Earth Pressures and Stability of Retaining Walls; Review of Principles and Practices in

Relation to Engineering Design and Construction.

O. Ajayi1 and O.C. Okeke2
1
Department of Geology,
Federal University of Technology,
Owerri, Nigeria.
2
Department of Geology,
Federal University of Technology,
Owerri, Nigeria.
Corresponding Author: oajayi873@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT
Retaining wall is a structure used to support a vertical or near vertical slopes of soil. The resulting
horizontal stress from the soil on the wall is called lateral earth pressure. Often time, this wall fails which
is a major environmental hazard and concern for construction engineers. Geotechnical engineer must
determine the magnitude of the lateral earth pressure, which is a function of unit weight, angle of friction,
and cohesion c – for the soil retained behind the wall. To effectively evaluate the magnitude of this lateral
earth pressure, it is assumed that the soil behind the wall (called backfill soil) is on the verge of failure
and obeys some failure criterion, for example, the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Lateral earth pressure
is a function of several factors, including: the type and amount of wall movement, type of backfill used
the effective unit weight of the backfill soil, ground water position, the drainage condition in the backfill,
ground Surcharge and surcharge application. At rest, active and passive pressures are the three basic Earth
pressure. Retaining wall may fail in any of the following ways; it may overturn about its toe, it may slide
along its base, it may fail due to the loss of bearing capacity of the soil supporting the base. Earth
pressure sensors, laser based displacement transducers and slope inclinometers are often used to monitor
failure in already installed retaining walls and measuring deformation of geo-foam in small scale models
can be done conveniently with use of potentiometers and strain gauges.

Key words: Retaining walls, Earth pressures and Environmental hazard.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Natural forces, such as water, snow and wind, often change the topography in plain and mountain areas,
creating unstable slopes and thus resulting in severe casualties and destructions, economic losses, and
environmental damage (Muni, B. 2020; Ouyang et al. 2013), which demonstrates that the stability
analyses of slopes and geo-structures are essential in geotechnical design. Retaining walls are structures
commonly built to reinforce and provide stability for slopes, embankments, and other earthworks and
have been recognized as one of the most common geo-structures which have considerable flexibility
against outburst loads and are less sensitive to settlement (Ghanbari and Taheri 2012).

In practical design, the earth pressure acting on the wall due to the backfill is a major concern, and thus it
is of vital importance to calculate the thrust on the wall accurately allowing the assessment of the walls
safety during its operation period. The forces exerted on the wall could be obtained by either Coulomb or
Rankine earth pressure theory based on limit equilibrium analysis. Historically, Coulomb pioneered the
investigation of lateral earth pressure on the retaining wall by assuming a plane failure surface under limit
equilibrium conditions (Coulomb 1776). Various developments rooted in Coulomb earth pressure theory
have been reported considering more general ground and loading conditions, for examples in recent years,
surcharge loading (Motta 1994; Greco 2005), seismic effects (Wang et al., 2008a; Ahmad 2013;
Brandenberg et al. 2015), cohesive-frictional backfill (Ahmadabadi and Ghanbari 2009; Chen 2014; Xu
2015), and different slip surfaces (Ouyang et al., 2013; Patki et al., 2015).

2.0 EARTH PRESSURES

Vertical or near vertical slopes of soil are supported by retaining walls, cantilever sheet-pile walls, sheet-
pile bulkheads, braced cuts, and other similar structures. The proper design of those structures required
estimation of lateral earth pressure, which is a function of several factors, such as (a) type and amount
of wall movement, (b) shear strength parameters of the soil, (c) unit weight of the soil, and (d) drainage
conditions in the backfill. The figures below show a retaining wall of height AB ( Robert, 2013).
To evaluate the magnitude of the forces acting on retaining walls two main lines of approach are adopted:
The Coulomb wedge (a force approach) and the Rankine theory (which defines pressure distributions).
From the figures above, there are three types of Lateral Earth Pressure (LEP):
a) At Rest Lateral Earth Pressure:
The wall may be restrained from moving, for example; basement wall is restrained to move due to slab of
the basement and the lateral earth force in this case can be termed as" Po".
b) Active Lateral Earth Pressure:
In case of the wall is free from its upper edge (retaining wall), the wall may move away from the soil that
is retained with distance “+ ΔH” (i.e. the soil pushes the wall away) this means the soil is active and the
force of this pushing is called active force and termed by “Pa".
c) Passive Lateral Earth Pressure:
For the wall shown above (retaining wall) in the left side there exist a soil with height less than the soil in
the right and as mentioned above the right soil will push the wall away, so the wall will be pushed into
the left soil (i.e. soil compresses the left soil) this means the soil has a passive effect and the force in this
case is called passive force and termed by " Pp".

Fig 1.0: The effect of wall movement on earth pressures (Robert, 2013).

3.0 COULOMB WEDGE ANALYSIS

Coulomb considered a rigid mass of soil sliding upon a shear surface that was a straight line set at an
angle 𝜃 above the horizontal (Figure 1.1). He was well aware that the critical shear surface might not be
planar, but noted that a straight failure sur
surface
face was a good approximation of the real behavior (Coulomb
1776). If the soil behind the wall is in an Active state, then the forces acting on the soil wedge can be
arranged in a polygon of forces (of W, T, N and P), as shown in Figure 2.1. This polygon can c be closed,
so that the soil wedge is in equilibrium, by the addition of a force (P) acting in a variety of ways, each of
which corresponds to a different practical situation (e.g. smooth wall (PA), rough wall (PB), anchors
(PC)). It is readily apparent that a ‘smooth’ wall (no shear force acting on its back) must provide a greater
horizontal force to maintain equilibrium than must a ‘fully rough’ wall (maximum possible shear force
acting).

Figure 1.1: The Coulomb wedge (Robert, 2013).

Fig: 1.2 The polygon forces of Coulomb wedge failure (Robert, 2013).

Thus, the design of a retaining wall on the basis of it being smooth is a conservative approach, but it is not
excessively conservative for Active conditions, and it is often the most realistic model. This is because it
is not the physical roughness of the wall in itself which is the crucial factor in determining whether or not
there is a shear force acting on the back of a wall. For a shear force to be generated (rather than it simply
being a potential force) there has to be significant sliding motion betw
between
een the soil and the back of the
wall. In many practical situations this movement will not occur. In general, the total Active thrust PA on a
retaining system is the sum of the thrust due to groundwater PW and the thrust from the soil skeleton (the

force resulting
esulting from the effective stresses P’A): (1)
Water exerts the same pressure in all directions, and thus the thrust that it generates is easily calculated
from the groundwater regime (the pore pressure is usually hydrostatic on the back of a wall). The same is
not true for the soil skeleton because of its internal shear strength. An initial assessment of the behavior of
the soil skeleton can be obtained by undertaking an effective stress analysis of a unit thickness of dry,
cohesion less soil with bulk unit weight. Because the pore pressure is zero, PA =P’A and N =N’ so that, at
the point of limiting equilibrium, a force polygon composed of W, N’, P’A and T (the shearing resistance
on the base of the wedge) must close (see Figure 2.2). Since the soil is cohesion less,

(2)
The effective normal force N’ and the shearing resistance T can be combined to give a resultant force R,
as indicated in Figure 2.4. From this diagram, at failure (factor of safety equal to unity)
(3)

(4)

(5)
By choosing different values of 𝜃 the critical value of
PˈA (i.e. the force needed to just prevent sliding of the
soil wedge) can be estimated. Alternatively, the
critical sliding plane can be identified by
differentiating PˈA with respect to 𝜃 and setting the
derivative to zero. Such an analysis will show that
there is one particular critical value of 𝜃:

(6)
By substituting the foregoing value of 𝜃ucrit into Equation 5, an expression for the minimum force that the
wall has to provide (equal and opposite to the Active effective thrust from the soil) is obtained:

(7)
A similar approach (force polygon) may be applied to cases where pore-water is present and also when
the soil exhibits effective cohesion. Again, the critical plane is inclined at an angle of to the
horizontal. The effective Active thrust is then given by;

(8)
If there are pore pressures in the soil behind the wall, the effective Active force and the water thrust must
be determined separately, and then added together to give the total thrust on the wall as indicated in
Equation 1.
A similar wedge analysis can be undertaken for the case where the soil behind the wall is in a Passive
state (i.e. the soil self-weight and shear strength combine to resist the lateral thrust). In this case the base
of the critical wedge is inclined at an angle of to the horizontal, and the effective Passive
thrust is given by

(9)
The main drawback with the Coulomb wedge analysis is that the point of application of the thrust on the
wall is not known, and if moments are to be calculated, this point of action is needed. The point of
application of the water force is known because the water pressure behind the wall increases linearly with
depth.

4.0 RANKLINE ANALYSIS (EFFECTIVE EARTH PRESSURES)

Rankine (1857) extended earth pressure theory by deriving a solution for a complete soil mass in a state
of failure, compared with Coulomb’s solution, which considered as oil mass bounded by a single failure
surface. The subsequent analysis by Bell (1915) incorporated the effect of cohesion on earth pressures.
Expressions for the earth pressures exerted on a smooth vertical wall by a cohesive–frictional fill (with a
horizontal ground surface) can be derived from the Mohr–Coulomb diagram by considering the behavior
of an element of soil immediately adjacent to a smooth wall (Figure 1.3) that has been installed without
disturbing the ground. Prior to installation of the wall, the effective stresses on the element will be
in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. The ratio between the horizontal and
vertical effective stresses at this stage is defined as the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K0), whereby

(10)

Figure 1.3: An element of soil adjacent to a ‘smooth’ wall (Robert, 2013).

Table 1.0: Expressions of coefficient of Earth pressures at rest (Robert, 2013).

A more fundamental definition of this coefficient would be but practice is to ratio horizontal
and vertical pressures, because for over consolidated soils with unknown stress history K 0 can be
determined only experimentally. For an over consolidated clay, as the vertical stress reduces some
horizontal stress remains ‘locked-in’, and so K0approaches or exceeds unity (values up to 2 have been
recorded). For an undisturbed soil at rest, the ratio of the horizontal to vertical stress depends on;
 The type of soil.
 its geological history
 The temporary loads that may have acted on the surface of the soil.
 The topography.
 Changes in the ground strain or the groundwater regime.
Therefore the ratio should not be thought of as a fundamental property of the soil. Two frequently
used expressions of Ko are given in table 1.0 above.
In the at-rest state the soil is not failing, and so the stress conditions on any plane within the soil must lie
below the failure envelope. At this stage the Mohr’s circle for the material is something akin to that
shown in Figure 2.4. If the lateral stress is now reduced; hence it must be the minor principal stress
and the vertical stress is kept constant, then the Mohr’s circle gradually increases in size, because the
shear stress in the soil is increasing. Eventually the circle will just touch the Coulomb failure envelope
(see Figure 1.4). At this stage there exists a plane within the soil on which the shear and normal stresses
satisfy the failure criterion (i.e. the soil is just on the point of Active failure).

Fig 1.4: The Mohr–Coulomb diagram for Active failure (Robert, 2013).

The lateral stress cannot be reduced further because the Mohr’s circle cannot get any larger. So the minor
principal stress at this stage is the minimum lateral stress that the wall must exert to provide a factor of
safety of unity against failure of the soil. For this situation, we have`
(11)

For a smooth wall in contact with soil that is just on the point of failure under active condition

(12)

Thus, the effective Active pressure on the wall is obtained from

(13& 14)
The resultant Active earth pressure diagram (the variation in the lateral effective stress, with depth, on the
back of the wall) is illustrated in Figure 1.5 The effective Active thrust P’A is the algebraic sum of the
areas in the foregoing diagram, and, if there are no pore pressures, it is given by

(15)

This value is exactly the same as that predicted by the Coulomb wedge analysis (Equation 8).
Furthermore, Equation 13 and Figure 2.7 enable the point of application of the effective active thrust to be
determined. They show that the active pressure is a combination of a triangular

Figure 1.5: Earth pressure distributions (Robert, 2013).

Figure 1.6 The Mohr–Coulomb diagrams for Passive failure (Robert, 2013).

Pressure distribution and a rectangular distribution the

preceding approach can also be applied to the determination of a relationship for the Passive case, only in
this derivation the wall is pushed into the soil (i.e. the horizontal effective stress is increased to bring
the soil to failure). Since the vertical stress remains constant, the Mohr’s circle is likely to decrease in size
initially until exceeds , after which the Mohr’s circle will grow in size until it touches the failure
envelope (Figure 1.6). At this stage, Passive failure of the soil occurs (both the self-weight and shear
strength have resisted deformation), and the following stress conditions apply, for a smooth wall with a
vertical back and horizontal ground surface:

(16)
Thus, the effective Passive pressure on a smooth wall is obtained from

(17 & 18)

The resultant Passive earth pressure diagram (the variation in the lateral effective stress, with depth, on
the back of the wall) is constructed using Equation 17. The effective Passive thrust
P’P is the area of this diagram, and is thus given by;

(19)

5.0 ACCURACY OF KA AND KP

Both the Rankine and Coulomb analyses assume linear failure surfaces, but experimental measurements
indicate that the surfaces are curved. This means that the curved surfaces are more critical, so assumption
of linear surfaces does not define the most critical condition and therefore can underestimate active
pressures and overestimate passive pressures. The error, which is of the order of 10 percent, therefore
must be included in a factor of safety (Handy and Spangler, 2007).
6.0 RETAINING WALL
Retaining walls are structures that are usually constructed to form roads, stabilize trenches and soil slopes,
and support unstable structures (Basheer et al., 1996).
ChKeerthi et al., 2019 defined retaining wall as a rigid one which supports the soil mass at the different
levels and also soils with different sloped profiles, reinforced retaining walls uses reinforcing steel to take
care of the tension forces and stresses being developed in the concrete mass. Retaining walls are
supported by a wide base to stabilize the structure against the sliding, overturning, etc. however, different
types of retaining walls behaves based on the load dissipation.
Loads acting on the retaining walls can be classified based on load categories such as self-weight of the
wall, lateral loads from the soil, water table effect, the superimposed load with the provision of vehicles
transportation and the earthquake loads originating from the vibrations of the ground as a result of dead
load, soil pressure, surcharge load and seismic loads. When a soil mass is retained at a higher level by a
retaining wall, the retained mass of the soil tends to slide and assume a flat slope for equilibrium, which is
resisted by the retaining wall (ChKeerthi et al., 2019).
Retaining wall is one of the most important types of retaining structures. It is extensively used in variety
of situations such as highway engineering, railways engineering, bridge engineering and irrigation
engineering. (Patil et. al. 2015).
He further stated that a retaining wall is a structure designed and constructed to resist the lateral pressure
of soil when there is a desired change in ground elevation that exceeds the angle of repose of the soil. The
most important consideration in proper design and installation of retaining walls is to recognize and
counteract the tendency of the retained material to move down slope due to gravity. This creates lateral
earth pressure behind the wall which depends on the angle of internal friction (ø) and the cohesive
strength (c) of the retained material, as well as the direction and magnitude of movement the retaining
structure undergoes.
Abood.et. al. 2015, pointed out that retaining structures hold back soil or other loose material where an
abrupt change in ground elevation occurs. The retained material or backfill exerts a push on the structure
and thus tends to overturn or slide it, or both.

Prof. SaritaSingla et al., 2015, stated that during development of land, one often comes across with the
challenge of creating a difference in terrain elevation over an arbitrary horizontal distance. This can often
be done by creating slopes or by constructing retaining walls. He said, retaining walls are structures that
are constructed to retain soil or any such materials which are unable to stand vertically by themselves.

It can then be inferred that a retaining wall is a structure designed and constructed to resist the lateral
pressure of soil, when there is a desired change in ground elevation that exceeds the angle of repose of the
soil. The walls must resist the lateral pressures generated by loose soils or, in some cases, water pressures.
Every retaining wall supports a "wedge" of soil. The wedge is defined as the soil which extends beyond
the failure plane of the soil type present at the wall site, and can be calculated once the soil friction angle
is known. As the setback of the wall increases, the size of the sliding wedge is reduced. This reduction
lowers the pressure on the retaining wall. The most important consideration in proper design and
installation of retaining walls is to recognize and counteract the tendency of the retained material to move
down slope due to gravity. This creates lateral earth pressure behind the wall which depends on the angle
of internal friction (phi) and the cohesive strength (c) of the retained material, as well as the direction and
magnitude of movement the retaining structure undergoes.

The International Building Code requires retaining walls to be designed to ensure stability against
overturning, sliding, excessive foundation pressure and water uplift; and that they be designed for a safety
factor of 1.5 against lateral sliding and overturning (Thornburg et al, 2013).
6.1 Types of Retaining Walls
In general, retaining walls can be divided into two major categories:
(a) conventional retaining walls and
(b) mechanically stabilized earth walls
Here, I shall dwell more on conventional retaining walls which are generally classified into four
categories (ChKeerthi et al., 2019);

(a) Gravity retaining walls

Gravity retaining walls (Figure 4a) are constructed with plain concrete or stone masonry. They
depend on stability of their own weight and any soil resting on the masonry. This type of
construction is not economical for high walls

Fig: 4a: Gravity wall

(b) Semi-gravity retaining walls

In many cases, a small amount of steel may be used for the construction of gravity walls, thereby
minimizing the size of wall sections. Such walls are generally referred to as semi-gravity walls
(Figure 4b).

Fig: 4b: Semi-gravity wall

(c) Cantilever retaining walls
Cantilever retaining walls (Figure 4c) are made of reinforced concrete that consists of a thin stem
and a base slab. This type of wall is economical to a height of about 8 m (25 ft.).

Fig: 4c: Cantilever retaining walls

(d) Counterfort retaining walls

Counterfort retaining walls (Figure 4d) are similar to cantilever walls. At regular intervals,
however, they have thin vertical concrete slabs known as counterforts that tie the wall and the
 base slab together. The purpose of the counterforts is to reduce the shear and the bending
moments.

Fig: 4d: Counterfort wall

To design retaining walls properly, an engineer must know the basic parameters –the unit weight,
angle of friction, and cohesion– of the soil retained behind the wall and the soil below the base slab.
Knowing these properties of the soil behind the wall enable the engineer to determine the lateral
pressure distribution that has to be designed. There are two phases in the design of a conventional
retaining wall:
First, with the lateral earth pressure known, the structure as a whole is checked for stability. The
structure is examined for possible overturning, sliding, and bearing capacity failures.
Second, each component of the structure is checked for strength, and the steel reinforcement of each
component is determined. A retaining structure can fail to perform satisfactorily because of failure of
the structure itself, failure of the soil or unacceptable deformations. The general aspects of stability to
be considered are as follows.
 The structure should not overturn. The disturbing moments on the structure should not exceed the
restoring moments, and the bearing capacity of the ground must not be exceeded.
 The structure should not slide. The horizontal disturbing force must be less than the resistance to
sliding on the base.
 The general stability of the soil around the structure should not be impaired. Excessive
deformation of the wall or ground should not occur such that adjacent structures or services reach
their ultimate limit state.
 The earth pressure should not overstress any part of the structure, to prevent failure of structural
members, including the wall itself, in bending, shear or tension/ compression.

6.2 Monitoring of installed retaining walls

Instrumentation setup for wall monitoring retaining walls involve measuring lateral earth pressures on the
retaining wall, quantifying deformation of the geofoam inclusion and finding the tilt of the wall. Earth
pressure sensors, laser based displacement transducers and slope inclinometers are used respectively. For
the wall to be subjected to at-rest lateral earth pressures, it is necessary to ensure that the wall does not
deform. Thus, obtaining slope profile of the wall becomes indispensable for which slope inclinometers are
used. Slope inclinometers are geotechnical instruments used to measure horizontal displacements along
various points on a borehole; these consist of main components – grooved casings and the probe. In the
field model, the casings are to be installed in boreholes within the stem of the wall. These boreholes
extend from the top to the bottom of the wall and are constructed by placing vertical pipes of suitable
diameters within the wall at concrete pouring stage itself. Wall tilt profile can then be obtained by
lowering the probe along the casing. Placing the pipes substantially larger in diameter than the outer
diameter of inclinometer is necessary, as the casings can then be grouted firmly into place while ensuring
their verticality. Fig. 4 shows a typical inclinometer probe.
Measuring deformation of geofoam in small scale models can be done conveniently with use of
potentiometers, strain gauges etc. However, in a full scale model, physical contact to geofoam section is
extremely difficult, thus quantifying the deformation along the section is a major challenge. Laser
distance sensors are optoelectronic sensors for non-contact displacement and distance measurements.
Most commonly, laser displacement sensors operate either according to the time-of-flight measuring
principle or phase comparison principle. A typical Laser based Displacement Sensor can be seen in Fig. 5.
In the study, lasers from the devices will be targeted on a reflective screen placed at the end of geofoam
layer through already provisioned holes with clear line of sight, and based on the transducer output the
distance from the sensor to the end of geofoam can be obtained. Successive readings over a period of time
from holes along the height of the retaining walls will then give information on deformation of geofoam
at different locations.

Fig 4.0: slope inclinometers (Wikipedia).

6.3 Importance of Weep Holes in Retaining Walls

Retaining walls are designed to withstand pressures from retained materials, surcharge pressures due to
movement of vehicular traffic or loads from foundations of adjacent buildings on their backfills, seismic
loading, etc. They may also be vulnerable to catastrophic failures during earthquake due to sudden
increase in lateral loads, increase in pore pressures, etc., thus making the appropriate estimation of earth
pressures critically important for safe and cost effective designs. Controlling the cross section of retaining
walls successfully requires reducing the total lateral thrust acting on the walls. This can be achieved by
placing compressible inclusion between wall and the backfill and for this purpose various materials have
been examined including geofoam, tire chips, granulated rubber-soil mixture, soil bags, glass-fiber,
cardboard, hay. However, their material behavior is often unpredictable; glass fiber is seen to be over
compressible, cardboard and hay is biodegradable with time. Expanded Polystyrene Geofoam is material
with predictable stress strain behavior, possesses high strength to density ratio, is weather resistant, light
weight, environmentally safe, inexpensive and can be easily shaped or prefabricated (Horvath, 1994).

7.0 PROPORTIONING RETAINING WALLS

In designing retaining walls, an engineer must assume some of their dimensions, called
Proportioning; such assumptions allow the engineer to check trial sections of the walls for stability. If
the stability checks yield undesirable results, the sections can be changed and rechecked. Figure 5.0,
shows the general proportions of various retaining wall components that can be used for initial
checks.
Note that the top of the stem of any retaining wall should not be less than about 0.3 m (≈12 in) for
proper placement of concrete. The depth, D, to the bottom of the base slab should be a minimum of
0.6 m (≈2 ft). However, the bottom of the base slab should be positioned below the seasonal frost line.

For counterfort retaining walls, the general proportion of the stem and the base slab is the same as for
cantilever walls. However, the counterfort slabs may be about 0.3 m (≈12 in) thick and spaced at Centre-
to-Centre distances of 0.3H to 0.7H (Robert et al., 2013 and Dhamdhere et al., 2018).

Fig 3.0: Approximate dimensions of various components of retaining walls for initial stability
checks.

7.1 Stability of Retaining Walls

A retaining wall may fail in any of the following ways; Retaining walls must be designed to resist several
different failure modes that include:
It may overturn about its toe.
It may slide along its base.
It may fail due to the loss of bearing capacity of the soil supporting the base.
It may undergo deep-seated shear failure.
It may go through excessive settlement.

REFERENCES

Abood, T., Eldawi, E. Y., & Abdulrahim, F. R. E. (2015). Design of Cantilever Retaining Wall with 4m
Height. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research. ISSN, 2348-7607.

Ahmadabadi, M., & Ghanbari, A. (2009). New procedure for active earth pressure calculation in retaining walls with
reinforced cohesive-frictional backfill. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(6), 456-463.

Basheer, I. A., & Najjar, Y. M. (1996). Reliability-based design of reinforced earth retaining walls. Transportation
Research Record, 1526(1), 64-78.

Bell, A. L. (1915). The Lateral Pressure and Resistance of Clay and The Supporting Power of Clay Foundations.
In Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (Vol. 199, No. 1915, Pp. 233-272).
Thomas Telford-Ice Virtual Library.
Chen, L. (2014). Active earth pressure of retaining wall considering wall movement. European journal of
environmental and civil engineering, 18(8), 910-926.

ChKeerthi, A Rajendra, DumpaVenkateswarlu. (2019). Design of Free Cantilever, Counter fort and T-flanged
Cantilever Type Retaining Wall’ International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology
(IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 – 8958.

Coulomb CA (1776) Essaisurune application des règles des maximisetminimis à quelquesproblèmes de

statiquerelatifs à l’architecture. Mémoires de mathématiqueet de physique, présentés à l’academie
Royale des Sciences, Vol. 7. Paris: 343-382.

Ghanbari, A., & Taheri, M. (2012). An analytical method for calculating active earth pressure in reinforced retaining
walls subject to a line surcharge. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 34, 1-10.

Greco, V. R. (2005). Active earth thrust by backfills subject to a line surcharge. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 42(5), 1255-1263.

Handy, R. L. (2007). Geotechnical engineering: soil and foundation principles and practice. McGraw-Hill
Education.

Motta, E. (1994). Generalized Coulomb active-earth pressure for distanced surcharge. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 120(6), 1072-1079.

Muni, B. (2020). Soil Mechanics Fundamentals/Year II/Books.Metric Version-Wiley-Blackwell.

Ouyang, C. J., Xu, Q., He, S. M., Luo, Y., & Wu, Y. (2013). A generalized limit equilibrium method for the solution
of active earth pressure on a retaining wall. Journal of Mountain Science, 10(6), 1018-1027.

Patki, M. A., Mandal, J. N., & Dewaikar, D. M. (2015). Determination of passive earth pressure coefficients using
limit equilibrium approach coupled with the Kötter equation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52(9),
1241-1254.

Rankine WJM (1857) On the stability of loose earth. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 147: 9–27.

Robert W. Sarsby, (2013), Environmental Geotechnics Second edition, published by ICE Publishing. Part 1 199:
233–272.

Thornburg, D. W., & Henry, J. R. (2013). 2012 International Building Code® Handbook. McGraw-Hill Education.