Arth Pressure and Retaining Structure Notes

Lateral Earth Pressure Theories
The Rankine Theory

The Rankine theory is a theory of plastic failure which considers the stresses acting
within a soil element and assesses the likelihood of plastic failure.
By adopting this approach Rankine developed an expression which allows lateral
earth pressures to be calculated if the vertical earth pressure is known.
The theory involves the application of various coefficients of lateral earth pressure
and results assume the soil to be in a state of plastic failure.
The Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion and Mohrs Circle
The Rankine theory requires the application of a failure criterion to assess whether
plastic failure will occur. The failure criterion used is the Mohr-Coulomb criterion,
which states that failure occurs when the shear stress on any given plane, , is equal
to the following:
c tan
Where:
c is the soil cohesion
is the soil angle of internal friction

is the normal stress on the plane
When this criterion is satisfied, plastic failure begins to develop by sliding on the
plane.
Mohrs circle is a geometric construction which allows the shear and normal stresses
on any given plane within a physical element to be plotted in order to determine
whether failure has occurred.
Mohrs plot basically consists of a vertical shear stress and a horizontal normal stress
axis. A failure envelope can be plotted which has a gradient equal to and an
intercept of c. Any points that plot outside this envelope constitute soil that has failed.
In order to develop his theory, Rankine considered a square element of soil at some
depth, z, below the ground surface in the vicinity of a smooth vertical wall.
Moveable
Smooth
Wall
z
h
Page 1 of 9
In this case the vertical stress acting on the soil element will be a principal stress,
meaning that there is zero shear stress on the plane on which this acts.
Principal stresses have a number of features in respect of the Mohrs diagram, as
follows:
When plotted in two dimensions there will be two principal stresses, known as the
major and minor values
Principal stresses always plot on the horizontal axis of the Mohrs circle diagram
If a circle is drawn on the diagram with a diameter equal to the difference

between the two principal stresses, this will indicate the greatest values of shear
and normal stress that occur within that element
Given that the wall is smooth, there will be no shear stresses acting on it and
consequently the horizontal force must also be a principal stress.
Now, if the wall is gradually moved away from the soil element under consideration,
the horizontal stress will necessarily fall.
At some point, the horizontal stress will fall to a low enough level such that a failure
will be generated in the soil element.
On the point of failure, the Mohr circle will be as shown in the diagram below:
After Craig Fig 6.2
Page 2 of 9
In this case the vertical stress on the soil element is the major principal stress, 1,
and the horizontal stress is the minor principal stress, 3.
What Rankine essentially did was to develop an expression for 3 in terms of
from the above diagram. In this expression 1 is the vertical stress, or overburden,
and is known. 3 is the horizontal stress, i.e. the horizontal earth pressure.
Rankines solution was:
1 sin
3 1
2c
1 sin
Then by writing
1 sin
1 sin
1 sin
Ka
1 sin
And realising that the vertical effective stress, 1, is equal to the soil overburden,
which is z, the lateral earth pressure, pa, can be calculated as:
pa = Kaz 2cKa
The value of Ka in solution obtained is known as the coefficient of active earth
pressure, and applies where the soil fails by the wall moving away from it (i.e. by
lateral expansion).
Alternatively, if the wall were pushed into rather than moved away from the soil, the
horizontal stress would increase rather than decrease. The Mohr Coulomb plot for
this case would be as before, but in this case the horizontal stress will be larger than
the vertical stress, so that 1 is now the horizontal stress and 3 the vertical stress.
Rankines solution here was:
1 sin
3 1
2c
1 sin
1 sin
1 sin
In which case, we can say:
1 sin
Kp
1 sin
and
pp = Kpz + 2cKp
The value of Kp here is known as the coefficient of passive earth pressure, and
applies where the soil fails due to the wall moving into it. (i.e. by lateral compression).
Page 3 of 9
Lateral Earth Pressure Sloping Ground

The coefficients described thus far relate only to cases where the ground is
horizontal. This does not, however, cover all the cases that we might be interested in.
Rankines theory can be extended to allow for the case where the ground is sloping
rather than horizontal. The procedure is generally similar to that for horizontal
ground, but in this case the construction is more complex because in this case
neither the vertical nor horizontal soil stresses are principal stresses.
The case considered is shown in the diagram below and the results obtained for a
purely granular soil i.e. no cohesion are as follows:
Moveable
Smooth
Wall
z
Pa
Ka
cos
cos
cos
cos
cos 2
cos 2
The above value is for a pressure acting parallel to the slope, so the horizontal
pressure on the back of the wall in this case is given as:
pa = Kaz cos
A similar approach can also be adopted to find the following values for passive
pressures:
Kp
cos
cos
cos
cos
cos 2
cos 2
and the horizontal pressure on the back of the wall is given as:
pp = Kpz cos
Mobilisation of Lateral Earth Pressures
As should be clear from the foregoing, provided that the vertical stress remains
constant, the horizontal stress in the soil depends critically on how much horizontal
movement takes place and in which direction this occurs.
Page 4 of 9
The diagram below illustrates the relationship between the coefficient of lateral earth
pressure and the movement that has taken place.
The diagram clearly shows that much greater strains are required to mobilise
significant passive than significant active stresses. As a guideline, laboratory tests
indicate that the strain required to fully mobilise the active force is in the order of
0.25% for dense sand and 1% for loose sand. This compares to values of 24% and
1015% respectively for full passive resistance to be mobilised.
After Craig Fig 6.10
Earth Pressure at Rest

The above diagram also shows a lateral earth pressure coefficient, Ko, which lies
between the full active and passive values, Ka and Kp. This is the coefficient of earth
pressure at rest, which is in theory the earth pressure that exists in a soil deposit
where no horizontal movement has taken place, i.e. a virgin soil.
The coefficient of earth pressure at rest is frequently quoted as being equal to the
value derived by Jaky, which is:
Ko 1 sin
In fact, this is something of an over-simplification as Jaky derived his value from a
soil that was placed in a very specific manner.
The actual value of Ko will depend on a number of factors, perhaps most import of
which is the stress history, the way in which the soil has previously been loaded.
In many cases, naturally occurring soil deposits will have been subjected to much
higher stresses than they are currently, most typically through having previously been
overlain by deposits which have now eroded away. Overconsolidation can also occur
through construction processes such as compaction.
Overconsolidation can cause the actual Ko value in a soil deposit to be considerably
higher than predicted by Jakys equation. This is illustrated in the following Figure
and Table below:
Page 5 of 9
Soil
Ko
Dense Sand
0.35
Loose Sand
0.6
Normally Consolidated Clays (Norway)
0.5 0.6
Clay, OCR = 3.5 (London)
1.0
Clay, OCR = 20 (London)
2.8
After Craig
After Craig Fig 6.11
The Coulomb Theory

Although the Rankine Theory produces a number of useful results, it does have
some limitations, as touched upon above.
As an alternative, it is also possible to derive expressions for coefficients of lateral
earth pressure using the Coulomb Theory.
The Coulomb Theory is a procedure that also looks at the situation adjacent to a
retaining wall, but in this case the assumption is that a failure wedge will form
behind the wall.
By looking at the forces acting on the wedge, it is possible to derive generalised
expressions for the earth pressure coefficients.
The main differences between this and the Rankine approach are that:
The Coulomb Theory is a theory of limiting equilibrium
It works with forces rather than stresses
It can take account of wall friction
It can deal directly with conditions such as sloping soil surfaces and walls where
the back is non-vertical
For simple cases the results obtained by the Coulomb theory are similar to those
obtained by Rankine. One difference, however, is that Rankine directly predicts a
hydrostatic soil pressure distribution whereas, although Coulomb agrees with this, it
is not predicted directly but only by successive applications for different wall heights.
The figure below illustrates the general condition considered by the Coulomb theory
for the case where there is no cohesion:
Page 6 of 9
W
h
In the general case illustrated, Coulomb suggests the following values for active
earth pressure coefficients:
Ka
sin( )
sin
sin( ) sin( )
sin( )
sin( )
And for the passive case:
Kp
sin( )
sin
sin( ) sin( )
sin( )
sin( )
Page 7 of 9
Cohesive Soils and Tension Cracks

As noted above, the Rankine Theory predicts the lateral earth pressure for a soil that
exhibits cohesion to be:
pa = Kaz 2cKa
The consequence of this is that the lateral earth pressure at the ground surface is
predicted to be less than zero i.e. the soil will, in theory apply a tension to the wall.
The profile of lateral earth pressure will be as shown below:
Tension = 2cKa
Ground Level
zo
The profile indicates that

the lateral earth pressure
only becomes positive
below a depth of zo below
the ground surface.
In practice, the soil cannot
resist tension in this way
and as a result, a tension
crack develops.
The depth of the tension
crack will be zo, which can
be calculated from the
above formula as:
zo
2c
Ka
Where a tension crack occurs in the soil behind a retaining wall, this will affect the
lateral earth pressure acting on the wall.
The clearest way to demonstrate the effect of tension cracking is by reference to the
generalised Coulomb method for a soil which exhibits cohesion, which is shown
below.
It is clear from the diagram that:
The depth of the tension crack increases with the value of cohesion
From reference to the force polygon, the higher the value of cohesion
adopted, the lower the value of the lateral force on the wall
Page 8 of 9
After Smith Fig 6.16
Coefficient of active earth pressure for cohesive soils

It is possible to write an equation for the generalised solution of the Coulomb Theory
in the form:
pa = Kaz cKac
where Kac will depend on both the value of the soil cohesion and the cohesion
between the soil and the wall, cw and will be given as:
c
K ac 2 K a 1 w
c
Page 9 of 9
Gravity Retaining Walls

In general, retaining walls will be required at any location where there is a change in
ground level and it is not possible to accommodate this by constructing a stable soil
slope.
The stability of gravity retaining walls is due to their self weight, with the wall being
proportioned such that this is sufficient to maintain stability.
Retaining wall design will comprise two processes:
1. Design of the wall in accordance with the geotechnical requirements of the
site
2. Structural design of the wall
The following sections deal exclusively with the first of these processes.
Potential Failure Modes of Gravity Walls
Walls may be subject to failure either through loss of serviceability or collapse.
Serviceability Failures
These would typically include:
1. Excessive deformations of the soil or the wall
These may also adversely affect adjacent structures
2. Adverse seepage effects, erosion or leakage through the wall
Detailed design must give adequate consideration to the effects of
groundwater
This category would also include failure of any structural element of the wall or a
combined wall/structural failure, neither of which will be taken into account in the
following analyses.
Collapse Failure Mechanisms
As noted above, the wall is required to be proportioned such that it can resist the
loads acting on it, which will largely be due to the horizontal earth pressure generated
in the retained fill.
In practice, four major collapse failure mechanisms are considered in design of
retaining walls, these being as follows:
Failure by deep-seated rotation of the soil mass
This occurs as shown in the diagram to
the left. It constitutes what must be
thought of as a generalised global
failure and needs to be checked for by
slip circle analysis.
Failures of this type occur wholly
outside the structure and consequently
cannot be prevented by minor changes
in the wall geometry.
Page 1 of 9
One way of preventing these failures is by installing piles (often driven sheet piles) to
extend across the critical failure plane.
In addition to global failures of this type, three more localised failures must be
considered. Because they are localised, each of these can generally be prevented by
changing the geometry of the wall, although sometimes such changes may be so
extensive that it might not be economical to do this and a revised design might be
required.
Failure by Sliding
This mechanism occurs when the lateral earth pressure on the back of the wall is so
large that it causes the wall to slide forward.
In general terms, the
tendency of the wall to
slide is resisted both by
friction at its base and
passive force generated
in any soil that is present
in front of it.
If the horizontal force
due to the retained soil
is greater than the
combined friction on the
base and passive resistance due to the soil in front of it, the wall will fail by sliding
forward.
Basic Wall
Wall with Heel
Wall with Toe
One way to prevent

failure by sliding is
to include a heel or
a toe cast under the
base of the wall.
This forces any
failure through the
base deeper and
consequently
increases the
sliding resistance
here.
Failure by Overturning
Failure is again due to the influence
of the lateral earth pressure behind
the wall, but in this case the wall
overturns about its toe.
The lateral pressure due to the
retained soil generates an overturning
moment about the toe of the wall
which is resisted by a restoring
moment about the same point due to
Page 2 of 9
the weight of the wall. If the weight of the wall is insufficient, the wall will overturn
about this point.
The simplest way to increase the resistance of the wall to overturning is to amend its
geometry to increase either its weight and/or thickness, which will increase the
restoring moment.
Bearing Failure
The soil beneath the base of the wall will be loaded due to the weight of the wall. In
the absence of any retained fill, the bearing pressure would simply be equal to the
weight of the wall divided by the area of the base. However, where fill is retained, the
pressure distribution beneath the base is no longer uniform the action of the fill
causes it to increase under the toe.
If the bearing pressure is
greater than the bearing
resistance of the soil
beneath the toe, this will
result in a bearing failure
where the toe of the wall
punches into the
foundation soil.
It should be noted that a
bearing failure is quite
different to an overturning
failure.
Gravity Wall Design Procedure
The first stage of the design procedure is to check for a global failure. This requires
the use of slip circle analysis and will not be illustrated in the following examples.
The second stage is to derive Ka and Kp values for the retained fill and the fill in front
of the wall and then to check for the three failure mechanisms described above.
Provided that the wall is shown to be safe for the three failure mechanisms shown,
the wall design is safe. If not, either the wall geometry or the material used to backfill
the wall needs to be changed and the wall stability re-checked.
Page 3 of 9
Factors of Safety in Geotechnical Design

General
In designing any structure, it is vital to ensure that it will be and will remain safe
throughout its lifetime. Consequently, the design must include allowance for an
appropriate Factor of Safety.
Although the choice of an appropriate factor of safety and the assessment of the
actual factor for a given structure may appear to be a straightforward process, this is
not necessarily the case. There are, in fact, a number of considerations that must be
taken into account when determining a structures factor of safety.
Geotechnical design has for many years adopted a procedure which is known as the
Lumped Factor approach. However, in recent years there have been moves away
from this towards a Factor on Strength approach, which is considered to be more
compatible with the limit state approach that is now used in structural engineering.
Although the Factor on Strength approach will become increasingly prevalent in UK
practice, not least because it is the method that constitutes the basis of the new
Eurocode for geotechnical design, the Lumped Factor approach is still quite
commonly used and is likely to be so for some time. Consequently, it is important that
both approaches are understood.
The basis of the Lumped Factor approach is explained in the following section. The
Factor on Strength Method is not considered here, but will be explained fully later in
the course.
The Lumped Factor of Safety Approach
This approach can be summarised in terms of the following elements:
The design uses the best assessment of the actual soil strength
Using this soil strength, the value of the total action (usually a force or
moment) causing instability of the structure is calculated
The value of the total action (again a force or moment) stabilising the
structure is calculated on the same basis
The overall factor of safety is then given as:
Factor of Safety, F
Stabilising Force or Moment

Destabilising Force or Moment
The design then requires that the structure is proportioned in order to ensure that a
minimum factor of safety is achieved
It should be noted that the Lumped Factor approach only considers total failure of the
structure i.e. the Ultimate Limit State. No account is taken of any serviceability
limits.
Page 4 of 9
Lumped Factor of Safety Required Minimum Factor of Safety

It is important to appreciate that the Lumped factor approach does not actually
require that one single factor of safety will be appropriate for all different design
conditions.
The actual factor of safety required for a check against any given failure mechanism
may well be different from that required for another mechanism, as will become
apparent in the following sections.
In practice, the required factor of safety for a design check against a particular failure
mechanism will generally depend on knowledge drawn from previous design
experience. This will be influenced by factors such as:
The type of structure
The type of soil present
How well the ground conditions are understood (e.g. the extent of ground
investigation that has been carried out)
The consequences of failure (e.g. a lower factor of safety may be accepted

for sliding of a 0.5m high garden wall than for a 20 metre high wall retaining a
major highway)
Lumped Factors of Safety Required for Gravity Retaining Walls

As noted above, the actual factors required will be influenced by site-specific
conditions and guidance should usually also be sought from previous design
experience and relevant codes of practice (e.g. BS8002 Retaining Structures), but
the following gives some indication of the relevant order of required factors of safety.
Factor of Safety against Overturning
Typically this should be in the order of 2.0 and this value is used in all of the following
examples given for this course.
Factor of Safety against Sliding
Typically this should be in the order of 1.5 2.0.
A value of 1.5 is used in all of the following examples given for this course.
Factor of Safety against Bearing Failure
The Lumped Factor design approach generally requires that the imposed bearing
stress is calculated based on the actual soil strength. The bearing capacity check
then requires that:
Calculated Maximum Imposed Bearing Stress Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure
This assumes that the allowable soil bearing pressure will itself have been calculated
using a lumped factor approach by dividing the ultimate foundation bearing pressure
by a lumped factor of safety, which is usually 3.0.
A second check is also required to ensure that there is no tension under the base,
which could not be resisted and would cause uplift under the base of the wall, so:
Calculated Minimum Imposed Bearing Stress 0
Page 5 of 9
Gravity Wall Design Example 1

The diagram on the following sheet shows a gravity retaining wall for which:
Bulk density of retained fill = 18 kN/m3
for the retained fill of 40
Surcharge Load = 10 kN/m2
Bulk density of concrete = 23.5 kN/m3
The angle of friction on the base of the wall, , is equal to 0.75.
Ka = (1 sin ) / (1 + sin ) = 0.3572 / 1.6428 = 0.217
1.80 m
Surcharge 10kN/m
3.00 m
(3)
(1)
(2)
Stage 1 Sliding Check:

Sliding will occur if the total lateral force on the rear of wall due to the retained soil
and the surcharge is greater than the frictional resistance between the base of the
wall and the soil beneath it.
Working in Forces per metre width:

Element
Force (kN)
(1) Force due to Surcharge
0.217 x 10 x 3.0 = 6.51 kN

0.217 x 18 x 32 / 2 = 17.577 kN
(2) Force due to Retained Fill

H=
(3) Weight of wall section
24.09 kN
3.00 x 1.80 x 23.5 = 126.9 kN

V=
126.9 kN
Ratio of on base to = 0.75

Sliding Resistance = 126.9 x tan (0.75 x 40) = 73.27 kN
Factor of Safety on Sliding = 73.27 / 24.09 = 3.04
Factor of Safety vs. Sliding 1.5
Page 6 of 9
O.K.
Stage 2 Check on Overturning:

Given that the lateral thrust behind the wall acts at some height above the base, this
will result in an overturning moment on about the base of the wall. This moment will
be resisted by the action of the weight of the wall.
Should these moments lead to overturning of the wall, this will develop about point A
and in order to check on failure by overturning moments must consequently be
considered about this point. Note that the forces given in the table below have
already been obtained from Stage 1, above.
Working in Forces per metre width:
Element
Force (kN)
(1) Surcharge
(2) Retained Fill
(3) Wall section
Lever Arm about point A
Moment about A
(kNm)
6.51
3.0 / 2 = 1.5m
9.765
17.577
3.0 / 3 = 1.0m
17.577
Overturning Moment =
27.342
1.8 / 2 = 0.9m
114.21
Restoring Moment =
114.21
126.9
Factor of Safety on Overturning = 114.21 / 27.342 = 4.18
Factor of Safety vs. Overturning 2.0
O.K.
Stage 3 Check on Bearing Pressure:

One effect of the horizontal thrust on the rear of the wall is to change the distribution
of bearing pressures beneath the base of the wall. This results in an increase in
bearing pressure under the toe and a decrease under the back of the wall as shown
below:
Base of Wall
max =
min =
V 6e
1
B
B
Centreline of Foundation
Page 7 of 9
V 6e
1
B
B
Distribution of
Bearing Stresses
The eccentricity of the base

resultant can be found by once
again considering moments
about point A, at the toe of the
wall as shown on the right:
Weight
of Wall
From this moment balance and

noting that the thrust due to the
fill causes the overturning
moment and the weight of the
wall causes the restoring
moment calculated during Stage
2, above:
Thrust
due to Fill
A
Thrust
under base
L
Restoring Moment Overturn Moment

Weight of Wall
And:
B
L
2
So that the maximum and minimum bearing stresses can then be calculated as
follows:
Working in Forces per metre width and taking values from previous calcs:
Overturning Moment =
27.342 kNm
L=
0.685m
Restoring Moment =
114.21 kNm
B=
1.80m
126.9 kN
e=
0.215m
max
121.0 kN/m2
min
20.0 kN/m2
Weight of Wall =
Stress under Base = V 1 6e

B
For the Lumped Factor approach, the required conditions will be as follows:
Maximum Bearing Pressure Foundation allowable bearing pressure
Minimum Bearing Pressure Zero (i.e. no tension)
The second of these is clearly satisfied; the first condition requires the imposed
bearing pressure to be compared with the allowable bearing pressure, which will be
calculated separately.
Page 8 of 9
The full calculation may be tabulated as set out below:

Calculations all per metre width Taking Moments about Toe of wall
Element
Force (kN)
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
(1)
0.217 x 10 x 3.0 = 6.51 kN
3.0 / 2 = 1.5 m
9.765 kNm
(2)
0.217 x 18 x 32 / 2 = 17.577 kN
3.0 / 3 = 1.0 m
17.577 kNm
H=
(3)
24.09 kN
MH =
3.00 x 1.80 x 23.5 = 126.9 kN

V=
126.9 kN
1.8 / 2 = 0.90 m
27.342 kNm
114.21 kNm
MV =
114.21 kNm
M = MV MH
86.868 kNm
Dist. of base resultant from Toe of Wall = M / V = 0.685 m ; e = (1.80 / 2) 0.685
e = 0.215 m

Sliding Resistance = 126.9 tan (0.75 x 40) = 73.27 kN
B
Factor of Safety vs. Overturning

= MV / MH = 114.21 / 27.342 = 4.18
Max Stress = (126.9/1.80) x (1+ 6 x 0.215/1.80) = 121.0 kN/m2

Min Stress = (126.9/1.80) x (1 6 x 0.215/1.80) = 20.0 kN/m2
Page 9 of 9
Retaining Walls Part 2

Layered Soils
All of the examples encountered so far have investigated the case of walls
constructed within a single type of soil. In practice, it is not unusual for walls to be
constructed in layered soils.
Where this is the case, the wall design procedure is essentially identical to that for a
single soil type except that separate Ka and Kp values have to be derived for each
soil layer and applied appropriately. It is also important to ensure that the correct
parameters are adopted for the soil that is actually present beneath the base of the
wall when it comes to calculating the sliding resistance.
The following example illustrates the procedure:
1.70 m
Surcharge 10kN/m
(1)
Soil 1
(2)
3.00 m
[A]
2.50 m
[B]
(3)
(4)
(5)
Soil 2
2.50 m
Where:
Soil 1
= 30;
c = 0;
bulk = 17 kN/m3
Soil 2
= 35;
c = 0;
bulk = 18.5 kN/m3
Unit Weight of Concrete = 23.5 kN/m3

Hence,
for Soil 1, Ka = (1sin 30) / (1+Sin30) = 0.333

for Soil 2, Ka = (1sin 35) / (1+Sin35) = 0.271
Element
Force (kN)
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
2.5 + 0.5 / 2 = 2.75 m
4.58 kNm
(1)
0.333 x 10 x 0.5 = 1.665 kN
(2)
0.333 x 17 x 0.5 / 2 = 0.706 kN
2.5 + 0.5 / 3 = 2.67 m
1.89 kNm
(3)
0.271 x 10 x 2.5 = 6.775 kN
2.5 / 2 = 1.25 m
8.47 kNm
(4)
0.271 x 17 x 0.5 x 2.5 = 5.759 kN
2.5 / 2 = 1.25 m
7.20 kNm
(5)
0.271 x 18.5 x 2.5 / 2 = 15.667 kN
2.5 / 3 = 0.83 m
13.00 kNm
H=
30.572 kN
MH =
Page 1 of 8
35.14 kNm
[A]
1.7 x 3.0 x 23.5 = 119.85 kN
0.8 + 1.70 / 2 = 1.65 m
197.75 kNm
[B]
0.5 x (2.50 1.70) x 3.0 x 23.5 =

28.2 kN
2 x 0.8 / 3 = 0.53 m
14.95 kNm
V=
148.05 kN
MV =
212.70 kNm
M = MV MH
177.56 kNm
Dist. of base resultant from Toe of Wall = M / V = 1.20 m ; e = (2.50 / 2) 1.20 m
e = 0.05 m

B
B

= MV / MH = 212.70 / 35.14 = 6.05
Max Stress = (148.05/2.50) x (1+ 6 x 0.05/2.50) = 66.3 kN/m
Min Stress = (148.05/2.50) x (1- 6 x 0.05/2.50) = 52.1 kN/m2
General Design Considerations

There are a number of factors that must generally be taken into account when
designing any retaining wall. These are discussed below:
Surcharge Load
Depending on its exact location, a surcharge load imposed on the fill retained behind
the wall can tend to have a destabilising effect on the wall.
This effect must be taken into account in the wall design and this is conventionally
done by considering a standard nominal surcharge of 10 kN/m2 applied to the
surface of the retained fill in such a way as to have the greatest effect on the wall
stability. This surcharge is deemed to allow for any unexpected temporary loading in
this area such as traffic movements, short term storage of materials etc.
In applying this surcharge, care must be taken to ensure that it is applied in the
correct location, as shown below. It is also possible in certain cases that it may be
inappropriate to apply a surcharge as it is not possible for a load to actually be
applied here, for example in the case of an extremely steep slope or where the
surface of the fill is not actually accessible (this may, for example, happen on the
bank seat of a bridge)
Page 2 of 8
Surcharge applied incorrectly

stabilises wall
Surcharge applied correctly

destabilises wall
Surcharge applied incorrectly

stabilises wall
Surcharge applied correctly

destabilises wall
May not be appropriate to apply

surcharge load on steep slope
Allowance for Over-excavation in front of the Wall

Many retaining walls depend to some extent on the passive resistance from the soil
above the base and in front of the wall.
The difficulty with the contribution of this element of wall stability is that it can be
unreliable. In particular, if someone comes along and excavates a trench in front of
the wall, for example to install wall drainage, then this passive resistance will be lost.
In order to account for this possibility,
retaining walls are generally designed
with an allowance made for an
excavation taking place in front of
them. In accordance with British
Standards, this allowance should be
either 10% of the wall height or 0.5 m,
whichever is less.
0.1H
or
0.5m
Factoring of the Passive Resistance

As noted above, many retaining walls rely at least in part on the passive resistance
generated at the front of the wall.
Page 3 of 8
It must, however, be appreciated, that the development of passive resistance is much

less reliable than the development of the active thrust, primarily due to the fact that
significantly greater strains are required to mobilise passive resistance than active
thrust.
In order to take account of the unreliability of the passive resistance, it is generally
factored when designing wall, with a factor of 2 usually applied, so that:
Design Passive Resistance = Theoretical Passive Resistance / 2.0
Effects of including allowance for wall friction
The Rankine Theory considers the case of lateral earth pressures where the wall is
frictionless. This is unrealistic in practice, as there will always be friction between the
wall and the retained fill.
In terms of retaining wall design, friction
on the rear of the wall will generally be
advantageous to wall stability in that it
will act in a direction such as to oppose
the tendency of the wall to overturn, as
shown in the adjacent diagram.
Consequently, any efficient design will be
required to take account of wall friction.
Effect of
Wall Friction
In practice, the two effects of wall friction are:

1. To reduce the horizontal component of lateral earth pressure on the back of
the wall
2. To introduce an additional restoring moment about the toe of the wall
In calculating the effects of wall friction, the angle of friction between the wall and the
soil (the angle of wall friction) for a purely frictional soil is generally taken as a
proportion of the shear strength of the soil, with the ratio being dependent on the wall
material.
BS 8002, the code of practice for retaining walls suggests that in the absence of test
data, the angle of wall friction, , should be taken as:
Design tan = 0.75 Design tan
For the BS8002 approach, where design strengths are factored, this equates
approximately to:
Representative value of = 2/3 x Representative value of
In the case of a soil which exhibits effective cohesion, or when considering the
undrained condition, it is also possible to make an allowance for wall adhesion, cw,
where:
Design cw = 0.5 x Representative cohesion
Page 4 of 8
Design for Effects of Groundwater

Should a situation occur where groundwater can be impounded behind the wall, such
as a combination of heavy rain and poor wall drainage, then the effects of the
presence of the groundwater will need to be taken into account in the design.
Irrespective of whether the wall design will be required to take account of the
presence of groundwater, allowance will need to be made in the design to permit
drainage of water from the retained fill. Typical examples of how this is achieved are
shown in the following diagram:
After Smith
Where the wall design does need to take account of the presence of groundwater in
the retained fill, the approach will depend on the nature of the wall drainage.
Where the wall drainage is provided by means of a vertical drain at the rear of the
wall, the design will need to consider the water pressures that will be induced by the
flow net shown below:
The design adopts a wedge failure mechanism approach, but allowance must be
made for an additional force due to the water pressure acting on the inclined face of
the soil wedge as shown.
Page 5 of 8
After Smith
As an alternative, if an inclined drain is provided as shown below, so that the drain

lies below the level of the critical failure wedge, the water pressure acting on the
inclined face of the wedge will be zero. Under these circumstances, no additional
water pressure will act on the failure wedge and the lateral pressure acting on the
rear of the wall will be exactly equal to that where there is no water behind the wall.
After Smith
In practice, retaining walls are generally

designed to include an appropriately sized
wedge of free-draining granular fill directly
behind the wall face together with weep
holes to allow drainage through the face or
a toe drain behind the wall. In this way, any
groundwater which might collect behind the
wall will automatically be drained away and
the lateral pressures on the rear of the wall
will be the same as those which would be
generated for a dry fill.
Example Highways Agency Specification for

Retaining Structures
Free draining
structural
granular fill
required
here
45
Note: Drainage also required not shown
Page 6 of 8
Effects of Compaction
Wall construction necessitates the use of compaction equipment, typically rollers, to
compact the fill placed behind the wall.
It has been suggested that the use of compaction plant at the rear of the wall can be
modelled as being equivalent to a line load, as shown in the diagram below.
Q/m
Simple elastic theory can be used to calculate the

values of the vertical and lateral stresses due to
the line load. For a roller placed immediately at
the rear of the wall, the theory predicts that;
z
x
Where;
2Q
z
Q = load/unit width
z = depth
Ingold suggested that if the lateral stress due to this value of z is maintained when
the roller is removed, then the soil could fail vertically due to this high stress (i.e. the
lateral stress behind the wall will tend towards the passive value, Kpz).
Based on this assumption, Ingold suggested that the result will be that a maximum
lateral soil stress, Pmax will develop at a depth, zc, where;
Pmax
2Q
and
z c Ka
2Q
This is shown on the left below
After Craig
Wall fill will be placed in layers and as a result of this, the lateral pressure in a given
soil layer will be maintained at Pmax until a sufficient number of layers of soil have
been placed above this layer such that the value of the active earth pressure, Kaz,
Page 7 of 8
exceeds the locked in pressure. Once this happens, the lateral earth pressure will
revert to the conventional hydrostatically distributed active value. This assumption
results in the profile of lateral earth pressures shown on the right hand diagram in the
figure above, where;
za
1
Ka
2Q
Page 8 of 8
Gravity Retaining Walls

Design Assuming a Virtual Back of a Wall
As noted previously, the lateral earth pressures on the rear of a gravity retaining wall
may be calculated using either the Rankine or Coulomb Theory as appropriate.
In practice, structures that resist loads purely due to their own self weight can be
somewhat inefficient. A reinforced concrete cantilever wall is, for example, more
efficient than a gravity wall because it is proportioned in such a way that the weight of
part of the fill material acts to stabilise it, as shown below. In this case, the lateral
earth pressures tending to destabilise the wall are those that act on a virtual surface
some distance behind the wall rather than those actually acting on the back of the
wall.
Weight of soil
here acts to
stabilise wall
Lateral earth
pressure
calculated on
virtual surface
here
In addition to the design of cantilever walls, a similar approach may also be adopted
for walls where the rear face slopes or for similar forms of construction where it is
clear that a block of soil will contribute to the stability of the wall. The latter category
will, for example, include reinforced earth retaining walls, as illustrated below:
Lateral earth
pressure
calculated on
virtual surface
here
Wall with Sloping Rear Face
Lateral earth
pressure
calculated on
virtual surface
here
Reinforced Earth Wall
Page 1 of 12
The use of a virtual back in wall design can result in there being options for the
method of design to be used. For example, in the case of a wall with a sloping back,
design may follow one of two procedures:
Procedure (a):
Using this approach, which considers the
forces which actually act on the rear of
the wall, a Coulomb wedge analysis is
utilised.
The advantages of this approach are
that the effects of wall friction can be
considered. The disadvantage is that it
can be more complex to calculate the
lever arm for the forces on the back of
the wall (particularly the wall friction)
Procedure (b)
Effective
Wall height
for design
Where a virtual back of the wall is

assumed in the design, the effective
height for design may be greater than
the actual wall height (as shown). The
wedge of soil behind the virtual back of
the wall will also contribute to wall
stability and the lateral earth stresses will
be calculated on the basis of this height.
Calculation of lateral stresses can be
carried out using a Rankine approach as
there will be no wall friction on the virtual
plane considered.
In theory, the more critical of the two mechanisms (i.e. the one with the lowest factor
of safety) will govern.
In practice, either of the two approaches would generally be considered acceptable,
although procedure (b) would usually be followed if the design is to be completed by
hand calculation. Procedure (b) might also be expected to give a lower factor of
safety as the effect of wall friction is not taken into account.
Gravity Wall Design Example
The diagram on the following sheet shows a gravity retaining wall for which:
Bulk density of retained fill = 18 kN/m3
for the retained fill of 40
Surcharge Load = 10 kN/m2
Bulk density of concrete = 23.5 kN/m3
The angle of friction on the base of the wall, , is equal to 0.75.
Ka = (1 sin ) / (1 + sin ) = 0.3572 / 1.6428 = 0.217
Page 2 of 12
Surcharge 10kN/m
0.40 m
1.50 m
5.00 m
(1)
0.50 m
(2)
3.00 m
The required calculation is then as set out below:

Element
Force (kN)
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
(1)
0.217 x 10 x 5.0 = 10.85 kN
5.0 / 2 = 2.5 m
27.125 kNm
(2)
0.217 x 18 x 52 / 2 = 48.825 kN
5.0 / 3 = 1.667 m
81.39 kNm
H=
59.68 kN
MH =
108.52 kNm
Stem
0.40 x (5.0 0.5) x 23.5 = 42.3 kN
3.00 1.50 0.20 =

1.30 m
54.99 kNm
Base
3.00 x 0.50 x 23.5 = 35.25 kN
3.00 / 2 = 1.50 m
52.875 kNm
Soil over Base
1.50 x (5.00 0.50) x 18 = 121.5 kN
3.00 1.50 / 2 = 2.25 m
273.375 kNm
V=
199.1 kN
MV =
381.24 kNm
M = MV MH
272.72 kNm
Dist. of base resultant from Toe of Wall = M / V = 1.37 m ; e = (3.00 / 2) 1.37
e = 0.13 m

B
B

= MV / MH = 381.24 / 108.52 = 3.51
Max Stress = (199.1/3.00) x (1+ 6 x 0.13/3.00) = 83.62 kN/m2

Min Stress = (199.1/3.00) x (1 6 x 0.13/3.00) = 49.1 kN/m2
Page 3 of 12
Factors of Safety in Geotechnical Design

As noted previously, the design given above is based on a Lumped Factor approach
with the following required factors of safety:
Factor of Safety vs. Sliding 1.5
Factor of Safety vs. Overturning 2.0
Maximum Bearing Pressure Foundation allowable bearing pressure
Minimum Bearing Pressure Zero (i.e. no tension)
As also noted previously, the wall design could also have been undertaken using a
Factor on Strength approach.
The following sections describe the Factor on Strength approach and repeat the wall
design example given above using this method.
The Factor on Strength Approach

The Factor on Strength Approach has been developed as an alternative to the
Lumped Factor Approach for defining the design factor of safety for geotechnical
structures.
In the Factor of Safety on Strength Approach, the structure is design using a Soil
Design Strength which differs from the Actual Soil Strength.
The Soil Design Strength is defined as:
Soil Design Strength
Where:
Actual Soil Strength

F
F is the Factor on Strength
In this approach the factor of safety for the structure arises from the fact that it is
being designed assuming a soil strength that is less than the actual soil strength
This is directly analogous to the use of partial safety factors on material strengths in
structural engineering.
Note that this approach is significantly different to the Lumped Factor Approach.
Using Factors of Safety on Soil Strength

When adopting this approach, it must be borne in mind that the strength of any soil
will generally have two components a frictional component [ or u] and a cohesion
component [C or Cu]
The intention of this approach is actually to directly factor the shear strength of the
soil, rather than these two individual components. Consequently, the factors of safety
are applied as described below. It is also important to appreciate that the partial
factors applied to each of the two strength components are likely to be different.
Page 4 of 12
Frictional Component of Soil Strength

The shear strength of a soil is actually given as tan or tan u.
As a result, the design strength is given as:
tan ' design
tan ' actual

Ffriction
or
tan u design
tan u actual
Ffriction
Cohesion Component of Soil Strength

The cohesion values, C and Cu give a direct measure of the soil shear strength.
As a result, the design strength is given as:
C' design
C' actual
Fcohesion
or
CU design
C U actual
Fcohesion
Partial Factors on Applied Loads

One further element of the Factor on Strength Method is that it will generally require
that externally applied loads must also be factored by a partial load factor.
This allowance is made to account for any uncertainty in the magnitude of the applied
loads and for the fact that there is no lumped safety factor included in the final
stability assessment.
These partial factors are effectively directly analogous to the partial load factors used
in structural design.
Where partial load factors are applied, this is done in accordance with the following
equation:
Design Applied Load Fpartial load x Actual Applied Load

The Factor on Strength Design Process
This approach can be summarised as follows:
An assessment is made of the actual soil strength
The actual soil strength is then factored using the appropriate strength factor
to give the design soil strength
Any external applied loads are multiplied by the appropriate partial factor to
give the applied design loads
Using the design soil strength and design loads, the value of the total action
(usually a force or moment) causing instability of the structure is calculated
The value of the total action (again a force or moment) stabilising the
structure is calculated on the same basis as for the destabilising action
The structure is then acceptable providing that:
Stabilising Force or Moment Destabilising Force or Moment

This is the only check that is required at this stage and no further safety factor(s)
needs to be considered in the design.
Page 5 of 12
Values of Partial Factors to be used in Geotechnical Design

As with other aspects of geotechnical design, the partial factors that are used in any
actual design will depend on a number of factors related to the specific component of
the design being considered.
Guidance on the use of appropriate partial factors to be used in any given case will
usually be obtained by reference to the relevant design standard.
For design of retaining walls, BS: 8002 suggests the use of the following Factors on
Soil Strength (which are described in the code as Mobilisation Factors):
Parameter
Factor on Strength
[Mobilisation Factor]
Value used for design
Cu
1.5
CU
1.5
1.2
C'
1.2
tan
1.2
Page 6 of 12
tan ' design
tan '
1.2
Design to Eurocode 7
As noted previously, Eurocode 7 adopts a limit state approach with partial factors
applied to actions, material properties and resistances.
British practice follows design approach 1 when considering the GEO and STR Limit
states. This requires two load combinations to be considered as follows:
Load combination 1
(A1+ M1 + R1)
Load combination 2
(A2 + M2 + R1)
Now, considering the previous design again, the first point to consider is that
Eurocode 7 does not require a surcharge to be applied, so that the problem becomes
simplified to:
0.40 m
1.50 m
5.00 m
0.50 m
(1)
3.00 m
We then need to identify the actions, which will be:

The force due to the weight of the soil plus the weight of the wall
The thrust due to the retained backfill
The material properties will be:
The value for the retained granular fill
The bulk density of the retained fill,
In this case there are no resistances to be considered.
We can then establish the relevant partial factors and carry out the sliding and
resisting checks for each of the two required load combinations as follows:
Page 7 of 12
Load Combination 1 (A1 + M1 + R1)

For the sliding check:
Type
Partial Factor
Case A1
Permanent favourable
G, stb = 1.0
Permanent unfavourable
G, dst = 1.35
Action
Force due to the weight of soil
plus wall
The thrust due to the retained
backfill
Partial Factor
Case M1
Material Property
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tan )
= 1.0
Weight Density
= 1.0
Resistance
Partial Factor
Case R1
Bearing
R; v = 1.0
R; h = 1.0
Sliding
For = 40 and = 1.0:
tan design = tan 40 / 1.0
and
design = 40
As the angle of friction on the base of the wall, , is equal to 0.75,
design = 0.75 x design = 30

Hence:
Ka design = (1 sin 40) / (1 + sin 40) = 0.3572 / 1.6428 = 0.2174
For bulk density of retained fill = 18 kN/m3
design = 18 / 1.0 = 18 kN/m3
For bulk density of concrete = 23.5 kN/m3
design = 23.5 / 1.0 = 23.5 kN/m3
For failure by sliding, the sliding resistance should be factored by R; h = 1.0

We should also then re-assess the partial factors for failure by overturning.
The factors on actions and material properties will clearly be the same as the same
actions will be favourable or unfavourable. However, there will be no actual soil
resistance to overturning, so no R factor will be necessary
The calculations are then as follows:
Page 8 of 12
Calculations all per metre width Load Combination 1

Element
Note that all partial factors are shown in bold and underlined
Force (kN)
1.35 x 0.2174 x 18 x 52 / 2 = 66.035 kN
(1)
H=
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
5.0 / 3 = 1.667 m
110.08 kNm
66.035 kN
MH =
Stem
0.40 x (5.0 0.5) x 1.0 x 23.5 = 42.3 kN
Base
3.00 x 0.50 x 1.0 x 23.5 = 35.25 kN
Soil over Base
1.50 x (5.00 0.50) x 1.0 x 18 = 121.5 kN
V=
110.08 kNm
3.00 1.50 0.20 = 1.30 m
54.99 kNm
3.00 / 2 = 1.50 m
52.875 kNm
3.00 1.50 / 2 = 2.25 m
273.375 kNm
1.0 x 199.1 = 199.1 kN
MV =
381.24 kNm

0.40 m
Check on Sliding:
Sliding Resistance >
1.50 m
5.00 m
Check on Overturning:
H 1.0 x 114.95 > 66.035 OK
MV > MH
381.24 > 110.08 OK
0.50 m
(1)
Bearing Pressure Calculation is not included here the calculated bearing pressure will need to be
checked against a factored bearing resistance where the factor used will be R; v = 1.0
3.00 m
Page 9 of 12
Load Combination 2 (A2 + M2 + R1)

For the sliding check:
Type
Partial Factor
Case A2
Permanent favourable
G, stb = 1.0
G, dst = 1.0
Action
Force due to the weight of soil
plus wall
backfill
Partial Factor
Case M1
Material Property
= 1.25
Weight Density
= 1.0
Resistance
Partial Factor
Case R1
Bearing
R; v = 1.0
R; h = 1.0
Sliding
For = 40 and = 1.25:
tan design = tan 40 / 1.25 = 0.6713
and
design = 33.87
As the angle of friction on the base of the wall, , is equal to 0.75,
design = 0.75 x design = 25.4

Hence:
Ka design = (1 sin 33.87) / (1 + sin 33.87) = 0.4427 / 1.5573 = 0.2843
For bulk density of retained fill = 18 kN/m3
design = 18 / 1.0 = 18 kN/m3
For bulk density of concrete = 23.5 kN/m3
design = 23.5 / 1.0 = 23.5 kN/m3
For failure by sliding, the sliding resistance should be factored by R; h = 1.0

We should also then re-assess the partial factors for failure by overturning.
Again, the factors on actions and material properties will clearly be the same as the
same actions will be favourable or unfavourable. However, there will be no actual soil
resistance to overturning, so no R factor will be necessary
Page 10 of 12
Calculations all per metre width Load Combination 1

Element
Note that all partial factors are shown in bold and underlined
Force (kN)
1.00 x 0.2843 x 18 x 52 / 2 = 63.97kN
(1)
H=
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
5.0 / 3 = 1.667 m
106.64 kNm
63.97 kN
MH =
Stem
0.40 x (5.0 0.5) x 1.0 x 23.5 = 42.3 kN
Base
3.00 x 0.50 x 1.0 x 23.5 = 35.25 kN
Soil over Base
1.50 x (5.00 0.50) x 1.0 x 18 = 121.5 kN
3.00 1.50 0.20 = 1.30 m
54.99 kNm
3.00 / 2 = 1.50 m
52.875 kNm
3.00 1.50 / 2 = 2.25 m
273.375 kNm
1.0 x 199.1 =199.1 kN
V=
106.64 kNm
MV =
381.24 kNm

Sliding Resistance = 199.1 tan (0.75 x 33.87) = 94.55kN
0.40 m
Check on Sliding:
Sliding Resistance >
1.50 m
5.00 m
Check on Overturning:
H 1.0 x 94.55 > 66.035 OK
MV > MH
381.24 > 106.64 OK
0.50 m
(1)
Bearing Pressure Calculation is not included here the calculated bearing pressure will need to be
checked against a factored bearing resistance where the factor used will be R; v = 1.0
3.00 m
Page 11 of 12
Parameter
Permanent action (G)
Symbol
Unfavourable
Favourable
Variable action (Q)
Unfavourable
Favourable
Accidental action (A)
Unfavourable
Favourable
Coefficient of shearing resistance (tan ')

Effective cohesion (c')
Undrained shear strength (cu)
Unconfined compressive strength (qu)
Weight density ()
Bearing resistance (Rv)
Sliding resistance (Rh)
Earth resistance (Rh)
Design Approach 1
Combination 1
Combination 2
G, dst
G, stb
Q, dst
A, dst
'
c'
cu
qu
Rv
Rh
Re
GEO/STR - Partial factor set
EQU
A1
A2
M1
M2
1.1
1.35
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.0
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.25
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
(A1+M1+R1)
(A2+M2+R1)
Design Approach 2
(A1+M1+R2)
Design Approach 3
(A1or A2) +M2+R3
Table 1 Eurocode 7 Partial Factors
Piles & anchors:
R1
R2
R3
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
(A1+M1+R1)
(A2 + (M1 or M2) + R4)
Reference: Smiths Elements of Soils 8th Edition Pg 268
Page 12 of 12
Cantilever Sheet Pile Walls

In cantilever sheet pile wall construction, heavy steel sheet piles are driven into the
ground prior to excavation taking place. When excavation is carried out, the soil
behind the sheets is retained by their cantilever action.
Cantilever sheet pile walls tend to be prone to movement and are generally only
used for temporary structures or for permanent walls of low height in sands and
gravels.
Figure 1
After Craig Figure 6.22
Additional Design Requirements

In addition to the above, there are also two other important criteria that are adopted
in practical design of sheet pile walls as follows:
1. An additional depth is allowed at the front of the wall to allow for the possibility
that an accidental excavation may occur here. BS 8002 (Earth Retaining
Structures) suggests that this allowance should be 10% of the retained height up
to a maximum allowance of 0.5 m.
2. A surcharge load is applied behind the wall to allow for loading in this area. The
applied surcharge will depend on the load that might be expected, but general
2
practice allows for a minimum nominal surcharge of 10 kN/m .
Design of Cantilever Walls by Moment Balance
Design of cantilever walls is carried out by finding a moment balance about the
assumed point of fixity, which is shown as point C in Figure 1(c).
As has been discussed previously, generation of full active and passive pressure
requires a certain strain to develop in the soil. Generation of full passive resistance
will, in particular, require quite significant strains to develop.
Several different design methods have been proposed for cantilever retaining walls
depending on different assumptions of precisely what earth pressures are
mobilised.
The four main design methods are described below:
Gross Pressure Method (CP2 Method)

This method commences with the
assumption that full active pressure will
develop behind the wall and full passive
pressure in front of the wall.
The approach requires that there is a
factor of safety against failure and this is
obtained by dividing the calculated
moment due to the passive earth
pressure by a factor, Fp, and then
equating this to the moment due to the
active earth pressure plus the net
moment due to any water pressure acting
on the wall.
Moment from Passive Pressure

Moment from Active Pressure Net Water Pressure moment
Fp
Net Pressure Method (British Steel Method)

This method was developed by British
Steel and adopts the pressure distribution
shown bounded by the solid lines in the
diagram opposite, where the net pressures
acting on the rear and front of the wall are
calculated by subtracting the pressures
acting on one side of the wall from those
on the other side, with the effects of water
pressure included in these calculations.
As for the Gross Pressure method, a factor
of safety is applied to the moment due to
the passive pressure in order to ensure
that the wall design is safe. In this case:
Moment from Net Passive Pressure (Earth Water)

Moment from Net Active Pressure (Earth Water)
Fnp
As a supplier of steel sheet sections, British Steel contributed significantly to the

literature on steel sheet pile design and produced a Piling Handbook, which went
through a number of editions. The part of the business dealing with sheet piles was
subsequently sold to Arcelor, whose web site includes a lot of data relevant to sheet
pile design. In particular, see www.arcelor.com/sheetpiling under documentation,
where a copy of the current Piling Handbook can be downloaded.
Net Available Passive Resistance Method (Burland and Potts)

This method was developed by Burland
and Potts and adopts the pressure
distribution shown bounded by the solid
lines in the diagram opposite.
The active pressure is assumed to reach a
maximum value at the level of the ground
in front of the wall. This value of active
pressure is then maintained to the base of
the wall while the net active pressure is
calculated as the gross passive pressure
less the drop in active pressure below the
theoretical hydrostatic value.
As for the previous methods, a factor of
safety is incorporated in the moment balance in order to ensure that the design is
safe, as follows:
Moment from Modified Passive Pressure

Moment from Modified Active Pressure Net Water Pressure moment
Fr
Factor of Safety on Soil Strength Method

This method differs from the previous three methods in that the factor of safety for
the wall is applied to the soil strength rather than to the moments induced by the
soil.
Using this method for a granular soil and effective stress analysis, the soil strength
for design will be determined as:
tan(design) = (tan measured) / Fs
The unfactored gross soil pressures based on the factored soil strength are then
used in the analysis, so that:
Moment from Passive Pressure Moment from Active Pressure Net Water Pressure moment
Factors of Safety to be used in the above Analyses

The appropriate factors of safety for the above analyses will depend on the
circumstances of the particular problem. The following table summarises the
relevant factors for a number of cases:
Method
Effective Stress Analysis

20
20 < 30
> 30
Factor on Strength, Fs
1.2
1.2
1.2
Gross Pressure Factor, Fp
1.5
1.5 2.0
Net Pressure Factor, Fnp
Net Available Resistance,

Burland and Potts, Fr
Example The Design Procedure Gross Pressure Method

Design follows a set procedure in which the following steps need to be taken:
1. Adopt the simplified model shown in Figure 1(c), above
2. Find the appropriate design values of Ka and Kp
3. Determine the lateral earth pressures in front of and behind the wall, making
allowance for groundwater as necessary. Note that the design is almost always
carried out on the basis of an effective stress approach
4. Use a moment balance to find the depth to the point of fixity
5. Increase the proposed embedment of the pile by 20% to provide the necessary
force, R, at the rear of the wall
6. Find R
7. Check that the increase in depth allowed in step 5 is adequate to provide R
Examples:
The following two examples illustrate the procedure. Example 1 is a basic illustration
and excludes the standard assumptions for overdig and surcharge. Example 2 is a
more general example, including these and the presence of groundwater. This is,
however, a special case where the groundwater levels in front of and behind the
wall are the same, in which case the water pressures on the front and the back of
the wall are equal and can be ignored in the calculation.
Example 1
Consider the case of a wall with a 2 metre retained height of fill constructed in a soil
3
for which = 30 and bulk = 18kN/m
The groundwater table is well below the level of the base of the wall and ignoring
any allowance for accidental overdig or surcharge load but taking a factor of safety
of 2.0 on the passive pressure (Gross Pressure Method)
Assuming there is no wall friction:
Ka = (1 sin(1 + sin) = 0.333
Kp = (1 + sin(1 sin) = 3.0
Taking moments about point C
Moment due to active force:
Mmt.
0.5 Ka bulk (h+d) x (h+d)/3
0.5 x 0.333 x 18 x (2 + d) /3
8 + 12 d + 6 d + d
Moment due to passive force:

Mmt.
0.5 Kp bulk d x d/3
0.5 x 3.0 x 18 x d /3
9d
Then, equating the active and passive moments and allowing for a factor of safety
of 2.0 on the passive gives:
4.5 d
8 + 12 d + 6 d + d
Which can be solved by trial and error to give d = 3.07 m

The final embedment is then taken as 3.07 x 1.2 = 3.68 metres
It is then required to carry out a force balance to calculate the required value of R
for horizontal stability:
Active force
0.5 Ka bulk (h+d)

2
Passive force =
Hence,
0.5 Kp bulk d /2
R=
0.5 x 0.333 x 18 x 5.07
77.11 kN
0.5 x 3.0 x 18 x 3.07 /2
127.24 kN
127.24 77.11 =
50.13 kN
This force must be generated in the additional length of pile below point C
The two force elements generated will be due to the passive load on the back of the
wall and the active force on the front of the wall (see figure 1(b), above). In each
case there will be two elements one due to the effective surcharge imposed by the
fill above the level of point C and one due to the soil self weight below level C.
Overall, the lateral effective stress profile will be as shown below:
R
C
0.2 d
1
2
Active Pressure
Passive Pressure
Passive Pressures:
Force 1, due to overburden surcharge = Kp x bulk x (h+d) x 0.2 d = 168.1 kN
2
Force 2, due to soil self weight = 0.5 x Kp x bulk x (0.2 d) = 10.18 kN

Active Pressures:
Force 3, due to overburden surcharge = Ka x bulk x d x 0.2 d = 11.31 kN
2
Force 4, due to soil self weight = 0.5 x Ka x bulk x (0.2 d) = 1.13 kN

Available force = Passive Active = 168.1 + 10.18 11.31 1.13 = 165.84 kN
Required force = 50.13 kN < Available Force of 165.84
Hence, OK
Example 2
A sheet pile wall is to be installed to support a 3m high cut in sand of bulk density
3
3
18kN/m and 30. If the saturated bulk density of the sand is 20kN/m and a factor
of safety of 2 is to be applied to the passive earth pressure, find the required length
of sheet piles required if the groundwater level is 4 m below the existing ground
level.
In carrying out the design, the following points should be considered:
10% of the wall height is 0.3m, so the design height will be 3.3m
2
A 10kN/m surcharge must be applied behind the wall

The effective vertical stress due to the soil below the water table can be taken as
3
(sat water), i.e. 209.8 = 10.2kN/m
In the absence of other data, take:
Ka = [(1-sin)/(1+sin)] = 0.333 Kp = [(1+sin)/(1-sin)] = 3.0
The required wall and the effective earth pressures acting on it will then be as
shown below, where d is the depth of embedment below the water table and is what
we are required to determine:
Surcharge = 10kN/m
3.30m
0.70m
d
7
W.T.
Passive Earth Pressures
Retaining Wall Configuration
Active Earth Pressures
Figure 2: Design Example 2 Configuration and Active and Passive Earth Pressures
By considering the earth pressures shown in Figure 2 and by taking moments about
point C, the following values are obtained:
Calculations all per metre width

Force (kN)
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
d/2 + 4.0/2
1.665d + 13.32d + 26.64
(1)
0.333 x 10 x (d + 4.0) = 3.33d + 13.33
(2)
0.5 x 0.333 x 18 x 4.0 = 47.95
d + 4.0/3
47.95d + 63.94
(3)
0.333 x 18 x 4.0 x d = 23.976d
d/2
11.988d
(4)
0.5 x 0.33 x 10.2 x d = 1.689d
d/3
0.566d
(5)
(0.5 x 3.0 x 18 x 0.7 ) / 2 = 6.62
d + 0.7/3
6.62d 1.544
(6)
(3.0 x 18 x 0.7 x d) / 2 = 18.9d
d/2
9.45 d
(7)
(0.5 x 3.0 x 10.2 x d ) / 2 = 7.65d
d/3
2.547 d
Note densities below the groundwater table are taken as (sat water) in order to obtain soil effective vertical and lateral
stresses.
Table 1: Design Example Calculated Bending Moments
Balancing the moments then gives:

3
1.981 d + 4.203 d + 54.65 d + 89.036 = 0

3
Giving:
d = 44.94 + 27.59 d + 2.12 d
Which is best solved by trial and error to find d = 7.0 m

Depth of Embedment
As noted above, the depth of embedment should be increased by 20%
In solving the problem, the actual depth of embedment is 0.70 m + d = 7.7 m.
i.e. actual required embedment = 1.2 x 7.7 = 9.24 metres (1.54 m increase in length)
Required Value of R
R is the force generated by the passive soil pressure on the back of the wall below
point C, where the wall tends to rotate back into the soil.
For horizontal equilibrium:
Total passive Force = Total Active Force + R
So
R = Total Calculated Passive Force Total Calculated Active Force
Hence,
R = ([(5)+(6)+(7)] [(1)+(2)+(3)+(4)])
Substituting d = 7.0 into the values calculated in Table 1, allowing for the necessary
changes of sign then gives:
R = [6.62 + 132.30 + 374.85] [36.63 + 47.95 + 167.83 +83.22] = 178.13 kN
This force has to be generated on the back of the sheet piles by the extra 20%
length added above i.e. between point C and a point 1.54 metres below this.
The situation is shown in Figure 3, where forces 8, 9 and 10 will be passive earth
pressures and 11 and 12 will be active pressures
Surcharge = 10kN/m
3.30m
0.70m
W.T.
11
0.2 d
9
10
12
Figure 3: Design Example2 Active and Passive Earth Pressures below point of fixity
Force (kN)
(8)
3 x 10 x 1.54 = 46.2
(9)
3 x [(4.0 x 18) + (d x 10.2)] x 1.54 = 662.508
(10)
0.5 x 3 x 10.2 x 1.54 = 36.29
(11)
0.333 x [(0.7 x 18) + (d x 10.2)] x 1.54 = 43.12
(12)
0.5 x 0.333 x 10.2 x 1.54 = 4.03
Note: In this case no reduction factor is applied to the passive earth pressures as owing to
where they are generated they are more reliable
R available = 46.2 + 662.508 + 36.29 43.12 4.03 = 697.85 kN > 178.13 kN OK
Eurocode 7 Check
Considering design example 2 as above but adopting a Eurocode 7 analysis using a
factor on strength approach.
Firstly:
Eurocode 7 does not require any allowance for surcharge
Eurocode 7 requires the same allowance for over-excavation in front of the

wall
Hence, in this case there is no surcharge to be considered but the overall depth of
excavation for design will again be 3.30 metres (3.0 metres + 10%)
3.30m
W.T.
0.70m
d
2
6
C
3
R
Passive Earth Resistances
Figure 4: Design Example 2 Configuration for Eurocode 7 Design
As before:
The bulk density of the sand above the water table is 18kN/m
The saturated bulk density of the sand is 20kN/m
And the angle of internal friction for the sand, is 30.
We now consider the two load combinations to be considered for Eurocode 7

Design approach 1 as follows:
Load combination 1 (A1+ M1 + R1)
Load combination 2 (A2 + M2 + R1)
Load Combination 1 (A1+ M1 + R1)
Action
Type
Partial Factor
Case A1

backfill
G, dst = 1.35
Material Property
Partial Factor
Case M1
= 1.0
Weight Density
= 1.0
Partial Factor
Case R1
R; e = 1.0
Resistance
Earth Resistance
For = 30 and = 1.0:
and
design = 30
Hence:
Ka design = (1 sin 30) / (1 + sin 30) = 0.5 / 1.5 = 0.3333
Kp design = (1 + sin 30) / (1 - sin 30) = 1.5 / 0.5 = 3.0
For bulk density of retained fill = 18 kN/m
For bulk saturated bulk density of fill = 20 kN/m
design = 18 / 1.0 = 18 kN/m

3
design = 20 / 1.0 = 20 kN/m
Effective unit weight of soil below water table = (20 9.8) = 10.2 kN/m
So, as = 1.0, again for this value:
design = 10.2 kN/m
The partial load factor for the action due to the active earth pressure behind the
wall, G, dst = 1.35, will be applied to the force due to the active earth pressure
behind the wall.
The partial factor for resistance R; e = 1.0, which will be applied to the force due to
the passive earth pressure in front of the wall.

Force (kN)
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
d + 4.0/3
64.8d + 86.4
d/2
16.2d
d/3
0.765d
d + 0.7/3
13.23d 3.087
d/2
18.9 d
d/3
5.1 d
(1)
1.35 x 0.5 x 0.333 x 18 x 4.0 = 64.8
(2)
1.35 x 0.333 x 18 x 4.0 x d = 32.4d
(3)
1.35 x 0.5 x 0.333 x 10.2 x d = 2.295d
(4)
1.0 x (0.5 x 3.0 x 18 x 0.7 ) = 13.23
(5)
1.0 x (3.0 x 18 x 0.7 x d) = 37.8d
(6)
1.0 x (0.5 x 3.0 x 10.2 x d ) = 15.3d
Which gives:
64.8 d + 86.4 + 16.2 d + 0.765 d = 13.23 d + 3.087 + 18.9 d + 5.1 d
Which simplifies to:
83.313 + 51.57 d 2.7 d 0.765 d = 0,
from which d = 3.82 m
The pile penetration is then increased by 20 % to ensure stability

Actual pile penetration is taken as (d + 0.7) metres = 4.52 m
Required penetration length calculated from actual pile length but increased by 20%
Overall pile length required
3.0 + 5.42
8.42 metres
= 1.2 x 4.52
5.42 m
Load Combination 2 (A2+ M2 + R1)
Action
Type
Partial Factor
Case A2

backfill
G, dst = 1.0
Material Property
Partial Factor
Case M2
= 1.25
Weight Density
= 1.0
Partial Factor
Case R1
R; e = 1.0
Resistance
Earth Resistance
For = 30 and = 1.25:
and
design = 24.8
Hence:
Ka design = (1 sin 24.8) / (1 + sin 24.8) = 0.5805 / 1.4195 = 0.409
Kp design = (1 + sin 24.8) / (1 - sin 24.8) = 1.4195 / 0.5805 = 2.445
For bulk density of retained fill = 18 kN/m
For bulk saturated bulk density of fill = 20 kN/m
design = 18 / 1.0 = 18 kN/m

3
design = 20 / 1.0 = 20 kN/m
Effective unit weight of soil below water table = (20 9.8) = 10.2 kN/m
So, as = 1.0, again for this value:
design = 10.2 kN/m
The partial load factor for the action due to the active earth pressure behind the
wall, G, dst = 1.0, will be applied to the force due to the active earth pressure behind
the wall.
The partial factor for resistance R; e = 1.0, which will be applied to the force due to
the passive earth pressure in front of the wall.

Force (kN)
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
(1)
1.0 x 0.5 x 0.409 x 18 x 4.0 = 58.896
d + 4.0/3
58.896 d + 78.528
(2)
1.0 x 0.409 x 18 x 4.0 x d = 29.448 d
d/2
14.724 d
(3)
1.0 x 0.5 x 0.409 x 10.2 x d = 2.086 d
d/3
0.695 d
(4)
1.0 x (0.5 x 2.445 x 18 x 0.7 ) = 10.78
d + 0.7/3
10.78d 2.515
(5)
1.0 x (2.445 x 18 x 0.7 x d) = 30.807 d
d/2
15.404 d
(6)
1.0 x (0.5 x 2.445 x 10.2 x d ) = 12.47 d
d/3
4.16 d
Which gives:
58.896 d + 78.528 + 14.724 d + 0.695 d = 10.78d + 2.515 + 15.404 d + 4.16 d
Which simplifies to:
76.013 + 48.116 d 0.68 d 3.465 d = 0,
from which d = 4.27 m
The pile penetration is then increased by 20 % to ensure stability

Actual pile penetration is taken as (d + 0.7) metres = 4.97 m
Required penetration length calculated from actual pile length but increased by 20%
Overall pile length required
3.0 + 5.96
= 1.2 x 4.97
8.96 metres
Hence the design is governed by Load Combination 2 and the overall required pile length will be 8.96 metres
5.96 m
Tied Back Sheet Pile Walls

Tied back walls can offer advantages over cantilever walls due to reduced
embedment lengths and lower required section modulus due to the lower bending
moments generated in the pile.
The major disadvantage is that additional construction is required, often at some
distance behind the wall, in order to generate sufficient resistance to provide the
force in the tie.
Design of Tied Back Walls
Two distinct approaches have been suggested for tied back wall design, which are
known as the free earth and the fixed earth method.
The primary difference between these methods lies in the assumed behaviour at the
toe of the wall. In the free earth method, it is assumed that the toe of the wall is free
to translate laterally without wall failure resulting. In the fixed earth method, the toe
of the wall is assumed to be fixed and cannot translate horizontally (the same
assumption that is made in cantilever wall design).
As might be imagined, the required wall length calculated using the free earth
method is shorter than that using the fixed earth method. Consequently, the fixed
earth method is seldom used in practice.
A description of the fixed earth method is given here for the sake of completeness,
but all subsequent wall design is undertaken using the free earth method.
The Fixed Earth Method for Tied back Wall Design
Reference: CIRIA Report C580
The above diagram summarises the design assumptions for the fixed earth
approach. In effect, the key assumption is given in Figure (d), that the toe of the pile
does not translate. As indicated, this requires a simplified model where two lateral
forces, P and Q, are required to stabilise the wall in addition to the lateral earth
pressures.
The Free Earth Method for Tied back Wall Design
Reference: CIRIA Report C580
The basic assumption of the free earth method is that, given that the top of the wall
is restrained by the applied force, the wall can fail only be rotation about this point of
fixity. The design method then consists of:
1. Finding a moment balance about the point of application of the force at the
top of the wall
And then;
2. Carrying out a horizontal force balance to find out the required value of P to
satisfy horizontal force equilibrium
In carrying out the design, as for the design of cantilever walls, it is possible to make
different assumptions about the soil lateral earth pressures. In fact, all four design
methods used for cantilever walls may also be used for tied-back walls, i.e.
1. Gross Pressure Method
2. Burland and Potts
3. Net Pressure (British Steel) Method
4. Factor on Soil Strength
Once the required tie back force has been calculated, it is then necessary to design
an appropriate system to ensure that this force can be provided.
Example 1
Find the required length and tie-back force for a 2 metre high wall provided with a tie
back 0.5 metres below the top of the wall assuming that wall is to be constructed in
3
a sand of 30 and bulk 18 kN/m . The groundwater level is significantly below the
base of the wall and no allowance is to be made for either accidental overdig or for
surcharge loading and the analysis is to be carried out using a Gross Pressure
approach with a factor of safety of 2.0 on the passive pressure.
Assuming there is no wall friction:
Ka = (1 sin(1 + sin) = 0.333
Kp = (1 + sin(1 sin) = 3.0
0.5 m
Taking moments about T:
h = 2.0 m
Moment due to active force:

2
Mmt.
= 0.5 Ka bulk (h+d) x [2/3 x (h+d) - 0.5)]

3
= 0.5 Ka bulk x [2/3 x (h+d) - 0.5(h+d) )]

3
= 0.5 x 0.333 x 18 x [2/3 x (2+d) - 0.5 x (2+d) )]
= 9.99 + 18 d + 10.5 d + 2 d
Moment due to passive force:

Mmt.
0.5 Kp bulk d x [2 x d/3 + h - 0.5]
0.5 x 3.0 x 18 x 2 x d /3 + 0.5 x 3.0 x 18 x d x 1.5
18 d + 40.5 d
Then applying a factor of safety of 2.0 gives:

3
Design Passive moment = 9 d + 20.25 d
Equating the active and passive moments then gives:

2
9.99 + 18 d + 10.5 d + 2 d
9 d + 20.25 d
Which can be solved by trial and error to give d = 1.33 metres

Calculation of required Tie Force:
The required Tie Force is then calculated as the difference between the total active
and passive forces as follows:
2
Total Active Force = 0.5 Ka bulk (h+d) = 0.5 x 0.333 x 18 x 3.33 = 33.27 kN
2
Total Passive Force = 0.5 Kp bulk d / 2 = 0.5 x 3.0 x 18 x 1.33 / 2 = 23.88 kN

[Note: the factor of safety of 2.0 on the passive force is included here]
Hence;
T = 33.27 23.88 = 9.39 kN
Again, since all of the other calculations have been carried out per metre width, this
value of T is the tension required per metre width of wall.
Example 2
Tied back walls are frequently used adjacent to watercourses, such as for rivers or
for sea walls. The following provides a typical design example in such a situation
adopting a Gross pressure approach with a factor of safety of 2.0 on the passive
resistance.
A 6.5 metre high wall is to be constructed in a soil for which 35, the bulk unit
3
3
weight is 18 kN/m and the saturated unit weight 20 kN/m . The tie is to be 1.0 m
below the top of the wall, the depth of water in front of the wall is to be 1.5 m and
the water level behind the wall is at the same as that in front of the wall.
From the above data, the wall height is 6.5 m, so an accidental overdig allowance of
0.5 m should be allowed (the lesser of 0.5 m or 10% of the wall height). This must
be allowed for on the lower side of the wall, so that the actual design height of the
wall will be 7.0 m with a total water depth of 2.0 m at the front of the wall, as shown
below.
2
In accordance with standard practice, a 10kN/m surcharge must be applied behind

the wall, as also shown.
Surcharge = 10kN/m
1.0 m
5.0 m
W.T.
2.0 m
5
C
Passive Earth Pressures
Tied Back Retaining Wall Example 2
As before, the first stage of the analysis is to calculate the relevant Ka and Kp
values and then carry out a moment balance about the point of application of the tie
force, T.
Assuming that the wall is frictionless

Also, the effective vertical stress due to the soil below the water table can be taken
3
as (sat water), i.e. 209.8 = 10.2kN/m
Force (kN)
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
d/2 + 7.0/2 1.0
1.35d + 16.26d + 47.42
(1)
0.271 x 10 x (d + 7.0) = 2.71d + 18.97
(2)
0.5 x 0.271 x 18 x 5.0 = 60.975
2/3 x 5.0 1.0
142.275
(3)
0.271 x 5.0 x 18 x (2.0 + d) =
0.5 x (d + 2) +
(5.0 1.0)
12.195d + 146.34d +
243.9
2/3 x (d + 2.0) +
(5.0 1.0)
0.92d + 11.08d + 33.20d

+ 29.49
2/3 x d + (7.0
1.0)
6.27d + 56.46d
48.78 + 24.39 d
2
(4)
0.5 x 0.271 x (20 9.8) x (2.0 + d) =

2
1.382 d + 5.53 d + 5.53

2
(0.5 x 3.69 x 10.2 x d ) / 2 = 9.41d
(5)
Note densities below the groundwater table are taken as (sat water) in order to obtain soil effective
vertical and lateral stresses.
+ Factor of safety of 2.0 applied to passive pressure
Equating the moments due to active and passive pressures gives:

3
6.27d + 56.46d = 0.92d + 24.61d + 195.76d + 463.07

Which can be solved by trial and error to find d = 4.95 m.
Calculation of Required Tie Force:
The required Tie Force can be given by substituting the relevant value of d into the
expressions for forces (1) to (5) above:
T = (1) + (2) + (3) + (4) (5)
From which;
T = 32.38 + 60.975 + 169.51 + 66.77 230.57 = 99.07 kN per metre width
Clearly, the design value of Tie Force should include some factor of safety. It should
be noted that the above value does implicitly allow for a factor of safety of 2.0 on
the passive force. Any increase in the actual value of passive force above the value
allowed for in the design will lead to a reduction in the Tie Force. On this basis, it is
not very clear what the precise factor of safety is and an element of judgement must
be exercised in finalising the design Tie Force. Various authors make
1
recommendations as to what should be done Smith , for example, suggests that
the value calculated above should be increased by 25% in order to allow for
flexibility in the piling and arching in the soil.
1
Smith (2006) Smiths Elements of Soil Mechanics 8th Edition, Blackwell, Oxford
Irrespective of the factor of safety adopted to derive a design Tie Force, it should be
borne in mind that any structural elements design to carry the tie force will, in
themselves, be required to incorporate appropriate factors or safety to ensure that
the required force can be carried safely.
As noted above, design of tied back walls can be carried out using a number of
assumptions regarding the distribution of lateral earth pressures on the wall. The
following example considers the same problem as in Example 2 but using a factor
on strength approach.
Example 3
Considering Example 2, but using a factor of safety of 1.25 on soil strength and 1.3
on surcharge (with all other partial factors equal to 1.0):
= 35,
-1
so that des
= tan [tan 35/1.25] = 29.26
As before, assuming that the wall is frictionless;

3
The bulk unit weight is 18 kN/m and the saturated unit weight 20 kN/m . The tie is
to be 1.0 m below the top of the wall, the depth of water in front of the wall
Repeating the previous calculation gives:
Force (kN)
(1)
0.343 x 10 x 1.3 x (d + 7.0) =
Lever Arm (m)
Moment (kNm)
d/2 + 7.0/2 1.0
2.23d + 26.75d + 78.03
4.459d + 31.213
2
(2)
0.5 x 0.343 x 18 x 5.0 = 77.175
2/3 x 5.0 1.0
180.075
(3)
0.343 x 5.0 x 18 x (2.0 + d) =
0.5 x (d + 2) +
(5.0 1.0)
15.435 + 185.22d + 308.7
2/3 x (d + 2.0) +
(5.0 1.0)
1.166d + 13.99d + 42.0d

+ 37.33
2/3 x d + (7.0
1.0)
9.90d + 89.11d
61.74 + 30.87 d
(4)
0.5 x 0.343 x (20 9.8) x (2.0 + d) =

2
1.749 d + 7.00 d + 7.00

+
(5)
(0.5 x 2.912 x 10.2 x d ) = 14.851 d
Note densities below the groundwater table are taken as (sat water) in order to obtain soil effective
vertical and lateral stresses.
+ Full passive pressure taken factor of safety applied to soil strength
Equating the moments due to active and passive pressures gives:

3
9.90d + 89.11d
= 1.166d + 31.655d + 253.97d + 604.135
Which can be solved by trial and error to find d = 4.22 m.
Calculation of Required Tie Force:

The required Tie Force can be given by substituting the relevant value of d into the
expressions for forces (1) to (5) above:
T = (1) + (2) + (3) + (4) (5), so that;
T = 50.03 + 77.175 + 192.01 + 67.69 264.47 = 122.44 kN per metre width
Note that the above Tie Force value will already include a factor of safety due to the
fact that the soil strength has been factored, but that this must also be taken into
account in any structural design in order to ensure that the structural and
geotechnical factors are compatible.
Summary of Design Outputs

The following table summarises the results of the analyses carried out as Examples
2 and 3, which are alternative ways to design a similar wall.
Design Method
Required Wall
Embedment
(m)
Tie Force
(kN per metre
width)
Notes
Gross Pressure
4.95
99.07
Factor of safety of 2.0 on Passive.

Tie Force value not directly
factored, but will be affected by this
Factor on Soil
Strength
4.22
122.44
Factor of safety taken on soil

strength Tie Force will also be
factored
It can be seen from the summary table that the two methods, which are both
nominally similarly acceptable, produce different answers for both the required wall
embedment and tie force. Consequently, there will necessarily be an element of
judgement in the design process both in identifying the most appropriate method of
analysis and understanding the use to which the results will be put.
Anchor Design Providing the Tie Force

The Tie Force for tied back walls is usually provided by means of tie rods or cables.
The tie rods or cables are usually anchored either using concrete blocks or steel
plates (individual anchors), or using beams or sheet piles (continuous anchors).
One of the most important factors in the design of anchor blocks is the need to
design them so that they bear on undisturbed ground which is sufficiently far back
from the wall in order to ensure that the distribution and attenuation of stresses
through the soil does not affect the performance of the wall itself. The basic
geometric requirements are indicated in the second of the two figures shown below.
Reference: Smith
45 /2
Active Zone
due to wall
Tie Rod
Passive Zone due

to anchor plate
Anchor Plate
45+ /2
Basic Geometric Requirements for Anchor Blocks

In designing anchor plates the active zone is defined by a line which originates from
the base of the wall and is inclined at an angle of 45+ /2 to the horizontal as
shown in the above diagram.
The boundary of the passive zone caused by the anchor block will originate from the
base of the block and extend backwards from it at an angle of 45 /2 to the
horizontal.
Where the tie rod or cable is anchored to a row of steel sheets driven into the
ground, the situation will be as shown below:
da
Passive Pressure on
front of anchor plate
Active Pressure on rear

of anchor plate
Pullout of the anchor is resisted by the passive earth pressure acting on the front of
the sheet piles. However, the active earth pressure acting on the back of the sheet
piles will tend to push the anchor forward, thus increasing the possibility of the
anchor pulling out. Hence, the net earth pressure resisting pullout of the anchor will
be equal to the passive earth pressure acting on the front of the sheets minus the
passive earth pressure acting on the back of the sheets.
On the basis of the above reasoning, we can write expressions for the net pressure
resisting pullout of the anchor and hence for the force resisting pullout of the
anchor, F, which is given as:
2
F = 0.5 x (Kp Ka) x da
Anchor Block Design

Continuous Beams
Where a continuous beam anchor is used to resist the load in the ties, the passive
pressure is assumed to act over the full depth of the anchor (da) only provided that
the depth of the beam is greater than half of the depth of the anchor,
i.e.
h da
In practice the anchor block should be

proportioned so that this requirement is
always satisfied.
da
Individual Anchor Blocks

As an alternative to continuous beams, individual anchor blocks may be used as
shown in plan below.
Passive soil failure wedge behind

individual anchor block
L
Shearing resistances on
these surfaces may also
be taken into account
In this case the anchor block spacing is shown above as S and the width of each
block as L.
One advantage of this approach is that a separate passive soil failure wedge is
generated for each plate and in addition to the simple passive soil resistance, the
shearing resistance of each side of this wedge can also be counted as contributing
to the plate pullout resistance.

Arth Pressure and Retaining Structure Notes

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Arth Pressure and Retaining Structure Notes

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Lateral Earth Pressure Theories

The Rankine Theory

c is the soil cohesion

is the soil angle of internal friction

If a circle is drawn on the diagram with a diameter equal to the difference

After Craig Fig 6.2

In which case, we can say:

Lateral Earth Pressure Sloping Ground

After Craig Fig 6.10

Earth Pressure at Rest

Normally Consolidated Clays (Norway)

Clay, OCR = 3.5 (London)

Clay, OCR = 20 (London)

After Craig Fig 6.11

The Coulomb Theory

The Coulomb Theory is a theory of limiting equilibrium

It works with forces rather than stresses

It can take account of wall friction

And for the passive case:

Cohesive Soils and Tension Cracks

The profile indicates that

After Smith Fig 6.16

Coefficient of active earth pressure for cohesive soils

Gravity Retaining Walls

Wall with Heel

Wall with Toe

One way to prevent

Factors of Safety in Geotechnical Design

The overall factor of safety is then given as:

Stabilising Force or Moment

Lumped Factor of Safety Required Minimum Factor of Safety

The type of structure

The type of soil present

The consequences of failure (e.g. a lower factor of safety may be accepted

Lumped Factors of Safety Required for Gravity Retaining Walls

Gravity Wall Design Example 1

Stage 1 Sliding Check:

Working in Forces per metre width:

(1) Force due to Surcharge

0.217 x 10 x 3.0 = 6.51 kN

(2) Force due to Retained Fill

(3) Weight of wall section

3.00 x 1.80 x 23.5 = 126.9 kN

Ratio of on base to = 0.75

Factor of Safety vs. Sliding 1.5

Stage 2 Check on Overturning:

(3) Wall section

Lever Arm about point A

Factor of Safety on Overturning = 114.21 / 27.342 = 4.18

Factor of Safety vs. Overturning 2.0

Stage 3 Check on Bearing Pressure:

The eccentricity of the base

From this moment balance and

Restoring Moment Overturn Moment

Stress under Base = V 1 6e

The full calculation may be tabulated as set out below:

Lever Arm (m)

0.217 x 10 x 3.0 = 6.51 kN

3.00 x 1.80 x 23.5 = 126.9 kN

Dist. of base resultant from Toe of Wall = M / V = 0.685 m ; e = (1.80 / 2) 0.685

Ratio of on base to = 0.75

Factor of Safety vs. Overturning

Max Stress = (126.9/1.80) x (1+ 6 x 0.215/1.80) = 121.0 kN/m2