# Dynamic Response of Non-Yielding Wall Supporting Over-Consolidated Sand
## 5 Summary and Conclusions  
In this paper, a validated numerical model was utilized to study the dynamic transient and residual behavior of a non-yielding wall supporting over-consolidated sand. The model was subjected to 14 s of real base excitation, and the response of the system was recorded. A parametric study was conducted to investigate the effects of backfill friction angle, soil over-consolidation ratio (degree of compaction), and panel elastic modulus on the seismic behavior of the soil-wall system. The recorded outputs include the deflection of the wall at mid-height, the earth pressure along the wall height, the total earth force, and the location of the resultant earth force. Both the maximum transient and the residual values were obtained and discussed. The key findings of this study can be summarized as follows:  
1. In a non-yielding wall system, seismic events can produce transient forces and deflections significantly larger than the static values. 2. In a non-yielding wall system, residual deflections and forces at the end of seismic events can be considerably larger than the static values. This highlights the importance of considering the residual state of non-yielding walls during design and future analysis. 3. The maximum deflection increment, dynamic force increment, and resultant force elevation increased with increasing backfill friction angle. Larger maximum pressures were developed within the top half of the wall when larger backfill friction angles were used. Within the bottom half of the wall, maximum pressures were lower for models with higher friction angles. 4. Residual deflection increments did not show a consistent trend with the increasing backfill friction angle. Residual force increments generally increased with the increasing friction angle. For all friction angles, residual deflections and forces were larger than the static values. The location of the resultant residual force was lower than the static value for all backfill friction angles. Residual earth pressures were larger than the static values for all friction angles and along most of the wall height. 5. The maximum deflection increment, dynamic force increment, and resultant force elevation decreased with increasing over-consolidation ratio (degree of compaction). Residual values followed the same trend. Moreover, residual values were larger than the static values in all cases. 6. In general, maximum and residual total earth pressures increased with increasing backfill OCR. In most cases, these pressures exceeded the static values. 7. The maximum deflection increment decreased with increasing wall elastic modulus. The dynamic force increment increased when the panel material was changed from wood to concrete. Within the different concrete strength cases, the dynamic force increment was unaffected. The elevation of the maximum resultant force decreased with increasing panel elastic modulus. Within the top half of the wall, all panel material types showed similarly high maximum pressures. Within the bottom half of the wall, the wood panel experienced pressures lower than those of the concrete panels. 8. Residual deflection increments decreased with increasing wall elastic modulus. Medium- and high-strength concrete panels showed almost zero residual deflection increments. The residual force increment and the elevation of the resultant force decreased with increasing panel elastic modulus. The residual pressure in the concrete panel cases was close to that of the static conditions. The residual pressure in the wood panel case was larger than the static conditions in some locations of the wall and lower in others. The authors caution that the above conclusions are limited to the range of parameters considered in the study. Hence, overgeneralization of the recommendations to untested conditions should be avoided.