Proceedings of the 8th U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

April 18-22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA
Paper No. 636

INFLUENCE OF SOIL-WALL INTERFACE FRICTION ON

PSEUDO-DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE

D. Choudhury1, S. S. Nimbalkar2 and J. N. Mandal3

ABSTRACT

Knowledge of the dynamic earth pressure is essential for the safe design of
retaining wall in the seismic zone due to the devastating effect of earthquake. In
this paper the seismic earth pressure on a rigid retaining structure for both active
and passive conditions are determined by pseudo-dynamic method. Conventional
pseudo-static approach gives the linear distribution of seismic earth pressure
behind retaining wall in an approximate way. However, the proposed pseudo-
dynamic method gives the non-linear distribution of seismic earth pressure in
more realistic manner by considering the variation of shear and primary wave
velocities along the depth of the wall combined with the horizontal and vertical
seismic accelerations. Movement of the wall with respect to soil guides the
formation of active or passive earth pressure along with the frictional force at
soil-wall. Results are presented in graphical form for non-dimensional seismic
earth pressure distribution for different cases of wall friction angle under both
active and passive conditions. Design values of the seismic earth pressure
coefficients are found to change significantly under seismic conditions.
Comparison of present results with pseudo-static approach describes the necessity
and merits of the present solution.

Introduction

Computation of the seismic earth pressure is the basic and essential step for the safe
design of retaining wall in the seismic zone. Several researchers have developed different
methods to determine the seismic earth pressure on a rigid retaining wall due to earthquake
loading starting from the pioneering works by Okabe 1926 and Mononobe and Matsuo 1929,
commonly known as Mononobe-Okabe method (see Kramer 1996) based on the pseudo-static
approach. But this conventional Mononobe-Okabe method using pseudo-static approach gives
the linear earth pressure distribution in a very approximate way irrespective of static and seismic
conditions. To overcome these drawbacks, the analytical method based on pseudo-dynamic
approach as given by Steedman and Zeng 1990 is used for the present analysis at soil-wall
interface.
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
2
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India
 If the wall moves upwards relative to the backfill and hence producing downward shear
at the soil-wall interface along with the movement of the wall away from the backfill is termed
as positive wall friction case of active earth pressure and the reverse is termed as negative wall
friction case. Again, if the wall moves downwards relative to the backfill and hence producing
upward shear at the soil-wall interface along with the movement of the wall towards the backfill
is termed as positive wall friction case of passive earth pressure and the reverse is termed as
negative wall friction case. If the wall is perfectly smooth leading to no shear at soil-wall
interface, the wall friction angle, δ = 0 is considered in the design. Though under static
condition, the changes in earth pressure under these different wall friction cases are known
(Terzaghi 1943), but the same under seismic condition is not known till date for the scarcity of
results. Hence in this paper, a complete analytical study describes the behaviour of seismic earth
pressure distribution for different wall friction cases at soil-wall interface for both active and
passive conditions of earth pressures.

Mathematical Model

A fixed base vertical cantilever rigid retaining wall of height H, supporting a

cohesionless backfill material with horizontal ground is considered in the analysis as shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. The shear wave velocity, Vs and primary wave velocity, Vp are assumed to act
within the soil media due to earthquake loading. The period of lateral shaking, T = 2π/ω, where
ω is the angular frequency is considered in the analysis.

Let the base of the wall is subjected to harmonic horizontal seismic acceleration, ah (=
khg) and harmonic vertical seismic acceleration av (= kvg), the accelerations at any depth z and
time t, below the top of the wall can be expressed by Eq. 1 and 2 as follows,

⎡
H − z⎤ (1)
a ( z, t) = a sin ⎢t − ⎥
h h ⎢ V ⎥
⎣ s ⎦

⎡ ⎤
H − z⎥ (2)
a ( z , t) = a sin ⎢ t −
v v ⎢ V ⎥
⎣ p ⎦

Seismic Active Earth Pressure

A planar failure surface BC at an inclination of α with respect to horizontal is considered
in the analysis. In Fig. 1, W is the weight of the failure wedge, Qh and Qv are the horizontal and
vertical seismic inertia force components, F is the soil reaction acting at an angle of φ (soil
friction angle) to the normal to the inclined failure wedge, Pae is the total active thrust acting at
height h from the base of the wall at an inclination of δ (wall friction angle) to the normal to the
wall.
 A C
Qv

Qh
zz
z
W
H

δ
dz φ
h Pae
F Vs, Vp
B
C α

Figure 1. Model retaining wall considered for computation of pseudo-dynamic active earth
pressure (Choudhury and Nimbalkar 2005a).

The total (static + seismic) active thrust, Pae can be obtained by resolving the forces on
the wedge and considering the equilibrium of the forces and hence Pae can be expressed by Eq. 3
as follows,

W sin(α − φ) + Qh cos(α − φ) + Qv sin(α − φ)

Pae = (3)
cos(δ + φ − α)

Pae is maximized with respect to trial inclination angle of failure surface, α and then the
seismic active earth pressure distribution, pae can be obtained by differentiating Pae with respect
to depth, z and can be expressed by Eq. 4 as follows,

γz sin(α − φ ) k γ z cos(α − φ ) ⎡ ⎛ z ⎞⎤ kvγ z sin(α − φ ) ⎡ ⎛ z ⎞⎤

(4)
pae = + h sin ⎢ w ⎜ t − ⎟⎥ + sin ⎢ w ⎜ t − ⎟⎥
tanα cos(δ + φ − α ) tan α cos(δ + φ − α ) ⎣ ⎝ Vs ⎠⎦ tan α cos(δ + φ − α ) ⎣⎢ ⎝
⎜ Vp ⎟
⎠ ⎦⎥

The detail steps to derive Eqs. (3) and (4) are given by Choudhury and Nimbalkar 2005a.

Seismic Passive Earth Pressure

Again, a planar failure surface BC at an inclination of α with respect to horizontal is

considered in the analysis. In Fig. 2, W is the weight of the failure wedge, Qh and Qv are the
horizontal and vertical seismic inertia force components, F is the soil reaction acting at an angle
of φ (soil friction angle) to the normal to the inclined failure wedge, Ppe is the total active thrust
acting at height h from the base of the wall at an inclination of δ (wall friction angle) to the
normal to the wall.

The total (static + seismic) passive resistance, Ppe can be obtained by resolving the forces
on the wedge and considering the equilibrium of the forces and hence Ppe can be expressed by
Eq. 5 as follows,
 W sin(α + φ) − Qh cos(α + φ) − Qv sin(α + φ)
Ppe = (5)
cos(δ + φ + α)

A C
Qv

Qh z
Ppe zdz
W
H δ
δ F
φ
dz
h
Vs, Vp
α
B

Figure 2. Model retaining wall considered for computation of pseudo-dynamic passive earth
pressure (Choudhury and Nimbalkar 2005b).

Ppe is minimized with respect to trial inclination angle of failure surface, α and then the
seismic passive earth pressure distribution, ppe can be obtained by differentiating Ppe with
respect to depth, z and can be expressed by Eq. 6 as follows,

γ z sin(α + φ ) k γ z cos(α + φ ) ⎡ ⎛ z ⎞⎤ k γ z sin(α + φ ) ⎡ ⎛ z ⎞⎤ (6)

ppe = − h sin ⎢ w⎜ t − ⎟⎥ - v sin ⎢ w⎜ t − ⎟ ⎥
tanα cos(δ + φ + α ) tan α cos(δ + φ + α ) ⎣ ⎝ Vs ⎠⎦ tan α cos(δ + φ + α ) ⎢⎣ ⎝ Vp ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
⎜

The detail steps to derive Eqs. (5) and (6) are given by Choudhury and Nimbalkar 2005b.

Results and Discussions

A computer programme is written to obtain the results by iteration, which are presented
in the graphical form of normalized seismic earth pressures along the normalized depth of the
wall (z/H) for typical practical value of soil friction angle, φ = 350, horizontal seismic
acceleration coefficient, kh = 0.0 and 0.3, vertical seismic acceleration coefficient, kv = 0.0 and
kh, parameters, H/λ = 0.3 and H/η = 0.16. To study the complete effect of wall friction (δ) angle
at soil-wall interface, the range of δ is considered as, δ = -1.0φ, -0.75φ, -0.67φ, -0.5φ, 0.0, 0.25φ,
0.5φ, 0.75φ and 1.0φ.

Seismic Active Earth Pressure

Fig. 3 shows the normalized active earth pressure distribution with depth for different
values of δ under static condition (i.e. kh = kv = 0). It is clear that the active earth pressure
distribution is exactly linear as expected.
 0.0
δ = −1.0φ
0.1
δ = −0.75φ
0.2 δ = −0.67φ
0.3 δ = −0.5φ
(z/H) 0.4 δ = 0.0φ
0.5 δ = 0.25φ
0.6 δ = 0.5φ

0.7 δ = 0.75φ
δ = 1.0φ
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
(pae/γH)

Figure 3. Normalized static active earth pressure distribution with depth for different values of
wall friction angle, δ with φ = 350.

Results of the normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution with depth for
different values of δ under seismic condition of kh = 0.3 and kv = 0 are shown in Fig. 4. Again in
Fig. 5, the results are given for kh = 0.3 and kv = 0.3. All these results show the non-linear active
earth pressure distribution under seismic conditions.

Comparing Figs. 3 and 4, it is seen that as kh increases, seismic active earth pressure also
increases, for example, with δ = 1.0φ, as kh increases from 0.0 to 0.3, keeping all other
parameters same, pae increases maximum at the base of the wall by 47%. Again from Figs. 4 and
5 it is seen that as kv increases, seismic active earth pressure also increases, for example, with δ
= 1.0φ, as kv increases from 0.0 to kh, keeping all other parameters same, pae increases maximum
at the base of the wall by 60%.

0.0
δ = −1.0φ
0.1
δ = −0.75φ
0.2
δ = −0.67φ
0.3
δ = −0.5φ
0.4 δ = 0.0φ
(z/H)

0.5 δ = 0.25φ
0.6 δ = 0.5φ
δ = 0.75φ
0.7
δ = 1.0φ
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(pae/γH)

Figure 4. Normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution with depth for different values
of wall friction angle, δ with φ = 350, kh = 0.3, kv = 0.0, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16.
 0.0
δ = −1.0φ
0.1
δ = −0.75φ
0.2
δ = −0.67φ
0.3
δ = −0.5φ
0.4 δ = 0.0φ
(z/H)

0.5 δ = 0.25φ
0.6 δ = 0.5φ
0.7 δ = 0.75φ
0.8 δ = 1.0φ
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(pae/γH)

Figure 5. Normalized seismic active earth pressure distribution with depth for different values
of wall friction angle, δ with φ = 350, kh = 0.3, kv = 0.3, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16.

Under static and seismic conditions the active earth pressure reduces with increase in
wall friction angle. And the effect of wall friction angle under negative wall friction case is more
significant than that for positive wall friction case. Degree of non-linearity of the curves also
increases with the seismic effect leading to the rise of the point of application of total seismic
active thrust (h) from the static value of 1/3rd from the base of the wall, which is commonly used
in the design of retaining wall.

Seismic Passive Earth Pressure

0.0
0.1
δ = −1.0φ
0.2
δ = −0.75φ
0.3 δ = −0.67φ
0.4 δ = −0.5φ
(z/H)

0.5 δ = 0.0φ

0.6 δ = 0.25φ
δ = 0.5φ
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(ppe/γH)

Figure 6. Normalized static passive earth pressure distribution with depth for different values
of wall friction angle, δ with φ = 350.
 Fig. 6 shows the normalized passive earth pressure distribution with depth for different
values of δ under static condition (i.e. kh = kv = 0). It is clear that the passive earth pressure
distribution is exactly linear as expected in static case.

Results of the normalized seismic passive earth pressure distribution with depth for
different values of δ under seismic condition of kh = 0.3 and kv = 0 are shown in Fig. 7. Again in
Fig. 8, the results are given for kh = 0.3 and kv = 0.3. All these results show the non-linear
passive earth pressure distribution under seismic conditions.

Comparing Figs. 6 and 7, it is seen that as kh increases, seismic passive earth pressure
decreases, for example, with δ = 1.0φ, as kh increases from 0.0 to 0.3, keeping all other
parameters same, ppe decreases maximum at the base of the wall by 25 %. Again from Figs. 7
and 8 it is seen that as kv increases, seismic passive earth pressure also decreases, for example,
with δ = 1.0φ, as kv increases from 0.0 to kh, keeping all other parameters same, ppe decreases
maximum at the base of the wall by 28 %.

Under static and seismic conditions the passive earth pressure increases with increase in
wall friction angle. And the effect of wall friction angle under negative wall friction case is less
significant than that for positive wall friction case. Degree of non-linearity of the curves also
increases with the seismic effect leading to the reduction in height of the point of application of
total seismic passive resistance (h) from the static value of 1/3rd from the base of the wall.

0.0
0.1
δ = −1.0φ
0.2 δ = −0.75φ
0.3 δ = −0.67φ
0.4 δ = −0.5φ
δ = 0.0φ
(z/H)

0.5 δ = 0.25φ
0.6 δ = 0.5φ
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(p pe/γ H)

Figure 7. Normalized seismic passive earth pressure distribution with depth for different
values of wall friction angle, δ with φ = 350, kh = 0.3, kv = 0.0, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16.
 0.0
0.1 δ = −1.0φ
0.2 δ = −0.75φ
δ = −0.67φ
0.3
δ = −0.5φ
0.4 δ = 0.0φ
(z/H)

0.5 δ = 0.25φ
δ = 0.5φ
0.6
0.7

0.8
0.9
1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(p pe/γ H)

Figure 8. Normalized seismic passive earth pressure distribution with depth for different
values of wall friction angle, δ with φ = 350, kh = 0.3, kv = 0.3, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16.

Comparison of Results
Fig. 9(a) shows the comparison of seismic active earth pressure coefficient, Kae (where
Pae = 0.5γKaeH2) for the case of kh = 0.2, kv = kh, φ = 300, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16 calculated by
Mononobe-Okabe method and present study respectively. It is evident from Fig. 9(a) that,
seismic active earth pressure coefficient by present study is maximum as compared to other
method which is desirable for the design purpose. Again Fig. 9(b) shows the comparison of
seismic passive earth pressure coefficient, Kpe (where Ppe = 0.5γKpeH2) for the case of kh = 0.2,
kv = kh, φ = 300, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16 calculated by Mononobe-Okabe method, pseudo-static
approach by Choudhury (2004) and present study respectively. It is clear from Fig. 9(b) that,
seismic passive earth pressure coefficient by present study is minimum as compared to other
methods which is again desirable for the design purpose.

For the case of wall friction angle, δ = φ/2, under seismic condition of kh = 0.3, kv =
0.5kh, with φ = 350, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16 comparison of present results with conventional
Mononobe-Okabe method for non-dimensional seismic active earth pressure distribution is
shown in Fig. 10(a). Under the seismic condition, the non-linear active earth pressure
distribution and hence the change of point of application from the static case is clearly shown in
Fig. 10(a) compared to the results obtained by pseudo-static method. This non-linearity of
seismic active earth pressure distribution was also monitored by Steedman and Zeng 1991 in
centrifuge tests. Again, for the case of wall friction angle, δ = φ/2, under seismic condition of kv
= kh = 0.3, with φ = 350, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16 comparison of present results with conventional
Mononobe-Okabe method for non-dimensional seismic passive earth pressure distribution is
shown in Fig. 10(b). Under the seismic condition, the non-linear passive earth pressure
distribution and hence the change of point of application from the static case is clearly shown in
Fig. 10(b) compared to the results obtained by pseudo-static method.
 1.2 10
0
0
φ = 30 , kh = 0.2, kv = 0.2, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16 φ = 30 , kh = 0.2, kv = 0.2, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16
1.0
8 Mononobe-Okabe method
Choudhury (2004)
0.8 Present Study
Kae

Kpe
0.6
4
0.4

Mononobe-Okabe method 2
0.2
Present Study
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

Figure 9. Comparison of typical results of (a) seismic active earth pressure coefficient, Kae (b)
seismic passive earth pressure coefficient, Kpe for kh = 0.2, kv = kh, φ = 300, H/λ =
0.3, H/η = 0.16.

0.0 0.0
Mononobe-Okabe method Mononobe-Okabe method
Present Study Present Study
0.2 0.2
0
k h = 0.3, kv = kh, φ = 35 ,
0.4 δ = φ/2, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16
0.4
z/H
z/H
0.6 0.6

0.8 0
0.8
kh = 0.3, kv = 0.5kh, φ = 35 ,
δ = φ/2, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

pae/γH ppe/γ H

Figure 10. Comparison of typical results of non-dimensional (a) seismic active earth pressure
distribution for kh = 0.3, kv = 0.5kh, φ = 350, δ = φ/2, H/λ = 0.3, H/η = 0.16, (b)
seismic passive earth pressure distribution for kh = 0.3, kv = kh, φ = 350, δ = φ/2, H/λ
= 0.3, H/η = 0.16.

Conclusions
The present study using pseudo-dynamic method shows that increase in both the
horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations increase the seismic active pressure and decrease
the seismic passive earth pressure significantly. The seismic active earth pressure is more
sensitive to negative wall friction case compared to positive wall friction case and the seismic
passive earth pressure is more sensitive to positive wall friction case compared to negative wall
friction case. Non-linearity of the seismic active/passive earth pressure distribution increases
with seismicity, which leads to the shifting of the point of application of total active/passive
thrust required for the design purpose. But the conventional pseudo-static approach gives only
linear earth pressure distribution irrespective of static and seismic condition leading to a major
drawback in the design criteria. Again, the present results report the desirable design values of
seismic active and passive earth pressure coefficients compared to the existing values by
Mononobe-Okabe method.

Appendix: List of Notations

ah, av = amplitude of horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration respectively

g = acceleration due to gravity
H = height of the retaining wall
Kae, Kpe = seismic active and passive earth pressure coefficient respectively
kh, kv = seismic acceleration coefficient in the horizontal and vertical direction respectively
Pae, Ppe = pseudo-dynamic active thrust and passive resistance respectively
Qh, Qv = horizontal and vertical inertia force due to seismic acceleration respectively
t = time
T = period of lateral shaking
Vs, Vp = shear and primary wave velocity respectively
α = angle of inclination of the failure surface with the horizontal
γ = unit weight of the soil
φ, δ = soil and wall friction angle respectively
ω = angular frequency of base shaking
ζ = t – H/Vs
ψ = t – H/Vp

References
Choudhury, D. 2004. Seismic passive resistance at soil-wall interface. 17th ASCE Engineering Mechanics
Conference (EM2004), June 13-16, 2004, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, in CD, 9 pages.

Choudhury, D., and Nimbalkar, S. S., 2005a. Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth pressure
behind retaining wall, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Springer, The Netherlands
(accepted, in press for publication).

Choudhury, D., and Nimbalkar, S., 2005b. Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method,
Geotechnique, London (accepted, in press for publication).

Kramer, S. L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Steedman, R. S., and X. Zeng, 1990. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth
pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique, 40 (1), 103-112.

Steedman, R.S., and X. Zeng, 1991. Centrifuge modeling of the effects of earthquakes on free cantilever
walls. Centrifuge, 91, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 425– 430.

Terzaghi K., 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics, New York, Wiley.