Finite-Element Study for Seismic Structural and Global

Stability of Cantilever-Type Retaining Walls

Junied Bakr1; Syed Mohd Ahmad2; and Domenico Lombardi3

Abstract: This paper investigates the structural and global stability of a cantilever-type retaining wall under seismic loading using numerical
modelling. A new and robust approach is proposed to compute the seismic earth pressure behind the stem and along a virtual plane passing the
heel of the wall. The results show that under different earthquake characteristics and wall geometries, the seismic earth pressure forces may be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

out of phase, leading to different seismic responses of the wall. The critical scenario for the structural stability is observed when the maximum
acceleration is directed toward the backfill soil, and the earthquake frequency content is close to the natural frequency of the wall. In contrast,
the critical scenario for the global stability occurs when the maximum acceleration is directed with minimum frequency content. Further, the
natural frequency of the wall does not affect the global stability of the wall. However, the duration of the applied earthquake acceleration does
affect the global stability of the wall, whereas the structural stability remains unaffected by it. In contrast with the current understanding, the
possibility of failure of a cantilever-type retaining wall by horizontal sliding is remarkably increased with time of the applied earthquake accel-
eration. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001505. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Seismic stability analyses; Relative displacement; Wall; Backfill and stem seismic inertia forces; Shear force and bend-
ing moment; Seismic earth pressure increment.

Introduction In the current design practice, the cantilever-type retaining walls

A cantilever-type retaining wall, like the one presented in Fig. 1(a),
is one of the most common types of retaining structures. For such
walls, the most important design load that needs to be considered for
a safe design under seismic conditions comes from the seismic earth
pressure. For design purposes, a cantilever-type retaining wall is
considered as a flexible structure and a design must address the
structural and global stability arising because of the seismic earth
pressure. As presented in Fig. 1(b) the seismic earth pressure will
create a shear force, Nwall, and bending moment, Mwall, on the stem
of the wall and also tend to cause the base slab to slide relative to the
foundation layer and rotate about the toe, thereby overturning the
wall [Fig. 1(c)]. For structural stability, the stem of the wall should
be designed to resist the shear force, Nwall, and bending moment,
Mw, whereas, for global stability, the wall should be designed such
that it provides adequate sliding and overturning resistance. It is cru-
cial to highlight that for both of these stability analyses assessments,
an accurate estimation of the seismic earth pressure is important.
1 tradictory evidences in the available literature. For example, the nu-
Formerly, Ph.D. Student, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL UK. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1441-0425.
2
Lecturer in Geotechnical Engineering, School of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Univ. of Manchester, Manchester
M13 9PL UK (corresponding author). Email: mohammed.ahmad.syed@
manchester.ac.uk
3
Lecturer in Geotechnical Engineering, School of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Univ. of Manchester, Manchester
M13 9PL UK. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4116-8347.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 19, 2018; approved on
April 12, 2019; published online on August 16, 2019. Discussion period
open until January 16, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
are designed by considering the concepts used for the design of rigid
retaining walls; this is despite the important fact that the cantilever-
type retaining walls behave as flexible structures, whereas the rigid
retaining walls do behave as rigid structures. For a seismic case, the
force-based Mononobe Okabe (M-O) method (Mononobe and
Matsuo 1929)—a method primarily based on Coulomb’s earth pres-
sure theory (Coulomb 1776)—is widely used to estimate seismic
earth pressure for the retaining walls. Although the M-O method is
a very straightforward method to use, it has a limitation of not repli-
cating, and hence simulating, the real field behavior and, therefore,
at times overestimating the seismic earth pressure (e.g., Nakamura
2006; Al Atik and Sitar 2009; Jo et al. 2017; Bakr and Ahmad
2018a). Extensive efforts have been made to study the seismic earth
pressure behind a rigid retaining wall (e.g, Choudhury and Katdare
2013; Tang et al. 2014; Dey et al. 2017; Zhou et al. 2018; Rajesh
and Choudhury 2017), whereas little attention has been paid to
investigate the development of seismic earth pressure behind a
cantilever-type retaining wall. Further, with regards to finding a
critical case that needs to be considered for designing a cantilever-
type retaining wall under seismic conditions, there are several con-
merical study presented by Green et al. (2008) and the shaking table
study presented by Kloukinas et al. (2015) show that a critical load-
ing case for the seismic design of a cantilever-type retaining wall is
when the earthquake acceleration is applied away from the backfill
soil, thereby rendering the retaining wall–soil system in a passive
earth pressure condition. This, however, is contradicted by the
centrifuge-based study of Jo et al. (2017), who reported that a criti-
cal loading case for the retaining wall will be the one in which the
earthquake acceleration is applied toward the backfill soil, thereby
rendering the retaining wall–soil system in an active earth pressure
condition. Cakir (2013) investigated the effect of frequency content
of earthquake acceleration on the seismic response of a cantilever
retaining wall in a three-dimensional space by using the finite-

© ASCE 04019117-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117

 element method (FEM). This study found that the stresses behind
the retaining wall and displacements at the top of the wall tend to
increase with the decrease of frequency content of earthquake accel-
eration. Considering the importance of displacement-based meth-
ods, researchers have presented various approaches for the estima-
tion of displacement of rigid retaining walls (e.g., Nadim and
Whitman 1983; Madabhushi and Zeng 1998; Zeng 1998; Zeng and
Steedman 2000; Paruvakat et al. 2001; Huang 2005; Choudhury
and Nimbalkar 2008; Basha and Babu 2010; Huang et al. 2009;
Ahmad and Choudhury 2010; Ni et al. 2017). Similarly, a few
researchers like Green et al. (2008); Kloukinas et al. (2015); Bakr
and Ahmad (2018b) have investigated the deformation mechanism
of the cantilever-type retaining wall under the effect of seismic
loading. However, very little information is available that details a
relationship and effect of seismic earth pressure on the displacement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of the cantilever-type retaining wall, thus leaving this important
area of research and application poorly understood.
This paper presents a FE-based numerical modeling approach
to study the seismic structural and global stability of a cantilever-
type retaining wall–soil system, not only for a post-earthquake
scenario, but also during an earthquake event. The present study
identifies a critical scenario for the structural and global stability
of a cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system by considering dif-
ferent earthquake characteristics and the effects of seismic earth
(a) (b)
(d)
Fig. 1. Typical cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system: (a) schematic representation; (b) schematic of structural stability; (c) schematic of global
stability; (d) body force diagram for structural stability analysis; and (e) body force diagram for global stability analysis.
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
pressure on the structural and global stability of a cantilever-type
retaining wall–soil system. The study also captures the deforma-
tion mechanism of a cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system
and investigates the effect of the natural frequency of a cantilever-
type retaining wall–soil system on its structural and global stability.
Recommendations that would help in providing a safer and eco-
nomic design of a cantilever-type retaining wall for earthquake
prone areas are also presented.
Seismic Structural and Global Stability of a
Cantilever-Type Retaining Wall–Soil System
A cantilever-type retaining wall of height H and width of base slab
bslab, supporting a horizontal surface backfill to its full height, is pre-
sented in Fig. 1(a). As mentioned above, the retaining wall–soil sys-
tem is to be analyzed for the seismic structural and global stability.
Seismic Structural Stability
For the seismic structural stability of the wall, the wall is considered
to be subject to the seismic earth pressure force coming from the
backfill soil, which is assumed to act behind the stem, and denoted
as Pstem, and to the wall seismic inertia force, Fwa and Fwp; where
(c)
(e)
04019117-2 Int. J. Geomech.
 Fwa and Fwp are the wall seismic inertia force acting away and
toward the backfill soil, respectively [Fig. 1(d)]. For Pstem, Fwa, and
Fwp, the following needs to be noted:
• At a given point in time, Fwa and Fwp will not be acting simul-
taneously—it will either be Fwa or Fwp.
• Depending upon the direction of the applied earthquake accel-
eration—that is, whether it is acting toward the backfill soil or
away from it, the wall seismic inertia force will also either be
acting toward the backfill soil, denoted as Fwp [Fig. 1(d)] or
away from the backfill soil, denoted as Fwa [Fig. 1(d)].
• Because the amplitude of the applied earthquake acceleration will
vary with time, Pstem, Fwa, and Fwp will also be time-varying.
• Pstem, Fwp, and Fwa will produce shear force, Nwall, and bend-
ing moment, Mwall, on the stem of the wall.
This paper presents a methodology to accurately predict Nwall
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Mwall; to estimate the relative contributions of Pstem, Fwa, and
Fwp on Nwall and Mwall; and to identify a critical case for the seismic
structural stability of the wall that causes a maximum load case for
the stem of the wall.
Seismic Global Stability
For the seismic global stability analysis of the wall, the wall is con-
sidered to be subject to [Fig. 1(e)]:
• The seismic earth pressure force, coming from the backfill
soil, which is assumed to act at a vertical plane passing through
the heel of the wall, and denoted as Pvp.
• The backfill seismic inertia force, Fsa and Fsp, where Fsa and
Fsp are the backfill seismic inertia force acting toward and
away from the wall, respectively.
• The wall seismic inertia force, Fwa and Fwp.
Like Fwa and Fwp, depending upon the direction of the applied
earthquake acceleration, the backfill seismic inertia force will also
either be acting away from the wall, denoted as Fsp [Fig. 1(e)] or to-
ward the wall, denoted as Fsa [Fig. 1(e)]. In addition, at any given
point in time, the wall–soil system will be subject to either Fsp or
Fsa; that is, they will not both be acting simultaneously. It is impor-
tant to highlight that the seismic earth pressure force, Pvp, is com-
puted along the virtual plane because the global stability of the
cantilever-type retaining wall is maintained, in addition to the weight
of the wall, Ww, by the weight of the backfill soil above the base
slab, Ws. This paper presents a methodology to accurately predict
the deformation mechanism of the wall to compute the relative dis-
placement between its base slab and foundation soil; to estimate the
contribution of Pvp to the aforementioned relative displacement; and
to identify a critical case for the global stability of the wall.
For both the seismic structural and global stability analyses, the
effects of applied earthquake acceleration characteristics (i.e., its
amplitude and frequency content) and the natural frequency of the
wall–soil system have been studied in detail.
Finite-Element Model of the Cantilever-Type
Retaining Wall–Soil System
An FE model of the cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system has
been developed by using the PLAXIS2D 2016 software (Brinkgreve
et al. 2016). To validate the FE model and compare the results, the ge-
ometry of the model and the material properties were chosen to be
similar to the one used by Jo et al. (2014) for their centrifuge tests.
The FE model is presented in Fig. 2(a), in which the wall has a height
of 5.4 m and sits on 9-m-thick foundation soil. The wall retains a hori-
zontal surface backfill soil to its full height, and the confines of the
model in the horizontal direction are large enough so as to exclude
© ASCE 04019117-3
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
any boundary effects. For the purpose of analysis and for comparison
of the results of the proposed model with the centrifuge test results of
Jo et al. (2014), the stem of the retaining wall has been considered to
be of a uniform stiffness. No embedment has been considered in front
of the cantilever-type retaining wall. This is a slight deviation from
actual practice, but this simplification facilitates comparison of the
present model with a centrifuge-based study of Jo et al. (2014), who,
in their experimental model, did not consider any embedment, and
simplifies numerical modeling to concentrate on the soil behavior.
Further, because of impartial mobilization of passive resistance, a no-
embedment case does not lead to unrealistic results. For the FEM, the
backfill and foundation soil is modeled by using six-noded triangular
elements with 2 degrees of freedom at each node and three Gauss
integration points, whereas the wall is modeled by using the plate ele-
ments of the PLAXIS2D 2016 library (Brinkgreve et al. 2016).
Wall–Soil Interaction
The interaction between the stem of the wall and backfill soil, and
between the base slab of the wall and foundation soil, has been mod-
eled by using the six-noded interface elements of the PLAXIS2D
2016 library (Brinkgreve et al. 2016). For the chosen interface ele-
ment, the interface roughness was controlled by using an interface
strength-reduction-factor, Rinter, where Rinter = 0 for a perfectly
smooth interface, Rinter = 1 for a perfectly rough interface, and
0 < Rinter > 1 for a partially rough interface. To simulate the inter-
face properties similar to the Jo et al. (2014) centrifuge tests, for the
present study, a partially rough interface was considered, such that
Rinter = 0.334 between the stem of the wall and backfill soil and 0.5
between the base slab of the wall and foundation soil.
Boundary Conditions
For the FE model, the lateral boundaries were restrained against any
horizontal movement, whereas at the base boundary, both the hori-
zontal and vertical movements were restricted [Fig. 2(a)]. Further,
absorbing lateral boundaries were considered so that the effects of
reflection of the seismic waves were negligible for the boundaries.
Constitutive Models for the Backfill and Foundation
Soil, and the Material of the Wall
During a seismic analysis, a soil depicts a strong nonlinear stress–
strain behavior, which is accompanied with a gradual reduction in
the shear modulus, and a simultaneous increase in hysteretic damp-
ing with an increase in the shear strain amplitude (Brinkgreve et al.
2016). Thus, it is imperative that the chosen constitutive model for
the present study should replicate the aforementioned soil behavior.
In PLAXIS2D 2016 (Brinkgreve et al. 2016), the best model that
can replicate all of the above aspects of the constitutive behavior of
a soil is the hardening-soil-with-small-strain model (denoted as
HSsmall model from this point hereafter in the present paper, and
the same model was chosen for modeling the backfill and founda-
tion soils. However, because the HSsmall model is almost linear for
a very small strain with no hysteretic damping that would cause
unrealistic resonance during a numerical analysis, Rayleigh damp-
ing was used in the present study by adopting the procedure outlined
by Rajasekaran (2009), which suggests
½C ¼ a½M þ b ½K (1)
where [C], [M], and [K] = damping, mass and stiffness FE matrices
of the wall–soil system; and a and b = Rayleigh parameters, com-
puted as (Rajasekaran 2009)
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. (a) FEM of the cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system chosen for the present study; (b) 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake acceleration–time
history (data from PEER 2018); and (c) frequency content for (b).
( ) ( )
a 2 z s;wall v z1  v z2
¼ (2)
b v z1 þ v z2 1
where z s,wall = damping ratio of the soil and wall, respectively; and
v z1 and v z2 = first two natural circular frequencies of the FE model.
ABAQUS software (ABAQUS 2013) was used to compute the first
two natural circular frequencies of the FE model, and for the model
presented in Fig. 2(a), they were found to be v z1 = 28.27 rad/s and
v z2 = 39.93 rad/s. The constitutive behavior of the material of the
wall was simulated by using a linear viscoelastic constitutive
model.
Seismic Loading
The above FE model was subjected to a seismic loading, which, for
this study, consisted of a real acceleration–time history of the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake (PEER 2018), having a peak ground accel-
eration (PGA) of 0.264g [Fig. 2(b)] and dominant frequencies (f) of
about 0.7, 2.2, and 2.7 Hz [Fig. 2(c)]. To investigate the effects of
applied earthquake acceleration amplitude and frequency content
(f) on the seismic response of the wall–soil system, scaled uniform
sinusoidal acceleration–time histories were also considered with
three amplitudes of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6g, and scaled frequencies of 0.5,
2, and 4 Hz. These acceleration–time histories were applied at the
base of the FE model, as presented in Fig. 2(a). The effect of vertical
seismic acceleration was neglected in the present analysis.
Notionally, the vertical seismic acceleration may contribute to the
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
(c)
vertical seismic inertia and, as a consequence, may slightly affect
the performance response of the cantilever-type retaining wall.
However, arguments of several past studies (like Green et al. 2008;
Cakir 2013; Kloukinas et al. 2015; and Jo et al. 2017) as well as that
of Bakr and Ahmad (2018a) suggest that it is primarily the horizon-
tal seismic acceleration that contributes to the seismic earth pressure
force and affects the stability of a retaining wall. The same has been
observed through the results of the present study as well as shown
later in the results section of this paper.
Construction Sequence Simulation and Results from
the Static Analysis
As a first step to run the analysis, the geostatic stresses need to be
distributed in the wall–soil system. This has been performed by con-
sidering the construction sequence of a typical cantilever-type
retaining wall. To run the FE simulation, the input properties used
in the study were chosen as per Table 1. The wall was assumed to
be constructed in six stages, as presented in Fig. 3, in which the ini-
tial stage relates to the placement of the foundation soil and installa-
tion of the wall. The subsequent four stages simulate the placement
of the backfill soil in lifts of thickness 0.22 H for each stage,
whereas the last stage simulates the placement of the backfill soil in
a lift of thickness 0.11 H. The backfill soil layers was placed in the
FE model and simulated by using the physical parameters measured
after the compaction process in the centrifuge test conducted by Jo
et al. (2014). Therefore, the compaction process was already taken
04019117-4 Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 1. Soil and wall parameters used for the present study

Parameter Symbol Unit Value

Soil
Dry unit weight gs kN/m3 14.23
Angle of shearing resistance f0 degrees 40.00
Dilatancy c degrees 10.00
Young’s modulus at 50% failure strength, corresponding to pref E50ref
MPa 46.80
ref
Odometeric modulus, corresponding to pref Eod MPa 46.80
Modulus for unloading–reloading conditions, corresponding to pref Eurref
MPa 140.40
Small strain shear modulus, corresponding to pref Gref
o MPa 113.00
Reference shear strain, corresponding to 70% of Gref
o g 0.7 — 0.0002
Poisson’s ratio for unloading–reloading conditions  ur–s — 0.20
Damping ratio zs % 3.00
Reference confining pressure pref kN/m2 100.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stiffness stress-level dependency constant K — 0.50

Failure ratio Rf — 0.90
Wall
Unit weight g wall kN/m3 26.60
Modulus of elasticity Ewall GPa 68.00
Second moment of area of the stem Istem m4 8.873  10–4
Poisson’s ratio  wall — 0.334
Damping ratio z wall % 3.00

Fig. 3. Construction sequence of a typical cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system and the associated contours of horizontal displacement.

into account during the static analysis. The soil behavior was also
simulated by using the Hssmall model. This model can replicate the
volumetric mechanism (cap). The main role of the volumetric
mechanism (cap) is to close the elastic domain and simulate the den-
sification/compaction of the material. With the progressive place-
ment of the backfill soil, the wall will be subject to displacement
and rotation, as presented in Fig. 3. It can be noted from Fig. 3 that
during the placement of the backfill soil in lifts of 0.22-H thickness,
the maximum deformations are mobilized in the backfill soil above
the base slab because the stem as well as the base slab of the wall
rotate toward the backfill soil; this trend continues until Stage 4. In
Stage 5, the movement of the stem away from the backfill soil
appears to be more than the backfill soil in the upper part (the nega-
tive sign in Fig. 3 means that the displacement is away from the
backfill soil), perhaps because of the development of the earth pres-
sure thereby causing an elastic deformation of the stem. However,
in the lower parts of the stem, it is observed that the backfill soil
moves more than the stem of the wall. From Stages 4 and 5 of
Fig. 3, a clear formation of a failure plane originating from the heel
of the wall and extending up to the ground level at an inclination of
an angle less than 45° to the horizontal is also observed. The defor-
mation behavior of the wall matches with what has been observed

© ASCE 04019117-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117

 in the real field observations reported by Bentler and Labuz (2006).
The deformation of the wall is also predicted at different durations of
earthquake and discussed later in the seismic analysis. After the simu-
lation of the construction stages and consequent distribution of the
geostatic stresses in the FE model, the static earth pressures are com-
puted by the FE model, both behind the stem, pstem(static), and along the
virtual plane, pvp(static), which are then compared with the Rankine so-
lution as well as with the Jo et al. (2014) centrifuge test results. The
earth pressure comparison is presented in Figs. 4(a and b) for walls of
heights 5.4 m and 10.8 m, respectively. From Figs. 4(a) and 6(b), it is
observed that the FE model predictions are in an excellent agreement
with the Jo et al. (2014) centrifuge test results. In addition, it is
observed that pstem(static) and pvp(static) values obtained by the FE model
in the top ¾ H are very close to the static active earth pressure values
obtained by Rankine’s theory, whereas for the bottom ¼ H, the earth
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pressure values are between the static active value, also obtained by
Rankine’s theory, and the at-rest value. Jo et al. (2014) explained this
Fig. 4. Comparison of static earth pressure profiles: (a) for wall height,
H = 5.4 m; and (b) for wall height, H = 10.8 m.
© ASCE 04019117-6
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
phenomenon was due to the interlocking grain fabric of the dry pluvi-
ated sand. The numerical modeling simulation of the present study,
also showed similar results, but these are attributed to the complicated
deformation mechanism during the construction process of a
cantilever-type retaining wall. This is depicted very clearly in Fig. 3.
As can be observed from Fig. 3 for the last stage of construction pro-
cess, the wall rotates as a rigid body about the heel toward the backfill
soil while the stem rotates about the base away from the backfill soil
because of the elastic deflection. Therefore, the upper part of the stem
has a sufficient lateral movement away from the backfill soil, causing
the development of active earth pressure. However, for the lower sec-
tion of the wall, the rotation of wall as rigid body about the heel to-
ward the backfill soil is dominant, and the stem has insufficient lateral
yielding away from the backfill compared with the upper part of the
stem causing that the lateral earth pressure to remain close to the at-
rest state.
Seismic Analysis
After performing the aforementioned static analysis, a seismic anal-
ysis was carried out for the FE model, which, as mentioned above,
was carried out by applying a seismic loading in the form of an
acceleration–time history at the base of the FE model. Through the
seismic analysis, apart from obtaining Pstem, Pvp, Fwa, Fwp, Fsa, Fsp,
Nwall, and Mwall, the acceleration and sliding response of the wall–
soil system has also been obtained and its importance is discussed
in the sections below. It is to be highlighted that for both the static
and seismic analyses, a mesh-size sensitivity analysis was carried
out until a convergent solution was achieved. The total earth pres-
sure force was chosen to be the parameter for the sensitivity analy-
sis, and based on this, the final FE mesh comprised of 4,418 ele-
ments with 9,164 nodes.
Acceleration Response of the Cantilever-Type
Retaining Wall–Soil System
The acceleration response of the wall–soil system is presented in
Fig. 5 for the time duration of 3–7 s. This is the duration in which
the intensity of the applied earthquake acceleration was concen-
trated [Fig. 2(b)] and, hence, it was chosen for presenting the results
from the seismic analysis. From Fig. 5, it is observed that the
Fig. 5. Acceleration response of the cantilever-type retaining wall–
soil system.
Int. J. Geomech.
 acceleration response for the top of the stem and top of the backfill
soil match each other. This implies that at the top of the FE model,
the stem of the wall and backfill soil move together; that is, they are
in phase with each other. It is also observed that the acceleration of
the top of the stem and backfill soil is higher than the acceleration at
the base of the wall, thereby implying a possible amplification of
acceleration toward the top of the FE model. The acceleration
response of the wall–soil system, when it is subject to a uniform si-
nusoidal acceleration–time history of different amplitudes and fre-
quency contents, is presented in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6(a) it is observed
that when the amplitude of the applied earthquake acceleration is
0.2g with the frequency content of 0.5 Hz, the amplitude of the
acceleration response for both the top of the stem and backfill soil
matches the amplitude of the applied earthquake acceleration itself.
However, when the frequency content of the applied earthquake
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6(c), the amplitude of the acceleration response for the top of
the stem is much higher than that for the backfill soil. Similarly,
from Figs. 6(d and g), it is observed that for an applied acceleration
with 0.5 Hz frequency, the amplitudes of acceleration for the top of
the stem and backfill soil have the same amplitude as the applied
acceleration amplitudes of 0.4g and 0.6g, respectively. However,
for an applied acceleration with a frequency content of 2 Hz, as pre-
sented in Figs. 6(e) and 8(h), the amplitude of acceleration for the
top of the stem is higher than the acceleration for the top of the back-
fill soil. When the frequency content of the applied acceleration is
further increased to 4 Hz for applied acceleration amplitudes of 0.4g
and 0.6g, as presented in Figs. 6(f) and 8(j), respectively, it is
observed that the amplitude of acceleration for the stem amplifies to
a maximum value of 1.8g (i.e., it becomes more than the amplitude
of the applied acceleration). On the other hand, the amplitude of

acceleration is increased by four times to 2 Hz while the amplitude
of the applied acceleration is kept same at 0.2g, the amplitude of the
acceleration response for the top of the stem and backfill soil ampli-
fies to a value close to 0.4g, as presented in Fig. 6(b). On a further
increase of the frequency content to 4 Hz, with the amplitude of the
applied acceleration remaining the same at 0.2g, as presented in
acceleration for the top of the backfill soil seems to deamplify, and
its maximum value becomes less than the amplitude of the applied
earthquake acceleration. This behavior—of acceleration amplifica-
tion for the top and a deamplification for the bottom of the FEM—
reflects a nonlinear soil behavior that deamplifies a strong earth-
quake, resulting in a higher dissipation of the seismic energy. It is to

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

Fig. 6. Acceleration response for top of the wall and backfill soil for the uniform sinusoidal acceleration–time history of different amplitudes and fre-
quency contents: (a–c) a = 0.2g; (d–f) a = 0.4g; and (g–i) a = 0.6g.

© ASCE 04019117-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117

 be noted that similar deamplification behavior of soil for strong
earthquakes has also been reported by Griffiths et al. (2016) and
Stamati et al. (2016).
Wall and Backfill Seismic Inertia Forces: Fwa, Fwp, Fsa,
and Fsp
The wall and backfill seismic inertia forces—Fwa, Fwp, Fsa, and
Fsp—are estimated by using the following procedure: first, elemen-
tal acceleration, awe and ase, is obtained by the FE model: for the
wall, awe is obtained for all the elements of the base slab and stem,
whereas for the backfill soil, ase is obtained only for those elements
that lie in the middle of backfill soil above the base slab. The corre-
sponding masses of the elements (for the case of the wall) and
masses of the horizontal strips (for the case of the backfill soil) are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
multiplied with the elemental accelerations to get the elemental
seismic inertia force. These elemental seismic inertia forces are
summed together, both for the wall and backfill soil, to get the seis-
mic inertia forces Fwa, Fwp (for the wall) and Fsa, Fsp (for the back-
fill soil). As presented in Fig. 7, the wall and backfill seismic inertia
forces are dependent upon the applied earthquake acceleration. It is
observed from Fig. 7 that the maximum wall and backfill seismic
inertia forces are acting in an active direction (Fwa = 18.3 kN/m and
Fsa = 54.2 kN/m) when the applied earthquake acceleration has a
maximum value and is applied toward the backfill soil at t = 3.9 s.
However, the maximum wall and backfill seismic inertia forces are
acting in a passive direction (Fwp = 36.7 kN/m and Fsp = 88.5 kN/m)
when the applied earthquake acceleration has a maximum value and
is applied away from the backfill soil at t = 4.5 s. It is observed from
Fig. 7 that the wall seismic inertia force (i.e., Fwa, Fwp) and backfill
seismic inertia force (i.e., Fsa, Fsp) are in phase, which implies that
the wall and backfill soil move as one entity. This is an extremely
important finding because this will significantly affect the develop-
ment of the active state in the wall–soil system when the earthquake
acceleration is applied toward the backfill soil, as discussed below.
Seismic Earth Pressure Forces: Pstem and Pvp
The seismic earth pressure force behind the stem, Pstem, and seismic
earth pressure force at the virtual plane, Pvp, have been estimated by
adopting the following procedure. First, the elemental lateral stresses
are obtained from the FE model for all those elements of the backfill
Fig. 7. Wall and backfill seismic inertia forces: Fwa, Fwp, Fsa, and Fsp.
© ASCE 04019117-8
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
soil that are in contact with the stem of the wall as well those that are
along the virtual vertical plane. These elemental lateral stresses are
multiplied with the corresponding element heights, to get the ele-
mental seismic earth pressure forces. These elemental seismic earth
pressure forces are summed together to get Pstem and Pvp, and their
variation with time is presented in Figs. 8(a and b), respectively.
From Fig. 8(a), it is observed that at the beginning of the seismic
analysis (i.e., at time t = 0 s), Pstem is about 53 kN/m, which is
between the static active and at-rest earth pressure force; at time t =
3.9 s, when the applied earthquake acceleration has a maximum
value and is applied toward the backfill soil, Pstem has a maximum
value of 112 kN/m, whereas it attains a minimum value of about
45 kN/m when the applied earthquake acceleration has a maximum
value but is applied away from the backfill soil at time t = 4.5 s. As
discussed above, the cantilever-type retaining walls are designed by
considering the same concepts as used for the design of rigid retain-
ing walls. However, the aforementioned present study results—
which are in contrast with the observation of Nakamura (2006), who
observed that for a rigid retaining wall, the maximum seismic earth
pressure force is developed when the applied earthquake accelera-
tion is maximum but applied away from the backfill soil—show that
Pstem is maximum when the applied acceleration is applied toward
the backfill soil. Thus, an active state is not developed behind the
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. Seismic earth pressure forces: (a) at the stem, Pstem; and (b) at
the vertical plane, Pvp.
Int. J. Geomech.
 stem despite the fact that the acceleration is applied toward the back-
fill soil, and, consequently, the retaining wall moves away from the
backfill soil. The present study observations are also in contrast with
what was observed for the behavior of a cantilever-type retaining
wall modeled via a numerical model by Green et al. (2008) and via
an experimental work by Kloukinas et al. (2015)—both of these
studies reported that a maximum value of Pstem is same to what is
observed for a rigid retaining wall. Fig. 8(b) shows the variation of
Pvp with time. It is observed that at the beginning of the seismic anal-
ysis (i.e., at time t = 0 s), Pvp is about 60 kN/m, which, like Pstem, is
between the static active and at-rest state earth pressure force. At
time t = 3.9 s, when the applied earthquake acceleration has a maxi-
mum value and is applied toward the backfill soil, Pvp has a mini-
mum value of 61 kN/m, whereas it attains a maximum value of about
165 kN/m when the applied earthquake acceleration has a maximum
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
value but is applied away from the backfill soil at time t = 4.5 s.
These observations are similar to the observations of a rigid retaining
wall as observed via a centrifuge test carried out by Nakamura
(2006). Thus, it can be said that at time t = 3.9 s, when the applied
earthquake acceleration has a maximum value and is applied toward
the backfill soil, a maximum load case is developed behind the stem
of the wall, whereas a minimum load case is developed at the vertical
(a)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 9. Seismic earth pressure forces, Pstem and Pvp, for the uniform sinusoidal acceleration–time history of different amplitudes and frequency con-
tents: (a and b) f = 0.5 Hz; (c and d) f = 2 Hz; and (e and f) f = 4 Hz.
© ASCE 04019117-9
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
virtual plane. On the other hand, at time t = 4.5 s, when the applied
earthquake acceleration has a maximum value and is applied away
from the backfill soil, a minimum load case is developed behind the
stem, whereas a maximum load case is developed at the vertical vir-
tual plane. This clearly points to the fact that Pstem and Pvp attain
maximum and minimum values at different times, thus suggesting
that there is a phase difference between these two quantities.
Therefore, for the purpose of structural and global stability, they
have to be assessed individually.
It is also observed from Figs. 8(a and b), that at time t = 30 s, that
is, at the end of the seismic analysis, there is a residual Pstem and Pvp
of about 88 kN/m and 100 kN/m, respectively. These residual seismic
earth pressure forces are attributed to the densification of backfill soil
during the earthquake, thereby implying that the chosen HSsmall
constitutive model caters to the simultaneous densification and settle-
ment during a seismic analysis. Figs. 9(a, c, and e) show the effect of
varying earthquake amplitude and frequency content on Pstem, and
the same for Pvp is presented in Figs. 9(b, d, and f). From Figs. 9(a–f),
it is observed that for all amplitudes and frequencies of the applied
earthquake, Pstem is maximum when the earthquake acceleration is
applied toward the backfill soil, whereas Pstem is minimum when the
earthquake acceleration is applied away from the backfill soil. On the
(b)
(d)
(f)
Int. J. Geomech.
 other hand, Pvp is maximum when the earthquake acceleration is
applied away from the backfill soil, and Pvp is minimum when the
earthquake acceleration is applied toward the backfill soil. It is further
observed that Pstem and Pvp increase significantly when the amplitude
of the applied earthquake is increased from 0.2g to 0.4g, whereas on
further increasing the amplitude to 0.6g, Pstem and Pvp do not change
with the same proportion as before—again indicating a possible
deamplification of the acceleration response of the backfill soil for a
strong earthquake. Both Pstem and Pvp are moderately sensitive to the
number of acceleration cycles; on the other hand, Pstem is highly sen-
sitive to the natural frequency of the wall. It is observed that Pstem
increases with an increment in the frequency content of earthquake
acceleration and its maximum value is predicted when the earthquake
acceleration is applied with a maximum frequency content and its
value is close to the natural frequency of the wall. These observations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are in contrast to the observations reported by Cakir (2013), who,
based on an FE study, found that the stresses behind the wall tend to
increase when the frequency content of earthquake acceleration
decreases. However, Pvp appears to be not significantly affected by
the natural frequency of the wall.
Phase Difference between the Seismic Earth Pressure
Force Increments, DPstem and DPvp, and Wall and
Backfill Seismic Inertia Forces, Fwa, Fwp, Fsa, and Fsp
This section details the phase difference between various forces act-
ing on the wall under seismic conditions. In order to clearly under-
stand the contribution of the seismic earth pressure force, it is dis-
cussed in terms of the seismic earth pressure force increments,
(a)
(c)
Fig. 10. Phase difference between (a and b) DPstem, Fwa, and Fwp for the top and bottom 1=3 Hstem; and (c and d) DPvp, Fsa, and Fsp for the top and bottom 1=3 H.
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
DPstem and DPvp, defined as DPstem = Pstem – Pstem(static) and DPvp =
Pvp – Pvp(static), where Pstem(static) and Pvp(static) = static earth pres-
sure force acting at the stem and vertical virtual plane, respectively.
Figs. 10(a and b) and 10(c and d) show the variation of seismic earth
pressure force increments, DPstem and DPvp, and wall and backfill
seismic inertia forces, Fwa, Fwp Fsa, and Fsp, for the top 1=3Hstem and
bottom 1=3 Hstem, respectively. From Fig. 10(a and b) it is observed
that the seismic earth pressure force increment DPstem and wall seis-
mic inertia force, Fwa and Fwp, for the top 1=3 Hstem are out of phase
from each other, whereas for the bottom 1=3 Hstem, DPstem is in phase
with the wall seismic inertia forces. The reason for this disparity
could be that the stem of the wall is monolithically fixed with the
base slab and thereby not allowing any relative displacement
between the stem and backfill soil. Similarly, from Figs. 10(c and d)
it is observed that the seismic earth pressure force increment DPvp
and soil seismic inertia forces, Fsa and Fsp, do not act in phase.
Shear Force, Nwall, and Bending Moment, Mwall
Figs. 11(a and b) respectively show the shear force Nwall and bending
moment Mwall time history predicted at the stem of the wall.
Studying Figs. 11(a and b) in conjunction with Fig. 8, it is observed
that the shear force Nwall and bending moment Mwall have the exact
same trend as the seismic earth pressure force Pstem. In addition, at
time t = 3.9 s, when the applied earthquake acceleration has a maxi-
mum value and is applied toward the backfill soil, both Nwall
and Mwall attain their maximum values of about 120 kN/m and
220 kN·m/m, respectively, whereas they attain their minimum val-
ues of about 25 kN/m and 64 kN·m/m, respectively, at time t = 4.5 s,
(b)
(d)
04019117-10 Int. J. Geomech.
 is presented in Fig. 13. From the discussion in the preceding sec-
tions, it is clear that along the height of the stem, Hstem, there is an
amplification of acceleration toward the top of the stem—the same
is presented in Fig. 13. In addition, the variation of the seismic earth
pressure along the height of the stem may be considered to be linear,
as presented in Fig. 13. It is clear that Nwall and Mwall will vary along
the height of the stem and with the time of the earthquake. Further,
both of these quantities are dependent upon the wall seismic inertia
forces, Fwa and Fwp. For an accurate seismic structural stability anal-
ysis of the wall, it is crucial that the contribution of wall seismic iner-
tia forces should be evaluated at different locations along the height
of stem and at different times of the earthquake. Assuming that the
stem behaves as a cantilever beam, having a fixed connection with
the base slab, the shear force, Nw, and bending moment, Mw, time
history can be computed by using the dynamic Euler–Bernoulli
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

beam theory as shown by Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively:

(a) ∂3 ux ðz; tÞ
Nwall ðz; tÞ ¼ Ewall Istem
∂z3
ðt Hðstem  
∂2 ux ðz; tÞ
¼ m þ pstem ðz; tÞ dzdt (3)
∂t2
0 0

∂2 ux ðz; tÞ
Mwall ðz; tÞ ¼ Ewall Istem
∂z2
ðt Hðstem Hðstem  
∂2 ux ðz; tÞ
¼ m þ pstem ðz; tÞ dz2 dt (4)
∂t2
0 0 0

where Nwall(z, t) and Mwall(z, t) = shear force and bending moment

(b)
Fig. 11. (a) Shear force, Nwall; and (b) bending moment, Mwall.
that is, when the applied earthquake acceleration has a maximum
value and is applied away from the backfill soil. Thus, it can be
argued that a critical case for the structural stability of a cantilever-
type retaining wall is when the maximum acceleration is applied to-
ward the backfill soil. Figs. 12(a, c, and e) and 12(b, d, and f) show
on the stem for time t and at height z along the stem; Ewall =
Young’s modulus of the wall; Istem = second moment of area of the
stem; ux(z, t) = horizontal elastic deflection of the stem for time t
and at height z along the stem; ∂2 ux ðz; tÞ=∂t2 = predicted horizontal
acceleration for time t and at height z along the stem = astem ðz; tÞ;
astem ðz; tÞ = acceleration of the stem for time t and at height z along
the stem; and pstem ðz; tÞ = seismic earth pressure for time t and at
height z along the stem. It is to be noted that z is measured above the
base slab along the height of the stem, Hstem. Eqs. (3) and (4) have
been integrated numerically; and thus, if N is the number of ele-
ments of the stem, then Eqs. (3) and (4) could be rewritten
X
N X
N

the effect of varying earthquake amplitude and frequency content on Nwall ðz; tÞ ¼ mn  astem n ðtÞ þ Pstem n ðtÞ (5)
1 1
Nwall and Mwall. It is observed that Nwall and Mwall show the same
trends as were observed for the Pstem and also that both Nwall and
Mwall are highly sensitive to the amplitude of the applied earthquake X
N X
N
when its value is between 0.2g and 0.4g. For an applied earthquake Mwall ðz; tÞ ¼ mn  astem n ðtÞ  zn þ Pstem n ðtÞ  zn
acceleration of amplitude > 0.4g, Nwall and Mwall do not remain as 1 1

sensitive as before—again concreting the fact that deamplification (6)

effects creep in for strong earthquakes. It can also be noted that Nwall
and Mwall, like Pstem and Pvp, are not sensitive to the number of
acceleration cycles where the maximum values of shear force and
bending moment are still having the same rate with increasing of
acceleration cycles.
where mn = mass of the nth element of the stem; astem n ðtÞ = accelera-
tion of the nth element of the stem for time t; zn = height of the nth ele-
ment along the stem; and Pstem_n(t) = seismic earth pressure force for
the nth element for time t. Eqs. (5) and (6) can be further simplified as

Effect of Wall Seismic Inertia Forces, Fwa and Fwp, and X

n

Seismic Earth Pressure Force, Pstem, on the Shear Force, Nwall ðz; tÞ ¼  g wall  bstem  ðzn  zn1 Þ  astem n ðtÞ
1
Nwall, and Bending Moment, Mwall
X
n
A free-body diagram of the stem of a cantilever-type retaining wall– þ Pstem n ðtÞ (7)
soil system showing various forces acting on it during an earthquake 1

© ASCE 04019117-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 12. Shear force, Nwall, and bending moment, Mwall, for the uniform sinusoidal acceleration–time history of different amplitudes and frequency
contents: (a and b) f = 0.5 Hz; (c and d) f = 2 Hz; and (e and f) f = 4 Hz.

X
n
Mwall ðz; tÞ ¼  g wall  bstem  ðzn  zn1 Þ  astem n ðtÞ  zn
1
X
n Pstem(static) causes Nwall and Mwall because other values are 0;
þ Pstem n ðtÞ  zn (8)
1
where g wall = unit weight of the wall; and bstem = width of the stem.
From Eqs. (7) and (8), it is clear that the shear force and bending
moment depend upon the wall seismic inertia force and the seismic
earth pressure force. Their effects are discussed next for the top and
bottom 1=3Hstem as well as for the mid-height of the stem of the wall.
Effect of Stem Seismic Inertia Force, Fstem_a and Fstem_p,
on Shear Force, Nwall, and Bending Moment, Mwall, for
the Top 1=3 Hstem
Table 2 shows the relative contributions of static earth pressure
force for the stem Pstem(static), seismic stem inertia force Fstem_a,
Fstem_p, where Fstem_a, Fstem_p are the stem seismic inertia force act-
ing away and toward the backfill soil, and seismic earth pressure
force increment at the stem, DPstem [=Pstem – Pstem(static)] on shear
force Nwall and bending moment Mwall of the stem. As observed,
at the beginning of the seismic analysis (i.e., time t = 0 s), only
however, at time t = 3.9 s, when the applied earthquake accelera-
tion has a maximum value and is applied toward the backfill soil,
Pstem(static), Fstem_a, and DPstem all contribute to Nwall and Mwall. In
addition, these Nwall and Mwall for time t = 3.9 s act away from the
backfill soil (i.e., in a direction opposite to the direction of the
applied earthquake acceleration and they have negative values, as
shown in Table 2). When the applied earthquake acceleration has
a maximum value but is applied away from the backfill soil at
time t = 4.5 s, then, like before, Pstem(static), Fstem_p, and DPstem all
contribute to Nwall and Mwall. However, unlike the previous case,
Pstem(static) and DPstem produce Nwall and Mwall in the same direc-
tion as the direction of the applied earthquake acceleration and
they have negative values, as shown in Table 2, whereas Fstem_p
produces Nwall and Mwall in a direction opposite to the direction of
the applied earthquake acceleration and it has a positive value, as
shown in Table 2.

© ASCE 04019117-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117

 Effect of Stem Seismic Inertia Force, Fstem_a and Fstem_p,
on Shear Force, Nwall, and Bending Moment, Mwall, for
the Mid-Height of the Stem
Table 2 shows the relative contributions of static earth pressure
force for the stem Pstem(static), stem seismic inertia force Fstem_a,
Fstem_p, and seismic earth pressure force increment DPstem on Nwall
and Mwall for the mid-height of the stem. At the beginning of the
seismic analysis (i.e., time t = 0 s), only Pstem(static) causes Nwall and
Mwall. However, at time t = 3.9 s, when the applied earthquake
acceleration has a maximum value and is applied toward the backfill
soil, Pstem(static), Fstem_a, Fstem_p, and DPstem all contribute to Nwall
and Mwall, but the effect of Fstem_a on Nwall and Mwall is reduced at
the top 1=3 Hstem. In addition, all of these quantities act away from
the backfill soil (i.e., in a direction opposite to the direction of the
applied earthquake acceleration and they have negative values, as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
shown in Table 2). When the applied earthquake acceleration has a
maximum value but is applied away from the backfill soil at time t =
4.5 s, like at the top 1=3 Hstem, Pstem(static), Fstem_p, and DPstem all con-
tribute to Nwall and Mwall. However, Pstem(static) and DPstem produce
Nwall and Mwall in the same direction as the direction of the applied
earthquake acceleration and they have negative values, as shown in
Table 2, whereas Fstem_p produces Nwall and Mwall in a direction op-
posite to the direction of the applied earthquake acceleration and it
has a positive value, as shown in Table 2.
Effect of Stem Seismic Inertia Force, Fstem_a and Fstem_p,
on Shear Force, Nwall, and Bending Moment, Mwall, for
the Bottom 1=3 Hstem
Table 2 shows the effect of static earth pressure force Pstem(static),
stem seismic inertia force Fstem_a, Fstem_p, and seismic earth pres-

Fig. 13. Free-body diagram of the stem of a cantilever-type retain-
ing wall–soil system showing various forces acting on it during an
earthquake.
sure force increment DPstem on the Nwall and Mwall for the bottom
1=3 H
stem. At the beginning of the seismic analysis (i.e., time t = 0 s)
for the top 1=3 Hstem and mid-height of stem, only Pstem(static) causes
Nwall and Mwall; however, at time t = 3.9 s, when the applied earth-
quake acceleration has a maximum value and is applied toward the
backfill soil, the contribution of Fstem_a to Nwall and Mwall is very
small compared with the effect of Pstem(static) and DPstem. In addi-
tion, all of these quantities act away from the backfill soil and they
have negative values, as shown in Table 2. When the applied earth-
quake acceleration has a maximum value but is applied away from
the backfill soil at time t = 4.5 s, observations for the bottom
1=3 H
stem are similar to the top =3 Hstem and mid-height of the stem.
1
From the above, it can be concluded that when the earthquake
acceleration is applied toward the backfill soil, then for the top half
of the wall, the wall seismic inertia force (Fstem_a or Fstem_p) has a
major contribution to the shear force Nwall and bending moment
Mwall, whereas for the bottom half of the wall it is the combination
of static earth pressure force Pstem(static) and seismic earth pressure
force increment DPstem that contribute to the shear force, Nwall, and
bending moment, Mwall. When the earthquake acceleration is
applied away from the backfill soil, the stem seismic inertia force
produces shear force, Nwall, and bending moment, Mwall, in the
direction of the static earth pressure force and the increment of

Table 2. Effect of stem seismic inertia force, fstem_a and fstem_p, on shear force, nwall, and bending moment, mwall, for the top 1=3Hstem, the mid-height of the
stem, and the bottom 1=3Hstem

Contribution to Nw (kN/m) due to Contribution to Mw (kN·m/m) due to

Time [t (s)] Nwall (kN/m) Pstem(static) Fstem_a or Fstem_p DPstem Mwall (kN·m/m) Pstem(static) Fstem_a or Fstem_p DPstem
1=3
Top Hstem
0.0 −0.72 −0.72 0.01 0.00 −3.68 −3.68 0.02 0.00
3.9 −2.65 −0.72 −1.08 −0.85 −14.50 −3.68 −8.89 −1.93
4.5 −0.88 −0.72 3.72 −3.88 −7.68 −3.68 17.22 −21.22
30.0 −2.20 −0.72 0.00 −1.48 −13.11 −3.68 0.00 −9.43
Mid-height of the stem
0.0 −9.45 −9.45 0.02 0.00 −36.32 −36.40 0.08 0.00
3.9 −26.79 −9.45 −4.68 −12.68 −110.68 −36.40 −24.79 −49.49
4.5 −10.51 −9.45 11.33 −12.39 −42.61 −36.40 47.94 −54.15
30.0 −22.70 −9.45 0.00 −13.52 −88.95 −36.40 0.00 −52.55
Bottom 1=3 Hstem
0.0 −52.97 −53.10 0.04 0.00 −92.34 −92.45 0.11 0.00
3.9 −122.90 −53.10 −11.86 −58.20 −217.60 −92.45 −29.34 −95.78
4.5 −28.17 −53.10 21.75 3.18 −63.90 −92.45 64.53 −35.98
30.0 −88.56 −53.10 0.00 −53.46 −173.90 −92.45 0.00 −81.45
Note: For all forces, a negative value indicates that the force is acting away from the backfill soil, whereas a positive value indicates that the force is acting
toward the backfill soil. Similarly, for the moments, a negative value indicates that the moment has a counterclockwise-sense, whereas a positive value indi-
cates that the moment has a clockwise-sense.

© ASCE 04019117-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117

 seismic earth pressure force, causing the shear force and bending
moment to attain a minimum value of less than the static value.
Relative Displacement of the Wall and Backfill Soil with
respect to the Foundation Soil, Dw–f and Ds–f
For the wall and backfill soil, relative displacement profiles were
constructed for the following pairs:
• The base of the wall and a reference point 0.5 m below the
base of the wall in the foundation soil [i.e., between base_wall
and P1 in Fig. 1(a)].
• The center of gravity of the backfill soil and a reference point
0.5 m below the base of the wall in the foundation soil [i.e.,
between s_CG and P2 in Fig. 1(a)].
These relative displacement profiles for the above pairs are pre-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sented in Figs. 14(a and b). It is observed from Fig. 14(a) that a maxi-
mum relative displacement of about 0.035 m between the wall and
foundation (Dw–f) occurs at time t = 3.9 s, which is the same time at
which Pvp is minimum [Fig. 8(b)]. In addition, the relative displace-
ment between the backfill and foundation soil (Ds–f) achieves its
maximum value of about 0.025 m for time t = 3.9 s, and remains con-
stant until the end of the seismic analysis. Thus, from the above two
observations, it can be said that the wall and backfill soil move as a
single entity and Pvp is causing the sliding of the wall–soil system.
Fig. 15 shows the effect of varying earthquake amplitude and fre-
quency content on the relative displacement between the wall and
(a)
(b)
Fig. 14. (a) Wall–foundation relative displacement, Dw–f; and (b)
soil–foundation relative displacement Ds–f.
© ASCE 04019117-14
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
foundation (Dw–f). As the amplitude of the applied earthquake accel-
eration increases from 0.2g to 0.6g, Dw–f increases, whereas with an
increase in the frequency content of the applied earthquake accelera-
tion from 0.5 Hz to 4 Hz, the Dw–f decreases. This is in contrast to
what has been observed for the shear force Nwall and bending
moment Mwall, which, as described in the preceding sections, attain
maximum values when both the frequency content and amplitude of
the applied earthquake are maximum (Fig. 12). It is also interesting
to note that Dw–f is about 0.2 m for an applied earthquake amplitude
of 0.6g and a frequency content of 4 Hz [Fig. 15(c)], whereas the
same for an applied earthquake amplitude of 0.4g and a frequency
content of 2 Hz [Fig. 15(b)] is about 0.25 m, thereby suggesting that
the frequency content of the applied earthquake is a more dominating
factor than its amplitude that contributes to Dw–f. From the above
observations, it can be argued that for the global stability of a
cantilever-type retaining wall a low-frequency content of the applied
earthquake creates a critical case scenario, whereas, for the structural
stability of the cantilever-type retaining wall a high-frequency con-
tent of applied earthquake creates a critical case scenario. The results
also show that the sliding of the wall–soil system is highly sensitive
to the number of acceleration cycles (and the duration of the applied
earthquake acceleration), which is in contrast to what has been
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 15. Wall–foundation relative displacement, Dw–f, for the uniform
sinusoidal acceleration–time history of different amplitudes and fre-
quency contents: (a) f = 0.5 Hz; (b) f = 2 Hz; and (c) f = 4 Hz.
Int. J. Geomech.
 observed for the structural stability where the shear force Nwall and
bending moment Mwall are not sensitive to the acceleration cycles.
Deformation Shapes of the Cantilever-Type Retaining
Wall–Soil System at Various Times during the Duration
of the Earthquake
Fig. 16 presents the deformation and contours of horizontal displace-
ment of the cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system at times t =
3.9, 4.5, and 30 s (i.e., at the end of the seismic analysis). Because
the dynamic analysis was carried out after the completion of all the
five stages of construction of the retaining wall, the deformation and
contours of horizontal displacement of the cantilever-type retaining
wall–soil system presented in Stage 5 of Fig. 3 can also be said to be
the results for t = 0 s of the dynamic analysis. For Figs. 16(a–c), it is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
important to highlight that the deformation shape of the stem and
base slab shown is measured relative to the original position of the
retaining wall, that is, at the start of the dynamic analysis at t = 0 s.
Stage 5 of Fig. 3 shows that at t = 0 s, the stem rotates by 0.02° away
from the backfill soil while the base slab heel has a clockwise rota-
tion of 0.065°—thereby suggesting that the stem and base slab rotate
in opposite directions to each other). However, at time t = 3.9 s—
Fig. 16(a)—when the earthquake acceleration has its maximum
value and is applied toward the backfill soil, the stem rotation is pre-
dicted as 0.217° away from the backfill soil while the base slab toe
has a counterclockwise rotation of 0.014°—thereby suggesting that
between t = 0 and 3.9 s, both the stem and base slab rotate in the
same direction. In addition, as described in the previous section, at
time t = 3.9 s, the wall slides as a rigid body away from the backfill
soil by about 0.025 m. At time t = 4.5 s, as presented in Fig. 16(b),
when the earthquake acceleration has its maximum value and is
applied away from the backfill soil, the stem rotates back toward the
backfill soil (but is still away from its original position) by about
0.017° while the base slab toe rotates clockwise (but still has a rota-
tion of about 0.01° compared with its original position at t = 0 s).
The wall slides toward the backfill soil; however, it is still away
from the backfill soil by about 0.017 m as compared with its original
position. At the end of the seismic analysis at time t = 30 s, the stem
has a residual rotation of 0.204° relative to its original position and
the base slab toe has a residual counterclockwise rotation of 0.038°
in to the foundation soil while the wall has a residual sliding away
from the backfill soil of about 0.035 m, as presented in Fig. 16(c).
Relationship between the Seismic Earth Pressure and
Wall Displacement
In order to understand the relationship between the seismic earth
pressure and wall displacement, Figs. 10 and 16 should be studied
Fig. 16. Deformation shapes of the cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system at various times during the duration of the earthquake: (a) t = 3.9 s;
(c) t = 4.5 s; and (d) t = 30 s.
© ASCE 04019117-15
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
together. It can be observed from Fig. 16 that the deformation mech-
anism of the cantilever-type retaining wall is quite complicated and
includes the sliding of the cantilever-type retaining wall relative to
the foundation layer, rotation of cantilever-type retaining wall as a
rigid body because of the foundation soil deformability, and the
rotation of the stem due to its elastic deflection. At time t = 3.9 s,
when the earthquake acceleration is applied toward the backfill soil
and has a maximum value [Fig. 2(b)], the cantilever-type retaining
wall slides away from the backfill soil to a maximum distance, the
stem deflects by a maximum value away from the backfill soil, and
the retaining wall rotates about the toe by a maximum value away
from the backfill soil [Fig. 16(a)]. At the same time, the seismic
earth pressure force increments behind the upper half of the stem
DPstem and along the virtual vertical plane DPvp reach a minimum
value and they are close to the static earth pressure [Figs. 10(a, c,
and d)]. Thus, it can be said that the seismic earth pressure forces in
these locations reach the active states and their values do not change
with increasing acceleration level and wall movement. However, at
the same time, t = 3.9 s, it can be observed that the seismic earth
pressure force increment, DPstem, in the lower half of the stem
reaches the maximum value and does not reach the active state
[Fig. 10(b)] and its value increases with increasing earthquake
acceleration and wall movement. Similarly, at time t = 4.5 s, when
the earthquake acceleration is applied away from the backfill soil
and it has a maximum value, the cantilever-type retaining wall
slides by a maximum value toward the backfill soil, the stem
deflects by a maximum value toward the backfill soil, and the retain-
ing wall rotates about the toe by a maximum value toward the back-
fill soil. At the same time, the seismic earth pressures force incre-
ment, DPstem, in the upper half of the stem and along the virtual
vertical plane reach a maximum value, and they partially mobilize
the passive state [Figs. 10(a, c, and d)]. Thus, it can be said that the
seismic earth pressure in these locations partially mobilize the pas-
sive state and their value increases with increasing earthquake
acceleration and wall movement. However, at the same time, t =
4.5 s, it can be observed that the seismic earth pressure force incre-
ment, DPstem, in the lower half of the stem reaches the minimum
value [Fig. 10(b)] and its value remains close to the static earth pres-
sure and does not change with increasing earthquake acceleration
and wall movement.
Effect of Height of the Cantilever-Type Retaining
Wall–Soil System, H, and the Natural Frequency, fn,
on Bending Moment, Mwall, and Wall–Foundation
Relative Displacement, Dw–f
All of the aforementioned analysis has been carried out for a wall of
height H = 5.4 m. In order to assess the influence of the height and
Int. J. Geomech.
 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(d) (e)
Fig. 17. Bending moment, Mwall, for a uniform sinusoidal acceleration amplitude of 0.4g and different frequency content (a–c) for wall height, H =
5.4 m; and (d–f) for wall height, H = 10.8 m.
thereby the natural frequency of the wall on the structural and global
stability under seismic loading, a wall of a different height of H =
10.8 m is also analyzed using the aforementioned FEM, and the
comparison of results is presented herewith. From Figs. 17(c and e)
it is observed that for walls of height H = 5.4 m and 10.8 m, the bend-
ing moment, Mwall, is maximum (330 kN·m/m for H = 5.4 m and
1,750 kN·m/m for H = 10.8 m, respectively) when the applied earth-
quake acceleration has a frequency content of 4 Hz (for H = 5.4 m)
and 2 Hz (for H = 10.8 m), which are the frequencies close to the nat-
ural frequency of the respective wall–soil systems. However, from
Figs. 18(a and d), which show the relative displacement between the
wall and foundation soil, Dw–f, it is observed that for the wall of
heights H = 5.4 m and 10.8 m, the maximum Dw–f is predicted when
the applied earthquake acceleration has a frequency content of
0.5 Hz. In addition, for both H = 5.4 m and H = 10.8 m, it is observed
that with increasing frequency content of the applied earthquake
acceleration, the relative displacement between the wall and founda-
tion soil, Dw–f, is decreased. From the above results, it is found that
the structural stability is affected by the natural frequency of the
wall, and a critical scenario will be when the natural frequency of the
wall is equal to the frequency of the applied earthquake acceleration.
On the other hand, it can be safely argued that the height of the wall
does not affect the nature of the results for the global stability and
that the critical case will always occur when the frequency content
of the applied earthquake acceleration has a minimum value.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• This paper presents a unique FE-based numerical modeling
approach to study both the seismic structural and global stabil-
ity of a cantilever-type retaining wall–soil system.
© ASCE 04019117-16
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
(c)
(f)
• The study successfully identifies critical scenarios for the
structural and global stability of a cantilever-type retaining
wall–soil system by considering earthquake characteristics,
analyzing the effects of seismic earth pressure and natural fre-
quency, and capturing the deformation mechanism.
• For the seismic structural and global stability analyses of a
cantilever-type retaining wall, the FEM has been innovatively
used, in which the structural and global stability of a
cantilever-type retaining wall is analyzed by considering the
seismic earth pressure, computed at the stem (Pstem) and along
a virtual plane (Pvp), and wall and backfill seismic inertia
forces. It is noted that Pstem contributes to the structural stabil-
ity, whereas Pvp contributes to the global stability. It is also
observed that Pstem and Pvp are out of phase during the entire
duration of the earthquake.
• A critical case for the structural stability occurs when the
earthquake acceleration is directed toward the backfill soil and
its frequency content is close to the natural frequency of the
retaining wall. In contrast, for the global stability, the critical
case occurs when the earthquake acceleration is maximum
applied toward the backfill soil having the smallest frequency
content.
• The structural stability of the cantilever-type retaining wall is
found to be highly dependent on the natural frequency of the
cantilever-type retaining wall relative to the applied earth-
quake frequency content, whereas the global stability does not
appear to be affected by it.
• For the critical structural stability case, it has been observed
that the wall seismic inertia force has a significant contribution
to the shear force and bending moment in the top half of the
height of the stem. For the lower half of the height of the stem,
the seismic earth pressure contributed significantly to the shear
Int. J. Geomech.
 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(d) (e)
Fig. 18. Wall–foundation relative displacement, Dw–f, for a uniform sinusoidal acceleration amplitude of 0.4g and different frequency content
(a–c) for wall height, H = 5.4 m; and (d–f) for wall height, H = 10.8 m.
force and bending moment, whereas the contribution coming
from the wall seismic inertia force was very nominal.
• When the earthquake acceleration is applied away from the
backfill soil and has its maximum value, the wall seismic iner-
tia force acts in a direction opposite of the seismic earth pres-
sure, thereby causing a reduction of the shear force and
bending moment.
• The number of acceleration cycles of the applied earthquake
acceleration moderately affects the seismic earth pressure
behind the stem as well as the shear force and bending
moment, whereas the relative displacement between the wall
and soil is observed to be highly sensitive to this. It is also
observed that the shear force and bending moment profiles
match with the profiles of the seismic earth pressure behind
the stem.
Based on the aforementioned conclusions, the following recom-
mendations can be made:
• The seismic structural and global stability of a cantilever-type
retaining wall should be checked separately, in which, the
structural stability should be checked by considering the maxi-
mum earthquake acceleration anticipated at the construction
site and the frequency content of earthquake acceleration being
equal to the natural frequency of the structure, whereas for the
global stability, a check should be made by considering maxi-
mum anticipated earthquake acceleration with a minimum fre-
quency content.
• The stem seismic inertia force should be considered for the
structural design of the upper half of the stem, whereas for
lower half part, it could be neglected—thus proposing an eco-
nomic yet safe design.
• The seismic earth pressure is crucial for the structural stability
especially for the lower half of the stem and should be consid-
ered in the structural design. However, for global stability,
© ASCE 04019117-17
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
(c)
(f)
seismic earth pressure is not significant, and thus only static
earth pressure, wall seismic inertia force, and backfill seismic
inertia force should be considered as the total driving force
causing sliding instability to the wall–soil system.
• The effect of site characteristics should be considered during
the analysis of the seismic structural and global stability of a
cantilever-type retaining wall (i.e., the amplification of accel-
eration response of backfill soil at low acceleration level and
de-amplification of acceleration response of backfill soil at
high acceleration level).
Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank the Ministry of Higher
Education and Scientific Research in Iraq for supporting their
studies and funding this research. All the authors also thank the
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, the
University of Manchester, for providing facilities to conduct the
research. The critique of the two anonymous reviewers is gratefully
acknowledged by the authors—this helped greatly in revising and
improving the manuscript.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
a ¼ acceleration (g);
an ¼ acceleration of the nth element (g);
awe ¼ elemental acceleration for the elements of the
base slab and stem (g);
ase ¼ elemental acceleration for the soil elements
lying above and in the middle of the base
slab (g);
Int. J. Geomech.
 astem_n(t) ¼ acceleration of the nth element of the stem for
time t (g);
astem(z, t) ¼ acceleration of the stem for time t and at depth
z along the stem (g);
bslab ¼ width of the base slab (m);
bstem ¼ width of the stem (m);
[C] ¼ damping FE matrix of the system;
Dr ¼ relative density of the soil (%);
Ewall ¼ Young’s modulus of the wall (kN/m2);
ref
E50 ¼ Young’s modulus at 50% failure strength of
soil, corresponding to pref (kN/m2);
Eod ¼ odometric modulus, corresponding to pref
ref
(kN/m2);
ref
Eur ¼ modulus for unloading–reloading conditions,
corresponding to pref (kN/m2);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fsa ¼ backfill seismic inertia force acting toward the
wall (kN/m);
Fsp ¼ backfill seismic inertia force acting away from
the wall (kN/m);
Fstem_a ¼ stem seismic inertia force acting away from
the backfill soil (kN/m);
Fstem_p ¼ stem seismic inertia force acting toward the
backfill soil (kN/m);
Fwa ¼ wall seismic inertia force acting away from
the backfill soil (kN/m);
Fwp ¼ wall seismic inertia force acting toward the
backfill soil (kN/m);
f ¼ frequency of applied earthquake acceleration
(Hz);
o ¼ small strain shear modulus, corresponding to
Gref
pref (kN/m2);
g ¼ acceleration due to gravity (m/s2);
Hstem ¼ height of the stem (m);
Istem ¼ second moment of area of the stem (m4);
[K] ¼ stiffness FE matrix of the system;
k ¼ stiffness stress-level dependency constant;
[M] ¼ mass FE matrix of the system;
Mwall ¼ bending moment on the stem (kN·m/m);
Mwall(z, t) ¼ shear force on the stem for time t and at height
z along the stem (kN·m/m);
mn ¼ mass of the nth element of the stem (ton);
Nwall ¼ shear force on the stem (kN/m);
Nwall(z, t) ¼ shear force on the stem for time t and at height
z along the stem (kN/m);
pref ¼ reference confining pressure (kN/m2);
Pstem ¼ seismic earth pressure force at the stem (kN/m);
Pstem_n(t) ¼ seismic earth pressure force for the nth
element for time t (kN/m);
Pstem(static) ¼ static earth pressure force at the stem (kN/m);
Pvp ¼ seismic earth pressure force at the virtual
plane (kN/m);
Pvp(static) ¼ static earth pressure force at the virtual plane
(kN/m);
pstem(static) ¼ static earth pressure at the stem
(kN/m2);
pstem(z, t) ¼ seismic earth pressure for time t and at height
z along the stem (kN/m2);
pvp(static) ¼ seismic earth pressure acting at the virtual
plane (kN/m2);
Rf ¼ failure ratio;
Rinter ¼ interface strength-reduction factor;
Ws ¼ weight of the backfill soil above the base slab
(kN);
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
Ww ¼ weight of the wall (kN);
ux(z, t) ¼ horizontal elastic deflection of the stem for
time t and at height z along the stem (m);
z ¼ height of the stem above the base slab (m);
zn ¼ height of the nth element along the stem (m);
a, b ¼ Rayleigh damping parameters;
g s ¼ unit weight of the soil (kN/m3);
g wall ¼ unit weight of the wall (kN/m3);
g 0.7 ¼ reference shear strain, corresponding to 70%
of Gref
o ;
DPstem ¼ seismic earth pressure force increment at the
stem (kN/m);
DPvp ¼ seismic earth pressure force increment at the
virtual plane (kN/m);
Ds–f ¼ relative displacement between backfill and
foundation soil (m);
Dw–f ¼ relative displacement between wall and foun-
dation soil (m);
z s, z wall ¼ damping ratio for the soil and wall, respec-
tively (%);
 wall ¼ Poisson’s ratio of the wall;
 ur–s ¼ Poisson’s ratio for unloading–reloading condi-
tions of the soil;
w 0 ¼ angle of shearing resistance of the soil (°);
c ¼ dilatancy of the soil (°); and
v z1, v z2 ¼ first two natural circular frequencies of the FE
model (rad/s).
References
ABAQUS. 2013. Analysis user’s manual. Version 6.13. Dassault
Systemes.
Ahmad, S. M., and D. Choudhury. 2010. “Seismic rotational stability
of waterfront retaining wall using pseudodynamic method.” Int.
J. Geomech. 10 (1): 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532
-3641(2010)10:1(45).
Al Atik, L., and N. Sitar. 2009. Experimental and analytical study of the
seismic performance of retaining structures. PEER Rep. 2008/104,
Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
College of Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Bakr, J., and S. M. Ahmad. 2018a. “A finite element performance-based
approach to correlate movement of a rigid retaining wall with seismic
earth pressure.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 114 (Nov): 460–479. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.07.025.
Bakr, J., and S. M. Ahmad. 2018b. “Effect of earthquake characteristics on
the permanent displacement of a cantilever retaining wall.” In Vol 1 of
Proc., Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering IX, edited by
A. S. Cardoso, J. L. Borges, P. A. Costa, A. T. Gomes, J. C. Marques,
and C. S. Vierira, 849–854. Leiden, Netherlands: CRC Press.
Basha, B. M., and G. S. Babu. 2010. “Seismic rotational displacements of
gravity walls by pseudodynamic method with curved rupture surface.”
Int. J. Geomech. 10 (3): 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000037.
Bentler, J. G., and J. F. Labuz. 2006. “Performance of a cantilever retaining
wall.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 32 (8): 1062–1070. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:8(1062).
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., S. Kumarswamy, and W. Swolfs. 2016. Plaxis 2016.
Delft, Netherlands: Plaxis.
Cakir, T. 2013. “Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content
on seismic behavior of cantilever retaining wall including soil–structure
interaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 45 (Feb): 96–111. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.11.008.
Choudhury, D., and A. D. Katdare. 2013. “New approach to determine seis-
mic passive resistance on retaining walls considering seismic waves.”
Int. J. Geomech. 13 (6): 852–860. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000285.
04019117-18 Int. J. Geomech.
 Choudhury, D., and S. S. Nimbalkar. 2008. “Seismic rotational displace-
ment of gravity walls by pseudodynamic method.” Int. J. Geomech.
8 (3): 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:
3(169).
Coulomb, C. A. 1776. “Essai sur une application des règles des maximis et
minimis à quelques problèmes de statique, relatits à l’architecture.” In
Memoires de Mathematique et de Physique, Presentees a l’Academie
Royale des Sciences, par divers Savans, 343–382. [In French.] Paris: De
l’Imprimerie Royale.
Dey, A. K., A. Dey, and S. Sukladas. 2017. “3N Formulation of the horizon-
tal slice method in evaluating pseudostatic method for analysis of seis-
mic active earth pressure.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (1): 04016037. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000662.
Green, R. A., C. G. Olgun, and W. I. Cameron. 2008. “Response and model-
ling of cantilever retaining walls subjected to seismic motions.”
Comput.-Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 23 (4): 309–322. https://doi.org
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 91.106.47.101 on 10/03/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2007.00538.x.
Griffiths, S. C., B. R. Cox, and E. M. Rathje. 2016. “Challenges associated
with site response analyses for soft soils subjected to high-intensity input
ground motions.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 85 (Jun): 1–10. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.03.008.
Huang, C.-C. 2005. “Seismic displacements of soil retaining walls situated
on slope.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (9): 1108–1117. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:9(1108).
Huang, C.-C., S.-H. Wu, and H.-J. Wu. 2009. “Seismic displacement crite-
rion for soil retaining walls based on soil strength mobilization.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (1): 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:1(74).
Jo, S.-B., J.-G. Ha, J.-S. Lee, and D.-S. Kim. 2017. “Evaluation of the seis-
mic earth pressure for inverted T-shape stiff retaining wall in cohesion-
less soils via dynamic centrifuge.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 92 (Jan):
345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.10.009.
Jo, S.-B., J.-G. Ha, M. Yoo, Y. W. Choo, and D.-S. Kim. 2014. “Seismic
behavior of an inverted T-shape flexible retaining wall via dynamic cen-
trifuge tests.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 12 (2): 961–980. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10518-013-9558-9.
Kloukinas, P., A. S. di Santolo, A. Penna, M. Dietz, A. Evangelista, A. L.
Simonelli, C. Taylor, and G. Mylonakis. 2015. “Investigation of seismic
response of cantilever retaining walls: Limit analysis vs shaking table
testing.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 77 (Oct): 432–445. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.05.018.
Madabhushi, S. P. G., and X. Zeng. 1998. “Seismic response of gravity quay
walls. II: Numerical modeling.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (5):
418–427. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:5(418).
© ASCE 04019117-19
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(10): 04019117
Mononobe, N., and M. Matsuo. 1929. “On the determination of earth pres-
sures during earthquakes.” In Vol. 9 of Proc., World Engineering Conf.,
177–185. Tokyo: Kogakkai.
Nadim, F., and R. V. Whitman. 1983. “Seismically induced movement of
retaining walls.” J. Geotech. Eng. 109 (7): 915–931. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:7(915).
Nakamura, S. 2006. “Reexamination of Mononobe-Okabe theory of gravity
retaining walls using centrifuge model tests.” Soils Found. 46 (2): 135–
146. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.46.135.
Ni, P., G. Mei, and Y. Zhao. 2017. “Displacement-dependent earth pres-
sures on rigid retaining walls with compressible geofoam inclusions:
Physical modeling and analytical solutions.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (6):
04016132. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000838.
Paruvakat, N., X. Zeng, and R. S. Steedman. 2001. “Rotating block
method for seismic displacement of gravity walls.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (11): 994–995. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:11(994).
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). 2018. “PEER
Ground Motion Database.” Accessed October 20, 2018. https://
ngawest2.berkeley.edu.
Rajasekaran, S. 2009. Structural dynamics of earthquake engineering:
Theory and application using Mathematica and Matlab. Oxford, UK:
Woodhead Publishing.
Rajesh, B. G., and D. Choudhury. 2017. “Generalized seismic active thrust
on a retaining wall with submerged backfill using a modified pseudody-
namic method.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (3): 06016023. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000750.
Stamati, O., N. Klimis, and T. Lazaridis. 2016. “Evidence of complex site
effects and soil non-linearity numerically estimated by 2D vs 1D seismic
response analyses in the city of Xanthi.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 87
(Aug): 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.05.006.
Tang, C., K.-K. Phoon, and K.-C. Toh. 2014. “Lower-bound limit analysis
of seismic passive earth pressure on rigid walls.” Int. J. Geomech. 14 (5):
04014022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000385.
Zeng, X. 1998. “Seismic response of gravity quay walls. I: Centrifuge mod-
eling.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (5): 406–417. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:5(406).
Zeng, X., and R. S. Steedman. 2000. “Rotating block method for seismic
displacement of gravity walls.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (8):
709–717. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:8(709).
Zhou, Y., F. Chen, and X. Wang. 2018. “Seismic active earth pressure for
inclined rigid retaining walls considering rotation of the principal
stresses with pseudo-dynamic method.” Int. J. Geomech. 18 (7):
04018083. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001198.
Int. J. Geomech.