CE5108 Part 1 - Introduction and Earth Pressure Theories

CE5108 Earth Retaining Structures
1-1

Part 1 Introduction and Earth Pressure Theories

Learning Objectives

1. Introduction to Different Types of Earth Retaining Structures
2. At-rest Earth Pressures
3. Active and Passive Earth Pressures
4. Rankine Earth Pressure Theory
5. Coulomb Earth Pressure Theory
6. Culmanns Method of Solution
7. Factors Affecting Earth Pressures

1-2
1. INTRODUCTION

In situations where soils and geologic materials as well as materials with
similar engineering characteristics e.g. granular, powder or particulate materials,
need to be retained at a larger height or steeper slope than they would naturally
assume, some form of retaining structures will be needed. The main function of the
retaining structure is to withstand the earth pressure which the retained material
would exert onto it.
A variety of retaining structures have been used in practice. Commonly used
retaining structures can be classified into several broad categories as follows:

1-3
1. Gravity Retaining Walls These are retaining walls that rely solely on the self
weight of the structure and wall geometry for stability. These retaining walls are
analysed using classical retaining wall mechanics. That is, the stabilizing forces on
the structure is greater than the disturbing forces trying to destabilise the retaining
wall. The gravity retaining walls are generally constructed of discrete segmental
units. For example concrete or timber crib walls use interlocking crib units to bind
the infill material into a coherent structure to increase mass and stability. Solid
blockwork uses solid block units. Segmental blockwork uses segmental blockwork
units as a facing system. Gabion retaining walls use rock filled baskets forming
discrete units making up the wall structure. Rubber tyre retaining walls use infilled
rubber tyres in the same way as gabions. Figure 1.1 shows some of the gravity
retaining walls which have been used.

2. Flexural Retaining Walls Flexural retaining walls are walls that rely on the
flexural action of the structure, coupled with cantilever anchorage of the
foundation soil alone, or together with some props, to support the retained
material. They may be broadly classified into two categories depending upon their
flexural rigidity. Walls with lower flexural rigidity consist commonly of sheet piles
and soldier piles. Sheet pile walls (Figure 1.2) consist of continuously interlocked
corrugated sheet pile segments adequately embedded into the soil to resist
horizontal pressures, primarily from earth and water loads. The wall is typically
constructed by driving individual sheet piles into the soil. The wall obtains its
stability from the resistance it develops against the soil it is being driven into.
Figure 1.1 Examples of Gravity Retaining Walls
1-4
Another type of commonly used flexible wall system is soldier piles, which often
consists of steel I-beams driven into the ground at fairly close intervals of between
1 to 2 m. The intervening exposed face of the earth is then normally covered up by
timber boards or planks known as timber lagging (shown on Figure 1.3). In some
cases, concrete in-fill may also be used.

Figure 1.2 Sheet Pile Walls
1-5

More rigid flexural wall systems include diaphragm walls, contiguous bored pile and
secant pile walls (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.3 Soldier Pile Walls
Figure 4 Diaphragm Wall
1-6

3. Reinforced Soil or Geosynthetics Retaining Walls - Retaining walls that consist
of a front facing system anchored to a composite block of soil and geosynthetic
reinforcement. The reinforced block increases the mass and therefore stability of
the structure. The front facing system can consist of segmental blockwork,
segmental rubber tyre or gabions for example. The reinforcement is generally
connected to the rear of the front facing system using a mechanical connection,
pin or key, or relies on friction between courses. The basic principles of a
reinforced soil wall is similar to those of gravity retaining walls, that is, they make
use of the self-weight of the reinforced soil portion to generate stabilizing forces on
the wall. The main difference between a reinforced concrete and reinforced soil
wall is that the internal integrity of the former is a matter of structural design
whereas the internal integrity of the latter is a matter of geotechnical design. An
example of a reinforced earth wall is shown on Figure 1.5.
Figure 4 (continued) Diaphragm, CBP and Secant Pile Walls
1-7

Figure 1.5 Reinforced Earth Wall
1-8
2 EARTH PRESSURE THEORIES

The significance of earth pressure theory to the design of retaining structures
comes about because the main function of a retaining structure is to retain soil
which, if unsupported, would collapse. In order to do so, the retaining structure has
to withstand the earth pressure (mainly lateral) imposed by the soil mass. For this
reason, the lateral earth pressure from the soil often constitutes a major part of the
loading on a retaining structure. In the study of earth pressure, the main focus is
often the lateral earth pressure since this is often the more difficult component to
evaluate; the vertical earth pressure is often (correctly or incorrectly) expressed as a
product of the unit weight of the overlying soil and the depth of the point in question.
In earth pressure theory, three states of earth pressure are often examined. They are
1. A reference state of earth pressure, which is normally taken to be the earth
pressure of the undisturbed soil mass (i.e. prior to construction work). This is
often known as the at-rest earth pressure.
2. Two limiting states of earth pressure, which defines two extreme states of failure
of a soil mass. These are known as the active and passive earth pressures.

2.1 At-rest earth pressure
The at-rest earth pressure is actually quite difficult to quantify accurately
because it is heavily dependent upon the soil type as well as the geological and
stress histories of the soil. For this reason, there remains a high degree of
empiricism in the determination of the at-rest earth pressure of a soil. Consider an
element of soil located at a depth z below a level ground surface in uniform soil
conditions, as shown in Figure 2.1.

d =
v
+ u
h
=
h
+ u
Figure 2.1 State of Stress Below a Level Ground
1-9
As Figure 2.1 shows, the total vertical stress is computed from the self-weight
of the overburden soil, plus any pre-existing ground surface loading. If the soil is
fully consolidated and the groundwater table is not changing, then there is no
excess pore pressure and the pore pressure is often computed as the hydrostatic
pore pressure, that is
u =
w
d
w
(2.1)
in which
w
is the unit weight of water and d
w
the depth below groundwater table.

In a non-hydrostatic situation, the pore pressure has to be separately
determined. Whatever the case, the pore pressure is often determinable from the
pore pressure status or groundwater conditions. Once this is done,
v
is known, the
main issue that remains is the determination of
h
. In other words, the main
problem in at-rest earth pressure is often the determination of the effective
lateral stress. Because of this, the effective lateral stress
h
is often expressed as a
proportion of the effective vertical stress
v
through an at-rest earth pressure
coefficient K
o
, which is defined as
K
o
=
h
' /
v
(2.2)
It should be emphasized that K
o
is almost invariably defined as a ratio of the
effective (not total) stresses.

We mentioned earlier that K
o
is a function of the soil type and geologic or
stress history. The effects of soil type can be isolated by examining the K
o
of a
normally consolidated soil (or a soil which has lost all memory of its previous stress
history), or K
nc
. In such a situation, K
nc
should be only a function of the soil type.

If we think of a soil as a elastic material, then by considering the stress state
of an elastic material subjected to 1-dimensional constrained compression, we can
show that

' 1
'
K
o

=
(2.3)
in which is the effective Poissons ratio and ranges from 0.25 to 0.35. However,
this tends to underestimate the K
o
of real soils. This is because normally
1-10
consolidated soils are in a plastic rather than elastic state of compression. This is
evident from comparing the typical stress-strain curve of an elasto-plastic material
and the e vs log p curve of a consolidating soil (Figure 2.2). Overconsolidated soils
are elastic due to unloading but they have even higher K
o
than normally consolidated
soil. For this reason, Eq. 2.3 is seldom used.

The most commonly used relationship for determining K
nc
is that due to Jaky, which
states that

( )
( ) ' sin 1
' sin 1
' sin 1 K
3
2
nc
+
+
=
(2.4)

where is the effective (not total) angle of friction of the soil. This is very
commonly simplified into its approximate form

' sin 1 K
nc

(2.5)

There is evidence that this approximate form is sufficiently accurate for most
engineering purposes according to available experimental data (e.g. Wroth 1975,
Mayne & Kulhawy 1982). Alternative relationships have also been proposed by
Brooker and Ireland
' sin 95 . 0 K
nc

(2.6)
Figure 2.2 Idealized e vs log p curve for soils
1-11
and Alpan (1967)
) (I log 233 . 0 19 . 0 K
p nc
+
(2.7)
in which I
p
is the plasticity index.

As mentioned earlier, K
o
also depends upon geologic and stress history. In
the estimation of K
o
, the geologic or stress history of a soil is normally represented
approximately through its over-consolidation ratio (OCR). The K
o
-value for over-
consolidated soils is usually higher than that for normally consolidated soils.
Numerous relationships have been proposed for estimating K
o
for over-consolidated
soils, most of these related the K
o
of the over-consolidated soil to that of the same
soil in its normally consolidated state i.e. K
nc
. One of these is by Alpan (1967), who
suggested that
n
nc o
OCR K K
(2.8)
in which n is an exponent whose value depends upon the soil type. For clays, Alpan
proposes that n can be related to the plasticity index I
p
via

281 / -I
p
10 x 54 . 0 n = (2.9)
For sand, Alpan proposes that n can be related to the effective angle of friction via
Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 Relation of n with Friction Angle
1-12
Wroth (1972) also proposed two semi-empirical relationships for estimating K
o

from K
nc
. For OCR up to 5, Wroth (1972) proposed that

( ) 1 OCR
' 1
'
K OCR K
nc o

=
(2.10)
This relationship is based on the assumption that the unloading process which
resulted in the over-consolidated state is an elastic process. For higher OCR, Wroth
(1972) proposed that
( ) ( ) ( )
+
+
=
o
nc
o
o
nc
nc
K 2 1
K 2 1 OCR
ln
K 2 1
K 1 3
K 2 1
K 1 3
m
(2.11)
in which m = 0.022875 PI + 1.22 (2.12)

Finally, Parry also proposes an empirical relationship for K
o
as follows:

'
nc o
OCR K K

=
(2.13)
in which is expressed in radians.

2.2 Active Earth Pressure
As mentioned above, the at-rest earth pressure is the earth pressure which
would exist prior to disturbance to the soil. Thus, if a wall can be constructed with no
deformation to the retained soil mass, the earth pressure which would act on the wall
is given by the at-rest earth pressure. This is clearly impossible since all retaining
structures move. As illustrated in Figure 2.4, the resulting changes to the earth
pressure depend upon how the presence and loading from the wall deforms the
retained soil. If the retaining wall allows the soil face to move away from the retained
soil mass, the resulting deformation will generate stresses which will try to hold up
the soil mass, thereby reducing the earth pressure on the retaining wall. Thus, any
movement of the soil from the retained side will result in a reduction in earth
pressure from the at-rest value, resulting in what is known as an active condition.
Conversely, any movement of the soil into the retained side will result in an increase
in earth pressure from the at-rest value, resulting in a passive condition.

1-13

In most soils other than very dense sand, the earth pressure in an active state
(hereafter termed as the active earth pressure) tends to decrease monotonically with
movement away from the soil. In other words, up to a point, one can trade earth
pressure for deformation. By allowing deformation to occur, the earth pressure acting
on the wall can be reduced. However, this is only so up to a point, since the active
earth pressure reaches a steady value (usually minimum) beyond a certain level of
deformation. This is the fully active condition, in which the strength of the soil is fully
mobilized in helping to hold up its own self-weight and that generated by any loading
on the retained ground surface. At this stage, the soil mass is at ultimate failure and
any remaining earth pressure (also known as the active earth pressure) will have to
be resisted by the retaining structure.

In reality, the active earth pressure may not be easily estimated exactly since
real problems often have complicated geometries and soil behaviour tends to be
Figure 2.4 Development of Active and Passive Earth Pressures with
Wall Movement
1-14
highly complex. However, by making certain simplifying assumptions regarding the
behaviour of soils and the constraints on the problem, the active earth pressure can
be estimated approximately. The first assumption to make is to assume that the soil
behaves in an elastic-perfectly plastic manner, as indicated in Figure 2.5. In reality,
the stress-strain curve of soil is often a curve. However, in order to facilitate
estimation, we shall assume that the stress-strain curve is characterized by an
elastic portion (shown as a linear sloping portion) and a perfectly plastic portion,
along which no further increase in stress with further straining is possible. Defined
loosely, the term perfectly plastic refers to the fact that the stress-strain curve is
horizontal and no further increase in stress is possible.

We now consider an idealized scenario in which a gravity retaining wall
(shown in Figure 2.6 as a trapezoidal wedge) is progressively moved away from the
retained soil, and we seek to estimate the active earth pressure in the soil. We also
assume that the retained soil is deforming in an undrained manner and its shear
strength is characterized by the undrained shear strength c
u
, the undrained angle of
friction u being 0. We realize that the stress state in the retained soil is rather
complicated since the stresses must necessarily change as we move away from the
retaining wall in the direction indicated by the arrow marked A. Indeed, if the distance
from the wall is sufficiently large, we should not feel the effect of the wall movement
at all. Furthermore, the portion of retained soil above the base of the wall must also
interact with that below the base. All these complicate the stress situation
significantly.
Idealized elastic- perfectly

plastic behavior
typical nonlinear response
Idealized elastic- perfectly

plastic behavior
typical nonlinear response
Figure 2.5 Elastic-perfectly Plastic Stress-Strain Curve
1-15

In order to simplify the problem, we can introduce a working model which
approximates the actual problems, but with some constraints relaxed so as to
simplify the stress situation. One way of doing this is shown in Figure 2.7. We first
isolate a block of soil (marked X) located just behind the wall. We then assume the
following:
1. The interface between the wall and the soil is perfectly smooth, as represented
by the black rollers on the wall-soil interface. This is a conservative assumption
since the friction between the wall and soil helps to hold up the soil block X and
therefore reduce the lateral earth pressure on the wall.
2. We also assume that the far side boundary of the block X is also perfectly
smooth. This is also a conservative for the same reason as stated in (1).
3. We also assume that the base of the block X is also perfectly smooth and can
offer no resistance to the soil moving towards the wall. This is again a
conservative assumption.

Figure 2.6 Idealized Gravity Retaining Wall
Figure 2.7 Approximate Working Model to the Wall Problem
1-16
We now allow the wall to move forward and develop the fully active condition,
and we try to calculate the active earth pressure arising from block X. This is an
approximate but conservative (because of the above assumptions) estimate of the
actual active earth pressure. We note that every vertical section within the block X is
identical to one another. Furthermore, the two vertical boundaries of block X is
perfectly smooth and can therefore develop no shear stress. For this reason, shear
stresses cannot develop along any vertical section of the block, that is
hv
= 0. As
shown on Figure 2.8, complementarity of shear stresses must necessarily require
that
vh
= 0. In other words, the vertical and horizontal normal stresses at all points
within the block are also the principal stresses. Since
hv
= 0, the vertical normal
stresses at all points within the block can be computed based on the weight of the
overburden soil, that is

v
= d (2.14)
The horizontal normal stress is the lateral earth pressure that we are seeking to
estimate.

As shown on Figure 2.8, the relationship between the lateral earth pressure
h

and the vertical overburden stress
v
can be expressed as

h
=
v
2 c
u
= d 2 c
u
(2.15)
Figure 2.8 Mohr Circle of a Cohesive Soil at Active Failure
1-17
From Eq. 2.15, if we plot
h
as a function of d, we obtain the lateral earth pressure
profile acting on the retaining structure as shown on Figure 2.9.

From Eq. 2.15, we see that when the depth d is less than a value d
c
, given by

=
u
c
c 2
d
(2.16)
the lateral earth pressure becomes negative. As this is clearly impossible, what it
implies is that, above this depth, a soil with undrained shear strength cu will support
a vertical face. A vertical cut with a height less than dc will require no lateral support.
Furthermore, if a retaining wall supporting a vertical of height greater than dc is
allowed to move outwards so as to develop full active condition, the soil above a
depth dc will not follow the movement of the wall, so that a gap will develop in such a
situation. This gap is commonly termed a tension crack. This is a misnomer
because there is no tension. Moreover, in virtually all working load conditions, the
wall will not be allowed to move out infinitely, so that the gap will not develop to the
depth given by Eq. 2.16. The above solution constitutes part of what is commonly
known as Rankines Earth Pressure Theory.
We note that we have not taken into consideration the requirement that there
must be compatibility between points inside the block X. This is unnecessary since at
ultimate failure of a perfectly plastic material, all points will ultimate reach the same
state, regardless of strain. Eq. 2.15 represents an approximate solution to the
problem involving a gravity retaining wall with vertical back face retaining a uniform
Figure 2.9 Lateral Earth Pressure for Approximate Wall Problem
1-18
cohesive soil, which was obtained by solving an approximate model of the actual
problem. Furthermore, the model was obtained by relaxing certain constraints on the
real problem, in this case the shear stresses at the boundaries of the soil block X is
set to zero. Thus, the model is weaker than the actual problem and our solution in
Eq. 2.15 is a lower bound solution to the actual problem. The concept of bounds
to the actual solution is an important concept of plasticity theory and may be stated
simply as follows (without proof):
1. If a solution to the plastic failure or collapse load of a problem involving a perfectly
plastic material is sought which involves only consideration of equilibrium and the
failure criterion, then the solution will represent a lower bound of the actual
solution. In other words, if we represent the actual problem by a model which does
not require points to deform in a compatible fashion, the coupling between points
are weaken and we end up with a weaker model, so that the solution will be a
lower bound. This is a loose way of stating the Lower Bound Theorem.
2. If a solution to the collapse load of a problem involving a perfectly plastic material
is sought which involves a assumed failure mechanism and a weak equilibrium
of the failure mechanism (in the form of plastic work done and energy release in
collapse), then the solution will represent an upper bound of the actual solution. In
layman terms, if we specify or assume a failure mechanism, then our assumed
failure mechanism will be stronger and will lead us to a higher failure load than the
critical failure mechanism (which is the actual failure mechanism). This is a loose
way of stating the Upper Bound Theorem.
These two Extremum Principles play an important role in plasticity
computations since the actual failure load is often not easily determined. In such a
case, being able to bound the actual failure load gives us an idea of the actual
solution. In particular, the Lower Bound Theorem is useful in design since it
invariably yields a conservative failure load.
We can also consider variations to the case shown in Figure 2.8 by assuming
that the soil has no cohesion i.e. c = 0 but has a finite effective angle of friction .
As shown in Figure 2.10, consideration of the Mohrs Circle geometry leads to
' sin
' '
' '
h v
h v
=
+

(2.17)
1-19
Rearranging the terms in Eq. 2.17 leads to
a
v
h
K
' sin 1
' sin 1
'
'
=
+

=
(2.18)
in which K
a
is termed as the coefficient of active earth pressure.

A third variation can also be consider, in which the soil has finite c and . As
shown in Figure 2.11, consideration of Mohrs circle geometry leads to
' sin
2
' '
' cos c
2
' '
h v h v
+
+ =

(2.19)
which leads to

' sin 1
' cos
' c 2
' sin 1
' sin 1
' '
v h
+

+

=

' sin 1
' cos
' c 2 ' K
v a
+

=
(2.20)

Figure 2.10 Mohr Circle of a Cohesionless Soil at Active Failure
1-20

We note that

( )
a
2
2
2
K
' sin 1
' sin 1
' sin 1
' sin 1
' sin 1
' cos
=
+

=
+

=
+

(2.21)
Therefore, Eq. 2.20 can be re-written as

a v a h
K ' c 2 ' K ' =
(2.23)
which is the standard form of active earth pressure equation (see e.g. BS8002).

2.3 Passive Earth Pressure
The passive earth pressure is developed when the wall, or part of it, is being
pushed into the retained soil. In a fully passive condition, the passive earth pressure
pushing the soil backwards has to overcome both the self-weight and shear strength
of the soil. For this reason, the passive earth pressure is often higher than the at-rest
earth pressure. While it is possible to repeat the three cases analysed above for the
active condition, this is unnecessary, since the last case is, in fact, the general case,
and encompasses the other two cases.
Figure 2.11 Mohr Circle of a c- Soil at Active Failure
1-21
The governing equation for passive failure is also easily obtained by simply
swapping the terms
v
and
h
in Eqs. 2.19 and 2.20, which leads to
' sin 1
' cos
' c 2
' sin 1
' sin 1
' '
h v
+

+

=
(2.24)
so that

' cos
' sin 1
' c 2
' sin 1
' sin 1
' '
v h
+
+

+
=
(2.25)
which can be expressed in its common form, as

p v p h
K ' c 2 ' K ' + =
(2.26)
where
' sin 1
' sin 1
K
p

+
=
(2.27)
and is termed as the coefficient of passive earth pressure.
Graphically, the Mohr circle representation of the passive failure condition is
shown on Figure 2.12.

Figure 2.12 Mohr Circle of a c- Soil at Passive Failure
1-22
In the special case where c = 0, Eq. 2.26 reduces to

' K '
v p h
=
(2.28)
Similarly, in the undrained case where
u
= 0, we replace c by c
u
and by
u
= 0, so
that Eq. 2.26 becomes

u v h
c 2 + =
(2.29)

1-23

3 EARTH PRESSURE THEORIES PART II

3.1 Shortcomings of Rankines Earth Pressure Theory
The Rankines earth pressure theory discussed in the previous part has the
advantage that, under conditions of perfect plasticity, it computes a lower bound of
the collapse load. In practice, soil is not a perfectly plastic material, but we can relax
the requirements for this bounds property to hold to an ultimate failure condition
wherein the shear stresses in the soil neither increase nor decrease with shear
strain, as illustrated by points X in Figure 3.1. These states are known as the critical
states of the soil (e.g. BS8002: 1994).

The other shortcoming of the Rankine earth pressure theory is that such lower
bound solutions are only known for a very few number of highly idealized
geometries. For more complex geometries and problems where wall friction is
significant, the solutions are not easily found. Thus Rankines earth pressure theory
is, in practice, rather restricted in its usage.

3.2 Coulombs Earth Pressure Theory Historical Perspective
An alternative approach to evaluating limiting earth pressures in a soil mass at
failure was proposed by Coulomb (1776). Charles Augustine de Coulomb (Figure
Figure 17 Mohr Circle of a c- Soil at Passive Failure
1-24
3.2) was born in Angouleme, France on 14 June 1736. He graduated from the Ecole
du Genie (French for School of Engineers) at Mezieres in 1761 and then joined the
Corps du Genie (or Corps of Engineers) of the French Army with a rank of lieutenant
[Notice that, in those days, there was no distinct between military (now combat) and
civil engineers, as there is now]. In 1764, he was sent to Martinique in the West
Indies to bolster its defence (Martinique was under the sovereignty of France) by
building new fortifications at Fort Bourbon. These fortifications consisted of massive
gravity retaining walls with moat and obstacles in front (Figure 3.3). It was during this
period (1764 to 1772) that he did his seminal research work on shear strength of
soils and limit equilibrium method of retaining wall design.

Figure 3.2 Charles Augustine de Coulomb
Figure 3.3 Early modern fortifications
1-25
Coulombs work on geostatics was written in his highly acclaimed essay Sur
une application des regles, de maximis a quelque problemes de statique, relatifs a
larchitecture, that was presented to the Academie des Sciences (Academy of
Science) in Paris in 1773, the objective of which, in Coulombs words is . To
determine, as far as a combination of mathematics and physics will permit, the
influence of friction and cohesion in some problems of statics. With this one single
article, Coulomb created the science of friction.
Coulomb had observed from his research, that failure in a soil mass tends to
occur along well-defined failure planes, as illustrated in Figure 3.4. Thus, the failure
of the soil structure as a whole can be analysed as a series of blocks sliding over
one another along the slip planes. Coulomb had two problems to solve. The first is:
what is the failure criterion along these slip planes? In other words, what contribute
to the resistance along these slip planes and how can these contributory factors be
accounted for mathematically.

Coulomb had learned from his experiments that the shear resistance of rock
consists essentially of two components. The first derives from the cementation and
bonding within the rock structure and is termed cohesion. The second derives from
the friction that exists between blocks of the rock structure. In the figure above, if the
stresses acting on a slip plane are resolved into a normal component
f
and a shear
component
f
, then at the point of failure,
f
must be resisted by two components of
resistance. The first is a constant cohesive component, denoted by c whilst the
Figure 3.4 Failure Wedge in an Experiment
1-26
second is a frictional component that is proportional to the normal stress
f
. In other
words,

f
= c +
f
tan (3.1)
in which is the angle of friction and tan is the coefficient of friction (commonly
denoted by ). This is the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
The second problem relates to the geometry of the failure wedges. Coulomb
noticed from his work on sandy soil that most of the failure surfaces are almost
planar. For this reason he assumed that the failure surfaces are planes. However
Coulombs approach can, in principle, be applied to any class of failure surfaces.

3.3 Example 1 Cohesionless Soil, Smooth Wall, Level Ground, Active State
Coulombs earth pressure theory can be illustrated by a simple example
involving a gravity retaining wall retaining a sandy soil with c = 0 and angle of friction
, as shown in Figure 3.5.

In Figure 3.5, the uniform sandy soil of unit weight is retained by a gravity
wall with a smooth vertical back face. One potential failure wedge is the triangular
wedge of soil abc, with interface ab sliding along the back face of the wall and bc
sliding along the underlying soil. The forces acting on the wedge are its weight W,
the force Q resulting from the wall reaction (whose magnitude is the sum total of the
lateral earth pressure), as well as the normal and shear forces N and F on the slip
Figure 3.5
1-27
plane bc. We shall assume that the slip plane bc is inclined to the horizontal at an
angle .

Considering equilibrium in the direction of the force N leads to
N = W cos + Q sin (3.2)

Considering equilibrium in the direction of the force F leads to
F = W sin - Q cos (3.3)

Dividing Eq. 3.3 by Eq. 3.2 leads to

+

=
sin Q cos W
cos Q sin W
N
F
(3.4)

We note that, along the slip plane bc, limiting friction must be reached so that
' tan
N
F
= (3.5)

Combining Eqs. 3.4 and 3.5 leads to
' tan
sin Q cos W
cos Q sin W
=
+

(3.6)

which can be expressed as
Q = W tan ( ) (3.7)

We note that the length ac is h cot , so that the weight W of the wedge is given by
= cot h ' W
2
2
1
(3.8)

Combining Eqs. 3.7 and 3.8 leads to
( ) ' - tan cot h ' Q
2
2
1
=
( ) ( ) ' - tan tan h '
2
2
2
1
=

(3.9)
1-28
We have arbitrarily assumed that the slip plane is inclined at an angle to the
horizontal. There may be numerous potential slip planes inclined at all angles but
only one will lead to the failure of the soil mass; this is the critical slip plane, which is
also the slip plane which gives the highest value of Q. To evaluate this value of , we
equate the first derivative of Q to zero, that is
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] 0 ' sec tan ' tan sec h '
d
dQ
2
2 2
2 2
2
1
= + =

(3.10)

which, upon solving, gives

2
'
45
2
'
4

+ =
= (3.11)

Substituting Eq. 3.11 into Eq. 3.9 gives the critical value of Q

=
2
'
4
tan h ' Q
2 2
2
1
(3.12)

However, this only gives the total force on the back of the wall, not the earth
pressure distribution. To find the latter, we note that there is an equally likely slip
plane occurring at a depth of h+h and inclined at the same critical value of . The
total force on the back of the wall arising from the slightly lower slip plane (and
slightly larger wedge) is Q + Q, where Q is given by
h
2
'
4
tan h ' h
dh
dQ
Q
2

= = (3.13)

The pressure across the small increment in depth h is thus given by

= =
2
'
4
tan h ' '
h
Q
2
ha
(3.14)

We note that

( )
' sin 1
' sin 1
' sin 1
' sin 1
'
2
sin
'
2
cos 1
2
'
4
tan
2
2
2
2
2
+

=

=
(3.15)
1-29
Thus

v a v ha
' K
' sin 1
' sin 1
'
' sin 1
' sin 1
h ' ' =
+

=
+

= (3.16)

Hence, Coulombs earth pressure theory with the prescribed failure wedge gives the
same solution for active earth pressure as the Rankines earth pressure theory.

3.4 Coulombs Solution as an Optimistic (or Unsafe) Solution (?)
We have discussed earlier that Rankines earth pressure theory gives a lower
bound to the correct failure load. In other words, Rankines earth pressure theory
generally gives what can be considered as a safe or pessimistic solution. It is
tempting to draw a parallel between Coulomb earth pressure calculation and the
upper bound solution in plasticity. Firstly, the upper bound solution in plasticity
requires the prescription of a kinematically admissible failure mechanism, which in
the above calculations, can be considered to be potential failure wedge. Secondly,
an upper bound solution involves an energy balance calculation, which, in many
cases, can be equated to the consideration of force equilibrium. For instance, in the
example above, consideration of energy balance would lead to
F = W sin - Q cos (3.17)
in which is the displacement along the slip plane. Cancelling out on both sides
leads to
F = W sin - Q cos (3.18)
which is identical with the equilibrium equation (Eq. 3.3) along the slip plane.
The situation is actually somewhat more complicated. Firstly, there is no
mathematical requirement that the failure wedge in Coulombs calculation must be
kinematically admissible. All that is needed is a close enough profile to the actual
slip plane. Secondly, in cases involving curvilinear slip planes, the equivalence
between force equilibrium and energy balance is often less obvious. Thirdly,
mathematically upper bound solution in plasticity requires that the material obeys the
associated flow rule, which, in the case of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, would
require that the angle of friction is equal to the angle of dilation. This is not so in
most, if not all soils.
1-30
Coulombs calculations, on the other hand, have no such requirements.
Hence, Coulombs earth pressure calculations do not actually satisfy all the
mathematical premises needed to qualify it as a strict upper bound calculation.
Nonetheless, we can think of Coulombs calculation loosely as an optimistic or
unsafe solution. This is because in Coulombs calculation, the slip or rupture plane is
limited to a certain class of geometry, in the above case a plane surface, even
though we do optimize it with respective to the inclination . The actual slip surface
may not be plane. In that situation, our optimization will not produce the true slip
surface and the true critical failure conditions. In this sense, Coulombs calculation is
really a constrained optimization. Thus, if we have a soil which behaves in an
idealized elastic perfectly plastic manner, we would expect that, unless we have prior
knowledge of the geometry of the slip surface, Coulombs calculation is more likely
than not to miss the critical slip surface. For this reason, Coulombs calculation is
likely to yield an optimistic or unsafe solution. For this reason, it is very important
that some form of optimization be undertaken, at least within the class of
chosen slip surface, such as finding the critical value of as performed above.
This should be considered an integral part of Coulombs calculations.
We now re-visit the fact that the solutions which were obtained by the
Rankines and Coulombs calculations are identical. Since Rankines method gives a
pessimistic or safe solution whereas Coulombs method gives an optimistic (or
unsafe) solution, the fact that both solutions are identical implies that, in this special
case, Rankines and Coulomb calculations produce the correct solution. This is not
unexpected, in the Rankines method, we have specified a stress field which is
triaxial (i.e. principal stresses act on vertical and horizontal planes, Figure 3.6); in
such a case, consideration of triaxial stress state through the Mohr circle will lead us
to the conclusion that this prescribed stress field is consistent with a slip plane which
is inclined at ( )
2
'
45

+ to the horizontal (Figure 3.7); this is also the critical angle of
the slip plane used in Coulombs calculations. In more general scenarios, we may
not be so lucky.

1-31

Figure 3.6 Slip Plane Implied by Rankines Stress Field
Figure 3.7 Mohr Circle with Inclination of Slip Plane for Rankines Stress Field
45 + /2
1-32
3.5 Example 2 - Cohesionless Soil, Smooth Wall, Level Ground, Passive State
We can repeat the same Coulomb procedure for a passive case as shown in
Figure 3.8.

In this case, the critical value of can be shown (mathematics not presented) to be
2
'
45
2
'
4

=
= (3.19)

=
2
'
4
tan h ' Q
2 2
2
1
(3.20)
and
=
2
'
4
tan h ' '
2
hp
(3.21)

It can be shown that
( )
' sin 1
' sin 1
' sin 1
' sin 1
'
2
sin
'
2
cos 1
2
'
4
tan
2
2
2
2
2

+
=

+
=
(3.22)
Thus

v p v hp
' K
' sin 1
' sin 1
'
' sin 1
' sin 1
h ' ' =

+
=

+
= (3.23)

Figure 3.8
1-33
Once again, for the passive case, the Rankines and Coulombs earth
pressure calculations return the same solution. Although the Rankines and
Coulombs calculations for the above two cases give essentially the same solutions,
the solutions may not necessarily agree well with reality. In many instances,
comparison with field and laboratory studies have shown that passive earth pressure
theories tend to overestimate the actual pressure in cases where is high. Over the
years, there have been a number of attempts to try to get a better match to the
experimental results by using curvilinear surfaces. One of the factors which have
been identified as being at least a partial cause is the presence of significant wall
friction, the effects of which is aggravated in a passive state (c.f. active state). This
issue will be elaborated further upon below.

3.6 Cohesionless Soil, Non-Vertical Rough Back Wall, Sloping Ground,
Active State
One of the advantages of the Coulombs method is its flexibility in dealing with
wall as well as sloping back wall and ground. This is illustrated by the case shown in
Figure 3.9.

The solution for this is given by
a
= K
a

v
= K
a
h (3.24)

2
h '
K Q
2
a

= (3.25)
Figure 3.9
1-34
in which

( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
2
a
sin
' sin ' sin
sin
' - sin sec c
K
+
+
+ +

= (3.26)
Note that Q does not act horizontally. The horizontal component Q
h
of Q is given by

2
h '
K Q
2
ah h

= (3.27)
in which
K
ah
= K
a
sin ( + ) (3.28)
This solution has sometimes been attributed to Muller-Breslau
(Tschebotarioff, 1951). However, it is now widely recognized that, even if Coulomb
had expressed the solution in the form of ratios rather than trigonometric function,
the improvement taken to convert ratios to trigonometric function is really rather too
trivial to merit any special mention.

3.7 Cohesionless Soil, Non-Vertical Rough Back Wall, Sloping Ground,
Passive State
The equivalence of the above problem for passive failure is shown in Figure
3.10.

Figure 3.10
Q
1-35
The solution is given by the following relationships:
p
= K
p

v
= K
p
h (3.29)

2
h '
K Q
2
p

= (3.30)
in which

( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
2
p
sin
' sin ' sin
sin
' sin sec c
K

+ +

+
= (3.31)
Note that Q does not act horizontally. The horizontal component Q
h
of Q is given by

2
h '
K Q
2
ph h

= (3.32)
in which
K
ph
= K
p
sin ( + ) (3.33)

In Coulombs original computations, the failure wedges were assumed to be
bounded by plane surfaces. This assumption is not unduly unrealistic for active
failures where the actual failure surfaces are relatively flat curves. In passive
failures, the assumption of flat plane surfaces of failure often leads to larger errors in
computations. This is aggravated if the wall is rough. Partly for this reason, the
assumption of flat surfaces has often been found to overestimate the passive
pressure developed in field and model tests for exceeding 35. Caquot and
Kerisel (1948) produced tables of earth pressure based on non-plane failure
surfaces. These design charts are shown in Figures 3.11 to 3.14.

1-36

Figure 3.11 Caquot and Kerisel Solution for Active Pressure with Level Ground
Figure 3.12 Caquot and Kerisel Solution for Passive Pressure with Level Ground
1-37

Figure 3.13 Caquot and Kerisel Solution for Active Pressure with Sloping Ground
Figure 3.14 Caquot and Kerisel Solution for Passive Pressure with Sloping Ground
1-38
In these figures, is the angle of inclination of the backfill. When = 0,
Figures 3.13 and 3.14 reduces to Figures 3.11 and 3.12. Various other researchers
including Janbu (1957), Shields & Tomay (1973), Sokolovski (1960) and Rosenfarb
and Chen (1972) have developed numerical or iterative procedures for estimating
passive earth pressure coefficient. However, most of these are not directly
applicable without some computer software and are therefore not covered here.

3.8 Cohesive Soil, Smooth Vertical Back Wall, Horizontal Backfill Surface,
Active State
Coulombs approach is less commonly applied to cohesive or c- soils. This
is probably Coulombs solution did not include cohesion. This is not entirely
surprising since Coulombs application of his theory is in the construction of
fortifications, in which the soil is completely remoulded. Coulomb states three times
in his famous Essai, that newly remoulded soil has no cohesion since the remoulding
process would have destroyed any bonds which might have existed in the soil.
However, one can apply Coulombs approach to a cohesive soil by considering a
failure wedge as is shown in Figure 3.15.

Considering equilibrium in the direction of the force N leads to
N = W cos + Q sin (3.34)

Figure 3.15
1-39
Considering equilibrium in the direction of the force F leads to
F = W sin - Q cos (3.35)
We note that

=
sin
h c
F
u
(3.36)
in which c
u
is the undrained shear strength, and that
= cot h ' W
2
2
1
(3.8)

Substituting Eqs. 3.36 and 3.8 into Eq. 3.35 leads to
=
cos Q cos h '

2
1
sin
h c
2 u
(3.37)
which gives

=

==
2 sin
h c 2
h '
2
1
cos sin
h c
h '
2
1
Q
u 2 u 2
(3.38)

We note that, in Eq. 3.38, only one term is dependent upon , and the
minimum value of this term is reached when sin 2 has a maximum value of 1, i.e.
when = 45. At this point,
h c 2 h '
2
1
Q
u
2
= (3.39)
so that

u ha
c 2 h '
dh
dQ
'
h
Q
= = =
(3.40)
This is the same answer as that given by Rankines earth pressure theory.
The above computations did not take the tension crack into account. If this is
done as shown in Figure 3.16, then the weight of the sub-wedge of soil behind the
crack can be discounted, thereby reducing W to
= cot h '
2
1
cot h '
2
1
W
2
c
2
(3.41)
1-40

At the same time, F is also reduced to
( )
c
u
h h
sin
c
F
= (3.42)
which gives

( )
( )
=
2 sin
h h c 2
h h '
2
1
Q
c u 2
c
2
(3.43)
Thus, for maximum Q, remains unchanged at 45, at which

( ) ( )
c u
2
c
2
h h c 2 h h '
2
1
Q =
(3.44)
and
a
remains unchanged.

Figure 3.16
1-41
3.9 Culmanns Graphical Method of Solution

Culmanns method of solution is essentially a clever graphical implementation
of the Coulombs wedge calculation, which allows several trial surfaces to be tried
within a reasonable time. Figure 3.17 shows a trial wedge and the force triangle
below. We note that, if the force triangle is now rotated so that the reaction R is
aligned along the trial slip plane, the self-weight vector W will be inclined at an angle
of to the horizontal. In other words, by alignment the reactions R along their
respective trial slip surfaces, the vector W for all the trial cases can be collapsed into
a single line inclined at angle to the horizontal. Furthermore, the angle between
the wall reaction Q and the self-weight W is 180 , which is independent of the
inclination of the trial surface . Thus, all the wall reactions will also be aligned along
the same direction. Thus, by appropriately rotating the force triangle, the graphical
solution can be greatly speeded up.
The implementation of Culmanns method of solution is as follows:
Figure 3.17
1-42

1. Draw the retaining wall, backfill etc.. to a convenient scale (Fig. 3.18).
2. From point A at the heel of the wall, project line AC at an angle of inclination of
to the horizontal. This will be the line along which all the self-weight vectors W will
be aligned.
3. From point A, project line AD at an angle of 180 to line AC. All the wall
reaction vectors Q will be aligned parallel to this line.
4. For each trial wedge, compute the self-weight W1, W2 etc.., and scale off these
weights on line AC using a convenient scale for the rotated force triangle.
5. Through each end point w1, w2 etc.. corresponding to each self-weight vector,
draw lines parallel to AD so as to intersect their corresponding trial slip plane.
6. Draw a smooth curve through the point of intersection.
7. Draw a line that is tangential to the Culmanns line and parallel to AC. At this
point, the offset between the Culmanns line and AC is the maximum, thereby
giving the maximum wall reaction.
Figure 3.18
1-43
8. Draw a line through the tangent point that is parallel to AD to intersect the line
AC. The length of this line gives the maximum wall reaction corresponding to the
critical slip plane.

Because of the efficiency of Culmanns method, it can applied to a fairly wide range
of problems, including irregular backfill surface. Figure 3.19 shows an application of
Culmanns method to a cantilever wall.

Figure 3.19
1-44
4 SOME FACTORS AFFECTING EARTH PRESSURES.
In this section, we discuss some of the factors which affect the earth (and
water) pressure on the retaining wall. The factors which will be discussed are
1. Wall friction,
2. Surcharge loading,
3. Pore water pressure, and
4. Compaction of soil behind the wall.

4.1 Wall Friction
Real retaining walls are often not smooth. If you revisit Figures 3.9 and 3.10
(for rough walls), you would appreciate that the active wedge moves down relative to
the wall (Figure 3.9) whereas the passive wedge moves up (Figure 3.10). The effect
of wall friction is to alter the potential slip surface into curves.
Since wall friction has an important effect on soil pressures, they should be
accounted for in design. In a previous section, we have seen that the classical
Rankine theory cannot take account of wall friction, so that K
a
is over-estimated and
K
p
is under-estimated. In a previous section, we have already seen that Rankines
earth pressure formulae can be extended to cover sloping ground and wall friction
angle by modifying the active earth pressure coefficient K
a
using a Coulomb wedge
analysis (see section 3.6 and Figure 3.9, repeated here).

Figure 3.9
1-45
This leads to the following relationships for K
a
:
a
= K
a

v
= K
a
h (3.24)

2
h '
K Q
2
a

= (3.25)
in which

( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
2
a
sin
' sin ' sin
sin
' - sin sec c
K
+
+
+ +

= (3.26)
The horizontal component Q
h
of Q is given by

2
h '
K Q
2
ah h

= (3.27)
in which
K
ah
= K
a
sin ( + ) (3.28)
Rankines earth pressure formulae can be similarly extended to include wall
adhesion c
w
by modifying the earth pressure coefficient by an appropriate wedge
analysis. Consider a situation with a cohesive soil with shear strength parameters c
and , wall friction and wall adhesion c
w
. As shown on Figure 4.1, the directions of
the forces are known, as are the magnitudes of W, C
w
(= c
w
x EB) and C (= c x BC).
Thus, the value of P can be determined from the force diagram for the trial failure
plane. Again, a number of trial failure planes can be analysed to obtain the
maximum value of P.

Figure 4.1

1-46
For the special case of a vertical wall with horizontal soil surface and undrained
condition (i.e.
u
= 0), the maximum value of the wall reaction P
a
is given by

( ) ( )

+ =
u
w
o u
2
o
2
a
c
c
1 z H c 2 z H
2
1
P
(4.1)
We can therefore modify the cohesion contribution by a coefficient Kac, such that

+ =
u
w
ac
c
c
1 2 K
(4.2)
For the fully drained condition with a c- soil, K
ac
is approximately given by

+ =
u
w
a ac
c
c
1 K 2 K
(4.3)
Thus, a convenient general way to express the active pressure at depth z is

ha
= K
a
z K
ac
c (4.4)
K
a
may be estimated from Eq. 3.26 by setting = 0 and = 90; this leads to

( )
2
a
' sin ' sin cos
' cos
K
+ +

=
(4.5)
The depth of the tension crack z
o
is then given by

a
u
w
a
ac
o
K
c
c
1
'
' c 2
' K
' c K
z

=
(4.6)
Note that all these relationships only hold for a vertical back wall and horizontal soil
surface (i.e. = 90 and = 0).
An equivalent set of relationships exist for passive failure modes, i.e.

hp
= K
p
z + K
pc
c (4.7)
in which

( )
2
p
' sin ' sin cos
' cos
K
+

=
(4.8)
1-47
which is obtained by setting = 90 and = 0 in Eq. 3.31; and K
pc
is given by

+ =
u
w
p pc
c
c
1 K 2 K
(4.9)
However, it should be noted that the inclusion wall friction often changes the
critical failure planes to curved surfaces which are different from Coulombs
assumption of plane surfaces. For this reason, the results may be unreliable
especially for the passive mode wherein the curved surfaces have very different
shapes from the assumed plane surfaces. The effect of this is often a slight under-
estimation of K
a
but a significant over-estimation of K
p
. Note that, in both instances,
Coulombs computation would err on the unsafe side.
A much better match to experimental results is often obtained by using
Caquot and Kerisels (1948) design charts, a selection of which were earlier
presented on Figures 3.11 to 3.14. Figure 4.4 shows the Caquot and Kerisels
passive earth pressure coefficients for an inclined backfill of angle , and various
values of wall friction . The value of the wall friction angle is often assumed to be
between /3 or 2/3.

Figure 4.4 Caquot and Kerisels Charts for Passive Earth Pressure Coefficients
for an Inclined Backfill with Wall Friction
1-48

(c) =
for an Inclined Backfill with Wall Friction (continued)
1-49

for an Inclined Backfill with Wall Friction (continued)
1-50
Suggested values of angles of friction for dissimilar materials have been suggested
by the California Trenching and Shoring Manual (see Table 4.1)

Table 4.1 Values of Wall Friction Angles and Adhesion
1-51
4.2 Surcharge Loading

Surcharge loads on the retained soil, or on the surface of the excavation,
influence both the magnitude and distribution of active or passive pressures. The
effects of uniform surcharges of intensity q (Figure 4.5) can be easily computed
using the earth pressure theories developed earlier, that is
ha
= K
a
q (4.10)
and
hp
= K
p
q (4.11)

The effects of localized point and line surcharges are less well-established
since the soil is only nominally failing. One method is to use the formulae and charts
presented in Figure 4.6, which is recommended by NAVFAC (1971) and is based on
Terzaghis work on anchored bulkhead. These formulae are based on the
assumption of a rigid unyielding wall and gives values which are roughly twice that
from elastic equations. Since the assumption of a rigid, unyielding wall is
conservative, its applicability to specific situations should be assessed carefully.

Figure 4.5
1-52

Figure 4.6
1-53
4.3 Compaction-induced Earth Pressures
Compaction of backfill behind the retaining wall will often increase the earth
pressure beyond that represented by the active or passive conditions. As shown in
Figure 4.7, this increase is normally limited to soil above a certain depth. Below that,
the effect of compaction is not felt. Other empirical earth pressure diagrams for
compaction earth pressure are also available, but most of them are characterized by
a similar trend, i.e. a linearly increasing portion with depth followed by a zone of
constant earth pressure.

There is a question on whether compaction stresses need to be applied. This
depends upon what the earth pressure is used for. For the assessment of stability of
gravity retaining structure, it is often unnecessary to consider compaction stresses
since a higher earth pressure will cause the gravity retaining structure to move
forward (slightly) and, in so doing, relieve the stresses. However, they are necessary
for the assessment of structural integrity of the retaining structure e.g. bridge
abutments.
Figure 4.7
1-54
4.4 Pore Water Pressure
The theories of earth pressure developed earlier can be applied to total and
effective stress analysis. In total stress analysis of saturated soils, the shear strength
parameter which is commonly used is the undrained shear strength c
u
(or s
u
), with
u

= 0. In such cases, the pore pressure need not be additionally accounted for.
However, in excavation situations, the long-term stability of the structure is often
more critical than the short-term stability. This can be easily illustrated by a simple
stress path analysis. Very often, we want to express or study how the stress
changes over the course of the event in question. This can be done by plotting stress
paths, which are plots of one stress component or parameter against another. A
very simple way of visualising stress path is to consider the changes to a Mohr-Circle
in the course of a typical triaxial test as shown in Figure 4.8 below:

At the start of the test,
1
=
3
and the Mohr-circle is a point on the -axis. As
the test progresses,
1
increases while
3
remains constant; thus the Mohr circle
moves to the right as shown. From the start to the end of the test, the sample
progresses through an infinite number of states, each of which can be represented
by a Mohr-Circle. If we are going to sketch all these circles, the stress space will be
so congested that the trend cannot be detected. One way to solve this problem is to
just plot the path traced out by the topmost point of the circles as they change. This
Figure 4.8
1-55
path can be considered as a stress path (see Figure 4.8 above). In a triaxial test,
1

=
v
and
3
=
h
; thus the co-ordinates of the topmost point of a Mohr-circle can be
expressed as follows:
x-coordinate s = (
1
+
3
)/2 = (
v
+
h
)/2 (4.12)
y-coordinate t = (
1

3
)/2 = (
v

h
)/2 (4.13)

The co-ordinates (s,t) can therefore be regarded as stress path parameters. [In fact,
their use was first suggested by MIT researchers Lambe, Whitman, Ladd et al., and
thus they are commonly known as the MIT stress path parameters]. The effective
stress path equivalences of these two parameters can also be defined similarly i.e.
x-coordinate s = (
1
+
3
)/2 = (
v
+
h
)/2 (4.14)
y-coordinate t = (
1

3
)/2 = (
v

h
)/2 (4.15)

The relation between (s,t) and (s,t) can be easily ascertain as follows :
s = (
v
+
h
)/2 = (
v
+
h
2u)/2 = (
v
+
h
)/2 u = s u (4.16)
t = (
v

h
)/2 = (
v
u
h
+ u)/2 = (
v

h
)/2 = t (4.17)

The increment in s, s and t can be similarly defined as
s = (
v
+
h
)/2 (4.18)
s = (
v
+
h
)/2 (4.19)
t = t = (
v

h
)/2 (4.20)

We now want to superimpose the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion into the stress path
plot. For a cohesionless soil, i.e. c = 0, this is easily achieved since we know that, in
the active state,
' sin 1
' sin 1
v
h
+

=
(4.21)

Combining Eqs. 4.12 & 4.13 leads to

' sin
1
1
s
t
v
h
v
h
h v
h v
=
=
+

=
(4.22)
in view of Eq. 4.14.
1-56
Similarly, for the passive case,

' sin 1
' sin 1
v
h

+
=
(4.23)

This leads to
t/s = sin (4.24)

Hence, the slope of the failure stress path line, , is related to the slope of the Mohr
Coulomb line (friction angle), , by

tan = sin (4.25)

Graphically, this is illustrated in Figure 4.9

With a cohesive soil, failure occurs when
t = (
v

h
)/2 = c
u
in compressive failure (4.26)
t = (
v

h
)/2 = c
u
in extension failure (4.27)

t
s
t/s =
Figure 4.9
1-57
Thus, in t-s stress space the failure envelope and its complement (in extension
failure) are two horizontal straight lines with t-intercepts of c
u
and c
u
, respectively.

With a c- soil, the failure envelope can be similarly derived. As shown in Figure
4.10, the abscissa of the centre of the Mohr Circle is s while the radius of the circle is
t, thus
t = s sin + c cos (4.28)
and the failure envelopes are also straight lines in t-s space. In summary, the failure
envelopes in - (Figure 4.10) and t-s stress space (Figure 4.11) are very similar in
shape.

Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
1-58
Consider now a situation in which a soil with K
0
= 1 is excavated on one side as
illustrated in Figure 4.12. In this situation,
v
is likely to remain nearly constant
whereas
h
decrease; in other words

v
= 0 and
h
< 0 (4.29)

At the initial state,
h
=
v
and
h
=
v
, so that
s
o
=
v
, s
o
=
v
and t
o
= 0
so that the initial stress states can be represented by points on the s-axis.
s =
h
<0 (4.30)
t =-
h
>0 (4.31)
t/s =1 (4.32)

We can now plot the total (s, t) stress path as shown in Figure 4.13.

Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13
1-59
For the effective stress path, s cannot change in the short term if the soil has a low
permeability and cannot easily drain, so that
s = 0 (4.33)

In the long term, u = 0 so that s = s.
As shown in Figure 4.13, the total stress path heads towards the t-axis
indicating an immediate decrease in s but the effective stress path moves vertically,
indicating no immediate decrease in s.
In other words, there is no decrease in the effective stress and therefore the
strength of the soil. In the long term, the effective stress path moves towards the
total stress path as pore pressure equilibrates, thereby leading to a decrease in
effective stress and strength in the long term. Thus, the critical scenario for most
excavation retaining structure is the long-term.

CE5108 Part 1 - Introduction and Earth Pressure Theories

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

CE5108 Part 1 - Introduction and Earth Pressure Theories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CE5108 Earth Retaining Structures

Idealized elastic- perfectly

Idealized elastic- perfectly

cos Q cos h '

You might also like