Lateral Earth Pressure on

Retaining Walls
Introduction
• The increase of lateral earth pressure during earthquakes induces sliding and/or tilting to the
retaining structures.
• The majority of case histories of failures reported in the literature until now concern waterfront
structures such as quay walls and bridge abutments.
• Some of the examples of failures and lateral movements of quay walls due to earthquakes are
given in Table 1.
• Seed and Whitman (1970) have suggested that some of these failures may have been due to
several reasons, such as
• 1. increase of lateral earth pressure behind the wall,
• 2. reduction of water pressure at the front of the wall, and
• 3. liquefaction of the backfill material
Introduction
• A comprehensive review on the dynamic lateral earth pressure studies concluded that, the
theories can be divided into three broad categories:
• 1. Fully plastic (static or pseudostatic) solution,
• 2. Solutions based on elastic wave theory, and
• 3. Solutions based on elastoplastic and nonlinear theory.
• Because of the complex soil-structure interaction (mode of wall movement) during earthquakes,
the lateral earth pressure theory based on the fully plastic solution (also known as pseudostatic
method) which is widely used by most of the design engineers, is detailed in this chapter.
• In earthquake engineering to analyze the seismic response of soil embankments and slopes
simply adding a permanent body force representing the earthquake shaking to a static limit-
equilibrium analysis.
Lateral Earth Pressure
• Analysis and determination of lateral earth pressure are necessary to
design retaining walls or retaining structures.
• There are three categories of earth pressure:
• Earth pressure at rest
• Elastic equilibrium with no lateral strain taking place
• Active earth pressure
• Plastic equilibrium with lateral expansion taking place
• Passive earth pressure
• Plastic equilibrium with lateral compression taking place
Lateral Earth Pressure
Lateral Earth Pressure
• At Rest =
• Active & Passive = 1. Rankine theory
2. Coulomb theory
Rankine & Coulomb Theories
• Rankine - No adhesion or friction between wall and soil.(wall is smooth)
• Coulomb - Assumes that failure occurs in the form of wedge and that friction occurs between
wall and soil.
• Failure is assumed to occur in the form of a sliding wedge along a failure plane (see figure)
• The direction of resultants pressure is parallel to the backfill and act to 1/3 from the wall base.
• Could be used for cohesionless and cohesion material.
Coulomb Equation
• In 1776, Coulomb derived an equation for active earth pressure
on a retaining wall due to a dry cohesionless backfill
 Coulomb Equation
• In the actual design of retaining walls, the value of the wall friction δ is assumed to be between 2
ɸ/2 and 2ɸ/3
• The active earth pressure coefficients for various values of φ, i, and β with δ = 2ɸ/3 are given in
Table 8.3.
Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory
• Coulombs’ active earth pressure equation can be modified to take into account the vertical and
horizontal coefficients of acceleration induced by an earthquake.
• This is generally referred to as the Mononobe-Okabe analysis
• (Mononobe, 1929; Okabe, 1926).
• The Mononobe-Okabe solution is based on the following assumptions:
• 1. The failure in soil takes place along a plane such as BC shown in Figure 8.2.
• 2. The movement of the wall is sufficient to produce minimum active pressure.
• 3. The shear strength of the dry cohesionless soil can be given by the equation

• where σ’ is the effective stress and s is shear strength.

• 4. At failure, full shear strength along the failure plane (plane BC, Figure 8.2) is mobilized.
• 5. The soil behind the retaining wall behaves as a rigid body.
 Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory
• Figure 8.2 shows the forces considered in the Mononobe-Okabe solution.
• Line AB is the back face of the retaining wall and ABC is the soil wedge which will fail.
• The forces on the failure wedge per unit length of the wall are
• a. weight of wedge W,
• b. active force PAE,
• c. resultant of shear and normal forces along the failure plane F, and
• d. khW and kvW, the inertia forces in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, where,

• and g is acceleration due to gravity.

Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory
Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory
• The active force determined by the wedge analysis described here may be expressed as

• where K AE is the active earth pressure coefficient with earthquake effect:

• For the active force condition (PAE ), the angle α that the soil wedge ABC located behind the
retaining wall (Figure 8.2) makes with the horizontal (for kv = 0°, β = 0°, i = 0°, φ = 30°, and δ = 0°
and 20°) is shown in Figure 8.3.
• Table 8.4 gives the values of K AE [Eq. (8.5)] for various values of φ, δ, i, and kh with kv = 0 and β =
0°.
 Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory
• Considering the active force relation given, the term sin(φ – θ – i) has some important
implications.
• First, if φ – θ – i < 0 (i.e., negative), no real solution of K AE is possible.
• Physically it implies that an equilibrium condition will not exist. Hence, for stability, the limiting
slope of the backfill may be given by

• For no earthquake condition, θ = 0; for stability, gives the familiar relation

• Secondly, for horizontal backfill, i = 0; for stability,

Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory
• Since , for stability, combining results in

• Hence, the critical value of the horizontal acceleration, k h(cr) can

be defined as
Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory
• Procedure for Obtaining P AE Using Standard Charts of K A.
• Since the values of K A are available in most standard handbooks and textbooks, Arango (1969)
developed a simple procedure for obtaining the values of K AE from the standard charts of K A.

• (Static)

• (Dynamic)
Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory

• The preceding equation is similar to Eq. (8.13) except for the fact that i’ and β’ are used in place
of i and β. Thus, it can be said that

• The active earth pressure PAE can now be expressed as

 Mononobe-Okabe Active Earth Pressure
Theory
• In order to calculate PAE , one needs to follow these steps:
• 1. Calculate i’.
• 2. Calculate β’.
• With known values of φ, δ, i’, and β’, calculate K A (from Tables 8.2,
Table 8.3, or other available charts).
• 4. Calculate PA as equal to
• 5. Calculate (1-k v) .
• 6. Calculate *p
• 7. Calculate
• For convenience, some typical values of *p are plotted in Figure 8.5.
Effect of Various Parameters on the Value of
the Active Earth Pressure Coefficient
• Parameters such as the angle of wall friction, angle of friction of soil, and slope of the backfill
influence the magnitude of the active earth pressure coefficient K AE to varying degrees.
• Effect of Wall Friction Angle δ - the effect of wall friction on the active earth pressure coefficient
is rather small.
Effect of Various Parameters on the Value of
the Active Earth Pressure Coefficient
• Effect of Soil Friction Angle φ - Figure 8.7 shows the plot of KAE
cosδ (that is, the horizontal component of the active earth pressure
coefficient) for a vertical retaining wall with horizontal backfill (β =
0° and i = 0°).
• In this plot, it has been assumed that δ = 1/2 φ.
• From the plot, it may be seen that, for kv = 0, kh = 0 and δ = 1/2 φ,
K AE (φ = 30°) is about 35% higher than K AE (φ = 40°).
• Hence, a small error in the assumption of the soil friction angle
could lead to a large error in the estimation of PAE .
Effect of Various Parameters on the Value of
the Active Earth Pressure Coefficient
• Effect of Slope of the Backfill i -Figure 8.8 shows the variation of
the value of K AE cosδ with i for a wall with β = 0, δ = 23 φ, φ = 30°,
and kh = 0. Note that the value of K AE cosδ sharply increases with
the increase of the slope of the backfill.
Graphical Construction for Determination of
Active Force, PAE
• Culmann (1875) developed a graphical method for determination of the active force PA
developed behind a retaining wall.
• A modified form of Culmann’s graphical construction for determination of the active force PAE per
unit length of a retaining wall has been proposed by Kapila (1962).
• In order to understand this, consider the force polygon for the wedge ABC shown in Figure 8.2.
For convenience, this has been replotted in Figure 8.9a. The force polygon can be reduced to a
force triangle with forces PAE , F, and (Figure 8.9b).
• Note that in Figure 8.9a, b, α is the angle that the failure wedge makes with the horizontal.
• The idea behind this graphical construction is to determine the maximum value of PAE by
considering several trial wedges. With references to Figure 8.9c, following are steps for the
graphical construction:
Graphical Construction for Determination of
Active Force, PAE

Figure 8.2 Figure 8.9

 Graphical Construction for Determination of
Active Force, PAE
• 1. Draw line BE, which makes an angle φ – θ with horizontal.
• 2. Draw a line BD, which makes an angle 90° – β – δ – θ with the line BE.
• 3. Draw BC1, BC2, BC3,…, which are the trial failure surface.
• 4. Determine kh and kv and then
• 5. Determine the weights W1, W2, W3,…of trial failure wedges ABC1, ABC2,ABC3,…,
respectively (per unit length at right angle to the cross section shown).
• Note
• W1 = (area of ABC1) × γ × 1
• W2 = (area of ABC2) × γ × 1
• 6. Determine W1’,W2’ as
Graphical Construction for Determination of
Active Force, PAE
• 7.Adopt a load scale.
• 8. Using the load scale adopted in step 7, draw BF1 = W1’ , BF2 = W2’, BF3 =
W3’, …on the line BE.
• 9. Draw F1G1, F2G2, F3G3,…, parallel to line BD. Note that BF1G1 is the force
• triangle for the trial wedge ABC1 smaller to that shown in Figure 8.9b.
• Similarly, BF2G2, BF3G3,…, are the force triangles for the trial wedges
• ABC2, ABC3,…, respectively.
• 10. Join the points G1, G2, G3,…, by a smooth curve.
• 11. Draw a line HJ parallel to line BE. Let G be point of tangency.
• 12. Draw line GF parallel to BD.
• 13. Determine active force PAE as GF × (load scale).