SEISMIC DESIGN

METHODOLOGY FOR
KEYSTONE WALLS
(AASHTO Based Methodology)

GRS-RW Railroad Wall in Tanata, Japan after 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake

(Note seismic damage to adjacent buildings whereas wall displaced 10-20 cm)

May 10, 1995

(Last Updated January 10, 2005)

by

Craig D. Moritz, P.E.

1/12/05 Seismic Design 1-16

 Introduction

KEYSTONE Retaining Walls and other mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining structures
have shown considerable resistance to seismic forces based on the lack of reported failures or
severe distress being noted. This superior performance is based on the visual investigation of
many existing structures that have been exposed to major seismic events in California in recent
years as well as in Japan and Central America. Many of the structures observed had no special
seismic requirements incorporated in the design yet have still performed satisfactorily without
experiencing any significant damage during major seismic events.

The lack of seismic performance problems with earth retaining structures has resulted in little
advancement in the current seismic design approach since those proposed by Mononobe and
Okabe in the 1920's and later discussed by Seed and Whitman - ASCE 1970. The psuedo-static
approach to the seismic analysis of retaining walls is referenced in the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges (1999), Division I-A - Seismic Design and Section 5 -
Retaining Walls. While MSE earth retaining structures appear to be earthquake resistant
(adjacent foundations and slopes may be subject to seismic instability), a rational psuedo-static
design analysis has been established to satisfy seismic engineering standards when required.

This document is intended to provided the appropriate seismic design procedure for KEYSTONE
Retaining Walls utilizing earth reinforcement. The external stability analysis is based on the
Mononobe-Okabe psuedo-static approach referenced in Division I-A and Section 5 of the
AASHTO design manual. The internal stability analysis is based on the methodology stated in
Section 5 of the AASHTO Design Manual for mechanically stabilized embankment structures.

Design Approach

The simplified design approach proposed by Mononobe-Okabe represents dynamic forces as

psuedo-static forces in both the external and internal analysis. These psuedo-static dynamic
forces are added to the normally calculated forces under static conditions and the combined
loading condition compared against reduced overall safety factors during the seismic event (ie;
75% of static safety factors per AASHTO). The seismic analysis includes increased earth
pressure and the inertial force of the masses involved due to the seismic event.

A peak ground acceleration coefficient, "A", is location and site specific and is often chosen
based on prevailing design code criteria or from the seismic acceleration contour map contained
within AASHTO specifications which represents a 90% probability of not being exceeded in 50
years. Typically, any seismic zone with A < 0.10g can safely ignore seismic analysis for
retaining wall structures as the calculated effects are negligible.

AASHTO further refines the horizontal ground acceleration coefficient, A, to reflect a maximum
retaining wall acceleration, Am, at the center of mass above ground as follows:

1/12/05 Seismic Design 2-16

 Am = (1.45-A) A (eq. 1)

Note:
1) Set Am = A if A > 0.45g
2) Deformation analysis recommended if A > 0.29g

Am, the maximum structure acceleration, is intended to simulate the greater average acceleration
that occurs above the foundation level, approximately at the centroid of the retained mass and
soil behind the mass during a seismic event.

However, AASHTO-Division I-A Seismic Design stipulates:

"For free standing abutments or retaining walls which may displace horizontally
without significant restraint, the psuedo-static Mononobe-Okabe method of analysis
is recommended for computing lateral active soil pressures during seismic loading.
A “psuedo-static” seismic coefficient equal to one-half the acceleration coefficient
(kh =0.5A) is recommended. The effects of vertical acceleration may be omitted".

This criteria is based on the permissible displacement approach discussed by Richards and Elms
(1979) based on the work of Newmark which compares residual displacement, dr versus the ratio
of transmittable acceleration, N, to peak ground acceleration, A. The formula developed is:

1/4
0.087 V2
dr = 0.087 (V2/A*g) * (N/A)-4 or N/A =
dr A g

where:
dr = is the displacement
V is the peak velocity of earthquake record
(In absence of information, V = 760 (A) (mm/s))
N is the structure yield acceleration coefficient
A is the peak ground acceleration coefficient

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering by the Federal Highway Administration (1998) provides

some current discussion regarding displacement of retaining walls and summarizes the subject as
follows:

“For most design purposes, it has been shown (Elms and Martin, 1979) that a
design value of Kh = 0.50A is adequate, provided that the wall can accommodate
an outward displacement of up to about 250A mm”(10A in inches).

1/12/05 Seismic Design 3-16

 AASHTO-Section 5 proposes that it is unlikely to have 100% of the static, dynamic and inertial
forces occurring at the same instant:

"Stability computations shall be made by considering, in addition to static forces,

the horizontal inertial force [of the effective mass] acting simultaneously with
50% of the dynamic horizontal thrust...[from the retained backfill]."

AASHTO also states that the dynamic horizontal thrust be "...applied a 0.6 H2 above the base on
the back surface of the effective mass".

Keystone Recommended Approach

The recommended approach to seismic acceleration and application to a reinforced KEYSTONE

wall structure is to:

1) Determine the appropriate A value based on location, code, or specification

2) Calculate the Am value for maximum structure acceleration

3) Set the seismic coefficients, kh = Am/2 and kv = 0 for the external analysis.

4) Set the seismic coefficients, kh = Am and kv = 0 for the internal analysis.

The author believes that it is acceptable to use kh = Am/2 for a flexible retaining structure and
50% of the dynamic component as suggested in AASHTO Section 5. However, it may be
questionable to use the 50% reduction on the dynamic component as setting kh = Am/2 already
accounts for a force reduction due to the yielding nature of the system.

Since the Mononobe-Okabe seismic analysis was intended for rigid cantilever structures and not
flexible reinforced soil structures, some refinements have been made to the analysis by AASHTO
to provide a more appropriate methodology. Externally, the dynamic and inertial forces are
assumed to only act on an effective reinforced mass that is "H" high by "0.5H" deep [not the full
depth of the reinforced structure [typical MSE structure is "H" high by "0.7H" deep]. For a
sloping backfill case, the effective mass is defined as having an effective height "H2" and base of
"0.5H2" as defined by the following equation:

Tanβ x 0.5H Tanβ x 0.5H - Wu x Tanβ (eq. 2)

H2 = H + -or- H2 = H +
(1 - 0.5 Tanβ) (1 - 0.5 Tanβ)
(Facing thickness not included) (Facing thickness, "Wu", included)

(β = backslope in this formula)

1/12/05 Seismic Design 4-16

 External Stability
The design principal of the Mononobe-Okabe analysis is that the seismic acceleration acts on the
active soil wedge behind the structure and the mass of the structure itself. This acceleration
results in increased lateral force to the structure that must be resisted. (Note: Mononobe-Okabe
is based on Coulomb earth pressure theory which must be adjusted to conform to the Rankine
earth pressure theory that is required by AASHTO design standards for MSE structures.)

W3
H'
Ev Estatic
H Eh δ or ι
W1 W2
Wall batter, β, is typically
H'/3
cL assumed = 0 in highway
projects.
e
d R L

Fig. 1 - Static Design Case

ι

khM3

M3 W3
Effective
H' zone Ev Edynamic @ 50%
H2 Eh
δ or ι
khW1 khM2 Estatic
Ev
H Eh
M2
W1 W2 0.6H2 Note: The maximum Estatic is
H'/3 calculated at the end of
cL reinforcement or L = H, which
e ever is less, regardless of
d R final reinforcement design
H2/2 length.
L
Fig. 2 - Static + Dynamic Design Case
1/12/05 Seismic Design 5-16
 The Mononobe-Okabe analysis is an extension of Coulomb wedge theory that provides a total
earth pressure acting on the structure due to static and dynamic forces. It is customary to break
this into a static and dynamic component with the static component acting at H/3 (or H'/3 for
sloping backfill) from the bottom, and with the dynamic component taken to act at a height of
0.6H (or 0.6H2 for an infinite slope as shown Figure 2). The total pressure coefficient is
represented by the following equation:
cos2(φ−θ+β)
Kae = (eq. 3)
ψ cos(θ)cos2(β)cos(δ−β+θ)

where:
2 Note: this expression may
ψ= 1 + sin(φ+δ)sin(φ−θ−ι) become negative with steep
cos(δ−β+θ)cos(ι+β) backslopes so it is customary to
set equal to zero in those cases.
φ = angle of friction of soil
θ = arc tan(Kh/(1-Kv))
Am = A(1.45-A)
Kh = horizontal acceleration coefficient = Am/2
Kv = vertical acceleration coefficient = 0 assumed
ι = backfill slope angle
δ = angle of friction between soil & mass (δ = ι for Rankine)
β = slope of wall face (positive wall batter) = 0 assumed

The dynamic component is determined by calculating the total seismic earth pressure coefficient,
Kae, and subtracting the static earth pressure coefficient, Ka:

Kdynamic = Kae - Ka (eq. 4)

Ka is the calculated Coulomb or Rankine external earth pressure coefficient for the section
geometry and soil properties. The external earth pressure forces are calculated as follows:

Estatic = 1/2 γ (H or H')2 Ka (eq. 5)

Edynamic = 1/2 γ (1-kv) (H or H2)2 Kdynamic (eq. 6)

In addition to the above, the lateral inertial forces of the wall facing, reinforced mass, and
backslope must be included (W’s x Kh). All forces are applied as shown in Figure 2 and factors
of safety in sliding and overturning are calculated in the conventional manner. Increased bearing
pressure and eccentricity under seismic conditions is typically ignored due to the transient nature
of the loading but may be calculated and checked. The calculated "static + dynamic" safety
factors are compared to 75% of the static-only minimum safety factors for design compliance

Note: live loads are typically not considered in the seismic retaining wall analysis under the
"combination of loads" criteria in AASHTO - Group VII.
1/12/05 Seismic Design 6-16
 Internal Stability

The earth reinforcement behind a Keystone wall face must be designed to resist the lateral earth
pressure as well as the horizontal forces generated by the inertial force of the facing and the
failure zone. The total inertial force is equal to the mass times the maximum wall acceleration
coefficient, "Am".

ι 0.3H
ι
AmW3
Am W3

AmW2 W3 W3
H’/2 AmW2
H'
Am W1 W2 Am W1
H H W2

W1 Le H’/2 W1 Le
45+φ/2

d d B
B
Extensible Reinforcement Inextensible Reinforcement

Fig. 3 - Internal Design Case

The total inertial seismic force increase of the defined active zone is:

Pi = Am (W1 + W2 + W3) (eq. 7)

The inertial force must be distributed in addition to the static forces to the earth reinforcement in
some manner. AASHTO suggests that the inertial force be distributed over the height of the wall
proportionally to the resistant area (embedment length, Le) of each reinforcement level. This
distribution tends to weight the seismic forces towards the bottom of the wall where the
embedment lengths are longest.

The inertial seismic force distribution by embedment length is described by the following
relationship:
Le of reinforcement level
Add'l Load/reinf = (Pi) (eq. 8)
Sum of Le for all reinforcement levels
Lei
Tmd = Pi
Σ Lei

1/12/05 Seismic Design 7-16

 The static loading and the dynamic loading (calculated above) are added together for each
reinforcement level. The combined force is then compared to the maximum allowable tension,
connection strength, and pullout resistance. Excerpted from AASHTO:

"Factors of safety under the combined static and seismic loads for pullout and
breakage of reinforcement may be reduced to 75% of the factors used for static
loading."

Minimum Combined Loading Factors of Safety

Overturning = 75% of 2.0 = 1.5

Sliding = 75% of 1.5 = 1.1
Earth Reinforcement
Tension = 75% of 1.5 = 1.1 (Tseismic = Ta*1.5/1.1)
Connection = 75% of 1.5 = 1.1
Pullout = 75% of 1.5 = 1.1

Pullout resistance must be re-calculated under AASHTO guidelines due to the possibility of
reduced pullout resistance during seismic excitation. Excerpted from AASHTO:
"For seismic loading conditions, values of f*, Np and fd shall be reduced to 80%
of the values used for static design."
This statement requires that the tension in each reinforcement level be increased due to seismic
forces while at the same time reducing the available pullout resistance to 80% of the static
condition. The result is then compared to the reduced safety factor.
Seismic Design Commentary

Given the limited information that is typically available regarding seismic design parameters, site
response factors, and the empirical nature of the psuedo-static seismic procedure presented, it is
the author's opinion that AASHTO-Section 5 tries too hard to be precise without being more
accurate. Ground acceleration coefficients are typically guessed at or approximated for
geographical areas by design codes so it makes little sense to guess at "A" then arbitrarily
increase "A" to "Am", then decide whether to use Kh = Am/2 or 100% of Am in determining the
dynamic component of which we are only going to apply at 50% for some other logical reason.

It is equally reasonable to follow the basic Mononobe-Okabe approach described in Section IA

and determine an "A" value for a project, set Kh = Am/2 for yielding structures, and then apply
all components without reduction factors.

Internally, it is not obvious why the seismic loading would be distributed proportionally by
embedment lengths. It appears that distributing the load equally to the number of reinforcement
levels would accomplish a similar distribution with the same level of precision.

1/12/05 Seismic Design 8-16

 Example Problem

Objective: Perform seismic analysis, A=0.20g, on 10' wall with 20 degree backslope, Keystone Compac
units, Rankine earth pressure, near-vertical wall assumed

A. EXTERNAL STABILITY
i = 20 degrees Soil Properties
φ Angle = 30 degree
Unit Wt = 120 pcf
W3 Cohesion = 0 psf

12.91' M3 Effective Geometry (w/facing)

Edynamic @50%
11.78' H2 = 10'+ Tan20x0.5(10')-1'xTan20
W1 W2 (1 - 0.5Tan20)
Estatic
10' H2 = 11.78' H2/2 = 5.89'
M2
7.07
4.30' Weights/Masses
W1 = (1')(10')(120pcf)
= 1,200 lbs/lf
1' 4.89' W2 = (8')(10')(120pcf)
9' = 9,600 lbs/lf
W3 = .5(2.91')(8')(120pcf)
Static Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka
= 1,397 lbs/lf
M2 = (4.89')(10')(120pcf)
cosι - cos2ι - cos2φ = 5868 lbs/lf
ka = cos ι
M3 = .5(1.78')(4.89')(120pcf)
cosι + cos2ι - cos2φ = 522 lbs/lf
ka = 0.414

Static + Dynamic Earth Pressure Coefficient

A = 0.20g, Am = (0.20)(1.45-0.20) = 0.25g
Kh = horizontal acceleration coefficient = Am/2 = 0.125g
Kv = vertical acceleration coefficient = 0 assumed
θ = arc tan(Kh/(1-Kv)) = arc tan(.125/1) = 7.13 degrees
ι = backfill slope angle = 20 degrees
δ = angle of friction between soil & mass, δ = ι = 20 degrees for Rankine
β = slope of soil/wall face = 0 degrees, vertical
2
ψ= 1+ sin(φ+δ)sin(φ−θ−ι)
cos(δ−β+θ)cos(ι+β)
2
ψ= 1+ sin(30+20)sin(30−7.13−20)
cos(20−0+7.13)cos(20+0)

ψ = 1.474

1/12/05 Seismic Design 9-16

 Static + Dynamic Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kae

Kae = cos2(φ−θ+β)
ψcos(θ)cos2(β)cos(δ−β+θ)

cos2(30−7.13+0)
Kae =
1.474cos(7.13)cos2(0)cos(20−0+7.13)

Kae = 0.652

Static Earth Pressure (L<H) Dynamic Earth Pressure @ 50%

Es = 1/2 γ (H')2 Ka Ed = 1/2 γ (H2)2 (1-Kv)(Kae-Ka)

Es = 1/2(120pcf)(12.91')2(.414) Ed = 1/2(120pcf)(11.78')2(1-0)(.652-.414)

Es = 4,140 lbs/ft Ed = 1,981 lbs/ft @ 50% = 991 lbs/ft

1) Check Overall Sliding Along Base:

Resisting Forces [W1+W2+W3+(Es+Ed)sin(20)]tan(30)
SF = =
Driving Forces (Es+Ed)cos(20)+(W1+M2+M3)Kh

[1200+9600+1397+(4140+991)(0.342)](0.577)
SF =
(4140+991)(0.940)+(1200+5868+522)(0.125)
Note: Sliding reduction (Cds)along
8,055 lbs/lf reinforcement levels is not checked in
SF = = 1.40 > 1.1 OK > 75% of 1.5 this example due to transient nature
5,772 lbs/lf of seismic loading.

2) Check Overturning About Toe:

SF = Resisting Moments
Overturning Moments

(W1xL1)+(W2xL2)+(W3xL3)+(Es sin(i)xL4)+(Ed sin(i)xL5)

SF =
(EsxH'/3+Edx0.6H2)xcos(i)+(W1xH/2+M2xH/2+M3xH3)Kh

1/12/05 Seismic Design 10-16

 (1200x0.5')+(9600x5')+(1397x6.33')+(4140x0.342x9')+(991x0.342x5.89')
SF =
(4140x4.3'+991x7.07')x0.940+(1200x5'+5868x5'+522x10.59)x0.125

72,182 ft-lbs
SF = = 2.54> 1.5 (OK > 75% of 2.0)
28,429 ft-lbs

3) Calculate Bearing Capacity

L Mr - Mo
e= -
2 R

e= 9' - 72,182 - 28,429 43,753

= 4.5' -
2 1200+9600+1397+(4140+991)(sin(20)) 13,952

e = 1.36' (not checked against L/6 for seismic)

R
σv =
L-2e

σv = 13,952
9'-2(1..36')

σv = 2,222 psf (check against maximum bearing capacity)

B. INTERNAL STABILITY
i = 20
degrees

W3 3.00'

Hw 4.15'
Hw = H/(1-tan(ι)/tan(ρ)) = 12.66'
10' W2 5.30'

W1 6.46'
ρ = 45+φ/2 = 60 degrees
7.61'
1' 5.77'
9'

1/12/05 Seismic Design 11-16

 The internal stress increase due to the seismic event is generated by the inertial force of the mass in the active
zone. From AASHTO:

"Reinforcements shall be designed to withstand horizontal forces generated by the internal

inertial force (Pi) in addition to the static forces. The total inertial force Pi per unit length of
structure shall be considered equal to the mass of the active zone times the maximum wall
acceleration coefficient, Am."

Weight of active mass

W1 = (10')(1)(120pcf) = 1200 lbs/ft

W2 = 1/2(10')(5.77')(120pcf) = 3462 lbs/ft

W3 = 1/2(12.66-10')(5.77')(120pcf) = 921 lbs/ft

Additional seismic loading

Am = (0.20)(1.45-0.20) = 0.25g

Pi = Am x (W1+W2+W3)

Pi = 0.25(1200+3462+921)

Pi = 1,396 lbs/lf

Load Distribution and Seismic Safety Factors

The loads must be distributed to the reinforcements proportionally to their resistant areas (Le lengths) and
compared to 75% of static safety factors for tension, connection and pullout. Use KeyWall analysis w/o liveload
for data:

1. Static safety factors = 1.5 therefore, minimum seismic SF = 1.1 @ 75%.

2. Tensar UX1400, LTDS = 1333plf (889plf * 1.5) for seismic safety factor calculation.

3. Connection strengths reflect minimum 1.5 safety factor so multiply KeyWall allowable peak connection
strengths times 1.5 for seismic safety factor calculation.

4. Static pullout resistance can be determined in KeyWall by multiplying the calculated tension w/o
liveload times the calculated pullout safety factor. This pullout resistance is taken at 80% to calcluate
seismic safety factor.

1/12/05 Seismic Design 12-16

 Summary of Stresses (see KeyWall printout, page 1-14)
From
From From KeyWall
Distribute total KeyWall KeyWall Tconn x
seismic load by Le w/o liveload Td x 1.5 1.5

Layer Height Length Seismic Static Total LTDS FS Tconn FS

(ft) (Le-ft) (plf) (plf) (plf) (plf) FS>1.1 plf FS>1.1

5 8.67 3.00 158 127 285 1333 4.68 678 2.38

4 6.67 4.15 218 311 529 1333 2.52 945 1.79
3 4.67 5.30 279 498 777 1333 1.71 1210 1.56
2 2.67 6.46 340 684 1024 1333 1.30 1477 1.44
1 0.67 7.61 401 713 1114 1333 1.20 1744 1.56
26.52 1396

OK - Calculated reinforcement tensile and connection capacity exceed the 1.1 minimum static + dynamic safety
factor criteria. Note: Some specifications permit a reduction in the creep factor on geosynthetics for a seismic
analysis but the actual method of analysis differs.
Summary of Pullout Resistance

The pullout resistance of each geogrid level must be checked at 80% of the static pullout resistance against the
combined static + dynamic loading previously determined. A minimum pullout safety factor of 1.1 (75% of 1.5) is
required.
From Pullout From above
From KeyWall KeyWall Resistance Static +
Static tension FSpo Tension x FSpo Dynamic

Layer Height Tension FSpo Pullout 80% Combined SF

(ft) (plf) (plf) (plf) Load SF>1.1

5 8.67 127 9.68 1229 983 285 3.45

4 6.67 311 8.11 2522 2018 529 3.81
3 4.67 498 8.59 4277 3421 777 4.40
2 2.67 684 9.48 6484 5187 1024 5.06
1 0.67 713 FS>10 n/a n/a 1114 n/a

SUMMARY

The example problem meets the seismic design criteria stated in the AASHTO design manual. It should be noted
that a static-only design for this structure might only require reinforcement lengths of 7 or 8 ft, and meet
existing design standards. This example utilized 9 ft. reinforcement lengths and five levels of medium strength
reinforcement to insure seismic compliance which is confirmed in this example.

1/12/05 Seismic Design 13-16

 KeyWall Sample Output

1/12/05 Seismic Design 14-16

1/12/05 Seismic Design 15-16
 References

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges",
Washington DC, Sixteenth Edition 1996 with 1997 and 1998
Interims

2. Federal Highway Administration, “Mechanically Stabilized Earth

Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes”, Publication FHWA NHI-00-
043, March 2001

3. Federal Highway Administration, “Geotechnical Earthquake

Engineering”, Publication FHWA HI-99-012 December 1998

4. Richards, R. and Elms, D.G, “Seismic Design of Retaining Walls”,

ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25.

5. Seed, H.B. and Whitman,R.V., “Design of Earth Retaining

Structures for Dynamic Loads”, ASCE 1970 Specialty
Conference, Ithaca, NY

1/12/05 Seismic Design 16-16