Case Study of Retaining Wall

“Case Study of Retaining Wall”
CHAPTER NO. 1
INTRODUCTION
Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 1

CHAPTER NO. 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1GENERAL:
Retaining walls are structures designed to restrain soil to a slope that it would

not naturally keep to (typically a steep, near-vertical or vertical slope). They are
used to bound soils between two different elevations often in areas of terrain
possessing undesirable slopes or in areas where the landscape needs to be
shaped severely and engineered for more specific purposes like hillside
farming or roadway overpass.
A retaining wall is a structure designed and constructed to resist the lateral

pressure of soil when there is a desired change in ground elevation that
exceeds the angle of repose of soil. It is a structure that provides vertical or
nearly vertical support to a differential level of masses of soil and holds back
soil from another structure such as buildings on top, and it may prevent slope
instability or erosion from happening.

Figure 1: Retaining wall

1.2 TYPES OF RETAINING WALL
 Gravity Walls: A Gravity retaining wall is the one in which the

earth pressure is resisted by dead weight of the wall, which is
made either of masonry or of mass of concrete. The stress
developed in wall is very low. The stress developed is very low.
These walls are so proportioned that no tension is developed
Figure 2: Gravity wall
anywhere, and the resultant of forces remain within the middle

third of the base.
 Cantilever Retaining walls: The Cantilevered walls resists the

horizontal earth other vertical pressures by way of bending of
various components acting as cantilevers. A common form of
retaining wall is the T shaped wall. The wall consists of stem,
heel slab and toe slab. Each of these bend as cantilevers. They
are, therefore, reinforced on the tension face. Another form of
cantilever retaining walls is the L-shaped walls. They also resist
Figure 3 : Cantilever Retaining wall

the soil pressure by bending
 Counterfort Retaining wall: In Counterfort retaining wall the

vertical stem and the heel slab are strengthened by providing
counterforts at some suitable intervals .Because of provision of
counterforts , the vertical stem as well as the heel slab act as a
continuous slab , in contrast to the cantilever retaining wall. The
toe slab however acts as cantilever bending upwards. This type
of wall is used when backfill of greater height is to be retained.
Figure 5: Counterfort Retaining wall
 Buttressed Retaining wall: A buttressed wall is a modification of

the of the counterfort retaining wall in which the counterforts
,called the buttresses , are provided to the other side of the
backfill .However the buttresses reduce the clearance in front of

the wall , and therefore these walls are not commonly used.
Figure 4: Buttress Retaining wall
 Gabion wall: A gabion wall is a retaining wall made of stacked stone-

filled gabions tied together with wire. Gabion walls are
usually battered (angled back towards the slope), or stepped back with
the slope, rather than stacked vertically. Gabions also have advantages
over more rigid structures, because they can conform to subsidence,
dissipate energy from flowing water, and drain freely. The life
expectancy of gabions depends on the lifespan of the wire, not on the
contents of the basket. The structure will fail when the wire fails.
Galvanized steel wire is most common, but PVC -coated and stainless
steel wire are also used. PVC-coated galvanized gabions have been
estimated to survive for 60 years. Some gabion manufacturers
guarantee a structural consistency of 50 years.

Figure 6: Gabion Wall
 Segmental Retaining wall: Segmental retaining walls consist of

modular concrete blocks that interlock with each other. They are used
to hold back a sloping face of soil to provide a solid, vertical front.
Without adequate retention, slopes can cave, slump or slide. With the
unique construction of segmental retaining walls, higher and steeper
walls can be constructed with the ability to retain the force of lateral
earth pressure created by the backfill soil. Segmental retaining walls
can be installed in a wide variety of colours, sizes, and textures. They
can incorporate straight or curved lines, steps, and corners. They are
ideal for not only slope support, but also for widening areas that would
otherwise be unusable due to the natural slope of the land. Retaining
walls are often used for grade changes, and for other functional
reasons such as widening driveways, walkways, or creating more space
in a patio outdoor area.Segmental retaining walls offer many
advantages:
 rapid construction
 horizontal and vertical curvatures
 easy grade changes
 a wide variety of colours, sizes and textures

 no need for a concrete footing
Figure 7 Segmental Retaining Wall
 Stepped cantilever wall: The stepped cantilever wall is new type. Here
concrete steps are provided on stem projecting into backfill. The
pressure compacted backfill will anchor the concrete plate/step and will
develop frictional resistance force; this will act as indirect support for
cantilever retaining wall. In short stem will act as propped cantilever and
thus will reduce the destructive forces on stem / retaining wall.


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE
CHAPTER NO. 2
LITERATURE
1. Mikio Futaki with Osamu Sagakuchi worked on the behaviour of

cantileverretaining wall under seismic loading in which they talked about
an experimental study on real scale cantilever retaining wall for seismic
loading. They have also aimed to investigate the safety and to evaluate the
force acting on the wall for seismic loading. They have done a dynamic
vibration test on a cantilever retaining wall by using a large shear box. They
came up with the Solution that the horizontal force is proportional to the
average acceleration of the ground. Though the distribution of the vertical
force under the base tends to concentrate in the front of the wall base. The
degree of the concentration is not as large as the calculations based on the
assumption of the rigid base. It is more acceptable to assume earth
pressure also acts on the potential sliding surface on the coulomb wedge
in the cantilever retaining.
2. “Anurag Upadhayaya” with”A. Murli Krishna” aims to “Study the behavior

of an ’L’shaped precast cantilever retaining wall with dry backfill”
subjected to several ground motion having different predominant
frequency. The result presented in this paper is based on the finite element

simulations on the small physical model size retaining wall model ground
motions having different predominant frequencies. The wall soil system
tested by Wattanabeet al. 2003 stimulated into finite element model to
study dynamic earth pressure developed during different seismic events.
Primary results produced by the FE model were comparable to the physical
model results and for static conditions the results were approximately
matching with the theoretical values. After discussing the results the
conclusions Drawn - The lateral earth pressure profile for different
predominant frequencies was similar up to a certain height and then varied
abruptly. The vertical stresses at wall base increase on the toe side and
consequently reduce towards the heel side due to tilting of wall base
caused by lateral seismic loads on Wall stand. For very high frequency, the
wall top displacement was very less. The soil near the wall was less
vulnerable to settlement.
3. This paper by “Mohommed Abdullahi” talks about studies carried by him

about “Evaluation of Causes of Retaining Wall Failure”. He says that wide
use of retaining wall is accompanied by many failures because of designs
based on rules and formulas that fit only for limited conditions. Various soil
samples collected from Tudun Fulani located in Nigeria. Then test such as
particle size analysis, water-berg limit test, moisture density relationship,
shear strength parameter test and permeability test. He concluded that a
good back fill material should be used with good drainage characteristics
to prevent hydro-static pressure build up. If such back fill is not available,
water should be prevented from getting hydro-static pressure build up.
4. “Dr. S. S. Patil” in this paper has given a detailed “Analysis and design
ofcantilever wall, counter fort wall”. Since these walls are mostly suitable
up to 10 meter height, they have given a new approach i.e. Stepped

Cantilever Wall. They have explained design of each wall with a deep
explanation. After design they have given detailed cost analysis. They
concluded that counter-fort retaining wall is suitable up to 8-10 meter
height for standard site condition. Stepped Cantilever retaining walls are
best suited for wall height 11-15 meters and its mechanism is proven and
used in many civil engineering structures.
5. “Effect of embedding drainage system on retaining wall structure stability

“ by Hossien Moayedi ,Bujang B.K.Huat”,”fatemeh moayedi”,AfshinAsadi
“ .The main objective of this paper was to study importance of drainage in
retaining wall design. Different models were analysed using 2D plaxis i.e.
without drainage, with drainage after 1 day period and 100 day period.
Based on the objective which is estimating water pressures controlling
effects adjacent to retaining walls and effect on design drainage system
were modelled. Finite element modelling method was used. It was found
that using drainage system for both cases has an important effect in
reducing forces acting overturning structures. The reduction factors were
35 % and 38% for BM and SF value. Horizontal deformation reduction
factor at top of wall observed as 43% in complete to non-drainage used.
6. “Jayshree. P” worked to use locally available material instead of the costly

rock pieces inside gabion boxes to bring down the cost of construction. To
conduct economic studies of to prove the cost effectiveness of gabion
faced retaining walls over conventional gravity type concrete walls.
Experimentally they showed that there can be 25% replacement of rock
pieces inside the gabions by a cheap and locally available material like rock
waste without much altering the stability of the structure. A 2D nonlinear
FE code is developed with the acronym FECAGREW which can be used as a
good prediction tool for the behaviour of gabion faced retaining walls.

7. “NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF A RIGID RETAINING WALL

WITH RELIEF SHELVES “byV. B. Chauhan, S. M. Dasaka, Rizwan Khan.
They aimed at understanding the behaviour of such walls and to explore
the effectiveness of these walls to reduce earth pressure and lateral thrust
and to get proper insight about the associated mechanisms involved in the
pressure reduction, if any. This work presents numerical analysis of rigid
non-yielding retaining wall retaining a dry cohesionless backfill with
pressure relief shelves using FLAC3D. A 6m high rigid non-yielding (at-rest)
retaining wall, retaining a dry cohesionless backfill, has been chosen for the
present study. Two cantilever relief shelves of thickness of 0.20m are
placed at different heights of the wall. Width of these relief shelves are
varied as 0.5m, 0.6m, 0.7m and 0.8m, to conduct a parametric study to
understand the influence of width of relief shelves on the contact pressure
below base slab, surface settlement profile of backfill, deflection of relief
shelves and reduction in lateral earth pressure. Lateral earth pressure on
the retaining walls. The study involved comprehensive finite difference
numerical analysis to assess the effectiveness of providing relief shelves
to the retaining walls. This technique of reducing earth pressure on
retaining walls may prove economical, if properly implemented. They
concluded that among all the cases studied, retaining walls with relief
shelves can considerably reduce the lateral thrust on wall in the range of
10.56-12.5%.
8. Case Study of Failure of a R.C.C. Counterfort Retaining Wall by “R. D.

Padhye”, “P. B. UllagaddiTheir study through light on a failure of a recently
constructed R.C.C. counter fort Retaining wall. The wall is located near
Sangli city in Maharashtra state of India. The wall was constructed in 2003
and there was a heavy rainfall occurred in all over the Maharashtra state
continuously in the year 2005 and 2006 subsequently in the catchments of
river Krishna. The wall could not sustain the flood impact and there was a

sliding, collapse and even rotational failure at some portion of wall was
observed. Basically this wall was constructed to protect a village road
about 1800m along a stream from flood water.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER NO.3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 SITE CONDITION
Niyati Equatorial site is located at Bhavdhan nestled among the hills. The
retaining wall is required on the boundaries of the site to retain the rocky earth
fill. The height of the strata to be retained is 8m & the SBC of soil 30 T/m^2 =
294.1995 kpa. The following picture shows the site condition.
Figure 8 View of backfill material on site
3.2 PROPOSED SOLUTION
On analysing the site we firstly we gave them option of segmental type of

retaining wall .The moulds required for this wall were not easily available in
pune , hence it was uneconomical .
After that we thought about gabion type of retaining wall. It was an

economical option since stones were readily available on site but as we
started designing we came to know that section was coming to large and
since it is a residential site it was not possible to construct that large section.
So to eliminate above both drawbacks we came up with stepped cantilever

wall.
3.3 Stepped Cantilever Wall: For retaining back fill of heights more than
6meters. The conventional walls like cantilever and counter fort becomes very
massive and almost uneconomical hence a suitable modification to these
walls so as to economize the retaining wall construction. The proposed
modified alternative is “Stepped cantilever retaining wall”. Here concrete steps
are provided on stem projecting into backfill. The pressure compacted backfill
will anchor the concrete plate/step and will develop frictional resistance force;
this wall act as indirect support for cantilever retaining wall. In short stem will
act as propped cantilever and thus will reduce the destructive forces on stem /
retaining wall.
The main concept in this type is supporting the high stem at critical points
indirectly by means of pulling force developed due to surface friction of
concrete steps with backfill. Here the effect of self-weight of these steps in
stabilizing wall against active pressure is not considered as it may be
negligible.
Conventionally in case of sheet pile walls, there was use of anchor rods
and the concrete plates or concrete, dead man was used to develop frictional
force. In case of sheet pile wall with vertical concrete plates the mechanism of
pulling force was due to passive resistance of soil mass bounded by height of
concrete wall and in that case the role of concrete wall was different from
frictional resistance function. In case of sheet pile walls the thickness of stem
was very small but it is continuous wall with membrane action than beam/slab
action but in this case, these concrete steps are used as supporting
mechanism for `conventional cantilever wall which gives relatively less
dimensions for assumed slab beam mechanism than conventional design
approach.The R.C.C. steps / plates projecting in backfill are main key elements
in this type of wall. The Resisting force developed due to these steps is
function of depth of these steps below top of wall, surface roughness of

concrete plates, degree of compaction of backfill and specific weight of

backfill. The steps are developing frictional force due to their anchorage in
backfill and steps are reinforced with sufficient steel required for tensile stress
developed in it due to pulling effect. Though these steps are standing as free
cantilever in backfill, they will not be designed as cantilever as it is assumed as
backfill is compacted.
3.4Design Principle: The procedure of analysis is same as cantilever retaining

wall but their preliminary dimensions given will be based on load distribution
assumed for actual analysis. Like any other analysis and design this will be
Iterative (trial and error) method, the preliminary dimensions may be
approximately given as half of that for purely cantilever wall with some exiting
thumb rules. So based on concept and design principle we are going to design
a stepped cantilever wall for 8 meters height.
3.4.1Fixation of base width

In this case it is not necessary that the base width of wall is so chosen that the
resultant of forces remain within middle third and the minimum (uplift)
pressure at toe is zero but these dimensions can be chosen approximately
without these checks.
3.4.2 Design of stem

The vertical stem is designed as cantilever for triangular loading but
reinforcement will be provided from actual modified pressure diagram due to
restoring force developed by concrete steps. Distribution reinforcement may
be provided as per standards.
3.4.3Design of Toe slab

It is also designed as a cantilever slab/beam. Reinforcement is provided at
lower face. There will major reduction in depth and steel reinforcement in toe

and heel slab due to reduction in the active pressure and addition in self-
weight of wall. This will effectively economize the wall construction. Thickness
is checked for the maximum cantilever moment.

3.4.4Design of Heel slab

It is also designed as a cantilever. Reinforcement is provided at the upper face.
Thickness is checked for the maximum cantilever moment.
3.4.5Design of concrete steps

The concrete steps will be placed along length at suitable spacing L. The
mechanism of friction generation is fully dependant on overburden load i.e.
depth of step from top of wall hence the step provided at more depth will give
better results. The one more effective element in friction development is
embedment length and width of step. The overlaying or overlapping of steps
and embedment in various pressure zones like passive or rest will also be
important. These steps will act as free cantilevers spanning from stem or
somewhat like plates supported on spring or elastic media depending upon
degree of compaction of backfill. These assumptions dominate its design or
depth at stem and free end. If steps assumed as slab strips supported on
elastic media then their depth and steel reinforcement for moment will be less
than its minimum depth as per standards and steel required for tensile forces
developed due to frictional resistance.
3.4.6Finalization of Step location

For actual analysis to decide location of step along length and along height of
wall is most important task as it may hamper most of assumptions. Hence the
length of step immersed in backfill was kept constant and the location of plate
along length of wall was fixed from number of trails for stability. For finalizing
the location of step along height of wall, the number of trials is taken starting
from half of height and with interval of 500 mm. The stability analysis of each
wall is done and concrete quantity, steel reinforcement are compared. The
most economical wall is selected final comparison as alternative with other
retaining wall types.

3.5DESIGN OF STEPPED CANTILEVER WALL FOR 8M
Assumptions:
Table 1 Summary of dimensions of stepped cantilever wall
Step From Width of Depth of Base Total Base Stem Thickness in (m)
Top heel slab Slab slab
At Top At Bottom
7 6 7 0.5 0.5
7.5 6 1 7 1 1
DESIGN OF STEM
kaγh2
1) Vu =1.5 { }=324.8KN
2
kaγh3
2) Mu=1.5{ }=
6
Mu@7.5=551.60KN.m
Mu@8m=669.4KNm
Mu@9.1m=985.3KN.m
3) STEEL FOR STEM
Ast for 7.m=3198.09mm2
Provide TOR 20@180mm c/c

Ast for 8m=1669.65mm2
Ast for 9.1m=2494.6mm2
TPC=0.8X9.1=7.3M from top
BM@7.3m=504.5KN.m
BM at bottom is almost double of this
∴ Provide TOR 20mm @ 300mm c/c
4) Check for shear
Tv= Vu= 0.83Mpa

bd
10As = 0.22
bd
Tv = 0.35Mpa
Tv < Tc
∴ OK safe
Table 2 Design of heel slab
Sr. no Forces(KN) Lever arm ( m) Moments (KN.m)
1 Self-weight 3 (-)450
( 1x6x26)=150()
2 856.7() 3 (-)2570.1

3 65.9x6x5=395.4 3 1186.2
4 1/2x169.5x6=508. 2 1017.0
5
∑m= 102.8() ∑m =(-)806.9
1) Vu= 1.5x102.8=154.2KN
2) Mu=1.5x816.9=1225.4KN.m
3) Check for ‘d’
1225.4x106=2.68x1000xd2
d= 676.2mm < dprovided= 950mm
4) Steel Calculations
Ast= 3139.7mm2
Provide TOR 20mm@ 180mm c/c
MINIMUM STEEL CALCULATION
1) Minimum steel For stem
Ast min = ½{0.12XGA}
= 450mm2
∴ provide TOR 10mm @ 180mm c/c
2) For base slab
Ast min =1/2{ 0.12x(1000x1000)}

100
= 600mm2

∴ provide TOR 10mm @150mm c/c

Figure 9.
Design of stepped cantilever wall

3.6 REASON FOR COMPARISONFigure OF RETAINING

10. WALL
Completed view of stepped cantilever wall at Nyati Equatorial
Walls suitable for height up to 8m: site
1. Counterfort Retaining wall
2. Gabion wall
3. Stepped cantilever wall

On the basis of above study, it is required to structurally analyse the retaining

walls to compare themmore effectively on the basis of strength, cost andease
in construction. This will help to provide better option economically.
3.7COMPARISON OF COUNTERFORT WALL AND CANTILEVER WALL FOR

HEIGHT:
We took a different example to compare both walls for different condition:
Data assumptions:
 Free Board not necessary.
 The backfill is enough compacted to develop necessary friction.
 Bearing Capacity of soil: 300KN per Square meter.
 Water level is much below the level of base and effect of soil moisture
is ignored.
 Dry Density of soil: 18 KN per Cubic meter.
 Angle of internal friction : 30 degree
 Coefficient of friction : 0.60
 Stability is checked for sliding and overturning.
 Factor of safety against sliding = 1.5
 Factor of safety against overturning =2.0
A) COUNTER FORT RETAINING WALL:
The structural analysis of counter fort Retaining wall is done as per routine
more analytical practices. Generally these walls are used for span more than
6m, but here in order to compare the results analysis and design of these

counter fort retaining walls is done for heights 6m to 15m . The mechanism of
this wall is different from cantilever wall and here base slab is important
aspect.
Table 3 Dimensions of counterfort wall w.r.t height
Ht of Total Width of Width of Base Stem thk.( m)

wall Base toe slab heel slab slab Thk.
Top Bottom
slab (m)
(m)
(m)
6 3.5 0.3 3 .28 0.2 0.2
8 4.25 0.5 3.45 0.35 0.3 0.3
10 5.6 1 4.25 0.45 0.45 0.35
12 7.75 1.25 6.05 0.5 0.45 0.45
15 10 2.75 6.70 0.77 0.55 0.55
Spacing 4 3.5 3 3 3
Thickness 0.3 0.375 0.4 0.45 0.55
The analysis of base slab for wall is presented in table here Toe slab is
designed as Cantilever slab spanning from stem. The upward soil pressure will
be acting as measure load on toe slab. But the heel slab will be designed as
simply supported slab in between two adjacent counter forts. Sometimes
when toe projection is larger and if there is possibility of stress reversal in
stem, the counter forts are also provided that on toe slab at that time. Toe slab
design will also be as heel slab design. The measure load for heel slab will be

effective load from average upward pressure and retained soil load on heel
slab.
The base slab that is provided as per require for maximum bending moment
while reinforcement is provided as per actual requirement for toe and heel slab.

Table 4 Structural analysis of counter fort retaining wall (Base slab)
Height of wall m Bending moment Depth of base Depth of base

(KN.m) slab required mm slab provided
mm
Toe Heel
6 12.67 158.98 240.03 400
8 47.58 232.12 290 450
10 187.55 419.80 390 550
12 288.36 534.34 440 600
15 1152.18 1391.32 710 850
The reinforcement provided for base slab that is toe slab and various locations
is shown in table below
Table 5 Designs of base slab of counter fort retaining wall
Height of Base slab Main Steel

wall m thickness
Toe slab Heel slab
mm
Ast. Mm2 Bar dia. & Ast. Mm2 Bar dia. &
spacing spacing
6 400 168.73 Φ10 1172.70 Φ20

@150mm @150mm
8 450 297.07 Φ12 1538.54 Φ20

@150mm @150mm
10 550 981.27 Φ16 2317.76 Φ25

@150mm @150mm

12 600 1399.52 Φ20 2724.55 Φ25

@150mm @150mm
15 850 4183.46 Φ25 @115 5194.55 Φ32

mm @150mm
The mechanism of stem of counter fort retaining wall and cantilever retaining
wall is not same. In cantilever retaining wall, stem was acting as free cantilever
stem with span equal height of wall while in counter fort, stem acts as a
simply supported slab spanning in between two adjacent counter forts. The
effective span for this will be span of counter fort along length of wall. The
dimension of stem is reduced due to mechanism. The bending moment of
vertical wall is maximum at the junction of stem (wall) with base and reduces
to zero at the top of wall.
The moments and reinforcement provided for various heights is shown below:
Table 6 Moment and reinforcement details along length of stem of counter

fort wall
Ht of wall Moments Steel provided In vertical wall

(m) (KN.m)
Stem Thickness
Drequired Dprovided Ast Bar Dia &

Spacing
(mm) (mm) (mm2)
6 72 161.51 200 1130.09 Φ10@70mm
8 73.5 163.19 300 1736.00 Φ12@65mm
10 67.5 156.39 350 552.52 Φ16@150m

12 81 171.31 450 510.83 Φ20@150m

m
15 101.25 191.53 550 520.35 Φ25@150m

m
The counterforts act as self-supporting structural elements for retaining wall.

It takes reactions, both from the stem as well as heel slab. The counterfort
may be considered to be considered to bend as a cantilever, fixed at heel slab.
The counterfort act as an inverted T beam of varying rib depth. The structural
analysis of counterfort is done based on above assumptions. The max. Depth
of this cantilever bean is width of heel slab. The steel reinforcement is
provided as per requirement of tensile stress induced in it due to soil load on
stem.
The moments and connections of counterfort wall details for various wall
heights are as shown in table.
Table 7 Moment and reinforcement details along length of stem of counter

fort wall
Stem m Moment Bar dia. And Connection of counterfort with heel

spacing slab
Horizontal Bar dia. Spacing of
6 864 Φ20@100m 144 Φ8 100mm

m
8 1792 Φ20@100m 168 Φ8 100mm

m
10 3000 Φ25@100m 180 Φ10 100mm

12 5184 Φ25@100m 216 Φ10 100mm

m
15 10125 Φ32@100m 270 Φ12 100mm

m
The main stress along counterfort is tensile. The connection of counterfort

with base slab and stem is important for all assumed mechanism. The steel
reinforcement provided is in the form of two legged stirrups of required
diameter steel. The saving is steel reinforcement can be done as per
curtailment reduction in number of stirrups from bottom to top side of wall.
STEPPED CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL
The stepped cantilever wall is new types suggested is this. Here concrete
steps are provided on stem projecting into backfill. The pressure compacted
backfill will anchor the concrete plate/step and will develop frictional
resistance force; this will act as indirect support for cantilever retaining wall
and thus will reduce the destructive forces on stem/ retaining wall.
Table 8 Summary of dimensions of stepped cantilever retaining wall.
Height of Total Width of Width of Base slab Stem

wall (m) base slab Toe slab heel slab thickness Thickness
(m) (m) (m) (m)
Top Botto
m
6 2.85 0.65 1.9 0.4 0.2 0.3
8 5.25 0.95 3.9 0.4 0.2 0.4

10 6.5 1.5 4.4 0.6 0.25 0.6
12 8.5 1.65 6.2 0.65 0.3 0.65
15 10.5 2 7.3 0.9 0.5 1.2
Table 9 Concrete Steps
Total Spacing From Top Width (m) Depth (m)
3.5 2 4 0.45 0.3
4.5 2 6.0 0.45 0.5
6 2 8 0.6 0.5
6.0 1.5 8 0.6 0.65
5.75 1.25 7.75 0.75 0.7
There is reduced soil load on base slab of wall firstly due to decreased base slab
width and secondly due to reduction in load of soil resting on concrete steps/plates in
backfill. In this case of wall interestingly it was the case that, wall was stable at
shorter dimensions but the stem was pulled inside backfill due to assumed frictional
force hence the structural dimensions were not much reduced to keep balance
between self-weight and resisting forces.
The forces acting and analysis and design of base slab for this new stepped
cantilever retaining wall are as shown in Table below
Table 10 Structural analysis of stepped cantilever wall
Ht. of wall (m) Bending Thickness Thickness

Moment(KN.m) required (mm) Provided(mm)
Toe Heel

6 72.03 105.00 195.05 400
8 205.34 800.88 538.68 650
10 581.84 987.57 598.18 750
12 656.00 1112.92 618.55 800
15 979.98 1553.13 750.15 900
Table 11 Design of Base slab
Ht of wall Base slab Main steel

(m) thickness
Toe Slab Heel slab
(mm)
Ast (mm2) Bar dia & Ast (mm2) Bar dia &
Spacing spacing
6 400 505.63 Φ12@150m 741.68 Φ16@150m

m m
8 650 887.99 Φ20@150m 3623.94 Φ25@135m

m m
10 750 2217.81 Φ25@150m 3854.36 Φ32@150m

m m
12 800 2343.51 Φ25@150m 4069.80 Φ25@150m

m m
15 900 3130.30 Φ32@150m 5079.49 Φ36@150m

m m
The R.C.C. steps / plates projecting in backfill are main key elements in
this type of wall. The Resisting force developed due to these steps is function
of depth of these steps below top of wall, surface roughness of concrete

plates, degree of compaction of backfill and specific weight of backfill. The
steps are developing frictional force due to their anchorage in backfill and
steps are reinforced with sufficient steel required for tensile stress developed
in it due to pulling effect. Though these steps are standing as free cantilever
in backfill, they will not be designed as cantilever as it is assumed as backfill
is compacted.The details of forces acting and design of these concrete steps
is as shown in Table
Table 12 Concrete step analysis and design details
Ht. of Wall Step Dimension Location

(m)
Width Depth Depth below In fill
top
Embedment
6 0.4 0.3 4.0 3.5
8 0.5 0.3 5.5 4.5
10 0.6 0.3 6.5 5.5
12 0.65 0.4 7.5 6.5
15 0.7 0.45 9.5 7.5
Reinforcement Details Step spacing along Frictional force

length developed
Dia No.
12 4 2.0 67.68
12 6 2.0 151.47
12 8 2.0 244.30
12 12 1.5 342.23

16 10 1.25 517.10
In this type of wall the nature of moment variation will be similar as that of
Cantilever retaining wall but there will be drastic change in moment at the
point where concrete step is projected inside backfill. Up to this point the
moment will be function of height of backfill but below this the moment will
be algebraic sum of both resisting and destructive moments i.e. Destructive
moment due to backfill and resisting moment of frictional force developed
due to step.The steel reinforcement will be provided not only adhering to
moment values but with also consideration to minimum steel quantities and
Practical site considerations also.
Table 13Reinforcement details along height of stem
Ht. of wall (m) Moment (KNm) Steel provided in vertical wall
Stem thickness
Dreq Dprov Ast Bar Dia&

(mm2) spacing
6 35.52 138.94 300 500.82 Φ12@150m

m
8 310.04 410.49 500 2732.3 Φ20@115m

6 m
10 674.27 605.32 700 4274.6 Φ25@115m

6 m
12 1385.77 867.83 950 4238.3 Φ25@115m

8 m
15 2944.08 1264.9 1350 9803.3 Φ32@80mm

3 6
UNIT COST PER METRE OF WALL

Counter fort Retaining Wall:
The cost of counter fort retaining wall includes cost of concrete for
stem, counter fort and base slab is added, and the steel quantity is
calculated from actual steel used with some provision for wastage also. For
counter fort retaining wall, the cost of wall is calculated for total spacing of
counter forts and from this per meter cost of wall is calculated. The cost per
running meter for counter fort retaining wall for various retain heights is as
shown in table.
Table 14 Cost per running meter for counterfort retaining wall for various
heights
Ht. of 6m 8m 10m
wall
Locatio Concret Steel Concret Steel Concret Steel

n e m3 (kg) e m3 (kg) e m3 (kg)
Stem 12 76.08 2.4 137.6 3.5 156.8
Base 0.98 66.16 1.49 80.08 2.52 139.86

Slab
Counter 2.7 137.2 5.18 234.05 8.5 527.98

forts
Total 4.88 279.44 9.07 451.73 14.52 824.64
Rate 5000 60 5000 60 5000 60
Amount 24400 16766. 45350 27103. 72600 49478.

4 8 4
Sum 41166.4 72453.8 122078.4

Ht. of wall 12m 15m
Location Concrete m3 Steel (kg) Concrete m3 Steel (kg)
Stem 5.4 251.52 825 439.7
Base Slab 3.9 229.82 7.7 475.28
Counter 16.34 765.5 27.64 1810.55

forts
Total 25.64 1246.84 43.59 2725.53
Rate 5000 60 5000 60
Amount 128200 74810.4 217950 163531.8
Sum 203010.4 381481.8
Stepped Cantilever Retaining Wall
As like for counter fort retaining wall, the cost of stepped cantilever
retaining wall will be calculated firstly as per spacing of steps in backfill
along length of wall and hence it is transferred to per meter cost. The
construction practice for stepped cantilever wall will not be very special
than cantilever wall hence except extra amount for backfill compaction, no
any extra provision is made in cost calculation .Cost per running meter for
stepped cantilever retaining wall
Table 15 Cost per running meter for stepped cantilever retaining wall
Ht. of 6m 8m 10m 12m 15m

wall
Loca Conc Stee Conc Stee Conc Steel Conc Ste Conc Steel
tion rete l kg rete l kg rete kg rete el rete kg
m3 m3 m3 m3 kg m3
Stem 3 142. 4.8 476. 8.6 972.2 11.5 60 25.5 1688.

78 72 2 2.6 23

Base 2.28 84.9 4.2 370. 7.8 623.2 8.29 500 11.8 850.0
slab 1 71 1 7
Step 0.25 8.2 0.39 16.6 0.55 26.18 0.9 59. 1.2 100.8
s 3 69 8
Total 5.53 235. 9.39 864. 16.9 1621. 20.7 116 38.5 2639.
89 06 5 59 1 2.3 18
Rate 5000 60 5000 60 5000 60 5000 60 5000 60
Amo 2765 141 4695 518 8475 9729 1035 697 1925 1583
unt 0 53.4 0 43.6 0 54.4 50 38 00 50.8
Sum 41803.4 98793.6 182045.4 173288 350850.8
COST COMPARISON
The cost per meter for all these three proposed types is tabular above. The
comparison of concrete quantity per meter for different wall heights and
different wall types are shown.
Table 16 Comparison of concrete for different walls
Wall ht. m Counterfort wall (m3) Stepped cantilever wall

(m3)
6 4.88 5.53
8 9.07 9.39
10 14.52 16.95
12 25.64 20.72
15 43.59 38.5
Concrete quantity comparison

50
45
40
35
30
25 counterfort
step
Column1
20
15
10
0
6 8 10 12 15
Graph 1
Table 17 Steel reinforcement per meter of wall
Wall ht. m Counterfort wall Stepped cantilever wall
6 279.44 235.89
8 451.73 864.96
10 824.64 1621.59
12 1246.84 1162.34
15 2725.53 2639.18

3000
2500
2000
1500 counterfort
step
Column1
1000
500
0
6 8 10 12 15
Graph 2
The table shows final cost comparison of all these wall types for same heights
and graph showing variation.
Table 18 Final cost comparison
Ht. of wall Counterfort wall (Rs) Stepped cantilever wall

(Rs)
6 41803.4 41166.4
8 98793.6 72453.8
10 182045.4 122078.84
12 173288 203010.4
15 350850.8 381481.8

Final cost comparison

300000
250000
200000
150000 Counterfort
Step
Column1
100000
50000
0
6 8 10 12 15
Graph 3
It is clear from table that for heights from 8.0m to 10.0m counterfort retaining
wall is giving economical results. Hence counterfort wall is better alternative
for retaining wall heights up to 10.0m. Other walls types may also be checked
depending on actual site conditions.
The stepped cantilever is giving best result for heights more than 10.0m, from
this height counterfort wall retaining walls are bring uneconomical.

3.8COMPARISON OF GABION WALL AND STEPPED CANTILEVER WALL
Design of Gabion wall
Data assumptions:
• Free Board not necessary.
• The backfill is enough compacted to develop necessary friction.
• Bearing Capacity of soil: 300KN per Square meter
• Water level is much below the level of base and effect of soil moisture is
ignored.
• Dry Density of soil: 18 KN per Cubic meter.
• Angle of internal friction : 30 degree
• Coefficient of friction : 0.60
• Stability is checked for sliding and overturning.
• Factor of safety against sliding = 1.5
• Factor of safety against overturning =2.0
Calculation of overall moment
Overturning moment (Mo)= Paxhy/cosα
Calculation of weight of Gabion (Wgabion)= YgX (volume of wall per unit length)
γg = Gabion fill density
Calculate the horizontal distance of point of application of the weight of

gabion wall from toe (hg )
hg = (a . X) / A
a = Individual area of the gabions parallel to the slope,
X = distance of C.G. of the individual gabion from toe
A = Total area of the gabion wall

For two bottom gabions,
hg=
L w a w
[ ] {
lx w xcos(x) + sin (α) +a x w [ (L -a) + xcos (a) + w + xsin (a)]
2 2 2 2 } ( )
(L x w +a x w)
For three bottom gabions,
hg=
L w a w a w
[ ] [{ } ( ) ] { } ( )
lx w 2xcos(x) + 2 sin (α) +a x w (L -a) +2 xcos (a) + w + 2 xsin (a) +a xw[ (L - a) +2 xcos (a) + 2w + 2 x sin (a)]
(L x w +a x w +a x w)
For four bottom Gabions,
L w a w
hg=
[ ] { }
lx w xcos(x) + sin (α) +a x w [ (L -a) + xcos (a) + w + xsin (a)]
2 2 2 2 ( ) +
Figure 11 Design of Gabion Wall

a w w
{ }
b
{ } ( )
a x w [ (L - a) + xcos (a) + 2w + x sin (a)] +b x w[ (L -b) + xcos (a) + 3w + x sin
2 2 2 2 ( )

w = thickness of each gabion
a = width of the second and third gabion from the bottom
b = width of the fourth and fifth gabion from the bottom
c = width of the sixth and seventh gabion from the bottom
d = width of the eighth and ninth gabion from the bottom
e = width of the tenth gabion from the bottom (top gabion as shown in the
Figure)
Calculation of factor of safety against sliding
Driving force (Fd) = Pa – Wgabion sin α
Resisting force (Fr) = Wgabion cos α x Ci tan
(FOS)sliding = Fr / Fd> 1.5 (safe)
Calculation of factor of safety against overturning
Overturning moment (Mo) = Pa x hy /cos α
Resisting moment (Mr) = Wgabion x hg
(FOS)overturning = Mr/ Mo > 2 (safe)
Calculation of eccentricity (e)
e = (L/2) – (Mr – Mo)/ Wg cos α
- L/6 < e < + L/6 (OK)
Check against bearing pressure
Maximum base pressure developed (Pb)
= (Wg cos α/ L) (1 + 6e/ L) < qalloable (safe)
Qallowable = Allowable bearing capacity of the subgrade soil

Assumed rates for Gabion Net = 968 Rs. /m2 , Stones = 700 Rs / m2
All dimensions are in meters
Assumed rates for Gabion Net = 968 Rs. /m2 , Stones = 700 Rs / m2
All dimensions are in meters

Gabion wall for 6m height Gabion wall for 8m

height
Quantity of net required = 20.4m2 Quantity of net =

27.99m2
Quantity of stones required = 15.6 m3 Quantity of stones

=21.32m3
Gabion wall for 10m height
Quantity of net =34m2 Quantity of stones = 33.31m3

Gabion Wall for 12m height Gabion wall for 15m

height
Quantity of net =40.8 m2 Quantity of net = 51m2
Quantity of stones = 43.2 m3 Quantity of stones =

61.5 m3
Table19. Cost Comparison for Different Heights
Wall Ht. Gabion Wall (Rs) Stepped Cantilever Wall

(Rs)
6 30667.2 41803.4
8 42081.32 98793.6
10 56229 182045.4
12 69734.4 173288
15 92418 350850.8
It is clearly visible from above table that gabion wall is more economical then
stepped cantilever wall .Hence gabion wall is better alternative than stepped
cantilever wall cost wise.

3.9Drainage
Retaining walls are useful structures that form a transition between areas of
different elevation. Retaining walls allow steep, unusable slopes to be avoided.
A retaining wall will make use of the vertical forces from the wall itself and any
soil above the wall’s footing to resist the lateral forces from the soil being
retained. This balance can be upset when additional lateral forces act on the
wall.
When water accumulates behind a retaining wall, the lateral forces acting on
the wall increase. The more water that has collected behind a retaining wall,
the greater the hydrostatic pressure on the wall will be. If the overturning
moment (caused by the total lateral forces) exceeds the resisting moment
(caused by the total vertical forces) the wall will fail.
There are several ways to prevent water from building up behind a retaining
wall. Weep holes should be drilled through the wall. Weep holes allow water to
escape from behind the wall. These holes should be regularly spaced in the
horizontal direction. Retaining walls with a height greater than a few feet
should also have weep holes that are regularly spaced in the vertical direction,
forming a grid pattern.

Figure 12 Weep holes in retaining wall
Another method for relieving hydrostatic pressure is to install a drainage pipe

behind the wall. This should be a perforated pipe, to allow water to enter it
through the length of the wall. The pipe can be located just above the footing,
or can be located at a higher elevation. Taller walls may require more than one
drainpipe to sufficiently relieve the hydrostatic pressure. This can be done by
placing one pipe near mid-height of the wall, and another pipe near the footing
of the wall.

Figure 13 Perforated pipe
A cohesion less, granular soil should be used as backfill to allow water to

penetrate the soil to reach the drains or weep holes mentioned above. If a
cohesive soil is used, such as clay, it will be difficult for the water to reach a
depth where it can enter a pipe or weep hole. Granular materials allow water to
permeate through the backfill, rather than being trapped within it. As gravity
pulls the water downward, the granular backfill lets the water freely pass until
it reaches weep holes or pipes.
The grading behind a retaining wall also has an effect on the buildup of water.
The soil behind a retaining wall typically slopes toward the wall. This causes
surface water to move in the direction of the wall, which can lead to
accumulation. Grading can be used to reduce the amount of water directed
toward the wall.
Ideally, these and other methods would be combined to create a redundant

system. Proper grading will minimize the amount of water that will be directed
toward the wall. A backfill made up of cohesion less, granular materials will
allow the water that is directed toward the wall to penetrate the soil rather than
building up above or within it. Weep holes will allow the water moving through
the soil to escape to the other side of the wall. Drainage pipes allow additional
water to move away from the wall instead of accumulating behind it. These
methods will help to reduce the amount of hydrostatic pressure acting on a
wall. Without the added lateral force, the wall is able to remain in service for

the duration of its intended life.
From literature study of research paper Effect of embedding drainage system

on retaining wall structure stability by Hossein Moayedi , Bujang B.K.Huat ,
Fatemeh Moayedi and Afshin Asadi we came to conclusion that there is
reduction of 35% and 38% for bending moment and shear stress value
respectively. Therefore due to provision of drainage reduction in Bending
moment is from 983.3KN.m to 344.85KN.m at height of 9.1m for stem and for
heel it is 1225.4 KNm to 428.89 KN.m. For shear stress reduction for stem is
324.8KN to 123.42KN and 154.2KN to 58.96 KN for heel.
Since mechanism of perforated drain is filtration which was not compatible for
our height 8m we have provided weep holes at different levels.
3.9.1Latest Drainage Technology
To facilitate ground water drainage, the latest technology employs panels,

commonly referred to as “drainage panels” or “drainage tiles.” This type of
drainage system is far more cost effective than importing and placing
several cubic yards of gravel behind a retaining wall.
These drainage panels are designed to replace gravel or “drain rock.” They
are made of composite material and can be placed over the waterproofing
membrane and attached to the back of the retaining wall. The panels are
made with “dimples” surfaced with Geotextile fabric. The fabric is placed
toward the soil and acts as a filter to keep sediment out. Water drains
through the fabric and drips to the base of the retaining wall through the
channels produced by the dimples.
Perforated PVC pipes positioned at the base of the retaining wall can then
collect the water. The PVC pipes are wrapped with filter fabric to prevent
silt clogging. The perforated pipes are connected to solid PVC pipes that
conduct the water downhill to a proper discharge facility. If the water is
discharges on a hillside, a dissipation field is constructed.
Dissipation fields

A dissipation field is an engineered facility designed to release the water

collected by perforated pipes from the uphill side of the retaining wall and
then discharge it in such a way that will not cause soil erosion.
A typical engineered dissipation field is a terraced section of hillside

covered by Geotextile fabric. A 20’ – 30’ section of perforated PVC pipe is
laid flat on the fabric, with holes facing up. The pipe is connected to sub
drains by a solid transfer pipe. The entire terraced area and PVC pipe is
then covered with 6” – 12” boulders. Usually, the size and location of the
pipes and the size of boulders are designed and calculated by an engineer
specializing in drainage systems, based on the amount of water that will be
discharged.
With a properly engineered dissipation field, water gradually seeps across a

large span and will not cause erosion by a concentrated discharge. This
gradual dissipation of water also helps with the replenishment of ground
water. In an effort to replenish ground water across The United States, new
underground dissipation fields are being designed for subdivisions built on
flat land. These underground dissipation fields collect storm water and
gradually dissipate it into the aquifer.
 Mac Drainage-(Drainage Composite)
Providing proper drainage system for structures such as earth

retaining structures, pavements, water front structures, canals etc. is
of paramount importance. Locking of water inside the structure
impose extra water pressure and earth pressure due to reduction in
shear strength of soil. This reduces stability of structure and can
even lead to catastrophic failure. Traditionally gravel or aggregate
layer in combination with sand is provided behind the earth retaining
structures, within earthen dams and as pavement edge drains.
However, the aggregates used for filter and drainage layers is
becoming scarce commodity in India and an alternate material is

essential to replace the increasing need of aggregates for such

infrastructure projects. Ban has been imposed in many states on
mining of precious natural resources / materials. Conventional
graded filters have lot of disadvantages like: Clogging of filter layer
by fine soil particles, difficulty in quality construction (as there is a
need to provide proper gradation of aggregate / material depending
upon the fill material) etc. With advancement of technology in the
field of construction, ‘Geosynthetics’ has become a simple and
effective replacement to variousconventional solutions respecting
the safety, technical and functional requirements of structure.
MacDrain are special type of geocomposites that enable rapid
drainage of excess water while preventing soil particle migration. It
is a geosynthetics product which is used as an alternate to
conventional gravel drainage layer behind earth retaining structures,
buried structures like basements and culverts, in trace garden, canal
lining and dam applications etc. MacDrain is 20 to 50% cheaper
compared to conventional graded filter.
MacDrain – (Drainage Composite):
Macdrain is a specifically designed Geocomposite to meet the

drainage and protection requirements in structurally demanding
water draining applications. MacDrain effectively eliminate
hydrostatic pressure by collecting and conveying groundwater to a
drain pipe for discharge. Figure 1 shows a typical MacDrain which
are made of lightweight three dimensional, high compressive
strength polymeric core and nonwoven geotextile, provided on one
side or both sides as per requirements. Depending upon the
application, drainage composite may also be provided with a
Geomembrane or laminated geotextile on one side of it to act
ashydraulic barrier and at the same time drain of excess water for

area above the drainage composite.
Drainage Composite behind Retaining wall and Bridge abutments:

Drainage composite reduces the pore water pressure and thus increases the
overall stability of earth retaining structures. It is laid behind the wall facial end.
At the bottom end, it is connected to perforated PVC pipe (Optional) of
suitable diameter to drain the water off. If in case there is the conventional
retaining wall system consisting of the weep holes, the MacDrain can be used
for the dissipation of the water that may be generated behind the retaining
wall
Figure 14 MacDrain
3.10 ALTERNATIVE RETAINING TECHNIQUES
Soil Nailing
Soil nailing is a technique in which soil slopes, excavations or retaining walls

are reinforced by the insertion of relatively slender elements – normally steel
reinforcing bars. The bars are usually installed into a pre-drilled hole and
then grouted into place or drilled and grouted simultaneously. They are usually
installed intentioned at a slight downward inclination. A rigid or flexible facing
(often sprayed concrete) or isolated soil nail heads may be used at the surface.

Figure 15 Soil Nailing
Mechanically stabilized earth

MSE walls stabilize unstable slopes and retain the soil on steep slopes and
under crest loads. The wall face is often of precast, segmental blocks, panels
or geocells that can tolerate some differential movement.
The walls are infilled with granular soil, with or without reinforcement, while
retaining the backfill soil. Reinforced walls utilize horizontal layers typically
of geogrids. The reinforced soil mass, along with the facing, forms the wall.
Figure 16 Mechanically Stabilized earth

The main advantages of MSE walls compared to conventional reinforced

concrete walls are their ease of installation and quick construction. They do
not require formwork or curing and each layer is structurally sound as it is laid,
reducing the need for support, scaffolding or cranes. They also do not require
additional work on the facing.

3.11MATERIALS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL
There is a wide array of materials that retaining walls can be built out of.
When choosing what type of material to use homeowners should consider why
they are building the retaining wall, what the main purpose of the retaining wall
is, what they want the retaining wall to look like, and what the budget for
constructing the retaining wall is. Retaining walls serve several different
functions. They create a raised planting bed and help manage sloping areas.
Creating a level area or multi-level areas to take advantage of an area is
challenging in both labour and cost management. Materials used in retaining
wall construction can vary according to preference and cost. Materials that
can be used include concrete block, poured concrete, brick, and wood.
Concrete Block Retaining Walls
Building a retaining wall with concrete block has the benefit of being able to
have curves in the retaining wall. One of the downfalls of using concrete block
for retaining walls is that it can only be used for walls that are shorter than
four feet tall. Concrete block retaining walls are overall durable; however,
without footings poured, the wall may not be as durable.
Poured Concrete Retaining Walls
Using poured concrete for retaining walls has the advantage of strength.
Poured concrete is much stronger than concrete block, and a wide array of
designs are possible with poured concrete. A con of poured concrete retaining
walls is that extreme skill is required to pour walls that will not crack or break.
Brick Retaining Walls
Brick retaining walls require much labor to build, and have to have special
drainage ditches dug to allow for drainage, however, once built, the wall is very
strong and long lasting. Brick retaining walls work as a complement to a
home’s style and are pretty with a landscaped yard

When it comes to residential retaining walls, there are a variety of materials to

choose from. You'll need to consider the purpose of the wall, the look your
desire and your budget when deciding what retaining wall material is right for
you. Whether you choose concrete block, stone, or another material, you'll
want to understand the basics of retaining wall construction so that you can
make sure your wall is designed and built correctly. Various material that can
be used in residential site are shown below.
Table 20 Characteristics of different materials

TYPE OF MATERIAL PROS CONS STYLE DURABILITY

Concrete Block  Slump block
resembles
Spanish style
Can only be used architecture Lack of
Can be used to
for walls under 4-  Ground faced footings may
create curves
feet tall block is popular affect strength
with mid-
centuryarchitect
ure
Stone Veneer  Any look
can be
Must be well
created
designed, usually Natural stone varies Solid core can
using this
requiring a by colour and style be designed in
type of
landscape but it's important to almost any
constructio
architect or match the stone on thickness and
n
capable existing architecture height
 Natural,
contractor
custom
appearance
Poured Concrete  Skill required
 Stronger for form Forms have to
than a makes for a be immaculate
The smooth, sleek
block wall difficult to reduce
form is often used in
 Variety of solution for chances of a
modern landscapes
design residential wave or a
options projects. bulge
 May crack.
Brick  Labour Installation
intensive methods
 Requires Complements result in a
Strong and
special traditional homes solid structure
durable
accommodati and landscapes which is
ons for extremely
drainage durable
Wood If installed
 May rot
 Can relate to with proper
 Doesn't last
 Accessible almost any style material,
as long as
materials  Blends into the waterproofing
other wall
 Fairly landscape more and
materials
simple naturally than preservatives,
 Recommende it can last for
installation any other
d for walls 20 years or
material
under 4-foot more

Dry Stone/Boulder
Water
Dry boulder and
The most accumulating
Difficult to stone walls are ideal
natural in the interior
control water for colonial, country,
solution to of the wall will
flow and English-style
grade change destroy its
gardens
integrity

3.11.1NEW RESEARCH IN MATERIAL:
 Use of geo-synthetic materials
Geosynthetics are synthetic products used to stabilize terrain. They are

generally polymeric products used to solve civil engineering problems. This
includes eight main product categories:
 Geotextiles
Geotextiles can be classified on the basis of their functions as: Protection,

fluid transmission, separation, reinforcement, tensional membrane, tensile
member and barrier. These are generally made of woven (eg, Textron),
nonwoven (eg, Typar) and knitted type of fabrics.
Figure 17 Geo textiles

 Geogrid
Geogrids are commonly used to reinforce retaining walls, as well as subbases
or subsoils below roads or structures.
Figure 18 Geogrid
`Geocell
They widely used in construction for erosion controlsoil stabilization on flat

ground and steep slopes, channel protection, and structural reinforcement
for load support and earth retention.
Figure 19 Geocell
 Geonets
They are integrally connected parallel sets of ribs overlying similar sets at
Figure 20 Geonets
various angles for in-plane drainage of liquids or gases. Geonets are often
laminated with geotextiles on one or both surfaces and are then referred to as
drainage geocomposites. They are competitive with other drainage
geocomposites having different core configurations.
 Geomembrane
A geomembrane is very low permeability synthetic membrane liner or barrier
used with any geotechnical engineering related material so as to control fluid
(or gas) migration in a human-made project, structure, or system.
Figure 21 Geo membrane
 USE OF GEOSYNTHETIC MATERIAL IN CONSTRUCTON OF

REINFORCED EARTH WALL
Reinforced earth retaining wall is comparatively a new
construction technique. Due to its simplicity, economy and faster pace
of construction, several such retaining walls have been constructed all
over the world and this technique has almost replaced the conventional
reinforced concrete and gravity retaining walls. To reduce the
congestion on National Highway-2 at the crossing of Kalindi Kunj near
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, a flyover was constructed along Badarpur-
Ashram direction. The construction of approach road was carried out
with reinforced retaining wall with friction polymeric ties (geosynthetic
material) as reinforcement material. Instead of conventional earth, pond
ash from the nearby Badarpur thermal power plant was used as backfill
material. Pond ash was procured from the Badarpur thermal power
plant, New Delhi and was investigated for its geotechnical

characteristics in the laboratory. Pond ash is a non-plastic coarse
grained material. The angle value for angle of internal friction varied in
the range of 32°-34°. Therefore, there is a possibility of development of
interfacial friction between the backfill and the reinforcement. It has
high coefficient of permeability (K in the range of 10-6 to10–7 m/sec).
The maximum dry density of pond ash when tested as per IS: 2720
(Part 8)-1983, was found to be in the range of 11kN/m3 to 13 kN/m3 and
OMC in the range of 30 to 32%. The reinforcing geosynthetic material
that was used is called friction ties (commercially known as KOLOTIES).
Two type of friction ties, having ultimate tensile strength of 50 Tones
(designated as KT50) and 30 Tones (designated as KT30) were used.
The friction ties are composed of high tenacity polyester yarns and can
undergo deformation to the extent of 10 to 12% without failure.
 This reinforced earth technique is particularly advantageous in urban areas

where land is scarce and land values are high. Reinforced earth enables
construction of walls on the boundary of the area available without
encroaching upon the adjacent land.
 The technique is simple and easy to install. There are only three components
i.e. facing panels, frictional anchors and soil/pond ash. With slight experience,
construction can be carried out with a very fast pace of construction.
 Pond ash could be used as an alternative to conventional earth as a backfill
material.
 Since there is very little transfer of load to the ground and system being
flexible in nature, it can be used on soils with low bearing capacity.
 The distinctive pre-formed facing units can be manufactured with a variety of
attractive pattern and in different colours. This helps in improving aesthetics
of the structure blending with the surrounding.
 This type of wall being flexible is safer in earthquake prone areas as compared
to conventional reinforced concrete retaining wall.


CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION& FUTURE SCOPE

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION& FUTURE SCOPE
CONCLUSION:
 From above study we concluded that cost for stepped cantilever wall is
for 8m height is Rs.72453.8, for counterfort wall for is Rs. 98793.6 and
for gabion wall is Rs. 42081.32.From which we can say that gabion is
an economical option among all three but depending on site condition
we can select the compatible retaining wall.
 For transportation field with hard backfill we can use gabion wall and if
there is soft backfill we can choose counter fort or stepped cantilever
as per site condition.
 For residential site we can choose stepped cantilever or counterfort

wall as per site condition .Gabion wall is not compatible for larger
height since it gives larger section.
 For short wall we can go for perforated drain & for larger height we can
go for weep holes.
FUTURE SCOPE:
 Further we can use different combination of new drainage system and

materials to get more economical and efficient solutions.
 Using different material in stepped cantilever we can analyse the

changes.
 We can use pond ash for filling backfill instead of soil for different site
condition and analyse the effect.

 Designing stepped cantilever wall with combination of given design

principles and guidelines of I.S. code and to analyse changes in design.

REFERENCES
[1] Dr. S.S. Patil, A.A.R Bagban, “Analysis and Design of Stepped Cantilever
Retaining Wall”, International Journal of Research and Technology,Vol.4,Issue
2, (Feburary-2015), ISSN: 2278-0181
[2] Anurag Upadhyay, A.Murali Krishna and K.D.Singh,”Behaviour of Cantilever

Retaining Wall Under seismic condition”, 5th International conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, January 2011 Santiago, Chile
[3]Mikio futaki and Osamu sagaguchi “Behaviour of cantilever retaining wall

under seismic loading”, Earthquake engineering tenth world conference, 1992,
Balerna. ISBN 9054100605
[4]S. Talatahari,R.Sheikholeslami, M. Shadfaran, and M. Pourbaba, “Optimum

Design of gravity retaining wall using charged system search algorithm”,
Hindawi Publishing Corporating, Vol.2012, Article ID- 301628
[5]Mu’azuMohammed Abdullahi“Evaluation of Causes of Retaining Wall

Failure”,Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies ISSN 1583
-1078 Issue 14, January-June 2009.
[6] Bujang B. K. Huat , Hossein Moayedi , Afshin Asadi , International Journal

of the Physical Sciences Vol. 6(19), pp. 4649-4655, 16 September, 2011
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS DOI:
10.5897/IJPS11.426 ISSN 1992 - 1950 ©2011 Academic Journals
[8] Vinay Bhushan Chauhan, DasakaMurty, Rizwan Khan “NUMERICAL STUDY

ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF A RIGID RETAINING WALL WITH RELIEF
SHELVES”Conference: Indian Geotechnical Conference 2015, At Pune,
Maharashtra, India

[9] R. D. Padhye Dr. P. B. Ullagaddi “CASE STUDY OF FAILURE OF A R.C.C.

COUNTERFORT RETAINING WALL”, International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 16.
[10] Jayashree P.K,”PERFORMANCE OF GABION FACED REINFORCED EARTH

RETAINING WALL”, Submitted to Cochin University of science and technology,
(October 2014)

RESEARCH PAPER
DETAILS
International conference on Recent trends In Engineering, Science &

Management
Sr. Name Of Authors Title of Paper Name of Year/ Volume

No Journal
1 Swati Nagre “Case study of IJARSE Vol No.03,

Retaining wall” Issue No.04
Rutuja Shinde 2454-9665
April 17
Sushma Ladkat
Komal Mahisare
Paper Accepted Review Comments by Corrective action if any

/Rejected Reviewer
ACCEPTED GOOD NO

CERTIFICATES OF INTERNATINAL CONFERENCE ON RECENT TRENDS IN

ENGINEERING, SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT





Case Study of Retaining Wall

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study of Retaining Wall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Case Study of Retaining Wall”

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 1

Retaining walls are structures designed to restrain soil to a slope that it would

A retaining wall is a structure designed and constructed to resist the lateral

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 2

Figure 1: Retaining wall

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 3

1.2 TYPES OF RETAINING WALL

 Gravity Walls: A Gravity retaining wall is the one in which the

Figure 2: Gravity wall

anywhere, and the resultant of forces remain within the middle

 Cantilever Retaining walls: The Cantilevered walls resists the

Figure 3 : Cantilever Retaining wall

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 4

the soil pressure by bending

 Counterfort Retaining wall: In Counterfort retaining wall the

Figure 5: Counterfort Retaining wall

 Buttressed Retaining wall: A buttressed wall is a modification of

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 5

Figure 4: Buttress Retaining wall

 Gabion wall: A gabion wall is a retaining wall made of stacked stone-

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 6

Figure 6: Gabion Wall

 Segmental Retaining wall: Segmental retaining walls consist of

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 7

 no need for a concrete footing

Figure 7 Segmental Retaining Wall

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 8

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 9

1. Mikio Futaki with Osamu Sagakuchi worked on the behaviour of

2. “Anurag Upadhayaya” with”A. Murli Krishna” aims to “Study the behavior

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 10

3. This paper by “Mohommed Abdullahi” talks about studies carried by him

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 11

5. “Effect of embedding drainage system on retaining wall structure stability

6. “Jayshree. P” worked to use locally available material instead of the costly

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 12

7. “NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF A RIGID RETAINING WALL

8. Case Study of Failure of a R.C.C. Counterfort Retaining Wall by “R. D.

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 13

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 14

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 15

3.1 SITE CONDITION

Figure 8 View of backfill material on site

3.2 PROPOSED SOLUTION

On analysing the site we firstly we gave them option of segmental type of

After that we thought about gabion type of retaining wall. It was an

So to eliminate above both drawbacks we came up with stepped cantilever

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 16

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 17

concrete plates, degree of compaction of backfill and specific weight of

3.4Design Principle: The procedure of analysis is same as cantilever retaining

3.4.1Fixation of base width

3.4.2 Design of stem

3.4.3Design of Toe slab

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 18

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 19

3.4.4Design of Heel slab

3.4.5Design of concrete steps

3.4.6Finalization of Step location

Genba Sopanrao Moze college of Engineering, Balewadi, Pune-45Page 20

3.5DESIGN OF STEPPED CANTILEVER WALL FOR 8M

Table 1 Summary of dimensions of stepped cantilever wall