Chapter 2

(second part)
Lateral earth pressure

2.4 Lateral Earth Pressures

• One of the first steps in the design of earth-retaining
structures is to determine the (i) magnitude and
(ii) direction of the forces and pressures acting between
the structure and the adjacent ground, as shown in
Figure 4.1

Figure 4.1: Forces and

pressures acting between
an earth retaining structure
and the adjacent ground

1
 2.4 Lateral Earth Pressures (continued…)
• Lateral earth pressures are the direct result of horizontal
stresses in the soil
• In subchapter 4.2.1.2, we defined the ratio of the
horizontal stress to the vertical stress at any point in a
soil as the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, k
k = h / v
where: k = coefficient of lateral earth pressure,
h = horizontal stress,
v = vertical stress

2.4 Lateral Earth Pressures (continued…)

• For purposes of describing lateral earth pressures,

engineers defined three important soil conditions:
(i) the at-rest condition, ko,
(ii) the active condition, ka, and
(iii) the passive condition, kp

2
 2.4.1 At-rest condition

• Consider the mass of the soil shown in Figure 4.2

Figure 4.2: Earth pressure

at rest

2.4.1 At-rest condition (continued…)

• If the wall AB is static, that means it does not move

either to the right or to the left of its initial position - the
soil mass will be in a state of elastic equilibrium; that is,
the horizontal strain is zero
• The ratio of the horizontal stress to the vertical stress is
called the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, ko
• For coarse-grained soils, the coefficient of earth pressure at
rest (Jaky, 1944):

ko= 1 - sin

where:  = drained friction angle

3
 2.4.1 At-rest condition (continued…)

• Eqn Jaky(1944) gives good results when the backfill is loose

sand
• For a dense sand backfill, Eqn. Jaky(1944) may grossly
underestimate the lateral earth pressure at rest
• This underestimation results because of the process of
compaction of backfill
• So, for a dense sand backfill,

2.4.1 At-rest condition (continued…)

• For fine-grained, normally consolidated soils (Massarsch,

1979),

• For overconsolidated clays,

Ko(overconsolidated) = Ko(normally consofidated)√OCR
where OCR = overconsolidation ratio

• The overconsolidation ratio is defined as:

4
 2.4.1 At-rest condition (continued…)

• Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of earth pressure at rest on

a wall of height, H

Figure 4.3: At rest

pressure acting
on a retaining wall

2.4.1 At-rest condition (continued…)

• The total force per unit length of the wall, Po, is equal to the
area of the pressure diagram, so

5
 2.4.1 At-rest
condition
(Case 1- partially
submerged soil)

Figure 4.4: Distribution

of earth pressure at rest
for partially submerged soil

2.4.1 At-rest condition

(Case 1- partially submerged soil)
• Figure 4.4a shows a wall of height, H
• The groundwater table is located at a depth of H, below the ground
surface, and there is no compensating water on the other side
• For z < H1, the lateral earth pressure at rest can be given as h =
koz
• The variation of h with depth is shown by triangle ACE in Figure
6.11a
• However, for z > H1 (that is, below the groundwater table), the
pressure on the wall is found from the effective stress and pore
water pressure components in the following manner:

6
 2.4.1 At-rest condition
(Case 1- partially submerged soil)

• So, the effective lateral pressure at rest is:

• The Variation of ’h with depth is shown by CEGB in

Figure 4.4a

• Again the lateral pressure from pore water is

u = w (z-H1)

• The variation of u with depth is shown in Figure 4.4b

2.4.1 At-rest condition

(Case 1- partially submerged soil)

• Hence, the total lateral pressure from earth and water at any
depth z > H1 is equal to

• The force per unit width of the wall can be found from the
sum of the areas of the pressure diagrams in Figure 4.4a and
4.4b and is equal to Figure 4.4c

7
 2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition

Figure 4.5: Forces on gravity retaining wall

2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

• Frictional forces that may be developed on the front and

back faces of the retaining wall are not shown
• The lateral force induced by the backfill pushes against
the wall with it resultant pressure Pa
• In turn, the retaining wall resists the lateral force of the
backfill, thereby retaining its movement
• it is readily apparent that the soil becomes the actuating
force
• The thrust Pa is the resultant of the active pressure, or
simply the active thrust

8
2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

• The resistance to the active thrust is provided by the

frictional force at the bottom of the wall and by the soil in
front of the wall
• For the sake of illustration, assume that the wall was pushed
to the left by the active thrust Pa
• In this case, relative to the soil in front of the wall, the wall
becomes the actuating force, with the soil in front of the wall
providing the passive resistance to movement
• This resistance is known as the passive earth pressure, with
the resultant of this pressure denoted by Pp

2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

• The magnitude of the lateral force varies considerably as the
wall undergoes lateral movement resulting in either tilting or
lateral translation, or both
• Figure 4.6 depicts the relationship between the earth pressure
and the wall movement
• Po represents the magnitude of pressure when no movement of
the retaining wall takes place; it is commonly referred to as
earth pressure at rest
• As the wall moves toward the backfill, the pressure increases,
reaching a maximum value of Pp at point C
• On the other hand, if the wall moves away from the backfill,
the force decreases, reaching a minimum value of Pa at point B

9
2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

Figure 4.6: Relationship between earth pressure and wall movement

2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

• Several specific assumptions are made for the sake of

simplicity
1. Frictional forces between backfill and retaining wall
are assumed negligible
2. The wall is vertical, and the surface of the backfill is
horizontal
3. The backfill is a homogeneous, granular material
4. The failure surface is assumed to be a plane

10
 2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition
(continued…)
• Hence, the magnitudes of the active and passive forces
Pa and Pp could be shown as follow:
(i) Active force

or

It can be shown by trigonometry that:

2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

(ii) Passive force

or

11
2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

• Ka and Kp are generally referred to as coefficients for

active and passive pressure, respectively.
• They are constants for any given soil where  =
constant
• It is sometimes the practice to assume a value of Kp
approximately 10 times larger than Ka
• Though this is true for only a rather small range of 
values, in many instances the value for  for sand does
fall within this range

2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

• From the above expression, however, we note a more
fundamental relationship:

• The coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ko has been

shown experimentally to approximate, after J. Jaky*,

Ko= 1 - sin ’

where ’ is the effective angle of internal friction

* Ko is somewhat higher for (a) finer grain soils, (b) loose cohesionless soils,
(c) soils of small  values, and (d) overconsolidated soils. Ko is somewhat
smaller with an increase in overburden pressures.

12
2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

• This expression is acceptable for normally

consolidated soils, both cohesionless and
cohesive
• For overconsolidated clays, the value of Ko
is slightly larger than that given by the
above expression

2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)

Example 2.1:-

Figure 4.7: Example 4.1

Find (a) Ka, Kp and Kp/Ka, for  = 15, 20, 25, 30,
35, and 40
• (b) Pa and Pp for  = 30 

13
2.4.2 Active & Passive Condition (continued…)
Solution:
(a) Ka = tan2(45 - /2) and Kp = tan2(45 +  /2). The coefficients
are given in the following table.

15 20  25  30  35  40 
Ka 0.589 0.490 0.406 0.333 0.271 0.217
Kp 1.698 2.040 2.464 3.000 3.690 4.599
Kp/Ka 2.883 4.163 6.069 9.009 13.616 21.193

(b)

2.5.1 Rankine’s Theory

• The theory proposed by Rankine in 1857 is based on the

assumption that a conjugate relationship exists between
vertical and lateral pressures on vertical planes within a
mass of homogeneous, isotropic, and cohesionless
material behind a smooth retaining wall
• Rankine's theory reflects a simplification of Coulomb's
method
• There are three assumptions that are associated with the
Rankine’s theory, that are: (1) the retaining wall face is
smooth, (2) the wall is vertical, (3) the wall yields about
the base and thus satisfies the deformation condition for
plastic equilibrium

14
 2.5.1 Rankine’s Theory (continued…)

• As originally proposed, the Rankine’s theory covered

the uniform cohesionless soils only, although later on it
was extended to stratified, partially immersed
cohesionless masses and cohesive soils too

2.5.1(a) Cohesionless backfill and level surface

Figure 4.8: The orientation of slip planes in granular soil mass with a level surface under
active and passive states of stress. (a) Element in granular soil.
(b) Mohr's circles for active (1) and passive (2) states of stress in element shown in (a).

15
 2.5.1(a) Cohesionless backfill and level surface

Figure 4.8: The orientation of slip planes in granular soil mass with a level surface under
active and passive states of stress. (c) Slip planes for active case.
(d) Slip planes for passive case. (continued…)

2.5.1 (a) Cohesionless backfill and level surface

(continued…)

• The basic concept behind Rankine's theory can be

depicted via Mohr's circle.
• Consider the element shown in Fig.4.8a subjected to the
geostatic stresses shown
• The value for 1 could be approximated as the product
of the average unit weight times depth, namely, 1  h
• If the wall were to move to the left, thereby creating a
case of active stress, the value for 1 would become the
major principal stress.

16
 2.5.1(a) Cohesionless backfill and level surface
(continued…)

• The corresponding Mohr circle for this case is depicted

by circle 1 in Fig. 4.8b
• On the other hand, if the wall were to push against the
backfill, a case of passive pressure would be developed
• The vertical stress would then become the minor
principal stress, and the lateral stress would thus
become the major principal stress
• The Mohr circle for this condition is depicted by circle
2 in Fig. 4.8b

2.5.1(a) Cohesionless backfill and level surface

(continued…)

• The corresponding pressures

against the retaining wall vary
linearly with depth
• Hence

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.9: Pressure distribution

17
2.5.1(a) Cohesionless backfill and level
surface (continued…)

Figure 4.10:
(Case 1) Pressure distribution
against a retaining wall
for cohesionless soil
backfill with horizontal
ground surface:
(a) Rankine’s active state;
(b) Rankine’s passive state

2.5.1(a) Cohesionless backfill and level

surface (continued…)

Figure 4.11:
[Case 2(a)] Rankine’s
active earth
pressure
distribution
against a retaining
wall with partially
submerged
cohesionless soil
backfill supporting
a surcharge

18
 2.5.1(a) Cohesionless backfill and level
surface (continued…)

Figure 4.11:
[Case 2(b)] Rankine’s
passive earth
pressure
distribution
against a retaining
wall with partially
submerged
cohesionless soil
backfill supporting
a surcharge

2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface

Figure 4.12: Lateral pressure and slip planes in granular sloped backfill under active
State of stress. (a) inclined granular backfill (b) Orientation of slip planes
(c) Mohr’s circle for active state of stress

19
 2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface
(continued…)

• Let us now consider a cohesionless mass with

a sloping surface behind a smooth vertical
retaining wall
• Assume this condition to be depicted by Fig
4.12a.
• The evaluation of Ka may be carried out in a
similar manner to the previous case, but the
vertical pressure will no longer be a principal
stress
• The active pressure on the wall is assumed to
act parallel to the surface of the soil

2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface

(continued…)

• The corresponding resultant pressure on the wall could

be determined with the aid of Mohr's circle
• Figure 4.12c symbolizes an active state of stress
• The magnitude of the vertical stress is depicted by the
distance OC; the lateral stress, acting parallel to the
sloped surface, is represented by the distance OA
• Hence, we have

(c)

(d)

20
2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface
(continued…)

• For a given sloped surface and uniform

soil properties Ka becomes a constant
• Thus, the intensity of load, or stress,
varies linearly with depth
• Hence, as before, the total resultant active
force may be given by Eqn. (c)
• For the case of level surface, Eqs. (c) and
(d) reduce to Eqs. (a) and (b) respectively

2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface

(continued…)

Example 2.2:-

Find: Pa and Pp

• Figure 4.13:Active and passive resultants induced by an

inclined granular backfill

21
 2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface
(continued…)

Solution:

2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface

(continued…)

Solution:

22
 2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface
(continued…)

• The directions of the principal stresses are not

known for passive case, but we assume that the
passive pressure acts parallel to the surface of
the slope.
• Note that: the amount of friction developed
between a retaining wall and the soil can be of a
high magnitude (particularly in the case of
passive pressure).
• The Rankine theory’s assumption of a smooth
wall with no frictional effects can therefore lead
to a significant underestimation (up to about a
half) of the true Kp value

2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined surface

(continued…)

• In effect, the theory can obviously

lead to conservative design, which,
although safe, might at times be over-
safe and lead to an uneconomic
structure

23
 2.5.1(b) Cohesionless backfill and inclined
surface (continued…)

Figure 4.15: Lateral earth pressure for Rankine’s theory:

(a) back side vertical; (b) Back side inclined

2.5.1(c) The effect of cohesion (continued…)

Figure 4.14:
[Case 1(a)] Rankine’s
active earth
pressure
distribution
against a
retaining wall
with cohesive
soil backfill

24
 2.5.1(c) The effect of cohesion (continued…)

• If the depth of the tension zone was given the

symbol hc
• It is possible for cracks to develop over this
depth, and a value for hc is often required
• If pa in the expression

is put equal to zero then we can obtain an

expression for hc:

2.5.1(c) The effect of cohesion (continued…)

(for compacted silts and clays with

both cohesive and frictional strength)

When  = 0,

(for clays)

25
2.5.1(c) The effect of cohesion on active pressure

• Clays, when undrained, can have substantial

values of cu but, when fully drained, almost
invariably have effective cohesive intercepts
that are either zero or, have a small value to be
considered negligible
• It is therefore apparent that tensile cracks can
only occur in clays and are only important in
undrained conditions
• The value of hc, as determined from the formula
derived above, is seen to become smaller as the
value of c becomes smaller
• This illustrates that, as a clay wets up and its
cohesive intercept reduces from cu to c’, any
tensile cracks within it tend to close

2.5.1(c) The effect of cohesion on active pressure

• If there is a uniform surcharge acting on the

surface of the retained soil such that its
equivalent height is he then the depth of the
tension zone becomes equal to zo
• Where
zo=hc-he

• If, of course, the surcharge value is such that he

is greater than hc then no tension zone will exist

26
2.5.1(c) The effect of cohesion on active pressure

• If the cracks become full of water we can

consider that we have a triangular distribution of
water pressure acting on the back of the wall
over the depth of the cracks, zo
• The value of this pressure will vary from zero at
the top of the wall to approximately 9.81zo kPa
at the base of the cracks
• The ingress of water, if prolonged, can lead
eventually to softening and swelling of the soil
• Swelling could partially close the cracks but
would then cause swelling pressures that could
act on the back of the wall

2.5.1(c) The effect of cohesion on active pressure

• The prediction of values of lateral pressure due

to soil swelling is quite difficult
• Shrinkage cracks may also occur and, in Britain,
can extend downwards to depths of about 1.5m
below the surface of the soil
• If water can penetrate into these shrinkage
cracks, then the resulting water pressures
should be allowed for as for tension cracks

27
2.5.1(c) The effect of cohesion on passive pressure

Figure 4.14: [Case 1(b)] Rankine’s passive

earth pressure distribution against a
retaining wall with cohesive soil backfill

2.5.1 Rankine’s theory (continued…)

28
2.5.1 Rankine’s theory (continued…)

2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation

• Instead of considering the equilibrium of an

element in a stressed mass, Coulomb’s theory
considers the soil as a whole
• If a wall supporting a cohesionless acting soil is
suddenly removed the soil will slump down to its
angle of shearing resistance, , on the plane BC in
Fig.4.15a.
• It is therefore reasonable to assume that if the wall
only moved forward slightly a rupture plane BD
would develop somewhere between AB and BC:
the wedge of soil ABD would then move down the
back of the wall AB and along the rupture plane
BD

29
 2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation (continued…)

Figure 4.15: Coulomb's theory, general case

with cohesionless backfill, active state.
(a) Coulomb's sliding wedge. (b) Forces acting on sliding wedge
(c) Force polygon

2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation (continued…)

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.16:(a) The effect of the roughness of the wall surface
(b) Actual sliding surface of the wedge ABC – curvilinear (in active condition)

30
 2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation (continued…)

A C

(b)
Figure 4.16:(c) Actual sliding surface of the wedge ABC – curvilinear
(in passive condition)

2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation (continued…)

(180-  - )
(- +  +  + )


 - 

Figure 4.17:
Coulomb's theory of active earth pressure

31
 2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation (continued…)

( - )


(90 -  + )

(90 -  + )

( - )

Figure 4.18:
General cross section of sliding wedge

2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation (continued…)

• According to Coulomb's theory, the thrust is

induced by the sliding wedge, as shown in Fig.
4.17a
• For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the
sliding wedge analysis
• The corresponding force polygon is shown in Fig.
4.17b
• The development of Coulomb's equation follows
from this basic relationship

32
 2.5.2(a) Coulomb’s Equation (active case)

Hence,

where,  = angle of back of wall to the horizontal,

 = angle of wall friction
 = angle of inclination of surface of retained soil to
the horizontal
 = angle of friction of retained soil
H = height of the retaining wall

2.5.2(b) Coulomb’s Equation (Passive case)

(180-  + )

 -  - 2


+

Figure 4.19: Coulomb's theory, general case

with cohesionless backfill, passive state.

33
2.5.2(b) Coulomb’s Equation (passive case)

Hence,

where,  = angle of back of wall to the horizontal,

 = angle of wall friction
 = angle of inclination of surface of retained soil to
the horizontal
 = angle of friction of retained soil

2.5.2(b) Coulomb’s Equation (passive case)

• With passive pressure, unfortunately, the failure

surface only approximates to a plane surface
when the angle of wall friction is small
• The situation arises because the behaviour of the
soil is not only governed by its weight but also by
the compression forces induced by the wall
tending to push into the soil
• These forces, unlike the active case, do not act on
only one plane within the soil, resulting in a non-
uniform strain pattern and the development of a
curved failure surface

34
 2.5.2(b) Coulomb’s Equation (passive case)

Figure 4.20: Departure of passive failure surface from a plane

2.5.2(b) Coulomb’s Equation (passive case)

• In most cases the assumption of a Coulomb

wedge for a passive failure can lead to a serious
overestimation of the resistance available
• For values of  greater than /3, the errors
involved can be very large
• Adjusted values for Kp for a curved failure
surface are given in Table 6.2
• Applicable to a vertical wall and a horizontal soil
surface and include the multiplier cos as the
values in the table give the components of
pressure that will act normally to the wall
(horizontal component of passive pressure)

35
 2.5.2(b) Coulomb’s Equation (passive case)
Table 6.2: Values of Kp for cohesionless soils
(Kerisel and Absi, 1990)

Values Values of 
of  25 30 35 40
Values of Kp
0 2.5 3.0 3.7 4.6
10 3.1 4.0 4.8 6.5
20 3.7 4.9 6.0 8.8
30 - 5.8 7.3 11.4
(Source: Smith, I., 2006)

2.5.2(c) Coulomb’s Equation (Effect of Cohesion)

cw

Figure 4.21: Coulomb's theory,

occurrence of tension cracks

36
 2.5.2(c) Coulomb’s Equation (Effect of
Cohesion)

• For active case, the theory assumes that at the top

of the wall there is a zone of soil within which
there are no friction or cohesive effects along the
back of the wall and the plane of rupture
• The depth of the zone is taken as zo and, as before,
zo=hc or zo=hc-he
• The active pressure acting normally (horizontal
component of ka) to the wall at a depth, h can be
defined by:
pah=kah-ckac

2.5.2(c) Coulomb’s Equation (Effect of

Cohesion)
Where: c = operating value of cohesion
kac = coefficient of active earth pressure

• In which

• ka = coulomb’s value x cos (horizontal

component)

37
 2.5.2(c) Coulomb’s Equation (Effect of
Cohesion)
• For passive case, a similar equation to that of Bell
can be used for passive pressure values when the
effect of wall friction and adhesion are taken into
account
• The passive pressure acting normally to the wall
at a depth h can be defined as:

pph = kph + ckpc

where c = operating value of cohesion

kpc = coefficient of passive earth pressure

2.5.2(c) Coulomb’s Equation (Effect

of Cohesion)

• Based on the work of Sokolovski (1960), the kpc

values were obtained from the approximate
relationship:

where: cw = adhesion
c = operating value of cohesion
kp = coulomb’s value x cos

38
 2.5.2(c) Coulomb’s Equation (Effect of
Cohesion)

• The following design parameters are

recommended for  and cw:
• For timber, steel and precast concrete:
=/2
• For cast in situ concrete: =2/3
• Generally, cw should be assumed to be half
of the value for the active pressure
conditions

2.5.2(c) Coulomb’s Equation

(continued…)
Example 4.3:-

Figure 4.22: Retaining wall with  > 90

and  > 0

39
2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation (continued…)

2.5.2 Coulomb’s Equation (continued…)

40
Rankine’s theory vs. Coulomb’s theory

Figure : Differences in analysis using Rankine’s theory and Coulomb’s theory

2.5.3 Culmann’s Method- Graphical solution

• The following graphical procedure was devised by Karl

Culmann over a century ago (1875)
• It is used to determine the magnitude and the location
of the resultant earth pressures, both active and passive,
on retaining walls
• This method is applicable with acceptable accuracy to
cases where the backfill surface is level or sloped,
regular or irregular, and where the backfill material is
uniform or stratified

41
 2.5.3 Culmann’s Method (continued…)

• Also, it considers such variables as wall friction,

cohesionless soils, and, with some procedural
modifications, cohesive soils and surcharge loads, both
concentrated and uniformly distributed
• It does, however, require that the angle of internal
friction of the soil be a constant for the total backfill
• The procedure presented here is limited to cohesionless
soils

2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance

Figure 4.23: Culmann’s active earth pressure

for cohesionless soils

42
 2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance
(continued…)

The procedure for determining the active pressure for a case of

cohesionless soil by Culmann's method:
1. Select a convenient scale to show a representative
configuration of retaining wall and backfill. This should
include height and slope of the retaining wall, surface
configuration of the backfill, location and magnitude of
concentrated (line) surcharge loads, uniformly distributed
surcharge, and so on.
2. From point A draw line AC, which makes an angle of  with
the horizontal

2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance

(continued…)

3. Draw line AD at an angle of  from line AC. Figure 4.23

shows the angle  to be the angle between the vertical
and the resultant active pressure
4. Draw rays AB1, AB2, AB3, and so on. that is, assumed
failure surfaces.
5. Determine the weight of each wedge, accounting for
variations in densities if the backfill is a layered system,
for variable moisture content, and so on.
6. Select a convenient scale and plot these weights along line
AC. For example, the distance from A to W1 along line AC
equals W1;similary, the distance from W1 to W2 , along
line AC equals W2, and so on

43
 2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance
(continued…)
7. From each of the points located on line AC, draw lines
parallel to line AD to intersect the corresponding assumed
failure surfaces; that is, the line from W1 will intersect line
AB1, the one from W2 will intersect line AB2 and so on
8. Connect these points of intersection with a smooth line,
Culmann’s curve
9. Parallel to line AC, draw a tangent to Culmann's curve. In
Fig. 4.23 point E represents such a tangent point. More than
one tangent is possible if the Culmann line is irregular
10. From the point of tangency, draw line EF parallel to line
AD. The magnitude of EF, based on the selected scale,
represents the active pressure, Pa. If several tangents to the
curve are possible, the largest of such values becomes
the value of Pa. The failure surface passes through E and A,
as shown in Fig. 4.23

2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance

(continued…)
Example 4.4
Given a retaining wall with backfill as shown in Fig. 4.24

Figure 4.24: Culmann’s graphical solution Figure 4.25: Typical wedge

44
 2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance
(continued…)
Find:
The active thrust via Culmann’s method

Procedure:
• Figure 4.24 shows a 7-m vertical wall supporting a
granular backfill whose  value equals 30
• The wail is assumed smooth
• A line load of 100 kN/m runs parallel to the wall
• For an arbitrary scale of 1 cm = 1 m the given data are
plotted to scale
• For convenience the bases for all the wedges are the
same

2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance

(continued…)
• Hence, the weight of all the wedges equals 127.4 kN, as
shown in Fig. 4.25
• The corresponding points along AC are shown in Fig.
4.24 for an arbitrary scale of 1 cm = 100 kN
• From these points lines are drawn parallel to line AD so
as to intersect rays AB1, AB2, AB3, and so on
• Note that a similar line is drawn for the line load P1
• By connecting these points of intersection with a
smooth curve (Culmann's curve) and drawing a tangent
to this curve parallel to AC, we obtain the value for Pa,
which is equal to the corresponding scaled value EF

45
 2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance
(continued…)

Figure 4.26: Active resultant induced

by concentrated surface surcharge

2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance

(continued…)

• The scaled value for EF = 1.85 cm for 185 kN

• The point where Pa acts is determined as described in
the preceding section and as shown in Fig. 4.26
• Line EG is parallel to line AC, and line GF is parallel to
the failure plane
• Pa therefore acts at one third distance EF front point E,
or a total of 4.25 m above point A

46
 2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance
(continued…)
Example 4.5
A surcharge on a backfill as shown in Fig. 4.27

Figure 4.27: Wall supporting backfill

and uniform surface surcharge

2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance

(continued…)
Find:
The active thrust via Culmann’s method

Procedure:
• The uniform surcharge shown in Fig.4.27 transformed
into an equivalent effective weight as shown in Fig.
4.28
• From there on, the procedure is very similar to that
given in Example 4.4
• Note, however, that the soil on top of the heel of the
retaining wall cannot form a wedge during failure,
provided the retaining structure remains intact

47
 2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance
(continued…)

Figure 4.28: Culmann’s solution

2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance

(continued…)

• Hence, line AB forms an imaginary rigid surface of the

backfill
• Furthermore, the point where Pa acts may be determined
by assuming that the pressure distribution and the
location of the resultant pressure are as shown in Fig.
4.29
• In our case the resultant thrust turns out to be located
2.6 m from the bottom of the wall

48
 2.5.3(a) Determining active resistance
(continued…)

Figure 4.29: Stresses induced by backfill surcharge

2.5.3(b) Determining passive resistance

Figure 4.30: Culmann’s passive earth pressure

for cohesionless soils

49
2.5.3(b) Determining passive resistance (continued…)

• Figure 4.30 illustrates the procedure for determining the

Passive resistance via Culmann's method
• The approach is similar to that for the active pressure,
with some notable differences:
(1) line AC makes an angle of  degrees below
rather than above the horizontal;
(2) the reference line makes an angle of  with
line AC, with  measured as indicated in Fig.
4.30

2.5.3(b) Determining passive resistance

(continued…)

• For the assumed sliding wedges, the weights W1, W2,

and so on, are plotted along line AC
• From these points, lines are drawn parallel to the
reference line to intersect the corresponding rays, as
shown in Fig. 4.30
• The Culmann line represents a smooth curve connecting
such points of intersection
• A tangent to the Culmann curve parallel to line AC is
drawn, with the resultant earth pressure being the scaled
value of line EF, as shown in Fig 4.30

50
 2.6 Design Applications
• The traditional approach for the design of earth
retaining structures involved establishing the ratio
of the restoring moment (or force) to the
disturbing moment (or force) and declaring this
ratio as a factor of safety
• This factor had to be high enough to allow for any
uncertainties in the soil parameters used in the
analysis, and the approach was generally referred
to as the factor of safety or gross pressure
approach
• An alternative approach now becoming widely
adopted is the limit state design approach
• This method is advocated in both BS8002:1994
Code of Practice for earth retaining structures
and in Eurocode 7

2.6 Design Applications (continued…)

51
2.6 Design Applications (continued…)

2.6 Design Applications

Stability Checks:
• To check the stability of a retaining wall,
the following steps are necessary:
1. Check for overturning about its toe
2. Check for sliding failure along its base
3. Check for bearing capacity failure of the
base
4. Check for settlement
5. Check for overall stability

52
Eurocode 7 lists five limit states to be
considered in the design process:

Figure 4.31: Limit states for earth retaining structures

(for both BS 8002 and Eurocode 7)

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls

(a) Limit states
• Whether following BS 8002 or Eurocode 7, a number
of limit states should be considered:
(1) Overturning (Fig. 4.31a). For a wall to be stable the
resultant thrust must be within the base. Most walls
are so designed that the thrust is within the middle
third of the base.
(2) Bearing failure of the soil beneath the structure
(Fig. 4.31b). The overturning moment from the
earth's thrust causes high bearing pressures at the
toe of the wall. These values must be kept within
safe limits - usually not more than one third of the
supporting soil's ultimate bearing capacity.

53
2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)
(3) Forward sliding (Fig. 4.31c). Caused by
insufficient base friction or lack of passive
resistance in front of the wall.
(4) Slip of the surrounding soil (Fig. 4.31d). This
effect can occur in cohesive soils and can be
analysed as for a slope stability problem.
(5) Structural failure caused by faulty design,
poor workmanship, deterioration of materials,
etc. (Fig. 4.31e).
(6) Excessive deformation of the wall or ground
such that adjacent structures or services reach
their ultimate limit state.
(7) Unfavourable seepage effects and the
adequacy of any drainage system provided.

Water seepage on
face cut slope

Figure 4.32: Unfavourable seepage effects

54
2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)
(b) Bearing pressures on soil
• The resultant of the forces due to the pressure
of the soil retained and the weight of the wall
subject the foundation to both direct and
bending effects.
• Let R be the resultant force on the foundation,
per unit length, and let Rv be its vertical
component (Fig. 4.33a).
• Considering unit length of wall:

Section modulus of foundation =

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)

(b) Bearing pressures on soil

Figure 4.34: Check for bearing capacity failure of the base

55
2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)
• vertical forces acting on the base = V = Rv
• horizontal forces = Pa cos = Rh

• Resultant force, R = V + pa cos

• The net moment of these forces about point C is
Mnet = MR - Mo
• Distance CE,

• Hence, the eccentricity of the resultant, R

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)

• Pressure distribution under the base, q

where:
Mnet = moment = (V)e
I = moment of inertia per unit length of the base
section
=

56
 2.6.1 Design of gravity walls
(continued…)

• Apply when Rv is within the middle third:

Maximum pressure on base

= Direct pressure + pressure due to bending

Minimum pressure on base =

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls

(continued…)

• Apply when Rv is on the middle third:

Maximum pressure on base

In which,

Minimum pressure on base = 0

57
 2.6.1 Design of gravity walls
(continued…)

• Apply when Rv is outside the middle third:

Maximum pressure on base

Minimum pressure on base = 0

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls

(continued…)

Figure 4.33: Bearing pressures due to a retaining wall foundation

58
 2.6.1 Design of gravity walls
(continued…)
• The ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow foundation
(will be covered in BFC4043-Foundation Engineering),
can be determined based on

qult = cNc + qoNq + ½BN

• Once the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil has

been calculated, the factor of safety against bearing
capacity failure can be determined:

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)

(c) Base resistance to sliding

Pah

Figure 4.34: Check for sliding along the base

59
 2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)

For Granular soils and drained clays

• Base resistance to sliding = Rv tan 

where  = angle of friction between the base of

the wall and its supporting soil,
Rv = vertical reaction on the wall base.

• In limit state design, the sliding limit state will

be satisfied if the base resistance to sliding is
greater than, or equal to, Rh (the horizontal
component of the resultant force acting on the
base)

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)

• In the factor of safety approach, the

ratio (Rv tan )/Rh is determined to
establish the factor of safety against
sliding.
• It is common practice to take the passive
resistance from any soil in front of a
gravity wall as equal to zero, since this
soil will be small in depth and in a
disturbed state following construction of
the wall.

60
 2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)

Undrained clays
• The adhesion between the supporting soil
and the base of a gravity or reinforced
concrete wall can be taken as equal to the
value cw used in the determination of the
active pressure values and based on the
value of cu
• Resistance to sliding
= cw x area of base of wall

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls

(continued…)
• FS against sliding =

where: FR’ = sum of the horizontal resisting forces

Fd = sum of the horizontal driving forces
Friction in between soil-structure,  = k12
adhesion, cw = k2c2
k1 & k2 = are in the range of ½ to 2/3 (based on
assumption)

61
2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)
(d) Overturning about its toe

Pv=Pav

Ph=Pah

Figure 4.35: Check for overturning at its toe

2.6.1 Design of gravity walls (continued…)

(d) Overturning about its toe (continued…)


Pv=Pav

Ph=Pah

Figure 4.36: Check for overturning at its toe

62
 2.6.1 Design of gravity walls
(continued…)
• FS against overturning =

where: Mo = sum of the moments of forces tending to

overturn about point C
MR = sum of the moments of forces tending to resist
overturning about point C

EXAMPLE
The cross section of a cantilever retaining
wall is shown in Figure 9. Calculate the
factors of safety with respect to
overturning, sliding, and bearing capacity.
Solution
Referring to Figure 9, we find
H’ = H1 + H2 + H3
= 2.6 tan 10 + 6 + 0.7
= 7.158 m

63
The Rankine active force per unit length of wall is

Pa = 1 1Ka H’2
2
For 1= 30 and  = 10,

Ka is equal to 0.350 .

Thus,
Pa = 1 (18)(0.35)(7.158)2 = 161.4 kN/m
2

Pv = Pa sin 10 = 161.49 sin 10 = 28.03 kN/m

Ph = Pa cos  = 161.49 cos 10 = 158.95 kN/m

64
65
66
Table : N values for Vesic equation

Table: Shape and depth factors for use in either the Hansen (1970) or
Vesic (1973, 1975b). Use s’c, d’c when Ø = 0 only for Hansen equations.
Subscripts H and V for Hansen and Vesic, respectively

Note:
Effective base dimensions B’ & L’ by Hansen not by Vesic

67
68
End of Chapter 2

69