Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-1
Chapter 10: Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions By Karl Hanson, S.E., P.E.*
August 2012
10.1 Introduction:
Many of the design approaches that we use today to design walls,
foundations and excavation bracing originated from Coulomb’s
stability methods developed in 1796. One of the earliest known
physicists, Coulomb is also famously responsible for his discoveries
in the field of electricity.
Today, we understand that Coulomb’s soil pressure theories are
based on energy principles. In Coulomb’s day and age, the concept
of energy was not quite articulated as well as today.
Charles Coulomb
(1736-1806)
What became known as “Coulomb’s Theory” was soon adapted into graphically based
methods. Using a pencil and paper and drafting board, a solution for either active or
passive wall force can be determined. The “answer” for a force against a wall is measured
from the drawing. These methods are tedious, yet they clearly demonstrate failure planes.
The appeal of these methods has been lost, since the accuracy of the answer literally
depends on how well one draws and how sharp a pencil is used!
Notably, the father of soil mechanics, Karl Terzaghi, routinely used
these graphical methods to develop his geotechnical theories on many
subjects. In Terzaghi’s 1943 book, “Theoretical Soil Mechanics” (Ref
1), he derived a theory for soil bearing failure, by treating the soil mass
under a footing as similar to the problem of passive pressure against a
wall. In connection with the bearing capacity problem, Terzaghi wrote:
“…the computation of the critical load…requires the determination of
the component of… the passive earth pressure which requires several
hours of work.” (meaning hours of drawing and re-drawing failure
planes)
Karl Terzaghi
(1883-1963)
To expedite the use of his theories, Terzaghi opted for a “simplified” bearing pressure
equation, which did not require graphical methods. This trend has continued, perpetuating
various forms of bearing pressure equations developed by researchers, typically derived
from the Theory of Plasticity (Ref 4).
Why not “dust off” these old methods, and use our computers to construct the
graphics? Today, we have an opportunity to resurrect these old graphical methods,
adapting them to numerically based solutions. Perhaps, with these methods, engineers can
better visualize soil failure mechanisms for the structures which we design.
(* DesignCalcs, Inc., http://www.designcalcs.com)
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-2
10.2 The Physics Behind Energy Principles:
We begin this discussion by asking, “What is energy?” The term “energy” is now so
common place in our language, it’s something that we take for granted. Putting aside
modern day concepts represented in advertising, we need to define energy using the
language of physics.
Leibniz was the first to note the importance of the kinetic
energy term, “mv2”. Also, about the same time, Newton, in his
“Third Law of Motion”, implicitly stated the whole doctrine of
energy. It wasn’t until 1807 that the term “energy” was first
coined by Thomas Young.
Maxwell explained energy principles as follows:
“(Energy)..has no individual existence…The transactions of
the material universe appear to be conducted, as it were, on a
system of credit. Each transaction consists of the transfer of so
much credit or energy from one body to another. This act of
transfer or payment is called work.” (Ref 2)
James Clerk Maxwell
(1831-1879)
Various Forms of Energy
Kinetic Energy The most obvious type of energy is
kinetic energy:
A mass, “m”, moving at a velocity, “v”,
has kinetic energy,
K.E. = ½*mv2
Potential
Energy
A more complex form of energy is the
potential energy stored in a spring:
A spring with force, “F”, compressed
“D” has potential energy,
P.E.=1/2*F*D
Other Energies Even less obvious forms of potential energy are chemical energies,
electrical-mechanical energies, nuclear energies, thermal energies –
basically, things that we can’t see that are locked into a system.
When Albert Einstein came along, physicists were faced with the fascinating idea that
some systems may not have constant mass!
An isolated system (a system that is not acted on by another system), will have a total
energy comprised of the above forms of energy. For a system that has constant mass,
the total energy of an isolated system will remain constant.
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-3
For practical engineering purposes, we are usually only interested in the kinetic energy
and the potential energy of a system:
Kinetic Energy
+
Potential Energy
= Total Energy
(A constant for a
system with
constant mass)
We are interested in physical predictions. Given a system in state “A”, there may be an
infinite number of physically viable next states, “B1”, “B2”,… How can we predict
what will be the next state? By using the following law:
The tendency of all physical events is to maximize kinetic energy and minimize
potential energy.
Put another way: Given 10 different scenarios, the one with the larger fraction of
kinetic energy and smaller fraction of potential energy will be the likely next event.
Illustrating this by an engineering example, two walls are shown below:
The wall on the left is expanding outward. In a sense, it is like a spring that is expanding.
It is a system that is gaining kinetic energy and losing potential energy. The larger “Pa”
is, the faster will be the rate that the system gains kinetic energy.
The wall on the right is a being pushed against. It is like a spring that is being condensed.
It is a system that is losing kinetic energy and gaining potential energy. The smaller “Pp”
is, the slower will be the rate that the system gains potential energy.
For both of the above systems, the soil mass behaves like a spring. The next likely event
will be the configuration that minimizes the soil mass’s potential energy.
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-4
10.3 A Practical Application: The Trial Wedge Method
The “Trial Wedge Method” is a very useful graphical method that can easily be adapted
to a spreadsheet solution. The below sketch shows a simple, generic wall showing three
trial failure planes, amongst an infinite number of possible failure planes. (Terazaghi
determined that the true failure plane actually has a slight bit of curvature following a log
spiral)
By a trial an error process we compute “Pa” until it is a maximum. We do this as follows:
1. Try several failure planes. Compute weights of each trial wedge.
2. Compute the total weight, “W”, on the failure plane (W=W1+W2+W2)
3. Compute the cohesion, “Cs”, along the failure plane.
4. Compute the wall adhesion, “Cw”.
5. Construct a vector force diagram:
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-5
6. Compute point (X1,Y1):
X1=Cw*cos(aaaa) , Y1=-Cw*sin(aaaa)
7. Compute point (X2, Y2):
X2=X1 – Cs*cos(rrrr), Y2=Y1 – Cs*sin(rrrr)
8. We know only the direction of “R” and that it intersects at (X2,Y2). Compute the
equation of the line Y=m1*X + b1:
m1 = tan-1
(r + 90 –f)
b1=Y2-m2*X2
9. Also, we know the direction of “Pa” and that it intersects at (0,-W). Compute the
equation of line Y=m2*X + b2:
m2 = tan-1
(180 - a + d)
b2=-W-m2*0 = -W
10. Solve for the intersection of the two lines at (X3,Y3):
m1*X3 + b1 = m2*X3 + b2
X3=(b2-b1)/(m1-m2)
Y3=m1*X3 + b1
11. Solve for the active force, Pa:
Pa = [(X3-0)2 + (Y3+W)
2]1/2
The preceding algorithm can be easily put into a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet can be
downloaded at http://dcalc.us/Downloads/Trial wedge.xls (note the underscore
“…l_w…”)
DCALC’s Trial Wedge Application: TRIALWEG
The TRIALWEG application was written using steps similar to the above procedure, but
with some variation.
• This application can handle multi-layered soil, with or without water tables.
• Reads soil boring data from the BORING program
• Provides a graphical presentation of the failure plane and the force vectors.
• Uses 100 iterations to determine the failure plane.
In addition, TRIALWEG provides a pressure diagram, with separate diagrams for the
basic force components (earth, surcharge, seismic and water pressures).
Similar to other DCALC applications, TRIALWEG produces a calculation file that is
designed to be used by other DCALC applications.
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-6
10.3.1 Trial Wedge Analysis Example 1
The below trial wedge example was calculated by J. E. Bowles using graphical methods
as example E11-6 on p. 504 of Reference 5:
The above sketch shows the failure plane computed using the TRIALWEG program. The
sketch was drawn in DesignCAD. Areas and lengths were measured directly in
DesignCAD.
Bowles also applied a wall adhesion force, which appears to account for the slight
difference in results.
Comparison of Results:
Calculation Source Maximum Active Force “Fa”
Computed in Bowles’ Example 11.90 k/ft
Computed by TRIALWEG 13.15 k/ft
Computed graphically (above) 13.00 k/ft
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-7
10.3.2 Trial Wedge Analysis Example 2
The below trial wedge is similar to the previous example, except the soil cohesion has
been set to zero.
Again, the above sketch shows the failure plane computed using the TRIALWEG
program.
For this verification, the Excel spreadsheet solution has also been made, shown on the
next sheet.
Comparison of Results:
Calculation Source Maximum Active Force “Fa”
Computed by TRIALWEG 22.60 k/ft
Computed graphically (above) 22.42 k/ft
Computed by spreadsheet (next page) 22.70 k/ft
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-8
Note: This spreadsheet does not include a provision for cohesion. Note also that the two 8
k concentrated surcharge loads were input as 4 ksf over a width of 2 feet each.
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-9
10.3.3 Trial Wedge Analysis Example 3
The below example appears on page 84 of Wayne Teng’s book (Reference 6), as a
numerical example of “wedge theory”.
Comparison of Results:
Calculation Source Maximum Active Force “Fa”
Computed by Wayne Teng 8.1 k/ft
Computed by TRAILWEG program 8.48 k/ft
Computed by graphically (above) 8.343 k/ft
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-10
10.3.4 Trial Wedge Analysis Example 4
We can easily check the trial wedge method results for a wall with a simple slope, for
various soil internal angles and slopes. For the design of walls on slopes, the theoretical
exact Rankine coefficient for the horizontal active pressure is given as,
Ka = cosb *(cos b – (cos2b – cos
2f).5)/ (cos b + (cos
2b – cos2f)
.5) (Eq. 11-7a Ref.5)
Fa (k)
f b Cos f Cos b Cos2 f Cos
2 b Ka Exact TRIALWEG Graphical
(deg) (deg) Solution solution Solution
20 10 0.940 0.985 0.883 0.970 0.531 11.687 12.520
20 15 0.940 0.966 0.883 0.933 0.603 13.262 14.050
20 18 0.940 0.951 0.883 0.905 0.697 15.335 15.710 15.718
30 10 0.866 0.985 0.750 0.970 0.350 7.689 8.220
30 15 0.866 0.966 0.750 0.933 0.373 8.205 8.840
30 18 0.866 0.951 0.750 0.905 0.395 8.686 9.320
38 10 0.788 0.985 0.621 0.970 0.246 5.420 5.740
38 15 0.788 0.966 0.621 0.933 0.258 5.677 6.080
38 18 0.788 0.951 0.621 0.905 0.268 5.903 6.320
We observe that the trial wedge solution computed using both TRIALWEG and
graphically agree, but the results are slightly higher forces than the exact solution.
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-11
10.3.4 Trial Wedge Analysis Example 4
The below sketch shows a sheet piling wall located in three different layers of soil, with
water to a depth of 21 feet. In this calculation, the TRIALWEG application has
determined the effective pressure with depth. Although the pressures from TRIALWEG
do not exactly match the hand calculations, in this particular case there is a close fit
Both Terzaghi and Bowles have discussed the difficulty of determining the pressure
distribution using the trial wedge method. We also acknowledge the difficulty of this
particular aspect of the use of this method. In some cases, especially involving multi-
layered soil, the pressure distribution may not be realistic, although the total force is
reasonably accurate. Please consult References 1 and 5 for additional guidance.
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-12
10.4 Solving for the Ultimate Bearing Pressure Under a Foundation or Shaft
Using a technique similar to the trial wedge method, we can solve for the ultimate
bearing pressure under a footing. In this case, a portion of the failure plane must follow
the shape of a log spiral, which is a property of soil parameters.
By a trial an error process, we will try different points of tangency. The passive force,
“P”, under the wedge surface will vary, depending on the angle, u. We will go through
a process of iteration, trying various angles, u, to determine the minimum P.
Why does the soil fail in a log spiral shape? Exactly what is a log spiral curve? To
understand this, we need to review how slip lines form in the soil failure element.
Mohr’s Circle
Principle Stresses
In the diagram, “s1” is the passive stress and “s2” is the active stress. In Mohr’s circle
diagram, we see that the two failure planes are separated by an angle “180+2f”.
Therefore, in the actual soil specimen, the failure planes are separated by an angle of
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-13
“90+f”. These failure lines will be oriented at an angle “90+f” everywhere within the
plastic failure zone.
In this case, the failure lines must “turn the corner”, maintaining a failure angle of
“90+f”. This is accomplished by a spiral function, as follows:
Using simple trigonometry,
dr = r*du * tan(f)
therefore,
dr/du = r*tan(f)
The following function satisfies this
differential equation:
r=r0*e(u*tan(f))
(r0=beginning radius under footing)
We construct the trial wedge model using 10 slices in the tangent portion, and 10 slices in
the spiral wedge portion, as shown below:
Slices 1-10 in the tangent portion are spaced equally. For slices 11-20 in the spiral
portion, it is easiest to divide the angle “u” by 10, and compute (x,y) coordinates along
the bottom.
We will work from right to left.
• The first segment will have no horizontal forces acting from the right. We will
solve for the horizontal force on the left of slice 1.
• Then we will apply the horizontal force from slice 1 to slice 2. We will solve for
the horizontal force on the left of slice 2.
• We will iterate this process until we get to the footing edge at slice 20
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-14
The above diagrams show the forces and vector diagrams. The objective is to compute
“PLn” for each slice. The mathematics is similar to what was described for the trial
wedge method in Section 10.3. Equations are contained in the spreadsheet.
For slices 1 to 20, we compute the following:
1. Compute Wn
2. Compute the angle r
3. Compute the cohesion along the bottom, Csn.
4. Apply the force PRn from the previously computed slice (=PLn-1)
5. Compute (X1,Y1)
6. Compute (X2,Y2)
7. Knowing the direction of “Rn”, compute the equation of the line y=m1*x + b1
8. Knowing the direction of “PLn”, compute the equation of the line y=m2*x+b2
9. Solve for intersection of the two lines at (X3,Y3)
10. Solve for force “PLn”.
11. Go to Step 1 for the next slice
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-15
For slice 21, which is directly under the footing, we will need to resolve forces as shown
below:
For this particular slice, if there is cohesion, we will also include a cohesion force, “C”,
along the failure plane.
The angle “a”, depends on the roughness of the footing base. Terzaghi used the
following assumptions:
• For a smooth base, a = 45 + f/2
• For a rough base, a = f
“Qult” is equal to the sum of the vertical forces “P” and “C” acting on two symmetrical
failure planes, divided by the unit width, “B”.
The above algorithm has been setup in a spreadsheet that can be downloaded at
http://dcalc.us/Downloads/Bearing_pressure.xls (note the underscore “…g_s…”)
DCALC’s Soil Bearing Pressure Application: BEARPRES
The BEARPRES application was written using the steps similar to the above procedure,
but with more complexity.
• The application reads soil boring information from the BORING program
• It can handle multi-layered soil, with or without water tables.
• The ground can be flat or sloped.
• Footings (strip, square or rectangular) or round shafts
• The pressure failure shape is shown graphically to scale.
Also, the user has the option of viewing detailed calculations, showing the force
equilibrium of each slice, for checking purposes.
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-16
10.4.1 Ultimate Bearing Pressure Examples
The below sketch shows the typical output from the BEARPRES program, depicting the
log spiral failure plane for the square footing in uniform soil:
BEARPRES outputs both a numerical solution and a conventional solution for ultimate
and net bearing pressure, therefore it is easy to check. The following table shows a
comparison of several verification problems:
Description g g g g
(kcf)
F F F F
(deg)
C
(ksf)
Ultimate bearing pressure, Qult
By Conventional
Formula
By
“BEARPRES”
4’x4’ footing, 4’ deep 0.120 30 0 17.16 ksf 15.63 ksf
4’ strip, 4’ deep 0.120 30 1 44.31 ksf 41.69 ksf
2’ diameter, 20’ deep 0.120 30 0 77.27 ksf 58.82 ksf
2’ diameter, 20’ deep 0.120 0 1 8.50 ksf 12.90 ksf
A particular advantage of this program is that it shows the shape of the failure surface.
This feature alone provides significant meaning about the mechanics of bearing failure.
A Shaft in Granular Soil
A Footing Next To A Slope
Adapting Graphical Coulomb Methods to Numerical Solutions
p.10-17
List of References:
Reference 1: “Theoretical Soil Mechanics” by Karl Terzaghi, published by John Wiley
and Sons, 1943
Reference 2: “Matter and Motion” by James Clerk Maxwell, originally published 1877,
re-printed 2007 by Cosimo, Inc.
Reference 3: “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations” by G. G. Meyerhof,
Geotechnique V2 no. 4, 1951
Reference 4: “Plasticity and Geomechanics” by R.O. Davis and A.D.S. Selvadurai,
published by Cambridge University Press, 2002
Reference 5: “Foundation Analysis and Design” by Joseph E. Bowles, 4th
Edition,
published by McGraw Hill, 1988
Reference 6: “Foundation Design” by Wayne C. Teng, published by Prentice Hall, 1962
Website Credits: For an excellent paper on how to compute bearing capacity in soils, with many examples,
search for “Bearing Capacity v1.00 September 2010”:
http://data.bolton.ac.uk/staff/phm2/files/Semester1/J3%20PJ4%20Geotechnics/Bearing%
20Capacity%20v1.00%20Sept2010.pdf
(This paper, titled “Bearing Capacity – Shallow and Deep Foundations”, does not
contain a copyright or the names of its authors. It is apparently from a class at Bolton
College in the UK)
Photo Credits: Photographs/Images of Coulomb, Terzaghi and Maxwell are from Wikipedia.