Resonance of retaining
walls
M. S. Aggour
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
C. B. Brown
Department of Cicil Engineering, Unirersity of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
(Receired 31 March 1978)
In his review of Newmark and Rosenbluetht,
'Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering', Howells
comments that 'on retaining wall design the authors do
not have much to say but this is because engineering
scienee as a whole has little that is helpful to offer.'
This paper attempts to modify such a view by
considering the two-dimensional problem of a flexible
retaining wall and deformable fill excited at resonance
within input limits suggested by Drenick 2. The analysis
is within the field of damped elasticity and the solution
is by a conventional finite element program. The
results are in the form of stresses and displacements: in
particular, the form of the dynamic pressure on the
wall is provided. Parameter studies for various fill
geometries and characteristics as well as wall forms are
developed. A crucial initial problem is that the
interface conditions between the wall and fill be
specified. This is dealt with first.
Interface conditions
A typical wall-fill system is shown in Figure 1. Under
resonance a question arises as to whether or not the
,Y
t 4
/ pressure
Backfill
H
Wall
Figure I Typical wall-fill system
0141-0296/78/010003-05 S02.00
© 1978 IPC Business Press
wall separates from the fill at any time. Certainly
dynamic motions must be superimposed on an existing
strain system and if the static interface compression is
overcome in the oscillations, separation will occur. A
usual linear static interface pressure distribution, with
zero value at y = H, ensures that separation will occur
near the wall top which will flap separately from the
fill unless the latter collapses into the vacated space. It
appears that little evidence exists for this separation
and subsequent fill collapse. This suggests that the
linear pressure distribution does not reflect the actual
conditions. Aggour and Brown a considered the static
problem as a necessary preliminary to this paper.
Taking into account the incremental addition of body
force effects, compaction of the fill and deflections of
the wall as filling and compaction occurred, they found
that a final pressure distribution such as that given in
Figure 2 was typical. This means that compression
exists very near to y = H and has to be overcome
20
18 \ \
\
0
z=
28
0 I
0 9 I0
Pressure on w a l l , ( I b / f t xlO )
Figure 2 Static pressure distribution
Eng. Struct., 1978, Vol 1, October 3
Resonance of retaining walls: M. S. Aggour and C. B. Brown
before separation occurs during vibrations. The static
study was for zero incremental shear on the interface,
that is:
Tx,.(o,y) = 0 (1)
where the rxr is the shear due to a change of fill height
or due to a compaction at a definite level. The final
static state for axx(o,Y) is provided by Figure 2. In
subsequent vibration this state is perturbed and
tangential slip on the interface will not occur when the
dynamic shear ~xr(o,y) is:
~xr(o, y) < #a~(o, y)
where/t is the coefficient of friction between the fill
(2)
and wall. The distribution for a~(o,y) in Figure 2
shows that it is always compression. Values of # -~ 0.3
appear to be valid. This means that the inequality of
equation (2) may be maintained. The dynamic results
obtained in this paper are with continuity of
displacements between the wall and the fill. Thus:
u:, (wall) = u~(o,y) (3)
uy (wall) -- ur(o,y)
These results show that equation (2) is maintained for
the a~,,,(o,y) found by Aggour and Brown 3 and the
dynamic earth pressure, #~(o, y) is:
I#x~(o,Y)I < la~x(o,Y)I (4)
In this way the displacement continuity on the
interface in the dynamic analysis is justified.
Input
Drenick 2 has suggested that the choice of a model or
sample earthquake can be approached by seeking the
least favourable among all foreseeable excitations. This
is in contrast to the more usual approach which
imposes a typical earthquake onto a structure.
Drenick's reasoning is ideal for a comparative study
and is utilized here.
To describe the input in this way a measure of
maximum energy is introduced into the system and the
maximum duration or frequency band must be
specified. Here it is assumed that the input acceleration
will have a maximum of 0.1 g. The excitation is
assumed to be sinusoidal with an unbounded
frequency range. Then the maximum response will
occur at resonance when the input frequency coincides
with the natural frequency of the system.
The input for all cases studied here consists of a
sinusoidal input with a maximum acceleration of 0.1 g
at the resonant frequency of the system. Thus a
comparison between different cases, each in its least
favourable circumstances, can be made.
Formulation
The model developed here has the continuity
conditions and input discussed above. The retaining
wall is fixed at the base (y = 0) and is either free or
fixed at the top (y = H). The wall is of thickness T. It
is backed by an elastic stratum which rests upon a
rigid, but moveable base. A typical problem is shown
in Figure 3 where the wall and fill are divided into
finite elements. The wall-soil system is linearly elastic
with internal viscous damping characteristics. Energy
4 Eng. Struct., 1978, Vol 1, October
~f~_wofl
J- Backfill ~,
i 1111 /
/
A
" / / / /
Foundoti~
/,.,'/ Z / / f / /
'1
t . / / / / / / /
B
_1
-L
Figure3 Finite element idealization of soil-wall system
dissipation through the rock base by radiation is not
included.
The finite element idealization includes a finite
length of backfill, depending on the site condition.
Here the soil is considered as rigidly bounded at a
distance L at NN. If L/H is above a critical value then
the backfill will act as a semi-infinite backfill. This
critical ratio is important because it provides an
analytical limit which can be applied to extensive
backfills. Beyond such a critical ratio a free-field state
should exist and its behaviour should be like that of
the semi-infinite layer.
Solution method
The equations of motion of the nodal points of the
discretized system at time t is:
M e + C~ + Kv = R(t) (5)
where M is the mass matrix, C the viscous damping
matrix,/( the stiffness matrix and R the load vector, v
is the nodal point displacement vector relative to the
ground and/, and/" the velocity and acceleration
vectors, respectively. The mass matrix, M, is diagonal.
The damping matrix, C, is generated to provide the
same cyclic energy dissipation as in the total system by
an equivalent viscous damping model which retains the
uncoupled modes of vibration of the undamped
system. The damping is then defined in terms of nodal
damping ratios and the results of Keightley's4
experiments are used to prescribe ratio values. The
stiffness matrix, K, is obtained by superimposing the
appropriate stiffness coefficients of the elements for
wall and fill connected to each nodal point.
The load vector R(t) is a listing of the horizontal
and vertical force components applied at each nodal
point at time t. Clough 7 has shown that the effective
force induced into a structure by an earthquake
acceleration of l~(t) applied at the base is equal to the
product of the lumped mass at each point and the
ground acceleration. This force acts in the opposite
direction to the ground acceleration. Neglecting
vertical components, and denoting, the horizontal
component by f?~(t), the load vector may be written as:
R(t) = - E~V;(t) (6)
where E ~ is in the form of the mass vector:
 Resonance of retaining walls: M. S. Aggour and C. B. Brown

1~x (7)

IM.
L0
Then the equations of motion at time 't' become:
Mi," + Ci, + Kv = -EXP,(t) (8)
In this study, the dynamic response is evaluated by
the mode-superposition method, the characteristic Case l Case 2 Co~3
equation:
KQ. - og~MQ,, = 0 (9) Figure 4 Finite element idealization of wall

being solved first to obtain the natural frequencies, co,,, Table t

and the undamped free vibration mode shapes Q. The
appropriate damping idealization previously described Frequency
(rad/sec) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
leaves these characteristics unchanged in the damped
system. Second, the transformation: wl 48.8 49.5 49.5
w= 289.3 296.9 297.6
v = QX (10) wa 771.6 772.7 772.7
~= 772.2 786.2 785.7
in which X is the nodal amplitude vector, leads to the Ms 1458.2 1437.6 1431.2
mode shape or 'normal' co-ordinates• Then using ~6 2240.6 2200.8 2184.9
equation (10) in (8), the uncoupled equation of the nth
mode of vibration will be: Q~'M
F,, = T---~------ (12)
2 P,,(t) Q, MQ,,
X,, + 2).,,o),,X,, + (n,,X,, = (11)
m,, for the first shear mode (n = 1) was much higher than
for the higher modes and is the mode shape considered
where M,, = Q~I,MQ,, and P,,(t)= -Q/,'EXP'~(t)
in the results presented.
and 2, is the damping ratio of the nth mode of Five types of analyses were made. Reference
vibration. properties used were:
Solving the normal equation (11) for the response of Modus of elasticity:
each mode by the linear acceleration method of step-
E.~,, = 432 x 10 6 lb/fl z
by-step integration of Wilson and Clough s, and
superimposing the model responses by use of equation Erl, = 72 x 103 lb/ft z
(10) provides the time history of nodal displacements v.
Hence, the time history of strain and stress can be Density: Poisson's ratio:
described. 7,a, = 150 lb/ft a v,=,l = 0.2
A computer program developed by Chopra and
Chakrabarti 9 to perform the above work has been 7s,,il = 125 lb/ft a vs,,, = 0.3
used here• The choice of the number of elements used Damping ratio: 20% Wall Thickness: T = 2 ft
in the soil idealization is important• The criteria
proposed by Idriss s for earth banks has been followed L
Backfill length: ~- = 10 (Figure 3)
here. In the case of the wall, a study of a 20ft high
cantilever wall (T = 2 It) with properties
E = 432 x 106 Ib/ft 2, 7 = 1501b/ft3 and v = 0.2 was Wall height: H = 20ft
conducted. Three different cases were considered, as Wall end conditions: fixed (y = 0), free (y = H)
shown in Figure 4. The effects o n the wall natural Table 2 shows the variations on the above used in
frequency computations are shown in Table 1. There the parameter study and Figure 5 illustrates the
appears to be little gained by going beyond case 2. variation in geometry E. Table 3 provides the
This case was used in the wall modelling. frequencies for these variations.
The information in Table 1 gives the frequencies of
Results a cantilever wall standing alone with T = 2 It, as
49.5 rad/sec. For a foundation wall alone (fixed-fixed)
.'t is recognized that much of the response of a system the corresponding frequency increases to 307.3 rad/sec.
to earthquake excitation is controlled by the lower The dynamic pressures, based on the frequencies of
modes of vibration. In the case of a dam on a rigid Table 3, have also been computed for the five
base Finn and Reimer 6 showed that the response was variations given in Table 2. Figures 6-10 represent
dominated by the first shear mode. In the analysis these dynamic pressures and Figure 11 shows some
performed here the mode participation factor: comparison amongst this range of conditions.

Eng. Struct., 1978, Vol 1, October 5

Resonance of retaining walls: M. S. Aggour and C. B. Brown
Discussion zo
18
The results indicate that the resonant frequency of the
system is insensitive to wall stiffness and end J6 I zs. k]/
conditions (A and C). However, in the second case the
modes will change. The main effect on frequency is E J4
X¢
obtained by altering the fill geometry and material as ~"
4"Oft~i I
illustrated in types B, D and E. The resonance of the ~ i2
system is at a completely different range from that of ~ Jo
the free-standing walls. These computations show that
the system frequencies are, in general, sensitive to fill ~
changes and unaltered by any type of wall change,
provided that the free-standing wall frequency is 6
markedly different from that of the system. 4
The frequency of the system, for L/H = 10 is within
3 % Of the value for L/H = 15. These results indicate z
that extensive backfill lengths can be represented by 0
I I I I I I i I I I I
L/H = 10 with no appreciable effect on the frequency o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I.O 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
of the system. Dynornic pressure on woll,(psi)
The cases studied for pressures show a much more Figure 6 Effect of wall thickness on dynamic pressures, type A
diverse range of results. In all cases the dynamic
interface pressure, #xx(o,y) maintains the inequality of
equation (4) and continuity is ensured. For the zo
Table 2 18

Type Variation Cases 16

A Wall thickness y=
/'1 0.625, y=l,
T= TT3 = 2 14
El ~, E= E3
B Soil stiffness E,,,i~ = ~ = 1,~ = 2, "" 12
2
E-= 4 } ,o
E,~oil

C Wall end conditions 1 ) fixed, fixed, 2) fixed, free -r

6
D Backfill length L~- = 2, ~
~ L=- = 5, ~
L3- = 10, =15
4
E Geometry 1 ) Wedge (Figure 5), 2) Layer
2
Table 3 I I I I
°o 0.2 016 018 ,.0 ,.'2 ,:. ,.6 ,.8 21.0 22
Type Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Dynomic pressureon wall,(psi)
A 6.90 6.93 6.94 Figure 7 Effect of soil stiffness on dynamic pressures. Type B.
B 4.90 6.93 9.79 13.81 E 1 = 36,000 Ib/ft=; E= = 72,000 Ib,~ft=; E= = 144,000 Ib/ft=;
C 6.94 6.93 E,= = 288,000 Ib ft =
D 10.87 7.79 6.93 6.72
E 22.02 6.93
variation of wall thickness (Figure 6), the maximum
pressure does not appear to be sensitive to thickness.

Ill/l/Ill/////////;~ What is evident is that the form of the distribution

changes with the maximum value assuming lower
positions on the wall as the thickness decreases. Thus,
though the maximum shear is not altered by wall
thickness, the bending moment decreases with wall
thickness reduction.
The effects of the soil stiffness (Figure 7) are the
reverse of the wall stiffness change. The stiffer the soil
wo, ----'¢- the lower the bending moment. A possible conclusion
' E xisti ng ground is that the effect of soft soils is much the same as the
effect of very stiff walls. The pressure distribution
approaches linear with zero at the base. In the cases of
flexible walls and very stiff soils, the distributions are
again alike with a maximum near the wall mid-height
and near zero at top and bottom. From a structural
design view-point favourable dynamic pressure
situations will exist when the walls are flexible and the
Figure 5 Cross-section of a soil-wall system fill material stiff.

6 Eng. Struct., 1978, Vol 1, October

 Resonance of retaining walls: M. S. Aggour and C. B. Brown
20
18 18

16
16 • )
/
14
14
----12 Foundation w ~ , , , . ~
== 12
E I0
& 10
z8
= 8
-r 6 /Soi~l layer
antilever wall

J
0
0 0.'2 o'., 0.'6 o18 ,.5 ,12 ,.'4 ;.6 Lh #o 2.~ 2.,
Dynamicpressureonwall,(psi] 0
0 0.2
' 04
0.8
i ' 06
I.O
'.' ,,'2 1.4
' 1.6
' 1.8
' 2.0
' 2.2
Figure 8 Effect of wall end conditions on dynamic pressures, Dynamicpressureon woll,(psi)
type C
Figure 10 Effect of backfill geometry on dynamic pressures,
ZO type E
18

E
16

14 ,.~,./ L.ZH/~//I 20
18
16
3
mo
,...
14 /
=
/
7 " E
12
/
"r
/
6 z
~8

2
0
0 0.5
[ I
1.0
I
1.5 2.0
I
2.5
I
3.0
I /
Dynamicpressureonwall,(psi)
Figure 9 Effect of backfill length on dynamic pressures, type D I I I I I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 8 shows that the pressures on a wall are Dynamic press ure on wall,(psi )
largely unaffected by the boundary conditions used in Figure 11 Summary of dynamic pressureson walls for different
spite of the completely different mode shapes parameters
experienced.
The effect of the geometry of the fill on pressures is between the wall and fill are dealt with as continuous
reflected in Figures 9 and 10. Figure 9 shows that the in the light of the static pressures attained in
pressure on the wall is amplified by the reduction in construction.
the backfill length. Practical parameter studies reveal a range of
Figure 10 provides evidence of a marked decrease in frequencies, pressures and pressure distribution. It is
wall pressure when the fill is confined in a wedge. This expected that these studies will be of help in practical
is analogous to the maximum shears in cantilever and situations.
simply-supported beams with the same loading.
The composite of Figure 11 provides a rather References
gloomy picture from a practical design viewpoint. A
conservative stance will often result in a very I Howells, D. A., Cir. Eng. Public Works Rer., 1972, 67, 793
uneconomical design arrangement. However, to avail 2 Drenick. R. F., J. Eng. Mech. Dir. ASCE, 1970, 96, EM4, 483
oneself of favourable conditions requires analysis of the 3 Aggour, M. S. and Brown, C. B., Geotechnique, 1974, 24, 4.
4 Keightley, W. 0., Bull. Seismo. Sac. Am. 1966, 56, 6, 1207
system rather than the application of prescriptive rules. 5 Wilson, E. L. and CIough, R. W., Syrup. Use Comput. Cir. Eng.,
Lisbon. Portugal, 1962
Conclusion 6 Finn. W. D. L. and Reimer, R. B., Soil Mech. Set.. No. 14.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British
The paper deals with an elastic dynamic analysis of a Columbia. 1970
7 CIough. R. W., Trans. ASCE. 1961, lZ6, IL 847
wall-soil system at resonance. The input accelerations 8 [driss, l. M., Soil Mech. Fdund. Div. ASCE, 1968, 4, SM3, 617
are limited to 0.1 g and the system is viscously damped 9 Chopra, A. K. and Chakrabarti, P., Rep. EERC 70-5, College of
with a 20",, ratio. The critical interface conditions Engineering, University of California

Eng. Struct., 1978, Vol 1, October 7