Paik, K. H. & Salgado, R. (2003). Géotechnique 53, No.
7, 643–653
Estimation of active earth pressure against rigid retaining walls
considering arching effects
K . H . PA I K
a n d R . S A L G A D O y
It is known that the distribution of active earth pressure
against a translating rigid wall is not triangular but non-
linear, owing to arching effects in the backfill. In the
present paper, a new formulation is proposed for calcu-
lating the active earth pressure on a rigid retaining wall
undergoing horizontal translation. It takes into account
the arching effects that occur in the backfill (or retained
soil mass). In order to check the accuracy of the pro-
posed formulation, the predictions from the equation are
compared with both existing full-scale test results and
values from existing equations. The comparisons between
calculated and measured values show that the proposed
equations satisfactorily predict both the earth pressure
distribution and the lateral active earth force on the
translating wall. In order to facilitate calculation of
active earth pressures using the proposed equations, a
modified active pressure coefficient and an effective
height of application of the lateral active force are also
provided as functions of the soil friction angle, ö, and
the wall friction angle, ä.
KEYWORDS: retaining walls; earth pressure; numerical
modelling and analysis; theoretical analysis
INTRODUCTION
Estimation of the active earth pressure acting on a rigid
retaining wall is very important in the design of many
geotechnical engineering structures, particularly retaining
walls. Civil engineers have traditionally calculated the active
earth pressure against rigid walls using either Coulomb’s or
Rankine’s formulation. Both assume that the distribution of
active earth pressure exerted against the wall is triangular.
However, many experimental results (Tsagareli, 1965;
Matsuo et al., 1978; Fang & Ishibashi, 1986) show that the
distribution of active pressure on the face of a rough wall
depends on the mode of wall movement (rotation about the
top, rotation about the base or horizontal translation) and is
non-linear, different from the assumption made by both
Coulomb and Rankine. The non-linearity of the active earth
pressure distribution results from arching effects (Handy,
1985).
Arching, as the word suggests, is a stress redistribution
process by which stress is transferred around a region of the
soil mass, which then becomes subject to lower stresses. A
simple example of arching (inspired by the way in which
Terzaghi (1943) illustrated the concept) is what occurs in a
large box of soil with a panel at the base. When this panel
is lowered, the soil immediately above it will tend to move
Manuscript received 23 October 2002; accepted 28 April 2003.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 March 2004, for further details
see p.ii.

Department of Civil Engineering, Kwandong University, Kang-
won-do, Korea.
† School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
USA.
643
On sait que la distribution de pression de terre active sur
un mur en translation rigide n’est pas triangulaire mais
non linéaire en raison des effets de voûte dans le remblai.
Dans cet article, nous proposons une nouvelle formula-
tion pour calculer la pression de terre active sur un mur
de soutènement rigide subissant une translation horizon-
tale. Cette étude tient compte des effets de voûte qui se
produisent dans le remblai (ou dans la masse de sol
retenue). Afin de vérifier l’exactitude de la formulation,
nous comparons les résultats prédits par les équations
avec les résultats d’essais grandeur nature existants et
avec les valeurs des équations existantes. Les comparai-
sons entre les valeurs calculées et mesurées montrent que
les équations proposées prédisent de manière satisfaisante
la distribution de pression de terre et la force latérale
des terrains active sur le mur de translation. Afin de
faciliter les calculs des pressions de terre actives en
utilisant les équations proposées, nous donnons également
un coefficient de pression active modifié et une hauteur
d’application effective de la force active latérale comme
fonctions de l’angle de frottement du sol, ö, et de l’angle
de frottement du mur, ä.
down with it (Fig. 1). However, if the shear strength of the
soil is sufficiently large, what will happen instead is that the
weight of the column of soil immediately above the moving
panel will be partially transferred to the surrounding soil.
Naturally, the vertical stresses in the soil around the moving
panel will increase, while those immediately above it will
decrease. Arching is also observed in silos and ditches.
Several researchers have attempted to estimate the active
earth pressures exerted against rigid retaining walls consider-
ing the arching effect in the retained soil mass. Because of
the traditional use of the term backfill, we shall use this term
as an alternate to the term retained soil, even though not
every retained soil mass is a backfill. Janssen (1895) set up
Slip surface
Stationary Moving Stationary
soil soil soil
Fixed base
Yielding base
Fig. 1. Stress redistribution caused by arching
644 PAIK AND SALGADO
the differential equation for pressures in a silo by consider-
ing force equilibrium for any differential flat element in the
silo under the assumption that the ratio of lateral to vertical
stresses is constant for a grain stored in a bin. Janssen’s
equation provides the theoretical basis for the understanding
of arching effects in silos. Based on Janssen’s arching theory,
Spangler & Handy (1984) and Wang (2000) suggested equa-
tions to estimate the non-linear distribution of active pres-
sure on retaining walls. Handy (1985) and Harrop-Williams
(1989) also proposed lateral active earth pressure coefficients
Kaw and equations for calculating non-linear active earth
pressures. However, the equations proposed by Spangler &
Handy (1984) and Wang (2000) for the calculation of lateral
earth pressure have a serious shortcoming. They do not take
into account a suitable lateral earth pressure coefficient,
although the lateral earth pressure coefficient has a signifi-
cant effect on both the magnitude and the distribution of
lateral earth pressure. Therefore it is not possible to estimate
the height of application of the lateral active earth pressure
using their formulations. Additionally, the Wang (2000)
formulation gives a total active force equal to that calculated
by Coulomb theory. However, in reality, Coulomb’s solution
is not exact, and there are no guarantees that its total active
force prediction is exact.
The equations proposed by Handy (1985) and Harrop-
Williams (1989) also have some limitations. Handy (1985)
showed that the magnitude of the vertical and lateral stresses

v and
h at a depth z behind the retaining wall vary with
the distance from the wall, with the soil friction angle ,
and with the soil–wall interface friction angle . However,
Handy (1985) did not account for the dependence of
v (and

h ) on  and  in his derivation of the equations for the
active earth pressures on the wall. Harrop-Williams (1989),
in turn, defined an earth pressure coefficient Kaw at depth z
using the vertical stress at the wall at that depth, but used
the average vertical stress at depth z (which is larger than
the vertical stress at the wall) to calculate the active earth
pressure on the wall. Additionally, Harrop-Williams (1989)
used the assumption that the Coulomb (1776) theory gives
exact values for the magnitude of lateral active force, but
not for active earth pressure distribution. This produces the
same results as the formulation proposed by Wang (2000)
for overburden pressure of zero.
In this study, a new formulation for calculating the active
earth pressure on a rigid retaining wall that translates
45° ⫹ φ/2
H H
Slip surface
Fixed
(a)
Fig. 2. Slip surfaces in backfill resulting from: (a) wall tilting about its base; (b) wall tilting about its top
horizontally away from the soil was proposed considering
the arching effects in the retained soil mass. This formula-
tion accounts for the effect of  and  on the vertical stress
at depth z in the soil. In order to check the accuracy of
predictions using the new formulation, a comparison was
made with existing test results as well as with the values
calculated from equations proposed by other authors. Simpli-
fied design charts were developed based on the proposed
formulation for easy reference by design engineers.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Shape of slip surface in retained soil mass
A rigid retaining wall may yield by either tilting or
translating away from the backfill. The shape of the slip
surface, which occurs in the retained soil after sufficient
yielding of the wall, depends not only on wall friction angle,
, but also on the yielding mode. The slip surface that
develops in the soil behind the wall is plane if  ¼ 0, but,
for a rough wall ( 6¼ 0), the slip surface is curved
irrespective of the yielding mode (Terzaghi, 1943).
For a rough wall, the shape of the slip surface and the
distribution of active earth pressure depend on the yielding
mode of the wall, as shown in Fig. 2 (Terzaghi, 1943; Fang
& Ishibashi, 1986). If the wall yields by tilting around its
lower edge (Fig. 2(a)), the slip surface is curved near the
base of the wall and planar near the top, with a roughly
triangular distribution of active earth pressure applied on the
wall (Terzaghi, 1943). If the surface of the backfill is
horizontal and the rigid wall rotates around its upper edge
(Fig. 2(b)), the slip surface with curved shape intersects the
horizontal surface of the backfill at right angles. According
to Terzaghi (1943), a roughly parabolic distribution of active
earth pressure is applied on the yielding wall. Finally, if the
wall yields by horizontal translation, the slip surface will
have a more complex shape.
In order to accurately determine the active earth pressure
on a rigid wall, it is necessary to consider an accurate shape
for the slip surface in the formulation for the active pres-
sure. At present, Coulomb’s theory, in which the slip surface
is assumed to be a plane, is predominantly used in practice,
as it is known to provide acceptable results. In this study,
the simplifying assumption made by Coulomb that the slip
surface for a translating rigid wall is plane and slopes at an
angle of 458 + /2 to the horizontal is used to calculate the
90°
Fixed
Slip surface
(b)
 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE AGAINST RIGID RETAINING WALLS 645
active earth pressure on the wall. However, in contrast with
the theory of Coulomb, full consideration is taken of arching
effects.
z

σ1 σ1 σ1
Rotation of principal stresses τw τw
In order to investigate the state of stress in the retained σah σah
soil based on Janssen’s arching theory, let us assume that
σ1 ⫹ dσ1
two parallel, rigid vertical walls retain granular soil, and that
dz
the settlement of the retained soil is large enough to fully
induce friction between the walls and the soil. It follows that
the weight of any differential flat element in the retained soil
is partially supported by the frictional resistances at the
Trajectory of minor
walls, and the frictional resistances cause changes in the
principal stress
direction of the principal stresses acting on the differential
element (Fig. 3(a)). As shown in the figure, the major
principal stresses on the differential flat element are applied
normal to the concave arch represented by the dotted lines, (a)
while the minor principal stresses are tangential to the
direction of the concave arch, becoming horizontal at the
centre of the element (Handy, 1985; Paikowsky, 1989).
Similarly, if a rigid retaining wall with a rough face θ
moves away from the soil horizontally, the directions of the
major and minor principal stresses on the differential flat
element in Fig. 3(b) are changed owing to the frictional
resistance at the wall. The minor principal stresses,
3 , on
the differential flat element behind the wall act along the R
concave arch shown in the figure, whereas the major princi-
pal stresses,
1 , are perpendicular to the concave arch. The
shape of the concave arch has been observed or inferred to
z
be elliptic, catenary, or parabolic (Livingston, 1961; Walker,
1966; Stević et al., 1979; Handy, 1985). In this study it is σ1
σ1
assumed that the trajectory of minor principal stresses takes σ3
dz
the form of an arc of a circle. Considering that the slip
planes in the soil make angles of (458 + /2) with the
horizontal, and that the angle between the slip plane and the σ3
minor principal stress must be 458 + /2, it follows that at H
the right edge of the differential flat element shown in Fig. σ1 ⫹ dσ1
3(b) the minor principal stress must be horizontal. The width
Bz of the differential flat element at a depth z can be
expressed as follows:
Bz
Bz ¼ R cos Ł (1)

where R is the radius of the minor principal stress trajectory

and Ł is the angle of the minor principal plane with respect α
to the horizontal at the wall.
The active lateral stress on the wall,
ahw , can be calcu-
(b)
lated by considering the horizontal force equilibrium in the
triangular element at the left edge of the concave arch in Fig. 3. Trajectory of minor principal stresses: (a) in granular fill
Fig. 4. The lateral stress on the wall is given by at ditch; (b) in backfill behind retaining wall

ahw ¼
1 cos2 Ł þ
3 sin2 Ł (2)

Similarly, the lateral stress at point D of the concave arch,

which was originally located at point B, is

v 1
¼ sin2 ł þ cos2 ł (5)

ah ¼
1 cos2 ł þ
3 sin2 ł (3)
1 N

where ł is the angle between the tangent to the arch at

point D and the vertical. Dividing equation (3) by
1 , and Therefore the vertical and lateral stresses acting at arbitrary
substituting
3 /
1 ¼ 1/N for the soil in the active condition: points along a differential flat element in the backfill can be
calculated from equations (4) and (5). For example, the

ah 1 vertical and lateral stresses at the wall are obtained in terms
¼ cos2 ł þ sin2 ł (4) of
1 by substitution of ł ¼ Ł in equations (4) and (5); the

1 N
vertical and lateral stresses at the slip surface also can be
where N is the ratio of major to minor principal calculated by substitution of ł ¼ 908 in equations (4) and
stresses ¼ tan2 (458 + /2). (5). The value of Ł is a function of  and , as we discuss
As
1 +
3 ¼
v +
ah , substitution for
ah gives next.
646 PAIK AND SALGADO
O Thus,
θ

ahw =
3
tan Ł ¼ tan  (7)
ψ
ahw =
3  1
Dividing equation (2) by
3 :

ahw
¼ N cos2 Ł þ sin2 Ł (8)
dψ
3
R Substitution of equation (8) into equation (7) yields the
second-order equation
N þ tan2 Ł
tan Ł ¼ tan  (9)
Bz N 1
x z Solving this equation for Ł gives
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 (N  1)  (N  1)2  4N tan2 
σ1 dV Ł ¼ tan (10)
A
σ1 2 tan 
B C
σahw dA dz
Of the two values of Ł given by equation (10), the largest of
σ3
the two values corresponds to the active condition of the
τw σ3
retaining wall. Note that Ł ¼ 908 for  ¼ 08.
σ1
σah σ1
D σ3 Vertical and lateral stresses in backfill soil
σ1 ⫹ dσ1 E Figure 6 shows the vertical and lateral stresses, normalised
with respect to the major principal stress, as a function of
internal friction angle , wall friction angle , and the
Trajectory of minor horizontal distance x from the wall. This figure was obtained
principal stress by substitution of values ranging from Ł to 908 for ł in
equations (4) and (5) after determining N and Ł using  and
Fig. 4. Stresses on differential flat element in backfill
φ or δ ⫽ 0°
1.00

Determination of Ł
The rotation angle, Ł, of the principal stresses for the wall 0.95
with wall friction angle of  <  can be obtained using the
Mohr circle, as shown in Fig. 5. From the two triangles φ ⫽ 10°
φ ⫽ 20°
σ v /σ1

OAB and ABC, we can write 0.90

φ ⫽ 30°
w ¼
ahw tan  ¼ (
ahw 
3 ) tan Ł (6)
φ ⫽ 40°
φ ⫽ 50°
0.85
δ⫽φ
δ ⫽ 0.8φ

0.80
τ
δ 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Pole x/Bz
(a)
1.0
φ
τw δ⫽φ
φ ⫽ 0°
δ ⫽ 0.8φ
C B 0.8 δ ⫽ 0°
O σ3 σahw σvw σ1
φ ⫽ 10°
τw 0.6
A
σ ah /σ1

φ ⫽ 20°
0.4
δ
φ ⫽ 30°
Direction of major 0.2 φ ⫽ 40°
σvw σ1 principal stress
φ ⫽ 50°
θ
0
σahw 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
σ3 x/Bz
τw (b)
Wall
Fig. 6. Theoretical vertical and lateral stresses across differen-
Fig. 5. Mohr circle for stresses at wall tial flat element: (a) vertical stress; (b) lateral stress
 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE AGAINST RIGID RETAINING WALLS 647
. In this figure, x/Bz is the normalised distance from the Unlike Handy’s active stress ratio, the new active stress ratio
wall, ranging from 0 at the wall to 1 at the slip surface. does equal 1·0 for  ¼ 08 and matches the values of
Therefore, as ł in equations (4) and (5) changes from Ł at Rankine’s active stress ratio for  ¼ 08.
the wall to 908 at the slip surface, x/Bz increases from 0 to
1.
It is seen in Fig. 6(a) that the normalised vertical stress
Equation for the earth pressure behind a wall

v /
1 increases gradually with decreasing  and with in-
Figure 7 shows the stresses acting on the differential flat
creasing x/Bz . It also increases with decreasing  for
element behind a rigid wall. As mentioned previously, as we
 , 208, but decreases with decreasing  for  . 208. The
assume that the slip surface in the backfill forms an angle of
normalised vertical stress at the slip surface is 1·0 irrespec-
458 + /2 with the horizontal, the major and minor principal
tive of the values of  and . For  ¼ 08, the vertical stress
stresses at the right edge of the differential element must be
on the differential flat element is equal to the major princi-
applied in the vertical and horizontal directions respectively.
pal stress regardless of the distance from the wall. It is seen
Accordingly, the shear stresses in the vertical and horizontal
in Fig. 6(b) that the normalised lateral stress
ah /
1 de-
planes at the right edge of the differential flat elements are
creases gradually with increasing  and with decreasing .
equal to zero. However, at the left edge of the differential
It also decreases with distance from the wall. Both figures
element there is a non-zero shear stress along the wall, w ,
also show that the normalised vertical and lateral stresses
given as
are equal to 1·0 for  ¼ 08. Therefore the lateral stress ratio
defined as a ratio of lateral to vertical stresses is equal to w ¼
ahw tan  ¼
v K awn tan  (16)
1·0 when  ¼ 08, a result that is consistent with a material The rectangular differential flat element with thickness dz
with zero shear strength (such as water). shown in Fig. 7 is subjected to the stresses shown in the
figure: the average vertical stress,
v ; the shear stress, w ,
on its interface with the wall; and the self-weight of the
element. Note that the shear stress in a vertical plane is zero
Active lateral stress ratio at the right edge of the element, and that the triangular
Handy (1985) defined the active lateral stress ratio Kaw at element at the right edge of the differential element is in
the wall using the average vertical stress across a given equilibrium. Therefore the shear stress f at the slip surface
differential flat element, obtaining the following expression must not be considered in vertical force equilibrium. Sum-
for Kaw in the range of  ¼ 10–408 and  ¼ : mation of all vertical forces acting on the differential
 

ahw 1 element gives
Kaw ¼ ¼ 1:06 cos2 Ł þ sin2 Ł (11)

v N d
v Bz þ
v K awn tan   dz ¼ ªBz dz (17)
in which
ahw is the active lateral stress at the wall, and
v where Kawn is the new active lateral stress ratio from equa-
is the average vertical stress across the soil element. How- tion (15), and ª is the unit weight of backfill. Substitution of
ever, equation (11) gives a Kaw value of 1·06 for  ¼ 08, Bz ¼ (H – z)/tan Æ into equation (17) gives a differential
although the active stress ratio for  ¼ 08 must be equal to equation with general solution:
1·0. So there is an error in values of Kaw calculated using  
ª
equation (11). This error decreases with increasing  and .
v þ ( H  z)
We shall now derive a new relationship for Kaw that 1  K awn tan  tan Æ
reflects the variation of
v with  and . The differential 3 ( H  z) Kawn tan  tan Æ ¼ C (18)
vertical force, dV, on the shaded element at point B in Fig. 4
can be expressed as in which H is the height of the retaining wall, z is the depth
  from the surface of the backfill soil, and C is an integration
1 constant. The average vertical stress at any depth may be
dV ¼
v dA ¼
1 sin2 ł þ cos2 ł (R  dł  sin ł)
N obtained by applying the boundary condition
v ¼ 0 at
(12) z ¼ 0 to equation (18):
in which dA is the width of the shaded element at point B.
The average vertical stress
v across the differential flat
element, shown in Fig. 4, can be obtained by dividing the
total vertical force, V, acting on the differential element by z
the width of the element, Bz ¼ R cos Ł: σv
ð
V 1 =2 τf

v ¼ ¼ dV dz
B z Bz Ł
ð =2   (13) τw σn
1 sin ł σv ⫹ dσv
¼
1 sin ł þ cos ł
2 2
 dł
Ł N cos Ł
Integration of this equation yields Bz σ1
 
N 1

v ¼
1 1  cos Ł
2
(14) H⫺z
3N σ3
Dividing equation (2) by equation (14) gives a new ratio, σn
Kawn , of the active lateral stress at the wall to the average τf
vertical stress over the differential flat element:
α ⫽ 45° ⫹ φ/2

ahw 3ð N cos2 Ł þ sin2 ŁÞ
Kawn ¼ ¼ (15)

v 3N  ð N  1Þ cos2 Ł
Fig. 7. Free body diagram of differential flat element
648 PAIK AND SALGADO
ªH PARAMETRIC STUDY

v ¼
1  K awn tan  tan Æ Friction angle
"   # Figure 8 shows the active earth pressure distribution on a
z Kawn tan  tan Æ z 4 m high, translating rigid wall with  ¼  obtained from
3 1  1 (19) equation (20) as a function of the soil friction angle. It is
H H
found from the figure that the distribution of the active earth
The active lateral stress at any depth acting on the wall can pressure changes from triangular to non-linear as the internal
be calculated by multiplying equation (19) by Kawn , which is friction angle increases from  ¼ 08. Also, as the internal
given by equation (15): friction angle increases, the active pressure acting on the
wall decreases at every depth and the height of the centroid
ª HK awn

ahw ¼ of the active earth pressure distribution increases.
1  K awn tan  tan Æ The magnitude of the lateral active force and the height
"   # of its point of application from the base of the wall, normal-
z Kawn tan  tan Æ z ised with respect to wall height, are plotted against internal
3 1  1 (20)
H H friction angle in Fig. 9. As shown in Fig. 9(a), the lateral
active force calculated from equation (22) decreases continu-
According to these equations, the average vertical stress
v ously with friction angle. Equation (22), featuring active
and the active lateral stress at the base of the wall are zero, forces that match those of Coulomb (1776) and Harrop-
unlike the results of classical theory. This results from the Williams (1989) for  ¼ 0, are larger than those from
arching effects in the backfill soil: as we consider elements existing theories for 0 ,  , 458, and smaller for  > 458.
from the top to the base of the wall, vertical equilibrium is It is seen in Fig. 9(b) that the normalised height of the point
increasingly achieved by w , so that an increasingly small of application of the lateral active force calculated from
vertical stress needs to be transferred across the element. equation (26) increases with increasing internal friction
angle, matching the values from Harrop-Williams’s equation
at  ¼ 08 and  ¼ 498. The normalised application height
obtained from equation (26) is lower than or equal to those
Magnitude and height of application of lateral active force from Handy’s and Harrop-Williams’s equations for  in the
The lateral active force Pah on the rigid retaining wall can 0 ,  , 498 range.
be obtained by integrating equation (20) with respect to z:
ðH
Pah ¼
ahw dz (21) Soil–wall interface friction angle
0 Figure 10 shows the distribution of the active earth
Substitution of equation (20) into the above equation gives pressure calculated from equation (20) in terms of the soil–
wall interface friction angle  for  ¼ 408 and H ¼ 4 m. As
ªH2 Kawn shown in the figure, the distribution of the active earth
Pah ¼ (22)
2 1 þ Kawn tan  tan Æ pressure is triangular for  ¼ 0, which is consistent with
Rankine’s theory. It can also be seen from Fig. 10 that the
If the back of the wall is vertical, the total active force Pa distribution of the active earth pressure changes from trian-
can be calculated from the vector addition of the lateral gular to non-linear as  increases. Note that, as  increases,
active force Pah normal to the wall and the shearing force T
acting tangentially to the wall. Pa which makes an angle 
with the normal to the back of wall, can be obtained as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Lateral active earth pressure: kPa
Pah
Pa ¼ P2ah þ T 2 ¼ P2ah þ P2ah tan2  ¼ (23) 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
cos 
In the case of non-linear distributed active earth pressure, φ ⫽ 0°
the height of application of the total active force (which
coincides with the point of application of the lateral force) φ ⫽ 10°
can be obtained by dividing the moment of the lateral active φ ⫽ 20°
earth pressure about the wall base by the lateral active force. 1
The moment, M, of the lateral active earth pressure about φ ⫽ 30°
the wall base can be obtained by integration, as follows: φ ⫽ 40°
ðH
M¼
ahw ( H  z)dz (24)
Depth: m

0
2
Substitution of equation (20) into this equation yields
ªH3 K awn H ⫽ 4 m, δ ⫽ φ
M¼ (25)
3 2 þ K awn tan  tan Æ
Now dividing equation (25) by equation (22) gives the
height of application of the lateral active force, h: 3

M 2ð1 þ K awn tan  tan ÆÞ

h¼ ¼ H (26)
Pah 3ð2 þ K awn tan  tan ÆÞ
According to equation (26), the height of application of
the lateral active force is one third of the wall height for 4
 ¼ 08. This is consistent with results obtained from Rankine
theory. Fig. 8. Change of active earth pressure distribution with ö
 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE AGAINST RIGID RETAINING WALLS 649
200 the active pressure in the upper zone of the wall increases,
Coulomb (1776) while decreasing close to the base of the wall. Consequently,
Handy (1985)
the distance of the centroid of the active earth pressure
Lateral active force, Pah: kN/m

150
distribution from the base of the wall increases with increas-
Harrop-Williams (1989)
ing soil–wall interface friction angle. This result is also
Proposed illustrated in Fig. 11(b), which shows the height of the point
of application of the lateral active force from the base of the
100 wall, normalised with respect to wall height, against .
Figure 11(a) shows changes of the lateral active force on
a translating rigid wall with  ranging from 0 to 408 for
50  ¼ 408. This figure also shows the results from the equa-
tions of Coulomb (1776), Handy (1985), and Harrop-
H ⫽ 4 m, δ ⫽ φ Williams (1989). It can be seen from Fig. 11(a) that the
Handy (1985) equation gives the highest lateral active force
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 of all four formulations for  less than about 2·58 and the
φ: degrees lowest of all for  greater than about 2·58. The lateral active
(a)
force obtained from Harrop-Williams’s formulation is the
same as that from Coulomb’s theory, reaching a minimum at
0.6 about  ¼ 208. The lateral active force calculated using the
Coulomb (1776) analysis proposed in this paper is also plotted in the figure.
Normalised height of application, h/H

H ⫽ 4 m, δ ⫽ φ
Handy (1985) It is essentially the same as the Coulomb and Harrop-
Harrop-Williams (1989)
Williams values for low  values, but then becomes higher
0.5 Proposed
at  values exceeding 58 or so.

Height of wall
The active earth pressure distribution is plotted in Fig. 12
0.4 for  ¼  ¼ 408 and several wall heights. As shown in the

45
0.3 Coulomb (1776)
0 10 20 30 40 50
φ: degrees Handy (1985)
Lateral active force, Pah: kN/m

(b) 40 Harrop-Williams (1989)

Proposed
Fig. 9. Effect of ö: (a) on lateral active force; (b) on normalised
height of application of lateral active force
35

Lateral active earth pressure: kPa 30

0 5 10 15 20
0 φ ⫽ 40°, H ⫽ 4 m

25
δ ⫽ 0° 0 10 20 30 40

δ ⫽ 10° δ: degrees
(a)
δ ⫽ 20°
1 0.6
δ ⫽ 30°
Coulomb (1776)
Normalised height of application, h/H

δ ⫽ 40° φ ⫽ 40°, H ⫽ 4 m
Handy (1985)
Harrop-Williams (1989)
0.5
Depth: m

Proposed
2

0.4

δ ⫽ 40°, H ⫽ 4 m
0.3
0 10 20 30 40
δ: degrees
(b)
4
Fig. 11. Effect of ä: (a) on lateral active force; (b) on
Fig. 10. Change of earth pressure distribution with ä normalised height of application of lateral active force
650 PAIK AND SALGADO
Lateral active earth pressure: kPa 3.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 Coulomb (1776)

Normalised lateral force, Pah/H 2: kN/m3

φ ⫽ δ ⫽ 40°
Handy (1985)
H⫽2m Harrop-Williams (1989)

H⫽4m 2.5 Proposed

0.2
Depth normalised with respect to wall height

H⫽6m

H⫽8m

H ⫽ 10 m 2.0
0.4

1.5
0.6 0 2 4 6 8 10
Height of retaining wall: m
(a)

0.6
0.8
Coulomb (1776)

Normalised height of application, h/H

φ ⫽ δ ⫽ 40° Handy (1985)
φ ⫽ δ ⫽ 40°
Harrop-Williams (1989)
1.0 0.5 Proposed

Fig. 12. Change of earth pressure distribution with wall height

0.4
figure, the wall height does not have an effect on the shape
of the active earth pressure distribution, but does have an
effect on the magnitude of the lateral active force. This is
more evident in Fig. 13, which shows the magnitude and
height of the point of application of the lateral active force, 0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10
normalised by the square of the wall height and by the wall
Height of retaining wall: m
height, respectively, against wall height. It is seen in Fig.
(b)
13(a) that the lateral active force calculated by the proposed
formulation increases in proportion to the square of the wall Fig. 13. Effect of wall height: (a) on lateral active force; (b) on
height. The ratio of the height of the point of application of normalised height of application of lateral active force
the lateral active force to the wall height is independent of
wall height for all formulations, as evident in Fig. 13(b).

match the measured values most closely, whereas the Handy

COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Distribution of active earth pressure
In order to check the applicability of the proposed for-
mulation, the predictions from the equation are compared
with field test results of Tsagareli (1965), who measured the
distribution of the active earth pressures on translating rigid
retaining walls with five different heights (2·0, 2·5, 3·0, 3·5
and 4·0 m). The unit weight of the backfill used in Tsagar-
eli’s full-scale tests was 17·65 kN/m3 (1·8 g/cm3 ), with 
and  reported as equal to 378.
Figure 14 shows the distribution of the active earth
pressure calculated using equation (20) together with Tsagar-
eli’s measurements for the walls with five different wall
heights. The figure also shows the distributions obtained
using the analyses of Coulomb (1776), Handy (1985) and
Harrop-Williams (1989). The equation proposed in this study
provides the best approximation to the measured values.
Magnitude and height of the point of application of lateral
active force
Figure 15 shows a comparison of the magnitude and
height of the point of application of the lateral active force
predicted by the proposed formulation with the measure-
ments of Tsagareli (1965). Fig. 15(a) shows that the lateral
active forces calculated using the proposed formulation
(1985) equation produces the values that differ the most
from the measurements. The Harrop-Williams (1989) equa-
tion yields active earth pressure values equal to the results
of the Coulomb (1776) theory. It is also apparent that for
every equation the difference between calculated and meas-
ured values increases with increasing wall height.
In the design of retaining walls, it is usually important to
predict the maximum shear force and bending moment in
the wall, which are primarily a function of the earth pressure
distribution. Additionally, if the point of application of the
lateral active force is not determined accurately, the over-
turning moment will not be calculated accurately either. A
comparison of measured with calculated values for the
height of the point of application of the lateral active force
is plotted in Fig. 15(b). According to the test results of
Tsagareli, the normalised height of the point of application
of the lateral active force from the base of the wall tends to
decrease slightly with increasing wall height, in contrast to
all of the theoretical analyses, according to which the
normalised height of the point of application is independent
of wall height. This is most likely due to reduced dilatancy
and reduced  with the higher confinement imposed by a
taller wall. As shown in Fig. 9(b), the point of application of
the lateral active force moves down when  drops. The point
of application of the lateral active force calculated by the
Handy (1985) and Harrop-Williams (1989) equations is
 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE AGAINST RIGID RETAINING WALLS 651
Lateral active earth pressure: kPa
0 5 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 15
0

H⫽2m H ⫽ 2.5 m H⫽3m H ⫽ 3.5 m H⫽4m

1
Depth: m

Measured
3
Coulomb (1776)
Handy (1985)
Harrop-Williams (1989)
Proposed
4

Fig. 14. Comparison between predicted and measured distributions of active earth pressure

50 2.0

Coulomb (1776) Coulomb (1776)

Handy (1985)
Handy (1985)
Calculated height of application of Pah: m
Calculated lateral active force, Pah: kN/m

40
Harrop-Williams (1989)
Harrop-Williams (1989)
Proposed
Proposed
1.5
30

20
1.0

10

0 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Measured lateral active force, Pah: kN/m Measured height of application of Pah: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Comparison between predicted and measured values: (a) lateral active force; (b) normalised height of point of
application of lateral active force

higher than the measured values, whereas the Coulomb 1

Pah ¼ K AW  ª  H 2 (27)
(1776) theory produces values lower than the measured 2
values. The values calculated using the proposed equation
are fairly consistent with the values observed in the five test in which Pah is the lateral active force calculated from the
walls. proposed equation, ª is the soil unit weight, and H is the
height of the retaining wall.
Figure 16(a) shows values of KAW against / for various
values of . According to the figure, KAW decreases gradu-
SIMPLIFIED DESIGN METHOD ally with increasing / up to / ¼ 0·7, then increases
The use of equations (20), (22) and (26) for the calcula- again for higher values of /. At  ¼ 0, KAW is equal to
tion of active earth pressures is not as practical as is usually 1·0 irrespective of /. It can also be seen in the figure that
desirable in practice. In order to facilitate use of the equa- the value of KAW increases with decreasing  at a rate that
tion, simplified design charts for the modified active earth increases gradually with decreasing .
pressure coefficient and for the height of the point of The height of the point of application of the lateral active
application of the lateral active force on a translating rigid force, normalised by wall height, is given in Fig. 16(b)
wall are proposed in Fig. 16 based on the results of the against  for various values of /. As shown in the figure,
parametric study discussed earlier. The modified active earth the normalised height of the point of application of the
pressure coefficient KAW was back-calculated from lateral active force from the base of the wall increases with
652 PAIK AND SALGADO
1.0 0.44
φ ⫽ 0°

Normalised height of application of Pah, h/H

0.42 δ/φ ⫽ 1.0
Modified active pressure coefficient, KAW

0.8

φ ⫽ 10°
0.40
0.6
δ/φ ⫽ 0.8
φ ⫽ 20° 0.38
δ/φ ⫽ 0.6
0.4
φ ⫽ 30° 0.36 δ/φ ⫽ 0.4

φ ⫽ 40° δ/φ ⫽ 0.2

0.2
0.34
φ ⫽ 50° δ/φ ⫽ 0

0 0.32
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50
δ/φ φ: degrees
(a) (b)

Fig. 16. Simplified design charts: (a) modified active earth pressure coefficient; (b) normalised height of point of application
of lateral active force

increasing  for constant / and with increasing / for Kaw active lateral stress ratio proposed by Handy
constant . It is seen that the normalised height of the point Kawn new active lateral stress ratio proposed in this study
of application of the lateral active force for / ¼ 0 is 0·33 KAW modified active earth pressure coefficient for simple
regardless of the internal friction angle. This is consistent calculation of active earth pressure
with Rankine’s theory. It is also apparent that the highest M moment of lateral active earth pressure about base of wall
N ratio of major to minor principal stresses ¼ tan2 (45 + /2)
normalised height of the point of application of Pah to be
Pa total active force
expected in practice would be of the order of 0·43. Pah lateral active force including arching effect
R radius of minor principal stress trajectory
T shearing force on back of wall
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS x horizontal distant from retaining wall
The estimation of active earth pressures acting on retain- z depth from surface of backfill
ing walls is very important in geotechnical design. However, Æ angle of failure line to horizontal ¼ 45 + /2
unlike the assumption used in the analysis of Coulomb ª unit weight of backfill
 wall friction angle
(1776), which is generally used to calculate active earth
Ł ł at wall
pressure, the distribution of active earth pressure behind the  internal friction angle of backfill
wall is non-linear, and the earth pressure distribution differs
1 ,
3 major and minor principal stress
depending on the mode of wall movement (tilting about the
ah active lateral stress at arbitrary point on differential flat
top or base of the wall or translation). This is due to arching element
effects in the retained soil, which result from the frictional
ahw active lateral stress at wall
resistance between the wall and the soil.
v vertical stress across on differential flat element
In this paper, a new formulation is proposed for the non-
vw vertical stress across at wall
linear distribution of active earth pressure on a translating
v average value of
v over differential flat element
retaining wall considering arching effects, under the assump- f frictional resistance at slip surface
w frictional resistance at wall.
tion that the slip surface in the soil behind the wall is planar ł angle between tangent to
3 trajectory and vertical at
and makes an angle of 458 + /2 with the horizontal. In arbitrary point
order to check the accuracy of predictions using the pro-
posed equations, the equations were applied to existing test
results for five rigid retaining walls with different heights.
Comparison of predicted with measured values showed that
the proposed equations produce satisfactory results. Design REFERENCES
charts are also proposed for the modified active earth Coulomb, C. A. (1776). Essai sur une application des règles des
pressure coefficient and for the height of application of the maximis et minimis à quelques problèmes de statique relatifs à
lateral active force. l’architecture. Mèm. Acad. Roy. Près. Divers Savants 7, Paris.
Fang, Y. & Ishibashi, I. (1986). Static earth pressures with various
wall movements. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 112, No. 3, 317–
333.
NOTATION Handy, R. L. (1985). The arch in soil arching. J. Geotech. Engng,
Bz width of differential flat element at depth z ASCE 111, No. 3, 302–318.
C integrating constant determined by a boundary condition Harrop-Williams, K. O. (1989). Geostatic wall pressures. J. Geo-
dz thickness of differential flat element tech. Engng, ASCE 115, No. 9, 1321–1325.
h height of point of application of lateral active force from Janssen, H. A. (1895). Versuche über getreidedruck in silozellen.
base of wall Zeitschrift, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure 39, 1045–1049 (partial
H height of retaining wall English translation in Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs, 1986, 553.
 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE AGAINST RIGID RETAINING WALLS
Livingston, C. W. (1961). The natural arch, the fracture pattern, and
the sequence of failure in massive rock surrounding an under-
ground opening. Proceedings of the symposium on rock mech-
anics, Pennsylvania State University, Bulletin 76, 197–204.
Matsuo, M., Kenmochi, S. & Yagi, H. (1978). Experimental study
on earth pressure of retaining wall by field tests. Soils Found.
18, No. 3, 27–41.
Paikowsky, S. G. (1989). A static evaluation of soil plug behavior
with application to the pile plugging problem. PhD thesis, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Spangler, M. G. & Handy, R. L. (1984). Soil engineering, New
York: Harper & Row.
653
Stević, M., Jasarević, I. & Ramiz, F. (1979). Arching in hanging
walls over leached deposits of rock salt. Proc. 4th Int. Cong.
Rock Mech., Montreaux 1, 745–752.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Tsagareli, Z. V. (1965). Experimental investigation of the pressure
of a loose medium on retaining walls with a vertical back face
and horizontal backfill surface. J. Soil Mech. Found. Engng,
ASCE 91, No. 4, 197–200.
Walker, D. M. (1966). An approximate theory for pressure and
arching in hoppers. Chem. Engng Sci. 21, 975–997.
Wang, Y. Z. (2000). Distribution of earth pressure on a retaining
wall. Géotechnique 50, No. 1, 83–88.
 Errata
The following error was printed in the following paper: Paik, 45
K. H. & Salgado, R. (2003). Estimation of active earth Coulomb (1776)
pressure against rigid retaining walls considering arching Handy (1985)

Lateral active force, Pah: kN/m

40
effects. Géotechnique 53, No. 7, 643–654. Figs 10 and 11 Harrop-Williams (1989)
were incorrect as they appeared in the paper. Corrected Proposed
versions of these two figures are reproduced below. 35
The second paragraph of the section ‘Soil–wall interface
friction angle’ should read as follows.
30

Lateral active earth pressure: kPa

25
0 5 10 15 20 ö 5 40°, H 5 4 m
0

ä 5 0° 20
0 10 20 30 40
ä 5 10° ä: °
(a)
ä 5 20°
1
ä 5 30° 0·6
ä 5 40°

Normalized height of application: h/H

Coulomb (1776)
ö 5 40°, H 5 4 m
Handy (1985)
Depth: m

Harrop-Williams (1989)
2 0·5
Proposed

0·4
3 ä 5 40°, H 5 4 m

4 ä: °
Fig. 10. Change of earth pressure distribution with ä
It is seen in Fig. 11(a) that the lateral active force
calculated using the proposed equation is lower than the
values calculated using both the Coulomb and the Harrop-
Williams formulations for values of
less than about 39.58.
For values of
exceeding 39.58, the lateral active force
becomes larger than the values calculated using both the
Coulomb and the Harrop-Williams equations. The Handy
(1985) equation gives the largest lateral active force of all
four formulations for
less than about 2.58 and the lowest
of all for
greater than about 2.58.
Figure 11(b) shows that the height of the point of applica-
tion of the lateral active force from the base of the wall,
normalised with respect to wall height, increases with in-
creasing soil-wall interface friction angle for all lateral earth
pressure formulations. The proposed formulation provides
slightly higher values than the Harrop-Williams equation for

less than 37.58, but lower values for
greater than 37.58.
However, the normalised application height obtained from
the proposed formulation is always lower than that from the
Handy formulation irrespective of the value of
.
0·3
0 10 20 30 40
(b)
Fig. 11. Effect of ä: (a) on lateral active force; (b) on
normalised height of application of lateral active force
The following errors were printed in Rocchi, G., Fontana,
M. & Da Prat, M. (2003). Modelling of natural soft clay
destruction processes using viscoplasticity theory. Géotechni-
que 53, No. 8, 729–745.
(a) In Fig. 1 the label on the p’ axis should read p’*ci0.
(b) In Fig. 3 cae ¼ cae /(1+e0 ) should read cÆ ¼ cÆ /(1+e0 )
and cae ¼ 0.1–0.2% should read cÆ ¼ 0.1–0.2%.
(c) In Fig. 10, on the x axis label, pcn should read p9cn .
(d) In Fig. 13 all instances of cae should read cÆ .
(e) In the Notation list M ¼ 6 sin jj9cv /3-sin j9cv should read
M ¼ 6 sin j9cv /(3-sin j9cv ). The caption for the solid
thick line should read ‘From initial portion of. . .’ and
not ‘From final portion of. . .
( f ) In the Notation list p9 ¼ 91+92+93/3 ¼ generic or
current mean effective stress should read p9 ¼
(91+92+93)/3 ¼ generic or current mean effective
stress

342