Some aspects of seismic design methods for flexible earth retaining

structures
Quelques aspects des mthodes du projet sismiques pour les structures de retenue de la terre
flexible
Ciro Visone
DIG, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy ciro.visone@unina.it
Filippo Santucci de Magistris
SAVA, Engineering & Environmental Div., University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy filippo.santucci@unimol.it

ABSTRACT
On the basis of Performance-based design philosophy and hierarchical resistances, in this paper some consid-
erations are done for flexible earth retaining structures. Structural damage and serviceability criteria adopted
in existing codes and guidelines are illustrated. A series of results of numerical analyses conducted with a FE
code and the influence of some parameters on the results of dynamic analysis are discussed. A new pseu-
dostatic approach and its application procedure are proposed.

RSUM
Sur la base de la philosophie de conception Performance-base et des rsistances hirarchiques, en cet article
quelques considrations sont faites pour les structures de retenue de la terre flexible. Des critres structuraux
de dommages et d'utilit adopts dans des codes existants et des directives sont analyss. Une srie de
rsultats des analyses numriques conduites avec un code de Fe et l'influence de quelques paramtres sur les
rsultats de l'analyse dynamique est discute. On propose une nouvelle approche pseudostatic et son procd
d'application.

Keywords: flexible retaining walls, hierarchical resistance, push-over analyses

1 INTRODUCTION.
The seismic design of flexible retaining walls is
often conducted using limit equilibrium methods and
calculating the dynamic earth pressures with the
Mononobe & Okabe M-O theory. This type of
analysis does not permit the evaluation of system re-
sponse in terms of displacements. An alternative
method is the use of subgrade reaction analyses, in
which the soil is idealized as a series of elasto-
plastic springs characterized by means of coeffi-
cients of subgrade reaction, and the structural ele-
ment is modelled as an elastic or elasto-plastic beam.
This approach allows the calculation of the elastic
and plastic deformations induced in the soil but the
values of displacements are realistic only if the
stress and strain relationships of the springs are cho-
sen with a great accuracy.
For the response of flexible earth retaining struc-
ture under seismic loadings, both methods cannot
take into account of some aspects that might influ-
ence the overall behaviour of the system i.e., the
damping, the natural frequencies of the system, the
phase differences and the amplification effects
within the backfill. Using a simple pseudodynamic
analysis of seismic earth pressures, Steedman &
Zeng (1990) have shown that the earth pressure dis-
tribution and the point of application of the dynamic
thrust are ruled by the frequency motions, as well as
the properties of backfill.
Therefore, it seems that new calculation ap-
proaches are needed in order to consider the influ-
ence of these aspects even in a simplified manner.
Also, it would be helpful that the calculation meth-
ods eventually indicate the parameters for specifying
damage criteria, in terms of displacements and
stresses. All these aspects are neglected also in mod-
ern seismic codes, including Eurocode 8 and the de-
rived Italian code OPCM3274, 2003.
For most relevant structures, some codes and
guidelines suggest the use of dynamic analyses.
Numerous parameters might affect the results of the
latter. Also, their proper use is often confined in re-
search environment, since they required a skill level
that is often not common among practitioners.
To shade some light on the points listed above, in
this paper some aspects related to the calibration of a
numerical model that should be conducted before
performing a dynamic analysis are discussed. For an
ideal RC diaphragm embedded in a uniform granular
soil layer, some complete dynamic analyses were
carried out.
 Also, in order to simplify the seismic design of
flexible retaining walls, a new approach is presented
that allow knowing the behaviour of soil-structure
system till the collapse. The application of the
method to the given case is illustrated.
2 EARTHQUAKE PROVISIONS DESCRIBED
IN SOME EXISTING CODES AND
GUIDELINES.
Eurocode 8 part 5 (EN 1998-5, 2003) states that
earth retaining structures must design to fulfil their
function during and after an earthquake, without suf-
fering significant structural damages. Permanent
displacements, in the form of combined sliding and
tilting, the latter due to irreversible deformations of
is the angle of shear resistance of soil, and =0, for
passive state.
As previously underlined, this approach suffers of
some limitations. Deformability of structure, soil
stiffness and damping, natural frequencies of system
are neglected. The displacements of the wall and the
backfill cannot provide.
Also Callisto (2006) highlighted some of the lim-
its in the pseudostatic approach as indicated in EC8-
5 and specified some preliminary correction to the
code statements.
In PIANC (2001) the parameters for identifying
damage criteria, in terms of displacements and
stresses, for sheet pile quay wall (Figure 1) and pre-
ferred sequence of yield of the system (Figure 2) can
be found.
Horizontal Displacement Settelement of Apron

the foundation soil, may be acceptable if it is shown Settlement

Differential Displacement
Differential Settlement of Apron
Tilting

that they are compatible with functional and/or aes- Differential Settlement at Anchor
Ground Surface Cracking at Anchor

thetic requirements. In the same document is indi- Pull-out Displacement of Battered Pile Anchor

cated that any established method based on the pro-

cedures of structural and soil dynamics, and
supported by experience and observations, is in
principle acceptable for assessing the safety of an
earth-retaining structure. The aspects needed con-
sider are:
a) the generally non-linear behaviour of the soil a)
in the course of its dynamic interaction with Stress in Tie-rod
(including joints)

the retaining structure; Stress in Sheet Pile Stress in Anchor Pile

b) the inertial effects associated with the masses (above and below mudline)

of the soil, of the structure, and of all other

gravity loads which might participate in the
interaction process;
c) the hydrodynamic effects generated by the
presence of water in the soil behind the wall
and/or by the water on the outer face of the b)
wall;
Figure 1. Parameters for specifying damage criteria: a) respect
d) the compatibility between the deformations
to displacements; b) respect to stresses (PIANC, 2001).
of the soil, the wall, and the tiebacks, when
present. 1) Displacement of Anchor

It should be underlined that no indications on rep-

resentative parameters for specifying damage criteria 2) Yield at Sheet Pile Wall
(above mudline)
5) Yield at Tie-rod 4) Yield at Anchor

and no limitations on values of the displacements are

given.
The basic components that should be included in
a pseudo-static analysis consist in the retaining
structure and its foundation, in a soil wedge behind
the structure supposed to be in a state of active limit
equilibrium (if the structure is flexible enough), in 3) Yield at Sheet Pile Wall
(below mudline)

any surcharge loading acting on the soil wedge, and,

possibly, in a soil mass at the foot of the wall, sup- Figure 2. Preferred sequence of damages for sheet pile quay
wall (PIANC, 2001).
posed to be in a state of passive equilibrium.
In EC8 part 5, the possible movements of the sys-
It could be noted that the yield of soil for passive
tem are accounted only with the r factor that is in-
state is not considered in the sequence and maybe
cluded into determination of seismic coefficients.
might be included in the list. However, different and
Dynamic earth pressures are calculated with M-O
unclear opinions on this point exist in scientific
theory and the wall friction angle must to be taken
community.
not higher than =2/3, for active state, in which
 In other codes (e.g., Port and Harbour Research 4 DYNAMIC ANALYSES.
Institute, 1997; Ministry of Transport, Japan, 1999;
ASCE-TCLEE, Werner, 1998), well-defined damage Dynamic analyses could be considered the most
and serviceability criteria are established. In Table 1 complete instrument available for the prediction of
and Table 2, for example, are shown the criteria used seismic response of a geotechnical system, since
for retaining structures of Special Class of Impor- they can give both detailed indication of the stress
tance in Japanese design. distribution and of the deformations and displace-
ments. However, they required at least a proper soil
Table 1. Structural damage criteria in Japanese standard constitutive model, an adequate soil characterization
(PIANC, 2001). by means of in situ and laboratory tests, a proper
Water Depth definition of seismic input. In other world, they re-
Type of retaining walls
< 7.5m > 7.5m quired some knowledge of earthquake geotechnical
Gravity quay wall
Horizontal Horizontal engineering that is not so commonly diffused in the
Displacement Displacement technical community.
No repair needed for operation 0 to 0.2m 0 to 0.3m
Partial operation allowed 0.2 to 0.5m 0.3 to 1.0m
In this paper, some considerations are done to
Horizontal Horizontal correctly calibrate the finite element model in order
Sheet pile quay wall
Displacement Displacement to obtain a realistic response of the given system
No repair needed for operation 0 to 0.2m 0 to 0.3m subjected to seismic loading. A similar study was
Partial operation allowed 0.2 to 0.3m 0.3 to 0.5m also recently proposed by Amorosi et al. (2007).
Before analyzing the problem in hand, a series of
Table 2. Serviceability criteria in Japanese ports (PIANC,
dynamic analyses of vertical propagation of S-waves
2001). in a homogeneous layer was carried out with the FE
code Plaxis v8 (Brinkgreve, 2002). The influences
Main Upper limit of settlement 0.2 to 0.3m on the response of boundaries conditions, mesh di-
body of Upper limit of tilting 3-5
retaining Upper limit of differential
mensions, input signal filtering and damping pa-
0.2 to 0.3m rameters are investigated.
structure horizontal displacement
Upper limit of differential
0.3 to 1.0m 4.1 Calibration of model.
settlement of apron
Upper limit of differential
Apron settlement between apron 0.3 to 0.7m Before that any dynamic analysis is conducted, it
and background is necessary to make some consideration about some
3-5% towards sea crucial point in modelling. Calibration of the nu-
Upper limit of tilting
5% towards land merical model is required to reduce the influence of
some parameters and modelling choices on the final
results.
3 DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM.
4.1.1 Reference theoretical solution.
The ideal problem assumed in this work is consti- Vertical One-Dimensional propagation of shear
tuted by an RC diaphragm embedded in a uniform waves in a visco-elastic homogeneous stratum that
layer of granular soil characterized by following lies on bedrock, in the frequency domain, is de-
properties scribed by its amplification function. The latter is
= 14.1 kN/m3 VS = 361.5 m/s D = 2 % defined as the modulus of the transfer function that
c = 0.5 kPa = 33 is the ratio of Fourier spectrum of a component of
The geometrical configuration is reported in Fig- free surface motion and corresponding component of
ure 3. The height of excavation h is 4 m, the depth of bedrock motion. If the properties of the medium
embedded portion d is 4 m, the total height of wall is (density, shear wave velocity, material damping) are
H =h+d=8 m. known, the amplification function is univocally de-
The water level was considered at or below the fined.
bedrock, not to accounting for the effect of pore For a soil layer on a rigid bedrock with the fol-
pressure in the calculation. lowing parameters
H=16m = 14.1 kN/m3 = 1.44 kg/m3
VS = 361.5 m/s D = 2 %
the amplification function (Roesset, 1970) is:

1
A(f ) = (1)
2
H HD
cos 2 2 f + 2 f
Figure 3. Geometry of the problem (dimensions in meters).
vs v s
Figure 4 shows its graphical representation. Here, The finite element model is plotted in Figure 5. It
and in the following similar figures, two vertical red is constituted by a rectangular domain 80 m wide
lines indicate the first and the second natural fre- and 16 m high and two similar lateral domains in or-
quency of the system. der to place far enough the lateral boundaries (total
30 width 240 m). This model was calibrated to mini-
mize the influence of the boundaries on the obtained
results. The soil is schematized with a Mohr-
25
1st natural frequency 2nd natural frequency
f1=5.65 Hz f2=16.95 Hz
Coulomb M-C model that is implemented in the
Amplification ratio

20

code Plaxis. Its parameters are indicated in Table 3.

15

80m 80m 80m

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency Hz

Figure 5. Finite element model utilized in the dynamic analy-

Figure 4. Amplification function of an elastic medium over ses.
rigid bedrock.
Table 3. General information and material properties of the M-
4.1.2 Input signal and finite element model. C model.
Input signal chosen for numerical analyses is the GENERAL INFORMATIONS
accelerometer registration of Tolmezzo Station Material model Water Level
(Friuli Earthquake, Italy, May 6th, 1976). The sam- Mohr-Coulomb Absent
pling frequency is 200 Hz, the duration is 36.39 sec PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
and the peak acceleration is 0.315 g. Three other dif- [kN/m3] e0
RAYLEIGH DAMPING
ferent inputs are used in analysis, scaling this signal
down to a PGA=1 cm/sec2, a PGA= 0.05 g and a 14.1 0.844 - -
STIFFNESS PARAMETERS
PGA=0.1 g. E [kN/m2] 4.889x105 Eoed [kN/m2] 6.581x105
Accelerations time-history and Fourier Spectrum 0.3 vs [m/s] 361.5
of the signal are reported in Figure 5. G [kN/m2] 1.88x105 vp [m/s] 676.3
0.4
STRENGTH PARAMETERS
0.3 c [kPa] [] [] Rinter
0.2
0.5 33 0 0.622
Acceleration (g)

0.1
The initial stress generation was executed by the
0
k0-procedure in which the value of k0 was chosen by
-0.1 means of the well-known Jakys formula.
-0.2

-0.3 k 0 = 1 sin = 0.455 (2)

-0.4
0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec)
25 30 35
The diaphragm is idealized using an elastic plate
a) element with the properties summarized in Table 4.
0.25

Table 4. Elastic properties of RC Diaphragm.

0.2
ELASTIC PLATE
EI [kNm2/m] w [kN/m3/m]
Fourier Amplitude

0.15
EA [kN/m]
32000000 2666667 10.9 0.3
0.1
Soil-structure friction is simulated with an inter-
0.05
face element characterized by Rinter parameter im-
posed equal to
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
tan
b)
Frequency Hz
R int er = = 0.622 (3)
tan
Figure 5. Seismic input: a) accelerations time-history; b) Fou-
rier Spectrum.
that corresponds to assume a soil-wall friction angle
In numerical computation, the earthquake loading =2/3=22.
was imposed as an acceleration time-history at the The mesh generation in Plaxis is fully automatic
base of the model. and based on a robust triangulation procedure, which
results in an unstructured mesh. In the meshes
used in the present analyses, the basic type of ele-
ment is the 15-node triangular element. The size of
any element can be controlled by local element size.
Subdividing the homogeneous layer in sub-layers
with a fixed thickness and using the local element
size, it is possible to decide the maximum dimension
of cathetus of triangles in which is discretized the
domain.
An average dimension that is representative for
refinement degree of the mesh is the Average Ele-
ment Size (AES) that represents an average length
of the side of the elements employed.
Every time a numerical analysis is conducted, the
mesh influence must be tested. Kuhlmeyer & Lys-
mer (1973) suggested to assume a size of element
not larger that /8, where is the wavelength corre-
sponding to the maximum frequency f of interest. In
this case /8 = VS/8 f = 1.81 m, being VS= 361.5 m/s
and f = 25 Hz.
In Figure 6 is shown the amplification function of
the model for four values of the AES, previously de-
fined. Only when AES is larger than 2.70 m, the dy-
namic response of the system is affected by the ele-
ment size. In the analyses of the present work an
AES=1.58 m was used.
60
50
Amplification ratio
40
30
20
10
0 a) =1/6 e =1/2, which lead to a linear accel-
0 5 10 15 20
Frequency Hz
Figure 6. Amplification function of the model for 4 values of
AES.
Christian et al. (1977) have shown that the right
lateral boundaries conditions for S-waves polarized
in horizontal plane and propagating vertically are the
vertical fixities. Horizontal displacements must be
allowed. In order to equilibrate the horizontal
lithostatic stresses acting on lateral boundaries, it is
suitable to introduce load distributions at the left-
hand and right-hand vertical boundaries. In this
manner, the amplification function of all points
placed on the free surface of the model is the same.
The use of this boundary conditions permits to
calibrate the damping parameters of the system with
more accuracy.
In our numerical simulations two types of damp-
ing exist: numerical damping, due to finite element
formulation, and material damping, due to viscous
properties, friction and development of plasticity.
In Plaxis (and in the major part of dynamic FE
codes), the material damping is simulated with the
well-known Rayleigh formulation. The damping ma-
trix C is assumed to be proportional to mass matrix
M and stiffness matrix K by means two coefficients,
and .
C = M + K (4)
Different criteria exist to evaluate the Rayleigh
coefficients (see for instance Lanzo et al., 2004, Park
& Hashash, 2004). In terms of frequency, the dy-
namic response of a system is affected by the choice
of these parameters to a large extent.
In the numerical implementation of dynamic
problems, the formulation of time integration consti-
tutes an important factor for stability and accuracy
of the calculation process. Explicit and implicit inte-
gration are two commonly used time integration
schemes. In Plaxis, the Newmark type implicit time
integration scheme is implemented. With this
method, the displacement and the velocity at the
point in time t+t are expressed respectively as:
1
u t + t = u t + u& t t + &u& t + &u& t + t t 2
2
AES = 0.94 m
u& t + t t
[
= u& + (1 )&u& + &u&
t t + t
]t (5)
AES = 1.58m
AES = 2.70m
AES = 5.39m
The coefficients and , which have not to be
confused with Rayleigh coefficients, determine the
accuracy of numerical time integration. For deter-
mining these parameters, different suggestions are
proposed, too. Typical values are (Barrios et al.,
2005):
eration approximation;
25
b) =1/4 e =1/2, which lead to a constant aver-
age acceleration;
c) =1/12 e =1/2, the Fox-Goodwin method,
which is fourth order accurate (conditionally
stable scheme);
In order to keep a second order accurate scheme
and to introduce numerical dissipation, a modifica-
tion of the initial Newmark scheme was proposed by
Hilber et al. (LUSAS, 2000), introducing a new pa-
rameter ( in the notation of the author), which is a
numerical dissipation parameter. The original New-
mark scheme becomes the -method or Newmark
HHT modification. The -method leads to an un-
conditionally stable integration time scheme and the
new Newmark parameters are expressed as a func-
tion of the parameter
=
(1 + )2 =
1
+ (6)
4 2
 where the value of belongs to the interval [0, 60
Complete Signal
1/3]. Filtered Signal - Cut to 25Hz

In order to obtain a stable solution, the following

50

condition must apply for the Plaxis code:

Amplification ratio
40

2 30
11
+ (7)
42
20

10

Figure 7 explains the results of numerical analy-

ses for three different values of . When increases, 0
0 5 10 15 20 25

the peaks amplification at the natural frequencies of Frequency Hz

the layer decrease. However, the shape of amplifica-

tion function is not essentially modified. Figure 8. Influence of input signal filtering on amplification
function of the model.
Note that the second natural frequency of the stra- 60
tum is underestimated by the time domain analyses. =1

This is due to the finite element formulation with 50

=5
=10

lumped masses instead of consistent mass matrices

Amplification ratio
(Roesset, 1977). The natural frequencies with a
40

lumped masses formulation, which is implemented 30

in Plaxis, are always smaller than the true frequen-

cies. Consistent mass matrices overestimate them. 20

The accuracy of the results decreases with the num- 10

ber of vibration modes.

0
60
0 5 10 15 20 25

=1/10 Frequency Hz
50 =1/5
=1/3
Figure 9. Influence of Rayleigh material damping coefficients
Amplification ratio

40
on amplification function of the model.
35
30

30
Numerical solution
20
Theoretical solution
25
Amplification ratio

10
20

0
15
0 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency Hz
10

Figure 7. Influence of Newmark numerical damping coeffi- 5

cients on amplification function of the model.

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Numerical damping has a great influence on dy- Frequency Hz

namic response of system. The use of filtered signal
at the frequency of interest needs an adequate cali-
bration of Newmark coefficients, in such a manner
to avoid the loss of important frequency contents of
the signal. A comparison of the system response to a
complete signal and a 25 Hz filtered signal is repre-
sented in Figure 8.
Figure 9 shows the different amplification func-
tions for three values of Rayleigh damping coeffi-
cient . The coefficient is given equal to zero for
avoiding the excessive damping of motion at high
frequencies.
In Figure 10 the amplification function that can
be obtained by numerical analyses and the reference
theoretical solution was plotted.
The solution with free horizontal displacements
(FHD) on lateral boundaries is only reasonable for
non-plastic material and when local site response is
the objective of the study.
Figure 10. Comparison between numerical and theoretical solu-
tion.
Different methods exist to apply a silent boundary
for an infinite media (Ross, 2004). In Plaxis, viscous
adsorbent boundaries can be introduced, which are
based on the method described by Lysmer & Kuhl-
meyer (1969).
By default, relaxation coefficients c1 and c2 are
set to 1.0 and 0.25, respectively.
Placing the lateral boundaries sufficiently far
from the central zone, the effects due to the reflec-
tion of waves on boundaries can be neglected.
A comparison of results with standard earthquake
boundaries (SEB) and FHD on lateral boundaries is
presented in Figure 11.
 30 Interface normal stresses (kPa)

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

FHD on LB 0
25
SEB
1 Numerical
Rankine
Amplification Ratio

20 Coulomb
2 At rest

15 3

Depth (m)
4
10
5

5 6

7
0
0 5 10 15 20 25

a)
8
Frequency Hz

Interface net normal stresses (kPa)

Figure 11. Comparison between SEB and FHD on lateral -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

boundaries solutions. 0

1 Numerical

4.2 Results of dynamic analyses on diaphragm. 2

Coulomb
At rest

After calibrating the computer code for the seis- 3

Depth (m)
mic response in free-field conditions, here the results 4

of the dynamic analyses of the embedded retaining 5

wall are presented. Analysis of problem was per- 6

formed conducting 15 calculation phases (7 plastic
analyses and 8 dynamic analyses). In the first 2
7

phases the plate and the interface elements were ac- b)

8

tivated. From phase 3 to phase 6 the excavation was Figure 12. Interface stresses at the end of excavation: a) normal
executed de-activating the clusters behind the wall. stresses; b) net normal stresses.
Stage 7 was devoted to activate dynamic prescribed
acceleration at the base of the model. In the other At larger depth, the normal stresses reduce. At the
phases the earthquake was simulated. The input sig- base of the wall, the horizontal stresses increase up
nal was divided into 8 parts, each one composed by
to achieve a net pressure almost equal to zero.
1000 registration points. The different parts of the
From the numerical analysis, it appears that the
analysis are discussed in the following.
kinematical mechanism developing during excava-
tion is quite different from that assumed in limit
4.2.1 Excavation.
equilibrium method. The mechanism seems com-
Normal stresses, relative shear stresses (at right
posed by a rigid motion, a horizontal translation and
side in red colour, here and in the following similar
a rotation around a point close to the zero net pres-
figures) and net pressures distributions on the wall at
sure point, and an elastic deformation field that de-
the end of excavation are presented in Figure 12.
pends upon the stiffness of the soil and the flexural
The theoretical values of Rankine and Coulomb
stiffness of the structure. A line passing trough two
limit pressures and horizontal stresses at rest are also
points can represent the rigid variation of configura-
plotted. Dotted lines indicate the limit shear resis-
tion: the first one is placed below zero net pressure
tance of the interface.
point, and the second situated above the excavation
Observing the figure, some considerations can de-
level. Integrating two times the elastic line of the
rive. Behind the wall, in all points up to excavation
plate, from the bending moments distribution, hori-
level the limit active condition is reached. The shear
zontal displacement of the plate due to elastic
resistance at the interface is completely mobilized.
mechanism would be deduced.
The magnitude of normal stresses has a good agree-
Figure 13 shows the reconstituted mechanisms of
ment with Coulomb expected value. Below this level
the plate during the excavation. It can be seen the
a portion of soil achieves the active state, too. It can
good agreement between the deformed configura-
be also seen that there exists a point below which the
tions of the structure made out from the numerical
normal stresses increase with respect to active pres-
analysis and the supposed kinematical mechanism.
sure (in the specific case, near the depth of 5 m).
Here, the soil-wall friction angle mobilized is near to Bending moments and shear forces at the end of
zero. In front of the wall, the limit passive condition the excavation are reported in Figure 14. It is inter-
is reached by the shallower layers only (in this case esting to note that the maximum bending moment
for a thickness of 0.8 m). Moreover, the magnitude was registered at the same depth in which passive
of normal stresses is in accordance with the Cou- state in the soil is achieved (about 5 m depth). In this
lomb expected value. section, the shear force is zero.
From the same figure, it can be appreciated the
difference between the results of calculations with or
without updating of the mesh configuration. Updated
mesh analysis gives a value of largest principal
strain 1 induced in the soil from the excavation of
2.3410-1 %.
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
-1.2 -1 -0.8
Computing the accelerations time-history at the
top of the wall and getting its Fourier spectrum al-
low defining the amplification function of the sys-
tem, after making the ratio of surface and bedrock
Fourier spectra.
In Figure 15 are represented the amplification
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
0
functions and the maximum accelerations profiles
before and after the excavation.
1 30

2
25
1st natural frequency of soil deposit 1st natural frequency of
3 behind the wall (H=16m) soil deposit in front of the

Depth (m)
f1=5.65 Hz wall (H=12m)

Amplification Ratio
20 f1=7.53 Hz
4

5 15
Before the excavation

Numerical results After the excavation

6 10
Reconstituted Mechanism
Rigid Mechanism 7
Elastic Mechanism 5
8

0
Figure 13. Comparison between numerical and theoretical solu- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

tion for the horizontal displacement of the flexible wall. a) Frequency Hz

Bending Moment (kNm/m) Maximum acceleration (g)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
0 0

1 2

2 4

3 6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

4 8

5 10

6 12
Before the excavation
After the excavation
7 14
UPDATED MESH
NO UPDATED MESH

a) 8
b) 16

Shear Force (kN/m)

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 Figure 15. Dynamic response of the model before and after the
0
excavation: a) amplification functions; b) maximum accelera-
1 tion profiles.
2
For frequencies larger than 7 Hz the seismic re-
sponse of the numerical model appears not much re-
3
Depth (m)

4
liable. A certain numerical instability, probably due
5 to the plasticity induced by the excavation, can be
6 observed.
7
From the figure, it can be seen a reduction of
UPDATED MESH
NO UPDATED MESH maximum amplification ratio and a little shift right-
b) 8
wards of first natural frequency of the system when
Figure 14. Plate forces at the end of excavation: a) bending the excavation is executed. The former is maybe due
moments; b) shear forces. to the presence of plasticity in the analysis that could
represent a font of dissipation of seismic energy. The
4.2.2 Seismic loading. natural frequency of the model increases with re-
After the excavation, earthquake on the system spect to the 1-D propagation problem and moves
was simulated prescribing accelerations time- towards the natural frequency of the soil deposit
histories at the base of the model. Four dynamic placed in front of the wall. The shape of the maxi-
analyses were conducted with four different values mum accelerations profile changes and the value at
of PGA at bedrock: 1 cm/s2 (0.001 g), in order to ob- the top of the wall is higher than the corresponding-
serve the response to the vibrations of a pre- one before that the excavation is realized.
plasticized system under gravity loads; 0.05 g and When the seismic loading induces a state of stress
0.1 g to evaluate the changes in pressure distribu- in the soil that violates the failure criteria, develop-
tions of the soil on the wall and the increment of the ment of plastic deformation makes inconvenient an
forces; and 0.315 g to show the behavior of the interpretation of results in the frequency domain,
structure under a severe seismic actions. since no closed-form reference solutions are known.
 Under the seismic signal scaled at a PGA= 0.1 g, Interface normal stresses (kPa)

calculated interface stresses distributions, bending

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0

moments and plate horizontal displacements were

t=4.47s (Max. acc. at top)
t=8.26s (Max. disp. at top)
1

plotted in Figure 16.

End of Earthquake
M-O
2 EC8-5
Interface normal stresses (kPa)
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 3

Depth (m)
0
t=5.535sec (Max. acc. at top) 4
1 t=8.275sec (Max. disp. at top)
End of Earthquake
M-O 5
2
EC8-5
6
3
Depth (m)

7
4

8
5
a)
6 Bending Moment (kNm/m)
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
7 0

t=4.74s (Max. acc. at top)

8
a)
1 t=8.26s (Max. disp. at top)
End of Earthquake
2 Envelope
Bending Moment (kNm/m)
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
3
0

Depth (m)
t=5.535 (Max. acc. at top) 4
1
t=8.275 (Max. disp. at top)
End of Earthquake 5
2
Envelope
6
3
Depth (m)

7
4

5 b) 8

Horizontal Displacement (m)

6
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05
0
7

1
b) 8

2
Horizontal Displacement (m)
-0.035 -0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
3
0
Depth (m)

4
1

5
2

6 t=4.74s (Max. acc. at top)

3 t=8.26s (Max. disp. at top)
Depth (m)

7 End of Earthquake
4

5 c) 8

6
t=5.535s (Max. acc. at top)
Figure 17. Response of the diaphragm for a PGA=0.31512g
7
t=8.275s (Max. disp. at top) signal at different instants: a) interface normal stresses; b)
End of Earthquake
bending moments; c) plate horizontal displacements.
c) 8

Figure 16. Response of the diaphragm for a PGA=0.1g signal The evaluation of residual displacements induced
at different instants: a) interface normal stresses; b) bending by an earthquake for a RC retaining structure can
moments; c) plate horizontal displacements. leave elastic motion out of consideration. The results
can be summarized in the planes of horizontal elastic
The results referred at the instant time when the and plastic displacements at the top of the wall,
maximum horizontal displacement at the top of the normalized with respect to the height H, and hori-
wall are more similar than those at the end of the zontal seismic coefficient kh, given by the product of
earthquake. soil factor S (in Italian Code OPCM3274, 2003
The same type of data obtained for the seismic S=1.25 for a soil type B) and PGA at bedrock. Some
input having a PGA=0.315 g were plotted in Figure of the outcomes of dynamic analyses were plotted in
17. Overall, a similar trend of behaviour could be Figure 18 and 19.
observed from Figure 16 and 17. A large value of x/H can be observed for the
The elastic displacements of the points of the earthquake with PGA = 0.315 g at bedrock, due to
plate are one or two orders of magnitude smaller the rigid motion of the plate during the shaking.
than the displacements due to rigid motion of the Figure 20 shows the earth pressures on the wall
diaphragm. Therefore, it appears that larger defor- for the earthquake with PGA=0.315 g when the
mations into the backfill develop when the rigid mo- maximum bending moment is reached. While active
tion of the structure starts. limit values are well predicted by M-O theory, the
passive state is in accordance with the Coulomb ex- of failure will also be identified. In the application of
pected values. the method the loading is considered being mono-
0.45 tonic: the effects of the cyclic behaviour and load
0.4 reversals being estimated by using a modified mono-
tonic force-deformation criteria and with damping
Seismic Horizontal Coefficient kh

0.35

0.3 approximations. Static pushover analysis is an at-

0.25
tempt by the structural engineering profession to
0.2
evaluate the real strength of the structure and it
0.15
promises to be a useful and effective tool for per-
formance based design.
A similar approach is used here for the flexible
0.1

0.05
retaining wall interacting with the soils. In this
0
0.0000% 0.5000% 1.0000% 1.5000% 2.0000% 2.5000% 3.0000% analysis, the structure is idealized by a beam-deck
Normalized Horizontal Displacement x/H framework with or without the subgrade reaction
springs, to take into account the reaction on the em-
Figure 18. Normalized horizontal residual displacements at top
vs Horizontal seismic coefficient.
bedded portion of the structure. For a pile-deck sys-
0.45
tem, in simplified dynamic analysis, the load-
0.4
displacement relationship can be evaluated by push-
over analysis (PIANC, 2001).
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient kh

The same procedure can be used to build a load-

0.35

displacement curve for a flexible earth-retaining

0.3

0.25
structure. External load is represented by a pressure
0.2
distribution acting on the wall towards the excava-
0.15
tion.
0.1
In the present research, three different linear pres-
0.05 sures distributions are considered:
0
0.00000% 0.00200% 0.00400% 0.00600% 0.00800% 0.01000% 0.01200% 0.01400%
a) triangular (TRD), with a maximum pmax at
Normalized Elastic Horizontal Displacement xel/H the base of the wall, suitable for low fre-
quencies motions, as shown for instance by
Figure 19. Normalized horizontal elastic displacements at top Steedman & Zeng (1990);
vs Horizontal seismic coefficient.
Interface normal stresses (kPa) b) rectangular (RTD), following the indications
0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 found in EC8-5;
Numerical c) trapezoidal (TZD), with a maximum pmax at
1 At rest
Coulomb the top and a minimum pmin = pmax at the
2 EC8-5
base of the wall. This load distribution was
3
suggested by Ebeling & Morrison, 1992.
Depth (m)

4 Thus, dynamic thrust increments are equal to:

5

1
6
Se = p max H TRD (8)
7
2
8

Figure 20. Interface stresses when maximum bending moment Se = p max H RTD (9)
is reached for a PGA=0.315 g signal.

5
5 PUSHOVER ANALYSES. Se = p max H TRD (10)
8
The recent advent of performance based design
acting at H/3, H/2 and 0.6 H from the base of the
has brought the nonlinear static pushover analysis
wall.
procedure to the forefront. Pushover analysis is a
These values can be normalized with respect to
static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude
the weight W of the active soil wedge that interests
of the structural loading is incrementally increased
the wall in order to obtain the seismic horizontal co-
in accordance with a certain predefined pattern.
efficient kh* that cause the collapse of the system.
With the increase in the magnitude of the loading,
Assuming a critical planar surface inclined of an
weak links and failure modes of the structure can be
angle crit respect to the horizontal plane, W can be
found. The sequence of yield in the structure and a
evaluated by the following expression
transition from elastic response to the ultimate state
 1 2 tion was executed de-activating the clusters behind
W= H tan (90 crit ) (11) the wall. The last stage was devoted to apply pseu-
2
dostatic system loads till the collapse.
Hence, the expressions of kh* are 40m 40m
* p max
kh = TRD (12)
H tan (90 crit )

Figure 21. Finite element mesh of static analyses.

* 2p max
kh = RTD (13)
H tan (90 crit ) The analysis of problem was performed conduct-
ing 7 calculation phases (plastic analyses). In the
first 2 phases the plate and the interface elements
* 5p max were activated. From phase 3 to phase 6 the excava-
kh = TZD (14) tion was executed de-activating the clusters behind
4H tan (90 crit )
the wall. The last stage was devoted to apply pseu-
For a given geometry of a retaining wall, the dostatic system loads till the collapse.
value of kh* can be obtained by static numerical The results of static analyses oriented to simulate
analysis in which, starting from the system configu- the excavation process are the same as discussed be-
ration after the excavation, an incremental load is fore. Here, more interest is devoted to the discussion
applied on the structure until the failure is reached. of incremental nonlinear static analyses results.
The aspects that should be considered in this type On the deformed configuration of the system after
of analyses are: the excavation, the external loads as described be-
a) geometrical nonlinearity: when the system fore were applied on the plate.
reach the collapse the small deformations The first type of analysis was conducted with a
hypothesis is violated, hence, the calculation triangular seismic loading distribution. Interface
need continuous updating of the configura- stresses developed at the failure of the system are
reported in Figure 22.
tion; Interface normal stresses (kPa)

b) material nonlinearity: the stress-strain behav- 0

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

iour of the soil, the structural element, the 1 Numerical

soil-structure interface and the other ele- At rest
M-O

ments (anchors, props, etc.) must be repre-

2

sented with suitable constitutive models that 3

Depth (m)

implement plasticity; 4

c) load advancement to the ultimate level: the 5

external load must be applied incrementally 6

in order to obtain a load-displacement rela- 7

tionship that permits to detect the displace- 8

ments of the system when is subjected to de- a)

Interface net normal stresses (kPa)
sign actions (seismic demand). -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

An example of application of this methodology is

0

presented for the same RC cantilever diaphragm 1

Numerical

embedded in the homogeneous elasto-plastic layer,

M-O
2

illustrated before. The analyses were conducted 3

Depth (m)

again with the FE code Plaxis. 4

5
5.1 Finite element model.
6

The geometry of the problem and the properties 7

of the soil and the plate were presented in the previ- 8

ous sections. Figure 21 shows the finite element
mesh with the adopted connectivities.
The analysis of problem was performed conduct-
ing 7 calculation phases (plastic analyses). In the
first 2 phases the plate and the interface elements
were activated. From phase 3 to phase 6 the excava-
b)
Figure 22. Interface stresses at failure for TRD: a) normal
stresses; b) net normal stresses.
The magnitude of normal stresses was in good
agreement with M-O predicted value for a seismic
angle evaluated with the following relation:
 = arctan(k h ) (14) to the top. The maximum acceleration profiles for
vibration analysis reported in Figure 15 strengthen
kh is the ultimate value of seismic horizontal coeffi- this thesis.
cient reached in the analysis.
Bending Moment (kNm/m)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Distributions of plastic points and horizontal dis- 0

placement shading at failure for RTD are depicted in 1

Figure 23, instead. It can be clearly seen the devel- 2

TRD
RTD

opment of an active wedge behind the wall while the 3

TZD

passive wedge in front do not generate at failure.

Depth (m)
4

a) a) 8

Shear Forces (kN/m)

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
0

TRD
1 RTD
TZD
2

b) 3

Depth (m)
4
Figure 23. Plastic points distribution (a) and horizontal dis-
placements shading (b) at failure for RTD. 5

The capacity curves of the system for the differ- 7

ent seismic pressure distributions were plotted in
Figure 24. b) 8

Figure 25. Plate forces during application of seismic equivalent

0.14
loading system: a) bending moments; b) shear forces.
0.12
*
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient kh

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.0000% 0.0050%
Normalized Horizontal Displacement x/H
Figure 24. Capacity curves of the system for TRD, RTD and
TZD.
The collapse was reached for rather small defor-
mations. This can be ascribed to the fragility of con-
figuration for the relatively insufficient embedded
depth to resist an earthquake and the relatively high
stiffness of chosen soil.
The plate forces registered at failure for the three
type of seismic pressures distributions was shown in
Figure 25. Horizontal displacements and bending
moments are not in good agreement with the corre-
spondent values obtained from dynamic analyses.
However, the amplification of the shaking from
the bedrock to the surface in time-histories analyses
was taken into account only with soil factor S as de-
fined in the new Italian Code OPCM 3274. Thus, the
more heavy results probably depend to a larger soil
amplification of the considered motion from the base
6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS AND FUTURE
DEVELOPMENTS.
The present paper shows the need of extending
the knowledge on static and dynamic behaviour of
flexible earth retaining structures. The common
TRD
RTD
methodologies used for the design are quite far from
TZD
Collapse
0.0100% 0.0150% 0.0200% 0.0250%
the real soil-structure interaction and the mechanical
configuration of system.
The European Code EC8 does not take into ac-
count some important aspects of the dynamic soil-
structure interaction and does not provide helpful pa-
rameters to describe the performance of the system.
Some research efforts are in progress improve the
way to perform pseudostatic analysis and overtake
the limits in current calculation procedures (for in-
stance, Callisto, 2005; Choudhury and Nimbalkar,
2007; Vecchietti et al., 2007).
However in some international codes and guide-
lines other than EC8 there are more indications on
the damage and serviceability criteria for different
type of structures. In the note, some of them were
recalled.
The use of dynamic analyses to obtain the seismic
response of flexible retaining wall is dependent on
advanced site characterization and on seismic engi-
neering and numerical knowledges that are not al-
ways diffused in technical community.
 It is also necessary a good calibration of the
model before conducting a dynamic analysis for any
type of 2-D or 3-D geotechnical problem. Some pa-
rameters (equivalent stiffness, numerical and mate-
rial damping, etc.) can be chosen by comparing 1-D
dynamic response of model to the theoretical or nu-
merical solutions.
In the present work, an example of procedure to
calibrate the finite element model parameters was
presented.
Then, vibrations analysis has revealed that the
first resonance frequency of the examined scheme is
included between the natural frequencies of soil de-
posits behind and in front of wall. Particularly, it is
slightly larger than the first of these. The occurrence
of plastic zones near to the structure involves a re-
duction of maximum amplification ratio at the natu-
ral frequency of the system. In presence of the exca-
vation, maximum acceleration at surface is higher
than the correspondent of free-field conditions.
The data obtained from the analyses with strong
earthquakes have highlighted that the stability of
system and plate forces reach the heavy conditions
when the maximum displacement at top of wall is
achieved. This displacement is a parameter more
representative than the maximum acceleration to de-
scribing the seismic behaviour of an embedded dia-
phragm. Static and dynamic deformed configura-
tions are composed by an elastic distortion of
structural element and a rigid roto-translational mo-
tion. For retaining structure with a flexural stiffness
not very low, evaluation of earthquake induced dis-
placements in the backfill can leave the elastic de-
formations out of consideration.
On the other hand, a pseudostatic approach that
permits to take into account nonlinearity of problem
and soil-structure interaction was proposed. The
procedure and a suggestion for the seismic load sys-
tems to apply on the structure were illustrated. The
results obtained are not well in agreement with the
correspondents of dynamic analyses. This is proba-
bly due to larger soil amplification from the base to
the top of the model. In new Italian Code OPCM
3274 this aspect is considered with a soil factor S
that represents the ratio of maximum accelerations at
surface and at bedrock. It is referred to free field
conditions and considers some relevant aspects of
soil behaviour (stiffness degradation, damping evo-
lution, etc.) not included in dynamic analyses of the
present study. However, the application of pushover
analyses to a flexible retaining structure seems to be
an interesting procedure to describe behaviour of the
system till to failure.
The example here presented is simple but it allow
understanding some basic aspects on stress-strain re-
sponse of flexible retaining walls.
However, the methodology will require the vali-
dation by means of more sophisticated dynamic
analyses, centrifuge tests on scale model and case
histories observations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
The work presented in this paper is part of ReLUIS
research project, founded by the Italian Department
of Civil Protection.
REFERENCES
(pr)EN 1998-5 (2003). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance Part 5: Foundations, retaining struc-
tures and geotechnical aspects, CEN European Committee
for Standardization, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Amorosi A.,Elia G., Boldini D., Sasso M., Lollino P. (2007).
Sullanalisi della risposta sismica locale mediante codici di
calcolo numerici. Proc. of IARG 2007 Salerno, Italy (in
Italian).
Barrios D.B., Angelo E., Gonalves E., (2005). Finite Element
Shot Peening Simulation. Analysis and comparison with
experimental results, MECOM 2005, VIII Congreso Argen-
tino de Mecnica Computacional, Ed. A. Larreteguy, vol.
XXIV, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Noviembre 2005
Brinkgreve R.B.J., Plaxis 2D version8. A.A. Balkema Pub-
lisher, Lisse, 2002.
Callisto L. (2006). Pseudo-static seismic design of embedded
retaining structures, Workshop of ETC12 Evaluation
Committee for the Application of EC8, Athens, January 20-
21.
Christian J.T., Roesset J.M., Desai C.S., (1977). Two- or
Three-Dimensional Dynamic Analyses, Numerical Methods
in Geotechnical Engineering, Chapter 20, pp. 683-718, Ed.
Desai C.S., Christian J.T. - McGraw-Hill
Ebeling R.M., Morrison E.E.Jr. (1992). The seismic design of
waterfront retaining structures, Technical Report ITL-92-
11, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS
Fourie A.B., Potts, D.M. (1989). Comparison of finite element
and limiting equilibrium analyses for an embedded cantile-
ver retaining wall, Geotechnique, vol.39, n.2, pp. 175-188
Kuhlmeyer R.L, Lysmer J. (1973). Finite Element Method Ac-
curacy for Wave Propagation Problems, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, vol.99 n.5, pp. 421-
427
Lanzo G., Pagliaroli A., DElia B. (2004). Linfluenza della
modellazione di Rayleigh dello smorzamento viscoso nelle
analisi di risposta sismica locale, ANIDIS, XI Congresso
Nazionale LIngegneria Sismica in Italia, Genova 25-29
Gennaio 2004 (in Italian)
LUSAS (2000). Theory Manual, FEA Ltd., United Kingdom
Lysmer J., Kuhlmeyer R.L. (1969). Finite Dynamic Model for
Infinite Media, ASCE, Journal of Engineering and Me-
chanical Division, pp. 859-877
Ministry of Transport, Japan, 1999. Design Standard for Port
and Harbour Facilities and Commentaries, Japan Port and
Harbour Association, 1181 pp. (in Japanese)
OPCM n.3274 (2003). Primi elementi in material di criteri ge-
nerali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale
e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica,
Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, Vol.105, May
8th 2003 (in Italian)
Park D., Hashash Y.M.A. (2004). Soil Damping Formulation in
Nonlinear Time Domain Site Response Analysis, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, vol.8 n.2, pp.249-274
PIANC (2001). Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures,
Working Group n.34 of the Maritime Navigation Commis-
sion, International Navigation Association, Balkema, Lisse,
474 pp.
Port and Harbour Research Institute, Japan (1997). Handbook
on Liquefaction Remediation of Reclaimed Land, Transla-
tion by US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experi-
ment Station), Balkema, 312 pp.
Roesset, J.M. (1970). Fundamentals of Soil Amplification, in:
Seismic Design for. Nuclear Power Plants (R.J. Hansen,
ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 183-244.
Roesset J.M., (1977). Soil Amplification of Earthquakes, Nu-
merical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Chapter 19,
pp. 639-682, Ed. Desai C.S., Christian J.T. - McGraw-Hill
Ross M., (2004). Modeling Methods for Silent Boundaries in
Infinite Media, ASEN 5519-006: Fluid-Structure Interac-
tion, University of Colorado at Boulder
Steedman R.S., Zeng X. (1990)- The seismic response of wa-
terfront retaining walls, Proc. ASCE Specialty Conference
on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures,
Special Technical Publication 25, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, pp.872-886
Werner S.D. (1998). Seismic Guidelines for Ports, Technical
Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Monograph
n.12, ASCE