671017.pdf

0. 45

0. 53

0. 61

0. 69

0 .77

0. 85

00. 40. 81 .2 1. 6 2

B/H

This study

Note: no results for M-O method are available

K

a

=20

(g)

2. 5

3. 5

4. 5

5. 5

0 0. 40. 81 .2 1. 6 2

B/H

Kp

This study

Note: no results for M-O method are available

=20

(h)

0. 45

0. 55

0. 65

0 .7 5

0. 85

0 .9 5

1. 05

00. 40. 81 .2 1. 6 2

B/H

K

a

This study

Note: no results for M-O method are available

=25

(i)

2. 5

4

5. 5

7

00. 40. 81 .2 1. 6 2

B/H

K

p

This study

Note: no results for M-O method are available

=25

(j)

Figure 9: Lateral pressure coefficient for various backfill soil geometry.

proposed method and M-O results is significant. However,
this difference decreases when퐵/퐻decreases. It means that
if variation of훽(0∼훽) occurs near the wall (approximately
for퐵/퐻 < 1), between the results of these methods a large
difference appears. However, the proposed method is more
accurate. As a result, when훽isnearthewall,M-Omethodis
not economical for active conditions and is not accurate for
passive cases.

5.2. Effects of Water Table behind Wall.In the original M-
O method, water table is not considered directly in the
model, and the earth pressure is given only for the dry
condition. To overcome this deficiency, either a correctness
factor recommended by some design codes should be utilized
or the following relationship must be applied in which the

lateral earth pressure ratio in each dry or saturated region is

imposedontherelevantunitweight:

Total earth pressure (M-O)

={

1

2

훾(퐻−ℎ)^2 +훾ℎ(퐻−ℎ)+

1

2

훾耠⋅ℎ^2 }×퐾푎.

(3)

However, in the proposed method, the total earth pres-

surecanbesimplyobtainedbythefollowingequation:

Total earth pressure (this study)=

1

2

훾⋅퐻^2 ×퐾푎. (4)

It should be noted that퐾푎in the above equations has

no similar value. The reason is hidden in the philosophy