Kumar, J. & Subba Rao, K. S. (1997). GeÂotechnique 47, No.

1, 185±192

TECHNICAL NOTE

Passive pressure coef®cients, critical failure surface and its kinematic

admissibility

J YA N T K U M A R  a n d K . S . S U B BA R AO {

KEYWORDS: earth pressure; failure; limit analysis; passive pressure coef®cients are available mostly
plasticity; retaining walls; sands for situations when the wall moves downwards
relative to the soil wedge.
In the present investigation, by choosing the
INTRODUCTION failure surface as a combination of a logarithmic
The determination of earth pressures on structures spiral and a straight line, as proposed by Terzaghi
is a particularly important problem in geotechnical (1943), comprehensive charts have been developed
engineering, for instance problems related to to determine the magnitudes of passive pressure
foundations, anchors and sheet piles. Estimates of coef®cients and the positions of the corresponding
the magnitudes of earth pressures in active and critical failure surface in a cohesionless back®ll
passive states are normally made by employing for `positive' (wall moving downwards relative to
methods such as limit equilibrium (Terzaghi, 1943), the back®ll, Fig. 1) as well as `negative' (wall
limit analysis (Chen, 1975) and the method of stress moving upwards relative to the back®ll) wall
characteristics (Sokolovoski, 1965). In both the friction angles. The nature of the curvature of the
limit equilibrium and the stress characteristics failure surface, which may develop as convex,
methods, solutions are obtained from considerations concave or planar, has also been examined, together
of statics and failure conditions, and the effect of with the kinematic admissibility of the failure
wall movement is not directly taken into account. mechanisms, considering normal and tangential
Using limit analysis, the solution is generally translational movements of the wall. Results have
bracketed between bounds, the limits of which are been presented with respect to variation of the
to be determined, and which incorporate the effect
of wall movement at failure. In the active case, the F
results obtained from different approaches do not w
L
G y L
differ greatly, whereas solutions for the passive J
π φ
−−− = µ
problem do vary signi®cantly with changes in the 4 2
2y0/3
assumed failure mechanism. ro
x (r1 − L)
Numerous investigators have predicted passive +β
Pp Rp
earth pressure magnitudes using a variety of +δ y0/3
methods for example Caquot and Kerisel (1948), D
φ
D/3
Hansen (1953), Jumikis (1962), Janbu (1957), B
Graham (1971), Lee & Herington (1972), Shields W −αw
E H
& Tolunay (1972), Kerisel & Absi (1990), Kumar
(a)
(1994) and Kumar and Subba Rao (1995). How-
ever, information concerning the position of the G y L
π φ
critical failure surface and its kinematic admissi- −−− =µ
4 2 2y0/3
x
bility for a speci®ed movement of the wall, which (L − r0)
is often needed not only to ®nd the passive +β Rp
y0/3
pressure magnitudes but also, equally importantly, D B
to predict the extent of the soil mass signi®cantly r0
affected by a structure, is still lacking. Also, J −δ E
µ
w
D/3 F
Pp +αw r1
Manuscript received 12 June 1995; revised manuscript H W φ
accepted 13 February 1996.
Discussion on this technical note closes 2 December (b)
1996; for further details see p. ii.
 Central Road Research Institute, India. Fig. 1. Failure mechanism for (a) convex and (b) con-
{ Indian Institute of Science. cave failure surfaces

185
186 KUMAR AND SUBBA RAO
vertical inclination â of the wall, from ÿ458 to
+458; the angle of shearing resistance ö of the soil,
from 108 to 508; and the wall friction angle ä
ranging from ÿö to +ö. The passive earth pressure
coef®cients obtained are compared with the results
of Shields & Tolunay (1972).
THE METHOD CONSIDERING ONLY STATICAL
ADMISSIBILITY
Depending on speci®ed values of â, ä and ö, in
a speci®c problem, the curvature of the failure
surfaces may be either convex, concave or planar.
This is referred to as `convex' or `concave' in
accordance with the convention shown in Figs 1(a)
and (b) respectively. The statical admissible incli-
nation of the bounding failure surface with the
wall depends on the values of â, ä and ö
prescribed. If áw is the angle which this surface
makes with the horizontal, as shown in Fig. 1, then
the statical admissible value of áw has to satisfy
the Mohr±Coulomb failure criterion for the soil
mass on this surface, and the condition that along
the surface of the wall, the ratio of shear stress to
the normal stress should be tan ä. In a manner
similar to that followed by Shields & Tolunay
(1972) for a vertical wall, it can be shown that
with an inclined retaining wall, the statical admis-
80
60
40
Concave region
20
β: degrees
−20
−40
−60
−80 .
−1 0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2
δ/φ
Fig. 2. Identi®cation of the nature of failure surfaces
sible value of áw is
áw ˆ â ÿ arcsin (sin ä=sin ö) ÿ ä=2 ‡ ì (1)
where ì ˆ 458 ÿ ö/2.
Accordingly, the nature of the curvature of the
failure surface becomes concave for áw . 458 ÿ
ö/2, planar for áw ˆ 458 ÿ ö/2 convex for áw ,
458 ÿ ö/2.
Figure 2 has been constructed on this basis to
distinguish the nature of the curvature of the fail-
ure surfaces. For points with values of â and ä/ö
lying above the curve for any speci®ed value of ö,
the failure surface is always concave, whereas for
points lying below the corresponding ö curve, the
failure surface is convex. For points lying on the ö
curves themselves, the failure surface is planar.
Whereas planar failure surface problems can be
solved simply (Coulomb's method), problems as-
sociated with curved failure surfaces necessitate
iterative numerical solutions, using limit equili-
brium methods, to locate the critical failure surface
which generates the minimum magnitude of the
passive earth pressure (Terzaghi, 1943).
CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE POSITIONS
As the failure surface has been chosen as a
combination of a logarithmic spiral and a straight
φ = 50°
40°
30°
20°
10°
0°
Convex region
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
 PASSIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS 187
line (Fig. 1), its position can be de®ned by 5
specifying the distance L between the spiral focus
and the top of the wall. For the critical failure
surfaces, L is designated as Lcr and represented by 4
a dimensionless parameter D/Lcr . The variation of
this with respect to changes in the values of â, ö φ = 50°
and ä is illustrated in Figs 3±9. For planar failure 3 φ = 40°
φ = 30°
surfaces, the value of Lcr is in®nite, D/Lcr is zero φ = 20°
and the entire failure surface becomes a continuous β = −15° φ = 10°

D/Lcr
straight line inclined at 458 ÿ ö/2 to the horizontal. 2
On the other hand, for curved failure surfaces,
D/Lcr is always greater than zero and changes in
the values of ä, ö and â affect the positions of 1
the critical failure surface signi®cantly. For given
values of ö and â, D/Lcr increases continuously
0
4 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
δ/φ

Fig. 5. Position of the critical failure surface for

β = −45° ⠈ ÿ158
3

φ = 50° 4
φ = 40°
φ = 30°
φ = 20°
2 φ = 10°
D/Lcr

1
φ = 50°
2 β=0 φ = 40°
φ = 30°
D/Lcr

φ = 20°
0 φ = 10°
−1.0 −0.5 0 .0 0.5 1.0
δ/φ
1
Fig. 3. Position of the critical failure surface for
⠈ ÿ458

0
4 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
δ/φ

Fig. 6. Position of the critical failure surface for ⠈ 0

3 φ = 50°
φ = 40° with increases in the absolute magnitude of ä/ö ÿ
φ = 30°
φ = 20° (ä/ö)p , where (ä/ö)p is the value of ä/ö for which
β = −30°
φ = 10° planar failure surfaces develop. It is noteworthy that
2 for given values of ö and â, the failure surface
D/Lcr

becomes convex for ä/ö . (ä/ö)p and concave for

ä/ö . (ä/ö)p .

1
PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
The values of the passive earth pressure coef-
®cient Kp ˆ Pp cos ä/(ãD2 /2) for the critical failure
0 surfaces are shown in Figs 10±16; Pp is the re-
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
δ/φ
sultant passive resistance, D is the vertical height
of the wall and ã is the unit weight of the soil.
Fig. 4. Position of the critical failure surface for The magnitude of Kp increases continuously
⠈ ÿ308 with increasing ä/ö from ÿ1´0 to 1´0 and
188 KUMAR AND SUBBA RAO

4 2.0

β = +45°

3 1.5

φ = 50°
φ = 50° φ = 40°
φ = 30°

D/Lcr
2 β = +15° φ = 40° 1.0
φ = 30° φ = 20°
D/Lcr

φ = 20° φ = 10°
φ = 10°

1 0.5

0 0.0
−1.0 −0.5 0 .0 0 .5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
δ/φ δ/φ
Fig. 7. Position of the critical failure surface for Fig. 9. Position of the critical failure surface for
⠈ +158 ⠈ +458

3.0
1000 φ = 50°
φ = 40°
φ = 30°
2.5 φ = 20°
φ = 10°

2.0
100 β = −45°
φ = 50°
φ = 40°
1.5 β = +30° φ = 30°
φ = 20°
Kp
D/Lcr

φ = 10°

1.0
10

0.5

0.0 1
−1.0 −0.5 0 .0 0.5 1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
δ/φ
δ/φ

Fig. 8. Position of the critical failure surface for Fig. 10. Passive earth pressure coef®cients for
⠈ +308 ⠈ ÿ458

changes signi®cantly with variation in the values of KINEMATIC ADMISSIBILITY

ö and â.
COMPARISON OF PASSIVE PRESSURE
COEFFICIENTS
In order to check the analyses, the present
results were compared with those of Shields and
Tolunay (1972) for a vertical wall with positive
wall friction angle ä. They also calculated the
magnitudes of passive earth pressure coef®cients
using Terzaghi's logarithmic spiral method but did
not report the positions of critical failure surfaces.
The Kp values obtained were all in agreement to
two decimal places.
The kinematic admissibility of any failure
mechanism can be determined by comparing the
sense of the shear stress acting on the soil±wall
interface with that of the relative movement
between the soil wedge and the wall. A failure
mechanism is kinematically admissible if the
corresponding shear stress on the soil±wall inter-
face is opposing the motion of the wall relative to
the adjoining soil wedge. From the sign convention
of ä used to obtain the statically admissible limit
equilibrium solutions, the resultant shear force on
the wall acts upwards for positive ä and down-
wards for negative ä. Accordingly, for kinematic
admissibility the wall must move downwards
 PASSIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS 189

φ = 50° φ = 50°
100 φ = 40° φ = 40°
φ = 30° φ = 30°
φ = 20° φ = 20°
φ = 10° φ = 10°
10

β = −30°
β=0

Kp
Kp

10

1
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
δ/φ δ/φ

Fig. 11. Passive earth pressure coef®cients for ⠈ Fig. 13. Passive earth pressure coef®cients for ⠈ 0
ÿ308

100

φ = 50°
φ = 40°
φ = 30° φ = 50°
φ = 20° 10 φ = 40°
φ = 10° φ = 30°
φ = 20°
φ = 10°

β = −15°
Kp

10
β = +15°
Kp

1
1

−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

δ/φ −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
δ/φ
Fig. 12. Passive earth pressure coef®cients for ⠈
ÿ158 Fig. 14. Passive earth pressure coef®cients for ⠈ +158

relative to the adjoining soil wedge for positive ä
and upwards for negative ä (Chen, 1975).
However, it should be mentioned that in the
limit equilibrium method the statical requirement
of the speci®ed values of ä along the wall may
not always be satis®ed (except for the situations
where planar failure surfaces develop) by the
critical failure surfaces, of the shape assumed,
which minimize the passive pressure magnitudes.
The statically admissible orientation of the failure
surface with respect to the wall, on the other hand,
depends on speci®ed values of â and ä (equation
(1)). From the given orientation of the failure
surface, it can be shown that the shear stress on
the wall, at its junction with the failure surface,
will act in the upward direction for áw , â + ì
and in the downward direction for áw . (â + ì).
On this basis, we see that, for the critical failure
surfaces established here, the shear stress on the
wall acts downwards for negative ä in almost all
cases except for ä/ö ( 0´13 only for cases when
â ( ÿ308, and upwards for positive ä in almost all
cases except for ä/ö ( 0´25 with â . +308. These
observations therefore indicate that for some very
small magnitudes of ä/ö, the direction of the shear
stress on the wall for our limit equilibrium
solutions becomes statically inadmissible. However,
the failure surface can always be positioned, using
190 KUMAR AND SUBBA RAO

de®ned for a general non-associated ¯ow rule

material. In contrast, for an associated ¯ow rule
material (ø ˆ ö), v01 must make an angle ä with
10 φ = 50°
φ = 40°
the wall (Murray & Geddes, 1989). For non-
φ = 30° dilatant material (i.e., soil at the critical void ratio,
φ = 20°
φ = 10° ø ˆ 0), v01 must align parallel to the wall. The
kinematic admissibility can be investigated, there-
fore, in two extreme states of the soil, namely
β = +30° ø ˆ 0 and ø ˆ ö.
Kp

To examine the kinematic admissibility normal,

upward and downward tangential translational
movements of the wall were considered. The
kinematic admissible velocity diagrams for some
1 of the cases are illustrated in Figs 17 and 18. In
these ®gures, è is the inclination of v01 with
respect to the wall, for ø ˆ ö, è ˆ ä and for
ø ˆ 0, è ˆ 0. The following points related to the
−1.0 −0.5 0 .0 0.5 1.0 kinematic admissibility were observed.
δ/φ

Fig. 15. Passive earth pressure coef®cients for ⠈ +308

Associated ¯ow rule material
For positive ä, the failure mechanisms always
β = +45°
remain kinematically admissible for normal and
downward tangential translational movements of
φ = 50° the wall. For upward tangential wall movements,
φ = 40°
φ = 30° the failure mechanisms associated with positive ä
φ = 20°
φ = 10°
are inadmissible. When ä is negative, kinematically
admissible failure mechanisms are possible only
for upward tangential wall movements, for ä/ö
values in the region between the relevant â curve
Kp

and the axes, as shown in Fig. 19. The maximum

absolute magnitudes of ä/ö beyond which the
P
A D
µ
1 β Rigid
v01 v2
v0 θ
ψ
Pp v1
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 δ
ψ C Rigid
c
δ/φ B −αw b v1 v01
θ−β
Fig. 16. Passive earth pressure coef®cients for ⠈ +458 a
v0 β
equation (1), so as to obtain not only the correct (a)
0αw+ψ

direction of the shear stress but also the prescribed

magnitude of ä along the soil±wall interface, in A
D
µ
which case the corresponding passive pressure v01 Rigid
v2
magnitudes will become greater than those quoted β ψ
here. v0 θ b c
For the given failure mechanism, the nature of Pp δ v1
C
Rigid
the relative movement between the wall and soil ψ
wedge can be identi®ed by examining the velocity αw
v1
hodographs. The wall must move in the direction B v01
speci®ed. The resultant velocity of the soil wedge
v1 along the failure surface must be inclined at an
angle ø to the failure surface for a general non- 0 v0
a
(b)
associated ¯ow rule material (Lee & Herington,
1972), where ø is the dilatancy angle of the soil. Fig. 17. Kinematically admissible failure mechanism
Inclinations of the velocity vector v01 of the soil for normal wall movement and positive ä; (a) convex
wedge relative to the wall cannot be simply failure surface; and (b) concave failure surface
 PASSIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS 191
A D +1.0
µ Inadmissible
β Rigid
v0 v01 v2 +0.8 45°
θ 30°
15°
v1 ψ 0°
−15°
Pp +0.6 −30°
δ β = −45°

δ/φ
ψ C a
B −αw Rigid θ β +0.4 β = 45°
30°
Admissible
v0 15°
0°
+0.2 −15°
v01 0 −30°
−45°
0
v1 10 20 30 40 50
c φ: degrees
αw+ψ

Fig. 20. Range of values of ä/ö associated with

(a) b kinematically admissible failure mechanism for normal
wall movement, with ä positive and ø ˆ 0
A D
µ
β Rigid kinematically inadmissible. For positive ä, failure
v0 v01
v2 mechanisms are kinematically admissible only for
ψ normal wall movements with values of ä/ö in the
−θ
−δ v C Rigid region between the relevant â curve and the axes,
ψ 1
Pp as shown in Fig. 20. As can be seen, the ad-
B −α w
a missible zone of ä/ö decreases continuously with
−θ
v01
increasing values of ö.
β
c
v0 v1

αw + ψ CONCLUSIONS
0
Using a combination of a logarithmic spiral
b and a straight line as a failure surface, comprehen-
(a) sive charts have been developed to determine the
passive earth pressure coef®cients and the positions
Fig. 18. Kinematically admissible failure mechanism of the critical failure surface for positive as well as
for (a) downward tangential wall movement with negative wall friction angles. Translational move-
positive ä and (b) upward tangential wall movement
with negative ä
ment of the wall has been examined in detail,
considering the soil as either an associated ¯ow
dilatant material or a non-dilatant material, to
−1.0 determine the kinematic admissibility of the limit
β = −45° Inadmissible equilibrium solutions.
−30°
−0.8 −15°
0° +15°
−0.6 +30°
+45° ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
δ/φ

The authors express their gratitude to the referee

−0.4
−0.2
0
10 20
φ: degrees
Fig. 19. Range of ä/ö associated with kinematically
admissible failure mechanisms for upward tangential
wall movement, with ä negative and ø ˆ ö
failure mechanism becomes kinematically inadmis-
sible decreases continuously with increases in both
â and ö.
Non-dilatant material
In all cases of a non-dilatant material, the
failure mechanisms associated with negative ä are
for useful comments concerning the kinematic ad-
missibility of the solutions.
Admissible
30 40 50 REFERENCES
Caquot, A. & Kerisel, L. (1948). Traite de mecanique des
sols. Paris: Gauthier Villars.
Chen, W. F. (1969). Soil mechanics and theorems of limit
analysis. J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engng Div., ASCE
95, SM2, 493±518.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity. In
Developments in geotechnical engineering. Amster-
dam: Elsevier.
Graham, J. (1971). Calculation of passive pressure in
sand. Can. Geotech. J. 8, 566±578.
Hansen, B. J. (1953). Earth pressure calculation. Copen-
hagen: Danish Technical Press.
Janbu, N. (1957). Earth pressure and bearing capacity
calculations by generalized method of slices. Proc.
192 KUMAR AND SUBBA RAO
4th Int. Conf. Soil. Mech. Found. Engng, London,
Vol II, pp. 207±213.
Jumikis, A. R. (1962). Active and passive earth pressure
coef®cient tables. Eng. Research Publ. No. 43,
Rutgers University.
Kerisel, J. & Absi, E. (1990). Active and passive earth
pressure tables. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Kumar, J. (1994). Theoretical analyses of anchor pull-out
capacity and associated earth pressure problems.
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, PhD thesis.
Kumar, J. & Subba Rao, K. S. (1995). Passive pressure
determinations by method of slices. Submitted to
Int. J. Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geo-
mechanics.
Lee, I. K. and Herington, J. R. (1972). A theoretical
study of the pressure acting on a rigid wall by a
sloping earth or rock®ll. GeÂotechnique 22, No. 1,
1±27.
Murray, E. J. & Geddes, J. D. (1989). Resistance of
passive inclined anchors in cohesionless medium.
GeÂotechnique 39, No. 3, 417±431.
Shields, D. H. & Tolunay, Z. A. (1972). Passive pressure
coef®cients for sand. Can. Geotech. J. 9, 501±503.
Shields, D. H. & Tolunay, Z. A. (1972). Passive pressure
coef®cients by method of slices. J. Soil Mech. and
Found. Engng Div., ASCE 99, No. 12, 1043±1053.
Sokolovoski, V. V. (1965). Statics of granular media.
London: Pergamon.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. New
York: Wiley.