Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Shambhu P. Dasgupta
Professor of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
e-mail: dasgupta@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in
ABSTRACT
It is apparent that present day retaining walls are far too flexible and the basic assumption
deployed by previous researchers that the wall is infinitely stiff- cannot be justified. Most of the
available solutions are a variation of M-O method in one form or the other, trying to incorporate
the soil parameters like c- soil, or using logarithmic spiral curves etc within the M-O frame work.
However, the solutions are valid only for cohesionless soils and cannot be used for c- soils,
partially saturated back fill, effect of overburden to name some of the often faced conditions in
reality. It also does not take into cognizance the effect of vertical acceleration that is often
considered for analysis of these walls under Coulomb type of failure of the backfill.
A compreshensive analytical solution based on modal analysis is proposed herein that takes into
account the effect of time period of the wall, a consideration that has been mostly ignored by
previous researchers. Present paper is thus an attempt to re-evaluate this long standing problem and
seek solution to many of the open issues cited above.
KEYWORDS:
Acceleration, active and passive pressure, back fill, cantilever retaining wall,
cohesion, dynamic amplitude, earthquake, failure surface, modal analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Retaining walls play an important role in a post earthquake scenario to retain the backfilled
soil in industrial and infrastructure projects. A number of researchers have worked on seismic
response of retaining walls, like Mononobe (1929), Okabe (1924), Seed & Whitman (1970) and
- 296 -
297
Whitman et al. (1990, 1991), to name some of the pioneering few. However all these researches
are based on the assumption that the wall is gravity type where it has an extremely high stiffness,
and that the seismic excitation is restricted to soil part only. With the advances of reinforced
concrete technology, retaining walls have undergone a significant change in character, and it would
be most improbable that a gravity wall will be deployed for retaining back fills even for heavy
bridge girders.
Figure 1: Gravity retaining wall and reinforced concrete retaining wall used to retain soil.
Shown in Figure 1 are the cross sections of typical gravity retaining walls used earlier, and
RCC retaining walls that are used presently. It is apparent that present day walls are far too flexible
and the basic assumption employed by previous researchers that the wall is infinitely stiff- cannot
be justified for these retaining walls. A pseudo static approach considered till date for
determination of dynamic pressure under seismic load [usually based on Mononobe & Okabes
(M-O) method] may not be justified. It is apparent that present day constructed walls do have a
finite stiffness vis--vis time period that will influence the dynamic response of walls under
earthquake disturbances.
The M-O method that was considered for a cohesionless dry backfill (c = 0) also has been
examined by a number of researchers like, Das & Pur i(1996), Ghosh et al. (2010, 2008, 2007),
Saran et al. (1968, 2003), Choudhury et al. (2002, 2004, 2006) to name some of the works.
However, most of them are a variation of M-O method in one form or the other, trying to
incorporate other soil parameters like c- soil, or using logarithmic spiral curves etc within the MO frame work.
In the recent past, Chowdhury & Dasgupta (2002) derived an approximate solution for such
flexible retaining wall based on improved Rayleigh-Ritz technique and showed that results are in
variation to pressures derived from M-O method. However, the solution is valid only for
cohesionless soil (c = 0) and cannot be used for c- soils, partially saturated back fill, effect of
overburden to name some of the often faced conditions in reality. It also does not take into
cognizance the effect of vertical acceleration that is often considered for analysis of these walls
under Coulomb type of failure of the backfill.
Research carried out in USA by Ostadan & White (1997), Ostadan (2004) has also shown that
M-O based methods significantly under predict the dynamic pressure under seismic loads, to the
extent that Nuclear Regulatory Board of USA has now stopped using any of the M-O based
methods for determining earth pressure for any of their structures.
Present paper is thus an attempt to re-evaluate this long standing problem and seek solution to
many of the open issues cited above.
PROPOSED METHOD
To start with we take the simplest of the case as shown in Figure 2. Shown herein is a
cantilever retaining wall with dry sandy backfill and the ground has no inclination like in Fig. 1.
Figure 2: A Cantilever retaining wall with dry cohesion less backfill (c=0)
It is to be noted that the same can also be derived from a more generalized soil condition but
has been considered first for brevity and also to use it as a benchmark for more generalized cases
that will be taken up subsequently.
While performing the analysis it is assumed here that
1. The soil profile under active case is at incipient failure when the failure line makes angle
= tan (450 +/2) as shown in the above figure.
2. Since soil profile is already under failed condition under static load, it will not induce any
stiffness to the overall dynamic response but will only contribute to the inertial effect.
3. Since the cantilever wall is relatively thin, mass contribution of the wall itself may be
Ignored compared to that of the soil. The wall thus contributes only to stiffness of the
overall soil-structure system
4. The retaining wall is fixed at the base and foundation compliance has been ignored for the
present analysis.
It will be observed that the assumptions made above are identical to what Mononobe or
Steedman & Zeng (1990) have assumed in their analysis. Based on above assumptions the analysis
is carried out as elaborated hereunder.
- 298 -
299
KA =
1 sin
1 + sin
and K P =
1 + sin
1 sin
(1)
paz = K A . s .z
(2)
p pz = K P . s .z
(3)
For the wall considered as a cantilever beam fixed at the base slab, the differential equation of
static equilibrium under active soil condition can be expressed as
EI
d 4u
= K A . s .z
dz 4
(4)
where u is displacement of the retaining wall, E = Youngs Modulus and I is moment of inertia of
the R.C.C. wall considered [I = 1 / 12.( B t 3 ) , here t is the thickness of the wall; can be taken as an
average thickness for variation between top and bottom thickness of the wall], B = width of the
wall usually considered as 1.0 m as the analysis is usually carried out per meter width of the wall.
On successive integration of equation (4) we have
d 3u K A . s z 2
+ C1
EI 3 =
2
dz
d 2u K . z 3
EI 2 = A s + C1 z + C2
dz
6
4
du K A . s z
z2
EI
=
+ C1 + C2 z + C3
dz
24
2
5
3
K . z
z
z2
EIu = A s + C1 + C2 + C3 z + C4
120
6
2
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
1)
At z=0
d 3u
= 0 C1=0
dz 3
8(a)
2)
3)
4)
d 2u
= 0 C2 = 0
dz 2
8(b)
du
K A . s .H 4
C
=0 3 =
dz
24
8(c)
At z=0
At z=H
At z=H u = 0 C4 =
K A . s .H 5
30
8(d)
K A . s z 5 K A . s H 4 z K A s H 5
+
EIu =
120
24
30
(9)
u=
K A . s .H 5 5 5
+ 1
30 EI 4
4
(10)
u static =
K A . s .H 5
at = 0
30 EI
(11)
T = 2
ustatic
g
(12)
TA = 3.97
K A s H 5
Et 3 g
(13)
Sd = Sa / 2
- 300 -
(14)
301
Sd = Sa / 2
(15)
n
i =1
i =1
2
where = Modal mass participation factor and is expressed as mi i / mi i , = A code
factor expressed as ZI/2R where Z= Zone factor I = Importance factor and R = Response reduction
factor.
Thus based on equation (15) the dynamic amplitude of the wall can be expressed as
u =
where f ( ) =
5
4
Sa 2
T f ( )
4 2
(16)
5
+1
4
u =
K A s H 5 S a 5 5
+ 1
30 EI g 4
4
(17)
M =
K A s H 3 S a 3
6
g
(18)
K A s z 2 S a
2 g
(20)
[ ]
Similarly
Vz =
Equations (17), (19) and (20) are exact and give the dynamic displacement, moment and shear
for a cantilever retaining wall under earthquake force in fundamental mode for cohesion less dry
back fill.
The modal participation factor can be expressed in this case as
n
n
1
1
= mi i / mi i 2 = s H 2f ()d / s H 2f ()2 d
i =1
i =1
0
0
2
1 5 5 1 5 5
= + 1 d / + 1 d
0 4
4
4
0 4
(21)
(22)
Equation (22) may look formidable for calculation (especially for more complicated cases
derived later) but can be easily solved numerically. This will be further elaborated by an example
in Appendix 1.
d 4u
p = EI 4 = K A . s .z
dz
(23)
pdyn = EI
d 4u EI d
=
dz 4 H 4 d 4
K H 5 S 5 5
+ 1
A s a
30 EI g 4
4
S
p dyn = K A s a
g
(24)
(25)
Now if Sv is the vertical acceleration corresponding to time period TA then the dynamic
pressure in vertical direction can be expressed as
S
pV dyn = s V
g
- 302 -
(26)
303
S
p H dyn = K A s V
g
(27)
Thus total dynamic pressure considering the vertical component of acceleration can be
expressed as
S
S
pdyn = K A s a z K A s v z
g
g
(28)
For maximum pressure we must take the positive sign that gives
S
S
pdyn = K A s a z + K A s v z
g
g
(29)
3S
pdyn = K A s a z
2g
(30)
Considering the effect of vertical acceleration, the dynamic displacement, moment and
shear can be expressed as
u =
K A s H 5 S a 5 5
+ 1
20 EI g 4
4
(31)
K A s z 3 S a
M z =
4 g
(32)
3K A s z 2 S a
4
g
(33)
Vz =
Equations (31) through (33) show that the displacement, moments and shears get amplified by
50% when effect of vertical acceleration is considered and should not be ignored.
K A = cos i
K P = cos i
(34)
(35)
d 4u
EI 4 = s .z. cot 2 2c cot
dz
- 304 -
(36)
305
Proceeding in identical fashion as explained earlier and imposing the boundary conditions as
stated in equations 8(a) through 8(d) we have C1=C2=0 and
C3 =
cH 3 cot s H 4
cot 2
3
24
sH 5
cH 4 cot
C4 =
cot
30
4
2
(37)
(38)
This gives
s z5
cz 4
cH 3 z cot s H 4 z
sH 5 2
cH 4
2
EIu =
cot
cot +
cot +
cot
cot (39)
120
12
3
24
30
4
2
Equation (39) after some simple algebraic manipulation can be finally expressed as
u=
where, =
s H 5 cot 2 5
30 EI
4
5
4
+ 1
+
4
3
3
(40)
15 H c
2c
the free standing height of
tan , a dimensionless parameter, and H c =
s
4H
soil.
Thus ustatic at =0 is expressed as
ustatic =
s H 5 cot 2
30 EI
[1 ]
(41)
T A = 3.97 cot
sH 5
Et 3 g
(1 )
(42)
u = . .
5 5
4
4
(1 )
+ 1
+
4
3
3
g
4
s H 5 cot 2 S a
30 EI
(43)
z 3 H z 2 tan
S
M z = s cot 2 a (1 ) c
2
g
6
(44)
z2
S
Vz = s cot 2 a (1 ) H c z tan
g
2
(45)
u = . .
5 5
4
4
(1 )
+ 1
+
4
3
3
g
4
s H 5 cot 2 S a
20 EI
(46)
z 3 3H c z 2 tan
Sa
M z = s cot (1 )
4
g
4
(47)
3z 2 3
S
Vz = s cot 2 a (1 )
H c z tan
g
4 2
(49)
and
4
4
= + 1 + d / + 1 + d
4
3
3
4
3
3
0 4
0 4
(50)
The above derivation is for a general soil that has finite value of c and .
When the soil is purely cohesion less i.e. c = 0, 0 equations (46) to (50) degenerates to
equations (31) to (33) and equation (22). This shows the correctness of the derivation of the above
expressions.
In equation (42) it will be observed that for limiting value of 1 , time period tends to zero
and for > 1, the solution collapses. The physical significance of this is as explained hereunder.
The above solution is valid when the value of c is low so that the soil is adhering to the wall.
For high of c ( > 1 ), the negative pressure will be sufficiently high to develop tension cracks and
loose contact over the wall for a height (2c/s)tan. In such case for evaluation of static pressure, it
is usual practice to neglect the cracked portion and consider the wall to be partially loaded by the
positive pressure to a height H-2c/stan from the base of the wall.
This is a special case and requires separate treatment. This has been dealt with in section (2.8)
of this paper.
- 306 -
307
d 4u
EI 4 = s .z. tan 2 + 2c tan
dz
(51)
As before, after successive integration and imposing the boundary conditions as cited in
equations 8(a) through 8(d), we have C1=0 ,C2=0.
C3 =
C4 =
sH 4
24
sH 5
30
tan 2
tan 2 +
cH 3
tan
3
cH 4
tan
4
(52)
(53)
EIu =
s z5
120
tan 2 +
cz 4
cH 3 z tan s H 4 z
H5
cH 4
tan
tan 2 + s
tan 2 +
tan
12
3
24
30
4
(54)
u=
Here p =
s H 5 tan 2 5
30 EI
4
5
4
4 4 + 1 + p 3 p 3 + p
(55)
15 H c
cot , a dimensionless a parameter and Hc is as defined earlier the free
4H
ustatic =
s H 5 tan 2
30 EI
[1 + ]
(56)
Substituting this in equation (11) we finally have the time period for passive case as
TP = 3.97 tan
sH 5
Et 3 g
(1 + )
p
Thus based on modal analysis dynamic amplitude, moments and shears are expressed as
(57)
u p = . .
5 5
4
4
(1 + p )
+ 1 + p
p
+ p
4
3
3
g
4
s H 5 tan 2 S a
30 EI
(58)
z 3 H z 2 cot
S
M pz = s tan 2 a (1 + p ) + c
2
g
6
(59)
z2
S
V pz = s tan 2 a (1 + p ) + H c z cot
g
2
(60)
u p = . .
5 5
4
4
(1 + p )
+ 1 + p
p
+ p
4
3
3
g
4
s H 5 tan 2 S a
20 EI
(61)
z 3 3H c z 2 cot
S
M pz = s tan 2 a (1 + p ) +
4
g
4
(62)
3z 2 3
S
V pz = s tan 2 a (1 + p )
+ H c z cot
2
g
4
(63)
5 5
4
4
+ 1 + p
p
+ p d
4
3
3
4
0
1
5 5
4
4
+
+
p
+ p d
1
p
0 4 4
3
3
(63a)
T A = 3.97
u = . .
sH 5
Et 3 g
(1 c )
5 5
4
4
(1 c )
+ 1 c
+ c
c
20 EI g
4
3
3
4
s H 5 Sa
- 308 -
(64)
(65)
where c =
309
z 3 3H c z 2
Sa
M z = s (1 c )
4
g
4
(66)
3z 2 3
S
Vz = s a (1 c )
Hc z
g
4 2
(67)
15 H c
.
4H
Similarly for passive case considering the vertical acceleration effect can be expressed as
TP = 3.97
u p = . .
sH 5
Et 3 g
(1 + ) where,
pc
pc
= c
5 5
4
4
(1 + pc )
+ 1 + pc
pc
+ pc
20 EI g
4
3
3
4
s H 5 Sa
(68)
(69)
z 3 3H c z 2
S
M pz = s a (1 + pc ) +
4
g
4
(70)
3z 2 3
S
V pz = s a (1 + pc )
+ Hc z
2
g
4
(71)
q kN/m2
EI
d 4u
= q. cot 2
dz 4
(72)
On successive integration as explained earlier and imposing the boundary conditions as cited
in equation 8(a) through 8(d) we have C1=0 , C2=0
C3 =
q cot 2 H 3
6
(73)
q cot 2 H 4
C4 =
8
Substituting these values we finally have
EIu =
+
24
6
8
(74)
u=
q cot 2 H 4 4 4
+ 1
8 EI
3
3
(75)
Equation (75) will be now added to equation (40) to arrive at the total displacement of the
system.
Thus total static displacement may now be expressed as
- 310 -
u=
311
s H 5 cot 2 5
30 EI
q cot 2 H 4 4 4
4
5
4
+ 1
+
+
+ 1 (76)
4
3
3
8 EI
3
4
u=
s H 5 cot 2 5
30 EI
4
4 4
5
4
+ 1
+
+
+
4
3
3
3
3
15 H c
tan
4H
and =
15q
4 s H
(77)
are both
dimensionless parameters.
s H 5 cot 2
30 EI
[1 + ]
(78)
T A = 3.97 cot
sH 5
Et 3 g
(1 + )
Thus for modal analysis the dynamic amplitude, moments and shears can be expressed as
u=
5 5
4
4 4
4
(1 + )
+ 1
+
+
+
4
3
3
3
3
g
4
s H 5 cot 2 S a
30 EI
(79)
S
M z = s cot 2 a
g
z3 z2
q
(1 + ) H c tan
s
2
z2
S
q
Vz = s cot 2 a (1 + ) z H c tan
s
g
(80)
(81)
Equations (79) through (81) gives the displacement, moment and shear under seismic loading
for the most general condition of soil.
When there is no overburden i.e., 0 , the formulas converges to equations (46) to (48) and
represents the case of c- soil only. When again, 0 , the equations converges to the case of
pure cohesion less soil(c=0).
5 5
4
4
4 4
+ 1
+
+
+ d
4
4
3
3
3
3
= 10
2
5
4
4
5
4
4
0 4 4 + 1 3 + 3 + 3 3 + d
1
(82)
u=
5 5
4
4 4
4
(1 + )
+ 1
+
+
+
4
3
3
3
3
g
4
s H 5 cot 2 S a
20 EI
(83)
z 3 3z 2
Sa
q
H c tan
M z = s cot (1 + )
4
s
g
4
(84)
3z 2 3
S
q
Vz = s cot 2 a (1 + )
z H c tan
2
s
g
4
(85)
- 312 -
313
PA =
1 2
2c 2
2
2
cot s H1 + ( sat w )H 2 2c cot H + s H1.H 2 cot 2 +
s
2
(86)
where s = Dry unit weight of soil of height H1; sat = Saturated unit weight of soil of height
H2; w = Unit weight of water.
Now if we consider an equivalent dry back fill of density s which imposes the same load on
the wall the displacement of the wall will be same as that as would be induced by load as expressed
in equation (86).
Thus considering
1
1
2c 2
2
2
K AE s H 2 = cot 2 s H 1 + ( sat w )H 2 2c cot H + s H 1 .H 2 cot 2 +
2
2
s
We have,
K AE = cot 2
H 1 + ( sat w )H 2
2
s ( H 1 + H 2 )2
2 s H 1 .H 2
4c 2
4c cot
+
+
s .(H 1 + H 2 ) ( H 1 + H 2 ) 2 s 2 ( H 1 + H 2 ) 2
(87)
Here KAE = An equivalent coefficient of active earth pressure when considering a pressure
diagram of paz = K AE . s .z over the height H will give same deflection as that produced by PA in
equation (86).
Thus for the present case the problem now gets simplified considerably when we have
u =
K AE s H 5
T A = 3.97
Et 3 g
(88)
K AE s H 5 S a 5 5
+ 1
30 EI g 4
4
(89)
M z =
K AE s z 3 S a
6
g
(90)
Vz =
K AE s z 2 S a
2
g
(91)
K AE s H 5 S a 5 5
+ 1
20 EI g 4
4
(92)
u =
K AE s z 3 S a
M z =
4
g
(93)
3K AE s z 2 S a
Vz =
4
g
(94)
Special case of c- soil when it loose contact for some portion at top
For this case, the maximum load on the wall may be expressed as Murthy(1984) as
Pa =
sH 2
2
2c 2
(95)
Based on the above, for a partially loaded beam, static deflection can be expressed based on
fundamentals of beam theory as
- 314 -
315
tan ) 3
s
2c tan
1 + 5
4
15EI
2c
s H tan
s
Pa ( H
u static =
2c
(96)
2c
PA H tan
s
T A = 2
15 EIg
5
2c tan
1 +
4 H 2c tan
s
(97)
Maximum dynamic amplitude, Moments and Shears along the depth of the wall are expressed
as
S
u = a
g
tan ) 3
s
2c tan
1 + 5
4
15EI
2c
s H tan
s
3
S
z
= a Pa
2
g
2c
3 H tan
s
Pa ( H
Mz
2c
S
z2
Vz = a Pa
2
g
2c
H tan
z
(98)
(99)
(100)
It is to be noted that in this case z =0 where pressure is zero that is, at a depth (H-2c/s tan),
from the top of the wall. The modal mass participation can be taken as 2.3 ( for justification of this
value refer to the section of Results and Discussion).
FR = W (sin cos )
(101)
where FR= Friction force along the surface BD that resists the motion; W= Weight of the soil body
ABD (W=m.g); = 45 + / 2 for active case and = Internal angle of friction of soil @ tan .
Considering the resistive friction force FR as the damping force equation (101) can be
expressed as
(102)
in which, C= damping of the system, velocity v = Sa/ where Sa is the seismic acceleration and
the natural frequency @ k / m .
Equation (102) on simple algebraic manipulation can be expressed as
C sin cos
=
Cc
S
2 a
g
(103)
C
the damping ratio we have
Cc
A =
sin cos
S
2 a
g
- 316 -
(104)
317
The above gives the damping ratio of the soil in active case. For passive case
p =
sin p + cos p
S
2 a
g
, where p = 45 / 2
(105)
For a conservative estimate we should consider to be minimum- but having a finite rational
value. This is valid either when the numerator in equation (104) and (105) is the minimum or the
denominator is the maximum.
For numerator to be minimum, it must be zero which gives = 900 which is impossible to
achieve. Thus the condition is denominator is maximum. In other words Sa/g is to be the
maximum.
For instance maximum value of Sa/g as per IS 1893(2002) is 2.5. Applying this value we have
A =
sin cos
5
(106)
For sandy soil value usually varies from 15 degree for very loose sand to 40 degree for very
dense sand. Considering the above values, variation in damping ratio, for active and passive cases
are shown in Figure 6.
Damping ratio
Damping ratio
active
Damping ratio
passive
15
20
25
30
35
40
phi
Figure 6: Variation of damping ratio of soil with friction angle of soil
It will be observed that variation of damping ratio with respect to friction angle is not widely
varying thus an estimated value of 15% in active case and 20% for passive case would cater for
soil with almost all levels of in-situ compaction. The damping ratio values also looks quite
reasonable and matches the data that are usually considered from experience for practical seismic
design of such walls based on FEM.
For c- soil the damping ratios can be expressed as
A =
sin cos
cH cos ec
W
(107)
and
p =
sin p + cos p +
cH cos ec p
W
(108)
For the general c- soil (Fig. 1) W=0.5sH2cot and for c soil with overburden W =
0.5sH2cot+qcot. Replace by p vide equation (105) for passive case.
The 5% material damping of wall may be added to above arrive at the design damping ratio.
- 318 -
319
The basic dynamic parameters that affect response of the cantilever retaining wall under
earthquake force and values of maximum bending moment and shear force at base of wall for
different type of soil condition as mentioned above are shown in Table-1.
Variation of Bending Moment and Shear force along the depth of wall for various type of soil
are shown in Figures 7 and 8.
The combine static plus dynamic pressure by the proposed method and that by M-O method
for sandy soil is shown in Figure 9.
Table 1: Analytical Results of the retaining wall by proposed method.
Soil Type
Time
period
Sa/g
Sandy Soil
Clayey Soil
c- soil
c- soil with q
soil with q
c soil with q
Liquefied soil with q
Liquefied soil without q
0.391
0.43
0.09
0.474
0.608
0.885
0.91
0.48
1.75
1.75
1.645
1.75
1.566
1.075
1.046
1.75
Modal Mass
Participation
factor()
2.28
2.23
1.98
2.29
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.28
Maximum
Moment (kN.m)
Maximum
Shear (kN)
54.8
34.9
0.6
112.23
256.44
293.15
556.7
93.73
27.4
22.33
0.607
50.96
105.5
126.8
215.6
46.86
Table 1 depicts the values of moments and shears without the effect of vertical acceleration. If
vertical acceleration is taken into cognizance, moments an shears shown above are to be multiplied
by a factor 1.5.
Moment(kN.m)
c-phi s oil
400.00
phi s oil
c-s oil
300.00
200.00
c-phi
+overburden
c+overburden
100.00
phi+overburden
Liquified s oil+q
0.00
0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.4
-100.00
Depth(m)
Shear force(kN)
200
phi soil
150
c-soil
c-phi +overburden
100
c+overburden
50
phi+overburden
Liquified soil+q
0
-50
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.4
Depth(m)
- 320 -
321
Finally the modal mass particpation factor (), which is indpendent of soil property is found to
be almost invariant for all types soil( varying from a value of 2.28 to 2.3 for all cases except c
soil adhering to the wall).Thus from practical design point of view a = 2.3 would be a most
appropriate value for all cases.
REFERENCES
1. Choudhury D & Subba Rao K.S. (2002) "Displacement - Related Active Earth Pressure",
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ACE-2002), January 3 - 5,
2002, IIT Kharagpur, India, Vol.2., pp. 1038-1046.
2. Choudhury D, Sitharam T.G.& Subba Rao K.S. (2004) "Seismic design of earth retaining
structures and foundations", Current Science, (ISSN: 0011-3891, IF: 0.694/2003) India,
Vol. 87, No. 10: pp. 1417-1425.
3. Choudhury D & Chatterjee S (2006) "Displacement - based seismic active earth pressure
on rigid retaining walls", Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, (ISSN: 10893032), USA, Vol. 11, Bundle C, paper No. 0660.
4. Chowdhury I & Dasgupta S.P.(2002) Dynamic Analysis of RCC Retaining wall under
Earthquake Loading- ; Electronic Journal of Geo-technical Engineering Vol-8C 2003.
5. Clough R.W.(1984) Dynamics of Structures Mcgrawhill Publications New York USA.
6. Das B.M. & Puri V.K.(1996) Static and dynamic active earth pressure, Geotechnical and
Geological engineering Vol-14, pp-353-356.
7.
Ghosh S & Saran S(2007) Pseudo static Analysis of Rigid Retaining wall for Dynamic
Active Earth Pressure Cenem B.E.College Kolkata India
8. Ghosh S, Dey G.N., and Datta B.N.(2010) Pseudo static Analysis of Rigid Retaining wall
for Dynamic Active Earth Pressure 12th International Conference of International
Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics.
9. Ghosh S & Pal J(2010) Extension of Mononobe-Okabe expression for active earth force
on retaining wall backfilled with c- soil14th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee India Vol-1 pp 522-530.
10. IS-1893(2002) Code for Earthquake resistant design of Structures; Bureau of Indian
Standard Institution, New Delhi, India.
11. Mononobe N & Matsuo H (1929) On the determination of earth pressure during
earthquakes, Proc. World Engineering Congress, Tokyo, Vol. 9, Paper 388.
12. Murthy V.N.S. (1984) Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Sai Kripa
Publication Bangalore India.
13. Okabe S. (1924) General theory of earth pressures and seismic stability of retaining wall
and dam, J. Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 12, No. 1.
14. Ostadan F & W. H. White (1997) Lateral seismic soil pressure, An updated approach,
Bechtel Technical Group Report Los Angles USA
- 322 -
323
15. Ostadan F (2004) Seismic soil pressure on building walls-An Updated approach, 11th
International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. University of
California, Berkeley, January.
16. Saran S & Prakash S (1968) Dimensionless Parameters for static and dynamic earth
pressures behind retaining walls, Indian Geotechnical Journal Vol. (72(3) pp 295-310.
17. Saran S & Gupta R.P. (2003) Seismic Earth Pressure behind retaining walls Indian
Geotechnical Journal Vol. 33(3) pp195-213.
18. Seed H.B. & Whitman R.V. (1970) Design of earth retaining structures for seismic
loads, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stress in Ground and design of Earth
Retaining Structures, June.
19. Steedman R.S. & Zeng X (1990) The Seismic response of Waterfront Retaining walls,
Proceedings on Specialty Conference on design performance of Earth Retaining
Structures, Special Technical Publication 25 Cornell University Ithaca New York pp 897910.
20. Whitman R.V.(1990) Seismic Design and Behavior of Gravity Retaining walls,
Proceedings Specialty Conference on design and performance of Earth Retaining
Structures, ASCE, Cornell University, June18-21.
21. Whitman R.V. (1991) Seismic design of Earth Retaining structures, Proceedings 2nd
International conference on Recent advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics, St Louis USA, March 11-15.
APPENDIX
Calculation of modal mass participation
For c- soil with overburden q as cited in the example the modal mass participation is expressed by
equation(82) where varies from 0 to 1 thus taking value of in steps of 0.05 we have.
Thus =
F()
.F()
.F()2
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.474841
1.380686
1.286547
1.192472
1.098550
1.004923
0.911794
0.819437
0.728205
0.638540
0.550985
0.466190
0.384921
0.308073
0.236677
0.171907
0.115096
0.067738
0.031502
0.008241
0
Sum
0
0.069034
0.128655
0.178871
0.219710
0.251231
0.273538
0.286803
0.291282
0.287343
0.275493
0.256405
0.230953
0.200248
0.165674
0.128930
0.092076
0.057577
0.028352
0.007829
0
3.430003
0
0.00345
0.01286
0.026830
0.043942
0.062807
0.082061
0.100381
0.116512
0.129304
0.137746
0.141022
0.138571
0.130161
0.115971
0.096697
0.073661
0.048940
0.025516
0.007437
0
1.493883
3.43
= 2.296 ; Here = 0.945 and = 1.42 .
1.493
2011 ejge
- 324 -