Jajurie, Nur-Ranji

2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam

PROBLEM 1

The following table below taken from Clough, G. W., Duncan J. M. Chapter 6 Earth Pressures from
Winterkorn & Fang. Foundation Engineering Handbook. (1991). Springer Link summarizes the
recommended equivalent fluid unit weights and pressure coefficients based on semi-empirical rules for
use in design.

In comparison, the semi-empirical rules described in Terzaghi, Peck and Mesri (1993) are summarized in
the following charts below:

A comparison of these two sets of semi-empirical rules indicates a significant difference in the
recommended equivalent fluid weights particular for cases where there is clay in the backfill. Given these
differences, discuss the possible underlying reasons to explain the difference as well as go about
recommending equivalent fluid pressures for retaining walls with clay backfills. (30 points)
 Jajurie, Nur-Ranji
2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam
SOLUTION

The significant differences between the two sets of semi-empirical rules (Clough & Duncan vs. Terzaghi,
Peck, and Mesri) may be attributed to the use of Clough and Duncan of the Finite Element Analysis to
successfully analyze the soil-structure interactions to model the nonlinear stresses and strains and
consider of pore water in the backfill.

The semi-empirical rules described in the book of Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri (1993) employs the classical
earth-pressure theories and are based on three assumptions:

1. The pressure in the pore water of the backfill is negligible.

2. The soil properties appearing in the earth-pressure equations have definite values that can be
determined reliably.
3. The wall can yield by tilting, deforming, or sliding through a distance sufficient to develop the full
shearing resistance of the backfill.

Accordingly, if the first and second requirements are not satisfied, the wall will be acted on by various
agents and forces beyond the scope of any classical earth-pressure theory. Whereas, if the backfill is
loosely deposited or inadequately drained, its properties change from season to season and is not
considered in the classical earth-pressure theories.

One of the earliest studies was performed by Clough and Duncan in 1969, in which the authors recognized
that during their preliminary analysis, the gravity turn-on analysis (which was used by Terzaghi) was
insufficient for the analysis of the soil structure interaction problem of the two reinforced concrete U-
frame locks at Port Allen and Old River. During this study, Clough and Duncan developed what is referred
to as a backfill placement analysis where the loads fill on the lock wall were generated automatically
during the simulated placement of the backfill behind the wall. This procedure involved the use of
incremental finite element analysis with nonlinear, stress-dependent, stress-strain behavior for the soil.
A linear elastic behavior was assumed for the concrete lock wall. In this study, seasonal changes were also
accounted which is impossible with classical-earth pressure theories.

Then in the same year, Clough and Duncan showed that the nonlinear, incremental finite element
procedures could be used to predict lateral earth pressures for conditions ranging from an unmoving wall
to limit conditions where the wall displaced enough to general active or passive earth pressures. In this
study, the computed wall movements and the resultant horizontal earth pressure forces were found to
be in good agreement with the classical earth pressure theories and the computed deformations agreed
with those measured by Terzaghi (1934) in his retaining wall tests.

On a paper published by Clough and Duncan in 1971, it was found out that a stabilizing shear force acting
along the back of the wall (often referred to as the downdrag force) could develop during backfill
placement simply due to compression of the backfill soil under its own way. This is important as it was
believed prior that a downdrag force occurred only because of the movement of the wall away from the
backfill in response to the earth loading. Additionally, the inclusion of interface elements along the
material regions within the finite element mesh allowed the soil to settle during backfilling while the wall
moved away from the backfill.

Hence, when designing retaining walls with clay backfills, it is suggested to follow the equivalent fluid unit
weights that were recommended by Clough & Duncan, or any other more advanced studies which were
 Jajurie, Nur-Ranji
2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam
able to consider the restrictions of the classical earth pressure theories that were used by Terzaghi, Peck,
and Mesri.

References:

Clough, G. W., Duncan J. M. (1991) Earth Pressures Winterkorn & Fang. Foundation Engineering
Handbook. Springer Link

Clough, G. W., Duncan J. M. (1971) Finite Element Analysis of Retaining Wall Behavior. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division

Ebelling. R (1990) Review of Finite Element Procedures for Earth Retaining Structures. Department of the
Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G. (1996) Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 3rd Edition, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York.

Terzaghi, K., (1934) Large Retaining Wall Tests. Eng. News Record, Vol.112, pp. 136-140.
 Jajurie, Nur-Ranji
2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam
PROBLEM 2

Extending derivation shown in Take and Valsangkar (2001) to derive an expression for the lateral at-rest
earth pressure distribution 𝜎ℎ (𝑧) based on the Fascia Theory to include the contribution of a uniform
surcharge 𝑞 at the top of the backfill. The expression should involve the at-rest pressure coefficient 𝐾0 ,
the width of the backfill 𝐵, wall friction 𝛿, unit weight of the backfill 𝛾, as well as the surcharge 𝑞. Show
all steps involved in the derivation. (30 points)

SOLUTION

To derive an expression for the lateral at-rest earth pressure distribution 𝜎ℎ(𝑧) based on the Fascia Theory
to include the contribution of a uniform surcharge 𝑞 at the top of the backfill, we set the following
boundary conditions: 𝑎𝑡 𝑧 = 0, 𝜎𝑣 = 𝑞, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝜎ℎ = 𝐾0 𝑞.

Taken from Take & Valsangkar, Earth pressures on unyielding retaining walls of narrow backfill width,
Published on NRC Research Press Web on December 21, 2001.

Thus, following the horizontal element of backfill material bounded by two unyielding frictional
boundaries as shown in Figure 1, we found that the vertical force equilibrium of the horizontal element
requires that:
𝑉
2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝑑𝑧 − 𝛾𝐵𝑑𝑧 + 𝑑𝑉 = 0
𝐵
𝑉
𝑑𝑉 = (−2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 + 𝛾𝐵) 𝑑𝑧
𝐵
𝑉 𝑧
𝑑𝑉
∫ = ∫ 𝑑𝑧
𝑞𝐵 −2𝐾 tan 𝛿
𝑉
0 𝐵 + 𝛾𝐵 0

𝑉
ln (𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝐵)
=𝑧
−2𝐾0 tan 𝛿
𝐵
𝑉 −2𝑧𝐾0 tan 𝛿
ln (𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 ) =
𝐵 𝐵
 Jajurie, Nur-Ranji
2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam
𝑉
Substituting our boundary condition, which is 𝜎ℎ = 𝐾0 𝑞 (𝑎𝑡 𝑧 = 0) and knowing that 𝜎ℎ = 𝐾0 𝜎𝑣 = 𝐾0 ,
𝐵
𝑉
we can have 𝐾0 𝑞 = 𝐾0 𝐵 which gives us 𝑉 = 𝑞𝐵 at 𝑧 = 0. Thus, the above equation can be simplified into:

𝑉 𝑧
ln (𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 ) |𝑉𝑞𝐵 = −2𝐾0 tan 𝛿
𝐵 𝐵
𝑉
𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝐵 𝑧
ln ( ) = −2𝐾0 tan 𝛿
𝑞𝐵 𝐵
𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝐵

𝑉
𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝐵 𝑧
= 𝑒 −2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝐵
𝑞𝐵
𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝐵

𝑉 𝑞𝐵 𝑧
𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 = (𝛾𝐵 − 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 ) (𝑒 −2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝐵 )
𝐵 𝐵
𝑧 𝑞𝐵 −2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝑧 𝑉
𝛾𝐵 − 𝛾𝐵𝑒 −2𝐾0 tan 𝛿𝐵 + 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿 𝑒 𝐵 = 2𝐾0 tan 𝛿
𝐵 𝐵
𝑉
Substituting 𝜎ℎ = 𝐾0 𝐵, we found that the lateral at-rest earth pressure distribution 𝜎ℎ (𝑧) based on the
Fascia Theory to include the contribution of a uniform surcharge 𝑞 at the top of the backfill is equal to:

𝜸𝑩 𝒛 𝒛
𝝈𝒉 = (𝟏 − 𝒆−𝟐𝑲𝟎 𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝜹𝑩 ) + 𝑲𝟎 𝒒𝒆−𝟐𝑲𝟎 𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝜹𝑩
𝟐 𝐭𝐚𝐧(𝜹)
 Jajurie, Nur-Ranji
2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam
PROBLEM 3

In the derivation of the passive pressure resultant force based on the Logarithmic-Spiral theory, Terzaghi
and Peck assume the resultant of the passive pressure between the wall and the backfill material as shown
in the figure below.

Assuming a retaining wall with a vertical face, are the locations of the resultant force against wall assumed
in the Logarithmic-Spiral theory consistent with the pressure distribution obtained using method
described in Article 31 of Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri? Why? Provide calculations to support your answer.
(40 points).

SOLUTION

To check if the locations of the resultant force against the wall assumed in the Logarithmic-Spiral theory
is consistent with the pressure distribution obtained using method described in Article 31 of Terzaghi,
Peck, and Mesri, let us consider a retaining wall with a vertical face in contact with a cohesionless soil
having a level surface. The assumed contact face is 6 𝑚 high, and the angle of wall friction is +20°. The
𝑘𝑁
fill has a unit weight of 18.0 𝑚3 and the angle of internal friction equal to 𝜙 ′ = 30°.
 Jajurie, Nur-Ranji
2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam
Using the provided LS.exe program, we identify the following:

Hence the location of the resultant force against the wall is acting at 𝑧 = 2 𝑚 from the base of the wall
which is consistent to the figure below:

Then, we solve the same problem following Culmann’s graphical method as discussed in Articles 30 and
31 of the book by Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri and as shown in the figure below:

First for the Active Pressure Resultant:

 Jajurie, Nur-Ranji
2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam

The weight of the wedges used in the Culmann’s Graphical Method is shown below:
Wedge Height Length Area Weight of Wedges
Number (m) (m) (m2) (kN/m)
1 6.00 1.00 3.00 54.00
2 6.00 2.00 6.00 108.00
3 6.00 3.00 9.00 162.00
4 6.00 4.00 12.00 216.00
5 6.00 5.00 15.00 270.00
6 6.00 6.00 18.00 324.00
7 6.00 7.00 21.00 378.00
8 6.00 8.00 24.00 432.00
9 6.00 9.00 27.00 486.00
10 6.00 10.00 30.00 540.00

Thus, the active pressure resultant is equal to:

1 𝑘𝑁 𝑘𝑁
𝑃𝐴 = (6𝑚)(3.5𝑚) (18.0 3 ) = 189
2 𝑚 𝑚
And acts as 𝑧 = 4 𝑚 above the base of the retaining wall.

As for the Passive Pressure Resultant,

 Jajurie, Nur-Ranji
2012-53949
CE 264 Final Exam
The weight of the wedges used in the Culmann’s Graphical Method is shown below:
Wedge Height Length Area Weight of Wedges
Number (m) (m) (m2) (kN/m)
1 6.00 2.00 6.00 108.00
2 6.00 4.00 12.00 216.00
3 6.00 6.00 18.00 324.00
4 6.00 8.00 24.00 432.00
5 6.00 10.00 30.00 540.00
6 6.00 12.00 36.00 648.00
7 6.00 14.00 42.00 756.00
8 6.00 16.00 48.00 864.00
9 6.00 18.00 54.00 972.00
10 6.00 20.00 60.00 1080.00
11 6.00 22.00 66.00 1188.00
12 6.00 24.00 72.00 1296.00

Thus, the passive pressure resultant is equal to:

1 𝑘𝑁 𝑘𝑁
𝑃𝐴 = (6𝑚)(21𝑚) (18.0 3 ) = 1134
2 𝑚 𝑚
And acts as 𝒛 = 𝟐 𝒎 above the base of the retaining wall.

As shown, the passive pressure distribution found using the graphical method of Culmann as described in
Article 31 of Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri are consistent with the resultant passive force against the wall
assumed in the Logarithmic-Spiral theory. This is the case since the two methods were based on the
classical earth-pressure theories which takes into consideration the unit weight of a cohesionless soil in
the failure plane and the effects of cohesion and surcharge (which was not shown in the provided
example).