Coulomb’s solution to seismic passive earth pressure on retaining walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conventional Mononobe–Okabe method is widely used in practice, but is only applicable for calculating total seismic earth pressure of cohesionless soil, not for solving earth pressure distribution. Based on limit equilibrium theory, the backfill is considered to be an ideal elastic–plastic material that obeys the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion, and a family of slip-lines in the plastic zone is assumed to be a group of straight lines, i.e., planar slip surfaces. Influencing factors including inclination of wall, slope angle of backfill, cohesion and friction angle of soil, adhesion and friction angle between wall and soil, uniform surcharge, and horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients are considered. A more reasonable plastic soil wedge analysis model is established to solve the seismic passive earth pressure on retaining walls, the soil reaction on slip surfaces, and their distributions by using the limit equilibrium method. The geometric and mechanical similarity principle is first proposed by dimensionless analysis. The results show that the total seismic passive earth pressure increases with the algebraic value of the horizontal seismic coefficient, and that it decreases as the algebraic value of the vertical seismic coefficient increases. The present analytical solution is identical to the results in existing literature, and the Mononobe–Okabe method is a special case of this solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".