) is less than 1/4 inch displacement, the minimum value that is required to develop active earth pressures in a dense sand backfill of 20 ft height (refer to Example 29). The computed d, value is less than this required minimum value due to the fact that to satisfy the stability criterion against overThe additional turning, the required width of the gravity wall was increased. concrete mass increased the shear resistance along the base of the wall and thus reduced the magnitude of wall displacement for the design earthquake load. Since the computed displacement of the rectangular gravity wall is less than that minimum value required to develop active earth pressures for the design earthquake by a factor of four, the procedures discussed in Chapter 5

193

Example

No.

30 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.2

(walls retaining nonyielding backfills) would be used to compute the dynamic earth pressure acting on the gravity wall. In general, the dynamic earth pressures for nonyielding backfills are two to three times larger than the dynamic active earth pressure force. Analysis and design of walls retaining nonyielding backfills are discussed in Chapter 8. If the wall had been made thinner at the top than in the summary to Example 29, then the necessity a nonyielding backfill might be avoided. at the base, as disto design the wall to

cussed retain

194

Example

No.

31

Reference

Section:

6.3.5

Design a rectangular wall of height H = 20 ft to be founded on sound rock and retaining a dense sand backfill for a peak average horizontal site acceleration equal to 0.275 g and a peak average velocity equal to 10 in./sec. Assume active earth pressure forces acting along the back of the wall and the contact surface between the wall and the foundation rock acts as a granular material (i.e. with no bond) . Use the displacement controlled design procedure for a wall retaining a submerged backfill, with d, = 0.5 inches and rU = 0.1.

T
I
H 2(7 ~

y~-120

pcf m

* =

HW -12

+. 35 ~ + -7-17.5
fJ

;. .!. Lv ..
v..

..

I ,

0.1

.. .~oE

r
~

POOL

ROCK

Step

Specify

a maximum

allowable

wall

displacement

d, equal

to 0.5

inch.

Step

A-g = 0.275 A-g = 0.275

A=

g (386.4
in./sec2) = 106.3
in./sec2

0.275
10 in./sec

v=
Step

kvo
Step

4 (0.5
{ in.) (106.3

N* =0.275

.66 F

in

in./sec2)

. =0.73

(10 in./sec)2

}1

k~ = Nx=0.2

with

A
;1

Step

195

Example

No.

31 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.5

he = 0.251 (PAE)X = 8,121 (pfi)X = 7,745 XPW

(PAE)Y

(see
COS 17.5 ft of wall

ex

19)

(see ex 19) (see ex 19)

lb per

= B
=

8,121

sin

17.5 ft of wall (0.49 H) above the base of the wall

(see ex 19) (see ex 19) (see ex 19)

(pw)Y

= 2,442

lb per 9.52 ft

Yp~=Y=

Determine

hydrostatic

water

pressure

force

u static Y Ust

4,493
=

lb per

ft of wall of the wall

(see ex 19) (see ex 19)

4 ft from the base

Assume

full hydrostatic

pressure

beneath

the base

of the wall.

u~ = (U) U~ = 748.8 ~b

(7w)

(B)

(12)

(62.4

pcf)

B B

= B/2 = 0.5

Determine

the excess lb per ft

pore

water

pressure

force

alon~

the back

of the wall. (see ex 19) (see ex 19)

shear = 1,567 yu~h = 5.47

ft of wall

Determine

the excess

pore

water

pressure

force

alon~

the base

of the wall

Assume

BQ/B

= 0.5

Assume the excess pore water pressure generated in the backfill during earthquake shaking will propagate under the wall at a constant value in the base separation zone (B - Be) . The pore water pressure in the base under compression (Be) will linearly decrease from the maximum value to zero at the toe of the wall.

196

Example

No.

31 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.5

GOT - 165.1 u SHEAR

I I w),,c~

197

Example

No.

31 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6 .3.5

bot shear

165.lpsf

(see ex 19)

.. (Wreck

bo (B-B.) = shear

= (165. lpsf)

(1/2) (B)

(Au)rect = 82.55B (Au)tria

(Au)tria

l/z(~~Sar)

1/2

(165 .lpsf)

(1/2) (B)

= 41.28B

AU = AUrect + AUtria =82. 55 B+41.28B=123.83B x DU = (82.55B) [Be + ((B -Be)/2)] 123 .83B +41.28 B [2/3 Be]

with

Be = 0.5 B,

x DU =

(82.55

B) (0.75

B) + (41.28

B)

(2/3)

(B/2)

f5~~~

123.8 3B

Determine the pool)

the hydrostatic

water

Pressure

force

in front

of the wall

(due to

Up.OI

1/2

7W HP2 = lb per

1/2

(62.4

pcf)

(12)2

upoo~ = 4,493

ft of wall = 4.00 above the base of the wall

Y up = Hp/3 = 12/3

Determine

the

inertia B)

force

in front

of the wall

(see Appendix

P~~=

(7/12)

(0.2)

(62.4 pcf)

(12~)z

u. Inertia

Pwd = 1,048

lb per ft of wall (12) =4.8 r~::::a =0231 ftabove the base of the wall

Y UI 0.4~

= (0.4)

198

Example Step

No.

31

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.5

6
the required weight of wall. (Table 2)

Compute 6~ = 35

~=

7,745

-2,442[tan

(35)] +4,493 +1,567 -4,493 tan (35) -0 .20

+1,048

+748.8B

+123.8B

(by eq 94)

~=

8,650.1 +872.6B i) .5002 (H) -yCO~C

W =B

with W=W,

B=

17,293 . [(20) (l~o) -1 9 ~4451

B = 13.77
Let w= &= B = 14.0 ft
=

(H)7conc

(14)
= 7.0

(20)

(150

pcf)

= 42,000

lb per

ft of wall

B/2

14/2

ft from ft from

the toe of the wall the base of the wall

Yw = H/2 = 20/2 Step 7

= 10.0

FSW = 1.0 Step 8 B = 123.83 B = 0.6111 B = 748.8 (14) = 1,734 (14) = 8.56 (14) = 10,483 = 7.00 lb per ft from lb per ft of wall the toe of the wall ft of wall

AU = 123.83 X~U = 0.6111 U~ = 748.8 ~~

= 0.5 B = 0.5

(14)

ft from

the toe of the wall (14) (by eq 82)

N = 42,000 N = 32,226 ~= 42,000

+ 2,442 lb per (7.0)

- 748.8

(14)

- 123.8

ft of wall - 42,000 (0.2) (10.0) = 210,000

199

Example MPm

No.

31 (Continued) (14) (4) - 7,745 - 1,048 (9.52) (4.8) (5.47) = = -39,544 12,942

Reference

Section:

6.3.5

= 2,442

MPOOl = 4,493 Mw = -4,493

(4) - 1,567

= -26,544

(by xN/ =
210,000 + (-39,544) + (-26,544) (1,734)(8.56) 32,226 (10,483)(7) +12,942 q 83)

x~~

= 2.13

from

the toe of the wall ft (by eq 75)

B,=

3( 2.13)

= 6.39

B, T [1

.6.39 actual

14 ft

ft=046<

e T [1

=0.5
req d

(from Table

5)

.-. overturning

controls

the design to resist overturning requirement, forces. Start from the mini-

The wall must be designed mum overturning stability

[1
Be T

=0.5

(from

Table

5)

~eq ~

Be = 3XN?

(adapted

from

eq 75)

200

Example

No.

31 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.5

3xN/

=0.5

B xN/ = 0.5B 7=X lB

xv=
Kv=

(H) (B) (~Co~C ) (B/2) - (H) (B) (~Co~C) (0.2) (H/2)

w]
L

[B-1

O.2H]

=(20)

(150 pcf)B[B

-(0.2)

20]

Yv= L,500B

(B -4) (9.52) =(2,442 B-73,732)

M PAE = 2,442 B -7,745 % 001 = 4,493 u~ (x~)

(4) -1,048 (0.5B)

(4.8) =12,942 =374.4B2, =75.7B2

= (748.8B)

AU(X~U) = (123.83B)

(0.6111B)

(H) (B) (-yco~C) + 2,442

748.8

B - 123.83

B B + 2,442)

N = (20) Solution Summarv

(150

pcf)

B + 2,442

- 872.6B page.

= (2,127.4

continues

on following

The width of the retaining wall cannot be directly determined because the resultant pore water pressure forces (both hydrostatic and excess) along the base of the wall vary as a function of the base width. Pressure distribution diagrams, for a specified value of the ratio B,/B, are expressed as a function of the width of wall B for both hydrostatic and excess pore pressures. The design procedure is based on determining the weight of wall (using Equation 94) which will satisfy base shear requirements. Values of N and XN~ are next calculated. The value of XN~ defines the value of B,. B,/B is used to express the stability of the wall against overturning. If the value of B,/B is sufficient and consistent with the assumed uplift pressures used in the calculations, then base shear would have controlled the design width. If B~/B is not acceptable (as in this example) then overturning controls the design width which must be increased such that the minimum value for B~/B is satisfied.

201

Example

No.

31 (Continued)

Reference

Section:

6.3.5

1 1

1 t :
k

Iwl,

c m o
II

c1 e-l 1= -

u .!-4 E o

m :

U-1

3 t-l

202

CHAPTER

ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

OF ANCHORED

SHEET

PILE WALLS

7.1

Introduction

This section describes the procedures for evaluating the stability and of anchored sheet pile walls during earthquakes. Anchored sheet pile walls are comprised of interconnected flexible sheet piles that form a continuous and permanent waterfront structure. The free earth support method is used to determine the required depth of sheet pile penetration below the dredge level and the force the anchor must resist so that excessive sheet pile wall movements do not occur during earthquake shaking. The forces acting on both the sheet pile wall and anchor during the earthquake include the static and dynamic earth pressure forces, the static and hydrodynamic pool water pressure forces and the steady state and residual excess pore water pressure forces within the submerged backfill and foundation soils. Because anchored walls are flexible and because it is difficult to prevent some permanent displacement during a major seismic event, it is appropriate to use active and passive earth pressure theories to evaluate dynamic as well as static earth pressures. The Mononobe-Okabe theory is used to evaluate the dynamic earth pressures. safety There have been very few documented cases of waterfront anchored walls that have survived earthquakes or of walls that have failed for reasons other than liquefaction. Hence uncertainty remains concerning the procedures outlined in this chapter and the difficulty of ensuring adequacy of anchored sheet pile walls during strong earthquake shaking (e.g. one rough index is seismic coefficients above 0.2). One of the few seismic design procedures for anchored sheet pile walls is the Japanese Code, which is summarized Using the obserin Section 7.2.1. vations regarding the performance of anchored sheet pile walls during earthquake shaking (summarized in Section 7.2), the following improvements over past practice are recommended: (1) Anchors must be placed further away from the wall.

(2) Larger seismic coefficients are required. They are to be assigned with consideration of the seismotectonic structures as well as the characteristics of soil and structural features comprising the wall, the anchorage and its foundation. (3) There backfill. is a limitation upon the build-up of excess pore pressures in

The procedures outlined in this chapter are to be viewed as interim guidance, an improvement over past practice. An anchored sheet pile wall is a complex structure and its performance (e.g. displacements) during earthquake shaking depends upon the interactions between the many components of the structural system (e.g. sheet pile wall, backfill, soil below dredge level, foundation, and anchorage) , which impact overall wall performance. The seismic design of anchored sheet pile walls using the procedures described in this chapter requires considerable juclgement during the Course of design by an earthquake engineer experienced in the problems associated with the seismic design of anchored sheet pile walls.

203

As a general design principle, anchored sheet pile walls sited in seismic environments should be founded in dense and dilative cohesionless soils with no silt or clay size particles. The proposed design procedure presume this to be the case. Strength parameters are to be assigned in accordance with the criteria in Section 2.3. Additionally, the design procedure is limited to the case where excess pore water pressures are less than 30 percent of the initial vertical effective stress (see Section 1.3, Chapter 1).

7.2

Background

Agbabian Associates (1980) summarize the performance of anchored sheet pile walls at 26 harbors during earthquakes in Japan, the United States, and South America. Their survey indicates that the catastrophic failures of sheet pile walls are due to the large-scale liquefaction of the backfill and/or the foundation, including the foundation soil located in front of the sheet pile wall and below the dredge level. For those structures that underwent excessive movements but did not suffer a catastrophic failure, there was little or no evidence of damage due to the vibrations of structures themselves. For those walls whose backfill and foundation soils did not liquify but did exhibit excessive wall moments during the earthquake, the survey identified the source of these excessive sheet pile wall movements as (1) the soil in front of the sheet pile wall and below the dredge level moved outward (toe failure), (2) the anchor block moved towards the pool (anchor failure), or (3) the entire soil mass comprising the sheet pile structure and the anchor block moved as one towards the pool (block movement). These three potential failure modes within the backfill and the foundation soils are idealized in Figure 2.1, along with the two potential structural failure modes during earthquake shaking of anchored sheet pile walls. The report identified a number of factors which may contribute to the excessive wall movements, including (1) a reduction in soil strength due to the generation of excess pore water pressures within the submerged soils during the earthquake shaking, (2) the action of the inertial forces due to the acceleration of the soil masses in front and behind the sheet pile wall and the anchor block, and (3) the hydrodynamic water pressures along the front of the wall during the earthquake. The Japanese Ports and Harbors commissioned a study by Kitajima and Uwabe (1979) to summarize the performance of 110 quay walls during various earthquakes that occurred in Japan during the past several decades. This survey included a tally of both damaged and undamaged waterfront structures and the dates on which the earthquakes occurred. Most of these waterfront structures were anchored bulkheads, according to Gazetas, Dakoulas, and Dennehy (1990). In their survey, Kitajima and Uwabe were able to identify the design procedure that was used for 45 of the bulkheads. This is identified as the Japanese code. Their survey showed that (1) the percentage of damaged bulkheads was greater than 50 percent, including those designed using the Japanese design procedure and (2) the percentage of bulkhead failures did not diminish with time. These two observations indicate that even the more recently enacted Japanese code is not adequate. To understand the poor performance of anchored sheet pile walls during earthquakes, it is useful to review the Japanese code that was used in the design of the most recent sheet pile walls that were included in the Kitajima and Uwabe survey.

204

7.2.1

Summary

of the Japanese

Code

for Design

of Anchored

Sheet

Pile

Walls

Most of the case histories regarding the performance of anchored sheet pile walls during earthquakes that were included in the Agbabian Associates (1980) and the Kitajima and Uwabe (1979) surveys are for Japanese waterfront structures . To understand the performance of these Japanese waterfront structures , it is useful to review the Japanese design procedures that were used for the most recently constructed waterfront structures included in the surveys . The Japanese code for the design of anchored sheet pile walls as described by Gazetas, Dakoulas, and Dennehy (1990) consists of the following five steps: (1) Estimate the required sheet pile embedment depth using the free earth support method, with the factor of safety that is applied to the shear strength of the soil reduced from 1.5 for static loadings to 1.2 for dynamic loadings. The effect of the earthquake is incorporated in the analysis through the inertial forces acting on the active and passive soil wedges by using the Mononobe-Okabe method to compute PM and Pp~.

(2) The horizontal seismic coefficient, k~, used in the Mononobe-Okabe relationships for PM and PP~ is a product of three factors: a regional seismicity factor (0.10 f 0.05), a factor reflecting the subsoil conditions (1 t 0.2), and a factor reflecting the importance of the structure (1 f 0.5). (3) Design the tie rod using a tension force value computed on the assumption that the sheet pile is a simple beam supported at the dredge line and by the tie rod connection. Allowable stress in the tie rod steel is increased from 40 percent of the yield stress in a design for static loadings to 60 percent of the yield stress in the design for dynamic loadings.
Compute the maximum bending moment, (4) Design the sheet pile section. referred to as the free earth support moment, in the sheet pile using the simple beam of step 3. In granular soils Rowes procedure is used to account for flexure of the sheet pile below the dredge level. A reduction of 40 to 50 percent in the free earth support moment value is not unusual. Allowable stress in the sheet pile steel is increased from 60 percent of the yield stress in a design for static loadings to 90 percent of the yield stress in the design for dynamic loadings.

(5) Design the anchor using the tie rod force of step 2 increased by a factor equal to 2.5 in the design for both static and dynamic loadings and assume the slip plane for the active wedge starts at the dredge line .
From the modes of failure observed in the Kitajima and Uwabe study of anchored sheet pile walls that were designed using the Japanese code, Gazetas, Dakoulas and Dennehy (1990) identified the following as the primary deficiencies in the Japanese code procedure: ~ and k~, used in the (1) The values for the seismic coefficients, Mononobe-Okabe relationships for PM and PP~ are not determined from a site response analysis but are specified within the Japanese code (~ = 205

O, and k~ is within structures involved

a narrow range of values in the study) .

for most

of the waterfront

(2) The resistance provided by the anchor is over estimated because the code allows the anchor to be placed too close to the sheet pile wall such that the passive wedge that develops in front of the anchor interferes with the active wedge developing within the backfill behind the sheet pile wall.

(3) The code does not account for the earthquake induced excess pore water pressures within the submerged soils and the corresponding reduction in the shear strength for the submerged soil regions, nor the excess water pressure forces and hydrodynamic forces acting on the sheet pile structure.

Gazetas, Dakoulas, and Dennehy (1990) listed only one of the failures of the sheet pile walls designed using the Japanese Code as a general flexural failure. In this case, the structural failure was attributed to corrosion of the steel at the dredge level. Each of these deficiencies anchored sheet pile walls described in Section 7.4. is addressed in the steps used in the design of using the free earth support method of analysis as

7.2.2

Displacements

of Anchored

Sheet

Piles

during

Earthquakes

In the Kitajima and Uwabe (1979) survey of damage to anchored sheet pile walls during earthquakes, the level of damage to the waterfront structure was shown to be a function of the movement of the top of the sheet pile during the earthquake. Kitajima and Uwabe (1979) categorized the damage as one of five levels as given in Table 6 and reported in Gazetas, Dakoulas, and Dennehy (1990) . Their survey shows that for sheet pile wall displacements of 10 cm (4 inches) or less, there was little or no damage to the Japanese waterfront structures as a result of the earthquake shaking. Conversely, the level of damage to the waterfront structure increased in proportion to the magnitude of the displacements above 10 cm (4 inches). Using the information on the anchored sheet pile walls survey reported in Kitajima and Uwabe (1979) and using simplified theories and the free earth support method of analysis, Gazetas, Dakoulas, and Dennehy (1990) showed that the post-earthquake displacements at the top of the sheet pile wall correlated to (1) the depth of sheet pile embedment below the dredge level and (2) the distance between the anchor and the sheet pile. Two anchored bulkheads were in place in the harbor of San Antonio, Chile, during the very large earthquake of 1985. A peak horizontal acceleration of about 0.6g was recorded within 2 km of the site. One experienced a permanent displacement of nearly a meter, and use of the quay was severely restricted. There was evidence of liquefaction or at least poor compaction of the backfill, and tie rods may not have been preloaded. The second bulkhead developed a permanent displacement of 15 cm, but the quay remained functional after the earthquake. This bulkhead had been designed using the Japanese procedure with a seismic coefficient of 0.15, but details concerning compaction of the backfill are unknown.

206

Table

Qualitative and Quantitative Description the Reported Degrees of Damage

of

OEGRE~ Of
OAMAGE

PERMANENT

Displacement AT TOP OF SHEETPILE CM

lFJC~ES

DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE
+A+ +e+

o
I
1

No damage

<2

-<1

Negllble damage to the W~\l lt68if: notlceble

damage to related 6tructure6 (I.e. concrete apron)

10
I

II

NotlcabIe damage

to wall

30

12

General 6hape of anchored

3
Ill

6heetpi[e pre6e~ed,

but

61gnlflcantly damaged

60

24

Compiete de6tructlon, no recognizable 6hape of wall

120

48

+ A + Oamaged Criteria Grouping by

GaZetaa,

Oakotjlas, Uwake

and (1978).

Oenneby

(1990).

+ B + Oamage crlterla Group!ng by KltaJlma and

7.3

Design

of Anchored

Sheet

Pile Walls

- Static

Loadings

In the design of anchored sheet pile walls for static earth pressure and water pressure loads, the free earth support method or any other suitable method may be used to determine the required depth of sheet pile embedment below the dredge level and the magnitude of the design anchor force required to restrict the wall movements to acceptable levels. The interrelationship between the changes in earth pressures, the corresponding changes in the sheet pile displacements, and the changes in the distribution of bending moments along the sheet pile make the free earth support method of analysis an attractive design tool, as discussed in Section 7.4. Rowes (1952) free earth support method of analysis assumes that the sheet pile wall moves away from the backfill and displaces the foundation soils that are below the dredge level and in front of the wall, as shown in Figure 7.1. These assumed displacements are sufficient to fully mobilize the shear resistance within the backfill and foundation, resulting in active earth pressures along the back of the sheet pile wall and passive earth pressures within the foundation in front of the sheet pile wall, as shown in Figure 7.1. 207

m
8-0
w&g

I
0

AE

AFTER

ELMS ANO RICHARDS (1990).

Figure 7.1 Decrease in failure surface passive sliding wedges with increasing

slope of the active and lateral accelerations

To begin the analysis, a factor of safety equal to 1.5 is applied to the shear strength of the soil comprising the passive block in front of the sheet pile wall, while active earth pressures are presumed behind the sheet pile wall (factor of safety on shear strength of the backfill = 1.0). Equilibrium of the moments for the active earth pressure distribution and the factored passive earth pressure distribution about the anchor results in the minimum required depth of sheet pile penetration. Horizontal equilibrium of the active earth pressure distribution and the factored passive pressure earth distribution results in the computation of the equilibrium anchor force. The distribution of moments along the sheet pile is then computed using the earth pressure distributions and the equilibrium anchor force. Rowes (1952) model studies showed that because of flexure in the sheet pile below the dredge level, the free earth support analysis predicts larger moments than those developing under working loads. According to Rowes work, the maximum moment to be used in the design of the sheet pile wall is equal to the maximum moment corresponding to the free earth support analysis times a correction factor; r~, where rd = the moment reduction factor due to flexure below the dredge level, as developed by Rowe. r~ is typically less than 1.0. Values for rd are given in Figure 7.2. The value of rd is a function of the flexibility of the sheet pile and the type and characteristics of the foundation soil below the dredge level. The value dependent of the correction factor upon (1) the flexibility is a value less than or equal to one, of the sheet pile and (2) the type and 208

1.0

0.9

0.8

$! 0.6 x
0.4

0.3
w.&

78

10

12

14 16 1820

30

40

50

60

7080

100

150

,~2 (H*O)4 ~ _ VALUE OF p - L9 El [1

PER RUNNING FOOT OF WPLL

EXAMPLE! PENTRATION IN VERY COMPACT SANO M f= -950,000 IN. LB/FT T FES H-33 FT, D=15FT. PSI, E-30,000.000 IN:, S-38.3 124 PSI It?
2 . .

fs-25,000

TRY ZP32, I -385.7

P.
PA

(33*15)X

30,000,000 X 385.7
-0.68, Mu= -16,800

G 9.5 :e

MDEsm
M FES

-645.000 lN.LEl/FT
Psl

f~- ~ -645,000 s 38.3 TRY -A SM~LtiR

16.800 < 25.000PSI

SECTION

MOMENT

DIAGRAM

LOAD DIAGRAAi LEGEND

FES -

MAXIMUN

POSITIVE

MOMENT

IN SHEETINC

COMPUTED

13Y FREE EARTH

SUPPORT

METHOD

M ~W

MAXIMUM POSITIVE

p - FLEXKNLITY NUM13ERNOTES 1. M ~~~

MOMENT FOR OESIGN OF SHEETING E - SHEETING MOOULUS OF ELASTICITY. PSI (H.()) 4 ~ I - SHEETING MOMENT OF lNERTIAi d PER RUNNING FOOT OF WAIL

IS 06TAJNED RY SUCCESSIVE TRIALS OF SHEETING SIZE UNTIL MAX. BENDING

STRESS IN SHEETING EQUAIS AlLOWA8LE BENDING STREAA. 2. NO REOUCTION IN Mf~s IS PERMITTED FOR PENETRATION OR VERY LOOSE COARSE GRAM4ED SOILS

IN FINE

GR~NED

SOLS

OR

LOO=.

3. FLEXR3LTY NUMBER IS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF LUERICATEO INTERLOCKS. FROM NAVFAC DM7.2

Figure

7.2

Reduction

in bending moments in anchored flexibility

bulkhead

from wall

209

characteristics of the foundation soil. The entire moment diagram is altered due to incorrect earth pressure assumptions, idealized in Figure 7.3. The corresponding design load, sheet pile displacements shown in Figure 7.3 reflect the flexure that occurs below the dredge level. In sand foundations the flexure below the dredge level increases with increasing density for the foundation sand. These reduced outward displacements along the bottom of the sheet pile explain why the free earth support method overpredicts the required design moment values for flexible sheet pile structures. Note that the point of contraflexure is now above the tip of the sheet pile in the case of the design loads. For those anchored walls in which the water table within the backfill differs from the elevation of the pool, the differences in the water pressures are incorporated in the analysis. Terzaghi (1954) describes a simplified procedure used to analyze the case of unbalanced water pressures and steady state seepage. The distributions for the unbalanced water pressures along the sheet pile for the case of no seepage and for the case of steady state seepage are shown in Figure 7.4. In an effective stress analysis of frictional soils are computed within these two regions, and the effective unit weights (Equation 27) are used to compute the active and passive earth pressures along the sheet pile wall using the simplified relationship of the type described in Section 3.3.3. The seepage force acts downward behind the sheet pile, increasing the effective unit weight and the active earth pressures, and acts upward in front of the sheet pile, decreasing the effective unit weight with steady state seepage, and the passive earth pressures. For the case of no flow, the buoyant unit weights are assigned to the frictional soils below the water table to compute the active and passive earth pressures using the simplified relationships of the type described in Section 3.3.2. Various important load and material factors in common practice are as follows: The allowable stress in the sheet pile is usually restricted to between 50 percent and 65 percent of the yield stress of the steel (60 percent in the Japanese Code). The allowable stress (gross area) in the tie rod steel is usually between 40 and 60 percent of the yield stress, and the tie rod force is designed using the equilibrium anchor force increased by a factor equal to 1.3. The anchor is designed using the equilibrium anchor force increased by a factor equal to between 2.0 and 2.5. This design procedure for static in the following sections. of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls loadings is extended to dynamic prob-

lems

7.4 Design

for Earthquake

Loadings

The first step is to check for the possibility of excess pore pressures or liquefaction (see Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin 1990) . The presence or absence of these phenomenon will have a major influence on design. The potential for excessive deformations is to be considered (see National Research Council, 1985). The proposed design procedure quantifies the effect of earthquake shaking in the free earth support analysis of anchored sheet pile walls through the use of inertial forces within the backfill, the soil below the dredge level in front of the sheet pile wall and the hydrodynamic water pressure force in the pool in front of the wall. These inertial forces are
210

211

..

..

..

Jc_LLx

. ... . .

. ....- .

/
o

/ //
I I

NO FLOW

FLOW

NET

I
(

HJTTOM (b). NET WATER PRESSURE WITH SEEPAGE TERZAGHI (1954) ANO OAWKINS (1991)

(a). NET WATER PRESSURE WITHOUT SEEPAGE

FROM

Figure

7.4

Two

distributions

for unbalanced

water

pressures

superimposed on the static forces along ments are made to the load and material ing sections, when earthquake loads are

the sheet pile wall. Certain adjustfactors, as is detailed in the followincluded in the analysis.

An important design consideration is the placement of the anchor. It should be located far enough from the wall such that the active wedge from the wall (starting at the bottom of the wall) and the passive wedge from the 212

anchor do not intersect. The inertial forces due to the acceleration of the soil mass have the effect of decreasing the slope of the active and passive soil wedge failure surfaces, as shown in Figure 7.1 and described in Chapter 4. The slope angles am and aP~ for the slip planes decrease (the slip planes become flatter) as the acceleration levels increase in value. When the horizontal accelerations are directed towards the backfill increases in the earth pressure forces above the sta(+khg), the incremental tic earth pressure forces, denoted as APti and APP~ in Figure 7.1, are directed away from the backfill. This has the effect of increasing the driving force behind the sheet pile wall and decreasing the stabilizing force in front of the sheet pile wall. The effect of increased accelerations on the distribution of moments are twofold, (1) increased values for the maximum moment within the sheet pile and (2) a lowering of the elevation of the point of conflexure along the sheet pile (refer to Figure 7.3 for definition) . The anchored sheet pile wall model tests in dry sands by Kurata, Arai, and Yokoi (1965), Steedman and Zeng (1988) and Kitajima and Uwabe (1979) have confirmed this interrelationship, as shown in Figure 7.5. This type of sheet pile response shows that as the value for acceleration increases, the point of conflexure moves down the pile, and the response of the sheet pile (described in terms of sheet pile displacements, earth pressures along the sheet pile and distribution of moments within the sheet pile) will approach those of the free earth support. This increase in the value of the maximum moment and the movement of the point of contraflexure towards the bottom of the sheet pile with increasing acceleration reflects the development of a fully active stress state within the soil that is located below the dredge level and behind the sheet pile wall. Thus , the value for Rowes moment reduction factor that is applied to the moment distribution corresponding to the free earth support method will increase in value, approaching the value of one, with increasing values for accelerations. This effect is not taken into account directly in the design. However, it is indirectly considered if the moment equilibrium requirement of the free earth method requires a greater depth of embedment when earthquake loadings are included. Another factor affecting the orientation of the failure planes and thus the corresponding values for the dynamic earth pressure forces is the distriThe bution of total pore water pressures within the backfill and foundation. total pore water pressure is a combination of the steady state seepage and any excess pore water pressures resulting from earthquake induced shear strains within the submerged soils. The proposed procedures for the seismic stability analysis of anchored sheet pile walls that undergo movements during earthquakes are categorized as one of three types of analyses, depending upon the magnitude of excess pore water pressures generated during the earthquake (Figure 7.6) . They range from the case of no excess pore water pressures (Case 1) to the extreme case corresponding to the complete liquefaction of the backfill (Case 3) and the intermediate case of residual excess pore water pressures within the backfill and/or the soil in front of the sheet pile (Case 2) . In Figure 7.6, U~~~~iC-~corresponds to the steady state pore water pressure force along the back of the sheet pile wall, Uc.~~~iC-~ the steady state pore water pressure force along the front toe of the wall and UPOOl the hydrostatic water pressure force exerted by the pool along the front of the wall. In the case of balanced water pressures, the sum of u~~a~lc-bis equal to Upool

213

Bending 15 10

Moment, 5 0

cm-kg -5 -10

-80

After backfill G 200 galaccn. A 350 gol accn. =

~=

From
Bending

Kuroto,
cm-kg

Arai and
0

Yokoi

(1965)
cm 1.5 2.o

Moment,

Displacements, 005 IeO

10

-5 8

8
m

Static 115 gal. occn.

-
---

20-

- -A

172

gal. I

OCCne

~From

Kitajima

and Uwabe

(1979)

o Stdc O.lg --0.2 a 0.05 g

0=4k
0.8- -

%-. .\:-a

0+ n:?
o Uament, -0.004 M/Yli -0.008 3

0.012

0.00G

0.0(24 Bending

From

Steedman

and Zeng

(1988)

Figure moment

7.5 Measured distributions of bending in three model tests on anchored bulkhead

CASE

1: Submerged HackFill, No Excess Pore Water Pressures Oue to Earthquakes.

\ \ \()
shaor

8 \Stat/C
-bA ,

-b

-al.
\
\

~u
w / \

IlwtIa

/ e 8+

Qi!W-t ud~k y .

~----

Z3N

P PE

CASE 2: Submerged
Water

Backfill,
Due

Excess Pore
To Earthquake.

Pressures

CASE 3:
Figure 7.6

Liquefied
Anchored undergo

BackFill.
sheet pile walls retaining backfills movements during earthquakes which

215

and U~t~tiC-t . u Inertia corresponds to the hydrodynamic water pressure force along the front of the wall due to earthquake shaking of the pool. U~~~ar_~ correspond to the excess pore water pressure force acting along and shear-t the back of the wall and along the front of the wall (Case 2). In the case of a liquified backfill, HFS~a~iC and HFin~rtia_~are equal to the equivalent heavy fluid hydrostatic pressure of the liquified backfill and the inertia force due to the acceleration of a liquified backfill. An anchored sheet pile wall cannot be designed to retain a liquified backfill and foundation, and hence Case 3 is only of academic interest. Site improvement techniques (the National Research Council 1985) or the use of alternative structures should be investigated in this situation. A procedure for determining the potential for liquefaction within the submerged backfill or the potential for the development of excess pore water pressures is discussed in numerous articles, including the National Research Council (1985), Seed, Tokimatsu, Harder, and Chung (1985), Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). The design procedure (Section 7.4.2) is limited to the case where excess pore water pressures are less than 30 percent of the initial vertical effective stress. Flexure of the Sheet Pile Wall Below the Dredge Level:

Justification of the use of Rowes moment reduction factor values, obtained from static tests (Rowe 1952) on dynamic problems, is empirical. The damage surveys of anchored sheet pile walls that failed due to earthquake shaking listed one sheet pile wall that exhibited a general flexural failure (Section 7.2.1). The structural failure of this wall, designed using the Japanese Code, was attributed The Japanese to corrosion at the dredge level. Code uses the Rowes reduction factor values to reduce the maximum free earth support moment in the design of the sheet pile section, thus relying on flexure of the sheet pile wall below the dredge level during earthquake shaking. Flexure of the sheet pile below the dredge level is caused by several factors, including the depth of penetration and flexural stiffness of the sheet pile wall and the strength and compressibility of the soil (Rowe 1952, 1956, and 1957, Tschebotarioff 1973). In Rowes procedure, the dependence of the value of r~ on the soil type incorporates the dependence of the level of moment reduction on the compressibility and strength of the soil as well as the magnitude and distribution of sheet pile displacements below the dredge level. The ability of the system to develop flexure below the dredge level during earthquake shaking must be carefully evaluated prior to application of This Rowes moment reduction factor or any portion of the reduction factor. is especially true when analyzing the seismic stability of an existing sheet pile wall founded in a contractile soil. A sheet pile wall founded in dense granular soils is far more likely to develop flexure below the dredge level during earthquake shaking than one founded in loose soils. Dense soils that dilate during shearing are far less susceptible to large displacements during earthquake shaking than are loose soils (Seed, 1987 and Seed, Tokimatsu, Harder, and Chung, 1985). Loose soils contract during shearing and are Susceptible to large displacements and even flow failures caused by earthquake shaking (National Research Council, 1985, and Whitman, 1985) . As a general design principle, anchored sheet pile walls sited in seismic environments should be founded in dense and dilative cohesionless soils with no silt or clay site particles. 216

7.4.1

Design

of Anchored

Sheet

Pile Walls

- No Excess

Pore Water

Pressures

The presence of water within the backfill and in front of the sheet pile wall results in additional static and dynamic forces acting on the wall and alters the distribution of forces within the active and passive soil wedges developing behind and in front of the sheet pile wall. This section describes the first of two proposed design procedures using the free earth support method to design anchored sheet pile walls retaining submerged or partially submerged backfills and including a pool of water in front of the sheet pile wall , as shown in Figure 7.7. described as Case 1 in FigThis analysis, ure 7.6, assumes that no excess pore water pressures are generated within the submerged portion of the backfill or within the foundation during earthquake shaking. The evaluation of the potential for the generation of excess pore water pressures during the shaking of the submerged soil regions is determined using the procedure described in the National Research Council (1985), Seed, Tokimatsu, Harder, and Chung (1985), Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). Stability of the structure against block movements , as depicted in Figure 2.1, should also be checked during the course of the analysis. The ten stages of the analyses in the design of anchored walls for seismic loadings using the free earth support method of analysis are labeled A through J in Table 7. Appendix The C contains a worked example. 13 steps in the design of the anchored sheet pile wall retaining submerged backfill as shown in Figure 7.7 are as follows: (1) Perform a static loading design of the anchored free earth support method of analysis, as described other suitable method of analysis. (2) Select the k~ value Chapter 1.* (3) Consider ~ to be used in the analysis; sheet pile in Section wall using the 7.3, or any

see Section

1.4 of

as discussed

in Section

1.4.3.

(4) Compute PM using the procedure described in Section 4.3 and with the Pm acts at an angle & to the shear strength of the backfill fully mobilized. normal to the back of the wall. The pore pressure force U~t~tlC-bis determined from the steady state flow net for the problem. By definition, only steady state pore water pressures exist within the submerged backfill and foundation of a Case 1 anchored sheet pile wall (rU = O). In the restrained water case of a fullv submer~ed soil wedge with a hydrostatic water table, PM is computed (Equations 33 and 38) using an effective unit weight equal to the buoyant unit weight. Km (Equation 34) or KA(/l*,O*) (Equation 38) is computed using an equivalent horizontal acceleration, kh~l, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, ~,1, given by Equations 47 and 46 (Section 4.3.1).

The values for seismic coefficients are to be established by the seismic design team for the project considering the seismotectonic structures within the region, or as specified by the design agency. The earthquake-induced displacements for the anchored sheet pile wall are dependent upon numerous factors, including how conservatively the strengths, seismic coefficients (or accelerations), and factors of safety have been assigned, as well as the compressibility and density of the soils, and the displacement at the anchorage. 217

/~\ \ \ \

/z!%

2 /

PM \ \ u
static-bY \

~u Uw
/ u

Ifwtfo
/-///-

PE

Figure

7.7

Anchored sheet pile wall with no excess pore due to earthquake shaking (Case 1). in the Design

water

pressure

Table

Ten Stages of the Analyses Seismic Loadings

of Anchored

Walls

for

Stage

of Analysis A
1

Section Design

7~4.1 Steps

Descri~tion Evaluate potential for liquefaction excessive deformations. or

I B
I

1 I 2, 3
I

Static design: of penetration

Provides initial depth for seismic analysis. site specific design. forces

c
D

Determine the average acceleration for wall

4, 5
1

Compute dynamic earth pressure and water pressure forces.

I E 6 Sum the moments due to the driving forces and the resisting forces about the tie rod elevation. Alter the depth of penetration and repeat steps 4 and 6 until moment equilibrium is achieved. The minimum depth of embedment has been computed when moment equilibrium is satisfied. Sum horizontal tie rod force forces to compute the (per foot of wall).

I F 4-6

8, 9

Compute the maximum bending moment, apply Rowes moment reduction factor and size the flexible wall (if applicable) , Size the tie rods spacing. Design 218 and site and select their

I
I

10

I
m

11-13

the anchorage.

In the case of a partially this simplified submer~ed backfill, procedure will provide approximate results by increasing the value assigned to the effective unit weight, ye, based upon the proportion of the soil wedge that is above and below the water table (see Figure 4.13 in Section 4.3.3). 33 and 38) with -y~ replaced PM is computed (Equations by 7,. Ku (Equation 34) or KA(~*,O*) (Equation 38) is computed using an equivalent horizontal acceleration, kh~l, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, ~~1, given and 46 in Section 4.3.1 with ~b by Equations replaced by .- -y.. A more refined analysis may be conducted using the trial wedge procedure (Appendix A) for the forces shown in Figure 7.7. subTo compute the point of action of PM in the case of a partially merged backfill, redefine Pm in terms of the static force, PA, and the dynamic active earth pressure increment, APm, using Equation 40. This procedure is demonstrated in Figure 7.8. First compute KA and the static effective earth pressure distribution along the back of sheet pile wall PA is equal to the using one of the procedures described in Chapter 3. resultant force for this static effective stress distribution along the back of the wall, which also provides for the point of action for PA. Solve for the force APM as equal to the difference between Pm and PA. Assume that APm acts at a height equal to 0.6H above the base of the sheet pile. Compute the point of action of force PM using Equation 44 and correcting this relationship for the new locations along the back of the sheet pile for the forces PA and APm (refer to Example 19). (5) Compute PP~ acting in front of the sheet pile using the procedure described in Section 4.4 (Chapter 4) and using a factor of safety, FSP, applied to both the shear strength of the soil and the effective angle of friction along the interface. 6 equal to 4/2 (Section 3.3.1) is a reasonable value for dense frictional soils. In a static free earth support method of analysis, FSP is set equal to 1.S, and in a dynamic earth pressure analysis, the minimum value assigned to FSP is 1.2. U~~~tiC-tis determined from the steady state flow net for the problem. By definition, only steady state pore water pressures exist within the submerged backfill and foundation of a Case 1 anchored sheet pile (95)

and tan6 tan6~ = FSP (96)

wall (rU = O). soil In the restrained water case of a fully submerged wedge with a hydrostatic water table, PPE is computed (Equations 58 and For 62) using an effective unit weight equal to the buoyant unit weight. low to moderate levels of earthquake shaking, assume that PPE acts at a height equal to approximately 1/3 of the height of the soil in front of the sheet pile wall and at an angle 6t to the normal to the face of the

219

(o.)

Mononobe

- OKobe

Earth

Pressure

Forces

PM ondp=.

T1

III
OJ5H
(b. ) Hcrrizontal Force Components. of P* ond p=

&iPE (2s?)

Figure

7.8

Static and inertial horizontal force components Mononobe-Okabe earth pressure forces

of the

220

wall. *

f2qUiValeIIt

KP~ (Equation 59) or KP(~*, O*) (Equation 62) is computed using an horizontal acceleration, kh~l, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, ~~1, given by Equations 47 and 46. In the case of a steady state seepage , this simplified procedure will provide approximate results by decreasing the value assigned to the effective unit weight (Equation 27) according to the magnitude of the upward seepage gradient (Equation 26) . Equation 59 for KP~ is restricted tion 95) is greater than ~~1 (Equation cases of high accelerations and/or low factor is the submergence of the soil approximately doubles the value of the the corresponding dry soil case. to cases where the value of 4 (Equa46). This limiting case may occur in shear strengths. One contributing in front of the anchored wall, which equivalent seismic inertia angle over

(6) To determine the minimum required depth of sheet pile penetration, the clockwise and counterclockwise moments of the resultant earth pressure forces and resultant water pressure forces about Figure 7.7 anchor are computed as follows:

Counterclockwise

Moment

= pMcos6~(y~

- Ym)

+ U~~~~lC-b(y~- Ub) (97)

+ Ul~~=~l~ (Y~ Yl)

and

Clockwise

Moment

= - UPOOl*(Y~ - YUP) - PP~*cos6~o (Y, - YP~) (98)

-u

static-t (ya

~t)

In a static design by the free earth support method of analysis, a triangular earth pressure is assumed along the front of the wall, with the resulting force Pp assigned to the lower third point. Experience has shown that reasonable static designs resulted when the appropriate strength parameters and adequate factors of safety were used in conjunction with this simplified assumption. A similar approach is used in the dynamic design. The point of application of Pp~ may move downward from its static point of application for anchored sheet pile walls as the value for kh increases. However, no satisfactory procedure was found for computing the point of application of PPE for this structure. In the interim, the assumption of PPE acting at approximately 1/3 of the height of the soil in front of the wall is restricted to low to moderate levels of earthquake shaking (e.g. one rough index is kh < 0.1) and with conservative assumptions regarding all parameters used in the analysis. For higher levels of shaking and less conservative assumptions for parameters, a larger value for FSP than 1.2 and/or a lower point of application would be assigned.

221

where 6~ = effective angle of friction along the backfill to sheet pile wall interface b~ = effective angle of friction along the toe foundation to sheet pile wall interface u static-b = resultant steady state pore water pressure force along the back of the wall ustatic-t = resultant steady state pore water pressure force below the dredge level along the front of the wall upoo~= resultant hydrostatic water pressure force for the pool Ui~~,tl~ = hydrodynamic water pressure force for the pool, directed away from the wall (see Appendix B) Y. = distance from the base of sheet pile to the anchor Ym = distance from the base of sheet pile to Pm YU~ = distance from the base of sheet pile to U~ta~lC.b (from a flow net) Y1 = distance from the base of sheet pile to Ui~~~~i~ (see Appendix B) Y = distance from the base of sheet pile to UPOO1 Y~~ = distance from the base of sheet pile to PP~ Y Ut = distance from the base of sheet pile to USt~~lC_~ (from a flow net). The value for the Clockwise Moment about Figure 7.7 anchor is compared to the value for the Counterclockwise Moment, resulting in the following three possibilities: (6a) If the value of the Clockwise Counterclockwise Moment, the sheet and the depth of penetration below applied forces. Moment is equal to the value of the pile wall is in moment equilibrium, the dredge level is correct for the

(6b) If the value of the Clockwise Moment is greater than the value of the Counterclockwise Moment, the trial sheet pile embedment depth below the dredge level is too deep and should be reduced.
(6c) If the value of the Clockwise Counterclockwise Moment, the trial dredge level is shallow and should

Moment is less than the value of the sheet pile embedment depth below the be increased.

Note that the sheet pile wall is in moment equilibrium for only one depth of sheet pile penetration within the foundation. For those trial sheet pile penetration depths in which moment equilibrium is not achieved, a new trial depth of sheet pile penetration is assumed, and step 4 through step 6 are repeated. (7) Once the required depth of sheet pile penetration is determined in step the equilibrium anchor force per foot width of wall, T~~~, is computed using the equations for horizontal force equilibrium. TFES = pPEcos6t
+

6,

U~~atic_t+ UPOO1 - Ui~,,~l~-

pAECOSfb

USt~tlC_~

(99)

In some situations the value for T~~s computed in a seismic analysis can be several times the value computed in the static analysis due to the effect of the inertial forces acting on both the active and passive soil wedges and the pool of water. Large anchor forces per foot width of wall will impact

222

both rows

the selection of the type of anchorage, and spacing of tie rods along the wall

anchor geometry and the number (see steps 10 through 12) .

of

(8) The distribution of the moments within the sheet pile is computed from the external earth pressures along the front and back of the sheet pile and from the anchor force. TO accomplish this, the earth pressure forces shown in Figure 7.7 must be converted to equivalent earth pressures distributions. One approach for doing this is to separate Pm into its static and incremental dynamic components and corresponding points of action, as discussed in step 4 and shown in Figures 7.8 and 7.9. Figure 7.10 is used to define the variation in horizontal stress with depth for the dynamic earth pressure force increment APfi . At a given elevation, an imaginary section is made through the sheet pile, as shown in Figure 7.10, and the internal shear force V and internal bending moment M are represented. The internal shear force V is equal to the sum of earth pressures and water pressures and TFES acting on the free body diagram of the sheet pile above Section A-A . The internal bending moment M is equal to moment of the earth pressures, water pressures about Section A-A . The maximum bending moment within the sheet pile is denoted as MFES. The value for MFEs is determined by calculating the internal bending moment at the elevation at which the shear is equal to zero. (9)

The

design

moment

for the sheet

pile,

M~,~l~., is equal

to

%esign

bES

(loo)

where MFEs is the value of the maximum moment calculated using the Free Earth Support Method, and rd is the Rowes moment reduction factor discussed in Section 7.3. Using the currently available moment reduction curve shown in Figure 7.2, the value of correction factor will change from the static case EI, of the wall only if the depth of penetration or the flexural stiffness, changes in order to meet moment equilibrium requirements for seismic loadings. The ability of the system to develop flexure below the dredge level during earthquake shaking must be carefully evaluated prior to application of Rowes moment reduction factor or any portion thereof. This aspect of the design is discussed in Section 7.4. In a static design, the allowable stress in the sheet pile is usually Higher allowarestricted to between 50 and 65 percent of the yield strength. ble stresses may be considered for use in the design for dynamic earth PresThe allowable sures , given the short duration of loading during earthquakes. stresses for earthquake loading may be increased 33 percent above the value specified for static loading. This corresponds to an allowable stress in the The sheet pile restricted to between 67 and 87 percent of the yield strength. effects of corrosion should be considered during the course of wall design for static and seismic loadings. (10) In a static design, Td~~i~~) iS eqUal tO the design tie rod force per foot width of wall,

T design

1.30T~~S

(101)

223

t@

mhda4

() ()
~
AP
E H

AP

AE

Figure 7.9 Distributions of horizontal stresses corresponding to APM

v-+ \ L-d \ \r J

J--y I l-~ I I \[ L~ ;--y L ----1 I I

- -:_____ / r - :-------

- --

, h,

DREOCE

I +-

\ -\\

LEVEL

-i

--\ ---:>

\ \ +

L--J I I b--d

OYNAh41C INCREMENTAL ACTIVE EPfiTH PRESSURE

HYDROSTATIC WATER PRESSURE

STATIC ACTIVE EN?TH PRESSURE

0YNIA41C PASSIVE EAk?TH PRESSURE

HYDROSTATIC WATER PRESSURE

Figure

7.10

Horizontal

pressure components sheet pile wall

and anchor

force

acting

on

224

and the allowable stress in the tie rods is usually restricted to between 40 and 60 percent of the yield strength. The factor 1.3 is also recommended for earthquake loading conditions. The Japanese code restricts the allowable stresses to 60 percent of the yield strength for earthquake loading (see the discussion at the end of step 9). The value of 60 percent is recommended. The effects of corrosion should be considered during the course of wall design for both static and seismic loadings. (11) The design of the anchorage for seismic loadings follows the approach that is proposed for the design of the flexible wall and differs from the approach used when designing for static loadings. In the case of static loads , the ultimate force (per foot width of wall) which the anchor is to be designed, TU1t.~, is equal to (102)

Tult-a = 2.50T~~~

and the static earth pressure forces PA and Pp on the front and back of the anchor block are computed using the ultimate shear strength with & = 0 for slender anchorage (refer to discussion in Section C.1.9 of Appendix C or to Dismuke (1991). The proposed design procedure for seismic loadings is described in steps 12 and 13. Seismic loads usually control the anchorage design.
(12) For those waterfront structures in which the anchor consists of a plate or a concrete block, a major contribution to the forces resisting the pulling force TU1t_~ is provided by the formation of a passive soil wedge in front of the block, as shown in Figure 7.lla. In a seismic analysis, TU1t_~ is set equal to TFEs. The Mononobe-Okabe equations 33 and 58 are used to compute the dynamic active earth pressure force, Pm, and the dynamic passive earth pressure force, PP~, acting on the anchor block during earthquake shaking (Figure 7.llb). Pm is computed with the shear strength of the backfill fully mobilized and 6 = 0 for slender anchorage and 6 5 +/2 for mass concrete anchorage (Section C.1.9 of Appendix C). PP~ is computed using a factor of safety FSP applied to the shear strength of the soil (Equation 95) and the effective angle of friction along the interface (Equation 96) . At a minimum, FSP is set equal to a value between 1.2 and 1.5, depending on the allowable displacement and on how conservatively the strengths and seismic coefficients have been assigned. In general and with all parameters constant, the larger the factor of safety, the smaller the anchorage displacement due to earthquake shaking.

Water pressure forces are not included along the sides of the block because most anchor blocks are constructed on or just above the water table, as idealized in this figure. If the water table extends above the base of the block, these forces are to be included in the analysis. The size of the block is proportioned such that

225

(o) Forces
\

On Anchor Block.
Pp
L

>PPE-A / - /

v
\ a AE-A t b l/A

//

L= 17 a PE-A

Uth

Note: UA = O for Anchor Base Above Water Table as Shown.

(b) Slip Plane

Figure 7.11

And Dynamic
forces

Forces.
acting on an anchor block (for 6 = 0)

Dynamic

T ult-a

= PpEcos6t - PMcos6b

-w%

+ N~tan6A

(103)

where (104)

N =W(l

-~)

-U..

-PP,*sin6,

+Pm.

sin6,

When the magnitude of computed anchor block forces prohibit the use of shallow anchor blocks, alternative anchorage systems are to be investigated. These include the use of multiple tie rods and anchorage, A-frame anchors, sheet pile anchorage, Discussions soil or rock anchors and tension H-piles. of anchorage are readily available in numerous textbooks and sheet pile design manuals, including the USS Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual (1969), Dismuke (1991), McMahon (1986) and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Manual EM 1110-2-2906 (Headquarters, Department of the Army 1991). By definition, no excess pore water pressures are generated within the backfill (AUA = O) for the Case 1 anchored sheet pile walls. U* is equal to the resultant steady state pore water pressure force along the base of the anchor. The orientation of a linear failure plane in front of the anchor block, aP~, in Figure 7.lla is approximated using Equation 61. (13) The anchor block is to be located a sufficient pile wall so that the active failure surface behind
226

distance behind the sheet the sheet pile wall does

not intersect the passive failure surface developing in front of the anchor during earthquake shaking. The required minimum distance between the back of the sheet pile and the anchor block increases with increasing values of as shown in Figure 7.1. The orientation of the active slip acceleration, in step 4, and the surface behind the sheet pile wall, am, is calculated orientation of the passive slip surface in front of the anchor block, aPE, is calculated in step 12. 7.4.2 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls - Excess Pore Water Pressures

This section describes the proposed procedure, using the free earth support method, to design anchored sheet pile walls retaining submerged or partially submerged backfills and including a pool of water in front of the sheet as Case 2 in This analysis, described pile wall, as shown in Figure 7.12. are generated within the Figure 7.6, assumes that excess pore water pressures submerged portion of the backfill or within the foundation during earthquake shaking. The magnitude and distribution of these excess pore water pressures depend upon several factors, including the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the site to the fault generating the earthquake and the properties of the submerged soils. The evaluation of the magnitude of these excess pore water pressures is estimated using the procedure described in Seed and This design procedure Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). is limited to the case where excess pore water pressures are less than Stability of the 30 percent of the initial vertical effective stress. structure against block movements, as depicted in Figure 2.1, should also be the Many of the details regarding checked during the course of the analysis. The 14 steps in the design procedures used are common to the Case 1 analysis. of the anchored sheet pile wall retaining submerged backfill as shown in Figure 7.12 are as follows: (1) Perform a static loading design of the anchored free earth support method of analysis, as described other suitable method of analysis. (2) Select the k~ value Chapter 1.* (3) Consider ~, to be used in the analysis; sheet pile in Section wall 7.3, using the or any

see Section

1.4 of

as discussed

in Section

1.4.3.

(4) Compute Pm using the procedure described in Section 4.3 and with the Pm acts at an angle 6 to the shear strength of the backfill fully mobilized. normal to the back of the wall. The pore pressure force U~~~~iC_~ is determined The post-earthquake residual from the steady state flow net for the problem. excess pore water pressures are identified as u~h~~= in Figure 7.12 and are determined using the procedures described in Seed and Harder (1990) or

The values for seismic coefficients are to be established by the seismic design team for the project considering the seismotectonic structures within The earthquake-induced the region, or as specified by the design agency. displacements for the anchored sheet pile wall are dependent upon numerous seismic coefficients factors, including how conservatively the strengths, as well as the (or accelerations), and factors of safety have been assigned, at the compressibility and density of the soils, and the displacement anchorage.
227

Figure

7.12

Anchored sheet pile wall with excess pore water generated during earthquake shaking (Case 2)

pressures

Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). In the restrained water case of a fully submerged soil wedge with a hydrostatic water table, PM is computed (Equations 33 and 38) using an effective unit weight equal to the buoyant unit weight. KM (Equation 34) or KA(~*,@*) (Equation 38) is computed using an equivalent horizontal acceleration, kh~3, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, ~e~, given by equations 55 and 54 (Section 4.3.2). An alternative approach is to use a modified effective friction angle, ~,~ (Equation 56), with rU equal to the average value within the backfill. In the case of a partially this simplified procedure submerged backfill, will provide approximate results by increasing the value assigned to the effective unit weight, -y,, based upon the proportion of the soil wedge that is above and below the water table (see Figure 4.13 in Section 4.3.3), PM is computed (Equations 33 and 38) with y~ replaced by Ve. The unit weight assigned to the soil below the water table is given by Equation 52 when using the procedure described in Figure 4.13 to compute the value of -ye. Kw (Equation 34) or KA(~*,@*) (Equation 38) is computed using an equivalent horizontal acceleration, kh~~, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, ~~~, given by Equations 54 and 55 in Section 4.3.2 with 7,3 replaced by ~,. For this case, the excess residual pore water pressures are superimposed upon the hydrostatic pore water pressures. TO compute the point of action of Pu in the case of a partially submerged backfill, redefine Pm in terms of the static force, PA, and the dynamic active earth pressure increment, APm, as described in step 4 of Section 7.4.1. (5) Compute PP~ acting in front of the sheet pile using the procedure described in Section 4.4 of Chapter 4 and apply a factor of safety FSP equal to 1.2 to both the shear strength of the soil and the effective angle of friction along the interface. The pore presRefer to step 5 of Section 7.4.1. sure force Ustatic-t is determined from the steady state flow net for the problem. In the restrained water case of a fully submer~.ed soil wedge with a hydrostatic water table, PP~ is computed (Equations 58 and 62) with ~~ replaced by the effective unit weight of soil below the water table, -y,~ (Equation 52 in Section 4.3.2). An average ru value is used within the soil in front of the wall. KP~ (Equation 59) or KP(~,O)(Equation 62) is computed 228

using an equivalent horizontal acceleration, kh~3, and an equivalent seismic inertia angle, i,s, given by Equations 54 and 55 in Section 4.3.2. In the case of a steady state seepage, this simplified procedure will provide approximate results by decreasing the value assigned to the effective unit weight (Equation 27) according to the magnitude of the upward seepage gradient (Equation 26). For low to moderate levels of earthquake shaking, assume that PP~ acts at a height equal to approximately 1/3 of the height of the soil in front of the sheet pile wall and at an angle 6~ to the normal to the face of the wall.*
(6) To determine the required depth of sheet pile penetration, the clockwise and counterclockwise moments of the resultant earth pressure forces and resultant water pressure forces about Figure 7.12 anchor are computed as follows:

Counterclockwise

Moment

= PA~cos6~e(Y~ - Ym)

+ U~~~~lC_~O(Y~- YU~) (105)

+ .hear.b(ya

- Yutaub) + ulnertla*(ya

- Yl)

and Clockwise Moment = - UPOOl*(Y~ - YUP) - PP~*cos6~*(Y~ - YP~)

(106)

-u

static-t

G (Ya

yut)

USh,ar-t(y~ y.~a.~)

where
shear-b

shear-t

utaub

= =

Y utaut

resultant excess pore water pressure force along the wall excess pore water pressure force below = resultant level along the front of the wall distance from the base of sheet pile to U~h,ar_~ distance from the base of sheet pile to Ush,ar-t
=

the back

of

the dredge

Values for Yutaub, Ush,ar-b, yutaut and ushear.~are computed using the procedure described in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990).

In a static design by the free earth support method of analysis, a triangular earth pressure is assumed along the front of the wall, with the resulting force PP assigned to the lower third point. Experience has shown that reasonable static designs resulted when the appropriate strength parameters and adequate factors of safety were used in conjunction with this simplified assumption. A similar approach is used in the dynamic design. The point of application of PP~ may move downward from its static point of application for anchored sheet pile walls as the value for kh increases. However, no satisfactory procedure was found for computing the point of application of PPE for this structure. of PPE In the interim, the assumption acting at approximately 1/3 of tl~e height of the soil in front of the wall is restricted to low to moderate levels of earthquake shaking (e.g. one rough index is kh < 0,1) and with conservative assumptions regarding all parameters used in the analysis. For higher levels of shaking and less conservative assumptions for parameters, a larger value for FSP than 1.2 and/or a lower point of application would be assigned.
229

The value for the Clockwise Moment is compared to the value for the Counterclockwise Moment, resulting in one of three possibilities listed in steps 6a through step 6C in Section 7.4.1, The sheet pile wall is in moment equilibrium for only one depth of sheet pile penetration within the foundation. For those trial sheet pile penetration depths in which moment equilibrium is not achieved, a new trial depth of sheet pile penetration is assumed, and step 4 through step 6 is repeated. (7) Once the required depth of sheet pile penetration is determined in step the equilibrium anchor force per foot width of wall, T~~~, is computed using the equations for horizontal force equilibrium. 6,

-u
Additional commentary

inertia

Pm COS 6~ - U~ta~lC_~- U~~ea,_~

is provided

in step

7 of Section

7.4.1. M~~~, is computed

(8) The distribution using the procedure

of the moments within the sheet pile, described in step 8 of Section 7.4.1. for the sheet

(9) The computation of the design moment described in step 9 of Section 7.4.1.

pile,

M~e~l~~, is

(10) The design tie rod force, Td~~l~n, is computed described in step 10 of Section 7.4.1.

using

the procedure

(11) The design of the anchor block for seismic loadings differs from the approach used when designing for static loadings. The reader is referred to the discussion in step 11 of Section 7.4.1. (12) For those waterfront structures in which the anchor consists of slender anchorage or mass concrete anchorage, a major contribution to the forces resisting the pulling force TUlt.a is provided by the formation of a passive soil wedge in front of the block, as shown in Figure 7.lla. The procedure described in step 12 of Section 7.4.1 is used to compute PM, PPE, and aPE (Figure 7.llb). The size of the block is proportioned using Equation 103 relationship, where N is equal to N =W(l -\) -UA-AUA. -PP,*sin6t +Pm. sin6, (108)

The excess pore water pressure force along the base of the block AUA (see Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin

is equal (1990)).

to

An alternative procedure for incorporating residual excess pore water pressures in the analysis is by using rU and an equivalent angle of interface friction along the base of block, 6*.
(109)

In this

case,

the value

for N in Equation

103

is given

by

230

N = W(I - ~)

-U~.

- Pp~sin6~ + p*~0sin6~

(110)

Reducing the effective stress friction angle along the soil to concrete interface so as to account for the excess pore water pressures is not an exact procedure (see discussion in Section 4.3.2). (13) The required minimum distance anchor block is computed following Section 7.4.1. between the back of the sheet pile and the procedure described in step 13 of the

(14) The residual excess pore water pressures within the submerged backfill and foundation will be redistributed after earthquake shaking has ended. The post earthquake static stability (k~ and ~ equal to zero) of any earth retaining structure should be evaluated during the redistribution of the excess pore water pressures within the soil regions (see discussions in the National Research Council 1985 or Seed 1987). 7.5

Use

of Finite

Element

Analyses

(a) the cost Finite element analyses should be considered only if: implications of the simplified design procedures indicate that more detailed study is warranted, (b) it is necessary to evaluate permanent displacements that might result from the design seismic event, or (c) there is concern about the influence of surface loadings. It is particularly difficult to model well when there is concern the various features of an anchored wall, especially about excess pore pressures. One example of a detailed analysis of an actual failure is given by Iai and Kameoka (1991).

231

CHAPTER
8.1

ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

OF WALLS

RETAINING

NONYIELDING

BACKFILLS

Introduction

This chapter applies to design problems in which the allowable movement of a wall is small - less than one-fourth to one-half of Table 1 wall movement values . Typical situations include the walls of U-shaped structures such as dry docks, walls of basements, and the lateral walls of underground structures . Under these conditions it may be inappropriate to base design upon earth pressures computed using the Mononobe-Okabe theory, which assumes that generally active stress conditions are achieved. Hence , earth pressures should be computed using the theory set forth in Chapter 5. Design criteria for such situations will involve permissible combined In many cases it may be static plus dynamic bending stresses within the wall. necessary to ensure that such moments do not cause yielding of the material then avoidance of sliding composing the wall. If the wall is free-standing, or overturning will be design criteria. to use Woods simplified theory to In many cases it may be appropriate compute the dynamic increment of stresses. In this case, a key decision will Important conbe the choice of the horizontal acceleration coefficient kh. siderations are: * If displacement of the wall is not permissible, the assigned peak Use of a seismic coefficient less acceleration coefficient should be used. of the than the peak acceleration coefficient implies that some displacement backfill is acceptable during the design earthquake event. * The acceleration at ground surface should be used to define kh. This is a conservative assumption. If the peak acceleration varies significantly over the height of the backfill, which may often be the situation when the should be given high side walls of dry docks are involved, consideration to the use of dynamic finite element studies (see Appendix D). Use of finite element studies should also be considered when there are important surface loadings. In many cases an elastic analysis using soil moduli and damping adjusted for expected levels of strain will suffice. There may be cases in which it is overly conservative to design structures using lateral pressures from the theory for walls retaining nonyielding backfills. If the structure is founded upon soil with the same stiffness as the backfill (see Figure 8.1), the structure itself will experience movements Finite element that may be sufficient to develop active stress conditions. studies , and measurements as large scale field models in Taiwan (Chang et al. in such situations, it would 1990), have shown this to be the case. However, seem that larger, passive-type stresses should develop on the opposite wall. If there are large cost implications for design using stresses computed assuming nonyielding backfills, finite element studies should again be considered. If liquefaction is of concern, methods for evaluating residual pore pressures may be found in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). In principle it is possible to design walls to resist the pressures from fully liquefied soil, including Westergaards dynamic Pressure

233

Concrete m. v Hw Soil BockFill

Mofw//th

T7 Pool Of Woter Hp

/m\

/m\ Rock

zx~ Foundation (o)

Xw
I

I
p

Ub x ub
(b)

igure 8.1 Simplified procedure for dynamic analysis of a wall retaining nonyielding backfill

in such a increment based upon the total unit weight of the soil. However, situation the lateral pressures on a wall can be very high. Unless there are structures (including cranes) adjacent to the wall, it might be possible to allow values of ru in excess of 40 percent. If so, a check should be made for post-seismic stability, using the residual strength of the backfill soil. 8.2 An Example The application of the simplified procedure to the dynamic analysis is demonstrated for a wall retaining nonyielding backfill founded on rock as shown in Figure 8.la. A pool of water is included in front, of the wall in this problem. The forces acting along the back, front, and base of the wall With include both static and dynamic incremental forces (Figure $.lb). negligible wall movements, the value for the static effective earth pressure, 234

ph, corresponds to at-rest earth pressures. For gravity earth retaining structures founded on rock, KO usually ranges in value from 0.45 for compacted granular backfills to 0.55 for uncompacted granular backfills (Duncan, Clough, and Ebeling 1990). U~~~~iC and ub are determined from the steady state flow net for the problem. UPOOI is equal to the hydrostatic water pressure force along the front of the wall. Ui~~~~i~ is the hydrodynamic water pressure force for the pool computed using the Westergaard procedure that is described in Appendix B. Given the horizontal base acceleration value, khg, the dynamic earth pressure force F., is computed using Equation 68, acting at Y.= The horizontal force T is the equal to 0.63.H above the base of the wall. shear force required for equilibrium of the wall and is equal to
(111)

The effective tion is equal

normal to

force

between

the base

of the wall

and

the rock

founda-

N=w-ub.

(112)

The

ultimate

shear

force

along

the base,

TU1~, is given

by
(113)

T Ult = Ntan6b

where 6~ = the effective The factor of safety base interface sliding friction along angle. F., is given by

against

the base,

F, = shear

ultimate shear force for equlllbrlum force required

(114)

and compared to the minimum value of 1.1 or 1.2 for temporary loading cases. The point of action of the force N, x~~, is computed by summing moments about the toe of the wall.

where

of Ph. YP~ = 0.4H Ph = point of action for a completely dry or completely submerged backfill with a hydrostatic water table (Duncan, Clough, and Ebeling 1990) The overturning criterion is expressed in terms of the percentage of base contact area B~/B, where B, is the width of the area of effective base contact. Assuming that the bearing pressure varies linearly between the base of the wall and the foundation, the normal stress is a maximum at the toe (q = qmax) aTId a rninirnum at the inner edge (q = 0) as shown in Figure 8.2.

(116)

B*

3X
2N

Qw

3X

L-.,2
Linear Bose Pressure Distribution

Uniform

Base

Pressure

Distribution

Figure

8.2

Linear and uniform distributions

base

pressure

236

An alternative assumption regarding base pressure distribution and contact area was suggested by Meyerhof (1953) . Meyerhof assumed a uniform distribution of pressure along the base, resulting in the effective base contact equal to (117)

Meyerhofs pressure distribution has been used widely for foundations on soil, and is most appropriate for foundation materials that exhibit ductile mechanisms of failure. The assumption is less appropriate for brittle materials. Many retaining walls are designed using static active earth pressures with full contact along the base, B~/B ( or B~/B) , equal to 100 percent. For temporary loading cases, such as earthquakes, this criteria is relaxed to a minimum value of 75 percent (50 percent for rock foundations, Table 5) . For those structures founded on rock, the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure, or crushing of the concrete or the rock at the toe can be expressed as

(118)

where qU1~ is the ultimate bearing capacity or compressive strength of the concrete or the rock at the toe, and q~~X is the maximum bearing pressure at the toe. For brittle materials like unconfined concrete, the ultimate bearing capacity is equal to the compressive strength of the material. Building codes are commonly used to obtain values for the allowable bearing stress on rock, Alternately, a large factor of safety is applied to the unconfined comqall pressive strength of intact samples. The maximum bearing pressure q~~X is restricted to an allowable bearing capacity q~ll. For ductile foundation materials that undergo plastic failure, the ultimate bearing capacity is larger than the compressive strength of the material, excluding those foundation materials exhibiting a loss in shear resistance due to earthquake induced deformations or due to the development of residual excess pore water pressures . In these cases, a conventional bearing capacity evaluation is conducted to establish the post-earthquake stability of the structure. In those stability analyses where the vertical accelerations are considered, the force acting downward through the center of mass of the wall that represents the weight of the wall, W, in Figure 8.1, is replaced by the force (1-~)W acting downward. The first term in equations 112 and 115, W and WXW, are replaced by (1-&)W and (l-~) WxW, respectively. The direction in which the vertical inertia force, ~W, acts is counter to the direction assigned to the effective vertical acceleration, ~g. A ~W force acting upward destabilizes the wall, while a &W acting downward increases the stability of the wall . This procedure is illustrated in example 32 at the end of this chapter.

237

CHAPTER

8 - EXAMPLE

Content Example Problem 32.

Commentary The following example illustrates the procedures described in Chapter 8. The results of the computations shown are rounded for ease of checking calculations and not to the appropriate number of significant figures. Additionally, the wall geometry and values for the material properties were selected for ease of computations .

238

Example

No.

32

Reference

Section:

8.2

Design an nonyielding rectangular wall (i.e. no wall displacements) of height H = 20 ft to be founded on rock and retaining a dense sand backfill for a peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface equal to 0.2 g. Assume a frictional contact surface between the wall and the foundation rock (i.e. with no bond) .

H=ZV

I
!

K. - 0.45

Y~ -120
Cp

pcf
4 v

4 9, bw v b v

35

?
T 4

v
4

v v HP=Y

Hw=

L? r--o A - o.2g ~zq <,;

*. ~b

C&

Determine

the horizontal

acceleration

For Woods

procedure: k~=A=O.2 (where A is peak ground surface acceleration)

Determine

the vertical

acceleration ~=o

Determine

P~ (at rest

horizontal

effective

earth

pressure)

and

the point

of

application. Find the vertical effective stresses at the ground surface water table (a$)wT, and at the base of the wall (o~)BOT. (O~)TOp, at the

Vertical

Effective

Stresses

at the ToP

of the Wall

TOP = O (u; ) Vertical (aY)W Effective Stress at the Water

(120

Table 12) = 960 psf

= 7. (H - HW) =

pcf)

(20

U = uc.t~tiC + u~h~~r = O + O = O (0;) WT=a YU = 960 psf - 0 = 960 psf 239

Example

No.32

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

8.2

Y~ 1

Yt
1

Yt=120
+WT

pcf (H-

iL t Hw) L J~

v -.
u~kor=o/ I 1TOTAL STRESS

I l% 1 1

WTA

H=20

Hw = /2 + PWP Swrc
1

11

EFFECTIVE STRESS

Vertical

Effective

Stress

at the Base

of the Wall

(O;)BOT = (O;)WT + ~t (~) [

(.;) BOT

- static OT

BOT - shear 1

=960

psf+

[(120 pcf) (120pcf

(12) - (12) (62.4 pcf) pcf) (12)

-O]

(o~)B0T=960psf+ (~~)BOT =1,651.2psf

-62.4

Determine the horizontal at the water table ~hw, TOP uh =0 OF = K&)wT = 0.45 =0.45

at rest

effective

stress

at the top of the wall ahBOT.

o~TOp,

and at the bottom

of the wall

(960 psf) (1,651.2

=432

psf

OT s~(o;)m uh

psf) = 743psf

Break the stress distribution diagram into rectangles and triangles to find the magnitude of the resultant force (ph) and its point of application (y~h). El = 1/2 ahw (H - &) = 1/2 (432 psf) (20 - 12)

El = 1,728

lb per

ft of wall

Y~~ =~+1/3

(H-

&)

= 12 + 1/3

(20

- 12) = 14.67

ft

240

Example

No.32

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

8.2

.V.

.,.

-----T

lb,

E2 =

(O~wT) (HW) = (432

psf)

(12)

E2 = 5,184

lb per

ft of wall

Y~2 = 1/2

(HW) = 1/2

(12)

= 6 ft

Es = 1/2

(O~BOT - u~wT) (HW) = 1/2

(743 psf

- 432 psf)

(12)

Es = 1,866

lb per

ft of wall

Y~~ = 1/3

(HW) = 1/3

(12 ft) = 4 ft

P~ = El + E2 + Es = 1,728

5,184+

1,866

P~ = 8,778 Sum moments

lb

per

ft of wall the base of the wall and solve for:

about

Y Ph =

El (YE1) + E2
(1,728)

(y~z) + Es (y~~)
h

Y Ph =

(14.67)

+(5184)(6)

+(1866)

(4)

Y Ph = 7.28

ft above

the base of the wall

241

Example Determine

No.32 water

(Continued) Pressure forces actin~ a~ainst the wall

Reference

Section:

8.2

Determine wall

the hydrostatic

water

pressure

force

actin~

against

the back

of the

u static = 4,493
Y Ust = 4

lb per

ft of the wall of the wall

(see ex 19) (see ex 19)

ft from

the base

Determine wall
Upool =

the hydrostatic

water

Pressure

force

actin~

against

the

front

of the

static

4,493

lb per

ft of wall of the wall pressure force acting on the front of the

Y up = Yust

= 4

from

the base

Determine wall

the hydrodynamic

water

(see Appendix

B)

(eq B-5)

Pwd = 7/12

(0.2)

(62.4

pcf) lb per

(9)2

(by eq B-5)

u Inertia = Pw~ = 589.7

ft of wall

Yui = 0.4 Hp + 3 = 0.4 Yl = 6.6 ft above

(9) + 3 of the wall

the base

242

Example Determine Assume

No.32

(Continued) water pressure pressure beneath force acting

Reference on the base

Section:

8.2

the hydrostatic

of the wall

full hydrostatic

the base

of the wall.

u~ = H. (-y.) B U~ = (12) Xw=B/2 (62.4 = 0.5 B incremental earth Pressures (total stress based pcf) B = 748.8 (B)

Determine the dynamic calculation) F sr = (120 F sr = 9,600

Y sr = Y sr = 0.63 12.6

pcf)

(20)2

(0.2)

(by eq 68)

lb per H = 0.63 above

ft of wall
(20)

the base

of the wall, acting horizontally

Determine w= W= (H)
3,000

the weight (B) (~CO~C) = B

of the wall
(20)

(B)

(150

pcf)

Iq=B/2=0.5B Yw = H/2

= 20/2

= 10 normal force between the base of the wall and the

Determine the effective foundation ~, = 3,000 Determine h~ = 35

Tult =

B - 748.8 the ultimate

B = 2,251.2 shear

B force along the base

(by eq 112)

(from Table
B) tan (35) = 1,576.3 B

2)

(2,251.2

Determine Let

the

shear

force

required

for equilibrium

FS = 1.2 Equation 114 for T,

Solving

243

Example

No.32

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

8.2

T=

T ~~te

l,576.3B .

=1,313.6B

Solve

Equation

111 for B required + 9,600 + 3,000

for shear

force

equilibrium - 4,493 + 589.7

1,313.6

B = 8,778

B (0.2) + 4,493

18,968 = Tmm=g9

Let B = 10 for F. = 1.2. Solve

Be

Equation

115 such

that

overturning

criteria

are met

=0.5

(from

Table

5)

Be = 3 xN#

(adapted

from

eq 116)

3 xN/

B XN,

=0.5 0.5B --3---=X

lB

Ml ==w&

-Wk~YW

= 1,500

B (B - 4)
(Y~i) - U~ta~lC (yU~~) (6.6) c -3,892

(see ex 31)
Inertia

M2 = MPOO1 - U~.a~iC (YU~t) = UPOOI (yuP) - U.

M2 = -Ui~~r~ia (yUi) = -589.7 M3 = -P~ (Yp~) = -8,778 (7.28)

(12.6)

-63,904
e -120,960

ML = -F~r (Y~r) = -(9,600) M5 = -u~ (x~) = -(748.8 B)

(0.5

B) = -374.4

B2

244

Example

No.32

(Continued)

Reference

Section:

8.2

XN, =

M1+M2+M3+M4+M5
N,

xN/ = 1,500 B (B-4)-3,892xN/ = 1, 125 .6 B2-6,000

2 >251. 2B

63 ,904-120,960-374.4 2,251.2 B

B2

B-188,756

Be CALC, X~Z

1/6

1,125.6B2

-6,000

-188,756
2,251.2

B 20
20.5 3.333 I 450,240

I
3.14 3.50

-120,000
-123,000

-188,756 -188,756

45,024 46,150

0.471
0.512

3.417

473.033

Since Therefore

[1
B, T-

-0.512=

B, [1
T assumed

=0.500.

actual

select

B = 20.5 ft

Check

Fb

Compute

qmax

qmax

= 2/3

(46,150/3.5)

=8,791

lb/ft

(see Figure

8.2)

Check

Fb for concrete

Assume

for concrete:

qul~ = 576,000

lb/ft

(see

Ex 27)

(F~) concrete

= &
qmax

= 576000
8~7gl

= 65.5

(by eq 118)

Value Check

for F~ for concrete F~ for rock omitted.

is adequate.

Calculations

245

REFERENCES Al Homound, A. 1990. Evaluating Tilt of Gravity Retaining Wall During Earthquakes, SCD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. American Association Guide Specifications Washington, DC. 1983. of State Highway and Transportation Officials. for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, AASHTO,

Anderson, G. , Whitman, R. , Centrifuge-Modeled Gravity Tests and Initial Analysis Engineering, Massachusetts Agbabian Associates. Report P8O-109-499, Ambraseys, N. N., ments , Earthquake

Tilting Response of 1987. and Germaine, J. Retaining Wall to Seismic Shaking: Description of of Civil of Results, Report No. R87-14, Department Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Response of Port and Harbor Facilities,

Seismic 1980. El Segundo, CA.

Earthquake-Induced 1988. and Menu, J. M. Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.

Ground 16, pp.

Displace985-1OO6. in 32-1

A Seismic 1956. Amono, R., Azuma, H., and Ishii, Y. Japan, Proceedings 1st World Conference on Earthquake to 32-17.

Design

of Walls pp.

Engineering,

ASCE Report by the Ad Hoc Group on Soil-Structure Interaction of the Committee 1979. on Nuclear Structures and Materials of the Structural Division. Analysis for Soil-Structure Interaction Effects for Nuclear Power Plants. ASCE-Standard. 1986 (Sep). Seismic Structures and Commentary on Standard Nuclear Structures, 91 p. Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear for Seismic Analysis of Safety Related

Dynamic Earth Pressure with 1990. Bakeer, R., Bhatia, S., and Ishibashi, S. Various Gravity Wall Movements, Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25., pp.887-899. GADFLEA - A Computer 1976 (Ott). Booker, J., Rahman, M., and Seed, H.B. Program for the Analysis of Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipation During Engineering Cyclic or Earthquake Loading, Report No. EERC 76-24, Earthquake of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Research Center, University Tables for the Calculation of Passive Caquot, A., and Kerisel, F. 1948. Pressure. Active Pressure and Bearin~ Capacity of Foundations, GauthierVillars, Paris. Chang, M. , and Chen, W. Lateral Earth Pressures on Rigid Retaining 1982. Walls Subjected to Earthquake Forces, Solid Mechanics Archives, VO1. 7, No. 4, pp. 315-362. Analysis 1990 (May). Chang, C., Power, M., Mok, C., Tang, y., and Tang, H. of Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressures Recorded on Lotung Reactor Containment Model Structure, Proceedings 4th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Vol. 3, Palm Springs, CA. 247

Chopra, A. K. quakes, ASCE, pp 205223.

1967 (Dee). Hydrodynamic Pressures on Dams During Earth Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, Vol. 93, No. EM6,

in Founda 1991. Chapter 6: Earth Pressures, Clough, G. W. and Duncan, J. M. tion En~ineerin~ Handbook, Second Edition, edited by H. Y. Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, pp. 223235. Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Systems, National Research Council. Earthquakes , National Academy Press, Commission on Engineering and Technical 1985. Liquefaction of Soils During WA.

Coulomb, C. A. 1776. Essai sur une application des r~gles des maximis et mininis A quelques problbmes de statique relatifs ~ larchitecture, M&m. acad. rov. pr+s divers savants, Vol. 7, Paris. Dawkins, W. P. 1991 (Mar). Users Guide: Computer Program for Design and Analysis of Sheet-Pile Walls by Classical Methods (CWALSHT) with Rowes Moment Reduction, Instruction Report ITL 911, Information Technology Laboratory, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Department Structures, Engineering . and S~ecial Navy, Naval VA. of the Navy. NAVFAC DM7.2. Foundations And Earth 1982 (May). Desire Manual 7.2, Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Command, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA.
1983 (Apr). NAVFAC DM7.3. Soil Dynamics, Deep Stabilization. Geotechnical Construction. Desire Manual 7.3, Department of the Facilities Engineering Command, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria,

6ismuke, T. 1991. Chapter 12: Retaining Structures And Excavations, Founda tion En~ineerin~ Handbook, Second Edition, edited by H.Y. Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, pp. 447510. Duncan, J. M. Bulkheads. 1985. Lecture Notes Regarding the Design of Anchored

Duncan, J. M., Clough, G. W., and Ebeling, R. M. 1990. Behavior and Design of Gravity Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Special Publica tion 25, pp. 251277. Earthquake Engineering Technology, Response Analysis Of SoilStructure Inc. 1983. Super FLUSH Computer Systems Under Various Input Environments.

Ebeling, R. 1990 (Dee). Review Of Finite Element Procedures for Earth Re taining Structures, Miscellaneous Paper ITL905, Information Technology Laboratory, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Ebeling, R. M., Duncan, J. M., and Clough, G. W. 1990 (Ott). Methods of Evaluating the Stability and Safety of Gravity Earth Retaining Structures Founded on Rock, Phase 2 Study, Technical Report ITL907, Information Tech nology Laboratory, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

248

1992 (May). Ebeling, R. M., Clough, G. W., Duncan, J. M., and Brandon, T. L. Methods of Evaluating the Stability and Safety of Gravity Earth Retaining Structures Founded on Rock, Technical Report REMR-CS-29, Information Technology Laboratory, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Users Guide: UTEXAS2 SlopeEdris, E. V., and Wright, S.G. 1987 (Aug). Report GL-87-1, Stability Package, Volume 1: Users Manual, Instruction Geotechnical Laboratory, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Elms, D., and Richards, R. Seismic Design of Retaining Walls, 1990. Proceeding of ASCE Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25. , pp.854-871. Finn, W., and Liam, D. of Part 3 Finite EleChapter 3: Geomechanics 1987. ment Method Applications in Finite Element Handbook, edited by H. Kardestuncer and D. Norrie, McGraw-Hill, Inc., pp 3.157-3.216. 1989. Finn, W., Liam, D., Yogendrakumar, M. , Otsu, H. , and Steedman, R.S. Seismic Response of a Cantilever Retaining Wall: Centrifuge Model Tests and Dynamic Analysis. Proceedings , 4th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Mexico City, Structural Dvnamics and Soil Structure Interaction, Editors A.S. Cakmak and I. Herrera, Computational Mechanics Publications, Boston, MA, pp. 39-52. Finn, W., Liam, D., Yogendrakumar, 1986. M., Yoshida, N., and yoshida, H. TAM-3: A Program for Non-Linear Static and Dynamic Effective Stress Analysis, Soil Dynamics Group, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Franklin, G. and Chang, F. Earthquake Resistance of Earth and 1977 (Nov). Rockfill Dams: Report 5: Permanent Displacement of Earth Embankments by Newmark Sliding Block Analysis, Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17, Soils And pavements Laboratory, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1990. Emperical Seismic Design Gazetas, G., Dakoulas, P., and Dennehy, K. Method for Waterfront Anchored Sheetpile Walls, Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25. , pp. 232-250. Green, R. 1992. Selection of Ground Motions for the Seismic Evaluation of Embankments , ASCE Specialty Conference on Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments II, A 25-Year Perspective, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 31, Vol. I, pp. 593-607. Hallquist, J. 1982. Users Manual for DYNA2D - An Explicit Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Finite Element Code With Interactive Rezoning, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report UCID-18756, Rev. 1. Headquarters, Department of the Army. 1989. Engineer Manual 1110-2-2502, Washington, DC. . Washington, 1991. DC. Design of Pile Retaining and Flood Walls,

Foundations,

Engineer

Manual

1110-2-2906,

249

Hung, S., and Werner, S. An Assessment of Earthquake Response Charac1982. teristics and Design Procedures for Port and Harbor Facilities, Proceeding 3rd International Earthquake Microzonation Conference, Report No. sF/cEE-82070 Seattle, WA, pp. 15. 1984. Hynes-Griffin, M. E., and Franklin, A. G. Coefficient Method, Miscellaneous Paper s-84-13, Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Rationalizing the Seismic US Army Engineer Waterways

Iai, S., and Kameoka, T. Effective Stress Analysis of a Sheet Pile 1991. Quaywall, Proceeding of Second International Conference on Recent Advances Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Paper No. 4.14, Vol. St. Louis, MO, pp. 649-656. Earth Pressure Ichihara, M. , and Matsuzawa, H. 1973 (Dee). Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.75-86. During

in I,

Idriss, I. M. 1985. Evaluating Seismic Risk in Engineering Practice, ceeding llth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation neering, Vol. 1, pp.255-320. Ishibashi, I. , and Fang, Y. 1987 (Dee). ferent Wall Modes, Soils and Foundations, Dynamic Earth Pressures with Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 11-22.

ProEngi-

Dif-

Case Studies On QuayWalls Ishibashi, I., and Madi, L. 1990 (May). Stability With Liquefied Backfills, Proceeding of 4th U.S. Conference Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Vol. 3, Palm Springs, CA, pp. 725-734.

on

Generalized Apparent Ishibashi, 1., Matsuzawa, H. , and Kawamura, M. 1985. Seismic Coefficient for Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure Determination, Proceeding of 2nd International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, edited by C. Brebbia, A. Cakmak, and A. Ghaffer, QE2, pp. 6-33 to 6-42. Johnson, E. 1953 (Apr). The Effects of Restraining Resistance of Sand, Results of a Series of Tests with Apparatus, Masters of Science Thesis In Engineering, Boundries on the Passive a Medium-Scale Testing Princeton University.

Joyner, W. B., and Boore, D. M. 1988. Measurement, Charactization and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II - Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Kerisel, Tables, J., and Absi, A. A. Balkema E. 1990 (May). Active and Passive International Publishers, pp. 234. Earth Pressure

Kitajima, S., and Uwabe, T. 1979 (Mar). Analysis on Seismic Damage in Anchored Sheet-Piling Bulkheads, Report of the Japanese Port and Harbor Research Institute, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 67-130. (in Japanese). Kurata, S., Arai, H. and Yokoi, T. (1965) . Anchored Sheet Pile Bulkheads, Proceedings, quake Engineering, New Zealand. On the Earthquake Resistance of 3rd World Conference On Earth-

250

Ladd, ASCE,

C. 1991 (Apr). Stability Evaluation During Staged Construction, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 540-615. 1969. 23. Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ,

Lambe, T. and Whitman, R. New York, Chapters 13 and

DESRA-1: Program for the Dynamic Lee, M., and Finn, W. D. Liam. 1975. Effective Stress Response Analysis of Soil Deposits including Liquefaction of Civil EngiEvaluation, Report No. 36, Soil Mechanic Service, Department neering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Stress Response Analysis of 1978. . DESRA-2: Dynamic Effective Soil Deposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction Potential, Report No. 38, Soil Mechanic Service, Department Of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 1990. Li, X. Free-Field Soil Response under Multi-Directional Earthquake Loading, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA. FLUSH: A Computer 1975. Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Tsai, C., and Seed, H. B. Program For Approximate 3-D Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction Programs, Report No. EERC 75-30, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Berkeley, CA. California, Makdisi, F. I., and Seed, H. B. Simplified Procedure for Estimating 19790 Dam and Embankment Earthquake-Induced Deformations, ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 104, No. GT7, pp. 849-867. Marcuson, W., Hynes, M., and Residual Strength in Seismic Spectra, pp. 529-572. Evaluation and Use 1990 (Aug). Franklin, A. Safety Analysis of Embankments, Earthquake of

Matsuo, H. , and Ohara, S. Dynamic Pore Water Pressure Acting on Quay 1965. Walls During Earthquakes, Proceedings of the Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol 1, New Zealand, pp. 130-140. Dynamic Soil and Matsuzawa, H., Ishibashi, I. , and Kawamura, M. 1985 (Ott). Water Pressures of Submerged Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 10, pp. 1161-1176. Collection of Five Papers, McMahon, D. 1986. Tiebacks for Bulkheads, Proceeding of a Session Sponsored by the Geotechnical Engineering Division of the ASCE in Conjunction with the ASCE Convention in Seattle, WA. , Geotechnical Special Publication No. 4. , 90 p. Meyerhof, G. 1953. The Bearing Capacity of Foundation Under Inclined and Eccentric Loads, 3rd International Conference Of Soil Mechanics And Foundation Engineering, vol. 1, pp 440-445. Mononobe, N., and Matsuo, H. On the Determination of Earth 1929. World Engineering Congress, 9. During Earthquakes, Proceedings, Pressures

251

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). 1988. Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Building Seismic Safety Council. National National Research Council. 1988. Academy Press, Washington, Probabilistic DC, 97 p. During Seismic

Recommended Buildings:

Hazard

Analysis:

Academy

1985. . Liquefaction of Soils Press, Washington, DC, 240 p.

Earthquakes:

National

Nadiem, F., and Whitman, R. Seismically Induced Movement of 1983 (May). Retaining Walls, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 7, pp. 915-931. Newmark, N. Geotechnique, 1965. Vol. Effects 15., No. of Earthquakes on Dams 2, pp. 139-160. and Embankments,

Newmark, N. N., and Hall, W. J. 1983. Earthquake Spectra and Desire, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 499 14th Street, Oakland, CA, 103 p. okabe, S. 1926. General of Civil Engineering, Vol. Okamoto, S. 1984. University of Tokyo Theory of Earth 12, No; 1. Pressures, Journal Japan Society

Introduction to Earthquake Press, 629 p.

Engineering,

second

edition,

Peterson, M. S., Kulhawy, F. H., Nucci, L. R., and Wasil, B. A. 1976. Stress-Deformation Behavior of Soil-Concrete Interfaces, Contract Report B-49, Department of Civil Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Potyondy, struction J. G. 1961 Materials, (Dee). Skin Geotechnique, Friction Between Various Soils Vol II, No. 4, pp 339-353. and Con-

Poulos, S. J., Castro, G., and France, W. (1985) . Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 111, No. 6, pp. 772-792. Prakash, S., and Basavanna, B. 1969. Earth Retaining Wall During Earthquake, Proceedin~, Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile. Provost, Analysis J. 1981 (Jan). Program, Report Pressure Distribution 4th World Conference Behind on

DYNAFLOW - A Nonlinear Transient No. 81-SM-1, Princeton University,

Finite Element Princeton, NJ.

Provost, J. 1989. DYNAID - A Computer Program For Nonlinear Seismic Site Response Analysis, Technical Report NCEER-89-0025, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University of Buffalo. Rankine, W. (1857). London, Vol. 147. On the Stability of Loose Earth, Phil. Trans. Roy. Sot.

Roth, W. H., Scott, F. F., and Cundall, P. A. 1986. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of a Centrifuge Model Embankment, Proceedings of the Third US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, Charleston, SC, pp. 505-516. 252

Richards, R. , and Elms, D. Seismic 1979 (April). Retaining Walls, ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical 105, No. GT4, pp. 449-464.

Behavior of Gravity Engineering Division,

Vol.

Richards, R., and Elms, D. Seismic Design of Retaining Walls, Pro1990. ceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25. , pp. 854-871. Rowe, Civil Rowe, Civil P. W. 1952. Anchored Sheet Pile Walls, Engineers, Vol 1, Part 1, pp 27-70. Proceedings of Institution of

P. W. 1956. Sheet Pile Walls at Failure, Proceedings Engineers London, Vol. 5, Part I, pp. 276-315.

Instruction

Rowe, P. W. 1957 (Feb). Limit Design of Flexible Walls, Proceedings Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering Society, Vol. 1, pp. 29-40.

Midland

Sadigh, K. 1983. Considerations in the development of site-specific spectra, in proceedings of Conference XXII, site-specific effects of soil and rock on ground motion and the implications for earthquake resistant design: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 83-845. Sarma, S. K. 1979. Response and Stability of Earth Dams During Strong Earthquakes, Miscellaneous Paper GL-79-13, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Schnabel, P., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. 1972 (Dee). SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites, Report No. EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University Of California, Berkeley, CA. Seed, H. B. 1987 (Aug). Design Problems in Soil Liquefaction, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 113, No. pp. 827-845. ASCE, 8,

Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction . 1971. Potential, ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 97, No. SM9, pp. 1249-1273. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. During Earthquakes, Earthquake Street, Oakland, CA, pp 134. 1982. Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction Engineering Research Institute, 499 14th

Vol.

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., Arango, I. Evaluation of Liquefaction 1983. Potential Using Field Performance Data, ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 109, No. GT3, pp 458-482. Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K. Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. 1985 (Dee). Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations, ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 111, No. 12, pp. 1425-1445. Seed, H., and Whitman, R. Design 1970. Dynamic Loads, ASCE Specialty Conference and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, 253 of Earth Retaining Structures for on Lateral Stresses in the Ground pp. 103-147.

of Cyclic Pore Seed, R. B. and Harder, L. F. (1990) . SPT-Based Analysis Pressure Generation and Undrained Strength, Proceedings of the H. B. Seed Memorial Symposium, Bi Tech Publishing, Vol. II, pp. 351-376. Sharma, N. (1989) . Refinement of Newmark Sliding Block Model and Applicaof Civil Engineertion to New Zealand Conditions, Master Thesis, Department ing, University of Canterbury, NZ, 237p. Earth Pressure Against Rigid 1982. Sherif, M., Ishibashi, I., and Lee, C. Retaining Walls, ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 108, No. GT5, pp. 679-695. Sherif, ing and No. 23, WA, pp. M., and Fang, Y. 1983 (Nov). Dynamic Earth Pressures Against RotatNon-YieldinE Research Report Retaining Walls, Soil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, 45-47.

1984a. Dynamic Earth Pressures on Rigid Walls Rotating About the Base, Proceedings , Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, San Francisco, CA, pp. 993-1OO. 1984b. . Dynamic Ear(th Pressures on Walls Rotating Top , Soils and Foundations, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.109-117. About the

Spangler, M. 1938. Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Walls Caused by Superimposed Loads, Proceedin~s of the 18th Annual Meeting of the HiEhwav Research Board. Part II, pp. 57-65. Stark, T. D., and Mesri, G. 1992 (Nov). fied Sands for Stability Analysis, ASCE, Engineering Division, Vol. 118, No. 11. Undrained Shear Strength of LiqueJournal of the Geotechnical

Steedman, R., and Zeng, X. Flexible Anchored Walls Subject to Base 1988. Shaking, Report CUED/D-soils TR 217, Engineering Department Cambridge University, UK Steedman, R., and Zeng, X. The Influence of Phase on the Calculation 1990. of Pseudo-Static Earth Pressure on a Retaining Wall, Geotechnique, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 103-112. Steedman, R. , and Zeng, X. 1990. Wall, Report CUED/D-soils TR 233, University, UK. Steedman, R. , and Zeng, X. Walls, Proceedings of ASCE Earth Retaining StructuresU pp. 872-886. Hydrodynamic Pressures Engineering Department, on a Flexible Cambridge Quay

1990. The Response Specialty Conference Geotechnical Special

of Waterfront Retaining on Desipn and Performance Publication No. 25.,

of

Streeter, V. , Wylie, and Richart, F. 1974. Soil Motion Computations by Characteristics Method, Journal of the Geotechnical En~ineerin~ Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No, GT3, pp. 247-263. Taylor, D. 1948. Fundamentals New York, pp. 488-491. of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ,

254

Terzaghi, K. 1934 Sand, Engineering

(Feb). Large Retaining Wall Tests. News Record, Vol. III, pp. 136-140.

I. Pressure

of Dry

1936 (Apr). A Fundamental Fallacy in Earth . tions, Boston Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 71-88. 1943. . 1954. Engineers, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John

Pressure

Calcula-

Wiley

& Sons,

New York. Society

of Civil

Transactions Anchored Bulkheads, Vol. 119, pp. 1243-1324. Soil Mechanics Inc. , New York.

of the American

Terzaghi, K. , and Peck, R. 1967. Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons,

in EnEineerin~

Practice,

1987 (Aug). Tokimatsu, A. M., and Seed, H. B. Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, ASCE, Journal Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878. 1983. Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, Y. faction Based on SPT N-Value and Fines Vol. 23, No. 4, pp 56-74.

Evaluation of Settlements In of the Geotechnical Division,

Emperical Correlation of Soil LiqueContent, Soils and Foundations,

Prediction of Lateral Movement of Towhata, I., and Islam, S. 1987 (Dec.). Anchored Bulkheads Induced by Seismic Liquefaction, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 137-147. Tschebotarioff, G. P. 1973. McGraw-Hill, Second Edition, USS Steel Sheet Piling Design Foundations 642 p. Manual , Retaining and Earth Structures,

1969,

132p.

The Behavior of Undrained ContracVasquez-Herrera, A. , and Dobry, R. 1988. tile Sand and Its Effect on Seismic Liquefaction Flow Failures of Earth Structures, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Westergaard, H. 1931. Water tions of ASCE, Paper No. 1835, Pressure on Dams pp. 418-433. During Earthquakes, Transac-

Whitman, R. 1979 (Dee). Dynamic Civil Engineering Projects, State 6th Panamerican Conference on Soil Peru, PP. 59-105.

Behavior of Soils and Its Application to of the Art Reports and Special Lectures, Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Lima,

On Liquefaction, Proceedin~s, 1985. . ence on Soil Mechanism and Foundation Engineering, pp. 1923-1926.

llth International ConferVol. 7, San Francisco, CA.

1990. . Seismic Design Behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls, Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25. , pp. 817-842. Retaining Structures, Whitman, R. V. tions of Earth Soil Mechanics, 1992 (Jul). Predicting Earthquake - Caused Permanent DeformaStructures, Proceedings Wroth Memorial Symposium on Predictive Oxford University (in press).

255

Whitman, J., and Christian, J. Seismic Response of Retaining Struc1990. tures, Symposium Seismic Design for World Port 2020, Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Whitman, R., and Liao, laneous Paper GL-85-1, Vicksburg, MS. S. Seismic Design 1985. US Army Engineer Waterways of Retaining Walls, Experiment Station, Miscel-

Wong, C. 1982. Seismic Analysis and Improved Seismic Design Procedure for Gravity Retaining Walls, Research Report 82-32, Department Of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Wood, J. No. EERL 1973. 73-05, Earthquake-Induced California Institute Soil Pressures of Technology, on Structures, Report Pasadena, CA, pp. 311. Earth Retainand Develop-

Yong, P. M. F. 1985. Dynamic Earth ing Wall, Central Laboratories Report ment, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.

Pressures Against A Rigid 5-8515, Ministry of Works

Zarrabi, K. 1973. Sliding of Gravity Retaining Wall During Earthquakes Considering Vertical Acceleration and Changing Inclination of Failure Surface, SM Thesis , Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp. 140. Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Xie, Y. M. Analysis of the Lower 1991 (Nov.) Fernando Dam Failure Under Earthquake, Dam Engineering, Vol. II, Issue pp. 307-322. San 4,

256

APPENDIX

A:

COMPUTATION OF THE DYNAMIC ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE FORCES FOR PARTIALLY SUBMERGED BACKFILLS USING THE WEDGE METHOD

A.1

Introduction

This appendix describes the derivation of the dynamic active and passive earth pressure forces for partially submerged backfills using the wedge method. The effect of earthquakes is incorporated through the use of a constant horizontal acceleration, ah = k~g, and a constant vertical acceleration, aV = ~g, acting on the soil mass comprising the active wedge (or passive wedge) within the backfill, as shown in Figure A.1 (and Figure A.3).

m-l---l

1PM
#
I
MOVEMENTS

aAE

0+

u top shear / /

Ground Acceleration

av-kv

.9

Y
. HYDROSTATIC .rU=CONSTANT WATER WITHIN TAELE SUBMERGED BACKFILL

Figure

A.1

Dynamic

active

wedge

analysis

with

excess

pore

water

pressures

Al

The earth and water pressure forces acting on the wedge are derived for the case of restrained water within the backfill and a hydrostatic water table. Any increase in the pore water pressures above their steady state values in response to the shear strains induced within the saturated portion of the backfill during earthquake shaking is reflected in a value of rU > 0. A constant rU value is used throughout the submerged portion of the backfill in this derivation. A.2 Active Earth Pressures

Figure A.1 represents a free body diagram for the derivation which follows. The base of the wedge is the trial planar slip surface representing the active failure plane, which is inclined at angle alpha to the horizontal. The top of the wedge is bounded by a horizontal ground surface, and a vertical face along the interface between the backfill and the retaining wall. The weight of the wedge acts at the center of mass and is computed as (A-1)

The three forces acting along the planar slip surface are represented by an effective normal force N , a shear force T and the pore water pressure force. Assuming a cohesionless backfill and full mobilization of shear resistance along the slip surface, the shear force may be computed utilizing the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria as T = N tan~ (A-2)

The total pore water pressures acting along the submerged faces of the soil wedge are described in terms of the steady state pore water pressure component and the excess pore water pressure component attributed to earthquake shaking. A.2.1 Calculation The pore of Water Pressure Forces for a Hydrostatic water table Water Table is

water

pressure

at the ground u top

static

(Figure

A.2)

=0

(A-3)

For a hydrostatic water table with depth, and at the bottom

the pore water pressure distribution of the wedge is computed as

is linear

bot u static Y.%

(A-4)

A2

~ v ~t
H

T:

I
1

\ \
\-

\l.w
Hw

(u

STATIC - (1

.sina).

1 r

Ix/xl
STATiC-acOsa [ /%ATX

1+ \
~
f/j -J

u STATIC

Wu bot
STATIC

sin a - u sTATIC
STATIC - a

Figure

A.2 Equilibrium pressure forces

of horizontal hydrostatic acting on backfill wedge

water

A.2.2

Static

Water

Pressure

Forces

Acting

on the Wedge the wall is (A-5)

The static triangular and

pore pressure distribution immediately behind the resultant force may be calculated as

u static

.1
~

YWH:

The static triangular

pore pressure force acting along the planar and the resultant force may be computed as u 1
static-a

slip

surface

is also

yww~

-y H2

(A-6)

A.2.3

Excess

Pore

Water

Pressures

Due

to Earthquake

Shaking

with

Constant

r.

Excess pore water pressures due to earthquake shaking are computed With rU in section 4.3.2. assuming the restrained water case as described constant throughout the submerged portion of the backfill the pressure distribution is linear. The excess pore water pressure at the ground water table is computed as
top u shear ~t(H-\)ru

(A-7)

Note that when the water table The excess pore water pressure
bot u shear

is below the surface of the backfill u~~~ar at the bottom of the wedge is computed as
~)+(V,-VW)%]r.

>

0 .

(A-8)
=[Yt(H-

A3

The total pore water water pressures plus

pressures are equal to the sum of the hydrostatic the excess pore water pressures.

pore

A.2.4

Excess

Pore

Water

Pressure

Forces

Acting

on the Wedge. pressure

The resultant distribution acting

excess normal

pore water pressure force of a trapezoidal to the back of the wall is equal to

u shear 7

top

bot

[ u shear + u shear ]%

(A-9)

The resultant excess pore water pressure distribution acting normal to the planar

force of the trapezoidal pressure slip surface is equal to

u shear-m $

top

bot c

[ u shear + u shear ]L

(A-1O)

A.2.5

Equilibrium

of Vertical

Forces

Equilibrium of vertical results in the relationship

forces

acting

on the Figure

A.1

soil wedge

-Psin6+W(l

-~

)-

Tsina-Ncosa

-(u

static-a

+ shear-a

Cosa = o

(A-11)

Introducing

Equation

A-2

into A-n

results

in

-Psin6+W(l

-~

) -Ntan@sins

- Ncosa

- (u static-a + shear-a

Coso! = o

(A-12)

and

solving

for

the normal
N . -p

effective
s in6

force, +W

N , becomes (1-<) tan~ sins + cosa

tan~ sins + cosa

( static-a

+ shear-a

COSQ tan~ slna + cosa

(A-13)

A4

A.2.6

Equilibrium

of Forces

in the Horizonal forces acting

Direction on the Figure A.1 soil wedge

Equilibrium of horizontal results in the relationship PCOS6

- Nsins

- (u static-a + shear-a )sins

+ TCOSa -

+ ( static

.hea~

) = O

(A-14)

Substituting Equation water pressure forces Figure A.2), Equation

A-2 into A-14, and with the horizontal components of equal magnitude and opposite direction, (refer A-14 simplifies to PCOS6 - Nsins
+ Ntan#cosa

of to (A-15)

-Wkh=o

Combining

the N terms

results

in = O (A-16)

PCOS6

- N( sina - tanq$cosa ) -~

Multiplying Equation A-13 and simplifying becomes

-N~(

(for N) by,[

- ( sina - tan~cosa

) ]

- tan#cosa

sina

+ Psin6tan(

-W(l-~)tan(a

-#)

+ ( static-a

U~hear_a

)Cosatan(a

(A-17)

Substituting

Equation

A-17

into A-16 Pcos6

gives a -~ )

+ Psin6tan(

-W(l-~)tan(a-~)

+ ( statica

+Us~,ar_& )cosatan(

a -~

) -W%

=0

(A-18)

Combining

terms

results

in P [ cos6 +sin6tan(a -~ )]=

W[(l-~)tan(a-~)

+%]

- ( static-a

Ushear_a

)Cosatan(

- (j )

(A-19)

AS

Solving

for the resultant

force

P which

acts

at angle

6 (A-20)

CONSTANTAI P=

- CONSTANTA2 - @ )

cos6 + sin6tan(a where CONSTANTAI W[(l-~)tan(

a-@)+

~]

and

The dynamic active earth pressure force PM is equal to the maximum value of P for the trial wedges analyzed and a* = a for this critical wedge, as discussed in Section 3.4 and shown in Figure 3.1O. A.2.7 Surcharge Loading

The presence of an additional mass located on top of the backfill during earthquake shaking can increase the magnitude of the dynamic active earth pressures acting on the wall. The effects of an additional surcharge mass idealized in Figure A.3, or a surcharge loading idealized in Figure A.4, may be incorporated within the dynamic active wedge analysis of Section A.2.6 by expanding Equation A-20. For each slip surface analyzed, that portion of the surcharge loading contained within the wedge is included within the equations of equilibrium of forces acting on the wedge. When the surcharge is represented as a uniform pressure distribution q~, that portion of the surcharge loading contained above the wedge is replaced by an equivalent force W~ acting at its center of mass. The uniformly distributed surcharge pressure q. shown in Figure A.4 is replaced by the equivalent force (per foot of wall) w~ = q~ le (A-21)

where 1, = 1 = otherwise le = lq The variable 1, represents Equation A-20 becomes P= the effective length of the surcharge load. ((H/tana) - x) for 1~ > 1 (refer to Figure A-4),

CONSTANTAI

+ CONSTANTA~l - CONSTANTA2 a COS6 + sln~tan )

(A-22)

A6

P PM

1*
...

I I

1
. I

W*-kv
. -L 1 W~ kh I

v
Ushar -a kh~g

/
/ / N

u~~k- Q
G

ah -

7
Figure A.3 Dynamic where

+av =kv=g

t active wedge analysis loading including a surcharge

CONSTANTA~l

=W~[(l-

~)tan(a-4)+

~]

and CONSTANTA1 and CONSTANTA2 Equation A-20.

are computed

as

in Section

A.2.6

for

For surcharge loadings of finite length, a wide range of slip surfaces and must be investigated to ensure that the maximum value for P is calculated equal to Pfi, corresponding to the critical slip surface am as shown in Figures A.3 and A.4. A.2.8 Static Active Wedge Analysis wedge analysis with ~ = kh = u~h..~-a= 0,

In the case of a static Equation A-20 simplifies to P

[ -u~~~~l~-~cosa ]tan(a 4 COS6 + sinbtan( a - + )

(A-23)

with

a restricted

to values

of a > +,

since

P > 0.

A7

: L
o %

-_ ____ y
I
I I

,y

(93 - (1)

;&i

T-J

Figure

A.4

Dynamic loading

active

wedge

analysis

including

a surcharge

PA = P and a* = a for the static critical wedge surcharge loading, Equation A-22 simplifies to P= [ w+w~-u
COS6 static-acosa + sln~tan(

as well.

For a

]tan(a-d) Q -

(A-24)

where A.3

W~ is computed Earth

using

Equation

A-21.

Passive

Pressures

Figure A.5 represents a free body diagram that is used in the derivation of the wedge procedure for computing the value of the dynamic passive earth pressure force pPE. The base of the wedge represents the trial planar slip surface and is inclined at angle a to the horizontal. The top of the wedge is defined by a horizontal ground surface, and the vertical face is located along the interface between the backfill and the retaining wall. The weight of the wedge acts at the center of mass and is computed using Equation A-1. The three forces acting along the planar slip surface are the normal force N , the shear force T, and the pore water pressure force. The shear force T shown in Figure A.3 for the passive case acts opposite to the shear force shown in Figure A.1 for the active case. Assuming a cohesionless

A8

MOVEMENTS

Ho-

ton a

we w =

kv

I: +
ustotic
u

++
top stotic

U shear

bot shear \

Utl

\ \

bot u stotic 1

AL-a
U$;ic
u bot sheer \

pqEMl~Q&I(E COMPONENT

c HYDROSTATIC

WATER TA8LE WITHIN SUEMERGEO 6ACKFILL

G r~CONSTANT
Figure A.5 Dynamic passive

Gov=kvog

wedge analysis pressures

with

excess

pore

water

backfill and full mobilization of shear resistance along the slip surface, the shear force may be computed utilizing the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria as given by Equation A-2. A.3.l Calculation of Water Pressure Forces for a Hydrostatic Water Table

The total water pressure forces are equal to the sum of the steady state water pressures plus the excess water pressures due to earthquake shaking. Steady state water pressure forces for a hydrostatic water table are computed Excess pore water using the procedures described in Sections A.2.1 and A.2.2. the submerged pressures due to earthquake loads with constant rU throughout portion of the backfill are computed using the procedures described in Sections A.2.3 and A.2.4.

A9

A. 3.2 Equilibrium Equilibrium relationship

of Vertical of vertical

Forces forces acting on Figure A.3 wedge results in the

Psin6+W(l

- ~)+Tsi

na N cosa

-(u
Introducing Equation A-2

static-a

+ shear-a
results <)

COSCY =

(A-25)

into A-25 Psin6+W(l-

in +Ntan@sins

- NCOSQ

- ( static-a

+ shear-a

)Cosa =

(A-26)

and solving

for the normal N=P

effective sinb ,

force

becomes (1-<) - tan~ slna + cosa

- tan~ slna + cosa

+W

-(u

static-a

+ shear-a

) -

Cosa tan~ sins + cosa

(A-27)

A.3.3

Equilibrium

of Forces

in the Horizonal forces acting

Direction on Figure A.5 soil wedge results

Equilibrium of horizontal in the relationship PCOS6

- Nsins

(u static-a

+ shear-a

s ina

- Tcosa

+%

+ ( USta~iC+Ush,ar ) = O

(A-28)

Substituting Equation water pressure forces Figure A.2), Equation

A-2 into A-28 and with the horizontal components of equal magnitude and opposite direction (refer A-28 simplifies to PCOS6 - Nsins -Ntan~cosa +W~ = O

of the to

(A-29)

combining

the N terms

results

in ) +% . 0 (A-30)

PCOS6

- N( sins + tan~cosa

A1O

Multiplying Equation A-27 and simplifying becomes

(for N) by

[ - ( sins +tan@cosa

) ]

- N( tan~cosa

+ sina ) = - Psin6tan(

a + ~

-W(l-~)tan(a+~)

+ ( static-a

+US~~a,_~ )cosatan(

a +4

(A-31)

Substituting

Equation

A-31

into A-30 PCOS6

gives a +4 )

- Psin6tan(

-W(l-lq)tan(a+@)

static-~

+Ushear.&

)cosatan(a+~z

+W~=O

(A-32)

Combining

terms

result

in P [ cost - sin6tan( a +4 )]=

W[(l-~)tan(a+~)-

~]

-(u

(A-33)
static-a + shear-a ) cosatan (a +4)

Solving

for the resultant

force P=

P which

acts

at angle

6 (A-34)

CONSTANTPI

- CONSTANTP2 a + ~ )

COS6 - sln6tan(

where CONSTANTP1 =W[(l-~)tan(a+#) -~]

and CONSTANTpz = (UStatlc-~ + shear-a ) cosatan(a+~

)

The dynamic passive earth pressure force Pp~ is equal to the minimum P for the trial wedges analyzed and ap = a for this critical wedge.

value

of

Al 1

A.3.4

Surcharge

Loading

The presence of an additional mass located on top of the backfill during earthquake shaking can decrease the magnitude of the dynamic passive earth pressures acting on the wall. The effects of an additional surcharge mass idealized in Figure A.6, or a surcharge loading idealyzed in Figure A.7, may be incorporated within the dynamic passive wedge analysis of Section A.3.3 by expanding Equation A-34. For each slip surface analized, that portion of t he P

I
PPE

GROUND ACCELERATION I

ovkg

Figure

A.6

Dynamic

passive

wedge

analysis

including

a surcharge

load

surcharge loading contained within the wedge is included within the equations of equilibrium of forces acting on the wedge. When the surcharge is represented as a uniform pressure distribution q~, that portion of the surcharge loading contained above the wedge is replaced by an equivalent force W~ acting at its center of mass. The uniformly distributed surcharge pressure q. shown in Figure A.7 is replaced by the equivalent force (per foot of wall) w computed using Equation A-21 in Section A.2.7. Figure A.7 surcharge p~~ssure q. is equivalent to Figure A.6 case of a surcharge of weight W~, and Equation A-34 becomes P= CONSTANTPI + CONSTANTP~l CONSTANTP2 (A-35)

COS6 sln6tan(

a + ~ )

A12

P PE

GROUND ACCELERATION

1
A.7

av

- kv-g

Figure

Dynamic

passive

wedge

analysis

including

a surcharge

load

where CONSTANTP~l =W~[(l-~)tan( a+@) -~]

and CONSTANTP1 A-34.

and CONSTANTP2

are computed

as in Section

A.3.3

for Equation

For surcharge loads of finite length, a wide range of slip surfaces must be investigated to ensure that the minimum value for P is calculated and equal to PPE, corresponding to the critical slip surface apE as shown in Figures A.6 and A.7. A.3.5 Static Passive Wedge Analysis problems with ~ = k~ = U~~~~~.@= O Equation A-34

Note simplifies

that to

for static

P=

w-u

static-acosa

]tan(a++)

(A-36)

Cos$ - sln$tan

( a + ~

A13

with

a restricted

to values a for this to

of a > 0 and critical

6 < @/2. For a surcharge loading, Equation

PP=PandaP= A-35 simplifies

wedge.

P=

W + W. U~~.~l~_~cOsa ]tan(a+ COS6 - sln6tan ( a + +

d)

(A-37)

A14

APPENDIX

B:

THE WESTERGAARD PRESSURES ALONG

PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING HYDRODYNAMIC VERTICAL WALLS DURING EARTHQUAKES

WATER

This section describes the Westergaard procedure for computing the mag along rigid vertical walls during nitude of the hydrodynamic water pressures earthquake shaking. The solution developed by Westergaard (1931) is for the case of a semi-infinite long water reservoir retained by a concrete dam and subjected to a horizontal earthquake motion. The fundamental period of the concrete dam is assumed to be much smaller than the fundamental period of the is approximated earthquake so that the acceleration for the massive structure This as the acceleration of the earthquake motion along the rigid base. allows the problem of a very stiff concrete dam to be simplified to the case of a rigid vertical face moving at the same horizontal acceleration as the base horizontal acceleration. of elasticity of a solid to Using the equations describe the propagation of sounds in liquids (waves which propagate without shear distortions) and with the water considered to be compressible, a solution to the equation of motion of the water was developed for a harmonic motion applied along the base of the reservoir. This solution ignores the effects of surface waves and is valid only when the period of the harmonic excitation is greater than the fundamental natural period of the reservoir is equal to (Chopra 1967). The fundamental period for the reservoir, TW, TW=% (B-1)

where

the velocity

of sound

in water,

C,

is given

by (B-2)

and

the mass

density

of water,

p,

is given p._ 7. /3

by (B-3)

With the bulk modulus of elasticity of water, K, equal to 4.32 X 1071b per ft2 , the unit weight for water, yW, equal to 62.4 lb per ft3 and the acceleration due to gravity, g, equal to 32.17 ft per sec2, C is equal to 4,720 ft per sec. For example, with a depth of pool of water, HP, equal to 25 ft, TW is equal to 0.02 seconds (47 Hz) by Equation B-1. The resulting relationship for hydrodynamic pressure on the face of the dam is a function of the horizontal seismic coefficient, k~, the depth of water, YW, the total depth of the pool of water, HP, the fundamental period of the earthquake, and the compressibility of the water, K. The hydrodynamic pressure is opposite in phase to the base acceleration and for positive base accelerations the hydrodynamic pressure is a tensile. Westergaard proposed the following approximate solution for the hydrodynamic water pressure distribution: a parabolic dynamic pressure distribution, pWd, described by the relationship

B1

(B-4)

The

resultant

dynamic

water

pressure

force,

PW~, is equal

to (B-5)

Pwd = &

Ki17w%2

acting at an elevation equal to 0.4 HP above the base of the pool as shown in Figure B.1. This dynamic force does not include the hydrostatic water pressure force acting along the face of the dam.

RKXO VERTChLFKE

-4-

-+4%
arlgld btJS8-Khg

HYDROSTATIC WATER PRESSURES +

(Westerqoord

HYOROOYNAMC WATER PRESSURES

Procedure)

Figure

B.1

Hydrostatic and Westergaard hydrodynamic water acting along vertical wall during earthquakes

pressures

B.1 The Westergaard

Added

Mass

Procedure

A complete dynamic analysis of a structure that is in contact with a pool of water requires that the hydrodynamic effects be accounted for during the dynamic analysis. This requires that the pool of water must be incorporated within the idealized model for the problem. Most dynamic finite element computer code formulations that are used for soil-structure interaction analyses do not include a fluid element in their catalog of elements. The Westergaard added mass procedure is one method that is used to incorporate the hydrodynamic effects in the analysis for computer codes without a fluid element formulation. With the hydrodynamic water pressure on the vertical face of a rigid structure opposite in phase to the ground acceleration, these hydrodynamic pressures are equivalent to the inertia force of an added mass moving with the dam (Chopra 1967). The Westergaard (1931) added water mass procedure adds an additional water mass to the mass matrix along the front face of the structure. For pools that are wider than three times the depth of the pool, this additional mass of water is enveloped within the parabolic pressure distribution given by Equation B-4 and the front of the wall. This procedure is applicable when the period of harmonic excitation (i.e. the earthquake) is greater than the fundamental natural period of the reservoir (Chopra 1967), which is the case for shallow pools. B2

APPENDIX

C:

DESIGN

EXAMPLE

FOR AN ANCHORED

SHEET

PILE WALL

The calculations involved in the design of Figure C.1 anchored sheet in this appendix for both static and pile wall and its anchorage is described seismic loadings using the procedures described in Chapter 7. Assume k~ = are generated during earth0.2, ~= 0.1 and no excess pore water pressures The results of the computations shown are rounded for quake shaking (rU = O). ease of checking calculations and not to the appropriate number of significant figures.

SHEET i H~2 -7 r H~, .y A

PILE

WALL

~TIE d r +,

ROD

v ~

~4NCtiOR

BLOCK H= - 2(Y

DENSE SAND Y~ 120 pcf ~= U 35 degrees !1 DRELKE LEVEL

o -i

0=?

Figure

C.1

Anchored sheet problem

pile

wall

design

loading

Section C.1 describes the design of anchored sheet pile wall loading. and Section C.2 the design for earthquake

for static

Section C.1

Design of An Anchored

Sheet

Pile Wall

for Static

Loading

This for static C.1.l

section describes the design of Figure C.1 anchored sheet loads using the free earth support method of analysis. Earth Pressures Coefficients strength KA = 1.0

pile

wall

Active Factor

of Safety

on shear

Assume

6 = 4 7 6 = 17.5 degrees

cl

By Equation

16, KA = 0.246

Say KA = 0.25 KA*cos 6 = 0.24

C.1.2

Factored Factor

Passive

Earth

Pressure strength

Coefficient = 1.5

KP

of Safety

on shear

By Equation

95,

tan 35 tan ~~ = .~ . 4; = 25 degrees

By Equation

96 with

6 = #/2

and

6 = 17.5,

tan6~ =

tan(17.5) 1 .5

6t=11.9 say h~ = 12 degrees

and : =0.5

Using

the Log-spiral

solutions

in Figure

3.11

for KP with

&/~ = -0,5,

~=o.808 =4.4

~(6/4=-l.0,#=25degrees) K#/#=-O % .5) =0.808.4.4=3.56 = 3.48

cos6t = 3.56 G cos12

C.1.3

Depth

of Penetration

Table C.1 summarizes the horizontal force components acting on Figure sheet pile wall and are expressed in terms of the generalized dimensions The horizontal force components and their moment about TII HTZ, Hp..l, and D. the elevation of the tie rod are summarized in Tables C.2 and C.3. The forces and moments are expressed in terms of the unknown depth of penetration, D. C.2

C2

yT=
T FES
v =

~,
Q

El 3 H~z -3
A

E3

Hm

-20

OREDGE PTOE

LEVEL

t
\l ACTIVE PRESSURES FACTORED PASSIVE PRESSURE

Figure C.2 components

Horizontal earth pressure in free earth support design

Table

C.1

Horizontal

Force

Components

Horizontal Force Designation El

Horizontal KAcos6*$vt~l

Force %2)2

Distance to Tie Rod 12 3( %2-%1)

E2

1 K*COS~7Vt(HTl

%2)

~001

%2

Hpool

Es

KACOS6

1 ~v~

(~.01)2

2
%2 + ~ H@

EA
KACOS6 vt(~l
[

%2

%001

lD

+ HT2)

+ Yb

~OOLD

1
%2 Hpool +

Es

1 KAcos~ ~v~

(D)2

2D 3

P~o~

I$COS6.

;Y,* (D)2

%2

%001

2D 3

C3

Table

C.2

Moments

About

Tie Rod Due

to Active

Earth

Pressures

Horizontal Force Desi~nation

Horizontal Force (lb per ft wall) 1,440

Distance to Tie Rod (ft) -0.33

Moment About Tie Rod -CCW Moment +ve(ft-lb per ft wall) -475

E,

5,760 2,765
564.5D

13 16.33 23 + ID 7

74,880 45,149 12,983.5 D + 282.3 D2

6.91 (D)2

23 + 2D

159.0

D2 + 4.6 D3

Active

4.6

D3 +441.3 D2 + 12,983.5 119,554

D +

Table

C.3

Moments

About

Tie Rod

Due

to Passive

Earth

Pressures

Horizontal Force

Designation

Horizontal Force (lb per ft wall) 100.2 (D)2

Distance to Tie Rod (ft)

Moment About Tie Rod -CCW Moment +ve(ft-lb per ft wall)

23 + 2D 3

-66.8 D3 - 2,304.6 D2

Passive

-66.8

D3 - 2,304.6

D2

Equilibrium CCW moment +ve)

tie rod = 0

of moments requires

about

the elevation

of the tie rod

0 =

MActive

Mpassive

o = -62.2 D3 - 1,863.3 D2+

12,983.5 D + 119,554

C4

From the purposes

calculations

summarized

in

Table

C.4,

10.02

ft for calculation

(D =

10 ft for construction).

Table

c.4

Calculation

of the Depth

of Penetration

Trial D (ft) 9 10 10.1 10.02

Moment Imbalance (ft-lb per ft wall) 40,134 859 -3,473 -1

Comment shallow shallow deep exact

C.1.4

Tie Rod Horizontal ZF~ = O EI+E2+ From

Force

T~~~ equilibrium (refer to Figure C.2).

force

E3 + EL +

- TOE

T~E~ =

o
C.5,

the calculations

summarized

in Table

16,315

- 10,060 - T~~~ . 0

= 6,255 lb per ft of wall

Table

C.5

Horizontal

Force

Components

for

10 Feet

II
Horizontal Force Designation El

I
Horizontal Force (lb per ft wall) 1,440

I
I

EG Es P~~~

5,656
694

10,060

C5

C. 1.5

Maximum

Moment

M~~~

The maximum value of moment, M~~~, occurs at the elevation of zero shear within the sheet pile. the elevation of zero shear and then First, determine compute the moment internal to the sheet pile by computing the moments of the earth pressures and water pressures about the elevation of the tie rod (refer to Step 8 discussion in Section 7.4.1). This usually occurs at an elevation above the dredge levei. By modifying the relationships given in Table Cl, the equilibrium of horizontal forces at a depth, y, below the water table is expressed as El + E2X + E~X - T~~~ = O 1,440 + 288y 6.912my2 y= + 6.912 + 288y yz - 6,255 - 4,815 = O = O

-(288) ~~(288)2 -4(6.912)(-4815) 2(6.912) the water table

y = 12.79 ft below

From the calculations summarized in Table C.6, the sheet pile at y = 12.79 ft below the water ft-lb per ft of wall.

the maximum moment internal to table is equal to M~~~ = 47,165

Table

C.6

Moment Internal Table and About

to the Sheet Pile at y = 12.79 the Elevation of the Tie Rod

Feet

Below

the Water

Horizontal Force Designation El E2X

Horizontal Force (lb per ft wall) 1,440 3,683.5 3+;

Lever Arm (ft) -0.33 (12.79)

(ft-lb

Moment per ft wall) -475 34,607

E3X

1,130.7

3+:(12.79)

13,033

M~~~ = 47,165

ft - lb per

ft wall

C6

Refined

Procedure

for Computing

M~~~:

The computed value for maximum moment M~~~ equal to 47,165 ft-lb per ft of wall is greater than would be obtained using the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) design procedure for static loading, as described in the U.S. Army Engineers Manual EM 1110-2-2504 (Headquarters, Department of the Army 1992). The Corps design procedure is a refinement to the procedure described in this section with the value for the maximum moment M~~~ computed using a depth of The Corps penetration with FSP in Equations 95 and 96 set equal to unity. procedure avoids compounding factors of safety in the selection of the sheet pile section. The value specified for depth of penetration for sheet pile wall construction would be unchanged, equal to 10 ft in this example (Section C.1.4). Section C.1.6 Design Moment
Md.sign

moment

The design reduction

moment, M~~Si~n, is obtained procedure that is outlined

through application in Figure 7.2.

of Rowes

H = H~l + HT2 + HPOO1 + D H= 7+3+ 20+10, =4O ft(480.24 in.)

E = 30 x 106 psi Flexibility number,

p =

H4 m

where I = moment of inertia p er ft of wall

P=

(480.24 in.)4 (30 x 106psi)*I

1,773.0 I

P=

The values sections. Table

of M~~Si~~ are given

in Table

C.7

for four

sheet

pile

C.7

Design

Moment

for Sheet

Pile Wall

in Dens

Sand

Section Designation PZ22 PZ27 PZ35 PZ40

I (in.4 per ft of wall) 84.4 184.2 361.2 490.8

design

(in.2/!lb per ft of wall) 21.0 9.62 4.91 3.61

(Figu~~ 0.45 0.68 1.0 1.0

7.2)

(ft-lb per ft of wall) 21,224

32.072 47,165
47,165

C7

where

Md~~l~~ = rd MFES

(by

eq 100)

Section

C. 1.7

Selection

of the Sheet

Pile

Section assume

In this design example the maximum allowable stress

allowable =

of sheet pile walls for static loadings, within the sheet pile is restricted to

0.65~ ayiel~
steel sheet piling,

for ASTM
yield =

A328

39,000 psi
=

allowable

0.65

. 39,000

psi = 25,000

psi

The

allowable
allowable

bending
= S

moment

(Table
Per

c.8),

Mallowable,is given

by

~allowable

ft run of wall

where S = section Table c.8 modulus (in.3 per ft run of wall) A328 Grade Sheet Pile

Allowable SeCtiOnS

Bending Moment for Four ASTM (allowable = 0.65

~yield)

Section Designation PZ22 PZ27 PZ35 PZ40

s (in.3 p er ft of wall) 18.1 30.2 48.5 60.7

allowable

(ft-kips

per

ft run of wall) 38 64 102 128

Comparison of the design moment values (M~e~i~~ in Table C.7) to the allowable bending moments (Allowable in Table C.8) indicates that all four pile sections would be adequate. The lightest section, PZ22, would be selected for this design based upon static loading. Corrosion must also be addressed during the course of the sheet pile wall design. Additionally, the deflection of the anchored sheet pile wall would be checked (Dawkins 1991). C.1.8 Design
design =

Tie Rod

1.3 T~~~
(from Section C.1.4)

T~ES = 6,255 lb per ft of wall

design =

8,132 lb per ft of wall

C8

Assume

(a) (b)
allowable

6 ft spacing of anchors
~i,ld =

36,000 psi
O~~e~~ (40 % of yield)

0.4

Minimum

area of rod = 6ft Gross Area

8,132 lb per ft of wall 0.4 36 >00 0 psi

G

= 3.39 in.z 4
G

Diameter

= [

Area

=2.08

in,

C.1.9

Design

Anchorage TUl~_~ = 2.5 T~~~ (by eq 102)

with

TFES
15,638 lb per

6,255 lbper

ft of wall

(from

Section

C.1.4)

ult-a

ft of wall

Details regarding the design of anchorage are provided in numerous references including Dismuke (1991) and the USS Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual (1969) . If the overall height of the anchor, ha, is not less than about 0.6 times the depth from the ground surface to the bottom of anchorage, designated da in Figure C.3, the anchor behaves as if it extended to the ground surface. ha > 0.6 da
The full angle of interface friction, 6, used in computing KP can only be mobilized if the anchor has sufficient dead weight or, in general, is restrained against upward movement (Dismuke 1991) . For a slender anchor the ultimate capacity for a continuous anchor is required to satisfy the expression Tul~-. 5 pp - PA

with 6 = O degrees

(refer

to Figure

C.3).

C9

ANCHOR PLATE GROUND SURFACE ~ . L k da= 10 ho *

Tutt-o

.8

K#=&D rf

r T

Figure C.3 Horizontal active and passive earth pressure components acting on a continuous slender anchor

For anchorage

above

the water

table

<1 T ult-a , ~~t~a)z

(Kp KA)

For ~ = 35 degrees

and

6 = O degrees, %=3.69 (by eq 11)

KA=0.27

(by eq 5)

T ult-a

120pcf
5+

(10)2

G(3.69 -0.27)

15,638 lb per ft of wall < 20,520

lb per

ft run of continuous

anchor

ha>

0.6

. 10

ha > 6 ft. Because the value of Tult.a is significantly less than the capacity of a continuous wall, a series of separate anchorages would be investigated (refer to the procedures described in the USS Steel Sheet Piling Design manual, 1969) .

Clo

C.1.1O

Site Anchorage

the anchorage must be located such that the potential To be effective, active failure zone behind the sheet pile wall and the potential passive Design criteria failure zone in front of the anchorage does not intersect. The use of the estimated for deadman anchorage is shown in Figure C.4. point of zero moment in the wall ( at = ~ D ) accounts for the increased

of depth of penetration due to the use of FSP = 1.5 used in the calculation the passive earth pressure force provided by the soil below the dredge level (Duncan 1985).

,.
,.4 b.

h
~,

\ \

*TI

ANCHOR BL(XK f

\\: \

Q t

1 *T2

\\

\\

\\

Pod

ESTIMATED

POINT

OF

~A~=5D

(a)

Simplified

procedure

for

siting

onchor

bloc k

\\ ., \ ! ~, b .. ,

/0

\
\
\

Ill

T1 v A=

AJVCH;R BL(XK ANCHOR BLtXK SHOULD BE SITED BEYOND THIS UNE ESTIMATED POINT OF ZERO MOMENT ABWE THE BASE OF THE WALL PT DREDGE LEVEL t ,

D WV4D i

(b)

Simplified

procedure

for

siting

a continuous

anchor

wall

From Figure C.4 Design

NAVFAC criteria

DM 7.2 for deadman anchorage

Cll

C.Z

Design

of an Anchored

Sheet

Pile Wall

for Seismic

Loading

This section describes the calculations involved in the design of Figure C.1 anchored sheet pile wall for earthquake loading using the free earth support method of analysis (13 steps) described in Section 7.4.1 with rU = O. C.2.1 Static Design (Step 1)

The static loading design of Figure C.1 anchored sheet pile wall is described in Section Cl. The calculated depth of penetration D equals 10.02 ft (Section C.1.3).

C.2.2

Horizontal

Seismic

Coefficient,

k~ (Step

2)

C.2.3

Vertical O and

Seismic -0.1

Coefficient,

(Step

3)

=+0.1,

according to Section 1.4.3. This appendix contains details regarding for ~ = +0.1 only due to the length of the calculations involved. C.2.4 Depth of Penetration (Steps 4 to 6)

the case

The depth of penetration, D, equal to 10 ft was found not to be stable under earthquake loading. The required minimum depth of penetration is best determined by the trial and error procedure of first assuming a value for D and checking if moment equilibrium of the earth and water pressure forces about the elevation of the tie rod is satisfied (steps 4 through 6). This iterative procedure results in a minimum required depth of penetration equal to 20.24 ft. The calculations involved in Steps 4 through 6 are summarized in the following paragraphs for the case of D set equal to 20.24 ft.

C12

Effective According

Unit

Weight

for the Partially

Submerged

Backfill

to Figure

4.13,

-Y,

[1
T

hl 2

(V7W)+1-+

[[11
2

Yt

with

D = 20.24

ft

hl = 40.24 ft h= 50.24 ft -62.4 pcf) + 1

-Y.=
-Y.

[1

40.24 2 (120pcf m

L[=ll

120

= 79.97 pcf

Equivalent

Horizontal

Seismic

Coefficient, %1 e

for the backfill

For the restrained

water

case with

rU = O

khel khel

-Yt
=

ye

(adapted

from

eq 47)

120 pcf /9 .9 / pcf

0.2 =0.3001

Seismic Inertia

Angle,

@cl,

for the Backfill

~e~ =tail-l

k]
hel

(adapted

from

eq 48)

Dynamic Active Earth Pressure, PAE

with

= 35*,

6 = 4/2

= 17.5*

and @,l = 18.44,

KM

= 0.512

(by eq 36)

Strength parameters Section 2.3.

to be assigned

in accordance

with

the criteria

in

C13

PM

=Km PM Pm

; [-Y, (1 -~)]H2 ; [79.97 psf . (1 - o.1)] (50.24)2

(adapted

from

eq 33)

=0.512 = 46,506 = pm

lb per ft of wall = 44,354 lb per ft of wall

(Pm)x

COS6

Horizontal

Static

Active

Earth

Pressure

Component

of P~E

earth Table

With a hydrostatic water table and ru = O, the horizontal static active pressure force components of Pm are computed using the relationships in Cl. With ~ = 35 and 6 = 4/2 = 17.5, (by eq 16)
6 =

KA = 0.246

KA .

COS

0.235

Above the water table -y~= 120 pcf is used to calculate the effective overburden pressure while below the water table ~ = -yL - ~W (= 57.6 pcf) is used to calculate the effective overburden pressure with rU = O. The resulting values for the five horizontal static force components El through E5 of PAE are given in Table C.9 (forces shown in Figure C.2) .

II
I I

Table

C.9.

Five

Horizontal Static Active Earth Pressure of P~~ with D = 20.24 feet Horizontal Force (lb per ft wall) 1,410 5,640

Force

Components

Horizontal Force Designation

Distance to Pile Tip (ft) 43.57 30.24

El E2
Es

2,707 11,187

26.91 10.12 I 6.75

Eq
Es

2,772

= (PA)IC

El + E2 + Ea + Eq + E5 lb per ft of wall . 30.24+2,707 26.91+11,187 23 ) /16 . 10.12+2,772 . 6,75

(PA).
Y PA =

= 23,716 1,410

. 43.57+5,640

Y PA = 18.42

ft above

the pile tip.

C14

Horizontal Component Dynamic Active Earth

of the Incremental Pressure Force, (AP

) AE X (adapted from eq 40)

(Apu)X (APm)X Y~PN= Y PAE =

(pm).

- (PA). - 23,716 = 20.638 lb per ft of wall ft above the pile

= 44,354 0.6

(PA)X

. H= 0.6 . 50.24 ypA+ (Apw)x APAE (PAE)x

= 30.14

tip. (adapted from eq 44)

Y PAE =

23,716

18.42 + 20,638 44 9 354

. 30.14

Y PAE = 23.87

ft above the pile tip.

Below

Dredge

Level

Equivalent

Horizontal

Seismic

Coefficient,

k hel,

Used

in Front

of Wall

For the restrained -Yt k hel = % ~b k hel = 120 pcf (120 pcf - 62.4 pcf) 0.4167

water

case with

rU = O (by eq 47)

0.2

khel

Seismic

Inertia

Angle,

~elj

Used

in Front

of Wall

+e~ =tan-l
$el = tan-l

(adapted

from

eq 48)

Factored

strengths

Used

in Front

of Wall

By equation

95 with

FSP = 1.2,* tan#~ = tan 35 1.2

+; = 30.3 By equation 96 with & = 4/2

FSP = 1.2 step 5.

for

illustration

purposes

only.

See discussion

in footnote

to

C15

tan6~ =

tan 17.5 1.2

6t =14.70

Factored

Dynamic

Passive

Earth

Pressure

Coefficient

KPE

Method method

1: Using the equivalent (Section 4.4).

static

formulation

with

KP by Log-Spiral

P* P

- 4,1 = -24.84

e = 6 - ~,1 = -24.84 KP (~ = -24.84, (?= -24.84, # = 30.3, 6 = -~) = 3.56 andR= Caquot and Kerisel (1948). For # = 30.3 and 6 = -4/2, 0.746 from

Kp

09}

e, ~, 6 = -#/2) = 3.56
=2.66

0 0.746

Kp ((P*, O*, ~, 6 = -~/2)

FPE
COS2

COS2 (0
=

- veJ Cos 20 =0.907

(eq 63)

Cos &

F PE =

[0(24.84)

(-24.84)]
COS2

COS

(0)

K pE=~

(/l*? 6,

~,

6 z

-4/2)

FPE

(adapted

from

eq 62)

K PE =2.66 K PE ----Method withi#

G

0.907 =2.41
COS(14.7) -- ----= 2,33 -----Reference ------ -----------------------

COS

6t=2.41
---------

----2:

KpE by Mononobe-Okabe. ~ = 14.7, ~~1= 24.84, Kp~= p= 2.85 0 and 0 = 0 (by eq 60)

= 30.3,

and
COS &t=

PE

2.76

The value of Kp~ by Mononobe-Okabe is 18 percent larger than the value calculated using the log-spiral method. Use the values computed by the Logspiral method in the calculations that follow. ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -End Reference -------- ----------------------

C16

Factored

Horizontal

Dynamic

Passive

Earth

Pressure

Force

PPF

. from eq 58)

(adapted =2.33 = (PPE)x 24,740 1 1 ~ [(120 pcf-62.4pcf) . (1-0.1)] (20.24)2

lb per ft of wall 1 D*=320 24 = 6.75 ft above the pile tip.

Y PE=3

I
Hydrodynamic Water Pressure

Pool

In Front

of Wall

Force

PW~

PWd

7
= ~ %-Yw(Hpcml)2

(by eq B-5)

= &
LL

G 0.2

G 62.4pcf

(2)2

Pw~ =

2,912 lb per ft of wall

the dredge level.

YW~ = 0.4 HpOOl= 8 ft above

II
Equilibrium Xk ~= of Moments (%2
Hpool

Depth

of Penetration

About +D

The

Elevation

of the Tie Rod

(pm)X

+~001
-

-yPM)

+ pwd(HT2 + =44,354 +2,912

o.4pool) - 23.87)

G (3

+ 20 +20.24 8)

c(3 +20 +43,680

= 859,137

~ *YPE=3 step 5.

D for

illustration

purposes

only.

See discussion

in footnote

to

C17

DC

Cw

= 902,817

ft. - lb per ft. of wall

m
Ek

w=

(%)x (%2+ Hp..,

G

+ D + 20.24

%,)
-6.75)

= -24,740.(3 w = -902,763 Imbalance

+ 20

ft-lb per ft of wall = ~CW + ~W per ft of wall ft for the case of k~ = 0.2 and ~ =

Moment

= 54 ft-lb Small +0.1. moment imbalance value

so D = 20.24

Table (20.5

The two additional cases of ~ = O and ~ = -0.1 are summarized in C.1O. The required minimum depth of penetration is equal to 20.24 ft for construction).

ft

Table

C.1O

Summary

of Depth

of Penetration

Calculations

D Case k~ k (f!l)
Static

Static Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic

o 0.2 0.2 0.2

0 -0.1 0 +0.1

10.02 14.88 17.1 20.24

1.0 1.5 1.7 2.0

C.2.5

Tie Rod

Force

TFEs (Step

7) of D = 20.24 ft with k~ = 0.2 and ~

Horizontal = +0.1,

force

equilibrium

for the case

results

in TFES = (FM)X
pWd - (ppE)x

(adapted

from

eq 99)

for a hydrostatic

water

table

with

rU = O. +2,912 lbper -24,740 ft of wall.

T FES =44,354 T FES = 22,526

Table

The two additional cases of ~ = O and ~ = -0.1 are summarized in C.Il. The anchorage is designed using TFE~ = 22,526 lb per ft of wall.

c18

Table

C.11

Tie Rod

Force

TFES

Case

k~

D (ft)

T~~~ lb per ft of wall 6,255 20,819 21,368 22,526

FES
(TFES)St.tIC

Static Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic

o 0.2 0.2 0.2

0 -0.1 0 +0.1

10.02 14.88 17.1 20.24

1 3.3 3.4 3.6

C.2.6

Maximum

Moment

M~~~ (Step

8)

The maximum value of moment internal to the sheet pile wall, MF~~, occurs at the elevation of zero shear within the sheet pile. First determine the elevation of zero shear and then compute the moment of earth and water pressure forces about the tie rod (refer to Figure 7.10). Above the dredge level, at elevation y below the hydrostatic water table

(PAE)x + pkici- TFES =

with (p~)X

= (p*)~ + (APm)X

(PA)X above

the dredge

level

(refer

to Figure

C.2)

(PA)x

El + EZY +

E3Y

(PA)X=

1,410

+ 282

y + 6.768

y~

With (APM)X distribution

equal to 20,638 lb per ft of wall, the equivalent stress is given in Figure c.5 (adapted from Figure 7.9).

(f%),=
.1

~ 7

(qop+oy)
(657 .3+559.2

(lo

+y) (lo+y)

-9.807y)

AP~

= -4.9035

yz + 559.215

y + 6,082.5

C19

GROUND SURFACE

top

H= SO.24

0.6 H=30.1#

PILE TIP

top

= 1.6

D ~o~ = 0.4

() ()
H H

A PM
= 657.3 psf

A PM
= 164.3 psf

OY=

559.2 - 9.8079y

Figure

c.5

Distributions

of horizontal

stresses

corresponding

to APm

P.d=~

ktiY.(Y)2

(adapted

from

eq B-5)

pWd = 7.28 Y2

T~E~ = 22,526 Above the dredge level

lb per

ft of wall

(PA), + (AJ?m)x
becomes 9.1445 Y2+ 841.215

p~d - T~E~ = O

15,033.5

= O

y=

-(841 .215) f~(841.215)2 -4(9 .1445) (-15,033.5) 2 (9.1445 )

y = 15.32 ft below

the water

table

(above

dredge

level

:. ok)

(Table

C.12)

C20

Table

C.12

Moment of Forces Acting Above the Point Water Table and About the Tie Rod

y = 15.32

feet

Below

the

Horizontal Force Designation

Horizontal Force (lb per ft wall)

Lever Arm (ft)

Moment About Tie Rod -CCW +ve (ft-lb per ft wall) -465 32) 46,051

El
E2X

1,410 4,320 3+

-0.33 ;(15.

E3X

1,588

3+

;(15.32)

20,983

(APfi)X P~~

13,499 1,709 MFES = 150,580 3+0.6 ft-lb per

4.68* (15.32) ft wall ft

63,175 20,836

From

Figure

C.5 pressure

distribution

for y = 15.32

The maximum moment internal to the sheet pile at y = 15.32 table is equal to M~~s = 150,580 ft-lb per ft of wall.

ft below

the water

Section

C.2.7

Design

Moment

Mdesign

(Step

9)

design moment, Md~sign, is obtained through application of Rowes reduction procedure that is outlined in Figure 7.2. The ability of the system to develop flexure below the dredge level during earthquake shaking must be carefully evaluated prior to application of Rowes moment reduction factor or any portion of the reduction factor (refer to the introductory discussion of Section 7.4).

The

(1952) moment

H = H~l + H~2 + HPOOl + D H = 7 + 3 + 20 + 20.24 = 50.24 ft = (602.88 in.)

E = 30 Flexibility

x 106 psi
number, p = H4 m

where I = moment of inertia per ft of wall

(602.88 in)4 P = (30x 10Gpsi)

~ = 4,403.54

I The values of Md~slgn are given in Table C.13 for four sheet pile sections.

C21

Table

C.13

Design

Moment

for Sheet

Pile Wall

in Dense

Sand

Section Designation

I (in.4 per ft of wall)

design

(in.2/!lb per ft of wall)

(Figu~~

7.2)

(ft-lb per ft of wall)

PZ22 PZ27 PZ35 PZ40

84.4 184.2 361.2 490 8

52.2 23.9 12.2

9(-I

0.38 0.46 0.58

o 74

57,220 69,267 87,336

111,429

where

Md~~i~n = r~ . M~~~ stress within

(by eq 100) the sheet

pile

In this design example, the maximum allowable for seismic loadings is restricted to
allowable = (1.33) .

0.65 Q ~yle~d= 0.87 c ~yiel~

for ASTM

A328 steel

sheet

piling,
=

yield =

39,000

psi psi

allowable

0.87 0 39,000 psi = 34,000

Mallow~bl,,is given
S allowable Per

The

allowable

bending

moment,
=

by

allowable

ft run of wall

where S = section modulus (in.3 per ft run of wall)

Comparison of the design moment values (Md~~l~. in Table C.13) to the allowable bending moments (Allowable in Table C.14) indicates that the pile section would be upgraded from PZ22 to PZ27 due to seismic considerations. Corrosion must also be addressed during the course of sheet pile wall design.

Table

C.14.

Allowable SECTIONS

Bending Moment for Four ASTM (aal~owa~~e = 0.87 ayleld) s ft of wall)

A328

Grade

Sheet

Pile

allowable

Section

Designation

(in.3 per

(ft-kips

per

ft of wall)

PZ22 PZ27 PZ35 PZ40

18.1 30.2 48.5 60.7

51.3 85.6 137.4 172.0

C22

c.2.8

Design

Tie Rods

(Step

10)

For seismic
design =

loadings 9 T~~~ lb per ft of wall (by eq 101)

1.3

with

T~~~ = 22,526
design =

29,284 lb per ft of wall

Assume (a) (b)

6 ft spacing
~Yield
=

of tie rods

= 36,000 psi
0.6~~yie1d

allowable

(60% of yield)
6 ft.
G

Minimum

area of rod = Gross Area

29,284 0.6

lb per ft of wall 36 900 0 psi

= 8.13 in.2 4~Area n [ geometry = 3.22 inches

Minimum

Diameter

Table C.15 cases .

summarizes

the required

of tie rod

for the four

load

Table

C.15

Required

Geometry

of Tie Rod*

design allowable

Case

k~

&

(:t)
yield

(lb per ft of wall)

Area (in.2)

Rod Diameter (in.)

Static

10.02

0.4

8,132

3.30

2.08

Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic

0.2 0.2 0.2

-0.1 0 +0.1

14.88 17.1 20.24

0.6 0.6 0.6

27,065 27,778 29,284

7.52 7.72 8.13

3.09 3.13 3.22

*Calculated
(a)

for

the case

of

6 ft spacing
ayield =

of tie rods

(b) (c)

36,000 psi
g T~~~ c23

de.sign = 1.3

Comparison of the minimum diameter of tie rod (Table C.15) required for seismic loading to the diameter required for static loading indicates that for a 6 ft spacing, the diameter of the tie rods (aY181~ = 36,000 psi) would be upgraded from 2.08 in. to 3.22 in. C.2.9 For Design seismic of Anchorage (Step 11)

loadings
uIt-a -

FES

(refer

to discussion

in step

11)

In the case

ofk~

= 0.2 and ~=

+0.1,

ult-a

22,526 lb per ft of wall

Figure

The dynamic C.6.

forces

acting

on the continuous

anchor

wall

are

shown

in

GROUND SURFACE

LY

btlse~
t b

]lYP/W)y~

Figure

c.6 Seismic design problem continuous anchor block

for a

C.2.1O

Size

Anchor

Wall

(Step

12)

Assume that a continuous concrete wall is selected to be the anchorage. The factored dynamic earth pressures that develop in front of the anchor wall provides nearly all of the lateral resistance to the pull force TU1t.a. The anchor wall will be designed using ~~ and 6~ (Equations 95 and 96) due to the magnitude of Tul~_a for seismic loading (equal to 3.6 times the static value) . The required depth and width of anchor wall is best determined by the trial and error procedure of first assuming a value for da and checking if equilibrium of horizontal forces acting on the anchor (Equation 103) is

C24

satisfied (step 12) . Once the value of d. is determined, equilibria of the vertical forces acting on the anchor wall (Equation 104) will dictate the minimum value of wall width b~. Refer to Section C.1.9 in this appendix for additional discussion of anchorage design. This iterative procedure results in a minimum required depth of anchorage equal to 11.5 ft and a minimum width of anchor wall equal to 4.5 The calculations involved in Step 12 are summarized in the following paragraphs for d. = 11.5 ftand(ba)~l~ =4.5 ftin Figure C.6 .

ft

Dynamic

Active

Earth

Pressure

Force

PU.A 1.5 ft below the

water

For the case of da = 11.5 ft (the anchor submerged table), the effective unit weight is equal to V. = 118.94 pcf 11.5 ft in Figure 4.13.

with

hl = 1.5 ft andh=

The equivalent horizontal seismi,c coefficient (obtained by substituting y, for ~~ in Equation 47). 0.2 is used in the subsequent calculations. For the case of k~,l = 0.2 and ~ = +0.1

k~,l is equal to 0.2018 A value of k~~l equal to

OeI = tan-l

L%el

(adapted

from

eq 48)

4,1 = 12.529
With KM and K= KM With COS 6 = 0.38 sin 6 = 0.12 ft in Figure C.6. (adapted eq 33) (pw_A)X = Kfi G COS6
G

+ = 35, = 0.3987

6 = 17.5

and *.I = 12.529

d. = 11.5

from

; [7e(l - <)] (da)z

(PAE-A)X =0.38

c~[

118.

94pcf

(1 -0.1)

] (11.5)2

(p~_*)X = 2,690 lb per ft of wall

C25

by a similar

calculation lb per ft of wall Force Pp~-A to 1.2 in this example (see step 12 between anchorage displacement and FSP) (by eq 95)

(pm-A)Y = 849 Dynamic Passive

Earth

Pressure

With ~ = 35 and with FSP set equal discussion regarding the relationship g$;= and 30.3

6 = 17.5, 15~ = 14.7 For ~ = 12.529 (refer to Pfi_A calculations), K PE =4.06 ~~ = 30.3 and b~ = 14.7 (by eq 60)

Kp~ Cos and

l$t= 3.93

KP~ o sin 6C = 1.03 With d. = 11.5 ft in Figure C.6 (adapted 58) from eq

(PP,.A)X=KP,0COS60

1 [7,(1 -~)] ~

(d.)2

(pP&A)X=3.93

.; [118.94pcf

(1 -0.1) ] (11.5)2

(p~~_A)X = 27,818 lbper

ft of wall

by a similar

calculation (pp~.*) Y 7, 2911bperftofwa11

Size Anchor The depth of the continuous anchor wall is governed by the equilibrium of horizontal forces. Ignoring the contribution of the shear force along the base of the wall, Equation 103 T ult-a = (p&A)x
- (PAE-A)X - W k

For Figure C.6 concrete wall, the weight 11.5 ft and -yCO~C = 150 pcf is given by

W per

foot

run of wall

with

da =

C26

w = -yco~.
Introducing this relationship

b. .d~=l,725b~

for W and

k~=O.2
TUl~_~ = 22,526
(PPE-A)x =

lb per

ft of wall

(~

= +0.1)

27,818

lb per lb per

ft of wall ft of wall

(PM.A)X = 2,690

into the modified equation of horizontal equilibrium results in a maximum Larger b. values would result value of b~ equal to 7.5 ft for d. = 11.5 ft. in excessive horizontal inertia forces acting on the concrete block, requiring revisions of the previous calculations.

Mobilization of friction along interface between the front of the anchor wall and the passive wedge requires that the wall have sufficient dead weight to restrain against upward movement as it displaces the soil in front of the wall (Dismuke 1991). The equation of equilibrium of vertical forces acting on With N set the wall is used to compute the minimum width of anchor wall. equal to zero, Equation 104 becomes

o = W(I - ~) with W = 1,725 .b~

UA

(pp~_A)y (pA~_A)y

&=o.1
UA= 62.4
=

pcf

1.5

ob~ = 93.6b~

(PPE-A)y

7,291 lb per ft of wall

lb per ft of wall results in a minimum value of b.

= 849 (pAE-A)y
the modified equal to 4.4 Alternative

equation of vertical equilibrium ft or (b~)~i~ s 4.5 ft. Anchorage:

Other types of anchorages to be considered include slender anchorage, multiple tie rods and anchorage, A-frame anchors, sheet pile anchorage, soil or rock anchors and tension H-piles. Slender anchorage refers to a slender wall designed using the procedure described in this section with 6 set equal to O degrees. C.2.11 Site Anchorage (Step 13)

The anchor wall is to be located a sufficient distance behind the sheet pile wall so that the dynamic active failure surface does not intersect the Figure C.7 outlines passive failure developing in front of the anchor wall. the minimum required distances for this design problem.

C27

Dynamic With

Active

WedEe

- Sheet

Pile

Wall (from Section C.2.4, Step 4)

+ = 35, Qm

6 = 17.5

and $,1 = 18.44

= 40.695 Xm = 50.24 tan am = 58,

(by eq 37)

CONTINOUS ANCHOR wall. ~

LINEAR SLIP PIANE \ - DYNAUiC GROUND SURFACE -TIE \ ROD

/--SHEET PILE WALL u

a PE
UNEAR SLIP PLANE - DYN&f/C

~ b
Lwd =20

=
-

DREDGE LEVEL

Figure

c.7

Simplified

procedure for siting anchor wall

a continuous

Dynamic

Passive &

Wedge

- Anchor

Wall and (Section C.2.1O, Step 12)

with

= 30.30,

~~ = 14.7

$.1 = 12.529 aPE = 18.27 XPE = 11.5 = 35, tan aPE

(by eq 61)

Site Anchorage Site concrete (= x~ + xPE). anchor wall at a distance of 93 ft behind the sheet pile

wall

C28

APPENDIX

D:

COMPUTER-BASED

NUMERICAL

ANALYSES

This appendix is a brief guide to issues that must be faced when making a decision to utilize a computer-based numerical analysis and to the literature concerning such methods. As discussed in the main body of this report, there are circumstances in which analyses carried out by some such method may be appropriate during design of a waterfront structure, There exists a bewildering array of computer-based methods applicable to analysis of the dynamic response of earthen mosses or soil-structure systems. Table D.1 presents a partial listing of some of the better-known methods. Most, but not all, such methods use a finite element formulation, and hence somewhat incorrectly are referred to collectively as finite element methods. Most methods were developed originally for applications other than waterfront structures - especially problems related to nuclear power plants and earthdams . Some methods are relatively simple but approximate only one or two aspects of soil behavior. to Others , which can be quite complex and difficult use, simulate a number of different features of soil behavior quite well. All must be used with care and judgment. A key is to select a method no more complex than is required for the problem at hand.

Table

D.1

Partial of Soil

Listing Systems

of Computer-Based

Codes

for Dynamic

Analysis

Reference Lysmer, Earthquake Udaka, Tsai and Seed (1975) , Inc. (1983)

Names

of Code

FLUSH SuperFLUSH DYNA2D

Engineering Hallquist

Technology (1982)

Finn,

Yogendrakumar, Yoshida, (1986) Provost Lee and Finn (1981) (1975,

and Yoshida

TARA

DYNA-FLOW 1978) (1974) DESIW CHARSOIL DYNAID SUMDES

Streeter,

Wylie

and Richart (1989)

Provost Li Schnabel, Roth,

(1990) and Seed (1972) (1986)

Lysmer, and

SHAKE DSAGE SWANDYNE-X ---CA LINOS

Scott,

Cundall

Zienkiewicz Iai Earth

and Xie

(1990) 1991) Valley,

(see Iai and Kameoka Inc. of Fountain

Mechanics,

D1

D.1

Some

Key References

For dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis related to heavy buildings resting on earth, a concise summary of the various procedures available is reported in the 1979 ASCE report by the Ad Hoc Group on SoilStructure Interaction of the Committee on Nuclear Structures and Materials the Structural Division. While in many ways out-of-date, this is still a useful reference concerning basic principles.

of

Several different finite element formulations are described in detail in Chapter 3, titled Geomechanics and written in part and edited by W. D. L. Finn in the Finite Element Handbook, edited by H. Kardestuncer. The scope and type of laboratory and/or field testing program used to characterize the soil model parameters will vary among the computer codes, as discussed by Finn, the Committee on Earthquake Engineering of the National Research Council (1985), and others. Whitman (1992) has suggested a scheme for categorizing the various types of methods, and has discussed the status of validation of various methods by comparison to observations during actual earthquakes or to results from model tests . D.2 Principal Issues

According to the guidelines set forth by the ASCE Ad Hoc Group on SoilStructure Interaction of the Committee on Nuclear Structures and Materials of the Structural Division 1979 report on the Analysis For Soil-Structure Interaction Effects For Nuclear Power Plants and the ASCE Standard (1986), to perform a complete soil-structure interaction analysis the analytical procedure must (1) account for the variation of soil properties with depth, (2) give appropriate consideration to the material nonlinear behavior of soil, (3) consider the three-dimensional nature of the problem, (4) consider the complex nature of wave propagation which produced the ground motions, and (5) consider possible interaction with neighboring structures. The reference to a complete analysis results from the existence of two distinguishable aspects of soil-structure interaction: (1) the relative motion of the foundation of the structure with respect to the surrounding soil as a result of the inertial forces in the structure being transmitted to the compliant soil foundation and backfill and/or (2) the inability of the stiffer structural foundation and walls to conform to the distortions of the soil generated by the ground motion. The former is referred to as inertial interaction and the latter is referred to as kinematic interaction. Both features co-exist in most actual problems. However, several analytical procedures available to perform the soil-structure interaction analysis of earth retaining structures take advantages of this separation of behavior in their numerical formulation. Specific feature that must be accounted for in some problems include softening the soil stiffness during shaking, the material and geometrical damping and the separation of portions of the backfill from the structure, followed by recontact or slap, that can occur during shaking. It may be necessary to use special interface elements at boundaries between soil and structure . It also may be necessary to model the actual process of construction as accurately as possible. D2

D.2.1

Total

versus

Effective

Stress

Analysis

Effective stress analyses explicitly predict and take into account the effects of excess pore pressures caused by the cyclic shearing of soil during earthquake shaking. excess pore pressures The generation of significant causes the stiffness of soil to degrade and may lead to a nearly-total loss of shear strength. TARA, DYNAFLOW, DESRA, and DSAGE are examples of effective stress analyses. As a general rule, such analyses should be used if significant excess pore pressures are anticipated. Total stress analyses do not explicitly account for the effects of excess pore pressures, although some may consider this effect indirectly by adjusting stiffness for the anticipated intensity of cyclic shear strains. FLUSH and SHAKE are examples of total stress analyses. Total stress analyses are appropriate when cohesionless soils are dry or very coarse, with most cohesive soils, and for problems such as analyzing lateral earth pressures caused by surface loadings. D.2.2 Modeling Nonlinear Behavior

Using an effective stress analysis accounts partially, but not fully, for the nonlinear behavior of soils. it is necessary to consider In addition, the effect of shear strain upon stiffness at a given effective stress. As somewhat of an oversimplification, three ways of introducing such non-linearity have been utilized. (1) By using a linear analysis in which shear modulus is linked, via an iterative procedure, to a measure of cyclic shear strain during shaking. FLUSH and SHAKE are examples of this approach. (2) By introducing a nonlinear stress-strain law, such as a hyperbolic backbone curve together with Masing rules for strain reversals. DESRA and TARA are examples. (3) By utilizing concepts and principles from the theory of plasticity. DYNAFLOW is an example of this approach. It is not really possible to say that one way is better than another. All involve some degree of approximation. The choice involves a trade-off between accuracy and convenience/cost, and perhaps the availability of a code. D.2.3 Time versus Frequency Domain Analysis

Problems involving nonlinear material behavior can be solved in either (1) the time domain or (2) the frequency domain by using equivalent linear material property approximations for the nonlinear material(s) . The onedimensional computer programs DESRA, CHARSOIL, DYNAID, and SUMDES and the twodimensional programs TARA, DYNA-FLOW, and DYNA2D are examples of the time domain procedure. The one-dimensional computer program SHAKE and the twodimensional programs FLUSH and SuperFLUSH are examples of the frequency domain solutions . Frequency-domain techniques formerly favored owing to greater computational efficiency. the growth in the power of relatively However, inexpensive computers has diminished this advantage.

D3

D.2.4

1-D versus

2-D versus

3-D

Today it is, in principle possible to model the three-dimensional aspects of soil response problems, but seldom is the effort justified. In many cases the responses of a soil profile can be modeled satisfactorily using one-dimensional programs such as SHAKE, CHARSOIL, or DESRA. For most problems involving retaining structures, a 2-D analysis (such as TARA, DYNAFLOW, DYNA2D, or DSAGE) will be necessary. The code FLUSH approximates some aspects of 3-D response. D.2.5 Nature of Input Ground Motion

Typically analyses use the idealization that the patterns of ground motion are simple mechanisms; the most common procedures use vertically propagating shear waves or dilatation waves. While it is possible to consider more general forms of input with horizontally traveling waves, seldom will such an effort be warranted for waterfront structures. D.2.6 Effect of Free Water

Consider the problem of a complete soil-structure interaction analysis of the earth retaining structure shown in Figure D.la. The finite element mesh used to model this problem includes the retaining structure, the soil backfill and the pool of water in front of the wall, as shown in Figure D.lb. The mass and stiffness effects are included within the analysis for both the structure and the soil backfill by incorporating these regimes within the finite element mesh that is used to model the problem. Most computer codes do not include within their formulation a water element among their catalog of finite elements, so the Westergaard (1931) added water mass procedure is used to account for the effect of the hydrodynamic water pressures on the dynamic response of the retaining wall (see Appendix B) . One computer code that does include a fluid element within its catalog of elements is SuperFLUSH.

D.3

A Final

Perspective

The preparation time for developing the finite element mesh, assigning material properties, selecting the ground motion, performing the analysis, and interpreting the computed results is much greater than the time required for performing a simplified analysis. provided by a However, the information dynamic finite element analysis is much more complete and extensive. The computed results include: the variation in computed accelerations with time and the variation in computed dynamic normal and shear stresses with time throughout the wall and the soil regime(s). Thus , a complete soil-structure interaction analysis, when done properly, provides much more accurate and detailed information regarding the dynamic behavior of the earth retaining structure being analyzed. In a complete soil-structure interaction analysis, the total earth pressures along the back of the wall at any time during the earthquake are equal to the sum of the computed dynamic earth pressures and the static earth and water pressures. At any elevation along the back of the wall, the effective stress component (static + dynamic) of this total pressure is restricted to range in values between the static active earth pressure value and the static passive earth pressure value. Exceedence of these values may occur where in actuality separation may occur during earthquake shaking. D4

Concrete Mondth
/m\

Soil BackFlll

Pool Of Water

/7\

/&i Rock Foundation

/~\

(a) Earth

Retaining

Structure Concrete Monollth

Sol/ BockFill

Added Mass Of Water (Westergaard)

me
interaction

(b)

Finite

Element

Mesh

Figure

D. 1

Earth

retaining

structure , soil-structure

soils comprising the The potential for liquefaction within the submerged backfill may be computed using the equivalent values for the induced shear stresses form the results of the complete soil-structure interaction analysis. are then computed using the procedure The residual excess pore water pressures described in Seed and Harder (1990) or Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990).

D5

APPENDIX

E:

NOTATION

GREEK a

LETTER (alpha)

SYMBOLS Inclination from horizontal of a planar extending upward through the backfill slip surface

~A

(alpha)

Inclination from horizontal of a planar slip surface extending upward through the backfill, static active Inclination from horizontal of a planar slip surface extending upward through the backfill, dynamic active Inclination from horizontal of a planar slip surface extending upward through the backfill, static passive

case

am

(alpha)

case

ap

(alpha)

case

PE

(alpha)

Inclination from horizontal of a planar slip surface extending upward through the backfill, dynamic passive Inclination Inclination equivalent of backfill from horizontal

case

P
P

(beta) (beta)

of backfill from horizontal, used in the static procedure for computing Km and KPE of interface friction between the soil and

(delta)

Effective angle the structure

6~

(delta)

Effective angle of interface the wall and its foundation Change in total head active passive

friction

between

the base

of

Ah AKM AKPE

(delta) (delta) (delta)

Incremental Incremental

dynamic dynamic

earth earth

pressure pressure

coefficient coefficient with

6=0
Al APN APp~ AU (delta) (delta) (delta) (delta) The length of flow path dynamic dynamic excess over which Ah occurs force force along with ~ = O of

Incremental Incremental Resultant a wall Excess

active passive water

earth earth

pressure pressure force

pore

pressure

the base

Au Y Yb Yd

(delta) (gamma) (gamma) (gamma)

pore

water

pressure

due

to earthquake

shaking

Effective Buoyant Dry unit

unit unit

weight

of soil

weight

of soil

weight

of soil

El

(gamma)

Effective unit the restrained Effective unit with rU > 0 Total Unit unit weight

weight of a partially water case weight of soil

submerged

backfill

for

(gamma)

for the restrained

water

case

(gamma) (gamma) (gamma)

weight

of soil

of water weight of water for the restrained water case

Effective unit with rU > 0 Effective Equivalent Seismic Seismic angle

(phi) (phi) (psi) (psi) (psi)

of internal of internal angle angle inertia

friction friction

for soil for soil with rU > 0

angle

inertia inertia

Equivalent seismic case with ru = O Equivalent seismic with rU = O Equivalent seismic case with rU > 0 Equivalent seismic with rU > 0 Total normal stress

angle

for the restrained

water

(psi)

inertia

angle

for the free water

case

(psi)

inertia

angle

for the restrained

water

(psi)

inertia

angle

for the free water

case

(sigma) (sigma) (sigma) (sigma) (sigma)

u v-initial t Wt

Effective Active Passive Vertical

normal

stress (effective (effective stress) stress)

earth earth

pressure pressure

effective

stress effective stress surcharge

Pre-earthquake Effective Shear Shear

vertical

(sigma) (tau) (tau) (theta)

weight

of backfill,

excluding

T Tf
e

stress stress at failure of the back of wall to soil interface from

Inclination vertical

E2

(theta)

Inclination of the back of the wall to soil interface from vertical , used in the equivalent static procedure for computing K8E and KPE SYMBOLS ground acceleration ground as a fraction acceleration, equal to Ag equal to ~g of g (dimensionless) equal to khg

ROMAN A ah
%nax

LETTER Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Width

horizontal ground vertical of wall base

acceleration, ground

=%

acceleration,

B B, c c1 C2 C3 C4 c lAE czfi c3pE C4PE d, FM F~ FPE F. F sr FSP

base width of the wall in contact with the foundation

Effective Effective Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant Maximum Factor Factor Factor Factor Lateral

cohesion used used used used used used used used to compute to compute to compute to compute to compute to compute to compute to compute ~* ~* aP aP au am ap~ apE ,

displacement used in the equivalent against static procedure to compute Km

of safety used

bearing

capacity

failure

of a wall KPE

in the equivalent against force

static

procedure the base

to compute of a wall

of safety seismic

sliding

along

component

by Woods

procedure

Factor of safety applied to both the shear strength of the soil and the effective angle of friction along the interface when computing PP~ for a sheet pile wall and the anchorage. Acceleration Height of gravity

of wall E3

h h. hP HF static

Total

head head head of heavy fluid force behind a wall retaining liquefied

Elevation Pressure

Static component backfill Inertial component liquefied backfill Seepage Static Dynamic gradient, active active

HFi~,rti~

of heavy fluid during shaking equal to Ah/Al

force

behind

a wall

retaining

i KA KM K~ k~ k~

earth earth

pressure pressure

coefficient coefficient

Horizontal Horizontal

earth

pressure

coefficient as a fraction seismic of g (dimensionless) as a fraction of

seismic

coefficient

Limiting value for the horizontal g (dimensionless) Equivalent horizontal (dimensionless) seismic

coefficient

he

coefficient

as a fraction

of g

hel

Equivalent horizontal seismic coefficient as a fraction of g (dimensionless) for the restrained water case with rU = O Equivalent horizontal seismic coefficient as a fraction (dimensionless) for the free water case with rU = O of g

he2

he3

Equivalent horizontal seismic coefficient as a fraction of g (dimensionless) for the restrained water case with rU > 0 Equivalent horizontal seismic coefficient as a fraction (dimensionless) for the free water case with rU > 0 Static Dynamic Vertical At-rest Design passive passive seismic horizontal moment earth earth pressure pressure coefficient coefficient as a fraction of g (dimensionless) of g

he4

KP KPE

k
KO
design

coefficient earth

pressure pile

coefficient

for a sheet computed

wall the Free Earth Support method for a sheet

FES

Maximum moment pile wall Total normal

using

force

between

the wall

and

the foundation

E4

N N*

Effective

normal

force

between

the wall

and

the

foundation as a fraction of g

Maximum transmissible (dimensionless) Resultant Active Active Passive Passive earth

acceleration

coefficient,

P
PA

pressure

force

acting

on a wall for static loading loading

earth earth earth earth

pressure pressure pressure pressure

force force force force

acting acting acting acting

on a wall on a wall on a wall on a wall force

Pm Pp Pp~ Pw~ q
qall

for pseudo-static for static

loading loading

for pseudo-static

Westergaard Vertical allowable maximum ultimate concrete Moment Excess

hydrodynamic stress

water

pressure

surcharge bearing bearing bearing

pressure pressure capacity

of rock below toe of wall compressive strength of

qmax

quit

or unconfined

rd

reduction pore water

factor

due

to Rowe ratio,
equal to AU/~v-l.iti.l

rU Su T

pressure

Undrained Horizontal equilibrium Design

shear shear

strength force

of soil along the base of the wall required for

design

tie rod

force

for a sheet

pile

wall

T~~~

Tie rod force pile wall Ultimate Ultimate designed Resultant the wall

computed

using

the Free

Earth

Support

method

for a sheet

Tult TU1t-.

horizontal force

shear

force

along

the base

of the wall is to be

for which

the sheet

pile wall

anchorage

u~

steady

state

pore

water

pressure

force

normal

to the base

of

Uln~~tla

Hydrodynamic wall Resultant

water

pressure

force

for the POOl,

directed

awaY

from

the

hydrostatic

water

pressure

force

for the POO1

E5

u shear

Resultant excess pore water pressure force due to earthquake acting normal to the backfill to wall interface Resultant excess pore water pressure force due to earthquake acting normal to the backfill to sheet pile wall interface Resultant excess pore water acting normal to the dredge

shaking

shear-b

shaking

shear-t

pressure force due to earthquake shaking level soil to sheet pile wall interface force due to earthquake shaking inclined at a from vertical force acting normal to the

shear-a

Resultant excess pore water pressure acting normal to planar slip surface Resultant steady backfill to wall state pore interface pore wall water

u static

pressure

u static-b

Resultant steady state backfill to sheet pile

water pressure interface

force

acting

normal

to the

u static-t

Resultant steady state pore water pressure force dredge level soil to sheet pile wall interface Resultant steady state pore water pressure force planar slip surface inclined at a from vertical Steady-state Maximum Weight Water Point pore water pressure

acting

normal

to the

u static-a

acting

normal

to

u v w w x~

ground of rigid content

velocity body (e.g. wall or soil wedge)

of soil of normal force N

of action

E6

Watetways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Ebeling, Robert M. The seismic design of waterfront retaining stwctures / by Robert M. Ebeling and Ernest E. Morrison, Jr. ; prepared for Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers and Department of the Navy, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. 325 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. (Technical report ; ITL-92-11 ) (Technical report NCEL TR-939) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Breakwaters Design and construction. 2. Soil-structure interaction. 3. Retaining walls Earthquake effects. 4. Earthquake engineering. 1.Morrison, Ernest E. Il. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Ill. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (Port Hueneme, Calif.) IV. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. V. Computeraided Structural Engineering Project. Vi. Title. V1l. Series: Technical rePOII (lJ.s. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; ITL-92-11. Vlll. Series: Technical report (Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (Port Hueneme, Calif)) ; 939. TA7W34no.1TL-92-11