Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2006) 24: 11031113

DOI 10.1007/s10706-005-1134-x

Springer 2006

Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth

pressure behind retaining wall
DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURYw and SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, 400
076, India
(Received 10 November 2004; accepted 12 July 2005)
Abstract. Knowledge of seismic active earth pressure behind rigid retaining wall is very
important in the design of retaining wall in earthquake prone region. Commonly used
Mononobe-Okabe method considers pseudo-static approach, which gives the linear distribution of seismic earth pressure in an approximate way. In this paper, the pseudo-dynamic
method is used to compute the distribution of seismic active earth pressure on a rigid retaining
wall supporting cohesionless backll in more realistic manner by considering time and phase
dierence within the backll. Planar rupture surface is considered in the analysis. Eects of a
wide range of parameters like wall friction angle, soil friction angle, shear wave velocity,
primary wave velocity and horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations on seismic active earth
pressure have been studied. Results are provided in tabular and graphical non-dimensional
form with a comparison to pseudo-static method to highlight the realistic non-linearity of
seismic active earth pressures distribution.
Key words. seismic active earth pressure, phase dierence, pseudo-dynamic approach, nonlinear distribution.

1. Introduction
Study of seismic active earth pressure is essential for the safe design of retaining wall
in the seismic zone. Many researchers have developed several methods to determine
the seismic active earth pressure on a rigid retaining wall due to earthquake loading.
The pioneering work on earthquake-induced lateral earth pressure under active and
passive conditions acting on a retaining wall were reported by Okabe (1926) and
Mononobe and Matsuo (1929). This pseudo-static approach following the Coulombs static earth pressure analysis is known as MononobeOkabe method (see
Kramer, 1996) to compute seismic earth pressure. Recent works of Richards et al.
(1999), Choudhury and Singh (2005) and few others also considered the pseudo-static
method to compute seismic active earth pressure behind a retaining wall. But in the
pseudo-static method, the dynamic nature of earthquake loading is considered in a
very approximate way without taking any eect of time. To overcome this drawback,
w
Corresponding author: Dr. Deepankar Choudhury (E-mail: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in; phone +91-2225767335/8335; fax +91-22-25767302)

1104

DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

D
Qv
z

Qh
z
W

Pae
B

Vs, Vp

Figure 1. Model retaining wall considered for computation of pseudo dynamic active earth pressure.

the time and phase dierence due to nite shear wave propagation behind a retaining
wall was considered using a simple and more realistic way of pseudo-dynamic
method, proposed by Steedman and Zeng (1990). Again Zeng and Steedman (1993)
compared the theoretical results with the centrifuge model test results to validate the
pseudo-dynamic method.
Steedman and Zeng (1990) considered in their analysis a vertical rigid retaining
wall supporting a particular value of soil friction angle (/) and a particular value of
seismic horizontal acceleration (khg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity) only.
But the eect of various parameters such as wall friction angle (d), soil friction angle
(/), shear wave velocity (Vs), primary wave velocity (Vp), both the horizontal and
vertical seismic accelerations (khg and kvg) on the seismic active earth pressure behind a rigid retaining wall by the pseudo-dynamic method didnt get any attention
till today. Hence in this paper, a complete study has been carried out to determine
the seismic active earth pressure behind a rigid retaining wall by pseudo-dynamic
approach in a more general way.

2. Method of analysis
Similar to the pseudo-dynamic approach which considers nite shear wave velocity
within the backll material as proposed by Steedman and Zeng (1990), here also it is
assumed that the shear modulus (G) is constant with the depth of retaining wall
throughout the backll. Only the phase and not the magnitude of accelerations are
varying along the depth of the wall.
Consider the xed base vertical rigid retaining wall AB of height H as shown in
Figure 1. The wall is supporting a cohesionless backll material with horizontal
ground. In the present study, both the shear wave velocity, Vs G=q1=2 , where, q is
the density of the backll material and primary wave velocity,
Vp G2
2m=q1
2m1=2 , where m is the poissons ratio of the backll are

PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH

1105

assumed to act within the soil media due to earthquake loading. For most geological
materials, Vp/Vs = 1.87 (Das, 1993). The period of lateral shaking, T=2p/ x=4H/Vs
(Kramer, 1996), where x is the angular frequency is considered in the analysis.
A planer rupture surface inclined at an angle, a with the horizontal is considered in the
analysis.
If the base of the wall is subjected to harmonic horizontal seismic acceleration of
amplitude ahg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and harmonic vertical
seismic acceleration of amplitude avg, the acceleration at any depth z and time t,
below the top of the wall can be expressed as,



H
z
ah z; t ah sin t

1
Vs



H
z
av z; t av sin t

2
Vp
The mass of a thin element of wedge at depth z is
mz

cH
z
dz
g tan a

where, c is the unit weight of the backll.

The total horizontal inertial force acting within the failure zone can be expressed as,
Qh t

ZH

mzah z; tdz
4

kcah
2pH cos wf ksin wf
sin wt
4p2 g tan a

where, k = TVs is the wavelength of the vertically propagating shear wave and
f=t)H/Vs. The equation (4) is the same as that obtained by Steedman and Zeng
(1990).
Now, the total vertical inertial force acting within the failure zone can be expressed
as,
Qv t

ZH

mzav z; tdz
5

gcav
2pH cos xw gsin xw
sin xt
2
4p g tan a
where, g TVp , is the wavelength of the vertically propagating primary wave. And
w t
H=Vp .
The special case of a rigid wedge is given, in the limit as
lim Qh max

ms !1

cH2 ah
ah
W kh W
2g tana
g

1106

DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

lim Qv max

mp !1

cH2 av
av
W kv W
2g tana
g

which is equivalent to the pseudo static force assumed in the MononobeOkabe

method. The total (static + seismic) active thrust, Pae(t) can be obtained by
resolving the forces on the wedge and considering the equilibrium of the forces and
hence Pae(t) can be expressed as follows,
Pae t

W sina
/ Qh t cosa
/
Qv t sina
/

cosd /
a

The seismic active earth pressure coecient, Kae is dened as

Kae

2Pae
cH2

Substituting for Qh and Qv in the equation (8), an expression for Kae in terms of Qh,
Qv and W can be derived.
9


1
sina
/
kh
TVs
cosa
/
>
>

Kae

>
>
>
tan a cosd /
a 2p2 tan a H
cosd /
a
>
>


>
>
>
kv
TVp
sina
/
>
>
 m2
 m1
2

>
>
cosd /
a
2p tan a H
>
=
where,



 



>
 t  >
>
t
H
TVs
t
H
>
>
>

sin 2p
m1 2p cos 2p
sin 2p
>
>
T TVs
T TVs
T
H
>
>





 



>
>


>
t
H
TVp
t
H
t
>
>




m2 2p cos 2p

sin 2p
sin 2p
;
T TVp
T TVp
T
H
10
From equation (10), it is seen that Kae is function of the dimensionless parameters H/
TVs, H/TVp, t/T and the wedge angle a.
The maximum value of Kae is obtained by optimizing Kae with respect to t/T and a.
It is found that Kae 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.
Total seismic active thrust can also be dened as,
Pae Pas Pahd
Pavd

11

where, Pas is the pressure acting on the retaining wall due to vertical weight of the
wedge, Pahd is the pressure acting on the wall due to horizontal inertia of the
wedge and Pavd is the pressure acting on the wall due to vertical inertia of the
wedge.
And the seismic active earth pressure distribution can be obtained by dierentiating the total active thrust as,

PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH

pae t

@Pae t
cz
sina
/

@z
tan a cosd /
a



kh cz cosa
/
z

sin w t

tan a cosd /
a
Vs



km cz sina
/
z
sin w t



tan a cosd /
a
Vp

1107

12

The equation (12) is similar to that obtained by Steedman and Zeng (1990) for the
specic case of kv 0. The rst term in equation (12), represents the static earth
pressure acting on the wall. The second and third term represent the dynamic earth
pressure acting on the retaining wall. The second term denotes pressure due to
horizontal inertia of the soil wedge and the third term represents pressure due to
vertical inertia of the soil wedge.

3. Results and discussions

In the case of cohesionless soils, to avoid the phenomenon of shear uidization (i.e.,
the plastic ow of the material at a nite eective stress) for the certain combinations
of kh and kv (Richards et al., 1990) the values of / considered in the analysis are to
satisfy the relationship given by,



kh
/ > tan
1
13
1
km
Results are presented in the tabular and graphical form for normalized seismic active
earth pressure along the normalized depth of the wall. Variation of parameters
considered is as follows:
/ 20 ; 30 ; 40 and 50 :
d 0; 0:25/; 0:5/ and /:
kh 0:0; 0:1; 0:2; 0:3; 0:4 and 0:5:
kv 0:0kh ; 0:5kh and kh :
The values of seismic active earth pressure coecient, Kae are given in Tables 1 to 3
for dierent values of kh and kv. Tables 1 to 3 show that the magnitudes of the
seismic active earth pressure coecients are increasing with the increase in both the
horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations. It is interesting to observe that both the
horizontal and vertical accelerations aect the results signicantly. For example,
when kh changes from 0.0 to 0.2, for the case of d=0, /=30 and kv=0.0, the value
of Kae is increased by 44%. Again for the case of d=15, / =30 and kv=0.5kh, the
value of Kae is increased by 37%.
Table 4 shows the typical values of the critical inclinations of the failure planes
with respect to horizontal for various values of parameters considered in the analysis.

1108

DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

Table 1. Values of Kae for kv=0

/ (degree)

d (degree)

kh=0.0

kh=0.1

kh=0.2

20

)10
0
10
20
)15
0
15
30
)20
0
20
40

0.5779
0.4903
0.4467
0.4269
0.4161
0.3333
0.3014
0.2972
0.2837
0.2174
0.1994
0.2102

0.6526
0.5726
0.5357
0.5244
0.4823
0.3995
0.3711
0.3758
0.3411
0.2706
0.2552
0.2778

0.7470
0.6828
0.6602
0.6666
0.5593
0.4806
0.4602
0.4812
0.4064
0.3341
0.3251
0.3675

30

40

Table 2. Values of Kae for kv=0.5kh

/ (degree)

d (degree)

kh=0.0

kh=0.1

kh=0.2

20

)10
0
10
20
)15
0
15
30
)20
0
20
40

0.5779
0.4903
0.4467
0.4269
0.4161
0.3333
0.3014
0.2972
0.2837
0.2174
0.1994
0.2102

0.5972
0.5261
0.4937
0.4847
0.4423
0.3677
0.3426
0.3480
0.3139
0.2499
0.2365
0.2583

0.6485
0.6075
0.5996
0.6172
0.4844
0.4243
0.4132
0.4398
0.3552
0.2973
0.2941
0.3396

30

40

Table 3. Values of Kae for kv=kh

/ (degree)

d (degree)

kh=0.0

kh=0.1

kh=0.2

20

)10
0
10
20
)15
0
15
30
)20
0
20
40

0.5779
0.4903
0.4467
0.4269
0.4161
0.3333
0.3014
0.2972
0.2837
0.2174
0.1994
0.2102

0.5862
0.4799
0.4522
0.4456
0.4024
0.3362
0.3144
0.3207
0.2867
0.2294
0.2179
0.2392

0.5946
0.5789
0.6013
0.6508
0.4154
0.3768
0.3784
0.4171
0.3073
0.2653
0.2701
0.3244

30

40

1109

PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH
Table 4. Typical values of a in degree for kv=0.5kh

/ (degree)

d (degree)

kh=0.0

kh=0.1

kh=0.2

20

)10
0
10
20
)15
0
15
30
)20
0
20
40

61.5561
55.0000
51.0569
48.1495
65.1039
60.0000
56.8598
54.3429
68.7680
65.0000
62.6013
60.4258

54.9511
47.2611
42.7343
39.4337
60.6157
54.4846
50.6741
47.5795
65.1458
60.4621
57.3887
54.5059

40.0314
31.7273
27.2361
24.1049
53.0755
45.6478
41.0766
37.3568
59.7695
53.8372
49.8452
45.9671

30

40

It is clear from Table 4 that with the increase in seismic eect, the critical a value
decreases i.e., the extent of failure zone increases. For example, when kh changes
from 0.0 to 0.2, for the case of d=0, / =30 and kv=0.5kh, the value of a is
decreased by 28%. It is also clear from Table 4 that as the soil friction angle and wall
friction angle increases, the extent of failure zone increases.

4. Eect of kh and kv
Figure 2 shows the typical normalized pressure distribution for dierent values of kh
with kv=0.5kh, / =30, d=/ /2, H/k=0.3, H/g=0.16. It is seen that as kh increases,
0.0
0

kv=0.5kh, =30 , = /2 ,H/ =0.3, H/ =0.16

0.2

kh=0.0
kh=0.1
kh=0.2
kh=0.3
kh=0.4
kh=0.5

0.4

z/H
0.6

0.8

1.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

pae/ H
Figure 2. Typical normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution for dierent values of kh with
kv=0.5kh.

1110

DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

0.0

kh=0.2, kv=0.5kh, = /2 , H/ =0.3, H/ =0.16

0.2

= 20

= 30

= 40

0.4

z/H

= 50

0.6

0.8

1.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

pae/H
Figure 3. Normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution for dierent values of soil friction angle, /.

active earth pressure also increases. Degree of non linearity of the curves also increases for higher values of kh. From the results reported in Tables 1 to 3 for seismic
active earth pressure coecients, it can be seen that active earth pressure coecients

0.0

kh=0.2, kv=0.5kh, =30 , H/ =0.3, H/=0.16

0.2

=0
= 0.25
= 0.5
=

0.4

z/H
0.6

0.8

1.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

pae/ H
Figure 4. Normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution for dierent values of wall friction angle, d.

1111

PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH

0.0
0

kh=0.2, kv=kh, =30

= , H/=0.3, H/ =0.16

0.2

0.4

z/H
0.6
Mononobe-Oakbe method
Present study

0.8

1.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0 .5

pae/ H
Figure 5. Typical comparison of results for kh=0.2, kv=kh, / =30, d=/, H/k =0.3, H/g=0.16.

and hence the total thrust changes signicantly also under the inuence of vertical
seismic acceleration coecient (kv).

5. Eect of soil friction angle (/)

Figure 3 shows the normalized pressure distribution for dierent values of soil
friction angle, / with kh=0.2, kv=0.5kh, d=//2, H/k=0.3, H/g=0.16. Seismic
active earth pressure shows signicant decrease with the increase in the value of soil
friction angle. When / changes from 20 to 30, seismic active earth pressure decreases by about 31.48% at the top, by about 25.6% at the mid-height and by about
28% at the bottom of the wall. Similarly when / changes from 30 to 40, seismic
active earth pressure decreases by about 38.39% at the top, by about 27.84% at the
mid-height and by about 32.24% at the bottom of the wall.

6. Eect of wall friction angle (d)

Figure 4 shows normalized distribution of seismic active pressure for dierent values
of wall friction angle, d with kh=0.2, kv=kh, /=30, H/k =0.3, H/g=0.16. Seismic
active earth pressure shows relatively marginal decrease with the increase in wall
friction angle, d. When d changes from 0 to 0.5/, seismic active earth pressure
decreases by about 7.5% along the height of the wall. Similarly when d changes from
0.5/ to /, seismic active earth pressure decreases by about 0.69% along the height of
the wall.

1112

DEEPANKAR CHOUDHURY AND SANJAY S. NIMBALKAR

7. Comparison of results
Figure 5 shows the typical comparison of normalized pressure distribution behind
rigid retaining wall obtained by the present study with that by MononobeOkabe
method for the cases of kh 0:2; kv kh ; d /=2, / =30, H/k =0.3, H/g=0.16. It
reveals non-linear seismic active earth pressure distribution behind retaining wall in a
more realistic manner compared to the pseudo-static method. The basic equation
(12) also clearly shows mathematically the non-linearity of the seismic active earth
pressure distribution. Moreover the observed data for prototype retaining wall under
earthquake condition obtained by Fukuoka and Imamura (1984) and the centrifuge
experimental observations for model retaining wall under seismic condition measured by Steedman and Zeng (1990) had shown clearly the non-linear variation of
seismic active earth pressure along the depth of the wall and conrming the present
ndings.

8. Conclusions
In pseudo-dynamic method by considering the time eect and phase change in shear
and primary waves propagating in the backll behind the rigid retaining wall, the
seismic active earth pressure distribution as well as the total active thrust behind the
retaining wall is obtained. It gives more realistic non-linear seismic active earth
pressure distribution behind the retaining wall as compared to the Mononobe
Okabe method using pseudo-static approach. Non-linearity of the active earth
pressure distribution increases with seismicity which leads to the shifting of the point
of application of total active thrust required for the design purpose. But the
conventional pseudo-static approach gives only linear earth pressure distribution
irrespective of static and seismic condition leading to a major drawback in the design
criteria.
In this work the estimation of the seismic active earth pressure behind a rigid
retaining wall by considering the eects of both the horizontal and vertical seismic
acceleration coecients, wall friction angle, soil friction angle is shown. From the
pseudo-dynamic analysis, it is clear that both the horizontal and vertical seismic
accelerations are signicant for computation of seismic active earth pressure and,
moreover, their importance actually increases as the earthquake intensity increases.
Both the horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations change the active earth pressure signicantly. The seismic active thrust is highly sensitive to the friction angle of
the soil, / and comparatively less sensitive to the wall friction angle, d.

References
Choudhury, D. and Singh, S. (2005) New approach for estimation of static and seismic active
earth pressure. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Springer, The Netherlands
(accepted, in press to appear, Ref. No. GEGE2259).

PSEUDO-DYNAMIC APPROACH

1113

Das, B.M. (1993) Principles of Soil Dynamics, PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Fukuoka, M. and Imamura, Y. (1984) Researches on retaining walls during earthquakes,
Proceedings, Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, USA,
Vol. 3, pp. 501508.
Kramer, S.L. (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Mononobe, N. and Matsuo, H. (1929) On the determination of earth pressure during earthquakes, Proceedings, World Engineering Conference, Vol. 9, 176 p.
Okabe, S. (1926) General Theory of Earth Pressure, Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil
Engineers, Tokyo, Japan, 12(1).
Richards, R., Elms, D.G. and Budhu, M. (1990) Dynamic uidization of soils, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(5), 740759.
Richards, R., Huang, C. and Fishman, K.L. (1999) Seismic earth pressure on retaining
structures, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(9), 771778.
Steedman, R.S. and Zeng, X. (1990) The inuence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static
earth pressure on a retaining wall, Geotechnique, 40(1), 103112.
Zeng, X. and Steedman, R.S. (1993) On the behavior of quay walls in earthquakes, Geotechnique, 43(3), 417431.