IIEST Earth Pressure Project Report Analysis

IIEST: Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur-2018
EARTH PRESSURE
A Project Report
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of
BACHELOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

By
DEBJIT MAJUMDER
ENROLLMENT- 510415014
HIMANSHU PATEL
ENROLLMENT- 510415065
Under the guidance of

Prof. KALYAN KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,SHIBPUR
HOWRAH-711103, WEST BENGAL
1|Page
FORWARDING
I hereby forward the project report “Earth Pressure ” submitted by Debjit Majumder and
Himanshu Patel under my supervision in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
‘Bachelor of Engineering’ in Civil Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur.
Dated: ……………………………………….
(Prof. Kalyan Kumar Chattopadhyay)
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology,

Howrah – 711103, West Bengal
2|Page
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
The foregoing project report is hereby approved as a creditable study of engineering subject
carried out and presented in a satisfactory manner to warrant its acceptance as a prerequisite
for the Degree of ‘Bachelor of Engineering’ in Civil Engineering in the Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur for which it has
been submitted. It is understood that by this approval the undersigned do not necessarily
endorse or approve any statement made, opinion expressed or conclusion drawn therein but
approve the thesis only for the purpose for which it is submitted.
Board of Examiners:
3|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my project supervisor, Prof. Kalyan

Kumar Chattopadhyay (Professor, Civil Engineering Department, IIEST), who despite
his other commitments could find time to help me in bringing this Project to its present
shape. I extend my gratitude for his constant motivation and support throughout the
project.
I am also thankful to the entire faculty of professors in the Department of Civil

Engineering in Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur who
taught me various subjects during the undergraduate course and provided me with the
basics of the various subjects.
Date:- .............................................
IIEST,Shibpur (Debjit Majumder)
Howrah-711103 .............................................
(Himanshu Patel)
4|Page
Table of content
ABSTRACTS ................................................................................................................ 6
EARTH PRESSURE ..........................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................7
WHY WE SHOULD STUDY LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE .....................................................................................................7
OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................................................7
THEORIES OF EARTH PRESSURE .........................................................................................
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
STATIC EARTH PRESSURE..........................................................................................................................................................8
Lateral Earth Pressure and Wall Movement ..................................................................................................... 9

Rankine's Theory Of Earth Pressure .............................................................................................................. 11
Coulomb’s Theory Of EarthPressure...............................................................................................................12
Culmann's Graphical Method..............................................................................................................................14.
Rebhann's Graphical Method.........................................................................................................................16
DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE............................................................................................................................................................ 17
Mononobe-Okabe Pseudostatic Method (for yielding walls).....................................................................................17
Steedman-Zeng Method.................................................................................................................................21
Non Yielding Walls..........................................................................................................................................23
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 26
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 27
5|Page
ABSTRACT
This report contain analysis of static and dynamic earth pressure in
retaining walls. There are various methods available to do this but here
only a few of them of them are discussed.
The total earth pressure on retaining wall is the summation of static and
dynamic earth pressure. The static earth pressure have been determined by
Rankine’s Theory (1857) and Coulomb’s Theory (1776). The coefficient of
active and passive earth pressure for both the theories is presented in this
report. Graphical methods like Culmann's Method and Rebhann's Method
are adopted for graphical analysis of earth pressure.
The estimation of active and passive earth pressure from backfill soil on a
retaining wall during an earthquake is a common problem in geotechnical
engineering. A solution to this problem is given by Mononobe (1929) and
Okabe (1926) which is extended from the Coulomb’s sliding wedge theory.
A different and more generalized approach has been given by Steedman
and Zeng.
6|Page
EARTH PRESSURE
1.1INTRODUCTION
It is well known that in the case of fluids hydrostatic pressures act equally in
all directions at any given depth below the surface. Thus the lateral fluid
pressure is equal to theproduct of the unit weight of the fluid and the depth.
However, in the case of soils or other materials such as grains, coal etc.
whichpossess shearing strength, the lateral pressure is not equal to the
vertical pressure but is only related to it. Further, the magnitude of lateral
pressure depends on the lateral strain condition and the nature of the soil. So,
we can define lateral earth pressure as the force applied by a soil mass
(backfill) over the retaining wall in the lateral direction throughout its depth .
i.e. mathematically, soil pressure𝛼 depth of the structure
1.2WHY WE SHOULD STUDY LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE?
Lateral Earth pressure is an important parameter for the design of bridge

abutment, different types of retaining walls (Such as gravity retaining walls,
cantilever walls, buttresses), sheet piles and other retaining structures.
It is important because it affects the consolidation behavior and strength of

the soil also because it is considered in the design of retaining structures
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT

The main objective of the report is to study the various methods used for
estimating static and dynamic earth pressure and their limitations.
7|Page
THEORIES OF EARTH PRESSURE
2.1 INRODUCTION
The earth pressure may be broadly classified into two types. They are:-
(1) Static earth pressure (Occurs due to gravity)
(2) Dynamic earth pressure (Occurs due to vibration mainly during

earthquake and machinery movement).
2.2 STATIC EARTH PRESSURE
Basically it occurs due to gravitation (weight of the backfill). So a brief

overview of different theories that explains this is presented here.
There are two commonly accepted methods for calculating simple earth
pressure, Coulomb and Rankine theory. The Coulomb's theory was
developed in the 1776 and the Rankine theory was developed in the 1857
and both remain the basis for present day earth pressure calculation. The
general equations developed for both theories are based on the fundamental
assumptions that the retained soil is cohesionless (no clay component),
homogeneous (not a varying mixture of materials), isotropic (similar stress-
strain properties in all directions or in practical terms, not reinforced), semi-
infinite (wall is very long and soil goes back a long distance without bends
or other boundary conditions), and well drained to avoid consideration of
pore pressures. The active earth pressure calculation below requires that the
wall structure rotates or yields sufficiently to engage the entire shear strength
of the soils involved to create the active earth pressure state. The amount of
movement required is highly dependent upon the soils involved. Using
8|Page
identical parameters, Coulomb wedge theory calculates less earth pressure

than Rankine theory for a level backslope whereas the values converge
under backslope conditions. Coulomb theory calculates a unique failure
angle for every design condition whereas application of Rankine theory to
reinforced soil structures fixes the internal failure plane at 45 + φ/2. Where
𝜑 is angle of friction . For understanding various theories we have to
understand wall movement first.
2.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressure and Wall Movement
The magnitude of lateral earth pressure depends on:
1.Shear strength characteristics of soil
2. Lateral strain condition
3.Pore water pressure
4.State of Equilibrium of soil
5.Wall and ground surface shape

Lateral earth pressure are the direct result of horizontal stresses in the
soil.In order to understand the lateral earth pressure we have to define the
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K.
Coefficient (K) :-It is defined as the ratio of the horizontal effective stress, σh
to the vertical effective stress σv.
Ko = At Rest
It is given by , 𝑘0 = 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
Ka = Active Earth Pressure
9|Page
1−𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
It is given by 𝑘𝑎 =
1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
Kp = Passive Earth Pressure

1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
It is given by 𝑘𝑃 =
Where ,𝜑 = angle of friction

Vertical or near vertical slopes of soil are supported by retaining
walls, cantilever sheet- pile walls, sheet-pile bulkheads, braced cuts,
and other similar structures. The proper design of those structures
required estimation of lateral earth pressure, which is a function of
several factors, such as
(a) type and amount of wall movement,
(b) shear strength parameters of the soil,
(c) unit weight of the soil, and
(d)drainage conditions in the backfill.
Figure shows a retaining wall of height H for similar types of
backfill.The wall may be restrained from moving (figure 1a). The
lateral earth pressure on the wall at any depth is called the at-rest
earthpressure.
The wall may tilt away from the soil retained . With sufficient wall
tile, a triangular soil wedge behind the wall will fail. The lateral
pressure for this condition is referred to as active earthpressure.
The wall may be pushed into the soil retained. With sufficient wall
movement, a soil wedge will fail. The lateral pressure for this condition is
referred as passive earthpressure.
10 | P a g e
2.2.2Rankine’s Theory Of Earth Pressure
Rankine (1857) considered the equilibrium of a soil element at any depth (h)
in the backfill behind a retaining wall and determined the active earth
pressure. Rankine assumed that the soil element is subjected to only two
types of stresses.
i. Vertical stress (σz) due to the weight of the soil above the element.
ii. Lateral earth pressure (pa)
Rankine’s made the following assumptions while deriving his earth pressure
theory. The assumptions are:
The soil mass is homogeneous and semi – infinite.
The back of the retaining wall is vertical.
The back of the Wall is smooth.
The wall movement is sufficient so that the condition of plastic equilibrium
is fulfilled.
Basic equation for rankine active state is given as 𝑝𝑎 = 𝑘𝑎 𝜎𝑣
Where,𝑘𝑎 = and 𝜑 = angle of friction
1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
Basic equation for rankine passive earth pressure is given as 𝑝𝑝 = 𝑘𝑝 𝜎𝑣
11 | P a g e
1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
Where,𝑘𝑝 = and 𝜑 = angle of friction
The relationship between the major principal stress 𝜎1 and minor principal
stress 𝜎3 at failure can be expressed in the form
1+sin 𝜑 1+sin 𝜑
𝜎1 = 𝜎3 ( ) +2c√1−sin 𝜑
1−sin 𝜑
Where, c = cohesion of soil

For active state,𝑝𝑎 = 𝑘𝑎 𝜎𝑣 − 2𝑐√𝑘𝑎
2.2.3 Coulomb’s Theory Of Earth Pressure
Rankine’s theory uses the theory of plasticity approach to determine the

stresses in soil mass.Coulomb’s theory involves the consideration of a
sliding wedge which tends to break away from the rest of backfill upon wall
movement.
Coulomb made the following assumptions in the development of his theory:

 The soil is isotropic and homogeneous
12 | P a g e
 The rupture surface is a plane surface

 The failure wedge is a rigid body
 The pressure surface is a plane surface
 There is wall friction on the pressure surface
 Failure is two-dimensional and
 The soil is cohesionless.
As the wall moves into the backfill, the soil tries to move up on the pressure
surface AB which is resisted by friction of the surface. Shearing stress on
this surface therefore acts downward. The passive earth pressure P is the
resultant of the normal pressure P and the shearing stress. The shearing
force is rotated upward with an angle δ which is againthe angle of friction
𝑝𝑝 = 𝑘𝑝 𝜎𝑣
1
𝑝𝑝 = 𝛾𝐻2 𝑘𝑝
2
13 | P a g e
Where,∅ = angle of friction
2.2.4 Culmann's Graphical Method

Culmann's method is the same as the trial wedge method. Karl Culmann
gave his own graphical method to evaluate the earth pressure from
Coulomb’s theory. Culmann’s method permits one to determine graphically
the magnitude of the earth pressure and to locate the most dangerous rupture
surface according to Coulomb’s wedge theory. This method has more
general application than Rebhann’s and in fact, a simplified version of the
more general trial wedge method. It may be conveniently used for ground
surface of any shape, for different types of surcharge loads, and for
layered backfill with different unit weights for different layers.
Culmann's method, the force polygons are constructed directly on the ϕ-line
AE taking AE as the load line. The procedure is as follows:
 Draw ϕ -line AE at an angle ϕ to the horizontal.

 Lay off on AE distances, AV, A1, A2, A3,etc. to a suitable scale to represent
the weights of wedges ABV, A51, AS2, AS3, etc. respectively.
 Draw lines parallel to AD from points V, 1, 2, 3 to intersect assumed rupture
lines AV, Al,A2, A3 at points V", I',2', 3', etc. respectively.
 Join points V, 1', 2' 3' etc. by a smooth curve which is the pressure locus.
 Select point C' on the pressure locus such that the tangent to the curve at this
point is parallel to the ϕ-line AE.
14 | P a g e
 Draw C'C parallel to the pressure line AD. The magnitude of C'C in its
natural units gives the active pressure Pa.
 Join AC" and produce to meet the surface of the backfill at C. AC is the
rupture line. For the plane backfill surface, the point of application of Pa is
at a height of H/3 from the base of the wall.
Total active pressure is calculated from relation
𝑝𝑎 22′
=
𝑤 𝐴2
1 22′
𝑝𝑎 = 𝛾𝐻𝑙
2 𝐴2
1
𝑝𝑎 = 𝛾𝐻(𝐴2)
2
15 | P a g e
2.2.5 Rebhann’s Graphical Method

Rebhann (1871) presented a graphical method for the location of the slip
plane and the total active earth pressure according to coulomb’s wedge
theory
Procedure:-
 Let AB represent the back face of the wall and AD the backfill surface
 Draw BD inclined at φ with the horizontal from the heel B of the wall to
meet the backfill surface in D.
 Draw BK inclined at ψ (= α – δ) with BD, which is the ψline.
 Through A, draw AE parallel to the ψ-line to meet BD in E.
 Describe a semi-circle on BD as diameter. Erect a perpendicular to BD at E
to meet the semi-circle in F.
 With B as centre and BF as radius draw an arc to meet BD in G .
 Through G, draw a parallel to the ψ-line to meet AD in C.
 With G ascentre and GC as radius draw an arc to cut BD in L; join CL and
also draw a perpendicular CM from C on to LG. 10) BC is the required
rupture surface.
The active pressure 𝑝𝑎 is given by
16 | P a g e
1
𝑝𝑎 = 𝑘𝑎 𝛾ℎ2 = 𝛾(∆CGL)
2
1
𝑝𝑎 = 𝛾(𝐶𝐺)2 sin 𝜓
2
2.3 DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE
The dynamic response of the simplest type of retaining wall is quite

complex. For this reason it is not currently possible to analytically handle all
the aspects of seismic response of retaining walls. A common approach is to
use simplified methods to estimate the loads imposed on wall during
earthquakes and ensure the wall can withstand it. For yielding walls (wall
that can move sufficiently for the minimum active and maximum passive
pressure to be mobilized), pseudostatic approaches are used. Pseudodynamic
approaches have also been proposed later.
2.3.1 Mononobe-Okabe Pseudostatic Method (for yielding walls)

A basic pseudostatic approach known as the Mononobe- Okabe method
developed by Okabe (1926) and Mononobe and Matuso(1929).It is a direct
extension of Coulomb’s theory to pseudostatic conditions. Pseudostatic
accelerations(inertia forces) are applied to the Coulomb wedge at its centre
of gravity. This assumes that the wedge moves as a rigid body at the same
acceleration over the height. The pseudostatic lateral thrust is then obtained
from equilibrium considerations as in the original Coulomb’s theory for
static loads.
17 | P a g e
Active Pressure Case
 The forces acting on a yielding wall supporting dry cohesionless soil

are shown.
 In addition to the usual static forces, horizontal and vertical
pseudostatic inertia forces are included:
Ih= mah= ahW/g = khW
Iv= mav= avW/g = kvW
 Where ah & av are the peak ground acceleration at the wall base and
assumed to be the same throughout the height of the wall, kh & kv are
called seismic coefficients which are dimensionless.
 The total active thrust is found from equilibrium consideration in a
similar way as that in static case.
1
𝑃𝐴𝐸 = 𝐾𝐴𝐸 𝛾𝐻2 (1 − 𝑘𝑣 )
2
cos 2(𝜙 − 𝜃 − 𝛹)
𝐾𝐴𝐸 = 2
sin(𝛿+𝜙) sin(𝜙−𝛽−𝛹)
cos 𝛹 cos 2 𝜃 cos(𝛿 + 𝜃 + 𝛹) [1 + √ ]
cos(𝛿+𝜃+𝛹) cos(𝛽−𝜃)
𝐾ℎ
𝛹 = tan−1
1 − 𝐾𝑣
𝛹 ≤𝜙−𝛽
 For Example, kh may be taken between 0.1 to 0.12 for Addis Ababa
area and kv as 0.05 to 0.06 for a design earthquake return period of
475 years as per the new seismic code.
18 | P a g e
 The critical slip surface is flatter than its static counterpart

and given by

− tan(∅ − 𝛹 − 𝛽) + 𝑐 1𝐸
𝛼𝐴𝐸 = 𝜙 − 𝛹 + tan−1 [tan−1 ]
𝑐2𝐸
 where
𝑐1𝐸 = √tan( 𝜙 − 𝛹 − 𝛽)[tan(∅ − 𝛹 − 𝛽) + cot(∅ − 𝜓 − 𝜃)] [1 + tan(𝛿 + 𝜓 + 𝜃) cot((∅ − 𝜓 − 𝜃)]
𝑐2𝐸 = 1 + {tan(𝛿 + 𝜓 + 𝜃) [tan(∅ − 𝛹 − 𝛽) + cot(∅ − 𝜓 − 𝜃)]}
 The total active thrust can be split into static and dynamic
components:
PAE =PA +∆PAE
 The location of the total thrust is easily determined from moment

equilibrium in which 0.6H is suggested by Seed and Whitman(1970)
as a reasonable estimate for the location of the dynamic thrust from
the base. It often ends up , h=0.5H
𝑃𝐴 H/3 + ∆𝑃𝐴𝐸 (0.6H)

ℎ=
𝑃𝐴𝐸
[Note:- Mostly, kv=(1/2 to 2/3)kh, which results in a difference in PAE

of less than 10%. For this reason, kv can mostly be neglected in M-O
method (Seed & Whitman, 1970).]
19 | P a g e
Passive pressure case
 The forces acting are shown in the figure
1
PPE = K PE γH 2 (1 − k v )
2
 The total passive thrust is determined using the same principle and is
given by
cos 2 (𝜙 + 𝜃 − 𝛹)
𝐾𝑃𝐸 = 2
sin(𝛿+𝜙) sin(𝜙+𝛽−𝛹)
cos 𝛹 cos 2 𝜃 cos(𝛿 − 𝜃 + 𝛹) [1 + √ ]
cos(𝛿−𝜃+𝛹) cos(𝛽−𝜃)
 Where,
𝑐3𝐸 = √tan( 𝜙 − 𝛹 + 𝛽)[tan(∅ − 𝛹 + 𝛽) + cot(∅ − 𝜓 + 𝜃)] [1 + tan(𝛿 + 𝜓 − 𝜃) cot((∅ − 𝜓 + 𝜃)]
𝑐4𝐸 = 1 + {tan(𝛿 + 𝜓 − 𝜃) [tan(∅ − 𝛹 + 𝛽) + cot(∅ − 𝜓 + 𝜃)]}
 The total passive thrust can be split into the static and dynamic
component
PPE =PP +∆PPE
[Note:- The dynamic component acts in the opposite direction to the

static component, thus reducing the available passive resistance.]
20 | P a g e
2.3.2 Steedman-Zeng Method

Steedman & Zeng (1990) incorporated the dynamic behaviour of retaining
walls in whatis referred to as a pseudodynamic approach (seefigure)
 They considered a fixed base wall subjected to a harmonic

acceleration of ahsinωt.
 It is easy to note that the acceleration and mass of a differential
element is expressed
𝐻−𝑧
𝑎(𝑧, 𝑡) = 𝑎ℎ sin 𝜔 [𝑡 − ( )]
𝑣𝑠
𝛾𝐻−𝑧
𝑑𝑚(𝑧) = 𝑑𝑧
𝑔 tan 𝛼
 The total inertia force is found by integrating over the height.

 Wavelength of the shear wave is given by 𝜆 = 2𝜋𝑣𝑠 /𝜔 and 𝜁 =
𝑡 − 𝐻⁄𝑣𝑠
 For the limiting case of a rigid block, vs approaches infinity and
the above expression simplifies to M-O inertia force:
𝛾𝐻 2 𝑎ℎ 𝑎ℎ
lim (𝑄ℎ )𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = 𝑊 = 𝑘ℎ 𝑊
𝑣𝑠 →∞ 2𝑔 tan 𝛼 𝑔
21 | P a g e
 The total soil trust is obtained by considering the equilibrium of

the entire wedge. Thus summing to zero forces in the direction
perpendicular to F gives
𝑄ℎ (𝑡) cos(𝛼−∅)+𝑊 sin(𝛼−∅)
𝑃𝐴𝐸 (𝑡) =
cos(𝛿+∅−𝛼)
 The corresponding lateral pressure is obtained by differentiating

the above expression w.r.t z so that
𝜕𝑃𝐴𝐸 (𝑡)
𝑝𝐴𝐸 (𝑡) =
𝜕𝑧
𝛾𝑧 sin(𝛼−∅) 𝑘ℎ 𝛾𝑧 cos(𝛼−∅) 𝑧
= + sin[𝜔(𝑡 − )]
tan 𝛼 cos(𝛿+∅−𝛼) tan 𝛼 cos(𝛿+∅−𝛼) 𝑣𝑠
 The first linear term is time independent and is thus the usual
lateral static pressure with resultant acting at H/3 from the base.
 The second term is time dependent and hence is the dynamic
component.
 A typical example of the height-wise variation of the dynamic
pressure for kh=0.2 and H/λ=0.3 is shown in the graph in
comparison with that of M-O approach
 The location of the dynamic thrust varies with time in

accordance with ℎ𝑑 = 𝐻 −
2𝜋2 𝐻 2 cos 𝜔𝜁+2𝜋𝜆𝐻 sin 𝜔𝜁−𝜆2 (cos 𝜔𝜁−cos 𝜔𝑡)
2𝜋𝐻 cos 𝜔𝜁+𝜋𝜆(sin 𝜔𝜁−sin 𝜔𝑡)
 The variation of hd with frequency (or with H/λ=Hω/2πvs ) of
excitation is shown in the plot for kh=0.2.For low
22 | P a g e
frequency(small H/ λ), hd=H/3.For higher frequency the dynamic

thrust moves upwards
2.3.3Non Yielding Walls

 Non-yielding wallsare those that do not move sufficiently for the
full shear strength of the backfill soil to be mobilized. In
other words the minimum active and maximum passive
pressures do not develop. Such walls include massive gravity
walls on rock, basement walls braced both at the top and
bottom, rigid concrete box culvert walls.
23 | P a g e
 Wood(1973) studied the dynamic behavior of an elastic soil

enclosed between two rigid walls and showed that dynamic
amplification is negligible for low frequency excitations that are
less than half the fundamental frequency of the unrestrained
backfill (i.e f<f0/2(=vs/8H)).
 For this category, to which many practical problems belong ,
Wood suggested an elastic solution for the excitation of uniform,
constant and horizontal acceleration of amplitude ah.
 For smooth rigid walls he came up with the following
expressions for the dynamic thrust and overturning moment:
𝑎ℎ
∆𝑃𝑒𝑞 = 𝛾𝐻2 𝐹𝑝
𝑔
𝑎ℎ
∆𝑀𝑒𝑞 = 𝛾𝐻3 𝐹𝑚
𝑔
 where ah is the acceleration amplitude and Fp and Fm are

dimensionless dynamic thrust and moment factors.
 The factors are as plotted:
24 | P a g e
 The point of application follows

from the following relation:
∆𝑀𝑒𝑞
ℎ𝑒𝑞 =
∆𝑃𝑒𝑞
 Note that for large L/H ratio

the influence of one wall on
the other becomes insignificant
25 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
The conclusion of this report is summarized as follows:

1. The total earth pressure on retaining wall is summation of static earth
pressure and dynamic earth pressure.
2. The total active and passive earth pressure (static) can be evaluated
by Rankine’s Theory and Coulomb’s Theory and the point of

application of total thrust acts at height of one third of height of
retaining wall from the bottom of the wall. However, dynamic earth
pressure acts at a height approximately 0.6 times height of retaining
wall from the base of the wall.
3. The solution for the dynamic earth pressure is developed by
Mononobe (1929) and Okabe (1926). They showed that the total
dynamic active earth pressure increases with horizontal seismic
coefficient and decreases with increase in angle of shearing
resistances.
4. The analytical expression for the total active force on the retaining
wall for soil backfill considering both the horizontal and vertical
seismic coefficients are based Coulomb’s sliding wedge mechanism
of total force equilibrium.
5. The inclination of the critical failure surface with the horizontal
plane decreases with increase in horizontal seismic coefficient.
26 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1. PunamiaB.C., Jain K. Ashok. and Jain K.Arun; “Soil mechanics and
foundation”(16th edition,2015)
2. Ranjan Gopal and Rao A. S. R.; “Basic and Applied soil
mechanics” ( Revised second edition, 2005)

3. Mononobe. N (1929); “Earthquake-Proof Construction of Masonry Dams,”
proceedings. World Engineering Conference, Vol.9, pp. 274-280.

4. Shukla K.Sanjay, Gupta K.Shrawan and Sivakugan Nagaratnam; "Active
earth pressure on retaining wall for 𝑐-∅ soil backfill under seismic loading
condition", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering/
Volume 135 (5th May, 2009)
5. IS: 1893-1984;”Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures;”(fourth
revision)
27 | P a g e
28 | P a g e

IIEST Earth Pressure Project Report Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

IIEST Earth Pressure Project Report Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

IIEST: Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur-2018

BACHELOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Under the guidance of

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,SHIBPUR

HOWRAH-711103, WEST BENGAL

(Prof. Kalyan Kumar Chattopadhyay)

Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my project supervisor, Prof. Kalyan

I am also thankful to the entire faculty of professors in the Department of Civil

EARTH PRESSURE ..........................................................................................................

WHY WE SHOULD STUDY LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE .....................................................................................................7

OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................................................7

THEORIES OF EARTH PRESSURE .........................................................................................

Lateral Earth Pressure and Wall Movement ..................................................................................................... 9

i.e. mathematically, soil pressure𝛼 depth of the structure

1.2WHY WE SHOULD STUDY LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE?

Lateral Earth pressure is an important parameter for the design of bridge

It is important because it affects the consolidation behavior and strength of

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT

THEORIES OF EARTH PRESSURE

(1) Static earth pressure (Occurs due to gravity)

(2) Dynamic earth pressure (Occurs due to vibration mainly during

2.2 STATIC EARTH PRESSURE

Basically it occurs due to gravitation (weight of the backfill). So a brief

identical parameters, Coulomb wedge theory calculates less earth pressure

2.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressure and Wall Movement

The magnitude of lateral earth pressure depends on:

1.Shear strength characteristics of soil

2. Lateral strain condition

3.Pore water pressure

4.State of Equilibrium of soil

5.Wall and ground surface shape

Kp = Passive Earth Pressure

Where ,𝜑 = angle of friction

2.2.2Rankine’s Theory Of Earth Pressure

Basic equation for rankine passive earth pressure is given as 𝑝𝑝 = 𝑘𝑝 𝜎𝑣

Where, c = cohesion of soil

2.2.3 Coulomb’s Theory Of Earth Pressure

Rankine’s theory uses the theory of plasticity approach to determine the

Coulomb made the following assumptions in the development of his theory:

 The rupture surface is a plane surface

Where,∅ = angle of friction

2.2.4 Culmann's Graphical Method

 Draw ϕ -line AE at an angle ϕ to the horizontal.

Total active pressure is calculated from relation

2.2.5 Rebhann’s Graphical Method

The active pressure 𝑝𝑎 is given by

2.3 DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE

The dynamic response of the simplest type of retaining wall is quite

2.3.1 Mononobe-Okabe Pseudostatic Method (for yielding walls)

Active Pressure Case

 The forces acting on a yielding wall supporting dry cohesionless soil

 The critical slip surface is flatter than its static counterpart

𝑐1𝐸 = √tan( 𝜙 − 𝛹 − 𝛽)[tan(∅ − 𝛹 − 𝛽) + cot(∅ − 𝜓 − 𝜃)] [1 + tan(𝛿 + 𝜓 + 𝜃) cot((∅ − 𝜓 − 𝜃)]

𝑐2𝐸 = 1 + {tan(𝛿 + 𝜓 + 𝜃) [tan(∅ − 𝛹 − 𝛽) + cot(∅ − 𝜓 − 𝜃)]}

PAE =PA +∆PAE

 The location of the total thrust is easily determined from moment

𝑃𝐴 H/3 + ∆𝑃𝐴𝐸 (0.6H)

[Note:- Mostly, kv=(1/2 to 2/3)kh, which results in a difference in PAE

Passive pressure case

 The forces acting are shown in the figure

𝑐4𝐸 = 1 + {tan(𝛿 + 𝜓 − 𝜃) [tan(∅ − 𝛹 + 𝛽) + cot(∅ − 𝜓 + 𝜃)]}

[Note:- The dynamic component acts in the opposite direction to the

2.3.2 Steedman-Zeng Method

 They considered a fixed base wall subjected to a harmonic