MATERIALS FORUM VOLUME 33 - 2009

Edited by Dr Steve Galea, Associate Professor Wingkong and Professor Akira Mita
Institute of Materials Engineering Australasia Ltd

SEISMIC MONITORING OF STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
G. Fabbrocino, C. Laorenza, C. Rainieri, F. Santucci de Magistris
Structural and Geotechnical Dynamic Laboratory StreGa, University of Molise, Termoli (Cb), Italy

ABSTRACT
Several applications of Structural Health Monitoring and several techniques exists in order to assess the health state of a
civil engineering construction. Bridges and buildings are the structural typologies usually monitored: therefore,
currently the dynamic behaviour of a number of superstructures is extensively studied. Geotechnical aspects, instead,
are less investigated: in particular, the dynamic behaviour of a flexible retaining wall under seismic load conditions is
currently not fully understood. The Structural Health Monitoring system of Casa dello Studente at University of
Molise has been designed and is currently under construction in order to obtain a deeper knowledge of the dynamic
behaviour also of geotechnical structures. The above mentioned SHM system is an example of cooperation of several
different skills: geotechnical and structural engineers have worked together during all phases of design and installation
of the system and a large effort for a full integration of geotechnical and structural models is currently under
development. As regards geotechnical aspects, data coming from the SHM system, together with centrifuge tests and
numerical models, will be used to increase the knowledge about the dynamic behaviour of the soil-retaining wall system
in case of earthquake. On the other hand, data coming from the building of Casa dello Studente can be used for
classical SHM applications. Anyway, the most important aspect is related to the possibility of combining structural and
geotechnical knowledge and models and apply them in different fields.
In the present paper, the main aspects of an integrated SHM system at University of Molise will be described, pointing
out the targets which oriented its design and implementation. A specific sensor module, developed by PCB Piezotronics
Inc. under the supervision of the workgroup of University of Molise, will be described together with the phases of
installation within the instrumented piles.
1

institutions can work together in order to increase

performance and reliability of such systems, whose
promising perspectives seem to be almost clearly stated.
Informations obtained from such systems could be
useful for maintenance or structural safety evaluation of
existing structures, rapid evaluation of conditions of
damaged structures after an earthquake, estimation of
residual life of structures, repair and retrofitting of
structures, maintenance, management or rehabilitation
of historical structures. As reported in [3, 4], reduction
of down time and improvement in reliability enhance
the productivity of the structure and the results of
monitoring can be used to have a deeper insight in the
structural behavior which is useful for design
improvement of future structures. In order to get all
these objectives, an effective Structural Health
Monitoring system should be based on integration of
several types of sensors in a modular architecture.
Moreover, the advances in the field of Information
Technology and communications assure data
transmission also in critical conditions.
In the present paper, the main aspects of an integrated
SHM system under development at University of Molise
(Italy) will be described, pointing out the targets which
oriented its design and implementation. In fact, it is an
interesting result from cooperation of different skills
(structural, geotechnical, seismological). Data coming
from the system will be useful for damage assessment of
monitored structures, but also to study effects of
earthquakes. In particular, specific studies about soilstructure interaction will be carried out starting from

INTRODUCTION

Structural Health Monitoring for civil structures is

becoming increasingly popular in Europe and
worldwide also because of the opportunities that it
offers in the fields of construction management and
maintenance. Main advantages related to the
implementation of such techniques are: reduction of
inspection costs; research resulting in the possibility of
better understand behavior of structures under dynamic
loads; seismic protection; real or near real-time
observation of the structural response and of evolution
of damage; possibility to develop post-earthquake
scenarios and support rescue operations.
Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) is defined as the
use of in-situ, non-destructive sensing and analysis of
structural characteristics in order to identify if a damage
has occurred, define its location and estimate its
severity, evaluate its consequences on the residual life of
the structure [1]. Even if SHM is a relatively new
paradigm in civil engineering, the assessment of the
health state of a structure by tests and measurements is a
common practice, so that evaluation and inspection
guidelines are available since a long time [2]. SHM
objectives are consistent with this practice but it takes
advantage of the new technologies in sensing,
instrumentation, communication and modeling in order
to integrate them into an intelligent system. Thus,
Structural Health Monitoring is a very multidisciplinary
field, where a number of different skills (seismology,
electronic and civil engineering, computer science) and
404

detection process by taking advantage of the recent

advances in information technologies [7]. In this
framework, identification of the modal parameters of the
structures under operational conditions plays a primary
role. Recently, some strategies have been set up in order
to automate identification and tracking of modal
parameters [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] and allowing a full
integration of modal identification within SHM systems.
Reliable procedures are necessary also towards data
reduction and transmission, in particular after an
earthquake, when a limited communication bandwidth is
available: wavelet-based approaches seems to be
particularly promising in this field [14, 15]. However,
real-time interpretation of data can fail due their poor
quality and, in particular, in case of sensors failure:
therefore, in case of automated applications, this
verification must be conducted by the data processing
system itself. Recently, some interesting approaches
have been proposed in this field [16].
The most recent and innovative applications concern of
possible interaction among earthquake early warning,
structural health monitoring and structural control.
However, unlike traditional seismic monitoring, an
event driven monitoring system is not useful:
continuous condition assessment and performance-based
maintenance of civil infrastructures are necessary in
order to assess the short-term impact due to earthquakes
and the long-term deterioration process due to physical
aging and routine operation. In this framework, a
monitoring system can be used for disaster and
emergency management, traffic control, damage
evaluation, post-earthquake scenarios definition. The
use of monitoring systems on underground pipeline
systems may be considered as an example of postearthquake emergency management: damaged gas
utilities, in fact, can cause secondary disasters and, as a
consequence, serious losses. In this case, informations
about abnormal pressure changes in gas pipelines can
lead to an emergency shut-off. Similar controls can
affect traffic, if informations about structural integrity of

experimental results. Finally, closeness to a fault allows

implementation and testing of site specific early warning
strategies [5], so that integration between structural
health monitoring and seismic early warning systems as
a tool for seismic protection of strategic structures and
infrastructures will be experienced.
2

CURRENT TRENDS IN SHM

A monitoring system consists of a variety of sensors to

monitor the environment and the structural response to
loads. A typical architecture of the monitoring systems
is based on remote sensors wired directly to a
centralized data acquisition system. However, the
expensive nature of this architecture, due to high
installation and maintenance costs associated with
system wires [6], is causing replacement of wire-based
systems with new low-cost wireless sensing units by
spreading knowledge over the entire monitoring
network. As a consequence, a larger effort is currently
required in order to build effective data processing
algorithms, in particular taking into account such a new
architecture. Another relevant task is related to the
strategies to be implemented to manage data and
combine informations coming from a variety of sensors
and, therefore, related to different physical variables.
In the field of damage detection, a lot of algorithms has
been proposed on the base of several different
mechanical and physical principles. However, they can
be classified into two main classes: a first group of
techniques, the so-called modal-based algorithms,
aims at tracking changes in structural response directly
or indirectly related to the mechanical characteristics
(such as natural frequencies, etc.) of the structure before
and after damage. Conversely, the second approach is
based on the post-processing of measurement data to
detect anomalies from measurements (ARMAV
modelling, wavelet decomposition, etc.). In both cases,
the trend is in using methods able to automate the

Table 1. Relevant worldwide SHM systems

Country

Structure

Year
2004

N of
sensors
N.A.

Seismic
zone
No

Canada

Pipelines

Denmark

Wind turbine

2002

N.A.

No

USA

Prestressed
concrete pile

2008

8
(4 + 4)

No

USA

Golden Gate
Bridge

200006

64
nodes

Yes

Wireless
accelerometers

2006

Yes

GPS Antennas

2004

30

No

FOS, LVDTs

2005

10

Yes

Accelerometers

2006

30

Yes

Accelerometers

China
Sweden
Portugal
Italy

Donghai
Bridge
Grndal
Bridge
Historical
structures
School of
Engineering
Tower

405

Sensors type

Main features

FOS
FOS, MEMS
accelerometers
Accelerometers,
Strain gauges

N.A.
N.A.
Embedded
wireless sensors
The largest
wireless sensor
network for SHM
GPS-based SHM
system
Comparison FOSLVDT
SHM of historical
structures
Automated OMA

infrastructures are available. Knowledge of still operable

bridges can help decision makers to arrange a route to
the disaster area for rescue personnel and goods.
3

has been designed and it is currently under

implementation at StreGa Laboratory at the University
of Molise. It takes advantage of different skills and it is
a good chance to mix knowledge and models coming
from different scientific areas but characterized by
several common aspects.
Data coming from the system under operational
conditions will be processed and used to enhance
numerical models and improve the current knowledge
about flexible retaining walls.
On the other hand, data recorded during seismic events
are also crucial to have a deeper insight in the dynamic
behaviour of such structures and in the soil-structure
interaction during string motion events: in fact, these
data will be useful to improve seismic design procedures
for this kind of constructions.
Linear and non-linear models and data processing
techniques will be used to correctly interpretate the
dynamic behaviour of the structure and its interaction
with soil. Geotechnical and structural skills will act
together to this aim.
Currently, two piles belonging to the flexible retaining
wall have been instrumented with embedded
piezoelectric accelerometers. System design, sensor
characteristics and installation phases will be described
in detail in the following sections. Monitored piles have
been chosen in order to avoid as much as possible
boundary effects (Figure 1).
The structural health monitoring system will be
completed by installing a number of sensors on the
building which will be constructed on the excavated side
of the wall (Figure 1). Closeness between the two
structures (Figure 2) suggests that a kinds of interaction:
can exist. Thus, knowledge about structural behaviour
can help in understanding measurement results obtained
from the geotechnical sensors.
In the following sections, after a review of typologies of
retaining structures, some aspects related to structural
and seismic design of flexible retaining walls will be
discussed. They will be useful to better understand the
idea at the base of design of the monitoring system and
some structural changes necessary to assure that
instrumented piles have the same strength and stiffness
like the other close piles.

SHM SYSTEMS: A SHORT REVIEW

SHM systems have been applied to a variety of

structures, such as building, bridges, pipelines [17],
wind turbine blades [18]. A synthesis is reported in
Table 1.
SHM of bridges can provide a reduction in maintenance
costs and confidence in the performance of the structure.
Several applications of health monitoring to bridges are
reported in the literature [19, 20, 21, 22]. The Donghai
Bridge SHM system in China [21] is an interesting
example of application of GPS antennas in structural
monitoring: however, low sampling rates (10 Hz
maximum) are currently available and, therefore, GPS is
not yet suitable for a wide range of applications. In [23]
a performance comparison of the Fiber Optic Sensors
(FOS) and LVDTs for SHM applications pointed out
the effectiveness of FOS but also the high cost of the
FOS-based monitoring system, which resulted more
suitable for periodic than for continuous monitoring.
Geotechnical applications of FOS are reported in [24],
where such sensors have been used extensively in
Geosynthetics and above all in micro piles for corrosion
and damage detection purposes. However, a few
applications of embedded sensors in piles are reported in
the literature. Song and Zhou [25] have monitored steel
reinforcement and soil stresses for static purposes.
Szyniszewski et al. [26], instead, installed wireless
sensors during casting of prestressed concrete piles in
order to monitor stresses and accelerations during
driving: however, their interest was focused only on
preventing microcracking of piles during driving, thus
extending life of such elements in a marine
environment.
Monitoring of buildings is desirable particularly in areas
prone to earthquakes and strong winds, or for historical
or heritage structures [27, 28, 29, 30]. In [31] an
automatic data management system based on Matlab
Web Server, with several buildings monitored at the
same time, is described.
The School of Engineering Tower SHM system in
Naples is an example of Italian application in this field.
It is an example of integration between structural
monitoring and seismic early warning [32, 33].
4

RETAINING WALLS: AN
OVERVIEW

A retaining wall is any wall that retains material to

maintain a change in elevation
A large variety of type of soil-supporting structures are
employed in civil engineering works. A short review of
the main wall typologies is done here. Readers might
refer for instance to [34, 35, 36] for details on this
subject.
The most common types of retaining walls are gravity
concrete, cantilever T-type reinforced concrete, and
cantilever and anchored sheet pile walls. Alternate types
of retaining walls, including mechanically stabilized
backfill and precast modular gravity walls, might also be
employed. Counterfort and buttressed reinforced
concrete walls are less commonly used.

INTEGRATED STRUCTURAL AND

GEOTECHNICAL SHM SYSTEM:
MOTIVATIONS AND APPROACH

Flexible retaining walls are a widespread geotechnical

structure. Even if a number of design methods are
already available, they have to be validated and
improved.
Real scale experimental data concerning soil-structure
interaction, in particular in case of seismic events,
cannot be easily found in technical literature. Thus, an
integrated structural and geotechnical monitoring system
406

and precast modular gravity walls can be substantially

more economical to construct than conventional walls
[37]. However, a short life, serious consequences of
failure, or high repair or replacement costs could offset a
lower first cost. In addition, the design engineer must
assure the overall adequacy of the design since the
manufacturer of the wall may provide only that part of
the design above the foundation.
Embedded walls are constructed from contiguous or
interlocking individual piles or diaphragm wall-panels
to form a continuous structure. Embedded walls may be
cantilever, anchored or propped.
Cantilever walls derive their equilibrium from the lower
embedded depth of the wall. They rely on the passive
resistance of the soil in front of the lower part of the
wall to provide stability. Anchored or propped walls
derive their equilibrium partly from the embedded
portion of the wall and partly from an anchorage or prop
system which support the upper part of the wall.
Braced sheet pile, consists of a row of vertical
prestressed concrete sheet piles, backed by batter piles
connected to the sheet piles by a cast-in-place horizontal
concrete beam with shear connectors as required to
resist the vertical component of load in the batter pile.

A gravity wall consists of mass concrete, generally

without reinforcement. It is proportioned so that the
resultant of the forces acting on any internal plane
through the wall falls within, or close to, the kern of the
section. A small tensile stress capacity is permissible for
localized stresses due to extreme and temporary loading
conditions. Gravity walls rely on their significant mass
and geometrical dimensions for stability against sliding
or overturning. Small or no contribution at all to
stability is assumed to be provided by passive resistance
of any soil acting on the face of the wall.
A cantilever T-type reinforced concrete wall consists of
a concrete stem and base slab which form an inverted T.
The structural members are fully reinforced to resist
applied moments and shears. The base is made as
narrow as practicable, but must be wide enough to
ensure that the wall does not slide, overturn, settle
excessively, or exceed the bearing capacity of the
foundation. The bottom of the base should be below the
zone subject to freezing and thawing or other seasonal
volume changes. The T-type wall is usually the most
economical type of conventional wall and is widely
used.
Retaining walls using mechanically stabilized backfill

Figure 1. Schematic view of flexible retaining wall and of the monitored pile location
407

pile. The deflections at the head of the wall might be

high. Well constructed anchor walls undergo less lateral
deflection than braced walls and so provide a better
control of backslope subsidence. Anchor installation
only requires a small excavation to allow equipment
access. However for braced wall installation there is
often a requirement to excavate below the level of
support.
Anchored walls are always pre-stressed which
essentially removes the slack from the system. The
anchors will maintain their load throughout the
excavation sequence unless creep occurs. The anchors
also place the entire soil mass between the anchors and
the wall in compression, thus creating a very large
gravity wall.
Propped walls may have one of more levels of prop in
the upper part of the wall. They can be designed to have
fixed or free earth support at the bottom and derive their
stability from the props. They are common in
cofferdams.
For propped walls in the free earth condition the
penetration of the piles should be such that the passive
pressure in front of the piles will resist forward
movement of the toes of the piles but will not prevent
rotation. The piles are supported by ties at the top of the
wall and the soil at the base of the wall. In fixed earth
conditions further penetration of the pile is required to
ensure that not only the passive pressures in front of the
wall resist forward movement but also that the rotation
of the toe is restrained by the passive pressures located
near the toe at the rear of the wall. The above conditions
also apply to anchored sheet pile walls.
Soldier piles, also known as Berlin Walls, are
constructed of wide flange steel H sections spaced about
2 - 3 m apart, driven prior to excavation. As the
excavation proceeds, horizontal timber sheeting
(lagging) is inserted behind the H pile flanges. The
horizontal earth pressures are concentrated on the
soldier piles because of their relative rigidity compared
to the lagging. Soil movement and subsidence is
minimised by maintaining the lagging in firm contact

This type of wall has been used for coastal flood walls.
It is ideal for wet areas because no excavation or
dewatering is required to construct the wall. The
disadvantage is that it is more indeterminate than other
wall types.
Steel sheet pile walls are constructed by driving steel
sheets into a slope or excavation. Their most common
use is within temporary deep excavations. They are
considered to be most economical where retention of
higher earth pressures of soft soils is required. They
have an important advantage in that they can be driven
to depths below the excavation bottom and so provide a
control to heaving in soft clays or piping in saturated
sands. This is not possible with the soldier pile which is
also a more permeable structure. However sheet piles
are more costly and less adaptable to hard driving
conditions particularly where boulders or irregular rock
surfaces occur.
Easy driving conditions are experienced in clays, sands,
and clay-sand mixture due to the comparatively small
displacement of soil. However they may permit large
movements in weak soils and also effective de-watering
is often required since they do not provide a watertight
boundary. Seepage commonly occurs through the
interlocks and this can be sufficient enough to cause
consolidation of organic soils and soft silty clays,
(compressible materials). For sandy soils ravelling will
not occur if the interlocks are tight, but driving sheet
piles into loose sand can cause subsidence.
Cantilever sheet pile walls are mainly used for
temporary excavations of moderate depth. Because of
the large earth pressures and deflections that may
develop they are rarely used to retain excavations
greater than a depth of 5 m. However even this may be
excessive where soft or loose soils occur in front of the
wall. Stiffer cantilever walls, of concrete or steel
including diaphragm walls and heavy composite walls,
may be satisfactory to heights of 12 m providing the
ground is string enough. The required penetration depth
is high because the support is totally derived from the
passive pressure exerted on the embedded portion of the

Figure 2. Scheme of the flexible retaining wall and of Casa dello Studente building foundations
408

method.
The retaining wall considered in this research is an
embedded wall, cantilever sheet pile type made of two
set of contiguous piles disposed along two lines (Figure
1). A top beam connects all the piles.

with the soil.

Bored piles are used when a soil replacement rather than
a soil displacement method of piling is required and also
when there is a need to minimise vibration. They are
unsuitable where the ground water level on the retained
side is high. The best application is for cohesive soils.
The advantage of the bored pile is that only one pile
need be bored at a time. Therefore when working close
to a foundation only a short length of the foundation
need be exposed to any risk at a given time. It is also
easier to overcome ground obstructions than with sheet
piling or diaphragm walls. Also bored piles are able to
penetrate moderately hard bedrock materials more easily
than other methods
Close bored or contiguous piles are constructed in a line
with a clear spacing between the piles of 75 to 100 mm.
Therefore they cannot be used as water retaining
structures.
Their main use is in clay soils where water inflows are
not a problem. However they have also been used to
retain dry granular materials or fills. Where water is not
a problem the spacing of the piles can be adjusted so
long as the gap between piles is such as to prevent soil
collapse between them. In water bearing granular soils
loses are likely to occur in the gaps between the piles.
This can be prevented by providing a seal between
adjacent piles.
Secant piles are constructed so that there is an
intersection of one pile with another. The usual practice
is to construct alternative piles along the line of the wall
leaving a clear space of a little under the diameter of the
required intermediate piles. The exact spacing is
determined by the construction tolerances which can be
achieved. These initially placed piles do not have to be
constructed to the same depth as the intermediate piles
which follow, depending on the way in which the wall
has been designed and reinforced. Although the piles
can be use to form a continuous watertight wall, it is
dependant upon the control of tolerance for plan
position and boring direction. A lack of intersection
quickly makes the wall non-water tight.
Finally, diaphragm walls provide a water tight barrier
and are constructed with a minimum backslope
subsidence. They formed from reinforced concrete and
are constructed as normal cast-in-place walls with
support which become part of the main structure. The
slurry trench method is commonly used which involves
the excavation of alternating panels along the proposed
wall using bentonite slurry to prevent the sides of the
excavation collapsing. Diaphragm walls can be
considered to be impervious and therefore the dewatering of granular soils is often neglected. However
care must be taken to ensure that there are no openings
or joints since they may result in sudden loss of soil.
Diaphragm walls of shallow depths are often left
unsupported since they are classed as semi rigid
structures. However for deeper excavations support is
required to restrict lateral deflections. Diaphragm walls
are ideal for soft clays and loose sands below the water
table where there is a need to control lateral movements.
However they are relatively costly. They are also
unsuited to strong soils conditions where penetration is
slow and difficult due to the use of the slurry trench

5.1 Design of retaining walls for earthquake loadings

Earthquakes might cause permanent deformations of
retaining structures and even failures. In some cases,
these deformations originated significant damages with
disastrous physical and economic consequences. For
gravity walls, the dynamic earth pressures acting on the
wall can be evaluated by using the Mononobe-Okabe
method, while Newmark rigid sliding block scheme is
suitable to predict the displacements after the shaking,
as demonstrated by several experimental tests. Instead,
this simplified approach is not very useful for embedded
retaining walls for various reasons and then, there is
room for innovative approaches in design of such
structures. Here, for sake of simplicity, reference is
made only to flexible walls. Readers might refer for
instance to [38] for a large overview of design method
of retaining walls under static and seismic actions.
5.1.1 Design of embedded retaining walls with limit
equilibrium methods
In this procedure, the wall is assumed rigid, the soil has
a rigid-perfectly plastic behaviour and the pressures
deriving form the interaction depend on the expected
movements of the wall. The kinematical mechanism is
affected from the constraints applied on the wall.
Generally, the free embedded cantilever walls are
distinguished from the anchored or multi-anchored
walls. Here, only the former are considered. First, a
short recall of the static methods is reported and then the
seismic actions are included.
5.1.2 Static design of free embedded walls
As specified before, the stability of a cantilever wall is
guaranteed from the passive resistance of the soil in
which the wall is embedded. In the limit equilibrium
methods the wall movement that conducts to limit
conditions is constituted by a rigid rotation around a
point O placed near to the bottom of the wall. The
theoretical earth pressures distributions on the wall are
plotted in Figure 3.
To eliminate stresses discontinuities in correspondence
of the rotation point and to obtain a simplified shape of
the pressures distributions, different simplifications and
assumptions were proposed in literature. (Figure 4 and
Figure 5).
In a first case, the net pressure distribution is simplified
by a rectilinear shape. It is assumed that the passive
resistance below the dredge level is fully mobilized. The
rotation point coincides with the zero net pressure point.
At the bottom of the wall the soil strengths, active and
passive, are mobilized and the net pressure assumes the
values reported in Figure 4.
A second method assumes that the net pressure
409

distribution below the point of rotation can substituted

with the net force R applied at a distance z = 0.2d from
the bottom of the wall.

Padfield and Mair [39] assert that reasonable values of

the soil-wall friction for the calculation of the earth
pressure coefficients are A = 2/3 ' and P = 1/2 '.
5.1.3 Seismic design of free embedded walls

KA

In the EuroCode 8 Part 5 [42] is described a simplified

pseudostatic approach to analyze the safety conditions
of retaining walls. The seismic increments of earth
pressures may be computed with the Mononobe-Okabe
M-O method. Its application for rigid structures is more
prompt than for embedded walls for which the stability
is mainly due to the passive resistance of the soil in the
embedded portion.
As for the Coulomb theory in static conditions, the M-O
theory gives very high values for passive earth pressure
coefficient when the soil-wall friction is considered. For
this reason, the evaluation of passive pressure should be
conducted assuming zero soil-wall friction.
In the pseudostatic analyses, the seismic actions can be
represented by a set of horizontal and vertical static
forces equal to the product of the gravity forces and a
seismic coefficient. For non-gravity walls, the effects of
vertical acceleration can be neglected. In the absence of
specific studies, the horizontal seismic coefficient kh can
be taken as:

z'

d
d'

KP

KA

KP

KA d

KP (h+d)

Figure 3. Earth pressures distributions assumed in limit equilibrium

method

KA

d'

(KP - KA)

z'

kh =

S ag
r g

(1)

[K P (h+d) - KA d]

where S is the soil factor that depends to the seismic

zone and considering the local amplification due to the
stratified subsoil and to the topographic effects, ag is the
reference peak ground acceleration on type A ground, g
is the gravity acceleration and the factor r is a function
of the displacement that the wall can accept. For non
gravity walls, the prescribed value is r = 1 [42].
Furthermore, for walls not higher than 10m, the seismic
coefficient can be assumed constant along the height.
The point of application of the force due to the dynamic
earth pressures should be taken at mid-height of the
wall, in the absence of a more detailed study taking into
account of the relative stiffness, the type of movements
and the relative mass of the retaining structure.
Assuming that the position of the point of rotation O
near to the bottom of the wall is the same of the static
condition, the application of the Blum method to search
the seismic limit equilibrium of a free embedded wall
can be conducted adopting the loading system
represented in Figure 6. The earth pressure thrusts have
the following expressions:

Figure 4. Simplified earth pressures distributions: Full Method

KA

d
d'

KP

0.2 d'

Figure 5. Simplified earth pressures distributions: Blum Method

The main problem for the design of embedded walls is

then the right choice of the earth pressure coefficients
KA and KP when the soil-wall friction would be
considered. It is well-recognized that the Coulomb
theory provides unrealistic values of the passive earth
pressure coefficient when > '/2.
Different suggestions can be found in the literature [39,
40, 41]. Since knowledge on this field is limited, in the
current practice is commonly adopted A = 2/3 ' for
the active case and P = 0, for the passive case. In this
manner, passive resistance of soil on the dredge side of
reinforced concrete walls, realized with piles or
diaphragm, is largely underestimated.

1
2
K A (h + d')
2
1
2
S AE = (K AE K A ) (h + d ')
2

SA =

410

(2)

1
K P d' 2
2
1
S PE = (K PE K P )d ' 2
2

acceleration, that is incorporated into the soil factor S,

but that can be better evaluated through a site response
analysis.
For many structures, including embedded retaining
walls, there may be reasons to question the assumption
that the structure should be designed assuming a
constant peak acceleration. The validity of the two
assumptions (spatial and temporal invariance) will be
examined separately for clarity.
Figure 7 shows a M-O active wedge which interacts
with a vertically propagating harmonic shear wave of
frequency f and velocity VS, characterized by a
wavelength = VS/f larger than the height of the wedge
H. In this case, the variation of the acceleration along
the height of the wedge is small, inertial forces (per unit
mass) are about constant and the motion of each
horizontal element is approximately in phase.

SP =

(3)

in which the earth pressure coefficients with the

subscript E are referred to the seismic conditions while
those without the subscript E are the static coefficients.

S AE

d
d'

SA

S PE

SP
R

0.2 d'

a(z,t)

Figure 6. Earth pressures on a free embedded wall subjected to seismic

loadings according to EC8-5 pseudostatic analysis

The moment equilibrium of the forces around the point

O provides a simple relationship for the limit depth of
embedment:

d=

1.2h
3K PE K P
3
1
3K AE K A

(4)

Figure 7. Mononobe-Okabe wedge interacting with harmonic wave

characterized by large wavelength

a(z,t)

If the seismic horizontal coefficient kh = 0 (static

conditions), the seismic earth pressure coefficients are
equal to the corresponding static values.
The EC8-5 indications on the soil-wall friction conduct
to a very conservative design of the depth of
embedment, underestimating the soil passive resistance.
The use of the Blum method with the seismic passive
earth pressure coefficient given by the lower-bound
limit method proposed by Lancellotta [43] allows
establishing more reasonable depths of embedment for
cantilever walls.

Figure 8. Mononobe-Okabe wedge interacting with harmonic wave

characterized by small wavelength

5.1.4 The New Italian Building Code

In Figure 8 a case is depicted in which, either because

VS is smaller (the soil is more deformable) or f is larger,
is small if compared to H. In this case, at a given time
t, different horizontal wedge elements are subjected to
different inertial forces, and their motion is out of phase.
Therefore, at each t the assumption of spatial invariance
of the acceleration is no longer valid, and, at each t, the
resultant inertial force on the wedge must lead to a
smaller resultant force SAE than that predicted with the
M-O analysis.
Steedman and Zeng [46] have proposed a method for
evaluating the effect of spatial variability of the inertial
forces on the values of SAE, maintaining the hypothesis
that the wedge is subjected to a harmonic wave.

The new Italian Building Code [44] introduced some

innovations on the seismic design of embedded walls to
eliminate some discrepancies existing on the application
of the pseudostatic analyses for embedded walls (see for
instance [45]).
The pseudostatic analysis of an embedded retaining wall
should be carried out assuming that the soil interacting
with the wall is subjected to a value of the horizontal
acceleration which is:
constant in space and time (this is implicit in a
pseudostatic analysis);
equal to the peak acceleration expected at the
soil surface.
Deformability of the soil can produce amplification of
411

It should be clear that coefficient r in equation (1)

depends on the displacements that the structure can
accept with no loss of strength. That is, it may be
acceptable that over a small temporal period during an
earthquake the acceleration could be higher than a
critical value producing limit conditions, provided that
this will lead to acceptable displacements and that these
displacements do not produce any strength degradation.
This is equivalent to state that the behaviour of the
structure should be ductile, i.e. that strength should not
drop as the displacements increase.

kh =

Sa g

(5)

where 1 and 1 are factors for the deformability

of the soil that interacts with the wall and for the
capability of the structure to accept displacements
without losses of strength, respectively. Their values are
reported in Figure 9 and Figure 10.
The points of application of the forces due to the
dynamic earth pressures can be assumed to be the same
of the static earth thrusts, if the wall can accept
displacements.

1.2
Ground type A
1.0
B

0.8

1.0
C
0.6

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.4

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.2

H (m)

Figure 9. Diagram for evaluation of deformability factor (NTC,

2008)

0.1

0.2

0.3

us (m)

Figure 10. Diagram for evaluation of displacement factor (NTC,

2008)

To account these aspects, in the latest Italian Building

Code NTC two coefficients were introduced. In the
absence of specific studies, the seismic horizontal
coefficient kh can be estimated with the relationship:

Instead they should be taken at mid-height of the wall,

in the absence of more detailed studies, accounting for

Figure 11. Scheme of developed sensor module (courtesy of PCB Piezotronics Inc.)

412

the relative stiffness, the type of movements and the

relative mass of the retaining structure. From the short
note reported above it might then concluded that even
though retaining walls are well widespread, design
methods need to be validated and improved, especially
when dealing with flexible retaining structures.
6

inside of the enclosure. Design drawings of sensor

module are shown in Figure 11. A picture of the
prototype of the sensor module is, instead, shown in
Figure12. A 1-1/2 NPT conduit hub, which has a gasket
that seals against the outside of the enclosure, and a 11/2 NPT x 4 straight nipple have been used to connect
pipes, for cable routing, to the enclosure (Figure 13).
Each enclosure has been equipped with a pipe for cable
routing during installation.

THE EMBEDDED SENSORS

Taking into account the previously mentioned

uncertainties in flexible retaining wall design, two
contiguous piles, one for each line constituting the
flexible retaining wall, have been instrumented with
some embedded accelerometers.
The singularity of application and a number of issues
directly related to sensor embedment required design of
a specific enclosure for the manufacturer. As a result, a
new sensor module for embedded applications has born
from cooperation among technicians and scientists of
University of Molise and engineers of the factory.
Each sensor module consists of two seismic, high
sensitivity (10 V/g) ceramic shear ICP accelerometers
model 393B12 by PCB Piezotronics Inc., placed in two
orthogonal directions and encapsulated in a stainless
steel enclosure which assures impermeability and
protection against concrete pressure. Sensor bandwidth
goes from 0.15 Hz to 1 kHz, with a broadband
resolution of 8g rms. Measurement range is 0.5g pk.
For its features, this sensor is suitable for application
both in operational conditions and under extreme events
such as earthquakes. Moreover, they have an overload
limit (shock) of 5000 g: therefore, even if specific
procedures for concrete casting have been adopted,
through a pipe progressively raised in order to avoid
direct impact of concrete against sensor enclosure, the
high shock limit has been fundamental in order to assure
effectiveness of sensors, which are buried in concrete
and, therefore, not repairable, in operational conditions.

(a)

(b)
Figure 13. Conduit hub (a) and straight nipple (b) for pipe connection
to module

DESIGN OF INSTRUMENTED PILES

Instrumented piles had to show similar characteristics

with respect to the adjacent ones, in order to assure
significance to the present study and avoid singularity in
the overall behaviour of the structure. For this reason,
due to the not negligible dimensions of sensor modules
which caused some changes in pile geometry, specific
computations and additional reinforcement have been
provided in order to assure that the instrumented piles
had similar strength and stiffness with respect to the
nominal characteristics of the adjacent piles.
Three sensor modules have been placed in each pile:
positions have been chosen in order to be as far as
possible from the computed locations of the center of
rotation in both the building and operational phases.
Additional two sensors have been placed on top of each
pile, into a box over the top beams which connects all
piles. A schematic view of instrumented piles is shown
in Figure 14. Dimensions of sensor modules have
required design of an additional reinforcement to be
placed around them: in fact, where a module is located,
due to its dimensions, pile section can be considered no
more circular but it becomes an hollow section whose

Figure 12. Prototype of embedded sensor module

Sensors in each enclosure have been encapsulated

through a hard non-conductive epoxy resin in order to
assure rigidity to the walls of the enclosure, which has
not to suffer any damage during casting operation or for
concrete pressure. It assure also waterproofing of the
413

exterior diameter is 800 mm and whose interior

diameter is 300 mm, that is the size of instrumentation.
The additional reinforcement has been computed so that

the resulting section has similar strength and stiffness to

those ones in the rest of the retaining wall.

(b)

(a)

(c)

(d)
Figure 14. Scheme of monitored piles (a); details of head of piles and sensor housing (b), (c); layout of intermediate enclosures (d)
414

stiffness of piles, moments of inertia for the circular and

the hollow section have been computed and compared.
The effects of the four lattices and of the additional
longitudinal reinforcement have been taken into account
(Table 2): an increment of 0.9% of the moment of
inertia has been obtained for the circular section with
lattices with respect to the typical circular section; an
increment of 0.6% has been, instead, obtained for the
moment of inertia of the hollow section with respect to
that one of the typical section.

The additional reinforcement consists of a longitudinal

reinforcement made by 8 14 bars and stirrups made by
10 bars placed at a distance of 200 mm each other. As
said before, the additional reinforcement has been
placed just around sensor modules and extended at both
sides for the anchorage of longitudinal bars.
The additional reinforcement has been connected to the
typical one by mean of four lattices of the standard type
Baustrada, 8/10/6, h = 125 mm (Figure 14a-d).
However, they cause a negligible variation in strength
and stiffness as proved by computations. In Figure 15,
in fact, the strength domains of the typical pile section
without additional reinforcement, of the pile section
when lattices are present, and of the hollow section are
reported: the maximum strength variation has been
estimated in +5% for the hollow section with respect to
the typical section and in +3% for the section plus the
four lattices with respect to the typical section. Such
values can be assumed in the limit of dispersion of
strength.
A similar computation has been carried out considering
the shear stress: also in this case the increase in strength
for the hollow section is lower than 5% with respect to
the typical section of the piles.
Shear strength for the circular and the hollow sections
have been computed according to [47, 48].
As regards the effects of the embedded sensors on the

Table 2. Changes in moment of inertia of instrumented piles.

Section
Circular
(typical)
Circular +
4 lattices
Hollow

Moment of
inertia [cm4]

Scatter with respect

to circular section
[%]

2.945.584

2.971.369

+ 0.9%

2.962.194

+ 0.6%

It is clear, therefore, that negligible variations in terms

of strength and stiffness have been produced by the
installation of sensors within the pile.
The additional reinforcement, the presence of the
sensors and of pipes for cable routing, and, finally,

Magenta: Circular + lattices

Black: Circular
Green: Hollow section

Figure 15. Comparison of flexural strength of the modified sections of the pile (1 t 10 kN).

415

installation of three inclinometers (Figure 14) made

concrete casting more difficult. A pipe with a diameter
of 120 mm has been used for casting: it has been raised
during casting operations but being careful that its end
was always under the surface of concrete.
The large amount of reinforcement near sensors
positions and the use of a pipe for concrete casting
characterized by a reduced diameter required adequate
studies about concrete properties. Concrete workability
and fluidity were crucial for this application: thus, a
Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) and has been designed
in order to obtain Rck = 30 MPa, which was the design
value of concrete strength of the adjacent piles.
Adoption of a self-compacting concrete made casting
possible even in these particular conditions, without
segregation phenomena.
8

order to verify verticality of pile reinforcement and of

lattices after their introduction in the hole and before
concrete casting. This assured a proper installation of
sensors, with pile axis and normal to the retaining wall
surface as measurement directions. In fact, computation
of deflection of the system made by the four lattices and
the additional reinforcement near the enclosures during
the installation phase has shown that deformations are
within the elastic limit of steel and, therefore, no
permanent strain was expected after raised the system.
Slope measurements will be periodically carried out
throughout the life of the structure for static monitoring
purposes. Moreover, displacements of the head of the
piles will be monitored during excavation process using
topographic methods. A sample record from an
embedded sensor after concrete casting is shown in
Figure 18.

SENSOR INSTALLATION
9

Sensor enclosure has been connected to the additional

reinforcement by mean of a steel plate welded to the
longitudinal bars. Four bolts have been used to fix the
enclosure over the plate.
The main issue in the mounting phase was related to
sensor alignment. In order to assure it with very low
tolerances, connection between sensor module and plate
has been obtained by mean of four slot on the enclosure
and by using three stud nut and a bolt in order to fix the
enclosure at each point (Figure 16).
The slots allowed rotations in the measurement plane of
sensor module while the bolts allowed rotation along the
pile axis, translations in the measurement plane and
rotation with respect to the plane orthogonal to the latter
and to the pile axis. By using three straight lines as
references (Figure 17a) and checking parallelism of the
walls of the enclosures, a precise alignment of sensors
has been obtained.
Proper orientation of sensors in the hole has been
obtained by tracking some reference straight lines on the
top of the adjacent piles and by checking parallelism
between them and measurement directions, reproduced
on the top of the instrumented pile reinforcement.

CURRENT ANALYSIS CAPABILITY

AND FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS

At completion, the SHM system will combine different

skills and models (mainly structural and geotechnical)
and data coming from the flexible retaining wall, and
from the structure and foundations of Casa dello
Studente building will be processed and used to create
a database of measurements and processed data able to
deeply enhance knowledge about the dynamic behaviour
of structural and geotechnical systems (namely, flexible
retaining walls and foundations) and about soil-structure
interaction.
Operability of the SHM system also in the case of
extreme events such as earthquakes will be assured by
adopting particular hardware solutions and redundant
transmission systems.
Measurements will be stored locally on a MySQL
database and continuously processed in order to achieve
a substantial data reduction. Processing results will be
permanently stored on the database, and a remote access
to such data will be assured for remote assessment of the
health state of the monitored systems. Raw
measurements, instead, will be periodically deleted if no
meaningful events (earthquakes) occur.
Currently, a number of data processing procedure are
already available and extensively applied [8, 49, 50, 51],
but they are mainly referred to structural dynamics.
They allow a continuous automated identification of
modal parameters, whose variations could be in some
way related to presence of damage. However, a number
of models and data processing procedures is under
development and test within the research group of the
Structural and Geotechnical Dynamic Lab StreGa at
University of Molise. Numerical simulations of the
system are under both in the static and dynamic field.
When experimental data are considered, new data
processing procedures can be easily implemented and
integrated into the structural health monitoring system
thanks to the capabilities and versatility of LabView
environment [52]. Home-made software allows easy and
fast integration of new data processing algorithms, or
the updating of the existing ones. Moreover, the

Figure 18. Embedded sensor record

Some slope measurements have been carried out in

416

Ciro Visone who has in charge the dynamic numerical

simulations of the system. Mr. Marco Santone for his
work on the field together with people from StreGa Lab.
A final acknowledgement to Caparelli Impianti s.r.l. that
plays the difficult role of the contractor involved in a
seismic monitoring research project.

monitoring system can be easily expanded thanks to the

presence of the remote database which works as
information collector.

CONCLUSION
Several worldwide applications of Structural Health
Monitoring in civil engineering are reported in the
literature and several techniques exists in order to assess
the health state of a structure. Bridges and buildings are
the structural typologies usually monitored: therefore,
currently the dynamic behaviour of superstructures is
extensively studied. Geotechnical aspects, instead, are
less investigated: in particular, the dynamic behaviour of
a flexible retaining wall under seismic load conditions is
currently not fully understood.
The Structural Health Monitoring system of Casa dello
Studente at University of Molise has been designed and
is currently under construction in order to obtain a
deeper knowledge of the dynamic behaviour also of
geotechnical structures. It is an example of cooperation
of several different skills: geotechnical and structural
engineers have worked together during all phases of
design and installation of the system and a large effort
for a full integration of geotechnical and structural
models is currently under development.
As regards geotechnical aspects, data coming from the
SHM system, together with centrifuge tests and
numerical models, will be used to increase the
knowledge about the dynamic behaviour of the soilretaining wall system in case of earthquake. On the
other hand, data coming from the building of Casa
dello Studente will be used for classical SHM
applications and for studies in the field of soil-structure
interaction. Anyway, the most important aspect is
related to the possibility of mixing structural and
geotechnical skills and models and apply them in
different fields.
In this paper, the main aspects of design and
implementation of the integrated SHM system
developed at University of Molise have been illustrated.
A specific sensor module, developed by PCB
Piezotronics Inc. under the supervision of the
workgroup of University of Molise, has been described.
Since it is embedded into the piles, a specific design of
the instrumented piles has been necessary: the main
ideas underlying structural design of instrumented piles,
and the procedure and phases for installation of sensors
within the instrumented piles have been extensively
reviewed.

References
1.

C. Silkorsky, Development of a Health

Monitoring System for Civil Structures using a
Level IV Non-Destructive Damage Evaluation
Method, Proceedings of the 2nd International
Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring,
Stanford, CA, USA, 1999.

2.

A. Mufti, Guidelines for Structural Health

Monitoring, University of Manitoba, ISIS,
Canada, 2001, pp. 1-127, ISBN 0-9689006-0-7.

3.

A. E. Aktan, C. J. Tsikos, F. N. Catbas, K.

Grimmelsman and R. Barrish, Challenges and
Opportunities in Bridge Health Monitoring,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop
on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford,
CA, USA, 1999.

4.

F. K. Chang, Structural Health Monitoring,

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop
on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford,
CA, USA, 1999.

5.

M. Wieland, M. Griesser and C. Kuendig,

Seismic Early Warning System for a Nuclear
Power Plant, Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.

6.

J. P. Lynch, Decentralization of wireless

monitoring and control technologies for smart
civil structures, Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Technical Report #140, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2002.

7.

A. E. Aktan, S. K. Ciloglu, K. A.
Grimmelsman, Q. Pan and F. N. Catbas,
Opportunities and challenges in health
monitoring of constructed systems by modal
analysis, in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Experimental Vibration
Analysis for Civil Engineering Structures,
Bordeaux, France, 2005.

8.

C. Rainieri, G. Fabbrocino and E. Cosenza,

Key Engineering Materials, 2007, Vol. 347, pp.
479-484.

9.

R. Brincker, P. Andersen and N. J. Jacobsen,

Automated Frequency Domain Decomposition
for
Operational
Modal
Analysis,
in
Proceedings of the 25th SEM International
Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL,
USA, 2007.

Acknowledgments
The research described in the present paper has been
promoted by University of Molise, whose primary
financial support is acknowledged. Contribution of
INTERREG CARDS-PHARE MEETING project has to
be recognized.
Many people and friends gave their contribution.
Authors would like to tank Dr. Carmine Salzano from
PCB Piezotronics for his support and competence, Mr.

10. P. Verboven, E. Parloo, P. Guillaume and M.

Van Overmeire, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 2003, 265(2003):647-661.
417

24. W. R. Habel, M. Schallert, K. Krebber, D.

Hofmann, N. Dantan and N. Nther, Fibre
optic sensors for long-term SHM in civil
engineering applications, in Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Structural
Health Monitoring of Intelligent Infrastructure,
Vancouver, Canada, 2007.

11. P. Verboven, E. Parloo, P. Guillaume and M.

Van Overmeire, Mechanical Systems and
Signal Processing, 2002, 16(4):637-657.
12. A. Deraemaeker, E. Reynders, G. De Roeck
and J. Kullaa, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 2008, 22:34-56.
13. H. Guan, V. M. Karbhari and C. S. Sikorski,
Time-domain output only modal parameter
extraction and its application, in Proceedings of
the 1st International Operational Modal
Analysis Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark,
2005, pp. 577-584.

25. J. Song and T. Zhou, Working state monitoring

of a pile-supported 18-storey frame-shearwall
structure, in Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Structural Health
Monitoring of Intelligent Infrastructure,
Vancouver, Canada, 2007.

14. J. Li, Y. Zhang and S. Zhu, Smart Materials

and Structures, 2007, 17(2008) 015020 (11
pp.).

26. S. Szyniszewski, H. R. Hamilton III and Y.

Chih-Tsai, Wireless Sensors in Prestressed
Concrete Piles Combining Driving Control
with Long Term Monitoring, in Proceedings of
IABSE Conference on Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) for Bridges,
Buildings and Construction Practice, Helsinki,
Finland, 2008.

15. Y. Mizuno and Y. Fujino, Wavelet

decomposition approach for archiving and
querying large volume of Structural Health
Monitoring data, in Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Structural Health
Monitoring of Intelligent Infrastructure,
Vancouver, Canada, 2007.

27. L. Ramos, L. Marques, P. Lourenco, G. De

Roeck, A. Campos-Costa and J. Roque,
Monitoring historical masonry structures with
operational modal analysis: two case studies, in
Proceedings of the 2nd International
Operational Modal Analysis Conference,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007.

16. P. Kraemer and C. P. Fritzen, Key Engineering

Materials, 2007, Vol. 347, pp. 387-392.
17. http://www.ishmii.org/News/2004_07_15_FOS
pipeline.html
18. B. F. Srensen, L. Lading, P. Sendrup, M.
McGugan, C. P. Debel, O. J. D. Kristensen, G.
C. Larsen, A. M. Hansen, J. Rheinlnder, J.
Rusborg and J. D. Vestergaard, Fundamentals
for remote structural health monitoring of wind
turbine blades - a preproject, Ris-R-1336(EN),
Ris National Laboratory, Ris, Denmark,
2002.

28. B. Glisic, D. Posenato, N. Casanova, D. Inaudi

and A. Figini, Monitoring of heritage structures
and historical monuments using long-gage fiber
optic interferometric sensors an overview, in
Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Structural Health Monitoring of
Intelligent Infrastructure, Vancouver, Canada,
2007.

19. C. Seim and M. G. Giacomini, Instrumenting

the Golden Gate Bridge to Record Seismic
Behaviour and to Deploy Rapid Inspection
Response, in Proceedings of the 12th WCEE,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.

29. M. Turek and C. E. Ventura, A method for

implementation
of
damage
detection
algorithms for civil SHM systems, in
Proceedings of the 2nd International
Operational Modal Analysis Conference,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007.

20. P. Omenzetter, J. M. W. Brownjohn and P.

Moyo, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 2004, Vol. 18, pp. 409-430.

30. K. Thibert, C. E. Ventura, M. Turek and S.

Guerriero, Dynamic soil-structure interaction
study of a reinforced concrete high-rise
building, in Proceedings of the 2nd
International Operational Modal Analysis
Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007.

21. C. Liu, X. Meng and L. Yao, A Real-Time

Kinematic GPS Positioning Based Structural
Health Monitoring System for the 32 km
Donghai Bridge in China, in Proceedings of the
6th International Workshop on Structural
Health Monitoring, Stanford, CA, USA, 2007.

31. A. Mita, T. Inamura and S. Yoshikawa,

Structural Health Monitoring system for
buildings with automatic data management
system, in Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Taipei, Taiwan, 2006.

22. M. Enckell, Structural Health Monitoring of

bridges in Sweden, in Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Structural Health
Monitoring of Intelligent Infrastructure,
Vancouver, Canada, 2007.

32. C. Rainieri, G. Fabbrocino, G. Manfredi and E.

Cosenza, Integrated technologies for seismic
protection: an Italian experience, in
Proceedings of Cansmart 2006 International
Workshop, Toronto, Canada, 2006.

23. B. Tljsten, A. Hejll and G. James, ASCE

Journal of Composites for Construction, 2007,
Vol. 11, pp. 227-235.
418

No. 3, pp. 319-321.

33. C. Rainieri, G. Fabbrocino, E. Cosenza and G.

Manfredi,
Structural
Monitoring
and
earthquake protection of the School of
Engineering at Federico II University in
Naples, in Proceeding of ISEC-04, Melbourne,
Australia, 2007.

44. Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici, Nuove

Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, D.M.
Infrastrutture 14/01/2008, published on S.O. n.
30 at the G.U. 04/02/2008 n. 29 (in Italian).
45. L. Callisto, Pseudo-static seismic design of
embedded retaining structures, in Proceedings
of the Workshop of ETC12 Evaluation
Committee for the Application of EC8, Athens,
2006.

34. I. G. N. Smith, A. Oliver and J. Oliphant,

WallAid: A Knowledge-based System for the
Selection of Earth Retaining Walls, in
Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Industrial and Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence and
Expert Systems, Castellon, Spain, 1998.

46. R. S. Steedman and X. Zeng, The seismic

response of waterfront retaining walls, in
Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference on
Design and Performance of Earth Retaining
Structures, Special Technical Publication 25,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA,
1990, pp.872-886.

35. C. R. I. Clayton, J. Milititski and R. I. Woods,

Earth pressure and earth-retaining structures,
Second Edition, SPON PRESS, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, 1993, pp. 1- 414.
36. USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Retaining and flood walls, Department of the
Army, Engineering Manual, EM 1110-2-2502,
1989.

47. D.C. Rai, Review of Code Design Forces for

Shaft Supports of Elevated Water Tanks,
Proceedings of 12th Symposium on Earthquake
Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 16-18, 2002.

37. R. M. Leary and G. L. Klinedinst, Retaining

Wall Alternates, in Proceedings of the 34th
Annual Highway Geology Symposium, Atlanta,
USA, 1984.

48. M. P. Collins, E.C. Bentz, Y.J. Kim, Shear

Strength of Circular Reinforced Concrete
Columns. ACI Special Publication 197-3 S.M.
Uzumeri Symposium - Behavior and Design of
Concrete Structures for Seismic Performance,
pp. 45-85, 2002.

38. C. Visone and F. Santucci de Magistris, A

review of design methods for retaining
structures under seismic loading, in Strategies
for reduction of the seismic risk, ISBN 978-8888102-15-3, 2008, pp. 51-64.

49. C. Rainieri, G. Fabbrocino, E. Cosenza and G.

Manfredi, Implementation of OMA Procedures
Using LABVIEW: Theory and Application, in
Proceedings of the 2nd International
Operational Modal Analysis Conference,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007, pp. 1-12.

39. C. J. Padfield, and R. J. Mair, Design of

retaining walls embedded in stiff clays, Report
No. 104, London: Construction Industry
Research and Information Association,
England, 1984.

50. C. Rainieri, G. Fabbrocino and E. Cosenza, An

approach to automated modal parameter
identification for structural health monitoring
applications, in Proceedings of The Ninth
International Conference on Computational
Structures Technology, Athens, Greece, 2008.

40. K. Terzaghi, Transactions, American Society of

Civil Engineers, 1954, N. 119, pp. 1243-1280.
41. W. C. Teng, Foundation Design, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1962.

51. C. Rainieri, G. Fabbrocino and E. Cosenza,

structural health monitoring systems as a tool
for seismic protection, in Proceedings of the
XIV World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.

42. CEN European Committee for Standardization,

EN 1998-5, Eurocode 8: Design of structures
for earthquake resistance Part 5: Foundations,
retaining structures and geotechnical aspects,
Bruxelles, Belgium, 2003.

52. National Instruments, LabView Fundamentals,

LabView manual, 2005, pp. 1-165.

43. R. Lancellotta, Geotechnique, 2007, Vol. 57,

419