Seismic Loads and Segmental Retaining Walls

TECH SHEET #610 PAGE 1

allanblock.com The Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) industry has evolved significantly over the last three decades, which is a given considering the industry did not exist 30 years ago. The SRW design evolution has been most dramatic relative to the incorporation of loads from seismic events. These changes were not precipitated as a result of poor performance. On the contrary, design professionals saw exceptional performance on soil reinforced segmental retaining walls and reinforced slopes when they were exposed to seismic loading. (See Ref #1 and #2 regarding the 1994, 6.7 magnitude earthquake in Northridge, CA, Sandri, D.). The challenges that were noted focused on not being able to apply the design methodology and come up with reasonable design parameters, especially when slopes above the wall were present. For walls designed using the NCMA methodology (NCMA, SRW Seismic Design Manual, 1st Edition, 1998) it became common to replace a slope above the wall with an equivalent surcharge to work around the slope above issues. Additionally when using the NCMA methodology the load was applied with an inverted triangle distribution approach resulting in substantial additional loading at the top of the wall. This load distribution combined with a slope above the wall caused the grid lengths and applied forces at the top of the structure to be increased beyond reasonable.

OLD METHODOLOGY PRIOR TO TESTING

STATIC ACTIVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

DYNAMIC ACTIVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

Federal Highways (FHWA) methodology provided an approach that essentially penalized concentrated areas of reinforcement by applying more loading to these areas. Therefore, the more reinforcement you placed in a given area to overcome design loads, the more the applied forces were localized. There was also the implication that SRW structures would not perform when horizontal seismic loading exceeded 0.30 g. This was contrary to findings in the field and led to a series of test structures to prove out the true performance of reinforced earth structures with an SRW facing. A series of full-scale seismic tests were conducted by Columbia University with Hoe Ling and Dov Leshchinsky as the principal investigators in cooperation with Allan Block Corp. and Huesker Inc. (See Ref. #3 and #4) These full-scale tests not only demonstrate the superior performance of SRWs under dynamic loading of 0.80 g horizontal and simultaneously 0.40 g vertical, but also helped to lead the way to a series of methodology changes across the industry. Specifically it was determined that the calculated load using the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method, although conservative, was not the issue during design. The real issue was a result of how that load was applied to the structure when performing internal stability calculations. During the testing, it was clear that actual load distribution was not focused at the top of the wall as defined in the NCMA Design Manual nor was it dependant on where the reinforcement was placed, as presented by the FHWA. Rather in each of the structures, the additional load manifested itself in the form of a rectangular pressure distribution similar to what is applied from surcharges above the structure. These findings triggered discussions with the engineers responsible for establishing methodology that follows sound engineering practices. With this new information it became clear that changes were in order. As a result, both the FHWA and the NCMA have adopted new recommendation relative to seismic design including a rectangular load distribution for both internal and external stability calculations (Ref #5 and #7).

Seismic Loads and Segmental Retaining Walls

TECH SHEET #610 PAGE 1

allanblock.com For the optimum configuration of the structure it was determined that the space between the layers of reinforcement had a dramatic impact on the performance of the structure. With grid spacing of 16 inches (400 mm) or less, the reinforced mass performed as a more composite structure, with settlement and permanent displacement of the structure minimized. The result of lower strength reinforcement placed closer together provides for a cost effective solution with a better performing structure. The tests also illustrated that minimum grid lengths of sixty percent (60%) of the height of the wall were adequate, but extending the top grid length to ninety percent (90%) of the height of the wall provided a bridge between the reinforce soil mass and the retained soil. This eliminating the soil cracking that occurred behind the reinforced mass when the grids were all truncated to the same length.

NEW METHODOLOGY AFTER TESTING

STATIC ACTIVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

DYNAMIC ACTIVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

Allan Block has adopted similar methodology changes into our AB Walls 10 design software and the details of the methodology are clearly defined in our Allan Block Engineering Manual. AB Walls 10 is available free of charge by contacting your local Allan Block sales representative and the Allan Block Engineering Manual is available in print form or online at allanblock.com. Contact the Allan Block Engineering Dept at (800) 899-5309.

Reference:
1. Sandri, D. (1994) A Summary of Reinforced Soil Structures in the Greater Los Angeles Area after the Northridge Earthquake. 2. Sandri, D. (1994) Retaining Walls Stand Up to the Northridge Earthquake. Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 12, no. 4, pp 30-31 3. Executive Summary Seismic Testing, by Columbia University in cooperation with Allan Block Corporation Huesker Geosynthetics 4. Large-Scale Shaking Table Tests on Modular-Block Reinforces Soil Retaining Walls. Hoe I. Ling and Dov Leshchinsky, 2005. 5. FHWA-NHI Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, 2009 6. NCMA, Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, 3rd Edition, 2009 7. Allan Block Engineering Manual, 2008

allanblock.com

The information shown here is for use with Allan Block products only.
2010 Allan Block Corporation, Bloomington, MN Phone 952-835-5309 Fax 952-835-0013 DOC. #R0551

allanblock.com