78

Active pressure on gravity walls supporting purely

frictional soils
D. Loukidis and R. Salgado

Abstract: The active earth pressure used in the design of gravity walls is calculated based on the internal friction angle of
the retained soil or backfill. However, the friction angle of a soil changes during the deformation process. For drained load-
ing, the mobilized friction angle varies between the peak and critical-state friction angles, depending on the level of shear
strain in the retained soil. Consequently, there is not a single value of friction angle for the retained soil mass, and the active
earth pressure coefficient changes as the wall moves away from the backfill and plastic shear strains in the backfill increase.
In this paper, the finite element method is used to study the evolution of the active earth pressure behind a gravity retaining
wall, as well as the shear patterns developing in the backfill and foundation soil. The analyses relied on use of a two-surface
plasticity constitutive model for sands, which is based on critical-state soil mechanics.
Key words: finite elements, plasticity, retaining walls, sands.
Résumé : La pression active des terres utilisée dans la conception des murs gravitaires est calculée à partir de l’angle de
friction interne du sol ou du remblai retenu. Cependant, l’angle de friction d’un sol change durant le processus de déforma-
tion. Dans le cas d’un chargement drainé, l’angle de friction mobilisé varie entre l’angle de friction au pic et celui à l’état
critique, dépendant du niveau de déformation en cisaillement dans le sol retenu. En conséquence, il n’y a pas de valeur
unique d’angle de friction pour une masse de sol retenue, et le coefficient de pression active des terres varie à mesure que
le mur se sépare du remblai et que les déformations plastiques en cisaillement augmentent dans le remblai. Dans cet article,
la méthode par éléments finis est utilisée pour étudier l’évolution de la pression active des terres derrière un mur de soutène-
ment gravitaire, ainsi que les patrons de cisaillement qui se développent dans le remblai et dans le sol de fondation. Les ana-
lyses sont réalisées à l’aide d’un modèle constitutif de plasticité à deux surfaces pour des sables, qui est basé sur la
mécanique de l’état critique des sols.
Mots‐clés : éléments finis, plasticité, murs de soutènement, sables.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction Caquot and Kerisel (1948) produced solutions in tabulated

form, assuming slip surfaces with logarithmic spiral shape.
The active earth pressure acting on the back of a retaining
More recently, Paik and Salgado (2003) estimated the active
wall controls its design. The active earth pressure is ex-
earth pressure behind rigid walls by improving the formula-
pressed as the product of the vertical effective stress s v0 in
tion of Handy (1985), which considers soil arching concepts.
the retained soil mass or backfill1 and the active earth pres-
Limit analysis has also been used to study the active earth
sure coefficient KA. The earliest and simplest methods for the
pressure problem. Rigorous upper bound values for KA estab-
calculation of the active earth pressure for purely frictional
lished by Chen (1975) and Soubra and Macuh (2002) using
backfills are those based on the Coulomb and Rankine theo-
limit analysis are in very close agreement with the values of Ca-
ries. For a backfill with horizontal surface, the Rankine solu-
quot and Kerisel (1948). Sokolovskiĭ (1965) solved the problem
tion is mathematically exact for a vertical and smooth wall
of active and passive earth pressure using the method of charac-
backface. Coulomb’s solution assumes a planar slip surface
teristics. More recently, Lancellotta (2002) provided a rigorous
and is equivalent to an upper bound solution. For a horizon-
lower-bound solution for active pressures in closed form:
tal backfill and a vertical wall backface, Coulomb’s solution

yields cosd
½2 KA ¼ ðcosd
1 þ sinf
½1 KA ¼
cos 2 f pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2  sin 2 f  sin 2 dÞ e½darcsin ðsind=sinfÞ tanf
cosdf1 þ ½sin ðf þ dÞ sinf=cosdg

Received 21 March 2011. Accepted 26 September 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 20 December 2011.
D. Loukidis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus.
R. Salgado. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1284, USA.
Corresponding author: D. Loukidis (e-mail: loukidis@ucy.ac.cy).
1The paper is not restricted to backfilled walls. To call attention to applicability of the discussion to walls supporting natural ground as

well as completely backfilled walls, the terms “retained soil mass” and “backfill” are used interchangeably throughout.

Can. Geotech. J. 49: 78–97 (2012) doi:10.1139/T11-087 Published by NRC Research Press
Loukidis and Salgado
The upper bound values for KA by Coulomb’s solution,
Chen (1975), and Soubra and Macuh (2002) are very close
to the corresponding lower bound values using Lancellotta’s
equation (eq. [2]); the differences do not exceed 7%. The KA
values by Sokolovskiĭ (1965) lie between the narrow band
defined by these lower and upper bounds.
Lower and upper bounds produced by limit analysis are
valid for perfectly plastic soils following an associated flow
rule (dilatancy angle j equal to the friction angle f). In the
case of materials commonly used for backfills (sands and
gravels), j is significantly lower than f. In fact, the complex-
ity of soil behavior goes beyond the difference between j
and f, as discussed in detail later, but this does not appear
to have been studied in connection with the analysis of re-
taining walls.
Three stability checks are traditionally done in wall design,
namely bearing capacity failure, sliding, and toppling. In es-
sence, these checks deal with assuring vertical, horizontal,
and moment equilibrium of the wall. While these separate
checks are easy for engineers to understand and apply, the
horizontal and moment resistances that the foundation soil
(including any embedment in front of the wall) can provide
to the wall are in fact coupled with the vertical bearing ca-
pacity. For example, toppling failure occurs in theory when
the foundation load eccentricity e becomes greater than one-
half the foundation width B. Unless the wall base is resting
on rock or very stiff soil, the wall foundation will actually
fail due to the excessively high contact pressure at the wall
base caused by large load eccentricity before toppling. In ad-
dition, wall sliding on its base is more likely to have the form
of a shallow one-sided bearing capacity mechanism with a
large horizontal displacement component (Loukidis et al.
2008) rather than pure sliding along the base–soil interface.
This paper aims to investigate the gravity wall–soil interac-
tion and the development of these different failure scenarios
by modeling the soil mechanical behavior in a realistic way
in a series of finite element (FE) analyses. This allows the
development of displacement and stress fields within the soil
that are not constrained by the simplifying assumptions of
perfect plasticity and associativity. These results are useful in
informing design decisions, the most important of which
being how to calculate the active pressures on the backface
of the wall. The FE analyses, which take into account nonas-
sociativity, stress dependence of sand strength and dilatancy,
stress-induced anisotropy, fabric-induced anisotropy, and pro-
gressive failure, focus on the evolution of KA with wall dis-
placement u. This permits establishing the soil friction angle
value that is suitable for the estimation of the design KA
value, which is the one that corresponds to the wall displace-
ment required to bring the wall to an ultimate limit state
(ULS).
Problem statement
Dependence of active earth pressure on wall movement
In methods of analysis currently used in design practice,
the main input for the calculation of KA for purely frictional
backfills is the internal friction angle f of the soil. These
methods, which include the Rankine, Coulomb, and Lancel-
lotta methods discussed earlier, assume that f is constant, i.e.,
its value is the same at all points inside the backfill and
79
does not change as the wall moves. This would be valid
for a very loose backfill, where all soil elements reach fail-
ure directly at critical state (CS), with f equal to the CS
friction angle fc . However, most practical cases involve
backfills consisting of medium dense and dense sands and
gravels, which are strain-softening materials when sheared
under drained conditions, meaning that the mobilized fric-
tion angle of an element of any of these soils will first
reach a peak value fp and then decrease towards fc . Cer-
tain regions inside the backfill mass will fail and start to
soften early in the loading process. The shear strain level
developed in these regions may be large enough for the
friction angle to drop to its CS value fc before the wall
reaches a ULS, while f is close to fp in other regions.
This phenomenon is commonly referred to as progressive
failure. In addition, fp depends strongly on the level of
mean effective stress p′, which varies from point to point
inside the backfill and evolves continuously during wall
movement. It should also be noted that, given that retaining
walls have a much larger length than width, the deformation
of the backfill and foundation soil happens under plane-
strain conditions (so the CS friction angle is the plane-strain
CS friction angle (Loukidis and Salgado 2009)). Given that
the friction angle varies from point to point in the backfill,
the representative f value to be used in KA calculation
methods assuming perfect plasticity and associated flow is
unknown; it cannot be determined precisely based on intu-
ition or judgment.
Let us idealize the gravity wall initial condition as one in
which there has been no horizontal movement; as a result,
the coefficient of lateral earth pressure K is equal to its at-
rest value (K0). If we allow the wall to move away from the
backfill, K first decreases to a minimum value KA, min (point
M in Fig. 1) and then increases to an ultimate (residual)
value KA, cr (point C in Fig. 1). Between points M and C, the
supported soil is in an active state. Point M is associated with
an active state for which the average mobilized f in the sup-
ported soil is closer to fp than fc . Point C is associated with
full mobilization of CS (f ¼ fc ) along all failure surfaces
(shear bands) formed in the retained soil.
To design a wall, we are interested in the value of KA at a
limit state (KA, LS), which is not necessarily equal to either
KA, cr or KA, min. At present, there are two approaches to deter-
mine KA (Salgado 2008), one based on calculations using an
estimate of fp and the other using an estimate of fc . The for-
mer approach, which is most common in practice, would
underpredict the active earth pressure on the wall at the limit
state, making it unconservative. On the other hand, using fc
may be overly conservative, since a well-designed wall would
not move as much as to cause more than 20% shear strain in
the shear bands developing in the backfill before the wall
reaches its limit state (Salgado 2008). The following section
examines in more detail what happens between points M and
C, and what would constitute an appropriately defined ULS
for a gravity wall.
Wall limit state (WLS)
To establish KA, LS, we need first to establish a way to
identify the ultimate WLS. We must stress that, in establish-
ing a limit state, we are unconcerned with what the value of
Published by NRC Research Press
 452 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 50, 2013

Fig. D1. Load–movement response of a five-pile group (data from Fig. D4. Evaluated distributions of unit shaft resistance for pile
Phung 1993). b, pile diameter. DZ1L.

16 UNIT SHAFT RESISTANCE, rs (KPa)

0 20 40 60 80 100
14 #2 0
#1
#5
12
#4 Average
LOAD/PILE (kN)

10 #1 as single 5
#3

8
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on 02/25/23

DEPTH (m)
10
6 Evaluation using
#3 #4 total stress
calculation fitted
4 #1 to measured
2.3 m 15 distribution
#2 #5
2
sq60 mm 680 mm
c/c = 5.7 b 340 mm Authors' evaluation
0 20 using differentiation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
MOVEMENT OF PILE HEAD (mm) Pile DZ1L
25
Fig. D2. Load–movement curve of test on pile DZ1L. Ru, ultimate
resistance. The authors differentiated the loads determined at the strain-
gage levels and determined the average unit shaft resistances be-
2,000
Chin-Kondner and Decourt: Ru = 1,850 kN tween the gage levels. This method requires that the strain
Hansen 80-% method: Ru = 1,700 kN
1,800
1,700 kN
measurements be accurate, which seems to have been the case for
1,600 1,540 kN Ru -range: 1,400 kN
this test. When the accuracy is less good, the inaccuracies will be
1,400
to 1,700 kN enlarged by the differentiation. The alternative of evaluating the
Offset limit: Ru = 1,400 kN
shaft resistance by fitting calculations to a load distribution
For personal use only.

LOAD (kN)

1,200
makes for results less dependent on inaccuracies. Moreover, when
1,000 the gage levels are not at the layer boundaries, as is the case at the
800 16.1 m boundary level and 17.5 m gage level, and the shaft resis-
Hyperbolic and tances in the layers are different, the differentiation method will
600 80-% methods load- be somewhat distorted. By evaluating the shaft resistance be-
movement curves
400 tween the layer boundaries as opposed to between the gage levels,
fitted to the test data
200 the potential distortion is avoided.
Pile DZ1L Figure D4 compiles the authors' unit shaft resistance values
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 obtained by differentiation and those I have obtained from the
Offset: 4 mm + b/120 = 7.3 mm MOVEMENT (mm)
total stress calculation fitted to the measured distribution. The
values of unit shaft resistance by the two methods agree quite well
Fig. D3. Pile DZ1L load distribution. GW, groundwater level; rs, unit where layer boundaries and gage levels are at the same depth, but
shaft resistance; qc, cone stress. they deviate where the gage levels and boundaries are not.
The authors discuss the interaction between piles in a pile
LOAD (kN) group by comparing the load–movement results of a single pile to
0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 that of the piles in the group (where the pile head loads were
0 GW
? rs = 33 KPa or ß = 1.2
Fill measured individually). The authors state that the pile caps were
Clay cast and “rested on the ground.” If indeed the pile caps were in
rs = 85 KPa or ß = 1.5 qc contact with the ground during the tests on the pile groups, this
5 would have added some resistance and stiffness to the group tests.
Silt

rs = 63 KPa or ß = 0.6 I wonder if the contact stress was measured and, if so, how large it
was.
DEPTH (m)

10
ß = 0.6 Silt
Moreover, there does not seem to have been any measurement
of the compression of the clay below the pile toe level. The two
rs = 65 KPa 9-pile groups have a footprint area of about 10 m2 and the stress
15
ß = 0.3 produced by the maximum applied load distributed over that area
was therefore about 1500 kPa. The applied test load produces shaft
Distributions by α- and Clay
ß methods fitted to the resistance that is transmitted downward through the soil, and
20 measured load rs = 25 KPa or ß = 0.1 although it would be somewhat dispersed laterally, a good por-
distribution for the
1,540 kN load tion of it will reach the pile toe level together with the toe stress
Pile DZ1L (which was small). Although the authors do not provide details of
25
the clay, I would expect that the measured pile head movement
for the pile group will have experienced some additional move-
ment due compression of the clay below the pile toe level. This
effective stress calculations back-calculated to fit the distribution would have appeared as a reduced stiffness for the group piles as
at the 1540 kN applied load. The total stress values of the average opposed to the single pile even for the case of shaft and toe resis-
unit shaft resistance, rs, and the ␤-coefficients I used to achieve tances and toe movement being equal for a group pile and a single
the fit are shown to the left of the qc diagram. For the calculations, pile. And it would, therefore, explain part of the authors' observed
I used the UniPile program (Goudreault and Fellenius 1998). stiffness differences between single piles and group of piles.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Fellenius
The load–movement response of a shaft bearing pile group is
not just governed by the soil shear strength. (The test piles at the
subject site were essentially shaft bearing and the test on pile
DZ1L showed a mobilized shaft resistance of about 1400 kN.) The
buoyant weight of the soil in between the piles has a moderating
influence on the pile stiffness response, depending on the spacing
between the piles. Once the buoyant weight of the soil between
the piles placed in a group is smaller than the shaft resistance for
a single pile, the amount of shaft resistance available to a pile
inside the group becomes correspondingly limited. The center
pile of the 24 m 9-pile group has a share of the soil weight equal to
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on 02/25/23
the square of the spacing minus the cross section of the pile times
the effective stress at the pile toe. The effective stress at the 24 m
pile toe level was about 240 kPa. Thus, the share of soil weight for
a 400 mm diameter pile inside the group of piles spaced c/c 3.0
diameters is about 300 kN. That is, at such spacings, when the
shaft resistance demand becomes larger than 300 kN, there will
be interference between the piles, resulting in a softer shaft re-
sponse for the interior piles in the group as opposed to that of a
single pile. Had the spacing been about twice larger, as for the case
shown in Fig. D1, this “buoyant weight” influence would have
been minimal.
References
Badellas, A., Savvaidis, P., and Tsotos, S. 1988. Settlement measurement of a
liquid storage tank founded on 112 long bored piles. In Proceedings of Second
International Conference on Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Kobe,
Japan. Balkema Rotterdam. pp. 435–442.
Fellenius, B.H. 1975. Test loading of piles. Methods, interpretation, and new
proof testing procedure. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
For personal use only.
101(GT9): 855–869.
453
Fellenius, B.H. 2012. Basics of foundation design. Electronic ed. Available at
www.Fellenius.net.
Golder, H.Q., and Osler, J.C. 1968. Settlement of a furnace foundation, Sorel,
Quebec. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 5(1): 46–56. doi:10.1139/t68-004.
Goossens, D., and Van Impe, W.F. 1991. Long-term settlement of a pile group
foundation in sand, overlying a clayey layer. In Proceedings of the 10th Euro-
pean Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Firenze,
26–30 May. Vol. I, pp. 425–428.
Goudreault, P.A., and Fellenius, B.H. 1998. UniPile Version 4.0 User Manual.
UniSoft Ltd., Ottawa, Ont. Available at www.UniSoftLtd.com.
Likins, G.E., Fellenius, B.H., and Holtz, R.D. 2011. Pile driving formulas—past and
present. In Proceedings of the ASCE GeoInstitute Geo-Congress, Full-scale
Testing in Foundation Design, State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical
Engineering, Oakland, 25–29 March 2012. Geotechnical Special Publication
227. Edited by M.H. Hussein, K.R. Massarsch, G.E. Likins, and R.D. Holtz. ASCE,
Reston, Va. pp. 737–753.
O'Neill, M.W., and Reese, L.C. 1999. Drilled shaft construction procedures and
design methods. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Techni-
cal Report FHWA-IF-99-025.
O'Neill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A., and Audibert, J.M.E. 1982a. Installation of pile
group in overconsolidated clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 108(11): 1369–1386.
O'Neill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A., and Mahar, L.J. 1982b. Load transfer mechanisms in
piles and pile groups. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
108(12): 1605–1623.
Phung, L.D. 1993. Footings with settlement-reducing piles in non-cohesive soil.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Chalmers University
of Technology, Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Goteborg. Report 43.
Savvaidis, P. 2003. Long term geodetic monitoring of deformation of a liquid
storage tank founded on piles. In Proceedings, 11th FIG Symposium on Defor-
mation Measurements, Santorini, Greece.
Terzaghi, K. 1942. Discussions on the progress report of the committee on the
bearing value of pile foundations. In Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, 68: 311–323.
Published by NRC Research Press