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

net/publication/225723174

Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth pressure behind retaining

wall

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · October 2006

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-005-1134-x

CITATIONS READS

189 1,227

2 authors:

Deepankar Choudhury Sanjay Shrawan Nimbalkar

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay University of Technology Sydney
283 PUBLICATIONS   4,554 CITATIONS    162 PUBLICATIONS   3,214 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Expert advise on Geotechnical Design of Foundations for Dhirubhai Ambani International Convention and Exhibition Centre (DAICEC), BKC, Mumbai View project

Seismic Design and Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction (DSSI) Analysis for Pile Foundations for Oil Tanks in Iraq View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deepankar Choudhury on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2006) 24: 1103–1113 Ó Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10706-005-1134-x

Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth

pressure behind retaining wall

DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURYw and SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, 400
076, India

(Received 10 November 2004; accepted 12 July 2005)

Abstract. Knowledge of seismic active earth pressure behind rigid retaining wall is very
important in the design of retaining wall in earthquake prone region. Commonly used
Mononobe-Okabe method considers pseudo-static approach, which gives the linear distri-
bution of seismic earth pressure in an approximate way. In this paper, the pseudo-dynamic
method is used to compute the distribution of seismic active earth pressure on a rigid retaining
wall supporting cohesionless backfill in more realistic manner by considering time and phase
difference within the backfill. Planar rupture surface is considered in the analysis. Effects of a
wide range of parameters like wall friction angle, soil friction angle, shear wave velocity,
primary wave velocity and horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations on seismic active earth
pressure have been studied. Results are provided in tabular and graphical non-dimensional
form with a comparison to pseudo-static method to highlight the realistic non-linearity of
seismic active earth pressures distribution.
Key words. seismic active earth pressure, phase difference, pseudo-dynamic approach, non-
linear distribution.

1. Introduction
Study of seismic active earth pressure is essential for the safe design of retaining wall
in the seismic zone. Many researchers have developed several methods to determine
the seismic active earth pressure on a rigid retaining wall due to earthquake loading.
The pioneering work on earthquake-induced lateral earth pressure under active and
passive conditions acting on a retaining wall were reported by Okabe (1926) and
Mononobe and Matsuo (1929). This pseudo-static approach following the Cou-
lomb’s static earth pressure analysis is known as Mononobe–Okabe method (see
Kramer, 1996) to compute seismic earth pressure. Recent works of Richards et al.
(1999), Choudhury and Singh (2005) and few others also considered the pseudo-static
method to compute seismic active earth pressure behind a retaining wall. But in the
pseudo-static method, the dynamic nature of earthquake loading is considered in a
very approximate way without taking any effect of time. To overcome this drawback,

w
Corresponding author: Dr. Deepankar Choudhury (E-mail: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in; phone +91-22-
25767335/8335; fax +91-22-25767302)
1104 DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

A D
Qv

Qh
z z

H W

φ
δ
h F
Pae Vs, Vp
B α

Figure 1. Model retaining wall considered for computation of pseudo dynamic active earth pressure.

the time and phase difference due to finite shear wave propagation behind a retaining
wall was considered using a simple and more realistic way of pseudo-dynamic
method, proposed by Steedman and Zeng (1990). Again Zeng and Steedman (1993)
compared the theoretical results with the centrifuge model test results to validate the
pseudo-dynamic method.
Steedman and Zeng (1990) considered in their analysis a vertical rigid retaining
wall supporting a particular value of soil friction angle (/) and a particular value of
seismic horizontal acceleration (khg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity) only.
But the effect of various parameters such as wall friction angle (d), soil friction angle
(/), shear wave velocity (Vs), primary wave velocity (Vp), both the horizontal and
vertical seismic accelerations (khg and kvg) on the seismic active earth pressure be-
hind a rigid retaining wall by the pseudo-dynamic method didn’t get any attention
till today. Hence in this paper, a complete study has been carried out to determine
the seismic active earth pressure behind a rigid retaining wall by pseudo-dynamic
approach in a more general way.

2. Method of analysis
Similar to the pseudo-dynamic approach which considers finite shear wave velocity
within the backfill material as proposed by Steedman and Zeng (1990), here also it is
assumed that the shear modulus (G) is constant with the depth of retaining wall
throughout the backfill. Only the phase and not the magnitude of accelerations are
varying along the depth of the wall.
Consider the fixed base vertical rigid retaining wall AB of height H as shown in
Figure 1. The wall is supporting a cohesionless backfill material with horizontal
ground. In the present study, both the shear wave velocity, Vs ¼ ðG=qÞ1=2 , where, q is
the density of the backfill material and primary wave velocity,
Vp ¼ ðGð2
2mÞ=qð1
2mÞÞ1=2 , where m is the poisson’s ratio of the backfill are
PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH 1105

assumed to act within the soil media due to earthquake loading. For most geological
materials, Vp/Vs = 1.87 (Das, 1993). The period of lateral shaking, T=2p/ x=4H/Vs
(Kramer, 1996), where x is the angular frequency is considered in the analysis.
A planer rupture surface inclined at an angle, a with the horizontal is considered in the
analysis.
If the base of the wall is subjected to harmonic horizontal seismic acceleration of
amplitude ahg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and harmonic vertical
seismic acceleration of amplitude avg, the acceleration at any depth z and time t,
below the top of the wall can be expressed as,


H
z
ah ðz; tÞ ¼ ah sin t
ð1Þ
Vs


H
z
av ðz; tÞ ¼ av sin t
ð2Þ
Vp
The mass of a thin element of wedge at depth z is
cH
z
mðzÞ ¼ dz ð3Þ
g tan a
where, c is the unit weight of the backfill.
The total horizontal inertial force acting within the failure zone can be expressed as,
ZH
Qh ðtÞ ¼ mðzÞah ðz; tÞdz
0 ð4Þ
kcah
¼ ½2pH cos wf þ kðsin wf
sin wtÞ
4p2 g tan a
where, k = TVs is the wavelength of the vertically propagating shear wave and
f=t)H/Vs. The equation (4) is the same as that obtained by Steedman and Zeng
(1990).
Now, the total vertical inertial force acting within the failure zone can be expressed
as,
ZH
Qv ðtÞ ¼ mðzÞav ðz; tÞdz
0 ð5Þ
gcav
¼ 2 ½2pH cos xw þ gðsin xw
sin xtÞ
4p g tan a
where, g ¼ TVp , is the wavelength of the vertically propagating primary wave. And
w ¼ t
H=Vp .
The special case of a rigid wedge is given, in the limit as
cH2 ah ah
lim ðQh Þmax ¼ ¼ W ¼ kh W ð6Þ
ms !1 2g tana g
1106 DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

cH2 av av
lim ðQv Þmax ¼ ¼ W ¼ kv W ð7Þ
mp !1 2g tana g
which is equivalent to the pseudo static force assumed in the Mononobe–Okabe
method. The total (static + seismic) active thrust, Pae(t) can be obtained by
resolving the forces on the wedge and considering the equilibrium of the forces and
hence Pae(t) can be expressed as follows,
W sinða
/Þ þ Qh ðtÞ cosða
/Þ
Qv ðtÞ sinða
/Þ
Pae ðtÞ ¼ ð8Þ
cosðd þ /
aÞ
The seismic active earth pressure coefficient, Kae is defined as
2Pae
Kae ¼ ð9Þ
cH2
Substituting for Qh and Qv in the equation (8), an expression for Kae in terms of Qh,
Qv and W can be derived.
  9
1 sinða
/Þ kh TVs cosða
/Þ >
>
Kae ¼ þ  >
>
tan a cosðd þ /
aÞ 2p2 tan a H cosðd þ /
aÞ >
>
  >
>
kv TVp sinða
/Þ >
>
 m1
2   m2 >
>
>
>
2p tan a H cosðd þ /
aÞ >
=
where,


t H
 
TVs
 
t H
  t  > >
>
>
m1 ¼ 2p cos 2p
þ sin 2p

sin 2p >
>
T TVs H T TVs T >
>
>
>

         >
>
t H TVp t H t >
>
m2 ¼ 2p cos 2p
þ sin 2p

sin 2p >
;
T TVp H T TVp T
ð10Þ
From equation (10), it is seen that Kae is function of the dimensionless parameters H/
TVs, H/TVp, t/T and the wedge angle a.
The maximum value of Kae is obtained by optimizing Kae with respect to t/T and a.
It is found that Kae is a function of H/TVs and H/TVp, which is the ratio of time for a
shear wave and primary wave to travel the full height of the wall to the period of
lateral shaking.
Total seismic active thrust can also be defined as,
Pae ¼ Pas þ Pahd
Pavd ð11Þ
where, Pas is the pressure acting on the retaining wall due to vertical weight of the
wedge, Pahd is the pressure acting on the wall due to horizontal inertia of the
wedge and Pavd is the pressure acting on the wall due to vertical inertia of the
wedge.
And the seismic active earth pressure distribution can be obtained by differenti-
ating the total active thrust as,
PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH 1107

@Pae ðtÞ cz sinða
/Þ

pae ðtÞ ¼ ¼
@z tan a cosðd þ /
aÞ

 
kh cz cosða
/Þ z
þ sin w t

tan a cosðd þ /
aÞ Vs

 
km cz sinða
/Þ z

sin w t
ð12Þ
tan a cosðd þ /
aÞ Vp
The equation (12) is similar to that obtained by Steedman and Zeng (1990) for the
specific case of kv ¼ 0. The first term in equation (12), represents the static earth
pressure acting on the wall. The second and third term represent the dynamic earth
pressure acting on the retaining wall. The second term denotes pressure due to
horizontal inertia of the soil wedge and the third term represents pressure due to
vertical inertia of the soil wedge.

3. Results and discussions

In the case of cohesionless soils, to avoid the phenomenon of shear fluidization (i.e.,
the plastic flow of the material at a finite effective stress) for the certain combinations
of kh and kv (Richards et al., 1990) the values of / considered in the analysis are to
satisfy the relationship given by,


kh
/ > tan
1 ð13Þ
1
km
Results are presented in the tabular and graphical form for normalized seismic active
earth pressure along the normalized depth of the wall. Variation of parameters
considered is as follows:
/ ¼ 20 ; 30 ; 40 and 50 :

d ¼ 0; 0:25/; 0:5/ and /:

kh ¼ 0:0; 0:1; 0:2; 0:3; 0:4 and 0:5:

kv ¼ 0:0kh ; 0:5kh and kh :

The values of seismic active earth pressure coefficient, Kae are given in Tables 1 to 3
for different values of kh and kv. Tables 1 to 3 show that the magnitudes of the
seismic active earth pressure coefficients are increasing with the increase in both the
horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations. It is interesting to observe that both the
horizontal and vertical accelerations affect the results significantly. For example,
when kh changes from 0.0 to 0.2, for the case of d=0°, /=30° and kv=0.0, the value
of Kae is increased by 44%. Again for the case of d=15°, / =30° and kv=0.5kh, the
value of Kae is increased by 37%.
Table 4 shows the typical values of the critical inclinations of the failure planes
with respect to horizontal for various values of parameters considered in the analysis.
1108 DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

Table 1. Values of Kae for kv=0

/ (degree) d (degree) kh=0.0 kh=0.1 kh=0.2

20 )10 0.5779 0.6526 0.7470

0 0.4903 0.5726 0.6828
10 0.4467 0.5357 0.6602
20 0.4269 0.5244 0.6666
30 )15 0.4161 0.4823 0.5593
0 0.3333 0.3995 0.4806
15 0.3014 0.3711 0.4602
30 0.2972 0.3758 0.4812
40 )20 0.2837 0.3411 0.4064
0 0.2174 0.2706 0.3341
20 0.1994 0.2552 0.3251
40 0.2102 0.2778 0.3675

Table 2. Values of Kae for kv=0.5kh

/ (degree) d (degree) kh=0.0 kh=0.1 kh=0.2

20 )10 0.5779 0.5972 0.6485

0 0.4903 0.5261 0.6075
10 0.4467 0.4937 0.5996
20 0.4269 0.4847 0.6172
30 )15 0.4161 0.4423 0.4844
0 0.3333 0.3677 0.4243
15 0.3014 0.3426 0.4132
30 0.2972 0.3480 0.4398
40 )20 0.2837 0.3139 0.3552
0 0.2174 0.2499 0.2973
20 0.1994 0.2365 0.2941
40 0.2102 0.2583 0.3396

Table 3. Values of Kae for kv=kh

/ (degree) d (degree) kh=0.0 kh=0.1 kh=0.2

20 )10 0.5779 0.5862 0.5946

0 0.4903 0.4799 0.5789
10 0.4467 0.4522 0.6013
20 0.4269 0.4456 0.6508
30 )15 0.4161 0.4024 0.4154
0 0.3333 0.3362 0.3768
15 0.3014 0.3144 0.3784
30 0.2972 0.3207 0.4171
40 )20 0.2837 0.2867 0.3073
0 0.2174 0.2294 0.2653
20 0.1994 0.2179 0.2701
40 0.2102 0.2392 0.3244
PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH 1109

Table 4. Typical values of a in degree for kv=0.5kh

/ (degree) d (degree) kh=0.0 kh=0.1 kh=0.2

20 )10 61.5561 54.9511 40.0314

0 55.0000 47.2611 31.7273
10 51.0569 42.7343 27.2361
20 48.1495 39.4337 24.1049
30 )15 65.1039 60.6157 53.0755
0 60.0000 54.4846 45.6478
15 56.8598 50.6741 41.0766
30 54.3429 47.5795 37.3568
40 )20 68.7680 65.1458 59.7695
0 65.0000 60.4621 53.8372
20 62.6013 57.3887 49.8452
40 60.4258 54.5059 45.9671

It is clear from Table 4 that with the increase in seismic effect, the critical a value
decreases i.e., the extent of failure zone increases. For example, when kh changes
from 0.0 to 0.2, for the case of d=0°, / =30° and kv=0.5kh, the value of a is
decreased by 28%. It is also clear from Table 4 that as the soil friction angle and wall
friction angle increases, the extent of failure zone increases.

4. Effect of kh and kv
Figure 2 shows the typical normalized pressure distribution for different values of kh
with kv=0.5kh, / =30°, d=/ /2, H/k=0.3, H/g=0.16. It is seen that as kh increases,

0.0
0
kv=0.5kh, φ=30 , δ= φ /2 ,H/λ =0.3, H/η =0.16

0.2
kh=0.0
kh=0.1
kh=0.2
0.4 kh=0.3
z/H kh=0.4
kh=0.5
0.6

0.8

1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
pae/ γH
Figure 2. Typical normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution for different values of kh with
kv=0.5kh.
1110 DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

0.0
kh=0.2, kv=0.5kh, δ= φ/2 , H/λ =0.3, H/η =0.16

0.2 0
φ = 20
0
φ = 30
0
φ = 40
0.4 0
φ = 50

z/H
0.6

0.8

1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
pae/γH
Figure 3. Normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution for different values of soil friction angle, /.

active earth pressure also increases. Degree of non linearity of the curves also in-
creases for higher values of kh. From the results reported in Tables 1 to 3 for seismic
active earth pressure coefficients, it can be seen that active earth pressure coefficients

0.0
0
kh=0.2, kv=0.5kh, φ=30 , H/λ =0.3, H/η=0.16

0.2
δ=0
δ = 0.25φ
δ = 0.5φ
0.4 δ =φ
z/H
0.6

0.8

1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
pae/γ H
Figure 4. Normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution for different values of wall friction angle, d.
PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH 1111

0.0
0
kh=0.2, kv=kh,φ =30
0.2
δ = φ, H/λ=0.3, H/η =0.16

0.4

z/H
0.6

Mononobe-Oakbe method
Present study
0.8

1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 .5
pae/γ H
Figure 5. Typical comparison of results for kh=0.2, kv=kh, / =30°, d=/, H/k =0.3, H/g=0.16.

and hence the total thrust changes significantly also under the influence of vertical
seismic acceleration coefficient (kv).

5. Effect of soil friction angle (/)

Figure 3 shows the normalized pressure distribution for different values of soil
friction angle, / with kh=0.2, kv=0.5kh, d=//2, H/k=0.3, H/g=0.16. Seismic
active earth pressure shows significant decrease with the increase in the value of soil
friction angle. When / changes from 20° to 30°, seismic active earth pressure de-
creases by about 31.48% at the top, by about 25.6% at the mid-height and by about
28% at the bottom of the wall. Similarly when / changes from 30° to 40°, seismic
active earth pressure decreases by about 38.39% at the top, by about 27.84% at the
mid-height and by about 32.24% at the bottom of the wall.

6. Effect of wall friction angle (d)

Figure 4 shows normalized distribution of seismic active pressure for different values
of wall friction angle, d with kh=0.2, kv=kh, /=30°, H/k =0.3, H/g=0.16. Seismic
active earth pressure shows relatively marginal decrease with the increase in wall
friction angle, d. When d changes from 0° to 0.5/, seismic active earth pressure
decreases by about 7.5% along the height of the wall. Similarly when d changes from
0.5/ to /, seismic active earth pressure decreases by about 0.69% along the height of
the wall.
1112 DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

7. Comparison of results
Figure 5 shows the typical comparison of normalized pressure distribution behind
rigid retaining wall obtained by the present study with that by Mononobe–Okabe
method for the cases of kh ¼ 0:2; kv ¼ kh ; d ¼ /=2, / =30°, H/k =0.3, H/g=0.16. It
reveals non-linear seismic active earth pressure distribution behind retaining wall in a
more realistic manner compared to the pseudo-static method. The basic equation
(12) also clearly shows mathematically the non-linearity of the seismic active earth
pressure distribution. Moreover the observed data for prototype retaining wall under
earthquake condition obtained by Fukuoka and Imamura (1984) and the centrifuge
experimental observations for model retaining wall under seismic condition mea-
sured by Steedman and Zeng (1990) had shown clearly the non-linear variation of
seismic active earth pressure along the depth of the wall and confirming the present
findings.

8. Conclusions
In pseudo-dynamic method by considering the time effect and phase change in shear
and primary waves propagating in the backfill behind the rigid retaining wall, the
seismic active earth pressure distribution as well as the total active thrust behind the
retaining wall is obtained. It gives more realistic non-linear seismic active earth
pressure distribution behind the retaining wall as compared to the Mononobe–
Okabe method using pseudo-static approach. Non-linearity of the active earth
pressure distribution increases with seismicity which leads to the shifting of the point
of application of total active thrust required for the design purpose. But the
conventional pseudo-static approach gives only linear earth pressure distribution
irrespective of static and seismic condition leading to a major drawback in the design
criteria.
In this work the estimation of the seismic active earth pressure behind a rigid
retaining wall by considering the effects of both the horizontal and vertical seismic
acceleration coefficients, wall friction angle, soil friction angle is shown. From the
pseudo-dynamic analysis, it is clear that both the horizontal and vertical seismic
accelerations are significant for computation of seismic active earth pressure and,
moreover, their importance actually increases as the earthquake intensity increases.
Both the horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations change the active earth pres-
sure significantly. The seismic active thrust is highly sensitive to the friction angle of
the soil, / and comparatively less sensitive to the wall friction angle, d.

References
Choudhury, D. and Singh, S. (2005) New approach for estimation of static and seismic active
earth pressure. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Springer, The Netherlands
(accepted, in press to appear, Ref. No. GEGE2259).
 PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH 1113

Das, B.M. (1993) Principles of Soil Dynamics, PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Fukuoka, M. and Imamura, Y. (1984) Researches on retaining walls during earthquakes,
Proceedings, Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, USA,
Vol. 3, pp. 501–508.
Kramer, S.L. (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Mononobe, N. and Matsuo, H. (1929) On the determination of earth pressure during earth-
quakes, Proceedings, World Engineering Conference, Vol. 9, 176 p.
Okabe, S. (1926) General Theory of Earth Pressure, Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil
Engineers, Tokyo, Japan, 12(1).
Richards, R., Elms, D.G. and Budhu, M. (1990) Dynamic fluidization of soils, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(5), 740–759.
Richards, R., Huang, C. and Fishman, K.L. (1999) Seismic earth pressure on retaining
structures, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(9), 771–778.
Steedman, R.S. and Zeng, X. (1990) The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static
earth pressure on a retaining wall, Geotechnique, 40(1), 103–112.
Zeng, X. and Steedman, R.S. (1993) On the behavior of quay walls in earthquakes, Geo-
technique, 43(3), 417–431.

View publication stats