9.

Seismic Design of
RETAINING STRUCTURES
Part A:

GRAVITY WALLS
G. BOUCKOVALAS
Professor of NTUA

October 2009

CONTENTS
9.1

DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES for DRY SOIL

9.2

HYDRO-DYNAMIC PRESSURES

9.3. DYNAMIC PRESSURES for SATURATED SOILS

9.4

PSEUDO STATIC DESIGN

9.5

DISPLACEMENT based DESIGN

(performance based design)

Sggested Reading

Steven Kramer:

Chapter 11

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.1

9.1 DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES for DRY SOIL

The method of -

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.2

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.3

9.2 HYDRO-DYNAMIC PRESSURES

WESTERGAARD (1933)
Hydro-STATIC pressures

p ws (x) = w x
H

1
Pws = p ws (x)dx = w H 2
2
0
application
point:

/3 from base

Hydro-DYNAMIC pressures

p wd (x) =
Pwd =

7
kh wH x / H
8

7
k h w H2
12

application
point:

( = 1.17 k h Pws )

0.40 from base

ATTENTION !
The excess pore pressures are positive in front of the wall and negative
behind it. Thus the total hydro-dynamic pressure acting on a submerged wall
is twice that given by the Westergard solution!

REMARKS:
Westergaard theory applies under the following assumptions:
free water (no backfill)
vertical wall face
very largeGEORGE
(theoretically
infinite) extent of water basin
BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.4

Effect
Effect of
of tank
tank width
width

p wd (x) =
Pwd =

7
Cn k h w H x / H
8

7
Cn k h w H 2
12

( = 1.17 Cn k h Pws )

Cn =

4 L/H
< 1.0
3 1+L/ H

(Cn = 1.00 L / H > 2.70)

application
point:

0.40 from the base

Effect
Effect of
of wall
wall inclination
inclination

Zangar (1953) & Chwang (1978)

x
x
x
x
p wd (x, ) = Cm ()k h w (2 ) +
(2 )
H
H
H
H
or,
approximately

7
x
p wd (x, ) = Cm () k h w

8
H

Westergaard

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.5

Effect
Effect of
of wall
wall inclination
inclination

p wd (x, ) =

7
x
Cm k h w
H
8

and
7
Cm k h w 2
12
(= 1.17 Cm k h Pws )

Pwd =

where

Cm 0.012 ( ) 2.0

application
point:

(rad )

0.40

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.6

9.3 DYNAMIC PRESSURES for SATURATED FILL

p wd (x, e,..) =
Pwd (e,..) =

7
Ce k h w H x / H
8

7
Ce k h w H 2
12

( 1.17 Ce k h Pws )
where

2 n w H 2
C e 0.5 0.5 tanh log

7 E w kT

with
porosity
n =

of
w =
unit weight
water
water
depth
=

w==
.of
kPa)
2 1066kPa)
Bulk modulus
water((210
permeability
coefficient
k =
predominant
period of
shaking
=

WATER
WATER

++

FILL
FILL

Physical analog (Matsuzawa et al. 1985)

in other words.
Correction factor Ce
expresses the portion of
pore water which vibrates
FREELY,
i.e. independently from the
soil skeleton.

free water
trapped water,
which vibrates together
with the soil skeleton
soil skeleton

Hence,
Hence,dynamic
dynamicearth
earthpressures
pressuresare
areexerted
exertedby
by
the
soil
skeleton
AND
the
trapped
water
the soil skeleton AND the trapped water
and
andconsequently
consequently(you
(youmay
mayprove
proveititeasily)
easily)the
the
Mononobe-Okabe
relationships
apply
for
:
Mononobe-Okabe relationships apply for :

*
* == CCe++
.(1
-Ce))
.(1-C
e

e
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS,
National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.7

EXAMPLE:
n=40%, w=10 kN/m3
Ew=2 106 kPa, T=0.30 sec
Fill
Material

H2
Ce = 0.5 0.5 tanh log 6 10 6
k

Ce > 0.80
pwd Westergaard

well graded
gravel
gravel

Ce = 0.200.90
pwd CeWestergaard

coarse
sand
fine sand
silt

Ce < 0.20
pwd 0

Clayey sand
& gravel

EXAMPLE:
n=40%, w=10 kN/m3
Ew=2 106 kPa, T=0.30 sec

H2
Ce = 0.5 0.5 tanh log 6 10 6
k

Permeable fill:
Cobbles, gravel,
Coarse sand (<20m)

Semi-permeable fill:
coarse sand ( > 20m),
fine sand (H < 20m)

Impermeable fill:
silt, clay, clayey or silty sand
and gravel
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.8

SUMMARY of Hydrodynamic Pressures

Hydrodynamic pressures on the
sea-side of the wall

p wd (x) =
Pwd =

7
Cm Cn k h w x / H
8

7
Cm Cn k h w H 2
12

( = 1.17 Cm Cn k h Pws )
Cm = effect of inclined wall
Cn = effect of water basin length

Hydrodynamic pressures on the

fill-side of the wall

p wd (x) =
Pwd =

7
C m C n Ce k h w H x / H
8

7
C m C n Ce k h w H 2
12

( = 1.17 Cm Cn Ce k h Pws )
Ce = effect of filll

t
lica
p
p
a
t:
poin

ion

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

ase
b
m
fro

0
0.4

9A.9

9.4 PSEUDO STATIC DESIGN

Genera Case . . .

- WW)H
P a =
= k a ((
)H22
active earth
pressure
SA T
2

1
PW = W H 2
2
hydrodynamic
pressures
PW = PWd =
( )
1 3
2
P =dynamic
earth
pressures
=

= ( k h ) *
2 4

1 C e )SAT

++((1-Ce)

with **= =CCe
DRY

ATTENTION !

Pa computation requires (-w) while computation requires *. Thus,

when it is necessary to compute both Pa and with a common unit weight
(e.g. 2002) you must use:
the buoyant unit weght (-w)
a modified seismic coefficient

kh * = kh

*
w

- WW)H
P a =
= k a ((
)H22
active earth
pressure
SA T
2

1
PW = W H 2
2
hydrodynamic
pressures
PW = PWd =
( )
1 3
2
P =dynamic
earth
pressures
=

= ( k h ) *
2 4

1 C e )SAT

++((1-Ce)

with **= =CCe
DRY

e
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.10

: LE
e
as AB
c
E
l
ia RM
c
e E
Sp MP
I

l
fi l

- WW)H
P a =
= k a ((
)H22
active earth
pressure
SA T
2

1
PW = W H 2
2
hydrodynamic
pressures
PW = PWd =
( )
1 3
2
P =dynamic
=

= ( k h ) *
earth
pressures
2 4

1 C e )

= C=e
+ ((Ce=0)
with * *

SAT

Clayey sand
Clayey silt
Silty sand
Clayey or silty gravel

e: LE
s
ca EAB
l
cia ERM
e
Sp MP
I

l
fi l

PW = PWd ==
= 0= 0
hydrodynamic
pressures
1 3
2
P == dynamic
earth

= ( k h )
pressures
2 4

or

3

P = = (k h
)( W ) 2
W
8

kh* 2.2 kh

Clayey sand
Clayey silt
Silty sand
Clayey or silty gravel
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.11

i ll
f
:
e
as LE
c
B
l
ia EA
c
e M
Sp ER
P

P a =
= k a ( W )H 2
active earth
pressure
2

1
PW = W H 2
2
pressure
0
PW = PWd == hydrodynamic
1 3
2

= ( k h ) *
P ==
dynamic earth
pressure
2 4

==

with**
DRY
.

(Ce = 1)

sand
sand & gravel
cobbles
ballast

i ll
f
:
se E
a
l c ABL
a
i
ec ME
p
S ER
P

PW = PWd == hydrodynamic
pressure
0
1 3
2
P == dynamic
earth

= ( k h )
pressure
2 4

or
3

P = = (k h
)( W ) 2
W
8

kh* 1.6 kh

sand
sand & gravel
cobbles
ballast
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.12

EXAMPLE: What do I do when I am not sure about the permeability

of the fill material?

Vertical & smooth wall

Basin of infinite length

Cm = Cn = 0
Fill:
=16 kN/m3
. = 20 kN/m3

Ce = 0 1.0

PW = PWd =

7
k h w H2
12

1 3 *
( k h )( w ) 2
2 4

P =
k h * =

Ce + (1 Ce )

kh

Total
Total horizontal
horizontal thrust:
thrust:
+ +C
P
F

Fdd ==
+wd
wd+CeePwd
wd
impermeable
fill

permeable
fill

Total
Total overturning
overturning moment:
moment:
+0.40 (1+Ce) wd

=0.60H

dd=0.60H
+0.40 (1+Ce) wd

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.13

9.5 DISPLACEMENT based DESIGN

(or performance based design)

RICHARDS-ELMS METHOD
: friction angle between wall side and fill
: friction angle between wall base and ground

o
N = W + PAE
+ PAo tan

F = N tan
F.S. =

N tan
o
PAo + PAE
+ Pw + Pw + k h W

Performance based design:

o

Even though F.S. < 1.0 (sliding failure)

there is no collapse of the wall (!!),
but development of limited displacements, which may be tolerable ..
SLIDING FAILURE OF GRAVITY WALLS

cr=Ng : critical seismic acceleration

leading to F.S.o=1.00

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.14

= 0.013 f t
: cr =

1.15

2
Vmax
1 cr (
max
cr

1 cr )

g
max

6.30
f =
2.50

Computation of Relative Sliding .

NEWMARK (1965)
(1965)
NEWMARK

.
.
.

V 2 1 a CR
= 0.50 max
amax a CR 2

V 2 1
0.50 max
amax a CR 2

RICHARDS && ELMS

ELMS (1979)
(1979)
RICHARDS
2
Vmax
1

0.087
amax a CR 4

E.M.. (1990)
(1990)
E.M..

V 2
( 1a CR )
1
0.080 t max 1 a CR

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical

a University
of Athes, Greece, 2011 a CR
1.15

max

9A.15

Comparison with numerical predictions for actual

earthquakes by Franklin & Chang (1977) . . . .
Newmark - I (1965)

PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT (in)

Newmark II (1965)
Richards & Elms (1979)
... (1990)

aCR/amax

Seismic failure & downslope sliding

Relative Velocity

Relative Sliding

a
4
Vmax

max

0.087

amax aCR

d = min

0.50 Vmax amax

amax aCR

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.16

for EXAMPLE . . . . . .
PEAK SEISMIC ACCELERATION

amax = 0.50g

PEAK SEISMIC VELOCITY

Vmax = 1.00 m/s

CRITICAL or YIELD ACCELERATION

(Te 0.80 sec)

aCR = 0.33g (=2/3 amax)

Relative Sliding

2
a
4
Vmax

max

0.087

a
a
max CR
d = min

0.50 Vmax amax

amax aCR

9 cm

THUS,if
we can tolerate some small down-slope displacements,
THUS
the pseudo static analysis is NOT performed for the peak seismic
acceleration amax, but for the . . . .

EFFECTIVE seismic acceleration aE = (0.50 0.80) amax

DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN
(or performance based design)
New design philosophy:

V2
= 0.087 max
max
k*h

k*h

kh

*max
Vmax
=
= k h 0.087

g
max

1/ 4

Instead of designing the wall for kh=amax/g,I choose a lower kh* (< kh)
which is a function of the allowable wall displacement . In that case,
the required factor of safety is F.S.=1.00
alternatively:
k*h =

kh
qw

: q w =

1
1/ 4

Vmax
.
0
087
GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS,

National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

max

9A.17

In accordance with this design philosophy, requests that:

kh =
=

n
qw

* kh
kh =

qw

max
g

n=importance coefficient

qw=

2.00

(mm)=300a

1.50

(mm)=200a

1.25

(mm)=100a ( ..)

1.00

anchored flexible walls

0.75

basement walls, etc

GEORGE BOUCKOVALAS, National Technical University of Athes, Greece, 2011

9A.18