Foundation Design

References:
 Coduto, D.P. (1994): Foundation design:
principles and practices
 Hardiyatmo, H.C. (2002): Teknik Fondasi I
 Day, R.W. (2006): Foundation engineering
handbook
 Tomlinson, M.J. (2001): Foundation design and
construction
 Retaining Walls
 Retaining wall: structure whose primary purpose is to provide
lateral support for soil or rock.
 In some cases, may also support vertical loads  basement walls
and certain types of bridge abutments.
 Some of the more common types of retaining walls are gravity
walls, counterfort walls, cantilevered walls, and crib walls.
 Gravity retaining walls are routinely built of plane concrete or
stone and the wall depends primarily on its massive weight to
resist failure from overturning and sliding.
 Cantilever retaining walls are still probably the most common type
of retaining structure.
 There are many different types of cantilevered walls, Typical
cantilevered walls are T-shaped, L-shaped, or reverse Lshaped
 Retaining Walls
 Retaining wall: vertical or near vertical walls that retain soil or rock
Gravity wall Cantilever wall

Conventional types of retaining walls

 Types of Retaining Walls

Keys

Gravity walls of stone, brick, or plain concrete

Approach slab

Approach fill

Cantilevered wall Semigravity wall Optional piles

Bridge abutment
 Counterforts

Counterfort retaining wall Buttressed retaining wall

 Crib wall

Headers
Stretcher

Face of wall

Note: cells to be
filled with soil
 Massive gravity wall

2.75

Lapisan geotexstile
Slab beton
Timbunan sirtu
1.00
+25.30
0.30
+24.65
MA Banjir Q=1000 m3/s, +24.48 m
2.00 Slab beton
Susunan batu kosong Ø 20-30 cm
+23.00 Susunan armour rock Ø Min 70 cm
+22.60 0.40 +22.60
5.30 Galian
Tanah asli
6.90
2
1

+19.70

+19.10

1.00
Lapisan geotexstile +18.10

4.35 3.20 4.75 0.80

DETAIL PENAMPANG STA 11

S k a l a 1: 150
Classification of
Earth Retaining
Structures
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall Soil-nailed wall

Sheet pile with a tie-back anchor tie-back anchored retaining wall

Backfill material: clean granular material

1. Predictable behavior. Import granular backfill generally

has a more predictable behavior in terms of earth pressure
exerted on the wall. No expansive soil related forces.
2. Drainage system. To prevent the build up of hydrostatic
water pressure on the retaining wall, a drainage system is
often constructed at the heel of the wall. The drainage
system will be more effective if highly permeable soil, such
as clean granular soil, is used as backfill.
3. Frost action. In cold climates, frost action has caused
many retaining walls to move so much that they have
become unusable.
 Movement of Retaining Walls

 Movement of retaining walls (i.e., active condition) involves

the shear failure of the wall backfill and the analysis will
naturally include the shear strength of the backfill soil.
 The backfill soil is in a plane strain condition  the friction
angle ϕ is about 10 percent higher in the plane strain
condition as compared to the friction angle ϕ measured in
the triaxial apparatus.
 In practice, plane strain shear strength tests are not
performed, which often results in an additional factor of
safety for retaining wall analyses.
Pressures acting on the wall
 Lateral Earth Pressure

Difference between vertical and horizontal Equal fluid pressure in

earth pressures (σv ≠σh) all directions

The ratio between horizontal effective stress (σh) and the vertical effective
stress, (σv ) is known as the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K.

Three improtant soil conditions: at-rest,

active and passive condition
 At-rest condition
It is very difficult to determine the in situ coefficient of lateral earth pressure
at rest through measurement  typical values and empirical formulas

For uncemented sands and normally consolidated clays (Jacky, 1948):

Modified by Schmidt (1966):

Coduto (1994): K0  (1  sin  )OCRsin 1  0.5 tan  

2

H 2 K 0
P0 / b 
2
b = unit length of the wall (usually 1 m)
 = unit weight of soil
H = height of the wall
 Lateral Earth Pressure
 Vertical stresses can be reliably calculated by multiplying the
unit weight of the soil by the depth; the horizontal stresses
cannot be accurately predicted.
 The coefficient of lateral earth pressure depends not only on
the soil physical properties, but also on construction or
deposition processes, stress history, and time among others.
 From a retaining earth structures design perspective, two
limits or conditions exist where the soil fails: active and
passive. The corresponding coefficients of lateral earth
pressure are denoted Ka and Kp, respectively.
 Under „„natural‟‟ in situ conditions, the actual value of the
lateral earth pressure coefficient is known as the coefficient of
lateral earth pressure at rest, K0.
 Lateral Earth Pressure: Rankine (1857)
Rankine’s (1857): an active lateral earth pressure condition
occurs when the horizontal stress (σh) decreases to the minimum
possible value required for soil stability. In contrast, a passive
condition takes place when (σh) increases to a point where the
soil fails due to excessive lateral compression.
Active and passive
pressures acting on a
cantilever retaining wall
 Lateral Earth Pressure & Shear Strength (1)
 'h 0
K0 
 'v

Assuming the friction between the soil and the wall to be negligible,
the vertical effective stress (σv), at a depth z behind the wall = .z

Angle of the shear plane

Changes in the stress condition in a soil as it transitions
from the at-rest to the active condition
Development of shear failure planes in the soil behind a
wall as it transitions from the at-rest to the active condition
Wall movement required to reach the active condition
Lateral Earth Pressure & Shear Strength (2)

Starting from at-rest conditions, the wall moves toward the backfill.
While the vertical stress remains constant, the horizontal stress
will gradually increase value σhp
Angle of the shear plane
Changes in the stress condition in a soil as it transitions
from the at-rest to the passive condition
Development of shear failure planes in the soil behind a
wall as it transitions from the at-rest to the passive condition
Wall movement required to reach the passive condition
Effect of wall movement on lateral earth pressure in sand
 Important Points:
1. The mobilized angle of internal friction at rest (0) is related to the
in situ horizontal and vertical stresses, and thus is a function of
the coefficient of earth pressure at rest:

2. Although the soil remains within the failure limits between

active and passive conditions, deformation does occur in
conjunction with any changes in loading conditions.
3. Because active failure is reached through a „„shorter‟‟ stress
path compared to a passive condition, smaller deformations
are associated with active failure.
4. When transitioning from active to passive and vice versa, a
K = 1 condition must occur where the horizontal and vertical
stresses are equal, and Mohr circle collapses into a point 
the soil is at its most stable condition.
Free body diagram behind a retaining wall
using Rankine‟s solution : Active case

 .H 2 K a . cos 
Pa b 
2

 .H 2 K a . sin 
Va b 
2

Ka 
cos   cos 2
  cos 2  
 
Theoretical pressure and
shear acting against the wall
cos   cos 2
  cos  
2

 h   v K a cos 
K a  tan 2 45   / 2  0
   v K a sin 
Free body diagram behind a retaining wall
using Rankine‟s solution : Passive case

 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b 
2

 .H 2 K p . sin 
Vp b 
2

Kp 
cos   cos 2
  cos 2  
 
Theoretical pressure and
shear acting against the wall
cos   cos 2
  cos  
2

 h   v K p cos 
K p  tan 2 45   / 2  0
   v K p sin 
Comparison between (a) theoretical and (b) observed distributions
of earth pressures acting behind retaining structures
Example: A 6 m tall cantilever wall retains a soil that has the following
properties: c = 0, ϕ = 30º,  = 19.2 kN/m3. The ground surface behind
the wall is inclined at a slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, and the wall
has moved sufficiently to develop the active condition. Determine the
normal and shear forces acting on the back of this wall.
  tan 1 1 / 3  18

Ka 
cos   cos 2
  cos 2  
 0.415
cos   cos 2
  cos  
2

 .H 2 K a . cos 
Pa b   136 kN/m
2

 .H 2 K a . sin 
Va b   44 kN/m
2
 Lateral Earth Pressure: Coulomb (1776)
 Coulomb (1776): considers the stability of a soil wedge
behind a retaining wall.
 Most critical condition, the direction of line AB is varied until a
maximum value of PA is obtained
Lateral Earth Pressure: Coulomb (1776)
 Coulomb’s Theory for Cohessionless Soils
 Resultant of the normal and
shear forces acting on the wall
is inclined at an angle ϕw from a
perpendicular of the wall.
 ϕw is the coefficient of friction
between the wall and the soil
  .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b 
2

 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b 
2
cos 2    
Ka 
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     

 .H 2 K p . cos w
Pp b 
2

 .H 2 K p . sin w
Vp b 
2
cos 2    
Kp 
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     
 These formula are valid only for ≤ϕ
 Concrete or masonry wall  ϕw = 0.67ϕ
 Steel walls has less sliding friction 
ϕw = 0.33ϕ
 Coulomb‟s values of Kp are often much
higher than Rankine‟s  difference ranges:
10% at ϕ = 10º to 150% at ϕ = 40º
 This discrepancy occurs because the critical
failure surface is not a plane (as both theory
assume)  in reality it is concave upward
 Coulomb theory is sensitive to this 
erroneously high values of Kp.
 For practical problems  best to use
Rankine‟s theory to compute passive
pressure
 Lateral Earth Pressures in Soils with Cohesion
 Rankine did not address lateral earth pressures in soil with cohesion
(c ≥ 0 and ϕ ≥ 0) ; Coulomb did not address passive pressure 
Bell (1915) developed complete formulas for cohesive soil

(a) Theoretical Behavior : soil with cohesion can stand vertically to

a height of no more than the critical height (Hc):

2c
Hc 
 Ka

 If H < Hc  the earth will stand vertically without a wall

 In practice  apply FS to Hc (1.5 to 2.0) before deciding no wall
 Consider the potential for surface erosion and other modes of
failure
 Active pressures in soil with cohesion

 H 2 K a 2c 2 
Pa / b    2cH K a   cos   0
 2  

 H 2 K a 2c 2 
Va / b    2cH K a   sin   0
 2  

Theoretical distribution of active pressure in

soils with cohesion (c ≥ 0; ϕ ≥ 0

 These formulas often are incorrectly stated without the 2c2/ term 
to account the lack of tensile forces between the wall and the soil at
depths shallower than Hc.
 Passive pressures in soil with cohesion
Rankine equations for passive
conditions in soils with cohesion:

 H 2 K p 
Pp / b    2cH K p  cos 
 2 
 

 H 2 K p 
Vp / b    2cH K p  sin 
 2 
 

Theoretical distribution of passive pressure

in soils with cohesion (c ≥ 0; ϕ ≥ 0
 Lateral Earth Pressures in Soils with Cohesion
(b) Actual Behavior : lateral earth pressure computations in cohesive
soils based on Rankine or Coulomb‟s theories are not very reliable 
produce unconservative designs.
This discrepancy occurs because the theories does not consider:
 Creep in these soils may change the earth pressure
 The soil may be expansive
 Clays obstruct drainage  may trap the water behind the wall

 Creep  soil slowly shears and never reaches complete

equilibrium  failure wedge slowly moves toward the wall 
impossible to maintain the active condition for long period
 Expanding backfill places very large load on the wall  exact
magnitude of lateral pressure is difficult to predict.
 Solution: avoid backfilling any wall with an expansive soil
 Terzaghi and Peck’s Method
 Terzaghi & Peck (1967)  semiempirical method based partially
on the observed performance of real walls.
 Useful with clayey soils or when no soil test data are available
 Appropriate only for the walls less than about 6 m in height
 Terzaghi and Peck’s Method
Normal and shear
forces acting on
the wall:

Gh H 2
Pa / b 
2

Gv H 2
Va / b 
2

Pa = normal force between soil and wall

Va = shear force between soil and wall
Chart for estimating the loads
acting against a retaining wall
below ground surface that is
sloped and then becomes level


G kN/m3 
 Equivalent Fluid Method
 Gh in Terzaghi & Peck‟s method  equivalent fluid density : the
wall is backfilled with a fluid with unit weight of Gh  compute
“earth” pressure using the principles of fluid statics
 For sandy soils, it is also possible to obtain Gh from lateral earth
pressure theories.

Example:
A cantilever wall will retain a sandy soil with c = 0, ϕ = 35º, and  =
20 kN/m3. The ground surface above the wall will be level (=0) and
there will be no surcharge loads. Compute the active pressure and
express it as the equivalent fluid density.
Example:
A cantilever wall will retain a sandy soil with c = 0, ϕ = 35º, and  =
20 kN/m3. The ground surface above the wall will be level (=0) and
there will be no surcharge loads. Compute the active pressure and
express it as the equivalent fluid density.

Solution:
 .H 2 K a . cos  Gh H 2
Pa b  
2 2
Gh  K a (This is true only for a cohesionle ss soil with   0)

K a  tan 2 45   / 2  0.271

Gh  K a  5.42 kN/m3

 Recommend that the engineer design the wall to retain a fluid with unit
weight of 5.42 kN/m3
 Surcharge Loads

 If occurs within a horizontal distance of about H from

the wall  additional lateral pressures on the wall
 For design  compute the magnitude and distribution
of these additional pressures using elastic theory and
superimpose them onto the conventional lateral earth
pressure
 Consider the equipment that places and compacts the
backfill
 Groundwater Effects

If groundwater table rises to a level above the

base of the wall:
 Effective stress in the soil below the
groundwater table will decrease 
decrease the active, passive and at-rest
pressure
 Horizontal hydrostatic pressures will
develop against the wall and must be
superimposed onto the lateral earth
pressures
 The effective stress between the bottom of
the footing and the soil becomes smaller 
less sliding friction.
Example:
This cantilever wall has moved sufficiently to create the active condition.
Compute the lateral pressure distribution acting on the wall with
groundwater table at location a and b.
Soil properties: c = 0, ϕ = 30º,  = 20.4 kN/m3 and sat = 22.0 kN/m3.
Example:
This cantilever wall has moved sufficiently to create the active condition.
Compute the lateral pressure distribution acting on the wall with
groundwater table at location a and b.
Soil properties: c = 0, ϕ = 30º,  = 20.4 kN/m3 and sat = 22.0 kN/m3.

Solution: use Rankine‟s method K a  tan 2 45   / 2  0.333

Groundwater table at a :  h   v K a cos   zKa cos   6.79 z

z = depth below the top of the wall

Groundwater table at b :
 h @ z  2.5 m   v K a cos 
 z  u K a cos 
 20.42.5  22.0z  2.5  u 0.333 cos 0
 7.33z  0.33u  1.33
u  9.80z  2.5  0  Total horizontal pressure =  h  u
Two ways to avoid profound impact of groundwater on retaining walls:
 Design the wall for the highest probable groundwater table 
expensive structure
 Install drain to prevent the groundwater from rising above a certain
level
 weep holes drilled in the face of the wall
 perforated pipe drain installed behind the wall  most common
method
 Practical Application

 Use extra caution in cohesive soils

 Select appropriate strength parameters
 Use an appropriate method of analysis
 Lateral Capacity of Spread Footings
 If no shear load, at-rest pressure acts on
both sides of the footing
 Shear load  lateral displacement :
 produce active condition on one side
and the passive on the other
 Source of lateral resistance: sliding friction
force, Vf along the bottom of footing

V f  Pf tan  f  f  tan 1 
Vf = ultimate shear resistance along bottom of footing
Pf = normal force between footing and soil = P + W f
P = applied normal load acting on footing
W f = weight of footing
ϕf = footing-soil interface friction angle
 = coefficient of friction between footing and soil
 Design values of ϕf for cast-in-place concrete footing

Alternatively, use ϕf  0.7 ϕ  ϕ is friction angle of the soil beneath the footing
 Lateral Capacity of Spread Footings
 The allowable shear load on a spread
footing (Vaf) is:
V f  Pp  Pa
Vaf 
F

Vaf = allowable shear load on spread footing

Vf = sliding friction along base of footing
Pp = passive resistance along side of footing
Pa = active resistance along side of footing
F = factor of safety = 2 to 3
 Cantilever Retaining Walls
 Most common type of retaining structure = concrete or
masonry cantilever retaining wall  wall height less than 5 m
 Major requirements for design: stability and structural integrity
 Design Earth Pressures
 Stability and structural integrity of a wall depends on the
forces acting between the wall and the soil

 Actual in-service earth pressures

 often quite different from
classical earth pressure theories:
for the wall retain clayey soil
 Design Earth Pressures for gravity earth
retaining structures (Duncan, 1990)

 For walls with clayey soils in the backfill or below the footing:
use semiempirical methods such as by Terzaghi & Peck
 For walls with sandy or gravelly soils both in the backfill and
below the footing:
- Use classical earth pressure theories.
- Consider vertical component of active pressure (Va)
- Use Coulomb‟s method to compute active earth pressures
- Set ϕw = 0.8 ϕ  (ϕ = friction angle of backfill soil)
 Coulomb’s Theory for Cohessionless Soils
 Resultant of the normal and
shear forces acting on the wall
is inclined at an angle ϕw from a
perpendicular of the wall.
 ϕw is the coefficient of friction
between the wall and the soil
  .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b 
2

 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b 
2
cos 2    
Ka 
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     

 .H 2 K p . cos w
Pp b 
2

 .H 2 K p . sin w
Vp b 
2
cos 2    
Kp 
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     
 Design Earth Pressures for gravity earth
retaining structures (Duncan, 1990)

 For walls with sandy or gravelly backfills and foundations

founded on rock:
(a) For walls with level backfills:
H 2 K h H 2 K v
P b V b
2 2
P/b = normal force acting between soil and wall per unit length of wall
V/b = shear force acting between soil and wall per unit length of wall
b = unit length of wall (usually 1 m)
 = unit weight of soil behind wall
H = height of wall
Kh = horizontal earth pressure coefficient
= 0.45  compacted backfill
= 0.55  uncompacted backfill
Kv = vertical earth pressure coefficient = 0.1
 Design Earth Pressures for gravity earth
retaining structures (Duncan, 1990)

 For walls with sandy or gravelly backfills and foundations

founded on rock:
(a) For walls with inclined backfills:

Kv  0.11  0.5 tan  

2

K h  0.451  0.5 tan  

2
 Compacted backfill

K h  0.551  0.5 tan  

2
 Uncompacted backfill
 Design Earth Pressures for gravity earth
retaining structures (Duncan, 1990)

 For all walls:

- For design, place the resultant of earth pressure at a point
40% of the wall height above the bottom

Theoretical Recommended for design

 Design Earth Pressures
 The passive resistance (Pp/b) acting on the front of the footing
is much smaller than the force acting behind the wall. Use
Rankine method to compute it.
 Engineers often use a design value less than the theoretical
passive resistance, because:
 Horizontal displacement required to mobilized the full passive
resistance  may be larger than tolerable movement
 Soil below the wall is often disturbed  may not be as strong
as anticipated

 Consider shear force Vf along the bottom of the footing

V f / b  Pf / btan  f
STABILITY
A cantilever retaining wall must
be
stable in all the following ways:
a. Must not slide horizontally
b. Must not overturn
c. Normal force acting on the base
of the footing must be within the
middle third of the footing
d. Must not experience a bearing
capacity failure
e. Must not undergo a deep-seated
shear failure
STABILITY
The stability of the wall is dependent on its dimensions and on the
forces between the wall and the ground.
STABILITY
 When evaluating stability  consider the wall and the soil
above the footing as a unit  wall soil unit
 Evaluate its stability using the principles of statics  after the
dimensions are known.

 First: develop a trial design

 Check its stability and
progressively refine the design
 Converging trial & error process
until an optimal design obtained
  Suggested first trial dimensions  retaining
STABILITY wall backfilled with cohesionless soils

 For strong soils and level backfill

 the toe of extension = 0.5B
 critical center = 0.1B from the toe
 For weaker soils or inclined backfill
 toe extension = less (with the
increase in the heel extension
 critical center = further from the toe
(a) Sliding
 Sliding stability use limit equilibrium approach : the forces
acting on the wall soil unit if it were about to fail
 FS = ratio of the forces required to cause the wall to fail to
those actually act on it
 Driving forces:
- Horizontal component of active lateral earth pressure
- Hydrostatic forces (if any) acting on the back of the wall-soil unit
 Resisting forces:
- Passive lateral earth pressure
- Sliding friction along the bottom of the footing
- Hydrostatic forces (if any) acting on the front of the wall-soil unit

 P b 
F R

 P b 
b = usually 1 ft or 1 m
D
(a) Sliding

 P b 
F R

 P b 
D

 Cohesionless soils  design the wall such that FS ≥ 1.5

 Cohesive soils  design the wall such that FS ≥ 2.0
 Alternatively  pseudo ultimate-strength criteria  FS  1.89

0.9 PR b  1.7 PD b

 The earth pressures and sliding friction coefficients used in

stability analyses should be ultimate values
Example:
A 12 ft (3.66 m) retaining wall supports a backfill inclined at a slope of 4 : 1.
The soil behind the wall is a fine to medium sand with c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and 
= 19.165 kN/m3. The soil below the footing is also a fine to medium sand: c
= 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3. Determine the required footing
dimensions to satisfy the stability criteria.
(20.3cm)

(1) Select the trial dimensions

(3.66m)

(4.5m)

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3. (20.3cm)
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.

(2A) Analyze the sliding stability

Use Coulomb‟s method to calculate

active pressure (3.66m)

  tan 1 4  14
(4.5m)
1

 w 2 335  23
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)

cos    
2
Ka   0.374
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     

 .H K a . cos w
2  .H 2 K a . sin w
Pa b   20.33 kN/m Va b   8.63 kN/m
2 2
Coulomb’s Theory for  .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b 
Cohessionless Soils 2

 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b 
2
cos 2    
Ka 
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     

 .H 2 K p . cos w
Pp b 
2

 .H 2 K p . sin w
Vp b 
2
cos 2    
Kp 
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     
 These formula are valid only for ≤ϕ
 Concrete or masonry wall  ϕw = 0.67ϕ
 Steel walls has less sliding friction 
ϕw = 0.33ϕ
 Coulomb‟s values of Kp are often much
higher than Rankine‟s  difference ranges:
10% at ϕ = 10º to 150% at ϕ = 40º
 This discrepancy occurs because the critical
failure surface is not a plane (as both theory
assume)  in reality it is concave upward
 Coulomb theory is sensitive to this 
erroneously high values of Kp.
 For practical problems  best to use
Rankine‟s theory to compute passive
pressure
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3. (20.3cm)
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.

(2) Analyze the sliding stability

Use Rankine‟s method to calculate

passive pressure  ignore upper 0.75 ft (3.66m)

K p  tan 2 45   / 2  4.20

(4.5m)

 .H K p . cos 
2 (15.2cm)

Pp b   1.16 kN/m (30.5cm) (38.1cm)

2 (1.22m)

(30.5cm)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 5.00 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 28.22 kN/m Pf b  48.8 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   8.63 kN/m
2
 Design values of ϕf for cast-in-place concrete footing

Alternatively, use ϕf  0.7 ϕ  ϕ is friction angle of the soil beneath the footing
  .H 2 K a . cos w (20.3cm)

Pa b   20.33 kN/m
2
 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b   1.16 kN/m
2
(3.66m)

Weight of footing: Pf b  48.8 kN/m (4.5m)

(15.2cm)

From Table  ϕf = 26º

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)

V f b  Pf btan  f  23.8 kN/m

(1.22m)

(30.5cm)

 P b  V b  Pp b
F   1.23  1.5 ....NG
R f

 P b  D Pa b
 If trial design does not satisfy the sliding
requirements  use one or more of the
following modifications:
- Extend the heel of the footing
- Add a key beneath the footing
- Use a stronger backfill soil
- Install tiedown anchors
- Install a tieback anchor

 If FS is excessive  reduce the heel

extension and/or remove or shorten the
key. Adjust the toe has very little effect.
Tiedown anchor

 Express final dimension of footing/key

as a multiple of 0.1 m  trial & error
 (20.3cm)
(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension
(Total = 1.75m)

 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   21.53 kN/m
2
(3.66m)

 .H K a . sin w
2
Va b   9.14 kN/m (4.63m)
2
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)
(1.75m)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 6.46 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 41.24 kN/m Pf b  63.80 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   9.14 kN/m
2
 (20.3cm)
(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension
(Total = 1.75m)

 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   21.53 kN/m
2
(3.66m)
 .H K p . cos 
2

Pp b   1.16 kN/m (4.63m)

2
(15.2cm)
Weight of footing:
Pf b  63.80 kN/m (30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

 From Table  ϕf = 26º (30.5cm)

(1.75m)

V f b  Pf btan  f  31.09 kN/m

 P b  V b  Pp b
F   1.50  1.5 ....OK
R f

 P b  D Pa b
(2C) Use original heel extension and
add 0.61 m deep key

 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   26.20 kN/m
2
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   11.12 kN/m H = (5.105m)
2
 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b   10.50 kN/m
2
(0.914m)
Sliding friction (0.61m)
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m (1.22m)
Footing = 5.00 kN/m (0.305m)

Soil behind the wall = 28.22 kN/m

 .H 2 K a . sin w Pf b  53.735 kN/m
Va b   11.12 kN/m
2
Key = 1.33 kN/m
Soil in front of key = 1.11 kN/m
 (2C) Use original heel extension and
add 0.61 m deep key
 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   26.20 kN/m
2
 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b   10.50 kN/m
2 H = (5.105m)

Weight of footing: Pf b  53.735 kN/m

Use weighted average coefficient of friction,

: 1 ft of shear through the soil ( = tan 38) & (0.914m)

5 ft along soil-concrete interface ( = tan 26) (0.61m)

1 tan 38  5 tan 26
tan f  avg   0.537 (1.22m)
6 (0.305m)

 
V f b  Pf b tan  f  28.82 kN/m

 P b  V b  Pp b
F   1.50  1.5 ....OK
R f

 P b  D Pa b
STABILITY
A cantilever retaining wall must
be
stable in all the following ways:
a. Must not slide horizontally
b. Must not overturn
c. Normal force acting on the base
of the footing must be within the
middle third of the footing
d. Must not experience a bearing
capacity failure
e. Must not undergo a deep-seated
shear failure
(b) Overturning
 Once the trial design satisfies the sliding stability  begin
evaluating its overturning stability.
 M b
 Continue to use limit equilibrium approach F R

 This is not M  0  M D b

 Computed FS depends on the location of center of overturning

 Traditional center of overturning and
Bruner‟s center

 Recommended center of overturning and

design of earth pressure when no key is
present

 Recommended center of overturning and

design of earth pressure when a key is
present
  Use trial & error to find the center of rotation
 FS lowest = critical  Global FS against
overturning
 Usually this point is between 0.1B – 0.3B
behind the toe

Forces generate driving moments:

- Horizontal component of active lateral earth
pressures acting on the back of the wall
- Hydrostatic forces acting behind the wall
- Weight of soil-wall unit between the toe of
footing and the point of rotation
Forces generate resistance moments:
-Vertical component of active lateral earth pressures on the back of the wall
- Hydrostatic forces acting on the front of the wall
- Weight of soil-wall unit between the point of rotation & the heel of footing
- Surcharge loads acting above the wall-soil unit
- Bearing pressure acting on the bottom of footing, forward the point of rotation
 The footing may move slightly rearward if an overturning failure were to
occur (center of rotation may actually slightly higher than the bottom)
 Resistance offered by passive pressure is not reliable  neglect it !
 Normal force between the bottom of the footing and the ground Pf/b:
In LE condition, only part of footing forward the point of rotation would be
in contact with the soil  bearing capacity failure.
 Set Pf/b equal to the ultimate bearing capacity of a pseudo-footing 
width = distance from the toe to center of overturning  Pf-ult/b
 Shear force Vf/b  does not affect the overturning stability
 FS: ≥ 1.50 for cohesionless soil ; and ≥ 2.00 for cohesive soil
 Location of Normal force along the base of footing:
During in service condition  Pf/b must be located within the middle third
of the footing (eccentricity e < B/6) to maintain compressive stress  to
avoid excessive rotation.
For wall supported on bedrock  Pf/b must be located within the middle
half of the footing (eccentricity e < B/4)
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3.
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.
(3.66m)
(4.63m)
Try to use center of overturning
0.9 ft = 0.274 m from the toe
(15.2cm)

Compute ultimate bearing capacity (30.5cm) (38.1cm)

of a 0.274 m wide footing (1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)

For ϕ = 38º  Nc =77.5; Nq = 61.5; and N = 82.3

qu  cN c   D N q  1  0.5BN   12.190 lb/ft 2

Pf ult / b  12.19090  10.970 lb/ft 2

 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3.
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.
(3.66m)

M b
(4.63m)

F
 R

61200
 2.08  1.5 ....OK
 M D b 29500
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 6.46 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 41.24 kN/m Pf b  63.80 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   9.14 kN/m
2
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

Pf b  63.80 kN/m
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
Let x = horizontal distance from center of
(1.22m)
overturning to the resultant of force
(30.5cm) (1.75m)

M b0  x  0.57 m
Let e = eccentricity = distance from center of footing to the resultant force
B B 2.362
e  0.274  x  0.338 m   0.393 m
2 6 6

eB 6 Resultant is within the middle third …. OK

If the overturning stability of the trial design is not satisfactory or the
resultant is not in the middle third of footing  consider the modif:
- Extend the toe of footing
- Extend the heel of footing
- Use a strong backfill soil
- Use tiedown or tieback anchor
 (20.3cm)

(2D) Try to remove 0.25 ft (7.62 cm) from

the toe extension

 M b 57700 (3.66m)
F R
  1.96  1.5 ....OK
 M b  29500
(4.63m)
D

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.674m)
 (20.3cm)

(2D) Try to remove 0.25 ft (7.62 cm) from

the toe extension

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

Pf b  63.59 kN/m
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
Let x = horizontal distance from center of
(1.22m)
overturning to the resultant of force
(30.5cm) (1.674m)

M b0  x  0.497 m
Let e = eccentricity = distance from center of footing to the resultant force
B B 2.286
e  0.274  x  0.372 m   0.381 m
2 6 6

eB 6 Resultant is within the middle third …. OK  further trimming

will cause the resultant to be outside the middle third
STABILITY
A cantilever retaining wall must
be
stable in all the following ways:
a. Must not slide horizontally
b. Must not overturn
c. Normal force acting on the base
of the footing must be within the
middle third of the footing
d. Must not experience a bearing
capacity failure
e. Must not undergo a deep-seated
shear failure
(b) Bearing Capacity
 The footing that‟s support the wall may be subject to a bearing
capacity failure.
 Check this possibility using the techniques for footings with moment
loads
Example:
A 12 ft (3.66 m) retaining wall supports a backfill inclined at a slope of 4 : 1.
The soil behind the wall is a fine to medium sand with c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and 
= 19.165 kN/m3. The soil below the footing is also a fine to medium sand: c
= 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3. Determine the required footing
dimensions to satisfy the stability criteria.
(20.3cm)

(1) Select the trial dimensions

(3.66m)

(4.5m)

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3. (20.3cm)
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.

(2A) Analyze the sliding stability

Use Coulomb‟s method to calculate

active pressure (3.66m)

  tan 1 4  14
(4.5m)
1

 w 2 335  23
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)

cos    
2
Ka   0.374
sin w   sin     
2

cos  cosw   1 
2

 cos  w    cos     

 .H K a . cos w
2  .H 2 K a . sin w
Pa b   20.33 kN/m Va b   8.63 kN/m
2 2
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3. (20.3cm)
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.

(2) Analyze the sliding stability

Use Rankine‟s method to calculate

passive pressure  ignore upper 0.75 ft (3.66m)

K p  tan 2 45   / 2  4.20

(4.5m)

 .H K p . cos 
2 (15.2cm)

Pp b   1.16 kN/m (30.5cm) (38.1cm)

2 (1.22m)

(30.5cm)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 5.00 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 28.22 kN/m Pf b  48.8 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   8.63 kN/m
2
  .H 2 K a . cos w (20.3cm)

Pa b   20.33 kN/m
2
 .H 2 K p . cos 
Pp b   1.16 kN/m
2
(3.66m)

Weight of footing: Pf b  48.8 kN/m (4.5m)

(15.2cm)

From Table  ϕf = 26º

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)

V f b  Pf btan  f  23.8 kN/m

(1.22m)

(30.5cm)

 P b  V b  Pp b
F   1.23  1.5 ....NG
R f

 P b  D Pa b
 (20.3cm)
(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension
(Total = 1.75m)  SLIDING

 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   21.53 kN/m
2
(3.66m)

 .H K a . sin w
2
Va b   9.14 kN/m (4.63m)
2
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm)
(1.75m)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 6.46 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 41.24 kN/m Pf b  63.80 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   9.14 kN/m
2
 (20.3cm)
(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension
(Total = 1.75m)  SLIDING

 .H 2 K a . cos w
Pa b   21.53 kN/m
2
(3.66m)
 .H K p . cos 
2

Pp b   1.16 kN/m (4.63m)

2
(15.2cm)
Weight of footing:
Pf b  63.80 kN/m (30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

 From Table  ϕf = 26º (30.5cm)

(1.75m)

V f b  Pf btan  f  31.09 kN/m

 P b  V b  Pp b
F   1.50  1.5 ....OK
R f

 P b  D Pa b
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)  OVERTURNING
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3.
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.
(3.66m)
(4.63m)
Try to use center of overturning
0.9 ft = 0.274 m from the toe
(15.2cm)

Compute ultimate bearing capacity (30.5cm) (38.1cm)

of a 0.274 m wide footing (1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)

For ϕ = 38º  Nc =77.5; Nq = 61.5; and N = 82.3

qu  cN c   D N q  1  0.5BN   12.190 lb/ft 2

Pf ult / b  12.19090  10.970 lb/ft 2

 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)  OVERTURNING
The soil behind the wall c = 0; ϕ = 35º; and  = 19.165 kN/m3.
The soil below the footing c = 0; ϕ = 38º; and  = 19.64 kN/m3.
(3.66m)

M b
(4.63m)

F
 R

61200
 2.08  1.5 ....OK
 M D b 29500
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)  NORMAL FORCE POINT

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.75m)
Sliding friction
Weight of footing:
Stem = 6.95 kN/m
Footing = 6.46 kN/m
Soil behind the wall = 41.24 kN/m Pf b  63.80 kN/m
 .H 2 K a . sin w
Va b   9.14 kN/m
2
 (20.3cm)

(2B) Try adding 0.533m to hell extension

(Total = 1.75m)  NORMAL FORCE POINT

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

Pf b  63.80 kN/m
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
Let x = horizontal distance from center of
(1.22m)
overturning to the resultant of force
(30.5cm) (1.75m)

M b0  x  0.57 m
Let e = eccentricity = distance from center of footing to the resultant force
B B 2.362
e  0.274  x  0.338 m   0.393 m
2 6 6

eB 6 Resultant is within the middle third …. OK

 (20.3cm)

(2D) Try to remove 0.25 ft (7.62 cm) from

the toe extension  OVERTURNING

 M b 57700 (3.66m)
F R
  1.96  1.5 ....OK
 M b  29500
(4.63m)
D

(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.674m)
 (20.3cm)

(2D) Try to remove 0.25 ft (7.62 cm) from the toe

extension  NORMAL FORCE POINT

Find the location of the resultant force

acting on the footing  taking the sum of (3.66m)

moments about any point  equal to zero (4.63m)

Pf b  63.59 kN/m
(15.2cm)

(30.5cm) (38.1cm)
Let x = horizontal distance from center of
(1.22m)
overturning to the resultant of force
(30.5cm) (1.674m)

M b0  x  0.497 m
Let e = eccentricity = distance from center of footing to the resultant force
B B 2.286
e  0.274  x  0.372 m   0.381 m
2 6 6

eB 6 Resultant is within the middle third …. OK  further trimming

will cause the resultant to be outside the middle third
 (20.3cm)

(2D) Try to remove 0.25 ft (7.62 cm) from the toe

extension  BEARING CAPACITY

Check the bearing capacity

B  B  2e  2.286  2(0.372)  1.542 m

(3.66m)
(4.63m)

Pf b 63.59
 
qequiv   41.24 kN/m 2
B
(15.2cm)
1.542
(30.5cm) (38.1cm)

Use Terzaghi‟s formula:

(1.22m)

(30.5cm) (1.674m)
For ϕ = 38º  Nq = 61.5; and N = 82.3

 D  z    30.519.165  1.825 kN/m2

qu  cN c   D N q  1  0.5BN   490.34 kN/m2

qu 490.34
qa    163.45 kN/m 2
F 3
41.24 << 163.45, therefore bearing capacity is OK
 (20.3cm)

(2D) Try to remove 0.25 ft (7.62 cm) from the toe

extension  BEARING CAPACITY

(3.66m)
(4.63m)

(15.2cm)

Compute the bearing pressure at (30.5cm) (38.1cm)

heel and toe: (1.22m)

(30.5cm)

63.59  60.372 
(1.674m)
P  6e 
 
qheel 1    1    0.6715 kN/m
2

BL  B  2.2861  2.286 
P  6e  63.59  60.372 
 
qtoe 1    1    54.975 kN/m
2

BL  B  2.2861  2.286 

Walls that meet all of these criteria usually do not have problems with
excessive settlement. Generally, a settlement analysis is necessary only if
q’toe exceeds the preconsolidation pressure, σ’c