Presenters:
Kevin McManus
Nick Traylen
MBIE – NZGS
EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING GUIDELINES
Guidelines Overview
• What are they ?
• Where did they come from ?
• Who needs to know ?
• What are their objectives ?
• What is their status ?
Module 6 - Contributors
• Lead Author: Kevin McManus
• Contributing Authors:
Phil Clayton (Beca)
Nick Traylen (Geotech Consulting)
John Wood
• Editorial Panel
• Reviewers
Kevin Anderson (AECOM, NZGS)
Ross Roberts (Auckland City Council)
• Funding: MBIE EQC NZGS
Who needs to know ?
• Practising geotechnical engineers
• Practising structural engineers
• Regulating authorities
What are the objectives?
• Provide guidance
Improve practice
Promote consistency
“Everyday engineering”
• Identify main issues
• Promote collaboration (geotechnical / structural)
MBIE - NZGS Guidelines - Overview
• Module 6
Retaining Structures
Builds on residential guidance
developed for Christchurch
earthquake recovery
Performance and regulatory
requirements
Simplified design procedures for
every day structures
Recommended references for more
complex or important structures
Seminar Programme
9:00 – 10:30 Session 1: Performance objectives
Introduction
Scope
Performance objectives
Performance based design
Seismic design parameters
Example
Observations from Christchurch
Q&A
10:30 – 11:00 Morning Break
Seminar Programme
11:00 – 12:30 Session 2: Design of new retaining structures
Site geotechnical model
Selection of design parameters
Selection of structure type
Design procedures
Steep Slopes
General recommendations
Q&A
12:30 - 13:00 Lunch
Seminar Programme
13:00 – 14:30 Session 3: Worked Examples
Worked Example 1:
Cantilever pole wall
Worked example 2:
Concrete cantilever wall
Q&A
14:30 - 15:00 Afternoon Break
Seminar Programme
15:00 – 16:30 Session 4: Worked Examples
Worked Example 3:
Crib wall
Worked example 4:
Tied-back wall
Q&A
Scope
• The intended scope of this document is for those retaining
structures covered by the Building Act and requiring a Building
Consent.
• The approach follows the New Zealand Building Code
document B1/VM1 i.e. primarily a strength based, limit state,
load and resistance factor (LRFD) design process as
prescribed in NZS 1170.0:2002 and with earthquake
provisions from NZS 1170.5:2004.
• It is intended that, when properly used in conjunction with
these standards and relevant materials standards, the
resulting design would comply with the New Zealand Building
Code
Scope
This document is intended to provide guidance for earthquake
resistant design of routine retaining structures in New Zealand
practice. It is not intended to provide a fully comprehensive
treatment of all aspects of retaining structure design and
construction in all situations and soil conditions for which well-
known published handbooks should be consulted, for
example:
AS 4678
CIRIA C580/760
FHWA (Tied-Back walls)
FHWA (Soil nailed walls)
Earth Pressure and Earth-Retaining Structures, Third Edition
(2014) Clayton et al
Building Code
Retaining structures are buildings and subject to the New
Zealand Building Code. But, limited guidance available:
NZS 1170.0:2002 specifies structural design of buildings
including retaining walls.
NZS 1170.1:2002 “earth pressure actions…resulting in lateral
loads on earth-retaining structures shall be determined using
established methods of soil mechanics.”
NZS 1170.0:2002 earth pressure combinations with dead and
live loads (but no earth pressure and earthquake combinations
given).
However, necessary to consider such combinations to fulfil the
objectives of Clause B1 of the Building Code.
Section 175 Guidance
• Section 175 of the Building Act 2004 states that the Chief
Executive may publish guidance to assist in complying with
the Building Act:
• Any information published by the chief executive under this
section of the Building Act:
a) is only a guide; and
b) if used, does not relieve any person of the obligation to
consider any matter to which that information relates
according to the circumstances of the particular case.
• The building Consent Authority may have regard to the
guidance, but is not bound to accept the guidance as
demonstrating compliance with the building Code
Scope
Other documents provide more specific guidelines or
rules for more specialist structures, e.g.:
• NZTA Bridge Manual (for NZTA roads and bridges)
• Local roading authorities
These more specific guidelines would generally take
precedence over these Guidelines
Scope (fine print)
Scope (fine print)
• The geotechnical performance of the building site including
issues of soil liquefaction, cyclic softening, lateral spreading,
and instability during shaking may have a large impact on the
performance of retaining systems and must be carefully
considered prior to selecting a suitable retaining system or
commencing design.
• Modules 3 and 4 of the Guidelines should be consulted for
more detailed information.
Strategy
1) Assess the seismic hazard parameters for the site
(refer to Module 1 of the Guidelines);
2) Assess site soils for degradation with shaking,
including liquefaction and cyclic softening (refer to
Modules 2 and 3 of the Guidelines);
3) Assess site stability with shaking, including lateral
spreading and slope instability (refer to Modules 3 & 4 of
the Guidelines);
4) Select the most suitable retaining system;
5) Design the retaining system for the specified load
combinations using guidance provided in this document
and elsewhere.
Scope
Earth-retaining structures should be designed
to resist earthquake effects in the following
situations:
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Garage
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives (fine print)
Performance Objectives
Performance Based Design
• The New Zealand Building Code is performance based and it is
permitted to use alternative design procedures (alternative solutions)
rather than Verification Method B1/VM1.
• Performance based design requires more sophisticated modelling of
retaining structures including dynamic modelling of earthquake loading.
Modelling of the foundation system and soil response needs to be
included in a realistic way (soil-structure interaction), including the
effects of soil non-linearity, otherwise the results may be misleading and
inaccurate
• Uncertainty in the earthquake loading should be accounted for. (For
dynamic time history modelling this is typically achieved by using a suite
of at least three relevant earthquake records, selected and scaled to
match the hazard spectra from NZS 1170.5)
• Uncertainty in retaining structure performance and soil response should
be accounted for (usually by means of a parametric study including a
wide range of key soil parameters.)
Performance Based Design
Seismic Design Parameters
• What are earthquakes?
• What parameters do we use to characterize
earthquakes for retaining wall design ?
• How can we estimate seismic design parameters for
a particular location ?
• (Covered in Module 1 of the Guidelines)
Seismic Design Parameters
• What are earthquakes?
Earthquakes are sudden ruptures of the earth’s crust caused by
accumulating stresses (elastic strain-energy) resulting from internal
processes of the planet. Ruptures propagate over approximately planar
surfaces called faults releasing large amounts of strain energy. Energy
radiates from the rupture as seismic waves. These waves are
attenuated, refracted, and reflected as they travel through the earth,
eventually reaching the surface where they cause ground shaking.
Seismic Design Parameters
• What parameters do we use to characterize
earthquake ground shaking for engineering
purposes?
• Amplitude
• Frequency content
• Duration of significant shaking
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Seismic Design Parameters
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
10
• Amplitude 8
6
4
2
0
• PGA -2
-4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-6
-8
-10
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
• PGV 0
-0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.05
-0.1
• PGD -0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
Seismic Design Parameters
• Frequency content – Response Spectrum
Source: Carr, A.J. Inelastic Response Spectra for the Christchurch Earthquake Records , Report to the Canterbury Earthquakes
Royal Commission, 2011
Seismic Design Parameters
• Duration of significant shaking
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
10
8
6
Chch Mw 6.2 4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
LPCC Darfield 4 September
3
Darfield Mw 7.1 1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-1
-2
-3
-4
Seismic Design Parameters
• Duration of significant shaking
Tohuku
Japan
• Mw = 8.9
Seismic Design Parameters
• For the purpose of retaining structure design using a
simplified, pseudo-static procedure we require only:
• Amplitude – represented by PGA (non-weighted)
• (discussion weighted versus non-weighted)
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Seismic Design Parameters
• How can we estimate non-weighted PGA for retaining
structure design at a particular location?
The ground shaking hazard at a site depends on the following parameters:
• Amplitude, frequency content, and duration of shaking at bedrock beneath
the site.
• Thickness and properties of soil strata beneath the site and overlying the
bedrock, as well as bedrock properties themselves
• Proximity of the site to active faults (including near-fault effects)
• Three-dimensional relief both of the surface contours and sub-strata
Seismic Design Parameters
• Many sources of uncertainty:
• Source, path, and site effects
• Topographic and basin effects
• Known faults
• Unknown faults
Seismic Design Parameters
• Probabilistic approach necessary, with varying
degrees of site and project specificity:
The ground motion parameters at a site to be used for retaining
structure design may be evaluated using one of the following
methods:
Method 1: Risk based method using the earthquake hazard
presented in the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014).
Method 2: Site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
(PSHA).
Method 3: Site-specific response analysis.
Seismic Design Parameters
• All three methods based on national database of known faults and fault
characteristics (fault type, characteristic Mw, recurrence interval).
• Different attenuation relationships may be used.
• Assumptions must be made for unknown faults (background seismicity)
• Site effects included with varying degrees of sophistication
Seismic Design Parameters
Method 1: Risk based method using the earthquake hazard
presented in the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014).
• Simplest approach and suitable for everyday engineering
practice
• From GNS national seismic hazard model (same as NZS
1170)
• Gives non-weighted PGA values suitable for simplified
liquefaction assessment procedure (unlike the Mw weighted
values in NZS 1170)
• Site effects lumped into four site “classes”
• PGA and Mw values given as national contour maps
Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Design Parameters
Method 1: Risk based method using the earthquake hazard
presented in the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014).
• Site effects lumped into five site “classes”
Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Design Parameters
Method 1: Risk based method using the earthquake hazard
presented in the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014).
• Example using Method 1
• Location: Taumarunui
• Project: Commercial building: IL2
• ULS = 500 year SLS = 25 year
• Site Class: Shallow soils, Class C
Seismic Design Parameters
Figure A.1. Unweighted peak ground acceleration coefficients, 0,1000
corresponding to a 1000 year return at a subsoil Class A or B rock site or
Class C shallow soil site.
Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Design Parameters
• Example using Method 1
• Location: Taumarunui
• Project: Commercial building: IL2
• ULS = 500 year SLS = 25 year
• Site Class: Class C, shallow soils
Seismic Design Parameters
Figure A.2. Unweighted peak ground acceleration coefficients, 0,1000
corresponding to a 1000 year return at a subsoil Class D or E deep or soft
soil site.
Seismic Design Parameters
• Example using Method 1
• Location: Taumarunui
• Project: Commercial building: IL2
• ULS = 500 year SLS = 25 year
• Site Class: Class D, deep soils
Seismic Design Parameters
• Canterbury
earthquake
region:
Design Acceleration (horizontal)
kh = amax Atopo Wd
amax = peak ground acceleration (non-weighted)
Atopo = topographic amplification factor
Wd = wall displacement factor
Topographic Amplification
kh = amax Atopo Wd
Wall Displacement Factor
kh = amax Atopo Wd
Wall Displacement Factor
Presenters:
Kevin McManus
Nick Traylen
MBIE – NZGS
EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING GUIDELINES
Guidelines Overview
• What are they ?
• Where did they come from ?
• Who needs to know ?
• What are their objectives ?
• What is their status ?
Module 6 - Contributors
• Lead Author: Kevin McManus
• Contributing Authors:
Phil Clayton (Beca)
Nick Traylen (Geotech Consulting)
John Wood
• Editorial Panel
• Reviewers
Kevin Anderson (AECOM, NZGS)
Ross Roberts (Auckland City Council)
• Funding: MBIE EQC NZGS
Who needs to know ?
• Practising geotechnical engineers
• Practising structural engineers
• Regulating authorities
What are the objectives?
• Provide guidance
Improve practice
Promote consistency
“Everyday engineering”
• Identify main issues
• Promote collaboration (geotechnical / structural)
MBIE - NZGS Guidelines - Overview
• Module 6
Retaining Structures
Builds on residential guidance
developed for Christchurch
earthquake recovery
Performance and regulatory
requirements
Simplified design procedures for
every day structures
Recommended references for more
complex or important structures
Seminar Programme
9:00 – 10:30 Session 1: Performance objectives
Introduction
Scope
Performance objectives
Performance based design
Seismic design parameters
Example
Observations from Christchurch
Q&A
10:30 – 11:00 Morning Break
Seminar Programme
11:00 – 12:30 Session 2: Design of new retaining structures
Site geotechnical model
Selection of design parameters
Selection of structure type
Design procedures
Steep Slopes
General recommendations
Q&A
12:30 - 13:00 Lunch
Seminar Programme
13:00 – 14:30 Session 3: Worked Examples
Worked Example 1:
Cantilever pole wall
Worked example 2:
Concrete cantilever wall
Q&A
14:30 - 15:00 Afternoon Break
Seminar Programme
15:00 – 16:30 Session 4: Worked Examples
Worked Example 3:
Crib wall
Worked example 4:
Tied-back wall
Q&A
Scope
• The intended scope of this document is for those retaining
structures covered by the Building Act and requiring a Building
Consent.
• The approach follows the New Zealand Building Code
document B1/VM1 i.e. primarily a strength based, limit state,
load and resistance factor (LRFD) design process as
prescribed in NZS 1170.0:2002 and with earthquake
provisions from NZS 1170.5:2004.
• It is intended that, when properly used in conjunction with
these standards and relevant materials standards, the
resulting design would comply with the New Zealand Building
Code
Scope
This document is intended to provide guidance for earthquake
resistant design of routine retaining structures in New Zealand
practice. It is not intended to provide a fully comprehensive
treatment of all aspects of retaining structure design and
construction in all situations and soil conditions for which well-
known published handbooks should be consulted, for
example:
AS 4678
CIRIA C580/760
FHWA (Tied-Back walls)
FHWA (Soil nailed walls)
Earth Pressure and Earth-Retaining Structures, Third Edition
(2014) Clayton et al
Building Code
Retaining structures are buildings and subject to the New
Zealand Building Code. But, limited guidance available:
NZS 1170.0:2002 specifies structural design of buildings
including retaining walls.
NZS 1170.1:2002 “earth pressure actions…resulting in lateral
loads on earth-retaining structures shall be determined using
established methods of soil mechanics.”
NZS 1170.0:2002 earth pressure combinations with dead and
live loads (but no earth pressure and earthquake combinations
given).
However, necessary to consider such combinations to fulfil the
objectives of Clause B1 of the Building Code.
Section 175 Guidance
• Section 175 of the Building Act 2004 states that the Chief
Executive may publish guidance to assist in complying with
the Building Act:
• Any information published by the chief executive under this
section of the Building Act:
a) is only a guide; and
b) if used, does not relieve any person of the obligation to
consider any matter to which that information relates
according to the circumstances of the particular case.
• The building Consent Authority may have regard to the
guidance, but is not bound to accept the guidance as
demonstrating compliance with the building Code
Scope
Other documents provide more specific guidelines or
rules for more specialist structures, e.g.:
• NZTA Bridge Manual (for NZTA roads and bridges)
• Local roading authorities
These more specific guidelines would generally take
precedence over these Guidelines
Scope (fine print)
Scope (fine print)
• The geotechnical performance of the building site including
issues of soil liquefaction, cyclic softening, lateral spreading,
and instability during shaking may have a large impact on the
performance of retaining systems and must be carefully
considered prior to selecting a suitable retaining system or
commencing design.
• Modules 3 and 4 of the Guidelines should be consulted for
more detailed information.
Strategy
1) Assess the seismic hazard parameters for the site
(refer to Module 1 of the Guidelines);
2) Assess site soils for degradation with shaking,
including liquefaction and cyclic softening (refer to
Modules 2 and 3 of the Guidelines);
3) Assess site stability with shaking, including lateral
spreading and slope instability (refer to Modules 3 & 4 of
the Guidelines);
4) Select the most suitable retaining system;
5) Design the retaining system for the specified load
combinations using guidance provided in this document
and elsewhere.
Scope
Earth-retaining structures should be designed
to resist earthquake effects in the following
situations:
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Garage
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives
Performance Objectives (fine print)
Performance Objectives
Performance Based Design
• The New Zealand Building Code is performance based and it is
permitted to use alternative design procedures (alternative solutions)
rather than Verification Method B1/VM1.
• Performance based design requires more sophisticated modelling of
retaining structures including dynamic modelling of earthquake loading.
Modelling of the foundation system and soil response needs to be
included in a realistic way (soil-structure interaction), including the
effects of soil non-linearity, otherwise the results may be misleading and
inaccurate
• Uncertainty in the earthquake loading should be accounted for. (For
dynamic time history modelling this is typically achieved by using a suite
of at least three relevant earthquake records, selected and scaled to
match the hazard spectra from NZS 1170.5)
• Uncertainty in retaining structure performance and soil response should
be accounted for (usually by means of a parametric study including a
wide range of key soil parameters.)
Performance Based Design
Seismic Design Parameters
• What are earthquakes?
• What parameters do we use to characterize
earthquakes for retaining wall design ?
• How can we estimate seismic design parameters for
a particular location ?
• (Covered in Module 1 of the Guidelines)
Seismic Design Parameters
• What are earthquakes?
Earthquakes are sudden ruptures of the earth’s crust caused by
accumulating stresses (elastic strain-energy) resulting from internal
processes of the planet. Ruptures propagate over approximately planar
surfaces called faults releasing large amounts of strain energy. Energy
radiates from the rupture as seismic waves. These waves are
attenuated, refracted, and reflected as they travel through the earth,
eventually reaching the surface where they cause ground shaking.
Seismic Design Parameters
• What parameters do we use to characterize
earthquake ground shaking for engineering
purposes?
• Amplitude
• Frequency content
• Duration of significant shaking
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Seismic Design Parameters
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
10
• Amplitude 8
6
4
2
0
• PGA -2
-4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-6
-8
-10
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
• PGV 0
-0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.05
-0.1
• PGD -0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
Seismic Design Parameters
• Frequency content – Response Spectrum
Source: Carr, A.J. Inelastic Response Spectra for the Christchurch Earthquake Records , Report to the Canterbury Earthquakes
Royal Commission, 2011
Seismic Design Parameters
• Duration of significant shaking
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
10
8
6
Chch Mw 6.2 4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
LPCC Darfield 4 September
3
Darfield Mw 7.1 1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-1
-2
-3
-4
Seismic Design Parameters
• Duration of significant shaking
Tohuku
Japan
• Mw = 8.9
Seismic Design Parameters
• For the purpose of retaining structure design using a
simplified, pseudo-static procedure we require only:
• Amplitude – represented by PGA (non-weighted)
• (discussion weighted versus non-weighted)
LPCC 22 Feb 2011
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Seismic Design Parameters
• How can we estimate non-weighted PGA for retaining
structure design at a particular location?
The ground shaking hazard at a site depends on the following parameters:
• Amplitude, frequency content, and duration of shaking at bedrock beneath
the site.
• Thickness and properties of soil strata beneath the site and overlying the
bedrock, as well as bedrock properties themselves
• Proximity of the site to active faults (including near-fault effects)
• Three-dimensional relief both of the surface contours and sub-strata
Seismic Design Parameters
• Many sources of uncertainty:
• Source, path, and site effects
• Topographic and basin effects
• Known faults
• Unknown faults
Seismic Design Parameters
• Probabilistic approach necessary, with varying
degrees of site and project specificity:
The ground motion parameters at a site to be used for retaining
structure design may be evaluated using one of the following
methods:
Method 1: Risk based method using the earthquake hazard
presented in the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014).
Method 2: Site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
(PSHA).
Method 3: Site-specific response analysis.
Seismic Design Parameters
• All three methods based on national database of known faults and fault
characteristics (fault type, characteristic Mw, recurrence interval).
• Different attenuation relationships may be used.
• Assumptions must be made for unknown faults (background seismicity)
• Site effects included with varying degrees of sophistication
Seismic Design Parameters
Method 1: Risk based method using the earthquake hazard
presented in the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014).
• Simplest approach and suitable for everyday engineering
practice
• From GNS national seismic hazard model (same as NZS
1170)
• Gives non-weighted PGA values suitable for simplified
liquefaction assessment procedure (unlike the Mw weighted
values in NZS 1170)
• Site effects lumped into four site “classes”
• PGA and Mw values given as national contour maps
Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Design Parameters
Method 1: Risk based method using the earthquake hazard
presented in the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014).
• Site effects lumped into five site “classes”
Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Design Parameters
Method 1: Risk based method using the earthquake hazard
presented in the NZTA Bridge Manual (2014).
• Example using Method 1
• Location: Taumarunui
• Project: Commercial building: IL2
• ULS = 500 year SLS = 25 year
• Site Class: Shallow soils, Class C
Seismic Design Parameters
Figure A.1. Unweighted peak ground acceleration coefficients, 0,1000
corresponding to a 1000 year return at a subsoil Class A or B rock site or
Class C shallow soil site.
Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Design Parameters
• Example using Method 1
• Location: Taumarunui
• Project: Commercial building: IL2
• ULS = 500 year SLS = 25 year
• Site Class: Class C, shallow soils
Seismic Design Parameters
Figure A.2. Unweighted peak ground acceleration coefficients, 0,1000
corresponding to a 1000 year return at a subsoil Class D or E deep or soft
soil site.
Seismic Design Parameters
• Example using Method 1
• Location: Taumarunui
• Project: Commercial building: IL2
• ULS = 500 year SLS = 25 year
• Site Class: Class D, deep soils
Seismic Design Parameters
• Canterbury
earthquake
region:
Design Acceleration (horizontal)
kh = amax Atopo Wd
amax = peak ground acceleration (non-weighted)
Atopo = topographic amplification factor
Wd = wall displacement factor
Topographic Amplification
kh = amax Atopo Wd
Wall Displacement Factor
kh = amax Atopo Wd
Wall Displacement Factor
Performance Observations from the
Canterbury Earthquakes
Literature Survey
- NCHRP (2008), Bray (2010), Mikola et al (2013)
Port Hills Observations
- Dismuke (2011), Palmer et al (2014), Wood (2014)
- subjected to very strong ground shaking with PGA up to 2g
(mean about 0.8g)
Damage Databases
- EQC, SCIRT/CCC
Performance Observations
‘Not too bad given the circumstances….’
…if there had been some
engineering input ….’
Performance Observations from the
Canterbury Earthquakes
Summary:
