You are on page 1of 110

I.U.S.S.

Istituto Universitario Università degli
di Studi Superiori Studi di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN
REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL

SEISMIC VULNERABILILTY OF MASONRY
ARCH BRIDGE WALLS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial
Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

By

MARIA ROTA

Supervisors: Prof. ALAIN PECKER
Dr. RUI PINHO

May, 2004

The dissertation entitled “Seismic vulnerability of masonry arch bridge walls”, by Maria Rota,
has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake
Engineering.

Rui Pinho

Alain Pecker

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Dr. Rui Pinho for his guidance and support during the work
and for his useful critique during the final stages of the dissertation.

The author is also grateful to Prof. Alain Pecker for his valuable help and encouragement
during the period spent in Paris, and for his careful review of the manuscript.

Last but not least, the important contribution of Mr. Davide Bolognini is acknowledged, for his
insightful comments and suggestions.

3

Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 10
2 ARCH MASONRY BRIDGES ..................................................................................................... 13
2.1 General characteristics of masonry bridges ......................................................................... 13
2.2 Characteristics of the filling material..................................................................................... 14
2.3 Seismic damage to masonry bridges...................................................................................... 15
3 SEISMIC OUT-OF-PLANE CAPACITY OF WALLS............................................................ 19
3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 19
3.2 Out-of-plane capacity of isolated walls................................................................................. 19
3.3 Out-of-plane capacity of typical masonry arch bridge walls ............................................. 26
4 STATIC SOIL PRESSURES ON A RETAINING WALL ..................................................... 30
4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 30
4.2 Static soil pressure ................................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Check for sliding failure of the wall ...................................................................................... 31
4.4 Check for overturning failure of the wall............................................................................. 32
4.5 Check for shear failure of the wall ........................................................................................ 33
5 DYNAMIC SOIL PRESSURES ON A RETAINING WALL ............................................... 36
5.1 State of the art .......................................................................................................................... 36
5.2 Method by Mononobe and Okabe........................................................................................ 37
5.2.1 Description of the model .............................................................................................. 37
5.2.2 Shortcomings of the model........................................................................................... 41
5.3 Method by Scott (1973) .......................................................................................................... 41
5.3.1 General derivation of the model .................................................................................. 41
5.3.2 Discussion of some details of the model .................................................................... 44
a) Boundary effects.................................................................................................................. 44
b) Effect of the wall flexibility................................................................................................ 45
5.3.3 Shortcomings of the model........................................................................................... 45
5.4 Method by Veletsos and Younan [1994b]............................................................................ 46
5.4.1 Description of the model .............................................................................................. 46
5.4.2 Shortcomings of the model........................................................................................... 52
5.4.3 Further developments of the method [Veletsos and Younan, 1997 and 2000]..... 53

4

Table of contents

5.5 Comparison of the results obtained with the three methods implemented.................... 53
6 COMBINED MODEL – COMPUTATION OF CAPACITY............................................... 58
6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 58
6.2 Parametric study on the reciprocal influence of the two walls ......................................... 59
6.3 Overview of capacity model................................................................................................... 62
6.3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 62
6.3.2 Determination of the acceleration capacity of the wall............................................. 62
6.4 Calibration of the parameters of Veletsos and Younan [1994b] method........................ 65
6.4.1 Stiffness of the rotational spring .................................................................................. 65
6.4.2 Reduction of shear modulus ......................................................................................... 69
6.4.3 Frequency of excitation ................................................................................................. 71
6.4.4 Discussion on the influence of acceleration on the results ...................................... 73
6.5 Results obtained ....................................................................................................................... 77
7 COMPUTATION OF DEMAND ............................................................................................... 83
7.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 83
7.2 Amplification of the seismic input to the base of the wall ................................................ 83
7.3 Amplification of the seismic input through the wall .......................................................... 85
7.4 Results obtained ....................................................................................................................... 86
8 COMPARISON OF CAPACITY AND DEMAND................................................................. 94
9 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS........................................................ 105
10 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 107

5

List of figures

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 2.1: identification of the different parts constituting a masonry arch bridge [Galasco et al.,
2004] ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Fig. 2.2: typical thickness of the filling material..................................................................................... 15
Fig. 2.3: overturning of the walls for a railway masonry bridge, after the ......................................... 16
Fig. 2.4: clear evidence of overturning of a bridge wall, after Koyna earthquake, India, 1967 [ASC]
............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Fig. 2.5: overturning of the wall of a masonry bridge, after the Umbria-Marche earthquake, 1997
............................................................................................................................................................. 18
Fig. 3.1: constitutive law used for masonry............................................................................................ 20
Fig. 3.2: forces acting on the wall ............................................................................................................ 21
Fig. 3.3: stress diagrams on the masonry section at the different significant points of the λ−∆
curve. The tensile stresses are not represented, since the masonry does not resist in tension.
Note that this is the same procedure used for a reinforced concrete section.......................... 22
Fig. 3.4: example of λ -∆ curve ................................................................................................................ 25
Fig. 3.5: maximum acceleration capacity obtained for the different walls considered .................... 28
Fig. 3.6: values of maximum acceleration obtained for walls of different slenderness h/t ............ 28
Fig. 3.7: values of maximum acceleration obtained for walls with different axial load P ............... 29
Fig. 4.1: factors of safety obtained against sliding (CS), for the different wall cases considered.... 32
Fig. 4.2: factors of safety obtained against overturning (CO), for the different wall cases
considered .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Fig. 4.3: factors of safety obtained against shear (CV), for the different wall cases considered ..... 35
Fig. 5.1: forces acting on an active wedge in M-O analysis, for a dry cohesionless backfill (from Wood
[1973]) .................................................................................................................................................. 39
Fig. 5.2: system considered by Scott [1973] ........................................................................................... 42
Fig. 5.3: System considered by Veletsos and Younan [1994b]............................................................ 47
Fig. 5.4: Model of the soil stratum: elastically constrained bar ........................................................... 49
Fig. 5.5: comparison of base shear, obtained with the two methods, for different values of Rθ ... 55
Fig. 5.6: comparison of the points of application of the thrust resultant, obtained with the two
methods, for different values of Rθ ................................................................................................ 56
Fig. 5.7: comparison of base moment, obtained with the two methods, for different values of Rθ
............................................................................................................................................................. 56

6

....00 E7 (right)........... 79 Fig...................................... 60 Fig.......... 6..... 6........... 7.............. 86 Fig....................... for case 7 and ω = 400.. 66 Fig..1: example of elastic horizontal response spectra...... List of figures Fig..........4: variation of the acceleration demand with the soil category....................... 85 Fig..... 68 Fig............6: pressure distribution on the wall for different values of rotational stiffness Rθ..........4: base shears and base moments obtained for different values of L/H ................................ 6..........first frequency of the wall................... 7.. with the frequency of excitation .................................. 61 Fig....... 84 Fig... 6. for seismic zone 4 (PGA = 0. 6.................................... 59 Fig.................... 82 Fig.. hVel and λmax...............................18: variation of the ratio ω/ω1 with the height of the soil layer ............................................ with Rθ = 1...........................13: variation of G/Gmax...................................... 6......................... 6................ hVel and λmax...... 63 Fig......... 81 Fig............. 60 Fig....3: acceleration response factors for the case of ω = 300 .....16: variation of the base shear with the ratio frequency of excitation .....05 g) ......... for the different bridge typologies and the different walls considered.... 72 Fig. for a “statically” excited system ........................ 89 7 ............... 1994b] . h... 6............ 80 Fig..........11: reduction of the shear modulus for the different cases considered................... 6...... 75 Fig.........................20: variation of the acceleration capacity with the height of the wall...............................21: acceleration capacity of the different wall cases obtained with and without considering the effect of the infill material.................................................... 7................... for different values of wall flexibility dθ [Veletsos and Younan.................. 7........ 6.. for a “statically” excited system .... for a fixed-base wall (left) and for a rotationally constraint wall....... with the level of acceleration A................................... 6.......... 6....9: stiffness of the rotational spring for the different cases considered .... 70 Fig.. 6..2: system considered by Wood [1973] ..... 6.... 71 Fig. 6......12: variation of the soil pressure distribution for different values of ω........3: dimensionless thrust (left) and moment (right) factors................................................. 67 Fig.....1: graphical representation of a complex quantity......... 1986]............ 6..19: capacity of the first 7 cases of wall considered... 6............................14: variation of G/Gmax.........15: capacity of the walls considered...........2: acceleration response factor for a damping ratio ξ = 0..7: effect of wall flexibility on the base shear............5: forces acting on the wall in the combined model ...................... 6.................................8: effect of wall flexibility on the base moment..... 6........................ with the level of acceleration A.................. for case 4 and ω = 100........ 6......... for ω = 300...... 67 Fig............ for 5 different bridge typologies ............................................17: variation of the first frequency of the soil layer...... 6................................05........................... 82 Fig........ 78 Fig.......10: shear modulus reduction curve [Seed et al.... 80 Fig...................... c ..... 76 Fig.............................................

...... 8....... 7......4: ratio between demand and capacity..................................... 8........ 7...........104 8 ..................3: ratio between demand and capacity obtained for the different bridge typologies and for the different soil types.6: variation of the acceleration demand with the seismic zone and the different soil categories............1: comparison of acceleration capacity and demand........................................................................ 99 Fig................... for the wall of case 9 and for each seismic zone........................................... 97 Fig............. 7............ for the wall of case 9 and for each soil type ................... for the different bridge typologies and the different walls considered...5: variation of acceleration demand and capacity with bridge typology............ 93 Fig............ and E and in seismic zone 2.......101 Fig............................7: variation of the acceleration demand with the bridge typology............ for all the bridges and walls cases considered............................................................................................ for the wall of case 17 ............. C.................... 8.........................5: variation of the acceleration demand with the seismic zone............................................ for the different bridge typologies and seismic zones ....... assumed to be on soil of type B................. 96 Fig..........2: ratio between demand and capacity obtained for the different bridge typologies .. for the wall of case 12............................. 91 Fig......... List of figures Fig..............................6: variation of acceleration demand and capacity with bridge typology.................... 8.............103 Fig........... 92 Fig..... 8............................. 8...........

................ List of tables LIST OF TABLES Table 2...3: results obtained with the three method for a fixed-base wall............. 26 Table 5................................................. 54 Table 5............... 54 Table 5................... 72 9 .....................................2: results obtained from the comparison of Veletsos and Younan and M-O methods...............................1: values of specific weight for some types.....................................................1: percentage variation of base shear and base moment...........................................1: characteristics of the system considered ...........................................................................................1: characteristics of the walls considered in the parametric study....... 57 Table 6....... excited with a frequency of 400 rad/s ............ 15 Table 3................................ 62 Table 6........................................................ for the case of fixed massless wall and “static” excitation ................................................2: characteristics of the system considered ...... .

particularly railway bridges. The different parts composing such a structure are identified and special attention is given to the characteristics of the filling material. While this can be simply due to chance. or even earlier. through a parametric study on a set of bridges and walls typologies. the problem of the interaction between the infill material and the side walls of the bridges under seismic excitation has not been studied yet. This construction technique has been transmitted from one generation to the other. in relation with a possible out-of-plane collapse. it is a matter of fact that it is hard to find any specific research study on this subject in the literature. in order to create a horizontal plane for the rails. Also. as demonstrated by the many roman masonry arch bridges. introduced between the two walls of the bridge. more generally. It is shown that local failures. This failure mode is expected to occur at the very beginning of the seismic excitation. which will be briefly described here. which employment can be traced back to the ancient Romans period. maybe because there have not been many significant damage evidences after recent earthquakes. Also. It is a very old typology of bridges. an overview of typical seismic damages. such as overturning of the bridge walls. occurred in the past to this typology of bridges. For each case. Following the introduction. The durability of this kind of bridges is remarkable. The potentially high seismic vulnerability of masonry railway bridges has not yet been fully perceived. as well as some aqueducts. Above all. but many masonry bridges still exist and their seismic performance is a major concern. it is believed that this kind of out-of-plane collapse may occur even for low levels of acceleration. a problem to be considered is the interaction between infill material and parapet walls. in Europe) are arch masonry bridges. This mechanism of failure has been studied in the current work. before other types of mechanisms may have damaged the structure. probably due to the interaction with the infill material. is presented. Recently. The present work is organised in 9 Chapters. Chapter 1 Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION Many railway and road bridges in Italy (and. which are still perfectly working. that will be studied in this work. Chapter 2 is an overview of the main characteristics of arch masonry bridges. acceleration demand and capacity are compared and some conclusions are drawn. but appears to be a potentially relevant damage mode. are very common for masonry arch bridges. new bridges are more often steel or concrete structures. In particular. 10 . with only minor variations.

This thrust can be subdivided into a static and a dynamic part. the different sub-models are introduced separately and. are combined. obtained from the combination of different sub-models. in order to form a complete capacity model for the system consisting in the walls and the infill material. as explained more in detail in what follows. sliding. including the effect of the infill material. some other details of Veletsos method. The calculation of the dynamic component of the infill thrust is discussed in detail in Chapter 5. only in a second time. is described in Chapter 4. After the maximum acceleration that a bridge wall can resist is determined. concerning the maximum acceleration at the base of the wall. Using this force-based model. In order to apply this model. depending on the level of deformation. At the end. overturning and shear. Three different methods for the evaluation of this dynamic thrust are implemented in the current work. to determine the dynamic thrust. it is possible to determine the acceleration-displacement curve of an unreinforced masonry wall and therefore to evaluate the maximum acceleration that the wall can resist before collapse. i. The described method is applied to a set of typical arch masonry walls and the results obtained are presented. they are assembled. need to be analysed. each one describing a single aspect of the problem. respectively proposed by Mononobe-Okabe. The static thrust. it is shown that the method of Veletsos and Younan is preferable in the current framework. In Chapter 3. For this scope. Attention is given particularly to the determination of the capacity of the walls. This combined model is described in detail in Chapter 6. since it influences the capacity of the wall. a comparison between capacity and demand is carried on.e. the typical bridge walls previously introduced are checked with respect to three static mechanisms of failure. which has been calculated using Coulomb’s theory. the frequency of excitation and the reduction of the shear modulus of the soil. In a first moment. a capacity model is presented. for a wide range of cases. a method developed by Priestley [1985] and Paulay and Priestley [1992] for the out-of-plane seismic capacity of an isolated wall is introduced. Moreover. Chapter 1 Introduction In order to study whether this failure mechanism occurs or not for a given bridge typology. The model for the isolated wall (described in Chapter 3) and the two models for the static and dynamic components of the thrust (described in Chapters 4 and 5). Scott and Veletsos and Younan. Each one of these aspects is 11 . These are essentially the stiffness of the rotational spring at the base of the wall. to obtain the combined model. Then. the thrust of the infill material on the walls needs to be taken into account. The results obtained with these three methods are reported and compared. it is necessary to calibrate some parameters used in Veletsos and Younan method.

This spectrum is constructed according to the new Italian Seismic Code [O. 2003] and the acceleration corresponding to the dominant frequency of oscillation of the bridge in the transverse direction is read from the spectrum. corresponding to demand equal to capacity. In particular.M. since it is believed to be of some importance not only to check if a wall fails or survives. Chapter 9 summarises the most relevant conclusions derived from this work and outlines suggestions for future research.P. with particular emphasis for those issues where further investigation is required. the acceleration at the base of the wall for all the wall cases considered is determined. In particular. The results obtained are also reported and discussed in the same Chapter. Finally. the acceleration demand at the base of the bridge wall is determined. This demand is calculated in two different steps: in a first moment. is also reported and discussed. the ratio between demand and capacity is analysed.C. The acceleration capacity. Chapter 1 Introduction described in detail in Chapter 6. using an elastic response spectrum. Chapter 8 summarises the most relevant results obtained from the comparison of the acceleration capacity and demand for the different cases. but also to quantify how it is far from the limit condition. after application of an acceleration response factor. n. after application of this combined model. 3274. assuming that the bridge belongs to each one of the four seismic zones described in the Code (each one corresponding to a different level of peak ground acceleration on rock) and assuming it is located on each one of the three soil categories. 12 . Chapter 7 is devoted to the computation of the level of demand on the walls considered. obtained for each one of the wall cases considered. the acceleration demand at the barycentre of the wall is determined. Then.

i. Some more detail on the characteristics of this infill material will be discussed in the next section.e. the reader is referred to the work of Resemini [2003]. the modern Italian masonry bridges. also on the designer. 2004] 13 . which are located above the exterior part of the arch. have been built in a time period of 100 years. the parts constituting a masonry bridge (shown in Fig.1 General characteristics of masonry bridges As stated by Resemini [2003].1) are: the arch. on the geographical area and. which is the structural part of the bridge. Chapter 2 Arch masonry bridges 2 ARCH MASONRY BRIDGES 2. 2.1: identification of the different parts constituting a masonry arch bridge [Galasco et al. Nevertheless. This very short period determines the homogeneity of some of the construction techniques and of the geometry of such structures. the foundations and the non-structural parts. depending on the year of construction. 2. to create a horizontal plane. The filling material is laterally constrained by two walls. especially railway bridges. the elements supporting the arch. they show some different details. Fig.. Generally. most likely. abutments and piers. such as the filling material. located above the arch. For a more detailed overview of the history of masonry arch bridges construction. approximately between 1830 and 1930.

In the present work a value of 17 KN/m3 has been selected. [2001b]. In that work. it is also stated that. suggested by Gambarotta et al. [Resemini. Narrow valleys and minor streams are usually crossed by single-span bridges. when precise information on the type of material used is lacking. with more spans on high piers. which is a very anisotropic material. for existing structures it is far from trivial to determine the consistency of the grout. gravel. one of the major difficulties consists in the determination of the characteristics of the materials used in the construction. The filling material is usually incoherent material (such as soil or mucking resulting from mines excavation) or. whilst wide but shallow valleys are crossed by bridges with more spans on short piers. whose mechanical properties are strongly dependent on the properties of its constituents. in order to reduce the thrust on the walls. especially when they have piers of significant height. more recently. ballast or. [Resemini. In particular. low resistance concrete. The reasoning behind this solution is not clear. Some typical values of the specific weight of the infill material. moreover it should contribute to the repartition to the arch of the concentrated loads applied on the horizontal plane on top of it. 14 .2 Characteristics of the filling material The space between the two walls of a masonry arch bridge is filled up with some material. a value between 17 and 19 KN/m3 may be reasonably assumed for the specific weight. Often. when present. 2003] The geometry of the bridge is strongly influenced by the orography of the valley to be crossed. In case of viaducts. but it may have been adopted to reduce the weight acting on the arch. or the quality of the structural elements (bricks or stones) used. Chapter 2 Arch masonry bridges For existing masonry bridges. Wide and deep valleys are often crossed by bridges called viaducts. are summarised in Table 2. as well as to economical reasons. it is not uncommon to find some brick vaults instead of the filling material. it may be constituted by dry stones. coarse aggregate. in order to create a horizontal plane. this infill material will be always referred to as soil. For the sake of simplicity. This infill material must be light and able to drain the water. 2003] 2.1. in what follows. This is mainly due to the intrinsic characteristics of masonry. different types of materials may be used for different parts of the bridge. due to structural reasons (need for higher resistance of the more heavily stressed parts and for lower weight of the non-structural parts).

a masonry bridge. Fig. the thickness of the stratum is equal to the arch thickness at the apex stone. some pressures on the side walls of the bridges.5 – 18 Low resistance concrete 21 According to Albenga [1953].1: values of specific weight for some types of filling material Material Specific weight [kN/m3] Incoherent material 16 – 18 Dry stones 18 – 21 Aggregate or gravel 14. nevertheless. 2003]. 2. for railway bridges. with a consequent lack of information about seismic damages to these structures. This pressure can be subdivided into static (always present) and dynamic (developed only when the structure is subjected to dynamic loads) parts. 2. 2. 15 . Chapter 2 Arch masonry bridges Table 2. However. will survive without being heavily damaged.2: typical thickness of the filling material The filling material produces. without particular structural deficiencies. this limit may be brought down to 30 cm. most of the existing Italian masonry bridges have been built between 1830 and 1930. as illustrated in Fig. as obvious. the response of these bridges to major earthquakes requires more investigation [Resemini. The calculation of the static part is described in detail in the chapter 4. the height of the soil between the horizontal plane and the top of the arch must not be less than 40 cm. It seems likely that. but never less than 15 cm. for earthquakes of moderate intensity.3 Seismic damage to masonry bridges As stated above. Generally. Therefore their seismic history is quite short. for lower-height bridges. whilst the dynamic part will be described in chapter 5.2.

but with the functionality of some parts of the system of infrastructures. This 88 years old bridge is already under repair. with short piers. Fig. in the less industrial areas of the world. or information is difficult to be obtained. masonry structures are either of limited extension. in Italy [Resemini. damages to the piers and overturning of the bridge walls. whilst in the more industrial zones. the seismic vulnerability of masonry bridges seems to be an interesting issue only in Europe and. 2. after the Bhuj earthquake. Most of them were short span bridges. exposing the train rails. Therefore. An example of a railway masonry bridge. In fact. in particular. as anticipated in the introduction.3. a study of the evidences of seismic damage to masonry bridges throughout the world may help in the knowledge of the damage mechanisms of these structures. considering the seismicity of the area. 2001. which has been damaged during the Bhuj earthquake. due to local knowledge and in situ availability of materials. the seismic risk of this kind of structures is not associated with human lives loss. especially for those areas in which an earthquake causes many victims and therefore this kind of infrastructural damage is not considered of significance.7). modern infrastructures are not realized in masonry. Chapter 2 Arch masonry bridges Information about seismic damage to masonry bridges throughout the world is very limited. It can be seen that the earthquake caused the overturning of the walls and the falling-off of the infill material. 2. which occurred in January 2001 in the district of Gujarat. India [Gisdevelopment. as indicated in the picture. 2001] 16 . India. The damages which have been observed consist in cracking and skews of the elements of the arches. The Bhuj earthquake (magnitude 7. Even if the construction techniques may vary from area to area. 2003]. is shown in Fig.3: overturning of the walls for a railway masonry bridge. caused damage to several masonry bridges. Also. This is another reason of the scarce information available.

even if. which is visible in the picture. The damaged arch masonry bridge is shown in Fig. it is not easy to identify the type of material constituting the filling for this particular bridge. The infill material between the two walls.4: clear evidence of overturning of a bridge wall.4. consists in some kind of soil. 2. from this picture. The damage clearly consists in the overturning of one of the bridge walls.5. 2. Fig. 17 . the overturning of the wall exposes the filling material. 1967 [ASC] Another example of damage due to overturning of the bridge walls is related to the earthquake occurred in the Italian regions of Umbria and Marche. in 1997. 2. after Koyna earthquake. which occurred in India (1967) and is shown in Fig. India. Chapter 2 Arch masonry bridges Another example of seismic damage to a masonry bridge is due to the earthquake of Koyna. Also in this case.

local failures. 2004] The above puts in evidence that one of the most frequent types of failure consists in the overturning of the bridge walls. probably due to the interaction with the infill material. are very common. 1997 [Resemini and Lagomarsino.5: overturning of the wall of a masonry bridge. after the Umbria-Marche earthquake. Chapter 2 Arch masonry bridges Fig. The present work will focus on the study of this particular failure mechanism. For these bridges. 2. such as overturning of the bridge walls. 18 .

1 Introduction The determination of the capacity of unreinforced masonry walls to out-of-plane seismic excitation is one of the most complex and ill-understood areas of seismic analysis [Griffith et al. 2002]. in particular. the formation of cracks does not constitute wall failure. 2003]. in order to analytically evaluate the capacity of a wall. A simplified model is used to determine the acceleration-displacement curve and therefore to obtain the maximum level of acceleration that a given wall can resist prior to collapse. without considering the effect of the infill material. its boundary conditions and the quality of the materials [D’Ayala and Speranza. being related to the overall geometry of the wall. have been calculated. This model has been applied to a set of walls. the acceleration-displacement curve is determined. is displaced outside the line of action of the applied gravity loads. Nevertheless. In this work. The following assumptions are involved in the method: • The response acceleration is constant over the height of the wall. even in unreinforced walls.2 Out-of-plane capacity of isolated walls In this work. Lagomarsino. where m is the mass per unit area of wall 19 . There exist different types of out-of-plane collapse mechanisms that can be observed. which occurs in cantilever walls. the approach developed by Priestley [1985] and Paulay and Priestley [1992] for a masonry wall is followed. In this case. out-of-plane collapse is a crucial issue for old existing masonry structures [D’Ayala and Speranza. which are considered typical for masonry arch bridges. the attention is restricted to the simplest mechanism. The wall is modelled as a single-degree-of- freedom structure and is subjected to a seismic action in the direction perpendicular to the wall. Failure can occur only when the resultant force in the compression zone of the central crack. 1999]. the one way bending condition.3. and the maximum values of acceleration that each wall can resist. 3. One of the reasons for this is the fact that all modern codes for new design of masonry structures give dimensioning and detailing rules that make out-of-plane collapse of walls extremely unlikely. R. as will be discussed later in further details. Therefore the lateral inertia force per unit area will be w = ma. The results obtained are summarised in section 3. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls 3 SEISMIC OUT-OF-PLANE CAPACITY OF WALLS 3. since this is the typology of restraint typical of masonry arch bridge walls. 2002.

3.Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls surface. • P . since the errors deriving from this approximation are typically not large.e. for which reason the elasto- perfectly-plastic behaviour shown in Fig. for obvious reasons. given by λ = a/g. rectangular section and unitary width.1 has been assumed for the masonry. i. for a wall fixed at the base and free at the top and for a wall simply supported at both the ends. • The model considers a wall of constant. In particular.1: constitutive law used for masonry • Failure of the wall will occur for out-of-plane deflection. A more accurate estimate of the displacement could be obtained by integrating the curvature distribution. • The method conservatively assumes that the displacement ∆ at the top of the wall increases proportionally to the curvature. 1992].2. acting on top of the wall (in case of arch masonry bridge walls there could be a parapet on top of each wall). the wall will fail when the point of application of the resultant of the vertical loads (P and W) is aligned with the point of application of the reaction R. where p is the weight per unit area of wall surface and λ is the seismic coefficient. but this is probably not warranted. This force can also be written as w = λ⋅p. • The model was originally developed by Paulay and Priestley for two different cases of boundary conditions. after the formation of a plastic hinge at the base.∆ effects are included in the model. referring to Fig. until very large displacements are reached [Paulay and Priestley. • The constitutive relationship for the material is nonlinear. only the first condition has been considered. 20 . • The model can consider the presence of an axial load P. In this work. 3. σ f max ε Fig. 3.

The forces acting on the wall are represented in Fig. 3. normalised by a constant parameter (g). 3. The force indicated as λP is the inertia force produced by the axial load P. the seismic coefficient λ can be determined through the equation of equilibrium of moments around the point O in Fig. This force is proportional to P through the seismic coefficient λ.2: forces acting on the wall The seismic coefficient λ = a/g is considered in this model as a load factor and is used to construct the λ . since λ is effectively a dimensionless acceleration. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls P ∆ λP λp ∆/2 h W h/2 o R x Fig. increasing progressively the curvature at the top section of the wall and imposing equilibrium of external and internal forces.2) ⎛ ph ⎞ h ⋅⎜ + P⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 21 .∆ curve. 3.2: λp ⋅ h 2 ∆ (3.2.1) R⋅x = + λP ⋅ h + P ⋅ ∆ + W ⋅ 2 2 from which: ⎛ W⎞ Rx − ∆ ⋅ ⎜ P + ⎟ λ= ⎝ 2⎠ (3. The acceleration-displacement curve is obtained by sequentially evaluating its points. For a generic value of eccentricity x of the reaction R. This curve will be referred in what follows as the acceleration- displacement curve.

It should be pointed out that.∆ curve is linear elastic. the stress diagram is triangular. At this point. can be obtained by calculating the overturning moment from equilibrium considerations and by setting it equal to Rt/6 (the area of the triangular stress distribution in Fig. and therefore the maximum eccentricity x is given by t/6.3: stress diagrams on the masonry section at the different significant points of the λ−∆ curve. 3. the section is intact and therefore the λ . This is because the relationship between acceleration and displacement is influenced by the nonlinear constitutive law of the material and cracking effects.3. The cracking point is particularly important for this method. as will be shown later in this section. indicated as λ*.3). 3. The first point of the λ . if t is the thickness of the wall.∆ curve to be determined is the point of first cracking. origin f=R/t cracking f=2R/t 2R/t<f<f max after cracking f=f max yielding b1 f=f max after yielding b f=f max ultimate t Fig. since the determination of the displacements is based on the values of displacement and curvature at cracking. Up to this point. since the masonry does not resist in tension. Note that this is the same procedure used for a reinforced concrete section The seismic coefficient at cracking. the λ . at this stage. as can be seen from Fig. the 22 .∆ curve needs to be defined by a series of discrete points. The tensile stresses are not represented. 3. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls As stated above.

(3. This situation corresponds to the point of first yielding.4) ∆* = λ* + λ 8 EI 3 EI where E is the elastic modulus of masonry and I is the moment of inertia of the intact section. the wall behaviour is linear elastic and therefore the displacement can be calculated applying the superposition of the effects due to the inertia force uniformly distributed along the wall (λ⋅p) and to the inertia force concentrated at the top (λ⋅P). the process becomes nonlinear.3) ⎛ ph ⎞ h⋅⎜ + P⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠ Before cracking.2). which is the next significant point of the λ . the displacement at cracking ∆* is thus given by: 1 ph 4 1 * Ph 3 (3. In this range of the curve. of the masonry is reached. The crack propagates through the section and the stress diagram remains triangular until the maximum resistance. From classic structural mechanics formulae. i.6) 3⋅⎜ − x ⎟ ⎝2 ⎠ 23 . fmax. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls second order moment due to P and W is negligible and therefore it is not included in the expression for λ*: t R λ* = 6 (3.e. λ is calculated according to Eq.: M crack R ⋅ t (3. The stress f in the masonry is given by: 2R f = ⎛t ⎞ (3.∆ curve.5) φ* = = EI 6 EI After first cracking has occurred. The corresponding curvature φ* can be obtained dividing the moment at cracking (Mcrack) by EI.

8).3.10) t x= − ⎝3 3 ⎠ 2 b + b1 The curvature is given by: f max φ= (3. Finally. the stress diagram becomes trapezoidal. For a given value of b. 3. the last point of the curve to be determined is the ultimate point.8) ∆ =φ ⋅ φ * After yielding.11) E ⋅ (b − b1 ) The seismic coefficient and the displacement are obtained respectively according to Eq. corresponding to the failure of the wall. b1 can be calculated as: 2R b1 = −b (3. as shown in Fig.9) f max and the eccentricity x can be obtained from: ⎛1 2 ⎞ (b − b1 ) ⋅ ⎜ b + b1 ⎟ + b12 (3. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls The curvature φ can be obtained from: f 2R φ= = ⎛t ⎞ 2 (3.2) and Eq. (3. The ultimate displacement ∆u occurs when the resisting moment becomes 24 . ∆ can be calculated as: ∆* (3.7) 3 ⋅ E ⋅ ⎜ − x ⎟ ⎡3 ⋅ ⎛⎜ t − x ⎞⎟⎤ ⋅ E ⎝2 ⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎥ ⎠⎦ With the assumption of displacement at the top proportional to the curvature. (3.

25 . just to give an idea of the shape of this kind of curves. As expected. in this work. a represents the width of the rectangular stress block at ultimate conditions. Thus. Hence.05 ∆u 0 0 0.15 0. attention is paid more to the value of maximum acceleration that a wall can withstand than to the corresponding displacement.15 0.2 λ = a/g 0. from moment equilibrium: ⎛ P +W ⎞ (3. Therefore.1 0.3 0.35 0.13) 2 2 2 ⎝ f max ⎟⎠ In the previous equation. 3. obtained with the method described above.4 Displacement [m] Fig. it is believed that the model is accurate enough for the purposes of this study.05 0. 0.e.2 0.3 0.4: example of λ -∆ curve A couple of comments to the described model must be made: • The assumption that the displacement at the top of the wall is proportional to the curvature is not really accurate.12) ∆ u = xmax ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ where: ⎝ P +W / 2⎠ t a 1 ⎛ R ⎞ xmax = − = ⋅ ⎜⎜ t − ⎟ (3. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls zero. the values of displacement derived with this method are not accurate. i.25 0. to the ultimate displacement corresponds a seismic coefficient λ = 0. is reported in Fig. Nevertheless. An example of λ -∆ curve. 3.25 λ max 0.1 0. when the reaction R is aligned to the resultant of the vertical loads.4.

8 0.2 1.5 22 2.2 0. a value equal to two-thirds of the peak lateral ground acceleration is suggested by Paulay and Priestley.7 0.5 0. The values of the geometrical parameters have been chosen based on realistic considerations on the dimensions of existing bridges and based on limitations due to the selected method for the calculation of the dynamic thrust of the filling material on the wall.8 0 4 1 0.2 0 14 1.5 m. which will be discussed later. considering a set of walls of different dimensions and characteristics.5 11 1.7 0.5 3 1 0.9 0 8 1.5 0 17 2 0.5 18 2 0.4 0.5 Values of slenderness (h/t) of the walls approximately equal to 2 and 2.1. have been used.2 0.5 1 0. some account of vertical acceleration should be taken.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0 21 2.5 7 1.6 0 23 2.1: characteristics of the walls considered in the parametric study.5 0.7 0 25 2. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls • According to Paulay and Priestley [1992].6 0.7 0.5 9 1.8 0.5 13 1.7 0.3 Out-of-plane capacity of typical masonry arch bridge walls A parametric study has been performed.1 0 10 1. while the 26 . In particular.2 0. These issues will be analysed in some detail in the next chapters.5 1 0 12 1. since this reduces the equivalent acceleration necessary to induce failure in the wall.8 0 2 1 0. 3.1 0.9 0.2 1.2 0.5 0 19 2 1 0 6 1.5 1. E = 800 fmax Case h [m] t [m] P/W Case h [m] t [m] P/W 1 1 0.7 0 27 2.5 24 2. the height is assumed to vary between 1 and 2. Parameters common to all cases: fmax = 10MPa.5 28 2. typical for this kind of walls. Conservatively.2 0.5 1. which are summarised in Table 3.5 0.5 0. the vertical acceleration contribution has been neglected in this work.6 0.5 20 2 1 0.5 5 1.5 26 2. However.7 0. in calculating the response using the methodology outlined above. Table 3.5 16 1.5.4 0 15 1.2 0.2 0.

285 g. according to the type of infill material and therefore to the thrust acting on the walls. the maximum acceleration λmax that the wall can withstand before failing has been determined. The values obtained for the different cases are summarised in Fig. The eventual presence of a parapet on top of the walls is considered in some cases. a maximum value of 10 MPa has been considered.5 m.4 to 1. This parapet would not in any case be very heavy and therefore an axial load equal to half of the weight of the wall has been assumed. It can be observed that the maximum acceleration the walls can survive ranges from a minimum value of 0. This value comes from the considerations reported by Gambarotta et al. Gambarotta and co-researchers suggest mean values of resistance ranging from 10 to 30 MPa for brick masonry and from 5 to 30 MPa for stone masonry. Concerning the resistance of the masonry. with 800 being a reasonable value based on previous studies on arch masonry bridges [Picchi. [2001a] about realistic values of resistance of the different types of masonry used in the past for the construction of arch bridges. 27 .5. 3. These significant values of thickness are also confirmed by the observations of Torre [2003]. the assumption of a resistance of 10 MPa seems to be a conservative value and was thus adopted in this work. a constant height has been assumed. to a maximum value of 0. The Young modulus E has been assumed to be 800 times the masonry resistance. In particular.1). It should be noted that the actual height of the walls of arch bridges varies along the arch. throughout the application of an axial load P.2 m. ideally equal to the weighted mean height of the wall. A masonry unit weight of 18 kN/m3 has been used to compute the wall weight. who states that a thickness value of 1 m is quite typical for the walls of a masonry arch bridge and the range of variation of the thickness may be between 0. The model described in the previous section for the determination of the acceleration- displacement curve of an isolated wall has been applied to the selected cases (refer to Table 3. In this study. 2001]. For each case.8 and 1. From these ranges.488 g. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls thickness ranges from 0.

4 λ max 0. the maximum accelerations obtained for walls with slenderness values approximately equal to 2 and 2.6 0. This effect is due to the 28 . as shown in Fig. but without axial load. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls Maximum acceleration capacity w/o soil 0.6.7.7 2 2. the higher is the ratio h/t).3 0. 3.6 h/t = 2 0. 0.5 1. In particular. the walls with an axial load on top can resist lower levels of acceleration than the walls with the same geometry.e.5 are compared.5 0.3 0. walls of the same height and with the same axial load P = 0.1 0 1 1.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Fig.5 0.5 Height of the walls [m] Fig. 3. In this plot.2 1.5 h/t = 2.4 λ max 0. 3.6: values of maximum acceleration obtained for walls of different slenderness h/t Also. but with different slenderness values are compared.2 2.5: maximum acceleration capacity obtained for the different walls considered As expected. as shown in Fig. 3. the lower the value of λmax it can resist. the more slender the wall is (i.2 0.2 0.

2 2.5 Height of the walls [m] Fig.3 λ max 0. Chapter 3 Seismic out-of-plane capacity of walls destabilizing effect of P and of the horizontal inertia force λP induced by the axial load. only the walls with a slenderness value approximately equal to 2.7.4 0. 3.1 0 1 1. If we look for example at the first couple of cases in the plot. In Fig. the decrease of maximum acceleration due to the axial load is in the order of 26%.5 0.5 1.5 are reported. corresponding to walls of height h = 1 m .2 1.5 P=0 P = 0.2 0.7: values of maximum acceleration obtained for walls with different axial load P 29 . 3. 0.7 2 2.

It is now necessary to consider the pressure that the infill material exerts on the wall. which is more straightforward.1 Introduction In the previous chapter. whilst the two others. overturning and shear. limited by a planar failure surface. The active soil thrust on a wall retaining a cohesionless soil can be determined using the following formulae: 1 (4. concerns the overall stability of the wall. are checked at the section level. in order to identify the critical failure surface. It has already been anticipated that this effect can be subdivided into a static component and a dynamic component.g. In particular.2 Static soil pressure The static thrust exerted on a wall by the infill soil has been calculated using Coulomb’s theory [e. whilst the dynamic thrust will be analysed in greater detail in chapter 5. A significant number of failure surfaces should be analysed. i. before calculating the effect of the dynamic pressure induced by the presence of the soil. The static thrust of the soil on the walls. the static resistance of the walls has been checked with respect to three possible failure mechanisms: sliding. will be discussed in this chapter. a simplified model for the behaviour of an isolated wall has been set up. the out-of-plane stability of the walls under the static thrust has been checked. It should be underlined that the first failure mechanism. the surface that produces the greatest active thrust or the smallest passive thrust. The basic assumption is that the force acting on the back of a retaining wall results from the weight of a wedge of soil. 1996]. It is evident that in the present work. corresponding to the soil exerting a force on the wall. Chapter 4 Static soil pressures on a retaining wall 4 STATIC SOIL PRESSURES ON A RETAINING WALL 4. overturning and shear. sliding. 4. the soil thrust is determined from force equilibrium. for both active and passive conditions.e. Kramer. Moreover. According to this theory.1) Rst = K A ⋅ γ ⋅ h2 2 where: 30 . the situation of interest is the active case. in order to make sure that the selected parameters (geometry and characteristics of the walls) are realistic.

1. It can be observed that.3 Check for sliding failure of the wall A sliding type of failure occurs when horizontal force equilibrium is not maintained. with CS defined by Eq. 4. with h being the height of the wall and this is what has been assumed in the current work.3): CS = (W + P + R )tan δ st . for linear backfill surfaces without surface loads.2) cos β cos(δ + β ) ⎢1 + 2 ⎥ ⎣ cos(δ + β ) cos(i − β ) ⎦ In the above formulae: • γ is the unit weight of the soil • h is the height of the soil • i is the angle of inclination from horizontal of the backfill • β is the angle of inclination from vertical of the wall • φ is the friction angle of the soil • δ is the angle of interface friction between the wall and the soil Coulomb theory does not give explicitly the distribution of active pressure. W is the weight of the wall and P is the axial load applied at the top of the wall. The results obtained for CS (see Table 3.h where Rst.1 for the identification of the cases considered). are summarised in Fig. when the lateral pressures on the back of the wall produce a thrust that exceeds the available sliding resistance at the base of the wall. for all the cases considered. the static pressure Rst acts at a height of h/3. In such cases. The sliding resistance at the base of the wall is given by the product of the vertical forces times the tangent of the angle of interface friction. Therefore. Chapter 4 Static soil pressures on a retaining wall cos 2 (φ − β ) KA = 2 ⎡ sin(δ + φ ) sin(φ − i ) ⎤ (4.3) Rst . this distribution is triangular. the sliding check is satisfied when CS > 1.v and Rst. but it can be assumed that. i.v (4. the factor of safety 31 . (4.h are the vertical and horizontal components of the thrust.e. 4.

the resisting moment is given by: ⎛ t a⎞ (4. a value of ρ = 1700 Kg/m3 has been used throughout the entire work. It is important to point out that all the calculations are made per linear meter of wall. Chapter 4 Static soil pressures on a retaining wall against sliding is well above the limit condition. exceeds the resisting moment.e. 4. For the soil density.: R = W + P + Rst .4) is the width of the compressed zone at the ultimate condition (when the maximum resistance of the wall is reached). for the different wall cases considered 4. when the overturning moment. 6 5 factor of safety 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Fig.1: factors of safety obtained against sliding (CS). given by: 32 . (4. In particular. due to the vertical forces acting on the wall.4 Check for overturning failure of the wall Overturning moment failures occur when moment equilibrium is not satisfied.4) M res = R ⋅ ⎜ − ⎟ ⎝2 2⎠ where t is the thickness of the wall and R is given by the sum of the vertical forces acting.5) with W being the weight of the wall and P being the eventual axial force acting on top of the wall (both for an out-of-plane length of 1 m). corresponding to CS = 1. caused by the thrust. i. i. Finally the term a in Eq.e.v (4.

2. Rst.6) f max where fmax is the maximum resistance of the masonry. corresponding to CO = 1. The shear check is satisfied when CV > 1.8) Rst . for the different wall cases considered 4.h 33 . The overturning check is then satisfied when CO > 1. Again. 8 7 factor of safety 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Fig. are summarised in Fig. which is the horizontal component of the static soil thrust. for all the cases considered.1).h. 4. Chapter 4 Static soil pressures on a retaining wall R a= (4. 4. with CO defined by: ⎛ t a⎞ R ⋅⎜ − ⎟ CO = ⎝2 2⎠ (4.2: factors of safety obtained against overturning (CO). with CV defined as: Vt CV = (4.7) h Rst .h ⋅ 3 The results obtained for CO for the different cases considered (see Table 3.5 Check for shear failure of the wall Shear failure occurs when the shear resistance Vt of the section is exceeded by the shear force acting on the wall. all the calculations are made per linear meter of wall. also the factor of safety against overturning is well above the limit condition. It can be observed that.

5MPa ≤ 1. when no compression is applied to the section 34 . t is the thickness of the wall .Chapter 4 Static soil pressures on a retaining wall In the equation above.11) β = ⎨⎜ − ⎟ if > 1⎬ ⎪⎝ 2 t ⋅ N ⎠ t⋅N ⎪ ⎪0 2⋅ M if ≥ 1⎪ ⎪⎩ t⋅N ⎪⎭ where .v*t/2 . consisting in an assessment of the vulnerability of existing bridges. defined as : t' = β ⋅ t with (4.4 f bk (4.12) where .10) ⎧ 6⋅M ⎫ ⎪1 if ≤1 ⎪ t⋅N ⎪⎪ 3 3 ⋅ M 6⋅M ⎪⎪ ⎛ ⎞ (4. used only when designing new structures and therefore assumed equal to one in this work. N is the axial force acting. given by the weight of the wall. defined as: f vk = f vk 0 + 0. induced by the earth thrust: M = Rst.4σ m ≤ 1.h*h/3 + Rst. Vt is calculated according to: t '⋅ f vk Vt = (4. plus the axial force P.9) γM where t’ is the thickness of the compressed zone of the wall. fvk0 is the characteristic value of the shear resistance. M is the bending moment around the axis perpendicular to the plane of the figure. • fvk is the shear resistance of masonry. due to the eventual parapet on top of the wall • γM is a safety factor. W.

3: factors of safety obtained against shear (CV). σm is the average normal tension. for the different wall cases considered 35 .3. fbk is the characteristic value of the vertical compression resistance of masonry blocks The results obtained for CV for the different cases considered (see Table 3. 4. are summarised in Fig. calculated in this case as σm = N/t’ . 80 70 factor of safety 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Fig. Chapter 4 Static soil pressures on a retaining wall . also the factor of safety against shear is well above the limit condition. 4.1). corresponding to CV = 1. It can be observed that. for all the cases considered.

but the actual non-linear hysteretic properties of the soil are modelled. The stiffness of the springs is defined as the subgrade modulus. by using a set of semi-infinite. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall 5 DYNAMIC SOIL PRESSURES ON A RETAINING WALL 5. [Richards and Elms. elastically supported. with the same acceleration as the ground. [Richards et al. linear horizontal springs. 1999]. trapped between two rigid walls connected to a rigid base. 1983]. The methods that have been used until now can be classified into three categories: (1) limit state analyses. the dynamic response of vertical retaining walls is still not well understood. the rigid wall and the viscoelastic backfill are considered to rest on a viscoelastic half-space foundation. by Scott [1973]. in which the wall is supported in several locations and the possible wall movement is the 36 . Li [1999]. (3) intermediate cases. 1924]. A typical example of the first category is the Mononobe-Okabe method [Mononobe and Matsuo. to include the radiational damping of the soil and by using horizontal linear springs of constant stiffness. to model the horizontal shearing action of the stratum. since the soil is modelled as a linear elastic material. so that it can be assumed that the backfill material deforms in its linear elastic range. [Okabe. (2) methods in which the wall and soil movements are limited. 1997. introduced the effects of foundation flexibility and damping into the model. 1994b. 1929]. This approach is often referred to as the elastic approach. in which the relative motions of the wall and backfill material are sufficiently large to induce in the soil a limit or failure state. where the soil is neither failed nor elastic. Wood [1973] analysed the dynamic response of a homogeneous linear elastic soil. In particular. In this study. In the vein of the second group are the methods proposed by Wood [1973]. providing an analytically exact solution. horizontal bars with distributed mass.1 State of the art Despite the multitude of studies that have been carried out over the years. The approximate model proposed by Scott [1973] represents the restraining action of the backfill by a set of massless. 1979]. with its variants [Nadim and Whitman. in which a wedge of soil bounded by the wall is assumed to move as a rigid block. 2000] improved Scott’s model. by Veletsos and Younan [1994a. Veletsos and Younan [1994a. 1997. 1994b. 2000].. by Li [1999] and by Ortigosa and Musante [1991]. following Veletsos and Younan’s analyses. Ortigosa and Musante [1991] proposed a simplified kinematic method.

2000] have shown that both the magnitude and distribution of the dynamic wall pressures are very sensitive to base constraints and wall flexibility. the computed base shear may be of the same order of that estimated with Mononobe-Okabe. 1994b. The free-field shear modulus is used directly by the authors to calculate the subgrade modulus. Three of the methods cited above (one limit state and two elastic approaches) have been implemented in the current work. Again to the third group belongs the work of Siller et al. [1991]. The soil is modelled by a series of springs. the computed pressures are significantly lower than the values obtained with fixed-base rigid walls and potentially of the same order of magnitude as those computed by the Mononobe-Okabe method. They will be described in more details in the following sections. some studies carried out by Veletsos and Younan [1994a.1). where horizontal stress increases nonlinearly beyond yield. [1999]. 1997.5 to 3 times. an example of the third group of methods is the work by Richards et al. Moreover. 5. 5. 1924] is a direct extension of the static Coulomb’s theory to pseudo-static conditions: pseudo-static vertical and horizontal accelerations are applied to a Coulomb wedge and the pseudo-static soil thrust is then obtained through equilibrium of forces acting on the wedge (see Fig. Therefore. determined by knowing the value of elastic or secant shear modulus of the soil in the so-called free-field.1 Description of the model The Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method [Mononobe and Matsuo. even for a rigid gravity wall. in which consideration is given to the plastic response characteristics of the soil in the free-field. if realistic values are used both for wall and base constraints. because early elastic approaches assumed the wall to be rigid and fixed against both deflection and rotation. The original method 37 . 1929]. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall flexural deformation. [Okabe. on the behaviour of gravity and anchored walls. Li [1999] showed that. Therefore.2. without considering the variation of the stress field near the wall. the initial limitations to the elastic approach seem to be overcome and this method can be considered a valuable tool for the seismic design of non-yielding walls. The elastic approach is not widely accepted in current design procedures. Finally. However. the stiffness of which is given by the “subgrade modulus”. such that the soil pressures and forces so computed are significantly larger (2.2 Method by Mononobe and Okabe 5. according to Veletsos and Younan [1997] and 1 to 2 times according to Li and Aguilar [2000]) than those calculated using limit-state methods. after these studies. if foundation effects are taken into account.

The selection of the appropriate earthquake coefficients is not a simple matter. 2002]. • The wedge of soil behind the wall behaves as a rigid body and its acceleration is uniform. 5. etc. resonance effects. • The soil is assumed to satisfy the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The main assumptions involved in the method are: • The wall is assumed to displace sufficiently at the base to mobilise the maximum shearing resistance of the backfill.1). Since the peak ground acceleration occurs only for a very short period during an earthquake. applied at the centre of gravity of the wedge. topographic effects. • The earthquake loading is accounted for by equivalent static horizontal and vertical forces khW and kvW (with kh and kv horizontal and vertical earthquake coefficients and W the weight of the wedge of soil). it is clear that kh should correspond to a certain fraction of the peak ground acceleration. kv will be a fraction of kh. Different percentages of the maximum acceleration have been suggested in the literature [D’Ayala and Speranza.) is neglected. • Failure of the soil is assumed to occur along a plane surface. It can be noted that EC8 [2003] has proposed a relation between allowable wall displacement and percentage of maximum acceleration to be used in the M-O method. 38 . The use of constant coefficients implies that dynamic amplification due to site effects (propagation of seismic waves through a soft layer of soil. but consensus has not yet been reached. • The wedge of soil bounded by the wall and the failure plane is assumed to be in equilibrium under the forces acting on it: gravity. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall has been developed only for the case of active earth pressures. passing through the toe of the slope and inclined at some angle from the horizontal. earthquake and boundary forces along the wall and the failure surface (see Fig. so that the classical Coulomb’s wedge theory can be applied. later. it has been extended (without any experimental validation) to the case of passive pressures.

1) PAE = K AE ⋅ γ ⋅ h 2 (1 ± k v ) 2 where γ is the unit weight of the soil. H is the height of the wall. for a dry cohesionless backfill (from Wood [1973]) A positive horizontal seismic coefficient causes the total active thrust to exceed the static active thrust whilst it causes the total passive thrust to be less than the static passive thrust. The total active thrust can be obtained as: 1 (5. with av the vertical pseudo-static acceleration. whilst the passive pressure condition corresponds to the opposite case of the retaining system exerting a force on the soil. Finally. It is recalled that the active pressure condition corresponds to a situation in which the soil is exerting a force on the retaining system. kv is the vertical earthquake coefficient. KAE is given by: cos 2 (φ − θ − β ) K AE = 2 ⎡ sin(δ + φ ) sin(φ − θ − i ) ⎤ (5. Therefore. defined as kv = av / g. the active case has been considered. since it is the more critical and the formulae reported from now on will refer to this case. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall Fig. 5.1: forces acting on an active wedge in M-O analysis.2) cosθ cos β cos(δ + β + θ ) ⎢1 + 2 ⎥ ⎣ cos(δ + β + θ ) cos(i − β ) ⎦ 39 .

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. The total active thrust PAE. However.3) ⎝ 1 ± kv ⎠ The meaning of the different angles appearing in the Eq. gives the magnitude of the total force acting on the wall. acting at approximately 0.6h) H= (5. such as those explained in more detail in the following sections. 40 . The static component can be obtained using the classic Coulomb’s theory (see Eqs. and the dynamic soil pressures should be computed using elastic or viscoelastic methods. it actually acts at a higher point. The M-O method.1. 1970] suggest that. determined from Eq. but does not state anything about its point of application or the pressure distribution. very simple and straightforward. such as massive gravity walls or basement walls braced at top and bottom.1) can be subdivided into a static component Rst. under dynamic conditions.2) is explained graphically in Fig. there are many practical cases. Although the M-O method seems to imply that the total thrust acts at a height of h/3 above the base of the wall. 1970]. acting at h/3 from the base and a dynamic component ∆PAE.2)). 1990]. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall in which. (4. as described above. experimental results [Seed and Whitman.4) PAE The formulae reported above refer to the case of a dry cohesionless backfill. The method. The method can easily be extended to include soil cohesion. the total active thrust will act at a height Rst (h / 3) + ∆PAE (0. On this basis. by considering the equilibrium of the wedge with the addition of cohesive forces acting along the wall boundary and the failure surface. for a dry soil. 5. where the wall movement is not sufficient to induce a limit state in the soil. (5. has been widely used by designers. (5.6h [Seed and Whitman. while the dynamic component can be easily obtained from the difference between the total and the static parts. the angle θ is calculated as: ⎛ kh ⎞ θ = tan −1 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (5.1) and (4.

3 Method by Scott (1973) 5. This reduction seems to be based on the acceptance of a certain permanent outward movement of the wall. 5. The walls are assumed to be of the same height as the stratum and their mass is neglected in the model. Representation of the complex. The method is not applicable to soils experiencing a significant strength degradation during earthquakes. The system considered is shown in Fig. The vertical and horizontal pseudo-accelerations are chosen to be significantly less than the peak ground accelerations expected to occur during the design earthquake. free at its upper surface. No accounting for the flexibility of the wall is possible in the analysis. 2. such as potentially liquefiable soils.1 General derivation of the model Probably the simplest available approximate model for evaluating the dynamic soil pressures induced by ground shaking on walls retaining an elastic stratum is the one proposed by Scott [1973]. 5. Resonance effects and amplification of earthquake motion as a result of propagation of seismic waves through a relatively soft soil layer behind the wall are not taken into account.2. 41 . Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall 5. bonded to a non-deformable rigid base and retained along either one or both of its vertical boundaries by rigid walls. even if EC8 [2003] suggests some criteria for its evaluation. 3.2 Shortcomings of the model 1. 4.3. transient dynamic effects of earthquake shaking by a single constant unidirectional pseudo-static acceleration is a crude approximation. The amount of reduction to be applied is not clearly defined. of acceleration A(t) at any time t. The soil-wall system considered in this work is a semi-infinite uniform layer of viscoelastic soil. Both the walls and the shear beam are presumed to be excited by the same horizontal ground motion.2. The walls may be either fixed or restrained at the base by a rotational spring.

and therefore the density and shearing stiffness of the beam. also vary with depth. of the shear beam. It is implicit therefore that only normal pressures can develop between the wall and the soil. From the equations of motion of the problem. at that level. G h Rθ b Rθ L y Rigid foundation A(t) Fig. This pressure is proportional to the instantaneous lateral displacement. This beam is attached to the wall or walls by springs. representing the soil-wall interaction. that these pressures will be both tensile and compressive and that shearing vertical stresses are neglected in the model. y. u Elastic k Shear Beam k ρ. This variation can be easily accounted for in the model. Young’s modulus E and shear modulus G) vary with depth. a resisting dynamic pressure is developed. u. but for simplicity the equations reported here refer to the case of soil properties constant with depth. The constant of proportionality is the spring stiffness K.5) 4h 2 ρ bρ 42 . which is the relative motion between the shear-beam and the wall at that height. the soil properties (density ρ. the eigenfrequencies of the different modes can be obtained as: ωn = (2n − 1)2 π 2G + 2 K (5. 5. At each level. In general. as well as the spring constant K.2: system considered by Scott [1973] The response of the medium in the absence of the wall (the so-called free-or far-field response) is evaluated considering it to respond as a base-excited. one-dimensional. vertical cantilever shear- beam. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall Rigid wall x.

can be calculated as: h ∫ cos λ x n dx 4 sin λn h αn = 0 = (5.9) 2 1 mn 1 ⎝ ωn ⎠ 43 . For the case of b = L. (5. the maximum deflection at a certain height y for the nth mode is given by: S vnα n cos(λn y ) u mn = (5.7) h 2λn h + sin 2λn h ∫ cos λn x dx 2 0 where the terms λn are obtained from λn = (2n − 1)π 2h For a given design earthquake. The combination of the contributions of the different modes.6) K= L ⋅ (1 − 2ν ) The participation factors for each mode. while the second term accounts for the effect of the restraining springs. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall where n is the number of the mode being considered.8) ωn where Svn is the pseudo relative velocity response at the frequency ωn. gives the deflection at elevation y: 2 ∞ ⎛ S α cos(λn y ) ⎞ ∞ u= ∑ (u ) = ∑ ⎜⎜ vn n ⎟⎟ (5. The first term on the right hand side of Eq. h is the height of the walls and b is the width of the shear beam. the spring constant K is given by: 8G ⋅ (1 −ν ) (5. with L being the distance between the two walls. performed using the square-root- of-the-sum-of-the-squares method.5) is the frequency of the unrestrained shear beam. with a reasonable value of damping. in the case of constant soil properties. and assuming the walls to be rigid. obtained from the design spectrum.

When L becomes large with respect to the height of the walls.2 Discussion of some details of the model a) Boundary effects The model has been developed for the case of two walls. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall Therefore. the point of application of the above resultant is located at a distance 2h/π from the base of the wall. as obvious.10) Analyses performed by Scott [1973] have shown that the pressure distribution is dominated by the first mode contribution and that higher modes are negligible. the maximum pressure distribution on the wall is given by: 4 KS v1 ⎛ πy ⎞ ⎛ πy ⎞ (5. h. located at a distance L. the restraining effect of the second wall becomes insignificant. the pressure at this elevation y is given by: p = K ⋅u (5. the maximum moment per linear meter at the base can be calculated as: 2h 4 (5.12) pm1 = p0 h π From geometrical considerations on the cosine pressure distribution.11) pm1 = ⋅ cos⎜ ⎟ = p0 ⋅ cos⎜ ⎟ πω1 ⎝ 2h ⎠ ⎝ 2h ⎠ and the resultant of the dynamic pressure acting on the wall is 2 (5. A limit value of L/h = 10 has been 44 . and the pressures exerted by the soil on the considered wall become equivalent to the pressures exerted by a backfill of unlimited extent. The boundary effects exerted by one wall on the other vary. Therefore. Considering only the first mode.3.13) M m1 = ⋅ pm1 = p0 h 2 π π2 5. with the distance L.

indeed. The only damping included in the model is that involved in the shear beam itself.3 Shortcomings of the model 1. In this case. For L/h < 1. As a result. The effect of wall flexibility can be easily included in the model only in case of a linear first mode of vibration. with a rotational spring of stiffness Rθ (refer to Fig. a wall deflects both by bending and by rotation. The wall flexibility is accounted for in the model by considering a rigid wall hinged at its base. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall arbitrarily proposed by Scott.0 may be assumed as a limit) the model is not applicable. This is due to the fact that the lateral displacement of the wall is linear with height (because the wall is rigid) and the dynamic lateral soil displacement is also linear (because the first mode is linear). for small values of L/h (1. the model may significantly overestimate the response of the 45 . On the other hand. the pressure. Bending deflections of the walls are neglected.2). b) Effect of the wall flexibility Up until now. This is the case when soil properties increase with depth. in reality. but with a value of L/h = 10. the new soil stiffness K’ can be calculated as: 1 K'= K Kh 3 (5. The effect of the base rotation of the wall can therefore be simply considered as a reduction of the effective soil stiffness K. given by K times the difference between the soil and wall displacements. However. the same formulae can be used. to model an infinite backfill. With this spring at the base.3. For a linear first mode. 5. increases linearly with height. the angular deflection of the wall is thus given by M = Rθ ⋅ θ . the model indeed does not consider the radiational damping capacity of the soil. due to its intrinsic one-dimensional nature. From moments considerations. since their incorporation in the model would be difficult. For the case of an infinite backfill. the two-dimensional nature of the real motion cannot be neglected.14) 1+ 3Rθ 5. the walls have been considered to be rigid. when the exciting frequencies are close to the natural frequencies of the stratum. if a moment M is applied to the wall.

since forces and pressures are proportional to it.3. This soil spring stiffness K (or K’) is a constant value. 5. characterised by a frequency ω and a maximum amplitude A. 2. The capacity of the medium adjacent to the wall to transfer forces vertically by horizontal shearing resistance is not considered. some references are made to the successive works of the authors and to the modifications introduced to the original model.. The wall and the soil stratum have the same height h. 5.1 Description of the model The authors investigated a system consisting in a uniform layer of linear viscoelastic material that is free at its upper surface. 4. 5. The uncertainty in the model lies in the choice of this value K. harmonic. The system considered is shown in Fig. as the Poisson’s ratio tends to 0. Nevertheless.4 Method by Veletsos and Younan [1994b] The following description of the method makes reference essentially to the work proposed by the authors in the paper indicated as 1994b. any error in the determination of K is directly reflected in the other response quantities. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall system. 3. a(t). It’s a mono-dimensional method and therefore cannot be applied when the soil has values of width and height comparable. at any time t. The model is based on the assumption that the demand due to the ground motion is resisted by shearing action of the medium in the far-field and by column-like extensional behaviour in the medium between the far field and the medium. which does not depend on the characteristics of the ground motion. Moreover. uniform horizontal motion. The wall may be either fixed or elastically constrained against rotation at its base. In these cases.4. This result is clearly unrealistic. Therefore. This limitation however does not apply when there are two walls.5. bonded to a non-deformable rigid base and retained along one of its vertical boundaries by a rigid wall. K tends to infinity. the bi-dimensionality of the problem cannot be neglected. since this is the model that has been implemented in this study. Both the base of the layer and the wall are subjected to a space-invariant. as well as forces and pressures. 46 . indeed. since in this case the waves are trapped between the walls and no radiation damping can take place. by a spring of stiffness Rθ.

one of the main problems of Scott method [1973] is its inability to account for the vertical stresses due to horizontal shearing. According to Veletsos and Younan [1994b]. which is the same for both shearing and axial deformations. 5. frequency independent material damping.15) ∆τ = = ⋅ ∂y h ∂η with η being the dimensionless distance given by η = y/h. Neglecting the horizontal variation of the vertical displacements. 47 . Therefore it has been assumed in the model that the vertical normal stress does not change during vibration. • The model has been developed for vertically propagating shear waves. which is equivalent to assume that there is complete bonding between the wall and the retained medium. characterised by a coefficient δ. The wall can resist both compressive and tensile stresses. which can be expressed as: ∂τ xy 1 ∂τ xy (5. • Only normal pressures develop along the wall-soil interface. Therefore.3: System considered by Veletsos and Younan [1994b] The main hypotheses involved in the method are: • Constant hysteretic. with the assumption that horizontal variation of vertical displacements in the soil medium is negligible. • Soil movement is only induced by horizontal earthquake excitation in the layer bottom. they proposed to include this variation of horizontal shearing stresses. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall y Rigid h wall x Rθ a(t) Fig.

17) represents a force per unit of length. through mathematical manipulation [Veletsos and Younan. denoted as (∆τ)n.17) where un is the nth component of the displacement u and ωn is the circular natural frequency of the stratum. connected at their lower ends to the common base. the nth component of ∆τ.18) ωn = 2h where n refers to the mode being considered and Vs is the shear wave velocity of the stratum. it is sufficient to determine the response of a single bar for each modal component. 1994b].4. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall G ∂u G ∂ 2u (5. elastically supported horizontal bars with distributed mass. may be recognized to be: (∆τ ) n = − ρω n2u n (5. 48 . with a set of horizontal linear springs of constant stiffness kn. considered to respond as a cantilever shear-beam. subjected to the prescribed ground acceleration A(t). If u is expressed by the method of separation of variables as a linear combination of modal terms.16) τ xy = ⋅ and ∆τ = ⋅ h ∂η h 2 ∂η 2 where u is the relative horizontal displacement of the medium with respect to the moving base. for each modal component. since the responses of the other bars are proportional to sin[(2n-1)πη/2]. as shown in Fig. 5.19) ⎣ 2 ⎥⎦ h 2 This corresponds to modelling the shearing action of the medium. In reality. Eq. given by (2n − 1)πVs (5. On the other end. that is identical to the force induced by a massless linear spring of stiffness kn given by: ⎡ (2n − 1)π ⎤ G 2 k n = ρω n2 = ⎢ (5. (5. the medium is modelled by a series of semi-infinitely long.

steady-state displacement. defined as (2n − 1)π ψ 0 G 2 (5. the impedance or dynamic stiffness Kn can be calculated according to Eq. commonly used in soil dynamics.20). K n = ( K st ) n (1 + iδ )(1 − φ n2 + iδ ) (5. relative to the moving base. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall x Elastic bar with distributed mass kn kn kn Fig. of a point of the stratum situated at a distance η from the base. horizontal.20) where φn is the dimensionless frequency ratio φn = ω/ωn and (Kst)n is the static frequency. (5. The instantaneous value of the far field. subjected to a harmonic motion of circular frequency ω. 1994a]: ∞ ⎡ (2n − 1)π ⎤ iωt u f (η . with frequency independent damping δ. t ) = ∑U n sin ⎢ η⎥ ⋅e where: (5. equal to twice the damping ratio β.21) ( K st ) n = with ψ 0 = 2 h 1 −ν The real part of the impedance Kn is related to the force component which is in phase with the excitation. It should be pointed out that δ is the loss coefficient.23) Un = − π G (2n − 1) 1 − φn2 + iδ 3 3 49 . can be expressed as the superposition of modal components as [Veletsos and Younan. while the imaginary part represents the component 90° out of phase. 5.22) n =1 ⎣ 2 ⎦ 16 ρAh 2 1 1 (5.4: Model of the soil stratum: elastically constrained bar For a viscoelastic bar.

50 . expanded in terms of the natural modes of vibration of the stratum.24) where Θ is the complex-valued amplitude of the wall rotation. which can be determined as explained later. t ) = ∑Wn sin ⎢ η⎥ ⋅e where: (5. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall If we consider the wall to be elastically restrained against rotation at the base by a spring of stiffness Rθ. the instantaneous value of steady-state horizontal displacement of the wall at a distance η from the base. t ) = ∑ K n (U n − Wn ) sin ⎢ η⎥ ⋅e i. while the remaining terms (involving Wn) represent the contribution of the wall rotation. t ) = Θη ⋅ h ⋅ e iωt (5. becomes: ∞ ⎡ (2n − 1)π ⎤ iωt w(η . is given by: w(η .27) ⎣ π n =1 ( 2n − 1) 1 − φ n + iδ π 2 2 2 ∞ (−1) n−1 ⎤ ⎡ (2n − 1)π ⎤ iωt ⋅∑ (1 + iδ )(1 − φn2 + iδ ) ⎥ ⋅ sin ⎢ η⎥ ⋅e n =1 ( 2n − 1) ⎦ ⎣ 2 ⎦ It should pointed out that. the terms involving the displacements Un represent the pressure induced on a fixed-base wall. The above equation. n =1 ⎣ 2 ⎦ ⎡ 8ψ 0 ∞ 1 1 + iδ 4ψ σ (η .26) Wn = Θh π 2 (2n − 1) 2 The instantaneous pressure exerted from the backfill on the wall can then be obtained as the product of each displacement component and the corresponding bar impedance: ∞ ⎡ (2n − 1)π ⎤ iωt σ (η .e. in the expression above. t ) = ⎢− ρAh∑ ⋅ − 0 GΘ ⋅ (5.25) n =1 ⎣ 2 ⎦ 8 (−1) n−1 (5.

34) ⎣ 2 3 ⎦ It should be pointed out that the response is evaluated here for a harmonic excitation. 51 .29) π 3 n =1 ( 2n − 1) 3 1 − φn2 + iδ 8ψ 0 ∞ (−1) n−1 Qb1 = − Gh∑ (1 + iδ )(1 − φ n2 + iδ ) (5. The response to an arbitrary ground motion can be determined using Fourier transform techniques.28) ⎣ 2 ⎦ 16ψ 0 ∞ 1 1 + iδ Qb0 = − ρAh 2 ∑ (5.31) represent the effect of the wall inertia. It should be pointed out that the last two terms of Eqs.30) π2 n =1 ( 2n − 1) 2 While the base moment is given by: ⎡ 1 1 ⎤ M b (t ) = ⎢ M b0 − ΘM b1 − µh 2 A + µh 3ω 2 Θ⎥ ⋅ e iωt where (5.28) and (5.31) ⎣ 2 3 ⎦ 32ψ 0 (−1) n+1 ∞ 1 + iδ M =− 0 ρAh ∑ 3 (5. The base shear is thus given by: ⎡ 1 ⎤ Qb (t ) = ⎢Qb0 − ΘQb1 − µAh + µh 2ω 2 Θ⎥ ⋅ e iωt where (5. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall The shear and bending moment at the base of the wall can then be easily obtained by integration of the pressure.32) b π4 n =1 ( 2n − 1) 4 1 − φ n2 + iδ 16ψ 0 ∞ 1 M b1 = Gh 2 ∑ (1 + iδ )(1 − φn2 + iδ ) (5. (5. which may be easily included in this model. with µ being the mass per unit of plan area of the wall.33) π 3 n =1 ( 2 n − 1) 3 The rotation amplitude Θ can be obtained from the equilibrium of moments around the wall base: ⎡ 1 1 ⎤ M b (t ) = ⎢ M b0 − ΘM b1 − µh 2 A + µh 3ω 2 Θ⎥ ⋅ e iωt = Rθ Θ (5.

the dynamic wall shear is more amplified for a wall with a larger rotation. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall Once the geometry and the properties of the system have been fixed.4. in order to determine these parameters. with the assumption of complete bonding. for the elastic behaviour of a rigid wall. the value and distribution of the pressure acting on the wall are still not determined. As a result. when the tensile pressures exceed the gravity-induced compressive pressures. • The rotational stiffness is a real-valued quantity. Li [1999] replaced this rotational stiffness by the complex-valued dynamic stiffness of a rigid strip foundation. which makes possible the development of tensile pressures on the wall. the portions of the wall subjected to tensile pressure will produce contributions to shear and moment of 52 . In fact. 5. still need to be evaluated.2 Shortcomings of the model • The rotational stiffness of the spring should be assigned as an input data. • The assumption of complete bonding between the wall and the retained soil. On the other hand. In practice. the backfill would tend to separate from the wall and this separation would increase the wall shears and bending moments with respect to the case of complete bonding. This can be done by including the damping capacity of the bedrock along its large contact area with the backfill. The fact that it does not have a complex part overamplifies the wall dynamic responses. all waves impinging on it cannot be dissipated and the rigid movement of the wall increases the wave amplitude. the damping capacity of the wall is neglected. which is not what would be expected. if the bedrock flexibility is considered for the wall. the wall rotation is directly related to the bedrock flexibility. it must also be accounted for in the backfill analysis. The calibration of such parameters is not trivial and the procedure that has been followed in the present work. in turn. is clearly unrealistic. this stiffness value is difficult to determine a priori and can be known only from results obtained from a previous dynamic interaction study. Therefore. To overcome this drawback. It may be therefore preferable to express the rotational stiffness by other frequency-dependent dynamic stiffnesses that are related. will be discussed later. In a real case. • In this model. such as the stiffness of the rotational spring and the characteristics of the excitation (frequency and maximum acceleration for a harmonic motion). to the soil shear modulus and damping. In fact. as well as to the base geometry of the wall. because some parameters. as suggested by Li [1999].

Therefore.3 Further developments of the method [Veletsos and Younan. it was felt that such refinements were not needed within the scope of the current work. However. the force reduction due to wall flexibility is more significant for cantilever walls than for top-constrained walls.5 Comparison of the results obtained with the three methods implemented Some comparisons have been made of the results given by the three methods implemented. thus reducing the total shear and moment at the base. 1997 and 2000] As already stated. The effect of wall flexibility is to reduce the forces acting on the wall itself. First of all. [Li and Aguilar. 5. The system is subjected to an excitation. Therefore it could be argued that this effect compensates for the effect of the assumption of complete bonding. it is meaningful to compare the solution obtained with V-Y for the static case to that of M-O. 1994b]. different boundary conditions are introduced in the model. Also. the flexibility of the wall can also be included in the model. 53 . these two aspects require further studies. 1994b] however that the variation of the soil properties results in smaller wall forces than in the considered case of constant properties. in the versions proposed in 1997 and 2000. it has been shown [Veletsos and Younan. This is the so-called “static” case [Veletsos and Younan. retaining a backfill of the same height. the method described above is the one proposed by Veletsos and Younan in 1994. More recently. which is equivalent to applying the loading slowly enough not to induce dynamic amplification. the authors have added some other features to the model. In particular. For a rigid wall.4. characterised by a value of frequency very small with respect to the fundamental natural frequency of the stratum. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall opposite sign with respect to the compressed zones. which is of opposite sign. • The assumption of uniform properties for the soil is also unrealistic. with the wall being either free or hinged at the top. since the shear modulus of the backfill is likely to increase with depth and this variation will affect both the magnitude and distribution of the pressure. 2000]. 5. since this latter method neglects the dynamic amplification due to the backfill or to the wall responses. In particular. However. the Veletsos and Younan (V-Y) and Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) methods have been compared for the case of a massless and fixed-base wall. due to the greater effective stiffness of top- supported walls.

In V-Y method. 1997]. The results obtained are shown in Table 5.3333 0. The latter distribution is obtained assuming that the soil responds is its fundamental mode of vibration [Veletsos and Younan. even if. • the point of application of the resultant of the pressure obtained with the two methods is practically identical. Table 5. for the case of a fixed-base wall.25 1 Table 5. 20 modes have been considered. for the case of fixed massless wall and “static” excitation Veletsos et al.2. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall The characteristics of the system considered in this example are summarised in Table 5. in the M-O approach.1: characteristics of the system considered Height [m] Thickness [m] Specific weight [N/m3] WALL 1 0.6 0. after the static contribution has been subtracted. In M-O. SOIL 1700 0.6 Dynamic base moment [Nm/m] 2346 761 In can be observed that: • the base shear calculated by the elastic approach (3919 N/m) is approximately equal to ρAH2 (=4169 N/m). only the dynamic contribution is shown.2: results obtained from the comparison of Veletsos and Younan and M-O methods. the higher modes are often negligible. This height is close to the 2/π value. described in the table.1. 54 . corresponding to a pressure distribution that increases as a quarter-sine from base to top. This result agrees very well with what reported by Li and Aguilar [2000]. M-O Dynamic base shear [N/m] 3919 1268 Point of application [m] 0. while the vertical seismic coefficient is equal to half of the PGA. It has to be noted that. It should be pointed out that the values of the soil parameters. will be kept constant throughout all this work.4 18000 Mass density [Kg/m3] Poisson ratio [-] Damping coeff. a horizontal seismic coefficient equal to the PGA has been used. and is approximately 3 times the base shear obtained with M-O (1268 N/m).05 Max acceleration [g] Frequency [rad/s] EXCITATION 0.

for values of Rθ between 1E6 and 2E7. showing a trend which is opposite to that of the base shear. as Rθ increases. as shown in Fig. the base shear calculated by Veletsos method decreases and hence approaches the value obtained with M-O. for the two models. for different values of Rθ 55 . The results obtained have been compared to those of the M-O method.E+08 R θ [N/rad] Fig. one of the assumptions of M-O method is that the wall displaces sufficiently at the base to mobilise the maximum shearing resistance of the backfill.E+07 4. the wall displacements become larger and therefore the results given by V-Y approach those obtained with M-O.6. 5. As Rθ decreases and the base of the wall becomes more flexible. the base moment shows a dependence on Rθ which is very similar to what has been observed regarding the base shear. It can be observed that. as explained in section 5.E+07 8. the result obtained with V-Y tends to that obtained with M-O.E+07 6.5: comparison of base shear.7. It can be observed that: • as the flexibility increases. but with the addition of a rotational constraint at the base of the wall in Veletsos method.E+06 2. 5. it follows that the base moment obtained with V-Y is again approximately 3 times that obtained with M-O The same system has been considered again. obtained with the two methods. it is shown in Fig. • On the other hand. 5. 4500 4000 V-Y 3500 M-O Base shear [N/m] 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1.25 g and ω = 1). This trend was expected since.2.5 that the two models give quite close results. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall • From the two previous points.E+07 1. • The variation of the point of application of the resultant of the pressure with Rθ is shown in Fig. 5. subjected to the same “static” excitation (A = 0.

higher modes effects are negligible.E+06 1.E+08 4.6 0.E+08 4. for different values of Rθ A third comparison between the different methods has been made for the case of the same system. The results obtained are summarised in Table 5. according to the author.E+08 R θ [N/rad] Fig. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall 0. for different values of Rθ 2500 Base moment [Nm/m] 2000 1500 1000 500 V-Y M-O 0 1.E+06 1. obtained with the two methods.E+08 R θ [N/rad] Fig.3 0. In Veletsos model.7: comparison of base moment. In this case. with a fixed-base wall.5 resultant [m] 0.2 V-Y 0. but only the fundamental mode has been considered. obtained with the two methods.E+08 5.1 M-O 0 1. 5. 5. excited by a harmonic motion of circular frequency ω = 400 rad/s and maximum acceleration A = 0. also Scott’s method has been included in the comparison. Concerning M-O method. the mass of the wall has been neglected and 20 modes have been considered. 56 .E+08 5.3:.6: comparison of the points of application of the thrust resultant.4 0. since.E+08 2.7 Point of application of the thrust 0. kh = PGA and kv = kh/2 have been used.E+08 2.E+08 3.3 g.E+08 3.

1998]. that the three methods give very close values for the point of application of the resultant of the thrust. It can be observed.63 0. Also. on the other hand. all the results reported in the subsequent chapters will refer to this method for the calculation of the dynamic thrust of the soil on the wall.3: results obtained with the three method for a fixed-base wall. Chapter 5 Dynamic soil pressures on a retaining wall Table 5. the M-O method results in the lowest base shear. Scott M-O Dynamic base shear [N/m] 3647 2328 1701 Point of application [m] 0.6 Dynamic base moment [Nm/m] 2306 1482 1021 As expected. 57 . it has been decided to continue the work using the model proposed by Veletsos and Younan [1994b] since. as seen above.64 0. After this quick comparison of the three methods. V-Y method gives the highest base shear. This is because this method relies on the wall movement to relieve the pressure behind the wall [Ostadan and White. excited with a frequency of 400 rad/s Veletsos et al. this method features the following advantages: • dynamic amplification (induced by the backfill or by the wall) is included in the solution • the capacity of the medium adjacent to the wall to transfer forces vertically by horizontal shearing resistance is not neglected • the radiational damping capacity of the soil is considered • the wall inertia effect can be included in the model • the flexibility of the wall can be accounted for Therefore.

the modulus of the complex quantities obtained with Veletsos method has been used. and the imaginary part represents the component which is 90° out of phase. it is important to note that the Veletsos method gives. this effect is actually negligible. real-valued quantities. it has been necessary to combine the model proposed by Veletsos and Younan [1994b]. as results. Before going any further. which is assumed to be harmonic.the fact that it considers only one wall. and the model developed by Priestley [1985] and Paulay and Priestley [1992]. it will be shown that. for the dynamic thrust of the soil on the walls. will be considered in the combined model.will be discussed. complex-valued. some parameters need to be discussed and calibrated. which is constant in time. In this particular case of a harmonic excitation.1 Introduction In order to determine the capacity of the considered masonry bridges walls. Moreover. characterised by a single frequency and with a given amplitude. The reason for this choice is that what has actually a physical meaning is the real part of the response and what is required in the model is the maximum over time of this real part. is not constant with time. the maximum of the real part coincides with the modulus of the complex quantity. It is evident that. depending on the level of deformation. will be discussed. These quantities vary with time. Then. since the excitation. an overview of the combined model is presented. In particular. Also the static thrust. Before going into detail about how this combined model has been realised. in which the real part corresponds to the component which is in phase with the excitation applied to the system. some other details of Veletsos method. concerning the maximum acceleration at the base of the wall. one of the limitations of Veletsos method . These are essentially the stiffness of the rotational spring at the base of the wall. However. for typical values of the ratio width of the bridge to height of the walls. thus neglecting the effect of the presence of a second wall . constant in time. This can be easily understood by observing the representation of a given 58 . the frequency of excitation and the reduction of the shear modulus of the soil. time dependent quantities. in order to incorporate this results into the model for the isolated wall. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity 6 COMBINED MODEL – COMPUTATION OF CAPACITY 6. in order to apply this combined model. calculated according to Coulomb’s theory. for the seismic response of an isolated wall. are required. Therefore. including also the effect of the infill material. Each one of these aspects will be described in detail in the following sections.

This model considers a homogeneous linear elastic soil. as shown in Fig. as a vector rotating in the imaginary-real plane. It is easy to understand that. 59 . trapped between two rigid walls. as shown in Fig. retaining the infill material. retaining a uniform layer of viscoelastic soil. connected to a rigid base. The system is subjected to a horizontal. 6.1. of amplitude ah. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity complex quantity. harmonic base acceleration. the pressures on one wall will not be strongly influenced by the presence of the other.2 Parametric study on the reciprocal influence of the two walls As explained in the previous chapter. 6. it has been decided to calculate the dynamic thrust of the soil on the wall using the method proposed by Veletsos and Younan [1994b]. with a given modulus. if the two walls are spaced far apart. c 6. In order to estimate the minimum distance at which the interaction between the two walls can be neglected and therefore the approximation introduced by using Veletsos method for the dynamic thrust is acceptable.2. Nevertheless. this method has been developed for a single wall. whilst in arch masonry bridges. c. a parametric study has been performed. there are actually two parallel walls. It is clear then from the figure that: max[Re(c )] ≡ || c || (6. using the model proposed by Wood [1973].1) t Im Im(c) c o Re(c) Re ||c|| max[Re(c)] Fig.1: graphical representation of a complex quantity. 6.

2) g ah M =γ ⋅H3 ⋅ ⋅ Fm (6. Fm and Fp are the dimensionless dynamic thrust and moment factors.3. H is the height of the soil. shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6. 6. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity Fig. 1973] 60 .2: system considered by Wood [1973] The resultant of the dynamic thrust (which is the base shear) and the dynamic overturning moment (about the base of the wall) can be expressed as: ah Q =γ ⋅H2 ⋅ ⋅ Fp (6.3) g where γ is the unit weight of the soil.3: dimensionless thrust (left) and moment (right) factors for various geometries and Poisson’s ratios [Wood.

for L/H = 5. taken as L/H = 8. in this work. it results obvious that Veletsos model is acceptable for values of wall height between 1 and 3 m. Since.1 g • Poisson’s ratio: ν = 0. for L/H > 5 the variation of base shear and moment becomes approximately nil.33 The results obtained are summarised in Fig. 6. the variation in the base shear is negligible (1%) and the variation in the base moment (5%) is not very large. summarised in Table 6.4: base shears and base moments obtained for different values of L/H 61 . even L/H > 4 can be set as a limit for the unlimited backfill. walls of height ranging from 1 to 2. the percentage difference is less than 1% for both the quantities. 6. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity The values of dynamic base shear and base moment have been calculated for different values of the ratio L/H and for the following parameters: • height: H = 2 m • PGA: ah = 0.1. and the values corresponding to the case of an infinite backfill. Nevertheless. with an acceptable level of approximation.5 m have been considered. Influence of the distance between the two walls 710 base shear [N/m] and base 690 moment [Nm/m] 670 650 630 610 base shear base moment 590 570 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 L/H Fig. It can be noted that. even for L/H = 4. It can be noticed that. the approximation introduced by Veletsos method (a single wall with an unlimited backfill) is applicable. the ratio L/H = 5 can be viewed as the limit beyond which the influence of the second wall becomes insignificant and the backfill can be considered unlimited. Therefore. Thus.4. This can be even better appreciated from the observation of the percentage difference between the values obtained with increasing values of L/H. Assuming L/H = 4 as the threshold value and considering that typical values of bridge width range approximately from 4 to 6 m for one rail bridges and from 8 to 12 m for two rails bridges.

in absence of infill material. the effect of the soil is a thrust. with the addition of the effect of the infill material.4 4 1. acting on the wall. as shown in Fig. have been shown in Fig.2 Determination of the acceleration capacity of the wall The model of the isolated wall.3. taken as L/H = 8 L/H % variation % variation base shear base moment 3 12.1 Introduction The combined model consists essentially in the model proposed by Priestley [1985] and Paulay and Priestley [1992]. calculated using Veletsos and Younan model and a static component. calculated according to Veletsos method.08 5 5 0. On the other hand. proposed by Priestley [1985] and Paulay and Priestley [1992]. through moment equilibrium considerations. 6.5. This thrust has actually two components: a dynamic component.99 6 0 0 7 0 0 6. The forces acting on the wall.3 Overview of capacity model 6.55 0. 62 . has been described in detail in chapter 3.2. 6. The exact meaning of this force λRVel will be explained in what follows. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity Table 6. for the seismic response of an isolated wall. The static soil thrust is included in the model decomposed into a horizontal and a vertical components. and is applied at h/3.1: percentage variation of base shear and base moment with respect to an infinite backfill. the effect of the dynamic component of the thrust.98 19. As explained in the previous chapters. applied at a certain height hVel. calculated using Coulomb’s method. 3. This model allows to compute the maximum acceleration that a wall can resist before collapse. is included in the model through a force λRVel.3.

in this case. λRVel. In particular. the resultant of these effects. the seismic coefficient λ is now given by: 63 . Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity P ∆ λP λRVel ∆/2 W h hVel Rst. and is calculated from the ratio between base moment and base shear. whilst its point of application hVel is a weighted average of the points of application of the resultants of the two effects. since both the soil pressure and the wall inertia are proportional to the acceleration. the wall inertia effect can be easily included in Veletsos model. the output given by Veletsos considers both the pressure exerted by the soil on the wall and the wall inertia. as explained in chapter 5.v Rst. as it was in the model for the isolated wall.5: forces acting on the wall in the combined model It is important to underline that. This is because. in the combined model. It is important to note that the force λRVel can be written in a form proportional to λ = a/g. In particular. The acceleration-displacement curve of this combined model (wall plus soil) can be calculated according to a procedure which is very similar to what has been described in chapter 3 for the isolated wall.h h/2 h/3 o R Fig. This aspect will be discussed in more detail in a following section. 6. the wall inertia effects are not represented anymore explicitly by the distributed force λp. is simply the shear at the base of the wall (multiplied by the gravity acceleration and divided by the acceleration A).

is given by: λ* ⎛ P ⋅ h 3 RVel ⋅ hVel 2 ⎛ h ⎞ ⎞ 4 Rst . This frequency can be calculated as: 64 .8) In order to evaluate the amplification of the seismic input through the wall. ∆∗. ωw. which will be discussed in section 7.4) λ= ⎝ 2⎠ 3 2 RVel ⋅ hVel + P ⋅ h where the reaction R is obtained as: R = P + W + Rst .11) described in chapter 3 still hold.7) EI ⎜⎝ 3 2 ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎠ 81 EI Eqs. it is necessary to estimate the first circular frequency of the wall. The seismic coefficient at cracking. for the evaluation of the displacements. λ∗. is calculated as: t h R⋅ − Rst .v (6. The maximum acceleration that the wall can withstand can thus be obtained as: amax = λmax ⋅ g (6.5) As already explained in section 3..v (6.3.h 3 ∆* = ⋅⎜ + ⋅ ⎜ h − Vel ⎟ ⎟⎟ + ⋅ ⋅h (6.h + ⋅ Rst .6) λ* = 6 3 RVel ⋅ hVel + P ⋅ h The corresponding displacement at cracking. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity ⎛ W⎞ h t R ⋅ x − ∆ ⋅ ⎜ P + ⎟ − ⋅ Rst .5) through (3.2. the cracking point determination is very important in this method. (3.h ⋅ (6.

The stiffness of the rotational spring Rθ is a very important parameter in V-Y method. which can be evaluated according to: λmax ⋅ g ⋅ m Kn = (6. That flexibility indeed reduces the earth thrust. Since the impact of the wall flexibility on the dynamic thrust is not taken into account in the model developed in this work. because it is more or less clamped in the arch (see Fig.4. in which the evaluation of the displacement is approximated.9) ωw = = m ∆λmax where: • Kn is the secant stiffness corresponding to λmax on the λ−∆ curve. it will be shown that the influence of ωw on the results is negligible. In any case.4 Calibration of the parameters of Veletsos and Younan [1994b] method 6. 6. It is to be noted. 1997]. 2. that a variation of the value of Rθ does not only determine a different value of the resultant of the pressure on the wall.1). indeed. Nevertheless. a fictitious rotational stiffness can be used to account for the flexibility of the wall. This effect is very clear for the case of a “statically” excited system (in the meaning 65 . the wall does not have a rotational capability at its base. the approach of a fictitious rotational stiffness is considered to be a valuable alternative. The method proposed by Priestley [1985] and Paulay and Priestley [1992] is a force-based procedure. Therefore also the value obtained for ωw is subjected to this approximation. but it also determines a different shape of the pressure distribution. due to its own deformation.10) ∆λmax • ∆λmax is the displacement corresponding to the attainment of λmax It is clear that the value of ωw just calculated depends on the value of the displacement ∆λmax. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity Kn λmax ⋅ g (6. as the rotational stiffness does [Veletsos and Younan.1 Stiffness of the rotational spring From a physical point of view.

which become more significant as the flexibility increases.0 Adimensional height η = y / h R θ = 1E9 R θ = 1E7 0. a significant number of modes of vibration is necessary to accurately represent the pressure distribution on walls which are elastically constrained against rotation at the base. 6. as can be noticed from Fig.1 g. 6.4 0.0 -2 -1 0 1 2 Adimensional pressure σ / (ρAh) Fig. subjected to an excitation of frequency ω = 0 and maximum acceleration A = 0.8.2 0.7 and Fig. 6.6 0. 66 .2 g. The results in Fig. subjected to an excitation of frequency ω = 1 and maximum acceleration A = 0. It can be observed that.6. for the same system considered in Fig. as the flexibility at the base of the wall increases. Therefore. 6. where the normalized pressure σ/ρAh is plotted.6: pressure distribution on the wall for different values of rotational stiffness Rθ The change in shape arises from the higher modes contributions.6. the wall pressures decrease and change their shape.6 refer to the massless wall of case 1 (see Table 3. the base shear is well approximated using only the contributions of the first two modes of vibration and the base moment is well approximated using the fundamental mode only. 1.1).8 0. where the normalised values of these quantities are plotted. 6. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity explained in section 5. 6. Nevertheless.2 R θ = 1E20 R θ = 1E8 1. These results are consistent with what has been observed by Wood [1973] and by Veletsos and Younan [1994b].5). This is shown in Fig.

• A simple finite element model of the wall is constructed.4 0.5 20 modes 1st mode only 0. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity 1 0.3 0. The wall is modelled as a fixed-base cantilever. the stiffness value to be assigned to the rotational spring at its base has been determined by an iterative process. The material 67 .1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 d θ = Gh /R θ Fig.7 1st mode only Q b /( ρ Ah ) 2 0.8: effect of wall flexibility on the base moment. for a “statically” excited system For each one of the walls considered in this study. 6.2 0.4 M b /( ρ Ah ) 3 0. The following steps have been performed: • the dynamic pressure of the soil on the wall is evaluated using Veletsos and Younan method. for a “statically” excited system 0.3 0. called Seismostruct [Seismosoft. with a trial value of Rθ.8 20 modes 0. made of 3D inelastic beam-column elements.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0. using a fibre element software.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 d θ = Gh /R θ Fig. developed for nonlinear analyses of structures.9 2 modes only 0. 6. 2004].7: effect of wall flexibility on the base shear.

are summarised in Fig. the stiffness of the rotational spring increases as the dimensions of the walls augment (with increasing case number). despite some differences in the stiffness values for the various cases.5E+12 1. since the values of the rotational stiffness are very high. This means that. 68 .8E+12 1. Also.2E+12 Rθ 9E+11 6E+11 3E+11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Fig. which is not the case. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity constitutive model is elasto-perfectly plastic. it is possible to read the effective rotational stiffness corresponding to the moment given by Veletsos method. as expected. 6.9. 6. the flexibility of the wall is neglected and the approach of using a fictitious rotational spring to account for it would have been a valuable alternative if finite equivalent values of stiffness were found. after application of the procedure described above. all the walls can be considered to be fixed-base. The values of Rθ obtained for the different walls considered.9: stiffness of the rotational spring for the different cases considered It can be observed that. in the current work. • A static push-over analysis is performed on the model and the moment-curvature plot at the base of the wall is obtained. it should be pointed out that. • From this plot. The wall is loaded by the pressure distribution obtained from the previous step. for the case of ω = 300. Rotational stiffness 1.1. • This stiffness is compared to the initially assumed value and the procedure is repeated until convergence of the two values is reached. The case numbers refer to the different wall typologies and are described in Table 3.

69 . developed for different types of soil.10 has been selected. a curve developed for gravelly soils has been adopted.11) Gmax = k ⋅ pa ⋅ pa where: • σ m' is the mean effective stress • pa is the atmospheric pressure • k is a coefficient. since it is believed that gravel has properties which may be considered intermediate among the range of properties of the different types of soil possibly used as infill material in masonry bridges. which depends on the relative density. for this work. The low-amplitude shear modulus. but is a parametric study of different possible bridge typologies. personal communication]. There are many such curves in the literature. In particular. The next step in the evaluation of the reduction of the shear modulus is the selection of a degradation curve. the curve proposed by Seed et al. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity 6. has been first evaluated according to the following equation: σ m' (6. In particular. [1986] and represented in Fig. for increasing levels of deformation. Within this framework.2 Reduction of shear modulus It is well known that the deformation characteristics of soil are highly nonlinear and this is manifested in the shear modulus and damping ratio. This effect has been accounted for in the model. typical of the problems under study. which vary significantly with the amplitude of shear strain under cycling loading.4. 6. it is not an easy task to select a curve. what is of interest is the reduction of the shear modulus. which depends essentially on the characteristics of the soil and on the height of the wall. For low values of relative density. Since the type of soil used as filling material in masonry arch bridges may vary significantly from bridge to bridge and this work does not focus on a particular bridge. which is a plot of G/Gmax versus the shear strain γ. as described in the following. a value of k = 1000 is commonly used [Pecker. or maximum shear modulus. Gmax.

evaluated at mid-height (for η = ½). is the maximum shear strain in the soil. 6. 70 . for each case considered.12) h ∂η where u is the displacement. calculated according to Eq.12). Therefore. it has been necessary to perform few iterations. (5. in turns.22). 6. the procedure used to evaluate this shear modulus reduction is actually iterative. This shear strain can be easily calculated in Veletsos method. in order to be able to enter the curve and obtain a value. Since ∂u / ∂η is a complex quantity.10) and therefore to a smaller soil thrust. in order to calculate a single value of strain. for each case. remembering that: 1 ∂u γ = ⋅ (6. since the shear strain depends on the shear modulus of the soil which. (6. until the pair of values of shear strain and modulus belongs to the selected curve. γmax.. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity Fig.10: shear modulus reduction curve [Seed et al. and η is the dimensionless height. since a higher level of deformation corresponds to a lower value of G/Gmax (as can be seen from Fig. η = y/h. depends on the shear strain. 1986] The last element necessary to evaluate the shear modulus reduction is the level of strain developed in the soil due to the earthquake. It is important to outline that. This arbitrary reduction factor of 2/3 has been introduced in order to be more conservative. the modulus has been used. The reduction of shear modulus has been evaluated for a level of shear deformation corresponding to 2/3 γmax. The quantity expressed by Eq.

6 0.2 0. the first frequency of the soil layer can be calculated as: π ⋅ Vs (6. due to the well known resonance effect. subjected to excitations of different frequencies and constant PGA A = 0.2. it is obvious that. but not on its thickness. 6. the height of application of the resultant of the soil thrust does not depend on the ground motion characteristics.5 0. 6. for the case of ω = 300.3 0. the response is amplified. which has to be given as an input. especially.0 0.4.1g.3 Frequency of excitation The results given by Veletsos method are sensitive to the characteristics of the excitation applied at the base of the wall and. if the frequency of excitation approaches the frequency of the soil layer. If one considers a system with the characteristics reported in Table 6.1 0. are summarised in Fig.13) ω1 = 2h 71 . Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity The values of G/Gmax obtained for the different walls considered. by looking at an example.11. In particular. but the value of the resultant is very sensitive to them.4 0. after application of the procedure described above. It can be observed that the amount of reduction of the shear modulus depends on the height of the wall.8 0.11: reduction of the shear modulus for the different cases considered. for ω = 300 6. Since Veletsos method considers the effect of dynamic amplification. since both Gmax and γ do not depend on the thickness of the wall. This can be easily demonstrated. as stated by Veletsos and Younan [1997]. Reduction of shear modulus 1.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Fig.7 G/G max 0. to the circular frequency ω.9 0.

0 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 3 3 soil pressure [N/m ] soil pressure [N/m ] Fig. ω1 results to be 235 rad/s.0 0. that the response (in this case the soil pressure) is significantly amplified for ω = 200 rad/s.8 0. It is evident. SOIL 1700 0.6 0.2 ω = 300 ω = 300 ω = 400 ω = 400 ω = 500 ω = 500 0.2 0.2: characteristics of the system considered Height [m] Thickness [m] Specific weight [N/m3] WALL 1 0. Table 6. from the results obtained and reported in Fig. which is below 72 . 6.4 0. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity In the case-study analysed herein.12.6 0.4 ω=1 ω=1 ω = 100 ω = 100 ω = 200 ω = 200 0. for a fixed-base wall (left) and for a rotationally constraint wall.8 0. with Rθ = 1.1 1. 6.0 Adimensional height η = y/h Adimensional height η = y/h 0.333 0.0 1.12: variation of the soil pressure distribution for different values of ω.05 Max acceleration [g] EXCITATION 0.4 18000 Mass density [Kg/m3] Poisson’s ratio [-] Damping coeff.00 E7 (right) The circular frequency ω that is applied at the base of the wall in V-Y method has been chosen as the dominant frequency of oscillation in the transverse direction of the bridge. with respect to the other values of frequency considered.

because that structure acts as a narrow band filter in the broad band frequency content of the earthquake. 0. Few values of frequency have been used in this work. the frequency can also be determined running a time-history analysis of the bridge. and then constructing the Fourier spectrum of the response. The dominant frequency is identified by the peak of the Fourier spectrum. These frequencies correspond respectively to values of the dominant period of vibration of the bridge in the transverse direction T1 = 0. in order to get the periods of vibration. 0. has to be given as an input.4 Discussion on the influence of acceleration on the results In principle. These values have been selected based on the results of a number of 3D finite element modal analyses. However. the maximum acceleration at the base of the wall. as expected. the value of the dominant frequency of excitation ω can be evaluated more accurately. the choice of a particular configuration of bridge is equivalent to the selection of a value of frequency. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity the walls. the base shear.031 and 0. 200 and 100 rad/s. ω = 500. is directly proportional to A. it should be possible to identify the dominant frequency of the bridge. subjected to a given accelerogram. Therefore. do not depend on the level of excitation. the capacity of the different systems.4. which includes also the effect of the wall inertia. in Veletsos method. Moreover. the value of A does not modify the shape of the soil pressure and hence the height of application of the resultant of the thrust does not depend on the level of acceleration applied. 400. the capacity of a structure should be independent of the level of seismic excitation applied. i. g). but some aspects of it deserve a more detailed discussion. The upper limit of the range of frequencies corresponds to a bridge characterised by very short and stiff piers. 6. Alternatively. A. i. This is true.016. This can be obtained for example running a modal analysis of the structure.020. Since the results of Veletsos method used in the combined model are indeed the point of application and the base shear normalised with respect to the acceleration (and multiplied by a constant value.e.013. 0. This value of frequency has been successively reduced to account also for bridges which are less stiff. since they can create some problems. in correspondence to the periods of vibration determined from the modal analysis. it is obvious that the results obtained from this combined model. When analysing a specific bridge. 73 .063. also for the described model.e. First of all. 300. From observation of the response spectrum corresponding to a given ground motion. and its value influences the soil pressure. for the chosen input motion.

(5. the stiffness of the rotational spring at the base of the wall. As explained previously. for any given acceleration.14). from Eq. the moment-curvature plot. Rθ.34) that: Mb (6. that since both the numerator and the denominator are proportional to A. depends only on the shape of the distribution of the soil 74 .14) Rθ = Θ where Mb is given by Eq. From this considerations. On the other hand. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity There are still a couple of aspects to be clarified. In order to be able to state that the capacity does not depend on the demand of acceleration.32) for the term M0b). it can be easily noted that all the terms defining Mb are directly proportional to A and hence Mb is proportional to it as well.e. This corresponds to the assumption that the range of frequencies considered includes all the possible frequencies excited for the selected population of bridges.31) and Θ can be written. We know from Eq.15) are directly proportional to A (see Eq. (6. the determination of the other two parameters requires some iterations.1. which involve other quantities calculated using Veletsos method and hence apparently dependent on the acceleration. the combined model requires calibration of some parameters. the frequency of excitation has been related only to the chosen bridge typology. When using the iterative procedure described in the section 6. is not influenced by the value of acceleration. obtained from the finite element model. (5. It can be easily demonstrated that the stiffness of the rotational spring. (5. (5.4. (5. As described in the previous sections. by looking at Eq. Similarly. the reduction of the shear modulus and the frequency of excitation. it can be concluded that also Θ is proportional to A. Rθ does not depend on it. (6.34) as: 1 M b0 − µh 2 A Θ= 2 (6. it is necessary to show that also the values of these two parameters are independent of it. it is evident. Therefore it can be assumed that the selected values of frequency are independent of the level of acceleration. i. from Eq.31).15) 1 M b1 − µh 3ω 2 + Rθ 3 Since both the terms at the numerator of Eq.

obtained with the combined model. The first example concerns the wall of case 7. 6. The results obtained for this case are shown in Fig. necessary to enter the reduction curve. It has been shown that the value of G/Gmax depends on the value of Gmax and on the level of shear strain. hVel and λmax. on the values of capacity. Only two cases of this parametric study are reported here.14. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity pressure (which is not influenced by the acceleration) and therefore is independent of A. subjected to an excitation of frequency ω = 400 and different levels of acceleration. the shear strain depends also on the level of acceleration applied. 75 . The results obtained are shown in Fig. given by Veletsos method and used to enter the moment-curvature plot and calculate the corresponding Rθ is proportional to A. For what concerns the reduction of shear modulus. 6. Gmax depends only on the geometrical characteristics of the system and on the properties of the soil. it is more complicated to demonstrate that its value does not depend on the level of acceleration. which is independent of A. Fig. it is correct to use for Rθ the value of initial stiffness.13. for case 7 and ω = 400 The second example concerns the wall of case 4. with the level of acceleration A. However it has been observed that. in order to investigate the effect of this dependence of G/Gmax on the acceleration. since the walls considered are all very stiff. subjected to an excitation of frequency ω = 100. as obvious. the value of dynamic base moment. 6.13: variation of G/Gmax. On the other hand. A parametric study has been performed. On the other hand.

hVel and λmax. in which case the dependence of G/Gmax on the acceleration may be significant. the results obtained for A = 1 m/s2 represent lower bounds. In what follows. the influence of the level of acceleration on the reduction of shear modulus and hence on the capacity is negligible. • For lower values of the frequency of excitation ω. even if the values of G/Gmax and of hVel vary significantly.14: variation of G/Gmax. with the level of acceleration A. with a maximum variation. λmax. for the first example. the difference in the results for the various cases is more significant. G/Gmax and hence the soil thrust decreases and the capacity of the wall increases. among the different cases. 6. with respect to the results that would be obtained with higher levels of acceleration. For low values of frequency. for case 4 and ω = 100 From these two examples it can be observed that the level of acceleration influences the values of G/Gmax. In particular. this influence may become significant. with a maximum variation of λmax of 22%. in turns. From the results of this parametric study it can be concluded that: • As A increases. How significant is this influence varies with the frequency of excitation. and the maximum acceleration. • For high values of the frequency of excitation ω. all the results for capacity refer to the case of A = 1 m/s2. it can be observed that.77%. the results obtained for the capacity (λmax) are almost constant. influences the point of application of the dynamic soil thrust. In the second example. 76 . of 0. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity Fig. hVel (which on itself does not depend on the acceleration). and this.

15 0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered ω = 400 0.3 0.2 0. 6.5 Results obtained The results obtained applying the procedure explained in the previous sections are summarised in the following figures.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered 77 .45 0. In particular. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity 6.35 0.25 0.3 0. ω = 500 0.15 0.45 0.25 0.4 acceleration capacity [g] 0.2 0.1 0. every single plot refers to a given bridge typology (identified through the dominant frequency of vibration in the transverse direction) and represents the maximum acceleration capacity obtained for the different wall configurations considered.15.1 0. in Fig.4 acceleration capacity [g] 0.35 0.

6.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered ω = 100 0.15: capacity of the walls considered.35 0.3 0.1 0.25 0.15 0.35 0.45 0.1 0.15 0.15 that the maximum acceleration that the walls can survive decreases as the frequency of excitation decreases. i.25 0.15 0. 78 .3 0.45 0.1 0.35 0. when the bridge becomes less stiff.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Fig. In this case.2 0.e. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity ω = 300 0.4 acceleration capacity [g] 0.45 0. 6.4 acceleration capacity [g] 0.2 0. for 5 different bridge typologies It is clear from Fig.3 0.4 acceleration capacity [g] 0.2 0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered ω = 200 0. indeed.25 0.

16: variation of the base shear with the ratio frequency of excitation . the different wall cases considered reduce to only 7. It should be noted that. 6. This effect is particularly significant for values of 0 < ω < 1. 1994b] The value of the first frequency of the soil stratum. which is assumed to be equal to the height of the wall. Since ω1 does not depend on the geometry of the wall. nor on the eventual axial load acting on it. (6. characterised by different values of height. It is obvious that. which can be calculated according to Eq. as evident from Fig. The values of ω1 obtained for these cases are summarised in Fig. in cases when the soil thrust is amplified due to the resonance effect. and on the shear modulus. depends on the frequency of excitation of the system. for different values of wall flexibility dθ [Veletsos and Younan. for different values of the wall flexibility dθ. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity the frequency of the bridge ω approaches the value of fundamental frequency ω1 of the soil layer (usually smaller than ω). as underlined by Veletsos and Younan [1994b].16. in turns. ω1. which.13). It can be observed that the frequency of the layer decreases as the height of the soil increases (with increasing case number). due to the well known phenomenon of resonance. Fig.17. due to the reduced capacity of the flexible wall to reflect and dissipate by radiation the waves that are transmitted to it. the capacity of the wall decreases. the amplification factor at resonance increases with increasing flexibility. 6. Hence.first frequency of the wall. where the dimensionless base shear is plotted versus the ratio of the frequencies ω/ω1. 6. varies from case to case depending essentially on the height of the soil layer. the soil thrust is amplified. 79 .3 ω1.

The frequency of the layer does not change too much from case to case: the minimum value of ω1 encountered in all the cases considered is ω1 = 70. 6. since for this case the values of the ratio ω/ω1 are close to one. Hence.18: variation of the ratio ω/ω1 with the height of the soil layer 80 . where the ratio ω/ω1 is plotted versus the height of the soil layer. 6. with the frequency of excitation and the soil height (= to the wall height) 7 6 5 ω = 500 ω = 400 4 ω/ω 1 ω = 300 3 ω = 200 ω = 100 2 1 0 0. if we look at any given wall typology. it can be stated that the capacity of the walls is essentially governed by the frequency of excitation.5 1 1. whilst the maximum value is ω1 = 163. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity as could be expected. This can be better appreciated in Fig. since ω1 in inversely proportional to h. 180 160 140 120 ω = 500 ω 1 [rad/s] 100 ω = 400 ω = 300 80 ω = 200 60 ω = 100 40 20 0 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 cases considered Fig.5 2 2.18. the percentage of variation of ω1 with the different values of ω ranges between 16% and 39%. it is clear that the bridge typology corresponding to a frequency ω = 100 is the more sensitive to the resonance effect.5 3 h [m] Fig. 6. From this graph. Also.17: variation of the first frequency of the soil layer.

20.4 case 2 0.3 case 5 a max [g] 0. 81 .35 case 3 case 4 0. However.19: capacity of the first 7 cases of wall considered By comparing the acceleration capacity of two cases of walls of different height.15 0. it can be observed that the higher the wall is. The only difference between the two walls is the height. with case 3 having a height of 1 m and case 5 having a height of 1. for every value of frequency of excitation ω. the lower the capacity. This effect can be appreciated from Fig. i. 6. for all the cases in the figure. 6. It is recalled that both cases are characterised by a wall thickness t = 0.e.19. These are shown in Fig. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity The fact that the capacity of the walls is basically governed by the frequency of excitation can be better appreciated by looking at some cases of wall configurations more in detail. as the bridge typology becomes less stiff. 6.25 case 6 case 7 0.05 0 100 200 300 400 500 frequency of excitation Fig.1 0.45 case 1 0. where the capacity of the cases 1 to 7 is plotted versus the frequency of excitation ω. 0.5 m and by the absence of an axial load P.2 m. It can be observed that. where the capacity of the wall cases 3 and 5 is plotted.2 0. the capacity decreases with decreasing frequency of excitation. the rate of decrease of the capacity varies from case to case.

3 0. for ω = 500. as expected.4 0. the presence of the soil has the effect of reducing the acceleration capacity of the wall. 6. the maximum acceleration capacity of an isolated wall was calculated. It is clear from the results reported in this chapter that.05 0 ω = 500 ω = 400 ω = 300 ω = 200 ω = 100 Frequency of excitation [rad/s] Fig. is reported in Fig. without considering the soil. 6. As an example.45 Acceleration capacity [g] 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Fig.15 0.4 Case 3: h = 1 m 0. with and without considering the effect of the infill material.6 capacity w/o soil acceleration capacity [g] 0. Chapter 6 Combined model – computation of capacity 0. This is true for every value of frequency ω and for all the wall cases considered.2 0.21: acceleration capacity of the different wall cases obtained with and without considering the effect of the infill material 82 .35 Case 5: h = 1.2 m 0.25 0.3 0. h In section 3.1 0.21. which exerts a thrust on it.3.20: variation of the acceleration capacity with the height of the wall. 6.2 0.5 0. ω = 500 capacity with soil 0. the comparison between the capacity obtained for the different cases.

the maximum acceleration that the wall can withstand (amax = gλmax) needs to be compared to the demand of acceleration imposed on that wall by a given earthquake (adem).M. assumed in this work to be 1) and on the seismic zone the bridge site belongs to (which determines the design PGA). Also. may be either amplified or deamplified with respect to the PGA. as already discussed in a previous section. n.P. through the soil profile and the bridge structure. Therefore. as it has been done in this work. 3274. the acceleration at the base of the wall depends only on the dynamic characteristics of the bridge structure. from its base to. with a given peak ground acceleration (PGA). on the importance of the structure being considered (through the importance factor γI. with a given PGA. The shape and amplitude of the spectrum depend on the characteristics of the soil profile (through the average shear velocity on the upper 30 m). A. the acceleration experienced at the base of the walls. The first one is the amplification or deamplification due to propagation of the input acceleration from the bedrock to the base of the wall. B C and E. for a given ground excitation. what needs to be determined is the demand on the wall. different spectra have been constructed. through the dominant period of vibration of the system in the transverse direction.2 Amplification of the seismic input to the base of the wall Given an earthquake. The second amplification is due to the propagation of the seismic input through the wall. in order to obtain the level of acceleration demand on the wall. The seismic input has indeed to propagate first through the soil profile and then through the bridge structure. it is first necessary to define the spectrum. If the demand is determined using a response spectrum. Once the acceleration response spectrum has been constructed. for example. 2003]: one spectrum for each one of the three soil categories (A. Since the capacity is referred to the bridge wall.C. each one identified by the value of its dominant period of vibration. as explained in detail in the previous chapter. 7. applied at the bedrock below a bridge. and D) and 83 . it is necessary to consider two possible amplification effects.1 Introduction Once the capacity of a given wall has been determined. In this study. Chapter 7 Computation of demand 7 COMPUTATION OF DEMAND 7. the barycentre. according to the new Italian seismic code [O. different typologies of bridges have been considered.

in order to determine the acceleration demand at the base of the wall. B.16 soil cat. E 0. it is important to remark that the eventual use of a spectrum reduced to account for q.05 g) 84 . is on the safe side. if the structural elements of the bridge get damaged before the walls do. most likely. 2. 7. for the different soil categories. This choice is due to the following considerations: • First of all. Horizontal elastic acceleration response spectra 0. but only cracked. Chapter 7 Computation of demand for the PGA corresponding to each seismic zone (zone 1.0 4. • Moreover.1: example of elastic horizontal response spectra. D Sa [g] 0. for each bridge typology. but it would only produce lower levels of demand.00 0.0 2.04 0. we expect the damage in the walls to occur at the very beginning of the seismic event.0 Period [s] Fig.e. for seismic zone 4 (PGA = 0. It should be pointed out that the spectra considered are elastic response spectra. • Finally.08 0. does not imply any modification in the method proposed. 12 different spectra have been used.0 1.0 3. such as most of the Italian masonry arch bridges. • Even if this is not the case. An example of the spectra obtained. instead of reducing it to account for q. characterised by a behaviour factor q = 1. This means that.0 5. A soil cat. i.20 0. not of very recent construction. C. is not expected to be very high and hence the corresponding behaviour factor would be small. the ductility of unreinforced masonry bridges. and hence may still be in the elastic range of behaviour. 7. considering an elastic spectrum. This means that. 3 and 4). for the seismic zone 4 (PGA on rock = 0.1.05 g) is shown in Fig.12 soil cat. the other bridge elements are still not heavily damaged.

1) ⎢1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ + ⎢2ξ ⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎝ ω w ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎣ ω w ⎦ where: • ξ is the damping ratio. Acceleration response factor 12 10 8 Ra 6 4 2 0 0 0. 7.05 85 . • ωw is the natural frequency of the wall. may be again amplified or deamplified through the wall. For this kind of system.3. of amplitude A (determined from the spectrum. which is the acceleration at the base of the wall. The shape of the acceleration response factor. the wall can be considered as a system. This relatively low value of damping has been selected based on the consideration that the walls are expected to be damaged in the initial phase of the event. excited by a harmonic acceleration history.05) is plotted in Fig. hence.3 Amplification of the seismic input through the wall The acceleration demand A obtained from a given spectrum. assumed in this work to be 0. 7. As described previously in this work. while the other elements are still not very damaged.05. from classical structural dynamics theory. for the assumed value of damping ratio (ξ = 0. calculated as indicated in section 6.5 2 2. as explained in the previous section) and frequency ω.2: acceleration response factor for a damping ratio ξ = 0.5 3 ω / ωw Fig.5 1 1.2.2. there is still a low level of energy dissipation and therefore a low value of equivalent damping is considered appropriate. Chapter 7 Computation of demand 7. the acceleration response factor Ra is given by: 2 ⎛ω ⎞ 1 Ra = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ ⎝ ωw ⎠ 2 ⎡ ⎛ ω ⎞2 ⎤ ⎡ ω ⎤ 2 (7.

in cases when ω is close to ωw. this amplification through the wall is not very significant.2. with most of the cases close to the lower bound.3: acceleration response factors for the case of ω = 300 7. the results obtained for the acceleration response factor. the acceleration demand on the wall can finally be computed as: adem = Ra ⋅ A (7. 7.4. Chapter 7 Computation of demand Once this factor Ra is calculated for each bridge and wall typology.02 1. since the factor Ra varies between 1. because the bridge stiffness is much greater than the wall stiffness.01 Ra 1. which are described in Table 3.3.005 1 0.3. Therefore. are plotted in Fig.003 and 1.99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314 15161718 19202122 23242526 2728 different cases considered Fig.2) For the cases considered. in Fig. On the other hand.4 Results obtained The results obtained applying the procedure explained in the previous sections are summarised in the following figures.1. 7.995 0. is negligible for these cases. 7. the variation of acceleration demand with the soil category is plotted for all the wall configurations and for the different bridge typologies. explained in the section 6. this error may become significant. This is due to the fact that ω >> ωw.022.015 1. Acceleration response factor 1. As an example. It is recalled that the case numbers indicated in the figures refer to the different wall typologies considered. the error in the determination of ωw. for the case of ω = 300. In particular. all assumed to belong to the seismic zone 1. 86 .025 1.

since ω approaches the natural frequency of the wall. In this last bridge typology.6 the attention is restricted to a single wall type. characterised by h = 1. The plot shows the values of acceleration for the different soil categories and the different values of ω. • As expected. t = 0. • The acceleration demand increases with decreasing ω. This wall has the following characteristics: h = 2. Chapter 7 Computation of demand The variation of acceleration demand with the seismic zones is plotted in Fig. 7.. but ω = 100. situated in the seismic zone 4.5.8 and P/W = 0. C and E and for the different bridge and wall typologies. these general trends can be identified: • the acceleration demand is amplified when moving to softer soils. i. the acceleration decreases almost proportionally. ωw. In Fig. are reported. 7. The demand corresponding to the three different soil categories and to the four seismic zones is plotted. when increasing the zone number and therefore the PGA. From the observation of all the plots. the soil category B. case 12. for the different values of ω. This is true for all the frequencies of excitations. the results obtained for the wall of case 17.7. 7. 87 . in Fig.5. t = 0. Finally. for the soil category B.7 and P/W = 0.5.e. C and E gives a higher acceleration than soil D.

9 0.7 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered 88 .3 0.8 acceleration demand [g] 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Seismic zone 1.2 0.4 \ 0. ω = 300 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.4 \ 0. ω = 500 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Seismic zone 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.Chapter 7 Computation of demand Seismic zone 1.6 0.5 0.8 acceleration demand [g] 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0. ω = 400 0.8 acceleration demand [g] 0.

9 0.7 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered soil A soil B. ω = 200 0.9 0. 7.6 0. E soil D Fig.4: variation of the acceleration demand with the soil category.3 0.2 0.4 0. for the different bridge typologies and the different walls considered 89 .7 0. ω = 100 0.4 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Seismic zone 1.5 0.8 acceleration demand [g] 0.Chapter 7 Computation of demand Seismic zone 1.8 acceleration demand [g] 0. C.3 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.

7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered 90 .3 0.4 0.7 0.9 0. ω = 400 0. ω = 500 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 acceleration demand [g] 0.6 0.9 0.8 acceleration demand [g] 0. C and E.3 0.6 0. C and E. C and E. ω = 300 0. Chapter 7 Computation of demand Soil category B.8 acceleration demand [g] 0.5 0.9 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Soil category B.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Soil category B.4 0.

C and E.2 0. 7.5 0.5: variation of the acceleration demand with the seismic zone. Chapter 7 Computation of demand Soil category B.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.8 acceleration demand [g] 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 zone 4 Fig.7 0. ω = 200 0.3 0.9 0.8 acceleration demand [g] 0.6 0.6 0.5 0. for the different bridge typologies and the different walls considered 91 .7 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered Soil category B. C and E. ω = 100 0.9 0.

4 0. ω = 200 0.7 0.7 acceleration demand [g] 0.E soil D Case 12.5 zone 1 0.1 0 0 soil A soil B.E soil D Case 12.4 0.3 0. Chapter 7 Computation of demand Case 12.C.6 acceleration demand [g] 0.5 0.3 0. ω = 100 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0. ω = 500 Case 12.4 zone 2 0.E soil D soil A soil B.C.7 acceleration demand [g] acceleration demand [g] 0.6 0.E soil D soil A soil B.7 0.1 0.C.3 0.7 0.6 0. ω = 400 0.2 0.C.1 0 zone 4 soil A soil B.6 acceleration demand [g] 0.4 0.2 0. for the wall of case 12 92 .1 0 0 soil A soil B. 7.2 0.1 0.2 zone 3 0.C. ω = 300 Case 12.6 0.3 0.6: variation of the acceleration demand with the seismic zone and the different soil categories.5 0.E soil D Fig.

10 0. Chapter 7 Computation of demand Case 17.3 c 0.2 0.E soil D ω = 500 ω = 400 ω = 300 ω = 200 ω = 100 Fig.7: variation of the acceleration demand with the bridge typology.1 0.20 0.15 0.05 0.4 0.7 acceleration demand [g] acceleration demand [g] 0.10 0. for the wall of case 17 93 . seismic zone 1 Case 17.5 0.E soil D Case 17.35 0.E soil D soil A soil B.C.5 0.25 0.6 0.00 soil A soil B.3 0.02 0.4 0.C.30 0.2 0.8 0.C.0 soil A soil B.08 0.00 0.C. seismic zone 2 0.06 0.1 0. 7.12 acceleration demand [g] acceleration demand [g] 0.E soil D soil A soil B.0 0. seismic zone 3 Case 17.04 0.6 0. seismic zone 4 0.

E. for ω < 400. the number of walls having problems increases and. which is the intermediate type of soil. as shown in section 6. attention is restricted to the ratio D/C between demand and capacity. E experience a demand which is greater than their capacity. 8. in most of the figures that follows. for all the bridge typologies (ω) considered and for all the wall cases.1. At the same time. it may be of some interest not only to check if a wall fails or survives. In Fig.5.1). 94 . since all the frequencies considered belong to the first ascending branch of the spectrum (see Fig. In order to derive more detailed conclusions. capacity must be greater than demand. In particular. almost all the bridge walls situated in seismic zone 2 and on soil of type B. C. as the frequency decreases. 7. This comparison is reported only for the case of bridges situated in the seismic zone 2 and on soil of type B. C. a first comparison between capacity and demand is presented. It can be observed that the demand increases as the frequency decreases. but also to quantify how far it is from the limit condition. Therefore. corresponding to D/C = 1. It is obvious that. Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand 8 COMPARISON OF CAPACITY AND DEMAND The results obtained for the acceleration capacity and for the demand in the different cases considered have been compared. the capacity generally decreases as the bridge becomes less stiff (ω decreases). for the bridge walls to survive.

soil B.C. seismic zone 2.E 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered ω = 400. soil B. seismic zone 2.C.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered 95 .1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered ω = 300.3 0.4 0.C.5 acceleration [g] 0.3 0.E 0.5 acceleration [g] 0. soil B.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0. seismic zone 2.Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand ω = 500.E 0.5 acceleration [g] 0.6 0.

E 0. this ratio has been plotted. the percentage of cases in which D/C > 1 is almost the same as those with D/C < 1. soil B.4 0. seismic zone 2.5 acceleration [g] 0. As explained previously. the situation gets worse as the frequency of oscillation of the bridge decreases. as already outlined more than once.2 0. In order to study more in detail the ratio demand-capacity of the bridge walls considered. 8. for all the bridges and walls cases considered. the amount by which demand exceeds capacity.6 0.E 0. in Fig.6 0. C.4 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered ω = 100. From the different plots.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cases considered capacity demand Fig.C. in order to study more in detail the level of safety of each single case or.e.1: comparison of acceleration capacity and demand.2. assumed to be on soil of type B.3 0. the ratios demand-capacity have been subdivided in 4 groups. 8. i. on the other hand.C.3 0. for each bridge typology and for the total population of bridges considered. soil B. For ω ≥ 300. Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand ω = 200.2 0. as the bridge becomes less stiff. and the 96 .5 acceleration [g] 0. seismic zone 2. and E and in seismic zone 2. it can be observed that.

8. 8. 97 . ω = 500 ω = 400 ω = 300 ω = 200 ω = 100 All frequencies D/C <= 0. 8.3. the number of cases where D is more than 1.5 C is significantly greater than the number of cases falling in each one of the other three intervals.5 0.2 is plotted. As ω decreases. From comparison of these plots. the ratio D/C is studied for each bridge typology. as already outlined previously in this work. the situation of all the bridges and walls typologies together is represented. for each soil type. something similar to Fig. for ω ≤ 200. In this figure. but restricting the attention each time to the bridges situated on a single type of soil. the number of walls experiencing problems increases and.2: ratio between demand and capacity obtained for the different bridge typologies In Fig. the number of bridges having problems increases as the soil becomes softer.5 Fig. In the last 3 plots of the figure.5 D/C > 1. for a given bridge typology (ω fixed). it can be observed that.5 < D/C <= 1 1 < D/C <1. Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand subdivision among the 4 intervals of D/C is almost uniform.

E ω = 400. soil D ω = 300.E ω = 500. soil B. soil B. soil B.E ω = 300.C.C. soil D 98 . soil D ω = 200.C. soil A ω = 400. soil A ω = 300. soil A ω = 500.Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand ω = 500.E ω = 200. soil A ω = 200. soil D ω = 400. soil B.C.

E all frequencies.5 0. soil B.3: ratio between demand and capacity obtained for the different bridge typologies and for the different soil types In Fig. 99 . i. the situation of all the bridges and walls typologies together is represented. for each given bridge typology (ω fixed). Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand ω = 100.5 Fig. for each seismic zone. 8.C. In the last 4 plots of the figure. characterised by higher values of PGA.C. 8. the fact that the number of cases subjected to a demand greater than their capacity increases as the frequency of excitation decreases. soil D all frequencies. soil B. as the attention is moved from the seismic zone 4 towards the other seismic zones. for a fixed seismic zone. As expected.5 D/C > 1.5 < D/C <= 1 1 < D/C <1. On the other hand.4. the situation becomes critical for an increasing number of bridge walls. soil A all frequencies. soil A ω = 100.E ω = 100. the variation of the ratio D/C with the seismic zone is studied for each bridge typology.e. the results confirm what has already been observed. soil D D/C <= 0.

seismic zone 2 ω = 400. seismic zone 1 ω = 300. seismic zone 4 100 . seismic zone 2 ω = 300.Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand ω = 500. seismic zone 4 ω = 400. seismic zone 2 ω = 500. seismic zone 1 ω = 500. seismic zone 4 ω = 300. seismic zone 3 ω = 400. seismic zone 3 ω = 300. seismic zone 1 ω = 400. seismic zone 3 ω = 500.

5 < D/C <= 1 1 < D/C <1.5 Fig. seismic zone 4 all frequencies. seismic zone 4 ω = 100.4: ratio between demand and capacity. seismic zone 2 all frequencies. seismic zone 2 ω = 200. seismic zone 3 ω = 200. seismic zone 1 ω = 100. seismic zone 3 all frequencies. seismic zone 3 ω = 100. 8.Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand ω = 200. seismic zone 1 all frequencies. seismic zone 4 D/C <= 0. for the different bridge typologies and seismic zones 101 .5 0.5 D/C > 1. seismic zone 2 ω = 100. seismic zone 1 ω = 200.

where all the soil categories fail.6. for each soil type. each single plot refers to a given seismic zone and the different curves represent the acceleration demand.5. whilst the walls in zone 4 fail only for ω = 100. except for the case of ω = 100. On the other hand. the demand curves are well above the capacity curve.6 m. which is again only one curve. the walls located in seismic zone 1 and 2 fail for any value of frequency. attention is restricted to the wall of case 9. for any value of frequency and for any soil type.6 0.8 0.7 acceleration [g] 0. The variation of acceleration capacity and demand with the frequency of excitation is plotted in the two figures.1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 frequency ω [rad/s] 102 . 8. Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand In Fig. for all the soil types. characterised by a height h = 1. Finally. 8.4 0.6. it can be noticed that in seismic zones 1 and 2.5 0. 8.5 m and a thickness t = 0. Seismic zone 1 0. in Fig. the walls situated in zone 3 experience problems for ω ≤ 200.5 and in Fig. and the acceleration capacity (which is only one curve since it does not depend on the soil category).3 0. From observation of the plots. 8. since no parapet is considered on top of the walls. In Fig. The ratio P/W for this case is equal to zero. for all soil types.2 0. the walls placed in seismic zone 4 are all safe. In seismic zone 3. It can be observed that. each single plot refers to a given soil type and the different curves represent the acceleration demand for each seismic zone and the acceleration capacity. the walls experience problems for values of frequency ω ≤ 200.

Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand

Seismic zone 2
0.8
0.7

acceleration [g]
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

frequency ω [rad/s]

Seismic zone 3
0.8
0.7
acceleration [g]

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

frequency ω [rad/s]

Seismic zone 4
0.8
0.7
acceleration [g]

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

frequency ω [rad/s]

capacity demand, soil A demand, soil B demand, soil D

Fig. 8.5: variation of acceleration demand and capacity with bridge typology, for the wall of case 9 and
for each seismic zone

103

Chapter 8 Comparison of capacity and demand

Soil type A
0.8
0.7

acceleration [g]
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

frequency ω [rad/s]

Soil type B, C, E
0.8
0.7
acceleration [g]

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

frequency ω [rad/s]

Soil type D
0.8
0.7
acceleration [g]

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

frequency ω [rad/s]

capacity demand, zone 1 demand, zone 2 demand, zone 3 demand, zone 4

Fig. 8.6: variation of acceleration demand and capacity with bridge typology, for the wall of case 9 and
for each soil type

104

Conclusions and future developments

9 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Even if there are not many real cases of significant damage to masonry arch bridges during
earthquakes, it is believed that these structures may be potentially very vulnerable. In particular,
attention was given to the problem of the interaction between the infill material and the side walls
of the bridges under seismic excitation, in relation with a possible out-of-plane collapse of the
walls.
A capacity model was proposed for the determination of the acceleration-displacement curve of
each bridge wall, including also the thrust exerted on the wall by the infill material. Both the static
and the dynamic components of the soil thrust were evaluated, using appropriate methods. The
filling material has the effect of reducing the capacity of the wall, with respect to the case of an
isolated wall, without soil, presented earlier in the current study.
Moreover, a procedure for the determination of the level of acceleration demand on a bridge
wall was developed, taking into account both the amplification of the acceleration through the
soil layers below the bridge and the bridge structure itself and the amplification through the wall.
This demand was calculated for a wide range of situations, related to the various possible soil
conditions and to the different seismic zones, identified by the new Italian seismic code, which
determine the level of the design peak ground acceleration on rock.
A parametric study on a set of bridges and walls typologies was performed, both for the
capacity and the demand model. For each case considered, acceleration demand and capacity
were calculated and compared between each other, in order to draw conclusions about the level
of safety of that given case.
The proposed procedure is very general, since it allows to calculate the vulnerability of any
given wall, for any level of acceleration. Therefore the method has a very wide application range.
Nevertheless, in the current work, the model was applied only to Italian bridges, since the
response spectra, used for the determination of the acceleration demand, are those defined by the
new Italian seismic code. Therefore, the results obtained are valid only for Italian bridges.

Based on the results obtained in the present work, a number of future developments are
suggested. Firstly, the parametric study proposed in the current study should be expanded,
considering different values of some parameters, such as for example the elastic modulus and the
resistance of masonry. Also, a wider range of cases should be analysed.

105

It would not be necessary to include a formulation of the Veletsos and Younan method. through comparison with experimental results. In conclusion. some additional tests on the model could be useful to validate it. using a software which is able to accurately model also the nonlinear behaviour of the soil. but this is not an easy task. a finite element model. possibly. On the other hand. it is believed that the simplified model proposed here is a good alternative to a much more complex type of analysis. Finally. As already stated. provided the soil is treated as an elastic material. in order to obtain more accurate results. but even a 2D analysis would already be very useful and not beyond the capabilities of most softwares. if the infill material is included and provided the soil remains elastic. a finite element analysis of the whole bridge would be very useful to verify the results obtained and to check the assumptions involved in the model developed in this work. 106 . A 3D finite element model would be the most accurate. would be necessary. since it will be automatically accounted for by the finite element model. Conclusions and future developments The proposed model could be validated against observations of real cases and.

Available from URL: http://asc-india. and Giannini R. 2. De Francesco U.. and Resemini S. EC8 [2003]. [2001b]. [2001]. and Resemini S.. Penna A. Gambarotta L. De Francesco U. T. “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance”. Brencich A. Parte 3: Capitolato tecnico per le indagini in sito.D. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Proceedings of the 13th WCEE“ Vancouver (in press). 253-271. “Methodology for the mitigation of seismic hazards in existing unreinforced masonry buildings: The methodology”.. “Non-linear seismic analysis of masonry structures”.org D’Ayala D. Albenga G... “Per lo studio metodologico e software della capacità portante dei ponti ad arco in muratura. Gambarotta L. Lagomarsino S.. Ph. Brencich A. “Per lo studio metodologico e software della capacità portante dei ponti ad arco in muratura. El Segundo. Gambarotta L. and Resemini S. Thesis.. Gambarotta L. California. and Speranza E. Elsevier Science. “An investigation of the weak links in the seismic load path of unreinforced masonry buildings”. References 10 REFERENCES ABK [1984]. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Journal of Earthquake Engineering Vol. [2001c]. Parte 2: Direttive Tecniche per la verifica di ponti ferroviari ad arco in muratura”. “I ponti: la pratica”. “Per lo studio metodologico e software della capacità portante dei ponti ad arco in muratura. Torino. paper No. 5.. ASC – Amateur Seismic Centre. De Felice G. De Francesco U. 561 (CD ROM). Brencich A. No. Resemini S. [2004]. “Per lo studio metodologico e software della capacità portante dei ponti ad arco in muratura. necessarie al collaudo di ponti ad arco in muratura”. Parte 1: Inquadramento tipologico per la modellazione geometrica e del materiale”.. London. UTET Ed.. pp. “Out-of-plane seismic resistance of masonry walls”. “An integrated procedure for the assessment of seismic vulnerability of historic buildings”. and Resemini S.. Lagomarsino S. Lagomarsino S. Lagomarsino S. Parte 4: Analisi tridimensionale ad elementi finiti del ponte per la verifica in esercizio”.. Doherty K. 107 . Faculty of Engineering of the University of Adelaide... De Francesco U. ABK Topical Report 08. [2002]. Lagomarsino S. [2001d]. [2001].. [2000]. Brencich A.. [1953]. final draft prEN 1998-5 Galasco A.

H. “Elastic earth pressures on rigid walls under earthquake loading”. S. Ortigosa P. Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 4. Vol. and Hutchinson G. 9. A. Paulay T. Presented as part of the US-Japan SSI Workshop. “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings”. ed. Vol. 109 (7). p. pp. Bulletin of New Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering. California. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. “Seismic earth pressures against structures with restrained displacements”. Li X. S. and White W. pp. 4. "General theory of earth pressures". No. J. pp. and Priestley M. 3. [1992]. “Damage survey of ancient churches: the Umbria-Marche experience”. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. Lagomarsino S. John Wiley and Sons. [2003]. pp. 108 . Magenes. [1983]. 12. California. “Seismically deficient structures: engineering lessons”. World Engineering Congress. 915-931.L. [1998]. Vol. Melis G. “Seismically induced movement on retaining walls”. United State Geological Survey. Kramer. available from URL: http:// www. ASCE. “The seismic response of unreinforced masonry cantilever walls in low seismicity areas”. Lam N.gisdevelopment. [1999]. 803-806. Mononobe N. and Whitman R.net Griffith M. Bernardini. Vol. No. Balkema. “Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica”. Vol. "Dynamic analysis of rigid walls considering flexible foundations". Okabe. and Aguilar O. pp. [1924]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Bechtel National San Francisco. Vol. 141-169. 3274 [2003]. "On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes". Rotterdam. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. "Geotechnical earthquake engineering".. T. V. “Lateral seismic soil pressure – an updated approach”. Special Issue 1. N. Menlo Park. 7. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. [2000]. K. No. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineering. [1999]. [1995]. 28. pp. 125. [1991]. L.. [1996]. C. Prentice Hall Ed.References Gisdevelopment [2001]. 621-628. 81-94. 415-435. Wilson J. in Seismic Damage to Masonry Buildings. and Musante H. [1929]. and Matsuo H. L. No. “Evaluation of out-of-plane stability of unreinforced masonry walls subjected to seismic excitation”. Ostadan F. Nadim F. 1. Li X. 9. Inc. Proceedings. and Picchi L.

"Seismic earth pressure on retaining structures". Università degli Studi di Pavia. and Lagomarsino S. [2003]. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. [1986]. pp. Genova 25-29 gennaio 2004 Richards J. [2003].. Vol. 11. Seed H. 449-464. S. [1979]. [1973]. Dipartimento di Meccanica Strutturale. Facoltà di Ingegneria. J. N. Proceedings of the Special Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures. II. Seed H. “Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads”. “Ponti in Muratura – Dizionario Storico-Tecnologico”. Tesi di Laurea.References Picchi L. [1994a]. and Fishman K.. pp. [1970]. P. XI Congresso Nazionale “L’ingegneria sismica in Italia”. New York. ASCE. “Dynamic soil pressures on rigid vertical walls”. and Tokimatsu K. and Younan. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 103-147. pp. Vol. Firenze.com Siller T. [2004]. 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. and Elms D. B. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. “Seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry walls”. 112. pp.. 18. ASCE. Tokyo. Huang C. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. “Seismic behaviour of gravity retaining walls”. R. B. Torre C. Japan. 125. 109 . 1611-1620. Christiano P. G. No. No. No. Università degli Studi di Genova Resemini S. International Association of Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 275-301. 771- 778. Tesi di Dottorato. Guido Magenes Priestley M. “Vulnerabilità Sismica dei Ponti Ferroviari ad Arco in Muratura”. “Seismostruct. pp. 2. Scott. “Risposta sismica per azioni fuori dal piano di pareti murarie”. N. “Seismic response of tied-back retaining walls”. M. “Sulla vulnerabilità sismica di ponti ad arco in muratura”.Y. [1991].. L. “Earthquake-induced earth pressures on retaining walls”. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering. pp. 1016-1032 Seismosoft [2004]. Idriss I. 394 Veletsos. T. J. 105 (4). [1985]. Richards. pp. H.. 9. Resemini S. and Bielak J. [1999]. available from URL: http//www. Alinea Editrice. [2001]. F. A. A. Vol. Proc. Vol. V. a Computer Program for Static and Dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures”. 23. Wong R.seismosoft. “Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils”. Vol.. and Whitman R. 605-620. Vol. 20. R. ASCE. Relatore Prof.

[1997]. 1815-1844. Pasadena. 123. “Dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls”. H. “Earthquake-induced soil pressures on structures”. A. H. H. A. pp. [1994b]. 2. A. A. Vol. 12. “Seismic design and behaviour of gravity retaining walls”. and Younan.References Veletsos. Whitman R. V. pp. and Younan. Wood J. S. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 120. No. 2155-2179. ASCE. [1973]. A. and Younan. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. H. California. No. No. S. [1990]. Veletsos. pp. Vol. 161-172. Proceedings of the Special Conference on Design and Construction of Earth Retaining Structures. Veletsos. A. New York. 817-842. 29. Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory. “Dynamic response of flexible retaining walls”. 110 . “Dynamic modelling and response of soil-wall systems”. S. Report EERL 73-05. [2000]. pp. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. California Institute of Technology.