Example 5 : RETAINING WALL BASE DESIGN

Using the Eurocode design philosophy and the provisional buried-footing interaction diagrams deduce: (i) an acceptable breadth for the base with a burial depth D = 0; (ii) reduce this arbitrarily by 2m and use the above interaction diagrams to arrive at a plausible burial depth D for this case. Although the (V,H) forces will generate moments M about an axis through the centreline of the base you will find that they are (or can be) quite small and therefore a 2D (V,H) interaction diagram is adequate for your purpose. [You might also like to answer the same questions using any traditional approach, the NGI charts or information in Powrie or Bowles etc.] Assume that the soil involved is granular = 30 (the Eurocode (4/5)tan material strength reduction factor leads to = 25 for use in failure calculations). The wall-fill is drained, =18 kN/m3 and the base is well above GWL, so no water pressure effects need to be considered in this case and h = 8m.

Use the bold outline dimensions in your calculations and ignore the weights of the concrete wall stem and the base. The forces transmitted to the wall-base are: V = a h and H = ka h2 /2. The simplest procedure for you to follow is probably: a. Select a trial value for B and, 3 or 4 possible pairs of (a,b) values. b. Calculate the (V, H) loads. H will be constant throughout. c. From these deduce the equivalent resultant force system referred to the mid-point of the underside of the base (Vo, Ho, Mo/B), say. d. Calculate Nq and N, hence Vmax (for D= 0). . e. Draw the D = 0 failure envelope (interaction diagram) and add the calculated values of (Vo, Ho, Mo/B)/ Vmax. At failure they will lie on (or close to) the envelope. The effect of (Mo/B)/Vmax is assumed to be close to zero. f. REPEAT this process with different values of B until success is achieved!

For the second part of the exercise reduce the successful B (for D= 0) value to (B - 1.5)m. Repeat the above process (B is now FIXED) for a range of consistent (a, b) and (D/B) = (0.25, 0.5,1.0) [note that, in these diagrams, Vmax is assumed to be a linear function of D/B ].

Also note that the moment axis and therefore the force origin, should now be located NOT at footing base level but at a depth of 2D/3 (WHY?).
Draw the set of shallow-buried-footing parabole and plot your calculated (V/Vmax, H/Vmax) results to estimate the minimum acceptable value of D = d.B. IF you are enthused by all this, you could do a second similar set of calculations to determine a B (and a D/B) value for a hazard in which the wall drainage becomes blocked, resulting in the water level being raised to 5m above the wall base. A reasonable flow net under the wall (you might check this too?) provides an uplift pore-wter pressure distribution that varies, approximately linearly, across the base from 5m of water to zero adjacent to the lateral-resistance downstand. There will also be an additional horizontal water pressure force acting on the wall: so the force system becomes a bit more complicated! IF YOU DO EXPLORE THIS PROBLEM YOU WILL FIND THAT SUCH A DRAIN BLOCKAGE WOULD BE DISASTROUS --- THIS IS THE MOST COMMON CAUSE OF WALL COLLAPSE!! General Remarks 1. If the equation to the full (V, H, M/B) envelope is known (as it is for the D = 0 case) then, for the wall footing , it can be expressed in terms of (a, b) as the only unknowns. Computer packages can find roots of this equation (cigar==0 ,say), within specified ranges of (a and b), that lie precisely on the surface of the cigar. 2. Further than this, a more sophisticated analytical package allows you to pose the problem in a form such as: Minmize[a+b, cigar==0, {a,b}] which provides the exact minimum values of a and b that satisfy cigar==0. 3. This can be done for the buried footing cases if, for example, we make the FURTHER assumption that the cross-sections of them are all similarly rotated and have the same axis ratios. The problem can now be posed as one in linear algebra to find a minimum D = d.B value in a form such as: Minimize[ (a+b) d, {buriedcigar == 0, list ranges for a,b,d}, { a,b,d}]. The cost function (a+b) d can also be modified to take account of the fact that buried downstand construction is much more expensive than a groundbearing slab e.g. Minimize[(a+b) + 3 (a+b) d 4. A piled-base may provide a cheaper solution especially if there are restrictions on the breadth of footing that can be accommodated efficiently.

5 IT IS VITAL TO REMEMBER that, in a design office, ALL your calculations and conclusions WILL be checked by someone

else. Therefore they MUST ALWAYS be presented CLEARLY and CONCISELY!! 6. COMPLETING ALL OF THE ABOVE IS QUITE A DEMANDING TASK AND THEREFORE A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE SUBMISSION DOES NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE A FULL ANALYSIS OF EITHER: (i) THE INUNDATED WALL OR (ii) A TRADITIONAL DESIGN OF THE BASE.

PROCEDURES FOR CHECKING (V,H,M/B)/Vmax ON A RETAINING WALL BASE OVER A RANGE OF PARAMETERS
COURSEWORK EXAMPLE supplementary notes: I though that our discussion of this problem did not end with an adequate explanation of how to proceed. These notes are intended to rectify this.

H = ( ka h2)/2

V=ah h/3

B a b

D = d.B

PROBLEM INPUT: wall height (h = 8m for example), soil unit weight, soil friction angle, WALL & BASE WEIGHTS ARE NEGLECTED including them, as a refinement, will increase V and also M (slightly).

B = (a+b) is to be found for, if possible, a failure-state surface footing for the wall using a reduced value of = 25deg, otherwise a downstand will be needed. 1. One approach is simply to calculate the loads, for a trial value of B = 9m (say) and a range of (a, b) values to find a set of results that best fit the failure criteria; (V/Vmax <= 1, H/Vmax <= .125, M/BVmax <= ,09). The following output from this process suggests that any of them could provide a solution [PLOT THEM] -- since M/BVmax is very small

a 7.5 7. 6.5 6. 5.5

b 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5

Vert Vmax 0.328814 0.306893 0.284972 0.263051 0.24113

Hor Vmax 0.106762 0.106762 0.106762 0.106762 0.106762

HMom BLVmax 0.0200484 0.0133504 0.00787012 0.00360772 0.000563146

These are the corresponding results using = 30degrees ; obviously they will also be OK.

a 7.5 7. 6.5 6. 5.5

b 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5

Vert Vmax 0.147462 0.137631 0.1278 0.117969 0.108139

Hor Vmax 0.0393232 0.0393232 0.0393232 0.0393232 0.0393232

HMom BLVmax 0.00518847 0.00218462 0.000273077 0.00218462 0.00355001

The dimensionless (H/Vmax, V/Vmax) parabolic failure locus is plotted below together with the (a, b) = (6.5 , 2.5) [i.e. B = 9m] load points for = 25 (in blue) and = 30 (in red). NB The locus clearly needs to be rather larger, try the (a, b) = (7.5, 1.5) solution or perhaps B should be increased to 9.5m, say : SEE BELOW

0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

2. IF THE FULL 3D FAILURE LOCUS IS KNOWN THEN an 'accurate' solution can be obtained directly by calculating failure points that lie exactly on the cigar .

THIS RESULT IS SHOWN BELOW FOR THE D = 0 CASE . (B, a, b) are now direct OUTPUT not estimated input The (known) equation to the 3D, surface footing, cigar is: (11 M/(Vmax B))^2 + (8 H/Vmax)^2 + 0.44*88*H* M/(Vmax^2*B) - (4(V/Vmax)*(1 - V/Vmax))^2 = 0 (1)

(You can check this by either, plotting it, checking the parabolas when H= 0 or M/B = 0, or by plotting the largest, inclined elliptic cross-section when (V/Vmax = 0.5)), A wall-loading case lies in the upper small quadrant of the inclined ellipse, A non-inclined ellipse has no H*M term. When (V, H , M/B), for specific values of h and soil properties, are expressed in terms of (a, b) [ as also done in section 1] this equation can be solved to find pairs of (a, b) values that lie precisely on the inclined cigar. Typical output is shown below from which (7.75, 1.5) and (7.25, 2.0) are possible exact solutions. [NOW cf. this approach with any more conventional solution method based various multiplying factors!]

b 1 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5 4.

a 8.30491 7.7453 7.26626 6.86459 6.53448 6.26836 6.05796

B 9.30491 9.2453 9.26626 9.36459 9.53448 9.76836 10.058

3. The final stage in this progression would be to treat equation(1), when (V, H , M/B) are expressed in terms of (a, b) , as a constraint in a minimisation procedure to minimise (a+b). i.e. find (a+b)min subject to equation(1) as a function [a,b]. Packages are available which do such operations, providing directly, as an optimum solution: B = 9.24m; a = 7.62m; b = 1.62m NB: IF THERE IS INSUFFICIENT SPACE in-situ FOR A FOOTING WITH a = 7.6 m THEN, SINCE WE KNOW THAT a = 4m IS TOO NARROW FOR SURFACE FOOTING A SOLUTION WITH AN INCREASED b AND A 'DOWNSTAND' WILL BE REQUIRED (or a piled foundation etc !).

When a full 3D model, incorporating M/B loading, becomes available for buried footings a direct solution could be found for this case also, seeking (a, b, D) essentially as in 3 above. See also the development for buried footings in the attached Mathematica procedure.
RB 13/10/2012