Reinforced Soil Walls Analysis

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED SOIL WALLS AND COMPARISON
WITH
STARES
Name
Daniel Backhouse
Ben Hopkins
Joel Kemp
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SID
0114254
0107635
0117579
THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
This report analysis the methods in the design of reinforced retaining wall systems. The
three methods on analysis are Rankines methods, Coulombs method and the STARES
comper program. Using same parameters of a design of a retaining wall, with 9 layers of
reinforcement, two analyses were performed. They are:
Same Length of 5 metres - The safety factors obtained were:
Rankines 1.739,
Coulombs 1.789,
STARES 1.71.
Different length of reinforcement - The safety factor obtained were:
Rankines 1.627,
Coulombs 1.917,
STARES 1.74.

PAGE 2 OF 17
ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED SOIL WALLS AND COMPARISON WITH STARES
TEAM 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
1.1 INITIAL CONDITIONS...................................................................................................4
2. RANKINES METHOD ANALYSIS.......................................................................................5
2.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................5
2.2 RESULTS.....................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT.................................................................................5
2.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT.......................................................................................6
2.2.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT..................................................................6
2.2.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT......................................................................6
2.2.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT.........................................................7
2.2.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT.............................................................7
3. COULOMBS METHOD ANALYSIS.....................................................................................8
3.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................8
3.2 RESULTS.....................................................................................................................8
3.2.1 WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT.................................................................................8
3.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT.......................................................................................9
4. STARES...........................................................................................................................12
4.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................12
4.2 RESULTS...................................................................................................................12
4.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT.......................................................................12
4.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT..............................................................15
5. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................16
6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................16
7. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................17

PAGE 3 OF 17
TEAM 9
1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of the report is to investigate and draw comparisons between methods of
analysis of reinforced retaining wall systems using a simple wedge analysis and the
computer program STARES.
The standard practises of analysis, using a simple wedge are Rankines and Coulombs
methods. Each of these two methods uses two different wedges. STARES is one of the
many computer programs available and complete a detailed analysis through the use of
circles to determine the critical failure situation and factor of safety.
For this report Rankines and Coulombs method was used to develop a steel arrangement
that has reasonable Factors of Safety, of which are then compared with results from
STARES to see how accurate our initial estimates were.
When dealing with soil and their properties it is very hard to evaluate an exact figure,
unlike for steel and concrete. This is where the factor of safety plays a role on the design
of any soil related structure. Experience and a gamble are used when determining a
factor of safety. For the analysis we aimed for a factor of safety of 1.5.
1.1 INITIAL CONDITIONS

The initial conditions of the wall are to be set with:
Wall Properties
H=5m
w = 15
Cw = 0
Soil properties
C=0
= 35
Figure 1
= 15 kN/m3
The steel reinforcing dimensions used for the analyses were width 45 millimetres,
thickness 5 millimetres and steel with a Grade 350 MPa. These dimensions were
provided from The Reinforced Earth Company. The pull out strength of the steel is also
a factor. The force in each piece of reinforcement must satisfy
F < y B t = 350 0.045 0.005 < 78.75kN

PAGE 4 OF 17
TEAM 9
2. RANKINES METHOD ANALYSIS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Rankines method establishes the stress placed on retaining wall from the soil mass
behind the wall. The vertical stress from the following equation:
' v = 1d 1 + 2( z d 1) .
Once the vertical stresses are determined the horizontal stresses are found and from that
the force required has been determined. The horizontal stresses are calculated from the
following equations:
N =
1 + sin
' v
And therefore, ' H =
1 sin
N
This force decides the amount of reinforcing needed in the wall by determining the force
in each piece of steel and summing them up to see if they satisfy the force required. The
force in the steel is determined by the following equation:
F = 2 ' v tan R LR B
Where = The Soil Friction Angle

R
LR = The development length of the reinforcement (Which is the length of steel that is
not in the critical wedge)
B = the width of the steel
With Rankines method a few assumptions were made. These were that there is no
cohesion between the wall and the soil mass and that the critical angle of the wedge is
= 45 .
2
2.2 RESULTS
2.2.1 WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT
' v = 1d 1 + 2( z d 1)
' v = 15 5 = 75kPa
N =
1 + sin 1 + sin 35
=
= 3.69
1 sin 1 sin 35

PAGE 5 OF 17
TEAM 9
' =
H
' v
N
75
= 20.324kPa
3.69
The force is the area under the

triangle.
F = 0.5 h ' h = 0.5 5 20.32
F = 50.81kN / m
The force therefore required to retain

the soil mass is 50.811kN/m.
The critical angle that the wedge
would fail on is 27.5.
20.32 kPa
2.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT

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

The length of the reinforcement chosen was as 5 meters at a height interval of every 0.5
meters from the top. The table below show the results.
h (m)
Lr (m)
F (kN/m)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2.92
3.15
3.38
3.61
3.85
4.08
4.31
4.54
4.77
1.381
2.980
4.798
6.834
9.088
11.560
14.251
17.160
20.287
F
SF
88.339
1.739
From table 1, the sum of the forces is Table

over 1the 50.811 kN/m required. The safety factor
determined via

PAGE 6 OF 17
TEAM 9
F
88.339
= 1.739 .
=
Area Under Curve 50.811
2.2.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

The configuration for the wall is detailed below.
Green Zone = 4 meters

Red Zone = 5 meters
Blue Zone = 7 meters
Figure 2
L
r
The table below shows the results.
h (m)
Lr (m)
F (kN/m)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.92
5.15
5.38
3.61
3.85
4.08
3.31
3.54
3.77
2.326
4.871
7.634
6.834
9.088
11.560
10.942
13.379
16.033
82.667
SF
1.627
The forces were not as high as the same

length of reinforcement analysis. The safety
factor was over the 1.5 as described in the
introduction.

PAGE 7 OF 17
Table 2
TEAM 9
3. COULOMBS METHOD ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Coulombs method of analysis estimates a mechanism of failure at some angle , which
determines the wedge. By analysing the forces and using the equations of equilbrium, a
horizontal acting force against the wall, P, can be determined. This method takes in
account passive and active failure. In this case we have an active failure. This method is
widely used in the geotechnical engineering field as it represents fairly accurate results.
C2
W
C1
w
R2
Where C1 = Cohesion of the soil

P
C2 = Cohesion between the wall and soil

W = Weight of the wedge
R1
Figure taken from Soil Stability notes by Dr. D. Airey
Assumptions made that C2 = zero due to that the wall will be on a firm base and there will
be little or no cohesive forces.
3.2 RESULTS
3.2.1 WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT
The most critical state is at an angle , that produces the maximum force, P. Since is not
known, the equations of equilibrium must be determined so that with each angle of , a
value for P can be determined.
The equations below were derived from the forces of equilibrium and using an Excel
spreadsheet (table 3) calculated the maximum value for P and the critical angle.
FH = 0
R 2 cos w = R1 sin
u
Where = 90--

PAGE 8 OF 17
TEAM 9
Fv = 0
W = R 2 sin w + R1 cos
From 1
R1 =
R 2 cos w
H 2 tan tan
sub into 2 and rearranged R 2 =
2(cos w + sin w tan )
sin
Therefore, P = R 2 cos w
0
5
10
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
40
45
50
55
55
50
45
40
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
15
10
5
0
R2
0.00
15.34
26.99
35.63
41.66
42.57
43.38
44.10
44.73
45.26
45.69
46.03
46.27
46.41
46.46
46.39
46.23
45.96
45.57
45.07
40.72
32.68
19.78
0.00
P
0.000
14.818
26.075
34.418
40.236
41.116
41.904
42.600
43.204
43.716
44.136
44.463
44.695
44.832
44.873
44.814
44.654
44.390
44.020
43.539
39.333
31.570
19.102
0.000
Table 3
The data above shows the maximum force that P would experience (44.873 kN/m) and at
that angle is the most critical (30). This is highlighted in yellow above.
Any angle after = 55 was a passive failure mechanism instead of an active failure
mechanism and therefore could not be considered.
3.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT
Cr
C2
r
The reinforcement within the soil mass ads a

horizontal force to the equations of equilibrium
used in the 3.2.1. The affect this has on the
analysis is that the critical angle, changes. A
C1
CIVL3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
PAGE 9 OF 17
w
R
2
TEAM 9
shearing force between the reinforcement and the soil is created. This force was ignored
in this analysis, as that force was negligible due to the low forces in the reinforcement.
The table below shows the results of taking into account the horizontal forces. The
lengths of reinforcement used were the same as 2.2.2.2.
25
P
43.716
26
44.136
27
44.463
28
44.695
29
44.832
h
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Lr
5.10
5.31
5.52
3.73
3.94
4.15
3.37
3.58
3.79
5.03
5.25
5.47
3.68
3.90
4.12
3.34
3.56
3.78
4.96
5.18
5.41
3.64
3.87
4.09
3.32
3.55
3.77
4.89
5.12
5.36
3.59
3.83
4.06
3.30
3.53
3.77
4.82
5.06
5.30
3.55
3.79
4.03
3.27
Fs
2.410
5.019
7.828
7.056
9.319
11.782
11.137
13.527
16.116
2.376
4.959
7.750
6.967
9.226
11.693
11.058
13.467
16.083
2.343
4.900
7.672
6.878
9.134
11.604
10.981
13.408
16.049
2.310
4.842
7.596
6.790
9.042
11.517
10.904
13.349
16.017
2.277
4.784
7.519
6.703
8.952
11.430
10.828

PAGE 10 OF 17
F
84.193
SF
1.926
83.579
1.894
82.970
1.866
82.366
1.843
81.768
1.824
TEAM 9
30
44.873
31
44.814
32
44.654
33
44.390
34
44.020

4
4.5
3.52
3.76
13.291
15.984
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
4.75
5.00
5.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.68
4.94
5.20
3.45
3.71
3.97
3.23
3.48
3.74
4.62
4.88
5.15
3.41
3.68
3.94
3.21
3.47
3.74
4.55
4.82
5.09
3.37
3.64
3.91
3.18
3.46
3.73
4.48
4.76
5.04
3.32
3.60
3.88
3.16
3.44
3.72
2.245
4.726
7.444
6.617
8.862
11.343
10.753
13.234
15.952
2.213
4.670
7.369
6.532
8.773
11.258
10.678
13.177
15.920
2.181
4.613
7.296
6.447
8.685
11.174
10.604
13.121
15.888
2.150
4.558
7.223
6.364
8.598
11.090
10.531
13.065
15.857
2.119
4.503
7.150
6.281
8.512
11.008
10.459
13.010
15.826

PAGE 11 OF 17
81.176
1.809
80.590
1.798
80.009
1.792
79.435
1.789
78.868
1.792
TEAM 9
35
43.539
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
4.42
4.71
4.99
3.28
3.57
3.85
3.14
3.43
3.71
2.089
4.448
7.079
6.200
8.427
10.926
10.387
12.956
15.795
78.307
1.799
Table 4
The column P relates to the analysis without reinforcement. From the table above the
results show that the critical angle has changed to 33. The safety factor at this angle
was the least compared with the other safety factors. The safety factor was calculated
SF =
F 79.435
=
= 1.789
P
44.39
When the same length (see 2.2.2.1) of steel was used in the Coulombs analysis the
critical angle was the same, however, the sum of the force was 85.107 kN/m and the
factor of safety, SF = 1.917. Results are not shown.
4. STARES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
STARES is a computer program widely used in retaining wall design here in Australia.
The method used to analyse the data by the computer program uses circles to calculate
the most critical wedge. The number of circles used for our analysis was five thousand.
Two analyses were taken with STARES so that a comparison could be drawn from all
three methods.
4.2 RESULTS
4.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT
The length of reinforcement used was the same as for Rankines and Coulombs methods.
From the diagram below the forces shown are very small in the reinforcement at the top
and increase with depth. There is no force in the top reinforcement layer as the circle does
not go through it and it is not effective. The factor of safety for this circle, SF=1.82.
However, the most critical SF was 1.71. This circle did not go through the bottom two

PAGE 12 OF 17
TEAM 9
layers of steel and the failure would not probably go through that circle. The chance of it
passing closer to the bottom is more realistic.

PAGE 13 OF 17
TEAM 9

PAGE 14 OF 17
TEAM 9
4.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

PAGE 15 OF 17
TEAM 9
The results of the previous page show that the most critical circle that went through all layers
of reinforcement had a SF = 1.74. The forces in the steel were less, compared with the forces
using the same length of reinforcement.
5. DISCUSSION
Comparing the three methods of analysis for the design of the reattaining wall, the results
show minor variance. Firstly, when considering the wedge with no reinforcing steel straps
using the Rankines and Coulombs method, the horizontal force acting on the wall differ by
up to 5 kN and the most critical angle of the failure plane differ by 3.5 degrees. However,
when analysing the wedges with the same length of reinforcement steel a similar safety factor
is recorded with a safety factor of 1.739 and 1.789 for Rankines and Coulombs methods
respectively. When calculating these results the assumption was made when applying the
Rankines method, that angle of the failure plane of the wedge dose not change, once the steel
is introduced. Therefore, it is assumed that the most critical wedge has a failure plane of 27.5
degrees, with or without reinforcement. Compared to, Coulombs method that shows that the
most critical wedge changes, once reinforcement steel is add. From the result the most critical
failure plane changed from 30 to 33 degrees. When analysing the same condition of
reinforcing steel in the STARES program, the most critical safety factor was found to be
1.71, which was a similar result found fro the other two methods. However, this circle did not
go through the bottom two layers of steel and the failure would not probably go through that
circle. The chance of it passing closer to the bottom is more realistic. Thus, a more realisic
safety factor would be 1.82. (see page 13).
Interestingly, when comparing the results for the three methods of analysis for different
length of reinforcement steel the result vary considerable. For Rankines method the safety
factor has reduced to 1.62, which is unusal sice there has been an increase in the amount of
reinforment steel used (from 45 to 48 meters total length). Compared to Coulombs method
were the safety factor has increased to1.917, which is due to the fact that greater amount of
reinforcement is need at the top surface. STARES result did not change significantly with a
safety factor for the most critical circle that went through all layers of reinforcement at 1.74.
The forces in the steel were less, compared with the forces using the same length of
reinforcement
From all three analysis STARES would generally give the most likely mode of failure. Since
unlike STARES, the Rankines and Coulombs methods assume a linear line of failure when
alaysiing the wedge. STARES, however, draws circles, represting a number of likely failure
planes and it is up to the designer to critical analysis the most likey failure, given an
appropate factor of saftey.
6. CONCLUSION
Generally Rankines method results for the safety factor were less than Coulombs method
and STARES, due to force be greater. From the assumption made Coulombs method and
STARES would have a greater degree of accuracy, since the critical failure plane changes
with the amount of reinforcing steel used, unlike Rankines method that use the same critical
failure plane when the system has no reinforcement. STARES gives a designer greater
analysis, as it is able to analysis up to 5000 failure plane and there respective factors of
safety.
PAGE 16 OF 17
TEAM 9
7. REFERENCES
1. Ritchie, John -The Reinforced Earth Company Hornsby, New South Wales
2. Airey, Dr. D. (2004) Soil Stability Lecture Notes. The University of Sydney
3. Chen W.F. (1995) The Civil Engineering Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
4. Clayton C.R.I and Milititsky J. (1986) Earth Pressure and Earth Retaining Structures.
Surrey University Press, Glasgow.
5. Clayton C.R.I. (1993) Retaining Structures: Proceedings of the conference retaining
structures/ organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers. T Telford, London
6. www.rmc.ca/academic/gradrech/materials9_e.html
7. www.geoengineer.org/reearth.htm
8. www.soilretention.com/db-article.html
9. www.geoprograms.com/diablowebalternate/downloads

PAGE 17 OF 17
TEAM 9

Reinforced Soil Walls Analysis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reinforced Soil Walls Analysis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

1.1 INITIAL CONDITIONS

F < y B t = 350 0.045 0.005 < 78.75kN

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

2. RANKINES METHOD ANALYSIS

Where = The Soil Friction Angle

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

The force is the area under the

The force therefore required to retain

2.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT

2.2.2.1 SAME LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

From table 1, the sum of the forces is Table

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

2.2.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

Green Zone = 4 meters

The forces were not as high as the same

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

3. COULOMBS METHOD ANALYSIS

Where C1 = Cohesion of the soil

C2 = Cohesion between the wall and soil

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

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

3.2.2 WITH REINFORCEMENT

The reinforcement within the soil mass ads a

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

4.2.2 DIFFERENT LENGTH REINFORCEMENT

CIVL 3411 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING