See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239410939

Deformation and failure modes of drystone retaining walls

Article in Géotechnique · January 2002

DOI: 10.1680/geot.2002.52.6.435

CITATIONS READS

44 2,676

4 authors, including:

William Powrie
University of Southampton
408 PUBLICATIONS 7,092 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Infrastructure Slopes: Sustainable Management And Resilience Assessment: iSMART View project

Achilles: Assessment, Costing and Enhancement of Long - Life, Long-Linear Assets View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Powrie on 21 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Powrie, W., Harkness, R. M., Zhang, X. & Bush, D. I. (2002). Géotechnique 52, No. 6, 435–446
Deformation and failure modes of drystone retaining walls
W. P OW R I E
, R . M . H A R K N E S S
, X . Z H A N G
,y a n d D. I . B U S H {
In this paper, the factors controlling the deformation of
drystone retaining walls are investigated by means of
discrete element analyses. It is shown that toppling fail-
ure of unweathered drystone retaining walls is likely to
occur in a brittle manner, with wall crest deflections not
exceeding 1% of the backfill height until the factor of
safety (based on soil strength) falls below 1·05. A com-
pressible sub-base and weathering of the blocks will both
tend to reduce the backfill height at failure to below that
indicated by a limit equilibrium analysis. Bulging failure
is more likely to be associated with a deterioration in
block joint stiffness due to weathering than a compres-
sible sub-base, although the latter will decrease the
reduction in joint stiffness needed to cause bulging fail-
ure. Bulging is much less brittle than toppling, and the
proximity to failure of bulging walls could in some
circumstances be assessed on the basis of the size of the
bulge.
KEYWORDS: numerical modelling and analysis; retaining
walls; soil/structure interaction
BACKGROUND
Masonry-faced retaining walls are common on highways
throughout Europe, especially in hilly or mountainous re-
gions. O’Reilly et al. (1999) estimate that there is a total
length of between 120 and 140 km of masonry-faced walls
on trunk roads in England and Wales, and perhaps of the
order of 4000 km on principal and other routes. Many of
these structures were built in the 19th and early 20th
centuries, and typically consist of unbonded or drystone
walls about 0·6 m thick.
The stability of a drystone retaining wall is often assessed
on the basis of a limit equilibrium analysis, with reference
to a current design code. There is a perception, based
(amongst other things) on the fact that the annual mainte-
nance cost of masonry-faced trunk roads in England and
Wales is less than 1% of the estimated replacement value
(O’Reilly et al., 1999), that this approach tends to under-
estimate the stability of many such walls. If this is indeed
the case, it is probably a result of the factors of safety
specified by the design codes and/or the conservative selec-
tion of soil and geometrical parameters for analysis.
Harkness et al. (2000) demonstrated that a simple limit
equilibrium analysis can be used to give a close indication
of the failure conditions for ideal drystone masonry walls
having a rigid sub-base and unweathered blocks and joints,
provided that the possibility of a failure surface that passes
through the wall itself is admitted.
Manuscript received 15 November 2001; revised manuscript
accepted 26 March 2002.
Discussion on this paper closes 2 March 2003, for further details
see p. ii.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Southampton, UK.
{ Department of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Imperial College
of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK.
{ Highways Agency, London, UK.
435
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
Dans cet exposé, nous cherchons les facteurs contrôlant
la déformation des murs de soutènement en pierres
sèches au moyen d’analyses d’éléments discrets. Nous
montrons que les murs de soutènement en pierres qui
n’ont pas été exposées au vieillissement climatique seront
enclins à basculer en se fragilisant, les fléchissements de
la crête du mur ne dépassant pas 1% de la hauteur de
remblayage, jusqu’à ce que le facteur de sécurité (basé
sur la résistance du sol) tombe en dessous de 1·05. Une
base de fondement compressible et le vieillissement clima-
tique des blocs auront tendance à réduire la hauteur de
remblayage au point de rupture à un niveau inférieur à
celui indiqué par une analyse d’équilibre limite. Le
bombement du mur sera probablement associé à une
détérioration de la rigidité des joints entre blocs à cause
du vieillissement plutôt qu’à une base de fondement
compressible, bien que cette dernière diminue la perte de
rigidité des joints, perte nécessaire pour causer le bombe-
ment. Le bombement est bien moins fragile que l’écroule-
ment et le proximité des murs bombés de la rupture
pourrait, en certains cas, être évaluée en fonction de la
dimension du bombement.
However, the extent to which deviations from the ideal,
such as a variation in the angle of inclination of the joints,
weathered stones, soft joints, and a compressible sub-base,
might affect the stability of a drystone masonry retaining
wall, perhaps leading to collapse at a height less than that
indicated by a simple limit equilibrium analysis, remains
unquantified. Conversely, in some cases a limited backfill
zone between a masonry retaining wall and a stable rock
face might be expected to lead to a greater degree of
stability than a simple limit equilibrium analysis would sug-
gest. Also, there is as yet little if any information relating
the movement of a drystone wall to its factor of safety. In
this paper, the factors controlling the mode of wall deforma-
tion, and the linkage between factor of safety and wall
movement, are investigated by means of discrete element
analyses of drystone masonry retaining walls of two different
geometries.
WALL GEOMETRIES AND MATERIALS PROPERTIES
(BASELINE ANALYSES)
The wall geometries studied in this paper are based on the
two stable walls tested in Kingstown, Ireland (now Dun
Laoghaire) in 1837 and reported by Burgoyne (1853). These
walls were designated by Burgoyne (1853) as wall A and
wall B. Wall A had a uniform thickness of 1·016 m (one-
sixth of the height) and was battered back at a slope of 1 in
5 (Fig. 1(a)); wall B had the same cross-sectional area but
varied in thickness from 0·406 m at the top to 1·626 m at
the base, with a vertical back (Fig. 1(b)). In both cases the
masonry consisted of roughly squared granite blocks, laid
dry (i.e. without mortar).
The space behind each wall was backfilled with uncom-
pacted earth, described by Burgoyne as ‘loose mould’. Its
bulk density on placement was 1390 kg=m3 (87 lb=ft3 ),
although this would probably have increased somewhat as
the soil ‘imbibed the rain and the moisture readily’. As the
436
1 m (3 ft 3 in)
1m
1 m (3 ft 3 in)
1m
8
Deflection of masonry at the top: cm
6
4 Numerical analyses of all four of Burgoyne’s walls (in-
2 out by Harkness et al. (2000) using the material and inter-
0
4·2 4·4 4·6
Fig. 1. Cross-sections of walls with inclined joints: (a) wall A;
(b) wall B. (c) Comparison of wall deflections
soil was tipped loose, probably from wheelbarrows, it is also
likely to have densified during construction activities. Also,
the fact that the backfill was ‘kept to its full height from
time to time as subsidence occurred’ indicates further densi-
fication. In the case of wall A, the masonry was built up as
the backfill was placed, until the full height of 6·1 m (20 ft)
was reached with no sign of distress. Wall B also stood
following placement of the backfill to 6·1 m, although an
outward movement at the top of 63 mm (2·5 in) occurred,
together with some slight fissures in the face of the wall.
Numerical analyses were carried out using the discrete
element program UDEC (Universal Distinct Element Code:
Itasca, 1993), reproducing as closely as possible the con-
struction sequence adopted by Burgoyne. The masonry
blocks in the wall, the natural bedrock and the soil backfill
were all modelled as elastic/Mohr–Coulomb plastic mat-
erials. Each analysis was carried out in plane strain, with the
bottom of the mesh below the rock base pinned to prevent
movement in both the horizontal (x) and vertical ( y) direc-
tions. The right-hand vertical boundary (behind the natural
POWRIE, HARKNESS, ZHANG AND BUSH
rock face) was prevented from moving horizontally, but was
free to move in the vertical direction. In all of the analyses
it was assumed that the pore water pressure throughout the
backfill was zero at every stage.
6·1 m (20 ft)
The basic numerical modelling procedure was described
in detail in Harkness et al. (2000), and may be summarised
as follows. In the analysis of wall A, the construction of the
wall and the placement of backfill were simulated by adding
wall and soil elements simultaneously. In the analysis of
wall B, the wall was constructed in two stages of equal
height in advance of the backfill. In both cases, the backfill
was placed in lifts of 0·61 m (2 ft) up to 3·05 m (10 ft), and
10 m (32 ft 10 in) in lifts of 0·305 m (1 ft) thereafter—in both cases with
(a) further internal meshing to 0·15 m (0·5 ft) thickness. As a
result of this procedure, some compaction occurs as subse-
quent soil layers are added, and friction begins to be
mobilised on the sub-vertical faces of wall and quarry. The
limiting effective soil/rock friction angle was that of the soil,
6·1 m (20 ft)
whereas that of the wall joints and the wall/rock base was
specified independently.
The discrete element method uses a dynamic program in
which each element is put in d’Alembert equilibrium at each
time step. The timescale is an artifice of the analysis, and is
referred to later in this paper as notional time. The time
steps, and the consequent movement at each step, are both
very small. The total number of time steps required for an
10 m (32 ft 10 in)
analysis can run into millions, and a decision as to what
(b)
constitutes failure is made on whether the deflection is
levelling out or continuing to increase after a reasonable
amount of wall deflection has occurred. This is illustrated by
a plot of wall deflections (at different heights) against
notional time, of the type shown in Fig. 10(c) of this paper
(for a failing wall) and in Harkness et al. (2000) for all four
of Burgoyne’s walls (two stable and two failing).
Wall B cluding his walls C and D, which had different geometries
and collapsed at a backfill height of 5·18 m or 17 ft), carried
Wall A
face stiffnesses given in Table 1, showed generally close
agreement with the field observations. The parameters given
4·8 5·0 5·2 5·4 5·6 5·8 6·0 6·2
in Table 1 were based on a qualitative geological assessment
Stable backfill height: m of the soils and rocks in the Dun Laoghaire area, the general
(c) data available in the literature, and Burgoyne’s own descrip-
tions and observations as discussed in detail by Harkness
et al. (2000). The backfill stiffness at every level was
increased during backfilling in proportion to the weight of
overlying material.
The Harkness et al. (2000) analyses of stable walls A and
B using the material parameters in Table 1 gave the stable
deflections of the tops of the walls as a function of backfill
height, as shown in Fig. 1(c). These analyses will be used as
a basis for comparison for the results of the analyses
presented in this paper, in which the effects of the following
are investigated:
(a) geometry
(i) wall block corner rounding
(ii) lateral extent of the backfill
(iii) wall joint inclination
(b) material properties
(i) effective friction angle of the backfill
(ii) effective friction angle and stiffness of the joints
(iii) compressibility of the sub-base.
ROUNDED BLOCK CORNERS
A large block corner radius might be viewed as simulating
an effect of weathering, or may simply be a realistic
representation of the blocks in many masonry retaining walls
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
 DRYSTONE RETAINING WALLS 437
Table 1. Material properties used in the UDEC analyses (see also Harkness et al.,
2000)
Property Granitey Soil
3
Mass density: kg=m 2650 (natural rock) 1550
2270 (wall: Burgoyne, 1853)
Bulk modulus: MPa 22 000 1:0 þ 1:64z at depth z
(z in m)
Shear modulus: MPa 15 000 0:6 þ 0:98z at depth z
(z in m)
Tensile strength: MPa 1·5 0
Shear strength at zero normal 7·5 0
effective stress: MPa
Effective angle of friction: (8) 45 20–28
Joint shear stiffness: GPa=m 0·5 –
thickness of the adjoining
blocks
Joint normal stiffness: GPa=m 1 –
thickness of the adjoining
blocks
Joint tensile strength: MPa 0 –
Joint friction angle: (8) 20–45 –
y
Goodman (1980); Bandis et al. (1983); Cook (1992).

(Cooper, 1986). In the analyses described by Harkness et al. 10 Masonry density = 2270 kg/m3
(2000) the masonry blocks from which the wall was con- Friction angle of masonry joints = 45˚
Backfill friction angle = 20˚
Deflection of masonry at the top: cm

structed were given a nominal corner radius of 1 cm to avoid

8 Corner radius of masonry blocks = 1–3·5 cm
numerical problems. To examine the effect of increasing the Backfill density = 1550 kg/m3
degree of roundness of the block corners on wall movement
and stability, new analyses have been carried out with block 6
corner radii of 2·5 cm and 3·5 cm (Fig. 2). In these new
analyses, a reduced backfill friction angle of 208 was used.
This allowed comparisons to be made on the basis of both 4
1 cm
deflection behaviour and maximum stable backfill height
3·5 cm
since, even with 1 cm rounding, with the reduced backfill
friction angle the walls would fail at a height of 6·1 m or 2 2·5 cm
less.
A backfill height increment of 0·305 m (1 ft), as normally
0
used both in this paper and by Harkness et al. (2000) for
(a)
determining the maximum stable height of backfill, proved 10 2·5 cm
insufficient to distinguish the effect of block rounding for
wall A: all three values of rounding led to failure at a
Deflection of masonry at the top: cm

backfill height of 5·79 m (19 ft). The analyses of wall A 8

were therefore repeated with the backfill height incre-
ment decreased to 6 cm (0·2 ft). The maximum stable back-
6 1 cm
fill height for 1 cm rounding determined in this way
was 5·67 m (18·6 ft), and for 2·5 and 3·5 cm rounding
5·55 m (18·2 ft)—all with top-of-wall deflections of about 4
0·5% of wall height (Fig. 2(a)).
For wall B, the increase in corner radius from 1 cm to
3·5 cm
2·5 cm resulted in an increase from 6 cm to 10 cm in 2
deflection at a backfill height of 5·49 m (18 ft). With a block
corner radius of 3·5 cm the maximum stable height (using
backfill increments of 0·305 m (1 ft)) was reduced from 0
4·2 4·4 4·6 4·8 5·0 5·2 5·4 5·6 5·8 6·0 6·2
5·49 m (18 ft) to 5·19 m (17 ft) (Fig. 2(b)), at which the
Stable backfill height: m
deflection at the top of the wall was 2 cm. The generally (b)
larger maximum stable deflections obtained in the analyses
of wall B indicate that this wall is less brittle than wall A. Fig. 2. Effects of corner radius of masonry blocks on stability of
(The small maximum deflection calculated for wall B with a (a) wall A, (b) wall B: reduced backfill friction angle of 208.
corner rounding of 3·5 cm is probably an artefact of the Increments of backfill were 6 cm for wall A and 30 cm for wall
0·305 m (1 ft) backfill height increments, and may for the B
purpose of this argument be discounted.)
Two possible causes for the reduction of maximum stable
height with increased block rounding are:

(a) the reduction of resisting moment due to the weight (b) the effect on the mechanism of failure within the
of the wall when the fulcrum is moved in from the toe wall—allowing blocks to roll, for example, where they
of the wall by the amount of the corner rounding would otherwise have enough effective width or height
(Cooper, 1986) to resist this tendency.

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
438 POWRIE, HARKNESS, ZHANG AND BUSH
For wall A, the resisting moment due to the weight of the
wall is reduced (compared with a 1 cm corner rounding) by
1·4% and 2·3% respectively for corner rounding of 2·5 cm
and 3·5 cm. For wall B, the corresponding reductions are
1·6% and 2·7%. These changes, though small, would be
sufficient to produce instability at a given backfill height if
at that height the wall were only marginally stable.

LATERAL EXTENT OF BACKFILL

Burgoyne’s experiments were probably carried out in a
quarry, with the result that the extent of the backfilled zone
in the direction perpendicular to the wall was limited by the
natural rock quarry face. Although in Burgoyne’s tests the
extent of the backfill seems to have been sufficient not to
influence the result, this may not apply to drystone walls in
general. In reality the backfilled zone may be very narrow,
so that the wall acts almost as a facing to the cut slope in
the natural rock (Cooper, 1986; Wong and Ho, 1997).
The effect of the extent of the backfill on wall stability
was investigated using the geometry of wall A with a
reduced backfill friction angle of 228. Four different backfill
widths were investigated. The rock wall limiting the extent
of the backfill was rough, and set back from the base of the
wall by a ratio, R, of the maximum wall height (6·1 m). The
wall was stable at a backfill height of 6·1 m (20 ft) when the
ratio was small (R  0:33), but failed by overturning at a
backfill height of 5·79 m (19 ft) with R  1:64.
Figure 3(a) shows the deflection of the wall as a function
of backfill height for different backfill widths. Reducing
the backfill width reduces displacements and may increase
the maximum stable height, partly as a result of friction
at the vertical rock face helping to support the backfill and
partly because of the increased constraint on the mechanism
of failure in the soil. Figs 3(b) and 3(c) show the contours
of horizontal displacement in the backfill during failure for
R ¼ 0:52 and R ¼ 1:64 with backfill heights of 6·1 m (20 ft)
and 5·79 m (19 ft) respectively. The practical implications of
this are discussed later.

JOINT INCLINATION
Burgoyne’s walls A and B both had a 1 in 5 batter to the
front face. As the blocks used to construct each wall were
rectangular, construction of the walls with a planar (rather
than stepped) front face meant that the block joints were
similarly inclined at an angle of 11:38 (i.e. 1 in 5), except at
the very bottom of the wall. Analyses have been carried out
for each wall with both inclined and horizontal masonry
joints, to investigate the influence of joint inclination on
overall wall behaviour. The results for the baseline properties
(458 joint friction angle, 288 soil friction angle and the
stiffness moduli as given in Table 1) are shown in Fig. 4,
and indicate very little effect of joint inclination for these
joint and soil strengths. These results are part of a wider
study in which both soil and joint friction were varied for
the two joint inclinations, and are discussed later.
EFFECTIVE FRICTION ANGLE OF THE BACKFILL
Both wall A and wall B were stable at a backfill height of
6·1 m (20 ft) using the baseline parameters (Table 1) with a
backfill friction angle of 288. A series of analyses was
carried out for each wall in which the friction angle of the
backfill was reduced in steps of 18 or 28 to 208 to explore
the effect on wall movement and on the maximum backfill
height that the wall could support. For each backfill friction
angle a new analysis was carried out with the backfill built
up in stages of 0·3 m (1 ft) until the wall failed or the full
Fig. 3. Effects of lateral extent of backfill on stability of wall A:
(a) deflection with different ratios, R, of width to depth; (b) x-
displacement contours during failure with R 0:52, and (c)
with R 1:64
backfill height of 6·1 m (20 ft) was achieved. The results for
the two walls are given in Fig. 5, in which the deflection of
the top of the wall is plotted against backfill height for all
stable heights and all values of ö9.
On the reasonable assumption that the active pressure of
dry backfill against a wall is approximately proportional to
depth, the total active force against the wall would be
expected to be proportional to the square of the depth,
whereas the moment of the force about its toe would be
proportional to the depth cubed. Thus for a 5% reduction in
backfill height from, say, 6·1 m (20 ft) to 5·79 m (19 ft), the
active force against the wall would fall by about 10% and
the moment of that force by about 14%. To increase the
force or moment to their original values, the active pressure
at the new backfill height would need to be increased by
reducing the backfill friction angle. From an initial effective
friction angle of 288, the required reductions in ö9 would be
approximately 2:68 and 4:08 (to 25:48 and 248) for force and

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
 DRYSTONE RETAINING WALLS 439
Masonry density = 2270 kg/m3
Friction angle of masonry joints = 45˚
Backfill friction angle = 20–28˚
8 Corner radius of masonry blocks = 1 cm

Deflection of masonry at the top: cm

6·1 m (20 ft)
R (backfill width to backfill height) ≈ 1

6 25˚

20–24˚ Will fail by overturning 22˚

4 25–28˚ Stable at 6·1 m 26˚
1 m (3 ft 3 in)
27˚
24˚
2
1m

20˚
28˚
10 m (32 ft 10 in)
(a) 0

8 (a)

Deflection of masonry at the top: cm

20˚
6

6·1 m (20 ft)

20–27˚ Will fail by overturning 26˚
28˚ Stable at 6·1 m

4 22˚
28˚
27˚
1 m (3 ft 3 in) 24˚
2
1m

0
10 m (32 ft 10 in) 4·2 4·4 4·6 4·8 5·0 5·2 5·4 5·6 5·8 6·0 6·2
Stable backfill height: m
(b)
(b)
Deflection of masonry at the top: cm

8 Fig. 5. Effect of backfill friction angle on stability of (a) wall A,

(b) wall B: inclined joints
6

4 strength) of approximately 1·04. Thus a wall with a factor of
2 Wall A
0
4·2 4·4 4·6 4·8 5·0 5·2 5·4
Stable backfill height: m
(c)
Fig. 4. Cross-sections of walls with horizontal joints: (a) wall A;
(b) wall B. (c) Comparison of stability. Compare with Fig. 1 for
inclined joints
moment respectively. Either of these reductions could be
consistent with the results for changes in maximum stable
backfill height given in Fig. 5, and the results do not there-
fore clearly distinguish between force and moment in caus-
ing failure. However, the mode of failure (by overturning)
suggests that moment instability is the more likely cause.
The brittleness of both walls is illustrated by the fact that,
in all analyses leading to failure, any wall tilting more than
0:28—that is, a top deflection greater than about 2 cm or
0·3% of its height of 6·1 m (20 ft)—failed when subjected to
a further 0·305 m (1 ft) of backfill. The converse appears to
hold (except for the analyses in which a reduced extent of
backfill was modelled) in that a wall with a deflection of
less than 0·3% of its height was able to withstand a further
0·305 m increment of backfill. Furthermore, walls with the
maximum computed stable deflection of 6 cm (1% of wall
height) failed when the backfill friction angle was reduced
by 18. A 18 reduction in backfill friction angle from 288
corresponds to a reduction in factor of safety (based on soil
Wall B
safety of just 1·04 may have deflected by only 1% of its
height: this is discussed later.
The results of a second series of analyses, similar to that
described above but with horizontal and vertical joints, are
5·6 5·8 6·0 6·2
shown in Fig. 6. The stability of the walls shows very little
change from the results of the first series (that is, not
discernible at the 0·305 m (1 ft) resolution of the backfill
height changes), but for both walls the deflection at the top
is rather less with horizontal joints than with inclined joints.
This is probably because the mode of deformation of the
former (at least, before failure) includes sliding on the
joints: the mobilisation of active pressure by parallel out-
ward movement of the wall requires less movement of
the top of the wall than if the wall is constrained (by the
resistance of the joints) to rotate about its base. The
difference between the deformation patterns at failure is
shown in Fig. 7 for wall B. Fig. 7(a) shows rotation (by a
mechanism passing through the toe) for the wall with
inclined joints, and Fig. 7(b) shows sliding on a joint near
the base for the wall with horizontal joints. It is worth
noting that relative sliding near the base of walls with
horizontal joints would in reality be more noticeable than
the top-of-wall deflection of either giving, perhaps, better
warning of approaching instability.
JOINT FRICTION ANGLE
Analyses were carried out for both walls with both
inclined and horizontal block joints, for a fixed backfill
friction angle of 288 and block joint friction angles ranging
from 208 to 458. The interface friction angle between the
wall and the backfill remained at 288.
For the walls with inclined joints, the results of these

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
440 POWRIE, HARKNESS, ZHANG AND BUSH
Masonry density = 2270 kg/m3 Masonry density = 2270 kg/m3 –12
Friction angle of masonry joints = 45˚ Friction angle of masonry joints = 45˚
Deflection of masonry at the top: cm

8 Backfill density = 1550 kg/m3 Backfill friction angle = 22˚ –10

Backfill friction angle = 20–28˚ Corner radius of masonry blocks = 1 cm

–8
Corner radius of masonry blocks = 1 cm
–6
6
–4

20–24˚ Will fail by overturning –2

4 25–28˚ Stable at 6·1 m 22˚
25˚
20˚
21˚ 26˚
2 24˚
27˚
28˚

0
(a)
Deflection of masonry at the top: cm

8
(a)
20–27˚ Will fail by overturning 20˚
6 Masonry density = 2270 kg/m3
28˚ Stable at 6·1 m
Friction angle of masonry joints = 22˚
Backfill friction angle = 28˚
4 28˚ Corner radius of masonry blocks = 1 cm –16

22˚ 26˚
2 24˚ 27˚
–14

–12
0
–10
4·2 4·4 4·6 4·8 5·0 5·2 5·4 5·6 5·8 6·0 6·2 –8
Stable backfill height: m
–6
(b)
–4

–2
Fig. 6. Effect of backfill friction angle on stability of (a) wall A,
(b) wall B: horizontal joints

analyses are shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 8(a) shows that, in the
case of wall A, reducing the block interface friction angle
from 458 to 268 had no significant effect on the deflection of
the wall at a given backfill height. When the block joint
friction angle was reduced (somewhat unrealistically) below
268, however, wall A failed by overturning and the maxi-
mum stable backfill height was reduced to 5·8 m (19 ft). The
maximum stable backfill height then reduced by approxi-
mately 0·305 m (1 ft) for each 28 reduction in block joint
friction angle below 268.
For wall B with inclined joints (Fig. 8(b)), the apparent
sensitivity to a reduction in block friction angle from 458 to
448 suggests that at a backfill height of 6·1 m (20 ft) this
wall is only marginally stable. As the block joint friction
angle was reduced towards 258, the wall displacement at a
backfill height of 5·8 m (19 ft) increased very slightly, but
overturning remained the dominant mode of deformation
and failure. As the block joint friction angle was reduced
below 258, the mode of deformation and failure changed to
sliding. As with wall A with inclined joints, each 28 reduc-
tion in block joint friction angle below 258 reduced the last
stable height by approximately 0·305 m (1 ft).
With horizontal joints, both walls were stable at a backfill
height of 6·1 m (20 ft) for joint friction angles between 248
and 458 (Fig. 9). Sliding occurred when the joint friction
angle fell below 248 in both cases. For wall A, the maximum
deflection at the top with a backfill height of 6·1 m (20 ft)
was about 1·7 cm for all block joint friction angles between
248 and 458. For wall B, however, the maximum deflection
at a backfill height of 20 ft increased from 3·7 cm to 6·7 cm
as the block joint friction angle was decreased from 458 to
248. With a joint friction angle of less than 248, wall A slid
along the base, whereas in the case of wall B sliding
occurred along the base and also at the lower horizontal
joints.
In general, as the joint friction angle is reduced, there is a
tendency for a wall with horizontal joints to perform better
(b)
Fig. 7. Comparison of internal failure deformation of wall B
with different inclinations of joints within local areas around
toe (see Figs 1(b) and 4(b): x-displacement contours (cm) and
rotation of blocks. (a) inclined masonry joints; (b) horizontal
masonry joints
than its counterpart with inclined joints, in terms of the
maximum stable backfill height. This is probably a result of
the different patterns of soil strain (and hence lateral stress
distributions) implied by Fig. 7, which are in turn due to the
increased opportunity for internal sliding deformation in the
walls with horizontal joints. (Small changes in the backfill
height due to settlements associated with different patterns
of wall movement may also have had a significant effect on
walls of marginal stability.) In extreme cases of low block
joint friction (,248), the failure mode for wall A was
changed from overturning to sliding by making the joints
horizontal.
WALL JOINT STIFFNESS
Bulging is often encountered in ageing dry-stone retaining
walls. It is an essentially flexible mode of deformation, in
which the deformability of the wall is much greater than that
of the individual masonry blocks. This suggests that the
interfaces between the blocks may play an important role in
bulging. A low friction angle between the blocks is likely to
lead to sliding rather than bulging failure (see the earlier
discussion and Cooper, 1986), indicating that bulging is
likely to be associated with a reduction in block interface
stiffness, rather than strength.
Masonry blocks usually have roughly trimmed surfaces,
resulting in a contact area between adjoining blocks of less
than 10% of the total, even under high normal stresses

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
 DRYSTONE RETAINING WALLS
Fig. 8. Effect of friction angle of masonry joints on stability of
(a) wall A, (b) wall B: inclined joints
Fig. 9. Effect of friction angle of masonry joints on stability of
(a) wall A, (b) wall B: horizontal joints
(Goodman, 1976). Experimental measurements (Goodman,
1976; Bandis et al., 1983) show that rock surface stiffness is
related to surface topography in addition to the materials
properties of the rock blocks. Generally, a rough surface has
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
441
a low stiffness owing to the large deformability associated
with the partial contact area. Furthermore, the surface stiff-
ness is small at low normal effective stresses, and increases
non-linearly with increasing normal stress (Cook, 1992).
Real drystone walls are generally between 1·8 m and 10 m
high (Cooper, 1986; Wong & Ho, 1997), giving average
normal stresses between masonry blocks of less than
300 kPa. At these stresses, interblock stiffnesses would be
expected to be relatively small.
The stiffness and strength of the block interfaces could
reduce over time as a result of weathering, stress-induced
damage to the contact points, and possibly penetration of
backfill material into the joints. The observation that walls
can stand for long periods before collapsing suggests that
collapse might be triggered by a time-related deterioration in
the block interface properties. Analyses have therefore been
carried out to investigate the effects of block surface (joint)
stiffness on the stability of wall A. The backfill friction
angle was taken as 288, and the materials parameters were
as given in Table 1 with the reduced values of joint
stiffness.
In the baseline analyses, with joint normal and shear
stiffnesses of 1000 and 500 MPa=m respectively, wall A was
stable at a backfill height of 6·1 m (20 ft). With the normal
stiffness reduced to 60 MPa=m and the shear stiffness to
30 MPa/m, stable bulging developed at a backfill height of
5·8 m (19 ft). These stiffnesses represent a 17-fold reduction
in the original values. Bulging is indicated by the fact that
the largest displacement occurred in the lower section of the
wall, as shown in Figs 10(a) and (c). Increasing the backfill
height to 6·1 m (20 ft) caused the wall to topple (Fig. 10(b)).
The transition from bulging to toppling at a backfill height
of 6·1 m is indicated in the graph of displacement against
notional time (Fig. 10(c)) by the crossing over of the
displacement traces.
The introduction of soft joints between the masonry
blocks elicited a more flexible response from the wall than
in the baseline analyses. Although bulging did occur, and
was at its most severe prior to failure, the mode of collapse
was still ultimately toppling. The introduction of soft joints
reduced the maximum stable backfill height from more than
6·1 m (20 ft) to 5·8 m (19 ft).
One further analysis was carried out, in which the joint
stiffnesses and joint strengths of wall A at an initially stable
backfill height of 5·8 m (19 ft) were gradually reduced from
60 MPa=m to 1 MPa=m (normal stiffness), 30 MPa=m to
0:5 MPa=m (shear stiffness) and 458 to 288 (strength). The
reduction in stiffness resulted in the growth of the bulge in
the wall, and eventually failure occurred by bulging at a
backfill height of 5·8 m (Fig. 11). The very low values of
joint stiffness that had to be invoked to promote bulging
failure help to explain the observation made by Cooper
(1986), that ‘bulging failures on truly rigid bases appear
rare, except where weathering of the lower part of the face
has increased the compressibility dramatically in the zone of
negative eccentricity’—that is, where a bulge causes the line
of thrust down through the wall to pass close to the back of
the bulged section, increasing the stresses on the weakened
material.
COMPRESSIBILITY AND STRENGTH OF THE
SUB-BASE
The potential importance of a compressible or weak sub-
base in the development of a bulging failure in a drystone
retaining wall is highlighted by Cooper (1986). To investi-
gate the effects of sub-base compressibility and strength,
analyses were carried out for walls A and B using the base-
line parameters, but with the different sub-base stiffnesses
442 POWRIE, HARKNESS, ZHANG AND BUSH

Max. displacement = 2·0 cm

0 5 cm

(a)

Fig. 11. Wall deformation and backfill failure zones due to

0 20 cm
bulging failure of the wall in Fig. 10(a), resulting from
gradually reduced joint stiffness and joint strength

The results of the analyses with non-rigid sub-bases are

summarised in Table 3. They show that sub-base compressi-
bility or bearing capacity failure might occur when the wall
is founded on anything softer or weaker than rock (Figs
12(a) and (b): the plasticity indicators in the figures show
that the Mohr–Coulomb yield condition has been reached).
(b)
With stiffness and strength parameters representative of a
very soft rock, deformation of the sub-base still led to the
Backfill height
collapse of the wall even though the sub-base itself did not
Displacement (cm) (outwards is negative)

5·79 m 6·1 m
0
suffer a bearing capacity failure (Table 3). This confirms the
need to distinguish between wall collapse arising from tilting
–1 due to the compressibility or localised failure of the part of
–2
the sub-base under the toe of the wall, and wall collapse due
to a general bearing capacity failure, as recognised by
–3 Cooper (1986).
2 m above base Wall collapse resulting from bearing capacity failure or
–4
excessive sub-base compressibility was always by toppling
–5 or sliding. It was not possible to promote bulging failure, or
4 m above base even significant bulging deformation, simply by reducing the
–6 strength and stiffness of the sub-base. This suggests that
At the top
–7 bearing capacity failure or compressibility of the sub-base is
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 unlikely to be the sole cause of wall bulging. However, it is
Notional time possible that the effects of foundation compressibility or
(c)
bearing failure combined with a reduction in the block
interface stiffness within the wall could promote bulging
Fig. 10. Displacements of wall A with soft joints at (a) stable
backfill height of 5·79 m; (b) unstable backfill height of 6·1 m;
failure: this is investigated below.
(c) deflection history With a softer and weaker sub-base (i.e. sand), large move-
ments of the foundation started to occur at a lower backfill
height for wall A than for wall B. This is not surprising,
given the smaller base width of wall A. However, wall A
and strengths shown in Table 2. The sub-base in the vicinity stabilised following a degree of deformation, resulting in a
of the wall and the lower blocks of the wall are meshed to greater stable backfill height for wall A than for wall B, but
0·1 m (as detailed in Harkness et al., 2000) to provide with a larger deflection (Table 3). This may be consistent
adequate resolution for yielding and deformation. The var- with a greater restoring moment due to friction on the back
ious sub-base parameters are representative of materials of the wall in the case of wall A than wall B, as discussed
ranging from hard rock to medium sand, any of which might in a later section. Bearing failure could in reality be
be used as a foundation in practice (Bowles, 1977; prevented or postponed by the provision of a wider founda-
Goodman, 1980).§ tion block where the sub-base material is of reduced strength
or stiffness.
§
It is recognised that the thickness of the sub-base (between the
wall and the rigid bottom boundary) is limited. The compressibility
of the sub-base will depend on its thickness as well as on its EFFECT OF A REDUCED WALL JOINT STIFFNESS AND
stiffness. The use of a thicker sub-base layer in the mesh would A COMPRESSIBLE SUB-BASE
therefore probably have given quantitatively, if not qualitatively, A series of analyses was carried out using the geometry
different results. of wall A to investigate the combined effects of a reduction

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
 DRYSTONE RETAINING WALLS 443
Table 2. Parameters used in further analysis of non-rigid sub-bases
Hard Medium Very soft Dense Medium
rock rock rock sand sand
Density: kg=m3 2650 2650 2500 2000 2000
Bulk modulus: MPa 22 000 2200 100 50 25
Shear modulus: MPa 15 000 1500 60 30 15
Cohesion: MPa 7·5 5 0·5 0 0
Friction angle: 8 45 30 30 35 30
Tensile strength: MPa 1·5 1 0·1 0 0
Interface between masonry
and sub-base
Normal stiffness: MPa=m 30 000 3000 200 100 67
Shear stiffness: MPa=m 10 000 1000 120 60 40
These parameters represent a wide range of rock and soil properties. The specific ground
types suggested are indicative only (Bowles 1977, Goodman 1980).

Table 3. Deformation and stability of walls A and B with different sub-base properties
Wall Stable height: m; ft Deflection: cm Wall rotation Failure mode

A B A B A B A B
Hard rock 6·1; 20 6·1; 20 1·12 1·94 F F S S
Medium rock 6·1; 20 6·1; 20 1·25 2·0 F F S S
Very soft rock 5·8; 19 5·8; 19 2·16 2·63 F F Fw Fw
Dense sand 5·49; 18 5·19; 17 6·83 3·69 F F Fb Fb
Medium sand 4·88; 16 4·58; 15 18·1 3·35 B F Fb Fb
F, forward rotation of wall; B, backward rotation of wall; S, stable; Fw , failure in wall; Fb ,
failure in base.

in block joint stiffness and construction on a softer/weaker
sub-base. The combinations of joint stiffness and sub-base
stiffness and strength investigated, and the results of the
analyses, are summarised in Table 4.
These results indicate that the interaction of joint weath-
ering and sub-base compressibility/strength is quite complex.
They suggest that on a firm sub-base (very soft rock), a
reduction in joint stiffness may not always have a detrimen-
tal effect on wall stability. While the initial reduction in
joint stiffness led to a reduction in the maximum stable
height from 6·1 m (20 ft) to 5·8 m (19 ft), further reductions
in joint stiffness actually resulted in a restoration of the
maximum stable height to 6·1 m (20 ft). This confirms that
bulging can act to help stabilise a wall, for the reasons
discussed below.
In contrast, on the dense sand sub-base (which consis-
tently exhibited bearing capacity failure), progressive soft-
ening of the joints led to a monotonic decrease in the
maximum stable height. As noted previously, the wall with
hard joints failed by toppling. On softening the joints, the
mode of wall failure changed from toppling to moving out
at the base (as a result of bulging) combined with bearing
failure of the sub-base.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The results reported in this paper go some way towards
explaining the perception that the application of a conven-
tional design code to a drystone retaining wall leads to an
over-conservative assessment of its stability. First, although
the failure by toppling of a wall with sound foundations and
unweathered blocks may be well predicted by a conventional
limit equilibrium analysis (Harkness et al., 2000), toppling
deformations remain small (less than 1% of wall height)
until the factor of safety on soil strength falls below about
1·05. In other words, these walls can perform satisfactorily
(in terms of displacements) at factors of safety considerably
below those required by a modern design code. This is
consistent with the statement made by Cooper (1986) that ‘it
is unusual to find walls with large pre-failure deformations
due to toppling’. It should also come as no surprise in view
of Terzaghi’s observation, based on tests on large retaining
walls, that a deflection of 1% of the wall height is normally
enough to bring a dry sand backfill to the active state
(Terzaghi, 1934; 1936).
Second, the results of the numerical analyses (in terms of
both displacements and the maximum stable backfill height)
were very sensitive to the frictional strength (ö9) of the
backfill. Underestimating the backfill friction angle by as
little as 18 could lead to the underestimation of the factor of
safety on soil strength by 4%: the uncertainty involved in
selecting parameters for the back-analysis of an existing wall
is likely to be rather greater than this.
Third, many drystone retaining walls, particularly in hilly
and mountainous areas, act primarily as facings, with a
relatively narrow backfilled zone occupying the space be-
tween the wall and a steep, stable cut face (O’Reilly et al.,
1999). In these circumstances, the reduced backfill width
will reduce displacements and may increase the maximum
stable height, probably as a result of friction at the vertical
rock face helping to support the backfill. One potential
problem with a narrow backfill between a wall and a low-
permeability natural rock face is that the relatively small
voidage could allow pore water pressures to build up very
rapidly in the event of flooding from the retained surface,
especially if the backfill is not well drained (Wong & Ho,
1997).
In contrast to the brittle nature of toppling failure, quite
large bulging deformations can be sustained with the wall
apparently remaining stable (Cooper, 1986). In the numerical
analyses described in this paper, bulging was always asso-
ciated with a reduction in block joint stiffness. A weak or

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
444
Property
Mass density: kg/m3
Friction: ˚
Shear modulus: MPa
Bulk modulus: MPa
Joint shear stiffness: MPa/m
Joint normal stiffness: MPa/m
Joint friction: degree
POWRIE, HARKNESS, ZHANG AND BUSH
Masonry Backfill Base
2270 1550 2000
well-trimmed blocks, the contact deformation required be-
45 28 35 fore a good seating is achieved and the load stabilises could
1500 (see Table 1) 30 be modest. This will result in a block joint behaviour that is
2200 (see Table 1) 50 relatively stiff and gives little opportunity for wall deforma-
500 – –
1000 – –
tion. On the other hand, in a wall formed from untrimmed
45 – – blocks, even though hand-selected by an experienced dry-
stone waller, the points of contact are likely to be fewer and
further between. In this case, considerable deformation may
be required before there is an appreciable redistribution of
load, allowing not only softer joint behaviour but also some
rotation of the blocks before a new, firmer seating is estab-
lished. In the latter case the wall can deform relatively easily
and bulging is possible, whereas for the stiffer wall even
tilting of the base blocks due to foundation movement
(which might otherwise be expected to promote bulging)
leads only to tilting of the whole wall.
A second important factor is the mode of deformation of
the backfill in relation to wall movement. For a wall that
rotates about its base, the friction on the back face of the
wall might be fully mobilised near its top as the backfill
moves out and down behind the wall, but at intermediate
heights the downward movement of the backfill is reduced
and may be insufficient to mobilise the full soil friction
value. The total frictional force acting downwards on the
(a) back face of the wall, which imparts a stabilising moment to
the wall, may not then reach the value calculated on the
basis of the uniform mobilisation of full soil/wall friction
over the whole depth of the wall. On the other hand, if the
wall moves outward without rotating—as the result either of
a local bulge or of sliding on a horizontal joint near the
base—the backfill could reasonably be expected to deform
as a sliding wedge and thus mobilise friction over the full
height of the wall. For relatively inflexible walls on a soft
base, this difference in behaviour is shown in Fig.12. Behind
wall A, the soil fails as a sliding wedge without rotation,
mobilising full wall friction at all levels. Wall B rotates
outward as a result of compression of the sub-base under the
toe, and full wall friction is mobilised progressively from the
top of the wall.
Finally, it may be noted that, in reality, bulging on plan
associated with three-dimensional effects could lead to larger
stable deformations than indicated by the two-dimensional
analyses reported in this paper. This is a subject of further
investigation.
(b)

Fig. 12. Failure zones of (a) wall A, (b) wall B, standing on a

soft base:
shear failure
compressible sub-base might lead to a reduction in the
maximum stable backfill height, but did not alter the mode
of deformation and failure from toppling (or sliding if the
block joint friction angle was low). In practical terms,
bulging failure is easier to identify and possibly prevent, as
it is much less brittle than toppling: it is unlikely that
incipient toppling failure will be detected from intermittent
observations of wall movement. The potentially beneficial
effects of bulging on wall stability are illustrated by the
analyses of wall A on a firm sub-base, in which a reduction
in joint stiffness increased the maximum stable height by
allowing increased bulging to take place. In practice, pro-
gressive bulging over time could occur as a result of a
reduction in block interface stiffness due to weathering.
In considering the reasons for wall collapse due to over-
turning or bulging, the structure of the wall is of critical
importance. Points of high contact stress between blocks will
suffer more deformation due to ageing and weathering than
contacts carrying little or no stress. For a wall formed from
CONCLUSIONS
For drystone masonry retaining walls in which deforma-
tion and failure occur in conditions of plane strain, the
analyses presented and discussed in this paper have shown
the following:
(a) For an ideal wall that is unweathered with a rigid sub-
base, failure is likely to occur by toppling, with wall
crest deflections not exceeding 1% of the backfill
height until the factor of safety (based on soil strength)
falls below 1·05. This means that a wall in danger of
failure by toppling would be difficult to detect from the
measurement of wall displacement alone.
(b) Reducing the width of backfill between a wall and a
steep, stable natural rock face reduces displacements
and may increase the maximum stable height, probably
as a result of friction at the rock face helping to
support the backfill. However, such a backfill must be
well drained to avoid the possibility of a rapid rise in
pore water pressures due to flooding from the retained
soil surface.
(c) At low inter-block friction angles, walls with battered
front faces and horizontal joints moved less at the top

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
 DRYSTONE RETAINING WALLS 445
Table 4. Combined effects of sub-base and joint stiffness on deformation behaviour of wall A
Hard joints Medium joints Soft joints Very soft joints
Joint stiffness (normal/shear), MPa=m 100/500 200/100 100/50 60/30
On hard rock
Highest stable height: m; ft 6·1; 20 5·8; 19 5·8; 19 5·8; 19
Maximum stable deflection: cm 0·2 0·2 1·1 2·1
Position of maximum stable deflection Top of wall 2 m above base of wall 2 m above base of wall 2 m above base of wall
Position of maximum unstable deflection wall – Top of wall Top of wall –
Direction of rotation of wall Backward Backward Backward Backward
Failure mode Stable Toppling Toppling Toppling
On very soft rock
Highest stable height: m; ft 6·1; 20 6·1; 19 6·1; 20 6·1; 20
Maximum stable deflection: cm 2·9 0·4 1·4 2·9
Position of maximum stable deflection Top of wall 2 m above base of wall 2 m above base of wall 2 m above base of wall
Position of maximum unstable deflection – – – –
Direction of rotation of wall Forward Backward then Forward Backward then Forward Backward then Forward
Failure mode Stable Bulging Stable Stable
On dense sand
Highest stable height: m; ft 5·49; 18 5·49; 18 5·19; 17 5·19; 17
Maximum stable deflection: cm 3·7 2·4 1·7 2·6
Position of maximum stable deflection 4 m above base 2 m above base of wall 2 m above base of wall 2 m above base of wall
Position of maximum unstable deflection 4 m above base 2 m above base of wall 2 m above base of wall 2 m above base of wall
Direction of rotation of wall Forward Backward then Forward Backward then Forward Backward then Forward
Failure mode Failure in base Failure in base Failure in base Failure in base
and bulging and bulging and bulging

of the wall than similar walls with inclined joints (i.e.
normal to the front face of the wall), though ultimate
failure for both walls occurred at the same soil friction
angles. Walls with horizontal joints had the possible
advantage that movement at the base of the wall prior
to failure could give a warning of incipient instability
whereas the very small movement of the top of the wall
for both walls could be regarded as insignificant.
However, at inter-block friction angles likely to be
encountered in practice (~ 458) there was little if any
significant impact.
(d ) A real drystone wall is likely to have a non-rigid sub-
base and weathered blocks. Both of these will tend to
reduce the backfill height at failure to below that
indicated by a limit equilibrium analysis—by between
20% and 25% for the two walls investigated in this
study on a sub-base representative of a medium sand.
The only circumstance in which a simple limit
equilibrium analysis is likely to underestimate the
backfill height at failure (by 5% in this study) is when
the wall acts essentially as a facing, with only a limited
backfill zone between it and a stable rock face.
(e) Weathered blocks were simulated by increasing the
degree of block corner rounding and reducing either
the strength or the stiffness of the joints. Increasing the
degree of block corner rounding may have an adverse
impact on a wall already of marginal stability: in the
case of wall A, an increase in the degree of corner
rounding reduced both the maximum stable displace-
ment and the backfill height at failure. However, it did
not alter the mechanism of wall failure, which
remained by toppling.
( f ) A large reduction in joint strength was needed to have
a significant impact on wall stability: the mechanism of
wall failure then changed from toppling to sliding. Wall
bulging could be achieved only by reducing the joint
stiffness. A substantial reduction in joint stiffness was
needed to cause bulging failure, which could be made
to occur at a lower backfill height than that at which a
limit equilibrium analysis would suggest failure by
toppling.
(g) A reduction in sub-base strength and stiffness may
cause failure of the wall at a lower backfill height than
a simple limit equilibrium analysis would suggest. With
a weaker and more compressible sub-base, but reason-
ably stiff wall joints, failure would still be by
toppling—precipitated either by bearing capacity failure
or by the compression of the sub-base beneath the toe.
Wall bulging is unlikely to occur solely as a result of
the deformation of the sub-base, but the reduction in
joint stiffness needed to cause bulging failure decreases
with the stiffness and strength of the sub-base.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this paper was carried out in the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
University of Southampton, under contract to the Highways
Agency. The views expressed are those of the authors, not
the Highways Agency. The authors are grateful to Drs K. C.
Brady, M. R. Cooper and M. P. O’Reilly for helpful discus-
sions and advice.
NOTATION
R ratio of backfill width to overall wall height
x horizontal distance
y, z depth
ö9 effective backfill friction angle
REFERENCES
Bandis, S. C., Lumsden, A. C. & Barton, N. R. (1983). Funda-
mentals of rock joint deformation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 20, 249–268.
Bowles, J. E. (1977). Foundation analysis and design, 2nd edn.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Burgoyne, J. F. (1853). Revetments or retaining walls. Corp of
Royal Engineers Papers 3, 154–159.
Cook, N. G. W. (1992). Natural joints in rock: mechanical, hydrau-
lic and seismic behaviour and properties under normal stress.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 29, 198–223.

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
 446 POWRIE, HARKNESS, ZHANG AND BUSH
Cooper, M. R. (1986). Deflections and failure modes in dry-stone
retaining walls. Ground Engineering 19, No. 8, 28–33.
Goodman, R. E. (1976). Methods of geological engineering in
discontinuous rocks. New York: West.
Goodman, R. E. (1980). Introduction to rock mechanics. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Harkness, R. M., Powrie, W., Zhang, X., Brady, K. C. & O’Reilly,
M. P. (2000). Numerical modelling of full-scale tests on dry-
stone masonry retaining walls. Géotechnique 50, No. 2,
165–179.
Itasca (1993). Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC) Version
2·0: User’s manual. Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting Group
Inc.
O’Reilly, M. P., Bush, D. I., Brady, K. C. & Powrie, W. (1999). The
stability of drystone retaining walls on highways. Proc. Instn
Civ. Engrs (Municipal Engineer) 133, 101–107.
Terzaghi, K. (1934). Large retaining-wall tests I–V. Engng News
Rec. 112, No 10, 316–318.
Terzaghi, K. (1936). A fundamental fallacy in earth pressure
computations. J. Boston Soc. Civ. Engrs, 23, 71–88.
Wong, H. N. & Ho, K. K. S. (1997). The 23 July 1994 landslide at
Kwun Lung Lau, Hong Kong. Can. Geotech. J. 34, 825–840.

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 152.78.179.112
On: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:56:19
View publication stats