78

Active pressure on gravity walls supporting purely

frictional soils
D. Loukidis and R. Salgado

Abstract: The active earth pressure used in the design of gravity walls is calculated based on the internal friction angle of
the retained soil or backfill. However, the friction angle of a soil changes during the deformation process. For drained load-
ing, the mobilized friction angle varies between the peak and critical-state friction angles, depending on the level of shear
strain in the retained soil. Consequently, there is not a single value of friction angle for the retained soil mass, and the active
earth pressure coefficient changes as the wall moves away from the backfill and plastic shear strains in the backfill increase.
In this paper, the finite element method is used to study the evolution of the active earth pressure behind a gravity retaining
wall, as well as the shear patterns developing in the backfill and foundation soil. The analyses relied on use of a two-surface
plasticity constitutive model for sands, which is based on critical-state soil mechanics.
Key words: finite elements, plasticity, retaining walls, sands.
Résumé : La pression active des terres utilisée dans la conception des murs gravitaires est calculée à partir de l’angle de
friction interne du sol ou du remblai retenu. Cependant, l’angle de friction d’un sol change durant le processus de déforma-
tion. Dans le cas d’un chargement drainé, l’angle de friction mobilisé varie entre l’angle de friction au pic et celui à l’état
critique, dépendant du niveau de déformation en cisaillement dans le sol retenu. En conséquence, il n’y a pas de valeur
unique d’angle de friction pour une masse de sol retenue, et le coefficient de pression active des terres varie à mesure que
le mur se sépare du remblai et que les déformations plastiques en cisaillement augmentent dans le remblai. Dans cet article,
la méthode par éléments finis est utilisée pour étudier l’évolution de la pression active des terres derrière un mur de soutène-
ment gravitaire, ainsi que les patrons de cisaillement qui se développent dans le remblai et dans le sol de fondation. Les ana-
lyses sont réalisées à l’aide d’un modèle constitutif de plasticité à deux surfaces pour des sables, qui est basé sur la
mécanique de l’état critique des sols.
Mots‐clés : éléments finis, plasticité, murs de soutènement, sables.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction Caquot and Kerisel (1948) produced solutions in tabulated

form, assuming slip surfaces with logarithmic spiral shape.
The active earth pressure acting on the back of a retaining
More recently, Paik and Salgado (2003) estimated the active
wall controls its design. The active earth pressure is ex-
earth pressure behind rigid walls by improving the formula-
pressed as the product of the vertical effective stress s v0 in
tion of Handy (1985), which considers soil arching concepts.
the retained soil mass or backfill1 and the active earth pres-
Limit analysis has also been used to study the active earth
sure coefficient KA. The earliest and simplest methods for the
pressure problem. Rigorous upper bound values for KA estab-
calculation of the active earth pressure for purely frictional
lished by Chen (1975) and Soubra and Macuh (2002) using
backfills are those based on the Coulomb and Rankine theo-
limit analysis are in very close agreement with the values of Ca-
ries. For a backfill with horizontal surface, the Rankine solu-
quot and Kerisel (1948). Sokolovskiĭ (1965) solved the problem
tion is mathematically exact for a vertical and smooth wall
of active and passive earth pressure using the method of charac-
backface. Coulomb’s solution assumes a planar slip surface
teristics. More recently, Lancellotta (2002) provided a rigorous
and is equivalent to an upper bound solution. For a horizon-
lower-bound solution for active pressures in closed form:
tal backfill and a vertical wall backface, Coulomb’s solution

yields cosd
½2 KA ¼ ðcosd
1 þ sinf
½1 KA ¼
cos 2 f pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2  sin 2 f  sin 2 dÞ e½darcsin ðsind=sinfÞ tanf
cosdf1 þ ½sin ðf þ dÞ sinf=cosdg

Received 21 March 2011. Accepted 26 September 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 20 December 2011.
D. Loukidis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus.
R. Salgado. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1284, USA.
Corresponding author: D. Loukidis (e-mail: loukidis@ucy.ac.cy).
1The paper is not restricted to backfilled walls. To call attention to applicability of the discussion to walls supporting natural ground as

well as completely backfilled walls, the terms “retained soil mass” and “backfill” are used interchangeably throughout.

Can. Geotech. J. 49: 78–97 (2012) doi:10.1139/T11-087 Published by NRC Research Press
80
Fig. 1. Evolution of coefficient of lateral earth pressure and total resisting horizontal force, Hr, and moment, Mr, and total destabilizing hor-
izontal force, Hd, and moment, Md, with displacement of wall crest.
the factor of safety (FS) would be to account for design un-
certainties and with serviceability limit states, which must be
handled separately. At early stages of wall movement away
from the backfill, the total horizontal resistance Hr and mo-
ment resistance Mr increase at high rates, since the strains in
the foundation soil are still small and the soil stiffness is
therefore large. At the same time, the driving horizontal force
Hd and moment Md either decrease, as the earth pressure co-
efficient decreases from K0 to KA, min, or increase at small
rates after the earth pressure coefficient bottoms and starts to
increase from KA, min to KA, cr (Fig. 1). The variations of these
quantities with wall displacement can be written mathemati-
cally as dHr > dHd and dMr > dMd. Beyond a certain point
in the process (e.g., a certain amount of wall crest displace-
ment u), the resistance starts increasing at a lesser rate than
the driving action. This happens first for one of the two resis-
tances (Hr or Mr), so that this stage of the loading process is
mathematically identified as the state at which either dHr <
dHd or dMr < dMd for the first time. This stationary point in
the Hd – Hr (or Md – Mr) versus u curve (point F in Fig. 1,
where dHr = dHd or dMr = dMd) corresponds to a stationary
state of the wall soil system. If the problem configuration
(the combination of wall dimensions, soil weight, and soil
strength) is such that FS = 1, the point F lies on the horizon-
tal u axis, i.e., Hd = Hr (or Md = Mr). So, for the case of a
wall with FS = 1, it is obvious that the stationary point cor-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
responds to the WLS, since the resistances can’t increase at a
rate that matches the increase in driving actions, and thus any
further increase in the driving actions leads to wall collapse.
If the system were left to respond on its own (i.e., without
the application of artificial external forces), the system would
have reached the stationary state and remained in it. It should
be noted that the wall is marginally stable (on the verge of
failure) with respect to one driving action but may be stable
with respect to the other at the WLS.
If FS > 1, the wall is stable, meaning that equilibrium
(Hd = Hr and Md = Mr) is reached before the stationary state
or limit state is reached (Fig. 1). Artificial external forces
would need to be applied to the wall–soil system to bring it
to the limit state, which we define as identical to the station-
ary state first reached by the wall (i.e., if, by the addition of
external force, the Hd – Hr reaches its stationary state before
Md – Mr, then the limit state is defined by the horizontal
force, not moment). This is analogous to having a foundation
element (e.g., a footing or pile) supporting a vertical load Qd
less than its limit bearing capacity. To bring the foundation
element to its bearing capacity ULS, we must apply an artifi-
cial external force Qext to the foundation element until it col-
lapses, which happens when the foundation resistance Qr
attains its maximum value QL. At this stage, both the Qr ver-
sus settlement curve and the Qext = Qr – Qd versus settlement
curve reach stationary (maximum) points (since Qd is con-
Published by NRC Research Press
Loukidis and Salgado
stant). In the case of a retaining wall, the load to be sup-
ported is not constant because of the dependence of KA on
wall displacement. Therefore, the WLS can only be identified
by the stationary point of the Hr – Hd (or Mr – Md) versus u
curve and not of the Hr (or Mr) versus u curve. If FS < 1,
Hd – Hr (or Md – Mr) is always greater than zero and the
wall is unstable, meaning that artificial external forces would
need to be applied to the wall to establish equilibrium. In
other words, wall movement never manages to mobilize
enough resistance to balance driving forces. In this case, the
stationary point corresponds to the minimum value of these
external forces or, equivalently, the maximum value of Hr –
Hd (or Mr – Md). The WLS is therefore the state at which
the rate of increase (mobilization) of wall base resistance (in
terms of either force or moment) becomes smaller than the
rate of increase of the destabilizing actions (mainly the earth
thrust).
The goal of this paper is to study the evolution of KA with
wall displacement and establish an indication of the KA value
(and the appropriate f value for its calculation) at WLS con-
ditions. For this purpose, we perform FE analyses of the re-
taining wall stability problem using a two-surface constitutive
model for sands, which is based on CS soil mechanics. The
FE analyses are performed for a rigid gravity wall with a
rough vertical backface supporting soil with level surface
and purely frictional nature. The analyses apply to the typical
case of backfilled walls but also to walls retaining natural
ground if sandy or gravelly in nature. Both the retained soil
and foundation soils are sands. The analyses do not simulate
the several complex stages involved in the construction of
gravity walls (such as backfill laying and compaction), which
would lead to different initial stress conditions, but such is
not the focus of the analyses, which aim instead at bringing
out the details of the mechanics of wall loading not ad-
dressed in the literature and the implications and insights
that they offer.
FE methodology
FE mesh
The analyses use unstructured meshes consisting of eight-
noded, plane-strain quadrilateral elements with 12 quadrature
points. A typical FE mesh is shown in Fig. 2. It includes the
wall, the backfill soil, and the foundation soil. The wall has
a rectangular cross section, with width B and height H. The
thickness of the backfill soil layer is equal to H. The retain-
ing wall is embedded a distance D into the foundation soil.
All analyses start from an ideal state of the retained soil,
reached without the wall having moved or rotated (as if the
backfill soil had been placed in one lift instantaneously).
The wall is modeled as a block of linear elastic material
with very large Young’s modulus so that it can be consid-
ered rigid.
No interface elements are placed between the soil and the
wall; i.e., wall and soil share the same nodes along the corre-
sponding contact planes. As a consequence, slippage between
the wall and backfill occurs due to the formation inside the
soil mass of a shear band parallel to the wall backface. This
roughness condition is realistic given the rough materials
commonly used for gravity walls, such as masonry, concrete,
and cribs containing stone.
81
It is well known that analyses involving materials that
soften and follow a nonassociative flow rule suffer from the
problem of solution nonuniqueness. This means that, as the
mesh gets refined, the FE analysis results change, and con-
vergence to a unique solution does not happen. To tackle
this problem, FE analyses should either employ a regulariza-
tion approach (such as Cosserat or gradient plasticity) or use
meshes with element sizes consistent with the known shear
band thickness. The thickness of the soil elements inside the
shear bands simulating slippage between a rough structure
and granular soil is an important factor for the accurate pre-
diction of the shear resistance acting on the structure (Louki-
dis and Salgado 2008). Hence, the thickness of the backfill
soil elements that are in contact with the wall backface is set
equal to 5–20 times the mean particle diameter of the sand
(D50). This is roughly the thickness of the shear bands that
form in sandy soils, as observed in a number of experimental
studies (e.g., Uesugi et al. 1988; Vardoulakis and Sulem
1995; Nemat-Nasser and Okada 2001). Due to restrictions in
memory allocation and analysis runtime, the element sizes in
other locations where shear bands are expected to develop (i.e.,
inside the sliding wedge and in the foundation soil) were
larger than 5–20D50. Element size inside the sliding wedge
forming behind the wall was of the order of 500D50. As
shown later in the paper, this choice of the element size
has only a small impact on the analysis accuracy.
Constitutive model
The constitutive model used in this study is the two-surface
plasticity model based on CS soil mechanics developed
originally by Manzari and Dafalias (1997). The model was
subsequently modified by Li and Dafalias (2000), Papadimi-
triou and Bouckovalas (2002), Dafalias et al. (2004), and
Loukidis and Salgado (2009). The model parameters were
determined by Loukidis and Salgado (2009) for two sands:
air-pluviated or dry-deposited Toyoura sand (Iwasaki et al.
1978; Fukushima and Tatsuoka 1984; Lam and Tatsuoka
1988; Yoshimine et al. 1998) and water-pluviated or slurry-
deposited clean Ottawa sand (Carraro et al. 2003; Carraro
2004; Murthy 2006; Murthy et al. 2007). Toyoura sand is
a fine sand (D50 ≈ 0.2 mm) with angular to subangular par-
ticles, while Ottawa sand is a medium-sized sand (D50 ≈
0.4 mm) with rounded to subrounded particles. The model
considers four distinct surfaces having the form of open
cones in stress space: the bounding surface, dilatancy sur-
face, CS surface, and yield (loading) surface. Bounding and
critical surfaces represent peak and CS shear strengths, re-
spectively. The dilatancy surface divides the stress space
into two regions: inside the dilatancy surface, the soil plas-
tic behavior is contractive; outside it, it is dilative. The
yield (loading) surface defines a very narrow conical do-
main inside which the soil develops no plastic strain. The
yield surface hardens kinematically upon shearing, leading
to the development of plastic strains prior to failure.
Through this feature, the model simulates accurately the be-
havior of the soil at small and large strains. The constitutive
model takes into account the inherent anisotropy of sands
through the use of a fabric tensor (Dafalias et al. 2004),
and the assumption that the position of the CS line in the
void ratio (e) – mean effective stress (p′) space depends on
the direction of loading relative to the axis of sand deposi-
Published by NRC Research Press
Loukidis and Salgado
cause of the external application of a horizontal force Fext,0 =
RC,0 + RT,0 and a moment Mext,0 = RC,0/H. The analysis pro-
ceeds by the application of outward horizontal displacement
increments DuC and DuT (i.e., displacements pointing away
from the backfill) at nodes C and T (Fig. 3), while monitor-
ing the values of external force Fext = RC + RT, where RC
and RT are external reactions, and external moment Mext =
RC/H. Applying static equilibrium principles, the excess of
the driving forces throughout the process of wall movement
must be balanced by artificial external forces, which exist ex-
clusively for the purpose of performing the analysis. It can be
shown that Fext = Hd – Hr and Mext = Md – Mr, given that the
unbalanced forces at the end of each increment of the
Newton–Raphson solution are minimal (less than 1% of the
external forces). As the wall moves, Fext and Mext decrease
progressively. The wall is allowed to move vertically, since
no restraints are imposed on its nodes in the vertical direc-
tion. The prescribed displacements uC and uT are not constant
during the analysis and are not equal to each other. Their
magnitude varies in such a way that Fext and Mext (and conse-
quently RC and RT) change in the same proportion. This is
achieved by setting DuT = 0 (a pure rotation step) after any
analysis increment, resulting in Mext/Mext,0 > Fext/Fext,0, and
DuT = DuC (a pure translation step) after any analysis incre-
ment, resulting in Mext/Mext,0 ≤ Fext/Fext,0. This scheme relies
on the fact that the wall rotation has a stronger effect on the
rate of increase of Mext than of Fext, while wall translation has
a stronger effect on the rate of increase of Fext than of Mext.
The increment DuC is always equal to a specified value of
the order of 10–6H. Hence, the analyses consist of alternating
phases of pure wall rotation and pure wall translation. Appli-
cation of the loading in this manner, combined with the very
fine incrementation used in the present analyses, results in
Mext/Mext,0 ≈ Fext/Fext,0 (both ratios thus denoted by the single
variable Y) throughout the analysis. As a result, if the wall is
stable or marginally stable, Mext and Fext become equal to
zero simultaneously at which point the wall is completely un-
supported by external reactions (which means that this be-
comes a point of equilibrium at which the wall comes to a
rest). In addition, Mext/Mext,0 and Fext/Fext,0 reach their mini-
mum value (Ymin) simultaneously, which happens when
dMd = dMr and dHd = dHr. Therefore, referring to our pre-
vious discussion of the WLS, Ymin is reached at the WLS.
It should be noted that there is an infinite number of load-
ing path formulations that can bring the wall to a limit state,
and the formulation presented here is just one of them. The
present wall loading formulation makes it possible to perform
displacement-controlled analyses, instead of load-controlled
analyses that drive the wall to its limit state by increasing
the soil unit weight or a surcharge pressure. Displacement
controlled analyses allow the wall to move beyond the limit
state all the way to CS (a requirement of this study) for all
possible outcomes (stable, marginally stable, and unstable
walls). In contrast, load-controlled analyses cannot proceed
past the point of limit state. This is because any increase of
the applied load past this point results in unbalanced forces
that cannot be mitigated, since they increase with each
Newton–Raphson iteration. The formulation used here offers
also simplicity, allowing clear understanding of the mechan-
ics involved and straightforward derivation of conclusions
83
for a practical problem that is considerably complex once ex-
amined using rigorous mechanics.
In most field cases, the active state will be mobilized grad-
ually, and the wall base will translate and rotate as the back-
fill is constructed before reaching full height. Moreover, the
backfills placed behind gravity walls in practice are com-
pacted, resulting in initial stress conditions in each layer
larger than the K0 conditions assumed in this paper due to
locked-in stresses (which are difficult to simulate, requiring
three-dimensional FE analysis). These factors would generate
different stress paths in the soil mass than those produced in
our analyses. Problems involving materials that soften and
follow a nonassociative flow rule exhibit path dependence, i.e.,
the results depend on the stress paths followed at the stress
integration points of the mesh. Hence, it is expected that
the results of these analyses would be somewhat different
if the exact backfill construction process were simulated.
However, discrepancies due to wall motion during backfill
construction are believed to be small because most of the
wall displacement will occur when the backfill height is
near the wall height, since the earth thrust increases at least
quadratically with the rate of backfill height, taking also
into account that the soil friction angle would decrease due
to the increase in mean effective stress as the backfill rises.
Discrepancies due to non K0 initial conditions would exist
mostly during the early stages of the predicted response, de-
creasing as the active state were approached.
Results of FE simulations
Finite element analyses were performed for values of wall
width B, ranging from 1.5 to 3 m and wall height ranging
from 6 to 8 m. The sand unit weight g was set equal to
18 kN/m3. The wall unit weight was also set equal to 18 kN/m3,
which corresponds more closely to the unit weight of ma-
sonry, gabion, or a crib wall rather than a concrete wall.
The coefficient K0 was set equal to 0.5 in all analyses. No
surcharge is placed on the backfill free surface. The range
of the wall dimensions was chosen such that the wall FS is
not excessively high or excessively low. As will be shown
later, the FS of the wall configurations analyzed is in the
0.5–2.0 range. Analyses are performed for Toyoura and Ot-
tawa sands, with relative density DR ranging from 30% to
90%. For the sake of simplicity, the foundation soil is as-
sumed to be of the same type and density as the backfill
soil.
Collapse mechanism patterns
Most of the analyses were performed with the loading
scheme described in the previous section, which subjects the
wall to both rotation and horizontal translation in such a way
that the stabilizing external reactions RC and RT decrease pro-
portionally to each other. For comparison purposes, analyses
were performed with both the wall rotating about its heel
without translating horizontally (pure rotation case) and
translating horizontally without rotating (pure translation).
Figure 4 shows contours of the incremental maximum shear
strain gmax (= ɛ1 – ɛ3, where ɛ1 and ɛ3 are the major and mi-
nor principal strains, respectively) from analyses with pure
rotation, pure translation, and combination of rotation and
Published by NRC Research Press
90
Fig. 11. Evolution of key problem variables, with increasing wall crest displacement for (a) loose and (b) dense Ottawa sand and wall with
H = 7 m, B = 1.5 m, and D = 0.5 m.
only at very large wall displacements (Figs. 10a and 11a).
The WLS is reached when the slow base resistance develop-
ment can no longer match the increase in destabilizing ac-
tions due to the increase of KA towards KA, cr. The WLS can
be described mathematically as the state at which dHr = dHd
or dMr = dMd; beyond the WLS, gains in resistance do not
match gains in driving forces (i.e., dHr < dHd or dMr <
dMd). If the active earth thrust were constant (dHd = 0 and
dMd = 0), then the wall would keep moving until the bearing
capacity were reached, and the WLS would coincide with the
state of peak Hb or peak Mb (base failure state). In our retain-
ing wall problem, this does not happen because the earth
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
thrust increases (i.e., dHd > 0 and dMd > 0) with wall dis-
placement past the KA, min state. As a consequence, the wall
displacement required to reach the WLS is smaller than that
required to reach base failure.
Although WLS and base failure state occur at distinctively
different wall crest displacements, the Hb and Mb values at
WLS are practically identical to the peak Hb and Mb values.
This occurs because, after attainment of the WLS, Hb and Mb
increase at very small rates towards their peak values due to
the development of regions of intense plastic straining in the
foundation soil. Consequently, the peak Hb and Mb values,
which can be determined in practice with relative ease based
Published by NRC Research Press
 Loukidis and Salgado 91

Failure mode
on bearing capacity calculations, can be used as good ap-

Horizontal

Horizontal

Horizontal
Horizontal

Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal

Horizontal
Horizontal

Horizontal
proximations of the values of Hb and Mb at the WLS.

Moment

Moment
Moment

Moment
Moment
Moment

Moment

Moment
Table 2 summarizes the values of certain key variables of
interest in design at the state of minimum active pressure and
at the WLS: the normalized coefficient KA/K0, the mobilized
1.04
1.38
1.65
0.47
0.62
1.43
2.01
0.40
0.50
0.82
1.23
1.73
1.42
0.66
1.49
1.98
0.83
1.38
friction angle at the wall–backfill interface dmob, normalized
FS

crest displacement uC/H, and the relative height Deax/H of

the point of application of the active earth thrust from the
Deax/H
0.260
0.266
0.334
0.311
0.290
0.254
0.257
0.319
0.296
0.292
0.292
0.300
0.269
0.286
0.260
0.269
0.277
0.306
heel of the wall. Table 2 also contains the value of the FS
mobilized at the WLS. The reported FS is taken as the small-
est value of the FS against overturning FSM (based on mo-
0.021
0.016
0.007
0.163
0.032
0.020
0.019
0.160
0.054
0.025
0.015
0.013
0.021
0.018
0.023
0.020
0.021
0.015
uC/H

ment equilibrium about the wall toe) and “sliding” FSH

(based on horizontal equilibrium). The FS values are calcu-
lated using the following equations:
fc; TX (°)

Note: Rot+hor, rotation and horizontal; fc; TX , CS friction angle corresponding to triaxial compression conditions; feq , equivalent sand internal friction angle.
X
feq 

16.0

12.9
18.2

14.1
5.9
8.5
5.1
1.2
4.4
9.9

1.6
2.2
7.1

6.8
8.7
4.5
4.9
8.2
stabilizing forces Hb
½3a FSH ¼ X ¼
destabilizing forces E A; x
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.9
30.8
30.9
31.0
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
RC þ RT
dmob
(°)

¼1
EA; x
KA, LS/K0

X
0.383
0.344
0.396
0.461
0.407
0.326
0.247
0.483
0.472
0.391
0.306
0.240
0.370
0.342
0.405
0.399
0.349
0.270
WLS
Table 2. Summary of FEM results with respect to state of minimum lateral earth pressure coefficient and wall limit state.

stabilizing moments
½3b FSM ¼ X
overturning moments
Deax/H
0.337
0.267
0.358
0.319
0.325
0.342
0.336
0.328
0.324
0.327
0.330
0.329
0.335
0.332
0.340
0.337
0.344
0.354

WðB=2Þ þ MbO RC H
¼ ¼1
EA; x Deax  EA; y B EA; x Deax  EA; y B
0.004
0.016
0.001
0.006
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.010
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.005
uC/H

where EA, x and EA, y are the horizontal and vertical compo-
nents of the active earth thrust, W is the wall self-weight,
Deax is the height from the base of the point of application
fc; TX (°)

of the earth thrust, and MbO is the moment of the base resis-
feq 

15.1

13.0

20.2
26.3

12.7
18.0
23.7
14.7
14.4
14.9
15.1
15.0
20.4
8.6

4.2
9.6

3.1
7.8

tance taken about the toe of the wall (not to be confused with
Mb). The peak values of the mobilized FS values do not hap-
dmob (°)

pen at the WLS (Figs. 10 and 11). This is because the ex-
Minimum KA state

35.9
30.8
38.0
31.4
34.1
37.7
38.5
29.7
31.3
31.8
31.7
31.7
37.7
36.1
37.9
36.6
38.0
33.9

trema of the FSH and FSM depend on the denominators in

eqs. [3a] and [3b]. The minimum value Ymin would occur si-
multaneously with the peak mobilized FS and the peak total
KA, min/K0

base horizontal or moment resistance only if these denomina-

0.249
0.344
0.269
0.408
0.321
0.192
0.136
0.456
0.374
0.304
0.239
0.178
0.250
0.257
0.248
0.248
0.247
0.195

tors were constant during the analysis.

Figure 12 compares KA, min, KA, LS, and the inferred KA, cr val-
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura

Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura
Toyoura

ues for analyses with rotating and translating walls. We see that
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Sand

the KA, LS values lie approximately halfway between the mini-

mum and CS values of KA. The value of KA, LS is 25%–80%
greater than KA, min, with the differences increasing with increas-
D (m)

ing relative density. Figure 12a also plots results from analyses
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5

Nos. 13–17 (Table 2), which have different wall dimensions (H,
B) and embedment D but the same sand relative density (DR =
DR (%)

75+45

60%). Figure 12a indicates that the wall dimensions and embed-
60
60
60
30
45
75
90
30
45
60
75
90
60
60
60
60
60

ment have a more pronounced effect on KA, LS than KA, min.

W (m)

Wall displacement to reach characteristic states

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.5

The ratio uC/uT, resulting from the loading scheme adopted

for the analyses of walls moving in both rotation and transla-
H (m)

tion, is in the 3–8 range for MPS. Beyond the MPS, uC/uT
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
7
7
7
7

increases a further 20%–40% by the time the WLS is

reached, remaining practically constant for the remainder of
Horizontal
Rot+hor

Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rot+hor
Rotation
Loading

the analysis, with the exception of the simulation for DR =

mode

90% for which uC/uT can reach values in the 10–12 range.
In the analyses in which the wall is allowed to rotate and
translate, the crest displacement required for reaching the
No.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

MPS is in the 0.003H–0.006H range (Fig. 13), with the ex-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Published by NRC Research Press

92
Fig. 12. Minimum, limit state, and critical active earth pressure
coefficient from analyses with (a) Toyoura sand and (b) Ottawa sand.
ception of Ottawa sand, with DR = 30%. According to the
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992), the uC required for
developing the active earth pressure corresponding to peak
soil strength (i.e., uCp) is 0.001H for dense and 0.004H for
loose sand. Our results are of the same order of magnitude
but don’t exactly match the values proposed by the Canadian
Geotechnical Society (1992). In addition, our analyses sug-
gest that the relative density has no significant effect on uCp
unless the tendency for strain softening is very weak to prac-
tically absent (e.g., DR = 30%). One would expect that uCp
should decrease with increasing relative density as the failure
strain decreases with increasing relative density in laboratory
tests, which in turn is due to the fact that the sands stiffness
increases with relative density. However, in the present prob-
lem, the stress and deformation conditions vary in both the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
Fig. 13. Wall crest displacement required to reach MPS (uCp) and
WLS (uC, LS) from analyses with Toyoura and Ottawa sands. Analy-
sis numbers follow the numbering shown in Table 2.
horizontal and vertical directions, in contrast with laboratory
tests. In Fig. 9, we see that, as expected, the initial, roughly
linear, response prior to MPS is much stiffer for dense sand
than for loose sand. As K approaches KA, min, the response
becomes nonlinear and is smoother for large DR values than
for small ones. As a consequence, KA, min for dense sands is
reached at roughly the same wall displacement as for loose
and medium dense sands. This is a consequence of the pro-
gressive failure developing prior to the attainment MPS. The
progressive failure is evident by the fact that the mobilized
friction angle on the wall–soil interface is very close to the
CS value by the time MPS is reached, as demonstrated later
in the paper. Progressive failure is more intense in dense than
in loose sands, counterbalancing the effect of sand stiffness
on the wall displacement required to reach MPS.
The crest displacement uC,LS required to reach WLS is in
the range of 0.013H–0.026H, except for DR = 30%–45%. In
addition, for a given sand and relative density, the ratio uC,LS/
uCp increases with increasing FS. The uC,LS lies in the range
of displacements for which the wall foundation has not yet
collapsed (i.e., the peak base resistance has not yet been
reached) but is very compliant, yielding considerably for
even small changes in foundation load.
In most of the analyses with a rotating and translating wall,
the crest displacement required to reach the peak Hb is in the
0.01H–0.09H range (corresponding to toe displacement of
0.01B–0.065B). The mobilization of the full horizontal base
capacity requires displacements that exceed those required to
reach the WLS in the retained soil by 10%–150%. The peak
Published by NRC Research Press
Loukidis and Salgado
moment base resistance requires even larger wall movement
in all analyses performed in this study.
f½ðc  1ÞðK0  KA; cr Þ=ðK0  KA; min ÞguCp  cuC
½4 K¼
½ðc  1ÞuCp =ðK0  KA; min Þ þ uC c =ðKA; cr  KA; min ÞuCp c1
The input parameters in eq. [4] are the characteristic values
for the earth pressure coefficient, K0, KA, cr, and KA, min, the
crest displacement uCp at which KA, min is attained, and a fit-
ting parameter c. According to eq. [4], K is equal to K0 for
uC = 0 and tends to KA, cr asymptotically for large values of
uC. The parameter c is introduced to control the rate at which
K increases towards KA, cr after the attainment of KA, min. By
fitting eq. [4] to the results of this study, shown in Figs. 8
and 9, we obtain c in the 1.7–2.1 range, with an average
value of two. An estimate of the KA, LS to use for wall design
calculations could be obtained using eq. [4], with c = 2.0,
uC = 0.025H for medium dense and dense sands, and 0.06H
for loose sands.
Point of application of lateral earth thrust
An important parameter for retaining wall stability calcula-
tions is the location along the wall height at which the lateral
earth thrust EA, x acts. Figure 14 shows the values of the ver-
tical distance Deax of the point of application of EA, x from the
wall base obtained from the analyses of a wall that both ro-
tates and translates. We see that, for the MPS, Deax is roughly
equal to the widely used value of (1/3)H. Beyond that state,
Deax starts decreasing, reaching a minimum value almost
coincidentally with the WLS. This decrease is negligible for
loose sand, but it can be up to 25% for dense sand. The
vertical distance Deax subsequently increases but at a very
small rate.
The same trends of Deax with increasing wall displacement
were observed in the experiments of Fang and Ishibashi
(1986). Specifically, for a purely rotating wall, Deax starts de-
creasing from an initial value of 0.333H towards a minimum
value of 0.22H and then rises slowly (but never exceeding
0.28H, even at uC = 0.008H). Similar trends are found in
Ichihara and Matsuzawa (1973). Fang and Ishibashi (1986)
also present data that supports the fact that Deax for purely
rotating walls is less than 0.3H, while it is around H/3 if the
motion has a translational component.
Mobilized resistance along wall–backfill interface
The mobilized friction coefficient m (= tand) on the wall
face reaches a peak value at very early stages of the analyses,
before the attainment of the MPS, suggesting the vertical
shear band along the wall backface forms well before the
main shear band delimiting the sliding wedge. This peak
value is strongly dependent on the relative density of the
sand (Figs. 10 and 11). After the peak, m decreases quickly
towards a residual value that is consistent with the develop-
ment of CS (f ¼ fc; PS , j = 0) inside the thin backfill soil
elements that are in contact with the wall. The residual values
for the angle d are 30.8° and 29.6° for Toyoura sand and Ot-
tawa sand, respectively. These are consistent with the theoret-
ical values calculated as dc = arctan(sinfc; PS ) (Loukidis and
Salgado 2008). Although the vertical shear band along the
93
The variation of the earth pressure coefficient K with uC
can be described mathematically by the following equation:
þ KA; cr
wall backface forms well before the main shear band, the mo-
bilized frictional angle dmob at MPS is clearly larger than dc
(Fig. 15) for both rotating and translating walls and purely
translating walls. The ratio dmob/dc ranges from 1.0 to 1.07
for Ottawa sand, while for Toyoura sand, it ranges from 1.02
to 1.25 (corresponding to dmob from 31.4° to 38.5°). The uCp
for a purely rotating wall is so large that, by the time MPS is
reached, dmob has become equal to dc.
Equivalent value of sand friction angle for calculation of
KA at limit state
It is of practical interest to assess what the appropriate
(equivalent) value of the sand internal friction angle feq is for
use in the calculation of KA, min and KA, LS using an analytical
formula widely used in practice, such as Coulomb’s solution
(eq. [1]), to obtain a value of KA, LS that is in agreement with
the present numerical simulations. Figure 16 shows the differ-
ence between feq and the CS friction angle fc; TX corresponding
to triaxial compression conditions. The feq values are back-
calculated using eq. [1] from the KA values resulting from
the FE analyses. We consider fc; TX instead fc; PS because it
is easier to estimate it through either empirical relationships
or a few triaxial compression tests. Even the frequently per-
formed shear box tests would yield fc estimates that are
closer to fc; TX than fc; PS . According to Fig. 16a, the feq
for MPS is 3°–26° larger than fc; TX , depending on the value
of the sand relative density. However, for calculating KA, LS,
feq is only 1°–18° larger than fc; TX (Fig. 16b). Figure 16b
shows that existing walls are not necessarily poorly designed,
even if the design is based on the prevailing practice of as-
suming the soil to be perfectly plastic with a peak value of
(triaxial compression) friction angle to calculate KA: practi-
tioners would rarely use friction angles exceeding fc; TX by
more than 15° for a dense sand or more than 2° for a loose
sand. So, whether by accident or proper intuition and judg-
ment by engineers working on this problem years ago, stand-
ard practice uses friction angles that are roughly consistent
with WLS rather than the state of mobilization of peak
strength in the backfill. Figure 17 shows the difference be-
tween feq and the CS friction angle fc; PS corresponding to
plane-strain conditions. The values plotted in Fig. 17 are
about 4.5°–5° smaller than those in Fig. 16. In Fig. 17b, we
see that, for loose sand, feq for KA, LS is smaller than fc; PS .
At first sight, this would seem to be a violation of the basic
principle of soil mechanics that the minimum value of the
sand friction angle is that for CS, but all analytical methods
for calculating KA presented in the introduction produce re-
sults that are valid for an associated flow rule (f = j) and,
thus, underestimate the actual KA by roughly 20% (see Table 1).
On the other hand, the FE simulations discussed in this paper
use a model that captures the sand dilatancy realistically. Had
we had a formula that predicted KA for realistic j values, all
resulting feq  fc; PS values would have been positive.
Published by NRC Research Press
94
Fig. 14. Vertical distance of point of application of active earth thrust
from wall base at (a) minimum earth pressure state and (b) WLS.
Conclusions
This paper presents the results of a set of FE analyses of a
gravity wall subjected to the action of a mass of sand that the
wall initially retains at a state of rest. After the wall is al-
lowed to move due to the action of the retained soil mass,
the pressures on the wall evolve towards active pressures.
Based on the FE results and focusing on walls that are free
to rotate and translate, we arrive at the following conclusions:
1. The attainment of the minimum value of the active earth
pressure coefficient (KA, min) requires wall crest displace-
ments of the order of 0.001H–0.010H.
2. The attainment of KA, min corresponds to a mobilized wall–
soil interface friction angle d that is larger than the CS
interface friction angle dc by a factor ranging from 1.0
(loose sand) to 1.3 (dense sand).
3. For dense and medium dense sand, the crest displacement
required to bring the wall to its limit state is in the
0.013H–0.026H range. At the WLS, the mobilized inter-
face friction angle has already reached the CS value of dc.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
Fig. 15. Ratio of d mobilized along wall–backfill interface at mini-
mum earth pressure state to d corresponding to CS conditions.
4. The limit state KA (KA, LS) lies between KA, min and the
corresponding CS value KA, cr. The KA, LS values are lar-
ger than KA, min by a factor of 1.1–1.8, with the differ-
ences increasing with increasing relative density.
5. The WLS does not necessarily coincide with the mobiliza-
tion of the maximum base resistance, which may require
much larger wall displacements.
6. The height of application of the lateral earth thrust at limit
state conditions is less than one-third, ranging from 0.25
to 0.32, suggesting that the current design practice is
slightly conservative.
7. The equivalent friction angle to be used for the calculation of
KA values consistent with WLS design can be up to 18°
higher than the soil CS friction angle under triaxial
compression conditions.
The results regarding the WLS depend on the base stiff-
ness and strength. Hence, our findings regarding the WLS
are strictly applicable to foundation soils that are like the re-
tained soil (i.e., purely frictional soils). It is expected that, for
walls founded on stiff clay or weak rock, the WLS may coin-
cide with or even precede the MPS and the WLS, given the
high stiffness and brittleness of such geomaterials. Although
in all analyses the foundation soil had the same relative den-
sity as the backfill, the results are expected to hold even for
cases in which the relative densities are different. This is be-
cause the displacement required to reach KA, min is practically
independent of the density of the backfill (Fig. 9). In addi-
tion, we see in Fig. 9 that the shape of the curves is the
same for all densities. Hence, what matters regarding the dis-
placement required to attain WLS is the density of the foun-
dation soil. Therefore, the displacement needed to attain
WLS for a loose backfill will not be much different from
that for a dense backfill as long as the density of the founda-
tion soil is the same.
From a practical standpoint, this study suggests that the
minimum active earth pressure state is of limited relevance
to ULS design, since it happens for wall crest displacements
of the order of only 0.5% the wall height; it is possibly repre-
sentative of a serviceability limit state (SLS). Given that the
active earth pressure coefficient is a function of the wall dis-
Published by NRC Research Press
Loukidis and Salgado 97

Appendix A
Table A1. Values of constitutive model parameters for Toyoura and clean Ottawa sands.

Parameter value
Parameter Clean
Parameter symbol Toyoura sand Ottawa sand Comment
Small-strain (“elastic”) n 0.15 0.15* Poisson’s ratio
parameters Cg 900 611 Parameter controlling the magnitude of the maximum shear
modulus Gmax
ng 0.400 0.437 Exponent controlling the rate of increase of Gmax with effec-
tive confining stress
g1 0.0010 0.000 65 Parameters controlling the decrease of “para-elastic” shear
a1 0.40 0.47 modulus G with shear strain
CS Gc 0.934 0.780 Intercept of CS line in e–p′ space
l 0.019 0.081 Parameter controlling inclination of CS line in e–p′ space
x 0.70 0.196 Parameter controlling curvature of CS line in e–p′ space
Mcc 1.27 1.21 Critical stress ratio in triaxial (TX) compression conditions
Bounding surface kb 1.5 1.9 Parameter controlling the increase of friction angle with
sand density
Dilatancy Do 0.90 1.31 Inclination of the stress–dilatancy curve
kd 2.8 2.2 Parameter controlling the stress ratio at phase transformation
Plastic modulus h1 1.62 2.20 Parameters controlling the magnitude of plastic modulus
h2 0.254 0.240
elim 1.00 0.81 Upper limit for void ratio for which the plastic modulus be-
comes zero
m 2.0 1.2 Parameter controlling stress ratio in undrained instability
state
Stress-induced c1 0.72 0.71 Ratio of the critical stress ratio in TX extension to that in
anisotropy TX compression
c2 0.78 0.78* Parameter controlling the value of the magnitude of inter-
mediate principal stress relative to the two other principal
stresses under plain-strain conditions
ns 0.35 0.35* Parameter controlling the magnitude of the friction angle in
plane-strain conditions relative to the friction angle in TX
compression
Inherent anisotropy a 0.29 0.31 Parameter controlling the intercept of CS line in e–p′ space
under conditions other than TX compression
kh 0.11 0.39 Parameter controlling the variation of plastic stiffness, with
the direction of loading relative to the axis of sand de-
position
m 0.05 0.05 Radius of conical yield (loading) surface
*Assumed.

Published by NRC Research Press