Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES ON

RETAINING STRUCTURES AND
BASEMENT WALLS
Roozbeh Geraili Mikola1, Gabriel Candia2
and Nicholas Sitar3

ABSTRACT

Observations of the performance of basement walls and retaining structures in recent earthquakes
show that failures of basement or deep excavation walls in earthquakes are rare even if the
structures were not designed for the actual magnitude of the earthquake loading. For instance, no
significant damage or failures of retaining structures occurred in the recent Wenchuan
earthquake in China (2008) and the subduction earthquakes in Chile (2010) and Japan (2011). To
develop a better understanding of the distribution and magnitude of the seismic earth pressures
on cantilever retaining structures, a series of centrifuge experiments were performed on model
retaining and basement structures with cohesionless and cohesive backfills.
This paper provides a general overview of the research program and its results. Overall, for the
structures examined, i.e. wall heights in the range 20-30 ft, the centrifuge data consistently shows
that the maximum dynamic earth pressure increases with depth, and can be reasonably
approximated by a triangular distribution. This suggests that the resultant of the dynamic earth
pressure increment acts near 0.33H above the footing as opposed to 0.5-0.6 H recommended by
most current design procedures. The current data suggests that cantilever walls could resist
ground accelerations up to 0.4 g if designed with an adequate factor of safety.

1
PhD, Jacobs Associate and Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley, CA, USA.
2
PhD, Universidad del Desarrollo Professor, and Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley, CA,
USA.
3
Ph.D., P.Eng. Edward G. Cahill and John R. Cahill Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Geraili Mikola R, Candia G, Sitar N. Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls.
Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls

Roozbeh Geraili Mikola1, Gabriel Candia2 and Nicholas Sitar3

ABSTRACT

Observations of the performance of basement walls and retaining structures in recent earthquakes show that
failures of basement or deep excavation walls in earthquakes are rare even if the structures were not designed for the
actual magnitude of the earthquake loading. For instance, no significant damage or failures of retaining structures
occurred in the recent Wenchuan earthquake in China (2008) and the subduction earthquakes in Chile (2010) and
Japan (2011). To develop a better understanding of the distribution and magnitude of the seismic earth pressures on
cantilever retaining structures, a series of centrifuge experiments were performed on model retaining and basement
structures with cohesionless and cohesive backfills.
This paper provides a general overview of the research program and its results. Overall, for the structures examined,
i.e. wall heights in the range 20-30 ft, the centrifuge data consistently shows that the maximum dynamic earth
pressure increases with depth, and can be reasonably approximated by a triangular distribution. This suggests that
the resultant of the dynamic earth pressure increment acts near 0.33H above the footing as opposed to 0.5-0.6 H
recommended by most current design procedures. The current data suggests that cantilever walls could resist ground
accelerations up to 0.4 g if designed with an adequate factor of safety.

Introduction

The problem of evaluating seismically induced lateral earth pressures on retaining structures has
been first addressed in the 1920s in pioneering research carried out in Japan by Okabe (1926)
and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929). Since then this problem has received periodic attention from
the research community (e.g. Seed and Whitman, 1970; Nazarian and Hadjian, 1979; Prakash et
al., 1969; Prakash, 1981; and Aitken, 1982); however, it has had relatively little impact on the
design and engineering practice until recently.
In the United States the Uniform Building Code (UBC) did not contain provisions for seismic
design of retaining structures until 2003, although the California Building Code (CBC) contained
provisions for certain types of building walls going back to 1980s (Lew et al., 2010b). Since
then, however, the various provisions and recommendations have become more explicit and
stringent, especially as it comes to the recommended method of analysis and the estimation of
the design accelerations. The first comprehensive document to address this issue is the FEMA
1
PhD, Jacobs Associate and Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley, CA, USA.
2
PhD, Universidad del Desarrollo Professor, and Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley, CA,
USA.
3
Ph.D., P.Eng. Edward G. Cahill and John R. Cahill Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Geraili Mikola R, Candia G, Sitar N. Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls.
Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
450 document: NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
and Other Structures (NEHRP 2004) which has now been updated as FEMA 750 (NEHRP
2010). Both documents endorse the use of the M-O solution or the M-O solution as simplified by
Seed and Whitman (1970) for yielding walls and the Wood (1973) solution for non-yielding
walls. However, while Seed and Whitman (1970) use 0.85 PGA as the effective acceleration and
it has been a general practice to use 0.67 PGA for design.
A review of the performance of basement walls in past earthquakes by Lew et al. (2010a) shows
that failures of basement or deep excavation walls in earthquakes are rare even if the structures
were not explicitly designed for earthquake loading. Failures of retaining structures are most
commonly confined to waterfront structures retaining saturated backfill, with liquefaction being
the critical factor in the failures. Failures of other types of retaining structures are relatively rare
(e.g. Whitman, 1991; Al-Atik ; and Sitar, 2010; Sitar et. al. 2012) and usually involve a more
complex set of conditions, such as sloping ground either above or below the retaining structure,
or both. While some failures have been observed, there is no evidence of a systemic problem
with traditional static retaining wall design even under quite severe loading conditions (see e.g.
Gazetas et al., 2004). Most recently, no significant damage or failures of retaining structures
occurred in the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China, or in the great subduction earthquakes in
2010 in Chile (Verdugo et al. 2012) and in 2011 in Japan (Sitar et al. 2012). These observations
are consistent with the conclusion reached by Seed and Whitman (1970) who noted that gravity
retaining structures designed with an adequate factor of safety under static loading should
perform well under seismic loading for PGA up to about 0.3 g.
Probably, the most challenging aspect of documenting and interpreting field performance is the
fact that well documented case histories with actual design and performance data for modern
retaining structures are very sparse. Clough and Fragaszy (1977) present a rare, well documented
case history of the performance of flood channel walls in the Los Angeles basin during the 1971
San Fernando earthquake. They concluded that reinforced concrete cantilever structures, well
designed and detailed for static loading, performed without any sign of distress at accelerations
up to about 0.4 g. A similar conclusion was reached by Seed and Whitman (1970), as already
mentioned.
Given the paucity of reported failures of modern retaining structures in recent earthquakes, it is
of interest to evaluate the adequacy of the current design approaches that are mostly based on the
work of Mononobe and Okabe (1929). Thus, the research objective was to evaluate the seismic
behavior of rigid and flexible structures for different configurations of soil and backfill
geometry.

Experimental Program

Four structure models were built to scale in a flexible shear beam container (FSB), consisting of
a series of aluminum rings separated by neoprene layers. The container, of dimensions 1.65 m
long x 0.79 m wide x 0.58 m deep, is mounted on a servo-hydraulic shaking table. The shaker
actuators are controlled by a conventional closed-loop feedback control system and produce
accelerations up to 30 g at 200 Hz. The peak shaking velocity is about 1 m/sec and the stroke is
2.5 cm peak to peak. To minimize boundary effects, the container was designed with a natural
frequency smaller than that of a model soil deposit (Kutter 1995). The centrifugal acceleration
used in the two experiments was 36 g. All results are presented in terms of prototype units unless
otherwise stated.
 Model Test Configurations and Preparation

Cohesionless soil

The first centrifuge experiment, ROOZ01, consisted of two retaining structures founded on a
sand deposit of uniform density. The structures were a stiff non-displacement basement and a
flexible non-displacement basement, 6 m high and spanning the width of the container. The
structures were designed to have the stiffness, mass, and fundamental frequency of typical cross-
braced structures. Both structures had stiff mat foundations and sat on approximately 12.5 m of
soil. The soil used in this experiment was dry Nevada Sand (Dr=75%). The second centrifuge
experiment, ROOZ02, consisted on a non-displacing U-shaped cantilever wall and a displacing
retaining wall. The structures sat on approximately 12.5 m of dry medium-dense sand (Dr =
80%) and supported a dry medium-dense sand backfill (Dr = 75%).

Cohesive soil

The third experiment, named GC01, consisted of a 6 m deep basement wall and cantilever wall,
with a horizontal backfill and founded on 13 m of silty clay. The basement model consisted of
aluminum walls with cross bracing at the top and bottom. The individual braces were
instrumented with load cells to measure the total static and dynamic loads on the two opposing
walls. Although this model configuration produced a stiff structure, it did not entirely eliminate
the racking, as will be discussed later. The 6 m cantilever wall was modeled as a standard
AASTHO-LRFD retaining wall per Caltrans specifications (2010), with a 4.5 m wide footing
and a shear key to prevent rigid body sliding. A detailed model configuration and profile view is
shown in Figure 1. The fourth experiment, named GC02, consisted of a 6 m cantilever wall,
retaining a 2:1 slope, 8.5 m high in compacted silty clay. On average 80 instruments were used in
each experiment to monitor the seismic response, including accelerometers, displacement
transducers, load cells, strain gages and pressure cells.

Structure Properties

Three different types of prototype retaining structures were modeled in this research effort, as
follows: 1) non-displacing cross braced (basement) structure; 2) a non-displacing U-shape
cantilever structure and 3) a displacing retaining wall. All the retaining structures were
constructed of T6061 aluminum plate (Young's modulus of 10,000 ksi and Poisson's ratio of
0.32). The non-displacing basement consisted of two parallel plates braced by six threaded bars
(three on top and three on bottom). To prevent the soil from heaving into the opening, a thick
aluminum plate was added at the basement floor, which was set independent from the walls. The
displacing cantilever wall consisted of a footing and wall stem, bolted together as an inverted T.
Likewise, the non-displacing cantilever wall consisted of plates bolted to a thick footing as a U-
shaped channel.

Instrumentation

Different instrument types were used in the experiments to record the seismic response of the
models. The main objective was to obtain a reliable measure of earth pressures and characterize
the ground motions. Thus, accelerometers were used to measure accelerations in the soil,
structures and the container, and load cells were used to measure the axial load in the struts
connecting the south and north walls of the basement. Additionally, the soil settlement was
measured at different points with Linear Potentiometers (LP) and the horizontal wall
displacements were recorded with displacement transducers (DVDT) placed in a special frame
attached to the centrifuge bucket. Free Form Tactilus pressure sensors were attached at the soil
interface of basement and cantilever walls. These sensors are 25.4 mm diameter and 0.4 mm
thick, which minimizes the stress arching around the sensor. To calibrate the pressure cells, the
vertical stress H was measured at the footing of the cantilever walls during spin down at the end
of the centrifuge experiment. Since Free Form Tactilus sensors are non-linear resistances, the
relation between pressure and output voltage is also non-linear. Total bending moments were
measured in the cantilever wall and the north basement wall with full bridge strain gages. The
strain gages were calibrated off the arm by fixing the wall at the footing and applying a strip load
at the top. Two arrays of ceramic bender elements were used in experiment GC01 to measure
shear wave velocity. These instruments use a separate Data Acquisition System with a sampling
rate of 90 kHz. The high speed Data Acquisition System used in the centrifuge collects data at
4096 samples per second, on every channel. For experiments with a scaling factor of N=36, a
typical input ground motion has frequencies between 10 300 Hz in model scale. Thus, is
expected that accelerometers and load cells respond well in that frequencies range. The
displacements transducers, on the other hand, should be used only to measure static
displacements because their frequency response is limited. In the case of Tactilus pressure cells,
the measured frequency content of the sensors is between 0-300 Hz, although the manufacturer
indicates a maximum frequency response of 100 Hz.

Input Ground Motions

Multiple shaking events were applied to the models at 36g of centrifugal acceleration along the
longitudinal direction of the container and perpendicular to the retaining structures. The shaking
events consisted of a step wave used to check the data acquisition system, and ground motions
from the 1995 Kobe earthquake at the Takatori station (TAK), the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
at Santa Cruz (SC) and Saratoga West Valley College (WVC), and the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake
at the Yarmica station (YPT).

Figure 1. GC01 model configuration, profile view.

 Experimental Results
Dynamic Earth Pressures

Direct measurement of lateral earth pressures using miniature pressure transducers was originally
intended. However, due to the performance characteristics of these sensors, in this study their use
is restricted to identifying behavioral trends and supporting measurements made by strain gages
and load cells. Figures 2 and 3 present the distribution of dynamic earth pressures recorded by
the pressure sensors and interpreted from load cells and strain gages for experiments ROOZ01
and ROOZ02. Theoretical pressure distributions using the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) and the Seed
and Whitman (S-W) methods are shown as a reference and assume kh = 100%PGA. It is
important to note, that the earth pressures are presented at the point of maximum dynamic
moment, which does not necessarily correspond to the maximum observed earth pressure, as
already noted by Al-Atik and Sitar (2010). As shown in the Figures, overall, the pressure sensors
measured lower pressures than those interpreted from the strain gage and load cells.

Seismic Earth Pressure Distribution

The centrifuge data consistently shows that for structures with heights between 20-30 ft, the
maximum dynamic earth pressures increase with depth and can be reasonably approximated by a
triangular distribution analogous to that used to represent static earth pressures. This result is
contrary to the assumption made by Seed and Whitman (1970), which are based on the
experiments by Matsuo (1941) and other similar works. Matsuo's experiments were on dry,
relatively loose sand in a rigid shaking table and retaining walls up to 6 ft high. While these
experiments were performed meticulously and were pioneering in their scope at the time, they
cannot be simply scaled to capture the response of taller structures. More importantly, the
observed amplification of ground motion and the observed increase in earth pressure against the
wall at the free surface appears to be a direct result of the physical layout of the model geometry
and the shaking table box, and properties of the sand. In that sense, Matsuo's results are correct
for the given geometry and material, thus, are directly applicable to walls up to 6 ft in height with
relatively loose granular backfill.
loma prieta sc loma prieta sc loma prieta sc
1 1 1
M-O(kh=100%PGA)
S-W(kh=100%PGA)
0.8 0.8 0.8 Pressure Cell
Interpreted Pressure
Wall Height (z/H)

Wall Height (z/H)

Wall Height (z/H)

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dynamic Earth Pressure (AE / H) Dynamic Earth Pressure ( AE / H) Dynamic Earth Pressure ( AE / H)
 kobe tak090 kobe tak090 kobe tak090
1 1 1
M-O(kh=100%PGA)
S-W(kh=100%PGA)
0.8 0.8 0.8 Pressure Cell
Wall Height (z/H) Interpreted Pressure

Wall Height (z/H)

Wall Height (z/H)

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dynamic Earth Pressure (AE / H) Dynamic Earth Pressure ( AE / H) Dynamic Earth Pressure ( AE / H)

Figure 2. Dynamic earth pressure distributions directly measured and interpreted from the
pressure sensors and strain gage and load cell data and estimated M-O as well as S-W on walls
for Loma Prieta-SC-1 (PGAff=0.51g), Kobe-TAK090-2 (PGAff=0.61g).
1.2 Okabe (1926), c/H=0.13 =30 1.2 Okabe (1926), c/H=0.13 =30
Seed & Whitman (1970), 100% PGA Seed & Whitman (1970), 100% PGA
1 Mononobe & Okabe (1929), =30 1 Mononobe & Okabe (1929), =30
Wood =1/3, L/H=10 Wood =1/3, L/H=10
0.8 Al Atik & Sitar (2010)-100%PGA 0.8 Basement Walls, Nevada Sand Dr 75%
Non-Displacing Cantilever Walls Basement Walls, Clay RC 90% (Level Ground)
Kae

Kae

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
(a (b
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Free Field PGA (g) Free Field PGA (g)
Okabe (1926), c/H=0.13 =30
1.2
Seed & Whitman (1970), 100% PGA
Mononobe & Okabe (1929), =30
1
Wood =1/3, L/H=10
Retaining Walls, Nevada Sand Dr 75%
0.8 Retaining Walls, Clay RC 90% (Level Ground)
Retaining Walls, Clay RC 90% (Backfill Slope 2:1)
Kae

0.6

0.4

0.2
(c
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Free Field PGA
Figure 3. Back-calculated dynamic earth pressure coefficients at the time of maximum dynamic
wall moments and maximum dynamic earth pressures on (a) the non-displacing basement wall,
(b) the displacing retaining wall, and (c) the non-displacing U-shaped cantilever wall.

Effect of Static Factor of Safety

In accordance with allowable static lateral earth pressure, it is a common practice to calculate the
design capacity (allowable earth pressure) of a retaining wall by applying a factor of safety (FS)
to the ultimate static force. The purpose of the FS is to incorporate the combined effect of
various factors including, but not limited to, the variability of the soil, the lack of confidence in
developing input parameters such as soil properties, the construction control, and the limitations
of the method used for estimating the ultimate capacity. The design and allowable capacity of
retaining wall can be calculated by = / . The Coulomb lateral earth pressure
theory gives the resultant static force acting on the retaining wall as (allowable
capacity): = , where is the lateral earth pressure resultant, is the lateral
earth pressure coefficient, is the unit weight of the backfill, and is the wall depth. The value
of used for design depends on the soil properties and the displacement of the structure (i.e.,
whether backfill is at-rest, active or passive conditions). So the design capacity can be expressed
as:
= (1)

This equation can be recast to reflect the design load with factor of safety of one (FS=1) and an
additional design load due to the added margin of safety, thus
= + 1 (2)
Typically, a factor of safety on the order of 1.5 is used for the lateral load, depending on the level
of confidence in the geotechnical design. In general, however, the overall factor of safety is
higher due to accumulation of factors of safety at different stages of design (i.e. structural
design) and, therefore, significantly exceeds 1.5. The second term of Equation (2) can be
interpreted in terms of the dynamic earth pressure increment, as suggested by Seed and Whitman
(1970) and it is plotted versus free field PGA for both non-displacing and displacing structures in
Figures 4. These plots show that at PGA values less that 0.3 the dynamic earth pressure
increment does not exceed the static design capacity for a design with a static factor of safety of
1.5 for both non-displacing basement walls and for non-displacing U-shaped cantilever
structures. This effect is even more pronounced for free standing cantilever structures.
Non-displacing cantilever walls Non-displacing basement walls Displacing retaining walls
1 1 1
Al Atik & Sitar (2010)-100%PGA Nevada Sand Dr 75% Nevada Sand Dr 75%
Nevada Sand Dr 75% Clay RC 90% (Level Ground) Clay RC 90% (Level Ground)
0.8 Factor of Safety = 1.5 0.8 Factor of Safety = 1.5 0.8 Clay RC 90% (Backfill Slope 2:1)
Factor of Safety = 1.5

(a (b (c
0.6 0.6 0.6
Kae

Kae

Kae

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Free Field PGA Free Field PGA Free Field PGA
Figure 4. Dynamic earth pressure coefficient as a function of PGA for (a) non-displacing U-
shape cantilever walls, (b) non-displacing basement walls and (c) displacing retaining walls.
Load increments below the line FSstatic =1.5 need not be included in the wall design.
Similar conclusions were reached by Seed and Whitman (1970) who observed that a wall
designed to a reasonable static factor of safety should resist seismic loads up of 0.3 g. This is
consistent with the observations and analyses performed by Clough and Fragaszy (1977) and Al-
Atik and Sitar (2010), who concluded that conventionally designed cantilever walls with
granular backfill could be expected to resist seismic loads at accelerations up to 0.4 g.
Finally, there is also a question which acceleration quantity should be used in the analyses. Seed
and Whitman (1970) suggested the use of 0.85 PGA to represent the multiple cycles of loading
during an earthquake. More recently, NEHRP (FEMA 750) guidelines suggested that PGA be
used in the Seed and Whitman type analysis. The results presented herein show that the using the
PGA leads to a reasonable upper bound for non-displacing U-shaped and cross-braced structures.
The use of 0.85 PGA, on the other hand, essentially matches the mean dynamic earth pressure
increment observed in the experiments. In the case of displacing cantilever walls, the dynamic
earth pressure increment is significantly smaller and corresponds to 0.35 PGA in the Seed and
Whitman (1970) analysis.

Conclusions

The overall trends in the incremental dynamic earth pressures data show that the Seed and Whitman
(1970) approximation using PGA represents a reasonable upper bound for the value of the seismic
earth pressure increment for both fixed base cantilever structures (U-shaped walls) and cross-braced,
basement type, walls. In comparison, the M-O solution and the Mylonakis et al. (2007) solutions are
considerably higher than measured values at accelerations above ~0.4 g. The equivalent Wood
(1973) seismic earth pressure, computed using the prototype structure dimensions, clearly exceeds all
other results by a considerable margin, as would be expected based on the assumptions used in this
solution. The data also shows that the seismic earth pressure increments increase with depth
consistent with the static earth pressure distribution and consistent with that implicit in the M-O
solution which forms the upper bound for the experimental results. The Seed and Whitman (1970)
solution with PGA produces a reasonable upper bound over a range of experimental results for both
non-displacing cantilever and for cross-braced U-shaped structures. The use of 0.85 PGA in the same
analysis produces values very close to the mean of the experimental data. In contrast, the dynamic
earth pressure increment on free standing cantilever walls are significantly smaller and correspond to
using 0.35 PGA in the Seed and Whitman approximation.
These results are quite consistent with the results obtained by Ortiz et al. (1983), Stadler (1996) and
Al-Atik and Sitar (2010). The experimental and analytical results also show that applying the
moment at 0.33H, as recommended in the M-O method, gives amply conservative results over the
full range of accelerations and that applying the seismic earth pressure increment at 0.6H, as
recommended by Seed and Whitman (1970) and many others, leads to a significant overestimate.
Moreover, at PGA values less that 0.3 the dynamic earth pressure increment does not exceed the
static design capacity for a design with a static factor of safety of 1.5 for both non-displacing
basement walls and for non-displacing U-shaped cantilever structures. This effect is even more
pronounced for free standing cantilever structures. Similar conclusions were reached by Seed and
Whitman (1970) who observed that a wall designed to a reasonable static factor of safety should be
able to resist seismic loads up of 0.3 g. These results are consistent with the observations and
analyses performed by Clough and Fragaszy (1977) and Al-Atik and Sitar (2010), who concluded
that conventionally designed cantilever walls with granular backfill could be expected to resist
seismic loads at accelerations up to 0.4 g. All these issues deserve further careful evaluation, since
the costs of an over-conservative design can be just as much of a problem as the cost of a future
failure. In this respect, while there is a need for further experimental work, there is a much
greater need for the development of a database of field observations from instrumented sites and
structures. Only then we will be able to evaluate fully the actual performance under a variety of
conditions. The development of such data is essential if we are to advance the state of the art and
take the full advantage of advanced analytical tools that go hand in hand with modern
performance based design.

Acknowledgments

The experimental program carried out in this research could not have been executed without the
able assistance of Nathaniel Wagner and Jeff Zayas of the University of California at Berkeley.
Dr. Dan Wilson and the staff of the Center for Geotechnical Modeling at UC Davis have been
most accommodating and provided outstanding environment for a truly collaborative effort. The
research funding was provide in part by a grant from the California Geotechnical Engineering
Association (CalGeo), the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, 2010)
Contract No. 65N2170 and NSF-NEES-CR Grant No. CMMI-0936376: Seismic Earth Pressures
on Retaining Structures. G. Candia was funded in part by a fellowship from the Chilean
Commission for Scientific Research and Technology (CONICYT).

References
1. Aitken, G.H. (1982). Seismic Response of Retaining Walls, MS Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
2. Al Atik, L. and Sitar, N. (2010), "Seismic Earth Pressures on Cantilever Retaining Structures," Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October, (136) 10, pp. 1324-1333.
3. Building Seismic Safety Council. (2004). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edition, Part 1 Provisions. BSSC, Washington, DC.
4. Building Seismic Safety Council. (2010). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 750), 2009 Edition, Part 1 Provisions. BSSC, Washington, DC.
5. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2010). Standard Plans: Retaining Wall Type 1 - H = 4'
through 30', Plan No. B3-1, Standard Plans- U. S. Customary Units, Department of Transportation State of
California.
6. Clough, G.W. and Fragaszy, R.F. (1977). A Study of Earth Loadings on Floodway Retaining Structures in the
1971 San Fernando Valley Earthquake, Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 3.
7. Gazetas, G, Psarropoulos, PN, Anastasopoulos, I. and Gerolymos, N. (2004). Seismic Behaviour of Flexible
Retaining Systems Subjected to Short-Duration Moderately Strong Excitation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, (24), 537-550.
8. Lew, M., Sitar, N., and Al Atik, L. (2010a). Seismic Earth Pressures: Fact or Fiction. Invited Keynote Paper,
Earth Retention Conference, ER 2010, ASCE, Seattle.
9. Lew, M., Sitar, N., Al Atik, L., Pourzanjani, M. and Hudson, M.B. (2010b). Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep
Building Basements. Structural Engineers Association of California, Proceedings of the Annual Convention,
2010.
10. Matsuo, H. (1941). Experimental Study on the Distribution of Earth Pressures Acting on a Vertical Wall
during Earthquakes, Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, (27) 2.
11. Matsuo, H. and Ohara, S. (1960). Lateral Earth Pressure and Stability of Quay Walls During Earthquakes,
Proceedings, Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, Tokyo, Japan.
12. Mononobe, N. and Matsuo M. (1929). On the Determination of Earth Pressures during Earthquakes,
Proceedings, World Engineering Congress, Vol. 9, 179-187.
13. Mylonakis, G., Kloukinas, P. and Papatonopoulos, C. (2007). An Alternative to the Mononobe-Okabe
Equation for Seismic Earth Pressures, Soil Dyn. and Earthquake Eng., (27) 10, 957-969.
14. Nazarian, H.N. and Hadjian, A.H. (1979). Earthquake Induced Lateral Soil Pressures on Structures, Journal of
 Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, (105) GT9: 1049-1066.
15. Okabe S. (1926). General Theory of Earth Pressure, Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers,
Tokyo, Japan, (12) 1.
16. Ortiz, L.A., Scott, R.F., and Lee, J. (1983). Dynamic Centrifuge Testing of a Cantilever Retaining Wall,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, (11): 251268.
17. Prakash, S. and Basavanna, B.M. (1969). Earth Pressure Distribution behind Retaining Wall during
Earthquakes, Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
18. Prakash, S. (1981). "Dynamic Earth Pressures," State of the Art Report - International Conference on Recent
Advances on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, Vol. III, 993-1020.
19. Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V. (1970). Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads, ASCE
Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca, New York, 103147.
20. Stadler, A.T. (1996). Dynamic Centrifuge Testing of Cantilever Retaining Walls, PhD Thesis, University of
Colorado at Boulder.
21. Whitman, R.V. (1991). Seismic Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Proceedings, Second International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, St. Louis,
MO., 1767-1778.
22. Wood, J.H. (1973). Earthquake Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, PhD Thesis, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA.