Xie, Y. and Leshchinsky, B. (2016) Géotechnique Letters 6, 149–155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgele.16.

00015

Active earth pressures from a log-spiral slip surface

with arching effects
Y. XIE* and B. LESHCHINSKY{

The distribution of active earth pressures behind retaining structures is typically inferred from simplified
Rankine or Coulomb analyses, both of which are triangular in shape and assume a planar slip surface.
However, various experiments and numerical models have demonstrated an earth pressure
distribution that is non-linear in shape, typically attributed to a phenomenon called ‘soil arching’.
Existing analytical solutions have typically evaluated arching with planar slip surfaces; however, slip
surfaces that form behind retaining structures are often curvilinear, tending to follow a log-spiral
shape, particularly when considering wall batter or interface friction between the backfill and wall.
In this letter, the arching effect is considered using a log-spiral failure mechanism that has been
developed by deriving a first-order differential equation and subsequently solved using a numerical
approach. A series of charts are presented accounting for varying soil strengths, interface friction and
wall batters.

KEYWORDS: earth pressure; limit equilibrium methods; retaining walls

ICE Publishing: all rights reserved

NOTATION INTRODUCTION
Bz width of flat elements Estimation of active earth pressure distributions is an
dz thickness of flat element essential step in evaluating the performance of retaining
dσˉ v difference of average overburden stress between upper and
structures at both the service and strength limit states, and
lower surfaces of flat element
H wall height typically applied using simplified analyses. Frequently, a
h height of the application of resultant force planar failure surface is assumed to develop with sufficient
K ratio between normal stress along the wall face and average outward movement of a given wall, typically enabling for-
overburden stress mation of an ‘active wedge’ that may or may not have inter-
Kh earth pressure coefficient face friction occurring at the soil–wall interface. For these
M moment about the wall base conditions, Rankine or Coulomb solutions are often applied.
N ratio of major to minor principal stress For a surcharge-free horizontal crest, both approaches yield
Pa resultant earth pressure an earth pressure distribution that is triangular in shape
Pah resultant lateral active force with a resultant force located at one-third of the wall height
r radius of the location of the point on log spiral
rh radius to final point of log spiral
as measured from the base. However, there are numerous
r0 radius to initial point of log spiral experimental studies demonstrating that the distribution
z depth of the location of a point on a log spiral of earth pressures does not follow a triangular distribution
α wall inclination angle to the vertical when soil–wall interface friction is present, especially for
β rotation angle of principal stresses battered walls, but instead exhibits a curvilinear shape attrib-
γ unit weight of soil uted to the phenomenon called ‘soil arching’ (e.g. Tsagareli,
δ friction angle between wall and backfill soil 1965; Matsuo et al., 1978; Fang & Ishibashi, 1986; Khosravi
θ angular measure of the location of the point on log spiral et al., 2013).
θh angle to finalisation of log spiral Terzaghi (1943) described arching in soils as a ubiquitous
θ0 angle to initiation of log spiral
phenomenon in soil mechanics, attributing it to a transfer
σa total active earth pressure
σah lateral active earth pressure of shear stresses between yielding soil and adjacent stable
σn normal stress at the soil shear plane materials, while warning of its ephemeral nature. Handy
σˉ v average overburden stress on flat element (1985) further elaborated on the arching phenomenon, deri-
σw normal stress along the wall face ving a non-linear active earth pressure distribution based on
σ1 major principal stress the development of catenary arches to represent relative rota-
σ3 minor principal stress tion of principal stresses along a shear plane. Subsequently,
τn shear stress at the soil shear plane numerous studies have attributed observed curvilinear earth
τw shear stress at the wall face pressure distributions to arching (e.g. Harrop-Williams,
ϕ friction angle of soil 1989; Wang, 2000; Khosravi et al., 2013). Paik & Salgado
(2003) developed closed-form equations for earth pressure
by employing a planar shear surface manifesting at an angle
Manuscript received 22 January 2016; first decision 21 April of 45° + ϕ/2 from the horizontal. However, despite the
2016; accepted 21 April 2016. practical simplicity of a planar mechanism and its applica-
Published online at www.geotechniqueletters.com on 17 May
2016.
bility to smooth retaining structures and idealised vertical
*School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State structures, the observed shear surface that often develops in
University, Corvallis, OR, USA. retaining structures is often curvilinear in shape, especially
{Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and when the wall yields in horizontal translation (Terzaghi,
Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. 1943; Spangler & Handy, 1984). Goel & Patra (2008)

149

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 150 Xie and Leshchinsky
implemented a parabolic slip surface to derive the arching where force equilibrium in the X direction is defined as
effect by assuming a mechanism with an intersection
angle of 45° + ϕ/2 at the horizontal, presenting a series of dz
σ w dz þ τ n sinðθ
ϕÞ
design charts for expected earth pressures. However, the slip cosðθ
ϕÞ
ð4Þ
surface that is more commonly observed in experimental dz
tests and numerical analyses is that of the log-spiral mech-
σ n dz
τ w sin α ¼ 0
cos α
anism, especially when encountering interface friction, wall
batter and/or presence of a backslope (Sawada et al., 1993; and can be rewritten as
Zornberg et al., 1998; Bathurst et al., 2000). Observed shear
surfaces in experiments describing arching have exhibited σ w þ τ n tanðθ
ϕÞ
σ n
τ w tan α ¼ 0 ð5Þ
log-spiral geometry (Tsagareli, 1965), confirming the coinci-
Considering force equilibrium in the Y direction, the
dence of both phenomena. Use of the log-spiral slip surface
summed forces can be defined as
is advantageous as it can essentially degenerate to the
aforementioned planar surface when the pole is infinitely dz
distant from the failure surface (Leshchinsky & Boedeker, σˉ v Bz þ γBz dz
ðσˉ v þ dσˉ v ÞðBz
dBz Þ
σ w sin α
cos α
1989). That is, if a planar surface yields more critical ð6Þ
results, the analysed log spiral could degenerate to that dz

τ w dz
σ n sinðθ
ϕÞ
τ n dz ¼ 0
plane. Previous research observing the arching phenomenon cosðθ
ϕÞ
has primarily focused on the vertical wall condition
without considering possible wall inclinations (e.g. batter), The normal and shear stresses acting on the sideof the
although batter is frequently applied in actual retaining trapezoidal element (considering their known interface
structures. friction in theactive state) can be written as
In this paper, soil arching is analysed by considering
both the log-spiral failure mechanism and wall inclination. τ w ¼ σ w tan δ ð7aÞ
Earth pressures are derived through force equilibrium,
where a first-order differential equation is developed and τ n ¼ σ n tan ϕ ð7bÞ
subsequently solved using a numerical approach. A series
of design charts are presented accounting for various Equations (7a) and (7b) can be substituted into equation (5)
configurations of soil strength, interface friction and wall to derive an expression for σn in terms of σw. Then, sub-
batters. stituting the expression of σn, and equations (7a) and (7b)
into equation (6) while omitting the differential terms of
second order, dσˉ v dBz , it can be simplified to

METHODOLOGY dσˉ v Bz þ fK ½tan α þ tan δ þ tan θð1
tan α tan δÞ

In order to derive the arching effect of lateral earth pressure ð8Þ

tan α
tanðθ
ϕÞgσˉ v dz ¼ γBz dz
against a rigid retaining wall, a log-spiral failure mech-
anism was assumed (Fig. 1, left). As the wall moves outwards where
in the active translation mode, active earth pressures against
the back of the wall develop, supporting the soil mass σw
K¼ ð9Þ
defined by the wall surface and the assumed log-spiral σˉ v
surface. An element of thickness dz is taken from the log
spiral at depth z below the ground surface (Fig. 1, right), Considering the trace of the log-spiral surface as well the wall
defined as batter, the width of the differential flat element, Bz, at a
depth of z can be expressed as
z ¼ r0 eðθ
θ0 Þ tan ϕ sin θ
r0 sin θ0 ð1Þ h
Bz ¼ r0 eðθ
θ0 Þ tan ϕ cos θ
eðθh
θ0 Þ tan ϕ cos θh
If the thickness dz is thin enough, the elemental failure
 i ð10Þ
surface along its height can be considered as a straight plane þ eðθh
θ0 Þ tan ϕ sin θh
eðθ
θ0 Þ tan ϕ sin θ tan α
with an inclination (relative to the vertical) of θ − ϕ. All of
the forces working on the differential trapezoidal element
include (a) an average vertical stress, σˉ v , (b) a normal stress where r0, θ0, θh, θ are shown in Fig. 1 and ϕ is the internal
along the wall face, σw, (c) a shear stress at the wall face, τw, angle of friction for the backfill soil.
(d) a normal stress at the soil shear plane, σn, (e) a shear The derivative of z can be expressed as
stress at the soil shear plane, τn and ( f ) the self-weight of the
element, dw, where dz ¼ r0 eðθ
θ0 Þ tan ϕ ðtan ϕ sin θ þ cos θÞdθ ð11Þ

γ Substitution of equations (10) and (11) into equation (8)

dw ¼ ðBz þ Bz
tan αdz
tanðθ
ϕÞdzÞdz yields
2 ð2Þ
¼γBz dz dσˉ v
þ Y ðθÞZ ðθÞσ v ¼ r0 γY ðθÞ ð12Þ
dθ
omitting the second-order differential terms. Summation of
all forces acting on the differential element in equilibrium is where Y(θ) and Z(θ) are expressed as follows
X X
FX ¼ 0; FY ¼ 0 ð3Þ
Y ðθÞ ¼ eðθ
θ0 Þ tan ϕ ðtan ϕ sin θ þ cos θÞ ð13aÞ

K ½tan α þ tan δ þ tan θð1
tan α tan δÞ
tan α
tanðθ
1Þ

Z ðθ Þ ¼ ð13bÞ
eðθ
θ0 Þ tan ϕcos θ
eðθh
θ0 Þ tan ϕ cos θh þ ½eðθh
θ0 Þ tan ϕ sin θh
eðθ
θ0 Þ tan ϕ sin θ tan α

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Arching effects on earth pressures from a log-spiral slip surface 151
O
θ0
θh θ r0

z
σv

dz
rh
H
σv + dσv
Bz
σv
α
Tw Tn
α dw θ –φ

σw σn

σv + dσv

Fig. 1. Failure mechanism and stresses within a differential flat element

β
T
δ
Tw
Pole C

R Thw

z α
σ1 φ β α
σ1
σ3 O σ3 σhw σw σ1 σ
dz A B
σ1
H σ1
σ3
σ1 + dσ1

Bz
Direction of major
α principal stress
Tw
δ

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. (a) Trajectory of principal stresses along an inclined wall and (b) Mohr’s circle representative of stress conditions at the wall

Equation (12), a first-order differential equation for the
vertical unit earth pressure, can be solved numerically using
a finite-difference scheme, defined as
 
σˉ v;θþΔθ ¼ σˉ v;θ þ Y ðθÞ r0 γ
ZðθÞσˉ v;θ dθ
where σv at the boundary z = 0 is taken as zero.
In order to get σˉ v , equation (14) has to be solved so that a
critical parameter K in equation (13b) can be determined. To
do so, the rotation of principal stresses in the aforementioned
thin, differential elements in a mobilised soil mass need to
be determined. A detailed approach is presented in Paik
& Salgado (2003), where the authors solve for rotation
of principal stresses with a similar differential element. The
directions of the major and minor principal stresses on a
concave arch behind the wall are as shown in Fig. 2(a).
The trace of the arch is such that the major principal stresses,
σ1, are perpendicular to it, whereas the minor principal
stresses, σ3, act along it. The shape of the concave arch has
ð14Þ been suggested to be elliptic, catenary or parabolic
(Livingston, 1961; Walker, 1966; Stevic et al., 1979). Based
on theory, Harrop-Williams (1989) demonstrated that the
minor principal stress arch behind a rough retaining wall was
very close to a catenary or circular shape. In this study,
a circular shape is assumed for the trajectory of minor
principal stresses.
This mass that comprises the log-spiral slip surface
mass is bounded by the crest and a wall inclined at an
angle α from the vertical. Assumption of log-spiral geometry
is beneficial not only for its ubiquity in experimental studies

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 152 Xie and Leshchinsky
(e.g. Zornberg et al., 1998), but also for its versatility as Subsequently, the lateral earth pressure can be
it may degenerate into a nearly planar surface in smooth, expressed as
vertical walls (Leshchinsky & Boedeker, 1989). Stresses
acting on the wall can be expressed using the arch principle σ w cosðα þ δÞ
σ ah ¼ σ a cosðα þ δÞ ¼ ð25Þ
stress relationships, Mohr’s circle, using the graphical rela- cos δ
tionship shown in Fig. 2(b). The stress perpendicular to the For a given or assumed θ0 and θh, the resultant lateral
wall is active force, Pah, can be calculated by integrating lateral
earth pressures over the height of the wall.
σ w ¼ σ 1 cos2 ðβ
αÞ þ σ 3 sin2 ðβ
αÞ ð15Þ ðH
The rotation angle, β, of principal stresses for a wall can Pah ¼ σ ah dz ð26Þ
0
be obtained using Mohr’s circle, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
From the triangles OBC and ABC, shear stress may be The maximum resultant lateral earth pressure can
defined as be determined based on a loop of assumed θ0 and θh con-
verging upon a maximum thrust that corresponds to the
τ w ¼ σ w tan δ ¼ ðσ w
σ 3 Þ tanðβ
αÞ ð16Þ critical slip surface. This enables determination of not only a
mobilised shear plane, but its associated arching mechanism.
where δ is the friction angle between the wall and backfill Additionally, the moment about the wall base can be ex-
soil. Equation (16) can be rearranged as pressed using equation (27), similar to the Rankine or
Coulomb approach
σ w =σ 3 ðH
tanðβ
αÞ ¼ tan δ ð17Þ
σ w =σ 3
1 M¼ σ ah ðH
zÞdz ð27Þ
0
Dividing equation (15) by σ3 yields
Dividing equation (27) by Pah produces the location of
σw the lateral active force resultant along the wall height,
¼ N cos2 ðβ
αÞ þ sin2 ðβ
αÞ ð18Þ
σ3 defined as h

where N is the ratio of major to minor principal stresses, M

h¼ ð28Þ
represented as Pah

N ¼ tan2 ð45 þ ϕ=2Þ ð19Þ COMPARISON

A comparison of active earth pressures using this pro-
Substitution of equation (18) into equation (17) yields a
posed method is made with Coulomb (1776), Handy (1985),
second-order equation
Paik & Salgado (2003) and the experimental results of
Tsagareli (1965) for a consistent backfill with a unit weight
N þ tan2 ðβ
αÞ
tanðβ
αÞ ¼ tan δ ð20Þ of 17·65 kN/m3 and ϕ = δ = 37°, and three different wall
N
1 heights (Fig. 3(a)). For further comparison, results are com-
that can be solved for β, yielding pared with experimental data from Khosravi et al. (2013)
(Fig. 3(b)). This analysis and Handy’s (1985) method con-
0 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1 sider friction on both the wall and shear surface of the failure
ðN
1 Þ + ðN
1Þ2
4N tan2 ðδÞ wedge. Paik & Salgado (2003) considered the shear stress at
β ¼ tan
1 @ Aþα
the internal edge in the vertical plane of the differential flat
2 tanðδÞ
element as zero and the triangular element adjacent to the
ð21Þ differential element edge that comprises the slip surface to be
in equilibrium, thus realising larger earth pressures than the
Of the two possible values of β given by equation (21), proposed method and Handy (1985). Despite the differing
the larger value corresponds to the active condition of the assumptions, the proposed method matches experimental
retaining wall. Finally, σˉ v , defined in Paik & Salgado (2003), results and alternate methods reasonably well. Due to the
and adopted in this analysis is defined as inherent complexities of soils, scaling of models and physical
  experimentation, the various arching mechanisms presented
N
1 are all within a range of reasonable values.
σˉ v ¼ σ 1 1
cos2 β ð22Þ The differences in lateral pressure distributions result
3N
in differing resultant forces. A comparison of the proposed
Substitution of equations (15) and (22) into equation (9) analytical results with experimental values from Tsagareli
enables determination of K (1965) (Fig. 3(c), shown as a solid line) for various heights
  demonstrates good agreement for all wall heights, but for
3 N cos2 ðβ
αÞ þ sin2 ðβ
αÞ smaller heights in particular. This also affects the location of
K¼ ð23Þ
3N
ðN
1Þ cos2 β the Pah, important for calculating the overturning moment
or eccentricity for walls (Fig. 3(d)).
As K is determined by equation (23), σˉ v can then be
The location of the resultant active force calculated by the
solved by equation (14). This is then multiplied by K to
proposed method matches the measured values most closely
determine σw.
when the wall height is < 3 m, while it is in between values
The total active earth pressure can be calculated from the
produced by Handy (1985) and Paik & Salgado’s (2003)
vector addition of the active pressure normal to the wall and
equations when wall height is higher than 3 m. In general,
the shearing stress acting tangentially to the wall, shown as
the magnitude and location of the resultant from the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi proposed equation match those measured from experimental
σw
σa ¼ σ 2w þ σ 2w tan2 δ ¼ ð24Þ studies, while considering the log-spiral mechanism, which is
cos δ novel.

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Arching effects on earth pressures from a log-spiral slip surface 153
0 0
Test 1 (H = 2 m) Test 1 (H = 300 mm)
Test 2 (H = 3 m) Test 2 (H = 300 mm)
0·2 Test 3 (H = 4 m) 0·2 Test 3 (H = 250 mm)
Coulomb (1776) Test 4 (H = 200 mm)
Normalised depth: h/H

Normalised depth: h/H

Handy (1985) Test 5 (H = 350 mm)
0·4 Paik & Salgado (2003) 0·4 Test 6 (H = 350 mm)
Proposed Coulomb (1776)
Handy (1985)
0·6 0·6 Paik & Salgado (2003)
Proposed

0·8 0·8

1·0 1·0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5
Normalised lateral active earth pressure (σah/γ H) Normalised lateral active earth pressure: σah/γ H
(a) (b)

50 2·0
Coulomb (1776) Coulomb (1776)
Calculated height of application of Pah: m
Calculated lateral active force, Pah: kN/m

Handy (1985) Handy (1985)

Paik & Salgado (2003) Paik & Salgado (2003)
40
Proposed Proposed

1·5
30

20
1·0

10

0 0·5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
Measured lateral active force, Pah: kN/m Measured height of application of Pah: m
(c) (d)

Fig. 3. (a) Comparison of distributions of active earth pressures from Tsagareli (1965); (b) comparison of distributions of active earth
pressures from Khosravi et al. (2013); (c) resultant forces; and (d) resultant locations for various methods

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION An increase in interface friction affects the magnitudes

The effects of wall inclination may affect earth pressures, an
important consideration for retaining structures. Increasing
batter while considering a rough interaction and a backfill
with ϕ of 34° demonstrates an increase in earth pressures
and a downward shift of resultant lateral forces (Figs 4(a)
and 4(b)). These values, normalised to wall height, H, and
unit weight, γ, represent reduced earth pressures and higher
resultant locations than Coulomb analyses would present for
all inclinations. Furthermore, a comparison of earth pressure
coefficients, Kh, defined as
Pah
Kh ¼
1=2γH 2
demonstrates moderate agreement when batter is low,
diverging at larger inclinations (Fig. 4(b)). As the soil–wall
interface friction approached smooth conditions with sig-
nificant batter, earth pressures at the toe of the structure
diverged, a singularity that has been observed for these
conditions in previous studies (Li & Aubertin, 2009; Li et al.,
2013). This suggests that it may be wise to neglect arching for
smooth conditions and large wall batters.
of earth pressures and the location of its resultant (Figs 4(c)
and 4(d)). The distribution of the active earth pressure is
triangular when δ = 0 (i.e. the Rankine case), and changes
to a non-linear distribution as δ increases. As δ increases,
the earth pressures in the upper portion of the wall
increase, while pressures in the lower part of the wall de-
crease (Fig. 4(c)). The location of the resultant lateral
force demonstrates significant change with interface fric-
tion, initiating at H/3 for a smooth interface, approaching
0·37–0·46 for a rough interface at ϕ of 10° and 40°,
respectively (Fig. 4(d)).
Despite the pervasiveness of soil arching, its use in prac-
ð29Þ tice is discouraged as it may be a transient condition (e.g.
vibration, flow of water, movement etc.).
CONCLUSIONS
Presented within this study is a framework for
evaluating lateral earth pressures affected by arching
when a log-spiral slip surface is considered. This is pres-
ented in a limited set of charts that account for wall batter

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 154 Xie and Leshchinsky
0 0·46
Kh = 0·238

Normalised height of application of Pah: h/H

α = 0° Coulomb
α = 5° 0·44 Proposed
0·2 α = 10° φ = δ = 34°
α = 15°
Normalised depth: h/H

0·42
Kh = 0·247 Kh = 0·255
α = 20°
0·4
φ = δ = 34° 0·40

0·38
0·6 Kh = 0·259

0·36 Kh = 0·260
0·8
0·34 Kh = 0·258 Kh = 0·301 Kh = 0·331

Kh = 0·281 Kh = 0·318
1·0 0·32
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0 5 10 15 20
Normalised lateral active earth pressure distribution (σah/γ H) Wall inclination α: deg
(a) (b)

0 0·48
δ /φ = 1 φ = 34° ; α = 0°

Normalised height of application of Pah: h/H

δ /φ = 0·8
0·46
0·2 δ /φ = 0·6
0·44
δ /φ = 0·4
Normalised depth: h/H

δ /φ = 0·2 0·42 φ = 50°

0·4 δ /φ = 0
φ = 40°
φ = 34° ; α = 0° 0·40

0·6 φ = 30°
0·38
φ = 20°
0·36
0·8 φ = 10°
0·34

1·0 0·32
0 0·2 0·4 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
Normalised lateral active earth pressure distribution (σah/γ H) δ /φ
(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Effects of wall inclination: (a) on lateral active earth pressure distributions; (b) normalised height of resultant application.
Simplified design charts: (c) lateral active earth pressure distributions; (d) normalised height of resultant application

and varying interface friction. Conclusions include the
following.
• The failure surface, earth pressures and location of
the active resultant force derived with this approach
demonstrate reasonable agreement with other analytical
and experimental data, highlighting a means of evaluat-
ing arching in consideration of the log-spiral mechanism,
of particular relevance for walls with interface friction.
• Active earth pressures increase as wall inclination
increases. The location of the active stress resultant
lowers with increasing wall inclination.
• As δ increases, the active earth pressures in the upper zone
of the wall increases while it decreases in the lower portion
of the wall. As δ increases, the location of resultant lateral
force shifts upwards from a baseline H/3, shifting as high
as 0·46H for large internal angles of friction.
REFERENCES
Bathurst, R. J., Walters, D., Vlachopoulos, N., Burgess, P.
& Allen, T. M. (2000). Full scale testing of geosynthetic
reinforced walls. Proceedings of GeoDenver, Denver, CO, USA,
pp. 1–17.
Coulomb, C. A. (1776). Essai sur une application des règles
de maximis et minimis à quelques problèmes de statique,
relatifs à l’architecture. Mém. Acad. Roy. Prés. Divers
Savants 7, Paris.
Fang, Y. S. & Ishibashi, I. (1986). Static earth pressures
with various wall movements. J. Geotech. Engng 112, No. 3,
317–333.
Goel, S. & Patra, N. (2008). Effect of arching on active earth
pressure for rigid retaining walls considering translation mode.
Int. J. Geomech. 8, No. 2, 123–133.
Handy, R. L. (1985). The arch in soil arching. J. Geotech. Engng
111, No. 3, 302–318.
Harrop-Williams, K. O. (1989). Geostatic wall pressures. ASCE
J. Geotech. Engng 115, No. 9, 1321–1325.
Khosravi, M. H., Pipatpongsa, T. & Takemura, J. (2013).
Experimental analysis of earth pressure against rigid retaining
walls under translation mode. Géotechnique 63, No. 12,
1020–1028, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.12.P.021.
Leshchinsky, D. & Boedeker, R. H. (1989). Geosynthetic reinforced
soil structures. ASCE J. Geotech. Engng 115, No. 10, 1459–1478.
Li, L. & Aubertin, M. (2009). Numerical investigation of the stress
state in inclined backfilled stopes. Int. J. Geomech. 9, No. 2,
52–62.
Li, L., Dubé, J. S. & Aubertin, M. (2013). An extension of
Marston’s solution for the stresses in backfilled trenches with
inclined walls. Geotech. Geol. Engng 31, No. 4, 1027–1039.

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Arching effects on earth pressures from a log-spiral slip surface
Livingston, C. W. (1961). The natural arch, the fracture
pattern, and the sequence of failure in massive rocks surround-
ing an underground opening. In The 4th US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics
Association.
Matsuo, M., Kenmochi, S. & Yagi, H. (1978). Experimental study
on earth pressure of retaining wall by field tests. Soils Found. 18,
No. 3, 27–41.
Paik, K. H. & Salgado, R. (2003). Estimation of active earth
pressure against rigid retaining walls considering arching effects.
Géotechnique 53, No. 7, 643–653, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.
2003.53.7.643.
Sawada, T., Chen, W. F. & Nomachi, S. G. (1993). Assessment
of seismic displacements of slopes. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Engng 12,
No. 6, 357–362.
Spangler, M. G. & Handy, R. L. (1984). Soil engineering.
New York, NY, USA: Harper & Row.
Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
155
Stevic, M., Jasarevic, I. & Ramiz, F. (1979). Arching in hanging
walls over leached deposits of rock salt. In 4th ISRM Congress,
International Society for Rock Mechanics.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. New York, NY,
USA: Wiley.
Tsagareli, Z. V. (1965). Experimental investigation of the pressure of a
loose medium on retaining walls with avertical back face and hori-
zontal backfill surface. Soil Mech. Found. Engng 2, No. 4, 197–200.
Walker, D. M. (1966). An approximate theory for pressures and
arching in hoppers. Chemical Engineering Science 21, No. 11,
975–997.
Wang, Y. Z. (2000). Distribution of earth pressure on a retaining
wall. Géotechnique 50, No. 1, 83–88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
geot.2000.50.1.83.
Zornberg, J. G., Sitar, N. & Mitchell, J. K. (1998). Performance of
geosynthetic reinforced slopes at failure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Engng 124, No. 8, 670–683.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion.