You are on page 1of 22

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 1996, 14 269-290

Comparison of the pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of gravity retaining walls
P.K. WOODWARD" and D.V. GRIFFITHS t
"Department of Civil & Offshore Engineering, Hermt-Watt Untversity, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK t and Geomechamcs Research Center, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, 80401, USA

Received 12 May 1995 Accepted 22 August 1996

Summary
Pseudo-static and dynamic non-linear finite element analyses have been performed to assess the dynamic behaviour of gravity retaining walls subjected to horizontal earthquake loading. In the pseudo-static analysis, the peak ground acceleration is converted into a pseudo-static inertia force and applied as a horizontal incremental gravity load. In the dynamic analysis, an actual measured earthquake acceleration time history has been scaled to provide peak ground acceleration values of 0.1 g and 0.3 g. Good agreement is obtained between the pseudo-static analysis and analytical methods for the calculation of the active coefficient of earth pressure. However, the results from the dynamic analysis require careful interpretation. In the pseudo-static analysis, the increase in the point of application of the resultant active force with the horizontal earthquake coefficient kh from the one-third point to the mid-height of the wall is clearly observed. In the dynamic analysis, the variation in the point of application is shown to be a fimction of the type of wall deformation. Both finite element analyses indicate the importance of determining the magnitude of the predicted displacements when assessing the behaviour of the wall to seismic loading.

Keywords: pseudo-static analysis, gravity retaining wall, earthquake, dynamic finite element analysis

Introduction
A review of the increase in the lateral earth pressure on retaining walls during earthquakes was conducted by Nazarian and Hadjian (1979). They reported that the increase in lateral earth pressure during seismic loading induces sliding and/or tilting to retaining structures, causing three types of structural displacements: rigid body translation, rigid body rotation, and flexure. They also reported that the response of the wall is a function of the relative soil-structure displacements, structural rigidity, backfill properties, foundation stability and the characteristics of the applied input motion. Ortiz et al. (1983) conducted dynamic centrifuge testing of a cantilever retaining wall and showed that the earth pressure distribution behind the wall was non-linear. If the wall does not fail, then deflections of the wall during the earthquake may be greater than the
0960-3182 9 1996 Chapman & Hall

270

Woodward and Griffiths

final value. They also confirmed the work of Seed and Whitman (1970), in that a residual pressure acts on the wall after the earthquake has subsided, which can be substantially greater than the static pressure before the earthquake and can be a significant proportion of the maximum pressure developed during shaking. Neelakantan et al. (1990) used shake-table tests to look at tied-back walls subjected to earthquakes and found that the passive resistance due to the embedment of a flexible wall greatly enhanced its stability during shaking. Siller et aL (1991) also looked at tied-back walls and found that the stiffness of the wall does not affect the peak displacements. The wall tended to follow the soil motion and was not capable of modifying the free-field displacements. The most popular method used to estimate the increase in lateral earth pressure during earthquakes is the Mononobe-Okabe active earth pressure theory (Okabe, 1926; Mononobe and Matsuo 1929). The method is based on Coulomb's theory for the active earth pressure on retaining walls due to a dry cohesionless backfill and modified to take into account vertical and horizontal accelerations. These accelerations produce an additional inertia force which causes an increase in the lateral earth pressure on the retaining wall. The horizontal and vertical inertia forces can be described in a nondimensional form as

kh = (horizontal component of earthquake acceleration)

(1)

kv = (vertical component of earthqake accelerator)

(2)

g = 9.81 m/s 2

(3)

It can be shown that the dynamic active earth pressure, with earthquake effects can then be given as

PAE = 1 7//2( 1 _

kv)KA~

(4)

where 3' = unit weight of the backfill, H is the height of the wall and KAe represents the active coefficient of earth pressure (Fig. 1), with earthquake effects,

KAE =

C082((fi -- 1~ -- O)

(5)

eosOeos2/3cos(~5+/3+O) 1 + / . ~ ~ J

I

f sin(a+~)sin(~-i-O) ]~l/212

The main disadvantages of the Mononobe-Okabe solution can be summarized as follows: (1) the inertia of the wall is neglected and the dynamic amplification of the backfill is not considered:

Ortiz et al. (4) the method does not predict the increase in the point of application of the resultant active force. Steedman and Zeng (1990) have also found good agreement with the Mononobe-Okabe solution and showed the influence of phase on the calculation of the resultant active force. 1983). 1. They showed that when designing for earthquake loading. (1992) and Finn et al. S F B Fig.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 271 (2) the method is based on rigid body motions and so does not predict deformations. centrifuge and shake-table studies have shown that the Mononobe-Okabe solution does predict the correct earth pressure coefficients for a dry cohesionless backfill (e. They found that permanent relative displacements between the retaining wall and its base were lower for the rotating wall than for the non-rotating wall. (1992). . the inertia of the wall is an important factor and the weight of the wall should be increased over the static value in order to prevent excessive displacements. Finite element analyses of retaining walls during seismic shaking have been performed by Siller and Bielak (1986). Other finite elements analyses of the dynamic behaviour of retaining walls have been reported by Yogendrakumar et al. (3) reversal of the ground motion is not considered. Despite these deficiencies. Centrifuge and shake-table studies have shown that the point of application of the resultant active force (Ha) increases from the one-third point (H/3) towards a dynamic C A T H khW ? W O N / ot L .g. . Derivationof the Mononobe-Okabesolution . Richard and Elms (1979) proposed a design procedure for gravity retaining walls. .

the horizontal degrees of freedom between the wall and foundation interface were disconnected (i.15. two different boundary conditions were considered for the foundation. the interface between the bottom of the wall and the foundation was assumed to be rough (i. ~Sw/f= 0). It should be noted however.272 Woodward and Griffiths value of Ha = HI2 during seismic loading.e.e.42H has also been suggsted. a discontinuity in the vertical direction has been introduced to model the soil/structure interaction.0 x 105 kN/m 2. The wall is obviously more likely to fail through the development of active detbrmation than passive deformation. the same freedom numbers for the wall and soil elements at the interface). given by the inertia factor Cte. In a very simple way. The wall was assumed to behave elastically with a unit weight of 2 / = 25 kN/m 3. that Richard and Elms (1979) commented that the wall/ backfill friction angle is an important factor when assessing the inertia of the wall. called the 'smooth' analysis. the interface between the back of the wall and the granular backfill was therefore assumed to be smooth. Poisson's ratio of u = 0. 6w/b = 0). Prakash and Basavanna (1969) showed that Ha = HI2 when kh = 0. but separate degrees of freedom are assigned in the vertical direction. The gravity retaining wall was assumed to be 5 m in height with a Young's modulus of E = 250. This creates an interface which will allow the soil to slip down the back of the wall (i. Seed and Whitman (1970) showed that the influence of the wall/ backfill friction angle on Kae. Mesh used in the analysis . For simplicity.e.0 x 105 kN/m 2 and a Poisson's ratio of u = 0. Description of the problem The mesh used in both the pseudo-static and dynamic finite element analysis is shown in Fig.3 and found an average value of Ha = 0. The wall will not displace indefinitely as it is still connected horizontally to the backfill and vertically to the wall = 5m Fig. cohesionless and obey a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with an angle of friction r = 30 and a dilation angle of ~ = 0 ~ A Young's modulus of E = 1. 2. To achieve this. but still allow horizontal interaction. In the dynamic analysis. This creates a smooth interface at the base in the horizontal direction and again introduces a very simple discontinuity. 2. The backfill was assumed to be dry. but the vertical ones were not. In the first case. In the pseudo-static analysis. was small. using the Mononobe-Okabe theory. the same degreeof-freedom number is assigned to both the wall and the backfill in the horizontal direction.3 and a unit weight of 7 = 17 kN/m 3 were also assumed.

Table 1 shows the first four natural frequencies. In all the analyses performed a vertical coefficient of kv = 0. in which a purely translational failure was induced. It should also be noted that the acceleration time history is constantly changing direction.sin0). ~w/f = qS).~ 1 .569 6.0 was assumed. This type of boundary condition. Natural frequency analysis Before the pseudo-static and dynamic analyses were performed.601 4. a natural frequency analysis was performed in order to assess the basic dynamic characteristics of the wall.7H2( 1 _ kv) (7) The point of application of the resultant force (Hk) can be found through the following equation Hk = ~ H Pile PTOT (8) where Pe and le are respectively the elemental horizontal force component and point of application of the elemental force component above the base of the wall. The earth pressure coefficient K can be monitored and compared directly to the pseudo-static finite element value. The horizontal initial stresses were assumed to be a function of Ko (i. called the 'rough' analysis. As expected.e. If a particular gravity retaining wall were to be analysed. both the horizontal and vertical degrees of freedom were connected across the interface (i.939 6. forcing the wall to displace either into or away from the backfill. gives a failure which is almost entirely translational in nature.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls Table 1.e. then better interface modelling could be achieved through the use of interface or slip elements. the first mode shape was essentially horizontal motion of the backfill. Ko . This condition is obviously the more realistic case and allows for both translational and rotational behaviour of the wall (note: behaviour is also dependent on the geometry of the wall). and to the Mononobe-Okabe solution.816 273 foundation. although they could be set to simulate the particular method used to construct the wall. although unrealistic.. . First four natural frequencies Mode 1 2 3 4 Natural frequency (Hz) 3. In the second case. In both the pseudo-static and dynamic analysis the coefficient of earth pressure (K) was calculated by summing the horizontal forces behind the wall (PToT) and re-arranging Equation 4 to give 2PToT K -.

The lateral stresses (expressed in the Figure as the earth pressure coefficient K). they are generally in excellent agreement. until active failure of the wall is achieved and the value of K becomes constant and equal to KAE. 1988).0.3 and clearly shows this point moving towards the mid-point of the wall. hence the sharp increase in K.274 Woodward and Griffiths Pseudo-static finite element analysis In the pseudo-static analysis. The tendency for this parameter to move towards the mid-point of the wall (Ha = 0. which was converted to an incremental gravity load in the horizontal direction. Dynamic finite element analysis The pseudo-static analysis does not assume a pre-defined failure plane and so active failure of the wall occurs along the actual induced failure plane. 0.3 g.1 and 0. As mentioned previously.0. for horizontal earthquake coefficients of kh = 0. The decision on which acceleration time history . Figure 3a shows typical results from the pseudo-static analyses. Although this paper only considers the behaviour of the retaining wall to one earthquake (the purpose of this paper is to examine and compare a pseudo-static and dynamic finite element approach) in the actual design of the retaining wall several acceleration time histories would have to be applied to assess its overall performance. Figure 4a shows the computed active earth pressure coefficients KA~ compared to the Mononobe-Okabe solution. initially increase sharply as the acceleration is applied. 5a) was scaled to peak acceleration values of 0. However. This is a distinct advantage over the Mononobe-Okabe solution. Input motion and dynamic algorithm The input (ground) acceleration time history (Fig. Although the computed results predict slightly higher values of Kae at larger peak accelerations. the excitation was in the form of a suddenly applied constant horizontal acceleration. Figure 3b shows the increase in the point of application of the resultant active force for kh = 0. Figure 4b shows the increase in the point of application of the resultant active force Ha with increasing peak acceleration. Purely translational displacement increments were then applied to the whole wall in order to mobilize active stresses. The authors conducted similar analyses for friction angles of r = 25 ~ and 35 ~ and found similar results.1 g and 0.1 and 0. 0. The pseudo-static analysis can predict earth pressure distributions. changes in the shear strength due to the inertia forces and an estimate of predicted displacements. to examine translational and rotational behaviour of the wall the wall/foundation interface was assumed to be both 'smooth' (translational behaviour) and 'rough' (translational and rotational behaviour). points of application of the resultant active force. but some consideration can be given to reversal of the ground motion.5H) with increasing kh is clearly observed. These deficiencies in the pseudo-static approach can be dealt with in the dynamic environment. the pseudo-static analysis still cannot predict amplification of the ground motion or inertia effects of the waU. and then gradually fall as the wall is displaced.3. The earthquake was actually measured at bedrock level near to the Long Valley Dam in California (Griffiths and Prevost.

1 0.008 Displacement (m) Fig.002 0 .006 0. . 0 0 4 0. the product of mass times ground acceleration) in the following equation of motion.6 1.007 0. . ~ .007 0.4 o J kh = 0. i .005 0.3 0.8 "~ o 1. . 3 .0 . Typical results from the pseudo-static analysis.2 0. (b) Normalized point of application of the resultant earth pressure coefficient (Hk/H) to apply.4 0. .Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 275 1.001 0. .1 T T r I 1 r T t T 1 T T I I I I T T I l T I T T l I T T I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I 0 0. The acceleration time history used in this paper was applied as an inertia force (i.~ kh i i i O0 i I .4 o 1. 3. J 0 0. .2 o r 0.8 0.e. . to represent the next earthquake.008 0.003 0. I r . . (a) Earth pressure coefficient K.C o o 0.001 0. .002 0. .005 Displacement (m) (a) 0.3 " kh = 0.2 r J i i i kh = 0 . poses one of the biggest uncertainties in the field of earthquake engineering. 0 0 3 0 .004 (b) 0.~ 0.5 I kh = 0 . . i . .6 0. i ~ i i i 1 .

i .34 . r i i ~ . mass and damping matrices respectively.5 O r 0. .45 0. i . .25 0. ~ . . i ~ i i . I i t i i I i i i i I . i . i . . . Results from the pseudo-static analysis for 0.4 Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient kh 0. and {-~}g is the grotmd acceleration time history. .2 0.6 0. .2 .45 0. . . . . . .35 0. . . . . 0 0. .42 < ~s O 0.4 Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient kh 0. {r}. .2 0.54 0. . . .9 0 0q b. i i i .0 < kh <_0.05 0.1 0.276 Woodward and Griffiths 0.3 0.5 (b) Fig.1 0. . {2} and { ~ } are the vectors of relative displacement.3 0. 0 0. .3 . . velocity and acceleration respectively. .46 0. .5 Z: 0. (b) Normalizedpoint of application of the resultant earth pressure coefficient (H~/m [M] i. .05 0. otzj + [c] ~-~ + [K] {r} = -[34] I ~ J (9) where [K]. . . i i . i . (a) Earth pressure coefficient KAE. To examine the . 4. 0 0 Pseudo-Static~ 0.8 r. . i . . . [M] and [C] are the consistent stiffness.35 0.4 0. . .15 0. .25 0.5. i .15 0. I i ~ i i I i i r [ [ i .38 0. .

+A 3 3 .5 Hz and some dynamic amplification of the backfill is to be expected.06 -0. The dynamic implicit algorithm used in the analysis was the Newmark %/3 method (Newmark. .1 2 4 6 Time (s) 8 10 12 (a) 0. which is lower than the natural frequency of the wall. (a) Acceleration time history.06 0.12 0.[M] f O2r~ g . The main frequency content of the earthquake was around 2. (b) Fourier transform of the acceleration time history influence of phase on the retaining wall (Steedman and Zeng.04 0.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 0. 1959) in which the equation of motion (Equation 9) is solved at time t + At.o2 o ~ ~ -0.08 -0.08 277 0. a large spike is observed at frequencies around 3.02 4). 5. However.04 -0. The Fourier transform of the earthquake is shown in Fig.06 0. Scaled horizontal ground motion used in the dynamic analysis.~ 0. 5b.08 ~ ~ 0. In this method the new displacements.1 . 1990) a more sophisticated method of applying the acceleration time history to the base of the mesh should be used.~ [C] + [K]/{r).o4 0.0 Hz. velocities and accelerations are calculated from the following recurrence relationships: [ ~ t 2 [M] + ~ .02 0 0 4 8 Frequency (Hz) 12 16 20 (b) Fig.1= 0.

~ ) ( ~ } t - (2-fl) 02r At{~}t ] (lO) {_~}t+At='y {r}t+At.l) ~O2r'~j 2 (12) The results presented are for "y = 0.55 and/3 = 0.( 1 . .('Y -}.0 Hz respectively.(-~tkt{r}t. The elastic-perfectly plastic soil model underestimates the level of hysterietic damping and so for each peak ground acceleration Rayleigh damping values of { = 5 and 10% were used for the backfill. /3-.(1/3kt { 02r'~ _ 1 1 Or 7 -~) {-Ot}t.COa) (cOb (co coN) /3 = 2~ (cob. 1974) could also be used to specify the viscous damping eoefficient based on the shear strain level in each element.278 1 1 or 1 [M][~--~-~{r}t+~tt{-~}t+(~-1) Woodwardand Griffiths (02r] ] + Or 1- 7 [C] [~-7~t{ r } t .( 1 _ -~) At l~ ~1t"~ (11) ~. Oe= 2coacob{ -. which was considered justified as the discretization process and the elastic-perfectly plastic assumption would generate some spurious high frequency noise. [c] = <a//l +/~[K] (14) where.coa) (co coa (15) (16) where coaand cob are the frequencies used to define the damping curve and were set at the fundamental frequency of 3. The damping matrix [C] was therefore calculated based on the following relationship. 1 Or 1 ot2jt+~t ~3At {r}t+~t-(fl~-~{r}t+~t {~}t+(-~.28. where.6 Hz and 9. A constant value of ~ = 5% was assumed throughout the analyses for the wall.1) 2 4 (13) The value of these parameters represent a small amount of numerical damping. Variable damping techniques (Idriss et aL.

. The element viscous damping matrices at the boundaries of the mesh are added to form a global viscous damping matrix which is subsequently added to the consistent material damping matrix. then displacements induced during the earthquake can be greater than after the shaking has stopped. at damping ratios of ~ = 5 and 10% respectively. Both analyses indicate some translation and rotation of the wall (rocking) with the horizontal displacements being more significant in the smooth analysis. assuming Rayleigh damping at ~ = 5%. which suggests a more significant change in the non-linear stress distribution behind the wall during shaking. The Figures also show that provided the wall has not 'failed' (i. Vp and V. The rough boundary analysis predicts a larger variation in the point of application of K. viscous boundaries (Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer. thus imposing a non-zero force at the node.e. 1969) were applied. and negative displacements indicate passive movement of the wall. and the bottom vertical displacement time history. Although the peak displacement has not been significantly reduced the displacements after the peak have. although a higher increase in the residual value of K is observed in the rough boundary analysis. Peak ground acceleration = O. Figure 6c and d show the effect of increasing the Rayleigh damping coefficient to ~ = 10%. of the retaining wall subject to 0.1 g Figure 6a and b show the horizontal displacement time histories of the top and bottom. and a and b are constants. large plastic deformation of the wall). are the compression and shear velocities. the following convention was used: positive displacements indicate active movement of the wall. Figure 7a and b show the change in the earth pressure coefficient K with time. since K continuously varies with time as the wall is displaced away from the soil and then back into it. for the smooth and rough analyses respectively. In all of the results presented.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 279 To prevent stress waves being reflected at the mesh boundaries. Effectively a 'dash-pot' is positioned at each node where the viscous boundary is to be applied. Figure 8a and b show the change in the point of application of the resultant force with time.1 g peak ground acceleration. but both analyses show the difficulty in predicting a value of K which could be compared to an analytical solution. Both analyses predict an increase in the earth pressure coefficient after the earthquake has stopped. The elemental boundary consistent viscous damping matrix [C]~ can be written as [C]~ = f J [N]T[C]*[Nlds (17) where [N] are the element shape functions and Into (18) where p is the mass density. The smooth boundary analysis predicts a larger variation in K. indicating elastic behaviour.

Bottom Vertical 0.007 0.280 0. In Fig.005 g o 0.002 L -0. although failure o f the wall has probably still occurred.3 g peak ground acceleration for the smooth and rough analyses respectively.004 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) (a) 0. The peak displacements are significantly ..-.001 0 -0. at a damping ratio of ( = 10% Peak ground acceleration = 0.o01 0 Woodward and Griffiths Top Horizontal Bottom Horizontal Bottom Vertical -0.003 -O. . It is interesting to note that the vertical displacements at the bottom of the wall are higher than the horizontal displacements at the bottom of the wall.. 9b a significant reduction in the peak displacements is observed for the rough boundary analysis.. . .004 .003 -..Bottom Horizontal :=-.001 -O. There is also a large difference between the displacements o f the top o f the wall and the bottom. and from (c) 'smooth' and (d) 'rough' analyses. . 3 g Figure 9a and b show the horizontal displacement time histories of the top and bottom and the bottom vertical displacement time history..006 0.1 g peak ground acceleration.Top Horizontal . Figure 9c and d show the effect o f increasing the Rayleigh damping coefficient to ( = 10%.. 6.OO4 i 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) (b) Fig. .007 0. . indicating a significant rotation o f the wall during shaking.003 -O. .0. assuming Rayleigh damping at ( = 5%.. Figure 9a shows that the wall has 'failed' since the displacements after the earthquake has subsided are approximately the same as those at the peak ground acceleration. .OO2-0.002 0.006 ~ ~ 0. o f the retaining wall subject to 0. 0. at a damping ratio of ~ = 5%.004 0.. from (a) 'smooth' and (b) 'rough' analyses.003 ~ o. .001 -0. . Displacement time histories of the wall for 0.005 .

. After the earthquake had subsided..004 2 4 6 Time (s) 8 10 12 (c) 0. which again suggests a more significant change in the non-linear stress distribution behind the wall during shaking.001 -0..001 0 -0..Bottom Horizontal 0.007 0.003 ~ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time(s) (d) Fig.003 0. Contd. Bottom Vertical 0.007 0. reduced.001 -0.004 v - - Top H o r i z o n t a l Bottom Horizontal Bottom Vertical ---.. at damping ratios of ~ = 5 and 10% respectively. However..001 0 -0. The smooth and rough analyses predict large variations in K.002 -0.. Figures 10a and b show the change in the earth pressure coefficient K with time.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 281 0.003 -0. in the rough analysis the residual earth pressure is substantially greater than the initial earth pressure and is equal to the peak earth pressure experienced during shaking. it is interesting to note that the point of application of the resultant force remains high in the .005 0. This demonstrates the importance of knowing the correct level of material damping if the wall is approaching failure..002 -0..003 0..006 0.006 - - Top H o r i z o n t a l t~ o -. o ?5 0.002 0.002 0.. especially for the smooth analysis. Figure 11 a and b show the change in the point of application of the resultant force with time..004 0.. Both analyses predict an increase in the earth pressure coefficient after the earthquake had subsided. but again both analyses show the difficulty in predicting a value of K which could directly be compared to an analytical solution. The rough boundary analysis again predicts a larger variation in the point of application of K.005 .. 6.

7 ~'~ 0. the . . . .55 0.45 Smooth Rough 0.g 0.Rough g 0. I .65 .282 0. Discussion In this paper. ' ' ' r . . I . .4 . 0. but falls close to the initial point of application in the rough analysis.6 0. Variation in the earth pressure coefficient (K) for 0.1 g peak ground acceleration from the 'smooth' and 'rough' analyses at damping ratios of (a) ~ = 5%. .45 h 0. .4 0 _ _ 2 a . translational deformation of the wall is clearly observed. ~ 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) (b) Fig..7 Woodward and Griffiths Smooth . The pseudo-static analysis gave good agreement with an existing analytical solution for the determination of the earth pressure coefficient KAE and indicated that the point of application of the resultant force increases with increasing peak horizontal acceleration. . the dynamic active earth pressure problem has been addressed using a nonlinear pseudo-static and dynamic finite element approach. Figure 3a showed that as the coefficient of earthquake acceleration kh increases.6 0. . . . For the smooth analysis.55 0. . . _ .5 ]1~ . . This is to be expected in the rough analysis as the wall experiences a significant rotation lowering the point of application. 7.5 s. . Figure 12a and b show the displaced mesh at T = 5. corresponding to the peak ground acceleration. and (b) ( = 10% smooth analysis. . I .65 ~ 0. 0 2 4 6 Time (s) 8 10 12 0. whereas the rough analysis shows translation with rotation.5 0.

42 -= o -Kougn I 11 0.3 0 ' . . as proposed by Richard and Elms (1979). . .3. I~ I I l ~ J | ' l " ' N t a ' ~ / - .~ 0. ~ " " ~ I |IIll Ill iI. Although a homogeneous backfill was assumed in this paper. the weight o f the wall including inertia effects . In their paper. . over seven times more displacement is required when kh = 0.42 0. . I .. 8. This is due to the soil-structure interaction effects with the value of K decreasing during active movement and increasing during passive movement of the wall. Typically. . but due to the time varying input it is difficult to find an exact value o f K which would represent "failure' o f the wall. . . The displacements calculated from a pseudo-static analysis therefore suggest an initial estimate o f the displacements at the onset o f active failure.3.32 0. .. The results from the dynamic analysis show that there is a significant variation in the earth pressure coefficient K during earthquakes.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 0. .4 ---- Rough q o. 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) (b) Fig. . as expressed in pseudo-static and analytical methods. An indication to whether the wall has failed can he obtained by computing the increase in the weight o f the wall due to inertia. . than when kh = 0. . r .32 0.36 O. . Variation in the normalized point of application (Hk/H) of the resultant earth pressure coefficient (K) for 0. K = KAe) also increases.38 '~ I II bll I 0.4 0. .0.* 0.36 iI iI h i~l / t .38 0.e. ..Ii '" i ~ ^ e . i . the pseudo-static analysis can be used for backfills in which the material properties vary.34 ~u 0.~ 0.44 Smooth lal .3 2 4 1 6 T i m e (s) 8 10 12 (~) 0. .1 g peak ground acceleration from the 'smooth' and 'rough' analyses at damping ratios of (a) ~ = 5% and (b) ~ = 10% magnitude o f the displacements required to cause a constant horizontal stress distribution behind the wall (i.44 283 Smooth 0.

.r/"r'/z'" ~ .0 x 103 kg/m and so a factor o f safety F.kv) (tan Cb -.3 g peak ground acceleration at a damping ratio of = 5% for (a) 'smooth' and (b) 'rough' analyses.03 0.. . l . l . b. Displacement time histories of the wall for 0. . .. fi = 6 = 0.eh~ can be considered on the wall . .Bottom Horizontal Bottom Vertical . i . 9.01 2 4 6 Time (S) 8 10 12 (u) Fig.05 _ g O.O4 0.. i .sin(6 + fl) tan ~bb (1 -. .02 C2 0.. and at a damping ratio of~ = 10% for (c) 'smooth' and (d) 'rough' analyses Ww is given by: Ww = GeEA~ = CIE-127HZ(1 . i . I 0. The wall used in this paper has a mass o f W m = 21.06 0.. .03 BottomVertical J I"l~".. I .Top H o r i z o n t a l ot om H o r i z o n t a l Woodward and Griffiths 0.. .tail 0) (20) For the rough wall.. . .06 .01 I . 0.O4 _ 9 ..e.01 0 -0. I . 8 10 12 0.05 0.. .01 0 I 0 --- - Top H o r i z o n t a l -.. 9 .02 0. ~bb = ~b = 30 ~ and k~ = 0. 0 2 4 6 Time ( 9 (a) ..1 and kh = 0. .284 0. -0. Table 2 shows the results o f Equations 19 and 20 for kh = 0.k v ) K A e where (19) CtE = cos(6 + fl) . . .3.. .

01 2 4 6 Time (s) 8 10 12 (~) 0. 9.. it can be seen that the residual displacements of the wall are the same as the peak values..01 0 "V 0 -0.3. Fwe~ght < 1 indicating failure.1 the wall has not failed.Ww (21) Table 2 indicates that when kh = 0.3 and ~ = 5%.05 0. in terms of a .06 Top Horizontal ff05 v --.02 0. where kh = 0.03 0.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 285 0.e.06 Top Horizontal 0...03 0...04 v m__ ~ . By observing the displacement trace of the wall in the rough analysis.01 0 4)..04 0.02 0.. The pseudo-static analysis indicated that failure of this wall. Contd. mass as Wm Fwezght . B o t t o m Horizontal B o t t o m Vertical 0.. but when kh----0... It should be noted however that Equations 19 and 20 relate to a wall which has failed by sliding failure. i. .01 f 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) Fig.B o t t o m Horizontal B o t t o m Vertical 0. indicating significant plastic deformation during shaking. failure. The dynamic analysis therefore suggests that the magnitude of the peak and residual displacements should also be used as a guide to the suitability of a retaining wall to withstand seismic loading when performing finite element simulations.

o o. To simulate accurately the dynamic behaviour of the backfill.5 0.286 1.6 0.9 0. . 3a).Ix I ' ]~ '] ' ''\l~ .. ~ / :/ l l ( / .01 m when kh = 0. Both the dynamic smooth and rough analyses predict permanent displacements greater than this for ~ = 5% and ~ = 10%.9 ---- Smooth Rough /l{ . It is desirable to use these types of models when simulating the build-up of excess pore water pressures. This highlights the problem of using simple constitutive soil models in a dynamic finite-element analysis when simulating the cyclic behaviour of the soil. The first author is currently implementing the kinematic elasto-plastic soil model ALTERNAT (Molenkamp. will occur at displacements of 0. / . and (b) ~ = 10% constant value of KAE. Comparisons between the smooth and rough analyses show the importance of the wall/ . more realistic cyclic soil models should be used in future analyses which can reproduce the correct cyclic behaviour of the soil.^1 .5 0.008-0.7 1 0. 1993).7 ~ . Cyclic constitutive soil models are often kinematic in nature and often use multiple yield surfaces to simulate phenomenon such as cyclic mobility.I 0.3 g peak ground acceleration from the ' s m o o t h ' and ' r o u g h ' analyses at damping ratios o f (a) ~ = 5%.8 I - ~ ---- Smooth Rough t lU I \/~.4 2 4 6 Time (s) 8 10 12 (b) Fig.1 Woodward and Griffiths ~ g o 1 0.8 _-0. 1982. 0. . 1990) which can successfully model this type of phenomenon (Woodward.6 - - ~ m 0.4 0 2 4 6 Time (s) 8 10 12 1.3 (Fig. . The simple elastic-perfectly plastic soil model underestimates the level of hysteretic damping and so Rayleigh damping was introduced.1 v 9 ~ o o 0. 10. Variation in the earth pressure coefficient (K) for 0.

.. I~ Smooth n 9 l~ougn 7k . ~ . Ittk 1 ~ .28 ! . To compare the earth pressure coefficient KA~ between the pseudo-static and dynamic analysis. ~ . 0.44 287 0.s . :'/:ll.JJ ~ YV ~1 9 ii 'll I ' ' III I| t~l't"l I ~l~'l \ ~ CL-IX.3 g peak ground acceleration from the 'smooth' and 'rough' analyses at damping ratios of (a) ~ = 5%. V ~ XJ'~. r r ._C~FfkF /X. Displacement comparisons of the wall using a simple model combined with viscous damping is therefore unrealistic as the peak displacements were influenced by the damping coefficient ~ when kh = 0. .. ~ . the wall experiences large translational deformation leading to failure.i'i. Richards and Elms (1979) commented on the use of Franklin and Chang's (1977) curves for calculation of the total relative displacement of the wall. t i I I~ II II ' II I I / IIii n II II. Figure 10a and b .dv. although the translational displacements were significantly lower. ./'t:'. a large resistance to movement causes both translational and rotational deformation. k . 11.3 (Table 2) as this value of earth pressure coefficient produced excessive plastic deformation (failure). However.. i |ll(lllll . . . as this corresponds to the same mode of deformation.?'""" i?i}.. ~ .42 I 9 Smooth Rough II 0... . the smooth analysis must be used.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 0.42 E-- F I-~. r I ..36 0.3 0... KAe must also be compared for kh = 0. If only small resistance is provided.38 0. . and do not account for the mode of deformation of the wall during shaking. I .k. Variation in the normalized point of apphcation (Hk/H) of the resultant earth pressure coefficient (K) for 0.3 ~028 ~ 0 2 ' ..'. .X.34 *~ ~u 032 0. ..44 0. and (b) ~ = 10% foundation resistance.. .3. k<. Unfortunately these curves depend only on the earthquake acceleration time history (in fact.~I k / J " \ \ " .4 "r-. the rotational ones were higher than for the smooth base.' ~ 4 ~t 8 10 12 4 6 Time (s) (b) Fig. r ~ . O O g~ 0. r r ... . A~ . 0 2 4 6 Time (s) 8 10 12 (a) 0. maximum values of acceleration and velocity) and not upon any retaining wall parameters.

12. due to rotation of the wall. ~ .62. . . 1 (a) __1___ I l d i =_. .0 x 103 46. i . . . . . . . . i . . .e. . which is close to the pseudo-static analysis. . . . . . . . Factors of safety of wall with inertia effects kh W~ (kg/m) Fw~wht 1. . . . residual) is approximately 0. . . . .45 0. .5 s for a peak ground acceleration of 0. . . . . . . . Displaced mesh at time t = 5. . . .1 0. .3 19. . . . .3 g than the smooth analysis. . Z__ : __2 . . . II t .44H (slightly lower than Table 2. . . i j. . The rough analysis predicts significantly higher residual values of K for a peak ground acceleration of 0. . .1 0.3 g from (a) 'smooth' and (b) 'rough' analysis. . . . .9 x 103 . Magnification factor = 50 x indicate that the final earth pressure coefficient of the wall (i. i J (b) Fig. . . . . The pseudo-static analysis does not directly give residual values of the earth pressure coefficient. . - -. . . . . . . .288 Woodward and Griffiths t . i i . . The point of application of the resultant active force in the dynamic analysis seemed to occur around Hk = Ha ~ 0. . . . .42 --+ 0. __t_ E t --ii i i i i E i i i r E i . In reality the residual earth pressure would probably lie somewhere in between the smooth and rough residual values.

393-402. and Yoshida.Pseudo-static and dynamic behaviour of retaining walls 289 in the pseudo-static analysis).S. similarities between earth pressure coefficients and expected initiation of failure (start of excessive plastic displacements) were observed. Pande and S. If failure of the wall has occurred. This observation is especially beneficial if the properties of the backfill vary with depth.D. Wu.U. Atkins North-West in the form of a CASE studentship to the first author. = Conclusions Both a pseudo-static and dynamic finite element analysis can be used to estimate the response of a gravity retaining wall subjected to seismic loading in terms of earth pressures and displacements. etc.. N. in Fourth International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics. points of application of resultant earth pressures and estimates of relative displacements. G. G. pp. as the direction of wall movement is constantly changing with the input motion. Pietruszczat (eds) Swansea. Wales. References Finn. The method can also be used for non-homogeneous soils. (2) The pseudo-static finite element approach can also be used to estimate the increase in the point of application of the resultant active force. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the SERC and W. inertia effects of the wall. The conclusions of the paper can be summarized as: (1) The pseudo-static finite element approach gave good agreement to analytical methods for predicting the increase in lateral earth pressure during earthquakes.L. in terms of the distribution of earth pressures.) and so a dynamic finite element analysis is therefore necessary. A pseudo-static finite element analysis will give more information than the MononobeOkabe solution. then the active earth pressure coefficient with earthquake effects KAe can be compared directly to the pseudo-static finite element analysis once the mode of deformation is taken into account. whereas the resultant passive force seemed to remain close to the one-third point (Hk Hp = HI3). W. . (4) The dynamic analysis also showed that the earth pressure coefficient K and the point of application of K can vary considerably during the earthquake. the peak acceleration and the level of material damping. deflections during excitation are greater than the final values. (1992) Seismic lateral pressures on sheet pile from saturated backfills. The method cannot however examine the dynamic behaviour of the wall and backfill (dynamic amplification. (5) The earth pressure coefficient after shaking may be greater than the earth pressure coefficient before the event and seems to be dependent on the magnitude of the wall rotation. (3) The dynamic analysis showed that if failure of the wall (in terms of excessive plastic displacements) has not occurred. When equal modes of deformation between the dynamic and pseudo-static analyses were compared.

Journal of the Geotechnieal Engineering Division. Newmark.M. (1977) Earthquake Resistance of Earth and Rockfill Dams.G. F. I. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.A. LGM Report CO218598 Delft Geotechnics. (1990) Mechanics and performance of a tied-back wall under seismic loads. Richards. (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. Chile. 67-94. P. and Bielak. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. 38 (3). 1-13. R. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. (1) 103-12. 367-88. (1959) A method of computation for structural dynamics. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. 9. Miss. Proceedings oJ the 3rd U. J. (1979) Earthquake induced lateral soil pressure on structures. University of Manchester. J. (1986) The non-linear seismic response of retaining walls. E1 Cerrito. 12. H. Geotechnique. Vickesburg. N.. and Kuhlemeyer. (7) 605-20. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Christiano. M. (1926) General theory of earth pressure. Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (Tokyo). R. Seed. F. Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17. EM4. 19. ASCE.J. and Prevost.K. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. G. (1990) The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall. Yogendrakumar. Molenkamp. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. F. 85.D. R. Idriss. T. 40. and Whitman. D. ASCE. 315-31.K. and Hadjian. (1929) On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes. ASCE.J. ASCE.. (1979) Seismic behaviour of gravity retaining walls. R. Siller. S. pp. Steedman. 118. Griffiths. (1969) Earth pressure distribution behind retaining wall during earthquakes. (GT4).N. R. . R. Ortiz. ASCE. J. 176--182.B. W. R. pp. H. Prakash. X. 103-47. Siller. Scott. N.L.M. Budhu. (1993) Earthquake engineering and advanced constitutive modelling in geomechanics by finite elements. (1988) Two and three dimensional finite element analyses of the Long Valley Dam. 859-77. Okabe S. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. USA. 100. 1049-66. ASCE. (GT9). (1992) Dynamic response analysis of reinforced-soil retaining wall. 599-610.290 Woodward and Griffiths Franklin.G. and Lee. (1983) Dynamic centrifuge testing of a cantilever retaining wall.L. A. Molenkamp. L. Mononobe. Santiago. J. 110 (2) 251-68. No. Geotechnique. 20. A.B. M. Research Institute. and Basavanna. and Matsuo. and Richards. and Chang.M.. Neelakantan. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. 105. H. (1982) Kinematic Model for Alternating Loading ALTERNAT. (8) 1158-67.S. Lysmer. (1991) Seismic response of tied-back retaining walls.V. N. pp. and Finn. (1). H. 449-64.H. Soils and Pavement Laboratory. 105. and Seriff. T. and Bielak. P. Journal of the Geoteehnical Engineering Division.F. B. ASCE.. (1974) Seismic response by variable damping finite elements. Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures. D. Report 5: Permanent Displacements of Earth Embankments by Newmark Sliding Block Analysis.P. (1990) Reformulation of ALTERNAT Model to Minimise Numerical Drift Due to Cyclic Loading. Woodward.S..H. 95. in Proceedings of the Fourth Worm Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Nazarian. University of Manchester Internal Report. PhD Thesis. Bathurst. J. Department of Civil Engineering. and Zeng. Seed. in Proceedings of the Worm Engineering Conference. (1970) Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads.V. Vol. and Elms.