Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

LATERAL SEISMIC SOIL PRESSURES ON SOLDIER PILE WALLS

Jin-xing Zha, Ph.D., P.E.1

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a simplified procedure for computing lateral seismic earth
pressures on soldier pile retaining walls. This approach is to develop two curves of
lateral load versus displacement behavior to consider the soil-pile-wall interaction in
a decoupled way. A curve of lateral earth driving force versus displacement is first
established by slope stability analysis for the sliding soil mass behind the wall based
on the Newmark chart that relates the standardized maximum displacement of the soil
mass to the limiting acceleration coefficient. A second curve of lateral load versus
displacement for the soldier pile/wall is then obtained by lateral analysis of the
pile/wall structure under the lateral earth driving force. The intersection between the
two load-displacement curves is considered as the lateral earth driving force on the
pile/wall. An example of analyzing one soldier pile retaining wall is presented in this
paper to illustrate the proposed method. The simplified method of accounting for the
soil-pile-wall interaction may be used to estimate the lateral soil seismic driving
forces on piles/walls without the uncertainty in determining the seismic coefficient
related to the use of the Mononobe-Okabe method and choosing the design wall
displacement. However, the simplified method is not validated and the results from
the method should be verified against finite element studies or field or model testing.

INTRODUCTION

In current practice for seismic design of bridge abutments or retaining walls, the
Mononobe-Okabe method is widely used to determine the soil pressures including

1
Office of Earthquake Engineering, California Department of Transportation, 1801
30th Street MS 9-2/5i, Sacramento, CA 95816, U.S.A.

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

dynamic inertia effect by applying assumed pseudo-static horizontal and/or vertical

accelerations. To account for the effect of lateral displacement of a retaining structure
on the seismic soil pressure, different intensities of earthquake shaking in terms of a
seismic acceleration coefficient are assigned to apply to retaining structures with
different restraints that limit lateral displacement. For most design purposes, a value
of seismic acceleration coefficient from one-third of the peak ground acceleration (kh
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

= A/3) (Caltrans, 2003) to one-half of it (kh = A/2) (AASHTO, 2007) may be used,
provided that an outward displacement of up to 5 inches for kh = A/2 and 15 inches
for kh = A/3 is allowed. This allowed outward displacement, however, is excessive for
most retaining walls located in urban areas. One shortcoming with the use of the
Mononobe-Okabe method is the uncertainty in determining the seismic acceleration
coefficient according to the restraints that prevent the wall from freely moving.

In the latest AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007) Section 11, a
design-for-displacement approach is recommended for bridge abutments and
retaining walls that may undergo significant horizontal displacement. This is a
simplified Newmark method that relates the site peak acceleration, the maximum
ground velocity, and the maximum wall lateral displacement to the seismic
acceleration coefficient. This method converts the determination of the seismic
acceleration coefficient to an issue of choice of the desirable wall displacement. As
soon as a design value of maximum wall displacement is chosen for the wall design at
a site where the peak acceleration and maximum ground velocity are designated, the
seismic acceleration coefficient is approximated by an equation given in the LRFD
specifications (AASHTO, 2007). Then the estimated seismic acceleration coefficient
is used in the Mononobe-Okabe method to obtain the seismic earth pressure on the
retaining wall. However, there are cases where choosing a design wall displacement
is as difficult or subjective as determining the seismic acceleration coefficient. Also,
in instances where the materials behind a retaining wall include fine-grained soils
such as clay, it is hard to directly employ the Mononobe-Okabe method to compute
the seismic lateral earth pressure (Power et al, 2004).

This paper presents a simplified two-curve procedure that may be used for
computing lateral seismic earth pressures on bridge abutments or retaining walls
supported by piles with or without tieback anchors. For these walls, the structural
stiffness can be estimated without much difficulty and the lateral load versus
deflection curve can be found by a computer program such as COM624P (Wang and
Reese 1993) that uses p-y soil spring models for lateral analysis of flexible long piles.
The proposed procedure is a displacement-based method which is based on the
Newmark chart that relates the standardized maximum displacement of the sliding
block/soil mass to the limiting acceleration coefficient. This displacement-based
approach is conceptually an extension of the design method suggested by Richards
and Elms (1979) for analyzing seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls with a
specified limiting wall displacement to which the limiting acceleration coefficient is
correlated (Franklin and Chang 1977). For the sake of simplicity, it is assumed in the
present analysis that the seismic force acts in the horizontal direction only. In this
analysis, the pile-wall-soil interaction is considered in a decoupled manner in which

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

two separate lateral load versus displacement curves are developed from slope
stability analysis and lateral wall/pile analysis, respectively. The solution for the
interaction is then obtained by combining the two individual load versus displacement
curves. To illustrate the proposed method, presented in this paper is also an example
of analysis performed for one soldier pile wall designed to create direct access ramp
lanes on/off a state highway in the median area south of a bridge site.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

PROPOSED PROCEDURE

The simplified two-curve procedure proposed for computing lateral seismic earth
pressures on bridge abutments and retaining walls supported by piles that may be
restrained by tieback anchors is outlined as follows:

1 Assessment of site seismicity to determine the horizontal Peak Bedrock

Acceleration (PBA) and the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA): This is usually
conducted according to the Caltrans California Seismic Hazard Map 1996 a GIS
database of seismicity for California State and Counties bridges. This assessment
may be carried out based on seismicity information from government agencies or
research institutes such as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER). The maximum ground velocity is not needed
for the simplified procedure, which however is one required parameter in using the
correlation equation (A11.1.1.2-1) (AASHTO, 2007).

2 Slope stability analysis to determine the lateral seismic earth pressure due to cut
slope instability during earthquake shaking based on the simplified Janbu method: By
this method, the factor of safety (FOS) against shear failure is defined as:

FOS = FR / FD (1)

in which, FR and FD are respectively the horizontal component of the soil resistance
along the failure surface and the horizontal driving force of the sliding block mass.
When the factor of safety, FOS, is smaller than one or a threshold, additional lateral
resistance provided by piles is required to maintain the slope stability. The pile lateral
resistance to apply to the cut of the slope is so determined that the nominal factor of
safety (FOSReinf) as defined by Equation (2) is greater than one or a threshold. That is:

FOSReinf = (FPile + FR)/ FD (2)

in which, FPile is the pile lateral resistance required to maintain the slope stability with
piles for a designated factor of safety, FOSReinf. The distribution of the pile lateral
resistance is to be discussed in Step (4). By combining Equations (1) and (2), one can
get:

FPile = FR (FOSReinf/FOS - 1) (3)

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

For a given seismic acceleration coefficient (in unit of g, gravity acceleration), a

pseudostatic analysis of slope stability based on the simplified Janbu method
generates the safety factor (FOS) and the horizontal component (FR) of the soil
resistance along the failure surface. Consequently, the required pile lateral resistance
can be obtained from Equation (3) to maintain the slope stability with a designated
factor of safety, FOSReinf.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This slope stability analysis is performed for a unit width of the slope cut in place of
the calculation of seismic soil pressure with Mononobe-Okabe formula. Though there
is much work in preparing the input file, the finite-layer-type slope stability analysis
gives us flexibility to model a soil profile of layered sandy and clayey soils that
cannot be considered in Mononobe-Okabe method.

3 Establishment of lateral seismic soil thrust versus displacement curve Curve 1

as shown in Figure 3 for the sliding slope mass according to the Newmark sliding
block model (Newmark 1965): Part of the results by Franklin and Chang (1977) is
tabulated in Table 1 for numerical generation of the curve in seven points. For each
of the limiting accelerations listed in Column 3, 4, or 5, depending on the moment
magnitude of an earthquake, a required pile lateral resistance calculated from
Equation (3) and the corresponding permanent displacement in Column 2 make one
point on the curve of lateral seismic soil thrust vs. displacement. For more accuracy
in analysis or rare or Maximum Considered Earthquake events, the curves of
sliding displacement versus limiting acceleration coefficient as given in Table 1
should be replaced with results from site-specific time history analysis based on the
Newmark sliding block integration.

Table 1. Mean Permanent Displacement of Slide Block as a Function of k/A* for

Different Moment Magnitudes of Earthquakes (Soil Sites)
Permanent Moment Magnitude of Earthquake
No. Displacement
mm (inches) 5.2-6.0 6.5 7.7
1 1016 (40) 0.14 0.17 0.2
2 178 (7) 0.34 0.37 0.41
3 76 (3) 0.44 0.47 0.51
4 25.4 (1) 0.54 0.6 0.62
5 7.6 (0.3) 0.64 0.7 0.74
6 2.5 (0.1) 0.74 0.79 0.83
7 0.25 (0.01) 1.0 1.0 1.0
* k/A is the ratio of limiting acceleration coefficient to peak ground acceleration coefficient.

4 Development of lateral load deflection curve Curve 2 as shown in Figure 3

for the bridge abutments and retaining walls supported by piles: This may be
completed in case of a bridge abutment wall by pushover analysis of the global
structure model to take advantage of the passive soil pressure behind the wall at the
other abutment. In many cases, this can be simplified to a laterally loaded pile

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

analysis for a pile with an effective retaining width. The pile analysis is performed by
incrementally applying the required pile lateral resistance or lateral seismic earth
pressure obtained from Equation (3). The point of application for the lateral seismic
soil thrust may be approximately at the mid-height of the sliding block/soil mass with
an assumption that the seismic earth pressure is uniformly distributed between the
pile and the sliding soil mass (Seed and Whitman 1970; Wood 1973; and Richards
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and Elms 1979). The point at which the displacement is observed is assumed to be the
point of application for the lateral seismic soil thrust.

5 Determination of lateral seismic soil thrust as the intersection of the two lateral
load displacement curves Curves 1 and 2 as shown in Figure 3 developed in Steps
3 and 4: The soil-pile-wall interaction is approximately considered by maintaining the
displacement compatibility and the force balance at the mid-height of the wall as
indicated by the intersection of Curve 1 for the sliding soil mass and Curve 2 for the
pile/wall system. The lateral seismic soil thrust displacement curve from Step 3
typically approaches an asymptotic value within a displacement of 380 mm (15
inches) as indicated by our case studies for four bridge sites for which this simplified
method was applied to estimate lateral seismic soil thrust. An upper bound load value
on the curve at a displacement ranging from 25 to 130 mm (1 to 5 inches), depending
upon the ductility of the pile, may be defined as the lateral seismic soil thrust without
the results from Step 4. In the case in which Curve 2 as shown in Figure 3 is ignored,
this procedure can be truly considered a decoupled method that is usually used during
initial design phase.

EXAMPLE

To illustrate the proposed method, presented in this section is an example of

analysis performed for one soldier pile wall that is part of two 124-meter long
retaining walls to create direct access ramp (DAR) lanes on/off the highway in the
median area south of a single span bridge located on a California state highway. The
wall height or excavation depth into the highway embankment at the bridge abutment
is approximately 7.3 meters (24 ft). A typical section of the wall is shown in Figure 1
for locations where soldier piles with tieback anchors are to be used.

Site Peak Ground Acceleration

The horizontal Peak Bedrock Acceleration (PBA) at this site is estimated to be 0.2g
(gravity acceleration) based on the 1996 Geomatrix attenuation relationship and to be
0.3g according to the Caltrans California Seismic Hazard Map 1996. For structural
design of the bridge, a PBA = 0.3g is conservatively recommended. However, based
on the estimated PBA = 0.2g with the attenuation, a Peak Ground Acceleration of
PGA = 0.3g may be used for retaining wall design.

Slope Stability of DAR Wall at Abutment

Slope instability of backfills behind the DAR wall under seismic shaking may
displace the wall and cause significant differential settlement and cracks/damage in
highway pavement. The global slope stability of embankment materials behind the

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

DAR wall under seismic shaking is evaluated by performing pseudo-static slope

stability analysis using the program XSTABL for a slope cut of 7.3 meters (24 ft)
height at the southern abutment. It is assumed in the pseudo-static analyses that a
seismic acceleration coefficient, kh = 0.06 to 0.3, up to the peak ground acceleration
coefficient, is used while the effect of vertical acceleration is ignored. It is found from
the XSTABL results as presented in Table 2 for the embankment cut slope that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

retaining wall should be designed adequately to provide a minimum lateral resistance

to maintain the cut slope stability.

To maintain the cut slope stability, a minimum lateral static resistance of 534 kN
(120 kips) per pile with an effective retaining wall width of 3 meters (10 ft) should be
provided. The required minimum lateral resistance is calculated as the force demand
on the soldier pile when a factor of safety FS = 1.3 for static case is applied. FS = 1.0
is assumed for seismic cases: kh = 0.06 to 0.3. The lateral static and seismic forces as
shown in Table 2 are for a soldier pile with an effective retaining width of 3 meters
(10 ft). For other retaining width or pile center-center spacing, the minimum force
demand on a pile can be calculated based on the data of the resistance of the soil
wedge and the driving force as presented in the table.

Lateral Seismic Earth Pressure

Following Step 3 discussed above, the first curve of lateral seismic soil thrust
versus displacement for the specific retaining width of 3 meters (10 ft) is generated by
slope stability analysis for the sliding soil mass behind the wall based on the
Newmark chart, as plotted in Figure 3. Calculation of lateral seismic soil thrust on a
pile is given in detail in Table 2.

Step 4 is to be followed for developing the second curve. The lateral seismic soil
thrust on a pile is incorporated into the analysis of pile lateral load deflection
behavior by applying an approximately uniformly distributed pressure on the upper
portion of the pile. However, pushover analysis for the second curve of pile lateral
load deflection behavior is not performed as the first curve approaches an
asymptotic value within a displacement of 254mm (10 inches). Nevertheless, a
second sample curve is plotted against the first one in Figure 3 for illustration only.

From Figure 3, the lateral seismic soil thrust can be 510kN (115 kips) per pile at a
displacement of 30mm (1.2 inches) if an effective retaining width of 3.0 m (10 ft) per
pile is configured. It is important to compare it with the minimum static soil thrust of
534 kN (120 kips) for a factor of safety FS = 1.3. In this case, the static soil thrust
controls the design.

The difference between the two curves after the intersection as shown in Figure 3
may be viewed as the room for any uncertainty in determination of the lateral load
demand on a pile or the pile lateral resistance. When a factor of safety FOSReinf > 1.0
is used for the uncertainty in the pseudo-static slope stability analysis to find the load
demand on a pile, Curve 1 will drift up in proportion to FOSReinf as determined by
Equation (3). Hence, the difference or the gap between the two curves becomes small

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

if the load deflection behavior of the designed pile remains the same. The gap
becomes small too if an undersized pile is used when FOSReinf = 1.0. It should be
pointed out that an undersized pile is never used when Curve 2 is below Curve 1 or
the intersection can only be found at a displacement that requires an unsustainable
ductility for the pile.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

A displacement-based method for computing lateral seismic earth pressures on

bridge abutments and retaining walls supported by piles during earthquake shaking is
proposed as a simplified two-curve procedure based on the Newmark sliding block
model. One example of a soldier pile retaining wall is presented to illustrate the
proposed method. This method avoids the engineering judgment in choosing a
design wall displacement for use with the Newmark correlation and eliminates the
uncertainty in determining the seismic coefficient with Mononobe-Okabe method to
compute lateral seismic earth pressure on bridge abutments and retaining walls
supported by piles. With the proposed approach, it is easy to model a multi-layered
soil profile of sandy and clayey soils for which the Mononobe-Okabe method is
hardly utilized to compute the lateral seismic earth pressure. The procedure is simple
to use since the pile-wall-soil interaction is considered in a decoupled manner.

The entire system is subdivided into two parts: the soil mass and the pile/wall
system. The lateral load deflection behavior of the soil mass is analyzed by the
Newmark sliding block model and the lateral stiffness of the pile/wall is analyzed by
a computer program of a laterally loaded pile such as COM624P. The soil-pile-wall
interaction is approximately considered by maintaining the displacement
compatibility and the force balance at the mid-height of the wall as indicated by the
intersection of Curve 1 for the sliding soil mass and Curve 2 for the pile/wall system.
Although the individual methods for analyzing either the soil mass or the pile/wall are
increasingly acceptable, the proposed simplified method of accounting the soil-pile-
wall interaction is not validated yet. Results from the method need to be verified with
sophisticated finite element analyses and/or field or laboratory model testing.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (American Association of the State Highway and Transportation Officials)

(2007). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition Section 11: Abutments,
Piers, and Walls
Caltrans (2003). LFD Bridge Design Specifications, Section 5: Retaining Walls
Franklin, A. G. and Chang, F. K. (1977). Earthquake Resistance of Earth and Rock-
Fill Dams. Report 5: Permanent Displacements of Earth Embankments by
Newmark Sliding Block Analysis, Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17, Soils and
Pavements Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Newmark, N. M. (1965). Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments.
Geotechnique, London, England, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.139-160

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

Power, M., Fishman, K., Richards, R., Makdisi, F., Musser, S., and Youd, L., (2004).
Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 2 Retaining
Structures, Slopes, Tunnels, Culverts and Roadways. FHWA-HRT-05-067
Richards, R. and Elms, D. (1979). Seismic Behavior of Gravity Retaining Walls.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 449-464
Seed, H. B. and Whitman, R. V. (1970). Design of Earth Retaining Structures for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Dynamic Loads. Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining
Structures, pp. 103-147
Wang, S.T. and Reese, R.C. (1993), COM624P - Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis
Program for the Microcomputer, Report No. FHWA-SA-91-048, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Wood, J. H. (1973). Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures. Report No.
EER: 73-05, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, California
Zha, J. (2004). Lateral Spreading Forces on Bridge Abutment Walls/Piles.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 126, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp.1711-1720
Zha, J. (2006). Lateral Spreading Forces on Bridge Piles. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 145, ASCE, pp.71-82

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

Lt. RW LOL Rt. RW LOL

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tieback

Lagging
Soldier Pile

Figure 1. Cross Section of Soldier Pile Retaining Walls

0.304 (k = 0.3g = PGA)

RW LOL
EL +658 ft
Vertical Dimension (ft)

Tieback
EL +634 ft

L. S. Thrust
Soil Resistance on Pile
Pile

Horizontal Dimension (ft)

Figure 2. A Schematic of Slope Cut for Slope Stability Analysis

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 2008 ASCE

800
XStabl Analysis Sample Pushover Analysis
700

Curve 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Lateral Seismic Soil Thrust (kN/pile)

600

Curve 1
500

400

Lateral Soil Thrust defined as the intersection

300
This curve is for illustration only
200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Displacement (mm)

Figure 3. Lateral Seismic Thrust vs. Displacement of a Single Pile

Table 2. Calculation of Lateral Seismic Thrust on a Single Pile

Displace- Factor of Driving Force

Acceleration Resistance
ment Safety Force Demand
No a (g) a/PGA (mm) FOS FR (kN/m) FD (kN/m) FP (kN/pile)
0 0 0% 0.412 81.3 197 534
1 0.06 20% 1016 0.359 73.4 204 399
2 0.12 40% 178 0.311 65.6 211 443
3 0.15 50% 76 0.287 61.6 215 467
4 0.20 65% 25 0.552 209.3 379 518
5 0.23 75% 7.6 0.521 203.3 390 570
6 0.26 85% 2.5 0.492 197.0 400 620
7 0.30 100% 0.25 0.455 188.7 415 689
PGA (g) = 0.3
Effective Pile Diameter (mm) = 610
Effective Retaining Width per Pile (m) = 3.05
Factor of Safety for Seismic Slope Stability = 1.0
Factor of Safety for Static Slope Stability = 1.3

10

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV