Paper: Bolton Ordinary meeting ‘A paper tobe presented and discussed tthe Instiution of Structural Engineers on Thursday 21 November 1996 at & 0pm. Geotechnical design of retaining walls M.D, Bolton, MA, MSc, PhD, CEng, MICE Department of Engineering, Cambridge University Males Boon graduated rom Carieen 1967, tnd ok Se ranching Deh of Sacto af Manchest Unaray f 1959 he ene LWuST help sep te Ur ft etc modeling cout He romaine at UMIST a 3 [ect 199 ring tet A gd i Toei. retamad to CanbrageUnery i [swe he ls me Rede Geter Enginceingond Diecor sf Gesrael Corfe Care Synopsis The safe and economic design of a retaining wall depends on the ‘appropriate mobilisation of strength inthe adjacent soil. Dense soil tends to be brittle, so tha it loses is strength even under strains compatible with the expected displacement of walls. Loose soll tends to be so compliant that i fails to fully develop its available strength. These two concerns are central tothe neve design methodology adopted by BS8002 Code of practice for carth-retaining structures. Examples are given ofthe selection of design values for the strength of a variety of soils. The reasons for suspicion regarding the cohesion of clays are expounded. An extended example is then provided ofthe design of a simple cantilever retaining wall, {following BS8002. It is shown how to construct a free-body diagram in equilibrium with design earth pressures. Ths is then used to derive a first estimate of bending moments inthe wal. ‘Some circumstances are then diseussed in which the moment of resistance should be increased. However, iis demonstrated that ‘the equilibriun condition places a strict ypper bound on any such The concept of mobilisable soil strength offers a logical and scientific basis for the design ofall geotechnical structures. It can ‘be seen as satisfying all the objective requirements of the limit State method with none of the attendant difficulties of the partial factor format Introduction ‘The new Code for earth retaining structures', BSBOO2, i git revolution= sary but atthe same time itis quite elementary to epply The radical tep has been to liminate the various safety factors against sliding, overtuming. et, hich were used in CP2 (1951)? together withthe salty factor of 2 on pas. sive pressure. Instead, tere is simply advice on the derivation ofa design soil strength which satisfies both safety and serviceability and on the ere ation ofa design scenario which features worst-erdibe loods and the most ‘unfavourable environment that could reasonably be assumed forthe ro- posed structure. Il the designer then has to doi ost global an then local equilibrium of the strctue under the action of earth pressures which correspond tothe design soil strengths, ‘This approach is set out a limit state design method, but itcan also be Seen as a permissible stress method. Since the design strength will never exceed the peak soil strength reduced by a factor M, adherent of pati fae- ‘ors can imagine that M sa partial factor Those who insist on using the tem ‘safety factor’ can see M asa safety factor on sol strength. Infact Mis 3 mobilisation facto which has been derived from the need to contol dis placements. Those who make non-linear nite element analyses of retin ing walls may lke to check that a wall designed using the advisory value ‘of Mf does not displace by more than 0.5% of ts eight in moderate to good soil ‘The explicit treatment of equilibrium and deformation are the keystones ‘The Structural Engineer/Volume 74/No 21/5 November 1996 of the new design method. The approach can be recommended forthe design of al classes of geotechnical structure or foundation, if he magni tude of permissible displacement is carefully reflected in the mobilisstion factor. The am ofthis paper is ose out these nestle calulations 50 as to demonstrat ther ease of use. Designers should note in particular that the ‘ew approach leaves them free to apply whatever earth pressure coefficients, ‘mechanisms, or methods of plastic analysis they a find preferable in any Particular aplication. However, those wishing to update frm CP2 (1951) ' BS8002 (1994) must equally update their basi sil mechanics this is treated first, Density of soil ‘The density of sil p depends omits void rato e, the degree of saturstion oft voids 5, fom 0 (dy) to 1 (2e0 ait Voids), and the specifi gravity G, ofits grains. The bu density can then be exprested in elation tothe dent sity of water p, = 1000 kg? P= Po (Gres ee) ~l) For Sreedrining soils, the term relative density Ji also used to indicate the position ofthe cuent voids ratio on a linea scale from the densest achievable efter vibration (ny /p = 1) othe loosest achievable by quick slumping (¢ga, fo = 0). For fine-grained soils, the water content remains constant during sampling und it can be related tothe voids ratio by the expression w= ¢ 5/6, ‘Strength parameters for soils Soil comprises rains and voids. It maybe egardéd either asa single-phase ‘material or as composite material for which th grains and voids are dealt with separately ‘The shear strength cof «mixed material lke conerete or epoxy cement ‘is usually quoted asa given ‘cohesive’ strength which ithe maximum pos sible shear sess which can be induced = tm @ tis recognised that c will depend onthe parcular mixture, and in the case of sl it i found that th void ratio sof first importance cxf) ® ‘hough more careful inspection revels that preconsolidation pressure and rate of shearing also have some influence. Unlike coneet, the voids in oil are not fixed in place; water can move and voids can collapse or expand ‘Ths is such a srong feutue that engineers have become uncomfortable using the cohesive material model for soi except with fully saturated, uni formly fine-grained clay inthe shor term, when ts tlaiveimpermeabili- ty keeps its voids ratio constant. ‘Modem composite materials, such as fibre-einforoed plastic, are often treated as dal-phase with thei components fist considered separately and then superimposed. This echoes Trzaghis earlier treatment of soil as atW0- ‘phase mateil with separable ‘effective stresses”, and ‘pre pressures 1, cated by the aggregate skeleton andits voids. In this vie, total tess- 8" (G, 1) do to gravity can decomposed thus: nomalstess = 0'+u shearstess t27, “ ‘The simplest dealisation of the shear strength of a granular aggrepateis in teams ofthe angle of internal fiction Oy, where 10 x % ‘brit has fo be recognised that intemal fiction depends not only on iter: particle friction but also on the degree of particle interfocking. Interlocking leads both odilatancy and an extra compotent of internal angle offi tion Ap. Soil shears at constat volume under particular conditions of high Ge 365Paper: Bolton stress or low density known a ertial states’ for which the angle of fic= ‘on canbe regarded asa constant, Q,. In general conitions of shearing ‘wth latency the to components of internal ction both contibute: Boas = Ba +A © “Te cilatant component of friction cates amos all he potential uncertsity for the designer since it can bes high as 2° for the densest packing of rigid ‘angular grains, but ean reduce to Zero if there isa reduction either in the Segree of compaction orn the strength ofthe gains eatve tothe imposed stresses. In other words, dba feo) m ‘as expressed in Bolton Since dilatancy is irevesible, like a ratchet and Drv it also fllows thet 80 = Oat are stains. For example, it may take {granular material ofthe oder of2% strain to reach peak strength With yaa butt wl hen ake a shear displacement of only about S particle diameters fon a slip plane forthe fiction 10 09 10 Gj ‘Certain presumed values of intral fiction are given in BSB002, section 122, Tables 2,3, and 4, They shouldbe replaced by measurements wherev- tx his is practical, For granular materials, which may be dificult © sam ple, Table 3 breaks down the components of rcton angle thus One 304A 4B a Soa = dea + C the. C= 84) a were A and B are components ofthe basic erica state fition due respec: tively, to angulaity and grading and Cis the maximum possible dltant ‘component based ona SPT blow-count corrected for stes level t's important to realise tht the shear strength of sol (any soi, et any time) can be estimated ether following (2) while allowing for (3), 0 fol Towing (4 5,6) while allowing for (7, 8,9). Is the relative ease of mak ing the appropriate allowances in different circumstances which hus led 19 the short cut of reserving the word “undraind’ forthe short-term cohesive strength of lay at conskant voids ratio and the word ‘drained for the long ten fictional strength of any soil whose pore pressures are no longer & function ofthe foading (60 that they can be estimated easly fom a hydranlic analysis) “The angle of internal friction must then be recognised tobe a variable. 'BS8002 isthe first UK Code of Practice to specify that designers must not depen on diataney i soils. For safety: eg 5 Bae 0) "This was judged proper sinc: ~ walls often supporto ely on natural soils whose density is uncertain fully softened slip surfaces may develop in the sil before the walls competed ~ accidental movements may oocur because of flooding, loading, orexei- ‘ation at the toe ‘retaining wall properly designed tothe new Code would behave as plas- tis ductile structure even if it were subjected to excessive accidental load- ing. This harmonises with the structoral engineer’ approach, following Ronan Point, tothe design of wallsin buildings which may be asked to sur vive the lateral pressure of explosions. Reliance on brite, disconinuous behaviour s widely accepted a bad structural practice Total stress analysis v. effective stress analysis Following the coining ofthe term ‘effective stress analysis’ to describe the treatment of soil asa two-phase materia, the term “total stress analysis fume tobe used forthe single-phase treatment in which pore water pressures Simply donot appear. I would have been much beter to refer to “cohesion And ition’ models of behaviour, as indicated in eqns (2) and (S), respec tively. Engineers have become confused about the fac that both models can be applied simultaneously tall sis. Tey lt this confusion cloud their judgment regarding which model to chose in any particular set of cixcum- ‘anves, The artis simpy to select material idealisation whose parameter an be estimated with least uncertainty. “Any tendeney forthe pore water to din externally wil ead to changes cof voids catio and therefore to changes of ‘cohesion’ which are iffcult predict quantitatively. Fr this reason the drained strength of soils almost Invariably assesoed using effective stresses and fiction. Any tendency (0 drain aterally should lead to the same conclusion, but with greater dan ‘gersincethe time for transient low (swelling, in this case) is much reduces Since the drainage pa are rich shorter This happens wit stiff, overcon- Solidated soils suchas London clay which indulge in brite shesr rupture 166 forming weitened or soRened zones of siding within the mass, long before TTerzaghi’s consolidation theory would have predicted. Whenever the ‘mdained strength of a soll excoeds its drained strength tis vulnerable to “rainag, whether through preexisting sand layer or fissures Toud-ndeed ‘hear ruptures or tensile ecks, Understood in terms of pore pressures, all Such eases ean be seen as dve tothe quicker than-anteipated relaxation of ‘emporaily reduced pore pressures. ‘His wrong to risk unin life onthe hope that suction canbe maintained in fine-grained soils, What i satisfactory for the taxdise onthe wind- ‘ereen, or te rubber cup which pegs a towel to the kitchen wall is unsat- {slactory fora retaining wall - mainly beceuse the robber cup or plastic disc {is manufactured specifically to maintain suction while the ground is fll of tundiscoverable flaws (an leaky sewers, waler mains, et) Fortis reason, the undeuined srengh of clay in aoa tes analysis shouldbe allowed toruleindesign only when is inferior tothe drained friction analysis which ‘must slays accompany it, This ocurs with ightly over-consolidated clay (Ge. mad), Otherwise, clays which ae firm or stiff will appear stronger in tndiained strength ealcultion: they rust e set aside, and replaced by ‘rained calculations based on internal ection and conservative water pres ‘sitet, BS8002 expounds this philosophy a length, and in various sec- tions, inclding 223,333 and33, Mobilisation of strength Good granular soils less tf than concrete by a factor of between 10° and 10 Nevertheless, structural engineers have ben slow to recognise thatthe ‘compliance of sil, expressed asthe sain required to mobilise its strength, is actually the contolling factor in the design of eath-etaining structures. Its eaily demonstrated” that a wall which rotates by 1/200 mobilses average compressive and ensile strains of 20.5 107 in adjacent earth, cor- ‘eponding to an average shear sian of 1. BS8002 took the view tat are ‘er wall rations would not generally be acceptable, and therefore stout to fimit the design strength of soils to that which coud be mobilised at 16 shear stan, Tis is snilar approach 10 thet often adopted for ductile loys, where 30.2% proof stress (or example) means a design stress which Inebilses 0.2% strain ina standard test. This doesnot preclude more care fulanalyses of deformation; nor dos itimply that larger stain are exclud fat every pont in the material simply by introducing a blanket estrition fon design sess, What it does achieve is the seting ofa standard forthe ‘maximum mobilisation of stength which is consistent with the maximum permissible deformation of the strctre asa hole. Tn the future, engineers must be encouraged to specify and use stress- steain tests to determine the permissible mobilsuion of strength. For the ‘present, BS8002 simply specifies a peak strength reduction factor M, called {he "mebilisation factor’, which wins 10 sats the 1% shear stun citer- ‘on. Following some inspeton of dat, twas decided that soils which were ft leat “medium dene” ot ‘frm shoud he designed to permissible stress suing a value M = 15 against eqn (3), anda value M= 1.2 against qa (3) Softer soli sid to requite a greater mobilisation factor, tis would have to be seleced from a stress-strain et mobilising 1% shear strain (or some ther magnitude corresponding to the desired eontcol of wall displace- ‘ments, For serviceability sens Sol ay Engineers who insist on having a factor of safety’, but who fi to ake soi strains ino account, rst simply realise thatthe one compensates fr the Tuck ofthe othe. Ths as been explained previously by the author. BSBOO2 ‘makes ths explicit, reserving the word ‘safety’ to problems of collapse ‘Which involves On, and using the concept of ‘serviceability forthe con- uot of deformations by means of «mobilisation factor ont Om (aking the effective stress analysis of sands as a typical example) "This isa design decision, nota deformation analysis, I it were desired ‘to price wall displacements very accurately, it would be necessary to per- {orm a numerical anlyss with some non-linear sol-stractre interaction package and some carefully selected stress-strain curves. The intial earth pressures, the method of wall installation, and the construction sequence, ‘would al be highly significant determinants of the final wall displacements "These issues are mentioned, but are not detailed, in BSHOO2, Walls designed {0 BS8002 should nevertheless dsplae by no more than about 05% of their height his is «general feature ofthe plastic mobilisation concept Establishing strength parameters for various soil types Ie wlll n order to demonstrate the new approach, o tke some exam- ples. Soi! ype A: wellgraded granular fill, compacted in layers by & method. ‘The Structural Enginoer/ Volume 74/No 21/5 November 1996Paper: Bolton ‘which guarantees at last 92% of Proctor optimum density. For atypical specific gravity G, = 2.66, and maximum and minimum voids ratios ey = (8 and egy = 0.5 which sre typical for such il the corresponding densi tis from (1) would be: TABLE 1 ~ Typical densities of granular fill t=, | 0000 033 086 7.00 kg/m? | loosest | toose-medium | medium-dense | densest Dey ise 1565 To88 1773 Saturated | 1922 wi | 2038 2100 {Wuhe Proctor density test were o achieve the maximum relative density the feld-compacted dry density would be 925 of I773kg/m", i. 163g However, experience proves that the standard laboratory cocapaction test oes not quite achieve this. A designer might insted rely on achieving only relative density fp = 0.66 in the field, with a dry density of 156Skg/mn® and 8 saturated density of 2038kg/m’, well graded fl is likely t0 contain ‘enough ines to retina high capillary water content even wien drained, The 6°. 0 eax = 36%, which convers the situation toa stengt-miing design with, sea = Ga = 30% Soil 9pe Ca natural firm to sti, glacial clay with fequent sity and sandy laminations, a natural water content cloke to the plastic limit of 15%, and & liquid limit of 30%, these Aterber limits being determined forthe most clayey material. Since the plasticity index is 30% ~ 15% = 15%, BS8O02, “Table 2 suggest a presumed value for fy, 30. The limate fetion angle recorded fir large displacements in a direct shear test on a submerged clayey sample, sheared very slovly so that its freely drained, is one prac- ‘ical method of obtaining du in the laboratory, Ths critical tte angle of friction sets an upper bound tothe design angle offetion to be use in rained stability analysis, {eshould be much more common for enginets to demand undrained ti ‘xial teats with pore-pressure measurement for clay sales und to ask for ‘The Structural Engineer/Volume 74/No 21/8 November 1996 ‘the measorement of axial strain € over an internal gauge ength-1¢ would then be posible to confirm that osx 230° by drawing a Mohr circle of effective stes a the serviceability limiting sta. An experienced geo? ecnical engineer who was also a risk-takerenight aovept, without check ing, that his would be the case for an over-consolidatedlow-plasticlty clay ‘atthe plastic limit, and might therefore fel free to use 30° in design. AA generalist who was not prepared to get samples tested would have to se the presumed value ay = 30° and Would have to neglect the possible iation at peak strength 50 that he or she would assume that A9 = 0, end therefore that Gy, = 30. This is equivalent to the c= O assumption when ‘sing strength envelopes; any strength above a lowerbound @,icline is ‘ignored. If the peak strength were only 30, smaller valve must obvious ly be used in design. The generalist would apply the Code's mobilisation actor 0 obtain ga = ta (Lan30")/1.2) = 25.7, OF course, the assump ‘ion that @ Mf vale of 1.2 protects suficiently against soi! mobilisation would have been unjustified if the clay had been described as sof. Undrained strength calculations are generally unsafe fr eetaiing walls Since drainage can occur. Suppose thatthe SPT blow-count forthe clay was 15 to 30. Empirical correlations then suggest thatthe undruined shear strength may be 75 to 1SOKPa, However, the laminated sol fabric reported cair would strongly indicate that no such interpretation be used, and cet- tainly not where it indicated a smaller ative pressure, or large passive pressure, than that which eould be derived on the basis of completely drained behaviour Design earth pressures: effective stress analysis Earth pressures acting on a wall due to surcharge q and unit weight yin the seighbouring sol are calculated using effective siress analysis as follows: find she nominal venice sess t «point, ©, = ¢ so that ~ declare wheter the ground at thst oie i tending wo subside and ‘pred iteraly(active mobiston) oo heave following lateral con ‘ton (use mbisaton) sels an cart pressure coven (Ko ative mobilstion o Ky foc passive moblistion, which a ineton of the selected internal angl oft ofthe gg and elected vale ofthe engl of fiction whi canbe mobil aginst he wall ag 8 acute th ses on the wal, (=) Usualy, was wil be rough, in the sense that their surface texture exceeds the meun panicle size. In those citeumstances BS8002 instruc the design. ertoassumethat (tend /tand)<075, For atypical granlan fil (ol type A.ubove) with jig = 36, this gives dad 28.6% Formulae, tables or chars of the designer's choice can then be entered to interpolate for K, of 4, at 8 (0.8, Conservative values are found by using Rankine’s coem- cients based on zero wal friction. Unconservative values ate provided by Coulomb's wedge mechanisms. The most reliable values are found from ‘applications ofthe method of characteristics; abultions ona stir basis se found in Kerisel & Absi®. Limiting value ofthe order of 0.21 and 8.7, respectively, will be obained fora vertical wall retaining horizontal ill n this cas, 80 tht guy’ 2021 0, and yoy <8.7 Oy Design earth pressures: total stress analysis arth pressures acting on a wall due to surcharge q and uit weight yin the neighbouring solar calculsted sing tal sess analysis a follows find the nominal vertical stress at apoin, oy = q+ Ye ~ declare whether the ground at that point is tending to subside and spread aterally active mobilisation) orto heave following lateral con- Sreton (passive mobilisation) ~ select an equilibrium factor N which sa funeton of the proportion c ofthe cohesive stengthc, of te soll which can be mobilised onthe face ofthe wall, where fora simple vertical wal against a level stratum of clay W takes values from 2.00 to 2.57 as einereases from 0 to 1 calculate the stress onthe Wall, = 6, Ney for pesive,— for ative ‘The approach given in BS8002 ainounts tothe same procedure. Design ‘The only requirement of BS8002is hat walls should be shown tobe in quic librium under the aston of permissible earth pressures no more extreme tha those calculated as design earth pressures, Safety and serviceablity i deliv cred by the selection ofthe value of design soil strength, fom which earth pressures have been deduced. At the same ime, water tables ee to be set ‘as high as would be reasonable, a surcharge of i east 1OkPe is generally 367 EES EEE SEES SSS ee