SPE-183334-MS

Design of Concrete Gravity Quay Walls - British Standards vs. Eurocode

Hazem Sarhan, Assistant Professor, Cairo University, Egypt/Projects Director, SOGREAH Gulf - ARTELIA;
Fatemeh Riazi, Sr. Structural Engineer, SOGREAH Gulf - ARTELIA

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Concrete blockwork quay walls are a common type of retaining structures used in marine and port facilities.
Such gravity type retaining walls comprise of precast concrete blocks that are durable and well-suited for
harsh marine environments. They have been widely used in the Gulf region in ports and more recently as
part of the oil and gas offshore artificial islands infrastructure utilized during construction and operations
stages. The main design reference of marine structures, including block work quay walls, is BS6349 which
is based on Allowable Strength Design (ASD) method. In 2010, this code was updated based on Ultimate
Limit State (ULS) or Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method in accordance with Eurocode.
The updated code has not been applied in many marine projects (yet) and there are uncertainties about the
effect of its application on the design.
To investigate this effect, three designed gravity quay wall sections with heights ranging from 10.5 to 23.6
m were checked based on both ASD and ULS methods under static and seismic conditions. The stability
analysis checks showed that the results are close for static condition but show significant differences under
seismic conditions. A parametric study was conducted to investigate the effect of using Eurocode 8 on the
design of gravity quay wall sections under different seismic conditions.
The analysis indicated that Eurocode 8 (ULS) resulted in conservative sections compared to ASD
methods of BS6349 for cases with surface Peak Ground Acceleration (amax) higher than 0.1g – 0.15g. Results
based on the Eurocode 8 design have been compared with USA codes and guidelines (AASHTO [2012],
Caltrans [2014] and NCHRP 12-70 [2008]) which indicated that gravity structures designed using Eurocode
8 resulted in conservative sections in medium to high seismic areas.
This study presents an assessment of the effect of using different codes on the design of gravity quay
walls. Considering that the latest code versions are stipulated in the design, it is important for both Owners
and Designers to appreciate the resulting effects on design and cost implications.

Introduction
Concrete gravity quay walls are one of the more common types of earth retaining structures in the region
due to their durability and low maintenance requirements.
2 SPE-183334-MS

The BS 6349 is a widely accepted and used standard in the design of marine structures. This paper
investigates the effect of adopting the newly updated BS 6349 [2010] compared to the original and widely
accepted version [BS 3649: 1988].
To make this assessment, three projects were selected with quay wall heights ranging from 10.5 to 23.6
m to cover a wide range of application of earth retention while providing the necessary infrastructure and
accessories for berthing vessels in different project functions.
The following sections detail both design approaches including stability calculations, load combinations
and comparison of the results.
A parametric study was further utilized to assess in more detail the design condition that exhibited
differences in result of the two methods.

Design Approach
Design Approach According to BS 6349-2 [1988]: ASD. The general design approach of B S6349
[1988], including gravity structures, is based on Allowable Stress Design [or factor of safety] method. In
this method, all uncertainty in applied loads and material resistance is combined in a global safety factor.
The safety factor is defined as the ratio between summations of stabilizing effects (∑Ri) to summation of
destabilizing ones (∑Qi) and should be higher than the target (allowable) factor of safety (FS); as represented
below:

Generally, the principal modes of failure for gravity structures are global stability (deep seated),
overturning, sliding and bearing capacity failure. The target factors of safety for different failure mechanism
are defined [in Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.4] of the BS6349 [1988] code. When calculated factors of safety are
greater than the target ones, this indicates that the associated failure mechanism is unlikely to occur under
the applied loading, geometrical and material conditions.
Design Approach According to BS 6349 [2010]: ULS. As per the new version of BS 6349 [2010], the earth
pressure calculations and general design principles should be in accordance with BS EN 1997-1 [Eurocode
7] which is based on the Ultimate Limit State design method (ULS). This approach involves checking
that the occurrence of all Ultimate Limit States (ULS) and serviceability limit states (SLS) are sufficiently
unlikely. ULS are checked by application of (less than one) partial resistance factors (Φi) to characteristic
values (Ri) and (more than one) partial load factors (γi) to actions (Qi). The failure mode is unlikely to happen
when the factored destabilizing effects (Ed) are less than or equal to the factored stabilizing effects (Es).
The Ultimate Limit States for geotechnical and superstructure should be checked according to three
different design approach methods that are designated DA1, DA2 or DA3 [according to Eurocode 7].
As per the BS National Annex [2004], the Design Approach DA1 shall be adopted. DA1 has two load
combinations: Combination 1 (C1), partial factors are applied to the actions while soil strength parameters
are not factored. In Combination 2 (C2), partial factors are applied to the soil strength parameters, while
permanent actions are not factored. At the same time smaller partial factors, compared to Combination 1,
are applied to variable actions (such as crane, surcharge, bollard and etc.).

Stability Calculation of Quaywall

Parameters that need to be defined for the quay wall stability calculation include the unit weight (18 kN/
m3), angle of internal friction of the backfill material (Phi = 40 degree), the angle of wall friction (2/3 of
Phi), friction coefficient between blocks (0.5), friction between blocks and rock fill foundation as well as
the block unit weights.
SPE-183334-MS 3

Loads. The loads used in the design of the quay walls assessed in this paper were considered in accordance
with the recommendations of the BS 6349 Parts 1 to 4 and by considering the following loads:
a) Dead Load (D)
Dead load is defined as the weight of all permanent parts of walls and calculated based on material
density
b) Active soil force due to retained fill (Sa) and surcharge (Ss)
The quay wall can deform enough laterally, allowing the back fill soil mass mobilizing available
full shear resistance and initiating the active earth pressure stage. The earth pressure was estimated in
accordance with Coulomb's theory, as recommended by BS 8002 [1994] and BS 6349 [1988], which
takes into account wall slope, wall friction and slope of backfill.
The stability calculation of the three quay wall sections was done using the active earth pressure
distribution included in Annex C of Eurocode 7, the results of which were close to the Coulomb
theory.
c) Water hydrostatic force due to tidal lag (Hy)
Tidal lag is a time delay of water level on the sea side versus land side which depends on wall and
back fill permeability. Owing to the high permeability of the backfill and the quay wall, the tidal lag
is usually small but the resulting hydrostatic force should be considered in the stability calculations.
While there is no clear recommendation for tidal lag for permeable quay walls in BS 6349 [1988],
the Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan [OCDI, 2002] recommends applying 1/3
of tidal range for permeable walls in calculating the hydrostatic forces. For projects in GCC countries,
a value of 0.5 m differential water head is usually considered as per industry standards and tidal range.
d) Bollard force
Bollard force, types and general arrangement are usually defined in accordance with BS 6349.
Bollard forces depend on size of vessel, waves, wind and current forces. The bollard force should
be considered for both extreme [1.0 x Bollard capacity], Mn, and operating [0.5 x bollard capacity],
Me, conditions.
e) Earthquake Load (Eq)
The earthquake forces were estimated using the practical and widely accepted pseudo-static
method. Codes define the horizontal (kh) and vertical (kv) seismic coefficients such as those
recommended by BS EN-1998 [Eurocode 8, 2004] as follows:
kh = αS/r
kv = ±0.33kh
where:
α is the peak ground acceleration on top of bedrock;
S is the soil factor (ground amplification coefficient) which depends on seismicity and soil
category.
r is reduction factor depending on acceptable deformation after seismic event.
The earthquake force has different components due to the mass of the wall, the dynamic earth
pressure and dynamic water force. The earthquake force due to mass of wall is represented by a set
of horizontal and vertical forces equal to the product of gravity forces and seismic coefficient. The
dynamic (seismic) earth pressure is computed using the earth pressure coefficient of Mononobe and
Okabe, as per Eurocode 8. Water dynamic force occurs due to the oscillation of the water on the
exposed side of the wall, is computed using Westergaard's approach, as described in Annex E of
Eurocode 8 [2004].
f) Crane Load (Cr)
4 SPE-183334-MS

Different types of cranes that were used in port operations of the assessed projects was considered
including ship to shore (STS - used in container terminals) and mobile cranes. STS cranes usually
have sea side legs supported in the quay wall while the landside legs are supported on crane beams.
Crane data are typically provided by suppliers otherwise they can be based on approximate estimates
provided in BS6349-1 [2000]. Depending on the crane type, resulting loads can be critical for bearing
capacity checks and stability under horizontal loads due to wind or seismic events.
Load Combinations.
a. ASD method
In this method, no load factors are used and the loads are combined as per BS 6349 [1988]
recommendations while observing operational considerations. For example, when a mobile crane
is working, there is no material storage (uniform surcharge) at the location of crane operation. On
the other hand, STS cranes cannot operate in storm conditions, so it is not combined with extreme
mooring loads.
The loads are combined considering that the probability of simultaneous occurrence of more than
one extreme load effect is very low and that two extreme cases such as wind (mooring) and earthquake
loads are not combined together. While all feasible load combinations have been considered in the
design of the considered quay walls, result of the following critical load combinations are presented
in Table 5.

Table 1—Load Combinations – ASD Method

Project Condition Load combination

Project 1 Normal D + Sa + Ss + Mn + Hy*

and 2
Extreme D + Sa + Ss + Me + Hy*

Earthquake D + Sa + 0.5 Ss ± Eq

Project 3 Normal D + Sa + Ss + Me +Cr +Hy*

Extreme D + Sa + Ss + Me + Hy*

Earthquake D + Sa + 0.5 Ss ± Eq

* For the stability calculation high water level has been used as critical case

b. ULS method
In this method the loads (actions) are categorized as permanent (G), variable (Q) and seismic
actions (AE). Permanent actions do not change during the life of the structure such as the weight,
while variable actions can change through the life of the structure such as mooring, tidal lag, crane
and live surcharge loads. For load combinations which include permanent and more than one variable
action, one of the variable actions is designated as the leading variable action (Ql) and the others as
accompanying variable actions (Qi). The permanent actions and leading variable action are amplified
by partial factors, while the accompanying variable actions are multiplied by reduction factors (Ψ).
The actions for persistent, transient and seismic conditions are combined as per BS 6349 [2010]
recommendations as follows:
Persistent and transient conditions:

Seismic
SPE-183334-MS 5

where:
Ψ0, Ψ1, Ψ2 are load reduction factors [Table A.2 of BS 6349:2010]
γi is partial factors for the permanent and variable actions [as per BS 6349:2010]. There are different sets
of partial factors for different considerations:
Set A (EQU): for the assessment of overall equilibrium states, such as overturning stability;
Set B (DA1 – C1): for assessment of sliding, bearing capacity, eccentricity and bearing pressure; and
Set C (DA1 – C2): for the assessment of sliding, bearing capacity, eccentricity and bearing pressure;
Based on above, the following load combinations have been considered for stability calculation:

Table 2—Load Combination – ULS Method – Persistence and Transient Condition

Load Permanent Variables

Combination
D Sa Ss Me Cr Hy

EQU 1 1.05(0.95*) 1.05(0.95) 1.5 0.84 1.012 1.05

2 1.05(0.95) 1.05(0.95) 1.05 1.4 1.012 1.05

3 1.05(0.95) 1.05(0.95) 1.05 0.84 1.35 1.05

4 1.05(0.95) 1.05(0.95) 1.05 0.81 1.012 1.5

DA1 (C1) 1 1 1 1.3 0.78 0.86 0.91

2 1 1 0.91 1.3 0.86 0.91

3 1 1 0.91 0.78 1.15 0.91

4 1 1 0.91 0.78 0.86 1.3

DA1 (C2) 1 1.35 (1*) 1.35 (1) 1.5 0.84 1.012 1.05

2 1.35 (1) 1.35 (1) 1.05 1.4 1.012 1.05

3 1.35 (1) 1.35 (1) 1.05 0.84 1.35 1.05

4 1.35 (1) 1.35 (1) 1.05 0.81 1.012 1.5

* The factor for unfavorable condition

Table 3—Load Combination – ULS Method – Seismic Condition

Load Permanent Variables

Combination
D Sa SS Hy Eq

Eq-1 1 1 0.3 0.3 +1

Eq-2 1 1 0.3 0.3 -1

Quay Wall Description. Quay wall sections of three different projects with heights ranging from 10.5m to
23.6m have been selected for this comparative study. These sections were designed in accordance with the
old version of BS 6349 [1988]. A brief description of each project relevant specifics is illustrated below:
Project 1 – Offshore Oil and Gas Project
The quay walls are currently in operation and used for berthing and offloading vessels within the
harbours of artificial islands. The quay wall typical section is Figure 1.
Project 2 – Naval Base
Quay wall (under construction) will be used for berthing of different types of naval vessels, supply
ships, landing craft and patrol boats. The quay wall typical section is Figure 2.
Project 3 –Container Terminal
6 SPE-183334-MS

This was a tender design to be part of new port terminal infrastructure. The quay wall typical
section is Figure 3.

Figure 1—Project 1 – Quay Wall Typical Cross Section

Figure 2—Project 2 – Quay Wall Typical Cross Section

SPE-183334-MS 7

Figure 3—Project 3 – Quay Wall Typical Cross Section

The main features of each quay wall are presented in below Table:

Table 4—Main Features of Projects Quay Wall

Features Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Quay Wall Height (m) 10.5 15 23.6

Water Depth from Chart Datum (m) 6.0 10 18

Function Allowing berthing Allowing berthing Berthing and operation of

of flat top barges of different type container vessels up to "E" class
for Large Drilling of vessel such
Rig Modules up supply ship, landing
to 1,500 tonnes craft, patrol up
to 155 m length

Length of Quay (m) 275 1190 1862

Uniform Surcharge (kPa) 55 50 30

Bollard Size 30 tonne at 80 tonne at Double Bollard 200 tonne at 27 m spacing

14m Spacing 18 m spacing

Earthquake Coefficients Kh = 0.092 Kh = 0.12 Kh = 0.075

Kv = 0.046 Kv = 0.06 Kv = 0.0375

STS Crane (kN/m) - - Vertical Load = 800

Horizontal = 95

Bearing Capacity Estimate. The methods for calculating the stabilizing and destabilizing forces for
stability against sliding, overturning and eccentricity is similar between ASD and ULS methods. However,
the methods used for calculating bearing resistance for ASD vs. ULS are different. For the ASD method,
the ultimate bearing resistance was calculated using the Hansen [1970] method. The target factor of safety
against bearing capacity failure was taken 3.0, 2.5 and 1.75 for normal, extreme and seismic conditions,
respectively.
For ULS method the ultimate bearing capacity was estimated as per Annex D of Eurocode 7 in which Nq,
Nc and Nγ factors are suggested to be as per Reissner [1924], Prandtl [1921] and Chen's [1975], respectively.
8 SPE-183334-MS

Utilization Factor
Considering that the two design approaches are different [ASD for BS 6349:1988 vs ULS for BS
6349:2010], the concept of utilization factor (UF) is introduced to facilitate the comparison of the results.
ASD method - The UF (Λ) is defined as the ratio between target factor of safety and factor of safety or
stabilizing effects / destabilizing; as shown symbolically below:

ULS method - The UF (Λ) is defined as the ratio between the factored destabilizing and factored
stabilizing effects

When Λ value is less than 1, this implies that the associated failure mechanism is unlikely to occur. Based
on the considerations and load combinations discussed earlier, the results of stability calculations as per
ASD and ULS methods are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5—Utilization Factor (Λ) comparison between ASD and ULS methods of BS*

Failure Mode Static Condition Seismic

ASD ULS ASD ULS

Normal Extreme DA1 (C1) DA1 (C2)/EQU

Project1 Sliding 0.98 0.87 0.83 0.93 0.90 1.13

Overturning 0.59 0.52 N.A 0.64 0.65 0.62

Eccentricity 0.33 N.A. 0.67 0.63 N.A N.A

Bearing capacity 0.50 0.43 0.31 0.64 0.57 1.11

Project 2 Sliding 0.80 0.72 0.69 0.74 0.99 1.25

Overturning 0.46 0.41 N.A 0.49 0.70 0.71

Eccentricity 0.12 N.A. 0.41 0.33 N.A N.A

Bearing capacity 0.52 0.47 0.24 0.54 0.80 1.47

Project 3 Sliding 0.83 0.87 0.68 0.77 0.93 1.23

Overturning 0.66 0.65 N.A 0.76 0.78 0.77

Eccentricity 0.26 N.A. 0.77 0.68 N.A N.A

Bearing capacity 0.69 0.60 0.38 0.61 0.68 1.54

* The utilization factor is presented for the critical block and critical load combination.

The result included in the above table is graphically in Figures 4 and 5 for static and seismic condition,
respectively.
SPE-183334-MS 9

Figure 4—Comparison between ASD vs. ULS Methods under Static Condition

Figure 5—Comparison between ASD vs. ULS Methods under Seismic Condition

The numbers do not suggest a specific trend for static checks. This is due to fact that these numbers
reflect the specific design conditions of each project including soil and loading conditions. At the same
time, the overall design and section dimensions will not significantly change under static condition for ASD
vs. ULS design approach.
However, the results indicate a significant difference between the ASD and ULS methods under seismic
conditions. This means that the designed quay wall section using ASD method may not be sufficiently
stable under ULS method under seismic conditions. This comparative assessment indicated that the main
difference in results of ASD vs. ULS method exists in the bearing capacity and sliding failure. This is
due to the fact that the soil resistance has been reduced significantly due to material partial factor that is
recommended to be used as per Eurocode 8. Depending on the adopted national Annex, different values
of material partial factor can be used. The British standard national annex [2004] recommends using the
same material partial factors included in Eurocode 8. This approach can be understood since the effect of
using material partial factors in low seismicity areas such as UK (PGA at bed rock is less than 0.08g as per
PD6698 [2009]) does not have a significant effect on the resulting designs.
Comparing Eurocode 8 approach with USA codes or guidelines such as AASHTO [2012] and Caltrans
[2014] indicated that no soil parameters reduction factor is used for the sliding and overturning check
10 SPE-183334-MS

of gravity structure under seismic conditions. However, some resistance reduction factors of 0.8 and 0.9
are recommended for bearing resistance and over stability resistance, respectively. This design approach
(adopted in USA codes) yield close results between ASD and ULS methods.

Parametric Study
In order to have a better comparison between the result of ASD and ULS under seismic conditions, a
parametric study was performed using pseudo-static method. The results of the average quay wall width
normalized with respect to the height of wall versus amax (earthquake peak ground acceleration) are presented
in Figures 4 and 5 considering that design were governed by sliding stability.
Based on results shown in Figure 6, the increase in concrete volume compared to static conditions has
been calculated versus the earthquake acceleration and presented in Figure 7.

Figure 6—Influence of Seismic Design Approach on Wall Design

SPE-183334-MS 11

Figure 7—Influence of Design Approach on Additional Concrete Volume Due to Seismic Load

The quay wall sections were further checked with no material reduction factor, as suggested in USA
codes, while keeping all other design considerations as per Eurocode 8 unchanged. The results are included
in Figures 6 and 7 for comparison.
It is also noted that the difference in design between ASD vs. ULS becomes notable at smaller PGA
values with increased wall height.
12 SPE-183334-MS

Conclusion
A comparative assessment of the design of three quay wall sections was done using BS 6349 [1988, ASD]
vs. BS 6349 [2010, ULS]. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between quay walls
sections under static but diverged significantly under seismic conditions especially for sliding and bearing
capacity stabilities check.
A parametric study was undertaken to further access varying PGA values on the design. Results indicate
that for low seismic conditions (amax < 0.1g), there is little difference in quay wall sections design. However,
for medium to high seismicity areas (amax > 0.1g), results show a significant difference in design sections
with excessive increase in concrete volume.
Regions in Europe with higher seismicity zone (such as Italy) has already started deviating from Eurocode
8 (ULS) by using Italian Building Code (D.M. 14/01/08) instead of Eurocode 8 which is less conservatives
compared to Eurocode 8 (Bellezza I. [2011]).
Comparing the design using USA standards (such as AASHTO [2012] and Caltrans [2014]) in high
seismic areas resulted in sections that are close to those designed using ASD method.
Owing to the significant economic implications, it is important that owners and designers take these
issues into consideration when formulating project requirements including codes and standards.

Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the contributions of ARTELIA colleagues especially Dr. Hossam Ali and Jorge
Trindade for continued support.

Nomenclature
a= Peak ground acceleration on top of bedrock, m/s2
amax = Peak ground acceleration on top of bedrock at Surface, m/s2
g= Acceleration of gravity, m/s2
r= Seismic reduction factor, dimensionless
AE = Seismic actions – ULS method, kN
B= Weighted average width of the block work quay wall,m
Cr = Crane Load, kN
D= Dead Load, kN
Eq = Earthquake load – ASD method, kN
Ed = Factored destabilizing effects – ULS method, kN
Es = Factored stabilizing effects – ULS method, kN
FS = factor of safety, dimensionless
G= Permanent loads (actions), kN
H= Height of quay wall, m
Hy = Water hydrostatic force due to tidal lag, kN
Kh = Earthquake horizontal coefficient, dimensionless
Kv = Earthquake vertical coefficient, dimensionless
Me = Bollard extreme force, kN
Mn = Bollard operating force, kN
Phi = Angle of internal friction of soil, degree
Q= Variable loads (actions), kN
Q1 = Leading variable loads (actions), kN
S= Soil factor, dimensionless
Sa = Active soil force due to retained fill, kN
SPE-183334-MS 13

Ss = Active soil force due to surcharge, kN

γ= Partial load factors, dimensionless
Λ= Utilization Factor, dimensionless
∑Ri = Summations of stabilizing effects – ASD method, kN
∑Qi = Summation of destabilizing effects – ASD method, kN
Φ= Partial resistance factors, dimensionless
Ψ= Reduction Load Factors, dimensionless

References
AASHTO 2012. LRFD bridge design specifications. American Association of State Highway and transportation Officials,
Washington DC, USA.
Bellezza I., D'Alberto D., Fentini R. 2011 Design of rigid waterfront retaining walls in seismic conditions. RIVISTA
ITALIANA DI GEOTECNICA 1/2011.
Brinch-Hansen, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin
No. 28, 6 pp.
BS 6349 2000. Maritime structures, Part 1: Code of the practice for general criteria, British Standards Institution, UK.
BS 6349 1988. Maritime structures, Part 2: Design of quay walls, jetties and dolphin, British Standards Institution, UK.
BS 6349 2010. Maritime structures, Part 2: Code of practice for the design of quay walls, jetties and dolphins. British
Standards Institution, UK.
BS 8002 1994. Code of practice for earth retaining structures. British Standards Institution, UK.
BS EN 1997, Eurocode 7 2004. Geotechnical design, Part 1: General rules. British Standard Institute, UK.
BS EN 1998, Eurocode 8 2004. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions
for buildings. British Standard Institute, UK.
BS EN 1998, Eurocode 8 2004. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 5: Foundations retaining structures
and geotechnical aspects. British Standard Institute, UK.
Caltrans 2014. California amendments to the AASHTO LRFD design specifications, Sixth Edition. Department of
Transportation State of California, California, USA.
Chen, W.F. 1975. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 638 pp.
Prandtl, L. 1921. Uber die Eindringungsfestigkeit plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden, Zeitsch. Angew.
Mathematik und Mechanik, 1, 15–20.
PD 6698 2009. Recomendatios for design of structures for earthquake resistance to BS EN 1998. British Standard Institute,
UK.
NA to BS EN 1997 2004. UK national annex to Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design, Part 1: General rules. British Standard
Institute, UK
NA to BS EN 1998, Eurocode 8 2004. UK national annex to Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions for buildings. British Standard Institute, UK.
NCHRP 12-70 2008. Seismic Analysis and design of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes and embankments. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington D.C., USA.
OCDI 2002. Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbor facilities in Japan. The Overseas Coastal Area
Development Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan.
Reissner, H. 1924. Zum Erddruckproblem, 1st Int. Conf. on Applied Mechanics. Delft, pp. 295–311.