498

Lateral earth pressures behind rotating walls

Ming-Fang Chang

Abstract: Classical earth pressure theories are valid strictly for retaining walls subject to uniform free translation. Practically
all retaining walls rotate, and movements of the wall could be restricted, particularly under working conditions. The lateral
earth pressure on the wall often deviates from the fully active Coulomb value. There is a need for predicting the lateral earth
pressure at any wall displacement behind a rotating wall. The finite element method (FEM) is capable of providing valid
solutions of lateral pressures for different wall movements, but a simple alternative method has its practical value. This paper
presents a simple analysis method using a modified Coulomb’s solution of active pressure. The deformation pattern and the
associated mobilization of shearing resistance in the soil as affected by the wall movement are considered in a simplified
manner. Comparisons of calculated results with solutions from FEM and observations from model tests show that the method
can provide a good prediction of lateral pressures for walls rotating about the base when proper distributions of mobilized
shearing resistance and wall friction are used. For walls rotating about the top, the prediction is fair due to arching and the
difference between assumed and observed rupture mechanisms.
Key words: earth pressure, sand, retaining walls, shearing resistance, wall friction, wall displacement.

Résumé : Les théories classiques de poussée des terres ne sont strictement applicables qu’à des murs de soutènement soumis à
une translation libre uniforme. En pratique tous les murs présentent un déplacement de rotation et les mouvements peuvent
être empéchés, en particulier en conditions de service. La pression latérale des terres diffère souvent de la valeur active
indiquée par la théorie de Coulomb. On a donc besoin d’un outil de prédiction de la pression latérale des terres derrière un
mur en rotation. Si la méthode des éléments finis (MEF) peut fournir des solutions correctes pour différents mouvements du
mur, une méthode simple peut avoir un intérêt pratique. Cet article présente une procédure d’analyse simple pour la poussée
utilisant une solution de type Coulomb modifiée. Le modèle de déformation et la mobilisation de la résistance au cisaillement
dans le sol en fonction du mouvement du mur sont pris en compte de manière simplifiée. Les comparaisons entre les résultats
calculés, les solutions MEF et les observations sur modèles réduits montrent que la méthode peut fournir une bonne précision
pour les poussées latérales sur des murs en rotation autour de leur base, à condition d’utiliser une répartition correcte de la
résistance au cisaillement mobilisée et du frottement sur le mur. Pour des murs en rotation autour de leur sommet la prédiction
reste raisonnable compte-tenu des effets de voûte et de la différence entre les hypothèses faites et l’observation.
Mots clés : poussée des terres, sable, mur de soutènement, résistance au cisaillement, frottement sur le mur, déplacement du mur.
[Traduit par la rédaction]

Introduction Experimental investigations based on large-scale (Terzaghi

Retaining walls such as bridge abutments and anchored, strut-
ted, or cantilever in situ embedded walls are restrained and
often subject to rotations. A fully active state may not develop
behind these walls when in service, and the lateral pressure on
the wall is affected by the mode and the magnitude of wall
movement.
Classical solutions, such as that of Coulomb, are only valid
for the limiting condition where an active horizontally trans-
lating sliding wedge has developed in the soil mass behind the
retaining wall. These solutions often do not provide valid dis-
tributions of lateral earth pressures that are needed for the de-
sign of walls for which the shearing resistance of the soil mass
behind the wall is not necessarily completely mobilized. The
lateral pressures on retaining walls in service are generally
larger than those corresponding to the limiting state at failure.
Received June 13, 1996. Accepted March 15, 1997.
M.-F. Chang. School of Civil and Structural Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, Blk N1 #1A–37
Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798.
1934) and small-scale (e.g., James and Bransby 1970; Sherif
et al. 1984; Fang and Ishibashi 1986) model retaining walls
and field observations (Terzaghi 1941) have enhanced the un-
derstanding of lateral earth pressure problems. However, the
prediction of lateral pressure distributions for design applica-
tions still needs further development to take account of wall
movements.
The finite element method (FEM), which allows the effect
of wall movement to be incorporated, has been used for ana-
lyzing retaining wall behavior since the early 1970’s
(e.g., Clough and Duncan 1971). Solutions for simple walls
involving different modes of movement have also been pre-
sented by many others (e.g., Nakai 1985; Potts and Fourie
1986; Fang et al. 1993; Matsuzawa and Hararika 1996). These
solutions, involving different constitutive relations for the soil
and the soil–wall interface, allow further insight into the rela-
tionship between wall movement and lateral earth pressures.
Although the FEM is versatile and readily accessible, it is
not always practical because of the significant amount of effort
required in the assessment of necessary input parameters and
the preparation of the mesh. A simpler alternative method for
evaluating the lateral pressures for different wall movements

Can. Geotech. J. 34: 498–509 (1997). © 1997 NRC Canada

Chang 499

relevant to various situations in practice would be useful. Such Fig. 1. Assumed deformation pattern behind a rotating wall. Fz,
a method should consider the deformation patterns or the pro- interslice force; dFz, incremental interslice force; dPz, incremental
gressive rupture mechanisms in the soil behind the wall and total pressure force; dWz, weight of individual slices.
how they influence the mobilized shearing resistance.

Wall movement and observed deformation

patterns in the soil
The pattern of deformation or rupture mechanism in the soil be-
hind a retaining wall depends on the mode and the magnitude of
wall movement. Lateral earth pressures behind a retaining wall
could deviate from the Coulomb active pressure if the rupture
mechanism differs from that assumed in Coulomb’s method.
In Coulomb’s analysis, it is assumed that, in the limiting
state, a sliding wedge will develop in the soil behind a trans-
lating wall. The soil will simply slide horizontally along an
inclined plane separating the wedge from the remaining soil
mass. For walls subject to movements other than free transla-
tion, the rupture mechanism in the soil may deviate from hori-
zontal wedge sliding.
Kezdi (1958) showed that for outward (active) rotation of
a vertical wall about the base, a well-developed failure pattern
characterized by distinct surfaces of sliding generally occurs
behind the major portion of the wall. However, a “dead” zone
in which the soil is close to its at-rest state exists near the base.
James and Bransby’s (1970) experiments on passive walls ro-
tating about the base into a dense sand showed that rupture
surfaces usually appear along the upper part of the wall, while
shear strains near the base are negligible. Limited data from
Fang and Ishibashi (1986) also support the existence of a vary in the lower part. Consequently, a nonlinear distribution
“dead” zone. Using the FEM, Nakai (1985) also showed the of lateral pressure is expected in the lower part.
same pattern of deformation with extensive yielding occurring Although the rupture mechanism for walls rotating about the
only in the upper part. Recent work by Matsuzawa and top is similar to that of Coulomb’s, it has been observed that the
Hararika (1996) also showed that failure starts from the top pressure distributions are generally nonlinear (e.g., Fang and
and advances towards the bottom of the wall as the amount of Ishibashi 1986). This nonlinearity can be attributed to local vari-
rotation increases. Nevertheless, when the wall is free to rotate, ations in the mobilized soil resistance and wall friction along the
the “dead” zone could be restricted to a small zone near the wall as a result of displacement restraints.
point of rotation.
In contrast, for walls rotating about the top, James (1965)
and James and Bransby (1971) showed that a passive rotating
A simple analysis method
wall usually develops a single rupture surface extending from Following sections describe an alternative simple analysis of
the base of the wall to the soil surface. The whole mass of soil lateral earth pressures behind outward rotating rigid walls with
above this rupture surface will slide as a rigid body. Nakai displacement restraints.
(1985) also showed by finite element analysis the same pattern
of deformation with yielding occurring only near the base of Basic considerations
the wall, the rotating end. Matsuzawa and Hararika (1996) also Because of the relevance of lateral earth pressures to the soil
showed that failure is generally initiated at the bottom and deformation pattern or rupture mechanism behind a rotating
advances toward the top as the amount of rotation increases. wall, an acceptable analysis method should consider a defor-
The rupture mechanism with a single curved surface is similar mation pattern that is commonly observed in practice. It is
to that assumed in the general wedge theory (Terzaghi 1941), widely accepted that Coulomb’s solution of active earth pres-
which is the basis of Coulomb’s analysis. sure, which is assumed to be linearly distributed with depth, is
The difference in the deformation pattern in the soil for differ- valid for walls rotating outward freely about the base. The
ent modes of wall movement affects the mobilization of the shear- method proposed here therefore considers a rupture mecha-
ing resistance of the soil and consequently the lateral pressures nism similar to that which has been observed in walls rotating
behind the retaining wall. For walls rotating about the base, the about the base. When the outward rotation is sufficiently large,
shearing resistance will be completely mobilized and rupture sur- the “dead” zone will be restricted only to the base of the wall,
faces will form in the soil behind the upper part of the wall. The and thus its presence can be neglected for practical reasons. It
distribution of lateral pressure is expected to be linear, as that is assumed that, in this situation, the soil mass immediately
assumed in Coulomb’s analysis, for the upper part. Since a drastic behind the wall will reach the limiting state and a sliding
drop in shear strains is expected near the base where the wall wedge containing an infinite number of uniformly distributed
movement is insufficient, the mobilized shearing resistance will rupture surfaces, as shown in Fig. 1, will develop. The shearing

© 1997 NRC Canada

500
resistance of the soil will be completely mobilized along these
rupture planes and along the soil–wall interface. As illustrated
in Fig. 1, the active earth pressure at a given depth z on the wall
Pz, which can be viewed as a discrete unit point load at that
depth, can be assumed to depend directly on the angle of shear-
ing resistance φ and the angle of soil–wall friction δ on the slice
directly above the rupture plane. The approximation is justified
when the slice is small and the sliding planes are practically
parallel to each other.
It is assumed that when the rotation is small, a similar de-
formation pattern characterized by uniformly distributed
quasi-rupture surfaces will develop in the zone that has not yet
reached the limiting condition, but with the shearing resistance
only partly mobilized along these planes and the soil–wall in-
terface within the same zone.
The proposed method uses Coulomb’s equation of active
earth pressures as the framework of analysis. It adopts a simple
concept of relating the mobilized shearing resistance to wall
displacement, similar to that of Dubrova (1963), to account for
different deformation patterns or rupture mechanisms in the
soil. The method attempts to evaluate lateral earth pressures
for vertical walls with a horizontal soil surface that rotates
outward around the base and around the top.
Assumptions
The proposed method of analysis involves two basic assumptions:
(1) Coulomb’s solution of active earth pressures is valid for
any outward rotating walls once its preconditions or con-
ditions required for the validity of Coulomb’s wedge the-
ory are satisfied in a practical sense.
(2) The mobilized earth pressure at a given depth can be evalu-
ated from Coulomb’s solution of unit active pressure by
substituting the mobilized angle of internal friction (ψ) and
the mobilized angle of wall friction (δw), respectively, for
corresponding limiting values, the angle of internal friction
(φ) and the limiting angle of wall friction (δ).
With reference to the first assumption, an earlier discussion
has indicated that, for walls rotating about the base, rupture
surfaces appear only in the upper part of the wall. However,
when the rotation is sufficiently large, the lowest rupture sur-
face may intercept the wall at a level close to the base of the
wall, which is the point of rotation. In this case, the rupture
mechanism will be practically the same as that assumed in
Coulomb’s wedge analysis, although observed sliding surfaces
are generally slightly curved for frictional walls. Coulomb’s
wedge theory is considered satisfied in a practical sense. It is
perhaps for this reason that Coulomb’s solution has been
widely accepted as valid for walls rotating about the base.
Nevertheless, the extent of the dead zone near the base in
which the shearing resistance of the soil is not completely
mobilized will dictate the detailed distribution of the lateral
pressure, particularly that on the lower part of the wall.
For walls rotating about the top, another earlier discussion
has indicated that the rupture mechanism, usually consisting
of a single sliding surface, as observed in practice, is similar
to that assumed in the general wedge theory (Terzaghi 1941).
Coulomb’s wedge theory is applicable in a practical sense,
although the observed sliding surfaces are generally curved for
frictional walls rotating about the top.
The second assumption is based on the concept that the
lateral pressure at each locality along a retaining wall is directly
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
related to the mobilized shearing resistance (both internal fric-
tion and wall friction) of the soil immediately next to that
locality when the quasi-sliding planes are practically parallel,
as illustrated in Fig. 1. This mobilized shearing resistance is
determined by the limiting shearing resistance of the soil and
by the nature and amount of wall displacement. Lateral pres-
sures therefore depend on the pattern and magnitude of soil
deformation associated with the wall movement. The concept
of relating the mobilized shearing resistance and, conse-
quently, the lateral earth pressure to wall displacements is not
new (Terzaghi 1936; Ladanyi 1958; Dubrova 1963).
While the use of local ψ is acceptable in practice when the
quasi-planes are nearly parallel, the use of local δw for the
evaluation of lateral pressure at a given depth may produce an
error if the mobilized angle of internal friction is not constant
along the wall. The prevailing mobilized angle of wall friction
that affects the lateral pressure at a depth could be between
the minimum and the maximum values above that depth. The
local δw value is likely to be smaller than this prevailing mo-
bilized δw value, and the calculated lateral pressure could be
on the safe side for walls rotating about the base. For walls
rotating about the top, the reverse is true and the calculated
lateral pressure could be on the unsafe side. Nevertheless, the
error should be small and have little practical significance as
long as the change of the mobilized angle of internal friction
with depth is gradual. Note that a constant wall friction along
the entire wall height was assumed in a recent FEM study by
Matsuzawa and Hararika (1996), although the fact that the wall
friction usually varies along the wall is well recognized
(e.g., James and Bransby 1970).
Formulation
Based on Coulomb’s theory, the active earth pressure acting on
a vertical wall (limiting angle of wall friction, δ) with a hori-
zontal backfill of cohesionless soils (unit weight, γ; angle of
shearing resistance, φ) at a depth z is
γz  1 
2
pa =
cos δ  1 + (tan2 φ + tan φ tan δ)1/2
[1]
 cos φ 
 
where γ is the unit weight of the soil.
Following the second assumption proposed earlier, replac-
ing the limiting angle of shearing resistance φ with the local
mobilized angle of shearing resistance ψ and the limiting angle
of wall friction δ with the local mobilized angle of wall
friction δw for conditions before failure, the mobilized earth
pressure is
γz  1 
2
[2] p=  
cos δw  1 + (tan2 ψ + tan ψ tan δ )1/2
 cos ψ w 
 
From eq. [2], the mobilized lateral pressure or the horizon-
tal component of the mobilized earth pressure ph = p cos δw,
where p is the unit pressure. This equation allows the distribu-
tion of ph to be calculated if the mobilized angle of internal
friction ψ and the mobilized angle of wall friction δw are prop-
erly selected on the basis of a reasonable relationship between
the wall displacement and the mobilized shearing resistance.
© 1997 NRC Canada
Chang
Fig. 2. Assumed wall movements and distributions of mobilized resistance: (a) rotation about base; (b) rotation about top.
Wall displacement and mobilization of soil resistance
Consider a vertical rigid wall with a height of H rotating out-
ward about the base, as shown in Fig. 2a. Prior to rotation, the
stress state in the soil behind the wall will correspond to the
initial at-rest condition, if a naturally deposited sand is consid-
ered. As the wall starts to rotate, the horizontal displacement
of the wall, S, will increase accordingly. As the wall continues
its rotation, the maximum wall movements, Sm, at the top of the
wall may exceed the critical displacement, Sc, the displace-
ment that is needed for the shearing resistance of the soil be-
hind the top of the wall to mobilize fully. Mobilization of
shearing resistance will propagate downwards as the angle of
rotation increases. Experimental evidence for this trend of
propagation can be found in Sherif et al. (1984).
For active rotation about the top, Fig. 2b, it is postulated
that the shearing resistance will mobilize first at the base and
then propagate upwards as the angle of rotation increases. Mat-
suzawa and Hararika’s (1996) recent numerical study supports
this postulation. This postulated propagation, however, may
not realize after a slip has already taken place along the sliding
surface passing through the base of the wall.
The wall displacement required for the entire soil mass be-
hind the wall to reach the fully active Coulomb state generally
varies with the compactness of the soil. According to Terzaghi
(1934), this displacement, Sa, varies from 0.0014 H for dense
sand and 0.0084 H for loose sand. Using the FEM, Clough and
Duncan (1971) found Sa/H values of 0.0023 for a wall rotating
about the base and 0.0026 for a translating wall in medium
dense sand (φ = 35°). However, Nakai’s (1985) results indi-
cated incomplete mobilization of shear strength for walls ro-
tating about the top in a dense sand even at a maximum wall
displacement of 0.013 H. It appears that the mode of wall
movement also has an effect on the value of Sa.
The displacement Sa corresponds to the limiting condition
when there is no further decrease in the total lateral force (Ph).
501
The value of Sa is highly variable and is usually much larger
than Sc in Figs. 2a and 2b, which is required for local mobili-
zation of active stresses. A different definition of critical dis-
placement appears necessary.
Ichihara and Matsuzawa (1973), based on experimental ob-
servations, first defined the active state as the state where the
coefficient of friction tan δ attains its maximum. Sherif et al.
(1982) also suggested that a more rigorous and logical defini-
tion of the active state of stress should be based on the state
when the wall friction angle δw reaches its maximum value of
δ and a local active plastic wedge develops behind the wall.
The critical displacement (Sc) therefore should be chosen as
the value of S corresponding to the occurrence of maximum
wall friction. According to Sherif et al. (1982), this state often
coincides with the fixing of position of h*/H (h* is the height
of the total lateral force Ph from the base).
Studies of model walls with a measurement of the local soil
pressure along the wall (Sherif et al. 1984 and Fang and
Ishibashi 1986) have shown that the value of Sc is (i) about
0.0003H, (ii) uniform along the wall, (iii) independent of the
angle of internal friction or the density of the backfill, and (iv)
independent of the displacement mode. This observation, in
fact, provides a verification for the distinct sliding failure
mechanism assumed in the present analysis.
Figure 3 (Fang et al. 1993) shows, from model tests, vari-
ations of the normalized mobilized total lateral pressure K* =
Ph/0.5γH2 and its normalized point of application h*/H with
the normalized wall displacement S/H for three different
modes of wall movement including rotation about the base
(RAB), rotation about the top (RAT), and translation (TR). In
this figure, the h*/H starts to level off when the normalized
displacement S/H is between a narrow range from 0.0003 to
0.0005, implying that Sc/H is 0.0003 to 0.0005 regardless of
the mode of movement and the density of the backfill. This
range of Sc/H compares fairly well with the normalized
© 1997 NRC Canada
502
Fig. 3. Observed relationships between total pressure force, point of
application, and wall displacement (after Fang et al. 1993). RAB,
rotation about the base; RAT, rotation about the top; TR, translation.
“mean” wall displacement to reach the active state, 0.0006 for
RAT and 0.001 for RAB, as reported by Matsuzawa and
Hararika (1996) based on their FEM study. A Sc value of between
0.0003H and 0.0005H therefore appears reasonable for most
practical problems.
To consider the relationship between the wall displacement
and the mobilized soil resistance, one needs to take account of
the initial stresses in the soil and the initial wall friction that is
likely to be present and to select a proper resistance mobilization
model.
Under the at-rest condition in a naturally deposited sand,
the initial angle of internal friction (φo) of a soil for which the
value of Ko (coefficient of earth pressure at-rest) is less than 1
can be calculated as
 1 − Ko 
[3] φο = sin−1 
 1 + Ko 
The value of Ko can be approximated by Ko = 1 – sin φ for
a normally consolidated sand. The Ko value should be related
to the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) if the sand is overcon-
solidated. For back-filled walls behind which the soil is usually
compacted in layers, the initial wall friction would be larger
than zero because of the shear stress induced along the inter-
face by the compaction of the soil during backfilling. The se-
lected φo value should properly reflect the effect of the initial
wall friction (δo). The following modified Coulomb’s equation
can be used for the evaluation of φo:
1  1 2 Matsuo et al. 1978; Fang and Ishibashi 1986) clearly indicate
[4] = + (tan2 φο + tan φο tan δo)1/2
Ki cos φο
 
where Ki is the initial lateral earth pressure coefficient.
The assumed deformation pattern involves sliding along
soil–soil rupture surfaces and soil–wall interfaces. The mecha-
nism of mobilization of shearing resistance along these sur-
faces or interfaces is very similar to that in a direct shear test
and that which occurs along an axially loaded pile shaft. With
the assumed distinct sliding mechanism, the displacement
along the rupture surface is dictated by the displacement of the
wall at the level where the sliding surface meets the wall. For
simplicity, it is assumed that there is a linear relationship between
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
the normalized mobilized shearing resistance represented by
tan ψ and the amount of slip along the rupture plane, and a similar
relationship exists between the mobilized shearing resistance and
the corresponding wall displacement, with the maximum mobi-
lized shearing resistance capped by the corresponding limiting
value. Therefore, by defining the normalized wall displacement
as β = S/Sc, the value of ψ at a given β can then be calculated
by a simplified resistance mobilization model:
[5] ψ = tan–1 [tan φo + β (tan φ – tan φo)]
It is understood that further refinement of the resistance mobi-
lization model on the basis of measured stress–strain relation-
ships of the soil will improve the solutions.
Selection of input soil parameters
The selection of distributions of the mobilized soil resistance
ψ and δw requires a clear understanding of how soil deforms as
the wall yields.
From the discussion in the previous section, one can assume
that, in Figs. 2a and 2b, for the portion where the lateral wall
displacement exceeds Sc, which is typically 0.0003H to
0.0005H, the shearing resistance is fully mobilized and ψ = φ.
For the portion of the wall where S < Sc, the shear resistance
of the backfill behind is only partially mobilized and the value
of ψ should be between φo and φ. Figures 2a and 2b show two
possible distributions of ψ(z) for walls rotating about the base
and about the top, respectively. The mobilized friction angle
ψ is assumed to vary linearly between φo and φ, following the
relationship in eq. [5].
The limiting angle of wall friction δ is usually taken as a
fraction of the angle of internal friction φ and expressed as
δ = αφ. In the selection of δw(z), one needs to differentiate
cast-in-situ or embedded walls, which retain naturally depos-
ited soils, from conventional retaining walls with a compacted
backfill or the back-filled walls.
For embedded walls such as diaphragm walls and contigu-
ous bored pile walls which are used in deep excavation work,
the value of δo is practically zero in a semi-infinite half space
prior to excavation (Potts and Fourie 1986). The mobilized
angle of wall friction δw can be assumed to increase gradually
from zero to the limiting value δ as the amount of wall move-
ment increases in a rate similar to the change in the ψ value,
although experiments by James and Bransby (1970) and Fang
and Ishibashi (1986) showed that δw usually mobilizes more
rapidly than ψ.
For back-filled walls, experimental studies on large-scale
and model walls (Terzaghi 1934; James and Bransby 1970;
that the initial angle of wall friction (δo) is larger than zero and
that the mobilized angle of wall friction generally varies along
the wall. The δw corresponding to a given amount of wall
movement can be assumed to vary linearly between the initial
angle δo and the limiting angle δ, with the rate of change similar
to that of ψ. As discussed later, one can conservatively assume
that δo = φ/2 in the absence of information on δo. The suggested
idealized δw distributions for two different rotational move-
ments are shown in Figs. 2a and 2b.
It should be emphasized that, in the analysis of back-filled walls,
both the initial stress condition and the initial wall friction should
be considered in the evaluation of φo on the basis of eq. [4].
© 1997 NRC Canada
Chang
Fig. 4. Typical calculated pressure distributions behind rotating walls: (a) rotation about base; (b) rotation about top.
Typical solutions
The determination of lateral earth pressures at a depth z corre-
sponding to different stages of wall rotation involves (1) evaluat-
ing the degree of strength mobilization approximated by the
normalized wall displacement β at the depth, (2) estimating the
values of ψ and δw at depth z using idealized distributions of ψ
and δw, such as those in Fig. 2 and the simplified resistance mobi-
503
lization model in eq. [5], and (3) calculating the mobilized
lateral pressures or p/γ z at depth z using eq. [2].
To see how the calculated pressure changes during the rotation,
one can use the normalized maximum lateral displacement βm =
Sm/Sc as an indicator of the amount of rotation or the degree of
mobilization of the shearing resistance in the backfill. Fig-
ures 4a and 4b show typical solutions for the proposed method
forawallretainingamediumdensesandwithφ=35°
© 1997 NRC Canada
504
and δ = 2/3φ for two simple rotational modes of movement
using the idealized distributions of ψ and δw shown in
Figs. 2a and 2b. These curves, plotted as the normalized mo-
bilized lateral pressure, ph/γH, versus the normalized depth,
z/H, clearly show the gradual transition of lateral pressure from
the at-rest condition (βm = 0) to the quasi-active condition
(βm = 1; when the shearing resistance of the soil next to the
rotating end has just fully mobilized), and subsequently to-
wards the limiting or fully active state (approximated by
βm = 100) for two different modes of rotation.
The pressure distribution curves in Fig. 4a and the pattern
of transition of the distribution curve from the at-rest to the
fully active state with increasing wall rotation for the RAB
case resemble the finite element solutions of Clough and Dun-
can (1971) and Nakai (1985) for vertical walls retaining natu-
ral sand ranging from the normally consolidated state (φ = 35°)
to overconsolidated state (φ = 40°), and of Potts and Fourie
(1986) for vertical walls embedded in London clay (φ = 25°,
Ko = 2.0). Similar distribution curves and transition patterns
have been observed in the early stages of wall rotation in both
field tests (Matsuo et al. 1978) and model tests (e.g., Fang and
Ishibashi 1986).
The calculated distribution curves in Fig. 4b and the pattern
of transition of the distribution curve for RAT also resemble
the finite element solutions presented by Potts and Fourie
(1986) for walls in London clay, although the calculated pres-
sure distribution curves are not as highly nonlinear as those
observed in model tests (Fang and Ishibashi 1986), in the field
(Terzaghi 1941), and those obtained from the FEM (Nakai
1985; Fang et al. 1993; Matsuzawa and Hararika 1996) for
walls in sand.
In Fig. 4, the total lateral force (Ph) reflected by the area
under the distribution curve is seen to vary with the angle of
rotation, as indicated by the value of βm. For RAB, the Ph tends
to decrease very gradually with an increase in βm in a way very
similar to that shown in Fig. 3 (Fang et al. 1993; Fang and
Ishibashi 1986) and that reported by Matsuzawa and Hararika
(1996). The lateral force Ph, however, is generally higher than
the traditional active Coulomb value as long as the base re-
mains hinged. This is in line with FEM results such as those
of Matsuzawa and Hararika (1996).
For RAT, Fig. 4 implicitly indicates that the calculated Ph
decreases very rapidly when compared with RAB as the angle
of rotation increases (Fig. 3; Fang and Ishibashi 1986; Mat-
suzawa and Hararika 1996). At the quasi-active state (βm = 1),
when the shearing resistance at the base becomes fully mobi-
lized, the calculated Ph is about 18.7% higher than the active
Coulomb value. This calculated lateral pressure agrees with
experimental findings by Taylor (1941) and Fang and
Ishibashi (1986), although a smaller increase of 5% over the
active Coulomb value was reported by Matsuzawa and
Hararika (1996). The higher total lateral force can be attributed
to that fact that a large portion of soil cannot further mobilize
its resistance once the slip has started at the base. It is noted
that Matsuzawa and Hararika (1996) assumed that the mobi-
lized wall friction is constant with depth, which may not be
realistic, particularly for RAT.
Since the pressure distributions are generally nonlinear, the
location of Ph is not at 0.33H. As in Fig. 3 for RAB, the cal-
culated location of Ph as implied by the distribution curves in
Fig. 4 remains at a level lower than 0.33H in the beginning and
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
then gradually approaches 0.33H as the rotation becomes sig-
nificantly large and the pressure distribution becomes practi-
cally triangular (Matsuo et al. 1978; Fang and Ishibashi 1986).
For RAT, the calculated location of Ph is initially higher than
0.33H and decreases gradually as the distribution curves be-
comes more and more nonlinear with the increase in the angle
of rotation. The calculated Ph location is, however, lower than
the levels of between 0.45H and 0.6H observed in large-scale
retaining wall tests (Terzaghi 1934), braced cuts (Terzaghi
1936, 1941), and model tests (Fang and Ishibashi 1986), and
that calculated by the FEM (Matsuzawa and Hararika 1996),
primarily because the present analysis neglects arching effects.
Direct comparisons with finite element
solutions
Clough and Duncan’s (1971) finite element analyses involved
a 10 ft (3.05 m) high rough (δ = 2/3 φ) vertical wall in a me-
dium dense, naturally deposited, normally consolidated sand
with φ of 35° and γ of 15.7 kN/m3 (100 lb/ft3). The analyses
were carried out for RAB with maximum displacements (Sm)
of 0.0006H, 0.0014H, and 0.0023H at the top. Assuming a
critical displacement (Sc) value of between 0.0004H and
0.0005H, these maximum displacements correspond closely to
βm values of 1.33, 3.0, and 5.0, respectively. Figure 5a shows
a comparison between the present solutions and the corre-
sponding finite element solutions for a rough soil–wall inter-
face. The agreement between these two sets of analytical
solutions is good.
Nakai (1985) analyzed a 10 m high, smooth (δ = 0) vertical
wall subject to four different modes of movement in a dense
sand. The sand, with φ = 40° and γ = 15.5 kN/m3, is overcon-
solidated with Ko = 0.45. The corresponding value of φo is
22.3° based on eq. [3]. The range of maximum displacements
considered by Nakai was one order of magnitude larger than
that of Clough and Duncan (1971). The specified Sm values of
0.001H, 0.003H, and 0.013H would correspond to βm values
of approximately 2, 6, and 30, respectively, based on a Sc of
0.00045H. Nakai’s (1985) curves, shown in Fig. 5b for RAB,
do not correctly reflect these high βm values. Matching βm
values were calculated by the author using the point of depar-
ture of the calculated distribution curve from the straight line
representing the limiting active state. Figure 5b shows a com-
parison between Nakai’s solutions and the present solutions
for RAB. Again, the agreement is good, even though the sand
is overconsolidated.
Agreement could not be obtained between Nakai’s (1985)
solution and the present solution for RAT displacements in a
dense sand. This is probably because (1) the assumed rupture
mechanism is not observed in practice for walls rotating about
the top, and (2) the present analysis does not take account of
arching, which dominates the behavior of the soil near the top
of the wall.
Direct comparisons with model test results
Results of observations from Fang and Ishibashi’s (1986)
model studies provide a valuable source of comparison for the
present solutions. The tests involved a 1.02 m high wall rotating
about the base in a loose to medium dense sand (sand I: φ =
33.4° and γ = 15.4 kN/m3) and another rotating about the top in a
© 1997 NRC Canada
Chang
Fig. 5. Comparisons of calculated pressure distributions with finite element solutions for walls rotating about the base: (a) Clough and
Duncan’s (1971) results; (b) Nakai’s (1985) results.
slightly denser sand (sand II: φ = 34.9° and γ = 15.5 kN/m3).
The initial angles of wall friction δo were 17.2° or 0.52φ for the
wall in sand I and 18.5° or 0.53φ for the wall in sand II. The
values of φ o corresponding to the average measured initial
pressure distributions, which include possible prestressing ef-
fect from sand preparation, were found to be 7.5° for sand I
and 10.4° for sand II on the basis of eq. [4]. The observed limit-
ing angles of wall friction (δ) were 0.74φ for the wall in sand I
and 0.71φ for the wall in sand II.
505
In the analysis, the value of 0.305 mm (0.012 in.) measured in
the model tests was selected as the critical lateral displacement
Sc for estimating the βm values corresponding to various stages
of wall rotation. This critical displacement corresponds to a Sc/H
ratioofaround0.0003.
Figure 6a shows a comparison of calculated lateral pressures
with Fang and Ishibashi’s measurements for the case of RAB in
sandI(φ =33.4°).Onlysmalldifferencesexistbetweenthecalcu-
latedandthemeasureddistributioncurves;the
© 1997 NRC Canada
506
Fig. 6. Comparisons of the present analytical results with model observations for walls rotating about the base: (a) pressure distributions; (b)
resultant characteristics.
nonlinear initial pressure distribution as measured in the test
may have an effect (Matsuo et al. 1978).
Figure 6b shows the normalized total lateral force, K* =
Ph/0.5γH2 and the normalized height of Ph above the base,
h*/H at different βm values from the present analysis compared
with the model test results. The relationships between K* and
βm and between h*/H and βm from the present analysis and the
experiment are similar.
Figures 7a and 7b show a similar comparison between ana-
lytical and experimental results for RAT in sand II (φ = 34.9°).
The difference between the calculated and the experimental
distribution curves is fairly significant for βm exceeding 0.67.
The experimental curves, which show double curvatures, are
much more nonlinear than the calculated curves, possibly af-
fected by arching near the upper part of the wall. Note that the
rate of change in the K* value as reflected by the analysis is
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
similar to that obtained by the experiment, and that both the
experiment and the analysis show that this rate of change is
much greater for RAT than for RAB. It is interesting, as illustrated
in Fig. 7b, that the calculated force on the wall is only slightly
different from the experimental value, even though the analysis
neglects the arching effect. As expected, the difference in the
h*/H ratio is significant because of the large difference between
the calculated and measured pressure distributions.
Some practical considerations
Comparisons of analytical results with FEM solutions and ex-
perimental data have shown that the proposed analysis method
can provide reasonably good estimates of the magnitude and the
distribution of lateral pressure against a rigid vertical wall rotating
outward around its base. The proposed method is applicable to
© 1997 NRC Canada
Chang
Fig. 7. Comparisons of the present analytical results with model observations for walls rotating about the top: (a) pressure distributions;
(b) resultant characteristics.
both cast-in-situ (or embedded) walls retaining naturally de-
posited sand and other rigid walls back-filled with compacted
sand. Although the calculated distribution curves compare
fairly with the experimental observations for a wall rotating
outward around the top, the total lateral force produced by the pro-
posed analysis agrees well with field and model observations. The
success of the analysis method, however, relies very much on
the selection of the input parameters, which require careful
consideration.
In applying the method in design, firstly, one needs to deter-
mine the critical wall displacement Sc that separates the state of
partial mobilization of resistance from that of full mobilization of
resistance. As discussed earlier, previous studies have indicated
that Sc/H (where H is wall height) is independent of soil density,
position on the wall, and mode of wall movement, and its value
is typically between 0.0003 and 0.0005. This range of Sc/H should
507
be sufficient for design purpose, although further research
leading to any refinement in the selection of Sc will be useful.
Secondly, one needs to carefully select the parameters that
define the distributions of ψ(z) and δ(z), particularly the initial
mobilized angles of shearing resistance and wall friction,
which are usually significantly different for embedded walls
and for back-filled walls. For ideal cast-in-situ walls embedded
in a naturally deposited sand without any installation distur-
bance, δo is zero and the determination of φo, which can be
related directly to Ko, is straightforward. The assessment of φo
and δo for back-filled walls, however, may require much
greater effort based on our present knowledge. The considera-
tion of the initial mobilized resistance is important not only
with the present proposed method but also with other more
sophisticated analysis methods such as the FEM, if the analysis
results are to be useful to retaining wall design. Results from
© 1997 NRC Canada
508
further research on full-scale instrumented walls with carefully
controlled construction details that simulate the typical back-
filling procedure will definitely be valuable.
The angle of initial wall friction δo along a back-filled wall
is directly related to the construction or compaction details and
the roughness of the wall. Based on previous studies, the initial
wall friction on a back-filled wall could be high. For example,
δo was found to be 17.2° (or 0.52φ) for the wall in sand I and
18.5° (or 0.53φ) for the wall in sand II in Fang and Ishibashi’s
(1986) model studies for which the wall was made of alumi-
num. It is recommended that δo = φ/2 be used for preliminary
analyses of a typical back-filled walls until the information on
δo becomes available.
The initial angle of internal friction φo is affected not only by
the initial stresses in the sand but also by δo. For the aluminum
model walls reported by Fang and Ishibashi (1986), the calculated
values of φo are 7.5° for sand I and 10.4° for sand II based on
eq. [4], and the corresponding values are over 50% higher at 12.7°
and 15.9°, respectively, if δo is taken as zero. The lateral pressure
could be underpredicted with the overestimated φo. In practice,
most retaining walls are likely to be made of concrete and the
walls are much rougher than the model walls. From a practical
point of view, assuming a zero initial wall friction in the analysis
may lead to an unsafe design of back-filled walls.
The present method uses a simplified resistance mobiliza-
tion model that assumes an approximate relationship between
the wall displacement and the degree of strength mobilization.
From a practical point of view, the assumption that both ψ and
δw vary linearly along the wall is only reasonable for a per-
fectly rigid or very stiff wall for which the lateral wall displace-
ment will vary linearly with depth as the wall rotates. In fact,
the mobilization of shearing resistance or the interface wall
friction is a function of the extent of straining and the stiffness
of the soil. There may be practical situations where the relative
stiffness of the soil is comparable to that of the wall so that a
nonlinear lateral wall displacement may prevail. The assumed
distributions of ψ and δw will then require modification.
In practical situations, most walls are likely to exhibit
movements that are combinations of rotations and horizontal
translation. The present analysis method should be directly
applicable to rigid walls exhibiting predominantly rotation
about the base, a displacement pattern commonly observed in
gravity and cantilever walls with adequate sliding resistance,
and in rigid cantilever cast-in-situ embedded walls, such as the
diaphragm and contiguous bored pile walls. With a proper
adjustment of the distributions of ψ and δw, the basis of the
method should still be applicable when walls experience
movements combining rotation about the base and translation.
Wu (1966) pointed out that the magnitude of the total lateral
force is generally not seriously affected by the location of the
total force, or the detailed distribution of the lateral pressure.
The present method appears capable of providing a reasonable
prediction of lateral pressure force for walls rotating about the
top, and the solution should improve if the effect of arching
can be incorporated. For bridge abutment walls and strutted
walls commonly found in deep excavation work, rotation
about the top will be the dominant mode of movement and the
incorporation of arching will be an important development.
The solution can be improved with refinement of the assumed
distributions of ψ(z) and δ(z) based on careful considerations of
the stress–strain behavior of the soil and the construction effect,
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997
particularly when a very stiff soil is encountered. The fact that,
in the field, the wall may not be perfectly rigid, a rotation may
take place around any point along the wall axis, and the move-
ment could be in an inward or an outward direction could be
potentially incorporated in the selection of proper ψ(z) and δ(z)
distributions for use in the analysis.
Conclusions
A simple method has been developed for the analysis of lateral
earth pressures. The method uses Coulomb’s equation of ac-
tive earth pressure and incorporates the initial stress condition,
and indirectly the effect of deformation in the soil based on
observations made in previous model and field studies. Simpli-
fied distributions of the mobilized angle of internal friction
ψ(z) and the locally mobilized angle of wall friction δ(z), de-
veloped by relating the degree of mobilization of shearing re-
sistance and wall friction to local wall movement have been
suggested in the present analysis. Results calculated using ψ
and δ distributions that properly incorporate the effect of initial
mobilized angles of wall friction and internal friction compare
very well with finite element solutions and model test data for
both embedded and back-filled walls rotating about the base.
The simple analysis method, which does not include the effect
of arching, provides only fair estimates of lateral pressure dis-
tributions for walls rotating about the top, although the esti-
mated total lateral force is close to values observed in the
laboratory and in the field.
A critical uniform wall displacement (Sc) of between
0.0003H and 0.0005H as observed from model tests has been
found reasonable for the estimation of degree of strength mo-
bilization for sand of various densities and at different wall
displacements and is recommended for the design of rigid
walls using the present method of analysis.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his appreciation to the late Professor
G.A. Leonards of Purdue University for his inspiration on the
initiation of the idea for this study and Professor Jim Graham of
University of Manitoba for providing several useful suggestions.
References
Clough, G.W., and Duncan, J.M. 1971. Finite element analyses of
retaining wall behaviour. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 97(12): 1657–1673.
Dubrova, G.A. 1963. Interaction between soils and structures.
Rechnoy Transport, Moscow. [In Russian.]
Fang, Y.S., and Ishibashi, I. 1986. Static earth pressures with various
wall movements. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
112(3): 317–333.
Fang, Y.S., Cheng, F.P., Chen, R.C., and Fan, C.C. 1993. Earth pres-
sures under general wall movements. Geotechnical Engineering,
24(2): 113–131.
Ichihara, M., and Matsuzawa, H. 1973. Earth pressure during earth-
quake. Soils and Foundations, 13(4): 75–86.
James, R.G. 1965. Stress and strain fields in sand. Ph.D. thesis, Uni-
versity of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
James, R.G., and Bransby, P.L. 1970. Experimental and theoretical
investigations of a passive earth pressure problem. Géotechnique,
20(1): 17–37.
© 1997 NRC Canada
Chang 509

James, R.G., and Bransby, P.L. 1971. A velocity field for some pas- List of symbols
sive earth pressure problems. Géotechnique, 21(1): 61–83.
Kezdi, A. 1958. Earth pressure on retaining wall tilting about the toe. h distance from base of wall
Proceedings of the Brussels Conference on Earth Pressure Prob- h* location of total lateral force above base of wall
lems, Vol. 1, pp. 116–132. hc h that separates a partially mobilized zone from a fully
Ladanyi, B. 1958. The mobilization of shear strength in the active mobilized zone
Rankine case of earth pressure. Proceedings of the Brussels Con- H height of vertical wall
ference on Earth Pressure Problems, Vol. 1, pp. 133–146. K coefficient of lateral earth pressure
Matsuo, M., Kenmochi, S., and Yagi, H. 1978. Experimental study on K* normalized total lateral force
earth pressure of retaining walls by field tests. Soils and Founda-
tions, 18(3): 27–41. Ka coefficient of active earth pressure
Matsuzawa, H., and Hararika, H. 1996. Analyses of active earth pres- Ki initial coefficient of lateral earth pressure
sure against rigid retaining walls subjected to different modes of Ko coefficient of earth pressure at rest
movement. Soils and Foundations, 36(3): 51–65. p unit pressure
Nakai, T. 1985. Finite element computations for active and passive P total resultant force or total pressure force
earth pressure problems of retaining wall. Soils and Foundations, pa active earth pressure
25(3): 98–112. ph unit lateral pressure (horizontal component of p)
Potts, D.M., and Fourie, A.B. 1986. A numerical study of the effects Ph total lateral force (horizontal component of P)
of wall deformation on earth pressures. International Journal on S lateral wall displacement
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 10: Sa critical lateral wall displacement for fully-active state
383–405.
Sherif, M.A., Ishibashi, I., and Lee, C.D. 1982. Earth pressures
Sc critical lateral wall displacement for local mobilization
against rigid retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, of shearing resistance
ASCE, 108(5): 679–695. Sm maximum lateral wall displacement
Sherif, M.A., Fang, Y.S., and Sherif, R.I. 1984. KA and Ko behind z depth below the top of vertical wall
rotating and non-yielding walls. Journal of Geotechnical Engi- α ratio of the angle of wall friction to the angle of internal
neering, ASCE, 110(1): 41–56. friction
Taylor, D.W. 1941. Abstracts of selected theses in soil mechanics. β normalized lateral displacement defined as S/Sc
Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- βm normalized maximum lateral displacement defined as
nology, Cambridge, Publication Series 79. Sm/Sc
Terzaghi, K. 1934. Large retaining wall tests—I. Pressure in dry sand. γ unit weight of soil
Engineering News Record, February, pp. 136–140.
δ limiting angle of wall friction
Terzaghi, K. 1936. Distribution of lateral pressure on sand on the
timbering of cuts. Proceedings of 1st International Conference on
δo initial mobilized angle of wall friction
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Cambridge, Vol. 1, δw mobilized angle of wall friction
pp. 211–215. φ angle of internal friction or shearing resistance
Terzaghi, K. 1941. General wedge theory of earth pressure. ASCE φo initial mobilized angle of internal friction or shearing
Transactions, 106: 68–97. resistance
Wu, T.H. 1966. Soil mechanics. Allyn & Bacon, Boston. ψ mobilized angle of internal friction or shearing resistance

© 1997 NRC Canada