Dynamic Earth Pressure

Soil Dynamics
Retaining Walls: Failure Mechanisms
 Gravity walls usually fail by rigid-body mechanisms:
 Sliding: When sliding resistance is exceeded by lateral thrust
 Overturning: bearing failure often involved
 Gross instability: treated as slope stability problems
 Composite walls (crib walls, MSE walls, etc) and cantilever walls can
fail in a similar way in addition to other internal failure mechanisms
such as reinforcement pull-out, reinforcement rupture, flexure, etc
Retaining Wall Failure Mechanisms

 Restrained/Braced walls can fail:

 By rotation at the top (e.g. bridge abutments);
 Rotation at the toe “kick out” (inadequate passive resistance;
inadequate embedment)
 Anchor failure
Earth Pressure
 The seismic behaviour of retaining walls depends
on the total pressure developed during
earthquakes.
 The total pressure consists of
 Static pressure before earthquake, and
 Transient dynamic pressure due to earthquake
 The static pressure is strongly influenced by wall
movement (see figure)
 Active earth pressure: mobilized under minimum
outward movement
 Passive earth pressure: large inward movement
 At-rest earth pressure: no movement
 When movement of walls is restricted like in
basement and abutment walls, the pressure
generally is larger than the active pressure.
Static Earth Pressure - Rankine
 Rankine (1857), by making simplifying
assumptions, developed a simple
procedure for computing minimum
active and maximum passive pressure.
 For a wall with smooth back supporting a
horizontal backfill with cohesion, c, and
internal friction angle, φ, the minimum
active pressure and the resultant thrust
are

 For a cohesionless backfill inclined at an

angle β, this was later (Terzaghi, 1943)
modified to

Note that for KA to be real,   

Static Earth Pressure - Rankine
 Similarly, for the maximum passive earth
pressure:

 The pressure distribution is linear in both

cases, and the thrust is parallel to the fill
surface
 Static Earth Pressure - Coulomb
 Coulomb (1776) studied the problem of
minimum active pressure by considering
the equilibrium of a potentially sliding
wedge along a planar surface (limit
equilibrium) and accounting for wall
friction. He found the minimum active
thrust as

 δ is the angle of wall friction and θ is

the inclination of the back of the wall.
 Note once gain that   
 Static Earth Pressure - Coulomb
 The critical failure plane is inclined at
an angle

 Where

 Coulomb did not explicitly show the

form of the pressure distribution, but it
is not difficult to observe this
 Static Earth Pressure - Coulomb
 Coulomb likewise studied the passive problem and
found the maximum passive thrust as
 Static Earth Pressure - Coulomb
 The critical failure plane is inclined at an angle

 Where

 In contrast to Rankine’s theory, Coulomb’s equilibrium

approach is convenient to account for different types of
surface and body forces and is thus the preferred
method to account for seismic loading in a pseudo-static
manner
 Dynamic Earth Pressure
 The dynamic response of even the simplest type of
retaining wall is quite complex
 For this reason, it is not currently possible to analytically
handle all aspects of seismic response of retaining walls
 A common approach is to use simplified methods to
estimate the loads imposed on the wall during
earthquakes and ensure the wall can withstand it
 For yielding walls (walls that can move sufficiently for the
minimum active and the maximum passive pressure to be
mobilized), pseudostatic approaches are used.
 Pseudodynamic procedures have also been proposed later.
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Pseudostatic
Method (for Yielding Walls)
 A basic pseudostatic approach known as the Mononobe-
Okabe method was developed by Okabe (1926) and
Mononobe and Matuso (1929).
 It is a direct extension of Coulomb’s theory to pseudostatic
conditions
 Pseudostatic accelerations (inertia forces) are applied to the
Coulomb wedge at its centre of gravity
 This assumes that the wedge moves as a rigid body at the same
acceleration over the height.
 The pseudostatic lateral thrust is then obtained from equilibrium
considerations as in the original Coulomb theory for static loads.
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Method
Active Pressure Case
 The forces acting on a yielding wall
supporting dry cohesionless soil are as
shown
 In addition to the usual static forces,
horizontal and vertical pseudostatic
inertia forces are included:
a
I h  mah  h W  k hW
g
av
I v  mav  W  kvW
g

 Where ah and av are peak ground

accelerations (PGA) at the wall base
and assumed to be the same
throughout the height of the wall; kh
and kv are called seismic coefficients
(dimensionless)
Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Method
Active Pressure Case
 The total active thrust is found from equilibrium considerations in a
similar way as in the static case and is given by

 Where

  
 For Example, kh may be taken between 0.1 to 0.12 for Addis Ababa
area and kv as 0.05 to 0.06 for a design earthquake return period of
475 years as per the new seismic code.
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Method
Active Pressure Case
 The critical slip surface is flatter than its static counterpart and given by

 Where

 The total active thrust can be split into the static and dynamic
components:

 The location of the total thrust is easily determined from moment

equilibrium, in which 0.6H is suggested by Seed and Whitman (1970) as
a reasonable estimate for the location of the dynamic thrust from the
base. It often ends up ℎ ≈ 0.5𝐻
Note: Mostly, 𝑘𝑣 ≈ 1Τ2 𝑡𝑜 2Τ3 𝑘ℎ , which
results in a difference in PAE of less than 10%.
For this reason, kv can mostly be neglected in
M-O method (Seed & Whitman, 1970)
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Method
Active Pressure Case
 Example
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Method
Active Pressure Case
 Example (Cont’d….)
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Method
Active Pressure Case
 Example (Cont’d….)
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Method
Passive Pressure Case
 The forces acting are as shown in the figure

 The total passive thrust is determined

following the same principle and is
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: M-O Method
Passive Pressure Case
 The critical slip surface is given by

 Where

 The total passive thrust can be split into the static and dynamic
components:
Note: The dynamic component acts in
the opposite direction to the static
component, thus reducing the
available passive resistance
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: Steedman-Zeng
Method
 Steedman & Zeng (1990) incorporated the
dynamic behaviour of retaining walls in what is
referred to as a pseudodynamic approach
(see sketch)
 They considered a fixed-base wall subjected
to a harmonic ground acceleration of ah sin t
 It is easy to note that the acceleration and
mass of a differential element can be
expressed as
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: Steedman-Zeng
Method
 The total inertia force is found by integrating over the height

 Where is the wave length of the shear wave and

 For the limiting case of a rigid sliding block, vs approaches infinity and the
above expression simplifies to the M-O inertia force:
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: Steedman-Zeng
Method
 The total soil thrust is obtained by considering the equilibrium of
the entire wedge. Thus, summing to zero forces in the direction
perpendicular to F gives

 The corresponding lateral pressure is obtained by differentiating

the above expression w.r.t. z so that

 The first linear term is time independent and is thus the usual lateral
static pressure with the resultant acting at H/3 from the base
 The second term is time dependent and hence is the dynamic
component.
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: Steedman-Zeng
Method
 A typical example of the height-wise
variation of the dynamic pressure for
kh=0.2 and H/λ=0.3 is shown in the graph
in comparison with that of M-O
approach

 The location of the dynamic thrust varies

with time in accordance with
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: Steedman-Zeng
Method
 The variation of hd with frequency
(or with H/λ=Hω/2πvs )of excitation
is shown in the plot for kh=0.2
 For low-frequency excitation (small
H/λ), hd=H/3.
 For higher frequencies, the dynamic
thrust moves upwards as shown in
the figure
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: Non-yielding walls

 Non-yielding walls are those that do not

move sufficiently for the full shear
strength of the backfill soil to be
mobilized. In other, words the minimum
active and maximum passive pressures
do not develop. Such walls include:
 Massive gravity walls on rock
 Basement walls braced both at the top and
bottom
 Rigid concrete (box) culvert walls
 Wood (1973) studied the dynamic
behaviour of an elastic soil enclosed
between two rigid walls and showed
that dynamic amplification is negligible
for low-frequency excitations that are
less than half the fundamental
frequency of the unrestrained backfill
(i.e. f  f 0 2  vs 8H  )
Dynamic Earth Pressure: Non-yielding walls

 For this category, to which many practical problems belong,

Wood suggested an elastic solution for an excitation of
uniform, constant horizontal acceleration of amplitude ah.
 For smooth rigid walls, he came up with the following
expressions for the dynamic thrust and overturning moment:

 Where ah is the acceleration amplitude and Fp and Fm are

dimensionless dynamic thrust and moment factors.
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: Non-yielding walls
 The factors are as
plotted
 The point of application
follows from the following
relation but is typically
around 0.63H:

 Note that for large L/H

ratio, the influence of
one wall on the other
becomes insignificant as
can be observed from
the curves
 Dynamic Earth Pressure: Non-yielding walls
 Example: a reinforced concrete box-
like basement structure of a building
is 5 m high and backfilled by a well
compacted granular soil. Estimate
the lateral dynamic thrust and its
point of action if ah is 0.2g.
 Solution: This case corresponds to a
large L/H. Thus, the lateral thrust and
its point of action are estimated as
follows:
Peq  H 2 ah Fp / g  19  25  0.2 1  95 kN / m
M eq  H 3 ah Fm / g  19 125  0.2  0.53  251.8 kNm / m
heq  251.8 / 95  2.65 m  0.53H
 Effect of Water
 Most retaining walls are provided with drains to relieve them
from water induced pressure
 This, however, is not possible in waterfront structures. Hence,
the water pressure is important and needs to be considered
 The dynamic effect of the water both behind and in front
(outboard) of the wall should be accounted for
 Effect of Water
 Under static conditions, the water level on both sides of a
waterfront structure is mostly the same
 During sudden changes of water level, however, which
happens during earthquakes, the level in the backfill generally
lags behind the front side due to the low permeability of the
backfill soil
 The total pressure on the fill side during earthquake shaking
may be divided into two:
 Hydrostatic: is due to gravity and acts before, during and after shaking
and varies linearly with depth
 Hydrodynamic: results from the dynamic of the water

 The pressure on the front side has also both hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic components
 Effect of Water – Outboard of wall
 The outboard hydrodynamic pressure is
estimated from Westergaard’s solution
(1931) for the problem of a vertical rigid
dam retaining a semi-infinite reservoir of
water excited by a horizontal harmonic
base motion (see figure)
 Westergaard showed the hydrodynamic
pressure distribution and the resultant trust
are given by the following relations for an
excitation frequency smaller than the
fundamental frequency of the water mass
(𝒇𝟎 = 𝒗𝒑 Τ𝟒𝑯), which is mostly the case;
The hydrostatic and
where 𝒗𝒑 is the p-wave velocity of water
hydrodynamic
(=1400 m/s) pressures/trusts are
added up.
 Effect of Water – Water in Backfill
 Water in backfill can affect seismic load in three ways:
 By altering the inertia forces within the backfill
 By developing hydrodynamic pressure within the backfill
 Through porewater pressure generation due to cyclic straining of the soil
 The inertia forces developed depend on the relative movement of
the soil skeleton with respect to the water. Two cases arise:
 Restrained porewater condition: this happens if the soil permeability, k, is
low enough (𝒌 ≤ 𝟏𝟎−𝟑 𝒄𝒎/𝒔𝒆𝒄: silty sand and finer), which is usually the case
with most fill materials. In this case, the inertia force is taken proportional to
the total soil unit weight.
 Free porewater condition: this happens when the permeability of the fill is
high. In this case, the soil skeleton moves freely; thus, the inertia force is
taken proportional to the buoyant unit weight.
 Hydrodynamic pressure is also developed in this case that must be
added to the inertial and hydrostatic pressure pressure to obtain the
total
 Effect of Water – Water in Backfill
 For restrained porewater condition, Matsuzawa et al
(1985) suggested the use of modifying parameters in
the M-O method of computing the active thrust; i.e.

 To the soil thrust obtained using these parameters is to

be added an equivalent hydrostatic thrust based on a
fluid unit weight of
 Effect of Water – Water in Backfill
 In the case of partial submergence
(see figure), weighted average unit
weight based on relative volume is
used to compute the lateral soil
thrust:

 Once again, the hydrostatic trust

and the hydrodynamic trust (if any)
have to be added to the soil trust.
Effect of Water – Water in Backfill
Effect of Water – Water in Backfill
Thank You