Mononobe Okabe
Mononobe Okabe
Research Article
Extended Mononobe-Okabe Method for Seismic Design of
Retaining Walls
Mahmoud Yazdani,1 Ali Azad,1 Abol hasan Farshi,1,2 and Siamak Talatahari3
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 1411713116, Iran
Civil Engineering Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
2
1. Introduction
Retaining walls are those structures which are usually constructed to form roads, stabilize trenches and soil slopes, and
support unstable structures. Figure 1 shows one of the common configurations of retaining structures, schematically.
Lateral earth pressure model is belonging to the first
group of theories in classical soil mechanics. Coulomb [1]
and Rankine [2] proposed their theories to estimate active
and passive lateral earth pressures. These kinds of theories
propose a coefficient which is a ratio between horizontal
and vertical stress behind retaining walls. Using the ratio,
lateral pressure is simply calculated by the horizontal stress
integration.
Mononobe-Okabe method (M-O), a seismic version
of coulomb theory, was proposed based on pseudostatic
earthquake loading for granular soils. This method applies
earthquake force components using two coefficients called
seismic horizontal and vertical coefficients. Beside other
complex theoretical models and numerical methods, M-O
theory is one of the best initial estimates.
Although M-O is the first choice for engineers to design
retaining walls, some limitations make it incapable to model
2. Mononobe-Okabe Method
Mononobe and Matsuo [3] and Okabe [4] proposed a method
to determine lateral earth pressure of granular cohesionless
soils during earthquake [5]. The method was a modified
version of Coulomb theory [1] in which earthquake forces are
Retaining
structure
Lateral displacement
a
p
K W
Kh W
K W
KW
Pa
Passive zone
p
Pp
Active zone
{ } = 2 (1 V ) { } ,
{ }
= (cos2 ( ))
( cos cos2 cos ( + )
sin ( + ) sin ( )
)
[1 (
cos ( + ) cos ( )
= tan1 (
1/2 2
]) ,
).
1 V
(1)
3
B
Z0
K W
Kh W
cL
c L
Pp
(a)
B
Z0
K W
Kh W
c L
Pa
cL
(b)
Figure 3: Proposed model for passive (a) and active (b) pressure.
3. Mononobe-Okabe Method
Defects and Limitations
Some of the limits of M-O method that cause the method
not to cover many of the usual engineering problems are as
follows.
(a) M-O method is applicable for cohesionless soils only.
(b) Effect of water table behind the wall has not been
considered directly in the formula.
(c) M-O method has no answer when 0.
(d) The conventional problems in civil engineering are
not always wall with continues backfill. Sometimes,
one has to use equivalent forms of M-O method to
model a real problem.
Parameter
Wall height
Water depth
Wall angle
Soil-wall friction angle
Backfill angle
Soil special weight
Saturated soil special weight
Ref. to Figure 3
Ref. to Figure 3
Soil internal friction angle
Soil cohesion
Soil-wall cohesion
Horizontal earthquake coefficient
Vertical earthquake coefficient
Symbol
H
h
sat
A
B
c
c
2
;
(Rankine) =
1 sin
.
1 + sin
Overturning
(2)
.35
1:0
Sliding
Backfill
Heaving
Parking lot
Heel
Toe
0.5 m
2.63 m
Foot wall
Hanging wall
rupAssum
ture ed
zon
e
Chelungpu Fault
5
c L
c L
90 +
cL
cL
90
F
F
Pa
W (1 K )2 + Kh2
+
+
W (1 K )2 + Kh2
++
Pp
(a)
(b)
5. Parametric Study
Because of the large number of parameters in each analysis,
deriving complete series of calculation and results seems
20
40
60
Failure angle (deg),
80
100
useless. Therefore, this section just reflects results of a parametric study on a 10-meter high wall. Backfill soil has specific
weight of 2 g/cm3 . Other variables have been explained in
the following subsections. Other undefined parameters like
parameter have been assumed to be zero.
5.1. Effects of Backfill Soil Geometry. To assess the effects of
backfill soil geometry, a backfill soil with various values of
and / (the ratio of slope width to wall height as shown
in Figure 3) and internal friction of soil equal to 30 was
considered. Horizontal component of earthquake was set to
= 0.2. This problem was solved with the standard M-O
and the proposed method. It should be noted that the values
of slope angle in M-O were chosen equal to .
Figure 9 shows the results of this analysis. It is clear
that for 20 , M-O method has no result. Diagrams
explain that when increases, the difference between the
3.2
0.51
3
Kp
Ka
0.5
0.49
2.8
0.48
= 5
= 5
2.6
0.47
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
B/H
B/H
This study
Mononobe-Okabe
This study
Mononobe-Okabe
(a)
(b)
0.58
0.56
3.5
0.52
Kp
Ka
0.54
0.5
= 10
0.48
= 10
2.5
0.46
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
B/H
B/H
This study
Mononobe-Okabe
This study
Mononobe-Okabe
(c)
(d)
4.9
0.68
0.64
4.1
0.56
Kp
Ka
0.6
3.3
0.52
= 15
= 15
0.48
2.5
0.44
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.8
1.2
B/H
B/H
This study
Mononobe-Okabe
This study
Mononobe-Okabe
(e)
(f)
Figure 9: Continued.
1.6
0.85
5.5
0.77
4.5
Kp
Ka
0.69
0.61
3.5
0.53
= 20
= 20
2.5
0.45
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.8
B/H
1.2
1.6
B/H
This study
Note: no results for M-O method are available
This study
Note: no results for M-O method are available
(g)
(h)
1.05
0.95
5.5
Kp
Ka
0.85
0.75
0.65
= 25
= 25
0.55
2.5
0.45
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.8
This study
Note: no results for M-O method are available
(i)
1.2
1.6
B/H
B/H
This study
Note: no results for M-O method are available
(j)
(3)
However, in the proposed method, the total earth pressure can be simply obtained by the following equation:
1
Total earth pressure (this study) = 2 .
2
(4)
4.5
0.65
Ka
Kp
0.6
3.5
0.55
3
0.5
0.45
2.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Level of water/height of wall
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Level of water/height of wall
(a)
(b)
400
Total active pressure (ton/m)
450
350
300
60
50
40
250
30
200
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Level of water/height of wall
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Level of water/height of wall
This study
Mononobe-Okabe
This study
Mononobe-Okabe
(a)
(b)
Figure 11: Effects of water table on total lateral earth pressure compared to M-O.
0.4
0.3
Ka
Kp
0.2
0.1
0
0
2
3
Cohesion (ton/m2 )
Cohesion (ton/m2 )
Kh = 0
Z=0
Z0
Kh = 0
Z=0
Z0
(a)
(b)
0.5
4.5
0.4
3.5
Ka
Kp
0.3
2.5
0.2
1.5
0.1
0.5
0
Cohesion (ton/m )
Cohesion (ton/m )
Kh = 0.2
Z=0
Z0
Kh = 0.2
Z=0
Z0
(c)
(d)
6. Conclusion
In this paper, the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method was
revised, and a new approach with more general picture of
problems in civil engineering was proposed. Based on the
limit equilibrium analysis and a semianalytical procedure,
the proposed model can go over the limitations of closed
form solutions of M-O method. The modified version is also
capable of considering different backfill geometry, cohesion
of backfill soil, soil-wall interaction, and water table behind
the wall. Using the method explained in this paper, seismic
active and passive earth pressure could be calculated in many
usual engineering problems without any approximation.
The parametric study on a 10 m wall was also performed
in the paper to explain the methodology more clearly. The
results reveal this fact that the standard M-O method, in
10
some cases, is incapable of offering an answer. Because of its
simple assumptions, M-O sometimes stands in an unsafe side
of design or it overestimates and directs the problem into an
uneconomical design. However, the proposed methodology
relives engineers from some approximations and equivalent
methods. This methodology can be easily rederived to any
other simple or sophisticated problems.
References
[1] C. A. Coulomb, Essai sur une application des maximis et minimis
a quelques problems de statique relatifs a larchitecture, vol.
7, Memoires de lAcademie Royal Pres Divers Savants, Paris,
France, 1776.
[2] W. Rankine, On the stability of loose earth, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 147, pp. 927,
1857.
[3] N. Mononobe and H. Matsuo, On the determination of earth
pressures during earthquakes, in Proceedings of the World
Engineering Congress, p. 9, Tokyo, Japan, 1929.
[4] S. Okabe, General theory of earth pressures, Journal of the
Japan Society of Civil Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, 1926.
[5] S. L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, PrenticeHall, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
[6] R. Richards Jr. and X. Shi, Seismic lateral pressures in soils with
cohesion, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 120, no. 7, pp.
12301251, 1994.
[7] H. Matsuzawa, I. Ishibashi, and M. Kawamura, Dynamic soil
and water pressures of submerged soils, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, vol. 111, no. 10, pp. 11611176, 1985.
[8] A. S. Veletsos and A. H. Younan, Dynamic modeling and
response of soil-wall systems, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 120, no. 12, pp. 21552179, 1994.
[9] H. B. Seed and R. V. Whitman, Design of Earth retaining
structures for dynamic loads, in Proceedings of the ASCE
Specialty Conference: Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design
of Earth Retaining Structures, pp. 103147, June1970.
[10] Y.-S. Fang and T.-J. Chen, Modification of Mononobe-Okabe
theory, Geotechnique, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 165167, 1995.
[11] E. E. Morrison and R. M. Ebeling, Limit equilibrium computation of dynamic passive earth pressure, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, vol. 32, pp. 481487, 1995.
[12] J. Kumar, Seismic passive earth pressure coefficients for sands,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 38, pp. 876881, 2001.
[13] K. S. Subba Rao and D. Choudhury, Seismic passive earth pressures in soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 131135, 2005.
[14] M. Yazdani and A. Azad, Evaluation of Mononobe-Okabe
method and introducing an improved approach to design of
retaining walls, Transportation Journal, no. 2, pp. 157171, 2007
(Persian).
[15] Y. S. Fang, Y. C. Yang, and T. J. Chen, Retaining walls damaged
in the Chi-Chi earthquake, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol.
40, no. 6, pp. 11421153, 2003.
[16] S. Prakash and S. Saran, Static and dynamic earth pressures
behind retaining walls, in Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium
on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 277288, University of
Roorkee, Roorkee, India, November 1966.
[17] S. Saran and S. Prakash, Dimensionless parameters for static
and dynamic Earth pressure behind retaining walls, Indian
Geotechnical Journal, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 295310, 1968.
Advances in
Operations Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Advances in
Decision Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Journal of
Applied Mathematics
Algebra
Volume 2014
Journal of
The Scientific
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
International Journal of
Differential Equations
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Advances in
Combinatorics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Mathematical Physics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Journal of
Complex Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
International
Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Sciences
Mathematical Problems
in Engineering
Journal of
Mathematics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Discrete Mathematics
Journal of
Volume 2014
Discrete Dynamics in
Nature and Society
Journal of
Function Spaces
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Abstract and
Applied Analysis
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
International Journal of
Journal of
Stochastic Analysis
Optimization
Volume 2014
Volume 2014