Retaining Walls

Retaining walls are relatively rigid walls

used for supporting the soil mass laterally
so that the soil can be retained at different
levels on the two sides. Retaining walls are
structures designed to restrain soil to a
slope that it would not naturally keep to
(typically a steep, near-vertical or vertical
slope). They are used to bound soils
between two different elevations often in
areas of terrain possessing undesirable
slopes or in areas where the landscape
needs to be shaped severely and engineered
for more specific purposes like hillside farming or roadway overpasses. The pressure
acting on the wall try to move the wall away from their position. The wall should be so
designed as to keep them stable in their position.

A retaining wall is a structure designed and constructed to resist the lateral pressure of
soil, when there is a desired change in ground elevation that exceeds the angle of repose
of the soil.

A basement wall is thus one kind of retaining wall. But the term usually refers to a
cantilever retaining wall, which is a freestanding structure without lateral support at its
top. These are cantilevered from a footing and rise above the grade on one side to retain
a higher level grade on the opposite side. The walls must resist the lateral pressures
generated by loose soils or, in some cases, water pressures.

Every retaining wall supports a "wedge" of soil. The wedge is defined as the soil which
extends beyond the failure plane of the soil type present at the wall site, and can be
calculated once the soil friction angle is known. As the setback of the wall increases, the
size of the sliding wedge is reduced. This reduction lowers the pressure on the retaining
wall.

The most important consideration in proper design and installation of retaining walls is
to recognize and counteract the tendency of the retained material to move downslope
due to gravity. This creates lateral earth pressure behind the wall which depends on the
angle of internal friction (phi) and the cohesive strength (c) of the retained material, as
well as the direction and magnitude of movement the retaining structure undergoes.

Lateral earth pressures are zero at the top of the wall and – in homogenous ground –
increase proportionally to a maximum value at the lowest depth. Earth pressures will
push the wall forward or overturn it if not properly addressed. Also, any groundwater
behind the wall that is not dissipated by a drainage system causes hydrostatic pressure
on the wall. The total pressure or thrust may be assumed to act at one-third from the
lowest depth for lengthwise stretches of uniform height.

Unless the wall is designed to retain water, It is important to have proper drainage
behind the wall in order to limit the pressure to the wall's design value. Drainage
materials will reduce or eliminate the hydrostatic pressure and improve the stability of
the material behind the wall. Drystone retaining walls are normally self-draining.

As an example, the International Building Code requires retaining walls to be designed

to ensure stability against overturning, sliding, excessive foundation pressure and water
uplift; and that they be designed for a safety factor of 1.5 against lateral sliding and
overturning.

Some of the important and most common uses of retaining walls are shown below-
 Types of retaining wall

There are many types of structures used to retain soil and other materials. Listed below
are the types of earth retaining structures generally used today.
1. Cantilevered retaining walls

These walls which retain earth by a wall cantilevering up from a footing are the most
common type of retaining walls in use today. These walls are classified as “yielding” as
they are free to rotate (about the foundation) because of the lack of any lateral restraint.
Cantilevered retaining walls are generally made of masonry or concrete, or both, but can
also take other forms as will be described.

i) Masonry or concrete walls

The stem of a masonry wall is usually constructed of either 8” or 12” deep concrete
masonry block units. The cells are partially or solid grouted, and are vertically
reinforced. An eight-inch block is generally adequate to retain up to about six feet, and
a twelve-inch block up to ten to twelve feet.

The stems of a concrete wall must be formed, and can be tapered for economy, usually
with the taper on the inside (earth side) to present a vertical exposed face.
Hybrid walls, with both concrete and masonry, can also be constructed using formed
concrete at the base, where higher strength is required, then changing to masonry
higher up the wall.

A variation for masonry cantilever walls uses spaced vertical pilasters (usually of square
masonry units) with in-filled walls of lesser thickness, usually 6" masonry. The pilasters
cantilever up from the footing and are usually spaced from four to eight feet on center.
These walls are usually used where lower walls are needed – under about six feet high.

The general conditions for the stability of the structure are that there should be no
tension across the wall cross section (because, non-reinforced masonry is weak in
tension), the maximum compressive stress should be within the limit of safe stress for
the material, the shear force should not be greater than the natural friction between the
masonry, and the restoring moment should be greater than the overturning moment.

ii) Counterfort retaining

walls

Counterfort cantilevered retaining

walls incorporate wing walls
projecting upward from the heel of
the footing into the stem. The
thickness of the stem between
counterforts is thinner (than for
cantilevered walls) and spans horizontally, as a beam, between the counterfort (wing)
walls. The counterforts act as cantilevered elements and are structurally efficient
because the counterforts are tapered down to a wider (deeper) base at the heel where
moments are higher. The high cost of forming the counterforts and the infill stem walls
make such walls usually not practical for walls less than about 16 feet high.

iii) Buttress retaining walls

These are similar to counterfort walls, but the wings project from the outside face of the
wall. Such walls are generally used in those cases where property line limitations on the
earth retention side do not allow space for the large heel of a traditional cantilevered
retaining wall. Although the buttresses are structurally more efficient ( and more
economical ) counterforts, the counterfort wall is generally preferred to the buttresses
wall as it provides free usable space ( and better aesthetics) in front of the wall. In this
wall, the projection of the heel is too small. As a result, the backfill contributes very
little stability to the wall and therefore, buttressed retaining walls are rarely used.

2. Gravity retaining walls

This type of wall depends upon the dead load mass of the wall for stability rather than
cantilevering from a foundation.

i) Stacked and mortar-bonded stone, rubble, or rock walls

These are usually gravity walls relegated to landscaping features with retaining less
than about four feet high. Engineering for such walls is limited, or none at all, and
rules-of-thumb prevail (such as a retained height not more than two or three times the
base width). Higher walls need engineering to evaluate overturning, sliding, soil bearing
and to verify that flexural tension does not exist within the wall (or only as allowed by
code for material used) because these walls are generally unreinforced.

ii) Gabion or crib walls

A gabion wall is a type of gravity wall whereby stones or rubble are placed within wire
fabric baskets. Crib walls are a variation of the gabion method whereby mostly steel
bins are filled with stone or rubble. Another variation is to stack a grillage of timbers
and fill the interior with earth or rubble. Precast concrete crib walls are also widely
used.

iii) Wood retaining walls

Wood is commonly used for low height retaining walls. Wood retaining walls usually
consist of laterally spaced wood posts embedded into the soil, preferably into a drilled
hole with the posts encased in lean concrete. Horizontal planks span between the
upward cantilevering posts. Pressure treated wood is used, but even with treatment
deterioration is a disadvantage, and wood walls are generally limited to low walls
because height is limited by size and strength of the posts. Railroad ties are also
commonly used for both posts and lagging.

iv) Tilt-up concrete retaining walls

Tilt-up concrete construction has been successfully used for retaining walls, either
cantilevered or restrained at the top. These site-cast panels are set on concrete pads at
panel ends, with the reinforcing projecting out from the bottom. A continuous concrete
footing is then cast under the wall to complete the construction. Tilt-up walls are
economical for higher walls, but sufficient space is needed to cast the panels.

v) Segmental retaining walls (SRWs)

Many manufacturers offer various systems of stacked segmental concrete units, steel
bins, or other devices that retain soil by stacking individual components. Most are
patented systems that are typically battered (sloped backward), primarily to reduce
lateral soil pressure, thus requiring a minimal foundation. Reinforced concrete footings,
steel reinforcing, or mortar are not used. Stability of SRW gravity walls depends solely
upon the dead weight resisting moment exceeding the lateral soil pressure overturning
moment. To attain greater heights – up to 40 feet and more – SRW’s also utilize
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE), also called reinforced earth, whereby geosynthetic
fabric layers are placed in successive horizontal layers of the backfill to achieve an
integral soil mass that increases resistance to overturning and horizontal sliding. A
variety of facing block configurations and surface colors and textures are available from
many manufacturers.

vi) Bridge abutments

These support the end of a bridge and retain the earth embankment leading to the
bridge. Bridge abutments usually have angled wing walls of descending height to
accommodate the side slope of the embankment. Abutments are designed as cantilever
walls, with girder bearing support free to slide at one end to accommodate horizontal
expansion movement of the bridge deck. Design requirements for bridge structures are
usually governed by the code requirements of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and state Departments of
Transportation (DOTs) such as California’s CalTrans.

3. Semi Gravity Walls

Semi gravity retaining wall is a special form of the gravity retaining wall. In this type of
retaining wall, a small amount of steel reinforcement is used near the back face in order
to minimize the size of wall section. Therefore, the semi-gravity walls resist external
loads with combined resistance offered by self-weight of structure, vertical soil
component of weight above the footing.This type of retaining wall requires a wider toe
to increase the base width of the wall, which causes a major role to prevent the
development of tension in the retaining wall. In addition, semi-gravity type retaining
wall also needs a fairly heavy section of stem. However, by providing the reinforcement
in toe and stem, a heavy section of the wall can be reduced in size and made relatively
lighter.

4. Sheet pile and bulkhead walls

These are generally waterfront structures such as at docks and wharves, but steel sheet
piling is also used for temporary shoring on construction sites. Steel sheet units
configured for stiffness or concrete panels are driven into the soil to provide lateral
support below the base of the excavation or the dredge line. Sheet pile walls cantilever
upward to retain earth or are restrained at or near the top by either a slab-on-grade or
tiebacks. Sheet pile retaining walls are usually used in soft soil and tight spaces. Sheet
pile walls are made out of steel, vinyl or wood planks which are driven into the ground.
For a quick estimate the material is usually driven 1/3 above ground, 2/3 below ground,
but this may be altered depending on the environment. Taller sheet pile walls will need
a tie-back anchor, or "dead-man" placed in the soil a distance behind the face of the
wall, that is tied to the wall, usually by a cable or a rod. Anchors are then placed behind
the potential failure plane in the soil.

i) Bored piles

Bored pile retaining walls are built by assembling a sequence of bored piles, proceeded
by excavating away the excess soil. Depending on the project, the bored pile retaining
wall may include a series of earth anchors, reinforcing beams, soil improvement
operations and shotcrete reinforcement layer. This construction technique tends to be
employed in scenarios where sheet piling is a valid construction solution, but where the
vibration or noise levels generated by a pile driver are not acceptable.

ii) Restrained (Non-yielding) retaining walls

Also called “basement walls” (for residential and light commercial conditions) or “tie-
back” walls. These walls are distinguished by having lateral support at or near the top,
thereby with less or no dependence for fixity at the foundation. Technically, these walls
are classified as “non yielding” walls because the walls cannot move laterally at the top,
as opposed to cantilevered (yielding) walls. Such walls are usually designed as “pin
connected” both at the top and bottom. The earth pressure creates a positive moment in
the wall, which requires reinforcing on the front of the wall, that is, the side opposite
the retained soil. . In some cases it may be cost effective to fix the base of the wall to the
footing to reduce both the bending in the wall and restraining force required at the top
support.

Footings for these walls are usually designed for vertical loads only. However, it is often
desirable to design the lower portion of a basement wall as a cantilevered retaining wall
with fixity at the footing so that backfill can be safely placed to avoid bracing the wall,
or waiting until the lateral restraint at the top is in place, such as a floor diaphragm.
Note that conventional wood floors framed into the top of a basement wall may not
provide a sufficient stiffness to allow for the restrained case.

5. Anchored (tieback) walls

Anchors or tiebacks are often used for higher walls where a cantilevered wall may not
be economical. Restraint is achieved by drilling holes and grouting inclined steel rods as
anchors into the zone of earth behind the wall beyond the theoretical failure plane in
the backfill. The anchors can be placed at several tiers for higher walls, and can be post-
tensioned rods grouted into drilled holes, or non-tensioned rods grouted into the drilled
holes. The latter are also known as soil nails.

There are some other important alternative retaining techniques which has been
discussed below-

Soil Nailing

Soil nailing is a technique in which soil slopes, excavations or retaining walls are
reinforced by the insertion of relatively slender elements – normally steel reinforcing
bars. The bars are usually installed into a pre-drilled hole and then grouted into place or
drilled and grouted simultaneously. They are usually installed untensioned at a slight
downward inclination. A rigid or flexible facing (often sprayed concrete) or isolated soil
nail heads may be used at the surface.

Soil-strengthened

A number of systems exist that do not consist of just the wall, but reduce the earth
pressure acting directly on the wall. These are usually used in combination with one of
the other wall types, though some may only use it as facing, i.e., for visual purposes.

Gabion Meshes
This type of soil strengthening, often also used without an outside wall, consists of wire
mesh "boxes", which are filled with roughly cut stone or other material. The mesh cages
reduce some internal movement and forces, and also reduce erosive forces. Gabion walls
are free-draining retaining structures and as such are often built in locations where
groundwater is present. However, management and control of the groundwater in and
around all retaining walls is important.

Mechanical Stabilization

Mechanically stabilized earth, also called MSE, is soil constructed with artificial
reinforcing via layered horizontal mats (geosynthetics) fixed at their ends. These mats
provide added internal shear resistance beyond that of simple gravity wall structures.
Other options include steel straps, also layered. This type of soil strengthening usually
needs outer facing walls (S.R.W.'s – Segmental Retaining Walls) to affix the layers to and
vice versa.

The wall face is often of precast concrete units that can tolerate some differential
movement. The reinforced soil mass, along with the facing, then acts as an improved
gravity wall. The reinforced mass must be built large enough to retain the pressures
from the soil behind it. Gravity walls usually must be a minimum of 50 to 60 percent as
deep or thick as the height of the wall, and may have to be larger if there is a slope or
surcharge on the wall.

Cellular confinement systems (geocells) are also used for steep earth stabilization in
gravity and reinforced retaining walls with geogrids. Geocell retaining walls are
structurally stable under self- weight and externally imposed loads, while the flexibility
of the structure offers very high seismic resistance. The outer fascia cells of the wall can
be planted with vegetation to create a green wall.
 Why retaining walls fail?

Generally, the term retaining wall failure do not referred to the total failure or collapse
but rather describes signs and indications by which failure possibilities and wall
instability could be predicted and can be saved if dealt with properly. Retaining wall
sliding, toppling, overturning are types of total collapses that cannot be rehabilitated,
therefore rebuilding the wall the sole solution for these failures.

However, full collapse of retaining wall is unlikely in addition to show signs of problems
that could be observed and rehabilitate the wall before the wall fail entirely. By and
large, most of retaining walls could be rehabilitated and saved after evaluating and
specifying reasons of deficiencies.

Following the common causes for retaining wall failures

● Improper reinforcement placement
 ● Saturated backfill
● Weep holes that do not weep
● Design error
● Calculation errors
● Unanticipated loads
● Mistakes in utilizing software
● Detailing errors
● Foundation issues
● Inadequate specifications and notes
● Shoddy construction
● Retaining wall age

Retaining Wall Failure due to Improper Reinforcement Placement: - Reinforcement

size, depth, and spacing should be checked when wall stem exhibits sign if issues such
as cracking and extreme deflections. Reinforcement size and depth can be determined
either by devices for example magnetic field measuring pachometer. This device is used
to determine reinforcement position and depth up to around 100 mm with acceptable
accuracy or to achieve more accurate measurement.

This device can also locate steel bars and chip out concrete to find out the precise
reinforcement size and depth. Surprisingly, there are situations where reinforcement
was installed in wrong wall side that might be resulted from contractor error or
detailing error. After actual steel reinforcement size, depth, location, and sometimes
testing stem concrete strength by taken core sample, back design computation is
employed to estimate actual design capacity then provide remedial measures.
Retaining Wall Failure due to Saturated Backfill: - It is assumed that backfill is
granular and well drained during the design of retaining wall. Pressure against the wall

is substantially increased if surface water

is permitted to infiltrate into the backfill.
This can be avoided by grading backfill
surface that direct water away from the
wall or by diverting water to disposal
through drainage channels close to the
retaining wall.

Furthermore, poor backfill such as those

containing clay swells and lead to increase pressure considerably. Finally, crushed and
pea gravels are examples of good backfill that provide proper drainage and avoid
creating pool water behind the wall.

Retaining Wall Failure due to Weep

Holes that do not Weep: - Due to lack
of filters, for instance line of gravel or
crushed stone positioned along the base
of the wall weeds turn into clogs and
create problems for water draining.

In masonry retaining wall, weep hole is

made by removing mortar at the side
joints and distance between weeps is
around 80 cm. Weep hole in reinforced
concrete retaining wall is at least 7.5 cm in diameter and spacing should not be more
than 1 m or it can be specified by the designer.
Design Error Resulted from Misinformation: - Retaining wall failures due to design
errors are rather exceptional case provided that an experienced structural designer
carried out wall design. Nonetheless, there are situations where designers are provided
with inadequate or faulty information that can be extremely detrimental.

Retaining Wall Failure due to Calculation Errors: - These errors could be noticed
easily by experienced designer. However, there are possibilities when new designer
carry out the computation and it is extremely significant to double check the design.
This can avoid costly fixing of the wall after construction.

Unanticipated Loads: - It is client to designer information issues so it is essential to

have good communication between different people who involve in the design.
Unexpected loads might be resulted from a surcharge that designer did not about it.
Moreover, it could have been a steeper slope backfill or wind load.

Mistakes in utilizing software: - Designers need to input data precisely and familiar
with capabilities, outputs, and limitation of the program when a software is employed
for designing. Moreover, it is recommended to check and perform quick calculations for
verification especially when there is doubt about outputs.

Retaining Wall Failure due to Detailing errors: - Detailing should be clear,

conforming design calculation and prevent doubtful interpretation. Vague detailing
could lead to inaccurate reading of information for instance there were cases that dowel
extended 0.15 m instead of 0.6 m into the stem.

Foundation Issues: - There are guidelines for foundation design that designer can use
with the help of site investigation report, but there could be cases where this
investigation is not provided.

Lack of site investigation could lead to foundation problems because Codes restricted
soil bearing and designers should use conservative values. Additionally, designers
should be aware about compressible soil, backfill material, water table, and other factors
that might decrease sliding resistance or lead to large differential settlement.

Inadequate specifications and notes: - If discrepancies come across between site

conditions and drawings, or unexpected conditions is encountered the engineer should
be contacted to for the steps to be followed. If there are conflicts between standards and
details, the most restricted must govern.

Finally, all changed instructions must be conformed and affected parties should be
informed. These measures are taken avoid problems that could lead to detrimental
effect on the retaining wall.

Retaining Wall Failure due to Poor Construction: - Poor construction practices might
be due to unscrupulous or inexperienced contractor works that is carried out as per
standards and specified plans.

Inadequate mortar, or grouting, or improper steel reinforcement placements are

compelling examples of poor construction. it is recommended to understood
construction requirement and conditions and review the plan properly.

Retaining Wall Failure due to Age: - When a retaining wall is stood for about fifty
years or more without showing distress indication, therefore there are possibilities that
it may stand for another fifty years or more in the future and will not need to take any
actions.

However, this is not the case in seismic regions, or adding new surcharges, or drainage
change above the wall, so maintenance or seismic evaluation would be suitable to verify
whether the wall can take new loads or withstand another earthquake.
 CASE STUDY OF FAILURE OF RETAINING WALL AT
DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM

A 6.1 m high cantilever basement retaining wall of a proposed multi-storeyed structure

failed during heavy rains caused by tropical storm “Neelam” on November 3, 2012 at
Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. The retaining wall was designed by a structural
engineer analogous to a framed
structure using incorrect backfill
properties and was constructed with
inadequate weep holes. The walls on
all four sides of the boundary
eventually yielded in, with severe
cracking at the corners.

Most of the failures of retaining walls

are due to adoption of incorrect
design parameters,
improper

execution/construction or a combination of both. Although the design of retaining walls

is considered to be the job of structural engineers, geotechnical engineers play a
significant role with regard to selection of appropriate backfill, design of wall for
surcharge loads and suggestion of measures for drainage of the backfill if suitable
materials are unavailable.

This case study looks into the failure of a basement retaining wall of a proposed multi
storey building at Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. The failure occurred on November 3,
2012 after the onset of tropical storm “Neelam”. The building consists of eight storeys
accommodating two basement floors, one stilt floor with five upper floors and is
proposed to be used partly for residential purpose and partly for commercial
establishments. The retaining wall is 6.1 m high and is of cantilever type.

The retaining wall was designed by a structural engineer of a private firm, similar to a
framed structure using incorrect backfill properties. During the site visit, it is observed
that insufficient weep holes are provided in the retaining wall and the walls on all four
sides of the boundary yielded in with severe cracking at the corners.

Subsoil Profile: - Prior to construction of the retaining wall, field investigation in the
form of standard penetration test was conducted in five boreholes by a private soil
exploration agency in Visakhapatnam. Core drilling using double core barrels was
carried out on encountering rocky strata and rock cores were obtained. In general, the
subsoil profile at the site consisted of yellowish brown clayey sand in the top 4.5 m with
Standard Penetration Resistance (N) of 12, overlying a 2.0 m thick layer of soft
disintegrated rock (SDR) with N>100. About 3.0 m of soft rock with Core Recovery (CR)
of 53% lies below the SDR layer. This in turn is underlain by a thick layer of hard rock
having Core Recovery of 62% and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of 33%. The
groundwater table was not encountered within the depth of exploration.
Based on the particle size distribution
and plasticity characteristics, the backfill
is classified as clayey sand (SC) as per
Indian Standard Soil Classification
System. For an in-situ density of 2.16 g/cc
and natural moisture content of 18.2%,
the in-situ dry density of the backfill
works out to be 1.83 g/cc.

Specified Design of Retaining wall: -

The retaining wall was designed
considering the friction angle and unit
weight of the backfill as 370 and 19
kN/m3 respectively. Bending moments in
the retaining wall were calculated using
STAAD software and the area of
reinforcement was fixed accordingly.
Maximum bending moment at the base of
the stem was 40 kNm. The specified design plans used for actual construction are given
below.

The wall was founded in the SDR layer

and was constructed using M 25 grade
concrete and Fe 415 grade steel with a
clear cover of 40 mm and 25 mm to the
reinforcement on earth side and other
faces, respectively. Columns of size
450mm x 300mm were proposed to be
constructed at intervals of 3.2 m for
proper bearing of floor beams onto the retaining wall. The bottom beam of 300 mm
width and 600 mm depth was aimed at providing stiffness to the columns and ensuring
uniform distribution of load onto the base slab. The retaining wall was proposed to be
connected to the main building at the cellar roof slab level and again at the ground floor
level. Unfortunately, it failed soon after construction, before the columns and beams
could be built.
Redesign of the retaining wall: - The
retaining wall is redesigned as a
reinforced cement concrete (R.C.C.)
cantilever wall based on limit state by
incorporating the shear parameters and
density of backfill. Since the retaining
wall is founded in SDR, a corrected
standard penetration resistance of 50 is
considered. Considering possible rise
of ground water table upto ground
surface and adopting a factor of safety
of 3.0 against risk of shear failure, the
safe bearing capacity estimated from
Teng’s equation is 90 t/m2. But for
an allowable settlement of 25 mm,
the safe settlement pressure
obtained from the equation
specified by IS:8009 (Part 1) is 25
t/m2 . As a result, allowable bearing
capacity of 25 t/m2 is adopted for
design of retaining wall. The
computed maximum bending
moment and shear force in the stem,
toe slab and heel slab are 138 kNm,
67 kNm, 65 kNm and 89 kN, 94 kN, 100 kN respectively. The area of reinforcement and
development length are calculated as per IS:456. The clear cover provided to all
reinforcement in the stem and base slab are 40 mm and 50 mm respectively. To satisfy
the development length criterion, the main and distribution reinforcement of the stem
are to be anchored into the base slab over a distance of 840 mm and 340 mm
respectively.
A combination of various factors such as improper interpretation of backfill properties,
absence of proper weep holes and alteration in the behaviour of the wall due to delay in
progress of work, are considered to be responsible for failure of the retaining wall. It is
desirable to design and construct a basement retaining wall as a conventional, distinct
retaining wall rather than grouping it with the design of beams and columns (unlike a
framed structure). Otherwise, suitable temporary supporting systems must be assembled
to support the wall in the eventuality of any unanticipated delay in construction of the
cellar and sub-cellar structural components.
 Case Study of Failure of a R.C.C. Counterfort Retaining Wall Bamani,
Maharashtra

This case study throws light on a failure of a recently constructed R.C.C. counterfort
retaining wall. The wall is located near Sangli city in Maharashtra state of India. The
wall was constructed in 2003 and there was a heavy rainfall which occurred all over
Maharashtra state continuously in the year 2005 and 2006, which subsequently went to
the catchments of river Krishna. The wall could not sustain the flood impact and there
was a sliding, collapse and even rotational failure at some portion of wall. Basically this
wall was constructed to protect a village road about 1800m along a stream from flood
water.

Failure of any structure is usually not attributable to a single cause but in the present
case at the prima-facie, it seems that the wall failed due to heavy flood and backwater in
the stream from river Krishna and the improper design criteria. The other principle
causes of the failure are found out and the remedial measures have been suggested.

Background

There is a village Bamani at 10 km from Sangli, a district place in southern part of

Maharashtra in India. A village WBM road at 13 km in length connecting Bamani
village to Dhamani, and village crosses a stream near Bamani. This road is along the
length of the stream. The stream meets river Krishna one km ahead this village. River
Krishna is a major river passes through the southern part of Maharashtra. The
backwater of flooding of river enters in the stream and there is a danger of flood in
village Bamani and Dhamani and also damage of the road which affects the
transportation of people leaving in the village. Therefore there was a need of
construction of a wall which protects the erosion of road from the backwater and
flooding in the stream. The bed slope to river Krishna is very less near Sangli as well to
the stream too. Also there is black cotton soil present in the bed and all around the bank
or the stream. There is continuous erosion and scoring of the bank and bed of the
stream along the road takes place due to
soft, loose silt clay all over the bank.

A counterfort R.C.C. retaining wall was

constructed in the year 2002-2003. The
length of the wall is about 310 m no of
counterforts at the backfill side. The
height of the wall was 5 m above the
foundation level. The superstructure of
the wall was resting on pile foundation.
The purpose of wall was to retain earth
on one side for 5m height. The type of
soil to be retained was B.C. soil. Also
there is a road along the wall on the
retained earth where two lane (multilane) traffic was expected. Coulomb’s theory was
used to calculate the earth pressure and
for analysis and design of the wall.

Design Consideration of Soil

The wall was designed to retain earth on

one side for 5 metre height. The soil to be
retained is B.C. soil. The density of soil
was considered as 1600 kg/m3 and angle of
repose as 15 degree. The face adjacent to
earth to be retained was vertical. As the
load was more, the provision of
counterforts on soil side was made.

The proportion of concrete was taken as

1:2:4. The backfilling material choose was
about 600mm boulders. IRC class AA
loading and two lane (multi lane) traffic was expected on the soil behind the wall. As
black cotton soil is met within the foundation, it was proposed to provide 450 mm
diameter RCC underream piles foundation for supporting the retaining wall. In that way
the whole static load was considered to transfer to the pile foundation and accordingly
pile group with supporting beams were designed. There were two piles, one on toe side
and other on heel side. Both together were expected to resist the overturning moment
and sliding force. Necessary checks were furnished.

As retaining wall height above toe/heel base beam was 6 m, to economies the
counterforts for the vertical stem were provided. The stem was designed as a continuous
slab for +ve B.M. of p12/16 and–ve B.M. of p12/12 as per standard practice. The effect of
overturning moment was to induce compressive load on toe pile and tensile load on heel
pile. The c/c distance between these piles was 2.75m. Factor of safety against sliding was
checked which was 1.892 and found to be safe. Counterforts were provided at 3mc/c.
Clear span of counterfort was 2.70m. The stem slab was continuous. It was proposed to
reduce the thickness of stem wall from 450 mm at base to 230mm at top uniformly
keeping soil face of wall as truly vertical. Check was therefore furnished at 2m height /
interval. Counterfort took the soil pressure for 2.7m clear or 3mc/c span and was varying
c/s i.e. 0 at top to 1800 at bottom. It was in triangular in shape.

Depth of counterfort was 1724mm. Heel slab was supported on pile. However the earth
filling above heel slab put pressure on the counterfort and induce tensile stressed.
Hence the provision of vertical stumps to counterforts was made. Total vertical load was
supported by piles and therefore wall base consisting of Toe slab and heal slab were
designed as a pile cap/ beam in order to support the total load efficiently by piles. The
estimate of the wall was of Rs. 25 lakh.

Causes of Failure

Design Philosophy

In the present case the wall was

designed as a simple cantilever
counterfort retaining wall. The wall would have designed as flood wall. If the wall would
have designed as a flood wall, it would have not been collapsed. It is observed from the
detailed design and analysis made of this wall that in whole design, no flood water
forces (hydraulic forces) have been considered anywhere. Also the effect of pore water
pressure was not predicted.

Wall Stability
Generally, it is more difficult to design stable flood walls than retaining walls. By their
very nature, flood walls are usually built in a floodplain which may have poor foundation
conditions. Uplift is always a critical item with flood walls but seldom a problem with
retaining walls since the loads acting on a retaining wall are usually soil backfills. The
water load on a flood wall can be more severe, especially when wave loadings are
applicable. When the groundwater surface is near or above the wall footing, a common
occurrence with flood walls, the allowable bearing capacity of the soil is reduced. The
reduction of stability, due to the
erosion of the earth cover over and
beyond the base, must be considered.
In the same manner here also the
bearing capacity of the foundation soil
is considerably reduced and the wall
lost its stability due to the erosion of
earth cover over and beyond the base
due to heavy flooding continuously for
two consequent years.

Engineering Team
A fully coordinated team of
geotechnical and structural engineers, and hydraulic engineers where applicable, should
ensure that all pertinent engineering considerations are properly integrated.
It is observed in the study of failure that, the geotechnical investigation was not made
and the design parameters are considered on thumb rule basis. Also it was found that no
geotechnical expert had appointed separately. Actually both geotechnical and structural
aspects of wall design are included. Coordination between geotechnical engineers,
structural engineers, and geologists
in the design of retaining and
floodwalls is essential.
Basically the selection of wall was
not made proper. The wall would
have selected as any type of flood
wall (T-type or L- type). The
designer has not at all predicted
such heavy rainfall and the flood in
the stream and therefore the
judgment went wrong.

It is also found that the studies of different alternative projects /schemes were not made
which could have better feasibility.

Geotechnical Investigation

Purpose: - The purpose of the geotechnical investigation for wall design is to identify
the type and distribution of foundation materials, to identify sources and characteristics
of backfill materials, and to determine material parameters for use in design analyses.
Specifically, the information obtained will be used to select the foundation type and
depth, design the foundation, estimate backfill pressures, locate the groundwater level,
estimate settlements, and identify possible excavation problems. For flood walls,
foundation under seepage conditions must also be assessed.
Review of Existing Information: - The first step in an investigational program is to
review existing data so that the program can be tailored to confirm and extend the
existing knowledge of soil and rock
conditions. In the case of flood walls,
study of old topographic maps can
provide information on past riverbank
areas.
The wall failed because of improper
design and construction errors. A large
number of engineering errors and poor
judgments" contributed to the design
failures of the wall. No due
considerations were given to the
geotechnical investigation and the geological aspects of the site.
There was a lot of water pressure (Pore pressure) behind the wall during flooding was
developed. This water pressure and velocity from the higher water level would have
been sufficient to cause ground erosion in the river bank. With the erosion and
saturation of the soil behind the wall which allowed the backfill material to move and
remove support from the above material. This water found its way from under the
footings, washing away the finer soil particles resulting in reduction of coefficient of
friction.
The finer soil particles in the backfill were rendered into a semi-liquid condition
increasing the active pressure. Thus the thrust at the back, helped by a large reduction
in the frictional resistance, pushed out the wall bodily.
The type of the soil available at the site was the major problem. The failure mainly
occurs due to the loose and silty soil. This soil would have treated to improve its bearing
capacity.
Other Reasons: - The hydrological data was not studied properly. Heavy rainfall and
flood continuously for 2 years was not at all predicted. Improper workmanship and
inferior quality of work.
Suggestions for redesign of the retaining wall

● The selection of wall should be made proper as per the fulfillment of the
requirements.
● Both geotechnical and structural aspects of should be considered and included in
wall design.
● The foundation for the wall should be checked for ensuring adequate factor of
safety against or overturning and sliding for the condition of reduced vertical
reaction.
● The HFL of the stream and the flood water pressure must be considered
whenever these are a construction of flood / retaining wall. The wall must be
designed for hydraulic consideration.
● Higher factor of safety against overturning and sliding should be ensured in case
of flood walls.
● Back fill should be properly compacted and selection of backfill material should
be made proper so that for flood water behind the wall would pass on the other
side and the less pore water pressure will be develop.
● Careful attention must be given to wall monoliths that have loading, support, or
other conditions that vary along the length of the monolith.
● There should be proper coordination between geotechnical engineers, structural
engineers, and geologists in the design of retaining and flood walls.
● Evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of alternative types of
structures should be studied.
● The important civil engineering works should be should be completed by the
experienced staff from the department as well as from the contractor side.
● Water stops should be used in retaining walls to prevent water passage from the
backfill through the vertical joints.