Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 15-17,2011, Kochi (Invited Talk -5.)

DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE AGAINST RETAINING WALLS

Vijay K. Puri, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering,SIU Carbondale, IL, USA , puri@engr.siu.edu
Shamsher Prakash, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, MUST Rolla, MO, USA, prakash@mst.edu

ABSTRACT.. The paper presents a simple method for calculation of static and dynamic active force on the rigid retaining
wall following the pseudo-static approach of analysis and includes the effects of cohesion of the backfill and the friction
between the backfill and the wall face. The resultant earth pressure obtained by this method has been compared with the
experimentally observed values during small scale tests on retaining walls by other investigators. The displacement of retaining
wall must not exceed specified values. The methods for calculation of displacement of rigid retaining walls are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION
There are two aspects in the design of retaining walls for
q C D
earthquake loading:
(a). Calculation of static and dynamic lateral pressures. A Zone of tensile
i E crack
(b). Calculation of displacement of the retaining wall. crack
Hc
The lateral earth pressure for static case is generally C
D Ca IF C
determined using either Rankine’s [1] or Coulomb’s [2]
method. The earthquake induced forces on the retaining wall \ W
Wr
are generally computed using the modified Coulomb’s H G


approach in which the earthquake force on the backfill is D G

G T I
replaced by an equivalent static force. This is known as Pa(dyn R

Mononobe-Okabe method [3,4]. A solution for determination B

of static and dynamic active earth pressure for c-ij soils was Fig. 1 Typical assumed failure wedge with forces acting on it.
developed earlier by Saran and Prakash [5]. This provides a
convenient method for determination of static and dynamic
lateral pressures for a typical soil. However, it has the
following limitations: D
c’a
1. The effect of the vertical component of acceleration been T
neglected. c
2. The backfill surface is assumed to be horizontal, which (Pa)dyn
may actually be inclined in many cases.
DG
(W+Q)(1+Dv)
3. The unit adhesion between the back face of the retaining
wall and soil was assumed to be equal to the unit cohesion of R
the soil IT
A method for calculation of dynamic active pressure for a c-ij
soil accounting for the effect of the following factors is IF=(W+q)Dh
presented here(Fig. 1). Figure 2. Polygon of Forces
The effect of cohesion, c, and adhesion, ca.
The inclination of the backfill, i The polygon of forces acting on the assumed failure wedge
Horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients, Įh and Įv may then be drawn as shown in Fig.2. Applying the
respectively. conditions of equilibrium and simplifying the results a
Surcharge, q relationship for (Pa)dyn can be obtained as
Inclination of the wall face, Į
( Pa ) dyn 1 JH 2 ( N
Depth of tension cracks, Hc 2 a J ) dyn

EARTH PRESSURE CACULATION  qH ( N aq ) dyn  cH ( N ac ) dyn

………….…(1)
A schematic diagram of dynamic earth pressure problem is
in which,
shown in Fig.1. ABEC is an assumed failure wedge.
Considering the unit length of the wall, (Pa)dyn = total active cos(D  i ) cos I e cos(D  I  T
( N ac ) dyn [  ]
force, R = soil reaction, IF = horizontal inertia force, W = cos D cos(T  i ) cos D
weight of assumed failure wedge, Wt=resultant of weight W
1
and IF, C= cohesion force, Ca =adhesive force, q = surcharge, x
Į = inclination of wall face with vertical ( Į > 0) and i = sin( D  G  I  T ) …………………….…...(2)
inclination of the backfill (ș < i < ij).

29
Puri, VK and Prakash,S

sin(D  T )
( N aq ) dyn [  n tan D cos T ] x 0.8
cos D
D =0, i = 0, Dv = 0
0.7
D sin(I  T )  (1 r D v ) cos(I  T )
[ h
sin(D  G  I  T ) cos(T  i ) ………...……(3) 0.6

1
( N aJ ) dyn ^tan D  tan T 0.5
sin(D  G  I  T )

KAE cos G
n
 [( 2  n ) tan D cos T  2 sin T ] 0.4
cos i cos(T  i )
2
sin (D  T ) sin i 0.3
 2 }u
cos D cos T cos(T  i ) Author’s result
0.2
[D h sin(I  T )  (1 r D v ) cos(I  T )] Mononobe-Okabe
…………(4) theory
and
0.1 Model test results [6]
ca
e ……………………………… (5)
c
0
Where ca = unit adhesion between the back face of the wall
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
and the backfill, and c = unit soil cohesion.
Dh

The static earth pressure can be obtained from Eqs. 1-5, by Fig.3. Translation of wall for active pressure – comparison of
making Įh and Įv as zero. The value of (Pa)dyn and (Pa)stat theory with model test results
obtained from Eq. (1) are for the assumed failure wedge. In
order to obtain the maximum values of the total dynamic computed by the proposed method show an excellent
earth force, (Pa)dyn , the earth pressure coefficients (Naq)dyn, agreement with Mononobe-Okabes method and are
(Na )dyn, and (Nac)dyn were optimized. A computer code was somewhat smaller than the those observed by sheriff et al[6].
developed for this purpose. It must be mentioned here that The effect of various parameters on dynamic active earth
these earth pressuree coefficients were individually optimized pressure was investigated using equation 1. It was observed
and then (Pa)dyn was obtained by superimposing their effect, that a conservative value of dynamic active earth pressure can
i.e., using Eq. (1). The same procedure was followed for the be obtained by assuming ca=c.
maximum value of static earth force, (Pa)stat. From known
values of (Pa)dyn and (Pa)stat, the dynamic increment (ǻPa)dyn POINT OF APPLICATION
can be obtained as Mononobe-Okabe’s solution had assumed that the resultant
(ǻPa)dyn = (Pa)dyn – (Pa)stat………………...……………...(6) active thrust acts at a distance of H/3 from the bottom of the
wall similar to the static case (Įh = Įv =0). The laboratory
COMPARISON WITH OBSERVED DATA observations indicate that the resulting active thrust acts
Sherif, et al. [6] reported results of measurements of somewhat higher than H/3 measured from the bottom of the
dynamic active earth pressure on a 1 m high rigid retaining wall. Seed and Whitman [7] have suggested that for the case
wall. The backfill properties are as follows: of rotation about the bottom of the wall, the static pressure
Unit weight, Ȗ = 16.28 kN/m3 may be assumed to act at H/3 and the dynamic increment at
Angle of internal friction, ij = 40.9o 0.6 H from the base of the wall. For a wall undergoing
Angle of wall friction į = 23.9o rotation about the top, the resulting active thrust may be
Ssope of backfill = 0o assumed to act at 0.55H from the bottom of the wall [8]. It
The wall was subjected to sinusoidal acceleration of up to 0.5 has been suggested that for wall undergoing translation, the
g. The results are shown in Fig..3. It may be noted that line of the static active thrust may be assumed to act at 0.42
( Pa ) dyn H and dynamic increment at 0.48 H above the bottom of the
K AE ………………………………(7) wall [7]. For all these case the active thrust and dynamic
1 JH 2 increment are assumed to act at angle ’į’ with the normal to
2
The result obtained from Mononobe-Okabe theory and from the wall face.
the present study are also shown in Fig.3. It may be observed
from Fig. 3 that the computed dynamic active earth pressures

30
 Dynamic Earth Pressure Against Retaining Walls
DISPLACEMENT OF RETAINING WALLS Table 1 shows a summary of new base widths and computed
The usual design procedure for a retaining wall does not displacement for various inclinations. The computed
ensure that its displacement will be within tolerable limits cumulative sliding, , rocking and total displacements are also
during an earthquake. Richard and Elms [8] developed a shown in this table . The base widths decreased from 3.57m
design procedure for gravity retaining walls based on limiting to 3.38m as the inclination changed from 0° to -5°, since the
displacement. Nadim and Whitman [9] proposed a slight active earth
modification to Richard and Elm’s procedure primarily to
account for the effect of ground amplification. It may be
observed that while Richards and Elms procedure is
relatively simple, uncertainties may arise due to errors in
determination of material soil properties, assumptions in
modeling and from nature of expected ground motion.
Prakash et al [11] developed a model for simulating the
response of rigid retaining walls subjected to seismic loading.
This model consists of a rigid wall resting on the foundation
soil and subjected to a horizontal ground motion and
analyzed the problem as a case of combined sliding and
rocking vibrations including the effect of various important
parameters such as soil stiffness in sliding, soil stiffness in
rocking, geometrical damping in sliding, geometrical
damping in rocking ,material damping in sliding and , Fig: 4. Cumulative displacements of walls (B1-F3) with
material damping in rocking. Only dry backfill was different inclinations with the vertical
considered and seismic ground motion was represented by an
equivalent sinusoidal motion. This model was further
modified to accommodate both the dry and submerged
backfills [12,13]
Several cases of 6.0 m high retaining walls were analyzed
for typical cases of foundation soil conditions varying from
well graded gravel ( GW) to silt (ML) and the backfill soil
varying from silty gravel (GM) to poorly graded sand (SP).
Ground motions corresponding to El Centro, Loma Prieta
and North Ridge earthquakes were used in the analysis.
Typical case of a reference retaining wall , 6.0 m high , with
nine different inclination angles of the wall face in contact
with the backfill ‘Į’ (0°, 1.25°, 2.5°, 3.75°, +5°, -1.25°, -2.5°,
-3.75°, and -5°) subjected to Northridge earthquake is used Fig:5.Cumulative displacements of walls (B1-F6) with
for illustration. Fig:4 shows the computed displacements of a different inclinations with the vertical
wall with 0°, +5° and -5° inclination angles at the back. The forces decrease with negative inclination. Therefore, the base
negative angle at the back of the wall is the case of the wall width was smaller for a wall with a negative inclination.
resting on the backfill. Figure 4 shows cumulative
displacement of the retaining wall away from the backfill The angular rotation in rocking (Table 1) decreased from
due to combined sliding and rocking effects for Į = -5ƕ, 0ƕ 1.29° (Į=0) to 1.25° (Į=-5°), and the total displacements
and +5ƕ for a base width of 3.57 m. The foundation soil for decreased slightly from 0.2155m to 0.2112m. The cumulative
this case was well graded sand (SW) and the backfill displacements for these walls will not be significantly altered
consisted of submerged silt gravel (GM). It can be observed by changing the inclination at the back of the wall.
from Fig. 4 that the negative values of ‘Į’ result in somewhat For the wall built as a leaning-type rigid retaining wall with
smaller cumulative displacements compared to the case of Į = -5° lying on the backfill, the wall experienced a rocking
vertical wall face (Į = 0) or for positive value of ‘Į’ within movement of 1.25° during the Northridge earthquake.
range of values of ‘ Į’ considered in the analysis. Therefore, when the wall was subjected to the same
Another typical plot of cumulative displacement of a rigid earthquake event up to 3 or 4 times, the wall experienced a
retaining wall of 6.0 m height and having a base width of total rocking close to 5°. At this time, the wall may become
4.61m and subjected to North Ridge earthquake motion is vertical. Further analysis was conducted for 21 backfill and
shown in Fig 5. The foundation and backfill soils in this case foundations soil combinations for a typical reference wall 6m
were silt of low compressibility and silty gravel respectively. high, subjected to three earthquakes . The backfill soil was
The trend of the results in Fig: 5 is similar to that in Fig: 4. varied from silty gravel to poorly graded sand the
Similar results were observed for other cases. foundation soil varied from well graded gravel to silt of low
compressibility.

31
Puri, VK and Prakash,S
2. Coulomb, C.A. (1776). “Essai sur une Application des
Table1. Cumulative displacement for several angles regles de Maximis et Minimis a quelques problemes
of inclination at the back of a wall subjected to de Statique, relatifs a I’Architecture,’mem.Roy.des
Northridge earthquake condition (B=3.57m). Sciences, Paris, vol 3, p. 38.
3. Mononobe, N. (1929). “Earthquake-Proof
Cumulative Displacement by Fixed Construction of Masonry Dams, ” proceedings, World
Inclina Base Base Width (3.57m) Engineering Conference, Vol.9, pp. 274-280.
ti-on widt- Slidi- Rocki Rockin Total 4. Okabe, S. (1926). “General Theory of Earth Pressure,
angle h (m) ng ng g (m) (m) “Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers,
(degree Vol. 12, No. 1.
(m) (degr
)
ee) 5. Saran, S., and Prakash, S., (1968). “Dimensionless
+5.00° 3.81 0.0820 1.31 0.1374 0.2194 Parameters for Static and Dynamic Earth Pressure for
retaining Walls,” Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 7,
3.76 0.0820 1.30 0.1366 0.2186 pp. 295 – 310.
+3.75° 6. Sherif, M.A., Ishibashi, I., and Lee, C.D. (1982).
+2.50° 3.70 0.0815 1.30 0.1361 0.2176 “Earth Pressure Against Rigid Retaining Walls, “
+1.25° 3.63 0.0808 1.29 0.1355 0.2163 Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GTS, pp. 679 – 696
0.00° 3.57 0.0808 1.29 0.1347 0.2155 7. Seed, H.B., and Whitman, R.V. (1970). “ Design of
-1.25° 3.50 0.0806 1.28 0.1338 0.2144 earth retaining Struxtures for Dynamic Loads,
0.0805
“Proceeding , Specialty Conference on Lateral
-2.50° 3.43 1.27 0.1329 0.2134 Stresses in the Ground and Design of earth Retaining
-3.75° 3.35 0.0803 1.26 0.1320 0.2123 Structures, ASCE, pp. 103-147.
-5.00° 3.38 0.0801 1.25 0.1311 0.2112 8. Richards, R., and Elms, D.G. (1979). “Seismic
behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls, “Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Divison, ASCE, Vol. 105,
. No. GT4, pp. 449-464.
. 9. Nadim, F., and Whitman, R.V. (1983). “Seismically
The results generally indicated that the design widths of Induced Movement of retaining Wallls, “Journall of
foundations for 21 cases of backfill – foundation soil geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. GT7,
combinations used in analysis generally reduced with values pp. 915-931.
of Į from 0° Į=-5°. This may results in saving of 8 -10 % 10. Sherif, M.A., and Fang, Y.S. (1984). “Dynamic Earth
in the material cost. Pressures on Walls rotating About the Top, “Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 109-117.
CONCLUSIONS 11. Prakash, S., Wu, Y., and Rafnsson, E.A. (1995).
1.Procedure is presented to determine the magnitude of the “Displacement Based A seismic Design Charts for
static and dynamic active thrust for a typical c-ij soil Rigid Walls, “Shamsher Prakash Foundation, Rolla,
accounting for the effect of wall friction, adhesion between Missouri, USA.
the soil and the wall face and the inclination of the backfill 12. Wu, Y. (1999). “Displacement – Based Analysis and
surface. Design of Rigid Retaining Walls during Earthquake,”
2.A retaining wall with negative inclination seems to be a PhD. Dissertation, University of Missouri, Rolla.
better alternative in seismic areas to ensure smaller overall 13. Wu, Y., and Prakash, S. (2001). “Seismic
displacement and economy. Displacements of Rigid Walls Walls,” Proceeding 4th
International Conference on Recent Advanced in
REFERENCES Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
1. Rankines, W.J.M. (1857). “On the Stability of Loose Dynamics and Symposium to honor Professor W.D.
Earth, “Philos. Trans. Royal Society, London, Vol. Liam-Finn, San Diego, March 26-31, pp No. 7.05.
147, pp. 9-27

32