An examination of some theories of earth pressure on shaft linings

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

Imtitrrre ofForoldntiorl Etzgitlcerirrg rrrlrl Soil Mecl~rrnics,Swiss Federn1 Itlstitrrte c ~ f ' T d ~ t ~ o l o g g .

ETH - Hijnggerberg, CH - 5093 Ziiricll
Received April 14. 1976
Accepted October 14. 1976

Various theories for determining the earth pressure on shaft linings in cohesionless soils are
discussed, and results are presented for a Coulomb-type analysis with a conical sliding surface.
The assumed shape of the failure surface approximates closely the one given in published results
obtained by the method of characteristics. The simplicity of the cone permits an investigation ofa
number ofparameters. e.g. the earth pressure coefficient on radial planes, which turns out to be a
decisive parameter in the analysis, and accounts for the widely differing published values for
earth pressures on shaft linings. Certain theories c o ~ ~lead,
l d especially at greater depths. to rather
conservative designs.
A similartheory is also presented for earth pressureson shafts in cohesive soils. In this case the
possibility of base failure must be considered as well, and it is shown that this might be the
deciding failure mechanism.

Cet article presente une disc~~ssion des diverses theories relatives a la determination de la
poussee des terres sur les rev2tements de puits dans les sols pulverulents, et les resultats d'une
analyse de type Coulomb avec surface de glissement conique. La forme supposee de la surface de
rupture est une bonne approximation de celle d i j i publiee et obtenue par la methode des
caracteristiques. La simplicit6 du c8ne permet I'Ctude d'une quantiti de paramttres, tel que le
For personal use only.

coefficient de poussee des terres sur des plans radiaux qui s'avkre ttre le paramktre dtcisif de
l'analyse et e x p l i q ~ ~les
e grandes differences entre les valeurs publikes de poussCes des terres sur
des rev2tements de puits. Certaines theories peuvent conduire a des designs particulierement
conservateurs. specialement a grande profondeur.
Une theorie similaire est presentee pour les pressions des terres sus les revttements de puits en
milieu coherent. Dans ce cas la possibilite de rupture par soulkvement du fond doit egalement Ztre
considCree et on montre que $a peut 2tre le mecanisme qui controle la rupture.
[Traduit par la revue]
Can. Geotech. J., 14, 91 (1977)

Part I. Earth Pressure on Shaft Linings Review of Previous Work

in Cohesionless Soils
Introduction
The earth pressure of cohesionless soils on
shaft and caisson linings has been investigated
theoretically by a number of authors. Some of
these theories are reviewed here. None of the
theories discussed considers the effects of a
water table, or the rigidity of the lining.
All the theories described herein are based
upon plasticity methods. The simple approx-
imate method dealt with more fully in this
paper considers only the statics of the forces
acting on an assumed failure mass defined by
a rupture surface. Stress-strain behaviour of
the material has not been considered. To the
author's knowledge it has not been considered
anywhere else either. An axisymmetric finite
element program with a Drucker-Prager or
some other nonlinear material model could be
used to investigate the lower bound yielding
conditions, and the effects of specified struc-
tural movements. Such results will probably
be forthcoming in the next few years.
The earlier theories of Westergaard (1940)
and Terzaghi (1943) are based upon a con-
sideration, along the lines of the classical
Rankine theory, of plastic equilibrium on hor-
izontal planes passing through the shaft. Sim-
plifying assumptions are made at the boundary
separating plastic and elastic zones in order to
smooth out the singularities in stresses occur-
ring there that result from an assumption in the
theoretical so1ution.l However, the earth pres-
sure predicted by the Westergaard-Terzaghi
theory is in reasonable agreement with other
theoretical results, but the disadvantage of the
'A limiting condition is placed upon the three
dimensional state of stress, in that in the plastic zone
two of the principal stresses are equated, viz. U I I is set
equal to cr, and it is further assumed that ut = uz ur,
i.e. within the plastic zone the earth pressure coef-
ficient h = 1, where h is the earth pressure coefficient
o n radial planes. In the elastic zone, on the other
hand, X = K O (the coefficient of earth pressure a t
rest) and ut = G., (ut p u,). Thus, theoretically, ab-
rupt changes in ut and u, occur a t the elastic-plastic
surface of transition.
 YL C A N . GEO'lbCH. J. v v ~ I. + , 1 7 1 1

theory is its unrealistic prediction of the shape

of the plastic zone, which according to
Terzaghi increases in radius with increasing
depth reaching a limiting value asymptotically.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

This suggests that the foundations of the

theory are inadequate. Other investigators,
Steinfeld (1958), Karafiath ( 1 9 5 3 ~ ;see also Failure
1953b), have assunled a Coulomb-type failure surface

surface, which for axisymmetric conditions

leads to a sliding mass in the form of a cone.
The unknown inclination of the sliding surface
is determined mathematically by means of the
conditions that the total earth pressure, i.e. the
resultant force acting on the wall, has a maxi- FIG.1. Assumed rupture model for a shaft in co-
mum value. hesionless soil with the forces acting on the sliding
mass.
Unfortunately, the papers by Karafiath
(1953a, 19.538) contain mistakes in the
draughtsmanship, which have partly misled
later investigators. Schultz (1970) has cor-
rected one of these mistakes, but the other
mistake involving a factor of 10 in values of
h/r (depth/radius of shaft) has remained un-
For personal use only.

noticed. Figure 5 of Karafiath's German pub-

lication is reproduced corrected and with some
notational changes in Fig. 5 of this paper.
Steinfeld (1958) published a similar theory
a few years after Karafiath ( 1 9 5 3 ~ )but his
theory contains an incorrect theoretical con-
sideration. I-Ie assumes that the distribution of
earth pressure may be obtained directly. His
method is best understood by reference to Figs.
2 through 4 taken from his publication. It is
well known, however, see for example Terzaghi
( l936), that Coulomb's theory furnishes only
the magnitude of the earth pressure force and
not even its line of action. In the case of a
smooth wall and plane strain conditions Stein-
feld's method would fortuitously give the earth
pressure distribution, which in this case is
deducible from Rankine's theory. For rough 6W tan ( a - +).
-
FIG. 2. Method of computation of earth pressure
+
according to Steinfeld (1958). 6 F T . 68, FP 6F =
walls or in the absence of plane strain condi-
tions Steinfeld's method breaks down and ex- sliding mass, F is the outward component of
hibits obvious oversimplifications in consider- the forces acting on the sides of the element
ing the forces acting on the thin cylindrical ele- (Fig. I ) , and P is the total earth pressure.
ments: he assumes that Schulz (1 970) has extended Steinfeld's theory
[I] 6P + 6F = 6W tan ( a - @) to include the effects of elastic deformation of
the sliding mass associated with a nonrigid
whereas it is only for the sliding mass as a shaft lining or a recessed lining (Fig. 6 ) .
whole that the equilibrium relation Schulz realized that the negative earth pres-
[21 P + F = W tan (a - a)
sures predicted by Steinfeld's theory are un-
realistic but failed to locate the error in Stein-
holds, where W is the weight of the complete feld's theory-he simply disregards the neg-
 PRATER

rface
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

-
Shaft diameter D
Depth h 7.5 m
2- 1
= 3.55 m

""I
I
For personal use only.

E f f e c t i v e e s r t l ~prossure

B I~educ:ion o f :he eartl: pressure due t o the side forces

FIG. 3. Earth pressure distribution on a shaft lining (after Steinfeld 1958).

lo)
Shaft dimeter 0 - 3.55 m

Depth h Lrnl A-1 $-70' x-1.8 t/m3

FIG. 4. Variation of the earth pressure for different shaft depths (after Steinfeld 1958).

ative portion of the pressure distribution given
by Steinfeld's theory. What is less satisfactory,
however, is the fact that he revises a part of
Steinfeld's theory which is correct, that is, the
relation between the angle of the slip surface
and the ratio h/r, which derives from [2] not
[I]. Schulz's results, as remarked by Walz
(l973), do not lead in principle to a different
distribution of earth pressure.
It is assumed by Walz (1973) that Kara-
 94 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 14, 1977
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12
FIG.5. Earth pressure coefficient k , as a function of shaft geometry 11/r for different friction
angles 9 (after Karafiath, earth pressure at rest - Hungarian standards).
For personal use only.
FIG.6 . Caisson with recess.
fiath's and Steinfeld's results lead to the same
distribution of earth pressure. This is not the
case, however. Karafiath does attempt by
means of a graphical construction to locate the
point of application of the earth pressure force,
but gives no direct information about the pres-
sure distribution.
A further publication which has attained
wide readership is by Lorenz (1966). He
adapted the results of an earlier publication
by Steinfeld (1952), in which Steinfeld investi-
gated the passive earth pressure around a
circular shaft. In this publication Steinfeld
neglected the force F (see Fig. 1) acting on
the element of sliding mass. Lorenz, in adapt-
ing Steinfeld's theory to active earth pressure
conditions, while being aware of this force,
neglected it, thereby predicting earth pressures
well on the conservative side.
Berezantzev ( 1958, and references therein)
and Snarsky (1972) have applied the Sokolov-
ski 'step-by-step' method of solution of the
limit equilibrium plane strain problem to prob-
lems with axial -symmetry. Here again (cf.
Terzaghi's theory 1943) some assumption is
made with regard to the tangential stress crt in
order to make the problem statically determin-
ate. From the conditions of the problem U , is
a principal stress, i.e. ut = F i r . The assumptions
made are as follows: V , = u i r = rI for active
earth pressure conditions, ot = a i r = V r I I for
passive earth pressure conditions.
Thus in the plastic zones an earth pressure
coefficient (A) of unity is tacitly assumed for
active earth pressure conditions. Should KO
(the earth pressure coefficient at rest) be much
smaller than unity, it is possible that h does not
increase to unity for the conditions of limit
equilibrium, in which case Berezantzev's theory
would underestimate the earth pressure. The
results of Berezantzev are show; in Fig. 7
It is interesting to note that the failure sur-
faces predicted by Berezantzev's theory may be
adequately approximated by the surface of a
cone. Therefore a cone shaped sliding mass
should be satisfactory in a coulomb-type anal-
ysis. The advantage of a Coulomb-type anal-
ysis is that the influence of the depth/radius
relation for the shaft is readily elucidated an-
alytically (also with different values of A ) ,
whereas-by the Sokolovski-Berezantzev method
a complete numerical (step-by-step) analysis
to obtain the families of slip lines (the 'char-
acteristics') is required for each set of shaft
conditions, i.e. for each set of the following
 PRATER 95

H, which always acts in the outward direction.

i-51 F = 2 T sin (66/2)
whereby F = TS8 for small values of 69.. The
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

reaction Q acting on the sliding body is di-

rected at an angle p to the normal, where p
lies within the following limits: - @ < p < @.
If p is expressed as a fraction of the friction
angle, i.e. p = k @, k lies within the limits f 1.
The values -1 and +1 represent active and
passive earth pressure conditions respectively.
The magnitude of the force T is determined
by an earth pressure coefficient A. Integration
of the pressure over the depth leads to the
following expression for T:
[61 T = hyh3/6 tan a

Lorenz assumes that this force may be safely

neglected, i.e. h = 0, and also F = 0.
Substitution of W and F in [2] results in the
expression for the earth pressure acting on the
shaft lining :
For personal use only.

FIG.7. Results according to Berezantzev: ( a ) the [7] P = ss - rh2

radial stress, ( b ) the earth pressure force, as a func- 2 tan a
tion of @ and the depth factor z / r .

parameters: c, @, 6 (wall friction), h, r, and

x [tan (E + B) (==+ $1
h
r) -
surface loading q. The aspect ratio radius/depth (r/h) is now
In the following analysis, which is an ex- introduced into [7] and the earth pressure is
tension of the work of Karafiath and Steinfeld, integrated over the shaft circumference to give
shaft-wall friction (6) and the surface loading the total earth pressure force
q are neglected. Their inclusion could easily
be handled, but this would not help greatly
towards the main aim of this section of the
paper, which is to investigate the role played
by the coefficient A.
Earth pressure relationships are derived for
the active case, with h set equal to 1 and KO = To obtain the limiting value of the earth pres-
1 - sin @. sure dPt/da must be set equal to zero, ac-
Method of Computation of the Earth Pressure cording to the method of the calculus of vari-
The forces acting on the sliding body are ations. This step results in a relationship be-
shown in Fig. 1 . For a sector of angle 819 tween the aspect ratio n and the inclination of
the failure surface. Steinfeld presents this rela-
tion as a cubic equation in tan a. An alterna-
tive and somewhat simpler expression is as
where R = h/tan LY r. + follows:
Thus by eliminating R from [3], W may be
written
[9] n =
q3 tan
2 u- X - 3 tan(u + P)
[4] W = y 6 9 (h316 tan2 u -t- h2 1-12 tan a ) (X - 1)
The tangential force T has a radial component where
 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 14, 1977
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12
For personal use only.

FIG.8. Relationship between shaft aspect ratio rz and the inclination of the failure surface or
+
for different friction angles and = 1 - sin a.

X = sin 2a/sin 2 ( a + p) sin 2a: = sin 2(a: - a )

Equation 9 has been programmed on a small
computer assigning the following values to the
parameters k and A: k = -1, active earth pres-
sure, for h = 1 and h = 1 - sin a.
Some results are presented graphically in
Fig. 8. The earth pressure per unit length of
the shaft circumference, PI = Pt/2rr, may be
written in the form
[lo] PI = k, -yh2/2
analogous to the plane wall case. k, is the co-
efficient of earth pressure for cylindrical shafts.
It is a function of n and h:
1 clusion to be drawn from this result is that
[ll] k, = -
n tan or
It may easily be shown that for active earth
pressure ( p = - a ) and zero depth (n = m )
tan ( a - cD)
(IcJ,,, = tan a
and also from [9] for n = .o
Thus k, is seen to reduce to the simple Rankine
expression tan2 (45 - @/2).
A further result may be obtained by an ex-
amination of [I I], i.e. that k, may exhibit zero
values, either when cot a: = 0 or when (using
also [9])
[I21 sin2 (a: + p) = h sin2 a:
Equation 12 is solved for values of CY which
with the aid of Fig. 8 determine the corre-
sponding values of aspect ratio nCrit.The con-
theoretically (i.e. for a conical failure surface)
below a certain depth, i.e. depth ratio less than
nCri,,no earth pressure is exerted on the shaft
l i n i n g . V h e complete relationships between
k, and n are presented graphically in Fig. 9.
'Karafiath (1953) carried out a small scale model
test to verify this theoretical conclusion. To maintain
the stability of individual grains the 2 cm diameter
hole of about 40 cm height was lined with thin
blotting paper containing vertical slits. N o caving-in
of the hole was observed.
 PRATER 97
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

FIG.9. Relationship between depth factor h / r and the earth pressure coefficient k,, for
p = -+, h = 1 - sin % a n d A = 1.
For personal use only.

1. Earth pressure results (total force per metre circumference)

TABLE

Earth pressure force (t/m) at depth:

Active Rankine
Pressure at rest (plane wall KO)
Terzaghi
Berezantzev
Lorenz, X = 0
Steinfeld, X = 1
Karafiath, X = 0 . 5
Steinfeld, X = 0 . 5
The author, X = 0 . 5

Some results obtained by Karafiath were pre-
sented in Fig. 5. The influence of the coeffi-
cient h is clearly seen in Fig. 9. It was men-
tioned earlier in the paper that for h = K,,, the
active earth pressure coefficient, k , is indepen-
dent of the aspect ratio n. This is inferred from
+
[I 11. By assuming that h = tan (a p)/tan CY
(= KJi for k = -1 and CY = 45' +(P/2), k ,
+
becomes tan (CY p)/tan CY and thus the earth
pressure exhibits a hydrostatic form. If a value
+
of less than tan (CY p)/tan CY is chosen, the
earth pressure exceeds the active Rankine pres-
sure. Lorenz (1966) set h equal to zero and
obtained values of k , which are very probably
much too conservative. The sensitivity of the
results to changes in the coefficient h is made
clear by the results shown in Table 1, taken
from Schulz's paper and modified. For all cases
the following values are adopted: -y = 2.0
t/m3, (P = 30°, and r = 2.0 m.
It is evident that for realistic results h should
be chosen in the range KJi < h < KO.The same
model is used by Steinfeld, Lorenz, Karafiath,
and the author, but Lorenz by choosing h < KL1
obtains a result about 15 times greater than
with h = 1 - sin a, and 3.5 times greater than
the active Rankine pressure in the above ex-
ample for a depth of 20 m. The deviation from
the Rankine value increases more and more
with depth, while theories with h > K.\ show
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 14, 1977
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12
I --- Shaft o f dialeter
For personal use only.
FIG.10. The earth pressure force at different depths for a shaft with diameters 8 and 16 m
and h = 1 - sin 9.
a decrease in comparison with the active Ran-
kine earth pressure.
The influence of X on the earth pressure is
further brought out in Fig. 10 where the in-
fluence of the radius, i.e. the arching action, is
also to be seen. It should be noted that the
force shown in Fig. 10 is the total force acting
at each depth. The pressure distribution over
the depth must be calculated in a step wise
manner. The construction for a shaft of 16 m
diameter is shown in Fig. 11, the smooth
curves being interpolations of the steps in the
pressure diagrams. A further worked example
is given below. The active Rankine pressure
lines are included for comparison purposes. A
comparison between the results obtained here
and those of Berezantzev (1958) and Lorenz
(1966) is presented in Fig. 12.
Worked Example
A guide to the use of the figures presented
for Part 1 of this paper is now given. First of
all it should be noted that the computations
for the shaft must be made for various depths
and the procedure is incremental.
R n 1 / 1 1
Let us suppose we want to investigate a
shaft of diameter 4 m and depth 20 m in a
cohesionless soil characterized by = 2 t/m3
and @ = 30". The water table is assumed not
to enter the problem. We shall assume that the
coefficient x = KO = 0.5.
If we are interested in the extent of the
failure zone we may resort to Fig. 8. For a
depth h = 20 m (i.e. n = 0.1) the potential
slip surface is inclined at approximately 70.2'.
It can be shown by a graphical construction
that this slip surface encloses all other poten-
tial slip surfaces above it, and thus the assumed
cone mechanism is valid for this depth.
Now using Fig. 9 the value of h/r at which
theoretically the earth pressure force becomes
zero is 12.75, i.e. at about 25.5 m depth. Fur-
ther use of Fig. 9 shows that the earth pressure
coefficient k , corresponding to 20 m depth is
0.07. Thus, using [ l o ] ,the total force is 28
t/m circumference of shaft. If instead of the
total force the maximum pressure is required,
a graphical construction like the one shown in
Fig. 11 must be performed. Working in incre-
ments of (say) 2 m depth the force for each
 PRATER 99
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12
For personal use only.

FIG.11. Distribution of earth pressure for a shaft of diameter 16 m, 7 = 2 Urn".

increment is found as follows. Beginning with
the top 2 m the force is calculated as above
and then divided by the depth increment to
give the average pressure for the increment,
and so on for each load difference between
successive increments. The computational steps
are outlined in Table 2.
The incremental procedure shows that the
maximum force is not in fact 28 t/m, but
about 30.5 t/m. The maximum pressure of
about 2.7 t/m2 is reached at a depth of about
10 m, and zero pressure is obtained at about
17.5 m depth.
This example could be reworked using Fig.
12 which was constructed for the same param-
eters as were used in the worked example.
Though for other values of a, etc. Fig. 9 must
be used.
Part 11. Earth Pressure on Shaft Linings
(7
undrained, unconsolidated state, a state which
may exist directly after loading. This case does
not previously seem to have been dealt with in
the literature, but an approximate solution
could be obtained using one of the arching
theories for trenches dug in purely cohesive
soils (Prater 1973). The same mode of failure
is assumed here as was previously assumed
with non-cohesive soils.
Method of Computation
The assumed mode of failure, with the
forces acting on the sliding mass, is shown in
Fig. 13. The following forces are known:
Weight of the sliding mass
Cohesive force

for Soil in the 'a = 0' Condition h2

Introduction
As an extension of the earth pressure the- The tangential force
ories discussed in Part I, the case is treated
here of soil in the = 0 condition, i.e. in the [15] F = TS9 = S8Xy h3/6 tan a
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 14, 1977
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

-- active Rankine
------ Berazantzev
-- - Karafiath / Prster
[ ~ - ~ ~ - l - ~ i n + )

d
Failure surface

FIG. 13. Assumed rupture niodel for a shaft in

purely cohesive soils, with the forces acting on the
sliding mass.

the condition for the maximum (or minimum)

value of earth pressure, determined by dP/da =
0, defines the value of in terms of the geom-
etry of the failure mass, i.e.
(1 - h)yh
For personal use only.

n* = (1 - tan2 .)/
(cot a -
6c
If A is set equal to one,3 the following simple
relation is obtained
1181 n* = tan ( 1 - tan2 a )
which is independent of the term c/yh. Sub-
stituting for n* in [17] yields the active earth
FIG. 12. Total earth pressure force per metre of
pressure (per unit length of shaft circum-
circumference according to different authors (as a ference)
function of the shaft aspect ratio).
[19] P = (yh2/2) (1 - N/sin or cos3 or)
The equilibrium equation at the point of where N is the stability number (after Taylor),
incipient failure is N = ~ / ~ Equation
h . 19 may be rewritten

[la] C + cos a ( P + JO2' TSB)

where k , is the earth pressure coefficient for
- Wsina = 0 the circular shaft in soil in the = 0 con-
dition.
By substitution of the known forces into
[16] the unknown active earth pressure may
be determined (per metre circumference of the The relationship between k , and n for differ-
shaft) ent values of N is shown graphically in Fig. 14.
In the same figure rz is also given as a function
1171 p =yil?[Ze)
2 3 tan a + 1 of or.
The critical depth of shaft (cf. with slopes,
the expression 'critical height' is used), that is
3Here again we assume A = K O .For cohesive soil
where n* = h/r, the aspect ratio of the shaft. 0.6 < KO< 1, i.e. K Ois generally higher than in sands,
As with Coulomb's earth pressure theory, and may exceed 2 for greatly overconsolidated clays.
 PRATER

TABLE
2. Computational steps

Increment Depth (Ed, (@I), ei

No. (9 h, (m) (hlr)i (kh (tlm) (t/m) (tlm2>
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

1 2 1 0.302 1.20 1.20 0.60

2 4 2 0.273 4.37 3.17 1.59
3 6 3 0.247 8.91 4.54 2.27
4 8 4 0.221 14.14 5.23 2.62
5 10 5 0.195 19.50 5.36 2.68
6 12 6 0.168 24.24 4.74 2.37
7 14 7 0.144 28.33 4.09 2.05
8 16 8 0.119 30.45 2.12 1.06
9 18 9 0.093 30.13 [-0.321 -
10 20 10 0.070 28.00 [-2.131 -
For personal use only.

Aspect rstio n-. h/r

FIG.14. Relationship between k , , d y h , a, and n:':for purely cohesive soils.

the depth to which theoretically no support h,, = ( c / ~ )(l/sin a cos3 a )

is required as the total earth pressure is zero,
may be found from [21], setting k, equal to For plane conditions (n* = 0, a = 45" ),
zero. Thus at the critical depth hco = 4c/y
[221 N= = sin a C O S ~a
the well-known value h,. Equation 22 is only
valid when no tension cracks exist behind the
or wall. According to Terzaghi (1943, p. 154),
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12
For personal use only.
FIG.15. Determination of the critical depth for a shaft in purely cohesive soil with differeat
shaft diameters ( h = 1).
in the presence of tension cracks a reduction
in the value of h, of one third is to be ex-
pected.
The critical depth, on the assumption A = 1,
may be estimated with the help of Fig. 15. For
a specific shaft diameter the critical depth is
reached when the curve for the depth, with
parameter r, intersects the curves constructed
on the basis of [22] with parameter c/y. The
results may also be presented in a dimension-
less form (Fig. 16). This figure is used in the
following manner:
Step 1. Calculate 6,: 8, = arctan (ry / c).
Step 2. Construct the straight line OA.
Step 3. From the point of intersection with
the curve determine (hCoy/c)and thus he$
The procedure is illustrated by the following
example:
r=4.2m c/y=1.5
Thus ry/c = 2.8, = arctan (2.8)
and hCoy/c= 9
hco= 13.5 m (cf. h, = 4c/y = 6.0)
14, 1977
Aspect ratio ng. h/r
Some further examples are given in Fig. 16.
These examples show that hComay be many
times larger than h,, the critical depth for a
long trench.
The evaluation of the above values for hco
does not take into consideration the possibility
of a base failure in the shaft. A simple check
on base stability can be made by using the
theory outlined below - cf. the plane strain
theory of Terzaghi (1943, pp. 189-194). It
could alternatively be assumed that the failure
surfaces for active and passive conditions are
identical - this would not, of course, be true
for non-cohesive soils - and then utilize a
formula for the bearing capacity of a pile in
clay.
With reference to Fig. 17, the vertical pres-
sure, level with the base of the shaft, i.e. on
the surface cd is
[23] a = yh, -
2nr(l + $)hsc
rr2([l + $1' - 1)
provided that a hard layer of soil or rock does
 PRATER
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12
For personal use only.

FIG.16. Determination of the critical depth of a shaft in purely cohesive soil (dimensionless
curves).

not impede the formation of the failure sur-
face de.
For base failure
where N , is bearing capacity parameter. It is
usual to assume that N , lies within the limits
6 < N , < 9 for round foundations.
It follows from [23] and [24] that
It is now possible to compare values of critical
depth based on side failure hco and on base
failure h, for different values of shaft radius r
and c / y values.
The results shown in Table 3 indicate that
the critical depth obtained by considerations
of base failure may be smaller than that for
side collapse. The smaller value is obviously
the deciding one. Usually, however, the differ-
ence between the critical depth values is not
significant.
Figures 18 and 19 illustrate the influence of
the tangential stresses (for A = 1) using the
cone type failure to estimate the active earth
 104 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 14, 1977

TABLE
3. Values of ciitical depth
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

Failure
surface
For personal use only.

FIG.19. Earth pressure coefficient k , as a function

of depth / I for shafts of different diameter and c / y =
1 m (A = 1).
FIG. 17. Rupture model for base failure of a shaft.
pressure on shaft linings. The figures give the
t,. I I.r I-h
earth pressure coefficient k,. as a function of
depth placing restrictions on the values of
shaft diameter (Fig. 19) and of the soil prop-
erty c/./ (Fig. 18).
Conclusions
Some existing theories for the prediction of
earth pressures on shaft and caisson linings
have been summarized in this paper. In par-
ticular, attention was paid to the extension of
Coulomb's theory to axially symmetric con-
ditions. Coulomb's method is easy to apply
and it has found most favour in the German
literature. The results, however, are found to
, be very sensitive to the assumed earth pressure
coefficient h acting on radial planes. h must be
greater than the active Rankine value for
realistic results and this explains Lorenz's high
overestimation of the active pressures when
he sets h equal to zero (Fig. 12). However, if
h is set equal to unity, as is tacitly assumed in
d,p,h (.) Terzaghi's or Berezantzev's theories respec-
FIG. 18. Earth pressure coefficient k , as a function
tively, Coulomb's method delivers very low
of depth h with different c / y values for a shaft of earth pressure. be On the safe
diameter 4 m (X = 1 ) . side, therefore, h should be set equal to the
 PRATER
earth pressure coefficient at rest (KO)when
using the Coulomb method.
The different forms of the pressure distri-
bution diagrams of Steinfeld and Befezantzev,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12
drawn attention to by Walz (1973) has also
been satisfactorily explained. The inconsistency
lies in the theory of Steinfeld (1958), wherein
it is incorrectly assumed that the earth pres-
sure distribution may be obtained directly using
the Coulomb method. In other words, the
method proposed by Steinfeld (illustrated in
Fig. 2 of this paper) is not acceptable, since
statically it is only possible to isolate the forces
shown in Fig. 1. Steinfeld partially corrects his
pressure distribution diagram when he comes
to consider various depths of shaft (Fig. 4 ) .
Strictly speaking, however, his diagrams are
incompatible: Figs. 3 and 4 should both give
the same pressure distribution for the same
shaft depth, were it possible to obtain the dis-
tribution directly (Fig. 3).
The Coulomb method indicates that below
For personal use only.
a certain depth no earth pressure acts (Kara-
fiath 1953a), whereas the limit equilibrium
theory used by Berezantzev (1958) does not
give this result. The earth pressure according
to Berezantzev reaches a limiting value asymp-
totically which albeit is much smaller than the
active Rankine value at greater depths. In
practice, there may in fact be a reduction of
pressure at depths greater than some critical
depth, due to arching action. A similar phe-
nomenon is known to exist for retaining walls
not fulfilling the plasticity deformation condi-
tions (Terzaghi 1943, p. 66) and in slurry wall
trenches (Prater 1973). For design purposes,
however, it would be advisable to ignore the
reduction of pressure and dimension the shaft
lining for the maximum earth pressure (e.g. as
in Fig. 11 ) , as would in any case be common
practice. If the pressure reduction is neglected,
Berezantzev's results and those obtained with
the assumptions of Coulomb's method are
comparable (Fig. 12).
Certain investigators have simplified Bere-
zantzev's theory of limit equilibrium. Walz
(1973) has assumed that the slip lines are
straight, corresponding to Rankine's pattern
of slip lines. In this case the simultaneous par-
tial differential equations for the stresses in the
plastic zone reduce to simple differential equa-
tions, which may be easily solved. Costantino
105
and Longinow (1964) have considered the
case of a rough wall in their investigation of
the pressures acting on silos. They assume that
the angle of wall friction is equal to the angle
of internal friction of the soil, in which case
the cylindrical surface becomes a characteristic
surface and the differential equations reduce to
a simple form on the cylindrical surface. If
wall friction is neglectcd, however, the results
lie on the conservative side, and the above
theory (or that of Berezantzev) may be ap-
plied. If linings to shafts and wells are driven
then it is possible that passive pressures may
be developed at the cutting edge. Only in these
circumstances is it necessary to consider
Lorenz's results, and then only for the cutting
shoe itself if a recessed lining is used (Fig. 6 ) .
Final Remarks
The present paper has dealt mainly with
theoretical aspects of earth pressures in shaft
linings. Some preliminary results of small-scale
laboratory model tests in sand are reported by
Walz (1973) - work initiated by Prof.
Lorenz.
Case records where field measurements have
been made are very scant in the literature.
Kany (1972) does give some results for a 30
m diameter cylinder 40 m high. He found that
locally high pressures occurred when compact-
ing the backfill material around the cylinder.
These stresses, however, decreased during
later functioning of the structure, and at the
base of the cylinder the pressures were espe-
cially small. This effect could be produced both
by wall friction and the phenomenon of arching
described in this paper.
If a shaft lining can deform to allow the
arching action to become fully effective it is
suggested that some account of reduced earth
pressure be taken according to the theories
referred to in this paper. But a considerable
amount of engineering judgement is necessary
and for uncertain ground conditions the active
Rankine pressures should probably be used,
or some theory applicable to rough retaining
walls.
NOTEADDED IN PROOF-A relevant paper by
Walz appeared after the submission of this
work. Only the reference (see Walz 1976) and
no discussion can be given here.
 106 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 14, 1977
BEREZANTZEV, V. G. 1958. Earth pressure on the cylindri-
cal retaining walls. Brussels Conf. on Earth Pressure
Problems, 11, pp. 21-27.
COSTANTINO, C. J. and LONGINOW, A. 1964. The theory of
limiting equilibrium for axisymmetric problems: a com-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12
parison with experiment on silo skin friction. Proc.
Symp. on Soil-Structure Interaction, Arizona, pp.
583-592.
KANY,M. 1972. Measurement of earth pressures on a
cylinder 30 m in diameter (pump storage plant). 5th Eur.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Madrid, pp. 535-542.
KARAFIATH, L . 19530. Erddruck auf Wande mit kreisfor-
migem Querschnitt. Bauplanung und Bautechnik, Ber-
lin, 7, pp. 319-320.
-19536. On some problems of earth pressure. Acta
Tech. Acad. Hung., Budapest, pp. 327-337.
LORENZ, H. 1966. Offene Senkkasten. Grundbautaschen-
buch. W. Emst & Son, pp. 795-798.
PRATER,E . G. 1973. Die Gewolbewirkung der Schlitz-
wande. Der Bauingenieur, 48, pp. 125-131.
SCHULZ, M. 1970. Berechnungdes raumlichen Erddruckes
auf die Wandung kreiszylindrischer Kolper. Disserta-
tion, University of Stuttgart.
SNARSKY, A. S. 1972. Design of an axisymmetric retaining
For personal use only.
wall subject to the pressure of a cohesionless loose
medium. 5th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Ma-
drid, pp. 95-99.
STEINFELD, K. 1952. Der raumliche Erdwiderstand von
Kreiszylindem und seine Vergrosserung durch Riit-
telung. Dissertation, Tech. Hochschule, Hannover.
1958. Uber den Erddruck auf Schacht- und Brun-
nenwandungen. Contribution to the Foundation En-
gineering Meeting, Hamburg. German Soc. of Soil
Mech. Found. Eng., pp. 111-126.
TERZAGHI, K. 1936. A fundamental fallacy in earth pres-
sure computations. 111 Contributions to Soil Mechanics:
1925-1940, Boston Soc. Civ. Eng., 1940, pp. 277-294.
1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. J. Wiley &Sons,
NY. pp. 202-215.
WALZ,B. 1973. Apparatur zur Messung des raumlichen
Erddruckes auf einen runden Modell-Senkkasten.
Baumaschine und Bautechnik, 20, pp. 339-344.
1976. Active soil pressure on a cylindrical caisson
compared with model measurements. (In German.) 6th
Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Vienna, 3, pp.
669-672.
WESTERGAARD, H. M. 1940. Plastic state of stress arounda
deep well. J. Boston Soc. Civ. Eng. 27, pp. 1-5.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Tatiana Tobar, Mohamed A. Meguid. 2011. Experimental Study of the Earth Pressure Distribution on Cylindrical Shafts.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137:11, 1121. [CrossRef]
2. Y. M. CHENG, S. K. AU, Y. Y. HU, W. B. WEI. 2008. ACTIVE PRESSURE FOR CIRCULAR CUT WITH
BEREZANTZEV'S AND PRATER'S THEORIES, NUMERICAL MODELING AND FIELD MEASUREMENTS. SOILS
AND FOUNDATIONS 48:5, 621-631. [CrossRef]
3. Y. M. Cheng, Y. Y. Hu, W. B. Wei. 2007. General Axisymmetric Active Earth Pressure by Method of Characteristics—
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY on 12/19/12

Theory and Numerical Formulation. International Journal of Geomechanics 7:1, 1. [CrossRef]

4. A. V. Lyamin, S. W. Sloan. 2002. Upper bound limit analysis using linear finite elements and non-linear programming.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 26:2, 181-216. [CrossRef]
5. 47, 1. [CrossRef]
6. Aral M. Britto, Osamu Kusakabe. 1983. Stability of Axisymmetric Excavations in Clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
109:5, 666. [CrossRef]
For personal use only.