CEPE 4S

DESIGN OF CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL

Prepared by: Engr. RANDY G. POLICARPIO
PROBLEM:
Design the cantilever retaining wall shown in the figure.

Given:
Soil data:
kN
γsoil  17.28
3
m

ϕ  35 deg (angle of internal friction)

μ  0.5 (coefficient of friction of soil)
q all  144 kPa
Dimensions:
Concrete:
h1  4.6 m
f'c  31.05 MPa
h2  0.90 m
Steel:
fy  420 MPa
kN
Normal weight concrete: γcon  23.56
3
m

SOLUTION:
The design of cantilever retaining wall is mainly divided into 6 parts.
1. Preliminary sizing.
2. Bearing Pressure Analysis
a. q all  q gross

b. no uplift Figure 1
3. Stability Analysis
a. FS overturning  2.0

b. FS sliding  1.5

4. Stem Design
a. Flexure
b. Shear
c. Development Length

5. Heel Design
a. Flexure
b. Shear
c. Development Length

6. Toe Design
a. Flexure
b. Shear
c. Development Length page 1
1. PRELIMINARY SIZING
h  h1  h2  5.5 m total vertical height of retaining wall
tstem  7% to 12% of h

a. consider 7% of h

tstem  0.07 [ h  ( 1000) ]

tstem = 0.07 [ 5.5 ( 1000) ]

tstem  385 mm

b. consider 50%(h) for footing width:

b footing  0.5 [ h  ( 1000) ]  2750 mm use b footing  2.80 m

1
c. consider
4
bfooting for toe width:

1
b toe 
4  
  b footing  ( 1000)  700 mm
 use b toe  750 mm

d. consider 10% (h) for footing thickness:

tfooting  10% [ h  ( 1000) ]  550 mm use tfooting  600 mm

Figure 2
page 2
2. SOIL BEARING PRESSURE ANALYSIS

Satisfy: qa  q gross

no uplift

In bearing pressure and stability analysis of

retaining wall, the soil in the side of the footing
toe is conventionally neglected due to its
possible erosion. Thus, its resistance and weight
are normally neglected.

a. consider 1.0 m length.

tfooting
Lstem  h   4.9 m
1000

 tstem 
Wstem  γcon 

1000

  Lstem  ( 1.0)



Wstem =  23.56
kN 
 ( 0.385m)  ( 4.9m)  ( 1.0m)
 3
 m 

Wstem  44.45 kN

 tfooting 

Wfooting  γcon b footing  
 1000 

  ( 1.0)

Wfooting =  23.56
kN 
 ( 2.8m)  ( 0.60m)  ( 1.0m)
 3
 m 
Wfooting  39.58 kN

  btoe  tstem 
Wsoil  γsoil b footing      Lstem  ( 1.0)
  1000 

Wsoil =  17.28
kN 
 ( 1.665m)  ( 4.90m)  ( 1.0m)
 3
 m  Figure 3
Wsoil  140.98 kN

1  sin( ϕ)
Ka =
1  sin( ϕ)

Ka  0.271

page 3
Overturning Moment, OM

OM = FH   h
1
3 

 ( σ) ( h )  ( 1.0m)    h
1 1 kN
OM = where: σ  Ka γsoil h σ  25.76
2 3  m
2

  25.76
kN 
 ( 5.50m)  ( 1.0m)    ( 5.50m)
1 1
OM =
2  2 3 
 m 

OM  129.87 kN  m

Resisting Moment, RM

RM = Wstem  0.75m 
0.385m   2.8m   W   2.8m  1.665 
  Wfooting   soil  
 2   2   2 

RM  374.68 kN  m

Weight Total, WT

WT  Wstem  Wfooting  Wsoil

WT  225 kN
Figure 4

Net Moment, ΔM

ΔM  RM  OM  244.81

ΔM  244.81 kN  m

This net moment, ΔM will be resisted and distributed to the base of the footing.
This is equivalent to the moment produced by the resultant of the bearing
pressure developed from the toe.

 Fv = 0 Ry  WT  225 kN

ΔM = Ry  x
Figure 5
ΔM
x  x  1.09 m
Ry

Let: L  b footing L  2.8 m page 4

 L L
e   x  0.31 m  0.47 m
2 6

L
e
6

Therefore  "Bearing pressure is Trapezoidal"

Ry M c
q gross_max = 
A INA

where: Ry  225 kN

L  2.8 m

M  Ry  e  69.75 kN  m

L
c   1.4 m
2

Figure 6
1 3
INA  ( 1.0)  ( L)
12

Ry M c
q gross_max   q gross_max  133.74 kPa
L ( 1.0) INA

Ry M c
q gross_min   q gross_min  26.98 kPa
L ( 1.0) INA

Remarks  "qall > qgross_max" Therefore  "Preliminary size is ok for soil bearing pressure requirement"

3. STABILITY ANALYSIS

Satisfy: FS overturning  2.0

FS sliding  1.5

RM 374.68
FS o  FS o = FS o  2.88
OM 129.87

Remarks  "FSo > 2.0" Therefore  "OK"

page 5
 μ WT ( 0.5)  ( 225kN)
FS s  FS s = FS s  1.59
FH 70.84kN

Remarks  "FSs > 1.5" Therefore  "OK"

THEREFORE  "Preliminary size of the Retaining Wall is Stable"

4. STEM DESIGN

a. For Flexure: For primary reinforcement

Lstem  4.9 m


σ1  Ka γsoil  Lstem  
kN
σ1  22.95
2
m

 tfooting  
  ( 1.0)     Lstem
1 1
M H 
2 1
  
 σ   h 
1000  3 

  22.95
kN 
 ( 4.9m)  ( 1.0m)    ( 4.9m)
1 1
MH =
2  2  3 
 m 

M H  91.84 kN  m

Figure 7
M u  1.6 M H

M u  146.94 kN  m

The stem is designed as a flexural member or singly reinforced beam/section.

page 6
Effective depth, d:

Use: conccover  50 mm d b1  20 mm
1
d  tstem  conccover   d b1  325 mm
2
 

ϕ  0.90 assume tension controlled section

b  1000 (assume 1-m length)


M u  1000
2 = ϕ0.85f'cab d  a2 
 


146.94 1000
2
 = (0.90)(0.85)(31.05)(a)(1000) 325  a2 
 
a  19.63 mm Figure 8

Check:

β1  0.83
c  β1  a  16.26 mm

d  c
ε t  0.003     0.057
 c 

Remarks  "εt > 0.005"

Therefore  "Section is tension controlled"

Required Reinforcement Area:

T=C

As fy = 0.85 f'c a b

0.85 f'c a b
As 
fy

2
As  1248.40 mm

For Asmin:
0.0018 ( 420 )
For fy  420 (Grade 60): Asmin1 
fy
 
 tstem  ( b )  693

 
Asmin2  0.0014 tstem  ( b )  539

2
Select the greatest of the two: Asmin  693 mm
page 7
Remarks  "As > Asmin"
2
As  1248.4 mm

 
π 2 2
Use: d b1  20 Ab   d b1  314.16 mm
4
As
n   3.97
Ab

Spacing:
b
S  S  252 mm
n

Check Limits:


Smax1  3  tstem  1155  mm

Smax2  450 mm

For crack control:

2
fs 
3
 
 fy fs  277 MPa

Smax3  380  
280 
  2.5 conccover  259.12 mm
 fs 

Smax4  300  
280 
  303.25 mm
 fs 

Therefore: Smax  259.12 mm (Select the least value)

Remarks  "S < Smax"

Use:
S  252 use S  250 mm

page 8
 b. Check for Shear using ACI 318 -14 provisions:

Satisfy: ϕVc  Vu

Shear Strength Vc: No shear reinforcement

ϕ  0.75

b w  b  1000

ϕVc  ϕ  f'c b w d  

1 1 

 6   1000

ϕVc  226.37 kN

Shear effect of load, Vu (See Figure 7)

1  tfooting 
VH 
2
 
σ1   h 
 1000 
  ( 1.0)

VH =   22.95
1 kN 
 ( 4.9m)  ( 1.0m)
2  2
 m 

VH  56.23 kN

 
Vu  1.6 VH  89.97 kN

Remarks  "ϕVc > Vu" Therefore  "Adequate"

THEREFORE: 20mmϕ at 250mm spacing for stem main reinforcement is adequate for flexure and shear requirements.

c. Design of Horizontal Reinforcement for Inside and Outside Face

The out of plane bonding (one-way action) of the stem due to the lateral earth pressure is resisted by the vertical
main reinforcement. Thus the stem of the the retaining wall is typically designed as one-way slab.
Consequently, only temperature and shrinkage reinforcement is needed for horizontal reinforcement of the stem.

Consider 1.0 m width of the stem:

0.0018 ( 420 )
Asmin 
fy
 
 tstem  ( b )  693
2
mm

This area of steel will be distributed to the two faces of the stem.
1
Asmin_face  Asmin
2

2
Asmin_face  350.68 mm ( for one face) Figure 9
page 9
  
π 2 2
Use: d b2  16 mmϕ Ab   d b2  201.06 mm
4
Asmin_face
n   1.74
Ab

1000
Spacing: S   573.35 mm
n

Check Limits:

 
Smax1  5  tstem  1925 mm

Smax2  450 mm
Figure 10

Therefore: Smax  450 mm (Select the least value)

Remarks  "S > Smax"

Use:
S  450 mm

d. Design of Vertical Reinforcement for the Outside Face

1
As_vert   Asmin
2
  (same as for horizontal reinforcement)

2
As_vert  350.68 mm

 
π 2 2
Use: d b3  16 mmϕ Ab   d b3  201.06 mm
4

As_vert
n   1.74
Ab

1000
Spacing: S   573.35
n

Check Limits:


Smax1  5  tstem  1925  mm

Smax2  450 mm

Figure 11
Therefore: Smax  450 mm (Select the least value)

Remarks  "S > Smax"

Use:
S  450 mm page 10
5. DESIGN OF HEEL
a. For Flexure:
The bearing pressure under the heel is neglected due to its pressure distribution uncertainties.
This will result in a more conservative design.

M H = Wsoil Xs

 ( 4.9m)  ( 1.665m)  ( 1.0m)  

kN 1.665 
M H = 17.28 
m
3  2 

M H  117.37 kN  m

M D = Wheel XH

 ( 0.6m)  ( 1.665m)  ( 1.0m)  

kN 1.665 
M D = 23.56 
m
3  2 

M D  19.59 kN  m

M u  1.2 M D  1.6 M H

M u  211.31 kN  m

Use: d b4  20 mmϕ conccover  75 mm

Figure 12

d b4
d  tfooting  conccover   515 mm
2
M u = ϕMn

ϕ  0.90 (assume tension controlled section)

M u  1000 = ϕ 0.85 f'c a ( 1000)   d 

2 a
  
2

a  17.57 mm
Check:

β1  0.83 c  β1  a  14.55 mm

d  c
ε t  0.003     0.1032 Figure 13
 c 

Remarks  "εt > 0.005"

Therefore  "Section is tension controlled" page 11

Required Reinforcement Area:

T=C

As fy = 0.85 f'c a b

0.85 f'c a b
As   1104.32
fy

2
As  1104.32 mm

For Asmin:
0.0018 ( 420 )
For fy  420 (Grade 60): Asmin1 
fy
 
 tfooting  ( 1000)  1080

 
Asmin2  0.0014 tfooting  ( 1000)  840

2
Select the greatest of the two: Asmin  1080 mm

Remarks  "As > Asmin"

2
As  1104.32 mm

 
π 2 2
Use: d b4  20 Ab   d b4  314.16 mm
4
As
n   3.52
Ab

Spacing:
1000
S   284 use S  250 mm
n

Check Limits:

 
Smax1  3  tfooting  1800 mm

Smax2  450 mm

Therefore: Smax  450 mm (Select the least value)

Remarks  "S < Smax"

Use:
S  250 mm

page 12
b. Check for Shear using ACI 318 -14 provisions:

Satisfy: ϕVc = Vu

Shear Strength Vc: No shear reinforcement

ϕ  0.75 d  515 mm

b w  1000

ϕVc  ϕ  f'c b w d  

1 1 


6   1000 

ϕVc  358.71 kN

Shear effect of load, Vu

Vu = 1.2 Wheel  1.6 Wsoil

Wheel = ( 23.56 )  ( 0.60)  ( 1.665 )  ( 01.0) Wheel  23.54 kN

Wsoil = ( 17.28 )  ( 4.9)  ( 1.665 )  ( 1.0) Wsoil  140.98 kN

  
Vu  1.2 Wheel  1.6 Wsoil  253.82 kN 

Remarks  "ϕVc > Vu" Therefore  "Adequate"

c. For the longitudinal rebar:

0.0018 ( 420 )
Asmin 
fy    
 b footing  ( 1000)  tfooting  3024 mm
2

  2 2
π
Use: d b5  16 mmϕ Ab   d b5  201.06 mm
4

Asmin
n   15.04 use n  15 bar
Ab

b footing  ( 1000)  2  conccover  d b5

Spacing: S   188.14
n1

Check Limits:


Smax1  5  tfooting  3000  mm

Smax2  450 mm page 13

 Therefore: Smax  450 mm (Select the least value)

Remarks  "S < Smax"

Use: n  15 bar

Figure 14

5. TOE DESIGN
Considering the simpler detailing and constructibility on site, the hook tail of the stem main reinforcement will be
extended and used as flexural reinforcement of the toe.
Thus, for the toe main rebar, use:

d b1  20

S  250 mm

Analyze this assumed design section for flexure and shear:

Check for adequacy:

q gross_max  133.74 kPa

Ry M c
q1 = 
A INA

225 225  ( 0.31)  ( 0.65)

q 1  
( 2.8)  ( 1.0) 1 3
 ( 1.0)  ( 2.8)
12

q 1  105.14 kPa

 btoe  Figure 15
1
2

FH1   q gross_max  q 1   
  ( 1.0)  10.72 kN
 1000 

 btoe 
FH2  q 1     ( 1.0)  78.86

1000  page 14
M H  FH1   ( 0.75)  FH2 
2 0.75 

3  2 

M H  34.93 kN  m
 btoe 
 b toe   tfooting   
1000
M D  γcon     ( 1.0)   
 1000   1000   2 

M D  3.98 kN  m

Load Combination: 0.9 D  1.6 H

M u  1.6 M H  0.9 M D  52.31

d b1  20
Effective depth:
cnccover  75 mm
Figure 16
1
d  tfooting  conccover   d b1  515
2
  mm

   ( 20)   1256.64 mm
1000 π 2 2
As 
S  4 

For Asmin:

0.0018 ( 420 )
For fy  420 (Grade 60): Asmin 
fy
 
 tfooting  ( 1000)  1080

Remarks  "As > Asmin"

2
As  1256.64 mm

Check Limits:


Smax1  3  tfooting  1800  mm

Smax2  450 mm Figure 17

Therefore: Smax  450 mm (Select the least value)

Remarks  "S < Smax"

S  250 mm page 15
a. Check for flexure:

C=T

0.85 f'c a ( 1000) = As fy

As fy
a 
0.85 f'c ( 1000)

a  20.00 mm

Check:

β1  0.83 c  β1  a  16.56 mm

ε t  0.003  
d  c
  0.0903
 c 

Remarks  "εt > 0.005"

Therefore  "Section is tension controlled"

ϕ  0.90
2
As  1256.64 mm

fy  420 MPa

d  515 mm
a  20 mm

M u  52.31 kN  m

ϕMn  ϕ As fy   d   
a 1
 239.88 kN  m
 2
1000
2

Remarks  "ϕMn > Mu"

Therefore  "Adequate"

page 16
b. Check for shear:
Satisfy: ϕVc = Vu

Shear Strength Vc: No shear reinforcement

ϕ  0.75 d  515 mm

b w  1000

ϕVc  ϕ  f'c b w d  

1 1 

6  1000 

ϕVc  358.71 kN

Shear effect of load, Vu

q gross_max  133.74 kPa

Ry  225 kN

M  Ry  e  69.75 kN  m

d  515 mm
Figure 18
 b footing ( 1000) 
c  d  tstem    b toe  tstem  1165 mm
 2 

Ry M c
q2 = 
A INA

225 225  ( 0.31)  ( 1.165 )

q 2  
( 2.8)  ( 1.0) 1 3
 ( 1.0)  ( 2.8)
12

q 2  124.78 kPa

1  b toe  d 
2

FH1   q gross_max  q 2  
 1000 

  ( 1.0)  1.05 kN

 b toe  d 
FH2  q 2     ( 1.0)  29.32 kN
 1000 

VH  FH1  FH2  30.38 kN

 b toe  d   tfooting 

VD  γcon     
 1000   1000 
  ( 1.0)  3.32 kN
page 17
    
Vu  1.6 VH  0.9 VD  45.61 kN

Remarks  "ϕVc > Vu" Therefore  "Adequate"

c. For the longitudinal rebar:

0.0018 ( 420 )
  
2
Asmin   b toe  tstem  tfooting  1225.8 mm
fy

 
π 2 2
Use: d b6  16 mmϕ Ab   d b6  201.06 mm
4

Asmin
n   6.1 use n  7 bar
Ab

conccover stem  50 mm conccover footing  75

d b1  20 d b6  16

Spacing: S 
btoe  tstem  conccoverfooting  conccoverstem  db1  db6  162.33 mm
n1

Check Limits:

 
Smax1  5  tfooting  3000 mm

Smax2  450 mm

Therefore: Smax  450 mm (Select the least value)

Remarks  "S < Smax"

Use: n7 bar

Figure 19
page 18