DESIGN OF CANTILEVER RETAINING

WALL

Submitted by: Under the guidance of ;

GAJULA PAVAN(1603058)
. SYED SOHEL Prof. Avijit Burman
PASHA(1603047) . Associate professor
SANDEEP(1603069) Dept.of Civil Engineering
NIT PATNA
OUTLINE

 INTRODUCTION
 OBJECTIVES
 METHODOLOGY
 DESIGN EXAMPLE
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
 Retaining wall is a structure used
for maintaining the ground
surfaces at different elevations on
either side of it.

 Retaining walls provide lateral

support to vertical slopes of soil.
They retain soil which would
otherwise collapse into a more
natural shape. The retained soil is
referred to as backfill.
Types of retaining walls:

 Gravity Retaining Walls

 Semi-Gravity Retaining Walls
 Cantilever Retaining Walls
 Counter fort Retaining Walls
Components of Cantilever Retaining Wall:

stem

H H1
2
H
toe
heel
y

shear key
b
Forces acting on the retaining wall:

 Lateral forces: Earth pressure due to backfill and surcharge.

 Vertical forces:
Acting downwards:
Self weight of the retaining wall ;
Weight of soil above heel slab.
Acting upwards:
Force due to soil pressure
underneath the base slab.
 OBJECTIVE
 To design a cantilever retaining wall

 To develop a MS-EXCEL sheet for the above purpose

 METHODOLOGY
Forces acting on the cantilever retaining wall under
different conditions

Design of various elements of retaining wall

Stability analysis of cantilever retaining wall:- checking

for failures
 Forces acting on retaining wall
EARTH PRESSURE
(a) On stem: Earth pressure on
the stem from backfill (active
Kaϒh
earth pressure) varies linearly.
According to Rankine’s theory at h
depth ‘h’ below the top of wall
is given by P =1/2k ϒH 2
a a
pa = kaϒh
H
where k = Coefficient
a of active
earth pressure
ka = 1-sinΦ
H/3
1+sinΦ
Φ= Angle of internal friction of soil
ϒ= Unit weight of back fill
KaϒH
 Incase of backfill with ws
surcharge;
 The surcharge on backfill may be
due to traffic load on top of back
fill or due to a structure near it.
 If ws is the surcharge pressure on
horizontally finished back fill, then
uniform effect of surcharge on
stem is given by;
p s = k a ws

pa

ps
If backfill is sloping;
•For sloping black fill, the pressure on ὰ
stem is parallel to top surface and is
given by;
pa = k’aϒh

k’a = cosὰ cosὰ - cos2ὰ - cos2Φ

cos ὰ + cos2ὰ - cos2Φ
where,
‘ὰ’ is angle of slope of backfill with
horizontal.(also reffered as surcharge ὰ
angle)
k’ is coeff. Of active earth pressure for
such case.
Stability Conditions:
 A retaining wall must be stable as a whole, and it must have sufficient
strength to resist the forces acting on it.

 In order that the wall may be stable, the following conditions should
be
satisfied:
i. The wall must be strong enough to resist the bending moment
and shear force.
ii. The wall should not overturn.
iii. Maximum pressure at base should not exceed the SBC of soil.
iv. The wall should not slide due to lateral pressure.
 Design of Cantilever Retaining walls:

 The depth of foundation depends on the properties of soil. The minimum

depth of foundation is calculated from Rankine’s formula as

ymin = = q0 ka2 /ϒ

‘qo’ is SBC of soil.

‘ϒ’ is the unit weight of soil on which footing is resting.
‘ka’ is the coefficient of active earth pressure.
 Preliminary Dimensions:
 The tentative proportions of the cantilever retaining wall may be obtained
based on experience and optimization studies.

 Set the preliminary dimensions of retaining wall

 Base width, b = 0.48H to 0.56H
 Toe projection = 0.3 b
 Thickness of base slab = Thickness of stem = H/12
 Top width of stem = 150 mm to 300 mm
Diagrammatic Representation:
.

H PH

0.3b H/3

b
Check for Overturning :
 The lateral loads (earth pressure) causes overturning moment (Mo) about
the toe.
 The weight of backfill, surcharge, self weight of retaining wall cause
stabilizing moment (Ms) about the toe.
 The factor of safety against overturning is given by ;

(Fos)o = Ms/Mo
 The factor of safety should not be less than 1.4.
 As per IS 456-2000 recommendations, only 0.9 times the
characteristic
dead load shall be considered
(Fos)o = 0.9Ms/Mo
 Check for
Sliding
The lateral earth :
from back fill.
pressure on stem tries to slide the retaining wall away

 This lateral force is resisted by frictional force between base slab and
the
soil below it.
 Maximum frictional force is given by
F = µΣW
where, ΣW is the total downward load.

 If PH is the total horizontal pressure, then factor of safety against sliding is

given by
(Fos)s = µΣW/PH
 As per IS 456-2000 recommendations, the factor of safety should not less
than 1.4 and only 0.9 times characteristic dead load is to be considered
 Design of stem:
 Calculate the max. factored BM on stem due to lateral earth pressure. This
calculated BM < Mu (lim.).
 If cal.BM > Mu (lim.) ; increase the thickness of base of stem and redesign.
 Accordingly, calculate the area of steel required;

Mu = .87fy Ast d (1 – fy Ast/fck bd)

 Provide bars of app. diameter (Φ) and calculate spacing as:

S= ∏Φ2/4 * 1000
Ast
 Spacing should be min. of the following:
(1)0.75d (2) 300mm (3) Calculated
Spacing
 Provide distribution steel.
 Check for development length and shear.
Design of toe slab:
 Calculate the ultimate BM for 1 metre width of toe slab.

 For calculation of BM,

The weight of soil above toe slab is neglected.
The two forces considered are:
(1) Upward soil pressure;
(2) Downward weight of toe slab.

 Provide reinforcement accordingly.

 Provide distribution steel.
 Check for development length and shear.
Design of heel slab:
 Calculate the ultimate BM for 1metre width of heel slab.
 For calculation of BM,
The three forces considered are:
(1) Upward soil pressure;
(2) Downward weight of heel slab;
(3) Weight of the soil above heel slab.
 Provide main steel and distribution steel accordingly.
 Apply check for development length and shear.
Design Example Cantilever retaining wall

Design a cantilever retaining wall (T type) to retain earth for a

height of 4m. The backfill is horizontal. The density of soil is
18kN/m3. Safe bearing capacity of soil is 200 kN/m2. Take the co-
efficient of friction between concrete and soil as 0.6. The angle of
repose is 30°. Use M20 concrete and Fe415 steel.

Solution
Data: h' = 4m, SBC= 200 kN/m2, = 18 kN/m3, μ=0.6, φ=30°
 .
Depth of foundation
 To fix the height of retaining wall [H]

 H= h' +D

 Depth of foundation

 Df sin  
= SBC 11  sin
2 
 

= 1.23m say 1.2m ,
 Therefore H= 5.2m
Proportioning of wall

 Thickness of base slab=(1/10

to1/14)H
 0.52m to 0.43m, say 450 mm

 Width of base slab=b = (0.5 to 0.6) H

 2.6m to 3.12m say 3m

 Toe projection= pj= (1/3 to ¼)H

 1m to 0.75m say 0.75m

 Provide 450 mm thickness for the stem

at the base and 200 mm at the top
Design of stem
 Ph= ½ x 1/3 x 18 x 4.752=67.68 kN
 M = Ph h/3 = 0.333 x 18 x 4.753/6
 = 107.1 kN-m
 Mu= 1.5 x M = 160.6 kN-m

 Taking 1m length of wall,

 Mu/bd2= 1.004 < 2.76, URS
 (Here d=450- eff. Cover=450-50=400 mm)
 To find steel
 Pt=0.295% <0.96%
 Ast= 0.295x1000x400/100 = 1180 mm2
 #12 @ 90 < 300 mm and 3d ok
 Ast provided= 1266 mm2 [0.32%]
Check for shear

 Max. SF at Junction, xx = Ph=67.68 kN

 Ultimate SF= Vu=1.5 x 67.68 = 101.52 kN
 Nominal shear stress =ζv=Vu/bd
 = 101.52 x 1000 / 1000x400 = 0.25 MPa
 To find ζc: 100Ast/bd = 0.32%,
 From IS:456-2000, ζc= 0.38 MPa
 ζv < ζc, Hence safe in shear.
 Stability analysis
Load Magnitude, kN Distance BM about A
from A, kN-m
m
Stem W1 0.2x4.75x1x25 = 23.75 1.1 26.13
½ x0.25x4.75x1x25 0.75 + 2/3x0.25
Stem W2 13.60
= 14.84 =0.316
B. slab W3 3.0x0.45x1x25=33.75 1.5 50.63
Back fill, 1.8x4.75x1x18
2.1 323.20
W4 = 153.9
Total ΣW= 226.24 ΣMR=413.55
Earth Pre.
PH =0.333x18x5.22/2 H/3 =5.2/3 MO=140.05
=PH
.
Stability checks
 Check for overturning
 FOS = ΣMR/ MO= 2.94 >1.55 safe

 Check for Sliding

 FOS = μ ΣW/ PH= 2.94 >1.55 safe

 Check for subsidence

 X=ΣM/ ΣW= 1.20 m > b/3 and e= b/2 –x = 3/2 – 1.2 = 0.3m < b/6

 Pressure below the base slab

 PMax=120.66 kN/m2 < SBC, safe
 PMin = 30.16 kN/m2 > zero, No tension or separation, safe
Design of heel slab
Magnitude, Distance BM, MC,

.
Load
kN from C, m kN-m
Backfill 153.9 0.9 138.51
0.45x1.8x25
Heel slab 0.9 18.23
= 27.25
Pressure dist. 30.16 x 1.8
0.9 -48.86
rectangle =54.29
Pressure dist. ½ x 24.1 1/3x1.8 -13.01
Triangle x1.8=21.69
Total Load Total ΣMC=94.86
Design of heel slab-contd
 Mu= 1.5 x 94.86 =142.3 kNm
 Mu/bd2= 0.89 < 2.76, URS
 Pt=0.264% < 0.96%
 Ast= 0.264x1000x400/100
 =1056 mm2

 #16@ 190 < 300 mm and 3d ok

 Ast provided= 1058mm [0.27%]

OR Mu=0.87 fy Ast[d - (fyAst/fckb)]

Design of heel slab- Contd
 Development length:
 Ld=47 φbar
 =47 x 16 = 752mm

 Distribution steel
 Same, #10 @ 140
 < 450 mm and 5d ok
Design of heel slab- Contd
 Check for shear at junction (Tension)
 Maximum shear =V=105.17 kN,
 VU,max= 157.76 kN,

 Nominal shear stress =ζv=Vu/bd

= 101.52 x 1000 / 1000x400 = 0.39 MPa
 To find ζc: 100Ast/bd = 0.27%,
 From IS:456-2000, ζc= 0.37 MPa
 ζv slightly greater than ζc,
 Hence slightly unsafe in shear.
Design of toe slab

Bending
Load Magnitude, kN Distance moment,
from C, m MC, kN-m
Toe slab 0.75x0.45x25 = 0.75/2 -3.164
Pressure distribution, 97.99x0.75 0.75/2 27.60
rectangle
Pressure distribution, ½ x22.6 2/3x1=0.75 4.24
triangle x1.0.75
Total Load at Total BM ΣM=28.67
junction at junction
Design of toe slab contd
 Mu= 1.5 x 28.67 =43 kN-m
 Mu/bd2= 0.27< 2.76, URS

 Pt=0.085% Very small, provide 0.12%GA

 Ast= 540 mm2

 #10 @ 140 < 300 mm and 3d ok

 Development length:
 Ld=47 φbar =47 x 10 = 470 mm
Design of toe slab contd
 Check for shear: at d from junction (at xx as wall
is in compression)

 Net shear force at the section

 V= (120.6+110.04)/2 x 0.35 -
0.45x0.35x25=75.45kN
 VU,max=75.45x1.5=113.18 kN

 ζv
=113.17x1000/(1000x400)=0.2
 8 MPa
pt≤0.25%, From IS:456-2000, ζc= 0.37 MPa
 ζv < ζc, Hence safe in shear.
.
CONCLUSION
Cantilever retaining walls are economically suited for wall heights
.

up to 6.0 M and hence for height up to 6.0 M, no other alternative

is necessary.
 REFERENCES
 S.K Bhatia and R.M Baker, “Difference between Cantilever and Gravity
.
retaining walls under static conditions”, Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.15,
No.3, May 1985.
 Kaare Hoeg and Ramesh Murarka, Probabilistic Analysis and Design of a
Retaining Wal, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol.100, March
1994.
 Swami Saran, “Displacement Dependent Earth Pressure in Retaining Walls”,
Indian Geotechnical Journal, Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.20, July 1990.
Leo Cassagrande, “Comments on Conventional Design of Retaining
Structures”, Journal of the soil mechanics and foundation division, ASCE,,
Vol.99, Feb2003
Dr.B.C.punmia,”comprehensive RCC designs”,1998