Ground Improvement (1997) 1, 223±238
Seismic design of reinforced-earth and soil-nailed
structures
M. CHOUKEIR, I. JURAN and S. HANNA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Polytechnic University, 6 Metrotech
Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
Soil-nailed and reinforced-earth structures are systems that
are coherent and ¯exible. Therefore, they offer inherent
advantages in withstanding large deformations and, as
illustrated by post-earthquake observations on soil-nailed
retaining structures and reinforced earth walls, they pre-
sent high resistance to earthquake loading. Owing to these
advantages soil-nailed and reinforced-earth structures offer
a valuable and cost-effective technical solution for geo-
technical construction in seismic zones. However, to date,
only limited studies have been conducted to evaluate the
dynamic response of these structures. This paper presents
the development and experimental evaluation of kinema-
tical pseudo-static working stress analysis approach for the
seismic design of soil-nailed and reinforced-earth walls
with inextensible metallic reinforcement. The proposed
method is derived as an extension of the kinematical
working-stress approach developed for the design of
reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures subjected to
self-weight static loading. It provides an estimate of the
seismic loading effect on the location and magnitude of
maximum tension and shear forces developed in the
reinforcements under working stress conditions. The
method is evaluated through comparisons with experimen-
tal results of shaking-table tests on semi-scale reinforced-
earth model walls and centrifugal soil-nailed model tests.
The predictions of the method are also compared with
numerical simulations of semi-scale shaking-table model
test results. Finally, comparisons between the proposed
method and currently available pseudo-static design meth-
ods are presented with preliminary conclusions with
regard to design practice.
Keywords : Earthquake; retaining walls; soil nails;
steel reinforcement
Introduction
Soil-nailed and reinforced-earth structures are systems that
are coherent and ¯exible. Therefore, they offer inherent
advantages in withstanding larger deformations and, as
illustrated by post-earthquake observations on soil-nailed
retaining structures (Barar, 1990; Felio et al., 1990) and
reinforced-earth walls (Stewart et al., 1994; Frankenberger et
al., 1996), they present high resistance to earthquake loading.
(GI 020) Paper received 30 May 1996; last revised 17 July 1997;
accepted 17 July 1997
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
223
Les structures cloueÂes au sol et les structures de sols
renforceÂs sont des systeÁmes homogeÁnes et ¯exibles. Elles
offrent donc l'avantage inheÂrent de supporter des deÂforma-
tions plus importantes et, comme le montrent les observa-
tions faites apreÁs les seÂismes sur les structures de retenue
cloueÂes au sol et sur les murs de consolidation, elles
preÂsentent une grande reÂsistance aux contraintes sismi-
ques. GraÃce aÁ ces avantages, les structures cloueÂes au sol et
les structures de sol renforce sont des solutions techniques
valables et rentables pour la construction geÂotechnique
dans les zones sismiques. Pourtant aÁ ce jour, seules
quelques eÂtudes limiteÂes ont eÂte reÂaliseÂes pour eÂvaluer la
reÂponse dynamique de ces structures. Cet expose deÂve-
loppe et eÂvalue de manieÁre expeÂrimentale une meÂthode
d'analyse de la charge pratique pseudo statique cineÂma-
tique pour la conception sismique de systeÁmes cloueÂs au
sol. La meÂthode proposeÂe est un prolongment de la
meÂthode de charge pratique cineÂmatique deÂveloppeÂe pour
la conception de structures de sol renforce et de structures
cloueÂes au sol soumises au poids d'une charge statique.
Elle eÂvalue l'effet d'une charge sismique sur l'emplacement
et la magnitude de la tension maximum et des forces de
cisaillement deÂveloppeÂes pendant les renforcements, dans
des conditions de charge pratique. Cette meÂthode est
eÂvalueÂe en faisant des comparaison avec les reÂsultats
expeÂrimentaux d'essais de maquette de table aÁ secousses aÁ
mi-eÂchelle et les essais de maquette centrifuges de cloutage
au sol. Les preÂdictions obtenues avec cette meÂthode sont
eÂgalement compareÂes avec les simulations numeÂriques des
reÂsultats de l'essai de maquette de table aÁ secousse aÁ mi-
eÂchelle meneÂ. Pour ®nir, nous preÂsentons les comparisons
entre la meÂthode proposeÂe et les meÂthodes de conception
pseudo statiques disponibles actuellement avec les conclu-
sions preÂliminaires touchant aÁ la pratique de conception.
Owing to these advantages soil-nailed and reinforced-earth
structures offer a valuable and cost-effective technical solu-
tion for geotechnical construction in seismic zones. How-
ever, to date, only limited studies have been conducted to
evaluate the dynamic response of these structures.
During the past twenty years model studies and ®nite
element analyses have been conducted to investigate the
seismic response of reinforced-earth walls with inextensible
metallic reinforcement and of soil-nailed structures. The
available experimental data obtained (Richardson et al.,
1977; Mckittrick and Wojciechowski, 1979; Chida and Mina-
mi, 1982; Koga et al., 1988), along with ®nite element model
simulations (Seed and Mitchell, 1981; Bastick and Schlosser,
1865-781X # 1997 Thomas Telford Services Ltd
 M. Choukeir et al.
1986; Dhouib, 1987; Segrestin and Bastick, 1988) of the
structural response of reinforced-earth walls subjected to
seismic loading, have provided limited data to evaluate the
engineering performance of reinforced-earth walls and to
develop relevant design methods. Investigations of seismic
stability of soil-nailed excavations have recently been stimu-
lated by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San
Francisco Bay region, where several structures, subjected to
signi®cant levels of shaking, were the object of past earth-
quake observations (Felio et al., 1990). Dynamic centrifuge
testing of soil-nailed excavation models were conducted by a
research team from UCLA (Tufenkjian et al., 1991; Vucetic et
al., 1993, 1996), to investigate the failure mechanism and
evaluate the current design assumptions. However, to date,
the interpretation of the available dynamic model test results
has been primarily limited to a qualitative evaluation of the
system performance and failure mechanisms.
Development and evaluation of reliable seismic design
methods for soil-nailed and reinforced-earth systems re-
quires a thorough understanding of the system parameters
affecting the soil±reinforcement interaction, ground surface
response, facing displacements and failure mechanisms of
the soil-nailed or reinforced-earth structures under seismic
loads. The pseudo-static design methods currently available
for soil-nailed structures and reinforced-earth walls with
inextensible reinforcements can be classi®ed within two
broad categories: (i) pseudo-static limit equilibrium methods
(Schlosser, 1983; Koga et al., 1988; Caltrans, 1990) which
yield only a global safety factor with respect to a rotational
or transitional failure of the reinforced soil mass and=or the
surrounding ground along the potential sliding surface, and
the extended concept developed by Genske et al. (1991) to
allow for a reliability assessment of the structure safety
based on a probability analysis, and (ii) pseudo-static work-
ing stress design methods using empirical correlations
(Richardson and Lee, 1975) or numerically derived design
assumptions (Seed and Mitchell, 1981; Dhouib, 1987;
Segrestin and Bastick, 1988) to evaluate the seismically
induced forces in the reinforcements.
Shaking-table tests on reinforced-earth model walls con-
ducted by Richardson (1977) and Chida and Minami (1982)
were used to provide preliminary data for the development
and evaluation of seismic design guidelines for reinforced-
earth structures. The comparisons between seismic force
increments measured in the reinforcements of the semi-
scale reinforced-earth model walls by Chida and Minami
(1982) and predicted values obtained with the current
pseudo-static design methods (Seed and Mitchell, 1981;
Dhouib, 1987; Segrestin and Bastick, 1988) illustrate major
differences between method predictions and experimental
results. Choukeir (1995) performed parametric numerical
simulations of the shaking-table model tests conducted by
Chida and Minami (1982). These simulations illustrate that
all the seismic loading characteristics (i.e. acceleration,
frequency and number of cycles) signi®cantly affect the
seismically induced tension force increments in the reinfor-
cements and must therefore be taken into account in the
development of pseudo-static design methods for seismic
loading. The results further illustrate the pertinent limit-
ations of the current pseudo-static design methods, where-
by a single loading parameter (i.e. maximum amplitude of
the horizontal ground acceleration) is used to characterize
the seismic loading. Furthermore, they demonstrate that
when the maximum acceleration amplitude is used, the
pseudo-static approach leads to an overestimate of the
seismically induced tension force increments in the reinfor-
cements.
224
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A `corrected' pseudo-static acceleration concept was intro-
duced by Choukeir (1995), considering a simpli®ed, one-
degree-of-freedom spring±mass system model. The concept
was evaluated through comparisons of the experimental
shaking-table model test results obtained by Chida and
Minami (1982) with the numerical simulations of seismic
base acceleration loading. These comparisons illustrated that
the use of the `corrected' pseudo-static acceleration, which is
a function of both the maximum horizontal ground accelera-
tion and the earthquake frequency, leads to signi®cant
improvement in the pseudo-static method predictions of the
seismic system response.
This paper presents the development and experimental
evaluation of a kinematical pseudo-static working-stress
analysis approach for the seismic design of soil-nailed
structures and reinforced-earth walls with inextensible re-
inforcement. The proposed method is derived as an exten-
sion of the kinematical working-stress approach developed
by Juran and Schlosser (1978) and Juran et al. (1990) for the
design of reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures sub-
jected to self-weight static loading. It provides an estimate of
the seismic loading effect on the location and magnitude of
the maximum tension and shear forces developed in the
reinforcements under working stress conditions.
The method is evaluated through comparisons with
experimental results of the shaking-table tests conducted by
Chida and Minami (1982) on semi-scale models of rein-
forced-earth walls, and with dynamic centrifugal tests con-
ducted by Vucetic et al. (1993, 1996) on soil-nailed model
structures. The predictions of the method are also compared
with numerical simulations performed by Choukeir (1995) to
analyse the seismic response of the semi-scale shaking-table
model tests conducted by Chida and Minami (1982). These
comparisons illustrate that the use of the apparent pseudo-
static acceleration concept with the proposed kinematical
pseudo-static working-stress design method leads to signi®-
cant improvement in the predictions of the tension force
increments mobilized in the reinforcements under seismic
loading. Finally, comparisons between the proposed method
and the currently available pseudo-static design methods are
presented with preliminary conclusions with regard to
current design practice.
Seismic response analysis of
reinforced-earth and soil-nailed
structures
The design methods most currently used for earthquake
analysis of reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures are
derived from the pseudo-static Mononobe±Okabe (M±O)
analysis. Two fundamentally different pseudo-static design
approaches have been developed: (i) global limit equilibrium
analysis and (ii) working-stress analysis. Displacement meth-
ods have also been incorporated in global limit equilibrium
analysis (Bathurst and Cai, 1995), extending the sliding-block
theory proposed by Newmark (1965) to predict the perma-
nent horizontal displacements that may accumulate at the
base of the structure during a seismic event.
The pseudo-static limit equilibrium methods extend avail-
able limit force equilibrium analysis in order to assess the
seismic loading effect on the global safety factor. Both the
Caltrans (1990) snail and the French (Schlosser, 1983)
talren programs take into consideration only the pseudo-
static inertia force of the potential sliding active zone in
evaluating the driving forces and moments and the related
 Reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures

safety factor with respect to the pull-out resistance of the (3/5) m γH

reinforcements
These methods provide only a global safety factor with 0.5 H
respect to the shear strength characteristics of the soil and=or
the pull-out capacity of the reinforcements. They do not Fd
allow for an estimate of the maximum tension and shear
Fi
forces generated in the reinforcements and, therefore, cannot H
be used to evaluate the local stability of the soil-nailed or (5/8) H
reinforced-earth structures at each reinforcement level. The
need to evaluate the local pull-out stability of reinforced-
earth and soil-nailed retaining structures under both static
W
and seismic loading conditions led to the development and
experimental evaluation of working-stress design methods
(Richardson et al., 1977; Seed and Mitchell, 1981; Dhouib, (3/20) m γH
1987; Segrestin and Bastick, 1988) in order to estimate the
(a)
seismic loading effect on the mobilized forces in the in-
extensible reinforcements. While for static loading the work-
ing-stress design methods have been evaluated (Christopher D 5 0.3 H δD
et al., 1989; Juran and Elias, 1991; Clouterre, 1993) through
comparisons with laboratory models, full-scale experiments
and ®eld monitoring of structures, only limited studies have 0.5 H
Fi
been conducted to evaluate experimentally the available (1 1 k) H/2
working-stress design methods for the seismic design of
soil-nailed and reinforced-earth structures.
W
The pseudo-static working-stress design methods pre-
sently used for reinforced-earth walls take into consideration
different design assumptions with regard to (i) the type and
0.5 H
magnitude of the applied seismic forces, including the
dynamic force (FD ± dynamic force applied to the reinforced (1 2 k) H/2
soil by the retained embankment), the inertia force (Fi ±
dynamic force due to the acceleration of the potential sliding
mass limited by the locus of maximum tension forces in the (b)
reinforcements) or a combination of both; and (ii) the
geometry of the active zone under seismic loading, which 0.3 H
controls the inertia force. λ(3/5)m γH
Table 1 and Fig. 1 present the various design assumptions
presently used in the different pseudo-static design meth-
ods. Here S= H is the normalized width of the active zone, H
is the height of the wall, S is the horizontal distance from
the wall facing to the point of maximum tension force in the Fd
reinforcement, ã is the unit weight of soil and m ˆ am = g is a Fi
W
seismic acceleration ratio, where am is the maximum (peak) H
horizontal earthquake acceleration and g is the gravity (5/8) H
acceleration.
0.2 H
Seed and Mitchell's (1981) method, incorporated in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) design guidelines
for reinforced soil structures (Christopher et al., 1989), takes
into account the lateral dynamic force applied by the
retained soil on the reinforced soil wall, and the horizontal λ(3/20)m γH
inertia force of the potentially sliding active zone, which is
(c)
assumed to behave as a rigid mass. The geometry of this
active zone under seismic loading is characterized by
Fig. 1. Various design assumptions presently used in pseudo-static design
S= H ˆ 0:5 independently of the seismic loading acceleration. methods of reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures: (a) Seed and
Dhouib (1987) developed a non-linear ®nite element code Mitchell's pseudo-static design envelope (after Seed and Mitchell, 1981);
(b) Dhouib's pseudo-static design envelope (after Dhouib, 1987); Segrestin
and Bastick's pseudo-static design envelope (after Segrestin and Bastick,
Table 1. Various pseudo-static design assumptions 1988)

Design method S= H Inertia force Fi Dynamic force

FD for numerical modelling of reinforced-earth retaining struc-
Seed and Mitchell 0´50 0´50mãH2 (3=8)mãH2 tures under seismic loadings. The parametric numerical
(1981) simulations conducted by Dhouib suggested several modi®-
Dhouib (1987) 0´30 ‡ m=2 (0:30 ‡ m=2)mã H2 Not applicable cations to Seed and Mitchell's (1981) design method. In
4(2K ‡ 3) particular, the results indicated that the geometry of the
Segrestin and 0´30 0´20mãH2 ë(3=8)mãH2 active zone under dynamic loading is a function of the
Bastick (1988) relative system stiffness and the earthquake acceleration.

See text for de®nition of symbols. Bastick and Segrestin (1988) suggested that the seismic
K ˆ 2:5m, ë ˆ 0:60: loading does not signi®cantly affect the geometry of the

225

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 M. Choukeir et al.
active zone, which can be de®ned by an S= H value of 0´3.
They indicated that both the inertia force and the dynamic
force need to be taken into consideration, with a reduction
factor of ë ˆ 0:6 for the dynamic force to account for the low
probability that the maximum inertia and dynamic forces
occur simultaneously.
The available pseudo-static working-stress design meth-
ods were evaluated by Choukeir (1995) through comparisons
of the tension force increments measured by Chida and
Minami (1982) in the reinforcements of the semi-scale
reinforced-earth models during the shaking-table tests, and
the predicted values obtained with the different methods.
These comparisons illustrated that the pseudo-static meth-
ods lead to a signi®cant overestimate of the seismically
induced tension force increments. The differences between
the method predictions and the experimental results may be
at least partially related to the inherent oversimplifying
assumptions of the pseudo-static methods currently used. In
particular, (i) the principle of superposition used to obtain
the total tension force in the reinforcement under the
combined effects of the self-weight static and seismic load-
ings raises the basic question of strain compatibility for the
non-linear response of the composite reinforced soil system;
and (ii), as indicated by various authors (Lin and Leshchin-
sky, 1996; Cai and Bathurst, 1996), the use of the maximum
amplitude of the horizontal ground acceleration as a single
parameter to characterize the seismic loading does not
adequately describe the seismic response of the reinforced
soil system.
A detailed discussion on strategies to select a design value
for Kh in pseudo-static earth pressure calculations, where Kh
is the selected coef®cient for the design horizontal accelera-
tion, was reported by Cai and Bathurst (1996), and is beyond
the scope of this paper. Cai and Bathurst emphasized in
particular the wide range of Kh values proposed by different
authors. Whitman (1990) reports that values of Kh from 0´05
to 0´15 are typical for the design of conventional gravity wall
structures and these values correspond to one-third to one-
half of the peak acceleration of the design earthquake.
Bonaparte et al. (1986) used Kh ˆ 0:85 am = g to generate
design charts for geosynthetic-reinforced slopes under seis-
mic loading using the M±O method of analysis. Current
Federal Highway Administration guidelines (Christopher et
al., 1989) used an equation proposed by Segrestin and
Bastick (1988) that relates Kh to am according to Kh ˆ
(1:45 ÿ am = g) (am = g) and results in Kh . am = g for am , 0:45 g.
The results of ®nite element modelling of reinforced-earth
Eh
T0
Sv Tmax
Fl
Eh φ
σ Hβ
Ev
W
β
j W
Fig. 2. Kinematic pseudo-static design assumptions for reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures
226
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
walls by Segrestin and Bastick (1988) and Bathurst and Cai
(1995), as well as the experimental results obtained by Chida
and Minami (1982), have shown that the average accelera-
tion of the composite soil mass may be equal to or greater
than peak (site) horizontal acceleration (am ), depending on a
number of factors such as magnitude of the peak ground
acceleration, predominant model frequency of ground mo-
tion, duration of motion, height of wall and stiffness of the
composite mass. As reported by Cai and Bathurst (1996), it
appears that in practice, the selection of Kh for design is
based on engineering judgement and experience and, in
some instances, local regulations.
The formulaton of the kinematical pseudo-static analysis
approach discussed in the following section attempts to
address some of these pertinent limitations.
Proposed working-stress seismic
design method
The proposed seismic analysis approach for reinforced-
earth and soil-nailed structures is derived as an extension to
the kinematical working-stress design method developed by
Juran and Schlosser (1978) and Juran et al. (1990) for static
loadings of reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures re-
spectively. The applicability of this working-stress design
method under static loading has been veri®ed through the
analysis of the failure mechanisms observed in model walls
and through comparisons of predicted and measured forces
in full-scale structures (Juran and Schlosser, 1978; Elias and
Juran, 1990). The method was described in detail by Juran
and Elias (1991) and is incorporated in several design codes
(FHWA report No. RD-89-0431 (1989); CLOUTERRE, 1993).
In this paper the method is extended to provide for the
analysis of the seismic loading effect on the magnitude and
location of the maximum resisting forces mobilized in the
reinforcements (i.e. the tension force in the inextensible
reinforcement of reinforced-earth walls, and the combination
of tension and shear forces in the inclusions of soil-nailed
structures). For the purpose of the seismic stability analysis,
the locus of the maximum tension forces is assumed to
coincide with the location of the potential internal sliding
surface in the composite reinforced-earth or soil-nailed mass.
The main design assumptions involved in the kinematical
analysis are illustrated in Fig. 2 and are brie¯y summarized
below.
α m γH, α 5 W/γH 2
(3/5) m γH
FD
Fi
(5/8) Hβ
(3/20) m γH

(a) The displacement mode during loading can be charac-
terized as a quasi-rigid rotation of the potentially sliding
active zone limited by a log-spiral sliding surface.
(b) The quasi-rigid active and resistant zones in the re-
inforced-earth or soil-nailed retaining system are sepa-
rated along the potential sliding surface by a thin layer
of soil at a limit state of stress. The normal soil stress
along this slip line is calculated using Kotter's equation.
(c) The maximum tension force in each reinforcement is
obtained from the horizontal force equilibrium of the
slice that contains the reinforcement. The horizontal
components of the inter-slice forces acting on each side
of this slice are assumed to be equal.
(d) The shearing resistance of the soil, as de®ned by
Coulomb's yield criterion, is fully mobilized along the
entire potential sliding surface.
(e) In the case of soil-nailed structures the shearing resis-
tance of the nails is mobilized in the direction of the
potential sliding surface in the soil-nailed mass and is
de®ned by Tresca's failure criterion.
For soil nailing, where the bending stiffness of the nail
may affect its deformation, the actual nail deformation, as
well as the resisting shear forces and the bending moments
generated in the nails, are calculated from available elastic
solutions for laterally loaded in®nitely long piles. As
illustrated by Juran et al. (1990), the symmetry of the nail
deformation implies that at the failure surface, the moment
(M0 ) is zero, whereas the tension force (Tmax ) and the shear
force (Tc ) are maximum.
The extension of the kinematical design method for
seismic stability analysis involves the following assump-
tions.
(a) A pseudo-static self-weight inertia force is de®ned by
assigning a design horizontal acceleration to the poten-
tially sliding active zone limited by the locus of maxi-
mum tension forces mobilized in the reinforcement
under the seismic loading.
(b) The pseudo-static inertia force is equivalent to a uni-
form horizontal earth pressure acting along the potential
sliding surface in the reinforced-earth or soil-nailed
mass.
(c) A pseudo-static lateral dynamic force due to the
retained soil is de®ned according to Seed and Mitchell's
(1981) assumptions. The pseudo-static dynamic force is
equivalent to a trapezoidal horizontal earth pressure
diagram acting along the potential sliding surface in the
soil mass.
(d) Two assumptions are considered with regard to the
pseudo-static force: that it is equal to either (i) the self-
weight inertia alone (Fi ) or (ii) the combination of the
self-weight inertia (Fi ) and the lateral dynamic force
(FD ).
In order to assess the effects of the dynamic force FD and
the inertial force Fi on the force mobilized in the reinforce-
ment at each level, the horizontal force equilibrium equation
of the slice containing, and parallel, to the reinforcement is
formulated taking into account the additional trapezoidal
and uniform lateral earth pressure distributions due to the
seismic forces FD and Fi respectively. The moment equili-
brium equation of the active zone is also modi®ed to include
the moments due to the forces FD and Fi . Rather than using
the principle of superposition, the analysis of the equili-
brium conditions yields directly the combined effects of
static and seismic pseudo-static loadings on both the total
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures
resisting forces mobilized in the reinforcements and the
geometry of the active zone.
For the estimate of the pseudo-static inertia force, the
pseudo-static acceleration concept proposed by Choukeir
(1995) is used to de®ne the design Kh values as a function of
earthquake frequency. The design Kh value is given by
Kh ˆ nm (1)
where m ˆ am = g and n ˆ aps =am . The ratio of the apparent
pseudo-static acceleration aps to the maximum base accelera-
tion am is given by
n ˆ aps =am ˆ [0:5=(1 ÿ r2 )]1=2 (2)
where r ˆ ù=ùn (where ù is the applied earthquake
frequency and ùn is the natural frequency of the reinforced
soil structure).
For reinforced-earth structures Richardson (1977) pro-
posed an empirical formulation to calculate the natural
frequency ùn (Hz) of the reinforced earth walls:
ùn ˆ 125= H (3)
where H is the height of the reinforced-earth structure in
feet.
It may be noted that the centrifugal model studies
conducted by Vucetic et al. (1993) con®rmed Richardson's
empirical formulation of the natural frequency for soil-nailed
structures. Therefore, for most current typical wall heights
of H ˆ 6ÿ10 m and assuming an earthquake loading fre-
quency of 1±2 Hz. Equation (2) yields n values within the
range 0´7±0´9. These values are consistent with the n ˆ 0:86
value proposed by Bonaparte et al. (1986). Equation (2) also
suggests that as proposed by various authors (Segrestin and
Bastick, 1988; Steedman and Zang, 1990; Cai and Bathurst,
1996) that for higher earthquake loading frequencies with r
values exceeding 0´70, ampli®cation of the base acceleration
could be developed in high reinforced-earth walls or deep
soil-nailed excavations.
The seismic stability analysis consists of iteratively search-
ing for a unique slip line solution which veri®es the moment
and horizontal equilibrium conditions of the active zone. A
local stability analysis is conducted at each reinforcement
level to establish a design scheme which veri®es the
required safety factors with respect to the pull-out, tension
and shear resistance of the reinforcements. It allows for an
evaluation of the effect of the main design parameters
(structure geometry, spacing and, in particular for soil
nailing, nail inclination and bending stiffness) on the resist-
ing forces generated in the reinforcements under seismic
loading conditions.
A user-friendly computer program was developed to
allow for an interactive use of the proposed seismic design
procedure. The program kadrenss is written in Borland
C‡‡. The program includes the following.
(a) Analysis module integrating the coupled effect of the
pseudo-static and static loadings in a working-stress
analysis of a reinforced-earth or soil-nailed structure.
For selected design input data, this module yields, for
each reinforcement level Z= H, output design para-
meters including the non-dimensional geometry of the
potential failure surface S= H and the non-dimensional
values of the maximum tension force (TN ˆ
Tmax =ã HSh Sv ), and for soil nails the maximum shear
force (TS ˆ Tc =ã HSh Sv ), where H is the wall height, Z
is the depth from the top of the wall, S is the distance
from the wall facing to the point of maximum tensile
force in the reinforcement, Tmax and Tc are respectively
227
 M. Choukeir et al.
the maximum tension and shear forces mobilized in the
reinforcement, ã is the unit weight of the soil and Sh
and Sv are respectively the horizontal and vertical
spacings between the inclusions.
(b) Design module integrating the results of the kinematical
analysis (i.e. forces in the reinforcements and geometry
of active zone) into the local stability analysis of each
reinforcement with respect to failure by either pull-out
or breakage of the reinforcement.
For the selected type of reinforcement (i.e. bending
stiffness EI, where E and I are the elastic modulus and the
moment of inertia respectively, and Fall , the allowable tensile
stress), inclination of the reinforcement â, limit interface
shear stress f l and structure height H, the design module
yields a structure geometry (L= H) that satis®es the pull-out
failure criteria with the required value of the safety factor Fp
(Fp ˆ 2 is usually assumed) and veri®es that the selected
reinforcement scheme satis®es breakage criteria and, for soil
nails, excessive bending failure criteria. The program in-
cludes design options for different soil layers, surcharge,
water-table, earthquake loading, embankment loading, wall
geometry, reinforcement parameters and inclination.
Design example
The proposed seismic design procedure is illustrated
through the design of a typical soil-nailed wall subjected to
an earthquake loading with a maximum ground acceleration
ratio of am = g ˆ 0:25 in a silty soil of C=ã H ˆ 0:05 and
ö ˆ 358 with typical No. 8 rebar nails, where C is the soil
cohesion and ö the internal friction angle. The wall facing
and nail inclinations are 908 and 108 respectively with
respect to the horizontal. It is assumed that the seismically
induced nail forces can be estimated by considering respec-
tively (i) only the self-weight inertia force (Fi ) and (ii) the
combined effects of inertia (Fi ) and dynamic (FD ) forces.
Figure 3 shows the analysis output data obtained for each
nail level (i.e. the variations of S= H and TN with the relative
depth Z= H of the nail). Evaluation of the local stability of
each nail with respect to pull-out yields the required nail
length L indicated in Table 2. The detailed design, level by
level, yields a minimum L= H ˆ 1:134 for the inertia force
and L= H ˆ 1:284 for the total seismic effect, corresponding
to the coupled effect of inertia and dynamic forces. These
output data are compared with the solution obtained for
static loading conditions, illustrating that the seismic effect
results in an increase of the active zone, with S= H varying
from 0´37 to 0´465 (Fig. 3(b)) and a signi®cant increase of
about 70% of the tension forces in the nails (Fig. 3(a)). It
should be noted that for this example the inertia force
obtained by the proposed method (Fig. 3(a)) corresponds
fairly well to the inertia force of a soil mass limited by a
failure wedge inclined at á ˆ ð=2 ‡ ö=2 to the horizontal, as
assumed in a conventional Coulomb wedge analysis.
Figure 4 shows the variations of the S= H and of the
maximum TN values with the earthquake acceleration am = g
for ¯exible nails and different soils (ö ˆ 358 and
C=ã H ˆ 0, 0:05 and 0´1). This parametric study illustrates
that while the tension forces continuously increase with
increased acceleration, the variation of S= H with am = g is
highly dependent upon the soil type. For a granular soil
(C=ã H ˆ 0), S= H increases from 0´32 obtained for static
loading to 0´52 obtained for am = g ˆ 0:30, and remains
practically constant for greater accelerations. These results
agree with the results of numerical studies and subsequent
228
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
design recommendations proposed by Seed and Mitchell
(1981) with S= H ˆ 0:5 for seismic design of reinforced earth
walls. The results also indicate that as the soil cohesion
C=ã H increases, the geometry of the active zone becomes
more independent of the earthquake accelerations am = g.
Experimental and numerical
evaluation of the pseudo-static
design method
In this section, the proposed design method is evaluated
through parametric comparisons with the experimental
results and with numerical simulations of the shaking-table
tests conducted by Chida and Minami (1982) on semi-scale
reinforced-earth model walls. Figure 5 illustrates the experi-
mental con®guration of the semi-scale reinforced-earth mod-
el wall, as well as the soil and reinforcement characteristics.
The 3´5 m high reinforced-earth model wall used conven-
tional steel reinforcement strips and was placed directly on a
rigid substratum through which a seismic motion was
applied.
Numerical modelling assumptions
The ®nite element code abaqus was used in this study. In
order to evaluate the pseudo-static design concept proposed
in this study, the numerical simulations involved both
seismic base acceleration loading and pseudo-static loading
simulations. For the numerical pseudo-static loading simula-
tions, a horizontal acceleration was assigned to the mass of
the potentially sliding active zone, limited by the locus of
maximum tension forces in the reinforcements. The follow-
ing numerical modelling assumptions were considered.
The back®ll and the reinforced-earth model wall were
modelled using plane strain eight-node isoparametric ele-
ments. The soil model used in this study was the extended
Drucker±Prager=Cap elasto-plastic soil model with a non-
associated ¯ow rule. The reinforcements and wall facing
elements were modelled using two-node linear reduced
integration beam elements and four-node linear reduced
integration shell elements respectively. Interface elements
were modelled assuming a perfect soil±reinforcement ad-
hesion.
To simulate reinforced-earth embankment loading, for
each soil layer the geostatic stress was applied and the wall
facing displacement was assumed to be unconstrained. To
simulate a soil-nailed excavation process, for each soil layer
at the unloading excavation stage, the horizontal facing
displacement was restrained. As the excavation proceeded
and the nail was inserted geostatic stress was applied and
the wall facing displacement was freed in the vertical and
horizontal directions to allow for the mobilization of nail
forces. The following are the main results obtained from the
experimental and numerical evaluations.
Tension force
Figure 6 illustrates the comparison of the numerical
simulations of the shaking-table model tests, considering
both (i) pseudo-static loading (i.e. with assumed earthquake
acceleration assigned to the potentially sliding mass) and (ii)
seismic base accelerations, with the measured seismically
induced tensile force increments obtained for a range of
seismic base loading conditions (i.e. am = g ˆ 0:1 (ù ˆ 4 Hz),
am = g ˆ 0:22 (ù ˆ 2 Hz) and am = g ˆ 0:37 (ù ˆ 2 Hz)). The
 Reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures

0.3

am/g 5 0.25

0.2 Static
TN

Inertia

0.1
Total

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Z/H

(a)

0.6

am/g 5 0.25
0.5

0.4 Static
S /H

0.3
Inertia

0.2
Total

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Z/H

(b)

Fig. 3. Analysis output data for each nail obtained for static loading (`Static'), seismic loading assuming only inertia force (`Inertia'), and seismic loading
assuming a combination of inertia force and dynamic force (`Total'); (a) variation of normalized tension force TN; (b) locus of maximum tension force S= H

Table 2. Typical design output

Nail No. Z= H S= Hi S= Ht TNi TNt m L= Hi L= Ht
1 0´043 0´441 0´465 0´162 0´199 0´166 1´063 1´226
2 0´182 0´417 0´435 0´185 0´222 0´166 1´127 1´284
3 0´305 0´381 0´397 0´197 0´229 0´166 1´134 1´275
4 0´436 0´331 0´345 0´198 0´228 0´166 1´090 1´219
5 0´544 0´281 0´294 0´193 0´222 0´166 1´018 1´143
6 0´684 0´204 0´216 0´179 0´208 0´166 0´889 1´011
7 0´800 0´131 0´143 0´163 0´193 0´166 0´756 0´880
8 0´917 0´046 0´058 0´144 0´175 0´166 0´600 0´729
9 0´976 0´000 0´012 0´134 0´166 0´166 0´514 0´648

ì ˆ f l D=ãSv Sh , where f l is the limit interface shear stress and D is the nail grout diameter; the subscripts i and t stand for inertia and total earthquake
forces.

pseudo-static loading simulations were conducted for both of the seismic base acceleration are quite consistent with the
the applied earthquake acceleration and the `corrected' experimental results. It also indicates that the pseudo-static
pseudo-static acceleration as de®ned by Equation (2). loading simulations (i.e. the assumed earthquake accelera-
This comparison illustrates that the numerical simulations tion is assigned to the potentially sliding active zone) lead to

229

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 M. Choukeir et al.

0.5 φ 5 35 C/γH 5 0

C/γH 5 0.05
S/H

0.4
C/γH 5 0.1

0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Acceleration am/g

(a)

0.4

0.3
C/γH 5 0.05

0.2
TN

C/γH 5 0

0.1 C/γH 5 0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0 .3 0.4 0 .5
Acceleration am/g

(b)

Fig. 4. Effect of acceleration am = g and normalized cohesion C=ã H on (a) normalized tension force, (b) locus of maximum tension force for soil friction
angle ö ˆ 358

A A–A

4/5
5 cm 3 2.5 mm soil:
4.5 m
φ′ 5 388
γ′ 5 18 kN/m3
4
7

2 3m

1 1

A 0.52 m
4m 0.6 0.75 0 .6 m

Fig. 5. Con®guration of semi-scale shaking-table model wall (Chida and Minami, 1982)

230

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures

0.5
am/g 5 0.10
ω 5 4 Hz
Tensile force increments: kN

0.4 Exp.

FERE

0.3 FE nail

FEPSC

0.2 FEPS

0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Z/H

(a)

2.5

am/g 5 0.22
2 ω 5 2 Hz
Tensile force increments: kN

Exp.

1.5 FERE

FE nail
1
FEPSC

FEPS
0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Z/H

(b)

a m/g 5 0.37
ω 5 2 Hz

3
Tensile force increments: kN

Exp.

FERE
2
FE nail

FEPSC

1 FEPS

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Z/H

(c)

Fig. 6. Comparison between experimental results (Exp.) of the tensile force increments induced by seismic loading and the predicted values obtained from
®nite element simulations of (i) base acceleration loading for soil nailing (FE nail) and reinforced earth (FERE), and (ii) pseudo-static loading (FEPS) and
`corrected' pseudo-static loading (FEPSC)

231

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 M. Choukeir et al.

am/g 5 0.10
ω 5 4 Hz
0.8
Tensile force increments: kN

Exp.
0.6
FEC

Kin
0.4
Kin. C

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Z/H

(a)

2 am/g 5 0.24
ω 5 2 Hz
Tensile force increments: kN

Exp.

FEPSC

1
Kin

Kin. C

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Z/H

(b)

2.0

1.8 am/g 5 0.24

ω 5 7 Hz
1.6
Tensile force increments: kN

1.4 Exp.

1.2 FEPSC

1.0 Kin

0.8
Kin. C

0.6

0.4

0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Z/H

(c)

Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental results (Exp.) of the tensile force increments induced by seismic loading and the predicted values obtained from
®nite element simulations of the `corrected' pseudo-static loading (FEPSC), the kinematical pseudo-static analysis (Kin.) and the `corrected' kinematical
pseudo-static analysis (Kin. C)

232

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures

3.2

2.8 am/g 5 0.37

ω 5 2 Hz
2.4
Tensile force increment: kN

Exp.
2.0
PSC
1.6
Kin
1.2
Kin. C
0.8

0.4

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .0
Z/H

(d)

Fig. 7. (continued)

signi®cant overestimates of both the measured values of the Figure 7 illustrates the comparisons between the proposed
tension force increments and the numerical values obtained method predictions, the numerical pseudo-static loading
from the base acceleration loading. Comparing numerical simulations considering the `corrected' pseudo-static accel-
simulations of reinforced-earth embankment loading and eration de®ned by Equation (2) and the measured seismic-
soil-nailed excavation illustrates that the construction pro- ally induced tensile force increments obtained for a range of
cess does not seem to affect signi®cantly the seismic seismic loading conditions (i.e. am = g ˆ 0:1 (4 Hz), 0´24 (2
response of reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures. and 7 Hz) and 0´37 (2 Hz)). In general, the predictions of the
The introduction of the `corrected' pseudo-static accelera- proposed method agree fairly well with the ®nite element
tion concept in the pseudo-static loading simulations leads pseudo-static simulations and hence, except for the case of
to signi®cant improvements in the numerical predictions of am = g ˆ 0:24 (7 Hz), lead to conservative predictions com-
the measured tension force increments induced by the pared with the experimental results, particularly for the high
seismic base acceleration. However, as the acceleration acceleration level of am = g ˆ 0:37.
increases, the pseudo-static simulations lead to a high over- Figure 8 illustrates the comparisons between the meas-
estimate of the seismically induced tensile forces. The results ured seismically induced tensile force increments obtained
also suggest that the pseudo-static forces to be taken into for seismic loading conditions of am = g ˆ 0:24 and frequen-
consideration should be limited to the inertia of the self- cies ù of 2 Hz and 7 Hz, and the predicted values obtained
weight of the potentially sliding active zone. Any super- with the proposed kinematical method and with the current
position of additional dynamic force due to the potential pseudo-static methods (i.e. Seed and Mitchell, 1981; Dhouib,
thrust of the retained soil will lead to an unnecessary 1987; Segrestin and Bastick, 1988), taking into consideration
overestimation of the tension force increments due to the only the pseudo-static inertia force of the potentially sliding
seismic loading. active zone. These results are consistent with the numerical

2.5

am /g 5 0.24
2 Exp. (2 Hz)
Tensile force increment: kN

S&B

1.5 D

S&M

1 Kin.

Exp. (7 Hz)

0.5

0
0 0.2 0 .4 0 .6 0.8 1
Z/H

Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental results (Exp.) of the tensile force increments induced by seismic loadings and the predicted values obtained by
the `corrected' pseudo-static methods of Seed and Mitchell (S&M), Dhouib (D) and Segrestin and Bastick (S&B), and the kinematical method (Kin.)

233

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 M. Choukeir et al.
simulations, suggesting that the self-weight mass to be taken
into consideration in the pseudo-static method should be
limited to the mass of the potentially sliding active zone.
The earthquake frequency effect is illustrated by the com-
parisons of the predicted values of the seismically induced
tension force increments with the experimental results for the
acceleration level of am = g ˆ 0:24 with two frequencies, 2 Hz
and 7 Hz. The experimental results illustrate that the increase
in frequency from 2 to 7 Hz results in an increase of 120% in
the seismically induced tension force increments. Equation
(2) yields, for 2 Hz, n ˆ 0:7, while for 7 Hz, n ˆ 0:81. For both
cases the natural structural frequency ùn is calculated by
Richardson's empirical equation ùn ˆ 125=H. Taking n ˆ 0:7
for 2 Hz and n ˆ 0:81 for 7 Hz seems to improve the
predictions as compared with the experimental results. How-
ever, the analysis leads to an underestimate of the effect of
the applied earthquake frequency.
This comparison illustrates that Seed and Mitchell's (1981)
pseudo-static design assumptions with regard to the inertia
force which are presently incorporated in the FHWA code
seem to overestimate signi®cantly the measured seismically
induced tension force increments in the reinforcement, as
compared with the methods proposed by Dhouib (1987) and
Segrestin and Bastick (1988), and the extended kinematical
method. The extended kinematical method predictions fall
within the range of predicted values obtained by Dhouib's
(1987) and Segrestin and Bastick's (1988) methods and
compare fairly well with the experimental results obtained
for the range of frequency levels under consideration (i.e.
between 2 and 7 Hz). The comparison between the proposed
kinematical analysis predictions, the available pseudo-static
methods predictions (i.e. Seed and Mitchell, 1981; Dhouib,
1987; Segrestin and Bastick, 1988), considering only the
pseudo-static inertia forces, and the measured maximum
tension force increments for a range of seismic loading
conditions (i.e. am = g ˆ 0:079, 0´1, 0´24 and 0´37) demon-
strates that the higher the input acceleration is, the larger the
overestimation of the measured tension force increments.
Width of the active zone
Figure 9 illustrates the comparison between the predic-
tions of the proposed method and the numerical values
0.6
0.5
S/H
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 0.1 0.2
Acceleration am/g
Fig. 9. Comparison between the locus of maximum tensile force induced by seismic loadings as predicted by (i) the numerical simulations of the base
acceleration loading on the soil-nailed (FE nail) and reinforced-earth (FERE) model walls, and (ii) the pseudo-static methods of Seed and Mitchell (S&M),
Dhouib (D) and Segrestin and Bastick (S&B), and the kinematical method (Kin.)
234
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
obtained for the normalized locus of maximum tensile forces
S= H, for various input base acceleration levels am = g and for
both soil-nailed and reinforced-earth model walls. For the
range of accelerations under consideration (am = g ˆ 0 to
0´37), the numerical simulations predict a quasi-linear in-
crease of the S= H ratio with m ˆ am = g with consistently
slightly higher S= H values for the reinforced-earth model
walls. It is of interest to compare these ®nite element
predictions with S= H values currently proposed by different
investigators (Seed and Mitchell, 1981; Dhouib, 1987;
Segrestin and Bastick, 1988) for the pseudo-static seismic
design of reinforced earth walls. This comparison illustrates
that for the soil characteristics and seismic loading condi-
tions under consideration, Segrestin and Bastick's assump-
tion of a constant value of S= H ˆ 0:3 independent of the
input acceleration leads to an underestimate of the S= H
values, while Seed and Mitchell's assumption of S= H ˆ 0:5
seems to correspond to the upper limit of the S= H values.
The proposed extended method and Dhouib's assumption of
S= H ˆ (0:3 ‡ m=2) yields S= H values which correspond
fairly well to the numerical simulations.
Numerical simulations and
kinematical analysis for seismic pull-
out stability evaluation
In this section, the proposed seismic design method is
evaluated through the comparison of experimental observa-
tions in centrifugal shaking-table model tests conducted by
Vucetic et al. (1993) on soil-nailed model walls subjected to
seismic loading, the numerical simulations of these tests and
their pull-out failure analysis with the proposed design
method. For the purpose of comparison, the numerical
simulations and the kinematical analysis assume that the
pull-out failure occurs as the mobilized tension force in any
reinforcement reaches the pull-out resistance of this rein-
forcement, and they do not allow for any reinforcement
slippage prior to failure. Furthermore, it is implicitly
assumed that at failure the sliding surface in the composite
reinforced soil mass corresponds to the locus of the maxi-
mum tension forces in the reinforcements.
FERE
FE Nail
Kin.
D
S&M
S&B
0.3 0.4
 Reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures

Figure 10 illustrates the centrifugal model wall con®gura-
tion. The soil used in the tests was silica sand No. 120 with a
grain size ranging between 0´05 mm and 0´3 mm, and a void
ratio of 0´86.
Figure 11 illustrates a comparison between the predicted
and measured failure geometries (i.e. L= H values) of the
centrifugal soil-nailed model walls for different acceleration
levels am = g ˆ 0:1, 0´28 and 0´43. The pull-out resistance of
the model nails was estimated as suggested by Vucetic et al.
(1993), assuming that the interface lateral shear stress f l was
given by
f l ˆ C ‡ ó tan ö
where ó is normal stress at the soil±nail interface, C is the
soil cohesion and ö is the soil friction angle. Vucetic et al.
(1993) indicated the following f l values for the three model
nails: for the upper nail f l ˆ 27 kPa, for the middle nail
f l ˆ 54 kPa and for the lower nail f l ˆ 86 kPa. The method
predictions shown in Fig. 11 were calculated with an
average value of f l ˆ 50:0 kPa, considering tensile force
increments due only to the inertia force.
This comparison illustrates that the method predictions
agree fairly well with the numerical test simulations and
leads to conservative estimates of the L= H values compared
with the experimental results, in particular for the low
acceleration level of am = g ˆ 0:1. The experimental L= H
values obtained for am = g ˆ 0:1 appear to be signi®cantly
smaller than the design values used in practice for self-
weight static loading. This low experimental L= H value can
probably be related to the testing technique and=or the
physical boundary condition effects.
Figure 12 illustrates the comparison between the predic-
tions of the proposed method, the numerical values obtained
for the normalized locus of maximum tensile forces S= H
and the measured experimental results for various input
base acceleration levels am = g ˆ 0:0, 0´1, 0´28 and 0´43. This
(4) comparison illustrates that the method predictions agree
fairly well with the ®nite element simulations and under-
predict the post-failure measured values of S= H.
The large difference between the observed post-failure
S= H values recorded by Vucetic et al. (1993) and the
predicted S= H values is most probably due to the basic
difference between the assumptions incorporated in the
numerical and kinematical analyses and the observed propa-
gation mode of the pull-out failure through the soil-nailed
mass. More speci®cally, the ®nite element and kinematical
methods yield the locus of maximum tension forces in the
reinforcement, assuming that it coincides with the sliding
surface in the reinforced soil mass. Laboratory model tests
(Schlosser and Juran, 1983) have shown that this assumption

LVDT 1 206 mm

13 mm 81 mm

Accel. 38 mm
3 L
LVDT 2
38 mm
LVDT 3
Accel. H Accel. Failure surfaces
2 1 38 mm
228 mm LVDT 4
38 mm

102 mm
13 mm

Accel
4
305 mm 152 mm
Horizontal shaking

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Con®guration of centrifugal model wall (Vucetic et al., 1993). (a) Longitudinal view of the model box. (b) Failure surface

1.4

1.2

1 Exp.

0.8
FE
L/H

0.6
Kin.
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Acceleration am /g

Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental results (Exp.) of pull-out failure (L= H values), and values obtained from the ®nite element simulations (FE) and
from the kinematical method (Kin.)

235

Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 M. Choukeir et al.
1.0
0.8
0.6
S /H
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2
Acceleration am/g
Fig. 12. As Fig. 11, S= H values
is quite consistent with experimental observations at a
breakage failure, where inextensible metallic reinforcements
restrain the lateral displacement at the top of the structure.
In this case, the failure propagates by a rotation, with a
sliding surface which is practically vertical at the upper part
of the structure. However, as demonstrated by Schlosser and
Juran (1983), this failure surface is quite different from that
developed through a composite reinforced soil mass during
pull-out failure propagation, as the soil±reinforcement inter-
action is not large enough to prevent the progressive sliding
of the reinforcement prior to failure. For this case, under
static loading, the failure will occur by sliding of reinforce-
ments, mostly at the upper part of the wall, generating a
rotation of the active zone around the toe. The observed
post-failure sliding surface will be signi®cantly different
from the locus of maximum tension forces in the reinforce-
ment prior to failure, approaching the classical Coulomb
solution for wedge analysis with a signi®cantly larger S= H
value. Consequently, as illustrated in Fig. 12, for the case of
the pull-out failure investigated by Vucetic et al. (1993), the
S= H values predicted by the numerical simulations and the
kinematical analysis for the locus of maximum tension force
in the reinforcements prior to failure are signi®cantly smaller
than the S= H values obtained for the pull-out failure surface
through post-failure observations.
It should be noted that, as the occurrence of a pull-out
failure depends primarily on the magnitude and the locus of
the maximum tension forces in the reinforcement prior to
failure, as illustrated in Fig. 11, the L= H values predicted by
the numerical simulations and the kinematical analysis com-
pare fairly well with the experimental results, in spite of the
differences obtained between the calculated and post-failure
measured S= H values.
Conclusions and design
recommendations
The proposed kinematical pseudo-static design method
provides a useful engineering tool for the seismic stability
analysis of reinforced-earth and soil-nailed retaining struc-
tures with respect to earthquake loading. It allows for the
236
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Exp,
FE
Kin.
0.3 0.4
evaluation of the seismic loading effects on the magnitude
and location of the maximum forces at each reinforcement
level. Therefore it enables the engineer to evaluate the local
stability at the level of each reinforcement, which can be
signi®cantly more critical than the global stability (or the
global safety factor) evaluated by the currently available
limit equilibrium seismic design methods.
The main conclusions can be drawn from this study are
the following.
The pseudo-static methods currently used need to inte-
grate a more rational characterization of the applied seismic
loading. Using the maximum base acceleration amplitude as
a single parameter characterizing the applied seismic load-
ing leads to a signi®cantly overestimate of the tension force
increments mobilized under the seismic loading. The `cor-
rected' pseudo-static acceleration concept introduced by the
authors leads to better predictions of the seismically induced
tensile force increments, as compared with the experimental
results of shaking-table tests conducted by Chida and
Minami (1982) on semi-scale reinforced-earth model walls.
Both the numerical simulations and the comparisons
between method predictions and experimental results illus-
trate that only the inertia force of the potentially sliding
active zone, limited by the locus of maximum tension forces,
needs to be taken into consideration in estimating a pseudo-
static force for the seismic design of soil-nailed and
reinforced-earth structures. The superposition of any addi-
tional dynamic force due to the potential thrust of the
retained soil behind the reinforced-earth or soil-nailed wall
leads to unnecessary overestimation of the seismically
induced tension force increments mobilized in the reinforce-
ments.
The method derived by Dhouib (1987) from seismic
numerical analysis seems to predict adequately the geometry
of the potentially sliding active zone, as compared with the
numerical simulations in this study. The predictions of the
kinematical seismic design method agree fairly well with the
numerical pseudo-static loading simulations and tend to be
conservative with respect to the experimental results (Chida
and Minami, 1982). The predictions of the extended kinema-
tical method of the tensile force increments due to the
seismic loading fall within the range of predicted values
obtained by Dhouib's (1987) and Segrestin and Bastick's

(1988) methods, and compare fairly well with the experi-
mental results, speci®cally for the range of earthquake
accelerations of am = g ˆ 0:1 to 0´2 and frequencies of 1 to
2 Hz encountered in design practice. However, signi®cant
differences between the method predictions and the experi-
mental results were obtained for the higher acceleration
levels (am = g ˆ 0:24 and 0´37). The differences could be at
least partially related to energy dissipation due to the
deformation of the soil mass during the seismic loading,
which does not correspond to the pseudo-static simplifying
design assumption of a rigid mass movement.
Analysis of pull-out failure observations on the centrifugal
shaking-table soil-nailed model walls reported by Vucetic et
al. (1993) illustrates that the predicted seismic effect on the
structural failure geometry corresponds fairly well to the
experimental results. However, it should be emphasized that
further experimental research, particularly centrifugal and
shaking-table model testing, is necessary in order to estab-
lish a statistically signi®cant database for the seismic per-
formance assessment, as well as for the development and
experimental evaluation of reliable seismic design methods
for the engineering use of soil-nailing and reinforced-earth
systems in earthquake zones.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the National Science Founda-
tion and the Federal Highway Administration for their
support to this research programme. In particular, the
fruitful discussions with Mr Albert Dimillio, manager of the
geotechnical research programme at the FHWA, are ac-
knowledged.
References
Barar P. (1990) The behavior of ®ve soil nailed earth retaining structures
during the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. Report
prepared for the University of California, Los Angeles, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering.
Bastick M. and Schlosser F. (1986) Conportement et dimension-
ment des ourages en terre armee. Colloque Nat. de genie
parasismeque, Saint-Remy-les-Chevereuse, France.
Bathurst R. J. and Cai Z. (1995) Pseudo-static seismic analysis of
geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls. Geosynthetics
International, 2, No. 5, 787±830.
Bonaparte R., Schmertmann G. R. and Williams N. D. (1986)
Seismic design of slopes reinforced with geogrids and geotex-
tiles. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna, 2, 273±278.
Cai Z. and Bathurst R. J. (1996) Seismic-induced permanent
displacement of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining
walls. Can. Geotech. J., 33, 937±955.
Caltrans (1990) A user manual for SNAIL program, V 1´3. Obtained
from K. A. Jackura, California Department of Transportation,
Division of New Technology, Material and Research, Of®ce of
Geotechnical Engineering, Sacramento.
Chida S. and Minami C. (1982) Tests with regard to the stabilty of the
®ll constructed by the reinforced earth technique. Public Works
Research Institute, Japan.
Choukeir M. (1995) Finite element analysis of reinforced earth and soil
nailed structures under seismic loading. PhD thesis, Polytechnic
University, New York.
Christopher B., Gill S., Juran I., Mitchell J. and Girroud J.
(1989) Design and construction guidelines for reinforced soil struc-
tures, Vol. 1. FHWA-RD-89-043. Federal Highways Administra-
tion, Washington, DC.
Clouterre (1993) Soil nailing recommendations. English translation,
July, Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72). Federal Highways Administra-
tion, Washington, DC.
Dhouib A. (1987) Contribution aÁ l'etude du comportement des sols
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Reinforced-earth and soil-nailed structures
renforces sous sollicitations statiques et dynamiques. TheÁse de
Docteur-Ingeniuer, Universite des Sciences et Techniques de
Lille Flandres Artois, France.
Elias V. and Juran I. (1990) Soil nailing for stabilization of highways
slopes and excavations. FHWA Research Report FHWA-RD-89-
198. Federal Highways Administration, Washington, DC.
Felio G. Y., Vucetic M., Hudson M., Barar P. and Champman
(1990) Performance of soil nailed walls during the October 17,
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Quebec, October.
Frankenberger P. C., Bloom®eld R. A. and Anderson P. L. (1996)
Reinforced earth walls withstanding Northridge earthquake. In
Earth reinforcement. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 345±350.
Genske D. D., Adachi T. and Sugito M. (1991) Reliability analysis
of reinforced earth retaining structures subjected to earthquake
loading. Soils Fdns, 31, No. 4, 48±60.
Juran I. and Choukeir M. (1995) Finite element analysis of reinforced
earth and soil nailed structures under seismic loading. Internal
report, Polytechnic University, New York.
Juran I. and Elias V. (1991) Ground anchors and soil nails in
retaining structures. In Foundation engineering handbook. 2nd
edn. Hasai-Yang Fang, Chapter 26.
Juran I. and Schlosser F. (1978) Theoretical analysis of failure in
reinforced earth structures. Special publication on earth reinforce-
ment. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 520±555.
Juran I., Schlosser F., Long N. T. and Legeay G. (1978) Full scale
experiment on a reinforced earth bridge abutment in Lille. Proc.
ASCE Symp. on Earth Reinforcement, Pittsburgh.
Juran I., Sha®ee S., Schlosser F., Humbert P. and Guenot A.
(1983) Study of soil±bar interaction in the technique of soil
nailing. Proc. VIII ECSMFE, Helsinki, Session 5. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Juran I., Baudrand G., Farrag K. and Elias V. (1990) Kinematical
limit analysis for design of soil nailed structures. J. Geotech.
Engng, 116, No. 1.
Koga Y., Ito Y., Washida S. and Shimazu T. (PWRI) (1988) Seismic
resistance of reinforced embankment by model shaking table
tests. Int. Geotechnical Symp. on Theory and Practice of Earth
Reinforcement. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 413±428.
Ling H. I. and Leshchinsky D. (1996) A new concept of seismic
design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures: permanent-
displacement limit. Earth reinforcement. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
797±801.
Mckittrick H. P. and Wojciechowski L. J. (1979) Design and
construction of seismically resistant reinforced earth structures.
Proc. Int. Conf. on Soil Reinforcement: Reinforced Earth and Other
Techniques, Paris, March, Vol. I.
Newmark, N. M. (1965) Effect of earthquakes and dams and
embankments. GeÂotechnique, 15, No. 2, 139±159.
Nishimura J., Hirai T., Iwasaki K., Saitoh Y., Morishima M.,
Shintani H., Yoshikawa S. and Yamamoto H. (1996) Earth-
quake resistance of geogrid-reinforced soil walls based on a
study conducted following the southern Hyogo earthquake. In
Earth reinforcement. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 439±444.
Okabe S. (1926) General theory of earth pressure. J. Japan. Soc. Civ.
Engrs, 12, No. 1, 1277±1323.
Richardson G. N. and Lee K. L. (1975) Seismic design of reinforced
earth walls. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE, 101, No. GT2, Feb.,
167±188.
Richardson G. N., Feger D., Fong A. and Lee K. L. (1977) Seismic
testing of reinforced walls. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE, 103,
No. GT1, Jan., 1±17.
Schlosser F. (1983) Analogies et differences dans le comportment et
par clouage du sol. Annales de l'Institute Technique du Batiment et
des Travaux Publics, No. 418.
Schlosser F. and Juran I. (1983) Behavior of reinforced earth
retaining walls from model studies. In Developments in soil
mechanics and foundation engineering I (ed. R. K. Banerjee and R.
Butter®eld). Applied Science Publishers, Chapter 6.
Schlosser F., Plumelle C., Delage P. and Knochenmus G. (1990)
French national research project on soil nailing: Clouterre. Proc.
ASCE 1990 Specialty Conference on Design and Performance of Earth
Retaining Structures, Conrnell University, Ithaca, NY.
Seed H. B. and Mitchell J. K. (1981) Earthquake resistant design of
reinforced earth walls. Internal study for the Reinforced Earth
company. Progress Report. Berkely, California.
Segrestin P. and Bastick M. J. (1988) Seismic design of reinforced
237
 M. Choukeir et al.
earth retaining walls: the contribution of ®nite element analysis.
Proc. Int. Symp. on Theory and Practice of Earth Reinforcement,
Kyushu, Japan, Oct.
Snail (1990) Program. Verdion 1.3, PC version, User's manual.
Caltrans.
Steedman R. S. and Zeng X. (1990) The in¯uence of phase on the
calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall.
GeÂotechnique, 40, No. 1, 103±102.
Stewart J. P., Bary J. D., Seed R. B. and Sitar N. (1994) Preliminary
report on the principal geotechnical aspects of the January 17,
1994 Northridge earthquake. Report UCB=EERC-94=08, University
of California at Berkely, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center.
Terrasol Co. (1983) Programme de calcul de stabilite des talus
`Talren'. France. April edition.
Tufenkjian M. R., Vucetic M. and Doroudian M. (1991) Stability
of soil nailed excavations. Proc. Int. Workshop on Technology for
238
Downloaded by [ University of Saskatchewan] on [21/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Hong Kong's Infrastructure Development, 751±762.
Vucetic M., Tufenkjian M. R. and Doroudian M. (1993) Dynamic
centrifuge testing of soil nailed excavations. ASTM Geotech.
Testing J., 16, No. 2, 172±187.
Vucetic M., Iskander V. E., Doroudian M. and Luccioni L. (1996)
Dynamic failure of soil-nailed excavation in centrifuge. In Earth
reinforcement. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 829±834.
Whitman R. V. (1990) Seismic design and behavior of gravity
retaining walls. ASCE Specialty Conf.: Design and Performance of
Earth Retaining Structures, Ithaca, NY. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp.
817±842.
Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the
secretary by 21 April 1998