Chapter- 3

Theoretical Analysis

3.1 GENERAL
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 3.1 shows the general proportions of various retaining-wall components that
can be used for initial checks.

3.2 PROPORTIONING RETAINING WALLS

The top of the stem of any retaining wall should not be less than about 0.3 m for proper
placement of concrete. The depth, D, to the bottom of the base slab should be a minimum of
0.6m. 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 thick and spaced at
center-to-center distances of 0.3H to 0.7H.

Fig. 3.1: Approximate dimensions for various components of retaining wall for initial stability
Checks: (a) gravity wall; (b) cantilever wall

22
3.3 APPLICATION OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE THEORIES TO
DESIGN
An engineer must make simple assumptions for calculating the lateral earth pressure in design
process. In the case of cantilever walls, the use of the Rankine earth pressure theory for stability
checks involves drawing a vertical line AB through point A, located at the edge of the heel of the
base slab in Figure 3.2a. The Rankine active condition is assumed to exist along the vertical
plane AB. Rankine active earth pressure equations can be used to calculate the lateral pressure on

Pa (Rankine)
the face AB of the wall. In the analysis of the walls stability, the force, , the weight

Wc ,
of soil above the heel, and the weight of the concrete should be taken under

consideration. The assumption for the development of Rankine active pressure along the soil face
AB is theoretically correct if the shear zone bounded by the line AC is not obstructed by the stem
of the wall. The angle that the line AC makes with the vertical is
sin

( sin )(3.1)
'

' 1
=450 + sin
2 2 2

A similar type of analysis may be used for gravity walls, as shown in Figure 3.2b. However,
Coulombs active earth pressure theory also may be used, as shown in Figure 3.2c. If it is used,

Pa (coulomb ) Wc
the only forces to be considered are and the weight of the wall, .

23
 Fig. 3.2: Assumption for the determination of lateral earth
pressure: (a) cantilever wall; (b) and (c) gravity wall
If Coulombs theory is used, it will be necessary to know the range of the wall friction angle

' with various types of backfill material. Following are some ranges of wall friction angle

for masonry or mass concrete walls:

24
 Backfill material Range of '
Gravel 27-30
Coarse sand 20-28
Fine sand 15-25
Stiff clay 15-20
Silty clay 12-16
Table 1: range of '
In the case of ordinary retaining walls, water table problems and hence hydrostatic pressure are
not encountered. Facilities for drainage from the soils that are retained are always provided.

3.4 STABILITY OF RETAINING WALLS

A 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.
It may undergo deep-seated shear failure.
It may go through excessive settlement.
The checks for stability against overturning, sliding, and bearing capacity failure are described in
Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 .

25
 Fig. 3.3: Failure of retaining wall: (a) by overturning; (b) by sliding; (c) by
bearing capacity failure; (d) by deep-seated shear failure

When a weak soil layer is located at a shallow depththat is, within a depth of 1.5 times the
width of the base slab of the retaining wallthe possibility of excessive settlement should be
considered. In some cases, the use of lightweight backfill material behind the retaining wall may
solve the problem.

Fig. 3.4: Deep-seated shear failure

26
Deep shear failure can occur along a cylindrical surface, such as abc shown in Figure 3.4, as a
result of the existence of a weak layer of soil underneath the wall at a depth of about 1.5 times
the width of the base slab of the retaining wall. In such cases, the critical cylindrical failure
surface abc has to be determined by trial and error, using various centers such as the failure
surface along which the minimum factor of safety is obtained is the critical surface of sliding.
For the backfill slope with less than about the critical failure circle apparently passes through the
edge of the heel slab (such as def in the figure). In this situation, the minimum factor of safety
also has to be determined by trial and error by changing the center of the trial circle.

3.4.1 CHECK FOR OVERTURNING

The forces acting on a cantilever and a gravity retaining wall, based on the assumption that the
Rankine active pressure is acting along a vertical plane AB drawn through the heel of the

Pp
structure. Is the Rankine passive pressure;
2
P p=0.5 K p 2 D +2 c ' 2 K p D(3.2)

where
Kp
= Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient

2=
Unit weight of soil in front of the heel and under the base

slab
c ' 2 , ' 2
= cohesion and and effective soil friction angle

The factor of safety against overturning about the toethat is, about point C in Figure 3.5may
be expressed as

FS(overturning)=
M R (3.3)
Mo
where
MR = sum of the moments of forces tending to resist overturning

about point C

27
 Mo = sum of the moments of forces tending to overturn about

point C

The overturning moment is:

'

( )
M o=P h H3 (3.4 )

where
Ph=Pa cos

The weight of the soil above the heel and the weight of the concrete (or masonry) are both forces

PV
that contribute to the resisting moment. Note that the force also contributes to the resisting

PV Pa
moment. is the vertical component of the active force ,or

Pv =Pa sin (3.5)

Pv
The moment of the force about C is

M v =Pv B=Pa sinB (3.6)

Where B = width of base slab. Once MR is known, the factor of safety can be calculated

as the given equation and The usual minimum desirable value of the factor of safety with respect
to overturning is 2 to 3.

28
Fig. 3.5: Check for overturning, assuming that the Rankine pressure is valid

29
 M 1+ M 2 + M 3 + M 4 + M 5 + M 6
FS(overturning)= (3.7)
H'
P a cos( )
3

Some designers prefer to determine the factor of safety against overturning with the formula

M 1+ M 2 + M 3 + M 4 + M 5 + M 6
FS(overturning)= (3.8)
H'
Pa cos
3( )
M v

3.4.2 CHECK FOR SLIDING ALONG THE BASE

The factor of safety against sliding may be expressed by the equation

FS(sliding)=
M R (3.8)
Md
where
MR =sum of the horizontal resisting forces

Md =sum of the horizontal driving forces

Figure indicates that the shear strength of the soil immediately below the base slab may be
represented as
S= ' + tan ' +c ' a (3.9)

where
' =angle of friction between the soil and the base slab

c'a
=adhesion between the soil and the base slab

Thus, the maximum resisting force that can be derived from the soil per unit length of the wall
along the bottom of the base slab is
R' =s ( area of cross section )=s ( B 1 )=B ' tan ' + B c' a (3.10)

However

30
 '
B =sumof vertical force= V (3.11)

So
R' =( V ) tan ' + B c ' a(3.12)

Fig. 3.6: Check for sliding along the base

PP
Figure shows that the passive force is also a horizontal resisting force. Hence,

F R ' =( V ) tan ' + B c a + P p (3.13)

'

The only horizontal force that will tend to cause the wall to slide (a driving force) is
Pa
the horizontal component of the active force so

F d =P a cos(3.14 )
Combining Eqs. (3.8), (3.13), and (3.14) yields
V
tan ' +B c ' a+ P p


FS(sliding)=

A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding is generally required.

31
 Pp
In many cases, the passive force is ignored in calculating the factor of safety with respect

'=k 1 ' 2 c ' a=k 2 c ' 2 k1

to sliding. In general, we can write and . In most cases, and

1 2
k2
are in the range from 2 to 3 .Thus,

V
tan ( k 1 2 )+ B k 2 c ' 2+ P p
'

FS(sliding )=

FS(sliding)
If the desired value of is not achieved, several alternatives may be investigated:

1. Increase the width of the base slab (i.e., the heel of the footing).
2. Use a key to the base slab. If a key is included, the passive force per unit length of the
wall becomes

P p=0.5 K p 2 D2 +2 c ' 2 K p (3.17)

where
'2
K p=tan2 (45+ )
2

Fig. 3.7: Alternatives for increasing the factor of safety with respect to sliding

3. Use a dead man anchor at the stem of the retaining wall.

32
 4. Another possible way to increase the value of FS (sliding) is to consider reducing the
value of Pa [Eq. (3.16)]. One possible way to do so is to use the method developed by
Elman and Terry (1988). The discussion here is limited to the case in which the retaining
wall has a horizontal granular backfill (Figure 3.7). In Figure 3.7, the active force, Pa, is

horizontal ( = 0) so that

Pa cos=Ph=P a(3.18)

And
Pa sin =P V =0 (3.19)

However,
Pa=Pa (1) + Pa (a ) (3.20)

The magnitude of Pa(2) can be reduced if the heel of the retaining wall is sloped as shown in
Figure 3.7. For this case,
Pa=Pa (1) + AP a (2) (3.21)

' 2
Pa (1) =0.5 1 K a ( H D ') (3.22)

And
Pa=0.5 y 1 K a H ' 2(3.23)

Hence,

Pa (2) =0.5 y 1 K a [ H '2( H ' D' ) ] (3.24 )

2

So, for the active pressure diagram shown in Figure 3.10b,

A
y K [ H ( H D ) ] (3.25)
' 2 '2 ' ' 2
Pa=0.5 y 1 K a (H D ') +
2 1 a

Sloping the heel of a retaining wall can thus be extremely helpful in some cases.

3.4.4 CHECK FOR BEARING CAPACITY FAILURE

33
The vertical pressure transmitted to the soil by the base slab of the retaining wall should be

q toe q heel
checked against the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. Note that and are the

maximum and the minimum pressures occurring at the ends of the toe and heel sections,

q toe q heel
respectively. The magnitudes of and can be determined in the following manner:

The sum of the vertical forces acting on the base slab is V and the horizontal force
Ph

Pa cos
is . Let

R= V + P h (3.26)

be the resultant force. The net moment of these forces about point C in figure 3.8 is
M net= M R M 0( 3.27)

Note that the values of MR and M0 were previously determined. Let the line of

action of the resultant R intersect the base slab at E. Then the distance
M net
CE=X = (3.28)
V
Hence, the eccentricity of the resultant R may be expressed as
B
e= CE (3.29)
2

The pressure distribution under the base slab may be determined by using simple principles from
the mechanics of materials. First, we have

q=
V M net (3.30)
A I

where
M net=moment =( V ) e

34
 I =moment of inertia per unit length of the base section

1 3
(1)( B )
12

For maximum and minimum pressures, the value of y in Eq. (3.30) equals B/2. Substituting into
Eq. (3.30) gives
B
e V
V 2 V
q max=qtoe=
( B)(1)
+
(
1
) B3
=
B ( 1+ 6Be )(3.31)
12

Similarly
V
q min=qheel =
B (1 6Be )( 3.32)

Fig. 3.8:check for bearing capacity failure

Note that V includes the weight of the soil, as shown in Table 8.1, and that when the value

q min
of the eccentricity e becomes greater than B/6, [Eq. (3.32)] becomes negative. Thus, there

will be some tensile stress at the end of the heel section. This stress is not desirable, because the

35
tensile strength of soil is very small.If the analysis of a design shows that e> B /6, the design

should be reproportioned and calculations redone.

Qu=c ' 2 N c F cd F ci +q N q F qd F qi + 0.5 2 B' N y F yd F yi (3.33)

where
q= 2 D

B ' =B2 e

1F qd
Fcd =F qd
N c tan ' 2

D
Fqd =1+2 tan ' 2 (1sin ' 2)
B'

F d=1

Fci =F qi =(1
)
90

F i =(1
)
90

P a cos
( )
V

=tan

Once the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil has been calculated by using Eq. (3.33), the factor
of safety against bearing capacity failure can be determined:
qu
FS(bearing capacity )= (3.34)
qmax

Generally, a factor of safety of 3 is required. We noted that the ultimate bearing capacity of
shallow foundations occurs at a settlement of about 10% of the foundation width. In the case of

qu
retaining walls, the width B is large. Hence, the ultimate load will occur at a fairly large

foundation settlement. A factor of safety of 3 against bearing capacity failure may not ensure that

36
settlement of the structure will be within the tolerable limit in all cases. Thus, this situation needs
further investigation.
Qu=c ' N C (ei ) F cd +q N q (ei ) F qd +0.5 2 B N (3.35)

3.4.5 DESIGN OF TOE ,HEEL AND STEM

The three elements of the retaining wall, viz., stem, toe slab and heel slab have to be designed as
cantilever slabs to resist the factored moments and shear forces. For this a load factor of 1.5 is to
be used.
In the case of the toe slab, the net pressure is obtained by deducting the weight of the concrete in
the toe slab from the upward acting gross soil pressure. The net loading acts upward (as in the
case of usual footings) and the flexural reinforcement has to be provided at the bottom of the toe
slab. The critical section for moment is at the front face of the stem, while the critical section for
shear is at a distance d from the face of the stem. A clear cover of 75 mm may be provided in
base slabs.

In the case of the heel slab, the pressures acting downward, due to the weight of the retained
earth (plus surcharge, if any), as well as the concrete in the heel slab, exceed the gross soil
pressures acting upward. Hence, the net loading acts downward, and the flexural reinforcement
has to be provided at the top of the heel slab. The critical section for moment is at the rear face of
the stem base.

In the case of the stem (vertical cantilever), the critical section for shear may be taken d from the
face of the support (top of base slab), while the critical section for moment should be taken at the
face of the support. For the main bars in the stem, a clear cover of 50 mm may be provided.
Usually, shear is not a critical design consideration in the stem (unlike the base slab). The
flexural reinforcement is provided near the rear face of the stem, and may be curtailed in stages
for economy.

37
 2
Temperature and shrinkage reinforcement ( A st = r = 0.12 percent of gross area) should be

provided transverse to the main reinforcement. Nominal vertical and horizontal reinforcement
should also be provided near the front face which is exposed.

3.5 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED RETAINING WALLS

3.5.1 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The general design procedure of any mechanically stabilized retaining wall can be divided
Into two parts:
1. Satisfying internal stability requirements
2. Checking the external stability of the wall
The internal stability checks involve determining tension and pullout resistance in the reinforcing
elements and ascertaining the integrity of facing elements. The external stability checks include
checks for overturning, sliding, and bearing capacity failure (Figure 3.9). The sections that
follow will discuss the retaining-wall design procedures for use with metallic strips, geotextiles,
and geogrids.

38
 Fig. 3.9: External stability checks

3.5.2 RETAINING WALLS WITH METALLIC STRIP REINFORCEMENT

Figure is a diagram of a reinforced-earth retaining wall. Note that, at any depth, the reinforcing

SH
strips or ties are placed with a horizontal spacing of center to center; the . The skin can be

constructed with sections of relatively flexible thin material. Lee et al. (1973) showed that, with a
conservative design, a 5 mm-thick galvanized steel skin would be enough to hold a wall about 14
to 15 m high. In most cases, precast concrete slabs can also be used as skin. The slabs are
grooved to fit into each other so that soil cannot flow out between the joints. When metal skins
are used, they are bolted together, and reinforcing strips are placed between the skins.

The simplest and most common method for the design of ties is the Rankine method. We discuss
this procedure next.

3.5.2.1 Calculation of Active Horizontal and Vertical Pressure

According to the Rankine active pressure theory
' a = ' a K a 2 c ' k a (3.36)

' a =rankine active earth pressure at any depth

Where, z.

'1
For dry granular soils with no surcharge at the top, C' =0, ' 0= y 1 z ,K a=tan 2 (45 )
2

' a (1)= 1 z K a (3.37)

thus,

When a surcharge is added at the top, as shown in Figure 3.10,

39
 Fig. 3.10: Analysis of a reinforced-earth retaining wall

' 0 = ' 0 (1 )= ' 0(2) (3.38)

' 0 (2)
The magnitude of can be calculated by using the 2:1 method of stress distribution and

Figure 3.. The 2:1 method of stress distribution is shown in Figure 3.11a. According to Laba and
Kennedy (1986)
qa'
' 0 (2)= '
a +z ( for z 2 b ' )

qa '
' 0 (2)=
' z
and, a + +b ' (for z > 2b' )
2

Also, when a surcharge is added at the top, the lateral pressure at any depth is
' a = ' a (1) + 'a (2) (3.39)

40
 Fig. 3.11: Notation for the relationship

' a (2)
According to Laba and Kennedy (1986), may be expressed (see Figure 3.11b) as

' a (2)=M [ 2q
]
( sincos 2 ) (3.40)

where
0.4 b '
M =1.4 1(3.41)
0.14 H

The net active (lateral) pressure distribution on the retaining wall calculated by using Eqs.
(3.39), (3.40), and (3.41) is shown in Figure 3.11.

3.5.2.2 Tie Force

The tie force per unit length of the wall developed at any depth z (see Figure 3.10) is
T =active earth pressure at depth z area of the wall be supported by the tie

'
( a) ( S V S H ) ( 3.42)

3.5.2.3 Factor Of Safety Against Tie Failure

41
The reinforcement ties at each level, and thus the walls, could fail by either (a) tie breaking or (b)
tie pullout.

The factor of safety against tie breaking may be determined as

yieldbreaking strength of each tie
FS(B)=
max forceany tie

wt f y
(3.43)
' a SV SH

where,
W = width of each tie
T = thickness of ach tie
f y = yield
breaking strength of the tie material

A factor of safety of about 2.5 to 3 is generally recommended for ties at all levels.

Reinforcing ties at any depth z will fail by pullout if the frictional resistance developed along the
surfaces of the ties is less than the force to which the ties are being subjected. The effective
length of the ties along which frictional resistance is developed may be conservatively taken as
the length that extends beyond the limits of the Rankine active failure zone, which is the zone

'2
ABC in Figure 3.10. Line BC makes an angle of ( 45+ with the horizontal. Now, the
2

maximum friction force that can be realized for a tie at depth z is

F R=2 l e w ' 0 tan ' (3.44)

where
l e =effective length

' 0 =effective vertical pressure at a depth z

' =soiltie friction angle

42
Thus, the factor of safety against tie pullout at any depth z is
FR
FS(P)= (3.45)
T

Substituting Eqs. (8.43) and (8.44) into Eq. (8.45) yields

2 l e w ' 0 tan '
FS(P)= (3.46)
'a SV SH

3.5.2.4 Total Length Of Tie

The total length of ties at any depth is
L=l r +l e (3.47)

where
l r=
length within the rankine failure zone

l r=
effective length

FS(P) fron equation(3.46)

For a given

FS(P ) ' a S V S H
le= (3.48)
2 w ' 0 tan '

Again at any depth z,

( H z)
l r= (3.49)
'1
tan ( 45+ )
2

So, combining Eqs. (8.47), (8.48), and (8.49) gives

(H z ) FS(P) ' a SV S H
L= + (3.50)
' 1 2 w ' 0 tan '
tan ( 45+ )
2

3.5.3 RETAINING WALLS WITH GEOTEXTILE REINFORCEMENT

Figure shows a retaining wall in which layers of geotextile have been used as reinforcement. As
in Figure, the backfill is a granular soil. In this type of retaining wall, the facing of the wall is

43
 ll
formed by lapping the sheets as shown with a lap length of . When construction is finished,

the exposed face of the wall must be covered; otherwise, the geotextile will deteriorate from
exposure to ultraviolet light. Bitumen emulsion or Gunite is sprayed on the wall face. A wire
mesh anchored to the geotextile facing may be necessary to keep the coating on.

Fig. 3.12: retaining wall with geotextile reinforcement

The design of this type of retaining wall is similar to that presented in Section 3.4.2. Following is
a step-by-step procedure for design based on the recommendations of Bell et al. (1975) and
Koerner (2005):
Internal stability
Step 1. Determine the active pressure distribution on the wall from the formula
' a =K a ' 0 =K a y 1 z (3.51)

where
K a=rankine active pressure coefficient

y 1=unit weight of granular backfill

T all
Step 2. Select a geotextile fabric with an allowable tensile strength, ( lb/ft or kN/m).

The allowable tensile strength for retaining wall construction may be expressed as (koerner,
2005)

44
 T ult
T all= (3.52)
RF id RF cr RF cbd

where
T ult =ultimate tensile strength

RF id
= reduction factor for installation damage

RFcr =reduction factor

for creep

RF cbd =reduction factor for chemicalbiological

degradation

The recommended values of the reduction factor are as follows (koerner,2005)

RF id 1.1 2.0

RF cr 2 4

RF cbd 1 1.5

Step 3: Determine the vertical spacing of the layers at any depth z from the formula
y
( 1 z K a )[FS(B ) ](3.53)
T all T all
SV = =
' a FS(B )

FS(B)
Note that Eq. (8.53) is similar to Eq. (8.43). The magnitude of is generally 1.3 to 1.5.

45
Step 4. Determine the length of each layer of geotextile from the formula
L=l r +l e (3.54)

Where
H z
l r= (3.55)
'1
tan ( 45+ )
2

And
SV ' a [ FS( p ) ]
le= (3.56)
2 ' 0 tan ' F

In which
' a = y 1 z K a (3.57)

' 0 = y 1 z (3.58)

FS(P)=1.3 1.5

2
' F=friction angle at geotextilesoil interface ' 1
3

Note that Eqs. (3.54), (3.55), and (3.56) are similar to Eqs. (8.47), (8.48), and (8.49),
respectively.
'F 2
Based on the published results, the assumption of
' 1 3 is reasonable and appears to be

'F
conservative. Martin et al. (1984) presented the following laboratory test results for '1

between various types of geotextiles and sand.

46
 type 'F
'1

Wovenmonofilament concrete sand 0.87

Wovensilt film concrete sand 0.8
Wovensilt film rounded sand 0.86
Wovensilt film silty sand 0.92
Nonwovenmelt-bonded concrete sand 0.87
Nonwovenneedle-punched rounded sand 1.0
Nonwovenneedle-punched rounded sand 0.93
Nonwovenneedle-punched > silty sand 0.91
'F
Table 3.2 : '1 ratio between various types of geotextiles and sand

ll ,
Step 5. Determine the lap length, from

S v ' a FS(P)
ll= (3.59)
4 ' 0 tan ' F

The minimum lap length should be 1 m.

External stability
Step 6. Check the factors of safety against overturning, sliding, and bearing capacity failure as
described earlier for metallic strip reinforcement.

47
48