Powrie, W. (1996). GeÂotechnique 46, No.
4, 709±723
Limit equilibrium analysis of embedded retaining walls
W. P OW R I E 
Embedded retaining walls are often designed on
the basis of limit equilibrium stress distribu-
tions. Although this type of analysis has been
used widely for many decades, there is con-
siderable scope for confusion and disagreement
concerning the values of soil strength and soil±
wall friction which should be adopted, and the
way in which a factor of safety should be
applied. In this paper these issues are investi-
gated with reference to previously-published
laboratory and centrifuge model test results,
and the observed behaviour of real walls at
three sites. It is shown that, for embedded
cantilever retaining walls which are either
unpropped or propped near the crest, the onset
of large deformations is reasonably well pre-
dicted by classical limit equilibrium stress
distributions, using earth pressure coef®cients
based on critical state angles of soil friction with
wall friction angle ä ˆ ö9 ˆ ö9crit on both sides
of the wall. The case data also tend to con®rm
that the procedures given in BS 8002 should
lead to depths of wall embedment which are
suf®cient to guard against excessive movements
under working conditions, provided that the
most onerous geometrical, loading and ground-
water conditions are correctly identi®ed, and
that the soil strength is selected with care.
KEYWORDS: case history; diaphragm and in situ
walls; failure; limit state design/analysis; retaining
walls; sheet piles and cofferdams.
INTRODUCTION
Embedded retaining walls are frequently used to
retain the sides of road and railway cuttings, and to
form temporary cofferdams to enable the construc-
tion of underground structures. Temporary coffer-
dams are usually formed of interlocking driven
steel sheet piles, while more permanent walls may
be constructed in situ using reinforced concrete.
Walls may be supported by props at or near crest
Manuscript received 15 September 1994; revised manu-
script accepted 25 August 1995.
Discussion on this paper closes 3 March 1997; for further
details see p. ii.
 University of Southampton.
709
Les murs de souteÁnement encastreÂs sont habi-
tuellement concËus sur la base de la distribution
des contraintes aÁ l'eÂquilibre limite. Ce type
d'analyse qui a eÂte utilise durant depuis
plusieurs deÂcennies, induit de nombreuses er-
reurs et confusions concernant le choix des
valeurs de reÂsistance du sol et de frottement
mur-sol, ainsi que dans le choix d'un facteur de
seÂcurite correct. Dans cet article, ces probleÁmes
seront examineÂs graÃce aÁ des essais en labora-
toire de modeÁles centrifugeÂs et d'observations
in-situ du comportement de murs sur trois sites
diffeÂrents. Il a eÂte observe que pour les murs de
souteÁnement cantilever encastreÂs, qu'ils soient
pourvu ou non d'une chaise en teÃte, l'amorce de
grandes deÂformations est assez bien preÂvue par
la distribution des contraintes aÁ l'eÂquilibre
limite, en utilisant les coef®cients de pression
des terres, avec un angle de frottement du sol
aÁ l'eÂtat critique et en prenant un angle de
frottement sur le mur ä ˆ ö9 ˆ ö9crit sur les
deux coteÂs du mur. L'eÂtude de ces cas tend a
con®rmer que les proceÂdures donneÂes dans le
BS 8002 doivent donner des profondeurs d'en-
foncement des murs qui sont suf®santes pour se
proteÂger des mouvements excessifs lors de la
phase de travaux, pour vu que la geÂomeÂtrie la
plus couÃteuse, le chargement et les conditions
hydrogeÂologiques soient correctement identi®eÂs
et que la reÂsistance du sol soit choisie avec soin.
level, butÐif the retained height is modestÐwalls
are often unpropped and act as free cantilevers.
Unpropped embedded retaining walls rely en-
tirely on the passive resistance of the soil in front
of the wall below formation level to counter the
overturning effect of the lateral stresses in the
retained ground. Assuming that a structural failure
of the wall does not occur, the collapse mechanism
for an unpropped wall would be expected to
correspond to rigid body rotation about a hori-
zontal axis within the plane of the wall at some
depth zp below formation level.
A lower bound stress distribution for an
unpropped embedded cantilever wall on the verge
of collapse may be determined by introducing
frictionless stress discontinuities running vertically
710 POWRIE

on both sides of the wall and horizontally through
the pivot and the toe. At failure, the lateral
effective stresses in zones where the wall is
moving away from the soil are at the active limit
ó9h ˆ K a ó9v ; K a ˆ (1 ÿ sin ö9)=(1 ‡ sin ö9)
(1)
where ó9h and ó9v are the horizontal and vertical
effective stresses, Ka is the active earth pressure
coef®cient and ö9 is the soil angle of shearing
resistance, and in zones where the wall is moving
into the soil they are at the passive limit
ó9h ˆ K p ó9v ; K p ˆ (1 ‡ sin ö9)=(1 ÿ sin ö9)
(2)
where Kp is the passive earth pressure coef®cient.
The limiting lateral effective stress distribution for
an unpropped wall is shown in Fig. 1(a). Pore water
pressures, which might correspond to steady-state
seepage around the wall from a high groundwater
level on the retained side into drains below the
formation, must be considered separately. A pore
water pressure distribution that approximates to
steady-state seepage conditions around an imperme-
able wall in a uniform soil (following Symons,
1983) is shown in Fig. 1(b).
Two unknowns must be calculated from the
stress distributions shown in Figs 1(a) and 1(b),
using the conditions of horizontal and moment
equilibrium. These are the depth of embedment d
required for limiting equilibrium, and the depth to
the pivot zp . If steady-state pore water pressures
are represented as shown in Fig. 1(b), the
equilibrium equations for an unpropped wall are
simultaneous and quartic in the two unknowns. For
this reason, an approximate effective stress dis-
tribution is often used in which the lateral stresses
below the level of the pivot are replaced by a point
force Q (Fig. 1(c)). The two unknowns in this case
are the force Q and the depth zp , and the
equilibrium equations can be uncoupled by taking
moments about the pivot. The calculated value of
zp is conventionally increased by 20% to estimate
the required depth of embedment. It should be
checked that this additional depth of embedment is
actually suf®cient to generate the calculated value
of Q, under the action of passive pressures behind
the wall and active pressures in front (Pad®eld &
Mair, 1984).
For most real walls, the stress analysis indicated

Wall rotation h=h

Datum for h
h h=0
measurement
Active σ'h = Kaσ'v of excess
Passive head h
σ'h = Kpσ'v d
d zp
Pivot

Active Passive d
Frictionless
(
h = h h + 2d ) u = 2γ d (hh++2dd)
w

stress (b)
discontinuities
for true lower
bound
(a)

h
h

Active

Passive d*
zp
d

Q
(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Idealized stress distributions for unpropped embedded cantilever retaining wall: (a) limiting lateral
effective stresses; (b) pore water pressures, according to the linear seepage approximation (Symons, 1983);
(c) approximate limiting effective stress distribution for simpli®ed analysis; (d) net total lateral stresses
 EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS
in Fig. 1(a) (with the values of Ka and Kp given
by equations (1) and (2)) will lead to over-
conservative results because the effects of soil±
wall friction are neglected. Where there is only
one zone of soil at failure (either active or
passive), modi®ed earth pressure coef®cients may
be derived that take account of the rotation in the
direction of principal stresses between the soil±wall
interface and the free soil surface (e.g. Caquot &
Kerisel, 1948; Kerisel & Absi, 1990). The use of
these modi®ed earth pressure coef®cients in the
effective stress distribution shown in Fig. 1(a) is
not rigorous, unless the complexities of the stress
distributions around the pivot and at the toe of the
wall are taken into account. None the less, the
in¯uence of soil±wall friction on the stability of
embedded cantilever walls is often taken into
account in this way. The analysis is no longer a
true lower bound, but might be termed a limit
equilibrium calculation. It should be noted that the
modi®ed earth pressure coef®cients are normally
de®ned as ó9h /(ãz ÿ u) rather than ó9h /ó9v (where
ã is unit weight and u is pore water pressure): this
is because the vertical effective stress adjacent
to the wall is not equal to ãz ÿ u in the presence
of shear stresses at the soil±wall interface. This
approach to design is approximate, in that it does
not consider in detail the complex and inscrutable
behaviour of the soil around the wall as it moves
towards a state of active or passive failure (cf.
Rowe & Peaker, 1965).
The inef®ciency of an unpropped embedded
cantilever as an earth retaining system is demon-
strated by Fig. 1(d), which shows the net total
stress distribution resulting from the effective
stresses and pore water pressures indicated in
Figs 1(a) and 1(b). It may be seen that the net
overturning force actually increases with depth
below formation level until an embedment of d is
reached. It is only below this level that the net
lateral stress begins to act so as to maintain the
stability of the wall. For retained heights in excess
of about 5 m, the depths of embedment required to
ensure that an unpropped cantilever wall remains
remote from collapse can begin to become uneco-
nomic, and it is usual to install one or more rows
of props in order to help to support the wall. For
retained heights of less than about 5 m, the cost of
installing props, together with the restrictions they
impose on programming and access, may outweigh
their bene®t in reducing the depth of embedment
of the wall.
For an embedded wall propped at the crest, the
idealized effective stress distribution at failure is
shown in Fig. 2. This stress distribution corre-
sponds to rotation about the position of the prop.
In this case, the two unknowns are the prop load
and the depth of embedment of the wall. Solution
of the equilibrium equations is easier than for an
711
Prop force F
h Wall rotation
Active σ'h = Kaσ'v
Passive
d σ'h = Kpσ'v
Frictionless stress discontinuities
for true lower bound
Fig. 2. Idealized effective stress distribution at failure
for an embedded wall propped at the crest
unpropped wall, because only the depth of em-
bedment features in the equation of moment
equilibrium about the prop.
The designer of an embedded cantilever retain-
ing wall using the effective stress distributions
shown in Fig. 1(a) (for an unpropped wall) or
Fig. 2 (for a wall propped at the crest), with earth
pressure coef®cients modi®ed to take account of
soil±wall friction, must address three fundamental
questions
(a) what value of ö9 should be used (i.e. ö9peak or
ö9crit ) as a predictor of collapse?
(b) what value of soil±wall friction angle ä is
appropriate?
(c) how should the collapse calculation be factored
in order to ensure that a structure will be
suf®ciently remote from collapse not to deform
excessively in service?
In this paper, these three issues are discussed
with reference to previous experimental and ®eld
work and new case data.
APPLICATION OF FACTOR OF SAFETY
The effective stress distributions shown in Figs
1(a) and 2, with values of Ka and Kp for a smooth
wall given by equations (1) and (2), represent
rigorous lower bound plasticity solutions (provided
that the possibility of a bearing failure at the toe
of the wall is investigated: see e.g. Powrie & Li,
1991). The stress state of the soil everywhere is in
equilibrium, without violating the failure condition
ô/ó9 ˆ tan ö9.
In structural engineering, plasticity theory is
used to estimate the relation between the collapse
loads Wc and the fully plastic moment (i.e.
bending strength) Mp of beams and frames. The
design load for a structure is the collapse load
divided by a load factor ëc . It follows from the
unique relationship between Wc and Mp that the
maximum permissible bending moment under
working conditions is Mp /ëc . In the case of an
embedded cantilever retaining wall, the loads that
712
cause collapse are not as readily identi®able as
they are in the analysis of structural frames. This
had led to the development of a number of differ-
ent methods of applying a factor of safety to the
collapse calculation, as follows.
(a) The calculated depth of embedment at collapse
is multiplied by an empirical factor Fd. This
method is unscienti®c, and will yield a stress
distribution that is in equilibrium only if the
total stresses in front of and behind the wall
below the depth required just to maintain
stability are equal and opposite.
(b) The equilibrium calculation is carried out with
the soil strength tan ö9 reduced by a factor Fs.
This method is consistent with the way in
which factors of safety are applied in structural
analysis. It is essentially the approach adopted
in BS 8002 (British Standards Institution,
1994), except that the factor of safety Fs is
termed a strength mobilization factor M, in
recognition of the fact that its main purpose is
to limit wall movement under working condi-
tions.
(c) The equilibrium calculation is carried out with
active pressures in the soil behind the wall, and
the passive pressures reduced by a factor Fp.
This procedure is traditionally used for sheet
pile walls in sands, for which it is generally
accepted that the stresses behind the wall will
fall to their active values after only a very
small movement, while the movement required
for the stresses in front of the wall to rise to
their passive limit would be unacceptably
large. The application of the factor of safety
to an earth pressure coef®cient (rather than
to the soil strength directly) can, however,
be misleading: a value of Fp ˆ 1´5 implies
Fs ˆ 1´6 at ö9 ˆ 208 but Fs ˆ 1´2 at ö9 ˆ 358
(assuming full wall friction ä ˆ ö9 and pas-
sive pressure coef®cients given by Caquot &
Kerisel (1948)).
(d) For unpropped walls, the British Steel Piling
handbook (British Steel General Steels, 1988)
appears to suggest a factor of safety of unity
(pp. E2±E3). Although in the example given
on pp. E4±E5 wall friction ä is neglected, the
method relies entirely on the designer to select
conservative soil parameters and worst-case
geometrical and groundwater conditions. In the
case of a cofferdam retaining water (for which
there is no wall friction), the depth of embed-
ment calculated using this method is almost
certain to be inadequate.
(e) For walls propped at the crest, the `net
pressure method' is described in the Piling
handbook (British Steel General Steels, 1988,
pp. E8±E9). A net pressure diagram using fully
active and fully passive pressures is plotted,
POWRIE
and the depth of embedment is chosen such
that the moment about the prop of the net
pressures in front of the wall is equal to a
factor Fnp times the moment of the net
pressure behind the wall. The pressure dis-
tribution used to obtain the design depth of
embedment is not in equilibrium. Bending
moments may be calculated for the upper part
of the wall only, using the depth of embedment
at which the wall is just stable. A further
drawback is that an apparently satisfactory
numerical value of Fnp corresponds to a much
smaller factor on soil strength Fs (Burland,
Potts & Walsh, 1981).
( f ) The `revised' method (Burland et al., 1981):
the fully active moment directly attributable to
the retained soil is equated to the moment of
the net available passive resistance below
formation level (calculated from the net
pressure coef®cient (Kp ÿ Ka )), divided by a
factor Fr (Fig. 6 of Burland et al., 1981).
Burland et al. show that this method gives
numerical values of Fr for propped walls that
correspond to a reasonably consistent value of
Fs over the range ö9 ˆ 58 to 358, but do not
investigate its applicability to unpropped walls
in the same detail. While the approach might
be interpreted as analogous to the structural
load factor ëc , the same effect is achieved
rather more transparently by the application of
a factor Fs to the soil strength.
For embedded walls propped at the crest, the
various methods of applying a factor of safety are
discussed by Burland et al. (1981). They show that
the most sure, rational and consistent approach is
to apply the factor of safety to the soil strength
directly. This is not to say that the same value of
Fs will be applicable in all soils, or indeed must
be applied to the soil on both sides of the wall. In
any particular case, the allowable mobilized soil
strength (and hence the numerical value of Fs or
mobilization factor M) would ideally be chosen
on the basis of the allowable soil strain according
to an appropriate mobilized strength±shear strain
relationship (Bolton, Powrie & Symons, 1989,
1990a, 1990b). Loose soils, with a less stiff
response (i.e. a less rapid mobilization of soil
strength with shear strain) would be expected to
require a greater factor of safety or mobilization
factor on soil strength than dense soils, in order to
limit soil strains under working conditions to an
acceptable level.
The mobilized strength±strain response of the
soil will also depend on the stress path followed,
and may well be different for the soil on each side
of the wall. This might impinge particularly on the
calculation of bending moments from the equili-
brium stress distributions. For example, in low K0
 EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS
soils, Fs ˆ 1 could be used in the retained soil to
correspond to the traditional assumption (as in
method (c) above) that fully active stresses will
be developed under working conditions. In very
high K0 soils in which the wall is installed with
minimal lateral stress relief, Fs ˆ 1 might be
appropriate for the soil in front of the wall
(Symons, 1991). In each case, the allowable earth
pressure coef®cient on the other side of the wall
would be chosen on the basis of the factored soil
strength, rather than by the less certain procedure
of applying a factor to the passive (or active) earth
pressure coef®cient.
SOIL±WALL FRICTION
According to Rowe (1963), the maximum soil±
wall friction angle ämax has two components
ämax ˆ öw ‡ r (3)
where öw is the true friction angle between the soil
grains and the material of the wall, and r is the wall
roughness angle. Rowe notes that öw is generally
close to öì , the true friction angle between soil
grains, and that the angle of soil±wall friction ä is
unaffected by the component of soil strength due
to dilatancy, except insofar as the peak angle of
shearing resistance ö9peak represents an extreme
upper limit. For a smooth (a term not synonymous
with frictionless) wall, r could be of the order of
0´58: real walls made from steel sheet piles,
concrete or timber would be expected to be
signi®cantly rougher. In general, the roughness of
the wall will compensate at least approximately for
the difference between the critical state angle of
shearing resistance ö9crit and the true friction angle
between the soil grains öì (ö9crit ÿ öì  58 for
quartz sand), so that for practical purposes
ämax  ö9crit .
An alternative line of argument, followed by
Bolton & Powrie (1987), leads to the same
conclusion. A surface on which there is insignif-
icant opportunity for dilation, but whose roughness
is comparable with the particle size of the soil,
would be expected to mobilize ämax ˆ ö9crit . If the
wall is very rough, so that a rupture surface is
forced to develop within the body of the soil rather
than along the interface, some or all of the dilatant
strength of the soil might be mobilized, giving an
upper limit of ämax ˆ ö9peak . In general, however,
it is more appropriate (and more conservative) to
take ämax ˆ ö9crit .
Rowe & Peaker (1965) show that the wall
friction actually developed depends on the direc-
tion and degree of wall movement. They suggest
that in carrying out an analysis of conditions at
collapse, it is necessary to decide on the value of
mobilized wall friction angle ämob at a movement
of 5%. For sheet pile walls freely embedded in
713
sand, they recommend ämob ˆ ämax on the passive
side, where ämax is given by equation (3). For
sheet pile walls bearing on rock, however, where
the likely magnitude of downward wall movement
is small, the recommended values of ämob are
much reduced.
The results of Rowe & Peaker (1965) indicate
that, in the limit equilibrium analysis of an
embedded retaining wall, the assumption of a
uniform soil±wall friction angle on each side is
probably merely a convenient ®ction, without
which the analysis would be almost impossible.
One possible concern with this approach is that the
implied bearing capacity below the base of the
wall may be unrealistically high. If there is any
doubt about this (for example, if the wall is thin or
the sub-stratum is weak), the base bearing stress
associated with the development of the assumed
wall friction should be calculated (by considering
the vertical equilibrium of the wall), to ensure that
it does not exceed the ultimate bearing capacity.
SOIL STRENGTH
Rowe (1951) reported the results of a series of
large scale laboratory tests at normal gravity (lg)
on unpropped embedded cantilever retaining walls
in dry sand. Conditions at collapse were reasonably
well represented by the idealized distribution of
effective stresses shown in Fig. 1(a), with Ka and
Kp based on the peak angle of shearing resistance
ö9peak and wall friction ä ˆ 0´67ö9peak . (In a later
paper, however, Rowe (1963) cautioned against the
expression of ä as a proportion of ö9peak .) Remote
from collapse, a triangular pressure distribution in
front of the wall with the full passive pressure
coef®cient Kp reduced by a factor Fp was found
to overestimate the lateral stresses near the toe of
the wall, and hence bending moments. This was
probably because with a wall rotating about a
point close to the toe, there is only limited
movement of the wall into the soil at this level,
restricting the development of lateral stresses in
front of the wall.
For embedded cantilever sheet pile walls in dry
sand, restrained by anchors near the crest, Rowe
(1952) found that the effective stress distribution
shown in Fig. 2, with active and passive pressures
based on ö9peak and ä ˆ 0´67ö9peak , was represen-
tative of conditions at collapse. These walls were
not propped rigidly, and a horizontal movement of
the crest of the wall into the excavation of (h + d)/
1000, where (h + d) is the overall height of the
wall, was suf®cient to destroy arching and allow
the lateral stresses in the retained soil to fall to the
active limit. For stiff walls remote from collapse,
the measured maximum bending moment was
consistent with the stress distribution shown in
Fig. 2, with fully active pressures behind the wall
714 POWRIE

and smaller-than-passive pressures in front. This centrifuge: a range is therefore given, correspond-
corresponds to the application of a factor of safety ing to the last stable excavation depth, and the
Fp to the passive pressure coef®cient (method (c) removal of a further 0´5 m of soil (at ®eld scale)
above). For more ¯exible walls, where the move- from in front of the wall, which resulted in
ment into the excavation at formation level collapse. It may be seen that, in the tests on dense
exceeded that at the toe, the generation of high sand, the calculations using the peak angles of
lateral stresses in the soil immediately below shearing resistance quoted by King & McLoughlin
formation level led to a reduction in the maximum (1993) consistently overestimate the retained height
bending moment. It was to take account of this at failure. In the loose sand tests, the calculated
effect that Rowe (1952, 1955) proposed his retained heights at collapse are close to or just
moment reduction curves. outside the upper limits observed in the centrifuge
King & McLoughlin (1993) summarized the tests. If ö9peak for the loose sand were only slightly
results of a series of centrifuge model tests on in excess of ö9crit , then the use of earth pressure
unpropped embedded cantilever walls, retaining coef®cients based on ö9crit in the stress distribution
dry sand. The model walls represented a Froding- shown in Fig. 1(a) would lead to a generally
ham no. 5 section sheet pile wall of bending correct or only slightly conservative prediction of
stiffness 10´2  104 kN m2 /m and total length collapse. Although the retained heights at collapse
11 m, at a scale of 1:92. Tests were carried out in the dense sand tests were greater than in the
on walls with three different surface ®nishes, corresponding loose sand tests, the differences
giving maximum angles of soil±wall friction were not as great as suggested by the use in the
ämax ˆ 0, ämax ˆ ö9peak and intermediate values limit equilibrium calculation shown in Fig. 1(a) of
of ämax ˆ 0´36ö9peak to ämax ˆ 0´40ö9peak , retaining earth pressure coef®cients corresponding to the
either dense sand (mass density r ˆ 1631 kg/m3 , quoted peak strengths.
ö9peak ˆ 49´58) or loose sand (mass density r ˆ King & McLoughlin (1993) also observed that
1448 kg/m3 , ö9peak ˆ 40´08). Bending moments the deformations of all walls at Fp ˆ 1´5 (based on
were measured using strain gauges glued to the peak strengths) were much larger than would be
wall. The soil in front of the wall was excavated in tolerated in reality. This demonstrates one of the
stages by stopping and restarting the centrifuge. major disadvantages of using a factor of passive
This procedure is considered by King & McLough- pressure coef®cient Fp in design, which is that the
lin (1993) not to have affected the behaviour of the additional embedment required to increase the
model in any signi®cant way. Given the stabilizing numerical value of Fp from 1´0 to 1´5 or even
effect of the likely increase in ö9peak at centrifugal 2´0 may be very small, especially when the angle
accelerations below the test value (due to the of shearing resistance of the soil ö9 is high
increased potential for dilation), this conclusion is (Simpson, 1992). The problem is exacerbated by
probably not unreasonable. the use of ö9peak , rather than ö9crit , as a design
Table 1 compares the retained heights at parameter.
collapse observed by King & McLoughlin (1993) Bolton & Powrie (1987, 1988) described a series
with those obtained using the stress distribution of centrifuge model tests carried out to investigate
shown in Fig. 1(a), using Caquot & Kerisel's the behaviour of diaphragm walls in overconsoli-
(1948) earth pressure coef®cients for the values of dated kaolin clay (r  1780 kg/m3 , ö9crit  228,
ö9peak and ä stated. It was not possible to identify ämax  ö9crit measured in a shearbox). Walls
precisely the retained height at failure in the modelling a retained height of 10 m at a scale of
Table 1. Comparison of actual and theoretical retained heights at collapse for centrifuge model tests of King &
McLoughlin (1993)
ä Retained height at collapse: m at ®eld scale
King & McLoughlin (1993) Fig. 1(a) stress analysis with
centrifuge test Caquot & Kerisel (1948) earth
pressure coef®cients using ö9peak
and ä in columns 1 and 2
0 7´0±7´5 8´00
Dense sand (ö9peak ˆ 49´58) 17´78 8´0±8´5 8´54
49´58 8´5±9´0 9´51
0 6´0±6´5 6´89
Loose sand (ö9peak ˆ 408) 15´88 7´0±7´5 7´46
408 8´0±8´5 8´36
 EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS
1:125 were made from either 9´5 mm or 4´7 mm
aluminium plate, corresponding to full-scale ¯ex-
ural rigidities of approximately 107 kN m2 /m and
1´2  106 kN m2 /m respectively. An equilibrium
calculation based on the effective stress distribu-
tion shown in Fig. 1(a) and measured pore water
pressures was found to provide a close indication
of the embedment of an unpropped wall at col-
lapse, using Caquot & Kerisel's (1948) earth pres-
sure coef®cients based on the critical state soil
strength and wall friction angle ä ˆ ö9crit . For an
embedded cantilever wall propped at the crest, the
effective stress distribution shown in Fig. 2 (again
with Caquot & Kerisel's earth pressure coef®cients
and ä ˆ ö9 ˆ ö9crit ) gave a slightly conservative
indication of collapse. This was considered to be
due to the kinematic restraint imposed by the prop,
which prevents horizontal movement at the crest of
the wall. This is not taken into account in the
derivation of the earth pressure coef®cients used in
the limit equilibrium calculation. In practice, a
less-than-rigid prop might not impose this kine-
matic restraint, and the additional margin of safety
would be lost.
The results of the stress analyses shown in Figs
1(a) and 2 may be presented in terms of the
embedment ratio d/h at failure as a function of
the angle of shearing resistance ö9 of the soil. The
unit weight of the soil does not affect the
embedment ratio at collapse, so that a model wall
that does not fail at lg should in theory be stable
at any gravity level to which it is subjected in a
centrifuge, provided that the maximum reliable
angle of shearing resistance of the soil does not
change. In reality, the peak angle of shearing
resistance of a soil of a given void ratio (density)
will decrease as the applied effective stress
increases, due to the suppression of dilation as
the void ratio at the appropriate critical state
decreases. Thus a small-scale model may be stable
at lg, but fail in an enhanced acceleration ®eld
because the peak strength is reduced. If this
happens, the implication is that a large retaining
wall of a given embedment ratio d/h will be less
stable than a smaller wall of the same embedment
ratio in the same material, because the peak angle
of shearing resistance which maintains the stability
of the smaller wall cannot be mobilized at the
higher stresses that exist in the soil around the
larger wall.
This suggests that considerable caution must be
exercised in the selection of ö9 values in the
extrapolation of lg model test results to ®eld scale
structures. Rowe (1951, 1952) appears to have
based his back-analyses on ö9peak . In the applica-
tion of his analysis to a larger structure, ö9peak
should be measured at the highest applicable stress
level, in which case it might be closer to the
critical state angle of shearing resistance ö9crit . A
715
further point is that in small-scale laboratory tests
at lg, the range of stress is not great and the use of
a uniform value of ö9peak in back-analysis is
probably justi®able. (Alternatively, it is possible
that the earth pressure coef®cients based on ö9peak
and ä ˆ 2ö9peak /3 might be numerically equal to
those based on ä ˆ ö9 ˆ ö9crit for the dense
materials. This is less likely for the loose materials
where ö9peak might have been little greater than
ö9crit . However, the process of collapse, and the
accompanying geometry changes, might have been
suf®ciently gradual to admit either possibility for
the back-analysis of conditions at `failure'.)
At ®eld scale, or in a centrifuge model, the
range of stress is much larger than in a lg test, and
the applicability of a uniform value of ö9peak is
unlikely. In these circumstances, the use of ö9crit
rather than ö9peak (with Caquot & Kerisel's (1948)
earth pressure coef®cients and soil±wall friction
ä ˆ ö9crit ) would appear to give a more reliable,
albeit possibly conservative, indicator of collapse.
(Having said this, the peak strength ö9peak , meas-
ured at the highest applicable stress, does serve as
an indicator of the rate of mobilization of soil
strength with shear strain.)
These issues are now examined further, with
reference to three case studies.
CASE STUDY 1
The ®rst case study concerns a retaining wall,
approximately 30 m long with an 8 m return at
each end, constructed using Frodingham 3N Grade
50A steel sheet piles. The wall was installed to
retain one side of an excavation during the
construction of the basement of a new building,
adjacent to an existing structure. Ground condi-
tions comprised approximately 7´4 m of granular
material (described as sandy to very sandy sub-
angular and sub-rounded ®ne, medium and coarse
gravel, generally medium dense with occasional
loose zones), underlain by 4´7 m of laminated
clayey sandy silt, and microdiorite rock. The
natural water table was 1´6 m below original
ground level. A cross-section, showing the ground
conditions and the geometry of the excavation, is
shown in Fig. 3. Analysis is complicated slightly
by the 168 upward slope of the retained ground,
and the presence behind the wall of a number of
1´2 m  1´2 m footings at 13 m centres, supporting
the columns of the existing building. It is
estimated that these foundations each exerted a
vertical surcharge of approximately 150 kPa.
Following installation of the wall, excavation
proceeded to the level of the underside of the
basement ¯oor slab (4´4 m below original ground
level). The excavation was dewatered by means of
a sump pump. Some concern had been expressed
716
1.2 m 2.3 m
Column footings
1.2 m x 1.2 m x 0.6 m
deep at 13 m centres 150 kPa
16°
Original ground water level (GWL)
0.325 m
Sandy GRAVEL
Clayey
sandy
SILT
Fig. 3. Cross-section showing retaining wall geometry and ground conditions, case study 1
that the groundwater level behind the sheet pile
wall should not be allowed to fall, in order to
minimize the possibility of settlement damage to
the existing building. On completion of the
excavation, a series of small holes was drilled into
the sheet pile wall, which established that the
groundwater level in the retained soil had fallen to
less than 0´9 m above formation level. In order to
raise the groundwater level behind the wall, the
discharge from the sump pump was diverted on to
the retained soil surface. Some time later, the
retaining wall moved forward slightly, causing a
noticeable settlement of the existing building.
The site investigation data indicated that the
granular material had a unit weight of 22 kN/m3 ,
and the laminated silt 20 kN/m3 . No experimental
data concerning frictional strengths were given, but
an average standard test (SPT) blowcount (cor-
rected for the effects of overburden using the
expression N1 ˆ CN  N, where CN ˆ 0´77 log10
[2000/ó9v (kPa)]: Skempton, 1986) of N1 ˆ 16
POWRIE
Original
ground level
1.6 m
2.8 m
GWL in front of wall
maintained by sump
pumping
3m
3m
(range 6´6 to 22´5) for the granular material
indicated ö9peak ˆ 338, according to Stroud
(1989), assuming that the soil is normally con-
solidated. A critical state friction angle ö9crit of
308±328 for the granular material would not seem
unreasonable (Stroud, 1989). The critical state
friction angle of the silt would be expected to be
in the range 258±278 (Bowles, 1988).
The cross-section in Fig. 3 was back-analysed
using an effective stress distribution similar in
principle to that shown in Fig. 1(a) with different
earth pressure coef®cients in each stratum of soil
to re¯ect their different strengths. Four different
cases were examined to investigate the effect
(separately and in combination) of both the
groundwater level in the retained soil and the
surcharge from the existing building. These were
(a) low groundwater level (4´4 m below original
ground level (OGL)) in the retained soil, no
surcharge from existing building
 EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS 717
(b) low groundwater level (4´4 m below OGL) in B A
the retained soil, with surcharge from existing
building
q
(c) high groundwater level (1´6 m below OGL) in
the retained soil, no surcharge from existing
building A (1 − Ka)
(d) high groundwater level (1´6 m below OGL) in 2√Ka
the retained soil, with surcharge from existing A/√Ka
building.
Total area
The pore water pressures in the granular = qB√Ka
material were taken as hydrostatic below the water
table on each side of the wall. In the case of the B/√Ka
high groundwater level on the retained side, all the
head loss was assumed to occur in the silt, and to
be distributed linearly around the wall (Fig. 4). The
effect of the surcharge was modelled using the
procedure suggested by Pappin, Simpson, Felton & ≤ qKa
Raison (1986), which is illustrated in Fig. 5.
The equilibrium equations associated with the
idealized effective stress and pore water pressure
distributions were assembled on to a spreadsheet, Fig. 5. Additional lateral effective stress acting on the
and solved iteratively. The aim of the calculation back of the wall due to a surcharge (after Pappin
was to achieve equilibrium with a depth of et al., 1986)

u=0

2.8 m

Hydrostatic Datum for

h = 2.8 m u=0 excess head
h

GRAVEL

Hydrostatic
3m h=0 GRAVEL

u = 56.9 kPa

u = 29.4 kPa

SILT (Downward seepage) (Upward seepage)

3m SILT

h = 1.4 m, u = 72.6 kPa

Fig. 4. Pore water pressure distribution used in back-analysis of case study 1 (high groundwater level behind the
wall)
718
embedment of 6 m, a certain value of zp , and earth
pressure coef®cients corresponding to mobilized
soil strengths ö9mob consistent with approximately
the same factor of safety Fs (ˆ tan ö9crit /tan ö9mob )
in all zones. The earth pressure coef®cients given
by Caquot & Kerisel (1948) were used, with an
angle of soil±wall friction ä ˆ ö9mob . Behind the
wall, the slope ù (ˆ 168) of the retained soil sur-
face was taken into account by using the tabulated
earth pressure coef®cients appropriate to the value
of ù/ö9mob in each soil layer.
The results of the calculations are summarized
in Table 2, and are discussed below.
CASE STUDY 2
The second case study is the embedded canti-
lever retaining wall on the A329(M) near Reading,
Berkshire (Carder & Symons, 1989). This wall has
performed perfectly satisfactorily since its con-
struction in 1972. It is included in the present
study because the calculations presented by Carder
& Symons (1989) (which follow the design
recommendations given by Pad®eld & Mair,
1984) suggest that the wall has a factor of safety
Fs of about unity. (It should be noted, however,
that Pad®eld & Mair (1984) recommend the use of
wall friction angles ä ˆ 2ö9mob /3 behind the wall
ä ˆ ö9mob /2 in front, rather than ä ˆ ö9mob as used
in this paper). Fig. 6(a) (after Carder & Symons,
1989) shows an idealized cross-section of the
retaining wall, indicating the ground conditions
and soil parameters based on remoulded strengths.
The calculations carried out by Carder &
Symons (1989) are essentially those that would
have been used in design. In order to estimate the
actual factor of safety of the wall, a back-analysis
has been carried out, which differs from the
calculation by Carder & Symons (1989) in the
following ways
(a) the pore water pressures were based on the
Table 2. Results of equilibrium analyses, case study 1
a b
Groundwater level Low
Surcharge Absent
ö9mob (sandy gravel) 22´38
ö9mob (silt) 18´38
Fs (based on ö9crit ˆ 308 for the sandy 1´42
gravel and 258 for the silt)
Fs (based on ö9crit ˆ 328 for the sandy 1´54
gravel and 278 for the silt)
POWRIE
measured values, rather than the linear seepage
approximation (Symons, 1983): Fig. 6(b)
(b) the carriageway was assumed to act as a
surcharge of 14 kPa on the excavated soil
surface
(c) the analysis was carried out with ä ˆ ö9mob on
both sides of the wall, rather than ä ˆ 2ö9mob /
3 (active) and ä ˆ ö9mob /2 (passive) as used by
Carder & Symons (1989).
According to the revised calculation, the factor
of safety on soil strength (i.e. tan ö9crit /tan ö9mob ) is
1´16. This is probably still on the low side, as any
possible propping action of the carriageway slab
(which might occur in reality, even though it was
never intended in design) has been neglected.
CASE STUDY 3
The third case study is an embedded sheet pile
wall propped near the crest, forming a cofferdam
of plan dimensions 14 m  10 m. The retained
height was 7´5 m and the embedded depth was
3´5 m. Ground conditions comprised storm beach
gravels overlying marine sands, as indicated on the
cross-section shown in Fig. 7. Failure occurred
over almost the entire length of one of the short
sides of the cofferdam by rotation about the prop,
shortly after excavation to formation level.
The storm beach gravels were described in the
site investigation report as a predominantly uni-
form sandy ®ne to coarse gravel with occasional
cobbles, and the marine sands as a silty ®ne to
coarse sand. No data concerning unit weights or
friction angles were given. At the borehole nearest
to the side of the cofferdam that failed, the average
corrected SPT blowcount N1 was 20´6 for the
storm beach gravels (range 8´5±48´0) and 41´6 for
the marine sands (range 32´2±55´5). These imply
peak friction angles ö9peak of 34´58 for the storm
beach gravels and 418 for the marine sands,
assuming that the materials are effectively nor-
Analysis
c d
Low High High
Present Absent Present
26´98 258 298
22´28 20´58 248
1´14 1´24 1´04
1´24 1´35 1´13
 EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS 719
Depth: m
Surcharge 12 kPa

0 Topsoil/made ground
γ = 17.3 kN/m3, φ' = 30°
GWL
1.52
2.0 γ = 18.9 kN/m3, φ ' = 42°
2.59 Gravel and clayey sand

6.9 m
Firm grey clay
γ = 20.1 kN/m3, φ' = 21°

Surcharge 14 kPa
6.0

GWL
Firm grey clay
γ = 20.1 kN/m3, φ' = 22°

(8.9 m below OGL)

11.5 m

14.5

Very stiff grey clay

γ = 20.1 kN/m3, φ' = 32°

18.4

(a)

Depth: m
0
GWL

GWL

10

15

120 100 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 100 120

0
Pore water pressure: kPa
Spade cell piezometers
Standpipe piezometers
Used in analysis
(b)

Fig. 6(a). Idealized cross-section through A329(M) reataining wall near Reading (after Carder & Symons, 1989);
(b) measured and idealized pore water pressures, (measured values from Carder & Symons, 1989)
720
0.4 m
PROP
3.3 m
Mean
GWL
7.5 m
7.3 m Tidal
Storm variation
beach ±0.25 m
GRAVELS GWL in front of
wall maintained
by pumping from
wells
Marine SANDS
3.5 m
Fig. 7. Cross-section showing retaining wall geometry
and ground conditions, case study 3
mally consolidated (Stroud, 1989). Critical state
angles of friction might reasonably be taken as 328
for the predominantly single-size, sub-angular to
sub-rounded storm beach gravels, and up to 368 for
the well-graded marine sands (Stroud, 1989). The
SPT blowcounts from 14 boreholes across the site
displayed considerable variation, with those closest
to the location of the failure being generally at the
low end of the range, at least above the level of
the toe of the wall.
In situ tests indicated permeabilities generally in
the range 1 to 7  10ÿ5 m/s for the beach gravels
and 0´5 to 2´5  10ÿ5 m/s for the marine sands.
The measured permeability of the beach gravels is
somewhat smaller than would be inferred from the
typical particle size distribution curve using, for
example, Hazen's rule (Hazen, 1892). This is
probably due to a loss of ®nes on sampling. As
the measured permeabilities of the two materials
do not differ signi®cantly, it is reasonable to treat
them as a single stratum for the purpose of
estimating the steady-state pore water pressures
due to seepage. The natural groundwater level was
approximately 3´3 m below original ground level,
with a tidal variation of 60´25 m. The groundwater
level inside the cofferdam was maintained at just
below formation level by a system of pumped
wells.
An equilibrium calculation was carried out,
based on the effective stress distribution shown in
Fig. 2 with different earth pressure coef®cients in
the storm beach gravels and the marine sands to
re¯ect their different strengths. The pore water
pressure distribution was calculated according to
the linear seepage model for the upper extreme of
the tidal range, as indicated in Fig. 8. Using the
earth pressure coef®cients given by Caquot &
Kerisel (1948) with ä ˆ ö9mob on both sides of the
POWRIE
PROP
3.05 m
Maximum
GWL
h = 4.45 m
Storm beach
Gravels
4.25 m
h=0
GWL Datum
for h
Marine sands
3.7 m
Downward Upward
seepage seepage
h = 1.36 m u = 47.7 kPa
Fig. 8. Pore water pressure distribution used in back-
analysis of case study 3
wall, and a uniform unit weight in both strata of
19 kN/m3 , the calculated factor of safety Fs was
1´08.
A second cofferdam, 8´5 m wide, with a
retained height of 7´3 m and a depth of embedment
of 3´7 m, in which the props were installed at a
depth of 2´8 m below the crest of the wall, showed
no signs of distress. The factor of safety Fs in this
case was 1´24. This may be an underestimate,
because the cofferdam was quite narrow. In these
conditions, the proximity of the two sidewalls
represents an additional kinematic restraint which
is not taken into account in the limit equilibrium
calculation.
DISCUSSION
One of the striking features of the two cases in
which the sheet pile retaining walls failed is the
paucity of data from the site investigation con-
cerning essential parameters such as ö9crit and unit
weight. SPT data can provide useful empirical
con®rmation of the applicability in situ of
laboratory test results. It is surely unsatisfactory,
however, when the SPT blowcount is the only way
of estimating a parameter so fundamental to
retaining wall stability as the strength of the soil.
Although typical critical state strengths of sands
and gravels are well documented (e.g. Bolton,
1986; Stroud, 1989), a reliance on generic data
carries with it a need to err on the side of caution.
Unfortunately overconservatismÐparticularly in the
design of temporary worksÐis not conducive to
winning contracts, which are awarded primarily on
the basis of the lowest price.
 EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS
Apart from the quanti®cation of basic soil
parameters such as unit weight and strength, the
case histories demonstrate that, even in back-
analysis, there is considerable scope for uncertainty
concerning the actual in-service conditions. The
issues that have arisen here include the presence of
discontinuous surcharges on the retained side of
the wall; the support offered to potentially weaker
or more heavily loaded cross-sections by stronger
or less heavily loaded parts of the wall; the
possible stabilizing effect of basement or carriage-
way slabs acting as partial props; and variations in
groundwater levels (which may be tidal, seasonal
or man-made). In design, the new UK Code of
Practice BS 8002 (British Standards Institution,
1994) requires some allowance for events such as a
minimum surcharge on the retained side, and an
additional unplanned excavation below formation
level.
A further uncertainty concerns the identi®cation
of failure. The movement in case 1, although large
enough to cause distress to the building adjacent to
the excavation, was a serviceability failure rather
than an outright collapse. Case 3 was closer to an
obvious collapse, but the retaining wall remained
standing after the movement had ceased. In
general, the amount by which a wall moves during
excavation would be expected to be related to its
factor of safety. If the factor of safety is high
enough, the wall will not move very much. As the
factor of safety is reduced, wall movements will
increase. Serviceability failures would be expected
to be associated with factors of safety slightly
greater than 1: this is borne out by the behaviour
of the retaining walls in cases 1 and 3.
In calculating factors of safety for the retaining
wall in case 1, the possibility of longitudinal load
transfer along the wall was discounted. The cross-
sections next to the pad foundations were assumed
not to receive support from the less severely
loaded parts of the wall. Unless the wall and its
walings are very stiff, this assumption is not un-
reasonable. However, the complete neglect of
longitudinal load transfer might mean that the true
factors of safety are slightly higher than calculated
for cases 1b and 1d, and slightly lower for cases 1a
and 1c (Table 2).
Bearing in mind that the factors of safety
calculated by back-analysis depend on the esti-
mated soil strengths and in-service conditions, a
conservative interpretation of the case records
described in this paper suggests that, for embedded
cantilever walls that are either unpropped or
propped near the crest, a factor of safety on soil
strength of 1´25 is suf®cient to guard against a
serviceability failure (case 1, analysis b, higher
values of ö9crit ; case 3, the wall with the lower
level prop. Limit equilibrium calculations are
based on the lateral effective stress distributions
721
shown in Figs 1(a) and 2, using Caquot & Kerisel's
(1948) earth pressure coef®cients with ä ˆ ö9mob ).
A less conservative interpretation indicates that the
minimum factor of safety required may be as low
as 1´15 (case 1, analysis b, lower values of ö9crit ;
case 2, although the true factor of safety here is
probably signi®cantly higher because the propping
action of the carriageway slab has been neglected),
but is unlikely to be very much less than this value
(case 1, analysis d, higher values of ö9crit ; case 3,
high-level prop).
For permanent works in stiff clays, Pad®eld
& Mair (1984) recommend Fs ˆ 1´2 applied to
ö9crit , with ä ˆ ö9mob /2 in front of the wall
and ä ˆ 2ö9mob /3 behind. (Incidentally, this is the
opposite way round to Terzaghi (1954), who
suggests ä ˆ ö9mob /2 behind the wall and
ä ˆ 2ö9mob /3 in front.) Inspection of Caquot &
Kerisel's (1948) tables shows that the calculation
of earth pressure coef®cients using ä ˆ ö9mob /2
(rather than ä ˆ ö9mob ) is equivalent to an addi-
tional factor of safety of approximately 1´11 over
the range 188 , ö9mob , 368. Using ä ˆ 2ö9mob /3,
the additional factor of safety is reduced to
approximately 1´05. Thus the use of Fs ˆ 1´2 with
reduced wall friction as recommended by Pad®eld
& Mair (1984) will in general correspond approxi-
mately to Fs ˆ 1´2  1´08  1´3 with full wall
friction ä ˆ ö9mob .
Also for stiff clays, Simpson (1992) presents an
analysis which suggests that wall displacements
increase only gradually with decreasing factor of
safety Fs , and are unlikely to become critical at
Fs > 1´2 (assuming wall friction ä ˆ ö9mob ).
BS 8002 (British Standards Institution, 1994)
requires that an embedded retaining wall be
designed to be in equilibrium mobilizing the lesser
of (tan ö9peak ) 4 1´2 and tan ö9crit . Wall friction is
taken as tan ä/tan ö9mob ˆ 0´75, giving an addi-
tional factor of safety compared with taking
ä ˆ ö9mob of approximately 1´03 on the active
side. On the passive side the additional factor of
safety is very small (cf. Rowe & Peaker, 1965);
decreasing from 1´02 to less than 1´01 as ö9mob
increases from 158 to 358.
It is also necessary to allow for an additional
unplanned excavation of at least 10% of the re-
tained height h. This changes the design embed-
ment ratio from d/h to approximately [0´9  (d/h)
ÿ 0´1]. Using the nomograms presented by Bolton
et al. (1990b), together with some supplementary
calculations using the stress distributions shown in
Figs 1(a), 1(b) and 2, it can be shown that in a
uniform soil with unit weight 㠈 2ãw and ground-
water levels at the retained and excavated soil
surfaces, this change in the embedment ratio is
equivalent to an additional factor of safety on soil
strength Fs of at least 1´12 over the range
108 < ö9mob < 358, for both unpropped walls and
722
walls propped at the crest. In addition, a 10 kPa
surcharge must be assumed to act on the retained
soil surface.
Even if the surcharge requirement is ignored, a
wall designed in accordance with BS 8002 will
have an equivalent factor of safety Fs based on
ö9crit and ä ˆ ö9crit of between about 1´02  1´12
ˆ 1´14 for dense soils and (1´2  1´02  1´12) ˆ
1´37 for loose soils in which ö9peak ˆ ö9crit . On the
basis of the data presented in this paper, these
values would seem to be adequate. In the case of a
dense soil, however, there may be comparatively
little margin for error in the assessment of factors
such as groundwater conditions and soil strength.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this paper is to set out a rational
basis for the selection of soil parameters and
factors of safety for use in the conventional limit
equilibrium stress analysis of embedded retaining
walls. The success of the method depends on a
number of factors in addition to the selection of
appropriate soil parameters and an appropriate
factor of safety. These include the identi®cation
of the most onerous loading and geometrical
conditions, and the fullest consideration of ground-
water effects. The difference between a wall that
performs satisfactorily and a wall that suffers a
serviceability failure may be very slight: the
calculations summarized in Table 2 suggest that a
10% reduction in the real factor of safety Fs Ð
which could result from the overestimation of ö9crit
by only 28Ðmight make all the difference. Bearing
these points in mind, the following conclusions
may be drawn.
(a) The collapse of embedded cantilever retaining
walls that are either unpropped or propped
near the crest is in general well or slightly
conservatively predicted by classical limit
equilibrium stress distributions, using the earth
pressure coef®cients given by Caquot &
Kerisel (1948) with ä ˆ ö9 ˆ ö9crit on both
sides of the wall. The ability of the soil below
the base of the wall to maintain vertical
equilibrium without suffering a bearing failure
should be checked, particularly if the wall is
thin or the sub-soil is weak.
(b) It is logical to base the calculation of a design
depth of embedment on the limit equilibrium
stress distribution which predicts collapse, with
the soil strength reduced by a factor of safety
Fs or, in the parlance of BS 8002 (British
Standards Institution, 1994), a mobilization
factor M. This involves the use of earth
pressure coef®cients based on ä ˆ ö9 ˆ
ö9mob , where tan ö9mob ˆ (tan ö9crit )/Fs. The
case data examined in this paper suggest that
POWRIE
walls with Fs > 1´25 (or possibly Fs > 1´15)
would be expected to perform satisfactorily in
practice.
(c) The real factor of safety for a particular wall
may be higher or lower than that calculated in
either back-analysis or design, depending on
how conservatively the soil parameters and
various other uncertainties have been quanti-
®ed.
(d) The application of Fs ˆ 1´25 with wall friction
ä ˆ ö9 ˆ ö9mob is in general slightly less
conservative than the procedure recommended
by Pad®eld & Mair (1984) for stiff clays.
However, the procedure recommended in BS
8002 for dense soils may be only slightly more
conservative than the application of Fs ˆ 1´15
with wall friction ä ˆ ö9 ˆ ö9mob . This means
that particular care must be taken in the
identi®cation of the most onerous geometrical,
loading and groundwater conditions, and in the
quanti®cation of soil strength.
NOTATION
CN correction factor applied to SPT blowcount
d depth of retaining wall embedment
d depth below formation level at which net total
lateral stress on unpropped cantilever wall is zero
Fd factor of safety on wall embedment
Fnp factor of safety using net pressure method
Fp factor of safety applied to passive earth pressure
coef®cient
Fr factor of safety: `revised' method (Burland et al.,
1981)
Fs factor of safety applied to soil strength
g acceleration due to earth's gravity (9´81 m/s2 )
h retained height
hÅ excess head
Ka active earth pressure coef®cient
Kp passive earth pressure coef®cient
K0 in situ earth pressure coef®cient
M mobilization factor on soil strength (British
Standards Institution, 1994)
Mp fully plastic moment of steel beam
N SPT blowcount
N1 corrected SPT blowcount
Q equivalent toe force in simpli®ed stress analysis
for unpropped wall
r wall roughness angle
u pore water pressure
Wc set of collapse loads for structure
zp depth of pivot (unpropped wall) below formation
level
ã unit weight of soil
ãw unit weight of water
ä soil±wall interface friction angle
ämax maximum soil±wall interface friction angle
ämob mobilized soil±wall interface friction angle
r mass density
ó9h horizontal effective stress
ó9v vertical effective stress
ö9 soil angle of shearing resistance
 EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS
ö9crit critical state angle of shearing resistance
ö9mob mobilized angle of shearing resistance
ö9peak peak angle of shearing resistance
öw true friction angle between soil grains and wall
material
ö9ì true friction angle between soil grains
REFERENCES
Bolton, M. D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of
sands. GeÂotechnique 36, No. 1, 65±78.
Bolton, M. D. & Powrie, W. (1987). Collapse of
diaphragm walls retaining clay. GeÂotechnique 37,
No. 3, 335±353.
Bolton, M. D. & Powrie, W. (1988). Behaviour of
diaphragm walls in clay prior to collapse. GeÂotech-
nique 38, No. 2, 167±189.
Bolton, M. D., Powrie, W. & Symons, I. F. (1989). The
design of stiff in situ walls retaining overconsolidated
clay part 1: short-term behaviour. Ground Engng 22,
No. 8, 44±47.
Bolton, M. D., Powrie, W. & Symons, I. F. (1990a). The
design of stiff in situ walls retaining overconsolidated
clay part 1: short-term behaviour (continued). Ground
Engng 22, No. 9, 34±40.
Bolton, M. D., Powrie, W. & Symons, I. F. (1990b). The
design of stiff in situ walls retaining overconsolidated
clay part 2: long-term behaviour. Ground Engng 23,
No. 2, 22±28.
Bowles, J. E. (1988). Foundation analysis and design.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
British Steel General Steels (1988). Piling handbook, 6th
edn.
British Standards Institution (1994). Code of Practice for
earth retaining structures, BS 8002. London: BSI.
Burland, J. B., Potts, D. M. & Walsh, N. M. (1981). The
overall stability of free and propped embedded
cantilever walls. Ground Engng 14, No. 5, 28±38.
Caquot, A. & Kerisel, J. (1948). Tables for the
calculation of passive pressure, active pressure and
bearing capacity of foundations. Paris: Gauthier
Villars.
Carder, D. R. & Symons, I. F. (1989). Long-term
performance of an embedded cantilever retaining wall
in stiff clay. GeÂotechnique 39, No. 1, 55±75.
Hazen, A. (1892). Physical properties of sands and
gravels with reference to their use in ®ltration. Report
to the Massachusetts State Board of Health.
723
Kerisel, J. & Absi, E. (1990). Active and passive pressure
tables. Rotterdam: Balkema.
King, G. J. W. & McLoughlin, J. P. (1993) Centrifuge
model studies of a cantilever retaining wall in sand.
In Retaining structures (edited by C. R. I. Clayton).
London: Institution of Civil Engineers.
Pad®eld, C. J. & Mair, R. J. (1984). Design of retaining
walls embedded in stiff clays, report 104. London:
Construction Industry Research and Information
Association.
Pappin, J. W., Simpson, B., Felton, P. J. & Raison, C.
(1986). Numerical analysis of ¯exible retaining walls.
Proceedings of symposium on computer applications
in geotechnical engineering. Birmingham: Midland
Geotechnical Society.
Powrie, W. & Li, E. S. F. (1991). Analysis of in situ
retaining walls propped at formation level. Proc. Inst.
Civ. Engrs 91, Part 2, 853±873.
Rowe, P. W. (1951). Cantilever sheet piling in cohesion-
less soil. Engineering 51, Sept., 316±319.
Rowe, P. W. (1952). Anchored sheet pile walls. Proc.
Instn Civ. Engrs 1, Part 1, 27±70.
Rowe, P. W. (1955). A theoretical and experimental
analysis of sheet pile walls. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 4,
Part 1, 32±69.
Rowe, P. W. (1963). Stress±dilatancy, earth pressures and
slopes. J. Soil Mech. Fdn Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs
89, SM3, 37±61.
Rowe, P. W. & Peaker, K. (1965). Passive earth pressure
measurements. GeÂotechnique 15, No. 1, 57±78.
Simpson, B. (1992) Retaining structures: displacement
and design. 32nd Rankine lecture. GeÂotechnique 42,
No. 4, 541±576.
Skempton, A. W. (1986). Standard penetration test
procedures and the effects in sands of overburden
pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and
overconsolidation. GeÂotechnique 36, No. 2, 425±447.
Stroud, M. A. (1989). The standard penetration testÐits
application and interpretation. In Penetration testing
in the UK, pp. 29±49. London: Thomas Telford.
Symons, I. F. (1983). Assessing the stability of a propped
in situ retaining wall in overconsolidated clay. Proc.
Instn Civ. Engrs 75, Part 2, pp. 617±633.
Symons, I. F. (1991). Discussion of Limit equilibrium
methods for free embedded cantilever walls in
granular materials by A. V. D. Bica and C. R. I.
Clayton. Proc Instn Civ. Engrs 90, Part 1, 213±216.
Terzaghi, K. (1954). Anchored bulkheads. Trans. Am.
Soc. Civ. Engrs 119, 1243±1280.