THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1052

Recent ndings on seismic earth pressures

Marshall Lew*,
AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA

SUMMARY
Despite a lack of evidence or credible case histories of engineered retaining walls and basement walls being
damaged during earthquakes, design codes and standard of engineering practice have dictated that seismic
earth pressures should be included in the design of earth retaining structures in seismic regions. Methods of
estimating seismic earth pressures are based on experiments and theories performed and developed decades
ago without consideration of geometric and material property equivalence or scaling. More recent experi-
ments using centrifuges that can properly scale geometry and material properties have given new insights
on the development of seismic earth pressures on various types of earth retaining wall systems with different
types of retained soil. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 31 August 2012; Accepted 12 September 2012

KEYWORDS: seismic earth pressures; earth pressures; retaining walls; basement walls; centrifuge testing; building code

1. INTRODUCTION

Building codes are generally model code regulations that are intended to safeguard the public health
and safety in all communities, large and small. Building codes establish minimum regulations for
building systems using both prescriptive and performance-based provisions. For structural design,
building codes prescribe the minimum structural loading requirements for use in the design and con-
struction of buildings and structural components. In dealing with soils and foundations, the building
code provides criteria for the geotechnical and structural considerations in the selection and installation
of adequate support for the loads transferred to the soil from the structure above and from the soil onto
the structure (if applicable). Many building code provisions are based on years of experience, observa-
tion and professional judgment. In the case of seismic provisions, observations of damage or failure
usually cause the introduction of new regulations to prevent and mitigate such conditions in future con-
struction. Although there is little or no evidence that signicant damage or failure has occurred to prop-
erly engineered retaining and subterranean walls, the building code in the USA has evolved to require
that such walls be designed for seismic earth pressures. This paper will address the implications of the
current seismic earth pressure practice on the design and construction of retaining walls, and in particu-
lar, deep basement walls, which may be associated with tall buildings.

2. PERFORMANCE OF DEEP BASEMENT WALLS IN RECENT EARTHQUAKES

A summary of reports of damage to walls in recent earthquakes has been presented in Lew et al.
(2010a) as well as in Sitar et al. (2012). Although there are reports of damage and failure of retaining
walls due to earthquakes in the USA, the distress has been attributed to some form of soil or foundation

*Correspondence to: Marshall Lew, AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc., 6001 Rickenbacker Road, Los Angeles,
CA 90040, USA.

E-mail: Marshall.Lew@amec.com

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 M. LEW

failure, such as slope instability or soil liquefaction, and not due to excessive seismic earth pressures.
There have been no reports of damage to building basement walls as a result of seismic earth pressures
in recent US earthquakes including the 1971 San Fernando, 1987 Whittier Narrows, 1989 Loma Prieta
and 1994 Northridge earthquakes.
While there are many failures of walls in earthquakes outside of the USA, almost all of these failures
are associated with some form of soil-related failure, with many in marine or waterfront structures
(Whitman, 1991; Abrahamson et al., 1999; Huang, 2000; Tokida et al., 2001). Although there was sig-
nicant damage to subway stations in Kobe, Japan, as a result of the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earth-
quake (Iida et al., 1996), there was no reported damage to building basements. It should be noted
that the damage to and collapse of the Daikai Subway Station in Kobe appears related to the soil
and high groundwater conditions at the site, which strongly suggest that soil liquefaction had a sig-
nicant role in the failure; in addition, the subway station had non-ductile concrete detailing, especially
at the center columns of the station, which caused collapse of the structure (Lew et al., 2010a).
Observations were also made of a few deep basement walls in Chile after the 27 February 2010
moment magnitude 8.8 Offshore Maule earthquake. No damage was observed by the author during
a reconnaissance of buildings in Chile shortly after the earthquake. Figure 1 shows a portion of the un-
damaged basement wall of the 55-story Torre Titanium La Portada in Santiago at its lowest subterra-
nean level of
7. There was no observed or reported damage in any of the seven subterranean levels.
Figure 2 shows the undamaged basement wall of the Echeverria Izquierdo building, also in Santiago,
after the 27 February 2010 earthquake; this building has nine subterranean levels below grade. There
was no observed or reported damage to any of the nine subterranean levels.
It was reported by Professor G. Rodolfo Saragoni of the University of Chile that there were no obser-
vations of damage to basement walls in any major buildings in Chile in the earthquake (Saragoni, 2010).

3. BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING DESIGN FOR SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

IN THE USA

The current edition of the International Building Code (IBC; International Code Council (ICC), 2009)
adopts by reference the seismic requirements of the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (commonly known as ASCE/SEI 7-05) published by the American Society of Civil
Engineers (2006). ASCE/SEI 7-05 states that all earth retaining structures assigned to Seismic Design

Figure 1. Undamaged Level
7 Basement Wall of Torre Titanium La Portada in Santiago, Chile, after
27 February 2010 earthquake.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RECENT FINDINGS ON SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

Figure 2. Undamaged Level
9 Basement Wall of Echeverria Izquierdo Building in Santiago, Chile,
after 27 February 2010 earthquake.

Category D, E or F should determine the lateral earth pressures due to earthquake ground motion in
accordance with Section 11.8.3, which simply states that the geotechnical investigation report should
include . . .the determination of lateral pressures on basement and retaining walls due to earthquake
motions. The 2010 edition of the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (American
Society of Civil Engineers, 2010) has similar language.
Despite the lack of compelling evidence that seismic earth pressures are a major concern to deep
building basements, the building code in the USA now requires consideration of seismic earth pressures
on basement and retaining walls. A discussion of how these provisions became codied is presented by
Lew et al. (2010a).

4. STATE OF PRACTICE FOR EVALUATION OF SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES ON

BUILDING BASEMENT WALLS

The most widely used method of analysis of seismic earth pressure is the so-called MononobeOkabe
(MO) seismic coefcient analysis (Okabe, 1926; Mononobe and Matsuo, 1929). This method was
highlighted by Seed and Whitman (1970) who brought this method to the engineering community
as a means of designing for loads on walls due to earthquakes.
The MO method is based on Okabes theory of earth pressure and Mononobe and Matsuos (1929)
experimental studies of a small-scale cantilever bulkhead hinged at the base with a dry, medium dense
cohesionless granular backll excited by a one gravity (1 g) sinusoidal excitation on a shaking table.
The test setup is shown in Figure 3. Note that the walls are hinged at the base and are not allowed
to move laterally.
The MO method assumes that the Coulomb theory of static earth pressures on a retaining wall can
be modeled to include the inertial forces due to ground motion (in the form of horizontal and vertical
accelerations) in the retained earth as shown in Figure 4.
The MO method was developed for dry cohesionless materials with the following assumptions:
1. The wall yields sufciently to produce minimum active pressures.
2. When the minimum active pressure is attained, a soil wedge behind the wall is at a point of incipient
failure and the maximum shear strength is mobilized along the potential sliding surface.
3. The soil behind the wall behaves as a rigid body so that accelerations are uniform throughout the
mass. The effect of the earthquake motions is represented by inertia forces W  kh and W  kv, where

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. LEW

Figure 3. Test setup for shake table test (after Mononobe and Matsuo, 1929).

Figure 4. Forces considered in the MO Analysis (after Seed and Whitman, 1970).

W is the weight of the wedge of soil, and kh and kv are the horizontal and vertical components,
respectively, of the earthquake accelerations at the base of the wall.
Thus, the active pressure during the earthquake, PAE, is computed by the Coulomb theory except
that the additional forces, W  kh and W  kv, are included. For the critical sliding surface, the active
pressure is expressed in the following equation:

PAE 1=2 gH 2 1
kv KAE (1)

where
cos2 f

b
KAE h qi
sinfd sinf

i
cos  cos2 b cosd b  1 cos db cosi
b

= tan
1[kh/(1
kv)], g is the unit weight of soil, H is the height of wall, f is the angle of internal
friction of soil, d is the angle of wall/soil friction, I is the slope of the ground surface behind wall,

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RECENT FINDINGS ON SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

b is the slope of the back of wall with respect to vertical, kh is the horizontal ground acceleration/g and
kv is the vertical ground acceleration/g.
Seed and Whitman state that the MO method considers that the total pressure computed by the
analytical approach would act on the wall as the same location as the initial static pressure; i.e., the
resultant would act at a height of H/3 above the base.
Seed and Whitman also state in their state-of-the-art paper that for most earthquakes, . . .the hori-
zontal acceleration components are considerably greater than the vertical acceleration components. . ..
Thus, they concluded that kv could be neglected for practical purposes. For practical purposes, Seed
and Whitman proposed separating the total maximum earth pressure into two componentsthe initial
static pressure on the wall and the dynamic pressure increment due to the base motion. The total
dynamic earth pressure coefcient, KAE, could be written as follows:

KAE KA KAE (2)

The dynamic lateral force component would be as follows:

PAE 1=2 gH 2 KAE (3)

Seed and Whitman gave an approximation for KAE as follows:

KAE e 3=4 kh (4)

Then the simplied dynamic lateral force component on yielding walls is given as follows:

PAE e 1=2 3=4 kh gH 2 3=8 kh gH 2 (5)

where kh is the horizontal ground acceleration divided by gravitational acceleration. This simplied
equation is also presented in the Commentary to the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450) (Building Seismic Safety Council,
2004a, 2004b). It is recommended that kh be taken as equal to the site acceleration that is consistent
with the design ground motions as dened in the provisions of FEMA 450 (i.e. kh = SDS/2.5, where
SDS is the design, 5%-damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods (i.e. period
of 0.2 s)). Seed and Whitman recommended that the resultant dynamic thrust be applied at 0.6H above
the base of the wall, which is similar to but not comparable to the resultant from an inverted triangular
pressure distribution. In geotechnical practice, an inverted triangular pressure distribution for the
seismic earth pressure is used by many practitioners. The resultant, PAE, is commonly referred to
by geotechnical practitioners as the resultant of the seismic increment of earth pressure.
In contrast to the MO method, which is a limit-equilibrium force approach, other methods of
analysis based on tolerable displacements are also available. These methodologies, however, are not
as widely used. For non-yielding walls, Whitman (1991) recommended the approach of Wood
(1973), which is a theoretical solution for predicting dynamic earth pressures on non-yielding/rigid
walls. The Wood solution assumes that a rigid wall is being acted upon by elastic soil connected to
a rigid foundation as shown in Figure 5. Whitman recommended that the point of application of the
dynamic thrust also be taken at a height of 0.6H above the base of the wall with the dynamic thrust
on a non-yielding wall, PE, taken as follows:

PE kh gH 2 (6)

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. LEW

Figure 5. Conguration of Wood (1973) solution showing geometry and boundary conditions assumed.

The present state of practice for evaluation of seismic earth pressures on building basement walls by
geotechnical engineers in the USA is generally to rely upon an analysis based on the MO method of
analysis regardless of whether the wall is considered yielding or non-yielding. It could be argued that
deep building basement walls are constructed in open excavations that generally are shored which
cause the retained soils to be in a yielded (active) condition already. The reasons for using the MO
method appear to be the simplicity of the method, requiring only knowledge of the wall and backll
geometry, the soils angle of internal friction and the horizontal and vertical ground accelerations.

5. IS THE MO METHOD APPLICABLE TO BUILDING BASEMENT WALLS?

Although the MO method appears simple to use, the validity of the method for evaluation of seismic
earth pressures has been questioned by some. Also, the MO method contains some limiting assump-
tions, and there are questions about the proper input into the method.
The original tests that formed the basis for the MO method were conducted on a sand-lled box
shaking table with hinged doors (which were the walls) as shown in Figure 3. One of the basic ques-
tions that arise is Do the conditions in the MO test properly model a real building basement wall,
which may have braces at multiple levels along the height of the wall?
The conguration of the walls in the Mononobe and Matsuo (1929) test apparatus do not model
the building basement wall condition properly. Listed below are some of the physical incongruities:
1. The walls in the Mononobe and Matsuo test are hinged at the bottom of the wall, thus allowing only
for rotation and not for horizontal movement.
2. The walls in the Mononobe and Matsuo test have a free edge at the top, not a xed or a pinned edge
as is the case in the intermediate or top levels of a building basement wall.
3. The physical scaling of the test wall may not be applicable to a full-size basement wall.
Despite the differences between the model cantilevered wall and actual building basement walls, the
MO method continues to be used in practice, and its use is actually encouraged by documents such as
the FEMA 450 Commentary (Building Seismic Safety Council, 2004b). In all practicality, alternative
methods of analysis are not available.

6. AREAS OF CONFUSION AND DEFICIENCY IN THE MO METHOD

The MO method is simple to use; however, there are areas of confusion to geotechnical engineers in
its proper use, and there are soil and site conditions that the MO method does not adequately address.
These areas are discussed in some detail in Lew et al. (2010a). The issue of most concern is the ground
acceleration that should be used. Whitman (1991) and the subsequent regulatory guidance documents
such as FEMA 450 recommend that the actual expected peak acceleration be used. In high seismic
regions, such as California, these peak ground motions could easily exceed 0.5 g. Arulmoli (2001)

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RECENT FINDINGS ON SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

has commented on the use of the MO method and stated that it has limitations, including the obser-
vation that the MO method gives unrealistic seismic earth pressures for cases of large ground accel-
eration; in some cases, the method gives results that are indeterminate. In practice, many geotechnical
engineers have been using a seismic coefcient that is less than the expected peak ground acceleration
(PGA) for the design of building basement walls and other walls. A discussion of this practice and the
reasons for it are discussed in Lew et al. (2010a).
A major area of deciency in the MO method is that it is only valid for cohesionless soils being
retained by the wall. Most natural soils have some nes content that would have some cohesion adding
to the strength of the soil. Nevertheless, the MO method has been applied for all types of retained
earth in practice. A recent National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report
(Anderson et al., 2008) provides a procedure to account for soils with cohesion with the MO method,
which will result in smaller seismic earth pressures.

7. VALIDITY OF THE MO METHOD

It is natural to ask the following questions: Can the MO method be applied to large building basement
walls that may be an order of magnitude larger (or greater) in height? Were the conclusions in devel-
oping the MO method based on observations that can be extrapolated to larger structures? Was the
backll material the suitable material to use in the test? Questions can be raised regarding the validity
using the MO method for full-scale basement walls or any retaining walls for that matter.
Concerned about proper scaling of results in smaller model tests, researchers have turned to centri-
fuge testing, which can simulate correct boundary and load conditions on large prototype structures.
Centrifuge testing provides an environment where the stress eld in a model that simulates prototype
conditions that will provide correct strength and stiffness in granular soils by proper scaling is tested.
According to Kutter (1995), when there is a scale model with dimensions of 1/N of the prototype and a
gravitational acceleration during spinning of the centrifuge at N times the acceleration of gravity, the
granular soils will have the same strength, stiffness, and stress and strain of the prototype. A photo-
graph of the 9-m radius centrifuge with shaker at the Center for Centrifuge Modeling at the University
of California, Davis, is shown in Figure 6.
Centrifuge testing of retaining walls has been conducted by a few researchers. Centrifuge experi-
ments by Ortiz et al. (1983) and Nakamura (2006) have provided some interesting insights into the
validity of the MO method. Ortiz et al. concluded that the test setup used by Mononobe and Matsuo
cannot provide a true representation of the dynamic behavior of a full-scale wall. Nakamura found that

Figure 6. Nine-meter radius centrifuge at University of California, Davis.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. LEW

the earth pressure diagram against the retaining wall is not triangular as assumed in the MO method as
the shape and size of the diagram changes with time; Nakamura found that the earth pressure distribu-
tion for an actual earthquake input ground motion was different from the distribution that results from a
sinusoidal input; Nakamura also found that the total earth pressure from an earthquake-type motion
was not as great as it would be from a sinusoidal motion. Both Ortiz et al. and Nakamura found that
the earth pressure distributions with dynamic input were similar to the static earth pressure distribu-
tions with the resultant acting at nearly the same location.
Centrifuge experiments were conducted by Al Atik and Sitar (2007, 2009, 2010) on model cantilever
walls. The experiments were conducted at the Center for Geotechnical Modeling at the University of
California, Davis, using a exible shear beam container for U-shape cantilevered walls with sand backll
having a prototype height of 6.5 m (Al Atik and Sitar, 2010). The walls were fully embedded in dry sand
backll and were underlain by approximately 12.5 m of sand (in prototype scale); the sand backll had a
relative density of 72%. The research included experimental and numerical analyses. Several important
conclusions came from this set of experiments:
1. The experimental and numerical analysis consistently show that 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.
2. The maximum dynamic earth pressures and the maximum wall inertial forces do not tend to occur
simultaneously.
3. The relationship between the back-calculated seismic earth pressure increment coefcient (KAE)
at the time of maximum dynamic wall moment and PGA obtained in the experiments suggest that
seismic earth pressures on cantilever retaining walls can be neglected at accelerations below 0.4 g.
4. The analytical results show that nite element analysis is able to capture quite well the essential system
responses observed in the centrifuge experiments. However, the veracity of the numerical analyses is
strongly dependent on access to high-quality experimental or eld performance data for model
correlation, and therefore, eld performance predictions using numerical models should be approached
with caution.
The rst conclusion by Al Atik and Sitar is very similar to the observations in the earlier centrifuge
experiments by Ortiz et al. (1983) and Nakamura (2006). These observations would strongly suggest that
the current practice of taking the point of application of the dynamic earth pressure at 0.6H to 0.67H (from
the base of the wall) is unfounded and, instead, the point of application should be at the one-third point
from the base of the wall as originally suggested by Mononobe and Matsuo (1929). The second conclu-
sion implies that the current MO method would signicantly overestimate dynamic earth pressures and
moments on the upper part of retaining walls. As the centrifuge tests were conducted with medium dense
sand backll, Al Atik and Sitar state that better performance can be expected to occur in denser granular
materials or materials with some degree of cohesion or cementation.
On the basis of their centrifuge research on cantilevered walls retaining medium dense sand, Al Atik
and Sitar developed relationships for the Dynamic Increment in Earth Pressure Coefcient, KAE, as
dened by Seed and Whitman (1970), computed from the dynamic earth pressures at the time that
maximum wall moments based on strain gage data occur as shown in Figure 7. This research illustrates
that the seismic earth pressures in the MO method are very conservative if the actual PGA is used.

8. RECENT CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENTS

To expand upon the prior work by Al Atik and Sitar, additional centrifuge experiments are being
conducted and the progress to date has been reported by Sitar et al. (2012). The ongoing experimental
program to evaluate seismically induced earth pressures has been expanded to study three different
congurations of retaining walls and soil backll as described below:
1. Two identical U-shaped structures with cross-bracing and medium dense sand backll.
2. A cantilever U-shape structure and a freestanding cantilever wall with medium dense sand backll.
3. A cross-braced U-shaped structure and a freestanding cantilever wall with compacted low plasticity
silty clay (Yolo Loam) backll.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RECENT FINDINGS ON SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

Figure 7. Dynamic increment in earth pressure coefcient, KAE, computed at the time of maximum
dynamic wall moments based on strain gage data (after Al Atik and Sitar, 2010).

Conguration no. 2 uses the same U-shaped structure conguration used in the initial experiments
of Al Atik and Sitar (2010) with similar sand backll conditions. Conguration no. 1 is a modication
of the U-shaped structure with two levels on internal struts to model basement walls with a medium
dense backll. Conguration no. 3 includes the U-shape structure with struts as well as a freestanding
cantilever wall, both with a silty clay backll. The freestanding cantilever wall represents a prototype
6.5-m tall California Department of Transportation design cantilever wall. The layout of the experiment
for conguration no. 3 is shown in Figure 8.
The model walls were instrumented to measure accelerations, displacements, bending moments and
earth pressures. Soil settlement and deformation of the structures were measured at selected locations
using a combination of spring-loaded linear variable differential transformers and linear potenti-
ometers. The lateral earth pressures were measured directly using exible pressure sensors. The lateral
earth pressures on the cantilever structures were also calculated by double differentiating the bending
moments measured by the strain gages mounted on the model walls.
The research is ongoing, and this paper will present some of the signicant ndings to date that have
been recently reported by Sitar et al. (2012). Caution must be used in generalizing the ndings;

Figure 8. Layout of conguration no. 3 experiment showing geometry and location of transducers.
Dimensions are given in units of mm (After Sitar et al., 2012).

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. LEW

however, there are signicant trends that are consistent with the prior research conducted at Berkeley
and by others in earlier experiments. Some of the interpretations of the results presented in this paper
are the personal opinion of the author and may not reect the opinions of Sitar et al. (2012).
One set of experiments used a ltered and scaled input motion from the 1995 Kobe earthquake
(Kobe-TAK 090). Figure 9 shows the measured distribution and magnitude of the dynamic earth
pressure increment for the three congurations of model walls with a medium dense sand backll.
The dynamic earth pressure increment was obtained by measurements in pressure cells on the walls
in contact with the backll soils for all three wall congurations; for the cantilever walls, the dynamic
earth pressure increment was obtained from measurements in the strain gages; for the U-shaped struc-
tures with cross-bracing, the dynamic earth pressure increment was obtained by use of load cells in the
cross-bracing members. The plotted results correspond to the time of maximum moment on the differ-
ent structures. Also shown on the plots are the corresponding dynamic earth pressure increment
obtained from the MO method and also from the method of Seed and Whitman (1970) for compari-
son purposes. The Seed and Whitman distribution is shown as an inverted triangular distribution as
this is what is commonly used in practice even though Seed and Whitman recommended that the
resultant be applied at a height of 0.6H from the bottom of the wall.
Figure 10 shows the dynamic earth pressure increment for the U-shaped retaining walls with cross-
bracing and a cantilever wall retaining a compacted silty clay backll subjected to the Kobe-TAK 090
input motion.
The results shown in Figures 9 and 10 shows that the seismic earth pressure increments increase
with depth in a manner that is consistent with the static earth pressure distribution; i.e., it appears simi-
lar to the pressure distribution given by a uid that increases with depth. The results do not support the
Seed and Whitman recommendation of placing the seismic earth pressure resultant above the mid-
height of the wall or as an inverted triangle that is commonly given in practice.
For the experiments with medium sand backll as shown in Figure 9, the single cantilever wall was
subjected to a much smaller dynamic earth pressure increment than those predicted by either the MO
or Seed and Whitman methods. It can be seen that, for the U-shaped walls with cross-bracing, the dynamic
earth pressure increment is substantially smaller in amplitude than the MO prediction and, when consid-
ering the shape and amplitude, somewhat smaller than what the Seed and Whitman approach would give.
For the U-shaped cantilever walls, the results were surprising in that the dynamic earth pressure incre-
ments were larger, and not much different from the predictions given by the MO or Seed and Whitman
methods. Sitar et al. stated in their paper that there was considerable scatter in the data for this set of
experiments that is most likely related to a combination of factors, including slight variations in relative
density of the models and possible boundary effects that become more pronounced at higher accelera-
tions. Sitar et al. has stated that additional testing on this model will be performed.

Figure 9. Dynamic earth pressure increment from experiments with medium dense sand backll
subjected to scaled Kobe-TAK 090 input motion (after Sitar et al., 2012).

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RECENT FINDINGS ON SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

Figure 10. Dynamic earth pressure increment from experiments with compacted silty clay backll
subjected to scaled Kobe-TAK 090 input motion (after Sitar et al., 2012).

For the experiments with compacted silty clay backll as shown in Figure 10, both wall congura-
tions shown indicate that the distribution of dynamic earth pressure increases with depth in a manner
similar to uid pressure and is not an inverted triangular distribution of earth pressure. For the braced-
wall condition, the dynamic earth pressure appears to be comparable with the pressure determined by
the Seed and Whitman method except that it should be applied as a uid pressure rather than inverted
or otherwise distributed (such as uniform pressure with comparable resultant). For the cantilever wall
with compacted silty clay backll, the dynamic earth pressure acts like a uid pressure, and the
magnitude of the pressure is substantially less than either the MO or Seed and Whitman predictions.
The experimental results shown above can be expressed in terms of the dynamic earth pressure
coefcient, KAE, to allow for a comparison with the values of KAE that would be computed using
commonly used procedures. Figure 11 shows the dynamic earth pressure coefcient for the U-shaped
cantilever wall conguration (a xed-base cantilever wall) with medium dense sand backll as a func-
tion of the free-eld PGA; also shown in the gure are the computed values of KAE by the MO and
the Seed and Whitman methods as well as computed results by the method of Mylonakis et al. (2007)
who proposed an alternative to the MO equation for computing seismic earth pressure. The scatter in
the experimental results was particularly large as mentioned previously.

Figure 11. Seismic earth pressure coefcient as a function of free-eld PGA for U-shaped cantilever
walls with medium dense sand backll (after Sitar et al., 2012).

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. LEW

Figure 11 reveals that the MO and Mylonakis et al. predictions give extremely higher seismic earth
pressure coefcients for accelerations greater than about 0.4 g. The Seed and Whitman approximation
does appear to provide a reasonable upper bound for the seismic earth pressure coefcient for the
xed-base cantilever wall conguration (U-shaped walls).
Figure 12 shows the seismic earth pressure coefcient as a function of the free-eld PGA for cross-
braced walls with both sand and cohesive (silty clay) backll. In addition to showing the MO, Seed
and Whitman, and Mylonakis et al. solutions, the solution of Wood (1973) is also shown.
It is obvious in Figure 12 that the Wood solution grossly overestimates the seismic earth pressure
coefcient by two to three times for this particular test conguration. Sitar et al. (2012) describe that
the assumed geometry of the Wood solution is . . .more akin to a rigid box constraining elastic inll, as
opposed to soil acting as an external load on a structure. The MO and Mylonakis et al. solutions
diverge and become much higher than the experimental results above about 0.3 to 0.4 g. The Seed
and Whitman method, however, appears to provide a reasonable upper bound for the seismic earth
pressure coefcient.
Figure 13 shows the seismic earth pressure coefcient as a function of the PGA for freestanding
cantilever walls for both backll with medium dense sand and cohesive silty clay materials. The gure
shows the experimental results compared with the MO and the Seed and Whitman predictions. The
gure also shows prediction from the methodology proposed by Anderson et al. (2008) in an NCHRP
report that attempts to account for cohesion that may exist in the backll as the MO method was
developed strictly for cohesionless soils.
The results shown in Figure 13 for a freestanding cantilever wall conrm that a small amount of
rotation and translation can signicantly reduce the forces acting in a retaining structure (Anderson
et al., 2008; Bray et al., 2010). The seismic earth pressure coefcients determined for the freestanding
cantilever wall for medium dense sand backll are signicantly smaller than the predicted seismic
earth pressure coefcients of the MO, Mylonakis et al., and Seed and Whitman methods; the data
appears to indicate that the seismic earth pressure coefcient for this case is more than 50% lower than
the predicted coefcients. Even for the cohesive backll, the experimental results are lower than other
methods and are even lower than the predicted values by the methodology of Anderson et al. (2008),
which accounts for the cohesion of the soil.

9. IMPLICATIONS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The body of eld evidence over the last decade or so and the recently published experimental data
indicate several important trends and patterns. Some of these trends and patterns are in contradiction

Figure 12. Seismic earth pressure coefcient as a function of the free-eld PGA for cross-braced walls
with both sand and silty clay backll (after Sitar et al., 2012).

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RECENT FINDINGS ON SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

Figure 13. Seismic earth pressure coefcient as a function of the free-eld PGA for a cantilever wall
with both sand and silty clay backll (after Sitar et al., 2012).

of some of the current practice of the profession in determining and recommending seismic earth pres-
sures for design of retaining structures.
Although some of the conclusions are in agreement with the conclusions made by Sitar et al., there
are opinions presented by the author that may not necessarily reect the opinions of the researchers
whose work is cited in this paper.
1. Regardless of the type of soil retained behind the walls (freestanding cantilever, double cantilever or
braced), the seismic earth pressures increase with depth in a manner similar to the static earth pressure.
That is, the seismic earth pressures have been seen in the experiments to act in a manner similar to the
pressure exerted by a uid. The notion of the seismic earth pressures increasing towards the ground
surface is not seen in the experiments or in prior experiments by others (Lew et al., 2010a). The
concept of the resultant of the seismic earth pressures at a height of 0.6H from the base of the wall
as recommended by Seed and Whitman (1970) is not supported by experimental evidence. Further-
more, the concept of the seismic earth pressures being an inverted triangle is shown to be pure myth.
It is clear that the point of application of the seismic earth pressure increment is more appropriately
applied at the height of H/3 from the base of the wall.
2. The seismic earth pressures exerted on freestanding cantilever walls is substantially smaller than the
pressures that are predicted by the commonly used analytical methods (MO, Seed and Whitman,
Mylonakis et al., Anderson et al.). The experimental results are less than 50% of the predicted
values. This was observed for both sand and clay backll.
3. The seismic earth pressures exerted on the U-shape cantilever walls show some scatter in the
experimental results; however, the seismic earth pressures exerted by the cohesive soils appears
to be smaller, in general, than the pressures exerted by the sand soils. Sitar et al. have stated that
the Seed and Whitman simplication of the MO method . . .provides an ample and reasonable
upper bound for the expected magnitude of seismic earth pressure increment for moderate height
retaining structures, 67 m high, in level ground. . .. In the authors opinion, the seismic earth pressure
increment due to cohesive soils should be smaller than the increment for sandy soils.
4. The seismic earth pressure increments exerted on the cross-braced walls also show some scatter, but
it does appear that the pressures exerted by the cohesive soils may be somewhat smaller than the
pressures exerted by the sandy soils. Similar to the U-shape cantilever walls, Sitar et al. state that
the Seed and Whitman simplied method is . . .an ample and reasonable upper bound. . .. This
recommendation appears to be applicable to cross-braced walls with sand backll, but may be a
little on the conservative side for cohesive backll.
5. The seismic earth pressure increments exerted on the cross-braced walls do not support the use of
the Wood (1973) solution for rigid or non-yielding walls as the seismic earth pressure increments
were generally less than the MO predictions. The experimental results show that the Wood solution
is totally unreasonable.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. LEW

6. The Seed and Whitman approximation for the seismic lateral earth pressure coefcient, KAE,
provides a more reasonable estimate of the seismic lateral earth pressure than does the traditional
MO formulation, especially for PGAs greater than 0.4 g.
It should be kept in mind that the centrifuge experiments conducted by Sitar et al. have been for
prototype walls retaining soil heights of 6.5 m (about 20 ft). Some caution should be considered when
extrapolating these results to deeper walls; however, the original MO methodology and its derivatives
have been extrapolated well beyond the original experimental geometry and to different types of wall
and soil retention systems.

10. COMMENTS ON FACTORED LOADS USING STRENGTH DESIGN, OR LOAD AND

RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN

The 2009 IBC (International Code Council (ICC), 2009) prescribes basic load combinations for
structures, components and foundations with the intention that their design strength equals or exceeds
the effects of the factored loads. With respect to the load from lateral earth pressure and ground water
pressure, the IBC prescribes the basic combinations shown in IBC Equations (7) and (8) below.
Equation (9) indicates the loading combination including earthquake and live load components:

1:2D F T 1:6L H 0:5Lr or S or R IBC Eq: 16-2 (7)

0:9D 1:0E 1:6H IBC Eq: 16-7 (8)

1:2D 1:0E f1 L f2 S IBC Eq: 16-5 (9)

where D is the dead load; E is the earthquake load; F is the load due to uids with well-dened
pressures and maximum heights; f1 is 1 for oors in public assemblies, live loads exceeding 100 psf
and garage live load, and is 0.7 for other live loads; f2 is 0.7 for roof congurations that do not shed
snow and 0.2 for other roof congurations; H is the load due to lateral earth pressure, ground water
pressure or pressure of bulk materials; L is the live load; Lr is the roof live load; R is the rain load;
S is the snow load; T is the self-straining force arising from contraction or expansion resulting from
temperature change, shrinkage, moisture change, creep in component materials, movement due to
differential settlement or combinations thereof; and W is the wind load.
From Equation (7), it is evident that H, when due to lateral earth pressure, is treated in the same
manner as the live load with a load factor of 1.6 for static loading conditions. The intent is to use a
static lateral earth pressure in this equation, which for most building basement walls will be the at-rest
earth pressure. Therefore, from a static design perspective, the building basement walls have a factor of
safety of at least 1.6 on the at-rest earth pressure.
Equation (8) gives the load combination for seismic loading and lateral soil pressure while Equation (9)
gives the load combination including seismic and live loads. In comparing Equations (7) and (9), it is
evident that a reduced live load factor (0.5 for typical range of live load and 1.0 for large live loads) is
considered when live load combination with seismic loading is considered. The reason for this is the
transitory nature of the seismic loading and the low likelihood of the two load maxima occurring
simultaneously. A similar type of approach is warranted for load combinations including both the static
soil pressures and the seismic increment of the soil.
If the MO analysis is used to determine the lateral seismic earth pressure, the lateral earth pressure
should consist of the separate static active earth pressure component and the separate seismic incre-
ment of earth pressure component as discussed earlier in this paper. Presumably in Equation (8), the

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RECENT FINDINGS ON SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

load factor of 1.6 would be applicable to the total static earth pressure in this case. However, as noted
above, a reduced load factor would be appropriate when considering the transitory nature of the
seismic component and the low likelihood of the load maxima occurring simultaneously. Accordingly,
the lower load factor of 1.0 is proposed to be applied to the seismic increment component of earth
pressure while the 1.6 load factor is applied to the static active pressure component. To facilitate such
loading combination, the geotechnical engineers should separate the earth pressure components
attributable to the active earth pressure condition and the seismic increment of earth pressure when
using the MO method.

11. PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN OF BUILDING BASEMENT WALLS

Although there is evidence that seismic earth pressures may not actually develop as predicted by the
MO method, it may be premature to recommend that seismic earth pressures be neglected in design
altogether. It would be prudent to wait upon further research that may be conducted to conrm the
observations and conclusions that have been made by recent researchers and to conduct further experi-
ments for a wider range of soil materials to evaluate the inuence of relative density, cementation and
soil cohesion. Also, experiments should evaluate different wall types, including braced walls. In the
interim, presented below are provisional recommendations for the evaluation of seismic earth pressures
for building basement walls.
Since most basement walls, especially deep basement walls, are not cantilevered but braced, the
applicability of the MO method can be questioned. However, the use of other methods such as the
Wood method for non-yielding walls would give seismic earth pressures that are more than twice
the magnitude of the MO method and would result in wall designs that are much thicker with more
steel reinforcement than commonly used. Moreover, the case histories of performance of basement
walls in earthquakes do not show the need for such stronger walls; in addition, the predictions of
the MO method itself appear to be overly conservative on the basis of centrifuge experiments with
properly modeled walls and backll. For all practical purposes, there are few viable alternatives to
the MO method to evaluate seismic earth pressures at this time. Research currently in progress (such
as presented in Sitar et al.) indicates that an MO-type approach with the Seed and Whitman approxi-
mation for KAE may be used for braced retaining walls and that the seismic earth pressures may not
be dissimilar to the results found for cantilever retaining walls.
It should be noted that the current 2009 IBC requires that basement walls be designed for at-rest
earth pressures for static conditions. The MO method on the other hand is based on computing active
lateral earth pressures in combination with the seismic lateral earth pressure. Thus, the seismic incre-
ment of lateral earth pressure computed by the MO method is intended to be the increased earth pres-
sure above the active lateral earth pressure and not the at-rest pressure. As such, any computed seismic
increment of lateral earth pressure should not be added to the static (at-rest) lateral earth pressures. For
seismic conditions, the MO method may be used to evaluate the seismic earth pressures; however, the
combination should be made with the active pressures. These pressures should be treated as a separate
condition for earthquake loading, whereas the at-rest earth pressures are strictly for static loading only.
Recent research suggests that the earth pressure distribution under seismic loading is very similar to a
uid distribution (i.e. triangular distribution), like static earth pressure.
Presented below are provisional design recommendations partially based on a paper presented to the
Structural Engineers Association of California by Lew et al. (2010b) for building basement walls
founded in non-saturated conditions with level ground or retained earth conditions and as modied
by the more recent research presented by Sitar et al. (2012):
1. If the depth of the basement wall is less than 12 ft, the evaluation of seismic earth pressures is not
necessary provided the walls are designed for a static factor of safety of at least 1.5. As described in
the previous section, this static factor of safety is satised when a load factor of 1.6 is used in loading
combination for lateral earth pressures as is currently prescribed by the 2009 IBC.
2. The seismic increment of earth pressure may be neglected if the maximum ground acceleration is
0.4 g or less.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. LEW

3. If a seismic increment of earth pressure is determined separately by the MO method, it should be

added to the active earth pressure and not to the at-rest static earth pressure.
4. If the backll or retained earth materials are cohesive (including cemented soils and stiff clays), the
NCHRP design charts (shown in Figures 5 to 8) may be used to determine the seismic coefcient,
KAE, in the MO method. The horizontal ground acceleration, kh, may be taken as one-half of the
PGA, where PGA is the maximum ground acceleration in gravity.
5. If the backll or retained earth materials are cohesionless, the Dynamic Increment in Earth
Pressure Coefcient, KAE, may be determined by the Seed and Whitman approximation, which
Sitar et al. have shown as being . . .an ample and reasonable upper bound.
6. The location of the resultant of the active and seismic earth pressures may be taken at the one-third
point from the base of the wall.
Recommendation no. 4 is not an endorsement of the methodology proposed in the NCHRP report,
but this recommendation provides for a procedure to account for backll or retained earth materials
that are not cohesionless but possess some cohesion or cementation until new rational procedures
based on testing are available. The work by Sitar et al. (2012) appears to indicate that the NCHRP
procedure may provide conservative estimates of the seismic earth pressures.

12. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

When considering the load conditions given in the IBC, it appears that building basement walls
analyzed and designed using at-rest pressures in accordance with the load combination in Equation (7)
may be adequate for seismic earth pressure loading without further analysis. The reason is the different
types of earth pressures that must be considered for static versus seismic conditions. As noted above
for the seismic load condition represented by Equation (8), the active earth pressure combined with the
seismic increment of earth pressure needs to be considered. Active earth pressures are typically much
smaller than at-rest pressures, which are commonly on the order of 1.6 to 2.0 greater. Thus, as basement
walls are conservatively designed for at-rest static pressures using loading combination in Equation (7), it
is very likely that the loading combination in Equation (8), which is based on active pressures, will be
automatically satised unless the seismic increment of earth pressure is unusually large. With recent
research (reported above) indicating that the seismic earth pressures are not as great as indicated by current
practice, it would appear that building basement walls retaining level unsaturated earth materials may be
considered adequate when just designed for at-rest earth pressures as stipulated in the IBC. Consequently,
the current requirement in the seismic provisions to consider seismic earth pressures for such walls may be
unnecessary. In retaining walls designed with active pressures, the addition of the seismic increment of
soil using loading combination Equation (8) should still be a consideration and will likely dictate the
design of the wall, However, when applying Equation (8) in this condition, it is recommended that a
reduced load factor of 1.0 be used for the seismic increment component of soil in combination with a
1.6 load factor applied to the active pressure component These load factors will more appropriately
represent the transitory nature of seismic loading and the low likelihood of load maxima occurring at
the same time. To facilitate such loading combinations, the geotechnical engineers would have to separate
earth pressure components attributable to the active earth pressure condition and the seismic increment of
earth pressure when using the MO method.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to express extreme and sincere gratitude to Professor Nicholas Sitar and his
talented graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley, for their research into this too
neglected area of geotechnical engineering, one in which has huge consequences in the assumed
applied loading of retaining structures and increased costs of construction. The author also thanks
Professor Sitar for his friendship, professionalism, advice, critical review and encouragement. Sincere
thanks are also extended to Dr Linda Al Atik, Mr Mehran Pourzanjani and Dr Martin B. Hudson for
their input and collaboration.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RECENT FINDINGS ON SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES

REFERENCES
Abrahamson N, Bardet JP, Boulanger R, Bray J, Chan Y-W, Chang C-Y, Chen C-H, Harder L, Huang A-B, Huang S, Ju JW,
Kramer S, Kuo M-J, Lee WF, Lin H-L, Loh C-H, Ou C-Y, Seed R, Shen J-D, Sitar N, Stewart J, Teng L, Sun JI, Wright R.
1999. Preliminary Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Observations of the September 21, 1999, Ji-Ji, Taiwan Earthquake.
GEER Association Report No. GEER-002.
Al Atik L, Sitar N. 2007. Development of Improved Procedures for Seismic Design of Buried and Partially Buried Structures.
Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER 2007/06, Berkeley, Calif.
Al Atik L, Sitar N. 2009. Seismically induced lateral earth pressures: a new approach. Proceedings of the 17th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt.
Al Atik L, Sitar N. 2010. Seismic earth pressures on cantilevered retaining structures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 136(10): 13241333.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 2006. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/
SEI 7-10.
Anderson DG, Martin GR, Lam I, Wang JN. 2008. Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes
and Embankments. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 611, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Arulmoli K. 2001. Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering: Applications and Research Needs to Improve
State of Practice. Proceedings of NSF International Workshop on Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering.
Cleveland, OH.
Bray JD, Travasarou T, Zupan J. 2010. Seismic displacement design of earth retaining structures. Proceedings of the Earth Re-
tention Conference 3, Geo-Institute of ASCE, Bellevue, WA.
Building Seismic Safety Council. 2004a. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edition, Part 1Provisions. BSSC: Washington, DC.
Building Seismic Safety Council. 2004b. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edition, Part 2Commentary. BSSC: Washington, DC.
Huang C. 2000. Investigations of soil retaining structures damaged during the Chi-Chi (Taiwan) Earthquake. Journal of the
Chinese Institute of Engineers 23(4): 417428.
Iida H, Hiroto T, Yoshida N, Iwafuji M. 1996. Damage to Daikai Subway Station. Soils and Foundations Special Issue on
Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, Japanese Geotechnical Society.
International Code Council (ICC). 2009. International Building Code. Country Club Hills, Ill.
Kutter BL. 1995. Recent advances in centrifuge modeling of seismic shaking. Proceedings, Third International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MO, 2 927942.
Lew M, Sitar N, Al Atik L. 2010a. Seismic earth pressures: fact or ction. Proceedings of the Earth Retention Conference 3,
Geo-Institute of ASCE, Bellevue, WA.
Lew M, Sitar N, Al Atik L, Pourzanjani M, Hudson MB. 2010b. Seismic earth pressures on deep building basements. Proceedings,
Structural Engineers Association of California Convention, Indian Wells, CA.
Mononobe N, Matsuo H. 1929. On the determination of earth pressure during earthquakes. Proceedings of the World Engineering
Conference, 9.
Mylonakis G, Kloukinas P, Papatonopoulos C. 2007. An alternative to the MononobeOkabe equation for seismic earth pressures.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27(10): 957969.
Nakamura S. 2006. Reexamination of MononobeOkabe theory of gravity retaining walls using centrifuge model tests. Soils and
Foundations 46(2): 135146.
Okabe S. 1926. General Theory of Earth Pressure. Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers Tokyo, Japan, 12(1):
123134.
Ortiz LA, Scott RF, Lee J. 1983. Dynamic centrifuge testing of a cantilever retaining wall. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 11: 251268.
Saragoni GR. 2010. Personal Communication.
Seed HB, Whitman RV. 1970. Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads. ASCE Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in
the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures. Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, 103147.
Sitar N, Mikola RG, Candia G. 2012. Seismically induced lateral earth pressures on retaining structures and basement walls.
Proceedings, Geo-Congress 2012. Geo-Institute of ASCE: Oakland, CA.
Tokida K, Matsuo O, Nakamura S. 2001. Damage of earth retaining structures in the 1999 Chichi, Taiwan Earthquake. Proceed-
ings of the Joint Meeting of the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources-Panel on Wind and Seismic
Effects, 32 495512.
Whitman RV. 1991. Seismic design of earth retaining structures. Proceedings, Second International Conference on Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MO., 17671778.
Wood JH. 1973. Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures. Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory Report EERL
73-05, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. LEW

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Marshall Lew received Bachelors and Masters degrees in Engineering from UCLA in 1972. He also
received a PhD in Engineering from UCLA in 1976. He is a principal engineer with AMEC Environment
& Infrastructure, Inc., in its Los Angeles, California ofce, and his expertise is in geotechnical and
earthquake engineering. He is a member of the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council
and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute as well as other professional societies.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/tal