Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 845848

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Technical Note

Dynamic passive pressure from cf soil backlls

Sanjay Kumar Shukla n, Daryoush Habibi
School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Perth, WA 6027, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: This technical note presents an analytical expression for the total passive pressure on a retaining wall
Received 17 November 2010 from the cf soil backll subjected to both horizontal and vertical seismic inertial forces. The
Received in revised form developed expression has been analysed for the special cases, and the results have been found identical
15 January 2011
to those proposed by earlier researchers on the subject. A numerical example, presented to illustrate
Accepted 21 January 2011
Available online 12 February 2011
the steps for the calculation of total dynamic passive pressure using the developed general expression,
shows that the design value of total dynamic passive pressure as a resistance to the retaining wall
movement should be obtained with upward vertical seismic inertial force in combination with the
direction of horizontal seismic force towards the backll.
Crown Copyright & 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction expression. In real life situations, cf soils are also used as

The passive earth pressure refers to the resistance of a mass of
soil against the displacement of a structural element. The problem
of computing this pressure is of signicant practical importance
in dealing with lateral pressure exerted by the foundation of a
retaining wall, the outer face of the buried part of a sheet pile
bulkhead, a block of masonry such as the abutment of a loaded
arch, the soil beneath a loaded footing, etc. [1]. In routine design
practice, the total passive earth pressure or force from soil
backlls under static conditions are generally computed using
the analytical expressions based on the Rankines or the Cou-
lombs passive earth pressure theory [14], although several
passive earth pressure analyses have been presented in the
past [511]. Under seismic loading conditions, the total passive
earth pressure from cohesionless soil (f soil) backlls is generally
calculated using the expression presented by Kapila [12], which is
corresponding to the MononobeOkabe expression for total active
thrust [1317], and therefore, it may be called MononobeOkabe
Kapila expression. This expression for the total passive force is a
straightforward extension of the Coulomb sliding wedge theory
for incorporating the quasi-static horizontal and vertical inertial
forces caused by earthquakes. The passive earth pressure from the
cohesionless soil backlls has been analysed by Choudhury and
Nimbalkar [18] considering the concept of phase difference due to
nite shear wave propagation behind a retaining wall as pre-
sented by Steedman and Zeng [19], and Zeng and Steedman [20].
This pseudo-dynamic approach that appears more realistic does
not provide a simple and explicit analytical expression for the
total dynamic passive pressure like the MononobeOkabeKapila
backlls, especially when the cohesionless soils are not available
economically at construction sites. Subba Rao and Choudhury [21]
analysed the seismic earth pressure in soils using the limit
equilibrium method based on pseudo-static approach and con-
sidering the effects of cohesion in soils. They presented an
expression for the total seismic passive force by adding the
separately calculated minimum pressure contributions caused
by the unit weight and cohesion of the soil backll, which may
not occur in real life situations. Moreover, this expression for the
total dynamic pressure does not provide a simple and explicit
analytical expression for the total dynamic passive pressure from
the cf soil backlls like the MononobeOkabeKapila expres-
sion that is applicable to the cohesionless soil (f soil) backlls.
For routine design practice, practising engineers do not currently
have an option other than using the MononobeOkabeKapila
expression for estimating the total dynamic passive pressure
assuming that the cf soil backll has a negligible cohesion,
which does not provide a realistic value of the total dynamic
passive pressure. In the present work, an attempt is therefore
made to develop an analytical expression for the total dynamic
passive pressure on a retaining wall from the cf soil backll,
considering both horizontal and vertical seismic inertial forces,
and minimizing the total passive force to dene a single failure
plane. This work follows the analytical approach suggested by
Shukla et al. [22] and Shukla [23] for developing analytical
expression for dynamic active thrust from cf soil backlls.
2. Analytical formulation

Fig. 1 shows both active and passive soil backll wedges with a
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 61 8 6304 2632; fax: +61 8 6304 5811. retaining wall with vertical faces. A trial failure wedge A1A2A3 is
E-mail address: s.shukla@ecu.edu.au (S.K. Shukla). shown behind the vertical back face A1A2 of the retaining wall

0267-7261/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.01.009
846 S.K. Shukla, D. Habibi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 845848

2. failure in soil backll takes place along a plane A2A3, inclined

to the horizontal at an angle a;
3. the shear strength of soil backll is given by: sc + s0 tanf,
where s is the shear strength, c is the cohesion, f is the angle
of shearing resistance, and s0 is the effective stress;
4. at failure, full shear strength is mobilized along the failure
plane A2A3; and
5. the soil backll A1A2A3 behind the retaining wall behaves as a
rigid body.

Considering equilibrium of forces [k + and m  ] along the

vertical direction
1 7 kv WF cosa f C sin a 0 1
Considering equilibrium of forces [- + and ] along the
horizontal direction
Ppe kh WC cos aF sina f 0 2
2
Eliminating F from Eqs. (3) and (4) with W 1=2gH cot a and
CcH/sin a
 
1 kh  
Ppe 1 7 kv gH2 tana f cot a cH tana f cot a
2 1 7 kv
3
or
 
1 cosfy sinfy=tan a
Ppe 1 7kv gH2
Fig. 1. Trial failure passive wedge behind a retaining wall with cf soil backll. 2 cos fsin f tan acos y
1 tan2 acos f
with a height of backll in the passive soil wedge as H. The forces cH 4
cos fsin f tan atan a
per unit length of the wall acting on the failure wedge A1A2A3
under pseudo-static equilibrium condition, as shown in this where
 
gure, are described below: kh
y tan1 5
1 7 kv
1. weight of the trial failure wedge, W;
For the minimum value of the total dynamic passive pressure,
2. horizontal and vertical seismic inertial forces, khW [-] and
Ppe from Eq. (4), qPpe/qa 0 or
kvW [k +/m ] with kh and kv being the horizontal and the
vertical seismic coefcients, respectively; fsin f cosfy 2m cos2 fgtan2 a 2fsin f sinfy m sin 2fgtan a
3. total cohesive force on the failure plane, C;
4. resultant force F of the frictional component of the shear force fsinfycos f 2m cos2 fg 0 6
T and the normal force N acting at the failure plane A2A3; and where
5. total dynamic passive pressure, Ppe at the back face A1A2.
c cos y
m 7
1 7 kv gH
It is important to note that the active soil wedge has been shown Eq. (6) is quadratic in tan a, which gives the critical value of the
along with the passive wedge in Fig. 1 to draw attention to the fact inclination, a ac. Since ac will lie between 01 and 901, tan ac
that the total passive pressure is commonly used as the resistance to cannot be negative; therefore considering positive sign only,
active thrust in the design of retaining walls. This is the reason why Eq. (6) gives
" p
1 fsin f sinfy m sin 2fg sin f sinfycos y 4m2 cos2 f 2m cos ffsin f cos y sinfyg
ac tan  8
sin f cosfy 2mcos2 f

the total passive pressure is generally calculated as its smallest value Substituting a ac into Eq. (4)
for the movement of the wall towards the backll [1,3]. To achieve
1
the minimum total passive force, the horizontal seismic inertial Ppe 1 7kv gH2 Kpeg cHKpec 9
2
force is taken towards the backll [-]. For the vertical seismic force,
both possible directions, vertically upward (m) and downward (k), where
are considered in order to investigate its role in minimizing the total cosfy sinfy=tan ac
dynamic passive pressure. For simplicity in analytical derivation of Kpeg 10a
cos fsin f tan ac cos y
the expression for the total dynamic passive pressure Ppe on the
retaining wall from the cf soil backll, the following assumptions, and
as considered in the widely used simple static earth pressure 1 tan2 ac cos f
expressions, are made to make the derivation successful: Kpec 10b
cos fsin f tan ac tan ac

1. the friction/adhesion between the soil backll and the back are the dynamic passive earth pressure coefcients applicable to
face of the retaining wall is negligible; the seismic loading condition.
 S.K. Shukla, D. Habibi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 845848 847

Eq. (9) provides a general expression for determining the total Using Eq. (18), (9) becomes
dynamic passive pressure on a retaining wall from the cf soil
1 2
backll. It should be noted that Eq. (9) is similar in form to the Ppe gH 1 7kv Kpe 19
2
dynamic active earth pressure equation presented by Shukla
et al. [22]. For the real values of ac, the expression under the Eq. (19) is similar in form to the MononobeOkabe equation
radical sign in Eq. (8) must be positive, that is, for the total dynamic active earth pressure, which is applicable to
the retaining wall with a smooth vertical back face and horizontal
sin f sinfycos y 4m2 cos2 f 2m cos ffsin f cos y sinfyg Z 0 top surface of the cohesionless soil backll. Since this equation
was presented by Kapila [12,15,16,17], it may be called
or
MononobeOkabeKapila equation, as mentioned earlier.
kh r 1 7 kv tan f 2c=gH 11

Inequality (11) denes the critical horizontal seismic coef-

4. Illustrative example
cient, kh(cr) as
khcr 1 7kv tan f 2c=gH 12 Consider the following details for a retaining wall supporting
the cf soil backll.

Wall geometry:
3. Special cases Height of the backll in the passive zone, H15 m
Soil backlls characteristics:
The general equation (Eq. (9)) derived in the previous section Angle of shearing resistance, f 301
for the total dynamic passive pressure from the cf soil backll Cohesion of soil, c 52 kPa
can have some special cases as explained below. Unit weight, g 17.5 kN/m3
Case 1: The backll is cohesionless soil without seismic Seismic loadings:
loadings, that is, Horizontal seismic coefcient, kh 0.2
c0, f a0, kh 0 and kv 0. Vertical seismic coefcient, kv 0.1
From Eqs. (5), (7) and (8), y 0, m 0 and ac (p/4 f/2),
respectively. Eq. (10a) reduces to Suppose the dynamic passive resistance is required for the
design of a retaining wall. From Eq. (5), y 12.5291 for kv (m) and
Kpeg 1 sin f=1sin f Kp 13
y 10.3041 for kv (k). Substituting these values of y into Eq. (7),
where Kp is the Rankines passive earth pressure coefcient [3,4]. m0.2148 for kv (m) and m 0.1771 for kv (k).
Eq. (9) becomes From Eq. (8), the critical value of inclination, ac 27.9651 for
kv (m) and, ac 28.2191 for kv (k).
1
Ppe Kp gH2 Pp 14 From Eq. (10a), Kpeg 2.592 for kv (m) and Kpeg 2.669 for kv (k)
2 From Eq. (10b), Kpec 3.482 for kv (m) and Kpec 3.478 for kv (k).
where Pp is basically the total static passive pressure. Eq. (14) is From Eq. (9), Ppe 7307.658 kN/m for kv (m) and Ppe
known as the Rankine passive earth pressure equation for 8492.398 kN/m for kv (k). To have a safe design of the retaining
cohesionless soil backlls [3,4]. wall with a cf soil backll under seismic loadings, the total
Case 2: The backll is cf soil without any seismic loading, dynamic passive resistance, Ppe 7307.88 kN/m can be used.
that is, c a0, f a0, kh 0 and kv 0.
From Eqs. (5), (7) and (8)) y 0, m c/(gH) and ac (p/4 f/2),
respectively. When compared with Case 1, it is interesting to note 5. Conclusions
that the values of ac are identical for the two different values of m,
which indicates that ac does not depend on m. Therefore, for this An analytical expression [Eq. (9)] for the total dynamic passive
case, Kpeg is given by Eq. (13). Eq. (10b) reduces to pressure on a retaining wall from the cf soil backll has been
s derived, considering both horizontal and vertical seismic coef-
1 sin f q
cients. An explicit expression [Eq. (8)] for critical value of
Kpec 2 2 Kp 15
1sin f inclination to the horizontal of the critical failure plane has also
been presented. The illustrative example shows that the total
Thus, Eq. (9) becomes dynamic passive pressure on a retaining wall from the cf soil
1 q backll with an upward vertical seismic inertial force is smaller
Ppe Kp gH2 2 Kp cH Pp 16 than that with the downward vertical seismic inertial force.
2
Therefore, the design value of total passive force as a resistance
Eq. (16) is known as the Rankine passive earth pressure
to the retaining wall movement should be obtained with verti-
equation for cf soil backlls [3,4].
cally upward seismic inertial force in combination with the
Case 3: The backll is cohesionless soil with seismic loadings,
direction of horizontal seismic force towards the backll. Com-
that is, c 0, f a0, kh a0 and kv a0.
monly used expressions for total static and dynamic earth
From Eq. (7), m0 and from Eq. (8)
pressures including the MononobeOkabeKapila expression are
( p)
sin f sinfy sin f sinfycos y obtained from the developed general expression as its
ac tan1 17 special cases.
sin f cosfy

Using Eq. (17), (10a) becomes

Acknowledgement
cos2 fy
Kpeg n po2 Kpe 18
The authors appreciate M. Zahid for his suggestions during the
cos2 y 1 sin f sinfy=cos y
preparation of this technical note.
848 S.K. Shukla, D. Habibi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 845848
References
[1] Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 3rd ed..
New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1996.
[2] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1943.
[3] Lambe TW, Whitman RV. Soil mechanics, SI version. New York: John Wiley &
Sons; 1979.
[4] Das BM. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. 3rd ed. Stamford:
Cengage Learning; 2008.
[5] James RG, Bransby PL. Experimental and theoretical investigations of a
passive pressure problem. Geotechnique 1970;20(1):1737.
[6] Shields DH, Tolunay AZ. Passive pressure coefcients by method of slices.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE 1973;99(SM12):
104353.
[7] Basudhar PK, Madhav MR. Simplied passive earth pressure analysis. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1980;106(GT4):4704.
[8] Kumar J, Subba Rao KS. Passive pressure coefcient, critical failure surface
and its kinematic admissibility. Geotechnique 1997;47(1):18592.
[9] Zhu DY, Qian Q. Determination of passive earth pressure coefcients by the
triangular slices. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2000;37(2):48591.
[10] Lancellotta R. Analytical solution of passive pressure. Geotechnique
2000;52(8):6179.
[11] Hanna A, Khoury IA. Passive earth pressure of overconsolidated cohesionless
backll. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
2005;131(8):97886.
[12] Kapila JP. Earthquake resistant design of retaining walls. In: Proceedings of
the second earthquake symposium, Roorkee, India, 1962. p. 97108.
[13] Okabe S. General theory on earth pressure. Journal of the Japanese Society of
Civil Engineers 1926;12(1):311.
[14] Mononobe N. On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes.
In: Proceedings of the world engineering congress, vol. 9, Tokyo, Japan, 1929.
p. 176.
[15] Davies TG, Richards RJr. Passive pressure during seismic loading. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1986;112(4):47983.
[16] Richards RJr, Elms DG. Seismic behaviour of gravity retaining walls. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1979;105(GT4):44964.
[17] Das BM, Ramana GV. Principles of soil dynamics. 2nd ed. Stamford: Cengage
Learning; 2010.
[18] Choudhury D, Nimbalkar S. Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic
method. Geotechnique 2005;55(9):699702.
[19] Steedman RS, Zeng X. The inuence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-
static earth pressure on retaining wall. Geotechnique 1990;40(1):10312.
[20] Zeng X, Steedman RS. On the behaviour of quay walls in earthquakes.
Geotechnique 1993;43(3):41731.
[21] Subba Rao KS, Choudhury D. Seismic passive earth pressures in soils. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 2005;131(1):1315.
[22] Shukla SK, Gupta SK, Sivakugan N. Active earth pressure on retaining wall for
cf soil backll under seismic loading condition. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 2009;135(5):6906.
[23] Shukla SK. Dynamic active thrust from for cf soil backlls. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 2010;31(3):526529.