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. "2.2 Literature Search." 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
11
bottomleft bottomright
Page
11
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 11
11 12-70 Project. Specifically, ground motions associated with the basis also needed to be considered by the NCHRP 12-70 Proj- 1,000-year return period could be used to identify the following: ect or at least be coordinated with future work being done to implement the NCHRP 20-07 Project recommendations: · Geographic areas that will not require special seismic design studies. For these areas there will be enough margin in the · The shape of the spectrum to be used for design. Significant static design of retaining walls, slopes and embankments, differences in spectral shapes occur between CEUS and and buried structures to accommodate seismic loading, WUS. These differences in spectral shape affect soil response unless special conditions (such as liquefaction) occur. in terms of either peak spectral acceleration or time histories · The type of analyses that will be required in more seismically from which design computations or response analyses are active areas. For example, the decrease from the 2,500-year conducted. The previous AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design return period proposed in the NCHRP 12-49 Project to the Specifications made no distinction between spectral shapes 1,000-year return period resulted in smaller increases in within the CEUS and WUS. The updated maps use the ground motions. This meant that nonlinear behavior of soil USGS Seismic Hazard Maps for a 1,000-year return period, was not as significant in any proposed design methodology thereby accounting for differences in spectral shape of as it would have been for the original NCHRP 12-49 Project characteristic earthquakes in CEUS versus WUS. recommendations. · The method of introducing site effects on the rock motions developed for the 1,000-year earthquake return periods. The Another important recommendation made as part of the former site categories in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design NCHRP 20-07 Project was to follow an NCHRP 12-49 recom- Specifications were too qualitative in description to allow mendation to use the spectral acceleration from a response consistent use. The new site factors followed recommenda- spectrum at 1 second (S1), rather than the PGA, as the param- tions given in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's eter for defining the seismic performance category. The spec- (FEMA) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program tral acceleration at 1 second was used for determining both the (NEHRP) reports and the International Building Code level of and the requirement for design analyses. Part of the (IBC) documents, similar to what was recommended by motivation for this change was the observation that damage the NCHRP 12-49 Project and consistent with South Car- olina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) guidelines during earthquakes was better correlated to S1 than to PGA. prepared by Imbsen & Associates. By adopting S1 as the parameter for determining the level of · Performance expectation for the retaining walls, embank- and the requirements for design, the region where the thresh- ments and slopes, and buried structures under the 1,000-year old of seismic demand would be sufficiently low to avoid the event. For this event the amount of acceptable deformation need for specialized seismic demand analyses increased. There depended on factors such as the potential consequences of have been significant developments in the seismological com- the deformation (that is, to the retaining wall, roadway munity in the past 10 years which concluded that the seismo- embankment or cut slope, or culvert), the potential need for logical environment in CEUS differs from WUS in regards to and cost of repair, and the additional design requirements the long-period content of earthquake ground shaking. For associated with the performance evaluation. A single set of the same PGA, ground motion records from CEUS have much design guidelines that captured all of these factors was not lower shaking intensity at longer periods of ground motion. easily developed. The choice of using spectral acceleration at 1 second held the potential for minimizing the need for dynamic response analyses for many transportation structures. 2.2 Literature Search In order to simplify integration of the results of the NCHRP Literature reviews were conducted for the three primary 12-70 Project with future editions of the AASHTO LRFD technical areas of the Project: retaining walls, slopes and Bridge Design Specifications, developments resulting from the embankments, and buried structures. The goal of the literature NCHRP 20-07 Project served as the basis when formulating review was to do the following: analysis requirements for retaining walls, slopes and embank- ments, and buried structures. The relevant analysis require- · Identify the state-of-the practice in each of the areas of ments included typical levels of ground shaking and spectral consideration, shapes for WUS and CEUS, which then defined the demand · Understand the basis for the methods being applied, requirements for completing the design of retaining walls, including their assumptions and limitations, slopes and embankments, and buried structures. · Investigate alternative approaches that might be adopted While the preliminary decision on return period addressed during the development of analytical methodologies, one critical design need for the NCHRP 12-70 Project, the · Establish some of the desirable features of analytical meth- following additional changes regarding the earthquake design ods that should be considered for development, and