GENERALIZED COULOMB ACTIVE-EARTH PRESSURE

FOR D I S T A N C E D S U R C H A R G E
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By Ernesto Motta ~

INTRODUCTION

Earth-pressure problems are of great interest in geotechnical engineering

and closed-form solutions are widely used for the evaluation of active-earth-
pressure coefficients in the design of retaining structures. Coulomb (1776)
first proposed the failure-wedge method by assuming a plane-failure surface
and imposing the equilbrium conditions. Based on the Coulomb-wedge
method, MueUer Breslau (1906) derived a closed-form solution for the ac-
tive-earth-pressure coefficient taking into account the slope of the ground
profile and the friction between the wall and the soil. Successively, Mon-
onobe (1929) and Okabe (1926) extended the Coulomb solution taking also
into account the earthquake-induced pressure in a pseudostatic way.
The aforementioned solutions refer to the earth-pressure-active coeffi-
cient due to the soil weight. In many practical problems, however, the earth
pressure could be due to soil weight as well as to a surcharge applied on
the ground profile to be retained. Moreover, in most cases, the surcharge
is applied a certain distance from the wall, thus it seems worthwhile to
derive some closed-form solution that also takes into account the distance
at which a load is applied. For the evaluation of the lateral-earth pressure
due to a surcharge, one often refers to elastic solutions based on Boussinesq's
equations (Jarquio 1981; Misra 1981); however, the theory of elasticity does
not take into account the effect of soil strength on lateral-earth pressure
against a wall, which is in contrast with evidence. The Coulomb approach
is based on the limit-equilibrium method and it has been recognized to be
reliable for the case of the active state; the solutions derived do not differ
significantly with those derived from an upper-bound-limit analysis (Chen
1975) or from the method of characteristics (Sokolowskii 1965). Further-
more, the Coulomb method allows solving earth-pressure problems with
various boundary conditions (Satyanarayana 1965; Motta 1993) so it seems
appropriate to apply it in this note.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
The basic assumptions made for the determination of the active-earth-
pressure coefficient are that the soil is homogeneous, dry, and cohesionless;
the failure surface of the wedge is a plane; and the extension of the uniformly
distributed load q, applied on the ground surface, is sufficiently large to
ensure that the load q is intersected by the failure plane.
Referring to Fig. 1 and assuming a failure plane inclined at an angle
respect to the horizontal, it is possible to show that the weight of the failure

~Res. of Soil Mech., Fac. of Engrg., Univ. of Catania, 95125 Catania, Italy.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review and possible publication
on February 8, 1993. This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 6, June, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9410/94/0006-1072/
$2.00 + $.25 per page. Technical note No. 5597.
1072

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1072-1079.

 q

nllluIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuIrllll
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

[
H

FIG. 1. Scheme for Earth-Pressure Evaluation

wedge W and the extension B of the effective-applied load on the wedge

can be expressed as follows:

1 H2 [ (l ~- tan_~tan/) 2] (1)
W = ~ ~/ [_(1 + tan 13 tan/)tan 13 + tan c~ - tan i J

and

B=H(I+ tane~tan13 d)
(2)
tan ~ 7--ta--n
Thus the total weight of the failure wedge, due to the soil mass and sur-
charge, is
W, = W + q B (3)
In most practical cases the back face of the wall in contact with the soil
to be retained is vertical, i.e., 13 = O, so this assumption will be made and
the aforementioned expressions for W and B can be simplified as follows:

W = }~/H 2 t a n a - tani (4)

and

B = H
(1
tana - tani h
) (5)

where ~, = ratio between the horizontal distance of the surcharge from the
head of the wall and the height of the wall. That is
= d/H (6)
If kh and kv denote the horizontal and vertical seismic coefficient, re-
spectively, by imposing the equilibrium conditions in the vertical and the
horizontal direction, the following expression can be derived for the active-
earth pressure Sa:
1073
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1072-1079.
 1 tan(a - qb') + kh/(1 -- k.)
S. = ~ ~/(1 - k~)H 2 (tan a - tan/)[cos g + sin g tan(a - +')]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tan(a - +') + kh/(1 -- kv)

+ q(1 - k v ) H
(tan ot - tan/)[cos ~ + sin ~ tan(a - +')]
• [1 - k(tan a - tan i)] (7)
where ~ = bulk-unit weight of soil; +' = soil-friction angle; ~ = soil-wall
friction angle; H = height of wall; and q --- intensity of distributed load
behind wall.
In (7), the contribution of the surcharge q to the seismic loading has been
evaluated assuming the following horizontal and vertical forces:
Fhq = khqB (8)
and
Fvq = k~qn (9)
Eq. (7) can also be written in the classical form:
1
So = ~ ",/(1 - k~)H2Ka,~ + q(1 - ko)HKa,q (10)

where
tan(a - qb') + kh/(1 - kv)
Ka,~ = (tan o~ - tan/)[cos g + sin g tan(cx - +')]
(11)
and
Ko,q = rK.,~ (12)
where
r = [1 - k(tan ~ - tan i)] (13)
It follows that the earth-pressure coefficient K.,q, due to the surcharge,
will be equal to the earth-pressure coefficient K.,~, due to the soil weight,
only if h = 0; i.e., only if the surcharge is applied close to the wall, otherwise
Ko,q will be somewhat less than K.,~, depending on the value of h.
Assuming
0 = tan-~[kh/(1 -- kv)] (14)
and introducing the dimensionless parameter nq
2q
nq "yH (15)

Eq. (10) can be rewritten in the following form:

1
Sa ~-- ~ "~(1 - k~)H2K.,.q (16)

where K..~q = a coefficient, which takes into account the effects of soil
weight and of the surcharge load, and that, after some manipulations, can
be expressed as
1074

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1072-1079.

 [1 + nq - Xnq(tan et - tan i)]sin(ct + 0 - ~b')
g a "lq -~ r t (17)
" cos 0 cos(or - + ~)(tan et - tan i)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

To find the solution for S, it must be i m p o s e d that the derivative of So

with respect to ct must be equal to zero; that is
dSa
dc~ 0 (18)

Applying (18) allows finding the critical angle o~c for the failure plane,
i.e., the angle that gives the m a x i m u m - e a r t h pressure by means of the
following expression:
tan(ac - i)
= sin a sin b + (sin2a sin2b + sin a cos a sin b cos b + A cos c cos a sin b) ~ (19)
A cos c + sin a cos b

wherea = +' + 3 - i;b = +' - i- 0;c = 0 + 8;and

A = [(1 + nq)sinicos i 4 hnq]/(1 + nq)COS2i (20a)
By utilizing (19) the active-earth-pressure coefficient Ka,vq can be given
as follows:
(1 + nq)COS2i[1 - A tan(ctc - /)][cos b - sin b/tan(at - i)]
ga,',lq ~"
cos 0[cos a + tan(ctc - /)sin a]
(20b)
As an example, in Fig. 2 the coefficient ga,.y q is p l o t t e d versus h and for
different values of nq. A l s o utilized p a r a m e t e r s were 0 = 0 (seismic-hori-
zontal coefficient kh = 0); i = 0 (horizontal-ground surface behind wall);
+ ' = 30~ and ~/+' = 1/2.
O b v i o u s l y , the curve for nq = 0 in Fig. 2 coincides with the classical
solution when no surcharge is present on the ground surface and, for this
particular case, Ka,vq = K,,v = 0.301.

LIMITS FOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

According to Fig. 3, it should be p o i n t e d out that ( 1 9 ) - ( 2 0 ) apply only
if c~c < txx, that is
1
tan a~ < tan i + ~ (21)

Eq. (21) ensures that the b o u n d a r y conditions are compatible with basic
assumptions, that is the critical-failure plane intersects the surcharge at the
ground surface. F o r example, curves for nq > 0 in Fig. 2 are truncated when
(21) is no longer valid.
To find the m a x i m u m - e a r t h - p r e s s u r e coefficient, even if (21) is valid, one
should also c o m p a r e the solutions given by ( 1 9 ) - ( 2 0 ) for the two cases
nq = 0 and nq ~ 0 , respectively. I n d e e d , in some particular circumstances,
the condition nq = 0 m a y be m o r e critical than the condition nq ~ 0, as
shown in Fig. 2 . This happens because the failure planes associated with
the two conditions are quite different. Generally, however, the case nq
0 is the most critical condition.
1075

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1072-1079.

 0.70

o. T/ly,.,.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.50

K.,vq ~0.5 \
0.40 ~ "~- --

0.30 - "- i

0.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 i.0
).
FIG. 2. Values of Earth-Pressure Coefficient K.,~q versus the Dimensionless Pa-
rameter x

FIG. 3. Limits for Boundary Conditions

EXAMPLES

In order to check the accuracy of the p r o p o s e d solution, two examples

of earth-pressure p r o b l e m s will be presented. To this aim the analytical
solution will be c o m p a r e d with the Coulomb-graphical approach, assuming
various slopes, surcharge, and e a r t h q u a k e loadings.
First consider a 4-m high wall retaining a cohesionless soil whose ground
surface is horizontal (i = 0), as shown in Fig. 4. Let us assume for the soil
a bulk-unit weight "y = 20 kN/m 3 and a friction angle ~b' = 30 ~ A surcharge
of 40 kPa is applied on the ground surface at a distance d = 1 m from the
wall, so that k = d/H = 0.25; and nq.= (2 x 40)/(20 x 4) = 1.00. T h e
wall is smooth thus g = 0, while no seismic coefficients will be considered
in this example (kh = k~ = 0; i.e., 0 = 0). A p p l y i n g (19) we find that
tan(ere - i) = 1.436. Since i = 0, it follows that ac = 55-15 ~ A p p l y i n g
(20), it is found that Ka ~ = 0.536 and, from (16), Sa = 85.83 kN. Fur-
thermore, from (21), the limit of the b o u n d a r y condition is given by cq =
75.96 ~ Since c~c < cq, the solution is compatible with the b o u n d a r y con-
ditions. Fig. 4 also shows the Culmann p r o c e d u r e assuming trial wedges at
angles varying from a = 35 ~ to a = 75 ~ with step of 5 ~ The values of the
graphical approach are listed in Table 1. F r o m the graphical approach, the

1076

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1072-1079.

 q = 40 KPa
••b1•Ii5••••I••I•b•••1•Ib•Ii•bIi•I••••••b•Ii•••I••I•I•i•I•
lm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4. Graphical Solution for Example 1

TABLE 1. Quantities for Gra )hical Approach of Example 1

Wedge ~ W, S.
n (degrees) (kN) (kN)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
35 514.2 36.5
40 341.1 60.2
45 280.0 75.0
50 228.5 83.2
55 184.1 85.8
60 144.7 83.5
65 109.2 76.5
70 76.5 64.2
75 45.7 45.7

maximum-earth pressure is found at an angle cx = 55~ being Sa = 85.80

kN, which is practically the value given by the analytical solution.
As a second example, consider a 4-m high wall retaining a cohesionless
soil inclined at an angle i = 15~ with respect to the horizontal, as shown in
Fig. 5. Let us assume for the soil a bulk-unit weight ~/ = 20 kN/m 3 and a
friction angle + ' = 35 ~ A surcharge of 20 kPa is applied on the ground
surface at a distance d = 2 m from the wall so that X = d/H = 0.50 and
nq ~ " (2 X 20)/(20 X 4) = 0.50. The soil-wall friction angle is ~ = +'/2 =
17.5 ~ and the horizontal and vertical-seismic coefficients are, respectively,
kh = 0.10 and kv = 0, so that 0 = 5.71 ~ Applying (19), it is found that
tan(at - i) = 0.617. Since i = 15~ it follows that ac = 46.69 ~ Applying
(20), it is found that Ka ~q = 0.496 and the corresponding total-earth pressure
against the wall is, fr~;m (16), Sa = 79.36 kN. From (21), the limit of the
boundary condition is given by a l = 66.20 ~ Since c~c < al, also in this case
the solution is compatible with the b o u n d a r y conditions. Fig. 5 also shows
the Culmann procedure with trial wedges at angles varying from a = 30 ~
to a = 75 ~ while the quantities for the graphical approach are listed in

1077

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1072-1079.

 q = 20 KPa
i111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111t111111/1/111
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I 2ml o

k h = 0.10 k,,=0

100KN

FIG. 5. Graphical Solution for Example 2

TABLE 2, Quantities for GraphicalApproach of Example 2

Wedge ~ W, S~
n (degrees) (kN) (kN)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1 30 735.7 9.92
2 35 515.2 54.0
3 40 380.2 72.7
4 45 287.8 79.0
5 50 219.7 78.2
6 55 166.8 72.8
7 60 123.9 64.1
8 65 87.8 52.8
9 70 64.5 44.4
10 75 46.1 36.0

Table 2. From Table 2 the maximum-earth pressure for the angle ~ = 45 ~

is found, being that S= = 79 kN, which is in good agreement with that found
by the equation presented. This last, obviously, gives the exact solution.

CONCLUSIONS

A closed-form solution has been given for the evaluation of the active-
earth-pressure coefficient, which takes into account the effects of both the

1078

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1072-1079.

 soil weight and the surcharge applied to a certain distance from the head
of the wall. This allows one to take into consideration real-site conditions
and to avoid uneconomical design. Seismic effects have also been taken into
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KMUTT KING MONGKUT'S UNIV TECH on 10/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

account in a pseudostatic way by means of horizontal and vertical-seismic

coefficients.
All the parameters adopted for the evaluation of the active-earth-pressure
coefficient are dimensionless, so that the expressions given are general.
The use of the closed-form solution presented is not arbitrary but it is
strictly dependent on boundary conditions, that is, one always should verify
the compatibility of the solution with the boundary conditions of each prob-
lem.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier, New York, N.Y.
Coulomb, C. A. (1776). "Essai sur une application des regles des Maximis et Minimis
a quelques problemes de Statique relatifs a l'Architecture." Memoirs Academie
Royal Pres. Division Say. 7, Par~s, France (in French).
Jarquio, R. (1981). "Total lateral surcharge pressure due to strip load." J. Geotech.
Engrg. Div., ASCE, 107(10), 1,424-1,428.
Misra, B. (1981). "Lateral pressures on retaining walls due to loads of surfaces of
granular backfills." Soils and Found., 20(2), 31-44.
Mononobe, N. (1929). "Earthquake proof construction of masonry dams." Proc.,
World Engrg. Conf., Vol. 9, 275.
Motta, E. (1993). "Sulla valutazione della spinta attiva in terrapieni di altezza finita."
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, XXVII(3), 235-245 (in Italian).
Mueller Breslau, H. (1906). Erddruck auf stuetzmauern. Kroener, Stuttgart, Ger-
many (in German).
Okabe, S. (1926). "General theory of earth pressure." J. Japanese Soc. of Civ.
Engrg., 12(1).
Satyanarayana, B. (1965). "Earth pressure for bilinear backfill surface." J. Soil Mech.
and Found. Div., 91(1), 99-110.
Sokolowskii, V. V. (1965). Statics of granular media. Pergamon Press, London,
England.

1079

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1072-1079.