You are on page 1of 10

Passive Earth Pressure of Normally and Overconsolidated

Cohesionless Soil in Terms of Critical-State Soil


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.

Introduction of discrepancies can be found among various design theories and


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,

© ASCE 04016028-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


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

Table 1. Summary of the Critical-State Soil Parameters Used in This


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

© ASCE 04016028-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


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)

Fig. 2. Typical wall displacement–pressure curves

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


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)

Fig. 3. Typical pressure distribution on wall

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

© ASCE 04016028-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


16

λ= 0.1 & μ = 0.2


14 λ= 0.1 & μ = 0.4
λ = 0.2 & μ = 0.2

Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp


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

Fig. 4. Kp versus ecs for w = 35° and l /K = 30 (normally consolidated sand)

70

ecs = 1 & μ = 0.2


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

50 ecs = 3 & μ = 0.4

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

Fig. 5. Kp versus K for w = 40° and l /K = 80 (normally consolidated sand)

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 ,

© ASCE 04016028-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


14

λ = 0.1 & ecs =1


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

Fig. 6. Kp versus m for w = 30° and l /K = 30

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:

1 þ 2K0nc Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressures in Terms of


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,

© ASCE 04016028-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


60

ecs= 1 & μ = 0.2


ecs= 1 & μ = 0.4
50 ecs= 2 & μ = 0.2
ecs= 2 & μ = 0.4

Coefficient of passive earth pressure, Kp


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

Fig. 7. Kp versus l for w = 35° and l /K = 80

90

ecs = 1 & μ = 0.2


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 = 2 & μ = 0.4


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

Fig. 8. Kp versus w for l = 0.1 and l /K = 80

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

© ASCE 04016028-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


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

Coefficient of passive earth pressure


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.

0.2 1 0.0025 0.2 10.80 16.96 28.33


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 .

© ASCE 04016028-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


25

λ = 0.1 & λ/κ = 80 1


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

Fig. 9. Kp versus Ro for w = 30°

50

45 CSM kp (minimum)
CSM kp (maximum)
40 Coulomb (1776)
Coefficient of passive earth pressure, k p

Shield and Tolunay (1973)


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 )

© ASCE 04016028-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


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

Kp for CSSM Coulomb Shields and Tolunay


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)

Soil characteristics Coefficient of passive earth pressure, kp


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.

© ASCE 04016028-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028


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.

© ASCE 04016028-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016028