71 7, EFFECTS OF SURCHARGE AND SEISMIC LOAD 7.1 TYPES OF SURCHARGE Surcharges behind a retaining wall can be either permanent (e.g. loads due to shallow foundations of an adjacent building), or temporary (e.g. loads due to construction plant or storage of construction materials). Loadings due to surcharge can be classified into two main types : (a) uniformly-distributed loads : these are essentially continuous loads which act on the surface or the body of the retained ground, e.g. loadings from goods stacked uniformly on a platform or from traffic on roads, which may be treated as uniformly distributed actions, and (b) concentrated loads, which include the following : (line loads, e.g. loadings from strip footings, (ii) point loads, e.g. loadings from square or circular footings, and ii) area loads, e.g. loadings from footings which, by virtue of their size in relation to the height of the retaining wall, have to be treated as area loads in order for their effects to be properly assessed. 7.2. DESIGN SURCHARGE LOADINGS 7.2.1 General In Hong Kong, public highway and railway structures are generally designed for the loads given in the Civil Engineering Manual Volume V (EDD, 1983), which makes reference to BS 5400 : Part 2 (BSI, 1978) for highway loading. Retaining walls and bridge abutments which form part of a highway, as well as retaining walls for railways, should in general be designed for 45 units of type HB loading. Highway structures spanning less than 15 m and situated along rural roads other than trunk or main roads may be designed for type HA loading only. Where special conditions indicate that a smaller load would be appropriate, the agreement of the relevant authorities should first be obtained. Where a structure (e.g. building) is located close to and behind the proposed retaining wall, the foundation details and the load distribution on the individual foundation elements should be ascertained and their effects on the retaining wall should be considered in design. While foundation loads can be idealised as a uniformly-distributed surcharge in some cases, the designer should critically consider the validity of this assumption in each situation. Sometimes it is necessary to make a direct assessment of foundation loads by considering thenr dead and live loads, wind loads and other types of loading which may act on the structure (e.g. where footings are not uniformly spaced or have vastly different loading intensities). Wherever possible, the retaining wall should be located in such a way that large surcharge loadings do not exist near its back. A minimum surcharge of 10 kPa with an appropriate load factor should be allowed for around the periphery of all retaining walls to cover incidental loading during construction (e.g. construction plant, stacked materials and movement of traffic), except in cases where the layout of the site makes this clearly unnecessary. The distribution of stresses on a retaining wall due to loads from foundations should be carefully assessed in design. A shallow foundation is very likely to exert much of the foundation load onto the retaining wall. Deep foundations which transmit loads to depth will have less effect on the retaining wall. Loads carried by individual footings will have localised effects which may affect local stability and influence the structural design. Laterally-loaded piles may exert lateral earth pressures far greater than the active earth pressures at shallow depths; such piles are sometimes sleeved to prevent lateral earth pressures from being transferred to the retaining wall. Heavy lifting equipment and machine foundations exert extreme loads which can have significant effects. Loads from such sources and their effects should be considered specifically in the design. General guidance on the selection of loadings for design and on load combinations is given in Section 4.3.3. In some load combinations it may be necessary to consider different Toad cases due to possible differences in the locations of the surcharge loads. For example, in the case of an L-shaped cantilever retaining wall, two basic load cases for a uniformly- distributed surcharge should be considered in the design, as illustrated in Figure 28. The designer should include these load cases in the relevant load combination for the limit state checks. 7.2.2, Nominal Surcharge Loads When the effect of surcharge compared with that due to earth and water pressures is small, the nominal surcharge loads given in Table 16 (expressed in terms of equivalent uniformly-distributed loads) may be used. 7.3. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF SURCHARGE 7.3.1 General For a given surcharge, the earth pressures which act on a retaining wall depend on the load-spreading properties of the retained earth and the stiffness of both the wall and any support that may be present, Two approaches are commonly used for assessing the magnitude and distribution of lateral pressures due to surcharge, as discussed below. ‘The first approach assumes that the retained earth is in an active state. Rankine earth pressure theory (see Section 6.5.1) is sometimes used in the case of a uniformly-distributed surcharge, although at-rest pressures should be used for structural design if the wall is relatively stiff and cannot move forward to reduce these pressures (e.g. by virtue of its massB or the presence of lateral supports). The trial wedge method (see Section 6.5.6) which includes the surcharge loads in the construction of the force polygon may also be applied. Because of the assumption of plane strain conditions, this method is applicable only when the surcharge is in the form of a uniformly-distributed load, line load or strip load. The method cannot be applied for a point load or an area load of limited extent. The earth pressures derived using this approach should not be used for structural design unless the deformation of the retaining wall (for the structural limit state being considered) can be shown to be sufficiently large for the assumption of active state of stress in the soil to be valid. The second approach is based on experiments carried out on surcharge effects which have shown that the intensity and distribution of earth pressures due to concentrated surcharge are similar to those derived from elasticity theory. Discussion of the experimental evidence and the background to the modifications to the elasticity theory are given in Spangler & Handy (1984) and Terzaghi (1943, 1953). The earth pressures due to surcharge should be directly superimposed onto the active earth pressures and water pressure. It should be noted that this approach is not strictly correct for the checking of ultimate limit states, because the experiments were carried out at "working' conditions when the retaining wall was not loaded to the point of incipient failure. 7.3.2 Uniformly-Distributed Loads A uniformly-distributed load is commonly treated as an equivalent height of earth having the same density as the retained material. ‘The earth pressure resulting from this load may be calculated for the increased retained height. The procedures for evaluating the magnitude and distribution of earth pressures given in Chapter 6 should be followed. In the calculations for soils modelled as c' - ¢' materials, the depth of the tension zone should be taken from the top of the equivalent retained material (see Section 6.5.3). 7.3.3. Line Loads The trial wedge method described in Section 6.5.6 can be used to determine the lateral earth pressures due to a line load which runs parallel to the retaining wall. In this method, the intensity per unit length of the line load should be added to the weight of the particular trial wedge to which the load is applied. A step will appear in the active force locus in the force polygon as the weight of the trial wedge suddenly increases when the line load is included. This method of calculation gives the maximum active thrust behind the wall but does not give the point of application of the resultant force. The point of application of the resultant and the earth pressure distribution with depth have to be determined by the procedure illustrated in Figures 24 and 25. Alternatively, the magnitude and distribution of earth pressures acting on a vertical retaining wall due to a line load may be estimated by means of the formulae given in Figure 29. These have been modified from the Boussinesq solution for distribution of stresses in an isotropic semi-infinite elastic medium (Boussinesq, 1885). The modifications are based on experimental evidence and assume the presence of a rigid and non-yielding retaining wall (Spangler & Handy, 1984; Terzaghi, 1953).4 7.3.4 Point Loads The magnitude and distribution of earth pressures against a vertical retaining wall caused by a point load can be estimated by means of formulae which have been modified from the Boussinesq solution (Boussinesq, 1885). ‘The relevant formulae are given in Figure 29. As in the case of line loads, these formulae are based on experimental evidence and assume the presence of a rigid and non-yielding retaining wall. 7.3.5 Area Loads Lateral earth pressures against a retaining wall due to surcharge loads that can be treated as strip loads can be estimated using the trial wedge method. Alternatively, the modified Boussinesq formulae can be used to estimate the magnitude and distribution of these earth pressures by carrying out integration over the extent of the area loads (e.g. rectangular loads). A detailed treatment of this approach is given in Spangler & Handy (1984). Computers can be programmed to carry out the calculations by numerical integration. 7.3.6 Horizontal Loads Lateral earth pressures against a retaining wall due to horizontal loads applied at the surface of the retained ground have received relatively little attention to date. However, there may be situations where horizontal loads exist and induce additional pressure on the retaining wall, e.g. lateral load transferred from road traffic onto an abutment wall. Little is known about the behaviour of retaining walls subjected to concentrated horizontal loads applied at the ground surface. Figure 29 gives an approximate pressure distribution acting on the back of a vertical retaining wall for the case of a horizontal line load. Alternatively, the formulae given in Poulos & Davis (1974) can be used to evaluate the stress distribution in an isotropic semi-infinite elastic medium due to horizontal loads. Based on Carother's (1920) principle of images, the horizontal stresses given by these formulae should be doubled to obtain the lateral earth pressures acting on the back of a vertical rigid non-yielding smooth retaining wall. 7.4 SEISMIC LOADS Hong Kong is situated in a region of low to medium seismicity and seismic load is generally not critical for retaining wall design. However, it is recommended that seismic load be considered specifically in design in the following cases : (a) abutment walls of highway and railway structures, (b) retaining walls affecting high risk structures or major lifelines, e.g. power plants and trunk water mains, and (©) cantilevered walls retaining saturated materials for which positive pore water pressures can be generated and soil shear5 strength degrades under seismic excitation. Examples of materials which degrade under seismic action include loose fill and loose colluvium, as described by Wong & Pang (1992). The seismic load to be used for the design of abutment walls is given in the Civil Engineering Manual Volume V (EDD, 1983), which specifies a horizontal static force equivalent to an acceleration of 0.07g applied at the centre of gravity of the structure. A project specific assessment should be carried out to evaluate the seismic load for the design of retaining walls associated with high risk structures or major lifelines. Such an assessment should include an analysis of the seismic hazard, a determination of the design earthquake return period, and an estimation of the amplification effects of the ground and the wall. For the purpose of seismic hazard analyses, reference should be made to GCO Publication No. 1/91 : Review of Earthquake Data for the Hong Kong Region (GCO, 1991), which provides information on earthquakes within a distance of about 350 km from Hong Kong. An outline of a seismic hazard analysis carried out for the Hong Kong region is, given by Pun & Ambraseys (1992). ‘The Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method (see Dowrick (1987) for a detailed description of the method) can be used to calculate the seismic forces induced on a retaining wall. The M-O method is based on plasticity theory and is essentially an extension of the Coulomb earth pressure theory. Although it grossly simplifies the soil-structure interaction in a seismic event, the M-O method has been used successfully for seismic design of retaining walls in many parts of the world.16 [BLANK PAGE]