SOUTÈNEMENTS GRAVITAIRES

GRAVITY WALLS

2012 - 2013

Fabrice EMERIAULT
OUTLINE

Introduction

The different types of gravity walls

Failure mechanisms

Active and passive pressure distributions

The effect of water

Stability of gravity walls

INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION

Retaining walls

What are they used for ?

What are the main mechanisms involved ?

Gravity walls

Flexible walls
THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF
GRAVITY WALLS
STONE WALLS

No joints = Drainage of the wall

JOINTED STONE WALLS

Joint between stones = no drainage

Additionnal weep hole must be installed
Typical cross section of a jointed stone wall
 Gravity wall – non reinforced concrete

Permeable backfill

No steel bars
Possible buttresses
Reinforced concrete walls
bedded in a footing
Reinforced concrete wall – 1 cast in place
 Reinforced concrete walls – 2 precast walls

Partially precast wall

 Reinforced concrete walls – 2 precast walls

Totally precast wall

Chapsol: mur préfabriqué

Example of the drainage system
GABION WALLS

Steel wire cages filled with stones

PELLER WALLS
DELTA WALLS
LOEFL WALLS

Parement en éléments béton cellulaire

Possible reinforcement of the backfill soil by layers of geosynthetics
REINFORCED EARTH WALLS - TERRE ARMÉE®

Reinforcement by horizontal steel strips

linked to the precast facing elements
REINFORCEMENT BY GEOSYNTHETICS
3D GEOSYNTHETICS CELLS
FAILURE MECHANISMS
FAILURE BY SLIDING
FAILURE BY OVERTURNING

Rotation of the wall Applied force of the footing

(even for rock foundation) reaches the soil bearing capacity
GLOBAL FAILURE
INTERNAL FAILURE
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS
 q

H
Active / passive pressure distribution
=
Sum of 3 contributions
Soil:
Unit weight γ
Friction angle φ
Cohesion c
Contribution 1 Soil:
Unit weight γ
Friction angle φ
Cohesion c=0

q=0

H
σ = Kaγ γ H cos δ

δ τ = Kaγ γ H sin δ
49
Contribution 2 Soil:
Unit weight γ=0
q Friction angle φ
Cohesion c=0

H
σ = Kaq q cos δ

δ τ = Kaq q sin δ
51
Contribution 3 (active pressure) Soil:
Unit weight γ=0
q = c / tan φ Friction angle φ
Cohesion c

q = c / tan φ

H
σ = c / tan φ (Kac cos δ − 1)

δ τ = Kac c / tan φ sin δ

Kac < 1
From shear strength point of view, the 2 situations are equivalent:

σ0 = 0 and c
τ c = 0 and σ0 = c / tan φ
tan φ

c σ

c / tan φ
τ
tan φ

c=0 σ

σ0 = c / tan φ
 Contribution 3 (Passive pressure) Soil:
Unit weight γ=0
Friction angle φ
Cohesion c

σ = c / tan φ (Kpc cos δ − 1)

τ = Kpc c / tan φ sin δ

q = c / tan φ
Kpc > 1

q = c / tan φ H
δ<0
THE EFFECT OF WATER
 Presence of water Soil:
(unconfined ground water) Unit weight γ
Buoyant unit weight γ’
Friction angle φ

σ = Kaγ γ ‘ H cos δ + γw Η
H

τ = Kaγ γ ‘ H sin δ
δ

≈ 0.3
K =1
Without
σ = Kaγ γ H cos δ water
Impervious coating Impervious coating
Gutter

Avoid the ingress of storm water close to the back side

of the wall and the rapid development of pressure
Permeable backfill
Permeable backfill

Weep hole Filter

Drain

Avoid the ingress of water of infiltration close to the back

side of the wall and the slow development of pressure
STABILITY OF GRAVITY WALLS
 STABILITY OF GRAVITY WALLS

Different applied loads

Determination of the active force P

Verification of the external stability

Traditionnalmethod

Global method

Verification of the internal stability

Verification of the overall stability

Particular cases

Unreinforced walls

Reinforced concrete walls –cantilever walls

Terre armée

Rough design
 DIFFERENT APPLIED LOADS q

W : weight of the
wall
R : sum of P and W
P1
characterised by P
δp
δ and e
W R P: sum of the active
force P1 and P2

δ
P2
δp

Passive pressure:
e
generally not
considered B
DETERMINATION OF THE ACTIVE FORCE P

P results from P1 q

and P2

P1 and P2 are
calculated by the P1
P
δ
adequate method: p

Coulomb

Boussinesq

others…
P2
δp

B
VERIFICATION OF THE EXTERNAL STABILITY:
TRADITIONAL METHOD

Seperate verification of the 3 possible failure

mechanisms:

Failure by overturning (rotation)

Failure by sliding on the base

Failure by reaching the soil bearing capacity
Overturning q
(rotation)
Stabilizing moment : W.X
Driving moment: P.d
P
Main criticism:
rotation safety factor W Assumes that the rotation
W .X
Fr = > 1 .5 point is the point
P.d downstream of the
foundation
Only true if the foundation
d
X
is hard rock

B
 q
Overturning
(rotation)
Other approach: - Soil of good quality: e/B < 1/6 (central third)
The relative excentricity
e/B is considered as - Stiff soil (rock): e/B < 1/4

characterising the risk of

- Soft soil: e/B close to 0
possible failure R

ee
B
B
 Sliding q

The driving force T is compared to the

maximum resisting shear force that
can be mobilized Tmax at the base of
the foundation
T = R.sin δ and N = R.cos δ

Tmax =N. tg φ + c B (Mohr-Coulomb) N R

δ
The safety factor against sliding is thus:
Fg = (R.cos δ. tg φ + c B)/ (R.sin δ)
T
e
In general, c is considered = 0 B
Then Fg = tg φ / tg δ
Bearing capacity
Main assumption: trapezoïdal q
distribution of stress under the
foundation
If e/B > 1/6
A triangular distribution is
Thus assumed
qmax = N/B.(1+6e/B)
N
qmin = N/B.(1- 6e/B) B

Verify the condition: e

qmax < qu/Fq

qmin
δ
qmax
qu calculated without considering e and
Fq=3
VERIFICATION OF THE EXTERNAL STABILITY:
GLOBAL METHOD

Approach that considers the stability of the q

wall as a problem of bearing capacity of a
foundation loaded by a inclined force

Automatically accounts for the 3 types of

failure:
- Overturning (excentricity) R
- Sliding (δ)
- Bearing capacity
δ

e
B

Serviceability limit state:

Foundation entirely under compression qmin > 0

qref < qu/3 qref = (3 qmax + qmin) / 4

Ultimate limit state:

Minimum surface of the foundation under
compression: 10 % de B

qref < qu/2 qref = (3 qmax + qmin) / 4

Verification of sliding:
R sin δ < R cos δ tan φ / 1.2 + c (B or L) / 1.5

Effect
of the inclinaison and excentricity on
the bearing capacity:
δ
1
qu = γ .B . N γ .iγ + γ .D. N q .iq + c. N c .ic
'

2

Inclinaison δ:
Reduction coefficients
e
iγ = (1 – δ/φ)2
iq = ic = (1 – 2δ/π)2

Excentricity:
Fictitious foundation width:

B’ = B- 2 e
« Bêche » used to:
- decrease the possibility of sliding
- maximise soil bearing capacity
VERIFICATION OF THE INTERNAL STABILITY

Horizontal sections must be totally

under compression

The mobilized shear stress shall not
be greater than the material shear
strength

τ < τmax

Case of the walls made of precast
blocks(for example Loefl walls): σmin >0

Cond. 1 + individual strength of
blocks should not be reached

Cond. 2 + no sliding between blocks
VERIFICATION OF THE GLOBAL STABILITY

Verification by usual methods for the analysis of slope stability

(simplified Bishop method or other)

The wall is only considered through its weight

Failure surfaces (for example circles) do not intercept the wall
ROUGH DESIGN
0,35

Unreinforced wall
H 2%

0,15 H

freeze

0,3 H + 0,20
 0,15 to
0,30 m
- Footing
B ≈ 0.35 to 0.40 H (good soil)
B ≈ 0.45 to 0.60 H (medium soil)
Minimum
slope 2% Cantilever walls - Patin ≈B/2 to B/5

H - ewall
≈ H/12 (for H ≈ 7 to 9 m.)
≈ H/18 (for H ≈ 3 to 4 m.)
patin

- efooting ≈ ewall

ewall
freeze
efooting