DRAFTAAE LRFDGuidlines2017-V6

[Draft]
Guidelines for Analysis and LRFD-based

Design of Earth Retaining Structures
By:
Anoosh Shamsabadi, Ph.D., PE.
Arastoo Dasmeh, Ph.D.
Ertugrul Taciroglu, Ph.D., Professor
University of California, Los Angeles

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
UCLA - SGEL
Report 2018/01
i
ii
Guidelines for Analysis and LRFD-based Design of
Earth Retaining Structures
By:
Anoosh Shamsabadi, PhD., PE.

Senior Bridge Engineer
Office of Earthquake Engineering
California Department of Transportation
Arastoo Dasmeh, Ph.D.

Ertugrul Taciroglu, Professor

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

January 2018
i
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge contributions by Dr. Shi-Yu Xu who was instrumental in the
preparation of a previous version of this document. Other contributions were made by Dr. Ali Nojoumi as
well as former UCLA graduate and undergraduate students who participated in the preparation of the said
precursor document—Rajaa Alrayyes, Weichun Chen, Samuel Delwiche, Yajuan Duan, Taher Ghaemi,
Dorian Krausz, Tuyen Nguyen, Adena Nikarakelyan, Emily Yagi.
DISCLAIMER STATEMENT
This document is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect
the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the University
of California. This publication does not constitute a standard or regulation.
iii
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents Guidelines for Analysis and LRFD-based Design of Earth Retaining Structures. It
is largely based on a prior report titled Development of Improved Guidelines for Analysis and Design of
Earth Retaining Structures (UCLA-SGEL Report No. 2013-02), preparation of which was commissioned
by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to a UCLA team led by Prof. E. Taciroglu under
contract no. 65A0413. The present version features various corrections to a number of example problems
and figures as well as a new chapter on limit-equilibrium-based analysis of abutments. As such, this
guideline document supersedes UCLA-SGEL Report No. 2013-02. Majority of the theoretical background
for the models employed in this document and their experimental validation may be found in the following
articles and through the references provided therein:
• Shamsabadi, A., Khalili-Tehrani, P., Stewart, J.P., Taciroglu, E. (2010). Validated simulation
models for lateral response of bridge abutments with typical backfills. ASCE Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 15(3), 302-311.
• Shamsabadi, A., Xu, S.-Y., Taciroglu, E. (2013). A generalized log-spiral-Rankine limit
equilibrium model for seismic earth pressure analysis. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering,
49, 197-209.
• Xu, S.-Y., Shamsabadi, A., Taciroglu, E. (2015). Evaluation of active and passive seismic earth
pressures considering internal friction and cohesion. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, 70,
30-47.
• Khalili-Tehrani, P., Shamsabadi, A., Stewart, J.P., Taciroglu, E. (2016). Physically parameterized
backbone curves for passive lateral response of bridge abutments with homogeneous backfills.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(11), 3003-3023.
• Shamsabadi, A., (2006) “Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Seismic Soil-Abutment-Foundation
Structure Interaction Analysis of Skewed Bridges.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California (USC) Los Angeles, CA.
The design examples provided in this guideline document are prepared in accordance with the features of
the computer software CT-Rigid and CT-FLEX, both of which were developed by Caltrans. The solutions
of nearly all of the examples presented in this guideline document can be reproduced using these two
programs.
5
Table of Contents
Example 4-5: (SIMPLIFIED METHOD) .............................................................................................. 260

Example 4-7: (SIMPLIFIED METHOD) ............................................................................................... 297
Example 4-8: Multiple Tieback Soldier Pile Wall Design .................................................................. 313
Example 4-9: Finite Element Simulation of a Multiple Tie Back Wall .............................................. 336
AnalysIS of Abutments ................................................................................................. 341

Abutment system ............................................................................................................. 341
Skew Hyperbolic Force-Displacement Curves FOR BRIDGE Abutments .............................. 342
Skew Hyperbolic Force-Displacement Curves of Abutments for HigH Speed Rail Bridge
Abutments ................................................................................................................................... 345
Elastic-perfectly plastic Force-Displacement Curves for Abutments ................................... 346
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 347
Example 5-1: Analysis of a non-skew abutment.............................................................................. 349
Example 5-2: Analysis of 30o-skew abutment ................................................................................. 350
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Gravity Walls ............................................................................................................. 16
Figure 1-2: Semi-Gravity Cantilever Retaining Walls ................................................................. 17
Figure 1-3: Counterfort Retaining Walls ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 1-4: Buttressed Retaining Walls ........................................................................................ 17
Figure 1-5: Non-Gravity Cantilever Walls ................................................................................... 19
Figure 1-6: Single Tieback System ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 1-7: MSE Wall with Precast Concrete Face Panels.......................................................... 21
Figure 1-8: Soil Nail Wall............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 1-9: Precast Concrete Crib Walls ...................................................................................... 23
Figure 2-1: Active Earth Pressure ................................................................................................. 26
Figure 2-2: Passive Earth Pressure ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 2-3: Mobilizing Earth Pressure Coefficient Relative to Wall Deformation ...................... 28
Figure 2-4: Lateral Earth Pressure Variation with Depth ............................................................. 29
Figure 2-5: Mohr Circle Representation of the Stress State for a Cohesionless Backfill ............. 31
Figure 2-6: Mohr Circle Representation of State of Stress for Cohesive Backfill ....................... 33
Figure 2-7: Rankine's Active Wedge ............................................................................................ 35
Figure 2-8: Rankine' s Passive Wedge .......................................................................................... 36
Figure 2-9: Tension Crack Zone ................................................................................................... 37
Figure 2-10: Tension Crack with Hydrostatic Water Pressure ..................................................... 38
Figure 2-11: Stress Distribution for Cohesive Backfill Considered in Design ............................. 38
Figure 2-12: Coulomb's Active Wedge ........................................................................................ 40
Figure 2-13: Coulomb's Passive Wedge ....................................................................................... 41
Figure 2-14: Illustration of the Logarithmic Spiral Failure Surface ............................................. 42
Figure 2-15: Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure for Sloping Wall and Horizontal Backfill ... 43
Figure 2-16: Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure for Vertical Wall and Sloping Backfill ........ 44
Figure 2-17: Active Trial Wedge .................................................................................................. 45
Figure 2-18: Mononobe-Okabe Active Wedge............................................................................. 46
Figure 2-19: Mononobe-Okabe Passive Wedge ........................................................................... 48
Figure 2-20: Seismic Active Trial Wedge .................................................................................... 49
Figure 2-21: Seismic Passive Trial Wedge ................................................................................... 51
Figure 2-22: Geometry of the Mobilized Failure Surface ............................................................ 53
Figure 2-23: Slices of Mobilized Soil Mass ................................................................................. 53
Figure 2-24: Scaling Factor a versus Wall Height H ................................................................... 56
Figure 2-25: Comparison between AASHTO (2004) and Recommended Displacement Equation
....................................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 2-26: Lateral Pressure Due to Uniform Surcharge ............................................................ 59
Figure 2-27: Boussinesq Loads..................................................................................................... 62
Figure 2-28: Earth Pressure Distribution ...................................................................................... 63
Figure 2-29: Earth Pressure Distribution in Layered Soil ............................................................ 64
Figure 2-30: Pressure Loading Diagram ....................................................................................... 67
Figure 3-1: Modes of Failure of Semi-gravity Retaining Walls ................................................... 68
Figure 3-2: Application of the Rankine Earth Pressure Theory ................................................... 70
Figure 3-3: Application of Coulomb Earth Pressure Theory ........................................................ 71
Figure 3-4: Application of the Wedge Theories ........................................................................... 72
Figure 3-5: Retaining System subject to a Prescribed Failure Surface ......................................... 73
Figure 3-6: Generalized Lateral and Bearing Pressure Distribution ............................................. 74
Figure 3-7: Bearing Pressures for Different Locations of Resultant Forces ................................. 75
7
Figure 3-8: Combined Earth Thrusts and Deformed Shape of Cantilever Wall ........................... 76
Figure 3-9: Pile Supported Retaining Wall ................................................................................... 77
Figure 3-10: LRFD Factors for Rigid Retaining Walls ................................................................ 78
Figure 3-11: Forces Acting at the Critical Sections of the Wall ................................................... 82
Figure 3-12: Cantilever Wall with Toe ......................................................................................... 83
Figure 3-13: Forces Acting on the Wall ....................................................................................... 84
Figure 3-14: Active Wedge for Static Case .................................................................................. 85
Figure 3-15: Active Wedge for Seismic Case............................................................................... 85
Figure 3-16: Free Body Diagram to Calculate Eccentricity ......................................................... 90
Figure 3-17: Bearing Pressure Distribution for all the Limit States ............................................. 92
Figure 3-18: Free body diagrams of the Forces Acting on the Wall ............................................ 93
Figure 3-19: Forces Acting on the Stem ....................................................................................... 94
Figure 3-20: Forces Acting on the Toe for the Extreme Event Limit State ................................ 101
Figure 3-21: Lateral Forces Acting on the Heel ......................................................................... 107
Figure 3-22: Lateral Pressure Distribution for the Heel Design ................................................. 107
Figure 3-23: Bearing Pressure Diagrams for the Heel Design ................................................... 108
Figure 3-24: Flexural Demand and Capacity Diagram of Stem ................................................. 114
Figure 3-25: Elevation View of Flexural Reinforcement in Stem .............................................. 115
Figure 3-26: Final Cross-section Design for the Semi-Gravity Retaining Wall ......................... 116
Figure 3-27: Pile Supported Retaining Wall ............................................................................... 117
Figure 3-28: Forces Acting on Pile Supported Wall ................................................................... 118
Figure 3-29: Critical Trial Wedge for Static Limit States .......................................................... 120
Figure 3-30: Critical Trial Wedge for Extreme Event Limit State ............................................. 120
Figure 3-31: Lateral Forces Acting on Pile Supported Wall under Static Limit States .............. 122
Figure 3-32: Lateral Forces Acting on Pile Supported Wall under Extreme Event Limit State 123
Figure 3-33: Pile Layout for the Pile Supported Wall ................................................................ 127
Figure 3-34: LRFD Stem Design for Static Condition ............................................................... 130
Figure 3-35: LRFD Stem Design for Seismic Condition............................................................ 131
Figure 3-36: Free Body Diagram for Toe Design under both Static and Seismic Conditions ... 134
Figure 3-37: LRFD Heel Design for Static Loading Condition ................................................. 136
Figure 3-38: LRFD Heel Design for Seismic Loading Condition .............................................. 137
Figure 3-39: Final Cross-section for Pile Supported Retaining Wall ......................................... 157
Figure 4-1: Non-Gravity Earth Retaining Systems ..................................................................... 158
Figure 4-2: Non-Gravity Cantilever Retaining Walls Loading Diagram ................................... 159
Figure 4-3: Non-Gravity Cantilever Retaining Walls Idealized Loading Diagram .................... 160
Figure 4-4: Non-Gravity Cantilever Sheet Pile Retaining Walls................................................ 160
Figure 4-5: Non-Gravity Cantilever Soldier Pile Retaining Walls ............................................. 161
Figure 4-6 .................................................................................................................................... 162
Figure 4-7: Sheet Pile Wall (FHWA, NHI 2007) ....................................................................... 162
Figure 4-8: Soldier Piles with Arching ....................................................................................... 163
Figure 4-9: Lateral Earth Pressure for Anchored/Braced Walls ................................................. 164
Figure 4-10: Conceptual p-y Approach for Cantilever Systems ................................................. 165
Figure 4-11: Conceptual p-y Approach for Tieback Systems .................................................... 166
Figure 4-12: Tieback Modeled as an Anchor Spring .................................................................. 167
Figure 4-13: Finite Element Models ........................................................................................... 168
Figure 4-14: Loading Diagram for Single Layer Soil ................................................................. 169
Figure 4-15: Loading Diagram for Multi-Layer Soil (Granular Soil on Granular Soil) ............. 169
Figure 4-16: Loading Diagram for Multi-Layer Soil (Granular Soil on Purely Cohesive Soil). 170
8
Figure 4-17: Loading Diagram for Multi-Layer Soil (Purely Cohesive Soil on Purely Cohesive
Soil) ............................................................................................................................................. 170
Figure 4-18: Non-gravity cantilever wall embedded into bedrock ............................................. 172
Figure 4-19: Pressure Diagram for Single Tieback Wall in Granular Soil ................................. 175
Figure 4-20: Pressure Diagram for Multiple Tieback Wall in Granular Soil ............................. 175
Figure 4-21: Pressure Diagram for Multiple Tieback Wall in Purely Cohesive Soil ................. 176
Figure 4-22: Single Tieback System ........................................................................................... 177
Figure 4-23: Anchored Wall with Single Level of Ground Anchors,......................................... 178
Figure 4-24: Anchored Wall with Single Level of Ground Anchors,......................................... 178
Figure 4-25: Multiple Tieback System ....................................................................................... 180
Figure 4-26: Detail Hinge Method for Tieback Design .............................................................. 181
Figure 4-27: Tieback Wall with Potential Failure Surface ......................................................... 182
Figure 4-28: Tieback Wall Proof Test Requirement................................................................... 183
Figure 4-29: Pressure Diagram for Service I Loading Condition ............................................... 186
Figure 4-30: Location of Zero and Maximum Moment for Service I Loading Condition ......... 188
Figure 4-31: Shear and Moment Diagram for Service I Loading Condition .............................. 189
Figure 4-32: Pressure Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition ............................................. 191
Figure 4-33: Location of Zero and Maximum Moment for Strength I Loading Condition ........ 193
Figure 4-34: Shear and Moment Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition ............................ 194
Figure 4-35: Pressure Diagram for Extreme Event Loading Condition ..................................... 196
Figure 4-36: Location of Zero Shear and Maximum Moment for Extreme Event Loading
Condition .................................................................................................................................... 198
Figure 4-37: Shear and Moment Diagram for Extreme Event Loading Condition .................... 199
Figure 4-38: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Service I Loading Condition ................... 203
Figure 4-39: Trapezoidal Earth Pressure Diagram for Service I Loading Condition ................. 204
Figure 4-40: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Service I Loading Condition ............................ 206
Figure 4-41: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition .................. 208
Figure 4-42: Trapezoidal Earth Pressure Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition ............... 209
Figure 4-43: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Strength I Loading Condition ........................... 211
Figure 4-44: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Extreme Event Loading Case .................. 213
Figure 4-45: Load Distributions for Extreme Event Loading Case ............................................ 214
Figure 4-46: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Extreme Event Loading Case ........................... 217
Figure 4-47: Multiple Tieback Sheet Pile Wall .......................................................................... 218
Figure 4-48: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Service I Loading Condition ................... 220
Figure 4-49: Developed Trapezoidal Distribution for Service I Loading Condition.................. 221
Figure 4-50: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Service I Loading Condition ............................ 223
Figure 4-51: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition .................. 224
Figure 4-52: Developed Trapezoidal Distribution for Strength I Loading Condition ................ 225
Figure 4-53: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Strength I Loading Condition ........................... 227
Figure 4-54: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Extreme Event Loading Condition .......... 228
Figure 4-55: Developed Trapezoidal Distribution for Tieback System...................................... 229
Figure 4-56: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Extreme Event Loading Condition ................... 231
Figure 4-57: Cantilevered Soldier-Pile-Lagging Wall Cross-Section ........................................ 232
Figure 4-58: Conventional Assumed Pressure Diagram ............................................................. 233
Figure 4-59: Force diagram for Service Limit State ................................................................... 235
Figure 4-60: Net Load and Shear Diagram for Service Limit State ........................................... 237
Figure 4-61: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Service Limit State ................ 238
Figure 4-62: Shear and moment diagram for service loading condition .................................... 239
9
Figure 4-63: Service limit state deflection (CT_Flex) ................................................................ 241
Figure 4-65: Force diagram for strength limit state .................................................................... 247
Figure 4-66: Net load and shear diagram for Strength Limit State............................................. 248
Figure 4-67: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Strength Limit State............... 249
Figure 4-68: Shear and moment diagram for Strength Loading Condition ................................ 252
Figure 4-70: Force diagram for Extreme Seismic Limit State .................................................... 255
Figure 4-71: Net load and shear diagram for Extreme Seismic Limit State ............................... 256
Figure 4-72: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Extreme Seismic Limit State . 257
Figure 4-73: Shear and moment diagram for Extreme Seismic Loading Condition .................. 258
Figure 4-74: Cantilevered Soldier-Pile-Lagging Wall Cross-Section ........................................ 261
Figure 4-76: Location of zero and maximum moment for Service Limit State.......................... 265
Figure 4-77: Shear and moment diagram for Service Loading Condition.................................. 266
Figure 4-78: Pressure diagram for Strength I limit state............................................................. 268
Figure 4-79: Location of zero and maximum moment for Strength I limit state ........................ 269
Figure 4-80: Shear and moment diagram for Strength I limit state ............................................ 270
Figure 4-81: Pressure diagram for Extreme Event limit state..................................................... 272
Figure 4-82: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Extreme Event limit state ...... 274
Figure 4-83: Shear and moment diagram for Extreme Event limit state .................................... 275
Figure 4-84: Cantilevered Sheet Pile Wall Cross-Section .......................................................... 277
Figure 4-87: Net Load and Shear Diagram for Service Limit State ........................................... 282
Figure 4-88: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Service Limit State ................ 283
Figure 4-89: Shear and Moment Diagram for Service Loading Condition ................................ 284
Figure 4-91: Force diagram for Strength Limit State ................................................................. 287
Figure 4-92: Net Load and Shear Diagram for Strength Limit State .......................................... 288
Figure 4-93: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Strength Limit State............... 289
Figure 4-94: Shear and Moment Diagram for Strength Loading Condition ............................... 290
Figure 4-96: Force diagram for Extreme Seismic Limit State .................................................... 293
Figure 4-97: Net Load and shear diagram for Extreme Seismic Limit State.............................. 294
Figure 4-98: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for extreme Seismic Limit State.. 295
Figure 4-99: Shear and Moment for Extreme Seismic Loading Condition ................................ 296
Figure 4-100: Cantilevered Sheet Pile Wall Cross-Section ........................................................ 297
Figure 4-101: Force diagram for Service Limit State ................................................................. 299
Figure 4-102: Location of zeros and maximum moment for Service Limit State ...................... 301
Figure 4-103: Shear and moment diagram for Service Loading Condition................................ 302
Figure 4-104: Pressure diagram for Strength I limit state........................................................... 304
Figure 4-105: Location of zero and maximum moment for Strength Limit State ...................... 306
Figure 4-106: Shear and moment diagram for Strength Limit State .......................................... 307
Figure 4-107: Pressure diagram for Extreme Event limit state................................................... 309
Figure 4-108: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Extreme Event Limit State .. 310
Figure 4-109: Shear and Moment diagram for Extreme Event Limit State ................................ 311
Figure 4-110: Multiple Tieback Soldier Pile Wall...................................................................... 313
10
Figure 4-111: Multiple Tieback Soldier Pile Wall ..................................................................... 313
Figure 4-112: Multi Tieback wall system ................................................................................... 314
Figure 4-113: Trapezoidal Pressure Diagram Distribution ......................................................... 316
Figure 4-114: Boussinesq Type Strip Load ................................................................................ 317
Figure 4-115 ................................................................................................................................ 337
Figure 4-116 ................................................................................................................................ 338
Figure 4-117 ................................................................................................................................ 338
Figure 4-118: Shear diagram along the height of the wall.......................................................... 338
Figure 4-119: Moment diagram along the height of the wall ..................................................... 339
Figure 4-120: Comparison of bending moment calculated from FE simulation and limit
equilibruim approach .................................................................................................................. 339
Figure 4-121: Comparison of shear force calculated from FE simulation and limit equilibruim
approach ...................................................................................................................................... 340
Figure 5-1: Schematic presentation of rotation of the bridge deck due to a seismic incident .... 341
Figure 5-2: Generic configuration of seat type abutments.......................................................... 341
Figure 5-3: The HFD curve and its characteristic parameters. ................................................... 342
Figure 5-4:Comparison of data from a 45o-skew abutment test (at BYU) and a non-skew
abutment test (at UCLA) with HFD predictions. Both abutments tested were 15.5ft wide. ...... 344
Figure 5-5: Validation of the SHFD formula against UCLA and BYU test data. ...................... 344
Figure 5-6: Variation of the correction factor RHSR(θ) recommended for high-speed rail bridge
abutments. ................................................................................................................................... 345
Figure 5-7 The schematic presentation of equivalent bilinear force-displacement curve. ......... 346
Figure 5-8: Comparison of SHFD and EPP curves against experimental data from zero-skew
UCLA and BYU tests. ................................................................................................................ 347
Figure 5-9: HFD and bilinear force-displacement curves for a 5.5ft-high 50ft-wide abutment. 350
Figure 5-10: HFD and bilinear force displacement curves for 5.5ft-high 50ft-wide 30o-skew
abutment...................................................................................................................................... 352
Figure 5-11: Force-Displacement Curve .................................................................................... 354
Figure 5-12: Force-Displacement curve of an abutment with 50 ft width, 10 ft height and typical
engineered backfill ...................................................................................................................... 354
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Normalized movements of active and passive pressures for various types of backfills
....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 2-2: Values of Site Factor (FPGA) at Zero Period on Acceleration Spectrum ..................... 56
Table 3-1: LRFD Factors for Rigid Retaining Walls.................................................................... 78
Table 3-2 Table Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Resistance of Shallow Foundations ......... 80
Table 3-3: Unfactored Stabilizing Moments due to Vertical Loads ............................................. 87
Table 3-4: Unfactored Overturning Moments due to Horizontal Loads....................................... 87
Table 3-5: Factored Vertical Loads .............................................................................................. 88
Table 3-6: Factored Stabilizing Moments from Vertical Loads ................................................... 88
Table 3-7: Factored Horizontal Loads .......................................................................................... 89
Table 3-8: Factored Overturning Moments from Horizontal Loads ............................................. 89
Table 3-9: Stability analysis for sliding failure............................................................................. 89
Table 3-10: Stability Analysis for Eccentricity Failure and Bearing Resistance Failure ............. 91
Table 3-11: Bearing Pressure Distribution for All Limit States ................................................... 91
Table 3-12: Unfactored Stabilizing Moments due to Vertical Loads ........................................... 95
Table 3-13: Unfactored Overturning Moments due to Horizontal Loads..................................... 95
Table 3-14: Design Shear Force and Bending Moment for Stem ................................................. 95
Table 3-15: Resistance Factors for Tension-, Shear-, and Axial-Controlled RC Members ......... 97
Table 3-16: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Stem ................................................................ 98
Table 3-17: Checklist for the Shear Design of Stem .................................................................. 100
Table 3-18: Design Shear Force and Bending Moment for Toe ................................................. 102
Table 3-19: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Toe ................................................................ 104
Table 3-20: Checklist for the Shear Design of Toe .................................................................... 105
Table 3-21: Vertical Loads and Resulted Moments Acting on Heel .......................................... 108
Table 3-22: Factored Design Shear and Design Moment of Heel for All Limit States .............. 109
Table 3-23: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Heel ............................................................... 111
Table 3-24: Checklist for the Shear Design of Heel ................................................................... 112
Table 3-25: Earth Pressure Distribution for Limit States ........................................................... 123
Table 3-26: Unfactored Stabilizing Moments due to Vertical Loads ......................................... 124
Table 3-27: Unfactored Stabilizing Moments due to Vertical Loads ......................................... 124
Table 3-28: Unfactored Overturning Moments due to Horizontal Loads for Extreme Event Limit
State............................................................................................................................................. 125
Table 3-29: Factored Overturning and Stabilizing Forces and Moments for All Limit States... 126
Table 3-30: Pile Foundation Profile............................................................................................ 127
Table 3-31: Values Required to Determine Pile Reactions ........................................................ 129
Table 3-32: Pile Reactions for All Limit States .......................................................................... 129
Table 3-33: Unfactored stabilizing and overturning forces and moments acting on the stem ... 132
Table 3-34: Unfactored stabilizing and overturning forces and moments acting on the stem ... 132
Table 3-35: Ultimate Shear and Moment for Stem Design Calculations ................................... 133
Table 3-36: Toe Design Calculations for the Structural Element ............................................... 134
Table 3-37: Toe Design Calculations for Pile Connection Design ............................................. 135
Table 3-38: Heel Design Calculations for Pile Connection Design ........................................... 138
Table 3-40: Heel Design Calculations for the Structural Element ............................................. 139
Table 3-42: Resistance Factors for Tension-, Shear-, and Axial-Controlled RC Members ....... 142
Table 3-43: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Stem .............................................................. 144
12
Table 3-44: Checklist for the Shear Design of Stem .................................................................. 145
Table 3-45: Resistance Factors for Tension-, Shear-, and Axial- Controlled RC Members ...... 147
Table 3-46: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Toe ................................................................ 149
Table 3-47: Checklist for the Shear Design of Toe .................................................................... 150
Table 3-48: Resistance Factors for Tension-, Shear-, and Axial- Controlled RC Members ...... 153
Table 3-49: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Heel ............................................................... 154
Table 3-50: Checklist for the Shear Design of Heel ................................................................... 156
Table 4-1: Typical Values of Sub-Grade Modulus k for Different Sand Properties .................. 165
Table 4-2: Properties of 0.6 in diameter Pre-stressing Steel Strands (ASTM A416, Grade 270)
..................................................................................................................................................... 166
Table 4-3: LRFD Factors for Cantilever Retaining Walls .......................................................... 171
Table 4-4: LRFD Factors for Tieback Retaining Walls.............................................................. 176
Table 4-5: LRFD Load Factors ................................................................................................... 232
Table 4-6: Lagging Resistance Factors ....................................................................................... 241
Table 4-7: Lagging Arching Factors ........................................................................................... 241
Table 4-8: Adjusted Bearing, Shear and Bending Design Values .............................................. 242
Table 4-9: LRFD Factors ............................................................................................................ 261
Table 4-10: Factored driving and resisting moments ................................................................. 263
Table 4-11: Strength Limit State Factored Driving and Resisting Moments ............................. 268
Table 4-12: Strength Limit State Factored Driving and Resisting Moments ............................. 272
Table 4-13: Comparison of results between Simplified Method and Conventional Method ..... 276
Table 4-14: LRFD Load Factors ................................................................................................. 278
Table 4-15: LRFD Load Factors ................................................................................................. 298
Table 4-16: Factored Driving and Resisting Moments ............................................................... 300
Table 4-17: Strength Limit State Factored Driving & Resisting Moments ................................ 305
Table 4-18: Strength Limit State Factored Driving & Resisting Moments ................................ 309
Table 4-19: Comparison of results between Simplified Method and Conventional Method ..... 312
Table 4-20: Boussinesq values at various depths ....................................................................... 317
Table 4-21: Summary of All Results .......................................................................................... 335
Table 4-22: Equivalent Diaphragm Wall Properties Simulating HP8x36 Steel Beam ............... 336
Table 4-23: Soil and Interface Properties ................................................................................... 337
13
14
INTRODUCTION
Earth retaining structures shall be designed to withstand lateral earth and water pressures, the effects of
surcharge loads, self-weight of the wall, and earthquake loads. These are the safety requirements. In
addition, earth-retaining systems shall be designed to provide adequate structural capacity with acceptable
movements, adequate foundation capacity with acceptable settlements, and acceptable overall stability of
the slopes adjacent to walls. These are the serviceability requirements. The tolerable levels of lateral and
vertical deformations are controlled by the type and location of the wall structure and surrounding facilities.
This guideline document describes the geotechnical and structural design procedures for earth retaining
systems in accordance with the general principles and recommendations stipulated in AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (2010). Per AASHTO LRFD Specifications, there are three distinct limit states that must be
examined for the design of earth retaining systems: (1) Service Limit State, (2) Strength Limit State, and
(3) Extreme Event Limit State. Earth retaining systems shall be designed to satisfy the strength
requirements of all three states. First, “unfactored” loads shall be determined, which are the estimated
forces acting on the retaining structures imposed by the soil medium, pore water pressure, any live load
surcharges, and seismic forces before the safety factors are considered. Depending on the type of earth
retaining systems, the calculated “unfactored” loads shall be multiplied by appropriate load factors
associated with the aforementioned limits states, and applied in combinations that represent the possible
worst-case scenarios, which earth-retaining structures may face (LRFD load combinations).
What follows in Chapter 1 of this document is a brief introduction to various types of widely used earth
retaining systems, including the rigid gravity and semi-gravity walls, the non-gravity cantilever and
anchored walls, the mechanically stabilized earth walls, the soil nail walls, and the prefabricated modular
walls.
Selection of an appropriate method to determine the magnitudes and locations of the unfactored lateral
loads is essential for the safe design of earth retaining systems. Chapter 2 provides a review on the classical
analytical procedures, which adopt the limit-equilibrium concept. The models introduced in Chapter 2
include the Rankine Theory, the Coulomb Theory, the Mononobe-Okabe Model, the Trial Wedge Method,
and the recently developed Log-Spiral-Rankine Model, which, incidentally, is the most general limit
equilibrium model to date.
Chapter 3 discusses the structural analysis and design of semi-gravity cantilever retaining walls.
Step-by-step design procedures are provided, and two examples are presented respectively for the design
of cantilever retaining walls supported by a spread footing and by a pile foundation.
In Chapter 4, the structural behaviors of non-gravity cantilever and anchored retaining walls are
investigated. Analysis methods and design requirements for this type of earth retaining systems are
introduced in this section. Three examples are provided, which demonstrate the analysis and design
procedures for cantilever and anchored sheet pile walls subject to a single layer or multiple layers of backfill
materials.
TYPES OF EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES

Retaining walls are generally classified as gravity, semi-gravity, non-gravity cantilevered, non-gravity
anchored, and soil nail. Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist lateral loads through the dead weight
of the wall. The gravity wall type includes rigid gravity walls, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls,
15
and prefabricated modular gravity walls. Although semi-gravity walls are similar to gravity walls, semi-
gravity walls rely on their structural components to mobilize the dead weight of backfill to derive their
capacity to resist lateral loads.
Non-gravity cantilevered walls rely on structural components of the wall partially embedded in foundation
material to mobilize passive resistance to resist lateral loads. Anchored walls derive their capacity to resist
lateral loads by restraining their structural components with tension elements connected to anchors, and
possibly additionally by partially embedding their structural components into the foundation materials.
Soil nailing is an economical technique for stabilizing slopes and constructing retaining walls from the top
down. This ground reinforcement process uses steel tendons, which are drilled and grouted into the soil to
create a composite mass similar to a gravity wall. A shotcrete facing is typically applied, though many
architectural options such as precast panels or "green" vegetated cells are available for permanent wall
facings.
RIGID GRAVITY AND SEMI-GRAVITY WALLS

Rigid gravity walls may be constructed of stone masonry, un-reinforced concrete, or reinforced concrete as
shown in Figure 1-1. These walls can be used in both cut and fill applications. They have relatively narrow
base widths, are generally not used when deep foundations are required, and are most economical at low
wall heights.
Figure 1-1: Gravity Walls

Semi-gravity cantilever, counterfort and buttress walls are constructed using reinforced concrete. They can
also be used in both cut and fill applications, and have relatively narrow base widths. They can be supported
by both shallow and deep foundations as shown in Figure 1-2 to Figure 1-4. The position of the wall stem
relative to the footing can be varied to accommodate right-of-way constraints. These walls can support
soundwalls, sign structures, and other highway features, and are most economical at low to medium wall
heights. The analysis and design procedures for semi-gravity walls are demonstrated in Chapter 3.
16
Figure 1-2: Semi-Gravity Cantilever Retaining Walls
Figure 1-3: Counterfort Retaining Walls
Figure 1-4: Buttressed Retaining Walls
17
NON-GRAVITY CANTILEVER WALLS
Non-gravity cantilever walls are constructed of vertical structural members consisting of partially
embedded soldier piles or continuous sheet piles as shown in Figure 1-5. Soldier piles may be constructed
with driven steel piles, treated timber, precast concrete or steel piles placed in drilled holes and backfilled
with concrete or cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Continuous sheet piles may be constructed with driven
precast pre-stressed concrete sheet piles or steel sheet piles. Soldier piles are faced with either treated
timber, reinforced shotcrete, reinforced cast-in-place concrete, precast concrete, or metal elements. This
type of wall relies on the passive resistance of the foundation material and the moment resisting capacity
of the vertical structural members for stability. Therefore, its maximum height is limited by the competence
of the foundation material and the moment resisting capacity of the vertical structural members. The
economical height of this type of wall is generally limited to a maximum of 18 feet.
NON-GRAVITY ANCHORED WALLS

Anchored walls are typically composed of the same elements as non-gravity cantilevered walls, but derive
additional lateral resistance from one or more levels of anchors as shown in Figure 1-6. The anchors may
be ground anchors (tiebacks) consisting of drilled holes with grouted in pre-stressing steel tendons
extending from the wall face to an anchor zone located behind potential failure planes in the retained soil
or rock mass. Anchored walls are typically constructed in cut situations in which construction proceeds
from the top to the base of the wall. The vertical wall elements should extend below potential failure planes
associated with the retained soil or rock mass. Anchored walls may be used to stabilize unstable sites.
Provided that adequate foundation material exists at the site for the anchors, economical wall heights up to
80 feet are feasible. The analysis and design procedures for non-gravity cantilever and anchored walls are
demonstrated in Chapter 4.
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls use either metallic (inextensible) or geosynthetic (extensible)
soil reinforcement in the soil mass, and vertical or near-vertical facing elements as shown in Figure 1-7.
MSE walls behave as gravity walls, deriving their lateral resistance through the dead weight of the
reinforced soil mass the facing the structure. MSE walls are typically used where conventional reinforced
concrete retaining walls are considered, and are particularly well suited for sites where substantial total and
differential settlements are anticipated. The allowable differential settlement is limited by the deformability
of the wall-facing elements within the plane of the wall. The practical height of an MSE wall is limited by
the competence of the foundation material at a given site.
SOIL NAIL WALL

A soil nail wall consists of steel bars grouted into a drilled hole inclined back into the retained mass of soil
as shown in Figure 1-8. Soil nails are typically spaced about 4 to 6 feet apart in both the horizontal and
vertical directions, and usually vary in length from 0.7 to 1.2 times the wall height. In permanent soil nail
walls, the soil nail bars have an additional layer of corrosion protection (usually epoxy coating). After the
soil nails are installed, prefabricated drainage panels are placed against the cut slope, and the slope is then
covered with reinforced shotcrete connected to the nail “heads.” The shotcrete can be left with a rough
“nozzle finish” or a smoother “cut finish.” In the case of visible permanent walls, the shotcrete can be
carved and stained to resemble the surrounding soil or rock, or finished to a smooth surface.
18
PREFABRICATED MODULAR WALLS
Prefabricated modular walls use stacked or interconnected structural elements, some of which utilize soil
or rock fill, to resist earth pressures by acting as gravity retaining walls as shown in Figure 1-9. Structural
elements consisting of treated timber or precast reinforced concrete are used to from a cellular system,
which is filled with soil to construct a crib wall. Additionally, steel modules can be bolted together to form
a similar system to construct a bin wall. Rock filled wire gabion baskets are used to construct a gabion wall,
while solid precast concrete units or segmental concrete masonry units are stacked to form a gravity block
wall. The aesthetic aspects of some of these types of walls are governed by the nature of the structural
elements used. Those elements consisting of precast concrete may incorporate various aesthetic treatments.
This type of wall is most economical for low to medium height walls.
Figure 1-5: Non-Gravity Cantilever Walls
19
Figure 1-6: Single Tieback System
20
Figure 1-7: MSE Wall with Precast Concrete Face Panels
21
Figure 1-8: Soil Nail Wall
22
Figure 1-9: Precast Concrete Crib Walls
23
24
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND THE LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH
A major issue in providing a safe earth retaining system design is determining the loading diagram, which
shall be calculated through appropriate earth pressure theories. The magnitude of the earth pressure load
depends on the following:
• Physical properties of the soil backfill
• Geometry of the backfill
• Nature of the soil-structure interface
• Surcharge loads
• Seepage force
• Seismic loads
• Location of the resultant load
• Possible modes of deformation and structural stiffness of the earth retaining system
Depending on the modes of deformation, the lateral earth pressure can be classified into three categories:
1. At-Rest Earth Pressure
2. Active Earth Pressure
3. Passive Earth Pressure
The at-rest earth pressure develops when the wall experiences no lateral movement to mobilize the shear
strength of the backfill. Examples of such structures are integral bridge abutments and retaining structures,
which are restrained at the top by roof framing systems and at the bottom by slab foundations. Earth
retaining systems of this type must be designed to withstand the full hydrostatic earth pressure.
The active earth pressure develops when the earth retaining system is free to move away from the backfill
as shown in Figure 2-1. Earth retaining systems, which are allowed to move away from the backfill must
be designed for full active earth pressure.
The passive earth pressure develops when the earth retaining system moves toward the soil mass as shown
in Figure 2-2 An example of such an earth retaining system is a seat-type bridge abutment backwall, which
moves toward the backfill in the longitudinal direction of the bridge during a seismic event.
25
Figure 2-1: Active Earth Pressure
Figure 2-2: Passive Earth Pressure
26
The variation of lateral stress between the active and passive earth pressure values can be brought on only
by lateral movements within the soil mass (i.e., the backfill). Consider an element of the granular soil below
the surface as shown in Figure 2-3. It is assumed that the shear stress within the backfill is governed by the
Mohr-Coulomb shear strength criterion. It is also assumed that, at a particular point, such as point A, the
vertical stress (sv) remains constant. If wall moves away from the backfill, the lateral stress (sh) gradually
decreases, until the limiting value of active earth pressure (sa) is reached. If the wall moves toward the
backfill, the lateral stress (sh) gradually increases, until the limiting value of passive earth pressure (sp) is
reached. Various typical values of these mobilizing movements relative to the wall height are given in Table
2-1 (Clough, 1991).
Table 2-1: Normalized movements of active and passive pressures for various types of backfills
Value of Δ/H
Type of Backfill
Active Passive
Dense Sand 0.001 0.01
Medium Dense Sand 0.002 0.02
Loose Sand 0.004 0.04
Compacted Silt 0.002 0.02
Compacted Lean Clay 0.01 0.05
Compacted Fat Clay 0.01 0.05
Note: Δ denotes the movement of the wall that is required to reach the minimum active or maximum
passive pressure by tilting or by lateral translation. H is the wall height.
27
(a) Wall movement
(b) Mohr circle representation of stress states at elements A and P
Figure 2-3: Mobilizing Earth Pressure Coefficient Relative to Wall Deformation
Selection of the methods for evaluating the static and seismic earth pressures is a crucial step in the design
of earth retaining systems. The following section describes analytical procedures for computing static and
dynamic lateral loads for various earth retaining systems. Depending on the backfill properties and wall
geometry, the following methods may be used to compute active and passive earth pressures:
• Rankine theory
• Coulomb theory
• Log-Spiral-Rankine method
• Trial Wedge method
28
For the purpose of the initial discussion, it is assumed that the backfills are level, homogeneous, and
isotropic; and the distribution of vertical stress (sv) with depth is hydrostatic, as shown in Figure 2-4. The
horizontal stress (sh) is linearly proportional to depth, and is a multiple of vertical stress (sv), as shown in
Eqn. (1).
σh =σv K =γ h K , (2.1)
1
P= σ h. (2.2)
2 h
where 𝛾 is water specific. Depending on the wall movement, the coefficient K in Eq. (2.1) represents the
active (Ka), the passive (Kp), or the at-rest (Ko) earth pressure coefficient.
The resultant lateral earth force (P), which is equal to the area of the load diagram, is assumed to act at the
point located at h/3 above the base of the wall, where h is the height of the pressure surface measured from
the surface of the ground to the base of the wall. This resultant force P is the force that causes bending,
sliding and overturning in the wall.
Figure 2-4: Lateral Earth Pressure Variation with Depth
AT-REST EARTH PRESSURE

For a zero shear strain condition, the horizontal and vertical stresses are related to each other by the
Poisson’s ratio (μ) as follows:
µ
K0 = . (2.3)
1− µ
For normally consolidated soils and vertical walls, the coefficient of at-rest lateral earth pressure may be
taken as,
29
K 0 = (1 − sin φ ) (1 + sin β ) . (2.4)
For over-consolidated soils comprising a level backfill behind a vertical wall, the coefficient of at-rest
lateral earth pressure may be assumed to vary as a function of the over-consolidation ratio (OCR) or stress
history and may be taken as
K o = (1− sin φ )(OCR)sinφ . (2.5)
Variables β and φ in Eqn. (2.4) are the slope angle of the ground surface behind the wall, and the internal
friction angle of the soil, respectively.
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE THEORIES

Depending on the earth retaining system, the value of the active and/or passive pressure can be determined
using the Rankine theory, the Coulomb theory, the Log-Spiral-Rankine method, or the Trial Wedge method.
The state of the active or passive earth pressure depends on the transformation (via expansion or
compression) of the backfill from the elastic state to the state of plastic equilibrium. The concept of active
and passive earth pressure theories can be explained using a continuous deadman near the ground surface
for the stability of a sheet pile wall, as shown in Figure 2-5. As a result of wall deflection, D, the tie-rod is
pulled until the active and passive wedges are formed behind, and in front of, the deadman. The elements
P, in the front of the deadman, and the elements A, at behind the deadman, are acted on by two principal
stresses—namely, a vertical stress (sv), and a horizontal stress (sh). In the active case, the horizontal stress
(sa) is the minor principal stress and the vertical stress (sv) is the major principal stress. In the passive case,
the horizontal stress (sp) is the major principal stress and the vertical stress (sv) is the minor principal stress.
The resulting failure surfaces within the soil mass corresponding to active and passive earth pressures for a
cohesionless soil are shown in Figure 2-5.
30
P A
Figure 2-5: Mohr Circle Representation of the Stress State for a Cohesionless Backfill
31
For a cohesionless soil, Figure 2-5 can be used to derive the relationship for the active and passive earth
pressures.
σv −σa
AB 2
sin φ = = . (2.6)
OA σ v + σ a
2
where AB is the radius of the circle, and OA is the distance from center of circle to the origin. It follows
that
AB σ v − σ a
sin φ = = . (2.7)
OA σ v + σ a
.
σ v sin φ + σ a sin φ = σ v − σ a . (2.8)
Collecting the terms yields
σ a + σ a sin φ = σ v − σ v sin φ . (2.9)
σ a (1 + sin φ ) = σ v (1 − sin φ ) . (2.10)
σ a (1− sin φ )
= . (2.11)
σ v (1+ sin φ )
Using the trigonometric identities,
(1− sinφ ) = tan 2 ⎛ 45° − φ ⎞ . (2.12)

⎜⎝ ⎟
(1+ sinφ ) 2⎠
(1+ sinφ ) = tan 2 ⎛ 45° + φ ⎞ . (2.13)
⎜⎝ ⎟
(1− sinφ ) 2⎠
We have, for the active case,
⎛ φ⎞ σ
K a = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ , where K a = a . (2.14)
⎝ 2⎠ σv
and for the passive case,
σ p 1+ sin φ ⎛ φ⎞
Kp = = = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ . (2.15)
σ v 1− sin φ ⎝ 2⎠
For a cohesive soil, Figure 2-6 can be used to derive the relationships for the active and passive earth
pressures.
32
Figure 2-6: Mohr Circle Representation of State of Stress for Cohesive Backfill
For the active case,

σv −σa
sin φ = 2 . (2.16)
σv +σa c
+
2 tan φ
Then,
σ v sin φ + σ a sin φ + 2c cosφ = σ v − σ a . (2.17)
Collecting the terms yields
σ v (1 − sin φ ) = σ a (1 + sin φ ) + 2c cosφ . (2.18)
This can be solved for sa to obtain,
σa =
(1− sinφ ) σ − 2c cosφ . (2.19)
(1+ sinφ ) v (1+ sinφ )
Using the trigonometric identities,
cosφ ⎛ φ⎞
= tan ⎜ 45° − ⎟ . (2.20)
1+ sin φ ⎝ 2⎠
cosφ ⎛ φ⎞
= tan ⎜ 45° + ⎟ . (2.21)
1− sin φ ⎝ 2⎠
We have, for the active case,
33
⎛ φ⎞ ⎛ φ⎞
σ a = σ v tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ − 2c tan ⎜ 45° − ⎟ . (2.22)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
σ a = σ v K a − 2c K a , where σ v = γ z . (2.23)
For the passive case, solving for sp we get
σp =
(1+ sinφ ) σ + 2c cosφ . (2.24)
(1− sinφ ) v (1− sinφ )
⎛ φ⎞ ⎛ φ⎞
σ p = σ v tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ + 2c tan ⎜ 45° + ⎟ . (2.25)
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
σ p = σ v K p + 2c K p , where σ v = γ z . (2.26)
Rankine’s Earth Pressure Theory

Rankine’s theory is the simplest formulation proposed for earth pressure calculations. The geometry of the
Rankine’s wedge is shown in Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8, and the assumptions implicit Rankine’s earth
pressure theory are as follows:
• The wall is smooth and vertical.
• There is no friction or adhesion between the wall and the soil.
• The failure wedge is a plane surface and is a function of soil’s friction φ and the backfill slope β,
as shown in Eqns. 2.29 and 2.32.
• Lateral earth pressure varies linearly with depth.
• The direction of the lateral earth pressure acts parallel to the slope of the backfill, as shown in
Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8.
• The resultant earth force acts at a distance equal to one-third of the wall height from the base.
• The backfill slope must be less than the backfill friction angle.
The values for the coefficient of active lateral earth pressure using the Rankine’s theory are given by
cos β − cos2 β − cos2 φ β =0 1− sin φ

K a = cos β ⎯if⎯⎯ → . (2.27)
cos β + cos2 β − cos2 φ 1+ sin φ
The magnitude of active earth pressure can be determined using

1
Pa = γ h 2 K a . (2.28)
2
The failure plane angle αa is given by
⎛ φ⎞ 1⎛ ⎛ sin β ⎞ ⎞
α a = ⎜ 45° + ⎟ − ⎜ sin -1 ⎜ ⎟ − β⎟ . (2.29)
⎝ 2⎠ 2 ⎝ ⎝ sin φ ⎠ ⎠
34
Figure 2-7: Rankine's Active Wedge
Rankine made similar assumptions to calculate the passive earth pressure. The values for the coefficient of
active lateral earth pressure using the Rankine’s theory are given by
cos β + cos2 β − cos2 φ β =0 1+ sin φ

K p = cos β ⎯if⎯⎯ → . (2.30)
cos β − cos2 β − cos2 φ 1− sin φ
The magnitude of passive earth pressure can be determined using

1
Pp = γ h 2 K p . (2.31)
2
The passive failure plane angle αp is given by
⎛ φ⎞ 1⎛ ⎛ sin β ⎞ ⎞
α p = ⎜ 45° − ⎟ − ⎜ sin −1 ⎜ ⎟ + β⎟ . (2.32)
⎝ 2⎠ 2 ⎝ ⎝ sin φ ⎠ ⎠
35
Figure 2-8: Rankine' s Passive Wedge
While Rankine’s equation for the passive earth pressure is provided above, it should not be used to calculate
the passive earth pressure if the backfill angle is greater than zero (β > 0). In fact, the Kp values for positive
(β > 0) and negative (β < 0) backfill slopes are identical; and therefore, the Rankine equation to calculate
the passive earth pressure coefficient for sloping ground should be avoided.
Earth Pressure For Cohesive Backfill

Neither Coulomb’s nor Rankine’s theories explicitly incorporate the effect of cohesion into the lateral earth
pressure computations. Bell (1952) modified Rankine’s solution to include this effect. Bell’s derivation and
equations for active and passive pressures follow the same steps that are provided in section §2.2. Caution
is advised when evaluating soil stresses in cohesive soils. The evaluation of the stress induced by cohesive
soils is highly uncertain due to their sensitivity to shrinkage-swell, wetness-dryness, and the degree of
saturation. Tension cracks (gaps) can form, which may considerably affect the nature the assumptions
employed for estimating the stresses. The development of tension cracks from the surface to depth hcr is
illustrated in Figure 2-9.
The active earth pressure (sa) normal to the back of the wall at depth h is equal to
σ a = γ h K a − 2C K a . (2.33)
,
36
1
Pa = γ h 2 K a − 2C K a h . (2.34)
2
According to Eqn. 33, the lateral stress (sa) at some point along the wall is equal to zero. Therefore,
γ h K a − 2C K a = 0 . (2.35)
.
The depth of the tension cracks can then be obtained from Eqn. 35, as in
2C K a
h = hcr = . (2.36)
γ Ka
The passive earth pressure (sp) normal to the back of the wall at depth h is equal to
σ p = γ h K p + 2C K p . (2.37)
Thus,
1
Pp = γ h 2 K p + 2C K p h . (2.38)
2
The forces and stresses corresponding to these limiting states are shown in Figure 2-10. The effect of the
surcharges and ground water are not included in this figure. In the presence of water, the hydrostatic
pressure in the tension crack needs to be considered.
Figure 2-9: Tension Crack Zone
37
Figure 2-10: Tension Crack with Hydrostatic Water Pressure
When designing earth retaining systems that support cohesive backfills, the tensile stress distributed over
the tension crack zone should be ignored, and the simplified lateral earth pressure distribution acting along
the entire wall height h—including the pore water pressure—should be used, as shown in Figure 2-11.
(a) Tension Crack with Water (b) Recommended Pressure Diagram for Design
Figure 2-11: Stress Distribution for Cohesive Backfill Considered in Design
The apparent active earth pressure coefficient, Kap, is defined as
38
σa
K ap = ≥ 0.25 . (2.39)
γ h
Eqn. 39 indicates that the active lateral earth pressure (sa) acting over the wall height (h) in a cohesive soil
should be taken no less than 0.25 times the effective overburden pressure at any depth. It is also required
in design practice that in the case of lightweight backfill soils, the active earth pressure coefficient should
not be taken less than 36 pcf divided by the specific weight of soil (i.e., γ Ka ≧ 36 pcf).
Coulomb’s Earth Pressure Theory

Unlike Rankine’s earth pressure theory, Coulomb’s (1776) earth pressure theory assumes that the wall is
not frictionless. The geometries of Coulomb’s wedges are shown in Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13. The effect
of the wall-backfill interface friction is essentially the introduction of shear stresses between the back of
the wall and the backfill, which changes the direction of the principal planes. The following assumptions
are implicit in Coulomb’s theory:
• The wall is rough.
• There is friction or adhesion between the wall and the soil.
• The failure wedge is a plane surface and is a function of the soil friction ( φ ), wall friction (δ), the
backfill slope (β), and the slope of the wall (ω).
• Lateral earth pressure varies linearly with depth.
• The direction of the lateral earth pressure is at an angle δ with the surface normal of the wall.
• The resultant earth force acts at a distance equal to one-third of the wall height from the base.
• The backfill slope must be less than the backfill friction angle.
The values for the coefficient of active lateral earth pressure may be are given by
cos 2 (φ − ω )
Ka = 2
(2.40)
⎛ sin (φ + δ ) sin (φ − β ) ⎞
cos 2 ω cos (ω + δ ) ⎜ 1+
⎝ cos (δ + ω ) cos (ω − β ) ⎟⎠
and the magnitude of active earth force can be determined using

1
Pa = γ h 2 K a . (2.41)
2
The active failure angle can be calculated using
⎡ − tan (ϕ − β ) + c1A ⎤
α A = ϕ + tan −1 ⎢ ⎥ (2.42)
⎣ c2 A ⎦
where
c1A = tan (φ − β ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ − β ) + cot (φ − ω ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣1+ tan (δ + ω ) cot (φ − ω ) ⎤⎦ , (2.43)
39
c2 A = 1+ tan (δ + ω ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ − β ) + cot (φ − ω ) ⎤⎦ . (2.44)
Figure 2-12: Coulomb's Active Wedge
Coulomb’s passive earth pressure formulas are derived in similarly fashion to the active earth pressure
formulas; however, the inclination of the force is different, as shown in Figure 2-13. The values for the
coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure may be evaluated using
cos 2 (φ + ω )
Kp = 2
. (2.45)
⎛ sin (φ + δ ) sin (φ + β ) ⎞
cos 2 ω cos (δ − ω ) ⎜ 1+
⎝ cos (ω − δ ) cos (ω − β ) ⎟⎠
The magnitude of the passive earth pressure can be determined using
40
1
Pp = γ h 2 K p . (2.46)
2
The passive failure angle can be calculated using
⎡ tan (ϕ + β ) + c3P ⎤
α P = −ϕ + tan −1 ⎢ ⎥. (2.47)
⎣ c4 P ⎦
where
c3P = ( )
tan (φ + β ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ + β ) + cot (φ + ω ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣1+ tan (δ − ω ) cot (φ + ω ) ⎤⎦ , (2.48)
c4 P = 1+ ⎡⎣ tan (δ − ω ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣ tan (φ + β ) + cot (φ + ω ) ⎤⎦ . (2.49)
Figure 2-13: Coulomb's Passive Wedge
41
The Log-Spiral Method
In Rankine and Coulomb’s earth pressure theories, the failure surface is assumed to be planar. It has been
long recognized that when there is a significant friction at the wall-soil interface, the assumption of a planar
failure surface becomes unrealistic. Instead, a logarithmic failure surface develops, as illustrated in Figure
2-14
Figure 2-14: Illustration of the Logarithmic Spiral Failure Surface

Figure 2-14 provides a comparison between the potential failure surfaces using Rankine or Coulomb
methods versus the log-spiral method for both the active and the passive conditions. For the active case, the
failure surfaces determined via the Rankine and Coulomb methods appear to be reasonably close to the
log-spiral failure surface. However, for the passive case, the planar failure surfaces determined using the
Rankine and Coulomb methods are very different than that determined using the log-spiral method, if the
wall-interface friction angle δ is larger than 1/3 of the backfill friction angle, φ . The active and passive earth
pressures are functions of the soil mass within the failure surface. The mobilized soil mass within the
Coulomb and Rankine active zone is about the same as that of a log-spiral active zone. In contrast, the
mobilized soil mass within the Coulomb passive zone is much higher than the log-spiral passive zone, and
the mobilized soil mass within Rankine passive zone is much lower than log-spiral passive zone. Thus, it
is reasonable state that the Coulomb theory overestimates the magnitude of the passive earth pressure, and
the Rankine theory underestimates the magnitude of the passive earth pressure. Therefore, Rankine’s earth
pressure theory is conservative, Coulomb’s theory is non-conservative, and the log-spiral result is the most
realistic estimate of the passive earth pressure.
For non-cohesive soils, values of the static passive lateral earth pressure coefficient may be obtained from
Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16. For the seismic case—and for conditions that deviate from those described in
Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16—the active pressure may be calculated by using the Trial Wedge method, and
the passive earth pressure may be calculated using the Log-Spiral-Rankine model (Shamsabadi et al., 2013;
Xu et al., 2015). Details of the Trial Wedge method and the Log-Spiral-Rankine model are presented in
§2.3.2 and §2.3.3, respectively.
42
Figure 2-15: Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure for Sloping Wall and Horizontal Backfill
43
Figure 2-16: Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure for Vertical Wall and Sloping Backfill
Trial Wedge Method

The Trial Wedge method of analysis uses the general limit equilibrium approach to calculate forces acting
on the earth retaining systems. Trial Wedge method solutions can be used for any wall adhesion and
interface friction angle regardless of irregularity of the backfill and surcharges. The sliding wedge is
bounded by the ground surface on the top, the rupture surface on one side and the back of the wall on the
44
other side, as shown in Figure 2-17. For a derivation and more detail on the Trial Wedge Method, refer to
§2.3.2.
Figure 2-17: Active Trial Wedge
SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURE THEORY

During a seismic event, energy is released in the form of seismic waves through the soil supporting the
earth retaining system foundation. This instantaneously increases the shear stresses and decreases the
volume of voids within the backfill. Okabe (1926) and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929) extended Coulomb’s
(1776) earth pressure theory to include the effects of dynamic earth pressures through the use of a constant
horizontal (kh) and vertical (kv) earthquake acceleration coefficient.
Mononobe-Okabe Earth Pressure Theories
Seismic Active Earth Pressure

Okabe (1926) and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929) extended Coulomb’s (1776) earth pressure theory, by
representing the dynamic inertial forces as pseudo-static forces acting on the Coulomb’s wedge. The forces
acting on the wedge due to horizontal and vertical ground acceleration are shown in Figure 2-18.
45
Figure 2-18: Mononobe-Okabe Active Wedge
The active earth force acting on the wall is

1 2
PAE = γ h (1 − kv ) K AE (2.50)
2
where KAE is the seismic active earth pressure coefficient expressed as
cos 2 (φ − θ − ω )
K AE = 2
. (2.51)
⎛ sin (φ + δ ) sin (φ − θ − β ) ⎞
cosθ cos 2 ω cos (θ + ω + δ ) ⎜ 1+
⎝ cos (δ + θ + ω ) cos ( β − ω ) ⎟⎠
The seismic inertial angle θ is:
⎡ k ⎤
θ = tan −1 ⎢ h ⎥ . (2.52)
⎣ 1− kv ⎦
The failure plane angle (αAE) with respect to horizontal is given by (Zarrabi, 1979)
⎡ − tan (φ − θ − β ) + c1AE ⎤
α AE = φ − θ + tan −1 ⎢ ⎥. (2.53)
⎣ c2 AE ⎦
46
where
c1AE = tan (φ − θ − β ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ − θ − β ) + cot (φ − θ − ω ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣1+ tan (δ + θ + ω ) cot (φ − θ − ω ) ⎤⎦

(2.54)
c2 AE = 1+ tan (δ + θ + ω ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ − θ − β ) + cot (φ − θ − ω ) ⎤⎦ . (2.55)
The orientation of the failure surface associated with Eqn. 53 becomes flatter as the level of acceleration
increases, and when θ + β = φ , the predicted failure surface is horizontal. In practice cohesionless soil is
unlikely to be present for a great distance behind a retaining wall and encompass the entire failure wedge
under seismic conditions. In some cases, free draining cohesionless soil may only be placed in the static
active wedge with the remainder of the soil being cohesive embankment fill (c- φ soil) or even rock. In
these instances, earthquake-induced active pressure should be determined using Trial Wedges method
described in §2.3.1.1
Seismic Passive Earth Pressure

The forces acting on the passive wedge due to horizontal and vertical ground acceleration are shown in
Figure 2-19. The M-O relationship for the seismic passive earth force, PPE, can be expressed as:
1 2
PPE = γ h (1 − kv ) K PE (2.56)
2
where KPE is the seismic passive earth pressure coefficient expressed as
cos 2 (φ − θ + ω )
K PE = 2
. (2.57)
⎡ sin (φ + δ ) sin (φ − θ + β ) ⎤
cosθ cos 2 ω cos (θ − ω + δ ) ⎢1− ⎥
⎢⎣ cos (δ + θ − ω ) cos ( β − ω ) ⎥⎦
The failure plane angle (αPE) with respect to horizontal is given by (Zarrabi 1979)
⎡ tan (φ + β − θ ) + c3PE ⎤
α PE = θ − φ + tan −1 ⎢ ⎥. (2.58)
⎣ c4 PE ⎦
where
c3PE = ( tan (φ + β − θ ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ + β − θ ) + cot (φ + ω − θ ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣1+ tan (δ − ω + θ ) cot (φ + ω − θ ) ⎤⎦ ) (2.59)

c4 PE = 1+ ⎡⎣ tan (δ − ω + θ ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣ tan (φ + β − θ ) + cot (φ + ω − θ ) ⎤⎦ (2.60)
47
Figure 2-19: Mononobe-Okabe Passive Wedge
Seismic Trial Wedge Method
Seismic Active Earth Pressure

Figure 2-20 shows the assumptions used to determine the resultant active force for sloping ground with an
irregular backfill condition applying the wedge theory. This is an iterative process. The failure plane angle
(αn) for the wedge varies until the maximum value of the horizontal active earth pressure is computed using
Eqn. 61. The development of Eqn. 61 is based on the limit equilibrium for a general soil wedge. It is
assumed that the soil wedge moves downward along the failure surface and along the wall surface to
mobilize the active wedge. This wedge is held in equilibrium by the resultant force equal to the resultant
active force (PAE) acting on the face of the wall. Since the wedge moves downward along the face of the
wall, this force acts with an assumed wall friction angle (δ) below the normal to the wall in order to oppose
this movement.
WT - COH - ADH - Wa
PAE = . (2.61)
éë1 + tan (d + w ) tan (a - f ) ùû cos (d + w )
Seismic earth pressure due to the weight of the wedge is
WT = W ⎡⎣(1− kv ) tan (α − φ ) + kh ⎤⎦ . (2.62)
48
Seismic earth pressure due to soil cohesion is
COH = Cn Ln ⎡⎣sin α tan (α − φ ) + cos α ⎤⎦ . (2.63)
Seismic earth pressure due to soil-wall adhesion is
ADH = Ca La ⎡⎣ tan (α − φ ) cos (ω ) − sin ω ⎤⎦ . (2.64)
Seismic earth pressure due to water is
Wa = (U st +U sh ) ⎡⎣ tan (α − φ ) cos α − sin α ⎤⎦ . (2.65)
Figure 2-20: Seismic Active Trial Wedge
Seismic Passive Earth Pressure

Figure 2-21 shows the assumptions used to determine the resultant seismic passive pressure for a broken
back slope condition applying the Trial Wedge theory. Using the limit equilibrium for a given wedge, Eqn.
49
66 calculates the horizontal seismic passive earth pressure on a wall. The iterative procedure that was used
for the active case is used here as well. However, the failure surface angle (αn) is varied until the minimum
value of seismic passive force PPE is attained. As mentioned previously, a constant horizontal and vertical
acceleration have been added to the equation to take into account the seismic event. The equation can be
divided into four components: soil weight, cohesion, adhesion, and water.
WT + COH + ADH − Wa
PPEH = . (2.66)
⎡⎣1− tan (δ − ω ) tan (α + φ ) ⎤⎦ cos (δ − ω )
Seismic earth pressure due to the weight of the wedge:
WT = W ⎡⎣(1− kv ) tan (α + φ ) − kh ⎤⎦ . (2.67)
Seismic earth pressure due to cohesion:
COH = Cn Ln ⎡⎣sin α tan (α + φ ) + cos α ⎤⎦ . (2.68)
Seismic earth pressure due to adhesion:
ADH = Ca La ⎡⎣ tan (α + φ ) cos (ω ) − sin ω ⎤⎦ . (2.69)
Seismic earth pressure due to water:
Wa = (U st +U sh ) ⎡⎣ tan (α + φ ) cos α − sin α ⎤⎦ . (2.70)

where
hw2γ w
U st = (2.71)
2 sin α
(
U sh = UTop + U Bot ) 2 sin
h
w
α
(2.72)
UTop = γ ( h − hw ) Ru (2.73)
U Bot = ⎡⎣γ ( h − hw ) + (γ − γ w ) hw ⎤⎦ Ru (2.74)

where Ust and Ush are the hydrostatic and induced seismic seepage forces acting on the wedge, and Ru is the
excess pore water pressure ratio.
50
Figure 2-21: Seismic Passive Trial Wedge
Log-Spiral-Rankine Model
Seismic earth pressures should be estimated using procedures that account for the internal friction and
cohesion of backfill, as well as the wall-soil interface friction and adhesion. The inertial effects of ground
shaking should also be considered on the development of seismic earth pressures. Shamsabadi et al. (2013)
have developed a methodology for estimating the seismic earth pressures considering the local and global
limit equilibrium of the mobilized soil mass and the states of stress along the nonlinear failure surface within
the soil medium. The Log-Spiral-Rankine model (Shamsabadi et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2015) is available for
both the active and passive earth pressures computation.
The seismic passive earth pressure becomes important for walls that develop resistance to sliding from the
embedded portion of the wall. For these designs it is important to estimate passive pressures that are not
51
overly conservative or non-conservative for the seismic loading condition. This is particularly the case if
displacement-based design methods are used, and it can also affect the efficiency of designs based on limit-
equilibrium methods.
The M-O equation for seismic passive earth pressure is not recommended for use in determining the seismic
passive pressure, despite its apparent simplicity. The M-O equation is based on the Coulomb method to
determine the earth pressures, and this method can overestimate the passive earth pressure in some cases.
Additionally, the M-O equation does not account for the cohesion of the soil, which can contribute
significantly.
A key consideration during the determination of static and seismic passive pressures is the wall friction.
Common practice is to assume that some wall friction will be mobilized for static loading. The amount of
interface friction for static loading is often assumed to range from 50 to 80% of the soil friction angle.
Similar guidance is not available for seismic loading. In the absence of any specific guidance or research
results for seismic loading, it is suggested that a wall-soil interface friction angle equal to or greater than 2/3
of the soil friction angle should be used.
Another important consideration when assessing the seismic passive earth pressure is the amount of
deformation required to mobilize this force. The deformation required to mobilize the passive earth pressure
during static loading is usually assumed to be large—usually 2% to 6% of the embedded wall height. Similar
guidance is not available for seismic loading and therefore the normal approach during design for seismic
passive earth pressures is to assume that the displacement to mobilize the seismic passive earth pressure is
the same as for static loading.
Realistic seismic earth pressures can be obtained utilizing the Log-Spiral-Rankine model as summarized in
this section. In the Log-Spiral-Rankine Model, the (homogeneous) soil body that is mobilized as the
retaining system fails under passive or active earth pressures is assumed to be composed of two regions:
the log-spiral region and the Rankine zone, as illustrated in Figure 2-22. The triangular region of the
mobilized soil body is labeled as the Rankine zone, because the shear stress (τxz) in this region is induced
solely by the horizontal seismic body forces without any contribution from the inter-particle friction or
cohesion—i.e., a stress state that is similar to that of the classical Rankine theory.
52
(a) Passive case (b) Active case
Figure 2-22: Geometry of the Mobilized Failure Surface
(a) Passive case (b) Active case

Figure 2-23: Slices of Mobilized Soil Mass
The inclination of the failure surface in Rankine zone (αR in Figure 2-22) is computed as a function of
earthquake acceleration and using Mohr-Coulomb material with cohesion (Richards and Shi, 1994).
α R = (45° − jφ / 2) − α pR (2.75)
where
1 ⎛ 2 kh ⎞
α pR = tan −1 ⎜ , (2.76)
2 ⎝ (K R − 1) (1− kv ) ⎟⎠
53
2 2
σ x 1+ sin 2 φ 2c tan φ 2j ⎛ c ⎞ ⎛ k ⎞
KR ≡ = + + ⎜ tan φ + ⎟ − ⎜ h ⎟ . (2.77)
σz cos φ
2
σz cosφ ⎝ σ z ⎠ ⎝ 1− kv ⎠
In Eqn. 77, when j = +1, σx is greater than σz and thus the stress state for the passive case is represented; the
active case is represented when j = −1. The same expression on j is adopted throughout the remainder of
this section. To satisfy the ratio of shear stress to horizontal normal stress at the wall-soil interface and to
account for the seismic inertia effect, the wall takeoff angle (αw in Figure 2-22) with respect to horizontal
at the base of the wall is given by the following expression:
α w = (45° − j φ / 2) − α wp − α pR (2.78)
where
1 ⎛ 2K w tan δ ⎞
α wp = tan −1 ⎜ (2.79)
2 ⎝ j (K w − 1) ⎟⎠
and
c c
1+ sin 2 φ + sin(2φ ) − 4 a tan δ + j 2 cosφ Δ
σx σz σz
Kw ≡ = (2.80)
σz cos φ + 4 tan 2 δ
2
2 2
⎛ c⎞ ⎛ c ⎞ ⎛ c ⎞⎡ c c ⎤
where Δ = ⎜ tan φ + ⎟ − ⎜ tan δ + a ⎟ + 4 tan δ ⎜ tan φ + ⎟ ⎢ tan δ − a tan φ ⎥ .
⎝ σz ⎠ ⎝ σz ⎠ ⎝ σ z ⎠ ⎣σ z σz ⎦
Thus, αw is positive when it is above the horizontal and negative when it is below the horizontal. The
subtended logarithmic arc angle (θm in Figure 2-22) can be computed using the following expression:
θm = α R − α w . (2.81)
The geometry of the logarithmic spiral curve, DE, is obtained in Eqn. 82 as follows:
ri = r0 e Δθi ⋅tan( j⋅φ ) . (2.82)
The log-spiral region can then be discretized into a number of vertical slices as illustrated in Figure 2-23.
The increment in the inter-slice shear force from the right face of the ith slice to its left face is denoted as
dTi ≡Ti − Ti−1 and given in Eqn. 83. The inter-slice shear angle, δi in Eqn. 83, must be solved iteratively
adopting either the simplified (cf. Eqn. 83b, Shamsabadi et al., 2013) or the rigorous method (Xu et al.,
2013).
Wi [ (1− kv )tan(α i + jφ ) − kh ] + jc dxi [1+ tan α i tan(α i + j ⋅ φ )]
dTi = tan δ i . (2.83a)
1− j tan δ i tan(α i + jφ )
where
⎡ ⎛ sin δ i ⎞ ⎤
δ i = j ⎢(90° − j φ ) − 2α i − sin −1 ⎜ ⎥ when φ ≠ 0
⎣ ⎝ sin φ ⎟⎠ ⎦
(2.83b)
or
54
⎛ c cos(2α i ) ⎞
δ i = tan −1 ⎜ when φ = 0
⎝ σ z + j 2csin(2α i ) ⎟⎠
. (2.83c)
Finally, the horizontal and total earth-pressure forces, Ph and Ptotal, are obtained as expressed in Eqn. 2.84.
CW + Ca + Cc + CT P Ptotal
Ph = ; Ptotal = h ; K E = . (2.84a)
1− j ⋅ tan δ ⋅ tan(α w + j ⋅ φ ) cos δ (1 / 2 ⋅ γ H 2 )
where
n ⎧
⎪ ⎡ k ⎤ ⎪⎫
CW = ∑ ⎨(1− kv )Wi ⎢ tan(α i + jφ ) − h ⎥ ⎬
i=1 ⎪
⎩ ⎣ 1− kv ⎦ ⎪⎭
(2.84b)
Ca = j ca H tan(α w + jφ ) (2. 84c)
{ }
n
Cc = ∑ j c dxi [1+ tan(α i )tan(α i + jφ )]
i=1 (2. 84d)
{ }
n−1
CT = ∑ j dTi [ tan(α i + jφ ) − tan(α w + jφ )]
i=1 (2. 84e)
For the passive case, the critical condition for the retaining structure is when the inertial force is driving the
mobilized soil body toward the remaining soil mass, whereas the critical condition for the active case is
when the inertial force pushes toward the retaining structure. Therefore, the kh values in this model are
taken as positive for the passive case, and negative for the active case (based on the sign convention adopted
in Figure 2-23). The Log-Spiral-Rankine model is used to develop the seismic passive pressure coefficients
and the Trial Wedge method is used to develop the seismic active earth pressure coefficients provided in
Appendices A and B. Detailed derivation and verification of the Log-Spiral-Rankine model, as well as the
predicted point of application of the earth thrust can be found in the literature (Shamsabadi et al., 2013; Xu
et al., 2014).
MAXIMUM SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS FOR DESIGN

The maximum seismic coefficient (kmax) for computation of seismic lateral thrust loads shall be determined
on the basis of the peak ground acceleration, PGA, at the ground surface as shown in Eqn. 85, where FPGA
is the site adjustment factor given in Table 2-2.
kmax = FPGA PGA . (2.85)
In the case where the walls are founded on Category A soil (hard rock), the kmax shall be estimated based on
1.2 times the site-adjusted peak ground acceleration coefficient as shown bellow.
kmax = 1.2 FPGA PGA . (2.86)
For wall height greater than 20 feet but less than 70 feet, the seismic coefficient used to compute lateral
loads can be determined using the following equation:
kave = α kmax . (2.87)
The a in Eqn. 2.87 is the fill height-dependent reduction factor and can be determined from Figure 2-24:
55
Table 2-2: Values of Site Factor (FPGA) at Zero Period on Acceleration Spectrum
Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (PGA)
Site Class
PGA ≤ 0.10 PGA = 0.20 PGA = 0.30 PGA = 0.40 PGA ≥ 0.50
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1 1 1 1 1
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1 1
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F* * * * * *
* Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses should be performed for all
sites in Site Class F following the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Figure 2-24: Scaling Factor a versus Wall Height H

For wall heights greater than 70 feet, special seismic design studies involving the use of numerical models
should be conducted. These special studies are required in view of the potential consequences of failure of
these very tall walls, as well as limitations in the simplified wave scattering methodology.
WALL DISPLACEMENT
Various methods can be used to estimate permanent displacements of earth retaining structures for walls
that can move without damaging either adjacent facilities or components of the wall. These methods range
from simple Newmark method of analysis to complicated numerical models. For many situations, simple
equations or charts will be sufficient; however, as the complexity of the site or the wall-soil system
increases, more rigorous numerical modeling methods become advantageous. Per NCHRP 12-70 Project,
56
based on regression analyses, the following simplified relationships may be used to calculate the wall
displacement:
• For all sites except Central and East of United States (CEUS) rock sites (Categories A and B):
⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ k ⎞
log(d) = −1.51− 0.74 log ⎜ y ⎟ + 3.27 log ⎜ 1− y ⎟ − 0.8 log ( kmax ) + 1.59 log ( PGV ) . (2.88)
⎝ kmax ⎠ ⎝ kmax ⎠
• For CEUS rock sites (Categories A and B), displacement (in inches) can be estimated by:
⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ k ⎞
log(d) = −1.31− 0.93 log ⎜ y ⎟ + 4.52 log ⎜ 1− y ⎟ − 0.46 log ( kmax ) + 1.12 log ( PGV ) . (2.89)
Figure 2-25 shows a comparison between the displacements estimated using the old (i.e., AASHTO 2004)
and new (i.e., Eqn. 2.88) equations. Note that the above displacement equations represent mean values, and
can be multiplied by 2 to obtain an 84 percent confidence level. When using Eqns. 88 and 89, it is necessary
to estimate the peak ground velocity (PGV) and the yield acceleration (ky). Values of PGV in inch per
second may be estimated using the following correlation between the PGV and spectral ordinates at one
second (S1) for Site Class B.
PGV = 55FV S1 (2.90)
where S1 is the spectral acceleration at 1 second
Fv is the Site Class adjustment for Site Class B.
Values of the yield acceleration (ky) can be established by computing the seismic coefficient for global
stability that results in a capacity to demand ratio (C/D) of 1.0.
57
Figure 2-25: Comparison between AASHTO (2004) and Recommended Displacement
Equation
The proposed Newmark equations given above represent a simplified method of estimating the
displacements that will occur if the C/D ratio for a limiting equilibrium stability analysis is less than 1.0.
Alternate methods of analysis such as finite element or finite difference model can be used to calculate
permanent wall displacements. Such models require considerable expertise in the set-up and interpretation
of model results, particularly relative to the selection of strength parameters consistent with seismic loading.
SURCHARGE LOADS
Uniform Surcharge Loads

Where a uniform surcharge is present as shown in Figure 2-26, a constant horizontal earth pressure must
be added to the basic lateral earth pressure. This constant earth pressure may be taken as:
σh = K Q . (2.91)
Realistically, the lateral earth pressure due to surcharge loads will diminish with depth. The simplified stress
distribution as shown in Figure 2-26 violates this rule of a thumb. Therefore, the constant earth pressure as
suggested by Eqn. 2.91 should not extend indefinitely into below the ground surface. In design practice, the
constant earth pressure is considered to be distributed only between the ground line and the excavation line.
58
Figure 2-26: Lateral Pressure Due to Uniform Surcharge
Boussinesq Loads
Typically, there are three types of Boussinesq Loads. They are as follows:
Strip Load
Strip loads (see Figure 2-27(a)) are loads such as highways and railroads and are generally parallel to the
wall. The general equation for determining the pressure at distance h below the ground line is:
β − sin β cos 2α
σ h = 2Q ; α and β in rad. (2.92)
π
Line Load
Line loads (see Figure 2-27(b)) are loads such as a continuous wall footing of narrow width or similar load
generally parallel to the wall. K-railing could be considered to be a line load. The general equation for
determining the pressure at distance h below the ground line is:
For m ≤ 0.4
0.2 Q n
σh = . (2.93)
( 0.16 + n ) h
2 2
For m > 0.4
59
1.28 Q m 2 n
σh = . (2.94)
(m )
2
2
+ n2 h
Point Load
Point loads (see Figure(c)) are loads such as a wheel load from a concrete truck. The general equation for
determining the pressure at distance h below the ground line is:
For m ≤ 0.4
0.28 Q p n 2
σh = . (2.95)
( 0.16 + n ) h2 3 2
For m > 0.4
1.77 Q p m 2 n 2
σh = . (2.96)
(m )
3
2
+ n2 h2
In addition, σh is further adjusted by the following when the point is further away from the line closest to
the point load (see, Figure 2-27 (d)):
σ h' = σ h cos 2 (1.1θ ) . (2.97)
60
(a) Strip Load (b) Line Load
(c) Point Load
61
(d) Point Load (plan view)
Figure 2-27: Boussinesq Loads
62
SOIL PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION FOR LAYERED SOIL
When designing a shoring system in the layer soils, it is very important to develop appropriate soil pressure
distribution for each individual soil layer as shown in Figure 2-28.
σ 1+ = γ 1 y1ka1
σ 1− = γ 1 y1ka2
σ 2+ = σ 1− + γ 2 y2 ka2
σ 2− = (γ 1 y1 + γ 2 y2 ) ka 3
σ 3+ = σ 2− + γ 3 ( y3 + y4 ) ka 3
σ p = γ 3 y4 k p 3 .
s2- s 2+
Figure 2-28: Earth Pressure Distribution
63
Example Problem 2-1: Earth Pressure Distribution in Layered Soil
For a shoring system subjected to the lateral load given below, calculate the horizontal earth pressure
diagram.
Figure 2-29: Earth Pressure Distribution in Layered Soil
64
Solution:
(i) Determination of earth pressure coefficients: (Coulomb equation can be used to calculate the earth
pressure coefficients for soil layers 1 and 2, and Rankine equation for soil layer 3.)
K a1 = 0.256 (horizontal component)
K a2 = 0.196 (horizontal component)
K a 3 = 0.361
K p 3 = 2.770
Note: It is recommended to use the Log-Spiral-Rankine method to compute the passive earth
pressure. Here the Rankine equation is applied; thus the passive pressure is underestimated (see
Figure 2-14).
(ii) Sample calculation of surcharge stress at h = 3 ft. for strip load:

From Figure 2-27 (a), σh can be determined by applying Eqn. 2.92:
β − sin β cos 2α
σh = 2 Q = 0.219 ksf
π
−1 ⎛ 20 ⎞ −1 ⎛ 2 ⎞
where β = tan ⎜ ⎟ − tan ⎜ ⎟ = 0.834 (rad)
⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠
⎛ 2⎞ β
α = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ + = 0.588 + 0.417 = 1.005 (rad)
⎝ 3⎠ 2
Q = 0.3 ksf
(iii) Determination of horizontal earth pressure distribution:

σ 1+ = γ 1 ( h = 4ft ) K a1 = 110 ( 4 ) ( 0.256 ) = 0.113 ksf
σ 1− = γ 1 ( h = 4ft ) K a2 = 110 ( 4 ) ( 0.196 ) = 0.086 ksf
σ 2 = σ 1− + γ 2 ( h = 6ft ) K a 2 = 86 + 125 ( 6 ) ( 0.196 ) = 0.233 ksf
σ 3+ = σ 2 + (γ 2 − γ w ) ( h = 15ft ) K a2 = 233 + 6 (125 − 62.4 ) ( 0.196 ) = 0.417 ksf
σ 3− = ⎡⎣γ 1 ( 4ft ) + γ 2 ( 6ft ) + (γ 2 − γ w ) (15ft ) ⎤⎦ K a 3 − 2 C K a 3

= ⎡⎣110(4) + 125(6) + 15 (125 − 62.4 ) ⎤⎦ ( 0.361) − 2 (100 ) 0.361 = 0.648 ksf
65
σ 4 = σ 3− + (γ 3 − γ w ) ( h = 15ft ) K a 3 = 648 + 15 (120 − 62.4 ) ( 0.361) = 0.960 ksf
σ p1 = 2 C K p3 = 2 (100 ) 2.770 = 0.333 ksf
σ p 2 = σ p1 + (γ 3 − γ w ) ( h = 10 ft ) K p 3 = 333 + 10 (120 − 62.4 ) ( 2.770 ) = 1.928 ksf
σ aw = γ w ( h = 30ft ) = 1.872 ksf

σ pw = γ w ( h = 10ft ) = 0.624 ksf
The horizontal earth pressure distribution of this shoring system is illustrated in Figure 2-30.
66
Figure 2-30: Pressure Loading Diagram
67
GRAVITY AND SEMI-GRAVITY EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
Design of gravity walls must satisfy both external and internal stability, as well as integrity of the structural
components of the wall. When designing a gravity retaining wall both external and internal stability analysis
has to be performed in order to evaluate the ability of the wall to resist lateral total thrust loads. The lateral
thrust load includes static active earth pressure, earth pressure surcharge loads, surcharge live loads,
incremental seismic load, hydrostatic water pressure, and seepage force. Relevant modes of the failure for
gravity and semi-gravity earth retaining systems supported on spread footing are depicted in Figure 3-1.
Sliding Eccentricity
Bearing Structural
Figure 3-1: Modes of Failure of Semi-gravity Retaining Walls

The modes of the failure of semi-gravity retaining walls include:
68
• Sliding failure
• Eccentricity failure
• Bearing capacity failure
• Structural failure
Sliding failure of the wall is due to excessive horizontal thrust loads.
Eccentricity failure is a concern particularly for tall walls with narrow footings. Excessive lateral thrust
loads and, in particular, incremental seismic loads will cause induced tilting and/or rotation of the wall
during a seismic event.
Bearing capacity failure is due to excessive vertical live loads, surcharge loads, and induced incremental
seismic stresses during a seismic event. Loss of bearing capacity will cause overturning and/or excessive
tilting and settlement of the wall.
Structural failure of the walls is due to overstressing of the structural components including the stem and/or
foundation of the earth retaining systems as a result of excessive vertical and horizontal loads.
All of these failure modes are driven by either the horizontal or the vertical component, or both of the active
earth pressure imposed on the wall by the soil medium. Thus, an accurate estimation on the active pressure
is essential to achieve a safe and economical design. To be conservative, unless the wall’s foundation goes
deep down below the excavation line or otherwise specified, the resistances provided by the passive earth
pressure against the above failure modes are neglected. The stabilizing forces and moments acting on the
semi-gravity wall are offered primarily by the self-weights of the RC structural components and by the soil
mass sitting above the heel of foundation behind the wall. Step-by-step analytical and design procedures
for the semi-gravity retaining walls can be found in §3.7.
RETAINING WALL ON SPREAD FOOTING

Majority of Cast-In-Place concrete retaining walls related to highway structures are of semi-gravity type.
Lateral thrust load on this type of wall is a function of wall geometry, the material properties of backfill,
the slope of the ground surface behind the wall, the friction between the wall and soil, and the ability of the
wall to translate or rotate about its base. Rankine, Coulomb, Log-Spiral-Rankine and Trial Wedge methods
may be used to calculate unfactored loads on gravity and semi-gravity earth retaining systems.
The Rankine theory is applicable for the semi-gravity cantilevered walls with long footing heels where the
conjugate failure surface in the backfill soil does not interferes with the back face of the wall and is fully
developed, as shown in Figure 3-2. The lateral earth pressure acts against a vertical plane, ab, inside of the
soil mass. The position of the conjugate sliding plane, bc, can be determined using Eqn. 3.1.
φ 1⎡ ⎛ sin β ⎞ ⎤
α O = (45° − ) − ⎢sin −1 ⎜ ⎟ −β⎥ (3.0)
2 2⎣ ⎝ sin φ ⎠ ⎦
The Coulomb theory is applicable for the design of retaining walls for which the back face of the wall
interferes with the full development of the conjugate failure surface in the backfill soil, as shown in Figure
3-3. In general, the Coulomb theory applies for gravity, semi-gravity and prefabricated modular walls,
which have relatively steep back faces, and semi-gravity cantilevered walls with short footing heels.
Coulomb theory is also applicable for the semi-gravity cantilevered walls with long footing.
69
Figure 3-2: Application of the Rankine Earth Pressure Theory
70
Conjugate Failure
Surface by
Figure 3-3: Application of Coulomb Earth Pressure Theory
71
The Trial Wedge method is applicable for the design of the gravity walls with either uniform or irregular
backfill soil with application of both Rankine and Coulomb earth pressure theory, as shown in Figure 3-4.
(a) Coulomb Theory Application
Conjugate Failure
Surface
(b) Rankine Theory Application

Figure 3-4: Application of the Wedge Theories
72
There are many situations, such as natural slopes, where the existing ground is stable and stands without
sliding and/or caving. If a conventional retaining wall is to be constructed at the toe of the kind of slope,
the backfill zone is limited and the failure surface is thus prescribed, as shown in Figure 3-5. In these cases,
none of the classical earth pressure theories can estimate the lateral earth pressure by the limited backfill.
However, since the weight of the backfill and the possible failure angle is known, Eqn. 2.61 can still be
used to estimate the lateral earth pressure imposed from the limited backfill zone on the wall.
Figure 3-5: Retaining System subject to a Prescribed Failure Surface
DESIGN OF SEMI-GRAVITY CANTILEVER RETAINING WALLS

Semi-gravity cantilever retaining walls should be designed to satisfy both external and internal failure
criteria. The wall of this type consists of two structural elements: the stem and the footing. The portion of
the footing in the front of the stem is the toe and the portion in the rear of the stem is the heel of the wall.
The footing must be wide and thick enough to provide adequate external and internal stability for the wall.
When the lateral thrust load on the wall is large, a shear key may be added to stabilize the wall against
sliding.
Both external and internal stabilities of the wall shall be achieved using trial sections of the wall until
satisfactory proportions are obtained. The thickness of the stem and footing must be sufficient to resist the
factored shears and factored moments due to earth thrust. The footing of the wall must be wide enough to
provide adequate stability against sliding, overturning and bearing failure.
As a result of excessive earth thrust, it is assumed that the wall may experience horizontal displacement as
well as rotational movement about the toe of the wall. As a result of rotational movement, the soil pressure
increases under the toe and reduces under the footing, as shown in Figure 3-6 through Figure 3-8. The line
73
ci in Figure 3-6 is drawn parallel to the average ground surface to calculate the earth thrust (i.e., area fij in
Figure 3-6) acting on the stem. The passive earth pressure Pp acts against the vertical face of the toe; but
unless otherwise specified, the passive force should be neglected.
e
i ctiv
A
b
c
b
HR g
Hydrostatic
ive
Pass Water Pressure
Figure 3-6: Generalized Lateral and Bearing Pressure Distribution

The sum total of the vertical loads (N) and the sum total of the horizontal resistance forces (HR) act at the
base of the wall to provide stability against sliding and overturning (see Figure 3-7). It is a good practice to
design the footing such that the resultant force N is located within the middle third (e ≤ B/6, cf. Figure 3-7)
of the base. If N falls outside the middle third (e > B/6, case 3 in Figure 3-7) of the base, the heel width is
not in full contact with the soil underneath the footing and a larger pressure distribution may result in a
much larger settlement of the toe than the heel, with a corresponding rotation of the wall.
The resistance due to passive lateral earth pressure in front of the wall shall be neglected unless the wall
extends well below the depth of frost penetration, scour or other types of disturbance. Development of
passive lateral earth pressure in the soil in front of a rigid wall requires an outward rotation of the wall about
its toe or other movement of the wall into the soil. The magnitude of movement required to mobilize passive
pressure is a function of the soil type and condition in front of the wall.
74
When groundwater levels may exist above the bottom of wall footing elevation, consideration shall be given
to the installation of a drainage blanket and piping at the wall excavation face to intercept the groundwater
before it saturates the wall backfill. In general, all wall designs should allow for the thorough drainage of
the back-filling material.
Figure 3-7: Bearing Pressures for Different Locations of Resultant Forces
STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF SEMI-GRAVITY CANTILEVER WALLS SUPPORTED

ON SPREADING FOOTINGS
The lateral thrust load on the stem can cause the stem to bend away from the backfill, creating a tensile
force on the back face of the stem and compressive forces in the front of the stem. The exaggerated
deformed shape of the wall as a result of thrust loads is shown in Figure 3-8. The heel of the footing supports
a large amount of backfill weight and vertical components of the thrust loads, while the soil bearing pressure
acting at the bottom of the heel is very small. This will cause the footing to bend concave downward,
creating tensile stresses at the top surface and compressive stresses at the bottom surface of the heel. The
bearing pressure at the bottom surface of the toe is relatively large compared to the weight of the soil resting
75
at the top surface of the toe. This causes the toe to bend concave upward, creating tensile stresses at the
bottom surface and compressive stresses at the top surface of the toe.
Since the concrete has low tensile strength, reinforcement is required on the tension sides of all of the wall
components. The flexural reinforcement is required at the backfill face of the stem, top of the heel and
bottom face of the toe. It is assumed that all structural members, including the stem, the heel and the toe,
behave like cantilever beams with fixed ends located at sections ac, ab and cd, as shown in Figure 3-8.
Fs
Ws tiv
e
Fc Ac
Fs and Fc -: Seismic Inertial Loads

Wc
c
a
d Water
b Pressure
ive
Pass ing
ar
Be sure
s
Pre
Figure 3-8: Combined Earth Thrusts and Deformed Shape of Cantilever Wall
The thickness and the required reinforcement of the stem, the heel and the toe is controlled by the induced
shear and moment from the lateral thrust loads, the backfill vertical weight and vertical component of the
lateral thrust loads, and the bearing pressure.
GRAVITY RETAINING WALL ON PILE FOUNDATION

Retaining structures are commonly constructed on pile foundations when the soil for a considerable depth
is too week or compressible to provide adequate support for the wall as shown in Figure 3-9.
76
Fs
Ws tiv
e
Fc A c
Wc
Water
Pressure
Figure 3-9: Pile Supported Retaining Wall
The piles in the front row are battered to resist the horizontal components of the lateral earth pressure. The
pile layout should be arranged such that the center of gravity (C.G.) of the piles lies at the location to the
right of the resultant forces R, as shown in Figure 3-9.
77
LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) FOR EARTH RETAINING
SYSTEMS
Earth retaining systems must be designed to satisfy both ultimate limit states and serviceability limit states.
Ultimate limit states are associated with the sliding (SL), overturning (EC), bearing capacity (BC) and
structural failures. Serviceability limit states are related to excessive wall deformation and settlement.
Per AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2010), there are three distinct limit states for the design of earth
retaining systems: (1) Service I Limit State, (2) Strength I Limit State, and (3) Extreme Event I Limit State.
Earth retaining systems shall be designed to satisfy all three limit states. The LRFD factors for various types
of permanent and transient loads and forces as illustrated in Figure 3-10 is listed in Table 3-1. In the
evaluation for the Strength I Limit State, the load factors for permanent loads should consider both the
minimum (i.e., Strength I (a)) and maximum (i.e., Strength I (b)) cases.
sv
B’
B
Figure 3-10: LRFD Factors for Rigid Retaining Walls
Table 3-1: LRFD Factors for Rigid Retaining Walls
Limit State DC EV LSv LSh EH Probable USE
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Settlement
78
Strength I (a) 0.90 1.00 1.75 1.75 1.50 BC/EC/SL
Strength I (b) 1.25 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.50 BC (max value)
Extreme Event I 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 BC/EC/SL
DC: Dead load of Concrete

EV: Vertical Pressure from Dead load of Earth Backfill
LSv: Live Load Surcharge (Vertical Component)
LSh: Live Load Surcharge (Horizontal Component)
EH: Active Earth Pressure
DESIGN STEPS FOR GRAVITY AND SEMI-GRAVITY RETAINING WALLS

Steps for solving gravity retaining walls on spread footings with shear key or on pile foundations are as
follows:
1. Select an appropriate earth pressure theory to develop unfactored static and seismic load
including water, surcharge, and compaction.
2. Apply appropriate load factors to develop loading groups for the four limit states.
3. Evaluate lateral sliding.
4. Evaluate excessive loss of base contact (i.e., eccentricity failure).
5. Evaluate bearing resistance failure.
6. Evaluate structural integrity of the wall.
7. Evaluate maximum wall displacement and settlement.
Lateral Sliding
Sliding of the wall is due to excessive horizontal driving forces. The driving forces in a sliding evaluation
generally include factored horizontal loads due to earth pressure, surcharge load, hydrostatic water pressure
and incremental seismic load. The factored resistance forces include shear resistance at the base of the wall
and the factored passive resistance in front of the wall. The shear resistance capacity at the base of the pile-
supported retaining walls is provided by the lateral capacity of the pile foundation while that of walls on
spread footings is provided by the shear resistance between the foundation base and foundation soil.
Per AASHTO 2010 Section 10.6.3.4, the factored resistance of walls on spread footings against sliding can
be written as:
RR = ϕ Rn = ϕτ Rτ + ϕ ep Rep (3.0)
where Rn = nominal sliding resistance against sliding failure
Rτ = nominal sliding resistance between soil and foundation
Rep = nominal passive resistance of soil available throughout the design life of the structure
79
φτ = resistance factor for shear resistance between soil and foundation specified in Table 3-2
φep = resistance factor for passive resistance specified in Table 3-2
If the soil beneath the footing is cohesionless, the nominal sliding resistance between soil and foundation
is given as:
Rτ = N tan δ (3.0)
where
tan δ = tan φ f (3.0)
For cohesive soil refer to the procedure in AASHTO (2010) Section 10.6.3.4.
Table 3-2 Table Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Resistance of Shallow Foundations
Resistance
Soil Condition Factor
Precast concrete placed on sand 0.90
Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand 0.80
φ
Cast-in-Place or precast Concrete on Clay 0.85
Soil on soil 0.90
φep Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance 0.50
Eccentricity Failure
Eccentricity or the wall rotation is a concern particularly for tall walls with narrow footings. Excessive
lateral loads will cause induced tilting and/or rotation of the wall during a seismic event. The rotational
stability of the wall is evaluated by comparing the factored moment, MD, tending to rotate the earth retaining
system to the factored moment, MR, tending to resist the wall rotation. The rotation of the wall is a function
of the driving force and its line of action. When checking the wall eccentricity, the location of the resultant
force at the base of the footing shall be computed. The location of the resultant force, N, should be within
B/4 of the foundation centroid for foundations on soil, and within 3B/8 of the foundation centroid for
foundations on rock. Eqn. 102 may be use to calculated wall eccentricity.
B MR − MD
e= − (3.0)
2 N
Bearing Resistance Failure
The bearing capacity of the foundation material supporting the wall footing with respect to the induced
bearing pressure is evaluated by comparing the resultant vertical forces at the base of the wall to the
allowable foundation material bearing capacity.
Generalized bearing pressure distribution for the wall base resting on the foundation material is shown in
Figure 3-8. The procedure for evaluating bearing resistance is given in AASHTO (2010) Section 10.6.3.1
80
and 10.6.3.2. For walls on soil foundations, the vertical stress is calculated assuming a uniform distribution
of pressure over an effective base width, B’:
N
σv = (3.0)
B'
where
B ' = B − 2e (3.0)
.
If e is computed to be less than zero, then assume e is zero.
For walls founded on rock, the vertical stress shall be calculated assuming a linearly distributed pressure
over an effective base area as was illustrated in Figure 3-7. If the resultant vertical force is within the middle
one-third of the wall base:
N ⎛ 6e ⎞
σ v,max = ⎜ 1+ ⎟⎠ (3.0)
B⎝ B
N ⎛ 6e ⎞
σ v,min = ⎜ 1− ⎟⎠ (3.0)
B⎝ B .
If the resultant is outside the middle one-third of the wall base, then:
2N
σ v,max = (3.0)
⎛B ⎞
3 ⎜ − e⎟
⎝2 ⎠
σ v,min = 0 (3.0)
Structural Integrity
For the structural design of the wall, all of the LRFD load combinations should be considered. The structural
design of the wall should compare the factored shear forces and factored bending moments computed at the
critical sections of the wall. The critical sections for a cast-in-place concrete wall are shown in Figure 3-11.
In RC design, the design shear and design moment are allowed to be taken at the cross section located at a
distance (equal to the element’s effective depth) from the critical section of the structural component. To
be conservative, in the design examples provided in §3.7, all the structural components will be designed for
the shear and moment demands estimated right at the critical sections (i.e., sections ab, ac, and cd in Figure
3-11).
81
Wall Displacement
Per AASHTO 10.5.2.2, foundation movement criteria should be consistent with the function and type of
structure, anticipated service life, and consequences of unacceptable movements on structure performance.
Foundation movement shall include vertical, horizontal, and rotational movements. The tolerable movement
criteria shall be established by either empirical procedures or structural analyses, or by consideration of both.
f
f
Fs
P’av
Fs P’av
Fc
Ws P’ah
Pah P’ah
Ws
Wc
a c Pav
V
g c
b d
d g
Mh
s Ms
a c
Mt
V Mt
b d Mh
s
Figure 3-11: Forces Acting at the Critical Sections of the Wall
82
DESIGN EXAMPLES OF SEMI-GRAVITY CANTILEVER WALLS
Example 3-1: Cantilever with Toe

A cantilever reinforced cast-in-place concrete wall is to be constructed at the toe of the slope shown in
Figure 3-12. The required height of the retaining wall is estimated 26 feet with 1 foot extended above the
backfill. A 2-foot wide drainage ditch is required at the toe of the slope backfill for the surface water rub
off. The slope angle of the backfill material in contact with the in-situ rock slope is approximately 56.0
degrees from the horizontal. The soils report recommends a spread footing with a maximum allowable
bearing capacity of 6.5 ksf. There is no surcharge load behind the wall. The pervious wall backfill will be
silty fine sand (USCS classification: SM) compacted to 95% relative compaction with a moist unit weight
of 120 pcf, a friction angle of 34 degrees, and a cohesive strength of 300 psf. The maximum tolerable lateral
wall yield displacement is 4” to preclude wall damage. The backfill will be drained using weepholes, which
will not allow hydrostatic pressure behind the wall to develop. The horizontal seismic acceleration
coefficient of 0.20g should be used for the Extreme Event limit state. Use compressive strength of concrete
as 4.0 ksi and steel flexural strength of 60 ksi.
Figure 3-12: Cantilever Wall with Toe
Solution Procedure:
• Use Trial Wedge method (Eqn. 61) to calculate the active earth pressure due to backfill zone.
• Calculate LRFD load combination.
• Check sliding failure
• Check eccentricity failure
• Check bearing resistance failure
• Perform structural design for the stem, toe, and heel of wall
83
• Calculate wall displacement
Figure 3-13: Forces Acting on the Wall
84
Figure 3-14: Active Wedge for Static Case
Figure 3-15: Active Wedge for Seismic Case
85
Step 1: Calculate active earth force due to backfill zone
The failure surface in the backfill in this example is prescribed (see Figure 3-12), so the inclined angle of
the failure surface under both the static and seismic cases is:
α = α ae = 56°
The geometry of the active wedge as shown in Figure 3-14 and Figure 3-15 can be determined as follows:
y1 = 43.75 ft
y2 = 36.40 ft
x1 = 11.02 ft
x2 = 59.51ft
L = 52.77 ft
y1 ( x2 − x1 ) + y2 x1 43.75 ( 29.51− 11.02 ) + 36.4 (11.02 )

Area = = = 605.03ft 2 /ft
2 2
W = 605.03( 0.12 ) = 72.60 kips/ft
The friction angle at the vertical face, ab, is assumed to be parallel to the average ground surface:
δ = β = β ae = 13.98°
Compute the unfactored horizontal static active earth force due to soil wedge behind the wall using Eqn.
61.
W ⎡⎣ tan (α − φ ) ⎤⎦ − cL ⎡⎣sin α tan (α − φ ) + cos α ⎤⎦

PAH =
1 + tan δ tan (α − φ )
72.60 ⎡⎣ tan ( 56° − 34° ) ⎤⎦ − 0.3( 52.77 ) ⎡⎣sin ( 56° ) tan ( 56° − 34° ) + cos ( 56° ) ⎤⎦
= = 13.792
1+ tan(13.98°) tan ( 56° − 34° )
PAV = 13.792 tan (13.98° ) = 3.434
PA = PAH
2
+ PAV2 = 14.21 kips/ft
Compute unfactored horizontal seismic active earth force due to soil wedge behind the wall.
W ⎡⎣ tan (α − φ ) + kh ⎤⎦ − cL ⎡⎣sin α tan (α − φ ) + cos α ⎤⎦

PAEH =
1+ tan δ tan (α − φ )
72.60 ⎡⎣ tan ( 56° − 34° ) + 0.2 ⎤⎦ − 0.3( 52.77 ) ⎡⎣sin ( 56° ) tan ( 56° − 34° ) + cos ( 56° ) ⎤⎦
= = 26.986
1+ tan (13.98° ) tan ( 56° − 34° )
PAEV = 26.986 tan (13.98° ) = 6.718
PAE = PAEH
2
+ PAEV
2
= 27.81 kips/ft
86
Compute the unfactored stabilizing moments due to vertical loads, as listed in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Unfactored Stabilizing Moments due to Vertical Loads

Moment About Toe, MRES
Item Vertical Load, N (k/ft) Moment Arm (ft)
(k-ft/ft)
W1 0.96 (27) (0.15) = 3.888 4.980 19.362
W2 0.5 (1.69) (27) (0.15) = 3.422 6.023 20.613
W3 (2.75)(19) (0.15) = 7.837 9.500 74.456
W4 2 (1) (0.15) = 0.300 14.000 4.200
W5 2 (4.5) (.12) = 1.080 2.250 2.430
W6 0.5 (1.627) (26) (0.12) = 2.539 6.608 16.775
W7 0.5(7.65)(11.48)(0.12) = 5.269 15.174 79.956
W8 11.85 (26) (0.12) = 36.972 13.075 483.409
PAV 14.21 sin(13.98) = 3.433 19.000 65.225
∑ N = 64.7 kips/ft, ∑ M RES = 766.4 kips-ft / ft
Compute the unfactored overturning moments due to horizontal loads, as listed in Table 3-4
Table 3-4: Unfactored Overturning Moments due to Horizontal Loads

Moment @ Toe
Item Horizontal (k/ft) Moment Arm (ft) (k-ft/ft)
PAH 14.21 cos (13.98) = 13.789 12.134 167.315
Extreme Event Values
PAEH 27.81 cos (13.98) =26.986 12.134 327.448
Wc Kh (3.888+3.422+7.837+0.300) (0.2) = 3.090 7.381 22.803
Ws Kh (2.539+5.269+36.972) (0.2) = 8.956 17.826 159.645
W1Y1 + W2 Y2 + W3Y3 + W4 Y4 3.888 (16.25) + 3.422 (11.75) + 7.837 (1.375) + 0.300 ( -0.5)
Yc = = = 7.381 ft
W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 3.888 + 3.422 + 7.837 + 0.300
W6 Y6 + W7 Y7 + W8 Y8 2.543( 20.083) + 5.269 ( 31.300 ) + 36.972 (15.750 )

Ys = = = 17.826 ft
W6 + W7 + W8 2.543+ 5.269 + 36.972
87
Next, the unfactored loads and moments tabulated in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 will be multiplied by their
associated LRFD Factors to determine the total factored loads for all the limit states considered.
Step 2: Calculate the LRFD load combinations.
The design of the wall shall be checked for all possible LRFD load combinations. The table below shows
the LRFD Factors for all the relevant limit states considered in the retaining wall design.

Strength I (b) 1.25 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.50 BC (max value)
EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure
Compute the factored vertical loads and stabilizing moments for all limit states.
Table 3-5: Factored Vertical Loads

Group W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 PAV PAEV Total
Service 3.888 3.422 7.837 0.300 1.080 2.539 5.269 36.972 3.433 0.000 64.741
Strength I
3.499 3.080 7.054 0.270 1.080 2.539 5.269 36.972 5.149 0.000 64.912
(a)
Strength I
4.860 4.278 9.797 0.375 1.458 3.427 7.114 49.912 5.149 0.000 86.370
(b)
Extreme
3.888 3.422 7.837 0.300 1.080 2.539 5.269 36.972 0.000 6.718 68.026
Event
Table 3-6: Factored Stabilizing Moments from Vertical Loads

Group MW1 MW2 MW3 MW4 MW5 MW6 MW7 MW8 MPAV MPAEV Total
Service 19.362 20.613 74.456 4.200 2.430 16.775 79.956 483.409 65.225 0.000 766.427
88
Str. I (a) 17.426 18.552 67.011 3.780 2.430 16.775 79.956 483.409 97.838 0.000 787.176
Str. I (b) 24.203 25.767 93.070 5.250 3.281 22.648 107.941 652.602 97.838 0.000 1032.597
Extreme
19.362 20.613 74.456 4.200 2.430 16.775 79.956 483.409 0.000 127.650 828.852
Event
Compute the factored horizontal loads and overturning moments for all limit states.
Table 3-7: Factored Horizontal Loads

Group Service Strength I (a) Strength I (b) Extreme Event
Total 13.789 20.684 20.684 39.032
Table 3-8: Factored Overturning Moments from Horizontal Loads
Group Service Strength I (a) Strength I (b) Extreme Event
Total 167.315 250.973 250.973 509.897
Step 3: Check sliding failure. (Only the Service Limit State is checked here as an example.)
FR
Sliding Capacity Demand Ratio (CDR) =
PAH
Fr = ϕ t N µ
ϕ t = 0.85 (AASHTO Eq. 10.5.5.2.2, for static cases)
ϕ t = 1.0 (AASHTO Eq. 10.5.5.3.3, for seismic cases)
µ = 0.65 (Geotechnical Recommendation)
0.85 ( 64.741)( 0.65 ) 35.769

Sliding Capacity Demand Ratio (CDR) = = = 2.594
13.789 13.789
Table 3-9: Stability analysis for sliding failure
Group FDH FRH CDR

Service 13.789 35.769 2.594
Strength I (a) 20.684 35.864 1.734
Strength I (b) 20.684 47.719 2.307
Extreme Event 39.032 44.216 1.133
Step 4: Check eccentricity failure.

Calculate eccentricity (e) as shown in Table 3-10.
89
M V - M H 766.448 -167.308
X= = = 9.254ft
N 64.741
B 19
e = − X = − 9.254 = 0.246ft
2 2
B 19
emax = = = 4.75ft
4 4
e 0.246
ecc. ratio = = = 0.052 < 1.0 (O.K.)
emax 4.75
L
C
x e
N
sv
B’
B
Figure 3-16: Free Body Diagram to Calculate Eccentricity
Step 5: Check bearing resistance failure.

Calculate Bearing Pressure σv, as shown in Table 3-10.
B ' = B − 2e = 19 − 2 × 0.246 = 18.508
N N 64.741
σv = = = = 3.498 ksf
B − 2e B' 18.508
90
qall 6.5
Bearing Capacity / Demand Ratio (CDR) = = = 1.858 > 1.0 (O.K.)
σ v 3.498
qall = 6.5 (Geotechnical Recommendation)
The bearing capacity recommended by geotechnical engineers is smaller than the bearing pressure in the
Extreme Event Limit State. Use of a larger spread footing may be required.
Table 3-10: Stability Analysis for Eccentricity Failure and Bearing Resistance Failure
Bearing
emax ecc.
Group N (k/ft) B’ (ft) Pressure, CDR e (ft)
(ft) Ratio
σv (ksf)
Service 64.741 18.508 3.498 1.858 0.246 4.750 0.052
Strength I (a) 64.916 16.521 3.929 1.654 1.240 4.750 0.261
Strength I (b) 86.370 18.099 4.772 1.362 0.450 4.750 0.095
Extreme
68.026 9.377 7.254 0.896 4.811 6.333 0.760
Event
Determine Bearing Capacities for Structural Design

Per AASHTO Section 10.6.5, the structural design of eccentrically loaded foundation will use triangular or
trapezoidal contact stress distributions. To determine σtoe and σheel defined in Figure 3-18, Eqns. 105 to 108
and the stress diagram shown in Figure 3-7 need to be used (calculation for the Service Limit State is shown
here as an example).
N ⎛ 6e ⎞ 64.741 ⎛ 6 × 0.246 ⎞
σ toe = ⎜ 1+ ⎟⎠ = ⎜ 1+ ⎟ = 3.672
B⎝ B 19 ⎝ 19 ⎠
N ⎛ 6e ⎞ 64.741 ⎛ 6 × 0.246 ⎞
σ heel = ⎜ 1− ⎟⎠ = ⎜ 1− ⎟ = 3.143
B⎝ B 19 ⎝ 19 ⎠
In order to determine σtoe and f1 for Extreme Event Limit State, Eqn. 107 must be applied.
2N 2 × 68.03
σ toe = = = 9.672 ksf
⎛ B ⎞ ⎛ 19 ⎞
3 ⎜ − e⎟ 3 ⎜ − 4.811⎟
⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
2N 2 × 68.03
f1 = = = 14.066 ft
σ toe 9.672
The table below shows σtoe and σheel for all the Limit States considered.
Table 3-11: Bearing Pressure Distribution for All Limit States
91
Limit State σtoe σheel f1 f2
Service 3.672 3.143 19.000 0.000
Strength I (a) 4.754 2.079 19.000 0.000
Strength I (b) 5.192 3.899 19.000 0.000
Extreme Event 9.672 0.000* 14.066 4.934
The figure below shows the bearing pressure distribution for all the limit states.
3.143 2.079
3.672 4.754
Service Strength I (a)
3.90
5.19
Strength I (b) Extreme Event

Figure 3-17: Bearing Pressure Distribution for all the Limit States
92
13.98
°
Free body diagram that will be used for Service, Free body diagram that will be used for Extreme
Strength I (a), and Strength I (b) Limit States Event Limit State
Figure 3-18: Free body diagrams of the Forces Acting on the Wall
Step 6: Structural Design
General Procedures:
(i) Draw the free body diagrams for various structural components of the wall.
(ii) Compute the unfactored stabilizing forces and moments and the overturning forces and moments
acting on each component.
(iii) Apply LRFD Factors to obtain the design shear force and bending moment for each component
under all limit states.
(iv) Design the flexural and shear reinforcements of all structural components and compute their
nominal shear strengths and nominal bending capacities. Repeat this step until the capacities are
greater than the demands for all structural components and for all limit states.
93
Stem design:
The values of shear and moment at the base of the stem due to lateral earth pressure are computed to check
the stem thickness and necessary reinforcement. Only Service Limit State calculations are presented below.
(i) Draw the free body diagram.
Figure 3-19: Forces Acting on the Stem
(ii) Compute the unfactored stabilizing forces and moments and the overturning forces and moments.
Take the center point at the bottom of stem as the moment center, and calculate the stabilizing moments
generated by the vertical loads.
94
Force Vertical Load (kips/ft) Arm (ft) Resisting Moment (k-ft/ft)
W1 0.96 (27) (0.15) = 3.888 0.845 3.285
W2 0.5 (1.69) (27) (0.15) = 3.422 0.198 −0.679
W6 0.5 (1.627) (26) (0.12) = 2.539 0.783 −1.987
PAV 7.25 sin (13.98) =1.751 1.325 −2.320
SMRES = −1.700 kips-ft/ft
Calculate the driving force (i.e., horizontal loads) and the overturning moment at the base of the stem. This
can be calculated using proportions from the PA and M determined for the entire height (36.40 ft) of the
retaining wall.
h '2 262
PASTEM = PA = 14.21 = 7.25 kips / ft
H 2
36.402
Vu = VAH STEM = PASTEM cos (13.98) = 7.25cos (13.98) = 7.035 kips / ft
⎛ 26 ⎞
M OT = PAH STEM Y = 7.035 ⎜ ⎟ = 60.967 kips - ft / ft
⎝ 3⎠
M u = M OT − M RES = 60.967 − 1.700 = 59.267 kips - ft / ft
Table 3-13: Unfactored Overturning Moments due to Horizontal Loads

Item Horizontal Load (k/ft) Moment Arm (ft) Overturning Moment (k-ft/ft)
VAHSTEM 7.25 cos(13.98) = 7.035 8.667 60.967
Extreme Event Values

VAEHSTEM 14.188 cos(13.98) =13.767 8.667 119.317
Wc Kh (3.888+3.422) (0.2) = 1.462 11.393 16.658

Ws Kh (2.539) (0.2) = 0.508 17.333 8.801
Vu = SVdriv =15.737 SMOT = 144.775 kips-ft/ft

M u = M OT − M RES = 144.775 − 3.921 = 140.854 kips-ft/ft
(iii) Apply LRFD Factors to obtain the design shear force and bending moment.
Table 3-14: Design Shear Force and Bending Moment for Stem
95
Group MRES MOT Mu Vu
Service 1.701 60.967 59.267 7.035
Strength I (a) 3.121 91.450 88.329 10.552
Strength I (b) 2.904 91.450 88.546 10.552
Extreme Event 3.921 144.775 140.854 15.737
(iv) Design the flexural and shear reinforcements.

Assuming #10 at 6 in.
The development length is ld = 42 in. (For the equations of basic development length of deformed bars
and the modification factors associated with various conditions, please refer to AASHTO 5.11.2.)
As = 2.54 in 2
h = 2.65 ft = 31.800 in
db 1.270
d = h − clear cover − = 31.800 − 2 − = 29.165 in
2 2
As fy 2.54 ( 60,000 )
a= = = 3.735 in
0.85 fc'b 0.85( 4,000 ) (12 )
a 3.735
dv = d − = 29.165 − = 27.297 in
2 2
dv > 0.9 × d = 0.9 × 29.165 = 26.248 in (O.K.)
dv > 0.72 × h = 0.72 × 31.800 = 22.896 in (O.K.)
In order to determine the required area of steel, the design moment, Mu, will be compared to the cracking
moment (AASHTO 5.7.3.3.2).
/0//.232(0.43)
𝑀*+ = 𝑆* 𝑓+ = 5/
= 114.6 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 − 𝑓𝑡/𝑓𝑡
1 2 1
bh = 12 ( 31.800 ) = 2022.48
2
where Sc (Section Modulus) =
6 6
𝑓+ = 0.37C𝑓*D ksi = 0.68 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)
The calculation for Extreme Event Limit State is presented below as an example.
Check the flexural design:

M u = 140.854 kips - ft / ft
(a) General requirement on factored flexural resistance (AASHTO 5.7.3.2)

The factored flexural resistance Mr shall be taken as:
96
Mr = φMn
where: Mn = nominal flexural resistance (kip-in.)
φ = resistance factor as listed in Table 3-15 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2 and AASHTO 11.5.7).
Table 3-15: Resistance Factors for Tension-, Shear-, and Axial-Controlled RC Members
Limit State φf (tension-controlled) φv (shear) φc (bearing on concrete)
Strength 0.9 0.9 0.7
Extreme Event 1.0 1.0 1.0
Check M r = ϕ M n ≥ M u :
⎛ 3.735 ⎞
1.0 ( 2.54 ) ( 60 ) ⎜ 29.165 − ⎟
⎛ a⎞ ⎝ 2 ⎠
ϕ M n = ϕ As fy ⎜ d − ⎟ =
⎝ 2⎠ 12
= 346.673 kips-ft/f > M u = 140.854 kips-ft/ft (O.K.)
(b) Minimum reinforcement (AASHTO 5.7.3.3.2)

The factored flexure resistance must be greater than or equal to the lesser of 1.2Mcr or 1.33Mu.
1.2 𝑀*+ = 1.2 × 114.6 = 137.52 kips-ft/ft
1.33M u = 140.854 (1.33) = 187.335 kips - ft / ft
1.2M cr < 1.33M u Þ check f M n = 346.673 ³ 1.2M cr (O.K.)
(c) Additional requirement on longitudinal reinforcement (AASHTO 5.8.3.5)

At each section the tensile capacity of the longitudinal reinforcement on the flexural tension side of the
member shall be proportioned to satisfy:
Mu N ⎛V ⎞
Aps f ps + As fy = + 0.5 u + ⎜ u − Vp − 0.5Vs ⎟ cot θ (AASHTO Eq. 5.8.3.5-1)
dvϕ f ϕc ⎝ ϕv ⎠
where θ = angle of crack (degrees)

θ = 29 + 3500ε s (AASHTO 5.8.3.4)
Mu
+ 0.5N u + Vu − Vp − Aps f po
d
εs = v (AASHTO Eq.5.8.3.4.2-4)
(
Es As + E p Aps )
97
M u = 140.854 kips - ft / ft
dv = 27.297 in
N u = − (W1 + W2 + W6 + PAV ) = −13.276 kips / ft (compression is negative)
Vu = 15.737 kips / ft
Vp = Aps = 0
Es = 29000 ksi
As = 2.54 in 2
140.854 (12 )
− 0.5 (13.276 ) + (15.737 )
ε s = 27.297 = 0.000964
( 29000 )( 2.54 )
θ = 29 + 3500ε s = 32.378°
⎡M N ⎛V ⎞ ⎤
As,min = ⎢ u + 0.5 u + ⎜ u − Vp − 0.5Vs ⎟ cot θ ⎥ fy
⎢⎣ dvϕ f ϕc ⎝ ϕv ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎡ 140.854 × 12 −13.276 ⎛ 15.737 ⎞ ⎤

=⎢ + 0.5 +⎜ − 0 − 0 ⎟ cot ( 32.378° ) ⎥ 60 = 1.335
⎣ 27.297 × 1.0 1.0 ⎝ 1.0 ⎠ ⎦
As = 2.54 in 2 > As,min = 1.335 in 2 (O.K.)
Table 3-16: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Stem

Limit State φ φMn Mu 1.2Mcr 1.33Mu As As,min
Service 0.9 312.005 59.266 149.661 78.824 2.540 0.567
Strength I (a) 0.9 312.005 88.329 149.661 117.477 2.540 0.904
Strength I (b) 0.9 312.005 88.546 149.661 117.766 2.540 0.865
Extreme Event I 1.0 346.673 140.854 149.661 187.335 2.540 1.335
Check the shear design:

Vu = 15.737 kips/ft
98
Per AASHTO 5.8.2.1, the factored shear resistance Vr shall be taken as:
Vr = φVn
where: Vn = nominal shear resistance (kip)
φ = resistance factor as listed in Table 3-15 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2).
Vn = Vc + Vs + Vp (AASHTO 5.8.3.3)
Vc = 0.0316 β fc′ b dv
Av fy dv ( cot θ + cot α ) sin α

Vs =
s
where dv = effective shear depth as determined in AASHTO 5.8.2.9 (in.)
β = factor indicating ability of diagonally cracked concrete to transmit tension and shear
θ = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses (degrees)
α = angle of inclination of transverse reinforcement to longitudinal axis (degrees)
Av = area of shear reinforcement within a distance s (in2)
s = spacing of transverse reinforcement (in.)
β is determined by the following equations (AASHTO 5.8.3.4):
4.8
β= (if minimum shear reinforcement is provided)
1+ 750ε s
4.8 51
β= (otherwise)
1+ 750ε s 39 + Sxe
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
where Sxe = Sx ⎜ ⎟ is the crack spacing parameter (AASHTO Eq. 5.8.3.4.2-5).
⎝ ag + 0.63 ⎠
12 in ≤ Sxe ≤ 80 in
a 3.735
Sx = d − = 29.165 − = 27.297 in
2 2
99
ag (maximum aggregate size) = 1.5 in.
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
12 ≤ Sxe = 27.297 ⎜ = 17.685 ≤ 80 (O.K.)
⎝ 1.5 + 0.63 ⎟⎠
4.8 51
b= = 2.506
(1 + 750 ´ 0.000964) ( 39 + 17.685)
⇒ Vc = ( 0.0316 ) ( 2.506 ) 4 (12 ) ( 27.297 ) = 51.885 kips/ft
Av = 0 ⇒ Vs = 0
Check Vr = ϕ Vn ≥ Vu :
( )
ϕ Vn = ϕ Vc + Vs + Vp = 1.0 ( 51.885 + 0 + 0 ) = 51.885 kips/ft > Vu = 15.737 kips/ft (O.K.)
Table 3-17: Checklist for the Shear Design of Stem

Limit State φ Nu εs β Vc φVn Vu
Service 0.9 11.600 0.000370 3.3796 69.964 62.968 7.035
Strength I (a) 0.9 11.745 0.000591 2.9928 61.956 55.761 10.552
Strength I (b) 0.9 15.192 0.000569 3.0275 62.676 56.409 10.552
Extreme Event I 1.0 13.276 0.000964 2.5063 51.885 51.885 15.737
Toe Design:
100
Figure 3-20: Forces Acting on the Toe for the Extreme Event Limit State
Remark:
In RC design, the design shear and the design moment are allowed to be taken at the cross-section located
at a distance d (equal to the element’s effective depth) from the critical section of the structural component.
To be conservative, all the structural components in this example are designed for the shear and moment
demands estimated right at the critical sections (i.e., the σmin in Figure 3-20 is taken at the right face of toe).
(ii) Compute the unfactored design shear force and design bending moment.
The calculations below are for the Extreme Event Limit State.
By using similar triangles, σmin can be calculated, as shown below
σ toe ( f1 − 4.5 ) 9.673(14.066 − 4.5 )

σ min = = = 6.578
f1 14.066
N'=
(σ min + σ toe ) ( 4.5 ) = ( 9.673 + 6.578 ) ( 4.5 ) = 36.563 kips/ft
2 2
W1 = 4.5 ( 2 ) ( 0.12 ) = 1.08 kips/ft

W2 = 4.5 ( 2.75 ) ( 0.15 ) = 1.856 kips/ft
101
Design shear force (unfactored):
Vu = N '− W1 − W2 = 36.563 − 1.08 − 1.856 = 33.627 kips/ft
[Note: Typically the shear forces are calculated at a distance d from the face of the wall. However, shear
force is evaluated at the face here to remain on the conservative side.]
Design bending moment (unfactored):
Evaluate the moment at the stem face,
M u = N 'Y1 − W1Y2 − W2 Y3
(σ toe − σ min )( 4.5 3) + σ min ( 4.5 / 2 ) ( 9.673 − 6.578 )( 4.5 3) + 6.578 ( 4.5 / 2 )
Y1 = = = 2.393 ft
(σ toe + σ min ) / 2 ( 9.673 + 6.578 ) / 2
4.5
Y2 = Y3 = = 2.25 ft
2
M u = 36.563( 2.393) − 1.08 ( 2.25 ) − 1.856 ( 2.25 ) = 80.882 kips-ft/ft
(iii) Apply LRFD Factors to obtain the design shear force and bending moment.
Table 3-18: Design Shear Force and Bending Moment for Toe
Group σtoe σmin W1 W2 N’ Vu Mu
Service 3.672 3.547 1.08 1.856 16.242 13.306 30.150
Strength I (a) 4.754 4.120 1.08 1.670 19.967 17.216 39.805
Strength I (b) 5.192 4.886 1.458 2.32 22.676 18.898 43.036
Extreme Event 9.673 6.578 1.08 1.856 36.563 33.627 80.882

Assuming #10 at 6”
102
As = 2.54 in 2
h = 2.75 ft = 33 in
db 1.270
d = h − clear cover − = 33 − 3 − = 29.365 in
2 2
As fy 2.54 ( 60,000 )
a= = = 3.735 in
0.85 fc b 0.85 ( 4,000 ) (12 )
'
a 3.735
dv = d − = 29.365 − = 27.497,
2 2
dv > 0.9 × d = 0.9 × 30.365 = 27.328 in (O.K.)
dv > 0.72 × h = 0.72 × 33 = 23.760 in (O.K.)
/5H3×0.43
𝑀*+ = 𝑆* 𝑓+ = = 123.42 kips-ft/ft
5/
1 2 1
bh = 12 ( 33) = 2178 in 3
2
6 6
and 𝑓+ = 0.37C𝑓*D ksi = 0.68 ksi (AASHTO 5.4.2.6)

M u = 80.882 kips-ft/ft

⎛ a⎞
ϕ M n = ϕ As fy ⎜ d − ⎟
⎝ 2⎠
⎛ 3.735 ⎞
1.0 ( 2.54 ) ( 60 ) ⎜ 29.365 − ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
=
12

103
1.2M cr = 1.2 (134.31) = 161.172 kips-ft/ft
1.33M u = 80.882 (1.33) = 107.573 kips-ft/ft
1.2M cr < 1.33M u ⇒ check ϕ M n = 349.216 ≥ 1.2M cr (O.K.)

Mu
dv
εs = (AASHTO Eq. 5.8.3.4.2-4)
(
Es As + E p Aps )
dv = 27.497 in
N u = 0 kips/ft
Vu = 33.627 kips/ft
Vp = Aps = 0
E s = 29000 ksi
As = 2.54 in 2
80.881(12 )
− 0.5 ( 0 ) + ( 33.626 )
ε s = 27.497 = 0.000936
( 29000 )( 2.54 )
θ = 29 + 3500ε s = 32.276°
1 ⎡ Mu N ⎛V ⎞ ⎤
As,min = ⎢ + 0.5 u + ⎜ u − Vp − 0.5Vs ⎟ cot θ ⎥
fy ⎢⎣ dvϕ f ϕc ⎝ ϕv ⎠ ⎥⎦
1 ⎡ 80.881× 12 0 ⎛ 33.626 ⎞ ⎤
= ⎢ + 0.5 +⎜ − 0 − 0 ⎟ cot ( 32.276° ) ⎥ = 1.476
60 ⎣ 27.497 × 1.0 1.0 ⎝ 1.0 ⎠ ⎦
As = 2.54 in 2 > As,min = 1.476 in 2 (O.K.)
Table 3-19: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Toe
104
Service 0.9 314.295 30.150 161.172 40.100 2.540 0.666
Strength I (a) 0.9 314.295 39.805 161.172 52.941 2.540 0.860
Strength I (b) 0.9 314.295 43.036 161.172 57.238 2.540 0.935
Extreme Event I 1.0 349.216 80.882 161.172 107.573 2.540 1.476

Vu = 33.627 kips/ft
Vc = 0.0316 β fc′ b dv
4.8 51
β=
1+ 750ε s 39 + Sxe
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
where Sxe = Sx ⎜ ⎟ (AASHTO Eq. 5.8.3.4.2-5)
⎝ ag + 0.63 ⎠
12 in ≤ Sxe ≤ 80 in
a 3.735
Sx = d − = 29.365 − = 27.497 in
2 2
ag (maximum aggregate size) = 1.5 in
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
12 ≤ Sxe = 27.497 ⎜ = 17.815 ≤ 80 (O.K.)
⎝ 1.5 + 0.63 ⎟⎠
4.8 51
β= = 2.5319
(1+ 750 × 0.000936 ) ( 39 + 17.815 )
⇒ Vc = ( 0.0316 ) ( 2.5319 ) 4 (12 ) ( 27.497 ) = 52.800 kips/ft
A v = 0 ⇒ Vs = 0
( )
Table 3-20: Checklist for the Shear Design of Toe
105
Limit State φ εs β Vc φVn Vu
Service 0.9 0.000359 3.3942 70.782 63.703 13.306
Strength I (a) 0.9 0.000470 3.1865 66.452 59.807 17.216
Strength I (b) 0.9 0.000512 3.1140 64.940 58.446 18.898
Extreme Event I 1.0 0.000936 2.5319 52.800 52.800 33.627
Remark:
Flexural reinforcement in toe is extended from that in the stem. Therefore the bar # used in toe should be
the same as that in stem, and the spacing of rebar in toe should be taken as a multiple of that in stem. Table
3-19 and Table 3-20 indicate that with spacing equal to 6”, the flexural and shear capacities of toe are much
greater than the demands. To achieve a more economical design, the spacing of the rebars in toe may be
doubled, i.e., assuming #10 at 12”. In this case, the same analytical procedure demonstrated in this section
should be repeated again to ensure that the demands are smaller than the capacities in all limit states.
Furthermore, even if the spacing is allowed to be doubled in the toe (i.e., cut off one bar in every two
rebars), the required development length should still be maintained in toe for the cut-off bars.
Heel Design:
The lateral forces applied to the heel of the wall are shown below.
106
Figure 3-21: Lateral Forces Acting on the Heel
LPA
Figure 3-22: Lateral Pressure Distribution for the Heel Design
107
The figures below display the two possible bearing pressure distributions for the heel design. The bearing
pressure diagrams for the entire spread footing were shown in Figure 3-17 (Note: Only positive bearing
pressure is used in design).
Bearing Pressure Diagram that will be used for Bearing Pressure Diagram that will be used for
Service, Strength I (a), and Strength I (b) Extreme Event Limit State
Figure 3-23: Bearing Pressure Diagrams for the Heel Design
(ii) Compute the unfactored design shear force and design bending moment.
For the heel design calculations, it is assumed that all calculations are made from the face of the stem.
Sample calculations are shown below for Service Limit State.
Table 3-21: Vertical Loads and Resulted Moments Acting on Heel

Force Vertical Load (kips/ft) Arm (ft) Moment (kips-ft/ft), MD
W7 0.5 (11.48) (7.65) (0.12) = 5.269 8.024 -42.282
W8 11.85 (26) (0.12) = 36.972 5.925 -219.060
W9 11.85 (2.75) (0.15) = 4.888 5.926 -28.962
W4 1 (2) (0.15) = 0.30 6.850 -2.055
PAV ( P − P ) sin (13.98 )

A ASTEM = 1.682 11.850 -19.927
N’ 0.5(σ max + σ heel ) × 11.85 = 39.198 5.826* 228.383
*Note:
(σ max − σ heel )(11.85 3) + σ heel (11.85 ) = ( 3.473 − 3.143)(11.85 3) + 3.143(11.85 ) = 5.826
σ max + σ heel 3.473 + 3.143
108
Design shear force (unfactored):
Vu = Pv + ∑ W − N ' = 9.913 kips/ft
Design bending moment (unfactored):
h '2 26 2
PASTEM = PA = 14.21 = 7.25 kips/ft
H2 36.40 2
PAHEEL = PA − PASTEM = 14.21 − 7.25 = 6.96 kips/ft
PAH ,HEEL = 6.96 × cos (13.98° ) = 6.754 kips/ft
⎛2 ⎞ ⎛2 ⎞
PA ⎜ H ⎟ = PASTEM ⎜ h'⎟ + PAHEEL (H − LPA )
⎝3 ⎠ ⎝3 ⎠
1 ⎡ ⎛2 ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤
LPA = ⎢ PASTEM ⎜⎝ h′ ⎟⎠ + PAHEEL H − PA ⎜⎝ H ⎟⎠ ⎥
PAHEEL ⎣ 3 3 ⎦
1 ⎡ ⎛2 ⎞ ⎛2 ⎞⎤
= ⎢ 7.25 ⎜ 26 ⎟ + 6.96(36.4) − 14.21⎜ 36.4 ⎟ ⎥ = 4.911 ft (cf. Figure 3-22)
6.96 ⎣ ⎝3 ⎠ ⎝3 ⎠⎦
M u = ∑ M D − PAH ,HEEL ( LPA − DHEEL / 2 ) = 83.903− ( 6.754 )( 4.911− 2.75 / 2 ) = 60.013 kips-ft/ft
(iii) Apply LRFD Factors to obtain the design shear forces and design bending moments.
Table 3-22: Factored Design Shear and Design Moment of Heel for All Limit States
Group σmax σheel MW7 + W8 MW9 + W4 MPAV MN’ Vu Mu
Service 3.473 3.143 261.342 31.017 19.927 -228.383 9.913 60.013
Str. I (a) 3.747 2.079 261.342 27.916 29.89 -185.018 14.912 98.295
Str. I (b) 4.706 3.899 352.811 38.772 29.89 -292.653 15.048 92.985
Ext. Event 4.756 0.000 261.342 31.017 39.853 -37.914 34.274 246.689
Note: For the Extreme Event Limit State, only the positive bearing pressure is used in the design
calculations. MW7 + W8 = Sum of the Soil Moments. MW9 + W4 = Sum of the Concrete Moments.

Assuming #10 at 6 in
Required development length = 53 in
109
Available length = 52 in (adequately close)
(For the equations of basic development length of deformed bars and the modification factors associated
with various conditions, please refer to AASHTO 5.11.2.)
As = 2.54 in 2
h = 2.75 ft = 33 in
db 1.270
d = h − clear cover − = 33 − 2 − = 30.365 in
2 2
As fy 2.54 ( 60,000 )
a= = = 3.735 in
0.85 fc b 0.85 ( 4,000 ) (12 )
'
a 3.735
dv = d − = 30.365 − = 28.947,
2 2
dv > 0.9 × d = 0.9 × 30.365 = 27.328 in (O.K.)
dv > 0.72 × h = 0.72 × 33 = 23.760 in (O.K.)
/5H3×0.43
𝑀*+ = 𝑆* 𝑓+ = 5/
= 123.42 kips-ft/ft
1 2 1
bh = 12 ( 33) = 2178 in 3
2
6 6


⎛ a⎞ ⎛ 3.735 ⎞ 1
ϕ M n = ϕ As fy ⎜ d − ⎟ = 1.0 (1.5 ) ( 60 ) ⎜ 30.365 − ⎟
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 12
= 361.916 kips-ft/ft > M u = 246.689 kips-ft/ft (O.K.)

1.2 𝑀*+ = 148.10 kips-ft/ft
110
1.33M u = 246.689 (1.33) = 328.097 kips-ft/ft

Mu
d
εs = v (AASHTO Eq. 5.8.3.4.2-4)
(
Es As + E p Aps )
dv = 28.497 in
N u = 0 kips/ft
Vu = 34.274 kips/ft
Vp = Aps = 0
Es = 29000 ksi
As = 2.54 in 2
246.689 (12 )
− 0.5 ( 0 ) + ( 34.274 )
ε s = 28.497 = 0.001876
( 29000 )( 2.54 )
θ = 29 + 3500ε s = 35.566°
1 ⎡ Mu N ⎛V ⎞ ⎤
1 ⎡ 246.689 × 12 0 ⎛ 34.274 ⎞ ⎤
= ⎢ + 0.5 +⎜ − 0 − 0 ⎟ cot ( 35.366° ) ⎥ = 2.530
60 ⎣ 28.497 × 1.0 1.0 ⎝ 1.0 ⎠ ⎦
As = 2.54 in 2 > As,min = 2.530 in 2 (O.K.)
Table 3-23: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Heel

Service 0.9 325.725 60.013 161.172 79.818 2.54 0.778
Strength I (a) 0.9 325.725 98.295 161.172 130.732 2.54 1.214
Strength I (b) 0.9 325.725 92.985 161.172 123.670 2.54 1.178
111
Extreme Event I 1.0 361.916 246.689 161.172 328.097 2.54 2.530

Vu = 34.274 kips/ft
Vc = 0.0316 β fc′ b dv
4.8 51
β=
1+ 750ε s 39 + Sxe
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
where Sxe = Sx ⎜ ⎟ (AASHTO Eq. 5.8.3.4.2-5)
⎝ ag + 0.63 ⎠
12 in ≤ Sxe ≤ 80 in
a 3.735
Sx = d − = 30.365 − = 28.497 in
2 2
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
12 ≤ Sxe = 28.497 ⎜ = 18.463 ≤ 80 (O.K.)
⎝ 1.5 + 0.63 ⎟⎠
4.8 51
β= = 1.770
(1+ 750 × 0.001876 ) ( 39 + 18.463)
⇒ Vc = ( 0.0316 ) (1.770 ) 4 (12 ) ( 28.497 ) = 38.257 kips/ft
A v = 0 ⇒ Vs = 0
( )
ϕVn = ϕ Vc + Vs + Vp = 1.0 ( 38.257 + 0 + 0 ) = 38.257 kips/ft > Vu = 34.274 kips/ft (O.K.)
Table 3-24: Checklist for the Shear Design of Heel

Limit State φ εs β Vc φVn Vu
Service 0.9 0.000478 3.137 67.787 61.008 9.913
112
Strength I (a) 0.9 0.00764 2.708 58.522 52.670 14.912
Strength I (b) 0.9 0.000736 2.745 59.329 53.396 15.048
Extreme Event I 1.0 0.001876 1.770 38.257 38.257 34.274
Step 7: Check Wall Displacement
Calculate wall displacement using Eqn. 88
PGA = 0.45
S1 = 0.35
FPGV =Fv = 1.1
PGV = 55FV S1 = 55 (1.1) ( 0.35 ) = 21.175
kmax = FPGA PGA = 1.1( 0.45 ) = 0.495
k y = 0.2
⎛ k ⎞ ⎛ k ⎞
log ( d ) = −1.51− 0.74 log ⎜ y ⎟ + 3.27 log ⎜ 1− y ⎟ − 0.81log ( kmax ) + 1.59 log ( PGV )
⎛ 0.2 ⎞ ⎛ 0.2 ⎞
log ( d ) = −1.51− 0.74 log ⎜ ⎟ + 3.27 log ⎜ 1− − 0.81log ( 0.495 ) + 1.59 log ( 21.175 )
⎝ 0.495 ⎠ ⎝ 0.495 ⎟⎠
log(d) = −1.51+ 0.291− 0.735 + 0.247 + 2.10 = 0.394
d = 2.5 in < 4.0 in (O.K.)
113
Figure 3-24: Flexural Demand and Capacity Diagram of Stem
114
Figure 3-25: Elevation View of Flexural Reinforcement in Stem
115
#10 @ 6”
#10 @ 6”
Figure 3-26: Final Cross-section Design for the Semi-Gravity Retaining Wall
116
Example 3-2: Pile Supported Cantilever Wall
A pile supported cast-in-place cantilever reinforced concrete wall is to be constructed at the toe of the slope
shown in Figure 3-27. The height of the retaining wall is estimated 24 feet with 1 foot extended above the
backfill. A 2-foot wide drainage ditch is required at the toe of the slope backfill for the surface water rub
off. There is a 2 ksf in magnitude, 10-ft wide strip live load surcharge at a distance of 30 ft behind the wall.
The pervious wall backfill will be silty fine sand (USCS classification: SM) compacted to 95% relative
compaction with a moist unit weight of 120 pcf, friction angle of 34 degrees, and a cohesive strength of
300 psf. The backfill will be drained using weepholes, which will not allow hydrostatic pressure behind the
wall. The horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient of 0.15g shall be used for the extreme event. Use
compressive strength of concrete as 4.0 ksi and steel flexural strength of 60 ksi.
40.0’
30.0’
2.0ksf
2.0’
o
12.0’
32
25.0’
Engineered Backfill
1.5’ Weephole
Soft Soil
Dense Sand
Figure 3-27: Pile Supported Retaining Wall
117
Figure 3-28: Forces Acting on Pile Supported Wall
118
In order to design the retaining wall system, two sets of calculations will need to be made. The first set will
be for the static loading condition. The second set of calculations will be for the extreme event calculations.
For each set of calculations, a five-step process will be used in order to obtain all the values needed to
design the retaining wall. The steps are shown below:
1. Determine the Earth Pressure Distribution

2. Calculate Stabilizing and Overturning Forces and Moments, and Pile Reactions
3. Stem Design Calculations
4. Toe Design Calculations
5. Heel Design Calculations
Once the calculations are made, all the limit states will be compared and the largest values will control the
design.
Step 1(a): Calculate active earth force due to backfill zone

The failure surface in the broken backfill in this example is unknown. It is estimated by adopting the Trial
Wedge method in conjunction with an iterative approach. The wall-soil interface friction angle, δ, and the
inclined angle of failure surface, α, are determined in such a way that the average backfill slope, β, defined
by the critical Trial Wedge (see Figure 3-29 and Figure 3-30) being equal to δ. The computer software—
CT-Rigid, developed by the Caltrans—is utilized to perform the computation. The converged critical Trial
Wedge yields the following geometry:
119
Figure 3-29: Critical Trial Wedge for Static Limit States
Figure 3-30: Critical Trial Wedge for Extreme Event Limit State
120
Static Case Calculations:
α = 60.20°, β = 12.99° (= δ ).
y1 = 39 ft, y2 = 33.85 ft, x1 = 8.24 ft, x2 = 22.32 ft, L = 44.94 ft.
y1 ( x2 − x1 ) + y2 x1 39 ( 22.32 − 8.24 ) + 33.85 ( 8.24 )

Area = = = 414.022 ft 2 /ft
2 2
W = 414.022 × 0.12 = 49.683 kips/ft
Compute unfactored static active earth force due to soil wedge behind the wall using Eqn. 61.
W ⎡⎣ tan (α − φ ) ⎤⎦ − cL ⎡⎣sin α tan (α − φ ) + cos α ⎤⎦

PAH =
49.683 ⎡⎣ tan ( 60.20° − 34° ) ⎤⎦ − 0.3( 44.94 ) ⎡⎣sin ( 60.20° ) tan ( 60.20° − 34° ) + cos ( 60.20° ) ⎤⎦
= = 10.787
1+ tan(12.99°)tan ( 60.20° − 34° )
PAV = 10.787 tan (12.99° ) = 2.484
PA = PAH
2
+ PAV2 = 11.07 kips/ft
Seismic Case Calculations: ( kh = 0.15 )
Likewise, for the Extreme Event Limit State the failure surface of the critical Trial Wedge and its average
backfill slope are determined in the same iterative approach, which yields:
α ae = 54.35°, β ae = 10.44° (= δ seismic ).
y1 = 39 ft, y2 = 33.85 ft, x1 = 8.24 ft, x2 = 27.95 ft, L = 47.98 ft.
y1 ( x2 − x1 ) + y2 x1 39 ( 27.95 − 8.24 ) + 33.85 ( 8.24 )

Area = = = 523.811 ft 2 /ft
2 2
W = 523.811× 0.12 = 62.857 kips/ft
Compute unfactored horizontal seismic active earth force due to soil wedge behind the wall.
121
W ⎡⎣ tan (α − φ ) + kh ⎤⎦ − cL ⎡⎣sin α tan (α − φ ) + cos α ⎤⎦
PAEH =
62.857 ⎡⎣ tan ( 54.35° − 34° ) + 0.15 ⎤⎦ − 0.3( 47.98 ) ⎡⎣sin ( 54.35° ) tan ( 54.35° − 34° ) + cos ( 54.35° ) ⎤⎦
=
1+ tan (10.44° ) tan ( 54.35° − 34° )
= 18.754
PAEV = 18.754 tan (10.44° ) = 3.456
PAE = PAEH
2
+ PAEV
2
= 19.07 kips/ft
Step 1(b): Calculate horizontal earth pressure due to surcharge load
Figure 3-31: Lateral Forces Acting on Pile Supported Wall under Static Limit States
122
Figure 3-32: Lateral Forces Acting on Pile Supported Wall under Extreme Event Limit State
Boussinesq loading (Figure 2-27) is used to calculate the surcharge load due to strip load placed at the top
of the structure.
PAB = 9.104 kips/ft
Seismic Case Calculations:
From the statistic point of view, the maximum seismic earth pressures will rarely take place at the same
time as the maximum live load. Therefore, the effects of live load surcharge are neglected in the calculation
of the Extreme Event Limit State, i.e., PAB
seismic
=0.
Table 3-25: Earth Pressure Distribution for Limit States

Group PA PAV PAH PAB
Service 11.070 2.488 10.787 9.104
Strength I (a) 16.605 3.732 16.180 15.932
Strength I (b) 16.605 3.732 16.180 15.932
Extreme Event 11.070 2.488 10.787 0
Step 1(c): Calculate unfactored stabilizing and overturning moments and forces
123
Compute the unfactored stabilizing moments due to vertical loads. The Service Limit State calculations are
shown in Table 3-26 as the example.

Item Vertical Load, N (k/ft) Moment Arm (ft) Stabilizing Moment, MRES (k-ft/ft)
W1 0.96 (25) (0.15) = 3.600 5.480 19.728
W2 0.5 (2.083) (25) (0.15) = 3.906 6.654 25.994
W3 19 (3) (0.15) = 8.550 9.500 81.225
W4 0.5 (2.0) (24) (0.12) = 2.880 7.377 21.245
W5 5.0 (1.5) (0.12) = 0.900 2.500 2.250
W6 0.5 (10.957) (6.85) (0.12) = 4.501 15.348 69.078
W7 10.957 (24) (0.12) = 31.555 13.522 426.679
PAV 11.07 sin(12.99) = 2.488 19.000 47.278
N = ∑ W + PAV = 58.381 kips/ft
M RES = ∑ M RES = 693.477 kips/ft
Compute the unfactored overturning moments due to horizontal loads:
M OT = 10.787 × 11.282 + 9.104 × 20.116 = 304.822 kips/ft
Computation of the unfactored stabilizing moments due to vertical loads for the Extreme Event Limit State
is shown in Table 3-27. The only difference in Table 3-26 and Table 3-27 is the vertical component of the
active earth thrust.

Item Vertical Load, N (k/ft) Moment Arm (ft) Stabilizing Moment, MRES (k-ft/ft)
W1 0.96 (25) (0.15) = 3.600 5.480 19.728
W2 0.5 (2.083) (25) (0.15) = 3.906 6.654 25.994
W3 19 (3) (0.15) = 8.550 9.500 81.225
W4 0.5 (2.0) (24) (0.12) = 2.880 7.377 21.245
W5 5.0 (1.5) (0.12) = 0.900 2.500 2.250
W6 0.5 (10.957) (6.85) (0.12) = 4.501 15.348 69.078
124
W7 10.957 (24) (0.12) = 31.555 13.522 426.679
PAEV 19.07 sin(10.44) = 3.456 19.000 65.656
N = ∑ W + PAEV = 59.348 kips/ft
M RES = ∑ M RES = 711.855 kips/ft
Compute the unfactored overturning moments due to horizontal loads as shown in Table 3-28.
Table 3-28: Unfactored Overturning Moments due to Horizontal Loads for Extreme Event Limit
State
Force Horizontal Load (k/ft) Arm (ft) Overturning Moment, MOT (k-ft/ft)
PAEH 18.754 11.282 211.589
Wc (kh) 2.408 7.031 16.934
Ws (kh) 5.840 16.947 98.977
M OT = ∑ M OT = 327.500 kips/ft
Step 2(a): Calculate LRFD load combination for stabilizing and overturning forces and moments
The design of the wall shall be checked for all possible LRFD load combinations. The table below shows
the LRFD Factors for all the relevant limit states considered in the retaining wall design.

Strength I (b) 1.25 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.50 BC (max. value)
EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure
125
The unfactored loads and moments should be multiplied by their associated LRFD Factors to determine
the total factored loads for all the limit states considered.
Table 3-29: Factored Overturning and Stabilizing Forces and Moments for All Limit States
Overturning Forces & Moments Stabilizing Forces & Moments
Group
PAH (k/ft) PAB (k/ft) MOT (k-ft/ft) PAV (k/ft) N (k/ft) MRES (k-ft/ft)
Service 10.787 9.104 304.822 2.488 58.381 693.477
Strength I (a) 16.180 15.932 503.014 3.732 58.019 704.422
Strength I (b) 16.180 15.932 503.014 3.732 77.582 930.591
Extreme Event 18.754 0 327.500 3.456 59.348 711.855
Step 2(b): Calculate Pile Reactions

Find the location of N (Figure 3-33) and determine the Pile Vertical and Horizontal Loads. These values
will be needed when determining the structural design for the stem, toe and heel. The Service Limit State
calculation is shown below as an example.
693.477 − 304.822
X1 = = 6.657 ft
58.381
The final pile layout is determined by trial and error method. After many trials the final layout is shown in
Figure 3-33, with a = 4.5 ft, b = 11.5 ft, c = 3.0 ft, and d = 4.5 ft.
126
x1: location of resultant normal force
x2: location of pile’s center of gravity
12’
Figure 3-33: Pile Layout for the Pile Supported Wall
Table 3-30: Pile Foundation Profile

Lateral Spacing
Number of piles per ft Orientation
(in)
Row #1 3.0’ (4−1)/(12ft-1.5ft×2) = 0.333 Battered
Row #2 3.0’ (4−1)/(12ft-1.5ft×2) = 0.333 Battered
Row #3 4.5’ (3−1)/(12ft-1.5ft×2) = 0.222 Vertical
S = 0.889 piles / ft
127
Calculate Pile Center of Gravity (C.G.):
X 2 = ( 0.333 × 1.5 + 0.333 × 6.0 + 0.222 × 17.5 ) 0.889 = 7.188 ft (from the toe)
Calculate Moment of Inertia by evaluating the moment at the centroid of the piles:
I = 0.333(7.188 − 1.5)2 + 0.333(7.188 − 6.0)2 + 0.222(7.188 − 17.5)2 = 34.885 pile-ft 2 /ft
Take Moment about piles Center of Gravity (using Service Limit States for example calculations):
M = NΔX , where Δ X = X 2 − X 1 = 7.188 − 6.657 = 0.530 ft

M = 58.381× 0.530 = 30.956 kips-ft/ft
Calculate the Piles’ Vertical Reactions:
N MX
RV = ± (per pile)
A I
58.381 30.956 × (7.188 − 1.5)
RV 1 = + = 70.725 kips/pile
0.889 34.885
58.381 30.956 × (7.188 − 6)

RV 2 = + = 66.732 kips/pile
0.889 34.885
58.381 30.956 × −(7.188 − 17.5)

RV 3 = + = 56.527 kips/pile
0.889 34.885
Calculate the Horizontal Resistance (assume that the shear resistance of a single pile is 18 kips):
70.725
RH 1 = × 0.333 + 18 × 0.333 = 13.858 kips/ft
3
66.732
RH 2 = × 0.333 + 18 × 0.333 = 13.415 kips/ft
3
RH 3 = 0 + 18 × 0.222 = 4.00 kips/ft

Total Resisting Force:
FRES = ∑ RH = 31.273 kips/ft
Total Driving Force:

FDR = PAH + PAB = 10.787 + 9.104 = 19.890 kips/ft < 31.273 kips/ft (O.K.)
128
Table 3-31: Values Required to Determine Pile Reactions
Group N MRES MOT X1 X2 DX I M
Service 58.381 693.477 304.822 6.657 7.188 0.530 34.885 30.956
Strength I (a) 58.019 704.422 503.014 3.471 7.188 3.716 34.885 215.606
Strength I (b) 77.582 930.591 503.014 5.511 7.188 1.676 34.885 130.040
Extreme Event 59.348 711.855 327.500 6.476 7.188 0.711 34.885 42.208
Table 3-32: Pile Reactions for All Limit States

Group RV1 RV2 RV3 RH1 RH2 RH3 FRES FDR
Service 70.725 66.732 56.527 13.858 13.415 4.000 31.273 19.890
Strength I (a) 100.423 72.611 1.536 17.158 14.068 4.000 35.226 32.111
Strength I (b) 108.480 91.706 48.838 18.053 16.190 4.000 38.243 32.111
Extreme Event 73.848 68.203 54.289 14.183 13.578 4.000 31.761 27.003
Pile Spacing will work for both the static and seismic conditions since FDR < FRES for all Limit States.
Step 3: Stem Design Calculations

For the design of the stem, it is assumed that all calculations are made with respect to the bottom of the
stem (not at distance d!). This is done in order to achieve a more conservative section design. The values
of shear and moment at the stem due to lateral earth pressure are computed to check the stem thickness and
necessary reinforcement. Only the Service Limit State calculations are presented below.
General Procedures:
(i) Draw the free body diagrams for various structural components of the wall.
(ii) Compute the unfactored stabilizing forces and moments and the overturning forces and moments
acting on each component.
(iii) Apply LRFD Factors to obtain the design shear force and bending moment for each component
under all limit states.
(iv) Design the flexural and shear reinforcements of all structural components and compute their
nominal shear strengths and nominal bending capacities. Repeat this step until the capacities are
greater than the demands for all structural components and for all limit states.
129
Application of the procedures above:
Figure 3-34: LRFD Stem Design for Static Condition
130
Figure 3-35: LRFD Stem Design for Seismic Condition
(ii) Compute the unfactored stabilizing forces and moments and the overturning forces and moments.
Check shear and moment for the static cases using Figure 3-34. For the moment, calculations are made
along the centerline at the base of the stem. The centerline is located 1.52 inches from the left side of the
stem. The calculation for the Service Limit State is demonstrated below as an example.
Compute unfactored static active earth forces acting on the stem.

2 2
⎛ h⎞ ⎛ 24 ⎞
PAS = ⎜ ⎟ PA == ⎜ 11.07 = 5.565 kips/ft
⎝H⎠ ⎝ 33.85 ⎟⎠
PASH = 5.565 cos (12.99° ) = 5.424 kips/ft
PASV = 5.565 sin (12.99° ) = 1.251 kips/ft
The unfactored lateral earth force acting on the stem due to live load surcharge is estimated by using Eqn.
92 and Figure 2-27 (a). Integration of the stress should include only the part of horizontal stress that passes
131
through the stem. The computer program CT-Rigid is used to perform the calculation, which yielded,
PABS = 6.275 kips/ft .
The stabilizing forces and moments acting on the stem are provided mostly by the self-weight of the
concrete and soil. The overturning forces and moments include the horizontal forces due to active earth
pressure and live load surcharge. They are summarized in Table 3-33.
Table 3-33: Unfactored stabilizing and overturning forces and moments acting on the stem
Stabilizing Forces and Moments Overturning Forces and Moments
Vertical Moment, Horizontal Moment,
Force Arm Force Arm
Component MRES Component MOT
W1 3.600 1.042 3.750 PABS 6.275 14.23 89.264
W2 3.906 0.133 -0.519
W4 2.880 0.855 -2.462
PASV 1.251 1.522 -1.904 PASH 5.424 8 43.388
Compute design shear and design moment:

Vu = PASH + PABS = 5.424 + 6.275 = 11.698 kips/ft
M u = ∑ M RES + ∑ M OT = −1.135 +132.652 = 131.517 kips-ft/ft
Compute unfactored seismic active earth forces acting on the stem:

2 2
⎛h ⎞ ⎛ 24 ⎞
PAES = ⎜ s ⎟ PAE = ⎜ 19.07 = 9.586
⎝H⎠ ⎝ 33.85 ⎟⎠
PAESH = 9.586 cos (10.44°) = 9.430 kips/ft

PAESV = 9.586 sin (10.44°) = 1.737 kips/ft
The unfactored lateral earth force acting in the stem due to live load surcharge for the Extreme Event Limit
State is neglected: PABS
seismic
= 0 . The calculation of the stabilizing forces and moments acting on the stem for
the Extreme Event Limit State are tabulated in Table 3-34.
Table 3-34: Unfactored stabilizing and overturning forces and moments acting on the stem
132
Stabilizing Forces and Moments Overturning Forces and Moments
Vertical Moment, Horizontal Moment,
Force Arm Force Arm
Component MRES Component MOT
W1 3.600 1.042 3.750 W1 KH 0.540 12.500 6.750
W2 3.906 -0.133 -0.519 W2 KH 0.586 8.333 4.883
W4 2.880 -0.855 -2.462 W4 KH 0.432 16.000 6.912
PAESV 1.737 -1.522 -2.644 PAESH 9.430 8.000 75.437
Compute design shear and design moment:
Vu = ∑ Horizontal Components = 9.430 + 0.540 + 0.586 + 0.432 = 10.988 kips/ft
M u = ∑ M RES + ∑ M OT = −1.875 + 93.982 = 92.107 kips-ft/ft
(iii) Apply LRFD Factors to obtain the design shear force and bending moment for all limit states.
Table 3-35: Ultimate Shear and Moment for Stem Design Calculations
Group PASH PABS Vu

∑M RES ∑M OT
Mu
Service 5.424 6.275 11.698 -1.135 132.652 131.517

Strength I (a) 8.135 10.981 19.116 -2.410 221.294 218.884
Strength I (b) 8.135 10.981 19.116 -2.141 221.294 219.153
Extreme Event 9.430 0 10.988 -1.875 93.982 92.107
Step 4: Toe Design Calculations
For the toe design calculations, two sets of calculations will be made: first, for the structural element and
second, for the pile connection. The calculations below are for the Service Limit State.
133
Figure 3-36: Free Body Diagram for Toe Design under both Static and Seismic Conditions
(ii) Compute the shear force and bending moment at the critical section of toe.
The shear force and bending moment at the critical section of toe is determined by examining the
equilibrium of the factored forces and moments acting on the toe as shown in Figure 3-36. The calculation
for the Service Limit State is demonstrated below as an example.
Check Shear of toe at the face of the stem:
W = Wsoil + Wconc = 0.9 + 2.25 = 3.15 kips/ft
RV 1
Vu = − W = 23.575 − 3.15 = 20.425 kips/ft
3
Rv1 is the vertical component of the reaction force in each pile and is determined from Table 3-32.
Check moment of the Toe calculated at the face of the stem:
Force Vertical Moment Moment, M

Component Arm (ft)
Wsoil 0.9 2.5 -2.25
Wconc 2.25 2.5 -5.625
Rv1 3 23.575 3.5 82.513
Mu = S M = 74.638
(iii) Obtain the design shear force and bending moment for all limit states.
Table 3-36: Toe Design Calculations for the Structural Element
134
Group Wsoil Wconc Rv1/3 Vu MWsoil MWconc MRv1/3 Mu
Service 0.900 2.250 23.575 20.425 -2.250 -5.625 82.513 74.638
Strength I (a) 0.900 2.025 33.474 30.549 -2.250 -5.063 117.160 109.847
Strength I (b) 1.215 2.813 36.160 32.133 -3.037 -7.031 126.560 116.491
Extreme Event 0.900 2.250 24.549 21.399 -2.250 -5.625 85.922 78.047
(iv) Pile Connection Design Calculations

Check the toe pile spacing, which is 3.0 ft:
70.725
RV 1 = 70.725 ⇒ w= = 23.575 kips/ft
3.0
Vu = 70.725 2 = 35.363 kips/ft
1 1
Mu = − wln2 = − 23.575 × 32 = 21.218 kips/ft
10 10
Table 3-37: Toe Design Calculations for Pile Connection Design

Group Rv1 w Vu Mu
Service 70.725 23.575 35.363 21.218
Strength I (a) 100.423 33.474 50.212 30.127
Strength I (b) 108.480 36.160 54.245 32.544
Extreme Event 73.648 24.549 36.824 22.094
Step 5: Heel Design Calculations
For the heel design calculations, two different calculations will be made: first, the structural element
calculation, and the second, the pile connection calculation. The calculations below are for the Service
Limit State.
135
Figure 3-37: LRFD Heel Design for Static Loading Condition
136
Figure 3-38: LRFD Heel Design for Seismic Loading Condition
(ii) Compute the shear force and bending moment at the critical section of heel.
The shear force and bending moment at the critical section of heel is determined by examining the
equilibrium of the factored forces and moments acting on the heel. Only the trapezoidal portion of the active
earth pressure as shown in Figure 3-37 and Figure 3-38 will impose shear force on the heel. The calculation
for the Service Limit State is demonstrated below as an example.
Determine the Trapezoidal Stress Block:
137
The active earth pressure is assumed to be linearly distributed. The top and bottom values of the trapezoidal
stress block is back-calculated from the total active earth-pressure force.
Static Case Calculations: σ top = 0.476 ksf, σ bottom = 0.671 ksf
Seismic Case Calculations: σ top = 0.813 ksf, σ bottom = 1.146 ksf
Factored forces and moments are applied to compute the design shear and design moment on heel, as
demonstrated in Table 3-38 for Service Limit State and Table 3-39 for Extreme Event Limit State.
Table 3-38: Heel Design Calculations for Pile Connection Design

Force Vertical Component (kips/ft) Arm (ft) Moment (kips–ft /ft)
W6 0.5 (10.957) (6.85) (0.12) = 4.501 7.304 32.876
W7 10.957 (24.0) (0.12) = 31.555 5.478 172.870
PAV 0.5(0.476 + 0.671) 9.85 cos(12.99°)sin(12.99°) =1.237 * 10.957 13.556
W3 10.957 (3.0) (0.15) = 4.931 5.478 27.011
Rv 3 4.5 56.538 4.5 = −12.562 9.457 −118.791
PAH 0.5(0.476 + 0.671) 9.85 cos(12.99°)cos(12.99°) = 5.363 3.144 −16.861

* The left face of the trapezoidal stress block is not perpendicular to its top and bottom faces.
Therefore, the term, cos(12.99°), is required to compute the correct area of the stress block.
Compute the design shear and design moment:
Vu = ∑ Vertical Components = 29.662 kips/ft

M u = ∑ Moments = 110.660 kips-ft/ft
138

Force Vertical Component (kips/ft) Arm (ft) Moment (kips–ft /ft)
W6 0.5 (10.957) (6.85) (0.12) = 4.501 7.304 32.876
W7 10.957 (24.0) (0.12) = 31.555 5.478 172.870
PAEV 0.5(0.813 + 1.146) 9.85 cos(10.44°)sin(10.44°) = 1.718 10.957 18.825
W3 (10.957) (3.0) (0.15) = 4.931 5.478 27.011
Rv 3 4.5 54.289 4.5 = −12.064 9.457 −114.088
PAEH 0.5(0.813 + 1.146) 9.85 cos(10.44°) cos(10.44°) = 9.325 3.144 −29.316
Compute the design shear and design moment:
Vu = ∑ Vertical Components = 30.640 kips/ft

M u = ∑ Moments = 108.178 kips-ft/ft
(iii) Obtain the design shear force and bending moment for all limit states.
Table 3-40: Heel Design Calculations for the Structural Element

Design Shear Calculation Design Moment Calculation
Group
∑W S W3 PAV Rv3/4.5 Vu ∑W S W3 PAV Rv3/4.5 Mu
Service 36.056 4.931 1.237 −12.562 29.662 205.746 27.011 13.556 −118.79 110.660
Str. I (a) 36.056 4.438 1.856 −0.341 42.008 205.746 24.310 20.333 −3.228 221.869
Str. I (b) 48.678 6.163 1.856 −10.853 45.842 277.758 33.764 20.333 −102.63 203.931
Ext. Event 36.056 4.931 1.718 −12.064 30.640 205.746 27.011 18.825 −114.09 108.178
*Note: ∑W S = W6 + W7
Pile Connection Design Calculations:
RV 3 = 56.527 ⇒ w = 56.527 4.5 = 12.562 kips/ft
Vu = 56.527 2 = 28.264 kips/ft
1 1
Mu = − wln2 = − 12.562 × 4.5 2 = 25.438 kips/ft
10 10
139
Group Rv3 w Vu Mu
Service 56.527 12.562 28.264 25.438
Strength I (a) 1.536 0.341 0.768 0.695
Strength I (b) 48.838 10.853 28.269 24.419
Extreme Event 54.289 12.064 27.145 24.430
140
STRUCTURAL DESIGN:
Now that all of the calculations necessary to design the retaining wall have been made, these values will be
compared and the retaining wall will be designed. Three separate designs will be analyzed: the stem, toe
and heel. A table will be displayed summarizing the results obtained for each section and then the design
will be determined.
STEM DESIGN:
Group Vu Mu
Service 11.698 131.517
Strength I (a) 19.116 218.884
Strength I (b) 19.116 219.153
Extreme Event 10.998 92.107
By observation, it can be seen that Strength I (b) Limit State controls the design of the stem.
Design the flexural and shear reinforcements:

Assuming #10 at 6 in.
Development length is ld = 42 in . (For the equations of basic development length of deformed bars and
the modification factors associated with various conditions, please refer to AASHTO 5.11.2.)
As = 2.54 in 2
h = 3.043 ft = 36.520 in
d = h − clear cover − db 2 = 36.520 − 2 − 1.270 2 = 33.885 in
As fy 2.54 × 60,000
a= = = 3.735 in
0.85 fc′b 0.85 × 4,000 × 12
dv = d − a 2 = 33.885 − 3.735 2 = 32.017 in

dv > 0.9 × d = 0.9 × 33.885 = 30.496 in (O.K.)
dv > 0.72 × h = 0.72 × 36.520 = 26.294 in (O.K.)
141
moment (AASHTO 5.7.3.3.2):
/44H.2/×0.43
𝑀*+ = 𝑆* 𝑓+ = = 151.15 kips-ft/ft
5/
1 2 1
where Sc (Section Modulus) = bh = 1236.520 2 = 2667.42
6 6
The calculation for Strength I (b) is presented below as the example:
Check the flexural design: M u = 219.153 kips-ft/ft

The factored flexural resistance Mr shall be taken as: Mr = φMn
Table 3-42: Resistance Factors for Tension-, Shear-, and Axial-Controlled RC Members
φf φv φc
Limit State (tension-controlled) (shear) (bearing on concrete)
1
ϕ M n = ϕ As fy ( d − a 2 ) =
0.9 × 2.54 × 60 × ( 33.885 − 3.735 2 )
12

1.2 𝑀*+ = 1.2 × 151.15 = 181.35 kips-ft/ft
142
1.33M u = 219.153 × 1.33 = 291.474 kips-ft/ft

Mu N ⎛V ⎞

θ = 29 + 3500ε s (AASHTO 5.8.3.4)
M u dv + 0.5N u + Vu − Vp − Aps f po
εs = (AASHTO Eq. 5.8.3.4.2-4)
(E A + E A )
s s p ps
dv = 32.017 in
N u = − (W1 + W2 + W6 + PAV ) = −15.148 kips/ft (compression is negative)
Vu = 19.116 kips/ft
Vp = Aps = 0
E s = 29000 ksi
As = 2.54 in 2
219.153 × 12
− 0.5 × 15.148 + 19.116
ε s = 32.017 = 0.001272
29,000 × 2.54
θ = 29 + 3500 ε s = 33.452°
1 ⎡ Mu N ⎛V ⎞ ⎤
1 ⎡ 219.153 × 12 −15.148 ⎛ 19.116 ⎞ ⎤

= ⎢ + 0.5 +⎜ − 0 − 0 ⎟ cot ( 33.452° ) ⎥ = 1.877
60 ⎣ 32.017 × 0.9 0.7 ⎝ 0.9 ⎠ ⎦
143
As = 2.54 in 2 > As,min = 1.877 in 2 (O.K.)
Table 3-43: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Stem

Service 0.9 365.958 131.517 197.389 174.918 2.540 1.126
Strength I (a) 0.9 365.958 218.884 197.389 291.116 2.540 1.916
Strength I (b) 0.9 365.958 219.153 197.389 291.474 2.540 1.877
Extreme Event I 1.0 406.620 92.107 197.389 122.503 2.540 0.781

Vu = 19.116 kips/ft
Vr = φVn
where Vn = nominal shear resistance (kip)
Vc = 0.0316 β fc′ b dv
Av f y dv (cot θ + cot α )sin α

Vs =
s
where dv = effective shear depth as determined in AASHTO 5.8.2.9 (in)

s = spacing of transverse reinforcement (in)
144
If minimum shear reinforcement is provided, then
β = 4.8 1+ 750ε s
otherwise,
4.8 51
β= ×
1+ 750ε s 39 + Sxe
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
where Sxe = Sx ⎜ ⎟ is the crack spacing parameter (AASHTO Eq. 5.8.3.4.2-5)
⎝ ag + 0.63 ⎠
12 in ≤ Sxe ≤ 80 in
Sx = d − a 2 = 33.885 − 3.735 2 = 32.017 in

⎛ 1.38 ⎞
12 ≤ Sxe = 32.017 ⎜ = 20.744 ≤ 80 (O.K.)
⎝ 1.5 + 0.63 ⎟⎠
4.8 51
β= × = 2.097
1 + 750 × 0.001272 39 + 20.744
⇒ Vc = 0.0316 × 2.097 × 4 × 12 × 32.017 = 50.923 kips/ft
A v = 0 ⇒ Vs = 0
( )
Table 3-44: Checklist for the Shear Design of Stem

Service 0.9 11.637 0.000749 2.624 63.707 57.337 11.698
145
Strength I (a) 0.9 11.512 0.001295 2.079 50.471 45.424 19.116
Strength I (b) 0.9 15.148 0.001272 2.097 50.923 45.831 19.116
Extreme Event I 1.0 12.124 0.000536 2.923 70.985 70.985 10.988
TOE DESIGN:
For the toe design, two designs will be developed: first, for the structural element and second, for the pile
connection.
Structural Element Design:

Group Vu Mu
Service 20.425 74.638
Strength I (a) 30.549 109.847
Strength I (b) 32.133 116.491
By observation, it can be seen that Strength I (b) controls the design of the toe.

As = 2.54 in 2
h = 3 ft = 36 in
db 1.270
d = h − clear cover − = 36 − 6 − = 29.365 in
2 2
As fy 2.54 ( 60,000 )
a= = = 3.735 in
0.85 fc b 0.85 ( 4,000 ) (12 )
'
a 3.735
dv = d − = 29.365 − = 27.497 in
2 2
dv > 0.9 × d = 0.9 × 29.365 = 26.429 in , OK
dv > 0.72 × h = 0.72 × 36 = 25.920 in , OK
/JK/×0.43
𝑀*+ = 𝑆* 𝑓+ = 5/
= 146.88 kips-ft/ft
146
1 2 1
bh = 12 ( 36 ) = 2592
2
where Sc = Section Modulus =
6 6
The calculation for Strength I (b) is presented below as the example.


Mr = φMn
Table 3-45: Resistance Factors for Tension-, Shear-, and Axial- Controlled RC Members
⎛ 3.735 ⎞
0.9 ( 2.54 ) ( 60 ) ⎜ 29.365 − ⎟
⎛ a ⎞ ⎝ 2 ⎠
ϕ M n = ϕ As fy ⎜ d − ⎟ =
⎝ 2⎠ 12

The factored flexure resistance must be greater than or equal to the lesser of 1.2Mcr or 1.33M u.
1.2 𝑀*+ = 1.2 × 146.88 = 176.25 kips-ft/ft
147
1.33M u = 116.491× 1.33 = 154.934 kips-ft/ft

Mu N ⎛V ⎞
θ = 29 + 3500ε s (AASHTO 5.8.3.4)
Mu
d
εs = v (AASHTO Eq.5.8.3.4.2 − 4)
(
Es As + E p Aps )
d v = 27.497 in
N u = − (W1 + W2 + W6 + PAV ) = 0 kips/ft (Compression is negative.)
Vu = 32.113 kips/ft
Vp = Aps = 0
E s = 29000 ksi
As = 2.54 in 2
116.491(12 )
− 0.5 ( 0 ) + ( 32.133)
ε s = 27.497 = 0.001126
( 29000 )( 2.54 )
θ = 29 + 3500ε s = 32.941°
⎡ M N ⎛V ⎞ ⎤
⎢⎣ dvϕ f ϕc ⎝ ϕv ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎡ 116.491× 12 −0 ⎛ 32.133 ⎞ ⎤
=⎢ + 0.5 +⎜ − 0 − 0 ⎟ cot ( 32.941° ) ⎥ 60 = 1.860
⎣ 27.497 × 0.9 0.7 ⎝ 0.9 ⎠ ⎦
148
As = 2.54 in 2 > As,min = 1.860 in 2 (O.K.)
Table 3-46: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Toe

Service 0.9 314.295 74.638 191.808 99.268 2.540 1.220
Strength I (a) 0.9 314.295 109.847 191.808 146.097 2.540 1.768
Strength I (b) 0.9 314.295 116.491 191.808 154.934 2.540 1.860
Extreme Event I 1.0 349.216 78.047 191.808 103.803 2.540 1.147

Vu = 32.133 kips/ft
Vr = φVn
Vc = 0.0316 β fc' bdv

Vs =
s
149
4.8
β=
1+ 750ε s , if minimum shear reinforcement is provided;
4.8 51
β= ⋅
1+ 750ε s 39 + Sxe , otherwise.
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
⎝ ag + 0.63 ⎠
12 in ≤ Sxe ≤ 80 in
Sx = d − a / 2 = 29.365 − 3.735 / 2 = 27.497 in
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
12 ≤ Sxe = 27.497 ⎜ = 17.815 ≤ 80 (O.K.)
⎝ 1.5 + 0.63 ⎟⎠
4.8 51
β= = 2.336
(1+ 750 × 0.001126 ) ( 39 + 17.815 )
⇒ Vc = ( 0.0316 ) ( 2.336 ) 4 (12 ) ( 27.497 ) = 48.707 kips/ft
A v = 0 ⇒ Vs = 0
Check Vr = ϕVn ≥ Vu :
( )
Table 3-47: Checklist for the Shear Design of Toe

Service 0.9 0 0.000719 2.799 58.361 52.525 20.425
Strength I (a) 0.9 0 0.001066 2.395 49.942 44.948 30.549
150
Strength I (b) 0.9 0 0.001126 2.336 48.707 43.836 32.133
Extreme Event I 1.0 0 0.000753 2.754 57.426 57.426 21.399
Pile Connection Design:
Group Vu Mu
Service 35.363 21.218
Strength I (a) 50.212 30.127
Strength I (b) 54.245 32.544
By observation it can be seen that Strength I (b) controls the design of the pile connection at toe. The design
procedure of the pile connection is identical to that of the structural element, except that the steel rebars are
put parallel to the wall to prevent the structural failure of pile foundation in this direction. One can try 2 #6
at 12” for the pile connection design at toe.
HEEL DESIGN:
Structural Element Design
Group Vu Mu
Service 29.662 110.660
Strength I (a) 42.008 221.869
Strength I (b) 45.842 203.931
By observation it can be seen that Strength I (b) and Strength I (a) controls the design of the shear and
moment, respectively, for the heel. However, to achieve a more economical design, we do not pick the
maximum shear and maximum moment directly as the design shear and design moment. Instead, we will
check the capacity of the heel design against the demands under all four limit states independently.
151
As = 3.12 in 2
h = 3 ft = 36 in
db 1.410
d = h − clear cover − = 36 − 2 − = 33.295 in
2 2
As fy 3.12 ( 60,000 )
a= = = 4.588 in
0.85 fc b 0.85 ( 4,000 ) (12 )
'
a 4.588
dv = d − = 33.295 − = 31.001 in
2 2
dv > 0.9 × d = 0.9 × 33.295 = 29.966 in (O.K.)
dv > 0.72 × h = 0.72 × 36 = 25.920 in (O.K.)
/JK/×0.43
𝑀*+ = 𝑆* 𝑓+ = = 146.88.42 kips-ft/ft
5/
1 1
Sc = Section Modulus = bh 2 = 12 ( 36 ) = 2592
2
where
6 6
The calculation for Strength I (a) is presented below as the example.


Mr = φMn
152
Table 3-48: Resistance Factors for Tension-, Shear-, and Axial- Controlled RC Members
⎛ 4.588 ⎞
0.9 ( 3.12 ) ( 60 ) ⎜ 33.295 − ⎟
⎛ a ⎞ ⎝ 2 ⎠
ϕ M n = ϕ As fy ⎜ d − ⎟ =
⎝ 2⎠ 12

1.2 𝑀*+ = 1.2 × 146.88 = 176.25 kips-ft/ft
1.33M u = 221.869 (1.33) = 295.086 kips-ft/ft

Mu N ⎛V ⎞
θ = 29 + 3500ε s (AASHTO 5.8.3.4)
Mu
dv
εs = (AASHTO Eq.5.8.3.4.2 − 4)
(
Es As + E p Aps )
153
d v = 31.001 in
N u = − (W1 + W2 + W6 + PAV ) = 0 kips/ft (Compression is negative.)
Vu = 42.008 kips/ft
Vp = Aps = 0
E s = 29000 ksi
As = 3.12 in 2
221.869 (12 )
− 0.5 ( 0 ) + ( 42.008 )
εs = 31.001 = 0.001413
( 29000 )( 3.12 )
θ = 29 + 3500ε s = 33.946°
⎡ M N ⎛V ⎞ ⎤
⎢⎣ dvϕ f ϕc ⎝ ϕv ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎡ 221.869 × 12 −0 ⎛ 42.008 ⎞ ⎤
=⎢ + 0.5 +⎜ − 0 − 0 ⎟ cot ( 33.946° ) ⎥ 60 = 2.746
⎣ 31.001× 0.9 0.7 ⎝ 0.9 ⎠ ⎦
As = 3.12 in 2 > As,min = 2.746 in 2 (O.K.)
Table 3-49: Checklist for the Flexural Design of Heel

Service 0.9 435.252 110.660 191.808 147.178 3.12 1.679
Strength I (a) 0.9 435.252 221.869 191.808 295.086 3.12 2.746
Strength I (b) 0.9 435.252 203.931 191.808 271.228 3.12 2.729
Extreme Event I 1.0 483.614 108.178 191.808 143.877 3.12 1.521

Vu = 42.008 kips/ft
Vr = φVn
154
Vc = 0.0316 β fc' bdv

Vs =
s
4.8
β=
1+ 750ε s , if minimum shear reinforcement is provided;
4.8 51
β= ⋅
1+ 750ε s 39 + Sxe , otherwise.
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
⎝ ag + 0.63 ⎠
12 in ≤ Sxe ≤ 80 in
Sx = d − a / 2 = 33.295 − 4.588 / 2 = 31.001 in
⎛ 1.38 ⎞
12 ≤ Sxe = 31.001⎜ = 20.085 ≤ 80 (O.K.)
⎝ 1.5 + 0.63 ⎟⎠
4.8 51
β= = 2.011
(1+ 750 × 0.001413) ( 39 + 20.085 )
155
⇒ Vc = ( 0.0316 ) ( 2.011) 4 (12 ) ( 31.001) = 47.284 kips/ft
A v = 0 ⇒ Vs = 0
Check Vr = ϕVn ≥ Vu :
( )
Table 3-50: Checklist for the Shear Design of Heel

Service 0.9 0 0.000801 2.588 60.846 54.761 29.662
Strength I (a) 0.9 0 0.001413 2.011 47.284 42.556 42.008
Strength I (b) 0.9 0 0.001379 2.037 47.884 43.095 45.842
Extreme Event I 1.0 0 0.000801 2.588 60.840 60.840 30.640
Pile Connection Design
Group Vu Mu
Service 28.264 25.438
Strength I (a) 0.768 0.695
Strength I (b) 28.269 24.419
The design procedure of the pile connection is identical to that of the structural element, except that the
steel rebars are put parallel to the wall to prevent the structural failure of pile foundation in this direction.
One can try 2 #6 at 12” for the pile connection design at heel.
156
#6
#6
3.5’ 3.5’
19.0’
Figure 3-39: Final Cross-section for Pile Supported Retaining Wall
157
NONGRAVITY EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
Non-gravity earth retaining systems are constructed of vertical structural members consisting of
above-ground height (H) and partially embedded soldier piles or continuous sheet piles into the ground with
and embedment depth (D) as shown in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Non-Gravity Earth Retaining Systems

These types of walls are either cantilever or anchored walls. The magnitude of load distribution against the
wall for the cantilever varies linearly with depth. In contrast, the magnitude of load for the anchored wall
is distributed uniformly with depth.
NON-GRAVITY CANTILEVERED EARTH RETAINING SYSTEM

Non-gravity cantilevered walls are constructed of vertical structural members consisting of partially
embedded soldier piles or continuous sheet piles. Soldier piles may be constructed with driven steel piles,
treated timber, precast concrete or steel piles placed in drilled holes and backfilled with concrete or cast-
158
in-place reinforced concrete. Continuous sheet piles may be constructed with driven precast pre-stressed
concrete sheet piles or steel sheet piles. Soldier piles are faced with either treated-timber, reinforced
shotcrete, reinforced cast-in-place concrete, precast concrete or metal elements. This type of wall depends
on passive resistance of the foundation material and the moment resisting capacity of the vertical
structural members for stability. Therefore, its maximum height is limited by the competence of the
foundation material and the moment resisting capacity of the vertical structural members. The economical
height of this type of wall is generally limited to a maximum height of 18 feet or less.
Non-gravity cantilever retaining walls are analyzed by assuming that the vertical structural member
rotates at point, O, at the distance, DO, below the excavation line, as shown in Figure 1. The realistic load
distribution is shown in Figure 2. As a result, the mobilized active pressure develops above point O in the
back of the wall and below point O in the front of the wall. The mobilized passive pressure develops in
front of the wall above point O and at the back of the wall below point O.
Figure 4-2: Non-Gravity Cantilever Retaining Walls Loading Diagram
159
Figure 4-3: Non-Gravity Cantilever Retaining Walls Idealized Loading Diagram
Figure 4-4: Non-Gravity Cantilever Sheet Pile Retaining Walls
160
Figure 4-5: Non-Gravity Cantilever Soldier Pile Retaining Walls
The simplified load distribution is shown in Figur3 3(c). Force R is assumed at point O to compensate the
resultant net active and passive pressure below point of rotation O. DO is increased by 20% to
approximate the total embedment depth of the vertical wall element (D = 1.2DO, AASHTO 3.11.5.6).
Load distributions for typical non-gravity cantilever earth retaining systems using simplified procedure is
shown in Figure 5 of this document.
D
Do
D Passive Active Passive Active
Active Passive R
(a)-(a)Wall
Deformed Wall
Deformed (b) Realistic Load Distribution
(b)- Load Distributions (c) Simplified Load Distribution
(c)- Load Simplification
Figure 4-6: Non-Gravity Cantilever Retaining Walls Simplified Loading Diagram
161
SHEET PILE WALLS
Cantilever sheet pile wall is a common type of temporary shoring system made of individual sheet piles
driven side by side into the ground and, thus, forming a continuous vertical wall. Due to the large deflections
that may develop, cantilever sheet pile walls are mainly used for temporary excavations less than about 18
feet. Cantilever sheet pile walls with adequate structural capacity and embedment depth can be used for
permanent retaining walls. Figure 4-7 shows a typical cantilever sheet pile wall supporting bridge abutment
(FHWA, NHI 2007).
Figure 4-6
Figure 4-7: Sheet Pile Wall (FHWA, NHI 2007)
SOLDIER PILE WALLS

Soldier piles are steel “I Beams” installed vertically into drilled holes and encased in concrete. The typical
drilled-hole diameter for soldier beams is between 18 and 48 inches, and the beams are usually placed on
spacing of 6 to 10 feet. Soldier piles can provide support by acting as a cantilever or by being braced by
either tiebacks or internal struts. For wall heights below 15 feet, most soldier beam walls are installed
without tiebacks. For wall heights in excess of 15 feet, it is usually more economical to employ tiebacks
rather than cantilevers with larger steel I beams. Tiebacks are steel tendons grouted into a drilled hole that
is inclined through the retained soil and anchored into competent material. Tiebacks are then post-tensioned
and “locked-off” at a pre-determined load to minimize wall deflection. Lagging, typically consisting of
timber, reinforced shotcrete, or pre-cast concrete panels, is installed next. The lagging spans the distance
between the soldier piles to prevent soil movement between the piles.
The effective width of a soldier pile is, generally, considered to be the element width b (i.e., dimension of
the soldier pile taken parallel to the line of the wall for driven piles or drilled piles backfilled with material
other then concrete). The effective width of the soldier piles may be taken as the diameter of the drilled-
162
hole when concrete is used. A phenomenon known as soil arching, as is shown in Figure 4-8, however, can
greatly increase the effective width described above. Arching action of the soil between soldier piles can
increase the effective width of a soldier pile up to 3 times the diameter of the hole or the width of the vertical
element (AASHTO, 3.11.5.6). Per Caltrans Trenching & Shoring Manual (Caltrans, 2011), the arching
action of the soil between soldier piles is equal to 0.08φ .
If the element is embedded in soft clay having a stability number less than 3, soil arching will not occur and
the actual element width shall be used as the effective width for passive resistance. Where a vertical element
is embedded in rock (AASHTO, Figure 3.11.5.6-2) the passive resistance of the rock is assumed to develop
through the shear failure of a rock wedge equal in width to the vertical element (b) and defined by a plane
extending upward from the base of the element at an angle of 45°. For the active zone behind the wall and
below the mudline or ground line in front of the wall, the active pressure is assumed to act over one vertical
element width (b) in all cases.
Passive Resistance Zone
Figure 4-8: Soldier Piles with Arching
GROUND ANCHOR RETAINING WALLS

An anchored wall includes an exposed design height (h) over which soil is retained. Also, an embedded
depth (D) may provide vertical and lateral support in addition to either structural anchors or ground anchors,
as shown in Figure 4-9. In developing the lateral earth pressure for braced or anchored walls, consideration
must be given to the wall displacement that may affect adjacent structures and/or underground utilities.
Depending on the soil type, the lateral earth pressure acting on the wall may be determined using an
appropriate earth pressure theory. Generally, the earth pressure increases with depth against a wall.
163
However, for braced or tieback walls, this is not the case. A trapezoidal shaped apparent earth pressure
distribution needs to be developed for this type of wall design. The load distributions for the single and
multiple anchor and/or braced earth retaining systems are described in §4.5.1.2 of this guideline document.
Figure 4-9: Lateral Earth Pressure for Anchored/Braced Walls
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN

Performance of the earth retaining systems is largely affected by method of wall construction. It is
impossible to perform stage construction using the classical limit equilibrium to calculate stresses and/or
wall deformation. Either a beam-column-spring model—i.e., the so-called “p-y” approach—or continuum
a finite element approach shall be used to evaluate the wall performance for important structures.
The p-y model considers soil-wall interaction using a generalized beam-column model. The soil is
represented by nonlinear discrete springs attached to the nodal points at the beam interface. Beam-column
spring model calculates the shear, moment and deflection of the beam as a function of applied active thrust
load above the excavation line, non-linear springs below the excavation line, beam-column stiffnesses, and
the specified anchor post-tension loading.
The continuum Finite Element Method considers the complete solution of the earth retaining system,
including the computation of stresses and deformation in both the wall and the adjacent soil. The finite
element method is very useful in special situations to address issues that cannot be readily resolved by the
limit equilibrium or the p-y approach, such as staged construction processes, and the prediction of lateral
and vertical displacements around and below the wall.
164
The p-y Approach
The classical earth pressure theory is used to develop the active earth pressure above the excavation line
behind the wall, as shown in Figure 4-10. The wall is modeled as a linear or nonlinear beam-column element
and the p-y approach analyzes the behavior of a flexible retaining wall or solider pile wall with or without
tiebacks. The active and passive earth pressure below the excavation is modeled using distributed nonlinear
p-y springs. The following are the parameters that may be taken into consideration when designing
cantilever or tieback system.
o Soil properties
o Soil sub-grade modulus parameter (Es = kx)
o Flexural Stiffness of the vertical wall element
The subgrade modulus (k) is used to calculate the soil’s reaction (P) as a function of wall deflection (x).
Table 4-1: Typical Values of Sub-Grade Modulus k for Different Sand Properties
Relative Density Loose Medium Dense
Submerged Sand 20 lbs/in3 60 lbs/in3 125 lbs/in3
Sand above WT 25 lbs/in3 90 lbs/in3 225 lbs/in3
Figure 4-10: Conceptual p-y Approach for Cantilever Systems
165
Figure 4-11: Conceptual p-y Approach for Tieback Systems
The p-y model of a tieback system is shown in Figure 4-11. For a tieback system, the classical earth pressure
theory is used to develop the triangular and trapezoidal distributions above the excavation line. The active
and passive earth pressure below the excavation line is modeled using a non-linear p-y spring. The tieback
forces are analyzed using nonlinear and/or bilinear springs, meaning the force varies with wall
displacement, as shown in Figure 4-12. The calculation for the tie back elongation is shown below.
Δ = PL EAa (4.0)
where
= Tieback elongation at the specified load test
L = Unbonded tieback length
E = Modulus of elasticity of the tieback
Aa = Cross sectional area of strands
The cross sectional area and the ultimate capacity of a 0.6 in diameter single ASTM A-416 anchor is shown
in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Properties of 0.6 in diameter Pre-stressing Steel Strands (ASTM A416, Grade 270)
Number of Strands Aa (in2) Ultimate Strength Ft (kips)

1 0.217 58.6
The limiting tension force is given by

Ft = Aa f y (4.0)
166
The limiting force in compression Fc depends both on the manner in which tiebacks and/or tie rods are
connected to the vertical element and on the axial load capacity of the tiebacks or tie rods which may vary
from zero to the yield value as the limiting tension force given in the above equation.
The displacements of Δyt and Δyc on the tension and compression side, respectively, are expressed in the
following two equations:
Δyt = Ft L / EAa (4.0)

Δyc = Fc L / EAa (4.0)
The p-y approach may be used to determine the deformation of the non-gravity earth retaining systems for
a service load design.
Figure 4-12: Tieback Modeled as an Anchor Spring
The Finite Element Approach

Performance of the earth retaining system in particularly flexible walls such as MSE walls, soil nail walls,
solder pile and sheet pile walls, depends on many factors, in particular, successive stages of construction.
The finite element method, which is well accepted in design practice today, can be used for modeling
complex soil-wall interaction problems. The contrast to the p-y approach of the soil is modeled as a
nonlinear continuum and the structural elements are modeled as a beam element.
When using the finite element model, it is important to create a model with a realistic geometric
representation of the project. A geometry model should include a representative division of the subsoil into
distinct soil layers, structural objects, loading conditions and construction stages. The model must be
sufficiently large so that the boundaries do not influence the results of the studied problem. A typical finite
element continuum model of a single tieback wall before and after the pre-stress tieback load is applied is
shown in Figure 4-13 (a) and (b).
167
(a) Before pre-stressing
(b) After pre-stressing
Figure 4-13: Finite Element Models
168
Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Earth Retaining Systems Design
Per AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2010), the following three limit states should be considered for the
design of earth retaining systems: (1) Service I Limit State, (2) Strength I Limit State, and (3) Extreme
Event I Limit State. Earth retaining systems shall be designed to satisfy all three states.
Cantilever Wall
Depending on the site soil profile, the un-factored simplified lateral earth pressure distribution, shown in
Figure 4-14 through Figure 4-17, may be used for the design of cantilever earth retaining systems. The
LRFD loads and resistance factors listed in Table 4-3 should be applied to the load distributions shown in
these figures, in order to calculate various load combinations for the design of the wall.
Figure 4-14: Loading Diagram for Single Layer Soil
Figure 4-15: Loading Diagram for Multi-Layer Soil (Granular Soil on Granular Soil)
169
Figure 4-16: Loading Diagram for Multi-Layer Soil (Granular Soil on Purely Cohesive Soil)
Figure 4-17: Loading Diagram for Multi-Layer Soil

(Purely Cohesive Soil on Purely Cohesive Soil)
170
To determine the active lateral earth pressure on the embedded wall element shown in Figure 4-17, the
sloping backfill above the top of the wall within the active failure wedge is treated as an additional surcharge
(Δσv). The portion of the negative loading at the top of the wall due to cohesion is ignored and any
hydrostatic pressure in the tension crack needs to be considered.
In addition, the following two points must be satisfied:
• The ratio of total overburden pressure to un-drained shear strength (NS) must be < 3 at the design
grade in front of wall.
• The active lateral earth pressure acting over the wall height (H) should not be less than 0.25 times
the effective overburden pressure at any depth, or 0.035 ksf/ft of wall height—which ever is greater.
Table 4-3: LRFD Factors for Cantilever Retaining Walls

Passive Earth Live Load Seismic
Limit State Active Pressure
Pressure Surcharge Addition
Service I 1.0 1.0 1.0 0
Strength I 1.5 1.0 1.75 0
Extreme Event I 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Design Steps for a Non-Gravity Cantilever Wall

The following procedure is used for the design of a non-gravity cantilever wall:
1. Calculate Active/Passive Earth Pressure to arbitrary point O at the distance, Do, below the
excavation line.
2. Apply appropriate LRFD Factors in Table 4-3.
3. Take a moment about Point O to eliminate force R and determine embedment depth Do.
4. Increase Do by 20 percent (D = 1.2Do)
5. Calculate R by summation of force in horizontal direction (R £ 0, if R is larger than zero,
increase D)
6. Calculate Maximum Bending Moment (Mmax) and Maximum Shear Force (Vmax) to design the
vertical structural member and lagging.
7. Calculate the wall deformation for the service limit state
171
Design of a Non-Gravity Cantilever Walls Embedded into Bedrock.
The active zone behind the wall below the excavation line (dredge line), the active pressure is assumed to
act over one vertical element width, b. The active forces, FA, and the surcharge load, FABS, above excavation
line as shown in Figure 4-18 are the resultants of the active earth pressure and surcharge load per foot of
vertical wall element multiply by the center to center pile spacing. As shown in Figure 4-14, the passive
resistance of the rock in front of the vertical wall element is assumed to develop through the shear failure
of a rock wedge equal in width to the vertical element, b, and defined by a plane extending upward from
the base of the element at an angle of 45 degrees.
Figure 4-18: Non-gravity cantilever wall embedded into bedrock
The total passive resistance can be calculated using shear resistances contributions from surface A1, A2
and A3.
172
Where:
𝐴5 = √2𝐷 ∗ 𝑏
𝐷/
𝐴/ = 𝐴Q =
2
𝐴 R = 𝐴5 +𝐴/ +𝐴/
𝐴 R = 𝐷/ +√2𝐷 ∗ 𝑏
𝐴 R = 𝐷T𝐷 + √2 𝑏 U
𝑆X 𝐷T𝐷 + √2 𝑏 U
𝐹W =
(1 − 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝛽D )
Where Sm is the rock shear strength.
Anchored Wall
The design of the anchored wall involves many of the same considerations as the non-gravity cantilever
walls. However, presence of one or more anchors to the vertical elements of the wall introduces trapezoidal
active loads behind the wall above the excavation line.
During the seismic loading, the anchored wall develops additional driving loads behind the wall. The
additional seismic load should be resisted through the reaction of the anchors and the passive resistance of
the soil bellow the excavation depth.
Cohesionless Soils
The lateral earth pressure distribution for the design of braced or anchored walls constructed in cohesion-
less soils for single braced/tieback walls and multiple braced/tieback walls are demonstrated in Figure 4-22
and Figure 4-25, respectively (AASHTO Figure 3.11.5.7.1-1). The maximum ordinate ( a) of the pressure
diagram is determined as given in Eqns. 113 and 114.
For walls with a single level of anchors or braces (see Figure 4-22):
3P
σa = (4.0)
2h
For the multiple tieback walls (see Figure 4-25):
P
σa = (4.0)
⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢⎣ h − 3 ( h1 + hn+1 ) ⎥⎦
where the total active earth pressure is:

P = 1.3 PaH (4.0)
Cohesive Soils
173
The lateral earth pressure distribution for cohesive soils is related to the stability number (Ns), which is
defined as:
γsh
Ns = (4.0)
C
o The ratio of total overburden pressure to undrained shear strength, Ns (see AASHTO 3.11.5.7.2),
should be < 3 at the wall base.
o The active earth pressure shall not be less than 0.25 times the effective overburden pressure at
any depth, or 5.5´10–6 MPa of wall height—whichever is greater.
(i) Stiff to Hard Cohesive Soils
For braced or anchored walls in stiff to hard cohesive soils with the stability number (Ns) less than or equal
to 4, the lateral earth pressure may be determined using Figure 4-26 with the maximum ordinate (σa) of the
pressure diagram determined as:
σ a = 0.2 γ s h ∼ 0.4 γ s h (4.0)
(ii) Soft to Medium Stiff Cohesive Soils
The lateral earth pressure on a restrained shoring system in soft to medium stiff cohesive soils with the
stability number equal to or larger than 6 may be determined using Figure 4-26 in which the maximum
ordinate (σa) of the pressure diagram is determined as:
σ a = Ka γ s h (4.0)
The coefficient of active lateral earth pressure (Ka) may be determined using Eqn. 119.
4 Su D ⎛ 1− 5.14 Sub ⎞
K a = 1− +2 2 ⎜ ⎟⎠ ≥ 0.22 (4.0)
γs h h⎝ γs h
where Su = undrained strength of retained soil (ksf)
Sub = undrained strength of soil below excavation base (ksf)
D = depth of potential base failure surface below base of excavation (ft)
The value of d is taken as the thickness of soft to medium stiff cohesive soil below the excavation base up
to a maximum value of Be/√2, where Be is the excavation width.
For soils with 4<Ns<6, use the larger σa from Eqns. 117 and 118.
174
Figure 4-19: Pressure Diagram for Single Tieback Wall in Granular Soil
Figure 4-20: Pressure Diagram for Multiple Tieback Wall in Granular Soil
175
Figure 4-21: Pressure Diagram for Multiple Tieback Wall in Purely Cohesive Soil
LRFD Factors for non-cohesive soil Tieback Retaining Walls
Table 4-4: LRFD Factors for Tieback Retaining Walls

Active Earth Passive Earth Live Load
Limit State Seismic Addition
Pressure Pressure Surcharge
Service I 1.0 1.0 1.0 0
Strength I 1.35* 1.0 1.75 0
Extreme Event I 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
*Note: A minimum load factor of 1.5 should be used for case which involves bridge abutment, tunnel
portals, buildings critical facilities or other installations for which there is a low tolerance for failure.
Calculation Procedure for Single Tieback/Brace System

The following procedure is used for the design of a Single Tieback/Brace System wall:
176
1. Determine the Earth Pressure Coefficients using the classical Earth Pressure Theories
described in Chapter 2.
2. Apply appropriate LRFD Factors listed in Table 4-4 to the active and passive earth pressure.
3. Convert the active earth pressure above the excavation line to a trapezoidal earth pressure.
4. Take a moment about the tieback to calculate embedment depth, D.
5. Set summation of forces equal to zero in horizontal direction to calculate tieback/brace force
T.
7. Calculate wall deformation for the service limit state.
Figure 4-22: Single Tieback System
The following procedure shown in Figure 4-19 to 4-20 should be used for the design of a Single
Tieback/Brace System when the tieback is located at or below half of the wall height. Note that the active
earth pressure below the excavation line is to the left and passive earth pressure is at right side of the wall
vertical element.
177
Figure 4-23: Anchored Wall with Single Level of Ground Anchors,
Critical Failure Surface near Bottom of Wall, 1/ 2H < H1 < 2 / 3H
Figure 4-24: Anchored Wall with Single Level of Ground Anchors,

Critical Failure Surface near Bottom of Wall H1 > 2 / 3H
178
Calculation Procedure for Multiple Tieback System
Depending on the backfill properties, the trapezoidal pressure diagrams in soil as shown in Figure 4-20 and
Figure 4-21 are used for the analysis and design of multiple tieback systems. Figure 4-25 shows a simple
trapezoidal pressure diagram for a multiple tieback system. The wall is divided into three types of spans:
• Starting Cantilever Span, S1
• Interior Spans, Sn
• Embedment Span, SD
The Hinge method, shown in Figure 4-26, is used to solve multiple Tieback/Brace system.
1. Take a moment M1 about the upper level tieback due to cantilever action of the soil pressure above
the upper tieback.
2. Use combination of the moment, M1, and tributary area to calculate the remaining tieback loads
except the last tieback load.
3. Take a moment about the last tieback to calculate embedment depth, D using a factor of safety of
1.0.
4. Set summation of forces equal to zero in horizontal direction to calculate the last tieback force, Tn+1.
6. Calculate wall deformation for the service limit state.
179
Figure 4-25: Multiple Tieback System
180
Figure 4-26: Detail Hinge Method for Tieback Design
181
Global Stability
Global stability of an anchored system, with the potential failure surfaces passing behind or through the
anchors shall be checked using limit equilibrium method that satisfies both force and moment equilibrium
at all potential failure surfaces. As shown in Figure x the minimum un-bonded length of 15 feet shall be
required to ensure minimal loss of anchor pre-stress due to creep of soil and rock. The anchor bonded
length shall be located beyond the limits of the potential failure surface. A minimum unbounded length of
5 feet or H/5 feet is required to ensure that no load from the bonded zone of the ground anchor is transferred
to the retained soil mass by the grouted bonded zone.
Figure 4-27: Tieback Wall with Potential Failure Surface
Proof Testing Requirements

All tieback anchors shall be load proof tested after installation to verify its load capacity and load
deformation behavior for all limit states prior to being put into service. All ground anchors shall be stressed
to specified factored design load (FDL) with a locked-off equals 0.8 FDL as shown in Figure Y.
182
Figure 4-28: Tieback Wall Proof Test Requirement
183
Example 4-1: Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall
Design a cantilevered sheet pile wall with single soil layer.
2 ft Live Load
Soil: Single Layer

f = 34
d = 0γ = 125 pcf
10 ft
15 ft
g = 120
Ф pcf
= 35°
δ = 0
C = 0 psf
Determine:
1. Active & Passive Earth Pressures
2. Pile Embedment D
3. Maximum Shear
4. Maximum Moment
184
PART A: SERVICE I CALCULATIONS
Determine Active and Passive Earth Pressures:
• Calculate active and passive earth pressure coefficients: Since the wall friction (δ) is zero, use
Rankine Earth Pressure Theory to calculate the active and passive earth pressure coefficients.
⎛ φ⎞ ⎛ 35° ⎞
K a = tan 2 ⎜ 45 − ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = 0.271
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ φ⎞ ⎛ 35° ⎞
K p = tan 2 ⎜ 45 + ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = 3.690
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Note: Rankine Theory tends to underestimates the passive earth pressure. It is recommended to
use the Log-Spiral-Rankine Model to compute the passive earth force.
• Calculate earth pressure distribution

Lateral load due to surcharge above the excavation line only (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
ssur = 0.125 ´ 2 ´ 0.271´1.0 = 0.068 ksf
Lateral load distribution at excavation level (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
s = 0.125 ´ 15 ´ 0.271 ´ 1.0 = 0.508 ksf
Lateral load distribution for the second layer at depth Do (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
s D = 0.508 + 0.125 ´ 0.271´ 1.0Do = ( 0.508 + 0.0339 Do ) ksf
Passive Lateral load distribution for the second layer in the front at depth Do (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
σ pD = 0.125 × 3.69 × 1.0Do = 0.461 Do ksf
• Calculate resultant earth forces

Calculate active earth pressure due to surcharge PAS:
PAs = 15 ´ 0.068 = 1.016 klf
Calculate active earth pressure for the first soil layer PA1:
15
PA1 = ´ 0.508 = 3.811 klf
2
185
Calculate active earth pressure for the second soil layer PA2:
PA21 = 0.508 Do klf
æD ö
PA 22 = 0.0339 ´ Do ç o ÷ = 0.0169 Do2 klf
è 2 ø
Calculate passive earth pressure for the second soil layer PP:
⎛D ⎞
Pp = 0.462 Do ⎜ o ⎟ = 0.231 Do2 klf
⎝ 2 ⎠
-5
H=15 ft
1016 (plf)
3811 (plf)
-10
508 68
-15
-20
508 D0 (plf)
D0
231 D02 (plf)

16.9 D02 (plf)
-25
5491
461 D0 911
508+ 33.9 D0
-30
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-29: Pressure Diagram for Service I Loading Condition
*Note: For Simplicity of the graph, all numbers are rounded to whole numbers. However, in the calculation
of Do all numbers are rounded to two digits after the decimal point.
186
• Calculate driving and resisting moments:
Driving Force (klf) Arm (ft) Driving Moment MRS

1.016 7.5+Do 7.622 + 1.016 Do
3.811 5+ Do 19.055 + 3.811 Do
0.508 Do Do /2 0.254 Do2
0.0169 Do 2 Do /3 0.00565 Do3
Resisting Force (klf) Arm (ft) Resisting Moment MRS
0.231 Do2 Do /3 0.0769 Do3
MDR = 0.005657Do3 + 0.254 Do2 + 3.811 Do + 19.055 + 1.016 Do + 7.622
MRS = 0.0769 Do3
• Calculate embedment depth:

MRS = MDR : -0.0712Do3 + 0.254Do2 + 4.827Do + 26.677 = 0
Þ Do3 - 3.57Do2 - 67.76Do - 374.49 = 0 Þ Do = 11.903 ft Þ D = 1.2Do = 14.284 ft
• Calculate maximum moment:

The maximum moment is located at distance Y below the excavation line where the shear is equal to
zero. Therefore the summation of horizontal forces at the distance Y must be set to equal zero.
187
0
-5
H=15 ft
1016 (plf)
-10 3811 (plf)
508 68
-15
-20
508 Y (plf)
Y
231 Y2 (plf)
16.9 Y2 (plf)
-25
5491 911
-30
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-30: Location of Zero and Maximum Moment for Service I Loading Condition
∑F x =0
0.231Y 2 - 0.0169Y 2 - 0.508Y - 3.811 -1.016 = 0
Þ Y 2 - 2.378Y - 22.590 = 0 Þ Y = 6.088 ft (below the dredge line)
ì æ 6.088 ö ü
ï1.016 ( 7.5 + 6.088 ) + 3.811( 5 + 6.088 ) + 0.508 ( 6.088 ) ç 2 ÷ ï
ï è øï
M max =í ý
ï+ 0.0169 ( 6.088 )2 æ 6.088 ö - 0.231( 6.088 )2 æ 6.088 ö ï
ïî ç ÷ ç ÷ ïþ
è 3 ø è 3 ø
M max = 49.409 kips-ft/ft
188
The figure below displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Strength I Loading Condition:
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-15 -15
-20 V=0 @ 6.088(ft) -20 M=49.409 k-ft
-25 -25
V=19.402 kips M=0 @ 11.903(ft)
-20 -10 0 10 20 -200 -100 0 100 200
Shear (kips) Moment (kips-ft)
Figure 4-31: Shear and Moment Diagram for Service I Loading Condition
• Design Sheet Pile for the above Shear and Moment:

(Note: Assuming Grade 55 Steel will be used)
Check Flexural:
s allowable = 1.0 f y = 55 ksi

M max 49.409 kips - ft (12 in/ft )
Sm = S x = = = 10.780 in 3
s allowable 55 ksi
Try Sheet Pile Type: PZ 27 Þ Sm = 30.2 in 3 > 10.780 in3
Check Shear:
qvallowable = 1.0 f y = 55 ksi
189
Vmax 19.402 kips
qv = = = 2.456 ksi
A 7.9 in 2
*Note: A is based on Sheet Pile Properties
qvallowable > qv ⇒ Assumed sheet pile O.K. for design
PART B: STRENGTH I CALCULATIONS
⎛ φ⎞ ⎛ 35° ⎞
K a = tan 2 ⎜ 45 − ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = 0.271
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ φ⎞ ⎛ 35° ⎞
K p = tan 2 ⎜ 45 + ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = 3.690
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

ssur = 0.125 × 2 × 0.271× 1.75 = 0.119 ksf
σ = 0.125 × 15 × 0.271 × 1.5 = 0.762 ksf
σ D = 0.762 + 0.125 × 0.271× 1.5Do = ( 0.762 + 0.0508 Do ) ksf
Passive Lateral load distribution for the second layer in the front at depth Do (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
σ pD = 0.125 × 3.69 × 1.0Do = 0.461 Do ksf

Calculate active earth pressure due to surcharge PAS:
190
PAs = 15 × 0.119 = 1.778 klf
15
PA1 = × 0.762 = 5.716 klf
2
PA21 = 0.762 Do klf
⎛D ⎞
PA22 = 0.0508 × Do ⎜ o ⎟ = 0.0254 Do2 klf
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛D ⎞
Pp = 0.462 Do ⎜ o ⎟ = 0.231 Do2 klf
⎝ 2 ⎠
Figure 4-32: Pressure Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition
191
*Note: For Simplicity of the graph, all numbers are rounded to whole numbers. However, in the calculation
of Do all numbers are rounded to two digits after the decimal point.
• Calculate driving and resisting moments:

1.778 7.5+Do 13.338 + 1.778 Do
5.716 5+ Do 28.582 + 5.716 Do
Do
0.762 Do /2 0.381 Do2
0.0254 Do 2 Do
/3 0.00847 Do3
0.231 Do2 Do
/3 0.0769 Do3
MDR = 0.00847Do3 + 0.381 Do2 + 5.716 Do + 28.582 + 1.778 Do + 13.338
MRS = 0.0769 Do3

MRS = MDR
-0.0684 Do3 + 0.381Do2 + 7.495Do + 41.920 = 0

Do3 - 5.57 Do2 - 109.55Do - 612.76 = 0 Þ Do = 15.328 ft Þ D = 1.2 Do = 18.393 ft
192
• Calculate Maximum Moment:
The maximum moment is located at distance Y below the excavation line where the shear is equal
to zero. Therefore the summation of horizontal forces at the distance Y must be set to equal zero.
Figure 4-33: Location of Zero and Maximum Moment for Strength I Loading Condition
∑F x =0
0.231Y 2 − 0.0254Y 2 − 0.762Y − 5.716 −1.778 = Y 2 − 3.714Y − 36.521 = 0

⇒ Y = 8.179 ft (below the dredge line)
⎧ ⎛ 8.179 ⎞ ⎫
⎪1.778 ( 7.5 + 8.179 ) + 5.716 ( 5 + 8.179 ) + 0.762 ( 8.179 ) ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
M max =⎨ ⎬
⎪+ 0.0254 ( 8.179 )2 ⎛ 8.179 ⎞ − 0.231( 8.179 )2 ⎛ 8.179 ⎞ ⎪
⎜⎝ ⎟ ⎜⎝ ⎟
⎪⎩ 3 ⎠ 3 ⎠ ⎪⎭
The figure below displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Strength I Loading Condition:
193
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-15 -15
-20 -20
V=0 @ 8.179(ft) M=91.286 k-ft
-25 -25
-30 V=29.036 kips -30 M=0 @ 15.328(ft)

-20 0 20 40 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 4-34: Shear and Moment Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition
• Design Sheet Pile for the above Shear and Moment:

(Note: Assuming Grade 55 Steel will be used)
Check Flexural:
σ allowable = 1.0 fy = 55 ksi

M max 91.286 kips − ft (12 in/ft )
Sm = S x = = = 19.917 in 3
σ allowable 55 ksi
Try Sheet Pile Type: PZ 27 ⇒ Sm = 30.2 in 3 > 19.917 in 3
Check Shear:
Vmax 29.036 kips

qv = = = 3.675 ksi
A 7.9 in 2
194
qvallowable > qv ⇒ Assumed sheet pile O.K. for design
PART C: EXTREME EVENT CALCULATIONS (for kh = 0.35)
• Calculate active and passive earth pressure coefficients: For seismic condition, normally the Trial
Wedge method or the Mononobe-Okabe equation is applied to calculate the active and passive earth
pressure coefficients.
K ae = 0.526, K pe = 2.945
Note: Trial Wedge method and Mononobe-Okabe equations tend to overestimate the passive earth
pressure. To achieve a conservative design, it is recommended to use the Log-Spiral-
Rankine model to compute the passive earth force.

Lateral pressure due to live load surcharge is not considered in the Extreme Event Limit State:
ssur = 0
Total Seismic lateral load distribution at the excavation level:
σ − = 0.125 ×15 × 0.526 = 0.986 ksf

Lateral load distribution for the second layer at depth D0:
σ D = 0.986 + 0.125 × 0.526 Do = ( 0.986 + 0.0658 Do ) ksf
Passive Lateral load distribution for the second layer in the front at depth D0:
σ pD = 0.125 × 2.945Do = 0.368 Do ksf

⎛ 15 ⎞
PA1 = 0.986 ⎜ ⎟ = 7.397 klf
⎝ 2⎠
195
PA21 = 0.986Do klf
⎛D ⎞
PA22 = 0.0658 Do ⎜ o ⎟ = 0.0329 Do2 klf
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛D ⎞
Pp = 0.368Do ⎜ o ⎟ = 0.184 Do2 lbs/ft
⎝ 2 ⎠
Figure 4-35: Pressure Diagram for Extreme Event Loading Condition
196
• Calculate driving and resisting moments
7.397 5+Do 36.984 + 7.397 Do

Do
0.986 Do /2 0.493 Do 2
0.0329 Do 2 Do
/3 0.0110 Do3
Resisting Force (plf) Arm (ft) Resisting Moment MRS
0.184 Do 2 Do
/3 0.0614 Do3
MDR = 0.0110 D3 + 0.493 D2 + 7.397D + 36.984
MRS = 0.0614 D3

MRS = MDR
-0.0504 Do3 + 0.492 Do2 + 7.397 Do + 36.984 = 0

Þ Do3 + 9.785Do2 - 146.776 Do + 733.878 = 0
⇒ Do = 19.338 ft ⇒ D = 1.2Do = 23.205 ft
197
• Calculate maximum moment:
Figure 4-36: Location of Zero Shear and Maximum Moment for Extreme Event Loading Condition
∑F x =0
0.184Y 2 − 0.0329Y 2 − 0.986Y − 7.397 = 0.151Y 2 − 0.986Y − 7.397 = 0
Y 2 − 6.523Y − 48.925 = 0
⇒ Y = 10.979 ft (below the dredge line)
⎧ ⎛ 10.979 ⎞ ⎫
⎪ 7.397 ( 5 + 10.979 ) + 0.986 (10.979 ) ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
M max =⎨ ⎬
⎪+0.0329 (10.979 )2 ⎛ 10.979 ⎞ − 0.184 (10.979 )2 ⎛ 10.979 ⎞ ⎪
⎜⎝ ⎟ ⎜⎝ ⎟
⎩⎪ 3 ⎠ 3 ⎠ ⎭⎪
198
The figure below shows the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Extreme Event Loading Condition:
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-15 -15
-20 -20
-25 V=0 @ 10.979(ft) -25 M=110.942 k-ft
-30 -30
V=30.067 kips M=0 @ 19.338(ft)

-20 0 20 40 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 4-37: Shear and Moment Diagram for Extreme Event Loading Condition
Design Sheet Pile for the above Shear and Moment:
*Note: Assuming Grade 55 Steel will be used
Check Flexural:
σ allowable = 1.0 fy = 55 ksi

M max 110.942 K − ft (12 in/ft )
Sm = S x = = = 24.206 in 3
σ allowable 55 ksi
Try Sheet Pile Type: PZ 27 ⇒ Sm = 30.2 in 3 > 24.206 in 3 , OK
Check Shear:
199
Vmax 30.067 K
qv = = = 3.806 ksi
A 7.9 in 2
qvallowable > qv ⇒ Assumed Sheet Pile OK for Design
Based on the above calculation, it is seen that when kh=0.35, the Extreme Event Limit State controls the
design. However, when kh=0.25, the Strength I Limit State controls, as summarized in the table below.
Limit State D0 (ft) 1.2 D0 (ft) V @ M=0 (kips) Y (ft) Mmax (kips-ft)
Service 11.903 14.284 19.402 6.088 49.409
Strength I 15.328 18.393 29.036 8.179 91.286
Extreme Event I 15.958 19.149 24.492 8.813 77.083

(kh=0.25)
Extreme Event I 19.338 23.205 30.067 10.979 110.942

(kh=0.35)
200
Example 4-2: Single Tieback Sheet Pile Wall
Design a tieback sheet pile wall with two soil layers and 2 feet of uniform surcharge that should extend to
a depth of 30 feet. The tieback spacing is 8 feet.
2 ft Live Load
10 ft f = Soil:
34 Layer 1
d=0
g 15°0
30 ft 33 ft
γ = 125 pcf
Ф = 30°
δ =0
C = 0 psf
Soil: Layer 2
D γ = 130 pcf
Ф = 35°
δ =0
C = 0 psf
Determine:
2. Pile Embedment D
3. Maximum Shear
4. Maximum Moment
5. Maximum Deflection
201
PART A: SERVICE I LOAD CALCULATIONS
• Active and Passive Earth Pressures

Active Earth Pressures: Used Rankine to solve for Ka1 and Ka2
⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ 30° ⎞
K a1 = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = 0.333
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ 35° ⎞
K a2 = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = 0.271
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Passive Earth Pressures: Used Rankine to solve for Kp1 and Kp2
⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ 30° ⎞
K p1 = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = 3.000
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ 35° ⎞
K p2 = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = 3.690
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
• Develop Active and Passive Earth Pressure Diagram

ssur = ( 0.125)( 2 )( 0.333)(1.0 ) = 0.083 ksf
Lateral load distribution at excavation line (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
s A = g 1 ( h = 30 ) Ka1 (1.0 ) = ( 0.125)( 30 )( 0.333)(1.0 ) = 1.249 ksf
Lateral load distribution at Δh = 3ft below excavation line (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
s B+ = s A + g 1 ( Dh ) Ka1 (1.35) = 1.249 + ( 0.125)( 3)( 0.333)(1.0) = 1.374 ksf
s B- = g 1 ( h + Dh ) Ka 2 (1.0) = ( 0.125)( 33)( 0.271)(1.0) = 1.118 ksf
s D = s B- + g 2 ( Do - 3) K a 2 (1.0 ) = 1.118 + ( 0.130 )( Do - 3)( 0.271)(1.0 )

= (1.012 + 0.0352 Do ) ksf
Calculate passive earth pressure at Δh = 3ft below excavation line (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
202
σ +p = γ 1 ( Δh ) K p1 (1.0 ) = ( 0.125 ) ( 3) ( 3.00 ) (1.0 ) = 1.125 ksf
σ −p = γ 1 ( Δh ) K p 2 (1.0 ) = ( 0.125 ) ( 3) ( 3.69 ) (1.0 ) = 1.384 ksf
Calculate passive earth pressure for the second layer at depth Do (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
s pD = s p- + g 2 ( Do - 3) K p 2 (1.0 ) = 1.384 + ( 0.130 )( Do - 3)( 3.69 )(1.0 )

= ( 0.480 Do - 0.0551) ksf
-5
-10
H=30 ft
-15
-20
-25
1249 83
-30
3 ft
1125 1374
1384 1118
-35
D0 –3
-40
-45
480 D7140
0 – 55.1
1541
35.2 D0 + 1012
-50
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-38: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Service I Loading Condition
203
0
6.67 ft
PA1
-5 1218
19
T= 3.559
-10
10 ft
PA2
H=30 ft
-15 1218 PA4
-20
PA3
13.33 ft
-25
83
-30 PA5
P 1249
3 ft
1125 P1 1374 PA6

1384 1118
-35
D0 –3
-40 PP2 PA7

PP3 PA8
-45
480 D07140
– 55.1 1541
35.2 D0 + 1012
-50
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-39: Trapezoidal Earth Pressure Diagram for Service I Loading Condition
Develop Trapezoidal loading (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
1.3P 1
(1.0 ) where P = g 1 ( h = 30 ) K a1
2
s Trapezoid =
2 h 2
3
1
P = ( 0.125 )( 30 ) ( 0.333 ) = 18.731 klf
2
2
1.3 (18.731)
s Trapezoid =
2 ( 30 )
(1.0 ) = 1.2175 ksf
3
204
• Calculating Driving and Resisting Moments taken about the Tieback Force
Driving Force (klf) Arm (ft) Driving Moment MDR (k)
6.667
PA1= (½)(6.667)(1.2175) = 4.058 /3 + 3.33 = 5.556 −22.547
PA2 = (1.2175)(10) = 12.175 (6.667+5) – 10 = 1.667 20.292
PA3= 1/2(13.333)(1.2175) = 8.117 20 – 2/3(13.333)= 11.111 90.188
PA4 = (0.083)(30) = 2.498 5 12.488
PA5 = (3)(1.249) = 3.747 1.5+20 = 21.5 80.548
PA6 = 3/2(1.374 – 1.249) = 0.187 2+20 = 22 4.118
PA7= 1.118 (Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + (Do-3)/2 =

Do
0.559Do2 +22.358 Do – 72.103
1.118 Do – 3.354 21.5 + /2
PA8 = 1/2 (-0.106 + 0.0352 Do)(Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + 2/3 (Do – 3) = 0.0117Do3 + 0.299Do2 –2.114 Do
0.0176Do2- 0.106 Do + 0.159 21 + 2/3 Do +3.329
Resisting Force (klf) Arm (ft) Resisting Moment MRS (k)
PP1 = 1/2(3)(1.125) = 1.688 20 + 2/3(3) = 22 37.125
PP2 = 1.384(Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + (Do–3)/2 =

0.692Do2 +27.675 Do – 89.252
1.384 Do – 4.151 21.5 + Do/2
PP3 = 1/2(0.480 Do – 1.439) (Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + 2/3 (Do– 3) = 0.160Do3 + 4.077Do2 –28.782 Do

0.240Do2– 1.439 Do + 2.159 21 + 2/3 Do + 45.332
MDR= 0.0117Do3 + 0.299Do2 –2.114 Do + 3.329 + 0.559Do2 + 22.358 Do – 72.103 + 4.118 + 80.548 +
12.488 + 90.188 + 20.292 – 22.547
MRS = 0.160Do3 + 4.077Do2 –28.782 Do + 45.332 + 0.692Do2 +27.675 Do – 89.252 + 37.125
Calculate Embedment Depth:
MRS = MDR
0.148Do3 + 3.911Do2 - 21.351Do - 123.107 = 0
Do3 + 26.397Do2 - 144.109Do - 830.925 = 0
205
Do = 7.512 ft
Calculate Tieback Force:
åF x =0
ìTH + 1.688 + 1.384 ( 7.512 ) ü ì4.058 + 12.175 + 8.117 + 2.498 ü
ïï ï
2 ï
ï
ï ïï
í- 4.151 + 0.240 ( 7.512 ) ý = í+3.747 + 0.187 + 1.118 ( 7.512) - 3.354 ý
ï ï ï ï
-1.439 ( 7.512 ) + 2.159 ï ï+0.0176 ( 7.512 )2 - 0.106 ( 7.512 ) + 0.159ï
îï þ î þ
TH = 23.371klf in horizontal direction
Multiply by 8 ft for spacing
23.371( 8)
T= = 193.559 kips (along the 15 degree angle)
cos (15° )
The Shear and Moment Diagrams are displayed below:
0 0
-5 -5
V= -8.819 kips M= 33.473 k-ft

-10 V= 14.421 kips
-10
-15 -15
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-20 -20
M= -48.239 k-ft
-25 -25
-30 -30
-35 -35
M=0 @ -37.512 ft
-20 -10 0 10 20 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 4-40: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Service I Loading Condition
206
* For sheet pile design, please refer to the procedure as outlined in Example 4-1.
PART B: STRENGTH I LOAD CALCULATIONS
• Active and Passive Earth Pressures

Active Earth Pressures: Used Rankine to solve for Ka1 and Ka2
⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ 30° ⎞
K a1 = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = 0.333
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ 35° ⎞
K a2 = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° − ⎟ = 0.271
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Passive Earth Pressures: Used Rankine to solve for Kp1 and Kp2
⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ 30° ⎞
K p1 = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = 3.000
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ 35° ⎞
K p2 = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = tan 2 ⎜ 45° + ⎟ = 3.690
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
• Develop Active and Passive Earth Pressure Diagram

ssur = ( 0.125 ) ( 2 ) ( 0.333) (1.75 ) = 0.146 ksf
Lateral load distribution at excavation line (LRFD Factor – 1.35):
s A = g 1 ( h = 30 ) Ka1 (1.35) = ( 0.125)( 30 )( 0.333)(1.35) = 1.686 ksf
Lateral load distribution at Δh = 3ft below excavation line (LRFD Factor – 1.35):
s B+ = s A + g 1 ( Dh ) Ka1 (1.35) = 1.686 + ( 0.125)( 3)( 0.333)(1.35) = 1.854 ksf
s B- = g 1 ( h + Dh ) Ka 2 (1.35) = ( 0.125)( 33)( 0.271)(1.35) = 1.509 ksf
207
s D = s B- + g 2 ( Do - 3) K a 2 (1.35 ) = 1.509 + ( 0.130 )( Do - 3)( 0.271)(1.35 )
= (1.652 - 0.0476 Do ) ksf
Calculate passive earth pressure at Δh = 3ft below excavation line (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
σ +p = γ 1 ( Δh ) K p1 (1.0 ) = ( 0.125 ) ( 3) ( 3.00 ) (1.0 ) = 1.125 ksf
σ −p = γ 1 ( Δh ) K p 2 (1.0 ) = ( 0.125 ) ( 3) ( 3.69 ) (1.0 ) = 1.384 ksf
Calculate passive earth pressure for the second layer at depth Do (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
s pD = s p- + g 2 ( Do - 3) K p 2 (1.0 ) = 1.384 + ( 0.130 )( Do - 3)( 3.69 )(1.0 )

= ( 0.480 Do - 0.0551) ksf
-5
-10
H=30 ft
-15
-20
-25
1686 146
-30
3 ft
1125 1854
1384 1509
-35
D0 –3
-40
-45
480 D7140
0 – 55.1 47.62080
D0 + 1652
-50
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-41: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition
208
0
6.67 ft
PA1
-5 1644
27
T= 2.534
-10
10 ft
PA2
H=30 ft
-15 1644
PA4
-20
13.33 ft
PA3
-25
146
-30 1686 PA5
P
3 ft
1125 P1 1854 PA6

1384 1509
-35
D0 –3
-40 PP2 PA7

PP3 PA8
-45
480 D07140
– 55.1 47.62080
D0 + 1652
-50
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-42: Trapezoidal Earth Pressure Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition
Develop Trapezoidal loading (LRFD Factor – 1.35):
1.3P 1
(1.35 ) where P = g 1 ( h = 30 ) K a1
2
s Trapezoid =
2 h 2
3
1
P = ( 0.125 )( 30 ) ( 0.333 ) = 18.731 klf
2
2
1.3 (18.731)
s Trapezoid =
2 ( 30 )
(1.35 ) = 1.644 ksf
3
209
• Calculating Driving and Resisting Moments taken about the Tieback Force
Driving Force (klf) Arm (ft) Driving Moment MDR (k)
6.667
PA1= (½)(6.667)(1.644) = 5.480 /3 + 3.33 = 5.556 −30.438
PA2 = (1.644)(10) = 16.44 (6.667+5) – 10 = 1.667 27.395
PA3= 1/2(13.333)(1.644) = 10.958 20 – 2/3(13.333)= 11.111 121.753
PA4 = (0.146)(30) = 4.371 5 21.853
PA5 = (3)(1.686) = 5.057 1.5+20 = 21.5 108.734
PA6 = 3/2(1.854 – 1.686) = 0.253 2+20 = 22 5.564
PA7= 1.509 (Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + (Do-3)/2 =

Do
0.755Do2 +30.183 Do –97.339
1.509Do – 4.527 21.5 + /2
PA8 = 1/2 (-0.143 + 0.0476 Do)(Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + 2/3 (Do – 3) = 0.0159Do3 + 0.404Do2 –2.854 Do
0.0238Do2- 0.143 Do + 0.214 21 + 2/3 Do +4.494
Resisting Force (klf) Arm (ft) Resisting Moment MRS (k)
PP1 = 1/2(3)(1.125) = 1.688 20 + 2/3(3) = 22 37.125
PP2 = 1.384(Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + (Do–3)/2 =

0.692Do2 +27.675 Do – 89.252
1.384 Do – 4.151 21.5 + Do/2
PP3 = 1/2(0.480 Do – 1.439) (Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + 2/3 (Do– 3) = 0.160Do3 + 4.077Do2 –28.782 Do

0.240Do2– 1.439 Do + 2.159 21 + 2/3 Do + 45.332
MDR= 0.0159Do3 + 0.404Do2 –2.854 Do + 4.494 + 0.755Do2 + 30.183 Do – 97.337 + 5.564 + 108.734 +
21.853 + 121.753 + 27.395 – 30.438
MRS = 0.160Do3 + 4.077Do2 –28.782 Do + 45.332 + 0.692Do2 +27.675 Do – 89.252 + 37.125
Calculate embedment depth:
MRS = MDR
0.144Do3 + 3.611Do2 - 28.436Do - 168.811 = 0
Do3 + 25.065Do2 - 197.408Do - 1171.92 = 0
210
Do = 9.367 ft
Calculate Tieback Force:
åF x =0
ìTH + 1.688 + 1.384 ( 9.367 ) ü ì5.480 + 16.44 + 10.958 + 4.371 ü
ïï 2 ï
ï ï
ï ïï
í- 4.151 + 0.240 ( 9.367 ) ý = í+5.057 + 0.253 + 1.509 ( 9.367 ) - 4.527 ý
ï ï ï ï
ïî-1.439 ( 9.367 ) + 2.159 ïþ ïî+0.0238 ( 9.367 ) - 0.143 ( 9.367 ) + 0.214 ïþ
2
TH = 32.906 klf in horizontal direction
32.906 (8)
cos (15° )
0 0
-5 -5
V= -12.236 kips M= 46.854 k-ft

-10 V= 20.491 kips
-10
-15 -15
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-20 -20
M= -73.596 k-ft
-25 -25
-30 -30
-35 -35
M=0 @ -39.367 ft
-20 0 20 40 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 4-43: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Strength I Loading Condition
* For sheet pile design, please refer to the procedure as outlined in Example 4-1.
211
PART C: EXTREME EVENT CALCULATIONS (kh = 0.35)
• Calculate active and passive earth pressure coefficients:

For seismic condition, normally the Trial Wedge method or the Mononobe-Okabe equation is applied to
calculate the active and passive earth pressure coefficients.
K ae1 = 0.628 K pe1 = 2.301
K ae2 = 0.526 K pe2 = 2.945
pressure. To achieve a conservative design, it is recommended to use the Log-Spiral-
Rankine model to compute the passive earth force.
• Calculate Earth Pressure Distribution:

ssur = 0
σ A− = γ 1 ( h = 30 ) K ae1 = ( 0.125 ) ( 30 ) ( 0.628 ) = 2.355 ksf
Lateral load distribution at Δh = 3ft below excavation line:
σ B+ = σ A− + γ 1 ( Δh ) K ae1 = 2.355 + ( 0.125 ) ( 3) ( 0.628 ) = 2.591 ksf
σ B− = γ 1 ( h + Δh ) K ae2 = ( 0.125 ) ( 30 + 3) ( 0.526 ) = 2.170 ksf
Lateral load distribution at a depth Do below excavation line:
s D = s B- + g 2 ( Do - 3) K ae = 2.170 + ( 0.130 )( Do - 3)( 0.526 ) = (1.965 + 0.0684 Do ) ksf

2
Calculate passive earth pressure at Δh = 3ft below excavation line:
σ +p = γ 1 ( Δh ) K pe1 = ( 0.125 ) ( 3) ( 2.301) = 0.863 ksf
σ −p = γ 1 ( Δh ) K pe1 = ( 0.125 ) ( 3) ( 2.945 ) = 1.104 ksf
Calculate passive earth pressure at a depth Do below excavation line:
σ pD = σ −p + γ 2 ( Do − 3) K pe2 = 1.104 + ( 0.130 ) ( Do − 3) ( 2.945 ) = ( 0.383Do − 0.0446 ) ksf
212
1965+68.4 D0
Figure 4-44: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Extreme Event Loading Case
213
1965+68.4 D0
Figure 4-45: Load Distributions for Extreme Event Loading Case

Develop Trapezoidal loading:
1.3P 1
σ Trapezoid = P = γ 1 ( h = 30 ) K ae1
2
where
2 h 2
3
1
P= ( 0.125 )( 30 )2 ( 0.628 ) = 35.325 klf
2
1.3( 35.325 )
σ Trapezoid = = 2.296 ksf
2 ( 30 )
3
214
Calculating Driving and Resisting Moments taken about the Tieback Force
Driving Force (klf) Arm (ft) Driving Moment MRS (kip)
PA1= ½(6.667)(2.296) =7.654 6.667/3 + 3.333 = 5.556 −42.521
PA2 = (2.296)(10) = 22.961 (6.667+5) – 10 = 1.667 38.269
PA3= 1/2(13.333)(2.296) = 15.308 20 − 2/3(13.333)= 11.111 170.083
PA4 = (3)(2.355) = 7.065 1.5+20 = 21.5 151.898
PA5 = 3/2(2.591-2.355) = 0.353 2+20 = 22 7.772
PA6= 2.170 (Do– 3) = 20 + 3 + (Do −3)/2 = 1.085 Do2 + 43.395 Do –

2.170 Do – 6.509 21.5 + Do /2 139.949
PA7 =1/2 (−0.205 + 0.0684 Do)( Do – 3) = 20 + 3 + 2/3 (Do – 3) = 0.0228 Do3 + 0.581 Do2 –
0.0342 Do2 – 0.205 Do + 0.308 21 + 2/3 Do 4.103 Do + 6.462
PP1 = 1/2(3)(0.863) = 1.294 20 + 2/3(3) = 22 28.475
PP2 = 1.104 (Do – 3) = 20 + 3 + (Do –3)/2 = 0.552 Do 2 + 22.086 Do –

1.104 Do – 3.313 21.5 + Do /2 71.232
PP3 = 1/2(0.383 Do – 1.149) (Do – 3) = 20 + 3 + 2/3 (Do – 3) = 0.128 Do3 + 3.254 Do2 –
0.191 Do2– 1.149 Do + 1.723 21 + 2/3 Do 22.971 Do + 36.179
MDR = 0.0228Do3 + 0.581Do2 – 4.103 Do + 6.462+1.085 Do 2 + 43.395 Do – 139.949 + 7.772 +

151.898 + 170.083 + 38.269 − 42.521
MRS = 0.128 Do 3 + 3.254 Do 2 – 22.971 Do + 36.179 + 0.552 Do 2 + 22.086 Do – 71.232 + 28.475
MRS = MDR
0.105Do3 + 2.140Do2 − 40.176Do − 198.591 = 0
215
Do3 + 20.418Do2 − 383.271Do − 1894.53 = 0
Do = 14.630 ft
Calculate Tieback Force
M RS = M DR
∑F x =0
⎧TH + 1.294 + 1.104 (14.630 ) ⎫ ⎧ 7.654 + 22.961+ 15.308 + 7.065 ⎫
⎪⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪⎪
⎨− 3.313 + 0.191(14.630 ) ⎬ = ⎨+0.353 + 2.170 (14.630 ) − 6.509
2
⎬
⎪− 1.149 14.630 + 1.723 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪⎩ ( ) ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩+0.0342 (14.630 ) − 0.205 (14.630 ) + 0.308 ⎪⎭
2
TH = 43.169 klf in the horizontal direction
43.169 ( 8 )
cos (15° )
0 0
-5 -5
V= -15.078 kips M= 55.277 k-ft

-10 V= 27.862 kips
-10
-15 -15
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-20 -20
-25 -25 M= -121.143 k-ft
-30 -30
-35 -35
-40 -40
M=0 @ -44.630 ft
-20 0 20 40 -200 -100 0 100 200
216
Figure 4-46: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Extreme Event Loading Case
When kh=0.35, the Extreme Event Limit State controls the design. However, if kh<0.22, the Strength I Limit
State may control, as summarized in the table below.
Limit State D0 (ft) Vmax (kips) Mmax (kips-ft)
Service I 7.512 14.421 48.239
Strength I 9.367 20.491 73.596
Extreme Event I (kh=0.22) 10.46 19.704 73.740
217
Example 4-3: Multiple Tieback Solider Pile Wall
Design a multiple tieback sheet pile wall with a single soil layers shown below with tieback spacing = 8
feet.
Figure 4-47: Multiple Tieback Sheet Pile Wall
Determine:
2. Pile Embedment D
3. Maximum Shear
4. Maximum Moment
218
PART A: SERVICE I CALCULATIONS
• Calculate active and passive earth pressure coefficients: Use Trial Wedge method to determine the
active and passive earth pressure coefficients. The coefficients listed below are the horizontal
components only.
K a1 = 0.307
K a 2 = 0.259 K p = 6.471 (horizontal component only)
Note: Trial Wedge method tends to overestimates the passive earth pressure. It is recommended
to use the Log-Spiral-Rankine Model to achieve a more conservative design.

s + = (1.0)(g )( h = 60)( Ka1 ) = (1.0)( 0.125)( 60)( 0.307 ) = 2.303 ksf
s - = (1.0 )(g )( h = 60 )( Ka 2 ) = (1.0 )( 0.125)( 60 )( 0.259 ) = 1.943 ksf
Active Lateral load distribution at a depth D (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
s D = s - + (1.0 )( g )( D )( K a 2 ) = 1.943 + (1.0 )( 0.125 )( D )( 0.259 )

= (1.943 + 0.0324 D ) ksf
Passive Lateral load distribution for the second layer in the front at depth D (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
( )
σ P = (1.0 ) (γ ) ( D ) K p = (1.0 ) ( 0.125 ) ( D ) ( 6.471)
= 0.809D ksf
219
0
-10
-20 H=60 ft
-30
-40
-50
2302
-60 1943
D
-70
σ8089
P = 809 D σD 2266
= 32.4 D + 1943
-80
-10 -5 0 5
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-48: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Service I Loading Condition
less soils may be determined using Figure 4-18. The maximum ordinate (σTrapezoid) of the pressure diagram
is determined as follows:
PT
σ Trapezoid =
⎡ H − 1 ( H1 + H 5 )⎤
⎣ 3 ⎦
Where the total active earth pressure is calculated as follow:
⎛ 1⎞
P=
1
2
( )
γ H 2 K a1 = ⎜ ⎟ (125 ) 60 2 ( 0.307 ) = 69, 075 lb/ft
⎝ 2⎠
PT = 1.3P = 1.3( 69, 075 ) = 89, 797.5 lb/ft

89.798
s Trapezoid = (1.0 ) = 1.653 ksf
é60 - 1 ( 7 + 10 ) ù
ë 3 û
220
4.67 ft
0 1
T1= 83.475 P1 1653
P2
-10
P3
181.5
-20 T2 = 42
48.67 ft
H=60 ft
1 P4
-30 T3= 84.790
-40
P5
T4= 176.956
-50 P6
6.67 ft 1653
P7
-60 1943
PA1
PP1
D
PA2
-70 8089
σ = 809 D
P σD2266
= 32.4 D + 1943
-80
-10 -5 0 5
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-49: Developed Trapezoidal Distribution for Service I Loading Condition
Calculate Tieback Loads:
P1 = 1 ( 2 ) ( 4.667 )(1.653)(8) = 30.850 kips

P2 = ( 2.333)(1.653)(8 ) = 30.850 kips
P3 = (16 )(1.653)( 8 ) = 211.546 kips
P4 = (12 )(1.653)( 8 ) = 158.659 kips
P5 = (15 )(1.653)( 8 ) = 198.324 kips
P6 = ( 3.333)(1.653)(8 ) = 44.072 kips
P7 = 1 ( 2 ) ( 6.667 )(1.653)(8) = 44.072 kips
M1 = 30.850 é 2.333 + 4.667 ( 1 ) + 2.333 ( 1 ) ù = 155.966 kip-ft
ë 3 2 û
221
T1U = P1 + P2 = 30.85 + 30.85 = 61.70 kips
æ P ö æ M ö æ 211.546 ö æ 155.966 ö
T1L = ç 3 ÷ + ç 1 ÷ = ç ÷+ç ÷ = 115.521 kips
è 2 ø è 16 ø è 2 ø è 16 ø
T + T1L ( 61.70 + 115.521)
T1 = 1U = = 183.475 kips
cos (15° ) cos (15° )
æ P ö æ M ö æ 211.546 ö æ 155.966 ö
T2U = ç 3 ÷ - ç 1 ÷ = ç ÷-ç ÷ = 96.025 kips
è 2 ø è 16 ø è 2 ø è 16 ø
æ P ö æ 158.659 ö
T2 L = ç 4 ÷ = ç ÷ = 79.330 kips
è 2ø è 2 ø
T + T2 L ( 96.025 + 79.330 )
T2 = 2U = = 181.542 kips
cos (15° ) cos (15° )
æ P ö æ 158.659 ö
T3U = ç 4 ÷ = ç ÷ = 79.330 kips
è 2ø è 2 ø
æ P ö æ 198.324 ö
T3 L = ç 5 ÷ = ç ÷ = 99.162 kips
è 2ø è 2 ø
T3U + T3 L ( 79.330 + 99.162 )
T3 = = = 184.790 kips
cos (15° ) cos (15° )
Determine D to calculate T4 by Taking a Moment about T4
æ 3.333 6.667 ö éæ D ö ù
M D = 44.072 ç + + 3.333 ÷ + 1.943D êç ÷ + 10 ú (8 )
è 2 3 ø ëè 2 ø û
æ 0.0324 D 2 ö æ 2 ö
+ç ÷ ç D + 10 ÷ ( 8 )
è 2 øè 3 ø
= 0.0863D + 9.065 D + 155.4 D + 318.301
3 2
æ 0.809 D 2 ö æ 2 ö
MR = ç ÷ ç D + 10 ÷ ( 8 ) = 2.157 D + 32.355 D
3 2
è 2 øè 3 ø
MR = MD
2.071D3 + 23.290 D 2 - 155.400 D - 318.301 = 0
D3 + 11.248D 2 - 75.048D - 153.719 = 0
D » 5.898 ft
222
æ P ö æ 198.324 ö
T4U = ç 5 ÷ = ç ÷ = 99.162 kips
è 2ø è 2 ø
T4 L = P6 + P7 + Pa1 + Pa 2 - Pp1
æ 0.0324 ( 5.898 ) 0.809 ( 5.898 ) ö
2 2
= 44.072 + 44.072 + ç1.943 ( 5.898 ) + - ÷ ( 8 ) = 71.762kips

ç 2 2 ÷
è ø
T4 =
( 99.162 + 71.762 ) = 176.958 kips
cos (15 )
The Shear and moment Diagrams are shown below:
0 0
M= 19.496 k-ft
V= 14.440 kips
-10 -10
-20 -20
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-30 -30
-40 -40
M= -46.483 k-ft
V= -12.230 kips
-50 -50
-60 -60
M=0 @ -65.898 ft
-20 -10 0 10 20 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 4-50: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Service I Loading Condition
223
PART B: STRENGTH I CALCULATIONS
• Calculate active and passive earth pressure coefficients:
Use Trial Wedge method to determine the active and passive earth pressure coefficients. The
coefficients listed below are the horizontal components only.
K a1 = 0.307
K a 2 = 0.259 K p = 6.471 (horizontal component only)

s + = (1.35)(g )( h = 60)( Ka1 ) = (1.35)( 0.125)( 60)( 0.307 ) = 3.108 ksf
s - = (1.35)(g )( h = 60 )( Ka 2 ) = (1.35)( 0.125)( 60 )( 0.259) = 2.622 ksf
Active Lateral load distribution at a depth D (LRFD Factor – 1.35):
s D = s - + (1.35)( g )( D )( K a 2 ) = 2.622 + (1.35)( 0.125 )( D )( 0.259 )

= ( 2.622 + 0.0437 D ) ksf
Passive Lateral load distribution for the second layer in the front at depth D (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
σ P = (1.0 ) (γ ) ( D ) ( K p ) = (1.0 ) ( 0.125) ( D ) ( 6.471) = 0.809D ksf
-10
-20
H=60 ft
-30
-40
-50
3108
-60 2622
-70
D
-80 16178 3497

σP = 809 D σD = 43.7 D + 2622
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Stress (psf)
Figure 4-51: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Strength I Loading Condition
224
less soils may be determined using Figure 95. The maximum ordinate (σTrapezoid) of the pressure diagram is
determined as follows:
PT
σ Trapezoid =
⎡ H − 1 ( H1 + H 5 )⎤
⎣ 3 ⎦
⎛ 1⎞
1
( )
P = γ H 2 K a1 = ⎜ ⎟ (125 ) 60 2 ( 0.307 ) = 69,075 lb/ft
2 ⎝ 2⎠
PT = 1.3P = 1.3( 69,075 ) = 89, 797.5 lb/ft

89.798
s Trapezoid = (1.35) = 2.231ksf
é60 - 1 ( 7 + 10 )ù
ë 3 û
4.67 ft
0 247.6
T1= 91 2231 P1
P2
-10
245.0 P3
T2= 82
-20
48.67 ft
2
T3= 49.466
H=60 ft
-30 P4
-40
P5
T4= 245.808
-50 2231 P6
6.67 ft
P7
-60 2622
-70 PA1
D
PP1 PA2
-80
σP = 809 D
16178 σD = 43.7 D + 2622
3497
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Stress (psf)
Figure 4-52: Developed Trapezoidal Distribution for Strength I Loading Condition
225
( 2 ) ( 4.667 )( 2.231)(8) = 41.648 kips

P1 = 1
P2 = ( 2.333)( 2.231)( 8 ) = 41.648 kips
P3 = (16 )( 2.231)( 8 ) = 285.594 kips
P4 = (12 )( 2.231)( 8 ) = 214.195 kips
P5 = (15 )( 2.231)( 8 ) = 267.744 kips
P6 = ( 3.333)( 2.231)( 8 ) = 59.496 kips
( 2 ) ( 6.667 )( 2.231)(8) = 59.496 kips

P7 = 1
ë 3( ) 2 û ( )
M1 = 41.648 é 2.333 + 4.667 1 + 2.333 1 ù = 210.552 kip-ft
T1U = P1 + P2 = 41.648 + 41.648 = 83.296 kips

æ P ö æ M ö æ 285.594 ö æ 210.552 ö
T1L = ç 3 ÷ + ç 1 ÷ = ç ÷+ç ÷ = 155.957 kips
è 2 ø è 16 ø è 2 ø è 16 ø
T +T
T1 = 1U 1L =
( 83.296 + 155.957 ) = 247.691 kips
cos (15° ) cos (15° )
æ P ö æ M ö æ 285.594 ö æ 210.552 ö
T2U = ç 3 ÷ - ç 1 ÷ = ç ÷-ç ÷ = 129.638 kips
è 2 ø è 16 ø è 2 ø è 16 ø
æ P ö æ 214.195 ö
T2 L = ç 4 ÷ = ç ÷ = 107.098 kips
è 2ø è 2 ø
T + T2 L (129.638 + 107.098 )
T2 = 2U = = 245.082 kips
cos (15° ) cos (15° )
æ P ö æ 214.195 ö
T3U = ç 4 ÷ = ç ÷ = 107.098 kips
è 2ø è 2 ø
æ P ö æ 267.744 ö
T3 L = ç 5 ÷ = ç ÷ = 133.872 kips
è2ø è 2 ø
T + T3 L (107.098 + 133.872 )
T3 = 3U = = 249.466 kips
cos (15° ) cos (15° )
⎛ 3.333 6.667 ⎞ ⎡⎛ D ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 0.0437D 2 ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎞

M D = 59.496 ⎜
⎝ 2
+
⎠
()
+ 3.333⎟ + 2.622D ⎢⎜ ⎟ +10 ⎥ 8 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ()
D +10⎟ 8
3 ⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎝3 ⎠
= 0.117D 3 +12.238D 2 + 209.790D + 429.706
⎛ 0.809D 2 ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎞
MR = ⎜
⎝ 2 ⎟ ⎜
⎠⎝3 ⎠
()
D +10⎟ 8 = 2.157D 3 + 32.355D 2
226
MR = MD
2.040 D3 + 20.117 D 2 - 209.790D - 429.706 = 0
D3 + 9.859 D 2 - 102.816D - 210.594 = 0
D » 7.524 ft
æ P ö æ 267.744 ö
T4U = ç 5 ÷ = ç ÷ = 133.872 kips
è2ø è 2 ø
T4 L = P6 + P7 + Pa1 + Pa 2 - Pp1
æ 0.0437 ( 7.524 ) 0.809 ( 7.524 ) ö
2 2
= 59.493 + 59.502 + ç 2.622 ( 7.524 ) + - ÷ ( 8) = 103.522 kips

ç 2 2 ÷
è ø
(133.872 + 103.522)
T4 = = 245.808 kips
cos (15 )
The shear and moment Diagrams are shown below:
0 0
M= 26.319 k-ft
V= 19.494 kips
-10 -10
-20 -20
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-30 -30
-40 -40
M= -62.752 k-ft
V= -16.511 kips
-50 -50
-60 -60
M=0 @ -67.524 ft
-20 -10 0 10 20 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 4-53: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Strength I Loading Condition
227
PART C: EXTREME EVENT CALCULATIONS (kh = 0.35)
• Calculate active and passive earth pressure coefficients: Use Trial Wedge method to determine the
active and passive earth pressure coefficients. The coefficients listed below are the horizontal
components only.
K ae1 = 0.585
K ae2 = 0.564 K pe = 4.413

Lateral load distribution at excavation level:
σ + = (γ ) ( h = 60 ) ( K ae1 ) = ( 0.125 ) ( 60 ) ( 0.585 ) = 4.388 ksf
σ − = (γ ) ( h = 60 ) ( K ae2 ) = ( 0.125 ) ( 60 ) ( 0.564 ) = 4.230 ksf
Active Lateral load distribution at a depth D:

σ D = σ − + (γ ) ( D ) ( K ae2 ) = 4.230 + ( 0.125) ( D ) ( 0.564 ) = ( 4.230 + 0.0705D ) ksf
Passive Lateral load distribution for the second layer in the front at depth D:
( )
σ P = (γ ) ( D ) K pe = ( 0.125 ) ( D ) ( 4.413) = 0.552 D ksf
Figure 4-54: Triangular Earth Pressure Diagram for Extreme Event Loading Condition
228
less soils may be determined using Figure 4-20. The maximum ordinate (σTrapezoid) of the pressure diagram
is determined as follows:
PT
σ Trapezoid =
⎡ H − 1 ( H1 + H 5 )⎤
⎣ 3 ⎦
⎛ 1⎞
1
( )
P = γ H 2 K ae1 = ⎜ ⎟ ( 0.125 ) 60 2 ( 0.585 ) = 131.625 klf
2 ⎝ 2⎠
PT = 1.3P = 1.3(131.625 ) = 171.113 klf

171.113
σ Trapezoid = = 3.149 ksf
⎡ 60 − 1 ( 7 + 10 ) ⎤
⎣ 3 ⎦
Figure 4-55: Developed Trapezoidal Distribution for Tieback System
229
( )
P1 = 1 2 ( 4.667 ) ( 3.149 ) ( 8 ) = 58.787 kips
P2 = ( 2.333) ( 3.149 ) ( 8 ) = 58.787 kips
P3 = (16 ) ( 3.149 ) ( 8 ) = 403.112 kips
P4 = (12 ) ( 3.149 ) ( 8 ) = 302.334 kips
P5 = (15 ) ( 3.149 ) ( 8 ) = 377.917 kips
P6 = ( 3.333) ( 3.149 ) ( 8 ) = 83.982 kips
( )
P7 = 1 2 ( 6.667 ) ( 3.149 ) ( 8 ) = 83.982 kips
( ) ( )
M 1 = 58.787 ⎡ 2.333 + 4.667 1 3 + 2.333 1 2 ⎤ = 297.202 kip-ft
⎣ ⎦
T1U = P1 + P2 = 58.787 + 58.787 = 117.574 kips

⎛ P ⎞ ⎛ M ⎞ ⎛ 403.112 ⎞ ⎛ 297.202 ⎞
T1L = ⎜ 3 ⎟ + ⎜ 1 ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ = 220.131 kips
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 16 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 16 ⎠
T1U + T1L (117.574 + 220.131)
T1 = = = 349.618 kips
cos (15 ) cos (15 )
⎛ P ⎞ ⎛ M ⎞ ⎛ 304.90 ⎞ ⎛ 297.202 ⎞
T2U = ⎜ 3 ⎟ − ⎜ 1 ⎟ = ⎜ − = 182.981 kips
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 16 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 16 ⎟⎠
⎛ P ⎞ ⎛ 302.334 ⎞
T2 L = ⎜ 4 ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ = 151.167 kips
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
T2U + T2 L (182.981+ 151.167 )
T2 = = = 345.935 kips
cos (15 ) cos (15 )
⎛ P ⎞ ⎛ 302.334 ⎞
T3U = ⎜ 4 ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ = 151.167 kips
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ P ⎞ ⎛ 377.917 ⎞
T3L = ⎜ 5 ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ = 188.959 kips
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
T3U + T3L (151.167 + 188.959 )
T3 = = = 352.124 kips
cos (15 ) cos (15 )
æ 3.333 6.667 ö éæ D ö ù
M D = 83.982 ç + + 3.333 ÷ + 4.230 D êç ÷ + 10 ú (8 )
è 2 3 ø ëè 2 ø û
æ 0.0705 D 2 ö æ 2 ö
+ç ÷ ç D + 10 ÷ ( 8 ) = 0.188 D + 19.74 D + 338.4 D + 606.504
3 2
è 2 øè 3 ø
æ 0.552 D 2 ö æ 2 ö
MR = ç ÷ ç D + 10 ÷ ( 8 ) = 1.471D + 22.065 D
3 2
è 2 øè 3 ø
230
MR = MD
D3 + 1.812D 2 - 263.757 D - 472.746 = 0
D » 16.232 ft
æ P ö æ 377.917 ö
T4U = ç 5 ÷ = ç ÷ = 188.959 kips
è2ø è 2 ø
T4 L = P6 + P7 + Pa1 + Pa 2 - Pp1
æ 0.0705 (16.232 ) 0.552 (16.232 ) ö
2 2
= 83.982 + 83.982 + ç 4.230 (16.232 ) + - ÷ ( 8) = 210.20 kips

ç 2 2 ÷
è ø
(188.959 + 210.200 )
T4 = = 413.24 kips
cos (15 )
The shear and moment Diagrams are shown below:
0 0
M= 37.150 k-ft
V= 27.516 kips
-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
-40 -40
V= -23.305 kips
-50 -50
-60 -60
M= -132.079 k-ft
-70 -70
M=0 @ -76.232 ft
-40 -20 0 20 40 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 4-56: Shear and Moment Diagrams for Extreme Event Loading Condition
When kh > 0.17, the Extreme Event Limit State controls the design, as summarized in the table below.

Service I 5.898 14.440 46.483
Strength I 7.524 19.494 62.752
231
Example 4-4: Cantilevered Soldier-pile-lagging Wall
Perform LRFD design for a cantilevered soldier-pile-lagging wall with 8ft on center
encased in 2ft diameter hole filled with class 1 concrete. The soil properties are shown below.
Fowling limit stated are considered:
• Service
• Strength
• Extreme Seismic
Figure 4-57: Cantilevered Soldier-Pile-Lagging Wall Cross-Section
Calculate Factored Active & Passive Earth Pressures

Determine Pile Embedment D
Calculate Maximum Shear & Moment
Calculate Service Deformation
Design Soldier Pile & Lagging System
Table 4-5: LRFD Load Factors
232
Limit State Active Pressure Passive Pressure Surcharge Seismic
Service 1.0 1.0 1.0 0
Strength 1.5 1.0 1.75 0
Extreme 1.0 1.0 0 1.0
Service Limit State:
Figure 4-58: Conventional Assumed Pressure Diagram
∅ 35
K a = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 0.271
2 2
∅ 35
K p = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 3.690
2 2
From the given information, lowercase “a” can be easily calculated and will be needed to find the
pressures at each point.
233
𝜎(𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒, 𝛾𝐻𝐾m )(𝑘𝑠𝑓) 0.508125 𝑘𝑠𝑓
𝑎= = = 0.404 𝑓𝑡
𝛾(𝑘𝑐𝑓) ∗ (𝐾W 𝑓 − 𝐾m ) (0.125 𝑘𝑐𝑓)(10.332 − 0.271)
In the above equation, “f” is the soil compressibility factor. This factor is always applied to passive
pressures blow excavation level because the underground soldier piles are cylindrical.
f = 0.08 ∗ 𝜑 = (0.08×35) = 2.8
• Calculate factored earth pressure distribution in k/ft. This implies multiplying each pressure by its
respective spacing at the various points in Figure 7.
Factored lateral load due to surcharge above the excavation line only (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝐴 = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 8 = 0.542 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
Factored Active lateral load distribution at excavation level on the wall (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝐴5 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 8 = 4.065 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
Factored Active lateral load distribution at excavation level on the soldier pile (LRFD Factor –
1.0):
𝐶 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 2 = 1.01625 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
Factored Passive lateral load distribution in front below the dredge line at embedment depth
(LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝐹 = (0.125 ∗ 1.0𝑍Q ∗ ((3.69 ∗ 2.8) − 0.271) ∗ 2) = 2.51525𝑍Q 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
Factored Passive lateral load distribution at embedment depth (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝐽 = T0.125 ∗ 1.0(𝑍Q + 0.404) ∗ T(3.69 ∗ 2.8) − 0.271U ∗ 2U

+ (0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 3.69 ∗ 2.8 ∗ 2 ∗ 1.0) = 2.51525𝑍Q + 39.7612 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
• Calculate factored resultant earth forces and apply ∑ 𝐹 = 0. The applied forces on the wall are
the areas of the distributed loads.
1- Calculate factored active earth force due to surcharge, Psur:

t
Psur = 0.542 uv ∗ 15 ft = 8.13 kips
2- Calculate factored active earth force above dredge line, P1:

5 t
P1 = / ∗ 4.065 uv ∗ 15 ft = 30.4875 kips
234
3- Calculate factored active earth forces below dredge line, P2:
5 t
P2 = ∗ 1.01625 ∗ 0.404 ft = 0.2053 kips
/ uv
4- Calculate factored passive earth forces below dredge line. For simplification, take
(Area FEJ) - (Area FDG):
5 t t
Area FEJ= 𝑃Q = / ∗ (2.51525𝑍Q uv + (2.51525𝑍Q + 39.7612 uv)) ∗ 𝑍/ ft =
2.51525𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 19.881𝑍/ kips
5 t
Area FDG= 𝑃2 = / ∗ 2.51525𝑍Q uv ∗ 𝑍Q ft = 1.257625 𝑍Q/ kips
Figure 4-59: Force diagram for Service Limit State
𝛴𝐹 = 0
8.13 + 30.4875 + 0.2053 + (2.51525𝑍3 𝑍2 + 19.881𝑍2 ) − 1.257625 𝑍23 = 0
Simplify and solve for 𝑍/ :
235
1.257625𝑍Q/ − 38.8228
𝑍/ =
2.51525𝑍Q + 19.881
𝛴𝑀 = 0
2(0.404)
(8.13 ∗ (𝑍Q + 0.404 + 7.5)) + T30.4875 ∗ (𝑍Q + 0.404 + 5)U + †0.2053 ∗ ‡𝑍Q + ˆ‰
3
𝑍/ 𝑍Q
+ ‡(2.51525𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 19.881𝑍/ ) ∗ ˆ − ‡1.257625 𝑍Q/ ∗ ^ `ˆ = 0
3 3
Simplify and collect like terms:
38.8228𝑍Q + 229.0693 + 0.83842𝑍Q 𝑍// + 6.627𝑍// − 0.41921𝑍QQ = 0
Solve for Z2 and Z3 by using iteration to achieve both simplified equations to equal 0:
𝑍/ = 3.321 𝑓𝑡 & 𝑍Q = 13.037 𝑓𝑡
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ = 𝑍Q + 𝑎 = 13.037 + 0.404 = 13.441 𝑓𝑡
Calculate Factored Maximum Shear:
Maximum shear occurs when the load diagram crosses zero. In this case, the loading crosses zero at two
locations so the area of the load diagram has to be calculated before the first zero point and after the
second zero point. The largest value of the two areas will be Vmax. Usually, it will be the area of loading
below the pivot point (second zero load location) because this is where the largest passive pressure is
acting at the base of the wall.
236
0@5.96’
Figure 4-60: Net Load and Shear Diagram for Service Limit State
Find pressure (k/ft) at point E using similar triangles:
32.791 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 𝐸
= => 𝐸 = 24.438 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
13.037 𝑓𝑡 (13.037 − 3.321)𝑓𝑡
Use similar triangles again to calculate Z1:
3.321 𝑓𝑡 𝑍5
= => 𝑍5 = 2.4842 𝑓𝑡
(24.438 + 72.553) 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 72.553 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
Calculate Vmax:
1 𝑘
𝑉Xm‘ = ∗ ^72.553 ` ∗ (2.4842 𝑓𝑡) = 90.12 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
2 𝑓𝑡
Calculate Factored Maximum Moment:
The maximum moment is located at distance Y below the excavation line where the shear is equal to zero.
Therefore, the summation of horizontal forces at the distance Y must be set to equal zero.
Passive earth pressure at Y below the dredge line (Y = y+0.404):
1
𝑃’ = [0.125 ∗ 1 ∗ 𝑦((3.69 ∗ 2.8) − 0.271) ∗ 2]𝑦 = 1.257625𝑦 / 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2
237
Figure 4-61: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Service Limit State
∑F = 0
x
1.257625𝑦 / = 8.13 + 30.4875 + 0.2053
1.257625𝑦 / = 38.8228 => y = 5.556 ft
Y =5.556 + 0.404 = 5.96 ft (below the dredge line)
0.404 5.556
Mmax = –8.13×(7.5+5.96)+30.4875×(5+5.96)+0.2053× ^5.96 − ` - 1.257625×5.5562 × ^ `—
3 3
Mmax = 372.87 kips-ft
238
Figure 11 displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Service Limit State:
D=13.441’
0@5.96’ M = 372.87 k-ft
V= 90.12 kips
Figure 4-62: Shear and moment diagram for service loading condition
239
• Calculate the wall deflection using moment area method:
Calculate pressure distribution (𝜎) along the length of the soldier pile wall.

1- Integrate the pressure distribution to calculate the shear distribution along the length of the
soldier pile wall

𝑉 = ˜ 𝜎𝑑𝑙
2- Integrate the shear distribution to calculate the moment distribution along the length of the
soldier pile wall
𝑀 = ˜ 𝑉𝑑𝑙
3- Integrate the moment distribution to calculate the slope along the length of the soldier pile
wall

𝑀
𝜃=˜ 𝑑𝑙
𝐸𝐼
4- Integrate the slope distribution to calculate the deflection along the length of the soldier pile
wall
𝑦 = ˜ 𝜃𝑑ℎ

where,

𝜎= Pressure at any point
𝑉 = Shear force at any point
𝑀 = Moment at any depth
𝑑𝑙 = Incremental length along the wall
∆ = Deflection at any point
240
Figure 4-63: Service limit state deflection (CT_Flex)
Lagging Calculations:
The following resistance factors are used for lagging analysis:
Table 4-6: Lagging Resistance Factors

2012 LRFD
Limit State Flexure Shear Bearing
BDS Section
Service 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5.2.6.2
Strength 0.85 0.75 0.9 8.5.2.2
Extreme Event 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.5.3
Note that Bearing is used to calculate bearing length at each support point.
The following Arching factors and Maximum Moments are used for lagging analysis for all limit
states:
Table 4-7: Lagging Arching Factors
241
Arching
Span Type / Soil Arching Mmax Reference
Factor
Simple Span w/o Arching 1.0 0.125wl2
Simple Span with Arching 0.664 0.083wl2 LRFD BDS

BRIDGE DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS
Continuous Span w/o Arching 1.0 0.1wl2 Section C11.8.5.2
Continuous Span with Arching 0.83 0.083wl2
The Adjusted Design Values in psi for wood members used in this example problem are shown below:
Table 4-8: Adjusted Bearing, Shear and Bending Design Values

Strength EV Service
𝐹*W 450 450 450
𝐹¦ 140 140
N/A
𝐹§ 1,500 1,500
Try 4x12 lagging for Service Limit State:
Lagging deflection Calculations:

Factored Bearing Resistance = 𝐹*W ∗ 𝐴§ ∗ 𝐶§ ≥ 𝑉« … … … … … … … . . (8.8.3)
Where:
𝐹*W = 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 Bearing Resistance (8.4.4.1 − 5)
𝐶§ = 1.0 (8.8.3)
𝐴§ = 𝑙§ ∗ 𝑤§ is a Bearing Area
𝑤§ = 12" 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ
𝑙§ 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑉« 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
Calculate Factored Bearing Resistance stress:
𝐹𝑅𝑆 = 𝜑 ∗ 𝐹*W = 1.0 ∗ 450 𝑝𝑠𝑖 = 450𝑝𝑠𝑖
242
Lclr is the clear span as defined in the input for lagging in CT-Flex (Section 13.6.1.2–Wood Structures of
the CT 2000 BDS manual.) See Table 4-8 for bearing factor.
w is the lagging uniform factored load plus factored surcharge load:
𝑤 = 𝑓 ∗ 𝑊· = 0.664 ∗ (508 + 68) ≈ 382.5 𝑝𝑠𝑓
Where: 𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 0.664 (𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 3)
Calculate the lagging span length L:
𝑉«
= 450 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑙§ ∗ 𝑤§
Where:
𝐿*¹ºm+ = 7.5′
𝑤 ∗ 𝐿*¹ºm+ 382.5 ∗ 7.5
𝑉« = = = 1,434.40 𝑙𝑏
2 2
𝑉«
𝑙§ =
𝜙 ∗ 𝐹*W ∗ 12"
1,434.40
𝑙§ = = 0.266"
12 ∗ 450
0.266"
𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝐿 = 7.5D + = 7.52 𝑓𝑡
12
243
5𝑤(𝐿)2
𝛿max =
384𝐸𝐼
5𝑤𝑙(𝐿)2 5 ∗ (382.5/12) ∗ (7.52 ∗ 12)2

𝛿max = = = 0.269 𝑖𝑛
384𝐸𝐼 384 ∗ 1,600,000 ∗ 64
244
Strength Limit State:
∅ 35
K a = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 0.271
2 2
∅ 35
K p = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 3.690
2 2
𝜎(𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒, 𝛾𝐻𝐾m )(𝑘𝑠𝑓) 0.508125 𝑘𝑠𝑓 ∗ 1.5(𝐿𝑅𝐹𝐷 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟)

𝑎= = = 0.614 𝑓𝑡
𝛾(𝑘𝑐𝑓) ∗ (𝐾W 𝑓 − 𝐾m ) (0.125 𝑘𝑐𝑓)(10.332 − 0.271(1.5))
pressures underneath excavation level because the underground soldier piles are cylindrical.
f = 0.08 ∗ 𝜑 = (0.08×35) = 2.8
245
𝐴 = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.75 ∗ 8 = 0.9485 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
𝐴5 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 8 = 6.0975 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
1.5):
𝐶 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 2 = 1.524 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
(LRFD Factor – 1.0 (passive), 1.5 (active)):
𝐹 = (0.125 ∗ 1.0𝑍Q ∗ ((3.69 ∗ 2.8) − (0.271 ∗ 1.5)) ∗ 2) = 2.481375𝑍Q 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
Factored Passive lateral load distribution at embedment depth (LRFD Factor – 1.0 (passive), 1.5
(active)):
𝐽 = T0.125 ∗ 1.0(𝑍Q + 0.614) ∗ T(3.69 ∗ 2.8) − (0.271 ∗ 1.5)U ∗ 2U

+ (0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 3.69 ∗ 2.8 ∗ 2 ∗ 1.0) = 2.481375𝑍Q + 40.2686 𝑘/𝑓𝑡

t
Psur = 0.9485 uv ∗ 15 ft = 14.23 kips

5 t
P1 = / ∗ 6.0975 uv ∗ 15 ft = 45.73 kips

5 t
P2 = / ∗ 1.524 uv ∗ 0.614 ft = 0.468 kips
5 t t
246
2.481375𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 20.1343𝑍/ kips
5 t
Figure 4-65: Force diagram for strength limit state
𝛴𝐹 = 0
14.23 + 45.73 + 0.468 + (2.481375𝑍3 𝑍2 + 20.1343𝑍2 ) − 1.24069 𝑍23 = 0
1.24069𝑍Q/ − 60.428
𝑍/ =
2.481375𝑍Q + 20.1343
𝛴𝑀¿ = 0
2(0.614)
(14.23 ∗ (𝑍Q + 0.614 + 7.5)) + T45.73 ∗ (𝑍Q + 0.614 + 5)U + †0.468 ∗ ‡𝑍Q + ˆ‰
3
𝑍/ 𝑍Q
+ ‡(2.481375𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 20.1343𝑍/ ) ∗ ˆ − ‡1.24069 𝑍Q/ ∗ ^ `ˆ = 0
3 3
247
60.428𝑍Q + 372.382 + 0.827125𝑍Q 𝑍// + 6.7114𝑍// − 0.41356𝑍QQ = 0
𝑍/ = 4.340 𝑓𝑡 & 𝑍Q = 16.086 𝑓𝑡
Figure 4-66: Net load and shear diagram for Strength Limit State
39.9154 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 𝐸
= => 𝐸 = 29.1462 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
16.086 𝑓𝑡 (16.086 − 4.340)𝑓𝑡
248
4.340 𝑓𝑡 𝑍5
= => 𝑍5 = 3.183 𝑓𝑡
(29.1462 + 80.184) 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 80.184 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
Calculate Vmax:
1 𝑘
𝑉Xm‘ = ∗ ^80.184 ` ∗ (3.183 𝑓𝑡) = 127.61 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
2 𝑓𝑡
1
𝑃’ = [0.125 ∗ 𝑦((3.69 ∗ 2.8) − 0.271 ∗ 1.5) ∗ 2]𝑦 = 1.24069𝑦 / 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2
Figure 4-67: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Strength Limit State
∑F = 0
x
1.24069𝑦 / = 14.23 + 45.73 + 0.468
1.24069𝑦 / = 60.428 => y = 6.979
Y = 6.979 + 0.614 = 7.593 ft (below the dredge line)
249
0.614 6.979
Mmax = –14.23×(7.5+7.593)+45.73×(5+7.593)+0.468× ^7.593 − ` - 1.24069×6.9792 × ^ `—
3 3
Verify 4x lagging for Strength Limit State:
𝑤 = 𝑓 ∗ W· = 0.664 ∗ (762 + 119 = 881) psf = 585 psf
Where w is the lagging uniform load plus surcharge load
𝑉«
= 450 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑙§ ∗ 𝑤§
Where:
𝑤 ∗ 𝐿*¹ºm+ 585 ∗ 7.5
𝑉« = = = 2,193.75 𝑙𝑏
2 2
𝑉«
𝑙§ =
𝜙 ∗ 𝐹*W ∗ 12"
2,193.75
𝑙§ = = 0.451"
0.9 ∗ 12 ∗ 450
0.451"
12
Determine Factored Shear ‘Vu’ at distance d from the face of support:

𝐿 𝑙§ 7.54D 0.451" 4"
𝑉« = Á − − 𝑑Â ∗ (𝑤) = Ã − − Ä ∗ (585) ≈ 2,000 𝑙𝑏
2 2 2 (2 ∗ 12) 12
Determine Factored Moment ‘Mu’:
𝑤 ∗ 𝐿/ 585 ∗ (7.54′)/
𝑀« = = = 4,157 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡
8 8
Determine Lagging Shear and Flexural Resistance:
250
Shear Resistance per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 8.7
Nominal Shear Resistance ‘Vn’:

𝐹+ ∗ 𝐴 140 𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 48.0 𝑖𝑛/
𝑉Å = = = 4,480 𝑙𝑏𝑠
1.5 1.5
Factored Shear Resistance ‘Vr’:

𝑉+ = 𝜙Æ ∗ 𝑉Å = 0.75 ∗ 4,480 𝑙𝑏𝑠 = 3,360 𝑙𝑏𝑠 > 2,000 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑂. 𝐾
Flexure Resistance per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 8.6.2-1
Nominal Flexure Resistance ‘Mn’:

𝐹§ ∗ 𝑆 ∗ 𝐶· 1,500 𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 32.0 𝑖𝑛Q ∗ 1.0
𝑀Å = = = 4,000 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡
12 12
Factored Flexural Resistance ‘Mr’:

𝑀+ = 𝜙È ∗ 𝑀Å = 0.85 ∗ 4,000 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡 = 3,400 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡 < 4,157 𝑁𝐺
Try 6x12 lagging (Smod =72 in3)
1,500 𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 72.0 𝑖𝑛Q ∗ 1.0

𝑀Å = = 9000 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡
12
𝑀+ = 𝜙È ∗ 𝑀Å = 0.85 ∗ 9,000 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡 = 7,650 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡 > 4,157 𝑂. 𝐾
251
D=16.70’
0@7.593’ M = 653.53 k-ft
V= 127.61 kips
Figure 4-68: Shear and moment diagram for Strength Loading Condition
252
Extreme Seismic Event Limit State (for kh = 0.35):
Wedge method or the Mononobe-Okabe equation is applied to calculate the active and passive
earth pressure coefficients.
K ae = 0.526, K pe = 2.945
pressure. To achieve a conservative design, it is recommended to use the Log-Spiral-Rankine model to
compute the passive earth force.
𝜎(𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒, 𝛾𝐻𝐾mº )(𝑘𝑠𝑓) 0.98625 𝑘𝑠𝑓

𝑎= = = 1.022 𝑓𝑡
𝛾 (𝑘𝑐𝑓 ) ∗ (𝐾Wº 𝑓 − 𝐾mº ) (0.125 𝑘𝑐𝑓)(8.246 − 0.526)
pressures underneath excavation level because the underground soldier piles are cylindrical.
f = 0.08 ∗ 𝜑 = (0.08×35) = 2.8
253
Factored lateral load due to surcharge above the excavation line only (LRFD Factor – 0):
𝐴 = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.526 ∗ 0 ∗ 8 = 0 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
𝐵 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.526 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 8 = 7.8904 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
1.0):
𝐶 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.526 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 2 = 1.9726 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
𝐹 = (0.125 ∗ 1.0𝑍Q ∗ ((2.945 ∗ 2.8) − 0.526) ∗ 2) = 1.93𝑍Q 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
𝐽 = T0.125 ∗ 1.0(𝑍Q + 1.022) ∗ T(2.945 ∗ 2.8) − 0.526U ∗ 2U

+ (0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 2.945 ∗ 2.8 ∗ 2 ∗ 1.0) = 1.93𝑍Q + 32.895 𝑘/𝑓𝑡

t
Psur = 0 uv ∗ 15 ft = 0 kips

5 t
P1 = / ∗ 7.8904 uv ∗ 15 ft = 59.178 kips

5 t
P2 = / ∗ 1.9726 uv ∗ 1.022 ft = 1 kip
254
5 t t
1.93𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 16.4475𝑍/ kips
5 t
Figure 4-70: Force diagram for Extreme Seismic Limit State
𝛴𝐹 = 0
59.178 + 1 + (1.93𝑍3 𝑍2 + 16.4475𝑍2 ) − 0.965 𝑍23 = 0
0.965𝑍Q/ − 60.178
𝑍/ =
1.93𝑍Q + 16.4475
𝛴𝑀 = 0
2(1.022) 𝑍/
T59.178 ∗ (𝑍Q + 1.022 + 5)U + †1 ∗ ‡𝑍Q + ˆ‰ + ‡(1.93𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 16.4475𝑍/ ) ∗ ˆ
3 3
𝑍Q
− ‡0.965 𝑍Q/ ∗ ^ `ˆ = 0
3
255
60.178𝑍Q + 357.051 + 0.6433𝑍Q 𝑍// + 5.4825𝑍// − 0.3217𝑍QQ = 0
𝑍/ = 4.865 𝑓𝑡 & 𝑍Q = 17.864 𝑓𝑡
Figure 4-71: Net load and shear diagram for Extreme Seismic Limit State
34.478 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 𝐸
= => 𝐸 = 25.088 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
17.864 𝑓𝑡 (17.864 − 4.865)𝑓𝑡
256
4.865 𝑓𝑡 𝑍5
= => 𝑍5 = 3.545 𝑓𝑡
(25.088 + 67.3725) 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 67.3725 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
Calculate Vmax:
1 𝑘
𝑉Xm‘ = ∗ ^67.3725 ` ∗ (3.545 𝑓𝑡) = 119.42 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
2 𝑓𝑡
1
𝑃’ = [0.125 ∗ 𝑦((2.945 ∗ 2.8) − 0.526) ∗ 2]𝑦 = 0.965𝑦 / 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2
Figure 4-72: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Extreme Seismic Limit State
∑F = 0
x
0.965𝑦 / = 59.178 + 1
0.965𝑦 / = 60.178 => y=7.897
257
1.022 7.897
Mmax = –59.178×(5+8.919)+1× ^8.919 − ` - 0.965×7.8972 × ^ `—
3 3
Figure 4-73: Shear and moment diagram for Extreme Seismic Loading Condition
Verify 6x 12 Lagging for Extreme-Event Limit State:
258
𝑤 = 𝑓 ∗ W· = 0.664 ∗ (762 + 119 = 881) psf = 585 psf
𝑉«
= 450 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑙§ ∗ 12"
Where:
𝑤 ∗ 𝐿*¹ºm+ 654.7 ∗ 7.5
𝑉« = = = 2,455.13 𝑙𝑏
2 2
𝑉«
𝑙§ =
𝜙 ∗ 𝐹*W ∗ 12"
2,455.13
𝑙§ = = 0.455"
1 ∗ 12 ∗ 450
0.455"
12
Determine Factored Shears and Moments:
Determine Factored Shear ‘Vu’ at distance d from the face of support:
𝐿 𝑙§ 7.54D 0.455" 6"

𝑉« = Á − − 𝑑Â ∗ (𝑤) = Ã − − Ä ∗ (654.7) = 2,132𝑙𝑏
2 2 2 (2 ∗ 12) 12
1- Determine Factored Moment ‘Mu’:
𝑤 ∗ 𝐿/ 654.7 ∗ (7.54′)/
𝑀« = = = 4,653 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡
8 8
Determine Lagging Shear and Flexural Resistance:
Shear Resistance per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 8.7
Nominal Shear Resistance ‘Vn’:

𝐹+ ∗ 𝐴 140 𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ (6 ∗ 12) 𝑖𝑛/
𝑉Å = = = 6,720 𝑙𝑏𝑠
1.5 1.5
259
Factored Shear Resistance ‘Vr’:
𝑉+ = 𝜙Æ ∗ 𝑉Å = 1.0 ∗ 6,720 𝑙𝑏𝑠 = 6,720 𝑙𝑏𝑠 > 2,132 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑂. 𝐾
Flexure Resistance per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 8.6.2-1
Nominal Flexure Resistance ‘Mn’:

𝑏 ∗ ℎ/ 12 ∗ 6/
𝑆= = = 72 𝑖𝑛Q
6 6
𝐹§ ∗ 𝑆 ∗ 𝐶· 1,500 𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 72.0 𝑖𝑛Q ∗ 1.0

𝑀Å = = = 9,000 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡
12 12
Factored Flexural Resistance ‘Mr’:

𝑀+ = 𝜙È ∗ 𝑀Å = 1.0 ∗ 9,000 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡 = 9,000 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡 𝑂. 𝐾.
Example 4-5: (SIMPLIFIED METHOD)

Perform LRFD design for a cantilevered soldier-pile-lagging wall with 8ft on center
encased in 2ft diameter hole filled with class 1 concrete. The soil properties are shown below.
Fowling limit stated are considered:
260
• Service
• Strength
• Extreme Seismic
Figure 4-74: Cantilevered Soldier-Pile-Lagging Wall Cross-Section

Design Soldier Pile & Lagging System
Table 4-9: LRFD Factors
261
Service 1.0 1.0 1.0 0
Strength 1.5 1.0 1.75 0
Extreme 1.0 1.0 0 1.0

∅ 35
K a = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 0.271
2 2
∅ 35
K p = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 3.690
2 2
• Calculate factored earth pressure distribution

Factored Lateral load due to surcharge above the excavation line only (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝜎Ì«+ = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 = 0.068 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Factored Lateral load distribution at excavation level (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝜎 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 = 0.508 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Factored Active lateral load distribution the soil below the dredge line at depth Do (LRFD Factor
– 1.0):
σAD0 =0.508+0.271*0.125 ∗ 1.0D0 =(0.508+0.0339D0 ) ksf
Factored Passive Lateral load distribution in front at depth Do (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
σpÎÏ =0.125×3.69×1.0D0 =0.461D0 ksf
• Calculate factored resultant earth forces

1- Calculate factored active earth force due to surcharge PAS:
PAs =15×8×0.068=8.16 kips
262
2- Calculate factored active earth force above dredge line using 8’spacing, PA1:
15
PA1 = 2
×8×0.508=30.48 kips
3- Calculate factored active earth force below dredge line using 2’ hole diameter PA2:
PA21 = D0 ×2×0.508=1.016 D0 kips
D
PA22 = 0.0339D0 × Ð 20 Ñ ×2= 0.0339 D20 kips
• Calculate factored passive earth force below dredge line using 2’ hole diameter and soil arching
capability facto, PP:
f = 0.08 ∗ 𝜑 = (0.08×35) = 2.8
D D
Pp = 0.461D0 × Ð 0 Ñ ×2×f = 0.461D0 × Ð 0 Ñ ×5.60 = 1.291D20 kips
2 2
• Calculate factored driving and resisting moments as shown in Table 4-10:
Table 4-10: Factored driving and resisting moments
263
Driving Force (kips) Arm (ft) Driving Moment MDR
8.16 7.5 + 𝐷0 61.2 + 8.16𝐷0
30.48 5 + 𝐷0 152.4 + 30.48𝐷0
𝐷0
1.016𝐷0 0.508𝐷0/
2
𝐷0
0.0339𝐷0/ 0.0113𝐷0Q
3
Resisting Force (kips) Arm (ft) Resisting Moment MRS
𝐷0
1.291𝐷0/ 0.430𝐷0Q
3
𝑀ÎÒ = 0.0113 𝐷0Q + 0.508 𝐷0/ + 30.48 𝐷0 + 152.4 + 8.16 𝐷0 + 61.2
𝑀ÒÓ = 0.43 𝐷0Q

𝑀ÒÓ = 𝑀ÎÒ : − 0.4187𝐷0Q + 0.508 𝐷0/ + 38.64 𝐷0 + 213.6 = 0
𝐷0Q − 1.2133 𝐷0/ − 92.286 𝐷0 − 510.15 = 0 => 𝐷0 = 12.202 𝑓𝑡 => 𝐷 = 1.2 ∗ 𝐷0 = 14.64 𝑓𝑡
Therefore the summation of horizontal forces at the distance Y must be set to equal zero.
∑F = 0
x
1.2571Y 2- 1.016Y - 38.64 = 0
Y 2- 0.808Y – 30.737 = 0 => Y = 5.963 ft (below the dredge line)
264
Figure 4-76: Location of zero and maximum moment for Service Limit State
5.963 5.963
8.16×(7.5+5.963)+30.48×(5+5.963)+1.016×5.963× ^ ` +0.0339×5.9632 × ^ `
Mmax = Õ 2 3 Ö
5.963
-1.291×5.9632 × ^ `
3
Mmax =373.226 kips-ft
265
Figure 4-77 displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Service limit state:
Figure 4-77: Shear and moment diagram for Service Loading Condition

Determine Factored Active and Passive Earth Pressures:
∅ 35
K a = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 0.271
2 2
/
∅ /
35
K p = 𝑡𝑎𝑛 ^45 + ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛 ^45 + ` = 3.690
2 2
Factored lateral load due to surcharge above the excavation line only:
𝑆Ì«+ = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.75 = 0.119 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Factored lateral load distribution at excavation level:
266
𝜎 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.5 = 0.762 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Factored active lateral load distribution for the soil below the dredge line at depth Do
σAD0 =0.762+0.125×0.271×1.5 D0 =(0.762+0.0508D0 ) ksf
Factored passive Lateral load distribution in front at depth Do:
σPD0 =0.125×3.69×1.0 D0 = 0.461D0 ksf
Calculate factored active earth force due to surcharge PAS:
PAs =15×8×0.119=14.28 kips
Calculate factored active earth force for the first soil layer PA1:
15
PA1 = 2
×8×0.762 =45.72 kips
Calculate factored active earth force for the second soil layer PA2:
PA21 =D0 ×2×0.762=1.524 D0 kips
D
PA22 =0.0508×D0 × Ð 20 Ñ ×2=0.0508 D20 kips
Calculate factored passive earth force for the second soil layer PP:
D D
Pp =0.461D0 × Ð 0Ñ ×2×f=0.461D0 × Ð 0 Ñ ×2×(.08×35)=1.291D20 kips
2 2
267
Figure 4-78: Pressure diagram for Strength I limit state
Calculate driving and resisting moments
Table 4-11: Strength Limit State Factored Driving and Resisting Moments
14.28 7.5 + 𝐷0 107.1 + 14.28𝐷0
45.72 5 + 𝐷0 228.6 + 45.72 𝐷0
𝐷0
1.524𝐷0 0.762 𝐷0/
2
𝐷0
0.0508𝐷0/ 0.017𝐷0Q
3
𝐷0
1.291𝐷0/ 0.430𝐷0Q
3
𝑀ÎÒ = 0.017 𝐷0Q + 0.762 𝐷0/ + 45.72 𝐷0 + 228.6 + 14.28 𝐷0 + 107.1
𝑀ÒÓ = 0.430 𝐷0Q
268
𝑀ÒÓ = 𝑀ÎÒ : − 0.413 𝐷0Q + 0.762 𝐷0/ + 60 𝐷0 + 335.7 = 0
𝐷0Q − 1.845 𝐷0/ − 145.278 𝐷0 − 812.833 = 0 => 𝐷0 = 15.067 𝑓𝑡 => 𝐷 = 1.2 ∗ 𝐷0 = 18.08 𝑓𝑡
Calculate factored Moment ‘Mu’:

Figure 4-79: Location of zero and maximum moment for Strength I limit state
∑F = 0
x
1.24 Y 2- 1.524 Y - 60 = 0 => Y = 7.598ft (below the dredge line)
7.598 7.598
14.28×(7.5+7.598 )+45.72×(5+7.598 )+1.524×7.598 × ^ ` +0.0508×7.598 2 × ^ `
Mu = Õ 2 3 Ö
7.598
-1.291×7.598 2 × ^ `
3
269
Mu = 654.241 kips .ft
Figure 29 displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Strength I Loading Condition:
Figure 4-80: Shear and moment diagram for Strength I limit state
Design Soldier Pile for the above Shear and Moment: (Assume Grade 50 Steel)
Determine Flexural Resistance using W14X120:
Factored Flange Stress:
M u *12 654.24 k-ft *12

fbu = = = 41.32 ksi
S 190 in3
(Per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 6.10.8.1.3-1 Continuously braced)
Factored Flexural Resistance:
270
𝜙È 𝑅× 𝐹¦È = 0.9 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 50 𝑘𝑠𝑖 = 45 𝑘𝑠𝑖 > 41.32 𝑘𝑠𝑖 𝑂. 𝐾
Check Shear Resistance:
Factored Shear Force: Vu = 197.72 K
Nominal Shear Resistance ‘Vn’ = ‘Vcr’: (per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section
6.10.9.1 and for C; 6.10.9.2-2)
𝑉*+ = 𝐶 ∗ 𝑉W = 𝐶 ∗ 0.58 ∗ 𝐹¦ 𝐷 ∗ 𝑡Ø
𝑉*+ = 1.0 ∗ 0.58 ∗ 50 𝑘𝑠𝑖 ∗ 14.48*0.59 = 247.752 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠 > 197.72 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠 ∴ 𝑂. 𝐾.
Extreme Event Calculations (for kh = 0.35)

Wedge method or the Mononobe-Okabe equation is applied to calculate the active and passive
earth pressure coefficients.
K ae = 0.526, K pe = 2.945
Calculate earth pressure distribution

𝜎Ì«+ = 0
𝜎 Ú = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.526 = 0.986 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Active lateral load distribution the soil below the dredge line at depth D0:
σAD0 =0.986+0.125×0.526×D0 =(0.986+0.0658D0 ) ksf
Passive Lateral load distribution the soil below the dredge line in the front at depth D0:
σPD0 =0.125×2.945× D0 = 0.368D0 ksf
Calculate resultant earth forces

271
15
PA1 = ×8×0.986 = 59.16 kips
2
PA21 =D0 ×2×0.986=1.972 D0 kips
D
PA22 =0.0658×D0 × Ð 20Ñ ×2=0.0658 D20 kips
D D
Pp =0.368D0 × Ð 20 Ñ ×2×f=0.368D0 × Ð 20 Ñ ×2×(.08×35)=1.030D20 kips
Figure 4-81: Pressure diagram for Extreme Event limit state
Table 4-12: Strength Limit State Factored Driving and Resisting Moments
272
59.16 5 + 𝐷0 228.6 + 45.72𝐷0
𝐷0
1.972𝐷0 0.986𝐷0/
2
𝐷0
0.0658𝐷0/ 0.0219𝐷0Q
3
𝐷0
1.03𝐷0/ 0.343𝐷0Q
3
𝑀ÎÒ = 0.0219 𝐷0Q + 0.986 𝐷0/ + 59.16 𝐷0 + 295.8
𝑀ÒÓ = 0.343 𝐷0Q
𝑀ÒÓ = 𝑀ÎÒ : − 0.3211 𝐷0Q + 0.986 𝐷0/ + 59.16 𝐷0 + 295.8 = 0
𝐷0Q − 3.071 𝐷0/ − 184.242 𝐷0 − 921.208 = 0 => 𝐷0 = 17.048 𝑓𝑡 => 𝐷 = 1.2 ∗ 𝐷0 = 20.458 𝑓𝑡
Calculate Factored Moment ‘Mu’:
273
Figure 4-82: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Extreme Event limit state
∑F = 0
x
0.964 𝑌 / − 1.972 𝑌 − 59.16 = 0 => 𝑌 = 8.923 𝑓𝑡 (𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒)
8.923 8.923
59.16×(5+8.923 )+1.972×8.923 × ^ ` +0.0658×8.923 2 × ^ `
Mu = Õ 2 3 Ö
2 8.923
-1.03×8.923 × ^ `
3
Mu =673.852 kip-ft
274
Figure 32 shows the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Extreme Event Loading Condition:
Figure 4-83: Shear and moment diagram for Extreme Event limit state
Design Soldier Pile for the above Shear and Moment:
*Note: Assuming Grade 50 Steel will be used.
Determine Flexural Resistance of HP14X117 beam:
Factored Flange Stress:
𝑀« ∗ 12 673.852 𝑘 − 𝑓𝑡 ∗ 12 𝑖𝑛/𝑓𝑡
𝑓§« = = = 42.56 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑆 190.0 𝑖𝑛Q
(Per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 6.10.8.1.3-1 continuously braced)
275
Factored Flexural Resistance :
𝜙È 𝑅× 𝐹¦È = 1.0 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 50 𝑘𝑠𝑖 = 50 𝑘𝑠𝑖 > 42.56 𝑘𝑠𝑖 𝑂. 𝐾
Check Shear Resistance:
Factored Shear Force: Vu = 186.959 Kips
Nominal Shear Resistance ‘Vn’ = ‘Vcr’: (per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section
6.10.9.1 and for C; 6.10.9.2-2)
𝑉*+ = 𝐶 ∗ 𝑉W = 𝐶 ∗ 0.58 ∗ 𝐹¦ 𝐷 ∗ 𝑡Ø
𝑉*+ = 1.0 ∗ 0.58 ∗ 50 𝑘𝑠𝑖 ∗ 14.48*0.59 = 247.752 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠 > 186.959 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠 ∴ 𝑂. 𝐾
Table 4-13: Comparison of results between Simplified Method and Conventional Method
Limit State Characteristic Conventional Simplified
Depth, D (ft) 13.441 14.670
Service Shear, V (kips) 90.12 135.55
Moment, M (kip-ft) 373.23 373.23
Depth, D (ft) 16.70 18.080
Strength Shear, V (kips) 127.61 197.72
Moment, M (kip-ft) 654.24 654.24
Depth, D (ft) 18.886 20.458
Extreme Shear, V (kips) 119.42 186.95
Moment, M (kip-ft) 673.85 673.85
276
Example 4-6: Cantilevered Sheet Pile Wall Design
Perform LRFD design for a cantilevered sheet pile wall. The soil properties are shown
below. The following limits stated are considered:
• Service
• Strength
• Extreme Seismic
Figure 4-84: Cantilevered Sheet Pile Wall Cross-Section

Determine Pile Embedment “D”
277
Service 1.0 1.0 1.0 0
Strength 1.5 1.0 1.75 0
Extreme 1.0 1.0 0 1.0
∅ 35
K a = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 0.271
2 2
∅ 35
K p = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 3.690
2 2
278
𝜎(𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒, 𝛾𝐻𝐾m )(𝑘𝑠𝑓) 0.508125 𝑘𝑠𝑓

𝑎= = = 1.19 𝑓𝑡
𝛾(𝑘𝑐𝑓 ) ∗ (𝐾W − 𝐾m ) (0.125 𝑘𝑐𝑓)(3.69 − 0.271)
• Calculate factored earth pressure distributions
𝐴 = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 = 0.06775 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
𝐵 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 = 0.508125 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
𝐸 = (0.125 ∗ 1.0𝑍Q ∗ (3.69 − 0.271)) = 0.427375𝑍Q 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
Factored Passive lateral load distribution below pivot point (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝐹 = T0.125 ∗ 1.0(𝑍Q + 1.19) ∗ (3.69 − 0.271)U + (0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 3.69 ∗ 1.0)

= 0.427375𝑍Q + 7.42733 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
• Calculate factored resultant earth forces and apply ∑ 𝐹 = 0. The applied forces on the wall are the
areas of the distributed loads.

t
Psur = 0.06775 uvÜ ∗ 15 ft = 1.01625 k/ft

5 t
P1 = / ∗ 0.508125 uvÜ ∗ 15 ft = 3.81094 k/ft

5 t
P2 = / ∗ 0.508125 uv ∗ 1.19 ft = 0.30234 k/ft
(Area EDF) - (Area ECG):
279
5 t t
Area EDF= 𝑃Q = / ∗ (0.427375𝑍Q uvÜ + (0.427375𝑍Q + 7.42733 uvÜ)) ∗ 𝑍/ ft =
0.427375𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 3.713665𝑍/ k/ft
5 t
Area ECG= 𝑃2 = / ∗ 0.427375𝑍Q uvÜ ∗ 𝑍Q ft = 0.2136875 𝑍Q/ k/ft

𝛴𝐹 = 0
1.01625 + 3.81094 + 0.30234 + (0.427375𝑍3 𝑍2 + 3.713665𝑍2 ) − 0.2136875 𝑍23 = 0
0.2136875𝑍Q/ − 5.12953
𝑍/ =
0.427375𝑍Q + 3.713665
𝛴𝑀¿ = 0
280
2(1.19)
(1.01625 ∗ (𝑍Q + 1.19 + 7.5)) + T3.81094 ∗ (𝑍Q + 1.19 + 5)U + †0.30234 ∗ ‡𝑍Q + ˆ‰
3
𝑍/ 𝑍Q
+ ‡(0.427375𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 3.713665𝑍/ ) ∗ ˆ − ‡0.2136875 𝑍Q/ ∗ ^ `ˆ = 0
3 3
5.12953𝑍Q + 32.66079 + 0.14246𝑍Q 𝑍// + 1.23789𝑍// − 0.07123𝑍QQ = 0
𝑍/ = 2.792 𝑓𝑡 & 𝑍Q = 11.753 𝑓𝑡
281
Figure 4-87: Net Load and Shear Diagram for Service Limit State
Find pressure (k/ft2) at point D using similar triangles:
5.023 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 / 𝐷
= => 𝐷 = 3.830 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
11.753 𝑓𝑡 (11.753 − 2.792)𝑓𝑡
2.792 𝑓𝑡 𝑍5
/
= => 𝑍5 = 2.1352 𝑓𝑡
(3.830 + 12.4503) 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 12.4503 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
Calculate Vmax:
1 𝑘
𝑉Xm‘ = ∗ ^12.4503 / ` ∗ (2.1352 𝑓𝑡) = 13.292 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2 𝑓𝑡
Passive earth pressure at Y below the dredge line (Y = y + 1.19):
282
1
𝑃’ = [0.125 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 𝑦 ∗ (3.69 − 0.271)]𝑦 = 0.21369𝑦 / 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2
Figure 4-88: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Service Limit State
∑F = 0
x
0.21369𝑦 / = 1.01625 + 3.81094 + 0.30234
0.21369𝑦 / = 5.12953 => y = 4.90 ft
1.19 4.90
Mmax = –1.01625×(7.5+6.09)+3.81094×(5+6.09)+0.30234× ^6.09 − ` - 0.21369×4.902 × ^ `—
3 3
Mmax = 49.42 kip-ft/ft
283
D=12.943’
0@6.09’ M = 49.420 k-ft/ft
V= 13.292 k/ft
Figure 4-89: Shear and Moment Diagram for Service Loading Condition
284
∅ 35
K a = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 0.271
2 2
∅ 35
K p = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 3.690
2 2
𝜎(𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒, 𝛾𝐻𝐾m )(𝑘𝑠𝑓) 0.508125 𝑘𝑠𝑓 ∗ 1.5 (𝐿𝑅𝐹𝐷 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟)
𝑎= = = 1.86 𝑓𝑡
𝛾 (𝑘𝑐𝑓) ∗ (𝐾W − 𝐾m ) (0.125 𝑘𝑐𝑓)(3.69 − (0.271 ∗ 1.5))
𝐴 = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.75 = 0.11856 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
285
𝐵 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.5 = 0.76219 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
𝐸 = (0.125 ∗ 𝑍Q ∗ (3.69 − (0.271 ∗ 1.5))) = 0.41044𝑍Q 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
Factored Passive lateral load distribution below pivot point (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝐹 = T0.125 ∗ (𝑍Q + 1.86) ∗ (3.69 − (0.271 ∗ 1.5))U + (0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 3.69 ∗ 1.0)

= 0.41044𝑍Q + 7.68216 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /

t
Psur = 0.11856 uvÜ ∗ 15 ft = 1.7784 k/ft

5 t
P1 = / ∗ 0.76219 uvÜ ∗ 15 ft = 5.71643 k/ft
5 t
P2 = ∗ 0.76219 ∗ 1.86 ft = 0.70884 k/ft
/ uv
5 t t
Area EDF= 𝑃Q = / ∗ (0.41044𝑍Q uvÜ + (0.41044𝑍Q + 7.68216 uvÜ)) ∗ 𝑍/ ft =
0.41044𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 3.84108𝑍/ k/ft
5 t
Area ECG= 𝑃2 = / ∗ 0.41044𝑍Q uvÜ ∗ 𝑍Q ft = 0.20522 𝑍Q/ k/ft
286
:
Figure 4-91: Force diagram for Strength Limit State

𝛴𝐹 = 0
1.7784 + 5.71643 + 0.70884 + (0.41044𝑍3 𝑍2 + 3.84108𝑍2 ) − 0.20522 𝑍23 = 0
0.20522𝑍Q/ − 8.20367
𝑍/ =
0.41044𝑍Q + 3.84108
𝛴𝑀¿ = 0
2(1.86)
(1.7784 ∗ (𝑍Q + 1.86 + 7.5)) + T5.71643 ∗ (𝑍Q + 1.86 + 5)U + †0.70884 ∗ ‡𝑍Q + ˆ‰
3
𝑍/ 𝑍Q
+ ‡(0.41044𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 3.84108𝑍/ ) ∗ ˆ − ‡0.20522 𝑍Q/ ∗ ^ `ˆ = 0
3 3
8.20367𝑍Q + 56.7395 + 0.13681𝑍Q 𝑍// + 1.28036𝑍// − 0.06841𝑍QQ = 0
287
𝑍/ = 3.740 𝑓𝑡 & 𝑍Q = 14.875 𝑓𝑡
Figure 4-92: Net Load and Shear Diagram for Strength Limit State
Find pressure (k/ft2) at point D using similar triangles:
6.1053 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 / 𝐷
= => 𝐷 = 4.570 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
14.875 𝑓𝑡 (14.875 − 3.740)𝑓𝑡
3.740 𝑓𝑡 𝑍5
/
= => 𝑍5 = 2.809 𝑓𝑡
(4.570 + 13.7875) 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 13.7875 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
288
Calculate Vmax:
1 𝑘
𝑉Xm‘ = ∗ ^13.7875 / ` ∗ (2.809 𝑓𝑡) = 19.365 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2 𝑓𝑡
1
𝑃’ = [0.125 ∗ 1.0 ∗ 𝑦 ∗ (3.69 − (0.271 ∗ 1.5))]𝑦 = 0.20522𝑦 / 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2
Figure 4-93: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Strength Limit State
∑F = 0
x
0.20522𝑦 / = 1.7784 + 5.71643 + 0.70884
0.20522𝑦 / = 8.20367 => y = 6.323 ft
1.86 6.323
Mmax = –1.7784×(7.5+8.183)+5.71643×(5+8.183)+0.70884× ^8.183 − ` - 0.21369×6.3232 × ^ `—
3 3
289
Figure 11 displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Strength Limit State:
D=16.735’
0@8.183’ M = 90.610 k-ft/ft
V= 19.365 k/ft
Figure 4-94: Shear and Moment Diagram for Strength Loading Condition
290
Extreme Seismic Event Limit State (for kh = 0.35):
K ae = 0.526, K pe = 2.945
𝜎(𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒, 𝛾𝐻𝐾mº )(𝑘𝑠𝑓) 0.98625 𝑘𝑠𝑓

𝑎= = = 3.262 𝑓𝑡
𝛾(𝑘𝑐𝑓) ∗ (𝐾Wº − 𝐾mº ) (0.125 𝑘𝑐𝑓)(2.945 − 0.526)
Factored lateral load due to surcharge above the excavation line only (LRFD Factor – 0):
𝐴 = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.526 ∗ 0 ∗ 8 = 0 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
291
𝐵 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.526 ∗ 1.0 = 0.98625 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
𝐸 = (0.125 ∗ 1.0𝑍Q ∗ (2.945 − 0.526)) = 0.302375𝑍Q 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
𝐹 = T0.125 ∗ 1.0(𝑍Q + 3.262) ∗ (2.945 − 0.526)U + (0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 2.945 ∗ 1.0)

= 0.302375𝑍Q + 6.5082 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /

t
Psur = 0 ÈÞ Ü ∗ 15 ft = 0 k/ft

5 t
P1 = / ∗ 0.98625 ÈÞ Ü ∗ 15 ft = 7.3969 k/ft
5 t
P2 = ∗ 0.98625 ∗ 3.262 ft = 1.6086 k/ft
/ ÈÞ Ü
5 t t
Area EDF= 𝑃Q = / ∗ (0.302375𝑍Q ÈÞ Ü + (0.302375𝑍Q + 6.5082 ÈÞ Ü)) ∗ 𝑍/ ft =
0.302375𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 3.2541𝑍/ k/ft

5 t
Area ECG= 𝑃2 = / ∗ 0.302375𝑍Q ÈÞ Ü ∗ 𝑍Q ft = 0.1512 𝑍Q/ k/ft
292
Figure 4-96: Force diagram for Extreme Seismic Limit State
𝛴𝐹 = 0
7.3969 + 1.6086 + (0.302375𝑍3 𝑍2 + 3.2541𝑍2 ) − 0.1512 𝑍23 = 0
0.1512𝑍Q/ − 9.0055
𝑍/ =
0.302375𝑍Q + 3.2541
𝛴𝑀 = 0
2(3.262) 𝑍/
T7.3969 ∗ (𝑍Q + 3.262 + 5)U + †1.6086 ∗ ‡𝑍Q + ˆ‰ + ‡(0.302375𝑍Q 𝑍/ + 3.2541𝑍/ ) ∗ ˆ
3 3
𝑍Q
− ‡0.1512 𝑍Q/ ∗ ^ `ˆ = 0
3
9.0055𝑍Q + 64.6114 + 0.1008𝑍Q 𝑍// + 1.0847𝑍// − 0.0504𝑍QQ = 0
293
𝑍/ = 4.487 𝑓𝑡 & 𝑍Q = 17.763 𝑓𝑡
Figure 4-97: Net Load and shear diagram for Extreme Seismic Limit State
Find pressure at point E using similar triangles:
5.371 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 / 𝐸
= => 𝐸 = 4.0143 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
17.763 𝑓𝑡 (17.763 − 4.487)𝑓𝑡
294
4.487 𝑓𝑡 𝑍5
/
= => 𝑍5 = 3.354 𝑓𝑡
(4.0143 + 11.8792) 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 11.8792 𝑘/𝑓𝑡 /
Calculate Vmax:
1 𝑘
𝑉Xm‘ = ∗ ^11.8792 / ` ∗ (3.354 𝑓𝑡) = 19.92 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2 𝑓𝑡
1
𝑃’ = [0.125 ∗ 𝑦(2.945 − 0.526)]𝑦 = 0.1512𝑦 / 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2
Figure 4-98: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for extreme Seismic Limit State
∑F = 0
x
0.1512𝑦 / = 7.3969 + 1.6086
0.1512𝑦 / = 9.0055 => y=7.718 ft
295
3.262 7.718
Mmax = –7.3969×(5+10.980)+1.6086× ^10.980 − ` - 0.1512×7.7182 × ^ `—
3 3
Figure 16 displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Extreme Seismic Limit State:
D=21.025’ M = 110.945 k-ft/ft

0@10.98’
V = 19.92 k/ft
Figure 4-99: Shear and Moment for Extreme Seismic Loading Condition
296
Example 4-7: (SIMPLIFIED METHOD)
Perform LRFD design for a cantilevered sheet pile wall. The soil properties are shown
below. Fowling limit stated are considered:
• Service
• Strength
• Extreme Seismic
Figure 4-100: Cantilevered Sheet Pile Wall Cross-Section

297
Service 1.0 1.0 1.0 0
Strength 1.5 1.0 1.75 0
Extreme 1.0 1.0 0 1.0

∅ 35
K a = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 0.271
2 2
∅ 35
K p = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 + ` = 3.690
2 2
• Calculate factored earth pressure distribution

Factored Lateral load due to surcharge above the excavation line only (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝜎Ì«+ = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 = 0.068 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Factored Lateral load distribution at excavation level (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
𝜎 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.0 = 0.508 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Factored Active lateral load distribution the soil below the dredge line at depth Do (LRFD Factor
– 1.0):
σAD0 =0.508+0.271*0.125 ∗ 1.0D0 =(0.508+0.0339D0 ) ksf
Factored Passive Lateral load distribution in front at depth Do (LRFD Factor – 1.0):
σpÎÏ =0.125×3.69×1.0D0 =0.461D0 ksf
• Calculate factored resultant earth forces

1- Calculate factored active earth force due to surcharge PAS:
298
PAs =15×0.068=1.02 k/ft
2- Calculate factored active earth force above dredge line, PA1:

15
PA1 = 2
×0.508=3.81 k/ft
4- Calculate factored active earth force below dredge line, PA2:

PA21 = D0 ×0.508=0.508 D0 k/ft
D
PA22 = 0.0339D0 × Ð 20 Ñ = 0.01695 D20 k/ft
• Calculate factored passive earth force below dredge line, PP:

D0
Pp = 0.461D0 × ^ ` = 0.2305 D20 k/ft
2
• Calculate factored driving and resisting moments as shown in Table 4-16:
299
Table 4-16: Factored Driving and Resisting Moments
Driving Force (k/ft) Arm (ft) Driving Moment MDR
1.02 7.5 + 𝐷0 7.65 + 1.02𝐷0
3.81 5 + 𝐷0 19.05 + 3.81𝐷0
𝐷0
0.508𝐷0 0.254𝐷0/
2
𝐷0
0.01695𝐷0/ 0.00565𝐷0Q
3
Resisting Force (k/ft) Arm (ft) Resisting Moment MRS
𝐷0
0.2305𝐷0/ 0.07683𝐷0Q
3
𝑀ÎÒ = 0.00565 𝐷0Q + 0.254 𝐷0/ + 3.81 𝐷0 + 19.05 + 1.02 𝐷0 + 7.65
𝑀ÒÓ = 0.07683 𝐷0Q

𝑀ÒÓ = 𝑀ÎÒ : − 0.071183𝐷0Q + 0.254𝐷0/ + 4.83𝐷0 + 26.7 = 0
=> 𝐷0 = 11.91 𝑓𝑡 => 𝐷 = 1.2 ∗ 𝐷0 = 14.29 𝑓𝑡
∑F = 0
x
0.2305Y 2- 0.01695Y 2- 0.508Y – 4.83 = 0
=> Y = 6.092 ft (below the dredge line)
300
Figure 4-102: Location of zeros and maximum moment for Service Limit State
6.092 6.092
1.02×(7.5+6.092)+3.81×(5+6.092)+0.508×6.092× ^ ` +0.01695×6.0922 × ^ `
Mmax = Õ 2 3 Ö
6.092
-0.2305×6.0922 × ^ `
3
Mmax = 49.46 kips-ft/ft
301
Figure 20 displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Service limit state:
Figure 4-103: Shear and moment diagram for Service Loading Condition
302
Determine Factored Active and Passive Earth Pressures:
∅ 35
K a = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛/ ^45 − ` = 0.271
2 2
/
∅ /
35
K p = 𝑡𝑎𝑛 ^45 + ` = 𝑡𝑎𝑛 ^45 + ` = 3.690
2 2
Factored lateral load due to surcharge above the excavation line only:
𝑆Ì«+ = 0.125 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.75 = 0.119 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Factored lateral load distribution at excavation level:
𝜎 = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.271 ∗ 1.5 = 0.762 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Factored active lateral load distribution for the soil below the dredge line at depth Do
σAD0 =0.762+0.125×0.271×1.5 D0 = (0.762+0.0508D0 ) ksf
Factored passive Lateral load distribution in front at depth Do:
σPD0 =0.125×3.69×1.0 D0 = 0.461D0 ksf
Calculate factored active earth force due to surcharge PAS:
PAs =15×0.119 = 1.785 k/ft
Calculate factored active earth force for the first soil layer PA1:
15
PA1 = 2
×0.762 = 5.715 k/ft
Calculate factored active earth force for the second soil layer PA2:
PA21 =D0 ×0.762 = 0.762 D0 k/ft
D
PA22 =0.0508×D0 × Ð 0 Ñ = 0.0254 D20 k/ft
2
Calculate factored passive earth force for the second soil layer PP:
303
D D
Pp =0.461D0 × Ð 20Ñ = 0.461D0 × Ð 20 Ñ = 0.2305D20 k/ft
Figure 4-104: Pressure diagram for Strength I limit state
304
Table 4-17: Strength Limit State Factored Driving & Resisting Moments
1.785 7.5 + 𝐷0 13.3875 + 1.785𝐷0
5.715 5 + 𝐷0 28.575 + 5.715 𝐷0
𝐷0
0.762𝐷0 0.381 𝐷0/
2
𝐷0
0.0254𝐷0/ 0.008467𝐷0Q
3
𝐷0
0.2305𝐷0/ 0.07683𝐷0Q
3
𝑀ÎÒ = 0.008467 𝐷0Q + 0.381 𝐷0/ + 5.715 𝐷0 + 28.575 + 1.785 𝐷0 + 13.3875
𝑀ÒÓ = 0.07683 𝐷0Q
𝑀ÒÓ = 𝑀ÎÒ : − 0.06836 𝐷0Q + 0.381 𝐷0/ + 7.5 𝐷0 + 41.9625 = 0
=> 𝐷0 = 15.337 𝑓𝑡 => 𝐷 = 1.2 ∗ 𝐷0 = 18.404 𝑓𝑡
Calculate factored Moment ‘Mu’:

305
Figure 4-105: Location of zero and maximum moment for Strength Limit State
∑F x =0
0.2051Y 2- 0.762Y – 7.5 = 0 => Y = 8.184 ft (below the dredge line)
8.184 8.184
1.785×(7.5+8.184)+5.715×(5+8.184)+0.762×8.184× ^ ` +0.0254×8.1842 × ^ `
Mu = Õ 2 3 Ö
8.184
-0.2305×8.1842 × ^ `
3
Mu = 91.39 kips-ft/ft
306
Figure 23 displays the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Strength Loading Condition:
Figure 4-106: Shear and moment diagram for Strength Limit State
Extreme Event Calculations (for kh = 0.35)
307
K ae = 0.526, K pe = 2.945
Note: Trial Wedge method and Mononobe-Okabe equations tend to overestimate the passive earth pressure.
To achieve a conservative design, it is recommended to use the Log-Spiral-Rankine model to compute the
passive earth force.
Calculate earth pressure distribution

𝜎Ì«+ = 0
𝜎 Ú = 0.125 ∗ 15 ∗ 0.526 = 0.986 𝑘𝑠𝑓
Active lateral load distribution the soil below the dredge line at depth D0:
σAD0 =0.986+0.125×0.526×D0 =(0.986+0.0658D0 ) ksf
Passive Lateral load distribution the soil below the dredge line in the front at depth D0:
σPD0 =0.125×2.945× D0 = 0.368D0 ksf
Calculate resultant earth forces

15
PA1 = ×0.986 = 7.395 k/ft
2
PA21 =D0 ×0.986 = 0.986 D0 k/ft
D
PA22 =0.0658×D0 × Ð 20Ñ = 0.0329 D20 k/ft
D
Pp =0.368D0 × Ð 20 Ñ = 0.184 D20 k/ft
308
Figure 4-107: Pressure diagram for Extreme Event limit state
Table 4-18: Strength Limit State Factored Driving & Resisting Moments
7.395 5 + 𝐷0 36.975 + 7.395𝐷0
𝐷0
0.986𝐷0 0.493𝐷0/
2
𝐷0
0.0329𝐷0/ 0.01097𝐷0Q
3
𝐷0
0.184𝐷0/ 0.06133𝐷0Q
3
𝑀ÎÒ = 0.01097 𝐷0Q + 0.493 𝐷0/ + 7.395 𝐷0 + 36.975
309
𝑀ÒÓ = 0.06133 𝐷0Q
𝑀ÒÓ = 𝑀ÎÒ : − 0.05036 𝐷0Q + 0.493 𝐷0/ + 7.395 𝐷0 + 36.975 = 0
=> 𝐷0 = 19.34 𝑓𝑡 => 𝐷 = 1.2 ∗ 𝐷0 = 23.212 𝑓𝑡
Calculate Factored Moment ‘Mu’:
Figure 4-108: Location of zero shear and maximum moment for Extreme Event Limit State
∑F x =0
0.1511 𝑌 / − 0.986 𝑌 − 7.395 = 0 => 𝑌 = 10.982 𝑓𝑡 (𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒)
310
10.982 10.982
7.395×(5+10.982)+0.986×10.982× ^ ` +0.0329×10.9822 × ^ `
Mu = Õ 2 3 Ö
2 10.982
-0.184×10.982 × ^ `
3
Mu = 110.935 kip-ft/ft
Figure 26 shows the Shear and Moment Diagram for the Extreme Event Loading Condition:
Figure 4-109: Shear and Moment diagram for Extreme Event Limit State
311
Table 4-19: Comparison of results between Simplified Method and Conventional Method
Limit State Characteristic Conventional Simplified

Depth, D (ft) 12.943 14.290
Service Shear, V (kips/ft) 13.292 31.518
Moment, M (kip-ft/ft) 49.420 49.460
Depth, D (ft) 16.735 18.404
Strength Shear, V (kips/ft) 19.365 47.944
Moment, M (kip-ft/ft) 90.610 91.390
Depth, D (ft) 21.025 23.212
Extreme Shear, V (kips/ft) 19.920 51.127
Moment, M (kip-ft/ft) 110.945 110.935
312
Example 4-8: Multiple Tieback Soldier Pile Wall Design
Check the adequacy of the multi-tieback cantilevered soldier pile wall in one-layered-soil. The
soldier pile is an HP8x36 steel beam placed in a 2 feet diameter hole filled with 4 sack concrete.
SERVICE LIMIT STATE:
Determine: Figure 4-110: Multiple Tieback Soldier Pile Wall

1. Active & Passive Earth Pressures.
2. Pile Embedment D with a FS of 1.3.
3. Tieback Loads with a FS of 1.0.
4. Maximum Shear, Moment
In the case of multiple tieback walls, the lateral active horizontal earth pressure for the multilevel
anchors wall is shown in Figure 4-112.
313
Figure 4-112: Multi Tieback wall system
âã
σá = å
[äÚ (äå çäè )]
æ
Where:
σa = maximum ordinate of pressure diagram.
P = total lateral load required to be applied to the wall.
H = wall height.
H1 = distance from ground surface at top of wall to uppermost level of anchors.
Hn+1 = distance from the grade at bottom of a wall to lowermost level of anchors.
n = number of anchors.
314
Thn = horizontal component of the anchor force at level n.
Pa = active lateral earth pressure below dredge line.
Pp = passive lateral earth pressure below dredge line.
The coefficients of Active and Passive earth pressures are calculated using Trial Wedge method.
(See section 4.5.2).
𝐾m = 0.310; (𝐾m = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡)
𝐾’ = 3.690; (𝐾’ = 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡)
The lateral earth pressure distribution for the analysis of braced or anchored walls
Constructed in cohesionless soils may be determined using Figure 4-112. The maximum ordinate
(σa) of the pressure diagram is determined as follows:
Lateral load distribution at excavation line:
𝜎m5 = 𝛶 ∗ (𝐻 = 50 𝑓𝑡) ∗ 𝐾m = (125)(50)(0.310) = 1938 𝑝𝑠𝑓
Lateral load distribution at D ft below excavation line:
𝜎m/ = 𝜎m5 + 𝛶 ∗ (𝐷) ∗ 𝐾m = 1938 𝑝𝑠𝑓 + (125)(𝐷)(0.310) = (1938 + 38.75𝐷) 𝑝𝑠𝑓
Calculate passive earth pressure at depth D below excavation line:
𝜎’ = 𝛶 ∗ (𝐻 = 𝐷) ∗ 𝐾’ = (125)(𝐷)(3.690) = (461.25𝐷) 𝑝𝑠𝑓
5 5
𝑃 = / ∗ 𝛶 ∗ 𝐻/ ∗ 𝐾m5 = / (125)(50/ )(0.310) = 48437.5 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡
𝑃R = 1.3 ∗ 𝑃 = 1.3(48437.5) = 62968.75 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡
Active stress at the point A and B as shown in Figure 4-113:
62968.75
𝜎 = = 1453 𝑝𝑠𝑓
1(10 + 10)
[50 − 3 ]
315
Figure 4-113: Trapezoidal Pressure Diagram Distribution
Surcharge load:
In addition to the loads due to earth pressure, surcharge load needs to be considered. Below
shows how one should calculate the loads due to surcharge load.
316
Figure 4-114: Boussinesq Type Strip Load
Load at top of the steel beam:
· · Q0 55
𝛽 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛Ú5 Ð ×Ü Ñ − 𝑡𝑎𝑛Ú5 Ð ×å Ñ = 𝑡𝑎𝑛Ú5 Ð J Ñ − 𝑡𝑎𝑛Ú5 Ð J Ñ = 0.261
· ì 55 0./45
𝛼 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛Ú5 Ð ×å Ñ + / = 𝑡𝑎𝑛Ú5 Ð J Ñ + /
= 1.275
𝑄Ó = 0.3 𝑘𝑠𝑓
ìî ÚÌïÅì*ðÌ/ñ
𝜎× = 2𝑄Ó ∗ ò
0./45Úôõö(0./45) ÷øô(/∗5./HJ)
𝜎× = 2 ∗ 300 ∗ ó ò
ù = 91 𝑝𝑠𝑓
Table 4-20: Boussinesq values at various depths

Depth (ft.) Load(psf.) Location
0 91 Top of shoring
5 117
10 105
50 14 Dredge line
55 11 5 ft below dredge line
317
Load diagram due to surcharge are shown below:
Figure 4-88: Load diagram due to Boussinesq load
6. Loads Calculations due to Boussinesq load (P8 through P19)
P3 = (91)(5D )(8D ) = 3640 lb
1
PK = ^ ` (5D )(117 − 91)(8D ) = 520 lb
2
1
P50 = ^ ` (1.67D )(117 − 115)(8D ) = 14 lb
2
318
P55 = (115)(1.67D )(8D ) = 1537 lb
1
P5/ = ^ ` (3.33D )(115 − 105)(8D ) = 134 lb
2
P5Q = (105)(3.33D )(8D ) = 2798 lb
1
P52 = ^ ` (10D )(105 − 65)(8D ) = 1600 lb
2
P5J = (65)(10D )(8D ) = 5200 lb
1
P54 = ^ ` (10D )(65 − 37)(8D ) = 1120 lb
2
P5H = (37)(10D )(8D ) = 2960 lb
1
P53 = ^ ` (10D )(37 − 22)(8D ) = 600 lb
2
P5K = (22)(10D )(8D ) = 1760 lb
1
P/0 = ^ ` (10D )(22 − 14)(8D ) = 320 lb
2
P/5 = (14)(10D )(8D ) = 1120 lb
1
P// = ^ ` (5D )(14 − 11)(2D ) = 15 lb
2
P/Q = (11)(5D )(2′) = 110 lb
P/2 = (11)(D − 5D )(2′) = (22D − 110) lb
319
Figure 4-89: Detailed analysis of multi tieback wall
320
For Soldier piles an arching factor needs to be calculated and applied to Passive force below
dredge line while an effective width will be applied to Active forces below dredge line only.
Assume that the effective width of the piles is 2 ft.
*Arching Factor = 0.08ϕ = 0.08(35°) = 2.80
1: Determine forces due to trapezoidal pressure distribution:

5
𝑃5 = / (6.67)(1453)(8D ) = 38766 𝑙𝑏
𝑃/ = (3.33)(1453)(8D ) = 38708 𝑙𝑏
𝑃Q = (10)(1453)(8D ) = 116240 𝑙𝑏
𝑃2 = (10)(1453)(8D ) = 116240 𝑙𝑏
𝑃J = (10)(1453)(8D ) = 116240 𝑙𝑏
𝑃4 = (3.33)(1453)(8D ) = 38708 𝑙𝑏
5
𝑃H = / (6.67)(1453)(8D ) = 38766 𝑙𝑏
2. Determine moment M1 at top tieback due to cantilever loads:

5 Q.QQ J J
𝑀5 = 38766 ó3.33 + Q (6.67)ù + 38708 Ð /
Ñ + 3640 Ð/ + 1.67 + 3.33Ñ + 520 ÐQ + 1.67 +
5.4H / Q.QQ /
3.33Ñ + 1537 Ð /
+ 3.33Ñ + 14 ÐQ ∗ 1.67 + 3.33Ñ + 2798 Ð /
Ñ + 134 ÐQ ∗ 3.33Ñ
𝑀5 = 321,916 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡 = 321.916 𝐾 − 𝑓𝑡
3. Determine tieback loads T1 through T3 and component T4U
Component T4L will be determined after D is calculated. Note, the subscript letters “U” refers to
Upper and “L” refers to Lower components of each tieback.
𝑇5ü = 𝑃5 + 𝑃/ + 𝑃3 + 𝑃K + 𝑃50 + 𝑃55 + 𝑃5/ + 𝑃5Q = 38766 𝑙𝑏 + 38708 𝑙𝑏 + 3640 + 520 +
14 + 1537 + 134 + 2798 = 86117 𝑙𝑏
116240𝑙𝑏 321916 𝑙𝑏 5200 𝑙𝑏 2 ∗ 1600 𝑙𝑏

𝑇5· = ^ `+^ `+^ `+^ ` = 93978 𝑙𝑏
2 10 2 3
86117 + 93978
𝑇5 = = 186.448 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠 ≈ 187 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
321
116240 𝑙𝑏 321916 𝑙𝑏 5200 𝑙𝑏 1 ∗ 1600 𝑙𝑏
𝑇/ü = ^ `−^ `+^ `+^ ` = 29062 𝑙𝑏
2 10 2 3
116240 𝑙𝑏 2960 𝑙𝑏 2 ∗ 1120 𝑙𝑏

𝑇/· = ^ `+^ `+^ ` = 60346 𝑙𝑏
2 2 3
29062 + 60346
𝑇/ = = 92.562 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
116240 𝑙𝑏 1 ∗ 1120 𝑙𝑏 2960 𝑙𝑏

𝑇Qü = ^ `+^ `+^ ` = 59973 𝑙𝑏
2 3 2
116240 𝑙𝑏 2 ∗ 600 𝑙𝑏 1760 𝑙𝑏

𝑇Q· = ^ `+^ `+^ ` = 59400 𝑙𝑏
2 3 2
59973 + 59400
𝑇Q = = 123.584 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
5. Determine D’ to calculate T4 by taking moments about T4

Q.QQ 5 þ
Mþ = ó38708 Ð /
Ñù + ó38766 ÐQ ∗ 6.67 + 3.33Ñù + ó1938D Ð / + 10Ñ (2D )ù +
Q3.HJþÜ /þ 50 50 J J
óÐ /
Ñ Ð Q + 10Ñ (2D )ù + ó1120 Ð / Ñù + ó320 Ð Q Ñù + ó110 Ð/ + 10Ñù + ó15 ÐQ +
þ J
10Ñ (2D )ù + [(22D − 110)( / − / + 15)]
Mþ = 25.83DQ + 2337D/ + 38980D + 286746

245./JþÜ /
Mÿ = Ð /
Ñ ÐQ D + 10Ñ (2.80)(2D )
Mÿ = 861DQ + 12915D/
Set MD = MR and solve for embedment depth “D”:
MD=MR
DQ + 12.67D/ − 46.67D − 343.34 = 0
𝑫 = 𝟓. 𝟕𝟔′
6. Determine the lower component T4L of tieback T4 and calculate its load.
116240 𝑙𝑏 1760 𝑙𝑏 1 ∗ 600 𝑙𝑏
𝑇2ü = ^ `+^ `+^ ` = 59200 𝑙𝑏
2 2 3
322
1
𝑃%5 = (38.75)(5.76/ )(2D ) = 1286 𝑙𝑏
2
𝑃%/ = (1938)(5.76)(2D ) = 22326 𝑙𝑏
1
𝑃’5 = (461.25)(5.76/ )(2D ) ∗ 2.80 = 42849 𝑙𝑏
2
𝑇2· = 38708 + 38766 + 1286 + 22326 − 42849 + 320 + 1120 + 15 + 110 + 16.72 →
𝑇2· = 59819 𝑙𝑏
59200 + 59819
𝑇2 = = 123.217 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (15°)
STERENGTH LIMIT STATE:
𝐾m = 0.310; (𝐾m = Active earth pressure coefficient)
𝐾’ = 3.690; (𝐾’ = Passive earth pressure coefficient)
The lateral earth pressure distribution for the analysis of braced or anchored walls constructed in
cohesionless soils may be determined using Figure 4-90. The maximum ordinate (σa) of the
pressure diagram is determined as follows:
Lateral load distribution at excavation line: (point C; Factor=1.35)
𝜎m5 = 𝛶 ∗ (𝐻 = 50 𝑓𝑡) ∗ 𝐾m = (1.35)(125)(50)(0.310) = 2616 𝑝𝑠𝑓
Lateral load distribution at D ft below excavation line: ( Factor=1.35)
𝜎m/ = 𝜎m5 + 𝛶 ∗ (𝐷) ∗ 𝐾m = 2616 𝑝𝑠𝑓 + (1.35)(125)(𝐷)(0.310) = (2616 + 52.31𝐷) 𝑝𝑠𝑓
𝜎’ = 𝛶 ∗ (𝐻 = 𝐷) ∗ 𝐾’ = (125)(𝐷)(3.690) = (461.25𝐷) 𝑝𝑠𝑓
5 5
𝑃 = / ∗ 𝛶 ∗ 𝐻/ ∗ 𝐾m5 = / (125)(50/ )(0.310) = 48437.5 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡
𝑃R = 1.3 ∗ 𝑃 = 1.3(48437.5) = 62968.75 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡
323
62968.75
𝜎 = (1.35) = 1962 𝑝𝑠𝑓
1(10 + 10)
Á50 − Â
3
Load diagram due to surcharge are shown below:
324
Figure 4-91: Load diagram due to Boussinesq load
6. Loads Calculations due to Boussinesq load (P8 through P19; Factor=1.75)
325
P3 = (1.75)(91)(5D )(8D ) = 6370 lb
5
PK = (1.75) Ð/Ñ (5D )(117 − 91)(8D ) = 910 lb
5
P50 = (1.75) Ð/Ñ (1.67D )(117 − 115)(8D ) = 24.5 lb
P55 = (1.75)(115)(1.67D )(8D ) = 2690 lb

5
P5/ = (1.75) Ð/Ñ (3.33D )(115 − 105)(8D ) = 235 lb
P5Q = (1.75)(105)(3.33D )(8D ) = 4897 lb

5
P52 = (1.75) Ð/Ñ (10D )(105 − 65)(8D ) = 2800 lb
P5J = (1.75)(65)(10D )(8D ) = 9100 lb

5
P54 = (1.75) Ð Ñ (10D )(65 − 37)(8D ) = 1960 lb
/
P5H = (1.75)(37)(10D )(8D ) = 5180 lb

5
P53 = (1.75) Ð/Ñ (10D )(37 − 22)(8D ) = 1050 lb
P5K = (1.75)(22)(10D )(8D ) = 3080 lb

5
P/0 = (1.75) Ð/Ñ (10D )(22 − 14)(8D ) = 560 lb
P/5 = (1.75)(14)(10D )(8D ) = 1960 lb

5
P// = (1.75) Ð/Ñ (5D )(14 − 11)(2D ) = 26.25 lb
P/Q = (1.75)(11)(5D )(2′) = 193 lb
P/2 = (1.75)(11)(D − 5D )(2′) = (39D − 193) lb
326
Figure 4-92: Detailed analysis of multi tieback wall
For soldier piles an arching factor needs to be calculated and applied to Passive force below dredge
line while an effective width will be applied to Active forces below dredge line only. Assume that
the effective width of the piles is 2 ft.
327
*Arching Factor = 0.08ϕ =0.08x35° =2.80
1: Determine forces due to trapezoidal pressure distribution:

5
𝑃5 = / (6.67)(1962)(8D ) = 52346 𝑙𝑏
𝑃/ = (3.33)(1962)(8D ) = 52268 𝑙𝑏
𝑃Q = (10)(1962)(8D ) = 156960 𝑙𝑏
𝑃2 = (10)(1962)(8D ) = 156960 𝑙𝑏
𝑃J = (10)(1962)(8D ) = 156960 𝑙𝑏
𝑃4 = (3.33)(1962)(8D ) = 52268 𝑙𝑏
5
𝑃H = / (6.67)(1962)(8D ) = 52346 𝑙𝑏

5 Q.QQ J J
𝑀5 = 52346 ó3.33 + Q (6.67)ù + 52268 Ð /
Ñ + 6370 Ð/ + 1.67 + 3.33Ñ + 910 ÐQ + 1.67 +
5.4H / Q.QQ /
3.33Ñ + 2690 Ð /
+ 3.33Ñ + 24.5 ÐQ ∗ 1.67 + 3.33Ñ + 4897 Ð /
Ñ + 235 ÐQ ∗ 3.33Ñ
𝑀5 = 459,876 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡 = 459.876 𝐾 − 𝑓𝑡
3. Determine tieback loads T1 through T3 and component T4U :
𝑇5ü = 𝑃5 + 𝑃/ + 𝑃3 + 𝑃K + 𝑃50 + 𝑃55 + 𝑃5/ + 𝑃5Q = 52346 𝑙𝑏 + 52268 𝑙𝑏 + 6370 𝑙𝑏 +
910 𝑙𝑏 + 24.5 𝑙𝑏 + 2690 𝑙𝑏 + 235 𝑙𝑏 + 4897 𝑙𝑏 = 119741 𝑙𝑏
156960 𝑙𝑏 459876 𝑙𝑏 9100 𝑙𝑏 2 ∗ 2800 𝑙𝑏

𝑇5· = ^ `+^ `+^ `+^ ` = 130884 𝑙𝑏
2 10 2 3
119741 + 130881
𝑇5 = = 259.466 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
156960 𝑙𝑏 459876 𝑙𝑏 9100 𝑙𝑏 1 ∗ 2800 𝑙𝑏

𝑇/ü = ^ `−^ `+^ `+^ ` = 37976 𝑙𝑏
2 10 2 3
328
156960 𝑙𝑏 5180 𝑙𝑏 2 ∗ 1960 𝑙𝑏
𝑇/· = ^ `+^ `+^ ` = 82377 𝑙𝑏
2 2 3
37976 + 82377
𝑇/ = = 124.599 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
156960 𝑙𝑏 1 ∗ 1960 𝑙𝑏 5180 𝑙𝑏

𝑇Qü = ^ `+^ `+^ ` = 81723 𝑙𝑏
2 3 2
156960 𝑙𝑏 2 ∗ 1050 𝑙𝑏 3080 𝑙𝑏

𝑇Q· = ^ `+^ `+^ ` = 80720 𝑙𝑏
2 3 2
81723 + 80720
𝑇Q = = 168.173 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
5. Determine D’ to calculate T4 by taking moments about T4 :

Q.QQ 5 þ
Mþ = ó52268 Ð /
Ñù + ó52346 ÐQ ∗ 6.67 + 3.33Ñù + ó2616D Ð / + 10Ñ (2D )ù +
J/.Q5þÜ /þ 50 50 J J
óÐ /
Ñ Ð Q + 10Ñ (2D )ù + ó1960 Ð / Ñù + ó560 Ð Q Ñù + ó193 Ð/ + 10Ñù + ó26.25 ÐQ +
þ J
10Ñ (2D )ù + [(39D − 193)( / − / + 15)]
Mþ = 34.87DQ + 3159D/ + 52710D + 390002
461.25D/ 2
Mÿ = ‡ ˆ ^ D + 10` (2.80)(2D )
2 3
Mÿ = 861DQ + 12915D/
6. Set MD = MR and solve for embedment depth “D”:
MD=MR
DQ + 11.809D/ − 63.804D − 472.083 = 0
𝑫 = 𝟔. 𝟗𝟗′
7. Determine the lower component T4L of tieback T4 and calculate its load:
156960 𝑙𝑏 3080 𝑙𝑏 1 ∗ 1050 𝑙𝑏
𝑇2ü = ^ `+^ `+^ ` = 80370 𝑙𝑏
2 2 3
329
1
𝑃%5 = (52.31)(6.99/ )(2D ) = 2556 𝑙𝑏
2
𝑃%/ = (2616)(6.99)(2D ) = 36572 𝑙𝑏
1
𝑃’5 = (461.25)(6.99/ )(2D ) ∗ 2.80 = 63103 𝑙𝑏
2
𝑇2· = 52268 + 52346 + 2556 + 36572 − 63103 + 560 + 1960 + 26.25 + 193 + 43.78 →
𝑇2· = 83422 𝑙𝑏
80370 + 83422
𝑇2 = = 169.570 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
Figure 4-93: Shear & Moment Diagram for Strength Limit State
330
EXTREME EVENT (Kh=0.4):
𝐾mº = 0.675; (𝐾m = 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡)
𝐾’º = 2.820; (𝐾’ = 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡)
The lateral earth pressure distribution for the analysis of braced or anchored walls
Constructed in cohesionless soils may be determined using Figure 4-94. The maximum ordinate
(σa) of the pressure diagram is determined as follows:
Lateral load distribution at excavation line (Point C):
𝜎m5 = 𝛶 ∗ (𝐻 = 50 𝑓𝑡) ∗ 𝐾m = (125)(50)(0.675) = 4219 𝑝𝑠𝑓
Lateral load distribution at D ft below excavation line:
𝜎m/ = 𝜎m5 + 𝛶 ∗ (𝐷) ∗ 𝐾m = 4219 𝑝𝑠𝑓 + (125)(𝐷)(0.675) = (4219 + 84.38𝐷) 𝑝𝑠𝑓
𝜎’ = 𝛶 ∗ (𝐻 = 𝐷) ∗ 𝐾’ = (125)(𝐷)(2.82) = (352.5𝐷) 𝑝𝑠𝑓
5 5
𝑃 = / ∗ 𝛶 ∗ 𝐻/ ∗ 𝐾m5 = / (125)(50/ )(0.675) = 105469 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡
𝑃R = 1.3 ∗ 𝑃 = 1.3(105469) = 137110 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡
137110
𝜎 = = 3164 𝑝𝑠𝑓
1(10 + 10)
[50 − 3 ]
331
For Soldier piles an arching factor needs to be calculated and applied to Passive force below
dredge line while an effective width will be applied to Active forces below dredge line only.
Assume that the effective width of the piles is 2 ft.
*Arching Factor = 0.08ϕ =0.08*(35°)= 2.80
1. Determine forces due to trapezoidal pressure distribution:

5
𝑃5 = / (6.67)(3164)(8D ) = 84416 𝑙𝑏
𝑃/ = (3.33)(3164)(8D ) = 84289 𝑙𝑏
𝑃Q = (10)(3164)(8D ) = 253120 𝑙𝑏
332
𝑃2 = (10)(3164)(8D ) = 253120 𝑙𝑏
𝑃J = (10)(3164)(8D ) = 253120 𝑙𝑏
𝑃4 = (3.33)(3164)(8D ) = 84289 𝑙𝑏
5
𝑃H = / (6.67)(3164)(8D ) = 84416 𝑙𝑏
1 3.33
𝑀5 = 84416 Á3.33 + (6.67)Â + 84289 ^ ` = 609131 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡
3 2
3. Determine tieback loads T1 through T3 and component T4U:
𝑇5ü = 𝑃5 + 𝑃/ = 84416 + 84289 = 168705 𝑙𝑏
253120 𝑙𝑏 609131 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡
𝑇5· = ^ `+^ ` = 187473 𝑙𝑏
2 10
168705 + 187473
𝑇5 = = 368.743 𝐾𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
253120 𝑙𝑏 609131 𝑙𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡
𝑇/ü = ^ `−^ ` = 65647 𝑙𝑏
2 10
253120 𝑙𝑏
𝑇/· = ^ ` = 126560 𝑙𝑏
2
65647 + 126560
𝑇/ = = 198.987 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 ∗ cos (15°)
253120 𝑙𝑏
𝑇Qü = ^ ` = 126560 𝑙𝑏
2
253120 𝑙𝑏
𝑇Q· = ^ ` = 126560 𝑙𝑏
2
126560 + 126560
𝑇Q = = 262.049 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 × cos (15°)
333
5. Determine D’ to calculate T4 by taking moments about T4:
3.33 1
Mþ = Á84289 ^ `Â + Á84416 ^ ∗ 6.67 + 3.33`Â
2 3
þ 32.Q3þÜ /þ
+ ó4219D Ð / + 10Ñ (2D )ù + óÐ /
Ñ Ð Q + 10Ñ (2D )ù
Mþ = 56.25DQ + 5062.8D/ + 84380D + 609131
352.5D/ 2
Mÿ = ‡ ˆ ^ D + 10` (2.80)(2D )
2 3
Mÿ = 658DQ + 9870D/
6. Set MD = MR and solve for embedment depth D:
Mþ = Mÿ
DQ + 7.99D/ − 140.22D − 1012.266 = 0
D = 11.6′
7. Determine the lower component T4L of tieback T4 and calculate its load:
253120 𝑙𝑏
𝑇2ü = ^ ` = 126560 𝑙𝑏
2
1
𝑃%5 = (84.38)(11.6/ )(2D ) = 11354 𝑙𝑏
2
𝑃%/ = (4219)(11.6′)(2D ) = 97881 𝑙𝑏
1
𝑃’5 = (352.5)(11.6/ )(2D ) ∗ 2.80 = 132811 𝑙𝑏
2
𝑇2· = 84289 𝑙𝑏 + 84416 𝑙𝑏 + 11354 𝑙𝑏 + 97881 𝑙𝑏 − 132811 𝑙𝑏 → 𝑇2· = 145129 𝑙𝑏
126560 + 145129
𝑇2 = = 281.273 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
1000 × cos (15°)
334
Figure 4-95: Shear & Moment Diagram for Extreme Event Limit State
Table 4-21: Summary of All Results

Service I 5.76 115.575 370.505
Strength I 6.99 130.377 454.901
Extreme Event I (Kh=0.4) 11.6 187.302 609.286
335
Example 4-9: Finite Element Simulation of a Multiple Tie Back Wall
This example involves the finite element simulation of a multiple tie back wall in Plaxis 2D. The wall is
tied back by a set of prestressed ground anchors. Per AASHTO LRFD specifications hinge connections is
assumed at all wall-strap joints except the top one. It's also assumed that a hinge is developed at the
excavation level.
Objectives:
- Generating moment and shear diagrams along the height of the wall
- Comparison with hand calculated diagrams
Figure 4-66 shows the geometry of the tie back wall and the excavation. The excavation is 50 ft deep. Four
rows of ground anchors are used to support the wall with 8 ft spacing. The soldier pile is HP8x36 steel
beam placed in a 2 feet diameter hole filled with 4 sack concrete. The soldier pile is simulated as a
diaphragm wall with properties listed in . Anchor straps and grouts are defined such strong that the pile
failure governs the failure of the excavation.
Table 4-22: Equivalent Diaphragm Wall Properties Simulating HP8x36 Steel Beam
Parameter US Customary
Axial Stiffness EA 3.1E+05 kip/ft
Flexural Rigidity EI 2.4E+04 ksf/ft
Weight w 0.31 Kip/ft/ft
Poisson's Ratio v 0.15
The hardening soil model is employed to simulate the single layer backfill soil. The granular backfill has
friction angle ∅ = 35ð and the soil-wall interface is assumed to be frictionless 𝛿 = 0. Considering
convergence issues. Also, in spite of cohesionless soil assumption, a very small cohesion expedites the
convergence. summarizes soil and interface properties.
The calculation of this simulation consists of 7 phases. In the first phase, the initial stresses are generated.
In the second pile is embedded, also hinges, surcharge, and interfaces are activated. In phases 3-6 stage-
336
wise excavation is performed and anchor strap corresponding to each excavation level is activated. Finally,
the soil layer below the lowest anchor is excavated and the hinge at excavation level is activated in phase
7.
Table 4-23: Soil and Interface Properties

Parameter US Customary
Density 𝛾 0.125 kcf
Young's Modulus E50 2.67E+03 ksf
Poisson's Ratio 𝑣 0.2
Cohesion C 0.01e-3 ksf
Friction Angle phi 35
Dilatancy Angle 𝜓 5
Reduction Rinter 0.6
Contours and diagrams resulted from the finite element simulations are illustrated into Figure 4-115 to
Figure 4-119. The failure point plot and the incremental strain plot depict the qualitative log-spiral shape
of the failure surface. The maximum shear force imposed to the wall equals 15.08 kip/ft (´8 = 120.64 kips,
for 8 ft spacing). The maximum bending moment equals 36.13 kip.ft/ft (´8= 289.04 kips, for 8 ft spacing).
A comparison of calculated shear forces and bending moment using limit equilibrium approach and finite
element are given in Figure 4-120 and 4-121.
(a) Stage-wise Excavation Model (b) Deformed Mesh After

Excavation
Figure 4-115
337
(a) Anchors Reaction Forces (b) Plastic Points
Figure 4-116
(a)Total Displacement Contour (b) Incremental Shear Strain Contour

Figure 4-117
Figure 4-118: Shear diagram along the height of the wall
338
Figure 4-119: Moment diagram along the height of the wall
(a)Moment Diagram (b)Moment Diagram

Plaxis2D Finite Element Simulation Limit Equilibrium Approach
Figure 4-120: Comparison of bending moment calculated from FE simulation and limit
equilibruim approach
339
(a) Shear Diagram (b) Shear Diagram
Plaxis2D Finite Element Simulation Limit Equilibrium Approach
Figure 4-121: Comparison of shear force calculated from FE simulation and limit equilibruim
approach
340
ANALYSIS OF ABUTMENTS
ABUTMENT SYSTEM
Abutments are structural elements that transfer loads from the bridge superstructure to the backfill soil.
During a seismic event, the superstructure undergoes lateral displacements, and can additionally
experience significant rotations if the abutment is skew-angled (Figure 5-1). The transverse displacement
is restrained by shear keys. Figure (5-2) shows a generic configuration of seat-type abutment systems.
The backfill material is retained within wingwalls, and the bridge deck rests on the stemwall. The
backwall is a sacrificial element that controls the total force transformed to the foundation pile.
Figure 5-1: Schematic presentation of rotation of the bridge deck due to a seismic incident
Figure 5-2: Generic configuration of seat type abutments
341
Seismic design of a bridge requires a reliable estimation of the force-displacement relationships for its
abutments. Shamsabadi et al. (2006) developed an algorithm for estimating the mobilized passive force
behind the backwall by assuming a log-spiral failure surface for the engineering backfill. Shamsabadi et al.
(2010) subsequently proposed a simplified “hyperbolic force-displacement (HFD)” equation for this
passive backfill reaction. A further simplified version of the HFD equation is available in CALTRANS
Seismic Design Criteria (SDC 2017) document, in the form of a bilinear force-displacement relationship.
Subsequently, Shamsabadi and Rollins (2014) investigated the effect of abutment skewness on the overall
force-displacement relationship, and proposed a factor that accounts for the reduction of strength and
stiffness of the passive backfill reaction with increasing skew angle.
In this chapter, all the aforementioned equations are investigated and a unified lateral force-displacement
model of the passive backfill reaction for both skew and non-skew abutments is presented.
SKEW HYPERBOLIC FORCE-DISPLACEMENT CURVES FOR BRIDGE

ABUTMENTS
The HFD equation proposed by Shamsabadi (2010) is given by,
𝐶𝑦
𝐹 = (5.1)
1 + 𝐷𝑦
𝐹«¹Þ
where, 𝐶 = ^2𝐾J0 − ` (5.2)
𝑦Xm‘
𝐾J0 1
𝐷 = 2^ − ` (5.3)
𝐹«¹Þ 𝑦Xm‘
where 𝐶 and 𝐷 are material and geometry dependent constants. In these equations 𝐹«¹Þ is the maximum
force developed behind a unit width of the backwall, 𝐾J0 is stiffness when the mobilized force behind the
backwall equals 50% of 𝐹«¹Þ , and 𝑦Xm‘ is the displacement at which a complete soil wedge is formed.
Figure (5-3) illustrates the definitions of these two parameters.
Figure 5-3: The HFD curve and its characteristic parameters.
342
Per recommendations given by Shamsabadi et al. (2007), 𝑦Xm‘ can be approximated as 5% of the backwall
height for highway bridges and 4% for high-speed railroad bridges. For engineered backfills constructed
per Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, the values of 𝐹«¹Þ and 𝐾J0 are estimated by,
𝛼+,- 𝐻/.J
𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑅 (𝜃) (5.4)
1 + 𝛽+,- 𝐻 +,-
𝐾J0 = (𝛼+,- 𝐻 + 𝛾+,- )𝑅+,- (𝜃) (5.5)
where 𝜃 is the abutment skew angle in degrees, H is the height of the backwall in ft, 𝐹«¹Þ is the ultimate
force behind the backwall per unit width kip/ft, and 𝐾J0 is the stiffness when the 50% of ultimate force is
mobilized behind the backwall in kip/inch/ft. The parameters in equations (5.4) and (5.5) are given by,
𝛼+,- = 5.5, 𝛽+,- = 2.09,

/ (5.6)
𝛾+,- = 20, 𝑅+,- (𝜃) = 𝑒 Ú./2J
The reduction factor 𝑅+,- (𝜃) represents the dependency 𝐹«¹Þ to the skew angle (𝜃) of the abutment.
Henceforth, this universal version of the HFD equation is referred to as the Skew Hyperbolic Force-
Displacement (SHFD) formula.
The hyperbolic force-displacement relationship given by the SHFD formulae (i.e., equations 5.4-5.6) had
been compared with data from several large-scale tests, and was observed to be a reasonable representation
of the real behavior of backwall-backfill systems. These large-scale tests include a Caltrans-funded large-
scale experiment on non-skew abutments performed at the University of California at Los Angeles (Stewart
et al., 2007) and a series of pooled-funded full-scale skew abutment experiments (Rollins and Jesse, 2013;
Rollins et al., 1995) performed at the Brigham Young University (BYU).
Figure (5-4) displays the results of the UCLA abutment test on a 15.5 ft-wide non-skew abutment as well
as BYU test on a 45o-skew abutment with the same width. The backfill material in both tests are engineered
granular soils with a 95% compaction ratio. As seen, the HFD curve that predicts the UCLA data can be
reduced by the aforementioned factor of 𝑒 Ú./2J to obtain the second curve in the figure, which exhibits a
highly satisfactory match with BYU’s 45o-skew abutment data—partially validating the SHFD formula
given above. Further validation of the SHFD formula is provided in Figure (5-5) wherein a comparison of
its predictions is made with results from other BYU tests (on abutments with 15o and 30o skew angles).
343
Figure 5-4:Comparison of data from a 45o-skew abutment test (at BYU) and a non-skew
abutment test (at UCLA) with HFD predictions. Both abutments tested were 15.5ft wide.
Figure 5-5: Validation of the SHFD formula against UCLA and BYU test data.
344
SKEW HYPERBOLIC FORCE-DISPLACEMENT CURVES OF ABUTMENTS FOR
HIGH SPEED RAIL BRIDGE ABUTMENTS
For high-speed rail, bridge abutments must be constructed with transition zones (from the bridge deck to
the engineered backfill), which comprise a cement treated aggregate (CTA) backfill. Such transition zones
are required to ensure operational safety and passenger comfort (Okelo and Olabimtan, 2011). These
transition zones naturally affect the passive backfill reaction under seismic events, and render the nominal
SHFD formula given earlier inaccurate. A correction for this scenario is provided in the form of Equations
(5.7)- (5.10) below:
𝛼+ÓÒ 𝐻/.J
𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑅 (𝜃) (5.7)
1 + 𝛽+ÓÒ 𝐻 +ÓÒ
𝐾J0 = (𝛼+ÓÒ 𝐻 + 𝛾+ÓÒ )𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃) (5.8)

where
𝛼+ÓÒ = 11, 𝛽+ÓÒ = 1.80, 𝛾+ÓÒ = 40, (5.9)
(5.10)
𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃) = 𝑒 Ú0.4./2J
Here a new correction factor 𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃) accounts for the altered reductioHn due to the CTA transition zone
in the overall passive lateral reaction of high-speed rail bridge abutments with respect to the skew angle. A
plot of 𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃) is shown in Figure (5-6).
Figure 5-6: Variation of the correction factor 𝑹𝑯𝑺𝑹 (𝜽) recommended for high-speed rail bridge
abutments.
345
5.4. ELASTIC-PERFECTLY PLASTIC FORCE-DISPLACEMENT CURVES FOR
ABUTMENTS
The use of an elastic-perfectly plastic (EPP) force-displacement relationship is a common practice in
modeling the passive lateral response of abutment backfills in the design practice, because it is
recommended in the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria documents (see, Caltrans SDC v.1.7, 2017).
Although, the readers here are encouraged to employ the more-accurate SHFD equation described in
previous sections, it is possible to devise an equivalent EPP backbone curve using the SHFD equation. The
metric used here to establish the said equivalency is the (elastic + plastic) work done by the backfill during
a pushover analysis. That is, the parameters that control the elastic-perfectly plastic idealization (shown in
Figure 5-7) should be adjusted such that the area under that bilinear backbone is identical to that of the
SHFD curve (see, Figure 5-3) up to 𝑦Xm‘ .
Figure 5-7 The schematic presentation of equivalent bilinear force-displacement curve.
The EPP backbone is defined by two parameters—namely, stiffness 𝐾 and ultimate capacity 𝐹«¹Þ as seen
in Figure (5-7). If the stiffness of the EPP equivalent is assumed to be equal to 𝐾J0 of the SHFD, then we
4’’
can easily calibrate the 𝐹«¹Þ to equalize the area below the force-displacement curve. Therefore, by
4’’ 4’’ ñ+ Ü.è
prescribing 𝐾 = 𝐾J0 first, and by assuming 𝐹«¹Þ to have the general form of 𝐹«¹Þ = , the optimal
5çì 566 +
¦ ¦
value of 𝛽4’’ is obtained by minimizing 7∫0 :;< 𝐹Ó+9Î 𝑑𝑦 − ∫0 :;< 𝐹4’’ 𝑑𝑦7. This procedure on a dataset
including 2000 data points for different wall heights, resulted in 𝛽4’’ = 2.37 and 2.00, for highway and
HSR bridges, respectively. Therefore, equations for parameters of the equivalent EPP curve for highway
bridges are,
4’’
𝛼+,- 𝐻/.J
𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑅 (𝜃) (5.11)
4’’
1 + 𝛽+,- 𝐻 +,-
𝐾 = (𝛼+,- 𝐻 + 𝛾+,- )𝑅+,- (𝜃) (5.12)

where
346
4’’
𝛼+,- = 5.5, 𝛽+,- = 2.37,
/ (5.13)
𝛾+,- = 20, 𝑅+,- (𝜃) = 𝑒 Ú./2J
and for high-speed railroad bridges with cement treated aggregate backfill, the equivalent elastic-perfectly
plastic force-displacement relationship is defined through
4’’
𝛼+ÓÒ 𝐻/.J
𝐹«¹Þ = 4’’ 𝑅+ÓÒ
(𝜃) (5.14)
1 + 𝛽+ÓÒ 𝐻
𝐾 = (𝛼+ÓÒ 𝐻 + 𝛾+ÓÒ )𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃) (5.15)

where
4’’
𝛼+ÓÒ = 11, 𝛽+ÓÒ = 2, 𝛾+ÓÒ = 40,
(5.16)
𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃) = 𝑒 Ú0.4./2J
Figure 0-8 compares the SHFD and EPP force-displacement curves of a highway abutment with a 5.5 ft-
high backwall.
Figure 5-8: Comparison of SHFD and EPP curves against experimental data from zero-skew
UCLA and BYU tests.
SUMMARY
The following table summarizes equations discussed above:
347
HFD Force-Displacement (F-y) Relationship
𝐶𝑦
𝐹 =
1 + 𝐷𝑦
where
𝐹«¹Þ
𝐶 = ^2𝐾J0 − `
𝑦Xm‘
𝐾J0 1
𝐷 = 2^ − `
Highway HSR
𝛼+,- 𝐻/.J 𝛼+ÓÒ 𝐻/.J

𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑅 (𝜃) 𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑅 (𝜃)
1 + 𝛽+,- 𝐻 +,- 1 + 𝛽+ÓÒ 𝐻 +ÓÒ
𝐾J0 = (𝛼+,- 𝐻 + 𝛾+,- )𝑅+,- (𝜃) 𝐾J0 = (𝛼+ÓÒ 𝐻 + 𝛾+ÓÒ )𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃)
𝛼+,- = 5.5 𝛼+ÓÒ = 11

𝛽+,- = 2.09 𝛽+ÓÒ = 1.80
𝛾+,- = 20 𝛾+ÓÒ = 40
−𝜃
⎧ e(150) , 0 < 𝜃 ≤ 30𝑜
/
⎪ −𝜃
𝑅+,- (𝜃) = 𝑒 Ú./2J 𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃) = 1.8e( 38 ) , 30𝑜 < 𝜃 ≤ 45𝑜
⎨ −𝜃
⎪ ( )
⎩ e 75 , 𝜃 > 45𝑜
𝑦Xm‘ = 0.05𝐻 𝑦Xm‘ = 0.04𝐻
Elastic Perfectly Plastic Force-Displacement (F-y) Relationship

4’’
𝐾𝑦, 𝑦 < 𝐹«¹Þ /𝐾
𝐹 = B 4’’ 4’’
𝐹«¹Þ , 𝑦 ≥ 𝐹«¹Þ /𝐾
Highway HSR
4’’
𝛼+,- 𝐻/.J 𝛼+ÓÒ 𝐻/.J
𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑅 (𝜃) 𝐹«¹Þ = 4’’ 𝑅+ÓÒ
(𝜃)
4’’
1 + 𝛽+,- 𝐻 +,- 1 + 𝛽+ÓÒ 𝐻
𝐾 = (𝛼+,- 𝐻 + 𝛾+,- )𝑅+,- (𝜃) 𝐾J0 = (𝛼+ÓÒ 𝐻 + 𝛾+ÓÒ )𝑅+ÓÒ (𝜃)

4’’ 4’’
𝛽+,- = 2.37 𝛽+ÓÒ =2
348
Example 5-1: Analysis of a non-skew abutment
For an abutment with 10 ft height and 50 ft width, and given a backfill with 95% compaction ratio
implemented per Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, develop the HDF and EPP force-displacement curves.
Solution:
𝑦Xm‘ = 0.05𝐻
= 0.05 × 5.5
= 0.275 ft
= 3.3 inches
For EPP we use equation 5.11 𝛼𝐻𝑊𝑌 𝐻2.5 5.5 × 10/.J
𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑅𝐻𝑊𝑌 (𝜃) = × 1
1 + 𝛽𝐸𝑃𝑃
𝐻𝑊𝑌
𝐻 1 + 2.39 × 10
= 27.80 kip/ft
≈ 28 kip/ft
equation 5.12
𝐾 = (5.5𝐻 + 20)𝑅𝐻𝑊𝑌 (𝜃)
= (5.5 × 10 + 20)𝑒 0
= 50.25 kip/inch
For HFD we use equation 5.4 5.5𝐻/.J Ú .

𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑒 2J
1 + 2.09𝐻
5.5 × 10/.J 0
= 𝑒
1 + 2.09 × 10
= 31.23 kip/ft
≈ 31 kip/ft
equation 5.5 .
𝐾J0 = (5.5𝐻 + 20)𝑒 Ú2J
= (5.5 × 10 + 20)𝑒 0
= 50.25 kip/inch
equation 5.2 𝐹«¹Þ

𝐶 = ^2𝐾J0 − `
𝑦Xm‘

41
= ^2 × 38.5 − `
6

= 91.04 kip/inch

≈ 91 kip/inch/ft
equation 5.3 𝐾J0 1
𝐷 = 2^ − `
J0./J 5
= 2Ð K5
− Q.QÑ
= 2.61 ft/inch
349
equation 5.1 𝐶𝑦
𝐹 =
1 + 𝐷𝑦

91 𝑦
=
1 + 2.61 𝑦
The total force behind the backwall would be
𝐶𝑦
𝐹R = ×𝑊
1 + 𝐷𝑦

91 𝑦
= × 50
1 + 2.61 𝑦
4550 𝑦
=
1 + 2.61 𝑦
Force-displacement curves using both methods are plotted (Figure 5-9). One may note the relatively
higher ultimate capacity but softer behavior of HFD curve.
Figure 5-9: HFD and bilinear force-displacement curves for a 5.5ft-high 50ft-wide abutment.
Example 5-2: Analysis of 30o-skew abutment
For a 30o-skew abutment with 5.5 ft height and 50 ft width and given a backfill with 95% compaction ratio
implemented per Caltrans Seismic Design Code, develop the HDF and bilinear force-displacement curves.
350
Solution:
𝑦Xm‘ = 0.05𝐻
= 0.05 × 5.5
= 0.275 𝑓𝑡
= 3.3 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ
For equivalent bilinear we use 5.5𝐻/.J Ú .

equation 5.11 𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑒 2J
1 + 2.37𝐻

5.5 × 10/.J Ú/
= 𝑒 Q
1 + 2.39 × 10
= 14.27 kip/ft
≈ 14 kip/ft
equation 5.12 .
𝐾 = (5.5𝐻 + 20)𝑒 Ú2J
/
= (5.5 × 10 + 20)𝑒 ÚQ
= 25.80 kip/inch
For HFD we use equation 5.4 5.5𝐻/.J Ú .

𝐹«¹Þ = 𝑒 2J
1 + 2.09𝐻

5.5 × 10/.J Ú/
= 𝑒 Q
1 + 2.09 × 10
= 16.03 kip/ft
≈ 16 kip/ft
equation 5.5 .
𝐾J0 = (5.5𝐻 + 20)𝑒 Ú2J
/
= (5.5 × 10 + 20)𝑒 ÚQ

= 13.24 kip/inch
equation 5.2 𝐹«¹Þ

𝐶 = ^2𝐾J0 − `
𝑦Xm‘

16
= ^2 × 13.24 − `
3.3

= 46.74 kip/inch

≈ 47 kip/inch/ft
equation 5.3 𝐾J0 1
𝐷 = 2^ − `
351
5Q./2 5
= 2Ð 54
− Q.QÑ
= 2.61 ft/inch
equation 5.1 𝐶𝑦
𝐹 =
1 + 𝐷𝑦

47 𝑦
=
1 + 2.61 𝑦
The total force behind the back wall would be
𝐶𝑦
𝐹R = ×𝑊
1 + 𝐷𝑦

47 𝑦
= × 50
1 + 2.61 𝑦
2350 𝑦
=
1 + 2.61 𝑦
Force-displacement curves using both methods are plotted in Figure (5-10). One may note the relatively
higher ultimate capacity but softer behavior of HFD curve.
Figure 5-10: HFD and bilinear force displacement curves for 5.5ft-high 50ft-wide 30o-skew
abutment.
352
353
APPENDIX A. ACTIVE SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
f = 20
f = 25
35
40
f=3
45
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh
= 0.0
0.2
d=0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Kh = Horizontal Seismic Coefficient
354
1
35
30
25
40
45
f=2
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh
= 0.025
0.2
d=0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1
0
20
35
25
40
45
f=3
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh
= 0.05
0.2
d=0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

355
1
f = 20
f = 25
35
40
45
f=3
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh
= 0.075
0.2
d=0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1
f = 20
0
5
35
40
f=3
f=2
45
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh
= 0.1
0.2
d=0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

356
1
20
30
45
40
35
f=2
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh = 0.0
0.2
d=½f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1
25
20
30
35
40
45
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh = 0.025
0.2
d=½f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

357
1
5
30
35
f=2
40
45
f=2
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh = 0.050
0.2
d=½f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1
0
25
30
35
40
45
f=2
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh = 0.075
0.2
d=½f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

358
1
20
5
30
35
40
45
f=2
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh = 0.1
0.2
d=½f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1
20
25
30
35
40
45
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
0.2 C/ = 0.0
gh
d = 2/3 f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Kh = Horizontal Seismic Coefficent
359
1
5
30
35
40
f=2
45
f=2
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh= 0.025
0.2
d = 2/3 f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1
0
5
30
35
40
45
f=2
f=2
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh= 0.050
0.2
d = 2/3 f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

360
1
0
25
30
f= 5
f=2
40
45
3
f=
f=
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
C/gh= 0.075
0.2
d = 2/3 f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

361
1
f = 25
f = 20
45
5
40
f=3
f=3
f=
f=
0.8
0.6
Kaeh
0.4
0.2 C/gh= 0.1

d = 2/3 f
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

362
APPENDIX B. PASSIVE SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
Remark: The seismic passive earth pressure coefficients as presented in Appendix B are computed based
on the simplified Log-Spiral-Rankine Method (Shamsabadi et al., 2013) outlined in section §2.3.3.
370
REFERENCES
Caltrans (2011). Trench and Shoring Manual. California Department of Transporation, Offices of
Structures Construction, Rev. 1, August, pp. 438.
Clough, G.W. and Duncan, J.M. (1991). Earth Pressures, in Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd
edition, ed. Hsai-Yang Fang, van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 223-235.
Coulomb, C.A. (1776). Essai sur une application des regles des maximis et minimis a quelques problems
de statique relatives a l’architecture. Memoires d’Academie Roy. Pres. Divers Savants, 7, Paris.
Cole, R.T., Rollins, K.M. (2006). Passive earth pressure mobilization during cyclic loading. ASCE J.
Geotech. & Geoenviron. Eng., 132(9): 1154-1164.
Gadre, A. D., Dobry, R. (1998). Centrifuge modeling of cyclic lateral response of pile-cap systems and
seat-type abutments in dry sand. Rep. MCEER-98-0010, Rensselaer Institute, Civil Engineering
Dept., Troy, N.Y.
Hsu YT, Fu CC (2000). Study of damaged Wushi Bridge in Taiwan 921 earthquake. Pract. Period. Struct.
Des. Constr., 5(4): 166–171.  
Kapuskar, M. (2005). Field investigations report for abutment backfill characterization, response
assessment of bridge systems—Seismic, live, and long term loads. Earth Mechanics, Inc., Task 3,
RTA Contract No. 59, Report to Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA.
Kavazanjian, E., Matasovic, N., Hadj-Hamou, T., Wang, J. (1998). Geotechnical and Foundation
Engineering, Module 9 – Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Principal Investigator: George
Munfakh, NHI Course No. 13239, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, National Highway Institute, Arlington, Virginia. Publication No. FHWA NHI-99-
012.
Kawashima, K., Unjoh, S., Hoshikuma, J., Kosa, K. (2011). Damage of bridges due to the 2010 Maule,
Chile, Earthquake. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15: 1036-1068
Khalili-Tehrani, P., Shamsabadi, A., Stewart, J.P., Taciroglu, E. (2016). Backbone Curves ith Physical
Parameters for Passive Lateral Response of Homogenous Abutment Backfill. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 14(11): 3003-3023.
Nojoumi, S. A. (2016). Modeling the Coupled Cyclic Translational and Rotational Responses of Skew
Bridge Abutment Backfills. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Marsh, A.K., Rollins, K.M., Franke, B., Smith, J., Palmer, K. (2013). Passive force-deflection behavior for
0o and 30o degree skewed abutments. Transportation Research Record, 2363, 12-20.
Mayne, P.W., Kulhawy F.H. (1982). Ko-OCR Relationship in Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division, 108: 851-872.
Mononobe, N., Matsuo, H. (1929). On the Determination of Earth-Pressures during Earthquakes.
Proceedings of World Engineering Conference, 9: 179–187.
NBI—National Bridge Inventory (2004). Bridge Information System, www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/886nbi.htm.
Okabe, S. (1926). General Theory of Earth-Pressures. J. of Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, 12(1): 123–
134.
Omrani, R., Mobasher, B., Liang, X., Gunay, S., Mosalam, K.M., Zareian, F., Taciroglu, E. (2015).
Guidelines for Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Ordinary Bridges: Version 2.0. Caltrans Report No.
15-65A0454.
371
Rankine, W.J.M. (1857). On the Stability of Loose Earth. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 147(1): 9-27.
Richards, R., Shi, X. (1994). Seismic Lateral Pressures in Soils with Cohesion. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 120(7): 1230-1251.
Rollins, K., Jessee, S. (2013). Passive Force-Deflection Curves for Skewed Abutments. ASCE J. Bridge
Eng., 18(10): 1086-1094.
Romstad, K., Kutter, B., Maroney, B., Vanderbilt, E., Griggs, M., Chai Y. H. (1995). Experimental
measurements of bridge abutment behavior. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng., University of
California, Davis, Report No. UCD-STR-95-1, September.
Shamsabadi, A., Ashour, M., Norris, G. (2005). Bridge abutment nonlinear force-displacement-capacity
prediction for seismic design. J. Geotech. & Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 131(2): 151–161.
Shamsabadi, A., Rollins, K., Kapuskar, M. (2007). Nonlinear Soil-Abutment-Bridge Structure Interaction
for Seismic Performance-Based Design. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(6):
707-720.
Shamsabadi, A., Khalili-Therani, P., Stewart, J. P., Taciroglu, E. (2010). Validated Simulation Models for
Lateral Response of Bridge Abutments with Typical Backfills. Bridge Engineering, 15(3): 302-
311.
Shamsabadi, A., Xu, S.-Y., Taciroglu, E. (2013). A Generalized Log-Spiral-Rankine Limit Equilibrium
Model for Seismic Earth Pressure Analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 49: 197–
209.
Shamsabadi, A., Rollins, K.M. (2014). Three-dimensional nonlinear continuum seismic soil-structure
interaction analysis of skewed bridge abutments Numerical Methods in Geotechnical
Engineering—Proceedings of the 8th European Conference On Numerical Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering, Numge 2014, 2: 933-938.
Xu, S.-Y., Shamsabadi, A., Taciroglu, E. (2015). Evaluation of active and passive seismic earth pressures
considering internal friction and cohesion. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, 70, 30-47.
Yashinsky, M., Oviedo, R., Ashford, S.A., Fargier-Gabaldon, L., Hube, M. (2010). Performance of highway
and railway structures during the Feb 27, 2010 Maule Chile earthquake, EERI/PEER/FHWA
Bridge Team Report, http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/chile_2010/reports_chile.html.
Zarrabi-Kashani, K. (1979). Sliding of Gravity Retaining Wall during Earthquakes Considering Vertical
Acceleration and Changing Inclination of Failure Surface. MS Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Kaviani, P., Zareian, F., Taciroglu, E. (2012). Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete bridges with skew-
angled abutments. Engineering Structures, 45: 137-150.
372

DRAFTAAE LRFDGuidlines2017-V6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRAFTAAE LRFDGuidlines2017-V6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Draft]

Guidelines for Analysis and LRFD-based

Anoosh Shamsabadi, Ph.D., PE.

Arastoo Dasmeh, Ph.D.

Ertugrul Taciroglu, Ph.D., Professor

University of California, Los Angeles

Anoosh Shamsabadi, PhD., PE.

Arastoo Dasmeh, Ph.D.

Ertugrul Taciroglu, Professor

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Example 4-5: (SIMPLIFIED METHOD) .............................................................................................. 260

AnalysIS of Abutments ................................................................................................. 341

TYPES OF EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES

RIGID GRAVITY AND SEMI-GRAVITY WALLS

Figure 1-1: Gravity Walls

Figure 1-3: Counterfort Retaining Walls

Figure 1-4: Buttressed Retaining Walls

NON-GRAVITY ANCHORED WALLS

MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS

SOIL NAIL WALL

Figure 1-5: Non-Gravity Cantilever Walls

Figure 2-2: Passive Earth Pressure

(b) Mohr circle representation of stress states at elements A and P

Figure 2-3: Mobilizing Earth Pressure Coefficient Relative to Wall Deformation

Figure 2-4: Lateral Earth Pressure Variation with Depth

AT-REST EARTH PRESSURE

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE THEORIES

(1− sinφ ) = tan 2 ⎛ 45° − φ ⎞ . (2.12)

For the active case,

This can be solved for sa to obtain,

For the passive case, solving for sp we get

Rankine’s Earth Pressure Theory

cos β − cos2 β − cos2 φ β =0 1− sin φ

The magnitude of active earth pressure can be determined using

cos β + cos2 β − cos2 φ β =0 1+ sin φ

The magnitude of passive earth pressure can be determined using

Earth Pressure For Cohesive Backfill

Figure 2-9: Tension Crack Zone

Figure 2-11: Stress Distribution for Cohesive Backfill Considered in Design

The apparent active earth pressure coefficient, Kap, is defined as

Coulomb’s Earth Pressure Theory

and the magnitude of active earth force can be determined using

c1A = tan (φ − β ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ − β ) + cot (φ − ω ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣1+ tan (δ + ω ) cot (φ − ω ) ⎤⎦ , (2.43)

Figure 2-12: Coulomb's Active Wedge

The magnitude of the passive earth pressure can be determined using

The passive failure angle can be calculated using

c4 P = 1+ ⎡⎣ tan (δ − ω ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣ tan (φ + β ) + cot (φ + ω ) ⎤⎦ . (2.49)

Figure 2-13: Coulomb's Passive Wedge

Figure 2-14: Illustration of the Logarithmic Spiral Failure Surface

Trial Wedge Method

Figure 2-17: Active Trial Wedge

SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURE THEORY

Mononobe-Okabe Earth Pressure Theories

Seismic Active Earth Pressure

The active earth force acting on the wall is

The seismic inertial angle θ is:

c1AE = tan (φ − θ − β ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ − θ − β ) + cot (φ − θ − ω ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣1+ tan (δ + θ + ω ) cot (φ − θ − ω ) ⎤⎦

Seismic Passive Earth Pressure

c3PE = ( tan (φ + β − θ ) ⎡⎣ tan (φ + β − θ ) + cot (φ + ω − θ ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣1+ tan (δ − ω + θ ) cot (φ + ω − θ ) ⎤⎦ ) (2.59)

Seismic Trial Wedge Method

Seismic Active Earth Pressure

Seismic earth pressure due to the weight of the wedge is