Road Research Unit Bulletin 84 Volume 2 ISSN 0549-0030 SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGE ABUTMENTS AND RETAINING WALLS J.H. Wood, ME, Ph.D., MLP.E.N.Z. Director, Phillios & Wood Ltd, Consutting Engineers, Lower Hutt, ‘New Zealand and D.G. Eims, MS.E., Ph.D., FALP.EN.Z. Professor of Civil Engineering University of Canterbury, New Zealand PRESENTED AT THE BRIDGE DESIGN AND RESEARCH SEMINAR CHRISTCHURCH 1990 juB 4/27 A Road Research Unit TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND Wellington New Zealand 1990Bulletin 64 copprises five volumes thet were specially prepered for a seminar on nd Reseerch orgenised by Tronsit Now Zeelend’s Rosd Research Unit iin conjunction] with the University of Centerbury to 17 November! 1990, ot the Christchurch College of Educstion. Brigge Design The five Volume 1 Voluse 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume § The meteriel presented in the five volumes serves the following purposes: (0) Summary Volumes end Summary Papers review research on highway structures undertaken in the six years 1986 to 1990 by the Road Research Unit's FOREWORD volumes ere: Strength and Ductility of Concrete Substructure of Bridges. (Summary Volume) A. Park end T. Pauley Seismic Design of Bridge Abutnents and Retaining Walls (Sunmery Volume) JH. Wood Seismic Design of Base Isolated Bridges Incorporeting Mechanical Energy Dissipators (Summary Volume) H.E. Chapman and D-K. Kirkaldie Road Engineering in Soft Rock Nateriels. (Sunmery Volume) . | dannings, P. Black, S.A.L. Read ond A. Sudmery Papers and Other Technicel Pepers 21 Titles 26 Authors Structures Conaittes. (b) Other Technicel Papers disseminate information on a variety of topics in the fiele of highway engineering. The Unit wishes to express its appreci organisations and to oli those who prepered material presented in the volumes of this Bulletin Any opinions expressed or inplied are those of th the policy of Transit New Zealend. ‘The Seminar wee-held from 15 Olsen tion to researchers, their parent 2 authors end do not reflect |ABSTRACT ‘This report reviews and projects related to the mmnariges the findings from a series of|research iesic design of coll retaining wali he behaviour of retaining walls under earthquake landing has begn studied by both sxporinentar and theoretical investigations, A significant effore nec been devoted to both free etanding vals and waiie that’ere rigidly connecced toa nore major structure euch ao's Sridge abutment. banding Wells, ranging fron rigid or walls with low flexibility, to ‘that ein respond by outward slicing on soi] failure planes, ave been investigated. Analysis and design procedures for special ferns Of onstruction, including reinforced earth and tied-bacs walis, have been developed. fhe research has shown the valiaity of using the Listeing gquilttrlon epproach Zor utny ‘types of. Tree standing wails. Provided outvara novenents can be tolerated under severe ground sharing, this method enabies ‘the yall to be designed for secalerations lower then the peak ground acceleration. Results of the studies show that the outward movements are not particularly lerge under inertia loads corresponding to about one-half of Usual design level peak ground accolerations. This finding should resule in a significant reduction in the costs of many high walle. For smaller waller S gEIULE deaton for gravity snd iperinposed lotde’ elon way provide sufficient strength to resist earthquakes. Hovever, the waln benefit fron the research has been the increase in knowledge of the behaviour of free standing walls, This vill lead to inproved design and a reduction in denage fron future earthquake one method of simplitying bridge abytnent structures is to build then Ronolithic vith the superstructure rather than to separate then vith sliding bearings, expansion Joints, seisnic gaps and restrainers. Abutment studies have been mainly directed tovards the prediction and measurenene of pressures thet develop on these types of abutvents ae they Gieplace under inextio forces imposed by the superstructure. The ranearch Fecults have increased the reliability of nethods for predicting the oil stsftening effect ef abutments and have shown how this influences the dynante sn of the bridge during earthquakes. With the publication of the recent researon Lindings and the design reconnondations in this report, there is|iixely to be an Ancreasing use of monolithic abutnents resulting in'a reduction of trigge construction costa,‘TABLE OF CONTENTS 1, thTRoDucTION tae 12 aa as 16 Barthguake Damage Wall Deformation Soii-structure Interaction Platicity Theory and Failure Modes Resonance Effects Simplifications for Design 2. REVIEW OF WALL AND ABUTMENT RESEARCH aa Rigid abutments and walls 2ited Overseas Research 2:12 Theoretical stady 3.23 Model Wall seste Deforsable Walls 2Vz.1 Theoretieal study 2.2.2 Model Wall Teste Walls Translating by Soll Failure 2.3.1 theoretical stuay 21312 Medel Wall Testa Walls Rotating by Base Failure 2i4,2 Theoretical study 2L4:2 Model Wall Tests Force/Displacenent Reletionchips for Walle 2.5.1. Overseas Research 215.2 Theoretical study 2.513 Experimental Project, Monolithic Bridge Abutnents 2v6e1 ‘Meoretieal study 216.2 Experimental Project, Reinforced Earth Walle 2.7.1" Thooretioal. study 2:72 Model Wall Taste ‘ed-Back Walle 2.0.1, Theoretical study 2.812 Model Wall Teste SBSs SUR RSS S85 See a3, DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.2, Introduction 3.2. Design Seiemie coafticients Lose combinations Factore of safety pynanle Forces and Pressure Distributions 3.5.2 Rigid Wall 31512 Seige weld 31533 to Various Types of Halls Standing Walle Founded on soil Free Standing Walle Pounded on Rock or Piles Reinforced Farth Walle ‘ed-Back Walls Basenent Walls Brigge Abutzents 4, CONCLUDING COMMENTS 8. REFERENCES 6 NOTATIONFRU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 INTRODUCTION During the past 15 years, a wide range of Fesearch projects related fo the earthquake Performance of oil retaininglstructures and Bridge abutments nave been carried cut by Hey dealand researchere and their overseas Solleagies. Guidance and euppert for thie Work hae been provided by the structures Committee of the Road Research Unit (BRU) of Granslt Nev Zealand. ‘The results of the studies have had a major Enfiuence on new standards ana procedures currently being used for the seisnic design of walle and abutments both within New Zealand end overseas. The purpose of thic Feport. is to provide a sunsary of the projects carried out by New Zealand Fesearchers together with the main results. The findings of the research have also been Bunnarised in design recommendations to eneourage a wider application of the results: ‘the work in Now Zealand has in the main been Gizested at studice on the following three catagories of valis: (4) Fede standing walis. (i) MopoLithic bridge abutments, (444) Rointorced earth valis. ‘the work on free etanding walle waa Initielly directo at valle that were assuned to be rigid or sufficiently stiff so that the wall deflections and novanents did pot significantly change the earthquake Tnduced pressures. ‘This work was extended to consider both valis that nave cignitioant deflections within the wall structure, and Te serrement’ SLAB baCKFLL SHEAR KEY cm, ‘SHEET METAL @ S ‘OVER NEOPRENE aTRIP (wo walle that may be displaced by the fornation Df fellure gurtaces in the foundation and Backfill soil. In both these cases, the earthquake pressures wore found to Feduce Significantly fron the rigid vall pressures. ‘me work on bridge abutments has mainiy been Concerned with investigating the pressures on abutments Walia where there is strong Snteraction between the abutment and bridgo Or where the abutment wall ie cast nonolithicalay with the bridge Superctructure (Figure 2.1). For these eases, the voll ie displaced by the inertia forces from the superctructure and naxinun earthquake pressures can be considered to be 2 superposition of free wall pressures and Pressures generated by rovenents of the wall Folative to the backfilly ‘The enphasis of the reinforced earth wall Btudies has been on developing a Liniting equilibrium theory to provide better eatinates of the critical horizontal earthquake acceleration to initiate failure Of permanent cutward diepiacenent, It was intended chat this theory be used in Conjunction with the Newmark (1965) sliding Block method to provide a design approach Based on allowable outward novanent of the wall rather than requiring the wall to Fenain elastic (or undispiaced) under dasign level earthquake loads. A design procedure based on this approach wes considered to be more satisfactory than the currently used empirical decign nothode that rely on arbitrary factors applied to experimental Fesults from elastically responding ‘model walls. Expansion unser sn Livoxace bon iy 7 Psraaino 8 BLACKWALL WITH—> ROOCK-OFF_ DEVICE SETTLEMENT SLAG FIG. 11 BRIDGE ABUTMENT TYPES (a) Monolithic (b) Bearing Type es leet else te eeeWOOD AND ELMS Both theoretical and experinental studies have been carrieg out in the main research areas investigated. In this vay, the major findings, conclusions and recommended dezign Procedurée have heen thorougniy examined and Verified. Ideally, full scale test studies should aiso De carried out but 1ittie work Of thie natare hae been undertaken because Sf the practical difficulties ana large Goste involved in einulating earthquake Steecte on fll ecale walle: ‘the following section of this introduction Gives s sunnscy of reported vali failures Saving pase earenquabens me overall Perforoance of tone types oF valle in recent Epvere earthquakes hag not been particular: good, with damage having been sustained by af B2iage"abuteante and qusy walle in particular: “Because ot these failures, and Els general 1ack of understanding about earthquake pressures and wall reapenge. in rovekee! the RAV Seruotures Committee {hltieted a/major research effort relating EO inproving seiemic design procedures for wails and brigge abutsents. ‘the final sections of the introduction Outline the baese assumptions and philosophy Sdopted in the Nev Zealend approach to Seimaic design of walls. chapter 2 sunnarises the research vork Sndertaken. Rather then & sequential review, the approach used here has been to Eoliaté the results by wall type and eubject Batter. The projects in each ares are Tdentified by reference to the auchors of the ‘research weporte that are Listed in the References ection at the end of the report. chapter 3 presents an overall sunnary of the Eesuite by naking decign recommendations for each of the type: of valle studied. coneiuding comments end recomendations for future research are given in chapter 4. 1.4 Eacthauske Damage Summaries of reported earthquake danage to retaining wall structures are given by seed ana Whitman (2970) and Nazerian and Hae}ian (i973). Moot of the damaged structures nave, Keen aitner quay walls or ariage abuteents. ‘There have been many reports of sliding end rotational failures of quay walle in Sepanena earthquakes. Hoports of danage of tide type are given by Amino, ef al (1986), Matuo and Ohara (1960), afd. Mayasnt and Katayana (1970). The grestest danage hes cecurred when the back#il} hae been. Saturated and failures have probably Fesuited from a combination of incréasod JSteral coil pressure, hyerodynenic effects reducing the water pressure on the front Eece and liquefaction in the foundation or Backfill eodl (Seed and Waltman, 3970) Movenents and danage suffered by a large Dunber Of sheetplie bulkhead wails vas Feported by Kitajina and Uwabe (1579) Danage to bridges, induced by larg Gispiacenents or failures of the abutments and approaches, has been reported in a funber of recent major earthquakes. Exomplea of this type of damage that Seourred in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, California, are illustrated in Figures 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5. Danage to bridge abitnents and approaches has been Feported in the 1960 chile (Duke and Leede, i900), 2964 Alaska (Rose at al, 1969, Scott, 1973), 3964 Niigata (Kavasumi, "1964) 1968 Enanginos (Evans, 1973) 1970" Madang’ (Ellison, 1971), 1992 san Fernando. (Wood and Senninge, 3971 and Fung at al, 1972) , 1972 Wanagus, (Wechan ot al, 1973), 1974 Lina (Zant, 1978) earthquakes, Th many cases the Abutment danage has See to Settlenent ond failure of approach fills and pounding of the bridge superstructure Rgainet the abatment. However, there have been'a nunber of cases vhere there has been evidence of increased lateral pressures. San Fernando Earthquake, 1971: INTRODUCTION RU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 Fi. 1.9 FAILURE OF ABUTMENT WALL. ‘San Fernando Earthquake, 1971 FIG. 1.4 FAILURE OF ABUTMENT WING WALL FIG.1.8 FAILURE OF ABUTMENT WALL. RESULTING FROM ABUTMENT PILE San Fernando Earthquake, 1971 FOUNDATION FAILURE, San Fernando Earthquake, 1971a WOOD AND ELMS Evans (1973) inspected 39 bridges within 50 kn of the 2968, M'7.0, rnangahue earthquaxe and reported that 33 sbutnents showed neasurable novenents and that 15 had been danaged. Outward novenent of the abutments had often been restrained by the Saperstructure, recultine in high pressures and danage near nid height of the abutments The performance of tha abutment structure Bay Fave a significant influence on the Sisteibution of loads on the main toad resisting eleents of the bridge, and abutment failures may initiate ot aggravate failures in the spans, plere ana bridge foundations. ‘Abutment Gamage bay alee EESEELCE fe povenont of cnsrgency service traffic that is often of vital inportance in the aftermath folloxing an earthquake. (Figure 1-2) Im aadition to the bridge abutments, a number of other types of retaining structures wore extensively danaged by Ancreased soil pressures from ground. shaking gnd soil elide failures during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. ‘structures damaged included underground reservoirs (Jennings, 4971), ‘underground culverts (#radiier: 1972), and open rectangular flood control Shannels (Lev et ai, 1971, Wood, 1993, Clough and Fragaezy, 3977). A tut of reports ot dopage in past : garthquakes would suggest that perhaps, vith the exception of bridge abutments and Guay walls, retaining vall danage has not bees very extensive and haz been limites te 38 of unusual wal) structures, However, danage to walle is often considered to bo of minor signiticance in relation to other more catastrophic structural raitures and much of the danage to walls has probably been inadequately investigates and reported. A further factor in that vell proportioned free standing walls often rail by outward sliding oF rotation vitnout damage to the etractural Sonponents of the wall. In these cases, the walls may have been subjected to forces considerably greater than the design ferces but becaure the failures are within tne foundation soile there nay be little or no visible danage. Provided the permanent outward movenents can be tolerated there may he no need for repair, 1.2 Wall Deformation Tt is usual to simplify the complex problen Of interaction of earthquake elastic vaves with wall structures by sesuming thet the wrthguake ground notions are equivalent to dynamic inertia forces acting in the backfil1 mass. Dynamic pressures on the wall can be cateulated by analysing the vall and backril1 modelled as’an elsctie continuun or failure wedge subjected to geavity and horizontal body rovces. ‘The pressures that develop on a vali during rrthguake loading ara very sancicive vo see slaotle fiexipiity of the etructuras Gonponente. of the wall and the ability of Sherali to nove outward ae t result st either permanent deformations in the foundation soils or inelaztic behaviour of the structure. it ds therefore tnporvene that analysis methods and soisnic sesisn procedures take into aecount wall deformations, or at least ake gross recognition or the reduction in pressures fron the rigid wall case: Fhe panaysoue of wold weruccuren during garthquakes can be broadly classified into three ‘categories rolated to the maximum strain condition that develops in the soil Rear the wall. tha coll may renin essentlarly elastic, reepond inva significantay nonlinear manner of becone fully plastic. the rigidity of the val and its foundations will have a strong influence fon the type of coil condition that develops. Meny low yalls are of cantilever type construction. zn this type of wally lateral Pressures from vertical gravity and earthquake forces vill generally produce sufficient displacasant within the wall structure to induce nonlinear benavicur or a fully plastic stress state in the retained soil. "In more rigid free-stand! suchas gravity’ (eg. reinforced earth and geib block walls) and csanterfor! walleye fully plastic stress stdte may develop 4x the Fetult of pernanent joutward noverent. from sliding of rotational deformations in the foundation. “In cases vhere significant nontinear sol1 behaviour of a fully plastic strase atete occurs in the soil during earthquake loading, the veil known Hononobe- Okabe (MO) method (Monenobe and Matsuo, 3929) can be used to compute carehguale Pressures and forces. Retaining structures that are either not free standing or have rigid foundations (Piles or footings on Tock) my not dreplace sufficiently, evon under severe earthquake loading, fora rully plastic stress seats to develop in the soil backeil. Particular examples of theas types of valle include? bridge abutments that nay be rigidly attached to the briage superstiictuve or founded on piles, baseaent walls that ere an integral pert of'a building on a firm foundation, and closed culvert or tank structures’ embedded in the ground. For many gf these types of walls, the assumptions of the Mo method are not eatiafied, ani cesiga eexthquake pressures and forces’ are Likely to be significantly higher than predicted by this method. In sone typos of vali structures, the soil beheviour may remain esdentiaiiy clastic, under conbined eartnguakp and gravity loads, and theory of elasticity or elastic finite Blenent solutions may bel applied to proviae garthguake design pressures, (Wood, 1973) - More generally, ‘there will be sutfisient @efornation fot nonlinear coil effects to be important or for wall pressures te be significantly lover than for a fully rigid Wall, Those intarnodiata cases are’ wore dirticuit to analyse than the Limiting cases described above. Approtimatione derived fron the theory of elasticity eolutions may often be eatiecactory for wall design purposes, or alternatively, upper and lover Bounds ftom the limiting aces of fuiay plastic stress conditions ana rigid wall behaviour nay provide eurticient inforeation for less important structures,INTRODUCTION 1.3 SollsStructura Interaction teres geen tte ot ate See aeecaee steer heehee aeat! Secllee crate a RAE 0 REPS cuene tt onl EES ot canis EEG LOB soe Se tee ce ee es ‘The aynanic dloplacenont of basonent walle Sn 'ealt"bufiainge in iDeely to be, doninated by the sovenenta of the bulleing but often basenent structures are very rigid and wall Sisplacenents sual. Whore the backfill te 2 tiem coli, onal novenents of the wall in 2 direction’ tovarde the retained sell can inertia force effect. prrr7777 Gpestrwcture Elastic seit plas Ss) EEE ‘Pe ina easic le FORCING ON RIGID BOUNDARY i S iw PROBLEM 7a—a_\ mgt) PROBLEM FIG, 16 COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE PRESSURE ites From Soil Inertia Loads From Structure Response FRU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 In bridges that hava monolithic abutments it is possible that tho response of the bridge ay be strongly influenced by the stiffness of the soi) backfill at the abutment. The Gistrinsedan of earthgueke loads on the Yateral lod resisting elenents of a bridge is dependent on the reletive etiténess of She substructure componente and their foundations. Fer earthquake loading along the direction of the Bridge, nonolithic abutuents are fraquentiy sticfer than the plore and thus attract a high proportion of the load. “The pragsures and total forces on the Wall, are eyelie in nature with the wall being alternately forcee against and pulled avay from the soll during the vibration oyeles of the bridge. Pressures developed by these movenenta nay exceed the preceuree fom the soil inertia effer Xf a bridge is effectively isolated trom the bbutuents by sliding bearings it may be jaible to consider the abienent to behave ‘2 free standing wall. However, sons fypes of bearings transnit relatively large horizontal leads into the abatnents, thus ndding the complexity of soll-structure Interaction similar to the monolithic case 1.4 Plasticity Theory and failure Modes ‘The No method in based on simplified plasticity theory ani is essentially an Extension of the vell known Coulonb s1iding Wedge method for eatinating static Pregauren, ‘the pacio assumption is eat the Nall dispiacenente are mifficiently large to produce « fully plastic stress state in the Soll by either outward moverent (active State), or by mevenent towards the backfill (paschve state). The forces on the wall are calculated by considering the equilinriun of ‘2 failure weage that is boundea by the \ckface of the vail, the backfill surface and a straight Line failure plane (Figure 1-7) Im setsnic design of retaining valle it is Teportant that possible failure modes be investigated and capacity design principles used. For walle thet are relatively rigid, the initia eartnquake accelerations may Induce pressures, corresponding to elastic soil behaviour, that are significantly Grester than the NO pressures. Tf the vail has ineufficient strength to resist these elastic pressures, then yielding and outward Bovenent’ of the wall may occur vith a fully Plastic etress condition developing in the Boll. with progressive yielding and the onset of a plastic streos condition, the Pressures on the vail will decrease to the ho values. ‘The outvara yielding may result fron elther permanent displacenents in the Soll foundation er fron yielding in the Seructirel wall elenente: The failure node Will depend on the wall configuration and the reiative capacities available in each of the potential failure mechanisns. Althcugh it is comon procedure to design Bridge plore and bullaing frames for inelastic behavieur under earthquake loads, At'nay be undesirable to design retaining wall structural conponants for yielding. In Sevall structure, oving to the presence of lateral gravity pressures, yielding will ‘end to aeaur only ina direction avay fron, the retained soil. In major earthquakes this nay result in large permanentdeflections and cracking with lose of serviceability, If structural damage is to be avoided, it is necessary to design for either the aarizun Peak earthquake-induced preceures consistent Sith the type of soll behaviour expected, oF fodetail the vall to displace outwarde, where thie is possible, by movenont on Enilsre surfaces in ¢h aing oF ehicing) "(Where soll fablure Dodes are ble, the Newmark sliding block a Richards and Ene, 4979) Getermine the appréxinate: outward movenent. ‘mie movewent 1¢ & function of the ratio of the critical acceleration to initiate failure and the Sesign peak ground acceleration. Theoretical studies and model tests on Shaking tables have shown that for free Standing valis, it 1s often possible to Gesign for significantly less than the expected peak ground acceleration without exceeding scgeptable limits for outward novenents 1.5 Resonance Effects ‘he fundamental period of vibration of most Wall and backtitl geonetries ip usually less Mhan 0.5 @ and Jt Le therefore usual to ign free ceanding walle for earthquake ‘ground accelerations (or Lower then Peak values if cutward movenent occurs). However, typical earthguake response spectra are very steep st lov periods (Figure 1.3) ana any flexibility may lead to ground motion amplification, particularly close to the top of the wall. Aatnough anpistiegtions have bean noted i= nosel studies (Peiriess 1993, and Wood and Yong, 190), the results of thece Inveseigatione have probably been effected by the presence of rigid Bbindsries thst Fiehect" and coteain the vibsoeienal eneroy lenin che ouch woai/eela)eysten. in fait Seale wall seructures, theke'are aeldon Setndaty eafecte and tne Shoring wilt by gher becnane oe" energy lostes by elastic ave raaintion. Algo, wnere solt fa develop, ie ie, Likely thee th Sty bevhighet shan conmoniy anatned.—Fauss TEAS anTISiie to draw five conclusions oh Shether Fesoninoe effects enould be Sonsidered or whether it Le satietsctory to Seclgn'ts'peax ground acceleration levels. Te te ugual to neglect resonance effects in design of nost wall stractures but this is Rot a conservative assumption and special Studies may be required for high and Important wall structures. 1.6 Simplifications for Destan Although nathenatica) modelling techniques, Such af the finite elenent method, are avafiapie to investigate the interaction of Soils and val) structures under seienic Toaaing, many of the required input paranetore vill not be voll encugh defined Eo enable precise estimates of the vall response and earth pressures to be computed, I FIG, 1.7 FORCE ON WALL FROM LIMITING EQUILIBRIUMnenoouml Qnty for major structures will soils Shvestigation Information be sutticiently detailed to provide a good prediction of the foil behaviour under dynamic loading, The Gharacter of the earthquake motion is often only know in terms of generalised response Spectra, and it fe ai¢ficult to develop Gaeailed Snrormation on she spstial Variation in the ground aisplecenents and how the ground shaking ia modified by the foundation soils and by interaction vith the yall, (his, unless ee vali ie of unusual importance, it is acceptanle for design PUFpOEeE tO Use dynamic pressures calculated Dz 4208 Spectrum For Normal Solls Response Fn, Co 12, “ [ os os| | a2] 2.0! ° 1 2 2 4 Period, sec FIG. 1.8 ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM RU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 on the bacie of stuplified wall geonetrics fend to Use ground accelerations defined by Fesponse epectra that ascune ground accelerations to be uniform within the extent of the surrounding soll mass. Novever, ao mentioned previously, it is Smportant that the eimplified methods take into account the influence of wall deformations on the vail response. It te also necessary for the method to include Inerela loade on the vali stracture as voll ‘an the back#ill and to consider any sedi btructure interaction effects that. nay occur when the well is pare of a nore major structure.AU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Inveduetion ‘tthe basic philosophy recommended for the earthquake design of retaining valis end ‘abutments hes been presented in detai) in Sections 1.2 to 2.6. A aumnary of these Pecormendations is given below. ‘The pressures that develop on a vali during Gerthguake loading sre very censitive to the eele"siesibiiity of thet straccural | Componente of the tail abListy of the wall to move outuara becauce of either permanent defornations in the foundation Solis or inelastic behaviour vithin the walt eructure, It is therefore reconnended that Selenic deeign procedures coneiaer the Feavetion in pressures arising from wall Flexibility and permanent deformation. For rigid valle, the back#it2 sei1 may Fenain esgentiaily elastic under combined earthquake and gravity loads and the theory Of elasticity oF elastic finite elenent Solutions can be applied to provide design Pressures, More generally, there will be Sufficient deformation for’nenlinear sei] effects to be inportant and for vall Pressures to bo significantly lover than for S fully rigid wall. These interneaiate Cases are nore difficult to analyse than the Mafeing cases of rigid wall behaviour and folly plastic soil conditions. Approxinations from theory of elasticity solutions nay often be satisfactory for wall Gesign purposes, or alternatively, upper and Jover bounds from the linieing cases cf rigid wall and fully plastic stress Gonditions nay proviee surricient Information for less inportant structures. Where the vall displacements are sufficiently large to produce a fully Plastic stress state in the soil by either Sutvard Rovenent (active state), oF by movenent tovards the backfill. (passive state), it ie recomended that the forces on ‘the wail are calculated by the Mononobe ~ Okabe (No) method. ‘This procedure fa hazed on the analysis of the Limiting equilibrivn Of a failure wedge bounded by the backface Of the wall, the backfi11 surface and a Straight line failure plane. (Figure 1.7) For valle that are relatively rigid, the initial earthguake accelerations nay induce pressures, corresponding to elastic soi) behaviour, thet are elgnificantiy greater than the #0 pressures. If the wall hes insutficient’ strength to resist these pressures, yielding and outward novenent of fhe vail kay occur with @ fully plastic stress condition developing in the soil. ith progressive yielding, the pressures on the vail will decreage to the MO values. The outward yielding may result fron either permanent displacenente in the soil foundation or from yielding én the structural vail elenents, ‘the failure mode Will depend on the vail type and the Felative capacitice evailable in each potential failure mechanien. Xf structural damage is to bg avoidea, it ix essary to design for eithdr the maxinun oak earthquake-indueed RoE ‘consistent With the type of coil behavigur expected, or fo detail the wail to displace outusrds, Where this is possible, by movement on fave our: 5 Vure nodes are poseibie, it ie Teconnended that the approvinate magnitude Gf the outwara movement. be obtained fron the Newmark sliding block analogy, The outward novenont ic related to the oritical ground Beceleration level required to initiste Bovenent ang it is therefore possible to find the design preseures and forces on the wall fron the 1inits considered acceptable for outward movencnts Because of the dynamic éisplacenent response Of buildings and bridges during earthquakes, Basenent and abutment walls that are nonolithic or rigidly connected to the main structure, are subjected to displacements Felative to the soil nese. For these types Of walls, dynanie soll pressures arise fron both the’ displacenent response of the structure and earthquake elastic waves ( inertia loade) in the soil, (Pigure 2.6). Both these presstire components should be calculated Eeparately and combined in an approximate wey to give the total earthquake force on the walle 3.2 Daslan Seismic costtoants | Yor free standing valls it mfy be acsuned that the vall/seil systen hag’ e short, fundamental peried of vibration and that the inertia loads can be approxinated by using the zero period ordinate on the design Spectrun (or peak ground ration). (Any resonance effects in jecesearily a conservative assumption) + Where valle form integers) parte of other. Structures, such ae bridges ena bufldings, the appropiiate design costticsent. tor estimating the wall displacenents snould be obtained from the perlots of vibration of the structure and the design response spectrun. Seismic coetficients based on the response spectra given in b2 4203; 1959 are reconmended for wal! design. ‘The horizontal earthquake costticient, c(t), at period, t. is given in bz 4203 as! -63-WOOD AND ELMS FIG. 2.93. PASSIVE FAILURE WEDGE IN FRONT OF MODEL TIED-BACK WALL. (Pichards and Elms, 1987) Analysis of the results shoved good agreonent. botwoen the measured forces on the wall and the MO prediction of the passive earthguake pressure coefficient, Keg. Te was found thet the sand densified during the initial pulses to a greater extent than occurs for the active Gaze vhere the wall Gan nove avay fron the cand, This densification, increased the engl of internal friction resulting in’an increase in the resisthnee to pas acceleration pulses of sufficient magnitude fo initiate pissive failure of the sand in the densitied state, the classic sliding wedge was forned and the sand in the failure Zone gradually leosened to the residual Friction angie value~ The position of the centre of pressure of the paseive force vas found to nove Aownyards fron the third point ae shaking continued until the passive failure weage vas fully developed. For design analysis, it yas concluded that the centre of pressure could be ascuned to be at 1/6 of the wedge height fron the botton of the vail. ~62- seers‘, | WOOD AND ELMS * Ohakune Westport Greymouth Omarama / FIG. 8.1 SEISMIC ZONE FACTOR (Dz 4209, 1989) -64-DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS, ct) = co RE Where Cp is the response function Zor a i80 year return period Garthguake and has a value of 0.4 for sexo period (see Figure 1.8). hie (0) = 0d R 2 is a zone factor given in Figuee 302) R de a risk factor that may vary fron 1.3 80 0.8 as defined below. R= 2.0 fort xajor retaining walls Supporting important. structures, developed yroperty of services and Shere tadiure woula have Serious consequences such ae Sutting vital conmonieation Services and ose of life. Walle forming part of the Rarthqueke resleting Structure of bridges, major Buildings or other important seuctures. R= 0.8) tor: Walis other than as described for R= 2.0 with heights Greater than 4m for level Saekeliie, or 3 = vith signigicant backfill slope. A risk factor greater than 2.0 may be used for walls that form part of the eartnguake Tecisting structure of buildings classiried in bz 4203 categories T to TIT. ‘The risk factor for highway bridge abutments should be the eane ae used for the dasign of the bridge, For inpartant Bridges, risk factors greater than 1.0 may be appropriate, Walls not included in the above descriptions heed not be epacifieally designed for earenguaKe Loading. ‘The D2 4202 seismic design coefficients are based on 3 250 return period event. A Feduction of the risk factor to 0. effectively reduces the design return period fo about 100 years. 3.3 koad Combinations under normal circumstances, vhen live ioads, buch as tragic) pre of 2 transient nature, oniy the conbinatlion of corthguake pressures WEh static gravity pressures need be Gonsidered. ‘the tatic gravity pressure should include water pressures and surcharge Jeading. 3.4 Fetes of Salety ere the design approach is to prevent outward novenents Enat may develop because of failure dn the soil or yielding of the Structure, the follaving factors of safety for the load combination of gravity plus earthquake pressures should be used: AU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 Factor of safety against sliding: Py = 1.2 Factor of safety against overturnin (or gross rotational failure) Fp = 1.5 here outward movenents are to he permitted, bn outward eléding nechanisn ie usually Preferred to a rotational failure. It would Elen be appropriate to prevent s rotations! failure by using @ factor of sefety of at Teast. 1.2 against overturning or gross rotational failure ‘the combined gravity and carthguake induced forces to be considered in a wall stability Snalyets are shown in Figure 3.2. “Resisting forote fxom bace friction should be Gsioulated weing the usual ascunptions mage for the soil strength paraneters under gravity forces acting alone. inertia forces Seeing’on the vail and any coil masses in Contact with the vall, bat net included 3 fhe sliding wedge mass, should be considered in'the analysis. The resistance of the passive vedge should be based on the MO Solution for passive failure. (seo Seotion 3-5-4) Ke Ww —- Pe B, $b FIG, 8.2 WALL STABILITY ANALYSIS ‘The bearing pressures under the toe of the Selr should be less shan the appropriate Migueble pressures for earthquake, loading on the particular soil, Soil bearing Strength is likely to be more critical than wall overturning. 3.8 Dynamic Forces and Pressure Distributions Simplified pressure distributions resulting fron Roth soil inertia leads and dynanic Well eisplacenents are given in thie section fore munber of val) categories defines in ferme of wal) stiftness and relative Gisplacenent. she selection of the Appropriate pressures for particular types, Of wall construction and foundation Conditions. ip discuceed in Section 3.6. 65 -WOOD AND ELMS, 3.5.1 Rigid Wall ‘The pressure distributions on a snooth pertectly rigid uall from horizontal inertia Toads in the coil vere snovn in Figure 2,2. An approxinate Linear pressure distribution Suitable for deeign purposes ie given in Figure 3.3 (Watthewson et al, 1930). The inérenent of earthquake force is given approximately by! Pg = C(O) 7H? en ‘The point of application of the earthquake force increnent is at approxinately 0-6 H above the base. range of values for typi Figure 2,3). The preseur: ingensitive to the wall rough design purposes, ‘the earthavare pressure Sieerieution end force on a rigid wall can ‘be assuned to be independent of the backface condition and coil elastic constants. The Pressure distrisution given in Figure 3-3 Eay therefore be used for soils vith both Cohesion end frictional properties, For the caso of a rigid vali with sloping Backfill, the earthquake Forces may be obtained’ tron the finite elenent solutions for an elastic soil shovn in Figure 3.6, For conparigon, the HO solution for a’ soil with a friction angie, ¢ = 35° is also Flotted. The increase In force produced by Ehe sloping backsill is of comparanie magnituge for both the rigid well and Mo Beaunptions. The ratio of the force increase between horizontal and sloping backflile can therefore be used for all walls, including walls intermediate bets Figid’ and those sufficiently flexible to Feet the Mo seeunptions. In the rigid vall analyele, the height of the centre of pressure vas’ found to inert by ebout 108 fer the backsill slope increasing fron horizontal to 20°, For Qeeign purposes, the ehape of the pressure Sistribution for sloping backfilie may be assumed to be the sane as for the horizontal For backfill slopes grester than 25° more detailed analyses should be undertaker Slope stability nay also be critical on steep backrille, 3.5.2 Stiff Wall A stite vail is defined here as a vail that moves outward at the top between 0 to, 0.2% of the height, H, under conbined gravity and ‘pressures. An spproximation for jaht of earthquake pressure on a Gisplaces 0.2% at the top is shown In Figure 3.4, The Sncrenent of earthquake fore for 0.24 top displacement nay be taken Pp = 0.75 C(O) (3-2) The point of application of the earthquake force may be teken as 0.5 H from the base. x= 1.5 C(0)YH = 0.5 Clo)! ena NOH on Ox 0.75 O(0)7H Fic. RE INCREMENT ON Pressures and forces on walls that displace less than 0.2% at the top may be obtained by Linear interpolation between the stiff and rigid wall pressures ani force: The earthquake pressureb ona stitt vall are more senaitive to tha soil properties. then for the rigid vail cace. If soil stiffness properties are knoun, then a mere deteiled Bnalysis can be carried cut by evaluat ing the force ratio parameter Fy and using Figures 2.12, 2.13, 2,15 and 2.17 to obtein pressure distributione and earthquake Forces. The effect of sloping backti1l can be obteined by increasing the earthquake Component of vail force by the ratio between the horizontal and loping backfill forces for the rigid vail solutien given in Figure a6. 3.5.3 Flexible We! Where the outward movenent of the top of the yall under gravity and earthquake pressures, exceeds 0.5% of Nl, an active pressure state may be ascunod and the pressures obtained from the Coulonb sliding wedge theory oF the HO equations. ‘The MO equations cover both passive and active stress states and incluce effects from both vertical and horizontal earthquake accelerations, Vertica] accelerations produce relatively anal} increases in the hocizontel pressures and may be neglected for design purposes:DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ‘The KO earthquake pressure increnent io Thovn in Figure 2.5 together with & Sinplitied Ho equation for Kap, the active earthquake pressure coefficient. The sinplitied equation is for the case of a horizontel backfill, smooth wall and no Vertical acceleration. The pressure Zoefficiont incltdes the effect. trom both gravity and horizontal earthquake loads. Te coettiotent of sarunuaye, earth preseare Merecenes Age © Kapokps evaluated by the AB°egastione Sr a VEreicel wall with, rough Eontdet can be cbtained from Figures 3.7 20 soins ghe coefficients ere given fer tvo déses of wall fedotiony beg and f= 26/3. ikon the shape of jhe wall forces the vall Elip puane eo be é soil interface oF Virtual plane in the soil behind the vall, Jere usual to asdume that ¢ = ¢. Wher aiip surface can develop on the back fa the'wall ie nay be assumed that the wall Eviction angle ie d= 26/3-, Figures 3.7 and 5:8 give the coefficients for horizontal Backfills and Figures 3.9 to 3.12 for Dackfills with elope angle, w, from the horizontals of ‘The earthquake pressure increnent curves Becone infinitely steep when the seismic Coctficiont values resch the limit that Eguses general failure in the backfill or Slope behind the wall. For s cchesionle foi) this occurs when! cco) & tan(e-w) ey conditions that lead to genersl soil failure Gro Likely to cause excessive damage to Ztructures and should be avoided. ‘he earthquake inerenent pressure Gisteibutsons can be obtained fron the plothed coetticients by the following Expressions! Lame /0(0) 3-C(0)92 ap(a) a4) vinere Bu cepth # Delev the top of the 4p(z) = The earthquake pressure increment. fails ARE > Rag ~ Ba Xz ~ NO active pressure coefficient. (Total gravity plus earthquake Conpenent) « AU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 APE OU YH? oF A Pag /C1O) IH? 29) : 2s) 20) Rigid Wali 10) Molko= 99 pz Jor os! a p> ag | e216 0.0) p 0 SOD BO Backtill Slope, (Dea!) FIG. 8.6 WALL FORCE: SLOPING BACKFILL Dim. EQ Fore Component me earthguake increment of wall force is Siven by? APAE = 0.5 alge iP 1D upetul approximate expression for Qstinating the earthguake force increment for a coheeionlese backfill soil with a horizontal backfill surface and friction angle between 30° to 35° (a3) APag = 0.5 (0) 2H? ans Expression 3-6 is a good approximation when €(0) de between 0.2 bo 0.3. Whore the s041 is cohesive or the ground fucface is irregular, the trial wedge ethed, shown in. Pigure 3-13, can De used To estinate the earthquake force increnent. ‘There de no available internation on the Correct shape of the pressure distribution for these nore complex cases. Hovever, for a flevible wall it is reasonable to ascune Ths nakiys eeneure comttlaiant, etegdeta wana fi, reueenttle 22 eee con sarang terrirans ctoeaotoe 2 where Kye= Sse) 7 H| cos? | 14 /sin g-sin(g-o< }} APA cos K uf ond ot = tas 'c(0) Te (Ke k, FH FIG, 0.6 EO PRESSURE INCREMENT ON|FLEXIBLE|WALL) -67-WOOD AND ELMS. | AKae/C10) e+ 20" ast i — j A of 5+ 2/39 ' ul she iss 1 0 08 : ee ta ee i oa! i ° ot oe os, o4 0s Earthquake Acceleration Coeff, (0) FIG, 3.7_MO PRESSURE COEFFICIENT FOR ACTIVE EO INCREMENT, HORIZONTAL BACKFILL SSS AK AE/C{O) e+ 20° 26” fl i: 7 ae bs ul oe 12 I 48 1 09 o.s| ou ° ou 02 08 04 Os Earthquake Acceleration Coett, (0) FIG. 3.@_MO PRESSURE COEFFICIENT FOR ‘ACTIVE EQ INCREMENT. HORIZONTAL BACKFILL Akag/610) See] o- a0" os il 7 7 7 | ! : as wees] | cof | | ~ 18) 10} | ° ox 02 08 Ok od Earthquake Acceleration Coett, ClO} FIG. 39 _MO PRESSURE COEFFICIENT FOR ACTIVE EQ INCREMENT, SLOPING BACKFILL 68-DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FRU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 AKae/O(0) 512/99] 9 + 35" 1 L 3.5] + Jeet f | ers[ ty 1 80) 1} + 207 184 407 7 10) iF 7 FIG, 310 MO PRESSURE COEFFICIENT FOR ACTIVE EQ INCREMENT. SLOPING BACKFILL 05, os ai : : | = ae) SS AK ng /0(0) (ere To-se ape el, aL td «30) 28" : Tot a po FIG, 3.12 MO PRESSURE COEFFICIENT FOR ACTIVE EQ INCREMENT. SLOPING BACKFILLWOOD AND ELMS FORCES ACTING on ‘TRIAL WeoGeS FOR gavicuane: Conon 1 FoRce povyson FoR ryPicas WEDoe’ o.5| 2.5] os 02 ° lo 18 20 28 «30 35 (40 48 Friction Angle, ¢ (deg) FIG. $14 PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS (Prakash and Saran, 1966) comainaTion oF Force -povvoots| Ex BR FIG. 3.13 TRIAL WEDGE METHOD FOR EQ LOADS used for cohesiontess soll appears sppropriate for all soil types and backfill slopes: ‘The presence of tonsion cracks in cohesive | Goll moy be ignored since it is Tikely that i Escorts ogipcegsign at) she groan} eur face j f2om the dynanic inertia fo¥ees in the soll namic Factor, | WITT offset the cancile stresses that ppuaame Factor, NY deverep because of outward yielding. Ll 1 The NO nethod has boon extended to cohesive 4 oa frictional oils by Prakash end Seren” (2956) 18h (Saran and Prakash, 1960). Simphitying i Jao] thelr general solution by aseuning ne aa surehafge and no tension creck givent 7a Kap = 2 Nay = 26 Wace on si 18 ; mere: | 14 Mayr Mac * Bivensiontess paraneters plotted In Figure Side 13] A = Dynamic factor, plotted in Figure 3118." (A= 160 for static i Sase)s at © = Soil cohesion, assuned to nave wl ‘the sane value on the failure plane and the back face of the © 005 01 016 02 028 0a toile Critical Acen Coetticient, Ke FIG. 318 OYNAMIC FACTOR, ‘The extended method nay be used for the (Prakash and Sarar analysis of saturated clays by carrying out 2 total stress analysis assuming, @ = 0 and © = cy, the undrained ehear strength. 1968) For valls with stirtnesses intermediate betveen the stitt and flexible cases, linear interpolation may be used between the Pressures and forces for the two Limiting Eager of rigid and flexible walls,DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3.5.4 Digplaceable Wall nen 4t is acceptable for a vali to undergo petnenent outward displacenent during strong Sarthqiake ground shaking, it may be Gesigned for a critical acceleration keg ese than the peak ground acceleration, EC) gy ot the Resign earencuake,” The Griticel acceleration is defined ac the acceleration level that initiates wall Permanent movenent. ‘The outward Eksplacenent can be calculated using the Neumark sliding block theory. ‘The forvard movenent of the contro of mace ie given Spproxinately by (Hateheuson et aly 1980)¢ a- av? petal + ke = 2 (a-8) catia [Se * 28 ~ 7] where: V = Peak ground velocity. a3 C(O) w/e the ratio of a/c(}) from expression (3-8) is Piotted in Figtre) 1.26 against the ratio of fhe critical acceleration to the peak ecGeleration, ke/e(0). (Tae plotted Eelstionship is only valid for Vens C10) m/s) ‘the eritical acceleration should be Calculated using the paintainable shearing Fesistance of the ofl at large strains. ‘The acceptable Linit of outward displacenent should be taken as the ainimun of: one-halé the available clesrsnee to cthor structures, BS of the height of the wall or 300m. ‘The earthquake pressure increnent on Aispleceable walls nay be teken as. the No Values given in éection 3.5.3 for flexible valle. ‘the inertia force acting on the wali should be inciuded in the evaluation of the critical scceleration to cause failure, Dim. Disp, d ClO)g/V? 10] ot 0.04} 0.00% = 02 03 04 05 06 OF 08 09 1 Resistance Factor, ke/G(0) FIG, 238 DISPLACEMENTS SLIDING WALL RU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 hia can be done using results given by Fins and Richarde (1579) oF by considering the Uniting eguilipriun of the horizontal components of the forees shown in Figure Grav For gravity walls, the inertia Joed from the all will usually result in a bigniticant reduction in the critical Scoleration (see Figure 2.20). Where stability ie considered using Virtual baak face, (for axenple at the heel ofa cantilever wall), the weight of the Soli between the virtéal back face and the Well should be ineluded with the wall voight fo estimate the horizontal inertia force. Signiticant resistance may be provided by Daseive pressures at the tee and thie force Ehowa be considered in the limiting eqeilibrivs analysis co deternine tie Ekitical acceleration. The Ho earthquake Sncrenent of passive pressure and the total passive pressure costficient for gravity and earthquake forces can be obtained fron. Figures 3.27 and 3.18 respectively. The Coeftickents were evalusted assuming 2 cohesionlass oll, vertical wall face, zero Nall ériction anda horizontal soil layer. (ihe passive pressure cocfficient ie very Eeneitive to the wail friction and a Conservative estimate ie obtained by ‘ascuning zero friction). When the oil inertia force in the passive Yedge iz sesuned to be acting ina direction Dvay from the vail, the pressures are lowe: than the static pabsive pressure values. (Negative values are plotted in Pigure 3.17 fo indicate this reduetion) « if it de required to prevent yielding in the wail structure, capacity design principles howd be used, In eotimating the overstrength of a coil failure mode, the Getinated values of soil cohesion, ¢, and friction coefficient, tans, should be increased by a factor of 1.3. AK pE/CIO} 19) -135| pee | oon ee esta Earthuake Aceteraton Cost, C10 FIG, 9.17 MO PRESSURE COEFFICIENT FOR PASSIVE EO INCREMENT. HORIZONTAL LAYER, “MeWOOD AND ELMS K pevcto} eve] —| oe 20°] 10) 003-2 OSS Earthquake Aceoleration Coeff, (0) FIG, 9.18 MO COEFFICIENT FOR TOTAL PASSIVE PRESSURE. HORIZONTAL LAYER 3.6.5 Forced Wal where the wall is part of a larger structure Such as s building or bridge, it may forced fo vibrate with amplitudes governed by the Berti leads on the structure. The total ‘oarthquake pressure increnent con be ‘estimated by combining the component of jarth pressure due to inertia forces in the soil (usually based on a rigid wall Seounption) with pressures resulting from fhe uni displacenent amplitudes against the soils Pigure 3.19 shows eimplified pressure Eogpenents prosiced by rotational (about Sei Daze) and translational forcing of backetii. Any. (tlefgetery approximation yr nope wails by combining ‘eonponents for a[ rigid wall. An uppor limit to the bonbined static and Zoreed vail pressure at any depth is given by the soll passive pressure distribution (a) WALL ROTATED S S< max, 0% = Kez 2} Ox 1.2 Est (b) WALL TRANSLATED FIG, 3.19 PRESSURES ON FORCED WALL “72DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3.6 Water Pressures ‘the increase in pore water pressures fron earthquake inertia effects Should be considered when the backtit} soils exe below the vater table, for sone back£4i2 and Foundation soils it may aico be necessary to consider the effects of soil liquefaction. A convenient approfinate method of including the pore water prefsure increase is to Consider the effective co!l stresses on the Nell separately from the water pressures. he coefficient of earthquake pressure Gncrement, akyp canbe obtained fron the Mo solution by eésuming the failure plane Inclination ie unaééected by the presence of the water table. ‘The effective stress earth pressure Inezenent can then bo obtained by using the pressure equations with tne sos bulk unit. Geight shove tha water taple and the Eubmerged unit weight below the vater table. The earthquake increnont of the pore water pressure can be taken as the atatic water sare multiplied by the seisnic The total seienie increnent is then the sun of the effective soil stress Tnerenent and the pore water pressure Increment az shown in Figure 3.20. ‘The hydrodynanic pressure fron any water in front of the wall. (eg, quay walls) may often Act in the sone Gizection es the earth Pressure increnent and should be considered Yn both stability and wall strength analyses. The critical case for overal] stabliity of the wall will scour when the hydrodynamic wates pregsure reduces the btatic vator presdure in front of the vall Sno. is in phage with the earthguake earth Bresaure inerenent on the wall Tt may also Evtnecergacy to cgnaider the case when the inertia loads in the water and soil are Alrectea covarde the backfiii. Although tt feruniikoly that this direction will be critical, in cone circunstancas it may be necessary to ineiude this case for the Gesign of the vail structure. Water table Failure plane Static effective pressure RU Bulletin €4 Volume 2 hydrodynanic proseures can be ectinsted Using the Wastergaard (1933) theory. Fron the golitson given by Werner and Sundquist (1949) for # felatively shallow long feeervoir, the dynamic water pressure force ie given by? Fy = 0.58 C(Olny hy? (3-9) here: ny = Unit weight of water. hy = Depth of water. ‘the dynanic water pressure force acts at a height of about O.shy above the base: Further information on the effects of the i Tongth of the reservoix and fluid resonance can be obtained from Werner and Sundquist (943) and Chopra (1967). 3.7 Application to Various Tynas.of Walls 2.7.1" Frae Standing Walls Founded on Scit Most types of free standing valls founded on boll are sufficiently fiexible for the HO earthguake pressures to apply. The naxcimon Pernissible displacement should usually be sdopted aa the prize criterion for earthquake design. The failure mode should avoia yielding in the structural elenents wherever practicable 3.7.2 Froo Standing Walls Founded on Rock or Piles Hf yleleing in the structural members of this type of wail ie to be avoided, earth | pressures ané wall inertia forces chould be I Based on the peak ground accelerations and account should be taken of the val) Stitinese in estinating the earthquake Pressure distribution. 1K, 1 Ny he LOY Static EQ ine ED ine water effective wal Preseure pressure pressure FIG 3.20 EQ PRESSURES FOR PARTIALLY SUBMERGED BACKFILLSS a ee WOOD AND ELMS Yielding of the structural olenents may be pernitted when the lors of serviceability, Gr the cost. of renoving the backfill and Fepairing the vall can be justified on economic grounde. Where significant. outward Gispiacenent occwrs because of yielding, the Aispiaceabie vail theory may be used. 3.7.3 Rolnforced Earth Walls 0 Generat Assumptions ‘The recommended earthquake design nethoa for reinforced valis is based on the Liniting equilibrium wethed. “In this approach, che equations of equilibrium for horizontal foregs are! solved to give the eritical ‘The outwara movenent of the vall can be estimated using the ratio of the eritical acceleration to the peek ground acceleration and the sliding block theory in s manner similar to that Goscribed for the displaceable vali (Section 3.5.4); igh 3s based on proportioning the wall co linit the outward Rovenent to an acceptable level. A mininun Lg/H ratio of 0.7 4s recommended for walls dégigned to resist seisnic loading. Walls above & m in heigne, with this rininun ratio, and designed py’ the usually secepted sethods for static gravity loads will often have acceptable sarthqvalce resistance without additional strength provisions, Lower walls will asually Fequire 1afger g/H ratios (of the order of 1°0) because the pullout resistance of the strips reduces with height. ‘The lower strips in walle with heignts exceeding 15 m wil! have very high pull out Fosistances and the limiting equsiibyium ‘nethod has not been adoguately verified by node) tests covering this case.” walle above 35'm in height should be subjected to special studies, Walle dosigned for earthquake loading should have a cohesionless. backfill with @ mininun friction angie, #= 35° {i Static design he static design should be based on the normally accepted procedures for resisting gravity and surcharge loads. A sumary oF the roquirenents is es follow External Stability Factor of safety against overturning 2.0 Fector of safety against sliding 2.5. Horizontal Pressure Against Panels P(e) ve (3-10) wher Depth of overburden. K is as shown in Figure 9.23 Kye a~ sing Qn) By = tan? (4s ~ 4/2) 22) 276. Stilp Design ‘The tencion in the etrip lie given by: (3-23) Te = P(2) A nm Wunber of strips per panel. Ap = Area of panel, ‘The maxinun tensile stress in the strip is Siven by: fe = Ty/Ay enn wet Ag “Het section area or strip. fy should be ¢ 0.6 fy, where fy is the strip yiewa stress.” : ‘The available pullout resistance of the strip fe given byt Rw 2bt* tert (a-a8) where: b = strip wiatn | tf « npparent soiiystrip friction coefficient ed defined in Figure 3.22. Lg = Effective resistive length of strip as defined in Figure 9.23 y= Soi unit weight. ‘he factor of safety against strip pull-out, FSp should satisfy: FSp = R/Ty 2 18 (3-16) “8 4 I } -1 Pressure Coeff, K FIG. $.21 RE WALL: PRESSURE COEFFICIENTDESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS. 5 tang? Friction Coot, FIG, $.22 RE WALL:|STRIP FRICTION aH, te bs FIG, 8.29 RE WALL: STRIP EFFECTIVE LENGTHS RU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 (ii) Overturning For valls with be/H ratios greater than 0.7 ana for earthqualie accelerations less than Ors g, overturning is not critical. {iv} Stiding Stabitty he sliding stability should be checked Using the Limiting eguilibriun methed (Section 2-701) For the simple reinforced block geonetry shown in Figure 3.24 the graphical eelations in Figures 3.28 and 3.26 nay be used to. Qeternine the eritical acceleration, Ke, and fhe failure plane inelination, 2. the plots Blow Rp end_e gzis, function of Ea/y fon’ the Gigensfoniess friction parameter "= 0.075 Sheeci7, Ghis parameter in dafined by: Pt a apne? ean) here! ny = he gunner of stripe per unit PY = 0,075 Se approxizately the value calculated for standard panels tien four 40mm wide strips. P's 0.17 4s approxinately the Value for a vali with six 60 mm wide stripe per panel. ‘he graphical golution is based on ¢ = 35°. Ie is assuned that the backtiit is horitontal, strips renain horizontal across the ggilure plane and that tho ctrip lengths and fare constant over she height. The Vertical spacing of the strips nas been taken as 750 mz, the standard used by the Reinforced Earth Company. FIG, 8.24 LIMITING EQULIBRIUM ANALYSIS -75-WOOD AND ELMS Crit, hoon, Ke Fall. Ang, Deg 07 ee 0 T Poors Fo | a) stag os a ae | Le | — Zhao kat oa os Hl 20 02 40 8 10 on 5 15 ° lo 0 02 04 06 08 1 12 M4 18 L/h Ratio FIG, 3.25 RE WALL: FAILURE ANALYSIS Grit, Agen, Ke @ Fall. Ang, Deg o7 6 *Foafo o sifaing os! i 140 0] Z oa 30 a 0. j—\20 5 o2| ate OK t~ 410 on _ oll 0 0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 L s/t Ratio FIG. 3.25 RE WALL: FAILURE ANALYSIS. curves for the critics! acceleration required to produce sliding on an aesuned horizontal failure plane through the base Feinforsed earth block are algo shown in Figures 5.25 and 3.26, ‘The forces acting on ‘the block’ for this’ assumption are shown in Figure 3.27. The vertical component of the No foree onthe back of the vail hes Deon Snitted because of the uncertainty ef the magnitude of this force.” (if the failure Wedge benina the wall moved downwards then this verticel conponent vill also be Govnvarda and have a Liniting value of Farcosi). The neglect of thie force, which iSMisualay aeeumed to bein a downwards Girection, reduces the normal reaction and the critical acceleration value, For high walle and high Ig/h ratips, the critical Jeceleration for"base sliding gives a good approximation to the critical acceleration for the inctined fai2ure! plane. Hevever, the base sliding analysis prodices an upper Bound solution that da eignificantly in orror for low valig and lov lg/h Tavis, (2) Outward Movernent ‘The outward novenant of the centre of nase of the silding weaya can be estinated using Figure 3.16 (Section 3.5.4). ‘The outward movenent should be linited to the lessor of 4¥ Of the clear height of the front face of the wall or 200 mm. (vi Bose Prossures Noxinun pressures on the base of the Feinforced block can be calculated by Sseuning a rectangular pressure distribution and the earthquake forces shown on the block in Figure 3.27. The maciman value of the Ginensiontess vertical pressure py! is plotted in Figure 3.26 for various values of fhe peak ground acceleration coefficient G(0). The vertical pressure is related to Ginensionless pressure by: By = C(O}py"tte (nay ‘he vertical earthquake bressures should be lees than the allowable bearing pressures specified for the particular soil. Pressures can be reduced by increasing, the L,/H ratio. Iwi) Stip Dosign the critical fatiure pane usually initiates on the welt facing st che Intersection with IQvest Stzlp ebove the soil! devel. in trone je Wall, Bot, Jt ia necessezy to. dra} the top strip to & depth of at leset 200°" tovensure that a local failure dees nok occur at the top of the vall. ‘The failure plane angle can be used to obtain the numbor of strips intersected end the length of the strips in the resistive zone behing the failure plane.” The maximum forces in the strips are given by: R abfthee on) wneret Lg = length of strip behind the failure’ planeDESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS : o ‘ os oz] WXRee ze Nee | NN via =I = ° 10 20 2040 Dim, Vertical Pressure, Py FIG, 9.28 VERTICAL PRESSURES IN RE WALL the forces in the strips above the Entersection of the failure and the back face of the reinforced block can be Ealeuloted using the Neyerhof thesry. In Shie approach, the vertical stresses on a horizontal plane through the vell are Gaiculated by applying the forces shown in Figure 3.27, and assuming a rectangular, pressure distribution on the section. This [evan analogove procedure to that used to caiguiate the base pressures. Tho forizonta1 pressures on the facing can thon be obtained fren: (2) = apy (3-20) -77- AU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 Yelues of py ean be obtained from Figure 5-28’and expression 3-18. ‘The tension in the strip can be cbtained from expreceion 3-131 pez) Bp ta stripe just below the failure plane {ntersection with the back face will have shore, lengths in the resistive zone Eesuiting in low values of strip tension, These etripe anould be designed ror the Greater of the strip tonsions from either Ene neyernof pressure or the Limiting equilibriun analysis. he Liniting equilipriue analysis shows that the lover strip forces becone very high for host designs when the failure plane angle, ay is lesa than about 30°. Because model. facting hao been linites ¢o cases where a Exceeds 30°, the val) dinensions and Properties should ba adjusted to avolad Yaiues of a less than 20%, or alternatively nore detailed snalyses undertaken. ‘to achieve good earthguake performance, it 42 Secontiel to have s ductile failure’ by Gither strip pullout or material yield in fhe strips. Hodel studies have shown that the sanibun strip foreas in the lover part SE the wall oceur at or close to the facing. Se is therefore critical to have the Connection between the strip and fecing Stronger than the vitinate eapscity of the Strips bosed on the Ultimate tensile stress Sha the full section area of the strip. Although aigficutt to achieve for higher Walle, the strips ehould be designed to fait by pulasout rather than by material yield. 3 Bheek thie requirenent, an overgtrength Factor of 2 anculd be’ appised to 87." mhet attug 12s by As (2 or IRS fy Ae (3.22) in higher walle it may be necessary to accept a materiel yield faiiure rather than Pullvout. “the tensilo strength of the strip Pelative to the pull-cut resistance can be Tnproved by redveing the strip widths and Snereasing thelr thickness, strip lengths below the failure plane may be adjusted Go obtain a more uniforr Giatribution of strip forces, providing the fotal resistive force fron the sun of the strip R values is maintained. 7f this is Gone, the Limiting equilibrium theory will Still be epplicable since the total force below the failure plane is used in the equilibrium equations. (uit) Face Pressures Face pressures nay be assuned to be related fo the strip tensions by Te (2-23) pte)» ®WOOD AND ELMS. As outlined above, the face pressures above the failure plane’ intersection with the back face can be obtained fron the Meyerho! vertical etresses. below the failure plane Intersection point, the face pressures’ can be obtained tron the pull-out or ultimate failure forces calculated for the strips. Tost below the fallure plane intersection point, the strip forces may not give a good ectinite of the fac precevre hecause of the Short strip length in the ressevive sone, A Conservative estinate of face pressures, below the failure plane intersection point can be obtained by adding the eyerhot Prescure at the intersection point to the Pressures calculated fron the strip forces, 3.7.4 Tiod-Back Wal ‘the pressures on tied-back walls are dependent on the type of anchor and Flexibility of the vall- ‘Because of the complexity of the intoraction betveen tho Ele forees and wall acing deformations, ajor valls should be investigates by structural analysis procedures to estinate the pressure distributions. If tie-backs are anchored by cone forn of Geadnan and the ties are required te remain elastic during earthquake loading, the peak round scceleretion should be used to Galculate the presouras and forces, Th estinating the earthguake inerenent of pressure from soil inertia forees, due Sllowance chould be made for the tie and wall flexibility, where the wall top novenent neats the flexible vail criterion given in Section 3.5.3 the NO pressures nay Bo urea. If the-backs are restrained by a movable ‘anchor, ‘euch as a friction slab designed to Slide while the other etructural component Fenain elastic, 3 reduction in the design accelerstion néy be nade besed on the Gisplacenent criterion given in Section 3.5.4. For walls of ainor importance, permanent displacement resulting from Yielding of the ties may be acceptable but particular consideration neeas £9 be given Eo the effectiveness of the tie corresion protection systen after yield extensions: For all types of anchor systene the node of failure, when overloaded, should be by yielding of the ties or pessive faslure of the anchor rather than by failure of the wall face of connections between the ties and the wall face or anchor, ‘The probable, Variation in the soil paranoters and Frictional resistance between the wall Gonponents and the soil should bs considered Sn deternining the critical acceleration for permanent dicplacenent and failure modes. When investigating the stability of a tied wall, the forces en the face and thes may be eetinated using the active vedye failure criterion. the passive faflure modes of the toe and the anchor system should bo considered (Anderson et al, 1963). Faslure by s wedge through the anchor and'toe, as shown in Figure 3.25, of by a slip circle, pay fico be posoibie under earthquake Josding, in theco failure modes, the horizontal eartnguake force corresponding to the peak ground acceleration should he applied to the wedge or weight of Soi] within the circular el! “78+ A Limiting equilibrium active wedge theory for the sinpie tied-back wall shown in Figure 3.30 was presented in Section 2. Figure 2.86 shove that the ratio of the tie fotse over the failtre wedge velont, 5/H, fe relatively conctant and approxinately equa: to 0.53 for a critical acceleration coefficient, ke between 0.1 and 0.3» This gives the fo16wing approxinate expressions for tie force (carthquake and gravity lotds) and the failure plane inelinstion angle T= 0.594 ane) (6 > 0) = tan72(0.59 9) (2-28) We 0.8 9H2/tane (o-28) — Active failure surtace ‘Assumed passive se failure surtace FIG, 3.29 PASSIVE FAILURE OF TIED-BACK WALL : \\ Ter : a FIG, 8.90 ANALYSIS OF TIED-BACK WALLDESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ‘The earthquake pyegaures that develop on Dasenent walle ill generally consist of Components fron the inertia forces in the Soll and pressures resuiting from the val2 Aisplacenent against the coil (Figure 1.6). ‘tho pressures from the coil inertia loads may be conservatively. teken as the rigid well pressures. given in Section 3.5.1. The Higle’wall pressures may be Feduead by the Wall flexibility where this is significant. ‘The component of earthquake pressure from the novenent of the well relative to the Soit'nay be estinated from the forced wall Bolutions given in Section 3.5.5 (igure 3.38). Where the structure is fountes on rock or very firn soils, the Felative novenent of the val againet the 2oil nay be small and the resulting pressure Gonponent anal) in vaiation to the soi) Gneftia inerement. ‘When piles are used or the structure is founded on soft soils, the Felative novenents mey lead to preceure Eonponente thet dominate the total Gartnguake pressures on the wall. A SIniting value of £01) passive pressure for Combined gravity and foreed wall componente: fey occur whore the basenent valle are Used Uo’provide lateral resistance against the ‘earthguake base ghear forces of the structure supporfed by the basement. on flexible gounfotions, the response of the Seructure may bel affected by the stiftness GE the soil surrpunding the basenent, Here, TE nay be necessary to investigate the Fesponse of the building using Winkler Springs te model the soil. Spring seitthesses way be efvinatea From the forced wall solutions given in section 3.5.5. ‘the two components of earthquake pressure (eoil inertia and forced wall) will Generally nave different vibrational Frequencies and may be combined using the square root of the sun ef the squares rule {ghss) . 3E one component is less than 50% Se'the’ other, neglecting the smaller Gonponent reduces the total obtained by the SREE method ny less chan i2t, mus, it is heipful to make preliminary estimates of the conponents and only carry out detailed Snetpees to estinate the #meller conponont When tie estinated £0 exceed 508 of the Jaeger component B feeSoeceeed | eee ee RAU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 3.7.6 Bridge Abuiments Pressures on bridge abutments ere influenced by the earthquake forces and diepiacenents thananitted to she abutnent by the bridge Supersteucture. If the bearing between the Superstructure and abutment dea sliding type with & low ovefficient of friction, the Shatnent nay act cesentially ac a free Standing vail. Another Liniting case iso fonolithie abitrent where the vali is forced With displacenents that may be governed by: The response of the total pridge eysten. it is helpful te consiger two categories of abutments: ‘The first type ie the ease where the soll pressures make no signiffeant Change to the dynanie responce of the Srlage. ‘She second case is vhen the cos? pressures on the abuenent have a significant Theluence on the dynanic response. In this latter ease, the abutment will generally be ponolithie or integral with the Seperstrustare. Procedures for estinating Ene abutment pressures for the two cases are given below. (No Significant Interaction me forces and displacenents acting on the Bbutrents in this category are shown in Figure 3.23. Ive separate cases are shown, The firet case if vnere the load from the Euperstructure is linitea by a sliding or Gefornable bearing and the force trananitted fo the ebutnent is known. The second cace $e where there Je a rigid connection to the Soperstructure and the analysis of the Sbutment will need €0 be Based on an inposed Gisplaconent rather than the force {ransmitved: The forces and dieplacenents Shown in Figure 2.82 are defined as follows: aPg = Earthquake pressure conponent from inertia forces in the soi2. Pp ~ Earthquake pressure conponent from forsing of, the wall against. the poll. Py = Inertia load acting on the abutnent mass. Bg = Gravity presure conponent. Py, = Load fron superstructure. fy; = Digplacenent of euper: isn ra ia a so Ps FIG, 8.91 NO SIGNIFICANT INTERACTION WITH SOIL (a) Load Limiting Connection (bY' Rigid Connection. -79-WOOD AND ELMS ‘The magnitude and direction to be assuncd for Sone of these forces depends on wnether the vail ie being Aisplacea against the Backfill or avay fron the packfill, The hovenent against the backfill is Gsually the Critical case for the abutment vali design gna noverant aay fon the backfill is Usually critical for the design of the abutnent foundations. Particular Gonsideration of the force component Giractions nay be required for the design of Clearances, joints, bearings and lineage: For movement avay fron the backfill, Pg may be estinated fron the pressure solutions given in Sections 9.8.1 to 3.8.9 making due Eilovance ger wall Zlexibsiity. when the Gisplacenent is against the backrill, aPp may be obtained fron the rigid wall pre distribution. Pp may be estimated fron the forced wall solutions given in section 3.5.3, For translational deformation, Py is given by: Pps 0.6 Fy 8 by (0-27) Where: = Horizontal width of abutment. For the rigid connection case, ay is known and Pp can be obtained from expression, For fhe case where the load fron the euperstructure is known rather than the Nepiacoment, Pp cannot be ebtained directly ana must be evaluated by analysing the Bbutment, including both the foundation and Moll eoli etiffnesses, loaded by Py + Py. The vail stiffness can bo approximated Using expression 3-27 Pp always acts in the direction opposite to the movenent of the wall. For sbutnent novenent tovarde the backfill, Pp erfectively increases the static gravity pressure and, the naxinun resultant of Pp + Pg is lipited by the static passive pressure force. For abvenent noverent. avay. Dack#ina, Pp reduces the static pra the minimum resultant of Pr + Pg Ls static active pressure force. Pp and Py showld be azsuned to be in phase. Byror su Hay or may not be in phase with ate aha by. DStectiong of the forces should be choseh to produce the most eritical loading case. Bectuse the earthguake pressure Sonponents Pp and Py are caused by Vibrationa) effects vith diferent. Frequencies, they nay be conbined for the fase of abutment movenant against the Backtil1 (critical case for vall design) Using the SHES method. For movenent away fron the beckfill, ‘the critical loading on the abuteant foundation probably will occur itn Pe and Pp acting in opposite Sirectfons. “Fne correct method of sunning forces will depend on the relative magnitude of the forces and vhether the connection ie Joe Iimiting or rigid. In view of the Complexity for this cage, the indiviaual Force components should be combined by Eoking the elgebrale cum. (i Significant Interaction hen the bridge response is signiticantly Influenced by the interaction with the abutment woll it de difficult to sccount for the dynamic effects in a simple analysis procedure, The critical lonaing on the Abatnents and lateral load resisting Slenents can usually be obtained by Sonsidering the tvo cases of in-phase and out-of=phase earthquake oil inertia pressure componente shovn in Figure 3.32. When the dynamic conpondnts of oarth procure ave out of phage at either abutment (Figure 3.52 (a)) it’ may be assumed that the structure does not nove relative to the foundation and ie subjected to rigid wall pressures on each abutment vali. that ie, Bhe total preseures on the valle are the com of the at~rest static pressure anda rigia wail earthguake component fron the soil Therein loads.” Thie assumption may overestinate the earthguake preseure Somponente on shore bridges there it ic Sniikely that outvof-pnaso accelerations Wil} ectur. Because of the in¢luence of the oil, properties and the frequency content of the incoming waves on tho phase Felationshipe at either abuenent wall, it ia Gifticult to make nore precise predictions Of the effect of the bridge Jength on the wall pressures. linen the dynante components of pressure fron fhe soil inertia loads are in phase at either abutment (Figure 3.32(b)) the bridge Will displace relative to the foundstion Generating forced wall aynanic pressures that are dependent on the overall Sieplacenent response of the bridge. The analysis procedures for this case are ‘Similor to those discussed in Section 3.6.4 for basonent wall: pens a BPE Ps. Ps (a) DYNAMIC PRESSURES OUT OF PHASE (©) DYNAMIC PRESSURES IN PHASE | FIG. 8.32 SIGNIFICANT INTERACTION WITH SOIL -80-DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ‘the dynanic pressure components on the abutments due to the relative aicplacenent of the bridge can be estinated by conputing the period of vibration taking into account the Sbutment eos) stiffness. The Gleplacenant response can then be estinated fron the design response spactrun nd the Overall ductility factor. For relatively Figid structures, a satisfactory estimce of fhe displacenent oan be obtained by using ‘the peak ground acceleration to obtain the Inertia lead on the bridge. ‘The minimun Limiting value of Ps + Pp on the Abutment noving avay fron the sil is the ~~ RU Bulletin 64 Volume 2 {Gniting value of Pg t Py on the abutment, foving Zovards the soly ie the passive | active static pressure. me pexteun | | Foutire: | Peak ground acceleration should be used to CSloulate the earehquake prossure component, fron the soit inertia loads. The upper Tinles tor these components are the rigid Gall pressures. On the abutment moving away Yeon the soll, the component nay be reduced by considering the vali flexibility. A Rover Limit for this conponent is the Wo 2oethguake active pressure increnent.REFERENCES (2) AITKEN, @. He, (2982), "Seienic Response of Retaining Walls", Rept No G25, bept of Civil Eng, Univ of Gantérbury, Hereh. (2) MoNO, Ry ATMO, He, and TSHIZ, ¥., (2956) “wAsaiemic DaSign of guay Waits In Japan", Proc. First World Cont on Barthguake Eogineering. (2) ANDERSON, W. F., HANNA, . Hey and apoeLmabex, M.'n., (2883) “dverel1 Stability of Anchofed Retaining Walls", Proc ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 103, No 11, Novenber. (6) AMIANASTOU-GRIVAS D.,_ (2978), SReliebility of Retaining structures Daring Earthquakes", VI symp on Barthquake Engineering, Univ of Roorkee, Vol 1. (5) BRACEGIROLE, A., (3980), "seismic Stebility of Reinforced Barth Retaining Walle®, Boll Ni National society for Earthquake Eng, 13 (4), 347=58 (6) CHOPRA, ALK.) (1967), "ilydrodynanic Pressures on bane During Earenguates", Jour of Eng Mechanics Div, ASCE, VOI 33, EMS, pp 205-229. (7) cuoUss, Ge Wey and PRAGASEY, BR, Py (2577) "A sivay of Bareh Loadings on Hloodway Retaining structures in tne 3872 gan Fernando Farthquake", 6th Worla conf on Earthquake Bng, ‘New Deli, vol 7 (2) CORMACK, L. G., BLAKELEY, J. P., PORN, Ds V_ and GOLDSMITA, Pe RL, (2980). WReinzorced Earth Retaining falls with Specific Reference to Ferthquake Resistant Design", Project Ger, Bervctures Committee, KRU, National Reads Board, HE. (9) CROUSE, Cs B., HUSHMAKD, B., LIANG, Go, MARTIN Gy R.,'and WOOD g. ity | (2985) ‘bynanie Response of Bridge-nbutmont~ Becktili systems, Proc Joint USNZ Workshop on Seismic Resistance of Highway Briages, San Diego, Nay. (20) PUKE, Ce Mey AND LERDS, D.J., (2962) “Response of Soils, Foundations, and Eoreh Structures to the chilean Earthquake of 1960", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Anerica", Vol 53, No 2y February. (23) pz 42022 1989 "General structural Design and Design Loadings for BuLlaings", Draft Standard, Stenderas Association of New Sealand: 85+ (aay as as os) cas) a7 (as a) (20) ay RRU spin 84 Volume 2 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE. (1975) "Engineering Aspects of the Lina, Peru, Earthquake ofl octeber 3, 2874", Oskiind, BLLISON, B. K., (2972) MEarthguake Damage to Rosds end Bridges, Hedang, TP.Nec. ~ Novenber 1970H, Bull Nz National goo for earthquake Eng, Vol 4, No-2, April. MUMS, D. Ge) and MARTIN, G. Roy (4975), "Pastore rnvolyed in The Seignic Design of Briaje abutnents", Workehop on the Researen Needs of Seignie Problens Related to Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Pale Alto. (asa7) 2 ELMS, D. G., and NAGEL, R. B., Sbynémie Model Testing’ of Reinrorce zareh Wale", {e"conterence on Eerthquake Engineering, Wairskes. ELMS, D. Gs, and RFCHARDS, R. (1979) NSeignic Design of Gravity Retaining Welle", Bulletin of Nz National Society for Earthquake Engineering, vol 12, Nea. IMS, D. G., and RICHARDS, R. (1998) "Seignie Beheviour of overturning Retaining Walle", Australiacian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials, University of mucklana, EUIS, D. G+, end WOOD, 3. He, (3987) Nearthguake Induced Displacement and Pressures on Retaining alls an Bridge abutments", Proc NZ Roading symposiun, Wellington. BYANS, 6. Le, (1971) the of Bridges Under Earthquake: Roading Symposius, Victoria University of Wellington, Vol 2, pp 664 ~ 584 FATRLESS, G. J, (2909) "Seismic Performance of Reinforced Earth Walls", Recearch Report 39-9, Dept of civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Chrissonureh. FRANKLIN, A. G., AND CHANG, Fe Ky, (2977) fearthguake Resistance of’ Rock F521 Dana: Report 5: Permanent Displacesents of garth Enbanknents by Wovnark s1iding Block Analysis", Kise Paper S-73-17, Soils and Pavenents Laboratory, U.S. Army Enginesrs Waterway Exporinant station, Vicksburg, Mise.«aay (2) a) (23) es) en (28) (sy ao) on en ey en @3) WOOD AND ELMS ae) XuEE, . b., BELVEDERE, J. eoupstemi, AL Fe, (2971) Ghvestigetion of” arlage Damage in the San at ‘arthquake", Prelininary Report, stdte of calif Business and Traneportadion Agency, Dept of Public on Worker Divlof Highways, Bridge Dept. cazeras, G!, (3983) "analyeis of Hgchine Foundation Vibrations: State- ofcthe-are", soit Dynamics and Barthquake Engineering, 2. es) MAYASHT, S. AND KATAYAMA, 7., | (2970) Mbanage to, Harbour structures by the ‘Tokechioki Barthquake", Soils and as) Found, X (2). HRADTLEK, P.J., (1972) "Behaviour of Underground Box Conduite in the San Fernando Barehguake", US Army Bng Dist, Los Angeles Corps of Eng. vo JACOBSEN, Fs Ws, (2980) Mtransiational Behaviour of Gravity Retaining Welle Daring Farthguakes® Rept No #0-5, Dept of civil fog, Univ of Ganterbury, March. ay gEmimes, P. c., (BAxtor), (3872) SEngineefing Features of the sen Fernando Earthquake", February 5, 3973, Rept 71-02, Earthguake Bng Research Laboratory, Calif Ince of Technology, Pasadena «zy KAWASUME, IH., Bditor, (2964) "Generel Report on, the Niigata ay Barehguakd of 1964", Tokyo Electrical Engineeriily College’ Press KETAIIMA, 'S., and UNABE, 7. (1975) Nanelyais on’ geianie Damage in Anchored Sheet-Piling Bulkheads", Report of Port and Harbours Researen institute, Wel 18, Noa. aay TAT, C. Ss, (2979) "Behaviour of Retaining Walle under Seismic Loading", Rept 79-8, Dept of civil Eng, Univ of eanterbury, February. 445) ae TAZ, Cs Sip ond BERRILL, J. By NGnaking Table Teste on’a Hodel Retaining wall", Bull N2 National soc for Earthguake ing, Vol 12, No 2, June. (3979) an LEW, it, S., LEYENDECKER, B. V. and DIRKERS, Rl Dey (2971) ""Bagineering Bepects of ‘the 1971 San Fernando Babthguake", Buliding Series 40, Build Res Div, Int of App Tech, NBS, Washington Dic. (aay LIAM FINN, W.D., (2963), "Boundary Value Probiens. of $0{1 Hechanies", ASce, dour of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Div, SHS, Septenber. Lim, 3-8.Jand WAITMAN, R. Ve, (1985) Nzattnquafesrnauced Displacewents of Sliding Blocks", ASCE, Journel of Geotechnibe) Eng Div, Vol 12, No Gr 2. ws) WAPTHENSON HM. B., OOD 3, He, and BEARILL J. B., (2980) | “Seiguic Design of Bridges Barth Retaining Structures", Bull NZ National Soc of Bacthguake Eng, 33, (3), 280-283. (50) -86- waruo, M., and OHARA, 8., (2960) Miatetal, darth Presotres’ and stability of Quay Wells Dering Earthquakes", Proc Second World Cont on Rarthquake Eng, okyo- MEENAR, J. Psy and DEGENKOLG, H. J, et al. (3973)" Milcazagua Bartnguake’ of Decenber 23, 1972, Barthquake Engineering Research Institute Report, Oakian, california, Hay. MINISTRY OF HORKS 24ND DEVELOPMEND, NEW 2 (2993), "Retaining Wald oe.psP. 702 , duly Design Notes MINESTRY OF WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT, NEW ZEALAND, (1980), "Reinforced Farth ~ Notes on Design ang construction" Suppienent to Retaining Wai) Design Notes", C.D-P- 702 C, (3973) + YONONOBE, N. and MATSUO, K. Non the Deteraination of Barth Pressures During Earthquakes", Proc Worla Bag Conf 9: 177-105. (as28) ADIN P., and WAITAAN R. Ve, (2985), MBeianiosaly Induced Yovenent of Retaining walle", Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Publication No $55, dele. WAGED, Re B., and ELMS, De Guy (2905) "Seismic Behaviour of Reinforced Earth Walls", Rept 85-4, Dept of Civil Eng, Univ of Canterbury. BAZARIAN, te Ney and BABJIN, Ae Hy {2a)s) wbarthguahe-snaduced Lateral i S21 Peossurer on structures", ASCE, Journal Geotechnice! Engineering Div, i 3oi' 205, Ho or 3, Beptenber. | i \ NEWARK, We Mey (2965) NEffects of Eerenguakes on'Dans and Esbanknents", Gaotechnique, XV (2) i PRAKASH 5. "Soil Dynamics", NeGraw~ HLLD Book co. PRAKASH &., snd NANOAKUMARAN Psy (2078) | "eerth Pressures During Earthquakes", Proc 2nd US National Conference on Earehquake Engineering, Stanford University: PRAKASH, S. and SARAK, $., (1966) Netatic’ and bynanic Barth’ Pressure Behind Retaining Walls". Pree 3x¢ ‘Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Uaivereity of Roorken, India, Vol 3, REINFORCED EARTH COMPANY, (2990) Th Eavestigation of Reinforéed Earth Structures Inpactes by the Lona Prieta Earthquake", Report published by Reintoreed Earth Conpeny, Western Division, Sacramento, california’ RICHARDS, R, and ELMS, DG.» (2979) NSeiomie Behaviour of Gravity Retaining Welle", Proc ASCE, 105 (G74), 49-64 RICHARDS, R. and ELMS, D. ., (2987) NSeionie Behaviour of Tied Back Walls ~ Initial Analysis and Experiments” Ropt e7-0, Dept of Civil Bng, Univ of Canterbury, November.REFERENCES RU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 (52) (52) (53) sa (3) (35) 197) (5) «s9) (60) cay «s2) (63) (sa) RICHARDSON, G. W., PEGER, D., FONG, A. ana Lee, x: £. (i877), Seartngoak Resistant Reinforced Farth Walls", Proc ASCE, Jour Geotechnical Eng Div, Vol 103, 'No er 1, January. ROSS, G. A,, SEED, H. B, and MrGLincero, ’R. (1369), *pridge Foundation’ Behaviour in Alaska Earthquake", Proc ASCE, Jour soil Mechanics ané Founaation Eng Div, VoL 95, No 5M &, July. ARAN S., and PRAKASH 8., (1960) , "Oinensigniess Paraneters ror static and bynanic Earth Pressure for Retaining Walls", Indian Geotech cour, Vol 7, No 3, pp 295-310, July. SARAN S., and PRAKASH A., (2970), NSeignic’ pressure Distribution in’ garth Retaining Wells", Prec 3rd Buropesn Symp on Zarthguake Engineering, sofia. SCOTT R. F., (2973), "ihe Great Alaska Earthquake of” 1964: Engineering: Deheviour Gf Soils during the rehquakeN, Hational Acadeny of Sciences, Washington. SEED, H. Bs end WHITMAN, Re Vi, (2970) Spesign of Earth Retaining strictures for Dynamic Loads, ASCE Spec conf, Lateral stresees in the Ground and the Design of Earth Retaining structures, Cornell University. SHARIA, Ne, (2990) "Refinement of the Newmark Silaing Bleck Model and dpplication to Nev Zealand conditions”, Rept 50-3, Dept of Civil Eng, Univ of Canterbury. SHERIF, Ms As, ZSHZBASHY, 1. and LEE, C, D;, (2982). "earth Pressures dgainst Rigid retaining Walle", Proc R3ez, 308 (ors) STEVENSON, R. B., (1978) "Dynamic send Pressures Against @ Flexible Retaining fall", Report No 5-87/8, Central Laboratories, Lower Hutt, ANIME, H., (2970) "Dynanie Barth Pressure on Basement Walls in The Elastic Ground", Proc THird Japan Earthquake Eng Symposium, ‘Tokyo. THURSTON, S.J., (1986 2) "Load Displacenent Response of & Rigid Rbutnent Woll Trensiated into Sand Baokelii", Rept 5-36/2, central Laboratories, Ministry of Works and Bevelopnent, ‘Lower Huet. THURSTON, 6.3.) (1986 b) "Rotation of a Rigid Abutment Wall into Dense Backeili", Rept 5-86/3, central Taborateries, Ministry of Works and Development, ‘Lower Hutt. THURSTON, S. J-, (1986 c) "oynanie Band Preseures Against 2 Rigid Retaining Wall", Rept 5-86/8, central Eaboratories, Ministry of Works end Development, ‘Lover Hutt, THURSTON, S.J-, (2987) "Translation Of a Rigia Abutment Well into Dense Backtiii*, Rept 5-87/2, central Laboratories, Ministry of Works end Development, ‘Lower Hutt, (63) (66) wn (58) (9) (70) oy (2) (73) ay (75) sy om 180, ¥. H,, (1906) "Investigation of Soti-Reintoroement. interaction in Reinforced Earth Structure", NE Thesis, Dept of civil Eng, Univ of Canterbury. WERNER P, Ws, and SUNDQUIST x. 3 (ists), “on hydroaynamie Earthquake Stgectan, Trans, Auerican Geophysical | Union, Vo1 30, No 3, ogtaber. WESTERGAARD, HH. Preestres on Dans Dur Traneactions, ASCE, Vo jo22)_ water fg kerthguakes", I 98, pp d10~403. wimg, R. ve (2979) "pynanic Behsviour of Soile and its application fo'eivil Engineering Projects", Fan Bnerican Conference on Soli Hechanics and Foundation Engineering, Lina, Poru. 00D, J. He, (1973) "Earthquake~ Thavcod soil pressures on structures", Rept No. EERL 73-05, Earthquake Dng Research Laboretory, Calif Inet of ‘Technology, Pasadens. Woop, J. H., (1985) "Earthquake Pressures oh Monolithic Bridge Abutment alle", Report. No Mi.85/3, central Usboraterfec, Lower liutt. Woop, Je He) and JENUINGS, F. Coy (1971) WDanage te Preevay Structures in the Sn Fernando Earthquake", Bull NE National Soe fer Earthquake Eng, Vol 4, No 3, Decenber. WOOD, Je Hey and YONG, P.M. Fe, (3981), "bphanie Sos} Pressures’ on Rigid Retaining walls and abutrents: Pacific conference on Earthquake Engineering, Watraked | WONG, H. Le, and LUCO) J. =. (4978) Srables of impedance functions end Inpat Notions for Rectangular Foundations", Report Ne. CE 78-15, Dept | of civil Eng, Univ of Southern Calis. YAP, K.K-, (2987), "Dynamic Sane Prossures Against stiff Retaining Walle", Rept 5-87/2, Central Esboratories, Mintetry of Werke and Developnent, ‘Lower Hutt. yeo, E. We, (1987) "Translation of & Rigi¢ Abuthent Well, Incorporating a Friction Sia, into’ Sané Backfill", Rept 5-7/5, Central Laboratories, Ministry of Works and Developnent, Lower Hate. | Youe, P.M. Fey (1995) "Dynamic Earth Pressures Against a Rigid Retaining fall", Rept 5-5/5, Central Usboritories, Ministry of Works and Development, ‘Lover Hutt. ARRABT“KASHANE, Ko, (1979) *S1éaing of Gravity Retaining walls During Earthquakes Considering Vertical Acceleration and changing Inclination Of feilure Surface", H-8¢ Thesis, Dept Of Clvil Engineering, Maccachusetts. Institute of Technolgy20 one F5o Fp Fey Fe fe RU Bulletin 84 Volume 2 6 NOTATION area of reinforced earth vail pane? an beight of wath net section ares of soil reinforcing hy @lstance feon failure surface beri gustance, foo" ith wall face £0 top of wail reaction force on base of wall : | depth of water soil reinforeing strip width ie iq coefficient of active pressure soit conesion Rar horizontal) acceleration coegticient noretre gorioa (peek ground £25 eration coefficient) ke oritieal norizontal acceleration Seeftsesent age Pent ty orizontal acceleration coefficient acceleration response function for 150 sccelecturn periog specified in ko contficient of at xest preseure be az0s vg teansational stiftness of 022 spring pndrained shear strength of soi hy vertice} acceleration coafticient outward displacement of centre of Rass SeSfEdune weli/setd vease s, —dengen of wail beckeild layer oii geain size corresponding to nt te reniative length for soit reinforcing ehh Made dn pertiole size Sirie aiveruuclon tg epgth of soft reinforcing strip oung's modulus for soi Renind Failure pla Young's noaulus for conerete te length of soft reinforcing atrips friction coeftiefont for soil Length of val EUintoreing eerip ny moment on forced all per unit Length abit bFvein force on forced wail per unit Lensth tg nonent_on rigis wall par unit Length of wall or yall ores of rigid wall per unit length of -m—building storey sass a porns) force on failure plane in factor 4€ safety against sliding under Beintoxcea earth bieck Static foade . number of reinforeing strips per panel factor ot sefety ageinet overturning Sacto ooiehquake leading Nay Peakash-saren dlgensioniess paraneter for force on walt vith factor of safety against reinforcing tor se eveyerictional backti22 Steip paracout tag Peakash-Saran dimensionless paranoter factor of safety against sliding under for foroe on vail vith seethguake Lead EGhesivelfrictional back#it2 tel force on well per unit length of "number of reinforcing s4tsp0 Byr Unis wall gumbey of vail in each layer of Pelnforeenent mayimun tensile stress in soil Belnrorcing strap plz) soi normal pressure on wall at depth Sbeaew top of wall yiela atrese for soli reinforcing eel Bateriad b(s)* aineraseniag normal pressure on welt ay 7ceo) ya) acceleration of Sravity Bead (EU) 29 Ce eelFo Pr ¥s Pe Pe! Py Te WOOD AND ELMS Mononobe-Okabe active earthquake force on wall, earthquake prescure component fron foreing of Rbstront wall against. backtiit inertia oad acting on abutment mass oad on abutment from superstructure force due to at rést earth pressure foree ratio parameter, £9/(C(0);H) gravity pressure component on abutment. well aynanic force component on vall @inensiontess dynanjc force component fon wall, Pe/ (C(O) 7H) vertical pressure on horizontal plane through reinforced garth vall under earthquake iouds Ginensionloce vertical pressure on face ef reinforced earth wall under earthquake oeds, py/(€(0)e8) water pressure on front face of wall wieth of pressure distribution on base of wall, risk factor specified in Dz 4202 sun of strip tensions across failure plane in reinforced earth block Left Ry (rH?) height ef centre of pressure above base of wall total tie force on tie-back wall peried of vibration Typ?) tongion foree in soil reinforcing strip @isplacenent in x (horizontal) Sirection base acceleration Aisplecenent of top of wall earthquake peak ground velocity Sisplacenent in y (vorticat) airection Jight of vali and sliding vedge of oll weight of wall height above base of wall zone factor specified in D2 4203 a8 aple) oPaE ape! oPor rey > depth below top of wall angle of inclination of failure wrtace from horizontal well packtace slope angle unit weight of soil unit weight of water Mononobe-okabe coefficient of active earthgnke pressure increxent, (Rae~Ral Sncrenent in pressure on ¥! 2 below top of ne eo at depth prehguake Hononobe-okabe incr} foree on vall sment of earthquake I increnent in pressure force on wall dae to earthquake ape / (C(O) 7H) Ancrenent or decrement in at rest earth pressure due to earthgueke aisplacenent of bridge superstructure friction angle on beck face of wall wall rotation angle earthquake aynanie factor tor force on L'vith a cohesive/frictiona) backelit Potesen'e ratio for consrete mass density of #041 normal atress in x direction normal stress in y|aizection shear stress in the x and y directions friction angie for vail base soil friction parameter for rotating wall angle of inclination fron horizontal Of backfill siope