PASSIVE PRESSURE DURING SEISMIC LOADING

By Trevor G. Davies,1 A. M. ASCE, Rowland Richards, Jr.,2 M. ASCE,

and Kuang-Hsiang Chen3

INTRODUCTION

The problem of determining the maximum active thrust exerted on

retaining walls under seismic loading has received considerable atten-
tion in the literature [e.g., Richards and Elms (5), Sherif et al. (7), Na-
zarian and Hadjian (4), and Nadim and Whitman (3) to n a m e only the
most recent]. Although the dynamic passive resistance problem is also
of considerable theoretical and practical interest, this complementary part
of the earth pressure problem has been largely neglected.
This paper: (1) Corrects some errors in the literature pertaining to this
problem; (2) defines a clear sign convention which should clarify current
ambiguities; (3) demonstrates a novel mathematical correspondence be-
tween the active and passive earth pressure problems; (4) presents the
results of a parametric study of the problem; a n d (5) examines a few of
the effects of increasing earthquake intensity on critical failure surfaces
and resulting lateral thrusts.
We do not address the problems of soil liquefaction nor of hydrody-
namic pore water pressure. Seismic loading is assumed to occur u n d e r
fully drained conditions in cohesionless soils and only plane failure sur-
faces are considered.

SIGN CONVENTION AND EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

Fig. 1 depicts the sign convention for both the active a n d passive crit-
ical states where all the variables are s h o w n as positive. This is the usual
convention for the geometric a n d frictional variables (;', (3,8, <j>) a n d a log-
ical one for the inertial effects of accelerations since it leads to solutions
for active thrust and passive resistance which are mathematically related
to each other in a simple way.
The seismic active thrust is: /?£''•

EAE = pH2(i - K)KAE ;y..... (i)

in which KAE = f(i, p, 8, $, 6), a n d from the well-known Mononobe-Okabe

analysis for plane failure surfaces:
lecturer in Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Glasgow, Scotland.
2
Prof., State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
3
Grad. Student, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Note.—Discussion open until September 1, 1986. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication
on September 16, 1986. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, Vol. 112, No. 4, April, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/86/0004-0479/$01.00.
Paper No. 20492.
479
 •^555"

FIG. 1.—Sign Convention (All Quantities Shown Positive)

cos 2 (<|> - p - 8)
(2)
sin (<>
| + 8) sin (<>
| - i - 6)
cos 9 cos2 (3 cos (8 + (3 + 9) 1 +
cos (8 + (3 + 6) cos (i - p)

in which 6 = tan (3)

L(i - K)\
The corresponding expression for passive resistance is:
(4)
2
EPE = ^7H (l-*,,)Kp E
Assuming the stated sign convention: KPE = /(;', 3, - 8 , —<(>, —G), it follows
that the expression for KPE published by Kapila (2) and quoted by Rich-
ards and Elms (5) for the passive case is correct. Namely:
cos2 (4> + p - 6)
Kpp — • (5)
2
sin (4> + 8) sin (4> + f - 9)
cos 9 cos p cos (8 - p + 9)
cos (8 - p + 9) cos (i - P)
The correspondence of the two expressions (for KAE and KPE) is slightly
obscured by factorization of the arguments of the circular functions. The
negative root of the radical in the denominator for KPE replaces the pos-
itive root associated with the active earth pressure coefficient since in
the latter case a local maximum is determined to find the active thrust
while a minimum is sought to find the passive resistance. This result
has been confirmed by numerical solution of the force equilibrium equa-
tions.
Consequently, the expression given by Seed and Whitman (6) for KPE
has a typographical error in its sin ((j> - 8) term which has, since then,
propagated through the literature (1,9). There is no alternative assump-
tion of sign convention that will correct this discrepancy and not pro-
duce others. Further, since none of these authors, including Richards
and Elms (5), give a clear definition of their sign conventions for the
passive case, confusion has even resulted in applying the correct equa-
tion in practice.
Finally, we note that the mathematical equivalence between the active
and passive cases is valid only if the failure surfaces are plane. It is well
known that, even for static conditions, the corresponding expressions
480
for KP and KA are somewhat inaccurate (unsafe) since, particularly in the
passive case, the actual critical failure surface has curvature (8).

PARAMETRIC STUDY

Although the influence of the various parameters on passive resis-

tance can be readily determined by substitution into Eqs. 4 and 5, no
information can be obtained with regard to the extent of the failure zone.
Consequently, the limit equilibrium equations have been solved nu-
merically in order to determine the angle of inclination (p) of the failure
plane to the horizontal.
Fig. 2 shows that this angle reduces to zero as the horizontal accel-
eration increases. The critical acceleration (when the failure plane be-
comes horizontal) is reached when 9 = 4>. At moderate acceleration lev-
els, the failure surface for the passive case is not substantially different
from that predicted by a static analysis. However, this is not true for
the active case.
At the critical acceleration, the soil can no longer sustain any further
shear. This "energy liquefaction" which occurs (as noted above) when
ki, = (1 - kv) tan 4> is evident in Fig. 3. While the passive thrust decreases
with increasing acceleration, the active thrust increases. The two con-
verge at the critical acceleration, yielding at this point (for i = p = 0) the
earth pressure coefficient KE = [cos § cos (8 + <t>)]-1.
At moderate acceleration levels, the passive resistance decreases by
approximately 8% per 0.1 g increase in lateral acceleration. Furthermore,
a study of Eq. 5 will show that the passive pressure coefficient KPE is
virtually independent of the vertical acceleration coefficient, and it fol-
lows therefore, from Eq. 4 that the passive resistance decreases by ap-
proximately 10% per 0.1 g increase in vertical acceleration.
The wall friction increases passive resistance significantly under static

* 30
\\ \ S'O
\\ \\ - - &*20° pass/re
\\ \
4o \ fdcf/ve
\
\
\ \
\\
e fiassive?^
\\
\\
_ \ \\
—--.
\A \ \\
^W
0.2 , o.4 0.t

FIG. 2.—Inclination of Failure Surface FIG. 3.—Influence of Lateral Ground

to Horizontal (kv = & = i = 0) Acceleration on Earth Pressure Coeffi-
cients (fc„ = p = ! = 0)

481
 -
^ "
^ ^
^~^~^
~^*4o°
^^^^__^
~~^5°

~~~^?'
/w
^s°
—- \25° ^
~--C
. <p-35°
6y-S./3*0 - 4- i-p- $ 0

i 1 i
0.2 , 0.4 oj h 0.4

FIG. 4.—Influence of Backfill Slope An- FIG. 5.—Influence of Soil Friction An-
gle on Passive Pressure gle on Passive Pressure

conditions (although not as much as indicated in Fig. 3 which presumes

a plane failure surface). This effect is rather less pronounced at higher
lateral accelerations which suggests that the assumption of a plane fail-
ure surface has greater validity at higher accelerations. Whether wall
friction for passive resistance can be relied upon during seismic excita-
tions is a moot point without experimental data and thus it is usually
neglected in (conservative) design calculations. The effect of increasing
the backfill slope is, as expected, to increase the passive resistance (Fig.
4). If there is significant wall friction, however, the effect of backfill angle
is much greater. Passive resistance is much less sensitive to wall batter
(which only decreases by about 2% per degree for small angles). The
influence of the friction angle of the soil (<}>) on the passive resistance is
illustrated in Fig. 5. The effect of this parameter in the passive case is
the inverse of its effect for the active case, i.e., in the passive case an
increase in friction angle results in an increase in the passive resistance.

CONCLUSION

The implications of this analysis of dynamic earth pressure for the de-
sign of anchored bulkheads and other retaining structures where passive
resistance is important are significant. A standard static design of an
anchored bulkhead, for example, may prove to be inadequate even for
moderate earthquake loading since the passive resistance at the toe de-
creases while the active thrust increases, thus, greatly enhancing the
likelihood that the toe of the wall kicks out in a rotational mode of col-
lapse.
Perhaps a more likely failure mode during earthquake loading is an-
chor failure. Three factors may contribute to anchor failure: (1) The in-
crease in active thrust on the wall and the concomitant decrease in pas-
sive resistant in front of the wall means that a significantly higher anchor
force is needed to maintain horizontal equilibrium; (2) the passive resis-
tance afforded by the soil to the anchor decreases; and (3) because of
482
enlargement of the active zone behind the wall a n d t h e passive zone in
front of the anchor, the two m a y interact destructively, thus further re-
ducing the anchor's load capacity.
Thus, the common failures of these structures in earthquakes which
are generally ascribed to soil liquefaction m a y often be attributable to
earthquake induced inertial forces. The information presented here should
facilitate the designer's task of modifying current static design proce-
dures for these structures in seismic zones.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

1. Das, B. M., "Fundamentals of Soil Dynamics," Elsevier Science Publishing

Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1983, p. 325.
2. Kapila, J. P., "Earthquake Resistant Design of Retaining Walls," Proceedings,
2nd Earthquake Symposium, Univ. of Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 1962, pp. 97-
108.
3. Nadim, F., and Whitman, R. V., "Seismically Induced Movement of Retaining
Walls," /. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 109, GT7, 1983, pp. 915-931.
4. Nazarian, H. N., and Hadjian, A. H., "Earthquake-Induced Lateral Soil Pres-
sures on Structures," /. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 105, GT9, 1979, pp.
1049-1066.
5. Richards, R., Jr., and Elms, David G., "Seismic Behavior of Gravity Retaining
Walls," J. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 105, GT4, 1979, pp. 449-464.
6. Seed, H. B., and Whitman, R. V., "Design of Earth Retaining Structures for
Dynamic Loads," Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses
in the Ground and Design of Retaining Structures, 1970, pp. 103-147.
7. Sherif, M. A., Ishibashi, I., and Lee, C. D., "Earth Pressures against Rigid
Retaining Walls," /. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 108, GT5, 1982, pp. 679-
696.
8. Tschebotarioff, G. P., "Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures,"
McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 1951, pp. 242-246.
9. Wu, T. H., Foundation Engineering Handbook, H. F. Winterkorn and H. Fang,
Eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1975, p. 409.

APPENDIX II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

a,, = horizontal acceleration;

av = vertical acceleration;
EAE = active thrust of soil;
Ep£ = passive resistance of soil;
§ = acceleration due to gravity;
H = wall height;
i = backfill angle;
KAE = active thrust coefficient;
KpE = passive resistance coefficient;
h = horizontal acceleration coefficient;
K = vertical acceleration coefficient;
P = wall batter angle;
7 = unit weight of soil;
8 = wall/soil friction angle;
e == tan" 1 [fc„/(l - kv)\,
p inclination to horizontal of failure plane; and
<>
f = soil friction angle.
483