ENCE 461

Foundation Analysis and

Design

Retaining Walls
Lateral Earth Pressure Theory
 Retaining
Walls

Necessary in situations where gradual transitions
either take up too much space or are impractical
for other reasons

Retaining walls are analysed for both resistance
to overturning and structural integrity

Two categories of retaining walls

Gravity Walls (Masonry, Stone, Gabion, etc.)

In-Situ Walls (Sheet Piling, cast in-situ, etc.)
 Lateral Earth Pressure
Coefficient
x '
K

z '

K = lateral earth pressure coefficient


x’ = horizontal effective stress



 
 


  
    


  



 

 
 
 
 Mohr’s Circle
and Lateral
Earth
Pressures

x' = = z '
 Development of Lateral Earth
Pressure
P o 1 z 12 K o


b 2

Note Pore Water Effect! subtract vertically add horizontally

 Groundwater Effects

Steps to properly compute horizontal stresses
including groundwater effects:

Compute total vertical stress

Compute effective vertical stress by removing
groundwater effect through submerged unit weight;
plot on Po diagram

Compute effective horizontal stress by multiplying
effective vertical stress by K

Compute total horizontal stress by directly adding
effect of groundwater unit weight to effective
horizontal stress
Groundwater
Effects
 Conditions of Lateral Earth
Pressure Coefficient

At-Rest Condition

Condition where wall movement is zero or “minimal”

Ideal condition of wall, but seldom achieved in reality

Active Condition

Condition where wall moves away from the backfill

The lower state of lateral earth pressure

Passive Condition

Condition where wall moves toward the backfill

The higher state of lateral earth pressure
Effect of Wall Movement
Wall Movements Necessary to
Achieve Active or Passive
States
 Estimates of At Rest Lateral
Earth Pressure Coefficient

Jaky’s Equation

K o
1sin  '

Modified for Overconsolidated Soils
sin '
K o
1sin  ' OCR

Applicable only when ground surface is level

In spite of theoretical weaknesses, Jaky’s
equation is as good an estimate of the coefficient
of lateral earth pressure as we have
Relationship of Poisson’s Ratio
with Lateral Earth Pressure
Coefficient

K o

1
2 1


1
tan 1


tan 2
(Normally Consolidated Soils)
 Example of At Rest Wall
Pressure

Given
Find

Retaining Wall as Shown
PA, from At Rest Conditions
 At Rest Pressure Example

Compute at rest earth pressure coefficient
K o
1sin '
K o
1sin 30º
0.5

Compute Effective Wall Force
P o 1 z 12 K o

20
b 2
P o 120 20 2 0.5
h PA

6.67 ft.

3
b 2
Po lbs kips (valid for all theories)

12000
12
b ft ft
Development of Active Earth
Pressure
Development of Passive Earth
Pressure
Earth Pressure Theories
Rankine Earth Pressure Equations
Level Backfills
Rankine Theory with Inclined
Backfills
 Rankine Coefficients with
Inclined Backfills

Inclined and level backfill equations are identical when  = 0

Example of Rankine Active Wall
Pressure

Given
Find

Retaining Wall as Shown
PA, from At Rest Conditions
 Rankine Active Pressure
Example

Compute at rest earth pressure coefficient

K A
tan 45º  
2
2
1
K A
tan 4515

2
3

Compute Effective Wall Force
P o 1 z 1 K a
2

b 2
P o 120 20 2 0.333


b 2
Po lbs kips

8000
8
b ft ft
Rankine Passive Pressure
Example
 Rankine Passive Pressure
Example

Compute at rest earth pressure coefficient

K P
tan 45º

2
2
K P
tan 45
15
3
2

Compute Effective Wall Force

P o 1 z 1 K p
2

b 2
P o 120 20 2 3


b 2
Po lbs kips

72000
72
b ft ft
Summary of Rankine and At
Rest Wall Pressures

72,000 lbs.

12,000 lbs. 8000 lbs.

 cos 
2
K a
2

sin 
sin  
cos  cos
1

2
cos
cos 

cos 

2
K p
2
sin 
sin 

cos  cos1 
2
coscos 

Coulomb Theory
Typical
Values
of Wall
Friction
 Example of Coulomb Theory

Given
Find

Wall as shown above
KA, KP, PA
 Solution for Coulomb Active
Pressures

Compute Coulomb Active Pressure

KA = 0.3465

Compute Total Wall Force

PA = 8316 lb/ft of wall

 Solution for Coulomb Passive
Pressures

Compute Coulomb Passive Pressure

KP = 4.0196

Compute Total Wall Force

PA = 96,470 lb/ft of wall

 Walls with Cohesive Backfill

Retaining walls should generally have
cohesionless backfill, but in some cases cohesive
backfill is unavoidable

Cohesive soils present the following weaknesses as
backfill:

Poor drainage

Creep

Expansiveness

Most lateral earth pressure theory was first
developed for purely cohesionless soils (c = 0)
and has been extended to cohesive soils afterward
 Theory of
Cohesive
Soils

1
sin  2  

tan 

1sin  4 2

Passive Case
(Wall Driving)
Active Case
(Overburden
driving)
 Rankine Pressures with
Cohesion (Level Backfill)

Active    
 3
 1 tan   2 c tan   
2
4 2 4 2
 1
 H Overburden Driving
3 2   2c  
K A

tan    tan   
1 4 2 H 4 2

Passive
   
 1
 3 tan 

2 c tan 

2
4 2 4 2
 3
 H Wall Driving
1 2   2c  
K P

tan 

tan 

3 4 2 H 4 2

Valid if wall-soil
Comments on friction is not taken in
Rankine to account
Equations
Do not take into
consideration soil
above critical height
2c
H c

 Ka

Do not take into
consideration sloping
walls

For practical problems,
should use equations as
they appear in the book
 Equivalent Fluid Method

Simplification used to guide the calculations of
lateral earth pressures on retaining walls

Can be used for Rankine and Coulomb lateral
earth pressures

Can be used for at rest, active and passive earth
pressures

Transforms the soil acting on the retaining wall
into an equivalent fluid
Example of Equivalent Fluid Method

Given
Find

Wall as shown above
Forces acting on the

KA = 0.3465 wall (both horizontal
and vertical)

KP = 4.0196

w = 3 degrees
 Example of Equivalent Fluid

Compute Equivalent Fluid Unit Weights (Active
Case)
G h
 K a cos  w
G h
120 0.3465 cos 3º
G h
41.52 pcf
G v
 K a sin  w
G v
120 0.3465 sin 3º
G v
2.18 pcf
 Example of Equivalent Fluid

Compute Wall Load (Active Case)
2
Pa Gh H


b 2
P a 41.52 202


8304 lb/ft
b 2
2
V a Gv H


b 2
V a 2.18 202


436 lb/ft
b 2
 Example of Equivalent Fluid

Compute Equivalent Fluid Unit Weights (Passive
Case)
G h
 K p cos  w
G h
120 4.0196 cos 3º
G h
481.69 pcf
G v
 K p sin  w
G v
120 4.0196 sin 3º
G v
25.24 pcf
 Example of Equivalent Fluid

Compute Wall Load (Passive Case)
2
P p Gh H


b 2
P p 481.69 202


96338 lb/ft
b 2
2
V p Gv H


b 2
2
V p 25.24 20


5048 lb/ft
b 2
 Terzaghi
Model

Assumes log spiral
failure surface behind
wall

Requires use of
suitable chart for KA
and KP

Not directly used in
this course, but option
in SPW 911
 Presumptive Lateral Earth
Pressures

Based on Terzaghi theory

Suitable for relatively simple retaining walls in
homogeneous soils

Classifies soils into five types:
1. “Clean” coarse grained soils
2. Coarse grained soils of low permeability; mixed with
fine grained soils
3. Residual soils with granular materials and clay content
4. Very soft clay, organic silts, or silty clays
5. Medium or stiff clay, very low permeability
Presumptive Lateral Earth
Pressures
Presumptive
Lateral
Earth
Pressures
Effects of
Surface
Loading
Surcharge and Groundwater
Loads
 Homework Set 5

Reading

McCarthy: Chapter 16

Coduto: Chapters 22, 23, 24 & 25

Homework Problems

McCarthy: 16-1, 16-8, 16-12a, 16-17

Coduto: 25.3 (Hand and Chart Solutions); 25.5 (SPW
911)

Due Date: 17 April 2002
Questions
 ENCE 461
Foundation Analysis and
Design

Mat Foundations (Part II)

 Nonrigid Methods

Nonrigid methods consider the deformation of
the mat and their influence of bearing pressure
distribution.

These methods produce more accurate values of
mat deformations and stresses

These methods are more difficult to implement
than rigid methods because of soil-structure
interaction
 Nonrigid Methods

Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction

Winkler Methods

Coupled Method

Pseudo-Coupled Method

Multiple-Parameter Method

Finite Element Method
 Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Nonrigid methods must take into account that
both the soil and the foundation have deformation
characteristics.

These deformation characteristics can be either linear
or non-linear (especially in the case of the soils)

The deformation characteristics of the soil are
quantified in the coefficient of subgrade reaction,
or subgrade modulus, which is similar to the
modulus of elasticity for unidirectional
deformation
 Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Definition of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
q
k s



ks = coefficient of subgrade reaction, units of
force/length3 (not the same as unit weight!)

q = bearing pressure


= settlement
 Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Plate load test for coefficient of subgrade
reaction
 Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Application of coefficient of subgrade reaction to
larger mats
 Coefficient of
Subgrade
Reaction

Portions of the mat that experience more

settlement produce more compression in the
springs

Sum of these springs must equal the applied
structural loads plus the weight of the mat

 PW f u D
 qdA
  k s dA
 Winkler Methods

The earliest use of these "springs" to represent
the interaction between soil and foundation was
done by Winkler in 1867; the model is thus
referred to as the Winkler method

The one-dimensional representation of this is a
"beam on elastic foundation," thus sometimes it
is called the "beam on elastic foundation" method

Mat foundations represent a two-dimensional
application of the Winkler method
Beams on Elastic Foundations
Beams on Elastic Foundations
Beams on Elastic Foundations
Application to Spread Footings

Note non-linear behaviour

Non-Linear Characteristics of
Soil Deformation
 Limitations of Winkler Method

Load-settlement curves are not really linear; we
must make a linear approximation to use the
Winkler model

Winkler model assumes that a uniformly loaded
mat underlain by a perfectly uniform soil will
uniformly settle into the soil.

Actual data show that such a mat-soil interaction will
deflect in the centre more than the edges

This is one reason why we use other methods (such as
Schmertmann's) to determine settlement
Limitations of Winkler Method
 Limitations of Winkler Method

Soil springs do not act independently. Bearing
pressure on one part of the mat influences both
the "spring" under it and those surrounding it
(due to lateral earth pressure)

No single value of ks truly represents the
interaction between the soil and the mat

The independent spring problem is in reality the
largest problem with the Winkler model
 Coupled Method

Ideally the coupled method, which uses
additional springs as shown below, is more
accurate than the Winkler method

The problem with the coupled method comes in
selecting the values of ks for the coupling springs
 Pseudo-Coupled Method

An attempt to overcome both the lack of coupling
in the Winkler method and the difficulties of the
coupling springs

Does so by using springs that act independently
(like Winkler springs), but have different ks
values depending upon their location on the mat

Most commercial mat design software uses the
Winkler method; thus, pseudo-coupled methods
can be used with these packages for more
conservative and accurate results
 Pseudo-Coupled Method

Implementation

Divide the mat into two or more concentric zones

The innermost zone should be about half as wide and half as
long as the mat

Assign a ks value to each zone

These should progressively increase from the centre

The outermost zone ks should be about twice as large as the
innermost zone

Evaluate the shears, moments and deformations using
the Winkler method

Adjust mat thickness and reinforcement to satisfy
strength and serviceability requirements
Pseudo-Coupled Method
 Multiple-Parameter Method

This method replaces the independently-acting
linear springs of the Winkler method with springs
and other mechanical elements

The additional elements define the coupling effects

Method bypasses the guesswork involved in
distributing the ks values in the pseudo-coupled
method; should be more accurate

Method has not been implemented into software
packages and thus is not routinely used on design
projects
 Finite Element Method

Models the entire soil-mat system in a three-
dimensional way

In theory, should be the most accurate method

Method is not yet practical because

Requires large amount of computing power to perform

Difficult to determine soil properties in such a way as
to justify the precision of the analysis, especially when
soil parameters are highly variable

Will become more in use as these problems are
addressed
 Finite Element Method

Finite element method is used for structural
analysis

Mat is modelled in a similar way to other plate
structures with springs connected at the nodes of
the elements

Mat is loaded with column loads, applied line
loads, applied area loads, and mat weight

Usually superstructure stiffness is not considered
(conservative)

Can be done but is rarely performed in practice
Finite Element Method
 Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction

Not a straightforward process due to:

Width of the loaded area; wide mat will settle more
than a narrow one because more soil is mobilised by a
wide mat
 Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction

Not a
straightforward
process due to:

Shape of the
loaded area:
stresses beneath
long, narrow
loaded area is
different from
those below
square loaded
areas
 Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction

Not a
straightforward
process due to:

Depth of the
loaded area
below the
ground surface

Change in stress
in the soil due to
q is a smaller
percentage of the
initial stress at
greater depths
 Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction

Not a straightforward process due to:

The position of the mat

To model the soil accurately, ks needs to be larger near the
edges of the mat and smaller near the centre

Time

With compressible (and especially cohesive compressible
soils) mat settlement is a process which may take several
years

May be necessary to consider both short and long term cases

Non-linear nature of soil deformation makes unique
value of ks non-existent
 Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction

Methods used to determine coefficient

Plate load tests

Test results must be adjusted between the shape of the
loading plate and the actual shape of the foundation

Adjustment must also be made for the size of the plate vs.
the size of the foundation, and the influence of size on the
depth of soil stress

Attempts to make accurate adjustments have not been very
successful to date

Derived relationships between ks and Es

Relationships developed are too limited in their application
possibilities
 Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction

Methods used to determine coefficient

Use settlement techniques such as Terzaghi's
consolidation theory, Schmertmann's method, etc., and
express the results in a ks value

If using a pseudo-coupled value, use values of ks in the centre
of the mat which are half those along the perimeter

This methodology has the potential of eliminating the
problems described earlier while at the same time yielding
values of ks which then can be used in a structural analysis of
the mat with some degree of confidence
 Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Given

Structure to be supported on a 30 m wide by 50 m
long mat foundation

Average bearing pressure is 120 kPa

Average settlement determined
= 30 mm using
settlement analysis method

Find

Design values of ks used in a pseudo-coupled analysis
 Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Solution

Compute average ks for entire mat

q
k s


120 kPa
k s

4000 kN  m
2
0.030 m
 Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Solution

Divide mat into three zones as shown

½W
½L
(ks)A
(ks)B = 1.5 (ks)A
(ks)C = 2 (ks)A
 Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Solution AC = (50)(30) – 469 = 656 m2

Compute the area of each zone
AB = (37.5)(22.5) – 375 = 469 m2

AA = (25)(15) = 375 m2
 Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction

Solution

Compute the design ks values
A A k s A  A B k s B  AC k s C
 A A  AB  AC k s avg
375k s A 469 1.5 k s A 656 2 k s A
1500k s avg
2390k s A
1500k s avg
k s A
0.627 k s avg k s A
0.627 4000
2510 kN m
2

k s B
0.627 1.5 4000
3765 kN m

3

k s C
0.627 2 4000
5020 kN m

3

ACI suggests varying ks from ½ its computed value to

5 or 10 times the computed value, then base the
structural design on the worst condition
 Structural Design of Mats

Structural design requires two analyses

Strength

Evaluate these requirements using factored loads and LRFD
design methods

Mat must have sufficient thickness T and reinforcement to
safety resist these loads

T should be large enough so that no shear reinforcement is
required

Servicability

Evaluate using unfactored loads for excessive deformation at
places of concentrated loads, such as columns, soil non-
uniformities, mat non-uniformities, etc.

This is the equivalent of a differential settlement analysis

Mat must be made thicker if this is a problem
Structural Design of Mats
Structural Design of Mats
 Structural Design of Mats

Closed form solutions

Once popular; however, with the advent of computers,
have fallen out of favour

For example see http://www.vulcanhammer.net/download/piletoe.pdf

Finite difference methods

Finite element methods

Spring values as computed in the example can then be
used in finite element analysis

The stiffer springs at the edges will encourage the
foundation to sag in the centre, which is what we
actually see in foundations
 Other Considerations in Mat
Foundations

Total settlement

"Bed of springs" solution should not be used to
compute total settlement; this should be done using
other methods

Bearing capacity

Mat foundations generally do not have bearing
capacity problems

With undrained silts and clays, bearing capacity needs
to be watched

Methods for spread footings can be used with mat
foundations, including presumptive bearing capacities
Questions