Color profile: Disabled

Composite Default screen

971

NOTE

Seismic passive resistance in soils for negative

wall friction
Deepankar Choudhury and K.S. Subba Rao

Abstract: In the presence of pseudo-static seismic forces, passive earth pressure coefficients behind retaining walls
were generated using the limit equilibrium method of analysis for the negative wall friction angle case (i.e., the wall
moves upwards relative to the backfill) with logarithmic spirals as rupture surfaces. Individual density, surcharge, and
cohesion components were computed to obtain the total minimum seismic passive resistance in soils by adding together
the individual minimum components. The effect of variation in wall batter angle, ground slope, wall friction angle, soil
friction angle, and horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations on seismic passive earth pressures are considered in the
analysis. The seismic passive earth pressure coefficients are found to be highly sensitive to the seismic acceleration co-
efficients both in the horizontal and the vertical directions. The results are presented in graphical and tabular formats.
Key words: seismic passive resistance, limit equilibrium, pseudo-static.
Résumé : En présence de forces sismiques pseudo-statiques, des coefficients de butée à l’arrière des murs de soutène-
ment ont été générés par la méthode d’analyse d’équilibre limite pour le cas d’angle de frottement négatif du mur (i.e.,
le mur bouge vers le haut par rapport au remblai) avec des surfaces de rupture en spirale logarithmique. La densité, la
surcharge et les composantes de cohésion individuelles sont calculées pour obtenir la butée sismique totale minimum
dans les sols en additionnant les composantes individuelles minimum. On considère dans l’analyse l’effet de la varia-
tion de l’angle d’inclinaison du mur, de la pente du sol, de l’angle de friction du mur, de l’angle de frottement du sol,
des accélérations sismiques horizontales et verticales sur les butées. On trouve que les coefficients de butée sismique
sont très sensibles aux coefficients d’accélération sismique tant dans les directions horizontale que verticale. Les résul-
tats sont présentés sous forme de graphiques et de tableaux.
Mots clés : butée sismique, équilibre limite, pseudo-statique.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Choudhury and Subba Rao 981

Introduction Most of the earlier analyses of passive earth pressures be-

The knowledge of passive earth pressure under both static
and dynamic conditions is required to analyze many
geotechnical engineering problems, such as retaining walls,
ground anchors, bearing capacity of foundations, design of
tower foundations, etc. The methods normally used to esti-
mate both active and passive earth pressures are the limit
equilibrium (Terzaghi, 1943), limit analysis (Chen, 1975),
and the method of characteristics (Sokolovski, 1965). For
the analysis of earth pressure problems in earthquake condi-
tions, pseudo-static seismic forces may be considered along
with other static forces.
Received 25 June 2001. Accepted 8 January 2002. Published
on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on
26 July 2002.
D. Choudhury and K.S. Subba Rao.1 Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore –
560 012, India.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: kss@civil.iisc.ernet.in).
hind retaining walls dealt with the case of positive wall fric-
tion angles (+δ) (i.e., the wall moves downwards relative to
the backfill). Some investigators have studied passive earth
pressure coefficients for the case of negative wall friction
angles (–δ) (i.e., the wall moves upwards relative to the
backfill) under static conditions, for example, Caquot and
Kerisel (1948), Kerisel and Absi (1990), and Kumar and
Subba Rao (1997). The available results on seismic passive
earth pressures by Okabe (1926), Mononobe and Matsuo
(1929), and Davies et al. (1986) with planar failure surfaces
and Morrison and Ebeling (1995), Soubra (2000), and
Kumar (2001) with curved rupture surfaces, deal with posi-
tive wall friction angles in sands. In comparison, the re-
search on passive earth pressures for the negative wall
friction angle case for the seismic condition is still lacking,
although the application of this case in the determination of
anchor uplift capacity, design of tower foundations, etc. is
well known.
In this paper, the limit equilibrium method is adopted to
individually determine the seismic passive earth pressure co-
efficients behind retaining walls corresponding to density,

Can. Geotech. J. 39: 971–981 (2002) DOI: 10.1139/T02-023 © 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:28 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

972 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

surcharge, and cohesion components for the –δ case. In the Fig. 1. Sign convention used in the analysis.
determination of each of these components, logarithmic spi-
ral failure surfaces have been considered. The effect of a
wide range of parameters: wall batter angle, ground slope,
wall friction angle, angle of internal friction of soil, and the
horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations on seismic pas-
sive earth pressure coefficients have been studied.

Method of analysis
The limit equilibrium method is adopted for the calcula-
tion of seismic passive earth pressure coefficients in soils for
negative wall friction in the presence of pseudo-static seis-
mic forces. In the analysis, it is assumed that the rigid re-
taining structure is supporting dry, homogeneous backfill
with surcharge and that the occurrence of an earthquake
does not affect the basic soil parameters, i.e., unit cohesion
c, friction angle φ, and unit weight γ. In the domain under
consideration, uniform seismic accelerations are assumed to
be acting at a particular time in both horizontal and vertical
directions. Terzaghi (1943) has shown that for a smooth
wall, the rupture surface is planar and for values of |δ| > φ/3,
where φ is the soil friction angle, only a curved rupture sur-
face should be assumed in the analysis for the passive case.
Kumar and Subba Rao (1997) used a composite failure sur-
face (logarithmic spiral and planar) in their analysis of pas-
sive earth pressures under static conditions for the negative
wall friction angle case. In the present analysis, although
The initial radius ro and the final radius rf of the logarithmic
planar, composite and log-spiral failure surfaces were inves-
spiral are given by distances FJ and FB respectively. After
tigated. However, only the results for the critical failure sur-
satisfying the equilibrium equations and the Mohr-Coulomb
face, which was found to be log-spiral, are presented. This
failure criterion, for the force system shown in Fig. 2, the
approach is similar to Morrison and Ebeling (1995) for the
exit angle ξ at point J on the ground becomes
+δ case.

Formulation of the problem π φ 1  k 

[2] ξ= − − tan− 1  h 
A retaining wall AB of vertical height H, wall batter angle 4 2 2  1 − kv 
α, ground slope β, wall friction angle δ, soil friction angle φ,
coefficient of seismic horizontal acceleration kh, and coeffi-   
 k 
cient of seismic vertical acceleration kv is considered in the  sin  tan− 1  h  + β 
analysis, as shown in Fig. 1. β 1    1 − kv   
The seismic passive resistance Ppd is split into three com- + + sin− 1   
2 2  sin φ 
ponents as (i) a unit weight component Ppγ d (γ ≠ 0, c = q =
0, where, γ, c, and q are the unit weight of the soil, the unit  
cohesion, and the surcharge pressure, respectively); (ii) a  
surcharge component Ppqd (q ≠ 0, γ = c = 0); and (iii) a cohe-
sion component Ppcd (c ≠ 0, γ = q = 0). The principle of su- For kh = kv = 0, eq. [2] reduces to the same as Rankine’s exit
perposition is assumed as valid and the minimum of each angle.
component is added together to get the minimum seismic In Fig. 2, the forces considered are the seismic passive
passive resistance. Appendix A shows the validation of the force Ppd (acting on AB), which is divided into three compo-
principle of superposition for some typical cases. It also nents as mentioned in eq. [1]; the uniform surcharge pres-
shows that the independent critical failure surfaces result in sure of q acting on AJ (surcharge load Q = q·AJ); the weight
minimum passive earth pressure coefficients compared to W of the soil mass ABJ; the cohesive force C on the failure
single critical failure surfaces, within an error of 5%. Thus, surface BJ; the normal force N on the failure surface BJ; the
[1] Ppd = Ppγ d + Ppqd + Ppcd frictional force Ntanφ on the failure surface BJ; the adhesive
force Ca on the retaining wall – soil interface AB; the
As shown in Fig. 2, the portion BJ is a logarithmic spiral pseudo-static forces due to the seismic weight component
with F as its focus. This focus point is a variable and it is for zone ABJ as Wkh and Wkv in the horizontal and vertical
determined by varying η, where η is the inclination of the directions, respectively; and the pseudo-static forces due to
final radius rf of the logarithmic spiral with the horizontal, Qkh and Qkv in the horizontal and vertical directions, respec-
so as to result in the minimum seismic passive resistance. tively, on AJ.

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:29 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Choudhury and Subba Rao
Fig. 2. Logarithmic failure surface and the forces considered.
Computation of seismic passive resistance
The total seismic passive resistance Ppd acts at an angle δ
normal to the retaining wall. It can be computed as
Ppd =  2cHKpcd + qHKpqd + γ H 2 Kp γ d 
1 1
[3]
 2  cos δ
where Kpγ d, Kpqd, and Kpcd are the seismic passive earth pres-
sure coefficients corresponding to the individual minimum
values of Ppγ d, Ppqd, and Ppcd, respectively.
Determination of Kpγd (γ ≠ 0, c = q = 0)
Considering the moment equilibrium of all of the forces
about the focus F,
[4] M Ppγ d = M Wd
where M Ppγ d is equal to the moment of Ppγ d and M Wd is
equal to the moment of the soil mass ABJ, together with the
seismic components.
The minimum value of Ppγ d is obtained by varying η. The
coefficient Kpγ d is then obtained as,
2Ppγ d cos δ
[5] Kpγ d =
γ H2
Determination of Kpqd (q ≠ 0, c = γ = 0)
Considering the moment equilibrium of all of the forces
about the focus F,
[6] M Ppqd = M Qd
where M Ppqd is equal to the moment of Ppqd and MQd is
equal to the moment of the surcharge load, together with the
seismic forces.
The minimum value of Ppqd is obtained by varying η. The
coefficient Kpqd is then obtained as,
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:29 PM
973
Ppqd cos δ
[7] Kpqd =
qH
Determination of Kpcd (c ≠ 0, q = γ = 0)
By assumption, the cohesion component will not be af-
fected by the seismic accelerations, and hence, the static and
seismic values are the same. Considering the moment equi-
librium of all of the forces about the focus F,
[8] M Ppcd = M C − M C a
where M Ppcd is equal to the moment of Ppcd; MC is equal to
the moment of the cohesive force C acting on the failure sur-
face BJ; and M C a is equal to the moment of the adhesive
force Ca acting on the wall–soil interface AB.
The minimum value of Ppcd is obtained by varying η. The
coefficient Kpcd is then obtained as,
Ppcd cos δ
[9] Kpcd =
2cH
The relevant geometric and the moment expressions of
eqs. [4], [6], and [8] are given in Appendix B.
Discussion and comparison of results
In the case of cohesionless soils, for the value of
 k 
[10] φ < tan−1  h 
 1 − kv 
certain combinations of kh and kv will cause the phenomenon
of shear fluidization (i.e., the plastic flow of the material at a
finite effective stress) even in the case of dry soil, and it will
result in an almost negligible passive earth resistance (Rich-
ards et al. 1990). Hence only the higher values of φ, given by
eq. [10] are considered in the analysis.
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

974 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

Fig. 3. Values of Kpγd for (a) α = 0°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.5; (b) α = 0°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.75; (c) α = 15°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.5; (d) α = 15°,
β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.75; (e) α = –15°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.5; (f) α = –15°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.75; (g) α = 0°, β = 25°, δ/φ = –0.5; (h) α = 0°,
β = 25°, δ/φ = –0.75; (i) α = 0°, β = –25°, δ/φ = –0.5; (j) α = 0°, β = –25°, δ/φ = –0.75; (k) α = 15°, β = 25°, δ/φ = –0.5; (l) α =
15°, β = 25°, δ/φ = –0.75; (m) α = –15°, β = –25°, δ/φ = –0.5; (n) α = –15°, β = –25°, δ/φ = –0.75.

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:29 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Choudhury and Subba Rao 975

Fig. 3. (continued).

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:29 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

976 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

Fig. 4. Variation of Kpγd with α. Fig. 6. Variation of Kpγd with δ/φ.

Fig. 5. Variation of Kpγd with β.

Variation of the parameters considered are as follows:
–15° ≤ α ≤ 15°; –25° ≤ β ≤ 25°; –0.5 ≤ δ/φ ≤ –0.75; φ from
10 to 40°, with intervals of 10°; 0.0 ≤ kh ≤ 0.5; and kv =
0.0kh, 0.5kh, and 1.0kh. The limit equilibrium solutions do not
strictly require any kinematic admissibility of the failure sur-
faces, which is a requirement for the upper bound limit analy-
sis solutions. However, the range of δ/φ is restricted to –0.75
by considering the kinematic admissibility of the failure sur-
face for soils following the nonassociated flow rule (Lee and
Herington, 1972). Results are presented in Figs. 3 and 7 and
in Table 1.
In Fig. 3, the variation of Kpγ d with the horizontal and ver-
tical seismic accelerations for various values of φ with dif-
ferent combinations of α, β, and δ/φ is presented. Generally
the horizontal seismic acceleration khg can act either towards
the left or the right. Similarly, the vertical seismic accelera-
tion kvg can act either up or down. However, in this case, the
directions of khg and kvg are restricted to the left and up-
wards, respectively, for the range of α and δ values consid-
ered in the analysis. The presence of a horizontal seismic
force increases or decreases Kpγ d depending on the combina-
tions of the parameters α, β, φ, and δ/φ. However, it was
found that an increase in vertical seismic acceleration always
decreased the value of Kpγ d.
Figure 4 illustrates the effect of the variation of α on Kpγ d.
It is seen that as α increases, Kpγ d continuously decreases for
all combinations of kh and kv. The other coefficients Kpqd and
Kpcd also follow the same trend. The seismic effect shows
that the Kpγ d values increase with a change of ground slope

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:30 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Choudhury and Subba Rao 977

Table 1. Values of Kpcd.

δ/φ for ca/c = 0.0 δ/φ for ca/c = |tanδ/tanφ|

Case for φ (°) –0.5 –0.67 –0.75 –0.5 –0.67 –0.75
α = 0°, β = 0° 10 1.072 1.034 1.015 0.679 0.499 0.404
20 1.107 1.015 0.972 0.692 0.453 0.322
30 1.095 0.941 0.872 0.662 0.346 —
40 1.027 0.813 0.725 0.580 — —
α = 15°, β = 0° 10 0.800 0.775 0.763 0.461 0.319 0.244
20 0.793 0.735 0.708 0.437 0.256 0.155
30 0.749 0.658 0.617 0.379 0.142 —
40 0.667 0.549 0.499 0.287 — —
α = –15°, β = 0° 10 1.537 1.457 1.420 1.033 0.812 0.695
20 1.620 1.453 1.380 1.130 0.814 0.650
30 1.674 1.405 1.287 1.182 0.742 0.514
40 1.680 1.276 1.115 1.170 0.583 —
α = 0°, β = 25° 30 5.964 3.574 2.692 3.906 1.666 1.057
40 2.984 1.805 1.486 2.043 1.011 0.678
α = 0°, β = –25° 30 0.540 0.481 0.455 0.247 — —
40 0.462 0.390 0.358 0.162 — —
α = 15°, β = 25° 30 1.874 1.443 1.288 1.137 0.661 0.432
40 1.486 1.139 1.000 0.978 0.441 —
α = –15o, β = –25° 30 0.885 0.770 0.719 0.484 0.214 —
40 0.781 0.635 0.574 0.370 — —
Note: —, missing values of Kpcd are due to nonconvergence of the solutions.

from negative to positive β. Figure 5 shows the variation.
The effect of an increase in the magnitude of δ/φ is to reduce
the Kpγ d values, as shown in Fig. 6.
The value of Kpγ d for any combination of φ, α, β, and δ/φ
can be obtained by interpolation. The suggested formula for
this purpose is given by
[11] log(Kpγ d ) xi = log(Kpγ d ) x 0
Equation 11 can be validated by checking the values of
Kpcd for δ/φ = –0.67 obtained from those reported for δ/φ =
–0.5 and –0.75. For example, consider α = 0°, β = 25°, φ =
30°, ca/c = |tan δ/ tanφ|. The actual values of Kpcd for δ/φ =
–0.5 and –0.75 are respectively, 3.906 and 1.057, from Ta-
ble 1. Now, using eq. [11], Kpcd for δ/φ = –0.67 becomes
1.606 as against 1.666 in Table 1.

log(Kpγ d ) x1 − log(Kpγ d ) x 0
+ (xi − x 0)
x1 − x 0
where, x is any parameter such as, α, β, φ, or δ/φ and the ith
value is to be found out between two given consecutive 0
and 1 values. The error involved in this interpolation is
within 5%. From Figs. 4, 5, and 6, it can be seen that the
variation of Kpγ d in log scale is almost linear for the reported
consecutive design values for the parameters α, β, and δ/φ.
Similar trends observed for Kpγ d are found for Kpqd also,
and the results are presented in Fig. 7. The interpolation for-
mula suggested in eq. [11] can be used for Kpqd also, by re-
placing Kpγ d with Kpqd in that equation.
The detailed values of Kpcd for specific combinations of
parameters α, β, δ/φ, and ca/c are given in Table 1. For any
other combinations, eq. [11] can still be used for interpola-
tion by replacing Kpγ d with Kpcd. The missing values of Kpcd
are due to nonconvergence of the solutions. The values of
Kpcd decrease with an increase in the magnitudes of φ, δ/φ,
and ca/c.
Conclusions
Based on the limit equilibrium method of analysis with a
pseudo-static approach for seismic forces, seismic passive
earth pressure coefficients have been obtained with respect
to density, surcharge, and cohesion components for the case
of negative wall friction angle, considering a logarithmic
spiral failure surface. The seismic passive earth pressure co-
efficients always decrease with an increase in the vertical
seismic acceleration, but the horizontal seismic acceleration
results in either an increase or a decrease in the earth pres-
sure coefficients, depending on the combinations of α, β, and
δ/φ. The effect of an increase in the value of the wall batter
angle α from negative to positive is to decrease the seismic
passive earth pressure coefficients for all combinations of kh
and kv. In the presence of seismic forces, ground slope varia-
tion from negative to zero increases Kpγ d values, and a fur-
ther increase in ground slope is found to decrease Kpγ d
values. As expected, an increase in the magnitude of δ re-
sults in lower seismic passive earth pressure coefficients.

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:31 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

978 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

Fig. 7. Values of Kpqd for (a) α = 0°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.5; (b) α = 0°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.75; (c) α = 15°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.5; (d) α =
15°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.75; (e) α = –15°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.5; (f) α = –15°, β = 0°, δ/φ = –0.75; (g) α = 0°, β = 25°, δ/φ = –0.5; (h) α =
0°, β = 25°, δ/φ = –0.75; (i) α = 0°, β = –25°, δ/φ = –0.5; (j) α = 0°, β = –25°, δ/φ = –0.75; (k) α = 15°, β = 25°, δ/φ = –0.5; (l) α =
15°, β = 25°, δ/φ = –0.75; (m) α = –15°, β = –25°, δ/φ = –0.5; (n) α = –15°, β = –25°, δ/φ = –0.75.

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:31 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Choudhury and Subba Rao 979

Fig. 7. (continued).

Acknowledgment References
The authors gratefully acknowledge the critical reviews Caquot, A., and Kerisel, L. 1948. Traite de mecanique des sols.
and helpful suggestions made by the reviewers. Gauthier Villars, Paris.
© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:32 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

980 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

Chen, W.F. 1975. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. In Develop-
ments in geotechnical engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Davies, T.G., Richards, R., and Chen, K.H. 1986. Passive pressure
during seismic loading. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 112(4): 479–483.
Kerisel, J., and Absi, E. 1990. Active and passive earth pressure ta-
bles. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Kumar, J. 2001. Seismic passive earth pressure coefficients for
sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38: 876–881.
Kumar, J., and Subba Rao, K.S. 1997. Passive pressure coeffi-
cients, critical failure surface and its kinematic admissibility.
Géotechnique, 47(1): 185–192.
Lee, I.K., and Herington, J.R. 1972. A theoretical study of the
pressures acting on a rigid wall by a sloping earth or rock fill.
Géotechnique, 22(1): 1–26.
Mononobe, N., and Matsuo, H. 1929. On the determination of
earth pressure during earthquakes. In Proceedings, World Engi-
neering Congress, Vol. 9, pp. 274–280.
Morrison, E.E., Jr., and Ebeling, R.M. 1995. Limit equilibrium
computation of dynamic passive earth pressure. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 32: 481–487.
Okabe, S. 1926. General theory of earth pressure. Journal of the
Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, Japan, 12(1).
Richards, R., Elms, D.G., and Budhu, M. 1990. Dynamic
fluidization of soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
116(5): 740–759.
Sokolovski, V.V. 1965. Statics of granular media. Pergamon, London.
Soubra, A.-H. 2000. Static and seismic passive earth pressure coef-
ficients on rigid retaining structures. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 37: 463–478.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.

Appendix A: Validation of the principle of superposition for some typical cases

Table A1. Validation for α = 0°, β = 0°, and δ/φ = –0.5.

Independent critical failure surfaces Single critical failure surface
Max. %
error in
φ (°) Case kh, kv Kpcd η (°) Kpqd η (°) Kpγd η (°) Kpcd Kpqd Kpγd η (°) K values
30 c–φ soil with q 0.0, 0.0 1.095 –14 1.764 –1 1.803 –7 1.103 1.779 1.803 –8 3.1
0.3, 0.3 1.095 –14 0.993 –5 1.564 4 1.107 1.006 1.573 1
0.5, 0.0 1.095 –14 1.359 –6 2.293 5 1.117 1.401 2.298 2
c–φ soil without q 0.3, 0.3 1.095 –14 — — 1.564 4 1.107 — 1.573 1 2.0
0.5, 0.0 1.095 –14 — — 2.293 5 1.117 — 2.298 2
φ soil with q 0.3, 0.3 — — 0.993 –5 1.564 4 — 1.007 1.572 2 3.2
0.5, 0.0 — — 1.359 –6 2.293 5 — 1.402 2.297 3
40 c–φ soil with q 0.3, 0.3 1.027 –4 1.187 6 1.626 9 1.044 1.191 1.629 7 4.1
0.5, 0.0 1.027 –4 1.647 5 2.355 9 1.069 1.701 2.358 7
c–φ soil without q 0.3, 0.3 1.027 –4 — — 1.626 9 1.044 — 1.629 7 1.6
φ soil with q 0.5, 0.0 — — 1.647 5 2.355 9 — 1.702 2.357 8 3.3
Note:— indicates case not applicable.

Appendix B

Geometric expressions
H(1 + tan α tan β)
[B1] ro =
sin µ + cos µ tan β + eθ tan φ (sin η − cos η tan β)
π
[B2] µ= −φ−ξ
2
π
[B3] θ= −φ−ξ+η
2
[B4] la = rf cos η − ro cos µ
[B5] rf = roeθ tan φ
rf cos η − ro cos µ + H tan α
[B6] AJ =
cos β

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:32 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Choudhury and Subba Rao 981

Moment expressions
γ(1 − kv) l + H tan α 
M wd = γ(1 − kv)Hla (0. 5la + ro cos µ) − γ kh Hla  rf sin η −  + (la + H tan α) 2 tan β  ro cos µ + a
H
[B7] 
 2 2  3 
γk  2(l + H tan α)  γ (1 − kv) 3 γk
+ h (la + H tan α) 2 tan β  ro sin µ − a tan β + ro cos 2 µ sin µ + h ro3 cos µ sin2 µ
2  3  3 6
γ (1 − kv) 2 γk γ (1 − kv) 2 H tan α  γ kh 2
H tan α  rf cos η + H tan α  − rf sin η
2H
+ ro rf cos 2 µ sin η − h ror 2f cos µ sin2 η + +
2 2 2  3  2  3 

−
γ (1 − kv)ro3  e

3θ tan φ
{cos µ(3 tan φ cos θ + sin θ) + sin µ(3 tan φ sin θ − cos θ)}
3(1 + 9 tan φ)  − 3 cos µ tan φ + sin µ
2


γ kh ro3  e3θ tan φ {sin µ(3 tan φ cos θ + sin θ) − cos µ(3 tan φ sin θ − cos θ)}
−  
3(1 + 9 tan φ)  − 3 sin µ tan φ − cos µ
2

γ(1 − kv) 3 γk
− rf cos 2 η sin η + h rf3 cos η sin2 η
6 3

M pp γ d = Ppγ d sin (δ + α)  rf cos η + tan α − Pp γ d cos (δ + α)  rf sin η − 

H H
[B8]
 3   3

 AJ   AJ 
[B9] M Qd = q(1 − kv)AJ  ro cos µ + cos β + qkh AJ  ro sin µ − sinβ
 2   2 

[B10] M ppqd = Ppqd sin (δ + α)  rf cos η + tan α − Ppqd cos (δ + α)  rf sin η − 
H H
 2   2
c
[B11] M C = (rf2 − ro2 )
2 tan φ
π
rf sin  − α + η
H
[B12] M C a = ca
cos α 2 

[B13] M Pp c d = Ppc d sin(δ + α)  rf cos η + tan α − Ppc d cos (δ + α)  rf sin η − 

H H
 2   2

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-04\T02-023.vp
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 2:15:32 PM