Lancellotta, R. (2007). Géotechnique 57, No.

3, 319–321

TECHNICAL NOTE

Lower-bound approach for seismic passive earth resistance

R . L A N C E L L OT TA *

KEYWORDS: diaphragm walls; earth pressure; plasticity;

seismic actions i⬎0

x
INTRODUCTION
Current practice for computing earth pressure on earth- ψ
retaining structures in the presence of seismic action relies
on an extension of the Coulomb solution, due to Okabe γ⬘
(1924) and Mononobe & Matsuo (1929), and referred to in
the literature as the Mononobe–Okabe approach (Fardis et kh γ⬘
al., 2005).
However, it is well recognised that, when wall friction is
present, a non-uniform stress field arises as well as a non-
planar failure surface. This renders the problem of comput-
ing exact values of earth pressure non-trivial, and analytical
solutions are not available in this case. In particular, when
z
dealing with passive earth resistance, standard codes suggest
solutions provided by limit equilibrium methods with a
curved (typically log spiral) surface (Caquot & Kerisel,
1948; Kerisel & Absi, 1990). However, as these procedures
are essentially of a kinematical nature, they are not con- β⫽i⫺ψ
servative. In fact, should the assumed mechanism be admis-
sible in kinematic terms, these solutions represent an upper
bound to the exact solution. For this reason, even though σ ⬘xx
there has been considerable debate in the literature about the ζ
use of force-based approaches (Steedman & Zeng, 1990, σ⬘xz γ ⫽ γ⬘√1 ⫹ k 2h
1993), because of their widespread adoption (Kramer, 1996)
ψ
it is still of interest to search for a solution based on a
statically admissible stress field, this approach providing a
conservative answer or the exact one. σ⬘v ⫽ γζ cos β
This paper is intended to contribute to this problem by
deriving an analytical solution for passive earth resistance Fig. 1. Initial and transformed geometry
coefficients in the presence of seismic actions, based on the
lower-bound theorem of plasticity. The novelty of the present
contribution lies in a transformation of axes that allows the According to equation (1), ł represents the obliquity of the
problem of seismic passive resistance to be solved using the body force per unit volume in the presence of seismic
same stress field equations as the usual static case. action, and it is also noted that the presence of a vertical
component of the inertia forces could be taken into account
by assuming
STRESS FIELD EQUATIONS

kh
Consider the problem shown in Fig. 1: a soil surface, ł ¼ tan
1 (2)
sloping at an angle i with respect to the horizontal axis x is 1  kv
subjected to the vertical body force ª9, due to gravity, and to
the horizontal body force kh ª9, which represents the seismic where kv is the coefficient of vertical acceleration.
action, the coefficient kh being the horizontal seismic coeffi- By referring to this transformed geometry we now deal
cient (positive assumed if the inertia force is towards the with the problem of deriving the passive resistance acting on
backfill). In order to compute the passive resistance on a a rough wall, tilted from the vertical by the angle ł, and
vertical wall of roughness
(i.e.  9xz ¼  9xx tan
), imagine interacting with a backfill of slope  ¼ i
ł. The resulting
transforming the problem geometry through a rigid rotation verticalqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
body force is represented by the vector
ł, given by
ª ¼ ª9 1 þ k 2h , which can be thought of as a properly
ł ¼ tan
1 k h (1) scaled gravity body force q
(inffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the presence of vertical accel-
eration it would be ª ¼ ª9 (1  k v )2 þ k 2h .
Manuscript received 29 March 2006; revised manuscript accepted
22 March 2006. With reference to Fig. 2(a), zone 2 is the conventional
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 September 2007, for further passive zone in which the stress state is known, as repre-
details see p. ii. sented by the small Mohr circle in Fig. 2(b), also shown for
* Technical University of Torino, Italy. clarity in Fig. 2(c). If the segment OM represents the

319
320 LANCELLOTTA
 9xx ¼ OT cos

β⬎0  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
OT ¼ OC1 þ C1 T ¼ s91 cos
þ sin 2 9
sin 2

σ⬘xz ψ⬎0 x
2
σ⬘xx
That is,
1
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 9xx ¼ s91 cos
cos
þ sin 2 9
sin 2
(4)
z
(a) By combining equations (4) and (3), we obtain
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s91 cos
cos
þ sin 2 9
sin 2

τ  9xx ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ª cos  (5)
ϕ⬘ s92 cos 
sin 2 9
sin 2 
β
At this stage we briefly recall that if, in order to smooth
the overall stress field, we consider a fan of stress disconti-
A
δ
nuities (Fig. 2(a)), across which the rotation of the principal
P2 H1 3 direction assumes the finite value Ł, then the shift between
H2 the two extreme Mohr circles is defined by (Bolton, 1979;
M Atkinson, 1981; Lancellotta, 2002; Powrie, 2002)
α2
1 2 2α1
s91
O s⬘2 C2 s⬘1 R σ⬘xx σ⬘ ¼ e2Ł tan 9 (6)
ψ s92
α1
Zone 2 so that by inserting equation (6) into equation (5) we obtain
C1
δ the solution
Zone 1
T  9xx ¼ K PE ª cosð i
łÞ (7)
P1
β
where
φ⬘
"
cos

(b) K PE ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
cos(i
ł)
sin 2 9
sin 2 (i
ł)
τ ϕ⬘  #
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
β 3 cos
þ sin 9
sin
e2Ł tan 9
2 2 (8)
P2

M α2 and, as shown in the Appendix,

Q s⬘2
  
O 1 σ⬘ sin
sinð i
łÞ
2 2α2 2Ł ¼ sin
1 þ sin
1
sin 9 sin 9
V 3
þ
þ ð i
łÞ þ 2ł (9)
β
ϕ⬘

(c) DISCUSSION
The obtained solution is of value in engineering practice
Fig. 2. Stress discontinuity analysis: (a) fan of stress disconti- because it is a conservative estimate of the exact solution,
nuities; (b) Mohr circles relative to zone 1 and zone 2; (c) Mohr but allows the wall roughness to be taken into account,
circle relative to conventional passive zone avoiding unjustified pessimistic assumptions. As an example,
Eurocode 8 suggests the use of the Mononobe–Okabe
formula by neglecting the wall roughness (Fardis et al.,
resultant stress  v9 ¼ ª cos  acting at depth  on the plane 2005).
parallel to the ground surface, it can be observed that the This solution is compared in Fig. 3 with that provided by
following relations hold (Fig. 2(b)): Chang (1981), based on a limiting equilibrium approach
with composite sliding surfaces. As expected, equation (8)
OM ¼ OH2
H2 M
gives values lower than those suggested by Chang (1981),
OH2 ¼ s92 cos  the differences ranging up to 30% for the cases shown in
Fig. 1 (i.e. i ¼ 0,
/9 ¼ 0.5, kh ranging from 0 to 0.30).
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi In the absence of seismic action (i.e. ł ¼ 0) the obtained
H2 M ¼ r 2
C2 H2 2 ¼ s92 sin2 9
sin2  solution is in agreement with the solution provided by
Sokolovskii (1965), based on the method of characteristics
so that (this was shown in a previous paper; Lancellotta, 2002). It is
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi also of relevance to note that the suggested solution repre-
OM ¼ ª cos  ¼ s92 cos 
sin 2 9
sin 2  (3) sents an extension to the case of sloping backfill, not consid-
ered by Sokolovskii.
Moving through a fan of stress discontinuities to zone 1 In addition, this solution merges into the Rankine solution
adjacent to the wall, the normal component  9xx of the when ł ¼ 0 and
¼
i: that is, when conditions of con-
passive earth resistance is obtained from the large Mohr jugate planes apply, because the direction of the stress vector
circle in Fig. 2(b) by observing that on each of these planes is parallel to the other plane.
 LOWER-BOUND APPROACH FOR SEISMIC PASSIVE EARTH RESISTANCE 321
20 
1¼

^
x
2
σ⬘xz 
σ⬘xx
khγ⬘ 2 ¼ þ 
2Æ2
^
γ⬘ 2
3 ¼ 2Æ2

^
15 z

 kh ⫽ 0 so that
i⫽0 kh ⫽ 0·1
Chang 1981  kh ⫽ 0·2 sin 
δ/ϕ⬘ ⫽ 0·5  kh ⫽ 0·3
sinð2Æ2
Þ ¼ (11)
sin 9
KPE

10
Since


sin

2Ł ¼ 2(Æ1 þ Æ2 þ ł) ¼ sin
1
sin 9
 
sin(i
ł)
þ sin
1 þ
þ (i
ł) þ 2ł
5 sin 9
kh ⫽ 0 
kh ⫽ 0·1
equation (9) is proved.
kh ⫽ 0·2 Equation (8)

kh ⫽ 0·3

0 NOTATION
25 30 35 40 45 i slope of backfill
ϕ⬘: degrees kh coefficient of horizontal acceleration
kv coefficient of vertical acceleration
Fig. 3. Coefficient of seismic passive earth resistance for a ª9 effective unit weight
specific case (i 0, ä/ö9 0.5)
friction angle at soil/wall interface
Ł angle of rotation of principal stress direction
9 angle of internal friction
A final remark concerns the limitations of force-based ł obliquity of body force per unit volume in presence of seismic
approaches, as discussed by Steedman & Zeng (1990, 1993). action ¼ tan
1 kh
It has been reported that retaining walls and quay walls
experience significant movements during earthquakes, so that
their behaviour is dominated by displacements, and a force- REFERENCES
based design is not a reliable indicator of the performance Atkinson, J. H. (1981). Foundations and slopes: An introduction to
of these structures. In this context, the suggested solution is applications of critical state soil mechanics. London: McGraw-
of value for properly estimating a critical value of the Hill.
seismic acceleration, and can be incorporated into analyses Bolton, M. (1979). A guide to soil mechanics. Cambridge: Macmil-
that take amplification effects into account. lan Press.
Caquot, A. & Kerisel, J. (1948). Tables for the calculation of
passive pressure, active pressure and bearing capacity of foun-
dations. Paris: Gauthier Villars.
APPENDIX. PROOF OF EQUATION (9) Chang, M. F. (1981). Static and seismic lateral earth pressures on
Consider in Fig. 2(b) the larger Mohr circle, relating to rigid retaining structures. PhD thesis, Purdue University.
Fardis, M. N., Carvalho, E., Elnashai, A., Faccioli, E., Pinto, P. &
zone 1. The following relations hold:
Plumier, A. (2005). Designers’ guide to EN 1998-1 and EN
1998-5. London: Thomas Telford.
^1 ¼ 

Kerisel, J. & Absi, E. (1990). Active and passive earth pressure
2 tables. Rotterdam: Balkema.
 Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering.
2 ¼ þ

2Æ1
^ New York: Prentice Hall.
2 Lancellotta, R. (2002). Analytical solution of passive earth pressure.
 Géotechnique 52, No. 8, 617–619.
3^ ¼
2^ ¼ 2Æ1

Mononobe, N. & Matsuo, H. (1929). On the determination of earth
2
pressure during earthquakes. Proc. World Engng Cong., Tokyo 9,
r
H1 R ¼ OR sin
¼ sin
¼ r sin ^
3 177–185.
sin 9 Okabe, S. (1924). General theory on earth pressure and seismic
stability of retaining wall and dam. J. Jpn Civ. Engng Soc. 10,
No. 5, 1277–1323.
so that Powrie, W. (2002). Soil mechanics: Concepts and applications.
London: Spon Press.
sin
Sokolovskii, V. V. (1965). Statics of granular media. Oxford:
sinð2Æ1

Þ ¼ (10) Pergamon.
sin 9 Steedman, R. S. & Zeng, X. (1990). The influence of phase on the
calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall.
Géotechnique 40, No. 1, 103–112.
By considering the other Mohr circle, relating to zone 2 (see Steedman, R. S. & Zeng, X. (1993). On the behaviour of quay
details in Fig. 2(c)), it follows that walls in earthquakes. Géotechnique 43, No. 3, 417–431.