Lateral Earth Pressure Theories

2.
Lateral Earth Pressure Theories

Significance of Lateral Pressure
Why study lateral earth pressure?
Retaining walls are designed and constructed essentially to
resist lateral earth pressures.
What is lateral earth pressure?
Lateral earth pressure is the pressure that soil exerts
against a structure in a sideways, mainly horizontal
_________
direction.
How to calculate lateral earth pressure?
Not Easy!!
Unlike vertical pressure, which can be calculated quite
reliably based on the soil unit weight and applied
surcharge.
Significance of Lateral Pressure
Depending on the ground conditions (e (e.g.
g stress
history of the soil) and the wall conditions
(movements embedment)
(movements, embedment), different states of
lateral earth pressures may be mobilized.
This section focuses on Lateral Earth Pressures,

and how you can estimate these pressures for
use in engineering design and analysis.
Learning Objectives
Different States of Lateral Earth Stresses
Insitu, Active, Passive
h d off calculating
Methods
M l l i active
i and
d passive
i
earth pressures
Rankine, Coulomb, Caquot & Kerisel
Key features/limitations
K f t /li it ti off th
the diff
differentt
limiting earth pressure methods
Effect of surcharge, compaction, etc
Stresses in the g
ground – At Rest Condition
Vertical stresses (v, 

v)
Horizontal stresses (h, h)
Ground surface
d = dry unit weight v = dry(d-dw) + bulkdw

bulk = bulk unit weight
v = v - u d u = wdw
dw
v = dry(d-dw) + bulkdw
v = v - u
h = ??
h = ??
h = ’h + u
h = 
’h + u
Stresses in the g
y
At-rest condition, y , y
x
x 0z = 0 z
x , x
that is,, strains in the horizontal
directions are zero. z , z
It is reasonable to treat the horizontal soil strains

to be zero for at-rest condition, especially
p y if the
ground is very large (in plan area).
Stresses in the g
For at
at-rest
rest condition,
If the soil is a linear elastic material (which it is
not!) we can evaluate the effective horizontal
not!),
stress ’h (in terms of the effective vertical stress ’v)
using just one elastic parameter.
parameter
What elastic parameter is that??

Poisson’s ratio: 
What is the ratio ’h/’v (or ’x/’y ) ?
Stresses in the g
For an elastic soil in at
at-rest
rest condition,
 'h  ' x 
 
 'v  ' y 1 
The ratio ’h/’v is called the lateral earth pressure

coefficient K.
The ratio ’h/’v for the at-rest condition is
denoted as Ko.
 'h 
Ko   (elastic material onl
only!)
!)
 'v 1 
Some information on Poisson’s
Poisson s Ratio
Typical Poisson
Poisson’s
s Ratio for Soils
 = ___________
0.25 to 0.35 for soils (effective stress or
drained analysis)
 = ____
0.5 (undrained = incompressible)
0.49 to 0.495
= _____________ (to avoid numerical instability
when modeling undrained prob.)
What are the physical limits of Poisson’s ratio?

1    ____
–1
___ 05
0.5
What is the behavior associated with negative ?

Poisson s Ratio
Poisson s Ratio
Earth Pressure at Rest
If we consider soil as a elastic material, then
' '
Ko  h  v
1  ' 1  '
For 0.25  ’  0.35
 0.35  Ko  0.5
Generally on the low side
T d to
Tend t underestimate
d ti t reall soils
il Ko
How do we obtain more representative
values of Ko for real soils?
Earth Pressure at Rest
Ko is a function of the
 the soil type
 geologic or stress history.
The soil type refers to whether the soil is sand (loose,
dense) or clay (soft, stiff), and how it is characterized
using
i strength
t th parameters
t such
h as the
th friction
f i ti l 
angle
and the plasticity index PI
The geologic or stress history usually refers to whether

the soil is normally or overconsolidated. (See next slide)
Normally Consolidated vs
O
Overconsolidated
lid t d Soils
S il
Void ratio,, e Overconsolidation ratio
 v (max prev)
OCR 
 v (current)
Normal (Virgin)
Compression
Line
v (current) v (max prev) v (log

(l scale)
l )
Earth Pressure at Rest – NC Soils
Let us first consider Ko for a normally

y
consolidated soil.
(Also referred to as Knc or Konc).

Estimating Knc
 The most commonly used relationship for determining Knc is
th t due
that d tot Jâky
Jâk (1944)
(1944), which
hi h states
t t ththatt
K nc  (1  sin  ' )
1  32 sin  ' 
(1  sin  ' )
where  is the effective (not total) angle of friction of the

soil. This is very commonly simplified into its approximate
form
K nc  (1  sin ' )
 There is evidence that this approximate form is sufficiently

accurate for most engineering purposes according to
available experimental data (e.g. Wroth 1975, Mayne &
Kulhawy, 1982) See Figure on next page.
Estimating Knc
Estimating Knc
Variation of Knc with Friction Angle
08
0.8
0.7
06
0.6
Simplified Jaky
0.5
Original
Kncc
0.4
Jaky
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Friction Angle
Alternative Relationships for Knc
Brooker and Ireland (1965)
( )
Knc = 0.95 – sin 
Variation of Ko with Friction Angle
0.8
0.7
0.6
Simplified
0.5 Jaky
Original
Kncc
0.4
Jaky
0.3
02
0.2
Brooker and Ireland
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Friction Angle
Alternative Relationships for Knc
 Alpan (1967)
Knc = 0.19 + 0.233 log (PI)
where PI is the plasticity index
Variation of Ko with PI
Ip
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 Alpan
Knc
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Plasticity Index (PI)

Knc for Singapore Marine Clay
Using Effective Stress Parameter:
 = 22
 Knc = ____
0.63 (Jaky, simplified)
0.58 (Jaky, original)
= ____
0.58 (Brooker and Ireland)
= ____
U i Atterberg
Using Att b li
limits:
it
PI = 55
 Knc = _____
0.60 (Alpan)
Other Relationships for Knc
Earth Pressure at Rest – OC Soils
Over-consolidated soil are elastic due to

unloading but they have even higher Ko
than normallyy consolidated soil.
Ko for overconsolidated soils
 There are many proposed relationships. One of these
is by Alpan (1967)
(1967), who suggested that
Ko = Knc OCRn
where n is an exponent whose value depends upon

the soil type. For clays, Alpan proposed that n can be
related to the plasticity index PI
0 54 x 10-PI/281
n = 0.54 PI/281
 Kulhawy and Mayne (1982) proposed that n can be

related to the effective angle of friction ’:
n = sin
Ko for Overconsolidated Marine Clay
Using Alpan’s PI method:
PI = 55
Knc = 0.60
0 60
n = 0.54 x 10-PI/281 = 0.344
Ko = Knc OCRn = 0.6
0 6 OCR0.344
0 344
Using Jaky’s
Jaky s approach:
 = 22
Knc = 0.63
0 63
n = sin  = sin 22 = 0.37 (Kulhawy and Mayne)
Ko = Knc OCRn = 0.63 OCR0.37

Ko for Overconsolidated Marine Clay
Variation of Ko with OCR
2
16
1.6
Jaky with
Kulhawy and Mayne
1.2
Alpan
Ko
0.8
0.4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
OCR
Ko for overconsolidated soils ((continued))
 Wroth (1972) also proposed two semi-empirical relationships for
estimating Ko from Knc. For OCR up to 5,
5 Wroth (1972) proposed
that
'
K o  OCR K nc - (OCR  1)
1 '
1
This relationship is based on the assumption that the unloading
process which resulted in the over-consolidated
over consolidated state is an elastic
process.
 For higher OCR,

OCR Wroth (1972) proposed that
 3(1  K nc ) 3(1  K 0 )  OCR (1  2K nc ) 

m    ln 
 1  2 K nc 1  2K 0   1  2 K 0 
in which m = 0.022875 Ip + 1.22

Typical
yp Ko for Different Soil Types
yp
Ko for overconsolidated soils ((continued))
Variation of Ko with OCR
2
16
1.6
Wroth
1.2
Jaky with
Ko
0.8 Kulhawy and Mayne
0.4
Based on 
’ = 22
22
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
OCR
Earth Pressure at Rest – Summary
Now, you h
N have the
th basic
b i tools
t l for
f estimating
ti ti theth
lateral earth pressure at rest Ko.
What about the ‘non at-rest’ states of the soil?
These states are usually mobilized when the soil

is disturbed, as for example, during an
excavation.
What are the other possible states of lateral earth
pressure?
Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
For Soils
Lateral earth pressure coefficient
 h'
K '
v
 Lateral earth pressure (at rest) Ko
 Lateral earth pressure (active) KA

 Lateral
L t l earth
th pressure (passive)
( i ) KP
Wh are th
When the active
ti and
d passive
i states
t t mobilized?
bili d?
What happens
pp to Ko when soil is disturbed
• Consider a mass of undisturbed ground

Initial conditions ’v , ’h = Ko’v
What happens
• Consider a mass of undisturbed ground

Initial conditions ’v , ’h = Ko’v
• A block of soil is removed as shown
• If the remainingg soil is

supported by a very rigid
wall which prevents any removed
block
l t l deformation
lateral d f ti off the
th
remaining
remaining soil, then the soil
stress state in the
remaining soil (on the right)
will remain unchanged,
g
that is, it remains in Ko
condition.
What happens
• However, it is unrealistic to expect that the remaining

soil will not deform at all.
• Usually the retaining wall is not that rigid,

rigid so that it will
deform outward by some extent, and the base will
heave.
• We will focus only on the

changes in the stress
state caused by the remaining
soil
lateral deformation of the
unsupported side.
What happens
• Due to the outward deformation, the lateral stress at

point A will decrease
• It will decrease to a limiting level such that

’h = Ka’v
where Ka < Ko
A
’h = Ka’v
• When that happens
happens, we
say that ’h has reached
the active pressure
p
condition.
remaining
soil
What happens
• What happens when we push the unsupported side

inwards into the remaining soil?
• At point A
A, the stress will increase to a limiting level
such that
’h = Kp’v
where Kp > Ko
A
’h = Kp’v
• When that happens, we
say that ’h has reached
the passive pressure
condition. remaining
soil
Earth p
pressure related to wall movement
Earth Pressure Coefficient, K
KP
1.5
ACTIVE STATE PASSIVE STATE
KA 06
0.6 Ko
0.4
Wall movement
Earth p

Ko
KA
Wall movement
Earth p

Ko
KA
Wall movement Wall movement to

to mobilize full mobilize full
active pressure passive pressure
How to Calculate Active and Passive
W ll P
Wall Pressures
The active and ppassive pressures
p are known as the
limiting earth pressures.
Their magnitudes depend on the ____________.
soil strength
Hence, how we characterize the soil strength is very
important
important.
1. For clay, silts – undrained condition
Undrained shear strength – su
2 F
2. For clay,
l silts
ilt – drained
d i d condition
diti
For sands
Effective Stress Strength Parameters – c’-’
W ll P
Wall Pressures
Methods of Evaluating Active and Passive Pressures
1. Strictly speaking, they should be evaluated taking
into consideration the stress-strain relationship of
the soil. (See previous figure where Ka and Kp
depend on wall movement, or more accurately, soil
deformation)
Finite Element Analysis, Beam-Spring Analysis
2 Limit Equilibrium Method

2.
Lower Bound, Upper Bound Methods
W ll P
Wall Pressures
Limit Equilibrium
q Method
 For solving various soil stability problems
 Weakness – do not consider stress-strain

relationship of soil
Hence cannot yield deformation
 Uses yield strength criterion

Mohr-Coulomb Yield Criterion
 Upper and Lower Bound Theorems

Lower and Upper Bounds
 A “lower bound” solution means
finding a set of stresses that Failure load
nowhere exceed the collapse
condition
diti (i.e.
(i it will
ill always
l be
b on
the “safe” side as the collapse Upper
condition is not exceeded) bound
Correct
Solution
 An “upper
pp bound” solution means Lower
finding a kinematically feasible bound
mechanism of collapse (i.e. it will
always
l be
b on the
th “unsafe”
“ f ” side
id as a
collapse mechanism has formed)
W ll P
Wall Pressures
In this module, we will focus on the classical approach
of evaluating the active and passive earth pressures
using limit equilibrium methods.
There are three broad classes of limit equilibrium

methods that are commonly adopted in practice.
These are:
1. The Rankine Method
2. The Coulomb Method
3. The Caquot-Kerisel Log-Spiral Method
We will cover all three methods in this module.

W ll P
Wall Pressures
Historically,
Historically
1. the Coulomb method is probably the earliest known
analytical approach to deal with the issue of lateral
forces on retaining walls. It was developed in the
1700s byy Coulomb. It is an upper bound method.
2. the Rankine method was developed in the 1800s. It is
a lower bound method.
3. the log-spiral method was proposed in the 1900s. It

seeks
k tto overcome some off th
the k
key li
limitations
it ti
associated with the Coulomb and Rankine method.
Of course, other methods were proposed along the way, but
the above three are probably the most commonly used.
W ll P
Wall Pressures
For learning purposes
purposes,
1. We will start with the Rankine method, as the resulting

equations are quite simple, and can be quite readily
derived using basic soil mechanics concepts.
2. We will then follow up with the Coulomb approach

which overcomes some of the limitations associated
with the Rankine method.
3. Lastly,
y, we will discuss the log-spiral
g p method which is
generally accepted as providing the most realistic
solution.
Rankine Method:
Active Earth Pressure
William Rankine
 William John Maquorn Rankine (1820-1872)

was the Chair of Engineering of Glasgow
University. These days, the annual Rankine
Lecture organized by the British Geotechnical
Society is named after him
him.
 He
H studied
t di d the
th state
t t off stress
t att a point
i t att
failure in a semi-infinite, cohesionless medium,
and related the principal stresses at failure
(1857) (lower bound approach).
Rankine Method – Active Condition
Rankine used a highly theoretical approach, involving the
consideration of stresses at a point
point, to arrive at the active earth
pressure coefficient for calculating the active stress parallel to
the sloping backfill:

cos   cos   cos 
2 2
K A  cos 
cos   cos 2   cos 2  a = KAv
where  is the angle of the sloping backfill (wrt the horizontal)

and  is the friction angle of the soil.
The horizontal component of the active earth pressure is

obtained using
cos   cos 2   cos 2 
K AH  cos 2 
cos   cos 2   cos 2 
For horizontal backfill,  = 0, and the coefficient reduces
to :
cos 0  cos 0  cos 

2 2
K A  cos 0
cos 0  cos 0  cos 
2 2
1  sin 
 KA 
1  sin 
Very simple and commonly cited formula for active earth

pressure.
In this lecture, we will not derive Rankine’s original
g formula
(which is a highly complex mathematical process):
cos   cos 2   cos 2 

K A  cos 
cos   cos 2   cos 2 
Instead, we will use basic soil mechanics concepts

p to
show how we can arrive at the special case of the Rankine
formula for a horizontal backfill:
1  sin 
KA 
1  sin 
Assume no friction
along the sides of smooth
the soil mass
Initially v
 h = Ko  v h
Outward Movement of Wall
due to Soil Removal (Ka condition)
What happens
when
h the
th wall
ll
moves outward? v remains
constant
reduces h
Is the soil strength

characteri ed using
characterized sing
(i) su (undrained shear strength)
(ii) c’-’ (effective stress strength

parameters)
Rankine Method – Cases Considered
Active Case
(i) Effective stress purely frictional response, Drained (’)
(ii) Effective stress frictional response with cohesion
cohesion,
Drained (c’ - ’)
(iii) Total stress response
response, undrained (undrained shear
strength su )
Passive Case
(ii) Effective stress frictional response with cohesion,
(iii) Total stress response, undrained (undrained shear
strength su ) Earth Pressures - 56
Active Case
cohesion,
strength su )
Passive Case
Consider first a frictional 
’ material.
Initial Stress State of a ’ material
 Mohr-Coulomb
In terms of friction Failure Envelope
parameter ’
Mohr circle for

initial stress state
’ 
h v
’v
’h
Complementary
p y
Failure envelope
Stable Condition (Not Yielded Yet)

As wall moves outwards - ’h reduces
 Failure envelope



h v
Complementary
p y Failure envelope
p



h v
Complementary
p



h v
Complementary
p
KA for a 
’ material


Effective stress circle
at active failure sin   
 v ' h ' / 2
 v ' h ' / 2
(v-h)/2
max  h 1  sin  '

   v 1  sin  '
h v
(v+h)/2
KA 
1  sin  '
1  sin '
h = KA v
Complementary
p
Distribution of earth p
pressure behind wall
If wall doesn’t move
h = Kov
Distribution of active earth p
If wall moves outward
ah = KAv
Effect of Surcharge
g Loading
g
Effect of surcharge q
loading
ah = KAv qh = KAq

Mohr Circle Failure Planes for ’ material
(Ka condition)
'
f   f  45  

2
f
v
h h
v
90 (v-h)/2
max

2f
 2f = 90 + 
’
h v acting on
(v+h)/2
horizontal
f = 45 + ’/2
plane
v The failure plane is
Effective oriented at f to the
h h stress circle at ’ plane, where
v
v active failure
Complementary
p '
 f  45  
2
KA Slip
p Planes in Soil Mass (
(’ material))
Active Condition
'
 f  45 
2
Active Case
cohesion,
strength su )
Passive Case
strength su )

Frictional material with cohesion,, c’-’
 soil
Active Condition for c-

Failure envelope
Effective stress circle 
at active failure
(v-h)/2 max
 cc 
a h (v+h)/2 v
 v ' h '
sin    2
 ' h '
a v
2
Complementary Failure envelope
c
tan   
a
 soil
Active Condition for c-
c cos  
tan     a  c  a sin    c  cos  
a sin  
 v ' h '
2 a sin   
 v ' h ' sin    v ' h '
sin    
 ' h '
a v
2 2
2
c  cos   
 v ' h ' sin    v ' h '

N t th
Note thatt 2 2
2
 cos  '  1  sin   cos  
   h' v '2c 
 1  sin  '  (1  sin  ) (1  sin  )
 1  sin 2  ' 
=  2  h'
1  sin  
 v '2c 
1  sin  
 1  sin  '   
(1  sin  ) (1  sin  )
=
1  sin  ' 
1  sin  ' 
1  sin ' 
  h '  K A v '2c  K A where KA 
1  sin ' 
Rankine Method – Active Condition - 
’ material
We have derived an expression for the active earth pressure
coefficient of a purely frictional material (commonly called the
Rankine earth pressure coefficient):
1  sin 
KA 
1  sin 
For a purely frictional material,
material
h = KA v
For a frictional material with cohesion c’,
 h'  K A v' 2c K A

You may come across notes and books that attribute the last equation
t Rankine.
to R ki St i tl speaking,
Strictly ki that
th t is
i nott correct,
t as Rankine
R ki did nott
consider a c’-’ material in his paper. That equation represents an
extension of Rankine’s method to a c’-’ material.
Active Case
cohesion,
strength su )
Passive Case
Consider next a material exhibiting
undrained response
response, su.
Earth Pressures - 75
Initial Stress State of Soil Mass

In terms of undrained strength: cu or su
Apparent Failure envelope

cu
Mohr circle for
or initial stress state
su

h v
v
h
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l

Stress state changes for su material
due to outward wall movement

su Initial condition

h v
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l


su

h v
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l
Mohr
M h Circles
Ci l expand d by d i h , while
b reducing hil v
remains constant

su

h v
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l
Mohr
M h Circles
Ci l expand d by d i h , while
b reducing hil v
remains constant

Total stress circle

su at active failure

h 2su v
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l
At failure
h = v– 2s
2 u = d
d – 2s
2u
Mohr Circle Failure Planes for su material
(Ka condition)
f  f = 45
 Stress State
f
on Failure Plane
v
Apparent Failure envelope (f , f)
h h
v
su Stress State
2f = 90
90 on Horizontal Plane
h 2su v 
Stress State
on Vertical Plane
v At failure
h h h = v– 2su = d – 2su

v
Note that the failure plane is oriented at ___
45
to the horizontal.
KA Slip
p Planes in Soil Mass ((su material))
v
f = 45
h h
v
KA Slip
v
h h
v
f = 45
KA Slip
v
h h
v
f = 45
Active earth pressure distribution
f a su material
for t i l
h = d
d – 2s
2u
If we plot h vs d,
h < 0 when d – 2su < 0
d < 2su
d < 2su /
Active earth pressure distribution
f a su material
for t i l
2 su
dc 

Direction of wall
movement
h = d – 2su
Rankine Method – Active Condition – su material
We have derived an expression relating the horizontal

stress to the vertical stress under the active condition for
undrained response involving g the undrained shear
strength su
h = v– 2s
2 u = d
d – 2s
2u
Note that, again, this equation cannot be strictly attributed
to Rankine, as he only considered a frictional ’ material.
It may be more appropriate to call this a lower bound
solution for the active condition under undrained
condition.
Rankine Method:
Passive Earth Pressure
Consider Soil Mass behind Wall
v remains
constant
increases h
Active Case
cohesion,
strength su )
Passive Case
Consider first a frictional 
’ material.
KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l
initial 
h v

KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l

v
Mohr Circles first reduce until h = v.

KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l

v

KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l

v

KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l

v

KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l

Mohr Circles then expand when h > v .

KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l


KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l


KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l


KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l


KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l


KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l


KP for a 
’ material
 Failure

 envelope
l
sin   
 h ' v ' / 2
 h ' v ' / 2
(h-v)/2  h 1  sin  '
max 
 v 1  sin  '
initial 
v (h+v)/2 h
KP 
1  sin '
1  sin
i  '

at passive failure
h = KP 
 v
Distribution of earth p
If wall doesn’t move
h = Kov
Distribution of p
passive earth pressure
p behind wall
If wall is pushed against soil
ph = KPv
Effect of Surcharge
g Loading
g
loading
ph = Kpv qh = Kpq

Mohr Circle Failure Planes for ’ material
(Kp condition)
 f Failure
' 

 f  45  envelope
l
2
f
'
45 
2
(v-h)/2
max The failure plane is
initial
2f
 oriented at f to the
’h plane (vertical),
___
v (v+h)/2 h acting on
where
'
vertical
plane
 f  45 
2
at active failure
or
'
 f  45 
2
to the horizontal
plane
Kp Slip
p Planes in Soil Mass (
(’ material))
Passive Condition
'
 f  45 
2
Comparison of Active and Passive Slip Planes
(for 
’ material)
Active Condition
'
 f  45 
2
Passive Condition
'
 f  45 
2
Active Case
cohesion,
strength su )
Passive Case

Frictional material with cohesion,, c’-’

 soil
Passive Earth Condition for c-

Failure envelope
Effective stress circle 
at passive failure
(h-v)/2 max
cc 
a v (h+v)/2 h
 h ' v '
sin    2
 ' '
a h v
Complementary Failure envelope 2
c
tan 
a
 soil
Passive Earth Condition for c-
1  sin   cos   Note that
v '  h '2c 
(1  sin  ) (1  sin  )  cos  ' 
2
 1  sin 2  ' 
  =  2 
h'
1  sin  
 v '2c 
cos    1  sin  '   1  sin  '  
(1  sin  ) (1  sin  ) =
1  sin  ' 
1  sin  ' 
 h'  K P v' 2c K P = Kp
For the special case where c’ = 0 this reduces to

 h'  K P v'
Similarly, for the undrained case where u = 0
we replace c’c by su and ’ by u = 0,
0 so we get
h = v + 2su
Rankine Method – Passive Condition - ’ material
We have derived an expression for the Rankine passive earth
pressure coefficient of a purely frictional material:
1  sin 
KP 
i 
1  sin
For a purely frictional material,
material
h = KP v
For a frictional material with cohesion c’,
 h'  K P v' 2c K P

Again the last equation is not strictly attributable to Rankine.
Again, Rankine
Active Case
cohesion,
strength su )
Passive Case
Consider next a material exhibiting
undrained response
response, su.

Mohr Circle progression from
I iti l tto Passive
Initial P i StState
t

su

h v
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l
I iti l tto Passive
Initial P i StState
t

su

h v
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l

I iti l tto Passive
Initial P i StState
t

su

h v
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l

I iti l tto Passive
Initial P i StState
t

su

v = h
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l

I iti l tto Passive
Initial P i StState
t

su

v h
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l

I iti l tto Passive
Initial P i StState
t

su

v h
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l

I iti l tto Passive
Initial P i StState
t

Total stress circle
at passive failure
su

h v 2su h
A
Apparent F
Failure
il envelope
l
At failure
Mohr Circles then expand
p when
h>v until the Mohr circle touches
h = v+2su = d +2su
the Apparent Failure Envelope.
Mohr Circle Failure Planes for cu material
(Kp condition)
f 
 f
Stress State
on Failure
F il Pl
Plane
( f ,  f ) f = 45 v
h h
su v
Stress State
2 f on Vertical Plane
v 2su h 
Stress State
on Horizontal Plane
v At failure
h = v+ 2su = d + 2su
h h
v Note that the failure plane is oriented at 45
to the horizontal.
Kp Slip
p Planes in Soil Mass ((cu material))
v
h h
v
Identical to Active
Condition Slip Planes
f = 45
Passive earth pressure distribution
f a su material
for t i l
2su
Direction of wall
movement h = d + 2su
Rankine Method – Passive Condition – su material
We have derived an expression relating the horizontal

stress to the vertical stress under the passive condition
for undrained response involving g the undrained shear
strength su
h = v+ 2s
2 u = d
d + 2s
2u
Note that, again, this equation cannot be strictly attributed
to Rankine, as he only considered a frictional ’ material.
It may be more appropriate to call this a lower bound
solution for the passive condition under undrained
condition.
Summary up to this point
 We’ve adopted the Rankine approach for evaluating the
l t l earth
lateral th pressures.
 Consider only stress states of the soil (h , v) and the
yield
i ld limits
li it in
i deriving
d i i theth active
ti and d passive
i failure
f il
conditions.
 Failure plane is obtained from consideration of
stresses using Mohr circle concepts.
 No wall friction considered.
 No assumption of failure mechanism (e.g. failure wedge
behind the wall) is made. Hence, no force equilibrium
is considered.
 Extended the Rankine approach to materials with
cohesion c’ or undrained shear strength su.
Generalized Case for
Rankine Earth Pressure of a
Granular
G a u a So
Soil (o
(only
y friction
ct o a ge
angle ’))
with Non-vertical Wall Face and
Sl i B
Sloping Backfill
kfill
A Generalized Case for Rankine Active and Passive
Pressure – Granular Backfill (
(’ material)
Chu (1991) 


“Rankine’s Analysis of 
Active and Passive
Pressures in Dry Sands”
Soils and Foundations,
Vol 31,
Vol. 31 No.
No 44, 115–120 

 Pa’ or Pp’
Frictionless 
wall 
’
(’ material)
For Rankine Active Case
The active force PA per unit length of the wall:
1
PA  H K a
2
2
where
cos(    ) 1  sin ' 2 sin ' cos  a
2
KA 

cos 2  cos   sin 2 '  sin 2  
 sin  
 a  sin
i 1
    2
 sin ' 
 sin i a 
i ' sin
 a  tan 
1

 1  sin ' cos  a 
(’ material)
For Rankine Passive Case
The passive force PP per unit length of the wall:
1
PP  H 2 K P
2
where
cos(    ) 1  sin 2 ' 2 sin ' cos  p
KP 

cos  cos   sin '  sin 
2 2 2

 sin  
 p  sin
i  1
    2
 sin ' 
 sin i p 
i ' sin

 p  tan 1 

 1  sin ' cos  p 
Generalized Case for
Rankine Earth Pressure of a
Cohesive
Co es e So (c’ - 
Soil (c ’))
with Vertical Wall Face and
Sl i B
Sloping Backfill
kfill
Rankine Active and Passive Pressure for a Cohesive
Soil (c  material) – Inclined Backfill
(c’-’
Mazindrani and Ganjali (1997) 


“Lateral Earth Pressure
Problem of Cohesive Backfill
with Inclined Surface”
Journal of Geotechnical and z
Geoenvironmental Engineering,
g g
ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 2, 110–112 pa or pp
’c’
Frictionless
wall
Rankine Active Pressure for a Cohesive Soil (c’-’
material) – Inclined Backfill
For Rankine Active Case
The active pressure pa per unit length of the wall:
cos 
pa = zka cos  
cos '
2
 2  z  cos 2
  2c' cos ' sin '
 4 cos cos
2 2
  cos 2 ' 2 z 2  4c 2  cos 2 '

 8c' z  cos 2   sin ' cos '  z  cos 
and
1   c' 
ka   2 cos   2   cos ' sin '
2
cos ' 
2
 z 
  
2
 c'   
 4 cos  cos   cos '  4   cos '  8  cos   sin ' cos '   1
c
 2 2 2 2 2
  z   z   
Variation of ka with , c/z and 
c/z
 

Rankine Passive Pressure for a Cohesive Soil (c’-’
For Rankine Passive Case
The passive pressure pa per unit length of the wall:
cos 
pp = zkp cos  
cos '
2
 2  z  cos 2
  2c' cos ' sin '
 4 cos cos
2 2
  cos 2 ' 2 z 2  4c 2  cos 2 '

 8c' z  cos 2   sin ' cos '  z  cos 
and
1   c' 
kp   2 cos   2   cos ' sin '
2
cos ' 
2
 z 
  
2
 c'   
 4 cos  cos   cos '  4   cos '  8  cos   sin ' cos '   1
c
 2 2 2 2 2
  z   z   
Variation of kp with , c/z and 
c/z
 
Limitation of the Rankine method
 A shortcoming of the Rankine earth pressure theory is
that
h such h lower
l b
bound d solutions
l i are only
l known
k f a
for
very few number of highly idealized geometries, and a
smooth wall is assumed.
assumed For more complex geometries
and problems where wall friction is significant, the
solutions are not easily y found.
 Thus Rankine’s earth pressure theory is, in practice,
rather restricted in its usage.
 In fact, a more general method was proposed even
earlier in time.
 Recall it was mentioned earlier that Coulomb had
proposed a method for calculating lateral earth
pressures in the 1700s.
 We will study Coulomb’s method next.
Charles Coulomb
 Born 14 June 1736.
 Graduated from Ecole du Genie in 1761.
 Joined Corps of Engineers of the French Army with a
rank of lieutenant
 Posted to Martinique
q in the Caribbean to bolster its
defence by building new fortifications at Fort Bourbon.
 These fortifications consisted of massive gravity
retaining walls with moat and obstacles in front.
 1764 to 1772 – famous research work on shear strength
of soils and limit equilibrium method of retaining wall
design.
g
 Upper Bound Approach.
Coulomb’s
Coulomb s failure mechanism
 Coulomb observed that for sandy soil that most

of the failure surfaces were almost _______.
planar
 For this reason he assumed that the failure
surfaces are ______.
planes However Coulomb’s
approach h can, ini principle,
i i l beb applied
li d to
t any
class of failure surface.
Coulomb’s
Failure wedge in
an experiment
Upper
pp Bound Approach
pp
 Coulomb observed that for sandy soil that most

of the failure surfaces were almost _______.
planar
 For this reason he assumed that the failure
surfaces are ______.
planes However Coulomb’s
approach h can, ini principle,
i i l beb applied
li d to
t any
class of failure surface.
Coulomb’s
In Coulomb’s method, you extract the wedge and
consider
id the
th forces
f acting
ti on the
th wedge.
d
PV
F
PH
W
You fill in the forces that you know (W,
(W F,
F N) and work
out the unknowns PH and Pv.
Coulomb – Active State
Example 1 – Cohesionless Soil (), Smooth Wall,
Level Ground
Ground, Active State
h cot
Choose a Wedge: decide
the values of h and  W Wcos 
P Wsin  F h
Direction of wall
movement Psin 
Pcos 
N

N = W cos + P sin
F = W sin - P cos
W  1   h 2 cot 
2
Example
p 1: Coulomb’s Ka Derivation 1
F = W sin - P cos
F W sin   P cos 

N W cos   P sin 
We note that,, along

g the slip
ppplane,, limiting
g friction must
be reached so that
F
t 
 tan
N
W sin   P cos 
 t 
 tan
W cos   P sin 
Example
W sin   P cos 
t 
 tan
tan   tan  
P W  W tan(     )
1  tan  tan  
tan A  tan B
tan( A  B ) 
W  1 2  h cot 
2
1  tan A tan B
P  1 2  h 2 cot  tan(     )

P 1
2
 h tan(   ) tan(     )
 2
2
Example
• We have arbitrarily assumed that the slip plane is inclined at an angle 

to the horizontal
horizontal.
• There may be numerous potential slip planes inclined at all angles but
only
y one will lead to the failure of the soil mass; this is the critical slip
plane, which is also the slip plane which gives the highest value of P.
• To evaluate this value of c, we equate the first derivative of P to zero,
that is
dP 1      
  ' h 2   sec 2     tan  '   tan    sec 2   '   0
d 2  2  2  
which, upon solving gives
  
c    45  
4 2 2
Substituting this critical value of  gives
  
P  1 2  ' h 2 tan 2   
4 2
Example
However, this only gives the total force on the back of the wall,
not the earth pressure distribution.
To find the latter, we note that there is an equally likely slip plane
occurring at a depth of h+h and inclined at the same critical
value of c. h cotc
W
P
h
P
+ P
c h
Example
The total force on the back of the wall arising from the slightly
l
lower slip
li plane
l (and
( d slightly
li htl larger
l wedge)
d ) isi Q + Q,
Q where
h Q is
i
given by
Recall
dP 2  
P  
h   h tan   h   
4 2  P  1  ' h 2 tan 2   
dh 2 4 2
dP 2  

  h tan   
dh 4 2 
The pressure across the small increment in depth h is thus given

by
P 2  
   h tan   
  ha
h 4 2 
Example
2    cos 2 A  1  2 sin 2 A

sin    1  cos    
   '  4 2     2  cos 2 A  2 cos 2 A  1
tan 2     sin   
 4 2  cos 2       4 2 2
   
 4 2  1  cos    
        2 
cos2     1  sin
i 2   
1  sin  ' 4 2 4 2 2

1  sin  '  
cos      sin  
2 
   1  sin  ' 1  sin  '

Thus ha =  h tan 2    = ’h = v = Kav
4 2  1  sin  ' 1  sin  '
Hence, Coulomb’s earth pressure theory with the prescribed failure

wedge
g g gives the same solution for active earth p
____________ pressure as the
Rankine’s earth pressure theory.
Coulomb – Passive State
Example 2 – Cohesionless Soil, Smooth Wall,
Level Ground
Ground, Passive State
h cot
W Wcos 
P Wsin  F h
Direction of wall
movement Psin 
Pcos 
N

F = P cos - W sin
W  1   h 2 cot 
2
Example
p 2: Coulomb’s Kp Derivation 1
F = P cos -W sin
F P cos   W sin 

N W cos   P sin 
We note that, along the slip plane, limiting friction must be

reached
h d so that
th t
F
 tan  
N
P cos   W sin 
  tan  
Example
P cos   W sin 
 tan  
t 
ttan   tan
P W  W tan(     )
1  tan  tan  
tan A  tan B
tan( A  B ) 
W  1 2  h cot 
2
1  tan A tan B
P  1 2  h 2 cot  tan(     )

P  1  h 2 tan(   ) tan(     )
2 2
Example
Differentiating and solving gives
 
   1  cos    
   45      
sin    2 
4 2 2 4 2 2
This gives  
1  cos    
       
2  cos2     1  sin2     2 
P  2  ' h tan   
1 2
4 2 4 2 2
4 2
 
cos       sin((   )   sin((   )
2 
   
sin2   
  ' 
tan2      4 2   1  sin  ' = KP
 4 2  cos2       1  sin  '
 
4 2
dP 1  sin  ' 1  sin  '
Thus hp = = ’h = v = KP v
dh 1  sin  ' 1  sin  '
Once again, for the passive case, the Rankine’s and Coulomb’s earth
pressure calculations return the same solution.
Examples 1 & 2: Coulomb’s Ka and Kp Derivation
(Summary)
Note that Coulomb’s method is based on the assumption of a
____________
failure wedge ((or failure mechanism).
)
It is very important that some form of ___________
optimization be
undertaken as part of Coulomb’s method, at least within the
choice of slip surface, such as finding the critical value of .
This should be considered an integral part of Coulomb’s
calculations.
calculations
We can think of Coulomb’s calculation loosely as an upper
unsafe solution
optimistic or ______
bound. It will tend to give an _________
(since we are obtaining our solution from a scenario that
already involves a failure mechanism).
Interestingly, we note that, with the ___________
smooth wall
assumption, Coulomb’s earth pressure theory with the
prescribed failure wedge gives the same solution for active
and passive earth pressure as the Rankine’s earth pressure
theory.
(Summary)
Recall that, Rankine’s earth pressure
theory gives a lower bound to the correct
failure load. In other words, Rankine’s Failure load
earth ppressure theoryy g
generallyy g
gives
what can be considered as a safe or
pessimistic solution. Upper
bound
Correct
Since Rankine’s method gives a Solution
Lower
pessimistic or safe
f solution (lower
( bound)) bound
whereas Coulomb’s method gives an
optimistic or unsafe solution (upper
bound), the fact that both solutions are
identical implies
p that,, in this special
p case,,
Rankine’s and Coulomb calculations
correct solution.
produce the _______
(Summary)
This is not unexpected, as in the Rankine’s method, we

h
have specified
ifi d a stress field
fi ld which
hi h is
i triaxial
i i l (i.e.
(i
principal stresses act on vertical and horizontal planes);
in such a case,
case consideration of triaxial stress state
through the Mohr circle will lead us to the conclusion
that this p
prescribed stress field is consistent with a slip p
plane which is inclined at (45 + ’/2 ) to the horizontal
for the active case (see next slide) and (45 - ’/2 ) to the
h i
horizontal
t l for
f theth active
ti case.
These are also the critical angle of the slip plane

used in Coulomb’s calculations. In more general
scenarios,
i we may nott be
b so lucky.
l k
Consideration of Wall Friction in Coulomb’s Method
 Note that most walls are not smooth, and there will
likely be wall friction between the back of the wall and
the retained soil.
 The presence of wall friction will introduce shear

stresses along the back of the wall. Hence, Rankine’s
theoretical approach
pp is no longer
g applicable.
pp
 Coulomb’s method of considering failure wedges can

incorporate wall friction.
friction
 However, the approach just discussed in Examples 1

and 2 using geometry/trigonometry can be quite
cumbersome when wall friction is considered.
Consideration of Wall Friction in Coulomb’s Method
 An alternative way of evaluating the active/passive
force on the wall is via the use of force polygons.
A force polygon is a closed polygon whose sides
taken in order represent in magnitude and direction a
system of forces in equilibrium.
 In the Coulomb method,

method the force polygon is obtained
by considering the forces acting on the assumed
failure wedge
g behind the wall.
 As the failure wedge is in equilibrium under the action
of the forces,
forces these forces have to form a closed
polygon.
 The method is illustrated in the next few slides.
slides
Coulomb Active Force via Force Polygon:
Non-vertical rough wall and sloping ground surface
soil, soil friction angle = 
(cohesionless soil ’,
wall friction angle = )
Forces Acting on the Failure Wedge as per Coulomb
(for cohesionless soil with friction angle  and wall friction )
N
R 

 F
assumed
P

Using the Force Polygon Approach to solve
C l b’ W
Coulomb’s Wedge
d
(for cohesionless soil with friction angle  and wall friction )
P
 
   180 
180-
P = force on the soil R

wedge due to  
 
retaining wall
= force
f acting
ti on

the wall
Coulomb
Cou o b Active
ct e Force
o ce via
a Force
o ce Polygon:
o ygo
(soil with friction angle = ,
 cohesion = c;
wall with friction angle = , adhesion = cw )
This is a more general condition where

(a) the soil strength is characterized using friction
angle  and cohesion c
(b) the shear resistance along the wall is
characterized using wall friction angle  and wall
adhesion cw .
(for soil with strength parameters cc,  and wall friction cw, )
Soil: soil = c +  tan 
Wall: wall = cw +  tan  La

Lb
Fc = c La
W
Fc
Fcw = cw Lb
N
Fcw
R 

 assumed F
P

C l b’ W
Coulomb’s Wedge
d
(for soil with strength parameters c,  and wall friction cw, )
P
   
R
W
P = force on the soil
wedge due to Fcw
retaining wall
= force
f acting
ti on Fc
the wall
Coulomb Active Force via Force Polygon:
(cohesive soil with undrained strength = su ;
wall with adhesion = cw )
This is for the analysis of a cohesive soil under

undrained condition where
(a) the soil strength is characterized using the
undrained shear strength su
(b) the shear resistance along the wall is
characterized
c a acte ed ususing
g wall
a ad
adhesion
es o cw .
(for cohesive
cohesi e soil with
ith undrained
ndrained strength su and wall
all adhesion cw )
Soil: soil = su
Wall: wall = cw La

Lb
Fc = su La
W
Fc
Fcw = cw Lb
Fcw
R

assumed
P

C l b’ W
Coulomb’s Wedge
d
(for cohesive soil with undrained strength su and wall adhesion cw )
P
  
R
W
P = force on the soil
wedge due to Fcw
retaining wall
= force
f acting
ti on Fc
the wall
Use of Force Polygon in Coulomb’s Method
 Note that the force polygons shown on the previous
few slides are obtained for an arbitrary or assumed
fail re angle .
slip plane failure 
 The force polygons have to be repeated for different
trial angles of ,  until the critical value of the
active/passive force (P) is obtained.
 Again
Again, this can be quite cumbersome as it requires
repeated graphical construction of the force polygon
to obtain the critical value of P.
 There is a ‘clever’ graphical technique called the
Culmann method which can help p reduce the effort,,
which we will cover shortly.
 In addition, some closed
closed-form
form solutions of Coulomb
Coulomb’s s
active/passive forces are available for special cases.
Closed Form Coulomb
Co lomb Solutions
Sol tions for
Special Cases
Pa , Ka for non-vertical rough wall and sloping ground surface
(f cohesionless
(for h i l soilil with
ith ffriction l  and
i ti angle i ti )
d wallll ffriction
Active Condition 
Direction of wall Soil 

movement Wall 

Pa

Earth Pressure 2-174

(f cohesionless
d wallll ffriction
1
The solution for this is given by Pa  Ka H2
2
2
 
 
 sin   '  / sin  
where Ka =
 sin   '  sin '  
 sin      
 sin     
Note that Pa does not act horizontally. The horizontal component Pah of
Pa is given by
1
Pah  KahH2 where Kahh = Ka sin (+)
2
(for soil with strength parameters cc,  and wall adhesion cw, wall friction )
Active Condition 
Direction of wall Soil c , 

movement Wall cw , 
H

Pa


1
The solution for this is given by Pa  Ka H2  KaccH
2
2
 
 
 sin   '  / sin  
where Ka =
 sin   '  sin '  
 sin      
 sin     

and Kac = 2 K a 1
cw 

 c 
Note that Pa does not act horizontally. The horizontal component Pah of
Pa is g
given by
y
Pah = Pa sin (+)
Pp , Kp for non-vertical rough wall and sloping ground surface
(f cohesionless
d wallll ffriction
Passive Condition 
Direction of wall Soil 

movement W ll 
Wall
H
Pp


(f cohesionless
d wallll ffriction
1
The solution for the passive case is given by Pp  Kp H2
2
2
 
 sin    '  / sin  
in which Kp =  
 sin    '  sin  '   
sin     

 sin     

Note that Pp does not act horizontally. The horizontal component Pph
of P is given by
1
Pph  KphH2 where Kph = Kp sin (+)
2
Passive Condition 
Direction of wall Soil c , 

movement Wall cw , 
H
Pp 


1
The solution for this is given by Pp  Kp H  KpccH
2
2
2
 
 sin    '  / sin  
where Kp =  
 sin    '  sin  '   
i     
 sin
 sin     

 cw 
and Kpc = 2 Kp 1 
 c 
Note that Pp does not act horizontally. The horizontal component Pph of
Pp is given by
Pph = Pp sin ((+)
+)
Coulomb’s
Summary
Method
y of
forCoulomb’s
More Complex
Method
p Geometries

 For
F problems
bl involving
i l i non-vertical
ti l
walls and sloping backfills like
those shown on the right,
g , we can soil
wall
use the analytical (closed-form)
solutions provided in the preceding

slides
slides.
 For more geometrically complex

problems with non-even
non even backfill
soil
like those shown on the right, wall
closed-form solutions are not
readily available. 
Coulomb’s
Summary
Method
y of
forCoulomb’s
More Complex
Method
p Geometries
 For geometrically more complex problems,

problems Coulomb
Coulomb’s s
method using the force polygon method is rational, but
is quite cumbersome.
 Remember that it has to be repeated for different trial
failure surfaces to obtain the wedge corresponding to
the largest Pa or smallest Pp .
 A ‘‘simpler’,
i l ’ more efficient
ffi i t method
th d (without
( ith t resorting
ti tot
computer) is the Culmann’s method.
Culmann’s
Culmann s method
 Culmann’s method of solution is essentially a clever _________
graphical
implementation of the Coulomb
Coulomb’s s wedge calculation,
calculation which allows
several trial surfaces to be tried within a reasonable time.
 If we rotate the force triangle
g for the failure wedgeg so that the reaction
R is aligned along the trial slip plane, the self-weight vector W will be
inclined at an angle of ’ to the horizontal.
Culmann’s Graphical
p Method of Solution
Note that, in order for the angle between
R and N to be , it is necessary for cc’ = 0.
0

Therefore, Fc = 0 (in the earlier slide).

W
F 
Direction of wall
movement
N
 
P P R
180-  F
W
R


Culmann’s
Culmann s method
 Culmann’s method of solution is essentially a clever _________
graphical
implementation of the Coulomb
Coulomb’s s wedge calculation,
calculation which allows
several trial surfaces to be tried within a reasonable time.
 If we rotate the force triangle
g for the failure wedgeg so that the reaction
R is aligned along the trial slip plane, the self-weight vector W will be
inclined at an angle of ’ to the horizontal.
 In other words,
words by aligning the reactions R along their respective trial
slip surfaces, the vector W for all the trial cases can be collapsed into
a single line inclined at angle ’ to the horizontal.
 Furthermore, the angle between the wall reaction P and the self-
weight W is 180--, which is independent of the inclination of the
trial surface .
 Thus, all the wall reactions will also be aligned along the same
direction.
 Hence, by appropriately rotating the force triangle, the graphical
solution can be greatly speeded up.
Using Culmann’s Method For Active Pressure Condition
W1
Weight
Line W
R1 P1

W1

P Line
W2
P2
Weight
Line W
R2
W2 

P Line
Failure Plane
R3 R4
Culmann’s Line
R2
P2
Weight
R1 Line W
P1
W2

W1

P Line
Applying
pp y g Culmann’s method to a cantilever wall
W W1
1. Draw the retaining wall, backfill etc.. to a convenient scale
_______________.
2. From point A at the heel of the wall, project line AC at an angle of
inclination of ’ to the horizontal. This will be the line along
which all the self-weight vectors W will be aligned.
3. From point A, project line AD at an angle of 180   to line AC.
180--
All the wall reaction vectors P will be aligned parallel to this line.
4. For each trial wedge, compute the self-weight W1, W2 etc.., and
scale off these weights on line AC using a _______________
i t scale
convenient l for
the rotated force triangle.
5. Through each end point w1, w2 etc.. corresponding to each self-
weight vector, draw lines parallel to AD so as to intersect their
corresponding trial slip planes.
6.
6 Draw a _____________
smooth curve through the points of intersection.
intersection
7. Draw a line that is tangential to the Culmann’s line and parallel to
AC. At this point, the offset between the Culmann’s line and AC
i the
is h maximum,
i thereby
h b giving
i i theh maximumi wall
ll reaction.
i
8. Draw a line through the tangent point that is parallel to AD to
intersect the line AC. The length
g of this line g gives the maximum
________
wall reaction corresponding to the critical slip plane
___________
Summaryy of Culmann’s Method
N
Note
t ththatt C
Culmann’s
l ’ method
th d is
i a graphical
hi l approach
h to
t
solve for the forces acting on Coulomb’s wedge. Hence it
is still based on Coulomb
Coulomb’ss method
method.
 Culmann’s method is quite versatile in that it can solve

for different problem geometries (sloping backfill, sloping
backface of wall, and also consider wall friction).
Summaryy of Coulomb’s Method
 Note that Coulomb’s method for calculating the active
and passive forces accounts for wall friction,
friction which is
present in almost all practical cases. Rankine’s method,
though more elegant mathematically, assumes a smooth
wall.
 Coulomb’s method is usually associated with a linear
failure plane behind the wall. Strictly speaking, the
method can be applied to non-linear failure planes, but
historically Coulomb assumed a linear failure plane.
historically, plane
 Note that Coulomb’s (and Rankine’s) solutions are
approximate solutions
solutions, whose accuracy depends on how
closely the assumed linear failure plane matches the
failure surface in reality.
 How do realistic failure surfaces look like?
Realistic Failure Surfaces
The failure surfaces behind the walls are affected

by:
1. Direction of Wall Movement
2 Di
2. Direction
ti off Soil
S il Movement
M t
Realistic failure surfaces
Active Condition Passive Condition

• Wall moves away from soil mass • Wall moves towards soil mass
• Soil moves down relative to wall
___________ • Soil _________
moves up relative to wall
• PA inclined ________
upwards • PA inclined ___________
downwards
•  is ____
+ve •  is +ve
___
Realistic failure surfaces
Active Condition Passive Condition

• Wall moves away from soil mass • Wall moves towards soil mass
• Soil moves
_________
up relative to wall • Soil ___________
moves down relative to wall
• PA inclined ___________
downwards • PA inclined ________
upwards
•  is ___
-ve •  is -ve
___
Planar vs Non-planar
p Failure Surfaces
 In Coulomb
Coulomb’s s original computations,
computations the failure
wedges were assumed to be bounded by plane
surfaces. This assumption is not unduly unrealistic
active
i
for ______ failures where the actual failure surfaces
are relatively flat
___ curves.
 In passive failures, the assumption of flat plane

surfaces of failure often leads to large g errors in
__________
computations. This is aggravated if the wall is rough.
Partly for this reason, the assumption of flat surfaces
has often been found to overestimate
___________ the passive
pressure developed in field and model tests for ’
35
exceeding ___.
How to obtain Ka and Kp for
More Realistic Non-Planar
Non Planar Failure Surfaces
Ka and Kp for More Realistic Non-Planar
Failure Surfaces
 Terzaghi (1943) extended the Coulomb earth pressure
theory to accommodate a failure surface geometry
consisting of log
log-spiral
spiral and linear segments.
segments
Ka and Kp for More Realistic Non-Planar
Failure Surfaces
C
Caquott and d Kerisel
K i l (1948) made d further
f th developments
d l t
to the non-linear failure plane theory, and produced
charts/tables for Ka and Kp values based on the log
log-
spiral + linear failure surface.
Jean Kerisel
Albert Caquot
Non-planar
p Failure Surfaces
 Caquot and Kerisel (1948) produced tables of earth

pressure based on non-planar failure surfaces.
 They used a logarithmic spiral to represent the
_______________
rupture surface instead.
 Thi
This modification
difi ti i extremely
is t l important
i t t forf passive
i
______
earth pressure where there is soil-wall friction.
E
Eurocode
d 7 Annex
A C provides
id charts
h t based
b d on
Caquot and Kerisel’s work. These are “informative”
– you are not required to use them.
them
Eurocode 7 Annex C ((KA for 
=0,, =90º))
Eurocode 7 Annex C ((KP for 
=0,, =90º))
Eurocode 7 Annex C ((KA for =0,, =90º))
Eurocode 7 Annex C ((KA for =,
 , =90º))
Summary of the Log-Spiral + Linear Segments
Failure Surface Method
 The logg spiral
p shape
p of the failure p plane has
generally been borne out by experiments, and
hence the Terzaghi/ Caquot & Kerisel solution is
generally
ll preferred
f d over that
th t off Coulomb.
C l b
 For the active pressure coefficient, the results
using a logarithmic spiral rupture surface
f provides
negligible difference to those obtained using a
planar surface.
surface
 For passive conditions, does the Caquot & Kerisel
or the Coulomb method yield a higher value of KP ?
 Where is the line of action of the resulting active /
passive force based on the log-spiral
log spiral failure
surface?
Summary
y Timeline of Earth Pressure Research
1700s - Coulomb Method
1800s - Rankine method
1900s - Caquot and Kerisel

(log-spiral failure surface)
Which Earth Pressure Theory?
What we have covered up to now
 Basic Soil Mechanics:

Effective stress, NC vs OC, Mohr Circle
 Different states of lateral stresses:

At-rest,
t est, act
active
eaand
d pass
passivee
 Different methods of evaluating active and

passive stresses:
Rankine Coulomb
Rankine, Coulomb, Log-Spiral and their key
features (similarities and differences) of these
methods.
Other Loads Acting
g on Retaining
g Walls
Surcharge Loads Next to
Retaining Structures
Effect of Uniform Surcharge
g Loading
g
loading
ah = Kav ah = Kaq

ph = Kpv qh = Kpq
Uniform Surcharge
g Loading
g
Uniform surcharge loading is relatively

straightforward
t i htf d to
t deal
d l with.
ith
The ‘harder’ part is to deal with point,

line or strip surcharge loadings.
Point Surcharge Loads (based on Terzaghi, 1954)
Point Load ((Side View))
Lateral Pressure due to Point Load (Terzaghi, 1954)

Point Surcharge Loads (based on Terzaghi, 1954)
Point Load (Plan View)
’H = H cos2 ((1.1))
Lateral Pressure due to Point Load, based on Boussinesq

equation modified by experiment (Terzaghi, 1954)
Line Surcharge Loads (based on Terzaghi, 1954)
Line Load
Lateral Pressure due to Line Load, based on Boussinesq

equation modified by experiment (Terzaghi, 1954)
Strip Surcharge Loads (based on Teng, 1962)
Strip Load
in radians
Lateral Pressure due to Strip Load, based on Boussinesq

equation modified by experiment (Teng, 1962)
Line and Point loads (NAVFAC 7.02)
(based on Terzaghi,
Terzaghi 1954)
See also Gaba et al (2003) (CIRIA) Fig. 4.6.

They say “the use of elastic (Boussinesq) lateral
stress distribution to model a strip surcharge is
not recommended unless the wall is rigid with
no deformation.
deformation ”
Strip Surcharge Loads
Pappin, Simpson, Felton

and Raison (1985)
“N
“Numerical
i lAAnalysis
l i off
Flexible Retaining Walls”
Proceedings of the NUMETA
‘85 Conference, Swansea,
7-11 January 1985
Strip Surcharge Loads
Georgiadis and
Anagnostopoulos (1998)
“Lateral
Lateral Pressure on sheet
pile walls due to Strip load”
Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 1, 95-98
Effect of Compaction Stresses on
Lateral Earth Pressures
Compaction
p stresses
There is a question on whether compaction
stresses
t needd to
t be
b applied.
li d Thi
This d
depends d
upon what the earth pressure is used for.
F the
For th assessmentt off stability
t bilit off gravity
it
retaining structure, it is often unnecessary
t consider
to id compaction ti stresses
t since
i a
higher earth pressure will cause the gravity
retaining str
structure
ct re to mo
move e for
forward
ard (slightl
(slightly))
and, in so doing, relieve the stresses.
However they are necessary for the
However,
assessment of structural integrity of the
retaining structure e
e.g.g bridge abutments
abutments.
Compaction
p stresses
Eurocode 7 says “Measurements indicate
that the additional pressures depend on the
applied
pp compactive
p energy,
gy the thickness of
the compacted layers and the travel pattern
of the compaction plant. Horizontal
pressure normal to the wall in a layer may
reduce when the next layer is placed and
compacted. When backfilling is complete,
the additional pressure normally acts only
on the upper part of the wall.”
Compaction stress (NAVFAC 7.02)
(based on Ingold
Ingold, 1979)
Water Pressures due to
Seepage behind the Wall
Simplified Water Pressure Distribution for Seepage
Flow across a Gravity Retaining Structure
Total flow path

= hw + b
d li  hw
hydraulic
h
h hw gradient hw  b
Pw  hw 

u A   hw  hw  w
 hw  b 
 hw2  hw b  hw2 
b A uA    w
 hw  b 
uA
hw b w
Pu 
hw  b
Seepage
p g Flow – Embedded Walls
Fl
Flow Net
N t
Head drop=h+i-j
Total flow path

along wall
=2d+h-i-j
(h  i  j )
hydraulic 
gradient ( 2d  h  i  j )
Flow across an Embedded Wall
Net pore
Head drop=h+i
drop=h+i-jj water pressure
distribution
um
d-i d-i
ut ut
Total flow path  (h  i  j ) 

um  ( h  i  j )  ( h  i  j )  w
=2d+h-i-j  ( 2d  h  i  j ) 
hydraulic  i  ( h  i  j ) 2( d  i )( h  i  j ) w
 um 
gradient ( 2d  h  i  j ) ( 2d  h  i  j )
More on Water Pressures Behind
Retaining Walls
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
1.5 m
4.5 m
7.5 m
Impermeable Layer
Before Excavation
Problem Geometry
Key Equation for Seepage Flow:
TTotal head at any point X = Elevation Head at X + Pressure Head at X
lh d i X El i H d X P H d X
THx = EHx + PHx
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 7.5 m
Elevation Datum
EH =0
EH =0 Impermeable Layer
Before Excavation
Consider points A, B and C
Set elevation datum
l d
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 7.5 m
Elevation Datum
EH =0
Before Excavation
Total head at A = Elevation Head at A + Pressure Head at A + Velocity Head at A
THA = EHA + PHA
4 5 4 5 = 9 m
THA = 4.5 + 4.5 9 usually negligible for
usually negligible for
seepage problems
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 7.5 m
Elevation Datum
EH =0
Before Excavation
Total head at B = Elevation Head at B + Pressure Head at B
THB = EHB + PHB
4 5 4 5 = 9 m
THB = 4.5 + 4.5 9
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 7.5 m
Elevation Datum
EH =0
Before Excavation
Total head at C = Elevation Head at C + Pressure Head at C
THC = EHC + PHC
3 6 = 9 m
THC = 3 + 6 9
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
3.0 m
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 3.0 m
6.0 m
C
Impermeable Layer Note change in
N h i
After Excavation water table level
At Point C
in front of wall
in front of wall
At Point A At Point B
THA = EHA + PHA THB = EHB + PHB THC = EHC + PHC
THA = 4.5 + PH
4 5 PHA THB = 4.5 + PH
4 5 PHB THC = 3 + PH
3 + PHC
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
3.0 m
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 3.0 m
6.0 m
C
Impermeable Layer
After Excavation
At Point A At Point B At Point C
THA = 4.5 + PH
4 5 PHA THB = 4.5 + PH
3 + PHC
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
3.0 m
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 3.0 m
6.0 m
C
Impermeable Layer
Unknowns are THA , PHA , THB , PHB , THC , PHC

In fact, if we can work out THA , THB , THC , the pressure heads PHA , PHB ,
PHC can be obtained.
The values of TH
The values of THA , TH
THB , TH
THC can be estimated by assuming a uniform
can be estimated by assuming a uniform
head loss with length along the retaining wall.
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
X
3.0 m
1.5 m
3 m Y
4.5 m
A B 3.0 m
6.0 m
C
Impermeable Layer
What is the flow length of a particle along the wall (from Pt X to Pt Y)?
h 4.5 + 3 = 7.5 m
Flow path length =
l hl 45 3 75
What is the head loss as the particle flows from point X to point Y?
THX = EHX + PHX = 7.5 + 1.5 = 9 m
THX‐Y = THX – THY = 9 ‐ 6 = 3 m
THY = EHY + PHY = 6 + 0 = 6 m
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
X
3.0 m
1.5 m
3 m Y
4.5 m
A B 3.0 m
6.0 m
C
Impermeable Layer
Hence, the head loss gradient (assuming linear) :
Head loss gradient =
dl di Head loss / flow path length
dl / fl hl h
= THX‐Y / 7.5 m
= 3 / 7.5
= 0.4
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
X
3.0 m
1.5 m
3 m Y
4.5 m
A B 3.0 m
6.0 m
C
Impermeable Layer
Hence, total head loss from X to A = 3 x 0.4 = 1.2 m
total head loss from X to C = 4.5 x 0.4 = 1.8 m
total head loss from X to C = 45x04=18m
total head loss from X to B = 6 x 0.4 =2.4 m
,
Hence, new total head at A = total head at X – head loss X to A = 9 – 1.2 = 7.8 m
new total head at C = total head at X – head loss X to C = 9 – 1.8 = 7.2 m
new total head at B = total head at X – head loss X to B = 9 – 2.4 = 6.6 m
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
3.0 m
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 3.0 m
6.0 m
C
Impermeable Layer
At Point A At Point B At Point C

THA = 4.5 + PH
4 5 PHA THB = 4.5 + PH
3 + PHC
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
7.8 3.3 6.6 2.1 7.2 4.2
Example
p on Simplified
p Seepage
p g Calculations
3.0 m
1.5 m
3 m
4.5 m
A B 3.0 m
6.0 m
C
Impermeable Layer
Hence, pore pressure at A due to seepage = PHA x w = 3.3 x 10 = 33 kN/m2

pore pressure at B due to seepage = PHB x w = 2.1 x 10 = 21 kN/m2
pore pressure at C due to seepage = PHC x w = 4.2 x 10 = 42 kN/m2
Compare with hydrostatic values (if ignore seepage)
60 kN/m2
uA = 45 kN/m 2 uB = 15 kN/m 2 uC =
30 kN/m2
Flow across an Embedded Wall
Net pore
Head drop=h+i
drop=h+i-jj water pressure
distribution
um
d-i d-i
ut ut
Total flow path  (h  i  j ) 

um  ( h  i  j )  ( h  i  j )  w
=2d+h-i-j  ( 2d  h  i  j ) 
hydraulic  i  ( h  i  j ) 2( d  i )( h  i  j ) w
 um 
gradient ( 2d  h  i  j ) ( 2d  h  i  j )
General Expression for umax behind the wall for the
condition shown below
X
Y
a
Impermeable Layer
Impermeable Layer
change in head between back and front of wall b

hydraulic gradient  
total flow path length 2a  b
Take Elevation Head (EH) to be zero at Point Z
At Point X, EH(X) = a + b PH(X) = 0 TH(X) = EH(X) + PH(X) = a + b
At Point Y, EH(Y) = a PH(Y) = ? TH(Y) = EH(Y) + PH(Y) = a + ?
At Point Z, EH(Z) = 0 PH(Z) = ? TH(Z) = EH(Z) + PH(Z) = ?
General Expression for umax behind the wall for the
condition shown below
At Point Y: X
H dl
Head loss = HXY
= hydraulic gradient x distance XY b
b b2
 .b 
2a  b 2a  b Y
TH(Y) = TH(X) – HXY a
b2
 a  b  
2a  b Z
2a 2  3ab  b 2  b 2 2a 2  3ab Impermeable Layer
p y
 
2a  b 2a  b Compare with earlier figure:
PH(Y) = TH(Y) – EH(Y) a = d – i
2a 2  3ab b h i j
b = h + i –
 a
2a  b Substitute into equation for PH(Y)
2a 2  3ab  2a 2  ab  2d  ih  i  j
 PH(Y) =
2ab

2a  b 2a  b 2d  h  i  j
2ab

2a  b Multiply PH(Y) by w to obtain the pressure.
Some common pore pressure
distributions related to earth
retaining walls
Pore Water Pressure Distribution 1
• Water table levels same

on both sides of wall
• Hydrostatic pressures
• Balanced on both sides
• Do not have to be
considered in calculations
• Water table levels different

on both sides of wall
• Distribution unbalanced
• Can be rigorously determined
from flow nets
• Approximate solution based
on assumption
ti that
th t total
t t l head
h d
uc is dissipated uniformly along
back and front wall surfaces
between two water table levels.
• Maximum net pressure
occurs opposite the lower
water table level
2ba
b
uc  w
2b  a
• A depth of water (c) in front

of wall
• Approximate distribution
DEFG may be used
water
uG 
2b  c a w
2b  c  a
• Wall constructed mainly in a

soil of high
g permeability
y
• Lower part of wall penetrates
a layer of clay of low
permeability
high
permeability • Assume undrained
conditions in the clay
• Pore pressures in the
overlying soil would be
hydrostatic
low • Net pressure distribution
permeability would be HJKL
• Wall constructed in a clay

clay which contains thin layers of
fine sand or silt
sand
• Assume that sand or silt
/ ilt
/silt
clay allows water at hydrostatic
sand pressure to reach the back
/silt
surface of wall
• Implies pressure in excess of
hydrostatic in front of wall
• Consequent upward seepage
in front of the wall
These simplified water pressure
diagrams will be useful later on,
especially when we consider
embedded flexible walls.
Soil Parameters for
Earth Pressure Calculations
Soil Parameters for Coulomb’s Method and
Caquot & Kerisel’s Method
Undrained Shear Strength cu or su
Soil friction angle ’
Wall friction 
Wall adhesion ca
Interpretation
p of Undrained Shear Strength
g
Highly
• Using SPT data (cu or su  5N) empirical!!
i i l!!
• Using CPT data
• Using field vane shear test

• Lab Test (UU or CU)
Mohr Circles
from UU tests
Interpretation
p of Undrained Shear Strength
g
Highly
• Using SPT data (cu or su  5N) empirical!!
i i l!!
• Using CPT data
• Using field vane shear test

• Lab Test (UU or CU)
Mohr Circles average?

?
from UU tests
Wall adhesion ca
g ’ from CU Tests Mohr Circles
Friction Angle
Mohr Circles from CU tests using different

initial effective stresses
 (kPa)
’
i1 f1 i2 i3 f2 f3

 (kPa)
Shear Strength of Soils : Angle of Internal Friction
Typical Values of the Friction Angle ’
Friction Angle ’
Gravel 40 – 55
G
Gravel (sandy)
( ) 35 – 50
Sand
Loose dry 28 – 34
Loose saturated 28 – 34
D
Dense d
dry 36 – 45
45
Dense saturated 36 – 45
Silt or silty sand
Loose 27 – 30
Dense 30 – 35
Clay
General 19 – 27
Singapore marine clay ~22
CD - 7
Wall adhesion ca
Wall friction 
California Trenching and Shoring Manual
(http://www dot ca gov/hq/esc/construction/manuals/TrenchingandShoring/)
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/construction/manuals/TrenchingandShoring/)
Wall friction  (continued)
Wall Friction (Eurocode 7)
 A concrete wall or steel sheet pile wall supporting sand

or gravel may be assumed to have a design wall ground
interface parameter d = kk.cv;d.
 For precast concrete or steel sheet piling k should not
exceed 2/3
2/3.
 For concrete cast against soil, a value of k = 1.0 may be
assu ed
assumed.
 For a steel sheet pile in clay under undrained conditions
immediatelyy after driving,
g no adhesive or frictional
resistance should be assumed. (Increases in these
values may take place over a period of time.)
Wall friction  (continued)
Note that, in Plaxis:

W can model
We d l interface
i t f friction
f i ti using
i a parameter
t Rinter
Rinter = tan  / tan   /
H
Hence Rinter is
i nott equivalent
i l t tot k.
k
Wall adhesion ca
Wall Adhesion ca
Gaba et al. (2003) (CIRIA) suggest

ca=  su (0.5)
Wall Adhesion ca
R
Reported
t d adhesion
dh i ffactors
t  from
f different
diff t studies
t di
Taken from Cherubini and Vessia (2007)

Wall Adhesion ca
How to estimate adhesion factor 
Alternatively
0.45
  'vo 
  0.5  

 su 
from Sladen (1992)
Taken from Cherubini and Vessia (2007)


At-rest, active and passive and how they are affected by
wall
ll movements t
 Different methods of evaluating active and passive stresses:

Rankine, Coulomb, Log-Spiral and their key features
(similarities and differences) of these methods.
 Additional stress components acting on retaining walls

Surcharge, line and point loads, compaction stresses, water
pressures
 Choice of Soil Parameters for Lateral Stress Evaluation

F i ti
Friction angle,
l undrained
d i d shear
h strength,
t th wall
ll friction,
f i ti wall
ll
adhesion
Learning Objectives
Different States of Lateral Earth Stresses
Insitu, Active, Passive
h d off calculating
Methods
M l l i active
i and
d passive
i
earth pressures
Rankine, Coulomb, Caquot & Kerisel
Key features/limitations
K f t /li it ti off th
the diff
differentt
limiting earth pressure methods
Effect of surcharge, compaction, etc
Short-Term and Long-Term
g
Response of Lateral Earth
Pressures
Introduction
• The short-term and long-term response of the earth
g y influenced by
pressures are significantly y the presence
of water.
• This is because the shear strength
g of soils is a
function of the effective stresses in the soil
Effective stress = Total Stress – Pore Pressure
• Hence, if the pore pressures in the short term and

long term are different (say, due to consolidation),
then the soil strengths in the short term and long term
are also different
different.
• These different soil strengths will affect the Short-
T
Term and
d Long-Term
L T Stability
St bilit off Retaining
R t i i Wall
W ll
Systems.
Methods of Analysis for Short-term and
Long-term Responses
Undrained
• Short Term
• Total Stress or Effective Stress
D i d
Drained
• Long Term
• Effective Stress
Total vs Effective Stress Analysis
y
 The theories of earth pressure developed earlier can be
applied to total and effective stress analysis.
• In total stress analysis of saturated soils, the shear
strength parameter which is commonly used is the
undrained shear strength cu (or su), with u = 0. In such
cases the pore pressure need not be additionally
cases,
accounted for. This is appropriate for short-term
conditions (e.g. temporary works) in low permeability
soils (k < 10-8 m/s – see Gaba et al, 2003)
• However
However, in excavation situations,
situations the long
long-term
term
stability of the structure is often more critical than the
short-term stability. This can be easily illustrated by a
simple stress path analysis.
Introduction to Stress Paths
Recall our earlier discussion on the active

pressure condition,
condition and how it is related to
changes in the Mohr circles
Initial Stress State of a ’ material
 Mohr-Coulomb
In terms of friction Failure Envelope
parameter ’
Mohr circle for

initial stress state
’ 
h v
’v
’h
Complementary
p y
Failure envelope




h v
Complementary
p



h v
Complementary
p



h v
Complementary
p
Drawing
g the stress path from the Mohr cirlces


Draw a line through

g the topp
point of the Mohr Circles

h v
Complementary
p
Drawing
g the stress path from the Mohr cirlces


Stress Path

h v
Complementary
p
Kf -line : Failure envelope (slope )
associated with the Stress Path
 Failure envelope  Kf-line


Kf-line is the failure

Stress Path line based on the top
point of the Mohr
Circle

h v
Complementary
p
• Previously, we have represented states of stress by a
Mohr circle in a - coordinate system.
• Sometimes it is convenient to represent that state

of stress by a stress point, which has the
(1 + 3)/2 and _________.
coordinates _________ (1 - 3)/2
• F
For many situations
it ti in
i geotechnical
t h i l engineering,
i i we
assume 1 and 3 act on vertical and horizontal planes,
so the coordinates of the stress point become
(
________ (v - h)/2
v + h)/2 and _________.
• For simplicity, define

1   3 1   3
s t
2 2
t is considered positive when v > h
• Often, we want to show successive states of stress which a test
specimen (lab) or a typical element in the field undergoes during
loading or unloading.
unloading
• One way is to use a diagram showing the successive states with
a series of Mohr circles.
• For example, in a triaxial test with constant 3 and increasing 1
(a) Successive Mohr circles (b) Stress Path

 t
45
D
C
B
A
3 1  s
Relationship between soil strength parameters
c’-’ and the stress path parameters
c
For a general failure envelope based on the c’ and ’ parameters,
a and 
the equivalent stress path parameters a’ ’ parameters are
given as
sin ’ = tan ’ ’

 (kPa) c’ = a’ / cos ’
’
Kf - line
c’ a’
200 400 600 800 1000  (kPa)

Effective vs Total Stress Paths
• Stress Paths can be plotted using either effective
stresses or total stresses.
1  3 1  3
• Total stress path: s  t
2 2
• Effective stress path:
1  3 ( 1  u)  ( 3  u)  1   3  2u  1   3
s     u  su
2 2 2 2
1  3 ( 1  u)  ( 3  u)  1   3
t    t
2 2 2
• Hence the effective stress path (ESP) is displaced
laterally from the total stress path (TSP)by the pore
pressure u.
• Or, the horizontal distance between the ESP and TSP
is the pore pressure u.
Use of Stress Paths to Illustrate the
Soil Response in the Short-Term and
L
Long-Term
T due
d to t An
A Excavation
E ti
Stresses behind a retaining
g wall
’v
Excavation
Retaining
wall ’h
Figure 4.12
Stress Changes due to Excavation in Clay (Total Stress)
 At the initial state,, h′ = Kov ′

(assuming installation of the wall has had no effect)
 Changes induced by excavation

 v = 0 and 
  h < 0 (for the active case)
 v   h  h
s   (negative)
2 2
 v   h  h
t   (positive)
2 2
t / s  1 In terms of total stress  total stress path
Doesn’t say anything about pore pressure
Stress Paths due to Excavation in Clay
y
t
Failure envelope '
Ko
a'
s,s'
y
t
Ko
uo
a' initial pore
pressure
s,s'
y
t
Total Ko
stress 1
path -1
uo
a' initial pore
pressure
s,s'
Stress Changes due to Excavation in Clay (Effective Stress)
 What happens to the effective stress?

short term  undrained  no volume change
 Volume change is related to mean effective stress s’
 No volume change  no change in s’ s' 

1  3
2
 s’ = 0   3
t'  t  1
2
 t/s’ =  Slope of the
stress path
 effective stress path is a vertical

line
Strictly true only for elastic behaviour
behaviour.
y
t
Short term - Undrained
Effective
Total stress Ko
stress 1 path
path -1
uo
a'
s,s'
y
t
Note:
N t
u = pore pressure immediately
ue after the excav
uo = initial hydrostatic pp
u uo ue = excess pore pressure u
1 u = ue + uo
(-ve) (-ve) (+ve)
-1
Ko
uo
a'
s,s'
 What happens to the effective stress in the long term?

 Long term  drainage occurs  excess pore pressure
ue dissipates until only
hydrostatic pressure uo
remains
 effective stress = total
stress - hydrostatic pore
pressure uo
 What happens to the effective stress in the long term?

 Long term  drainage occurs  excess pore pressure
ue dissipates until only
hydrostatic pressure uo
remains
 effective stress = total
stress - hydrostatic pore
pressure uo
In order that effective
ff stress = total stress - uo ,
Either
(a) total stress must increase
or
(b) effective stress must decrease ???
or
(c) both change so that they meet halfway
y
t '

Failure envelope
Short term - Undrained

TS ES
Ko
uo
a'
s,s'
y
t '

Failure envelope
With time
TS ES
? Ko
uo
a'
s,s'
y
t '

Failure envelope
With time
TS ES
? Ko
uo
a'
s,s'
y
t '

Failure envelope
With time
TS ES
? Ko
uo
a'
s,s'
y
t '

Failure envelope
With time
TS ES
Ko
uo
a'
s,s'
y
t '

Failure envelope
With time
with time
Effective
Total
T t l stress
t Ko
stress path
path
uo
a'
s,s'
y
t '

Failure envelope
Long Term
long A
- Drained
short term
term B
uo Effective
Total stress Ko
stress path
path
uo
a'
s,s'
 Recall that shear strength is dependent upon effective

stress, not total stress.
 In the short term,

term due to the excavation,
excavation the effective
stress state is at A.
 In the long term, after the pore pressure has dissipated,

the effective stress state is at B.
 Consider stress states A and B:

Which point is closer to the failure envelope?
y
t '

Failure envelope
excess
strength
capacity
long A
short term
term B
uo Effective
stress Ko
path
uo
a'
s,s'
 Recall that shear strength is dependent upon effective

stress, not total stress.
 In the short term,

term due to the excavation,
excavation the effective
stress state is at A.
 In the long term, after the pore pressure has dissipated,

the effective stress state is at B.
 Consider stress states A and B:

Which point is closer to the failure envelope?
Hence, point B (long term) is actually
closer to failure!
In some cases, it may actually reach the
failure line.
Short term vs Long term response
d to
due t Excavation
E ti
 Short term – undrained

Reduction in h produces reduction of pore water
pressure (may induce suctions). No immediate
change in effective stress, so design can be based on
undrained strength based on initial conditions
 Long term – drained
Pore water
P t pressure changes
h i d
induceddb by excavation
ti
dissipate – water is drawn in and pore water pressure
rises Effective stress state moves closer to failure
rises. failure.
Design has to be based on effective stress
parameters using
p g an estimation of the longg term
effective stress state and pore water pressure regime
Idealized vs Realistic Effective Stress Path for
Undrained Shearing
t
A
more realistic
for real soils
true only for Ko
elastic
behaviour
a'
s,s'
That concludes our brief
discussion on Stress Paths.
If you are still interested in learning

more about stress paths,
paths you can sign
up for CE6101 – Geotechnical
Constitutive Modelling!
At-rest, active and passive
 Different methods of evaluating active and passive stresses:
Rankine, Coulomb, Log-Spiral and their key features (similarities
and differences)) of these methods.
 Additional stress components acting on retaining walls
Surcharge, line and point loads, compaction stresses, water
pressures
 Choice of Soil Parameters for Lateral Stress Evaluation
Friction angle
angle, undrained
ndrained shear strength,
strength wall
all friction,
friction wall
all
adhesion
 Short-term
Short term (undrained) vs Long-term
Long term (Drained) Response
Stress path concepts

Lateral Earth Pressure Theories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lateral Earth Pressure Theories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.

Lateral Earth Pressure Theories

This section focuses on Lateral Earth Pressures,

Vertical stresses (v, 

d = dry unit weight v = dry(d-dw) + bulkdw

It is reasonable to treat the horizontal soil strains

What elastic parameter is that??

The ratio ’h/’v is called the lateral earth pressure

What are the physical limits of Poisson’s ratio?

What is the behavior associated with negative ?

The geologic or stress history usually refers to whether

v (current) v (max prev) v (log

Let us first consider Ko for a normally

(Also referred to as Knc or Konc).

where  is the effective (not total) angle of friction of the

 There is evidence that this approximate form is sufficiently

Plasticity Index (PI)

Over-consolidated soil are elastic due to

where n is an exponent whose value depends upon

 Kulhawy and Mayne (1982) proposed that n can be

Ko = Knc OCRn = 0.63 OCR0.37

 For higher OCR,

 3(1  K nc ) 3(1  K 0 )  OCR (1  2K nc ) 

in which m = 0.022875 Ip + 1.22

0.8 Kulhawy and Mayne

What about the ‘non at-rest’ states of the soil?

These states are usually mobilized when the soil

 Lateral earth pressure (active) KA

• Consider a mass of undisturbed ground

• Consider a mass of undisturbed ground

• If the remainingg soil is

• However, it is unrealistic to expect that the remaining

• Usually the retaining wall is not that rigid,

• We will focus only on the

• Due to the outward deformation, the lateral stress at

• It will decrease to a limiting level such that

• What happens when we push the unsupported side

ACTIVE STATE PASSIVE STATE

ACTIVE STATE PASSIVE STATE

ACTIVE STATE PASSIVE STATE

Wall movement Wall movement to

2 Limit Equilibrium Method

 Weakness – do not consider stress-strain

 Uses yield strength criterion

 Upper and Lower Bound Theorems

There are three broad classes of limit equilibrium

We will cover all three methods in this module.

3. the log-spiral method was proposed in the 1900s. It

1. We will start with the Rankine method, as the resulting

2. We will then follow up with the Coulomb approach

 William John Maquorn Rankine (1820-1872)

where  is the angle of the sloping backfill (wrt the horizontal)

The horizontal component of the active earth pressure is

cos 0  cos 0  cos 

Very simple and commonly cited formula for active earth

cos   cos 2   cos 2 

Instead, we will use basic soil mechanics concepts

Is the soil strength

(ii) c’-’ (effective stress strength

Mohr circle for

Stable Condition (Not Yielded Yet)

If wall doesn’t move