Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 469±476

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic stability of retaining walls with surcharge

S. Caltabiano, E. Cascone*, M. Maugeri
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Catania, Viale Andrea Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy

Abstract
The use of pseudo-static methods for the computation of soil thrust acting on retaining walls under seismic condition is well established in
the design of such structures. Although different methods, based on the limited displacement concept, have been developed in the last 20
years, the most common design method is still the method derived from the theory developed by Mononobe and Okabe. However, the
Mononobe±Okabe method presents a basic shortcoming: the solution is based on the limit equilibrium of the soil wedge without taking into
account the presence of the wall. In the paper a new solution based on the pseudo-static equilibrium of the soil±wall system is presented. The
developed solution takes into account the effect of the presence of the wall and it is applied to soil±wall systems with surcharged back®lls.
Formulas are provided to calculate directly the yield acceleration and the inclination of the failure surface. The effect of the intensity of the
surcharge and of its distance from the wall is investigated and the results are compared to those obtained in the case of soil±wall systems
without surcharge. q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Retaining wall; Seismic design; Surcharge; Critical acceleration; Failure mechanism

1. Introduction
The quest for rational design methods of retaining struc-
tures has been pursued for several decades. Conventional
design methods usually require estimating the earth pressure
behind a wall and choosing the wall geometry in order to
satisfy equilibrium conditions with speci®ed factors of
safety.
Closed-form solutions are widely used for the computa-
tion of active earth thrust acting against retaining structures.
In seismic conditions lateral earth thrust is computed
according to the Mononobe±Okabe method [1,2]. This
method is based on the classical limit equilibrium theory
applied to a soil wedge, but includes static forces to re¯ect
inertial effects of earthquake loading on the soil back®ll.
Recently an extension of the Mononobe±Okabe method
has been proposed in order to calculate seismic active
earth pressure considering the effects of strain localization
in the back®ll soil [3].
In many practical problems however, it may be of interest
to evaluate the lateral earth thrust due to the soil weight as
well as to a surcharge acting on retained back®ll. Available
solutions for active earth pressure acting on walls retaining
surcharged back®ll are suitable for static conditions only.
Motta [4] proposed a general closed-form solution for the
case of uniformly distributed surcharge applied on the back-
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 139-095-431373.
E-mail address: ernesto.cascone@ctonline.it (S. Caltabiano).
0267-7261/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0267-726 1(00)00093-2
®ll soil to a certain distance from the top of the wall. In this
solution seismic effects were included pseudo-statically by
the introduction of seismic coef®cients.
In this paper a modi®ed limit equilibrium approach is
described. Such approach, already utilized for walls without
surcharge [5], is extended to evaluate the seismic stability of
gravity retaining walls with a surcharge resting on the back-
®ll. The basic difference between the solution presented
herein and traditional methods is that the former takes into
account the normal and shear forces mobilized at the base of
the wall which the latter methods usually neglect.
2. Theoretical model
The analysis of the seismic limit equilibrium condition of
walls retaining surcharged back®ll soil is based on the
following assumptions:
² the soil±wall system is long enough for the end effects to
be neglected (plane±strain conditions);
² the soil is homogeneous, dry and cohesionless;
² the failure wedge is a plane;
² the soil±wall system can be subjected only to horizontal
displacements;
² the surcharge is applied to a certain distance from the top
of the wall and is uniformly distributed;
² the seismic action is at any instant, constant in the whole
mass of the system and is directed horizontally.
470 S. Caltabiano et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 469±476

Fig. 1. Soil±wall system.

The soil±wall system considered in the analysis is schema- Introducing Eqs. (3) and (4), after simple calculation, Eq.
tically shown in Fig. 1, where symbols have the usual (2) becomes:
meaning.
G…m 2 k h †…1 1 Y F†Y 2 ‰1 1 Q…1 2 lY†Š
For this system the dynamic equilibrium condition is
…5†
given by the following expression: £ ‰k h …1 1 Y F† 1 Y 2 FŠ ˆ 0
F 1 1 FS 1 FD ˆ 0 …1†
where
where FI, FS and FD are, respectively, the resultant of inertia
2W W 2q
forces acting on the system, the resultant of the lateral stres- F ˆ tgw Y ˆ tga G ˆ Qˆ
ses acting on the wall and the resultant of the shear stresses gH 2 gH
acting at the base of the wall. are all dimensionless quantities.
During earthquake the soil±wall system may either move Eq. (5) can be solved with respect to Y obtaining a second
together with the ground or move relatively respect to the power equation:
ground. These two conditions are referred to as absolute
motion and relative motion, respectively; the system shift- ‰G…m ˆ k h †F 1 Ql…k h F 1 1†ŠY 2 1 ¼ 1 ‰G…m 2 k h † 2 …1 1 Q†
ing from the former to the latter condition depends on the
value of the seismic horizontal acceleration ah ˆ kg g. £ …kh F 1 1† ˆ Ql…k h 2 F†ŠY 2 …1 1 Q†…k h 2 F† ˆ 0
At failure, the equilibrium between resisting and driving …6†
forces is given by the expression: The minimum value of kh (i.e. the critical or yield accel-
FB 2 kh WW ˆ WS ‰kh 1 tg…a 2 w†Š …2† eration) can be determined imposing that discriminant of
Eq. (6) vanishes:
where ÿ

FB ˆ WW m …3† A 0 kh2 1 2 2A1 1 A2 A3 kh 1 A22 2 4A4 ˆ 0 …7†

is the resistence at the base of the wall, with m ˆ tgwB soil± with the positions
wall base friction coef®cient, A 0 ˆ … Q l 2 G 1 RF † 2
 
gH 2 1 2ql h i
WS ˆ 1 …4†
2 tga gH A1 ˆ GmF 1 Ql 2 F 2 …Ql 2 G† …1 1 Q†
is the weight of the soil failure wedge, including the surcharge  
applied on the back®ll, a is the angle formed by the failure A 2 ˆ Gm 2 1 1 Q…1 1 lF†
surface with respect to the horizontal, H is the back®ll height,
g is the unit weight of the soil, q is the angle of shear strength A 3 ˆ …l 2 F†Q 2 …G 1 F†
of the soil and q is the surcharge uniformly distributed on the ÿ

back®ll at a distance l H from the wall. A 4 ˆ …1 1 Q† GmF 1 Ql F (8)
 S. Caltabiano et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 469±476
which solved gives the following expression for the critical
acceleration:
ÿ
qÿ

ÿ

2 2A1 1 A2 A3 1 2A1 1 A2 A3 2 1A0 A22 2 4A4
kh ˆ
A0
…9†
Eq. (6) can be solved with respect to a :
" ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
#
G m 2 k h 2 …1 1 Q† kh F 1 1 1 Ql k h 2 F
a ˆ atan ÿ
ÿ

2GF m 2 k h 1 2Ql kh F 1 1
…10†
By imposing Q ˆ 0 in Eqs. (9) and (10), the solutions
a ˆ a 0 and kh ˆ kh0 are obtained, representing, respectively
the inclination of the failure plane angle and the critical
acceleration coef®cient for the case of wall without
surcharge.
3. Discussion of results
Using the expression of kh ˆ f(l ,Q)) and a ˆ f(l ,Q)given
above, a parametric analysis was carried out ®xing values for
Q and calculating kh and a as a function of l . The soil±wall
system utilized in the analysis is that considered by Nadim and
Whitman [6] and is shown in Fig. 2.
The obtained solutions were compared to those deter-
mined for the case of system without surcharge. The follow-
ing cases may occur:
² the values of the critical acceleration for the surcharged
system (kh) and for the system without surcharge (kh0) are
different; thus the failure mechanism is that correspond-
ing to the minimum value of the critical acceleration;
² for a given value of Q there is a position of the surcharge
(that is a value of l ) for which the critical acceleration is
the same for both systems: the system with surcharge and
the system without surcharge kh ˆ kh0; in this case the
failure mechanism is that corresponding to the maximum
value of the inclination of the failure surface (always
coinciding with a 0 . a ). In fact, for maximum a a smal-
ler soil mass is mobilized (i.e. a smaller energy amount is
required to produce failure).
Thus, it is possible to verify that for a ®xed surcharge a
minimum distance l min exists for which the presence of
the surcharge does not affect the solution. For values
l $ l min the failure mechanism is that corresponding to
the case of system with no surcharge and consequently the
values of the acceleration coef®cient kh and the correspond-
ing failure plane inclination a are constant with respect to
the parameter l .
Such behaviour is described in Figs. 3 and 4. In particular,
Fig. 3 shows the variation of the system critical acceleration
coef®cient as a function of the normalized distance l of the
471
Fig. 2. System considered in the analysis.
surcharge from the top of the wall; various curves are
plotted for different values of Q.
It is apparent that for a given value of Q the critical
acceleration coef®cient increases with increasing l until a
limit is reached: when the surcharge is far enough from the
wall, the failure mechanism is that of the system with no
surcharge, and consequently the critical acceleration coef®-
cient is equal to kh0.
Likewise, Fig. 4 shows the variation of the failure wedge
angle a as a function of l . For a given value of Q, the angle
a decreases with increasing l until a limit condition is
reached such that the surcharge has no effect on the failure
mechanism and a ˆ a 0. For a given l , the curve Qmin
provides the minimum value of Q that brings to failure the
surcharged system with the same acceleration of the system
without surcharge (kh ˆ kh0). When this curve is intercepted,
the value of a jumps to a 0, because in this case a smaller
mass of soil is mobilized at failure.
Similarly, for a given l the curve Qmax represents the
maximum normalized surcharge for which the system is
in static equilibrium condition (kh ˆ 0). A limiting value
Qo can be de®ned as the value of the normalized surcharge
that it placed on the back®ll starting from the top of the wall
(l ˆ 0) brings the system to failure statically. For a small
values of Q (Q , Qo) the system does not admit any static
failure condition; for higher values of Q (Q . Qo) the static
failure condition is reached for l . 0. In Fig. 4 the curve
Qmax indicates the distance l of the surcharge corresponding
to the static failure of the system.
The same solution is plotted with respect to Q for several
values of the normalized distance of the surcharge l . For a
given l , as previously stated, it is always necessary to
compare the two failure mechanisms (corresponding to the
two system con®gurations: with or without surcharge) to
ascertain which of them is the real one (i.e. that associated
to the minimum value of the yield acceleration coef®cient).
In particular, Figs. 5 and 6, respectively show the
472 S. Caltabiano et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 469±476

Fig. 3. Critical acceleration coef®cient versus normalized surcharge distance.

Fig. 4. Failure plane angle versus normalized surcharge distance.

S. Caltabiano et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 469±476 473

Fig. 5. Critical acceleration coef®cient versus normalized surcharge.

Fig. 6. Failure plane angle versus normalized surcharge.

474 S. Caltabiano et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 469±476
Fig. 7. Stability chart.
variation of the system critical acceleration coef®cient and
the variation of the failure angle versus Q. From these
®gures it is apparent that for small values of l
(l # cota 0) the failure mechanism is always affected by
the presence of the surcharge, and a maximum surcharge
Qmax exists, for which the system reaches the static limit
equilibrium (khˆ0) and is unstable for larger values of Q.
For l . cota 0 the curves are discontinuous: at the begin-
ning the solution is constant, meaning that the failure
mechanism is not affected by the presence of the surcharge
(a ˆ a 0 and kh ˆ kh0), until a minimum value of the normal-
ized surcharge Qmin is reached such to in¯uence the failure
mechanism (a . a 0 and kh , kh0). This condition is repre-
sented by cusps in the curves of Fig. 5 and jumps in the
curves of Fig. 6.
Considering a value of l . cotga o, for example l ˆ 1,
in Fig. 6 it is possible to observe that for small values of Q
the failure ÿmechanism is not affected

by the presence of the
surcharge a ˆ a o ; kh ˆ kho , until a value Qmin ˆ 1.1097
is reached and the curve jumps to a value of a , ao . For
values of Q . Qmin the failure mechanism is affected by the
surcharge (a , a o and kh , kho). There exists a limit value
Qmax for which the system collapses statically (kh ˆ 0).
Such maximum value can be determined by the intersection
between the curve for l ˆ 1 and the curve Qmax. In Fig.
7(a) chart of the possible failure mechanisms is given. In
this chart three regions can be distinguished: points in
region A are representative of couples (l ,Q) for which
systems are unstable; points in region B are representative
of systems for which the failure mechanism is affected by
the presence of the surcharge; points in region C are repre-
sentative of systems for which the failure mechanism is not
affected by the presence of the surcharge. The two limiting
curves have the following meaning: for a given l , a point
lying on the left boundary curve denoted Qmax represents
the maximum value of the normalized surcharge Q for
which the system is in static (kh ˆ 0) limit equilibrium
condition (that is for larger Q the system is unstable). In
the same way, a point lying on the right boundary curve
denoted Qmin represents the minimum value of the normal-
ized surcharge Q for which the system failure mechanism
is affected by the surcharge itself.
Introducing into Eqs. (5)±(10)
G
G bd ˆ
cos…b 1 d†
instead of G , it is possible to take into account the effect of
both the inclination b of the internal face of the wall with
respect to the vertical and the inclination of the earth thrust
with respect to the horizontal.
Fig. 8 shows a comparison between the results obtained
either considering or neglecting the effects of b and d in the
solution for the static case (kh ˆ 0). It is apparent that b and
d provide, as expected, a contribution to the soil±wall
system stability. It can be observed that for l ˆ 0 the
angle a does not depend on b and d , but the intensity Q
of the normalized surcharge which brings the system to
static failure is quite larger if b and d are considered. For
 S. Caltabiano et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 469±476 475

Fig. 8. Effect of angles b and d : (a) on the critical surcharge; (b) on the failure wedge angle.
476 S. Caltabiano et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 469±476
l . 0 a reduction of a ensues from considering b and d
greater than zero.
In the Fig. 8(a) it is shown as well that, regardless the
effect of b and d , for l approaching 1/F the surcharge Q
diverges. This means that there is no surcharge capable to
induce failure in the system in static condition. The same
result in Fig. 8(b) shows that the angle a cannot be smaller
than the angle of shear strength of the soil.
Similar results can be easily derived from the analytical
solutions for the pseudo-static case.
4. Concluding remarks
In this paper a modi®ed limit equilibrium approach for
the seismic stability of gravity walls retaining surcharged
back®ll has been described. The main difference with
respect to the traditional solutions is that the presence of
the wall is considered in the equilibrium equations. This
approach allows the yield acceleration and the associated
failure plane angle for a given soil±wall system to be deter-
mined directly.
Considering as a reference a system without surcharge,
the following conclusion may be drawn. Given a soil±wall
system without surcharge, it is possible to determine the
system failure wedge. If a surcharge is placed on this failure
wedge, independently of its intensity, it will affect the fail-
ure mechanism. This implies that the system will collapse
for a lower seismic acceleration and with a larger inclination
of the failure wedge than the case of the system without
surcharge. If, conversely, the surcharge lies beyond the
extension of the failure wedge measured on the ground
surface, it will affect the failure mechanism only if its inten-
sity is suf®ciently large; in other terms, if the surcharge is far
from the wall top, only large values of the surcharge are able
to attract the failure plane.
For small surcharge intensities, the yield accelerations of
the surcharged system would result higher than that corre-
sponding to the system without surcharge. Therefore, when
such a soil±wall system is subjected to an earthquake it will
collapse for the smallest value of the yield acceleration,
following the corresponding failure mechanism.
The present solution allows evaluating the yield accelera-
tion and the inclination of the failure plane for different
intensities and positions of the surcharge. Dimensionless
charts have been provided with reference to a speci®c
soil±wall system, but the solution may be applied to any
system.
The effect of the angles b and d has also been investi-
gated, providing higher values of the critical acceleration
and lower failure angles.
In general, it is desirable that the collapse of a retaining
wall does not produce damages to the structures resting on
the back®ll, at a certain distance from the wall. To pursue
this serviceability condition by means of an extremely
conservative design (i.e. high safety factors) may result,
by large, counterproductive. In fact, regardless of the
presence of a surcharge, a conservative design would lead
to large values of the yield acceleration which, if reached
during an earthquake, would produce damages on a larger
area. The right compromise between seismic ultimate stabi-
lity and serviceability conditions is, then, to be searched for.
References
[1] Okabe S. General theory of earth pressure. Journal of the Japanese
Society of Civil Engineering 1926;12(1).
[2] Mononobe N, Matsuo H. On the determination of earth pressure during
earthquake. In: Proceedings of the World Engineering Congress. Vol.
IX, 1929.
[3] Koseki J, Tatsuoka F, Munaf Y, Tateyama M, Kojima K. A modi®ed
procedure to evaluate active earth pressure at high seismic loads
[special issue]. Soils and Foundations 1998:209±16.
[4] Motta E. Generalized Coulomb active-earth pressure for distanced
surcharge. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1994;120(6):1072±9.
[5] Caltabiano S, Cascone E, Maugeri M. Sliding response of rigid retain-
ing walls. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Lisbon, 1999.
[6] Nadim F, Whitman RV. Seismically induced movement of retaining
walls. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1983;109(7):915±
31.