Resultant Force of Lateral Earth Pressure

in Unstable Slopes
Dov Leshchinsky, M.ASCE1; and Fan Zhu, A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: Traditionally, resultant force of lateral earth pressure serves as the basis for design of nearly vertical walls. Conversely, slopes
are designed to be internally stable using a factor of safety approach. However, with the availability of heavy facing elements such as
gabions, steep slopes are increasingly being constructed. Steep slopes are considered to be unstable unless supported; that is, such slopes
require facings to resist lateral earth pressure. Extending Coulomb’s formulation to such slopes may not be conservative as a planar slip
surface may not be critical. Presented are the results of a formulation to find the resultant lateral force which utilizes a log spiral failure
mechanism. Unlike Caquot and Kerisel or Coulomb, the soil-facing interface friction is assumed to act on segments of vertical surface
only, thus replicating the geometry of stacked rectangular facing units. Given the batter, the backslope, the height, the interface friction,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

and the unit weight and design friction angle of the backfill, one can quickly determine the corresponding lateral earth pressure coefficient.
Formulation assuming the interface friction is acting on an imaginary surface inclined at the batter angle, essentially equivalent to
Coulomb and Caquot and Kerisel, is also presented. Its results show that for batters up to 20°, the common approach of using the Coulomb
method, including the assumed interface friction direction to coincide with the batter, yields results that are quite close to those stemming
from the log spiral analysis. Hence, use of Coulomb’s analysis for such small batters is reasonable as its formulation is simple. However,
the lateral resultant is grossly underestimated for larger batters, especially when Coulomb analysis is used.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000398
CE Database subject headings: Earth pressure; Limit equilibrium; Slope stability.
Author keywords: Coulomb; Caquot and Kerisel; Lateral earth pressure; Limit equilibrium; Slope instability.

Introduction
Design of earth structures often relies on the resultant force of
lateral earth pressure distribution. This is common in analysis of
earth retention systems where Coulomb method is used. As the
face inclination gets shallower, the planar slip surface used in
Coulomb’s force equilibrium may not be as critical as a curved
surface and therefore, it may render unconservative results. An
alternative approach to Coulomb’s is to combine an adequate
limit equilibrium approach with a curved slip surface 共e.g.,
Caquot and Kerisel 1948兲. While the basic principles of the alter-
native approach remain the same as Coulomb’s, its use is not as
straightforward as it requires extensive amount of tabulated coef-
ficients or use of computerized optimization 共i.e., maximization兲.
This paper provides an algorithm solving the moment equilib-
rium equation for a log spiral slip surface. Such a surface degen-
erates to a Coulomb’s planar surface when the slope face is near
vertical. Hence, it provides a seamless extension to Coulomb
method dealing with unstable slopes. That is, it provides the re-
sultant force carried by a retention system that is needed to main-
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Delaware, Newark, DE 19711 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: dov@
udel.edu
2
Senior Staff Engineer, Geosyntec Consultants, 1255 Roberts Blvd.
NW, Suite 200, Kennesaw, GA 30144. E-mail: gevfan@yahoo.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 4, 2010; approved on
June 3, 2010; published online on June 7, 2010. Discussion period open
until May 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 12, December 1, 2010. ©ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0241/2010/12-1655–1663/$25.00.
tain such a slope stable. It shows that the results by Caquot and
Kerisel may be unconservative since its compound slip surface
defining the “active wedge” is not as critical as a log spiral sur-
face. Implementing the presented algorithm in a computer code is
simple as it represents a closed-form solution. Furthermore, in-
structive charts, which constitute the critical solution to the log
spiral analysis, are presented in the familiar format.
The solution in this paper has direct practical significance.
Two such examples are:
• Occasionally unreinforced steep slopes are retained or stabi-
lized by heavy facing such as large gabions, large concrete
blocks, or large rocks 共rockery兲. Such facings serve, in es-
sence, as aesthetic gravity retaining walls. It is not unusual to
observe large movements of such facings, especially after rain-
fall. Precipitation does not need to saturate the retained soil; it
increases the moisture content to a point where possible appar-
ent cohesion due to soil matrix suction diminishes thus making
an apparent stable slope unstable, requiring retention by fac-
ings 共e.g., an analogous case is presented by Leshchinsky
2010兲. While these facings may appear excessive since there is
very little lateral earth pressure to resist, the loss of apparent
cohesion makes these seemingly dormant elements necessary
for stability. Proper slope stability analysis can be used in de-
sign. Alternatively, the results produced in this paper can be
used in the contexts of resultant of lateral earth pressures com-
bined with common design of gravity retaining walls to pro-
duce adequately stable facing support. That is, simple
assessment of the facing capacity to resist sliding and over-
turning, and consideration of eccentric loading effect on bear-
ing capacity can be conducted to ensure long-term stability of
the retention system.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1655

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.
Fig. 1. Equivalent face AB used to calculate Coulomb’s resultant in
National Concrete Masonry Association 共1997兲
• A second example has to do with geosynthetic-reinforced
masonry block walls. The National Concrete Masonry Asso-
ciation 共NCMA兲 design manual for segmental retaining walls
共NCMA 1997兲 utilizes Coulomb’s equation to calculate the
required force in the reinforcement while limiting the batter
to 20° 共or slope of 70°兲. One may question whether using
Coulomb’s equation without any adjustment to the actual
geometry of the stacked facing units is appropriate. To realize
the need for such adjustment, refer to Fig. 1. NCMA uses
Coulomb’s equation considering the average face batter in-
clination ␻. Such batter assumes that soil-blocks frictional
interaction occur along an interface defined by line AB. Such
an assumption implicitly considers interaction along horizontal
interfaces such as CD. However, it is questionable whether an
interface interaction can physically be achieved on nonvertical
interfaces. That is, considering a typical construction process,
block interaction with soil may develop 共if at all兲, cumula-
tively, primarily along vertical segments, such as AC, of the
blocks. Hence, NCMA’s approximation is examined to verify
whether it is practically acceptable.
The formulation and results are limited to cohesionless soil.
Extension to include cohesion is simple but generally not advis-
able in design. However, in the context of forensic or field mea-
surements, ignoring possible apparent cohesion could lead to
unconservative conclusions. In that context, the impact of appar-
ent cohesion is discussed by Leshchinsky 共2010兲 and Leshchinsky
et al. 共2010b兲. Nonetheless, it is recognized that some designers
count on apparent cohesion associated with compactable 共work-
able兲 soil that contains large amount fines. Such apparent cohe-
sion may result from soil matrix suction. To expand the
formulation to include cohesion, one should also consider poten-
tial tension cracks at the crest. That is, replace the unlikely stabi-
lizing effects of tensile stresses in the cohesive soil, developing
near the crest, with a tension crack 共e.g., Baker 1981兲. Alterna-
tively, use geosynthetic to arrest the propagation of such tension
1656 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.
Fig. 2. Notation, convention, and assumed direction of interface
friction
cracks 共e.g., see some discussion in Leshchinsky and Reinschmidt
1985兲.
Formulation
Fig. 2 shows the notation and convention used in formulating the
problem. Rather than considering reinforcement at the slip surface
as presented by Leshchinsky et al. 共2010a兲, a resultant force at the
face of the slope is introduced to render the soil mass stable 共see
Fig. 2兲. Adequate modification of the moment limit equilibrium
equation presented by Leshchinsky et al. 共2010a兲, considering a
resultant force at a prescribed elevation and inclination at the face
of the slope, is straightforward and is not shown here. Details for
deriving the moment limit equilibrium equation for a log spiral
mechanism are provided by Baker 共1981兲 and Leshchinsky and
San 共1994兲. The formulation here is limited to cohesionless soils.
Inclusion of cohesion is simple 共e.g., see Leshchinsky 1997, for
inclusion in an analogous problem兲 but may not be prudent in the
context of most designs 共e.g., see Leshchinsky 2010; Leshchinsky
et al. 2010b兲.
For the assumed direction of the resultant force due to lateral
earth pressures 共Fig. 2兲, the classical expression representing the
horizontal component of this resultant is
1 1
P = Ph = ␥H2Ka cos ␦ = ␥H2Ka_h 共1兲
2 2
where Ph = horizontal component of the resultant 关i.e., P = Ph
= Pa cos共␦兲兴 共see Fig. 2兲; ␦ = interface soil-facing friction angle;
H = height of the slope; ␥ = unit weight of the soil; Ka = lateral
earth pressure coefficient assuming that interface friction acts
along vertical surfaces only; and Ka_h = convenient parameter di-
rectly rendering the horizontal component of the resultant.
Writing the moment equilibrium about the pole of the log
spiral, 共xc , y c兲, and rearranging the terms to match the format of
Eq. 共1兲, one gets
 Ka_h = Ka cos ␦ = 再 2
H2
冕
␤1
␤2
共Ae−␺␤ cos ␤ − Ae−␺␤2 cos ␤2兲共Ae−␺␤ sin ␤兲共Ae−␺␤兲共cos ␤ − ␺ sin ␤兲d␤ − tan ␻ 冉 H
3
tan ␻ + Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 冊
−
2
冉 H 1
冊
tan ␻共Ae−␺␤1 cos ␤1 − Ae−␺␤2 cos ␤2 − H兲 Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 + tan ␻ − 2 共Ae−␺␤2 sin ␤2 − Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 − H tan ␻兲

册冎 冒
H 2 H

冋 1
⫻共Ae−␺␤1 cos ␤1 − Ae−␺␤2 cos ␤2 − H兲 ⫻ Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 + H tan ␻ + 共Ae−␺␤2 sin ␤2 − Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 − H tan ␻兲
3

关共Ae−␺␤1 cos ␤1 − D兲 + tan ␦共Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 + D tan ␻兲兴 共2兲

where ␤1 and ␤2 = polar coordinates of Points 1 and 2 共see y = y c − Ae−␺␤ cos ␤ 共3b兲
Fig. 2; Point 1 is at the origin of the Cartesian coordinates where
the slip surface emerge and Point 2 is the point where this surface where xc , y c = location of the pole of the log spiral relative to the
starts兲; A = log-spiral constant 共analogous to radius in a circle兲; Cartesian coordinate system. Considering that Point 1 is at 共0,0兲
and that Point 2 must be on the crest 共see Fig. 2兲, manipulation of
␺ = tan共␾兲 and ␾ is the design internal angle of friction; ␻
Eqs. 共3a兲 and 共3b兲 yields the following expression:
= batter 关slope face inclination is 共90° −␻兲兴; and D = height, mea-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

sured from 共0,0兲, where the resultant acts. 共1 − tan ␻ tan ␣兲

Eq. 共2兲 yields nondimensional results. It utilizes a boundary A=H
关e −␺␤1
共cos ␤1 + sin ␤1 tan ␣兲 − e−␺␤2共cos ␤2 + sin ␤2 tan ␣兲兴
condition where the critical slip surface, defining the active
共4兲
wedge, emerges at the toe. This boundary will naturally occur for
cohesionless soil. Furthermore, it is a boundary for any backfill if where ␣ = backslope angle 共Fig. 2兲.
one considers the physics of the problem. That is, while for large At this stage, Eq. 共2兲 can be solved via a simple maximization
batters and homogenous cohesive soils apparent critical surfaces process 共Leshchinsky et al. 2010a兲:
may emerge away from the slope and toe, such surfaces are mean- 1. Assume values for ␤1 and ␤2.
ingless when considering the objective of the present problem. 2. Solve Eq. 共4兲 to obtain the constant A of the log spiral.
Such surfaces do not render resultant of an active wedge on the 3. For assumed selected D共=H / 3兲, solve Eq. 共2兲 to calculate
face but rather signify rotational slide that includes the facing as Ka_h.
part of the sliding body. In fact, failure through the foundation is 4. Considering all calculated values, is max共Ka_h兲 rendered?
one of the design aspects of any retaining structure; however, it is If yes, the complete critical solution—Ka_h and its active
not related to the resultant sought in this work which, physically, wedge defined by the associated log spiral 共A , xc , y c兲—was
can be produced only when the foundation soil is competent. Of found. If not, change ␤1 and ␤2 and go to Step 2. The process
surfaces intercepting the face, only the one emerging through the is repeated for all feasible values of ␤1 and ␤2 to ascertain
toe will yield the maximum resultant force. Hence, the toe is a that max共Ka_h兲 was indeed captured.
natural critical boundary for the sought resultant of lateral earth 5. Now Ph 关Eq. 共1兲兴 can be calculated.
pressure. This numerical iterative process is analogous to finding the
One can adopt the common assumption associated with the factor of safety in slope stability analysis that is associated with a
resultant force of lateral earth pressure; i.e., the height at which circular slip surface. That is, in such analysis minimization of the
Pa 共or P兲 acts is usually taken at D = H / 3. The homogenous prob- safety factor is done by changing three parameters defining a
lem formulated here is surcharge free, having an infinite backs- circle: center 共xc , y c兲 and radius 共R兲. When circles that emerge
lope. For such problems, the procedure outlined by Perloff and only at the toe are considered, the minimization is done with
Baron 共1976兲 can be followed where multiple parallel planar sur-
faces are analyzed from the top to the bottom of the wall, at
selected small vertical spacing to render the location of the result-
ant. This procedure leads to the conclusion that the resultant acts
at D = H / 3. The critical slip surfaces considered here, however,
are log spirals. Hence, the rationale described by Perloff and
Baron 共1976兲 can be generalized and combined with a procedure
similar to that introduced by Leshchinsky 共1997兲. Consequently,
although the lateral earth pressure distribution per se is not part of
the solution, the location of its resultant can be established, con-
sistent with limit equilibrium principles, for any homogenous
problem by using multiple top-down critical log spirals which are
parallel to each other; for the present problem it yields D = H / 3.
It can be verified that the trace of the log spiral in Cartesian
coordinates, Fig. 2, can be expressed by the following parametric
equations:
Fig. 3. Resultant force components considered in classical Cou-
x = xc + Ae −␺␤
sin ␤ 共3a兲 lomb’s analysis

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1657

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

Fig. 4. Coefficient for horizontal component of resultant as function of batter 共␾ = 20°兲: 共a兲 ␦ / ␾ = 0; 共b兲 ␦ / ␾ = 1 / 3; 共c兲 ␦ / ␾ = 2 / 3; and 共d兲
␦/␾=1

respect to two parameters only—analogous to the log spiral case 1 1

here. Ph = ␥H2Ka cos共␦ − ␻兲 = ␥H2Ka_h 共5兲
2 2
To realize a formulation that is equivalent to Coulomb and to
Caquot and Kerisel in terms of inclination of interface friction,
refer first to Fig. 3. It is seen that the interface friction between
the facing and the soil is along the slope 共see also line AB in Similar to the manipulation used to derive Eq. 共2兲, one can as-
Fig. 1; it represents the average batter angle兲. Hence, the horizon- semble the following equation to yield the horizontal component,
tal component of the resultant force would be Ph, of the resultant Pa:

Ka_h = Ka cos共␦ − ␻兲 = 再 2
H2
冕
␤1
␤2
共Ae−␺␤ cos ␤ − Ae−␺␤2 cos ␤2兲共Ae−␺␤ sin ␤兲共Ae−␺␤兲共cos ␤ − ␺ sin ␤兲d␤

− tan ␻ 冉 H
3
2
H
冊 H
冉
tan ␻ + Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 − tan ␻共Ae−␺␤1 cos ␤1 − Ae−␺␤2 cos ␤2 − H兲 Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 + tan ␻
2
冊
1
− 共Ae−␺␤2 sin ␤2 − Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 − H tan ␻兲共Ae−␺␤1 cos ␤1 − Ae−␺␤2 cos ␤2 − H兲
H2

冋 1
⫻ Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 + H tan ␻ + 共Ae−␺␤2 sin ␤2 − Ae−␺␤1 sin ␤1 − H tan ␻兲
3
册冎 冒 再 cos ␦
cos共␦ − ␻兲
关共Ae−␺m␤1 cos ␤1 − D兲cos ␻

− 共Ae−␺m␤1 sin ␤1 + D tan ␻兲sin ␻ + tan ␦共Ae−␺m␤1 cos ␤1 − D兲sin ␻ + tan ␦共Ae−␺m␤1 sin ␤1 + D tan ␻兲cos ␻兴 冎 共6兲

1658 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.
Fig. 5. Coefficient for horizontal component of resultant as function of batter 共␾ = 30°兲: 共a兲 ␦ / ␾ = 0; 共b兲␦ / ␾ = 1 / 3; 共c兲 ␦ / ␾ = 2 / 3; and 共d兲
␦/␾=1
The right-hand side of Eq. 共6兲 is different from Eq. 共2兲 solely by
the denominator. That is, the denominator represents the resisting
moment generated by the resultant force that is needed to stabilize
the mass augmented by a log spiral defining the active wedge. Its
value depends on the inclination of the resultant Pa. The solution
process of Eq. 共6兲 is identical to that of Eq. 共2兲.
Results
All results are presented considering the horizontal component of
the resultant force, Ph, that is needed to render a stable retention
system. Knowing the horizontal coefficient needed to find this
resultant, Ka_h, one can easily assess the coefficient that ren-
ders the actual inclined resultant force. That is, for the modified
interface friction direction approach where the soil-block inter-
active interface is considered vertical, which motivated this
work, Ka = Ka_h / cos共␦兲 关see Eq. 共2兲 or Fig. 2兴. For a log spiral
case that is equivalent to Coulomb’s or Caquot and Kerisel’s, in a
sense that it uses the same direction of resultant, Ka
= Ka_h / cos共␦ − ␻兲 关see Eq. 共6兲 or Fig. 3兴. Typically, Ka_h is the
basic parameter used in assessing facing stability or reactive force
in reinforcement 共e.g., NCMA 1997兲; hence, Ka_h rather than Ka
is presented.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1659
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.
Figs. 4共a–d兲 show Ka−h versus the batter for design friction
angle ␾ = 20°, various backslopes, from horizontal to 18.4° 共1:3兲,
and relative interface frictions ␦ / ␾ varying from zero to one.
Note that the batter notation, ␻, commonly used in defining re-
taining walls, is adopted for the slope retention system. In the
jargon of slopes, a batter of 20° is equivalent to a slope inclination
of 共90° – 20°兲 = 70°. Similar to Fig. 4, Figs. 5共a–d兲 and 6共a–d兲 are
for ␾ = 30° and ␾ = 40°, respectively. However, the maximum
backslope angle extends to 26.6° as backfills with design strength
␾ ⬎ 26.6° enable such inclinations. One can readily calculate Ph
when combining Ka_h from these charts with Eq. 共1兲. These charts
can be considered as design charts.
As expected from slope stability analysis, for ␾ = 20° lateral
support is needed up to ␻ = 70°; for ␾ = 30°, up to ␻ = 60°; and for
␾ = 40°, up to ␻ = 50°. At ␻ = 0, the log spiral results 关Eq. 共2兲兴
degenerate to Coulomb’s or Caquot and Kerisel and the log spiral
practically turns into a planar surface. Not surprisingly, with an
increase in batter, there is a rapid decrease of Ka_h.
Differences between Coulomb’s equation and the equivalent
log spiral approach 关Eq. 共6兲兴 can be seen in Figs. 7共a and b兲. The
differences are not large when considering a batter of ␻ = 20°,
especially when the backslope is large. However, when the back-
slope is small, and ␾ and ␦ / ␾ are high, Coulomb’s results tend to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.

Fig. 6. Coefficient for horizontal component of resultant as function of batter 共␾ = 40°兲: 共a兲 ␦ / ␾ = 0; 共b兲 ␦ / ␾ = 1 / 3; 共c兲 ␦ / ␾ = 2 / 3; and 共d兲
␦/␾=1

be unconservative. The 20° batter is the traditional limit when
using Coulomb’s as its planar slip surface is considered to pro-
duce results that are significantly unconservative beyond this
limit.
Comparing the results in Fig. 7共a兲 with those in Figs. 5共a–d兲,
one realizes that generally, Ka_h stemming from Eqs. 共2兲 and 共6兲
for the log spiral are not significantly different for ␻ = 20°. Using
the same figures, one sees that the difference between Eq. 共2兲
and the traditional Coulomb’s results are somewhat larger,
especially as ␾ and ␦ / ␾ increase. As a matter of practical judg-
ment, however, for values of ␻ ⱕ 20°, it appears that the differ-
ences in Ka_h considering Coulomb’s and the modified log spiral
approach 关Eq. 共2兲兴 are not significant. Hence these comparisons
confirm that the current practice of using Coulomb’s assumption
regarding the inclination of interface friction 共Fig. 3兲 or even
Coulomb’s formulation using planar slip surface 共e.g., NCMA
1997兲 is a reasonable approximation. Such approximation simpli-
fies the calculations. However, as expected, Figs. 7共a and b兲 show
that for ␻ ⬎ 0, the log spiral mechanism, when using the same
assumption as Coulomb’s for the resultant inclination 关i.e., Fig. 3;
denoted in Fig. 7 as “Log Spiral 共Equivalent to Coulomb兲”兴 is
always more critical than Coulomb’s planar surface.
Refer to Figs. 8 and 9. One can see the traces of the criti-
cal slip surfaces using Coulomb’s and the equivalent log spiral
formulation 关Eq. 共6兲兴. In fact, these figures complement Figs. 7共a
and b兲. Generally, Coulomb’s surfaces are deeper at the crest. The
impact of ␦ on the location of critical surfaces is small.
Finally, the reader is referred to the Navy Design Manual 共De-
partment of the Navy 1982兲. It presents a chart 共Fig. 5 in DM-7.2兲
showing Ka, which easily can be translated to Ka_h, as function of
interface friction, ␦ / ␾, and batter, ␻. In fact, this chart is repro-
duced from the classical book of tables by Caquot and Kerisel
共1948兲. Caquot and Kerisel considered horizontal crest only
and used composite failure geometry of log spiral and planar
surfaces to calculate the resultant. As the batter increases, this
mechanism is more critical than Coulomb’s planner surface; i.e.,
it yields larger resultants or Ka. It is noted, however, that Caquot
and Kerisel assumed the same inclination of the resultant force
as in the classical extension of Coulomb analysis; i.e., same as in
Fig. 3 for which the equivalent log spiral formulation in this work
is presented in Eq. 共6兲. Although this paper questions whether
such resultant inclination can physically develop, an opportunity
is provided to compare the results with and Caquot and Kerisel
as well. In fact, such comparison is more relevant than compari-
son with Coulomb’s as it can be done for large batters while
considering similar, but not identical, failure mechanisms. How-
ever, because of its simplicity, Coulomb’s analysis is often used
in design thus making a comparison with it practically impor-

1660 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.
Fig. 7. Comparison of horizontal thrust coefficient using Coulomb’s
resultant inclination 关Eq. 共6兲 and Fig. 3兴: 共a兲 ␾ = 30°; 共b兲 ␾ = 40°
tant. Refer to Figs. 10共a and b兲 which are an updated version of
illustrations initially presented by Zhu 共2008兲. Caquot and
Kerisel’s results are consistently smaller than the ones produced
by the log spiral mechanism where the assumed inclination of
resultant force is the same 关i.e., Fig. 3 and Eq. 共6兲; it is denoted as
“Log Spiral 共Equivalent to Caquot and Kerisel兲” in Fig. 10兴.
Clearly, the mechanism of log spiral combined with planar sur-
face used by Caquot and Kerisel 共1948兲 is less critical than the
log spiral alone. However, without computerized means, it is
likely easier to derive numbers from Caquot and Kerisel. For
friction along vertical interfaces 关Fig. 2 and Eq. 共2兲兴, it is seen
that up to a batter of about 20° there is little difference between
Caquot and Kerisel and the approach introduced in this paper.
This is similar to the observation with respect to Coulomb’s
planar surface. However, for ␻ larger than 20°, Caquot and
Kerisel is unconservative compared with either the vertical inter-
face inclination approach or the equivalent log spiral approach.
Interestingly, when using the log spiral mechanism for ␻ ⬎ 20°
the effect of assumed resultant inclination on the calculated Ka_h
is small.
Conclusions
Presented is a limit equilibrium formulation which uses log spiral
mechanism to find the resultant lateral force needed to stabilize an
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1661
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.
Fig. 8. Slip surfaces comparison for horizontal crest: 共a兲 ␾ = 20°; 共b兲
␾ = 30°
unstable slope. This force can be reacted by facing units 共e.g.,
gabions兲 or reacted by reinforcement 共e.g., NCMA兲. In calculat-
ing the resultant, one needs to assume the soil-facing interface
friction inclination. In very steep slopes 共i.e., slope angle larger
than 70°兲, it is customary to utilize Coulomb’s equation using the
average angle of the batter as the interface along which friction
acts. Such an average inclination is physically unfeasible when
considering stacked facing units 共e.g., blocks and gabions兲. The
formulation presented enables one to consider the feasible inter-
face friction. Also, it is not limited to very steep slopes; rather, it
can produce values for any unstable, homogenous, and simple
slope.
Instructive design charts were generated. Given the batter, the
backslope, the internal angle of friction, and the soil-facing inter-
face friction, one can obtain the lateral earth pressure coefficient
to calculate the magnitude of the resultant force. These charts
consider feasible inclination of the interface friction, developing
along vertical segments, whereas the traditional approaches are
limited to interface inclined at the average imaginary angle of the
batter ␻.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.
Fig. 9. Slip surfaces comparison for inclined crest: 共a兲 ␾ = 30°; 共b兲
␾ = 40°
It was observed that up to a batter of 20°, the current custom-
ary approximation, which utilizes Coulomb’s equation, is practi-
cally accurate. It becomes somewhat unconservative when the
interface friction angle is large, especially when the internal angle
of friction is high. The well known results by Caquot and Kerisel
共1948兲, which are limited to horizontal crest but considered ap-
plicable for any batter, are, like Coulomb’s, practically accurate
up to a batter of about 20°. For larger batters, the results by
Caquot and Kerisel are significantly unconservative when com-
pared to Ka_h generated by the log spiral in this work.
Acknowledgments
The writers appreciate the assistance provided by Ms. Weiqiong
Huang in running the MATLAB software for some of the analy-
sis. The constructive comments made by the reviewers are greatly
appreciated.
1662 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.
Fig. 10. Comparison of horizontal thrust coefficient considering the
modified approach 关Eq. 共2兲 and Fig. 2兴, the log spiral’s equivalent to
Caquot and Kerisel 关Eq. 共6兲 and Fig. 3兴, and Caquot and Kerisel
共1948兲: 共a兲 ␾ = 30°, ␦ / ␾ = 0; 共b兲 ␾ = 30°, ␦ / ␾ = 2 / 3
References
Baker, R. 共1981兲. “Tensile strength, tension cracks, and stability of
slopes.” Soils Found., 21共2兲, 1–17.
Caquot, A., and Kerisel, F. 共1948兲. Tables for the calculation of passive
pressure, active pressure, and bearing capacity of foundations,
Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Department of the Navy. 共1982兲. “Foundations and earth structures.”
NAVFAC DM-7.2, Alexandria, Va.
Leshchinsky, D. 共1997兲. “Design procedure for geosynthetic reinforced
steep slopes.” Technical Rep. No. REMR-GT-23, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Leshchinsky, D. 共2010兲. “Geosynthetic reinforced walls and slopes: Is it
magic?” Geosynthet. Int., 28共3兲, 17–24.
Leshchinsky, D., Imamoglu, B., and Meehan, C. L. 共2010a兲. “Exhumed
geogrid-reinforced retaining wall.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
136共10兲, 1311–1323.
Leshchinsky, D., and Reinschmidt, A. J. 共1985兲. “Stability of membrane
reinforced slopes.” J. Geotech. Eng., 111共11兲, 1285–1300.
Leshchinsky, D., and San, K.-C. 共1994兲. “Pseudostatic seismic stability of
slopes: Design charts.” J. Geotech. Eng., 120共9兲, 1514–1532.
 Leshchinsky, D., Zhu, F., and Meehan, C. L. 共2010b兲. “Required unfac-
tored strength of geosynthetic in reinforced earth structures.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136共2兲, 281–289.
National Concrete Masonry Association 共NCMA兲. 共1997兲. Design
manual for segmental retaining walls, 2nd Ed., J. G. Collin, ed., Hern-
don, Va.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. For personal use only.
Perloff, W. H., and Baron, W. 共1976兲. Soil mechanics, principles and
applications, Wiley, New York, 600–603.
Zhu, F. 共2008兲. “Geosynthetic reinforced earth structures: Effects of fac-
ing units and force distribution functions.” MS thesis, Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Delaware, Newark, Del.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1663

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1655-1663.