Indian Geotech J (AprilJune 2012) 42(2):106112

DOI 10.1007/s40098-012-0004-8

TECHNICAL NOTE

Analysis of Arching in Soil-Passive State

Rupa Sunil Dalvi Prabhakar Jagannath Pise

Received: 22 June 2010 / Accepted: 2 September 2011 / Published online: 16 May 2012
Indian Geotechnical Society 2012

Abstract Arching involves stress transfer from yielding Kp Passive earth pressure coefficient r1/r3
part of a soil to unyielding part of soil. Many authors Kw K at wall due to catenary arch
considered arching action for active earth pressure. In this V Vertical force from soil weight
paper arching action is considered for passive earth pres- x, y Coordinates of catenary
sure in noncohesive backfill. The backfill is assumed to h (thita) Angle of major principal plane to the
move upward in a form of catenary arch due to arching. horizontal
The value of hw (the angle of major principal plane) is d (delta) Soil-wall friction angle
calculated for soil-wall friction angle and soil friction l (mue) Wall friction coefficient
angle. An expression for passive lateral stress ratio has r1, r3 (sigma) Major and minor principal stresses
been derived considering these angles. An illustrative rav Average vertical stress
example has been solved to show the effect on earth rh Horizontal stress
pressure distribution on retaining wall considering arching s Shear strength
for different wall friction angles and soil friction angles. / (phi) Angle of shearing resistance of soil of soil
The applicability of proposed formulation is compared c (gama) Soil unit weight
with model test results.

Keywords Arching  Passive earth pressure  Sandy soil 

Wall friction  Retaining wall Introduction

Arching involves stress transfer from the yielding part of soil

List of symbols
to the unyielding part of soil. It is first described by Terzaghi
a Mathematical coefficient in equation for
in 1943 [4]. It depends on shear strength of soil and extent of
catenary
yielding of soil. Many researchers have studied active earth
B Breadth of soil between the two vertical
pressure against rigid retaining wall considering arching
rough walls
effect. Janssen [2] proposed differential equation for pres-
H Height of wall
sure in the silos. He has provided theoretical basis for
K Ratio of horizontal to vertical stress rh/rv
understanding the effect of arching. Spangler and Handy
[12] and Wang [10] suggested procedures to estimate non
linear pressure distribution of active earth pressure on the
R. S. Dalvi (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, back of the wall based on Janssen theory [2]. Many experi-
Pune 411005, India mental results [5, 6] show that lateral earth pressure behind
e-mail: rsd.civil@coep.ac.in the retaining wall depends on the mode of wall movement or
rotation of the wall at the top or bottom and the pressure
P. J. Pise
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur, India distribution is non linear. This non-linearity is attributed due
e-mail: pjpise@vsnl.net to arching effect by Handy [7].

123
Indian Geotech J (AprilJune 2012) 42(2):106112
Review of Previous Work
Handy [7] considered two stages of arching for active earth
pressure when the back of the wall is rough. He assumed the
shape of arch as catenary. According to him, stage I arching
is due to change of directions of principal stresses. Con-
sidering Stage I arching, earth pressure estimated is more
than predicted by classical theory. As the wall movement is
continuous semi arch is formed between the wall and the
boundary of the slip surfaces separating mobile and
immobile soil mass. Due to this minor principal stress
becomes horizontal. This is termed by him as second stage
of arching. The second stage of arching reduces vertical and
horizontal pressure particularly near the base of the wall.
Due to this effect pressure distribution becomes rounded at
the base. The equation proposed by Handy [7] and Harrop-
Williams [8] have some limitations. They have not con-
sidered the dependence of vertical stress rv and horizontal
stress rh due to soil friction angle, / and soil to wall friction
angle, d. Paik and Salgado [9] have proposed an equation
considering the effect of / and d on rv and rh. They
compared the existing test results with the values calculated
from the equation given by other authors. They have also
presented design charts based on their formulation.
Dalvi et al. [10] considered the effect of arching on the
passive earth pressure in non cohesive soil. They have
considered stage I arching for different heights of retaining
wall. They have compared their results with the classical
theory of Coulomb. They concluded that stage I arching
estimates lateral pressure, which is always less than that
predicted by classical theory.
Scope of Study
In this paper effect of arching on passive earth pressure in the
noncohesive backfill is considered. The backfill is assumed
to rise upward in a catenary form due to arching. The coef-
ficient of passive earth pressure has been derived making
suitable assumptions. The value of hw (the angle of major
principal plane) is calculated from different values of d and /.
The coefficient of passive earth pressure is calculated for hw.
A cumulative effect on soil pressure is considered as the
second stage of arching. Summation of all the vertical forces
acting on the differential element is considered and equation
for stage II arching was derived from it.
Proposed Method of Analysis
Assumptions
Following assumptions have been made in the analysis.
107
(1) The soil is non-cohesive, semi infinite, homogeneous,
isotropic and the backfill is horizontal.
(2) The problem is a plane strain problem i.e. two-
dimensional.
(3) The soil mass is bounded between two parallel, un-
yielding rough vertical walls. The walls are assumed
to rotate towards the soil mass creating passive case.
(4) The sliding surfaces are vertical and pass through the
outer edge of the yielding wall.
(5) The soil mass moves up in a curved path which is
considered as catenary arch.
(6) Wall friction angle d is less than soil friction angle /.
i.e. (d \ /).
(7) The major and minor principal stresses have been
considered to be constant along the length of the arch.
(8) The ratio of horizontal to vertical pressure rh to rv is
constant and it is represented by
K rh =rv
Fully Developed Wall Friction
The analysis is described elsewhere [10]. However, it is
given briefly below.
Two parallel, rigid vertical walls retaining granular soil
mass as shown in Fig. 1 has been considered. The distance
between the walls is B. When rotation of the wall takes
place towards the soil mass, passive state is developed and
the soil moves in the upward direction as shown.
Consider a small strip of soil mass having thickness dh
at a depth h below the ground surface in the soil mass. V is
the vertical upward force acting on a strip. The weight of
the strip is c B dh. The forces acting on the strip of soil
mass have been shown in Fig. 1. The frictional resistance F
is acting in the downward direction as shown. This fric-
tional resistance is equal to the lateral force times the
coefficient of friction l (i.e. l = tan d), where d is soil-
wall friction angle.
The major and minor principal planes and stresses are
shown in the Fig. 2a. The vertical and horizontal stresses
at the wall are rv and rh. Inside the soil mass the tra-
jectory of major principal stress, r1 gives continuous
tension arch in the upward direction. Due to catenary
arch considered the direction of the principal stress
changes along and normal to the arch. The major prin-
cipal stress r1 makes an angle of h with the wall as
shown at point C. Figure 2b shows Mohrs circle of stress
for any point along with failure envelope. The slip lines
make an angle, h = 45 - //2. This is simplified
assumption made similar to Handy. The stress conditions
at C are modified and they are shown separately in
Fig. 2c.
123
108 Indian Geotech J (AprilJune 2012) 42(2):106112

Fig. 1 Representation of soil

arching

Stresses in Arch Vertical and Horizontal Stresses

From force equilibrium on triangular element, at C as The principle stresses are resolved into horizontal and
shown in Fig. 2c gives vertical stresses by using Eqs. 3 and 4. The values of h and
/ are substituted in Eqs. 3 and 4 and the ratio of rh/r3 and
rh r3 cos2 h r1 sin2 h 1 rv/r3 are obtained. In case of wall or conduit problems
s r1  r3 sinhcosh 2 instead of considering the vertical stress at the wall, aver-
age stress was considered by Janssen [2] and Handy [7].
Dividing Eq. 1 by r3 and considering the soil mass to be Average vertical stress is equal to rav = V/B. Consid-
in a passive state
ering their approach the lateral stress ratio, rh/rav is
r1 =r3 Kp : evaluated.
The value of rav is obtained by averaging rv/r3 for /
where, Kp = coefficient of passive earth pressure = 10 and / = 40 we get rav is 1.16. The horizontal
From Eqs. 1 and 2, stress to average vertical stress ratio is designated here as
Kw. This equation is adjusted for average reduction in rv
rh =r3 cos2 h Kp sin2 h 3
rh  2 
cos h Kp sin2 h
From Fig. 2a, and using geometrical relationships, r3
 
r1  rh rv  r3 So; rh r3 cos2 h Kp sin2 h 5

Putting the value of rh, in Eq. 3. As; rav =r3 1:16

rav  2 
r1  rv r3 =r3 cos2 h Kp sin2 h So; rh cos h Kp sin2 h
1:16
rh  
Solving the above and rearranging the terms, And; Kw 0:862 cos2 h Kp sin2 h 6
rav
rv =r3 Kp cos2 h sin2 h 4
Partially Developed Wall Friction
The vertical and lateral stresses acting at arbitrary points
along a differential flat element in the backfill can be Figure 3i, ii, show Mohrs circle solution when angle of
calculated from Eqs. 3 and 4 wall friction d \ /, i.e. when partially wall friction is

123
Indian Geotech J (AprilJune 2012) 42(2):106112 109

Fig. 2 a Continuous major

principal arch (trajectory of
major principal arch). b Mohrs
circle showing arching.
c Stresses on element at stresses
at rough wall C

 
developed. hw is the angle between horizontal direction and r1 =rh Kp cos2 h Kp sin2 h 9
direction of the minor principal plane. The angle hw is
obtained from Fig. 3. Substituting Eq. 9 in Eq. 8 and rearranging the terms,
  2  
From triangle OAB and ABC. Kp cos h Kp sin2 h  1 cotd cothw 10
sw r1  rh tanhw rh tand 7 !
Kp  cos2 h Kp sin2 h
r1  rh cotd rh cothw cotd cothw
cos2 h Kp sin2 h
Dividing Eq. 7 by rh and rearranging,
Simplifying Eq. 10 further step wise, Eq. 11 is derived.
r1 =rh  1cotd cothw 8  
tanhw Kp  1
Dividing r1/r3 = Kp by rh/r3 = cos2 h ? Kp sin2 h gives tand 11
1 Kp tan2 hw

123
110 Indian Geotech J (AprilJune 2012) 42(2):106112

cB2 cB2 2klh=B

V kl e 13
2 2kl
cB2  
V 1  e2klh=B
2 kl
Rearranging the terms in Eq. 13.
cB2  2klh=B 
V e 1 14
2kl
where V is the total accumulated vertical load at depth h, c
is unit weight of soil, B is the distance between two walls,
Kw = rh/rv is the K at wall due to catenary arch, l = tan d
is the wall friction coefficient
Since V/B = rav
Kw rav = rh
And Eq. 14 changes as
cB  2Kw lh=B 
rh e 1 15
2l
Eq. 15 gives equation for lateral earth pressure behind a
wall.

Soil Arching Action Behind Retaining Wall

Non Linear Pressure Distribution

The Marston equations were originally derived to define

Fig. 3 i Partially developed wall friction. ii Detail at C
In Eq. 11, if / and d are known, the value of the hw can be
determined.
Equation for the Earth Pressure Behind the Wall
A second stage of arching is its cumulative effect on soil
pressure. The forces acting on the strip of the soil mass is
shown in the Fig. 1. Summation of all vertical forces acting
on the differential element (Fig. 1)
V  dV cB dh  V 2Kw lV=B dh 0
 dv cB dh  V 2Kw lV=B dh 0
where Kw is passive lateral stress ratio due to arching at the
wall
2KlV=B dh  dv cB dh 12
Eq. 12 can be written as
2KlV=B  dv=dh cB
Integrating Eq. 12 and using appropriate boundary
condition Eq. 13 is obtained.
boundary stresses in the soil partially supported between
vertical walls with a constant separation distance B. They
predict constant wall pressure below certain depth.
Figure 4 shows a single wall horizontal distance equivalent
to B/2 from wall to the stable soil encountered behind a plane
normally rising at 45 - //2 from base of the wall. Along this
plane principal stresses oriented vertically and horizontally.
So the separation distance from wall is a half arch.
This distance B changes with the depth becoming zero
at the bottom of wall. The horizontal pressure on the wall
may be obtained by differentiating Eq. 14
drh
Kw c exp2kw lh=B
dh
Near the top of wall where h is small and B is large the exp.
term is 1 and slope is Kw
cB
H  htan45 h=2 16
2
Substituting Eq. 16 in Eq. 15 gives the equation for
horizontal soil pressure at any level behind a rough wall.
c
rh H  htan45
l h i
/=2 expKwl=tan45/=2h=Hh1 17

123
Indian Geotech J (AprilJune 2012) 42(2):106112 111

Pressure (kPa)
0 200 400 600
0

0.2
Stage I arching for 0.2 phi

0.4
Stage II arching for 0.2 phi

0.6 Coulomb Pressure for 0.2 phi

Stage I arching for 0.6 phi

0.8

Depth (m)
Stage II arching for 0.6 phi
1
Coulomb pressure for 0.6 phi
Fig. 4 Retaining wall-backfill geometry 1.2

rh is the horizontal pressure at level h, c is the unit weight 1.4

of the soil, l is the soil to wall coefficient of fric-
tion = tand, H is the total height of wall, h is the elevation
from the top, / is the soil internal friction angle
Lateral earth pressure behind the wall is calculated using
Eq. 17 From the equation it is observed that the horizontal
pressure is a function of unit weight of soil, c angle of wall
friction, d total height of the wall, H and earth pressure
coefficient due to arching, Kw. Applicability and effects of
arching on lateral pressure on retaining wall has been
discussed with an illustrative example based on the present
study. Also analytical prediction compared with other
theories and model study of Narain et al. [3].
Illustrative Example
An imaginary example for the soil-wall data given below
has been solved Wall height = 2 m; / = 32 and d = 0.2/
and 0.6/ and ce = 18 kN/m3. The results have been
compared in Fig. 5.
The pressure distribution on the wall considering stage I
arching effect is calculated from Eq. 6. Lateral earth
pressure distribution behind the wall due to stage I arching
and using Coulomb equation are triangular in nature. Lat-
eral pressure at any depth is about 8 % less than the
pressure predicted by Coulombs analysis.
The pressure distribution behind the wall due to stage II
arching is calculated using Eq. 17. Lateral pressure due to
stage II arching and pressure due to classical theory are
practically equal for the wall height of 1.51.7 m. Beyond
this the lateral pressure increases in exponential form.
Comparison with Experimental Data
The prediction of earth pressure on the back of the wall
from the Eq. 17 are compared with model test result of
1.6
1.8
2
Fig. 5 Lateral earth pressure with depth and comparison with
Coulomb theory (d = 0.2/ and 0.6/)
Narain et al. [3]. They have carried out experiments on
retaining wall model to study dry uniform Ranipur sand at
two relative densities (RD) of 31.5 and 70.25 %. The sand
has / = 38.50 at RD = 31.5 % and / = 42 at
RD = 70.25 %. The angle of wall friction for two densities
0
is 23.5 . The height of the wall is 500 mm. The pressure
distribution on the wall for different condition such as
rotation about top, rotation about bottom and translation
were considered. Model experiments reported by Sherif
et al. [12] indicated that a translating wall movement of
only about 1/6,000 the height of the wall was required to
mobilize wall friction. This is negligible. While comparing
experimental and analytical results rotation about top and
translation for 10 mm wall movement were considered.
In Fig. 6a (For loose sand) up to a depth of 160 mm
lateral earth pressure distribution due to stage I arching and
stage II arching are less than experimental results for wall
translation.
In Fig. 6b (For dense sand) Lateral earth pressure dis-
tribution due to stage I arching is always less than the
experimental values for wall translation. Lateral earth
pressure distribution due to stage II arching is less than the
experimental values up to a depth of 260 mm. However,
after this depth the pressure increases.

123
112
Fig. 6 a Comparison with experimental data (loose sand). b Com-
parison with experimental data (dense sand)
In Fig. 6a, b experimental values for the rotation about
the top for 10 mm wall movement are also plotted. It is
observed that the lateral earth pressure distribution due to
stage I is less than the experimental results for loose and
dense sand. But in case of loose sand lateral earth pressure
distribution due to stage II arching is less than the exper-
imental results up to depth of 220 mm. In case of dense
123
Indian Geotech J (AprilJune 2012) 42(2):106112
sand lateral earth pressure distribution due to stage II
arching is closer to the experimental results. As wall
movement increases arching does not take place. Negligi-
ble wall movement is required for stage II arching to occur
[12].
Conclusions
Analysis has been presented to estimate passive earth
pressure due to arching in soil mass. Planer failure surface
and shape of arch in soil is considered as upward catenary,
initiating from rough wall. Due consideration has been
given to the contribution of soil wall friction angle and
shearing resistance of soil. The pressure distribution pre-
dicted is reasonably closer to the observed experimental
results of Narain et al. [3] and also the trend of variation of
pressure with depth is similar to the model test results.
Further study is suggested to understand the intricacies of
arching in practice.
References
1. Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics, 4th edn. Chapman
and Hall Ltd, London, pp 6676, 77117
2. Janssen HA (1895) versche uber Getreidedruck in silozellen.
Z.Ver.dut. Ingr 39:1045 (Partial English translation in proceed-
ings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, London, England 1896,
553)
3. Spangler MG, Handy RL (1982) Soil engineering, 4th edn.
Harper and Row, New York
4. Wang YZ (2000) Distribution of earth pressure on a retaining
wall. Geotechnique 50(1):8388
5. Tsagareli ZV (1965) Experimental investigation of the pressure
of a loose medium retaining wall with a vertical back face and
horizontal backfill surface. J Soil Mech Found Eng ASCE 91(4):
197200
6. Fang Y, Ishibhishi I (1986) Static earth pressure with various wall
movements. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112(3):313333
7. Handy RL (1985) The arch in soil arching. J Geotech Eng ASCE
III(3):302317
8. Harrop-Williams K (1989) Geostatic wall pressures. J Geotech
Eng ASCE 115(9):13211325
9. Paik KH, Salgado R (2003) Estimation of active earth pressure
against rigid retaining wall considering arching effects. Geo-
technique 53(7):643653
10. Dalvi RS, Bhosale SS, Pise PJ (2005) Analysis for passive earth
pressure: catenary arch in soil. Indian Geotech J 35(4):388400
11. Narain J, Saran S, Nandakumaran P (1969) Model study of
passive pressure is sand. J Soil Mech Found Eng ASCE 95(4):
969983
12. Sherif MA, Ishibhashi I, Lee CD (1982) Earth pressure against
rigid retaining wall. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 108(GT5):
679696