Seismic Earth Pressures on Cantilever Retaining Structures

Linda Al Atik, M.ASCE1; and Nicholas Sitar, M.ASCE2

Abstract: An experimental and analytical program was designed and conducted to evaluate the magnitude and distribution of seismically
induced lateral earth pressures on cantilever retaining structures with dry medium dense sand backfill. Results from two sets of dynamic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

centrifuge experiments and two-dimensional nonlinear finite-element analyses show that maximum dynamic earth pressures monotoni-
cally increase with depth and can be reasonably approximated by a triangular distribution. Moreover, dynamic earth pressures and inertia
forces do not act simultaneously on the cantilever retaining walls. As a result, designing cantilever retaining walls for maximum dynamic
earth pressure increment and maximum wall inertia, as is the current practice, is overly conservative and does not reflect the true seismic
response of the wall-backfill system. The relationship between the seismic earth pressure increment coefficient 共⌬KAE兲 at the time of
maximum overall wall moment and peak ground acceleration obtained from our experiments suggests that seismic earth pressures on
cantilever retaining walls can be neglected at accelerations below 0.4 g. This finding is consistent with the observed good seismic
performance of conventionally designed cantilever retaining structures.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000351
CE Database subject headings: Retaining walls; Earth pressure; Seismic effects; Earthquakes; Centrifuge models; Numerical
models; Simulation; Seismic design; Backfills.
Author keywords: Retaining walls; Earth pressures; Earthquakes; Centrifuge models; Numerical models; Simulation; Seismic design;
Backfills.

Introduction
The seismic response of retaining structures is a complex soil-
structure interaction problem. Wall movements and dynamic earth
pressures depend on the response of the soil underlying the wall,
the response of the backfill, the inertial and flexural responses of
the wall itself, and the nature of the input motions. In engineering
practice, the current state of the art 共Anderson et al. 2009兲 is
largely founded on the pioneering work performed in Japan fol-
lowing the great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 by Okabe 共1926兲 and
Mononobe and Matsuo 共1929兲. The method generally known as
the Mononobe-Okabe 共MO兲 method is based on Coulomb’s
theory of static soil pressures and was originally developed for
gravity walls retaining cohesionless backfill materials. Later stud-
ies mostly adopted the same general approach and were similarly
based on analytical solutions assuming ideal cohesionless backfill
or on experimental data from relatively small scale shaking table
experiments with cohesionless backfill. Whereas uncertainty was
acknowledged regarding the position of the point of application of
the resultant dynamic earth pressure, most sources tend to agree
that the MO method gives adequate results 共e.g., Prakash and
Basavanna 1969; Seed and Whitman 1970; Bolton and Steedman
1982; Sherif et al. 1982; Ortiz et al. 1983; Steedman and Zeng
1990兲. The MO method and its adaptation by Seed and Whitman
1
Postdoctoral Scholar, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 共corresponding author兲.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 31, 2009; approved
on February 27, 2010; published online on March 6, 2010. Discussion
period open until March 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 10, October 1, 2010.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/10-1324–1333/$25.00.
共1970兲 are widely used in practice and are generally used as a
standard to which other solutions are compared. Nevertheless,
over time, there have been studies raising questions about the
general applicability of this methodology. Some analytical studies
suggested that the MO method may lead to unconservative esti-
mates of the dynamic earth pressures 共e.g., Green et al. 2003;
Ostadan 2005兲, while other analytical studies and field observa-
tions suggested that the MO method is conservative, if not overly
conservative 共Gazetas et al. 2004; Psarropoulos et al. 2005兲.
Most important, with the increased awareness of seismic risks
and a better understanding of the magnitude of potential ground
motions, designers of retaining structures in regions in close prox-
imity to seismic sources have increasingly found that the applica-
tion of the MO method, as later modified by Seed and Whitman
共1970兲, leads to very large seismic forces that make the resulting
structures prohibitively expensive. Yet, while damage to cantile-
ver retaining structures supporting above-grade embankments has
been reported in recent large earthquakes 共Tatsuoka et al. 1996兲,
there is no indication that conventionally well-designed cantilever
retaining structures with level nonliquefiable backfill experience
significant failures due to seismic loading 共e.g., Lew et al. 1995;
Gazetas et al. 2004; Lew 2009兲. In fact, some well-documented
case histories show that retaining structures designed only for
static loading perform reasonably well under seismic loading with
peak ground acceleration up to 0.5 g 共Clough and Fragaszy 1977;
Gazetas et al. 2004兲.
To address this apparent discrepancy between analysis and
performance, we embarked on a series of dynamic centrifuge ex-
periments in order to study the seismic behavior of the retaining
wall-backfill systems and to evaluate the magnitude and distribu-
tion of seismic earth pressures on cantilever retaining walls. A
two-dimensional 共2D兲 finite-element 共FE兲 model was also devel-
oped and calibrated against the centrifuge results to assess the
ability of numerical models to capture the essential features of the

1324 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333

 seismic behavior of the retaining wall-backfill systems. Results
from this experimental and analytical study are presented herein
together with recommendations for proposed changes in the way
seismic loads are accounted for in the design of cantilever retain-
ing structures.
Background
The MO method is the earliest and most widely used method for
estimating the magnitude of seismic forces acting on a retaining
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
wall. The MO theory assumes that the retaining wall yields suf-
ficiently that a soil wedge at the point of incipient failure develops
behind the wall and that this wedge behaves as a rigid body. The
MO method gives the total active thrust acting on the wall by
applying pseudostatic equilibrium to the forces acting on the soil
wedge with the point of application of the thrust at 1/3 the height
of the wall above its base 共Mononobe and Matsuo 1932兲.
After reviewing the results of experimental work based on
small 1 g shaking table experiments, Seed and Whitman 共1970兲
suggested that the point of application of the dynamic increment
thrust should be between one half to two thirds the wall height
above its base. However, they observed that the peak ground ac-
celeration occurs for only one instant of time and does not have
sufficient duration to cause significant wall movements. Thus,
Seed and Whitman 共1970兲 concluded that “many walls adequately
designed for static earth pressures will automatically have the
capacity to withstand earthquake ground motions of substantial
magnitudes and in many cases, special seismic earth pressure pro-
visions may not be needed.”
While many additional analytical and experimental studies
have been conducted in the last 80 years 共e.g., Bolton and Steed-
man 1982; Sherif et al. 1982; Ortiz et al. 1983; Steedman 1984;
Steedman and Zeng 1990; Stadler 1996; Madabhushi and Zeng
2007兲, most of the basic assumptions inherent in the MO ap-
proach have remained unchallenged. The latest NCHRP report
共Anderson et al. 2009兲 recommended the use of the MO method
for the design of nongravity cantilever walls and the current
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications suggest that a seis-
mic coefficient equal to half the peak ground acceleration is to be
used in the design of nongravity cantilever walls ignoring the wall
inertial forces.
Yet, cantilever retaining walls supporting a variety of non-
liquefiable soils have performed reasonably well during past
earthquakes. It is important to note that some of these retaining
walls were not designed for seismic loading and others were de-
signed for base accelerations not more than 20% of the peak
accelerations that they actually experienced during shaking
共Gazetas et al. 2004兲. Clough and Fragaszy 共1977兲 investigated
the seismic performance of open channel floodway structures in
the Greater Los Angeles area during the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake. They concluded that “peak accelerations of up to 0.5
g were sustained by the floodways with no damage even though
no seismic loads were explicitly considered in the design.” De-
spite some damage to cantilever retaining walls during the 1995
Kobe earthquake 共Tatsuoka et al. 1996兲, well-documented case
histories from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake 共Clough and
Fragaszy 1977兲, 1994 Northridge earthquake 共Lew et al. 1995兲,
1995 Kobe earthquake 共Koseki et al. 1998兲, and the 1999 Athens
earthquake 共Gazetas et al. 2004兲 show that cantilever retaining
structures with nonliquefiable level backfill perform well under
seismic loading, even if they were not specifically designed to
handle dynamic loads. Most recently, Nakamura 共2006兲 per-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1325
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333
formed centrifuge experiments on gravity retaining walls and
concluded that the MO theory does not express the real seismic
behavior of the retaining wall/backfill system. These latest results
and observations clearly run counter to the currently prevailing
seismic earth pressure theories and design recommendations.
Experimental Program
Two series of dynamic centrifuge experiments were performed on
cantilever walls connected with a stiff floor slab 共open channel
structures兲 designed to represent prototype structures under de-
sign for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System 共BART兲 and Valley
Transportation Authority 共VTA兲 共Al Atik and Sitar 2008兲. The
experiments were carried out on the dynamic centrifuge at the
Center for Geotechnical Modeling at the University of California,
Davis. Technical specifications for the centrifuge and shaking
table are available in the literature 共Kutter et al. 1994兲. All results
are presented in terms of prototype units unless otherwise stated.
Model Test Configurations and Preparation
The models were constructed in a flexible shear beam container
and the centrifugal acceleration used in the two experiments was
36 g. A profile view of the full centrifuge model configuration is
shown in Fig. 1. The model structures used in the experiments
were open channel structures with cantilever walls and a stiff base
constructed of aluminum. In prototype scale, the retaining struc-
tures were 5.67 m high. The difference in the structures was the
flexibility of the walls, with the walls of the stiff structure being
about 6 times stiffer than those of the flexible structure. The es-
timated natural periods of the stiff and flexible walls were 0.11
and 0.24 s, respectively. In plan view, both structures spanned the
width of the container. The sand used in both centrifuge models
was fine, uniform, angular Nevada sand with minimum and maxi-
mum dry densities of 14.50 and 17.49 kN/ m3, respectively.
The first centrifuge experiment, LAA01, was performed on a
two-layer sand model. The stiff and flexible structures sat on dry
medium-dense sand 共Dr= 73%兲 of approximately 12.5 m height
and supported a dry medium-dense sand backfill 共Dr= 61%兲.
The estimated natural period of the base soil prior to shaking was
0.19 s. The natural period of the backfill soil could not be esti-
mated due to a glitch in the instrumentation. The second centri-
fuge experiment, LAA02, was performed on a uniform density
sand model 共Dr= 72%兲. The estimated natural periods of the base
and of the backfill soil prior to shaking were 0.19 and 0.15 s,
respectively.
The sequence of the model construction consisted of first plac-
ing the sand underneath the structures. The stiff and flexible struc-
tures were then placed at their appropriate locations. The backfill
sand was later placed behind the walls. The sand was placed using
dry pluviation in different layers. The height of each layer corre-
sponds to a horizontal array of instruments. The soil density was
produced by calibrating the drop height, mesh opening, and speed
of drop for the pluviator. After placement of each layer, the sand
surface was smoothed with a vacuum and instruments were
placed at their specific positions. Industrial grease was placed
between the structures’ walls and the sides of the container to
provide a frictionless walls/container boundary and prevent sand
from passing through. Lead was added to the structures in small
pieces of 6.45 cm2 共1 in.2兲 each in order to match the masses of
the reinforced concrete structures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. LAA02 model configuration, profile view

Instrumentation Experimental Results

LAA01 and LAA02 models were densely instrumented to collect
accurate and reliable measurements of accelerations, displace- Acceleration Response
ments, shear wave velocities, strains, bending moments, and earth Acceleration time series recorded during the centrifuge experi-
pressures. Since accurate measurement of the magnitude and dis- ments were used to evaluate the amplification and deamplification
tribution of lateral earth pressures was the major goal of this of the input ground motions and to evaluate the magnitude of the
study, three different sets of instruments were used. Lateral earth seismically induced forces. Fig. 2 is a plot of the peak accelera-
pressures on the four model walls were directly measured using tions measured at the base of the container versus those measured
flexible tactile pressure Flexiforce sensors which were uniformly at the top of the soil in the free field, at the top of the south stiff
spaced over the entire height of each wall. Lateral earth pressures wall, and at the top of the north flexible wall during the different
were also back-calculated based on the bending moments mea-
sured by strain gauges mounted on the south stiff and north flex-
ible walls. Finally, direct measurements of the total bending Table 1. Input Ground Motion Parameters
moments at the bases of the south stiff and north flexible walls
Input motion parameters
were made using force-sensing bolts at the wall-foundation joints.
All instruments except accelerometers were specifically condi- Test PGA Tp D
tioned and calibrated for the experiments. series Shaking event 共g兲 共s兲 共s兲
LAA1 Loma Prieta-1 — 0.34 27.06
Loma Prieta-2 0.43 0.3 23.46
Shaking Events
Kobe 0.9 0.26 25.11
Multiple shaking events covering a wide range of predominant Loma Prieta-3 0.43 0.3 23.47
periods and peak ground accelerations were applied to LAA01 LAA2 Loma Prieta-SC-1 0.66 0.14 9.51
and LAA02 models in flight. The shaking was applied parallel to Kobe-PI-1 0.79 0.36 25.13
the long sides of the model container and orthogonal to the model Kobe-PI-2 0.8 0.36 18.23
structures. Shaking events consisted of scaled ground motions Loma Prieta-SC-2 0.49 0.3 23.45
recorded at the Santa Cruz 共SC兲 and the Saratoga West Valley Kocaeli-YPT060-1 0.04 0.62 23.5
College 共WVC兲 stations during the Loma Prieta 1989 earthquake, Kocaeli-YPT060-2 0.15 0.28 18.6
ground motions recorded at the Port Island 共PI兲 and Takatori Kocaeli-YPT060-3 0.24 0.28 15.65
共TAK兲 stations during the Kobe 1995 earthquake, and ground Kocaeli-YPT330-1 0.1 0.2 20.41
motions recorded at the Yarmica 共YPT兲 station during the Kocaeli
Kocaeli-YPT330-2 0.27 0.24 15.44
1999 earthquake. The input ground motion parameters are pre-
Kobe-TAK090-1 0.74 0.5 8.61
sented in Table 1. The peak ground acceleration of the input mo-
Kobe-TAK090-2 0.87 0.2 16.16
tions ranged from 0.1 to 0.87 g and the predominant period
Loma Prieta-WVC270 0.28 0.56 12.05
ranged from 0.2 to 0.62 s, thus spanning a broad range of ground
Kocaeli-YPT330-3 0.22 0.24 19.7
motion characteristics.

1326 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Base motion amplification/deamplification for soil, stiff, and
flexible walls
shaking events. As shown in Fig. 2, the ground motions are con-
sistently amplified at the top of the walls. The acceleration at the
top of the soil crosses over the 45° reference line, showing attenu-
ation of the large magnitude input shaking events. This behavior
is consistent with what would be expected in typical soil deposits
and indicates that the soil response in the centrifuge models is
nonlinear.
Seismic Behavior of the Retaining Wall-Backfill
System
The dynamic response of the wall-backfill system was assessed
by using the time histories of recorded moments on the walls and
also by independent comparison with the directly measured seis-
mic earth pressures. Fig. 3 is an example of dynamic wall mo-
Fig. 3. Comparison of dynamic wall moment increments interpreted
from SG1, dynamic earth pressure increments interpreted from R1-2,
and wall inertial forces on the south stiff wall during Loma Prieta-
SC-1 in experiment LAA02
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1327
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333
ment increment time series interpreted from a strain gauge
measurement, dynamic earth pressure increment time series re-
corded by a pressure sensor, and the inertial force on the south
stiff wall during Loma Prieta-SC-1 shaking event from experi-
ment LAA02. The dynamic wall moment and earth pressure in-
crement time series plotted in Fig. 3 were measured in the lower
half of the wall. Dynamic wall moment increments are the bend-
ing moments on the wall due to dynamic earth pressure increment
and the inertia force on the wall. The inertial force on the wall is
proportional to the negative recorded acceleration and is com-
puted, for comparison purposes, by multiplying the negative
value of the mass of the retaining wall by the acceleration re-
corded at its top.
As shown in Fig. 3, when the inertial force is at its local
maximum, the dynamic wall moment increments reach their local
maxima as well, but the dynamic earth pressure increments are at
their local minima or around zero. On the other hand, when the
dynamic earth pressure increment is at its local maximum, the
inertial force and dynamic wall moment increment reach their
local minimum values or zero. The same type of behavior was
observed on the north flexible wall. The interpretation of this
observation is that when the inertial force acts in the active direc-
tion, the total earth pressure is equal to or less than the static earth
pressure. Dynamic earth pressure increment is at its maximum
when the inertial force is close to zero 共i.e., static case兲 or when
the inertial force acts in the passive direction.
In contrast, the limit equilibrium assumption inherent in the
MO theory means that the earth pressure increases when the in-
ertia force is loaded in the active direction and stability analyses
of retaining walls are usually conducted for maximum dynamic
earth pressures and inertia forces. While such response is possible
within the range of site conditions and wall properties encoun-
tered in practice, our experiment databased on a range of input
motions with varying characteristics suggest that the MO assump-
tions are generally inconsistent with the actual dynamic response
of the system. When wall inertial forces and dynamic earth pres-
sures are not in phase, their cumulative effect results in reduced
overall moments acting on the walls and designing cantilever re-
taining walls for maximum dynamic earth pressures and maxi-
mum wall inertia is in our view overly conservative. Instead,
effective seismic design of cantilever retaining walls must be able
to capture the total dynamic wall moments that include the com-
bined effects of the inertial forces on the wall and the backfill.
Dynamic Bending Moments
While it is traditional in geotechnical practice to work in terms of
earth pressures, from structural design point of view, it is the
moment distribution and the moment at the base of the wall that is
of paramount interest. Maximum measured total earth pressure
moments were compared to moment estimates using the MO
pressure distribution with the total resultant force applied at one
third the height of the wall above its base and to moment esti-
mates using the Seed and Whitman 共1970兲 method. For the Seed
and Whitman 共1970兲 method 共S&W兲, the resultant force of the
dynamic pressure increment is applied at two thirds the height of
the wall above its base. Moment time series interpreted from the
strain gauge measurements and directly measured by the force-
sensing bolts on the south stiff and north flexible walls were cor-
rected to reflect only static and dynamic earth pressures by
subtracting the corresponding estimated wall inertial moment
time series. Fig. 4 presents an example of the maximum total
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Maximum total earth pressure moment profiles interpreted
from the strain gauge and force-sensing bolt measurements and esti-
mated using the MO and Seed and Whitman 共1970兲 methods for
Loma Prieta-SC-1 and Kobe-PI-1 shaking events
earth pressure moment profiles on the south stiff and north flex-
ible wall for Loma Prieta-SC-1 and Kobe-PI-1 shaking events
from experiment LAA02.
Fig. 4 shows that the maximum total dynamic moment profiles
are cubic in nature. Moreover, the MO and Seed and Whitman
共1970兲 methods used with peak ground accelerations generally
overestimate the maximum observed moments at the bases of the
stiff and the flexible walls. The ratio of the observed maximum
total earth pressure moments to the estimated values is a function
of the flexibility of the wall, the magnitude of shaking, and the
density of the sand backfill.
Dynamic Earth Pressures
Lateral earth pressures were directly measured along the entire
height of the four walls by the tactile pressure sensors. A consis-
tent agreement was observed between the dynamic earth pressure
profiles measured at the north and south walls of each structure.
This is an important observation in that it confirms that the mod-
els were not significantly influenced by the proximity to the con-
tainer walls. Seismically induced lateral earth pressure profiles
were also interpreted on the south stiff and north flexible walls by
double differentiating the maximum total earth pressure moment
profiles obtained from the strain gauge data with respect to wall
height and corrected to remove the wall inertial effects from the
measurements. Maximum total earth pressure moment profiles
correspond to the time at which the maximum moment was re-
corded at the lowest strain gauge of the stiff or flexible walls for
one shaking event. The moments recoded by the other strain
gauges on the wall at that same time constitute the maximum
profile. Fig. 5 shows typical maximum total earth pressure distri-
butions as recorded by the tactile pressure sensors and interpreted
from the strain gauge measurements on the south stiff and north
flexible walls during the Loma Prieta-SC-2 and Kocaeli-
YPT060-2 shaking events from experiment LAA02. The pressure
distributions estimated by the MO method using the peak and
65% of the peak ground accelerations are also plotted in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 shows that the maximum earth pressure profiles 共i.e.,
static plus dynamic increment兲 monotonically increase with depth
and can be approximated by linear trend lines. The magnitudes of
the maximum measured total earth pressure profiles are smaller
than the MO estimates using total peak ground acceleration. Dy-
1328 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333
Fig. 5. Maximum total earth pressure profiles measured and esti-
mated using the MO method on the south stiff and north flexible
walls during Loma Prieta-SC-2 and Kocaeli-YPT060-2 shaking
events
namic earth pressure estimates obtained using 65% of the peak
ground acceleration with the MO method are in better agreement
with the maximum measured total earth pressure profiles.
Dynamic Earth Pressure Increment Coefficients
Dynamic earth pressures and dynamic wall moments do not occur
at the same time on retaining walls. Therefore, for design pur-
poses, using dynamic earth pressure increment coefficient 共⌬KAE兲
values that are derived from the dynamic earth pressure incre-
ments at the time the walls experience maximum dynamic wall
moments 共due to combined effect of dynamic earth pressures and
wall inertia兲 is more rational and more representative of the wall
performance under seismic loading. The dynamic earth pressure
increments interpreted from the strain gauge and force-sensing
bolt measurements at the time of maximum dynamic wall mo-
ments were used to back-calculate ⌬KAE for the shaking events in
experiment LAA02. Fig. 6 presents ⌬KAE relationships for the
stiff and flexible walls as a function of the peak ground accelera-
tion measured at the top of the soil in the free field.
Fig. 6 shows that ⌬KAE values increase linearly with increas-
ing peak ground acceleration measured at the top of the soil in the
free field. Moreover, dynamic effects at the maximum dynamic
wall moments do not appear to be significant when the peak
ground acceleration does not exceed about 0.4 g. This suggests
that for peak ground accelerations less than 0.4 g, the maximum
dynamic wall moment is mainly due to the inertia of the wall
itself. Total earth pressures acting on the walls at that time are
slightly lower than static earth pressures.
It is important to note that the back-calculated ⌬KAE values
presented in Fig. 6 do not include any factor of safety that would
normally be incorporated in seismic designs. Such factors of
safety when included in seismic designs would allow retaining
walls to resist peak ground accelerations greater than 0.4 g with-
out significant increase in dynamic earth pressures. Similar con-
clusions were made by Seed and Whitman 共1970兲 where the
authors observed that a wall designed to a reasonable static factor
of safety should be able to resist seismic loads up of 0.3 g. This
observation is also consistent with the observations and analyses
performed by Clough and Fragaszy 共1977兲 who concluded that
conventionally designed cantilever walls with granular backfill
could be reasonably expected to resist seismic loads at accelera-
tions up to 0.5 g.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Back-calculated dynamic earth pressure coefficients at the time of maximum dynamic wall moments on the stiff and flexible walls as a
function of peak ground acceleration measured at top of soil in free field

Numerical Analyses adding the retaining structures and the soil-structure springs and
applying the structures’ weight; and 共4兲 updating the soil behavior
A 2D plane strain FE model of the channel structures and the to the plastic stage and applying the input ground motion. Static
backfill and base soil was developed on the OpenSees platform to and transient system responses were recorded throughout the
simulate centrifuge experiment LAA02, presented in Fig. 1. analysis.
Boundary conditions of the 2D FE mesh consisted of 共1兲 base
nodes of the soil continuum fixed horizontally and vertically to
Soil Constitutive Model
reproduce the fixed-base conditions of the model container; 共2兲
displacement degrees of freedom of the lateral boundary nodes of The uniform density dry sand of experiment LAA02 was modeled
the soil continuum tied together horizontally and vertically, 共3兲 by single-phase, four-node, quadrilateral elements. Pressure-
traction free surface; and 共4兲 dynamic excitation defined as the dependent multiyield 共PDMY兲 material was used to simulate the
recorded base acceleration. The simulated input earthquakes in- nonlinear sand response. This constitutive soil model is based on
cluded input acceleration time series recorded during the Loma the framework of multiyield surface plasticity, in which a number
Prieta-SC-1, Kobe-PI-2, and Loma Prieta-SC-2 shaking events in of conical yield surfaces with different tangent moduli are em-
centrifuge experiment LAA02. Peak accelerations varied from ployed to represent shear stress-strain nonlinearity and confine-
0.49 to 0.8 g. ment dependence of shear strength. Detailed description of the
The sequence of the FE analysis consisted of 共1兲 generating PDMY soil material and its parameters can be found in Yang
the soil mesh and specifying the boundary conditions; 共2兲 setting et al. 共2003, 2008兲 and Elgamal et al. 共2002, 2003兲.
the soil behavior to linear elastic and applying its self-weight; 共3兲
Model Calibration
Table 2. Main Modeling Parameters for Dry Medium-Dense Nevada Table 2 presents the main modeling parameters for the dry
Sand 共Dr= 72%兲 medium-dense sand used in experiment LAA02. The initial dry
Model parameter Parameter value soil mass density, void ratio, and reference shear modulus 共ob-
tained from shear-wave velocity兲 were based on centrifuge mea-
Initial mass density 共kg/ m 兲
3
1692 surements. Initial friction angle and phase transformation angle
Reference shear modulus, Gr 共kPa兲 5.30⫻ 104 were determined based on calibration against centrifuge results
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 and on values presented in Arulmoli et al. 共1992兲. Poisson’s ratio
Reference bulk modulus, Br 共kPa兲 1.15⫻ 105 was defined to result in a friction angle of 35° for normally con-
Reference confining stress, Pr⬘ 共kPa兲 54 solidated sand. The low strain bulk modulus was determined
Peak shear strain 0.1 using the elastic relation with the low strain shear modulus and
Pressure dependent coefficient 0.5 Poisson’s ratio. Peak octahedral shear strain and contraction and
Shear strain and G/Gmax pairs Based on Fig. 7 dialation parameters were defined based on recommendations
Friction angle 共deg兲 35 provided in Yang et al. 共2008兲. Liquefaction-induced strain con-
Phase transformation angle 共deg兲 27 stants were set to zero to deactivate the liquefaction mechanism.
Contraction constant 0.05 The yield surfaces in OpenSees were based on the shear modu-
Dilation constants d1 = 0.6, d2 = 3.0
lus reduction curve specified as G/Gmax and shear strain pairs.
According to the procedure outlined in Zeghal et al. 共1995兲 and
Liquefaction induced strain constants 0
Elgamal et al. 共2005兲, shear stress and shear strain responses at
Number of yield surfaces 11
different depths along the centerline of the soil were estimated
Void ratio 0.566
based on the one-dimensional shear beam idealization using the

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1329

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Modulus reduction curve estimated based on acceleration

data recorded during the different shaking events of centrifuge ex-
periment LAA02
recorded lateral downhole accelerations for the different shaking
events during centrifuge experiment LAA02. Fig. 7 presents the
modulus reduction curve G/Gmax evaluated from selected shear
stress-strain loops at location A27. Shear strain and G/Gmax pairs
were defined in OpenSees based on Fig. 7.
The walls and the bases of the retaining structures were mod-
eled in OpenSees using elastic beam/column elements. The re-
taining structures used in the FE model had the same prototype
dimensions, mass, and properties as the aluminum structures used
in the centrifuge experiments. The connections between the wall
and the base of each structure were modeled as rigid moment
connections in OpenSees, which means that no rotational flexibil-
ity was allowed at the connections.
The soil-structure interaction in the FE model was simulated
by zero-length nonlinear springs. Each nonlinear spring consisted
of an elastic-no-tension component in parallel with a viscous
component or a dashpot representing radiation damping. The
properties of the nonlinear springs were generally selected based
on calibration against experimental results and to be proportional
to the strength and the damping of the adjacent soil elements.
Horizontal springs were used to connect the backfill soil to the
retaining walls while vertical springs were used to connect the
base of the retaining structures to the base soil. In the 2D FE
model, viscous damping is assumed to be only stiffness propor-
tional, whereby the stiffness proportional coefficient is obtained
using an average of 3.5% damping ratio at the soil natural fre-
quency.
Fig. 8. Comparison of recorded and computed accelerations at the
top of the soil in the free field and at the top of the south stiff and
north flexible walls during Loma Prieta-SC-1
corded acceleration response spectra are in a reasonably good
agreement. While the computed and recorded acceleration re-
sponse spectra agree very well at long periods, the computed
response consistently underestimates the measured response at
shorter periods. This behavior can be explained by the use of a
stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping in the FE model which
introduces an artificially high damping that filters high-frequency
motion content.
Bending Moments
Fig. 10 presents recorded and computed total wall moment time
series on the south stiff and north flexible retaining walls during
the Loma-Prieta-SC-1 shaking scenario. Total wall moments rep-
resent the moment on the retaining walls due to the combined
effects of earth pressures 共static and dynamic兲 and wall inertia.
Recorded total wall moment time series are interpreted from the
strain gauge measurements while computed total wall moment
time series are obtained in OpenSees using the wall element re-
corder. Moments presented in Fig. 10 were corrected such that
positive moment corresponds to wall rotation away from the soil
for both stiff and flexible walls.

Analytical Results

Acceleration and Response Spectra

Fig. 8 presents comparison of the computed and recorded hori-
zontal acceleration time series at the top of the soil in the free
field, top of the south stiff, and north flexible retaining walls for
the Loma Prieta-SC-1 shaking event. Fig. 9 presents the accelera-
tion response spectra at 5% damping for the recorded and com-
puted acceleration time series at the top of the south stiff and
north flexible walls, at the top of the ground surface in the free
field, and within the soil deposit.
As shown in Fig. 8, computed and recorded acceleration time Fig. 9. Comparison of recorded and computed acceleration response
series at the top of the retaining structures and the soil in the free spectra at 5% damping at the top of the south stiff and north flexible
field were in excellent agreement in terms of the phase and mag- walls, at the top of the soil in the free field, and within the soil during
nitude of accelerations. Fig. 9 shows that the computed and re- Loma Prieta-SC-1

1330 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Comparison of computed and recorded total earth pressure

time series at different locations on the south stiff and north flexible
walls during Loma Prieta-SC-1

on the stiff and the flexible retaining walls observed in the cen-
trifuge experiment were reasonably simulated by the FE model.
Fig. 12 presents the maximum total earth pressure distributions
Fig. 10. Comparison of computed and recorded total wall moment interpreted from the strain gauge measurements, computed in
time series at different locations on the south stiff and north flexible OpenSees and estimated by the MO method using the peak
wall during Loma Prieta-SC-1 ground acceleration at the top of the soil in the free field for Loma
Prieta-SC-1 for both stiff and flexible walls. Both experimental
and analytical results show that maximum total earth pressures
Fig. 10 shows that the computed and recorded total wall mo- increase with depth. The trend and magnitude of total earth pres-
ments are in good agreement. The computed moments well repro- sures observed during the centrifuge experiments and computed
duced the phase and magnitude of the moment responses of the in OpenSees agree reasonably well. The computed profiles in gen-
stiff and flexible walls. Moreover, the FE model successfully eral fall somewhat below the values back-calculated from strain
simulated the gradual increase in static moment as a result of gauge measurements and above the values obtained from the tac-
shaking and soil densification and the cubic distribution of static tile pressure sensors. The numerical solution departs from the
and total moments along the depth of the walls. measured values at the base of each wall because the wall-base
connections were modeled in OpenSees as rigid moment connec-
tions, which do not reflect the true behavior at the joints where
Lateral Earth Pressures
some moment flexibility is present.
Fig. 11 presents a comparison of the computed and recorded total Overall, while the results of the numerical analyses confirmed
共static plus dynamic兲 lateral earth pressures at various locations the trends observed in the centrifuge experiments, the calibration
on the south stiff and north flexible walls during the Loma Prieta- of the numerical model was not trivial even with an extensive
SC-1 shaking event. Recorded earth pressures in Fig. 11 were
measured using the tactile pressure sensors while computed earth
pressures were obtained in OpenSees using spring force record-
ers. Lateral earth pressures in Fig. 11 were corrected such that
positive earth pressure corresponds to a force acting on the wall in
the direction away from the backfill.
As shown in Fig. 11, the degree of agreement between the
computed and recorded total earth pressures on the stiff and the
flexible walls is quite variable. Despite the reasonable phase
agreement between the recorded and computed total earth pres-
sure time series, computed values usually overestimated the
magnitude of the recorded total earth pressures. It should be noted
that the accuracy of the earth pressure magnitudes measured by
the tactile pressure sensors is limited due to drift and conditioning
problems encountered with these sensors during the centrifuge
experiments. Moreover, we found that the computed earth pres-
sures in OpenSees were sensitive to small variations in the prop- Fig. 12. Maximum total earth pressure profiles interpreted from the
erties of the wall-soil springs and the type of soil-structure strain gauge measurements, computed in OpenSees and estimated
interaction. Overall and despite the mentioned limitations, the using the MO method on the south stiff and north flexible walls for
main characteristics of the static and total earth pressures acting the Loma-Prieta-SC-1 shaking event

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1331

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333

 experimental data set. Hence, extension of numerical models to
problems for which experimental or field calibration data are
lacking should be approached with great caution.
Conclusions
The results of our experimental and numerical studies lead to
several important conclusions:
1. The experimental and numerical analysis results consistently
show that the maximum dynamic earth pressures increase
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with depth and can be reasonably approximated by a trian-
gular distribution analogous to that used to represent static
earth pressures. Consequently, there seems to be no basis for
the currently accepted position of the point of application of
the dynamic earth pressure force in dynamic limit equilib-
rium analyses at 0.6 to 0.67 H and, instead, the point of
application should be at 1/3 H, as originally suggested by
Mononobe and Matsuo 共1932兲.
2. An important aspect of the dynamic interaction between the
cantilever retaining walls and retained soils is the fact that
that maximum dynamic earth pressures and maximum wall
inertial forces do not tend to occur simultaneously. As a re-
sult, the current design methods based on the MO theory
were found to significantly overestimate the recorded dy-
namic earth pressures and moments.
3. The relationship between the back-calculated seismic earth
pressure increment coefficient 共⌬KAE兲 at the time of maxi-
mum dynamic wall moment and peak ground acceleration
obtained from our experiments suggests that seismic earth
pressures on cantilever retaining walls can be neglected at
accelerations below 0.4 g.
4. The analytical results show that the FE analysis is able to
capture quite well the essential system responses observed in
the centrifuge experiments. However, the veracity of the nu-
merical analyses is strongly dependent on access to high-
quality experimental or field performance data for model
calibration and, therefore, field performance predictions
using numerical models should be approached with caution.
Finally, while it is important to note that our results strictly
apply to dry cohesionless medium dense materials, even better
performance can be expected in denser and moderately cemented
or cohesive materials. In addition, cantilever walls on individual
footings could experience rocking and translation away from the
retained soil mass which, although mostly undesirable, would
further decrease the seismic earth pressures. At this point, more
experimental work and well-documented case histories are
needed to fully explore the range of potential soil conditions and
types of retaining structures and to further develop methods of
analysis that are consistent with the actual dynamic behavior of
these systems.
Acknowledgments
The writers gratefully acknowledge the support and valuable
input provided by Professor Bruce Kutter, Dr. Dan Wilson, and all
the staff at the Center for Geotechnical Modeling at the Univer-
sity of California, Davis. This research was supported by a grant
from the San Francisco BART and the Santa Clara VTA to the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center at UC Berkeley.
The writers also received valuable input from Ed Matsuda, Dr.
Jose Vallenas at BART, and James Chai at VTA. Any opinions,
1332 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
paper are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those
of the funding agencies.
References
Al Atik, L., and Sitar, N. 共2008兲. “Experimental and analytical study of
the seismic performance of retaining structures.” PEER Rep.
2008104, College of Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Anderson, D. G., Martin, G. R., Lam, I., and Wang, J. N. 共2009兲. “Seis-
mic analysis and design of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes,
and embankments.” NCHRP Rep. 611, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C.
Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K. K., Hosain, M. M., and Fruth, L. S.
共1992兲. “VELACS laboratory testing program, soil data report.”
Project No. 90-0562, The Earth Technology Corporation, Irvine,
Calif.
Bolton, M. D., and Steedman, R. S. 共1982兲. “Centrifugal testing of mi-
croconcrete retaining walls subject to base shaking.” Proc., Conf. on
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, Balkema, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands, 311–329.
Clough, G. W., and Fragaszy, R. F. 共1977兲. “A study of earth loadings on
floodway retaining structures in the 1971 San Fernando Valley earth-
quake.” Proc., 6th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 3,
Sarita Prakashan, Meerut, India.
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Lai, T., Kutter, B., and Wilson, D. 共2005兲. “Dy-
namic response of saturated dense sand in laminated centrifuge con-
tainer.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131共5兲, 598–609.
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., and Parra, E. 共2002兲. “Computational modeling of
cyclic Mobility and post-liquefaction site response.” Soil. Dyn. Earth-
quake Eng., 22, 259–271.
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Parra, E., and Ragheb, A. 共2003兲. “Modeling of
cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils.” Int. J. Plast., 19,
883–905.
Gazetas, G., Psarropoulos, P. N., Anastasopoulos, I., and Gerolymos, N.
共2004兲. “Seismic behavior of flexible retaining systems subjected to
short-duration moderately strong excitation.” Soil. Dyn. Earthquake
Eng., 24, 537–550.
Green, R. A., Olgun, C. G., Ebeling, R. M., and Cameron, W. I. 共2003兲.
Seismically induced lateral earth pressures on a cantilever retaining
wall, Proc., 6th U.S. Conf. and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering, Long Beach, Calif.
Koseki, J., Tatsuoka, F., Munaf, Y., Tateyama, M., and Kojima, K. 共1998兲.
“A modified procedure to evaluate active earth pressure at high seis-
mic loads.” Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17,
1996 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, 2, 209–
216.
Kutter, B. L., Idriss, I. M., Kohnke, T., Lakeland, J., Li, X. S., Sluis, W.,
Zeng, X., Tauscher, R. C., Goto, Y., and Kubodera, I. 共1994兲. “Design
of a large earthquake simulator at UC Davis.” Proc., Int. Conf., Cen-
trifuge 94, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 169–175.
Lew, M. 共2009兲. private communication.
Lew, M., Simantob, E., and Hudson, M. E. 共1995兲. “Performance of
shored earth retaining systems during the January 17, 1994,
Northridge earthquake.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. 3, St.
Louis.
Madabhushi, S. P. G., and Zeng, X. 共2007兲. “Simulating seismic response
of cantilever retaining walls.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133共5兲,
539–549.
Mononobe, N., and Matsuo, M. 共1929兲. “On the determination of earth
pressures during earthquakes.” Proc. World Engrg. Congress, 9, 179–
187.
Mononobe, N. and Matsuo, M. 共1932兲. Experimental investigation of lat-
eral earth pressure during earthquakes, Earthquake Research Institute
and Research Office of Public Works, 884–902.
 Nakamura, S. 共2006兲. “Re-examination of Mononobe-Okabe theory of
gravity retaining walls using centrifuge model tests.” Soils Found.,
46共2兲, 135–146.
Okabe, S. 共1926兲. “General theory of earth pressures.” J. Japan. Soc.
Civil Eng., 12共1兲, 123–134.
Ortiz, L. A., Scott, R. F., and Lee, J. 共1983兲. “Dynamic centrifuge testing
of a cantilever retaining wall.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 11,
251–268.
Ostadan, F. 共2005兲. “Seismic soil pressure for building walls—An up-
dated approach.” Int. J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 25, 785–793.
Prakash, S., and Basavanna, B. M. 共1969兲. “Earth pressure distribution
behind retaining wall during earthquakes.” Proc., 4th World Conf. on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 10/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
Psarropoulos, P. N., Klonaris, G., and Gazetas, G. 共2005兲. “Seismic earth
pressures on rigid and flexible retaining walls.” Int. J. Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 25, 795–809.
Seed, H. B., and Whitman, R. V. 共1970兲. “Design of earth retaining struc-
tures for dynamic loads.” Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on Lateral
Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Vol.
1, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y., 103–147.
Sherif, M. A., Ishibashi, I., and Lee, C. D. 共1982兲. “Earth pressure against
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2010 / 1333
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(10): 1324-1333
stiff retaining walls.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 108, 679–695.
Stadler, A. T. 共1996兲. “Dynamic centrifuge testing of cantilever retaining
walls.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colo.
Steedman, R. S. 共1984兲. “Modeling the behavior of retaining walls in
earthquakes.” Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge Univ., Cambridge, Mass.
Steedman, R. S., and Zeng, X. 共1990兲. “The influence of phase on the
calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall.” Geo-
technique, 40共1兲, 103–112.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., and Koseki, J. 共1996兲. “Performance of soil
retaining walls for railway embankements.” Special Issue on Geotech-
nical Aspects of the January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake,
Soils and Foundations, 311–324.
Yang, Z., Elgamal, A., and Parra, E. 共2003兲. “A computational model for
liquefaction and associated shear deformation.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 129共12兲, 1119–1127.
Yang, Z., Lu, J., and Elgamal, A. 共2008兲. “OpenSees manual for PDMY
and PIMY materials.” 具http://cyclic.ucsd.edu/opensees/典 共August
2008兲.
Zeghal, M., Elgamal, A. W., Tang, H. T., and Stepp, J. C. 共1995兲. “Lotung
downhole array. II: Evaluation of soil nonlinear properties.” J. Geo-
tech. Engrg., 121共4兲, 363–378.