S

oilD
yna
m ic
sandE
arth
qua
k eE
ngin
eerin
g11
6(2
019
)57
0–57
9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Double wedge model for computing seismic sliding displacements of

cantilever retaining walls
⁎
Prajakta R. Jadhav, Amit Prashant
INDIAN Institute of Technology GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR 382355, INDIA

ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT

A double wedge model has been proposed to compute seismic sliding displacements of cantilever retaining w alls.
Keywords:
Cantilever retaining walls Experimental observations indicate formation of rupture planes in the form of an inverted triangular wedge in the
Permanent displacement backfill of retaining walls. Computation of critical yield acceleration at each time instant considering the v- shaped
Seismic design weakest rupture planes which evolve during the ground motion is the preliminary aim of the double wedge model.
Sliding displacements The model computes translational displacements considering the relative movement of soil wedge along these
Velocity compatibility rupture planes. It considers velocity compatibility along with the acceleration compatibility between the wall and
Depth of subsidence soil wedge. It also computes approximate depth of subsidence of the backfill soil during ground motion. A
simplified double wedge model has been also considered wherein the yield acceleration at a ll time instants is
computed with respect to a fixed wedge. The double wedge model and its simplified version have been compared
with different cases studies, which show the seismic sliding displacements matching well with the real
measurements.

1. Introduction
The seismic design of cantilever retaining walls is currently per-
formed on the basis of force based approach. These are designed usually
as gravity walls considering that the soil above heel is a part of wall. The
earth pressure is computed on the back face of this soil mass above heel,
using Mononobe-Okabe approach (M-O) [1–5] considering soil to soil
interface angle as ‘ϕ’ and assuming a suitable horizontal earthquake
acceleration coefficient. Design guidelines suggest some value between
PGA/g to 0.5PGA/g of the considered earthquake acceleration as this
horizontal coefficient [6]. Numerical modelling and dynamic analysis have
shown M-O method to compute under-estimated pressures [7,8].
Experimental investigations have proved M-O method to overestimate the
pressures exerted on cantilever retaining walls [9,10]. Real-time case
studies and experimental investigations [11,12] have witnessed the
formation of v-shaped wedges in the backfill during ground motion.
This evoked an idea of computing earth pressure on the rupture plane
inclined towards the wall stem. Greco [13] proposed a methodology to
compute pseudo static active earth pressure using Coulomb's theory
considering v-shaped wedge formation in the backfill by minimizing the
factor of safety against sliding. This methodology, however, demanded
selection of suitable critical horizontal coefficient of earthquake accel-
eration. Kolay et.al.[14] through dynamic analysis observed earth
pressures to become asymptotic for horizontal acceleration coefficient
values beyond 0.45 g as against M-O method wherein the earth pres- sures
increase exponentially beyond 0.45 g. However, selection of this coefficient
has been a challenge as it involves major uncertainties [15–17], and hence
the pressures computed using this approach have been proved to be over
or under conservative. Also, failure can be measured and understood
better in terms of displacements rather than forces [6,18]. Developing
design philosophy with deformation based approach to understand the
performance of cantilever retaining struc- tures is the motivation of this
paper.
Richards and Elms [19] proposed a methodology to design a gravity
wall assuming a translational displacement that the structure can
comfortably undergo causing distress to the adjacent structures in ac-
ceptable limits. The yield acceleration coefficient was determined using
Franklin and Chang's [20] expression for the expected displacement. This
expression was proposed after studying 169 corrected horizontal
earthquake motions using Newmark's sliding block method [21]. Tri- cario
[22] experimentally observed Newmark's method to overestimate the
accumulated displacements of flexible retaining walls as it does not
consider the vertical acceleration of soil wedge. Deyanova [23] nu-
merically observed Newmark's method to underestimate the accumu-
lated displacements of gravity retaining walls as it does not consider the
deformation of soil at the base of wall. Also, Newmark's sliding block model
does not consider the relative movement between wall and the soil wedge.
This over-simplifies the true behaviour of wall and the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-MAIL ADDRESSES: prajakta.ramesh.jadhav@iitgn.ac.in (P.R. Jadhav), ap@iitgn.ac.in (A. Prashant).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.047
Received 27 February 2017; Received in revised form 16 August 2018; Accepted 29 September 2018
Av ailableon lin
e1 4N ovem ber2 018
02 67 -7
2 61/© 20
1 8ElsevierL td
.A llrig
h tsre
serv ed.
P.R. JADHAV, A. S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT
A C
adjacent soil wedge. The multiblock model proposed by Stamatopolous
et al. [24] accounts for the change in geometry with time due to the (a)

khy'
outward displacements in the computation of yield acceleration unlike β
conventional sliding block model for slopes. Stamatopolous et al. [25] also k hg khy''
kvy' kt'g
proposed two-body model to compute coseismic displacements which is a
combination of gravity as well as seismic forces for gravity walls in kv
kvy'' θ2 kn'g
accordance with multiblock model for slopes. Zarrabi's model
θ1
[26] had also taken the amplitude of ground motion into consideration
B
along with change in geometry for gravity walls. This model considers
acceleration compatibility between wall and soil wedge at all time in-
stants during the ground motion, however, velocity compatibility was not P1
taken into account. For cantilever retaining walls, Kolay et.al., [14] (b)

suggested to use yield acceleration coefficient as PGA/3 by performing N

dynamic analysis to compute sliding displacements of cantilever re-
taining walls up to its maximum value of 150 mm. They observed that Ws

the sliding displacements were highly overestimated by Richards and Ws (1- kv')

Elms approach [19] and slightly underestimated by the approach of Wong Ws (khy')
[27] at lower PGA and highly overestimated at higher PGA va- lues.
A A C
In this paper, double-wedge approach has been proposed to com- pute
(c)
sliding displacements of wall considering relative movement be- tween
wall and soil wedge along the rupture planes developed at that time
instant such that full contact is maintained between wall and soil wedge
throughout the motion. Velocity compatibility has been ensured along Ws
with the acceleration compatibility between the wall and soil wedge. The θ2
θ2
soil wedge tends to undergo subsidence in order to main- tain this contact
P1
by applying thrust on the back face of the wall [25]. The proposed Wkhy''
formulation also computes the depth of subsidence of soil wedge for a θ2 θ2
finite horizontal displacement by considering a simple and approximate
deformation profile. A simplified double wedge model has also been B B
proposed considering movement of soil wedge to occur pre- ferably along
Bntan
the already formed failure plane.
B
instant. Different positions
n
of outer rupture planes will have
2. Description of double wedge model

A cantilever retaining wall with stem of height h, inclined at an angle

β with respect to vertical and length of heel L, is retaining a horizontal
uniform backfill of cohesionless soil mass of unit weight γ, and friction
angle ϕ resting on a hard non-deformable soil strata. The interface angle
between back face of wall and backfill soil is considered as δ, and that
between bottom of wall and foundation soil as ϕb. The water table is
assumed far below the base of wall. The wall is subjected to seismic
excitation at the base of wall. From experiments, it has been observed that
the stresses due to seismic excitation in cantilever re- taining wall result
into formation of v-shaped shear bands [11]. These v-shaped rupture
planes are idealized in present model to form rigid- plastic ‘Coulomb's
wedge’ assuming uniform acceleration throughout the soil mass. Also, the
rupture planes are assumed to develop from the top of heel [28,29] and
soil-wall interface along the thickness of heel is
neglected. The rupture plane from heel towards wall is considered as
the outer rupture plane and the other rupture plane from heel towards
the retained soil mass as inner rupture plane [30], as shown in Fig. 1(a).
The inner and outer rupture planes are formed at angles θ1 with respect
to horizontal and θ2 with respect to vertical, respectively. The soil mass
between the outer rupture plane and the wall is referred to as locked
soil mass. The inner rupture plane is formed in such a way that the
active earth pressure exerted on the outer rupture plane is maximum.
The ground motion has been assumed to occur at the base of wall with
kh and kv as its horizontal and vertical acceleration components in
terms of g, respectively. The yield acceleration components for soil
wedge are khy' and kvy' and for wall with locked soil mass are khy" and
kvy", as shown in Fig. 1(a). All the acceleration coefficients in this paper
have gravity acceleration ‘g’ as its unit.
The size of the soil wedge formed at a particular instant as a result of
the evolved rupture planes depends upon the ground acceleration at that
Fig. J1.
P.R. Double
ADHAV , A. wedge approach: when outer rupture plane is not intersecting S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT
wall (a) Schematic diagram illustrating different accelerations on structure re-
solved along inner and outer rupture planes (b) force triangle (c) Free body
diagram of soil wedge and wall with locked soil mass.

corresponding position of inner rupture plane depending upon the ac-

tive earth pressure exerted due to earthquake acceleration at that in-
stant. The soil wedge is assumed to move tangential to the developed
rupture planes and not normal to them. This soil wedge due to vertical
inertial acceleration will hence move in downward direction and si-
multaneously in horizontal direction due to its horizontal inertial ac-
celeration. This downward and horizontal movement of soil wedge will
exert active earth pressure on wall. The wall will thus tend to undergo
displacement due to its own inertia as well as the pressure exerted on it
by the soil wedge. The wall has been considered to undergo displace-
ments when the yield acceleration of the wall with locked soil mass is
exceeded by ground motion. The yield acceleration of wall will depend
on the yield acceleration of soil wedge and earthquake acceleration at
that instant.
Stamatopolous et al. [24] has proposed a similar theory for slopes in
the form of multiblock model to compute coseismic displacements. The
proposed model and multiblock model show certain similarities with
respect to their assumptions. Both the models do not consider loss of
strength of soil along the slip planes and they do not allow loss of
contact between the adjacent blocks. However, in the computation of
permanent displacements the proposed model accounts for the ampli-
tude of earthquake excitation at that time instant in addition to the
geometrical rearrangement considered by multi-block model. Unlike
multiblock model, double wedge model considers relative movement
between wall with locked soil mass and soil wedge along the rupture
planes. The proposed double wedge model considers vertical accelera-
tion of the soil wedge whereas multiblock model considers only
P.R. JADHAV, A. S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT

horizontal acceleration of all the wedges. Unlike multiblock model, the

proposed model allows change in the location of slip surface and in-
terface planes during earthquake loading.
In the proposed double wedge model, considering the structure to
be in complete equilibrium under earthquake excitation, resisting
forces P1 and N will develop on the rupture planes and Bn on the base of
wall, as shown in the Fig. 1(c). The coefficients kn', kt' and kn", kt" are the
yield acceleration components at the inner and outer rupture planes.
These yield acceleration components can be resolved into their
horizontal and vertical yield acceleration components khy', kvy', khy" and
kvy", as shown in Fig. 1(a). This gives rise to a problem of essentially 9
unknowns (P1, N, Bn, khy', kvy', khy", kvy", θ1 and θ2). The upward
movement of wall away from ground is rarely possible due to huge
weight of wall with locked soil mass and the base soil is assumed rigid
enough for no downward movement of wall. Thus, the vertical yield
acceleration of wall will be same as the vertical component of the
ground acceleration. Assuming that the values of θ1 and θ2 are known,
the problem is reduced to determine 6 unknowns, i.e., P1, N, Bn, khy',
kvy', khy", which would require six equations. Four equations can be
obtained from force equilibrium for wall with locked soil mass and for
soil wedge. The remaining two equations are obtained from the accel-
eration compatibility along the rupture planes by considering the soil
wedge to slide tangential to the rupture planes and not normal to it.
This condition provides the following two expressions (1) and (2)
(Derivation given in Appendix A):
kvy kv tan 1 (kh khy) (1)

khy khy (khy kh)tan 1 tan 2 (2)

There are two possible cases depending upon the geometry of the
developed soil wedge, i.e., the case when rupture plane exists only in
backfill throughout and the other case when it intersects with the back face
of the wall. The intersection of outer rupture plane with the back face of
wall has been observed; for instance, Huang et al. [31] showed occurrence
of this phenomena in their experiments on cantilever re- taining walls
under geostatic conditions itself which can persist during seismic loading. Fig. 2. Double wedge approach: when outer rupture plane is intersecting wall
Hence, it is imperative to simulate this case. (a) Accelerations resolved along inner rupture plane and outer rupture plane (b)
force triangle (c) Free body diagram of soil wedge and wall with locked soil mass.
Case 1. Non-intersection of outer rupture plane with the back face of the
wall
with normal to the plane BC in order to resist the movement of soil
Referring to the free body diagrams of both wall with locked soil wedge along BC as shown in Fig. 1(a). The angles subtended by vectors,
mass and soil wedge shown in Fig. 1(c), and substituting the expres- N, P1 and Ws are ∠ʊ = 90 - (θ2 +ϕ+ α), ∠τ = θ1-ϕ+ α and ∠µ = 180-
sions for P1, N and Bn, the expression for yield acceleration coefficient

of w ual to 1 is as follows. (∠ʊ +∠τ), respectively, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Using sine rule, the
J tan magnitude of P1 is determined by Eq. (4).
b (1 kv) 1+G
khy = Ws sin
1+G P=

(3) 1
sin µ (4)

Here, The value of θ1 for which P1 is maximum will be considered as the

W cos 1T critical θ1 in the analysis.
J=
Ws (sin( + )tan cos( + )) Case 2. Intersection of outer rupture plane with the back face of the

G tan 1 tan 2
wall

For this case, the tangential movement of the soil wedge is con-
R (sin 1 cos 1 tan )(kv cos 1 kh sin 1 cos 1) sidered only along the interfaces AB and BC shown in Fig. 2(a). Along

AD, soil is assumed to be in contact with wall, but acceleration com-

T sin ( 1)tan cos( 1)
2 2
patibility has not been considered between them in this formulation.

The value of θ2 is varied from 0 to tan−1(L/h). For a particular value of θ2, the value of θ1 can be computed using Coulomb's force triangle
approach
P.R. JADHAV,by
A. maximizing the earth pressure force on the locked in mass. The equations of equilibrium
SoilDy
N Amicshave
ANDE been
rtH
A QUAsolved
keEngin
efor
erinsoil
g116 wedge
(20
19)5and
70–wall
579
In Fig. 1(a), AB forms outer rupture plane and BC forms inner rupture
PRASHANT
with locked soil mass shown in Fig. 2(c). Eq. (5) represents yield
acceleration equation for wall with locked soil mass at factor of safety
equal to 1, which is derived in Appendix A.
plane. Ws is the weight of soil wedge in equilibrium. Considering the
J1 tan b (1 kv) kh G P1T1 cos 1
+ J2 + R

free body diagram of this soil wedge, active earth pressure force P1 acts 1+G Ws
at an angle ϕ to the normal of plane AB. This ϕ represents the friction khy = 1
1+G
+ J1 (5)
between soil particles along the inner rupture plane, which resists
sliding along AB. Reaction force from the soil mass acts at an angle ϕ Here,
P.R. JADHAV, A. S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT
this khy' and kvy', the value of θ1 is recalculated for which P1 is
W cos T1 2 maximum in step A3. Steps A2 to A4 are repeated until the absolute
J1 =
W (sin( + )tan b
2 cos( + )) difference between θ1 values for consecutive iteration is less than a
threshold value (less than 1°). Usually, convergence has been
P1T2 T4 cos 1
J2 = achieved within 15 iterations.
Ws T3

G tan 1 tan 2
A6. The velocities are then computed for both wall as well as soil
wedge at that time step in such a way that movement of wall to-
R (sin 1 cos 1tan )(kh sin 1 kv cos 1 cos 1) wards the backfill is not allowed.
A7. The displacements are computed for the exceedance of earth-
T1 sin( 1)tan cos( 1)
quake acceleration from the yield acceleration of the wall by nu-
T2 sin( 2 1)tan cos( 2 1) merical integration which may lead in approximate analysis [34].
However, it has been observed from the parametric studies on dif-
T3 sin ( 2)tan b cos ( 2) ferent time steps by Stamatopolous et al. [25] that acceleration

history with time step of 0.01 s allows an adequate accuracy of

T4 sin( ) tan b cos ( ) numerical integration with wall displacements less than 2 m. Also,

For this case, the failure wedge, as shown in Fig. 2(a), will exert earth
pressure on wall at part AD and on the soil mass at part AB and thus
resulting in total seven unknowns unlike Case 1 with six unknowns and
six equations available for analysis. In order to take care of this un-
derdetermined system, the maximum earth pressure on the AD part of
wall has been computed using the expression proposed by Mononobe-
Okabe [32,33]. It has been assumed that the assumptions of Mononobe-
Okabe [32,33] are valid in the region around AD and the force has been
computed considering the acceleration coefficients of the soil wedge,
i.e., khy' and kvy'. Computation of force, P2, using Mononobe-Okabe
[32,33] along AD implies the formation of small failure wedge, ADE,
which would still traverse with the parent wedge ABCD. This is in ac-
cordance with the formation of multiple shear bands in the parent
failure wedge observed by Huang et al. [31]. Thus, in order to know the
value of P1, a force polygon is drawn for the known value of P2 as
shown in Fig. 2(b). The force polygon is divided into 2 parts as shown in
Fig. 2(c) by dotted line. Solving the force polygon, the active earth
pressure exerted on part BC of wall is as shown in Eq. (6).
owing to the simplicity involved, numerical integration can be re- liably
adopted in the implementation of double wedge model. Also, it is
recommended that applied acceleration be obtained by using
equivalent linear or non-linear site-specific response analysis instead
of directly using bedrock motion to realistically simulate the field [25].
The values of khy'' values are calculated firstly for Case 1 only
wherein all the values of θ2 lie in (0-tan−1(L/h)) range. Case 1 is suf-
ficient only if the minima is obtained for plot of khy'' v/s θ2 for the value
of θ2 ranging between 0-tan−1(L/h) signifying that the outer rupture
plane is not intersecting wall as shown in Fig. 3(a) for a typical example
of cantilever retaining wall of height 5.625 m and heel length 1.95 m.
Otherwise, Case 2 is also considered to obtain khy'' values for the values
(a)
0.23

=
1
Xsin 0.225
P
sin (6)
Where, 0.22
ky

For three unknowns, two compatibility equations (Eqs. 1 and 2) and A iteration and corresponding cri-
4 tical θ1 in Eq. (3) for Case 1 and Eq. (5) for Case 2, the value
one equilibrium equation depending upon the case (Eqs. 3 or 5) have of khy''
been formulated for the assumed values of θ1 and θ2. In order to obtain .
U
the yield acceleration coefficients for the appropriate θ1 and θ2 the
s
model can be adopted by implementing the following steps. i
n
3. Implementation of model g
t
A1. Initially a value of θ2 is assumed and other parameters are h
calculated as given in following steps. This value of θ2 is then iter- e
ated from 0 to tan−1(L/h) for Case 1 and beyond tan−1(L/h) for Case v
a
2 to achieve minimum value of khy".
l
A2. The values for kh and kv are obtained from the considered ac-
u
celeration time history. For each θ2, α is computed as tan−1(khy'/ 1- e
kvy') with initial values of khy' as zero and kvy' as vertical ground s
acceleration coefficient value. o
A3. θ1 is varied from ϕ to suitable angle less than 90°. Active earth f
pressure force is calculated for computed α and each value of θ1 θ
using Eqs. (4) and (6) for Cases 1 and 2, respectively. To obtain 2

realistic positive value of P1, it is necessary that ∠τ should be such o

f
that sin τ is positive which is only possible when θ1 > ϕ. The
t
magnitude of P1 increases as θ1 increases till it attains a certain h
maxima and then it starts reducing. The critical value of θ1 is re- a
corded when earth pressure force is maximum. t
P.R. JADHAV, A. S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT
0.21
5

0.2
1

0.20
5
0
(b)
5

10

15

20
2
(
)

0.1
6

0.1
5

0.1
4
ky

0.1
3

0.1
2

0.1
1

0.
1
0

1
0

2
0

3
0

4
0
2
(
)
is calculated. Fig. 3. Double wedge approach: Variation of yield acceleration coefficient with
A5. Using Eqs. (1 and 2), khy' and hence kvy' can be calculated. Using θ2 for a wall with same geometrical configuration. (a) When outer rupture plane
is not intersecting wall (b) When outer rupture plane is intersecting wall.
P.R. JADHAV, A.
PRASHANT
(a)
wedge
(b)
Velocity
Vvs1 Vvw2
Vvw1 Vvs2
∆t
T1 T2
Time
Fig. 4. (a) Mechanism during movement of soil wedge in downward direction
(b) Crossing of velocities of wall and soil wedge.
of θ2 ranging beyond tan−1(L/h), and minima is obtained at critical θ2
as shown in Fig. 3(b).
If the wall with locked mass is having lower yield acceleration than
that of soil wedge, then wall and soil wedge both will undergo dis-
placements but they will move with different acceleration. If the wall
with locked soil mass is having higher yield acceleration value than that
of soil wedge, then mathematically it signifies that soil wedge is more
susceptible to undergo movement than wall. Under this situation, in
order to achieve acceleration compatibility the soil wedge will also
have its vertical yield acceleration in the opposite direction which is
fairly acceptable. This is because it only signifies deceleration along
rupture planes and not the reverse movement of the wall and soil wedge
which can be better understood by velocities. This issue in a way was
taken care of along the interface between ground and wall above it in
step A6, but was not given due consideration at the wall-soil wedge
interface. Velocity of wall has been always maintained greater than or
equal to ground velocity but this compatibility was not considered for
soil wedge with respect to adjacent wall and backfill.
Having considered the vertical velocity of wall to be same as that of
ground and backfill mass, outward movement of wall takes place due to
the sliding of soil wedge in downward direction as shown in Fig. 4(a),
i.e., the vertical downward velocity of soil wedge should be more than
that of adjacent wall and backfill mass (Vvs –Vvw ≥0). If the vertical
velocity of wall exceeds that of soil wedge (Vvs –Vvw < 0), then physi-
cally it signifies reverse movement of wall with soil wedge moving
relatively in upward direction. This abnormal behaviour may happen in
numerical calculations at a particular time instant since the formulation
considers only acceleration compatibility between wall with locked soil
S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
mass and soil wedge. Let this time instant be known as crossing time
instant, x, as shown in Fig. 4(b). Let Vvw1 and Vvs1 represent the vertical
velocity of the wall and soil wedge, respectively, at the time instant T1.
Let Vvw2 and Vvs2 represent the vertical velocity of wall and soil wedge,
respectively, at the time instant T2 at the end of the time interval ∆t. Let
khy1' and khy2' represent the horizontal yield acceleration of the soil
wedge at the beginning and the end of the time interval. The following
steps are followed to implement the required velocity compatibility.
B1. Identify the time interval, ∆t during which the vertical velocity
of wall is observed to exceed that of soil wedge in step A6.
B2. The acceleration is assumed to vary linearly between two con-
secutive time instants as the time interval is small. The crossing time
instant in the time interval, x, as shown in Fig. 4(b), at which both wall
and soil wedge have same velocities should be determined using Eq.
(7). At this time instant, there will be no relative move- ment between
wall, soil wedge and backfill mass.
x= (Vvs1 V ) t
(Vvw2 + Vvs1
Vvs2
(7)
B3. The horizontal velocities and displacements (sliding) of both soil
wedge and wall at the crossing time instant have been calculated
considering the acceleration values at the beginning of the time interval
∆t for time interval x.
B5. The yield acceleration of the soil wedge, at the crossing time instant,
khyx̍ has been interpolated from the acceleration values known at the
end points of the time interval, khy1' and khy2', re- spectively. At crossing
time instant, wall is assumed to have the same acceleration as soil
wedge.
B6. The yield acceleration of wall and soil wedge are recalculated
afresh at the end of the time interval. The velocities and displace- ments
for the remainder of the interval have been computed ex- ecuting steps
A6 and A7 with initial velocity, displacement and yield acceleration
corresponding to crossing time instant.
Using this modification in the formulation, the expected compat- ibility
with respect to both acceleration and velocity has been achieved at the
interfaces along the rupture planes.
4. Computation of subsidence of the backfill
When the structure is subjected to seismic excitation, dynamic rupture
planes are formed in the backfill. The wall undergoes an out- ward sliding
displacement of ∆x, and the soil wedge developed in the backfill undergoes
subsidence and exerts thrust on the wall [25]. During this mechanism,
the total mass in the backfill would remain constant but the deformation
profile will change. The profile of the subsided soil wedge has been
considered based on the experimental observations [35], as shown in Fig.
5.
The range of inner rupture planes varies from ON to NP during
earthquake ground motion, as shown in Fig. 5(b). The subsidence is
assumed to vary linearly from zero at ON to maximum at NP. The value of
subsidence is assumed constant between NP and back face of wall.
Although, outer rupture planes will also vary like inner rupture planes, due
to the geometry of cantilever retaining walls it is difficult to assume a
particular nature of deformed backfill in the vicinity of outer rupture
planes. Further, the soil volume involved in that zone is expected to be
small. So, it is reasonable to assume flat subsidence profile between NP and
back face of wall. Since, the subsided soil fills the gap created by movement
of wall away from backfill, the depth of subsidence can be computed by
equating the areas of the soil mass behind the back face of wall before and
after the subsidence.
P.R. JADHAV, A. S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT
O in Fig. 6. P1 cos( 2 + ))
(a) b+ (sin( 2 +
khy = tan
)tan b (8)
W
P
khy = tan b + 2 (sin( 2 + )tan b cos( 2 + ))
W
+ P1 +
(sin( )tan b cos( + ))
W (9)
θ1

These are derived considering stability of wall with soil wedge at

factor of safety equal to 1 and vertical component of acceleration, kvy
equal to that of ground from Newmark's single wedge model. This value
of θ2 is then iterated from 0 to tan−1(L/h) for Eq. (8) and beyond
tan−1(L/h) for Eq. (9). Here for an assumed value of khy the value of P1
is obtained as maximum thrust by iterating θ1 from ϕ to less than 90° as
O described in step A3. The Eqs. (8) and (9) should give the value of khy close
to its assumed value. Else, the calculation be repeated using the newly
(b) obtained value of khy. The critical values of θ1 and θ2 are ob- tained for the
corresponding minimum value of khy. These values of θ1
and θ2 can be directly used to compute the values of khy', kvy', khy" using
Eqs. (1) and (2), along with Eqs. (3) and (5) with due consideration to
H1 Case 1 and Case 2, respectively, for that time instant. The values of
these yield acceleration coefficients depend upon the ground accel-
eration coefficients.
θ2 -θ1
6. Validation from case studies
θ1

In order to validate these formulations four different case studies

Fig. 5. Subsidence of backfill (a) Area of backfill before subsidence, (b) Area of were considered and the displacements calculated by double wedge model
backfill after subsidence. and simplified double wedge model have been compared with the
measurements. These results have been also compared with the
displacement computed by conventional Newmark sliding block ana- lysis
5. Simplified double wedge model
and Zarrabi [26] formulation for gravity retaining walls.
The backfill for double wedge model has been assumed uniform and
6.1. DETAILS of CASE studies
homogeneous considering the formation of dynamic wedges. A de-
generated case of double wedge model, i.e., simplified double wedge model
Case study 1: Dynamic centrifuge testing was performed on a can-
is proposed to compute displacement of the wall due to sliding of wedge
tilever retaining wall model with dimensions scaled down by 50
formed as a result of predefined failure planes. The idea of simplified
times of the dimensions of prototype [36,37] as shown in Fig. 7(a).
double wedge model is that relative movement between wall with locked
The backfill soil was dry medium dense Nevada 120 silica sand,
soil mass and soil wedge can take place along already ruptured plane
having friction angle of 35° and unit weight of 14.55 kN/m3. The
rather than along a dynamic v-shaped rupture planes. These planes do not
model with soil was subjected to Park field California earthquake of
change during further earthquake shaking due to potentially more distress
27th June 1977 recorded at station 2 of Cholame-Shandon array
along these planes compared to neighbouring soil. Both wall and backfill
sourced from CIT as shown in Fig. 7(a) [38].
mass have been assumed to have the same yield acceleration until
Case study 2: Full scale shaking table tests were conducted on the
formation of rupture planes as shown in Fig. 6. For different inclinations of
cantilever retaining wall at NEES-UC Sand Diego site [39]. This
inner and outer rupture, yield acceleration has been determined from the
geometry was subjected to Kobe earthquake (1994) at Takatori site. It
Newmark's single wedge methodology with due consideration to
was observed that wall essentially underwent sliding failure and hence
geometry and soil properties at site only.
has been used for validation. The geometry and material properties of
The inclination of rupture planes is determined firstly by using the
following two Eqs. (8) and (9) for Case 1 and Case 2, respectively, given the wall prototype is as shown in Fig. 7(b). The soil- wall interface
angle at the back face and base were considered 31°.
Fig. J6.
P.R. Mechanism
ADHAV , A. of computation of inclination of rupture planes in Simplified double wedge model for (a) Case
So 1:y
ilD when
N m
A icsouter
ANDE Arupture
rtH
QUAkeEplane
ngin is
eerinnot1
g1 6intersecting
(2019)5 70–the
579
PRASHANT
wall (b) Case 2: when outer rupture plane is intersecting the wall.
P.R. JADHAV, A. S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT

Fig. 7. Schematic illustration of wall geometry with soil backfill properties and acceleration time histories for four case studies. (a) Case study 1: Ground acceleration
time history of Parkfield, California Earthquake (CIT [38]). (b) Case study 2: Ground acceleration time history of Takatori, Kobe Earthquake (PEER [42]). (c) Case study
3: Ground acceleration time history of Takatori, Kobe Earthquake (PEER [42]). (d) Case study 4: Schematic illustration of wall and digitized ground accel- eration time
history of Sturno-Irpinia Earthquake [40].
P.R. JADHAV, A. S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT

Table 1
Displacements computed by four methods for all the four case studies.

Case study No. Parameters Actual Newmark Zarrabi (gravity walls) Double wedge model Simplified double wedge model

1 Displacement (m) 0.1375 0.1154 0.1115 0.1339 0.1307

θ1 Not mentioned 45° 51° 59° 46°
θ2 Not mentioned 0 0 17 12
2 Displacement (m) 0.0027 0.00094 0.0024 0.001 0.002
θ1 57 35° 33° 59° 33°
θ2 Not mentioned 0 0 1 0
3 Displacement (m) 0.0165 0.0061 0.0095 0.018 0.003
θ1 Not mentioned 26° 30° 40° 26°
θ2 Not mentioned 0 0 0 0
4 Displacement (m) 0.0945 0.0286 0.0156 0.0757 0.054
θ1 Not mentioned 47° 48° 54° 51°
θ2 Not mentioned 0° 0° 19° 18°

Case study 1
300 analysis assuming slip surface as the vertical face passing through heel
Case study 2 of wall. From the result obtained, it can be observed that this
Difference from actual values (%)

250
200 Case study 3
150
Case study 4
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
Newmark Double wedge Simplified Double Zarrabi
wedge
Methods
Fig. 8. Variation of computed displacements from four methods with respect to
actual values for four case studies.
The weight of the wall was computed as 34.69 kN/m. The ground
motion data was extracted from PEER data base [42] as shown in Fig.
7(b).
Case study 3: A series of centrifuge experiments were performed on the
model cantilever retaining wall shown in Fig. 7(c) to develop a better
understanding of the distribution of magnitude of seismic earth
pressure at the Centre of Geotechnical Modelling UC Davis [10]. The
geometrical and material properties were taken from the report [40]
and shown in Fig. 7(c). The structure was subjected to Kobe (1994)
earthquake record from Takatori site, as sourced from PEER database
[42] and shown in Fig. 7(c). The interface friction angle at the base was
chosen as 30°. Corresponding to PGA of 0.64 g, the rigid body
translation (δ/H) according to the measurements was 0.0165 m for
5.67 m high wall.
Case study 4: A series of shaking table tests on cantilever retaining
wall at Earthquake and Large structures laboratory (EQUALS) of
University of Bristol, UK [12,41]. The model retaining wall was made
from concrete (γ = 24 kN/m3) and of the dimensions shown in Fig.
7(d). Both the backfill and foundation soil consisted of dry, yellow
Leighton Buzzard silica sand of unit weight 13.73 kN/m3 and friction
angle as 34°. The interface angle of foundation soil was 23°. The model
was subjected to an earthquake excitation of Sturno re- cord from
Irpinia-Italy obtained from [12].
6.2. OBSERVATIONS from CASE studies
The displacements computed by all the methods for all the four case
studies are as shown in Table 1 and as represented in Fig. 8.
methodology either underestimate or highly overestimate the com-
puted displacement.
•
For computation of results using Zarrabi's model, the soil mass above
heel has been assumed to be a part of wall and the soil to soil friction
angle has been considered as the interface angle. This model has been
observed to generally underestimate the obtained dis- placements.
The displacements computed using double wedge model can be
•
observed to be much closer to the actual displacements in all case
studies. Double wedge model, being generalized model, can be adopted
comfortably for all types of ground motions.
•
It can be observed that there is not much deviation in results com-
puted by double wedge model and simplified double wedge model.
Simplified double wedge model gives approximately close results to
the measurements and hence can be directly adopted by engineers
owing to its simplicity.
• It can be also observed that the results computed using the proposed
models slightly underestimates the computed displacements in most
cases. This needs consideration while prescribing design require-
ments. This will also need to give due care to the uncertainties in-
volved in the choice of parameters like interface friction angle be-
tween base of wall and soil.
7. Conclusion
A double wedge model for estimating permanent displacement is
proposed for realistic design of cantilever retaining walls subjected to
seismic excitation, which considers v-shaped rupture planes in the backfill
as observed in earlier experimental investigations. This model considers
relative movement of soil wedge along these rupture planes. The proposed
model accounts for velocity compatibility of the soil wedge with respect
to adjacent wall and backfill. Depth of subsidence of backfill soil has also
been computed in this approach. To reduce the computing effort, a
simplified double wedge approach is also proposed which considers fixed
shape of rupture planes during earthquake shaking. The formulations are
computed differently for outer rupture plane intersecting and not
intersecting the wall, and these models were validated by four different
case studies. Double wedge model was ob- served to compute closer
displacements to actual values. Simplified
double wedge model computed approximately close results to that of
double wedge model. Owing to the simplicity of the simplified double
wedge model, it can be easily implemented by engineers.

• The displacements are computed through Newmark's sliding block

P.R. JADHAV, A. S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
PRASHANT

Appendix A. Relationship between acceleration coefficients

Considering equilibrium with respect to plane BC as shown in Fig. 1(a),

kn kh sin 1 kv cos 1 (A-1)

khy kn sin 1 kt cos 1 (A-2)

kvy kn cos 1 kt sin 1 (A-3)

Substituting kn’ from Eq. (A-1)

khy kh sin2 1 kv sin 1 cos 1 kt cos 1 (A-4)

kvy kh sin 1 cos 1 kv cos2 1 kt sin 1 (A-5)

Considering equilibrium with respect to plane AB as shown in Fig. 1(a),

kn khy cos 2 kvy sin 2 (A-6)

kn khy cos 2 kvy sin 2 (A-7)

Equating Eqs. (A-6) and (A-7),

khy cos 2 kvy sin 2 khy cos 2 kvy sin 2 (A-8)

Assuming that the vertical ground acceleration is not that strong and can be resisted by the weight of the wall,
kvy kv (A-9)
Solving for kt' in (A-4) and substituting in (A-5), and using Eq. (A-9),
kvy kv tan 1 (kh khy) (A-10)

Thus, from Eq. (A-10), it is evident that k v k v, as the wedge ruptured at θ1 can undergo vertical movements due to its horizontal inertial
acceleration and horizontal and vertical ground motion.
Substituting (A-10) in (A-8) and rearranging,
khy khy (khy kh)tan 1 tan 2 (A-11)

Eq. (A-11) gives the relationship between all the horizontal acceleration coefficients.
Firstly, the intersection of rupture planes with walls are considered, the earth pressure force, P2 exerted through part of soil wedge on the back
face of wall can be directly calculated from M-O formulation.
Consider the free body diagram of the soil wedge as shown in Fig. 2(c). The equilibrium equations along normal and tangential direction to plane
BC are as given by Eqs. (A-12) and (A-13).
N Ws cos 1 P1 sin( 2 1) P2 sin( 1) Ws kn (A-12)

Substituting value of kn’ from Eq. (1) in Eq. (A-12)

N Ws cos 1 P1 sin( 2 1) P2 sin( 1) Ws (kh sin 1 kv cos 1) (A-13)

Wkt Ntan Ws sin 1 P1 cos( 2 1) P2 cos( 1) (A-14)

Substituting for kt’ from Eq. (A-4),

khy = (sin 1 cos 1 tan )(k v cos 1 + kh sin 1 cos 1)

P1 P2
cos 1 (sin( + 2 1)tan cos( + 2 1))
cos 1 (sin( + 1)tan cos( + 1))
Ws Ws (A-15)

Considering free body diagram of wall with locked soil mass, the equilibrium equations along horizontal and vertical direction with respect to
base are as follows,
Bn P1 =
Wkhy
 (A-16) –
PRASHANT2)
WP.R. P2 sin(
JADHAV, A.
) S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
705 79

(A-17)
kv W

P1
sin(
(A-18)
Bn tan b P1 cos( 2) P2 cos(

(1 k v )W tan b Wkhy+ P (sin(

2 + )tan b cos( + ))
cos( + ) sin( + )tan
Substituting in Eq. (A-15) and solving,

P2 T1 cos 1
khy = R + J1 ((1 k v)tan b khy) + J2
Ws (A-19)
khy'' can be obtained substituting Eq. (A-19) in Eq. (A-11) and rearranging,
J1 tan b (1 k v) kh G P2 T1 cos 1
+ J2 + R

1+G Ws
khy = 1
1+G
+ J1 (A-20)
P.R. JADHAV, A.
PRASHANT
The values for J1, J2, G, R, T1 and T2 are explained in the section.
When outer rupture plane is not intersecting wall, then following the steps similar to the above case, equilibrium equations with respect to free body
diagram can be deduced for both wall with locked soil mass and soil wedge and the interface angle along outer rupture plane making an inclination of θ2
will be considered ϕ.
References
[1] Earth retaining structures. British Standard; 1994.
[2] Earthquake Engineering Sectional Committee. Criteria for earthquake resistant de-
sign of structures (Part 3) bridges and retaining walls. India; 2002.
[3] EN 1998-5. - Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 5:
Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects, 2004, Eurocode 8;
2004.
[4] Anderson D, Martin G, Lam I, Wang J. Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining
Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments, NCHRP; 2008.
[5] U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. LRFD Seismic
Analysis and Design of Transportation Geotechnical Features and Structural
Foundations, FHWA-NHI-11-032; 2011.
[6] Bray JD, Travasarou T, Zupan J. Seismic displacement design of earth retaining
structures. InEarth Retention Conference 3: 638-655; 2010.
[7] Green RA, Olgun CG, Ebeling RM, Cameron WI. Seismically induced lateral earth
pressures on a cantilever retaining wall. Adv Mitig Technol Disaster Response
Lifeline Syst 2003:946–55.
[8] Ostadan F. Seismic soil pressure for building walls: an updated approach. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2005;25(7):785–93.
[9] Jo SB, Ha JG, Lee JS, Kim DS. Seismic Earth Pressures On Inverted T-Shape
Retaining Structures Via Dynamic Centrifuge Testing; 2014.
[10] Geraili Mikola R, Candia G, Sitar N. Seismic earth pressures on retaining structures
and basement walls in cohesionless soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2016
24;142(10):04016047.
[11] Watanbe K, Munaf Y, Koseki J, Tateyama M, Kojima K. Behaviors of several types of
model retaining walls subjected to irregular excitation. Soils Found 2003
15;43(5):13–27.
[12] Penna A, Scotto A, Kloukinas P, Taylor Ca, Mylonakis G, Evangelista A, Simonelli
AL. Advanced measurements on cantilever retaining wall models during earthquake
simulations. In: Proceedings of the 20th IMEKO TC4 International Symposium and
18th International Workshop on ADC Modelling and Testing Research on Electric
and Electronic Measurement for the Economic Upturn Benevento, Italy, September
15-17, 2014: pp. 127–32; 2014.
[13] Greco VR. Pseudo-static thrust on cantilever walls. Soils Found 2001
15;41(3):87–92.
[14] Kolay C, Prashant A, Jain SK. Nonlinear dynamic analysis and seismic coefficient for
abutments and retaining walls. Earthq Spectra 2013;29(2):427–51.
[15] Whitman RV, Liao S. Seismic design of gravity retaining walls. Massachusetts Inst of
Tech Cambridge Dept of Civil Engineering; 1985.
[16] Ghanbari A, Davoodi M, Ahmadi B. Seismic coefficient of pseudo-static analysis for
Masjed Soleiman dam. Indian Geotech J 2010;40(1):38–46.
[17] Lew M, Sitar N, Atik LA. Seismic Earth Pressures: Fact or Fiction? In Earth Retention
Conference 3: 656–73; 2010.
[18] Nadi B, Askari F, Farzaneh O. Seismic performance Of slopes In pseudo-static de-
signs with different safety factors. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng
2014;38(C2):465.
[19] Richards Jr R, Elms DG. Seismic behaviour of gravity retaining walls. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 1979:105. [ASCE 14496].
[20] Franklin AG, Chang FK. Permanent displacements of earth embankments by
Newmark Sliding block analysis, Report 5, miscellaneous paper S-71-17, U.S Army
S
oilD
yNm
A icsA
NDErtH
A QUk
AeEn
gin
eerin
g11
6(20
19)5
70–
5 79
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
[21] Newmark NM. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique
1965;15(2):139–60.
[22] Tricarico, M. Centrifuge Modelling of Flexible Retaining Walls in Saturated Sand
under Seismic Actions; 2015.
[23] Deyanova M, Lai CG, Martinelli M. Displacement–based parametric study on the
seismic response of gravity earth-retaining walls. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2016
31;80:210–24.
[24] Stamatopoulos CA, Mavromihalis C, Sarma S. Correction for geometry changes
during motion of sliding-block seismic displacement. ASCE, J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 2011;137(10):926–38.
[25] Stamatopoulos CA, Velgaki EG, Modaressi A, Lopez-Caballero F. Seismic displace-
ment of gravity walls by a two-body model. Bull Earthq Eng 2006 1;4(3):295–318.
[26] Zarrabi-Kashani Kamran. Sliding of gravity retaining wall during earthquakes
considering vertical acceleration and changing inclination of failure surface. Diss:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1979.
[27] Wong CP. Seismic Analysis and an improved Seismic Design Procedure for Gravity
retaining walls. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1982.
[28] Trenter N. a. Discussion: Approaches to the design of cantilever retaining walls.
Proceedings ICE - Geotech. Eng; 158: pp. 173–3; 2005. 〈https://doi.org/10.1680/
geng.2005.158.3.173〉.
[29] Scotto diSantolo. et. al., Experimental Investigation of Dynamic Behaviour of
Cantilever Retaining Walls, in: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE): 1–19; 2012.
[30] Huntington WC. Earth pressures and retaining walls. John Wiley & Sons; 1957.
[31] Huang CC, Luo WM. Behavior of cantilever and geosynthetic-reinforced walls on
deformable foundations. Geotext Geomembr 2010;28(5):448–59.
[32] Okabe S. General theory of earth pressure. J, Jpn Soc Civil Eng 1926;12:1.
[33] Mononobe N, Matsuo H. On the Deformation of Earth Pressure during Earthquakes
Proceedings, World Engineering Conference; 9: 177; 1929.
[34] Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures. 3rd ed Prentice Hall; 1995.
[35] Nishimura Y, Fukui S, Sato M, Kurose H. Shaking table tests and numerical simu-
lation of seismic response of the seawall. Proceedings of the third International
Conference On Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics; 1:335–338; 1995.
[36] Ortiz LA. Dynamic centrifuge testing of Cantilever retaining walls. California
Institute of Technology; 1982.
[37] Ortiz LA, Scott RF, Lee J. Dynamic centrifuge testing of a cantilever retaining wall.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1983 1;11(2):251–68.
[38] CALTECH "Bluebook" series - Volume 1: Strong Motion Earthquake Accelerograms -
Uncorrected Accelerograms, Part B, Earthquake Engineering |Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena.
[39] Mock E, Cheng L. Performance of retaining walls with and without sound wall
under seismic loads. Earthq Struct 2014;7(6):909–35.
[40] Al Atik L, Sitar N. Experimental and analytical study of the seismic performance of
retaining structures. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2009.
[41] Kloukinas P, Penna A, di Santolo AS, Bhattacharya S, Dietz MS, Dihoru L,
Evangelista A, Simonelli AL, Taylor CA, Mylonakis G. Experimental investigation of
dynamic behavior of cantilever retaining walls in Seismic Evaluation and
Rehabilitation of Structures. Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 477–93.
[42]. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).