Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine
International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering

(1998) - Fourth International Conference on Case

Histories in Geotechnical Engineering

Mar 8th - Mar 15th

Rigid and Flexible Retaining Walls During Kobe

Earthquake
Susumu Lai
Port and Harbour Research Institute, Ministry of Transport, Japan

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge

Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons
Recommended Citation
Susumu Lai, "Rigid and Flexible Retaining Walls During Kobe Earthquake" (March 8, 1998). International Conference on Case Histories
in Geotechnical Engineering. Paper 10.
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/4icchge/4icchge-session00/10

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright
Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact
scholarsmine@mst.edu.

108

Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri,
March 9-12, 1998.

RIGID AND FLEXIBLE RETAINING WALLS DURING KOBE EARTHQUAKE

Susumu Iai
Port and Harbour Research Institute
Ministry of Transport
Nagase 3-1-1, Yokosuka, 239 Japan

Paper No. SOA-4

ABSTRACT

An overview is presented on seismic performance of rigid and flexible retaining walls based on case histories during earthquakes,
notably from the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Three critical issues are discussed out of these case histories: (I) If the effects of an
earthquake motion arc approximated in tcnns of a pseudo-static inertia force using the Mononobc-Okabe equation, the equivalent
seismic coefficient for evaluating gross stability of retaining walls should be less than I00 %. about 60 % on average, of a peak ground
acceleration specified as a fraction of grnvity (a .._Jg): (2) Liquefaction or excess pore water pressure increase in the subsoil seriously
affects the retaining walls at waterfront. often resulting in excessively large displacements. Collapse of the wall, however, is rare.
More attention should be directed toward identifying the mode and mechanism of displacements/failure of the retaining walls at the
waterfront: (3) The order of the displacements of the walls at waterfront rnnging from 5 to 50% of the wall height, are summarized in
a tentative list classified by the structural type of walls, the level of earthquake shaking, and the extent of liquefaction.
111

KEYWORDS

Backfill. Displacement Earth Pressure. Earthquake. Foundation. Lateral Spread. Liquefaction, Quay Wall, Retaining Wall

INTRODUCTION
The Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake of I995. to be called the
Kobe earthquake. produced a number of case histories on the
ultimate perfonnancc of retaining walls. Shaken with a peak
ground acceleration ranging from 0.5 to 0.8g. these walls
showed a variety of seismic response with a varying degree of
displacements. with and without soil liquefaction. These walls
were designed based on the pseudo-static approach using the
Monobc-Okabe equation (Monobe. 1924: Okabe. 1924). The
Kobe earthquake provided an opportunity to re-evaluate the
seismic perfonuance of these walls.
It is well known that the actual seismic response of retaining
walls is a result of soil-structure interaction, being far more
complex than envisioned in the pseudo-static approach.
Rigidity of the walls. among others. should play an imponant
role (lai and lchii. 1997: Steedman. 1998). It is beyond the
scope of this paper. however. to go into the analysis of the
soil-structure interaction phenomena. Rather. this paper is
focused on an overview of case histories on the seismic
performance of retaining walls. To maintain the simplicity of
the discussion. the current design prncticc will be followed in

order to quantify the seismic perfonnance of the walls. The

term "rigid and flexible retaining walls" will not be rigorously
defined in this paper but will be used to imply a certain
category of retaining walls, including caisson, cast-in-place
concrete. cantilever, geo-synthetic. and anchored sheet pile
walls.
In order to improve our current engineering knowledge within
the framework of U1e pseudo-static approach, the following
issues need to be discussed:
( 1) If the effects of an earthquake motion are approximated
in terms of a pseudo-static inertia force using
Mononobe-Okabc equation. what percentage of a peak
ground acceleration should be used to define the
equivalent seismic coefficient?
(2) Retaining walls at the waterfront are often seriously
affected by liquefaction or pore water pressure increase in
the subsoil. How do the walls at the waterfront respond to
the effect of liquefaction? In particular, what will be the
order of displacements of the walls at liquefied sites?
The objective of this paper is to address these issues based on
case histories during earthquakes. notably from the Kobe

109

earthquake.

PSUEDO-STATIC ANALYSIS
The current prnctice for evaluating seismic stability of
retaining walls is based on a pseudo-static approach. In this
approach. a seismic coefficient. defined as a fraction of the
acceleration of gravity. is used to compute an equivalent
pseudo-static inertia force for use in analysis and design. As
mentioned earlier. the behavior of retaining wc1lls is much
more complex than envisioned in the pseudo-static approach.
However. this approach has been the basis for the design of
many retaining structures in North America. Japan and other
seismically active regions around the world (Whitman and
Christian. 1990: Tsuchida. 1990).
In the pseudo-static approach. stability of gravity type walls is
evaluated with respect to sliding. overturning, and bearing
capacity. Sliding is oflen the critical condition for a wall
having a larger width to height ratio. Overturning or loss of
bearing capacity becomes the critical condition for a wall
having a smaller width to height ratio. In the ultimate state
under strong shaking. the instability with respect to
overturning and/or bearing capacity is much more serious than
that for sliding because tilting of the wall. if excessive, will
lead to collapse. Thus. it is common practice to assign a higher
safety factor for overturning and bearing capacity than for
sliding (Japan Port and Harbour Association. 199 l: Ebeling
and Morrison. 1992). Indeed. an increasing attention is
directed toward estimating tilting as well as sliding (Whitman
and Liao. 1984: Prakash ct al.. 1995).
Stability of anchored sheet pile walls is evaluated with respect
to gross stability and stresses induced in structural components.
In particular. gross stability is evaluated for a sheet pile wall to
detennine the cmbedmcnt length. Stability is also considered
for an anchor to determine the cmbcdmcnt length and the
distance from the wall. Stresses arc evaluated for the wall.
anchor. and tic-rod. In the ultimate state. the rupture of tierods results in the most serious effects on the perfonnancc of
wall and, therefore. this mode of failure must be avoided. Thus.
it is common practice to assign a large safety factor for tie-rods
(Japan Port and Harbour Association. 1991: Ebeling and
Morrison. 1992). A less established issue is to decide. out of
the wall or the anchor. which should be the first to yield.
Excessive displacement of the anchor is undesirable [Gazctas
et al. 1990]. A balanced movement of the anchor. however.
contributes to reducing the tension in the tic-rods and the
bending moment in the wall. Thus. a certain difference is
noted in the design practices of anchored sheet pile quay walls
(lai and Finn. 1993).
In the pseudo-static approach. the earth pressures arc usually
estimated using the Mononobe-Okabc equation (Mononobe,
1924: Okabe. 1924 ). This equation is derived by modifying
Coulomb s classical earth pressure theory to account for

\
\

\
\

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

,,

_______ ii
1-kv

Fig. I Schemaric figure ofseismic inerlia angle,

1/f

inertia forces. In the uniform field of horizontal and

(downward) vertical accelerations, k~ and kvg, the body force
vector. originally pointing downwc1rd due to gravity, is rotated
by the seismic inertia angle, 'I', defined by (see Fig. I)

"'= tan-[

kh ]

(1-k V )

(1)

The Mononobe-Okabe equation is, thus, obtained by rotating

the geometry of Coulomb's classical solution through the
seismic inertia angle. 'I', and scaling the magnitude of the
body force to fit the resultant of the gravity and the inertia
forces [Mononobe. 1924: Whitman and Christian, 1990]. For
a vertical wc1ll having a friction angle, o, between the backfill
and the wall, and retaining a horizontal backfill with an angle
of internal friction, <j>, the dynamic active earth pressure
coefficient. KAE, is given by

AE-

cos2~-'I')

------]2

[
" 5:\ I
sin(++6)sin(+-'I'>
COS'lfC::OS,-r +u, +
cos~+'!')

2
( )

The dynamic active earth pressure. which acts at an angle, o,

from the normal to the back of the wall of height, H. is given
by
(3)

where y,1 is lhe unit wcighl of the dry backfill.

A similar expression is given for the dynamic passive earth
pressure. PrE- The dynamic passive earth pressure coefficient,
KrE- for the soil in front of the wall with a level mudline is
given by Eq.(2) with a minus sign in front of the square root
symbol. In this case. H is the depth of the embedment of the
wall.

A complete set of equations may be found in the design codes

and manuals (e.g. Japan Port and Harbour Association, 1991:
Ebeling and Morrison. 1992). In referring to these codes and
manuals. a careful look is needed on the sign convention of the
friction angle. 6. In much of the Japanese literature. the
friction angle. 6, is defined as positive whenever the soil drags
the wall down. The same is true for American liternture for the
active earth pressure. but for the passive earth pressure. the
friction angle. 6, is defined as positive when the soil drags the
wall up. Since this paper is written in English. the sign
convention of American liternture is followed here.
The Mononobe-Okabc equation was derived for dry backfill.
When the backfill is saturated with water. it has been common
practice to adopt the assumption that pore water moves with
the soil grnins. Considering a fully satur.:lled Coulomb wedge.
there is a horizontal inertia force proportional to the total unit
weight. y1 and a vertical force proportional to the buoyant unit
weight, y1,. Thus. the modified seismic coefficients arc given
by (Amano et al. 1956)

110
All of the retaining walls discussed were used for railway
embankments. Cross sections of these walls and their
performance during the Kobe earthquake can be summarized
as follows (Tatsuoka et al, 1996; Koseki et al, 1996).

Leaning type unreinforced concrete walls (Fig. 2)

Constructed 58 years before the earthquake for a length
of 500 m, the walls were broken and split off at the level
of the ground surface and the upper portion completely
overturned. In some sections with a small embedment
depth, the whole wall overturned pivoting about the
bottom as shown in Fig. 2, in which the broken lines
indicate the original cross section before the earthquake
and the shadow indicates the configurntion after the
earthquake.

Gravity type plain concrete walls (Fig. 3) Constructed

66 years before the earthquake for a length of 400 m, the
walls significantly tilled, and a 200 m long section was
broken at the construction joint at the mid-height level.

(4)

55 m

-,------1:j -----

(5)

Using these modified seismic coefficients in Eqs.(l) and (2)

with a unit weight. y1,. in Eq.(3) will give PAE and Pl'E for the
saturated backfill.

<') I

r:::,
.

..... I

I
I

I
I

' ' ' ''' '

.',',',',','
' ' ' '''

I
I

, , , , ", . , ..,
.~,,,,,,
.,,,',',',',',

~'~' ~'~'~'~'.

A less established issue for saturated backfill is the procedure

to evaluate the effects of excess pore water pressures. One
approach is to use the reduced internal friction angle which
produces the same shear resistance of soil under a reduced
confining pressure (Ebeling and Morrison, 1992). This
approach may work if reasonable engineering judgments are
used in detennining the level of excess pore water pressure.
Many laborntory tests indicate. however, that the pore water
pressure generally will not remain constant once the soil
begins to deform. Dilatancy of sand complicates the behavior
of saturated sand under cyclic loading. Effects of the initial
deviator stress. anisotropic stress conditions. and the rotation
of the principal stress axis also complicates the cyclic behavior
of the sand. All of these issues may be best addressed in the
context of the seismic analysis of the soil-structure interaction
phenomena based on cyclic behavior of sand and effective
stress analysis (lai and lchii. 1997).

I
I

I
I

,....;

-'-~~~--------I

I
I

0.9 m

Fig. 2 leaning Type Retaining Wall (after Koseki et al, 1996)

0. 61 m

,,,,,,,,,,,,,
, , , , , , , , , , ,
-------------------,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,
,.. ,.. , .. ,. ,.. ,... ,. ,,,... ,.. ,... '

e
0
Lt:)

\
\

'Construction
\joint

RETAINING WALLS WITH DRY BACKFILL

Many retaining walls with dry backfill were damaged during
the Kobe earthquake. Gcosynthetic-rcinforccd soil retaining
walls. however. perfonncd well. All of these walls were
located in the area shaken with a peak ground acceleration
ranging from 0.6 to 0.8g (as estimated by Sato. 1996). where
more than 30 % of the wooden houses completely collapsed.

~'~'~'~'~'~', a

, ' ,' ,' ,' ,' ,' , 0

' '' -' ' '

4.0 m
Fig. 3 Gravily Type Retaining Wall (after Koseki el al, 1996)

) I)

Cantilever type reinfim:ed concrete walls, A (Fig. ./)

Constructed 66 years before the earthquake for a 30 m
length adjoining the grnvity type walls mentioned above.
these walls significantly tilted. The sections without
counterforts suffered cracking at the mid-height level of
the wall.

0.35 m

LO

...

, ...., ... .,
~

,,' .,' .,' .,' .,'

,,' .,' .,' ., ' .,'
' ' ' ' '

------]

4.0m

Cantilever type reinforced concrete walls, B (F,g. 5)

Constructed 65 years before the earthquake for a 200 m
length. with a sloping embankment behind the wall,
using a wooden pile foundation at the base, the walls
suffered extensive crncking at the mid-height level and
the whole walls significantly tilled and slid outward at
the bottom.
Geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls (having a
Ju/I-height reinforced concrete facing) (Fig. 6)
Constructed in 1992 for a length of 300 m, the walls
defonned and moved slightly. The largest outward
displacement wc1s 26 cm and lO cm at the top and bottom
of the wall, respectively. The geosynthetic reinforcement
used for these walls WclS a grid made of polyvinyl alcohol
fibers with a coating of soft polyvinyl chloride, the grid
having a nearly rectangular cross-section of 2 mm by I
mm with an opening of 20 mm. The nominal tensile
rupture strength of the reinforcement was 30kN/m. A
lightly steel-reinforced concrete facing was cast-in-place
directly on the geosynthetic wall face.

For all of these walls. the backfill soils were above the ground
water level. The Standard Penetrntion Test (SPT) N-values
behind the wall were about I0, below which lay a layer having
the SPT N-values rnpidly increasing up to about 50 within two
or three meter below the base of the wall.

Fig. ./ Cantilever Retaining Wall A (after Koseki et al. 1996)

3.0 m

Concrete
Facing\

2.5 m

! t

c::> - . - - - - -

t-------------

I
r----------

L----------

----------t"----------

.-------------
1

L----------
L
_Geosit)tetic

~ _ rtmfot:UJQent
I

t"---------r-------------
L---------_________ _
t----------1

I
I ----------

.._
I
I

8
0

....

-----]

2.4m

Fig. 5 Cami/ever Relaining I.Vall B (after Koseki el al, /996)

,,,,,
.s i
' ' ' '
~,",",","

',",",'... ~ I.(')

1-------------
I

----'-----..

,;J,..~.,._

Fig 6 Geo.~ynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall

(after Koseki et al, 1996)

112
Stability analyses of these walls were performed (Koseki et al,
1996) based on the pseudo-static approach using the
Mononobe-Okabe equation (Japan National RaihYay, 1986:
Railway Technical Research Institute. 1992). The stability
analysis for the geosynthetic walls assumes a soil wedge
defined by a potential double failure surface (Horii ct al.,
1994). The stability was evaluated for sliding, overturning,
and bearing capacity failure. By increasing the magnitude of
the seismic coefficient for use in the pseudo-static approach,
the first failure mode to yield a safety factor of unity was
identified as the most critical. The seismic coefficient
representing this threshold for the most critical failure mode
will be called the threshold seismic coefficient.
The threshold seismic coefficients obtained by backanalyses of
a damaged and non-damaged structure provide a lower and
upper bound estimate for an equivalent seismic coefficient.
The equivalent seismic coefficient is a pseudo-static
accelerntion. specified as a fraction of gravity. for use in the
pseudo-static analysis to represent the effects of an actual
earthquake motion. The threshold seismic coefficient of a
damaged structure provides a lower bound estimate because
the effective seismic coefficient of the earthquake should have
exceeded the threshold seismic coefficient for the damage to
occur. Conversely, the threshold seismic coefficient of a nondamaged structure provides an upper bound estimate because
the effects of the earthquake motion represented by the
effective seismic coefficient should have remained below the
instability threshold.

respect to the peak horizontal ground accelerations during the

Kobe earthquake. The effect of the vertical earthquake motion
was also studied in the stability analyses but found to be minor
(Koseki et al. 1996). The upward and downward arrows in Fig.
7 indicate the lower and upper bounds.
One interpretation of these results may be to conclude that the
effective seismic coefficient, kh, may be about 60 % of the peak
ground accelerntion specified as a frnction of grnvity; i.e.

(6)

k11 = 0.6(ama..Jg)

Koseki et al. ( 1996), however, drew much more reserved

conclusions, observing the difference in the earthquake
responses of concrete and geosynthetic walls. Their
recommendations are to use seismic coefficients higher than
that given by Eq. (6) for concrete wc1lls whereas to use a lower
value for gcosynthetic walls. Seed and Whitman (1970) once
suggested the use of kii=0.85(amax/g). Gazetas et al. (1990)
suggested the factor 2/3 for the walls with dry backfill. The
factor might be dependent not only on the frequency
characteristics of the earthquake motion but also on the details
of the design procedure. Further investigation is encouraged in
this vein.
Similar backanalyscs were performed to evaluate the threshold
seismic coefficient with respect to the structural

The results of the stability analyses are plotted in Fig. 7 with

e

..;

....C

~C
C,I

I.caning
Cantilever A

~
0

{{{};j{}

e
"'

;i
fl.l

Cantilever B

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Peak Ground Acceleration (am81/g)

Fig. 7 Equivalent Seismic Coefficient khfor Gross Stabili~v of

Retaining J,Valls with Dry Bac~fi/1 Backana(vzec/ for Peak
Ground Acceleration

0.2

0.4

...L
0.6

0.8

1.0

Peak Ground Acceleration (am81/g)

Fig. 8 Equivalent Seismic Coefficient k,. for Structural

Strength of Retaining Walls with Dry Backfill Backonalyzed
for Peak Ground Acceleration

strength of the walls. Both the compressive and tensile failures

were considered. but the tensile failure produced the threshold
seismic coefficient for all the walls evaluated. The results are
shown in Fig. 8. The lower bound estimate for the gravity wall
is kh = l.4(ama../g). but this should be much lower if a strength
reduction at the construction joint was taken into account. For
leaning and cantilever type (A) walls. the threshold seismic
coefficients are about l.O(amaig). The structural performance
of these walls. as mentioned earlier. are represented by partial
breakage and cracking, being in a borderline state between
damage and non-damage. Thus. for the pseudo-static analysis
with respect to the structural strength of concrete walls. the
use of the following relation is recommended (Koseki ct al.
1996).

(7)
The good performance of the geosynthetic walls during the
Kobe earthquake is noteworthy. The computed safety factors
with respect to the structural strength of the geosynthetic walls
were consistently higher than IO for the range of the seismic
coefficients used. being consistent with the performance of the
wall (Koscki ct al. 1996). Further investigation is encouraged
on the ductile behavior of geosynthetic walls.

RETAINING WALLS WITH SATURATED BACKFILL

The retaining walls at the waterfront during the Kobe
earthquake were seriously affected by the occurrence of
liquefaction and/or an excess pore water pressure increase in
the subsoils. Indeed. damage to the retaining walls at the
waterfront during past earthquakes has most often been
associated with liquefaction or an excess pore water pressure
increase in the subsoils (Tsuchida. 1990: Whitman and
Christian. 1990). A series of complete documentation on the
case histories of watcrfront retaining walls during earthquakes
in Japan is available in Japanese (Bureau for Ports and
Harbors et al. 1964: 1965: 1968: and 1973: Tsuchida et al.
1979: 1985: Iai ct al. 1988: Ueda ct al. 1993: Inatomi et al.
1994: 1997a: 1997b). A good summary of these Japanese case
histories till 1978 is also available in English (Werner and
Hung. 1982).
Although the case histories from non-liquefied sites were rare
at the waterfront area during the Kobe earthquake. a number
of non-liquefaction case histories had been obtained from the
past earthquakes before the Kobe earthquake. Using case
histories of 129 gravity type quay walls during 12 earthquakes.
the equivalent seismic coefficient was correlated with peak
ground accelerations (Noda et al. 1975). Stability analyses
were performed based on the pseudo-static analysis using the
Mononobe-Okabc equation with the efiect of submergence
taken into account using Eq.(4) (Japan Port and Harbour
Association. 1991 ). By using a procedure similar to that
described in the previous chapter. lower and upper bound
estimates were obtained from the threshold seismic

coefficients of the damaged and non-damaged walls.

113

The results are shown in Fig. 9. In this figure, the arrows

pointing up and down indicate the lower and upper bound
estimates. The roots of the arrows, rather than the points,
show the exact values. One arrow in this figure represents the
narrowest bound estimated using a number of backanalyses of
walls at each port during an earthquake. Thus, names of the
ports investigated are indicated in this figure. The equation for
an upper bound envelope was given by Noda et al. (1975) as
kh = a1113,/g
a111ax<0.2g
k1, = ( 1/3 )(am..,/g) 113 amax>0.2g

(8)

A similar study for anchored steel sheet pile quay walls was
performed. using 11 O case history data. It was concluded that
the above relation is also applicable for the anchored sheet pile
quay walls (Kitajima and Uwabe, 1979).
As shown in Fig. 9. the relation in Eq. (8) is an envelope. An
average relationship between the effective seismic coefficient
and a peak ground accelerntion may be obtained as
k1,=0.6(a111.._Jg)

(9)

It is interesting to note the coincidence with Eq. (6) for the

walls "ith dry backfill.

DEFORMATION/FAILURE MODES DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

As mentioned earlier. seismic response of the retaining walls
with saturnted backfill becomes very complicated when
affected by liquefaction. A number of assumptions made in
deriving the Mononobe-Okabe equation will no longer hold.
The soil will behave in a completely different manner from a
rigid block movement. Thus, the first step to understand the
perfonnance of the walls affected by liquefaction may be to
establish a conceptual framework, from which we can develop
a further understanding of the perfonnance of the walls. This
may be best established by identifying the typical modes and
mechanisms of deformation/failure of the walls associated
with liquefaction.

Rigid walls
Two modes of failure may be identified for a rigid wall
affected by liquefaction (Port and Harbour Research Institute,
1997). One is the case when only the backfill liquefies as
shown in Fig. lO(a). An increase in the earth pressure from the
backfill results in the seaward movement of the wall. If a
width to height ratio of a wall is small, tilting of the wall may
also result. Past case histories of the gravity quay walls often
belong to this category (e.g. Iai ct aL 1994).

114

\~

~\\'').
~~
~

~~

~\/3
Ii
\/3)\atUa~

.:

....

-=
u =
-=
-....
~

CJ

Ci,oi

CJ

r,.,

rlJ.

-=
~

-"=
>

al#

=
Sunizu

C"'

I Muroran
2 Kusltiro
3Akkeshi
4 Uno
5 Kiritappu
6 Nemuro
7Hanasald
8 Komatsujima

=
0

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.4

0.5

Peak Ground Acceleration (amax/g)

Fig. <J ,~quivalent ,\"eismic ( 'oe.fficient kh./i>r Retaining Walls at Non-liquefied Waterfront Sites
Backana~vzed.f<,r Peak Ground Acceleration (After Noda et al. 1975)
Liquefied layer

},mmj~'!"!}?f,,i'11TTJ'l1TTJmr,, Ground
surface

(a) Uquefaclion at Badfill

W././/7///u., Ground
surface

.,,tJ\\lii}t;i01'.itJi~m!J~{Y
(b) Uque.faclion at Foundation below the JVa/1
Fig. 10 De.formation. Failure A/odes
liquefaction

Gravi~v I.Valls due to

When the subsoil below the caisson wall is loose and excess
pore water pressure is increased. the shear resistance and the
bearing capacity of the foundation soil is reduced, resulting in
a large seaward movement involving tilting and settlements as
shown in Fig.IO(b).
During the Kobe earthquake, many caisson walls suffered
serious damage in Kobe Port (Inagaki et al. 1996; Iai et al.,
1996 ). The caisson walls were constructed on a loose saturated
backfill foundation. which was used for replacing the soft
clayey deposit in Kobe Port in order to attain the required
bearing capacity of foundation. These walls were designed by
a pseudo static method using seismic coefficients ranging from
kh = 0.10 to 0.18 (Japan Port and Harbour Association, 1991).
Shaken with a strong earthquake motion having the peak
accelerations of 0.54g and 0.45g in the horizontal and vertical
directions. these caisson walls displaced toward the sea about
5 m maximum. about 3 m on average. settled about 1 to 2 m,
and tilted about 4 degrees toward the sea. Figure 11 shows a
typical example the cross section and dcfonnation.

115

Unit (m)
'vH.W.L.+1.7m
'vLW.LO.Om

Backfill Soil

Compaction
v>-6.0

v-14.60

Backfill Sand
for R~placing Clay Layer

Alluvial Clay Layer

Alluvial
Clay Layer

Sand Drain

'v - J.00--36.00
7.00
-4.00

13.00
20.00-17.00

1.

24.00

Fig. 11 Cro.\~, Section and /Jefi1rmation o/Gravi(v 1.'vpe Quay Walls during the Kobe earthquake (after lnatomi et al, 1991)

Inclination
4.10

Lateral
Displacement

3.5m
Vertical Displacement I.Sm

-f.- ';_

.,. r1T

- -

~1 -

.,.

"'f

ti

I
\

. ,
I

.I _,

'

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

11

.
.

'

-rL

_..:]

_ I _ _I

.I

'

----1-

- --. I

-- +4.0m

.,-,-,-,-,-,-T""'~r-r-r"T"'"',-.-- - - - -

t-ir..-

Ii
I

I/

Fig. I] (a) Defim11ation A4ode Obtained through Effective Stress Ana~vsis: Mesh Deformation (/ai et al, 1997)
Although the sliding mechanism could explain the large
horizontal displacement or the caisson walls. this mechanism
did not explain the large settlement and tilting of the caissons.
Reduction in the bearing capacity of foundation soils due lo an
excess pore water pressure increase. then. was speculated as a
main cause of the damage to the caisson walls at Kobe Port. A
seismic response analysis based on an effective stress approach
confirmed this speculation (lai et al. 1997). As shown in Fig.
12, the mode of deformation of the caisson wall was to tilt into
and push out the foundation soil beneath the caisson. This was

also confinned through the investigation by divers as shown in

Fig. 13. This deformation was basically the result of the
inclined load due to gravity applied to the foundation soils
through the caisson wall.
It is also noted in Fig. 12 that the movement of the caisson
wall involved overnll deformation of the foundation soil,
without a well defined slip surface as envisioned in the current
design practice for evaluating bearing capacity of foundation.
Release of the initial stresses in the subsoils due to gravity was

116

-,.,.

,.

.. - ".

V
it"
it"

'. '. '.

I

~17 V I.I~ I"' I( lillf I "

II

./ Ir 1./" l,t llf IM'III" M'

II

_,, ..... lo" 1...-..- IM I" 16111"

..
-

,_
,_ ,.,

,_
,_

,...
,..

+4.0m

II

..... ,, ..."",.Ill",. "

.... ... -- - -- -,., ..... ... ... - - . .,. .
,.
- -- ,.. - . -.
[ ,I

1
,

,.

'

',;'

"

I/

;7
/

-36.0m
Frg. l 2(continued) (h) De.formation Mode Obtained through Effective Stress Analysis: Displacement Vectors (lai et al, 1997)

' I

Coisson

. I

I'I

,,-'"

___ __,._:______ __ - - - -------- - -- - - - -L- -- --- - - - -- - --

i CUnit in meters)

Fig. 13 De.formalion :\lode 4Foundation Ruhhle In vestigated hy Divers (after Inagaki et al, /996)

the main driving mechanism of the observed deformation of

the caisson walls (lai et al, 1997). The excess pore water
pressure increase in the subsoils reduced the resistance of the
soils below and behind the wall, resulting in large defonnation
of the wall founded on a loose saturated sand deposit.
It is interesting yet to note that the zone of significant
defonnation of soil body seen Fig. 12 is similar to the failure
zone conventionally assumed for the pseudo-static stability
analysis. Despite the marked difference between the drnined
and undrnined behavior of sands. it may still be possible to
speculate that the basic governing mechanism to move the
walls may be similar. at least in the sense that the effect of the
gravity plays a main driving mechanism.

In summary. the Kobe earthquake produced distinctive case

histories of the perfonnancc of rigid wall constructed on a
loose saturated sand deposit. It was confirmed that the
defonnation/failurc mode shown in Fig. IO(b) does occur
whenever the relevant conditions are met.

Anchored sheet pile walls

An anchored sheet pile wc1ll consists of a wall, anchor and tierods. Each component contributes to the stability of the whole
structure. Since the anchored sheet pile wall is more flexible
than the gravity wall, well balanced response of the wall and
anchor is essential for ascertaining the reasonable
pcrformance of the anchored wall during earthquakes.

117.

.-:-

The effects of liquefaction on the anchored wall can result in a

variety of failure modes. In particular, three failure modes may
be identified depending on the extent of liquefaction relative to
the position and geometry of the wall (Port and Harbour
Research Institute, 1997). If the liquefaction affects the
stability of anchor as shown in Fig. 14(a), the anchor will
move toward the sea, resulting in the seaward movement of
the \Vdll. This mode of deformation/failure has been most
frequently observed at the waterfront in Japan (Kitajima and
Uwabe, 1979).

--,

.:-,~I

:;J.?

~~md

'. ~\

layer

(a) Liquefaction around Anchor

If the liquefaction affects the backfill of the wall as shown in

Fig. l 4(b). the earth pressure increase will cause the
excessively large bending moment in the wall, resulting in the
yielding of the wall. This mode of failure has also been
observed in Japan as discussed later.

W/).~~~~f~ll~
Liquefied layer

(b) Liquefaction behind IFall

i!J~~{~ .
Liquefied layer

(c) Liquefaction al A!udline (l~inhedment Portion)

Fig. /.J 1_'vpica/ Fai/ure,1Deformalion ,Hodes of Anchored
Sheet Pile I-foll due to Liquefaction

During the 1983 Nihonkai-chubu earthquake, many anchored

steel sheet pile walls suffered serious damage at Akita Port (Iai
and Kameoka. 1993). Most of the walls were constructed by
backfilling the clean sand dredged from the nearby sea bed.
The sheet pile walls, designed using a seismic coefficient of kit
= 0. L were embedded in a firm foundation layer consisting of
alternating layers of clay and sand having SPT N-values
ranging from 20 to 50. SPT N-values of the backfill sand
ranged from 5 to 10. During the Nihonkai-chubu earthquake,
these walls were shaken with an earthquake motion having the
peak accelerations of 0.24g and 0.05g in the horizontal and
vertical directions.

20.0
_ _ 1.0%

-14.5

-20.5

If the liquefaction mainly affects the stability of the

embedment portion of the wall as shown in Fig. 14(c), there
should be a gross instability of the wall at the embedment
portion. This mode of failure, however. can occur only when
the anchor is strong and firmly embedded. and both the wall
and tie-rods arc very strong. In the current design practice, the
wall is assumed to be relatively firmly embedded, and, thus, is
designed for a fraction of the bending moment induced at the
free-earth support condition [Rowe, 1952; Japan Port and
Harbour Association, 1991: Ebeling and Morrison, 1992]. If
the liquefaction condition shown in Fig. 14 {c) is met, yielding
of the wall or the failure of the anchor will most likely precede
the instability of the embedment portion. This may be the
reason why there has not been a case history, at least in Japan,
which fits the failure mode shown in Fig. 14 (c).

- - Before The Earthquake

---- After The Earthquake
(Unit in meters)

Fig. 15 Cross Section and Damage to Anchored Sheet Pile

Quay Wall during the /983 Nihokai-Chuhu earthquake (after
/ai and Kameoka, /983)

Figure 15 shows a typical cross section and deformation of the

anchored sheet pile wall. The backfill liquefied and the sheet
pile wall moved 1.2 to 1.8 m towards the sea as shown by the
broken lines in Fig. 15. The sheet pile wall yielded and a crack
opened about 6 m below sea level. This damage fits the failure
mode shown in Fig. 14{b).
A seismic response analysis based on an effective stress
approach produced more details in the deformation of soils
around the wall and anchor as shown in Fig. 16 (lai and
Kameoka. 1993). Changes in earth pressures and bending

118

O.Om

/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /

-10.2m

V
-

/ /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ ,/1 /j

......--i

/ / /
-'1
....- qr \ 1../ / / /
~~
/ / / /_
t t:1/' ~tr
l.-1
/ / / /J .o 11PrK
_
H '
/J /i A'
-

-~'

/_

n
:,a
~

/I_ -rt

~- -

vi.,..,

i,..,,- 1,.-"

F"""

I,,

b:=:::::-

I
I

......

i.--

1--

1--

....,-

IJ/

.l-

1,

l--

,,

1--

--

-_..,.

-,

--J
\
V

L--

:.--

-23.0m
Scale of Deformation

I .Om

Fig. /6 Deformation A/ode <fAnchored Sheet Pile IYa/1 Ohtained through E.ffeclive Stress Analysis (lai and Kameoka, 1993)

Earth

-300

-200

Pressures

-100

(kPa)

100

Bending

-2000

-1000

Moments (kPam)

1000

0.0m
Tic Rod

0sec.
15sec.
30sec.

0sec.
5sec.
15sec.

30sec.

-10.2m

Yield Point
-3000

Fig. 17 Computed f.:'arth Pressures (lai and Kameoka, /993)

moments were also computed as shown in Figs. 17 and 18. In

this analysis. the wall and anchor were modeled using linear
beam clements and. thus. there was limitation in simulating
the seismic response of the wall after its yielding. As shown in
Fig. 16. the wall movement involved overnll defonnation of
the soit not associated with well defined slip surface as
envisioned in the current design practice. It is interesting yet
to note that the zone of significant defonnation is similar to
the soil wedges in front of and behind the waJJ as envisioned
in the design practice.
In summary. despite the complexity of the seismic response of
anchored sheet pile walls. failure modes due to liquefaction
may be broad)~ classified into the modes shown in Fig. 14.
The modes shown in Fig. 14 (c). however. may never be
achieved if the current design practice is adopted. Further
study is needed to look into the seismic rcsponse/defonnation
of the wall-anchor system.

-1500

Bending

0 1500 3000
Stresses (kgt/cm')

Fig /8 Computed Bending Moment (lai and Kameoka, 1993)

ORDER OF DISPLACEMENTS AT LIQUEFIED SITES

The Kobe earthquake caused extensive lateral spreading of
ground throughout the waterfront area in and around Kobe
Port (Ishihara et al. 1997). causing serious damage to the pile
foundations in the area (Matsui and Oda, 1996). The lateral
spreading was often induced in the liquefied ground in past
earthquakes and a set of comprehensive reports were compiled
on the case histories (Hamada and O'Rourke. 1992; O'Rourke
and Hamada. 1992). The lateral spreading most often seen
during past earthquakes was associated with a inclined ground
surface or with an open face such as seen in Niigata in 1964.
The lateral spreading during the Kobe earthquake. however,
was associated with a large seaward movement of the

119

retaining walls. Obviously a complex soil-structure intemction

was involved in the movement of the wall (lai and Ich.ii. 1997).
A simplified approach is needed. however. to evaluate the
order of ground displacements for design practice of pile and
other foundations. By treating the lateral displacement of the
wall as if it is a given pammeter to specify the boundary
condition at the seaside end. the rest of the lateral
displacements at inland becomes rather easy to ev<1luate. Thus,
an attempt is made to obtain the orders of magnitude of the
wall displacements affected by liquefaction based on the case
histories during past earthquakes. including the Kobe
earthquake.

The soil conditions considered in this study are categorized by

the extent of a loose saturated sandy deposit, having SPT Nvalues ranging from about 5 to 15. The geometry of the loose
saturated sand is taken into account for the categorization
based on the relative position and dimensions of the wall as
shown in Figs.19 and 20.
I _\

1---:-::l

Parameters considered
Non-Liquefiable Soil
As mentioned earlier. the displacement of the wall is affected
not only by the occurrence of liquefaction but also the structured
and earthquake conditions. A weaker structure with stronger
shaking moves more extensively. To define the structural
conditions. a structural type and earthquake resistance arc
considered in th.is study. The structuml type is classified into
either the gravity or an anchored sheet pile type. The earthquake
resistance of the w.ill is represented by the seismic coefficient
used for its design.
The intensity of the earthquake motions are categorized in two
levels. The Level I is defined for the earthquake motions being
equivalent to the design seismic coefficient. The Level 2 is
defined for those about 1.5 to 2.0 times larger. For evaluating
the levels of earthquake motion relative to the seismic
coefficient used for design. the average relationship shown in
Eq. (9) is used in this study.

Non-Liquefiable
Soil

(a) Loose Sand behind the Wall Only

I-}

--c------ III lllllll11111l !lllllill 1lil\!l!I

- - - - - - >::::::-:-:,:-:-:-:-:-::::::-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:,:-::::::::::::::::::: :

Non-Liquefiable
Soil

:=:::::::=:::::::::=::::/

Non-Liquefiable Soil

(b) loose $'and at Backfill

lu~tf----------;L

Non-Liquefiablc Soil
(a) Loose ,\'and at Backfill On~v

(b) Loose Sand at Both Bad.fr/I and Foundation

Fig. 19 Soil Conditions.for (iral'i~v Wall

(c) Loose Sand at Both Backfill and Foundation

Fig. 20 Soil Conditions.for Anchored Sheet Pile Wall

120
Grc1Vity walls with loose backfill
In the 1983 Nihonkai-chubu earthquake and the 1993 Kushirooki earthquake. grnvity type quay walls were shaken with the
earthquake motions equivalent to the design seismic coefficients
(i.e. Level I motion) (Tsuchida et al. 1985: lai ct al. 1994).
Extensive liquefaction occurred and the walls moved
accordingly. The foundation soils belmv the walls were dense
deposits. having small possibility of liquefaction. Typical cross
sections of these walls arc shown in Figs. 21 and 22. The
horizontal displacement and deformation rate (i.e. the
horizontal displacement nonnalized with respect to the wall
height) are shown in the first and second rows in Table 1.
together with the relevant structural. seismic and soils
conditions.

Caisson

Backfill Sand

(i3.Qx 16 I x 14.5)

Fig. 2 I Cross Section o_f Quay Wall at Gaiko Wharf, Akita Port

The walls designed using a smaller seismic coefficient moved

more extensively in the 1993 Kushiro-oki earthquake. The
relative intensity of the earthquake motion corresponded to the
LeYel 2 for these walls. A typical cross section of these walls is
shown in Fig. 23. The wall parameters and deformation rate arc
shown in the third row in Table I.

5.00

:g. H.W.L + 15

1.40

--------,'

~W.L!...O.<:L

" ',.
--=,~

Grnvitv walls with loose backfill and foundation

''
',
: Rubble Stone ',,
I

In the 1995 Kobe earthquake. the caisson type quay walls in

Kobe Port were shaken with an earthquake motion equivalent to
the Level 2 (Inagaki ct al.. 1996: Iai ct al. 1996). These walls
were constmctcd with backfilling decomposed granite. The
foundation below the wall was also backfilled with the
decomposed grnnite for replacing the alluvial clay layer in the
area. As mentioned earlier. an excess pore water pressure
increase reduced the shear resistance of these soils. resulting in
large displacements of the wall. The typical cross section of the
wall was shown earlier in Fig. 11. The displacement of the wall
was significantly affected by the thickness of the loose deposit
below the wall as shown in Fig. 24. A typical value of the wall
parameter and deformation rate arc shown in the fourth row in
Table I.

Anchored wall with loose backfill

Caisson
L
B
H
15.0x 125xl0.5
', /

~,f

II

' )

'I

.,i.,... .....

'

-90

\_;,

----------L--- < _,.

',~..:__~--- : ~-;- F~;;ndation Rubble _:_.:,,/
.

Unit (m)

---- before the earthquake

- - after the earthquake

Fig. 22 Cross Section of West No. I Quay Wall, Kushiro Port

Unit (m)

H.W.L +! ;:10

- - - before the earthquake

- - after the earthquake

=r:::=~;c~--.-.-.,.---

~LWLt0.00

As mentioned earlier. anchored sheet pile quay walls at Akita

Port were shaken with the Level I earthquake motion. suffered
serious damage due to liquefaction of backfill (lai and Kamcoka.
1993). At the Akita Port area. the foundation soils. supporting
the anchor and the embedded portion of sheet pile wall, were
mostly dense and finn and did not liquef). One example of the
damage and the cross section of the wall was shown earlier in
Fig. 15. As a comparison. another cross section of these walls.
having anchors more finnly embedded. is shown in Fig. 25.
This wall resulted in smaller displacements than the one shown
in Fig. 15 as shown in Table I. The yielded steel sheet piles.
pulled out after the earthquake. are shown in Photo I.

Caisson
L
101

iBil
I

___,

''
''
''
''
o

'

~i,x .4
I

I
I

I
I

Fig 23 Cross Section of 1~ast Kita Quay Wall, Kushiro Port

,,

121

Table 1 Liquefaction-Induced Displacements ofRetaining Walls

Type

Port/
Quay Wall

Seismic Water Earthquake/ PGA *

Coefficient Depth Magnitude
(Gal)
k1,
(m)
(M=)

Accelcrntion
Level

Horizontal
Displacement
(m)

Deformation
Rate**
(%)

Grnvity

Akita Port
Gaiko

0.10

-13 .0

NihonkaiChubu
M=7.7

205

Level I

Loose Sand at
Backfill Only

1.50

Grnvity

Kushiro Port
West No.I

0.20

-9.0

KushiroOki
M=7.8

315

Level I

Loose Sand at
Backfill Only

0.75

Grnvity

0.15
Kushiro Port
East Kita Wharf

-8.0

KushiroOki
M=7.8

315

Level 2

Loose Sand at
Backfill Only

2.00

18

Grnvity

Kobe Port
Rokko Island
RC5

0.15

-1-U>

502
HyogokenNambu (Kobe)
M=7.2

Level 2

Loose Sand at
Both Backfill
and Foundation

5.23

Anchored
Sheetpile

Akita Port
Obama No.2

0. I0

-IO.O

NihonkaiChubu
M=7.7

205

Level I

Loose Sand behind

the Wall Only

1.72

14

Anchored
Sheetpile

Akita Port
Ohama No.3

0 . 10

-10.0

NihonkaiChubu
M=7.7

205

Level I

Loose Sand behind

the Wall Only

0.82

Anchored
Sheetpilc

O.IO
lshinomaki
Port
Shiomi Wharf

-4.5

MiyagikenOki
M=7.4

281

Level l

Loose Sand at
Backfill

1.16

16

Anchored
Sheetpile

Hakodatc Port
Bcntcn Wharf

0. 15

-8.0

HokkaidoNansci-Oki
M=7.8

111

Level l

Loose Sand at
Both Backfill and
Foundation

5.21

46

29
(refer to Fig.24
for more)

~~~~"'"''lR~-~-<S"'~,,~"'' ''lSSSS.<Smm~~~~~'"""'""'~"~">:'>:\<:,,s,,is:~'\~~~~::.' '>'>'~~~lt1&~l/>''""'"'""'"'"'"":>.w:,.~~<<<<~'IS>~~J>&""-

-~~~~~-~~~f-ij~~\~\it\\\\~~{ti}1&\~~~}}lfitij~til~li~\~~-\{ll~~tlijTul\}}1\}~~jfilt~~~~1h'1;
* PGA: Peak ground accclerntion converted to SMAC-B2 type equivalent
** Horizontal displacement normalized with respect to a wall height from mudlinc

50

i 40
=--C>~
... --_
.!::l

.
1

- 11-

~~ 20

-1111

10

QI

-o E

me.
e.l!l
:SQ
z

== 30
C>

1-------

1--

10 15 20 25 30
Thickness of Replaced
Sand (m)
5

Fig :!-I Deformation Rate Normalized with Re:,pect to Wall lleight,

Correlated with 'l11ickness of Loose Soil Deposit below the Wall

122

High Tensile
Steel Tie-rod

ag~45 kg/mm'

I, =55 mm Lg =27. 90 ctc=2. 00

t--~~~~~~~- - ~20~0~0,c__~->.-~~ ~ ~ ~----i

2Q_

7.75

Backfi11 Sand
8

,.:

0::

...n ..cv

...J

(1)

~- r.n

0(1)

0(1)

V)

r.n

Unit (m)

...II

..J

-14

-16.00

Fig. 25 Cross Section of Ohama No.3 Quay Wall, Akita Port

Photo 1 Yielded Steel Sheet Piles, Pulled Oui after the 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu Earthquake, Akita Port

123
Order of liquefaction-induced displacements

. _L5.0,0
14.2 0 = - - -

Steel Sheet Pile II type

2~)

400X10X10.5 I = 4.0m -

Steel Sheet Pile

- JJIA typC41lOX150 X13 .l

KP-4~0

/ x ii .Sm

Unit (m)
-1000

Fig. 26 Cross Section of Quay Wall at Shiomi IYhat:f,

Ishinomaki Port

A summary of the deformation rates of walls at liquefaction sites

are shown in Tables 2 and 3 for the gravity and anchored sheet
pile walls. From the numbers shown in this table, it may be
possible to obtain a rough estimate of displacements considering
the wall height from the mudline level.
It should be noted that these results reflect the specific
conditions of the case histories used for this study. These
conditions include

relatively large walls having a depth of mudline ranging

from 8.0 to 14.0 m,

designed using a seismic coefficient rc:lDging from 0.1 to

0.2, and

with a loose foundation soil having a thickness of less than

25 m.

As mentioned earlier. the results shown in Tables 2 and 3 are

tentative. A further study is on-going based on seismic response
analysis of retaining walls using an effective stress approach.

13.0

-~

-'-+=2-~3~~'..'----------1----+~2-~3-~
H.W L. +1.05

1t

L.W.L 0.00

+1.0
Semi high tensile
Steel Tic Rod
t =42 etc 1.6

Table 2 Order <?l Deformarion Rate <if Gravity Walls at

Lique.fled ,",'ites
Steel Sheet Pile
SSP-IA

Durinf!, Level I Earth< uake A/orion

Deformation Rate (%)

-6.0
_ _ _-....;;8....;.0_ _ _

11

Steel Sheet Pile

SSPIVA

5 - IO

lO - 20

20 - 40

Non-Liquefaction
Unit (m) except for~

!}/lil!l!l!l!lll!l!l!lllllllllll!JJ
-14.0

Loose Sand at
Backfill Only

Fig. 27 Cross Section <if Quay Wall at Benten IVharf. Hakodate

Port

In the I 978 Miyagi-ken-oki earthquake. an anchored sheet pile

quay wall at Ishinomaki Port suffered extensive movement with
Level l earthquake motion. having liquefaction both at the
backfill and around anchor (Tsuchida ct al. 1979). The
foundation soils around the cmbcdmcnt of the sheet pile wall
were finn. however. having small possibility of liquefaction.
The cross section is shown in Fig. 26 and the relevant data arc
included in Table I.

Loose Sand at
Both Backfill
and Foundation

/JurinR Level 2 Earlh uake ,\,Jotion

Deformation Rate (%)
0

Non-Liquefaction

Anchored w.tll with loose backfill and foundation

In the 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-oki earthquake. an anchored sheet
pile wall at Hokodatc port suffered extensive damage by the
Level l earthquake motion. The wall had loose deposited sand
all over the subsoils including the embedded portion of the wall.
Extensive evidence of liquefaction was observed. The cross
section of the quay wall is shown in Fig. 27. the relevant data
summarized in Table I.

Loose Sand at
Backfill Only

Loose Sand at
Both Backfill
and Foundation

5 - IO

IO - 20

20 - 40

124

Table 3 Order of Deformation Rate of Anchored Sheet Pile

Walls at Liquefied Sites
Durin Level I E.arth uake Motion
Defonnation Rate (%)
5 - 15

15 - 25

25 - 50

Non-Liquefaction

Loose
Sand
behind the Wall
Only
Loose Sand at
Backfill
including Anchor
Loose Sand at
Both Backfill
and Foundation

SLIDING BLOCK ANALYSIS

Since the late 1970's. more and more attentions were directed
tow,ud evaluating pennanent displacements of the walls.
Emphasis was put on a simplified approach based on the
Newmark type sliding block analysis (Franklin and Chang,
1977; Richards and Elms. 1979: Nadim and Whitman, 1983).
Evaluation of tilting has been further pursued (Nadim and
Whitman. 1983: Whitman and Liao. 1984: Prakash ct al. 1995).
Efforts have been also made to evaluate the effects of an excess
pore water pressure increase (Towhata and Islam. 1987).

of the liquefaction of backfill. The Mononobe-Okabe equation

was used for specifying the earth pressure in the sliding block
analysis. The other was the case including the effects of
liquefaction. The pressure due to the liquefied backfill was
computed assuming the fluid pressure of muddy water having a
saturated unit weight of the backfill soil. Dynamic components
of the fluid pressure from the liquefied backfill was evaluated
based on the Westergaard equation (1933). For simplicity, no
reduction was considered for the frictional resistance at the base
of the sliding block.
Total of 14 caisson walls analyzed had the cross sections
designed using the seismic coefficient ranging from 0.10 to 0.25,
having a water depth rnnging from 4 to 14 m. The equivalent
linear response analyses were perfonncd to evaluate the
earthquake motion acting at the wall sites using the earthquake
motion record at the base (-82m) of the Port Island site. A
typical result of the sliding block analysis is shown in Fig. 28.
The results of the computed displacements are compared with
those measured in Fig. 29. As shown in this figure, the
computed displacements obtained by assuming liquefaction of
backfill are more consistent with those measured, but the sliding
block analysis consistently underestimated the displacements. It
is considered that actual performance of these walls was
significantly affected by the effects of the overall deformation of
the loose foundation soil below the walls.

-s

Considering Liquefaction Effects

Assuming Non-Liquefaction

u
.._,
()

i=

300

(I)

2SO

0..

i5"'
(I)

s-"'

200
ISO
100

.~

50

:e

o3 -s
0:::

Many of the assumptions made in these simplified analyses are

common to those for deriving the Mononobe-Okabe equation.
They are basically applicable to the walls with dry backfill. The
assumption of a block like movement of the soil. however. is
questionable for the salurnted soils. Thus. more and more efforts
are directed toward the seismic response analysis based on the
effective stress analysis (e.g. Iai and Kameoka. 1993: Iai and
Ichii, l 997).
It is yet to note. as discussed earlier. that the zones of significant
defonnation in the saturated subsoils are similar to the movable
soil body defined in the sliding block analysis. There may be
some possibility left that the simplified sliding block analysis
may work even for the w,llls at the waterfront. With this line of
thought in mind. simplified sliding block type analyses were
perfonned for the caisson type quay walls at Kobe port (Nagao
et al. 1995).

Two cases were considered. One was the case without the effects

u
.._,

c
n
0
o3

>

(I)

10

IS

20

ISO

100

so
0

-~
~

o3
ix:

10

IS

20

10

IS

20

400

ca

0.._,

200

:::
_g
<ll
....
(I)

C)
u
u

200

~ -400
()

"'

<ll

i:o

Time (s)

Fig. 28 Example of Time Histories of Wall Movement Computed

by .Vewmark type Sliding Block Analysis

125

( 4) Defonnation/failure modes of retaining walls associated

--e 5

Considering Liquefaction Effects

Assuming Non-Liquefaction

:g

00 4
~

'O

5o

ii?

-e=

'O

0.

u 1
0

--

el
2

with soil liquefaction are defined by the extent of loosely

deposited sand layer relative to the position and geometry
of the wall. Despite the significant difference between the
drained (i.e. dry) and undrained (i.e. saturated) behavior of
sands. the zone defined by the soil wedges often assumed
for dry soils in design practice resemble the zone of
e:\1ensive shear deformation for saturated soils.
( 5) The order of the displacements of the walls at waterfront,
ranging from 5 to 50% of the wall height, are summarized
in a tentative list, classified by the structural type of walls,
the level of earthquake shaking, and the extent of
liquefaction relative to the geometry of wall.
(6) A simplified analysis based on the Newmark type approach
underestimated the displacements of the quay walls at
Kobe port. Actual performance of these walls was
significantly affected by the effects of the overall
defonnation of the loose foundation soil below the walls.

Measured Residual Displacement (m)

REFERENCES

Fig. 29 Comparison of IVa/1 Displacement Obtained hy

Newmark ~vpe .','/iding Block Ana~vsis with Those 1\;Jeasured at
the Kobe earthquake

CONCLUSIONS
An overview was presented on seismic performance of rigid and
flexible retaining \V-,llls based on case histories during
earthquakes. notably from the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Simple
observation of these case histories. without elaborate and
complicated seismic response analysis. resulted in the following
conclusions.

(I) Shaken with a peak ground acceleration ranging from 0.6

to 0.8g. many retaining walls with dry backfill were
damaged during the Kobe earthquake. The extent of the
damage to the grnvity. cantilever. and leaning concrete
walls ranged from tilting to collapse. The geosyntheticreinforced soil retaining walls performed well.
(2) The retaining walls at waterfront were also damaged
during the Kobe earthquake. Most of the wall were
constructed on a loose sandy deposit with a loose backfill.
The mode of the damage was an excessively large
movement toward the sea. ranging from 5 to 40% of the
wall height. with settlements and tilling. Collapse or
overturning. however. were rare.
(3) If the effects of an earthquake motion are approximated in
terms of a pseudo-static inertia force using the MononobcOkabe equation. the equivalent seismic coefficient for
evaluating gross stability of retaining walls is
recommended to be less than I 00%. about 60% on avernge.
of a peak ground accelerntion specified as a fraction of
gravity.

Amano. R.. H. Azuma. and Ishii. Y. (1956) "Aseismic design of

walls in Japan: Proc. First World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, pp.32-1 - 32-17
Bureau for Ports and Harbours, Port and Harbour Research
Institute, and the First District Port Construction Bureau,
Japan ( 1964J "Damage to harbour structures by the Niigata
earthquake (Part l)" 105p. (in Japanese)
Bureau for Ports and Harbours, Port and Harbour Research
Institute. and the First District Port Construction Bureau,
Japan [ 1965) "Damage to harbour structures by the Niigata
earthquake {Part 2)" 249p. {in Japanese)
Bureau for Ports and Harbours, Port and Harbour Research
Institute, and the Second District Port Construction Bureau,
Japan [ 1968 J "Damage to harbour structures by the 1968
Tokachi-Oki earthquake" 28lp. {in Japanese)
Bureau for Ports and Harbours, Port and Harbour Research
Institute. and
Hokkaido Development Bureau, Japan
[1973) "Damage to harbour structures and investigation of
Tsunami by the 1973 Nemuro-Hanto-Oki earthquake" 139p.
(in Japanese)
Ebeling. R.M. and E.E. Morrison. Jr. [1992) "The seismic
design of waterfront retaining structures." US Army Corps
of Engineers. Waterways Experiment Station, Technical
Report ITL-92-11. 256p.
Frnnklin. A.G. and F.K. Chang [1977) "Earthquake resistance
of earth and rockfill dams, Report 5: Permanent
displacements of earth dams by Newmark analysis," US
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Miscellaneous Paper 2-71-17
Gazetas. G.. Dakoulas, P. and Dennehy, K. [1990) "Empirical
seismic design method for waterfront anchored sheetpile
walls." Design and Performance of Earth Retaining
Structures. Geotechnical Special Publication No.25, ASCE,
pp.232-250

126

Hamada. M. and T.D. O'Rourkc (eds) [19921 : "Case studies of

liquefaction and lifeline perfonnance during past
earthquakes. Volume I. Japanese Case Studies" National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Technical
Report NCEER-92-000 I
Horii. K.. H. Kishida. M. Tateyama and F. Tatsuoka [1994]
"Computerized design method for geosynthetic-reinforced
soil retaining walls for railway embankments." Recent Case
Histories of Permanent Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil
Retaining Walls (Tatsuoka and Lshchinsky eds.). Balkema.
pp.205-218
lai. S.. T. Umkami. Y. Mutoh and M. Kikuchi [1988]
"Liquefaction at coastal area and perfonnance of a quaywall
during 1987 Off East Chiba prefecture earthquake."
Technical Note of Port and Harbour Research Institute.
No.616 (in Japanese)
Iai, S. and T. Kameoka I 1993 J "Finite element analysis of
earthquake induced damage to anchored sheet pile quay
walls." Soils and Foundations. JSSMFE. Vol.33, No. I.
pp.71-91
Iai, S. and W.D.Liam Finn [1993] "Evaluation of seismic sheet
pile wall design. Proceedings of 4th Canadian Conference
on Marine Geotechnical Engineering. Vol.I. St. Jone s.
Newfoundland. pp.293-310
Iai, S.. Y. Matsunaga. T. Morita. M. Miyata. H. Sakurni, H.
Oishi. H. Ogurn. Y. Ando. Y. Tank.a and M. Kato [1994)
''Effects of remedial measures against liquefaction at 1993
Kushiro-Oki earthquake.'' Proc. Fifth U.S.-Japan Workshop
on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures against Soil Liquefaction. National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research. NCEER-94-0026.
pp.135-152
lat S.. K. lchii and T. Morita r1996) ''Evaluating ground
displacement behind bulkheads: Proc. Sixth Japan-U.S.
Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline
Facilities and Countermeasures against Soil Liquefaction.
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
NCEER-96-0012. pp.629-638
Iai. S., T. Sugano. K. lchii. T. Morita. H. Inagaki and T.
Inatomi [1996] "Performance of caisson type quay walls."
The 1995 Hyogokcn-Nanbu Earthquake. -Investigation into
damage to civil engineering structures -. Japan Society of
Civil Engineers. pp.181-207
lai. S. and K. Ichii [19971 "Excess pore water pressures behind
quay walls... Observation and Modeling in Numerical
Analysis and Model Tests in Dynamic Soil-Structure
Internction Problems. Geotcchnical Special Publication
No.64. ASCE. pp.11-25
lai, S.. K. lchii. T. Morita and M. Miyata [ 1997J "Seismic
perfonnance of caisson walls on loose saturated sand
foundation," Proc. 14th International Conference of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Hamburg (to be
published)
Inagaki. H.. S. Iai. T. Sugano. H. Yamazaki and T. lnatomi
[ 1996) "Perfonnance of caisson type quay walls at Kobe
Port." Soils and Foundations. Special Issue. Japanese
Geotcchnical Society. pp. 119-136

Inatomi. T .. T. Uwabe. S. lai, M. Kazama, H. Yamazaki, Y.

Matsunaga, S. Sekiguchi, Y. Mizuno and Y. Fujimoto
[1994 J "Damage to port facilities by the 1993 HokkaidoNansei-oki earthquake," Technical Note of the Port and
Harbour Research Institute, No.791, 449p. (in Japanese)
Inatomi, T .. T. Uwabe, S. Iai, S. Tanaka, H. Yamazaki, S. Miyai,
A. Nozu, M. Miyata, and Y. Fujimoto [1997a] "Damage to
port structures by the 1994 East Off Hokkaido earthquake,"
Technical Note of Port and Harbour Research Institute,
No.856. 583p. (in Japanese)
lnatomi, T .. K. Zen, S. Toyama, T. Uwabe, S. Iai, T. Sugano, K.
Terauchi, H. Yokota, K. Fujimoto, S. Tanaka, H. Yamazaki,
T. Koizumi, T. Nagao. A. Nozu. M. Miyata, K. lchii, T.
Morita. K. Minami, K. Oikawa, Y. Matsunaga, M. Ishii, M.
Sugiyama. N. Takasaki. N. Kobayashi and K. Okashita
( l 997b] ''Damage to port and port-related facilities by the
1995 Hyogoken-nanbu earthquake," Technical Note of Port
and Harbour Research Institute, No.857, 1762p. (in
Japanese)
lshiharn, K.. K. Yoshida and M. Kato [ 1997] "Characteristics of
laternl spreading in liquefied deposits during the 1995
Hanshin-Awaji earthquake," Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Imperial College Press, Vol. I, No.l, pp.23-55
Japan National Railway [1986) "Design standard for railway
retaining wall structures," (in Japanese)
Japan Port and Harbour Association (ed.) [1989) "Technical
Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan," English
version [ 1991] by the Overseas Coastal Area Development
Institute of Japan, 438p.
Kitajima. S. and T. Uwabe [1979] "Analysis of seismic damage
to anchored sheet pile bulkheads," Report of Port and
Harbour Research Institute, Vol.18, No.l, pp.67-127 (in
Japanese)
Koseki, J.. M. Tateyama, F. Tatsuoka and K. Hori [1996) "Back
analyses of soil retaining walls for railway embankments
damaged by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake," The
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake -Investigation into
damage to civil engineering structures -, Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, pp. l O1-114
Matsui. T. and K. Oda [1996] "Foundation damage of
structures,,. Soils and Foundations, Special Issue, Japanese
Geotechnical Society, pp.189-200
Mononobe. N. (1924] "Considerations on vertical earthquake
motion and relevant vibrntion problems," Journal of Japan
Society of Civil Engineers. Vol.IO, No.5, pp.1063-1094 (in
Japanese)
Nadim. F. and R.V. Whitman [1983] "Seismically induced
movement of retaining walls," Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE. Vol.109. No.GT?, pp.915-931
Nagao. T.. T. Koizumi, T. Kisaka. K. Terauchi, K. Hosokawa,
Y. Kadowaki and K. Uno [1995] "Evaluation of stability of
caisson type quay walls by means of present design ways and
one-dimensional model analyses," Technical Note of Port
and Harbour Research Institute, No.813, pp.301-336 (in
Japanese)
Newmark, N.M. [1965] "Effects of earthquakes on dams and
embankments." 5th Rankine lecture. Geotechnique, Vol. 15,

127
No.2. pp.139-160
Noda, S.. T. Uwabe and T. Chiba 11975] "Relation between
seismic coefficient and ground acceleration for gravity quay
wallt Report of Port and Harbour Research Institute. Vol.14,
No.4. pp.67-111 (in Japanese)
Okabe, N. [1924) "General theory on earth pressure and seismic
stability of retaining wall and dam." Journal of Japan Society
of Civil Engineers, Vol.IO. No.6, pp.1277-1323
O'Rourke. T.D. and M. Hamada (eds) [1992] ''Case studies of
liquefaction and lifeline performance during past
earthquakes. Volmne 2. United States case studies."
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Technical Report NCEER-92-0002
Port and Harbour Research Institute (ed.) [1997] 'Handbook on
liquefaction remediation of reclaimed land,' (translation by
US Army Corps of Engineers. Watenvays Experiment
Station). Balkema. 312p.
Prakash. S.. Y. Wu and E.A. Rafnsson [1995J 'On seismic
design displacements of rigid retaining walls." Proc. of the
Third International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics.
St. Louis. pp.1183-1192
Railway Technical Research Institute [19921 "Design standard
for railway earth structures" (in Japanese)
Richards. R.. Jr.. and D. Elms l}979] "Seismic behavior of
gravity retaining walls." Journal of the Geotcchnical
Engineering Division. ASCE. Vol. 105. No.GT4. pp.449464
Rowe~P.W. [1952] "Anchored sheetpilc walls." Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol.I. Part L pp.27-70
Sato. T. [1996] "Estimation of peak ground motion in the
severely damaged area during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
earthquake." The 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake Investigation into damage to civil engineering structures -.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers. pp.35-44
Seed, H.B. and RV. Whitman (l9701 "Design of earth retaining
structures for dynamic loads. ASCE Specialty Conference
on Laternl Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth
Retaining Structures. Ithaca. pp. I03-14 7
Steedman, RS. [19981 "Seismic design of retaining walls."
Geotechnical Engineering. Proc. Institution of Civil
Engineers. London (to be published)

Tatsuoka. F.. M. Tateyama and J. Koseki (1996) "Perfonnance

of soil retaining walls for railway embankments," Soils and
Foundations, Special Issue, Japanese Geotechnical Society,
pp.311-324
Towhata, I. and S. Islam [1987] "Prediction oflateral movement
of anchored bulkheads induced by seismic liquefaction,"
Soils and Foundations, Vol.27, No.4, JSSMFE, pp.137-147
Tsuchida, H. T. Inatomi, S. Noda, T. Yagyu, T. Tabata, S.
Tokunaga and T. Hirano [1979] "Damage to port structures
by the 1978 Miyagi-ken-oki earthquake," Technical Note of
Port and Harbour Research Institute, No.325, 50p. (in
Japanese)
Tsuchida. H.. S. Noda, T. Inatomi, T. Uwabe, S. Iai, H. Ohneda,
and S. Toyama [1985) "Damage to port structures by the
1983 Nipponkai-chubu earthquake," Technical Note of Port
and Harbour Research Institute, No.511, 447p. (in Japanese)
Tsuchida, H. (1990) "Japanese experience with seismic d~gn
and response of port and harbor structures," Proc. POLA
Seismic Workshop on Seismic Engineering, Port of Los
Angeles, pp.138-164
Ueda. S.. T. lnatomi, T. Uwabe, S. Iai, M. Kazama, Y.
Matsunaga, T. Fujimoto, Y. Kikuchi, S. Miyai, S. Sekiguchi
and Y. Fujimoto [1993) "Damage to port structures by 1993
Kushiro-oki earthquake," Technical Note of Port and
Harbour Research Institute, No.766, 454p. (in Japanese)
Westergaard, H.M. (1933) "Water pressure on dams during
earthquakes~" Transactions of American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol.98~pp.418-472
Werner, S.D. and S.J. Hung [1982] "Seismic response of port
and harbor facilities," Agbabian Associates, El Segundo, R8122-5395
Whitman, RV. and S. Liao (1984] "Seismic design of gravity
retaining walls,'' Proc. Eighth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. San Francisco, Vol.III, pp.533-540
Whitman. RV. and J. T. Christian [1990] "Seismic response of
retaining structures," Proc. POLA Seismic Workshop on
Seismic Engineering. Port of Los Angeles, pp.427-452
Whitman. R. V. [1991] "Seismic design of earth retaining
structures." Proc. of the Second International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Vol. II, pp.1767-1778