otechnique 55, No. 9, 699702 Choudhury, D. & Nimbalkar, S. (2005).

Ge

TECHNICAL NOTE

Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method

D. C H O U D H U RY * a n d S . N I M BA L K A R *
KEYWORDS: dynamics; earth pressure; earthquakes; retaining walls; soilstructure interaction; time dependence

A Qv z Qh W dz

INTRODUCTION The pioneering work on earthquake-induced lateral earth pressure under active and passive conditions acting on a retaining wall was reported by Okabe (1926) and Mononobe & Matsuo (1929), based on a pseudo-static approach by following Coulombs earth pressure analysis under static conditions, and is known as the MononobeOkabe method (Kramer, 1996). But in the pseudo-static method, the dynamic nature of earthquake loading is considered in a very approximate way. The phase difference due to nite shear wave propagation behind a retaining wall can be considered using a simple and more realistic pseudo-dynamic method, proposed by Steedman & Zeng (1990). Again Zeng & Steedman (1993) compared the theoretical results with centrifuge model test results to validate the pseudo-dynamic method. Steedman & Zeng (1990) and Choudhury & Nimbalkar (2005) considered the case of active earth pressure behind a retaining wall by a pseudo-dynamic method of analysis. But the case of passive earth pressure or passive resistance behind a retaining wall by this pseudo-dynamic method has not received any attention so far. Hence, in this paper, the pseudo-dynamic method is applied to determine the seismic passive resistance behind a rigid retaining wall. Steedman & Zeng (1990) did not consider the effect of vertical seismic acceleration on the active earth pressure, which was corrected by Choudhury & Nimbalkar (2005). In this paper, the effects of both horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations on passive earth pressure are considered. Also, as an improvement over the Steedman & Zeng (1990) analysis, the effect of variation of different parameters such as wall friction angle , period of lateral shaking T, soil friction angle , horizontal and vertical seismic coefcients kh , kv , shear wave velocity Vs and primary wave velocity Vp are considered in the present analysis.

Ppe H 1 h B

Vs, Vp

Fig. 1. Model for computation of pseudo-dynamic passive earth pressure

Fig. 1. For most geological materials Vp /Vs 1.87 (Das, 1993). A period of lateral shaking T 2/ 4H/Vs (Kramer, 1996) is considered in the analysis. A planar rupture surface BC, inclined at an angle to the horizontal, is assumed for the analysis to avoid further complication of the problem. The assumption of a planar rupture surface for seismic passive earth pressure was also made by previous researchers such as Okabe (1926) and Mononobe & Matsuo (1929) (see Kramer, 1996), and Davies et al. (1986). If the base is subjected to harmonic horizontal and vertical accelerations of amplitudes ah and av , the accelerations at depth z below the top of the wall can be expressed as   Hz (1) ah z, t ah sin t Vs   Hz av z, t av sin t (2) Vp For a thin element of thickness dz at depth z, as shown in Fig. 1, the mass is given by m z Hz dz g tan (3)

METHOD OF ANALYSIS The pseudo-dynamic analysis considers nite shear velocity. It is assumed that the shear modulus is constant with depth through the backll, and that only the phase and not the magnitude of acceleration is varying. Consider a xed-base vertical cantilever wall AB of height H, supporting horizontal cohesionless backll as shown in Fig. 1. Under earthquake conditions, the shear wave velocity Vs (G/r)1=2 and primary wave velocity Vp [G(2 2)/ r(1 2)]1=2 are assumed to act in the direction shown in
Manuscript received 7 June 2004; revised manuscript accepted 19 August 2005. Discussion on this paper closes on 2 May 2006, for further details see p. ii. * Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India.

The weight of the whole wedge is W 1 H2 2 tan (4)

The total horizontal inertia force acting on the wall can be expressed as H m z ah z, td z Qh t
0

ah 2 H 2 4 g tan

cos sin sin t (5)

The total vertical inertia force acting on the wall can be expressed as 699

700

CHOUDHURY AND NIMBALKAR H m z av z, td z

0

Qv t

av 2 H cos sin sin t 42 g tan (6)

Table 1. Typical result of seismic passive earth pressure coefcient (Kpe ) using optimisation technique (Data used: 308, /2, kh 0.2, kv 0.1, H/TVs 0.3 and H/TVp 0.16) Parameter Angle of failure surface with horizontal, Dimensionless parameter, t/T Seismic passive earth pressure coefcient, Kpe Value* 22.58 (25.58) 0.231 3.220 (4.120)

where TVs is the wavelength of the vertically propagating shear wave; TVp is the wavelength of the vertically propagating primary wave; t H/Vs; and t H/ Vp. The special case of a rigid wedge is given, in the limit, as
Vs !1

*Values in parenthesis are by the MononobeOkabe method of pseudo-static analysis for the given data

lim Qh max lim Qv max

H 2 ah ah W kh W 2 g tan g H 2 av av W kv W 2 g tan g

(7) (8)

Vp !1

which is equivalent to the pseudo-static forces assumed in the MononobeOkabe method. The total (static and dynamic) passive resistance can be obtained by resolving forces on the wedge: that is, Ppe W sin Qh cos Qv sin cos (9) The seismic passive earth pressure coefcient, Kpe , is dened as 2 Ppe (10) K pe H2 Substituting for Qh and Qv in equation (9), an expression for Kpe in terms of Qh , Qv and W can be derived. From equation (11) it is seen that Kpe is a function of the dimensionless parameters H/TVs , H/TVp , t/T and the wedge angle .   1 sin kh TVs K pe 2 tan cos 2 tan H   TVp cos kv 3 3 m1 2 2 tan H cos sin 3 3 m2 cos where m1 2 cos 2 "     (11)

for a typical set of values such as 308, /2, kh 0.2, kv 0.5kh , H/ 0.3 and H/ 0.16. It can be seen that the dynamic wedge computed by the present study ( 22.58) is larger than that obtained by the MononobeOkabe method ( 25.58), and both the pseudo-static and pseudodynamic methods result in smaller wedges than Coulombs static wedge ( 20.78) (Kramer, 1996). The seismic passive earth pressure distribution is obtained by differentiating the total seismic passive resistance acting on the retaining wall with respect to the depth of the wall. This is similar to the methodology described by Steedman & Zeng (1990) and Choudhury & Nimbalkar (2005) for the seismic active earth pressure distribution. The distribution of the seismic passive earth pressure, ppe , can be expressed as ppe t d Ppe t z sin tan cos dz   k h z cos z sin t tan cos Vs   k v z sin z sin t tan cos Vp

(12)

From equation (12) it can be seen that the seismic passive pressure changes as a non-linear function of depth with a shape that depends on the ratio H/ and H/. Thus the seismic passive earth pressure distribution is clearly nonlinear.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS In Fig. 2, the typical variations of seismic passive earth pressure distribution for different horizontal seismic accel00

t H T TVs

TVs H

02

 #   t H t 3 sin 2 sin 2 T TVs T     TVp t H m2 2 cos 2 T TVp H "  #   t H t 3 sin 2 sin 2 T TVp T The minimum value of Kpe is obtained by optimising it with respect to t/T and . Table 1 shows a typical output of the Kpe values. It is found that Kpe is a function of H/TVs and H/TVp , which is the ratio of time for a shear wave and primary wave to travel the full height of the wall to the period of lateral shaking. Table 1 also gives the inclination of slip wedges to the horizontal () by the present method

kh 5 0 kh 5 02 kh 5 04

04
z/H

06

08

kv 5 0 kv 5 05 kh

10 0 1 2 3 ppe/H 4 5

Fig. 2. Typical variation of seismic passive earth pressure distribution for different kh and kv ( 308, /2, H/ 0.3, H/h 0.16)

SEISMIC PASSIVE RESISTANCE BY PSEUDO-DYNAMIC METHOD erations (kh ) and vertical seismic accelerations (kv ) are presented for 308, /2, H/ 0.3 and H/ 0.16. From these results it is clear that the presence of seismic forces, with either kh or kv , induces a reduction in the seismic passive earth pressure behind the retaining wall. From the plot, it may be seen that the seismic passive earth pressures at the base of the retaining wall for kh 0.4 and kh 0.2 are respectively about 60% and 23% smaller than those for kh 0 with kv 0.5kh . Again, from Fig. 2, it can be observed that the seismic passive earth pressures at the base of the retaining wall for kv 0.5kh are about 8% and 20.8% smaller than those for kv 0 for kh 0.2 and 0.4 respectively. Though the effect of vertical seismic acceleration on seismic passive resistance is hardly considered in the analysis by many researchers, the present study reveals the signicant inuence of vertical seismic acceleration on the seismic passive resistance. Figure 3 shows a plot of the normalised distribution of seismic passive earth pressure with the height of the retaining wall for different values of soil friction angle and wall friction angle for kh 0.2, kv 0.5kh , H/ 0.3 and H/ 0.16. From the plot, it may be seen that the seismic passive earth pressures at the base of the retaining wall for 408 are about 133% and 360% greater than that for 208 for / 0.0 and 0.5 respectively. Thus seismic passive resistance decreases signicantly with decrease of soil friction angle. From the plot, it can also be observed that the seismic passive earth pressures at the base of the retaining wall for /2 are about 24% and 150% greater than those at 0 for 208 and 408 respectively. Hence, similar to the static case, in the seismic case passive resistance also increases with increase in wall friction angle. Figure 4 shows a plot of the normalised distribution of seismic passive earth pressure with the height of the retaining wall for different values of period of lateral shaking T for /2, 308, kh 0.2 and kv 0.5kh . From the plot it can be seen that seismic passive earth pressure near the top of the retaining wall corresponding to T 0.2 s is 8%, 15% and 26% smaller than those corresponding to T 0.3 s, T 0.4 s and T 0.5 s respectively. It becomes larger near the mid-height of the retaining wall and, further, it shows a substantial increase in the passive earth pressure, which is nearly 27%, 37% and 36% larger than those for
0

701

02

04
z/H

06 T 5 02 s T 5 03 s T 5 04 s T 5 05 s 0 1 2 3 ppe/H 4 5 6

08

10

Fig. 4. Effect of period of lateral shaking T on seismic passive earth pressure distribution for /2, 308, kh 0.2 and kv 0.5kh

T 0.3 s, T 0.4 s and T 0.5 s. But as the period of lateral shaking increases, the total seismic passive resistance decreases. From Fig. 4 it may also be seen that the difference in seismic passive earth pressure distribution along the height of the retaining wall is marginal when T varies from 0.3 to 0.5 s. Now for most geotechnical structures T 0.3 s closely describes the practical state (Prakash, 1981). Hence in the present study, for all other results reported in this paper, a value of T 0.3 s is considered.

COMPARISON OF RESULTS Results obtained by the pseudo-dynamic method for seismic passive resistance are still scarce. Hence, in Fig. 5, the present results for seismic passive earth pressure coefcient Kpe are compared with those obtained by the pseudo-static method of analysis by Davies et al. (1986) by considering the MononobeOkabe method for different values of kh and with /2, kv 0.5kh , H/ 0.3 and H/ 0.16. The present pseudo-dynamic method gives the minimum seismic passive resistance that is safe for the design of a rigid retaining wall under passive conditions. Also, the highly non-linear nature of the seismic passive earth pressure
5 20 5 30 Davies et al. (1986) 5 40

02

/ 5 0 / 5 05 12 10 8 6

04
z/H

5 20 5 40 Kpe 06

Present study

08

4 2

10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ppe/H 7 8 9 10 11 0 01 02 kh 03 04 05

Fig. 3. Effect of soil friction angle and wall friction angle on seismic passive earth pressure distribution for kh 0.2, kv 0.5kh , H/ 0.3 and H/h 0.16

Fig. 5. Comparison of seismic passive earth pressure coefcient Kpe for different kh and ( /2, kv 0.5kh , H/ 0.3, H/h 0.16)

702

CHOUDHURY AND NIMBALKAR

T t Vp Vs r period of lateral shaking time primary wave velocity shear wave velocity angle of inclination of failure surface to the horizontal unit weight of soil wall friction angle t H/Vs Poissons ratio density of soil soil friction angle t H/Vp angular frequency of base shaking

distribution is seen from the present study compared with the pseudo-static method, which gives a linear passive pressure distribution under seismic conditions. Hence the point of application of total seismic passive resistance will also differ in the two methods. CONCLUSIONS Using a pseudo-dynamic method, the seismic passive earth pressure distribution behind a vertical retaining wall is obtained in terms of the variation of parameters such as soil friction angle, wall friction angle, horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations, period of lateral shaking, and velocities of shear and primary waves. The seismic passive earth pressure reduces with increase in both kh and kv . Typical results show the highly non-linear nature of the seismic passive earth pressure distribution by this pseudo-dynamic method compared with the existing linear seismic passive earth pressure distribution using a pseudo-static approach. Comparisons of the present method with the available pseudo-static methods are reported, leading to the minimum seismic passive resistance by the present study. NOTATION
a(z, t) ah , av G g H Kpe kh , kv Ppe Qh , Qv acceleration at depth z, time t horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration shear modulus of soil acceleration due to gravity height of retaining wall seismic passive earth pressure coefcient seismic acceleration coefcient in horizontal and vertical directions pseudo-dynamic passive resistance horizontal and vertical inertia forces due to seismic acceleration

REFERENCES
Choudhury, D. & Nimbalkar, S. (2005). Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth pressure behind retaining wall. Geotech. Geol. Engng (in press). Das, B. M. (1993). Principles of soil dynamics. Boston, MA: PWSKent. Davies, T. G., Richards, R. & Chen, K. H. (1986). Passive pressure during seismic loading. J. Geotech. Engng ASCE 112, No. 4, 479484. Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mononobe, N. & Matsuo, H. (1929). On the determination of earth pressure during earthquakes. Proc. World Engng Congress, 9, 274280. Okabe, S. (1926). General theory of earth pressure. J. Japanese Soc. Civ. Engrs, 12, No. 1. Prakash, S. (1981). Soil dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Steedman, R. S. & Zeng, X. (1990). The inuence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall. otechnique 40, No. 1, 103112. Ge Zeng, X. & Steedman, R. S. (1993). On the behaviour of quay otechnique 43, No. 3, 417431. walls in earthquakes. Ge