Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
by
Sara Ebrahimi
Spring 2011
EXTENSION OF MONONOBE-OKABE
APPROACH TO UNSTABLE SLOPES
by
Sara Ebrahimi
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Dov Leshchinsky, Ph.D.
Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Harry W. Shenton III, Ph.D.
Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Michael J. Chajes, Ph.D.
Dean of the College of Engineering
Approved:
__________________________________________________________
Charles G. Riordan, Ph.D.
Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I owe my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my advisor Dr. Dov
Leshchinsky for all his kind and unfailing support throughout the project. It was an
honor for me to study under his supervision at the University of Delaware.
I also would like to thank to Dr. Christopher L. Meehan and Dr. Victor N.
Kaliakin, for their instructions and help during my graduate courses. I would also like
to extend my gratitude to Mr. Fan Zhu for his assistance with the formulation and
programming that was conducted during this project.
Very special thanks to my husband and my best friend, Farshid. I would
not have been able to complete my thesis without his encouragement, help and
support.
Finally, I like to gratefully thank my parents for their never-ending love
and support.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ xvi
Chapter
1
2
3
4
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 4
PROBLEM DEFINITION AND FORMULATION ........................................ 10
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 26
4.1. Kae-h Versus Batter Relationship ....................................................... 26
4.2. Effect of Vertical Seismic Coefficient ............................................. 66
4.3. Slip Surfaces ..................................................................................... 75
4.4. Studying Seismic-Induced Resultant Force...................................... 88
5
COMPARISON OF RESULTS ..................................................................... 100
6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................. 108
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 110
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 5.5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 4.1.a
Figure 4.1.b
Figure 4.2.a
Figure 4.2.b
Figure 4.3.a
Figure 4.3.b
Figure 4.4.a
Figure 4.4.b
Figure 4.5.a
Figure 4.5.b
vi
Figure 4.6.a
Figure 4.6.b
Figure 4.7.a
Figure 4.7.b
Figure 4.8.a
Figure 4.8.b
Figure 4.9.a
Figure 4.9.b
Figure 4.10.a
Figure 4.10.b
Figure 4.11.a
Figure 4.11.b
Figure 4.12.a
Figure 4.12.b
vii
Figure 4.13.a
Figure 4.13.b
Figure 4.14.a
Figure 4.14.b
Figure 4.15.a
Figure 4.15.b
Figure 4.16.a
Figure 4.16.b
Figure 4.17.a
Figure 4.17.b
Figure 4.18.a
Figure 4.18.b
Figure 4.19.a
Figure 4.19.b
viii
Figure 4.20.a
Figure 4.20.b
Figure 4.21.a
Figure 4.21.b
Figure 4.22.a
Figure 4.22.b
Figure 4.23.a
Figure 4.23.b
Figure 4.24.a
Figure 4.24.b
Figure 4.25.a
Figure 4.25.b
Figure 4.26.a
Figure 4.26.b
ix
Figure 4.27.a
Figure 4.27.b
Figure 4.28.a
Figure 4.28.b
Figure 4.29.a
Figure 4.29.b
Figure 4.30.a
Figure 4.30.b
Figure 4.31.a
Figure 4.31.b
Figure 4.32.a
Figure 4.32.b
Figure 4.33.a
Figure 4.33.b
Figure 4.34.a
Figure 4.34.b
Figure 4.35.a
Figure 4.35.b
Figure 4.36.a
Figure 4.36.b
Figure 4.37.a
Figure 4.37.b
Figure 4.38.a
Figure 4.38.b
Figure 4.39.a
Figure 4.39.b
Figure 4.40.a
Figure 4.40.b
xi
Figure 4.41.a
Figure 4.41.b
Figure 4.42.a
Figure 4.42.b
Figure 4.43.a
Figure 4.43.b
Figure 4.44.a
Figure 4.44.b
Figure 4.45.a
Figure 4.45.b
Figure 4.46.a
Figure 4.46.b
Figure 4.47.a
Figure 4.47.b
xii
Figure 4.48.a
Figure 4.48.b
Figure 4.49.a
Figure 4.49.b
Figure 4.50.a
Figure 4.50.b
Figure 4.51.a
Figure 4.51.b
Figure 4.52.a
Figure 4.52.b
Figure 4.53.a
xiii
Figure 4.53.b
Figure 4.54.a
Figure 4.54.b
Figure 4.55.a
Figure 4.55.b
Figure 4.56.a
Figure 4.56.b
Figure 4.57.a
Figure 4.57.b
Figure 4.58.a
Figure 4.58.b
xiv
Figure 4.59
Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-17 for =20, Kv=0, and (a) =0;
(b) =1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1 ............................................. 91
Figure 4.60
Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-17 for =30, Kv=0, and (a) =0;
(b) =1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1 ............................................. 92
Figure 4.61
Kae-h Versus BatterUsing Eq. 3-17 for =40, Kv=0, and (a) =0;
(b) =1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1 ............................................. 93
Figure 4.62
Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-17 for =50, Kv=0, and (a) =0;
(b) =1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1 ............................................. 94
Figure 4.63
Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-22 for =20, Kv=0, and (a) =0;
(b) =1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1 ............................................. 95
Figure 4.64
Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-22 for =30, Kv=0, and (a) =0;
(b) =1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1 ............................................. 96
Figure 4.65
Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-22 for =40, Kv=0, and (a) =0;
(b) =1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1 ............................................. 97
Figure 4.66
Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-22 for =50, Kv=0, and (a) =0;
(b) =1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1 ............................................. 98
Figure 4.67
xv
ABSTRACT
The resultant force of lateral earth pressures is commonly used in design
of nearly vertical walls while flatter slopes are designed to be internally stable using a
factor of safety approach. An unstable slope is considered to have unsatisfactory factor
of safety unless supported by internal and/or external measures. However, from
analytical viewpoint, the distinction between walls and unstable slopes is unnecessary.
Using limit equilibrium analysis combined with a log spiral surface, a previous
formulation is extended to deal with pseudostatic instability of simple, homogenous,
cohesionless slopes. Hence, the original approach by Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) is
extended to yield the resultant lateral force needed to stabilize an unstable slope.
Given the slope angle, the design internal angle of friction, the backslope, the
surcharge, the vertical and horizontal seismic acceleration, and the inclination of the
resultant force, one can calculate the magnitude of this resultant. The approach allows
for the selection of a rational inclination of the resultant for cases where soil-face
interaction is likely to develop along vertical segments only. The approach generalizes
the Coulomb (static) and the M-O (pseudostatic) methods as all are in the same
framework of limit equilibrium. While all methods yield identical results for vertical
slopes, where the critical slip surface defining the active wedge degenerates to the
same planar surface, the presented approach becomes more critical for flatter unstable
slopes where the active wedge is augmented by a curved surface. Hence, seamless
extension of the M-O approach is produced.
xvi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The MononobeOkabe (M-O) method (Okabe 1926; Mononobe and
Matsuo 1929) has been used in practice for decades to assess the resultant of lateral
earth pressure acting on earth retaining structures. The formulation satisfies global
force equilibrium for an active wedge leaning against the retaining wall. In assessing
the stability of the wall, the location of the resultant force needs to be assumed as it is
not part of the force equilibrium formulation. Current retrospective of the M-O
approach is provided by Al Atik and Sitar (2010). In essence, the M-O formulation is
an extension of the Coulomb formulation to include pseudostatic inertia force
components due to ground acceleration. The seismic loading is momentary and not
permanent as assumed in the pseudostatic approach. Hence, it is common in design
guidelines to recommend using a fraction of the anticipated peak ground acceleration,
PGA, typically 0.3 to 0.5 of PGA (e.g., Leshchinsky et al. 2009).
Similar to Coulombs method, the M-O method becomes unconservative
in the context of limit state formulation as the batter increases (e.g., Leshchinsky and
Zhu, 2010). Simply, a planar mechanism for the active wedge assumed by the
Coulomb method or the M-O method is less critical than a curved surface such as a
log spiral. The objective of this work is to produce the corresponding lateral earth
pressure coefficient which is compatible with the M-O concept but is theoretically
valid for any batter representing unstable slopes. It uses the same framework of
formulation as done by Leshchinsky and Zhu (2010), providing algorithms suitable for
pseudostatic loading combined with an active wedge defined by a log spiral as well as
some practical results. The log spiral surface degenerates to a planar surface when the
batter approaches zero and therefore, the present formulation provides seamless
extension to the M-O formulation dealing with unstable slopes.
Traditionally, geotechnical practice distinguishes between slopes and
walls (e.g., FHWA 2009). Hence, seeking the resultant of lateral earth pressure in
conjunction with slopes may appear awkward. However, unstable slopes (i.e., slopes
for which the common factor of safety on shear strength is not in excess of one), need
to be supported externally, internally, or both to ensure its long term performance.
External support of unstable slopes can be achieved by using large concrete blocks,
gabions, geocells infilled with soil, etc., stacked with a setback (batter), capable of
sustaining the lateral pressures exerted by the slope. Design of such structures requires
knowledge of the resultant force exerted by the slope so that sufficient resistance to
sliding, overturning, and bearing failure can be provided. Internal support can be
achieved using reinforcement (e.g., geosynthetics) connected to slender facing units.
In this case, the sum of maximum tensile forces in all reinforcement layers, ignoring
the impact of the bottom slim facing unit, is equal to the horizontal component of the
resultant force. The National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA 1997) requires
that the sum of the connection forces (i.e., connection between the reinforcement and
facings) should be equal to the horizontal component of the resultant force.
Furthermore, the external stability of reinforced soil walls is assessed by considering
the resultant force acting on the coherent reinforced mass. This force is calculated
using the face batter as the inclination of the unstable slope retained by the reinforced
mass. Hence, extending the M-O concept to deal with unstable slopes is beyond just
an academic interest; it has immediate design implications.
The objective of this thesis is using limit equilibrium analysis combined
with log spiral surface to extend the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) formulation to deal with
pseudostatic instability of simple, homogenous, cohesionless slopes. Chapter Two
contains a literature review on the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method analysis. The
formulation using a modified LE approach to find the lateral seismic earth pressure
coefficient required to resist the soil is presented in Chapter Three. In Chapter Four,
design charts of equivalent horizontal seismic lateral earth pressure coefficient and
trace of critical slip surface are presented. Chapter Five provides a numerical
comparison the results obtained from the M-O equation, the limit analysis (LA), and
the equations developed by this work. Finally, in Chapter Six, conclusion of this work
and recommendations for further study are presented.
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The dynamic analysis of earth retention systems is commonly simplified
in practice by utilizing analytical methods which incorporate a pseudostatic force to
simulate transient ground motion (e.g., Okabe 1926; Mononobe and Matsuo 1929;
Seed and Whitman 1970; Steedman and Zeng 1990; Kim et al. 2010). Among several
methods, the well-accepted M-O method (Okabe 1926; Mononobe and Matsuo 1929)
is most widely utilized by current codes for the seismic design of earth retention
systems (e.g., AASHTO 2007, Anderson et al. 2009). In these design codes, earth
retention systems are designed in a way to counterbalance, by a satisfactory factor of
safety, the resultant force of dynamic earth pressures that is determined using the M-O
method.
The development of the M-O method was motivated by catastrophic
damages to many retaining structures observed after the 1923 Kanto earthquake,
Japan. The method follows the limit-equilibrium approach and is basically a
pseudostatic extension of the classical Coulomb (1776) lateral earth pressure theory.
The M-O equation was derived for yielding retaining walls with cohesionless backfill
materials and the equation does not take into account the cohesion of backfill soil, wall
adhesion and external surcharge loading. The M-O method assumes that at the failure
point, a planar failure surface is developed instantaneously behind the wall and the
failure soil wedge behaves as a rigid body. The thrust point is assumed at 1/3 the
height of the wall from the base. Figure 2.1 shows the forces acting on the active
wedge in the M-O analysis. Using the M-O approach, the active thrust under seismic
conditions can be expresses as Equation (2-1):
H K
(2-1)
Where is the unit weight of soil, H is the height of the earth structure, Kv
is the vertical seismic coefficient, and Kae is the active seismic earth pressure
coefficient. Kae is given in following equation:
cos
K
cos cos
cos
sin
cos
sin
cos
(2-2)
The performance of the M-O method and its underlying assumptions have
been extensively evaluated through both numerical and experimental studies (e.g.;
Seed and Whitman 1970; Sherif et al. 1982; Oritz et al. 1983; Ishibashi and Fang
1987; Zeng and Steedman 1993; Veletsos and Younan 1994; Psarropoulos et al. 2005;
Nakamura 2006; Al Atik and Sitar 2010). Several attempts have been made to modify
the M-O method in order to improve the accuracy and address the limitations
associated with the original M-O method (e.g., Seed and Whitman 1970; Fang and
Chen 1995; Koseki et al. 1998; Kim et al., 2010).
Similar to the Coulomb theory, the M-O theory assumes a planar slip
surface for developing the failure wedge (Figure 2.1). However, experimental studies
(e.g., Nakamura 2006) have shown that employing a planer surface cannot truly
characterize the dynamic response of earth retention systems and the magnitude of
seismic earth pressure is influenced by the assumed shape of failure surface. Based on
these extensive investigations, it has been found that a curved failure surface or a two-
part surface (i.e., a curve in the lower part and a straight line in the upper part) is more
compatible with the real failure surface formed in the backfill soil under dynamic
loadings. The accurate equation for a curved failure surface is complex and yet has not
been derived; instead, the curved surface is commonly represented by a circle or log
spiral (e.g., Chang and Chen 1982; Fang and Chen 1995; Hazarika 2009)
In the M-O method, the point of action of the resultant active thrust was
taken at 1/3 the height of the wall above its base (Figure 2.1). However, this location
has been extensively challenged in the literature (Kramer 1996). Seed and Whitman
(1970) argued that the position of the resultant dynamic force varies in a range
between 0.5H to 2H/3 depending on the magnitude of the earthquake ground
acceleration. Within this range, Seed and Whitman (1970) recommended that D is
equal to 0.6H be used as a rational value for design purposes.
More recently,
however, Al Atik and Sitar (2010) performed a set of experimental and numerical
analyses and showed that D = H/3 is a more reasonable assumption for the position of
the resultant.
Koseki et al. (1998) modified the M-O method considering the
progressive failure and strain localization phenomena. For this purpose, Koseki et al.
(1998) proposed a graphical procedure to reduce the postpeak angle of friction in the
backfill soil. In a similar attempt, Zhang and Li (2001) mathematically investigated
the effect of strain localization on the M-O method.
Since the M-O method is developed based upon the pseudostatic
approach, there is an inherent over-conservatism associated with the method due to
simulating transient ground motion by a constant force assumption. To overcome to
this over-conservatism, the seismic coefficient is usually taken as a fraction of the
expected earthquake peak ground acceleration for design purposes (e.g., FHWA 1998;
Leshchinsky et al. 2009; Anderson et al. 2009). For example, for the design of nongravity cantilever walls, current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
recommend a seismic design coefficient that corresponds to half of the earthquake
peak ground acceleration (AASHTO 2007). Acknowledging the over-conservatism of
current design methods, Al Atik and Sitar (2010) more recently suggested that seismic
earth pressures on cantilever retaining walls can be neglected at peak ground
accelerations below 0.4g for wall with horizontal backslope. In a similar fashion, Bray
et al. (2010) recommended 0.3g as the boundary value below which there is no need
for seismic design.
The pseudostatic approach does not consider the amplification of the
ground motion near the ground surface which will lead to a linear distribution of the
resultant dynamic force along the wall height. To overcome to this drawback,
Steedman and Zeng (1990) introduced a pseudo-dynamic approach which accounts for
the time effect and phase change in shear and primary waves propagating in the
backfill. The pseudo-dynamic method gives a non-linear seismic active earth pressure
distribution behind the earth retention system and it has been further investigated and
extended by others (e.g., Choudhury and Nimbalkar 2006; Ghosh 2008).
In parallel to pseudostatic limit-equilibrium equations, several pseudostatic methods have been proposed using the limit analysis theory (e.g., Chang and
Chen 1982; Chen and Liu 1990; Soubra and Macuh 2001). These methods are
developed based on kinematically admissible failure mechanisms along with a yield
criterion and a flow rule for the backfill soil, both of which are enforced along
predefined slip surfaces (Mylonakis et al. 2007). Following this approach, seismic
earth pressure coefficients are derived by taking into account the equilibrium of
external work and the internal energy dissipation.
In this thesis an algorithm solving the moment equilibrium equation for a
log-spiral slip surface is provided. Such a surface degenerates to the M-O planar
surface when the slope face is near vertical. Hence, it provides a seamless extension
to the M-O method dealing with unstable slopes. The formulation and solution scheme
is basically a pseudo-static extension of the work presented by Leshchinsky and Zhu
(2010). Implementing the presented algorithm in a computer code is simple as it
represents a closed-form solution. Also, instructive charts, which constitute the critical
solution to the log-spiral analysis, are presented in the familiar format. The
formulation and results are limited to cohesionless soils.
Chapter 3
PROBLEM DEFINITION AND FORMULATION
Log-spiral slip surface has been used in the limit equilibrium (LE)
analysis by Rendulic (1935) and Taylor (1937). Baker and Garber (1978)
mathematically gained a log-spiral slip surface by using the variational limit
equilibrium (LE) analysis with no prior assumption. The benefit of using the LE
analysis of homogeneous soil is assessing particular problem without resorting to the
static assumption. The moment equilibrium equation can be written for an assumed
slip surface without explicit knowledge of the normal stress over that surface.
Therefore, the LE moment equation can be solved iteratively until the critical logspiral is found; i.e., the spiral that yields the lowest factor of safety is identified.
Using notation proposed by Baker and Garber (1978), log-spiral geometry
can be expressed as follows:
Ae
(3-1)
10
Figure 3.2 shows the notation and convention used in formulating the
extended M-O problem. For the assumed direction of the resultant vector, reacting to
the lateral earth pressure on line 1-3 (Figure 3.2), the classical expression for the
horizontal component of this resultant force is:
11
1
H 1
2
K K
cos
1
H 1
2
K K
(3-3)
Where Pae_h is the horizontal component of the resultant Pae (i.e., Pae_h =
Pae cos()); is the soil-facing interface friction angle; H is the height of the slope; is
the unit weight of the soil; Kae is the pseudostatic lateral earth pressure coefficient
assuming that the interface friction acts only along vertical surfaces (Leshchinsky and
Zhu 2010); Kv is the vertical acceleration normalized relative to gravity g (fraction of
PGA; note that the upward direction is positive); and Kae_h is a convenient parameter
directly rendering the horizontal component of the resultant force.
The resultant force is obtained from solving the moment equilibrium equation
for an active wedge defined by a log spiral. The moment equilibrium equation written
about the pole (Xc, Yc) of a log-spiral in a LE state, is independent of the normal stress
distribution. Figure 3.2 shows forces acting on the log-spiral sliding mass. For
cohesionless soils, the resultant of any elemental normal and shear stress at each point
along the slip surface is passing through the pole thus the moment equilibrium
equation can be presented as (Leshchinsky and Zhu 2010):
tan h
K Wh
12
Where W represents the weight of sliding soil mass, and h1, h2, h3 and h4
are moment leverage arms as illustrated in Figure 3.2. Also the moment induced by
the surcharge load needs to be included to complete the equation.
Figure 3.2. Notation and Rational Direction of Force Components Producing the
Pseudostatic Resultant
R cos
R sin
D tan
Ae
cos
Ae
13
D
sin
(3-5)
D tan
(3-6)
Where 1 and 2 are the polar coordinates of point 1 and 2 (See Figure
3.2; Point 1 is at the origin of the Cartesian coordinates where the slip surface emerges
and Point 2 is the point where this surface starts).
In the right hand side of the moment equilibrium equation (Equation 3-4)
three terms needed to be defined.
Calculation of Wh3:
To define this term, it is needed to consider the moment generated by the
weight of the sliding mass for a simple log-spiral with no backslope and a vertical
facing (area (1-2-5) in Figure 3-3) as modified by Leshchinsky and San (1994) and
subtracting areas of (1-3-6), (3-4-5-6) and (2-3-4) as shown in Figure 3.3.
For a mass for a simple log-spiral with no backslope and a vertical facing
(area (1-2-5) in Figure 3-3) Leshchinsky and San (1994) showed that the moment
equilibrium equation can be written as:
area 1
Ae
5 .h
cos
Ae
Ae
cos
cos
Ae
Ae
cos
sin Ae
Ae
cos
sin dx
sin d
(3-7)
H
Htan
2
R sin
1
H tan
3
H
tan Ae
2
sin
H
tan
3
(3-8)
14
H tan Ae
cos
Ae
cos
H Ae
sin
1
H tan
2
(3-9)
In a similar way, writing the moment equation for area (2-3-4) gives:
1
Ae
2
Ae
sin
sin
Ae
H tan
sin
1
Ae
3
H tan
sin
Ae
cos
Ae
Ae
sin
H tan
cos
(3-10)
Figure 3.3. Different Areas Used in Writing the Moment Equations Due to the Weight
of Sliding Mass
15
Calculation of Wh4 :
This term includes the horizontal seismic coefficient and renders a
pseudostatic horizontal force due to an earthquake; customarily it is taken as a fraction
of gravity and acts in the minus X-axis direction. It is suggested to use 0.3-0.5 times
peak ground acceleration (PGA) for earth structures such as slopes, and 0.3-0.4 times
PGA for geocell structures (Leshchinsky et al. 2009). The force due to Kh is assumed
to act at the center of gravity of the sliding soil body. In the slice methods, this
horizontal seismic force is acting at the center of each slice. Leshchinsky and San
(1994) derived the moment equilibrium equation for seismic conditions and as same as
the first term (moment due to the weight of the sliding mass) it is needed to subtract
the moments induced by areas of (1-3-6), (3-4-5-6) and (2-3-4). The following
equation is a modification and extension to the equation presented by Leshchinsky and
San (1994).
area 1
5 .h
1
Ae
2
Ae
cos
cos
Ae
Ae
cos
cos
Ae
cos
sin d
(3-11)
H
Htan Ae
2
cos
H
3
(3-12)
16
cos
Ae
cos
Ae
cos
H Ae
cos
1
Ae
2
cos
H
(3-13)
1
Ae
2
Ae
sin
cos
Ae
1
Ae
3
sin
cos
H tan w
Ae
Ae
cos
cos
Ae
cos
H
(3-14)
q R sin
R sin
R sin
H tan
q Ae
H tan
H tan
R sin
R sin
2
sin
Ae
Ae
sin
H tan
sin
Ae sin
2
H tan
(3-15)
17
Ae
cos
1
Ae
tan Ae
cos
sin
Ae
cos
1
1
2
K Htan Ae
Ae
sin Ae
H
tan Ae
3
cos
H Ae
H
tan 1
2
cos
Ae
sin d
1
Dtan
cos
sin
sin
1
Htan
2
K
Ae
sin
Ae
1
K Ae
2
Ae
cos
1
Ae
3
cos
sin
H Ae
sin
Ae
Ae
cos
Htan Ae
sin
sin
Ae
Ae
cos Ae
cos
H
K tan Ae
cos
H
2
HK tan Ae
cos
Ae
cos
H
1
K Ae
2
1
Ae
2
cos
cos
Ae
Ae
cos
Htan Ae
cos
cos
H Ae
Htan
Htan
cos
sin d
H
3
Ae
cos
H
sin
1
Ae
3
cos
Ae
cos
q Ae
sin
Ae
sin
H tan
Ae
sin
cos
Ae
1
Ae
2
sin
sin
H tan
(3-16)
18
cos
2
H
Ae
cos
Ae
sin d
cos
Ae
H
tan
3
tan
sin Ae
Ae
sin
2
tan Ae
cos
Ae
cos
H Ae
H
1
Ae
sin
Ae
sin
Htan Ae
H
H Ae
sin
Htan
1
H
1
Ae
3
K
1
sin
Ae
cos
K
1
H 1 K
sin
Ae
sin d
2
K
H 1 K
Ae
cos
cos
Ae
tan Ae
cos
Ae
cos
H Ae
1
Ae
2
cos
Ae
cos
Ae
1
Ae
3
sin
cos
cos
Htan Ae
cos
q
H 1 K
/ Ae
Ae
Ae
Ae
D
Ae
cos
Htan
cos
cos
H
tan
2
sin
tan Ae
Ae
cos
H Ae
cos
H
3
cos
sin
cos
cos
sin
tan Ae
H
Ae
sin
sin
H tan
Dtan
(3-17)
19
Ae
sin
(3-18)
Ae
cos
(3-19)
20
Where Xc and Yc are the location of the pole of the log-spiral relative to
the Cartesian coordinate system. Considering that Point 1 is at (0,0) and that Point 2
must be on the crest (see Figure 3.2), manipulation of Equations 3-18 and 3-19 yields
the following expression:
cos
1 tan tan
sin tan
e cos
sin tan
(3-20)
21
only at the toe are considered, the minimization is done with respect to two parameters
only analogous to the log-spiral case here.
To realize a formulation that is equivalent to the classical Coulomb and
M-O methods in terms of inclination of interface friction, refer first to Figure 3.4. It is
seen that the interface friction between the facing and the soil is along the slope.
Hence, the horizontal component of the resultant force would be:
1
H 1
2
K K
cos
1
H 1
2
K K
(3-21)
Figure 3.4. Direction of Resultant Force, Pae, Commonly Used in Classical Coulomb
and M-O Analyses
22
23
cos
2
H
Ae
cos
Ae
sin d
cos
Ae
H
tan
3
tan
sin Ae
Ae
sin
2
tan Ae
cos
Ae
cos
H Ae
H
1
Ae
sin
Ae
sin
Htan Ae
H
H Ae
sin
Htan
1
H
1
Ae
3
K
1
sin
Ae
K
1
H 1 K
sin
cos
Ae
K
sin d
2
K
H 1 K
Ae
cos
cos
Ae
cos
cos
Ae
cos
H Ae
1
Ae
2
cos
Ae
cos
cos
Ae
Ae
sin
1
Ae
3
cos
Htan Ae
cos
Ae
H Ae
q
Ae
sin
H 1 K
cos
cos Ae
cos
/
cos
cos sin
tan Ae
sin
tan Ae
cos sin
cos
cos
H
3
cos
sin
cos
cos
sin Ae
Ae
Htan
tan Ae
Ae
H
tan
2
sin
tan Ae
cos
H
Ae
sin
H tan
D tan
Dtan sin
D tan cos
(3-22)
24
The right hand side of Equation 3-22 is different from Equation 3-17
solely by the denominator. That is, the denominator represents the resisting moment
generated by the resultant force that is needed to stabilize the mass augmented by a
log-spiral defining the active wedge. Its value depends on the inclination of the
resultant Pa. The solution process of Equation 3-22 is identical to that of Equation 317.
25
Chapter 4
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
This chapter presents a series of design charts showing seismic lateral
earth pressure coefficient (Kae-h) and also seismic component of the resultant force
(Kae-h) in different states, combined with the trace of critical log spirals defining the
active wedges for various seismic coefficients. These charts are developed utilizing
Equations 3-17 and 3-22 and their associated solution schemes, as explained in
Chapter 3. The proposed algorithms can be easily programmed and solved to produce
results for possible cases which have not been presented in this chapter.
26
27
0.9
0.8
0.7
K ae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope 1:
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.1.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=20, Backslope 1:, /=0 & 1/3)
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=20o, Backslope1:
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.1.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=20, Backslope 1: , /=2/3 & 1)
28
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=30o, Backslope1:
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.2.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1:, /=0 & 1/3)
1.2
1.0
Kae_h
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
=30o, Backslope1:
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.2.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: , /=2/3 & 1)
29
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.3.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1:, /=0 & 1/3)
0.7
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=40o, Backslope1:
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.3.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: , /=2/3 & 1)
30
0.5
0.4
=50o, Backslope1:
Kae_h
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.4.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: , /=0 & 1/3)
0.5
0.5
0.4
=50o, Backslope1:
0.4
Kae_h
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.4.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: , /=2/3 & 1)
31
0.9
0.8
0.7
=20o, Backslope1:10
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.5.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=20, Backslope 1:10, /=0 & 1/3)
0.9
0.8
=20o, Backslope1:10
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.5.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=20, Backslope 1: 10, /=2/3 & 1)
32
1.0
0.9
0.8
=30o, Backslope1:10
0.7
K ae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.6.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1:10, /=0 & 1/3)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
K ae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30o, Backslope1:10
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.6.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 10, /=2/3 & 1)
33
0.8
0.7
=40o, Backslope1:10
0.6
K ae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.7.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: 10, /=0 & 1/3)
0.9
0.8
=40o, Backslope1:10
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.7.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: 10, /=2/3 & 1)
34
0.5
0.4
=50o, Backslope1:10
K ae_h
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.8.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: 10, /=0 & 1/3)
0.6
0.5
=50o, Backslope1:10
K ae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.8.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: 10, /=2/3 & 1)
35
0.8
0.7
=20o, Backslope1:5
0.6
K ae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.9.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=20, Backslope 1: 5, /=0 & 1/3)
0.8
0.7
=20o, Backslope1:5
0.6
K ae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.9.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=20, Backslope 1: 5, /=2/3 & 1)
36
0.9
0.8
0.7
=30o, Backslope1:5
K ae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.10.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 5, /=0 & 1/3)
0.9
0.8
0.7
=30o, Backslope1:5
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.10.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 5, /=2/3 & 1)
37
1.0
0.9
0.8
=40o, Backslope1:5
0.7
K ae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.11.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: 5, /=0 & 1/3)
1.2
1.0
=40o, Backslope1:5
Kae_h
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.11.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: 5, /=2/3 & 1)
38
0.6
0.5
=50o, Backslope1:5
K ae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.12.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: 5, /=0 & 1/3)
0.7
0.6
=50o, Backslope1:5
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.12.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: 5, /=2/3 & 1)
39
0.8
0.7
=20o, Backslope1:3
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.13.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=20, Backslope 1: 3, /=0 & 1/3)
0.8
0.7
=20o, Backslope1:3
Backslope1:3
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.13.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=20, Backslope 1: 3, /=2/3 & 1)
40
1.0
0.9
0.8
=30o, Backslope1:3
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.14.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 3, /=0 & 1/3)
1.0
0.9
0.8
=30o, Backslope1:3
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.14.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 3, /=2/3 & 1)
41
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:3
0.5
K ae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.15.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: 3, /=0 & 1/3)
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:3
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.15.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: 3, /=2/3 & 1)
42
0.8
0.7
=50o, Backslope1:3
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.16.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: 3, /=0 & 1/3)
0.9
0.8
0.7
=50o, Backslope1:3
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.16.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: 3, /=2/3 & 1)
43
0.6
0.5
=30o, Backslope1:2
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.17.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 2, /=0 & 1/3)
0.6
0.5
=30o, Backslope1:2
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.17.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 2, /=2/3 & 1)
44
0.8
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:2
K ae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.18.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: 2, /=0 & 1/3)
0.9
0.8
0.7
=40o, Backslope1:2
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.18.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=40, Backslope 1: 2, /=2/3 & 1)
45
0.8
0.7
=50o, Backslope1:2
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.19.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: 2, /=0 & 1/3)
1.1
1.0
0.9
=50o, Backslope1:2
0.8
Kae_h
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.19.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=50, Backslope 1: 2, /=2/3 & 1)
46
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope1:
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.20.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=20, Backslope 1:, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope1:
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.20.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=20, Backslope 1: , /=2/3 & 1)
47
1.0
0.9
0.8
=30o, Backslope1:
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.21.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:, /=0 & 1/3 )
1.2
1.0
=30o, Backslope1:
Kae_h
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.21.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: , /=2/3 & 1)
48
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.22.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1:, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.22.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1: , /=2/3 & 1)
49
0.5
0.4
0.4
=50o, Backslope1:
Kae_h
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.23.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1:, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.5
0.4
=50o, Backslope1:
Kae_h
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.23.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1: , /=2/3 & 1)
50
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope1:10
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.24.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=20, Backslope 1:10, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope1:10
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.24.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=20, Backslope 1: 10, /=2/3 & 1)
51
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30o, Backslope1:10
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.25.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:10, /=0 & 1/3 )
1.0
0.9
0.8
=30o, Backslope1:10
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.25.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: 10, /=2/3 & 1)
52
0.8
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:10
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.26.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1:10, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.9
0.8
0.7
=40o, Backslope1:10
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.26.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1: 10, /=2/3 & 1)
53
0.5
0.4
=50o, Backslope1:10
Kae_h
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.27.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1:10, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.6
0.5
=50o, Backslope1:10
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.27.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1: 10, /=2/3 & 1)
54
0.8
0.7
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope1:5
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.28.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=20, Backslope 1:5, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.8
0.7
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope1:5
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.28.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=20, Backslope 1: 5, /=2/3 & 1)
55
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30o, Backslope1:5
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.29.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:5, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.9
0.8
0.7
=30o, Backslope1:5
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.29.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: 5, /=2/3 & 1)
56
1.0
0.9
0.8
=40o, Backslope1:5
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.30.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1:5, /=0 & 1/3 )
1.0
0.9
0.8
=40o, Backslope1:5
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.30.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1: 5, /=2/3 & 1)
57
0.6
0.5
=50o, Backslope1:5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.31.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1:5, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.7
0.6
=50o, Backslope1:5
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.31.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1: 5, /=2/3 & 1)
58
0.8
0.7
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope1:3
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.32.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=20, Backslope 1:3, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.8
0.7
0.6
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o, Backslope1:3
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.32.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=20, Backslope 1: 3, /=2/3 & 1)
59
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30o, Backslope1:3
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.33.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:3, /=0 & 1/3 )
1.0
0.9
0.8
=30o, Backslope1:3
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.33.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: 3, /=2/3 & 1)
60
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:3
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.34.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1:3, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:3
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.34.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1: 3, /=2/3 & 1)
61
0.8
0.7
0.6
=50o, Backslope1:3
Kae_h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.35.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1:3, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.9
0.8
0.7
=50o, Backslope1:3
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.35.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1: 3, /=2/3 & 1)
62
0.6
0.5
=30o, Backslope1:2
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.36.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:2, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.6
0.5
=30o, Backslope1:2
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.36.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: 2, /=2/3 & 1)
63
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:2
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.37.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1:2, /=0 & 1/3 )
0.7
0.6
=40o, Backslope1:2
0.5
Kae_h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.37.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=40, Backslope 1: 2, /=2/3 & 1)
64
1.0
0.9
0.8
=50o, Backslope1:2
0.7
Kae_h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.38.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1:2, /=0 & 1/3 )
1.2
1.0
=50o, Backslope1:2
Kae_h
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.38.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=50, Backslope 1: 2, /=2/3 & 1)
65
66
0.5
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.4
K ae-h
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30
=20o, Backslope1:,K
Backslope1:,Kh=0.1,=0
h=0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.39.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1:, Kh=0.1, /=0 )
0.8
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.7
0.6
K ae-h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=30
=20o, Backslope1:,K
Backslope1:,Kh=0.3,=0
h=0.1
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.39.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: , Kh=0.3, /=0)
67
0.6
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.5
K ae-h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=20o,, Backslope1:5,K
Backslope1:,K=0.1,=0
h=0.1
=30
h
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.40.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1:5, Kh=0.1, /=0 )
0.9
Kv/Kh=1
0.8
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
0.7
K ae-h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o,, Backslope1:5,K
Backslope1:,K=0.3,=0
h=0.1
=30
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.40.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 5, Kh=0.3, /=0)
68
0.4
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
K ae-h
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30o, Backslope1:,Kh=0.1,=2/3
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.41.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1:, Kh=0.1, /=2/3 )
0.9
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.8
0.7
K ae-h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=30
=20o, Backslope1:,K
Backslope1:,Kh=0.3,=2/3
h=0.1
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.41.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: , Kh=0.3, /=2/3)
69
0.5
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.4
K ae-h
0.3
0.2
0.1
=20o,, Backslope1:5,K
Backslope1:,K=0.1,=2/3
h=0.1
=30
h
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.42.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1:5, Kh=0.1, /=2/3 )
0.9
Kv/Kh=1
0.8
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
0.7
K ae-h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o,, Backslope1:5,K
Backslope1:,K=0.3,=2/3
h=0.1
=30
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.42.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-17 (=30, Backslope 1: 5, Kh=0.3, /=2/3)
70
0.5
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.4
K ae-h
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30
=20o, Backslope1:,K
Backslope1:,Kh=0.1,=0
h=0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.43.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter, Eq.
3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:, Kh=0.1, /=0 )
0.8
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.7
0.6
K ae-h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30o, Backslope1:,Kh=0.3,=0
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.43.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: , Kh=0.3, /=0)
71
0.6
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.5
K ae-h
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
=20o,,, Backslope1:0.1,K
Backslope1:,K=0.1,=0
h=0.1
=20
=30
Backslope1:5,K
=0.1,=0
h h
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.44.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:5, Kh=0.1, /=0 )
0.9
Kv/Kh=1
0.8
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
0.7
K ae-h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=20o,,, Backslope1:0.1,K
Backslope1:,K=0.3,=0
h=0.1
=20
=30
Backslope1:5,K
=0.1,=0
0.1
h h
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.44.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: 5, Kh=0.3, /=0)
72
0.4
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
K ae-h
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30o, Backslope1:,Kh=0.1,=2/3
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.45.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:, Kh=0.1, /=2/3 )
0.8
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.7
0.6
K ae-h
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=30o, Backslope1:,Kh=0.3,=2/3
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.45.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: , Kh=0.3, /=2/3)
73
0.5
Kv/Kh=1
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=1
0.4
K ae-h
0.3
0.2
0.1
=30o, Backslope1:5,Kh=0.1,=2/3
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.46.a. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1:5, Kh=0.1, /=2/3 )
0.9
Kv/Kh=1
0.8
Kv/Kh=0.5
Kv/Kh=0
0.7
K ae-h
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
=30o, Backslope1:5,Kh=0.3,=2/3
0.1
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Batter, (degrees)
Figure 4.46.b. Equivalent Horizontal Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient vs. Batter,
Eq. 3-22 (=30, Backslope 1: 5, Kh=0.3, /=2/3)
74
75
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.3
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.1
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.47.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =20, =0,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-17)
1.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.2
5.4
X=x/H
Figure 4.47.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =20, =70, Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-17)
76
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.48.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =30, =0,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-17)
1.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
1.0
0.8
Y=y/H
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
X=x/H
Figure 4.48.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =30, =60,v Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-17)
77
1.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
X=x/H
Figure 4.49.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for
Various Seismic Coefficients: =40,=0,Backslope 1: , (Eq. 3-17)
1.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2 K =0.3
h
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.49.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for
Various Seismic Coefficients: =40, =50,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-17)
78
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.3
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.1
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
X=x/H
Figure 4.50.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =50, =0,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-17)
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
X=x/H
0.8
1.2
1.4
Figure 4.50.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =50, =40,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-17)
79
1.6
Kh=0.1
1.4
Kh=0.0
1.2
Y=y/H
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.51.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =20, =0,Backslope 1: 5(Eq. 3-17)
2.2
Kh=0.0
1.8
Y=y/H
1.4
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.0
1.0
0.6
0.2
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.6
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.4
3.8
4.2
4.6
5.4
5.8
6.2
6.6
X=x/H
Figure 4.51.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =20, =70,Backslope 1: 5 (Eq. 3-17)
80
1.6
Kh=0.3
1.4
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.1
1.2
Y=y/H
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.52.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for
Various Seismic Coefficients: =40, =0,Backslope 1: 5 (Eq. 3-17)
1.4
Kh=0.1
1.2
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
Kh=0.0
Y=y/H
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.52.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for
Various Seismic Coefficients: =40, =50,Backslope 1: 5 (Eq. 3-17)
81
1.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.3
Kh=0.2
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.53.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =20, =0,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-22)
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.53.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =20, =70,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-22)
82
1.2
Kh=0.0 Kh=0.1
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
X=x/H
Figure 4.54.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =30, =0,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-22)
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.54.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =30, =60,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-22)
83
1.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
X=x/H
Figure 4.55.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =40, =0,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-22)
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.55.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =40, =50,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-22)
84
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
X=x/H
Figure 4.56.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for
Various Seismic Coefficients: =40, =0,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-22)
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
1.0
Y=y/H
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
X=x/H
Figure 4.56.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for
Various Seismic Coefficients: =40, =50,Backslope 1: (Eq. 3-22)
85
1.8
Kh=0.1
1.6
Kh=0.0
1.4
Y=y/H
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.57.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =20, =0,Backslope 1: 5(Eq. 3-22)
1.4
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.1
1.2
Y=y/H
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.4
3.6
X=x/H
Figure 4.57.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for Various
Seismic Coefficients: =20, =70,Backslope 1: 5(Eq. 3-22)
86
1.6
1.4
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.1
Kh=0.3
Kh=0.2
1.2
Y=y/H
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.58.a. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for
Various Seismic Coefficients: =40, =0,Backslope 1: 5(Eq. 3-22)
1.4
Kh=0.1
1.2
Kh=0.0
Kh=0.2
Kh=0.3
Y=y/H
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
X=x/H
Figure 4.58.b. Traces of Critical Log Spirals Defining the Active Wedges for
Various Seismic Coefficients: =40, =50,Backslope 1: 5(Eq. 3-22)
87
K ,K
(4-1)
88
0.3. Solving Equation 3-17 will produce for =0, Kae-h equals to 0.490, 0.569, 0.672,
and 0.830. For =70, Kae-h would be 0.000, 0.096, 0.266, 0.558. Hence, one realizes
that while Kae-h (Eq. 4.1) is larger for the flat slope (=70) than for the vertical
slope (=0), the absolute terms of Kae-h, and subsequently, as intuitively expected, the
horizontal force component of the resultant is larger for the steeper slope.
Review of either set of figures (i.e., Figures 4.59 - 4.62 or 4.63 - 4.66)
shows that the impact of vanishes as increases. Accordingly, is of practical
importance for, say, 20. However, its value may be important for the entire range
of values should the resultant inclination be selected to follow Figure 3.4 (i.e., see
Equations 3-21 and 3-22).
Also with looking at Figure 4.47 it can be realized that increases the size
of the active wedge for near vertical slopes; its impact diminishes as the slope
becomes flatter. This increase in wedge size also results in increase of Kae-h for near
vertical slopes. It may appear that an increase of Kae-h with increase is
counterintuitive. However, looking at the absolute values of Kae-h for the active
wedges in Figure 4.47a, it can be verified by solving Equation 3-17 that for =0 and
Kh equal to 0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, the corresponding Kae-h equals to 0.490, 0.569, 0.672,
and 0.830, respectively; for =2/3 and same Kh, Kae-h equals to 0.430, 0.511, 0.629,
and 0.824, respectively. That is, as expected, the values of Kae-h and hence the
horizontal force component decrease with increase of . While the presentation of
results using Kae-h rather than Kae-h is useful as it directly conveys the impact of
seismicity on horizontal force, it clearly might be confusing as it may give impression
opposite to the actual trend of results.
89
Finally, refer to Figure 4.67 generated based on Equation 3-17 for the Pae
inclination implied in Figure 3.2. It demonstrates the Impact of vertical acceleration as
related to various batter angles. The characteristic behavior exhibited at Kv=0 is
retained whether Kv is greater or smaller than zero. For a rather large Kh (say, 0.3), Kv
may have significant impact on Kae_h.
90
Figure 4.59. Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-17 for =20, Kv=0, and (a) =0; (b)
=1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1
91
Figure 4.60. Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-17 for =30, Kv=0, and (a) =0; (b)
=1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1
92
Figure 4.61. Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-17 for =40, Kv=0, and (a) =0; (b)
=1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1
93
Figure 4.62. Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-17 for =50, Kv=0, and (a) =0; (b)
=1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1
94
Figure 4.63. Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-22 for =20, Kv=0, and (a) =0; (b)
=1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1
95
Figure 4.64. Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-22 for =30, Kv=0, and (a) =0; (b)
=1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1
96
Figure 4.65. Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-22 for =40, Kv=0, and (a) =0; (b)
=1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1
97
Figure 4.66. Kae-h Versus Batter Using Eq. 3-22 for =50, Kv=0, and (a) =0; (b)
=1/3; (c) =2/3; and (d) =1
98
99
Chapter 5
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
Tables 5.1 to 5.3 provide a comparison of Kae-h values obtained from the
M-O equation, limit analysis (LA), Equation 3-17 and Equation 3-22 for =0, 30
and 45, respectively. To investigate the effect of seismicity Kae-h values resulted
from these four methods are also compared in Tables 5.4 to 5.6 for =0, 30 and 45,
respectively For brevity, the results are shown just for horizontal crest, Kv=0, and
various friction angles. The LA results are extracted from Chen and Liu (1990); it was
obtained using upper bound formulation in the framework of limit analysis of
plasticity using a composite log-spiral mechanism. Chen and Liu (1990) provide
results for 30.
As shown in Tables 5.4 to 5.6, for vertical slopes (=0), all four
approaches yield practically identical results as the critical wedge degenerates to
essentially the same plan. For =0 one may use the M-O equation as it is the simplest
to apply. For flatter slopes (e.g., =45), Kae-h is larger for the mechanism used in
Equation 3-17 (Figure 3-2). In fact, only looking at Kae-h could be somewhat
misleading as the static Kae-h is significantly larger for the log-spiral mechanism
compared with the M-O planar surface. Hence, as shown in Tables 5.1 to 5.3, the
combined static and seismic loading stemming from Equation 3-17 or Equation 3-22
are larger (i.e., more critical) than the M-O values. It indicates that the current limit
100
equilibrium analysis provides a seamless extension to the M-O equation for >0,
especially when >>0. Generally, the results reported by Chen and Liu (1990) fall
between Equation 3-17 and Equation 3-22; in terms of Kae-h, the difference in the
results is not substantial. Since the limit analysis is fundamentally different from the
M-O's limit equilibrium, the LA method is not considered as a natural extension for
the M-O method.
101
/
0
20o
2/3
0
30o
2/3
0
40o
2/3
0
50o
2/3
Kh
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
=0o
MO
0.490
0.569
0.831
0.426
0.511
0.824
0.333
0.397
0.569
0.279
0.344
0.537
0.217
0.268
0.400
0.179
0.228
0.372
0.132
0.172
0.275
0.108
0.146
0.257
LA*
0.490
0.570
0.830
0.428
0.516
0.827
0.330
0.400
0.570
0.282
0.348
0.536
0.220
0.270
0.400
0.179
0.232
0.375
0.130
0.170
0.280
0.109
0.150
0.259
102
Eq.2
0.490
0.569
0.830
0.430
0.511
0.824
0.333
0.396
0.569
0.282
0.344
0.537
0.217
0.268
0.400
0.180
0.228
0.371
0.132
0.172
0.275
0.109
0.146
0.257
Eq.6
0.490
0.569
0.830
0.430
0.511
0.824
0.333
0.396
0.569
0.282
0.344
0.537
0.217
0.268
0.400
0.180
0.228
0.371
0.132
0.172
0.275
0.109
0.146
0.257
0
20o
2/3
0
30o
2/3
0
40o
2/3
0
50o
2/3
Kh
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
=30o
MO
LA*
Eq.2
Eq.6
0.283
0.370
0.651
0.253
0.342
0.657
0.134
0.190
0.350
0.120
0.175
0.346
0.051
0.085
0.184
0.047
0.080
0.186
0.011
0.028
0.086
0.011
0.027
0.090
0.294
0.381
0.650
0.268
0.354
0.661
0.147
0.199
0.346
0.128
0.187
0.355
0.061
0.087
0.182
0.050
0.090
0.190
0.009
0.035
0.087
0.010
0.030
0.090
0.285
0.365
0.684
0.286
0.373
0.724
0.146
0.198
0.359
0.144
0.200
0.381
0.064
0.097
0.196
0.063
0.099
0.212
0.018
0.037
0.097
0.018
0.039
0.110
0.308
0.383
0.651
0.292
0.368
0.658
0.155
0.204
0.351
0.148
0.198
0.354
0.066
0.097
0.187
0.064
0.097
0.194
0.018
0.036
0.090
0.018
0.038
0.098
103
0
20o
2/3
0
30o
2/3
0
40o
2/3
0
50o
2/3
Kh
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.3
=45o
MO
LA*
Eq.2
Eq.6
0.162
0.247
0.535
0.147
0.232
0.551
0.046
0.088
0.226
0.043
0.085
0.234
0.004
0.019
0.085
0.004
0.019
0.092
0.004
0.000
0.021
0.004
0.000
0.024
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.217
0.312
0.658
0.225
0.328
0.712
0.076
0.129
0.293
0.078
0.137
0.332
0.012
0.038
0.126
0.012
0.041
0.149
0.000
0.001
0.039
0.000
0.001
0.049
0.211
0.285
0.538
0.209
0.288
0.566
0.074
0.118
0.243
0.074
0.122
0.263
0.011
0.033
0.101
0.011
0.036
0.116
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.001
0.037
104
/
0
20o
2/3
0
o
30
2/3
0
o
40
2/3
0
o
50
2/3
Kh
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
=0o
MO
LA*
Eq.2
Eq.6
0.079
0.341
0.085
0.398
0.063
0.236
0.064
0.258
0.051
0.183
0.050
0.193
0.040
0.143
0.038
0.149
0.08
0.34
0.09
0.40
0.07
0.24
0.07
0.25
0.05
0.18
0.05
0.20
0.04
0.15
0.04
0.15
0.078
0.340
0.081
0.394
0.063
0.235
0.062
0.255
0.051
0.182
0.048
0.191
0.040
0.142
0.037
0.148
0.078
0.340
0.081
0.394
0.063
0.235
0.062
0.255
0.051
0.182
0.048
0.191
0.040
0.142
0.037
0.148
105
/
0
20o
2/3
0
o
30
2/3
0
o
40
2/3
0
o
50
2/3
Kh
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
=30o
MO
LA*
Eq.2
Eq.6
0.087
0.368
0.089
0.404
0.056
0.216
0.056
0.227
0.034
0.133
0.033
0.139
0.017
0.075
0.017
0.080
0.09
0.36
0.09
0.39
0.05
0.20
0.06
0.23
0.03
0.12
0.04
0.14
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.080
0.399
0.087
0.438
0.052
0.213
0.056
0.237
0.033
0.132
0.036
0.149
0.019
0.079
0.021
0.092
0.074
0.343
0.076
0.366
0.049
0.196
0.051
0.206
0.031
0.121
0.033
0.130
0.018
0.071
0.019
0.079
106
/
0
20o
2/3
0
o
30
2/3
0
o
40
2/3
0
o
50
2/3
Kh
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
=45o
MO
LA*
Eq.2
Eq.6
0.085
0.373
0.085
0.404
0.042
0.181
0.042
0.191
0.015
0.081
0.015
0.088
-0.003
0.017
-0.004
0.020
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.095
0.441
0.103
0.487
0.053
0.217
0.059
0.254
0.026
0.114
0.029
0.137
0.001
0.039
0.001
0.049
0.074
0.327
0.079
0.357
0.044
0.169
0.048
0.189
0.022
0.090
0.025
0.105
0.000
0.030
0.001
0.037
107
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This thesis presented algorithms based on limit equilibrium which utilize
log spiral mechanism to find the resultant force needed to stabilize an unstable slope
subjected to pseudostatic loading. This resultant force can be reacted by facing units
such as masonry blocks or gabions or can mobilize the tensile resistance in the
embedded reinforcement. One algorithm considers the direction of the resultant to
result from normal and shear force acting on vertical facing segments only. The
second algorithm is as customarily assumed in the Coulomb method and the M-O
method; i.e., the normal and shear forces act along the average angle of the face of the
slope. The algorithms are valid for any inclination of seismically unstable,
homogenous, and simple slopes. The formulation provides a seamless extension to the
M-O pseudostatic formulation dealing with any slope angle or wall batter.
A limited number of stability charts has been presented. The charts
consider the slope angle, the horizontal design seismic coefficient, various soil friction
angles, and backslopes of the crest. The seismic-induced component of the resultant
force superimposed on the static case expressed by Kae-h can become larger as the
slope flattens, especially for small friction angles. Furthermore, the impact of the
interface friction, , on Kae-h also seems rather small. However, one should always
look at the total resultant force which is comprised of the static and the seismicinduced superimposed load to assess the impact. That is, the static resultant is sensitive
to and it goes down dramatically with increase in the slope batter, .
108
resulting from different assumed resultant inclinations; however, the assumption that
the normal and shear force components of the resultant act on a vertical plane (Figure
3.2) lead to more critical results than the customary alternative. The comparison of the
M-O results with the limit analysis results shows that for vertical slopes all methods
practically yield the same results. However, even for flatter slopes the Kae-h is not
significantly different. Once again, the inclusion of the static load (as determined by
Leshchinsky and Zhu, 2010) to render a complete result will produce larger
differences in results as viewed through Kae-h alone. Leshchinsky and Zhu (2010) and
this work complement each other and, generally, will yield the most critical results.
The current work is considered as an extension of the M-O formulation and
Leshchinsky and Zhu (2010) as an extension of the Coulomb formulation. This is
because all of these methods are based on the same limit equilibrium principles,
yielding identical results when the critical mechanism becomes planar (i.e., when
=0). The current formation extends the classical work to deal more rationally with
>0 where the rotational active wedge is likely to become critical. Furthermore, it
deals with the reality that in some cases the soil-facing interface friction is physically
restricted to vertical plans only.
This research presented a robust analytical framework to extend the M-O
method to unstable slopes. The results were compared with the results given by the MO method and the LA method. For future investigations, the presented results can be
compared and verified versus numerical analysis results and/or experimental tests.
Moreover, the effect of progressive failure concept and strain localization can be
further investigated and if worthwhile, can be incorporated into the proposed method.
109
REFERENCES
AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 4th Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC
(2007).
Al Atik, L. and Sitar, N. Seismic earth pressures on cantilever retaining structures. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. Vol. 136, No.10, 1324-1333 (2010).
Anderson, D. G., Martin, G. R., Lam, I. and Wang, J. N. Seismic analysis and design
of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes, and embankments. NCHRP Rep.
611, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (2009).
Baker, R. and Garber, M. Theoretical Analysis of the Stability of Slopes.
Geotechnique, Vol. 28, No. 4, 395-411 (1978).
Bray, J. D., Travasarou, T. and Zupan, J. Seismic displacement design of earth
retaining structures. Proc. 2010 Earth Retention Conf., ASCE, 638-655
(2010).
Chang, M. F. and Chen, W. F. Lateral earth pressure on rigid retaining walls subject
to earthquake forces. Solid Mech. Arch., Vol. 7, 315-362 (1982).
Chen, W. F. and Liu, X. L. Limit analysis in soil mechanics. Elsevier Amsterdam
(1990).
Choudhury, D. and Nimbalkar, S. S. Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active
earth pressure behind a retaining wall. Geotech. and Geol. Eng. Vol. 24, No.
5, 1103-1113 (2006).
Coulomb, C. A. Essai sur une application des regles de maximis and minimis a
quelques problemes de statique, relatifs a larchitecture. De lImprimerie
Royale (1776).
Fang, Y. S. and Chen, T.J. Modification of Mononobe-Okabe theory. Geotechnique
Vol. 45, No. 1, 165-167 (1995).
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Pub.
No. FHWA HI-99-012, Dec (1998).
Ghosh, P. Seismic active earth pressure behind non-vertical retaining wall using
pseudo-dynamic analysis. Canadian Geotech. J. Vol. 45, No. 1, 117-123
(2008).
110
Hazarika, H. Prediction of seismic active earth pressure using curved failure surface
with localized strain. American J. of Eng. and App. Sciences Vol. 2, No. 3,
544-558 (2009).
Ishibashi, I. and Fang, Y. S. Dynamic earth pressures with different wall movement
modes. Soil. Found. Vol. 27, No. 4, 11-12 (1987).
Kim, W.-C., Park, D. and Kim, B. Development of a generalised formula for
dynamic active earth pressure. Geotechnique Vol. 60, No. 9, 723727 (2010).
Koseki, J., Tatsuoka, F., Munaf, Y., Tateyama, M. and Kojima, K. A modified
procedure to evaluate active earth pressure at high seismic loads. Special
Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17, 1996 Hyogoken-Nambu
Earthquake, Soil. Found. No. 2, 209-216 (1998).
Kramer, S. L. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall (1996).
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. I., Wang, J-P, Rosen, A. and Mohri, Y. Equivalent seismic
coefficient in Geocell retention systems. Geotext. Geomembr. Vol. 27, No. 1,
9-18 (2009).
Leshchinsky, D. and San, K.-C. Pseudostatic seismic stability of slopes: Design
charts. J. Geotech. Eng. Vol. 120, (9), 15141532 (1994).
Leshchinsky, D. and Zhu, F. Resultant force of lateral earth pressure in unstable
slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. Vol. 136, No. 12, 1655-1663 (2010).
Leshchinsky, D., Zhu, F. and Meehan, C. L. Required unfactored strength of
geosynthetic in reinforced earth structures. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Vol. 136, No. 2, 281289 (2010).
Mononobe, N. and Matsuo, H. On the determination of earth pressures during
earthquakes. Proceedings of the world engineering congress, Tokyo Japan,
Vol. 9, No. 388, 177185 (1929).
Mylonakis, G., Kloukinas, P. and Papatonopoulos, C. An alternative to the
Mononobe-Okabe equation for seismic earth pressures. Soil Dyn. and
Earthquake Eng. Vol. 27, No.10, 957-969 (2007).
Nakamura, S. Reexamination of Mononobe-Okabe theory of gravity retaining walls
using centrifuge model tests. Soil. Found. Vol. 46, No. 2, 135-146 (2006).
111
NCMA. The National Concrete Masonry Association. Design manual for segmental
retaining walls, 2nd Ed., J. G. Collin, ed., Herndon, Va (1997).
Okabe, S. General theory of earth pressure. J. Jap. Soc. Civ. Engrs Vol. 10, No. 6,
12771323 (1926).
Ortiz, L. A., Scott, R. F. and Lee, J. Dynamic centrifuge testing of a cantilever
retaining wall. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. Vol. 11, No. 2, 251268 (1983).
Psarropoulos, P. N., Klonaris, G., and Gazetas, G. Seismic earth pressures on rigid
and flexible retaining walls. Int. J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. Vol. 25, No. 710, 795809 (2005).
Rendulic, L. Ein betrag zur bestimmung der gleitsicherheit. Der Bauingenieur,
16(19/20), 230233 (1935).
Seed, H. B. and Whitman, R. V. Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic
loads. Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and
Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Vol. 1, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y., 103
147(1970).
Sherif, M. A., Ishibashi, I., and Lee, C. D. Earth pressure against rigid retaining
walls. J. Geotech. Eng. Vol. 108, No. 5, 679-695 (1982).
Soubra, A. M. and Macuh, B. Seismic active and passive earth pressures on rigid
retaining structures by a kinematical approach. Proc. 4th Int.Conf. on Rec.t
Adv. in Geotech. Earthquake Eng. and Soil Dyn., San Diego, USA (2001).
Steedman, R. S. and Zeng, X. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudostatic earth pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique Vol. 40, No. 1, 103
112 (1990).
Taylor, D. W. Stability of Earth Slopes. J. of the Boston Society of Civil
Engineering Vol. 24 No. 3, 197246 (1937).
Veletsos, A. and Younan, A. H. Dynamic soil pressures on rigid vertical walls.
Earthquake Eng. Soil Dyn. Vol. 23, No. 3, 275-301(1994).
Zeng, X. and Steedman, R. S. On the behavior of quay walls in earthquakes.
Geotechnique Vol. 43, No. 3, 417431(1993).
Zhang, J. M. and Li, D.. Seismic active earth pressure considering the effect of strain
localization. Proc. 4th Int.Conf. on Rec.t Adv. in Geotech. Earthquake Eng.
and Soil Dyn., San Diego, USA (2001).
112