# Active Earth Pressure on Inclined Retaining Walls in Static and PseudoStatic Conditions

Received: May 2009 Accepted: April 2010

Keywords: Active earth pressure, inclined retaining wall, Horizontal Slices Method, Limit equilibrium, Pseudo-static seismic coefficient

1. Introduction Inclined retaining walls are employed in many engineering projects such as spillway of dams or costal structures. The value of active earth pressure has direct relation to the angle of wall. It means by reduction of inclination angle from vertical state the value of active earth pressure will decrease. Pressure distribution along wall, critical angle of failure wedge and the application point of resultant force are all dependants on the slope of wall. However only a few analytical solutions has been reported in design coeds or published researches for calculating the active earth pressure which is usually smaller in inclined walls than vertical walls. Using analytical relations based on equilibrium of forces and moments in a failure wedge, characteristics of active earth pressure in static and pseudo-static conditions for inclined walls is investigated in this research. Recent studies of geotechnical structures include experimental studies, numerical analysis and analytical models [1-4]. For many decades, the seismic analysis of retaining walls has been
* 1 Corresponding author. Email: Ghanbari@tmu.ac.ir Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Moallem University, No. 49 Mofatteh Ave., Tehran, I.R. Iran

performed by a simple extension of coulomb’s limit-equilibrium technique widely known as the Mononobe and Matsuo [5] and Okabe [6] procedure (M-O method). This technique is an extension of coulomb’s method in static conditions for calculating the earth pressure by considering equilibrium of triangular failure wedge. Based on M-O method, Zarrabi-Kashani [7] proposed a formulation for determining the angle of critical wedge in seismic conditions. Several researchers have studied the problem of earthquake induced lateral earth pressure from various points of view for example Mononobe and Matsuo [5] by considering the Coulomb’s mechanism, Morison and Ebeling [8] by applying the limit equilibrium concept with logarithmic spiral failure surface, Soubra [9] by using upper bound limit analysis, Chen [10] with LRFD method, Kumar [11] and Kumar and Chitikela [12], Cheng [13] by employing the slip line method and Yang and Yin [14] by applying limit analysis method and with nonlinear failure criterion. Considering the effects of both horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients, Choudhury and Nimbalkar [15] investigated the temporal effect and phase change in shear and primary waves propagating through the backfill behind a rigid wall. Mylonakis et al. [16] suggested another solution based on theory of plasticity for calculation of gravitational and

Ar

ch

ive

of

SI

D

Abstract: Inclined retaining walls with slopes less than perpendicular are appropriate candidates in several engineering problems. Yet, to the knowledge of authors, only a few analytical solution for calculation of active earth pressure on such walls, which will be usually smaller than the same pressure on vertical ones, has been presented neither in research papers nor in design codes. Considering limit equilibrium concept in current research, a new formulation is proposed for determination of active earth pressure, angle of failure wedge and application point of resultant force for inclined walls. Necessary parameters are extracted assuming the pseudo-static seismic coefficient to be valid in earthquake conditions. Moreover, based on Horizontal Slices Method (HSM) a new formulation is obtained for determining the characteristics of inclined walls in granular and or frictional cohesive soils. Findings of present analysis are then compared with results from other available methods in similar conditions and this way, the validity of proposed methods has been proved. Finally according to the results of this research, a simplified relation for considering the effect of slope in reduction of active earth pressure and change in failure wedge in inclined retaining walls has been proposed.

159

www.SID.ir

The further equation is constructed based on the fact that maximum active earth pressure is caused within the failure wedge and thus makes the value of ∂ β ∂ P being equal to zero. (4) and (5): F h = K hW ch Kv = αv g (3) F v = K vW . [17] have examined the economic optimization of reinforced concrete earthretaining walls used in road construction. 2. two new formulas for inclined retaining walls are presented. 1.of ∑ W = ae earthquake-induced earth pressure on gravity walls with retaining cohesionless soil. No. June 2010 www. in horizontal and vertical directions. Overcoming some limitations in previous methods. Equations and unknowns for an inclined retaining wall with unreinforced frictional backfill Unknowns Number Equations Number Substituting equation (5) into equations (1) and (2). Modifying equations and unknowns of Horizontal Slices Method [18-23] the later formula is a new approach for calculation of static and seismic active earth pressure behind inclined retaining walls with cohesive-frictional backfill. in both of mentioned procedures an attempt has been done to investigate the problem of inclined retaining walls which has not been specifically dealt up to now. (1) − F h + F sin ϕ cos β − F cos ϕ sin β = 0 F y = 0 ⇒ P ae sin δ cos θ − P ae cos δ sin θ + F v − W + F sin ϕ sin β + F cos ϕ cos β = 0 (2) In order to find analytical relations for calculating the active earth pressure acting on an inclined wall. In this paper.ir . Limit equilibrium method for cohesionless soils Fig. In the Fig. β is defined as the ive Horizontal and vertical forces as well as the weight of failure wedge can be calculated with equations (3). applied forces on failure wedge are assumed as illustrated in Fig. Vol. applied force on the wall will be determined as follows: K h W cos( β − ϕ ) K v W sin( β − ϕ ) − + cos( θ − δ − ϕ + β ) cos( θ − δ − ϕ + β ) W sin( β − ϕ ) cos( θ − δ − ϕ + β ) Pae F 1 1 ∑F ∑F ∂β (β ) = x =0 =0 =0 (6) 1 1 y β 1 ∂ Pae 1 Equation (6) is consisted of three terms. 2. in addition of an extra relation. 1. The equations and unknowns are noted in Table 1. SI ∑F x Equilibrium equations are resulted as follows: = 0 ⇒ Pae cos δ cos θ + Pae sin δ sin θ − D . Yepes et al. Equilibrium of forces in hypothetical failure wedge angle of failure wedge with horizon.SID. The former is based on limit equilibrium concept for cohesionless backfills. there will be three unknowns in depicted system which can be determined by solving two equilibrium equations of forces.8. 1. The simulated annealing algorithm was the proposed method to optimize walls. When being considered for a granular soil. Ar Kh = αh g (4) ae 1 γH 2 2 cos( θ + α ) cos( θ + β ) cos 2 (θ ) sin( β − α ) (5) Table 1. First 160 International Journal of Civil Engineering.

critical angle of wedge can be calculated with equation (11): − C ( K h ) + AB ± (1 + CK h )( A − K h )( 1 + AB )( B − C ) C + ABC − B − BC ( K h ) (11) P ae = 1 γH 2 K 2 where coefficients of A.ir . Angle of failure wedge versus angle of inclination for different internal friction angles ch of (10) Solving equation (10) with trial and error will result in critical angle of wedge. Using equation (11). Midterm is related to the earthquake’s vertical force and the last term. Substitution of wedge’s weight in equation 6 leads to following relations for calculating the applied force on an inclined wall: P ae ( β ) = 1 γH 2 2 defined as follows: A = sin( θ + β ) B = sin( β − α ) C = sin( θ − δ − ϕ + β ) D = K h cos( β − ϕ ) + (1 − K v ) sin( β − ϕ ) cos( θ + α ) cos( θ + β ) sin( β − ϕ ) cos 2 (θ ) sin( β − α ) cos( θ − δ − ϕ + β ) (7) E = K h sin( ϕ − β ) + (1 − K v ) cos( β − ϕ ) Kh   + (1 − K v )   )  tan( β − ϕ )  K ae (β ) = cos (8) β = φ + Arc tan D cos( θ + α ) cos( θ + β ) sin( β − ϕ ) 2 (θ ) sin( β − α ) cos( θ − δ − ϕ + β ) Neglecting the vertical component of earthquake’s force. 2. Ghanbari and M. B. in the left. B and C are defined as follows: (9) A = tan(φ − α ) ae ADB 1 − C 2 + D 1 − A 2 B 2 C 2 − DCB 1 − A 2 − E − EB 1 − A 2 C 2 = 0 ive where coefficients of A. C. shows the effect of seismic horizontal force. considers the static force due to weight of failure wedge. D and E are A. In this figure. Ahmadabadi Ar Fig.one. linear relation between β and θ is SI B = tan(φ + θ ) C = tan(θ − δ ) Kh   + (1 − K v )   )  tan( β − ϕ )  161 www.SID. 2 for different friction angles. in the right. angle of failure wedge against β (inclination slope of the wall) is plotted in Fig.

Vol.distinguished with satisfactory precision in ordinary conditions.7 D (13) ive Kh=0.3 0. Degree) Fig.15 0. No. June 2010 www. 4.35 Ar 0.61φ+37. α=0 Seismic active earth pressure coefficient (Kae) 0.0017φ+0. 2.25 0.05 Kh=0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Inclination angle of wall (θ. 3.05 H=10 m. As can be observed in this figure. φ=30ο. δ=2φ/3. active earth pressure versus angle of inclination for different internal friction angles is plotted in Fig. Seismic active earth pressure versus angle of inclination for different pseudo-static acceleration coefficients 162 International Journal of Civil Engineering.15 Kh=0.4 Using equation 11. an increase in the slope of wall causes ch Kh=0.1 0. Active earth pressure against angle of inclination for different internal friction angles SI c1=0.1 where β and θ are in degrees and C1 and C2 are calculated by following simplified equation: 0.2 Fig. β=c1θ+c2 of (12) Kh=0. 3.SID.36 c2=0.2 0.8.ir .

following relations are suggested for calculating Ka and Kae as functions of inclination angle of wall ( θ ). Ahmadabadi of SI 39 41 163 www.15 kh=. (14) (15) Ratio of pseudo-static acceleration coefficient belonging to vertical and horizontal direction for a wall with 20 degree of inclination is plotted in Fig.15 kh=0.ir . 4 also shows seismic active earth pressure versus slope of the wall for different internal friction angles. δ=2φ/3 0. This figure shows that with increase in mentioned ratio the value of Kae increases so that in a constant ratio for all accelerations ration. Ghanbari and M.25 0. Variation of Kae versus internal friction angle for a wall with 10 degrees of inclination is plotted in Fig.0. λ and λ e are angles of backfill soil at natural stability in static and seismic conditions.1 kh=0. 5. Complete formulation of HSM has been developed by Nouri et al. Fig. 6 shows the increase in Kae with increase in horizontal pseudo-static acceleration coefficient. Non-linear trend in the same condition will be shown further when Horizontal Slices Method is employed as a new approach for calculation of active earth pressure. 7. Since these charts demonstrate the linear variation of mentioned parameters. 3. This linear response is caused by limit equilibrium assumptions.45 o θ=10 . Ar ive the reduction of active earth pressure coefficient in static conditions.3 0.2 0. α=0. 8. respectively. Azad A. [18]. in all of which linear increase of pressure by increase in depth of wall can be observed. Horizontal Slices Method (HSM) for Cohesive Frictional Backfills The slices method was originally employed for estimation of slope stability. Kae against internal friction angle for different pseudo-static coefficients K ae = ( K ae ) V { 1 − θ / λe } ch K ae = ( K ae ) V { 1 − θ / λ} where (Ka )v and (Kae )v are active earth pressures for a vertical wall in static and seismic conditions. Fig.21].05 kh=0. The influence of vertical and horizontal acceleration coefficients on active earth pressure of an inclined wall is shown in Fig.1 25 27 29 31 33 D 35 37 Angle of internal friction (Degrees) Fig. Another solution has also been introduced by Shahgholi et al.4 0.5 Seismic active earth pressure coefficient (kae) 0.2 0. Also. Seismic acceleration coefficient at different elevations in a structure can be addressed by this method. [19.SID.35 0. the general trend of variations can be assumed as linear with high degree of accuracy in practical applications. The most conventional technique for such estimation is vertical slices method. 5 which shows that by increase in the slope of wall active earth pressure reduces with approximate linear trend. As can be observed in this figure.

Fig. Variation of Kae versus horizontal seismic coefficient (Kh) for different Kv/Kh ratio ch et al. Shekarian et al. [20]. 7. based on Horizontal Slices Method.8. Distribution of seismic active earth pressure and the application point of resultant force can both be handled by HSM. The backfill soil has been divided into n horizontal slices for International Journal of Civil Engineering. 6. Vol. 2. 9. This section deals with a new formulation. for studying the applied pressure on inclined walls.SID. and Shekarian and Ghanbari [23] contributed the concept of HSM within the framework of pseudo-dynamic and pseudo-static methods to calculate seismic active earth pressure on retaining walls. an inclined retaining wall is considered as illustrated in Fig. For this purpose. No. Comparison of results obtained from this formulation with the method explained in previous section and also with other formulas reported in literature has been carried out. Variation of Kae versus different horizontal acceleration coefficients (Kh) Ar 164 Fig. [22]. June 2010 ive of www.ir SI D .

8.Fig.ir . Diagram of forces in ith slice and their distance from the point of rotation 165 www. Division of failure wedge into horizontal slices for an inclined retaining wall ch X 1 i +1 = tan (β j = i +1 ∑ n hj ) A. the distances shown in Fig. 10. Ghanbari and M. 10. Pressure distribution along an inclined wall for different horizontal acceleration coefficients SI hi = H n X 1i = D (16) of ive X 2i Considering geometrical principles.SID. 9. Having n slices. 10 will be determined as follows: ∑ n hj tan (B ) j =1 (17) )   n =  ∑ hj  tan (θ j = i   (18) (19) (20) Fig. it can be written: X 3i = h (i ) tan β Fig. Ahmadabadi Ar all of which the free diagram is plotted as can be observed in Fig.

• Ni force acts on the midpoint of each slice’s base. In the Fig. 11.5 ( X 3i + X h iγ 4 i )} i (23) • In order to determine Vi and Vi+1.8. Equilibrium equations are as follows: → H − H − F + S cos β − (30) ∑ F =0  x i i +1 h i ch ive N i sin β + P i cos δ cos θ + P i sin δ sin θ = 0 166 International Journal of Civil Engineering.SID. • Failure surface is assumed to pass through the heel of wall. June 2010 www.ir . shown in Table 2. Vol. 2. • Horizontal inter-slice force is ignored (Hi=Hi-1) in all of formulas. • Proposed method will be applicable only for homogeneous soils. X and Z are the horizontal distance from the coordinate center and depth of the point considered. the relation proposed by Segrestin [24] has been applied: V i = γ z i ⋅ tanh( au + b ) (24) a = 2 tan( Ar π 2 − θ ) ⋅ log( K Above equation yields more accurate results for inclined masses than the general relation of σv= γh. • Failure surface is considered to be plane. respectively. There are 4n equations and 4n unknowns. Parameters a. Outline of equations and unknowns an inclined retaining wall withcohesive–frictional cohesive–frictional backfill Outline of equations and unknowns for an for inclined retaining wall with backfill Unknowns Number Equations Number Hi Inter-slice shear force n n n ∑F ∑F x =0 =0 =0 n n n For each slice y Ni Normal forces at base of each slice For each slice Si Shear forces at base of each slice ∑M o Pi Net force on wall = h (i ) tan θ n For each slice Si=Ni(tanφ+cli) For each slice n SI K b X 4i (21) x3i x4 − − 4 4 D   =   cos( θ ) +   sin( π 2 − θ − ϕ ) X G i x1 i x2 = + 2 2 i i (22) cos( θ ) cos(    π  − θ − ϕ ) sin ϕ  2  2 (28) of a Weight of each slice can be calculated with equation (23): W i K = tan 2 ( 45 − ϕ 2 ) (29) The following assumptions have been made: = {( X 1 i − X 2i − X 3i ) + 0 . which solving them determines the active earth pressure on an inclined retaining wall. • Analysis is done on the basis of limit equilibrium concept.Table 2. b and u can be determined with following equations: 2K a + K ) b (25) a b = (log K K a a + Kα )/2 − Kα (26) ui = xj zi (27) Application point of vertical inter-slice force is the center of pressure in stress distribution pattern of that slice. No. • Pi force acts on the midpoint along the height of each slice.

Vertical stress distribution on horizontal surfaces + N i cos β − P i cos δ sin θ + P i sin δ cos θ = 0  N  →−Vi XVi +Vi+1 XVi+1 + (Fh −Wi )XGi + Fh + i ∑Mo = 0  sinβ i  − i n n δ  n P hi  i cos  ×  ∑hj +  + Hi+1 ∑hj − Hi ∑hj = 0 cos θ  j=i+1 2  j=i+1 j=i (31) SI l i = h i / sin β P = Fig. 12. 13.ir . Stress distribution driven by earthquake D (34) Having Pi for each slice. Ahmadabadi Ar Fig. Stress distribution for different horizontal pseudo-static acceleration coefficients ch ive Where c is cohesion strength of soil and li can be calculated as follow: ∑ n Pi i =1 (35) 167 www. resultant force (P) will be achieved by following equation: ∑ F y = 0   → − V i + V i + + F v − W i + S i sin β + (31) S i = [N i tan φ + Cl i ] of (33) A. Ghanbari and M. 11.Fig.SID.

438 .526 .297 v = 0. the point of application of the pressure always shifts to the lower two-thirds of the wall height.08 Ka 0. No.398 .361 .453 .647 .380 .ir . the pressure on the wall and angle of failure wedge have been calculated based on the difference in inclination angle of wall and seismic coefficient (Kh) in Figs.84 3. Curves are of similar shape and as can be observed in this figure pressure increases by increase in seismic coefficient in nonlinear order. Comparison of two proposed methods for calculation of earthquake-induced pressure LEM: Proposed Method (Based on Limit equilibrium) HSM: Proposed Method (Horizontal slice method) γ = 20 kN / m 3 .366 . c = 0 .05 3. 2.235 0.525 .76 HSM LEM 10 HSM Table 4.511 . K v = 0 . α = 0 o .366 LEM .539 .306 Kh=0.δ = 2 Chang .356 0.438 .397 .203 0.2 HSM M-O .629 .656 .30 Ka 0.230 β 48 47.33 2.4 52 50.256 0. Also.7 Zc 3.454 Chang .454 Kh=0.346 .33 2. 15 and 16.440 .θ = 0 Kh=0. 12 is determined based on proposed formulation which has the basis of Horizontal Slices Method.33 1. Comparison of results for calculation of active earth pressure coefficient α = 0o. Vol.330 . φ = 30 o θ LEM 20 Kh= 0 Ka 0.180 0.279 3 φ . Comparison of the Results Two methods have been proposed for calculating the angle of failure wedge and active pressure in inclined retaining walls.268 Kh=. This method yields to nonlinear distribution.05 HSM M-O .330 Chang .362 . June 2010 www.7 42 42 Zc 3. δ = 2 φ / 3 .7 47 46. Chang : Chang(2003) Kh=0 HSM M-O .479 .33 1.174 0. application point of resultant force can be determined as follows: + z c = ∑ Ar n s( δ + θ ) × z c { p i i=1 × [∑ h j=i a n j + hi ]} 2 p Pressure distribution along the wall being shown in Fig. Fig. Investigation of results reveals the equality between angle of failure wedge estimated by both International Journal of Civil Engineering.645 .48 Ka 0.299 .296 0.7 Zc 3.647 .516 . 4.K Φ 20 25 30 LEM . Nonlinear pressure distribution due to increase in slope of the wall is obvious in this figure. Results obtained form these two methods for determining angle of failure wedge.1 HSM M-O . 13.438 .8.539 .478 .7 Zc 3.216 0.361 .262 0.33 2.297 D LEM .438 .397 . According to the proposed method.6 50 48.426 .479 .526 .344 LEM: Proposed Method (Based on Limit equilibrium) HSM: Proposed Method (Horizontal slice method) M-O: Mononobe-Okabe(1929) Zarabi-Kashani(1979).377 0.400 Kh=0.312 0.33 1.2 β 39 39.330 LEM .232 0. c = 0.539 . 14 demonstrates the pressure distribution determined by Horizontal 168 of (31) (37) Slices Method for different angles of inclination. active pressure coefficient and depth of tensile cracks are shown in Table 3 for a wall with height of 10 meters.438 .SID.69 3.419 .Table 3.33 2.05 β 46 45. Pressure distribution for different horizontal seismic coefficients is illustrated in Fig.1 β 44 43.310 SI Kh=0.33 2.426 ive hi ]} = p a cos( 2 ∑ n i =1 { p i cos( δ + θ ) × [ ∑ h j=i ch n j According to stress distribution along the wall.366 Chang .49 3.

In literature. Ghanbari and M.Fig. This difference arises from assuming the stress distribution to be linear in limit equilibrium method. no complete analytical solution has been observed by authors for determination of active earth pressure on inclined walls. Nonlinear distribution of stress will be accepted in Horizontal Slices Method. by increase in θ the difference between estimated values for active pressure coefficient of a soil diverges. However. 14.SID. of SI D 169 www. Stress distribution for different inclination angles A. obtained results have been compared with findings reported by previous researchers for vertical walls retaining granular and cohesive-frictional soils. Ahmadabadi Ar Fig. 15.ir . Various relations have been proposed for calculating the active earth pressure on vertical walls in static and pseudo-static conditions. In order to study the validity of suggested relations in present research. Change in Kae by inclination angle of wall for different Kh ch ive methods.

1) significant difference is observed between results of Cheng [13] method with others.θ = 0 Kh=0. Comparison of results for calculation of angle of failure wedge ive 3 φ . While for seismic coefficients less than 0. thus forming a curvilinear failure surface.0 HSM Z-K 49.1 33.6 46.3 41. his results showed that for sloping cohesive backfill the slope of the surface is a function of overburden pressure and becomes shallower with depth. Das and Puri [25] developed a modified method for calculating the static and seismic earth pressure behind a rigid wall by considering the cohesion between soil and wall. Granular Soils Ar α = 0o.5 53. maximum difference in mentioned methods has been about 2 degrees within the range of ordinary seismic coefficients.5 Chang 43.8. 25.4 44. all of them provide the same and agreeable results. 17 illustrates estimations of failure wedge’s angle by Zarabi-Kashani [7] which is been compared with results of proposed method (HSM) for a vertical wall.1 53. c = 0.05 HSM Z-K 47.1. 26. Studying these results shows pronounced harmony between predictions of different methods in all of cases. Change in angle of failure wedge by inclination angle of wall for different Kh D www. Cheng [13] suggested International Journal of Civil Engineering.9 50 52.9 55.δ = 2 Kh=0.9 50.10 (Kh>0.0 47 51 LEM 33 39 44 Kh=0.ir .K LEM 50 53 55 v Seismic pressure coefficients obtained by Mononobe-Okabe [5.SID. Unlike Rankine’s method [28].4 Chang 47 50 53 LEM 43 47 51 Kh=0. As can be observed. No. Fig. Vol.1 Chang 33 39 44 LEM 47 50 53 Φ=20 Φ=25 Φ=30 170 of Recent studies have been contributed to solve the problem of active earth pressure on retaining walls with cohesive backfill [13.9 53 56. June 2010 SI Fig. 4.1).1 HSM Z-K 43.10 (Kh<0.4 39.8 47. 2.7 46.6 50.9 42.4.0 Chang 50 53 56 Table 5.2 HSM Z-K 36.2.27]. Estimations of various methods from the failure wedge’s angle for a vertical retaining wall is indicated in Table 5. Cohesive-Frictional Soils LEM: Proposed Method (Based on Limit equilibrium) HSM: Proposed Method (Horizontal slice method) Z-K: Zarabi-Kashani(1979) Chang : Chang(2003) ch = 0. Investigation of these methods shows that for Kh being greater than 0. 16.8 50.6] and Cheng [13] methods is indicated in Table 4 for a vertical wall with height of 10 meters and are compared with values resulted from two proposed methods in current research. Gnanapragasam [26] proposed an analytical solution to determine the lateral active earth pressure distribution on a retaining wall with cohesive backfill.7 46.1 50.

1 47.2 Chang 580 40.6 301 45. γ = 20 KN / m 2 K h = 0.4 433 42.7 348 43.6 49. Ghanbari and M.6 0 β Pa 10 β Pa 20 β A.1 46.1 46.15 C (kN/m ) 2 of Chang 513 43 380 47 253 49 HSM 521 43. Results indicate that different methods have been in good agreement and therefore suggested formulation provides reliable predictions for vertical walls.SID.1 K h = 0.4 ch α = 0 o .3 approach based on Horizontal Slices Method for cohesive-frictional soils with techniques of Das and Puri [25] and Cheng [13].05 K h .7 HSM 580 40.7 D-P Chang 440 51 313 53 187 54 D K h = 0.ir .6 337 48. CONCLUSION Active earth pressure on inclined walls is smaller in comparison with vertical ones and thus designing an inclined retaining wall will not be economical by methods originally developed for vertical walls.6 190 50.1 356 42.9 44 297.8 Pa 443 50 314 50. the critical value of this coincidental coefficient is smaller than active earth pressure coefficient owing to the effect of the cohesive strength of the soil. Their results showed that for any value of this coefficient.8 D-P 523 47 382 345 45.0 K h = 0.Fig. Lack of analytical solution for SI D-P 577 38.5 Chang 446 47 339 49 215 51 HSM 460 42.4 205 49.7 Chang 632 34 479 40 340 44 HSM 638 36.1 489 39. K v = 0.6 190 53. φ = 20.9 44 297. the active earth pressure converges to Rankine’s solution when the radius is sufficiently large compared to the depth of wall. Ahmadabadi 171 www. 17. For cohesive frictional soils.1 482 39.θ = 0. Table 6 compares the results of suggested ive HSM 446 51 318 52. Comparison of proposed method with Zarabi-Kashani (1979) method for calculating the angle of failure wedge in seismic conditions Table 6.9 385 46.3 432. Liu at al. δ = 2 3 φ .2 D-P 643 33.05 K h = 0. Comparison of results obtained from present method and solutions of Das and Puri (1996) and Chang (2003) HSM: Proposed Method (Horizontal slice method) Chang : Chang (2003) D-P: Das and Puri (1996) Ar rotation of axis for solving slip line equations to determine lateral earth pressure under general conditions. H = 10m. [27] proposed a general tangential stress coefficient to replace the Haar and Von Karman hypothesis in calculating active earth pressures.3 432.35 251 218 51.9 254 49.7 D-P 447 46. 5.

7.. 12. Hydraulic Conductivity. investigation of results shows that active earth pressure (Ka) and seismic active pressure coefficient (Kae) both increase linearly with increase in slope of retaining wall.. Vol. Naeini. pp 124-130. Vol. Vol. Shrinkage Limit and Desiccation Cracking of Clays". Ebeling RM. M. pp 793–808. simplified formulation has been presented which allows calculation of active earth pressure for an inclined wall by having active earth pressure of a vertical wall coupled with its natural angle of stability.calculating active earth pressure on an inclined wall motivated the authors to present a new formulation based on limit equilibrium concept for a single failure wedge mechanism. A. S. 481–487. (2009) "Study on Pullout Behavior of Uniaxial HDPE Geogrids under Monotonic and Cyclic Loads". 6. No. 2. Civil Engineering. Abdi. [3] [4] [5] ive Ar ch REFERENCES [1] Nayeri. (2009) "Clay Reinforcement Using Geogrid Embedded In Thin Layers of Sand". K. Arjomand. In: Proceeding of the World Engineering Congress. 1. (2009) "Effect of Plasticity Index and Reinforcement on the CBR Value of Soft Clay".ir . International Journal of Civil Engineering. 7. Vol. MA. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. R. Ziaie_Moayed. M. (2000) "Static and seismic passive earth pressure coefficients on rigid retaining structures". 2. No. International Journal of Civil Engineering. K. (1979) "Sliding of gravity retaining wall during earthquakes considering vertical accelerations and changing inclination of failure surface". (2008) "Effects of Random Fiber Inclusion on Consolidation. Vol. On the other hand. Morrison Jr EE. 179–87. J.. Okabe. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. No.SID. Soubra AH. S. No. In the light of what was mentioned. Japan Soc. (2000) "Practical analysis and design of mechanically-stabilized earth walls—I. Engineering Structures. 4 pp 284-292. Swelling. in natural stability angle of slope. pp 463–478. Arjomand. R. Fakharian. Parsapajouh. No.. Presented method in this research based on limit equilibrium concept has advantages of taking into account the effect of inclination on properties of active earth pressure and also on failure wedge’s angle as well as considering the effect of cohesion and friction simultaneously. 32. M. Vol.. June 2010 SI D www.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Matsuo H. Sadrnejad. R. these two coefficients will be equal to zero. International Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. S. pp. A. This aim has been achieved by dividing the failure wedge into horizontal slices and writing equilibrium equations for all of them. A.8. A. A. M. 172 of [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Chen Y. In order to assess the validity of relations. Findings of current research show that active earth pressure’s distribution on inclined walls is of nonlinear pattern in contrast with vertical walls and hence application point of resultant force on an inclined wall is located in elevation less than one third of the height of wall being measured from its heel. International Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. pp 212-223. Finally. (1929) "On the determination of earth pressure during earthquakes". (1995) "Limit equilibrium computation of dynamic passive earth pressure". Cambridge. 22. A. Vol. Mononobe N. Department of Civil Engineering. [2] Abdi. Zarrabi-Kashani. Vol. Results show the linear relation between failure wedge and slope of the wall hence simplified linear relation for its calculation has been suggested. No. Ms thesis. 4. 37. comparison of results has been performed between previous methods for vertical walls and suggested approach in this paper which shows the applicability of formulation. 4 pp 224-235. Design philosophies and procedures". (1926) "General Theory of Earth Pressures". International Journal of Civil Engineering. pp. 9. 7.

Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering. 4. Vol. 24. pp 881-885. Engineering Structures.J. (2006) "Development of horizontal slice method for seismic stability analysis of reinforced slopes and walls". Vol. pp 821–830. 26. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Kloukinas P. (2007) "An Alternative to the Mononobe-Okabe Equation for Seismic Earth Pressures". Canadian Geotechnical Journal. pp 365-375. 1. 8.-L. Yasrobi S. Farhadi. (2001) "Horizontal slice method of analysis". (2003) "Seismic lateral earth pressure coefficients for C -ö soils by slip line method". Vol. Puri V. J. Cambridge. [16] Mylonakis G.J. Jones C.S. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. In: Proceedings of Conference on Retaining Structures". F. M. Geotechnique. 30. [25] Das B. Geotextiles and Geomembranes.F.ir . Vol.J. 28. retaining walls with einforced backfill". Vol.P.K. ch ive of SI D 173 www. Perea C. pp 342–348. [12] Kumar J. [19] Nouri H. (2008) "Evaluating the effects of the magnitude and amplification of pseudo-static acceleration on reinforced soil slopes and walls using the limit equilibrium horizontal slices method". (2008) "A parametric study of optimum earthretaining walls by simulated annealing". No. pp 350–356.M. and Yin. J. (1857) "On the mathematical theory of the stability of earthwork and Masonry". [26] Gnanapragasam G. Pak A. No. Vol. [22] Azad A. [20] Shekarian S.P. Jones C. Vol. (2008) "A PseudoDynamic Method to Analyze Retaining Wall with Reinforced and Unreinforced Backfill ". Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Fakher A. Fakher A. (1996) "Static and dynamic active earth pressure.Q. Papatonopoulos C. Alcala J. 30. (2008) "A generalized slip line solution to the active earth pressure on circular retaining walls". 3. pp 155–164. [21] Nouri H. Robinson College. Springer. [28] Rankine W. Vol. Vol. (1992) "Design of sloped reinforced fill structure". Institute of Civil Engineering. pp 175–187. 35. Gonzalez-Vidosa F.5. Chitikela S. pp 957-969. 26. No. (2006) "Estimation of seismic passive earth pressures with nonlinear failure criterion". (2000) "Active earth pressure in cohesive soils with an inclined ground surface". Canadian Geotechnical Journal.-H. (2001) "Seismic passive earth pressure coefficients for sands". [14] Yang.M. No. pp 574–584. [27] Liu. Vol. 2. pp 353-366. Vol. No. No. 5. The Netherlands. [24] Segrestin P.F. J. [15] Choudhury D. A. Fakher A. 10. Computers and Geotechnics. Vol. Vol. 10. Jones C. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Geotextiles and Geomembranes.SID. X. Ghanbari A. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering". 27. 51. pp 41-47. 10. 14. and Wang. Ahmadabadi Ar [17] Yepes V. pp 876–881. [23] Shekarian S. Computers and Geotechnics. pp 463–471. Nimbalkar S. 37. Ghanbari A.P. [13] Cheng Y. (2008) "New seismic parameters in the analysis of A. Proceedings of Royal Society. Vol. JSEE. (2006) "Pseudodynamic approach of seismic active earth pressure behindretaining wall".H. 28. pp 171-177. Ghanbari and M. No. Vol.[11] Kumar J. [18] Shahgholi M.. 24. 38. No. Vol. 39. Vol. pp 263–278. (2008) "Seismic active earth pressure distribution behind rigid retaining walls". pp 1103-1113. pp 661-670.F. (2002) "Seismic passive earth pressure coefficients using the method of characteristics". Engineering Structures.