Analysis of Reinforced Soil Walls

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED SOIL WALLS AND COMPARISON
WITH STARES
Name SID
Daniel Backhouse 0114254
Ben Hopkins 0107635
Joel Kemp 0117579
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report analysis the methods in the design of reinforced retaining wall systems. The
three methods on analysis are Rankine’s methods, Coulomb’s method and the STARES
THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
comper program. Using same parameters of a design of a retaining wall, with 9 layers of
reinforcement, two analyses were performed. They are:
Same Length of 5 metres - The safety factors obtained were:

 Rankine’s 1.739,
 Coulomb’s 1.789,
 STARES 1.71.
Different length of reinforcement - The safety factor obtained were:

 Rankine’s 1.627,
 Coulomb’s 1.917,
 STARES 1.74.
CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 2 OF 17 TEAM 9

ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED SOIL WALLS AND COMPARISON WITH STARES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................2
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
1.1 INITIAL CONDITIONS..................................................................................................4
2. RANKINE’S METHOD ANALYSIS.......................................................................................5
2.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................5
2.2 RESULTS.....................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT................................................................................5
2.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT.......................................................................................6
2.2.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT.................................................................6
2.2.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT.........................................................7
3. COULOMB’S METHOD ANALYSIS.....................................................................................7
3. COULOMB’S METHOD ANALYSIS.....................................................................................8
3.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................8
3.2 RESULTS.....................................................................................................................8
3.2.1 WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT................................................................................8
3.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT.......................................................................................9
4. STARES...........................................................................................................................12
4.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................12
4.2 RESULTS...................................................................................................................12
4.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT......................................................................12
4.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT..............................................................13
4.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT..............................................................14
5. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................15
6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................15
7. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................16

1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of the report is to investigate and draw comparisons between methods of
analysis of reinforced retaining wall systems using a simple wedge analysis and the
computer program STARES.
The standard practises of analysis, using a simple wedge are Rankine’s and Coulomb’s
methods. Each of these two methods uses two different wedges. STARES is one of the
many computer programs available and complete a detailed analysis through the use of
circles to determine the critical failure situation and factor of safety.
For this report Rankine’s and Coulomb’s method was used to develop a steel arrangement
that has reasonable Factors of Safety, of which are then compared with results from
STARES to see how accurate our initial estimates were.
When dealing with soil and their properties it is very hard to evaluate an exact figure,
unlike for steel and concrete. This is where the factor of safety plays a role on the design
of any soil related structure. Experience and a ‘gamble’ are used when determining a
factor of safety. For the analysis we aimed for a factor of safety of 1.5.
1.1 INITIAL CONDITIONS

The initial conditions of the wall are to be set with:
Wall Properties
H=5m
w = 15
Cw = 0
H 
Soil properties
C=0
 = 35
Figure 1
 = 15 kN/m 3
The steel reinforcing dimensions used for the analyses were width 45 millimetres,
thickness 5 millimetres and steel with a Grade 350 MPa. These dimensions were
provided from ‘The Reinforced Earth Company’. The pull out strength of the steel is also
a factor. The force in each piece of reinforcement must satisfy

2. RANKINE’S METHOD ANALYSIS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Rankine’s method establishes the stress placed on retaining wall from the soil mass
behind the wall. The vertical stress from the following equation:
Once the vertical stresses are determined the horizontal stresses are found and from that
the force required has been determined. The horizontal stresses are calculated from the
following equations:
And therefore,
This force decides the amount of reinforcing needed in the wall by determining the force
in each piece of steel and summing them up to see if they satisfy the force required. The
force in the steel is determined by the following equation:
Where = The Soil Friction Angle
= The development length of the reinforcement (Which is the length of steel that is
not in the critical wedge)
B = the width of the steel
With Rankine’s method a few assumptions were made. These were that there is no
cohesion between the wall and the soil mass and that the critical angle of the wedge is
.
2.2 RESULTS
2.2.1 WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT

The force is the area under the

triangle.
The force therefore required to retain

the soil mass is 50.811kN/m.
The critical angle that the wedge

would fail on is 27.5°.
20.32 kPa
2.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT

Two analyses were carried out with reinforcement, one with same lengths of
reinforcement and the other with different lengths.
2.2.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

The length of the reinforcement chosen was as 5 meters at a height interval of every 0.5
meters from the top. The table below show the results.
h (m) Lr (m) F (kN/m)

0.5 2.92 1.381
1 3.15 2.980
1.5 3.38 4.798
2 3.61 6.834
2.5 3.85 9.088
3 4.08 11.560
3.5 4.31 14.251
4 4.54 17.160
4.5 4.77 20.287

∑F 88.339

SF 1.739
From table 1, the sum of the forces is over
Tablethe
1 50.811 kN/m required. The safety factor
determined via

= .
2.2.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

The configuration for the wall is detailed below.
h
Green Zone = 4 meters
Red Zone = 5 meters
Blue Zone = 7 meters
Figure 2
L
r
The table below shows the results.
h (m) Lr (m) F (kN/m) The forces were not as high as the same
0.5 4.92 2.326 length of reinforcement analysis. The safety
1.0 5.15 4.871 factor was over the 1.5 as described in the
1.5 5.38 7.634 introduction.
2.0 3.61 6.834
2.5 3.85 9.088
3.0 4.08 11.560
3.5 3.31 10.942
4.0 3.54 13.379
4.5 3.77 16.033

∑F 82.667

Table 2
SF 1.627

3. COULOMB’S METHOD ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Coulomb’s method of analysis estimates a mechanism of failure at some angle θ, which
determines the wedge. By analysing the forces and using the equations of equilbrium, a
horizontal acting force against the wall, P, can be determined. This method takes in
account passive and active failure. In this case we have an active failure. This method is
widely used in the geotechnical engineering field as it represents fairly accurate results.
C2
W C1
w
R2 u

Where C1 = Cohesion of the soil
P C2 = Cohesion between the wall and soil
W = Weight of the wedge
R1 Figure taken from Soil Stability notes by Dr. D. Airey
Assumptions made that C2 = zero due to that the wall will be on a firm base and there will
be little or no cohesive forces.
3.2 RESULTS
3.2.1 WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT
The most critical state is at an angle θ, that produces the maximum force, P. Since θ is not
known, the equations of equilibrium must be determined so that with each angle of θ, a
value for P can be determined.
The equations below were derived from the forces of equilibrium and using an Excel
spreadsheet (table 3) calculated the maximum value for P and the critical angle.
Where α = 90-θ-

From 1 sub into 2 and rearranged
Therefore,
θ α R2 P
0 55 0.00 0.000
5 50 15.34 14.818
10 45 26.99 26.075
15 40 35.63 34.418
20 35 41.66 40.236
21 34 42.57 41.116
22 33 43.38 41.904
23 32 44.10 42.600
24 31 44.73 43.204
25 30 45.26 43.716
26 29 45.69 44.136
27 28 46.03 44.463
28 27 46.27 44.695
29 26 46.41 44.832
30 25 46.46 44.873
31 24 46.39 44.814
32 23 46.23 44.654
33 22 45.96 44.390
34 21 45.57 44.020
35 20 45.07 43.539
40 15 40.72 39.333
45 10 32.68 31.570
50 5 19.78 19.102
55 0 0.00 0.000
Table 3
The data above shows the maximum force that P would experience (44.873 kN/m) and at
that angle θ is the most critical (30°). This is highlighted in yellow above.
Any angle after θ = 55° was a passive failure mechanism instead of an active failure
mechanism and therefore could not be considered.
3.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT

Cr The reinforcement within the soil mass ads a
horizontal force to the equations of equilibrium
C2 used in the § 3.2.1. The affect this has on the
F
W r analysis is that the critical angle, θ changes. A
shearing force between the reinforcement and the
CIVL3411
w
C1
FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 9 OF 17 TEAM 9
R u
2

soil is created. This force was ignored in this analysis, as that force was negligible due to
the low forces in the reinforcement.
The table below shows the results of taking into account the horizontal forces. The
lengths of reinforcement used were the same as § 2.2.2.2.
θ P h Lr Fs ∑F SF
25 43.716 0.5 5.10 2.410 84.193 1.926
1 5.31 5.019
1.5 5.52 7.828
2 3.73 7.056
2.5 3.94 9.319
3 4.15 11.782
3.5 3.37 11.137
4 3.58 13.527
4.5 3.79 16.116
26 44.136 0.5 5.03 2.376 83.579 1.894
1 5.25 4.959
1.5 5.47 7.750
2 3.68 6.967
2.5 3.90 9.226
3 4.12 11.693
3.5 3.34 11.058
4 3.56 13.467
4.5 3.78 16.083
27 44.463 0.5 4.96 2.343 82.970 1.866
1 5.18 4.900
1.5 5.41 7.672
2 3.64 6.878
2.5 3.87 9.134
3 4.09 11.604
3.5 3.32 10.981
4 3.55 13.408
4.5 3.77 16.049
28 44.695 0.5 4.89 2.310 82.366 1.843
1 5.12 4.842
1.5 5.36 7.596
2 3.59 6.790
2.5 3.83 9.042
3 4.06 11.517
3.5 3.30 10.904
4 3.53 13.349
4.5 3.77 16.017
29 44.832 0.5 4.82 2.277 81.768 1.824
1 5.06 4.784
1.5 5.30 7.519
2 3.55 6.703
2.5 3.79 8.952
3 4.03 11.430
3.5 3.27 10.828

4 3.52 13.291
4.5 3.76 15.984
30 44.873 0.5 4.75 2.245 81.176 1.809

1 5.00 4.726
1.5 5.25 7.444
2 3.50 6.617
2.5 3.75 8.862
3 4.00 11.343
3.5 3.25 10.753
4 3.50 13.234
4.5 3.75 15.952
31 44.814 0.5 4.68 2.213 80.590 1.798
1 4.94 4.670
1.5 5.20 7.369
2 3.45 6.532
2.5 3.71 8.773
3 3.97 11.258
3.5 3.23 10.678
4 3.48 13.177
4.5 3.74 15.920
32 44.654 0.5 4.62 2.181 80.009 1.792
1 4.88 4.613
1.5 5.15 7.296
2 3.41 6.447
2.5 3.68 8.685
3 3.94 11.174
3.5 3.21 10.604
4 3.47 13.121
4.5 3.74 15.888
33 44.390 0.5 4.55 2.150 79.435 1.789
1 4.82 4.558
1.5 5.09 7.223
2 3.37 6.364
2.5 3.64 8.598
3 3.91 11.090
3.5 3.18 10.531
4 3.46 13.065
4.5 3.73 15.857
34 44.020 0.5 4.48 2.119 78.868 1.792
1 4.76 4.503
1.5 5.04 7.150
2 3.32 6.281
2.5 3.60 8.512
3 3.88 11.008
3.5 3.16 10.459
4 3.44 13.010
4.5 3.72 15.826

35 43.539 0.5 4.42 2.089 78.307 1.799

1 4.71 4.448
1.5 4.99 7.079
2 3.28 6.200
2.5 3.57 8.427
3 3.85 10.926
3.5 3.14 10.387
4 3.43 12.956
4.5 3.71 15.795
Table 4
The column P relates to the analysis without reinforcement. From the table above the
results show that the critical angle θ has changed to 33°. The safety factor at this angle
was the least compared with the other safety factors. The safety factor was calculated
When the same length (see § 2.2.2.1) of steel was used in the Coulomb’s analysis the
critical angle was the same, however, the sum of the force was 85.107 kN/m and the
factor of safety, SF = 1.917. Results are not shown.
4. STARES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
STARES is a computer program widely used in retaining wall design here in Australia.
The method used to analyse the data by the computer program uses circles to calculate
the most critical wedge. The number of circles used for our analysis was five thousand.
Two analyses were taken with STARES so that a comparison could be drawn from all
three methods.
4.2 RESULTS
4.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT
The length of reinforcement used was the same as for Rankine’s and Coulomb’s methods.
From the diagram below the forces shown are very small in the reinforcement at the top
and increase with depth. There is no force in the top reinforcement layer as the circle does
not go through it and it is not effective. The factor of safety for this circle, SF=1.82.
However, the most critical SF was 1.71. This circle did not go through the bottom two

layers of steel and the failure would not probably go through that circle. The chance of it
passing closer to the bottom is more realistic.


4.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

The results of the previous page show that the most critical circle that went through all layers
of reinforcement had a SF = 1.74. The forces in the steel were less, compared with the forces
using the same length of reinforcement.
5. DISCUSSION
Comparing the three methods of analysis for the design of the reattaining wall, the results
show minor variance. Firstly, when considering the wedge with no reinforcing steel straps
using the Rankine’s and Coulomb’s method, the horizontal force acting on the wall differ by
up to 5 kN and the most critical angle of the failure plane differ by 3.5 degrees. However,
when analysing the wedges with the same length of reinforcement steel a similar safety factor
is recorded with a safety factor of 1.739 and 1.789 for Rankine’s and Coulomb’s methods
respectively. When calculating these results the assumption was made when applying the
Rankine’s method, that angle of the failure plane of the wedge dose not change, once the steel
is introduced. Therefore, it is assumed that the most critical wedge has a failure plane of 27.5
degrees, with or without reinforcement. Compared to, Coulomb’s method that shows that the
most critical wedge changes, once reinforcement steel is add. From the result the most critical
failure plane changed from 30 to 33 degrees. When analysing the same condition of
reinforcing steel in the STARES program, the most critical safety factor was found to be
1.71, which was a similar result found fro the other two methods. However, this circle did not
go through the bottom two layers of steel and the failure would not probably go through that
circle. The chance of it passing closer to the bottom is more realistic. Thus, a more realisic
safety factor would be 1.82. (see page 13).
Interestingly, when comparing the results for the three methods of analysis for different
length of reinforcement steel the result vary considerable. For Rankine’s method the safety
factor has reduced to 1.62, which is unusal sice there has been an increase in the amount of
reinforment steel used (from 45 to 48 meters total length). Compared to Coulomb’s method
were the safety factor has increased to1.917, which is due to the fact that greater amount of
reinforcement is need at the top surface. STARES result did not change significantly with a
safety factor for the most critical circle that went through all layers of reinforcement at 1.74.
The forces in the steel were less, compared with the forces using the same length of
reinforcement
From all three analysis STARES would generally give the most likely mode of failure. Since
unlike STARES, the Rankine’s and Coulomb’s methods assume a linear line of failure when
alaysiing the wedge. STARES, however, draws circles, represting a number of likely failure
planes and it is up to the designer to critical analysis the most likey failure, given an
appropate factor of saftey.
6. CONCLUSION
Generally Rankine’s method results for the safety factor were less than Coulomb’s method
and STARES, due to force be greater. From the assumption made Coulomb’s method and
STARES would have a greater degree of accuracy, since the critical failure plane changes
with the amount of reinforcing steel used, unlike Rankine’s method that use the same critical
failure plane when the system has no reinforcement. STARES gives a designer greater
analysis, as it is able to analysis up to 5000 failure plane and there respective factors of
safety.

7. REFERENCES
1. Ritchie, John -‘The Reinforced Earth Company’ Hornsby, New South Wales
2. Airey, Dr. D. (2004) Soil Stability Lecture Notes. The University of Sydney
3. Chen W.F. (1995) The Civil Engineering Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
4. Clayton C.R.I and Milititsky J. (1986) Earth Pressure and Earth Retaining Structures.
Surrey University Press, Glasgow.
5. Clayton C.R.I. (1993) Retaining Structures: Proceedings of the conference retaining

structures/ organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers. T Telford, London
6. www.rmc.ca/academic/gradrech/materials9_e.html
7. www.geoengineer.org/reearth.htm
8. www.soilretention.com/db-article.html
9. www.geoprograms.com/diablowebalternate/downloads


Analysis of Reinforced Soil Walls

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Analysis of Reinforced Soil Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED SOIL WALLS AND COMPARISON

Same Length of 5 metres - The safety factors obtained were:

Different length of reinforcement - The safety factor obtained were:

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 2 OF 17 TEAM 9

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 3 OF 17 TEAM 9

1.1 INITIAL CONDITIONS

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 4 OF 17 TEAM 9

2. RANKINE’S METHOD ANALYSIS

Where = The Soil Friction Angle

B = the width of the steel

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 5 OF 17 TEAM 9

The force is the area under the

The force therefore required to retain

The critical angle that the wedge

2.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT

2.2.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

h (m) Lr (m) F (kN/m)

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 6 OF 17 TEAM 9

2.2.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

Red Zone = 5 meters

Blue Zone = 7 meters

The table below shows the results.

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 7 OF 17 TEAM 9

3. COULOMB’S METHOD ANALYSIS

Where C1 = Cohesion of the soil

P C2 = Cohesion between the wall and soil

W = Weight of the wedge

R1 Figure taken from Soil Stability notes by Dr. D. Airey

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 8 OF 17 TEAM 9

From 1 sub into 2 and rearranged

3.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 10 OF 17 TEAM 9

30 44.873 0.5 4.75 2.245 81.176 1.809

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 11 OF 17 TEAM 9

35 43.539 0.5 4.42 2.089 78.307 1.799

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 12 OF 17 TEAM 9

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 13 OF 17 TEAM 9

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 14 OF 17 TEAM 9

4.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 15 OF 17 TEAM 9

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 16 OF 17 TEAM 9

5. Clayton C.R.I. (1993) Retaining Structures: Proceedings of the conference retaining

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PAGE 17 OF 17 TEAM 9

You might also like