Active Earth Pressure on an Inclined

Wall with Horizontal Cohesionless

Backfill due to Surcharge Effect

D. M. Dewaikar
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai – 400076, India
e-mail: [email protected]

S. R. Pandey
PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai – 400076, India
e-mail: [email protected]

Jagabandhu Dixit
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai – 400076, India
e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
A method based on the application of Kötter’s equation is proposed to evaluate active earth
pressure on an inclined wall retaining horizontal cohesionless backfill with uniform
surcharge. This method considers only the effect of surcharge for the analysis. It is
successfully used to evaluate the magnitude and point of application of reaction on the failure
surface. The coefficient of active earth pressure and point of application of the active thrust
are computed for different combinations of soil and wall properties and the results are
presented in dimensionless forms. A fairly good comparison is seen with the available
solutions.
KEYWORDS: Kötter’s equation, Retaining wall, Coefficient of active earth pressure,
Surcharge effect

INTRODUCTION
Civil engineering structures such as retaining walls, basement walls, and sheet piles etc. are
widely constructed to retain soil. Retaining walls are also constructed for changing grade.
Coulomb (1776) considered a triangular wedge of backfill behind a rough retaining wall with a
plane failure surface for evaluation of the active thrust. The point of application of active earth
pressure was assumed to be at a distance of one-third of the height of the wall from the base of

- 811 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 812

the retaining wall, and independent of different parameters such as soil friction angle (φ), angle of
wall friction (δ), backfill angle (β), and wall inclination angle (θ).

Caquot and Kerisel (1948) presented the active earth pressure coefficients in the tabular form
based on the assumption of a logarithmic spiral failure surface. The theories of elasticity and
plasticity have also been used to calculate the lateral earth pressure (Hansen, 1953). Janbu (1957)
used the method of slices for computing the active earth pressure coefficients considering the soil
mass in the state of limit equilibrium and the point of application of inter slice forces was
assumed in his approach to avoid indeterminate nature of the analysis. Sokolovski (1960)
presented a method to calculate of lateral earth pressure based on finite difference approach.
Habibagahi and Ghahramani (1979) estimated lateral earth pressure coefficients based on the
theory of zero extension line. From several experiments (Tsagareli, 1965; Matsuo et al., 1978;
Fang and Ishibashi, 1986), the distribution of active earth pressure on the face of a retaining wall
is found to be nonlinear and it depends upon the mode of wall movement.

Kerisel and Absi (1990) also formulated a log spiral mechanism to estimate the active earth
pressure and presented the earth pressure coefficients in the form of charts. Calculations of lateral
earth pressure using the method proposed by Wang (2000) do not consider suitable lateral earth
pressure coefficient. His formulation cannot be used to obtain the point of application of the
active thrust. Lancellotta (2002) estimated active earth pressure coefficients based on the lower
bound theorem of plasticity. Soubra and Macuh (2002) used upper-bound method with rotational
log-spiral failure mechanism to analyze the active earth pressure. They calculated lateral earth
pressure coefficients due to soil weight, vertical surcharge loading and cohesion for the case of an
inclined wall with a sloping backfill. Dewaikar and Halkude (2002) introduced Kötter’s (1903)
equation considering plain failure surface to determine the point of application of active earth
pressure by taking moment of all the forces and reaction about the base of the retaining wall.
Kame et al. (2010) proposed a method to determine the active earth pressure and its point of
application on a vertical wall retaining horizontal cohesionless backfill with a log-spiral failure
mechanism.

ANALYSIS OF ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE

The present analysis is based on Kötter’s (1903) equation to compute the active earth
pressure for an inclined wall retaining horizontal cohesionless backfill with a uniform surcharge.
One distinguishing feature of the proposed method is its ability to determine the point of
application of active thrust on the retaining wall.

Figure 1 shows a retaining wall with an inclined back face and a horizontal cohesionless
backfill, subjected to a uniformly distributed surcharge load of intensity q kN/m2. The active
thrust on an inclined retaining wall and the reaction can be determined by the force equilibrium of
the wedge ABC. AC represents the inclined wall and AB is an arbitrarily chosen failure plane,
originating from the base of the wall with an angle α with the horizontal. The trial wedge ABC is
in equilibrium under three different forces, (1) equivalent force of the surcharge, W (2) the soil
reaction, R along the failure plane AB, inclined an angle φ to the normal on AB (3) the active
earth pressure along the back of the wall, Pa, at an angle δ to the normal on the wall back.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 813

Figure 1: Free Body Diagram of wedge ABC subjected to

uniformly distributed surcharge

The symbols used in Figure 1 are defined as follows:

Pa = active thrust exerted by the backfill on the wall

W = equivalent force of the surcharge
R = soil reaction on the failure plane AB
H = height of the retaining wall
h = height of point of application of active thrust from wall base
θ = inclination of the retaining wall with the horizontal
δ = friction angle between the wall and soil backfill
φ = soil friction angle
α = inclination of the trial failure plane with the horizontal
q = intensity of surcharge in kN/m2
The soil is assumed to be a weightless material in this analysis.

Evaluation of Active Thrust

The magnitudes of active thrust and soil reaction can be obtained by applying the force
equilibrium conditions. In the present analysis only the effect of surcharge is taken into
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 814

consideration. Free body diagram of the trial failure wedge ABC is shown in Figure 1. Equating
all the forces in the vertical and horizontal direction the following equilibrium conditions are
obtained.
Horizontal force equilibrium:

Pa sin(θ − δ ) = R sin(α − φ ) (1)

From Equation 1, R can be obtained as,

Pa sin(θ − δ )
R= (2)
sin(α − φ )
Vertical force equilibrium:

Pa cos(θ − δ ) + R cos(α − φ ) = qH (cot θ + cot α ) (3)

Substituting the value of R from Equation 2 in Equation 3

sin(θ − δ )
Pa cos(θ − δ ) + Pa cos(α − φ ) = qH (cot θ + cot α ) (4)
sin(α − φ )

Or, Pa cos(θ − δ ) + Pa sin(θ − δ ) cot(α − φ ) = qH (cot θ + cot α ) (5)

qH (cot θ + cot α )
Or, Pa = (6)
cos(θ − δ ) + sin(θ − δ ) cot(α − φ )

The maximum value of active earth pressure (Pa) is observed when the inclination of the
failure plane AB with the horizontal reaches the critical value, αcr.

Evaluation of Soil Reaction on the Failure Surface

This computation is facilitated using Kötter’s (1903) equation (Figure 2) for a cohesionless
soil medium under active condition as given below.

dp dα
− 2 p tan φ = γ sin(α − φ ) s (7)
ds ds
where,
dp = differential reactive pressure on the failure surface
p = soil reactive pressure at a point on the failure surface
ds = elemental length of the failure surface
α = angle made by the tangent at the point of interest with the horizontal
φ = soil friction angle
γ = soil unit weight
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 815

Figure 2: Reactive pressure distribution along the failure surface

In the present analysis only surcharge effect is taken into consideration, and therefore γ is
assumed to be 0. Hence Equation 7 can be written as,

dp
= 2 p tan φ (8)
dα

Or, dp = 2 p tan φ dα (9)

For a plane failure surface, dα is zero and the corresponding solution is obtained as,

p = constant (10)

The above solution indicates that soil reactive pressure (p) is uniformly distributed along the
failure plane, AB. Therefore, the resultant soil reaction, R acts at the mid-point of the failure
plane.

The soil reaction R is computed after knowing the angle, αcr. Substituting Equation 6 in to
Equation 2, it is R is obtained as

qH (cot θ + cot α cr ) sin(θ − δ )

R= (11)
sin(α cr − φ ).cos(θ − δ ) + sin(θ − δ ).cos(α cr − φ )
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 816

Evaluation of point of application of active earth pressure

The moment equilibrium condition is applied after obtaining the value of Pa The free body
diagram is as shown in Figure 2 is considered. The equivalent force of surcharge acting on the
wedge ABC is q.H (cot θ + cot αcr), which acts at the midpoint of BC, i.e. at a distance X2 from a
vertical line passing through the wall base. As the distribution of soil reaction is uniform along
the failure surface, it acts at the midpoint of the failure plane AB. The moments of all forces are
taken about the base of the wall, at point A.

Figure 3: Free Body Diagram of the failure wedge ABC

Moment equilibrium condition:

AB  H H 
Pa cos δ . X = R cos φ . − qH (cot θ + cot α cr )  −  (12)
2  2 tan α cr 2 tan θ 

AB H
Or, Pa cos δ . X = R cos φ . − qH (cot θ + cot α cr ) (cot α cr − cot θ ) (13)
2 2

R cos φ . AB qH (cot θ + cot α cr ) H (cot θ − cot α cr )

Or, X= − (14)
2 Pa cos δ 2 Pa cos δ

R cos φ . AB qH 2 (cot 2 α cr − cot 2 θ )

Or, X= − (15)
2 Pa cos δ 2 Pa cos δ
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 817

Substituting the value of Pa and R in Equation 12

H sin(θ − δ ) cos φ H (cot α cr − cot θ )[cos(θ − δ ) + sin(θ − δ ) cot(α cr − φ )]

X= − (16)
2sin(α cr − φ ) cos δ sin α cr 2 cos δ

The height of point of application of Pa from the wall base, h is calculated as

h = X .sin θ (17)

The coefficient of active earth pressure (Kaq) for the retaining wall with only surcharge effect
is then obtained as,

Pa
Kaq = (18)
γH

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this analysis is to compute active earth pressure coefficient, Kaq and height, h
of point of application of active thrust from the wall base. This height is expressed in terms of its
ratio with respect to height of the retaining wall, H in a non- dimensional form (Hr = h/H). Values
of Hr and active earth pressure coefficient (Kaq) are computed for various combinations of angle
of soil friction (φ), angle of wall friction (δ) and angle of wall back (θ). The effects of various
parameters on the location of point of application of active earth pressure are discussed.

The variation of Hr with respect to the angle of wall friction (δ) for different angles of wall
back (θ), i.e. for θ = 85˚ and 80˚ is presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively. Figure 6 and
Figure 7 show the variation of Hr with angle of wall back (θ) for δ = 2/3φ and 1/3φ. Variation of
Hr with respect to angle of wall back (θ) is presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9 for angle of soil
friction φ = 40˚ and 30˚. It is seen that Hr decreases with increase in δ and increases with increase
in φ. In case of a vertical retaining wall with no wall friction, the active thrust acts at the mid-
height of the wall with a unique value of 0.5 for all the values of φ. The variation of active
earth pressure, Pa and coefficient of active earth pressure, Kaq with respect to angle of wall back,
θ is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively, for angle of soil friction φ = 40˚. It is seen
that it varies in the range of 0.235 to 0.380.

One distinguishing feature of this proposed analysis is its ability to compute the point of
application of active thrust using moment equilibrium condition. This has not been possible with
the other existing methods. The computed values of Hr are shown in Table 1. The active earth
pressures coefficients (Kaq) due to surcharge effect are presented for the combinations of various
parameters and the values are also compared with those evaluated by other researchers in Table 2.
The results obtained in this analysis are in very close agreement with the results reported by
Caquot and Kerisel (1948) and Soubra and Mauch (2002). The maximum difference is 4.11%.
The value of Kaq obtained from the proposed method is exactly matching with the Soubra and
Mauch (2002) for δ = 0 and the maximum difference is 4.23% for φ = 35˚ and δ =35˚. Another
distinguishing feature of the proposed analysis is its ability to predict the distribution of reactive
pressure on the failure surface using Kötter’s (1903) equations.
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 818

Figure 4: Variation of Hr with angle of wall friction (δ) for θ = 85˚

Figure 5: Variation of Hr with angle of wall friction (δ) for θ = 80˚

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 819

Figure 6: Variation of Hr with angle of back (θ)

Figure 7: Variation of Hr with angle of back (θ)

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 820

Figure 8: Variation of Hr with angle of back (θ)

Figure 9: Variation of Hr with angle of back (θ)

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 821

Figure 10: Variation of Pa with angle of back (θ)

Figure 11: Variation of Kaq with angle of back (θ)

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 822

Table 1: Variation of Hr with angle of wall back (θ), soil friction angle (φ)
and angle of wall friction (δ)
Angle of wall Angle of wall friction, δ (in degrees)
back (θ) Soil friction
(φ) 0 1/3φ 1/2φ 2/3φ
40˚ 0.562 0.515 0.486 0.453
35˚ 0.554 0.505 0.478 0.444
85˚ 30˚ 0.543 0.498 0.472 0.443
25˚ 0.535 0.493 0.469 0.441
40˚ 0.618 0.575 0.551 0.519
35˚ 0.601 0.561 0.534 0.504
80˚ 30˚ 0.587 0.546 0.522 0.493
25˚ 0.571 0.532 0.511 0.485
40˚ 0.670 0.636 0.607 0.575
35˚ 0.647 0.604 0.581 0.556
75˚ 30˚ 0.625 0.592 0.566 0.540
25˚ 0.605 0.573 0.551 0.527
40˚ 0.719 0.684 0.657 0.625
35˚ 0.695 0.656 0.632 0.602
70˚ 30˚ 0.668 0.634 0.610 0.582
25˚ 0.640 0.611 0.589 0.566

Table 2: Comparison of proposed Kaq values with other solutions

Angle of friction Active earth pressure coefficient Ka
Soil, φ Wall, δ Caquot and Kerisel Soubra (2002) Present analysis
(degrees) (degrees) (1948)
40 0.218 0.217 0.217
35 0.271 0.271 0.27
30 0 0.333 0.333 0.333
25 0.406 0.406 0.405
40 - 0.203 0.201
35 - 0.252 0.25
30 1/3φ - 0.31 0.308
25 - 0.378 0.376
40 - 0.201 0.198
35 - 0.248 0.246
30 1/2φ - 0.304 0.301
25 - 0.37 0.367
40 0.202 0.203 0.199
35 0.247 0.248 0.243
30 2/3φ 0.300 0.302 0.296
25 0.364 0.366 0.36
40 0.219 0.219 0.21
35 0.260 0.26 0.249
30 φ 0.308 0.309 0.296
25 0.367 0.368 0.354
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 823

CONCLUSIONS
Kötter’s (1903) equation lends itself as a powerful tool in the proposed analysis. It makes it
possible to compute the distribution and point of application of soil reaction on the failure
surface. The moment equilibrium condition is used effectively to compute the point of application
of the active thrust. From the proposed analysis it is seen that the point of application of active
thrust depends upon a number of factors such as angle of soil internal friction, wall friction and
angle of wall back. A fairly good agreement is observed between the results of the proposed
analysis and the results reported by researchers.

REFERENCES
Caquot, A. I., and J. Kerisel, (1948) “Tables for the calculation of passive pressure, active
pressure, and bearing capacity of foundations,” Libraire du Bureau des Longitudes, de
L’ecolePolytechnique, Paris Gauthier- villars, Imprimeur-Editeur, 120.

Coulomb, C. A. (1776). “Essaisurune application des règles des maximis et minimis à

quelquesproblèmes de statiquerelatifs à l'architecture,” Mèm. Acad. Roy. Près. Divers
Savants 7, Paris.

Dewaikar, D. M. and S. A. Halkude (2002) “Seismic passive/active thrust on retaining wall- point
of application,” Soils and Foundations, 42(1), 9-15.

Fang, Y. and I. Ishibashi (1986) “Static earth pressures with various wall movements,” Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 112(3), 317-333.

Habibagahi, K., and A. Ghahramani, (1979) “Zero extension line theory of earth pressure,”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 105(GT7): 881-896.

Hansen, J. B. (1953) “Earth pressure calculation,” Danish Geotechnical Press, Copenhagen.

Janbu, N. (1957) “Earth pressure and bearing capacity calculations by generalized procedure of
slices,” Proc. of 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, London, 2, 207-212.

Kame, G. S., D. M. Dewaikar and D. Choudhury (2010) “Active Thrust on a Vertical Retaining
Wall with Cohesionless Backfill,” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15 (Q),
1848-1863.

Kérisel, J. and E. Absi (1990) “Tables de poussée et de butée des terres,” 3rd ed., Presses del’
E´coleNationale des PontsetChaussées, Paris, 1990.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. F 824

Kötter, F. (1903) “Die Bestimmung des Drucks an gekrümmten Gleitflächen, eine Aufgabe aus
der Lehre vom Erddruck.” Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 229-
233.

Lancellotta, R. (2002) “Analytical solution of passive earth pressure” Géotechnique, 52(8), 617-
619.

Matsuo, M., S. Kenmochi, and H. Yagi (1978) “Experimental study on earth pressure of retaining
wall by field tests,” Soils and Foundations, 18(3), 27-41.

Sokolovski, V.V. (1960) “Statics of Soil Media,” Butterworth Publications, London.

Soubra, A.H. and B. Macuh (2002) “Active and passive earth pressure coefficients by a
kinematical approach,” Proc. of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering,
2, 119-131.

Terzaghi, K. (1943) “Theoretical soil mechanics,” Wiley, New York.

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,” Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 91 (4), 197-200.

Wang, Y. Z. (2000) “Distribution of earth pressure on a retaining wall,” Geotechnique, 50(1), 83-
88.

© 2012 ejge