Vlachakis 2014

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 3188
Seismic displacements of yielding gravity-type earth retaining walls –

Results from a FEM study
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
V.S. Vlachakis1, G.A. Athanasopoulos2, and A.Athanasopoulos-Zekkos3

1
Doctoral Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Greece;
email: vvlach@upatras.gr
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Greece; email:
gaa@upatras.gr
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2350 Hayward St. 2362 GG Brown Building; email:
addazekk@umich.edu
ABSTRACT: The results of an ongoing FEM parametric study are presented

regarding the dependence of the resulting seismic displacements of gravity-type earth
retaining wall on backfill rigidity (φ = 28°, 35° and 42°), wall height (H = 4.0m and
7.5m) and shaking characteristics (ah=0.1g to 0.8g). The response of the two walls
was analyzed by using the FE code Plaxis –which has been previously validated in a
study concerning the development of phase differences between wall inertia and
dynamic earth trust– for both harmonic and actual earthquake acceleration time
histories applied at the base of the mesh. The results of the analyses may be used as a
guide for selecting the seismic displacements that need to be taken into account in the
design of the examined type of earth retaining walls.
INTRODUCTION
Yielding earth retaining structures –and in particular gravity-type walls– are used
frequently in civil engineering works either as free standing units or as an integral part
of major infrastructures. The proper design of gravity-type retaining walls –applying
performance-based principles– requires the knowledge of the expected values of the
total earth thrust (static + dynamic) and of (translational and rotational) wall
displacements. Athanasopoulos-Zekkos et al. (2013) have recently studied a number
of issues related to the magnitude of seismic earth pressures that should be taken into
account in the stability calculations of gravity-type retaining works. The above
investigators have employed the FE method for examining the effects of
(cohesionless) backfill strength, wall height and shaking characteristics on the design
value of earth thrust (focusing on the phase difference between wall inertia and
backfill acceleration). In the present study the authors present and discuss a part of
results of the above study, related to the development of permanent wall
displacements under the action of sinusoidal (and actual earthquake) horizontal
Page 1
Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers
excitations.
BACKGROUND
The issue of horizontal seismic displacement (i.e. sliding) of gravity-type earth

retaining walls was first systematically addressed by Richards and Elms (1979). Their
well known methodology was subsequently improved by Whitman and Liao (1985)
by taking into account the deformability of the backfill, in a probabilistically based
framework, as discussed in Whitman (1990). A further improvement of the particular

methodology was presented recently by Bray et al. (2010), who modeled the soil as a
deformable mass with a nonlinear fully coupled stick-slip behavior, based on a very
large number of earthquake recordings.
The rotational seismic displacements of gravity-type retaining walls and their
combination with the sliding displacements has also been studied by a number of
investigators (Prakash, 1981; Nadim and Whitman, 1984; Whitman, 1993; Steedman
and Zeng, 1996; Wu and Prakash, 1996; Al-Homoud and Whitman, 1999; Richards et
al., 2000; Wu and Prakash, 2010) and a number of analytical formulations are
available that can be used as a guide in estimating the expected wall displacements in
applications conforming to the assumptions involved in the pertinent analytical
formulations.
NUMERICAL MODELING AND PARAMETRIC ANALYSES
In the present study the nonlinear FE code PLAXIS v. 2D-2011 was used for
performing dynamic analyses of the behavior of yielding, gravity-type earth retaining
walls under strong ground shaking. Parametric analyses were conducted by varying:
1) the rigidity of granular backfill (through variation of its friction angle, φ, and
elastic modulus, E), 2) the intensity of horizontal shaking by applying harmonic and
actual earthquake acceleration time histories with varying amplitudes of acceleration,
and 3) the height of wall. The soil behavior was assumed to be elastoplastic with a
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion and non-associated flow rule (ψ=0). The only source
of energy dissipation that was considered in the response analyses during the cyclic
loading of soil material, was the development of stress-strain hysteresis loops
developed during shaking. The results of numerical analyses are being studied in
terms of time histories of wall displacements as well as permanent displacements of
the wall. The validity and reliability of the FE code used in the analyses has been
demonstrated by Athanasopoulos-Zekkos et al. (2013) through comparisons with the
results of centrifuge tests reported by Nakamura (2006).
The parametric analyses were conducted by numerically modeling two gravity type
retaining walls –with heights equal to 4.0m and 7.50m– whose dimensions and
pertinent soil properties are given in Fig. 1. For each of the walls three combinations
of cohesionless backfill were considered corresponding to loose, medium dense and
dense conditions of sand. In all cases the bearing stratum was modeled as a dense
cohesionless material. The fundamental frequency of backfill stratum for each
combination of wall height and backfill conditions was estimated from the equation
f1= VS/(4H), where VS is the shear wave velocity of backfill material and H is the
Page 2
thickness of backfill stratum. Application of the above equation for the 4.0m wall
gives the following values of f1 for loose, medium dense and dense backfill: 2.8Hz,
5.6Hz, and 6.9Hz, respectively. The corresponding values for the 7.5m wall are:
1.5Hz, 3.0Hz and 3.7Hz, respectively. The finite element meshes used in the
numerical analyses of the two walls are shown in Fig. 2. The response of the two
walls was analyzed for both harmonic and actual earthquake acceleration time
histories applied at the base of the mesh. For the case of harmonic excitations the
applied input motion involved 12 cycles of sinusoidal acceleration, with frequency
f=3Hz and amplitude ranging from 0.05g to 0.70g. In the present study, the computed
horizontal acceleration at wall mid-height and 1.0m from the backface of the wall, is
used as average “backfill acceleration”, ah. The values of ah obtained in the analyses
ranged from 0.10g to 0.90g for the 4.0m wall and from 0.06g to 0.85g for the 7.5m
wall, reflecting the expected amplification of motion from the base of model to the
surface of backfill.
FIG. 1. Geometry of the two gravity type retaining walls and combinations of
backfill properties used in the parametric analyses (values of stiffness and shear
wave velocity of soil materials correspond to relatively high amplitude cyclic
strains).
Response analyses of the two walls were also conducted by applying the time
histories shown in Fig. 3 which are recorded horizontal motions in past earthquakes,
namely: the NS component of the Erzincan, Turkey, 1992 earthquake
[http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/spectras/21713/unscaled_sea
rches/86017/edit], and the fault-normal component of the Loma Prieta (LGPC) 1989
earthquake
[http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/spectras/190/unscaled_search
es/11707/edit], respectively. The two earthquake records have comparable peak
accelerations (~0.50g) and predominant frequencies equal to 0.57Hz and 1.58Hz,
respectively. An important differentiation of the two time histories is the number of
cycles of strong motion contained in the records: only one cycle in the Erzincan and
about 10 cycles in the Loma Prieta records. An example of computed time histories of
wall displacement for the cases of sinusoidal excitation and the two real earthquake
Page 3
.
FIG. 2. Finite element meshes used in the numerical analyses of 4.0m and 7.5m
earth retaining walls.
FIG. 3. Earthquake acceleration time histories used in the retaining wall

response analyses: (a) Erzincan, Turkey, 1992, and (b) Loma Prieta (LGPC),
USA, 1989.
Page 4
records is shown in Fig. 4. A typical, post shaking, deformed mesh for the 4.0m wall
under a backfill horizontal sinusoidal acceleration with amplitude of 0.45g, is shown
in Fig. 5. It is observed that as a result of horizontal shaking the wall is displaced and
rotated outward whereas the backfill has settled with a maximum value of 0.29m at
the wall backface. The present paper, however, focuses only on the horizontal
displacement of the wall.
It should be noted that the selected wall and backfill configurations, in combination
with the excitations used in the present study, resulted in values of normalized
shaking frequencies (i.e. ratios of excitation to fundamental frequencies, f/f0), ranging

from 0.44 to 2. This range spans the resonance conditions of the analyzed wall-
backfill systems and it is believed that it reflects realistic field conditions, to which
the results of the present study may find useful applications.
FIG. 4. Time histories of horizontal wall displacement (at mid-height of wall) for
the 7.50m wall (φ=35°) under (a) harmonic excitation, (b) the Erzincan
earthquake and (c) the Loma Prieta earthquake.
Page 5
FIG. 5. Deformed mesh of 4.0m wall following the application of 12 cycles of

sinusoidal horizontal shaking (f=3Hz).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the parametric analyses –regarding the permanent displacements of

the two walls– are summarized in Table 1 and are shown in graphical form in Fig. 6.
(D=1.46m)
1.2 . .
1.0 (a) H= 4.0m (12 cycles of loading)

Sinusoidal wave (f=3Hz)
0.8 ö=28°
D (m)
ö=35°
0.6 ö=42°
Earthquake records
0.4 Loma Prieta (LGPC), 1989
Erzincan, 1992
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
ah (g)
(D=1.46m)
1.2 . .
1.0
(b) H= 7.50m (12 cycles of loading)
0.8
D (m)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
ah (g)
FIG. 6. Residual translational displacements (mid-height of wall) in the active
direction (12 sinusoidal cycles), as a function of backfill acceleration and rigidity,
(a) for the 4m retaining wall and (b) for the 7.5m retaining wall.
Page 6
Table 1. Results of numerical analyses
H= 4.0m H=7.5m
Input
φ (°) Excitation acceleration Backfill Residual Backfill Residual
(g) acceleration displacement, acceleration displacement,
(g) D (m) (g) D (m)
0.05 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.00
28° 0.10 0.20 0.11 0.14 0.01
0.15 0.32 0.19 0.21 0.05
Sinusoidal,
3Hz 0.20 0.35 0.27 0.39 0.12
12 cycles 0.30 0.46 0.45 0.57 0.27
0.40 0.67 0.60 0.53 0.46
(loose sand)
0.70 0.77 1.08 0.57 1.02

Loma Prieta,
1989 (LGPC) 0.70 1.46 0.85 1.47
Earthquake ag=0.55g
Record Erzincan,
1992 0.43 0.32 0.37 0.44
ag=0.51g
0.05 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.00
35° 0.10 0.30 0.03 0.25 0.04
Sinusoidal, 0.15 0.35 0.14 0.35 0.09
3Hz 0.20 0.40 0.28 0.40 0.15
12 cycles 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.27
0.40 0.52 0.55 0.45 0.43
dense sand)
0.70 0.57 0.88 0.60 0.82

(medium
Loma Prieta,
1989 (LGPC) 0.51 0.67 0.64 1.11
Earthquake ag=0.55g
record Erzincan,
1992 0.56 0.18 0.55 0.24
ag=0.51g
0.05 0.10 0.00 0.17 0.00
42° 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.34 0.02
Sinusoidal, 0.15 0.37 0.03 0.45 0.06
3Hz 0.20 0.55 0.12 0.48 0.14
12 cycles 0.30 0.67 0.33 0.45 0.26
0.40 0.78 0.50 0.51 0.36
(dense sand)
0.70 0.71 0.76 0.85 0.65

Loma Prieta,
1989 (LGPC) 0.61 0.44 0.81 0.78
Earthquake ag=0.55g
record Erzincan,
1992 0.61 0.11 0.57 0.19
ag=0.51g
It is observed that for both cases of walls and conditions of backfill material the
residual displacement of wall increases exponentially with the intensity of backfill
acceleration. This type of dependence is in agreement with the empirical relations
suggested by Bray et al. (2010) for estimating permanent wall displacements.
Page 7
Furthermore, it is observed that for all examined cases (i.e. combinations of wall
height and backfill strength/rigidity) a critical (or threshold) value of horizontal
acceleration exists, ah,cr, below which the calculated displacement is practically
negligible. As shown in Fig. 7 the threshold value increases in general - with a
decreasing gradient - with the angle of internal friction of backfill material. An
interesting observation is that for φ<35° (medium dense to loose backfill conditions)
the value of ah,cr increases with the height of wall. Based on the above, it may be
concluded that for loose backfill conditions, the permanent displacements decreases
with increasing height of wall.
It should be noted that the plots depicted in Fig. 6 (in addition to results from
sinusoidal motion) include also results from the two earthquake recordings mentioned
in the previous section. It is recognized that a direct comparison between the response
due to actual earthquake shaking and 12 cycles of sinusoidal motion is challenging
due to differences in number of loading cycles, peak acceleration and frequency; thus,
the upper bound curves in Fig. 6 have been drawn based exclusively on the results of
sinusoidal motion. These curves can be used for assessing the range of expected
permanent wall displacements in practical applications involving yielding gravity-
type earth retaining walls, by taking into consideration the number of equivalent
cycles as well as the peak value of acceleration of the design earthquake.
FIG. 7. Dependence of threshold acceleration, ah, cr, on wall height and backfill
friction angle.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of numerical analyses conducted in the framework of the

present study, the following conclusions can be drawn, regarding the seismic
horizontal displacements of yielding gravity-type walls retaining cohesionless
backfill, under horizontal excitations:
1. For a given wall height and backfill strength/stiffness the wall displacements
remained negligible when the level of excitation is lower than a threshold
Page 8
(critical) value, ah, cr. This critical value of horizontal acceleration was found
to increase with increasing value of backfill friction angle.
2. For loose backfill soil conditions and for the same level of excitation the
critical acceleration increases with increasing wall height. This results in lower
permanent displacements for higher walls.
3. For horizontal accelerations above the critical value the wall displacement
increases exponentially with increasing level of shaking.
4. For the same level of excitation, the seismic displacement of the wall
increases with decreasing strength and stiffness of the backfill soil.

5. For earthquake excitations the results of the present study may be used as a
guide for predicting the permanent wall displacements, by taking into
consideration the number of cycles and the peak acceleration value of the
design earthquake.
REFERENCES
Alo-Homoud, A.S. and Whitman, R.V. (1999). “Seismic analysis and design of rigid
bridge abutments considering rotation and sliding incorporating non-linear soil
behavior.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 18: 247-277.
Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A., Vlachakis, V.S. and Athanasopoulos, G.A. (2013).
“Phasing issues in the seismic response of yielding, gravity-type earth retaining
walls – Overview and results from a FEM study.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, (in press).
Bray, I.D. Travasarou, Th. and Zupan, J. (2010). “Seismic displacement Design of
earth retaining structures.” (GSP 208), ASCE: 638-655.
Choudhary, D. and Nimbalkar, S.S. (2008). “Seismic rotational displacement of
gravity walls by pseudodynamic method.” International Journal of Geomechanics,
Vol. 8 (3), June 2008: 169-175.
Nadim, F. and Whitman, R.V. (1983). “Seismically induced movement of retaining
walls.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109 (7): 915-931.
Nadim, F. and Whitman, R.V. (1984). “Coupled sliding and tilting of gravity
retaining walls during earthquakes.” Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, Ca: 477-484.
Nakamura, S. (2006). “Re-examination of Mononobe-Okabe theory of gravity
retaining walls using centrifuge model tests.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 46: 135-
146.
Okamura, M. and Matsuo, O. (2002). “A displacement prediction method for
retaining walls under seismic loading.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 42 (1): 131-
138.
Prakash, S. (1981). “Analysis of rigid retaining walls during earthquakes.”
Proceedings of International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquakes Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MO: 993-1020.
Richards, R. Jr., Fishman, K.L., Mander, J.B. and Yao, D. (2000). “Tilting failure of
retaining walls including P-delta effect and application to Kobe walls.”
Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,
Page 9
New Zealand, paper No. 2467 (8 pages).

Richards, R. Jr. and Elms, D.G. (1979). “Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105 (GT40): 449-464.
Steedman, R.S. and Zeng, X. (1996). “Rotation of large gravity walls on rigid
foundations under seismic loading.” (GSP 60), ASCE: 38-56.
Whitman, R.V. (1990). “Seismic design and behavior of gravity retaining walls.”
(GSP 25), ASCE: 817-842.
Whitman, R.V. (1993). “Predicting earthquake-induced tilt of gravity retaining
walls.” Proceedings of: Retaining Structures, Robinson College, Cambridge,

Institution of Civil Engineers, (C.R.I. Clayton, Ed.), July 1992: 750-758.
Whitman, R.V. and Liao, S. (1984). “Seismic design of gravity retaining walls.”
Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San
Francisco, Ca.: 533-540.
Wu, Y. and Prakash, S. (1996). “On seismic displacement of rigid retaining walls”
(GSP 60), ASCE: 21-37.
Wu, Y. and Prakash, S. (2001). “Seismic displacement of rigid retaining walls-State
of the art.” Proceedings of: Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances
in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, USA,
2001, paper No. 7.05 (15 pages).
Wu, Y. and Prakash, S. (2010). “Design charts for retaining walls in seismic areas.”
(GSP 199), ASCE: 2973-2981.
Zeng, X. and Steedman, R.S. (2001). “Rotating block method for seismic
displacement of gravity walls.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126 (8): 709-717.
http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/spectras/21713/unscaled_sear
ches/86017/edit.
http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/spectras/190/unscaled_search
es/11707/edit.
Page 10

Vlachakis 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vlachakis 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 3188

Seismic displacements of yielding gravity-type earth retaining walls –

V.S. Vlachakis1, G.A. Athanasopoulos2, and A.Athanasopoulos-Zekkos3

ABSTRACT: The results of an ongoing FEM parametric study are presented

The issue of horizontal seismic displacement (i.e. sliding) of gravity-type earth

framework, as discussed in Whitman (1990). A further improvement of the particular

NUMERICAL MODELING AND PARAMETRIC ANALYSES

FIG. 3. Earthquake acceleration time histories used in the retaining wall

shaking frequencies (i.e. ratios of excitation to fundamental frequencies, f/f0), ranging

FIG. 5. Deformed mesh of 4.0m wall following the application of 12 cycles of

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the parametric analyses –regarding the permanent displacements of

1.0 (a) H= 4.0m (12 cycles of loading)

Table 1. Results of numerical analyses

0.70 0.77 1.08 0.57 1.02

0.70 0.57 0.88 0.60 0.82

0.70 0.71 0.76 0.85 0.65

Based on the results of numerical analyses conducted in the framework of the

increases with decreasing strength and stiffness of the backfill soil.

New Zealand, paper No. 2467 (8 pages).

walls.” Proceedings of: Retaining Structures, Robinson College, Cambridge,

You might also like