Development of engineering procedure for evaluating lateral earth

pressures for seismic design of cantilever retaining walls

W.I. Cameron & R.A. Green

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this research is to develop a seismic design procedure for deter-
mining the lateral earth pressures on flexible cantilever retaining structures. Non-linear numeri-
cal analyses are being conducted using the computer program FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis
of Continua) to evaluate the effect of soil-structure system flexibility on the magnitude and dis-
tribution of lateral earth pressures for global and internal stability. The methodology of the re-
search and some of the preliminary results are presented.

Keywords: earth retaining wall, seismic design, earthquakes

1 INTRODUCTION

Earth retaining structures constitute an integral part of the infrastructure in the United States and
around the world, extensively being used for bridge abutments, cuts along highways, port facili-
ties, etc. The stability of these retaining structures is vital to reduce earthquake losses and for
post-earthquake emergency response. Estimating the lateral earth pressures induced by earth-
quake shaking is a key aspect of the seismic design of the earth retaining structures. The magni-
tude and distribution of the seismically induced lateral earth pressures on retaining walls is a
complex soil-structure interaction problem that depends on the flexibility of the wall, the soil
stiffness, the deformation of the wall, and the characteristics of the ground motions. For cantile-
ver retaining walls, the magnitude and distribution of the seismically-induced lateral earth pres-
sures acting on the stem of the wall are very important for an adequate structural design. A typi-
cal sketch of a cantilever retaining wall is shown in Figure 1.
Current seismic design methods for determining the lateral earth pressures of cantilever re-
taining walls do not consider the flexibility of the soil-structure system. Although some studies
have been conducted to evaluate the flexibility of the wall, little research has contributed to the
improvement of the current design approaches. The goal of this research is the development of
an improved procedure for estimating the seismic earth pressures to which flexible cantilever re-
taining walls are designed to ensure global stability (e.g. sliding and overturning) and internal
stability (e.g. structural adequacy of the stem and base of the wall). The effect of the flexibility
of the soil-structure system on the magnitude and distribution of lateral earth pressures acting
along the stem and heel sections of cantilever retaining walls are being evaluated. Because the
flexibility of the soil-structure system is not only a function of the properties of the wall and
soils but also a function of the characteristic of the ground motions to which the system is sub-
jected, a portion of the research is also focusing on characterization of the frequency content of
the earthquake ground motions. The methodology of the proposed research and some of the pre-
liminary results are presented.
 a) Earth pressures on stem of the wall b) Earth pressures on heel section

stem
section
backfill heel
structural section
stem block

toe heel

base

Figure 1. Sketch of design lateral earth pressures on cantilever retaining wall for a) internal stability and
b) global stability.

2 BACKGROUND

Contrary to the design of massive gravity retaining structures, the design of cantilever retaining
walls requires the consideration of both internal and global stability. For the global stability of
cantilever retaining wall, the lateral earth pressures are assumed to act on a vertical section (or
heel section), which extends from the heel of the wall through the backfill to the ground surface,
as shown in Figure 1b. It is standard design practice to assume that the critical earth pressures
for global and internal stability of cantilever retaining structures are synonymous. However, the
critical load cases for global and internal stability do not necessarily occur at the same time, nor
do they necessarily have the same amplitudes. For global stability evaluations, the critical load
case corresponds to the dynamic pressures that are imposed on the wall as it moves away from
the backfill (i.e. active condition). For internal stability considerations, recent studies (Green &
Ebeling 2002, Green et al. 2003) have showed that higher pressures act on the wall as it moves
towards the backfill, which is of no concern for the global stability of the wall, but constitutes
the critical load case for internal stability.
In current design approaches for earth retaining structures, the Mononobe-Okabe method
(Mononobe & Matsuo 1929, Okabe 1924) is commonly used for determining the lateral earth
pressures induced by earthquake loading. The Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method is based on
limit equilibrium and is an extension of Coulomb’s theory developed for static conditions,
wherein the M-O method takes into account the inertial forces acting on the soil mass during
earthquake loading. The M-O method, as illustrated in Figure 2, was developed for global sta-
bility of massive gravity walls. One of the fundamental assumptions of the M-O method is that
the retaining wall and failure soil wedge act as rigid bodies. This assumption has been shown to
be reasonable for large gravity type retaining structures (e.g. Seed & Whitman 1970).
The applicability of the M-O method for determining the critical design pressures for cantile-
ver retaining walls is questionable. First, the flexibility of the soil-structure system violates one
of the fundamental assumptions (i.e. the wall and failure soil wedge acts as rigid monoliths).
Second, the M-O method was developed for global stability of massive gravity retaining walls,
not for estimating the design pressures required for internal stability or structural detailing of the
cantilever retaining walls. Regarding the implementation of the M-O method, the assumption
that critical earth pressures for global and internal stability of cantilever retaining structures are
synonymous is not appropriated.
Many studies have been conducted for assessing the validity of the M-O approach for differ-
ent types of retaining walls. The significance of the flexibility of cantilever retaining walls on
dynamically induced earth pressures was highlighted by both centrifuge model tests (Ortiz et al.
1983, Steedman 1984, Anderson et al. 1987) and detailed numerical dynamic response analyses
(Al-Hamoud 1990, Green & Ebeling 2002). These studies also showed a significant residual in-
crease in the static earth pressures at the end of shaking. Finally, regarding the observed per-
formance of cantilever walls during earthquakes, Whitman (1996) stated that “Experience with
 PAE = resultant of lateral earth pressure
W kh kh = coefficient of horizontal inertial force
failure kv = coefficient of vertical inertial force
plane W = weight of failure soil wedge
H
R = shear resistance force
W(1-kv)
φ φ = angle of internal friction
δ αAE = angle of failure plane
PAE αAE R
δ = angle of interface friction

Figure 2. Illustration of the failure mechanism of the M-O method for active conditions.

cantilever walls is mixed, with enough suggestions of difficulties to provide a warning that lat-
eral earth pressures during earthquakes may be larger than generally assumed.”

3 OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH OF RESEARCH

The objective of this research is to develop an improved engineering procedure for determining
the lateral earth pressures for the seismic design of flexible cantilever retaining structures. The
influence of the flexibility of the soil-structure system on the magnitude and distribution of lat-
eral earth pressures acting along the stem and heel sections of the wall is investigated for both
internal and global stability evaluations. Considerations of the effect of ground water condition
on the retained backfill and/or foundation soils are beyond the scope of this research.
The research involves the following three phases: 1) characterization of frequency content of
earthquake ground motions, 2) numerical analyses of the dynamic response of cantilever retain-
ing systems, and 3) development of an improved engineering procedure for determining the
seismic design earth pressures for global and internal stability evaluations of cantilever retaining
walls that takes into account the flexibility of the soil-structure systems.

4 METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

4.1 Characterization of frequency content of ground motions

The objective of this phase is to select/develop a simplified index for quantifying the character-
istic frequency of the ground motions as a function of earthquake magnitude, site-to-source dis-
tance, and tectonic/geologic settings. Recorded and/or synthetic earthquake records for Western
United States (WUS) and Central/Eastern United States (CEUS) representing a wide range of
magnitude and site-to-source distance combinations are being collected and evaluated for fre-
quency content characterization. Various approaches proposed in literature for quantifying the
characteristic period of ground motions are being investigated, including: 1) period correspond-
ing to the peak response spectral acceleration (Seed et al. 1968), 2) period corresponding to the
peak response spectral velocity (Wiggins 1964), 3) period corresponding to the peak
"smoothed" response spectral acceleration (Rathje et al. 1998), 4) mean period (Rathje et al.
1998), which is computed from the Fourier amplitude spectrum of the acceleration time history
of the ground motion, 4) TV/A for median Newmark-Hall design spectra (Green & Cameron,
2003; Cuesta et al. 2003), and 5) others.
Preliminary analyses suggest that TV/A may be the best index for quantifying the characteristic
period of the ground motion. TV/A is defined as the period corresponding to the intersection of
the constant spectral acceleration and velocity regions of the 5% damped Newmark-Hall design
spectrum for that is constructed by using the actual peak ground acceleration and velocity of the
 0.25
TV/A Station Piedmont Jr High
0.20 (phj045)
Pseudo 0.15 Newmark-Hall type spectrum
spectral
acceleration 0.10 response spectrum
(g)
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period (sec)

Figure 3. Illustration of the parameter of TV/A for quantifying the characteristic period of a free-field rock
outcrop motion recorded during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

earthquake motions, as illustrated in Figure 3. TV/A is calculated using the following equation:
αV ⋅ PGV
TV / A = 2 ⋅ π ⋅ (1)
α A ⋅ PGA
where PGV= peak ground velocity; PGA= peak ground acceleration; αV and αA = amplification
factor for horizontal ground motions for the constant velocity and acceleration regions, respec-
tively, for the 5% damped Newhall-Hall design spectrum. TV/A was used by Green & Cameron
(2003) to develop a preliminary correlation for one-dimensional site amplification of peak
ground accelerations. The results of the study indicated a fairly good correlation between ampli-
fication of ground motions and the ratio of the low-strain fundamental period (Tn) of the soil
profile and TV/A.
The use of TV/A for quantifying the characteristic period of the ground motions has several ad-
vantages over the others indices evaluated for this research: 1) TV/A is relatively easy to compute
from acceleration time histories of ground motions by using the corresponding PGA and PGV,
2) TV/A is synonymous to the Ts for the NEHRP design spectra (NEHRP 2001), and 3) existing
attenuation relations for PGA and PGV can be used to determine TV/A as a function of earth-
quake magnitude (M) and site-to-source distance (R).

4.2 Numerical modeling of seismic response of walls

The objective of this phase is to perform a parametric study of the seismic response of the canti-
lever retaining systems in which the magnitude and distribution of lateral earth pressure induced
on cantilever retaining walls as a function of the characteristic frequency of the earthquake
ground motions and the geometry/properties of the soil-structure system are examined. The non-
linear numerical analyses of the seismic response of the cantilever retaining systems are being
performed using the two-dimensional finite difference computer program FLAC (Itasca 2000).
FLAC is capable of modeling large deformations and non-linear soil behavior and allowing in-
cremental construction of the wall to ensure proper initial stress conditions in the wall-soil sys-
tem. Additionally, the explicit time marching algorithm in FLAC allows stable solutions to be
computed for unstable physical processes (e.g. sliding and/or overturning of earth retaining
walls).
The numerical model used for this research is similar to that used by Green & Ebeling (2002)
in their preliminary analyses of the dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls. An elasto-
plastic constitutive model with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is used to model the soils.
Cantilever retaining walls are modeled using elastic beam elements with interfaces elements
along the wall surfaces that are in contact with the soil. The wall-backfill system is constructed
incrementally to simulate the build-up in the initial lateral earth pressures on the wall. Finally,
the acceleration time histories of interlayer ground motions are used as the input motion along
the base of the FLAC model.
 For the elasto-plastic constitutive model in conjunction with the Mohr-Coulomb failure crite-
rion, four parameters are required: total unit weight (γt), effective internal friction angle (φ),
small strain shear modulus (G), and bulk modulus (K). For the parametric study, typical values
for these parameters are assumed for the backfill and foundation soils.
The model of elastic beam elements for the cantilever retaining structures requires four pa-
rameters: total unit weight (γ), cross-sectional area (Ag), elastic Young’s modulus (E), and mo-
ment of inertia (I). These parameters are being obtained from the structural design of the rein-
forced-concrete wall. The interaction between the soil and retaining wall are modeled by using
interface elements along the wall surface that is in contact with the soil. The interface elements
allow the permanent relative movement of the wall and soil to occur. The interface element is
represented by springs to model the normal stiffness (kn) and shear stiffness (kn), slider to model
the shear resistance (S), and tensile element to model the tensile strength (T) of cohesive soils.
These parameters are being calibrated to the hyperbolic-type interface model proposed by Go-
mez et al. (2000a, b).
Free-field acceleration time histories of outcrop ground motions recorded on rock or stiff soil
sites are used in the analyses. However, the outcrop motions records are not input directly into
the FLAC model. First, a modified version of SHAKE91 (Idriss & Sun 1992) is being used to
compute the interlayer motions at the depth corresponding to the base of the FLAC model.

4.3 Development of engineering design procedure

One of the key aspects of this phase is to define parameters for quantifying the flexibility of the
soil-structure system. It is hypothesized that the flexibility of the system can be quantified in
terms of the fundamental period of the soil-structure system relative to the characteristic period
of ground motions. For example, wall flexibility can be due to relatively low stiffness of the
structural wall members and/or to the flexibility of the foundation soils. However, even a wall
having relatively flexible structural members can respond dynamically as a rigid monolith if the
characteristic wave length of the ground motion is long compared to the height of the wall (e.g.
Steedman & Zeng 1990). This is because at a given instant in time the wall and failure wedge
will experience fairly uniform accelerations with depth. On the contrary, if the characteristic
wave length of the ground motion is short compared to the height of wall, the acceleration of the
wall and driving soil wedge will vary as a function of depth, resulting in a complex laterally in-
duced pressure distribution on flexible walls. Therefore, both the properties of the soil-structure
system and the characteristics of the ground motions determine whether a wall will respond dy-
namically as a rigid monolith, as assumed in the M-O method, or as a flexible system.
The results of the numerical analyses are being used to calculate the magnitude and distribu-
tion of the dynamic lateral earth pressures induced along the stem and heel section of the wall.
The dynamic earth pressures computed by FLAC are compared with those predicted using the
M-O method. The permanent relative displacements of the wall are computed by subtracting the
total displacements in the free-field zone from the total displacements of the wall at the same
depth. Finally, the identified trends in the results of the parametric study will be used to develop
an improved design procedure, wherein the influence of characteristics of the input ground mo-
tions, the flexibility of the retaining structure, and maximum tolerable permanent displacement
of the wall will be correlated to the seismically induced lateral earth pressures on cantilever re-
taining walls. It is desired to develop an improved design procedure for estimating the design
lateral earth pressures for flexible cantilever retaining walls that uses the maximum tolerable
permanent displacement of the wall as a specified input parameter, analogous to the Richards-
Elms displacement-controlled design method for rigid gravity walls (Richards & Elms 1979).

5 PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Preliminary numerical analyses were performed on a 6.1-m high cantilever wall retaining a me-
dium dense granular backfill (φ=35°) and supported on dense foundation soils (φ=40°). A free-
field rock outcrop motion (SG3351) recorded during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (moment
magnitude, Mw=6.9) was scaled to different peak ground accelerations to perform a series of
analyses. The results of the preliminary analyses showed that the lateral earth pressures induced
 1.0 away from backfill
0.5
kh 0.0
10 20 30 40
-0.5 Time (seconds)
-1.0 toward the backfill

291.6
stem residual force
218.7
PFLAC at-rest (Ko) conditions
145.8
(kN/m)
72.9 static KA conditions
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Time (seconds)

Figure 4. Time histories of coefficient of horizontal inertial forces (kh) at approximately the center of the
structural block and resultant of induced earth pressures (PFLAC) on the stem of the wall.

on the stem of the wall were in very good agreement with those predicted by the M-O method
during the early stages of shaking. However, at higher levels of acceleration, the computed lat-
eral earth pressures were greater than those predicted by the M-O method. As shown in Figure
4, the dynamic pressures increased significantly during shaking, exceeding those values corre-
sponding to at-rest (Ko) condition. At the end of shaking, the residual earth pressures, which
were not released during slippage of the wall away from backfill, tended to be very close to the
Ko-condition values. Figure 4 also shows the coefficient of horizontal inertial force (kh) corre-
sponding to the acceleration computed at the center of the structural block (consisting of the
wall and backfill contained within).
The differences in the lateral earth pressures computed by FLAC and those predicted by the
M-O method can be understood by examining the failure mechanism presented in Figure 5. The
failure mechanism of the soil behind the structural block consisted of several wedges, rather
than a single rigid failure wedge as assumed in the M-O method. At larger values of kh directed
away from the backfill, the induced inertial forces on the structural block caused it to simultane-
ously bend, rotate, and slide away from the backfill and at the same time the small wedge of soil
(referred to as a graben in Fig. 5) moves vertically downward. As the direction of kh reversed
(i.e. changes direction from away to toward the backfill), the graben prevents the wall from re-
turning to its initial undeformed shape, locking-in the elastic stresses produced from the bending
and rotation of the wall. The increase in locked-in stresses continued until the residual stresses

graben

Figure 5. Failure mechanism of the wall analyzed (deformations magnified by factor of 3).
 890
801
Measured force (N) 712
623
534
449
356 residual force at the end of shaking
267
178
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (seconds)

Figure 6. Results of a centrifuge test of retaining wall on flexible foundation (modified from Anderson et
al. 1987).

imposed on the stem reach a value corresponding to Ko-condition (as shown in Fig. 4), while the
dynamically induced inertial stresses were superimposed on the locked-in stresses. The ten-
dency of the increase in residual pressure was in good agreement with the results of centrifuge
tests conducted by Anderson et al. (1987), as shown in Figure 6.
The results of the preliminary FLAC analyses were used to evaluate the magnitude and dis-
tribution of the dynamic lateral earth pressures induced along the stem and heel section of the
wall. As the wall moved away from the backfill, the distribution of lateral pressures acting on
the stem and heel sections of the wall was triangular in shape, the same as for the static active
case, with the resultant force acting at approximately one third of the height of the wall above
the base. As the wall moved toward the backfill, the distribution of the pressure was relatively
uniform along the stem of the wall, with the resultant acting at approximately mid-height of the
wall. As a result of the higher point of action of the resultant force, the maximum moment
around the bottom the wall stem occurred as the wall moved toward the backfill.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The results of this research will contribute to minimize the seismic risk by providing engineer-
ing practitioners with an improved design tool for flexible retaining systems. The improved de-
sign procedure will be used for determining the seismic pressures on flexible cantilever retain-
ing structures for both global and internal stability evaluations. The simplified procedure will
overcome some of the limitations of the currently used design methods by taking into account
the flexibility of the soil-structure system.

7 REFERENCES

[1] Green, R.A. & Ebeling, R.M. 2002. S Seismic analysis of cantilever retaining walls, phase I.
ERDC/ITL TR-02-3, Information Technology Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
ERDC, Vicksburg, MS.
[2] Green, R.A, Olgun, C.G., Ebeling, R.M. & Cameron, W.I. 2003. Seismically induced lat-
eral earth pressures on a cantilever retaining wall. Proc. 6th US Conference and Workshop on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Long Beach, California, ASCE, TCLEE Monograph No.
25: 946-955.
[3] Mononobe, N. & Matsuo, H. 1929. On the determination of earth pressure during earth-
quakes. Proc. World Engineering Congress, 9: 177-185.
[4] Okabe, S. 1924. General theory of earth pressures and seismic stability of retaining wall
and dam. Journal Japan Society of Civil Engineering, 10(5): 1277-1323.
[5] Seed, H.B. & Whitman, R.V. 1970. Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads.
ASCE Specialty Conf. on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining
Structures: 103-147.
[6] Ortiz, L. A., Scott, R. F. & Lee, J. 1983. Dynamic centrifuge testing of a cantilever retain-
ing wall. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 11: 251-268.
[7] Steedman, R.S. 1984. Modeling the behaviour of retaning walls in earthquakes. Ph.D. the-
sis, Engineering Dept. Cambridge Unversity.
[8] Anderson, G.R., Whitman, R.V. & Germaine, J.T. 1991. Seismic response of rigid tilting
response of centrifuge-modeled gravity retaining wall to seismic shaking: description of tests
and initial analysis of results. Report R87-14, Dept. Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge,
MA.
[9] Al-Hamoud, A. 1990. Evaluating tilt of gravity retaining walls during earthquakes, Sc.D.
thesis, Dept. Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
[10] Whitman, R.V. 1996. Designing retaining structures against the effects of earthquakes.
Proc. Vancouver Geotechnical Society Symposium, June 7, Vancouver, Canada.
[11] Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M. & Keifer, F.W. 1968. Characteristics of rock motions during earth-
quakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC-68-6, Berkeley, CA.
[12] Wiggins, J.H. 1964. Effect of site conditions on earthquake intensity. Journal of Structural
Division, ASCE, 90(ST2): 279-313.
[13] Rathje, E.M., Abrahamson, N.A. & Bray, J.D. 1998. Simplified frequency content esti-
mates of earthquake ground motions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, ASCE, 124(2): 150-159.
[14] Green, R.A. & Cameron, W.I. 2003. Influence of ground motion characteristics on site re-
sponse coefficient. Proc. 2003 Pacific Conference Earthquake Engineering, Paper 090, New
Zealand.
[15] Cuesta, I., Aschheim, M.A. & Fajfar, P. 2003. Simplified R-factor relationships for strong
ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 9(1): 25-45.
[16] NEHRP 2001. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings
and other structures. Part 1-Provisions: FEMA 368, Part 2-Commentary FEMA 369, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
[17] Itasca 2000. FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) user’s manuals. Itasca Consult-
ing Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
[18] Gomez, J.E., Filz, G.M. & Ebeling, R.M. 2000a. Development of an improved numerical
model for concrete-to-soil interfaces in soil-structure interaction analyses. Report 2, Final
Study, ERDC/ITL TR-99-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC, Vicksburg, MS.
[19] Gomez, J.E., Filz, G.M. & Ebeling, R.M. 2000b. Extended load/unload/reload hyperbolic
model for interfaces: parameter values and model performance for the contact between con-
crete and coarse sand. ERDC/ITL TR-00-7, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC, Vicks-
burg, MS.
[20] Idriss, I.M. & Sun, J.I. 1992. SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent
linear seismic response analyes of horizontally layered soil deposits. University of California,
Davis.
[21] Steedman, R.S. & Zeng, X. 1990. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-
static earth pressure on a retaining wall. Géotechnique, 40(1): 103-112.
[22] Richards, R. & Elms, D.G. 1979. Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 105(GT4): 449-464.

Wanda I. Cameron, PhD Candidate

University of Michigan
Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Group
2350 Hayward Street
48109 – Ann Arbor, MI – USA
Tel. : 1 734 763-2478
Fax : 1 734 764-4292
E-mail: wcameron@umich.edu

Prof. R. A. Green, Supervisor

University of Michigan, E-mail: rugreen@engin.umich.edu