Dissertation2007 Pathmanathan PDF

Istituto Universitario
di Studi Superiori
Universit degli
Studi di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
NUMERICAL MODELLING OF SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF

EARTH-RETAINING WALLS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
RAJEEV PATHMANATHAN
Supervisors: Prof.P.E.PINTO
Dr.C.G.LAI
Dr.P.FRANCHIN
June, 2006
The dissertation entitled Numerical Modelling of Seismic behaviour of Earth-Retaining

Walls, by Rajeev, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master
Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Prof.Paolo.E.Pinto
Dr.Carlo.G.Lai
Dr.Paolo Franchin
Abstract
ABSTRACT
In current engineering practice the design methods for earth retaining walls under seismic conditions
are mostly empirical. Dynamic earth pressures are calculated assuming prescribed seismic coefficient
acting in the horizontal and vertical directions using the concept of limit equilibrium MononobeOkabe method. A research investigation has been undertaken to determine the dynamically-induced
lateral earth pressures on a flexible diaphragm wall, a flexible cantilever wall, and a gravity retaining
wall with cohesionless and cohesive backfills. Additionally, this report gives information about the
point of application of total and incremental dynamic forces, the deformation or displacement of the
wall and also the bending moment and shear force envelops for structural design of the wall. A series
of non-linear dynamic finite element numerical analyses have been performed using DIANA
(DIsplacement ANAlyzer). The analyses consisted of the incremental construction of the wall and
placement or excavation of the backfill, followed by dynamic response analyses, wherein the soil was
modelled as elasto-plastic. Particular attention has been devoted to ground excitation and
determination of the wall and soil model parameters. The results obtained with DIANA have been
compared through a series of benchmark tests with those determined using simplified techniques for
computing dynamic earth pressure, co-seismic and post-seismic wall displacements.
Keywords: Retaining walls, Mononobe-Okabe, Dynamic earth pressure, Finite-element analysis
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Prof.P.E.Pinto, Dr.C.G.Lai and Dr.P.Franchin for their guidance and their
patience. I would also like to thank everyone at TNO DIANA B.V. for the opportunity to work at the
companys offices in Delft.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................... II
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................... III
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. VII
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................... XII
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of the study .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Motivation of the study................................................................................................................ 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Dynamic earth pressure computation .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Limit-state analysis...................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Pseudo-static approaches.................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1.1 Mononobe-Okabe (1926,1929) ................................................................................. 8
2.2.1.2 Arango (1969) ......................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1.3 Choudhury (2002) ................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1.4 Ortigosa (2005) ....................................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Pseudo-dynamic approach................................................................................................ 19
2.2.2.1 Steedman-Zeng (1990) ............................................................................................ 19
2.2.2.2 Choudhury-Nimbalkar (2005)................................................................................. 20
2.2.3 Displacement-based analysis............................................................................................ 22
2.2.3.1 Richards-Elms model .............................................................................................. 22
2.2.4 Comparison of seismic earth pressure values computed using different approaches....... 23
2.3 Closed form solutions using elastic or viscous elastic behaviour.............................................. 23
2.3.1 Wood (1973)..................................................................................................................... 23
2.3.2 Veletsos and Younan (1994) ............................................................................................ 24
2.4 Numerical analyses.................................................................................................................... 26
iii
Index
2.4.1 Al-Homoud and Whitman (1999)..................................................................................... 26

2.4.2 Green and Ebeling (2003) ................................................................................................ 27
2.4.3 Psarropoulos, Klonaris, and Gazetas (2005) .................................................................... 28
3. TYPE OF RETAINING WALLS ANALYZED ............................................................................... 31
3.1 Diaphragm wall-soil system ...................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Cantilever wall-soil system........................................................................................................ 32
3.3 Gravity wall-soil system ............................................................................................................ 32
3.4 Properties of soil........................................................................................................................ 33
3.5 Properties of concrete ................................................................................................................ 34
4. SELECTION AND PROCESSING OF GROUND MOTION.......................................................... 35
4.1 Selection criteria ........................................................................................................................ 35
4.2 List of ground motion ................................................................................................................ 35
4.3 Characteristics of ground motion selected................................................................................. 36
4.4 Processing of the selected ground motions................................................................................ 40
5. MODELLING ISSUES AND CHOICES.......................................................................................... 42
5.1 Finite element modeling of soil-structure system...................................................................... 42
5.1.1 Soil constitutive model ..................................................................................................... 42
5.1.1.1 Mohr-Coulomb........................................................................................................ 43
5.1.1.2 Pastor and Zienkiewicz(l986) [P-Z mark III model]............................................... 44
5.1.1.3 HiSS soil model [Hierarchical single surface soil model]....................................... 45
5.1.1.4 Hyperbolic type Osaki model.................................................................................. 46
5.1.2 Boundaries........................................................................................................................ 47
5.1.2.1 Elementary boundaries ............................................................................................ 48
5.1.2.2 Local or transmitting boundaries............................................................................. 48
5.1.2.3 Consistent boundaries ............................................................................................. 50
5.1.3 Soil-structure interface ..................................................................................................... 50
5.1.4 Size of finite element mesh .............................................................................................. 51
5.2 Overview of DIANA ................................................................................................................. 51
5.3 Numerical model ....................................................................................................................... 52
5.3.2 Details of diaphragm wall numerical model..................................................................... 53
5.3.3 Details of cantilever wall numerical model ...................................................................... 55
5.3.4 Details of gravity wall numerical model .......................................................................... 58
5.3.5 Model parameters for soil................................................................................................. 59
5.3.6 Model parameters for wall................................................................................................ 61
5.3.7 Interface element .............................................................................................................. 61
5.3.8 Dimensions of finite element mesh .................................................................................. 61
iv
Index
5.3.9 Damping ........................................................................................................................... 61

6. DIANA RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 63
6.1 Data simplification .................................................................................................................... 63
6.1.1 Determination of forces assuming constant stress distribution ........................................ 63
6.1.2 Incremental dynamic forces ............................................................................................. 65
6.1.3 Reaction height of forces.................................................................................................. 65
6.1.4 Dynamic earth pressure coefficient .................................................................................. 65
6.2 Presentation and discussion of simplified data .......................................................................... 66
6.2.1 Phased analysis stress distribution.................................................................................... 66
6.2.2 Dynamic analysis stress distribution ................................................................................ 70
6.2.2.1 Pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall ...................................................... 70
6.2.2.2 Pressure distribution along the stem of the cantilever wall ..................................... 74
6.2.2.3 Pressure distribution along the height of the gravity wall ....................................... 76
6.2.3 Design lateral earth pressure coefficient and DIANA computed lateral earth pressure
coefficient .............................................................................................................................................. 77
6.2.3.1 Comparison of lateral earth pressure coefficients for diaphragm wall.................... 78
6.2.3.2 Comparison of lateral earth pressure coefficients for cantilever wall ..................... 81
6.2.3.3 Comparison of lateral earth pressure coefficients for gravity wall ......................... 83
6.2.4 Point of application of total dynamic forces and incremental dynamic forces................. 85
6.2.4.1 Point of application of total dynamic forces for diaphragm wall ............................ 86
6.2.4.2 Point of application of total dynamic forces and incremental dynamic forces for
cantilever wall........................................................................................................................................ 88
gravity wall ............................................................................................................................................ 89
6.2.5 Deformation and displacement of the wall....................................................................... 91
6.2.5.1 Deformation of diaphragm wall .............................................................................. 92
6.2.5.2 Deformation of cantilever wall................................................................................ 94
6.2.5.3 Deformation of gravity wall .................................................................................... 95
6.2.6 Bending moment and shear force ..................................................................................... 96
6.2.6.1 Bending moment and shear force envelop for diaphragm wall............................... 96
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 104
7.1 Diaphragm wall ....................................................................................................................... 104
7.2 Cantilever wall......................................................................................................................... 104
7.3 Gravity wall ............................................................................................................................. 105
7.4 Problems encountered in DIANA modelling........................................................................... 105
7.4.1 Type of element and material constitutive model........................................................... 105
Index
7.4.2 Interface element and transmitting boundary ................................................................. 106

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 107
8. APPENDIX A STATIC DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGM WALL ..................................................... A1
9. APPENDIX B STATIC DESIGN OF CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL .............................. B1
10. APPENDIX C DESIGN OF GRAVITY WALL......................................................................... C1
11. APPENNDIX D ADDITIONAL RESULTS FROM DIANA ANALYSES............................... D1
12. APPENDIX E DIANA COMMAND FILES ...............................................................................E1
vi
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Damage to a retaining wall due to excessive displacement 2004 Niigata-Ken Chuetsu
earthquake ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2. Overturning failure of retaining wall the Shin-Kang Dam due to Chi-Chi earthquake......... 3
Figure 1.3. Top layers moved away from backfill along the construction joints due to Chi-chi
earthquake Taiwan .......................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.4. The upper section of the retaining wall was uplifted by the thrust fault and the retaining
wall was sheared due to Chi-Chi earthquake Taiwan. .................................................................... 4
Figure 2.1. Classification of seismic earth pressure computation methods ............................................. 7
Figure 2.2. Failure surface and the forces considered by Mononobe-Okabe........................................... 9
Figure 2.3. Analytical model ....................................................................................................12

Figure 2.4. Free body diagram..................................................................................................13
Figure 2.5. Composite failure surface and forces considered ...................................................14
Figure 2.6. Comparison of passive pressure computation using the method proposed by
Choudhury (Choudhury et al 2002) ..................................................................................18
Figure 2.7. System considered by Steedman-Zeng...................................................................19
Figure 2.8. System considered by Choudhury-Nimbalkar........................................................21
Figure 2.9. Base-excited soil-wall system investigated ............................................................24
Figure 2.10. Mononobe-Okabe active and passive expressions (yielding backfill), Wood
expression (nonyielding backfill), and FLAC (Continued) (after Green & Ebeling 2003)
...........................................................................................................................................28
Figure 3.1. Dimension of diaphragm wall ................................................................................31
Figure 3.2. Dimension of cantilever wall..................................................................................32
Figure 3.3. Dimension of gravity wall ......................................................................................33
Figure 4.1. Imperial Valley (1940) acceleration time-history ..................................................36
vii
Index
Figure 4.2. Imperial Valley (1940) Pseudo-Acceleration spectrum corresponding 5% damping

...........................................................................................................................................36
Figure 4.3. Imperial valley (1940) Arias intensity....................................................................37
Figure 4.4. Chi-Chi (1999) acceleration time-history...............................................................37
Figure 4.5. Chi-Chi (1999) Pseudo-Acceleration spectrum corresponding 5% damping ........38
Figure 4.6. Chi-Chi (1999) Arias intensity ...............................................................................38
Figure 4.7. Kobe (1995) acceleration time-history ...................................................................39
Figure 4.8. Kobe (1995) Pseudo-Acceleration spectrum corresponding 5% damping.............39
Figure 4.9. Kobe (1995) Arias intensity ...................................................................................40
Figure 5.1. Shape of yield surfaces in J1-J2D space.................................................................46
Figure 5.2. Non-linear constitutive law for soil ........................................................................46
Figure 5.3. The dashpot model proposed by Lysmer & Kuhlemeyer.......................................49
Figure 5.4. Compound parabolic callectors ..............................................................................49
Figure 5.5. Lumped-parameter consistent boundary ................................................................50
Figure 5.6. CQ16E 8-node 2-D plane strain element................................................................52
Figure 5.7. SP2TR 2-node translation spring/dashpot ..............................................................53
Figure 5.8. Finite element mesh for diaphragm wall ................................................................53
Figure 5.9. Deformed mesh at the end of the each phased construction (sand), magnification
factor 50 ............................................................................................................................55
Figure 5.10. Finite element mesh for cantilever wall ...............................................................55
Figure 5.11. Deformed mesh after placing of backfill (sand), magnification factor 150 .........58
Figure 5.12. Finite element mesh for gravity wall....................................................................59
Figure 5.13. Deformed mesh after constructing and placing backfill (sand)............................59
Figure 6.1. Constant stress distribution approximation across the element (from Green &
Ebeling 2003)....................................................................................................................64
Figure 6.2. Horizontal acceleration ah, corresponding dimensionless horizontal inertial
coefficient kh, of a point in the backfill portion of sliding wedge....................................66
Figure 6.3. Pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall in sand at the end of the phased
analysis..............................................................................................................................67
Figure 6.4. Pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall in clay at the end of the phased
analysis..............................................................................................................................67
Figure 6.5. Pressure distribution along the cantilever wall in sand at the end of the phased
analysis..............................................................................................................................68
viii
Index
Figure 6.6. Pressure distribution along the cantilever wall in clay at the end of the phased
analysis..............................................................................................................................69
Figure 6.7. Pressure distribution along the gravity wall in sand at the end of the phased
analysis..............................................................................................................................69
Figure 6.8. Pressure distribution along the gravity wall in clay at the end of the phased
analysis..............................................................................................................................70
Figure 6.9. Pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall in sand at the end of the dynamic
analysis (EL Centro) .........................................................................................................71
analysis (Chi-Chi) .............................................................................................................71
analysis (Kobe) .................................................................................................................72
Figure 6.12. Pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall in clay at the end of the dynamic
analysis (EL Centro) .........................................................................................................72
analysis (Chi-Chi) .............................................................................................................73
analysis (Kobe) .................................................................................................................73
Figure 6.15. Comparison of pressures along the stem of the cantilever wall at the end of the
phased and dynamic analysis (sand, EL Centro) ..............................................................74
phased and dynamic analysis (sand, Chi-Chi) ..................................................................75
phased and dynamic analysis (sand, Kobe) ......................................................................75
Figure 6.18. Pressure along the gravity wall at the end of the dynamic analysis (Sand) .........76
Figure 6.19. Pressure along the gravity wall at the end of the dynamic analysis (Clay) ..........77
Figure 6.20. Comparison of active and passive lateral earth pressure coefficient (KDIANA)
back-calculated from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe
expressions (Sand) ............................................................................................................79
Figure 6.21. Comparison of active and passive lateral earth pressure coefficient (KDIANA)
back-calculated from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe
expressions (Clay).............................................................................................................80
ix
Index
Figure 6.22. Comparison of active lateral earth pressure coefficient (KDIANA) backcalculated from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe
Figure 6.26. Point of application of total active dynamic force for diaphragm wall ................86
Figure 6.27. Point of application of total passive dynamic force for diaphragm wall in sand .87
Figure 6.28. Point of application of total passive dynamic force for diaphragm wall in clay..87
Figure 6.29. Point of application of total dynamic force at stem and heel section of cantilever
wall....................................................................................................................................88
Figure 6.30. Point of application of incremental dynamic force at stem and heel section of
cantilever wall...................................................................................................................89
Figure 6.31. Point of application of total dynamic force of gravity wall..................................90
Figure 6.32. Point of application of incremental dynamic force for gravity wall.....................91
Figure 6.33. Deformed shape of the diaphragm wall in sand at different time step (EL Centro)
...........................................................................................................................................92
Figure 6.34. Deformed shape of the diaphragm wall in sand at different time step (Chi-Chi) 92
Figure 6.35. Deformed shape of the diaphragm wall in clay at different time step (EL Centro)
...........................................................................................................................................93
Figure 6.36. Deformed shape of the diaphragm wall in clay at different time step (Chi-Chi) .93
Figure 6.37. Annotated deform mesh from EL Centro analysis ...............................................94
Figure 6.38. Relative permanent displacement time-history of base of the cantilever wall in
sand (El Centro) ................................................................................................................95
Figure 6.39. Bending moment envelop for diaphragm wall in sand (EL Centro) ....................96
Figure 6.40. Shear force envelop for diaphragm wall in sand (EL Centro)..............................97
Figure 6.41. Bending moment envelop for diaphragm wall in sand (Chi-Chi) ........................97
Index
Figure 6.42. Shear force envelop for diaphragm wall in sand (Chi-Chi)..................................98
Figure 6.43. Bending moment envelop for diaphragm wall in clay (EL Centro) .....................98
Figure 6.44. Shear force envelop for diaphragm wall in clay (EL Centro) ..............................99
Figure 6.45. Bending moment envelop for diaphragm wall in clay (Chi-Chi).........................99
Figure 6.46. Shear force envelop for diaphragm wall in clay (Chi-Chi) ................................100
Figure 6.47. Bending moment envelop for cantilever wall in sand ........................................100
Figure 6.48. Bending moment envelop for cantilever wall in clay.........................................101
Figure 6.49. Shear force envelop for cantilever wall in sand .................................................101
Figure 6.50. Shear force envelop for cantilever wall in clay ..................................................102
Figure 6.51. Maximum pressure envelop along the height of the gravity wall in sand..........102
Figure 6.52. Maximum pressure envelop along the height of the gravity wall in clay ..........103
xi
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Comparison of Kpd values obtained by Choudhurys method and available theories in
seismic case for =0, i=0, =30 ................................................................................................ 17
Table 2.2 Comparison of seismic earth pressure computation using different approach ...................... 23
Table 3.1 Properties of sand .................................................................................................................. 33
Table 3.2 Properties of clay ................................................................................................................... 34
Table 3.3 Properties of reinforced concrete ........................................................................................... 34
Table 4.1 Ground motion....................................................................................................................... 35
Table 5.1 Typical parameters for P-Z model ......................................................................................... 45
Table 5.2 DIANA input properties of sand............................................................................................ 60
Table 5.3 DIANA input properties of clay ............................................................................................ 60
Table 5.4 DIANA input properties of concrete ..................................................................................... 61
Table 6.1 Pressure values along the height of the cantilever wall ......................................................... 68
Table 6.2 Relative permanent displacement of base of the cantilever wall ........................................... 95
Table 6.3 Relative permanent displacement of base and permanent tilt of gravity wall ....................... 95
xii
Chapter 1 Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the study
Understanding the behaviour of earth retaining structures in seismic events is one of the oldest
problems in geotechnical engineering. The devastating effects of earthquakes make the
problem more important. Despite the multitude of studies that have been carried out over the
years, the dynamic response of earth retaining structures is far from being well understood. As
a result, current engineering practice lacks conclusive information that may be used in design.
The most commonly used methods to design retaining structures under seismic conditions are
force equilibrium based pseudo-static analysis (e.g. Mononobe-Okabe 1926, 1929), pseudodynamic analysis (Steedman and Zeng 1990), and displacement based sliding block method
(e.g. Richards and Elms 1979).
Even under static conditions, prediction of actual retaining wall forces and deformations is a
complicated soil-structure interaction problem. The dynamic response of even the simplest
type of retaining wall is quite complex. The dynamic response depends on the mass and
stiffness of the wall, the backfill and the underlying ground, the interaction among them and
the nature of the input motions.
The purpose of this study is to develop finite element numerical models to understand the
dynamic behavior of retaining structures, and, in particular, to find the magnitude and
distribution of dynamic lateral earth pressure on the wall, as well as the displacement and
forces induced by horizontal ground shaking. Retaining structures considered include a
flexible diaphragm wall, a cantilever wall and a gravity wall. In all the analyses, the soil is
assumed to act as a homogeneous, elasto-plastic medium with Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion and the walls are assumed to act as linear elastic. The numerical models for the three
walls have been developed using DIANA, a commercially available finite element program.
The numerical analyses encompass the incremental construction of the wall and the placement
of the backfill or excavation of soil, followed by the seismic response analysis. Particular
attention is given to how the ground motions are selected, processed and prescribed as an
external loading to the numerical model.
The results obtained with DIANA model are compared with results from simplified analysis
techniques for computing dynamic earth pressure.
1.2 Motivation of the study
Several types of structures, such as various gravity walls and cantilever sheet pile walls, are
used to retain soils in two different levels such as slope and abutments of highway bridges. In
order to evaluate the stability of earth-retaining structures during earthquakes the seismic
earth pressures and their point of application must be estimated.
Many authors have reported [4, 20] numerous cases of damage or failure of bridges induced
by excessive abutment displacement or failure during recent earthquakes. Observed failures of
retaining walls were due to sliding, overturning and loss of the bearing capacity of soil
underlying the wall.
In 1989, the Loma Prieta Earthquake, a severe 7.1 Richter magnitude event, shook the San
Francisco area, causing serious damage to bridges and buildings. In 1994, the Northridge
earthquake, a severe 6.7 Richter magnitude event, shook the densely populated San Fernando
Valley, 20 miles northwest of Los Angeles. Severe damage occurred to buildings, bridges and
freeways. These bridge related damages were mostly due to the failure of retaining walls.
During the October 23, 2004 Chuetsu earthquake, several residential developments
constructed on reclaimed land in Nagaoka city, Niigata Prefecture, have experienced damages
to houses and roads due to seismically-induced failure of artificial fill slopes. Post-earthquake
field reconnaissance surveys revealed that many fill slope failures were caused by the
excessive seismic displacements of the gravity retaining walls supporting the fill material.
Figure (1.1) shows a retaining wall failure due to the excessive displacement, during the
Niigata-Ken Chuetsu earthquake 2004.
Figure 1.1. Damage to a retaining wall due to excessive displacement 2004 Niigata-Ken Chuetsu
earthquake
Figure (1.2) shows retaining walls failed due to the overturning, during the Chi-Chi
earthquake (1999).
Figure 1.2. Overturning failure of retaining wall the Shin-Kang Dam due to Chi-Chi
earthquake
Figure (1.3) shows the top layers moved way from the backfill along the construction joints
due to the inadequate frictional resistance at the top portion of the retaining wall.
Figure 1.3. Top layers moved away from backfill along the construction joints due to Chi-chi
earthquake Taiwan
Figure (1.4) shows the wall uplifted by thrust fault, vertical and horizontal displacement of
2.0m and 1.3m respectively.
Figure 1.4. The upper section of the retaining wall was uplifted by the thrust fault and the
retaining wall was sheared due to Chi-Chi earthquake Taiwan.
The 1995 Kobe earthquake provides many opportunities for documenting the behavior of
retaining structures in waterfront areas, along transportation facilities, and throughout various
public and private developments. Many walls failed catastrophically, but some survived
virtually intact. This should provide an opportunity to understand better some important issues
concerning the design of these structures.
Compiling information on what happened is essential so that researchers can try to understand
why the structures behaved as they did. There are at least few factors that may have
contributed to the movements or failure of earth retaining structures such as: (1) inertial forces
on the wall themselves, (2) dynamic lateral pressures from the backfill in the absence of
liquefaction, (3) static and dynamic pressures associated with the liquefaction of the backfill,
and (4) reduced resistance to sliding because of liquefaction of soils surrounding the base of
the wall in waterfront areas. There are no data that identify directly the relative contribution of
these factors, thus requiring studies using numerical and possibly physical models to clarify
their interactions. The problem is complex, and developing an understanding of it is so
complex that it will require refined finite-element or finite-different model analyses.
Chapter 2 Literature review
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Dynamic earth pressure computation
The methods that are used to compute the dynamic earth pressure on the retaining walls
nowadays can be classified into three main groups:
(1) Limit state analyses, in which a considerable relative movement occurs between the
wall and soil to mobilize the shear strength of the soil
(2) Elastic analyses, in which the relative movement in between the soil and wall is
limited, therefore the soil behaves within its linear elastic range. The soil can be
considered as a linear elastic material.
(3) Numerical analyses, in which the soil is modelled with actual non-linear hysteretic
behaviour.
The limit-state analyses were developed by Mononobe and Okabe (Mononobe and Matuo
1929; Okabe 1924). The Mononobe-Okabe approach has several variants (Kapila 1962,
Arango 1969, Seed and Whitman 1970; Richards and Elms 1979; Nadim and Whitman 1983,
Richards et al 1999, Choudhury 2002). A wedge of soil bounded by the wall is assumed to
move as a rigid block, with prescribe a horizontal and a vertical acceleration. This method
was basically developed to calculate the active and passive earth pressure for dry cohesionless
materials by Mononobe-Okabe. The use of a graphical construction, such as Coulomb or
Melbye construction procedure, has been described by Kabila (1962). Arango (1969) has
developed a simple procedure for obtaining the value of the dynamic lateral earth pressure
coefficient for active conditions from standard charts for static lateral earth pressure
coefficient for active condition using Coulomb method.
The contributions for the elastic analyses came from the works done by Matuo and Ohara
(1960), Wood (1973), Scott (1973), Veletsos and Younan (1994a, 1994b, 1997, 2000), Li
(1999), and Ortigosa and Musante (1991). In particular, Wood (1973) analyzed the dynamic
response of homogeneous linear elastic soil trapped in between two rigid walls connected to a
rigid base, providing an analytical exact solution. An approximate model proposed by Scott
(1973) represents the retaining action of the soil by a set of massless, linear horizontal springs.
The stiffness of the springs is defined as subgrade modulus. Veletsos and Younan (1994a,
1994b, 1997, and 2000) improved the Scotts model, by using a semi-infinite, elastically
supported, horizontal bars with distributed mass, to include the radiational damping of the soil
and using horizontal springs with constant stiffness, to model the shearing action of the
stratum. Li (1999) included the foundation flexibility and damping into the Veletsos and
Younan analyses. In this study, the rigid wall with viscoelastic backfill is considered to rest on
viscoelastic half-space foundation. Ortigosa and Musante (1991) proposed a simplified
kinematic method, in which the wall is supported in several locations. The possible wall
movement is the flexural deformation. The free-field shear modulus is used to calculate the
subgrade modulus.
Detailed accounts of pervious analytical and experimental studies on the limit state and elastic
analysis matter have been presented by Nazarian and Hadjian (1979), Prakash (1981),
Whitman (1991), and Veletsos and Younan (1995).
In elastic analyses in which the wall is considered to be fixed against both deflection and
rotation at the base, usually the wall pressure and associated forces computed are 2.5 to 3
times larger than those determined by the Mononobe-Okabe approach, hence elastic solutions
are generally believed to be excessively conservative and inappropriate for use in design
applications. Conclusions from some recent exploratory studies (Finn et al.1989; Siller et al.
1991; Sun and Lin 1995) suggest that the existing elastic solutions are limited to
nondeflecting rigid walls and do not provide for the important effect of wall flexibility. A
recent study by Veletsos and Younan (1994b) concluded that for walls that are rigid but
elastically constrained against rotation at their base, both the magnitude and distribution of the
dynamic wall pressures and forces are quite sensitive to the flexibility of the base constraint.
For realistic base flexibilities these effects may be significantly lower than those computed for
nondeflecting rigid walls. Moreover, Li (1999) showed that, if foundation compliance is taken
into account, the computed based shear may be of the same order of that estimated with
Mononobe-Okabe, even for a rigid gravity wall. Therefore, after these studies, the initial
limitations to the elastic approach seem to be overcome and this method might be considered
as a valuable tool for the seismic design of non-yielding walls.
The third group involves nonlinear numerical analysis to find earthquake-induced
deformations of retaining walls. Numerical analyses should be capable of accounting for
nonlinear, inelastic behaviour of the soil and of the interfaces between the soil and wall.
Among the relatively few examples of numerical analyses that are finite element and/or finite
difference methods are those reported by Alampalli and Elgamel (1990), Finn et al (1992), Iai
and Kameoke (1993), Al-Homoud and Whitman (1999), Green and Ebeling (2003)
Psarropoulos, Klonaris and Gazetas (2005) for different type and configurations of retaining
walls.
The flowchart below (Figure 2.1) summarizes the theories and method those are used to
design the retaining walls in dynamic conditions.
for Mononobe-Okabe]
Seed - Whitman
(1970) [modification
[modification for
Mononobe-Okabe]
Arango (1969)
Choudhury (2002)
Kumar (2001)
Soubra (2000)
Ortigasa (2005)
Choudhury (2002)
[interaction model]
Prakash
(1981)
Richards - Shi
(1999)
Earth pressure
computation
with cohession
Mononobe - Okabe
(1926, 1929)
Morisson Ebeling(1995)
Passive pressure
computation
without
cohession
Mononobe - Okabe
(1926, 1929)
Active pressure
computation
without
cohession
Pseudo-Static
Approach
Forced Based Analysis
Choudhury - Nimbalkar
(2005) [active & passive
pressure computation vertical & horizontal seismic
acceleration]
Steedman - Zeng (1990)

[active pressure computation only horizontal seismic
acceleration]
Pseudo-Dynamic
Approach
Limite State Analysis
nonlinear model]
Nadim - Whitman
(1983) [stochastic
(Newmark's Method)
Richards-Elms
model (1979)
Displacement Based
Analysis
Li
(1999)
Veletsos & Younan

(1994[a,b] , 1996 ,
2000)
Ortigosa - Musante
(1991)
Scott (1973)
Wood (1973)
Matuo - Ohara (1960)
Closed Form Solution
Methods Used to Analyze the Retaining Walls in Seismic Conditions
Psarropoulos,
Klonaris,&Gazetas
(2005)
Green & Ebeling

(2003)
Al - Homoud &
Whitman (1999)
Iai - Kameoke
(1993)
Finn (1992)
Alampalli - Elgamll
(1990)
Numerical Analysis
Figure 2.1. Classification of seismic earth pressure computation methods
2.2 Limit-state analysis

2.2.1 Pseudo-static approaches
The seismic stability of earth retaining structures is usually analyzed by the pseudo-static
approach in which the effects of earthquake action are expressed by constant horizontal and
vertical acceleration attached to the mass. The common form of pseudo-static analysis
considers the effects of earthquake shaking by pseudo-static accelerations that produce inertia
forces, Fh and Fv, which act through the centroid of the failure mass in the horizontal and
vertical directions respectively. The magnitudes of the pseudo-static forces are;
(2.1) Fh =
ah W
= kh W
g
(2.2) Fv =
av W
= kv W
g
where,
ah and av - horizontal and vertical pseudo-static accelerations
kh and kv - coefficients of horizontal and vertical pseudo-static accelerations
W - weight of the failure wedge.
A pseudo-static analysis is relatively simple and very straightforward. Representation of the

complex, transient, dynamic effects of earthquake shaking by a single constant unidirectional
pseudo-static acceleration is obviously quite crude. Experiences have shown that pseudostatic analysis can be unreliable for soils that build up large pore pressures or show more than
about 15% degradation of strength due to earthquake shaking. [see Kramer, 1996]
2.2.1.1 Mononobe-Okabe (1926,1929)
Okabe (1926) [34], Mononobe and Matsuo (1929) [30] were the early pioneers to obtain the
active and passive earth pressure coefficients under seismic conditions. It was an extension of
Coulombs method in the static case for determining the earth pressures by considering the
equilibrium of a triangular failure wedge. The method is now commonly known as Mononobe
- Okabe method. For active and passive cases, planar rupture surfaces were assumed in the
analysis. Figure (2.2) shows the failure surfaces and the forces considered in the analysis.
The Mononobe-Okabe approach is valuable in providing a good assessment of the magnitude
of the peak dynamic force acting on a retaining wall. However, the method is based on three
fundamental assumptions,
1. The wall has already deformed outwards sufficiently to generate the minimum (active)
earth pressure.
2. A soil wedge, with a planar sliding surface running through the base of the wall, is on
the point of failure with a maximum shear strength mobilized along the length the
surface.
3. The soil behind the wall behaves as a rigid body so that acceleration can be assumed
to be uniform throughout the backfill at the instant of failure.
i
.
kvW
.
khW
.
plane failure surface
Pa
kvW
ah=khg
.
khW
Pp .
av=kvg
plane failure surface
Active
Passive
AE
PE
Figure 2.2. Failure surface and the forces considered by Mononobe-Okabe
The expression for computing the seismic active and passive earth force, Pae,pe, is given by
(2.3) Pae, pe =
1 2
H (1 kv ) K ae, pe
2
And
(2.4) K ae, pe =
cos 2 ( m )
sin( + ) sin( m i 0.5

cos cos cos( + ) 1
cos( + ) cos(i )
Where
- unit weight of soil
H - vertical height of the wall
Kae,pe - seismic active and passive earth pressure coefficient
- soil friction angle
- wall friction angle

- wall inclination with respect to vertical
i - ground inclination with respect to horizontal
kh - seismic acceleration coefficient in the horizontal direction
kv - seismic acceleration coefficient in the vertical direction
k
(2.5) = tan 1 h
1 kv
Seed and Whitman (1970) [43] gave convenient solutions for practical purposes for the
incremental dynamic force in equation (2.3) for the active pressure condition, and gave an
approximate solution for the case of zero vertical acceleration, a vertical wall, horizontal
backfill, and effective friction angle approximately 35. Their approximation can be expressed
as
(2.6)
Pae 3
= k
H 2 8 h
in which Pae active wall force increment due to horizontal earthquake load
The approximation is in close agreement with the more exact solution for kh<0.35.
In Mononobe-Okabe analysis the point of application of the total seismic earth force is
considered to be at H/3 from base of the wall, but experimental results (Jacobse 1939, Matsuo
1941) [32] show it is slightly above H/3 from base of the wall for seismic active case. Prakash
and Basavanna (1969) [39] have made an analysis to determine the height of the resultant
force in the Mononobe-Okabe analysis. Seed and Whitman (1970) [43] recommended that the
dynamic component to be taken at 0.6H. Mononobe-Okabe analyses show that kv, when taken
as one-half to two-thirds the value of kh, affects total active or passive pressure by less than
10%. Seed and Whitman (1970) concluded that vertical accelerations can be ignored when the
Mononobe-Okabe method is used to estimate the total pressure for typical wall designs.
The Mononobe-Okabe method is very simple and straightforward, has been used by
designers, because experimental and theoretical studies have shown that it gives satisfactory
results in cases where the backfill deforms plastically and the wall movement is large and
irreversible (Whitman 1990 [56]). However, there are many practical cases, such as massive
gravity walls or basement walls braced at top and bottom, where the wall movement is not
sufficient to induce a limit state in the soil.
2.2.1.2 Arango (1969)
Arango has developed a simple procedure for obtaining the value of Kae from standard charts
for Ka as determined by Coulomb method for static condition, thus providing a convenient
10
general solution for any inclination of wall and backfill slope, any angle of wall friction and
any value of angle of friction of backfill material and earthquake acceleration.
The classical Coulomb solution for static earth pressure can be expressed as
1
(2.7) Pa = H 2 K a
2
Where,
(2.8) K a =
cos 2 ( )
sin ( + )sin ( i )
cos cos( )1 +
cos( + )cos( i )
Pa may thus be expressed in the following form

1
1
1
Ac
(2.9) Pa = H 2 K a = H 2
2
2
cos 2
Where Ac = Ka cos2
On the other hand Mononobe-Okabe value for Kae can be written as follows:
1
1
1
Am
(2.10) Pae = H 2 (1 kv )K ae = H 2 (1 kv )
2
2
cos cos 2
Where Am = Kae coscos2
A comparison of the expression for Am with that for Ac shows that Am can be determine from
the solution for Ac by redefining the slope of the back of the wall and as * and the inclination
of the backfill as i*, where
* = +
and
i* = i+
Thus
(2.11) Am = Ac , i = K a , i cos 2
And
(2.12) Pae = Pa , i (1 kv )F
Where
( )
cos 2
cos 2 ( + )
=
cos cos 2 cos cos 2
Values for F corresponding to different values for and have been computed by Arango.
Since charts are available for determining Pa for a wide variety of combination of , , i, and
F=
11
, the corresponding dynamic pressure determined by the Mononobe-Okabe analysis can be

readily obtained.
2.2.1.3 Choudhury (2002)
Terzaghi (1943) [50] showed that active earth pressures determined assuming a planar rupture
surface almost match the exact or experimental values of earth pressures, while for the passive
case, when wall friction angle, , exceeds one-third of soil friction angle, , the assumption of
planar failure surface seriously overestimates the passive earth pressures. To correct the error
in the Mononobe-Okabe method for the passive case, Morisson and Ebeling (1995), Soubra
(2000) and Kumar (2001) considered curved rupture surfaces in their analysis of the passive
case. However, all of these analyses were performed only for sands.
Initially Choudhury, Subba Rao and Ghosh gave a complete solution for the distribution of
seismic passive pressure behind rigid retaining walls using the method of horizontal slices by
considering seismic forces in a pseudo-static manner. Only planar rupture surfaces have been
considered and hence wall friction angle has been restricted up to one-third the soil friction
angle. This approach results is the same seismic passive earth pressure coefficients as those
obtained by Mononobe-Okabe approach, besides giving additional information about the
distribution of earth pressures. It has been found that in the seismic case, passive resistance
acts at a point other than at 1/3rd from the base of the wall. Under seismic conditions, the
extension of the failure zone is more than that under static conditions.
Figure (2.3) shows the system considered by Choudhury, Subba Rao and Ghosh, a rigid
retaining wall of vertical height H, supporting dry, homogeneous cohesionless backfill
material with horizontal ground. The seismic forces are considered as pseudo-static forces
along with other static forces. The equilibrium of each elemental slice is considered. It is
assumed that the occurrence of earthquake does not affect the basic soil parameters such as
soil friction angle and soil unit weight .
displacem ent
C
y
dy
PE
Figure 2.3. Analytical model
12
py
Pxtan
dy
Px
Rtan
dW kh
(1-kv)dW
R
PE
d
py+ dpy
Figure 2.4. Free body diagram
In figure (2.4), the freebody diagram of an elemental slice shows the action of different
forces. The thickness of the slice is dy, at a depth of y from the top ground surface. The
vertical pressure py is acting on the top of the element and (py+ dpy) on the bottom of the
element. The reaction px normal to the wall and the shear force pxtan are acting on the
interface between the retaining wall and the backfill material. The normal force R and the
shear force Rtan act on the sliding surface. The other forces are, the weight dW of the
element, the seismic forces dWkh in the horizontal direction and dWkv in the vertical direction.
The critical directions of these seismic forces are as shown in figure (2.4). The horizontal
planes are assumed as principal planes. Resolving all the forces in the vertical and horizontal
directions, from the boundary condition py = 0 at y = 0, and ignoring higher order differential
terms and upon simplifying, the expression for the seismic passive earth pressure at any depth
y is obtained as:
n H (2 + a K )
(2.13) p X = K
(1+ a K ) (H y )
2 + a K (H y )
Where
pX - seismic passive pressure at any depth y from top acting normal to the wall
K - lateral earth pressure coefficient used for the static analysis
n - (1-kv-kh.b)
b - cot ( PE + )
a-
(tan cot PE )(1 + tan tan ) + (tan tan )

(tan + cot PE )(1 + tan cot PE ) (tan + cot PE )
- wall friction angle

PE - angle of inclination of the failure plane with horizontal
13
Integrating over the height of the wall, the total passive resistance PX is given by,
(2.14) PX =
nH2
(1000
a (2 + a K )
aK
1)
K n H 2
2(2 + a K )
The equivalent seismic passive earth pressure coefficient with respect to normal to the wall is
found out as,
(2.15) K pe =
2 PX
H2
The critical value of PE is obtained by minimizing PX with respect to PE keeping all other
parameters constant and it is found to exactly match with the Coulombic values for the static
case.
Recently Choudhury (2002) [6] has given the complete solution for passive earth pressure
coefficients for rigid retaining walls under seismic conditions for variations in parameters,
such as wall inclination, ground inclination, wall friction angle, soil friction angle, wall
adhesion to soil cohesion ratio, and the horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations.
The limit equilibrium method based on a pseudostatic approach was adopted for determining
individually the seismic passive earth pressure coefficients corresponding to own weight,
surcharge and cohesion components. In the determination of each of these components,
composite (logarithmic spiral and planar) failure surfaces were considered. It was considered
that the occurrence of an earthquake does not affect the basic soil parameters: unit cohesion c,
friction angle , and unit weight . Uniform seismic accelerations are assumed in the domain
under consideration.
qGEkv
F
?
qAGkh
qAG(1-kv)
G
W2kv
W2kh
PpcR+PpqR
i
Pp R
i
W1 kh
H
Ppcd+Ppqd
Pp
(1-kv)W1
y/3 y/2
H/2
Ca
qGEkh
H/3
C+Ntan
FB=r0
FD=rf
FA=L
DG=y
W1=weight ABDGA
W2=weight DGE
q=uniform surcharge
N
B
Figure 2.5. Composite failure surface and forces considered
14
The seismic passive force Ppd was divided into three components as:
1. Unit weight component Ppd( 0,c=q=0)
2. Surcharge component Ppqd(q 0,=c=0), and
3. Cohesion component Ppcd(c 0,=q=0)
Where , c, and q are the unit weight of the soil, unit cohesion, and surcharge pressure
respectively.
The principle of superposition was assumed to be valid and the minimum of each component
was added to get the minimum seismic passive force. Hence,
(2.16) Ppd = Ppd + Ppqd + Ppcd
The failure surfaces for each of these components that are Ppd, Ppqd and Ppcd will be different.
A particular single failure surface can be found for which the total seismic passive force is
minimum. For this failure surface, the corresponding components are not necessarily the
minimum values.
It was shown that the error magnitude between the method of superposition considering
minimum of each component and finding the minimum of total earth force was very small,
less than 3%.
In figure (2.5), the failure surface includes portion BD, which is a logarithmic spiral and a
planar portion DE, which is similar to the Rankine passive planar failure surface including the
pseudostatic seismic forces. F is the focus of logarithmic spiral and is located at a distance L
from A. The initial radius r0 and the final radius rf of the logarithmic spiral are given by
distances FB and FD, respectively.
For the force system shown in figure (2.5), after satisfying equilibrium equations and Mohr
Coulomb criterion of failure, the exit angle at point E on the ground surface becomes
1 kh
i
sin tan
1 1 kh i 1 1
1 kv
(2.17) = + tan
+ sin
4 2 2
sin
1 kv 2 2
For kh=kv=0, Equation. (2.10) yields the same value as given by Rankine and the same value
as given by Kumar (2001) for kv=0.
As given in the figure (2.5), the point of application of Ppd is assumed at a height of H/3 from
the base of the wall (Chen and Liu 1990), whereas Ppqd and Ppcd are assumed to act at a height
of H/2. A uniform surcharge pressure of q is assumed along AE weight of the failure wedge
ABDGA is W1. Cohesive force C is assumed to act on the failure surface BD along with
normal force N and frictional force N tan . Adhesive force Ca is acting on the retaining wall-
15
soil interface AB. Rankine passive forces PpcR, PpqR, and PpR are assumed to act on the surface
DG. Pseudostatic forces due to seismic weight components for zone DGE are W2kh and W2kv
in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. Pseudostatic forces due to seismic
weight component for zone ABDGA are W1kh and W1kv in the horizontal and vertical
directions, respectively. Pseudostatic forces due to q.AG.kh and q.AG.kv in the horizontal and
vertical directions, respectively, are assumed to act on AG. Similarly pseudostatic forces
q.GE.kh and q.GE.kv in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, are assumed to act
on GE.
Considering the moment equilibrium of all forces about the focus F,
1. The seismic passive earth pressure coefficient for the unit weight component Kpd
corresponds to the minimum value of the seismic passive earth force Ppd. The
minimum value of Ppd is obtained by considering different logspirals by varying the
distance L. The coefficient Kpd in normal direction to the wall is then obtained as:
(2.18) K pd =
2 Ppd cos
H 2
2. The seismic passive earth pressure coefficient for the surcharge component Kpqd
corresponds to the minimum value of Ppqd. The minimum value of Ppqd is obtained by
varying L. The coefficient Kpqd is then obtained as:
(2.19) K pqd =
Ppqd cos
qH
3. The seismic passive earth pressure coefficient for the cohesion component Kpcd
corresponds to the minimum value of Ppcd. By assumption, the cohesion component
will not be affected by the seismic accelerations, and hence the static and seismic
cohesion values remain the same. The minimum value of Ppcd is obtained by varying
L. The coefficient Kpcd is then obtained as:
(2.20) K pcd =
Ppcd cos
2cH
The total seismic passive force Ppd on the retaining wall of height H becomes
1
1
(2.21) Ppd = 2cHK pcd + qHK pqd + H 2 K pd
2
cos
The force Ppd acts at an angle with the normal to the retaining wall.
The points of applications for passive force under seismic condition were determined by
Choudhury (2002) using the method of horizontal slices. The results showed that the points of
applications values ranges from 0.28H to 0.4H from base of the wall with vertical height H,
for different seismic conditions and wall inclinations.
16
Table 2.1 Comparison of Kpd values obtained by Choudhurys method and available theories in seismic
case for =0, i=0, =30
0.5
1.0
kh
kv
MononobeOkabe
Morrison
&
Ebeling
Chen
& Liu
Soubra
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.807
4.406
4.350
3.988
3.770
3.545
8.743
7.812
6.860
5.875
4.830
3.645
4.463
4.240
4.160
3.870
3.600
3.460
6.150
5.733
5.280
4.940
4.300
3.400
4.710
4.370
4.000
3.590
7.100
6.550
5.950
5.300
-
4.530
4.2020
3.900
3.470
5.941
5.500
5.020
4.500
-
Kumar Choudhury
5.785
5.361
4.902
4.400
3.900
3.200
4.458
4.240
3.890
3.860
3.020
3.450
5.783
5.400
5.100
4.750
4.100
3.300
Table 2.1 shows a comparison of Kpd values obtained from different analyses. For /=0.5, it
is seen that the Choudhurys method results in the least values of the coefficients. However
for / =1.0, it is not necessarily the least in cases for higher kh values. But the difference is
very marginal.
17
Figure 2.6. Comparison of passive pressure computation using the method proposed by
Choudhury (Choudhury et al 2002)
2.2.1.4 Ortigosa (2005)

The Mononobe and Okabe expression has the limitation of not introducing soil cohesion,
which was later included by Prakash (1981) [38], also employing the Coulombs wedge
method. Based on Prakashs expressions, Ortigosa (2005) [31] proposed resolving the
problem uncoupling the static and seismic thrust in the following manner:
1. Determining the resultant static thrust, Pc, including soil cohesion, c, with tension
cracks.
2. Determining the resultant static plus seismic thrust, Pae, with the Mononobe and
Okabe expression, which implicates considering c = 0.
3. Determining the resultant static thrust, P0, by making c = 0.
4. Determining the seismic thrust component as:
18
(2.22) Pe = Pae P0
In this manner, the resultant of the static plus seismic thrust is obtained as:
(2.23) Pec = Pc + Pe
It is important to point out that the thrust uncoupling is valid if Pc > 0, which equates to
consuming all soil cohesion in the static thrust component. If the cohesion is such that the
critical height of the soil is equal to that of the wall, the uncoupling gives Pc = 0 and if it is
greater gives Pc = 0 and an overvalued seismic component.
More recently, Richards and Shi (1994) [42] utilize an interaction model between the
retaining element and the free field seismic movement of the soil in which they incorporate
cohesion.
2.2.2 Pseudo-dynamic approach
In this approach, the advancement over the previous approach is that the dynamic nature of
the earthquake loading is considered in an approximate and simple manner. The phase
difference and the amplification effects within the soil mass are considered along with the
accelerations to the inertia.
2.2.2.1 Steedman-Zeng (1990)
Steedman and Zeng (1990) [45] considered the harmonic horizontal acceleration of amplitude
ah at base of the wall. For a typical fixed base cantilever wall (figure 2.7) and assuming i =
= kv = 0 for simplicity.
C
Qh
Z
Pae
Vs
B
ah(t)
Figure 2.7. System considered by Steedman-Zeng
Then at depth z below the ground surface the acceleration can be expressed as:
19
H z
(2.24) ah ( z , t ) = ah sin t
V
s

Where,
- angular frequency
t - time elapsed
Vs - shear wave velocity
The planar rupture surface, inclined at an assumed angle to the horizontal, is considered in
the analysis along with the seismic force and weight of failure block. The total seismic active
force on the wall is given by,
(2.25) Pae (t ) =
Qh (t ) cos( ) + W sin( )
cos( + )
And
ah
(2.26) Qh (t ) =
4 g tan
2
[2H cos + (sin sin t )]
Where,
(2.27) =
2Vs
(2.28) = 1
H
Vs
The point of application of the total seismic active force is hd from the base of the wall and
given by,
2 2 H 2 cos + 2H sin 2 (cos cos t )
(2.29) hd = H
2H cos + (sin sin t )
This point of application of the seismic force for very low frequency motions (small H/, so
the backfill moves essentially in phase) is at hd = H/3. For higher frequency motions, hd moves
upwards from base of the wall. This solution accounts for non uniformity of acceleration
within the soil mass but disregards dynamic amplification.
2.2.2.2 Choudhury-Nimbalkar (2005)
Steedman & Zeng (1990) did not consider the effect of vertical seismic acceleration on the
active earth pressure, which was corrected by Choudhury & Nimbalkar (2005) [7]. Also,
Choudhury & Nimbalkar (2005) considered using pseudo-dynamic method to determine the
seismic passive resistance behind a rigid retaining wall.
20
The effect of variation of different parameters such as wall friction angle , period of lateral
shaking T, soil friction angle , horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients kh, kv, shear wave
velocity Vs and primary wave velocity Vp are considered in the present analysis. A planar
rupture surface BC, inclined at an angle to the horizontal, is assumed for the analysis to
avoid further complication of the problem.
C
Qv
Qh
Z
w
Ppe
Vs , Vp
h
B
ah(t)
Figure 2.8. System considered by Choudhury-Nimbalkar
The base is subjected to harmonic horizontal and vertical accelerations of amplitudes ah and
av, the horizontal accelerations at depth z below the top of the wall is give in equation (2.15),
and the vertical acceleration can be given as:
H z
(2.30) av = av sin t
V
p

The total horizontal inertia (Qh(t)) force acting on the wall is given in equation (2.17). The
total vertical inertia force acting on the wall is expressed as:
(2.31) Qv (t ) =
av
4 2 g tan
[2H cos + (sin sin t )]
Where,
(2.32) =
(2.33) = t
Vp
H
Vp
The total (static and dynamic) passive resistance can be obtained by resolving forces on the
wedge: that is,
21
(2.34) Ppe =
W sin ( + ) Qh cos( + ) Qv sin ( + )

cos( + + )
Typical results show the highly non-linear nature of the seismic passive earth pressure
distribution by this pseudo-dynamic method compared with the existing linear seismic passive
earth pressure distribution using a pseudo-static approach. Comparisons of the present method
with the available pseudo-static methods are shown, leading to the minimum seismic passive
resistance by pseudo-dynamic method.
2.2.3 Displacement-based analysis
A retaining structure subjected to earthquake motion will vibrate with the backfill soil and the
wall can easily move from the original position due to an earthquake. The methods available
for displacement based analysis of retaining structures during seismic conditions are based on
the early work of Newmark (1965) [see Kramer, 1996]. The basic procedure was developed
for evaluating the deformation of an embankment dam shaken by earthquake based on the
analogy with a sliding block-on-a-plane.
2.2.3.1 Richards-Elms model
The model proposed by Richards and Elms (1979) [41] is based on the basic Newmarks
model, developed originally for evaluation of seismic slope stability, modified for the design
of gravity retaining walls. Richards and Elms recommended that the dynamic active earth
force calculated using Mononobe-Okabe method is given by,
(1 k v ) cos ( )
1
2
(2.35) Pae = 0.5H

2
cos cos 2 cos( + + )

1 + sin( + ) sin( i )
cos(i ) cos( + + )
The permanent block displacement is given by,

(2.36) d perm = 0.087
2
3
Vmax
amax
a y4
Where,
Vmax - ground velocity
amax - ground acceleration
ay - yield acceleration for the backfill-wall system
P cos( + ) Pae sin( + )
(2.37) a y = tan b ae
g
W
22
2.2.4 Comparison of seismic earth pressure values computed using different approaches
It is batter to compare the earth pressure values computed using different approaches. The
table (2.2) shows the comparison. For the computation following data have been used:
H=6m, c=0, =34, =17, =17.3kN/m, kh=0.3, and kv=0.3. A: Forced-based analysis, B:
Displacement-based analysis
Table 2.2 Comparison of seismic earth pressure computation using different approach
Method
MononobeOkabe
Choudhury
SteedmanZeng
Richards &
Elms
EC8
Seismic active earth

pressure, Pad (kN/m)
145.16
141.24
100.92
100.92
p.o.a of Pad from base (m)
2.72
2.0
2.33
2.33
Seismic passive earth

pressure, Ppd (kN/m)
943.99
905.36
p.o.a of Ppd from base
1.98
Displacement (mm)
100
100
Remarks
2.3 Closed form solutions using elastic or viscous elastic behaviour

2.3.1 Wood (1973)
The massive gravity walls founded on rock or basement walls braced at both top and bottom,
do not move sufficiently to mobilize the shear strength of the backfill soil. Wood (1973)
analyzed the response of a rigid nonyielding wall retaining a homogeneous linear elastic soil
and connected to a rigid base. For such conditions, Wood established that the dynamic
amplification was insignificant for relatively low-frequency ground motions (that is, motions
at less than half of the natural frequency of the unconstrained backfill), which would include
many or most earthquake problems.
For uniform, constant kh applied throughout the elastic backfill, Wood (1973) developed the
dynamic thrust, PE, acting on smooth rigid nonyielding walls as:
(2.38) PE = FP khH 2
Where,
FP - Dimensionless thrust factor for various geometry and soil Poissons ratio values
23
The value of FP is approximately equal to unity (Whitman, 1991) leading to the following
approximate formulation for a rigid nonyielding wall on a rigid base:
(2.39) PE = khH 2
As for yielding walls, the point of application of the dynamic thrust is taken typically at a
height of 0.6H above the base of the wall.
Woods simplified procedures do not account for: (1) vertical accelerations, (2) the typical
increase of modulus with depth in the backfill, (3) the 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.
Depending on the dynamic properties of the backfill as well as the frequency characteristics
of the input ground motion, a range of dynamic earth pressure solutions would be obtained for
which the Mononobe-Okabe solution and the Wood (1973) solution represent a lower and
an upper bound, respectively.
2.3.2 Veletsos and Younan (1994)
The system examined by Veletsos and Younan is shown in figure (2.9). It consists of a semiinfinite, uniform layer of linear viscoelastic material of height h that is free at its upper
surface, is bounded to a rigid base, and is retained along one of its vertical boundaries by a
rigid wall. The wall may be either fixed or elastically constrained against rotation at its base,
by a spring of stiffness R. Both the base of the layer and the wall are subjected to a spaceinvariant, harmonic, uniform horizontal motion, a(t), at any time t., characteristic by a
frequency and a maximum amplitude A. Material damping for the medium is considered to
be of the constant hysteretic type, frequency-independent, and the same for both shearing and
axial deformations.
y
Rigid
Wall
x
R?
a(t)
Figure 2.9. Base-excited soil-wall system investigated
24
The properties of the soil stratum are defined by its mass density (), shear modulus of
elasticity (G), Poissons ratio (), and the material damping factor ().
Veletsos and Younana realized that the Scotts model (1973) fails to provide for the capacity
of the medium between the wall and the far field to transfer forces vertically by horizontal
shearing. In addition to the horizontal normal stresses and inertia forces, a horizontal element
of the medium is acted upon along its upper and lower faces by horizontal shearing stress, the
difference of which is given by:
(2.40) =
xy
y
1 xy
h
With being the dimensionless distance given by =y/h. On the assumption that the
horizontal variation of the vertical displacements is negligible, xy can be expressed as:
(2.41) xy =
G u
h
and
G 2u
h 2 2
Where u is the relative horizontal displacement of the medium with respect to the moving
base.
If u is expressed by the method of separation of variables as a linear combination of modal
terms, through mathematical manipulation (Veletsos and Younana, 1994b), the nth component
of , denoted as ()n, may be recognized to be:
(2.42) ( )n = n2un
Where un is the nth component of the displacement u and n is the circular frequency of the
stratum, considered to respond as a cantilever shear-beam, given by:
(2.43) n =
(2n 1)Vs
2h
Where n refers to the mode being considered and Vs is the shear wave velocity of the stratum.
The equation (2.33) represents a force per unit of length that is identical to the force induced
by a massless linear spring of stiffness kn given by:
(2n 1) G
(2.44) kn = =
h 2
2
2
n
This corresponds to modeling the shearing action of the medium, for each modal component,
with a set of horizontal linear spring of constant stiffness kn, connected at their lower ends to
the common base, subjected to the prescribed ground acceleration a(t). The other end of the
spring connected to the medium that may be modeled by a series of semiinfinitely long,
elastically supported horizontal bars with distributed mass (For more detail see [2]).
In 1996, Veletsos and Younan analyzed the response of flexible cantilever retaining walls that
are elastically constrained against rotation at their base for horizontal ground shaking. The
25
retaining medium is idealized as a uniform, linear, viscoelastic stratum of constant thickness

and semi-infinite extent in the horizontal direction. The parameters varied including the
flexibilities of the wall and its base, the properties of the retained medium, and the
characteristics of the ground motion.
They discovered that the dynamic pressures depend profoundly on both the wall flexibility
and the foundation rotational compliance, and that for realistic values of these factors the
dynamic pressures are substantially lower than the pressures for a rigid, fixed-based wall. In
fact, they found out that the dynamic pressures may reduce to the level of the Mononobe
Okabe solution if either the wall or the base flexibility is substantial.
More recently (2000), Veletsos and Younan [60] have proposed a solution technique for the
dynamic analysis of flexible both cantilever and top-supported walls.
However, these analytical solutions are based on the assumption of homogeneous retained
soil, and there are reasons for someone to believe that the potential soil inhomogeneity may
lead to significant changes in the magnitude and distribution of the dynamic earth pressures.
Furthermore, as the presence of the foundation soil layers under the retained system is only
crudely modelled through a rotational spring, these solutions do not account for the potential
horizontal translation at the wall base, which in general may have both an elastic and an
inelastic (sliding) component.
2.4 Numerical analyses
Earthquake-induced pressures on retaining walls can also be evaluated using dynamic
response-analyses. A number of computer programs are available for such analyses. Linear or
equivalent linear or non-linear analysis can be used to estimate wall pressures. Non-linear
analyses are capable of predicting permanent deformations as well as wall pressure.
2.4.1 Al-Homoud and Whitman (1999)
A finite element numerical model has been developed for gravity walls founded on dry sand
by Al-Homoud and Whitman (1999), using Weidlingger Associates two-dimensional (2D)
finite element computer code, FLEX. Dynamic analyses in FLEX are performed using an
explicit time integration technique.
The suggested model for studying the dynamic response of rigid gravity wall can be
summarized as follows:
1. The soil (dry sand in this study) is modelled by a 2D finite element grid. This includes
the backfill material and the foundation soil.
2. The gravity retaining wall is modeled as a rigid substructure.
3. The strength and deformation of the soil material are modeled using the viscous cap
constitutive model. This model consists of a failure surface and a hardening cap
together with an associated flow rule. The cap surface is activated only for the soil
under the wall to represent compaction during wall rocking. In addition, viscoelastic
26
behavior is provided for the state of stress within the region bounded by these
surfaces, so as to provide for hysteretic-like damping of soil during dynamic loading.
4. Interface (continuum approximation) elements are used between the soil and the wall
(at the back face of the wall and under its base), allowing for sliding and for the
opening and closing of the gaps (i.e. debonding and bonding).
5. The finite element grid is truncated by using an absorbing boundary approximation
developed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer.
This proposed model was verified by comparing its prediction to results from three dynamic
centrifuge tests conducted by Andersen et al (1987). Some of the conclusions which were
made from above study were summarized below. For more details see Al-Homoud and
Whitman [5].
1. The results from the analysis shows the outward tilt of rigid abutments is the dominant
mode of response during dynamic shaking and that these walls end up with a
permanent outward tilt at the end of shaking.
2. The results from the current study showed that the SeedWhitman [8] simplified
equation is conservative while the location of the maximum dynamic earth force is
higher than 0.6H above the base, which is the value suggested by Seed and Whitman
[8].
2.4.2 Green and Ebeling (2003)
A research investigation was undertaken to determine the dynamically induced lateral earth
pressure on the stem portion of a concrete cantilever earth retaining wall with dry medium
dense sand by Green and Ebeling (2003). The numerical model has been developed using
FLAC finite difference code. The results obtained from above numerical model were
compared with the results from simplified techniques for estimating the permanent wall
displacement and the dynamic earth pressures.
In this investigation, highly non-linear model has been developed to cover almost all the
aspects, such as non-linear behaviour of soil and interface in between the wall and soil. The
model was numerically constructed similarly to the way an actual wall would be construed.
From the analyses, the lateral earth pressure coefficients have been computed and checked
with those values computed using Mononobe-Okabe equation.
27
Figure 2.10. Mononobe-Okabe active and passive expressions (yielding backfill), Wood
expression (nonyielding backfill), and FLAC (Continued) (after Green & Ebeling 2003)
The repot also presents the total resultant force, incremental dynamic force and their point of
application. Permanent relative displacement of the wall has been computed using Newmark
sliding block-type analysis
2.4.3 Psarropoulos, Klonaris, and Gazetas (2005)
A study has been carried out by Psarropoulos, Klonaris, and Gazetas to validate the
assumptions of Veletsos and Younan analytical solution and to define the range if its
applicability. The numerical models were developed using the commercial finite-element
package ABAQUS. Pre summing plane-strain conditions, the numerical model was twodimensional. The versatility of the finite-element method permits the treatment of some more
realistic situations that are not amenable to analytical solution. So the modelling was extended
to account for: (a) soil inhomogeneity of the retained soil, and (b) translational flexibility of
the wall foundation.
They studies three different type of soil retaining system,

1. coincides with the single-layer case in where the retained soil is characterized by
homogeneity.
2. models the same single-layer case, but the retained soil is inhomogeneous, with the
shear modulus vanishing at the soil surface.
28
3. refers to a rigid wall founded on a soil stratum.

The results show that the inhomogeneity of the retained soil leads to reduced earth pressures
near the top of the wall, especially in the case of very flexible walls, while the compliance of
the foundation may not easily be modelled by a single rotational spring, due to wave
propagation phenomena.
In case of homogeneous soil wall system, the factors examined are the characteristics of the
ground motion, the properties of the soil stratum, and the flexibilities of the wall and the
rotational constraint at its base. Emphasis is given on the long-periodeffectively static
harmonic excitations. The response for a dynamically excited system is then given as the
product of the corresponding static response with an appropriate amplification (or deamplification) factor. The whole approach is based on the following simplifying assumptions:
(1) no de-bonding or relative slip is allowed to occur at the wall-soil interface, (2) no vertical
normal stresses develop anywhere in the medium, i.e. y = 0, under the considered horizontal
excitation, (3) the horizontal variation of the vertical displacement are negligible, and (4) the
wall is considered to be massless. Quasi-static response and harmonic response with
resonance and high frequency has been analyzed in the work.
In reality, the soil shear modulus is likely to increase with depth. Such inhormogeneity
reflects in very simple way, not only the unavoidably-reduced stiffness under the small
confining pressures prevailing near the top, but two more strong shaking effects:
a. the softening of the soil due to the larger shearing deformations, and
b. the non-linear wall-soil interface behaviour, including separation and slippage.
This feature is too complicated to be incorporated in analytical formulations. Veletsos and
Younan have examined analytically the inhormogeneity with depth, regarding a rigid wall
elastically constrained against rotation at its base. To simplify, the equations of motion a
specific parabolic variation of the shear modulus was used. But the greatest advantage of the
finite element method allows including the flexibility of the wall and/or additional variations
of the shear modulus to extend the analytical solution. The resultant force and the
corresponding overturning moment values for inhomogeneous soil are substantially lower
compared to those of homogeneous soil.
The third category was the two-layers system (gravity wall founded on soil) has been
numerically analyzed. In the aforementioned single-layer models the rotational stiffness of the
wall foundation is simulated by a rotational elastic constraint at the base of the wall. It is
evident that in this way, while the potential rotation of the wall is taken into account,
horizontal translation is not allowed, thus reducing by one the degrees of freedom of the
system. That simplification is expected to have a substantial effect on the response of the
retaining structure. In this part of the study, in order to assess this effect, a more realistic
model is examined, in which wall and the retained soil overlie a linearly visco-elastic soil
layer. As the aim in this section is to evaluate the role of the wall foundation, only rigid
gravity walls are examined.
29
From the static response analyses, it is observed that in general the increase in the degrees of
freedom of the system leads to a decrease of the induced wall pressures. As it was already
stated, the replacement of the Veletsos and Younan rotational spring at the base of the wall by
an actual elastic soil layer introduces an additional degree of freedom to the system: the
horizontal (transverse) elastic displacement of the wall. Consequently, the wallsoil system
becomes more flexible, which, as anticipated, leads to a decrease in the wall pressures.
Furthermore, the decrease in pressures is more noticeable when the base width-height (B/H)
ratio attains relatively high values. This observation may be easily explained through the
following example: consider two systems with identical soil profile geometry, and wall widths
B1=B and B2=2B. But the rotational stiffness, Kr, is approximately proportional to the square
of the wall width (B). This fact implies that for a given (constant) value of Kr, the stiffness of
the soil supporting the wider wall has to be about a quarter of that supporting the narrower
wall for the rotational stiffness to remain the same. In turn, the horizontal stiffness, Kh, is
proportional to the stiffness of the underlying soil. Thus, the horizontal stiffness of the wider
wall will be substantially lower than that of the narrower wall. For the particular cases
examined herein, the horizontal stiffness of the wall with width 0.8H is about 30% of that of
the wall with width 0.4H. So, although the two systems have identical rotational stiffness (d),
the overall flexibility of the wallsoil system is higher in the case of B=0.8H, which is
reflected on the resulting pressure distributions.
Harmonic response analyses have been also carried out to examine the influence of the
underlying soil layer to the dynamic characteristics of the system. Generally, the remarks
made for the statically excited systems apply for the case of resonance as well. Furthermore,
the dynamic texture of the excitation amplifies the discrepancies observed in the static case. It
is of great interest to examine the shear-base and the overturning-moment maximum dynamic
amplification factors. According to the spring model, the more flexible the wall soil system
is, the higher the dynamic amplification factors are. The consideration of a more realistic
model, as the one adopted in this study, leads to the opposite conclusion. The discrepancy
between the two approaches can be justified as follows: In the spring model the stiffness of
the rotational constraint is real-valued, and therefore, the damping capacity of the wall itself
cannot be taken into consideration. As a consequence, the impinging waves on the wall
cannot be dissipated, while the rotational oscillation of the wall increases the wave amplitude.
So, in the spring model, the increase in the wall base flexibility leads to higher values of the
dynamic amplification factors. On the contrary, at the present approach the rotation of the
wall is governed by not only the rotational stiffness, but the damping characteristics (radiation
and material damping) of the foundation layer, as well. In this way, the wave energy can be
dissipated by the boundaries of both the retained and the underlying soil. Additionally, higher
values of impedance contrast cause larger wave dissipation, and consequently, smaller
dynamic amplification.
30
Chapter 3 Type of retaining walls analyzed
3. TYPE OF RETAINING WALLS ANALYZED

The previous chapter presents an overview of earth pressure analysis on earth retaining
structures and on past works that support or find drawback of the methods. The following
chapter presents the three case-studies analyzed in this thesis.
3.1 Diaphragm wall-soil system
The dimension of diaphragm wall analyzed in this investigation is illustrated in figure (3.1).
The wall is designed for static forces using Rankine theory pressure distribution [See
Appendix - A]. Soil is assumed homogeneous with the properties given in the table (3.1
&3.2). The water table and bed rock are well below the domain considered for modelling.
0 .5 m
R e ta in in g W a ll
6 m
5 m
Figure 3.1. Dimension of diaphragm wall
The primary parameters governing the dynamic response of the system are the relative
flexibility of the wall and retained medium and relative flexibility of the rotational point
constrain given by retained soil. The characteristics of the base motion also affect the
response.
The seismic loads acts with static loads on the wall when it is subjected to dynamic analysis.
Seismically induced shear and bending moments must be considered in design, but are not
important in global stability checks.
A dry site (i.e, no water table) will be analyzed in this first of a series of analyses of
diaphragms using DIANA (DIsplacement ANAlyzer). This gives a better understanding of the
dynamic behavior of diaphragm wall retaining dry backfill before adding additional
complexities associated with submerged or partially submerged backfills.
This report summarizes the results of detailed numerical analyses performed on a diaphragm
wall.
The detailed numerical analyses were performed using the commercially available computer
program DIANA.
31
3.2 Cantilever wall-soil system

The dimension of diaphragm wall analyzed in the investigation is illustrated in figure (3.2).
The wall was designed for static forces using Rankine theory pressure distribution [See
Appendix - B]. Soil is assumed homogeneous with following properties given in the table (3.1
& 3.2). The water table and bed rock are well below from the domain used for modelling.
2.4 m
0.9 m
Cantilever
Wall
Back
Fill
6m
Toe
4m
Heel
Figure 3.2. Dimension of cantilever wall
A dry site (i.e, no water table) will be analyzed in this first of a series of analyses of
cantilevers using DIANA (DIsplacement ANAlyzer). This gives a better understanding of the
dynamic behavior of cantilever wall retaining dry backfill before adding additional
complexities associated with submerged or partially submerged backfills.
3.3 Gravity wall-soil system
The dimension of diaphragm wall analyzed in the investigation is illustrated in figure (3.4).
The wall was designed using the traditional approach to seismic design for an earthquake with
a peak acceleration of 0.2g [See Appendix - C]. Soil is assumed homogeneous with following
properties given in the table (3.1 & 3.2). The water table is well below from the domain used
for modelling. The bedrock is fond at 12m below from the free surface.
32
0.8 m
Gravity
Wall
Back
Fill
8.0 m
3.0 m
Figure 3.3. Dimension of gravity wall
A dry site (i.e, no water table) will be analyzed in this first of a series of analyses of gravity
walls using DIANA (DIsplacement ANAlyzer). This gives a better understanding of the
dynamic behavior of gravity wall retaining dry backfill before adding additional complexities
associated with submerged or partially submerged backfills.
3.4 Properties of soil
The non-linear dynamic analyses were carried out for all the walls mentioned above with
dense sand and clay soils separately. The properties of those soils are given in the following
tables.
Table 3.1 Properties of sand
Parameters
Relative density (%)
Value
75
Total unit weight (kN/m3)
19.6
Peak effective angle of internal friction
40
Residual effective angle of internal friction
35
Constant volume friction angle
30
OCR
1.00
Porosity (%)
45
Permeability (cm/s)
10-3
Cyclic undrained shear strength (kPa)
34
33
Table 3.2 Properties of clay
Parameters
Value
Total unite weight (kN/m3)
18
Peak effective angle of internal friction
28
Drained cohesion (kN/m2)
10
OCR
1.15
Elastic modulus (kN/m2)
30,000
10-7
Permeability (cm/s)
3.5 Properties of concrete

The retaining walls were constructed using reinforced concrete. The properties of the concrete
mixture and steel are given in the table (3.3).
Table 3.3 Properties of reinforced concrete
Parameters
Unite weight (kN/m3)
Compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
Value
23.6
30
Poisson ratio
0.20
Yield strength of reinforcement (MPa)
413.4
34
Chapter 4 Selection and processing of ground motion
4. SELECTION AND PROCESSING OF GROUND MOTION

4.1 Selection criteria
The selection criteria of time-history for dynamic analyses of a numerical system are
summarized below:
(1) A real earthquake motion was desired, not a synthetic motion.
(2) The earthquake magnitude and site-to-source distance corresponding to the motion
should be representative of characteristic scenarios at the site.
(3) The motion should have been recorded on rock or stiff soil.
The criteria described above were used to assemble a list of candidate acceleration timehistories. By applying additional conditions to these candidate time-histories, a certain
number of suitable time-histories can be selected for dynamic analyses.
The response of nonlinear dynamic soil-structure system may be strongly affected by the
time-domain character of time-histories even if the spectra of different time-histories are
nearly identical. More time-histories are required for nonlinear dynamic analyses than for
linear analyses. The dynamic response of nonlinear system may be influenced by frequency
content, shape, and number of pulses of time-history, in addition to the response spectrum
characteristic. However, for this research investigation, only three real acceleration timehistories were selected for use in the dynamic analyses.
4.2 List of ground motion
The acceleration time histories used in dynamic analyses of numerical model are listed below.
Table 4.1 Ground motion
Earthquake
Station
PGA (g)
Significant duration (s)
Imperial Valley (1940)
117 EL Centro Array
0.20
20.34
Chi-Chi (1999)
CHY 006N Chi-Chi
0.35
26.03
Kobe (1995)
KJMA Kobe
0.80
8.36
These records were obtained by searching the Strong Motion Database maintained by the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) center. (http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/).
35
4.3 Characteristics of ground motion selected

As stated above, three acceleration time-histories were selected and include, Imperial Valley
(1940), Chi-Chi (1999), and Kobe (1995), corresponding to low, medium, high PGA (g)
respectively and were used to analyze the numerical models.
Figures below are the acceleration time-history, pseudo-acceleration response spectrum

corresponding 5 percentage damping, and Arias intensity of acceleration time-histories
describe above.
0.2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
0
0
10
15
20
25
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Time (s)
Figure 4.1. Imperial Valley (1940) acceleration time-history
0.9
0.8
Pseudo-Acceleration (g)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Period (s)
Figure 4.2. Imperial Valley (1940) Pseudo-Acceleration spectrum corresponding 5% damping
36
100
90
80
Arias intensity (%)
70
60
50
40
D5, 95=20.34s
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time (s)
Figure 4.3. Imperial valley (1940) Arias intensity
0.4
0.3
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Time (s)
Figure 4.4. Chi-Chi (1999) acceleration time-history
37
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Period (s)
Figure 4.5. Chi-Chi (1999) Pseudo-Acceleration spectrum corresponding 5% damping
100
90
80
Arias intensity (%)
70
60
50
D5, 95=26.03s
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time (s)
Figure 4.6. Chi-Chi (1999) Arias intensity
38
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Time (s)
Figure 4.7. Kobe (1995) acceleration time-history
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Period (s)
Figure 4.8. Kobe (1995) Pseudo-Acceleration spectrum corresponding 5% damping
39
100
90
80
Arias intensity (%)
70
60
50
D5, 95=8.36s
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time (s)
Figure 4.9. Kobe (1995) Arias intensity
4.4 Processing of the selected ground motions

Several stages of processing are required to selected acceleration time-histories before using
that as an external loading to a numerical model. In some cases a record is simply scaled
upward by a factor in between two to three without distorting the realistic characteristic of the
ground motion. This type of upward scaling may be desired even though the record has a high
PGA, and induced largest permanent relative displacement. But, still that displacement is not
enough to ensure active earth pressure.
The second processing stage involves filtering high frequencies and computing the ground
motion at the base of the numerical model; both operations are required for finite element
computation. In finite element formulation, the mesh size perpendicular to the wave
propagation direction and wave propagation velocity of the material limit the maximum
frequency that can be transferred through the finite element mesh. Generally the frequencies
above 15Hz are not significant for soil-structure system. Because of these reason removal of
frequencies above 15Hz from ground motion is typical, however if a soil-structure system has
higher natural frequency above 15Hz then the cut off frequency is increased well beyond the
system natural frequency. The filtering operation was done using Seismosignal, for that
Bessel filter type and low-pass filter configuration had been selected.
The outcrop ground motion was simply divided by two and applied at the base of the
numerical model. This idea came from one-dimensional wave propagation theory. For the
purpose of illustrating the features of the boundary formulation, the vertical propagation of
shear waves is considered. The equation of motion may be expressed as:
(4.1) u,tt = Gu, xx
Where a comma is used to indicate partial differentiation
mass density
40
G - shear modulus
u - horizontal displacement
t - time
x - depth coordinate, with the x -coordinate assumed oriented upwards positively.
The fundamental solution of equation (4.1) can be expressed as:
x
x
(4.2) u ( x, t ) = I t + R t +
c
c
where c =
and I and R are two arbitrary functions of their arguments: I (t-x/c) represents a wave motion
propagating upwards in the positive x -direction with the velocity c, and is referred to as the
incident motion; R (t+x/c) presents a wave motion propagating downwards in the negative x direction with the velocity c, and is referred to as the reflected motion.
The boundary at x=h is free, setting (h,t)=0 leads to:
xh xh
(4.3) R t
= It
c
c
Resulting in the total wave motion:

xh
xh
(4.4) u ( x, t ) = I t
+ It +
c
c
Therefore, at a free boundary, the incident wave is reflected back with the same shape and the
same sign. The motion is doubled at the free surface. This is the reason that the out crop
motion is simply divide by two applied at the base, if the soil is homogeneous. The figure
(4.10) shows the wave motion through a semi-infinite layered soil.
41
Chapter 5. Modelling issues and choices
5. MODELLING ISSUES AND CHOICES

This chapter provides the general issues and choices such as soil constitutive model,
boundaries and interface element in finite-element modeling of soil structure system. It also
gives the information about advanced soil constitutive models and absorbing boundaries that
are used nowadays in commercial finite-element codes. Subsequent part of this chapter
specially dedicates for DIANA modelling issues and choices.
5.1 Finite element modeling of soil-structure system
Two important characteristics that distinguish the dynamic soil-structure system from other
general dynamic structural systems are the unbounded nature and the nonlinearity of the soil
medium. Generally, when establishing numerical dynamic soil-structure models, the
following problems should be taken into account:
1. Radiation of dynamic energy into the unbounded soil

2. The hysteretic nature of soil damping
3. Separation of soil from the structure
4. Possibility of soil liquefaction under seismic loads
5. Other inherent nonlinearities of the soil and the structure
However, due to the complexity of dynamic soil-structure behaviour, numerical modeling of
this phenomenon still remains a challenge. There still exist many difficulties to cover in one
model all the aspects listed above. Current models usually stress one or several of these
problems.
5.1.1 Soil constitutive model
A constitutive model is a mathematical model that describes the material behaviour, and
exhibits a wide range of complexity in engineering. To describe the material behavior, one
needs to consider both the properties of the material and nature of external excitation. It is
difficult to develop a general model that covers all aspect of material behavior. The same
material may exhibit very different patterns when subjected to different external loadings.
Consequently, it is usually necessary to focus on a specific material and a specific external
loading of interest.
The behaviour of soil under earthquake loading is complex. It is essential that the constitutive
model used is able to capture the important features of the soil behaviour under cyclic loading
such as permanent deformation, dilatancy, hysterisis and damping, etc. Constitutive models
based on plasticity formulations (e.g., Iwan, 1967; Dafalias and Herman, 1982; Pastor et al.,
1985; Wathugala and Desai, Bardet, 1995) have contributed significantly to the development
of analytical procedures (e.g., Zienkiewicz et al., 1984 and 1990). However, several important
aspects of dynamic soil behavior are not yet incorporated into these models, including cyclic
mobility, post-liquefaction behavior, large deformation potential of sandy soils, cyclic
42
modulus degradation of cohesive soils, low-mean effective stress behavior of soils, and strainrate effects (Ishihara, 1993).
Normally, Mohr-Coulomb, modified Mohr-Coulomb, egg cam-clay or Durcker-Prager can be
used for the finite element analyses. Some of most advanced constitutive laws for soil that are
used in finite element modeling are listed below. All of these models include plasticity and
work hardening.
5.1.1.1 Mohr-Coulomb
The yield condition of MohrCoulomb is an extension of the Tresca yield condition to a
pressure dependent behavior. The formulation of the yield function can be expressed in the
principal stress space (1> 2> 3) as:
(5.1) f ( , k ) =
1
( 1 3 ) + 1 ( 1 + 3 )sin (k ) c(k ) cos0
2
2
with c(k) the cohesion as a function of the internal state variable k, and the angle of internal
friction which is also a function of the internal state variable. The initial angle of internal
friction is given by 0. The flow rule is given by a general non-associated flow rule g not
equal to f, but with the plastic potential given by,
(5.2) g ( , k ) =
1
( 1 3 ) + 1 ( 1 + 3 )sin (k )
2
2
which results for the plastic strain rate vector

1
(1 + sin )
(5.3) p =
0
1 (1 sin )
2
where is dilatancy angle.

The relation between the internal state variable k and the plastic process is given by the
hardening hypothesis. For the MohrCoulomb yield condition it considers only the strain
hardening hypothesis. In the case of strain hardening the relation is given in the principal
space by,
(5.4)
2 p p
p p + p p
+
3 3
2 2
3 1 1
which can be elaborated to

(5.5)
= 1 + sin 2
43
5.1.1.2 Pastor and Zienkiewicz(l986) [P-Z mark III model]

The P-Z mark III model is a generalised plasticity-bounding surface model with non
associated flow rule. The model is described by means of potential surfaces given by:
(5.6) G ( p' , q, pg ) = q M g p' 1 +

g

p
'
1

p
g
where p is the mean confining stress, q is the deviatoric shear stress, Mg, is slope of the
Critical State line, g, is a constant and pg is a size parameter. The shapes of yielding surfaces
and potential surfaces follow the same family of curves given by above equation. For the
analysis the parameter Mg, is obtained from the effective angle of friction of the soil and
Lodes angle by Mohr-Coulomb relation;
(5.7) M g =
6 sin ' sin 3

3 sin ' sin 3
Mg is determined by assuming that sin is constant and by considering Mg=Mgc when =

/6. Mgc is obtained from the triaxial compression tests. The dilatancy of sands is
approximated as suggested by Nova and Wood (1982);
(5.8) d = (1 + g )( M g )
Where is the stress ratio (q/p). The direction of plastic flow is defined by means of a unit
normal ng given by,
1
(5.9) {ng } =
2
1+ d
{d , s}T
1
(5.10) {ng } =
2
1+ d
for loading
{abs (d ), s}T
for unloading
Where s=+l during compression and s=-1 during extension. The typical parameters that are
required for this constitutive model are presented in table (5.1) with typical values for medium
dense sand.
44
Table 5.1 Typical parameters for P-Z model
5.1.1.3 HiSS soil model [Hierarchical single surface soil model]

A nonlinear soil model HiSS has been used to introduce the effect of plasticity. There is a
series of these models, as mentioned in Wathugala and Desai (1993). Both plasticity and work
hardening of the soil are considered in the model, which is based on an incremental stress
strain relationship and assumes associative plasticity. Further, this version assumes the
constitutive relationship for nonvirgin loading (i.e., loading or unloading) to be elastic. A
simplified formulation used for virgin loading in HiSS is described here. Further details can
be found in Wathugala and Desai.
In this model, a material parameter is used to define the shape of the yield surface in the
octahedral plane. Assuming = 0, the dimensionless yield surface F can be simplified as
J
J
J
(5.11) F = 22D + ps 1 1
pa
pa
pa
Where J1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor ij; J2D is the second invariant of the
deviatoric stress tensor; pa is the atmospheric pressure; ps is the hardening function; and and
are material parameters that influence the shape of F in J1-(J2D) 0.5 space. The parameter is
related to the phase-change point, which is defined as the point where material changes from
contractive to dilative behaviour [Figure (5.1)]. The hardening function, ps, is defined in
terms of plastic strain trajectory, , as
(5.12) ps =
h1
vh
45
Where h1 and h2 are material parameters and denotes the trajectory of the volumetric plastic
strain. Typical yield surfaces for this model are shown in figure (5.1).
Figure 5.1. Shape of yield surfaces in J1-J2D space
5.1.1.4 Hyperbolic type Osaki model

The stress-strain relationship of soil can be divided into the volumetric and deviatoric
components. For the deviatoric component, the hyperbolic type Osaki model can be adopted,
as shown in figure (5.2). In this model, loading, unloading and reloading paths are prescribed
by the relationship of second invariant of deviatoric stress and strain, as formulated in
equation (5.8), defined by the initial shear stiffness and shear strength (Ohsaki 1980).
Figure 5.2. Non-linear constitutive law for soil
J '
J2
(5.13) 2 =
M 2G0 M
G
J
0
1 2
1 +
100 Su
Su M
Where,
J2 - second invariants of deviatoric stress
J2' - second invariants of deviatoric strain
46
G0 - initial shear modulus (N/mm2)

Su - shear strength at 1% shear strain (N/mm2)
B - material parameter (sand: 1.6, clay: 1.4)
M - hysteretic parameter (loading: 1.0, unloading/reloading: 2.0).
Initial shear modulus can be calculated with equation (5.9), formulated for Gifu sand used in
the experiment (Ishida et al. 1981), and shear strength is evaluated by Coulomb's friction
theory, described by equation (5.10)
(5.14) G0
2
(
2.17 e ) 0.321
= 630
1+ e
(5.15) Su = c cos + c sin

Where,
e - void ratio
c confining pressure
c cohesion
internal friction angle
For sandy soil, variations in relative density (or void ratio) and confining stress strongly affect
the static and dynamic behavior of the soil. Additionally, positive and negative dilatancy
arises due to repeated shear deformation that results in nonlinear volumetric behavior.
This model had already been verified for 0.001 to 1% shear strain amplitude in the stiffness
degradation and the variation of material hysterics damping (Ohsaki 1980).
5.1.2 Boundaries
For computational efficiency it is desirable to minimize the number of elements in a finiteelement analysis. Minimizing the number of elements usually becomes a matter of
minimizing the size of the discretized region. As the size of the discretized region decreases,
the influence of boundary conditions becomes more significant.
For many dynamic response and soil-structure interaction problems, rigid or near-rigid
boundaries such as bedrock are located at considerable distances, particularly in the horizontal
direction, from the region of interest. As a result, wave energy that travels away from the
region of interest may effectively be permanently removed from that region. In a dynamic
finite-element analysis, it is important to simulate this type of radiation damping behaviour.
The most commonly used boundaries for finite-element analyses can be divided into three
groups,
47
1. Elementary boundaries
2. Local or transmitting boundaries
3. Consistent boundaries
5.1.2.1 Elementary boundaries
Conditions of zero displacement or zero stress are specified at elementary boundaries.
Elementary boundaries can be used to model the ground surface accurately as a free (zero
stress) boundary. For lateral or lower boundaries, however, the perfect reflection
characteristics of elementary boundaries can trap energy in the mesh that in reality would
radiate past the boundaries and away from the region of interest. The resulting box effect
can produce serious errors in a ground response or soil-structure interaction analysis. If
elementary boundaries are placed far enough from the region of interest, reflected wave may
be damped sufficiently to negate their influence.
5.1.2.2 Local or transmitting boundaries
The simulation of waves by finite-difference or finite-element methods in unbounded domains
requires a specific treatment for the boundaries of the necessarily truncated computational
domain. Two solutions have been proposed: absorbing boundary conditions and absorbing
layers.
The most common analytical soil-structure models are based on the assumptions that the soil
domain may be represented by an elastic half space and that dashpots may be used to
represent the absorbing boundary conditions (Wolf 1985). These boundary conditions are
required to model both radiation damping of the waves propagating outward into the infinite
domain and to prevent reflections back into the system from any artificially introduced finite
domain of the half-space.
In 1969, Lysmer &Kuhlemeyer developed absorbing boundaries only with dashpots. This
type of absorbing boundary is used in most of the finite-element and finite different codes,
such as DYNOFLOW, DIANA, FLAC and ABAQUS. Lysmer & Kuhlemeyer have
investigated different possibilities for expressing this boundary condition analytically and
have found that the most promising way is to express it by the conditions
(5.16) xx = aV p
(5.17) xy = bVs
u x
t
u y
t
In which xx and xy are the normal and shear stress, respectively; ux and uy are the normal and
tangential displacement respectively; is the mass density; Vs and Vp are the velocities of Swaves and P-waves, respectively; and a and b are dimensionless parameters, usually a=b=1.
48
Figure 5.3. The dashpot model proposed by Lysmer & Kuhlemeyer
The absorption cannot be made perfect over the whole range of incident angles by any choice
of a and b. It has been shown that the nearly perfect absorption is obtained in the range
incident wave angle grater than 30 for a=b=1.
While carrying out the finite-element analysis the boundaries are rendered non-reflective by
various schemes such as Smith-Cundall boundary or Lysmer-Kuhlemeyer boundary. An
elegant scheme based on compound parabolic collectors was developed by Madabhushi,
(1993). In this scheme the boundary is modelled with a compound parabolic shape which will
transmit stress waves arriving at any angle less than the angle of receptance into a region
where they undergo multiple reflections. This scheme is particularly suitable for transient
analysis. These types of boundaries are used in SWANDYNE code.
Figure 5.4. Compound parabolic callectors
Absorbing layers model are an alternative to absorbing boundary condition. The idea is to
surround the domain of interest by some artificial absorbing layers in which wave are trapped
and attenuated. For elastic waves, several models have been proposed. For instance, Sochacki
et al suggest adding inside the layers some attenuation term, proportional to the first time
derivative of the displacement to the elastodynamic equations. This technique is inspired by
Physics and revealed to be quite delicate in practice. The main difficulty is that, when entering
the layers, the waves see the change in impedance of the medium and then is reflected
artificially into the domain of interest. The use of smooth and not too high attenuation profiles
allows user to weaken the difficulty but requiring the use of thick layers.
49
5.1.2.3 Consistent boundaries

Boundaries that can absorb all types of body waves and surface waves at all angles of
incidence and all frequencies are called consistent boundaries. Consistent boundaries can be
represented by frequency-dependent boundary stiffness matrices obtained from boundary
integral equations or boundary element method. Wolf (1991), for example, developed a
lumped-parameter model consisting of an assemblage of discrete springs, mass and dashpots
which can approximate the behaviour of a consistent boundary
Figure 5.5. Lumped-parameter consistent boundary
5.1.3 Soil-structure interface

Based on SSI analyses of four hypothetical earth retaining structures, Ebeling, Duncan, and
Clough (1990) concluded that the interface shear stiffness has a significant influence on the
distribution of forces on the structure. They performed two different analyses of the same
structure using the expected maximum and minimum values of shear stiffness of the backfillto-structure interface. A difference of 12.5 percent was found between the values of friction
angle mobilized at the base of the structure for the two analyses.
Filz (1992) and Filz and Duncan (1997) showed that the distribution of the backfill-tostructure interface shear stresses is not uniform along the height of the wall. As the backfill in
contact with the wall rises, the shear stresses at the interface decrease.
The magnitude of the vertical shear forces acting on the back of the wall may have a
significant impact on the stability of the structure. These vertical shear forces have a
stabilizing effect that could produce economies if accounted for in the design of the structure.
Reliable calculation of these forces requires an adequate constitutive model for the interface
response.
All the commercial finite-element or finite-difference codes have interface elements. User
wants to select a constitutive model for the interface elements. Most used constitutive model
for interface element, especially for retaining wall modeling, is hyperbolic interface model
proposed by Clough and Duncan (1971).
50
5.1.4 Size of finite element mesh

A proper dimensioning of the finite-element mesh or finite-difference zones is required to
avoid numerical distortion of propagating ground motions, in addition to accurate
computation of model response. The response of both equivalent linear and nonlinear finiteelement models can be influenced by discretization. In particular, the use of coarse finiteelement meshes can result in the filtering of high-frequency components whose short
wavelengths cannot by widely spaced nodal points.
Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer (1973) recommended that the length of the element l be smaller
than one-tenth to one-eighth of the wavelength () associated with the highest frequency (fmax)
component of the input motion. Lysmer (1975) recommended that l be smaller than one-fifth
the associated with fmax.
Wave length () is related to the shear wave velocity of the soil Vs and the frequency f of the
propagating wave by the following relation:
(5.18) =
Vs
f
The finite-element mesh size or finite-difference zone size can be selected according to the
following expression:
(5.19) l
Vs
f max
takes different values according to the recommendation given by different code.

=10 for FLAC analysis
=5 for FLUSH and DIANA analysis
(5.20) f max
Vs
f max
As may be observed from these expressions (5.15), the finite-element mesh and finitedifference zone with the lowest Vs and a given l will limit the highest frequency that can
pass through the zone without numerical distortion.
5.2 Overview of DIANA
DIANA is a multi-purpose finite element program, based on displacement method. It has been
under development at TNO the Netherlands since 1972. As stated in chapter1, the numerical
analyses of earth retaining structures were performed using DIANA.
Dynamic analysis can be performed with DIANA using the optional dynamic calculation module,
wherein user can specify acceleration or velocity or displacement time-history to a model.
Incremental-Iterative solution procedures may be selected for nonlinear system with different
51
iterative procedures such as regular Newton-Raphson, modified Newton-Raphson, quasi NewtonRaphson and line searchetc.
DIANA offers several convergence norm such as force norm, displacement norm, energy
norm, and residual norm to stop the iteration process, if the results are satisfactory. User can
specify more than one convergence criterion simultaneously. DIANA terminates the iterative
process when all the specified criteria are satisfied simultaneously.
User defined mass matrix can be computed as lumped or consistent or including rotational
terms in the matrix by DIANA. In a same way, damping matrix can also be computed as
lumped or consistent or Rayleigh damping matrix.
DIANA allows user to select different type of time integration method such as Euler
backward, Newmarks method, Hilber-Hughes-Taylor, Wilson- method, and Runge-Kutta
time integration method for transient analyses.
DIANA has eight built-in isotropic plasticity models such as Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager,
Egg Cam-Clay, and Modified Mohr-Coulomb etc and allows user-defined model to be
incorporated. [See DIANA Users manual 9.0]
5.3 Numerical model
In this investigation, the soil and wall are modeled using eight-node quadrilateral
isoparametric 2-D plane strain elements as shown in figure (5.7). These elements are based on
quadratic interpolation and Gauss integration. Each node has two translation degrees of
freedom along the X and Y coordinate directions. The polynomial for the displacements ux
and uy can be expressed as:
(5.21) ui ( , ) = a0 + a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 2 + a5 2 + a6 2 + a7 2
Figure 5.6. CQ16E 8-node 2-D plane strain element
Typically, this polynomial yields a strain xx which varies linearly in x direction and
quadratically in y direction. The strain yy varies linearly in y direction and quadratically in x
direction. The shear strain xy varies quadratically in both directions (DIANA Users manual
9.0). These behaviors are enough to capture the bending behavior of the wall.
To simulate an infinite soil medium, transmitting boundary elements consisting of two nodes
translational spring-dashpot that are shown in figure (5.8) were attached at all the bottom node
along the finite element mesh boundaries. The value for the spring has been set to zero and
the dashpot coefficient has been calculated using following equation,
52
(5.22) c = Vs
where is mass density of soil
Figure 5.7. SP2TR 2-node translation spring/dashpot
For the vertical boundary, horizontal active soil pressure has to be applied to the
corresponding nodes manually. This was done by recording the reaction forces in the model
with fixed boundaries and applying them with opposite sign to the model with horizontal
rollers. The horizontal displacements after applying self weight should be very small.
5.3.2 Details of diaphragm wall numerical model
DIANA created finite element mesh is shown in figure (5.9). As shown in the figure, the
model contains only the top15m of soil profile.
Figure 5.8. Finite element mesh for diaphragm wall
The small strain natural frequency of the DIANA model of the retaining wall-soil system is
estimated to be 4.8 Hz (5.0 Hz). At higher stains, it is expected that the natural frequency of
the system will be less than 5 Hz. The cutoff frequency for dynamic analysis was set at 15 Hz.
53
This value was selected based on the natural frequency of the wall-soil system. The
dimensioning of the finite element mesh selected such as to ensure proper transfer of
frequencies up to 15 Hz is discussed in section 5.6.
All along the model, the size of the elements varied from 0.25 to 1.0 m in both directions that
was less than one eighth of the shortest wave length that corresponds to the highest frequency
of 15 Hz considered in the transient analysis (Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer, 1973). The total of
806 elements was used in the model.
The retaining wall model was "numerically constructed" in DIANA similar to the way an
actual wall would be constructed. The excavation at the left hand side of the wall was done in
3m cuts, with the model being brought to static equilibrium after the each cut. This allowed
realistic earth pressures to develop as the wall deformed and moved due to the excavation of
soil. Figure (5.10) shows the deformed grid, magnified 50 times, after the construction of the
wall and excavation of 6 m.
Stage 1
Stage 2
54
Stage 3
Figure 5.9. Deformed mesh at the end of the each phased construction (sand), magnification
factor 50
5.3.3 Details of cantilever wall numerical model
The cantilever wall-soil system numerical model that was created by DIANA is illustrated in
figure (5.11). The finite element model contains the top 9.1m of soil profile.
The small strain natural frequency of the cantilever wall-soil system of DIANA model has
been estimated is 9.2 Hz ( 9.0 Hz). At higher strain, it is expected that the natural frequency
of the system will be less than 9.0 Hz.
The size of the elements in the numerical model is around 0.6 m in both directions that was
less than one eighth of smaller wave length corresponding to higher frequency of 15 Hz that
was set for dynamic analysis. The total of 688 elements was used in the model.
Figure 5.10. Finite element mesh for cantilever wall
The retaining wall model was "numerically constructed" in DIANA similar to the way an actual
wall would be constructed. Backfill has been lifted as 0.5m thickness layer in 12 steps. After
55
placing of each layer the numerical model was brought to static equilibrium. This allowed realistic
earth pressures to develop as the wall deformed and moved due to the excavation of soil. Figure
(5.12) shows the deformed grid, magnified 150 times, after the placement of the backfill of 6 m.
Stage1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
56
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stage 7
Stage 8
Stage 9
57
Stage 10
Stage 11
Stage 12
Stage 13
Figure 5.11. Deformed mesh after placing of backfill (sand), magnification factor 150
5.3.4 Details of gravity wall numerical model
The numerical model contains top 12m of soil profile. The finite element model created in
DIANA is illustrated in figure (5.13).
58
Figure 5.12. Finite element mesh for gravity wall
The total of 384 elements was used in the model. The small strain natural frequency of the
gravity wall-soil system of DIANA model has been estimated is 4.4 Hz ( 4.5 Hz). At higher
strain, it is expected that the natural frequency of the system will be less than 4.5 Hz. Figure
(5.14) shows the deform mesh, magnified 150 times, after the construction and placement of
soil.
Figure 5.13. Deformed mesh after constructing and placing backfill (sand)
5.3.5 Model parameters for soil

The stress-strain behaviour of soil was modelled using the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model.
The parameters that are required for Mohr-Coulomb model are effective internal friction
angle (), effective cohesion (c), angle of dilation () and mass density (). The mass density
is the total unit weight of the soil (t) divided by the acceleration due to gravity (g), i.e. = t/g.
59
For the plane strain finite element, additional parameters that are Youngs modulus (E) and
Poissons ratio () are required. By using theory of elasticity:
(5.23) E = 2 (1 + ) G
Several correlations exist that relate G that is the shear modulus of the soil to other soil
parameters. However, the most direct relation is between G and shear wave velocity (Vs):
(5.24) G = Vs2
Consequently the value for the bulk modulus K can be calculated using following relation:
(5.25) K =
2 G (1 + )
3 (1 2 )
may be estimated using the following expression:

(5.26) =
1 sin '
2 sin '
Which was also derived from the theory of elasticity (e.g. Terzaghi 1943), in conjunction with
the correction relating Ko and proposed by Jaky (1944):
(5.27) K 0 = 1 sin '
Table 5.2 DIANA input properties of sand
Parameters
Value
Poissons ratio
0.26
At-rest pressure coefficient
0.36
Youngs modulus (MPa)

Effective friction angle
3
Density (kg/m )
163.13
40
2000
Table 5.3 DIANA input properties of clay
Parameters
Value
Poissons ratio
0.34
At-rest pressure coefficient
0.53
Drained cohesion (kN/m2)
10
Effective friction angle
28
Elastic modulus (MPa)
30.00
Density (kg/m3)
1835
60
5.3.6 Model parameters for wall

The concrete diaphragm wall was assigned to act as linear elastic material for whole analysis.
The wall was also modeled using 2-D 8-node plane strain elements. Youngs modulus (E) and
Poisson ratio () were input as additional parameters.
(5.28) E = 5000 f c'
Where,
f c' - compressive strength of concrete
Table 5.4 DIANA input properties of concrete
Parameters
Value
Elastic modulus of concrete (MPa)
30,000
Yield strength of steel (MPa)
413.400
Youngs modulus of steel (GPa)
200
Density (kg/m3)
2406
5.3.7 Interface element

In this study no special interface elements have been used in between the soil and the wall. In
the case of the diaphragm and cantilever walls, the horizontal displacement of the wall
element nodes and the soil element nodes are tied together and the vertical displacement are
independent of each other. Both the vertical and horizontal displacements of the soil and wall
elements were tied together for the gravity wall.
5.3.8 Dimensions of finite element mesh
As mentioned previously, proper dimensioning of finite element mesh is required to avoid
numerical distortion of propagating ground motions, in addition to accurate computation of
model response. Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer (1973) recommend that the length of the element l
be smaller than one-tenth to one-eight of the wavelength associated with the highest
frequency fmax component of the input motion. Lysmer (1975) recommended that l be
smaller than one-fifth the associated with fmax.
The shear wave velocity of both soils was taken as 180 m/s. The maximum frequency that was
allowed for the transient analysis was 15 Hz, corresponding minimum wave length () is
12m.The maximum allowable mesh size is in the range of 1.2m to 2.4m (correspond to 5-10
times less than the wave length). One-fifth the was used as a the criterion for the modelling
works.
5.3.9 Damping
An elastroplastic Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model was used for soil in DIANA numerical
model. Inherent in this model is the characteristic that once the induced dynamic shear
61
stresses exceed the shear strength of the soil, the plastic deformation of the soil introduced
considerable hysteretic damping. However, for dynamic stresses less than the shear strength,
the soil behaves elastically (without damping). DIANA allows mass proportional, stiffness
proportional and Rayleigh damping to be specified, where the later provides relatively
constant level of damping over the restricted range of frequencies.
For the DIANA analysis performed, Rayleigh damping was specified, for which the critical
damping ratio may be determined by the following relation:
(5.29) =
+
2
Where,
- the mass-proportional damping constant
- the stiffness-proportional damping constant
- angular frequency associated with
For Rayleigh damping, the damping ratio and the corresponding central frequency need to be
specified. A lower bound damping ratio one percentage was set to soil at first natural
frequency of the system and the predominant frequency of the excitation.
62
Chapter 6. DIANA results and discussion
6. DIANA RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the previous chapter, an overview was given of the numerical models used to analyze the
different type of retaining walls. In this chapter an overview is given on how the DIANA data
was simplified, followed by a presentation and discussion of the simplified data. Each
numerical model was subjected to two types of analyses: phased analysis (static) including the
construction sequences and then dynamic analysis.
6.1 Data simplification
Time-histories for the lateral stresses acting on the elements composing the wall and the soil
were computed by DIANA at Gauss integration points within the elements, as well as
acceleration and displacement time-histories. From the DIANA computed stresses, the
resultant forces and the points of applications were computed for the wall sections using the
method proposed by Green and Ebeling (2003) in the FLAC analyses. The resultant force and
its point of application on the wall are needed for the structural design of the wall. Average
stress distribution was assumed to determine the resultant forces acting on the wall. The detail
of the approach is discussed in the following subsection.
6.1.1 Determination of forces assuming constant stress distribution
To determine the forces acting on the wall sections, the average stress distribution across the
elements was assumed, as illustrated in figure (6.1). To apply this approach, Gauss integration
points stresses were considered to calculate the average stress within the element.
For the assumed constant stress distributions, the forces acting on the top and bottom nodes of
each wall element, shown as in figure (6.1), were computed using the following expressions:
63
to p
to p
1 ,j
1 ,j
h1
1
b o tto m
1 ,j
b o tto m
1 ,j
to p
to p
2 ,j
2 ,j
2 ,j
h2
2
b o tto m
2 ,j
b o tto m
to p
to p
3 ,j
3 ,j
h3
b o tto m
3 ,j
b o tto m
3 ,j
Figure 6.1. Constant stress distribution approximation across the element (from Green &
Ebeling 2003)
(6.1) Fi ,top
j =
1
1
hi itop
hi i , j
,j =
2
2
(6.2) Fi.bottom
=
j
1
1
hi ibottom
= hi i , j
,j
2
2
Where
Fi ,topj - force acting on the top node of element i and at time increment j
hi - length of element i
i,topj - lateral stress acting on the top of element i and at time increment j
i, j - average stress acting on the element i and at time increment j

Fi ,bottom
- force acting on the bottom node of element i an at time increment j
j
i,bottom
- lateral stress acting on the bottom of element i and at time increment j
j
64
The total force acting on the stem or heel section Pj at time increment j was determined by
bottom
= hi i , j
(6.3) Pj = Fi ,top
j + Fi , j
i
6.1.2 Incremental dynamic forces
In addition to computing the total resultant forces acting on the wall sections, the incremental
dynamic forces Pj at time increment j were computed. Pj is the difference between the total
resultant force Pj at time increment j minus the total resultant force prior to shaking (i.e., Pj at j
= 0, designated as Pstatic):
(6.4) Pj = Pj Pstatic
6.1.3 Reaction height of forces
The points of application of the total and incremental dynamic resultant forces were computed
for the wall (or the stem and heel section of the cantilever wall) sections in terms of their
vertical distances above the base of the wall. For the total resultant forces, the vertical
distances Y were computed using the following relation:
h y
=
h
j
(6.5) Y j
i, j
i, j
Where,
Yj - vertical distance from the base of the retaining wall to the point of application of the total
resultant force acting on the wall section at time increment j
yi - vertical distance from the base of the retaining wall to the center of element i
The vertical distances Y from the base of the retaining wall to the points of application of
Pj acting on the wall (or the stem and heel section of the cantilever wall) were computed
using the following relation:
(6.6) Y j =
Pj Y j Pstatic Ystatic
Pj
In this equation, Ystatic is the vertical distance from the base of the retaining wall to the point of
application of the total resultant force acting on the wall (or the stem and heel section of the
cantilever wall) prior to the shaking (i.e., Yj at j = 0).
6.1.4 Dynamic earth pressure coefficient
Lateral earth pressure coefficient (Kj,DIANA) can be back-calculated at time increment j from
the DIANA results using the following expression:
65
(6.7) K j , DIANA =
2 Pj , DIANA
H 2 (1 kv , j )
where kv,j is the vertical inertial coefficient at time increment j (assumed to be zero)
The sign convention of horizontal inertial coefficient kh used to analyze the data is shown in
following figure (6.2). kh can be simply calculated dividing acceleration (ah) by gravity.
(6.8) k h =
away
from
backfill
kh
towards
backfill
ah
g
towards
backfill
ah
(m/s2)
away
from
backfill
Figure 6.2. Horizontal acceleration ah, corresponding dimensionless horizontal inertial

coefficient kh, of a point in the backfill portion of sliding wedge
6.2 Presentation and discussion of simplified data

The following section presents some of the phased analysis results and dynamic analysis
results. Using the procedures described in the preceding section, the total and dynamic
incremental resultant forces acting on the wall (or the stem and heel section of the cantilever
wall) sections were determined from the DIANA computed stresses, as well as the
corresponding vertical distance above the base at which the resultant forces act. Additionally,
the permanent relative displacements of the wall computed in the DIANA analysis are
presented. Finally, a brief discussion is given concerning the deformed shape of the wall-soil
system at the end of shaking.
6.2.1 Phased analysis stress distribution
Static horizontal stress that was computed by DIANA distribution along the height of the wall
was compared with the theoretical stress distribution that was used to design the wall. This
comparison gives the idea of how much shear stress has been mobilized in the static
condition.
66
11
10
9
DIANA active pressure
DIANA passive pressure
Design active pressure

Design passive pressure
Height (m)
0
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pressure *10^4 (N/m^2)
Figure 6.3. Pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall in sand at the end of the phased
analysis
10
DIANA passive pressure
DIANA active pressure

Theoritical passive pressure
Height (m)
Theoritical active pressure
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 6.4. Pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall in clay at the end of the phased
analysis
67
From figure (6.3) and (6.4), the DIANA computed active pressures along the height of the
diaphragm wall show the good agreement with the theoretical values computed using Rankine
(classical method) theory. But the passive pressures do not show a good match with the
theoretical values.
Although the presence of cohesion indicates that tensile stresses will be develop between the
upper portion of the wall and the backfill in active case, tensile stresses do not actually
develop in the field.
7
Pressure along the stem

Pressure along the heel
verital section through heel
Design pressure
Height (m)
0
0
10
Pressure N/m^2 (10^4)
Figure 6.5. Pressure distribution along the cantilever wall in sand at the end of the phased
analysis
Table 6.1 Pressure values along the height of the cantilever wall
Sand
Height (m)
6.1
5.6
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.1
2.6
2.1
1.6
1.1
0.6
0.0
Stem (kPa)
0.00
1.84
4.93
5.20
6.60
9.51
12.52
14.42
17.78
18.40
23.78
65.45
-
Clay
Heel (kPa)
0.00
1.00
3.07
5.19
7.52
10.80
15.25
15.60
17.55
20.20
23.95
30.25
12.87
Stem (kPa)
0.00
-2.71
-0.41
2.28
5.70
10.76
15.50
20.60
27.78
36.20
45.50
69.25
-
Heel (kPa)
0.00
-2.51
0.26
5.10
9.08
13.7
18.95
24.55
30.15
35.95
39.05
38.75
13.75
68
Pressure along the stem

Pressure along the heel
verital section through heel
Theoretical pressure
Height (m)
0
-1
Figure 6.6. Pressure distribution along the cantilever wall in clay at the end of the phased
analysis
From figure (6.5) and (6.6), the active pressure calculated by DIANA along the section
through the heel of the cantilever wall in sand show the good agreement with the theoretical
values. But in the case of clay is not true, the stresses along the heel section are higher than
the theoretical stresses. It means that the shear strength of the soil is not fully mobilized at this
stage.
8
6
DIANA pressure
Design pressure
Height (m)
0
0
Figure 6.7. Pressure distribution along the gravity wall in sand at the end of the phased analysis
69
6
DIANA pressure
Theoretical pressure
Height (m)
0
-2
-1
Pressure (N/m^2) 10^4
Figure 6.8. Pressure distribution along the gravity wall in clay at the end of the phased analysis
The figure (6.7) and (6.8) show the DIANA computed horizontal stress and the theoretical
stress along the height of the gravity wall for sand and clay. In both cases of sand and clay the
stresses computed by DIANA are less than the theoretical stresses.
6.2.2 Dynamic analysis stress distribution
The dynamic stresses computed by DIANA and the forces along the wall due to that stresses
are of interest for earthquake engineers. The bending moments and shear forces are the
quantities needed for structural design of wall. In the case of clayey soil, the tensile stress
developed at the top part of the wall is neglected in dynamic force, bending moment and shear
force calculation. Only compressive stresses are taken into account for the calculation.
6.2.2.1 Pressure distribution along the diaphragm wall
This section gives the information about stress distribution along the diaphragm wall at the
end of the dynamic analyses for both cases sand and clay.
70
11
10
DIANA pressure @ end of dynamic analysis
9
DIANA active pressure @ end of phased

analysis
DIANA passive pressure @end of phased
analysis
7
Height (m)
Wall
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
analysis (EL Centro)
11
DIANA Pressure @ end of dynamic analysis
10

analysis
DIANA passive pressure @ end of phased
analysis
Wall
Height (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
analysis (Chi-Chi)
71
11
10
Height (m)

analysis

analysis
Wall
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
analysis (Kobe)
11
10
9
DIANA active pressure @end of phased
analysis
analysis
Wall
Height (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
35
analysis (EL Centro)
72
11
10

analysis
analysis
Wall
Height (m)
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
35
analysis (Chi-Chi)
11
10

DIANA Pressure @ end of the dynamic analysis
DIANA active pressure @ end of phsed analysis

8
DIANA passive pressure @ end of phased analysis
7
Height (m)
Wall
6
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
35
analysis (Kobe)
Figure (6.9) to figure (6.14) show that the passive pressures at the end of the dynamic analysis
are greater than those given by the static analysis, but does not fully match the theoretical
73
values. The active pressure shows little or no increase at the end of the dynamic analysis,
because active side is already fully mobilized at the end of the phased analysis.
It might be expected, in all cases with sand, that the point of rotation of the wall is around 1m
above the bottom of the wall, because below 1m, the active region became passive and
passive became active. It will be ensured in the section (6.2.3) describes the deformed shape
of the wall.
6.2.2.2 Pressure distribution along the stem of the cantilever wall
The following figures provide the information about the stress distribution along the stem of
the cantilever wall at the end of the dynamic analyses. Additionally, theoretical active
pressure line and at-rest pressure line are given for the comparison of stresses at beginning of
the dynamic analysis and at the end of the dynamic analysis.
7
Ka-pressure
DIANA pressure at the end of the phasedanalysis

Ko-Pressure
Height (m)
DIANA pressure after the dynamic

analysis
4
0
0
phased and dynamic analysis (sand, EL Centro)
74
Ka-pressure

Ko-Pressure
Height (m)

analysis
4
0
0
phased and dynamic analysis (sand, Chi-Chi)
7
Ka-pressure

Ko-Pressure
Height (m)

analysis
4
0
0
phased and dynamic analysis (sand, Kobe)
75
Above figures (6.15 to 6.17) show the stress distribution along the stem of the cantilever wall
before the dynamic analysis is very close to Ka-condition, but at the end of the dynamic
analysis, the residual earth pressure is approximately equal to K0-condition.
Similar increases in the earth pressures were found in other studies, both numerical and
laboratory (i.e., centrifuge and shake table), as outlined in Whitman (1990) and also reported
by Green and Ebeling from FLAC analyses [19].
6.2.2.3 Pressure distribution along the height of the gravity wall
The following figure shows the pressure distribution along the height of the gravity wall. It
shows clearly that the pressures at the end of the dynamic analysis are higher than those at the
end of the phased analysis and also close to the active pressure values.
8
EL centro
Chi-Chi
Kobe
End of phased analysis
Height (m)
0
0
Figure 6.18. Pressure along the gravity wall at the end of the dynamic analysis (Sand)
76
EL centro
Chi-Chi
Kobe
Height (m)
0
-1
Figure 6.19. Pressure along the gravity wall at the end of the dynamic analysis (Clay)
In addition to this, some points concerning the lateral earth pressures during the dynamic
analysis were observed.
a. The maximum earth pressure behind the wall occurs when the wall is at its maximum
displacement towards the backfill, which occurs also at the time of a maximum
outward (away from backfill) horizontal acceleration at the base
b. The minimum earth pressure occurs when the wall is at its maximum displacement
away from the backfill, which also occurs at the time of a maximum inward (towards
backfill) horizontal acceleration at the base.
c. The peak accelerations at the top of the far field and at top of the wall lag those at the
base.
Similar phasing relations between the different quantities were found in both the results
from numerical model and the measurements from the centrifuge test, as outlined in
A.S.Al-Homoud and R.V.Whitman (1999) [2].
6.2.3 Design lateral earth pressure coefficient and DIANA computed lateral earth
pressure coefficient
Using this expression (6.7), KDIANA values were computed for the wall at the peaks and
troughs during the strong motion portion of the kh time-history. The acceleration time-history
was computed at the mid-point of the sliding soil wedge and was divided by gravity to
77
compute the kh time-history. The KDIANA values thus computed are plotted as functions of their
corresponding absolute values of kh in following figures. Additionally, the active and passive
dynamic earth pressure coefficients (KAE and KPE, respectively) computed using the
Mononobe-Okabe expression (2.4) given in the Literature review are shown in following
figures.
The shape of the Mononobe-Okabe active and passive dynamic earth pressure curves warrant
discussion. As kh increases, Kae increases, while Kpe decreases. For the conditions examined
(i.e., horizontal backfill, vertical wall, kv = 0), Kae and Kpe reach the same limiting value. The
limiting K value occurs when the angles of the active and passive failure planes (which are
assumed to be planar in the Mononobe-Okabe formulation) become horizontal.
For comparison purposes, the lateral earth pressure coefficient calculated using Wood (1973)
approach for nonyielding backfills is also plotted in the following figures.
By treating PE mentioned in equation (2.19) as the dynamic incremental force, the
equivalent earth pressure coefficient was computed by substituting PE into equation (6.7) for
P and adding Ko to the result. The resulting curve, shown in following figures, will likely be a
conservative upper bound of the earth pressures.
6.2.3.1 Comparison of lateral earth pressure coefficients for diaphragm wall
The lateral earth pressure coefficients calculated from the DIANA results were compared with
those calculated using the Mononobe-Okabe equation, as explained in the previous section.
The results are presented separately for walls in sand and clay.
Additionally, the lateral earth pressure coefficients calculated using the DIANA results, with
kh towards or away from the backfill, were differentiated in the following figures.
78
5
M-O theoretical active
M-O theoretical passive
4.5
Wood (v=0.263)
towards backfill active
Away from backfil active
Lateral earth pressure coefficient (K)
away from backfill passive

towards backfill passive
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
K0
Ka
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Kh
Figure 6.20. Comparison of active and passive lateral earth pressure coefficient (KDIANA) backcalculated from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe
expressions (Sand)
It is observed from figure (6.20),

1. Active pressure coefficient:
a. K > KMononobe-Okabe , for moderate levels of shaking
b. K < KMononobe-Okabe , for larger levels of shaking
c. Kaway from backfill > Ktowards backfill
d. The computed K values show a general scatter around the curve for the MononobeOkabe dynamic active earth pressure curve.
2. Passive pressure coefficient:

e.
The computed K values for smaller levels of shaking show the very low values
f.
The computed K increases with level of shaking
g. The computed K values do not show a general scatter around the curve for the
Mononobe-Okabe dynamic passive earth pressure curve
79
However, at the larger levels of shaking, the Mononobe-Okabe expressions for active
pressures failed to predict the induced stresses on the wall. The computed dynamic stresses
from numerical analysis are higher than those computed by the Mononobe-Okabe equation
for active pressures in the range of small to moderate levels of shaking.
At the smaller levels of shaking, the passive pressures are not fully mobilized, therefore the K
values computed from the DIANA results are smaller than those calculated from the
Mononobe-Okabe expressions. When the level of shaking increases, the mobilization of
passive pressure also increases, consequently the K values increases.
Lateral earth pressure coefficien t (K )

Wood (v=0.346)
Ortigosa
towards backfill active
Away from backfil active
away from backfill passive
towards backfill passive
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Kh
Figure 6.21. Comparison of active and passive lateral earth pressure coefficient (KDIANA) backcalculated from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe
expressions (Clay)

1. Active pressure coefficient
a. K KMononobe-Okabe, for smaller levels of shaking
b. Kaway from backfill KMoninbe-Okabe and Ktowards backfill < KMononobe-Okabe, for moderate levels of
shaking
c. The computed K values show a general scatter around the curve for the MononobeOkabe dynamic active earth pressure curve
d. The computed K values show a general scatter above the curve for the Ortigosa
dynamic active earth pressure curve
80
2. Passive pressure coefficient

e. The computed K values for smaller levels of shaking show the very low values
f. The computed K increases with level of shaking
h. The computed K values do not show a general scatter around the curve for the
Mononobe-Okabe dynamic passive earth pressure curve
For all the analyses, the computed stresses of the wall are not showing the very good
agreement with those predicated by the Ortigosa (2005) expressions at the low level of kh as
well as the high level of Kh.
At the smaller levels of shaking, the passive pressures are not fully mobilized, therefore the K
values computed from the DIANA results are smaller than those calculated from the
Mononobe-Okabe expressions. When the level of shaking increases, the mobilization of
passive pressure also increases, consequently the K values increases
6.2.3.2 Comparison of lateral earth pressure coefficients for cantilever wall
The lateral earth pressure coefficients calculated from DIANA results were compared with
The lateral earth pressure coefficients were calculated both at the stem section and the heel
section. The results were presented separately for walls mounted in sand and clay.
Additionally, the lateral earth pressure coefficients calculated using the DIANA results, for kh
towards or away from the backfill, were differentiated in the following figures.
81
5
Wood (v=0.263)
towards backfill at heel
away from backfill at heel
towards backfill at stem
away from backfill at stem
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
K0
Ka
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Kh
Figure 6.22. Comparison of active lateral earth pressure coefficient (KDIANA) back-calculated
from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe expressions (Sand)
All the calculations were done to make the figure (6.22) as explained in section 6.2.3. Several
distinct trends may be observed from figure (6.22):
a. Kheel > Kstem when kh < 0 (i.e., when kh is directed toward the backfill).
b. Kstem > Kheel when kh > 0 (i.e., when kh is directed away from the backfill).
c. The largest Kstem occurs when kh > 0 (i.e., when kh is directed away from the backfill).
d. The largest Kheel occurs when kh < 0 (i.e., when kh is directed toward the backfill).
e. The computed K values show a general scatter around the curve for the MononobeOkabe dynamic active earth pressure curve.
Similar behaviour of lateral earth pressure coefficient has been observed in numerical
analyses (FLAC) and reported by Green and Ebeling [19].
82
L a te ra l e a rth p re s s u re c o e ffic ie n t (K )

Wood (v=0.346)
Ortigosa
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Kh
from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe expressions (Clay)
Similar behaviour were observed as in the case of sand,

a. Kheel > Kstem when kh < 0 (i.e., when kh is directed toward the backfill).
b. Kstem > Kheel when kh > 0 (i.e., when kh is directed away from the backfill).
c. The largest Kstem occurs when kh > 0 (i.e., when kh is directed away from the backfill).
d. The largest Kheel occurs when kh < 0 (i.e., when kh is directed toward the backfill).
e. The computed K values show a general scatter within Mononobe-Okabe and Ortigosa
Unlike in sand, the calculated values of lateral earth pressure coefficients do not show a
general scatter around the curve for the Mononobe-Okabe dynamic active earth pressure
curve. It shows good agreements with Mononobe-Okabe for very low levels of shaking. But
in the case of moderate and larger levels of shaking, the calculated lateral earth pressure
coefficients show quite high deviation from Mononobe-Okabe. The stresses from dynamic
analyses are higher than the Ortigosa.
6.2.3.3 Comparison of lateral earth pressure coefficients for gravity wall
The lateral earth pressure coefficients calculated from DIANA results were compared with
The results were presented separately for walls mounted in sand and clay.
Additionally, the lateral earth pressure coefficient calculated using DIANA result, when the kh
towards backfill or away from backfill, were differentiated in the following figures.
83
5
M-O active
M-O passive
Wood (v=0.263)
towards the backfill
away from backfill
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
K0
Ka
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Kh
from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe expressions (Sand)

a. K KMononobe-Okabe, for smaller and moderate levels of shaking
b. Kaway from backfill > Ktowards backfill
c. The computed K values show a general scatter around the curve for the MononobeOkabe dynamic active earth pressure curve
84
3
M-O active
M-O passive
Wood (v=0.346)
2.5
towards the backfill

away from backfill
Ortigosa
2
1.5
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Kh
from DIANA results with values computed using the Mononobe-Okabe expressions (Clay)
Similar observation was made as in sand,

a. Kaway from backfill > Ktowards backfill
b. The computed K values show a general scatter around Ortigosa for low level of
shaking and below for high level of shaking.
Unlike in sand, the calculated values of lateral earth pressure coefficients do not show a
general scatter around the curve for the Mononobe-Okabe dynamic active earth pressure
curve. It shows acceptable agreements with Ortigosa for very low levels of shaking. But in the
case of moderate and larger levels of shaking, the calculated lateral earth pressure coefficients
show quite high deviation from Mononobe-Okabe and Ortigosa.
6.2.4 Point of application of total dynamic forces and incremental dynamic forces
The point of application of total dynamic forces and incremental dynamic forces are also
interesting. As explained in the previous section the Y and Y were computed. Some of the
computed Y and Y were presented in following figures, because the extreme ranges of the Y
values and the erratic characteristics of the time-histories of Y made them impossible to
present in an intelligible manner.
85
6.2.4.1 Point of application of total dynamic forces for diaphragm wall

The point of application of total dynamic force in diaphragm wall was calculated and
presented in figure (6.26). The points of application of total dynamic forces are presented
together with point of application of static force calculated at the end of the phased analysis.
All the points of application of static or dynamic forces were given as a percentage of wall
height.
It was clear from the figure (6.26) that that point of application of static force (0.295%)
calculated was below the value (0.33%) calculated using triangle stress distribution along the
height, because the stresses below the point of rotation of wall had very large passive stresses.
The points of application of dynamic forces for smaller levels of shaking show a scatter
around 0.25% (H/4), but for larger level of shaking it showed big range of deviation.
Location of dynamic earth force above wall base %of wall height
0.35
0.3
towards backfill
away from backfill
(Y/H)static
0.25
0.2
0.15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Kh
Figure 6.26. Point of application of total active dynamic force for diaphragm wall
86
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
Away from backfill

towards backfill
Choudhury (2002) upper limit
Choudhury (2002) lower limit
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Kh
Figure 6.27. Point of application of total passive dynamic force for diaphragm wall in sand
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
away from backfill

towards backfill
Choudhury (2002) upper limite
Choudhury (2002) lower limit
0.3
0.25
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Kh
Figure 6.28. Point of application of total passive dynamic force for diaphragm wall in clay
87
From figure (6.27 &6.28), the points of application of passive pressure from the base of the
wall are above the upper limit proposed by Choudhury (2002). The reason for that is the
passive pressure mobilization is higher in the top layer of soil and also below the point of
rotation of the wall, the passive pressure become active (low). So the point of application
takes higher value than that proposed by Choudhury.
cantilever wall
The following figures (6.29 & 6.30) show the point of application of total dynamic and
incremental dynamic forces for cantilever wall at the stem and heel section as a percentage of
wall height. Figure (6.29) contains also the point of application of static force (0.33%)
calculated at the end of the phased analysis.
0.5
(Y/H)static
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Kh
Figure 6.29. Point of application of total dynamic force at stem and heel section of cantilever
wall
It is observed from figure (6.29)

a. Points of application of total dynamic forces at the stem and heel sections show a
scatter around the point of application of static force, when kh away from the backfill
at stem and heel.
b. Points of application of total dynamic forces at stem and heel section show big
deviation around the point of application of static force, when kh towards backfill at
stem and heel.
88
Location of incremental dynamic earth force above wall base %of wall height
0.7
0.6

Seed-Whitman (1970)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Kh
Figure 6.30. Point of application of incremental dynamic force at stem and heel section of
cantilever wall
This clearly shows from figure (6.30) that the point of application of incremental dynamic
forces has big deviation among them and with theoretical values (Seed-Whitman, 1970). The
point of application of incremental dynamic forces increases with increasing kh, when kh is
towards the backfill at the heel.
gravity wall
The following figures (6.31 & 6.32) show the point of application of total dynamic and
incremental dynamic forces for cantilever wall at the stem and heel sections as a percentage of
wall height. Figure (6.31) contains also the point of application of static force (0.33%)
calculated at the end of the phased analysis.
89
0.5
towards backfill
away from backfill
(Y/H)static
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Kh
Figure 6.31. Point of application of total dynamic force of gravity wall
It is observed from figure (6.31)

a. Points of application of total dynamic forces are above the point of application of
static force (0.33%) and below the level of 0.40%, when kh away from backfill.
b. Points of application of total dynamic forces show large fluctuation, when kh towards
backfill.
90
Location of incremental dynamic force above base % of wall height
0.9
0.8
0.7
towards backfill
away from backfill
Seed-Whitman (1970)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Kh
Figure 6.32. Point of application of incremental dynamic force for gravity wall
This clearly shows from figure (6.32) that the point of application of incremental dynamic
forces has considerable deviation among them and with theoretical values (Seed-Whitman,
1970).
6.2.5 Deformation and displacement of the wall
This section gives the deformed shape of the diaphragm wall at different time steps in the
dynamic analyses, and also the relative displacement time history at the base of the cantilever
wall. It gives the information about relative permanent displacement and permanent tilt of the
gravity wall. This information is useful for displacement base design procedures.
91
6.2.5.1 Deformation of diaphragm wall

12
10
Height (m)
End of phased construction

at 12.5sec later the dynamic analysis
End of the dynamic analysis
0
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
Defomation (cm)
Figure 6.33. Deformed shape of the diaphragm wall in sand at different time step (EL Centro)
12
10
Height (m)
4
End of the phased analysis
2
0
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Defomation (cm)
Figure 6.34. Deformed shape of the diaphragm wall in sand at different time step (Chi-Chi)
92
12
10
Height (m)

0
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
Defomation (cm)
Figure 6.35. Deformed shape of the diaphragm wall in clay at different time step (EL Centro)
12
10
Height (m)

0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
Defomation (cm)
Figure 6.36. Deformed shape of the diaphragm wall in clay at different time step (Chi-Chi)
The results for sand and clay those were computed using Kobe were very large. Those were
not accepted and removed.
93
6.2.5.2 Deformation of cantilever wall
Structural wedge
Driving
wedge
Range of
shear band
Figure 6.37. Annotated deform mesh from EL Centro analysis
The reason for the deviation of the DIANA computed stresses and those computed by the
Mononobe-Okabe expressions can be understood from examining figure (6.37), (For more
details see appendix-D figure.14). At large values of kh directed away from the backfill, the
induced inertial forces on the structural wedge cause it to simultaneously bend, rotate, and
potentially slide away from the backfill, at which time a small wedge of soil moves vertically
downward. (The structural wedge consists of cantilever wall and the backfill contained
within) As the direction of kh reverses, the small wedge of soil prevents the structural wedge
from returning from the bending and rotation of the structural wedge.
The initial stresses imposed on the stem of the wall correspond to active conditions. As kh
increases in the direction away from the backfill, the stresses on the stem increase according
to the Mononobe-Okake expressions for active conditions. However, upon reversal of the
direction of kh, the stresses imposed on the stem do not decrease as predicated by MononobeOkabe expressions, but rather remain relatively constant. The stepwise increase in the lockedin stresses continues until the residual stresses imposed on the stem correspond to at-rest
conditions, while the dynamically induced inertial stresses are superimposed on the locked-in
residual stresses. [See figures (6.15 to 6.17)]
94
Figure 6.38. Relative permanent displacement time-history of base of the cantilever wall in sand
(El Centro)
Table 6.2 Relative permanent displacement of base of the cantilever wall
Earthquake recode
EL Centro
Chi-Chi
Kobe
Relative permanent displacement of base of the cantilever wall (cm)

Sand
Clay
1.59
0.70
0.70
2.00
4.12
31.90
6.2.5.3 Deformation of gravity wall

The relative permanent displacement of the base and the permanent tilt of the wall are
interesting for the displacement based design of a gravity walls. The table below has values of
relative permanent displacement of the base and permanent tilt of the wall mounted on sand
and clay.
Table 6.3 Relative permanent displacement of base and permanent tilt of gravity wall
Sand
Earthquake
recode
EL Centro
Chi-Chi
Kobe
Relative
permanent
displacement of
base (cm)
0.260
0.850
3.930
Clay
Permanent tilt of
wall *10-3 (rad)
1.230
3.110
10.340
Relative
permanent
displacement of
base (cm)
0.955
10.300
-
Permanent tilt of
wall *10-3 (rad)
2.180
14.625
-
95
It was observed by Al-Homoud and Whitman that there is a small amount of permanent
outward tilt 1.39*10-3rad(less than 0.08) for 0.2g El Centro input motion in their study. In
this study shows 1.23*10-3 rad.
6.2.6 Bending moment and shear force
This section gives the information about the bending moment and shear force envelop that are
useful for the structural design of the walls.
6.2.6.1 Bending moment and shear force envelop for diaphragm wall
The bending moment and shear force envelope has been drawn using the stresses due to the
dynamic forces. The moment on the wall is written as clockwise-positive. The shear forces
inducing an anti-clockwise moment are taken as positive.
11
10
9
Maximum
envelop
Minimum envelop
End of phased
analysis
Height (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Moment *10^4 (Nm/m)
Figure 6.39. Bending moment envelop for diaphragm wall in sand (EL Centro)
96
11
10
Maximum envelop
Minimum envelop
End of phased
analysis
Height (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-15
-10
-5
10
15
Shear force (N/m)
Figure 6.40. Shear force envelop for diaphragm wall in sand (EL Centro)
11
10
Maximun envelop
Minimun envelop
9
8
Height (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Moment *10^4 (Nm/m)
Figure 6.41. Bending moment envelop for diaphragm wall in sand (Chi-Chi)
97
11
10
9
Maximum envelop
Height (m)
Minimum envelop
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
Shere force *10^4 (N/m)
Figure 6.42. Shear force envelop for diaphragm wall in sand (Chi-Chi)
11
10
9
8
Maximum envelop
Minimum envelop
Height (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Moment *10^4 (Nm/m)
Figure 6.43. Bending moment envelop for diaphragm wall in clay (EL Centro)
98
11
10
Maximum envelop
Minimum envelop
end of phased analysis
Height (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-15
-10
-5
10
15
Shear force *10^4 (N/m)
Figure 6.44. Shear force envelop for diaphragm wall in clay (EL Centro)
11
10
Maximun envelop
Minimun envelop
9
8
Height (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Moment *10^4 (Nm/m)
Figure 6.45. Bending moment envelop for diaphragm wall in clay (Chi-Chi)
99
11
10
9
Maximum envelop
Height (m)
Minimum envelop
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
Shere force *10^4 (N/m)
Figure 6.46. Shear force envelop for diaphragm wall in clay (Chi-Chi)

EL centro
Chi-Chi
Kobe
Height (m)
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Moment *10^4 (Nm/m)
Figure 6.47. Bending moment envelop for cantilever wall in sand
100

EL Centro
Chi-Chi
Kobe
Height (m)
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Moment *10^4 (Nm/m)
Figure 6.48. Bending moment envelop for cantilever wall in clay
Height (m)
5
End of the phased analysis
EL Centre
Chi-Chi
Kobe
0
0
10
15
20
25
Shear force (N/m)
Figure 6.49. Shear force envelop for cantilever wall in sand
101

EL Centro
Chi-Chi
Kobe
Height (m)
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Shear force (N/m)
Figure 6.50. Shear force envelop for cantilever wall in clay
EL Centro
Chi-Chi
Kobe
Height (m)
0
0
Figure 6.51. Maximum pressure envelop along the height of the gravity wall in sand
102
7
EL Centro
Chi-Chi
6
Height (m)
0
0
Figure 6.52. Maximum pressure envelop along the height of the gravity wall in clay
103
Chapter 7. Summary and conclusions
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The preceding sections showed the procedures used to simplify the DIANA data and
presented results calculated from simplified data for diaphragm wall, cantilever wall, and
gravity wall. This section contains some conclusions drawn from the above studies.
7.1 Diaphragm wall
From the result computed by DIANA for diaphragm wall,
1. The static stresses induced in the active side match, to an acceptable level, the stresses
computed using Rankine theory. Since the passive side is not fully mobilized, it does
not match the Rankine predictions The Rankin theory overestimates the passive
pressure. The point of rotation of the diaphragm wall is above the base.
2. Using the Mononobe-Okabe equation to design the diaphragm wall will underestimate
the dynamic stresses on the active side. Conversely, it will overestimate dynamic
stresses in the passive side.
3. The point of application of total dynamic forces in active side is below the point of
application of static forces, around 0.25H, because of the large passive pressure at the
bottom part of the diaphragm wall.
4. The point of application of total dynamic forces in the passive side is above the upper
limit theoretical value (0.4H) proposed by Choudhury (2002). Because the passive
pressure is not fully mobilized, small active pressure develop at the base of the
diaphragm wall.
7.2 Cantilever wall
For the cantilever retaining wall numerically modeled and analyzed in sand, the stresses
induced on the stem of the wall did not correspond with those predicted by the MononobeOkabe method. The reason for this deviation is attributed to the relative flexibility of the
structural wedge and the non-monolithic motion of the driving soil wedge, both of which
violate assumptions inherent in the Mononobe-Okabe method. The points of application of
the total dynamic forces, when the kh was away from backfill, were very close to the point of
application of static force, conversely, when the kh was towards backfill the point of
application of total forces showed large fluctuation from static case, but it was below 0.5H
even for kh=0.6. The points of application of incremental dynamic forces showed greater
fluctuation from 0.6H proposed by Seed-Whitman (1970).
The dynamic response of the wall-backfill system was such that there was an incremental
increase from the active to at-rest stress conditions in the residual stresses imposed on the
stem of the retaining wall.
104
7.3 Gravity wall

On the basis of the results and discussions of the current study of an 8.0 m high and 3.0 m
wide gravity wall, the following conclusions can be made:
1. The stresses induced on the wall corresponded with those predicated by the
Mononobe-Okabe method, when the levels of shaking were small. The stresses
induced deviated with those predicted by Mononobe-Okabe method, when the levels
of shaking were large.
2. The points of application of incremental dynamic forces showed considerable
fluctuation about the value (0.6H) proposed by Seed-Whitman (1970).
3. The points of application of total dynamic forces were above the point of application
of static force and also below 0.5H.
4. The phasing relations between the different quantities obtained from the analysis are
the same as those in Andersen et al. tests. [See section 6.2.2.3]
The observation from all the walls in the clay soil, it is clear that the cohesion play an
important role in earthquake induced stresses on the wall. That means the earthquake induced
stresses reduced due to cohesive force. The Mononobe-Okabe equation does not account the
effect of cohesion, because of that the lateral earth pressure coefficients calculated from
dynamic analysis are less than those calculated using Mononobe-Okabe method. The solution
has been given by Ortigosa (2005) for clay predicts low value of lateral earth pressure.
The conclusion drawn from this study may not apply to retaining wall systems of differing
geometry and/or material properties. Further research is required in order to draw more
general conclusions regarding the appropriateness of the Mononobe-Okabe method to
evaluate the dynamic pressures induced on retaining walls.
7.4 Problems encountered in DIANA modelling
This section gives ideas and precautions that can help to overcome some of the numerical
problems in convergence. It may also help to get quick convergence of numerical models.
Selection of element type and material constitutive model are discussed to keep the model
stable and capture stress variation within the element. Additionally, it explains the problems
in interface element modeling and the transmitting boundary modeling.
7.4.1 Type of element and material constitutive model
Initially the numerical model was created using Q8EPS - 4 nodes plane strain elements for the
wall and the soil. The shear strain is constant over the element area, because of that it cannot
capture the bending behavior of the wall. In addition to that, it disturbed the convergence of
the model even in the phased analyses. Because the strain variation within the element is
linear or constant, it cannot capture the second order or the higher order stress variation within
the element. But in the case of retaining wall analyses the stress variation within the soil
element depends on the wall moment and conversely, the wall movement depends on the soil
105
pressure. So it creates the higher order of stress variation within the soil element. To
overcome the above problem CQ16E - 8 nodes element was selected for numerical model.
Seemingly there is no special hysteretic constitutive model for dynamic analyses in DIANA;
it is very difficult to capture the dynamic behavior of soil in the transient analyses. As usual
the Mohr-Coulomb model was selected for the soil element. As explained in section 5.7, very
low Rayleigh damping was assumed to soil to dissipate energy when the material in the linear
range. Using Rayleigh damping proportional initial mass and stiffness matrix gives quick
convergence in dynamic analyses; however, using Rayleigh damping proportional to tangent
mass and stiffness matrix prevented convergence.
7.4.2 Interface element and transmitting boundary
Usually working with interface elements in numerical models gives lot of problem, such as
convergence. DIANA is also not exempt for that. In reality the interface elements are
important in between the wall and the soil element to capture the actual behavior of the
system. DIANA allows the user to model the interface element but it is poor in material
constitutive models for interface element. It has a few stranded models.
Unlike other geotechnical specialized software such FLAC and FLEX, DIANA dose not have
option to select and fix the transmitting boundary to simulate the infinite soil medium in the
numerical model. Because of this, the transmitting boundary should be made by using discrete
dashpot elements to dissipate the energy from the system.
DIANA performs displacement-based analysis, and therefore does not report the damping
forces correctly. This is not an indication that the calculations performed by DIANA are
incorrect, but are simply an artifact of how the results are reported. Therefore, it is reasonable
to use the dashpot elements.
In general DIANA does not show stable convergence for nonlinear systems. Normally the
number of steps to convergence in each loading steps vary randomly, up to very high values.
Because of this, large numbers of convergence steps are required. Regular Newton-Raphson
works quite well for comparably high nonlinear systems or use regular Newton-Raphson with
line search option.
106
References
REFERENCES
[1]Alampalli, S., and Elgamel, A. W. (1990). Dynamic response of retaining walls including
supported soil backfill- A computational model Proc., 4th U.S National Conf. on earthquake
Engre, Earthquake Eng ineering research Institute, Palm Springs, California, vol.3, pp 623-632
[2]Al-Homoud, A. S., and Whitman, R.V (1999). Seismic analysis and design of rigid bridge abutments
considering rotation and sliding incorporating non-linear soil behavior Soil dynamics and earthquake
engineering 247-277
[3]Basu, U., and Chopra, A.K., (2003), Perfectly matched layers for time-harmonic elastodynamics of
unbounded domains: theory and finite-element implementation Computer methods in applied
mechanics and engineering vol.192, 1337-1375
[4]Buckle IG. The Hashin-Awaji earthquake on January 17, 1995. Performance of lifelines: performsnce of
highways and bridges. Technical Report NCEER-95-0015, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, November 1995, pp 7.22-7.73.
[5]Cameron, W.I., and Green, R.A Development of engineering procedure for evaluating lateral earth
pressures for seismic design of cantilever retaining walls
[6]Choudhury, D., Subba Rao, K. S., and Ghosh, S. (2002). Passive earth pressure distribution under
seismic condition 15th Engineering Mechanics Conference of ASCE, Columbia University, New
York,2002.
[7]Choudhury, D., and Nimbalkar, S. (2005). Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method
J.Geotechnique 55, No. 9, 699702
[8]Collino, F., and Tsogka, C., (1998), Application of the PML absorbing layer model to the linear
elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heteregeneous media Institut National de Recherche en
Informatique et en Automatique
[9]Degrande, G., Praet, E., Van Zegbroeck, B., and Van Marcke, P. (2002). Dynamic interaction between
the soil and an anchored sheet pile during seismic excitation J.Numerical and analytical methods in
geomechanics vol.26, 605-631
[10]Euro code 8, EN 1998. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures.
[11]Finn, W. D. L., Yogendrakumar, M., Otsu, H., and Seedman, R. S., (1989). Seismic response of a
cantilever retaining wall: Centrifuge model test and dynamic analysis Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Dyn.
and earthquake Engrg., Computational Mechanics Inc., Southampton, 331-431.
[12]Finn, W. D. L., Wu, G., and Yoshida, N., (1992). Seismic response of sheet pile walls Proc., 10th
World Conf., on Earthquake Engrg, Madrid, vol. 3, pp 1689-1694.
107
References
[13]Gazetas, G., Psarropoulos, P.N., Anastasopoulos, I., and Gerolymos, N (2004). Seismic behaviour of
flexible retaining systems subjected to short-duration moderately strong excitation J.Soil dynamic and
earthquake engineering vol.24, 537-550
[14]Gmez, J.E., Filz, G.M., and Ebeling, R.M., (1999), Development of an Improved Numerical Model
for Concrete-to-Soil Interfaces in Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses Technical report ITL-99-I, US
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
[15]Gopal Madabhushi, S.P. (1996), Modelling of deformations in dynamic soil-structure interaction
problems CUEDID-SoilslTR277.
[16]Green, R.A., and Ebeling, R.M., (2002). Seismic analysis of cantilever retaining walls, Phase I,
ERDC/ITL TR-02-3, Information technology laboratory, US army corps of engineers, Engineer
research and development center, Vicksburg, MS.
[17]Green, R.A., and Ebeling, R.M. (2003). Modeling the dynamic response of cantilever earth-retaining
walls using FLAC Numerical modeling in geomechanics.
[18]Green, R.A., Olgun, C.G., Ebeling, R.M., and Cameron, W.I., (2003). Seismically induced lateral
earth pressures on a cantilever retaining wall P.The sixth US conference and workshop on lifeline
earthquake engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE
[19]Iai, S., and Kameoka, T. (1993). Finite element analysis of earthquake induced damage to anchored
sheet pile quay walls Soils and Foundations, vol.33. No.1, pp 71-91.
[20]Ishihara, K., (1995), Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics Oxford science publications.
[21]Jennings PC., editor. Engineering features of the San Fernando earthquake February 9, 1971. California
Institute of Technology, Report EERL 71-02, June 1971, Pasadena.
[22]Kapila, I. P., (1962). Earthquake resistance design of retaining walls 2nd earthquake symposium,
Univ. of Roorkee, India
[23]Kim, S.R., Kwon, O.S., and Kim, M.M (2004). Evaluation of force components acting on gravity type
quay walls during earthquakes J.Soil dynamic and earthquake engineering vol.24, 853-866.
[24]Kramer, S.L, (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp 466-505.
[25]Ling, H.I, Dov Leshchinsky, and Chou, N.N.S, (2001). Post-earthquake investigation on several
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of Taiwan
J.Soil dynamic and earthquake engineering vol 21, 297-313.
[26]Lysmer, J., and Kuhlemeyer, R. L, (1969). Finite dynamic model for infinite media J.Engineering
mechanics division, 95 (EM4).
[27]Madhav, M.R., and Kameswara Rao, N.S.V, (1969). Earth pressure under seismic conditions J.Soils
and foundations vol.9 No.4, 33-47.
[28]Maheshwari, B. K, Truman, K. Z, El-Naggar, M. H , and Gould, P L, (2003) Three-dimensional finite
element nonlinear dynamic analysis of pile groups for lateral transient and seismic excitations NRC
research press.
[29]Matuo, H., and Ohara, S, (1960). Lateral earth pressure and stability of quay walls during
earthquakes Proc. 2nd World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg, International Association for earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
108
References
[30]Mononobe, N., and Matuo, H, (1929). On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes
Proc. World Engrg, Congr., Tokyo, Japan, vol.9, paper no.388.
[31]Nadim, F., and Whitman, R, V, (1983). Seismically induced movement of retaining walls J.Geotech
Engrg, ASCE, 109(7), 915-913.
[32]Nason J. McCullough, and Stephen E. Dickenson, (1998). Estimation of seismically induced lateral
deformations for anchored sheetpile bulkheads conference proceedings of Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, August 3-6, 1998, Seattle, WA, USA. pp 1095-1106.
[33]Nazarian, H. N., and Hadjian, A. H, (1979). Earthquake-induced lateral soil pressures on structures
J.Geotech Engrg. Div, ASCE, 105(9),1049-1066
[34]Okabe, S, (1924). General theory of earth pressure and seismic stability of retaining wall and dam
J.Japan Soc. Civ Engrs, Tokyo, Japan, 12(1).
[35]Ortigosa, P., (2005) Seismic earth pressure including soil cohesion The 16th international conference
on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Osaka.
[36]Ostadan, F (2005). Seismic soil pressure for building walls-An updated approach J.Soil dynamic and
earthquake engineering vol.25, 785-793.
[37]Piratheepan, P., and Andrus, R.D. (2001), Estimating shear-wave velocity from cone penetration
resistance and geologic age Program and Abstracts, 73rd Annual Meeting of the Eastern Section
Seismological Society of America, Columbia, SC, October 14-16.
[38]Prakash, S., (1981). Analysis of rigid retaining walls during earthquakes Proc., Int. Conf. on Recent
Adv. in Geotech. Earthquake Engrg., and Soil Dyn., Univ. of Missouri, Rolla, Mo., vol III, 1-28.
[39]Prakash, S., and Basavanna, B. M., (1969). Earth pressure distribution behind retaining wall during
earthquake Proc., 4th world Conf. on Earthquake Engrg, Satiago, Chile.
[40]Psarropoulos, P.N., Klonaris.G., and Gazetas.G. (2005), Seismic earth pressures on rigid and flexible
retaining walls J.Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering vol.25, 795-809.
[41]Richard, R., and Elms, D.G (1979). Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls J.Geotec Engrg.,
ASCE, 105 (GT4).
[42]Richards, R., and X. Shi, (1994), Seismic Lateral Pressures in soils with Cohesion J.Geotechnical
engineering , ASCE vol.120, N 7.
[43]Seed, H.B., and Whitman, R.V., (1970) Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads,
ASCE Spec.Conf. Lateral Stresses in the ground and design of retaining structures,Cornell,pp 103-147.
[44]Siller. T. J., Christiano, P. P., and Bielak, J. (1991). Seismic response of tied-block retaining walls
Earthquake Engrg. And Struct. Dyn. 20(7), 605-620
[45]Steedman, R.S., and Zeng, X., (1990) The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth
pressure on a retaining wall Geotechnique, 40 (1), 103-112.
[46]Steedman, R.S. (1998). Seismic design of retaining walls Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs. Geotech. Engng,
131 12-22
[47]Steedman, R.S., (1999) Seismic soil-structure interaction of rigid and flexible retaining walls
Earthquake geotechnical engineering , 1999 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 1163
109
References
[48]Subba Rao, K.S., and Choudhury, D. (2005). Seismic passive earth pressures in soils J.Geotechnical
and geoenvironmental engineering, Vol. 131, No 1, 131-135.
[49]Sun, K., and Lin, G. (1995). Dynamic response of soil pressure on retaining wall Proc., 3rd Int. Conf.
on Recent Adv. in Geotech. Earthquake Engrg., and Soil Dyn., Univ. of Missouri, Rolla, Mo.,347-350.
[50]Terzaghi, K., (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.
[51]Towhata, I., and Islam, S (1986). Prediction of lateral displacement of anchored bulkheads
induced by seismic liquefaction Japanese society of soil mechanics and foundation engineering.
[52]Veletsos, A. S., and Younan, A.H (1994b). Dynamic modeling and response of soil-wall systems
J.Geotech. Engrg.,ASCE, 120 (12) 2155-2179.
[53]Veletsos, A. S., and Younan, A.H (1995). Dynamic soil pressures on vertical walls Proc., 3rd Int.
Conf. on Recent Adv. in Geotech. Earthquake Engrg., and Soil Dyn., Univ. of Missouri, Rolla,
Mo.,1589-1604.
[54]Veletsos, A. S., and Younan, A.H (1996). Dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls J.Geotech
Engrg., ASCE, 123 (2) 1090-0241
[55]Wang, Y. Z. (2000), "Distribution of earth pressure on a retaining wall" Geotechnique, 50(1), 83-88.
[56]Whitman, R, V., (1990). Seismic design and behavior of gravity retaining walls Proc., Spec. Conf. on
Des. And Constr. Of Earth Retaining Struct., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 817-842.
[57]Whitman, R, V., (1991). Seismic design of earth retaining structures Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent
Adv. in Geotech. Earthquake Engr and Soil Dyn. Univ. of Missouri, Rolla, Mo., vol II, 1767-1777.
[58]Wood, J. H., (1973). Earthquake-induced soil pressures on structures Rep. EERL 73-05, Earthquake
Engineering Research Laboratory, California Inst. of Technol., Pasadena, Calif.
[59]Wu, Y., and Prakash, S., (1999) Effect of submergence on seismic displacement of rigid walls
Earthquake geotechnical engineering , 1999 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 1163
[60]Younan, A.H., and Veletsos, A.S., (2000). Dynamic response of flexible retaining walls J.Earthquake
engineering and structural dynamics vol.29, 1815-1844
[61]Zeng, X., and. Steedman, R.S., (1993) On the behaviour of quay walls in earthquakes Geotechnique,
43 (1), 417-413.
[62]Zerfa, F.Z., and Loret, B (2003). Coupled dynamic elastic-plastic analysis of earth structures J.Soil
dynamic and earthquake engineering vol.23 435-454.
[63]Zhang, J.M., Shamoto, Y, and Tokimatsu, K (1998). Seismic earth pressure theory for retaining walls
under any lateral displacement Japanese geotechnical society Soils and foundations vol.38 No.2, 143163.
110
Appendix - A
8. APPENDIX A STATIC DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGM

WALL
Introduction
This appendix illustrates the sizing and structural design for usual loading (i.e., static)
of the 6m free-height diaphragm earth retaining wall that is analyzed dynamically in
the main body of this report. The wall design is performed in two stages. The first
stage consists of sizing the wall to satisfy global stability requirements. The global
stability requirements are expressed in terms of the factor of safety against rotation or
overturning stability of the wall.
The second stage of the wall design entails the dimensioning of the components of the
concrete wall. Structural elements are designed by the strength-design method for
flexure loading. The design loads are those determined in the first design stage, with
appropriate factors applied, thus ensuring that the serviceability requirements are
satisfied.
Stage 1 Sizing of diaphragm wall
As stated previously, the first design stage consists of sizing the diaphragm wall such
that global stability requirements are satisfied. Structural part of the proposed wall and
backfill is shown in figure A-1, as well as the backfill and foundation material
properties. To assess the global stability of the wall, the external forces and
corresponding points of action acting on the wall need to be determined. The external
forces include the resultant of the lateral earth pressure and reactionary forces (due to
passive earth pressure) acting along embedded depth of the wall.
R e ta in in g W a ll
P AS
P PS
Fig.A-1 External forces acting on the diaphragm wall
s=19.5kN/m3
=40
A1
Appendix - A
'
Active earth pressure coefficient k a = tan 2 45o =0.217
2
'
Passive earth pressure coefficient k p = tan 2 45o + =4.598
2
For permanent structures reduction factor for passive pressure is 1.5

Mobilized passive earth pressure coefficient k p =
Resultant force due to active pressure Fa =
kp
1.5
= 3.06
1
2
k a t (6 + D )
2
Resultant force due to passive pressure Fp =
1
k p t D 2
2
Moment equilibrium about O
D
D
Fa 6 + Fp = 0
3
3
D 1
D
1
2
0.217 19.6 (6 + D ) 6 + 3.06 19.6 D 2 = 0
2
3 2
3
D = 4.24m
D is normally increased by 20%
Embedded depth D = 5.0m

Stage 2 structural design of diaphragm wall
As stated in the introduction to this appendix, the second stage of the wall design
entails the structural design of the concrete wall, including the dimensioning of the
concrete wall. All structures must satisfy the strength requirements. In the strength
design method, this is accomplished by multiplying the service loads by appropriate
load factors.
Moment capacity check
To find the zero shear place X, Fa Fp = 0
1
1
2
0.217 19.6 (6 + X ) 3.06 19.6 X 2 = 0
2
2
A2
Appendix - A
X = 2.18m
Moment at X,
M = 285.05kNm / m
Required section modulus

S re =
all
285.05
= 9.5 10 3 m3 / m
3
30 10
Thickness of the wall is 0.5m

Section modulus of the wall, S = 4.170 103 f S re Ok
Required reinforcement
Are =
M
285.05 103
=
= 2.278mm 2 / m
0.9 f y l 0.9 (460 / 1.15) 347.5
Where l lever arm

Use minimum reinforcement amount
100 As
= 0.15 As = 750mm 2 / m
bd
16mm diameter bars in 200mm spacing.

Method II:
Geometry
Pressure Diagram
Active
Passive
x
d
Passive
Point of
Rotation
Active
Fig A-2 Geometry and pressure diagram
A3
Appendix - A
For design it is necessary to determine the required depth of penetration for stability
and then to size the wall to resist the maximum moment. To determine the depth of
penetration required for a given height H we need to consider both moment and force
equilibrium:
F=0
M=0
If the soil is dry the pressures and forces are as shown below
PA1
= K (x + H)
h
a d
= K x
h
p d
PP1
= K ( x + H)
h
p d
PA2
PP2
= K (d + H )
h
p d
Fig A-3 Pressure diagram
= K d
h
a d
Where
1
PA1 = K a d ( x + H ) 2
2
1
PP1 = K P d x 2
2
1
PA2 = K a d x(d x)+ K a d (d x) 2
2
1
PP 2 = K p d ( x + H )(d x) + K p d (d x) 2
2
From equilibrium
F = 0 :
PA1 + PP2 - PP1 - PA2 = 0

This gives a quadratic equation involving terms in x2 and d2
M = 0:
Taking moments about the point of rotation

x
x+ H
d x
d x
+ PA 2
PP1 + PP 2
PA1
3
3
2
2
A4
Appendix - A
This gives a cubic equation involving terms in x3 and d3.

Two equations with 2 unknowns, x and d, and hence we can determine the required
depth of penetration for the wall. The equations can be solved graphically.
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
Force equilibrium
Moment equilibrium
3.9
x (m)
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
D (m)
Fig A-4 Graphical solutions for sand

4.1
3.9
3.8
Force equilibrium
Moment equilibrium
3.7
x (m)
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.8
4.9
D (m)
Fig A-5 Graphical solutions for clay
A5
Appendix - B
9. APPENDIX B STATIC DESIGN OF CANTILEVER

RETAINING WALL
Introduction
This appendix illustrates the sizing and structural design for usual loading (i.e., static)
of the 6.1m-high cantilever retaining wall that is analyzed dynamically in the first part
of this report. The wall design is performed in two stages. The first stage consists of
sizing the wall to satisfy global stability requirements, The global stability
requirements are expressed in terms of the factor of safety against sliding; the factor
of safety against bearing capacity failure; and the percentage of the base area in
compression, with the latter quantifying the overturning stability of the wall.
The second stage of the wall design entails the dimensioning of the components of the
concrete wall (i.e., stem and base slab, toe and heel elements) and detailing of the
reinforcing steel. Each of the three structural elements is designed by the strengthdesign method as a cantilever, one-way slab for flexure and shear loadings. However,
both structural and geotechnical calculations are presented in this appendix.
Sizing of cantilever wall
As stated previously, the first design stage consists of sizing the cantilever wall such
that global stability requirements are satisfied (i.e., sliding, overturning, and bearing
capacity). The structural wedge of the proposed wall and backfill is shown in figure
B-1, as well as the backfill and foundation material properties. To assess the global
stability of the wall, the external forces and corresponding points of action acting on
the structural wedge need to be determined. The external forces include the resultant
of the lateral earth pressure and reactionary forces acting along the base of the wall.
However, before the reactionary forces can be determined, the weights and centers of
gravity of the concrete and soil composing the structural wedge are required.
0.9 m
2.4 m
0.5 m
Stem
Back
Fill
6.1m
Base
Toe
4m
0.6 m
Heel
Fig B-1 Cantilever wall system
B1
Appendix - B
To simplify the determination of the weight and center of gravity of the structural
wedge, it is divided into subsections having uniform unit weights and simple
geometries, as shown in figure B-2. Once the weights and centers of gravity of each
subsection are determined, the weight and center of gravity of the entire structural
wedge are easily determined, as illustrated in the accompanying sketches.
B ack Fill
Stem 1
Stem 1
Toe
B ase
Fig B-2 Division of wall and backfill into subsections
Weight and centre of gravity from toe of the soil on top of the base
2.4 m
Back Fill
Ws = t Lh = 19.6 2.4 (6.1 0.6) = 258.7kN / m

X s = 0.9 + 0.2 + 0.5 +
2.4
= 2.8m
2
c.g.
5.5m
2.8 m
Toe
Stem 1
Weight and centre of gravity from toe of the stem (1)

1
0.2 (6.1 0.6 ) 23.6 = 12.98kN / m
2
0.1
= 0.9 + 0.1 +
= 1.03m
3
Wstem (1) = Astem (1) c =

X stem (1)
5.5m
c.g.
0.2 m
Toe
1.03 m
B2
Appendix - B
Weight and centre of gravity from toe of the stem (2)

0.5 m
Wstem ( 2 ) = Astem ( 2 ) c =
1
(6.1 0.6) 23.6 = 64.9kN / m
2
Stem 2
c.g.
X stem ( 2 )
0.5
= 0.9 + 0.2 +
= 1.35m
2
5.5m
Toe
1.35 m
B ase
Wbase = c Lbase hbase = 23.6 (0.6 4 ) = 56.64kN / m
c .g .
Toe
X base
0.6 m
Weight and centre of gravity from toe of base
1 .3 5 m
4
= = 2m
2
4 .0 m
Total weight of the wall Wc = Wstem (1) + Wstem ( 2 ) + Wbase

= 12.98 + 64.9 + 56.64
= 134.52kN / m
Centre of gravity of the wall from toe X c =
W X
W
i
12.98 1.03 + 64.9 1.35 + 56.64 2

134.52
= 1.593m
=
Weight of entire system, W = Ws + Wc

= 258.7 + 134.52
= 393.22kN / m
Centre of gravity from toe of entire system, X =
Ws X s + Wc X c
Ws + Wc
258.7 2.800 + 134.52 1.593

393.22
= 2.387 m
=
In a cantilever wall analysis the retaining wall system is divided into two or three
wedges: the structural wedge; the driving wedge, and the resisting wedge, when
present. Figure B-1 shows the structural wedge, which is defined by the outline of the
B3
Appendix - B
cantilever retaining wall. The lateral extent of the structural wedge is defined by
imaginary vertical sections made through the heel of the wall and the toe of the wall.
The soil mass contained within this region is also considered part of the structural
wedge. The driving soil wedge on the retained soil side (to the right of the Figure B-1
structural wedge and not shown in this figure) generates earth pressure forces tending
to destabilize the structural wedge. No resisting wedge is present to the left of the
Figure B-1 structural wedge in this case.
The general wedge method of analysis is used to calculate the lateral earth pressure
force acting on the structural wedge.
A sliding stability analysis is conducted of the driving wedge, structural wedge, and
resisting wedge (when present) to determine a common factor of safety against sliding
for the entire retaining structural system (of the three wedges). The procedure uses
limit equilibrium and is iterative in nature. Critical failure angles for the driving side
and resisting side (when present) potential planar slip planes are sought for an
assumed sliding factor of safety value. The resulting earth forces are summed. If the
sum is zero, the system is in equilibrium and the critical sliding factor of safety value
has been found.
The shear mobilization factor (SMF) is set equal to 2/3. The SMF and factor of safety
are inverses of each other. An SMF of 2/3 is equivalent to a factor of safety equal to
1.5. The determination of the lateral earth forces and pressures are illustrated in the
following equations in simplified hand computations,
Shear mobilization factor (SMF) =
( )
'
tan mob
= SMF tan ' =
2
3
( )
2
tan 35o
3
'
mob
= 25o
The angle of friction alongside the structural wedge defined by the vertical section
through the heel of the wall is assumed equal to zero (i.e., = 0). Thus, for the case
being considered (i.e. homogenous backfill), the wedge analysis procedure reverts to
the classical Rankine procedure, which is illustrated in the following sketches.
'
K a = tan 2 45o mob
2
25o
o
2
= tan 45
2
= 0.41
6.1m
= m h
'
v
= 19.6 6.1
= 119.6kN / m 2
Fh,static
y
toe
'
h
B4
Appendix - B
h' = K a v'
= 0.41 119.6
= 49.0kN / m 2
1
Fh , static = h' h
2
1
49.0 6.1
2
= 149.5kN / m
=
ytoe =
Fh , static ytoe = 149.5 2.03

= 303.50kN
h
3
6.1
3
= 2.03m
=
The remaining, yet-to-be-determined, forces acting on the structural wedge are the
reactionary shear and normal forces (i.e., T and N, respectively) acting on the base of
the wall. Figure B-3 shows a free body diagram of the structural wedge with the
known and unknown forces identified. As illustrated in the following equations, the
magnitude of T and N are determined by summing the forces in the horizontal and
vertical directions, respectively, while the point at which N acts is determined by
summing the moments around the toe.
Fv = 0
= N Wc Ws
N = Wc + Ws
= 258.7 + 134.52
= 393.22kN / m
Fh = 0
= T Fh , static
T = Fh , static
= 149.5kN / m
B5
Appendix - B
toe
=0
= X N ' N + Fh , static ytoe Wc X c Ws X s

X N ' N = Fh , satic ytoe + Wc X c + Ws X s
XN' =
Fh , static ytoe + Wc X c + Ws X s
N
149.5 2.03 + 134.52 1.593 + 258.7 2.8

393.22
= 1.615m
=
4.0 m
0
Ws
6.1m
F h,static
Wc
T
Toe
X N'
Fig B-3 Free body diagram of the structural wedge
With all external forces acting on the structural wedge determined, the global stability
of the wall is assessed by computing the factor of safety against sliding; the
percentage of the base area in compression (overturning stability); and the factor of
safety against bearing capacity failure.
B6
Appendix - B
Factor of safety against sliding
Minimum factor of safety against sliding (FSsliding) for cantilever wall in usual loading
is 1.5. The FSsliding for usual loadings is computed as follows:
Tult = N tan( base )
Tult
T
329.95
=
149.5
= 2.20 f 1.5
FS sliding =
base = base
= 393.22 tan(40o )
= 329.95kN / m
O.K
Percentage of the base area in compression (Overturning stability)
The global stability of cantilever retaining walls to overturning is quantified by the

percentage of the base area in compression. The 100% percentage of base area is
required to be in compression in usual loadings for cantilever walls on soil
foundations:
B
XN'
2
4
= 1.615
2
= 0.385m
e=
N 6e
1 +
B
B
393.22 6 0.385
=
1 +
4
4
max =
= 155.08kN / m 2
N 6e
1
B
B
393.22 6 e
=
1
4
B
cL
B /2 m
T oe
H eel
m in
mim =
= 41.53kN / m
X N'
m ax
N'
min 0
100% base area in compression
B7
Appendix - B
Factor of safety against bearing capacity failure
The minimum factor of safety against bearing capacity failure FSbc for cantilever
retaining walls in usual loading is 3.0. The following expression for the normal
component to the base of the structure of the ultimate bearing capacity for strip
footings:
B N
Q = B ( cd ci ct cg c N c ) + ( qd qi qt qg q0 N q ) + d i t g
2
However, for the wall being analyzed, only the last term is nonzero, and thus, this
expression reduce to:
Q = B
i t g B N
2
The FSbc for usual loading is computed as follows:
N
149.5
= tan 1
393.22
B = B 2e
= 4 2 0.385
= tan 1
= 3.23

i = 1
20.8o
= 1
o
40
= 0.23
Q = B
= 20.8o
d = t = g = 1
i t g B N
2
(
1 0.23 1 1 3.23 19.6 93.69)
= 3.23
2
= 2203.20kN / m
FSbc =
Q
N
2203.20
393.22
= 5.60 3.0
=
O.K
Stage 2: structural design of concrete cantilever retaining wall
As stated in the introduction to this appendix, the second stage of the wall design
entails the structural design of the concrete wall, to include the dimensioning of the
concrete base slab (the toe and heel elements) and stem, and the detailing of the
reinforcing steel. All reinforced-concrete structures must satisfy both strength and
serviceability requirements. In the strength design method, this is accomplished by
multiplying the service loads by appropriate load. Thereby reducing steel stresses at
service loads. The service loads are those determined in the first design stage presented
previously.
B8
Appendix - B
Each of the three structural elements is designed as a cantilever, one-way slab for
flexure and shear loadings. The following example uses Grade 40 steel. 100 mm
cover is used in the example. Figure B-4 shows the structural wedge and the
externally imposed stresses determined in the first design stage. Also shown in Figure
B-4 are the critical locations for evaluating shear and bending moment for the stem,
heel, and toe elements.
4.0 m
Ws
6.1m
1.2 m
49.0kN/m^2
41.53kN/m^2
155.08kN/m^2
Critical section for shear

Critical section for moment
Fig B-4 Critical locations for shear and bending moment
Moment capacity of the stem
The stem is analyzed as being singly reinforced with the critical section for moment capacity
being at the base of the stem, as illustrated below.
M stem = 1.83 121.54

= 222.426kN
M u = 1.7 222.426
= 378.12kN
M
Mn = u
0.9
378.12
=
= 420.14kN
0.9
5.5m
Fh,moment
=121.54kN/m^1
h =1.83m
44.2kN/m^2
Mstem
B9
Appendix - B
Minimum required reinforcing steel:
M n + Pn d
2
ku = 1 1
'
0.425 f c b d 2
420.14 103
=1 1
0.425 27.6 7002
= 0.0372
As =
0.85 f c' ku b d
fy
0.85 27.6 0.0372 1000 700

413.4
2
= 1478.0mm / m
Use 25mm diameter steel bars @ 250mm c-c (conservative)

As = 1963.5mm 2 / m
Shear capacity of the stem
The critical section for shear in the stem is taken as 0.7m above the interface of the
base and stem, where 0.7m is d at the base of the stem. However, the d at the critical
section is only 0.675m, due to the taper of the wall.
Vu = 1.7 (92.57 )
= 157.38kN / m
Vc = shear 0.17 f c' b d
4.8m
Fh,shear
=92.57kN/m^1
= 0.85 0.17 27.6 1000 675

= 512.42kN / m
Vs 1.3 (Vu Vc )
Vstem
38.6kN/m^2
0.675 m
1.3 (Vu Vc ) = 1.3 (157.38 512.42)

p0
O.K
B10
Appendix - B
Moment and shear capacity of the heel
The heel is analyzed as being singly reinforced, with the steel along the top face and
100 mm. coverage. The critical section for both moment and shear capacity in the heel
is at the interface of the heel and the stem.
2.4 m
Ws
=258.7kN/m^1
Vheel
M heel
Wc
=34.0kN/m^1
41.53kN/m^2
109.66kN/m^2
heel
=0
1.2 (258.7 + 34.0)
1
1
2.42
41.53 2.42 (109.66 41.53)
M heel = 0
2
2
3
M heel = 166.23kNm / m
M u = 1.7 166.23
= 282.59kN
Mn =
Mu
282.59
0.9
= 314.0kN
Minimum required reinforcing steel:

h
M n + Pn d
2
ku = 1 1
'
0.425 f c b d 2
=1 1
314.0 103
0.425 27.6 6002
= 0.0379
B11
Appendix - B
As =
0.85 f c' ku b d
fy
0.85 27.6 0.0379 1000 600

413.4
2
= 1290.5mm / m
Use 25mm diameter steel bars @ 250mm c-c (conservative)
As = 1963.5mm 2 / m
Shear capacity of heel:
Vu = 1.7 (258.7 + 34.0 181.43)

= 189.16kN / m
Vc = shear 0.17 f c' b d

= 0.85 0.17 27.6 1000 600
= 455.50kN / m
Vs 1.3 (Vu Vc )
1.3 (Vu Vc ) = 1.3 (189.16 455.50)
p0
O.K
B12
Appendix - B
Figure B-5a,b shows the steel reinforcing detailing, determined previously, wherein
the stem, heel, and toe were treated as singly reinforced members.
a)
# 04 @ 250mm c-c
# 04 @ 250mm c-c
# 04 @ 250mm c-c
b)
# 04 @ 250mm c-c
use standard
hook
# 04 @ 250mm c-c
# 04 @ 250mm c-c
Fig B-5 Proposed steel reinforcement detailing. A minimum 100mm cover is required
B13
Appendix - C
10. APPENDIX C DESIGN OF GRAVITY WALL

The proposed model is used to carry out a parametric study on the dynamic response
of an 8.0 m high and 3.0 m wide gravity retaining wall proportioned using the
traditional approach to seismic design for an earthquake with a peak acceleration of
0.2g. It is the wall analyzed by Whitman.
The width at the top of the wall is chosen to be 0.80 m. In order to choose the proper
wall width (3.0 m in this case) the traditional approach to seismic design is used with
an acceleration coefficient equal to 0.5 of the peak acceleration of the design
earthquake. Moreover, a safety factor between 1.1 and 1.2 is chosen based on
recommended factors of safety by NAVFAC (1982 design manual). The chosen wall
has static safety factor against sliding and overturning of 2.88 and 2.50, respectively.
The corresponding total (static plus dynamic) safety factors are 1.7 and 1.29
respectively.
This wall is designed using the traditional approach to design for a horizontal
acceleration coefficient of 0.1g, which is chosen correspond to 0.5 of a peak
acceleration of 0.2g for the design earthquake.
C1
Appendix - D
11. APPENNDIX D ADDITIONAL RESULTS FROM

DIANA ANALYSES
Introduction
This section provides additional results from DIANA analyses to give a clear picture
of whole analyses carried out in this phase of research work.
Following figures are the free field acceleration time-histories recorded at the top
node of the numerical models
Fig D-1 Free field motion recorded from El Centro analysis for diaphragm wall in
sand
Fig D-2 Free field motion recorded from Chi-Chi analysis for diaphragm wall in sand
D1
Appendix - D
Fig D-3 Free field motion recorded from El Centro analysis for diaphragm wall in
clay
Fig D-4 Free field motion recorded from Chi-Chi analysis for diaphragm wall in clay
Fig D-5 Free field motion recorded from El Centro analysis for cantilever wall in sand
D2
Appendix - D
Fig D-6 Free field motion recorded from Chi-Chi analysis for cantilever wall in sand
Fig D-7 Free field motion recorded from Kobe analysis for cantilever wall in sand
Fig D-8 Free field motion recorded from Chi-Chi analysis for cantilever wall in clay
D3
Appendix - D
Fig D-9 Free field motion recorded from El Centro analysis for gravity wall in sand
Following figures are the displacement time-histories of the cantilever wall base
Fig D-10 Relative permanent displacement time-history of base from Chi-Chi analysis
for cantilever wall in sand
Fig D-11 Relative permanent displacement time-history of base from Kobe analysis
for cantilever wall in sand
D4
Appendix - D
Fig D-12 Relative permanent displacement time-history of base from Chi-Chi analysis
for cantilever wall in clay
Following figures are the deform shape of the cantilever wall at the end of the
dynamic analyses
Fig D-13 Deformed mesh from Chi-Chi analysis for cantilever wall in sand
Fig D-14 Deformed mesh from Kobe analysis for cantilever wall in sand
D5
Appendix - D
Fig D-15 Deformed meshes from Chi-Chi analysis for cantilever wall in clay,
deformations magnified by a factor of 20. (Note: Toe of the wall not initially
embedded)
The following figures give the bending moment time history of diaphragm wall.
@10.5 m
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
15
20
25
@7.5m
@8.5m
40000
70000
35000
65000
60000
30000
55000
25000
50000
20000
45000
40000
15000
0
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
@5.5m
@6.5m
130000
200000
120000
190000
110000
180000
100000
170000
90000
160000
150000
80000
0
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
D6
25
Appendix - D
@3.5m
@4.5m
310000
300000
290000
280000
270000
260000
250000
240000
230000
220000
290000
280000
270000
260000
250000
240000
230000
220000
210000
200000
0
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
@1.5m
@2.5m
250000
180000
230000
160000
210000
140000
190000
120000
100000
170000
80000
150000
0
10
15
20
60000
25
10
15
20
25
@0.5m
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
0
10
15
20
25
Fig D-16 bending moment time history along the height of the diaphragm wall in sand
for El Centro. Vertical axis, bending moment (Nm/m) and horizontal axis, time (s)
@10.5m
@9.5m
12000
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
@8.5m
10
15
20
25
@7.5m
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
0
10
15
20
25
20000
0
10
15
20
25
D7
Appendix - D
@5.5m
@6.5m
350000
210000
190000
170000
150000
130000
110000
90000
70000
50000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
15
20
25
@3.5m
@4.5m
500000
450000
450000
400000
400000
350000
350000
300000
300000
250000
250000
200000
200000
0
10
15
20
25
10
@1.5m
@2.5m
350000
450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
10
15
20
25
10
@0.5m
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
10
15
20
25
Fig D-17 bending moment time history along the height of the diaphragm wall in sand
for Chi-Chi. Vertical axis, bending moment (Nm/m) and horizontal axis, time (s)
D8
Appendix - D
@9.5m
@10.5m
12000
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
@7.5m
@8.5m
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
10
15
20
10
25
@5.5m
@6.5m
160000
150000
140000
130000
120000
110000
100000
90000
80000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
0
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
15
20
25
@3.5m
@4.5m
330000
310000
290000
270000
250000
230000
210000
190000
170000
150000
260000
240000
220000
200000
180000
160000
140000
0
10
15
20
25
10
@1.5m
@2.5m
350000
250000
300000
200000
250000
150000
200000
100000
150000
50000
100000
0
10
15
20
25
10
D9
Appendix - D
@0.5m
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
0
10
15
20
25
Fig D-18 bending moment time history along the height of the diaphragm wall in clay
for El Centro. Vertical axis, bending moment (Nm/m) and horizontal axis, time (s)
@9.5m
@10.5m
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
10
15
20
10
15
20
25
25
@8.5m
@7.5m
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
10
15
20
25
10
@6.5m
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
5
10
20
25
@5.5m
120000
15
15
20
25
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
0
10
15
20
25
@3.5m
@4.5m
400000
300000
350000
250000
300000
200000
250000
150000
200000
150000
100000
0
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
D10
Appendix - D
@1.5m
@2.5m
400000
350000
350000
300000
300000
250000
250000
200000
150000
200000
100000
150000
0
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
@0.5m
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
10
15
20
25
Fig D-18 bending moment time history along the height of the diaphragm wall in clay
for Chi-Chi. Vertical axis, bending moment (Nm/m) and horizontal axis, time (s)
D11
Appendix - E
12. APPENDIX E DIANA COMMAND FILES

This part provides all the command files used to run DIANA analyses. DIANAs
command files were presented here because writing the command file is a little tricky
than creating models and assigning material properties.
The sequences of analyses were:
1. Phased analysis
2. Eigen values analysis
3. Dynamic analysis
The command files were presented according to the above order,
Phased analysis command file
*FILOS
INITIA
*INPUT
*PHASE
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN phase1
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN
BEGIN TYPE
BEGIN TRANSI
METHOD NEWMAR
BEGIN DYNAMI
MASS CONSIS ROTATI ON
DAMPIN CONSIS RAYLEI
END DYNAMI
END TRANSI
END TYPE
BEGIN EXECUTE
PHYSIC SUPPRE STRAIN
BEGIN START
BEGIN INITIA
BEGIN STRESS
BEGIN CALCUL
EQUILI
LOAD=1
END CALCUL
END STRESS
END INITIA
STEPS EXPLIC SIZES 0.1(10)
E1
Appendix - E
END START
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE=50
BEGIN CONVER
FORCE
DISPLA OFF
END CONVER
LINESE
END ITERAT
END EXECUTE
BEGIN OUTPUT
FILE="PHASE1"
DISPLA
STRAIN PLASTI
STRESS
STRAIN
STRESS INTPNT
END OUTPUT
:PHASE 2
*PHASE
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN phase2
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN
BEGIN TYPE
BEGIN TRANSI
METHOD NEWMAR
BEGIN DYNAMI
END DYNAMI
END TRANSI
END TYPE
BEGIN EXECUTE
BEGIN START
BEGIN INITIA
BEGIN STRESS
BEGIN CALCUL
EQUILI
LOAD=1
END CALCUL
END STRESS
END INITIA
STEPS EXPLIC SIZES 1(1)
END START
BEGIN ITERAT
E2
Appendix - E
MAXITE=50
BEGIN CONVER
FORCE OFF
DIAPLA TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
LINESE
END ITERAT
END EXECUTE
BEGIN OUTPUT
FILE="PHASE 2"
DISPLA
STRESS
STRESS INPNT
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI INPNT
END OUTPUT
*INPUT
READ FILE="newsup.dat"
*PHASE
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN phase14
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN
BEGIN TYPE
BEGIN TRANSI
METHOD NEWMAR
BEGIN DYNAMI
END DYNAMI
END TRANSI
END TYPE
BEGIN EXECUTE
BEGIN START
BEGIN INITIA
BEGIN STRESS
BEGIN CALCUL
EQUILI
LOAD=2
END CALCUL
END STRESS
END INITIA
STEPS EXPLIC SIZES .1(10)
END START
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE=50
BEGIN CONVER
E3
Appendix - E
FORCE OFF
DIAPLA TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
LINESE
END ITERAT
END EXECUTE
BEGIN OUTPUT
FILE="PHASE14"
BEGIN SELECT
NODES ALL
ELEMENT 29-942
END SELECT
DISPLA
STRAIN PLASTI
STRESS
STRAIN
STRESS INPNT
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL INPNT
END OUTPUT
*END
EIGEN VALUE COMMAND FILE

*EIGEN
MODEL OFF
BEGIN EXECUTE
NMODES=25
END EXECUTE
*END
DYNAMIC COMMAND FILE

*NONLIN
MODEL OFF
TYPE OFF
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN TIME
STEPS EXPLIC SIZES 0.01(2511)
END TIME
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXTIE=10
BEGIN CONVER
FORCE OFF
DISPLA
END CONVER
LINESE
END ITERAT
E4
Appendix - E
END EXECUTE
BEGIN OUTPUT
FILE="dynami"
BEGIN SELECT
NODES ALL
ELEMENT ALL
END SELECT
DISPLA RELATI
VELOCI
ACCELE
STRAIN PLASTI
STRESS
STRESS INTPNT
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL INTPNT
STRESS FORCE
STRAIN FORCE
END OUTPUT
BEGIN OUTPUT TABULA
FILE="dynami_iftarcti.tb"
BEGIN SELECT
ELEMEN 18-39
END SELECT
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL INTPNT
END OUTPUT
*END
E5

Dissertation2007 Pathmanathan PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation2007 Pathmanathan PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Istituto Universitario

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

NUMERICAL MODELLING OF SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

The dissertation entitled Numerical Modelling of Seismic behaviour of Earth-Retaining

Keywords: Retaining walls, Mononobe-Okabe, Dynamic earth pressure, Finite-element analysis

2.4.1 Al-Homoud and Whitman (1999)..................................................................................... 26

5.3.9 Damping ........................................................................................................................... 61

7.4.2 Interface element and transmitting boundary ................................................................. 106

Figure 2.3. Analytical model ....................................................................................................12

Figure 4.2. Imperial Valley (1940) Pseudo-Acceleration spectrum corresponding 5% damping

Chapter 2 Literature review

Chapter 2 Literature review

Forced Based Analysis

Steedman - Zeng (1990)

Limite State Analysis

Veletsos & Younan

Matuo - Ohara (1960)

Closed Form Solution

Methods Used to Analyze the Retaining Walls in Seismic Conditions

Green & Ebeling

Chapter 2 Literature review

Figure 2.1. Classification of seismic earth pressure computation methods

Chapter 2 Literature review

2.2 Limit-state analysis

A pseudo-static analysis is relatively simple and very straightforward. Representation of the

Chapter 2 Literature review

plane failure surface

plane failure surface

Figure 2.2. Failure surface and the forces considered by Mononobe-Okabe

Chapter 2 Literature review

- wall friction angle

Chapter 2 Literature review

Pa may thus be expressed in the following form

Chapter 2 Literature review

, the corresponding dynamic pressure determined by the Mononobe-Okabe analysis can be

Figure 2.3. Analytical model

Chapter 2 Literature review

Figure 2.4. Free body diagram

(tan cot PE )(1 + tan tan ) + (tan tan )

- wall friction angle

Chapter 2 Literature review

Chapter 2 Literature review

Chapter 2 Literature review

Chapter 2 Literature review

Chapter 2 Literature review

2.2.1.4 Ortigosa (2005)

Chapter 2 Literature review

Chapter 2 Literature review

[2H cos + (sin sin t )]

Chapter 2 Literature review

[2H cos + (sin sin t )]

Chapter 2 Literature review

W sin ( + ) Qh cos( + ) Qv sin ( + )

(2.35) Pae = 0.5H

The permanent block displacement is given by,

P cos( + ) Pae sin( + )

Chapter 2 Literature review

Seismic active earth

p.o.a of Pad from base (m)

Seismic passive earth

p.o.a of Ppd from base

2.3 Closed form solutions using elastic or viscous elastic behaviour