METHODS AND PRACTICE IN CANTILEVER

RETAINING WALL DESIGN

K. N. DERUCHER,D. R. SCHELLINGand V. B. PATEL
Departmentof Civil Engineering,University of Maryland,CollegePark, MD 20740,U.S.A.

for publication I June 1977)

(Received 10 March 1977;received

Absbxet-The purpose of this paper is to present informationthat may aid a user in the selection of a computer
programfor the cantileverreinforcedconcrete retainingwall and, to present the state-of-the-artin computerized
retainingwall design. The programsdiscussed are availablefor generaluse by lease, time-sharing,purchasingor for
the asking. Most emphasis is placed on the method of design as well as the methods for computing soil and
surchargepressures.This tends to have more permanentvalue than an evaluationof specificcomputerprograms.
Twelve oroerams are oresented and comoared in written and tabularform. The general informationappears in
Table 1and-thecapabiities of each in Taile 2.
NOMENCLATURE
heightof the wall
coefficientof active earth pressure
coefficientof earth pressureat rest
coefficientof passive earth pressure
active earth pressure
horizontalcomponentof earthpressure
horizontal component of earth pressure with effects of
subsoil water
passive earth pressure
verticalcomponentof earth pressure
resultantforce
concentratedor line load
weight of the vector wedge of the soil mass
cohesion of soil
coefficientof friction
strip loadingvalue
unit weight of soil
distance to the point or line load = mH
distance from the stem to the heel
sum of the overturningmoments/resultant
distance the resultantforce acts = nH
the angle the back of the wall makes with the horizontal
slope of the backtill
angle made with the horizontaland failure plane
3.14
angle of wall friction
angle of the heel key
angle of internalfriction

Lateral pressures from the backtIll are obtained by

using either Coulomb or Rankine Theories. The type and
magnitude of lateral earth pressure depends on the
amount and direction of wall movement. Active pressures are accompanied by movements directed away
from the soil; and passive pressures (which are much
larger), are accompanied by movements towards the soil.
The pressure which develops at zero movement is called
earth pressure at rest.
Relating wall design practice varies widely and utilizes
all available theory. In order to give the reader sufficient
information as to the features available in the various
programs, a complete range of theory is presented with
the programs compared to the theory.

P-4

hydrostaticpressure

INTRODUCTION

The basis for design of cantilever reinforced concrete

retaining walls consists of either the working stress or
ultimate strength design. All computer programs studied,
with the exception of one, were of the working stress
design. Further, the retaining walls as given here are
represented of:
1. Maximum height; 30 2 5 ft
2. Infinitely stiff stem
3. Sufficiently drained backiill
4. Unyielding soil.
The cantilever retaining wall consists primarily of the
design of the stem and foundation. The foundation consists of spread footings or piles. In the spread footing
type, the toe and heel are designed, and if necessary a
key is added. The pile foundation type is self explanatory.
569

Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir

EARTHPRE!BW%
TRRORY

The earth pressure analysis can be developed in

general form by considering stresses acting in a level soil
mass, infinitely extended beyond the retaining structure.
Quite simply, the total vertical pressure on an element in
a homogeneous soil mass is equal to the weight of the
soil above that element [l].
If subsoil water is present and/or anticipated, effective
stresses should be considered.
The effect of surcharge loads such as: sloping and
broken backfill, uniformly distributed loads, point loads
and strip loads should also be considered in arriving at
the final total earth pressure.
COEFWCIENTS
OF EARTIIPRESURE
Consider an element of soil, with stresses acting upon
it, at some depth z in a homogeneous soil mass behind a

retaining wall as shown in Fig. l(a). Due to the vertical

load, the soil element might deform vertically but cannot
expand laterally as it is confined by the soil mass between the stationary retaining wall and the soil element.
Thus, the soil is in a state of elastic equilibrium and the
!?teral stress can be evaluated by stress-strain relationships.
The vertical stress P, is given by
P, = WI

(1)

and the lateral stress Ph is given by

Ph = Kvwz

(2)

570

K. N. DERUCHER

et

of.

Table 1. Program data

name

me

SoUrCS

Greintr

Dcscriotion

tksium

En&

and analyzes

Date
retain-

computa

1175

LMUUMC

IRM 1130

FORTRAR xv

ing vslls four&edon either (1

spread footing or on piles
accordingto AASRTQ, ARM or
AC1 spcclficstions.
02.82.001

35ODoLEsrIRS

Baker-Wibbaly
L
Associates,
Inc.

This series of programs and sub+/67

proSramsanalyst and design it.
W. with aw stsm and backfill
configurationusirq Rankine or
Coulanb theory for soil pressure.

IBM 1130

mRTRAR

Rev York Dept.

Designs abutmentsor R.W. supp- 1170

orted on soil or piles sccording to AASHTO specifications.

B5500

FORTRAR IV

Conducts.4soil bearinS R.W.

7173
providesa stability cheek and designs steca
and foot&g rtinforcrmcnt.

IBM 1130

FORTRARIV

Designsa CantileverR.W. on
G/70
soil accordingto AASRlQ spscificationaand providesa key
to resist sliding.

IE%-3701145 PtJI

Designs and analyzesCantilever -R.U. with flat or slopingbackfill and option of surcharge

IBH-370/155 P0mn.u

or

Ttanspor-

tation
RRHAL

Pa~.Spoffordb
Thorndike,

RRWALLS

Hebrasks

of

--

analysis,

Inc.

Dtpt.

Rosds

OklahaaaDept.

of Trmsportation

load.

BARWD

Civil Desfga
systemInc.

and
analyzescantilertr R.W. and bridgt abutments resting on soil, rocks or piles usio# Rankina Theory and AASRTo
AwciflcsltiQes.
Designs and analysesR.W. resting
on spread footingsor piles. &Jc-tation
is incomplete.

Dtpt. of
Transportation
Artiwna

PIIZitJ

Pa~,Spofford b

Thorndike.

RElWL

*-

Desims

--

IBH-370/158

Conductsan snalyaisof a pile sup-t/73

ported R.W.,daterminesthe load on
each pile and designs the rainforcemeat in the baseand stem.

Inc.

Rtbncy, Kqts
Assoc.

POR'IRAR

IBM 1131)

and analysesCantileverR.W.12/73 IIN 130

Dssigns

_-

PoRTRABw

mtpgxmzd on sol1 or rock and her-

ing T or L-&ape.
Pro& Ro. A

Wilson T. Ralfud

Dcrigas a CantileverR.W. resting on 3tT2

soil or rock using Rankine Theory
for tarth pressure.

--

Horn

Rovlcs

Lhigns a CantileverR.W, based

on using Rankine Theory for earth

---

3/6?

---I
QI

WOll

p.

(b)

Fig. 1. (a) Stresses acting on a soil element at rest. (b) Pressure dis~~tion,

where I& is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest.

If subsoil water is present, the effective stress should
be taken into consideration and the lateral stress
becomes

where p is the hydrostatic pressure.

The pressure distribution is assumed to be- triangular
as shown in Fig. l(b). Hence, the lateral force exerted is
given by
PO= ; wH*r(,.

(4)

B 3062
0282001
BSllOO
BESTIES
RBWAL
RR WLLS
OKLAHOMA
BARWD
ARIZONA
PILWL
RETWL
No. 24
BOWLES

Name
R
0
c
K

xxxxxxx
x
X
x

x
x

S
0
I
L

X
x
x
xxxxxxx
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
X

x
x

x
x

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

D
E
S
I
G
N

x
x

x
x
X
X
x

x
X
X

x
X

x
x

R F
E R
0
I
N. N
T T
H B
I
A
C T
K. T
E
R

Stem

P
I
L
E

Foundation

x
x

x
x
x

x
x

R
E
A
R
B
A
T
T
E
R

x
x
x
X
X
x
x
X
X

x
x

FD
OE
OS
TI
IG
NN
G

x
X

xxxxxxx
x
x

x
x

x x
xxxxxx

x
x

D
E
S
I
G
N

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

A
D
J.
F
T.
D
I
M.

L
0
A
D
S

P
I
L
E

Found on
piles

K
E
Y

Spread
footing

Table 2. Capabilities of programs

B
A
T
T
E
R
E
D

X
X
X

X
X
X

RL
EO
SC
UA
LT
TI
A0
NN
T

x
x

x
x

P
R
E
S
S

UL
NO
IA
FD
0

x
x

x
x

x x
x x
x x x
x x x
x x x

x
x

xxxx
x x

s
0
L V
E
I
D R
I
T
NUUR
GRRM
N
I

Safety
check

LL
IO
NA
ED
S
T

xx

xx

LR
01
AP
D

P
0
I
N
T

x
x

VF
EO
RR
TC
IE
C
A
L

HF
00
RR
IC
ZE
0
N
T
A
L

Surcharge

93062
0282001
B5000
BESTIES
REWAL
RR WALLS
OKLAHOMA
BARWD
ARIZONA
PILWL
RFTWI..
No. 24
BOWLES

Name

xx

xx

::
xx
x

::

1s
NL
FO
1P
NE
fS
T
E

::;

xx

L
E
V
E
L

Backfill

x
x
x

3s
RL
00
KP
EE
N

::
X
x
X

x
X

xxxx
x
x

A
A
s
H
T
0

A
C
I

A
R
E
A

Specifications

X
X

CV
00
NL
CU
RM
EE
T
E

z:
1
OL
FL

LA
Oc

SB

x
X

0.
0
F

MP
Al
XL
E
NS

MB
AA
XT
T

x
X

PE
NL IR
OOL
OA E
FD
S

MS
AU
XR.

Limitations

Table 2. (Conrd.)

PE
UC
TK
D
A
T
A

NH

tc
U
L
0
M
B

x
x

N
K
i
N
E

X
x
x

X
X

::

C
0

R
A

GN
WS
EI
ID
GE
HR
TE
D

FC
TO

Earth
pressure
theories

UE
IS
FS
LU
UR
IE
D

EP
QR
C
0

x
x
x

I N
ACE
L R
W E
E T
D E
G
E

T
R

MA

x
x
x

AR
XE
A
L SS
T
E
E
L

T
E

Stress
checks

Methods and practice in cantilever retaining wall design

If this unyielding wall is allowed to move slightly away

from the soil mass as shown in Fii. 2(a), the soil mass
can expand laterally. As it tends to expand laterally, the
friction forces in the soil mass are mobilized, and as it
further expands a state of plastic equilibrium is reached.
At this point, every part of the soil element is on the
verge of rupture(21. At this stage, the lateral pressure
would be at a minimum and is given by the formula

513

EARln-TnmRYrYCouLclMBAND-

The earth pressure can be evaluated by the Coulomb

earth pressure theory (about 3776) or the Rankine earth
pressure theory (about 1857). The Coulomb method
assumes that (41
I. The soil is isotropic, homogeneous, and with internal friction and cohesion.
2. The rupture surface is a plane surface (although
Coulomb suspected that is was probably curved).
3. The failure surface is a rigid body.
P,=fwH2Ko-ZcHd(K.)
(5) 4. There is wall friction.
5. The failure surface for active pressure is at an angle
where K,,
is the coefficient of active earth pressure.
of (45 t d2) with the horizontal for horizontal backfills,
An analysis would indicate that the critical surface in the angle being independent of the soil cohesion.
Additionally Coulomb stressed the importance of
the state of plastic equilibrium would be approximately a
plane surface at an angle of (45t 4/2)with the drainage of the backtill. He correctly stated the critical
height of a vertical bank of earth and emphasized the
horizontal[3].
If the unyielding wall is allowed to move towards the importance of soil tests[S].
However, the principal deficiencies in Coulombs
backtill as shown in Fig. 2(b), the lateral pressure should
become a maximum at
theory are the assumptions of ideal soil and the plane
rupture surface. Further, the value of the angle of wall
is not an exact one and hence it fails to satisfy
Pp=;wH2K,t2cH~(K,,)
(6) friction
the static requirement, the summation of the moments
about a point equals zero; that is, the computed force
where K, is the coefficient of passive earth pressure.
vectors may not intersect at a common point as shown in
By analysis, the critical surface in this state of plastic
Fig. 3.
As was developed in the preceding section, the lateral
equilibrium would be an angle of (45- 1$/2) with the
pressure developed for the active case was
horizontal.

t-l

\Tilt

(b)
F&Y.2. (a) Active earth pressure.(b) Passiveearth pressure.

-
tb)
Fig. 3. (a) Assumed failure conditions.(b) Statical equilibrium requirementnot satisfiedby assumedplane rupture
surface. (c) Force triangk of soil fake wedge.

K. N. DERUCHERet

514

al.

given by

P, -5 wH2K,, - 2cHq(K,)

Pa =; wH2K,

and based on the Coulomb theory

K, =
sin* (Ysin (ai?)

sin (a t 4)
sin(g+S)sin(4-/3)
sin (a - 8) sin (a t j?)

where

>I

(7)
and the lateral pressure developed for the passive case was
P, =; wH2Kp t 2cHd(K,,)

sin* (a - $)
sin(#t@sin(4-/3)
sin ((I - 15)sin ((I + 8)

(8)
Now assuming a smooth vertical wall with a horizontal
backGIl, i.e. j3 = 8 = 0 and [I = 90, the equation for the
active case becomes
Pa = ; wH2Ka - 2cHq(K,)
K. = w

= tan (45 - 412)

cos

,j

cos@-d/(cos2
fi - cd !b)

cos /3+ q/(cos2

/3 - co2 4)

(12)

The soil failure wedge for the Rankine theory as well

as the force triangle is shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b)
respectively. Since wall friction was considered to be
zero (8 = 0) in the Rankine theory, the active stress
becomes a principal stress and the active force, P,, acts
parallel to the slope of the backfill.
EARTH PRESSUREIN RETAININGWALL DESIGN PROF%EMS

where according to the Coulomb theory

K, =

(11)

In retaining wall design, the backtill induces lateral

pressure against the wall. The stem acts as a cantilever
beam and as it lifts to achieve the state of active earth
pressure the lateral earth pressure can be evaluated by
either the Coulomb or Rankine theory. Both of these
theories satisfy two of the three static equations for
equilibrium, the summation of the horizontal and vertical
forces equals zero. This is attributed to the fact that the
rupture surface is assumed to be a plane surface rather
than the most probably curved surface.
The Rankine theory is widely used, because of its
simplicity, for cohesionless soils with a horizontal
backfill, where the active pressure is

(9)
P,, =; wH2Ka

and the passive case becomes

P, = ; wHK, + 2cHq(K,)
where
K = 1~
p 1 -sin 4

tan2 (45 + 4/2).

(10)

Rankine also analyzed the earth pressure by considering the state of plastic equilibrium of the soil mass[6].
Essentially the same assumptions were made as Coulomb. However, Rankine did not consider the cohesive
value of the soil or the wall friction.
According to Rankine, the active earth pressure is

in which the value wK,, is synonymous with the unit

weight of a fluid, since the equation takes the form of the
hydrostatic pressure equation. Such a method of evaluation is termed the equivalent-fluid method.
If the backfill is sloping, the equivalent-fluid method is
not recommended, as serious error can result since the
direction of P, is parallel to the ground slope, and not
horizontal, as is the resultant pressure for a fluid, and
additionally, the slope of the backfill contributes a surcharge effect into the computed lateral pressure.
Three important limitations exist in using the Rankine
solution:
1. The backfill must be a plane surface
2. The wall must not interfere with the failure wedge
2. Wall friction does not exist.

v
P,

8=(9o-P+~+/3)

JI

g=w-#9

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. (a) Soil failure wedge for Rankine case. (b)

Force triangle.

515

Methodsand practicein cantileverretainingwall design

L
(a)

lb)

Fig. 5. (a) Structure does not interfere with failure wedge. (b) Plane of zero shearing stress as suggested by
literature.

If these three requirements are met, solutions by the

Rankine equations can be applied as indicated in Fig. 5.
Due to the dilIlculties involved with the Coulomb
solution for cantilever retaining walls and because,of the
estimation involved with the determination of a value for
the wall friction, a modilied Rankine solution as indicated in Fig. 6 is generally used.

Fig. 7. Pressure distributiondiagram for retaining walls supportedon piles.

and the point of application, l?, is given by

H_H(K,+0.267)
2(K,+0.800)
where K,,in Formula 13, 14 and IS, is according to the
Rankine theory and horizontal backfill equal to
Fig. 6. ModifiedRankinesolution for cantileverretainingwall.

K,,=tan
It was previously mentioned that the soil pressure
acting on the wall depends on the amount of movement
exerted by the wall. A research was conducted by
Texas Transportation Institute[ll] to determine the
lateral earth pressure to be used for design purposes and
the earth pressure and wall movement were measured at
different heights of the wall. Study of cantilever retaining
walls founded on piles showed that the foundation of the
wall would prohibit the wall from tilting by an amount
stdhcient enough to reduce the earth pressures below the
at rest value, near the base of the wall. Thus, for design
purposes, at rest pressures are considered to act in this
region and therefore a factor of safety need not be
applied. If the properties of the backfill are known, the
recommended lateral earth pressure distribution is as
shown in Fig. 7.
The resultant force, P,,. is given by
P. = ; wH2(K,+ 0.8)

(13)

and the overturning moment, M, is given by

M = 1/8wH3(K, + 0.267)

(14)

45-g

mmm OF tamcHARGE LOADS

Thus far, in the discussion of earth pressure, only the
weight of the failure wedge behind the retaining wall has
been considered to be the contributing factor of lateral
earth pressure. In actual problems, other factors, such
as: various types of surcharge loads, ice pressure, swelling pressure and pressure caused by earthquake contribute to some extent to lateral earth pressure on a
retaining wall. Their effects should not be minimized as
they should be considered in arriving at the final value
for lateral earth pressure.
The most common types of surcharge loads are shown
in Fig. 8.
In the previous paragraphs, Coulomb and Rankine
developed methods for finding the lateral pressure based
on simplified assumptions. However, there are methods
based on modified forms of the theory of elasticity which
take into account many forms of surcharge loads[%ll].
These equations are based on modifications of the
Boussinesq sohttion for the pressure distribution in an
elastic medium due to concentrated surface loads.
In working with the modified forms of the theory of
elasticity equations, arbitrary values in the x and z

K. N. DERUCHER ef ah

(b)

(cl

(d)

(el

Fig. 8. Common types of surcharge loads. (a) Uniform load. (b) Continuous sloping backfill. (c) Broken slope
backfill. (d) Point or line load. (e) Strip loading.

direction must be established. The value of x is taken

from the back of the wall to the point of application of
the load; it is equal to a coefficient times the height of the
wall, mH. The value I, in the vertical direction, is the
point where the failure line passes through the wall, it is
equal to a coefficient times the height of the wall, mH.
The value of lateral pressure due to a point load as
shown in Fig. 9 may be given by the following formulas:
1.77V m2n2
ph=- H (m2 + n2j3;

4. Line load perpendicular to a wall of finite length.

5. Finite area load.
6. Load spread infinitely parallel to the wall.
7. Strip load of infinite length perpendicular to the
wall.
8. Strip load of finite length perpendicular to the wall.
For case one, the lateral pressure due to the line load
parallel to a wall of infinite length as shown in Fig. 10 is
given by

for a value of m > 0.4 (16)

P =A%
m2n2 2; form>O.4
h rH(m2tn2)

(18)

and
0.28V
ph=-

n2
to.,6

+ n3j;

p =Q
0.203,
for m s 0.4.
h p (0.16t n2)*;

for a value of m S 0.4. (17)

There are eight typical cases for lateral earth pressure

due to line loads:
1. Line load parallel to a wall of infinite length.
2. Line load parallel to a wall of finite length.
3. Line load perpendicular to a wall of infinite length.

,_

x=mH

For case two, the lateral pressure due to a line load

parallel to a wall of finite length as shown in Fig. 11 is
given by
ph =~(R2+R2yYZ)I.S+(R2::2)0.5

]
v, kips

L!
z= nH

(19)

x-m/,

l--RV

(a)

(b)

Fii. 9. (a) Lateral pressure distribution. (b) Lateral pressure at points along the wall on each side of a
perpendicular from the point load V to the wall.

(20)

Methods and practice in cantilever retaining wall design

x=mH

_ qIbs/ft

Fig. 12. Line load perpendicular to a wall of finite length.

Fig. 10. Lateral pressure due to a line load parallel to a wall of

infinite length.

Fig. 13. Line load perpendicular to a wall of finite length.

In case five, the lateral pressure due to an area load of

finite dimension as shown in Fig. 14 is given by
Pk =z arc tan g

- (x2~x+2y& - arc tan 2

+ (x,2

Fig. 11. Lateral pressure distribution due to a line load parallel to

a wall of finite length.

:I&x,

where
Rx, = d/(x,+ y, + 2)
and

where

Rx1= i/(xz2 t yzzt z).

R = d/(x2 + 2).
For case three, the lateral pressure due to a line load
perpendicular to a wall of infinite length as shown in Fig.
12 is given by
P,, = -$

(I- sit?) (arc tan x,/R)

(21)

where
R = d(y+ 2).
In case four, the lateral pressure due to a line load
perpendicular to a wall of finite length as shown in Fig.
13 is given by
Ph = -$

sin3 (arc tan/R) - sin (arc &l/R).

(22)

CM Vol. 8. No. 5-C

Fig. 14. Finite area load.

(23)

K. N. DERUCHER
et al.

Fig. 15. Strip load of infinite length parallel to the wall.

In case six, the lateral pressure due to a load spread

infinitely parallel to the wall as shown in Fig. 15 is given
by

In the ice pressure case, lateral pressure may develop

due to the freezing of pore water in the backflll material.
If ice lenses are formed as shown in Fig. 16, it may cause
wall movement; otherwise, it would be a minor problem
in an un~tu~ted soil mass. the problem can be eliminated by using granular (free draining) soil as the
backfill material and providing drainage outlets to carry
(24) the water away.

ph =%rctan
?I

In case seven, a strip load of infinite length perpendicular to the wall, the lateral pressure can be given
by

P,=$

i
.
I-T

(25)

where

Wall
movement I

1
I

R = t/(x2 + z2)*
in the final case, a strip load of finite length perpendicular to the wall, the lateral pressure can be evaluated by

R = \/(x2 + .z2)= arc tan (x/R).

As previously stated, surcharge loads, regardless of
type, increase the lateral earth pressure and this additional pressure as determined by the above equations
should be added to the earth pressure as obtained
without surcharge loads to arrive at the final lateral
pressure.

I
I

I
I
I

It

i_------_J

Fig. 16. Effects of ice formation on the wall.

In case of earthquakes, the lateral pressure on the wall
may increase due to vibrations within the earth. This
increase in lateral pressure may be taken as 10% of the
design pressure for walls of nominal height. A longer
duration of the vibrations such as reciprocating
machinery, may increase the lateral pressure much more
than 10% to about 2%3t%.
If an expansive soil is placed behind the retaining wall
and if it becomes wet, pressure will develop due to the
swelling of the soil. The amount of increase pressure due
to swelling is difficult to evaluate and it is usually
recommended that such soils not be used.
RElTAINlNG WALL DESiGPd

~~AU~~~~~

Over and above the factors causing lateral pressure on

the retaining wall as discussed up to down; there are
some other factors which may cause lateral pressure.
They are as follows
1. Ice pressure
2. Pressure from earthquake
3. Swelling pressure.

_-__-W,

r---

(26)
where

design of a Cantilever Reinforced Concrete Wall

consists of the design of the stem and the foundation.
The design of the stem and the foundation (if using a
spread footing) is usually based on working stress design.
The design procedure of a Cantilever Retaining Wall
using Fig. 17 is as foflows
1. Choose a height and shape of wall to meet the
The

Methods

and practicein cantilever retaining wall design

X0

pPp,

E&-l

F
P

V4

(b)

(a)

(c)

Fig. 17. (a) General diagram of cantilever retaining wall. (b) Forces arching on stem. (c) Forces arching on toe. (d)
Forces arching on heel.

general requirements of foundation, property lines and

any other local conditions that influence the problem.
The width of the footing should be approximately onehalf the height of the wall. The thickness of parts should
be substantial and the bottom of the footing should be
below frost depth.
2. For stability and resistance to sliding, Z W equals
the weight of the concrete and of the earth above the
bottom of the footing applied at the center of gravity x,.
Vertical loads from surcharge are usually ignored for
more safety.
3. Compute the horizontal earth pressure as discussed
previously using Rankine or Coulomb theory. The vertical
component is neglected for additional safety.
4. Compute surcharge pressure, if there is any, using
methods previously discussed depending on the type of
loading.
5. Even though it is assumed that backfill material is a
cohesionless dry soil, water may still collect behind walls
if it is not removed by drains or weepers or if the wall
rests upon rock. Therefore, it is recommended to take
into consideration the horizontal water pressure.
6. The total horizontal force SH is then applied at y,.
7. For testing the stability against overturning, take
moments about the toe. A factor of safety of 1.5 to 2.0 is
usually used:

8. For testing the stability against sliding, the

allowable frictional resistance and the active horizontal
pressure are compared
SF,=f
. .

where f = coefficient of sliding friction between base and

soil. If this is not satisfied, the passive earth pressure,
from soil in front of wall, can be used to resist sliding.

However, this is not recommended because someone

may excavate in front of the wall. Resistance against
sliding can also be provided by the use of a key under
the stem.
9. The eccentricity of the resultant R can now be.
found (e). It is often recommended that the resultant
should fall within the middle third when the wall is
supported on soil and within the middle half if it is
supported on rock.
10. The soil pressure at the toe and heel are then
computed and the pressure diagram is drawn.
Il. To design the stem, the maximum bending and
shear are computed in the wall at the interface with the
footing, and the wall is designed as a cantilever beam,
neglecting the own weight of the stem.
12. The toe is designed lo resist the moment and shear
computed at the vertical surface passing through the
point of intersection with the stem. The thickness and
reinforcement are designed.
13. The heel is designed in similar manner by computing maximum moment and shear at the intersection with
the stem.
14. If the wall is to be built on piles, a pile pattern is
assumed. This will consist of plumb and batter piles to
resist vertical and horizontal forces. The piles are designed as a group by computing the center of gravity and
moment of inertia of all piles and computing the overturning moment and eccentricity of load at the plane of
the tops of the piles. by drawing a force diagram, the
load on each pile can be computed and compared with
the allowable load.
cm
PROGRAM
coMPAmsoNs
Many computer programs are now in use for the
design of cantilever reinforced concrete retaining walls.
The objective of this comparison is to show different
capabilities of the programs, the theories on which the
design is based and the specifications used for the design.
In general, out of twelve programs, eleven programs
are based on working stress design criteria. One program

K. N. DERUCHERet al.

580

is based on the ultimate strength criteria. The four programs may either be used for the design of bridge
abutment or retaining wall, as the only difference between a retaining wall and abutment is that an abutment
is subjected to reactions from the stringers and for this
reason the programs must have capabilities of considering horiiontal and vertical forces on top of the stem.
Six programs may be used either for design or
analysis.
Four programs are used only for design purpose and
two are used only for analysis purpose.
All programs were based on the AASHTO
specifications. Five programs were also based on the A01
specifications and two programs had the option to use
area specifications.
SUMMARY

The use of the computer in retaining wall design gives

the designer an opportunity to compare different numberal solutions for a specific problem, from which he can
select the most efficient one, with the least amount of
time and expense.
Therefore, a program having capabilities which satisfy
the needs of the user is necessary. From the comparisons
of the available programs, four programs seemed to
satisfy this requirement. They are: B3062, 02-82-001,
BSOOl/BESTIGS and BARWD. A complete program
should have option of design on analysis, option of
spread footing on piles foundation, choice of the theory
to be used in computing the lateral earth pressure and
capability to design the wall under different types of
surcharge loadings as well as to take into account ice
pressure, earthquakes and swelling.
RRFERENCES

I.

G. B. Sowers and G. F. Sowers, Introduclory Soil Mechanics

and Foundations. Macmillan,New York (1970).

2. K. Teryaghi and R. Peck, Soil Mecha&

in Engineering

Practice. Wiley, New York (1968).

3. J. E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill,
New York (1974).
4. J. E. Bowles, Analytical and Computer Methods in Foundation Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York (1974).
5. H. 0. Golder, Coulomb and earth pressure theorv. Geolechnique I, 66-71 (Jan. 1948).
_
6. T. II. Allvn. Soil Mechanics. Prentice Hall. Boston. Massachusetts (i976).
7. hi. Sprangler, Soil Engineering. International Book, Scranton,
Pennsylvania (1%9).
8. G. Cook, Rankine and theory of earth pressure. Geotechnique 2 (Jan. 1950).
9. M. G. Sprangler and J. Mickle, Lateral pressures on retaining
walls due to backtill surface loads. Highway Research Board
Bulletin 141, 1-18 (1956).

10. E. Gerber, Unterschungen uber die Druckverteihmg im ortlich beiasteten Sand. Technische Hochschule, Zurich, Switzerland.
PROGRAMARSIRACYS

Cantilever Retaining Wall Analysis/Design (B3062)

Program No.: B3062
Title: Cantilever Retaining Wall Analysis/Design
Author: R. I. Speight, H.-Wang
Firm Name: Greiner Enaineerina Sciences. Inc.
Date: January, 1975 Machine: Unknown
Language: Unknown
Scope: This program designs or analyses a cantilever retaining
wall founded on either a spread footing or piles; The program has
the capability to compute active earth coefficients, compute

effects due to uniform, point or line surcharge loads, adjust

footing dimensions for design, design a key under spread footings if required for sliding, design stem and footing reinforcements and will consider specification (A.C.I., A.A.S.H.T.O., and
A.R.E.A.) provisions for design/analysis of concrete.
Input: Specifications, data for stem, footings, slope, soil, surcharge and piles if needed.
Output: Area of tension and compression steel, bar perimeter,
design forces, concrete and reinforcement stresses for both stem
and footing, stability analysis against sliding, overturning, and
soil pressure, pile group analysis, volume of concrete.
Limitations: Slooe of backfill restricted to b - 3.5 if K.. and
K,, are to be computed by the program. Mgximum areas of
compressive reinforcement are checked at the rear face break (if
any) and the base of the stem only, and also for the toe and the
heel of the footing. Maximum number of piles is twenty (20) for
the width of wall. Maximum number of surcharge loads is nine
(9).
Retaining Wall Design Series (02.82.001)
Program No.: 02.82.001
Title: Retaining Wall Design Series
Author: M. C. Connor
Firm Name: Baker-Wibberly & Associates, Inc.
Date: Rev. May 1%7
Machine: IBM 1130
Language: Fortran
Scope: This series of programs and subprograms will analyze
or design reinforced concrete retaining walls with any stem and
backfill configuration that can be described by a series of coordinates or by simple dimensions. Various options are provided
for lateral pressure method and for footing design, including pile
analysis.
Input: Consists of concrete, earth and load parameters, wall
and footing dimensions and limitations and backfill configuration.
Output: Consists of stem design at designated intervals including thickness and steel area required, footing design and pile
grouping analysis if required. With analysis only option, unsatisfied criteria are flagged out.
Abutment and Retaining Wall Design Program (BSOOO/BESTIES)
Program No.: BSOOO/BESTIES
Title: Abutment and Retaining Wall Design Program
Author: Best Study Group _
Firm Name: State of New York. Deoartment
of Transoortation
.
Date: January 1970
Machine: B5500
Language: FORTRAN IV
Scope: The program designs the component parts of abutments
or retaining walls in accordance with A.A.S.H.T.O. standard
specifications.
Input: Consists of soil data, surcharge height, footing dimensions if desired, pile load, type and type of batter and stem
height.
Output: Consists of the front and back face stem steel areas;
the pile foundation, if necessary, including pile design
specifications, batter of piles, exact locatibn of piles in both
directions, and the actual pile loads; the footing dimensions,
including footing width, toe and heel projections, toe and heel
thicknesses and footing steel reinforcement.
Retaining Wall on soil (REWAL)
Code Name: REWAL
Title: Retaining Wall on Soil
Authors and Dates: P. J. McElhinnev. December 1%8. Revised
June 197&M. M. Suarez, R. L. Fulle;,Revised July 1973
Machine: IBM 1130
Language: FORTRAN IV for Disk Monitor Version 2,
Modification Level 7
Scope: This program conducts a soil bearing retaining wall
analysis, provides a stability check, determines the footing pressure at the toe and heel and checks on slidii. At the direction of
the user, the critical reinforcement in the stem and footing is then
designed.

Methods and practice in cantifever retaining waft design

581

Input: Allowable concrete and steel stresses--loading

criteria-stem and footing dimensions.
Output: Location of resultant pressure and toe and heel pressures-factor of safety against ove~~i~~~fficient
of friction required for a safety factor of i against s~~in~re~forcing
required per linear foot of wail fength at mid-height of stem, base
of stem and top and bottom of footing-volume of concrete per
linear foot.
Limitations: Rectangular footing-rectangular or trapezoidal
stem-footing is not adjusted automatically-no pole foundations.

Title: Retaining Wall Analysis/Design Program

Author: Unknown
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation
Machine: Unknown
Language: Unknown
Date: Incomplete
Scope: wilt design wall and footing dimensions and reinforcings.
Output: Final wall dimensions, maximum shear and moments,
reinforcement required, concrete and steel stresses at critical
design points, pile pattern and mass stability analysis.

Retaining Wall Design (~WALLS}

Code Name: RRWALLS
Title: Retaining Walls
Author: Unknown
Source: State of Nebraska-Nebraska Department of Roads
Date: June 1970
Machine: IBM-37~/t45
Language: PL/I
Scope: This program designs a cantilever retaining wall on soit,
according to AASHTO specifications. It designs the stem reinforcement and the toe and heel thicknesses and reinforcement,
checks for overturning and provides a key.
Input: Consists of stem dimensions, equivalent fluid pressure
of soil, surcharge, externally applied horizontal and vertical loads
and allowable soil pressure.
Output: Soil pressure, footing ~mensions and reinforcement
and wall thickness at the bottom and the reinforcing at the tenth
points, also the size of key and area of concrete.
Limitations: No check against slidings is made but a key is
always designed, no providions for foundations on piles.

Retaining Walt on Piles Program (PILWL)

Code Name: PILWL
Title: Retaining Wall on Piles
Authors and Dates: P. J. McElhinney, January 1969,Revised
June 1970-M. hf. Suarez, R. L. Fuller, Revised July 1973
Machine: IBM 1130
Language: FORTRAN IV for Disc Monitor Version 2,
Mutation
Level 3
Scope: This program conducts analysis of a pife supported
retaining wall, determines the load on each pile in a given layout
and designs the reinforcement in the base and stem. An optimum
lateral spacing of the piles and a stability check of the structure
are also provided.
Input: Allowable concrete and steel stresses-loading
criteria-stem and feting dimension~pile criteria-pile layout.
Output: Record on input-pile loads-reinforcing designoptimum pile spacing pattern-volume of concrete per linear foot
Limitations: No spread footing on soil is designed by this
program.

Retaining Wall Design and Analysis

Code Name: Unknown
Title: Retaining Wall Design and Analysis
Author: Unknown
Source: State of Oklahoma--Department of Transportation
Date: Unknown
Machine: IBM Model 370/155
Language: FORTRAN
Scope: Thii program has capability to design and analyze
cantilever retaining wall structure with flat or sloping backfill and
option of surcharge load. Cohesionless soil and 32 angle of
internal friction will be assumed for base soil to determine
bearing capacity unless both informations are specified by the
user. Hansen Equation is used in this program to compute
bearing capacity of the base soil.
Input: Free input format in conversational mode is used in this
program which will require at least one space to separate the
consecutive answers.
Output: The program reports dimensions and reinforcing steel
required at each part, and key result from every job step, so it
will enable the user to visualize the structure for better result.
Limitations: No adjustment to footing dimensions.
Bridge Abutment and Retaining Wall Design (BARWD)
Code Name: BARWD
Title: Bridge Abutment and Retaining Wall Design
Source: &ivil Design System Inc.
Date: Unknown
Machine: Unknown
Language: Unknown
Scope: This program designs and analyzes cantilever retaining
walls and bridge abutments resting on soil, rocks or piles using
the eq~vaient fluid pressure method in evaluating the backllll
earth pressures. AASHTO specifications concerning stability and
concrete design reqnirements are observed.
Input: Stem height, backfill and surcharge data.
Output: Stem and footing or piles design, soil pressure, check
for sliding and overturning.
Retaining Wall An~ysis/~sign
Program No.: Unknown

Program

Retaining Wall Design Program (RETWL)

Pronram No.: 02-82-005
Title: Retaining Walt Design Program
Author. Firm: T. S. Rehncv, Fenton G. Keyes Associates
Date: August 1972,Revised December 1973
Scope: The program designs cantilever retaining walls with
spread footing supported on soil or rock. Walfs may be T-shaped
or L-shaped.
Input: Wall geometry, soil and concrete design data
Output: Safety factors for sliding and overlong,
footing
design, stem design and concrete quantities Source Language:
FORTRAN IV
Machine Configuration: 8K IBM 1130computing system: IBM
1142Card Read/Punch; IBM 1132Printer and disk storage
Limitations: Front face of wall must be vertical-no piles

Retaining Walt Design (Program No. 24)

Title: Retaining Wall Design
Program No.: 24
Author, Firm: The Wilson T. Ballard Co.
Date: March 1972
Machine: Unknown
Language: Unknown
Scope: This program designs a cantilever wall resting on soil or
rock using the equivalent lateral fluid pressure for computing soil
pressures. Also a wind stability analysis is made by the program
and the wind pressure is resisted by the stem and the footing
without backfill.
Input: Basic retaining wall section, design criteria, allowable
stresses
Output: Final section including reinforcing steel; allowable soil
pressure, resultant focation and safety factors against sliding and
overturning; wind stability analysis
Limitations: The heel cannot be decremented to fess than 4 in.;
toe and heel must be free to vary
Retaining Wail Design
Name: None
Title: J. E. Bowles Rehung Wall Design

582

K. N. DERUCHER
er al.

Author: J. E. Bowles
Machine:
Language: FORTRAN IV
Scope: This program designs cantilever retaining wall by using
ultimate strength method using AC1and AASHTO specifications.
It computes shear, moments and steel requirements. Next it

computes overturn using stability and sliding SF. Then it computes soil pressure at base.
Input: Load factor, allowable concrete and steel stresses. Soil
properties and wall height.
Output: Final wall dimensions and reinforcement required,
wall stabilities, and ultimate soil pressures.