382 Chapter 8: Retaining Walls

8.5

Check for Overturning

Figure 8.7 shows the forces acting on a cantilever and a gravity retaining wall, based on
the assumption that the Rankine active pressure is acting along a vertical plane AB drawn
through the heel of the structure. Pp is the Rankine passive pressure; recall that its magnitude is [from Eq. (7.63)].
Pp 5 12Kpg2D2 1 2c2r "KpD
where
g2 5 unit weight of soil in front of the heel and under the base slab
Kp 5 Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient 5 tan2 (45 1 f2r >2)
c2r , f2r 5 cohesion and effective soil friction angle, respectively
The factor of safety against overturning about the toethat is, about point C in
Figure 8.7may be expressed as
FS(overturning) 5

SMR
SMo

(8.2)

where
SMo 5 sum of the moments of forces tending to overturn about point C
SMR 5 sum of the moments of forces tending to resist overturning about point C
The overturning moment is

SMo 5 Ph

Hr

(8.3)

where Ph 5 Pa cos a .
To calculate the resisting moment, SMR (neglecting Pp ), a table such as Table 8.1 can
be prepared. The weight of the soil above the heel and the weight of the concrete (or
masonry) are both forces that contribute to the resisting moment. Note that the force Pv also
contributes to the resisting moment. Pv is the vertical component of the active force Pa , or
Pv 5 Pa sin a
The moment of the force Pv about C is
Mv 5 PvB 5 Pa sin aB

(8.4)

8.5 Check for Overturning

2

383

A
1
1
c1  0

1
H

P
Pa
3

Ph

Pp
5
B
qheel

2
2
c2

qtoe
B
2

A
1
1
c1  0

P
Pa
Ph
3

D
Pp

6
B
qheel

2
2
c2

qtoe
B

Figure 8.7 Check for overturning,

assuming that the Rankine pressure
is valid

where B 5 width of the base slab.

Once S MR is known, the factor of safety can be calculated as
FS(overturning) 5

M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 M6 1 Mv
Pa cos a(Hr>3)

(8.5)

The usual minimum desirable value of the factor of safety with respect to overturning is 2 to 3.

384 Chapter 8: Retaining Walls

Table 8.1 Procedure for Calculating SMR
Section
(1)

Area
(2)

1
2
3
4
5
6

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6

Weight/unit
length of wall
(3)

Moment arm
measured from C
(4)

W1 5 g1 3 A 1
W2 5 g1 3 A 2
W3 5 gc 3 A 3
W4 5 gc 3 A 4
W5 5 gc 3 A 5
W6 5 gc 3 A 6
Pv
SV

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
B

Moment
about C
(5)

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
Mv
S MR

(Note: gl 5 unit weight of backfill

gc 5 unit weight of concrete)

Some designers prefer to determine the factor of safety against overturning with the
formula
M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 M6
FS(overturning) 5
(8.6)
Pa cos a(Hr>3) 2 Mv

8.6

Check for Sliding along the Base

The factor of safety against sliding may be expressed by the equation
FS(sliding) 5

S FRr
S Fd

(8.7)

where
S FRr 5 sum of the horizontal resisting forces
S Fd 5 sum of the horizontal driving forces
Figure 8.8 indicates that the shear strength of the soil immediately below the base
slab may be represented as
s 5 sr tan dr 1 car
where
dr 5 angle of friction between the soil and the base slab
car 5 adhesion between the soil and the base slab
Thus, the maximum resisting force that can be derived from the soil per unit length of the
wall along the bottom of the base slab is
Rr 5 s(area of cross section) 5 s(B 3 1) 5 Bsr tan dr 1 Bcar
However,
Bsr 5 sum of the vertical force 5 S V(see Table 8.1)
so
Rr 5 (S V) tan dr 1 Bcar

385

8.6 Check for Sliding along the Base

1
1
c1
V
Ph
D
Pp
2
2
c2

Figure 8.8 Check for sliding along the base

Figure 8.8 shows that the passive force Pp is also a horizontal resisting force. Hence,
S FRr 5 (S V) tan dr 1 Bcar 1 Pp

(8.8)

The only horizontal force that will tend to cause the wall to slide (a driving force) is
the horizontal component of the active force Pa , so
S Fd 5 Pa cos a

(8.9)

Combining Eqs. (8.7), (8.8), and (8.9) yields

FS(sliding) 5

(S V) tan dr 1 Bcra 1 Pp
Pa cos a

(8.10)

A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding is generally required.

In many cases, the passive force Pp is ignored in calculating the factor of safety with
respect to sliding. In general, we can write dr 5 k1f2r and car 5 k2c2r . In most cases, k1 and
k2 are in the range from 12 to 23 . Thus,
FS(sliding) 5

(S V) tan (k1f2r ) 1 Bk2c2r 1 Pp

Pa cos a

(8.11)

If the desired value of FS(sliding) is not achieved, several alternatives may be investigated
(see Figure 8.9):
Increase the width of the base slab (i.e., the heel of the footing).
Use a key to the base slab. If a key is included, the passive force per unit length of
the wall becomes
Pp 5
where Kp 5 tan2 45 1

1
g D2K 1 2c2r D1"Kp
2 2 1 p

f2r
.
2

386 Chapter 8: Retaining Walls

Use of a dead
man anchor

1
1
c1

D
D1

Base slab
increase
Use of a
base key

Pp

2
2
c2

Figure 8.9 Alternatives for increasing the factor of safety with respect to sliding

Use a deadman anchor at the stem of the retaining wall.

Another possible way to increase the value of FS(sliding) is to consider reducing the
value of Pa [see Eq. (8.11)]. One possible way to do so is to use the method developed by Elman and Terry (1988). The discussion here is limited to the case in which
the retaining wall has a horizontal granular backfill (Figure 8.10). In Figure 8.10,
the active force, Pa, is horizontal ( 0) so that
Pacos Ph Pa
and
Pa sin Pv 0
However,
Pa Pa(1) Pa(2)

(8.12)

The magnitude of Pa(2) can be reduced if the heel of the retaining wall is sloped
as shown in Figure 8.10. For this case,
Pa Pa(1) APa(2)

(8.13)

The magnitude of A, as shown in Table 8.2, is valid for 45. However

note that in Figure 8.10a
Pa(1) 5

1
g K (Hr 2 Dr ) 2
2 1 a

and
Pa 5

1
g K Hr2
2 1 a

Hence,
Pa(2) 5

1
g K 3Hr2 2 (H 9 2 D 9 ) 24
2 1 a

387

8.7 Check for Bearing Capacity Failure

1
1
c1= 0

1
1
c1= 0

H

Pa
= [Eq.
(8.12)]

Pa(1)

D

Pa(1)


Pa
= [Eq.
(8.13)]

APa(2)

Pa(2)

(a)

(b)

Figure 8.10 Retaining wall with sloped heel

Table 8.2 Variation of A with 1 (for 45)
Soil friction
angle, 1 (deg)

20
25
30
35
40

0.28
0.14
0.06
0.03
0.018

So, for the active pressure diagram shown in Figure 8.10b,

Pa 5

1
A
g K (H 9 2 D 9 ) 2 1 g1Ka 3H 92 2 (H 9 2 D 9 ) 24
2 1 a
2

(8.14)

Sloping the heel of a retaining wall can thus be extremely helpful in some cases.

8.7

Check for Bearing Capacity Failure

The vertical pressure transmitted to the soil by the base slab of the retaining wall should
be checked against the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. The nature of variation of the
vertical pressure transmitted by the base slab into the soil is shown in Figure 8.11. Note
that qtoe and qheel are the maximum and the minimum pressures occurring at the ends of the
toe and heel sections, respectively. The magnitudes of qtoe and qheel can be determined in
the following manner:
The sum of the vertical forces acting on the base slab is S V (see column 3 of
Table 8.1), and the horizontal force Ph is Pa cos a. Let
R 5 S V 1 Ph

(8.15)

be the resultant force. The net moment of these forces about point C in Figure 8.11 is
Mnet 5 SMR 2 SMo

(8.16)

388 Chapter 8: Retaining Walls

1
1
c1  0

V
V

Ph  Pa cos

2
2
c2

D
Ph Ph

C
E

qmax  qtoe

qmin  qheel

e
B/2
y

B/2

Figure 8.11 Check for bearing

capacity failure

Note that the values of SMR and SMo were previously determined. [See Column 5 of
Table 8.1 and Eq. (8.3)]. Let the line of action of the resultant R intersect the base slab at E.
Then the distance
CE 5 X 5

Mnet
SV

(8.17)

Hence, the eccentricity of the resultant R may be expressed as

e5

B
2 CE
2

(8.18)

The pressure distribution under the base slab may be determined by using simple
principles from the mechanics of materials. First, we have
q5

Mnety
SV
6
A
I

where
Mnet 5 moment 5 (SV)e
I 5 moment of inertia per unit length of the base section
5 121 (1) (B3 )

(8.19)

8.7 Check for Bearing Capacity Failure

389

For maximum and minimum pressures, the value of y in Eq. (8.19) equals B>2. Substituting into Eq. (8.19) gives

qmax 5 qtoe 5

SV
1
(B) (1)

e(SV)

B
2

1
(B3 )
12

SV
6e
1 1
B
B

(8.20)

Similarly,
qmin 5 qheel 5

SV
6e
1 2
B
B

(8.21)

Note that SV includes the weight of the soil, as shown in Table 8.1, and that when the
value of the eccentricity e becomes greater than B>6, qmin [Eq. (8.21)] becomes negative.
Thus, there will be some tensile stress at the end of the heel section. This stress is not desirable, because the tensile strength of soil is very small. If the analysis of a design
shows that e . B>6, the design should be reproportioned and calculations redone.
The relationships pertaining to the ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow foundation
were discussed in Chapter 3. Recall that [Eq. (3.40)].
qu 5 c2r NcFcdFci 1 qNqFqdFqi 1 12g2BrNgFgdFgi

(8.22 )

where
q 5 g2D
Br 5 B 2 2e
1 2 Fqd

Fcd 5 Fqd 2

Nc tan f2r

Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f2r (1 2 sin f2r ) 2

D
Br

Fgd 5 1
Fci 5 Fqi 5 1 2
Fgi 5 1 2

c 2

90

c 2

f2r

c 5 tan21

Pa cos a

SV

Note that the shape factors Fcs , Fqs , and Fgs given in Chapter 3 are all equal to unity, because they can be treated as a continuous foundation. For this reason, the shape factors are
not shown in Eq. (8.22).
Once the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil has been calculated by using
Eq. (8.22), the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure can be determined:
FS(bearing capacity) 5

qu
qmax

(8.23)

Generally, a factor of safety of 3 is required. In Chapter 3, we noted that the ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations occurs at a settlement of about 10% of the foundation width.

390 Chapter 8: Retaining Walls

In the case of retaining walls, the width B is large. Hence, the ultimate load qu will occur at
a fairly large foundation settlement. A factor of safety of 3 against bearing capacity failure
may not ensure that settlement of the structure will be within the tolerable limit in all cases.
Thus, this situation needs further investigation.
An alternate relationship to Eq. (8.22) will be Eq. (3.67), or
qu 5 crNc(ei)Fcd 1 qNq(ei)Fqd 1 12g2BNg(ei)Fgd
Since Fgd 5 1,
qu 5 crNc(ei)Fcd 1 qNq(ei)Fqd 1 12g2BNg(ei)

(8.24)

The bearing capacity factors, Nc(ei), Nq(ei), and Ng(ei) were given in Figures 3.26
through 3.28.

Example 8.1
The cross section of a cantilever retaining wall is shown in Figure 8.12. Calculate the
factors of safety with respect to overturning, sliding, and bearing capacity.

10
0.5 m
H1 = 0.458 m

1 = 18 kN/m3
1= 30
c1= 0
H2 = 6 m

Pa

Pv

10

Ph

2
1.5 m = D
0.7 m

H3 = 0.7 m

C
0.7 m

0.7 m

2.6 m

Figure 8.12 Calculation of stability of a retaining wall

2 = 19 kN/m3
2 = 20
c2 = 40 kN/m2

8.7 Check for Bearing Capacity Failure

391

Solution
From the figure,
H H1 H2 H3 2.6 tan 10 6 0.7
0.458 6 0.7 7.158 m
The Rankine active force per unit length of wall Pp 5 12g1Hr2Ka . For 1 30 and
10, Ka is equal to 0.3532. (See Table 7.1.) Thus,
Pa 5 12 (18) (7.158) 2 (0.3532) 5 162.9 kN>m
Pv Pa sin10 162.9 (sin10) 28.29 kN/m
and
Ph Pa cos10 162.9 (cos10) 160.43 kN/m
Factor of Safety against Overturning
The following table can now be prepared for determining the resisting moment:
Section
no.a

Area
(m2)

Weight/unit
length
(kN/m)

Moment arm
from point C
(m)

70.74
14.15

1.15
0.833

66.02
280.80
10.71
Pv 28.29
V 470.71

2.0
2.7
3.13
4.0

6 0.5 3
5 0.6

1
2

1
2 (0.2)6

3
4
5

4 0.7 2.8
6 2.6 15.6
1
2 (2.6) (0.458) 5 0.595

Moment
(kN-m/m)

81.35
11.79
132.04
758.16
33.52
113.16
1130.02 MR

For section numbers, refer to Figure 8.12

concrete 23.58 kN/m3

The overturning moment

Mo 5 Ph a

7.158
H9
b 5 160.43a
b 5 382.79 kN-m>m
3
3

and
FS (overturning) 5

SMR
1130.02
5
5 2.95 . 2, OK
Mo
382.79

Factor of Safety against Sliding

From Eq. (8.11),
FS (sliding) 5

(SV)tan(k1fr2 ) 1 Bk2cr2 1 Pp
Pacosa

392 Chapter 8: Retaining Walls

Let k1 5 k2 5 32 . Also,
Pp 5 12Kpg2D2 1 2cr2 !KpD
Kp 5 tan2 a45 1

fr2
b 5 tan2 (45 1 10) 5 2.04
2

and
D 1.5 m
So
Pp 5 12 (2.04) (19) (1.5) 2 1 2(40) ( !2.04) (1.5)
43.61 171.39 215 kN/m

Hence,
(470.71)tana
FS (sliding) 5
5

2 3 20
2
b 1 (4) a b (40) 1 215
3
3
160.43

111.56 1 106.67 1 215

5 2.7 > 1.5, OK
160.43

Note: For some designs, the depth D in a passive pressure calculation may be taken to
be equal to the thickness of the base slab.
Factor of Safety against Bearing Capacity Failure
Combining Eqs. (8.16), (8.17), and (8.18) yields
SMR 2 SMo
B
4
1130.02 2 382.79
2
5 2
2
SV
2
470.71
B
4
5 0.411 m , 5 5 0.666 m
6
6

e5

Again, from Eqs. (8.20) and (8.21)

q toe
heel 5

SV
6e
470.71
6 3 0.411
a1 6 b 5
a1 6
b 5 190.2 kN>m2 (toe)
B
B
4
4
5 45.13 kN>m2 (heel)

The ultimate bearing capacity of the soil can be determined from Eq. (8.22)
qu 5 c29NcFcdFci 1 qNqFqdFqi 1

1
g B9NgFgdFgi
2 2

8.7 Check for Bearing Capacity Failure

393

For 2 20 (see Table 3.3), Nc 14.83, Nq 6.4, and N 5.39. Also,

q 2D (19) (1.5) 28.5 kN/m2
B B 2e 4 2(0.411) 3.178 m
1 2 Fqd
1 2 1.148
Fcd 5 Fqd 2
5 1.148 2
5 1.175
Nctanfr2
(14.83) (tan 20)
2
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tanfr2 (1 2 sinfr)
2 a

D
1.5
b 5 1 1 0.315a
b 5 1.148
Br
3.178

Fd 1
Fci 5 Fqi 5 a1 2

c 2
b
90

and
c 5 tan21 a

Pacosa
160.43
b 5 tan21 a
b 5 18.82
SV
470.71

So
Fci 5 Fqi 5 a1 2

18.82 2
b 5 0.626
90

and
Fgi 5 a1 2

c 2
18.82 2
b 5 a1 2
b <0
f2r
20

Hence,
qu 5 (40) (14.83) (1.175) (0.626) 1 (28.5) (6.4) (1.148) (0.626)
1 12 (19) (5.93) (3.178) (1) (0)
436.33 131.08 0 567.41 kN/m2
and
FS (bearing capacity) 5

qu
567.41
5
5 2.98
q toe
190.2

Note: FS(bearing capacity) is less than 3. Some repropertioning will be needed.

Example 8.2
A gravity retaining wall is shown in Figure 8.13. Use dr 5 2>3f1r and Coulombs active
earth pressure theory. Determine

394 Chapter 8: Retaining Walls

1  18.5 kN/m3
1  32
c1  0
P

5.7 m

5m
2

Pa


15

2.83 m

Ph

3
75

2.167 m

1.5 m
0.27 m 0.6 m

0.8 m

1.53 m
4

C
0.3 m

0.8 m
3.5 m

2  18 kN/m3
2  24
c2  30 kN/m2

Figure 8.13 Gravity retaining wall (not to scale)

a. The factor of safety against overturning

b. The factor of safety against sliding
c. The pressure on the soil at the toe and heel
Solution
The height
Hr 5 5 1 1.5 5 6.5 m
Coulombs active force is
Pa 5 12 g1Hr2Ka
With a 5 0, b 5 75, dr 5 2>3f1r , and f1r 5 32, Ka 5 0.4023. (See Table 7.4.) So,
Pa 5 12 (18.5) (6.5) 2 (0.4023) 5 157.22 kN>m
Ph 5 Pa cos (15 1 23f1r ) 5 157.22 cos 36.33 5 126.65 kN>m
and
Pv 5 Pa sin (15 1 23f1r ) 5 157.22 sin 36.33 5 93.14 kN>m

8.7 Check for Bearing Capacity Failure

395

Part a: Factor of Safety against Overturning

From Figure 8.13, one can prepare the following table:

Area
no.

1
2
3
4

1
2 (5.7)

Moment arm
from C
(m)

Weight*
(kN/m)

Area
(m2 )

(1.53) 5 4.36
(0.6) (5.7) 5 3.42
1
2 (0.27) (5.7) 5 0.77
< (3.5) (0.8) 5 2.8

102.81
80.64
18.16
66.02
Pv 5 93.14
SV 5 360.77 kN>m

2.18
1.37
0.98
1.75
2.83

Moment
(kN-m/m)

224.13
110.48
17.80
115.54
263.59
SMR 5 731.54 kN-m>m

gconcrete 5 23.58 kN>m3

Note that the weight of the soil above the back face of the wall is not taken into account
in the preceding table. We have
Overturning moment 5 Mo 5 Ph

Hr
5 126.65(2.167) 5 274.45 kN-m>m
3

Hence,
FS(overturning) 5

SMR
731.54
5
5 2.67 + 2, OK
SMo
274.45

Part b: Factor of Safety against Sliding

We have

FS(sliding) 5

2
2
(SV) tan f2r 1 c2r B 1 Pp
3
3
Ph

Pp 5 12Kpg2D2 1 2c2r "KpD

and
Kp 5 tan2 45 1

24
5 2.37
2

Hence,
Pp 5 12 (2.37) (18) (1.5) 2 1 2(30) (1.54) (1.5) 5 186.59 kN>m
So
360.77 tan
FS(sliding) 5

2
2
3 24 1 (30) (3.5) 1 186.59
3
3
126.65

396 Chapter 8: Retaining Walls

5

103.45 1 70 1 186.59
5 2.84
126.65

If Pp is ignored, the factor of safety is 1.37.

Part c: Pressure on Soil at Toe and Heel
From Eqs. (8.16), (8.17), and (8.18),
e5
qtoe 5

SMR 2 SMo
B
3.5
731.54 2 274.45
B
2
5
2
5 0.483 , 5 0.583
2
SV
2
360.77
6
(6) (0.483)
SV
6e
360.77
B1 1 R 5
B1 1
R 5 188.43 kN , m2
B
B
3.5
3.5

and
qheel 5

(6) (0.483)
V
6e
360.77
B1 2 R 5
B1 2
R 5 17.73 kN , m2
B
B
3.5
3.5