WALLS
Robert V. Whitman, Samson Liao Department of Civil Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Lf
(%J
.2g
 .5g
5g
N
..
DTIG ELECTE
~O
2 gAPR
12 985
0.5
15q
Al3
Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited
DE
0.259
~2g
XO.39 Em.
US LLS
Prepared for
Anuay
1985s
AfEgnes.
Under
..
Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
o .
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of
such commercial products.
...
..........
..
.,
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (*%hen
Data Entered)
.__
1.REPORT NUMBER
4.
REPORT
DOCUMENTATION PAGE
BEFORE AALOG NUMBER IEN 2.GOYJ ACCESSION No.3. REcIP COMPLETING FORM
READ INSTRUCTIONS
/lZ/
5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
Final report
6. PERFORMING ORG REPORT NUMBER
8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)
RETAINING WALLS
7. AUTHOR(e)
Robert V. Whitman,
9.
Samson Liao
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
Massachusetts
02139
AND ADDRESS
January
13.
15.
1985
NUMBER OF PAGES
156
SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
Station
Geotechnical Laboratory
Vicksburg, 391800631
Unclassified
aIS. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
1. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered InBlock 20, Itdifferent from Report)
.
"'{
.1
19.
Retaining
wallsdesign retaining
(LC)' (WES).
RichardsElms
20.
ADSTIR ACT (
s ss
reverse as
bor
 backfill
The report discusses the seismic design of gravity walls retaining granular
without pore water. The general features of behavior are illustrated
by field experiences, results from laboratory model tests and from theoretical analyses. Both the conventional method of design and the RichardsElms method, A shortcoming of the n1c analogy to a sliding block, are reviewed. based upon sliding block analogy is discussed, and corrections obtained using a twoblock model are presented. Several sources of uncertainty are examined in detail: 
(continued)
EDITION
Umoo
CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PA ,F INWen Vats Fterrd)
...
.
" i . i
'
 . .
...
. ....
7..
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TNIS PAGE(fWan Data Enterd)
I
"
20.
ABSTRACT (Continued)
"he random nature of ground motions, uncertainty in resistance parameters, and model errors, including the important influence of deformability in the backfill. All of these results are then combined to develop a probabilistic method for predicting seismically induced displacements of walls and an improved The risk that walls designed version of the RichardsElms method of design. by the conventional method might experience excessive displacements is .. "  " .' ,,, analyzed.
Unlssf
0 L'
 .
~.0
Unclassified"]SECURtITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(WI,.n 0.,. Elt.,.d) ""'
]"I
.'..
. ..


,..
'..
. .
.'..".
."......
"
..
...
.."...";i'',"
, * 
..
PREFACE
This
report
was
prepared by
Professor
Robert
V.
Whitman
and
Mr. setts
Samson Liao of the Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Massachuunder
DACW3983M2088
Station (WES).
Experiment
Chief of Engineers
Studies,
"ComputerAided
Engineering
Unit
31589,
Studies for Civil Work Soils Problems, respective OCE Technical Monitors and Richard F.
Chief,
The
Guthrie
Davidson,
Geotechnical
respec
Hadala,
Assistant
Laboratory
under the
(GL)
general
Marcuson
COL Tilford C.
the Commanders Mr. F. and R.
Creel,
Directors
CE,
C.
Lee,
CE,
were
the period
of this
study.
Brown was
Technical
\AurcCZiofl
UTIS
.,' . ,:
For
""iTn'in iorn
.
GFA&T
"
.Vv .
,;t
', "
Codes 
o.r
.
.10
.................................................
".....
.........
..
ii
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. 2. INTRODUCTION GENERAL FEATURES OF DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3. Complex Behavior and Simplified Models Field Observations Model Experiments Finite Element Results DESIGN 1 4 4
0
5 7 14 20 20 23 23 27 29 29 30 33 33 35 36
36
.
General Concepts Evaluating Dynamic Earth Pressure 3.2.1 3.2.2 MononobeOkabe Equation
"
3.3
Discussion of the Seismic Coefficient Method 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 Format of Typical Seismic Coefficients
4.
36 43 46 47
. ."ii .. "'. ... " i. . '.  i ,i. ":
.. ii
i '
5.
KINEMATIC CONSTRAINTS UPON MOTION OF BACKFILL 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 The TwoBlock Model Comparison with SingleBlock Model Numerical Results Comparison with Experimental Results Summary
52 52 54 58 61 65 66 66 67 70 72 74 78 82 85 86 87
87

6.
RANDOM NATURE OF GROUND MOTIONS 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Introduction Scaling of Records Orientation Effects Scatter Among Different Sites and Events Effect of Vertical Accelerations Combined Uncertainty Predicting Residual Displacements Application to Retaining Walls Improvements to Predictions
7.
88 89 94
Plane
8.
iv
Page 8.4 9. Approximations to 2Block Analysis 115 118 118 118 125 130 131 Other Design 131 132 133 135 141 141 142 .
S
IMPROVED APPROACH TO DESIGN 9.1 9.2 9.3 Review of Objectives Equation for Predicting Motions Approach to Design Using Safety Factor Against Displacement 9.3.1 9.3.2 9.4 Choice of safety factor Examples
9.5
General Discussion
0;<.
_S
'9:
":. i . . .:i . 2  2 " 2 . i..2 2 2 . '  . . .. .i  . '   . . ... .  . .,  " .i "  .. . ' i
INTRODUCTION
an earthquakeprone
usually based upon static analysis using an This can be a suitable approach, is determined from a the use of
sometimes inconsistent,
excessively conservative or unsafe. In 1969, Richards and Elms presented a rational method for based upon the This approach is
generally compatible both with the design philosophy used to design gravity retaining walls against static loads and with that used to design many other structures against earthquake loads. Richards and Elms utilized an analogy between the behavior of a gravity retaining wall and that of a block sliding on a plane,
which is an oversimplification of the actual behavior of a wall
backfill system.
Consequently,
which to some extent takes into account the and other uncertainties in
the RichardsElms approach to design by considering corrections to the simple sliding block analogy,
basis for the selection of a suitable
...
.
approach. expression
by a gravity retaining
d Rw
Rv
R2/1
Q * R
(1.)
where d Rw
is
the predicted
residual displacement
Rv
is
the mean
(expected)
residual displacement
for a by
sliding block exposed to ground motion characterized a small number of parameters A and peak velocity V).
R2/1
is
for a specific
kinematic deficiency in
is
a term accounting
is
a term accounting
the
wall and
is
and as yet,
poorly 0
ot9
the translational mode of retaining wall movements, rotational movements as a secondary concern.
Chapter
an overview of the complex nature of the dynamic retaining wall problem, design. and Chapter 3 discusses the conventional approach to Subsequent chapters terms in treat and discuss each of the detail.
individual It
Equation 1.1 in
remains to be done to render the basic RichardsElms procedure completely satisfactory. knowledge summarized in is presented in Nevertheless, this report, based on the present
Chapter 9.
S< .i.
".0
2
GENERAL
FEATURES OF
DYNAMIC
BEHAVIOR
2.1
COMPLEX Analysis
BEHAVIOR AND SIMPLIFIED MODELS of the behavior of is a gravity retaining walls interaction and such large as strains. the finite to branches and during problem
loading
method, all
presently
engineering,
assumptions are
complex
subsequent
report.
In this chapter,
the intent
is
of the major aspects of the problem that have been considered in the simplified models. However, more importantly, the phenomena
A general overview of retaining wall behavior here, based on a review of field observations,
is
presented
18
thrust
is
the force in
the spring
(labeled
'A')
the wall
suddenly
accelerated
occurs as because
2.7(c), in in
of differences
masses and differences However, force slightly is is in there would the spring
be no force 'A'
would be fairly
tensile.
2.7(d),
to resist
the inertia
result,
would be present
have tried
fashion the complex nature of forces and displacements retaining wall model. However, the major is that
a elasticplastic
pressure
displacement
occurs.
Focusing too much upon the forces exerted by the backfill and it is more essential think in
force
was observed to vary with time in a complex manner in element model. that shown in
17
MS
(a) ElasticPlastic
Retaining Wall
BS
A
Tr
Slip.',__ l . 
Ground
Acceleration

Ground Acceleration
FIG.
2.7
RETAINING
S. . .
. . . . .. .".. . ...
.".".. .
.m '.:'
.
".".".. "
"
"
..
."."".".
"..
16
'i
Slip
*Slip
*Slip
~360
'520~280
5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
i3 2 0 **
z280~240
Sloo ip
0 0.5 1.0
Slip 1.5
meSlip s
2.0 2.5 3.0
*
50  Slip.Z
wd
Slip
401
301
0J
U)
0.5
2.5
3.0
FIG.
2.6
TYPICAL RESULTS FROM FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR RETAINING WALL SUB3JECTED TO 3 CYCLES OF SINUSOIDAL GROUND MOTION.
15
.8 m 
.9
/
/
H=8m
S..Pc=v ." /.
2400 k
,otential
failure plane
= 0.3
2000 kg/mri 3
0.43
0= 54.67"
Ko:: 0
(a)
Cs=O Cs lE5kNImlm 5
Cn= Normal stiffness of slip elements CS: Shear stiffness of slip elements 0
(b
FIG.
2.5
0 .. .
14
2.4
FINITE
behavior,
a study by Nadim
(1982)
The material properties of this for the essentially at the wallsoil rigidplastic interface,
model are
linearly elastic,
the wall,
This model
is
able to account
of a Coulombtype failure
A typical set of results, obtzined using 3 cycles of sinusoidal motion at the base of the grid, There are three intervals is shown in Fig. 2.6.
shear force at the base of the wall is betwec , backfill and wall is
the maximum thrusts
relatively low.
is
occurring,
fairly low.

An explanation for the lack of direct correlation between the earth pressure
time) is illustrated
"
is
further idealized as a lumped mass system consisting of two A unique feature 'B') is its ability
imagined for one of the axial springs (labeled to transmit compressive forces, but not tension.
The analog of
.. .. .. .. . .. ..
..
..
. ..
. ,= .
72
. .
..
..
13
0.60 SlipCP
Slipj
Base
a4
Acceleration
"A Wall"
z 0.20
0.2
Acceleration
w0 w0
's
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.40 0.48 0.56
I~ Ad
0.64
0.20,
TIME in seconds
z46 w w
~i a. (0
2
00
pI , p i..1 I p  I '
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.40
0.48
0.56
0.64
TIME in seconds
FIG.
2.4
TYPICAL MEASUREMENTS OF ACCELERATION AND RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT  IN EXPERIMENT PERFORMED BY LAI (1979). (Figure based on reduced data from Jacobsen, 1980).
..
..
12
Typical measurements of acceleration and relative displacement of the model wall obtained by Lai
2.4. model The first feature to note is
(1979)
are shown in
slip
Fig.
of the (i.e.,
a single movement
model wall follows closely the input base acceleration. occurrence of slip is
The
Also,
slip
movements into the backfill. A problem common to all model tests is in the lack of similitude In part, .
this scaling problem can be alleviated by conducting tests in a centrifuge, as has been reported by Ortiz, in et al. (1981) and by
available to the writers at the time of publication of this report. It is almost certain that these series of tests will and may
provide further insight into retaining wall behavior, change some of the conclusions stated here.
"
"
'
..
. . . ... .
. .
FIG. 2.3
MODEL TEST SHOWING TRANSLATIONAL MODE OF FAILURE (FROM LAI, 1979). Note: Scale is marked in cm.
10
failure plane in
the
* *
A significant amount of backfill settlement. The occurrence of distortional backfill failure wedge. the area near the shear strains in the
Lai
(1979)
performed a series of experiments using Lshaped 12.6 inches (320 mm) high with a
and additional steel plates could be secured to the base The dynamic
excitation was provided by a shaking table which could simulate both periodic and earthquake excitations. A photograph of one of Lai's model tests after failure is shown in Fig. 2.3. In contrast to the rotational failures, distortional strain in
translational movements produce very little the failing backfill soil wedge, rigid body motion. However,
plastic deformations of the soil at the process of movement. failure, Lai noted the
Similar to the result shown for rotational formation of a single predominant planes developed in Also, there is
failure plane,
though other
clear evidence that increasing the weight of the inclinations of the failure plane.
 .] , [. . [ [[ ..[[ i .ii.. i .. ..
/ . .. . i
[ [.iii.I i [
i.i...iI, ..
i " . . ... 0
vibration.
FIG. 2.2
MODEL TEST SHOWING ROTATIONAL MODE OF FAILURE (FROM MURPHY, 1960). Note: Scale is marked in inches.
2
Generally, the
experiments that have been performed can be classified into two groups: "* Experiments primarily concerned with the measurement of dynamic earth pressures and/or structural response. "* Experiments to measure the movements of retaining wall and observe general failure patterns during shaking.S The first group, involving experiments to measure dynamic earth pressure, has had limited success in the comparison of results with theoretical solutions, in particular the MononobeOkabe equation. Specific details of these comparisons It has generally been
observed that the distribution of earth pressure does not increase linearly with depth as in the case for static pressures. Also,
the location of the resultant of the total force is usually located above the lower third point along the height of the wall. Several of these experiments involved model walls that were fixed or restrained, and subsequently did not correspond to true field
conditions. The second group of experiments are generally closer in their simulation of actual field conditions.
. . ...._
tests on a model gravity retaining wall made of solid rubber shaken with sinusoidal. base motion with a period of 1.48 seconds. .... .,... Figure 2.2 shows the sequence of failure of the retaining wall. Although the wall weight is improperly scaled and there are undoubtedly frictional effects (i.e. model against glass container), several significant behavioral features can be noted:
S
..
by Nadim (1980),
Settlements of the backfill behind a wall generally accompany outward movements of the wall. Evans (1971) reports fill height. settle0
Such orders
of magnitude of downwards movements of the backfill associated with outwards movement of the wall are consistent with the concept of the development of a wedge of soil failing along a plane behind the wall. It has been observed that movements are not always associated Evans (1971) noted that of the 39 bridges in New S
and only
used by
S
15 were damaged.
in
rational method to avoid failure not only for the translational mode, but perhaps also for rotational modes of failure. if the amount of translation is
by the bridge
S
In the
and restraint
superstructure
greatly reduced.
2.3
MODEL EXPERIMENTS
S..
.... ...
. ,.
....
n.
*
..
..
,/
i
./
I I
I
/
;iI
(b)
s
lIliA\\
"
/
~//
/' I
:i::
,'. '
.

FIG.
2.1
RETAINING WALLS.
"j
o..i:
i.1..i'..
."i'.
/ '..
.i, .:.ii
.i<
'...''
..
:...
. ..
< .. i 
2.2
are available in
the literature.
have been presented by Seed and Whitman (1970), of Civil Enginees  JSCE (1977),
Aside from the cases where liquefaction was a cause of failure, observed, * * * three types of retaining wall movements have been as schematically illustrated in Fig. 2.1. These are:
Outward translations of the wall Rotations about the base of the wall Rotations about the top of the wall
Most cases of movement involve a combination of translation and rotation. Rotations about the top of the wall appear to be
restricted to retaining walls forming part of bridge abutment structures. Mayes and Sharpe (1981) suggest that rotation about
the top occurs only after outward motion of the wall brings the *" top into contact with and restraint by the superstructure. However, the pattern of overall bridge movement in some cases
indicate that inertia forces from the superstructure may actually havepushed the top of the wall into the backfill In (Evans, 1971). chapters, in analysis.
"
...........................................
19
location of the earth pressure depended on factors such as the elastic modulus of the backfill and the frequency and amplitude of th( input ground motion. Another feature observed in the finite element model is the
amplification of ground motions due to the elastic properties of the wall and backfill. Since the system is elastic, a natural
frequency of vibration can be associated with the retaining wall and the soil. If the input ground motion due to an earthquake has effects similar to
resonance will tend to amplify the maximum ground acceleration, and cause larger displacements of the retaining wall.
**I
I4U
iIP
UL
LIE.
*I!*
U0
*
I
20
3
CONVENTIONAL DESIGN
3.1
GENERAL CONCEPTS Gravity retaining walls are typically designed using a static
coefficient.
This coefficient
is
used to
plus dynamic
force exerted on the wall by the the inertia shown in force Fig.
coefficients.
found these
design procedures
are followed,
shear resistance on the base of the wall and (with appropriate and bearing
overturning
tilting
NS
=tan
NH 1NV
(31)
Fig.
3.1.
..., "?i.'iil'i.  ..l .. . . . i .; ii i~ 1". .. ? ~ : ? ; . il . .~li i; < .; .ii i .' . ,i .i .iVi . .. ;1 .. [ . .. .;i
21
iN WT
" H
F ailur'e
Plane
.il'
I Nv
::
FW
.W
=
NvW
FIG.
3.1
SCHEMATIC OF STATIC EQUIVALENT SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS AND EARTHQUAKE INERTIA FORCES FOR CONVENTIONAL DESIGN.
_0
....
.... .. .
'.:
.
'.
..
'.
.
.. :.,,.....'
,
.........
.. 
...... . .....
'.....
....
22
90 A."
(a)
V.
S
~D
FIG. 3.2
23
logical conclusion from this that T can not exceed the angle
T is
angle of repose,
equilibrium condition.
angle i,
T would be restricted to have values less than 4ki. as T increases, the critical angle of the failure 0i, the failure plane becomes
S
Physically,
until at T =
3.2
are calculated using some version of the MononobeOkabe (Mononobe, equation is 1929 and Okabe, written as: 1926). In its complete form,
PAE
1/2
(1Nv)
(3.2.a) _0
where
cos 2 (M8)
COS
[f
1 +
.......................................... ...
..
...
..
....'
24
BACKFILL PROPERTIES
PAE
y*Unit Weight
4)uAngle
of internal
Friction
tail NH
FIG.
3. 3
25
AE
is
and the
other quantities
angle of
internal friction
of
the backfill
6 = angle of friction between the backfill and the wall = angle of inclination of the back of the wall respect to vertical) i = angle of inclination of the backfill (with
Fig.
3.3.
NV and T are as

Figure 3.4 provides various charts of the quantity K or AE KAE cos 6 plotted against the horizontal seismic coefficient NH. KAE cos 6 represents the horizontal component of the dynamic earth pressure. Fig. 3.4 illustrates the sensitivity of the Mononobethe various input parameters. Based 3.4
0
on the observation that the inclination of the lines in Fig. are all approximately at the same slope (of about 3/4) relatively wide range of NH, t, and 6, Seed and Whitman
for KAE:
H
for a (1970)
KE
KA+
(3 / 4 )NH
(3.3)
where KA is
the static
determined
*,
P, i,
and 6. "9
26
as*
0.4
'

or
/
000
.
.2d lol
0.2
3#
00.
..
o0
0.
0.2
NH
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.30203
0.4
0.5
NH
o.i2
03
04
os%
oI
01
00J
;0.47._5
1
"" ".
O0
0 4W.2 0
0.5
0. 0.1 0
NH 00
0
8.0
"V
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Q 5.
NH
FIG.
3.4
EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON THE DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT KAE (AFTER SEED AND WHITMAN, 1970).
...
'.
indeterminate
recommended that
from
the
resultant force be located above the lower third point of the wall. Seed and Whitman (1970) suggest that the dynamic component with the net result
thrust PAE would be
".
at or near midheight
the wall.
3.2.2
Validity
of Mononobe
Okobe
Equation
horizontal inertia body force as well as a vertical gravitational body force. Indeed, as discussed previously, Equation 3.2 may be the
vertical
(e.g.
see Antia,
1982).
.5
Equation 2.1 is
subject to all of the same limitations as the Failure lines through the backfill are which is an approximation but a good one.
that there be sufficient strain
requirement
along the assumed failure line to mobilize the full shearing resistance of the soil in
must of the then indeed be active is inertia plus
That is
shearing
to say,
there
resistance and if
.
failure within
wedge, this
constant
wedge,
between backfill
In many cases,
these may be
' . .. .''. ". .. "..' .. i'.,': " ".' ' " ,  . " . "" ., ,
.  ". . ' , .
. ."
.. .
, "
" "  
 S
quite different stress patterns. Other dynamic earth pressure equations have been suggested, usually derived on the assumption that the backfill is linearly
elastic with no limitation upon the shear stresses that can occur. A summary of these various solutions is Not surprisingly, thrusts, depth, presented by Nadim (1982).
than an analysis based upon Coulomb's assumptions. various experiments have been
As described in Chapter 2,
performed using shaking tables with the purpose of checking upon the validity of the MononabeOkabe equation. In general, the
conclusion has been that the observed total dynamic thrusts agree reasonably well with those predicted by the theory. However, many
of these tests have not satisfied conditions that permit sliding to occur along a failure plane through the backfill. the dynamic thrust varies during a cycle of loading, In addition, and it is not
clear which observed value should be compared to the MononobeOkabe value. Hence it is not surprising that there are experiments showing because of experimental conditions that On the "
do not simulate the behavior of gravity retaining walls. other hand, at least some of the reported experimental Equation may be only
"' '"'
":..
: .
''
"
:i
'
.".''.
..
"
..
. ""
"
I.
..
I I L
.,
..,
29
3.3 DISCUSSION OF THE SEISMIC COEFFICIENT METHOD
3.3.1
reasonable approach for the design of gravity retaining walls, provided that neither the backfill nor the foundation soils (i.e., in this
beneath the wall experiences a dramatic loss of strength liquefaction) during earthquake shaking. approach is in A key element
the proper selection of the seismic coefficient to use Equation. used for the design of most
the MononobeOkabe
manuals provide recommended values for this coefficient, primarily dependent with respect most codes, dependent * *
to regions as defined by seismic zoning maps. the coefficient is modified by factors that are
on:
The type of foundation soil profile at the project site The type of the structure (e.g. buildings vs. bridges)
The natural period of the structure * The importance of the structure warehouses) The last of these above factors, "importance factor", is often referred to as the (e.g. hospitals vs.
risk/benefit element
7 ..................................................................
30
and horizontal accelerations, for the vertical this factor in the present lack of recommendations
0
to be of as much
as the horizontal
3.3.2
Maps
Two examples of seismic coefficient maps of the United States are shown in Figures 3.5 and 3.6. Figure 3.5 is the seismic Army Corps of
coefficient Engineers 
and Fig.
(ATC306,
1978).
Similar maps for the United States are and in the ANSI
published in regulations.
the delimiting of seismic zones and the The ATC maps show coeffi
cients that are double the values shown on the USACE map. However, directly, the USACE coefficients are intended to be applied
while the ATC coefficients should be modified using For freestanding (Mayes and

3.6.
Thus in
the two maps do not conflict as significantly as at Nevertheless, differences do exist and it should be
glance.
   "
 ? .'
. ".
'. b 'i . .
31
C4,)
~~44
Ec m
I:Z.
00 9U
E44
32
00
E4
r:4 0
E4
'14
ZrL
46
tan b 1 +
2Ww 2_
(4.5)
solution of Eqn.
computation is
4.4
RICHARDSELMS
DESIGN PROCEDURE 0
The design of a gravity retaining wall essentially requires calculating the weight of the wall Ww, allowable displacements. This is given an imposed limit for
Decide upon an acceptable maximum displacement dR. Calculate N using Eqn. 4.1 in the form: .
2 0O 8 = 0.08 7 Ag
1/
A AR
(4.6)
3.
(Eqn.
3.2b)
to calculate
0, 6, and
the appropriate
values of 6,
i should be used.
4.
Calculate the required weight of the wall using Eqn. in the form:
4.4
. . .. S
we obtain
BN tan4 b
BNt n b
WW
+ (PAE)H
aT
W
[w +AEvI
+ (P AE)H
(4.2c)
aT
[Ww + (PAE)V 1
tan~b
(PAE)H]
Ww
(4.3)
or
or or
N =tan b  (P aAE)H
SW
w
v tan4 b
(4.4)
Richards and Elms recommend using the MononobeOkabe equation (Eqn. cannot, 3.2) for evaluating PAE' and hence the above equation a nonlinear
in general,
used and if
0,
" .
"
.. . . . : , .. .
.. .
.. .
..
..
. .
 .
.:
..
VS
44
aS
0 T
7Note:
oT
Ng
P.
Max a
=Ag
(PAE)v
Rigid Block
~AE~H I%
FIG.
4.5
43
alternate and very convenient equation for calculating the block displacements d R in interest in design) the medium to low range of N/A (the range of as:
dR
0. 087 V2
41
where N and A are previously defined and V is velocity. This equation is also plotted in
Fig.
4.3
EVALUATING Although

Eqn.
"
aT~ = Ng.
tancb.
N is simply equal to
forces,
(PAE)H
=
PAE sin (6 + )
and
"i 
the equilibrium equations for the retaining wall. Summing forces body diagram in equilibrium: Fig. in the horizontal direction, using the free . e '. ".
4.5(b)
'
............................................ ....................................................
42
Various
Equations
>
J
...................
AgA
...........
.....
................
(2pjaa)
..............
dipUcmet (10
.....................................
dslace~
N A A....
V.
0
zS
~2 Ag
0.11
0.01
0.10
1.0
10
N A
FIG. 4.4
41
shown were obtained using several strong motion records from the San Fernando earthquake. in Note that there is considerable scatter as a result
displacement scale,
maximum acceleration Ag = 0.5g and a maximum velocity V = 30 in/sec. These same data can be replotted using a normalized
dimensionless displacement scale by dividing the calculated displacements by V2 /Ag. Figure 4.4 shows such a plot with the from all earthquakes used by Also shown are several 6
their analyses.
"
Note that while these expressions are not true they do form nearly an upper envelope for most of O
the computed points. To illustrate the implications of these results, V2 /Ag typically ranges from 1 in. the quantity 0
displacements during a moderate earthquake would be from 0.4 to 10 inches, 40 in. while those in a major shaking would range from 1.6 in. At N/A = 0.7, is 0.35, the upper envelope value of normalized so that for minor and major earthquakes, the
O
...... ........... .. o".............." .... .J .. ".". . ".............. .. . .
to
displacement
40
I00I
I S
I 1000 I I I
Ii
~I I I I II

500 7_
SS
ISCALED
.0.5&
mEAN VALUE
Io
w
U
,,,
IL
0I
S 
100
NONSYMMETRICAL RESISTANCE
01b
0.01
0.05
0.10
%5

N .. A
,_...
FIG. 4.3
39
transmitted to the block through friction forces is the subscript acceleration. block is
aT = Ng where
'TI denotes the transmittable horizontal or limiting Then the consequent acceleration experienced by the Fig. 4.2(a).
The resulting velocity profile as a function of time can be deduced as shown in Fig. 4.2(b). The plane's velocity increases
linearly at a slope Ag and levels off at time to, the end of the rectangular input pulse. However, the block continues to
) and this limits the time interval of the The resulting simply in the
relative displacement
between the block and the plane is Fig. 4.2(b), i.e. the difference
integrals of plane and block velocities over time. The basic concepts described above can be applied to more complex earthquake acceleration time histories, simple computer program. included is using a relatively
backfill during earthquake shaking. An example of the type of results obtained by Newmark and later expanded by Franklin and Chang (1977) 4.3. This figure is is shown in (1965) Fig.
displacements d
.. .
E i
 
38
NgL
/
to
~I
I iME
VELOCITY
Vb to tm (b)
Ng t TIME
0
FIG.
4.2
ACCELERATION AND VELOCITY PROFILES OF BLOCK AND PLANE SUBJECTED TO A RECTANGULAR PULSE EXCITATION.
S:: :!:
90
37
i.OTr Ng
77117111111IIIIII
Max a a Ag
0
W.
Fj, = Mo a
goT
T= BN ton
BN= W
b W ton~b
F, = Inertia Force W = Weight BN =Base Normal Force T = Shear Force (b) Free Body Diagram of Block 0
FIG.
4.1
0
. .
F
. :
_. .
v. 
. 
. .
 . ,
"
,
36
4
RICHARDSELMS METHOD
4.1
GENERAL
Recognizing the shortcomings of the conventional approach for seismic design of gravity retaining walls, Richards and Elms (1979) developed a design philosophy based on the concept of an In the end, the design of a
accomplished using an equivalent static seismic but with a more rational basis for the selection of
S
coefficient,
this coefficient. The key to the RichardsElms approach is the method of The approach is to evaluate the
calculating the amount of residual wall movement. similar to the method suggested by Newmark (1965)
the stage for discussions of more complex models for evaluating retaining wall displacements.
4.2
NEWMARK'S SLIDING BLOCK MODEL Consider the rigid block shown in Fig. 4.1 with weight W and constant. It is
mass M = W/g,
where g is
the gravitational
assumed that the coefficient of friction between the block and the plane is P tanOb Suppose that a rectangular earthquake 4.2(a) is applied to the equal to _
Suppose also,
35
3.3.5 CONCLUSION ON SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS O The conclusion that is is arrived at from the above discussion
that there are rational ways to select and use the conventional in design. However, the emphasis of design
seismic coefficient
but rather on the evaluation of the retaining wall slip should be allowed document to occur during a major earthquake. it is stated that:
"... the seismic coefficient method, often referred to as the pseudostatic method, is no longer regarded as being appropriate for analysis of embankment or foundation response use for this Therefore its in seismic loading. purpose should be discontinued." 1983) (USACE,
S ,
S. 
.S
9.
..................................
~.**.**
...
.**
..
**,.*..*"'""*
...
"..
.

.
..

tS
that buildings designed using these recommended coefficients can be expected to yield, should a major earthquake occur. However,

these designs are such that the yielding should not cause unacceptable damage or danger of injuries and fatalities. The implication for gravity retaining walls designed using a seismic coefficient method is that slip of the of the wall will This is especially true
light of the fact that relatively low factors of safety are in conjunction with seismic design. The
usually recommended
Engineering Command
DM7.2 currently allows a factor of safety between and for quay walls in Japan the 1977).
1.0 (JSCE,
Although the USACE does not have specific factor of safety guidelines for retaining walls guidelines for dams (USACE, would be acceptable in (USACE, 1970) 1965), it is inferred from the
earthquake design.
An alternative to designing retaining walls using the seismic coefficient would be to instead use the peak ground acceleration expected for a future earthquake. However, if It this practice is the inertia force of has also been suggested
that the horizontal earth pressure PAE be evaluated using the peak ground acceleration and that the inertia of the wall be ignored. However, this is an illogical procedure and cannot consistently
.. . ...... ..
,.. . ,
./
. i
.3 .,
[ . .
i
..
....
. .<
. .
,,
. ..
33 noted that for walls which are restrained from horizontal movement, NH = 1.5 N is recommended by the ATC code.
3.3.3
Judgement in
manuals are derived partly from theory and partly from experience data during actual earthquakes. Considerable judgement is
necessary to formulate the zoning maps and to determine suitable values of seismic coefficients. the differences in Thus it is not surprising that and
also that updating of the values of the seismic coefficients occur from time to time. It is also important to note that the intended use of the
various recommendations may significantly affect seismic coefficient values. * For example, the USACE maps were originally designing earth dams, which make Thus,
applying the USACE coefficients to other structures should be done * cautiously. In Japan, a similar situation exists with seismic
coefficients and maps differing for port and harbour structures, *roadways, buildings, etc. (JSCE, 1977). I 3.3.4 Seismic Coefficients and Safety Factors typically have lower values than the
Seismic coefficients
peak ground accelerations that have occurred during earthquakes. In designing buildings, it is expected that the peak accelerations the structure) could be I
47
(PAE)H
(PAE)V

tan b (4.7)
w w
tan~b
5.
is
illustrated in
4.5
METHOD
is
(Newmark
coefficient *.
is
chosen on the bas~s of the ductility ratio (of that a structure possesses before Its "
extreme structural damage or danger of collapse. does not consider certain the
kinematic restrictions upon retaining wall behavior, deformability of the backfill or possible tilting, statistical
fashion,
and the In a
the factor 4
of safety of consevative
which is
safety
as discussed in
Section 3.3. 4
,' .
.*. * .. .*
..
"
0
48
0 ,.
J'. 0
0
..
".
,o
"
o '."
"
.J
..
..
49
EXAMPLE 4.1
Retaining wall and backfill with properties shown in Figure E4.1. The maximum transmittable acceleration N, using the RichardsElms method. The weight of wall Ww is calculated to be 32.81 K/ft. From Eq. 3.2a, PAE= (1/2)(0.120) (25) 2 KE = 37. 5 KAE K/ft. Assuming values of N, values for P and KAE are calculated from Eqs. 3.1 and 3.2b. A new value of N is then computed from Eq. 4.4. Results of these computations appear in Table E4.1 and are graphed in Fig. E4.2. The answer is given by the intersection of a curve through the computed points and a line
through the origin at 450.
.0
*
4.
2.5'
2.5
440
Bockfill Slope i =0
25'
'
,. q4
zo=
'
tE120
C =0
PCF
. .
=CV 4 .% ,.
150
PCF
15'
. .
COMPUTED
N
0.05
0.10 0.15
0.364
0.397 0.433
0.161
0.123 0.082
0.20
11.310
0.473
0.036
0.3
SOLUTION
z0.2 N 0.I12
a.o0.280.1
For comparison,
N is
4.5,
yielding
0.106
...
......... ....
dR = 0.087 0.3'386
0.112
= 0.087
= 8.7 in.
(1.94) (51.48)
EXAMPLE 4.3 Given: Find: The backfill and frictional resistance properties in Example 4.1. For a wall 25 feet high, the required weight of wall if an earthquake with A = 0.3 g's and V = 15 in/s is to cause a permanent displacement of 1 inch, according to the RichardsElms approach.
Solution:
Step 1 d
=
1 inch 4.6, N
= =
0.192
3.1 gives
10.890 1
= =
Step 4
From Eq.
45.44 K/ft.
Step 5
Applying a safety factor of 1.5 to computed Ww: Required weight of wall = 68.2 K/ft.
0<
O
52
5.1
 '
"
modelled as
represented by another
rigid block on an inclined plane. The kinematic constraints on the twoblock model are that during sliding, contact force and acceleration continuity must be and between each of
.
the blocks and their respective sliding planes. This gives rise to three equations of acceleration continuity that must be satisfied simultaneously with the equations of equilibrium. The most significant constraint in the problem is terms of the mechanics of " .
that of maintaining contact between the sliding For outward movement of the
there must be a simultaneous outward and downward Thus, even when there is no vertical
experience
vertical accelerations.

53
//
7
.
ilure Plane
Ground Acceleration
Rigid Sliding
Plastic deformations Interaction of blocks through active force PAE (b) necessary for movement are ignored
C
FIG.
5.1
S.
. .. ... .
..,
.. ..
 ..
..
.
....
. ..
..
:  : .:
54
..:
..
5.2
COMPARISON WITH
SINGLEBLOCK MODEL
Vertical accelerations
in
'..
.
. . ...
active earth pressure PAE between the wall and the soil reflected by the term and the factor (INv)
Equation (Eqn. 3.2). It can be she::,,n that for
.. . :,
in
the Mononobe
of
continuity
acceleration normal to the failure plane at any instant in the following equation must hold:
time,
.i
Nv(t)
or
= Av(t)
+ [AH(t)
(5.la)
.
NH(t)
= AN(t)
+ [Av(t)
My(t)]
cot [@(t)]
(5
2b)
/
" .
'" /
is is is
the vertical ground acceleration coefficient ""'"'"'" the transmittable horizontal acceleration.i2222211?'".'.'.'",.:;..,:
w
Nvlt) is
81t)
The notation
the transmittable vertical acceleration coefficient of the soil wedge. is the angle of inclination of the failure plane with respect to horizontal (see Figure 5.1).
It) indicates the above quantities to be variable
[ ..:.
?ii':< i<.'.
Thus,
the transmittable acceleration at any instant in upon the ground acceleration at the same time.
to the singleblock model proposed by
S. ?.i.
dependent
in
sharp contrast
constant
'"'"""
J , J ,0
shown in
Fig.
5.2
In
a threshold.
"""7
"?"'?."?':. ,.".'A???:..':?..,,.,,,,..,: ,.. ,.,,. ,.,v..........'...:. . ...... . v...v....:.....i.. i. ?.i ..>i.i. . ... . . : ..... , .,_. , '.,,... . . ." . '" ..... . . ... ... . . : .. .... ... . .. ,
55
Ground
.
z
2
uJ NI
model
N M
I.
TIME
oe'
TIME
I
z
w~
>I00
> W
00
TIME
FIG.
5.2
SCHEMATIC COMPARISON OF SLIDING PROCESSES OF THE RICHARDELMS (RE) AND ZARRABI MODELS.
.
56
slip.
Provided
that
comparable assumptions are made concerning the properties of the backfill, the value of NT is exactly the same as the value of N However, after initiation
0
of slip, the limiting acceleration NH at any time during a cycle of slip can be greater or less than NTg. As a result, sliding. in Fig. the active thrust P
AE
is
An illustration of how this physically occurs is 5.3 for the case where there is (AV =0). no vertical ground
acceleration
When the ground acceleration AHg exceeds [Fig. in 5.3(a)], the vertical
the transmittable acceleration NHg backfill wedge acceleration Nvg is Hence, the inertia force is in
solution procedure for these equations is that during slip, timestep. Also,
fairly complicated
in
the value of NH must be evaluated at every since e is a function of NH and NV, Wong (1982) the solution
for NH must be obtained iteratively. developed a more efficient scheme, to the governing equations is memory,
subsequently
57
00
U)
14
(n
U)U
E4
>w
z
0
0..Z
h.r
zz
\rU x
(0 24
o'x
j E4
A0
z
0
"wlo
+

in;in
CIO.
~44
58
equilibrium and continuity are solved simultaneously at each time step. There is one other feature of Zarrabi's twoblock model that This is the implicit nonso that unlike the
5.3
NUMERICAL RESULTS The net result of the kinematic constraints in the twoblock
model is
than those using the singleblock model. Fig. 5.4, which shows the ratio R2 /
1
2/1
dR dR
Residual displacement of twoblock model Residual displacement of singleblock model as used here, are not
record or the wall/backfill properties. The results shown in Fig. 5.4 are based on limited results
using the average values of residual displacement calculated using four earthquakes (Antia, 1982). The unit weight of the soil, the
wall height and the height of the wall are properties that can be collectively described by the value of NT. S  "..' .. / . . l .' '. .i i . ] .. i i.
However,
,  .   i i
 
 
59
0C
(0
fl
i
.0
01 0
Lii
cozZ
E
2.
cn
0I
00
00
E 4E
z
0tt
.~
00
z
7
LAo0
1 40
I)
~~0
uc
P4..
.........
60
backfill properties cannot be as easily incorporated in a single parameter,and the results shown in
case which might be encountered
=
Fig.
in
practice
300;
0).
5
is seen from Fig. 5.4 that the differences between the two
It models
(smallest R2/ 1 )
are greatest for small values of N/A and/or An explanation for this trend is that as
S
the angle of the failure plane 0(t) (flatter). Hence, Nv (t) (Eqn. which is 5.1a), so In O
to tan [G(t)]
becomes smaller
that the vertical acceleration and its the limit, as A or N becomes large
becoming large),
and hence no vertical backfill motions would result from purely horizontal ground motions. The reason for the ratio R2 / one is
1
unreasonable to envision that although NH(t) and hence PAE vary with time during slip, that on the average, the results of the
S
however,
implies a restriction
intuitive notion,
is
that the
twoblock model has more energydissipating mechanisms than the singleblock model. Whereas in the singleblock model, the O
earthquake energy causing motion can only be dissipated through friction forces at the base of the wall, the twoblock model has
.
.
..
..
.
.
. .
.
.
, .

.... ,
..

...
.
74
is
shown in
Fig.
go to zero as N/A approaches unity although that range. indicated by the which
predicts
insignificant values in
For interis
values of N/A,
shaking.
At larger N/A,
uncertainty.
Again, all these results were developed using only the
6.5
Downward acceleration
the tendency
upward acceleration
increases resistance
to slip.
the
effects of the vertical component of ground motion may be expected to cancel. Hence the vertical component of ground motion has
generally been ignored when computing sliding block displacements. The actual effect of vertical ground accelerations has been
studied using the suite of 14 earthquake records described above.
73
100
50 _
__
5 dRe
0.5
0.01
0.05
0.1 N/A
0.5
1.0
FIG.
6.2
MEAN DISPLACEMENTS FROM THIS STUDY COMPARED WITH THOSE FROM FRANKLIN AND CHANG (1977).
9ii.i
72
eynonential it
ii somewhat
6.4
SCATTER AMONG DIFFERFNT SITES AND EVENTS The next step was to examine the record means d Ro For each normalized
selected N/A,
and peak velocity using V2/Ag A is the largest absolute and V is the peak
acceleration
absolute velocity from the component containing tion.) Then the 14 normalized values of
that accelerato
dRe = Ave
[aRe]
(6.1)
in
normalized
form,
are
6.2.
As a result
of the
Re
37V Ag
9.4N/A (6.2)
..
. .. ....
...
. . . .
. ..,
. . ,
. .
. .
. . ... . .
. "
71
Table 6.1 COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION ARISING FROM UNCERTAIN ASPECTS OF GROUND MOTION
COMPONENT OF UNCERTAINTY ORIENTATION OF WALL AT A SITE EARTHQUAKE TO EARTHQUAKE A 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 u 0.6 0.7
N/A

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.32
0.42
0.51
0.64
0.86
1.12
1.30
0.53
0.54
0.58
0.58
0.56
0.50
0.41
0.19
0.42
0.51
0.73
. .
.
70
6.3
ORIENTATION For a
EFFECTS analysis of this effect, components it of would each be desirable record, only the the
complete from
of motions
However, study
recorded components
have been
to evaluate
four possible permanent displacements. Four values of permanent slip dRe were computed from each of the 14 records for values of N/A from 0.2 to 0.7, with no
normalization of the records and ignoring vertical accelerations. For each of the records, the analysis
d
(used for
in
Section 6.4),
for each N/A,
/a
of E
0
mean variation
by definition, listed on
increases one or
as

N/A
increases.
occurs because,
N/A,
slip. no slip
For in so
0.7
the
direction,
and very
oriented
that it
17
Overall,
are other zero
N/A 0.5.
0.7,
eight
zero
Numerous
values
are so
small
to be
changes.
approximately normal.
For N/A
0.7,
it
is
more nearly
............
........
69
N
0.25g0.2g

Eg0
'V"
' 
"vVYo:669:
SW
0.3g
0.5 0/.2g
O0.2g
/E
0 0.3g
0.
15 g
"
b
"0,,.2g
ifrn o R rett i
W25ga
...... ....
.2
E,
0/.3g
Earthquake Components
FIG.
6.1
68
An important implication is
experienced by a retaining wall during an earthquake will depend upon the orientation of the wall. walls shown in Fig. For example, the four retaining
to experience differing 0
amounts of permanent displacement during any one earthquake. Indeed, some walls might have permanent displacement while the This is an important aspect of
experienced by any particular wall. In previous work, it has been usual practice to normalize a 0
one
O
The choice of a velocity to characterize at a site is less obvious. For this study,
This choice
practice and should lead to the least confusion concerning interpretation of results.
O
67
greater
The restriction
cant displacement
of actual retaining
magnitude was used to narrow the range of durations of earthquake shaking, which roughly correlates with magnitude. Ideally a
has not been done. Analysis of scatter in sliding arising from differences First in
S
of motion at one location during one earthquake. are the differences quake. Finally from site to site
there is In
ground motion.
the end,
However,
of the relative
importance of the O
6.2
SCALING OF RECORDS A typical ground motion record has two horizontal components. are
.*. 
66
retaining wall.
As discussed in
the introduction, in
such uncer
to sliding,
This chapter deals with the consequences of the essentially random nature of ground motions. Fig. 4.3, As discussed in connection with
peak acceleration
peaks and differing directions of shaking. procedure ultimately recommended sliding block model,
model. Thus the results
in
which the sliding block model provides a reasonable prediction of permanent displacement or deformation including certain earth slope movements in earthquakes as well as retaining walls.
The analysis here uses results from a study of the mean and distribution of sliding caused by a suite of normalized ground motion records (Wong,

1982).
65
5.5
S

(1979)
tends to overestimate the residual slip of a retaining wall Zarrabi's model, using the concept of
slip, as confirmed by model tests on a shaking table. An important issue mentioned briefly in whether it is this chapter involves 0
varies with the instantaneous ground acceleration. issues regarding how changes in other parameters 6) affect the results, are treated in Chapter 8.
(i, *b' i,
and
/ S.
S" .o
.
,S
S
. .
..
..
64 0.40
Measured (Ground)
U,
Measured
0.20(al ~RE 0
100
00.20040
0.10S
0.1
SE
E
Co
6
/Zarrobi
M`teasuredy
0
FIG. 5.6
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.40
0.48
0.56
0.64
TIME in seconds
COMPARISON OF RICHARDSELMS (RE) AND ZARRABI SLIDING BLOCK MODELS WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (FROM JACOBSEN, 1980) (SEE CHAPTER 2 FOR DETAILS OF EXPERIMENTS, WHICH WERE PERFORMED BY LAI, 1979).
63
experimental
results
obtained by Lai in
(1979).
These experiments
As can be seen,
twoblock model is
of acceleration,
velocity,
Also noted by
Jacobsen was the fact that the twoblock model predictions are in better agreement during to the latter in the beginning of the shaking as compared It is conjectured that this is
deformation
predictions,
i.e.
simulation models.
As opposed to Zarrabi's
procedure where 8 varied with acceleration, to use a fixed 0 (measured in the model)
results.
_0
0 "
62
E4
z
00
u0
ci
00
d0
w0 0 0
EE
00 0z 0~ 4 0 05 04
0
0E
N ci 0
0 0
5:4
0D
IS
61
at
least an additional
frictional
surface
plane in
Though these
are intuitively
5.4 is
that it
is
displacements of the twoblock model by dividing by V2 /Ag the case for the singleblock model. If it were possible,
2/1
RR R
Since it
is
R2/1 depends on A,
*
However,
as a practical matter in design considerations, 5.4 can be replotted as shown in Fig. 5.5,
the
"results of Fig.
where
the horizontal axis has values of N or NT instead of N/A or NT/A. This scheme condenses the values of R2 / data, minimizing the influence of A.
1
Wong (1982)
5.4
COMPARISON WITH
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Jacobsen
(1980)
,M ,,, :.
.. 75
00
CD
ga~
0
le
0
2z a.W
00
z
0D
0z E40
E40
aZ4
CY
H cf
0~~
00 B00 0ll
76
scaled in
component.
The
where d
is
..
are considered.
up to 56
0 and
S
were computed
Re
Fig.
portion of Table 6.1. Figure 6.4 indicates that, on the average, incorporating . .

vertical ground accelerations causes greater residual displacements. in This can be understood by considering a hypothetical case
of 1.0g.
resistance
whereas at the peak upward merely double that for zero the potential effect of downward than the influence of upward
S
Clearly, greater
is
small
with
As would be expected,
large N/A there are fewer intervals during which slip occurs, hence the sense of the vertical acceleration quite important. in
and
S
these moments is
.
~
.
..
..
". .
. ''.. .  . .
..".".' . ", . . .
."' . "''" ..
. ''
.
. '.
...
. .
.. . "'",''.
''..'..
77
1.5
1.41.3
IL1.2
_ _
A0.0 0.5
0_
w
0.
w0
0
0.i
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.66
0.7
N/A
FIG. 6.4
78
if
cases
in
which dRe
0 but dRy P
were
an equation
1.015
0.2N/A + 0.72(N/A) 2 vS
(6.3)
which is this
valid
for 0.2 < A < 0.7 and 0.1 < N/A< 0.7.
"Average"
in
sense
implies averaging
slips.
6.6
COMBINED UNCERTAINTY One way to estimate the overall uncertainty of the wall, arising from the and is
sitetosite
and vertical
ground
accelerations
to combine the coefficients of variation in Table 6.1. estimate the slip of a block as:
We woulO
dRv =o EosEv Re
(6.4)
Re
Es,
is
a deterministic
function of N/A
(as given in
Fq.
6.2)
Ev are random variables which depend upon A and N/A. F and F is: are independent, then the
coefficient
of variation VR of dRv
)(1
+ V2
)(1
+ V)
(6.5)
79
Vs and V
E
respectively.
Table 6.2.
The resulting values of VR are tabulated in R As would be expected from comparison of the individual vertical ground accelerations contribute relatively 0
Even here the predominant uncertainty comes from the unknown orientation of a wall relative to the principal motion. Alternatively, values of VR may be determined directly from These it 6 axes of the ground 0
the 56 computed values of residual slip for each A and N/A. results are given in is Table 6.3.
computed by assuming that the three effects 6.4, and 6.5 are independent. Clearly
Sections 6.3,
some degree of correlation actually exists among these effects. From the results at small N/A, orientation and sitetosite degree. it may be deduced that the O
At large N/A the VR do not increase significantly as A RO implying that the effect of vertical ground strongly correlated to one or both of the other vertical 0
accelerations are important only when there are a very few spikes of horizontal acceleration that cause slip, and having only a few
such spikes can also lead to a strong orientation effect. For design considerations only the results in Table 6.3 are of interest. However, having looked at the various effects
.
................... . ..
"" ~~~.. .. '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..........,........
.'..'..i i..iL
..
.I'..
.....
?.,....,...,
...
00 80 Table 6.2 OVERALL COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION ASSOCIATED WITH UNCERTAIN NATURE OF GROUND MOTION, BY COMBINING UNCERTAINTIES IN CONTRIBUTING EFFECTS
N/A 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.2 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.3 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.4 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.5 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.24 1.30 0.6 1.37 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.54 1.60 0.7 1.48 1.54 1.60 1.78 1.87 1.95

..
..
..
81
Table 6.3 OVERALL COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION ASSOCIATED WITH UNCERTAIN NATURE OF GROUND MOTIONS, FROM STATISTICS OF COMPUTED RESIDUAL DISPLACEMENTS
N/A A 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.2 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.3 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.4 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.5 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.6 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.16 1.16 0.7
S
Ao
.
.. .
..
..
..
..
.
..
..
. .
..
.
..
.
. .
.
..
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
82
value in
understanding
the
contributions to overall
uncertainty.
6.7
PREDICTING RESIDUAL DISPLACEMENTS If the effects of vertical ground acceleration are ignored,
Eq.
displacement
V and N/A.
some statistical
uncertainty
of the actual mean displacement owing to the limited used in the calculation. to the scatter in 0
be modified to:
1Rv
vaRe
(6.6)
where
v is
V
given by Eq.
6.3.
in
Section 6.5,
E is 0
introduced with
by using
associated
of variation
function for
the displacements
known or assumed,
provide a basis for estimating probability ground motion might be exceeded. uncertainty in d arises
from a multiplication of
.. ...
.?i
..

'.?....*,,:?
83
sections, function.
it
cumulative distribution functions derived as suggested here with those developed from the actual computed residual displacements. In general appear tiat the agreement is reasonable. In particular, it would
S
displacement which will not be exceeded with 95% probability. Assume that the actual residual displacement can be written as: d
=
Rv0
(6.7)
where Q is
a lognormally distributed random variable with mean of VR. The mean and standard S
2S
ln (1+ VQ)
(6.8)
mlnQ= ln(E[Q])
Var [lno]
1
Q2
.
ln(l+v 2
0 lnQ
(6.9)
..,n
The value of lnQ which will not be exceeded with 95% probabality is then:
..............
_0
..
m.h ..... .
ilm
..
..
.....
. ,
77
84
0a
hI
00
0A 0
=0.2A
0.
0N/A=
100
~~
0.2
1_
N/A= 0. 5
Goo
200
300
400
Cv
OISPLCEMET
~DISPLACEMENT
(me)
LOSS
00
00 10 2
N/
DISPACEENTtom)DISLACMEN
0 4
o0
EUT
0.5NA
I9oI
OPRSNO FIG.~~~~~~~~~
WITH DERIVED DISRIUTINSFORDIPLAEMNT
FSIIGBOKAAYE 0.
TTSIA
CUMULAT~~IVELGNRA
85
lnQ9 5
or lnQ 5 9
(6.10)
I n 52
(+V
+ 1.645 Vln
(1+ VQ )
(6.11)
or 1n
95
(1+ V)

+ 1.645
+.Vo
in(l
(6.12)
in(1+
Values of 095 are given in Table 6.4, The interpretation of these results is the allowable residual displacement is
for typical values of V0 . as follows. dL. Then, in Suppose that order for .
there to be 95% probability that dL will not be exceeded during an earthquake with given peak acceleration the expected (average)
9 5.
then I
such as the resistance of a block or wall to the are known with certainty. The effects of the next chapter.
.
" .
6.8
APPLICATION TO RFTAINING WALLS As discussed in Chapter 5, for a given A, V and N the d., is not equal to the
S

not apply exactly for the mean residual slip of retaining walls. However, calculations by Wong (1982) have shown that the
86
coefficients of variation for dRe are very nearly equal for dRe' for each A and N. Hence Equation
to those in
6.9
IMPROVEMENTS TO PREDICTIONS The procedure outlined here for predicting is, of course, the average dis
placement suite
of a sliding block
of earthquakes
assumption that A and V are the best measures of shaking. It will certainly be desirable 6.2 by using a larger
as to reflect
other than A and V which are displacement distance. than can Explanathe
into these questions are ongoing at MIT under Prof. Daniele Veneziano. Finally, as noted in
would be desirable.
S .
,.
...................................................
..
..
87
7
INTRODUCTION The analysis in Chapter 6 has assumed that the mean displace0
nt dRe is ckfill.
a known function of the properties of the wall and Actually, dRe is itself uncertain  partly because of 0
certainty in
the model being used to compute displacement for given operties and given ground motion input. e effect of uncertainties in This chapter deals with 0
These properties include the weight of the wall; the unit ight of the wall; the friction angles at the base of the wall, thin the backfill and at the wallbackfill ometry of the problem. certain to some degree, interface; and the S
While all of these properties are the most important uncertainties are The influence of insignificant, these other S
d will be ignored in
to say,
operties will be considered as deterministic. Computation of the uncertainty in permanent displacement ivolves: id then (a) (b) evaluation of uncertainty in the friction angles, through the
..............
88
7.2
IN
FRICTION
ANGLES for analysis of a particular using based the actual the upon friction in most in as 6
angles
selected
wall at
experience
Moreover,
angles may change movement associated properly Chapter resulting angles. When friction starting small. deviation It from a be treated 8, but for
purposes of in
considered friction
from uncertainty
the evaluation
of the
angles specified
of a initial
granular density,
soil
are scatter by a
measured, is relatively 0
might reasonably a of 1 or
be characterized However,
2 degrees.
because
sometimes is
the
possible variation about the actual mean value must be greater. Because backfill does tend to be loose, decrease in continues. there is relatively little 0
for backfill is
conservatively,
can be more than several degrees less than the anqle typically
used for design. (It is the possibility that the actual t may be
less than the value assumed for design that is to us). All in all, it
..
possibly 3 degrees.
j  i >. . .' .'  i ... " >>~i > ii ' > >> :..' i''> >
.: :
i : . .. "
. ''>S .
I
.,.....
89
These same arguments also apply to the friction angle *b at the base of the wall. compacted, decrease in significant.
bi
Because foundation soils tend to be better greater than t. By the same token, likely to be more
0
*b usually is
reasonable to use a standard deviation of 2 or 3 degrees. Engineers tend to feel quite uncertain as to the choice of a suitable value of wall friction angle 6. actual peak interface friction angle is there is in It is not that the but rather is .
great doubt,
mobilized at a wall before static failure occurs. problem where slip is actually expected, Nonetheless,
In the seismic .
it
is
necessary to pay careful attention to the units for the standard deviations of friction angles, reexpressing the foregoing values are summarized in and this is best handled by Appropriate
S
results in
radians.
table 7.1.
7.3
in Rv Equation 6.7 becomes a function of the random variable N; that is, this term is found by: itself a random variable. The variance of d may be
...
.....
...
..
.....
....
*..
..
..
..
..
.
90
Table 7.
Location
a in
radians
.0
.o .S
. ,
.
..
91
i~ 2
Alternatively,
dr
dRyQR,
(7.2)
where now
is
a deterministic function computed using average the problem at hand and ".
a random variable with mean unity reflecting uncertainty in The variance of R is given by Equation 7.1. .
closely approximated by
[@]= Fv Va
a 2_8N
Var[R
(7.3)
[_14 (_j
Rv 2 Var[N] 2]
and
dividing by
0Rv'
becomes:
Vrj,
9..
(7.4)
...
..
. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
.
.........
..
. .~

92
is
inversely related to the ground acceleration This means that, since it is ratio N/A that
determines the amount of slip, a given uncertainty in N is much more important when A is small than when A is large.
For a sliding block of known weight on a horizontal plane, the transmittable acceleration N is determined entirely by the friction angle between the block and the supporting plane:
tano
(7.5)
The variance of N is
Var[N]
[.]
DN2 Var[4]
4 sec4q
Var]
(7.6)
aN =a c/cos
(7.7).
a, from Table 7.1, the range for aN is 0.05 to 0.08. Combining Eqs. 7.4 and 7.7 leads to the results in Table 7.2. Note that some of the values of V  those for the smaller A are quite large, much larger than the coefficients of variation

..
discussed in
Chapter 6.
Thus it
is
93
VR
aN
S,
:S:.,: .
.S
"S":
_O
94
7.4
fashion.
In this case,
derivatives
R Values of the partial R 2/1'Vle f h ata derivative have not been evaluated, although approximate results by Wong (1982) indicate that the value obtained for a sliding That
block are a good approximation for the retaining wall case. is to say, Equation (7.3) may still be used.
Var[N]
N 2
Var[b] b
() D6
)2
Var[61
(7.8)
which may be
N =tan~b 
(7.9)
.
"
Since PAE is
and 6,
implicit
Numerical evaluations of these equations have been performed for various combinations of values of the three angles and of N.
>~  i.. i ? . , lilllll2 .llli'.
~~
 ii....
. ..
.
...
.ilii. i
i.
i..i
. .:
i'
..
N
N
(tan~bN)J
IN
1.
[2r
~~~~~~
nOa
_1
CY
Ptan+N
+ N + cot
+tan
N
96
(All have is
involved
= =
0.) 0.
One special case of some interest Then equation 7.8 may be rewritten
.
that when
*b
and 6
as:
Var[N]
+ +(N)
IN
Var[p]
(7.10)
The term in
brackets is
tions investigated,
aN=
/8
0.92a
(7.11)
That is
to say,
the uncertainty in
N is
than that in
occurs because,
that both friction angles will be simultaneously larger smaller) than mean values. If there is
between the values taken on by these angles, would be increased to some degree. When wall friction is situation is present,
as indeed it
must be,
the
more complicated.
=b 2
a =
and
i = 0 0.
It
combination of values used for the three angles and N, and is greatest when N is smallest. Somewhat greater values of aN may be Further
found when other combinations of parameters are used. more, depending among the three friction angles
(especially
97
Table 7.4 STANDARD DEVIATION FOR RESISTANCE FACTOR N FOR GRAVITY WALLS WITH WALL FRICTION, ASSUMING a = b =
AND
06
504
pb
N
_b_
300
30 0
300
350
350
350
S . .
98
between
and 6)
It
the uncertainty in
Fig.
7.1 as a function of N.
Values of aN may be entered into Equation 7.4, is is is still at least approximately valid.
.. S
S :i i
S
S"m"
""
" "" m
"Ia
"
"( ;
"
" "i
" "
99
0.08
0.06
0N
0.04
(
S
0.02
00.I
0.2
0.3
FIG.
7.1
N FOR RETAINING N
WALL WITH
. .
..
. .
. .
. .
. .
100
8
MODEL
ERRORS
AND UNCERTAINTIES
This chapter discusses several ways in which the two block model of Chapter 5 is still imperfect, but where knowledge is
inadequate to permit use of an improved model. include the proper choice of a failure plane,
deformations tilting choose considerable available. within the backfill In addition, before there results sliding
of walls.
are errors in
approximate using
the best
methods of
analysis
8.1
FAILURE In Zarrabi's
PLANE
that arises from the formulation and application of the MononobeOkabe Equation.
tests performed
However,
by Murphy
as described in Chapter 2,
(1960) and Lai (1979) indicate
the model
that it S
to assume that the failure plane inclinaduring test slip. Jacobsen's with calculations in a that (1980) comparisons the
(1979) model
results this
using
twoblock is better
concur with
reasoning,
between
when be
fixed
o is
0 in
reasonable
to use a
displacements.
114
At other
acceleration
reverses, lies
force
point.
Once revealed by this are quite obvious. simple conceptual model, these results that
be quite misleading as regards free to tilt. Nadim used sliding and tilting. this model
importance of
Moment resistance at the base of the wall in character, and it was further A
.
acceleration,
moment.
is
this calculation.)
to increase further
by rotational
of the wall.
Nadim's study were: Tf N > N, then only sliding will occur. That is, having R resistance to sliding which is less than the resistance to
tilting protects the wall against tilting.
If
NR < 0.85N,
and no sliding
occurs.
In this case,
113
0 ,all may slide and/or rotate about is just its base. The horizontal
equal
also accelerates
of stresses
he horizontal liffer
acceleration
ground) is
otational
of the wall.
This equation
of the wall
One result
of this
irst
sight
is
)etween backfill and wall sometimes lies below the lower third point. This happens whenever the tilt of the wall away from the acceleration of the
S
)ackfill is [round is
At such times
this means that the uppermost slice through the than the slices below it. increases with
It turns out that the thickness of the individual slices can in the limit be set to zero, so that a continuous equation is obtained.
112
ol
4e.
0 IIA E 0
U3
Ns
In
0l
00
S
~~0
u 0H
O E4O
NN
"P4
HD
N
C0E4Z
=
tipii
. .
111
relatively
conservative amplification in
simpler sliding block analysis, suggested. It backfills should be noted will typically
frequency
fBF for
S
of ground motions fEQ range generally the most typical range of the frequency
0.2 to 0.6.
8.3
displacement of gravity retaining walls usually involves This important aspect of behavior has received very standpoint, tests and hence is in still is
attention
from a theoretical
(Sherif,
the
of active conditions
However,
they give no direct evidence as to the in a freestanding (1980) wall. used the
model shown
Figure 8.5.
wedge of soil S
subdivided
once frictional resistance on the interslice failure surface is reached. Except for such sliding, the backfill is rigid, while the
S.
110
idealization
of the problem.
In
all
of
these cases,
it
was
boundary is
(radiation damping).
actual
amplification
probably not as large as one predicts from the finite analysis wall, with a rigid boundary at the level
element
especially Another
trend shown is
more significant
were correct,
no slip.
However, in
because of amplification through the backfill the upper portions of the backfill would
and hence slip would occur. Thus for N/A equal
the acceleration
actually exceed N,
the ratio R is F
infinite.
As
values of
from about 0.3 to 0.7. of preceeding observations into a practical (19P2) and
several ways.
Nadim
the amplification
analysis,
alternative
Equation
(Eqn.
4.1).
An
is
109
0 d RE
=
R d
BF
and
BF
backfill.
From Fig.
8.4,
it
is
of the frequencies
approaches
analogous to a resonance condition for a SDOF vibrating system. Since the fundamental
approximated as
BF
Cs
(8.4)
It
for
excitation frequencies near the resonance condition are conservative because of the boundary conditions that are imposed in the
...................................
...........
,_
108
E
0 N
E
0
zz
E..m...:
0EODo
0
0
E4c
0S
I.
444
OH"
SZz 0 Uo
,,C.,. c
z
4
000
Oi_ 0HOr. "I
ri
~ EE
E6
~0 Cl)'
0 LO i 0 0
sl)
a07oie 13001N
SIN3fl313 3IJNI
z a]li8
buisn Up
................................................. .
'.:.
....
........
. ."...
.'.......'.
..
".
...
'
107
Assuming that
would be lower for the flexible backfill fill case. Consequently, considering
the results
models, there is
larger
additional
such that larger earth pressures would be if envisioned in the context of seismic
S
to develop,
arguments for explaining how ground motion amplification residual displacements. It should be recognized strict
',
including
quantifications
and notions of normalizing displacement in view of the nonuniform distribution finite element model.
an elastic
as compared with those from the rigid twoblock model are in Fig. 8.4. Computations are shown for values of N/A. The
0
format of comparison
to the frequency response cure vibrating mass. factor, is The ratio defined as: .0
(SDOF)
amplification
ES
~.
.
..
. . .
" 
. :.
..
..
.
", . .
. =. ..
......_
..
"
"
"
."
. ,
"
.
'
,
".,.
..
.
106
"'
FIG.
8.3
SCHEMATIC COMPARISON OF EFFECTS OF RIGIDITY AND FLEXIBILITY (ELASTIC) ASSUMPTIONS IN RETAINING WALL BEHAVIOR.
.)iii:
7,.
105
:1
because of lack of data. cance, However, in terms of practical signifione
whether
uses a fixed or variable 8 may not be important. especially true in shown in Fig. light of the uncertanties
This is
8.2
the blocks representing the retaining wall and the soil backfill wedge to be perfectly rigid. assumption, This is actually a fairly good

negligible.
However,
and hence
idealizations
Chapter
to the phenomenon
expected to occur in earth dams (see Seed and Martin, Makdisi and Seed, 1979). in The amplification phenomenon Fig.
tically illustrated
case,
without amplification.
Firstly,
104
0 O
z
o
US
w~
0
dw
Iz U)

"c
z
tun
OD

OW x
0I4
04X
bu)Z U
IOXl
80 XI
"
0us
N.::..:
0
..
.... . .
.. ....... ... .., . ... . ... .,. ... ..
. . . . . . _ . . . .
..
. " . " .
.. ..... i .C,.,
. O " .'
:rz.:.
.. . . . .. . : . . . ., ,. , ,
2 "j 
 . o. .
, 
. ,
.. ; ,.,..
o. .
.. , ,.
. . .. 
. , . . ,, ,..
.,,
U)..
'
103
(increasing
Fww),
a larger slip.
inertia
is soil ..
required to initiate
""
must be mobilized
threshold eTV
to frictional
the model and the glass sides of the model container, increase *. There is also a range
which would tend to effectively of possible interpretation that the failure line of failure. failure zone, surface is
of the failure
Furthermore,
that arise
displacement between assuming a constant or variable are illustrated in Fig. 8.2. The results shown
plane of failure
performed
separately by Nadim
using three earthquake records and a 0.112. The Ratio Re is defined as:
constant value of N
Residual Residual
e
to one, of
(8.2)
S
is
generally
with
discrepancies but
increasing accelerations,
value of N,
further generalizations
"................
*i
"
t*'
.'."
....
...
' .
".......
..
"
"...
...
"""'
102
0
0
"E
z z
Cd
z.
0E
3 0 4
0
co1
~0
w 0
pO
" a
0~
I4
..
0CJ
00 00
44
101
J
it
Physically,
once a
failure
in
the backfill,
than the surrounding soil and at subsequent stages of that develops should failure
would be the preferred plane of failure Thus, the initial failure plane
movement.
logically be used in
the analysis.
0
quake motions is
gave equations that determine the angle of inclination of this plane explicitly as:
OT = 1/2(a + a,) (8.1)
where
a = tan1
(B/A)
cos(4+6+i)sin(4b)
sin(+6i)cos(bcos(i)cos(
6
+$b)F
"B =
cos(i)sin(s
b
)sin($+6)
C = sin(o b+6+i)
 cos(i)cos(6+sb)/Fww
W"
ww
2 i/2yH
w 2
wall
weight
factor
A comparison of the theoretical and the results * 8.1. 8 with from Lai's (1979)
equation
(1982)
experiments
show a general
downward
factor Fw.
This downward
115
top of
the wall was found to be about 1 1/2 times the using a sliding block with N set equal some reason to think that a sliding in estimating permanent is the predominant mode
of displacement. These conclusions must, of course, be treated with great caution. tilting may occur is
Unlike the case of sliding, before the maximum resistance reached. problem. Figure
significant
There has been no adequate study of this Some results obtained using the finite that the resultant
thrust
backfill can lie below the lower third point at various times
during a cycle of shaking. It does seem clear that any tendency
".
the wall. All in all, there is reason to believe that the sliding block
and Elms is a reasonable model for
""
predicting the permanent movement of actual gravity walls, provided they have been designed using a typically conservative ' safety factor against overturning by static loads.
8.4
APPROXIMATIONS
TO 2BLOCK ANALYSIS
If
one knows the inclination of the failure plane through the or if one is willing to accept the assumption that this the effect of
as discussed in
backfill,
. .i ., . >..'  . . . .
. ' .  } '} . /
..  .. } .. . . . .. .. *.* *
*:.*. *.'
 '. '.
'
.'*.*.
" .
.. :.*
116
Chapter complex,
5.
However, it
analysis is
at least
nmoderately
and hence
mations in Wong
order to achieve simplicity. (1982) has suggested an equation for the factor R2/ 1 . '
[0.7
R2/1
=
+ 1.2N(lN);
N> 0.5
This equation describes an average curve through the several curves in Figure 5.5. Each of those curves is itself drawn ground
through a scattering
motions.
However,
these points is
quite small.
The approximation
8.5 lies in
for Antia
examined
displacements
results are illustrated by the following tabulation N = 0.4 and Taft earthquake record):
(for A
0.2,
i 0
7.50
6 0
0
0
0
0
0
7.50
150
0
150
0
150
150
0.828
0.764
0.917
117
In
all
cases
investigated,
the effect
is
the residual
displacements
so as to hold N constant. These results, plus those discussed "2block" it in Section 8.1, emphasize no
the complexity of the socalled doubt that the effect actual permanent is
effect.
There is
sliding compared
The problem is
in
predicting this reduction accurately by any simple calculation. Having the inclination of the failure plane fixed tends to make
the reduction greater than suggested by Eq. 8.5. As the results
in
On
...
Antia's results
always be conservative. Taking all these factors into consideration, to use a mean value of 0.65 for the factor R2 /I,
the uncertainty in this
0 it is reasonable
and to represent
S
IdS
'.
.~~~.
.. .
..
............................................................................
........................................................
,...._.....
118
9
9.1
REVIEW OF OBJECTIVES As discussed in Chapter 1, the general objective of this invovled in using a
0
to the design of gravity The specific goal has a suitable safety if possible, the
S 0
factor for use with the RichardsElms approach or, to develop an improved design methodology.
In so doing,
desire to maintain the essential simplicity of the RichardsElms approach has been an overriding consideration. The various aspects of the problem have now been examined, to the extent that knowledge permits. synthesize them into a unified approach The next step is to design.
S
to
9.2
design is
an equation
in terms of
the specified ground motions and the physical parameters characterizing a gravity retaining wall and its backfill. achieve the objectives of this study, probabilistic in nature. That is To S
to say it
quantify the probability that various amounts of permanent displacement will be exceeded. Equation this purpose. 1.1 was suggested at the outset of this study for In it, the permanent displacement of a retaining
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_
>
119
wall is dR v
predicted by the product of five terms: : The permanent displacement of a oneway sliding block with maximum transmittable acceleration Ng, averaged over all earthquake ground motions characterized velocity V. by peak acceleration Ag and peak
R2/1 :
A deterministic factor accounting for the effect of a kinematic constraint ignored when using a sliding block to represent a retaining wall and its fill. backS
0 :
describing
the
variation of permanent displacement aroused by different earthquake motions all having the same Ag
and V.
RO :A
describing the
the resistance
aspects of the
in
Chapter 5,
dR and Q in
Chapter 6
. .. .. :.
""''
..... *.. .. .... . ... . . .. " '"  ''" " : :" ""
.. . . "". . .
. ".
*. .. .. " '.
. ."
. "
120
The effect of vertical ground accelerations enters expression for dR, and this causes in
into the
into computations
a complex fashion.
to arrive at exact values for the ratio influenced by A and N in a nonsimple the effect
even though guidelines for this purpose Chapter 7. and keeping Equation in mind the
simplified to:
Q RM
(9.1)(9.1 (9.1).
.. Equation 6.2 for the mean displacement of a ground accelerations. The errors
sliding block with no vertical caused by ignoring vertical by omitting the factor R2/1, term M. N is the expected
accelerations,
are lumped into the model error (in the average sense) threshold
transmittable acceleration
coefficient
evaluated using average values for the various friction angles. Q, R2/1 and M are all random variables, unity. Based in and in Q and R having means of
Chapter 6)
assumed that dR is
rr
.
121
Using results
it
is
now possible to
write expressions for the mean and stantard deviation of dRw: Mend Mean [dRw] where M is
2
37V e9.4N/A Ag e
(9.2)
a2
nndRW
a2
.M lndR,
Actually,
Equation
9.3 gives
the standard
rather than for dRw directly. deviations for InM and lnQ,
Information
OlnQ is S .4
inQ
Chapter 7. factors,
a composite of several
in
Table 9.1.
Figure 6.4 has been used to estimate Equation 9.1 should have been )) .4 + log Q + log m. The first term in Equation 9.3
(
a
N
122
Table 9.1
SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS IN EQUATION 9.1
Mean 1 N
MODEL ERROR Vertical acceleration Ignoring R Deform, Tilting backfill 1.2 0.65 3 1.5 0.2 0.2 2 0.75 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.5
.
3.5
3.6
0.84
...
..
..
. . .
. .
.".
w II
..
,"
123
the mean and standard deviation of the error introduced by failing to take the effect of vertical accelerations account directly. The discussion in into
the basis for estimating the effect of not accounting directly for the ratio R2 /1. correction Similarly, rather than introducing a
for the effect of deformable backfill as a function a mean correction and a measure of The possible In 5 0
scatter have been estimated from Figure 8.4. effects of tilting have been discussel in
Section 8.3.
upon the range of A and N/A of greatest interest: 0.4 and N/A = 0.3 to 0.7. Given the means and standard deviations effects that enter into the model error term,
this term may be calculated. The mean of M is
of the means.
G2 inM
computed using:
(9.5)
(V
+ i)
where Vi is M.
the coefficient
of variation
under the heading of model error leads to the results M = 3.5 and alnM = 0.84. 9.4 3.6.
Table 9.2 presents results for the standard deviation of S
VM,
and thence aM, can be found using Equation leading to VM = 1.03 and aM = MVM =
indR,
calculated using Equation 9.3 together with values of values for M and OlnM from Table 9.1
S. ....................................................
'
."". ..>..........""
... '"..." ..
.... .. "
".'....
..
J................
.. ':..
."..... ..
".
.'.."..:....'...
124
0 0.5 1.02 0.71 1.42 0.6 1.17 0.86 1.57 0.7 1.41 1.10 1.81 0
lnQ
2n
mM
So
"" """
i '""
. .:iiS
125
from Fig.
7.1.
uncertainty in
Equation
of equal
The result is
that alndR
independent
9.3
APPROACH TO DESIGN USING SAFETY FACTOR AGAINST DISPLACEMENT Taking logarithms on both sides of Equation 9.2 and
rearranging
N
in
Agdw
(9.6) if
Equation 9.6 may be solved to find the value of N required the mean residual displacement given dR, in is
section 9.2, If
displacement of many walls be just equal to, specified permissible may be replaced by dL. would, together displacement dL,
then dR in
Equation 9.6
with average values for soil weights and be used to calculate 4.7).  sin(+6)tan] tan ,bN
to be applied
[cos(+)
(9.7) (9.7
to this weight of
"
126
However,
the discussion in
emphasized that often the residual displacement will be much larger than the mean value. The engineer may wish to use a
safety factor so as to reduce the likelihood that the actual displacement wil exceed dL. safety factor F to dL, dL dRw Then Equation 9.6 becomes N A in 137MFV2 _ AgdL 9.4 ( ( One way to do this is to apply a
This equation would be used as before to calculate N and thence wall weight from Equation would be applied to Ww. In the absence of extensive tests or field observations theory of to 9.7. No additional safety factor
probability may be used to guide the choice of a suitable value. The engineer must first having dL exceeded. of not exceeding dL. is (approximately) decide upon an acceptable risk for
Let us denote by P the desired probability Since we have already concluded that dRw lognormally distributed, probability theory 6.11): (9.10)
gives the following expression for F (see Eq. F =exp [_i where Dp is
2
i nd
ain.
The information
50 75 85 90 95
..... . .
..
128
average value has been used for each A.) in Table 9.4. Several somewhat noted. First,
than unity.
This result actually reflects a wellknown fact the median (point for which is always less is
half of values are smaller and half are larger) than the mean. For the alndRw of interest,
this situation
almost always true for P = 75%. Second, for P = 95% the safety factor first Rw increases (A decreases)
The trend for all
increases
somewhat as alnd
again with for
of (lndRwis evident
increasing
Thus,
once
alnd
Rw
other
further increase causes the point for P percent to move back toward (and even past) the mean! for this behavior may be
that uncertainty in dR, in N
that accounts
It
especially with an
while an N
larger than the mean implies that a few cases with very large displacement are possible.
decrease in the value
actually a
of the time.
exceeded
..
142
predicting the displacement of a sliding block has been ieloped, 5. and suitable safety factors have been suggested. Based upon this analysis, it is possible to assess the
liability of previously proposed methods for designing gravity taining walls. Use of a seismic coefficient corresponding to onehalf of the peak acceleration for the design earthquake, together with safety factors on wall weight in the range of 1.0 to 1.2, gives satisfactory designs for a moderate seismic environment (probability of excessive displacement less than 10% for peak accelerations less than 0.2 g). In a severe seismic environment (peak acceleration of 0.5 g of more), there is generally an unacceptable risk (probability greater than 20%) that walls designed by the seismic coefficient approach will experience permanent deformations in excess of one or two inches. For walls designed by the RichardsElms approach, with a safety factor of 1.1 to 1.2 on wall weight, there is at least 95% probability that the limiting displacement will not be exceeded. .2 OPPORTUNITIES Even though design of gravity retaining walls is the really major problems in earthquake engineering, not one the
tire class of problems involving prediction of permanent splacements presents one of today's major challenges. ere is considerable value to be derived Overall 0
d understanding problems.
should be used
" " .
" "
 .
i" "
,
."
."
"
'.
..
..
"0
141
0.1
ffects of earthquakes logically should be based upon a isplacementlimiting 2. approach. is appropriate (but
arginally so!) 3.
ccount for:
*
The actual interaction between two sliding blocks, one representing the wall and the other the failing wedge of backfill. This effect is reasonably well understood. The effect of the deformability of the backfill prior to failure. This aspect of the problem is now partly understood. Tilting of the wall. understood. This effect is as yet poorly the design of 0 6
4.
wall for the seismic loading case should be based upon the ,robability that a limiting permanent displacement will be
xceeded.
*
It
is
necessary
to consider:
Variability
of ground motions
* *
Uncertainty in
resistance
.n analysis has been made of these considerations, !urrently best available data and information.
A new equation
,..:... ....
... ...
,....... ..
. ... :..
..
. _. . ..
. .:
. ..
:::::.::.:
140 EXAMPLE 9.2 Given: A wall designed for A = 0.3 and safety factor of 1.1 on wall weight for seismic case, using = b = 300 and 5 = 200. The height is H and the unit weight is y. Probability that permanent displacement will exceed 1, 2 or 4 inches, during earthquake with A = 0.3 and
V = 15 inches/sec.
Find:
Solution:
The first
3.2b,
step is
From Eq.
with N = 1 A = 0.15;
From Eq.
9.7:
2 Ww = 0.707
AE
= 0.407
0
2
1 yH
Ww = (1.1) (0.707)fYH
= 0.778 1 yH2
Using Eq.
0.171.
The following table gives results for various d L From Table 9.2, the appropriate value of alndRwfor AL= 0.3 is 2.0.
d
dL F
=
=
0.84
in
=2 in
1.68
=4 in
3.36
Rw
Dp P[dRw<a P[dRw>d L
1.61
Eq.
9.12
0.95 0.05
.....
"..
..........
139 EXAMPLE 9.1 Given: Find: Solution: The requirements in Example 4.3.
Appropriate weight of wall using approach of Chapter 9. W will be computed for two values of F. w
F = 2.5
F = 4
N/A N0.20
0.68
0.73 0.22
Eq.
9.13
'11.30
KAE 0.473
12.40
Eq.
3.1
0.491
Eq.
3.2b
PAE
Eq. 3.2a
Eq.
9.7
These weights may be used directly to proportion the wall: no additional safety factor is required.
.,'
..
..
..
..
..
.
138
shearing exert
through
In
addition, or less
a dynamic
on a wall more
the mineral
skeleton.
for future
research.
S.
Si
S ..
... S.
o S
,
'................................................................
."."....'......"""......'........".
137
displacement of such a wall actually results from the type of deformation pattern envisioned by a sliding block type of analysis. apparent Even here, however, there are problems, such as the
as discussed in
correction
required concerning
the importance It
will be critical.
Thus model tests should be carried out on a normal gravity. this report deserv
well known that some displacement must occur before full passive resistance is developed, and such a situation cannot be modelled Great care should be used in if passive toe resisto sliding.
136
There is incomplete.
one aspect of the probabilistic analysis which is Eq. 6.2 for predicting permanent displacement of a
sliding block was developed using data from earthquakes with magnitudes from 6 to 7. Presumably larger earthquakes, causing 5
the years since Newmark's paper suggesting the use of there have been numerous efforts to
0
apply the method to predicting permanent displacements of earth structures as the result of earthquakes. suggested use of the method in Newmark originally and the As a

sliding block has indeed been very valuable. case of earth dams it
permanent displacement may result from distortions distributed throughout the dam, before a definite failure surface develops.
Thus the quantitative use of the sliding block analysis as a tool for predicting the permanent deformation of earth dams may be limited. Sliding block analysis has always seemed more suitable for the analysis of gravity retaining walls, very litle since it usually takes
.
the backfill.
to say,
. ,  2  * " ,"  ' " " " ' " ," ," ", " " " . 
135
and several values of safety factor applied to the The results of these calculations may
0
Probability that dL used for design will be exceeded if design earthquake occurs 10%
~ 5% < 5% 0
If
5% probabilityofexceedence
is
taken as a target,
these
9.5
primarily upon predicting the probability that a retaining wall will experience various amounts of permanent displacement Quantifying uncertainty requires good
during an earthquake.
knowledge of the several aspects of a problem and adequate statistics for the pertinent parameters. Obviously there is yet
not enough such information to do with great confidence. theless, the estimates developed in
None
purposes of design.
... .... .......... .,..,..: .. .. .. ... ........? .,... . .,.. .., ?:
134
Table 9.5 PROBABILITY THAT MOVEMENT OF WALLS WILL EXCEED VARIOUS LIMITING VALUES. WALLS ARE DESIGNED FOR STATIC SEISMIC COEFFICIENT OF 1/2 OF PEAK ACCELERATION = 300 and 6 = 200 WITH 0 =
FACTOR ON
WALL WGT. SEISMIC CASE
SAFETY
dL
L inches 1
CHARACTERISTICS
OF EARTHQUAKE
A = 0.3 V=15 in/s 28% 18% 10% 18% 10% 5% 12% 6% 3%
A 0.5 V=25 in/s 56% 38% 22% 47% 30% 16% 40% 23% 12% S S
1.0
2 4 1
1.1
2 4 1
1.2
2 4
S 1
. .. .
..
133
N = 0.71.
is
assumed to have the same peak acceleration as the "design earthquake in/s. (i.e. a = 0.3), together with a peak velocity V = 15 of the actual
height of the wall and of the actual weight of the backfill. Table 9.5 summarizes results for walls designed in using several different design (and actual) this way
earthquakes.
*b
and 6.
(Changing
these
the N for a wall just meeting moderate seismic environment will have reasonably ments. However,
a conventional
in a severe seismic environment the probability much larger, at least for safety
it
average values of
*,
the probability of
9.4.2
Design Following RichardsElms With the RichardsElms method, the required weight
of wall depends upon the allowable displacement dL as well as upon the seismic.. environment. A number of calculations have b and 6various
...............
..
...
..
,..
132
2.
The corresponding
value of N is
computed,
using one of
appropriate for the earthquake of concern. calculated for the selected threshold 0 9.12.
The factor F is
permanent displacement. 5. The factor Dp is calculated by inverting Eq. Rw 9.2 6. The probability of exceedance corresponding to Dp is looked up in a standard normal cumulative probability table. . is
9.4.1
retaining walls (se Chapter 3),for purposes of illustration this coefficient will be taken as onehalf of the peak acceleration in the earthquake used to define the seismic threat. Example that 0
9.2 outlines a sample calculation of the probabilities various levels of displacement will be exceeded, case. Note that the wall of 0.3q, is
for a specific
0.15.
Because of the safety factor applied to the the actual threshold acceleration
9
131
9.3.2
Examples Using M
=
0 3.5,
1 in
[0.66
(9.11a)
9.
0.61 + 1 in
AgdL(.1a
A F = 2.5 (9.11b)
the first
terms
of these equations. To illustrate the use of Equation 9.13, Example 4.3, developed in with Nv = 0 which is reworked in let us return to
S
Example 9.1 using the results 3.1 and 3.2 are used
this chapter.
the possible effects of Nv * 0 have been accounted this chapter. The wall weights computed
S
using both values of the safety factor are larger than that determined in However, in Example 4.3 before any safety factor was applied. _
the current example no additional safety factor need and hence the design is more
9.4
RELIABILITY IMPLICIT IN OTHER DESIGN APPROACHES The results developed in Section 9.2 may be used to
estimate the probability that walls designed by a conventional approach, or using the RichardsElms method, will P: .rience as
The methodology is
including any
130
9.3.1
Choice of Safety Factor There is no standard to guide the choice of a suitable In the case of buildings, the probability of not
value for P.
failing during a major earthquake, building codes, P = 99%). appropriate P = 90%. It apparently is
A somewhat lower probability of nonfailure seems for gravity retaining walls: say P = 95% or even about as far as
the information
of dR may
comfortably be pushed.
even beyond the limit)
of confidence
in
Chapter 6. with P
=
to Table 9.4,
should be about 3.6 to 3.9, except for the smallest ground accelerations where a smaller value is design of gravity walls is little In justified. However,
a single factor of 3.8 might be used at all levels of ground acceleration. reasonable if Similarly, use of a safety factor of 2.4 seems 0
to P = 90% is
should not attempt to be too precise in factors. Hence values of F are recommended.
" _
4 (conservative)
2.5 (less
conservative)
i i,
 "
_'''
L~+L JL t.
''
JL .L
A'J
'X
 ]'
__
.'
.","
"
"
"
'"
+.
129
Table 9.4 SAFETY FACTORS REQUIRED FOR VARIOUS PROBABILITIES OF NONEXCEEDANCE, AS A FUNCTION OF PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Probability of nonexceedance  % A 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 lndpw 2.83 2.01 1.66 1.50 1.36 1.33 50 0.018 0.13 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.41 75 0.12 0.52 0.77 0.89 0.99 1.01 85 0.34 1.07 1.41 1.54 1.63 1.64 90 0.69 1.44 2.13 2.23 2.28 2.28 95 1.92 3.62 3.87 3.83 3.72 3.68
%S
I.S
 
_ ..
..
.
I
"143
to study the influence of varying the several parameters. Further improvement of the model likely will be necesary for study of tilting: for this case it seems essential at least to 0
Modelling the resistance of the soil beneath the wall to tilting is a very poorly understood problem. 2. Valuable results can come from model tests of gravity It is essential that the wall
A program of tests involving sliding has been underway at in England, but results are not yet tilting
problem should be even more valuable. 3. The analysis of uncertainty should be extended. A
a sliding block.
. . .
..
r r
"
v .
ri k
k
.
144 REFERENCES Antia, H. 1982. "Predicting Relative Displacement for LimitedSlip Seismic Design of Gravity Retaining Walls with NonLiquefying Backfills," S.M. Thesis, Research Report R8234, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ATC306. Jun 1978. "Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buidings," Applied Technology Council, Report No. ATC306, Palo Alto, Calif. Bolton, M. D., and Steedman, R. S. July 1982. "Centrifugal Testing of Microconcrete Walls Subjected to Base Shaking," Proceedings, Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Southampton, Vol 1, pp 311329. Evans, G. L. 1971. "The Behavior of Bridges Under Earthquakes," Proceedings, New Zealand Roading Symposium, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, Vol 2, pp 664684. Franklin, A. G., and Chang, F. K. Nov 1977. "Earthquake Resistance of Earth and RockFill Dams; Report 5, Permanent Displacement of Earth Embankments by Newmark Sliding Block Analysis," MP S7117, Soils and Pavements Laboratory, US Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Jacobsen, P. N. 1980. "Behavior of Retaining Walls Under Seismic Loading," M.E. Report 79/9, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. JSCE. 1977. "Earthquake Resistant Design for Civil Engineering Structures, Earth Structures and Foundations in Japan," Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Lai, C. S. 1979. "Behavior of Retaining Walls Under Seismic Loading," M.E. Report 79/9, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Makdisi, F. I., and Seed, H. B. Dec 1979. "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Embankment Response," Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 105, No. GTI2, pp 14271434.

0.
Mayes, R. L., and Sharpe, R. L. Oct 1981. Guidelines for Highway Bridges," Report No. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, Mononobe, N., and Matsuo, H. Pressure During Earthquakes," Conference, Vol 9, p 177.
Murphy, V. A. 1960. "The Effect of Ground Characteristics on the Aseismic Design of Structures," Proceedings, Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, Vol 1, pp 231247.
. . ,. .*
145 Nadim, F. 1980. "Tilting and Sliding of Gravity Retaining Walls," S.M. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
1982. "A Numerical Model for Evaluation of Seismic
. 0
Behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls," Sc.D. Thesis, Research Report R8233, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Nadim, F., and Whitman, R. V. July 1983. "Seismically Induced Movement of Retaining Walls," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol 109, No. 7, pp 915931. NAVFAC. May 1982. "Foundations and Earth Structures, DM7.1 and DM7.2," Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Va. Newmark, N. M. 1965. "Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments," Geotechnique, Vol 15, No. 2, pp 139160. Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. 1982. "Earthquake Spectra and Design," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley,
Calif.
Okabe, S. 1926. "General Theory of Earth Pressure," Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 12, No. 1.
Journal, .
Ortiz, L. A., Scott, R. F., and Lee, J. 1981. "Dynamic Centrifuge Testing of a Cantilever Retaining Wall," Soil Mechanics Laboratory, Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. Richards, R. J., and Elms, D. Apr 1979. "Seismic Behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 105, No. GT4, pp 449464. Seed, H. B., and Martin, G. R. May 1966. "The Seismic Coefficient in Earth Dam Design," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 92, No. SM3, pp 2559. Seed, H. B., and Whitman, R. V. 1970. "Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads," ASCE Specialty Conference,
"
Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, pp 103147. Sherif, M. A., Ishibashi, I., and Lee, C. D. Jan 1981. "Dynamic Earth Pressures Against Retaining Structures," Soil Engineering Research Report No. 21, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. * USACE. Jan 1965. "Retaining Walls, EM 111011401 Change 3," Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.

AD
146 USACE. Apr 1970. "Stability of Earth and RockFill Dams, EM 111011902," Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Feb 1982. "Stability of Earth and RockFill Dams,
US Army Corps
Wong, C. P. 1982. "Seismic Analysis and an Improved Design Procedure for Gravity Retaining Walls," S.M. Thesis, Research Report R8232, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ZarrabiKashani, K. 1979. "Sliding of Gravity Retaining Wall During Earthquakes Considering Vertical Acceleration and Changing Inclination of Failure Surface," S.M. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
. .
. . .
..
. .
. .
..
..
.
. . . ...
...
..
147
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A AH Av
a
Maximum horizontal ground acceleration coefficient of an earthquake record (max. acceleration is Ag). Horizontal ground acceleration time. coefficient: varies with
=
=
aT Cs Dp
= = =
Transmittable
(or threshold,
or limiting)
accelerations.
Shear wave velocity. Standard normal deviate (i.e., number of standard devitions from the mean) corresponding to the probability P of nonexceedance of a given parameter (e.g. residual wall displacement). Allowable residual displacement Residual displacement calculated using the rigid single block model. Also, the residual displacement calculated using the RichardsElms equation or one of
.
dL dR
Newmark's equations.
AdR =
Predicted residual
displacement
for 2block
model.
dRe
Residual displacement of a rigid singleblock model; when no vertical component of an earthquake record is taken into account. Average of dRe over a number of records. Average residual displacement of a rigid singleblock model; averaged over 4 orientation directions as shown in Fig. 6.1 for a single earthquake record. Residual displacement of a sliding rigid singleblock model, when vertical component of an earthquake record is taken into account. Average of dRy over a number of records. Residual displacement of a retaining wall. Expected value of dRw.
S ..........................................................
URe dRo
= =
dRy
= = =
148
E[]
The expected value operator, with the quantity inside the brackets being the operand: equivalent to calculating the mean of the operand. Correction
account
to
independently
A random
variable. Es
=
Correction factor to block model slip calculations, account independently for earthquake record variability. A random variable.
to
Ev
Correction factor to block model slip calculations, to account independently for vertical earthquake motions. A random variable. Average value of Ev at a given N/A. Wall weight factor,
weight.
= =
a nondimensional
indicator of wall
.
= = = =
Constant of gravitational acceleration. Angle of inclination of the backfill with respect to horizontal. Coefficient of active earth pressure (static).
= =
Coefficient of active earth pressure due to earthquake (includes static and dynamic effects). Coefficient of earth pressure atrest. S
= = =
Height of the wall. Correction factor, accounting for various modelling Also, mass of a errors of the single block model. sliding block. Expected value of correction factor M.
Mass of the backfill soil.
M
m Mw m
=
= = =
_S
mQ,
mN,
etc.
. . . .. . . . . . .. . ..
149 N Maximum transmittable horizontal ground acceleration coefficient; also seismic coefficient depending on the context.
Expected value of N.
NH
Transmittable horizontal ground acceleration coefficient, variable with time. Also, the seismic coefficient depending on the context. Seismic coefficient number from Fig. 3.6. for
No NR Nv NT P PAE
= =
Threshold transmittable acceleration coefficient rotational mode of failure. Transmittable vertical acceleration variable with time. Threshold transmittable acceleration coefficient coefficient.
=Probabilityi
probability of nonexceedance.
(PAE)H= (PAE)V= Q RE
R2/
=
Horizontal component of PAE Vertical component of PAE. for random nature of factor, accounting
to 1block model
displacement. R
=
Correction factor, accounting for uncertainties parameters characterizing backfill, wall, and foundation soil.
Ratio of residual displacements
in
Re
variable 0 in
analysis.
9
period of backfill.
TEQ=
t
=
"V
Vo
=
=
,=.: .
'...
...'.
' :....
*.'
..
.'.%..."
.'.
150 VR
=
of variation of Eo,
Ea, and Ev
and Ev independent.
VR* Vs Vv
= = =
Coefficient of variation of RO. Coefficient of variation Coefficient of variation The variance operator, of EB. of Ev. .
S
Var[] =
Weight of a sliding block. Angle of inclination of the back of a retaining wall with respect to vertical.
Unit weight Unit weight of soil. of concrete.
= = =
Y 6
S=
Friction angle between the back of the wall and the backfill soil.
Friction angle of soil backfill.
Friction angle between the base of the wall and the foundation soil. Coefficient of friction.
= = =
Ps
a
Unit mass of the backfill soil. Standard deviation of a quantity; the particular quantity would be indicated by a subscript to a, e.g. aQ, aN, etc. Angle of inclination of failure plane with respect to horizontal. Threshold angle of inclination of failure plane withS respect to horizontal.
S
e
OT
..
151
0i i
...
...........................
152
1 %0rl%
%Q
E4Lnr* E4 1 0 1
%iC O oo
1
'
'C4'
zI
I
e
I 4I I4
r4.
P
94O O
11

zJ
I4 I 0I I I I I: Hd I
O I.~41
01
00.
Jj
di cc VI wW 0 co 0O, co 00 0x .
0A
dQ
I i4
c .
 )41
w $a 00 Aj a
CtoS
4
00j, m 4
.0
zS
IAU S
0.,a.) I 4to fe 4)
0 4 i Ci H 4 U) 00J = go Ai o
C >) l) 0 &J:1AI
p0
l .
c
k
0 0 1: vaa 0
w 0 PW
C P4 0
P..
0.
10 I4 AJ r.
c'r. a* to4~U ov $4 w U)
4
ImL
OZ
40 4 U 0d
0 . o4
I4 I
001. 0
J4
S:
OH~c E4
I I)
~
P
Id000)~ A)00 0 00
~
U
0 * 0.
W CA cc
I I
aM 00
I 1
O4
o.4
t4c
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.