Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

Green et al.

(2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on a Cantilever Retaining Wall


Russell A. Green1, C. Guney Olgun2, Robert M. Ebeling3, and Wanda I. Cameron4 Abstract A series of non-linear dynamic response analyses of a cantilever retaining wall were performed to assess the appropriateness of the Mononobe-Okabe method for determining the seismically induced lateral earth pressures on the stem of the wall. For the wall analyzed, it was found that at very low levels of acceleration the induced pressures were in general agreement with those predicted by the Mononobe-Okabe method. However, as the accelerations increased to those expected in regions of moderate seismicity, the induced pressures are larger than those predicted by the Mononobe-Okabe method. This deviation is attributed to the flexibility of the retaining wall system and to the observation that the driving soil wedge does not respond monolithically, but rather as several wedges. Introduction Earth retaining structures constitute an integral part of the lifelines across the US, extensively being used for port facilities, cuts along highways, bridge abutments, etc. In current design standards and guidelines (e.g., ASCE 4-98), the Mononobe-Okabe method (Mononobe and Matsuo, 1929; Okabe, 1924) is commonly specified for determining seismic earth pressures for which the retaining structure must resist. Inherent in the Mononobe-Okabe method are the assumptions that the earth retaining structure and the driving soil wedge act as rigid bodies, which have been shown to be reasonable assumptions for large gravity type retaining structures (e.g., Seed and Whitman, 1970). The focus of this paper is to assess the validity of the Mononobe-Okabe method for determining seismically induced lateral earth pressures on a more flexible cantilever retaining wall, particularly the stem portion of the wall. In this vein, a series of nonlinear dynamic response analyses of a cantilever retaining wall were performed using the commercially available computer program FLAC (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.). The analyses consisted of an incremental construction of the wall and placement of the backfill, followed by dynamic response analyses.

Associate Member, ASCE; Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, 2372 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125; rugreen@engin.umich.edu 2 Doctoral Candidate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 3 Senior Research Engineer, Information Technology Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 4 Graduate Student Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Paper Number 87: Page 1

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

In the following, the earth pressures determined from the FLAC analyses are compared with those predicted using the Mononobe-Okabe method. However, prior to the comparison, a brief review of the Mononobe-Okabe method is presented. Mononobe-Okabe Earth Pressures The Mononobe-Okabe method for determining seismically induced active and passive lateral earth pressures is based on limit equilibrium and is an extension of the Coulomb theory for static stress conditions. The method entails three fundamental assumptions (e.g., Seed and Whitman, 1970): 1. Wall movement is sufficient to ensure either active or passive conditions, as the case may be. 2. The driving soil wedge inducing the lateral earth pressures is formed by a planar failure surface starting at the heel of the wall and extending to the free surface of the backfill. Along this failure plane the maximum shear strength of the backfill is mobilized. 3. The driving soil wedge and the retaining structure act as rigid bodies and therefore experience uniform accelerations throughout the respective bodies. As demonstrated by Dr. Ignacio Arango (Seed and Whitman, 1970), the dynamic earth pressures may be determined from analogous static conditions. Accordingly, the Mononobe-Okabe expressions for dynamic earth pressures can be derived from the Coulombs expressions for static earth pressures. The analogous static conditions are achieved by rotating the wall-backfill system by an angle , such that the vector sum of the horizontal and vertical inertial coefficients (kh and kv, respectively) is oriented vertically, where tan() = kh / (1-kv). This procedure is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 for active and passive stress conditions, respectively. In regards to the mathematical expressions, the Mononobe-Okabe expressions can be derived from the Coulombs expressions by replacing the static values for the total unit weight of the soil (t), height of the wall (H), inclination of the backfill (), and inclination of the wall face from the vertical (), with the corresponding dynamic values (i.e., td, Hd, d, and d). This substitution is demonstrated in the following set of equations. Active case: Static conditions (Coulomb's expression)

PA =

1 t H 2 KA 2

KA =

cos 2 ( ) sin( + ) sin( ) cos ( ) cos( + ) 1 + cos( + ) cos( )


2 2

Paper Number 87: Page 2

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

Dynamic conditions (Mononobe-Okabe expression)


PAE = 1 2 td H d K A ( d , d ) 2 1 = t H 2 (1 k v ) K AE 2

K AE =

cos 2 ( ) sin( + ) sin( ) cos( ) cos ( ) cos( + + ) 1 + cos( + + ) cos( )


2 2

Passive case: Static conditions (Coulomb's expression) PP = 1 t H 2 KP 2

KP =

cos 2 ( + ) sin( + ) sin( + ) cos ( ) cos( ) 1 cos( ) cos( )


2 2

Dynamic conditions (Mononobe-Okabe expression) PPE = 1 2 td H d K P ( d , d ) 2 1 = t H 2 (1 k v ) K PE 2

K PE =

cos 2 ( + ) sin( + ) sin( + ) cos( ) cos ( ) cos( + ) 1 cos( + ) cos( )


2 2

A plot of the Mononobe-Okabe active and passive earth pressure coefficients (KAE and KPE, respectively) as functions of the horizontal inertial coefficient (kh) are shown in Figure 3a for = = = 0 and ' = 35. As may be observed from this figure, when kh = 0 (i.e., static conditions), the values of KAE and KPE are equivalent to Coulomb's active and passive coefficients (KA and KP, respectively). However, as kh increases in value, KAE becomes greater than KA, and KPE becomes less than KP. This trend can be understood by referring back to Figures 1 and 2. In the active case

Paper Number 87: Page 3

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

(Figure 1), as kh increases, the analogous static condition is achieved by tilting the wall forward, thus increasing the inclination of the backfill and increasing the pressure induced on the wall. Correspondingly, in the passive case (Figure 2), as kh increases, the analogous static condition is achieved by tilting the wall backward, thus decreasing the inclination of the backfill and decreasing the pressure induced on the wall. The limiting pressures for both the active and passive cases occur when for the analogous static conditions, the inclination of the backfill equals the angle of internal friction (i.e., d = '). At this point, the failure wedges become infinite in size, or synonymously, the angle of the failure planes equal the static inclinations of the backfill (i.e., AE = and PE = , where both AE and PE decrease as kh increases for the respective stress conditions). For the active case, no sized wall could restrain the backfill from movement, while in the passive case, the pressure induced on a wall restrained from movement becomes zero, as the backfill yields under its own inertial load.
FLAC Computed Earth Pressures on the Cantilever Wall A series of non-linear dynamic response analyses were performed on the cantilever wall shown in Figure 4 using the finite difference program FLAC (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.). The geometry and structural detailing of the wall analyzed were determined following the US Army Corps of Engineers static design procedures (Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, 1989, 1992). Both the foundation and backfill soils were modeled as being elasto-plastic, and interface elements were used between the wall and the soil to allow relative movements and permanent displacements in the wall-soil system to occur. The wall and backfill were numerically constructed in 2 ft lifts, allowing for equilibrium of the stresses to occur between lift placements. Additional details of the wall design and FLAC modeling are presented in Green and Ebeling (2002).

Upon the completion of the numerical construction of the wall and placement of the backfill, the lateral pressures imposed on the stem of the wall were in good agreement with the active earth pressures determined using the Coulomb expressions. A series of dynamic response analyses were then performed using the same acceleration time history scaled to different peak ground accelerations (pga). For all the analyses, the computed stresses on the stem of the wall were in very good agreement with those predicted by the Mononobe-Okabe expressions at the early part of the time history where the accelerations were very low. However, at the larger levels of shaking, the Mononobe-Okabe expressions failed to predict the induced stresses on the stem of the wall. A comparison of the results is shown in Figure 3b. The data shown in this figure are the lateral earth pressure coefficients (KFLAC) back-calculated from the FLAC results using the following expression:
K FLAC =

t H 2 (1 k v )

2 PFLAC

Paper Number 87: Page 4

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

where PFLAC is the resultant of the FLAC computed stresses imposed on the stem of the wall. KFLAC values were computed at times corresponding to the peaks in the time history of the horizontal inertial coefficient (kh) acting away from the backfill (i.e., active-type conditions), wherein spurious high frequency spikes were filtered from the kh time history. The reason for the deviation of the FLAC computed stresses and those computed by the Mononobe-Okabe expressions can be understood from examining Figure 5. Shown in this figure is the deformed mesh from one of the FLAC analyses, wherein the deformations are magnified by a factor of 3. At large values of kh directed away from the backfill, the induced inertial forces on the structural wedge cause it to simultaneously bend, rotate, and potentially slide away from the backfill, at which time a small wedge of soil or graben moves vertically downward. (The structural wedge consists of the cantilever wall and the backfill contained within; see Figure 4.) As the direction of kh reverses (i.e., changes direction from away to towards the backfill), the graben prevents the structural wedge from returning to its undeformed shape, in effect locking in the elastic stresses resulting from the bending and rotation of the structural wedge. This process is illustrated by the dashed arrows and corresponding data points in Figure 3a, wherein the initial stresses imposed on the stem of the wall correspond to active conditions. As kh increases in the direction away from the backfill, the stresses on the stem increase according to the Mononobe-Okabe expressions for active conditions. However, upon reversal of the direction of kh, the stresses imposed on the stem do not decrease as predicted by Mononobe-Okabe expression, but rather remain relatively constant. This stepwise increase in the locked-in stresses continues until the residual stresses imposed on the stem correspond to at-rest (or Ko) conditions, while the dynamically induced inertial stresses are superimposed on the locked-in residual stresses. The increase in residual stresses is clearly shown in Figure 6, wherein plots are shown of both the time history of kh and of the resultant of the lateral stresses (PFLAC) imposed on the stem of the retaining wall. The locked-in residual stresses on the wall are not released by the slippage of the wall away from the backfill. This is because the "driving soil wedge" is not monolithic, but rather, in this case, consists of a graben and five driving soil wedges, with the later tending to move downward and away from the backfill as the wall slides outward. As a result, the graben "rides along" with the driving soil wedges maintaining its role of locking in the residual stresses.
Summary and Conclusions For the cantilever retaining wall numerically modeled and analyzed, the stresses induced on the stem of the wall did not correspond with those predicted by the Mononobe-Okabe method. The reason for this deviation is attributed to the relative flexibility of the structural wedge and to the non-monolithic motion of the driving soil wedge, both of which violate assumptions inherent in the Mononobe-Okabe method. The dynamic response of the wall-backfill system was such that there was an

Paper Number 87: Page 5

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

incremental increase from active to at-rest stress conditions in the residual stresses imposed on the stem of the retaining wall. The conclusions drawn from this study may not apply to retaining walls systems of differing geometry and/or material properties. Further research is required in order to draw more general conclusions regarding the appropriateness of the Mononobe-Okabe method to evaluate the dynamic pressures induced on cantilever retaining walls.
Acknowledgements A portion of this study was funded by the Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) Civil Works Earthquake Engineering Research Program (EQEN). Permission was granted by the Chief of the US Army Corps of Engineers to publish this information. The first author benefited from several enlightening discussions with Professor Radoslaw Michalowski, University of Michigan, regarding the derivation of the Mononobe-Okabe expressions. References ASCE 4-86: Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary on Standard for Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Green, R.A. and R.M. Ebeling (2002). Seismic Analysis of Cantilever Retaining Walls, Phase I, ERDC/ITL TR-02-3, Information Technology Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://libweb.wes.army.mil/uhtbin/hyperion/ITL-TR-02-3.pdf Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers (1989). Retaining and Flood Walls, EM 1110-2-2502, Washington, DC. Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers (1992). Strength Design for ReinforcedConcrete Hydraulic Structures, EM 1110-2-2104, Washington, DC. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua), Minneapolis, MN. Mononobe, N. and H. Matsuo (1929). On the Determination of Earth Pressure During Earthquake, Proceedings: World Engineering Congress, Tokyo, Vol IX, Part 1, 177185. Okabe, S. (1924). General Theory on Earth Pressure and Seismic Stability of Retaining Wall and Dam, Journal Japan Society of Civil Engineering, 10(6), 12771323, plus figures. Seed, H.B. and R.V. Whitman (1970). Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, ASCE, 103-147.

Paper Number 87: Page 6

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

a)

A W PA H d = + Retained Soil: (t , ')

wall movement b)

Wkh PAE Hd = Hcos(+) cos() W(1-kv)

AE

Retained Soil: d = + td = t(1-kv) , ' cos()

wall movement Figure 1. Active earth pressures for a) static conditions and b) analogous static conditions for the dynamic case.

Paper Number 87: Page 7

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

a)

W H PP wall movement b) Wkh W(1-kv) Hd = Hcos(-) cos() wall movement PPE d = - Retained Soil: td = t(1-kv) , ' cos() PE d = - P Retained Soil (t , ')

Figure 2. Passive earth pressures for a) static conditions and b) analogous static conditions for the dynamic case.

Paper Number 87: Page 8

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient (K)

4 KP 3 2 KAE 1 KA 0 0.0

4 KPE a) 3 2 1 0 0.0 b)

Ko 0.2 0.4 kh 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.2

0.4 kh

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 3. a) Mononobe-Okabe lateral earth pressure coefficients for = = = 0 and ' = 35. b) Comparison of active lateral earth pressures (KFLAC) backcalculated from FLAC results with values computed using the MononobeOkabe expressions. a) b) 0.5 m Bh = 2.4 m Backfill: medium-dense cohesionless compacted fill (m = 19.6 kN/m3, = 35) Foundation: natural deposit of dense cohesionless soil (m = 19.6 kN/m3, = 40 ) Reinforced concrete: = 23.6 kN/m3, f'c = 27.6 MPa, fy = 413.4 MPa Hydraulic factor: 1.3 Heel

0.2 m Bt = 0.9 m Stem

H=6m

Backfill

0.6 m

Toe

Base B=4m

Figure 4. Cantilever retaining wall analyzed in FLAC a) geometry and b) material properties.

Paper Number 87: Page 9

Green et al. (2003), Proceedings of The Sixth US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE, August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA

graben

Figure 5. Annotated deformed mesh from one of the FLAC analyses; deformations magnified by a factor of 3. (Note: Toe of wall not initially embedded.)

0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 0 -0.4 89.0 71.2 53.4 35.6 17.8 0.0 0

kh

10
Stem

20

30

40

PFLAC (kN)

Ko conditions KA conditions

10

20 Time (sec)

30

40

Figure 6. Time history of the horizontal inertial coefficient (kh) at approximately the center of the structural wedge, and the time history of the resultant of the imposed stresses (PFLAC) on the stem of the cantilever retaining wall.

Paper Number 87: Page 10

Potrebbero piacerti anche