Modern Techniques for Earthquake

Resistant Design of Retaining Structures

by
Dr. Deepankar Choudhury

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, India.
URL: http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/~dc/

Why this Topic?

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

1
 September, 1999 Ji Ji, Taiwan Earthquake

Devastating effect of earthquake on retaining wall

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

Preamble and Background

o Design of retaining walls under seismic condition is very important in

earthquake prone areas to reduce the devastating effect of
earthquake.
o Evaluation of earth pressure under seismic condition is important.

o Estimation of passive pressure under both static and seismic

conditions are very important for the design of retaining walls,
anchors, foundations etc.

o Research on static passive earth pressure is plenty whereas the

same under seismic condition is still lacking.

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

2
 Force-Based Analysis

Pseudo-static method
Limit Equilibrium method [Mononobe-Okabe (1926, 1929), Kapila and
Maini (1962), Arya and Gupta (1966), Prakash and Saran (1966),
Madhav and Kameswara Rao (1969), Ebeling and Morrison (1992),
Morrison and Ebeling (1995), Choudhury et al. (2002), Subba Rao and
Choudhury (2005), Choudhury and Singh (2006)]
Limit Analysis [Soubra (2000)]
Method of Characteristics [Kumar and Chitikela (2002)]

Pseudo-dynamic method
Steedman and Zeng (1990), Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2005, 2006)

Displacement-Based Analysis
Richards and Elms (1979), Prakash (1981), Nadim and Whitman (1983), Sherif
and Fang (1984), Rathje and Bray (1999), Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

Pseudo Static Analysis

Mononobe-Okabe (1926, 1929)

Failure surface and the forces considered by Mononobe-Okabe

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

3
 Mononobe-Okabe

1
Pae,pe = γ H 2 (1-k v ) K ae,pe
2

cos 2 (φ m β -θ )
K ae,pe = 2
  sin (φ + δ ) sin (φ m i -θ ) 0.5 
cos θ cos β cos (δ ± β + θ ) 1 - 
2
 
  cos (δ ± β + θ ) cos (i -β )  

 k h 
θ = tan -1
 
1 - k v 

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

Seismic Passive Earth Resistance

   kh   
 sin  tan
-1
  - β  
π φ 1  kh  β 1    1 − k v   
ξ = − + tan -1
 1 − k  + 2 − 2 sin
-1
 
4 2 2   sin φ
v
 
 

Failure surface and forces by Subba Rao and Choudhury (2005)

Subba Rao, K. S. and Choudhury, D. (2005), “Seismic passive earth pressures in soils”,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, USA, 131(1): pp. 131-135.

4
 Typical Design Charts

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

Seismic Passive Earth Pressure Distribution

Analytical model proposed by Choudhury et al. (2002)

Choudhury, D., Subba Rao, K. S. and Ghosh, S. (2002), “Passive earth pressures distribution under seismic condition”,
15th International Conference of Engineering Mechanics Division (EM2002), ASCE, Columbia University, NY, in CD.

5
 Typical Results

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

Design As Per Seismic Code

IS 1893: 1984, Part 3 (Bridges and Retaining Walls)

• Using pseudo-static approach to evaluate stability of retaining walls.

• Compute seismic earth pressure using Mononobe-Okabe equations.

• Dynamic increment of earth pressure will act at mid height of the wall.

• Effect of dry, partially submerged and saturated backfill is considered.

• Range of permissible displacement is not specified.

• Soil amplification has not considered.

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

6
 Eurocode 8 – 1998

• Based on modified pseudo-static analysis.

• Compute seismic earth pressure using Richards and Elms (1979) model.

• Permissible displacement for sliding and rocking movement of the

wall are considered.

• Included non-linear behaviour in base soil and backfill.

• The point of application of the dynamic earth pressure increment

is at mid-height of the wall.

• Soil amplification is considered.

13
Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

Seismic active earth pressure by pseudo-dynamic model

Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)

Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. (2006), “Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth pressure behind retaining
wall”, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Springer, The Netherlands, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 1103-1113.

7
 ah(z, t) = ah sin [ω{t – (H – z)/Vs}] av(z, t) = av sin [ω{t – (H – z)/Vp}]
where ω = angular frequency; t = time elapsed; Vs = shear wave velocity;
Vp = primary wave velocity
λ γ ah
[ 2π Hcoswζ + λ (sin wζ − sin wt )]
H
Qh (t ) = ∫ m(z)a h (z, t)dz =
0 4 π 2
g tan α
where, λ = TVs is the wavelength of the vertically propagating
shear wave and ζ = t-H/Vs.
H
η γ av
Qv (t ) = ∫ m(z)a (z, t)dz = [ 2 π H cos ωψ + λ (sin ωψ − sin ω t ) ]
0
v
4 π 2 g tan α
where, η= TVp, is the wavelength of the vertically propagating primary
wave and ψ = t – H/Vp.

The total (static plus dynamic) active thrust is given by,

W sin(α − φ ) + Qh (t)cos(α − φ) − Qv (t)sin(α − φ)
Pae (t) =
cos(δ + φ − α)

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

The seismic active earth pressure coefficient, Kae is defined as

K ae
=
1 sin ( α − φ )

tan α cos ( δ + φ − α )
+
2π tan α
2
k h

( )
TV

H
S
×
cos ( α − φ )

cos ( δ + φ − α )
×m
1
+
2π
2
k
v  TV  × sin ( α − φ ) × m
 
p

tan α  H  cos ( δ + φ − α )
2

where,

1

m = 2π cos 2π 

t H 
− +
 T TV  s
( ) 
TV

H
S
t H 
sin 2π  −  − sin 2π
 T TV  s
( ) 
t

m = 2π cos 2π 
2



t
T
−
H

TV p
  TV
+
 H
p   sin 2π  t − H  − sin 2π

   T TV 
  p
( ) 
t

The seismic active earth pressure distribution is given by,

∂ Pa e ( t ) γ z s i n (α − φ )
p ae (t ) = =
∂z t a n α c o s (δ + φ − α )
k hγ z c o s (α − φ )   z 
+ sin  w  t − 
ta n α c o s ( δ + φ − α )   Vs 

k vγ z s i n (α − φ )   z 
+ sin  w  t − 
ta n α c o s ( δ + φ − α )   V p  

D. Choudhury, IITB Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)

8
 Typical non-linear variation of seismic active earth pressure
0.0
0
kv=0.5kh, φ=30 , δ=φ/2 ,H/λ =0.3, H/η=0.16

0.2
kh=0.0
kh=0.1
kh=0.2
0.4
z/H kh=0.3

0.6

0.8

1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

pae/γH

D. Choudhury, IITB Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)

Effect of amplification factor on seismic active earth pressure

ah(z, t) = {1 + (H – z).(fa – 1)/H}ah sin [ω{t – (H – z)/Vs}]

1.0
0 0
kh = 0.2, kv = 0.0, φ = 33 , δ = 16 fa=1.0
0.8 fa=1.2
fa=1.4
fa=1.8
Kae

0.6
fa=2.0

0.4

0.2

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

H/TVs

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

9
 Comparison of proposed pseudo-dynamic method
with existing pseudo-static method – Active case
0.0
Mononobe-Okabe method

0.2 Present method

Centrifuge test results

0.4 (Steedman and Zeng, 1990)
z/H

0.6
φ = 37 , δ = 20 , kh = 0.184, kv = 0, fa = 2,
0 0

0.8 G = 57 MPa, T = 1.0 s

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

1.0
Dynamic moment increment

Z
Dynamic moment increment, 3 γ H 3
M , where M (Z, t) = ∫ p (z, t) cos δ (Z - z) dz
ae
0
Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

Seismic passive earth pressure by pseudo-dynamic model

Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2005)

Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. (2005), “Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method”, Geotechnique,
London, Vol. 55, No. 9, pp. 699-702.

10
 Typical non-linear variation of seismic passive earth pressure
0.0 0
k v = 0.5k h , φ = 30 , δ = φ/2 , H/ λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16

0.2

0.4

z/H
0.6
k h =0.0
k h =0.1
0.8 k h =0.2
k h =0.3

1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

p pe / γ H

D. Choudhury, IITB Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2005)

Effect of amplification factor on seismic passive earth pressure

ah(z, t) = {1 + (H – z).(fa – 1)/H}ah sin [ω{t – (H – z)/Vs}]

6
0 0
kh = 0.2, kv = 0.0, φ = 30 , δ = 16

5
Kpe

4
fa=1.0
fa=1.2
fa=1.4
3
fa=1.8
fa=2.0

2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
H/TVs

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

11
 Model proposed by Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006) for
Seismic Design of Retaining Wall considering wall-soil inertia

Active earth pressure condition

Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. (2006), “Seismic design of retaining wall by considering wall-soil inertia”,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal (tentatively accepted).

Proposed Design Factors for Retaining Wall

by Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)
K ae
Soil thrust factor, FT =
Ka

CIE (t )
Wall inertia factor, FI =
CIa

cos δ − sin δ tan φb Qhw (t ) + Qvw (t ) tan φb

where, CIE (t ) = +
tan φb Pae (t ) tan φb

cos δ − sin δ tan φb

CIa =
tan φb

Ww (t )
Combined dynamic factor, Fw = FT FI =
Ww

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

12
 Typical Variation of Soil thrust factor FT,
Wall inertia factor FI and Combined dynamic factor Fw
6 0 0
k v=0.5k h, φ = 30 , δ = 15 , H/TV s = 0.3, H/TV p= 0.16,
H/TV sw=0.012, H/TV pw=0.0077
5
Combined dynamic factor F W
W all inertia factor F I
4
Factors FW,FI, FT

Soil thrust factor F T

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
kh

D. Choudhury, IITB Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)

Typical Results

φ)
Effect of angle of internal friction (φ δ)
Effect of wall friction angle (δ

10 7 0
kv=0.5kh, δ = φ/2, H/TVs= 0.3, H/TVp= 0.16, kv=0.5kh, φ = 30 , H/TVs= 0.3, H/TVp= 0.16,
H/TVsw=0.012, H/TVpw=0.0077 6 H/TVsw=0.012, H/TVpw=0.0077
8
0 5 δ/φ = -0.5
φ = 20
6 0 δ/φ = 0.0
φ = 30 4
0 δ/φ = 0.5
FW

φ = 40
FW

δ/φ = 1.0
3
4
2
2
1

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
kh kh

D. Choudhury, IITB Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)

13
 Comparison of Soil thrust factor FT, Wall inertia factor FI
and Combined Dynamic Factor Fw
Present study Richards and Elms (1979)
kh kv
FT FI FW FT FI FW

0.0 0.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.1 0.00 1.231 1.517 1.868 1.221 1.209 1.476

0.05 1.137 1.812 2.060 1.234 1.287 1.588

0.10 1.043 2.160 2.253 1.248 1.376 1.718

0.00 1.527 1.834 2.800 1.500 1.530 2.295

0.2 0.10 1.371 2.347 3.217 1.572 1.806 2.840

0.20 1.256 2.928 3.676 1.669 2.205 3.681

0.00 1.922 1.994 3.832 1.866 2.082 3.885

0.3
0.15 1.892 2.464 4.662 2.114 3.027 6.400

0.4 0.00 2.493 2.021 5.039 2.382 3.255 7.753

0.5 0.00 3.500 1.909 6.683 3.223 7.464 24.059

D. Choudhury, IITB Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006)

Concluding Remarks
* Using limit equilibrium method and adopting both pseudo-static and
pseudo-dynamic approach for seismic forces, comprehensive results
of active and passive earth pressures are obtained for static and
seismic conditions with wide range of variation in design parameters.

active and passive earth pressure coefficients,

point of application of resultant earth force,
effects of shear and primary waves,
wall-soil inertia are considered together,
design factor Fw is proposed for wall design.

* Present solutions compare well with existing theories for static case
and very rarely available seismic cases. In most of the cases, present
study generates new solutions for the seismic cases.

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

14
 Concluding Remarks (contd.)
∗ Apart from the approximate pseudo-static approach, considering shear
and primary waves through the soil-structure with variation of time
can be used to get better solution by using pseudo-dynamic approach.

* Point of application of seismic earth pressure should be computed

based on some logical analysis instead of some arbitrary selection.

* IS code must be revised for design of retaining wall under seismic

conditions.

Hope to build ‘STABLE Earthquake Resistant’

Retaining Structures in Soil

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

Deepankar Choudhury, IIT Bombay

15