You are on page 1of 6

第 27 卷 第1期 岩 土 工 程 学 报 Vol.27 No.

1
2005 年 1月 Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Jan., 2005

Active earth pressure on circular shaft lining obtained by simplified slip line solution
with general tangential stress coefficient
竖井衬砌主动土压力在一般环向压应力系数下的简化滑移线解
1 2
Y.M. Cheng(郑榕明) ,HU Ya-yuan(胡亚元)
(1.Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China;2.Department of Civil Engineering,

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China)

Abstract: In this paper, a general tangential stress coefficient is introduced to overcome the limitations of the Haar & Von Karman
hypothesis in axi-symmetric earth pressure problem. A simplified analytical solution of active earth pressure on circular shaft with no wall
friction and horizontal backfill is developed in the present paper. It is demonstrated that the tangential stress coefficient has a major effect
on the active pressure and the Harr & Von Karman hypothesis may be unacceptable in practice. The authors consider that an active earth
pressure based on a tangential stress coefficient equal to the coefficient of earth pressure at rest is suitable for engineering practice.
Key words: axi-symmetric; tangential stress coefficient; active pressure, slip line
CLC number: TU 432 Document code:A Article ID:1000–4548(2005)01–0110–06
Biography: Cheng Yung-ming(1973– ), male, Ph D. Associate Professor, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
摘 要:引进一个广义环向压应力系数来修正空间轴对称滑移线问题中的哈尔-卡门(Haar-Von Karman)完全塑性假定, 采用简化
滑移线方法, 在竖井衬砌后背光滑,水平填土的条件下,得到竖井衬砌上主动土压力的解析式。分析表明:环向压应力系数对竖井
衬砌上的主动土压力有较大的影晌,若采用哈尔-卡门完全塑性假定,其所求得的主动土压力最小,在工程应用中偏于危险。笔者
建议在工程应用中采用环向压应力系数为静止土压力系数 K0 时所求得的竖井衬砌上的主动土压力值。
关键词:轴对称;环向压应力系数;主动土压力;滑移线
tangential stress coefficient equal to K0 and Ka which is
0 Introduction different from the Harr-Von Karman’s hypothesis in
For circular excavation, most of the engineers in investigating the active pressure for shaft lining with
Hong Kong and in other countries adopt plane strain Coulomb’s method. Prater viewed that Berezantzev’s
active pressure coefficient in the analysis and design, but solution delivered very low value of active earth pressure
this approach is obviously not correct and conservative. because of Haar-Von Karman’s hypothesis. Cui[6] also
For circular excavation, the stress states are considered that the active earth pressure from
axi-symmetric in nature and the active pressure may Berezantzev’s solution may be risky to be applied in
attain a maximum value with increasing depth which is practice. The tangential stress coefficient initiated by
greatly different from thet results in plane strain case. Prater is extended to modify Haar-Von Karman
For circular foundation and excavation, the Haar-Von hypothesis in present paper. Using the simplified
Karman’s hypothesis is adopted by many researchers to assumptions similar to that of Berezantzev[1], analytical
simplify the analysis. Berezantzev[1] adopted simplified formulae are also developed in the present study. From
slip line to study the active pressure solution. Steinfeld[2] the results of analysis, many interesting results for
and Karafiath[3] have assumed an axisymmetric axisymmetric problems which differ greatly with the
Coulomb-type failure surface where the sliding mass is a plane strain solution are obtained in the present paper.
cone and the total earth pressure is obtained in a way
similar to the classical Coulomb’s method. Lorenz[4] 1 Method of characteristics for axisym
adapted Steinfeld’s theory to the active pressure, while -metric Problem
neglecting the tangential stress in radial direction The equilibrium equations for a toroidal element
equilibrium. All of the above works are based on the use (Fig.1) can be written in cylindrical coordinates r, θ, z
of Harr and Von Karman’s hypothesis where λ=1. ───────

Prater[5] summarized the above works and adopted a Recevied date:2003–11–21


第1期 Y.M.Cheng, et al. Active earth pressure for circular shaft lining by simplified slip line solution with general tangential stress coefficient 111

as: (1 − λ − λ sin φ )σ − c(1 − λ ) cot φ


dσ + m2σ tan ϕdψ + dr +
∂σ r ∂τ rz σ r − σ θ r
+ + =0 , (1a) λ (1 + sin ϕ )σ + c(1 − λ ) cot φ
∂r ∂z r m tan ϕdz = γ (m tan ϕdr + dz ) .(4)
r
∂τ rz ∂σ z τ rz (1b)
+ + =γ , To simplify the study, the variables will be
∂r ∂z r
normalized with the circular shaft radius in the form:
The four stress components can be expressed in terms of
σ r z c q
the mean stress σ and the inclination angle ψ that is Ω= , R = , Z = ,C = , Q0 = 0 , (5)
r0γ r0 r0 r0γ r0γ
formed by extending the major principal stress to the r
where r0 is the radius of the circular shaft, z is the
axis (Fig. 2b) as:
vertical depth under consideration, γ is the unit weight of
σ r = σ (1 + sin ϕ cos 2ψ ) − c ⋅ cotϕ , (2a)
soil, q0 is the external surcharge. Substituting eqn.(5)
σ z = σ (1 − sin ϕ cos 2ψ ) − c ⋅ cotϕ , (2b)
into eqn.s(3) and (4), we have:
τ rz = σ sin ϕ sin 2ψ , (2c)
dZ π ϕ
σ θ = λσ 1 = λσ (1 + sin ϕ ) − λc ⋅ cotϕ , (2d) = tan(ψ + mµ ) where µ = − , (6)
dR 4 2
and σ = (σ 1 + σ 3 ) / 2 + c ⋅ cotϕ , c is cohesive strength (1 − λ − λ sin φ )Ω − C (1 − λ ) cot ϕ
dΩ + m2Ω tan ϕdψ + dR +
and the tangential coefficient λ is a ratio between σθ R
λ (1 + sin ϕ )Ω + C (1 − λ ) cot φ
and σ1. λ is taken as 1.0 by most of the researchers in m ϕ tan ϕdZ = m tan ϕdR + dZ . (7)
R
the past for simplicity which is known as the Harr and
Von Karman hypothesis but this ratio should lie
somewhere between 1 and Ka and should be taken as a
variable in general. Parter[5] has considered
λ = K 0 = 1 − sin ϕ and Ka in his analysis with limit
equilibrium method.

Fig. 2 (a) Mohr circle under failure condition. (b) Sign


Fig. 1 Cylindrical coordinate system and stress components
convention and notation
The characteristic lines for the solution are the α
and β lines on which the shear strength is fully
2 Simplified slip line solution
mobilized. In literature they are often referred to as slip
If we assume the slip lines to be straight lines in
lines, but their significance are related to the equations of
the R-Z plane which are the assumptions as used by
equilibrium instead of displacement. The geometry
Berezantzev, the inclination of β slip line is:
dictates the slopes of the slip lines that can be written as:
π 3π ϕ
dz π ϕ m = 1,ψ = = const and dZ = tan( − )dR , (8)
= tan(ψ + mµ ) where µ = − , (3) 2 4 2
dr 4 2
Put eqn.(8) into eqn.(4), we obtain
and m takes the value –1 for an α line and +1 for an
dΩ ⎡ (1 + sin ϕ ) 2 ⎤ Ω C (1 − λ ) 1 + sin ϕ 1 , (9)
β line (shown in Fig.2(b)). These equilibrium and yield − ⎢λ − 1⎥ − =−
dR ⎣⎢ cos 2 ϕ ⎦⎥ R R sin ϕ cos ϕ cos ϕ
equations form a set of hyperbolic partial differential
Let
equations which will reduce to two ordinary differential
(1 + sin ϕ ) 2 π ϕ
equations expressing the changes in stress along each η =λ − 1 = λ tan 2 ( + ) − 1 , (10a)
cos 2 ϕ 4 2
characteristic line in terms of the changing inclination ψ
1− λ π ϕ
and position (r, z) ξ= tan 2 ( + ) + 1 . (10b)
η 4 2
112 岩 土 工 程 学 报 2004

Put eqn.(10) into eqn.(9), and the solution of 1− λ +η ξ π ϕ . (17)


C[ − η tan 2 ( − )] cot ϕ
differential equation is: η Rb 4 2
R C (1 − λ )(1 + sin ϕ ) . (11) So the actual active pressure can be obtained by eqn.(5)
Ω = aRη + −
(η − 1) cos ϕ η sin ϕ cos ϕ as:
Eqns.(2a)~(2d) are normalized with the shaft radius r0 π ϕ
tan( − )
and reduce to the following forms with eqn. (8): pa = γr0 4 2 (1 − 1 ) + q 1 tan 2 ( π − ϕ ) −
0 η
(12a)
η −1 Rηb −1 Rb 4 2
Ω R = Ω(1 − sin ϕ ) − C ⋅ cotϕ ,
1− λ +η ξ π ϕ
Ω Z = Ω(1 + sin ϕ ) − C ⋅ cotϕ , (12b) c[ − η tan 2 ( − )] cot ϕ , (18)
η Rb 4 2
Ωθ = λΩ(1 + sin ϕ ) − λC ⋅ cotϕ , (12c)
According to eqn.s(12a)~(12c)and(11), the component where
of stress tensor can be express as following: π ϕ
r0 + z tan( − )
π ϕ 4 2 .
Ω = a(1 − sin ϕ ) Rη +
(1 − sin ϕ )
R − cot ϕ
(1 + η − λ )
C
, (13a) Rb = 1 + Z ⋅ tan( − ) =
R
(η − 1) cos ϕ η 4 2 r0

Ω Z = a(1 + sin ϕ ) Rη +
(1 + sin ϕ )
R − ξC ⋅ cot ϕ , (13b)
When λ = 1 , eqn.(10) becomes:
(η − 1) cosϕ π ϕ π ϕ
η = tan 2 ( + ) − 1 = 2 tan ϕ tan( + ) , ξ = 1 , (19)
(1 + sin ϕ ) 4 2 4 2
Ωθ = ak (1 + sin κ ) Rη + kR − ξkC ⋅ cot ϕ , (13c)
(η − 1) cos ϕ and eqn.(18) becomes:
Here Rb denote the intersect of the β slip line which π ϕ
tan( − )
pass through the point (1, Z) with R axis, so pa = γr0 4 2 (1 − 1 ) + q 1 tan 2 ( π − ϕ ) −
0 η
π ϕ η −1 Rηb −1 Rb 4 2
Rb = 1 + Z ⋅ tan( − ) . (14)
4 2 1 π ϕ
c[1 − η tan 2 ( − )] cot ϕ . (20)
On ground surface, Ω z R = R = Q0 , the integral Rb 4 2
b

constant is then determined as: Eqn.(20)is the same as Berezentzav’s original formula
Q + ξC cot φ 1 . (15) for axi-symmetric active pressure. Eqn.s(17) and (18)
a = 0η −
Rb (1 + sin φ ) (η − 1) cos φRηb −1 are more general in that λ is now a variable. According
Put eqn.(15) into eqn.s(13a)~(13c) and notice that: to eqn.(18), the active earth pressure can be formulated
1 − sin ϕ π ϕ 1 − sin ϕ π ϕ as:
= tan 2 ( − ) , = tan( − ) .
1 + sin ϕ 4 2 cos ϕ 4 2 pa = K aγγz + K aq q0 − K ac c , (21)
Eqn.s(13a)~(13c) will be simplified to: where the active earth pressure coefficients Kaγ , Kaq ,
π ϕ
tan( − ) Kac on shaft lining are defined as:
ΩR = R 4 2 [1 − ( R )η −1 ] + Q ( R )η tan 2 ( π − ϕ ) +
η −1
0 π ϕ
Rb Rb 4 2 tan( − )
R π ϕ 1− λ +η K aγ = 4 2 ( r0 − r0 )
C[ξ ( )η tan 2 ( − ) − ] cot ϕ , (16a) η −1 z zRηb −1
Rb 4 2 η
π ϕ π ϕ
tan( + ) tan( − )
4 2 [1 − ( R )η −1 ] + Q ( R )η + = 4 2 {1 − 1
}, (22a)
ΩZ = R 0 η −1 Z Z [1 + Z tan( π − ϕ )]η −1
η −1 Rb Rb
4 2
R
Cξ [( )η − 1] cot ϕ , (16b) 1 π ϕ
Rb K aq = η tan 2 ( − )
Rb 4 2
π ϕ
tan( + ) π ϕ 1
Ωθ = λR 4 2 [1 − ( R )η −1 ] + λQ ( R )η + = tan 2 ( − ) , (22b)
η −1 Rb
0
Rb 4 2 [1 + Z tan( π − ϕ )]η
R 4 2
λξC[( )η − 1] cot ϕ , (16c) 1− λ +η ξ π ϕ
Rb K ac = [ − η tan 2 ( − )] cot ϕ
η Rb 4 2
In eqn.(16.1), put R=1, the active earth pressure on
π ϕ
shaft lining is: 1− λ +η
ξ tan 2 ( − )
={ − 4 2 } cot ϕ . (22c)
π ϕ π ϕ η
tan( − ) η [1 + Z tan( − )]
Pa = 4 2 (1 − 1 ) + Q 1 tan 2 ( π − ϕ ) −
0 η 4 2
η −1 Rηb −1 Rb 4 2
第1期 Y.M.Cheng, et al. Active earth pressure for circular shaft lining by simplified slip line solution with general tangential stress coefficient 113

Because of arching action effect, the axisymmetric λ r0 λ 1 , (29b)


K aq = =
active earth pressure must be smaller than or equal to 2 r0 + z λ / 2 2 1 + Z λ / 2
plane strain active pressure. For the first term of 2λ (r0 + 2 z λ / 2 ) 2λ (1 + 2Z λ / 2 ) .(29c)
K ac = =
eqn.(18), the quantity η must satisfy: r0 + z λ / 2 1+ Z λ /2
η − 1 ≥ −1 . (23) According to eqn.(21), we obtain
Put eqn. (23) in eqn.(10), we obtain: 2 r0 + z λ / 2 λ r0
pa = γr0 ln + q0 −
ϕ λ r0 2 r0 + z λ / 2
λ ≥ tan 2 (45 − ) = K a . (24)
2 2λ (r0 + 2 z λ / 2 )
c . (30)
Hence the tangential stress ratio λ will lie between 1.0 r0 + z λ / 2
and Ka. Using eqn.s (17) and (18), the upper and lower According to the first term of eqn.s(18) and (30), it is
estimates of the active pressure can be determined by concluded that if ϕ > ϕ cr (see eqn.(28)), active earth
putting λ =1.0 and Ka. pressure induced by self weight of soil attains a
Obviously, when r0 tends to infinity, an limiting value as z tends to infinity. If ϕ ≤ ϕ cr , the
axi-symmetric problem will degenerate to a plane active pressure will tend to infinity as z tends to
strain problem and Z tends to zero. According to eqn.s infinity. When λ=1, the critical angle ϕ cr is
(22a)~(22c), we can obtain coefficients of active earth approximately 19.5˚ while the general critical angle
pressure in plane strain problem as: ϕ cr will increase with decreasing λ in accordance
π ϕ π ϕ
K aγ = K aq = tan 2 ( − ) , K ac = 2 tan( − ) . with eqn.(28).
4 2 4 2
Finally for the case of λ = K 0 = 1 − sin ϕ as
adopted by Prater using Coulomb’s method, from
3 Special considerations in axi-
eqn.(10) we can write
symmetric active pressure
Eqn.s(22a)~(22c) are not applicable when η = 0
η = sin ϕ , ξ = sec 2 ( π + ϕ ) . (31)
4 2
or η = 1 or ϕ = 0 which has been neglected by Put eqn.(31) to eqn.s(22a)~(22c), we obtain
Berezantzev in the past. Considering firstly the case π ϕ
tan( − )
of η = 0 , according to eqn.(10), we get K aγ = 4 2 {[1 + Z tan( π − ϕ )]1− sin ϕ − 1} , (32a)
π ϕ (1 − sin ϕ ) Z 4 2
λ = K a = tan 2 ( − ) . (25)
4 2 1 π ϕ
K aq = tan 2 ( − ) , (32b)
Take eqn.s(22a)~(22c) to limit η → 0 and replace it π ϕ sin φ 4 2
[1 + Z tan( − )] ϕ
4 2
by eqn.(25), we get
1 π ϕ . (32c)
π ϕ K = {2 −
ac sec 2 ( − )}cot ϕ
K aγ = K aq = tan 2 ( − ) , (26a) π ϕ 4 2
[1 + Z tan( − )]sin ϕ
4 2 4 2
π ϕ π ϕ According to the eqn.(21), we obtain as
K ac = 2 tan( − ){1 + ln[1 + Z tan( − )]} . (26b)
4 2 4 2 π ϕ 2 π ϕ
tan( − ) tan ( − )
Secondly, for the case of ϕ = 0 , according to pa = γr0 4 2 ( R1− sin ϕ − 1) + q 4 2 −
0
Rbsin ϕ
b
eqn.(24) and considering that λ is less than or equal to 1 − sin ϕ
1.0, we get λ=1 and η = 0 . 1 π ϕ
c[2 − sec 2 ( − )] cot ϕ . (33)
Put ϕ = 0 into eqn.(26a)~(26b), we obtain : Rbsin ϕ 4 2
K aγ = K aq = 1 , K ac = 2[1 + ln(1 + Z )] . (27) According to the first term of eqn.(33), the active earth
Thirdly we consider the case of η = 1 . According pressure induced by the self weight of soil will tend to
to eqn.(10), we get infinity if Z tends to infinity. Prater considered that the
2 π
ϕ = 2 arctan − = ϕ cr . (28) active pressure based on tangential stress coefficient
λ 2
K0 is acceptable in engineering use[5].
If η tends to 1.0, put eqn.(29) into eqn.s (22a)~(22c),
we get 4 Characteristics of active earth
λ r0 r0 + z λ / 2 λ ln(1 + Z λ / 2 ) ,(29a)
K =
aγ ln = pressure on shaft lining
2 z r0 2 Z
114 岩 土 工 程 学 报 2004

After normalization by the radius of shaft, Kaγ, Kaq, values of Kaγ, Kaq, Kac which is obvious. If φ is greater
Kac are formulated in terms of the dimensionless depth Z than zero, Kaγ, Kaq will tend to zero and Kac will tend to a
but is independent on the shaft radius. Kaγ, Kaq, Kac are maximum value as the dimensionless depth Z tends to
hence expressed in terms of dimensionless depth Z but infinity. If φ is equal to zero, Kaγ, Kaq are constant and
not the shaft radius. Computations of Kaγ, Kaq, Kac for equal to unity while Kac tends to infinity as the
different tangential stress coefficient λ are shown in Fig. dimensionless depth Z tend to infinity.
3–5. It can be seen that the influences of λ on Kaγ, Kaq,
Kac are very significant and cannot be simply taken as
1.0 in Harr-Von Karman’s hypothesis. The smaller is λ,
the greater will be the values of Kaγ, Kaq, Kac. If λ is
greater than Ka, Kaγ, Kaq will tends to zero while Kac will
tends to a maximum value as the dimensionless depth Z
tends to infinity. If λ is equal to Ka, according to eqn.(26),
Kaγ, Kaq are constant and are equal to Ka while Kac will Fig. 6 Variation of Kaγ with dimensionless depth Z and ϕ for λ=K0
tend to infinity as dimensionless depth Z tends to infinity.

Fig. 7 Variation of Kaq with dimensionless depth Z and ϕ for λ=K0

Fig. 3 Variation of Kaγ with dimensionless depth Z and λ for


ϕ = 40o

Fig. 8 Variation of Kac with dimensionless depth Z and ϕ for λ=K0


In actual practice, the active earth pressure induced
by self weight of soil is the most important consideration
Fig. 4 Variation of Kaq with dimensionless depth Z and λ for
and the critical internal friction angle ϕ cr with the
ϕ = 40o
tangential stress coefficient λ is shown in Fig. 9 which is
defined by eqn.(28). If the internal friction angle is
smaller than or equal to that critical friction angle ϕ cr
with a specific λ, the earth pressure induced by the self
weight of soil will tend to infinity as dimensionless depth
Z increases. Beyond that, the active pressure due to self
weight of soil will however attain a maximum value as Z
Fig. 5 Variation of Kac with dimensionless depth Z and λ for
tends to infinity. The variation of earth pressure with
ϕ = 40o
dimensionless Z for some λ at a critical friction angle
Fig. 6–8 show the variation of Kaγ, Kaq, Kac with ϕ cr is shown in Fig.10.
dimensionless depth Z for various internal friction angle
while λ is set to at-rest earth pressure coefficient 5 Conclusions
( K 0 = 1 − sin ϕ ). The smaller φ is, the greater will be the Field measurements have shown that the original
第1期 Y.M.Cheng, et al. Active earth pressure for circular shaft lining by simplified slip line solution with general tangential stress coefficient 115

can be estimated.
Fig. 6–8 shows that the internal friction angle φ
takes an important role on active earth pressure
coefficient Kaγ, Kaq, Kac. It is found that the greater is the
internal friction angle φ, the greater will be the arch
action. If φ is set equal to 0, Kaγ, Kaq are both equal to 1.0
Fig 9 Variation of φcr and K0 with tangential stress coefficient λ which is the same as the active earth pressure coefficient
for plane strain problem. The earth pressure coefficients
should generally be calculated with eqn.(18) and
eqn.s(22a)–(22c) while the corresponding formulae for
particular cases are also provided in the present paper.
Attention was paid to the active earth pressure
induced by the self weight of soil. Fig. 9 shows that the
critical angle ϕ cr is closely related to the tangential
Fig. 10 Variation of pa / r0γ with dimensionless depth Z for
stress coefficient λ. If the realistic internal friction angle
different φc K0 in figure is smaller than critical angle, the earth pressure caused
equation by Berezantzev is not correct which may be a
by self weight does not attain a maximum limit as Z
reason that Berezantzev’s solution is seldom adopted in
increases. If λ is set equal to the earth pressure
practice. The tangential stress coefficient λ initiated by
coefficient at rest K0(= 1− sin ϕ ), as is shown in first
Prater is introduced in the present study and
term of eqn.(34), the earth pressure induced by itself
Berezantzev’s solution is modified in the present paper.
weight will not be limited if Z tends to infinity which
The active earth pressure is formulated and the results
more differ from Berezantzev’s results. The authors
show that Berezantzev’s original theory where
consider that active earth pressure based on a tangential
λ=1delivers the lowest value of earth pressure which stress coefficient K0 (the coefficient of earth pressure at
may be risky in shaft lining design. The modified
rest) is suitable for engineering.
solutions in the present paper can be adopted to
overcome the weakness of Berezantzev’s formulation. References:
The results in Fig. 3–5 for active earth pressure
[1] Berezantzev V G. Earth pressure on the cylindrical retaining
coefficient Kaγ, Kaq, Kac have shown that these
wall[J]. Proc Brussels Conf on Earth Pressure Problems,
coefficients are very sensitive to the assumed tangential
1958, (2):21-27.
stress coefficient λ acting on radial planes. If λ is greater
[2] Steinfeld D K. Über den Erddruck auf Schacht-und
than Ka, Kaγ, Kaq will tend to 0 while Kac will attain a
Brunnenwandungen[A]. Contribution to the foundation
maximum value with increasing Z. If Kaγ, Kaq are both
engineering meeting[C]. Hamburg. German Soc Of Soil
equal to Ka which is earth pressure coefficient for plane
Mech Found Eng 1958, 111-26.
strain problem, Kaγ, Kaq are constant and are equal to Ka
[3] Karafiath L. On some problems of earth pressure[A]. Acta
while Kac will tend to infinity as dimensionless depth Z
Tech Acad Hung[C]. Budapest, 1953, 327-337.
tends to infinity. Eqn.(24) shows that λ must be greater
[4] Lorenz H. Offene Senkkästen. Grundbautaschenbuch. W. Ernst
than the active Rankine value of plane strain for realistic
& Son, 1966, 795-798.
axi-symmetric results. However, if λ is set equal to unity
[5] Prater E G. An examination of some theories of earth pressure
as is originally assumed by Berezantzev’s theory,
on shaft lining[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1977,
simplified slip line method will produce the minimum
14(1): 91-106.
active earth pressure which is not safe. To be on the safe
side, Prater suggested that λ should be set equal to the [6] Cui Guang-xin. Loading of shaft lining for deep alluviam[J].

earth pressure coefficient at rest K0. The present Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2003, 25(3):

formulation allows any tangential stress coefficient to be 294-296.

adopted. More importantly, the range of active pressure

You might also like