Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Alternative To The Mononobe-Okabe Equations For Seismic Earth Pressures
An Alternative To The Mononobe-Okabe Equations For Seismic Earth Pressures
Abstract
A closed-form stress plasticity solution is presented for gravitational and earthquake-induced earth pressures on retaining walls. The
proposed solution is essentially an approximate yield-line approach, based on the theory of discontinuous stress elds, and takes into
account the following parameters: (1) weight and friction angle of the soil material, (2) wall inclination, (3) backll inclination, (4) wall
roughness, (5) surcharge at soil surface, and (6) horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration. Both active and passive conditions are
considered by means of different inclinations of the stress characteristics in the backll. Results are presented in the form of
dimensionless graphs and charts that elucidate the salient features of the problem. Comparisons with established numerical solutions,
such as those of Chen and Sokolovskii, show satisfactory agreement (maximum error for active pressures about 10%). It is shown that
the solution does not perfectly satisfy equilibrium at certain points in the medium, and hence cannot be classied in the context of limit
analysis theorems. Nevertheless, extensive comparisons with rigorous numerical results indicate that the solution consistently
overestimates active pressures and under-predicts the passive. Accordingly, it can be viewed as an approximate lower-bound solution,
than a mere predictor of soil thrust. Compared to the Coulomb and MononobeOkabe equations, the proposed solution is simpler, more
accurate (especially for passive pressures) and safe, as it overestimates active pressures and underestimates the passive. Contrary to the
aforementioned solutions, the proposed solution is symmetric, as it can be expressed by a single equationdescribing both active and
passive pressuresusing appropriate signs for friction angle and wall roughness.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Retaining wall; Seismic earth pressure; Limit analysis; Lower bound; Stress plasticity; MononobeOkabe; Numerical analysis
0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.01.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
958 G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 957969
equilibrium in the medium is generally not satised. In the single equation with opposite signs for friction angle and
realm of associative and convex materials, solutions of this wall roughness. Apart from its intrinsic theoretical interest,
type are inherently unsafe that is, they underestimate active the proposed analysis can be used for the assessment and
pressures and overestimate the passive [10,24,25,40]. improvement of other related methods.
A second group of limit-analysis methods, the stress
solutions, make use of pertinent stress elds that satisfy the 2. Problem denition and model development
equilibrium equations and the stress boundary conditions,
without violating the failure criterion anywhere in the The problem under investigation is depicted in Fig. 1: a
medium [2527]. On the other hand, the kinematics of the slope of dry cohesionless soil retained by an inclined
problem is not examined and, therefore, compatibility gravity wall, is subjected to plane strain conditions under
of deformations is generally not satised. For convex the combined action of gravity (g and seismic body
materials, formulations of this type are inherently safe that forces ah g and av g in the horizontal and vertical
is, they overestimate active pressures and underestimate the direction, respectively. The problem parameters are: height
passive [10,25,26]. The best known such solution is that of (H) and inclination o of the wall, inclination (b) of the
Rankine, the applicability of which is severely restricted by backll; roughness (d) of the wallsoil interface; friction
the assumptions of horizontal backll, vertical wall and angle (f) and unit weight (g) of the soil material, and
smooth soilwall interface. In addition, the solution may surface surcharge (q). Since backlls typically consist of
be applied only if the surface surcharge is uniform or non- granular materials, cohesion in the soil and cohesion at the
existing. Owing to difculties in deriving pertinent stress soilwall interface are not studied here. In addition, since
elds for general geometries, the vast majority of limit- the vibrational characteristics of the soil are neglected, the
analysis solutions in geotechnical design are of the seismic force is assumed to be uniform in the backll. Also,
kinematic type [811,26]. To the best of the authors the wall can translate away from, or towards to, the
knowledge, no simple closed-form solution of the stress backll, under zero rotation. Both assumptions have
type has been derived for seismic earth pressures. important implications in the distribution of earth pres-
Notwithstanding the theoretical signicance and prac- sures on the wall, as explained below.
tical appeal of the Coulomb and MononobeOkabe The resultant body force in the soil is acting under an
solutions, these formulations can be criticized on the angle ce from vertical
following important aspects: (1) in the context of limit
ah
analysis, their predictions are unsafe; (2) their accuracy tan ce , (1)
(and safety) diminishes in the case of passive pressures 1 av
on rough walls, (3) the mathematical expressions are which is independent of the unit weight of the material.
complicated and difcult to verify,1 (4) the distribution Positive ah (i.e., ce 40) denotes inertial action towards the
of tractions on the wall are not predicted (typically wall (ground acceleration towards the backll), which
assumed linear with depth following Rankines solution), maximizes active thrust. Conversely, negative ah (i.e.,
(5) optimization of the failure mechanism is required in the ce o0) denotes inertial action towards the backll, which
presence of multiple loads, to determine a stationary minimizes passive resistance. In accordance with the rest of
(optimum) value of soil thrust, and (6) in the context of the literature, positive av is upward (downward ground
limit-equilibrium analysis, stress boundary conditions are acceleration). However, its inuence on earth pressures,
not satised, as the yield surface does not generally emerge although included in the analysis, is not studied numeri-
at the soil surface at the required angles of 45 f=2. cally here, as it is usually minor and often neglected in
In light of the above arguments, it appears that the design [9,21].
development of a closed-form solution of the stress type for
assessing seismically-induced earth pressures would be
desirable. It will be shown that the proposed solution,
although approximate, is mathematically simpler than the inclined q +
existing kinematic solutions, offers satisfactory accuracy backfill
(maximum deviation for active pressures against rigorous + e
numerical solutions less than 10%), yields results on the
safe side, satises stress boundary conditions, and predicts cohesionless soil +ah
the point of application of soil thrust. Last but least, the (, )
+av
solution will be shown to be symmetric with respect to +
H
active and passive conditions, as it can be expressed by a
z
inclined wall,
1
The story of a typographical error in the MononobeOkabe formula roughness ()
that appeared in a seminal article of the early 1970s and subsequently
propagated in a large portion of the literature, is indicative of the difculty
in checking the mathematics of these expressions (Davies et al. [41]). Fig. 1. The problem under consideration.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 957969 959
In the absence of surcharge, the MononobeOkabe To prevent slope failure when inertial action is pointing
solution to the above problem is given by the well-known towards the wall, the seismic angle ce should not exceed
formula [11]: the difference between the friction angle and the slope
2PE cos2 f ce o
KE " s#2 , (2)
gH 2 sind f sinf ce b
cos ce cos2 o cosd ce o 1
cosd ce o cosb o
where PE denotes the limit of seismic thrust on the wall inclination. Therefore, the following constraint applies [9]:
units F=L and K E is the corresponding earth pressure ce of b. (3)
coefcient. In the above representation (and hereafter),
the upper sign refers to active conditions (PE PAE ; A similar relation can be written for the case where inertial
K E K AE ), and the lower sign to passive (PE PPE ; action is pointing towards the backll, but it is of limited
K K PE ). practical interest and will not be discussed here.
A drawback of the above equation lies in the difculty in To analyze the problem, the backll is divided into two
interpreting the physical meaningespecially signsof the main regions subjected to different stress elds, as shown in
various terms (Ref. [25, footnote in p. 4]). As will be shown Fig. 2: the rst region (zone A) is located close to the soil
below, the proposed solution is free of this problem. surface, whereas the second (zone B) close to the wall. In
both regions the soil is assumed to be in a condition of
impeding yielding under the combined action of gravity
and earthquake body forces. The same assumption is
unit length adopted for the soilwall interface, which, however, is
subjected exclusively to contact stresses. A transition zone
between regions A and B is introduced later on.
Fundamental to the proposed analysis is the assumption
q that stresses close to the soil surface can be well
approximated by those in an infinite slope, as shown in
Fig. 2. In this region (A), the inclined soil element shown is
soil subjected to canceling actions along its vertical sides. Thus
surface
equilibrium is achieved solely under body forces and
contact stress acting at its bottom face.
Based on this physically motivated hypothesis, the
stresses sb and tb at the base of the inclined element are
determined from the following expressions [34]:
q
sb gz cos2 b, (4a)
z ZONE A cos b
q
tb gz sin b cos b, (4b)
cos b
which are valid for static conditions (ah av 0) and
(w, w) satisfy the stress boundary conditions at the surface.
passive Eqs. (4) suggest that the ratio of shear to normal stresses
is constant tan b at all depths, and that points at the same
H depth are subjected to equal stresses. Note that due to
static determinacy and anti-symmetry, the above relations
are independent of material properties and asymptotically
exact at large distances from the wall.
z
(w, w) Considering the material to be in a condition of
active
impeding yielding, the Mohr circle of stresses in region
A is depicted in Fig. 3. The different locations of the stress
point (sb ; tb ) for active and passive conditions and the
different inclinations of the major principal plane (indi-
wall length
cated by heavy lines) are apparent in the graph.
L = H / cos ZONE B
From the geometry of Fig. 3, the normal stress sb is
Fig. 2. Stress elds close to soil surface (zone A) and the wall (zone B). related to mean stress S A through the proportionality
ARTICLE IN PRESS
960 G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 957969
*
e
Combining Eqs. (5), (8) and (10), and integrating over
the height of the wall, it is straightforward to show that the
earth pressure coefcient K g is given by [39]
coso b cos b 1 sin f cosD2 d
Kg e
cos d cos2 o 1 sin f cosD1 b
exp2y tan f, 12 e
H*
where H
*
2y D2 D1 d b 2o (13)
is twice the angle separating the major principal planes in
zones A and B (Fig. 4). The convention regarding double
signs in the above equations is as before.
It is also straightforward to show that the surcharge Fig. 5. Similarity transformation for analyzing the pseudo-dynamic
coefcient K q is related to K g through the simple expression seismic problem as a gravitational problem. Note the modied wall
height H , backll slope b , and wall inclination o in the
cos o
Kq Kg , (14) transformed geometry. Also note that the rotation should be performed
coso b in the opposite sense (i.e., clockwise) for passive pressures ce o0.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
962 G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 957969
H H coso ce = cos o, (17) which encompasses seismic action and can be used in the
context of Eq. (11). In the above equation,
g g1 av = cos ce , (18)
2yE D2 D1 d b 2o ce (22)
q q1 av = cos ce . (19)
The modication in g and q is due to the change in length of is twice the revolution angle of principal stresses in
the corresponding vectors (Fig. 1) as a result of inertial the two regions under seismic conditions; D1 equals
action. To obtain Eq. (19), it has been tacitly assumed that Arcsinsinb ce = sin f, following Eqs. (6) and (15).
the surcharge responds to the earthquake motion in the The seismic earth pressure coefcient K Eq is obtained as
same manner as the backll and, thereby, the transformed
surcharge remains vertical. Note that this is not an essential cos o
K Eq K Eg , (23)
hypothesisjust a convenient (reasonable) assumption from coso b
an analysis viewpoint. Understandably, the strength para-
meters f and d are invariant to the transformation. which coincides with the static solution in Eq. (14).
In the light of the above developments, the soil thrust The horizontal component of soil thrust is determined
including earthquake action can be determined from the from the actual geometry, as in the gravitational
modied expression: problem
Table 1
Comparison of results for active and passive earth pressures predicted by various methods
o 0 20 20
(a) K Ag valuesa
Coulomb 0.490 0.447 0.333 0.301 0.217 0.199 0.498 0.476 0.212 0.180
Kinematic limit analysis [31] 0.490 0.448 0.333 0.303 0.217 0.200 0.498 0.476 0.218 0.189
Zero extension [33] 0.49 0.41 0.33 0.27 0.22 0.17
Slip line [28] 0.490 0.450 0.330 0.300 0.220 0.200 0.521 0.487 0.229 0.206
Proposed stress limit analysis 0.490 0.451 0.333 0.305 0.217 0.201 0.531 0.485 0.237 0.217
(b) K Pg valuesb
Coulomb 2.04 2.64 3.00 4.98 4.60 11.77 2.27 3.162 5.34 12.91
Kinematic limit analysis [31] 2.04 2.58 3.00 4.70 4.60 10.07 2.27 3.160 5.09 8.92
Zero extension [33] 2.04 2.55 3.00 4.65 4.60 9.95
Slip line [28] 2.04 2.55 3.00 4.62 4.60 9.69 2.16 3.16 5.06 8.45
Proposed stress limit analysis 2.04 2.52 3.00 4.44 4.60 8.92 2.13 3.157 4.78 7.07
The results for d o 0 are identical for all methods. Note the decrease in K Pg values as we move from top to bottom in each column, and the
corresponding increase in K Ag ; b 0 (modied from Chen and Liu [31]).
a
K Ag PA =12 gH 2 .
b
K Pg PP =12 gH 2 .
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 957969 963
0.5 0.5
= 0 = 0
KE cos
0.4 =/ 2 0.4
=/ 2
0.3 1
KAE=PAE/ ( H2) 0.3 KAE=PAE/(
1
H2)
2 2
0.2 0.2
H ah H ah
PAE PAE
0.1 0.1
M - O Analysis M - O Analysis
Proposed Stress Limit Analysis Proposed Stress Limit Analysis
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient, ah Horizontal Seismic Coefficient, ah
0.7 0.7
= = 0 = = 0
=/ 2 = 30 = 35 ; = / 2
0.6 0.6
35 = 20
40
0.5 0.5
= 0
KE cos
KE cos
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
KAE=PAE/( 1 H2)
KAE=PAE/ (1 H2) 2
2
0.2 0.2
ah
H ah H
PAE PAE
0.1 0.1
M- O Analysis M- O Analysis
Proposed Stress Limit Analysis Proposed Stress Limit Analysis
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient, ah Horizontal Seismic Coefficient, ah
Fig. 8. Comparison of active seismic earth pressures predicted by the proposed solution and from conventional MO analysis, for different geometries,
material properties and acceleration levels; av 0 (modied from Seed and Whitman [8]).
and geometric parameters. Second, the present analysis is solution with results from the MO and Chens kinematic
conservative in all cases. Third, close to the slope stability methods are provided on the left graph (Fig. 10a). The
limit (Fig. 9d), or for high accelerations and large wall predictions of the stress solutions are, understandably,
inclinations (Fig. 9c), Chens predictions are less accurate lower than those of Chen and Liu, whereas MO
than those of the elementary MO solution. In the same predictions are very high (i.e., unconservative)especially
extreme conditions, the proposed solution becomes ex- for friction angles above 37 . Given the sensitivity of
ceedingly conservative, exceeding MO predictions by passive pressure analyses, the performance of the proposed
about 35%. Note that whereas the MO and the proposed method is deemed satisfactory.
solution break down in the slope stability limit, Chens An interesting comparison is presented in Fig. 10b:
solution allows for spurious mathematical predictions of average predictions from the two closed-form solutions
active thrust beyond the limit, as evident in Fig. 9d. Fourth, (MO solution and proposed stress solution) are plotted
with the exception of the aforementioned extreme cases, against the rigorous numerical results of Chen and
Chens and MO predictions remain close over the whole Liu [31]. Evidently, in the range of most practical interest
range of parameters examined. The improvement in the 30 ofo40 , the discrepancies in the results have been
predictions of the former over the latter is marginal. drastically reduced. This suggests that the limit equilibrium
Results for seismic passive pressures (resistances) are (kinematic) MO solution and the proposed static solution
shown in Fig. 10 for the common case of a rough vertical overestimate and underestimate, respectively, passive
wall with horizontal backll. Comparisons of the proposed resistances by the same amount in the specic range of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 957969 965
1 2 1 2
KAE=PAE/ ( H ) KAE=PAE/ ( H )
Coefficient of Seismic Active Earth Pressure, KAE
0.7 2 2
0.6
= = 0 ; = 2/3 = = 0 ; = 40
0.6
H ah H ah
0.5
PAE PAE
0.5
KAE cos
0.30
0.4
0.4 0.20
0.10 0.3
0.3 =0 /2
ah = 0 = =
0.2
0.2
M - O Analysis M - O Analysis
Kinematic Limit Analysis (Chen & Liu 1990) Kinematic Limit Analysis (Chen & Liu 1990)
Proposed Stress Limit Analysis Proposed Stress Limit Analysis
0.1 0.1
25 30 35 40 45 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Friction Angle, Horizontal Seismic Coefficient, ah
1.0 1.6
1 1 2
KAE= PAE/ ( H2) KAE=PAE/ ( H )
Coefficient of Seismic Active Earth Pressure, KAE
Coefficient of Seismic Active Earth Pressure, KAE
2 slope
2
1.4 stability
= 40;ah = 0.20 ; = / 2 = 40; = 0 ; = / 2 limit
0.8
1.2
ah
H ah
1.0 H
0.6 PAE PAE
0.8
15
0.4 = / 2
= 0 0.6
/3
15
0.4 0
0.2
Fig. 9. Comparison of active seismic earth pressures predicted by different methods, for different geometries, material properties, and acceleration levels;
f 40 , av 0 (modied from Chen and Liu [31]).
properties. Accordingly, this averaging might be warranted 3.1. Distribution of earth pressures on the wall: analytical
for design applications involving passive pressures. findings
Results for the earth pressure coefcient due to
surcharge K qE (Eq. (23)) are presented in Fig. 11, for both Mention has already been made that in the realm
active and passive conditions involving seismic action. The of pseudo-dynamic analysis, there is no fundamental
agreement between the stress solution and the numerical physical difference between gravitational and seismic earth
results of Chen and Liu [31] is excellent in the whole range pressures. Eqs. (4) indicate that stresses in the soil vary
of parameters examined (except perhaps for active linearly with depth (stress fan does not alter this
pressures, where ah 0:3). As expected, MO solution dependence), which implies that both gravitational and
performs well for active pressures, but severely over- seismic earth pressures vary linearly along the back of wall.
estimates the passive. In the absence of surcharge, the distribution becomes
ARTICLE IN PRESS
966 G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 957969
25 25
a b
5 5
Kinematic Limit Analysis (Chen & Liu1990) Kinematic Limit Analysis (Chen & Liu1990)
Proposed Stress Limit Analysis Average of M-O & Proposed Stress Limit Analysis
0 0
25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45
Angle of Internal Friction, Angle of Internal Friction,
Fig. 10. Comparison of results for passive seismic resistance on a rough wall predicted by various methods (modied from Chen and Liu [31]).
20
q
0.7
aq aq
P ah = 0
H = = 0o H = = 0o
0.6 0.1
P 15
=2/3 =2/3 0.2
0.3
0.5
K AE = PAE / q H
K PE = PPE / q H
0.3
Mononobe - Okabe
10 (ah = 0)
0.4 0.2
q
0.1
0.3 ah = 0
5
0.2
Kinematic Limit Analysis (Chen & Liu 1990) Kinematic Limit Analysis (Chen & Liu 1990)
Proposed Stress Limit Analysis Proposed Stress Limit Analysis
0.1 0
25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45
Fig. 11. Variation of K AEq and K PEq values with fangle for different acceleration levels.
proportional with depth, as in the Rankine solution. 4. Discussion: simplicity and symmetry
Accordingly, the point of application of seismic thrust is
located at a height of H=3 above the base of the wall. It is It is instructive to show that the proposed solution can
well known from experimental observations and rigorous be derived essentially by inspection, without tedious
numerical solutions, that this is not generally true. The algebraic manipulations as in the classical equations.
source of the difference lies in the distribution of inertial Indeed, basis of Eq. (12) is the familiar Rankine ratio
forces in the soil mass (which is often sinusoidal like 1 sin f=1 sin f. The terms cosD2 d and cosD1
following the time-varying natural mode shapes of the b in the numerator and denominator of the expression
deposit), as well as the various kinematic boundary reect the fact that stresses sb and sw are not principal.
conditions (wall exibility, foundation compliance, pre- Both terms involve the same double signs as their multi-
sence of supports). Studying the above factors lies beyond pliers ( sin f and sin f, respectively). Angle b and
the scope of this article, and like will be the subject of a associated angle D1 have to be in the denominator, as an
future publication. Some recent developments are provided increase in their value must lead to an increase in active
in the Master thesis of the second author [39] as well as in thrust. The exponential term is easy to remember and
Refs. [11,1618,37,38]. involves the same double sign as the other terms in the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 957969 967
[24] Finn WD. Applications of limit plasticity in soil mechanics. J Soil [35] Powrie W. Soil mechanics: concepts and applications. London:
Mech Found Div 1967;93(SM5):10120. E&FN Spon; 1997.
[25] Davis RO, Selvadurai APS. Plasticity and geomechanics. Cambridge: [36] Lee IK, Herington JR. A theoretical study of the pressures acting on
Cambridge University Press; 2002. a rigid wall by a sloping earth or rock ll. Geotechnical 1972;
[26] Atkinson J. Foundations and slopes. London: McGraw-Hill; 1981. 22(1):126.
[27] Parry RHG. Mohr circles, stress paths and geotechnics. E&FN Spon; [37] Ostadan F. Seismic soil pressure for building walls: an updated
1995. approach. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2005;25:78593.
[28] Sokolovskii VV. Statics of granular media. New York: Pergamon [38] Paik K, Salgado R. Estimation of active earth pressure against rigid
Press; 1965. retaining walls considering arching effects. Geotechnique 2003;
[29] Papantonopoulos C, Ladanyi B. Analyse de la Stabilitee des Talus 53(7):64353.
Rocheux par une Methode Generalisee de lEquilibre Limite. In: [39] Kloukinas P. Gravitational and earthquake-induced earth pressures
Proceedings, ninth Canadian rock mechanics symposium. Montreal; on gravity walls by stress plasticity theory. Ms. Thesis, University of
December 1973. p. 16796 [in French]. Patras; 2006 [in Greek with extended English summary].
[30] Lancelotta R. Analytical solution of passive earth pressure. [40] Salencon J. Applications of the theory of plasticity in soil mechanics.
Geotechnique 2002;52(8):6179. New York: Wiley; 1974.
[31] Chen WF, Liu XL. Limit analysis in soil mechanics. Amsterdam: [41] Davies TG, Richards R, Chen KH. Passive pressure during seismic
Elsevier; 1990. loading. J Geotechn Eng 1986;112(4):47983.
[32] Briske R. Die Erdbebensicherheit von Bauwerken. Die Bautechnik [42] Salencon J. Introduction to the yield design theory. Eur J Mech A
1927;5:42530 4537, 54755. Solids 1990;9(5):477500.
[33] Habibagahi K, Ghahramani A. Zero extension theory of earth [43] Psarropoulos PN, Klonaris G, Gazetas G. Seismic earth pressures on
pressure. J Geotech Eng Div 1977;105(GT7):88196. rigid and exible retaining walls. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2005;
[34] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1943. 24:795809.