SEAOC 2010 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

The Meaning of Seismic Earth Pressure

Wolfgang H. Roth, Michael Mehrain, Bei Su URS, Los Angeles, CA Craig Davis LADWP, Los Angeles, CA
Abstract Earthquake loading on retaining and basement walls is commonly represented by seismic earth pressure. The latter may be obtained from simple pseudo-static procedures or from sophisticated dynamic models which may even include soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects. No matter how it was produced, however, this pressure is typically applied by structural engineers as a quasi-static external load. Evaluating the seismic performance of a proposed 300x150x35 buried water tank by nonlinear dynamic SSI modeling with FLAC provided an opportunity to explore the meaning of seismic earth pressure. It is concluded that the quasi-static application of seismic earth pressure obtained from dynamic SSI analysis onto a separate structural model may not be adequate, regardless how sophisticated the SSI analysis may have been. Instead, the seismic performance of buried structures should be assessed based on structural displacements, bending moments, and shear forces obtained directly from dynamic SSI modeling. Introduction The conventional approach for analyzing retaining walls under seismic loading consists of applying seismic earth pressure obtained from pseudo-static analysis procedures which ignore soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects. Though critical structures are increasingly analyzed with dynamic methods, most structural FE programs simulate soil or rock with 1-D springs. This grossly over-simplifies the complex dynamic behavior of the very continuum which transmits seismic loading onto the structure and also supports it. While this approach may be justified for above-ground structures on relatively shallow foundations, its usefulness is questionable for buried structures. Computer programs which offer both structural and soil models of comparable sophistication were developed first as geotechnical tools and, hence, are less familiar to structural engineers. While acknowledging the superior SSI capability of these programs, designers often find it difficult to overcome traditional ways of separating structural from geotechnical issues. Used to thinking of earth pressure in terms of just another external load, they consider programs such as FLAC to be strictly geotechnical tools for computing dynamic earth pressures which they then apply as pseudostatic external load to their own structural models. The question then arises how to define dynamic earth pressure? Should it be a peak-pressure envelope or a series of instant (snapshot) pressure distributions? Using the former would be overly conservative, but even applying instant pressure distributions may not solve the problem, because structural bending moments and shear also depend on inertia forces related to the mass of the wall. At any instant during shaking, these forces may act in concert with, or against, the dynamic earth pressure asserted on the wall. This behavior is illustrated by the example of analyzing the seismic performance of a proposed disinfection contact tank for the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP). The analysis was performed with FLAC (Itasca, 2005), a 2D explicit finite difference program for analyzing nonlinear static and dynamic behavior of soil continua, SSI effects, and groundwater flow. The purpose of this work was to provide LADWPs structural engineers with an independent means for testing their preliminary tank design. Establishment of Pre-Shaking Stress Conditions Model Setup. As shown in Figure 1, the structure is 300 ft long, 150 ft wide, and 35 ft high. North-South oriented interior walls provide large stiffness in this direction. Hence, the two softer East-West sections were analyzed as follows: (1) a midsection where the top of the tank wall is expected to move as the roof diaphragm deflects horizontally; and (2) an end section near the north wall, where such movement is largely inhibited due to the very stiff shear resistance of the end-wall diaphragm.

SEAOC 2010 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

East Wall

Unit weight and E-modulus of concrete were assumed to be 150 pcf and 3,500 ksi, respectively. Table 1 Soil Properties
Midsection (1) End (2)

Soil Type Young Alluvium Old Alluvium Backfill

Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 120 120 120 135

Cohesion (psf) 225 300 200 300

Friction Angle (degrees) 32 33 32 33

Shear Modulus (ksf) 3,730 5,370 3,730 8,225

West Wall

Figure 1 Tank Plot Plan The roof of the tank wall is supported with a horizontal spring connecting Nodes 2 and 5 as shown in Figure 2, where Node 5 is horizontally linked to the bottom slab through Nodes 3 and 4.
150 ft 1 33 ft 3 30 ft 4 A1 2 5

Saugus Bedrock

Table 2 Structural Properties Thickness (ft) Exterior Walls Floor Roof 3 3 1.33 2 Moment Inertia (in 4/ft) 23,300* 46,700 2,000* 13,800 Yield Moment (kip ft/ft) 218 (mid) 272 (bottom) Elastic 35 Elastic

Backfill 3

Alluvium2 Bedrock

Interior Walls

Figure 2 Tank Cross Section The springs stiffness is defined by the horizontal deflection of the roof diaphragm and supporting end walls under uniform horizontal loading. The spring for the end section (2) is 10-times stiffer than for the midsection (1). Soils are modeled by elastic-plastic continuum elements with a resolution of 5 by 5 feet. Tank walls, roof, and floor are represented by elastic-plastic beam elements which form plastic hinges upon reaching user-provided yield moments. For establishing the pre-shaking stress conditions, verticalroller and fixed boundaries were applied on the sides and bottom of the model, respectively. Material Properties. Shear-strength and deformation parameters for soils and bedrock were derived from geophysical data and laboratory testing of samples taken from 6 hollow-stem auger borings, 52 to 67 ft deep; 2 bucket-auger borings, 26 to 30 ft deep; and 1 rotary-wash boring cored to a depth of 150 ft. Soil properties are listed in Table 1. A Poissons ratio of 0.3 was assumed for all soils and bedrock. Structural properties and dimensions are listed in Table 2.

* reduced by 50% to account for cracking Analysis of Construction Stages The magnitude and distribution of pre-shaking earth-pressure acting on the tank walls are affected by the construction sequence. Thus, preshaking stress conditions were established in stages as illustrated in Figure 3: 1. Turning on gravity to establish pre-construction in-situ stresses. 2. Performing soil excavation with temporary dewatering (i.e. no groundwater table within the models zone of influence). 3. Building the tank structure followed by backfilling layer by layer. 4. Adding a groundwater table representative of tankoperating conditions which call for permanent dewatering; and adding hydrostatic water pressure (including sloshing) inside the tank.

SEAOC 2010 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Alluvium1 Alluvium2 Bedrock 1: In-situ Condition

Each motion was applied with normal and reversed polarities. The analysis results presented herein are those from the Tabas record with normal polarity, which produced the most severe seismic loading conditions governing tank design. During shaking, quiet boundaries with real-time feedback from 1D free-field computations were activated on both sides of the model; and the ground motion was applied as a stress history via a compliant model base which absorbs downward propagating waves. Hydrodynamic forces were simulated by adding mass to the structural elements of the exterior and interior walls (Housner, 1954). This added mass acted only in the horizontal direction and did not affect vertical loads due to gravity. Analysis Results. Intuitively, the end section (2) was expected to attract higher dynamic forces than the midsection (1), because the walls near the end of the tank are more constrained at the top. However, it was the latter which turned out to be most critical. Figures 5 and 6 show computed bending-moment and shear-force distributions before and after shaking; and Figures 7 and 8 present time histories of bending moments and plastic rotations at mid-height and bottom of the west wall.

2: Excavation (temp. dewatering)

Backfill 3: Tank + Backfill

4: GW Table (perm. dewatering)

Figure 3 Establishing Pre-Shaking Stress Conditions The model was allowed to reach equilibrium after each stage before applying the next stage.

Dynamic Analysis Analysis Approach. The tank was analyzed for 3 spectrally matched ground motion histories derived from 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan; 1978 Tabas, Iran; and 1994 Northridge earthquake records (Figure 4).
1g

Preshaking max. = 32 kips*ft/ft

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan

0 -1g 1g

Postshaking max. = 95 kips*ft/ft

1978 Tabas, Iran

0 -1g 1g

Figure 5 Bending-Moment Diagrams The maximum plastic rotations of 0.05% radians are far below the collapse prevention criterion of FEMA 356, which allows up to 2% radian for primary reinforcedconcrete members critical for preventing uncontrolled release of water from a reservoir.

1994 Northridge, CA
0 -1g 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

35 40

Time (seconds)

Figure 4 Design Ground Motions

SEAOC 2010 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

200

Preshaking max. = 5 kips/ft

0 -200 0.10 Moment (kip.ft/ft) Yield= -272 kip.ft/ft

0.05

Postshaking max. = 23 kips/ft

Plastic Rotation (% radian) 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 Time (seconds) 25 30 35

Figure 8 Bending Moment & Plastic Rotation Bottom of West Wall Figure 6 Shear-Force Diagrams
75 50 200 Yield = 218 kp.ft/ft Moment (kip.ft/ft) 25 0 -25 -50 0.10 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (seconds) 30 35 East West Shear Force (kips/ft) W E

0.05

Figure 9 Shear Force Top of Wall

Plastic Rotation (% radian) 1.2 Tabas EQ 0.8 0.4 0 -0.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -0.8 -1.2 0 5 10 15 Time (seconds) 20 25 30 35 Horizontal Displacement (inches)

0.00 1g

0 -1g

Time (seconds)

Figure 7 Bending Moment & Plastic Rotation Midheight of West Wall

Figure 10 Horizontal Displacement Top of Wall (Roof)

Figures 9 and 10 are time histories of shear forces and horizontal displacements at the top of tank walls, respectively; and the peak-moment envelopes plotted in Figure 11 are useful for checking size and distribution of reinforcement steel in the tank walls.

SEAOC 2010 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Roof Water End Section (2) Ground Also plotted in this figure is a seismic earth pressure distribution frequently assumed for pseudo-static application in conventional design The most widely used (and misused) method of estimating seismic earth pressure is the MononabeOkabe method (Okabe, 1926; and Mononobe and Matsuo, 1929). Though intended for unrestrained retaining walls which allow sufficient movement for active earth pressure to develop, it is also commonly applied for basement walls which are restrained at the top similar to the tank walls discussed in this paper. As shown in Figure 12, the Mononabe-Okabe earth pressure diagram (using a seismic coefficient, kh=0.5PGA) falls far short of the peak envelope of dynamic earth pressure computed with FLAC. How to Apply Dynamic Earth Pressure?
Floor -200 -100 0 100 200

Midsection (1) Elastic Range Shaded

Moment (kip.ft/ft) Figure 11 Envelopes of Maximum Wall Moments Figure 12 serves to put the magnitude of computed dynamic earth pressure into perspective by comparing the envelope of transient peak pressures produced during shaking with static earth pressure diagrams computed before and after shaking.
Tank Roof Preshaking (Ko) Postshaking Mononabe-Okabe Peak Envelope Water

Ground

Analyzing a structure by simply applying dynamic earth pressure as a quasi-static load presents a dilemma, no matter how sophisticated the SSI model from which this pressure is extracted. By definition, dynamic earth pressure varies widely over time; so the question arises which pressure distribution should be chosen for quasi-static loading? One approach might be to use the peak-pressure envelopes plotted in Figure 12, which represent the distribution of dynamic earth-pressure peaks at each location. However, because these peaks cannot occur simultaneously, using these peak envelopes certainly would be overly conservative. If peak envelopes are not appropriate, would applying instant pressure distribution(s) solve the problem? The short answer is no. In addition to external loading of dynamic earth pressure acting on the wall, structural bending moments and shear also depend on inertia forces related to the mass of the wall (plus the mass added to account for hydrodynamic pressure). At any instant during shaking, these inertia forces may act in concert with, or against, the dynamic earth pressure acting on the wall.

Floor

Midsection
0 4 8 Pressure (ksf) 12 0

End Section
4 8 Pressure (ksf) 12

Figure 12 Earth Pressure Diagrams West Wall

SEAOC 2010 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Roof Water

displacements, bending moments, and shear forces obtained directly from dynamic SSI modeling.
T2=14 seconds

T1=12 seconds

Ground

References Housner G.W., 1954, Earthquake Pressures on Fluid Containers, California Institute of Technology.

Dynamic Earth Pressure

14s

12s

Itasca Consulting Group, 2005. FLAC, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Version 5.0. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. FEMA., 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356, November.
5 10 0 Pressure (ksf)

Floor

Inertia Net Pressure Pressure -5 0 5 Pressure (ksf) 10

266 Wall -5

Figure 13 Dynamic Earth Pressure (Snapshots in Time) This concept is illustrated in Figure 13 which shows snapshots of instant pressure and moment distributions at T1=12 seconds and T2=14 seconds. At any given instance in time, the dynamic earth pressure is the horizontal stress computed in the soil elements adjacent to the wall. In terms of wall loading, however, it is important to realize that this pressure is made up of two components. The portion contributable to the inertia of the wall, here termed Inertia Pressure, is shown in Figure 13. It was computed by multiplying the individual mass of each structural element of the wall by its acceleration at a given instance in time. It is the combination of dynamic earth pressure and Inertia Pressure which produces the Net Pressure affecting wall bending moments and shear forces. Hence, simply applying the horizontal soil stresses as external loading on the wall ignores the inertia forces of the wall which may act in concert with, or against, the dynamic earth pressure. In the example shown in Figure 13, the Inertia Pressure at T1=12 seconds happens to reduce wall loading, while at T2=14 seconds, it adds to it. Conclusions The analysis discussed herein demonstrates how the dynamic response of a buried structure is dictated by wavepropagation characteristics and mass inertia of both the structure and the soil continuum. Pseudo-static application of dynamic earth pressure obtained from dynamic SSI analysis onto a separate structural model may err on either side of conservatism, regardless of how sophisticated the SSI analysis may have been. Hence, the seismic performance of buried structures should be assessed based on structural

Okabe S., 1926, "General Theory of Earth Pressures," Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1. Mononobe N., and Matsuo, H., 1929 "On the Determination of Earth Pressures During Earthquakes," Proceedings, World Engineering Congress.