“DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY RETAINING WALL WITH SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION”

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 10 Issue: 08 | Aug 2023 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2023, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.226 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 883
“DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY RETAINING WALL WITH SOIL
STRUCTURE INTERACTION”
Dr. Pradeep P. Tapkire1, Somnath M. Patil2, Atul S. Chandanshive3
1H.O.D. Civil Dept., N.B. Navale Sinhgad College of Engineering, Solapur, Maharashtra, India-413255
2Research Scholar at N.B. Navale Sinhgad College of Engineering, Solapur, Maharashtra, India-413255
3Lecturer at Solapur Education Society’s Polytechnic, Solapur, Maharashtra, India -413002
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Gravity retaining walls play a crucial role in
civil engineering by providing essential support to
control soil erosion and maintain the stability of slopes
and embankments. The interaction between these
retaining walls and the surrounding soil is a complex
phenomenon that becomes even more intricate when
subjected to dynamic loads, such as seismic events or
sudden impact loads. This study presents a
comprehensive investigation into the dynamic behavior
of gravity retaining walls, considering the intricate
interplay between the wall and the surrounding soil.
The analysis involves a detailed examination of soil-
structure interaction (SSI) effects on the dynamic
response of gravity retaining walls. A numerical
framework based on finite element methods is
developed to simulate the coupled behavior of the
retaining wall and the underlying soil. The soil is
modeled using appropriate constitutive models in
software ANSYS 18.0 that capture its nonlinear and
dynamic characteristics, while the retaining wall is
represented as a rigid or flexible structure, depending
on the specific scenario.
Key Words: Gravity Retaining Wall1, Soil Structure
Interaction2, Dynamic Loading3
1. INTRODUCTION
A wall designed to maintain the difference in elevations of
the ground surfaces on each side of the wall is called a
retaining wall. The material that is retained on one side of
wall is commonly called as back-fill and the wall is
constructed to retain this backfill. Retaining walls are
extensively used in connection with railways, highways,
bridges, canals and many other engineering works
whenever material is to be retained on one side of the
wall.
Gravity retaining wall, semi gravity retaining wall,
cantilever retaining wall or T – wall and counterfort
retaining wall etc. are common types of retaining walls.
Besides these, few more types of retaining walls are also
used like buttress retaining wall, braced wall, etc. Due to
ease of the construction gravity retaining wall (GRW) is
commonly used.
In most of the conditions GRWs are constructed by using
plain cement concrete. Sometimes stone or brick masonry
is also used for construction of GRW. The GRW is likely to
fail in any one of the following ways:
1. Failure due to sliding
2. Failure due to overturning
3. Failure due to excessive settlement
4. Failure due to excessive scour of the earth under
the base
First three types of failure are most common and hence
while designing a GRW, the trail geometry of the cross-
section is checked against first three stability criteria viz.
sliding, overturning and bearing capacity given in the
list. The cross-section of GRW is also checked for strength
of material provided.
Amongst the three criteria, stability criteria against sliding
is critical, as the area required to satisfy the criteria is
more. This governing factor generally leads to a cross-
section which is under stressed.
A number of retaining wall failures have been reported
during the post-earthquake reconnaissance. The structural
response of retaining wall is a complex topic due to the
soil structure interaction and uncertainties in the
determination of actual earthquake data and soil
properties. The frequent earthquake events, followed by
the failure have increased the demand on the seismic
design of retaining walls. The classic earth pressure theory
of Coulomb (1776) and Rankine (1857) is widely used to
determine the lateral earth pressure on the retaining wall.
1.1 Aim of Study
To find out the feasible and economical cross section area
of Gravity retaining wall for Dynamic loading considering
soil structure interaction.
2. Literature Review
Retaining walls are not a new concept. Walls used to retain
masses of soil have been around for thousands of years and

were used in virtually every civilization in history.
Geotechnical engineering is a branch of civil engineering
that deals with soils as engineering materials; a retaining
wall is any geotechnical structure which is used to retain a
mass of soil that would otherwise tend to move down slope
due to gravity and stresses acting within the soil (Terzaghi
et al, 1996).
The contribution has been done by the researchers to
optimize the design of earth retaining structures and also
in the direction to develop an earth retaining system using
different innovative concepts. The researchers applied
different optimization techniques and adopted a non-
conventional system for different types of retaining walls
like reinforced concrete structure obtained according to
Richard and Elms (1979) analytical model, Some of these
research contributions of researchers are presented as
follows,
S. Al-Homoud Jordan And lrbid, Jordan [1] studied The
behavior of earth retaining structures during earthquakes
is considered an important design problem in seismic
regions, One such structure is the gravity retaining wall,
which uses its mass for stability against failure. Field
observations indicate that, where there has been
significant movements of gravity retaining walls during
earthquakes, rotational displacement (or tilting) of these
walls has been important.
Vijay K. Puri[2]observed that design of retaining walls in
seismic areas poses a complex problem, For safe design of
retaining walls in seismic areas, the calculation of static
and dynamic earth pressure behind the retaining walls is
the first requirement. Realistic calculation of displacement
of the retaining wall is an equally important aspect. The
paper presents a simple method for calculation of static
and dynamic active force on the rigid retaining wall. The
method follows the pseudo-static approach of analysis and
includes the effects of cohesion of the backfill and the
friction between the backfill and the wall face.
Aram M. Raheem and Mohammed Y. Fattah[3 ] used a
numerical method through finite element(FEM) with two
models: Elastic &Equivalent Linear was used to investigate
the seismic behavior of retaining wall supporting
saturated, liquefiable, cohesionless backfill soil. It was
shown that the Equivalent model gives more reasonable
results and the liquefaction zones concentrated in the
passive side more than the active side. Max. horizontal
displacement at the top of the wall reaches 0.67m while
vertical displacement increased in the range (66-116)%
with the wall increasing in dimensions. Both pore water
pressure/horizontal total stress increased with
time/dimensions in the range (37%),(200%) respectively.
Md. Abu Taiyab ; Md. Jahangir Alam ; and Md. Zoynul
Abedin[4]observed that the lateral spreading of backfill
soil caused by displacement of gravity-type quay walls is a
major concern for geotechnical engineers. This paper
evaluates the efficiency of a technique for mitigation of
damage to quay walls, which involves densification of loose
sand around the toe. The beneficial and unfavorable effects
of densification of sand of different locations of the gravity-
type quay walls are also answered. For these purposes,
numerical simulations (using a finite-element code) and
shake table tests were conducted. From numerical
simulations and model tests, it was observed that the
displacement of a gravity-type quay wall occurred mainly
because of shear strain in the foundation.
KAVEH AND M. KHAYATAZAD[5] In the previous studies,
the optimization of the retaining walls has been
accomplished by quasi-static methods; however, in this
paper a pseudo dynamic approach is utilized. Here, by
optimizing a cantilever retaining wall via a recently
developed method, so-called Ray Optimization, the design
controlling parameters are investigated. Ray Optimization
method is a multi-agent optimization method which is
inspired from the concept of light refraction. In this method
by moving the agents to new positions, the optimal
solution is found.
Abhay Tripathi And Tarik Salman[6] This paper
presents a comparison of the various methods of analysis
of retaining wallsunder seismic loads, which is considered
to be very complex. As the soil-structure interaction during
the earthquake is very complex, the most commonly used
methods for the seismic design of retaining walls are the
Pseudo static method, Seed and Whitman method and
Mononobe and Okabe method.
Kamal Mohamed Hafez Ismail Ibrahim[7] In this study
plain strain numerical analysis is performed using Plaxis
dynamic program where prescribed displacement is
applied at the bottom boundary of the soil to simulate the
applied seismic load. It is also found that seismic wall
displacement is directly proportional with the positive
angle of inclination of the back surface of the wall, soil
flexibility and with the earthquake maximum ground
acceleration. Seismic wall sliding is dominant and rotation
is negligible for rigid walls when the ratio between the wall
height and the foundation width is less than 1.4, while for
greater ratios the wall becomes more flexible and rotation
(rocking) increases till the ratio reaches 1.8 where
overturning is susceptible to take place.
Ms. Patil Swapnal[8] In the proposed study, the effect on
gravity dam has been examined using finite element
analysis software ANSYS 14. The gravity dam is completely
resting on soil media and surrounded by soil media. The
relevant amount of soil around and bottom of the gravity
dam has been modeled to simulate the in-situ conditions.
The gravity dam has been analyzed using dynamic loading
in transient analysis using Imperial Valley (1940)
earthquake record are included. Analysis of the gravity
dam has been carried out and the influence of soil

properties has been studied at the region of transverse
sections, which exhibited the response in terms of stress
and deformation with significant difference.
3. Problem formulation
The researchers have been analyzing various structures
using soil structure interaction the various researcher have
focused on soil structure interaction along with retaining
wall. But the soil structure interaction along with Gravity
Retaining Wall is untouched / rarely touched. Considering
this as gap in researcher the problem is formulate to study
Gravity Retaining Wall using Soil Structure Interaction.
In this research, a gravity retaining wall with a vertical face
retaining horizontal backfill is taken into account. For
analysis, backfill soil with a density of 18 KN/m3 and M25
grade concrete are both taken into account. Fig. No. 1
depicts the cross-section of the GRW under study. Analysis
is done on the variation in dimensions relative to their
heights. In this study, the system is discretized into two
substructures, the GRW section without and with SSI, in
order to establish the response for modeling GRW soil. The
gravity retaining wall portion in this instance is analyzed
using ANSYS 18.0.
3.1 Profile and Material considerations for the GRW
In the properties of Gravity retaining wall, two
considered profile of retaining wall and material properties
are mentioned. The both profiles of retaining wall are
shown in Fig No.1&2 Material properties of retaining wall
[12], soil is mentioned in Table 2.
1)Profile I-
Fig.1- Gravity retaining wall With toe side slope
2)Profile II-
Fig.2- Gravity retaining wall With Both side Two different
slope
Table 1: Geometry parameters of GRW
GRW
Top Width 0.70m
BottomWidth 1.55m
Stem Height 3.15m
Foundation Slab Depth 0.35m
Slab Width 2.6m
Table 2: The material properties of GRW and Soil
GRW
Density 25 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity 31027 MPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.2
soil
Density 18 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity 2.62Mpa
Poisson’s ratio 0.4
4.Research Methodology
As per researcher methodology various parameters are
considered for analysis of GRW with & without SSI. As
mentioned in fig. no. 4.4. Two different profiles with 8
different heights are considered for Dynamic Analysis with
& without SSI.
Deformation & Stresses are obtained from the analysis
from each case considered
The obtained results are tabulated as per given in
Appendix B. Variation of parameters are plotted and
discussed in next chapter.

4.1 Validation of problem solution by software
In this problem, Dynamic Analysis of GRW with and
without soil structure interaction system is analyzed using
simplified analysis of fundamental response is validated
with ANSYS Software results.
Deformation is obtained by SOM approach calculation at
different load of GRW are compared with results obtained
by Anasys18.0 Software.
After comparing the results, it is observed that SOM
approach and Ansys 18.0 results are practically similar.
Hence, the formulation which is adopted for the farther
study to solve GRW-soil interaction and effect for
calculating deformation.
5. Results
The current project work is to study the effect of Dynamic
analysis on Gravity retaining wall with SSI as per flow of
project mentioned in the previous chapter. Profiles of
gravity retaining wall and parameters considered for the
Dynamic analysis of gravity retaining wall with SSI as
discussed in previous chapter.
Gravity retaining wall with different geometry and heights
are designed governed by stability criteria dimensions of
gravity retaining wall for various Heights are calculated
using worksheet. which are separately developed for
design of gravity retaining wall with considering
horizontal backfill as a loading case (details given as per
appendix A). As per flow of proposed study two
earthquake sample cases are considered. The various
Heights with different geometry with and without
consideration of soil structure interaction along with
different earthquake cases are solved using finite element
package of ANSYS. Maximum and minimum of the
deformation and stresses obtained for each case, the non-
dimensional variations are plotted and discussed in the
current chapter.
5.1 Parameter Considered for Research Work
Fig.5.3 Flow Chart of the research
5.2 Variation of Weight and Height Ratio
As previously indicated, stability criteria are used to build
spreadsheets for gravity retaining walls. It has been noted
that the stability against sliding criterion (appendix A)
directs the stability criteria for the design of gravity
retaining walls.
Plot G1 shows how the cross-section area of the GRW
varies with varied Heights. Two alternative terms are
created for each profile to allow for generalization, and the
results are as follows. The phrase is defined with reference
to the situation analyzed, which is a gravity training wall
with a height of 3.5 meters. The height ratio (Hr) is the
comparison of the height of the gravity retaining wall to
the height of the gravity retaining wall taken as the
reference case.
Ratio of cross-sectional area The definition of Ar is the
area in cross-section between a gravity retaining wall and
its cross-section in the reference scenario.
Weight ratio Wr is defined as weight of gravity retaining
wall to the weight of gravity retaining wall of reference
case

Table 3: Height and Weight Ratio of GRW
Graph G1: Height and Weight Ratio of GRW
Plot G1 shows that, height ratio and wight ratio increases
simultaneously. They are directly proportional to each
other.
5.3.1 Variation of deformation percentage of GRW as
per dynamic loading (Kobe)considering SSI with
height ratio for different types
The variation of the Deformation percentage of gravity
retaining walls as per dynamic loading (Kobe) with and
without soil structure interaction are considered & plotted
against Hr (As mentioned above) referring to Table no.4
The Deformations are obtained as per considered dynamic
loading case, only retaining wall and retaining wall with
soil mass (considering soil structure interaction). Are
analyzed using FEM package as per cases mentioned in the
fig.5.1. To understand the effect of dynamic loading and
SSI deformation percentage is obtained with reference to
GRW without SSI and results are tabulated and given in
Table no.4
Table No 4 - Variation to Deformation percentage of
GRW with SSI considering against Height ratio (Hr) for
various profiles dynamic loading (Kobe)
Height
Ratio
1 1.14 1.29 1.43 1.57 1.71 1.86 2
Deformation
%
0.47 0.05 0.72 0.97 2.56 0.24 0.04 0.12
Graph G2: Variation to Deformation percentage of GRW
with SSI considering against Height ratio (Hr) for
various profiles dynamic loading (Kobe)
Following observations are noted,
From above plot profile, showing variation of deformation
percentage which is substantially reduced as compared to
without SSI.
The deformation percentage including all profile is only
2.56 percentage as compared to without SSI (that is 97.44
percentage reduction is observed.)
For Profile I shows variation of deformation percentage
increases up to maximum value that is 2.56 percentage.
There after deformation percentage increases up to Hr
1.57. Afterwards the variation in Deformation percentage
is abruptly decreases.
For Profile I show Maximum deformation percentage at Hr
1.57 .
5.3.2 Variation of deformation percentage of GRW
with soil mass as per dynamic loading (Kobe) with
retaining walls as per dynamic loading (Kobe) with and
against Hr (as mentioned above) referring to Table no.5
The Deformation are obtained as per considered dynamic
soil as a whole mass (soil+ retaining wall as whole
structure). Are analyzed using FEM package as per cases
mentioned in the fig.5.1. To understand the effect of
dynamic loading and SSI deformation percentage is
obtained with reference to GRW without SSI & results are
tabulated and given in Table no.5.
Height Ratio 1 1.14 1.29 1.43 1.57 1.71 1.86 2
Mass Ratio 1 1.3 1.66 2.03 2.47 2.93 3.44 3.99

Table No.5 Variation of Deformation percentage of GRW
with SSI with whole soil mass considering against
Height ratio (Hr)for various profiles dynamic loading
(Kobe)
Height
Ratio
1 1.14 1.29 1.43 1.57 1.71 1.86 2
Deformation
%
0.17 0.36 0.26 0.95 0.75 0.45 0.68 0.13
Graph G3: Variation of Deformation percentage of GRW
Height ratio (Hr)for various profiles dynamic loading
(Kobe)
From above plot profile, showing variation of Deformation
without SSI.
The Deformation percentage including all profile is only
1. For Profile I show variation of Deformation percentage
There after Deformation percentage increases up to Hr
is abruptly decreases.
2. For Profile I show Maximum Deformation percentage at
Hr 1.57 .
5.3.3 Variation of deformation percentage of GRW as
per dynamic loading (IS Code) considering SSI with
retaining wall as per dynamic loading (IS Code) with and
against Hr referring to table no. 6
soil mass (considering soil structure interaction). Are
analyzed using FEM package as per cases mentioned in the
fig.5.1. To understand the effect of dynamic loading and SSI
deformation percentage is obtained with reference to GRW
without SSI & results are tabulated and given in Table No6.
Table No-6 Variation to Deformation percentage of
GRW with SSI considering against Height ratio (Hr) for
various profiles dynamic loading (IS Code)
Graph G4: Variation to Deformation percentage of GRW
with SSI considering against Height ratio (Hr) for
various profiles dynamic loading (IS Code)
percentage which are substantially reduced as compared to
without SSI.
is suddenly decreases.
Hr 1.57.
Height
Ratio
1 1.14 1.29 1.43 1.57 1.71 1.86 2
Deformation
%
0.28 0.17 0.18 0.11 0.18 0.07 0.08 0.04

5.3.4 Variation of deformation percentage of GRW
with Soil mass as per dynamic loading (IS Code)
considering SSI with height ratio for different types
retaining wall as per dynamic loading (IS Code) with and
against Hr (As mentioned above) referring to table no. 7
soil as a whole mass (soil+ retaining wall as whole
structure). Are analyzed using FEM package as per cases
mentioned in the fig.5.1. To understand the effect of
dynamic loading and SSI Deformation percentage is
obtained with reference to GRW without SSI & results are
tabulated and given in Table No.7.
Table No.7 Variation of Deformation percentage of GRW
Height ratio (Hr) for various profiles dynamic loading
(IS Code)
Graph G5: Variation of Deformation percentage of GRW
Height ratio (Hr) for various profiles dynamic loading
(IS Code)
without SSI.
is suddenly decreases.
Hr 1.57.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Variation of cross-section area of GRW with
Heights
1) From the variation of height ratio against area ratio it is
concluded that the area of cross-section of GRW increases
with increase in height up to 4 times for HR=2
2) Profile I shows higher cross-section area for HR >1.57
6.2 Variation of Deformation Percentage of GRW with
Height ratio
1) From the tabulated result and plots it is concluded that
due to consideration of SSI the deformation of GRW for
horizontal backfill is significantly reduces.
2) the deformation percentage varies with height ratio for
profile I higher than other profile
3) Profile I show 2 % of deformation as compared to
without SSI for lower height ratio, for higher height ratio it
is reaches to undeformed condition as compared to
without SSI
6) Considering profile I maximum 1.85 %, deformation %
of with SSI is observed
7) the above conclusion indicates that the soil mass active
along with GRW significantly affect the deformation. All
together maximum 1.85% deformation is observed for
considered profile including all heights.
REFERENCES
[1] AZM S. AL-HOMOUD (1994) "INSTABILITY AND
STABILIZATION OF AN EMBANKMENT ON THE IRBID-
AMMAN HIGHWAY IN JORDAN " Civil Etzgineerit~g
Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology,
P.O. Box 3030, Irbid, Jordan.
[2] Vijay K. Puri. (2011) " DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE
AGAINST RETAINING WALLS.", Professor, Civil and
Environmental Engineering, SIU Carbondale, IL, USA ,
puri@engr.siu.edu Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical
Conference December 15-17,2011, Kochi (Invited Talk -
5.).
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
2.5000
1.00 1.14 1.29 1.43 1.57 1.71 1.86 2.00
Deformation
Ratio
Height Ratio
'Profile i'
Height
Ratio
1 1.14 1.29 1.43 1.57 1.71 1.86 2
Deformation
%
0.54 0.03 0.08 0.63 2.06 0.18 0.04 0.06

[3] Aram M. Raheem and Mohammed Y. Fattah (2008)
“ANALYSIS OF RETAINING WALL SUBJECTED TO
EARTHQUAKE LOADING." Journal of Kirkuk University –
Scientific Studies, vol.3, No.1, 2008.
[4] Md. Abu Taiyab ; Md. Jahangir Alam ; and Md. Zoynul
Abedin (2010) “SEISMIC ROTATIONAL STABILITY OF
WATERFRONT RETAINING WALL USING
PSEUDODYNAMIC METHOD”, International Journal of
Geomechanics 10(1)DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-
3641(2010)10:1(45)
[5] A. KAVEH AND M. KHAYATAZAD (2014) “OPTIMAL
DESIGN OF CANTILEVER RETAINING WALLS USING RAY
OPTIMIZATION METHOD." IJST, Transactions of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 38, No. C1+, pp 261-274.
[6] Abhay Tripathi and Tarik Salman (2014) “REVIEW OF
ANALYSIS OF RETAINING WALL UNDER STATIC AND
SEISMIC LOADING." IJSRD - International Journal for
Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 2, Issue 07, 2014 |
ISSN (online): 2321-0613.
[7] Kamal Mohamed Hafez Ismail Ibrahim (2011)
“SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT OF GRAVITY RETAINING
WALLS." HBRC Journal.
[8] Ms. Patil Swapnal V. (2015), “EFFECT OF SOIL
STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON GRAVITY DAM”, Assistant
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg., JSPM’s Imperial College of
Engineering & Research, Pune.

“DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY RETAINING WALL WITH SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION”

More Related Content

Similar to “DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY RETAINING WALL WITH SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION” (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

“DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY RETAINING WALL WITH SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION”