The 12th International Conference of

International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)

1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

Effect of Arching on Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient.

Rupa Sunil Dalvi

Department of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Division, PIET’s College of Engineering, Pune – 411005,
Maharashtra, India.

Pise P.J.
Department of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Division, PIET’s College of Engineering, Pune – 411005,
Maharashtra, India. (Former Professor, IIT Kharagpur )

Keywords: Arching, Passive earth pressure, Sandy soil, Wall friction, Retaining Wall

ABSTRACT : Analysis has been proposed by Paik & Salgado (2003) for the non linear distribution of active earth
pressure on a translating retaining wall considering arching effect. In the present paper, formulation is proposed for
calculating passive earth pressure on a rigid retaining wall undergoing horizontal translation based on his approach
(Paik & Salgado, 2003). It takes into account arching effect in the backfill. The proposed formulation is compared
with Coulomb’s results. The comparison between proposed and Coulomb’s values shows that the proposed equation
predict values of earth pressure much less than those of Coulomb’s values. In order to facilitate calculation of passive
earth pressures, using the proposed equation, a modified passive pressure coefficient is provided. It is a function of
soil friction angle φ and soil - wall friction angle, δ

1 Introduction
Arching is universal phenomena that involves transfer of pressure from the yielding part of soil to the adjoining part.
The soil is said to be arch over the yielding part of support. The state of stress within the zone of arching depends
upon the amount of yield. As yielding increases, arching effect is gradually reduced. However ,the effect of arching is
permanent in character as the shear strength property of soil .Arching effect is less if shear strength is less. Though
arching phenomenon occurs in number of geotechnical engineering problems, it has not received much attention.
Several researchers have attempted to estimate the active earth pressures exerted against rigid retaining walls
considering arching effect in the retained soil mass. Janssen (1895) set up the differential equation for pressures in
the silos by considering force equilibrium for any differential flat element in the silo. Based on Janssen’s arching
theory Spranglar & Handy (1984) and Wang (2000)suggested equations to estimate the non linear distribution of
active pressure on retaining walls. Handy (1985) and Harrop- Williams (1989) also proposed lateral active earth
pressure coefficients Kaw and equation for calculating non-linear active earth pressures. Dalvi et.al.(2005,2007) have
used approach similar to that of Handy and derived coefficient of passive earth pressure (Kpw).

Estimation of passive earth pressure acting on a rigid retaining wall is very important in the design of many
geotechnical engineering structures, particularly retaining walls. Civil engineers have traditionally calculated the
passive earth pressure against rigid wall using either Coulomb’s or Rankine’s formulation. Both assume that the
distribution of the passive earth pressure exerted against the wall is triangular. However, many experimental results
Naran et.al.(1969) and Fang & Ishibashi (1986) shows that the distribution of passive earth pressure on the face of
the rough wall depends on the wall movement (rotation about top, rotation about bottom, and horizontal
translation)and is non-linear. This is different from the assumption made by both Coulomb and Rankine.

1.1 Scope of Study

In this study the effect of arching on passive earth pressure in the non-cohesive backfill is considered. The backfill is
assumed to rise upward in a circular arc form due to arching. The vertical and lateral stress acting at arbitrary point
along a differential flat element in backfill is calculated. These stresses are the function of internal friction angle φ and
soil to wall interface friction angle δ. The ratio of lateral to vertical stress is denoted by Kpwn. A modified passive earth

236
pressure coefficient Kpwn considering arching effect has been derived.

2 Proposed Method of Analysis

The approach is similar to that of Paik and Salgado(2003) for active earth pressure and Dalvi.et.al. (2005,2007) for
passive earth pressure.

Following assumptions have been made in the analysis.

1. The soil is cohesionless, semi infinite, homogenous, isotropic and backfill is horizontal.
2. The problem is a plane strain problem i.e. two- dimensional.
3. The soil mass is bounded between two parallel, un-yielding rough vertical walls. The walls are assumed to
translate towards the soil mass creating passive case.
4. The sliding surfaces are vertical and pass through the outer edge of yielding wall.
5. The soil mass moves up in curved path taken as arc of circle.
6. Full shear strength s is mobilized on these vertical surface and it is expressed by Coulomb’s empirical law s
= c + σ tanφ.
7. The major and minor principal stresses have been considered to be constant along the length of the arc.
8. The ratio of horizontal to vertical pressure σh to σv is considered constant K = σh/σv

Let us assume that two parallel, rigid vertical walls retain granular soil as shown in Fig.1. When the translation of wall
takes place towards the soil mass, passive state is created and the soil moves in upward direction. The frictional
resistance at walls causes changes in the direction of principal stresses acting on the differential element. The minor
principal stresses on the differential flat element are applied normal to the upward arc, which is denoted by dotted
lines. While the direction of major principal stresses is tangential to the direction of upward arc becoming horizontal at
the centre of the element.
Rigid retaining wall with rough face moves towards the soil horizontally. The direction of element in Fig.2 changed
due to frictional resistance of a wall. The major principal stresses σ 1 on the differential flat element behind the wall
act along the convex arc as shown in Fig.2 Where minor principal stresses, σ3 are perpendicular to convex arc. The
shape of convex arc is assumed in the form of arc of a circle. Considering that the slip lines of soil make angle of +
(45 -φ /2) with the horizontal and the angle between the slip plane and major principal stress must be (45 -φ /2).

Figure 1. Trajectory of major principal stresses.

The width of the differential flat element at a depth z can be expressed as follows
Bz = Rcosθ (1)

where R is radius of major principal stress trajectory and θ is the angle of major principal plane with respect to the

237
horizontal at the wall.

The passive lateral stress on the wall σphw can be calculated by considering the horizontal force equilibrium in the
triangular element at the left edge of the convex arc as shown in Fig. 2

The lateral stress on the wall

2 2
σ phw = σ1 sin θ + σ3 cos θ (2)

Similarly the lateral stress at point D of the convex arch which was originally located at point B is

σ phw = σ1 sin2 Ψ+ σ3 cos2 Ψ (3)

where Ψ is the angle between tangent to the arch at D and vertical . Dividing equation 3 by σ3 and
put σ1/ σ3 = 1/N for the soil in the passive condition.
2 2
σphw / σ3 = (1/ N )sin Ψ+ cos Ψ (4)

Where ,N is the ratio of minor to major principal stresses, σ3 / σ1 = tan2 (45-φ/2)

As σ1 – σPhw = σv – σ3
Substitution for σphw gives

σv / σ3 = sin2 Ψ+ 1/N cos2 Ψ (5)

Therefore the vertical and lateral stresses at arbitrary points along a differential flat element can be obtained by
substitution of Ψ= θ in equation 4 and 5.

2.1 Determination of θ
When wall friction angle δ ≤ θ. The rotational angle θ of the principal stress for the wall can be obtained using Mohr’s
circle as shown in Figure 3. from the two triangles OAB and ABC , we can write

τw = σphw tanδ = (σ1 – σphw) tan θw (6)

σphw / σ1
tan θw = ---------------- tanδ (7)
1- σphw / σ1

Dividing equation (2) by σ1

2 2
σphw / σ1 = sin θ + N cos θ (8)

substitute equation (8) in equation (7) gives second order equation

238
 Figure 2. Stresses on differential flat element In backfill

tan2 θw +N
tan θw =------------------- tanδ

(1- N)

Solving this equation for θ the expression for θ is,

(1-N)+ [ √(1-N)2-4N tanδ2 ]

-1
θ = tan -------------------------------------- (9)
2 tan δ

From the two values of θ given by equation (9), the maximum value corresponds to the condition on a retaining wall.

239
 Figure 3(a) Mohr circle for stress at wall

Figure 3 (b) Detail at C

2.1.1 Passive Lateral Stress Ratio

Dalvi et .al( 2007) has determined the lateral stress ratio Kpw at the wall using the average vertical stress across a
given differential flat element. They(2007) have given the following equation for Kpw, for the values of φ in the range
of 100 to400 and for δ = φ condition.

240
 σphw
Kpw = --------- = 0.862(cos2 θ + 1/Nsin2 θ) (10)

σv

In above equation σphw is passive lateral stress ratio at the wall and σv is average vertical stress across the soil
element. In Equation (10) if we put φ = 0 which gives Kpw = 0.862 Although, the passive stress ratio for φ = 0 must be
equal to 1. Therefore there is an error in values of Kpw calculated using equation (10). This error decreases with
increasing φ and δ.

We shall now derive a new relationship for Kpw that reflects the variation of σv with φ and δ. The differential vertical
force dV on the shaded element at pint B in Fig.2 can be expressed as

dV =dAσv = σ3 ( 1/N cos2 Ψ + sin2 Ψ) (RdΨ sinΨ)) (11)

In which dA is the width of the shaded element at point B. The average vertical stress σv across the differential flat
element shown in Fig. 2 can be obtained by dividing the vertical force V acting on the differential element by width of
the element , Bz = Rcos θ

V 1 π/2
σv = --- = ---- ∫ dV
Bz Bz θ

π/2
2 2
σv = ∫ σ3 (sin Ψ + 1/N cos Ψ) (RdΨ sinΨ)
θ
Integration of this equation yields

N -1
σv = σ3 1 - ----- cos2 θ (12)
3N

Dividing equation (2) by Eq.(12) we get a new ratio Kpwn of the passive lateral stress at the wall to the average vertical
stress over the differential flat element.

σphw σ1 sin2 θ + σ3 cos2 θ

Kpwn = --------- = ------------------------------- -- (13)
σv σ3 ( 1- [(N-1)/3N ] cos2 θ

3(sin2 θ +Ncos2 θ)
Kpwn = ---------------------------- (14)
3N - (N-1) cos2 θ

The above equation is for modified passive pressure coefficient. This is equal to 1 for φ = 0 and matches the values of
Rankine’s passive stress ratio for δ = 0.

2.1.2 Illustrative Example

To illustrate effect of arching in passive case and Coulomb’s pressure an example for the soil wall data given below
has been solved.
Wall height 2 m , φ =32and δ= 0.2φand δ= 0.6φand γ = 18 KN/m3 The results have been compared in Fig.4 for
pressure distribution considering arching effect as well as Coulomb’s results. In both cases the earth pressure on the
wall increases linearly with height.
At any depth Coulomb’s pressure is more than that predicted by considering arching effects. The difference

241
depends on δ -values. It increases with increase in δ -values

For δ=0.2φ, the pressure predicted by present method is 0.77 times Coulomb’s lateral pressure at base. However, for
δ=0.6φ, it is 0.34 times Coulomb’s lateral pressure at base.
For δ=0.2φ the pressure predicted by Dalvi et al(2007) is 0..68 times Coulomb’s lateral pressure at base. However,
for δ=0.6φ, it is 0.35 times Coulomb’s pressure at base

Lateral earth pressure(kN/m2)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

0.2

Coulomb’s pressure for delta=0.6phi

0.4
Coulomb’s pressure for delta=0.2phi
0.6
Present method for delta=0.2phi
0.8 Dalvi et.al.(2007) for delta=0.2phi
Depth (m)

1 Present method for delta=0.6phi

Dalvi et.al.(2007) for delta=0.65phi
1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 4. Lateral earth pressure distribution with depth and comparison with coulomb theory.

3 Conclusion
The estimation of passive earth pressure acting on retaining wall is very important in geotechnical design. Soil
arching in passive state is shown by trajectory of major principal stress considering arc of a circle. Due to rotation of
principal stresses at the rough wall ,the lateral and vertical stresses are modified. The ratio of lateral to average
vertical stress, Kpwn, a modified passive lateral stress ratio has been derived. Lateral earth pressure on the retaining
wall due to arching is less than the pressure predicted by Coulomb’s analysis.

3.1.1 Limitations
For simplicity the failure plane is assumed to be the planer. In practice the failure plane may be a curved one. The
failure surface may not be a plane and the deformations assumed in arc of a circle during arching may not be
possible in actual situation. These are the limitations of the present study.

242
4 References
Dalvi,R.S.,Bhosale,S.S.,and Pise,P.J. 2005. “Analysis for passive earth pressure-Catenary arch in soil.” Indian Geotechnical
Journal, 35, No 4, 388-400

Dalvi,R.S.,Bhosale,S.S.,and Pise,P.J. 2007. “Analysis of arching in soil.” Communicated to International Journal of Geo-mechanics,
ASCE, under re-review

Fang, Y. and Ishibhishi,I. (1986). ″Static earth pressure with various wall movements”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE,
112, No3, 313-333.

Handy, R. L.1985 . ″The arch in soil arching”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, III, No3, 302-317.

Harrop-Williams, K.1989. ″Geostatic wall pressures”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, 115(9), 1321-1325.

Jagdish Narian,Swami Saran and P. Nandkumaran. (1969).”Model study of passive pressure in sand”. Journal of soil mechanics
and foundation engineering. ASCE, 95 (4), 969-983.

Janssen, h.a.1895. “ versche uber Getreidedruck in silozellen”, Z.Ver.dut. Ingr, 39, 1895 pp1045(Partial English translation in
proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, London,England 1896, pp 553

Paik, K.H. and Salgado, R. 2003. ″Estimation of active earth pressure against rigid retaining wall considering arching effects”.
Geotechnique, 53,No7,pp643-653.

Quinlan, J.F.1987. ″Discussion of arch in soil arching”. By R.L.Handy. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Div. ASCE 113(3), 272-
274.

Spanglar,M.G. and Handy,R.L.1982. ″Soil Engineering”,4th Ed.Harper and Row,New york.

Wang, Y.Z. (2000). “Distribution of earth pressure on a retaining wall.” Geotechnique, 50, No.1, pp 83-88.

243