1 INTRODUCTION.

Embedded walls are relatively thin walls of steel,

reinforced concrete or timber, supported by anchor-
ages, struts and/or passive earth pressure (EC7-1,
2002). The bending capacity of such walls plays a
significant role in the support of the retained material
while the role of the self-weight of the wall is insig-
nificant. Examples of such walls include: cantilever
steel sheet pile walls, anchored or strutted steel or
concrete sheet pile walls, diaphragm walls, etc.
They are used throughout seismically active areas
and frequently represent key elements of ports and
harbors, transportation systems, lifelines, and other
construction facilities. Earthquakes have caused per-
manent deformation of retaining structures in many
historical earthquakes. In some cases, these deforma-
tions were negligibly small; in others they caused sig-
nificant damage. In some cases, retaining structures
have collapsed during earthquakes, with disastrous
physical and economic consequences.
In this note, after a brief review of the main seis-
mic earth pressures theories, the application of the
pseudostatic approach to the analysis of embedded
retaining walls, taking into account the indications of
the European seismic codes, is summarized. Finally,
some critical considerations on certain assumptions
suggested by the EC8 Part 5 (2003) are done and the
improvements contained in the latest Italian Building
Codes are recalled.
2 MAIN SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES
THEORIES.

The seismic behaviour of retaining walls depends
on the total lateral earth pressures that develop dur-
ing earthquake shaking. These total pressures in-
clude the static gravitational pressures that exists be-
fore an earthquake occurs, and transient dynamic
pressures induced by the earthquake. The response
of a wall is influenced by both. Here, assuming that
the static theories of Rankine (1857), Coulomb
(1776), Caquot & Kerisel (1948), Sokolowskii
(1965), Chen & Liu (1990) and Lancellotta (2002)
are known for sake of brevity, a review of dynamic
earth pressures theories is done.
In the literature, different notation was used for
the definition of the problem geometry and the
strength parameters of the backfill. In order to avoid
confusion on the symbols, in this chapter are signed:
unit weight of the soil
' - friction angle of the soil
c cohesion of the soil
dilation angle of the soil
A review of design methods for retaining structures under seismic
loadings
C. Visone & F. Santucci de Magistris
Structural and Geotechnical Dynamic Lab StreGa, University of Molise, Termoli (CB), Italy







ABSTRACT: The earth retaining structures frequently represent key elements of ports and harbors, transpor-
tation systems, lifelines and other constructed facilities. Earthquakes might cause permanent deformations of
retaining structures and even failures. In some cases, these deformations originated significant damages with
disastrous physical and economic consequences. For gravity walls, the dynamic earth pressures acting on the
wall can be evaluated by using the Mononobe-Okabe method, while Newmark rigid sliding block scheme is
suitable to predict the displacements after the shaking, as demonstrated by several experimental tests. Instead,
this simplified approach is not very useful for embedded retaining walls for various reasons. Many researchers
are interested to this topic. Advanced numerical analyses, centrifuge modeling, in-situ monitoring of full-scale
model are the main developing research activities on this subject. Here, after a brief review on the fundamen-
tal seismic earth pressures theories, the application of the pseudostatic approach to the analysis of embedded
retaining walls, as prescribed by the European Codes, is highlighted. Finally, some considerations on the cer-
tain limitations of this approach is done and the indications given by the latest Italian Building Codes (D.M.
14/01/2008) are summarized.
inclination angle of the backfill respect to
horizontal
- inclination angle of the wall internal face re-
spect to vertical
soil-wall friction angle

W
dilative component of the soil-wall friction
angle
angle of the planar failure surface respect to
horizontal
inclination angle of the seismic coefficient k
with the vertical.
Figure 1 illustrates the assumed symbology. The
subscript E indicates the seismic conditions, both for
active and passive earth pressure states. In the fol-
lowing, the static loading system is denoted without
the subscript.

W
k g
h
E
k g
v
R
S
E

Figure 1. Utilized symbols for the geometry of the problem.

2.1 Mononobe & Okabe method.
Okabe (1926) and Mononobe & Matsuo (1929)
developed the basis of a pseudostatic analysis of
seismic earth pressures on retaining structures that
has become popularly known as the Mononobe-
Okabe (M-O) method. The M-O method is a direct
extension of the static Coulomb theory to pseu-
dostatic conditions. In a M-O analysis, pseudostatic
accelerations are applied to a Coulomb active (or
passive) wedge. The pseudostatic soil thrust is then
obtained from the force equilibrium of the wedge.
In addition to those under static conditions, the
forces acting on an active wedge in a dry cohe-
sionless backfill are constituted by horizontal and
vertical pseudostatic forces, whose magnitudes are
related to the mass of the wedge by the pseudostatic
accelerations a
h
= k
h
g and a
v
= k
v
g. The total active
thrust can be expressed in a form similar to that de-
veloped for static conditions, that is:
( )
v AE AE
k H K S = 1
2
1
2
(1)
where the dynamic active earth pressure coeffi-
cient, K
AE
, is given by:
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
2
2
2
cos cos
' sin ' sin
1
1
cos cos cos
' cos
(

+ +
+
+

+ +

=




AE
K
(2)
In Equation (2) ' , and = tan
-1
[k
h
/(1-k
v
)].
The critical failure surface, which is flatter than the
critical failure surface for static conditions, is in-
clined (Zarrabi-Kashani, 1979) at an angle:
( )
(

+
+ =

E
E
AE
C
C
2
1 1
' tan
tan '

(3)
where:
( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] { }


+ + + + =
+ + +
+ =
' cot ' tan tan 1
' cot tan 1
' cot ' tan ' tan
2
1
E
E
C
C
(4)
Although the M-O analysis implies that the total
active thrust should act at a point H/3 above the base
of a wall of height H, experimental results suggest
that it actually acts at a higher points under dynamic
loading conditions. The total active thrust, S
AE
, can
be divided into a static component, S
A
, and a dy-
namic component, S
AE
:
AE A AE
S S S + = (5)
The static component is known to act at H/3
above the base of the wall. According to Seed &
Whitman (1970) the dynamic component acts at ap-
proximately 0.6H. On this basis, the total active
thrust will act at a height h:
( )
AE
AE A
S
H S H S
h
6 . 0 3 +
= (6)
above the base of the wall. The value of h de-
pends on the relative magnitudes of S
A
and S
AE
: it of-
ten ends up near to the mid-height of the wall. M-O
analyses show that k
v
, if assumed to be as one-half to
two-thirds the value of k
h
, affects S
AE
by less than
10%. Seed & Whitman (1970) concluded that verti-
cal accelerations can be ignored when the M-O
method is used to estimate S
AE
for typical wall de-
signs.
The total passive thrust on a wall retaining a dry
cohesionless backfill is given by:
( )
v PE PE
k H K S = 1
2
1
2
(7)
where the dynamic passive earth pressure coeffi-
cient, K
PE
, is given by:
'
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
2
2
2
cos cos
' sin ' sin
1
1
cos cos cos
' cos
(

+
+ +
+

+
+
=




PE
K
(8)
The critical failure surface for M-O passive con-
ditions is inclined from horizontal by an angle:
( )
(

+ + +
+ =

E
E
PE
C
C
4
3 1
' tan
tan '

(9)
where:
( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] { }


+ + + + + =
+ + +
+ + + + =
' cot ' tan tan 1
' cot tan 1
' cot ' tan ' tan
4
3
E
E
C
C
(10)
The total passive thrust can also be divided
(Towhata & Islam, 1987) into static and dynamic
components:
PE P PE
S S S + = (11)
Note that the dynamic component acts in the op-
posite direction of the static component, thus reduc-
ing the available passive resistance.
Although conceptually simple, the M-O analysis
provides a useful means of estimating earthquake-
induced loads on retaining walls. A positive horizon-
tal acceleration coefficient causes the total active
thrust to exceed the static active thrust and the total
passive thrust to be lesser than the static passive
thrust. Since the stability of a particular wall is gen-
erally reduced by an increase in active thrust and/or a
decrease in passive thrust, the M-O method produces
seismic loads that are more critical than the static
loads acting prior an earthquake. The effects of dis-
tributed load and discrete surface loads and irregular
backfill surfaces are easily considered by modifying
the free-body diagram of the active or passive
wedge. In such cases, Equations (2) and (8) no
longer apply. The total thrusts must be obtained from
the analysis of a number of potential failure planes.
Being an extension of the Coulomb analysis,
however, the M-O method is subject to all of the
limitations of the pseudostatic analyses and of the
Coulomb theory. The determination of the appropri-
ate pseudostatic coefficient is difficult and the analy-
sis is not suitable for soils that experience significant
loss of strength during earthquakes (e.g., liquefiable
soils). Just as the Coulomb theory does under static
conditions, the M-O analysis will overpredict the ac-
tual total passive thrust, particularly for > '/2. For
these reasons, the M-O method should be used and
interpreted carefully.
2.2 Upper-bound limit analysis solution.
By equating the incremental external work to the
incremental internal energy dissipation associated to
a translational wall movement and a -spiral log-
sandwich mechanism of failure proposed by Chen &
Rosenfarb (1973), Chang (1981) has deduced a
seismic active and passive earth pressure formula-
tions in which the soil thrust can be expressed in
terms of equivalent coefficients of seismic earth
pressure, K
AE
and K
PE
, as:
2
2
1
H K S
E E
= (12)
The seismic active earth pressure coefficient K
AE

is:
Ac Aq A AE
N
H
c
N
H
q
N K

2 2
+ + = (13)
where is the unit weight of the backfill material,
H the vertical height of the wall, q is the uniform
surcharge acting on the surface of the backfill, c is
the soil cohesion. N
A
, N
Aq
and N
Ac
are three coeffi-
cients for which closed form expressions can be
found in Chen & Liu (1990). The most critical K
AE
-
value can be obtained by a maximization with re-
spect to and shown in Figure 2.


a)

= /2
1

= /2 +
2
Stress Characteristics
= Velocity Characteristics
I
II
III

b)

= /2 +
1

= /2
2
Stress Characteristics
= Velocity Characteristics
I
II
III


Figure 2. Log-sandwich failure mechanisms for lateral earth
pressure limit analysis (Chen & Liu, 1990).
'
'
'
'

At the same manner, the seismic passive earth
pressure coefficient K
PE
is given by the following re-
lationship:
Pc Pq P PE
N
H
c
N
H
q
N K

2 2
+ + = (14)
Again, the expressions of the three coefficients
N
A
, N
Aq
and N
Ac
can be found in Chen & Liu (1990).
The most critical K
PE
-value can be obtained by a
minimization procedure with respect to the angles
and shown in Figure 2
For practical purposes, the author has calculated
some values of the seismic earth pressure coeffi-
cients reported in tables (Chang, 1981, as quoted by
Chen & Liu, 1990).
In the next Tables 1 and 2 some of them are
summarized.

Table 1. Values of the seismic active earth pressure coefficient
given by the upper-bound method for log-sandwich failure
mechanisms (Chang, 1981 as quoted by Chen & Liu, 1990).

20 30 40 50

0 10 20 0 15 30 0 20 40 0 25 50
-30 0.77 0.74 0.76 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.49 0.50 0.62 0.38 0.42 0.65
-15 0.60 0.56 0.56 0.45 0.42 0.44 0.33 0.32 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.31
0 0.49 0.45 0.43 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.15
15 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.06
30
kh = 0
0.34 0.29 0.27 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01
-30 0.84 0.84 0.89 0.69 0.70 0.81 0.56 0.59 0.79 0.44 0.50 0.53
-15 0.68 0.65 0.66 0.51 0.50 0.53 0.39 0.33 0.45 0.28 0.29 0.41
0 0.57 0.53 0.52 0.40 0.37 0.37 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.21
15 0.49 0.45 0.43 0.31 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.10
30
kh = 0.1
0.44 0.38 0.36 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.03
-30 0.96 1.00 1.12 0.78 0.83 1.02 0.63 0.71 1.07 0.51 0.62 1.58
-15 0.78 0.78 0.82 0.59 0.60 0.66 0.45 0.47 0.58 0.34 0.37 0.55
0 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.33 0.32 0.36 0.22 0.22 0.28
15 0.61 0.56 0.55 0.38 0.35 0.35 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.15
30
kh = 0.2
0.56 0.51 0.48 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.06
-30 1.16 1.30 1.54 0.90 1.01 1.38 0.73 0.87 1.53 0.60 0.77 2.31
-15 0.95 1.00 1.10 0.70 0.73 0.86 0.53 0.57 0.77 0.40 0.46 0.78
0 0.83 0.84 0.88 0.57 0.56 0.61 0.40 0.40 0.47 0.28 0.29 0.39
15 0.77 0.75 0.75 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.30 0.28 0.31 0.13 0.17 0.21
30
kh = 0.3
0.75 0.70 0.68 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.10 0.09 0.10



Table 2. Values of the seismic passive earth pressure coeffi-
cient given by the upper-bound method for log-sandwich failure
mechanisms (Chang, 1981 as quoted by Chen & Liu, 1990).


20 30 40 50

0 10 20 0 15 30 0 20 40 0 25 50
-30 1.74 2.00 2.29 2.15 2.82 3.77 2.71 4.23 7.45 3.48 7.39 20.18
-15 1.78 2.16 2.56 2.38 3.42 4.57 3.26 6.08 11.67 4.63 13.12 41.27
0 2.04 2.58 3.17 3.00 4.71 7.10 4.60 10.09 20.91 7.55 28.68 98.06
15 2.61 3.45 4.39 4.35 7.42 11.79 7.80 19.67 43.09 15.98 75.20 267.69
30
kh = 0
3.79 5.27 6.96 7.38 13.67 22.70 16.15 45.47 103.16 43.72 234.22 848.58
-30 1.66 1.86 2.10 2.09 2.67 3.52 2.66 4.10 7.04 3.45 7.12 19.25
-15 1.68 1.98 2.33 2.28 3.20 4.52 3.16 5.76 10.97 4.52 12.56 39.42
0 1.89 2.35 2.86 2.82 4.37 6.55 4.38 9.49 19.66 7.27 27.37 93.61
15 2.38 3.11 3.92 4.04 6.82 10.81 7.36 18.40 40.44 15.27 71.53 255.47
30
kh = 0.1
3.39 4.68 6.16 6.77 12.51 20.74 15.11 42.60 96.72 41.63 223.34 809.77
-30 1.56 1.70 1.87 2.01 2.49 3.24 2.59 3.90 6.61 3.40 6.85 18.32
-15 1.56 1.78 2.06 2.16 2.96 4.13 3.04 5.41 10.25 4.41 12.01 37.52
0 1.71 2.08 2.50 2.63 4.00 5.95 4.15 8.86 18.33 7.00 25.95 89.09
15 2.11 2.71 3.39 3.71 6.20 9.78 6.90 17.12 37.57 14.51 67.81 243.13
30
kh = 0.2
2.95 4.01 5.24 6.15 11.24 18.66 14.02 39.57 89.78 39.41 211.94 770.53
-30 1.39 1.46 1.56 1.91 2.30 2.94 2.51 3.68 6.16 3.35 6.56 17.53
-15 1.37 1.51 1.71 2.02 2.69 3.71 2.91 5.06 9.50 4.29 11.42 35.54
0 1.48 1.73 2.04 2.42 3.59 5.30 3.91 8.20 16.97 6.69 24.51 84.32
15 1.77 2.21 2.71 3.34 5.50 8.64 6.42 15.73 34.61 13.75 64.09 230.04
30
kh = 0.3
2.40 3.19 4.10 5.45 9.89 16.41 12.94 36.27 82.68 37.13 200.35 729.04


2.3 Lower-bound limit analysis solution.
Consider a soil surface, sloping at an angle with
respect to the horizontal, subjected to the vertical
body force , due to gravity, and to the horizontal
body force k
h
, which represents the seismic coeffi-
cient (positive assumed if the inertia force is towards
the backfill). In order to compute the passive resis-
tance on a vertical wall of roughness , imagine
transforming the problem geometry trough a rigid ro-
tation , given by:
h
k
1
tan

= (15)
represents the obliquity of the body force per
unit volume in the presence of seismic action, and it
is also noted that the presence of a vertical compo-
nent of the inertia forces could be taken into account
by assuming:
v
h
k
k

1
tan
1
(16)
where k
v
is the coefficient of vertical acceleration.
The problem of deriving the passive resistance
acting on a rough vertical wall in seismic conditions
can be dealt with the wall tilted from the vertical by
the angle and interacting with a backfill of slope
*= . The resulting vertical body force is repre-
sented by the vector
2
1 *
h
k + = , which can be
thought of as a properly scaled gravity body force (in
the presence of vertical acceleration it would
be ( )
2 2
1 *
h v
k k + = .
As in static conditions, it can be considered two
regions, one placed near to the wall in which the
stress state is affected from the soil-wall friction and
one with the half space stress conditions, divided by
a fan of stress discontinuities. By determining the
shift between the two extreme Mohr circles of the
stress states in the two regions for this problem ge-
ometry, Lancellotta (2007) has deduced a closed
form for the seismic passive earth pressure coeffi-
cient K
PE
, that is:
( ) ( ) ' tan
2 2
2 2
sin ' sin cos
sin ' sin cos
cos

(
(
(
(

\
|
+

=
a
PE
e K (17)
where:
( )
( )

2
' sin
sin
sin
' sin
sin
sin
1 1
+ + +
(

+
|
|

\
|
=

a
(18)
It is useful to remember that the values given by
the Equation (17) represent the normal components
to the vertical wall of the seismic passive coeffi-
cients. The total earth pressure coefficients can be
obtained by dividing for cos() the results of the re-
lationship.
2.4 Comparisons between the different methods.
In Figures 3 and 4 the values calculated with the
different methods previously recalled of the normal
components of the seismic active and passive earth
pressure coefficients exerted on vertical walls by
horizontal backfills are compared.
For the active case, the K
AEn
values obtained by
limit equilibrium and the limit analysis methods are
practically identical. This is due to the fact that,
when the wall is approximately vertical and the
slope angle of the backfill is larger than zero, the
most critical failure is practically planar.
a)

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Seismic horizontal coefficient, k
h
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

n
o
r
m
a
l

a
c
t
i
v
e

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

K
A
E
n
=20
=30
=40
M-O
Upper Bound
= 0

b)

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Seismic horizontal coefficient, k
h
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

n
o
r
m
a
l

a
c
t
i
v
e

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

K
A
E
n
=20
=30
=40
M-O
Upper Bound
= /2

c)

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Seismic horizontal coefficient, k
h
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

n
o
r
m
a
l

a
c
t
i
v
e

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

K
A
E
n
=20
=30
=40
M-O
Upper Bound
=


Figure 3. Comparisons between the normal components of the
active earth pressure coefficients given by the various methods
for horizontal backfills sustained by vertical walls: a) =0; b)
=/2; c) =.

For the passive case, the most critical sliding sur-
face is much different from a planar surface as is as-
sumed in the M-O analysis. The K
PEn
values are se-
riously overestimated by the M-O method. They are,
in most cases, higher than those obtained by the limit
analysis. This is especially the case when the wall is
rough and the angle of wall repose is large. The con-
dition = = 40 carries out very high K
PEn
values
larger than 20, unreported in Figure 4c. For smooth
walls, the potential sliding surface is practically pla-
nar and the different methods give almost identical
results.
2.5 Effects of water on the wall pressures.
The procedures for estimation of seismic loads on
retaining walls described in the preceding sections
have been limited to cases of dry backfills.
a)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Seismic horizontal coefficient, k
h
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

n
o
r
m
a
l

p
a
s
s
i
v
e

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

K
P
E
n
=20
=30
=40
= 0 M-O
Upper Bound
Lower Bound

b)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Seismic horizontal coefficient, k
h
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

n
o
r
m
a
l

p
a
s
s
i
v
e

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

K
P
E
n
=20
=30
=40
= /2 M-O
Upper Bound
Lower Bound

c)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Seismic horizontal coefficient, k
h
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

n
o
r
m
a
l

p
a
s
s
i
v
e

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

K
P
E
n
=20
=30
=40
= M-O
Upper Bound
Lower Bound


Figure 4. Comparisons between the normal components of the
passive earth pressure coefficients given by the various meth-
ods for horizontal backfills sustained by vertical walls: a) =0;
b) =/2; c) =.

Most retaining walls are designed with drains to
prevent water pressure building up within the back-
fill. This is not possible, however, for retaining walls
in waterfront areas, where most earthquake-induced
wall failures have been observed.
The presence of water plays a strong role in de-
termining the loads on waterfront retaining walls
both during and after earthquakes. Water outboard of
a retaining wall can exert dynamic pressures on the
face of the wall. Water within a backfill can also af-
fect the dynamic pressures that act on the back of the
wall.
Therefore, properly accounting for the effects of
water is essential for the seismic design of retaining
structures, especially in waterfront areas. Since few
waterfront retaining structures are completely im-
permeable, the water level in the backfill is usually
at approximately the same level as the free water
outboard of the wall. Backfill water levels generally
lag behind changes in outboard water level: the dif-
ference in water level depends on the permeability of
the wall and the backfill and on the rate at which the
outboard water level changes. The total water pres-
sures that act on retaining walls in the absence of
seepage within the backfill can be divided in two
components: hydrostatic pressure, which increases
linearly with the depth and acts on the wall before,
during and after the earthquake shaking, and hydro-
dynamic pressure, which results from the dynamic
response of the water itself.
2.5.1 Water outboard of the wall.
Hydrodynamic water pressure results from the
dynamic response of a body of water. For retaining
walls, hydrodynamic pressures are usually estimated
from Westergaards solution (Westergaard, 1931)
for the case of a vertical, rigid dam retaining a semi-
infinite reservoir of water that is excited by har-
monic, horizontal motion of its rigid base. Wester-
gaard showed that the hydrodynamic pressure ampli-
tude increased with the square root of water depth
when the motion is applied at a frequency lower than
the fundamental frequency of the reservoir, f
0
=
V
P
/4H, where V
P
is the P-wave velocity of water
(about 1400 m/s) and H is the depth of water in the
reservoir (the natural frequency of a 10m-deep reser-
voir, for example, would be over 35 Hz, well above
the frequencies of interest for earthquakes). Wester-
gaard computed the amplitude of the hydrodynamic
pressure as:
H z
g
a
p
w w
h
w

8
7
= (19)
The resultant hydrodynamic thrust is given by
2
12
7
H
g
a
p
w
h
w
= (20)
The total water pressure on the face of the wall is
the sum of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic water
pressures. Similarly, the total lateral thrust due to the
water is equal to the sum of hydrostatic and hydro-
dynamic thrusts.
Another important consideration in the design of
a waterfront retaining wall is the potential for rapid
drawdown of the water outboard of the wall. Earth-
quakes occurring near large bodies of water often in-
duce long-period motion of the water, such as tsu-
namis or seiches, that cause the water surface to
move up and down. While the upward movements of
water outboard of a retaining wall will generally tend
to stabilize the wall (assuming that it does not rise
above the level of the top of the wall), downward
movements can create a destabilizing rapid draw-
down conditions. When liquefiable soils exist under
relatively high levels of initial shear stress, failures
can be triggered by very small changes in water
level. Such failures, can originate in the soils adja-
cent to or beneath the retaining structure rather than
in the backfill.
2.5.2 Water in backfill.
The presence of water in the backfill behind a re-
taining wall can influence the seismic loads that act
on the wall in three ways:
1. by altering the inertial forces within the backfill:
2. by developing hydrodynamic pressures within the
backfill: and,
3. by allowing excess pore water pressure generation
due to cyclic straining of the backfill soils.
The inertial forces in saturated soils depend on
the relative movement between the backfill soil par-
ticles and the pore water that surrounds them. If, as it
is usually true, the permeability of the soil is small
enough (typically around k 10
-5
m/s or so) so that
the pore water moves with the soil during the earth-
quake shaking (no relative movement of soil and wa-
ter, or restrained pore water conditions), the inertial
forces will be proportional to the total unit weight of
the soil. If the permeability of the backfill soil is very
high, however, the pore water may remain essen-
tially stationary while the soil skeleton moves back
and forth (the soil particles move through the pore
water in free pore water conditions). In such cases,
inertial forces will be proportional to the buoyant (or
submerged) unit weight of the soil. Hydrodynamic
water pressures can also develop under free pore wa-
ter conditions and must be added to the computed
soil and hydrostatic pressures to obtain the total
loading on the wall.
For restrained pore water conditions, the M-O
method can be modified to account for the presence
of pore water within the backfill (Matsuzawa et al.,
1985). Representing the excess of pore water pres-
sure in the backfill by the pore pressure ratio, r
u
=
u/p
0
, the active soil thrust acting on a yielding wall
can be computed from Equation (1) using:
( )
u b
r = 1 (21)
and
( )( )
(

v u b
h sat
k r
k
1 1
tan
1

(22)
An equivalent hydrostatic thrust based on a fluid
of unit weight
eq
=
w
+ r
u

b
must be added to the
soil thrust. Note that as r
u
approaches 1 (as it could
in liquefiable backfill), the wall thrust approaches
that imposed by a fluid of equivalent unit weight
eq

=
sat
. Subsequent unidirectional movement of a soil
that develops high excess pore water pressures may,
depending on its residual (or steady state) strength,
might cause dilation with accompanying pore water
pressure reduction and strength gain.
Soil thrusts from partially submerged backfills
may be computed using an average unit weight
based on the relative volumes of soil within the ac-
tive wedge that are above and below the phreatic
surface, following Figure 5:
( )
d sat

2 2
1 + = (23)
Again, the hydrostatic thrust (and hydrodynamic
thrust, if present) must be added to the soil thrust.

H
H

=
d
=
sat

Figure 5. Geometry for partially submerged backfill.
3 DESIGN OF EMBEDDED RETAINING
WALLS WITH LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM
METHODS.
Limit equilibrium is one of most widespread de-
sign method for the analysis of embedded retaining
structures. In this procedure, the wall is assumed
rigid, the soil has a rigid-perfectly plastic behaviour
and the pressures deriving form the interaction de-
pend on the expected movements of the wall. The
kinematical mechanism is affected from the con-
straints applied on the wall. Generally, the free em-
bedded cantilever walls are distinguished from the
anchored or multi-anchored walls. Here, after a brief
review on ultimate limit states described in the EC-7
(2002) for retaining walls, the design methods for
free cantilever walls is treated.
3.1 Ultimate limit states for retaining walls.
A limit state is a set of performance criteria (e.g.
amount of vibrations, deflection, strength) and
stability levels (buckling, twisting, collapse) that
must be met when the structure is subject to loads.
In accordance with the newer constructions codes,
the design of a structure must satisfy the following
requirements:
safety towards the ultimate limit states: capability
to avoid collapse, loss of equilibrium and heavy
instability, total or partial, which might endanger
the safety of the people or involve loss of goods
or to cause heavy environmental and social dam-
ages or make the structure out of order;
safety towards the serviceability limit states: ca-
pability to guarantee the expected performances
for serviceability conditions;
robustness towards the exceptional actions: capa-
bility to avoid damages out of proportion respect
to the causes as fires, explosions, impacts.
For all types of retaining structures, the following
limit states should be considered:
loss of overall stability;
failure of a structural element such as a wall, an-
chorage, wale or strut or failure of the connection
between such elements;
combined failure in ground and in structural ele-
ment;
failure by hydraulic heave and piping;
movement of the retaining structure which may
cause collapse or affect the appearance or effi-
cient use of the structure or nearby structures or
services which rely on it;
unacceptable leakage through or beneath the wall;
unacceptable transport of soil particles through or
beneath the wall
unacceptable change in groundwater regime.
In addition, the following limit states should be
considered for gravity walls and for composite re-
taining structures:
bearing resistance failure of the soil below the
base;
failure by sliding at the base;
failure by toppling;
and for embedded walls:
failure by rotation or translation of the wall or
parts thereof;
failure by lack of vertical equilibrium.
When they are relevant, combinations of the
above mentioned limit states should be taken into
account.
3.2 Static design of free embedded walls.
The stability of a cantilever wall is guaranteed
from the passive resistance of the soil in which the
wall is embedded. In the limit equilibrium methods
the wall movement that conducts to limit conditions
is constituted by a rigid rotation around a point O
placed near to the bottom of the wall. The theoretical
earth pressures distributions on the wall are plotted
in Figure 6.
h
d
H
A
K
P
K
P
K
A
K
A
K d K (h+d)
P
d
'
z
'
O


Figure 6. Earth pressures distributions assumed in limit equilib-
rium method.

To eliminate stresses discontinuities in corre-
spondence of the rotation point and to obtain a sim-
plified shape of the pressures distributions, different
simplifications and assumptions were proposed in
literature. The main of which are plotted in Figure 7a
and 7b.
In the first, the net pressure distribution is simpli-
fied by a rectilinear shape. It is assumed that the pas-
sive resistance below the dredge level is fully mobi-
lized. The rotation point coincides with the zero net
pressure point. At the bottom of the wall the soil
strengths, active and passive, are mobilized and the
net pressure assumes the values reported in Figure
7a.
The limit depth d can be evaluated imposing
translation and moment equilibrium. In this manner,
a system of two equations of second and third degree
is obtained and the two unknowns, the depth of the
point of the inversion of pressures z and the limit
depth of embedment d, may be calculated using:
|

\
|
+
|
|

\
|

\
|
+
|

\
|
=
h
d
K
K
h
d
h
d
K
K
h
z
A
P
A
P
2 1 1
1
'
2 2
(24)
|

\
|
+
|
|

\
|

\
|
+
|

\
|
=
h
d
K
K
h
d
h
d
K
K
h
z
A
P
A
P
2 1 1
1
'
3 3
(25)
The second method, commonly used in U.K. and
described in Padfield & Mair (1984), assumes that
the net pressure distribution below the point of rota-
tion can substituted with the net force R applied at a
distance z = 0.2d from the bottom of the wall.
Writing the moment equilibrium around the point O,
one has an equation of the third degree with the sin-
gle unknown d:
a)
A
K
P
(K - K )
A
[K (h+d) - K d]
P A
h
d
d
'
z
'

b)
h
d
A
K
P
K
d
'
R
0
.
2

d
'


Figure 7. Simplified earth pressures distributions: a) Full
Method; b) Blum Method

1
2 . 1
3

=
A P
K K
h
d (26)
The main problem for the design of embedded
walls is then the right choice of the earth pressure
coefficients K
A
and K
P
when the soil-wall friction
would be considered. It is well-recognized that the
Coulomb theory provides unrealistic values of the
passive earth pressure coefficient when > '/2. Dif-
ferent suggestions can be found in the literature
(Padfield & Mair, 1984; Terzaghi, 1954; Teng,
1962). Since knowledge on this field is limited, in
the current practice is commonly adopted
A
= 2/3 '
for the active case and
P
= 0, for the passive case. In
this manner, passive resistance of soil on the dredge
side of reinforced concrete walls, realized with piles
or diaphragm, is largely underestimated. Padfield &
Mair (1984) assert that reasonable values of the soil-
wall friction for the calculation of the earth pressure
coefficients are
A
= 2/3 ' and
P
= 1/2 '.
Bica & Clayton (1992) have collected a series of
experimental data of collapse of embedded walls and
have proposed an expression for the preliminary de-
sign in simple soil conditions:
(

=
18
30 '
3
2

e FS
h
d
(27)
In Figure 8, the relationship (27) for the case of
limit conditions is compared with a series of numeri-
cal and experimental results of failure taken from the
literature. It can be seen the good agreement between
the relationship and the numerical and experimental
data given by the different authors.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle, ()
L
i
m
i
t

D
e
p
t
h

R
a
t
i
o

o
f

E
m
b
e
d
m
e
n
t
,

d
/
h
Empirical Formula
Day (1999)
Pane & Tamagnini (2004)
Fourie & Potts (1989)
Rowe (1951)
Bica & Clayton (1998)
Bransby & Milligan (1975)
Lyndon & Pearson (1984)
King & McLoughlin (1992)
Numerical Analyses
1-g Model
Centrifuge Model


Figure 8. Experimental and numerical limit depth ratios of em-
bedment at collapse for free embedded walls.

Adopting the Coulomb and Lancellotta theories
for the evaluation of the active and passive earth
pressure coefficients K
A
and K
P
, respectively, and
assuming the soil-wall friction values suggested by
Padfiled & Mair (1984), the full and Blum methods
give limit depth ratios of embedment in relation to
the soil friction angle ' plotted in Figure 9. In the
same Figure the d/h ratios at failure evaluated with
the two limit equilibrium methods and adopting the
soil-wall friction angles currently utilized in the de-
sign are reported.
It can be noted the large overestimation of the
needed depth of embedment d when the soil-wall
friction is not considered for the calculation of the
passive resistances. The Blum method gives more
conservative values than the full method for which,
if it is applied by adopting Padfield & Mair (1984)
indications, the results are close to those experimen-
tally and numerically estimated.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle, ()
L
i
m
i
t

d
e
p
t
h

r
a
t
i
o

o
f

e
m
b
e
d
m
e
n
t
,

d
/
h
Equation (27)
Blum method
Full method

A
= 2/3 ;
P
= 1/2

A
= 2/3 ;
P
= 0

Figure 9. Limit depth ratios of embedment at collapse for free
embedded walls computed with limit equilibrium methods.

Five methods are used in design to incorporate a
factor of safety against collapse. These involve in-
creasing embedment depth, reducing the strength pa-
rameters, reducing the passive pressure coefficient,
reducing the net passive pressure or reducing net
available passive pressure (Padfield & Mair, 1984).
The maximum bending moment M
max
acting on
the wall depends to the soil and wall properties and
to the depth of embedment d, for a given retaining
height h.
Bica & Clayton (1992), on the basis of a collec-
tion of experimental results, have proposed the ap-
proximated relationship for the computation of M
max

represented in Figure 10 with some numerical and
experimental data published in the literature:
2
3
2
16
30 '
3
max
095 . 0
(

=
h
d
e e
h
M

(28)
Near to each point is reported the depth ratio d/h.
The values given by Equation (28) are often conser-
vative when compared with those corresponding to
limit conditions for the wall. It can be seen the in-
crease of bending moment with depth of embedment
for a fixed value of friction angle. This fact contrasts
the design recommendations that M
max
should be
evaluated for a safety factor equal to 1. This factor
should be greater than 1 when M
max
is computed.
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle, ()
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

B
e
n
d
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t
,

M
m
a
x
/

h
3
Equation (28)
Day (1999)
Fourie & Potts (1989)
Rowe (1951)
Bica & Clayton (1998)
Lyndon & Pearson (1984)
King & McLoughlin (1992)
Numerical Analyses
1-g Model
Centrifuge Model
1.26
0.89
1.0
1.5
0.67
0.92
0.7
1.06
0.42
0.52
1.31
0.54
0.39
0.38
0.7
1.06
0.27
1.0
1.5
0.67
1.0
1.5
0.67 0.23
0.29

Figure 10. Experimental and numerical normalized maximum
bending moment for free embedded walls.

Figure 11 shows the comparisons between the
normalized maximum bending moment M
max
/h
3

computed with Equation (28) and those obtained by
the limit equilibrium method with the following ex-
pression:
( ) [ ]
3 3
max
6
x K x h K M
P A
+ =

(29)
where x is the depth from the dredge level in
which the shear force is zero:
1
1

=
A P
K K h
x
(30)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle, ()
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

b
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
,

M
m
a
x
/

h
3
Equation (28)
Limit equilibrium

A
= 2/3 ;
P
= 1/2

A
= 2/3 ;
P
= 0

Figure 11. Normalized maximum bending moment for free em-
bedded walls at collapse computed with limit equilibrium
method.

The values obtained by assuming the soil-wall
frictions suggested by Padfield & Mair (1984) are
lightly underestimated respect to those predicted
with the empirical relationship (28), while, adopting

A
= 2/3 ' and
P
= 0, limit equilibrium provides re-
alistic maximum bending moment at collapse. It
should be remembered that, if a safety factor is
adopted on the design of the depth of embedment,
the actual depth ratio d/h should be utilized for the
estimation of M
max
.
The Equations previously recalled are valid for
dry homogeneous soils with constant values of K
A

and K
P
. Limit equilibrium of embedded retaining
walls in layered saturated soils is commonly studied
by using a hybrid approach in which active and pas-
sive horizontal effective stresses are computed mul-
tiplying vertical effective stresses by active and pas-
sive earth pressure coefficients given by the theories.
3.3 Seismic design of free embedded walls.
In the EC8 Part 5 (2003) is described a simplified
pseudostatic approach to analyze the safety condi-
tions of retaining walls. The seismic increments of
earth pressures may be computed with the M-O
method. Its application for rigid structures is more
prompt than for embedded walls for which the sta-
bility is mainly due to the passive resistance of the
soil in the embedded portion. As for the Coulomb
theory in static conditions, the M-O theory gives
very high values for passive earth pressure coeffi-
cient when the soil-wall friction is considered. For
this reason, the evaluation of passive pressure should
be conducted assuming zero soil-wall friction.
In the pseudostatic analyses, the seismic actions
can be represented by a set of horizontal and vertical
static forces equal to the product of the gravity
forces and a seismic coefficient. For non-gravity
walls, the effects of vertical acceleration can be ne-
glected. In the absence of specific studies, the hori-
zontal seismic coefficient k
h
can be taken as:
g
a
r
S
k
g
h
= (31)
where S is the soil factor that depends to the seismic
zone and considering the local amplification due to
the stratified subsoil and to the topographic effects,
a
g
is the reference peak ground acceleration on type
A ground, g is the gravity acceleration and the factor
r is a function of the displacement that the wall can
accept. For non gravity walls, the prescribed value is
r = 1 (EC8 Part 5, Table 7.1).
Furthermore, for walls not higher than 10m, the
seismic coefficient can be assumed constant along
the height.
The point of application of the force due to the
dynamic earth pressures should be taken at mid-
height of the wall, in the absence of a more detailed
study taking into account of the relative stiffness, the
type of movements and the relative mass of the re-
taining structure.
Assuming that the position of the point of rotation
O near to the bottom of the wall is the same of the
static condition, the application of the Blum method
to search the seismic limit equilibrium of a free em-
bedded wall can be conducted adopting the loading
system represented in Figure 12.
The earth pressure thrusts have the following ex-
pressions:
( )
( ) ( )
2
2
'
2
1
'
2
1
d h K K S
d h K S
A AE AE
A A
+ =
+ =

(32)
( )
2
2
'
2
1
'
2
1
d K K S
d K S
P PE PE
P P

=
=
(33)
in which the earth pressure coefficients with the sub-
script E are referred to the seismic conditions while
those without the subscript E are the static coeffi-
cients.

h
d
P
S d
'
R
0
.
2

d
'
A
S
AE
S
PE
S


Figure 12. Earth pressures on a free embedded wall subjected
to seismic loadings according to EC8-5 pseudostatic analysis.

The moment equilibrium of the forces around the
point O provides a simple relationship for the limit
depth of embedment:
1
3
3
2 . 1
3

=
A AE
P PE
K K
K K
h
d (34)
If the seismic horizontal coefficient k
h
= 0 (static
conditions), the seismic earth pressure coefficients
are equal to the corresponding static values and,
then, Equation (34) becomes equal to the (26).
Graphical representations of the (34) in a semi
logarithmic scale for different values of k
h
is shown
in Figure 13. The soil-wall friction angles used for
the calculation of the earth pressure coefficients are
those suggested to EC8-5 and currently adopted (
A

= 2/3 ',
P
= 0) and those suggested to Padfield &
Mair (1984) (
A
= 2/3 ',
P
= 1/2 ).
As noted above for the static conditions, the EC8-
5 indications on the soil-wall friction conduct to a
very conservative design of the depth of embedment,
underestimating the soil passive resistance. The use
of the Blum method with the seismic passive earth
pressure coefficient given by the lower-bound limit
method proposed by Lancellotta (2007) allows to es-
tablish more reasonable depths of embedment for
cantilever walls.
The maximum bending moment can be computed
as:
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( )
2 3
2 3
max
'
4
1
6
1
'
4
1
6
1
x d K K x K
x h d h K K x h K M
P PE P
A AE A



+ + + + + =
(35)
where x is the depth from the dredge level at which
the shear force is zero and can be evaluated by
equaling the two members of the force equilibrium
equation:
( ) ( )( ) [ ]( )
( ) [ ]x d K K x K
x h d h K K x h K
P PE P
A AE A
'
'
+ =
= + + + +
(36)
In Figure 14 are plotted in a semi logarithmic
scale the values calculated for different seismic hori-
zontal coefficients k
h
and for the two soil wall-
friction conditions. While the assumption of the
EC8-5 on the soil-wall friction is conservative for
the computation of the depth of embedment, the
evaluation of maximum bending moment with the
limit equilibrium method is more safe if
P
is taken
equal to zero.


a)
0.1
1
10
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle, ()
L
i
m
i
t

d
e
p
t
h

r
a
t
i
o

o
f

e
m
b
e
d
m
e
n
t
,

d
/
h
Equation (27)
k h
= 0
k h
= 0.1
k h = 0.3
k h = 0.2

b)
0.1
1
10
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle, ()
L
i
m
i
t

d
e
p
t
h

r
a
t
i
o

o
f

e
m
b
e
d
m
e
n
t
,

d
/
h
Equation (27)
k
h
= 0
k
h
= 0.1
k
h
= 0.3
k
h
= 0.2


Figure 13. Limit depth ratios of embedment given by the Blum
method for the EC8-5 seismic loadings: a)
A
= 2/3 ,
P
= 0; b)

A
= 2/3 ,
P
= 1/2 .

3.4 The recent Italian Building Code.
The new Italian Building Code (NTC, 2008) in-
troduced some innovations on the seismic design of
embedded walls to eliminate some discrepancies ex-
isting on the application of the pseudostatic analyses
for embedded walls (see for instance Callisto, 2006).
The pseudostatic analysis of an embedded retain-
ing wall should be carried out assuming that the soil
interacting with the wall is subjected to a value of
the horizontal acceleration which is:
a) constant in space and time (this is implicit in a
pseudostatic analysis);
b) equal to the peak acceleration expected at the
soil surface.
Deformability of the soil can produce amplifica-
tion of acceleration, that is incorporated into the soil
factor S, but that can be better evaluated through a
site response analysis.



a)
0.01
0.1
1
10
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle, ()
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

b
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
,

M
m
a
x
/

h
3
Equation (28)
k h = 0
k h = 0.1
k h
= 0.3
k h
= 0.2

b)
0.01
0.1
1
10
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle, ()
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

b
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
,

M
m
a
x
/

h
3
Equation (28)
k h = 0
k h = 0.1
k h
= 0.3
k h = 0.2


Figure 14. Normalized maximum bending moment given by the
Blum method for the EC8-5 seismic loadings: a)
A
= 2/3 ,
P

= 0; b)
A
= 2/3 ,
P
= 1/2 .

For many structures, including embedded retain-
ing walls, there may be reasons to question the as-
sumption that the structure should be designed as-
suming a constant peak acceleration. The validity of
the two assumptions (spatial and temporal invari-
ance) will be examined separately for clarity.
Figure 15a shows a M-O active wedge which in-
teracts with a vertically propagating harmonic shear
wave of frequency f and velocity V
S
, characterized
by a wavelength = V
S
/f larger than the height of the
wedge H. In this case, the variation of the accelera-
tion along the height of the wedge is small, inertial
forces (per unit mass) are about constant and the mo-
tion of each horizontal element is approximately in
phase.
In Figure 15b a case is depicted in which, either
because V
S
is smaller (the soil is more deformable)
or f is larger, is small if compared to H. In this
case, at a given time t, different horizontal wedge
elements are subjected to different inertial forces,
and their motion is out of phase. Therefore, at each t
the assumption of spatial invariance of the accelera-
tion is no longer valid, and, at each t, the resultant
inertial force on the wedge must lead to a smaller re-
sultant force S
AE
than that predicted with the M-O
analysis. Steedman & Zeng (1990) have proposed a
method for evaluating the effect of spatial variability
of the inertial forces on the values of S
AE
, maintain-
ing the hypothesis that the wedge is subjected to a
harmonic wave.
a)
S
H
a(z,t)

b)
S
H
a(z,t)

Figure 15. Mononobe-Okabe wedge interacting with harmonic
wave characterized by: a) large wavelength; b) small wave-
length.

Figure 16 shows some results obtained using this
method. Expressing the resultant force by the Equa-
tion (1) for k
v
= 0, the calculation results can be ex-
pressed in terms of equivalent values of the coeffi-
cient of active pressure K
AE
, plotted as a function of
the ratio H/, for different values of the amplitude of
the shear wave a
g
. The equivalent values of K
AE
can
be quite smaller than the corresponding M-O ones
(obtained for H/ = 0). Values of K
AE
decrease for
increasing wall height, decreasing soil stiffness
(quantified by V
S
), and increasing frequency of the
incident wave.
This approach may be used in practical applica-
tions by performing a site response analysis, select-
ing a value of V
S
derived by the average secant shear
modulus mobilized along the wall height, and choos-
ing f as the dominant frequency of the seismic mo-
tion at a characteristic elevation along the retaining
wall.
The assumption of a peak acceleration constant in
time for the pseudo-static analysis of an embedded
retaining structure is questionable for different
ground profiles.

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.3
H/
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

s
e
i
s
m
i
c

a
c
t
i
v
e

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

K
A
E
kh = 0.15
kh = 0.25
kh = 0.35
= 33
= /3

Figure 16. Influence of the ratio between the height of the wall
H and the wavelength of a harmonic wave on the seismic ac-
tive earth pressure coefficient (Steedman & Zeng, 1990).

It should be clear that coefficient r in equation
(31) depends on the displacements that the structure
can accept with no loss of strength. That is, it may be
acceptable that over a small temporal period during
an earthquake the acceleration could be higher than a
critical value producing limit conditions, provided
that this will lead to acceptable displacements and
that these displacements do not produce any strength
degradation. This is equivalent to state that the be-
haviour of the structure should be ductile, i.e. that
strength should not drop as the displacements in-
crease.
To account these aspects, in the latest Italian
Building Code NTC two coefficients were intro-
duced. In the absence of specific studies, the seismic
horizontal coefficient k
h
can be estimated with the
relationship:
g
Sa
k
g
h
= (37)
where 1 and 1 are factors for the deform-
ability of the soil that interacts with the wall and for
the capability of the structure to accept displace-
ments without losses of strength, respectively. Their
values are reported in the next Figures 17 and 18.
The points of application of the forces due to the
dynamic earth pressures can be assumed to be the
same of the static earth thrusts, if the wall can accept
displacements. Instead they should be taken to lie at
mid-height of the wall, in the absence of more de-
tailed studies, accounting for the relative stiffness,
the type of movements and the relative mass of the
retaining structure.

0.2
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.0
0.8
5
H (m)

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
D
C
B
Ground type A

Figure 17. Diagram for the evaluation of the deformability fac-
tor (NTC, 2008)
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.0
0.8
us (m)

0.1 0.2 0.3

Figure 18. Diagram for the evaluation of displacements factor
(NTC, 2008)

4 REFERENCES.
Bica, A.V.D., Clayton, C.R.I. (1992). The preliminary design
of free embedded cantilever walls in granular soil. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Retaining Structures, Cambridge
Callisto L. (2006). Pseudo-static seismic design of embedded
retaining structures, Workshop of ETC12 Evaluation
Committee for the Application of EC8, Athens, January 20-
21.
Caquot A., Kerisel F. (1948). Tables for the calculation of
passive pressure, active pressure and bearing capacity of
foundations, Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Chang M.F. (1981). Static and seismic lateral earth pressures
on rigid retaining structures, PhD Thesis, School of Civil
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 465
pp.
Chen W.F., Rosenfarb J.L. (1973). Limit analysis solutions of
earth pressure problems, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 13,
No. 4, pp. 45-60
Chen W.F., X.L. Liu (1990). Limit analysis in soil mechan-
ics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 477 pp.
Coulomb C.A. (1776). Essai sur une application des regles
des maximis et minimis a quelques problemes de statique
relatifs a larchitecture, Memoires de lAcademie Royale
pres Divers Savants, Vol. 7
EN 1997-1 (2002). Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design Part 1:
General Rules. CEN European Committee for Standardiza-
tion, Bruxelles, Belgium.
EN 1998-5 (December 2003). Eurocode 8: Design of structures
for earthquake resistance Part 5: Foundations, retaining
structures and geotechnical aspects. CEN European Com-
mittee for Standardization, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,
Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 653
pp.
Lancellotta R. (2002). Analytical solution of passive earth
pressure, Geotechnique, Vol. 52, No. 8, pp. 617-619
Lancellotta R. (2007). Lower-Bound approach for seismic
passive earth resistance. Geotechnique, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp.
319-321
Matsuzawa, H., Ishibashi, I., Kawamura, M. (1985). Dynamic
soil and water pressures of submerged soils, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 10, pp.
1161-1176
Mononobe N., Matsuo H. (1929).On the determination of
earth pressures during earthquakes, Proc. World Engineer-
ing Conference, Vol. 9, pp. 176
NTC (2008) Approvazione delle nuove norme tecniche per le
costruzioni, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana,
n. 29 del 4 febbraio 2008 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 30,
http://www.cslp.it/cslp/index.php?option=com_docman&tas
k=doc_download&gid=3269&Itemid=10 (in Italian).
Okabe S. (1926). General theory of earth pressure, Journal of
Japanese Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1
Padfield, C.J., Mair, R.J. (1984). Design of retaining walls
embedded in stiff clays, Report No. 104, London: Con-
struction Industry Research and Information Association.
Rankine W. (1857). On the stability of loose earth, Philoso-
phical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol.
147
Seed H.B., Whitman R.V. (1970). Design of earth retaining
structures for dynamic loads, Proc. ASCE Specialty Con-
ference on lateral stresses in the ground and design of earth
retaining structures, pp. 103-147
Sokolovskii V.V. (1965). Static of granular media, Pergamon
Press, New York, NY, 232 pp.
Steedman R.S., Zeng X. (1990). The seismic response of wa-
terfront retaining walls, Proc. ASCE Specialty Conference
on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures,
Special Technical Publication 25, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, pp.872-886
Teng, W. C. (1962). Foundation Design, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Terzaghi, K. (1954). Anchored bulkheads. Transactions,
American Society of Civil Engineers, No 119, pp. 1243-
1280
Towhata I., Islam S. (1987). Prediction of lateral movement of
anchored bulkheads induced by seismic liquefaction, Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 137-147
Westergaard, H. (1931). Water pressure on dams during
earthquakes, Transactions of ASCE, paper No. 1835,
pp.418-433
Zarrabi-Kashani K. (1979). Sliding of gravity retaining wall
during earthquakes considering vertical accelerations and
changing inclinations of failure surface S.M. Thesis, De-
partment of Civil Engineering, Massachussetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Massachussetts