3 views

Uploaded by grenouille2

hanna

- 1989 US Army Corps of Engineers Retaining and Flood Walls 448p
- CE2013
- Tunnel Face Pressure
- Civil engineering technical English: Soil
- 1571-1574 (DPL, Georadas, Geoboroscope
- Cem Part Vi Chap 3
- Soil Stabilization using Industrial Waste (Wheat Husk and Sugarcane Straw Ash)
- Kayalkattadata.pdf
- The Design of Temporary Excavation Support to EC7
- Cement Grouting
- MV Kimhae Conf Istanbul En
- 2018 Item Analysis
- CE501GTAG
- Sample Proposal
- 03we Bond Worked Example T Shaped Gravity Wall
- 89290_1
- 114imguf_ESE2019PrelimsOffline
- 2013 Shen Et Al_Generalized Approach for Prediction of Jet Grout Column Diameter
- GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
- 299 Piles in Lacustrine and Deltaic Deposits.pdf

You are on page 1of 10

Mechanics Parameters

Adel Hanna, Ph.D., P.Eng., F.ASCE1; and Riad Diab, Ph.D., P.Eng.2

Abstract: Earth pressure theories occupy a paramount position in the ﬁeld of geotechnical engineering. Passive earth pressure plays an impor-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tant role in the design of retaining walls and anchors. Furthermore, it provides the resisting force used in modeling soil–structure interaction prob-

lems. In the literature, numerous reports can be found dealing with the passive earth pressure for cohesionless soil. The majority of these reports

have used the Mohr-Coulomb criteria as the constitutive law governing the relationship between the passive earth pressures and the angles of

shearing resistance of sand. Accordingly, the results obtained have displayed a wide range of discrepancies in the values of the coefﬁcient of pas-

sive earth pressure, especially for the case of overconsolidated sand. This paper presents a numerical model for a retaining wall translating hori-

zontally into a mass of sand and accordingly subjected to passive earth pressure. The model utilizes the ﬁnite-element technique, the constitutive

law of the modiﬁed Cam-clay model, and the critical-state soil mechanics (CSSM) concept. This model is capable of incorporating the effect of

soil deformation and the stress history of the sand into the values of the passive earth pressure, which were ignored in previous models. After vali-

dating the numerical model with the available experimental data for normally consolidated and overconsolidated sands, the model was used to

generate data for a wide range of parameters. The results were used to develop design theories capable of predicting the passive earth pressure for

normally consolidated and overconsolidated sands as function of the CSSM parameters. Furthermore, a procedure is presented to evaluate these

parameters from the results of triaxial tests. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000683. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Author keywords: Passive earth pressure; Critical-state soil mechanics (CSSM); Modiﬁed Cam-clay; Normally consolidated cohesionless

soil; Overconsolidated cohesionless soil; Finite-element technique; Design theory.

ﬁeld measurements.

Passive earth pressure plays an important role in soil–structure In the literature, several reports can be found dealing with the

interaction problems. It provides the resisting force for shallow and coefﬁcient of passive earth pressure for normally consolidated

deep foundations and earth-retaining structures. In practice, piles cohesionless material. Coulomb (1776) was the ﬁrst to suggest a

subjected to uplift loading and anchors rely heavily on the passive mathematical model for predicting earth pressure behind a retaining

earth resistance to support the loads arising from the structure. wall. Rankine (1857) introduced a solution based on the assumption

Quite often, backﬁll behind retaining walls for bridge abutments that the earth mass is in a plastic equilibrium state. Terzaghi (1948)

or plate anchors is composed of compacted granular material. adopted a method for predicting the passive earth pressure by

Compaction of cohesionless soil induces additional stresses in the assuming a failure surface consisting of two parts, a logarithmic spi-

soil mass, which are locked in, causing the backﬁll to be overconso- ral and a straight plane. Shields and Tolunay (1973) adopted

lidated (Hanna and Saad 2001). In soil, the in situ stress level is rep- Terzaghi’s failure mechanism and used the method of slices to com-

resented by the so-called overconsolidation ratio (OCR), which has pute the passive earth pressure on walls. Kumar and Subba Rao

a signiﬁcant effect on several geotechnical engineering problems, (1997) developed comprehensive charts to estimate the passive

including earth pressures on walls. Currently the passive earth pres- earth pressure coefﬁcients based on an assumed failure surface con-

sure is estimated by using theories developed for homogeneous nor- sisting of a logarithmic spiral and a plane. Zhu and Qian (2000)

mally consolidated soils. Research on the passive earth pressure of proposed a procedure for determining the passive earth pressure

overconsolidated cohesionless soils has been lagging behind. This coefﬁcients using triangular slices within the framework of limit-

is mainly a result of the difﬁculties associated with duplicating the equilibrium analysis. Fang et al. (2002) presented a method to pre-

ﬁeld stress level in laboratory modeling. Accordingly, a wide range dict the passive earth pressure in terms of the critical-state concept.

Hanna and Khoury (2005) presented the results of experimental

investigation of the passive earth pressure of overconsolidated

1

Professor, Dept. of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, sand behind retaining walls. Choudhury and Katdare (2013) sug-

Concordia Univ., 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada gested a procedure to estimate passive earth pressure considering

H3G 1M8 (corresponding author). E-mail: hanna@civil.concordia.ca seismic waves. Antão et al. (2011) and Tang et al. (2014) presented

2

Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Pinto Engineering, Inc., 1041 S. solutions for earth pressure on walls using lower-bound limit anal-

Queen St., York, PA 17403. E-mail: rdiab@gfnet.com

ysis. Patki et al. (2015) used a limit-equilibrium approach coupled

Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 6, 2015; approved on

February 24, 2016; published online on March 29, 2016. Discussion pe- with Kötter’s equation to determine passive earth pressure on

riod open until August 29, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted walls. The majority of these theories are based on the angle of

for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of shearing resistance of the retained soil and the angle of wall fric-

Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641. tion. They do not, however, consider the effects of overconsolidation,

soil dilatancy, and volume change on the coefﬁcients of earth pressure, an out-of-balance load limit should be taken into consideration (Wood

which are the main source of discrepancies among design theories. and Rahim 1999). A similar recommendation was made by Potts and

Unlike the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, the critical-state soil Gens (1984).

mechanics (CSSM) parameters incorporate volume changes in the The load was applied on the wall in the form of two consecutive

failure criterion and do not consider peak stress alone to be sufﬁ- blocks. The ﬁrst block simulated the excavation of the soil in front of

cient to achieve failure (Atkinson 1993; Fang et al. 2002; Devi the wall. During this stage, the wall was restrained from horizontal

2014). This explains the wide discrepancies that exist among design movement, and the sand was in the at-rest condition. The second block

theories, which will vanish when the CSSM parameters are incorpo- was achieved by prescribing a uniform horizontal displacement of the

rated into the theories developed to predict the coefﬁcients of pas- wall until the passive earth pressure behind the wall was fully

sive earth pressure. mobilized.

In this investigation, 312 tests were performed to examine the

sensitivity of the parameters governing the values of the coefﬁcient

Numerical Model of passive earth pressure (Kp) for normally consolidated and over-

consolidated sands. The computer program CRISP, which was orig-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A two-dimensional (2D) ﬁnite-element model was developed to inally developed by the Geotechnical Group at Cambridge University

simulate the case of a retaining wall 0.5 m thick and 6.0 m in height in 1975, was used to perform this analysis. The ﬁnite-difference

subjected to passive earth pressure. Fig. 1 presents the numerical program FLAC was used for comparison purposes only.

model developed in this investigation. The vertical boundaries were Fig. 2 presents typical pressure-displacement curves of the wall

taken at 100 m from the wall in the direction of loading and 50 m in measured at assigned locations on the wall. It can be noted that the

the opposite direction. The vertical boundaries were restrained in earth pressure behind the wall increased with the increase of the wall

the horizontal direction, whereas the bottom of the mesh was displacement up to an ultimate value, which deﬁnes the failure stress.

restrained in both the horizontal and vertical directions. In total, 272 In this investigation, the failure stress (s f ) was determined at the point

eight-node linear strain quadrilateral (LSQ) elements were used to of maximum curvature on the pressure-displacement curve. The coef-

model the sand and the wall. Smaller elements were installed in the ﬁcient of passive earth pressure, Kp, was then calculated as follows:

regions near the wall where signiﬁcant changes in the stresses/

strains were expected. Preliminary tests showed that the size of the sf

Kp ¼ (1)

mesh was sufﬁcient to eliminate any boundary effects. g :h

The wall was modeled with linear elastic elements having the fol-

lowing characteristics: Young’s modulus (Ec) of 11,000 MN/m2 and where s f = stress at the bottom of the wall at failure (kN·m2); g =

Poisson’s ratio ( m c) of 0.11. Slip elements were installed at the inter- unit weight of the soil (kN·m3); and h = height of the wall (m).

face between the sand and the wall and had the following properties: Fig. 3 presents typical pressure distributions on the wall during

angle of wall–soil friction (d ) = 2/3 f ; Poisson’s ratio ( m s) = m of displacement, where linear distribution can be noted. Furthermore,

the sand; Young’s modulus (Es) = 65, 50, 35, and 20 MN/m2, corre- the pressure diagram starts at a zero value at the top of the wall and

sponding to angles of wall–soil friction of 45°, 40°, 35°, and 30°, reaches a maximum value at the bottom. It is of interest to note that

respectively; and the thickness of the slip element (t) was 10 cm. at zero displacement, the earth pressure on the wall agreed well

In this investigation, the sand was modeled with the modiﬁed Cam- with the formula developed by Jaky (1944) for the case of earth

clay model represented by CSSM parameters. Although the Cam-clay pressure at rest. Furthermore, the passive earth pressure at the fail-

model has provided satisfactory solutions to problems related to clayey ure point agreed well with the theories developed for normally con-

soils, it has been equally successful in modeling nonclaylike soils, nota- solidated sand (Kumar and Subba Rao 1997; Zhu and Qian 2000;

bly, overconsolidated cohesionless soils (Murayama 1985; Wood Hanna and Khoury 2005; Wilson and Elgamal 2010).

1990). The model describes the soil as an elastic-plastic material that is

governed by the slope of the critical-state line (CSL; l ), the Slope of the

Swelling Line (k ), the critical-state void ratio (ecs), and Poisson’s ratio Parametric Study

( m ). Table 1 summarizes the ranges of the CSSM parameters for loose

and medium sands (Atkinson 1993). It should be noted that the modi- In this study, the following soil parameters of the modiﬁed Cam-clay

ﬁed Cam-clay model utilizes circular yield and plastic potential surfa- model were isolated and examined individually to determine their

ces in the deviatoric plane. In using this elasto-perfectly plastic model, effects on the coefﬁcient of passive earth pressure, Kp: the angle of

shearing resistance (f ), the slope of the CSL (l ), the slope of the swel-

ling line (k ), the critical-state void ratio (ecs), and Poisson’s ratio ( m ).

100 m

Fig. 4 presents typical Kp versus ecs for the values of f =

35° and l /k = 30. It can be noted that the value of Kp

Investigation

46 m

40 m Critical-state soil parameter Range

Angle of shearing resistance, f (°) 30, 35, 40, 45

Slope of the CSL, l 0.1, 0.2, 0.3

Slope of the swelling line, k 0.00125–0.01

Critical-state void ratio, ecs 1, 2, 3

150 m Poisson’s ratio, m 0.2, 0.4

Unit weight of soil, g (kN·m3) 17, 18.5, 20, 21.5

Fig. 1. Layout of the numerical model Overconsolidation ratio, OCR 1, 2, 4

400

at 1.88 depth

350

at 3.88 depth

at 5.88 depth

300

250

Pressure (kN/m 2)

200

150

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100

50

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Wall displacement (m)

0

displacement = 0m

displacement = 0.14m

-1

displacement = 0.28m

displacement = 0.42m

-2 failure

Depth of the wall (m)

-3

-4

-5

-6

Pressure (kN/m 2)

increased as a result of an increase in ecs. Furthermore, this and, accordingly, the higher the stress needed to reach failure

increase was more signiﬁcant for higher values of ecs. This (Atkinson 1993).

can be explained by the fact that with an increase in ecs, the As stated in the CSSM concept, the slope of the swelling

further the CSL will depart from the e-axis in the p0 -e plot, line (k ) and Poisson’s ratio ( m ) represent the elastic parameters

16

14 λ= 0.1 & μ = 0.4

λ = 0.2 & μ = 0.2

12 λ = 0.2 & μ = 0.4

λ= 0.3 & μ = 0.2

λ = 0.3 & μ = 0.4

10

8

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Critical state void ratio, e cs

70

ecs = 1 & μ = 0.3

ecs = 1 & μ = 0.4

60 ecs = 2 & μ = 0.2

ecs = 2 & μ = 0.3

ecs = 2 & μ = 0.4

ecs = 3 & μ = 0.2

ecs = 3 & μ = 0.3

Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp

40

30

20

10

0

0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004

Slope of the sw elling line, κ

of the soil that have signiﬁcant effects on the values of the of the coefﬁcient of earth pressure versus the parameters k and

earth pressure on walls. Figs. 5 and 6 present the results m , respectively. Thus, at higher levels of particle interlocking,

obtained from the present numerical investigation in the form the sand displayed lower values of the parameters k and m ,

14

λ = 0.1 & ecs =2

12 λ = 0.1 & ecs =3

λ = 0.2 & ecs =1

λ = 0.2 & ecs =2

λ = 0.2 & ecs =3

λ = 0.3 & ecs =1

Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp λ = 0.3 & ecs =2

10 λ = 0.3 & ecs =3

8

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0

0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Poisson ratio, μ

and, accordingly, higher values for the coefﬁcient of passive K0nc ¼ 1 sin f

earth pressure, Kp.

Fig. 7 presents typical relationships of Kp versus the parameter Similar results were also obtained using the following equation:

l for the ratio of l /k = 80 and f = 30°. It can be noted that the rela-

tionship is almost linear, and Kp decreased further with an increase 6 2M 6 sin w

K0nc ¼ ; where M ¼

in the l /k ratio. 6þM 3 sin w

Fig. 8 presents typical relationships of Kp versus the parameter

f . As expected, Kp increased with an increase in the value of f . where M = slope of the CSL.

Furthermore, Kp increased at a higher rate for higher values of ecs. It Furthermore, K0oc was calculated using the equation given by

is of interest to note that with an increase in f of 5°, Kp increased Meyerhof (1976), as follows:

by 10–30% for a ratio of l /k = 30 and by 20–40% for l /k = 80. pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

This clearly demonstrates the role of the CSSM and further dis- K0oc ¼ K0nc OCR

qualiﬁes the unique relationship between Kp and f in the Mohr-

Coulomb constitutive law. It can be noted from Table 2 and Fig. 9 that the coefﬁcient of pas-

Table 2 presents the deduced values of the coefﬁcient of pas- sive earth pressure Kp increased with an increase in the value of Ro,

sive earth pressure Kp versus the CSSM overconsolidation pa- which supports the notion that overconsolidated sand fails at a rela-

rameter (Ro) for different values of f , l , m , ecs, and k , and tively higher stress level than that for normally consolidated sand,

Fig. 9 presents this relationship for the case of angle of shearing which further impacts on the value of Kp.

resistance of the sand f = 30°. Ro was given by Budhu (2000) as

follows:

Ro ¼ OCR (2)

1 þ 2K0oc CSSM

where K0nc = coefﬁcient of earth pressure at rest for normally con- To demonstrate the importance of using the critical-state soil pa-

solidated sand; K0oc = coefﬁcient of earth pressure at rest for over- rameters in evaluating the coefﬁcient of passive earth pressures of

consolidated sand, which was calculated using the overconsolida- normally consolidated sand on retaining walls, two extreme cases

tion ratio (OCR ¼ s 0zc =s 0zo Þ; s 0zc = preconsolidation stress at an that will produce the minimum and maximum values of Kp, as pro-

element in the sand mass; and s 0zo = effective vertical stress at the posed by Atkinson (1993), were considered.

same element in the sand. Fig. 10 presents the coefﬁcient of passive earth pressure Kp

In this investigation, K0nc was calculated using the following versus the angle of shearing resistance ( f ) for the cases of l =

equation (Jaky 1944): 0.3, ecs = 1, m = 0.4, and l /k = 30 and l = 0.1, ecs = 3, m = 0.2,

60

ecs= 1 & μ = 0.4

50 ecs= 2 & μ = 0.2

ecs= 2 & μ = 0.4

ecs= 3 & μ = 0.2

ecs= 3 & μ = 0.4

40

30

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20

10

0

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Slope of critical state, λ

90

80 ecs = 1 & μ = 0.3

ecs = 1 & μ = 0.4

ecs = 2 & μ = 0.2

70 ecs = 2 & μ = 0.3

Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp

ecs = 3 & μ = 0.2

ecs = 3 & μ = 0.3

60 ecs = 3 & μ = 0.4

50

40

30

20

10

0

25 30 35 40 45 50

Angle of shearing resistance, φ

and l /k = 80, which will produce the minimum and maximum val- The present numerical model was then used to generate data

ues of Kp, respectively. This demonstrates the role of the CSSM pa- within the range of the maximum and minimum values of Kp for

rameters, which are usually ignored, in estimating the coefﬁcient of each angle of shearing resistance, f . Based on the results obtained

passive earth pressure. in this series, the following empirical formulas were developed to

Table 2. Typical Test Results for Normally Consolidated and Overconsolidated Sands

Angle of shearing Slope of Critical-state Slope of swelling Poisson’s

resistance, f (°) CSL, l void ratio, ecs line, k ratio, m Ro (OCR = 1) Kp Ro (OCR = 2) Kp Ro (OCR = 4) Kp

30 0.1 1 0.00125 0.3 1.0 8.7 1.65 14.1 2.66 20.78

0.00333 0.3 2.57 5.81 7.78

0.2 1 0.0025 0.2 7.20 10.74 15.32

0.0067 0.2 3.15 4.67 6.83

2 0.0025 0.4 8.10 14.1 19.97

0.0067 0.4 3.55 6.73 9.13

0.3 3 0.00375 0.4 7.77 13.96 18.62

0.01 0.4 4.67 8.12 11.72

35 0.1 1 0.00125 0.3 1.0 11.95 1.68 20.21 2.74 31.16

0.00333 0.3 4.10 6.98 11.19

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.0067 0.2 3.89 6.41 9.85

2 0.0025 0.4 9.27 16.79 25.21

0.0067 0.4 4.13 7.05 11.48

0.3 3 0.00375 0.4 9.64 18.46 27.18

0.01 0.4 5.32 9.91 15.63

40 0.1 1 0.00125 0.3 1.0 14.90 1.71 26.47 2.82 45.94

0.00333 0.3 3.75 9.41 14.32

0.2 1 0.0025 0.2 14.90 27.13 42.86

0.0067 0.2 4.70 7.63 14.60

2 0.0025 0.4 11.13 21.5 35.19

0.0067 0.4 4.93 9.67 15.62

0.3 3 0.00375 0.4 11.90 23.71 36.11

0.0166 0.4 6.09 12.23 18.11

45 0.1 1 0.00125 0.3 1.0 18.30 1.73 35.10 2.92 31.16

0.0033 0.3 4.54 12.31 11.19

0.2 1 0.0025 0.2 19.10 36.45 28.33

0.0067 0.2 5.67 10.24 9.85

2 0.0025 0.4 2.20 23.38 25.21

0.0067 0.4 5.60 11.87 11.48

0.3 3 0.00375 0.4 14.60 30.14 27.18

0.0166 0.4 6.98 14.84 15.63

predict the minimum and maximum values of Kp and for any given The maximum and minimum values in this table were calculated

CSSM parameters for a given value of the angle of shearing resist- using Eqs. (3) and (4). It is of interest to note that the values of

ance, f : Shields and Tolunay were closer to the lower bound of the range of

Kp obtained from the CSSM parameters for all values of f , whereas

Kp min ¼ 2:8 tan w þ 0:15 (3) Coulomb’s values of Kp provided values closer to the lower bound

for the low values of f (loose sand) and increased for higher values

of f (dense sand).

Kp max ¼ 99:73 tan w 20:88 (4) To validate the results obtained from the numerical model devel-

oped in this investigation, the experimental data of Hanna and

Khoury (2005) were compared with the values predicted by Eqs. (5)

λ and (6). The results are given in Table 4, and good agreement can

Kp ¼ ð97tan f 21Þ 0:005 þ 0:125ecs 1:25λ 1:25 m þ 0:6

k be noted. In this series, the CSSM parameters for the sand used by

þ ð2:8tan f þ 0:15Þ (5) Hanna and Khoury (2005) were obtained from the laboratory triax-

ial and plane-strain test result reported by Hanna (2001).

Furthermore, the values of the coefﬁcient of passive earth pressure

λ

for overconsolidated sand, Kp(nc), estimated by Eq. (6) in this paper,

a were also compared to those estimated by the formula given by

Kp:ðocÞ ¼ Kp:ðncÞ :Ro λk (6)

Hanna and Khoury (2005).

where d 25

Kp0 ðocÞ ¼ KpðncÞ 1:5 fOCRg sin d (7)

a = 0 for normally consolidated sand; 100

a = 1 for overconsolidated soil; and

Kp.nc = coefﬁcient of passive earth pressure for normally con- The results of this comparison are also given in Table 4 and dis-

solidated sand. play reasonable agreement. In this analysis, the coefﬁcient of passive

Table 3 presents the results of this series together with the values earth pressure for normally consolidated soil KpðncÞ was determined

of Kp given by Coulomb (1776) and Shields and Tolunay (1973). from Eq. (6) and the value of d was taken equal to 2/3w .

25

λ = 0.1 & λ/κ = 30

λ =0.2, λ/κ=80 & ecs=1

λ=0.2, λ/κ=30 & ecs=1

λ=0.2, λ/κ=80 & ecs=2 2

20 λ=0.2, λ/κ=30 & ecs=2 1

λ=0.3 & λ/κ=80

λ=0.3 & λ/κ=30 5

Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp 7 3

15 3 4

5

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8

10

6 6

2

4

7

5

0

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

Overconsolidated parameter, R o

50

45 CSM kp (minimum)

CSM kp (maximum)

40 Coulomb (1776)

Coefficient of passive earth pressure, k p

35

30

25

20

15

10

0

30 35 40 45

Angle of shearing resistance, φ

Fig. 10. Coefﬁcient of passive earth pressure (Kp) versus shearing resistance angle ( w )

Table 3. Comparison of the Critical State’s Kp and the Theoretical Values of Coulomb (1776) and Shields and Tolunay (1973)

a a

Minimum , Maximum ,

Angle of l = 0.3, l = 0.1,

shearing ecs = 1, ecs = 3,

resistance, m = 0.4, m = 0.2,

f (°) l /k = 30 l /k = 80 Kp Corresponding CSSM parameters Kp Corresponding CSSM parameters

30 1.73 37.10 6.11 l = 0.275, ecs = 1.25, m = 0.375, and l /k = 36.2 4.40 l = 0.285, ecs = 1.15, m = 0.385, and l /k = 33.76

35 2.15 48.60 9.96 l = 0.266, ecs = 1.33, m = 0.366, and l /k = 38.36 6.08 l = 0.283, ecs = 1.17, m = 0.383, and l /k = 34.23

40 2.50 62.40 21.83 l l = 0.236, ecs = 1.64, m m = 0.336, and l /k = 46.0 8.64 l = 0.28, ecs = 1.20, m = 0.38, and l /k = 35.08

45 2.93 79.20 46.08 l = 0.1865, ecs = 2.135, m = 0.286, and l /k = 58.38 13.26 l = 0.273, ecs = 1.27, m = 0.373, and l /k = 36.78

a

Atkinson (1993)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Comparison of the Predicted Values of Kp Obtained from Eqs. (5)–(7) and the Experimental Results of Hanna and Khoury (2005)

Hanna and Khoury

(2005)

Sand condition Relative density (%) w (°) OCR la ecra ma l /k a Present investigation Experiment Eq. (7)

Loose 21 33 1.3 0.27 1.2 0.37 37.5 9.1 8.49 10.6

Medium 52 40 2.0 0.25 1.4 0.35 40 16.6 15.49 18.5

Dense/medium 75/52 45/40 2.2 0.25/0.24 1.5/1.4 0.35/0.34 43/40 20.7 19.30 23.1

Medium/dense 52/75 40/45 2.3 0.24/0.25 1.4/1.5 0.34/0.35 40/43 21.2 18.70 23.6

Dense 75 45 2.5 0.24 1.5 0.34 43 24.4 23.00 26.7

a

Obtained from the laboratory triaxial testing program reported by Hanna (2001).

Design Procedure utilized the CSSM concept and the constitutive law of the modiﬁed

Cam-clay model. The following conclusions can be drawn:

The following procedure was proposed to determine the coefﬁcient 1. The results of this investigation demonstrate the importance of

of passive earth pressure (Kp) on retaining walls for normally con- using the CSSM parameters in evaluating the coefﬁcient of pas-

solidated and overconsolidated sand using the CSSM parameters sive earth pressures for normally consolidated and overconsoli-

f , l , m , ecs, and l /k : dated sands on retaining walls.

0

1. From the (e, ln p ) space, determine l and k , and calculate 2. The model provides a range of Kp values for each angle of shear-

l /k . l is the slope of the CSL, and k is the unloading/reload- ing resistance, f , which disqualiﬁes the unique relationship

ing line. between Kp and f in Mohr-Coulomb’s constitutive law. This is

0

2. From the same space (e, lnp ), determine ecs. The value of the because the CSSM model incorporates volume changes into its

critical-state void ratio corresponds to p’ = 1 kN·m2 (i.e., ln failure criterion, unlike the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion,

p0 = 0) on the CSL. which deﬁnes failure based only on the maximum stress attained.

3. Determine the Poisson’s ratio ( m ). This ratio may be evaluated 3. The distribution of passive earth pressure acting on walls

from the ratio of the lateral strain to axial strain during a triaxial remains linear with depth during all stages of wall displace-

compression test subjected to axial loading. ment. The pressure diagram is triangular in shape, has a zero

4. From the (q, p0 ) space, determine M, the slope of the failure line value at top of the wall, and reaches the maximum value at the

or the CSL previously deﬁned. Calculate the critical angle of bottom. This trend compares well with the theoretical models

shearing resistance using the expression mentioned in the sec- available in literature for lower- and upper-bounds solutions.

tion on parametric study. 4. The value of Kp increases with an increase in the critical-state

5. Knowing the OCR, determine the CSSM overconsolidation pa- void ratio ecs and a decrease in the slope of the CSL l . Also, Kp

rameter Ro using Eq. (2). increases with a decrease in the values of the elastic parameters of

6. Estimate the coefﬁcient of passive earth pressure (Kp) using the soil, the slope of the swelling line k , and Poisson’s ratio m . It

Eq. (5) for normally consolidated sands or Eq. (6) or Eq. (7) for was also noted that, for overconsolidated sands, Kp increases with

overconsolidated sands. an increase in the CSSM overconsolidation parameter (Ro).

5. Empirical formulae were proposed to predict the coefﬁcients of

passive earth pressure for normally consolidated sand [Eq. (5)]

Conclusions and overconsolidated sand [Eq. (6)] for the given values of the

critical-state parameters ( f , l , m , ecs, and l /k , and the over-

A numerical model was developed to predict the coefﬁcient of pas- consolidation ratio, Ro).

sive earth pressure for normally consolidated and overconsolidated 6. The results obtained by the proposed formulae [Eqs. (5) and (6)]

sands behind rigid vertical walls translating horizontally. The model compared well with the experimental data available in the literature.

7. The empirical formula proposed by Hanna and Khoury (2005) Atkinson, J. (1993). An introduction to the mechanics of soil and founda-

[Eq. (7)] can be used to predict the CSSM coefﬁcient of passive tions through critical state soil mechanics, McGraw-Hill, London.

earth pressure for overconsolidated sand with the use of the Budhu, M. (2000). Soil mechanics and foundations, John Wiley & Sons,

CSSM value of Kp(nc) given by Eq. (5). New York.

Choudhury, D., and Katdare, A. (2013). “New approach to determine

8. Coulomb’s theory predicts values closer to the lower bound of the

seismic passive resistance on retaining walls, considering seismic

Kp values for low values of f and slightly increases for higher val-

waves.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000285,

ues of f , whereas Shields and Tolunay’s theory predicts values 852–860.

closer to the lower bound of the range of Kp for all values of f . Coulomb, C. A. (1776). “Essai sur une application des règles des maxi-

mise et minimis a quelque problèmes de statique.” Memoire

Notation Academie Royale des Sciences, Vol. 7, Academie Royale des

Sciences, Paris.

The following symbols are used in this paper: CRISP [Computer software]. CRISP Consortium Limited, Houston.

Ec ¼ Young modulus of the wall; Devi, D. (2014). “On the determination of modiﬁed Cam clay model pa-

Es ¼ Young modulus of the slip element; rameters.” Int. J. Innovative Res. Sci. Eng. Tech., 3(4).

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fang, Y. S, Ho, Y. C., and Chen, T. J. (2002). “Passive earth pressure with

ecs ¼ critical void ratio;

critical state concept.” J. Geotech. Geonviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090

H ¼ height of the wall (m); -0241(2002)128:8(651), 651–659.

Kp(nc) ¼ coefficient of passive earth pressure for normally FLAC [Computer software]. Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis.

consolidated sand; Hanna, A. M. (2001). “Determination of plane-strain shear strength of

Kp(oc) ¼ coefficient of passive earth pressure for overconsoli- sand from the results of triaxial tests.” Can. Geotech. J., 38(6),

dated sand; 1231–1240.

K0nc ¼ coefficient of earth pressure at rest for normally con- Hanna, A. M., and Khoury, I. (2005). “Passive earth pressure of overconso-

solidated sand; lidated cohesionless backﬁll.” J. Geotech. Geonviron. Eng., 10.1061

K0oc ¼ coefficient of earth pressure at rest for overconsoli- /(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:8(978), 978–986.

dated sand; Hanna, A. M., and Saad, N. (2001). “Effect of compaction duration on the

M ¼ slope of the CSL; induced stress levels in a laboratory prepared sand bed.” Geotech. Test.

J., 24(4), 430–438.

OCR ¼ overconsolidation ratio;

Jaky, J. (1944). “A Myygalmi nyomas tenyezoje [The coefﬁcient of

p0 ¼ mean effective stress;

earth pressure at rest].” Magyar Merrnok es Epitesz-Egylet Kozlonye,

q ¼ deviatoric stress; 355–358.

Ro ¼ CSM overconsolidation parameter using stress invariants; Kumar, J., and Subba Rao, K. S. (1997). “Passive pressure coefﬁcients, crit-

t ¼ thickness of the slip element; ical failure surface and its kinematic admissibility.” Geotechnique,

X ¼ a value of a critical-state parameter; 47(1), 185–192.

XA ¼ the value of a critical-state parameter that corre- Meyerhof, G. G. (1976). “Bearing capacity and settlement of pile founda-

sponds to the minimum Kp; tions.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 102(GT3), 195–228.

XB ¼ the value of a critical-state parameter that corre- Murayama, S. (1985). Constitutive laws of soil: Rep. of ISSMFE subcom-

sponds to the maximum Kp; mittee on constitutive laws of soils, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics

a ¼ coefficient; and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo.

d ¼ wall-slip element angle of friction; Patki, M., Mandal, J. N., and Dewaikar, D. M. (2015). “Determination of

passive earth pressure coefﬁcients using limit equilibrium coupled with

g ¼ unit weight of the soil (kN·m3);

the Kötter equation.” Can. Geotech. J., 52(9), 1241–1254.

k ¼ slope of the swelling curve; Potts, D. M., and Gens, A. (1984). “The effect of the plastic potential in

l ¼ slope of the CSL; boundary value problems involving plane strain deformation.” Int. J.

m ¼ Poisson’s ratio; Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 8(3), 259–286.

m c ¼ Poisson’s ratio of wall material; Rankine, W. J. M. (1857). “On the stability of loose earth.” Philos. Trans. R.

m s ¼ Poisson’s ratio of slip material; Soc. London, 147, 9–27.

s f ¼ stress at the bottom of the wall at failure (kN·m2); Shields, D. H., and Tolunay, A. Z. (1973). “Passive pressure coefﬁ-

s 0zc ¼ preconsolidation stress of the sand; cients by the method of slices.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(12),

s 0zo ¼ current effective stress in the sand; and 1043–1053.

f ¼ angle of shearing resistance. Tang, C., Phoon, K., and Toh, K. (2014). “Lower-bound limit analysis of

seismic passive earth pressure on rigid walls.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061

/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000385, 04014022.

Acknowledgments Terzaghi, K. (1948). Theoretical soil mechanics in engineering practices,

Wiley, New York.

The ﬁnancial support from the Natural Science and Engineering Wilson, P., and Elgamal, A. (2010). “Large-scale passive earth pressure

Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Concordia University load-displacement tests and numerical simulation.” J. Geotech.

is acknowledged. Geonviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000386, 1634–1643.

Wood, D. M. (1990). Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

References Wood, R., and Rahim, R. (1999). SAGE CRISP technical reference manual,

CRISP Consortium Limited, Houston.

Antão, A. N., Santana, T. G., Silva, M. V., and Guerra, N. M. (2011). Zhu, D. Y., and Qian, Q. (2000). “Determination of passive earth pressure

“Passive earth pressure coefﬁcients by upper-bound numerical limit coefﬁcients by the method of triangular slices.” Can. Geotech. J., 37(2),

analysis.” Can. Geotech. J., 48(5). 767–780. 485–491.

- 1989 US Army Corps of Engineers Retaining and Flood Walls 448pUploaded byLo Shun Fat
- CE2013Uploaded bykupaloid
- Tunnel Face PressureUploaded byHarsha Gm
- Civil engineering technical English: SoilUploaded byBach Bui
- 1571-1574 (DPL, Georadas, GeoboroscopeUploaded byGrimaldi2
- Cem Part Vi Chap 3Uploaded bysean_dibartolo3668
- Soil Stabilization using Industrial Waste (Wheat Husk and Sugarcane Straw Ash)Uploaded byIRJET Journal
- Kayalkattadata.pdfUploaded byAneesh Appukuttan Pillai
- The Design of Temporary Excavation Support to EC7Uploaded byMichael Batley
- Cement GroutingUploaded byheshambm
- MV Kimhae Conf Istanbul EnUploaded bynvh202148
- 2018 Item AnalysisUploaded bymary grace
- CE501GTAGUploaded byTarang Sheth
- Sample ProposalUploaded byBrock
- 03we Bond Worked Example T Shaped Gravity WallUploaded byPaco
- 89290_1Uploaded byJames Khoo
- 114imguf_ESE2019PrelimsOfflineUploaded bydfghjkl
- 2013 Shen Et Al_Generalized Approach for Prediction of Jet Grout Column DiameterUploaded byanar
- GEOTECHNICAL REPORTUploaded bycollins unanka
- 299 Piles in Lacustrine and Deltaic Deposits.pdfUploaded byserçin
- VOL 116, NR 2 FEB 1990Uploaded bynicu1212
- Emergency Action Plan - Sample PlanUploaded byug201311025
- FPA-SC-04-Recommended Practice for Geotechnical Explorations and ReportsUploaded byAdam Jones
- 1-s2.0-S0038080613000917-mainUploaded byAnonymous AatvVkxK
- Site Characterization for Cohesive SoilUploaded byafac89
- AB_Residential_Retaining_Walls.pdfUploaded byFritz Natividad
- LRFD Design Example Steel Girder Superstructure 2006Uploaded byEdson Abner
- Landscape 10 02RevbUploaded byDaryl J. S. Badajos
- Science of Expansive ClayUploaded byNadim527
- Geosynthetic Liners for Waste ContainmentUploaded bymeridian360

- Solution Quiz 3Uploaded bygrenouille2
- integrationUploaded byanupam10311
- LicenseUploaded bygrenouille2
- ReadmeUploaded bymunna_bhai826
- Melita Denning, Osborne Phillips - Practical Guide to Astral ProjectionUploaded byAnatolie Cuaresma Amper
- license anaconda 5Uploaded byDanilo Oliveira
- fortranv3Uploaded bygrenouille2
- Guide to Design Criteria for Bolts and Riveted JointsUploaded byHomero Silva
- 2015.5818.Theoretical Soil MechanicsUploaded bygrenouille2
- BaerwolffUploaded bygrenouille2
- grondin anjanUploaded bygrenouille2
- Variational Methods Numerical Analysis- LangtevanUploaded byatankasala
- Two VectorsUploaded bygrenouille2
- 2 MethodsUploaded bygrenouille2
- rudin ch 4Uploaded byLeslie Aguilar
- 06 RecapitulationUploaded bygrenouille2
- truss-3d.pdfUploaded bySaul Auqui Gomez
- Mechanical Design of Heat ExchangersUploaded bygrenouille2
- Jpho5.Introduction.to.Tensor.calculus.and.Continuum.mechanicsUploaded bygrenouille2
- V 6.13 Un InstallUploaded bygrenouille2
- Fluidos Con ProcessingUploaded byAlex Rosado
- UnInstallUploaded bygrenouille2
- Un Install v10Uploaded bygrenouille2
- 9783540771463-c1Uploaded bygrenouille2
- aylıkanaliz_MayisUploaded bygrenouille2
- AsuUploaded bygrenouille2
- 03_AerohydrostaticsUploaded bygrenouille2
- Computer Science_Editing TestUploaded bygrenouille2
- Bruce MoenUploaded byGeorge Stefanakos

- Chilton & Colburn 1934.pdfUploaded byrosendo rojas barragan
- KindVanessaBarkerchem Segunda Edicion VER!!!Uploaded byCarla Forlan
- balancing chemical equationsUploaded byapi-256236481
- Teletraffic Engineering and Network PlanningUploaded byMuhammad Ridlon
- FEAUploaded bySregetre Erera
- heat accumulation labUploaded byapi-271576474
- 24[1]Uploaded bysagar1503
- Digital Electronics Lecture - IX Circuit Optimisation Using K-Maps-2Uploaded byParag Parandkar
- Evans - P.d.e..pdfUploaded byAndrea Minosse
- MSc presentation -2017Uploaded byReem Essam Mohamed
- website resumeUploaded byapi-261212214
- Complex Analysis 1999Uploaded byrsureshkannan
- Restless Ground by Giles Omezi [2003]Uploaded byBukka_Trust
- Moments QuestionsUploaded bymuxadey
- Lec17_Fan_Laws.pdfUploaded byGalina Ilieva Ilieva
- CSO Gaddis Java Chapter07Uploaded byqwert11j
- rprpcgenUploaded byFabian Muñoz
- S.O.L.I.D Patterns in JavaScriptUploaded bymohamin
- Research MethodologyUploaded byRavi Hooda
- Sousa y Moreira - Performance Analysis of Job-Shop Production Systems Under Different Order Release Control Parameters - 2007Uploaded bylsgmz
- Transition to Higher Mathematics- Structure and Proof (Second EdiUploaded byKieraniKerr
- 2-8Uploaded bynouman
- 1st Law of TermodynamicUploaded byKhairul Amir
- gear 40nUploaded bySantosh Kumar Reddy
- ThinShells_11-04-07_ApprovedVersionUploaded byamirreza3853
- Ma Mcom FinalUploaded byPoonam Kaur
- BTechCSEUploaded byJohn Harrison
- newsletter nov 6 2015Uploaded byapi-273415516
- syllabousUploaded byNitin Grover
- Dividend Policy is Concerned With Taking a Decision Regarding Paying Cash Dividend in the Present or Paying an Increased Dividend at a Later StageUploaded by1414646