Design of Counterfort Retaining Wall

Retaining wall with Counterfort Check of Stability Calclation of Inernal Forces

Design According ACI 318-08
Project Code:
Project Title:
Element: Retaining wall with Counterfort
Rev:
General Input:
fc' = 32 N/mm² Kp= 3
fy= 420 N/mm² Ka= 0.3333333
Unit Wight of Concrete= ꝩc = 24 kN/m³ ꝩs = 18
Coefficient of Friction= µ = 0.58 tw= 0.3
q(allow) = 150 kN/m² tb= 0.8
Cover = 50 mm tc= 0.3
Lc= 2.2
Ignore Passive Soil YES b= 6.5
Ignore wet soil Ws YES L(toe)= 2.6
d= 0.74

Assumptions:
Friction angle of soil 30
Friction coefficient between soil and concrete 0.5
Dry density of soil 18 kN/m3
Water table is not considered for this calculation(If the water pressure is considered, we have to consider the
of the soil and also need to consider the saturated unit weight of the soil depending on the capillary action of
No surcharge load is considered to simplify the calculation

1- Check Stability of Wall:

a) Check for retaining wall overturning
Calculation of Load(∑ W) and Stability Moment (∑M)
Description of loads Loads W Distance from load to Moments M @ O
point O
kN/m² m kN.m/m²
Weight of Stem 66.024 2.75 181.566
W1
Weight of base Slab 124.8 3.25 405.6
W2

Weight of earth over heel Slab 594.216 4.7 2792.8152

W3

Weight of Counterfort 99.036 4.1 406.0476

W4 using (ꝩc-ꝩs)
 Weight of earth over toe slab 0 1.3 0
W5
∑ 884.076 3786.0288

Overturning FOS = ∑M/Mₒ 3.78864152 > 1.5

b) Check of Retaining Wall Sliding:

Total horizontal forces Tending to slide the wall ∑Ph= PhL+Pha-Php
= 299.86437
Sliding Resistance Force = μ∑W = 512.76408

Sliding FOS = μ∑W/∑Ph 1.7099867 > 1.5

c) Check of Retaining Wall Bearing Capacity:

finding eccentricity e, take moments @point O
M@O= 0 = ─∑W.x + ∑M - M(overturning)

where,
x = (∑M-Mo)/∑W 3.152125 m e shall be ≤ b/6 to ignore tension stress
e = b/2 -x 0.097875 m OK
b/6 = 1.083333 m

Stress = f= = (∑𝑊)/(𝑡.𝑏)±
𝑃/𝐴±𝑀/𝐼 (𝑒.∑𝑊)/(1.ℎ^3/
𝑦 12) 𝑏/2

Pressure fd at heel = 123.7236 kN m² Satisfied

(∑𝑊)/𝑏(1−6𝑒/𝑏)
Pressure fa at toe = 148.2998 kN m² Satisfied
(∑𝑊)/𝑏(1+6𝑒/𝑏)
Pressure fb at junction of toe with stem 138.4693 kN m² Satisfied
= 𝑓𝑎−(𝑓𝑎−𝑓𝑑)/𝑏 𝑥 𝐿(𝑡𝑜𝑒)

Pressure fc at junction of heel with stem

= 𝑓𝑎−(𝑓𝑎−𝑓𝑑)/𝑏 𝑥 (𝐿(𝑡𝑜𝑒) 137.335 kN m² Satisfied
+tw)
Pressure fe 145.5019 kN m² Satisfied
= 𝑓𝑎−(𝑓𝑎−𝑓𝑑)/𝑏 𝑥 (𝑑)
Retaining Wall

Designed By: Soha Zubair

Checked By:
Approved By:
Date of Issue:
Passive Soil
Kp= A Toe
Live Load (LL)= 0.5 kN/m² Hp= Php tb
Foundation Depth(H)= 9.97 m
O
kN/m³ Passive Height (Hp)= 2.1 m
m PhL= H/2 4.985 m
m Pha = H/3 3.323333 m
m Angle of Repose = ɸ = 30 degree
m Surcharge Angle = β = 18 degree
m
fa
m
m Assume

dered, we have to consider the submerge unit weight

nding on the capillary action of the soil.

Calculations of Earth Pressures PL, Pha ,Php & Overturning Moment (Mo)

Moments M @ O

kN.m/m²

181.566 PhL = LL*Ka*H 1.661667 kN/m²

405.6 Phₐ = ꝩs*Ka*H²/2 298.2027 kN/m²

2792.8152 Php = ꝩs*Kp*Hp²/2 0 kN/m²

406.0476
 PhL*H(PhL) + Phₐ
0 Mₒ= 999.3104 kN.m/m²
*H(Phₐ ) + Php*H(Php)

3786.0288

OK

PhL+Pha-Php
kN/m²
kN/m²

OK

nore tension stress

 tw LL=

Co Active Soil
un Ka=
W1 te ꝩs =
rfo
rt W3
Stem

W4 PhL
W5
H(PhL) H
W2 Pha

Toe B C Heel D H(PhL)

d ∑W
e b/2
x

fb fc
fe fd

Counterfort tc
Longitudinal Direction

Toe Heel Lc
Stem

Counterfort tc
Plan View of Counterfort Retaining Wall
No. AS PER EM 1110-2-2100
The design for structures on rock foundations will involve sliding stability analyses as well as bearing ca
1
analyses.
Basic rock foundation data that should be obtained for use during the design stage include material pr
2 thickness, and discontinuities such as faults, fissures and fractures. Such information should be incorpo
capacity, settlement, and sliding stability analyses.
Shear strength parameters required for bearing capacity and sliding stability analyses may be estimate
3 results of in situ tests and/or by direct shear and triaxial tests performed in the laboratory

Following are the principles, assumptions and simplifications used in multiple-wedge s

• Sliding stability of most concrete structures can be adequately assessed by using a limit equilibrium a
• A sliding mode of failure will occur along a presumed failure surface when the applied shearing force
shearing forces.
• The failure surface can be any combination of plane and curved surfaces, but for simplicity, all failure
be planes, which form the bases of wedges.
• Analyses are based on assumed-plane failure surfaces. The calculated safety factor will be realistic on
mechanism is possible.
• The factor of safety is defined, and minimum required factors of safety are given in Chapter 3.
• The lowest safety factor on a given failure surface can be determined by an iterative process. Howev
using the required minimum factor of safety, can be used as a simple pass/fail test.
4 • A two-dimensional analysis is presented in this manual. These principles should be extended if uniqu
three_x0002_dimensional geometric features and loads critically affect the sliding stability of a specific
• Only force equilibrium is satisfied in this analysis, moment equilibrium is not ensured.
• The shearing force acting along the vertical interface between any two wedges is assumed to be neg
failure surface at the bottom of each wedge is only loaded by the forces directly above it.
• A linear relationship is assumed between the resisting shearing force and the normal force acting on
beneath each wedge.
• The maximum shear strength that can be mobilized is adequately defined by the Mohr-Coulomb failu
• Considerations regarding displacements are excluded from the limit equilibrium approach. The relati
foundation materials and the concrete substructure may influence the results of the sliding-stability an
structure-foundation systems may require a more intensive sliding investigation than a limit equilibriu
of strain compatibility along the assumed failure surface may be included by interpreting data from in
tests, and finite element analyses.

When a loading condition is defined in terms of a return period (for example, the Operational Basis Ea
earthquake with a return period of 144 years), the structural engineer can determine if the load conditi
5 extreme by referring directly to Table 3-1

When a load condition is stated in non-probabilistic terms, (for example, pool elevation at the top of closed spil
top of a flood wall), the return period must be determined to see if that particular load condition is usual, unusu
In some cases, the load condition category is specifically designated based on established practice, irrespective
example, construction is listed as an unusual loading).
6 The engineer only needs to verify stability for those conditions listed in Appendix B. For example, for the unusu
necessary to verify stability for a 300 year flood or earthquake if these are not specifically listed in Appendix B.
loadings for civil works projects are provided in Chapter 4, including: normal operating, infrequent flood, maxim
maximum flood, operational basis earthquake, maximum design earthquake, and maximum credible earthquak
 example, construction is listed as an unusual loading).
6 The engineer only needs to verify stability for those conditions listed in Appendix B. For example, for the unusu
necessary to verify stability for a 300 year flood or earthquake if these are not specifically listed in Appendix B.
loadings for civil works projects are provided in Chapter 4, including: normal operating, infrequent flood, maxim
maximum flood, operational basis earthquake, maximum design earthquake, and maximum credible earthquak

d. Sliding stability. Sliding stability factors of safety shall be equal to, or greater than, the values specified in Tab
stability factor of safety shall be determined using Equation 3-1.
7 e. Flotation stability. Flotation factors of safety shall be equal to, or greater than, the values specified in Table 3
factor of safety shall be determined using Equation 3-2.

Stability Calculation of Retaining Walls - Structural Guide

Cantilever Retaining Walls: How to Calculate the Bearing Pressure (linkedin.com)

 Page No.
yses as well as bearing capacity and settlement
Pg- 2-3 15 pdf

tage include material properties, strike, dip,

mation should be incorporated into the bearing Pg- 2-3 15 pdf

nalyses may be estimated for soils from the

e laboratory Pg- 2-3 15 pdf

in multiple-wedge sliding analysis:

sing a limit equilibrium approach.
e applied shearing force exceeds the resisting

t for simplicity, all failure surfaces are assumed to

factor will be realistic only if the assumed failure

iven in Chapter 3.
terative process. However, a single-step analysis
test.
uld be extended if unique Pg- 2-6 18
ding stability of a specific structure.
ensured.
es is assumed to be negligible. Therefore, the
ly above it.
e normal force acting on the failure surface

the Mohr-Coulomb failure theory.

um approach. The relative rigidity of different
of the sliding-stability analysis. Such complex
on than a limit equilibrium approach. The effects
nterpreting data from in situ tests, laboratory

the Operational Basis Earthquake is defined as an

ermine if the load condition is usual, unusual, or
Pg 3-2 22

on at the top of closed spillway gates, or water to the

d condition is usual, unusual, or extreme.
hed practice, irrespective of any return period (for

or example, for the unusual category, it is not Pg 3-2 22

cally listed in Appendix B. Definitions of common
ng, infrequent flood, maximum design flood, probable
ximum credible earthquake.
or example, for the unusual category, it is not Pg 3-2 22
cally listed in Appendix B. Definitions of common
ng, infrequent flood, maximum design flood, probable
ximum credible earthquake.

the values specified in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. The sliding

values specified in Table 3- 4. The flotation stability

EQ 3-1
1

9.1
9.2

9.3
Cantiliver Retaining walls are economical upto 3m to 6m of height.

Cantilever retaining wall are usually of reinforced concrete and work on the principles of leverage. It has
much thinner stem and utilize the weight of the backfill soil to provide most of the resistance to sliding and
overturning. Cantilever retaining wall is the most common type of earth-retaining structure. 

CRW consist of three parts

i- Vertical Stem
ii- Toe
iii- Heal (under backfill i.e; water or soil)
Backfill is the material retained by retaining wall
Function of Cantilever Retaining Wall
To retain the soil at a slope that is greater than it would naturally assume, usually at a vertical or near vertical
position.

Design Consideration 
In order to calculate the pressure exerted at any point on the wall, the following must be considered:

1- Height of water table

2- Nature & type of soil
3- Subsoil water movements
4- Type of wall
5- Material used in the construction of wall

The effect of two forms of earth pressure need to be considered during the process of designing the retaining
wall. They are:

1. Active earth pressure 

It is the pressure that at all times are tending to move or overturn the retaining wall

2. Passive earth pressure

It is reactionary pressures that will react in the form of a resistance to movement of the wall.
Two Basic Form of Cantilever Wall 

1- A base with a large heel so that the mass of earth above can be added to the wall for design purposes. Fig 1

2 ) If form 1 is not practicable, a cantilever wall with a large toe must be used. Fig 2

From figure 1 and 2:

The drawing show typical section and pattern of reinforcement encountered with these basic forms of
cantilever retaining walls.
The main steel occurs on the tension face of the wall and nominal steel (0.15% of the cross-sectional area of
the wall) is very often included in the opposite face to control the shrinkage which occurs in in-situ concrete
work.
Reinforcement requirements, bending, fabricating and placing are dealt with in the section on reinforced
concrete.
 Design of Counterfort Retaining Wall
Retaining wall with Counterfort Check of Stability Calclation of Inernal Forces
Design According ACI 318-08
Project Code:
Project Title:
Element: Retaining wall with Counterfort
Rev:
General Input:
fc' = 32 N/mm² Kp= 3
fy= 420 N/mm² Ka= 0.3333333
Unit Wight of Concrete= ꝩc = 24 kN/m³ ꝩs = 18
Coefficient of Friction= µ = 0.58 tw= 0.2
q(allow) = 150 kN/m² tb= 0.2
Cover = 50 mm tc= 0
Lc= 0
Ignore Passive Soil YES b= 2.4
Ignore wet soil Ws YES L(toe)= 0
d= 0.74

Assumptions:
Friction angle of soil 30
Friction coefficient between soil and concrete 0.5
Dry density of soil 18 kN/m3
Water table is not considered for this calculation(If the water pressure is considered, we have to consider the
of the soil and also need to consider the saturated unit weight of the soil depending on the capillary action of
No surcharge load is considered to simplify the calculation

1- Check Stability of Wall:

a) Check for retaining wall overturning
Calculation of Load(∑ W) and Stability Moment (∑M)
Description of loads Loads W Distance from load to Moments M @ O
point O
kN/m m kN.m/m
Weight of Stem 9.6 0.1 0.96
W1
Weight of base Slab 11.52 1.2 13.824
W2

Weight of earth over heel Slab 79.2 1.3 102.96

W3

Weight of Counterfort 13.2 0.933333333333333 12.32

W4 using (ꝩc-ꝩs)
 Weight of earth over toe slab 0 0 0
W5
∑ 113.52 130.064

Overturning FOS = ∑M/Mₒ 12.214876 > 1.5

b) Check of Retaining Wall Sliding:

Total horizontal forces Tending to slide the wall ∑Ph= PhL+Pha-Php
= 14.52
Sliding Resistance Force = μ∑W = 65.8416

Sliding FOS = μ∑W/∑Ph 4.53454545 > 1.5

c) Check of Retaining Wall Bearing Capacity:

finding eccentricity e, take moments @point O
M@O= 0 = ─∑W.x + ∑M - M(overturning)

where,
x = (∑M-Mo)/∑W 1.051938 m e shall be ≤ b/6 to ignore tension stress
e = b/2 -x 0.148062 m OK
b/6 = 0.4 m

Stress = f= = (∑𝑊)/(𝑡.𝑏)±
𝑃/𝐴±𝑀/𝐼 (𝑒.∑𝑊)/(1.ℎ^3/
𝑦 12) 𝑏/2
Pressure(Principal Stress) fd at heel = = 29.79167 kN m²
(∑𝑊)/𝑏(1−6𝑒/𝑏)
Pressure (Principal Stress) fa at toe = = 64.80833 kN m²
(∑𝑊)/𝑏(1+6𝑒/𝑏)

Pressure fb at junction of toe with stem = 64.80833 kN m²

= 𝑓𝑎−(𝑓𝑎−𝑓𝑑)/𝑏 𝑥 𝐿(𝑡𝑜𝑒)

Pressure fc at junction of heel with stem

= 𝑓𝑎−(𝑓𝑎−𝑓𝑑)/𝑏 𝑥 (𝐿(𝑡𝑜𝑒) = 61.89028 kN m²
+tw)
Pressure fe = 53.13611 kN m²
= 𝑓𝑎−(𝑓𝑎−𝑓𝑑)/𝑏 𝑥 (𝑏/2−𝑏/6)
Retaining Wall

Designed By: Soha Zubair

Checked By:
Approved By:
Date of Issue:
Passive Soil
Kp= A Toe
Live Load (LL)= 0 kN/m² Hp= Php tb
Foundation Depth(H)= 2.2 m
O
kN/m³ Passive Height (Hp)= 2.2 m
m PhL= H/2 1.1 m
m Pha = H/3 0.733333 m
m Angle of Repose = ɸ = 30 degree
m Surcharge Angle = β = 18 degree
m
fa
m
m Assume

Note: H is total height of stem plus base slab

dered, we have to consider the submerge unit weight

nding on the capillary action of the soil.

Calculations of Earth Pressures PL, Pha ,Php & Overturning Moment (Mo)

Moments M @ O

kN.m/m

0.96 PhL = LL*Ka*H 0 kN/m

13.824 Phₐ = ꝩs*Ka*H²/2 14.52 kN/m

102.96 Php = ꝩs*Kp*Hp²/2 0 kN/m

12.32
 PhL*H(PhL) + Phₐ
0 Mₒ= 10.648 kN.m/m
*H(Phₐ ) + Php*H(Php)

130.064

OK

PhL+Pha-Php
kN/m²
kN/m²

OK

nore tension stress

Satisfied

Satisfied

Satisfied

Satisfied

Satisfied for avoiding tension

 tw LL=

Co Active Soil
un Ka=
W1 te ꝩs =
rfo
rt W3
Stem

W4 PhL
W5
H(PhL) H
W2 Pha

Toe B C Heel D H(PhL)

d ∑W
e b/2
x

fb fc
fe fd

ht of stem plus base slab

Counterfort tc
Longitudinal Direction

Toe Heel Lc
Stem

Counterfort tc
Plan View of Counterfort Retaining Wall
 Value of angle
Degree sin cos tan
10 0.174 0.985 0.176
15 0.259 0.966 0.268
16 0.276 0.961 0.287
17 0.292 0.956 0.306
18 0.309 0.951 0.325
19 0.326 0.946 0.344
20 0.342 0.940 0.364
21 0.358 0.934 0.384
22 0.375 0.927 0.404
23 0.391 0.921 0.424
24 0.407 0.924 0.445
25 0.422 0.906 0.466
30 0.500 0.866 0.577
35 0.573 0.819 0.700
40 0.643 0.766 0.839
45 0.707 0.707 1.000
50 0.766 0.643 1.192
55 0.819 0.574 1.428
60 0.866 0.500 1.732
65 0.906 0.423 2.145