Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic loading on cantilever retaining walls: Full-scale dynamic analysis

Abdelwahhab N. Salem *, Omar Y. Ezzeldine **, Mohamed I. Amer
Soil Mechanics and Foundation, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, 12613, 1 Gamaa Street, Giza, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The assessment of realistic seismic loading on cantilever retaining wall requires modeling of actual seismic events
Earthquake to act on an integral cantilever wall. In this sense, an analysis is carried out to simulate eight candidate earth­
SHAKE2000 quake time histories. Scaling effect on seismic motions is taken into consideration through a one-dimensional
Seismic loading
numerical calculation using SHAKE2000 software. Two-dimensional PLAXIS finite element analysis is carried
Cantilever retaining walls
Finite element
out through a full-scale seismic analysis of a typical cantilever retaining wall. Results of the analysis quantified
seismic earth pressure in terms of magnitude and point of application. These results are presented in a non-
dimensional chart to be compared with up-to-date seismic loading propositions. In conclusion, a relationship
is proposed to relate the horizontal seismic inertial coefficient with a representative lateral seismic active earth
pressure coefficient.

1. Introduction
Earth retaining structures frequently represent key elements of rivers
and marine structures, underground structures, transportation systems,
and lifeline projects which have a vital role in providing lateral support
of soil and backfills. Assessing the stability and determination of lateral
earth pressure acting on earth retaining structures are the main concerns
in designing these structures. The first theories presented for the
determination of static lateral earth pressure and the point of application
of lateral earth pressure thrust force were by Coulomb and Rankin [1,2].
With the increasing potential of earthquake hazards and its impact
on lifeline civil structures, great consideration was given to the seismic
design of retaining structures which in tales the determination of the
seismic lateral earth pressure. Following the Great Kanto Earthquake
that hit Japan in 1923, Okabe and Mononobe [3,4] provided the earliest
and well-known limit-equilibrium or force-based method to determine
the seismic lateral earth pressure. The Mononobe-Okabe method
formulation followed Coulomb’s proposition of lateral earth pressure
but with introducing additional seismic inertia forces acting on a soil
wedge to simulate the earthquake load Fig. 1. Although the
Mononobe-Okabe method is widely used in today’s design practice, it
has some limitations. The first limitation is that the method did not
specify the point of application of the seismic lateral force. Modifications
to the method provided suggestions in this sense (e.g. Seed and Whitman
[5]). The second limitation is that the method unrealistically
overestimates the active seismic earth thrust at very high seismic loads
(Peak ground acceleration PGA � 0.5g) which was resolved by Koseki
[7] modified pseudo-static limit equilibrium method. Koseki [7] also
concluded that a fixed failure plane is utilized with increasing seismic
accelerations to calculate the seismic earth thrust until a secondary
active failure plane develops in the backfill instead of a single failure
plane proposed by Mononobe-Okabe method. The secondary active
failure is triggered when the mobilized frictional angle along the po­
tential failure plane reaches the peak frictional resistance angle. Find­
ings of Koseki [7] were further confirmed by Koseki et al. [8] and
Watanabe et al. [9] shaking table tests. Consequently, Zhang et al. [6]
proposed the intermediate wedge method which is dependent on the
mobilization of frictional resistance for evaluating the seismic earth
pressure. Authors concluded a closed-form solution for the estimation of
an equivalent seismic coefficient which takes into consideration the
non-uniform distribution seismic acceleration along wall, the mode and
wall movement.
The third limitation of Mononobe-Okabe method is that the method
does not account for the dynamic nature of earthquake loading.
Accordingly, Steedman and Zeng [10] proposed a pseudo-dynamic
method which is an analytical solution that accounts for certain dy­
namic response characteristics within the backfill behind a retaining
wall to compute the seismic earth pressure. Authors concluded that the
backfill amplification and motion frequency will increase both the loads
acting on the wall and the height of the resultant soil thrust the dynamic

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: abdelwahhab.n.salem@gmail.com (A.N. Salem), omar_ezzeldine@hotmail.com (O.Y. Ezzeldine).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105962
Received 13 November 2018; Received in revised form 5 November 2019; Accepted 6 November 2019
Available online 28 November 2019
0267-7261/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.N. Salem et al.
active thrust. Results showed good agreement with the results of
centrifuge tests. Choudhury and Nimbalkar [11] used pseudo-dynamic
method to develop an expression of active dynamic lateral earth pres­
sure distribution on a rigid retaining wall with a fixed base. In that
method, Active seismic earth pressure distribution showed a decreasing
departure from the linear trend of Mononobe-Okabe distribution at the
lower part of the wall.
Mylonakis et al. [12] presented a closed-form stress plasticity solu­
tion for earthquake-induced earth pressures on rigid retaining walls. The
presented solution is simpler and can be deduced by physical reasoning
compared to the Mononobe-Okabe solution. Evangelista et al. [13] and
Di Santolo and Evangelista [14] proposed the New Stress Pseudo-static
Plasticity Solution (NSPPS) which is valid for static and pseudo-static
conditions and was used to determine the value and inclination of
seismic active thrust. Authors concluded that the seismic inclination is
greater than the one in static conditions that usually was adopted for
both static and seismic analyses which produce less conservative wall
design. In terms of response of the soil-wall systems, the NSPPS gives
proximal results compared to the Mononobe-Okabe method while it
gives less accurate results compared to FLAC Finite Difference dynamic
analysis. Kamiloglu and Sadoglu [15] suggested a new active seismic
earth thrust calculation method for cantilever-type retaining walls with
either a short or a long heel by using a pseudo-static approach. The re­
sults of the suggested method are compared with those of other con­
ventional methods ([3,4,12,13,14]) and with an experimental study
[16]. [15] concluded that the foundation thickness and the heel length
were found to affect the active seismic earth pressure coefficients.
Field observations during major earthquakes as reported and back
analyzed by Refs. [17-25] have shown that the retaining walls undergo
large displacements during earthquakes. Therefore, researchers [26-31]
developed displacement-based methods that are mostly based on the
Newmark sliding block [32] and generally address the behavior of
gravity rigid retaining walls. Authors observed that inertial forces on
gravity retaining walls can be significant and concluded that the
Mononobe-Okabe method provides adequate estimates of seismic earth
pressures. Rigid wall totally fixed at its base mostly shows an elastic
behavior during earthquakes. In this vein, researchers [33,34,35,36,37,
38,39] developed elastic-based method numerical and analytical solu­
tions. Authors concluded that the magnitude and distribution of the wall
pressures and straining actions are sensitive to the variation of the me­
dium shear modulus and wall rotational flexibility. Researchers [40-42]
extended the solutions to analytical or numerical solutions for flexible
retaining walls with rigid body motion. Authors concluded that for
Fig. 1. Seismic Thrust Forces, Seismic acceleration and inertia coefficient.
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962
realistic wall flexibilities, the maximum wall forces are significantly
lower than those acting on fixed-based rigid walls and potentially of the
same order of magnitude as those computed by the Mononobe-Okabe
method.
Researchers [43–46] developed experimental tests and numerical
methods to compute the seismic earth pressure and compared the results
with that obtained by force-based and elastic-based methods. Other
experiments address the relation between seismic earth pressure and
displacement of the retaining wall [47]. Further, experimental test re­
sults presented by Refs. [43,48] show that the force-based methods do
not reflect the real behavior of a retaining wall during an earthquake.
Other researchers like, Giarlelis and Mylonakis [49] provided a compi­
lation and comparison between results of experimental tests and
analytical elasto-dynamic and limit analysis solutions and highlighted
the importance of wall flexibility on the seismic earth pressure [49].
concluded that elastic solutions seem to guarantee a conservative upper
limit for wall pressures. With respect to point of application of seismic
thrust, experimental tests performed by Sherif et al. [50,51], and [52]
showed that it is about 0.5 H, whereas Bolton et al. [53] it is about
0.33 H. Kloukinas et al. [54] explored earthquake response of
cantilever-type retaining wall by means of theoretical analyses and
shaking table testing. The experimental results confirm the predictions
of stress limit analysis and concluded that the pseudo-static stability
analysis performs adequately for both harmonic and seismic excitations.
Finite element and finite difference modeling efforts have been
applied to verify the seismic design methods in practice. Two-
dimensional plane strain dynamic analyses on a 20 ft tall cantilever
retaining wall performed by Aggour and Brown [55] concluded that
greater wall flexibility reduces the total dynamic moments acting on the
retaining structure and that the shape of the backfill has a considerable
effect on the frequencies of the system. Finite element dynamic model
flexible retaining wall conducted by Siddharthan and Maragakis [56]
concluded that higher bending moments and lower wall deflections
occur for stiffer retaining walls supporting loose sand backfill. Green and
Ebeling [57,58] used FLAC finite difference analysis to evaluate lateral
earth pressure due to seismic loading on cantilever retaining walls. The
study reported a relationship between lateral earth pressure coefficients
and the horizontal inertial coefficients of earthquakes. Authors
concluded that at very low levels of acceleration, the seismic earth
pressures were in agreement with the Mononobe-Okabe predictions. As
accelerations increase, seismic earth pressures were larger. Geraili
Mikola and Sitar [16] performed sets of dynamic centrifuge experiments
on U-shaped cantilever, freestanding cantilever and braced wall to
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

develop and calibrate a FLAC finite difference model [16]. Concluded
that [5] provides a reasonable upper bound for stiff structures. In
comparison, freestanding cantilever walls experience much lower dy­
namic earth pressure. Moreover, FLAC Finite Difference analysis can
capture reasonably well the essential system responses observed in the
centrifuge experiments. Cakir [59-61] used a three-dimensional finite
element model to investigate the seismic response of cantilever-type
retaining wall. Authors conclude that the lateral displacement along
wall height and stresses behind the wall is affected by the earthquake
frequency content. Authors emphasized the importance of using accu­
rate soil properties, wall flexibility and ground motion nature in the
seismic design. Bakr and Ahmad [62] presented a finite element PLAXIS
2D model to investigate the relationship between the seismic active
earth pressure and the movement of a rigid retaining gravity wall. A
hardening soil with small strain constitutive was utilized to model
backfill material. Validation of the finite element model has been carried
out by simulating a centrifuge test performed by Ref. [48] and
comparing the results. Authors concluded design charts highlighting the
relationship between seismic earth pressure and wall movement taking
into account the effects of the height of the retaining wall, acceleration
level, and frequency content of input motion.
Thorough research has been implemented in the study of the seismic
behavior of rigid retaining walls, while fewer researches addressed the
cantilever-type retaining walls (e.g. Refs. [13,14,15,54,58,59,60,61,
62]). Consequently, the seismic behavior of cantilever-type retaining
walls is still unclear and further research in this area is required. The
following notions were not sufficiently addressed in the literature:
1. Models have been developed to simulate only the stem of the
retaining wall, by default, the inertial motion of the entire cantilever-
type retaining wall was not taken into consideration;
2. Ground motion records incorporated in the previous studies (one-
four records) are insufficient to assess true seismic behavior;
3. Analytical and numerical models have been proposed without veri­
fication of ground motion events in term of earthquake magnitude,
type of faulting, source-to-site distance, and ground motion charac­
teristics (amplitude, duration, and frequency content).
4. Site-specific ground motions were not considered, this could be not
realistic since the time histories used in the previous analyses are
measured for the bedrock level (at rock outcrop) which may not be
the case for most typical cantilever walls unless it is constructed
directly on rock outcrop;
motion portion of eight different earthquakes in the form of a unique
median response. The median response is compared to the available
propositions obtained through analytical solutions, pseudo-static nu­
merical solutions, and physical models.
2. Problem definition
A typical cantilever retaining wall of height H ¼ 6 m, retaining dry
cohesionless backfill with the horizontal ground surface and rested on a
dry cohesionless foundation soil, as shown in Fig. 1. The cantilever
retaining wall has a vertical back-face and subjected to earth pressure
and lateral movement along the x-axis. The compression and shear wave
velocities of soil are the physical properties that have the greatest effect
on the determination of appropriate response spectra and estimation of
shear stresses during earthquakes. Compression wave velocity Vp is the
velocity of the particle motion traveling through the ground parallel to
the direction of propagation. On the other hand, shear wave velocity Vs
is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. Both wave velocities
along ground profile can be measured using seismic downhole test. The
compression and shear wave velocity for each layer throughout a soil
column 67.5 m depth from bedrock layer to the ground surface behind
cantilever retaining wall are given in Fig. 2. The shear wave velocity
distribution shall be used to interpret the static and dynamic properties
of soil that shall be further used in the analyses of this paper. Under the
seismic condition, the cantilever retaining wall will be subjected to
horizontal acceleration time-history acting in the horizontal direction
(along the x-axis) as illustrated in Fig. 1. When the cantilever retaining
wall moves away from the backfill active earth pressure will develop and
when the cantilever retaining wall moves towards backfill passive earth
pressure will develop. The objective of this paper is to study the seismic
active earth pressure and movement away from the backfill. A Finite
element PLAXIS 2D model of the cantilever retaining wall as illustrated
in Fig. 3 has been developed for full-scale seismic analyses.
3. Earthquake calculations
A postulated design earthquake was selected with a moment

The realistic approach to assess seismic loading on the cantilever-

type retaining wall should rely on full modeling of the retaining wall
structural members (stem and heel), accurate determination of ground
conditions and dynamic soil parameters, and on modeling boundary
conditions with proper consideration of the seismic motions nature. In
the present paper, an attempt has thus been made to address the above
issues. For this purpose, a finite element model has been developed to
provide a comprehensive analysis of the seismic performance of an in­
tegral cantilever-type retaining wall that takes into consideration
ground motion characteristics. The first part of this paper includes one-
dimensional numerical ground response analyses of eight real earth­
quake acceleration time histories to assess the site-specific seismic mo­
tions. These site-specific seismic motions were introduced into a two-
dimensional finite element analysis using the geotechnical software
PLAXIS 2D [63]. Seismic excitation was achieved by introducing the
site-specific time history seismic motion at the base of the 2D model.
This paper presents the seismic behavior of cantilever-type retaining
wall using a finite element numerical approach. The present study
quantifies the seismic lateral loading in terms of magnitude, point of
application and moment along the stem and heel sections of the wall and
for the full duration of each earthquake. The study also represents
displacement at the toe of the wall due to seismic loading. A quantitative
evaluation of the seismic lateral earth pressure associated with a strong Fig. 2. Compression and shear wave velocity profiles of site understudy.

3
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Fig. 3. PLAXIS 2D finite element model.

magnitude MW ¼ 6.5, reverse faulting mechanism event located 10 km
from the site under study. For this design earthquake, a smooth design
response spectrum (5% damping) of site ground motions was con­
structed for the period range of 0–0.6 s. This period range was selected
as the period range of significance to structural response in these eval­
uations because it encompasses the fundamental periods of most con­
crete retaining structures.
Eight strong ground motion records were selected from the statistical
analysis of a strong motion database maintained by the Pacific Earth­
quake Engineering Research Center (PEER) [64] in the form of accel­
eration time histories. In selecting these time-histories, earthquake
magnitude, type of faulting, source-to-site distance, and ground motion
characteristics (amplitude and frequency content) were considered. The
tectonic environment and pulse direction to the fault strike were not
considered. Each time-history was scaled to the approximate level of the
postulated smooth design response spectrum over the period range
0–0.6 s using simple scaling approach. In order to keep the “natural”
quality of the selected acceleration time history records the simple
scaling approach was used instead of the spectrum-matching approach
since the later alters at some degree the time-domain characteristic of
the records when spectral content of the time-histories is modified
through the spectrum matching process. Table 1 lists the selected
earthquakes and their associated measurement data, magnitude,
source-to-site distance, peak ground acceleration and spectrum match­
ing scaling factor.
SHAKE2000 software [65] was used to perform site-specific ground
response analyses to assess changes of these scaled time histories from
bedrock through a soil column that represents the underground stra­
tigraphy of site under study up to the lower border at the base of PLAXIS
2D finite element model which is set to be at the top 9 m of site soil
column as shown in Fig. 2, hence reducing computational time in the
PLAXIS 2D model. In SHAKE2000 models time-histories were recorded
and assigned to a hypothetical rock outcrop at sites underlain by rock,
except for two records that were recorded on a stiff soil site (Northridge
and Aqaba earthquakes).
A general assumption was made that the base bedrock layer is 58.5 m
below the lower boundary of the postulated PLAXIS 2D finite element
model (see Fig. 2). As given in Fig. 2, the stratigraphy of the SHAKE2000
model is constituted of the following:
- 46.5 m with shear wave velocity ranges Vs ¼ 335–422 m/s corre­
sponding to rock.
- 12.0 m with shear wave velocity ranges Vs ¼ 260.6–309 m/s corre­
sponding to the soil.
In this study, the acceleration time histories that resulted from
SHAKE2000 were entered into the PLAXIS 2D model as base excitation
and as seismic loading input in the full-scale seismic analysis. The scaled
acceleration-time histories of the eight earthquake candidates obtained
from one-dimensional analyses performed using SHAKE2000 software
are given in Appendix A.
4. Numerical seismic analysis
PLAXIS 2D program [63] was used to develop a 2D plane-strain finite
element model to calculate the seismic lateral earth pressure load acting
on cantilever retaining wall subjected to eight earthquake acceleration
time histories at base of model (SHAKE2000 output). The finite element
model configuration is shown in Fig. 3. The model consists of a rein­
forced concrete stem of 0.6 m thickness (ts ¼ 0.6 m) and 6.0 m height
(H ¼ 6.0 m) with no back slope (θ ¼ 0� ) and footing of 0.6 m thickness
(tf ¼ 0.6 m) and 4.0 m width (heel width Lh ¼ 2.5 m and toe width
Lt ¼ 0.9 m). The retained backfill soil with no inclination at the ground
surface (β ¼ 0� ). The ground level is at the retaining wall foundation
level on the passive side. The retaining wall is resting on a 3.0 m thick
foundation soil and the cantilever retaining wall supports a dry

Table 1
List of selected earthquake candidates used in the SHAKE2000 analysis.
Near/Far Source Earthquake Year Station Site Comp. Mw R (Km) PGA (g) Scale Factor

Near San Fernando, CA 1971 279 Rock 254 6.60 2.80 1.160 0.60
Gazli, USSR 1976 9201 Rock 90 6.80 3.00 0.718 0.75
Morgan Hill, CA 1984 57217 Rock 195 6.20 0.10 0.711 0.86
Loma Prieta, CA 1989 UCSC Rock 90 7.00 10.30 0.396 1.00
Cape Mendocino, CA 1992 8900S Rock 0 7.00 8.50 1.497 0.44
Northridge, CA 1994 24279 Soil 90 6.70 7.60 0.583 0.89

Far Loma Prieta, CA 1989 Sago south Rock SG3351 7.00 34.70 0.067 2.00
Aqaba, Egypt 1995 EILAT Soil UP 7.10 93.80 0.109 2.00

4
A.N. Salem et al.
cohesionless soil to its full height. In order to correctly perform the finite
element Dynamic numerical analyses, a definition of the model domain
was done, considering all the parameters which influence the wave
propagation through the mesh. The parameters considered in the model
definition are discussed in the following Sections.
4.1. Soil radiation damping
Radiation damping is the transport of the structural vibration energy
to the far-field and often referred to in the literature as geometric
damping/attenuation. Transport of energy providing the radiation
damping effect is only possible for waves at frequencies beyond the cut-
off frequency of the soil which for soil columns can be shown to be equal
to the fundamental frequency of the soil profile (Wolf and Deeks [66]).
Radiation damping is much stronger for 3D spreading body waves than
pffiffi
for 2D spreading surface waves (decay rates are respectively 1/ r and
1/r, where r is the distance from the site to fault rupture). As a result,
surface waves generally are more prominent for the structural response
on relatively big distances from the fault rupture (Kramer [67])).
In 2D axisymmetric or 3D geotechnical finite element analysis ra­
diation damping is automatically included, wherein 2D plane strain
analysis radiation damping is hardly present. In reality, radiation waves
may travel towards ‘infinity’ wherein geotechnical finite element
models model suffer from computational limitations. In order to prevent
radiating soil waves generated by structure motions to reflect at the
boundaries and simulate radiation damping effects, finite element
model boundaries should be set such that radiating waves are damped
by material damping while traveling towards the boundary, or including
absorbent boundaries to prevent wave reflection. In the finite element
models, boundaries cannot be defined too far away for computational
convenience, therefore artificial Rayleigh material damping in combi­
nation with absorbing boundaries is often used to provide the actual
attenuation of stress waves to the far-field by radiation damping.
The following two subsections discuss the model boundary condi­
tions and boundary extent settings in the PLAXIS 2D model to prevent
radiating soil waves generated by structure motions or by input wave to
reflect at the boundaries and to simulate radiation damping effects.
4.1.1. Model boundary condition and prescribed displacement
Extend of geometry or boundary conditions are generally assigned by
selecting suitable distance from structure and the suitable type of
boundary condition. For static analysis, the mesh boundaries particu­
larly the vertical boundaries are chosen so that they do not influence the
deformation behavior of the structure to be modeled. In other words, the
boundaries are ‘quite far away’. For dynamic analysis, the boundaries
should in principle be much further away than those for static analysis so
that some of the radiating energy will be absorbed during traveling of
the wave, because, otherwise, stress waves will be reflected leading to
distortions in the computed results. However, locating the boundaries
far away requires many extra elements and therefore a lot of extra
memory and calculating time. To counteract reflections in dynamic
analysis, special measures are needed at the boundaries to absorb wave
energy by using absorbent type boundary conditions.
In opting for absorbent boundaries, a damper (viscous dashpot) is
used instead of applying fixities in a certain direction. The damper en­
sures that an increase in stress on the boundary is absorbed without
rebounding. The boundary then starts to move. The use of absorbent
boundaries in PLAXIS is based on the quite boundaries described by
(Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer [68]). The normal and shear stress compo­
nents absorbed by a damper in x and y directions are given in Eqn 1and
Eqn 2 as follows:
(1)
�
σn ¼ C 1 ρ Vp u x
τ¼ C2 ρ Vs uy
�
(2)
5
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962
Where ρ is the density of the materials. VP and Vs are the compression
wave velocity and the shear wave velocity, respectively. C1 and C2 are
relaxation coefficients on normal and shear waves, respectively. C1 ¼ 1
and C2 ¼ 0.25 values are suggested by PLAXIS 2D Dynamic Manual [63]
to simulate reasonable adsorption and reflection of the incident waves.
PLAXIS 2D [63] has a convenient default setting to generate standard
boundary conditions for earthquake loading. On selecting Standard
Earthquake Boundaries (SEB), the program will automatically generate
absorbent boundaries or viscous damper at the left-hand and right-hand
vertical boundaries and prescribed displacements at the bottom
boundary. A good portion of the traveling wave energy is absorbed by
the dampers and the few returns to the calculation domain. Moreover,
the Standard Fixities (SF) is also generated in the SEB, to perform static
analysis, but in the dynamic analysis are neglected. Using the SF the
general boundary constrains are ux ¼ 0 for the lateral boundaries and
ux ¼ 0 and uy ¼ 0 for the bottom of the model. The use of prescribed
displacements permits the application of time histories of displacements,
velocity or acceleration during the calculation phase. In the prescribed
displacement menu, the default conditions consider a dynamic
displacement multiplier should be ux ¼ 0.01 m and uy ¼ 0 m as advised
by PLAXIS 2D Dynamic Manual [63].
To perform the seismic shaking of a soil layer, the dynamic loads are
applied at the bottom of a two-dimensional model domain, causing the
propagation of the shear waves until reaching the surface of the soil
layer. In this study, the boundary condition was set to “Standard
Earthquake Boundary” (SEB) in the input module of the PLAXIS 2D
model.
4.1.2. Finite element model width (Extend of geometry)
The extension of the calculation domain is the most important topic
in the definition of a finite element model. As described in the previous
section, the lateral boundaries were modeled as viscous dampers, using
the (Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer [68]) formulation by selecting the stan­
dard earthquake boundary as a boundary condition. The lateral dampers
should model a laterally infinite soil layer, to simulate the
one-dimensional propagation. To assure that all shear waves are not
reflected in the model, the boundaries of the model were extended 10
times the model height which is believed to approximate adequately the
behavior of the semi-infinite layer (Veletsos and Younan [38], Psarro­
poulos et al. [42]).
4.2. Finite element mesh
The backfill and foundation soils were modeled by using 15-noded
triangular elements in the PLAXIS 2D model [63]. The 15-node trian­
gle element provides a fourth-order interpolation for displacements and
the numerical integration involves twelve Gauss points (stress points).
PLAXIS 2D automatically generates the mesh in the calculation domain,
but, considering the analysis to perform, the density of the triangular
elements could be modified in some model areas. For the static analysis,
the mesh is thickened in a control volume where the stress and strain
variation is high (around the structural elements). In the dynamic ana­
lyses the whole soil thickness participates in the propagation of the shear
waves in the model. Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer [68] defined an upper limit
for the mesh dimension, to perform reliable finite element analyses and
to avoid numerical distortion of propagating ground motions. The
maximum size of the element is directly related to the maximum fre­
quency fmax of the wave which propagates through the meshed model.
For an accurate representation of wave transmission through a model,
the maximum element size should not be greater than 1/8 to 1/5 the
shortest wavelength λmin of a shear wave velocity Vs propagating
through the soil (Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer [69]; Lysmer et al. [70]).
A set of trial and error were used to determine the most appropriate
and efficient mesh size before adopting the optimal mesh to be used for
the cantilever retaining wall model under study. In the mesh generation
A.N. Salem et al.
procedure adopted by PLAXIS 2D, global coarse mesh and further
refining the mesh around the structural elements were used. The
resulted mesh element size is 0.7 m x 0.7 for both backfill and founda­
tion soils (Fig. 3). The lowest shear wave velocity Vs at the top layer of
the backfill equals 160 m/s and Δl ¼ 0.7 m and by using equation of
(Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer [69]; Lysmer et al. [70]), the finite element
mesh used in the PLAXIS 2D analyses should adequately propagate shear
waves having frequencies up to approximately 46 Hz. This value is well
above the 15 Hz cutoff frequency that generally used in geotechnical
applications and that was used in the SHAKE2000 analysis to compute
the input motion for the PLAXIS 2D analysis and well above the obtained
first two modes of the fundamental frequencies of the retaining wall-soil
system being modeled (f1 ¼ 5.8 Hz and f2 ¼ 17.3 Hz) that will be dis­
cussed later. Therefore, the input time-histories can be filtered and
high-frequency components are eliminated from the dynamic excitation
without significantly affecting the results and without consuming
analysis time and memory.
4.3. Damping ratio and Rayleigh damping parameters
It is well known that in dynamic analysis, when dynamic shear
stresses are less than the shear strength of the soil (i.e., G ¼ Gmax or GO),
the soil behaves elastically (i.e., No damping, ξ ¼ 0) and when dynamic
shear stresses exceed the shear strength of the soil, the soil introduces
hysteretic damping. Therefore, for realistic actual soil behavior, it is
recommended to study the attenuation or damping with shear strain
level. Typically, a 1%–2% damping ratio is commonly used as a lower
bound for non-linear dynamic analyses to reduce high-frequency
spurious noise (e.g., Finn, [71]; Wang and Makdisi [72]). The damp­
ing ratio of 5% used in SHAKE2000 analysis to compute the PLAXIS 2D
input motion may be used as an upper bound for non-linear dynamic
analyses. Judgment is required in selecting the damping ratio between
the lower and upper bounds. However, for this study a damping ratio of
ξ ¼ 3% is considered. The damping ratio of 3% falls between the upper
and lower bounds previously mentioned and equals the proposed
damping ratio used for most of the retaining wall analyses performed by
Green and Ebeling [57,58] and Bakr and Ahmad [62].
For the presentation of damping, PLAXIS 2D allows either to use
directly the damping ratio value or to specify Rayleigh damping pa­
rameters, where the latter provides a relatively constant level of
damping over a restricted range of frequencies. The central frequency
corresponding to the specified damping ratio is typically set to either the
fundamental period (small strain) of the system being modeled (an
inherent property of the wall-soil system) or predominant period of the
system response (an inherent property of the wall-soil system and the
ground motion). The Rayleigh damping format is computationally
convenient as it meets the orthogonality properties of the damping
matrix. The Rayleigh damping coefficients α and β are usually deter­
mined from a specific system damping ratios of the ith and jth modes of
vibration according toEqn 3 and Eqn 4 as follows:
α¼ξ
2ωi ωj
(3)
ωi þ ωj
β¼ξ
2
(4)
ωi þ ωj
Where ω i, ω j are the ith and jth mode natural circular frequency; and ξ is
the material damping ratio for all the structure (or soil).
The Rayleigh damping physical background is lacking. Furthermore
defining a certain Rayleigh viscous damping factor, results essentially
frequency-dependent effective damping over the varying range of fre­
quencies. One should make sure that the effective damping values ob­
tained have reasonable values, at least within the frequency range of
interest.
In order to determine the Rayleigh damping coefficient α, β from the
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962
damping ratio ξ, one shall either perform an Equivalent linear earth­
quake site response analysis or simply select the most appropriate two
modes of vibration ith and jth which generally be the 1st and 2nd modes
of vibration for soils. To determine the fundamental frequency proced­
ure proposed by Kramer [67] was followed. The resulted fundamental
frequencies (fin and fjn ) of the ith and jth modes of vibration are trans­
formed into circular fundamental frequencies ω i and ω j. The circular
fundamental frequencies ω i and ω j along with the viscous damping ξ are
used in the determination of the Rayleigh damping parameters α, β using
Eq. (3) and (4), respectively. It is important to note that the Rayleigh
damping formulation is based on the first two modes of the natural
frequency of the soil-retaining wall system because the response of the
retaining walls is usually governed by their first two modes of vibrations
[45].
By following the previous procedure, the average shear wave ve­
locity of backfill and foundation soil layers is equal Vs ¼ 208 m/s and
the circular fundamental frequencies of the 1st and 2nd modes are as
shown in the following table:
From the fundamental circular frequencies in Tables 2 and 3%
damping ratio selected for backfill and foundation soil layers and values
of Rayleigh constants are α ¼ 1.36 & β ¼ 0.00035.
4.4. Constitutive models for the backfill & foundation soils
In order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the seismic perfor­
mance of an integral cantilever retaining wall, it is important to simulate
the behavior of the backfill and foundation soils under seismic loading
with accuracy. Constitutive soil models chosen to simulate the behavior
of the backfill and foundation soil under seismic conditions should
consider the stress-dependency of the soil stiffness, loading and
unloading cycles, nonlinear shear modulus reduction with shear strain,
and generation of hysteretic damping during seismic loading. In this
study, two constitutive models to represent the soil behavior were used,
Mohr-Coloumb (MC) and Hardening soil at small strain (HSSMALL).
Mohr-Coulomb (MC) constitutive model is based on the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion. The constitutive model is a linear elastic-
perfectly plastic model that is stress independent with a fixed yield
surface, a yield surface that is fully defined by model parameters and not
affected by (plastic) straining. For stress states represented by points
within the yield surface, the behavior is purely elastic in loading and
unloading and all strains are reversible. When stress point reaches the
yield surface, the soil will undergo a degree of plasticity which is asso­
ciated with the development of irreversible strains. The special soil pa­
rameters required to define this model are cohesion (c), friction angle
(φ), dilatancy angle (ψ ), Poisson’s ratio (ν), and Young’s modulus (E).
The Mohr-Coulomb model is the most common model used for nu­
merical modeling of soil behavior. It is noted that several researchers
have utilized the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, and found it suffi­
ciently accurate for most geotechnical applications (Chen and Saleeb
[73]). In spite being a first-order approximation to use Mohr-Coulomb
constitutive model to study the seismic behavior of sand soil, it was
used by Green and Ebeling [13,14,57,58] to represent backfill and
foundation sand soils in FLAC model to study the seismic behavior of
retaining walls. Therefore, the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model was
used in this study for comparison purposes.
When using the Mohr-Coulomb model in dynamic calculations, the
stiffness moduli of soil such as dynamic constrained modulus Mo and
small strain shear modulus Gmax need to be selected such that the model
Table 2
Fundamental circular frequencies of backfill and foundation soil layers.
Mode i th j th
N 1 2
fn (Hz) 5.76 17.29
ωn (rad./sec) 36.22 108.65
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Table 3
Adopted parameters in MC and HSSMALL PLAXIS models.
Parameters Backfilling Soil Foundation Soil

Layer (1) Layer (2) Layer (3) Layer (4) Layer (5) Layer (6)

General γunsat KN/m3 20 20 20 20 20 20

φ’ (Degree) 35 35 35 35 40 40
K0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.357 0.357
Vs (m/sec) 160 183 196.6 207 238 260.6
ξ (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3

MC. G0 KN/m2 5.22Eþ04 6.83Eþ04 7.88Eþ04 8.74Eþ04 1.16Eþ05 1.39Eþ05

E0 KN/m2 1.25Eþ05 1.64Eþ05 1.89Eþ05 2.10Eþ05 2.77Eþ05 3.32Eþ05
Ed KN/m2 4.09Eþ04 5.34Eþ04 6.17Eþ04 6.84Eþ04 4.77Eþ04 5.64Eþ04

HSSMALL Power (m) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.5 0.5

γ0.7 4.32E-05 1.16E-04 1.72E-04 2.19E-04 1.74E-04 1.77E-04
Gref
0 KN/m
2
8.69Eþ04 8.41Eþ04 8.53Eþ04 8.70Eþ04 9.95Eþ04 1.08Eþ05
Eref
50 KN/m
2
7.17Eþ04 6.94Eþ04 7.04Eþ04 7.18Eþ04 6.86Eþ04 7.34Eþ04

Where: γunsat saturated unit weight, φ0 effective friction angle, Vs shear wave velocity, ξ Damping ratio, G0 small strain shear modulus, E0 small strain elastic modulus, Ed
drained elastic modulus, m power of stress level dependency, γ0.7 threshold shear strain, Gref ref
0 small strain reference shear modulus, E50 reference drained triaxial
stiffness modulus, K0 at rest Hz. earth pressure coefficient (Determined using Jaky [84] equation for foundation soil and by following Massarsch and Fellenius [85]
proposition to account for compaction effects for backfill soil).

correctly predicts compression and shear wave velocities in the soil,
respectively (Sharma [74] equations). This generally requires much
larger small strain stiffness rather than stiffness at engineering static
strain levels. The dynamic stiffness moduli relate to dynamic elastic
modulus according to Hooke’s law of isotropic elasticity, which involves
unloading/reloading Poisson’s ratio of soil νur ¼ 0.2.
For static loading condition, the static elastic modulus of soil can be
interpreted from the dynamic elastic modulus of soil by using Alpan [75]
empirical relationship between dynamic and static soil stiffness, with
considering Eur � (2–6)E50 as proposed (Gebreselassie, [76]) depending
on triaxial test results. In this study and as average values for various soil
types, Eur � 3E50 (PLAXIS [63]) was considered.
In hardening soil model with small-strain stiffness (HSSMALL) [77]
the soil is modeled with a nonlinear elasto-plastic constitutive model
with isotropic hardening after yielding [78] coupled with a
non-associative Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion [79]. The HSSMAL
constitutive model is an advanced soil model created as a development
for the original Hardening soil constitutive model [80] to considers
higher stiffness for soils that are deformed with small strains. The
stress-strain relationship, due to the primary loading, is following the
hyperbolic function proposed by Ref. [81]. The model has a good ability
to represent site effects in the free-field. However, the model has limi­
tations in fully describing the dynamic behavior of clean coarse-grained
soils as it is not able to capture reliably softening effects. The special soil
parameters required to define this model in addition to Mohr-Coulomb
parameters are power of stress level dependency (m), threshold shear
strain (γ0.7), small strain reference shear modulus (Gref 0 ), reference
drained triaxial stiffness modulus (Eref 50). The pre-yield part of the model
is represented by a nonlinear relation between the shear modulus, G,
and the shear strain, γ, proposed by Ref. [80] and later modified by
Ref. [82].
The two soil constitutive models (MC and HSSMALL) were used to
represent the soil mesh element parameters, the first model is more
relevant to plastic analysis solutions while the second one investigates
the effect of wall displacement during earthquake shaking. Adopted
parameters for both constitutive models are given in Table 3.
Validation of the two-dimensional PLAXIS model and the MC and
HSSMALL parameters against non-linear one-dimensional wave propa­
gation SHAKE2000 solutions was performed following the procedure of
elements as shown in Fig. 3. Connection between stem plate element and
foundation plate element considered rigid. The damping ratio for
structural elements was also considered 3% and was simulated by using
the Rayleigh damping formulation. The basic properties of the model
stem and foundation plate elements are summarized in Table 4.
4.6. Soil stratigraphy and construction sequence
The soil stratigraphy is set as 4 layers of backfilling soil and 2 layers
of foundation soil. Construction sequence started by the retaining wall
initiation then followed by placing backfill layers on lifts behind the
retaining wall.
4.7. Soil-retaining wall interaction
The interaction between the soil and the cantilever retaining wall is
modeled by using interface elements Fig. 3. Interface elements were
used between stem structural element and backfilling soil volume ele­
ments (Rinter ¼ tan δ’/tan φ’ ¼ 0.61), and between foundation structural
elements and foundation soil volume elements (Rinter ¼ tan δ’/tan
φ’ ¼ 0.51).
4.8. Initial static analysis
Initial static analysis is carried out by applying the gravity loading
for the soil retaining wall system to define the initial stress state and
before the static loading condition phases calculations.
4.9. Seismic loading
The effect of the earthquake on the soil-retaining wall system is
simulated by applying horizontal acceleration-time history at the base of
the Finite element model as shown in Fig. 3. The finite element input
acceleration-time histories are the scaled acceleration-time histories of
Table 4
Input properties for stem and foundation of cantilever wall.
Identification EA EI ν Thicknesses Damping ratio

[83] (See Appendix B). [kN/m] [kNm2/m] [ ] [m] [%]

Stem 1.57Eþ7 4.72Eþ5 0.15 0.6 3

4.5. Structural elements for the cantilever retaining wall foundation 1.57Eþ7 4.72Eþ5 0.15 0.6 3

Where: E concrete elastic modulus, A cross-sectional area of the element, ν

The structural members of cantilever retaining (stem and founda­ Poisson’s ratio of concrete, I Second moment of area of the element, stiffness
tion) are represented by plate elements which composed of 5-node beam modulus.

7
A.N. Salem et al.
the eight earthquake candidates obtained from one-dimensional ana­
lyses performed using SHAKE2000 software (See Appendix A).
4.10. Dynamic time step δ t
In the Calculation module, some parameters should be accurately
defined in each dynamic phase to perform a correct seismic analysis. The
Dynamic Time, expressed in seconds, for each phase should be assigned.
Time step used in the dynamic loading is evaluatedby Eqn 5:
δ t¼
Δt
(5)
n : m
Where Δt is the duration of the dynamic loading (Time interval for full
calculation phase), n is the number of Additional steps and m is the
number of Dynamic sub-steps (automatically determined if not manu­
ally set). Earthquake duration is given from the acceleration time his­
tories of the studied earthquakes (duration of acceleration time histories
are shown in Appendix A).
Sub-stepping of time is reached through two types of time phasing.
According to the Software in use (PLAXIS), the number of additional
steps (n) is typically 250. Then, the number of dynamic sub-steps (m) is
automatically adjusted to ensure an accuracy criterion. This criterion is
set according to the generated mesh and the calculated critical time Step
δ t critical, such that a wave during a single step should not move a dis­
tance larger than the minimum dimension of an element.
5. Results of full-scale seismic analysis
Lateral earth pressure acting at the heel and stem sections (see Fig. 1)
are calculated as the horizontal normal stress acting at this section (σ h).
Total earth pressure force is the result of the integration of the pressure
diagram and the point of application of this force is calculated through
moment equalization. Thus, the resultant earth pressure force is acting
at a distance (Y) from the top of the wall foundation. Horizontal accel­
eration time histories at the middle of the backfill are also depicted from
the results of various finite element calculations considering different
earthquake spectrums and for the two MC and HSSMALL models.
5.1. Total resultant forces and points of application
As an example of calculations, 1989 Loma Prieta-UCSC earthquake
results are shown in Fig. 4. The horizontal inertial coefficient (kh) time
history at the center of the backfill for the two constitutive models is
plotted in Fig. 4(a) for reference purposes. Time histories of lateral force
(P), relative point of application (Y/H), and overturning moment (Y.P),
as calculated at the heel section, are plotted in Fig. 4(b), (c), and 4(d),
respectively. From the figure:
- MC model produces values of lateral forces larger than those of the
HSSMALL model.
- Force (P) is at static active earth pressure condition at the start of the
shaking while it tends toward the static at-rest force.
- The relative location of the point of application (Y/H) starts from
about 0.35 at the start of shaking and reaches about 0.40–0.45 at the
end of shaking.
- The maximum value of (Y/H) is about 0.55 considering HSSMALL.
This later model produces higher locations of the point of
application.
5.2. Relationship between stem and heel sections
Fig. 5 presents the same seismic actions presented in Fig. 4 when
calculated at the Stem section (see Fig. 1) for the same example case
(1989 Loma Prieta-UCSC earthquake). This calculation is made to allow
quantifying seismic actions required for the structural design of the wall.
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962
From the figure:
- At the start of the shaking, (Pstem) is equal to (Pheel); while at the end
of shaking, (Pstem/Pheel) reaches a value ranging between 1.1 and 1.2.
- The ratio (Ystem/Yheel) is below unity for the entire shaking time
history and reached a value ranging between 1.00 and 0.9 at the end
of shaking. HSSMALL model produced the least values of this ratio.
- The ratio ((Y.P)stem/(Y.P)heel) reaches a maximum value of about
1.1 at the end of shaking.
5.3. Lateral displacement at wall toe
Fig. 6 presents the lateral displacement of wall toe obtained using MC
and HSSMALL constitutive models for the same example case (1989
Loma Prieta-UCSC earthquake). From the figure, the MC model pro­
duced higher displacement and the magnitude of ultimate wall
displacement ranges between 60 and 75 mm.
7. Discussion of results
The eight earthquake time histories are investigated using the same
procedure described above to produce more generalized conclusion
regarding seismic loads on the same cantilever wall model.
7.1. Seismic loads compared to static loads
Table 5 presents the results of seismic actions as compared to a
typical static lateral loading condition. From Table 5, (K) ranges be­
tween 0.35 to 0.48, (P/Pstatic) ranges between 1.57 to 2.13, and (Mseismic/
Mstatic) ranges between 2.13 to 2.89. The location of the relative point of
application of the seismic load (Y/H) at end of shaking ranges between
0.44 to 0.48.
Generally at the same site type, seismic earth pressure coefficient (K)
and normalized total resultant force and overturning moment at end of
shaking to their static relevant values [(P/Pstatic) and (Mseismic/Mstatic)],
are directly proportional to Moment magnitude of the earthquake and
inversely proportional to source-to-site distance. Seismic loads increase
in rock sites and decrease in soil sites.
7.2. Seismic lateral earth pressure
The relationship between the horizontal inertial coefficient (kh) and
lateral earth pressure coefficients (K) due to applying the list of earth­
quake candidates for the two HSSMALL and MC constitutive models are
shown in Fig. 7. The lateral earth pressure coefficients (K) values were
computed during the strong motion portion of the (kh) time-history (i.e.,
2–30 s, approximately) for the two models. The computed (K) values are
plotted as functions of their corresponding absolute values of (kh). From
Fig. 7:
- The earth pressure coefficient for non-yielding backfills developed
by Wood [36] is an extremely conservative upper bound of the earth
pressures that may occur on the cantilever wall.
- Dynamic centrifuge experiments on a scaled model of freestanding
cantilever wall carried out by Geraili Mikola and Sitar [16] resulted
in the lowest bound and show agreement with HSSMALL results of
this study for a range of horizontal accelerations above 0.35 g.
- Measurements of shaking table tests carried out by Sherif et al.
[50-52] and limit proposed by Seed and Whitman [5] show agree­
ment with MC results of this study for range of horizontal accelera­
tions above 0.35 g.
- For the range of horizontal acceleration between 0.2 g and 0.35 g,
results of HSSMALL models fall between Limit proposed by
Mononobe-Okabe [3,4] and closed-form stress plasticity solution
proposed by Mylonakis et al. [12] as well as New Stress Pseudo-static
Plasticity Solution proposed by Evangelista et al. [13,14] as upper
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Fig. 4. Time-histories of (P), (Y/H) and (Y.P) at the heel section for the 1989 Loma Prieta-UCSC Earthquake.

9
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Fig. 5. (Pstem/Pheel), (Ystem/Yheel), and ((Y. P)stem/(Y. P)heel) Time-histories, for the 1989 Loma Prieta-UCSC earthquake.

10
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

bounds and shaking table tests results obtained by Sherif et al.

[50-52] as a lower bound.
- For range of horizontal acceleration between 0.2 g and 0.35 g, results
of MC models fall between Veletsos and Younan [38,39,40,41] as an
upper bound and Mononobe-Okabe [3,4], Mylonakis et al. [12], and
Evangelista et al. [13,14] as lower bounds.
- The line drawn from at-rest earth pressure coefficient (K0) for
(kh ¼ 0) and the intersection point of (KAE) and (KPE) obtained by
Mononobe-Okabe curves can be considered a conservative upper
bound seismic active lateral which in agreement with what proposed
by Green and Ebeling [57,58].
- For the range of horizontal acceleration below 0.2 g, the results of
MC and HSSMALL models fall between the previously mentioned
conservative upper bound and Limit proposed by Mononobe-Okabe
[3,4] as a lower bound.
Fig. 6. Lateral displacement time history obtained at wall toe, for the 1989 - The pseudo-dynamic method developed by Choudhury and Nim­
Loma Prieta-UCSC earthquake. balkar [11] showed a slight increase from Limit proposed by
Mononobe-Okabe [3,4] for smooth wall.
- For the MC model, the upper bound forms a hyperbolic shape for the
Table 5 entire range of (kh). The Equation of MC upper bound is given in Eqn
HSSMALL Models seismic loads at the end of Shaking. 6 as follows:
Earthquake Station Mw PGA K Y/H P/ Mseismic/ � �
kh
[g] Pstatic Mstatic K ¼ KA þ (6)
0:11 þ 1:90⋅kh
San Fernando, 279 6.6 1.16 0.43 0.45 1.91 2.57
CA
Gazli, USSR 9201 6.8 0.72 0.48 0.45 2.13 2.89 - For the HSSMALL model, the upper bound curve is lower than that
Morgan Hill, 57217 6.2 0.71 0.37 0.44 1.66 2.21
CA
obtained from the MC model. This could be due to the high de­
Loma Prieta, UCSC 7.0 0.40 0.42 0.47 1.85 2.60 pendency of stresses on strains in this model. The difference between
CA the upper bounds of the two models increases with the acting seismic
Cape 8900S 7.0 1.50 0.47 0.46 2.09 2.86 action (kh).
Mendocino,
- Computed K values obtained from PLAXIS finite element analyses
CA
Northridge, 24279 6.7 0.58 0.46 0.44 2.03 2.71 especially using HSSMALL constitutive model show good agreement
CA with those computed K values obtained from FLAC finite difference
Loma Prieta, Sago 7.0 0.07 0.36 0.44 1.59 2.13 analysis by Green and Ebeling [57,58].
CA South - The value of (K) obtained from upper bound at a certain (kh) can be
Aqaba, Egypt EILAT 7.1 0.11 0.35 0.48 1.57 2.23
directly used to obtain seismic lateral thrust.

Fig. 7. Coefficients lateral earth pressure Vs. Horizontal inertial coefficient obtained from PLAXIS F.E. constitutive models for earthquake candidates and (Green and
Ebeling [57,58]) FLAC F.D. Model. . (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

11
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

7.3. Seismic loads acting on stem section Table 6

HSSMALL Models seismic loads ratios.
Table 6 presents results of seismic actions at the heel section as Earthquake Station Mw PGA Pstem/ (Y.P)stem/(Y.
compared to those acting at the stem section. The table presents ratios of [g] Pheel P)heel
total resultant forces and overturning moments acting on the stem to San Fernando, CA 279 6.60 1.16 1.30 1.20
those acting on the heel section [(Pstem/Pheel) and ((Y.P)stem/(Y.P)heel), Gazli, USSR 9201 6.80 0.72 1.20 1.10
respectively] at end of shaking for the eight earthquakes using HSSMALL Morgan Hill, CA 57217 6.20 0.71 1.20 1.20
constitutive model. Loma Prieta, CA UCSC 7.00 0.40 1.20 1.10
Cape Mendocino, 8900S 7.00 1.50 1.10 1.00
From Table, the ratio of total resultant forces and overturning mo­ CA
ments acting on the stem to those acting on the heel end section [(Pstem/ Northridge, CA 24279 6.70 0.58 1.10 1.10
Pheel) and ((Y.P)stem/(Y.P)heel)] at end of shaking is in average equals 1.2 Loma Prieta, CA Sago 7.00 0.07 1.10 1.00
and 1.1, respectively. South
Aqaba, Egypt EILAT 7.10 0.11 1.30 1.00
Avg.¼ 1.19 1.09
8. Conclusion and discussion

Although many researchers studied the seismic behavior of retaining
structures only a few addressed integral cantilever retaining walls (stem
and base) and subjected them to seismic actions based on real-time
histories of a sufficient number of earthquakes. Drawbacks of some of
these researches include not using real earthquake records or using an
insufficient number of earthquake candidates. Green and Ebeling [57,
58] used only one earthquake. Cakir [59-,61] did not carry out proper
scaling for the used earthquake records. In his research bedrock was
12 m below the wall base. This condition could be qualified as a very
harsh seismic condition and, if existed, a site-specific seismic analysis
should be carried out in the design. The same study (Cakir [59-61]) has
chosen a very wide range of elastic modulus to represent the backfill
layer which led to a remarkable high degree of variation of results). For
example, the maximum stiffness modulus of backfill reached 300 MPa
which is excessively high. Evangelista et al. [13] and di Santolo and
Evangelista [14] have chosen excessive wall dimensions (height of the
cantilever wall was 10.8 m). In engineering practice, such a wall should
have been designed as a counterfort wall or mechanically stabilized
wall.
In this study, a full-scale seismic analysis using coupled numerical
analyses. The coupled analysis is performed first by scaling seismic and
processing eight real earthquake acceleration time history records
through a one-dimensional numerical model then followed by seismic
analyses on integrated cantilever retaining structure using two-
dimensional analyses. Meticulous care was given to properly simulate
the real behavior of cantilever retaining wall under both static and
seismic conditions. Consequently, proper selection of soil-structure pa­
rameters, constitutive models, boundary conditions, model size, damp­
ing, and soil-structure interaction was considered.
From the present study on a cantilever retaining wall subjected to
eight earthquake candidates with different characteristic, the following
main conclusions can be drawn:
dependent stress-strain models (MC). This reduction is more pro­
nounced with the acting seismic acceleration
3 Relative point of application of seismic for higher when a highly
dependent stress-strain relationship is used (HSSMALL) as compared
to other less dependent stress-strain model (MC). Thus, while the
force decreases, seismic moment increases giving comparable values
of seismic moments for the two models.
4 Values of computed seismic earth pressure coefficient (K) values
obtained from PLAXIS finite element analyses especially using
HSSMALL constitutive model show good agreement with those ob­
tained from FLAC finite difference analysis by Green and Ebeling
[57,58].
5 The relative location of the point of application at the heel section
reaches about 0.40–0.45 at the end of shaking.
6 The maximum value of the point of application of seismic active
force acting at the heel section is about 0.55.
7 Average ratio of total resultant forces and overturning moments
acting on the stem section to those acting on the heel section [(Pstem/
Pheel) and ((Y.P)stem/(Y.P)heel)] at end of shaking are 1.2 and 1.1,
respectively.
8 Seismic earth pressure coefficient (K) and normalized total resultant
force and overturning moment at end of shaking are directly pro­
portional to the Moment magnitude of the earthquake and inversely
proportional to source-to-site distance. Seismic loads increase in rock
sites and decrease in soil sites.
9. Recommendation of further studies
Further studies utilizing a wider cluster of ground motions are
mandated to validate the proposed median response for general use.
Declaration of competing interest

1 The study produced a quantitative evaluation of the seismic lateral
earth pressure acting on cantilever retaining walls for horizontal
inertial coefficient range associated with a strong motion portion of
eight different earthquakes in form of a median response. Never­
theless, owing to the limited number of ground motions utilized in
our study a median response cannot convey a confirmation about the
uncertainty of the median.
2 When a model of highly dependent stress-strain relationship is used
(HSSMALL), seismic active force reduces with respect to other less
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Prof .Sherif Wissa Agaiby : Director, Geotechnical and Heavy Civil
Engineering Dept at Dar Al-Handasah. Dr. Sheref A. Elseidy , MD :
Cardiovascular department , Ain shams University Hospitals.

Appendix A

SHAKE2000 software to perform one-dimensional numerical analysis of real time acceleration time histories of the eight candidate earthquakes
given in Table 1 for spectrum matching of the recorded acceleration time histories to a postulated design earthquake spectrum and to assess the site-
specific scaled seismic motions. Fig. A1 to Fig. A8 shows the output of the one-dimensional analyses carried out on the earthquake candidates in the
form of acceleration, velocity and displacement time histories. The resulted acceleration time histories were used as input seismic excitation at the

12
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

base of two-dimensional finite element analyses using PLAXIS 2D program.

Appendix B

Ground response analysis was performed by two PLAXIS models utilizing MC and HSSMALL to simulate the one-dimensional wave propagation
analysis of the soil column representing the site understudy with the shear wave velocity measurements shown in Fig. 2. The two models were
subjected to scaled Loma Prieta 1989 (UCSC station) acceleration time history in order to get an approximately linear soil response. The results were
obtained at a depth of 9 m from the ground surface level which is the depth of the two-dimensional PLAXIS model base shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The
results were compared in terms of time history horizontal acceleration, Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration (PSA) and relative displacement spectra with the
obtained response from SHAKE2000 at the same 9 m depth and for the same soil column and shear wave velocity measurements of the site understudy
as shown in Fig. 2. The comparison is shown in Fig.B1, Fig.B2, and Fig.B3.
In Fig.B1, the general acceleration distribution with the time between SHAKE2000 and both PLAXIS models follow the same trend and reasonably
have the same frequency content. Although the maximum acceleration in PLAXIS HSSMALL is slightly lower than peak acceleration in SHAKE2000
while the maximum acceleration in PLAXIS MC is the greatest. In Fig.B2, It can be seen that the predominant period is the same. The maximum
spectral acceleration is slightly overestimated in PLAXIS MC and is slightly underestimated in PLAXIS HSSMALL. In Fig.B3, The maximum relative
displacement both in SHAKE2000 and in PLAXIS MC is almost the same while it is underestimated in PLAXIS HSSMALL. The results obtained in
PLAXIS are generally in good agreement with the output of SHAKE2000. Small differences may be attributed to the different hypotheses for each
model (i.e. SHAKE2000 considers a viscoelastic linear soil, PLAXIS HSSMALL model accounts for plasticity while PLAXIS MC is a linear elastic model)
in addition to the representation of boundary condition especially at the bottom of the PLAXIS models [83].

Fig. A1. Time-histories obtained by SHAKE2000 Analysis for the 1971 San Fernando earthquake Recorded at station 279.

13
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Fig. A2. Time-histories obtained by SHAKE2000 Analysis for the 1976 Gazli earthquake.

Fig. A3. Time-histories obtained by SHAKE2000 Analysis for the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake Recorded at station 57217.

14
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Fig. A4. Time-histories obtained by SHAKE2000 Analysis for the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake Recorded at UCSC Brane building.

Fig. A5. Time-histories obtained by SHAKE2000 Analysis for the 1992 Cape Mendocino earthquake Recorded at station 89005.

15
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Fig. A6. Time-histories obtained by SHAKE2000 Analysis for the 1994 Northridge earthquake Recorded at station 24279.

Fig. A7. Time-histories obtained by SHAKE2000 Analysis for the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake Recorded at SAGO south station 47189.

16
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Fig. A8. Time-histories obtained by SHAKE2000 Analysis for the 1995 Aqaba earthquake Recorded at Eilat.

Fig. B1. Scaled Loma Prieta 1989 (UCSC station) acceleration time-histories at 9 m from the ground surface - Comparison PLAXIS (MC and HSSMALL models)
and SHAKE2000.

17
A.N. Salem et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962

Fig. B2. Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration (PSA) at 9 m from the ground surface – Comparison PLAXIS (MC and HSSMALL models) and SHAKE2000.

Fig. B3. Relative displacement response spectrum at 9 m from the ground surface – Comparison PLAXIS (MC and HSSMALL models) and SHAKE2000.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this article was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee of Cairo University Faculty of Engineering.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17, 1995, Hyogoken-Nanbu

Earthquake.
[8] Koseki J, Munaf Y, Tatsuoka F, Tateyama M, Kojima K, Sato T. Shaking table and
[1] Coulomb CA. Essai sur une Application des Regles de Maximis et Minimis quelques
tilt table tests of geosynthetic –reinforced soil and conventional retaining wall.
Probl�
emes de Statique relatifs l’Architecture. Mem R Sci 1773;3:38. Paris.
Geosynth Int 1998;5(1–2):73–96.
[2] Rankin W. On the stability of loose earth. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
[9] Watanabe K, Munaf Y, Koseki J, Tateyama M, Kojima K. Behaviors of several types
Society, London 1857;147:9–27.
of model retaining wall subjected to irregular excitation. Soils Found 2003;43(5):
[3] Okabe S. General theory of earth pressures. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1926;12(1).
13–27.
[4] Mononobe N, Matsuo H. On the determination of earth pressures during
[10] Steedman R, Zeng X. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static
earthquakes. In: Proceedings, world engineering congress, tokyo, Japan, 1929. vol.
earth pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique 1990;40(1):103–12.
9; 1929. p. 177–85. and Paper No. 388.
[11] Choudhury D, Nimbalkar S. Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth
[5] Seed HB, Whitman RV. Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads. In:
pressure behind retaining wall. Geotech Geol Eng 2006;24:1103–13.
Proceedings of the specialty conference on lateral stresses in the ground and design
[12] Mylonakis G, Kloukinas P, Papantonopoulos C. An alternative to the
of earth retaining structures, ASCE; 1970. p. 103–47.
Mononobe–Okabe equations for seismic earth pressures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2007;
[6] Zhang J, Shamoto Y, Tokimatsu K. Seismic earth pressure theory for retaining walls
27(10):957–69.
under any lateral displacement. Soils Found 1998;38(2):143–63.
[13] Evangelista A, Scotto di Santolo A, Simonelli AL. Evaluation of pseudostatic active
[7] Koseki J, Tatsuoka F, Munaf Y, Tateyama M, Kojima K. A modified procedure to
earth pressure coefficient of cantilever retaining walls. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;
evaluate active earth at high seismic loads. Soils Found 1998;(2):209–16. Special
30(11):1119–28.

18
A.N. Salem et al.
[14] di Santolo AS, Evangelista A. Dynamic active earth pressure on cantilever retaining
walls. Comput Geotech 2011;38:1041–51.
[15] Kamiloglu HA, Sadoglu E. A method of active seismic earth thrusts of granular
backfill. Soils and Foundations 2019;59(2):419–32.
[16] Geraili Mikola R, Sitar N. Seismic earth pressures on retaining structures in
cohesionless soils. 2013. Report No. UCB GT 13–01, March 742 2013.
[17] Clough GW, Fragaszy RF. A study of earth loadings on floodway retaining
structures in the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake. In: Proceedings of the sixth
world conference on earthquake engineering. vol. 3; 1977.
[18] Lew M, Simantob E, Hudson ME. Performance of shored earth retaining systems
during the January 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the third
international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake
engineering and soil dynamics, st louis, Missouri; 1995. 3.
[19] Wu Y, Prakash S. Seismic displacements of rigid retaining walls on submergence.
In: Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. vol. 570.
Auckland: IAEE; 2000.
[20] Tatsuoka F, Tateyama M, Koseki J. Performance of soil retaining walls for railway
embankments. Soils and Foundations 1996;36(Special Issue):311–24.
[21] Koseki J, Munaf Y, Tateyama M, Kojima K, Horii K. Back analyses of case histories
and model tests on seismic stability of retaining walls. In: 11th asian regional
conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. vol. 1; 1999.
p. 399–402.
[22] Chang CY, Power MS, Mok CM, Tang YK, Tang HT. Analysis of dynamic lateral
earth pressures recorded on Lotung reactor containment model structure. In:
Proceedings, 4th U.S. National conference on earthquake engineering, oalm
springs, California; 1990.
[23] Ling HI, Leshchinsky D, Chou N. Post-earthquake investigation on several
geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji Earthquake
in Taiwan. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2001;21:297–313.
[24] Fang YS, Chen TJ. Retaining walls damaged in the Chi-Chi earthquake. Can
Geotech J 2003;(40):1142–53.
[25] Gazetas G, Psarropoulos PN, Anastasopoulos I, Gerolymos N. Seismic behaviour of
flexible retaining systems subjected to short-duration moderately strong excitation.
Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2004;24:537–50.
[26] Richards R, Elms DG. Seismic behaviour of gravity retaining walls. J Geotech Eng
Div ASCE 1979;105(4):449–64.
[27] Whitman RV, Liao S. Seismic design of gravity retaining walls,” miscellaneous
paper GL-85-1, U.S. Army engineer waterways experiment station. 1985
[Vicksburg, MS].
[28] Steedman RS, Zeng X. Rotation of large gravity walls on rigid foundations under
seismic loading. Anal Des Retain Struct Against Earthq 1996:38–56. Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 60, ASCE.
[29] Wu Y, Prakash S, Puri VK. On design of retaining walls in seismic areas. In:
Proceedings of the 2010 earth retention conference (ER), ASCE, 2010, bellevue,
Washington; 2009.
[30] Jacobson PN. Translational behavior of gravity retaining walls during earthquakes.
Research Report 80-9. New Zealand: University of Canterbury; 1980.
[31] Zarrabi K. Sliding of gravity retaining wall during earthquakes considering vertical
acceleration and changing inclination of failure surface. Master’s Thesis.
Cambridge: M.I.T; 1979 [Mass].
[32] Newmark. Effect of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 1965;
15:139–59.
[33] Matsuo H, Ohara S. Lateral earth pressure and stability of quay walls during
earthquakes. In: Proceedings, earthquake engineering, second world conference,
tokyo, Japan; 1960. p. 1.
[34] Tajimi H. Dynamic earth pressures on basement wall. In: Proceedings, earthquake
engineering, fifth world conference, rome, Italy; 1973. p. 2.
[35] Scott RF. Earthquake-induced pressures on retaining walls. In: II Proceedings of 5th
world conference on earthquake engineering. Rome, Italy. vols. 1611–1620; 1973.
p. 1973.
[36] Wood JH. Earthquake induced soil pressures on structures. Ph.D. thesis. Pasadena,
CA: California Institute of Technology; 1973.
[37] Wu G, Finn WDL. Seismic lateral pressures for design of rigid walls. Can Geotech J
1999;36:509–22.
[38] Veletsos AS, Younan AH. Dynamic soil pressures on rigid vertical walls. Int J
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1994;23:275–301.
[39] Veletsos AS, Younan AH. Dynamic modeling and response of soil-wall systems.
ASCE J. Geotech.Eng. 1994;120(12):2155–79.
[40] Veletsos AS, Younan AH. Dynamic response of cantilever walls. ASCE J. Geotech.
Eng. 1997;123(2):161–72.
[41] Younan AH, Veletsos AS. Dynamic response of flexible retaining walls. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 2000;29:1815–44.
[42] Psarropoulos PN, Klonaris G, Gazetas G. Seismic earth pressures on rigid and
flexible retaining walls. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2005;25:795–809.
[43] Al Atik L, Sitar N. Experimental and analytical study of the seismic performance of
retaining structures. PEER report 2008/104, pacific earthquake engineering
research center, college of engineering. Berkeley: University of California; 2008.
[44] Wilson P, Elgamal A. Shake table lateral earth pressure testing with dense c-φ
backfill. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;71:13–26.
[45] Candia G, Mikola RG, Sitar N. Seismic response of retaining walls with cohesive
backfill: centrifuge model studies. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2016;90:411–9.
19
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962
[46] Ertugrul OL, Trandafir AC. Seismic earth pressures on flexible cantilever retaining
walls with deformable inclusions. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2014;417. 427–6.
[47] Ishibashi I, Fang Y-S. Dynamic earth pressures with different wall movement
modes. Soils Found 1987;27(4):11–22.
[48] Nakamura S. Reexamination of Mononobe-Okabe theory of gravity retaining walls
using centrifuge model tests. Soils Found 2006;46(2):135–46.
[49] Giarlelis C, Mylonakis G. Interpretation of dynamic retaining wall model tests in
light of elastic and plastic solutions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31(1). 16 24.
[50] Sherif MA, Ishibashi I, Lee CD. Earth pressure against rigid retaining walls.
J. Geotech. Eng. 1982;108:679–95.
[51] Sherif MA, Fang YS. Dynamic earth pressures against rotating and nonyielding
retaining walls. University of Washington, Soil Engineering Research Report 23.
1983.
[52] Sherif MA, Fang YS. Dynamic earth pressures on rigid walls rotating about the
base. In: Proceedings of 8th world conference on earthquake engineering. vol. 3.
San Francisco, CA, USA. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1984.
p. 993–1000.
[53] Bolton MD, Steedman RS. The behavior of fixed cantilever walls subjected to
lateral shaking. In: Symposium on the application of centrifuge modeling to
geotechnical design, Manchester; April 1984. p. 16–8 [Rotterdam: AA Balkema,
Boston].
[54] Kloukinas P, di Santolo AS, Penna A, Dietz M, Evangelista A, Simonelli AL,
Taylor C, Mylonakis G. Investigation of seismic response of cantilever retaining
walls: limit analysis vs shaking table testing. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;77:432–45.
[55] Aggour MS, Brown CB. In: Retaining walls in seismic areas. Proceedings, 5th world
conference on earthquake engineering, Rome, Italy; 1973. p. 2624–7.
[56] Siddharthan R, Maragakis EM. Performance of flexible retaining walls supporting
dry cohesionless soils under cyclic loads. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
1989;13:309–26.
[57] Green RA, Ebeling RM. Seismic Analysis Of Cantilever Retaining Walls, Phase 1.
Report No. ERDC/ITL TR-02–3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research
and Development Center; 2002. p. 35–42.
[58] Green RA, Olgun CG, Ebeling RM, Cameron WI. Seismically induced lateral earth
pressures on a cantilever retaining wall. In: Proceedings: the sixth US conference
and workshop on lifeline earthquake engineering (TCLEE2003), ASCE; 2003.
August 10-13, 2003, Long Beach, CA.
[59] Cakir T. Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic
behavior of cantilever retaining wall including soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2013;45:96–111.
[60] Cakir T. Influence of wall flexibility on dynamic response of cantilever retaining
walls. Struct Eng Mech 2014;49(1):1–22.
[61] Cakir T. Backfill and subsoil interaction effects on seismic behavior of a cantilever
wall. Geomech. Eng. Int J 2014;6:117–38.
[62] Bakr J, Ahmad SM. A finite element performance-based approach to correlate
movement of a rigid retaining wall with seismic earth pressure. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng Times 2018;114:460–79.
[63] PLAXIS 2D. Reference manual. Version. 2015. 2.19890.4979.
[64] PEER. Pacific earthquake engineering centre. http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/.
[65] Ordonez G. SHAKE2000, A computer program for the 1-D analysis of geotechnical
earthquake engineering problems, user’s manual," september 2005 revision.
GeoMotions. Lacey, WA: LLC; 2005.
[66] Wolf JP, Deeks AJ. Foundation vibration analysis: a strength-of-materials
approach, J Sound Vib. 1st Edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. p. 55–83. ISBN 0-
7506-6164-X.
[67] Kramer SL. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1996.
[68] Lysmer J, Kuhlmeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div
1969:859–77.
[69] Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J. Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation
problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 1973;99:421–7.
[70] Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai C-F, Seed HB. FLUSH - a computer program for
approximate 3-D analysis of soil-structure interaction problems. Earthquake
Engineering Research Center 1975;Report No. EERC-75-30, INIS 8(18):259–332.
[71] Finn WDL. Dynamic analyses in geotechnical engineering. In: Von Thun JL, editor.
Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II – recent advances in ground-motion
evaluation. Geotechnical Special Publication 20, ASCE; 1988. p. 523–91.
[72] Wang ZL, Makdisi FI. Implementing a boundary surface hypoplasticity model for
sand into FLAC program. In: Detoumay, Hart, editors. FLAC and numerical
modeling in geomechanics. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1999. p. 483–90.
[73] Chen W, Saleeb A. Constitutive equation for engineering materials, volume 1:
elasticity and modeling. Canada: John Wiley and Sons; 1983.
[74] Sharma PV. Geophysical methods in geology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1976. 428 pp.
[75] Alpan I. The geotechnical properties of soils. Earth Sci Rev 1970;6:5–49.
[76] Gebreselassie B. Experimental, analytical and numerical investigations of
excavations in normally consolidated soft soils. Dissertation. Schriftenreihe
Geotechnik, Heft: University of Kassel; 2003. p. 14.
[77] Benz T. Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. Ph.D. Thesis.
Germany: University of Stuttgart; 2006.
[78] Schanz T, Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG. The hardening-soil model: formulation and
verification. In: Brinkgreve RBJ, editor. Beyond 2000 in computational
geotechnics; 1999. p. 281–90. Balkema, Rotterdam.
[79] Smith IM, Griffiths DV. Programming the finite element method. second ed.
Chisester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons; 1982.
A.N. Salem et al.
[80] Hardin B, Drnevich V. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and
curves. J Soil Mech Found Div 1972;98:667–92.
[81] Duncan JM, Chang C-Y. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soil. ASCE J Soil
Mech Found Div 1970;96:1629–53.
[82] Santos JA, Correia AG. Reference threshold shear strain of soil: its application to
obtain a unique strain-dependent shear modulus curve for soil. In: Proceedings of
the 15th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey. vol. 1; 2001. p. 267–70.
20
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105962
[83] Laera A, Brinkgreve RBJ. Ground response analysis in PLAXIS. 2015 [PLAXIS
Bulletin, Netherlands].
[84] Jaky J. "The coefficient of earth pressure at rest," magyar menok es epitesz kozloi.
J Soc Hung Archit Eng 1944:355–8. Budapest, Oct. 1944.
[85] Massarsch KR, Fellenius BH. Vibratory compaction of coarse-grained soils. Can
Geotech J 2002;39(3). 25 pp.