Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00949-2

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A non‑linear static approach for the prediction

of earthquake‑induced deformation of geotechnical systems

R. Laguardia1 · D. Gallese1 · R. Gigliotti1 · L. Callisto1

Received: 30 March 2020 / Accepted: 30 August 2020

© The Author(s) 2020

Abstract
This paper illustrates an original and simple method to predict earthquake-induced defor-
mations of geotechnical systems. The method is an extension of static non-linear analy-
sis, and is conceived to predict the behaviour of geotechnical systems, like supported and
unsupported excavations, that during the seismic motion accumulate displacements in a
single direction. The seismic capacity of the system is described by its capacity curve,
obtained either from a numerical push-over analysis or through a simplified procedure. The
corresponding seismic demand is described by a combination of the elastic response spec-
trum, including basic information on the maximum amplitudes of the seismic motion, and
a cyclic demand spectrum, that provides additional information about the equivalent num-
ber of cycles that contribute to the accumulation of displacements. In the paper, the method
is described in detail and is validated through different procedures, namely: comparisons
with experimental results obtained in the geotechnical centrifuge; comparison with results
of advanced numerical analyses; extensive comparison, using a large database of seismic
records, with the results of non-linear time-domain analyses. In its final part, the paper pro-
vides guidance for the practical use of the method for design.

Keywords Seismic design · Retaining structures · Earthquake-induced displacements ·

Cyclic demand · Ground motions

1 Introduction

When subjected to seismic actions, many geotechnical systems are characterised by a

strongly asymmetric behaviour. Some examples are provided in Fig. 1: slopes, unsup-
ported excavations, and different types of retaining structures are all subjected to grav-
ity forces that tend to displace the soil and the structural members towards the weaker
zone of the system (namely, to the left in Fig. 1). Because of this asymmetry, during a
severe earthquake these systems tend to accumulate irreversible deformations, mostly
deriving from the transient activation of their global resistance. It is for this reason that

* R. Laguardia
[email protected]
1
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, via
Eudossiana 18, 00184 Rome, Italy

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1  Examples of displacing retaining systems: a unsupported excavation; b embedded retaining struc-
ture; c gravity retaining structure

the seismic performance of these geotechnical systems is often assessed on the basis of
their final deformation (e.g. Richards and Elms 1979).
In the past, it has been proposed to compute the final displacements of these systems
through a sliding-block analysis. This was originally suggested by Newmark (1965) for
the seismic analysis of earth dams and was subsequently extended by many authors to
the analysis of different geotechnical systems, including unsupported excavations (e.g.
Franklin and Chang 1977), retaining structures (e.g. Richards and Elms 1979; Wong
1982; Whitman 1990) and foundations (e.g. Richards et al. 1993, Callisto and Rampello
2013). In addition, various correlations were developed between the global resistance of
the system and different ground motion parameters (Ambraseys and Menu 1988; Rathje
et al. 1998).
Basically, a sliding-block approach implies the assumption of a rigid-perfectly plastic
behaviour and therefore neglects the dynamic response of the system under considera-
tion. To some extent this limitation can be addressed using decoupled procedures, like
those originally proposed by Seed and Martin (1966) and by Chopra (1966) and further
developed, for instance, by Rathje and Bray (1999) and Baziar et al. (2012). In this
decoupled approach the input signal used to integrate the equation of motion for a rigid-
perfectly plastic system is evaluated from a free-field ground response analysis that
accounts for the deformability and non-linearity of the soil. In turn, the ground motion
evaluated in the free-field is applied as an input motion to a rigid-perfectly plastic model
of the geotechnical system to evaluate its displacements. It is evident that this procedure
considers the deformability that the soil exhibits in the free-field, but cannot account
for the deformations that accompany the progressive activation of the resistance of the
system. In fact Callisto (2014), analysing the results of non-linear numerical analyses
and examining the stress-paths of different soil elements located near a retaining wall,
concluded that the pre-failure deformability shown by the soil in the transition from the
static initial condition to the activation of a plastic mechanism has a significant influ-
ence of the computed displacements.
An additional problem with the sliding block analysis is that the displacements
induced by the earthquake are computed with a time-domain integration, and there-
fore it is necessary to express the seismic action in terms of acceleration time-histories:
while this is feasible for the non-linear analysis of important structures or infrastruc-
tural systems, often the geotechnical systems of the type shown in Fig. 1 are ordinary
structures, for which the seismic action is taken directly from the construction codes
and is expressed in terms of uniform-hazard elastic response spectra. As mentioned

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

above, simplified methods relating displacements to ground motion parameters do exist,

but each of them was developed for specific sets of accelerograms that can hardly be
deemed representative of the various seismic hazard situations encountered in design.
To overcome the above limitations, the present paper illustrates an original method for
the evaluation of the permanent displacements of the geotechnical systems of the type
illustrated in Fig. 1, with a specific emphasis on the case of earth retaining structures. The
method extends the common procedures for non-linear static analysis (Freeman et al. 1975;
Fajfar 2000), originally developed for buildings and bridges, to the prediction of the cyclic
accumulation of displacement relevant for the geotechnical systems at hand. In the method
proposed herein, the seismic capacity of the system is represented by a non-linear capac-
ity curve, as in a static non-linear analysis, while the seismic demand is represented by
a combination of an elastic response spectrum and an additional response spectrum, that
expresses the number of equivalent cycles of the seismic action as a function of the natural
period of a single-degree-of-freedom system.
The illustration of the method is preceded by a description of the typical dynamic
response of the systems under consideration, that is addressed in the next section.

2 Dynamic response of geotecnhical systems

2.1 Capacity curve

An effective way to evaluate the seismic capacity of a geotechnical system, proposed by

Callisto (2019), consists in applying equivalent inertial forces to a non-linear numerical
model of the system. The inertial forces are taken to be proportional to a seismic hori-
zontal coefficient kH, that represents the ratio of the horizontal body forces to the unit
weight of the soil or, equivalently, the ratio of the horizontal acceleration to the gravity
acceleration. Figure 2 shows for an embedded retaining wall the relationship obtained
by Callisto (2019) between the seismic coefficient kH and the corresponding horizontal
displacement of the top of the wall uR, expressed as a fraction of the excavation height

(a) (b)
0.4
kC = 0.365 D(uR/H)
0 1

deformed
wall 0.3
2 H
kH

0.2
z (m)

γ = 20 kN/m3
ϕ' = 35° 0.1 unloading-reloading
6
d
first loading
0
8
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
uR/H

Fig. 2  a Example embedded retaining wall (γ is the unit weight of soil and φ′ is the angle of shearing resist-
ance); b non-dimensional capacity curve (Callisto 2019)

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

H. The numerical analysis used to obtain this capacity curve was carried out with the
finite difference method (code FLAC), regarding the soil as a non-linear elastic-per-
fectly plastic material, with a Mohr–Coulomb plasticity criterion and a non-associated
flow rule with zero dilatancy. The main properties of the soil and the structural member
are reported in Table 1. Further details of this type of analysis are given by Callisto
(2014).
The plot in Fig. 2 can be regarded as a non-dimensional capacity curve for the retain-
ing structure: it shows that the system deforms progressively, attaining its capacity for
a horizontal displacement of the order of 1.5–2% of the excavation height. It can be
demonstrated that, if the retaining structure is designed to remain in the elastic range
throughout the loading process, most of the displacements exhibited by the wall derive
in fact from the deformation of the soil, rather than from the deformation of the wall
(Callisto and Soccodato 2010). Figure 2 also shows that on unloading–reloading the
response is much stiffer, with a minor hysteresis loop, as a consequence of the strongly
asymmetric behaviour of the system.
The ultimate capacity of the system can be expressed by the critical value kC of the
seismic coefficient, as indicated in Fig. 2. Callisto (2014) showed that kC can be evalu-
ated with a good accuracy not only from the results of a numerical analysis, but also
using equilibrium equations together with solutions for the soil resistance derived from
the theorems of limit analysis. Moreover, Callisto (2019) proposed to approximate the
capacity curve using the following hyperbolic function:
skC
kH = (1)
s𝛼 + sC (1 − 𝛼)

where s = uR/H is the normalised wall displacement, the coefficient α < 1 is the ratio of kC
to the asymptote of the hyperbolic function, and sC is the normalised displacement needed
to activate the collapse mechanism (Fig. 3). Callisto (2019) indicated that α and sC can
be related directly to the type of retaining structure under consideration: for instance, the
capacity curve for embedded retaining structures may be characterised by values of sC in
the range of 0.015 to 0.020, while for the same type of structure α varies from 0.8 to 0.9.
The initial non-dimensional stiffness D0 of the capacity curve can be evaluated dif-
ferentiating Eq. (1), obtaining the expression:
kC
D0 = (2)
sC (1 − 𝛼)

showing that the normalised displacement sC is related to the initial stiffness of the system.
The unloading–reloading stiffness can be taken as βD0, as shown in Fig. 3, where β may
vary from 1 to 2.5 (Callisto 2019).

Table 1  Soil and structural γ (kN/m3) c φ′ (°) δ (°) G0 (kPa) EI (kN ­m2/m)
properties for the example case
of Fig. 2 20 0 35 20 105 p0.5 2.7 × 105
(p in kPa)

γ, unit weight; c, cohesion; φ′, angle of shearing resistance; δ, soil-

wall angle of friction; G0, small-strain shear modulus; p, mean effec-
tive stress in the soil; EI, bending stiffness of the retaining structure

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 3  Hyperbolic approxima- kC / α

tion of a capacity curve, with an

kH
indication of the model param- kC
eters and of the specific work dis-
sipated over one half-cycle kH D0

β D0
WD

s sC s = uR/H

2.2 Non‑linear SDOF model

Callisto (2019) demonstrated that the capacity curve defined above can be used to
evaluate the seismic displacements of a retaining structure, performing a time-domain
dynamic analysis of an equivalent non-linear system with a single degree of freedom
(SDOF). Since the capacity curve is expressed in a non-dimensional form, it includes
implicitly the dependence on kH of the soil mass interacting with the structure (e.g.
Richards and Elms, 1992). The equation of motion for the equivalent non-linear system
can be expressed in a non-dimensional form as follows (Callisto 2019):
√
ü R (t) D D a (t)
+ 2𝜉ur u̇ R (t) + uR (t) = − B (3)
g gH H g

In Eq. (3), H is the excavation height, g is the gravity acceleration, aB(t) is the seis-
mic input, uR(t) is the displacement of the top of retaining structure (or of the equivalent
SDOF), ξur is an equivalent viscous damping ratio, and D is the non-dimensional stiff-
ness of the equivalent SDOF. The dot over the symbols denotes temporal derivation.
The stiffness parameter D is defined as the local tangent to the capacity curve of
the retaining system, evaluated either on the first loading branch of the curve, or along
an unloading–reloading cycle. In the model, the viscous term of Eq. (3) is activated
only along the unloading–reloading portions of the capacity curve, with a damping ratio
ξur resulting from the interpretation of the typical unloading–reloading hysteresis loop,
that for embedded retaining systems is of the order of 1%. The seismic input aB(t) is
obtained from a free-field one-dimensional site response analysis, following the pro-
cedure proposed by Seed and Martin (1966). Figure 4 shows a typical response of the
non linear SDOF subjected to a base motion (Callisto 2019). Specifically, Fig. 4a shows
the time-histories of the input acceleration aB(t) and of the corresponding acceleration
response of the non-linear SDOF; Fig. 4b shows the temporal evolution of the displace-
ments of the system; and Fig. 4c depicts the progressive engagement of the capacity
curve during the dynamic motion of the system. From the inspection of Fig. 4 the fol-
lowing comments can be made:

• The response of the non-linear SDOF is quite similar to that obtained from full non-lin-
ear dynamic analyses of the soil-structure domain (this is discussed in detail by Callisto

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

(a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 4  Results obtained with the non-linear SDOF model: a input and output acceleration time histories; b
time-history of the computed displacements; c progressive engagement of the capacity curve

2019). Therefore, in the following, the response of the non-linear SDOF will be taken
as a reference for the development of the simplified approach.
• The deformability of the system has an effect on its dynamic response: this is visible,
for instance, in the time interval of 4.5 to 6 s, when the system reaches the critical
acceleration while the input acceleration does not.
• The time history of the displacement can be conventionally sub-divided into two parts.
In a first stage the system is brought to the activation of its capacity: for the example of
Fig. 4, this happens roughly between 4.5 and 5.2 s, as shown by the light shaded area.
After this first activation, further displacements accumulate (as indicated by the dark
shaded) that are triggered by the dynamic response along unloading–reloading cycles.
These additional displacements occur only if the seismic motion is strong enough to
activate the full capacity of the system.

The above observations provide the fundamental ingredients for the development of a
simplified procedure, that permits an approximate evaluation of the final displacement of
the system on the basis of the capacity curve and of the elastic response spectrum of the
seismic action: this is explained in the next section.

3 Layout of the simplified method

The simplified method proposed in this paper is an extension of the common static non-
linear analysis used in earthquake engineering.

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Several methods may be used to perform a non-linear static analysis. The present work
is based on the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM), proposed and developed by Freeman
et al. (1975), Freeman (1998, 2004) and adopted by many seismic codes and guidelines
(e.g. ATC 1996; FEMA 2005, Circolare n.7 2019). According with the typical behaviour
shown in Fig. 4, the final displacement ufin is calculated as the sum of a first-activation
displacement uI and of a further component uII deriving from the cyclic response of the
system. In this second phase the system is considered as a SDOF with the stiffness of the
unloading–reloading branch of the capacity curve.
The displacement uI is obtained by superposing the capacity curve of the system and
the Acceleration-Displacement (AD) elastic response spectrum of the seismic input. As in
the original CSM, the equivalent damping ratio ξ of the AD spectrum is found by iteration,
i.e., by evaluating the damping ratio at the intersection of the capacity curve with the AD
spectrum and re-plotting the spectrum accordingly. The damping ratio is evaluated from
the equation:
WD WD
𝜉= = (4)
4𝜋WE 2𝜋skH

where WE = 0.5 s kH is the recoverable specific energy and WD is the specific dissipated
work, that because of the asymmetric behaviour of the systems at hand is taken equal to
the shaded area in Fig. 3. The evolution of the damping ratio obtained with Eq. (4) is plot-
ted in Fig. 5 as a function of the ratio s/sC. In this representation ξ depends only on the
unloading–reloading multiplier β. It can be seen that, as the normalized displacement s
approaches the value sC corresponding to the system capacity, the damping ratio becomes
of the order of 10%.
The capacity curve and the AD spectrum plotted for this damping ratio intersect at a
normalized displacement sint, that can be either larger or smaller than sC, meaning that
on the first activation the capacity of the system is or is not reached. These two cases are
shown in Fig. 6a, b. Looking at the response of several non-linear SDOF models sub-
jected to a variety of base motions, it was seen that on the first activation of the system
capacity the typical displacement is not much larger than sC. Therefore, denoting the

Fig. 5  Damping ratio for dif-

ferent β values as a function of
normalized displacement of the 10
system

2.0
ξ (%)

1.5
5
β = 1.0

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
s/sC

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

(a) (b)

kH, Sa/g
kH, Sa/g

A-D spectrum
A-D spectrum
D0
D0 βD0 βD0
1 1
1 1
kC
kC
capacity curve

capacity curve

sC sint s, Sd/H sint sC s, Sd/H

uI / H sE uI / H sE

(c) (d)
kH, Sa/g
kH, Sa/g

axis offset A-D spectrum

A-D spectrum
axis offset
βD0
βD0 T 1
SaT /g
T 1
SaT /g kC
kC

s'C SdT s, Sd/H s'C SdT s, Sd/H

uI / H uI / H

uII /(H Neq) uII /(H Neq)

Fig. 6  Layout of the simplified method: calculation of first activation permanent displacement uI, for a
sint > sc, and b sint ≤ sc; calculation of the threshold ratio RT = gkC/SaT and the additional permanent u­ II if c
sint > sc and d sint ≤ sc

normalized elastic (recoverable) displacement as sE, the permanent displacement on first

activation uI is evaluated as:
uI = H[min(sint , sC ) − sE ] (5)
Figure 4 shows that after the first activation the system can be taken to behave as
a linearly elastic-perfectly plastic system, as shown in Fig. 6c, d, that can be analysed
using the equal displacement rule (Veletsos and Newmark, 1960). Under this assump-
tion, the additional displacements accumulated in this second phase are taken to depend
on a threshold ratio:

gkC s�
RT = = C (6)
SaT SdT

where s’C = kC/βD0 is the normalized displacement needed to reach the capacity of the sys-
tem along the unloading–reloading curve, while SaT and SdT are respectively the spectral

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

acceleration and displacement corresponding to the elastic response of the system as shown
in Fig. 6c, d.
The threshold ratio of Eq. (6) is the ratio of the critical acceleration to the spectral
acceleration evaluated at the intersection of the elastic reloading branch of the capacity
curve with the AD spectrum; or, equivalently, it is the ratio of the corresponding normal-
ized displacements as shown in Fig. 6. If RT is larger or equal to one, then no additional
displacements occur, because it is assumed that after the first activation additional perma-
nent displacements can happen only if the seismic action is able to activate the capacity of
the system. If RT is smaller than one, then the additional displacement uII is evaluated as
follows:
uII = Neq SdT (7)
where Neq is the equivalent number of cycles of the seismic action that activate the capacity
of the system. As such, Neq should be defined as a decreasing function of RT, as discussed
in the next section. This additional displacement may occur even if s­int < sC (Fig. 6b),
because on unloading the systems at hand show irreversible deformations and cyclic cumu-
lated displacements even for kH < kC (see Fig. 4c).

4 Definition of equivalent cycles

The definition of the equivalent number of cycles used in this work derives from the one
proposed by Malhotra (2002): the number of equal-amplitude cycles that induces in a lin-
early elastic SDOF system the same damage of a given ground motion characterized by
several half-cycles of different amplitude. The expression proposed by Malhotra (2002) for
the number Ncy of these equivalent cycles can be written as:
2m ( )c
1∑ ui
Ncy = (8)
2 i=1 Sd

where m is the number of half-cycles of absolute amplitude ui undergone by the system

subjected to the ground motion, and Sd is the maximum displacement of the system, that
is, its spectral displacement. Since this expression derives from the Manson (1954) and
Coffin (1954) fatigue model, Malhotra (2002) suggested that c can be taken equal to 2, as
commonly assumed for the fatigue models of steel specimens. The 1/2 factor in Eq. (8) is
needed to transform the number of half-cycles considered in the summation assess into the
corresponding number of equivalent full cycles.
In the simplified method proposed in this paper, it was seen that the displacement is
accumulated by the system in two phases: an activation phase, that engages the first load-
ing branch of the capacity curve, and an accumulation phase in which additional permanent
displacements are triggered by the cyclic dynamic response along the unloading-loading
branch of the capacity curve. In this second phase, the system is regarded as a linear SDOF
system, similarly to the basic assumption of Eq. (8). Therefore, the number of equivalent
cycles Neq was calculated with a relationship that retains the structure of the above equa-
tion, with the following modifications:

• there are no fatigue effects, so that successive displacements contribute equally to the
seismic performance (i.e. c = 1);

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

• the summation is extended to the total number of peaks n, detected in the response of
the equivalent SDOF to the input base motion;
• each cycle produces an additional displacement only if the ratio of its amplitude to the
spectral displacement is larger than the threshold ratio RT;
• the 1/2 factor is used to consider that the displacements are cumulated only on one-side:
therefore, in the average only half of the counted cycles contribute to the deformation of
the system.

Under these additional hypotheses, the expression for the equivalent number of
cycles becomes:
n [ ( )]
1 ∑ ui ui
Neq = × hsf − RT (9)
2 i=1 SdT SdT

where hsf(x) is the Heaviside function (if x > 0 hsf(x) = 1; if x ≤ 0 hsf(x) = 0) and SdT is the
spectral displacement corresponding to the elastic response of the system, with a normal-
ized stiffness equal to βD0 (see Fig. 6c, d). As an example, Fig. 7 shows the displacement
response of a linear SDOF system with a natural period T0 = 1 s subjected to the same
ground motion record of Fig. 4a. By considering a threshold ratio RT = 0.6, it can be seen
that only three peaks exceed the threshold displacement uT = RT SdT. In this case, Eq. (9)
provides Neq = 1.36.
For application to the problem at hand, the natural period of the system can be found
from the normalized stiffness in unloading–reloading. Observing that:
SaT 4𝜋 2 g
SdT
= 2 = 𝛽D0
H (10)
T0

one obtains:

Fig. 7  Displacement history of a SDOF with T = 1 s subjected to the motion record of Fig. 4, with indica-
tion of the peak displacement with amplitude larger than RT SdT

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

√
H
T0 = 2𝜋 (11)
𝛽D0 g

that using Eq. (2) becomes:

√
sC H
T0 = 2𝜋 (1 − 𝛼) (12)
𝛽kC g

Equation (12) allows the calculation of the natural period of the system in unload-
ing–reloading using the same set of parameters that characterise its capacity curve.
Figure 8 shows, for the same ground motion used in Figs. 4 and 7, a set of curves relat-
ing Neq to the SDOF natural period T0 for several values of the threshold ratio RT. These
curves, termed “cyclic demand spectra”, were obtained for a damping ratio ξ = 10%, as this
is the value more commonly encountered in the application of the procedure (see Fig. 3).
The shape of these curves is similar, but of course when the threshold ratio increases the
equivalent number of cycles decreases.
As a further step, cyclic demand spectra of the type depicted in Fig. 8 were evaluated
for a set of seismic records that could be deemed representative of the potential seismic
actions of a given territory. Specifically, Eq. (9) was applied to the entire SIMBAD ground
motion database Smerzini et al. (2014). This is a collection of 467 ground motion records,
characterized by epicentral distances lower than 35 km and moment magnitudes ranging
from 5 to 7.5, that was selected to represent effectively the seismic hazard of the entire
Italian territory. Only a single horizontal component for each record was considered, given
that the cyclic demand spectra obtained from two components of the same record were
very similar.
As an example of the computation, Fig. 9 shows the envelopes of the cyclic demand
spectra obtained for all the records of the database using two different threshold ratios RT,
equal to 0.3 and 0.6. The plots of Fig. 9 also show for each period the average number of
cycles and its scatter expressed as the values of Neq corresponding to plus or minus one
standard deviation. The results are characterized by a coefficient of variation (CoV) smaller

Fig. 8  Cyclic demand spectra

obtained for the ground motion
record of Fig. 4 by considering
a damping ratio ξ = 10% and
several threshold ratios ­RT

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

(a) (b)

Fig. 9  Cyclic demand spectra obtained from the SIMBAD database, for a a threshold ratio RT = 0.3, and b a
threshold ratio RT = 0.6

than 0.5 for RT = 0 that increases for RT > 0 up to values of about 0.8. The number of equiv-
alent cycles was seen to be only loosely correlated with the magnitude and distance of the
seismic sources.
Figure 10 collects the average cyclic demand spectra obtained for threshold ratios RT
varying from 0 to 0.9. These were all evaluated assuming a damping ratio ξ = 10%, because
by definition the accumulation of the displacements occurs as a result of the activation
of the capacity of the system (see Fig. 5). For low threshold ratios (RT < 0.6) the average
equivalent number of cycles Neq shows an appreciable variation with the vibration period

Fig. 10  Average cyclic demand 50

spectra obtained from SIMBAD
database for several threshold
ratios ranging from 0 to 0.9
40

RT = 0

30

0.1
Neq

20
0.2

0.3
10
0.5

0 0.9
0.01 0.1 1 10
T0 (s)

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

T0: it reaches a maximum at periods of about 0.06 s, while at larger periods it decreases
about linearly with the logarithm of T0, remaining approximately constant for periods
higher than 0.5 s. Conversely, for threshold ratios larger than 0.5 the average equivalent
number of cycles shows only a limited dependence on the period.
The average cyclic demand spectra of Fig. 10 were used to implement and to validate
the simplified procedure outlined in the previous sections. The results of this validation are
presented in the next section.

5 Summary and validation of the procedure

The procedure proposed in this paper is aimed at evaluating the seismic performance of
geotechnical systems that during an earthquake may accumulate displacements because of
the asymmetry of their response. In the simplified method presented herein the seismic
demand is represented by the combination of an elastic response spectrum and a set of
region-specific average cyclic demand spectra (one for each RT value) as the one shown in
Fig. 10. The seismic capacity is described by the capacity curve of the system, including
the slope of the unloading–reloading branch. This may be evaluated either with a numeri-
cal push-over analysis of the system, or in an approximate way using readily available limit
equilibrium methods (Callisto 2019). Once demand and capacity have been obtained, the
seismic displacements can be calculated through the following steps:

1. Superimpose the capacity curve onto the elastic response spectrum in the acceleration-
displacement plane; this may require some iteration to find the appropriate value of the
damping ratio; experience shows that a damping ratio of 10% is usually a good initial
guess for cases of practical relevance.
2. Find the first-activation displacement uI through Eq. (5).
3. Evaluate the threshold ratio RT = gkC/SaT as shown in Fig. 6c, d.
4. If RT ≥ 1 then there is no accumulation of deformations, and the permanent displacement
uperm is equal to uI.
5. If RT < 1:

5.a. evaluate the unloading–reloading natural period T0 from Eq. (12);

5.b. enter in the set of average cyclic demand spectra of Fig. 10 with RT and T0, and
find Neq;
5.c. compute the accumulated displacement uII from Eq. (7);
5.d. compute the permanent displacement as the sum of uI and uII.
This procedure was subjected to several validation steps. A first validation was carried
out taking as a reference the results of a centrifuge experiment carried out by Conti et al.
(2012), relative to embedded cantilevered walls that retained an excavation in a dry, coarse-
grained soil. This centrifuge model was subjected to a base excitation consisting of a series
of five quasi-harmonic signals, as shown in Fig. 11a. For this case, a capacity curve was
evaluated with a FLAC 2D push-over analysis, using the information on the soil properties
reported by Conti et al. (2012). This capacity curve is shown in Fig. 13: it is characterised
by a critical coefficient kC equal to 0.266 and by a corresponding normalised displacement
sC equal to 0.01. To reproduce the observed behaviour, the input spectra of the five signals
were obtained multiplying the actions applied at the base, having a dominant frequency
of about 0.8 Hz, by an amplification factor of 1.2 read on the amplification curve derived

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 11  Interpretation of the kC

base acceleration (g)

centrifuge experiment by Conti
et al. (2012) using the non- -0.2
linear SDOF and the simplified
approach 0

0.2
(a)
1 2 3 4 5
0.04

displacement (m)
0.03

0.02

Conti et al. (2012)

0.01
non-linear SDOF (Callisto 2019)
simplified AD plane (b)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
time (s)

experimentally from the centrifuge experiment (Conti and Viggiani 2012). For the appli-
cation of the simplified procedure, five different seismic inputs were considered, adding
progressively one sequence to the next. These inputs were used to derive both the specific
elastic response spectra and the corresponding capacity demand spectra for the application
of the procedure as indicated above.
Figure 11b shows the comparison between the time history of the wall displacements
measured in the experiment and the prediction of the simplified method, together with the
prediction obtained by Callisto (2019) using the non-linear SDOF model. The agreement
obtained with the method proposed in this paper can be deemed quite satisfactory, taking
into account the extreme simplifications included in the proposed procedure.
Subsequently, it was also checked that the proposed procedure is effective in the simula-
tion of the response of geotechnical systems that do not reach their capacity during a seis-
mic event. This second validation took as a reference the results of full dynamic numerical
analyses reported by Callisto (2019). Figure 12a, b illustrates the case of a bridge abutment
founded on piles, that was analysed using a combination of three-dimensional and plane
strain finite difference models, subjected to the Tolmezzo seismic record. Figure 12c shows
the time-history of the displacement computed with a dynamic finite difference (FLAC)
analysis and with the non-linear SDOF model, while Fig. 12d shows the results of the sim-
plified method (note that the AD plane has been rotated to make it consistent with the
displacement time history). The elastic response spectrum in Fig. 12d was evaluated at
the mid-eight of the abutment from a free-field ground response analysis. In this case, it
is evident that RT is larger than one and therefore the permanent displacement coincides
with uI. It can be seen that the permanent displacement predicted by the simplified method
is nearly coincident with that calculated with the full dynamic analysis, and also the maxi-
mum instantaneous displacement obtained in the AD plane (sint × H) is quite close to that
obtained with the more complex numerical computation.
A final validation employed the entire set of ground motion records included in the
SIMBAD database, taking as a reference the results of the time-domain integration of the
non-linear SDOF model presented in Sect. 2.2, which is efficient enough to be applied to

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 12  Finite-difference numerical model of a piled abutment: a three-dimensional model; b equivalent

plane-strain model. Results of the computations: c plane-strain numerical model and non-linear SDOF; d
simplified procedure

a large number of cases. In this validation, three abstract geotechnical systems were con-
sidered, having the same height (H = 4 m) but three different capacity curves as depicted
in Fig. 13. The values of the parameters for these three capacity curves are reported in
Table 2.
In a first stage these capacity curves were used to evaluate the permanent displacement
through a time-domain integration of the non-linear SDOF (Eq. 3), applying each ground
motion with a positive and negative sign and considering the largest of the two computed
displacements, for a total of 3 × 467 = 1401 displacement values. Subsequently the same
three capacity curves and the elastic response spectra of each record were used to imple-
ment the simplified procedure described above, obtaining a different set of values for the
permanent displacement of the three systems.
The comparison between the predictions of the simplified method and the time-domain
calculations are shown in Fig. 14. Overall, the predictions of the simplified method are
quite good, considering that the method condenses the effect of a complex time-history
into an elastic response spectrum and an average cyclic capacity spectrum. It is remarkable
that a good agreement is obtained over a very wide interval of displacements, ranging from
0.01% to 50% of the height H of the system. The average error, indicated with the thin lines
in the figure, is equal to 54%. However, it is also interesting to observe that the error gets
smaller (in the average equal to 40%) when the displacements become larger than, say, 1%
of the height of the system, that is, for the cases of more practical significance in design.

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 13  Capacity curves used for 0.6

the validation of the simplified
procedure
3

0.4
2

kH
centrifuge experiment
0.2 1

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
s=u/H

Table 2  Parameters of the Capacity kC sC α β D0 T0 (s)

capacity curves used for the curve
validation of the simplified
model
1 0.20 0.022 0.80 1.0 45.5 0.6
2 0.35 0.010 0.80 1.0 175.0 0.3
3 0.50 0.014 0.82 2.0 198.0 0.2

Fig. 14  Comparison of the 100 curve 1

results of the simplified method curve 2
curve 3
with the results of time-domain target
calculations for the entire SIM- average error

BAD database
10-1
u/H simplified AD plane

10-2

10-3

10-4

10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1

u/H time-domain

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 15  Average 5%-damped

response spectra of the six group
of records used to validate the 1.6
simplified procedure, and cor-
responding code spectra

1.2

Sa (g)
0.8

5
0.4
4

1
0
0 1 2 3
T0 (s)

Table 3  Groups of records Group PGA (g) No. of records

used to validate the simplified
procedure using code spectra
1 < 0.05 89
2 0.05–0.10 101
3 0.10–0.15 79
4 0.15–0.3 105
5 0.30–0.5 56
6 0.5–2.0 37

The figure also shows that the error associated with the three different systems is fairly uni-
form, indicating that the proposed method has a similar reliability for systems with quite
different properties (see Table 2).

6 Use of code spectra

Once the method has been validated looking at the response for actual dynamic records, it
is necessary to test its validity for design purposes, using code spectra to express the seis-
mic demand, also in view of the fact that the normalized shape of code spectra entails some
loss of information due to their regular shape (Freeman 2007). To this end, the SIMBAD
records were collected into six groups based on their maximum acceleration (PGA), and
the average elastic response spectrum of each group was described using spectral shapes
provided by the Italian Technical Code. Figure 15 shows a comparison of the average
response spectra of each group and the corresponding code spectra, with reference to a
damping ratio of 5%, while Table 3 provides the PGA intervals and number of records con-
sidered for each group.

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Fig. 16  Validation of the simpli-

fied procedure using the code
spectra of Fig. 15
10-1
target
average error = 30 %
error for u/H > 10-2 = 10 %

u/H simplified AD plane

10-2

10-3

10-4

10-5
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1
u/H time-domain (average)

Subsequently, the geotechnical systems characterised by the three capacity curves of

Table 2 were analysed using the spectral shapes of Fig. 15 as a seismic demand, conjunctly
with the cyclic demand spectra for Fig. 10, obtaining for each system six different dis-
placements. In the iterations in the A-D plane, the code spectra were adjusted for damping
ratios different from 5% multiplying the spectral ordinates by the damping correction factor
(CEN 2004):
√
10
η= (13)
5+ξ

In Fig. 16, these displacements are compared to those obtained from the time-domain
integration of Eq. (3), averaging the results obtained for each group of records. It can be
seen that the average error is of the order of 30%. Specifically, for displacements larger than
1% of H the agreement is quite good, with an average error of about 10%, while the sim-
plified method underestimates the displacements by about 45% for smaller displacements.
In practice this under-estimate has little relevance because it involves very small displace-
ments. A closer inspection of the results revealed that the error in this displacement range
derives from an under-estimate of the first-activation displacement uI of Fig. 6b which is
quite sensitive to the approximate adjustment of the spectral ordinated provided by Eq. (13).

7 Conclusions

When subjected to seismic actions, the geotechnical systems considered in this paper
exhibit a strongly non-linear behaviour related to the progressive activation of their
capacity, that in turn may produce a significant accumulation of displacements: the seis-
mic performance for this category of constructions is in fact expressed by a measure of

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

its final, permanent deformation. In principle the permanent displacements should be

evaluated using a time-domain analysis of a suitable numerical model of the system,
including the structural members and the surrounding soils. It is also possible to employ
simpler time-domain analysis, either inspired by the Newmark (1965) method, that
assume a rigid-perfectly plastic response of the system, or incorporating a simplified
description of the dynamic response of the system, like the one developed by Callisto
(2019). However, any type of time-domain analysis requires a representation of the seis-
mic action through time histories, and for simple structures this represents a significant
burden to the designer. The objective of this paper was to propose a simplified method
that, retaining the essential features of the seismic behaviour of the systems under con-
sideration, could be at the same time routinary employable in design.
Because of the non-linearity of their response, it was tempting to extend to the systems
at hand the tools that are commonly used to perform non-linear static analysis of struc-
tures. In fact, it was shown that the seismic capacity of the geotechnical systems herein
considered can be represented quite effectively through appropriate capacity curves. How-
ever, the one-directional accumulation of displacements called for an extension of the
usual AD-plane analysis, that required the development of specific, threshold-dependent
cyclic demand spectra. For the purpose of this work these cyclic demand spectra were
related to the specific seismicity of the Italian territory. Once the preliminary work of
deriving region-specific cyclic capacity spectra was completed, then the static non-linear
analysis of the geotechnical systems became immediate, requiring a negligible computa-
tional effort. In the previous sections it was demonstrated that the proposed procedure is
robust and reliable, as it was seen to reproduce quite accurately the results of time-domain
calculations over a very wide range of displacements, and was also capable to predict the
results of both a complex centrifuge test and a dynamic analysis of a full numerical model.
As a final remark, it is worth mentioning that the superposition of the capacity curve
onto the elastic response spectrum in the AD plane can also be useful to evaluate the inter-
nal forces in the structural members interacting with the soil: a number of comparisons
with results of numerical analyses, not shown here for the sake of brevity, showed that the
maximum internal forces in retaining structures are clearly related to the spectral accelera-
tion corresponding to the intersection of the capacity curve with the AD elastic spectrum.

Funding Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza within the CRUI-
CARE Agreement.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.

References
Ambraseys NN, Menu JM (1988) Earthquake-induced ground displacements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
16:985–1006. https​://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.42901​60704​

13
 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

ATC (1996) ATC-40 Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood city
Baziar MH, Rezaeipour H, Jafarian Y (2012) Decoupled solution for seismic permanent displacement of
earth slopes using deformation-dependent yield acceleration. J Earthq Eng 16:917–936. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/13632​469.2012.68911​9
Callisto L (2014) Capacity design of embedded retaining structures. Geotechnique 64:204–214. https​://doi.
org/10.1680/geot.13.P.091
Callisto L (2019) On the seismic design of displacing earth retaining systems. In: Earthquake geotechnical
engineering for protection and development of environment and constructions. In: Proceedings of the
7th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. Associazione Geotecnica Itali-
ana, Rome, pp 239–255
Callisto L, Rampello S (2013) Capacity design of retaining structures and bridge abutments with deep
foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:1086–1095. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.00008​25
Callisto L, Soccodato FM (2010) Seismic design of flexible cantilevered retaining walls. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng 136:344–354. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.00002​16
CEN (2004) EN1998:1 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. Bruxelles: European Committe for standardization. The Euro-
pean Union Per Regulation 305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/18/EC
Chopra AK (1966) Earthquake effects on dams. Ph.D. Thesis. University of California, Berkeley, USA
Circolare n.7 21 Gennaio (2019) Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle ‘Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni’ di
cui al D.M. 17/01/2018. [Instructions for the applications of italian building code D.M. 17/01/2018]
Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation, Rome, Italy. In Italian
Coffin LFJ (1954) A study of the effect of cyclic thermal stresses in ductile metals. Trans ASME 76:931–950
Conti R, Viggiani GMB (2012) Evaluation of soil dynamic properties in centrifuge tests. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng 138:850–859. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.00006​59
Conti R, Madabushi GSP, Viggiani GMB (2012) On the behaviour of flexible retaining walls under seismic
actions. Geotechnique 62:1081–1094. https​://doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.029
Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16:573–
592. https​://doi.org/10.1193/1.15861​28
FEMA (2005) FEMA 440 improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Redwood City
Franklin AG, Chang FK (1977) Permanent displacements of earth embankments by Newmark sliding block
analysis. Earthquake Resistance of earth and rock-fill dams Report n.5. U.S. Army Engineer Water-
ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississipi, USA
Freeman SA (1998) Development and use of capacity spectrum method. In: Proceedings of the 6th US
National Conference on Earhquake Engineering. Seattle, Washington, USA
Freeman SA (2004) Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET J Earthq Technol
41:1–13
Freeman SA (2007) Response spectra as a useful design and analysis tool for practicing structural engineers.
ISET J Earthq Technol 44:25–37
Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrell JV (1975) Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk—a case study
of Puget sound naval shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In: Proceedings of the 1st US National confer-
ence on earthquake engineering, Berkeley, USA
Malhotra PK (2002) Cyclic-demand spectrum. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:1441–1457. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/eqe.171
Manson SS (1954) Behavior of materials under conditions of thermal stress. NACA—Technical Note 2933
Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 15:139–160. https​://
doi.org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.2.139
Rathje EM, Bray JD (1999) An examination of simplified earthquake-induced displacement procedures for
earth structures. Can Geotech J 36:72–87. https​://doi.org/10.1139/t98-076
Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JD (1998) Simplified frequency content estimates of earthqauke ground
motions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124:150–159
Richards RJ, Elms DG (1979) Seismic behaviour of gravity retaining walls. J Geotech Eng Div 105:449–464
Richards RJ, Elms DG (1992) Seismic passive resistance of tied-back walls. J Geotech Eng 118:996–1011
Richards R, Elms DG, Budhu M (1993) Seismic bearing capacity and settlements of foundations. J Geotech
Eng 119:662–674. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:4(662)
Seed BH, Martin GR (1966) The seismic coefficient in earth dam design. J Soil Mech Found Div 92:25–58
Smerzini C, Galasso C, Iervolino I, Paolucci R (2014) Ground motion record selection based on broadband
spectral compatibility. Earthq Spectra 30:1427–1448. https​://doi.org/10.1193/05231​2EQS1​97M

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Veletsos A, Newmark NM (1960) Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earth-
quake motions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd world conference on earthquake engineering. Tokyo, Japan,
pp. 895–912
Whitman RV (1990) Seismic design and behavior of gravity retaining walls. In: Proceedings of ASCE spe-
cialty conference on design and performance of earth retaining strucutres, pp 817–834
Wong CP (1982) Seismic analysis and an improved seismic design procedure for gravity retaining walls.
M.Sc. Thesis. Massachussets Institute of Technology M.I.T

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13