Take-and-Valsangkar-Facia-Walls Confined Soil Earth Pressure PDF

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
1220
Earth pressures on unyielding retaining walls of

narrow backfill width
W.A. Take and A.J. Valsangkar
Abstract: Arching theory predicts a significant reduction in earth pressures behind retaining walls of narrow backfill
width. An extensive series of centrifuge tests has been performed to evaluate the use of flexible subminiature pressure
cells in the centrifuge environment and their subsequent use to measure lateral earth pressures behind retaining walls of
narrow backfill width. Although the flexible earth pressure cells exhibit hysteresis and nonlinear calibration behaviour,
the extensive calibration studies indicate that stiff diaphragm type earth pressure cells may be used with replicate
models to measure earth pressures. Measurements of lateral pressures acting on the unyielding model retaining walls
show good agreement with Janssens arching theory. Tests on backfills bounded by vertical planes of dissimilar
frictional characteristics indicate arching theory with an average interface friction angle provides a reasonable estimate
of lateral earth pressures.
Key words: fascia retaining walls, silos, earth pressures, pressure cells, centrifuge modelling.
Rsum : La thorie darc-boutement prdit une rduction significative des pressions des terres larrire des murs
soutenant un remblai de faible largeur. Une srie importante dessais au centrifuge a t ralise pour valuer
lutilisation de cellules de pression miniatures flexibles dans lenvironnement du centrifuge et leur utilisation
subsquente pour mesurer les pressions latrales des terres larrire de murs soutenant des remblais de faible largeur.
Quoique les cellules flexibles de pression des terres montrent de lhystrse et un comportement non linaire en
calibrage, les tudes nombreuses de calibrage indiquent que les cellules de pression des terres avec diaphragme rigide
peuvent tre utilises au moyen de reproductions de modles pour mesurer les pressions des terres. Des mesures de
pressions latrales agissant sur des modles de murs de soutnement rigides concordent bien avec la thorie darcboutement de Janssen. Des essais sur des remblais avec des plans verticaux de caractristiques de frottement non
similaires aux frontires indiquent que la thorie darc-boutement avec un angle de frottement moyen linterface fournit une estimation raisonnable des pressions des terres.
Mots cls : murs de soutnement en panneau, silos, pressions des terres, cellules de pression, modlisation par centrifuge.
[Traduit par la Rdaction]
Take and Valsangkar
Introduction
The width of backfill behind retaining walls can vary from
being effectively infinite to very narrow where site constraints dominate the design. Fascia retaining walls represent
one such case of narrow backfill width retaining walls
(Fig. 1a). These walls are constructed a short distance in
front of a rock face for a variety of reasons, including widening of urban transportation corridors within existing
rights-of-way, reduction of rockfall risk, and aesthetics.
With a narrow backfill width, the arching theory predicts
that the lateral forces exerted on the retaining wall will be
reduced due to the reduction of vertical stresses on both frictional boundaries of the backfill. Although this reduction can
Received August 3, 2000. Accepted June 29, 2001. Published
on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on
December 21, 2001.
W.A. Take. Engineering Department, Cambridge University,
Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, U.K.
A.J. Valsangkar.1 Department of Civil Engineering,
University of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton,
NB E3B 5A3, Canada.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: valsngkr@unb.ca).
Can. Geotech. J. 38: 12201230 (2001)
I:\cgj\Cgj38\Cgj06\T01-063.vp
Monday, December 17, 2001 8:58:40 AM
1230
have a major influence on lateral earth pressure values, the

small number of high-quality earth pressure monitoring
studies typically results in a reluctance to fully rely on the
arching effect in design. Unfortunately, the challenges associated with earth pressure measurement have the effect that
what little experimental data are available exhibit a great
deal of scatter. This is an additional factor which leads to a
reluctance to fully account for beneficial arching effects in
the design of fascia retaining walls.
This paper describes the results of a series of centrifuge
tests conducted to develop a programme of repeatable model
preparation, calibration of flexible subminiature earth pressure cells, and the subsequent measurement of lateral earth
pressures behind model fascia retaining walls.
Background
Arching theory
The arching theory attributed to Janssen (1895) describes the
reduction in vertical pressures within a granular material
bounded by two vertical planes with specific reference to silo
structures. For the case of fascia retaining walls, the cumulative
effect of the transfer of vertical stress to the boundaries has the
potential to reduce the lateral earth pressures. Defining a hori-
DOI: 10.1139/cgj-38-6-1220
2001 NRC Canada

Take and Valsangkar
1221
Fig. 1. (a) Fascia retaining wall of backfill width, B, and height, H. (b) Horizontal element of backfill material (after Spangler and
Handy 1984).
zontal element bounded by two unyielding frictional boundaries (Fig. 1b), the vertical frictional boundary forces will
reduce the vertical stress, which will in turn reduce the horizontal stresses acting on the wall. Spangler and Handy (1984)
have applied Janssens theory to the design problem of fascia
retaining walls. The vertical force equilibrium of the horizontal
element of Fig. 1b requires
[1]
2K tan
V
d z Bd z + dV = 0
B
where
is the unit weight of soil;
B is the backfill width;
z is the backfill depth;
is the interface friction angle between the backfill and
walls,
K is the earth pressure coefficient; and
V is the vertical force at depth z.
From the solution of eq. [1], an equation for lateral earth
pressure, h , can be postulated as
[2]
h =
z
2 K tan
B
1e B
2 tan
The magnitude of the reduction in lateral earth pressures behind fascia retaining walls is predicted by eq. [2] to be a
function of wall geometry, z/B, the frictional characteristics
of the boundaries, , and the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K.
For the case of unyielding retaining walls (zero lateral
strain condition), the coefficient of earth pressure at-rest
attributed to Jaky (1948) is defined as
[3]
K0 = 1 sin
where is the effective angle of internal friction. The effect

of the mobilized interface friction angle at zero lateral strain
conditions, 0, on the earth pressure coefficient, K0, has been
theorized by Zhang et al. (1998) by extending Coulombs
equations for different lateral strain conditions. The relationship proposed by Zhang et al. (1998) indicates that the maximum change in K0 with estimated mobilized interface
friction angle would be negligible. Therefore K0 is assumed

to be independent of the mobilized interface friction angle in
this paper.
The only experimental study known to the authors which
deals specifically with the measurement of lateral earth pressures behind fascia retaining walls was conducted by
Frydman and Keissar (1987). In this work, two pressure
cells were used to measure the transition from at-rest to active earth pressure conditions behind a centrifuge model of a
fascia retaining wall. The results from their 11 determinations of at-rest earth pressures for various z/B ratios are
shown in Fig. 2. The effect of the reduced vertical effective
stress on the lateral earth pressure can be observed by
expressing the observed lateral earth pressures in terms of
h / z . For an infinite backfill width, the ratio h / z tends
towards the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K. With an
increase in the ratio z/B there is a reduction in vertical effective stress due to friction on the side walls, with a corresponding reduction in the ratio h /z.
Despite showing an overall agreement with Janssens
arching theory, the earth pressure observations of Frydman
and Keissar (1987) exhibit a considerable amount of scatter.
The actual distribution of earth pressure is also indeterminate in the work of Frydman and Keissar, as only two pressure cells were used to measure the earth pressures in any
given experiment.
Experimental work related to arching has also been carried out with reference to the storage of granular materials
within silo structures. These measured at-rest lateral pressures, although exhibiting considerable scatter, indicate a
general agreement with the values predicted by the arching
theory (e.g., Blight 1986; Jarrett et al. 1995).
Earth pressure cell calibration
The degree of scatter witnessed in most earth pressure
measurement studies is representative of the difficulty of obtaining repeatable measurements. In an effort to increase the
quality of earth pressure observations, much work has been
undertaken in the literature to define the factors which affect
pressure cell calibration behaviour and field measurement
usage (Clayton and Bica 1993; Garnier et al. 1999).
2001 NRC Canada

1222
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 38, 2001
Fig. 2. Measured reduction in lateral at-rest earth pressure with

the ratio z/B (Frydman and Keissar 1987).
Fig. 4. Orientation of earth pressure cells during (a) calibration

and (b) fascia wall experiments.
Fig. 3. Instrumented model retaining wall illustrating the locations of boundary earth pressure cells.
Since diaphragm pressure cells must deflect to record

pressure, there exists potential for stress redistribution in the
granular material above the pressure cell. The calibration between output voltage arising from applied fluid and soil
pressure, therefore, can be vastly different due to stress redistribution in the latter case. This effect has been defined in
the literature in terms of a cell action factor (CAF). The
CAF is simply the ratio of the normal stress measured by the
cell to that which would have existed in the absence of the
cell (Clayton and Bica 1993). Physical and numerical studies
have demonstrated that the magnitude of this phenomenon is
a function of both the stiffness of the granular material and
the pressure cell diaphragm (Trollope and Lee 1961; Clayton
and Bica 1993). Clayton and Bica (1993) have defined this
stiffness ratio as the flexibility factor F:
[4]
F=
Esoil R3
Ecell t 3
where
Esoil is Youngs modulus of the soil;
Ecell is Youngs modulus of the cell diaphragm material;

R is the radius of the cell diaphragm; and
t is the thickness of the cell diaphragm.
The results reported in the literature indicate that as the relative flexibility of the diaphragm, F, increases, the cell action
factor decreases, indicating additional stress redistribution.
For values of CAF greater than 0.9, the flexibility factor has
to be less than 0.7 (Clayton and Bica 1993). Although the direct use of eq. [4] is hampered by the lack of knowledge of
the exact construction details and material properties of the
commercial sensors, eq. [4] indicates that the stiffest pressure
cells are desirable in measuring earth pressures.
Centrifuge modelling
Centrifuge
The principles and scaling laws associated with geotechnical centrifuge modelling have been reported in detail
by Schofield (1980). Unlike full-scale modelling, the reduced scale of centrifuge models allows greater control of
the magnitude and homogeneity of soil properties and a sufficiently quick turn-around time to create the capability of
performing experimental parametric studies.
2001 NRC Canada

Take and Valsangkar
1223
Table 1. Internal () and interface () friction angles of model backfill material.

Friction angle
Loose backfill (34%

relative density)
Dense backfill (79%

relative density)
p backfill ()
cv
backfill ()
p backfill and aluminum ()
cv backfill and aluminum ()
p backfill and 120A-grit sandpaper ()
cv backfill and 120A-grit sandpaper ()
30
28
23
22
32
29
36
29
25
23
36
29
Note: Subscripts p and cv denote peak and critical state, respectively.
Fig. 5. Particle-size distribution of model backfill material.
The geotechnical centrifuge at the University of New

Brunswick was used to perform both the calibration of the
earth pressure cells and the subsequent modelling of fascia
retaining walls. Classified as a medium-size centrifuge, the
3.2 m diameter beam centrifuge is capable of a maximum
inertial acceleration of 200g at a payload of 100 kg. The
centrifuge features an on-arm data-acquisition system controlled remotely through a serial connection through three
slip-rings. In this manner, the potential for slip-ring-induced
signal noise is eliminated, thereby allowing the use of small
output devices without resorting to amplification.
Instrumented retaining wall
The model instrumented retaining wall was designed to
house six boundary pressure cells distributed evenly over the
height of the model fascia retaining wall (Fig. 3). The earth
pressure cells were mounted with epoxy into individually
sized cavities in a 12.5 mm thick aluminum wall. The cavities were fabricated in such a manner as to ensure that the
diaphragm of each pressure cell was flush with the wall surface. During the calibration of the pressure cells, the model
retaining wall was bolted to the base of the centrifuge package (Fig. 4a).
Once the calibration phase of the experimental programme
was competed, the model retaining wall was bolted in a vertical position onto one end of the centrifuge package with a
variable spacing to the model rock face (Fig. 4b). To investigate the effect of providing vertical boundaries of dissimilar
frictional characteristics, the aluminum model rock face was
later bonded with a sheet of 120A-grit sandpaper. At an ac-
celeration of 35.7 g, the 140 mm model retaining wall is

analogous to a 5 m high prototype wall.
Boundary earth pressure cells
The reduced scale of centrifuge models requires that the
scale of instrumentation must be correspondingly reduced to
a size consistent with the model. The pressure cells used in
the present study have a diameter of 6.357.37 mm. This diameter corresponds to approximately 16 times the average
grain size, d50 , of the model backfill material. This reduction
in scale of instrumentation, however, must be balanced with
the knowledge that the diaphragm stiffness is a key factor in
determining the behavioural characteristics of boundary earth
pressure cells.
For a given cell geometry, increased diaphragm stiffness
can only be achieved in standard commercial pressure cells
(i.e., without resorting to a custom order) by selecting a
device with an increased pressure range. Three pairs of commercial subminiature pressure cells of varying stiffness values were purchased to assess their usage in the measurement
of earth pressures in centrifuge models. One limitation connected with this approach is that sensitivity and temperaturesusceptibility problems are often associated with operating
solely within the lower range of any instrumentation device.
Specifications supplied by manufacturers of pressure cells
tend to describe thermal compensation in terms of a percentage of the full-scale output (FSO). This has important consequences for the large-range pressure cells. Although the
quoted thermal zero shift is within 1% of FSO for all devices, it will play a significant role in the use of the stiffer
pressure cells. The majority of the thermal shift was noted to
occur during the first 20 min of pressure cell excitation. Stiff
pressure cells (A1 and A2) were noted to be more susceptible
to thermal-compensation errors.
Through a series of preliminary centrifuge calibration tests,
the thermal-compensation problem was overcome to start the
main experimental programme. The mitigating factors developed during this preliminary work consisted of embedding
the cells into an aluminum retaining wall (heat sink), providing a 40 min warm-up period, and completely encapsulating the centrifuge package in high-density foam insulation to
reduce thermal variations.
Model preparation
The potential sensitivity of earth pressure cells to variations
in soil stiffness dictates a rigorous programme of model
preparation. The factors associated with creating uniform
sand models through air pluviation have been described by
2001 NRC Canada

1224
Fig. 6. Calibration response of (a) stiff and (b, c) flexible earth
pressure cells with applied fluid and soil pressure.

Fig. 7. Hysteresis between initial loading, unloading, and reloading stages of calibration for pressure cell B1 (dense sand).
over the centrifuge package. A plumb bob was attached to

the portable hopper to ensure a constant height difference
between the sand nozzle and the model surface at all times.
Creating the soil model on the centrifuge had the additional
benefit of eliminating the potential disturbance to the soil
sample by impact loading during model installation. The
mass rate of deposition was controlled by a small pointsource nozzle consisting of a piece of 4 mm flexible tubing.
The nozzle diameter was sufficient to ensure an extremely
slow deposition rate of 0.31 kg/min.
Using these techniques, repeatable soil models were constructed at relative densities of 34 and 79%, corresponding
to drop heights of 25 and 300 mm, respectively. The final
stage of model preparation consisted of levelling the upper
surface of the model backfill by transverse passes of a vacuum source.
Backfill soil properties
The model backfill material is classified as a poorly graded
sand with little or no fines. The backfill material has a uniformity coefficient of 2.2, a coefficient of curvature of 1.0,
and a mean particle size of 0.4 mm (Fig. 5). The maximum
and minimum dry densities were 1.62 and 1.34 g/cm3, respectively.
A series of direct shear tests was performed on the granular backfill material to determine the angle of internal friction and the interface friction angles with aluminum and
120A-grit sandpaper. The results of these tests performed at
relative densities of 34 and 79% are presented in Table 1.
Calibration of load cells
Vaid and Negussey (1988) and Cresswell et al. (1999). These

factors include drop height, particle-size gradation, mass rate
of deposition, nozzle sweep rate, and container geometry.
The model preparation procedure adopted consisted of
raining the soil from an adjustable-height hopper suspended
A rigorous programme of calibration was undertaken to address the suitability of the three different types of subminiature pressure cells for the measurement of pressures in
granular materials. This assessment was carried out by calibrating the devices against applied pressures by fluids and by
soils of differing stiffness. The calibration programme included both 1g and centrifuge fluid calibration and centrifuge
calibration under the self-weight of loose and dense sand.
2001 NRC Canada

Take and Valsangkar
1225
Fig. 8. Variation in soil placement conditions between (a) calibration and (b, c) retaining wall experiments.
Fluid calibration
The initial fluid calibration of the pressure cells was performed at 1g by applying a known air pressure to the cell
diaphragm. The resulting relationship between the voltage
output from all devices and the applied fluid pressure was
both linear and repeatable. To ensure that the fluid calibration relationship remained unaltered following the mounting
of the devices into the model retaining wall, the pressure
cells were further calibrated under fluid pressure in the centrifuge. The calibration relationship between voltage and applied fluid pressure from a representative of each of the
three types of pressure cells is presented in Fig. 6.
Soil calibration
The second stage of calibration consisted of subjecting the
earth pressure cells to the self-weight of 50 mm of dense
sand (79% relative density) in the centrifuge. The selfweight of the soil was increased through incremental steps
of 2g until the maximum acceleration level of 38g was

reached. The calibration process was repeated with five replicate centrifuge tests, with the best-fit calibration being
shown in Fig. 6. Lastly, the calibration process was repeated
for the calibration under the self-weight of 50 mm of loose
sand (34% relative density). Using the concept of modelling of models, a further series of calibration tests was performed with a reduced sand height of 25 mm but twice the
magnitude of centrifuge acceleration. These results were in
close agreement with those from the first series.
Nonlinearity
Each of the three types of subminiature pressure cell had
differing responses to an applied soil pressure. The calibration relationship of pressure cells of type A experienced
only minor variations with loading type or soil stiffness. In
contrast, the calibration relationship of pressure cells of
types B and C exhibited large deviations from that of
2001 NRC Canada

1226
Fig. 9. Variation in observed earth pressure with adopted calibration relationship (B = 184 mm).
the fluid, with the degree of nonlinearity being a function of

soil stiffness.
These observations are consistent with those presented by
Clayton and Bica (1993). As predicted in the literature, each
of the three pairs of pressure cells behaved according to their
stiffness. Pressure cells of type A have been observed to be
sufficiently stiff that the variation in soil stiffness with density is small with respect to that of the cell diaphragm. The
variation of CAF with soil stiffness observed in pressure cell
types B and C is consistent with cells of relatively low diaphragm stiffness, as changes in soil stiffness can appreciably
alter the flexibility factor.
Although exhibiting nonlinear characteristics, the potential use of flexible pressure cells such as those of types B
and C to measure lateral earth pressures was investigated by
incorporating the nonlinearity associated with a given soil
stiffness into the calibration relationship.
The nonlinearity of the calibration of voltage output, V,
with applied soil pressures, P, was captured using two calibration constants, m1 and m2, in an equation of the form
[5]
V = m1P + m2(P)2
The quadratic form of eq. [5] was chosen to facilitate the

comparison of the degree of observed nonlinearity of the
pressure cell calibration relationship with the soil stiffness.
The value of m2, therefore, indicates the degree of nonlinearity of the relationship between applied pressure and the
observed voltage output.
Hysteresis
Significant hysteresis was observed during calibration of
the pressure cells with soil (Fig. 7), with the magnitude of
the hysteresis being inversely related to the stiffness of the
device relative to that of the soil. Similar hysteresis behaviour was also reported by Frydman and Keissar (1987) in
their centrifuge modelling of fascia walls. The possible influence of this hysteretic behaviour on the retaining wall
experiments was eliminated by measuring the lateral earth
pressures during the initial acceleration of the soil model to
the required g level and by mechanically regulating the
speed of the centrifuge. An unloading cycle accompanying

the overshooting of the required acceleration level, and the
subsequent operator correction has the potential to greatly
influence the observed pressure reading. Protection against
this eventuality was accomplished by controlling the speed
of the centrifuge by a fractional RPM timing motor operating in one direction only.
Effect of vertical measurement boundary
As the nonlinear calibration of the pressure cells incorporates a correction for boundary soil stiffness, it is appropriate
to consider the differences in the localized stiffness boundary condition between the calibration (horizontal) and measurement (vertical) positions of the instrumented retaining
wall. During soil placement for calibration, grains of sand
fall through the air until their kinetic energy is translated
into compaction effort at impact (Vaid and Negussey 1988).
In the horizontal (calibration) orientation of the retaining
wall, compaction occurs directly on plane incorporating the
pressure cell diaphragm (Fig. 8a).
It has been reported in the literature that the side boundaries of a container can influence the density of an airpluviated sample (Kolbuszewski 1948; Vaid and Negussey
1988). It is unrealistic to assume that, through the process of
air pluviation, the falling grains of sand can align themselves
perfectly along the vertical boundary of the model retaining
wall with a lack of direct compaction effort. In addition, the
vertical boundary ensures an unavoidable boundary layer of
less dense sand as a result of the sand stream either striking
the boundary (Fig. 8b) or missing the region entirely
(Fig. 8c). In both of these situations, the full kinetic energy
of the falling soil cannot be transferred into compaction effort for the case of a vertical measurement boundary.
To assess the validity of the calibration relationship obtained for dense soil for a retaining model backfilled with
dense soil, five replicate centrifuge tests were performed for
the widest backfill width allowable in the model configuration (B = 184 mm). As shown in Fig. 9, the mean pressures
recorded by types B and C cells (open symbols) using the
dense soil calibration relationship exceed at-rest earth pressure conditions. However, the pressures observed by the two
type A (solid symbols) pressure cells exhibit a reasonable
agreement with the predicted at-rest earth pressures.
The differences in behaviour between the pressure cells of
type A and the more flexible pressure cells are indicative of
a zone of lower soil stiffness on the vertical measurement
boundary. As a better estimate for the nonlinearity of the
calibration associated with a less stiff material, the loose soil
calibration has been applied to the observed voltages observed in the retaining wall. As shown in Fig. 9, the resulting pressures agree very well with the at-rest conditions. The
ratio of pressure obtained from a dense soil calibration to
that from a loose soil calibration is greater than 0.9 for both
type A pressure cells over the pressure range encountered.
This ratio was 0.87 or more for load cell B1 and 0.7 or more
for load cell B2 over the pressure range encountered. As
such, the calibration for type A cells and cell B1 is largely
independent of the soil stiffness and is not greatly affected
by the zone of looser material at the boundary.
2001 NRC Canada

Take and Valsangkar
1227
Fig. 10. Mean (1 standard deviation) measured earth pressures on model retaining wall backfilled with dense sand to widths of
(a) 184, (b) 75, (c) 38, and (d) 15 mm (wall = rock ).
Fig. 11. Observed reduction in lateral earth pressure with ratio

z/B (dense backfill, wall = rock ).
Retaining wall experiments

A series of retaining wall experiments was performed to
investigate the applicability of Janssens arching theory to
the design of unyielding fascia retaining walls. As predicted
by eq. [2], the factors governing arching with the granular
backfill in the narrow backfill width are the retaining wall
geometry, z/B, the interface friction angle, , and the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K. These factors will be investigated by modelling retaining walls of varying backfill
width, density, and frictional characteristics. All centrifuge
retaining wall experiments were performed at an acceleration of 35.7 g to simulate a 5 m high prototype wall.
Dense backfill, smooth rock face (wall = rock )
Janssens arching theory, as expressed in eq. [2], assumes
the case of equal interface friction angles on the boundaries,
that is wall = rock . The first series of retaining wall experiments will therefore address this case. Five replicate centrifuge tests were performed at each of the 184, 75, 38, and
15 mm backfill widths. The mean (1 standard deviation) ob 2001 NRC Canada

1228
Fig. 12. Mean (1 standard deviation) measured earth pressures on model retaining wall backfilled with dense sand to widths of
(a) 184, (b) 75, (c) 38, and (d) 15 mm (wall < rock ).
Fig. 13. Observed reduction in lateral earth pressures with ratio

z/B (dense backfill, wall < rock ).
served lateral earth pressures for each of these backfill widths

are presented in Figs. 10a10d, respectively. The degree of
variation observed even with the stiffest pressure cells (solid
symbols) indicates the necessity to use replicate models to increase the quality of earth pressure measurements.
With a reduction in backfill width, arching was observed
to truncate lateral earth pressure from its triangular at-rest
distribution. As predicted by arching theory, the z/B ratio
has a dominant effect on the magnitude of the reduction of
earth pressures within the narrow backfill. In each of the
four backfill widths, the average measured earth pressure
corresponds quite closely to that predicted by Janssens
arching theory using Jakys K0 and the measured interface
friction angle, .
Lastly, the results of the 20 centrifuge tests are summarized in Fig. 11. In general, Janssens arching theory using
peak friction angles provides a good prediction of the reduction in earth pressures on unyielding walls for the case of
identical interface friction angles. The data from earth pressure cells C1 and C2 were not included in Fig. 11 because of
the sensitivity of the ratio h / z to small changes in measured pressure at such low vertical effective stress levels
(Take 1998).
2001 NRC Canada

Take and Valsangkar

Fig. 14. Mean (1 standard deviation) measured earth pressures
on model retaining wall backfilled with loose sand to widths of
(a) 38 and (b) 15 mm ( wall < rock ).
1229
Fig. 15. Observed reduction in lateral earth pressures with ratio
z/B (loose backfill, wall < rock ).
Frydman and Keissar (1987) to use the average interface

friction angle in the analysis appears to provide a reasonable
estimate of lateral earth pressure.
Loose backfill
To investigate the effect of soil density on the reduction in
lateral earth pressures in a narrow backfill, the case of dissimilar boundary frictional characteristics was performed
with a loose soil sample for backfill widths of 38 and
15 mm. The results of these tests are shown in Figs. 14a and
14b, respectively. It should be noted that in this series of experiments the bulk stiffness of the backfill is the same as
that of the loose boundary layer close to the wall. Thus, the
loose sand calibration is used in analysing the data. Similar
to the results of the dense backfill, the observed earth pressures are bounded by the arching-theory predictions based
on K0 conditions and the interface friction angles of the
backfill (Fig. 15).
Dense backfill, rough rock face (wall < rock )
As expressed in eq. [3], Janssens arching theory does not
account for boundary planes of dissimilar frictional characteristics. To investigate the effect of these boundary conditions on the observed lateral earth pressures, a series of five
replicate models at each of the four backfill widths was performed with a rough rock face (sandpaper-coated wall). The
results of this series are presented in Figs. 12a12d.
Presenting the results of this second series of 20 centrifuge tests in a nondimensional form (Fig. 13), and comparing with Fig. 11, it can be seen that the presence of a
rougher boundary has further reduced the lateral earth pressures acting on the model retaining wall. The predictions for
the reduction in lateral earth pressure using arching theory
based on the peak interface friction angles, wall and rock ,
are shown to provide a reasonable bound of the observed
data in Fig. 13.
The results from pressure cells type A and B together indicate that an average interface friction angle may provide a
reasonable estimation of earth pressures with boundaries of
dissimilar frictional characteristics. Thus the suggestion of
Discussion
Although Janssens equation describing the beneficial effect of arching on lateral soil pressures is not complex for
the case of unyielding retaining walls, the choice of the parameter K and the mobilized boundary friction angle mob
during the translation from at-rest to active conditions
requires considerable engineering judgement. Neither the
mobilized friction angle nor the lateral earth pressure coefficient will be constant with depth for some modes of lateral
wall movement for a soil in an intermediate state between
at-rest and active conditions (Zhang et al. 1998).
The reduction in lateral earth pressure behind fascia retaining walls is dependent on the mobilization of friction on
the wallsoil boundary. It is clearly inappropriate, therefore,
to design retaining structures such as articulated bulkheads
using the arching theory, as the magnitude of the mobilized
friction angle may be negligible.
Lastly, one of the few reported cases of the failure of fascia retaining walls underlies the importance of maintaining
an aspect of constructibility if the beneficial effect of arching is to be used in design. Thompson and Martin (1984) de 2001 NRC Canada

1230
scribe the failure of a tied-back fascia retaining wall in part

due to overexcavation from the design backfill width arising
from the difficulty in the placement of drains in the narrow
backfill.
Conclusions
The results from a series of centrifuge tests have been presented identifying the factors affecting the calibration of
subminiature boundary pressure cells and investigating the
reduction in lateral earth pressure within the narrow backfill
width of an unyielding fascia retaining wall.
The results of the calibration centrifuge tests on the three
stiffness ranges of subminiature pressure cells confirms that
stiff subminiature pressure cells can be successfully used in
measuring earth pressures. In addition, this research also indicates that, where flexible boundary pressure cells are used,
the calibration might need to be undertaken at a stiffness
representative of the boundary zone next to the pressure
cells rather than at the bulk stiffness of the entire model.
To the authors knowledge, only one previous experimental
programme dealing specifically with fascia retaining walls
has been reported in the literature. The present study, therefore, provides a useful addition to the database of experimental earth pressure studies. The results indicate that the
design of fascia retaining walls to the full at-rest earth pressure distribution for narrow backfill widths may be very conservative. Further, Janssens arching theory has proven to be
a very simple and effective tool for describing the reduction
in lateral earth pressure for the case of vertical boundaries of
similar frictional characteristics.
For the case of fascia walls bounded by planes of dissimilar frictional characteristics, the experimental evidence indicates that the arching theory prediction based on the average
interface friction angle provides a reasonable estimate of the
earth pressure distribution. More work with different soil
types and laterally yielding walls is needed to confirm the
current practices of fascia wall design.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to acknowledge the funding
received during the scope of this project from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC). The research funds from NSERC to the second
author in the area of soilstructure interactions were used to
support this research. The authors would like to thank Pro-
fessor Malcolm Bolton of Cambridge University for his initial review and more recent discussions on arching theory.
References
Blight, G.E. 1986. Pressures exerted by materials stored in silos.
Part I: coarse materials. Gotechnique, 36(1): 3346.
Clayton, C.R.I., and Bica, A.V.D. 1993. The design of diaphragmtype boundary total stress cells. Gotechnique, 43(4): 523536.
Cresswell, A., Barton, M.E., and Brown, R. 1999. Determining the
maximum density of sands by pluviation. Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 22(4): 324328.
Frydman, S.F., and Keissar, I. 1987. Earth pressure on retaining
walls near rock faces. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 113(6): 586599.
Garnier, J., Ternet, O., Cottineau, L.-M., and Brown, C.J. 1999. Placement of embedded pressure cells. Gotechnique, 49(3): 405414.
Jaky, J. 1948. Pressure in silos. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 103107.
Janssen, H.A. 1895. Versuche uber getreidedruck in silozellen.
Aeitschrift, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, 39: 10451049. [Partial English translation in Proceedings of the Institute of Civil
Engineers, London, England, 1896.]
Jarrett, N.D., Brown, C.J., and Moore, D.B. 1995. Pressure measurements in a rectangular silo. Gotechnique, 45(3): 95104.
Kolbuszewski, J.J. 1948. An experimental study of the maximum
and minimum porosities of sand. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 158165.
Schofield, A.N. 1980. Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations. Gotechnique, 30(3): 227268.
Spangler, M.G., and Handy, R.L. 1984. Soil engineering. Harper
and Row, New York.
Take, W.A. 1998. Lateral earth pressure behind rigid fascia retaining
walls. M.Sc.Eng. thesis, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B.
Thompson, B.L., and Martin, D.C. 1984. Catastrophic failure of a
tied back wall on the interstate in Charleston, West Virginia. In
Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Society of Mining Engineers of AIME, Evanston, Ill., pp. 914921.
Trollope, D.H, and Lee, I.K. 1961. The measurement of soil pressures.
In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 493499.
Vaid, Y.P., and Negussey, D. 1988. Preparation of reconstituted
sand specimens. In Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock.
Edited by R. Donoghe, R. Chaney, and M.L. Silver. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication
STP 977, pp. 405417.
Zhang, J.-M., Shamoto, Y., and Tokimatsu, K. 1998. Evaluation of
earth pressure under any lateral deformation. Soils and Foundations, 38(1): 1533.
2001 NRC Canada

Take-and-Valsangkar-Facia-Walls Confined Soil Earth Pressure PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Take-and-Valsangkar-Facia-Walls Confined Soil Earth Pressure PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

Earth pressures on unyielding retaining walls of