See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290101426

A study of the seismic response of reinforced soil retaining walls to rocking

ground excitation

Conference Paper · April 2006

CITATIONS READS

4 551

2 authors:

Kianoosh Hatami Richard J. Bathurst

University of Oklahoma Royal Military College of Canada
97 PUBLICATIONS   1,816 CITATIONS    294 PUBLICATIONS   9,440 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Laboratory testing View project

Performance based design of reinforced soil structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard J. Bathurst on 19 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
April 18-22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA
Paper No. 1853

A STUDY OF THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF REINFORCED SOIL RETAINING

WALLS TO ROCKING GROUND EXCITATION

Kianoosh Hatami1 and Richard J. Bathurst2

ABSTRACT

The rocking motion of ground shaking has been ignored in seismic response
analysis of reinforced soil retaining walls. However, these modes of vibration
could be significant if the width of the retaining wall is comparable to the quarter
length of the traveling surface wave. In this study, the rocking effect of ground
motion on the seismic response of a typical full-height panel reinforced soil
retaining wall is investigated using a numerical approach. Uniform and non-
uniform variable-amplitude sinusoidal motions are introduced across the base of
the reinforced soil wall model to investigate the influence of ground motion non-
uniformity on the model wall response. The results of facing lateral deformation,
reinforcement load and toe (i.e. footing) reaction in the wall subjected to different
input acceleration records are compared. Conclusions are drawn regarding the
influence of rocking modes of ground acceleration on wall response, and backfill
failure mechanisms are compared to those due to unidirectional horizontal
excitation alone.

Introduction

Effects of ground rocking motion have been investigated for rigid foundations, basement
walls, caisson walls and conventional retaining wall structures (e.g. Lee and Trifunac 1987,
Ostadan and White 1998, Mohajeri et al. 2002). It has been shown that the ground rocking
motion can significantly influence the magnitude of maximum seismic soil pressure on
embedded structures (Ostadan and White 1998). Consequently, conventional design procedures
for gravity-type retaining walls may be non-conservative when a rocking response is anticipated
due to earthquake ground motions (Mohajeri et al. 2002). The influence of input ground motion
characteristics (Hatami and Bathurst 2001) and the effect of uniform vertical ground motion
(Ling and Leshchinsky 1998) on the response of reinforced soil retaining walls has been the
subject of earlier studies. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, rocking modes of
vibration due to non-uniform vertical ground acceleration have not been examined for the case of

1
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman,
Oklahoma, USA 73019
2
Professor and Research Director, GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC, Department of Civil Engineering,
Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario, K7K 7B4
reinforced soil wall systems.
In this study, the effect of ground rocking motion on the seismic response of a 6 m-high,
full-height panel reinforced soil retaining wall is investigated using a numerical approach.
Uniform and non-uniform, variable-amplitude sinusoidal motions are introduced across the base
of the reinforced soil wall model to investigate the influence of ground motion non-uniformity
on the model wall response in terms of facing deformation, reinforcement load and wall toe
reactions.

Numerical Model

Material Properties and Boundary Conditions

Fig. 1 shows the numerical model of a 6 m-high reinforced soil propped panel wall
generated using the program FLAC (Itasca 2005). The backfill of the wall model was selected to
have a uniform height and a large aspect ratio (i.e. backfill width to wall height ratio, B/H = 3) to
contain the anticipated shear failure plane within the model (i.e. avoid the intersection of a
potential internal soil failure plane with the far-end boundary). The large backfill aspect ratio
also helped reduce the influence of reflected waves (i.e. from the truncated far-end boundary) on
the wall response (Bathurst and Hatami 1998). The effect of the far-end boundary was further
reduced by applying a free-field boundary condition (Itasca 2005) at this boundary that
simulated free propagation of the generated waves in the backfill away from the wall. However,
using the free-field boundary condition at the truncated boundary required that the last 0.6 m
column of backfill zones in contact with this boundary be modeled as a linear elastic material to
avoid any possibility of plastic behavior (Fig. 1). The remaining backfill zones were modeled as
a purely frictional, elastic-plastic material with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (friction angle
φ = 35o, dilation angle ψ = 6o) and unit weight γ = 20 kN/m3.

Stiff Thin soil interface column Free-field transmitting boundary

facing 0.6 m
panel 17.4 m
Reinforcement layers
Layer 6

H=6m

Non-yielding
region
Layer 1
1m
Hinge L = 4.2 m Base acceleration (Fig.
Fixed boundary
Free-field transmitting boundary Stiff foundation

Figure 1. Numerical grid for the 6 m-high reinforced soil wall model subjected to input base
acceleration.
 The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the entire backfill material were assumed as Es
= 33 MPa and νs = 0.3, respectively. A constant stiffness soil model was used in the study in
order to simplify the analysis. However, the elastic perfectly plastic soil model is a nonlinear
model with hysteretic behavior once soil plasticity occurs. In addition, the soil model adopted in
this analysis has been shown to result in a shear failure plane with similar geometry to that
observed in physical reinforced soil model walls with comparable reinforcement length to wall
height ratio (L/H) (Hatami et al. 2005). A similar numerical model was successfully used by the
authors and co-workers to simulate the observed response of physical model reinforced soil
walls tested on a shaking table (e.g. El-Emam et al. 2002, 2004). Nonetheless, it is understood
that the predicted response results of the wall model subjected to different ground motions using
the simple soil model in the current study are comparable in qualitative terms only. Analyses
were carried out in large-strain mode.
The reinforcement nodes were perfectly attached to the backfill gridpoints, which
resulted in a no-slip interface condition between the reinforcement layers and the backfill. The
no-slip interface condition resulted in a significantly faster computation speed compared to the
cases where the backfill-reinforcement interface was modeled using the FLAC grout utility. The
no-slip interface condition is justified given the magnitude of soil overburden pressure on the
reinforcement layers in a 6 m-high wall and efficient interlocking of the geogrid or geotextile
reinforcement material with the granular backfill soil. The reinforcement stiffness value was
assumed as J = 500 kN/m, which represents a mid-range stiffness value for typical geogrids
available on the market (IFAI 2005). The tensile yield strength of the reinforcement layers and
connections were assumed as Ty = 30 kN/m which was greater than computed loads, hence
failure of the reinforcement layers was not a concern in this study.
The soil and reinforcement elements were constructed in layers, while the continuous
facing panel was braced horizontally using rigid external supports. The panel supports were then
released in sequence from the top of the structure. The wall toe (i.e. footing) was slaved to the
foundation for translation degrees of freedom but was free to rotate. Additional details on the
model boundary conditions, geometry, viscous damping, and constitutive models for the soil and
reinforcement can be found in the paper by Bathurst and Hatami (1998).

Seismic Loading
After the props were released and static equilibrium was achieved, the wall models were
subjected to the variable-amplitude harmonic ground motion record illustrated in Fig. 2 (Bathurst
and Hatami 1998, Itasca 2005). This acceleration record was applied in horizontal or vertical
direction (i.e. depending on the analysis case in Table 1) to all nodes at the bottom of the soil
zone at equal time intervals of ∆t = 0.02 s. The input acceleration history in Fig. 2 has both
increasing and decaying peak acceleration portions simulating an idealized ground motion record
and is expressed by the time-dependent portion of the following equation:

u&&( x, t ) = f ( x ) β e −αt t ζ Sin ( 2πft ) (1)

where α = 5.5, β = 55, and ζ = 12 are constant coefficients; f = frequency; and t = time. The peak
amplitude of the input acceleration using the parametric values above is 0.2g. The spatial
variation is represented by the term f(x) expressed in two different forms:
 0.3
α = 5.5

Base Acceleration (g)

0.2 β = 55
0.1 ζ = 12
f = 5 Hz
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (s)
Figure 2. Input acceleration history applied at the wall-backfill foundation (see Eqs. 1 and 2 for
the spatial variation and definition of parameters).

Table 1. Analysis cases showing the direction and spatial variation of input acceleration
at the backfill foundation level.

Analysis case Base acceleration

1 H Uniform (Eqs. 1 & 2a)
2 V Uniform (Eqs. 1 & 2a)
3 V Non-uniform (Eqs. 1 & 2b,
λ = 4H)
4 V Non-uniform (Eqs. 1 & 2b,
λ = 12H)
Note: H: Horizontal; V: Vertical;
λ = wavelength of a non-uniform sinusoidal surface wave

f ( x) = 1 (uniform base acceleration) (2a)

f ( x) = Sin 2πλ ( x − xo ) (non-uniform base acceleration) (2b)

In Eq. 2b, the parameters λ, xo and x denote the wavelength of the seismic surface wave,
x-coordinate of a reference point (i.e. facing toe, in this study) and the distance between any
given point on the backfill-foundation interface and the selected reference point, respectively.
The input vertical acceleration was applied to the backfill foundation in three different ways. In
case 2, it was applied uniformly across the entire backfill foundation (i.e. using Eq. 2a). In cases
3 and 4, the peak ground motion amplitude was varied across the backfill foundation using Eq.
2b with λ = 4H and λ = 12H, respectively. It is worth noting that the applied vertical motions are
a simplification of the actual orbital paths followed by the foundation soil particles as the surface
waves propagate through the wall site. The fundamental frequency of the wall model was
estimated as f11 = 3.8 Hz using the following equation proposed by Wu and Finn (1996):
 2
1 G ⎛ 2 ⎞⎛ H ⎞
f11 = 1+ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (3)
4H ρ ⎝ 1 − υ ⎠⎝ B ⎠

where f11 = frequency in Hz corresponding to the two-dimensional fundamental mode-shape of

the elastic backfill; and G, ρ and ν are the backfill shear modulus, density and Poisson’s ratio,
respectively. Results of previous numerical analyses by Bathurst and Hatami (1998) and Hatami
and Bathurst (2000, 2001) have shown that Eq. 3 provides a reasonable estimate for the
fundamental frequency of two-dimensional reinforced soil wall models. The input acceleration
frequency was selected as f = 5 Hz, which results in f/f11> 1. This was done to avoid the
resonance of the input motion with the wall model and at the same time, avoid subjecting the
wall model to quasi-static loading associated with the f/f11 < 1 frequency range. The response of
reinforced soil walls to actual, recorded ground acceleration records has been shown to be much
less than the response to a single-frequency sinusoidal input acceleration (Bathurst and Hatami
1998). Furthermore, applying a sinusoidal input acceleration with frequency close to or at the
fundamental frequency of the model wall will result in unrealistic (i.e. excessive) deformations
and predicted reinforcement loads.

Results
Wall Facing Displacements

Fig. 3 shows the history of facing horizontal displacements at the wall crest during the
application of base acceleration records expressed by Eq. 1.

0.12
Xd Uniform horizontal
Facing outward displacement, Xd (m)

0.10
Non-uniform vertical, λ = 4H
Wall
0.08
Uniform vertical
0.06

0.04

0.02 Non-uniform vertical, λ = 12H

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

Figure 3. History of wall facing displacement (at the wall crest) subjected to different variable
amplitude sinusoidal base acceleration records.
 It can be observed that the overall pattern of the wall displacement with time is
cumulative and independent of the direction or uniformity of the sinusoidal base excitation
record. For the cases examined, the facing deformation is greatest when the wall is subjected to a
uniform horizontal base acceleration. However, results of Fig. 3 indicate that the maximum
horizontal displacement of the wall subjected to uniform vertical ground acceleration is also
significant (i.e. 60% of that recorded for the horizontal acceleration case). In addition, the
magnitudes of horizontal wall displacement at similar times under vertical excitation are
dependent on the level of non-uniformity of the input ground motion. For example, wall
horizontal displacement magnitudes due to non-uniform vertical motion with λ = 4H are almost
as great as those computed for the wall subjected to horizontal acceleration alone.

Reinforcement Loads

Fig. 4 shows the history of connection load for an example reinforcement layer (i.e. layer
2 from the bottom) during the application of the base acceleration records in Table 1. The history
of reinforcement loads in other layers was found to be similar to that shown in Fig. 4 for all the
input ground motion cases examined.

30

Non-uniform vertical
λ = 4H Uniform horizontal
25
Tmax (kN/m)

Uniform vertical

20
Non-uniform vertical
λ = 12H

15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

Figure 4. History of connection load in reinforcement layer 2 of the wall model subjected to
different variable amplitude sinusoidal base accelerations.

Similar to wall facing displacement response, it can be observed that the overall pattern
of the reinforcement load response with time is cumulative and independent of the direction or
uniformity of the sinusoidal base excitation. Results shown in Fig. 4 indicate that maximum
reinforcement load in the wall subjected to vertical ground acceleration is influenced by the non-
uniformity of the input ground motion and is comparable to values for the wall subjected to a
horizontal acceleration record. The history and magnitude of reinforcement load in the wall
when subjected to the non-uniform vertical motion with λ = 4H is very close to that computed
for the wall subjected to the uniform horizontal acceleration record.
Fig. 5 shows the distribution of reinforcement load with wall height at the end of the 6-
second long base excitation records in Table 1. It can be observed that, except for the topmost
and lowermost layers that are in close proximity to the model boundaries, the distributions of
reinforcement connection loads with height are uniform and the trends in data are independent of
the input base acceleration type examined in this study. The observed reinforcement distributions
are consistent with those obtained in an earlier study by the authors using a reinforcement
stiffness value of J = 500 kN/m (Bathurst and Hatami 1998).

5
Uniform horizontal
Uniform vertical
4 Non-uniform vertical, λ = 4H
Elevation (m)

Non-uniform vertical, λ = 12H

3

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Tmax (kN/m)
Figure 5. Reinforcement connection loads in the wall at the end of base excitation subjected to
different input accelerations.

The magnitudes of reinforcement load in the wall subjected to non-uniform vertical

acceleration with λ = 12H are 75% of the values of the other wall cases despite the smaller wall
displacement response compared to the other base acceleration cases (Fig. 3). This suggests that
for all base acceleration cases other than the vertical base acceleration with λ = 12H, shear
failure of the soil behind the facing panel occurred and this led to greater facing lateral
displacements compared to the vertical base acceleration case with λ = 12H. This conclusion is
confirmed by the plots of shear strain in the backfill subjected to all four loading cases as shown
in Fig. 6. The results shown in Fig. 6 also indicate that maximum reinforcement loads for all
layers occur at the connections with the full-height facing panel. A practical implication of this
result is that the connection strength rather than the in-soil rupture strength of the reinforcement
is the controlling factor for the internal design of these systems.
Fig. 7 shows histories of horizontal component (RH) and vertical component (RV) of
facing toe (footing) loads during the application of the base acceleration cases in Table 1. In
contrast to the wall facing displacement response and reinforcement load response, the final
magnitudes of footing load components at the end of the base excitation in all four cases are not
significantly different from the static (i.e. end-of-construction) values. Furthermore, the ratio of
mean values of RH and RV does not vary significantly from the static values during seismic
loading. However, the vertical footing load shows a much greater dynamic amplitude compared
to the horizontal component. This phenomenon is important to consider in the design of retaining
wall footings in seismically active regions.

(a) Uniform horizontal base acceleration (b) Uniform vertical base acceleration

λ/4
(c) Non-uniform vertical base acceleration (λ = 4H) (d) Non-uniform vertical base acceleration (λ = 12H)

Figure 6. Backfill shear strains and reinforcement loads at the end of base excitation with
different input acceleration records. Notes: (1) Contour interval for shear strain in soil
= 0.5%; (2) Maximum computed reinforcement loads occur at the connections; (3)
Arrows at the backfill-foundation interface indicate the base input acceleration type.

Results shown in Fig. 3 through 7 indicate that seismic response of reinforced soil full-
height panel walls can be greatly influenced by the non-uniformity of the vertical input ground
motion. A slight non-uniformity in the input base acceleration (i.e. when the seismic wavelength
is much greater than the wall height) may result in a smaller wall response compared to a
uniform vertical acceleration record. However, the response of the wall to vertical base
acceleration with a short wavelength (i.e. comparable to the wall height) can be quite significant
and comparable to the wall response to uniform vertical or horizontal acceleration records.
 200 200
Uniform horizontal Uniform vertical
150 150
R (kN/m)

R (kN/m)
RV RV
100 100

RH RH
50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (s) Time (s)
200 200
Non-uniform vertical, λ = 4H Non-uniform vertical, λ = 12H
150 150
R (kN/m)

R (kN/m)
RV
100 100 RV

RH
50 50 RH

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 7. History of wall toe reactions subjected to different variable amplitude sinusoidal base
acceleration records. Notes: RV = vertical toe load component and RH = horizontal toe
load component.

Conclusions

Response of an idealized full-height panel reinforced soil wall to different variable-

amplitude sinusoidal base acceleration records is examined using a numerical modeling
approach. Specifically, the response of the wall to two different non-uniform vertical input
ground motions was compared to that using uniform vertical and horizontal base acceleration
records. Results of the study show that seismic response of reinforced soil full-height panel walls
can be greatly influenced by the non-uniformity of the vertical input ground motion. A slight
non-uniformity in the input base acceleration (i.e. when the seismic wavelength is much greater
than the wall height) resulted in a smaller wall response compared to that to a uniform vertical
acceleration record. However, the wall response to a non-uniform vertical base acceleration
record with a short wavelength (i.e. comparable to the wall height) was found to be quite
significant and comparable to the wall response to uniform horizontal and vertical acceleration
records.
Wall responses to uniform horizontal acceleration, uniform vertical acceleration and non-
uniform vertical acceleration records with a quarter wavelength equal to the wall height were
 found to be similar in magnitude and shape. This can be attributed to the fact that these three
loading cases induce comparable modal participation from the fundamental vibration mode of
the backfill of given height (H).
It was found that the ratio between mean values of the horizontal and vertical wall
footing reactions does not significantly change from the static values during the period of applied
seismic loading. However, the vertical footing load was much greater in dynamic amplitude
compared to the horizontal component. This phenomenon is important to consider in the design
of the footing for retaining walls in seismically active regions.

Acknowledgments

The first author wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the Office of the Vice
President for Research at the University of Oklahoma through the Junior Faculty Research
Program Award.
References

Bathurst, R. J. and K. Hatami, 1998. Seismic response analysis of a reinforced-soil retaining wall.
Geosynthetics International (special issue on Earthquake Engineering), 5(1-2), 127-166.
El-Emam, M. M., R. J. Bathurst and K. Hatami, 2002. Effect of reinforcement design on seismic response
of reinforced-soil retaining walls. International Conference on Physical Modeling in Geotechnics
(ICPMG), St. John’s, NF, Canada, July 2002, 1011-1016.
El-Emam, M. M., R. J. Bathurst and K. Hatami, 2004. Numerical modeling of reinforced-soil retaining
walls subjected to base acceleration. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(13WCEE), Vancouver, BC, August 2004, paper #2621.
Hatami, K. and R. J. Bathurst, 2000. Effect of structural design on fundamental frequency of reinforced-
soil retaining walls. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 19(3), 137-157.
Hatami, K. and R. J. Bathurst, 2001. Investigation of seismic response of reinforced-soil retaining walls.
4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics, March 2001, San Diego, CA, USA, Paper no. 7.18.
Hatami, K., R. J. Bathurst and M. M. El-Emam, 2005. Acceleration amplification in the backfill of
reinforced soil walls with different heights. 3rd Biot Conference on poromechanics, Norman,
Oklahoma, USA, May 2005, (Abousleiman, Cheng & Ulm Eds.), Balkema, London, 725-731.
Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI), 2005. Engineering Solutions for Soil Roads, Water
and Waste, Specifier’s Guide, December 2004, Roseville, MN, USA.
Itasca Consulting Group, 2005. FLAC - Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, v 5.0, Itasca Consulting
Group Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Lee, V. W. and M. D. Trifunac, 1987. Rocking strong earthquake accelerations. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 6(2), 75-89.
Ling, H. I. and D. Leshchinsky, 1998. Effects of vertical acceleration on seismic design of geosynthetic-
reinforced soil structures. Géotechnique, 48(3), 347-373.
Mohajeri, M., K. Ichii and T. Tamura, 2002. Modification of the sliding block concept for caisson walls.
Eleventh Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, November 2002, 191, 1015-
1020.
Ostadan, F. and W. H. White, 1998. Lateral seismic soil pressure - an updated approach, US-Japan SSI
Workshop, September 1998, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, PDF.
Wu, G. and W. D. L. Finn, 1996. Seismic pressures against rigid walls. ASCE Special Conference on
Analysis and design of Retaining Structures against Earthquakes, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 60. Washington, DC, USA, 1-18.

View publication stats