Fang, Y.-S.

& Chen,

T.-J. (1995). GCotechnique

45, No. 1, 165-167

TECHNICAL

NOTE

Modification

of Mononobe-Okabe
and T.-J. CHEN*

theory

Y.-S. FANG*

KEYWORDS: dynamics; earth pressure; earthquakes; retaining walls; sands. INTRODUCTION Excessive dynamic earth pressure due to earthquakes has caused several instances of major damage to retaining structures. The increase in lateral earth pressure during earthquakes induced sliding and/or overturning of the retaining structures. Failures of retaining structures due to earthquakes have been summarized by Seed & Whitman (1970). The earliest method for determining the dynamic lateral pressure on a retaining structure was developed by Mononobe (1924) and Okabe (1924). In this method, Coulombs earth pressure equation was modified to take account of the additional vertical and horizontal forces induced by an earthquake. The Mononobe-Okabe analysis was developed for dry cohesionless backfill. The comprehensive study by Seed & Whitman (1970) suggested that, under certain circumstances, the conventional Mononobe-Okabe equation might underestimate the dynamic active thrust acting on a retaining structure. This Technical Note investigates the influence of the direction of inertia forces on dynamic earth pressure. Based on the reasoning in this study, a more rational approach is introduced. The subject is important because most design codes adopt the Mononobe-Okabe method. DYNAMIC ACTIVE CONDITION Figure 1 shows the forces considered in the Mononobe-Okabe analysis, where 4 is the internal friction angle of soil, 6 is the wall friction angle, i is the inclination of backfill surface behind the wall and b is the slope of the back of the wall to the vertical. The forces acting on the failure wedge per unit length of wall include the weight of wedge W, the active force P,,, the Manuscrint received 1 November 1993; revised manuscript accepted 18 April 1994. Discussion on this Technical Note closes 1 June 1995; for further details see p. ii. * National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan. 165

resultant force R along the failure plane, and the horizontal and vertical inertia forces k, W and k, W (where k, and k, are horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients respectively). The active force determined by the equilibrium of the wedge is expressed as P,, = yH2(1 - k,)K, J2
(1)

where y is the unit weight of backfill and K,, is the active earth pressure coefficient with earthquake effect co? K,, = (4 - e - /?)

cos 0 cos2 B cos (6 + fl + Q)

X

1 1+ sin (4 + 6) sin (4 - 0 - i)
J[

0 =

cos (6 + fi + 0) cos (i -

p)

tan

[kJ(l - k,)]

11 (2)
2

(3)

In the design of a gravity retaining wall, it is usually necessary to check the factors of safety against sliding and overturning. Under a seismic condition, the active thrust P,, is the driving force in causing lateral displacement and tilting of the retaining structure. A strong P,, thrust would signify low factors of safety against sliding and overturning. The vertical and horizontal inertia forces used in this analysis were assumed to act upwards and towards the wall respectively (Fig. 1). Is this the critical combination of inertia forces to cause the greatest P,, possible? From a practical point of view, the vertical excitation induced by an earthquake could act either upwards or downwards; the horizontal acceleration could be either towards or away from the wall. Consequently, four combinations are possible. The influence of directions of inertia forces on the dynamic active thrust P,, was first studied by Seed & Whitman (1970). Based on MononobeOkabe theory for a vertical wall with a horizontal backfill, P,, calculated is shown in Fig. 2 It is clear that, for the horizontal component, the inertia force towards the wall would cause a greater active force than that towards the backfill. However, Fig. 2 also shows that, under a vertical

166

FANG AND CHEN

OS

I
H

k, = 0.5kd I )
k, = 0.5k,,( ) 7

3 r.
%

210.4

0.2

Fig. 1 Forces considered in Mononobkahe

analysis

I
01 0 0.1 0.2 k, towards wall

i = 0 &9= 0 p = 35 b = $12
0.3 4

vibration of 0.29, the maximum value of P,, was induced by a downward inertia force (as in the proposed method) instead of an upward one (as in the conventional method). During the design of a retaining structure, there is no apparent reason for selecting a lower active force which tends to make the wall slide or overturn. If the present speculation is true, then negative values of k, should be used in equations (1) and (3). For design purposes, the vertical acceleration during an earthquake is generally considered to be as much as half its horizontal acceleration. Accordingly, the variation of the normalized P,, from the conventional and proposed approaches with different horizontal accelerations is shown in Fig. 3. The value of P,, calculated from the proposed method is still greater than that from the conventional method. However, the discrepancy gradually diminishes as the value of k, approaches 0.4
0.7

Fig. 3. Difference methods

of P,,

in conventional

and proposed

The difference in K,, determined from the conventional and proposed methods for backfills with friction angles of 30-40 is shown in Fig. 4, where the subscripts KVD and KVU indicate that k, acts downwards and upwards respectively. The maximum difference is approximately 12%. Although this difference is not highly significant, the proposed method provides a more rational approach to the problem. Fig. 4 shows that as k, exceeds 0.37 the conventional method might result in a higher value of P,,. In fact, an earthquake with a horizontal acceleration greater than 0.379 is quite unusual. In such highly seismic zones, special consideration should be given to this, although the influence of vertical acceleration can at times be neglected for practical purposes. However, if k, is to be accounted for, it should be evaluated in the correct direction.

0.6

%&h&A k" = 0.2(T) !3eewk,=O B!aBE+E k, = 0.2(i)

0.6

a
0 -0.2 Towards backfill c

i=
p=

/
y. : 1

04 1 0.1 0.2 kn towards wall 0.3

3 \

0 $I = 35 6 = @/2

'1 \0.4

I mo.osi

j=O p= 0" b = Q/2 kv = 0.5k,

1~ i I

t
0

-__I 0.2 0.4 -0.10

h - towards wall

Fig. 2. Influence of direction of inertia forces on dynamic active thrusts

Fig. 4. Difference of PAXfor different angles of $

MODIFICATION

OF MONONOBE-OKABE

THEORY

167

i = 0
p=

0 d = 4l/2 kv = 0.5kh

-O.$ 0.1 -0.2 Towards 0 wall + kh + 0.2 towards backfill 0.4 0.2 lh

Fig. 6. Difference of PPEfor different angles of $

Fig. 5. Influence of direction of inertia forces on dynamic passive thrusts DYNAMIC PASSIVE CONDITION

wall and the backfill respectively. Fig. 6 shows that the difference becomes greater as horizontal acceleration increases.

The passive force P,, per unit length was derived by Kapila (1962) as J,, = yH(l - kv)L,Z where K,, is the passive earth pressure with earthquake effect cos2 (4 - e + 8) GE =
cos B ~02 p cos (6 -/I + @j

of wall
CONCLUSIONS

(4) coefficient

Based on the discussion on active and passive earth pressure during earthquakes, the following conclusions can be drawn.

(4 For

li J[

sin (4 - 6) sin (4 - 0 + i)

cos (6 + B - 8) cos (i - /I)

I>
2 (5) (6)

(4

(4

0 = tan-

[k&l

-k,)]

In Kapilas derivation, the critical inertia forces were assumed to act upwards and towards the backfill (the conventional method). However, from a practical point of view, passive earth pressure is often used to resist the movement of a retaining structure. Therefore, to be on the safe side, a minimum value of passive force is generally required. Fig. 5 shows that the minimum value of P,, is caused by the upward and towards-the-wall inertia forces (the proposed method). If a minimum value of P,, is to be selected for design, negative values of the angle 0 should be used in equation (5). The difference in K,, determined from the conventional and proposed approaches for 4 angles ranged from 30 to 40, as shown in Fig. 6, where the subscripts KHW and KHB indicate that k, acts towards the

a retaining structure under dynamic active condition, the critical inertia forces to cause a maximum P,, thrust should act downwards and towards the wall. For a retaining structure under dynamic passive condition, the critical inertia forces to cause a minimum P,, value should act upwards and towards the wall. The Mononobe-Okabe equations are correct. However, when using these equations the engineer should carefully evaluate the influence of directions of applied accelerations.

REFERENCES Kapila, J. P. (1962). Earthquake resistant design of retaining walls. Proc. 2nd Earthq. Symp., Roorkee, India, 97-108. Mononobe, N. (1924). Consideration into earthquake vibrations and vibration theories. J. Japan. Sot. Ciu. Engng, 10, No. 5, 1063-1094. Okabe, S. (1924). General theory on earth pressure and seismic stability of retaining wall and dam. J. Japan. Sot. Ciu. Engng 10, No. 5, 1277-1323. Seed, H. B. & Whitman, R. V. (1970). Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads. Proceedings of specialty conference on lateral stresses in the ground and design of earth retaining structures, Ithaca, pp. 103-147. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.