Applied Ocean Research 29 (2007) 37–44

www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Design of waterfront retaining wall for the passive case under earthquake
and tsunami
Deepankar Choudhury ∗ , Syed Mohd. Ahmad
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India

Received 12 February 2007; received in revised form 5 August 2007; accepted 5 August 2007
Available online 7 September 2007

Abstract

The paper pertains to a study of analysing a waterfront retaining wall under the combined action of tsunami and earthquake forces. The stability
of the waterfront retaining wall is assessed in terms of its sliding and overturning modes of failure. Pseudo-static approach has been used for the
calculation of the passive seismic earth pressure. Hydrodynamic pressure generated behind the backfill due to shaking of the wet backfill soil is
considered in the analysis. Tsunami force is considered to be an additional force acting on the upstream face of the wall and is calculated using a
simple formula. It is observed that the factor of safety in sliding mode of failure decreases by about 70% when the ratio of tsunami water height to
initial water height is changed from 0.375 to 1.125. Variations of different parameters involved in the analysis suggest sensitiveness of the factor
of safety against both the sliding and overturning modes of failure of the wall and provides a better guideline for design.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic passive earth pressure; Wall inertia; Hydrodynamic pressure; Factor of safety; Sliding; Overturning

1. Introduction engineers. In spite of being so important and relevant to the

civil engineering fraternity, the available literature suggests that
Tsunamis triggered by an earthquake (or otherwise too) the area of study is not thoroughly researched and whatever has
cause severe damage to the waterfront retaining structures. previously been done in this area is generally confined to the
From the point of view of a geotechnical engineer, one of consideration of the above mentioned forces individually i.e.
the important structures situated at the waterfront, which gets one at a time acting on the retaining structures.
affected due to the combined action of an earthquake and
For example, many researchers in the past considered the
a tsunami is a retaining wall. Sheth et al. [1] had reported
problem of retaining wall to compute the seismic lateral
the recent events of tsunami and subsequent damages to the
earth pressure and had given different solutions based on
waterfront retaining structures at the Indian sub-continent in
different approaches. The work of Okabe [2] and Mononobe
December 2004. The combination of earthquake and tsunami
and Matsuo [3] by adopting the pseudo-static seismic
forces on a waterfront retaining wall severely challenges its
accelerations (commonly known as Mononobe–Okabe method;
stability, both in terms of sliding and overturning modes of
see Kramer [4]) is the pioneering work in this field and
failure.
A typical waterfront retaining wall subjected to earthquake is generally used worldwide. Approximate elastic solutions
and tsunami is basically under: the seismic forces, the were given by Matsuo and Ohara [5]; while limit equilibrium
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures, and the tsunami analyses were considered by Richards and Elms [6]; Choudhury
force. Due to the complications of the combination of these and Nimbalkar [7,8]. In the recent past, Morrison and
forces simultaneously, the design of the waterfront retaining Ebeling [9], Choudhury and Subba Rao [10], Choudhury
wall becomes more complicated and challenging to the civil et al. [11], Subba Rao and Choudhury [12], Choudhury and
Nimbalkar [13], Nimbalkar and Choudhury [14] proposed
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 2576 7335 (O), 8335 (R); fax: +91 22 the seismic design of a retaining wall under passive earth
2576 7302. pressure condition. However, these theories considered only the
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Choudhury). seismic earth pressures, acting on the retaining wall subjected

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-1187/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.apor.2007.08.001
38 D. Choudhury, S.M. Ahmad / Applied Ocean Research 29 (2007) 37–44

Notations
b, H width and height of the wall
ht tsunami water height
h wd , h wu height of the water on downstream and
upstream sides of the wall
Fd , Fr total driving and resisting forces
FSo , FSs factor of safety against overturning and sliding
modes of failure
FSoEM , FSsEM factor of safety against overturning and
sliding modes of failure by Ebeling and
Morrison’s approach [16]
kh , kv horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration Fig. 1. Typical waterfront retaining wall subjected to different forces during
coefficients earthquake and tsunami.
K a constant = 0.5K pe γ̄ (1 − kv ) (1 − ru )
K0 a constant = 0.5K 0pe γ̄ (1 − kv ) (1 − ru ) past, but unlike the case of hydrodynamic pressure, the seismic
K pe seismic passive earth pressure coefficient from lateral earth pressure was not considered in the analysis. For
Subba Rao and Choudhury’s approach [12] example, Hinwood [21] discussed the effect of tsunami forces
K 0pe seismic passive earth pressure coefficient calcu- and suggested expression for the calculation of the tsunami
lated using Mononobe–Okabe’s approach (see force on the retaining structure and other coastal structures, but
Kramer [4]) did not consider the effect of seismic earth pressures. Simplified
Pdyn hydrodynamic pressure expressions for the calculation of tsunami force on the vertical
Ppe seismic passive earth resistance/force face of rigid walls were also given by CRATER [22] and
Pstd , Pstu hydrostatic pressure on downstream and up- Yeh [23].
stream sides of the wall Hence the combined effect of the seismic forces, hydrostatic
Pt force due to tsunami and hydrodynamic forces and tsunami force acting on the
ru pore pressure ratio waterfront retaining wall during earthquake and tsunami is not
Ww weight of the wall yet well investigated. The present study describes a simplified
y point of application of Ppe design approach in which the stability of a typical waterfront
δ, φ wall and soil friction angle retaining wall subjected to the earthquake and tsunami forces is
γc specific weight of concrete checked in terms of its sliding and overturning modes of failure
γd , γsat dry and saturated specific weight of the soil under passive case of earth pressure, which is one of the most
γw specific weight of water critical case for failure of waterfront retaining wall.
γwe , γ̄ equivalent specific weight of water and soil due
2. Method of analysis
to submergence
µ coefficient of base friction A typical waterfront retaining wall with vertical face having
width ‘b’ and height ‘H ’ is shown in Fig. 1. It retains backfill
to earthquake only with dry-soil condition. Chakrabarti et al. to its full height on one side, referred as ‘downstream side’ and
[15] were probably the first researchers who took into account water to a height of ‘h wu ’ on the other side, called as ‘upstream
both the seismic lateral earth pressure and additional water side’ of the wall. The ground surface of the backfill (submerged
pressure generated due to seismic shaking of the water on to a level ‘h wd ’) is assumed to be horizontal. During the
the quay wall. But again, this theory dealt with only the occurrence of a tsunami (which may be due to an earthquake
hydrodynamic pressure on the waterfront retaining wall, in or otherwise too), there may be a rise in the water level on the
addition to the seismic lateral earth pressure and the tsunami upstream face of the wall; this rise is denoted as ‘h t ’ in Fig. 1.
force was not considered in the analysis. Other researchers like The wall is subjected to the lateral seismic earth pressure,
Ebeling and Morrison [16], Kim et al. [17], and Nozu et al. seismic inertia force on the wall, hydrodynamic pressure (on the
[18] also studied the effect of hydrodynamic pressure on the downstream face), hydrostatic pressure (both on the upstream
waterfront retaining wall along with the seismic earth pressure and downstream sides), and force due to tsunami on the
under earthquake condition. Solutions for the interaction of upstream face. The respective points of application of these
tsunami with coastal defence structures were presented by forces and pressures are shown in Fig. 1, while the calculation
Silva et al. [19], while Bullock et al. [20] detailed the wave of these above mentioned forces is detailed in the following
impact characteristics by conducting the experiments for impact sections.
pressures and forces breaking on the vertical and inclined walls 2.1. Seismic passive earth pressure
and concluded that the largest impact pressure occur near the
still water level. Considering the action of the tsunami force During the tsunami, the wall moves towards the downstream
on the waterfront retaining wall, there have been studies in the side of the wall, i.e. towards the backfill, which is going
 D. Choudhury, S.M. Ahmad / Applied Ocean Research 29 (2007) 37–44 39

to be the most critical case in terms of the stability of as shown in Fig. 1. It acts at a height of 0.4h wd from the base
the waterfront retaining wall. Hence, for the similar type of of the wall [16].
the wall movement, passive case of earth pressure is going
to be generated on the wall. To account for the effects of 2.4. Hydrostatic pressure
submergence of the backfill and excess pore pressure, the
Due to the presence of water, both on the upstream
expression for the total seismic passive earth pressure on
and downstream faces of the wall, there will be hydrostatic
the wall is modified after Ebeling and Morrison [16] and
pressures acting on the wall. On upstream face it is calculated
Kramer [4] and is given as
as,
1 1
Ppe = K pe H 2 γ̄ (1 − kv )(1 − ru ), (1) Pstu = γw (h wu )2 . (4)
2 2
where, γ̄ is the equivalent unit weight of the backfill soil due to For calculating the hydrostatic pressure on the wall from the
submergence and is given as downstream side (Pstd ), γw in Eq. (4) is replaced by γwe [16],
 ! which can be calculated as,
h wd 2 h wd 2
  
γ̄ = γsat + 1 − γd . (2) γwe = γw + (γ̄ − γw ) ru . (5)
H H
The values of the seismic passive earth pressure coefficient Thus,
(K pe ) are taken from Choudhury and Subba Rao [10] and 1
Subba Rao and Choudhury [12] with the point of application Pstd = γwe (h wd )2 . (6)
2
of the seismic passive forces acting on the wall by considering h wu h wd
the composite (logspiral + planar) failure surface instead of Pstu and Pstd respectively acting at heights of 3 and 3
the planar failure surface considered by Mononobe–Okabe (see from the base of the wall.
Kramer [4]). Because, as proposed by Terzaghi [24], for the 2.5. Force due to tsunami
passive case of earth pressure, mostly the curved rupture surface
is generated instead of planar failure surface. Upstream face of the wall will be subjected to a tsunami. As
It is to be noted that the pore pressure ratio (ru ), which is per CRATER [22] this total tsunami force per unit length of the
defined as the ratio of excess pore pressure to the initial vertical wall is given as,
stress, incorporated in Eq. (1) above is a simplified way [16] of
simulating the effect of the excess pore pressure generated due Pt = 4.5γw (h t )2 . (7)
to cyclic shaking of the soil during an earthquake. This force acts at mid-height of the tsunami water height
(i.e., acting at h t /2).
2.2. Seismic inertia force on the wall
3. Stability of the wall
Due to the earthquake, wall will also experience additional
seismic forces due to the inertia of the wall, which need to be Adopting the limit equilibrium method, the stability of the
considered in the analysis. These seismic wall inertia forces are wall is checked for both the sliding and overturning modes of
assumed to be pseudo-static in nature and are given by kv Ww failure. The expressions of factor of safety for each of these two
and kh Ww for the vertical and horizontal directions respectively. modes of failure of the wall are derived as given in the following
Depending upon the direction of the vertical and horizontal sections.
seismic acceleration coefficients (kv and kh ), there could be four
possible combinations of these pseudo-static wall inertia forces, 3.1. Factor of safety against sliding mode of failure
however only the critical combination for the design is shown
Considering the equilibrium of all the forces acting in the
in Fig. 1.
horizontal direction (Fig. 1), one can write
2.3. Hydrodynamic pressure Total resisting force,

Fr = µ Ww − kv Ww − Ppe sin δ + Pstd + Ppe cos δ.

(8)
Due to the seismic shaking of the standing water, the
total hydrodynamic pressure (Pdyn ) will be generated, which Total driving force,
is calculated by using the following formula proposed by
Fd = Pstu + Pt + kh Ww + Pdyn . (9)
Westergaard [25],
The factor of safety (FSs ) of the wall against sliding mode
7
Pdyn = kh γw (h wd )2 . (3) of failure can now be written as,
12
Fr
This hydrodynamic pressure (see Kramer [4]) is assumed to FSs =
Fd
act on the downstream side of the wall. For analysing the worst
µ Ww − kv Ww − Ppe sin δ + Pstd + Ppe cos δ


case with respect to the stability of the wall, this pressure is
= (10)
considered along with the disturbing forces coming on the wall Pstu + Pt + kh Ww + Pdyn
40 D. Choudhury, S.M. Ahmad / Applied Ocean Research 29 (2007) 37–44

where, µ = coefficient of base friction, and Ww = weight of

the retaining wall = bH γc . Substituting different values from
Eqs. (1), (3), (4), (6) and (7) in Eq. (10), and writing in non-
dimensional form (for the generalized design purpose), the final
simplified expression for the factor of safety of the retaining
wall against sliding mode of failure (FSs ) is,
 2
µ γc (1 − kv ) − K sin δ + 12 γwe hHwd + K cos δ
b


H
FSs =  2   2  , 2
h wu h wd
H
1
2 γ we + 4.5γ w
ht
h wu + k h
b
H γ c + 7
12 k h γw H

(11)
where, K is a constant = 0.5K pe γ̄ (1 − kv ) (1 − ru ).
Fig. 2. Factor of safety against sliding mode of failure for different h t / h wu
values.
3.2. Factor of safety against overturning mode of failure

Similarly, by considering that the total seismic passive earth

pressure (Ppe ) acts at height ‘y’ above the base of the wall,
the expression for the factor of safety against overturning mode
of failure of the wall (FSo ) in simplified non-dimensional form
can be written as,
h wd 3
 
b 2 γ (1 − k ) + 1 γ
 
1 + K y cos δ
H2 c v 6 we H
FSo =  .
3  2   h wd 3

h wu ht 1 h t + 1 + 1 k b γ + 2.8 k γ
 
1 γ + 4.5γ
H 6 w w h wu 2 h wu 2 h H c 12 h w H

(12)

In Eqs. (11) and (12), the values of the seismic passive

earth pressure coefficient (K pe ) and the point of application
Fig. 3. Factor of safety against overturning mode of failure for different
(y) of the total seismic passive earth pressure (Ppe ) are
h t / h wu values.
dependent on different combinations of soil friction angle (φ),
wall friction angle (δ) and vertical and horizontal seismic
acceleration coefficients (kv and kh ). Both of these values are the present study, an attempt to find the stability of the wall
taken from Choudhury and Subba Rao [10] and Subba Rao and under the combined action of all the above forces has been
Choudhury [12]. Eqs. (11) and (12) can be easily used for the made. Results obtained from the proposed methodology shows
design of the section of the waterfront retaining wall subjected the simple design technique for the typical waterfront retaining
to the combined seismic (both passive earth pressure and wall wall subjected to combined action of earthquake and tsunami
inertia), hydrostatic, hydrodynamic and tsunami forces. forces.
It can be mentioned that for computation of the
hydrodynamic pressure and the tsunami force, already existing 4. Results and discussions
individual empirical formulae are used in the present study.
For example, the calculation of the hydrodynamic pressure The stability of the wall can be predicted by substituting
is carried out by the proposed method of Westergaard [25] the practically acceptable values of the different parameters
and subsequent use of the same method by other researchers involved in Eqs. (11) and (12). The values and ranges of these
like Ebeling and Morrison [16], Kramer [4], and Choudhury parameters for the present study are shown in Table 1. Effects of
and Ahmad [26]. Similarly, the chosen empirical formula these parameters on both the sliding as well as the overturning
for calculation of the tsunami force in the present study is stability are presented in Figs. 2–13.
taken from CRATER [22], which was also used by The US
Army Corps of Engineers [27]. Though the above empirical 4.1. Effect of the tsunami water height (h t )
relations are suffering from the inherent limitations like any
other empirical relation, but still can be used for the estimation Figs. 2 and 3 respectively present the effect of tsunami water
of the tsunami force and hydrodynamic pressure on the vertical height on the factor of safety against sliding and overturning
wall. However, for the estimation of seismic earth pressure, modes of failure of the wall. It is observed from these Figs. 2
conventional closed-form solution is used (see Choudhury and and 3 that as the ratio of tsunami water height to the water
Subba Rao [10], Subba Rao and Choudhury [12]) and for height on the upstream face (h t / h wu ) increases, there is a
the wall inertia component the procedure adopted by Ebeling significant decrease in the value of the factor of safety. As
and Morrison [16] is used individually in the present study. an illustration from Fig. 2, for the typical values of b/H =
Considering the limitations of the above individual methods, in 0.2, h wu /H = 0.4, h wd /H = 0.75, φ = 30◦ , δ = φ/2,
 D. Choudhury, S.M. Ahmad / Applied Ocean Research 29 (2007) 37–44 41

Fig. 4. Factor of safety against sliding mode of failure for different h wd /H Fig. 7. Factor of safety against overturning mode of failure for different φ
values. values.

Fig. 5. Factor of safety against overturning mode of failure for different

Fig. 8. Factor of safety against sliding mode of failure for different δ values.
h wd /H values.

Fig. 6. Factor of safety against sliding mode of failure for different φ values. Fig. 9. Factor of safety against overturning mode of failure for different δ
values.
Table 1
Values/Range of different parameters chosen for the present study kv = kh /2, ru = 0.2, kh = 0.2, and h t / h wu = 0.375, the factor
of safety against sliding mode of failure of the wall is 6.68,
Parameter Value/Range
while for the same combination of all the parameters it gets
b/H 0.2 reduced to around 2.00 when the value of h t / h wu is increased
h t / h wu 0 (no tsunami), 0.375, 0.750, 1.125, 1.500
h wd /H 0 (dry), 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 (fully wet) to 1.125. Hence, about 70% decrease in the factor of safety
φ (◦ ) 25, 30, 35, 40 against the sliding mode of failure occurs for an increase in
δ (◦ ) −φ/2, 0, φ/2 h t / h wu from 0.375 to 1.125. A similar trend is noted against
kh 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 the overturning mode of failure also (Fig. 3). This important
kv 0, kh /2, kh
observation prompts the judicious selection of the wall section
ru 0, 0.2, 0.4
γc , γsat , γd , γw (kN/m3 ) 25, 19, 16 and 10 respectively of the retaining wall situated at the waterfront as the increase in
tsunami water height seriously challenges the wall stability.
42 D. Choudhury, S.M. Ahmad / Applied Ocean Research 29 (2007) 37–44

Fig. 10. Factor of safety against sliding mode of failure for different kv values. Fig. 13. Factor of safety against overturning mode of failure for different ru
values.

4.3. Effect of submergence of the backfill (h wd )

The backfill submergence gives rise to the additional

hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures on the wall. For the
present case, any additional water pressure coming from the
backfill side would tend to act as a stabilizing force for the
passive case. This is presented in Figs. 4 and 5 for the sliding
and overturning modes of failure of the wall respectively. As
can be observed from Fig. 4, the factor of safety against sliding
mode of failure of the wall for typical values of b/H = 0.2,
h wu /H = 0.4, h t / h ws = 1.125, φ = 30◦ , δ = φ/2, kh = 0.1,
kv = kh /2, ru = 0.2 and h wd /H = 0.0 (i.e. dry backfill) is
Fig. 11. Factor of safety against overturning mode of failure for different kv 2.18; while it increases to 2.94 when the ratio of h wd /H =
values.
1.00 (fully wet backfill). The similar trend is observed for the
overturning mode of failure (Fig. 5).

4.4. Effect of soil friction angle (φ)

Figs. 6 and 7 respectively show the variation of factor of

safety against the sliding and overturning modes of failure for
different φ values. With the increase in the value of φ from
25◦ to 40◦ , there is 83% increase in the factor of safety against
the sliding mode of failure (Fig. 6) for kh = 0.1, b/H = 0.2,
h wu /H = 0.4, h t / h wu = 1.125, h wd /H = 0.75, δ = φ/2,
kv = kh /2, ru = 0.2. The rate of decrease in factor of safety
value with decrease in the value of soil friction angle φ is nearly
constant for all values of kh and is true for the overturning case
Fig. 12. Factor of safety against sliding mode of failure for different ru values.
also (Fig. 7).
4.2. Effect of horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient (kh )
4.5. Effect of wall friction angle (δ)
The effect of the horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient
on the factor of safety against sliding and overturning modes of Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the effect of wall friction angle
failure of the wall can be interpreted from Figs. 2 and 3. It is (δ) on the sliding and overturning stability of the wall. It is
observed that for the typical values of b/H = 0.2, h wu /H = observed that as δ increases from −φ/2 to φ/2, the stability
0.4, h wd /H = 0.75, φ = 30◦ , δ = φ/2, kv = kh /2, ru = 0.2, of the wall increases. For example, for kh = 0.1, b/H = 0.2,
h t / h wu = 0.75, and for kh = 0.1, the factor of safety against h ws /H = 0.4, h t / h wu = 1.125, h wd /H = 0.75, φ = 30◦ ,
sliding mode of failure is 4.94 (Fig. 2), and it gets reduced to kv = kh /2 and ru = 0.2 in Fig. 8, the factor of safety against
1.64 when kh is increased to a value of 0.4. Similarly for the the sliding mode is 1.83 when δ is −φ/2 and increases to 2.61
overturning mode of failure and for the same combination of the when δ is changed to φ/2, i.e., an increase of about 42.6% in
parameters, the factor of safety for kh = 0.1 is 3.69, reducing the factor of safety value for a change in δ from −φ/2 to φ/2.
to a value of 1.07 for an increase in the kh value to 0.4. For the overturning mode (Fig. 9), the similar trend is observed.
 D. Choudhury, S.M. Ahmad / Applied Ocean Research 29 (2007) 37–44 43

4.6. Effect of the vertical seismic acceleration coefficient (kv ) Terzaghi [24], Choudhury and Subba Rao [10] and Subba
Rao and Choudhury [12]). Correcting this error, in the present
The vertical seismic acceleration coefficient (kv ) has study, the curved rupture surface is used for computation of
significant effect on the factor of safety against sliding and seismic passive earth pressure. Hence, it can be seen that, the
overturning modes of failure of the wall. In Fig. 10 for an equations of factor of safety under sliding mode of failure
increase in the vertical seismic acceleration coefficient (kv ) viz. Eqs. (11) and (13) by the present study and the same
from 0 to kh , the factor of safety against sliding mode reduces given by Ebeling and Morrison [16] are found to be identical
(for kh = 0.3, b/H = 0.2, h wu /H = 0.4, h t / h wu = 1.125, in the absence of tsunami force (i.e. h t = 0). Similarly, the
h wd /H = 0.75, φ = 30◦ , δ = φ/2, ru = 0.2) by about equations of factor of safety under overturning mode of failure
43%. Overturning mode of failure of the wall shows the similar viz. Eqs. (12) and (14) by the present study and the same
behaviour as can be seen from Fig. 11. given by Ebeling and Morrison [16] are identical in absence
of tsunami force (i.e. h t = 0) as expected. The only variation
4.7. Effect of the pore pressure ratio (ru )
in results can be attributed to the fact of using different failure
Effect of the pore pressure ratio (ru ) on the stability against surfaces in the two analyses. Hence, it validates the use of the
sliding and overturning modes of failure of the wall is shown in proposed methodology for the design of waterfront retaining
Figs. 12 and 13 respectively. For the sliding case, it is observed wall under earthquake condition, however, the consideration of
that for kh = 0.2, b/H = 0.2, h wu /H = 0.4, h t / h wu = 1.125, the combined effect of the earthquake and tsunami force for the
h wd /H = 0.75, φ = 30◦ , δ = φ/2, kv = kh /2, when ru is present design methodology seems to produce unique result as
increased from 0 to 0.4, the factor of safety decreases from 2.4 already mentioned.
to 1.7. A similar trend is observed for the overturning mode of
6. Conclusions
failure also (Fig. 13).
The present study gives a design methodology for analysing
5. Comparison of results
the waterfront retaining wall subjected to both the earthquake
Literature review showed that no previous work has and tsunami forces simultaneously against the sliding and
been done in which the combination of both the tsunami overturning modes of failure. Through a simple analytical
and earthquake forces are considered simultaneously on the approach, the present work shows that the stability of
waterfront retaining wall during earthquake and tsunami. the waterfront retaining wall decreases significantly when
However, as mentioned earlier, the work done by Ebeling subjected to the earthquake and tsunami forces. From the
and Morrison [16] presents the design of a typical waterfront typical parametric study, it is observed that for an increase
retaining wall subjected to the seismic passive earth pressure, in h t / h wu from 0.375 to 1.125, there is a decrease of about
seismic wall inertia force and the hydrodynamic and hydrostatic 70% in the factor of safety value against the sliding mode of
pressures. But no tsunami force was considered in that analysis. failure of the wall. The factor of safety against sliding mode of
Rewriting the expressions in terms of non-dimensional failure gets reduced from 4.94 to 1.64 when an increase in the
parameters, the factors of safety in both the sliding and horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient (kh ) is made from
overturning modes of failures using the methodology proposed 0.1 to 0.4; while there is a 43% reduction in the factor of safety
by Ebeling and Morrison [16] can be given by Eqs. (13) and value against sliding mode when vertical seismic acceleration
(14). The expression for the factor of safety in sliding mode of coefficient (kv ) is increased from 0 to kh . The soil friction angle
(φ) of the backfill also has significant effect on the stability of
failure (FSsEM ) is,
the wall as can be observed from a change in the value of the
2
factor of safety against sliding mode of failure by about 83%

µ b
γc (1 − kv ) − K sin δ + 21 γwe hHwd + K 0 cos δ


H
FSsEM =  2  2 . for a change in φ from 25◦ to 40◦ ; while on changing the soil
2 γw
1 h wu
H + kh Hb γc + 12
7
kh γw hHwd friction angle (δ) from −φ/2 to φ/2, the factor of safety against
(13) sliding mode of failure increases by 42.6%. On increasing the
pore pressure ratio (ru ) from 0 to 0.4, the factor of safety against
Similarly, the factor of safety for the overturning mode of failure mode of failure gets reduced from 2.4 to 1.7. For all the typical
(FSoEM ) is, values, similar trends are observed for the overturning mode
 3 of failure of the wall. Present method matches well with the
1 b 2 h wd
γ (1 ) 1
γ + K 0 y cos δ


2 H c − k v + 6 we H existing method under earthquake condition, however, due to
FSoEM =  3  3 , non availability of the results under the combined action of
h wd
1
6 γw
h wu
H + 1
2 k h
b
H γ c + 2.8
12 k h γ w H earthquake and tsunami, the present study seems to develop
(14) a new simplified design technique for the waterfront retaining
wall.
where, K 0 is a constant = 0.5K 0pe γ̄ (1 − kv ) (1 − ru ) with
K 0pe is the seismic passive earth pressure coefficient calculated References
using the Mononobe–Okabe’s pseudo-static method (see [1] Sheth A, Sanyal S, Jaiswal A, Gandhi P. Effects of the December 2004
Kramer [4]). However, the use of planar rupture surface for Indian ocean tsunami on the Indian Mainland. Earthquake Spectra 2006;
the computation of passive earth pressure is erroneous (see 22(S3):s435–73.
44 D. Choudhury, S.M. Ahmad / Applied Ocean Research 29 (2007) 37–44

[2] Okabe S. General theory of earth pressure. Journal of the Japanese Society seismic design criteria for category I cofferdams. Nuclear Engineering
of Civil Engineers 1924;12(1). and Design 1978;45:277–83.
[3] Mononobe N, Matsuo H. On the determination of earth pressures during [16] Ebeling RM, Morrison EE Jr. The seismic design of waterfront retaining
earthquakes. In: Proceeding of the world engineering congress. 1929. p. structures. US Army Technical Report ITL-92-11, Washington DC, 1992.
177–85. [17] Kim S, Jang I, Chung C, Kim M. Evaluation of seismic displacements
[4] Kramer SL. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. New Jersey: Pearson of quay walls. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
Education Inc.; 1996. geotechnical engineering for disaster mitigation & rehabilitation. 2005.
[5] Matsuo H, Ohara S. Lateral earthquake pressure and stability of quay p. 84–93.
walls during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of second world conference on [18] Nozu A, Ichii K, Sugano T. Seismic design of port structures. Journal
earthquake engineering. 1960. p. 165–73. of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering 2004;4(3-special issue):
[6] Richards Jr R, Elms DG. Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls. 195–208.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1979;105(4):449–69. [19] Silva R, Losada IJ, Losada MA. Reflection and transmission of tsunami
[7] Choudhury D, Nimbalkar S. Seismic passive resistance by pseudo- waves by coastal structures. Applied Ocean Research 2000;22:215–23.
dynamic method. Geotechnique 2005;55:699–702. [20] Bullock GN, Obhrai C, Peregrine DH, Bredmose H. Violent breaking
[8] Choudhury D, Nimbalkar SS. Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic wave impacts. Part 1: Results from large-scale regular wave tests on
active earth pressure behind retaining wall. Geotechnical and Geological vertical and sloping walls. Coastal Engineering 2007; Available online
Engineering 2006;24:1103–13. since 9 February 2007.
[9] Morrison EE, Ebeling RM. Limit equilibrium computation of dynamic [21] Hinwood J. Design for tsunamis — coastal engineering considerations.
passive earth pressure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1995;32:481–7. Structural Engineering International 2005;3:189–93.
[10] Choudhury D, Subba Rao KS. Seismic passive resistance in soils for [22] CRATER: Coastal risk analysis of tsunamis and environmental
negative wall friction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2002;39:971–81. remediation. Italian Ministry for the Environment and the Territory
[11] Choudhury D, Sitharam TG, Subba Rao KS. Seismic design of earth (IMET) 2006.
retaining structures and foundations. Current Science 2004;87:1417–25. [23] Yeh H. Maximum fluid forces in the tsunami runup zone. Journal of
[12] Subba Rao KS, Choudhury D. Seismic passive earth pressures in soils. Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 2006;132(6):495–500.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE 2005; [24] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1943.
131:131–5. [25] Westergaard HM. Water pressures on dams during earthquakes.
[13] Choudhury D, Nimbalkar S. Seismic rotational displacement of gravity Transactions, ASCE 1933;98:418–33.
walls by pseudo-dynamic method: Passive case. Soil Dynamics and [26] Choudhury D, Ahmad SM. Stability of waterfront retaining wall subjected
Earthquake Engineering 2007;27:242–9. to pseudo-static earthquake forces. Ocean Engineering 2007;34(14–15):
[14] Nimbalkar S, Choudhury D. Sliding stability and seismic design of 1947–54.
retaining wall by pseudo-dynamic method for passive case. Soil Dynamics [27] US Army Corps of Engineers. Wave forces on a wall shoreward of the
and Earthquake Engineering 2007;27:497–505. still-water level. Technical Note III-29, Coastal Engineering Research
[15] Chakrabarti S, Husak AD, Christiano PP, Troxell DE. Development of Centre 1990.