International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Seismic design of retaining wall by considering

wall-soil inertia for active case

Sanjay Nimbalkar & Deepankar Choudhury

To cite this article: Sanjay Nimbalkar & Deepankar Choudhury (2008) Seismic design
of retaining wall by considering wall-soil inertia for active case, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 2:4, 319-328

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3328/IJGE.2008.02.04.319-328

Published online: 04 Sep 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20

Download by: [Florida Atlantic University] Date: 21 March 2016, At: 17:52
 319

1 2*
Sanjay Nimbalkar and Deepankar Choudhury

Seismic design of retaining wall by

considering wall-soil inertia for active case

Abstract: Effect of both the wall and soil inertia must be considered for the design of retaining wall under seismic condi-
tions. In this paper, by considering pseudo-dynamic seismic forces acting on the soil wedge and the wall, the required weight
of the wall under seismic conditions is determined for the design purpose of the retaining wall under active earth pressure
condition. The method proposed considers the movement of both shear and primary waves through the backfill and the retain-
ing wall due to seismic excitation. A rigid vertical retaining wall supporting cohesionless backfill with horizontal ground has
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016

been considered in the present analysis by considering planar rupture surface. Results in graphical form show the variations
of proposed design factors viz. soil thrust factor (FT), wall inertia factor (FI) and combined dynamic factor (Fw) with respect to
horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient (kh), required for the design of the wall under seismic conditions. Also the effects of
variation of parameters like soil friction angle, wall friction angle, vertical seismic acceleration, period of lateral shaking and
amplification factor on combined dynamic factor have been studied. A comparative study between the present theory and
available pseudo-static results has shown the merits of the present analysis.

Keywords: Seismic stability; Earth pressure; Pseudo-dynamic method; Time dependence; Safety factors; Soil-structure
interaction.

Nomenclature khw, kvw = seismic acceleration coefficient in the horizontal

and vertical direction for the wall (dimension-
Basic SI units are given in parentheses. less)
a(z, t) = acceleration at depth z, time t (m/s2) Pae(t) = pseudo-dynamic active thrust (N)
ahs, avs = horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration acting pae(t) = pseudo-dynamic active pressure acting on the wall
on the soil wedge (m/s2) element (N/m)
ahw, avw = horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration acting CIE(t) = dynamic wall inertia factor (dimensionless)
on the retaining wall (m/s2) CI = static wall inertia factor (dimensionless)
Gs, Gw = shear modulus of the soil and wall material (N/m2) FT = soil thrust factor (dimensionless)
Kae = seismic active earth pressure coefficient (dimension- FI = wall inertia factor (dimensionless)
less) FW = combined dynamic factor (dimensionless)
Ka = static active earth pressure coefficient (dimensionless) H = height of the wall (m)
khs, kvs = seismic acceleration coefficient in the horizontal bw = width of wall (m)
and vertical direction for the soil (dimensionless) Ww = weight of the wall for static design (N)
Ww(t) = weight of the wall for seismic design (N)
Qhs(t), Qvs(t) = horizontal and vertical inertia force acting on
*Corresponding Author the soil wedge (N)
Associate Research Fellow (Post-Doctorate), School of Civil, Mining and
1 Qhw(t), Qvw(t) = horizontal and vertical inertia force acting
Environmental Engineering, Univ of Wollongong, Wollongong, on the retaining wall (N)
NSW 2522, Australia. Email: sanjay_nimbalkar@yahoo.com Nb = vertical component of reaction on the base of wall (N)
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
2 Fb = horizontal component of reaction on the base of wall
Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, India. Phone: +91- (N)
22-2576 7335 (O), 8335 (R), Fax: +91-22-2576 7302 t = time (s)
Email: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in, dchoudhury@iitb.ac.in T = period of lateral shaking (s)
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (2008) 2: (319-328) J. Ross Publishing, Inc. © 2008
DOI 10.3328/IJGE.2008.02.04.319-328
 320  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
f = amplification factor (dimensionless)
Vss, Vps = velocity of shear and primary wave propagating
through the backfill (m/s)
Vsw, Vpw = velocity of shear and primary wave propagating
through the wall (m/s)
α = angle of inclination of the failure surface with the hori-
zontal (degree)
γs, γw = unit weight of the soil and wall material (N/m3)
φ = soil friction angle (degree)
φb = wall base friction angle (degree)
δ = wall friction angle (degree)
νs, νw = Poisson’s ratio of soil and wall material (dimension-
less)
ω = angular frequency of base shaking (rad/s)
ζ = t – H/Vss (s)
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016
ψ = t – H/Vps (s)
ξ = t – H/Vsw (s)
ϖ = t – H/Vpw (s)
1. Introduction
The design and behavior of retaining wall under seismic
conditions is very complex and many researchers have dis-
cussed on this topic. As pioneering work in this area, Okabe
(1926) and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929) had proposed the
theory of dynamic lateral earth pressure based on pseudo-
static analysis, which is commonly known as Mononobe-
Okabe method (see Kramer, 1996). Caltabiano et al. (2000)
had also determined the seismic stability of retaining wall
with surcharge using Mononobe-Okabe method along with
the soil-wall inertia effect by considering pseudo-static seis-
mic acceleration in horizontal direction. All these theories
consider the pseudo-static method of analysis, i.e. without
considering any actual dynamic time dependent behavior of
the soil and wall.
In most of the design methods proposed by the previous
researchers, the effect of seismic accelerations was considered
only on the soil wedge considered for failure but no effect on
the wall was considered. Correcting the error, Richards and
Elms (1979) and Caltabiano et al. (2000) had suggested a
new design method for retaining wall by considering the
effect of pseudo-static seismic accelerations on both the soil
and wall. From this work, it was clear that both the soil and
wall inertia effect must be considered for seismic design of
retaining wall. But the approach again didn’t considered the
actual dynamic effect with variation of time and shear wave
velocities through the medium.
Rectifying the shortcoming of pseudo-static method,
Steedman and Zeng (1990) proposed the pseudo-dynamic
method to compute the seismic active earth pressure on the
wall by considering the vertically propagating finite shear
wave in the backfill behind a retaining wall with the effect of
time variation. Steedman (1998) had shown the limitations
of force-based and displacement approaches which consider
constant seismic accelerations acting on the soil-wall model.
To Rectify the shortcomings of the pseudo-static approach,
a pseudo-dynamic method has been recently developed to
address this problem (Steedman and Zeng, 1990; Steedman,
1998; Choudhury and Nimbalkar, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008;
Nimbalkar and Choudhury, 2007, 2008). But these research-
ers didn’t consider the effect of wall inertia in the seismic
design of the wall for active earth pressure case and hence
leading to an incomplete analysis throughout. Hence, in this
paper, pseudo-dynamic method is applied for the seismic
design of the retaining wall with respect to the stability of
the wall against sliding, by considering both the soil and wall
inertia effect due to amplification of both shear and primary
waves propagating through both the backfill and the wall
with time variation.
Results in terms of non-dimensional safety factors viz.
soil thrust factor (FT), wall inertia factor (FI) and combined
dynamic factor (Fw) are proposed for the use in the design
of retaining wall section under seismic conditions. Effect of
variation of different parameters like soil friction angle (φ),
wall friction angle (δ), period of lateral shaking (T), amplifi-
cation factor (f), horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration
coefficients for soil (khs, kvs) and for wall (khw, kvw), shear wave
velocities in the soil (Vss) and in the wall (Vsw), primary wave
velocities in the soil (Vps) and in the wall (Vpw) on the design
of retaining wall against under seismic conditions are consid-
ered in the present analysis.
2. Method of Analysis
The pseudo-dynamic method of analysis considers finite
shear and primary wave velocity. The shear moduli (Gs, Gw)
are assumed to remain constant with depth through the
backfill and wall and that only the phase and not the magni-
tude of accelerations are varying.
Consider the rigid vertical gravity wall, ABKL of height
H and width bw, supporting horizontal cohesionless backfill
as shown in Fig. 1. The shear wave velocity through the back-
fill soil, Vss = (Gs/ρs)1/2, where, ρs is the density of the backfill
material and primary wave velocity, Vps = (Gs(2 – 2νs)/ρs(1
– 2νs))1/2, where νs is the Poisson’s ratio of the backfill are
assumed to act within the soil media due to earthquake load-
ing. Similarly, the shear wave velocity through the wall, Vsw =
(Gw/ρw)1/2 where, ρw is the density of the wall material and pri-
mary wave velocity Vpw = (Gw(2 – 2νw)/ρw(1 – 2νw))1/2 where,
νw is the Poisson’s ratio of the wall material, are assumed to
act within the retaining wall due to earthquake loading. In
 Seismic design of retaining wall by considering wall-soil inertia for active case  321

bw design criteria. Hence the accelerations ahs and avs at depth z,

L A
A A C below the top of the backfill can be expressed as
Q
Qvw Qvs
­ H z § (H  z) ·
vw

 f s  1½¾ ahs .sin Z ¨ t  (1)

Qhs
Qhw
z ahs ( z, t ) ®1  ¸
H Vss ¹
zdz
z ¯ ¿ ©
Ww Ws
H
Pae

­ H z § (H  z) ·
 f s  1¾½ avs .sin Z ¨¨ t 
dz dz
+"
F avs ( z , t ) ®1  ¸ (2) (2
Pae
#
!
¯ H ¿ © V ps ¸¹
K B B
Fb
The weight of the soil wedge is,
!b

1 J H2 (3)
Ws
Nb

2 tan D
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016

The total horizontal inertia force acting on the soil wedge can
Vsw, Vpw Vss, Vps be expressed as

λ γ s ahs
Figure 1. Details of forces acting on the soil wedge and the wall
Qhs (t ) = [ 2π Hcoswζ + λ (sin ωζ − sin ωt )]
4π 2 g tan α
λ γ s ahs ( f s − 1)
+ ⎡ 2π H (π Hcosωζ +λ sin ωζ )
the present analysis, values of Vps/Vss = 1.87 for νs = 0.3 and 4π 3 gH tan α ⎣
Vpw/Vsw = 1.56 for νw = 0.15 are considered by using the rela-
+ λ 2 (cos ωt − cos ωζ )⎤⎦
tionship between the primary and shear wave velocities with (4)
Poisson’s ratio of the material (Das, Figure1993).
1. Period of lateral
shaking, T = 2π/ω is considered in the analysis. A planer Again total vertical inertia force acting on the soil wedge can
rupture surface BC, inclined at an angle α with horizontal is be expressed as
assumed for the analysis.
As the shear waves and primary waves approach the
ground surface, the vibrations in the soil will also be ampli-
fied. It is assumed that horizontal and vertical accelerations
(ahs, avs, ahw, avw) vary linearly from the input acceleration at
the base to the higher value (depending upon the amplifica-
tion of soils) at the top of the retaining wall, such that for the
backfill soil ahs(z = H) = fs ahs(z = 0) and avs(z = H) = fs avs(z = 0), and for (5)
the retaining wall ahw(z = H) = fw ahw(z = 0) and avw(z = H) = fw avw(z = 0)
where fs and fw are constants and are termed as amplification Where, λ = TVss is the wavelength of the vertically propagat-
factor for the soil and the wall respectively. ing shear wave and η = TVps, is the wavelength of the verti-
23
cally propagating primary wave through the backfill. And ζ =
t – H/Vss and ψ = t – H/Vps. As the horizontal acceleration is
2.1. Effect of Soil Inertia
acting from left to right and vice-versa and the vertical accel-
Similar to the analysis of Steedman and Zeng (1990), using eration is acting from top to bottom and vice-versa, only the
the pseudo-dynamic method for the backfill soil, the seismic critical directions of Qhs(t) and Qvs(t) are shown in Fig. 1 to
active earth pressure can be obtained in the following man- result the maximum seismic active earth pressure.
ner. For proposing a generalized design methodology, in the The special case of a rigid wedge is given, in the limit as
present analysis it is assumed that both the horizontal and
vertical vibrations with accelerations ahs and avs respec-
J H 2 a hs a hs (6)
tively, start at exactly the same time and there is no phase lim (Qhs )max Ws khsWs
shift between these two vibrations thus giving the critical Vss of 2g tan D g (6

 322  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Where, κ = TVsw is the wavelength of the vertically propagat-

J H 2 a vs avs (7) ing shear wave and ϕ = TVpw, is the wavelength of the verti-
lim (Qvs ) max = Ws k vsWs (7)propagating primary wave through the wall. And ξ =
cally
V of
Ps 2gtanD g t – H/Vsw and ϖ = t – H/Vpw. Here also, similar to the case for
The total (static + seismic) active thrust, Pae(t) can be soil inertia, though both the directions of each of the seismic
obtained by resolving the forces on the wedge and consid- accelerations in horizontal and vertical directions are consid-
ering the equilibrium of the forces and hence Pae(t) can be ered in the analysis, only the critical directions of Qhw(t) and
expressed as follows, Qvw(t) are shown in the Fig. 1 for the design criteria.
The special case of a rigid wall is given, in the limit as

W sin(D I)  Qh (t)cos(D I )  Qv (t)sin(D I) (8)

Pae (t) (8) J w bw H ahw ahw
cos(G I D) lim (Qhw )max Ww khwWw (13) (13)
Vsw of g g

The detail methodology to calculate Pae(t) and hence the seis-
mic active earth pressure coefficient (Kae) is already discussed J w bw H avw avw
lim (Qvw ) max = Ww kvwWw (14) (14)
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016

by Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006). VPw of g g

2.2. Effect of Wall Inertia
Similar to the case mentioned for soil inertia, if the wall is 2.3. Computation of Safety Factors for Design
subjected to both the harmonic horizontal and vertical accel- of Wall
erations of amplitudes ahw and avw, the accelerations at depth
z, below the top of the wall can be expressed as Using D’Alembert’s principle for inertial forces acting on the
wall as shown in Fig. 1,

­ H z § ( H  z ) · (9) Nb = Pae(t)sinδ + Ww(t) – Qvw(t) (15)

ahw ( z , t ) ®1   f w  1½¾ ahw .sin Z ¨ t  ¸ (9)
¯ H ¿ © Vsw ¹
Fb = Pae(t)cosδ + Qhw(t) (16)

­ H z § (H  z) · where, Nb and Fb are the normal and tangential components

avw ( z , t ) ®1   f w  1½¾ avw .sin Z ¨¨ t  ¸¸ (10) (10)
of the reaction at the base of the wall respectively.
¯ H ¿ © V pw ¹
At sliding,
The total horizontal inertia force acting on the wall can be Fb = Nbtanφb (17)
expressed as
where, φb is the friction angle at the base of the wall.
Thus,
Pae(t)cosδ+Qhw(t) = [Pae(t)sinδ+Ww(t)–Qvw(t)]tanφb (18)
Weight of the wall is given by,

(11) Ww(t) = [Pae(t)[cosδ – sinδtanφb] + [Qhw(t)

+ Qvw(t)tanφb]]/tanφb (19)

And total vertical inertia force acting on the wall can be

Ww(t) = Pae(t)CIE(t) (20)
expressed as
where, CIE(t) is the dynamic wall inertia factor given by,

cos G  sin G tan Ib Qhw (t )  Qvw (t ) tan Ib (21)

CIE (t ) 
tan Ib Pae (t ) tan Ib
(12) Thus the weight of the wall required against sliding is the
dynamic active thrust multiplied by the dynamic wall inertia
factor CIE(t).
 Seismic design of retaining wall by considering wall-soil inertia for active case  323
The relative importance of the two dynamic effects (i.e.,
the increased seismic active thrust on the wall due to pseudo-
dynamic soil inertia forces on the sliding wedge and the
increase in driving force due to time dependent inertia of the
wall itself) can be seen by normalizing them with regard to
the static values. Thus defining soil thrust factor, FT as
K ae
FT
Ka
and wall inertia factor, FI as
CIE (t )
FI
CI
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016
where,
cos δ  −  sin δ tan φb
C1  =   
tan φb
Considering the product of the soil thrust and wall iner-
tia factors as a safety factor applied to weight of the wall to
consider both the effects of soil inertia and wall inertia, the
combined dynamic factor, Fw proposed for the design of the
wall is defined as,
Ww (t )
Fw FT FI
Ww
where, Ww is the weight of the wall required for equilibrium
against sliding under static condition.
3. Results and Discussions
Richards et al. (1990) had shown that in the case of cohesion-
less 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, the values of φ consid-
ered in the analysis are to satisfy the relationship given by,
ª kh º
I ! tan 1 « » (25)
¬1  k v ¼
Results are presented by graphs in non-dimensional
form for soil thrust factor, wall inertia factor and combined
dynamic factor with respect to the horizontal seismic accel-
eration coefficient. For the analysis, it is assumed that φb = φ.
Variations of parameters considered in the present analysis
are as follows:
φ = 20°, 30° and 40°; δ/φ = -0.5, 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0; T = 0.2,
0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 s; khs = khw = kh = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5;
kvs = kvw = kv = 0.0, 0.5kh and 1.0kh, fs = fw = f = 1.0, 1.2, 1.4,
1.6, 1.8, 2.0
In Fig. 2, the typical variation of design factors viz. soil
thrust factor FT, wall inertia factor FI and combined dynamic
(22) factor Fw with kh for kv = 0.5kh, φ = 30°, H/λ = 0.3, H/η =
(22)
0.16, H/κ = 0.012, H/ϕ = 0.0077, f = 1.2 for (a) δ = –φ/2, (b)
δ = 0, (c) δ = φ/2, (d) δ = φ are presented. From these results,
it is clear that the presence of seismic forces, either with kh
or kv, induces reduction in seismic stability of retaining wall
leading to the higher values of the design factors which in
turn gives the(23)
(23)
requirement of higher weight of the wall to
maintain equilibrium against sliding under seismic condi-
tions. The influence of seismic accelerations is found to be
maximum for the main design factor viz. combined dynamic
factor, Fw, which has been proposed to compute the design
weight of the wall under seismic conditions.
3.1. Effect of Soil Friction Angle (φ)
Fig. 3 shows the variation of combined dynamic factor, Fw
with kh for different values of soil friction angle (φ) for δ =
φ/2, kv =0.5kh, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ = 0.012, H/ϕ =
0.0077, f = 1.2. From the plot, it may be seen that the com-
bined dynamic factor, Fw increases with the increase in soil
friction angle (φ). For kh = 0.2, Fw increases by 48.67 % when
φ changes from 20° to 30°, 88.37% when φ changes from 30°
(24) (24)
to 40° and 190.78 % when φ changes from 40° to 50°.
3.2. Effect of Wall Friction Angle (δ)
Fig. 4 shows the variation of combined dynamic factor, Fw
with kh for different values of wall friction angle (φ) for δ
= 30°, kv =0.5kh, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ = 0.012, H/ϕ =
0.0077, f = 1.2. The combined dynamic factor, Fw increases
with the increase in wall friction angle (δ). For kh = 0.2, Fw
increases by 19% when δ/φ changes from -0.5 to 0, 23.27 %
when δ/φ changes from 0 to 0.5 and 30% when δ/φ changes
from 0.5 to 1.0.
3.3. Effect of Vertical Seismic Acceleration
Coefficient (kv)
Fig. 5 shows variation of combined dynamic factor, Fw with
(25) values of vertical seismic acceleration coef-
kh for different
ficient (kv) for δ = φ/2, φ = 30°, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ =
0.012, H/ϕ = 0.0077, f = 1.2. From the plot, it may be seen that
the combined dynamic factor, Fw increases with the increase
in vertical seismic acceleration. For kh = 0.2, Fw increases by
 324  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Typical variation of soil thrust factor FT, wall inertia factor FI and combined dynamic factor Fw with kh for kv = 0.5kh, φ = 30°, H/λ = 0.3, H/η
= 0.16, H/κ = 0.012, H/ϕ = 0.0077, f = 1.2 for (a) δ = -φ/2, (b) δ = 0, (c) δ = φ/2, (d) δ = φ

17.34% when kv changes from 0 to 0.5kh and 13.7% when kv
changes from 0.5kh to kh. Though usually the effect of verti-
cal seismic acceleration on stability of retaining wall is hardly
considered in the analysis by many researchers, but the pres-
ent study reveals the significant influence of vertical seismic
acceleration on the stability of retaining wall.
3.4. Effect of Period of Lateral Shaking (T)
Fig. 6 shows the variation of combined dynamic factor, Fw
with different values of period of lateral shaking (T) for φ =
30°, δ = φ/2, kv =0.5kh, f = 1.2. From the plot it is seen that
weight of the wall required maintaining equilibrium against
sliding, shows an increasing trend. Overall the stability of the
retaining wall decreases significantly with the higher values
of period of lateral shaking.
3.5. Effect of Amplification Factor (f)
Fig. 7 shows the variation of combined dynamic factor, Fw
with different values of amplification factors (f) for kv =
0.5kh, φ = 30°, δ = φ/2, kv =0.5kh, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ
 Seismic design of retaining wall by considering wall-soil inertia for active case  325

35 8
0
kv=0.5kh, δ = φ /2, H/TVs = 0.3, H/TVp= 0.16, φ = 30 , δ = φ /2, H/TVs = 0.3, H/TVp = 0.16,
30 H/TVsw= 0.012, H/TVpw = 0.0077, f = 1.2 7 H/TVsw = 0.012, H/TVpw= 0.0077, f = 1.2

Combined dynamic factor, FW

Combined dynamic factor, FW

6 kv = 0.0
25 0
φ = 20
kv = 0.5kh
φ = 30
0
5
20 0 kv = kh
φ = 40
φ = 50
0 4
15
3
10
2
5
1

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016

Horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient, kh Horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient, kh

Figure 3. Effect of soil friction angle (φ) on combined dynamic factor, Figure 5. Effect of vertical seismic acceleration coefficient (kv) on com-
Fw for δ = φ/2, kv =0.5kh, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ = 0.012, H/ϕ = bined dynamic factor, Fw for δ = φ/2, φ = 30°, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16,
0.0077, f = 1.2 H/κ = 0.012, H/ϕ = 0.0077, f = 1.2

8 9
kv =0.5kh, φ = 30,0 H/TVs = 0.3, H/TVp= 0.16, 0
kv = 0.5kh, φ = 30 , δ = φ /2, f = 1.2
7 H/TVsw= 0.012, H/TVpw= 0.0077, f = 1.2 8
Combined dynamic factor, FW

7
Combined dynamic factor, FW

6 T = 0.2 s
δ /φ = -0.5
T = 0.3 s
δ /φ = 0.0 6
5 T = 0.4 s
δ /φ = 0.5
T = 0.5 s
δ /φ = 1.0 5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient, kh Horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient, kh

Figure 4. Effect of wall friction angle (δ) on combined dynamic factor, Figure 6. Effect of period of lateral shaking (T) on combined dynamic
Fw for φ = 300, kv =0.5kh, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ = 0.012, H/ϕ = factor, Fw for δ = φ/2, φ = 300, kv = 0.5kh, f = 1.2
0.0077, f = 1.2

= 0.012, H/ϕ = 0.0077. From the plot, it may be seen that
the combined dynamic factor Fw increases with increase in
amplification factor (f) and the rate of increase is more for
higher values of horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient
kh. For kh = 0.2, the combined dynamic factor Fw increases
by 25.4 % when f changes from 1.0 to 1.2 and 20.2% when
f changes from 1.2 to 1.4. Thus, the present study reveals
the significant influence of amplification on the combined
dynamic factor Fw.
 326  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

7 FT, wall inertia factor FI and combined dynamic factor Fw

in Table 1 when φ = 30°, δ = φ/2, H/λ = 0.3, H/η=0.16, H/ϕ
6 f = 1.0 = 0.012, H/κ = 0.0077, f = 1.0. From Table 1, it is clear that
Combined dynamic factor, FW

f = 1.2 for kv = 0, the present result compares well with the pseudo-
f = 1.4
5 static method of analysis except for higher values of kh = 0.4
and 0.5 where the deviation is larger. It is seen that for kv =
4 0.5kh, the present result compares well with the pseudo-static
method of analysis for values of kh = 0.1 and kh = 0.2 and the
3 deviation increases for higher values of kh and also for kv = kh.
For example, it is evident from Table 1 that, for kh = 0.3, kv
2 = 0.5kh, φ = 30°, δ = φ/2, φb = φ, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ
0
kv = 0.5kh, I = 30 , G = I/2, H/O = 0.3,
= 0.012, H/ϕ = 0.0077, f = 1.0, the combined dynamic factor
1
is 4.6 as against 6.4 as given by Richards and Elms (1979),
H/K = 0.16, H/N =0.012, H/M = 0.0077
where as for kh = 0.2, kv = kh, φ = 300, δ = φ/2, φb = φ, H/λ =
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ = 0.012, H/ϕ= 0.0077, f = 1.0, the com-
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016

igure 7. F for δ = φ/2, φ = 30°, k = 0.5k , H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, H/κ = 0.012,
w h
Horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient, kh
Figure 7. Effect of amplification factor (f) on combined dynamic factor
h do-static approaches. In pseudo-static approach no dynamic
H/ϕ = 0.0077
4. Comparison of Results
Result by pseudo-dynamic method for seismic design of
retaining wall is still scarce. Hence, present results of the
variation of soil thrust factor FT, wall inertia factor FI and
combined dynamic factor Fw with horizontal seismic accel-
erations is compared with those obtained by Richards
and Elms (1979) using pseudo-static method of analysis.
Comparison is shown by the variation of soil thrust factor
bined dynamic factor is 3.68 by both the analyses. The reason
behind the difference between the results obtained by present
study and those by Richards and Elms (1979) can be attrib-
uted to the differences between pseudo-dynamic and pseu-
effect of seismic forces are considered and the shortcomings
of this approach are well established due to the actual non-
linear variation of seismic earth pressures (see Steedman
and Zeng, 1990; Kramer, 1996; Choudhury and Nimbalkar,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008; Nimbalkar and Choudhury, 2007,
2008). Also the nature of highly non-linear seismic active
thrust and wall inertia is seen from the present study com-
pared to the pseudo-static method, which gives increasing
trend of soil inertia and wall inertia under seismic condition
showing sharp increase at higher values of kh. Moreover the
present pseudo-dynamic method gives the minimum weight

Figure 8. Design of a gravity retaining wall under seismic active earth pressure condition
 Seismic design of retaining wall by considering wall-soil inertia for active case  327
Table 1. Comparison of soil thrust factor FT, wall inertia factor FI and combined dynamic
0
factor F
Table for different khofand
1.w Comparison values factor
kv thrust
soil with I =
FT30 , G =inertia
, wall I/2, H/factor
O = 0.3,
FI H/
andK =combined
0.16, H/N =
dynamic factor FW for different kh and kv values with ϕ = 30°, δ = ϕ/2, H/λ = 0.3, H/η =
0.16, H/M==0.012,
0.012,H/κ 0.0077, f ==1.0
H/φ 0.0077, f = 1.0

Richards and Elms (1979) Present study

kh kv
FT FI FW FT FI FW

0.0 0.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.00 1.221 1.209 1.476 1.231 1.517 1.868

0.1 0.05 1.234 1.287 1.588 1.137 1.812 2.060

0.10 1.248 1.376 1.718 1.043 2.160 2.253

0.00 1.500 1.530 2.295 1.527 1.834 2.800

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016

0.2 0.10 1.572 1.806 2.840 1.371 2.347 3.217

0.20 1.669 2.205 3.681 1.256 2.928 3.676

0.00 1.866 2.082 3.885 1.922 1.994 3.832

0.3
0.15 2.114 3.027 6.400 1.892 2.464 4.662

0.4 0.00 2.382 3.255 7.753 2.493 2.021 5.039

0.5 0.00 3.223 7.464 24.059 3.500 1.909 6.683

of the wall required to maintain the stability against sliding (Vsw) = 2500 m/s, primary wave velocity in wall (Vpw) = 3900
for higher values of kh and kv when compared to the same m/s and frequency of input ground motion = 3 Hz.
obtained by pseudo-static method. It satisfies the required Using the proposed formulae and the design charts
design criteria for the wall under seismic conditions. reported in this paper, one can get the necessary design val-
ues as follows:
Seismic active earth pressure coefficient (Kae) = 0.5609
5. Worked out example
Static active earth pressure coefficient (Ka) = 0.3014
In the worked out example given below, the practical design Soil active thrust factor, FT = 1.8608
procedure and use of the proposed methodology is described Wall inertia factor, FI = 1.9322
for a given site with earthquake input data. Let us design a Combined dynamic factor, Fw proposed for the design of
vertical concrete retaining wall supporting horizontal dry the wall, FW = 3.5955
cohesionless backfill, as shown in Fig. 8, under active condi- Weight of the wall required for equilibrium against slid-
tion of earth pressure under seismic sliding stability for a ing under static condition,
given site with necessary input soil-wall and earthquake data  cos δ  −  sin δ tan φb 
1
as follows: unit weight of backfill soil (γs) = 16 kN/m3, unit Ww  =   γH 2 K a    =  241.1333kN
2  tan φb 
weight of wall (γw) = 24 kN/m3, soil friction angle (φ) = 30°,
wall friction angle (φ) = 15°, vertical height of the wall (H) =
10 m., wall base friction angle (φb) = 30°, amplitude of seis- Weight of the wall required for equilibrium against slid-
mic horizontal acceleration (ah) = 0.2g, amplitude of seismic ing under seismic condition,
vertical acceleration (av) = 0.1g, amplification factor (f) =
1.2, shear wave velocity in soil (Vss) = 100 m/s, primary wave Ww(t) = 3.5955 3 241.1333 = 867 kN
velocity in soil (Vps) = 187 m/s, shear wave velocity in wall Thus, the weight of the wall required for equilibrium
against sliding under seismic conditions, Ww(t) is more than
 328  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

that under static condition, Ww. Hence accordingly a wall
section is designed and can be constructed.
6. Conclusions
Considering the effects of both soil and wall inertia, the sta-
bility of retaining wall under seismic condition is studied.
Effect of various parameters such as soil friction angle, wall
friction angle, horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations
acting on the soil wedge and the wall and period of lateral
shaking are shown for the proposed safety factors for the
design of the wall. Pseudo-dynamic method is adopted for
the analysis of retaining wall. Seismic stability of retaining
wall reduces with increase in both kh and kv. Results are
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 17:52 21 March 2016
method” International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE,
USA, 8(3), 169-175.
Das, B. M. (1993). Principles of soil dynamics, PWS-KENT
Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Nimbalkar, S. S. and Choudhury, D. (2007). “Sliding stability
and seismic design of retaining wall by pseudo-dynamic
method for passive case”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Elsevier, 27(6), 497-505.
Nimbalkar, S.S. and Choudhury, D. (2008). “Effects of body
waves and soil amplification on seismic earth pressures”,
Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, World Scientific
Publishing Company, Singapore, 2(1), 33-52.
Richards, R. and Elms, D. G. (1979). “Seismic behav-

presented in graphical form for the proposed design factors,

ior of gravity retaining walls.” Journal of Geotechnical
Fw, FI and FT. The reduction in stability of retaining wall is
Engineering Division, ASCE, 105(4), 449-464.
more for higher values of soil friction angle φ under seismic
Richards, R., Elms, D. G. and Budhu, M. (1990). “Dynamic
condition. Again stability decreases further with increase in
fluidization of soils.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
angle of wall friction δ and with increase in period of lateral
ASCE, 116(5), 740-759.
shaking T. The rate of decrease is more for higher values of
Steedman, R. S. and Zeng, X. (1990). “The influence of phase
horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations. The seismic
on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a
stability of the retaining wall is also found to decrease with
retaining wall.” Geotechnique, 40(1), 103-112.
increase in amplification of shear and primary waves propa-
Steedman, R. S. (1998). “Seismic design of retaining walls.”
gating through the soil and wall material. Comparisons of
Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical
the present method with available pseudo-static methods are
Engineering, 131(1), 12-22.
reported, leading to the more accurate estimation of weight
of the wall required to maintain stability by the present study.
Moreover present study gives the minimum weight of the
wall for a higher value of seismic accelerations thus proves to
be more safe approach of design.

References
Caltabiano, S., Cascone, E. and Maugeri, M. (2000). “Seismic
stability of retaining walls with surcharge.” Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, 20, 469-476.
Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. (2005). “Seismic passive
resistance by pseudo-dynamic method.” Geotechnique,
London, 55(9), 699-702.
Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. S. (2006). “Pseudo-dynamic
approach of seismic active earth pressure behind retaining
wall.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Springer,
The Netherlands, 24(5), 1103-1113.
Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. (2007). “Seismic rota-
tional displacement of gravity walls by pseudo-dynamic
method: passive case”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Elsevier, 27(3), 242-249.
Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S., (2008). “Seismic rota-
tional displacement of gravity walls by pseudo-dynamic