Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estimation of static earth pressures for a sloping cohesive backfill using extended Rankine theory with a composite log-spiral failure surface

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Rankine earth pressure theory is extended herein to an inclined c–ϕ backfill. An analytical approach is then proposed to compute the static passive and active lateral earth pressures for a sloping cohesive backfill retained by a vertical wall, with the presence of wall–soil interface adhesion. The proposed method is based on a limit equilibrium analysis coupled with the method of slices wherein the assumed profile of the backfill failure surface is a composite of log-spiral and linear segments. The geometry of the failure surface is determined using the stress states of the soil at the two boundaries of the mobilized soil mass. The resultant lateral earth thrust, the point of application, and the induced moment on the wall are computed considering global and local equilibrium of forces and moments. Results of the proposed approach are compared with those predicted by a number of analytical models currently adopted in the design practice for various combinations of soil’s frictional angles, wall–soil interface frictional angles, inclined angles of backfill and soil cohesions. The predicted results are also verified against those obtained from finite element analyses for several scenarios under the passive condition. It is found that the magnitude of earth thrust increases with the backfill inclination angle under both the passive and active conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. † In design practice, it is conventional to assume a constant value of δw, even though the wall friction is generally not mobilized uniformly along the height of a retaining wall [19, 24]. Different values of δw are required in the calculation of active and passive earth pressures. The selection of suitable value of δw depends on the type of backfill and wall materials [16].

References

  1. AASHTO (2012) AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 6th edn. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  2. ABAQUS (2007) ABAQUS documentation, version 6.7

  3. Alejano LR, Antonio B (2012) Drucker–Prager criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(6):995–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson JH (1981) Foundations and slopes: an introduction to applications of critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Caltrans (2012) Caltrans reference manual for the design of earth retaining structures. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caquot A, Kerisel J (1948) Tables for the calculation of passive pressure, active pressure and bearing capacity of foundations. Gauthier-Villars, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chen WF, Liu XL (1990) Limit analysis in soil mechanics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–477

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen WF, Rosenfarb JL (1973) Limit analysis solutions of earth pressure problems. Soils Found 13(4):45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cheng YM (2016) Rankines earth pressure coefficients for inclined ground reconsidered by slip lime method. MOJ Civil Eng 1(1):1–7

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Colmenares L, Zoback M (2002) A statistical evaluation of intact rock failure criteria constrained by polyaxial test data for five different rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(6):695–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Coulomb C (1776) Essai sur une application de maximis et minimis à quelques problèmes de statique, relatifs à l’Architecture, pubblicato tra i “.Mèmoires de Mathématique et de Physique présentés à l’Académie Royale des Sciences, par divers Savans, et lûs dans les Assemblées, 7, Paris, pp 143–167

  12. Davis RO, Selvadurai APS (2002) Plasticity and geomechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Drucker DC, Prager W (1952) Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit design. Q Appl Math 10(2):157–165

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Fang Y, Ho Y, Chen T (2002) Passive earth pressure with critical state concept. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(8):651–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fang Y, Chen J, Chen C (1997) Earth pressures with sloping backfill. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(3):250–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. GEOGUIDE (2000) Guide to retaining wall design. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong, pp 1–259

    Google Scholar 

  17. Helwany S (2007) Applied soil mechanics with Abaqus applications. Wiley, New York, p 265

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Iskander M, Omidvar M, Elsherif O (2013) Conjugate stress approach for Rankine seismic active earth pressure in cohesionless soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(7):1205–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. James RG, Bransby PL (1970) Experimental and theoretical investigations of a passive earth pressure problem. Geotechnique 20:17–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kumar J, Subba Rao KS (1997) Passive pressure coefficients, critical failure surface and its kinematic admissibility. Géotechnique 47(1):185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kumar J, Chitikela S (2002) Seismic passive earth pressure coefficients using the method of characteristics. Can Geotech J 39(2):463–471. https://doi.org/10.1139/t01-103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin YL, Yang X, Yang GL, Li Y, Zhao LH (2017) A closed-form solution for seismic passive earth pressure behind a retaining wall supporting cohesive–frictional backfill. Acta Geotech 12(2):453–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mazindrani ZH, Ganjali MH (1997) Lateral earth pressure problem of cohesive backfill with inclined surface. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(2):110–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Milligan GWE, Bransby PL (1976) Combined active and passive rotational failure of a retaining wall in sand. Geotechnique 26:473–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mueller-Breslau H (1906) Erddruck auf stuetzmauern. Kroener, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mylonakis G, Kloukinas P, Papantonopoulos C (2007) An alternative to the Mononobe–Okabe equations for seismic earth pressures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:957–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Patki MA, Mandal NJ, Dewaikar DM (2015) Computation of passive earth pressure coefficients for a vertical retaining wall with inclined cohesionless backfill. Int J Geo-eng 6(4):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rankine W (1857) On the stability of loose earth. Phil Trans R Soc 147:185–187

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rowe PW, Peaker K (1965) Passive earth pressure measurements. Géotechnique 15(1):57–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shamsabadi A, Ashour M, Norris G (2005) Bridge abutment nonlinear force-displacement-capacity prediction for seismic design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(2):151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shamsabadi A, Rollins KM, Kapuskar M (2007) Nonlinear soil-abutment-bridge structure interaction for seismic performance-based design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(6):707–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shamsabadi A, Khalili-Tehrani P, Stewart JP, Taciroglu E (2010) Validated simulation models for lateral response of bridge abutments with typical backfills. J Bridge Eng 15(3):302–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shamsabadi A, Xu S-Y, Taciroglu E (2013) A generalized log-spiral-Rankine limit equilibrium model for seismic earth pressure analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 49:197–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sitar N, Mikola R, Candia G (2012) Seismically induced lateral earth pressure on retaining structures and basement walls. In: Proceedings of GSP No. 226. ASCE, pp 335–358

  35. Sokolovski VV (1965) Statics of granular media. Pergamon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Song EX (1990) Elasto-plastic consolidation under steady and cyclic loads. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

  37. Soubra AH (2000) Static and seismic passive earth pressure coefficients on rigid retaining structures. Can Geotech J 37(2):463–478. https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Soubra AH, Macuh B (2002) Active and passive earth pressure coefficients by a kinematical approach. Proc ICE Geotech Eng 155(2):119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stewart JP, Taciroglu E, Wallace JW, Ahlberg ER, Lemnitzer A, Rha CS, Khalili-Tehrani P, Keowen S, Nigbor RL, Salamanca A (2007) Full scale cyclic testing of foundation support systems for highway bridges. Part II: Abutment backwalls, Report No. UCLA-SGEL 2007/02, Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles

  40. Sun YJ, Song EX (2016) Active earth pressure analysis based on normal stress distribution function along failure surface in soil obeying nonlinear failure criterion. Acta Geotech 11(2):255–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tang C, Phoon KK, Toh KC (2014) Lower-bound limit analysis of seismic passive earth pressure on rigid walls. Int J Geomech. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000385

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Xu S-Y, Shamsabadi A, Taciroglu E (2015) Evaluation of active and passive seismic earth pressures considering internal friction and cohesion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 70:30–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhu D (2000) The least upper bound solutions for bearing capacity factor Nγ”. Soils Found 40(1):123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The work presented in this paper was funded by City University of Hong Kong (CityU), HKSAR (Project No.: 7004375 (ACE) and 7200440 (ACE)) and by the California Department of Transportation (Grant No. 65A0582). The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial and technical support from these sources. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityU or Caltrans.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Architecture and Civil Engineering Department, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR

    Shi-Yu Xu & Abiodun Ismail Lawal

  2. Caltrans, Office of Earthquake Engineering, Sacramento, CA, 95816, USA

    Anoosh Shamsabadi

  3. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Ertugrul Taciroglu

Authors
  1. Shi-Yu Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abiodun Ismail Lawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anoosh Shamsabadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ertugrul Taciroglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shi-Yu Xu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: the left-hand side of Eq. (8) had been mistakenly changed to σc instead of σx. Now, the equation has been corrected.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, SY., Lawal, A.I., Shamsabadi, A. et al. Estimation of static earth pressures for a sloping cohesive backfill using extended Rankine theory with a composite log-spiral failure surface. Acta Geotech. 14, 579–594 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0673-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0673-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation