Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering
Introduction
The retaining walls are generally used to retain, either
earth or water in a vertical position at locations where an
abrupt change in ground level either exists or arises
because of transportation facilities, underground structures, and storage tanks. In general, the failure of the
retaining walls occurs because of sliding, overturning, and
loss of bearing capacity. There are some important factors
responsible for the failure of retaining walls such as
excessive earth pressure, reduced resistance against sliding,
and unbalanced inertial force. As such there is no
methodology to identify the progressive effect of these
factors on the retaining wall. However, the finite element
technique has emerged as an important tool to predict
such problems.
Clough and Duncan (1971) computed the response of
6?0-m high gravity retaining wall placed on 6?0-m deep
sand foundation experimented earlier by Terzaghi (1934).
The analysis was performed using one-dimensional
elements to simulate the interface between the wall and
the backfill. The minimum active and maximum passive
pressures were found to be in good agreement with the
results of the classical earth pressure theory, whereas the
amount of movement required to reach the full active and
full passive conditions was found to be in good agreement
with the results of Terzaghi (1934).
Matsuo et al. (1978) conducted experiments on 10-m
high concrete wall retaining the silty sand and slag. The
earth pressure on the wall was continuously measured up
2014
VOL
NO
167
Senthil et al.
168
2014
VOL
NO
14?4
4?5
4?5
0?9
0?925
0?961?0
0?35
9?5
14?4
4?5
4?5
0?9
0?925
0?961?0
0?35
12?3
10?4
4?4
2?2
1?05
1?05
0?661?0
10?4
2?2
4?4
1?05
1?05
0?661?0
8?2
3?5
1?0
0?95
0?8
0?661?0
7?2
4?0
1?5
0?85
0?75
0?660?8
7?2
1?5
4?0
0?85
0?75
0?660?8
8?2
1?0
3?5
0?95
0?8
0?661?0
12?5
12?5
8?5
8?5
6?5
6?5
5?5
5?5
Less toemore Less heelmore Less toemore Less heelmore Less toemore Less heelmore Full height
Reduced height
heel (C1A)
toe (C1B)
heel (C2A)
toe (C2B)
heel (C3A)
toe (C3B)
counterfort (CR1) counterfort (CR2)
Description
C1
C2
C3
CR
Senthil et al.
q
p(azsin a)
(1)
2014
VOL
NO
169
Senthil et al.
170
2014
VOL
NO
Senthil et al.
2 Reinforcement details of CR1 retaining wall at a wall section and b counterfort section
3 Finite element model of C1A cantilever retaining wall: a XY plane; b XZ plane; c YZ plane; d three-dimensional (3D) model
of retaining wall; e 3D model of reinforcement
2014
VOL
NO
171
Senthil et al.
Application of loads
The active and the passive pressures assigned to the
retaining wall along with the body force are highlighted in
Fig. 8. The numerical values of the active and passive
pressures were computed using simple mathematical
expressions that are function of the height of the wall
(see Table 5). The self-weight of soil and concrete was
assigned as gravitational body force.
The Public Work Research Institute of Ministry of
Construction of Japan (1975) studied the pressure
distribution of cohesive and sandy soils. The distribution
of the earth pressure caused by cohesive soil was found to
be triangular whereas that of the sandy soil and gravel,
almost trapezoid. Thus, the point of application of
resultant force was found to be located at (0?350?5)H,
where H is the height of the wall. However, Clough and
Duncan (1971), Green et al. (2008), and Green and
Ebeling (2003) found that the distribution of lateral earth
pressure acting on the heel and wall sections was
triangular in shape, and the resultant force was acting at
one-third of the height of the wall above the base.
Therefore, in the present study also a triangular pressure
distribution has been considered with its resultant at H/3
from the base.
Material modeling
172
2014
VOL
NO
Senthil et al.
7 Mesh convergence study: Variation of a displacement (at stem top) and b stresses with the element size
Table 2 Finite element results of C1A cantilever wall using mesh convergence study
Description
Steel
Size of element/m
No. of elements
(B31)
Concrete Size of element/m
No. of elements
(C3D8R)
Total number of
elements in the wall
Maximum displacement
at stem top/mm
Maximum shear
stresses/N mm22
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
1
6206
0?6
9567
0?4
13 952
0?35
16 203
0?25
22 194
0?15
37 272
16161
225
0?660?660?6
550
0?460?460?4
2584
0?3560?3560?35
3268
0?2560?2560?25
9360
0?1560?1560?15
35 100
6431
10 117
16 536
19 471
31 554
72 372
54?74
54?68
53?48
53?47
53?40
53?45
0?202
0?247
0?499
0?637
0?704
0?728
Table 3 Finite element results of CR1 wall using mesh convergence study
Description
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Steel
1
14 775
16161
1104
15 879
38?14
0?980
0?8
14 775
0?860?860?8
1566
16 341
38?24
1?066
0?65
14 775
0?6560?6560?65
2646
17 421
38?29
1?20
0?52
28 088
0?6260?6260?62
2840
30 928
38?30
1?23
0?42
34 299
0?4860?4860?48
6504
40 803
38?31
1?24
Size of element/m
No. of elements (B31)
Concrete
Size of element/m
No. of elements (C3D8R)
Total number of elements in the wall
Maximum displacement at stem top/mm
Maximum shear stress/N mm22
Table 4 Finite element results of CR2 wall using mesh convergence study
Description
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Steel
1
9345
16161
970
10 315
76?25
1?760
0?6
15 117
0?660?660?6
3732
18 849
69?08
1?700
0?52
17 319
0?5260?5260?52
4908
22 227
69?06
2?038
0?46
19 583
0?4660?4660?46
6360
25 943
69?08
2?157
Size of element/m
No. of elements (B31)
Concrete
Size of element/m
No. of elements (C3D8R)
Total number of elements in the wall
Maximum displacement at stem top/mm
Maximum shear stress/N mm22
2014
VOL
NO
173
Senthil et al.
8 Typical details of the body forces and horizontal component of earth pressure
Table 5 Analytical expressions for active and passive pressure distribution on wall
Active pressure
Passive pressure
Description
Wall
Shear key
Wall
Shear key
C1
26116yz38 837
26116y24893
26116yz44 341
26116y25810
26116yz55 349
26116y26422
26116yz82 413
26116y25657
C2
C3
CR
174
S. no.
Description
Density/kg m23
Poissons ratio
1
2
3
Concrete
Steel reinforcement
Soil
2400
7850
1835
0?2461011
2?061011
0?306108
0?17
0?30
0?34
2014
VOL
NO
Senthil et al.
10 Horizontal displacement contour of cantilever retaining wall (meter): a C1A wall: less toemore heel; b C2A wall: less
toemore heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f C3B
wall: less heelmore toe
Table 7 Relative displacement of cantilever retaining wall
Horizontal displacement/mm
Vertical displacement/mm
Stem
Top
Base
Toe
Heel
C1A
C2A
C3A
C1B
C2B
C3B
6?17
10?58
12?70
1?51
3?87
9?06
1?44
3?05
4?52
1?07
1?75
4?15
52?84
57?52
58?56
52?21
53?03
55 93
53?39
58?96
61?20
43?51
48?25
52 96
50?08
53?19
50?63
52?21
53?98
55?04
2014
VOL
NO
175
Senthil et al.
12 Vertical displacement contour of cantilever retaining wall (meter): a C1A wall: less toemore heel; b C2A wall: less toe
more heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f C3B wall:
less heelmore toe
13 Normal stresses in horizontal direction of the cantilever retaining wall (N m22) (newton per meter square): a C1A wall:
less toemore heel; b C2A wall: less toemore heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e
C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f C3B wall: less heelmore toe
176
2014
VOL
NO
Senthil et al.
14 Normal stress in vertical direction of the cantilever retaining wall (N m22): a C1A wall: less toemore heel; b C2A wall:
less toemore heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f
C3B wall: less heelmore toe
maximum at the heel face of stem, whereas the compressive stresses at the toe face of stem. The stresses were
predicted higher in B-configuration walls, and these were
also found to be influenced by the free height as well as
thickness of the stem.
The axial stresses developed in the reinforcement of the
cantilever walls are shown in Fig. 15. The tensile stresses
were found to be maximum at the joint of toe and shear key
as well as joint of stem and heel. The compressive stresses
on the other hand were found to be maximum at the joint of
15 Stresses in the reinforcement of cantilever retaining wall (N m22): a C1A wall: less toemore heel; b C2A wall: less toe
more heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f C3B wall:
less heelmore toe
2014
VOL
NO
177
Senthil et al.
16 Horizontal and vertical displacement of counterfort retaining wall (meter): a CR1 wall: horizontal displacement; b CR2
wall: horizontal displacement; c CR1 wall: vertical displacement; d CR2 wall: vertical displacement
Vertical displacement/mm
Stem
178
Top
Base
Toe
Heel
CR1
CR2
9?42
15?96
2?71
7?45
34?65
67?44
28?02
55?88
31?34
62?63
2014
VOL
NO
Senthil et al.
17 Normal stresses in horizontal direction of the counterfort retaining wall (N m22): a CR1 counterfort wall; b CR2 counterfort wall
18 Normal stresses in vertical direction of the counterfort retaining wall (N m22): a CR1 counterfort wall; b CR2 counterfort
wall
2014
VOL
NO
179
Senthil et al.
19 Stresses on reinforcement of counterfort retaining wall (N m22): a CR1 counterfort wall; b CR2 counterfort wall
Conclusion
The present numerical study describes the behavior of the
cantilever and counterfort walls subjected to lateral earth
pressure. The influence of the stem height, base slab width,
and height of the counterfort was studied. The results thus
obtained led to the following conclusions.
The displacements and stresses in the cantilever wall
were found to increase with an increase in its height. The
maximum horizontal displacement was found to be higher
in A-configuration (less toemore heel), whereas the
maximum stresses in B-configuration (less heelmore
toe) walls. The maximum compression (in concrete as
well as reinforcement) has been found to develop near the
joint of stem and toe, whereas maximum tension, near the
joints of stem and heel as well as shear key and toe.
The maximum horizontal displacement in CR2 (reduced
height counterfort) wall was found to be 70 and 174%
higher at the top and bottom of the stem, respectively than
that of the CR1 wall because of 2?8 m (22?7%) reduction
in the height of counterfort. The vertical displacement
Volume of
concrete/m3
Volume of
steel/m3
Cost of concrete
Cost of steel
C1
C2
C3
CR1
CR2
127
165
231
255
235
1?02
1?34
2?96
2?19
2?30
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD 745
USD 975
USD 2160
USD 1600
USD 1675
10
13
19
21
19
660
850
390
400
725
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
596 900)
775 500)
1 085 700)
1 198 500)
1 104 500)
180
2014
VOL
NO
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
Total cost
41 630)
54 690)
120 820)
89 390)
93 880)
USD
USD
USD
USD
USD
11
14
21
23
21
405
825
550
000
400
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
638 530)
830 190)
1 206 520)
1 287 890)
1 198 380)
Senthil et al.
References
under the stem as well as the free edge of toe and heel was
found to be almost 100% higher.
The maximum compression in concrete as well as reinforcement of the counterfort walls was found to be at the
junction of toe and stem, whereas maximum tension, at
the junction of toe and shear key. However, the magnitude
of the stresses was found to be higher in CR2 wall.
In all the retaining walls studied herein, the predicted
intensity of stresses in concrete was significantly lesser as
compared to that in the steel, leading to the conclusion
that the section is under reinforced.
The C3 wall was found to be 45 and 90% costlier than C2
and C1 walls, respectively, and 0?7% costlier than the reduced
height counterfort wall, CR2. It should be noticed that the
height of CR2 is 4 m higher than C3 wall. On the other hand,
CR1 wall was found to be 7% costlier than CR2.
ACI Committee 318. 1999. Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318M-11) and commentary, Detroit, American Concrete Institute.
Bhatia, S. K. and Bakeer, R. M. 1989. Use of the finite element method in
modeling a static earth pressure problem, Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Geomech., 13, 207213.
Chugh, A. K. 2005. A counterfort versus a cantilever retaining wall a
seismic equivalence, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Geomech., 29, 897917.
Clough, G. W. and Duncan, J. M. 1971. Finite element analyses of
retaining wall behavior, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97, 16571673.
Green, R. A. and Ebeling, R. M. 2003. Modeling the dynamic response of
cantilever earth-retaining walls using FLAC. Numerical modeling in
geomechanics, Proc. 3rd International FLAC Symposium, Canada,
Balkema, Lisse, 333341.
Green, R. A., Olgun, C. G. and Cameron, W. I. 2008. Response and
modeling of cantilever retaining walls subjected to seismic motions,
Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng., 23, 309322.
Liu, N.-H., Chen, J.-W. and Liou, J.-Y. 2006. The deformed profile of the
horizontal backfill in active state, Int. Symp. Geohazards
Mitigation, Tainan, Taiwan, 174179.
Matsuo, M., Kenmochi, S. and Yagi, H. 1978. Experimental study on
earth pressure of retaining wall by field test, Jpn. Soc. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng., 18, (3), 2741.
Nisha, S., Shivashankar, R. and Ravi Shankar, A. U. 2011. Role of shear
keys in cantilever retaining wall, Proc. Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Kochi, Indian Geotechnical Society, 627630.
Public Work Research Institute of Ministry of Construction of Japan. 1975.
Large scale model tests of a retaining wall, Research Data, No. 994.
Salman, F. A., Fattah, M. Y., Shirazi, S. M. and Mahrez, A. 2011.
Comparative study on earth pressure distribution behind retaining
wall subjected to line loads, Sci. Res. Essays, 6, (11), 22512267.
Terzaghi, K. 1934. Large retaining wall tests, Eng. News Rec., 112, 136140.
Yoo, C. and Kim, C. 2008. Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic
reinforced segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load: fullscale load test and 3D finite element analysis, Geotext.
Geomembranes, 26, 460472.
2014
VOL
NO
181