GEO-06 - Lateral Earth Pressure

-
GEOTECHNICS
Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson
LESSON 6
Lateral earth pressure

Course of GEOTECHNICS, A.Y. 2015-16 Lesson 6: Lateral earth pressure 1
-
Introduction to lateral
earth pressure

Selection of constitutive laws for design
-
In Geotechnical Engineering (but generally in many other sector of engineering)

generally we can have two kinds of problem:
1. Evaluate the maximum load that we could apply to a structure…. In geotechnics
this means, for instance, to evaluate the maximum stress state variation that
we can apply to a foundation that the subsoil could support without the
foundation reaching the failure, i.e. to evaluate the maximum bearing capacity
of the foundation. In this kind of problem we are looking for the limit condition
at which the soil has to work or, we said, the failure condition.
2. Evaluate the deformation of a structure subjected to a load less than the
maximum possible…. In geotechnics, this means, for instance, to evaluate the
vertical settlement of an area when we build a stable embankment on the
ground surface. In this kind of problem we evaluate the serviceable condition.
Since the behaviour of soil is more complicated than those of other engineering
materials (steel, concrete, wood, etc.) we have to find very simple schemes to
describe the soil problem in a rapid way, especially in the past when the
calculation was performed without the personal computer help.
-
In problem were we want to verify the stability of a structure interacting

with the soil (a retaining wall or a foundation) we are not interested in the
deformation of the structure-soil system before collapse but only to
individuate the failure condition.
For this reason we work with an ideal model of soil behaviour in which the
soil is supposed to behave as a Perfect Rigid – Perfect Plastic Material (or
simply Rigid-Plastic Material):
 Perfect Rigid  E=∞ and no strain before failure exists
 Perfect Plastic  Irreversible (plastic) strains occur at constant stress
(E=0) after failure
s RIGID-PLASTIC MODEL
Note that other more complex
models, able to take into account
E=0 the hardening or brittle behaviour
of soil or other phenomena, also
E=∞ exist and the most advanced
numerical code implemented also
e very complex models
-
To assign the maximum stress available at a depth in a soil profile we have to

select a shear strength law according to the material and to the drainage
condition.
In low permeability soils the short-term conditions are the most hazardous
because the soil has not the time to drain the excess pore pressure generated by
total stress variation due to the construction of an external structure 
Undrained condition.
Of course, in low permeability soils, after the consolidation occurrence the
resistance of soil increases and generally more safe conditions could be reached
(Long-term conditions  Drained conditions).
In high permeability soils the drainage of excess pore pressure generated by

total stress variation occurs almost instantaneously  Drained condition.

-
The shear strength law must be selected taking into account the soil and the
drainage conditions:
Low permeability soils in Low permeability soils in long

short term term or high permeability soils
↓ ↓
Cohesive Material Cohesive-Frictional Material
(Undrained condition) (Drained condition)
t t t max  c's ' tan  '

t max  cu , u  0
s s’
Principal stress relation in plastic equilibrium
-
Inside the soil, the failure, i.e. the Plastic Equilibrium, is reached when the stress
state circle touches the failure envelope, i.e. the Mohr Coulomb criterion.
Generally considering a cohesive-frictional material with parameter c and , the
tangent condition permits to write a relation among the principal stresses s1
and s3 and the shear strength parameters c and . From the scheme we have:
s1  s 3 s s3  From the tangent condition we

 1  c cot   sin  know that the inclination of planes
2  2  on which the shear failure occurs
(i.e. the shear stress is equal to the
shear strength) is: q = 45°+/2.
sn

-
Rankine’s theory

Rankine’s theory
-
To evaluate the horizontal stress at plastic equilibrium along an infinite long

structure (i.e. plane strain conditions) Rankine analyzed a semi-infinite space,
with a horizontal boundary surface and a lateral boundary constituted by a
vertical smooth (no friction) sheet pile wall.
The stress state in a small element of soil located near the pile is described by
the horizontal and vertical stresses sx and sz .
Smooth sheet pile wall If no shear forces (no friction) exist along
the wall, horizontal and vertical stresses
are principal tensions.
If the wall is at-rest condition, generally the
Active
soil is in elastic state and the relative Mohr
Passive
circle doesn't touch the failure criteria.
The horizontal stress is sx=K0sz where K0 is
the at-rest coefficient of earth pressure,
being K0=sx/sz <1.

Rankine’s theory of active pressure
-
If the wall moves horizontally towards left it permits a lateral expansion to the
soil. The horizontal stress sx decreases until the stress circle touches the failure
envelope reaching a plastic state that we call Active plastic equilibrium.
In this case the horizontal stress is the minor principal tension and from the
tangent condition, with some mathematical passages we have:
 1  sin  '   1  sin  '  Wedge in active
s 3  s 1    2c'   plastic equilibrium
 1  sin  '   1  sin  ' 
s 3  s 1 K a  2c ' K a
with Ka = active pressure coefficient
  '  1  sin  '   45 
'
K a  tan  45   
2
2
 2  1  sin  '
Substituting sx to s3 and sz to s1 , the active earth
pressure pa becomes:
pa  s x  s z K a  2c' K a
Rankine’s theory of passive pressure
-
If the wall moves horizontally towards right it imposes a lateral compression to

the soil. The horizontal stress sx increases overcoming the vertical stress sz and
until the stress circle touches the failure envelope reaching the plastic state that
we call Passive plastic equilibrium.
In this case the horizontal stress is the major principal tension and from the
tangent condition we have:
s z  s 3  s 1 K a  2c ' K a  s x K a  2c ' K a
Wedge in passive
s x  s z / K a  2c ' / K a plastic equilibrium
The passive earth pressure pp becomes:
p p s x  s z K p  2c' K p
with Kp = passive pressure coefficient
'
  45 
2 '  2
K p  1 / K a  tan  45  
 2
Earth pressure distribution
-
• The vertical profile of the earth pressure has a trapezoidal shape. It is the sum
(passive state) or the difference (active state) of two components: a triangular part
due to the frictional contribute and a rectangular part due to the cohesive
contribute.
2c '
• In active state, the horizontal pressure equals to zero at: z0 
 Ka
• For z ≤ zo the soil
doesn't give an earth
pressure on the wall,
that means the soil
could remain in
vertical position even
if the wall doesn’t
exist.

Earth thrusts
-
The earth thrust is the resultant of the horizontal pressure distribution.

Depending from the conditions we have:
Long term behaviour (analysis in effective stresses):
 
H
Pa   s x dz  K a ' H 2  z02  2c' K a H  z0 
1
• Active:
0 2
H
1
• Passive: Pp   s x dz  K p  ' H 2  2c ' K P H
0 2
Short term behaviour (analysis in total stresses):
• Active: 1
2
 
Pa   sat H 2  z02  2cu H  z0 
1 2 u 
• Passive: Pp   sat H 2
 2cu H being K p  K a  tan  45    1
2  2
Earth and water pressure resultant
-
Water pressure force in effective stress analysis

• In static conditions with a GWT at a generic depth zf: Pw 
1
2

w H  zf 2
• In seepage condition, it has to take into account the seepage forces according
with the direction of seepage (Lesson 2).
• Note that the earth pressure has to be calculated in effective stress.
Earth pressure due to a surcharge on the surface

Being q= uniform surcharge on infinite
length, the earth pressure has to be
increased at each depth of the quantity:
• Active: s xa  K a q
• Passive: s xp  K p q
Other earth pressure theories
-
The Rankine’s theory considered a very simple case. Other researchers have
suggested different theories assuming more general conditions.
• Coulomb: static condition with inclined ground surface behind the wall,
presence of friction along the wall, inner wall surface inclined. The problem is
analyzed with the limit equilibrium approach and the failure surface is planar;
• Caquot-Kerisel: static condition with inclined ground surface behind the wall,
presence of friction along the wall, inner wall surface inclined. The failure
surface is curved (logarithmic spiral). The problem is analyzed with the upper
and lower boundary state approach;
• Mononobe-Okabe: dynamic condition with inclined ground surface behind
the wall, presence of friction along the inner surface of wall, inner wall
surface inclined.

Coulomb’s theory
-
Coulomb studied the equilibrium of a wedge delimited by the wall (with a

inclined rough inner face), by the soil surface (inclined by b) and a generic failure
plane inclined by q.
If the inner face of the wall is rough the wall reaction P (equal and opposite to
the total earth pressure) is inclined by an angle d equal to the friction angle of
the wall-soil contact.
If we hypothesis the
inclination q of the side BC,
for a granular material
(without cohesion) at
equilibrium in active state the
forces acting on the yellow
wedge (the weight W, the
wall reaction P and the soil
reaction R along the side BC)
must form a closed polygon.
Active Case

Coulomb’s theory
-
It is possible to write the thrust P as a function of W and all the angles. It is

possible to look for the value of q which minimizes, in active state, or maximizes,
in passive state, the thrust solving the equation: P
0
q
• Active:  
2
 
1  sin a   '  / sin a 
Pa  K a H 2 Ka  
2 sin  'd sin  ' b  
 sin a  d   
 sin a  b  
• Passive: 2
 
 
1  sin a   '  / sin a 
Pp  K p H 2 Kp  
sin  'd sin  ' b  
 sin a  d  
2 
 sin a  b  

Caquot and Kerisel’s theory
-
In the passive case it is not generally realistic to

neglect the curvature of the failure surface and
use of Coulomb’s approach overestimates
passive resistance.
Caquot and Kerisel derived both active and
passive coefficients by integrating the
differential equations of equilibrium, the failure
surfaces being logarithmic spirals.
For a=90deg and b=0deg, values of coefficients
(denoted Kah and Kph) for horizontal components
of pressure are plotted in Figure.

-
EARTH RETAINING
STRUCTURES

Earth retaining wall
-
• GRAVITY WALLS: are massive structures which resist to the earth pressure
thank to their own weight
• CANTILEVER WALLS: are thin reinforced concrete structures that take

advantage of their geometry for resisting to the earth pressure

-
• The gravity walls are made of

concrete, but also of
masonry (a) or metallic
gabions filled with cobbles or
rock fragments (b)
• Other solutions are walls

realized with a net of
beams (crib wall, c) or
with earth reinforced (d)

-
Active Case Passive Case

A small rotation or displacement towards external
side generates immediately the active state.
On the other side, it is not realistic that the wall
pushes alone towards the soil, as well as large
strain needs to reach the passive state.
So, for the wall design the active case has to be
usually considered: only in few cases the
structures have to be calculated in K0 state or in a
state between K0 and KP.
Ultimate limit states for earth retaining walls
-
For the design of a retaining wall, all the international codes require to verify
at least the four following geotechnical Ultimate Limit States:
 Horizontal sliding along the base
SURCHARGE q
Sovraccarico
 Toppling around the A point
C
 Bearing capacity of soil foundation
 Overall global stability with a
rotational sliding along bw W Pa
the curve BC
Of course, the complete bP
design requires also B A
the structural analysis
of different wall portions, T
the analysis of seepage effects
and of serviceability state. Q NO WATER PRESENCE

Methods of design
-
For every structure, to verify the equilibrium in each failure mechanism, it has to
impose that the system resistance R is greater than the actions E inducing the
failure. Generally, two approaches are possible for comparing R with E:
1) LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHOD (LEM): it determines the global safety factor FS
and requires it is not less then a limit value FS* (for instance, in Italy the old code
asked FS*=1.5 for toppling instability):
FS  R E  FS *
2) LIMIT STATE DESIGN (LDS): Impose that the design value of R is not less than
the design value of E:
Rd  Ed
where Rd and Ed are the Design Values for the System Resistance R and Action
Effects E, calculated applying different partial safety coefficients in accord with
the various approaches suggested in the code (European Code EC).
In the following, the analysis of 4 Ultimate Limit States for the walls will be analysed
only with the first method (LEM). Here, only a case is dealt with LDS (other
examples are in the exercises).
Sliding and Toppling Ultimate Limit States
-
Indicating with d the friction angle at the wall base, which characterizes the
concrete-soil contact, the horizontal component of soil reaction is:
T  W tan d
The global safety factor FS is the ratio between the system resistance R, in this
case coinciding with the friction resistance at the base T, and the action
inducing the wall to failure E, in this case the earth thrust Pa. The codes require
FS is not less then a limit value FSS (i.e., the old Italian code DM88 asked for
FSS=1.3):
FS  T Pa  FS S
Indicating with bw and bp the arms of forces W and Pa respect the point A
(see the scheme of slide 23), the global safety factor is:
M stab , A W  bw
FS    FST
M unst , A Pa  b p
In old Italian code DM88 it is FST =1.5.
- Bearing capacity and Overall Global Stability
Ultimate Limit States
If Q is the vertical component of soil reaction at the wall base (usually called
Bearing Capacity), the global safety factor in the LEM is:
Q
FS   FSQ
W
In Italian old code DM88 it is FSQ =2.
Note that the Bearing Capacity Q has to be calculated considering the foundation
width, the eccentricity of the load W and also the presence of the horizontal
force Pa (the methods for the bearing capacity evaluation will be analyzed in the
next chapter).
A deep roto-sliding surface (curve BC in scheme of slide 22) could form in the
soil behind the wall. The Overall Global Stability analysis is usually performed
with the method of slices within the approach of LEM (this kind of analysis will be
dealt in the Master Degree, Geotechnical curriculum).
In Italian old code DM88 it is FSG =1.3.
Embedded structures
-
An embedded structure is a thin wall for a temporary or permanent use, which

resists for the presence of passive forces on the front of the embedded portion.
Due to earth pressure the wall deforms like in the scheme below and actives
consequently different failure conditions and earth pressure states in the various
portions of the wall.
Wall deformation Earth Pressure Distribution
Free Lenght H
Active
Forces
Embedded
Passive
depth D
Forces
Passive Active
Forces Forces

Embedded structures
-
The embedded structures may be CONCRETE DIAPHRAGM formed by rectangular panels

constituted by different materials:
 Diaphragm Wall … constituted by
concrete panels or piles
(usually for permanent use
and deep structures) CONCRETE DIAPHRAGM formed by T-shape panels
 Sheet Wall … in steel

(usually for temporary use and
medium deep structures)
CONCRETE DIAPHRAGM formed by SECANT PILES

Embedded structures
-
In relation with the possibility to have horizontal reinforcements, the embedded

structures may be classified as:
 Free earth support
 Fixed earth support
 Braced supported wall

Free earth-support design
-
In this method, the

embedded depth D is
designed in order to verify
the rotational equilibrium
respect to the point O
(located at a depth d from
the excavation bottom).
A A A
Since the portion OA is
short, for safety and
simplicity, the moments of
forces on OA are not taken
into account.
The momentum balance
takes into account only Pp
and Pa moments on portion
above point O.

Free earth-support design
-
Homogeneous granular soil without water

Indicating with bp and ba the arms of thrusts Pp and Pa respect the point O, the
momentum balance is:
Note that some codes impose
M unst  M stab to assume a KP*=KP/2 to limit
Pa  ba  Pp  b p the horizontal displacements
need to activate the passive
forces
K a h  d   h  d   K p d  d
1 2 1 1 * 2 1
2 3 2 3
h  d  3

Kp
*
The depth d is obtained

3
d Ka
Then, the reaction R can be calculated imposing the horizontal force
equilibrium. On the base of R, the extra depth insertion (generally equal to
0.20d) is calculated.

Fixed Earth Support design
-
A The design requires to define

the values of F and d (the depth
a of point A is chosen
previously).
Horizontal forces and
momentum balances give two
equations that are sufficient to
Earth-pressure
solve the problem.
- the embedded depth d can
be calculated by the
rotational equilibrium
respect point A;
- the force F can be calculated
by the horizontal
Deformed line Shear Moment equilibrium.
force

Fixed Earth Support design
-
Homogeneous granular soil without water

Indicating with bp and ba the arms of thrusts Pp and Pa respect point A, the
momentum balance is:
M unst  M stab
Pa  ba  Pp  b p
K a a  h  d   2h  2d  a   K p d  3h  2d 
1 2 1 1 * 2 1
2 3 2 3
a  h  d   2h  2d  a  
2
Kp
*
The embedded depth d can

d 2  3h  2d  Ka be obtained.
The force F is given by the translational or horizontal equilibrium.

Anchor design
-
The anchor may be constituted

by a beam embedded in the soil
at sufficient distance from the
wall, in order to assure that its
passive wedge must be out of
the active wedge on the wall.
After having chosen the
embedding depth da, the height
of the beam is evaluated from an

F  Pp  Pa anchor  horizontal equilibrium.
   2d a  b   b  K p*    2d a  b   b  K a 
1 1
2 2

 b2d a  b  K p*  K a
1
2

Anchor design
-
The anchor may be also constituted

by a steel rod or cable inserted in a
inclined borehole and fixed to the
soil by a cement grout.
After having installed the rod and
the grout becoming hard, an
external plate is fixed by nuts at the
end of the rod to link the anchor to
the sheet wall.
The anchor is then put in tension
according to the force F.

Effect of water
-
Water table at the same level Water table at the different levels on the two
on the two sides. sides and seepage in a homogeneous soil
Sand
Sand
2ba
uc   w
2b  a
The net pressure distribution The net pressure distribution may be

is equal to 0. approximated with a triangular shape
Effect of water
-
Water table at the different levels on the two sides, without seepage due to
presence of an impermeable layer.
a Sand H
uL
Impermeable
b soil
Impermeable uB
soil
uB   w H
uL   wa
-
Design criteria

Design Criteria in Civil Engineering
-
Any design process involves a number of assumptions:

- Estimation of loads to which a structure will be subjected;
- Choice of sizes of elements to check;
- Selection of design criteria.
All engineering design criteria have a common goal: ensuring a safe
and functional structure.
The most used design criteria in the past were:
- Allowable strength design in structural engineering;
- Limit equilibrium method in geotechnical engineering.
In Europe (from 2004/05), the design method used in structural and
geotechnical engineering is now the LIMIT STATE DESIGN (LDS).
-
In the ALLOWABLE STRENGTH DESIGN (ASD) (also named WORKING

STRESS DESIGN – WSD) the nominal strength is divided by a safety factor
to determine the allowable strength. This strength is required to equal or
exceed the mobilized stress for a set of ASD load combinations (i.e. the
analysis of maximum stress in a truss).
The LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHOD (LEM) compares the overall resistance

of a structure, with respect to a possible failure mechanism, with the
resultant of actions inducing the failure mechanism (i.e. wall design): the
ratio between the two resultants is the global safety factor.
The LIMIT STATE DESIGN (LSD) is a semi-probabilistic method which

requires the structures to satisfy two principal criteria: the ultimate limit
state (ULS) and the serviceability limit state (SLS). A structure designed by
LSD is proportioned to sustain all actions likely to occur during its design
life, and to remain fit for use, with an appropriate level of reliability for
each limit state.
-
Since the LSD unifies the design criteria adopted in the different civil
engineering branches and is considered an advanced method, many
countries are adopting this method in the design rules.
Canada has used it from 1976 and Singapore is now moving (2011)
toward it.
In the USA the transition to LSD (known there as Load and Resistance
Factor Design - LRSD) is still occurring, depending from the rules in
the various internal countries and the standard adopted by different
organizations.
In the following the LSD is briefly introduced and will be treaded in
details in advanced courses.

Limit State Design in Geotechnics
-
For permanent and transition conditions and for ULS and SLS, it must be:
Ed  Rd
Ed = Design Value for the action effect
 X   X 
Ed  E  F Frep , k , ad  or Ed   E E  Frep , k , ad 
 M   M 
Rd = Design Value for the resistance
  R  
X
Rd  R  F Frep , k , ad  or Rd 
M
R
R

 F Frep , X k , ad  or Rd  
 F rep
R 
F ,
Xk
M
, a d
  
ad = Design value of element size
Frep = Representative value of an action
Xk = Characteristic value of a material property
E = Partial factor for the action effect
F = Partial factor for an action
M = Partial factor for a material property
R = Partial factor for the system resistance
Limit State Design in Geotechnics
-
• In relation with the ULS, for each possible ULS the relation Ed ≤ Rd must be
verified with different possible combinations of partial safety coefficients
selected by the following groups:
– for actions (loads): groups A1 and A2
– for the material characteristics: groups M1 and M2
– for the system resistance: groups R1, R2 and R3
• For instance, the analysis of Overall Global Stability of a retaining wall in

accord with LSD requires to use combination A2+M2+R1. The verification of
bearing capacity may be performed in 3 alternative ways, also named
design approaches (DA):
DA1: combination 1 (A1+M1+R1) and Combination 2 (A2+M2+R1)
DA2: combination (A1+M1+R2)
DA3: combination (A1+M2+R1)
Partial safety coefficients (Eurocode 1997 part 1)
-
Table A.3 Partial coefficients for actions In geotechnics soil and

water are permanent
but not structural
loads when they
contribute also to the
global stability.
Table A.4 Partial coefficients for material parameters

Table A.4 indicates only the
coefficients for the most
frequently used parameters.
Other coefficients are indicated in
special rules.
Set R1 or R2 or R3 depend from

1 the coefficient  is applied to the tan
the analysis that is in execution.
Examples – Bearing capacity for a wall
-
Retaining wall with horizontal base and a variable surcharge qk on the ground
surface at the rear of the wall. Analysis in static condition.
With:
• qk = surcharge;
• Gk = weight of wall;
• Qk = variable force of mass (water uplift
forces or seismic forces);
• EG = Resultant of lateral pressure due to the
weight of soil at rear of wall;
• EQ = Resultant of lateral pressure due to the
surcharge;
• V, H, M = component of force system
transferred to the soil at the base;
• Rv = vertical reaction of soil (bearing capacity
of foundation) function of V, H, M, size of
structure, soil parameters)

Examples – Bearing capacity of a wall
-
In this case the relation (V  Rd) that the Eurocode 1997 requires to verify
turns in:
Vd  Rv ,d
where Vd and Rv,d could be evaluated using 3 alternative design approaches:
• DA1 Comb.1: A1 + M1 + R1
• DA1 Comb.2: A2 + M2 + R1
From Tables A.3 and A.4 we have the coefficients here reported:
In this case, the coefficient for the system resistance of group R1 is R= 1

Examples – Bearing capacity of a wall
-
Vd  Rv ,d


GEO-06 - Lateral Earth Pressure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEO-06 - Lateral Earth Pressure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

In Geotechnical Engineering (but generally in many other sector of engineering)

In problem were we want to verify the stability of a structure interacting

To assign the maximum stress available at a depth in a soil profile we have to

In high permeability soils the drainage of excess pore pressure generated by

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

Low permeability soils in Low permeability soils in long

Cohesive Material Cohesive-Frictional Material

(Undrained condition) (Drained condition)

t t t max  c's ' tan  '

s1  s 3 s s3  From the tangent condition we

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

To evaluate the horizontal stress at plastic equilibrium along an infinite long

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

If the wall moves horizontally towards right it imposes a lateral compression to

The passive earth pressure pp becomes:

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

The earth thrust is the resultant of the horizontal pressure distribution.

Short term behaviour (analysis in total stresses):

Water pressure force in effective stress analysis

Earth pressure due to a surcharge on the surface

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

Coulomb studied the equilibrium of a wedge delimited by the wall (with a

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

It is possible to write the thrust P as a function of W and all the angles. It is

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

In the passive case it is not generally realistic to

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

• CANTILEVER WALLS: are thin reinforced concrete structures that take

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

• The gravity walls are made of

• Other solutions are walls

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

Active Case Passive Case

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

An embedded structure is a thin wall for a temporary or permanent use, which

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

The embedded structures may be CONCRETE DIAPHRAGM formed by rectangular panels

 Sheet Wall … in steel

CONCRETE DIAPHRAGM formed by SECANT PILES

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

In relation with the possibility to have horizontal reinforcements, the embedded

 Fixed earth support

 Braced supported wall

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

In this method, the

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

Homogeneous granular soil without water

The depth d is obtained

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

A The design requires to define

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

Homogeneous granular soil without water

The embedded depth d can

The force F is given by the translational or horizontal equilibrium.

Dr. Eng. Alberto Bisson

The anchor may be constituted

The anchor may be also constituted