National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

NCHRP Report 611: Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments (2009)
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Citation Manager

Lam, Ignatius Po, Martin, Geoffrey R, Anderson, Donald G, Wang, Joseph N, Transportation Research Board. "1.1 Overall Project Objectives, Approach, and Schedule." NCHRP Report 611: Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
1
bottomleft bottomright
Page
1
Front Matter (R1-R10)
1.1 Overall Project Objectives, Approach, and Schedule (1-1)
1.2.1 Plans for Implementing the LRFD Design Methodology (2-3)
1.2.2 Overview of Conclusions from Initial Phase of Work (4-4)
1.2.3 Overview of Conclusions from Second Phase of Work (5-6)
1.2.4 Overview of Conclusions from Third Phase of Work (7-7)
1.3.1 Volume 1 - Final Project Report (8-8)
1.3.2 Volume 2 - Recommended Specifications, Commentaries, and Example Problems (9-9)
2.1 Earthquake Design Basis (10-10)
2.2 Literature Search (11-11)
2.2.1 Key References (12-13)
2.2.2 General Observations (14-14)
2.3 DOT, Vendor, and Consultant Contacts (15-16)
2.4 Conclusions (17-17)
3.1.1 Gravity and Semi-Gravity Walls (18-20)
3.1.2 MSE Retaining Walls (21-21)
3.2.1 Seismic Considerations for Soil Slopes (22-22)
3.2.2 Seismic Considerations for Rock Slopes (23-23)
3.3 Buried Structures (24-24)
3.4 Conclusions (25-25)
4.1 Developments for Seismic Ground Motions (26-27)
4.2.1 Generalized Limit Equilibrium Analyses (28-28)
4.2.2 Wall Height-Dependent Seismic Coefficient (29-29)
4.3 Developments for Slopes and Embankments (30-30)
4.4.1 Analysis Procedures for TGD (31-32)
4.5 Summary (33-34)
5.1.1 Update to AASHTO Seismic Ground Motion Criteria (35-37)
5.1.2 Range of Ground Shaking Levels in the United States for Referenced Soft Rock (38-38)
5.1.3 Variation in Spectral Shapes for Soil and Rock Sites in WUS versus CEUS (39-40)
5.2.2 Description of Ground Motion Database (41-41)
5.2.4 Microsoft Access Database (42-42)
5.2.7 Newmark Sliding Block Displacement Correlations (43-45)
5.2.8 Comparison Between Correlations (46-47)
5.2.9 Confidence Level (48-48)
5.3 Correlation of PGV with S1 (49-53)
5.4 Conclusions (54-54)
6.1.1 Scattering Analyses for a Slope (55-62)
6.1.2 Scattering Analyses for Retaining Walls (63-65)
6.2 Conclusions (66-67)
7.1 Current Design Practice (68-70)
7.2.1 Seismic Active Earth Pressures (71-72)
7.2.2 Seismic Passive Earth Pressures (73-73)
7.3.2 Results of M-O Analyses for Soils with Cohesion (74-74)
7.3.3 Implication to Design (75-75)
7.5 Height-Dependent Seismic Design Coefficients (76-76)
7.5.1 Evaluation of Impedance Contrasts and Soil Behavior (77-78)
7.5.2 Results of Impedance Contrast and Nonlinearity Evaluations (79-80)
7.6 Displacement-Based Design for Gravity, Semi Gravity, and MSE Walls (81-81)
7.7 Conventional Gravity and Semi-Gravity Walls - Recommended Design Method for External Stability (82-83)
7.8.2 MSE Walls - Design Method for External Stability (84-86)
7.8.3 MSE Walls - Design Method for Internal Stability (87-87)
7.9.1 Nongravity Cantilever Walls (88-90)
7.9.2 Anchored Walls (91-92)
7.9.3 Soil Nail Walls (93-93)
7.10 Conclusions (94-95)
8.1.1 Engineered Slopes and Embankments (96-96)
8.2.1 Limit Equilibrium Approach (97-98)
8.2.2 Displacement-Based Approach (99-99)
8.3 Proposed Design Methodology (100-100)
8.4.1 Problem Description (101-101)
8.5.1 Limit Equilibrium Design Methods (102-102)
8.5.3 Liquefaction Potential (103-103)
8.6 Conclusions (104-104)
9.2 Culvert/Pipe Characteristics (105-105)
9.3 General Effects of Earthquakes and Potential Failure Modes (106-106)
9.3.1 Ground Shaking (107-107)
9.4 Current Seismic Design Practice for Culverts or Other Buried Structures (108-108)
9.5.1 Ovaling of Circular Conduits (109-112)
9.5.2 Racking of Rectangular Conduits (113-114)
9.6.2 Model Assumptions and Results (115-128)
9.7 Conclusions and Recommendations (129-130)
10.2 Retaining Walls (131-131)
10.3 Slopes and Embankments (132-132)
10.5 Need for Confirming Methods (133-133)
References (134-136)
Appendices (137-137)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (138-138)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This Final Report summarizes work that was carried out on · Optimizing design approaches for both routine design and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) special design cases using more comprehensive methods; Project 12-70 Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, · Avoiding hidden conservatism in design approaches; Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments. This project in- · Ensuring applicability of specifications to seismic zones volved an effort to develop analysis and design methods and nationwide, including provisions for "no seismic design" recommended load and resistance factor design (LRFD) spec- in low seismicity regions; and ifications for the seismic design of retaining walls, slopes and · Satisfying LRFD philosophy and providing flexibility in embankments, and buried structures. establishing serviceability criteria. 1.1 Overall Project Objectives, The approach for the Project initially focused on data col- Approach, and Schedule lection and review during Task 1, leading to the documentation The overall objectives of the Project were to develop analysis of problems and knowledge gaps in Task 2. The problems and and design methods and to prepare LRFD specifications and ex- knowledge gaps identified in Task 2 were used to recommend ample problems for the design of retaining walls, slopes and em- analytical methodology developments in Task 3, and a detailed bankments, and buried structures. These overall objectives were work plan in Task 4. The results of these four tasks were intended to address short-comings in AASHTO LRFD Bridge summarized in Task 5, the first Interim Report. This phase of Design Specifications or in some cases the absence of a recom- the work occurred within the first 9 months of the planned mended design methodology in the LRFD Specifications. 39-month project duration. The approach used to address these two objectives was out- Following submittal of the first Interim Report and the lined in a Working Plan submitted by the Project Team to NCHRP Oversight Panel's review and approval of the work NCHRP in May of 2004. The Working Plan is based on CH2M plan described in the first Interim Report, the approved work HILL's proposal to NCHRP in November of 2003, with mod- plan was implemented in Task 6. An outline of the LRFD ifications summarized in Attachment 2 of CH2M HILL's letter specifications was prepared in Task 7, and the results of the dated January 13, 2004, to Dr. Robert Reilly of the Transporta- analytical developments and LRFD specification outline were tion Research Board. Also included in this Working Plan was summarized in Task 8, which was identified as the second In- a Progress Schedule tied to the Project start date of March 29, terim Report. The submittal of the second Interim Report 2004, and a Table of Deliverables for this Project. A copy of concluded Phase 1 of the Project. The schedule for complet- the Working Plan for the Project is included in Appendix A ing the second Interim Report was originally planned to be to Volume 1 of this Final Report. approximately 22 months after the initiation of the Project; Five fundamental goals were identified during the plan- however, actual work took approximately 24 months. ning of the Project in 2004. These goals formed the basis for Phase 2 was initiated upon completion of Task 8. This the work that was to be done during each Project activity. The phase involved Task Orders 9-12, where specifications, com- five goals involved mentaries, and example problems were prepared and sub- mitted to the NCHRP Oversight Panel for review. The third · Improving existing or developing new analytical methods Interim Report provided the first draft of the specifications, to overcome the shortcomings of existing technology, commentaries, and example problems, in accordance with based on sound soil-structure interaction principles; the requirements of Task 10. Following receipt of comments