Active Pressure On Gravity Walls Supporting Purely Frictional Soils

78
Active pressure on gravity walls supporting purely

frictional soils
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 06/30/13
For personal use only.
D. Loukidis and R. Salgado
Abstract: The active earth pressure used in the design of gravity walls is calculated based on the internal friction angle of
the retained soil or backfill. However, the friction angle of a soil changes during the deformation process. For drained loading, the mobilized friction angle varies between the peak and critical-state friction angles, depending on the level of shear
strain in the retained soil. Consequently, there is not a single value of friction angle for the retained soil mass, and the active
earth pressure coefficient changes as the wall moves away from the backfill and plastic shear strains in the backfill increase.
In this paper, the finite element method is used to study the evolution of the active earth pressure behind a gravity retaining
wall, as well as the shear patterns developing in the backfill and foundation soil. The analyses relied on use of a two-surface
plasticity constitutive model for sands, which is based on critical-state soil mechanics.
Key words: finite elements, plasticity, retaining walls, sands.
Rsum : La pression active des terres utilise dans la conception des murs gravitaires est calcule partir de langle de
friction interne du sol ou du remblai retenu. Cependant, langle de friction dun sol change durant le processus de dformation. Dans le cas dun chargement drain, langle de friction mobilis varie entre langle de friction au pic et celui ltat
critique, dpendant du niveau de dformation en cisaillement dans le sol retenu. En consquence, il ny a pas de valeur
unique dangle de friction pour une masse de sol retenue, et le coefficient de pression active des terres varie mesure que
le mur se spare du remblai et que les dformations plastiques en cisaillement augmentent dans le remblai. Dans cet article,
la mthode par lments finis est utilise pour tudier lvolution de la pression active des terres derrire un mur de soutnement gravitaire, ainsi que les patrons de cisaillement qui se dveloppent dans le remblai et dans le sol de fondation. Les analyses sont ralises laide dun modle constitutif de plasticit deux surfaces pour des sables, qui est bas sur la
mcanique de ltat critique des sols.
Motscls : lments finis, plasticit, murs de soutnement, sables.
[Traduit par la Rdaction]
Introduction
The active earth pressure acting on the back of a retaining
wall controls its design. The active earth pressure is expressed as the product of the vertical effective stress s v0 in
the retained soil mass or backfill1 and the active earth pressure coefficient KA. The earliest and simplest methods for the
calculation of the active earth pressure for purely frictional
backfills are those based on the Coulomb and Rankine theories. For a backfill with horizontal surface, the Rankine solution is mathematically exact for a vertical and smooth wall
backface. Coulombs solution assumes a planar slip surface
and is equivalent to an upper bound solution. For a horizontal backfill and a vertical wall backface, Coulombs solution
yields
1
KA
cos 2 f
p 2
cosdf1 sin f d sinf=cosdg
Caquot and Kerisel (1948) produced solutions in tabulated

form, assuming slip surfaces with logarithmic spiral shape.
More recently, Paik and Salgado (2003) estimated the active
earth pressure behind rigid walls by improving the formulation of Handy (1985), which considers soil arching concepts.
Limit analysis has also been used to study the active earth
pressure problem. Rigorous upper bound values for KA established by Chen (1975) and Soubra and Macuh (2002) using
limit analysis are in very close agreement with the values of Caquot and Kerisel (1948). Sokolovski (1965) solved the problem
of active and passive earth pressure using the method of characteristics. More recently, Lancellotta (2002) provided a rigorous
lower-bound solution for active pressures in closed form:

cosd
2
KA
cosd
1 sinf
p
sin 2 f sin 2 d edarcsin sind=sinf tanf
Received 21 March 2011. Accepted 26 September 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 20 December 2011.
D. Loukidis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus.
R. Salgado. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1284, USA.
Corresponding author: D. Loukidis (e-mail: loukidis@ucy.ac.cy).
1The paper is not restricted to backfilled walls. To call attention to applicability of the discussion to walls supporting natural ground as
well as completely backfilled walls, the terms retained soil mass and backfill are used interchangeably throughout.
Can. Geotech. J. 49: 7897 (2012)
doi:10.1139/T11-087
Published by NRC Research Press
Loukidis and Salgado
The upper bound values for KA by Coulombs solution,

Chen (1975), and Soubra and Macuh (2002) are very close
to the corresponding lower bound values using Lancellottas
equation (eq. [2]); the differences do not exceed 7%. The KA
values by Sokolovski (1965) lie between the narrow band
defined by these lower and upper bounds.
Lower and upper bounds produced by limit analysis are
valid for perfectly plastic soils following an associated flow
rule (dilatancy angle j equal to the friction angle f). In the
case of materials commonly used for backfills (sands and
gravels), j is significantly lower than f. In fact, the complexity of soil behavior goes beyond the difference between j
and f, as discussed in detail later, but this does not appear
to have been studied in connection with the analysis of retaining walls.
Three stability checks are traditionally done in wall design,
namely bearing capacity failure, sliding, and toppling. In essence, these checks deal with assuring vertical, horizontal,
and moment equilibrium of the wall. While these separate
checks are easy for engineers to understand and apply, the
horizontal and moment resistances that the foundation soil
(including any embedment in front of the wall) can provide
to the wall are in fact coupled with the vertical bearing capacity. For example, toppling failure occurs in theory when
the foundation load eccentricity e becomes greater than onehalf the foundation width B. Unless the wall base is resting
on rock or very stiff soil, the wall foundation will actually
fail due to the excessively high contact pressure at the wall
base caused by large load eccentricity before toppling. In addition, wall sliding on its base is more likely to have the form
of a shallow one-sided bearing capacity mechanism with a
large horizontal displacement component (Loukidis et al.
2008) rather than pure sliding along the basesoil interface.
This paper aims to investigate the gravity wallsoil interaction and the development of these different failure scenarios
by modeling the soil mechanical behavior in a realistic way
in a series of finite element (FE) analyses. This allows the
development of displacement and stress fields within the soil
that are not constrained by the simplifying assumptions of
perfect plasticity and associativity. These results are useful in
informing design decisions, the most important of which
being how to calculate the active pressures on the backface
of the wall. The FE analyses, which take into account nonassociativity, stress dependence of sand strength and dilatancy,
stress-induced anisotropy, fabric-induced anisotropy, and progressive failure, focus on the evolution of KA with wall displacement u. This permits establishing the soil friction angle
value that is suitable for the estimation of the design KA
value, which is the one that corresponds to the wall displacement required to bring the wall to an ultimate limit state
(ULS).
Problem statement
Dependence of active earth pressure on wall movement
In methods of analysis currently used in design practice,
the main input for the calculation of KA for purely frictional
backfills is the internal friction angle f of the soil. These
methods, which include the Rankine, Coulomb, and Lancellotta methods discussed earlier, assume that f is constant, i.e.,
its value is the same at all points inside the backfill and
79
does not change as the wall moves. This would be valid

for a very loose backfill, where all soil elements reach failure directly at critical state (CS), with f equal to the CS
friction angle fc . However, most practical cases involve
backfills consisting of medium dense and dense sands and
gravels, which are strain-softening materials when sheared
under drained conditions, meaning that the mobilized friction angle of an element of any of these soils will first
reach a peak value fp and then decrease towards fc . Certain regions inside the backfill mass will fail and start to
soften early in the loading process. The shear strain level
developed in these regions may be large enough for the
friction angle to drop to its CS value fc before the wall
reaches a ULS, while f is close to fp in other regions.
This phenomenon is commonly referred to as progressive
failure. In addition, fp depends strongly on the level of
mean effective stress p, which varies from point to point
inside the backfill and evolves continuously during wall
movement. It should also be noted that, given that retaining
walls have a much larger length than width, the deformation
of the backfill and foundation soil happens under planestrain conditions (so the CS friction angle is the plane-strain
CS friction angle (Loukidis and Salgado 2009)). Given that
the friction angle varies from point to point in the backfill,
the representative f value to be used in KA calculation
methods assuming perfect plasticity and associated flow is
unknown; it cannot be determined precisely based on intuition or judgment.
Let us idealize the gravity wall initial condition as one in
which there has been no horizontal movement; as a result,
the coefficient of lateral earth pressure K is equal to its atrest value (K0). If we allow the wall to move away from the
backfill, K first decreases to a minimum value KA, min (point
M in Fig. 1) and then increases to an ultimate (residual)
value KA, cr (point C in Fig. 1). Between points M and C, the
supported soil is in an active state. Point M is associated with
an active state for which the average mobilized f in the supported soil is closer to fp than fc . Point C is associated with
full mobilization of CS (f fc ) along all failure surfaces
(shear bands) formed in the retained soil.
To design a wall, we are interested in the value of KA at a
limit state (KA, LS), which is not necessarily equal to either
KA, cr or KA, min. At present, there are two approaches to determine KA (Salgado 2008), one based on calculations using an
estimate of fp and the other using an estimate of fc . The former approach, which is most common in practice, would
underpredict the active earth pressure on the wall at the limit
state, making it unconservative. On the other hand, using fc
may be overly conservative, since a well-designed wall would
not move as much as to cause more than 20% shear strain in
the shear bands developing in the backfill before the wall
reaches its limit state (Salgado 2008). The following section
examines in more detail what happens between points M and
C, and what would constitute an appropriately defined ULS
for a gravity wall.
Wall limit state (WLS)
To establish KA, LS, we need first to establish a way to
identify the ultimate WLS. We must stress that, in establishing a limit state, we are unconcerned with what the value of
80
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
Fig. 1. Evolution of coefficient of lateral earth pressure and total resisting horizontal force, Hr, and moment, Mr, and total destabilizing horizontal force, Hd, and moment, Md, with displacement of wall crest.
the factor of safety (FS) would be to account for design uncertainties and with serviceability limit states, which must be
handled separately. At early stages of wall movement away
from the backfill, the total horizontal resistance Hr and moment resistance Mr increase at high rates, since the strains in
the foundation soil are still small and the soil stiffness is
therefore large. At the same time, the driving horizontal force
Hd and moment Md either decrease, as the earth pressure coefficient decreases from K0 to KA, min, or increase at small
rates after the earth pressure coefficient bottoms and starts to
increase from KA, min to KA, cr (Fig. 1). The variations of these
quantities with wall displacement can be written mathematically as dHr > dHd and dMr > dMd. Beyond a certain point
in the process (e.g., a certain amount of wall crest displacement u), the resistance starts increasing at a lesser rate than
the driving action. This happens first for one of the two resistances (Hr or Mr), so that this stage of the loading process is
mathematically identified as the state at which either dHr <
dHd or dMr < dMd for the first time. This stationary point in
the Hd Hr (or Md Mr) versus u curve (point F in Fig. 1,
where dHr = dHd or dMr = dMd) corresponds to a stationary
state of the wall soil system. If the problem configuration
(the combination of wall dimensions, soil weight, and soil
strength) is such that FS = 1, the point F lies on the horizontal u axis, i.e., Hd = Hr (or Md = Mr). So, for the case of a
wall with FS = 1, it is obvious that the stationary point cor-
responds to the WLS, since the resistances cant increase at a

rate that matches the increase in driving actions, and thus any
further increase in the driving actions leads to wall collapse.
If the system were left to respond on its own (i.e., without
the application of artificial external forces), the system would
have reached the stationary state and remained in it. It should
be noted that the wall is marginally stable (on the verge of
failure) with respect to one driving action but may be stable
with respect to the other at the WLS.
If FS > 1, the wall is stable, meaning that equilibrium
(Hd = Hr and Md = Mr) is reached before the stationary state
or limit state is reached (Fig. 1). Artificial external forces
would need to be applied to the wallsoil system to bring it
to the limit state, which we define as identical to the stationary state first reached by the wall (i.e., if, by the addition of
external force, the Hd Hr reaches its stationary state before
Md Mr, then the limit state is defined by the horizontal
force, not moment). This is analogous to having a foundation
element (e.g., a footing or pile) supporting a vertical load Qd
less than its limit bearing capacity. To bring the foundation
element to its bearing capacity ULS, we must apply an artificial external force Qext to the foundation element until it collapses, which happens when the foundation resistance Qr
attains its maximum value QL. At this stage, both the Qr versus settlement curve and the Qext = Qr Qd versus settlement
curve reach stationary (maximum) points (since Qd is conPublished by NRC Research Press
stant). In the case of a retaining wall, the load to be supported is not constant because of the dependence of KA on
wall displacement. Therefore, the WLS can only be identified
by the stationary point of the Hr Hd (or Mr Md) versus u
curve and not of the Hr (or Mr) versus u curve. If FS < 1,
Hd Hr (or Md Mr) is always greater than zero and the
wall is unstable, meaning that artificial external forces would
need to be applied to the wall to establish equilibrium. In
other words, wall movement never manages to mobilize
enough resistance to balance driving forces. In this case, the
stationary point corresponds to the minimum value of these
external forces or, equivalently, the maximum value of Hr
Hd (or Mr Md). The WLS is therefore the state at which
the rate of increase (mobilization) of wall base resistance (in
terms of either force or moment) becomes smaller than the
rate of increase of the destabilizing actions (mainly the earth
thrust).
The goal of this paper is to study the evolution of KA with
wall displacement and establish an indication of the KA value
(and the appropriate f value for its calculation) at WLS conditions. For this purpose, we perform FE analyses of the retaining wall stability problem using a two-surface constitutive
model for sands, which is based on CS soil mechanics. The
FE analyses are performed for a rigid gravity wall with a
rough vertical backface supporting soil with level surface
and purely frictional nature. The analyses apply to the typical
case of backfilled walls but also to walls retaining natural
ground if sandy or gravelly in nature. Both the retained soil
and foundation soils are sands. The analyses do not simulate
the several complex stages involved in the construction of
gravity walls (such as backfill laying and compaction), which
would lead to different initial stress conditions, but such is
not the focus of the analyses, which aim instead at bringing
out the details of the mechanics of wall loading not addressed in the literature and the implications and insights
that they offer.
FE methodology
FE mesh
The analyses use unstructured meshes consisting of eightnoded, plane-strain quadrilateral elements with 12 quadrature
points. A typical FE mesh is shown in Fig. 2. It includes the
wall, the backfill soil, and the foundation soil. The wall has
a rectangular cross section, with width B and height H. The
thickness of the backfill soil layer is equal to H. The retaining wall is embedded a distance D into the foundation soil.
All analyses start from an ideal state of the retained soil,
reached without the wall having moved or rotated (as if the
backfill soil had been placed in one lift instantaneously).
The wall is modeled as a block of linear elastic material
with very large Youngs modulus so that it can be considered rigid.
No interface elements are placed between the soil and the
wall; i.e., wall and soil share the same nodes along the corresponding contact planes. As a consequence, slippage between
the wall and backfill occurs due to the formation inside the
soil mass of a shear band parallel to the wall backface. This
roughness condition is realistic given the rough materials
commonly used for gravity walls, such as masonry, concrete,
and cribs containing stone.
81
It is well known that analyses involving materials that

soften and follow a nonassociative flow rule suffer from the
problem of solution nonuniqueness. This means that, as the
mesh gets refined, the FE analysis results change, and convergence to a unique solution does not happen. To tackle
this problem, FE analyses should either employ a regularization approach (such as Cosserat or gradient plasticity) or use
meshes with element sizes consistent with the known shear
band thickness. The thickness of the soil elements inside the
shear bands simulating slippage between a rough structure
and granular soil is an important factor for the accurate prediction of the shear resistance acting on the structure (Loukidis and Salgado 2008). Hence, the thickness of the backfill
soil elements that are in contact with the wall backface is set
equal to 520 times the mean particle diameter of the sand
(D50). This is roughly the thickness of the shear bands that
form in sandy soils, as observed in a number of experimental
studies (e.g., Uesugi et al. 1988; Vardoulakis and Sulem
1995; Nemat-Nasser and Okada 2001). Due to restrictions in
memory allocation and analysis runtime, the element sizes in
other locations where shear bands are expected to develop (i.e.,
inside the sliding wedge and in the foundation soil) were
larger than 520D50. Element size inside the sliding wedge
forming behind the wall was of the order of 500D50. As
shown later in the paper, this choice of the element size
has only a small impact on the analysis accuracy.
Constitutive model
The constitutive model used in this study is the two-surface
plasticity model based on CS soil mechanics developed
originally by Manzari and Dafalias (1997). The model was
subsequently modified by Li and Dafalias (2000), Papadimitriou and Bouckovalas (2002), Dafalias et al. (2004), and
Loukidis and Salgado (2009). The model parameters were
determined by Loukidis and Salgado (2009) for two sands:
air-pluviated or dry-deposited Toyoura sand (Iwasaki et al.
1978; Fukushima and Tatsuoka 1984; Lam and Tatsuoka
1988; Yoshimine et al. 1998) and water-pluviated or slurrydeposited clean Ottawa sand (Carraro et al. 2003; Carraro
2004; Murthy 2006; Murthy et al. 2007). Toyoura sand is
a fine sand (D50 0.2 mm) with angular to subangular particles, while Ottawa sand is a medium-sized sand (D50
0.4 mm) with rounded to subrounded particles. The model
considers four distinct surfaces having the form of open
cones in stress space: the bounding surface, dilatancy surface, CS surface, and yield (loading) surface. Bounding and
critical surfaces represent peak and CS shear strengths, respectively. The dilatancy surface divides the stress space
into two regions: inside the dilatancy surface, the soil plastic behavior is contractive; outside it, it is dilative. The
yield (loading) surface defines a very narrow conical domain inside which the soil develops no plastic strain. The
yield surface hardens kinematically upon shearing, leading
to the development of plastic strains prior to failure.
Through this feature, the model simulates accurately the behavior of the soil at small and large strains. The constitutive
model takes into account the inherent anisotropy of sands
through the use of a fabric tensor (Dafalias et al. 2004),
and the assumption that the position of the CS line in the
void ratio (e) mean effective stress (p) space depends on
the direction of loading relative to the axis of sand deposiPublished by NRC Research Press
82
Fig. 2. Typical mesh and boundary conditions used in the FE analyses. DOF, degree of freedom.
Fig. 3. Schematic showing the forces acting on the wall, including

the reactions, on nodes C and T due to the applied displacement on
these nodes. EA, x, EA, y, horizontal and vertical components of the
active earth thrust, respectively; Fx, horizontal foundation reaction;
Fy, vertical foundation reaction.
tion. It also accounts for the dependence of the soil friction angle on the intermediate principal stress ratio b (stress-induced
anisotropy). Details of the constitutive model formulation,
the determination of its input parameters, and its use in
simulating element response in laboratory tests can be
found in Loukidis and Salgado (2009). The parameter values for the two sands considered in this study are shown
in Table A1 in the appendix along with a short summary
of their role in the model.
FE algorithms
The FE analyses were performed using the open-source
code SNAC (Abbo and Sloan 2000). The stressstrain rate
equations of the constitutive model were integrated using a
semi-implicit Euler algorithm with subincrementation and error control, details of which can be found in Loukidis (2006),
and a relative stress error tolerance of 0.01%. The FE analyses were performed using the modified NewtonRaphson
global solution scheme, with the elastic stiffness matrix as
the global stiffness matrix.
All analyses start with an initial stage in which the geostatic stress field is established in the FE mesh. The geostatic
stage includes two phases. In the first phase, gravity is applied to the mesh as a body force loading, and a uniform
pressure equal to g(H D) is applied on the free surface of
the soil in front of the wall. These loadings are applied in
one increment (i.e., instantaneously). In addition, a geostatic
stress state is prescribed at every Gauss-quadrature point in
the mesh. The kinematic hardening stress (normalized backstress) tensor of the constitutive model is initialized so that
the stress state lies at the axis of the conical yield surface
(the initial stress state is inside the elastic domain). Because
the initial vertical stress values are set to be consistent with
applied gravity loading, equilibrium is reached instantly
through the execution of a single global solution step. In the
next phase, the uniform pressure acting on the free surface of
the soil in front of the wall is removed in a small number of
solution increments. During creation of the geostatic stress
field, the wall is not allowed to move horizontally but is free
to move vertically. The geostatic stage is followed by the
main analysis stage during which the wall is allowed to
move according to the scheme described next.
Wall loading
To achieve the goals of this study, we must be able to impose large wall displacements from the initial position in
which the wall is in equilibrium with soil in an at-rest condition. In the beginning of the analysis, the wall is fully supported at two points, namely the crest (node C) and the toe
(node T), shown in Fig. 2, where the corresponding horizontal reactions are RC,0 and RT,0, respectively (Fig. 3). These are
the forces required for full equilibrium, given the tractions
exerted on the wall by the surrounding soil at rest. Equivalently, the wall is prevented to move horizontally or rotate bePublished by NRC Research Press
cause of the external application of a horizontal force Fext,0 =

RC,0 + RT,0 and a moment Mext,0 = RC,0/H. The analysis proceeds by the application of outward horizontal displacement
increments DuC and DuT (i.e., displacements pointing away
from the backfill) at nodes C and T (Fig. 3), while monitoring the values of external force Fext = RC + RT, where RC
and RT are external reactions, and external moment Mext =
RC/H. Applying static equilibrium principles, the excess of
the driving forces throughout the process of wall movement
must be balanced by artificial external forces, which exist exclusively for the purpose of performing the analysis. It can be
shown that Fext = Hd Hr and Mext = Md Mr, given that the
unbalanced forces at the end of each increment of the
NewtonRaphson solution are minimal (less than 1% of the
external forces). As the wall moves, Fext and Mext decrease
progressively. The wall is allowed to move vertically, since
no restraints are imposed on its nodes in the vertical direction. The prescribed displacements uC and uT are not constant
during the analysis and are not equal to each other. Their
magnitude varies in such a way that Fext and Mext (and consequently RC and RT) change in the same proportion. This is
achieved by setting DuT = 0 (a pure rotation step) after any
analysis increment, resulting in Mext/Mext,0 > Fext/Fext,0, and
DuT = DuC (a pure translation step) after any analysis increment, resulting in Mext/Mext,0 Fext/Fext,0. This scheme relies
on the fact that the wall rotation has a stronger effect on the
rate of increase of Mext than of Fext, while wall translation has
a stronger effect on the rate of increase of Fext than of Mext.
The increment DuC is always equal to a specified value of
the order of 106H. Hence, the analyses consist of alternating
phases of pure wall rotation and pure wall translation. Application of the loading in this manner, combined with the very
fine incrementation used in the present analyses, results in
Mext/Mext,0 Fext/Fext,0 (both ratios thus denoted by the single
variable Y) throughout the analysis. As a result, if the wall is
stable or marginally stable, Mext and Fext become equal to
zero simultaneously at which point the wall is completely unsupported by external reactions (which means that this becomes a point of equilibrium at which the wall comes to a
rest). In addition, Mext/Mext,0 and Fext/Fext,0 reach their minimum value (Ymin) simultaneously, which happens when
dMd = dMr and dHd = dHr. Therefore, referring to our previous discussion of the WLS, Ymin is reached at the WLS.
It should be noted that there is an infinite number of loading path formulations that can bring the wall to a limit state,
and the formulation presented here is just one of them. The
present wall loading formulation makes it possible to perform
displacement-controlled analyses, instead of load-controlled
analyses that drive the wall to its limit state by increasing
the soil unit weight or a surcharge pressure. Displacement
controlled analyses allow the wall to move beyond the limit
state all the way to CS (a requirement of this study) for all
possible outcomes (stable, marginally stable, and unstable
walls). In contrast, load-controlled analyses cannot proceed
past the point of limit state. This is because any increase of
the applied load past this point results in unbalanced forces
that cannot be mitigated, since they increase with each
NewtonRaphson iteration. The formulation used here offers
also simplicity, allowing clear understanding of the mechanics involved and straightforward derivation of conclusions
83
for a practical problem that is considerably complex once examined using rigorous mechanics.
In most field cases, the active state will be mobilized gradually, and the wall base will translate and rotate as the backfill is constructed before reaching full height. Moreover, the
backfills placed behind gravity walls in practice are compacted, resulting in initial stress conditions in each layer
larger than the K0 conditions assumed in this paper due to
locked-in stresses (which are difficult to simulate, requiring
three-dimensional FE analysis). These factors would generate
different stress paths in the soil mass than those produced in
our analyses. Problems involving materials that soften and
follow a nonassociative flow rule exhibit path dependence, i.e.,
the results depend on the stress paths followed at the stress
integration points of the mesh. Hence, it is expected that
the results of these analyses would be somewhat different
if the exact backfill construction process were simulated.
However, discrepancies due to wall motion during backfill
construction are believed to be small because most of the
wall displacement will occur when the backfill height is
near the wall height, since the earth thrust increases at least
quadratically with the rate of backfill height, taking also
into account that the soil friction angle would decrease due
to the increase in mean effective stress as the backfill rises.
Discrepancies due to non K0 initial conditions would exist
mostly during the early stages of the predicted response, decreasing as the active state were approached.
Results of FE simulations
Finite element analyses were performed for values of wall
width B, ranging from 1.5 to 3 m and wall height ranging
from 6 to 8 m. The sand unit weight g was set equal to
18 kN/m3. The wall unit weight was also set equal to 18 kN/m3,
which corresponds more closely to the unit weight of masonry, gabion, or a crib wall rather than a concrete wall.
The coefficient K0 was set equal to 0.5 in all analyses. No
surcharge is placed on the backfill free surface. The range
of the wall dimensions was chosen such that the wall FS is
not excessively high or excessively low. As will be shown
later, the FS of the wall configurations analyzed is in the
0.52.0 range. Analyses are performed for Toyoura and Ottawa sands, with relative density DR ranging from 30% to
90%. For the sake of simplicity, the foundation soil is assumed to be of the same type and density as the backfill
soil.
Collapse mechanism patterns
Most of the analyses were performed with the loading
scheme described in the previous section, which subjects the
wall to both rotation and horizontal translation in such a way
that the stabilizing external reactions RC and RT decrease proportionally to each other. For comparison purposes, analyses
were performed with both the wall rotating about its heel
without translating horizontally (pure rotation case) and
translating horizontally without rotating (pure translation).
Figure 4 shows contours of the incremental maximum shear
strain gmax (= 1 3, where 1 and 3 are the major and minor principal strains, respectively) from analyses with pure
rotation, pure translation, and combination of rotation and
84
Fig. 4. Examples of contours of incremental gmax from analyses with a wall subjected to different modes of movement: (a) pure rotation;
(b) rotation and translation; (c) pure translation (B = 3 m); (d) pure translation (B = 1.5 m).
translation. The deformation patterns depicted in these plots

correspond to states well beyond the WLS.
The failure mechanism in the backfill consists of a wedgeshaped sliding mass delimited by the wall backface and an
oblique shear band originating from the heel of the wall.
This shear band, which is nearly straight, with a slight curvature at its lower part, will be referred to in the remainder of
the paper as the main shear band. A shear band running parallel to the wall backface also forms in all analyses, representing sliding between the backfill sliding mass (wedge)
and the wall. In Figs. 4a and 4b, we see that families of secondary shear bands develop inside the sliding wedge. One of
the shear band families runs parallel to the main shear band.
The shear bands of the other family form an angle with respect to the vertical of the same magnitude as the first family
but with opposite sign. This is consistent with observation
from the experiments performed by Milligan (1974) and the
newly reinterpreted radiographs of those experiments by
Leniewska and Mrz (2001), as well as from the FE analyses by Gudehus and Nbel (2004). The families of the secondary shear bands vanish when the wall movement is a pure
translation (Figs. 4c, 4d), although a few secondary shear
bands that do not propagate fully, fading inside the sliding
mass, still form. Gudehus and Nbel (2004) also show that
the web of secondary shear bands inside the sliding wedge
present in the problem of a rotating wall is absent in the
case of a purely translating wall.
Below the wall base, a bearing capacity mechanism forms.
The shape of this mechanism resembles that of mechanisms
presented by Loukidis et al. (2008) for the case of surface

strip footings on purely frictional elastic perfectly plastic
material loaded by eccentric and inclined loads. For analyses
with a wall movement that contains a translational component
(Figs. 4b4d), the base mechanism is largely one-sided, consisting of a fan region and a passive wedge. The same type of
mechanism can be seen in the examples of Fig. 5. This is
consistent with failure patterns observed in footings subjected
to inclined loads irrespectively of the value of the load eccentricity (as long as the eccentric load lies on the side of the
footing base the horizontal component of the inclined load
points to). For a purely rotating wall (Fig. 4a), most of the
shearing in the base failure mechanism is concentrated in a
shear band that has the shape of a roughly circular arc, with
its end points lying on the two edges of the wall base. Loukidis et al. (2008) observed a similar pattern for footings
loaded by vertical eccentric loads.
Figure 5 shows contours of the incremental gmax from
analyses of walls that translate and rotate (the main loading
scheme used in the present paper) with a retained mass of
loose and dense sands. It is evident that the inclination angle
of the shear bands in the retained soil mass with respect to
the horizontal is larger in the case of dense than loose sand.
Based on the contours shown in Fig. 5, the shear band inclination angle with respect to the horizontal is approximately
65 for DR = 90% and 55 for DR = 45%. The inclination
for 90% relative density is comparable to the values of the
shear band inclination observed in the centrifuge experiments
of Wolf et al. (2005) in very dense sands simulating the Rankine
85
Fig. 5. Contours of incremental gmax from analyses with dense and loose (a, c) Ottawa sand and (b, d) Toyoura sand.
problem (smooth wall, horizontally unrestrained backfill base)

for wall displacements similar to those in the present problem.
Regarding the wall base failure mechanism, it is hard to
distinguish a separate passive failure mechanism in the soil
in front of the wall above the wall base level. Any potential
passive failure mechanism at the wall toe is fully encompassed by the bearing capacity mechanism. Thus, the stress
distribution above the toe of the wall (Fig. 3) contributes to
the wall stability, not as a passive resistance independent
of the resistance at the wall base but as part of the lateral capacity of an embedded footing. This observation reinforces
the notion that the resistance provided by the soil below the
base of the foundation and that in front of the wall are
coupled, meaning that the lateral resistance of the wall should
be analyzed as the problem of an embedded strip footing subjected to eccentric, inclined loading. This holds throughout
the process of the loading of the wall, even when a limit
bearing capacity mechanism has not yet formed.
An analysis is also done for a backfill consisting of two regions: a triangular region that is in contact with the wall backface consisting of Toyoura sand with DR = 75% and the
remaining soil consisting of loose Toyoura sand (DR = 45%),
as shown in Fig. 6. Similar backfill cross section is frequently
encountered in quay walls, where a granular material with
large strength is placed in contact with the wall backface,
with the goal of reducing the earth thrust that would be exerted on the wall if the backfill were made entirely of loose
fill sand. In Fig. 6, we see that the main shear band in the
backfill delimiting the sliding mass changes inclination at the
point it crosses the boundary between the dense and loose
sand layers. The inclination of the main shear band inside the
dense sand and the loose sand is 66 and 57, respectively.
Earth pressure evolution with wall movement
Figure 7 shows examples of the normal (horizontal) stress
distribution along the back of the wall. All analyses start
from geostatic stress conditions (K = K0), and thus a triangular stress distribution with depth. With increasing wall displacement, the horizontal stress decreases progressively until
a minimum active pressure state (MPS) is reached. From that
point on, the average horizontal stress increases, but at a
much lower rate than the rate at which it decreased earlier.
Before the MPS, the stress distribution is smooth; afterwards,
local peaks and valleys develop. This is a consequence of bifurcation and the shear banding that develops inside the sliding mass. The local minima in the stress distributions roughly
coincide with the intersection of secondary shear bands with
the wall backface.
In all three analyses shown in Fig. 7, the stress distribution
before the minimum active state is reached is intensely
curved at the lower third of the wall height. In fact, beyond
a certain depth, the horizontal stress decreases with depth, a
consequence of soil arching, as noted by other authors (e.g.,
Handy 1985; Paik and Salgado 2003). The curvature of the
86
Fig. 6. Contours of incremental gmax from analysis with composite backfill.
stress distribution in the case of a nonrotating wall (Fig. 7c)

is more pronounced and happens at a shallower depth than in
the analyses with rotating walls (Figs. 7a, 7b). As a consequence, the point of application of the horizontal earth thrust
for translating walls is higher than for rotating walls. This is
consistent with observations from experimental (Fang and
Ishibashi 1986) and numerical (Potts and Fourie 1986; Day
and Potts 1998) studies. After the minimum active state, the
curvature of the stress distribution decreases, and the average
distribution resembles again a triangular distribution, except
for purely translating walls.
The evolution of the lateral earth pressure coefficient K
with crest displacement uC is shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The K
coefficient is calculated from the lateral earth thrust, which is
in turn calculated by integrating numerically the horizontal
stress across the entire height of the wall. The stresses are
taken at the centroid of the elements that are in contact with
the wall. The results shown in Fig. 8 are all for Toyoura sand
with 60% relative density but different values of H, B, and D.
All analyses shown, except one, are for a wall subjected to
both translation and rotation. The K drops sharply towards a
minimum value (KA, min) at uC approximately equal to 0.003H
and, subsequently, rises smoothly, approaching an asymptotic
value (KA, cr) related to the development of CS in the main
shear band and inside the sliding wedge. According to
Fig. 8, KA, min and KA, cr are practically independent of the
wall dimensions and the embedment, which seem to only affect the rate of increase towards CS. These differences in the
rate of increase are due to the resulting small differences in
the proportion of uT over uC between these analyses (i.e., differences in how much of the motion is translation versus rotation). The ratio uT/uC at the KA, min state (MPS) in the
analyses of Fig. 8 ranges from 0.17 to 0.28 and is roughly

proportional to the wall safety factor. Figure 8 also includes
the response from the analysis with a purely rotating wall,
which is in sharp contrast with the other analyses. The KA, min
for the purely rotating wall is about 38% higher than for walls
that both translate and rotate. More importantly, KA, min is
reached at uC equal to 0.016H, a much larger displacement
than for the other curves in Fig. 8. Moreover, transition from
KA, min to KA, cr is more gradual, K appearing to be almost constant for a large range of uC values after the attainment of KA, min.
Model tests by Fang and Ishibashi (1986) demonstrate that
MPS is easily attained for a purely translating wall, with
only 0.0004H of wall displacement (in our purely translating wall analyses, the corresponding value is 0.001H). In
contrast, this state is not reached in a model test for a wall
in pure rotation about its base, even with 0.008H of crest
displacement. Large displacements for a purely rotating wall,
of the order of 0.015H, were needed in the model tests by
Milligan (1974) to reach the active state, which is comparable
to the value of 0.016H resulting from the present analysis.
Data reported by Fang and Ishibashi (1986) also support
the fact that a purely translating wall and a wall that both
translates and rotates develop similar KA, min values, but the
KA, min for a purely rotating wall is distinctively larger.
These findings suggest that the absence of a translation
component in the wall movement has an important effect on
the KA, min. Observed differences between wall problems involving different movement modes are a consequence of the
path dependence and progressive failure inherent in problems
involving strain-softening materials. In contrast, analyses with
perfectly plastic materials following the MohrCoulomb failure criterion produce KA values that dont depend on the wall
Fig. 7. Examples of distribution of horizontal stress acting on the

wall backface at different stages during analyses, with H = 7 m, B =
1.5 m, and D = 0.5 m and different modes of wall movement:
(a) Ottawa sand; (b, c) Toyoura sand.
87
Fig. 8. Variation of normalized lateral earth pressure coefficient with
wall crest displacement from analyses with medium dense Toyoura
sand (DR = 60%).
Fig. 9. Variation of normalized lateral earth pressure coefficient with

wall crest displacement from analyses of a wall that is allowed to
translate and rotate, with H = 7 m, B = 1.5 m, and D = 0.5 m:
(a) Toyoura sand; (b) Ottawa sand.
88
movement mode. As to the value of KA for a purely rotating

wall, Ichihara and Matsuzawa (1973) measured static KA of
0.16 for Toyoura sand with DR = 85% for a smoother wall
than considered here. This value still compares well with the
value of 0.172 for our analyses with purely rotating wall and
DR = 60%.
Finite element simulations for soils that strain soften and
follow nonassociated flow rules suffer from mesh dependence. To assess the accuracy of our simulations, an analysis
with element size equal to 100D50, instead of 500D50, in the
region the sliding wedge develops was performed, and results
are also compared in Fig. 8. The differences between the
curves from the fine mesh analysis and the corresponding
coarse mesh analysis do not exceed 8%.
Figure 9 shows the K/K0 evolution resulting from analyses
with the same wall configuration (H = 7 m, B = 1.5 m, D =
0.5 m) for Toyoura and Ottawa sands with different values of
relative density. The figure also shows the KA/K0 value resulting from FE analyses for an elastic perfectly plastic
soil following the MohrCoulomb failure criterion (MC
analyses) with f fc and j = 0 using the same code and
loading scheme as the main series of analyses. The fc for
plane-strain conditions (i.e., fc; PS ) for Toyoura and Ottawa
sand predicted by the two-surface constitutive model described earlier is 36.6 and 34.6, respectively. These values
are roughly 45 larger than the fc values for triaxial compression conditions (31.6 and 30.2, respectively). To place
the KA calculated from fc in this manner in context, additional results are shown in Table 1. These results include
those of MC analyses for associated flow (j = f) and nonassociated flow with j = 0 as well as the corresponding
limit analysis lower and upper bounds. The results for an associated flow rule are inside the lower and upper bounds.
The KA values for j = 0 are about 18% greater than those
for associated flow and lie above the KA range delimited by
the limit analysis bounds. As discussed in the introduction,
limit analysis holds for an associated flow rule, and numerical analysis is currently the only way to arrive at solutions
valid for problems with j << f.
As expected, KA, min decreases with increasing relative density and, consequently, peak friction angle. One would expect
that the curves for a given sand would tend to reach the same
asymptote, since fc is independent of DR. However, the
curves in Fig. 9 appear to have different asymptotes. Only
the curves for DR equal to 30% and 45% (loose to medium
dense sand) appear to approach the KA/K0 value from the
analysis with a perfectly plastic soil and material parameters
consistent with CS. The reason for the apparent differences in
KA, cr is the geometry of the failure mechanism in the backfill. The inclination of the sliding plane (main shear band)
delimiting the wedge depends on dilatancy and, consequently, on the mobilized value of the internal friction angle.
According to Vardoulakis (1980), the theoretical value of the
shear band inclination with respect to the minor stress axis is
equal to 45 + f j=4. The sliding wedge forms at the
state of minimum earth thrust, when the backfill mass close
to the wall is strongly dilative for all except very loose
sand.2 Once the main inclined shear band forms, it tends to
stay at that location because of strain localization. Hence, the
2For
inclination of the shear bands is influenced by the sand density. The inclination of 57 observed in the analyses with
DR = 45% is only 1 higher than the theoretical value calculated for f fc and j = 0. On the other hand, the inclination of 65 for DR = 90% is clearly not consistent with a CS
friction angle and is influenced by sand dilatancy.
The shear patterns in the backfill mass remain virtually unchanged during the analysis. Although the analyses with medium dense and dense sand proceeded to crest displacements
up to 1 m, the formation of a new main shear band with inclination consistent with the CS friction angle was not observed. It is not possible to assert whether such shear band
will form for even larger displacements and whether K will
approach the KA, cr values for j = 0 (refer to Table 1). For
practical purposes, at least, we may consider different KA, cr
values for different values of initial relative density, as a consequence of different dilatancy-related soil wedges. Figures 5a
and 5b depict the collapse mechanisms at the end of the analysis, when the vast majority of quadrature points that lie in
the main shear band have practically reached CS. The inferred KA, cr for the dense sand is distinctively different from
the expected value for f fc and j = 0 because the deformations are localized, and the CS is mobilized inside a
wedge that forms a steeper angle with the horizontal than
the one that is consistent with the perfectly plastic problem
with f fc and j = 0. The effect of the shape of the sliding
wedge on the KA, cr is also evident in the analysis with composite backfill (Fig. 6), in which the main shear band exhibits a
sharp bend. Although the sliding mass encompasses sand with
DR = 75% and 45% and the KA, min is closer to the value for a
uniform backfill with DR = 75%, KA, cr is closer to the value
for a uniform backfill with DR = 90%. This is most likely due
to the main shear band, which is not a straight line (which it
is in the uniform backfill case) but has a bend in the composite backfill case. This result suggests that significant additional benefit can be achieved by using such types of
composite backfills, since they produce KA, cr values that are
smaller than those corresponding to the densest soil placed
behind the wall.
WLS
As discussed previously, the WLS is represented by the
point at which Y reaches a minimum value Ymin. Figures 10
and 11 show the development of the horizontal base resistance Hb and the moment base resistance Mb as the wall
moves away from the backfill. These resistances also include
contributions from the soil in front of the wall toe (what
would typically be thought of as passive resistance). The moment resistance Mb is calculated about the center of the wall
base. From Figs. 10 and 11, we see that the wall reaches its
limit state before the peaks in Hb and Mb (i.e., before base
failure). This is because the base resistance develops only
very gradually, with increasing wall displacement due to the
large amount of plastic straining that real soil exhibits before
the peak friction angle is reached (which is captured by the
constitutive model used here) and to the progressive failure
of the soil mass (i.e., the early development of softening in
certain regions in the base soil mass). This is particularly
true for loose sands for which peak base resistance is reached
a very loose sand, j is close to zero; for a dense sand, it can be as high as 15.
89
Table 1. KA/K0 from FE analyses with elastic perfectly plastic soil and corresponding limit analysis lower and upper bounds.
FEM (elastic
perfectly plastic)
f ()
36.6
34.6
j=f
0.403
0.437
j=0
0.480
0.505
Lower bound
(Lancellotta 2002)
0.404
0.444
Upper bound
(Chen 1975)*
0.393
0.432
Upper bound (Soubra and

Macuh 2002)*
0.396
0.436
Note: FEM, finite element method.

*Interpolated values based on plotted or tabulated data.
Fig. 10. Evolution of key problem variables with increasing wall crest displacement for (a) loose and (b) dense Toyoura sand and wall with
H = 7 m, B = 1.5 m, and D = 0.5 m. Deax/H, relative height of active thrust application; FSH, FS based on horizontal equilibrium; FSM, FS
based on moment equilibrium; m (= tand), mobilized friction coefficient at wall backface.
90
Fig. 11. Evolution of key problem variables, with increasing wall crest displacement for (a) loose and (b) dense Ottawa sand and wall with
H = 7 m, B = 1.5 m, and D = 0.5 m.
only at very large wall displacements (Figs. 10a and 11a).

The WLS is reached when the slow base resistance development can no longer match the increase in destabilizing actions due to the increase of KA towards KA, cr. The WLS can
be described mathematically as the state at which dHr = dHd
or dMr = dMd; beyond the WLS, gains in resistance do not
match gains in driving forces (i.e., dHr < dHd or dMr <
dMd). If the active earth thrust were constant (dHd = 0 and
dMd = 0), then the wall would keep moving until the bearing
capacity were reached, and the WLS would coincide with the
state of peak Hb or peak Mb (base failure state). In our retaining wall problem, this does not happen because the earth
thrust increases (i.e., dHd > 0 and dMd > 0) with wall displacement past the KA, min state. As a consequence, the wall
displacement required to reach the WLS is smaller than that
required to reach base failure.
Although WLS and base failure state occur at distinctively
different wall crest displacements, the Hb and Mb values at
WLS are practically identical to the peak Hb and Mb values.
This occurs because, after attainment of the WLS, Hb and Mb
increase at very small rates towards their peak values due to
the development of regions of intense plastic straining in the
foundation soil. Consequently, the peak Hb and Mb values,
which can be determined in practice with relative ease based
91
dmob ()
35.9
30.8
38.0
31.4
34.1
37.7
38.5
29.7
31.3
31.8
31.7
31.7
37.7
36.1
37.9
36.6
38.0
33.9
KA, min/K0
0.249
0.344
0.269
0.408
0.321
0.192
0.136
0.456
0.374
0.304
0.239
0.178
0.250
0.257
0.248
0.248
0.247
0.195
Sand
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
D (m)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
DR (%)
60
60
60
30
45
75
90
30
45
60
75
90
60
60
60
60
60
75+45
W (m)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
H (m)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
7
7
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Note: Rot+hor, rotation and horizontal; fc; TX , CS friction angle corresponding to triaxial compression conditions; feq , equivalent sand internal friction angle.
uC/H
0.021
0.016
0.007
0.163
0.032
0.020
0.019
0.160
0.054
0.025
0.015
0.013
0.021
0.018
0.023
0.020
0.021
0.015
feq
fc; TX ()
5.9
8.5
5.1
1.2
4.4
9.9
16.0
1.6
2.2
7.1
12.9
18.2
6.8
8.7
4.5
4.9
8.2
14.1
dmob
()
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.9
30.8
30.9
31.0
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
KA, LS/K0
0.383
0.344
0.396
0.461
0.407
0.326
0.247
0.483
0.472
0.391
0.306
0.240
0.370
0.342
0.405
0.399
0.349
0.270
uC/H
0.004
0.016
0.001
0.006
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.010
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.005
Deax/H
0.337
0.267
0.358
0.319
0.325
0.342
0.336
0.328
0.324
0.327
0.330
0.329
0.335
0.332
0.340
0.337
0.344
0.354
WLS
Minimum KA state
feq
fc; TX ()
15.1
8.6
13.0
4.2
9.6
20.2
26.3
3.1
7.8
12.7
18.0
23.7
14.7
14.4
14.9
15.1
15.0
20.4
Loading
mode
Rot+hor
Rotation
Horizontal
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Table 2. Summary of FEM results with respect to state of minimum lateral earth pressure coefficient and wall limit state.
Deax/H
0.260
0.266
0.334
0.311
0.290
0.254
0.257
0.319
0.296
0.292
0.292
0.300
0.269
0.286
0.260
0.269
0.277
0.306
FS
1.04
1.38
1.65
0.47
0.62
1.43
2.01
0.40
0.50
0.82
1.23
1.73
1.42
0.66
1.49
1.98
0.83
1.38
Failure mode
Horizontal
Moment
Horizontal
Moment
Moment
Horizontal
Horizontal
Moment
Moment
Moment
Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Moment
Horizontal
Horizontal
Moment
Horizontal
on bearing capacity calculations, can be used as good approximations of the values of Hb and Mb at the WLS.
Table 2 summarizes the values of certain key variables of
interest in design at the state of minimum active pressure and
at the WLS: the normalized coefficient KA/K0, the mobilized
friction angle at the wallbackfill interface dmob, normalized
crest displacement uC/H, and the relative height Deax/H of
the point of application of the active earth thrust from the
heel of the wall. Table 2 also contains the value of the FS
mobilized at the WLS. The reported FS is taken as the smallest value of the FS against overturning FSM (based on moment equilibrium about the wall toe) and sliding FSH
(based on horizontal equilibrium). The FS values are calculated using the following equations:
X
stabilizing forces
Hb
3a
FSH X
E
A; x
destabilizing forces
RC RT
1
EA; x
X
3b
FSM X
stabilizing moments
overturning moments
WB=2 MbO
RC H
1
EA; x Deax EA; y B

EA; x Deax EA; y B
where EA, x and EA, y are the horizontal and vertical components of the active earth thrust, W is the wall self-weight,
Deax is the height from the base of the point of application
of the earth thrust, and MbO is the moment of the base resistance taken about the toe of the wall (not to be confused with
Mb). The peak values of the mobilized FS values do not happen at the WLS (Figs. 10 and 11). This is because the extrema of the FSH and FSM depend on the denominators in
eqs. [3a] and [3b]. The minimum value Ymin would occur simultaneously with the peak mobilized FS and the peak total
base horizontal or moment resistance only if these denominators were constant during the analysis.
Figure 12 compares KA, min, KA, LS, and the inferred KA, cr values for analyses with rotating and translating walls. We see that
the KA, LS values lie approximately halfway between the minimum and CS values of KA. The value of KA, LS is 25%80%
greater than KA, min, with the differences increasing with increasing relative density. Figure 12a also plots results from analyses
Nos. 1317 (Table 2), which have different wall dimensions (H,
B) and embedment D but the same sand relative density (DR =
60%). Figure 12a indicates that the wall dimensions and embedment have a more pronounced effect on KA, LS than KA, min.
Wall displacement to reach characteristic states
The ratio uC/uT, resulting from the loading scheme adopted
for the analyses of walls moving in both rotation and translation, is in the 38 range for MPS. Beyond the MPS, uC/uT
increases a further 20%40% by the time the WLS is
reached, remaining practically constant for the remainder of
the analysis, with the exception of the simulation for DR =
90% for which uC/uT can reach values in the 1012 range.
In the analyses in which the wall is allowed to rotate and
translate, the crest displacement required for reaching the
MPS is in the 0.003H0.006H range (Fig. 13), with the exPublished by NRC Research Press
92
Fig. 12. Minimum, limit state, and critical active earth pressure
coefficient from analyses with (a) Toyoura sand and (b) Ottawa sand.
ception of Ottawa sand, with DR = 30%. According to the

Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992), the uC required for
developing the active earth pressure corresponding to peak
soil strength (i.e., uCp) is 0.001H for dense and 0.004H for
loose sand. Our results are of the same order of magnitude
but dont exactly match the values proposed by the Canadian
Geotechnical Society (1992). In addition, our analyses suggest that the relative density has no significant effect on uCp
unless the tendency for strain softening is very weak to practically absent (e.g., DR = 30%). One would expect that uCp
should decrease with increasing relative density as the failure
strain decreases with increasing relative density in laboratory
tests, which in turn is due to the fact that the sands stiffness
increases with relative density. However, in the present problem, the stress and deformation conditions vary in both the

Fig. 13. Wall crest displacement required to reach MPS (uCp) and
WLS (uC, LS) from analyses with Toyoura and Ottawa sands. Analysis numbers follow the numbering shown in Table 2.
horizontal and vertical directions, in contrast with laboratory

tests. In Fig. 9, we see that, as expected, the initial, roughly
linear, response prior to MPS is much stiffer for dense sand
than for loose sand. As K approaches KA, min, the response
becomes nonlinear and is smoother for large DR values than
for small ones. As a consequence, KA, min for dense sands is
reached at roughly the same wall displacement as for loose
and medium dense sands. This is a consequence of the progressive failure developing prior to the attainment MPS. The
progressive failure is evident by the fact that the mobilized
friction angle on the wallsoil interface is very close to the
CS value by the time MPS is reached, as demonstrated later
in the paper. Progressive failure is more intense in dense than
in loose sands, counterbalancing the effect of sand stiffness
on the wall displacement required to reach MPS.
The crest displacement uC,LS required to reach WLS is in
the range of 0.013H0.026H, except for DR = 30%45%. In
addition, for a given sand and relative density, the ratio uC,LS/
uCp increases with increasing FS. The uC,LS lies in the range
of displacements for which the wall foundation has not yet
collapsed (i.e., the peak base resistance has not yet been
reached) but is very compliant, yielding considerably for
even small changes in foundation load.
In most of the analyses with a rotating and translating wall,
the crest displacement required to reach the peak Hb is in the
0.01H0.09H range (corresponding to toe displacement of
0.01B0.065B). The mobilization of the full horizontal base
capacity requires displacements that exceed those required to
reach the WLS in the retained soil by 10%150%. The peak
moment base resistance requires even larger wall movement

in all analyses performed in this study.
4
93
The variation of the earth pressure coefficient K with uC

can be described mathematically by the following equation:
fc 1K0 KA; cr =K0 KA; min guCp cuC

KA; cr
c 1uCp =K0 KA; min uC c =KA; cr KA; min uCp c1
The input parameters in eq. [4] are the characteristic values

for the earth pressure coefficient, K0, KA, cr, and KA, min, the
crest displacement uCp at which KA, min is attained, and a fitting parameter c. According to eq. [4], K is equal to K0 for
uC = 0 and tends to KA, cr asymptotically for large values of
uC. The parameter c is introduced to control the rate at which
K increases towards KA, cr after the attainment of KA, min. By
fitting eq. [4] to the results of this study, shown in Figs. 8
and 9, we obtain c in the 1.72.1 range, with an average
value of two. An estimate of the KA, LS to use for wall design
calculations could be obtained using eq. [4], with c = 2.0,
uC = 0.025H for medium dense and dense sands, and 0.06H
for loose sands.
Point of application of lateral earth thrust
An important parameter for retaining wall stability calculations is the location along the wall height at which the lateral
earth thrust EA, x acts. Figure 14 shows the values of the vertical distance Deax of the point of application of EA, x from the
wall base obtained from the analyses of a wall that both rotates and translates. We see that, for the MPS, Deax is roughly
equal to the widely used value of (1/3)H. Beyond that state,
Deax starts decreasing, reaching a minimum value almost
coincidentally with the WLS. This decrease is negligible for
loose sand, but it can be up to 25% for dense sand. The
vertical distance Deax subsequently increases but at a very
small rate.
The same trends of Deax with increasing wall displacement
were observed in the experiments of Fang and Ishibashi
(1986). Specifically, for a purely rotating wall, Deax starts decreasing from an initial value of 0.333H towards a minimum
value of 0.22H and then rises slowly (but never exceeding
0.28H, even at uC = 0.008H). Similar trends are found in
Ichihara and Matsuzawa (1973). Fang and Ishibashi (1986)
also present data that supports the fact that Deax for purely
rotating walls is less than 0.3H, while it is around H/3 if the
motion has a translational component.
Mobilized resistance along wallbackfill interface
The mobilized friction coefficient m (= tand) on the wall
face reaches a peak value at very early stages of the analyses,
before the attainment of the MPS, suggesting the vertical
shear band along the wall backface forms well before the
main shear band delimiting the sliding wedge. This peak
value is strongly dependent on the relative density of the
sand (Figs. 10 and 11). After the peak, m decreases quickly
towards a residual value that is consistent with the development of CS (f fc; PS , j = 0) inside the thin backfill soil
elements that are in contact with the wall. The residual values
for the angle d are 30.8 and 29.6 for Toyoura sand and Ottawa sand, respectively. These are consistent with the theoretical values calculated as dc = arctan(sinfc; PS ) (Loukidis and
Salgado 2008). Although the vertical shear band along the
wall backface forms well before the main shear band, the mobilized frictional angle dmob at MPS is clearly larger than dc
(Fig. 15) for both rotating and translating walls and purely
translating walls. The ratio dmob/dc ranges from 1.0 to 1.07
for Ottawa sand, while for Toyoura sand, it ranges from 1.02
to 1.25 (corresponding to dmob from 31.4 to 38.5). The uCp
for a purely rotating wall is so large that, by the time MPS is
reached, dmob has become equal to dc.
Equivalent value of sand friction angle for calculation of
KA at limit state
It is of practical interest to assess what the appropriate
(equivalent) value of the sand internal friction angle feq is for
use in the calculation of KA, min and KA, LS using an analytical
formula widely used in practice, such as Coulombs solution
(eq. [1]), to obtain a value of KA, LS that is in agreement with
the present numerical simulations. Figure 16 shows the difference between feq and the CS friction angle fc; TX corresponding
to triaxial compression conditions. The feq values are backcalculated using eq. [1] from the KA values resulting from
the FE analyses. We consider fc; TX instead fc; PS because it
is easier to estimate it through either empirical relationships
or a few triaxial compression tests. Even the frequently performed shear box tests would yield fc estimates that are
closer to fc; TX than fc; PS . According to Fig. 16a, the feq
for MPS is 326 larger than fc; TX , depending on the value
of the sand relative density. However, for calculating KA, LS,
feq is only 118 larger than fc; TX (Fig. 16b). Figure 16b
shows that existing walls are not necessarily poorly designed,
even if the design is based on the prevailing practice of assuming the soil to be perfectly plastic with a peak value of
(triaxial compression) friction angle to calculate KA: practitioners would rarely use friction angles exceeding fc; TX by
more than 15 for a dense sand or more than 2 for a loose
sand. So, whether by accident or proper intuition and judgment by engineers working on this problem years ago, standard practice uses friction angles that are roughly consistent
with WLS rather than the state of mobilization of peak
strength in the backfill. Figure 17 shows the difference between feq and the CS friction angle fc; PS corresponding to
plane-strain conditions. The values plotted in Fig. 17 are
about 4.55 smaller than those in Fig. 16. In Fig. 17b, we
see that, for loose sand, feq for KA, LS is smaller than fc; PS .
At first sight, this would seem to be a violation of the basic
principle of soil mechanics that the minimum value of the
sand friction angle is that for CS, but all analytical methods
for calculating KA presented in the introduction produce results that are valid for an associated flow rule (f = j) and,
thus, underestimate the actual KA by roughly 20% (see Table 1).
On the other hand, the FE simulations discussed in this paper
use a model that captures the sand dilatancy realistically. Had
we had a formula that predicted KA for realistic j values, all
resulting feq fc; PS values would have been positive.
94
Fig. 14. Vertical distance of point of application of active earth thrust

from wall base at (a) minimum earth pressure state and (b) WLS.
Conclusions
This paper presents the results of a set of FE analyses of a
gravity wall subjected to the action of a mass of sand that the
wall initially retains at a state of rest. After the wall is allowed to move due to the action of the retained soil mass,
the pressures on the wall evolve towards active pressures.
Based on the FE results and focusing on walls that are free
to rotate and translate, we arrive at the following conclusions:
1. The attainment of the minimum value of the active earth
pressure coefficient (KA, min) requires wall crest displacements of the order of 0.001H0.010H.
2. The attainment of KA, min corresponds to a mobilized wall
soil interface friction angle d that is larger than the CS
interface friction angle dc by a factor ranging from 1.0
(loose sand) to 1.3 (dense sand).
3. For dense and medium dense sand, the crest displacement
required to bring the wall to its limit state is in the
0.013H0.026H range. At the WLS, the mobilized interface friction angle has already reached the CS value of dc.

Fig. 15. Ratio of d mobilized along wallbackfill interface at minimum earth pressure state to d corresponding to CS conditions.
4. The limit state KA (KA, LS) lies between KA, min and the
corresponding CS value KA, cr. The KA, LS values are larger than KA, min by a factor of 1.11.8, with the differences increasing with increasing relative density.
5. The WLS does not necessarily coincide with the mobilization of the maximum base resistance, which may require
much larger wall displacements.
6. The height of application of the lateral earth thrust at limit
state conditions is less than one-third, ranging from 0.25
to 0.32, suggesting that the current design practice is
slightly conservative.
7. The equivalent friction angle to be used for the calculation of
KA values consistent with WLS design can be up to 18
higher than the soil CS friction angle under triaxial
compression conditions.
The results regarding the WLS depend on the base stiffness and strength. Hence, our findings regarding the WLS
are strictly applicable to foundation soils that are like the retained soil (i.e., purely frictional soils). It is expected that, for
walls founded on stiff clay or weak rock, the WLS may coincide with or even precede the MPS and the WLS, given the
high stiffness and brittleness of such geomaterials. Although
in all analyses the foundation soil had the same relative density as the backfill, the results are expected to hold even for
cases in which the relative densities are different. This is because the displacement required to reach KA, min is practically
independent of the density of the backfill (Fig. 9). In addition, we see in Fig. 9 that the shape of the curves is the
same for all densities. Hence, what matters regarding the displacement required to attain WLS is the density of the foundation soil. Therefore, the displacement needed to attain
WLS for a loose backfill will not be much different from
that for a dense backfill as long as the density of the foundation soil is the same.
From a practical standpoint, this study suggests that the
minimum active earth pressure state is of limited relevance
to ULS design, since it happens for wall crest displacements
of the order of only 0.5% the wall height; it is possibly representative of a serviceability limit state (SLS). Given that the
active earth pressure coefficient is a function of the wall disPublished by NRC Research Press
95
Fig. 16. Difference of equivalent value of friction angle to be used

in calculation of KA from CS friction angle in triaxial compression
conditions at (a) minimum earth pressure state and (b) WLS.
Fig. 17. Difference of equivalent value of friction angle to be used

in calculation of KA from CS friction angle in plane-strain conditions at (a) minimum earth pressure state and (b) WLS.
placement, existing wall design methods can benefit in the

future from a focus on estimating KA, using as reference the
well-defined CS. For example, KA could be calculated using
well-established formulas (e.g., Coulombs equation) with
representative f values estimated based on DR and fc; TX and
plots such as that of Fig. 16b. The interface friction angle d
can be conservatively set equal to the corresponding CS
value dc to calculate KA for all characteristic states (MPS,
WLS, and CS). Alternatively, the KA for ULS could be calculated using equations such as eq. [4], with KA, cr, KA, min, uc,
and uCp as input. The coefficient KA, min could be calculated
using plots such as that of Fig. 16a, while KA, cr, which is an
invariant, could be directly calculated using fc; PS ( fc; TX +
4). According to Fig. 13, uCp is practically 0.005. The displacement uc can be set equal to the desired crest displacement value compatible with an ULS established according to
design code provisions.
The present FE analyses demonstrate that the toppling,

sliding, and vertical bearing capacity failure modes are
coupled. Wall stability can be assessed by considering two
equilibrium checks, one pertaining to horizontal equilibrium
and one to moment equilibrium, where the KA estimated using such equations or plots will be the basic input. The use
of equilibrium checks with partial load and resistance or
strength factors accounting for the uncertainties of the problem variables (as in load and resistance factors design (LRFD)
or partial factors design (PFD)) instead of global FS checks
(as in working stress design (WSD)) constitute the basis of
modern codes. In these equilibrium checks, the horizontal
and moment wall base resistances should be established
based on the appropriately factored bearing capacity failure
envelop of an embedded strip footing subjected to eccentric
and inclined (i.e., combined) loading. Following this approach, a vertical equilibrium check is redundant.
96
References
Abbo, A.J., and Sloan, S.W. 2000. SNAC. User manual. Version 2.0
[computer program]. Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Canadian Geotechnical Society. 1992. Foundation engineering manual.
Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS), Bitech, Vancouver, B.C.
Caquot, A., and Kerisel, J. 1948. Tables for the calculation of passive
pressure, active pressure and bearing capacity of foundations.
Gauthier Villars, Paris, France.
Carraro, J.A.H. 2004. Mechanical behavior of silty and clayey sands.
Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
Carraro, J.A.H., Bandini, P., and Salgado, R. 2003. Liquefaction
resistance of clean and nonplastic silty sands based on cone
penetration resistance. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(11): 965976. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)10900241(2003)129:11(965).
Chen, W.F. 1975. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier Science
Publishers, B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dafalias, Y.F., Papadimitriou, A.G., and Li, X.S. 2004. Sand
plasticity model accounting for inherent fabric anisotropy. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, 130(11): 13191333. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:11(1319).
Day, R.A., and Potts, D.M. 1998. The effect of interface properties on
retaining wall behaviour. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 22(12): 10211033. doi:10.
1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199812)22:12<1021::AID-NAG953>3.0.
CO;2-M.
Fang, Y.-S., and Ishibashi, I. 1986. Static earth pressures with various
wall movements. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 112(3):
317333. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:3(317).
Fukushima, S., and Tatsuoka, F. 1984. Strength and deformation
characteristics of saturated sand at extremely low pressure. Soils
and Foundations, 24(4): 3048. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.24.4_30.
Gudehus, G., and Nbel, K. 2004. Evolution of shear bands in sand.
Gotechnique, 54(3): 187201. doi:10.1680/geot.2004.54.3.187.
Handy, R.L. 1985. The arch in soil arching. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 111(3): 302318. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1985)111:3(302).
Ichihara, M., and Matsuzawa, H. 1973. Earth pressure during
earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 13(4): 7586. doi:10.3208/
sandf1972.13.4_75.
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., and Takagi, Y. 1978. Shear moduli of sands
under cyclic torsional shear loading. Soils and Foundations, 18(1):
3956. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.18.39.
Lam, W.-K., and Tatsuoka, F. 1988. Effects of initial anisotropic fabric
and s2 on strength and deformation characteristics of sand. Soils
and Foundations, 28(1): 89106. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.28.89.
Lancellotta, R. 2002. Analytical solution of passive earth pressure.
Leniewska, D., and Mrz, Z. 2001. Study of evolution of shear band
systems in sand retained by flexible wall. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 25: 909
932. doi:10.1002/nag.160.
Li, X.S., and Dafalias, Y.F. 2000. Dilatancy of cohesionless soils.
Loukidis, D. 2006. Advanced constitutive modeling of sands and
applications to foundation engineering. Ph.D. thesis, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Ind.

Loukidis, D., and Salgado, R. 2008. Analysis of the shaft resistance
of non-displacement piles in sand. Gotechnique, 58(4): 283296.
doi:10.1680/geot.2008.58.4.283.
Loukidis, D., and Salgado, R. 2009. Modeling sand response using
two-surface plasticity. Computers and Geotechnics, 36(12): 166
186. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.02.009.
Loukidis, D., Chakraborty, T., and Salgado, R. 2008. Bearing
capacity of strip footings on purely frictional soil under eccentric
and inclined loads. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(6): 768
787. doi:10.1139/T08-015.
Manzari, M.T., and Dafalias, Y.F. 1997. A critical state two-surface
plasticity model for sands. Gotechnique, 47(2): 255272. doi:10.
1680/geot.1997.47.2.255.
Milligan, G.W.E. 1974. The behaviour of rigid and flexible retaining
walls in sand. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Murthy, T.G. 2006. Undrained static response of sands with fines. Ph.
D. thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
Murthy, T.G., Loukidis, D., Carraro, J.A.H., Prezzi, M., and
Salgado, R. 2007. Undrained monotonic response of clean and
silty sands. Gotechnique, 57(3): 273288. doi:10.1680/geot.
2007.57.3.273.
Nemat-Nasser, S., and Okada, N. 2001. Radiographic and microscopic observation of shear bands in granular materials. Gotechnique, 51(9): 753765. doi:10.1680/geot.2001.51.9.753.
Paik, K.H., and Salgado, R. 2003. Estimation of active earth pressure
against rigid retaining walls considering arching effects. Gotechnique, 53(7): 643653. doi:10.1680/geot.2003.53.7.643.
Papadimitriou, A.G., and Bouckovalas, G.D. 2002. Plasticity model
for sand under small and large cyclic strains: a multiaxial
formulation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(3):
191204. doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00009-X.
Potts, D.M., and Fourie, A.B. 1986. A numerical study of the effects
of wall deformation on earth pressures. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 10(4): 383
405. doi:10.1002/nag.1610100404.
Salgado, R. 2008. The engineering of foundations. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Sokolovski, V.V. 1965. Statics of granular media. Pergamon, Oxford,
UK.
Soubra, A.-H., and Macuh, B. 2002. Active and passive earth
pressure coefficients by a kinematical approach. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering,
155(2): 119131. doi:10.1680/geng.2002.155.2.119.
Uesugi, M., Kishida, H., and Tsubakihara, Y. 1988. Behavior of sand
particles in sandsteel friction. Soils and Foundations, 28(1): 107
118. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.28.107.
Vardoulakis, I. 1980. Shear band inclination and shear modulus of
sand in biaxial tests. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 4(2): 103119. doi:10.
1002/nag.1610040202.
Vardoulakis, I., and Sulem, J. 1995. Bifurcation analysis in geomechanics. Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, Scotland.
Wolf, H., Knig, D., and Triandafyllidis, Th. 2005. Centrifuge model
tests on sand specimen under extensional load. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
29(1): 2547. doi:10.1002/nag.403.
Yoshimine, M., Ishihara, K., and Vargas, W. 1998. Effects of
principal stress direction and intermediate stress on undrained
shear behavior of sand. Soils and Foundations, 38(3): 179188.
97
Appendix A
Table A1. Values of constitutive model parameters for Toyoura and clean Ottawa sands.
Parameter value
Parameter
Small-strain (elastic)
parameters
CS
Bounding surface
Dilatancy
Plastic modulus
Stress-induced
anisotropy
Inherent anisotropy
Parameter
symbol
n
Cg
Toyoura sand
0.15
900
Clean
Ottawa sand
0.15*
611
ng
0.400
0.437
g1
a1
Gc
l
x
Mcc
kb
0.0010
0.40
0.934
0.019
0.70
1.27
1.5
0.000 65
0.47
0.780
0.081
0.196
1.21
1.9
Do
kd
h1
h2
elim
0.90
2.8
1.62
0.254
1.00
1.31
2.2
2.20
0.240
0.81
2.0
1.2
c1
0.72
0.71
c2
0.78
0.78*
ns
0.35
0.35*
0.29
0.31
kh
0.11
0.39
0.05
0.05
Comment
Poissons ratio
Parameter controlling the magnitude of the maximum shear
modulus Gmax
Exponent controlling the rate of increase of Gmax with effective confining stress
Parameters controlling the decrease of para-elastic shear
modulus G with shear strain
Intercept of CS line in ep space
Parameter controlling inclination of CS line in ep space
Parameter controlling curvature of CS line in ep space
Critical stress ratio in triaxial (TX) compression conditions
Parameter controlling the increase of friction angle with
sand density
Inclination of the stressdilatancy curve
Parameter controlling the stress ratio at phase transformation
Parameters controlling the magnitude of plastic modulus
Upper limit for void ratio for which the plastic modulus becomes zero
Parameter controlling stress ratio in undrained instability
state
Ratio of the critical stress ratio in TX extension to that in
TX compression
Parameter controlling the value of the magnitude of intermediate principal stress relative to the two other principal
stresses under plain-strain conditions
Parameter controlling the magnitude of the friction angle in
plane-strain conditions relative to the friction angle in TX
compression
Parameter controlling the intercept of CS line in ep space
under conditions other than TX compression
Parameter controlling the variation of plastic stiffness, with
the direction of loading relative to the axis of sand deposition
Radius of conical yield (loading) surface
*Assumed.

Active Pressure On Gravity Walls Supporting Purely Frictional Soils

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Active Pressure On Gravity Walls Supporting Purely Frictional Soils

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

78

Active pressure on gravity walls supporting purely

D. Loukidis and R. Salgado

Caquot and Kerisel (1948) produced solutions in tabulated

Can. Geotech. J. 49: 7897 (2012)

Published by NRC Research Press

Loukidis and Salgado

The upper bound values for KA by Coulombs solution,

does not change as the wall moves. This would be valid

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

responds to the WLS, since the resistances cant increase at a

Loukidis and Salgado

It is well known that analyses involving materials that

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Fig. 3. Schematic showing the forces acting on the wall, including

Loukidis and Salgado

cause of the external application of a horizontal force Fext,0 =

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

translation. The deformation patterns depicted in these plots

presented by Loukidis et al. (2008) for the case of surface

Loukidis and Salgado

problem (smooth wall, horizontally unrestrained backfill base)

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Fig. 6. Contours of incremental gmax from analysis with composite backfill.

stress distribution in the case of a nonrotating wall (Fig. 7c)

analyses of Fig. 8 ranges from 0.17 to 0.28 and is roughly

Loukidis and Salgado

Fig. 7. Examples of distribution of horizontal stress acting on the

Fig. 9. Variation of normalized lateral earth pressure coefficient with

Published by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

movement mode. As to the value of KA for a purely rotating

Loukidis and Salgado

Upper bound (Soubra and

Note: FEM, finite element method.

Published by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

only at very large wall displacements (Figs. 10a and 11a).

Loukidis and Salgado

EA; x Deax EA; y B

ception of Ottawa sand, with DR = 30%. According to the

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

horizontal and vertical directions, in contrast with laboratory

Loukidis and Salgado

moment base resistance requires even larger wall movement

The variation of the earth pressure coefficient K with uC

fc 1K0 KA; cr =K0 KA; min guCp cuC

The input parameters in eq. [4] are the characteristic values

Fig. 14. Vertical distance of point of application of active earth thrust

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Loukidis and Salgado

Fig. 16. Difference of equivalent value of friction angle to be used

Fig. 17. Difference of equivalent value of friction angle to be used

placement, existing wall design methods can benefit in the

The present FE analyses demonstrate that the toppling,

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Published by NRC Research Press

Loukidis and Salgado

Published by NRC Research Press

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi