Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 157
January 2004 Issue GE1
Pages 27–35

Paper 13301
Received 10/3/2003
Accepted 4/9/2003
Keywords: N. A. Trenter
codes of practice & standards/ Consulting geotechnical
design methods & aids/retaining engineer
walls/

Approaches to the design of cantilever retaining walls

N. A. Trenter

Cantilever (stem and pad) retaining walls are among PPH horizontal component of passive force
the simplest earth-retaining structures to construct, PPV vertical component of passive force
and accordingly may offer significant economic q vertical effective stress at foundation level
benefits. Their design involves use of bearing capacity R resultant disturbing force
and sliding stability theory, and application of the RH horizontal component of resultant disturbing force
factors of safety laid down in the code to which the RV vertical component of resultant disturbing force
designer is working. Two typical L-shaped cantilever S sliding resistance
walls founded on and retaining dry cohesionless soil SH horizontal component of sliding resistance
are considered, designed in accordance with the SV vertical component of sliding resistance
procedures given in CP2:1951 and BS 8002:1994. It is W total weight of wall (concrete and included virtual wall)
shown that the width of the foundation base depends Æ angle to vertical made by resultant disturbing force
upon which philosophy of factor of safety, and hence
angle to horizontal made by backfill surface behind
which code, is adopted. It is also shown that BS wall
8002:1994 produces larger (more conservative) A angle of wall friction (active force CP2:1951)
foundation bases than the CP2:1951 it replaces, P angle of wall friction (passive force CP2:1951)
although the difference is significant only for more D angle of interface friction (foundation and underlying
steeply sloping backfills and deeper foundations. soil CP2:1951)
9A angle of wall friction (active force BS 8002:1994)
NOTATION 9P angle of wall friction (passive force BS 8002:1994)
a length of heel of foundation measured from back of 9D angle of interface friction (foundation and underlying
stem soil BS 8002:1994)
B width of foundation ªsoil unit weight of soil
B9 effective width of foundation ªconc unit weight of concrete
d q , dª depth factors º angle to horizontal made by soil wedge forming part of
D foundation depth virtual wall
e eccentricity of resultant disturbing force 9 angle of friction of soil and backfill
F factor of safety 9m angle of friction of soil and backfill after application of
FB factor of safety against bearing capacity failure partial factor M
FS factor of safety against sliding instability 9FB angle of friction mobilised at required factor of safety

FV sum of vertical forces against bearing capacity failure
H height of wall measured from formation level in front 9FS angle of friction mobilised at required factor of safety
of wall against sliding instability
i q , iª inclination factors  sin
1 (sin
/sin 9)
L height of wall measured from top of heel
M partial safety factor (BS 8002:1994) 1. INTRODUCTION

M O sum of moments about toe of wall
Nq , Nª bearing capacity factors 1.1. General
p ultimate bearing pressure per metre run of wall One of the principal differences between the Code of Practice
1 2
P ultimate bearing capacity per metre run of wall BS 8002:1994 and the earlier CP2:1951 lies in the
PA active force philosophy of factor of safety, dealt with in more detail below.
PA1 active force on soil wedge forming part of virtual wall BS 8002:1994 introduced the concept of a ‘partial factor of
PA2 active force on back of stem forming part of virtual safety’. The advantage of this is its ability to operate directly
wall upon those parts of the calculation subject to the greatest
PAH horizontal component of active force unknowns, usually the soil strength. In BS 8002 : 1994 the
PAV vertical component of active force partial factor is applied to tan 9, where 9 is the angle of
PP passive force friction of the soil. Properties such as soil unit weight, which

Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls Trenter 27

 can normally be more reliably estimated, are not affected by
application of the partial factor as they would be by the
lumped factor approach of CP2 : 1951. However, by factoring
tan 9, not only the magnitude but also the line of action of the
force is altered, and the inclination factors in the bearing
capacity calculation may be significantly affected.
The conventional method of designing cantilever retaining
walls is first to dimension the wall foundation with respect to
the bearing capacity provided by the foundation. This usually
involves calculating the factor of safety against bearing
capacity failure, which must normally be as required by the
code of practice to which the designer is working. With the
foundation base width selected, the wall’s stability against
sliding is next determined. Again, this must also be to the
factor of safety required by the code of practice.
Bearing capacity and sliding stability theory differ. Whatever
the philosophy adopted for the factor of safety, the angle of
friction 9FB mobilised at the required factor of safety against
bearing capacity failure will not be equal to the angle of
friction 9FS mobilised at the required factor of safety against
sliding instability. Therefore retaining walls dimensioned on
the basis of bearing capacity and of sliding stability would
be of different sizes. In practice, for dry cohesionless soils,
9FB is normally larger than 9FS . This implies that a larger
component of soil strength is necessary to achieve a given
factor of safety for the bearing capacity condition than for
the sliding stability condition. Consequently, where bearing
capacity failure is a realistic possibility, the foundation base
is normally dimensioned on the basis of bearing capacity
theory. However, the size of the foundation base width for
both the bearing capacity and the sliding stability conditions
depends upon the way that the factor of safety is applied,
whether in accordance with CP2 : 1951 or with BS
8002 : 1994.
Alternatively stated, when designed to the same angle of
friction and for a given design method, the base width for the
bearing capacity condition will be larger than for the sliding
stability condition. When conducting a comparison of retaining
3
wall design using several different methods, Carder pointed
4
out that only CP2 : 1951 was available when BD30 : 1987 was
written, so it may be assumed that this document employs
many of the design features of CP2 : 1951. It is likely that
comments made below about design comparisons between
CP2 : 1951 and BS 8002 : 1994 will also be relevant to
BD30 : 1987.
By operating upon the soil property most likely to demonstrate
variability, the partial factor approach appears to offer
precision, but it is nevertheless of interest to determine whether
it offers other advantages in engineering design and, in
particular, whether the philosophy of factor of safety
summarised in the new BS 8002 : 1994 is more or less
economic than that outlined by the well-established CP2 : 1951
that it replaces. This paper investigates the foundation base
widths predicted using bearing capacity and sliding stability
theory for two L-shaped retaining walls founded upon and
supporting dry cohesionless soil, with a view to determining
which approach to factor of safety selection produces the most
economic design.
28 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls
1.2. Stability cases in retaining wall design
The following cases are normally considered for the design of
retaining walls, whether cantilever or the more traditional
gravity type.
(a) Sliding stability. In this condition the wall moves outwards,
away from the backfill, and roughly horizontally owing to
the imbalance between the horizontal components of the
active thrust acting on the back of the wall, and the sum of
the basal sliding resistance and the horizontal component
of any passive force acting on the front of the wall. Any
water forces normally act on the back of the wall and the
underside of the foundation, contributing to instability.
(b) Bearing capacity failure (drained condition). Here, the sum
of the buoyant wall weight plus the vertical component of
the active thrust acting on the back of the wall, less the
vertical component of any passive forces on the front of
the wall, are in excess of the foundation soil’s bearing
capacity, and failure results.
(c) Overturning (toppling). For this case, the retaining wall is
assumed to rotate about the toe of the foundation under
the action of the disturbing moments due to the horizontal
component of the active thrust and the horizontal water
force, while the restoring moments are due to the buoyant
wall weight, the vertical component of the active thrust
and the horizontal component of the passive force. The toe
remains horizontal throughout. The case relates to a
retaining wall foundation placed on rock, which does not
deform when rotating about the toe. If there is
deformation, then the position of the line of action of the
disturbing force will change.
(d) Overall stability. Usually of most significance on sidelong
(sloping) ground, the retaining wall is considered to be just
part of the stability of the site as a whole, and is normally
designed as such. The geometry up- and down-slope of the
retaining wall, and any structure contained within the soil
forming the slope (such as slickensides), contribute greatly
to instability.
Of the above four stability cases, overall stability is site specific
and the overturning case is for rock foundations. Only cases (a)
and (b), sliding stability and bearing capacity failure, are
considered further.
2. SLIDING STABILITY
2.1. CP2 : 1951 method
Figure 1(a) illustrates the forces acting upon an L-shaped
cantilever retaining wall. The total weight, W, of the structure
comprises the weight of the concrete stem and base, together
with the weight of the soil contained within the ‘virtual wall’,
which, following CP2 : 1951, is defined as the volume
contained within the back of the cantilever stem, the
foundation base and a vertical line projected upwards from the
heel of the foundation. Again following CP2 : 1951, the active
thrust, PA , is considered to act on the back of the virtual wall
at an angle A to the horizontal, where A ¼ 9, the angle of
friction of the backfill. This seems a reasonable assumption
because there is ‘soil on soil’ contact at the back of the virtual
wall.
Where a passive force acts on the concrete toe of the wall, the
Trenter
 5
recommendations of Eurocode 7 are assumed: that is, P ¼
0.669. A value of P ¼ 0.59 was recommended in CP2 : 1951,
but few values of the earth pressure coefficient, KP , were
tabulated, unlike BS 8002 : 1994, where the presentation of the
graphs of Kp makes use of the Eurocode values much more
convenient. For the retaining wall geometries adopted in the
PA calculations described below, the difference between the
CP2 : 1951 and Eurocode 7 recommendations is not expected to
W
δA be significant.

In calculating the sliding resistance, and for cohesionless soils,

CP2 : 1951 requires that the angle of friction, D , acting at the
interface of the foundation base and the underlying soil (the
δP
interface friction) be taken as equal to the soil angle of friction,
PP
9, where the concrete foundation is cast in situ. Where the
foundation is not cast in situ, a D value of 208 is
S δD recommended. As most walls are built with the concrete
foundation cast in situ, D ¼ 9 would usually apply.

(a) Resolving horizontally, and for the notation in Fig. 1(a), we

have for the sliding condition:

Restoring force
1
¼ PP cos P þ (W þ PA sin 9
PP sin P )tan D

PAV

W
PAH 2 Disturbing force ¼ PA cos 9

CP2 : 1951 recommends that a factor of safety ‘approximating

to 2’ should be applied to the sum of the forces given in
equation (1). Thus the factor of safety according to CP2 : 1951
PPH may be defined as follows:
SH
PPV
SV Restoring force
3 2
Disturbing force
(b)

2.2. BS 8002 : 1994 method

Factor of safety is defined in a quite different way in BS
8002 : 1994. For a cohesionless soil, a partial factor, M, of 1.2
is applied to tan 9 to produce, in effect, a mobilised angle of
RH friction, 9m . That is:

tan 9
4 9m ¼ tan
1
RV 1:2

R
α In addition, BS 8002 : 1994 also requires that the ratio of
restoring to disturbing forces should be greater than unity for
equilibrium. Although not so named in BS 8002 : 1994, this
ratio is termed stability ratio for brevity here. That is:
O

e Restoring forces
5 Stability ratio ¼ .1
B′ Disturbing forces

B
(c) Therefore for BS 8002 : 1994 there are effectively two
components to the factor of safety: the active earth pressure is
increased and the passive earth pressure is decreased by
Fig. 1. Forces and their components acting on L-shaped
retaining wall (for definition of symbols, see text) application of the partial factor M to the angle of friction
(equation (4)). This adjustment having been made, a lumped

Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls Trenter 29

 factor of safety greater than unity is then applied (equation
B C
(5)). Note that the application of the M factor demanded by BS
8002 : 1994 not only increases the active and reduces the PA
δA
passive pressures, it also changes the inclinations of their lines
of action. A

PA
Assuming that no special tests are made to determine the
sliding resistance between the underside of the wall foundation φ′
and the soil, BS 8002 : 1994 requires an interface friction, 9D ,
to calculate sliding resistance, where
W
λ
O PA
6 tan 9D ¼ 0:75 tan 9m δA
D C

(a)
It is easy to see that the interface friction given by equation (6)
leads to markedly lower sliding resistance, noting that
A
B

tan 9
tan 9D ¼ 0:75
1:2
PA

or
φ′

7 tan 9D ¼ 0:625 tan 9

W
BS 8002 : 1994 justifies the apparently conservative nature of λ O
PA
its choice of an interface friction ar tan 9D by pointing out that δA
a cantilever wall is unlikely to remain at constant elevation C
during sliding failure, with the active zone subsiding creating
(b)
full wall friction on the retained side and the passive zone E β
heaving creating full wall friction on the excavated side.
B A
According to BS 8002 : 1994, it is more likely that there will be
some vertical movement during sliding, which will reduce wall
friction. It is considered that application of the 0.75 factor in
equation (6) makes allowance for this possibility.

BS 8002 : 1994 gives no guidance on the extent of the virtual

wall for a cantilever structure, so the location of the active PA
force remains to be decided. It seems reasonable to adopt the β

virtual wall described in CP2 : 1951, and to assume that the line
of action of the active force will be at an angle  ¼ 9m to the
horizontal on the back of the virtual wall, as a ‘soil on soil’
condition exists. (See also discussion below.)
Substituting 9D for D, 9P for P and 9m for 9 in equations (1)
and (2), the expressions for the restoring and disturbing forces
according to BS 8002 : 1994 become
Restoring force
8
¼ PP cos 9P þ (W þ PA sin 9m
PP sin P )tan 9D
9 Disturbing force ¼ PA cos 9m
2.3. Note on derivation of active force
6
Terzaghi discussed the active thrust on cantilever walls, and
suggested that the surface of sliding could be represented by
the lines OA and OC in Fig. 2(a). Lines OA and OC rise at º ¼
45 + 9/2 to the horizontal from the heel. The active force PA1
acts at an angle 9 to the normal to OA and is computed using
W
λ
O
D
(c)
Fig. 2. Approaches to computing magnitude and line of action
of active forces on back of cantilever retaining walls
Rankine procedures. The component of active force PA2 is
calculated for the length of stem AB, using Coulomb
procedures. An active force PA would also act on the back of
the foundation heel OD. The virtual wall would be defined by
the wedge of soil contained by the line OA, the back of the
stem and the top of the heel.
7
Clayton et al. pointed out that, if the heel is sufficiently long,
an active Rankine zone develops behind the wall (OAC in Fig.
2(b)). The criterion for Rankine zone formation according to
the authors is

30 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls Trenter

 action of the active force pass through the centre of gravity of
10a a > L cot º
the potential sliding mass and be parallel to the slip plane of
the wedge. Conventional design assumes that the point of
where L is the height of the wall measured from the top of the application of the active force is a point one third the way up
heel, a is the length of the heel measured from the back of the from the wall base. This is satisfactory for geometrically
stem, regular backfills, but may be inaccurate for irregular backfill
surfaces.

10b º ¼ 45 þ 0:5(9

þ ) There would seem to be several competing approaches to

and
sin

10c  ¼ sin
1
sin 9
For horizontal backfill
¼  ¼ 0 and º ¼ 45 + 9/2, and the
Terzaghi solution is recovered.
Clayton et al. state that, as it is a ‘soil-to-soil failure plane’, it
is reasonable to assume that the active force PA1 (Fig. 2(b)),
calculated using Mueller–Breslau procedures, acts at an
inclination  ¼ 9 to the normal to OA. For short-heeled walls,
where OA meets the stem of the wall, the Rankine condition
would not be met and A would be less than 9, reaching 9/2
in the limit. The virtual wall would be defined by the soil
contained by the back of the stem, the top of the heel and
OAB. An active force PA would also act on the back of the
foundation heel OD. For further details, including the solution
for the Mueller–Breslau earth pressure coefficients, Clayton et
7
al. should be consulted.
7
An alternative approach for long heeled walls is shown in Fig.
2(c). In this case, the virtual wall is defined by the soil
contained by the back of the stem, the top of the heel and
OEAB. The active force PA is calculated using Rankine
procedures; it is assumed to act at the angle of slope of the
backfill,
, to the normal of OE, and also acts on the back of
the foundation heel OD. The virtual wall is similar to that of
CP2. The different approaches are summarised in Table 1.
Both CP2 : 1951 and BS 8002 : 1994 require that the line of
computation of the active force on a cantilever retaining wall.
Reasonably clear guidance is given by CP2 : 1951 on the nature
of the virtual wall and procedures for calculating the
magnitude and location of the active force, but BS 8002 : 1994
does not specify the nature of the virtual wall for a cantilever
structure. Consequently, there is no clear indication of the
location of the active force. When using the BS 8002 : 1994
method with cantilever walls, it would seem reasonable to
adopt the same approach to the calculation of the virtual wall
as in CP2 : 1951, which has been done in this paper (see section
7
2.2). Use of Rankine procedures, as discussed by Clayton et al.,
should be seen in the light of the statement in BS 8002 : 1994
that Rankine methods should be adopted only for smooth walls
and horizontal backfill. As retaining structures can seldom be
regarded as ‘smooth’, a strict interpretation of this code might
rule out the use of Rankine procedures for most practical cases.
Moreover, their use is permissible according to Clayton et al.
only for long-heeled walls, meeting the length criterion
(equation 10(a)), unless a reduction to the angle of friction is
made.
2.4. Note on passive resistance
Both codes of practice say little about the magnitude of passive
resistance that may be adopted in designing retaining walls.
CP2 : 1951 states (Clause 1.4922) that, when computing the
total force resisting sliding, the base friction may be added to
the passive resistance in front of the toe, and a factor of safety
of approximately 2 should be applied (equation (3)). There is no
indication of the magnitude of passive resistance to be adopted
in design.
In Section 3.4 of BS 8002 : 1994, methods of calculating the
passive resistance are given: the force is to be computed with

Approach Earth pressure coefficients Comment

6
Terzaghi Rankine/Coulomb Horizontal backfill only. Surfaces of sliding determined by planes at 45 þ 9=2.
Line of action of active force at angle  ¼ 9 to normal of OA. Must compute
active force on upper part of stem (Fig. 2(a))
7
Clayton et al. Mueller-Breslau (see Clayton Horizontal and sloping backfill and long-heeled walls (a > L cot º). Line of action
et al. for details) of active force at angle  ¼ 9 to normal of OA (Fig. 2(b))
7
Clayton et al. Rankine Horizontal and sloping backfill and long-heeled walls (a > L cot º). Line of action
of active force at angle  ¼
to the normal of OE (Fig. 2(c)). Virtual wall as CP2
2 8
CP2 : 1951 Coulomb (Kerisel and Absi Horizontal and sloping backfill. Line of action of active force at angle  ¼ 9 to
also assumed to apply) the back of virtual wall (see section 2.1)
1 8
BS 8002:1994 Kerisel and Absi Horizontal and sloping backfill. Limited guidance given by code on location of
active forces. This paper assumes virtual wall as CP2 and location of active force
also as CP2 (see section 2.2)

Table 1. Approaches to calculating active force on back of cantilever walls (see Fig. 2)

Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls Trenter 31

 the partial factor M (Section 3.2.5). As with CP2 : 1951, there is action, Æ, with respect to the vertical may be calculated as
no indication of the magnitude of passive resistance to be follows (Figs 1(b) and 1(c))
adopted in design.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
It is well settled that the movement required to mobilise full 12 R¼ [(W þ PAV
PPV )2 þ (PAH
PPH )]
passive pressure is substantially larger than that required to
mobilise full active pressure on the back of the wall. Therefore and
it would seem most unwise for a design to assume that full
passive pressure would be mobilised at wall failure. Section

1.3.12 of BS 8002 : 1994 states that the fully passive earth PAH
PPH
13 Æ ¼ tan
1
resistance occurs ‘after sufficient movement or deflection of the W þ PAV
PPV
retaining wall (which) is often outside the serviceability limit
state of the wall’. The implication is clear: by designing to full
The following formula may be adopted to calculate the
passive pressures, unacceptable deformations could result.
ultimate bearing pressure, p, per unit run of wall foundation
7 placed on cohesionless soil:
Clayton et al. assume, in calculating sliding resistance of a
retaining wall, that a horizontal component of the passive force
equivalent to half the calculated maximum is mobilised at the 14 p ¼ qN q i q d q þ 0:5ªB9Nª iª dª
time of wall failure: this appears a reasonable assumption and,
in the absence of clear guidance from the codes, is adopted
here. where q is the vertical effective stress at foundation level, and
B9 is the effective foundation width (see equation (20) below
Section 3.2.2.2 of BS 8002 : 1994 requires a minimum depth of and the other symbols also defined below). The calculated
0.5 m of unplanned excavation and a depth not less than 10% ultimate bearing capacity per unit run of foundation is
of the total height retained for cantilever walls (presumably therefore
whichever is the greater). In practice, this clause significantly
restricts the magnitude of the passive force resisting movement 15 P ¼ pB9
for this type of wall. For the analyses to be described, the
unplanned excavation requirement was ignored: a direct
9
comparison could then be effected between both codes and the Driscoll and Simpson describe recent improvements to the
5
influence of passive resistance on the performance of the bearing capacity factors in Eurocode 7, and they were adopted
retaining wall could be determined. in the analyses


3. BEARING CAPACITY 9
16a N q ¼ e tan 9 tan2 45 þ
2
3.1. CP2 : 1951 method
CP2 : 1951 requires that the bearing pressure on the foundation
soil should be less than the appropriate safe bearing capacity of Nª ¼ 2(N q
1)tan 9
16b
the foundation soil, and Table 8 of this code gives safe bearing
pressures (factor of safety at least 2) for cohesionless soils.
CP2 : 1951 predates the introduction of inclination factors (see Eurocode 7 also provides formulae for the relevant inclination
below), and the maximum (and minimum) bearing pressures at factors
the toe and the heel of the foundation base, respectively, are
estimated using the following formulae
17a i q ¼ (1
0:7 tan Æ)3


RV 6e
11a  max ¼ 1þ
B B
17b iª ¼ (1
tan Æ)3

and
where Æ is the angle to the vertical made by the resultant

 disturbing force, R (see Fig. 1(c) and equation (13)).
RV 6e
11b  min ¼ 1

B B CP2 : 1951 predates the development of the bearing capacity
and inclination factors quoted in the Eurocode by many years.
However, to maintain consistency in the work to be described,
where RV is the vertical component of the resultant disturbing they were adopted in calculating bearing capacity using both
force, B is the foundation width, and e is the eccentricity (Fig. the CP2 : 1951 and the BS 8002 : 1994 procedures. Direct
1(c)). comparisons may then be made between the approaches of
both codes, without allowances having to be made for
3.2. BS 8002 : 1994 method differences in computing bearing capacity. The depth factors
10
The resultant disturbing force behind the wall, R, and its line of due to Brinch Hansen were also employed. That is

32 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls Trenter

 D
18a d q ¼ 1 þ 2 tan 9(1
sin 9) 0·75 m
B
0°, 12·5°, 25°

18b dª ¼ 1

Because the resultant disturbing force behind the wall acts at H⫽ Soil
an angle to the vertical, the eccentricity e (Fig. 1(c)) should be 5·5 and 7 m ⫽ 19 kN/m3 Back of
calculated. The following equation may be adopted virtual
wall

X
MO
B
19 e¼
X
2 FV

D⫽
where
M O is the sum of the moments of forces acting about 0, 0·5, 1·0 m
Conc
0·75 m
⫽ 24 kN/m3
the toe of the wall (point O in Fig. 1(c)),
FV is the sum of the
vertical forces (Fig. 1(b)), and B is the foundation width. This
yields an effective foundation width (Fig. 1(c)) of
B⫽
3·25, 3·75 m
20 B9 ¼ B
2e
Fig. 3. Definition diagram for retaining walls studied (not to
scale)
to be used in bearing capacity calculations. Note that, for
stability, the line of action of the resultant must lie within the
middle third of the foundation base, or e , B/6.

The factor of safety, FB , against bearing capacity failure for a with groundwater below influencing distance of the
particular angle of friction is then foundation.

Calculated ultimate bearing capacity
21 FB ¼
Calculated vertical disturbing force
A factor of safety of 2 was adopted for calculations made with
CP2 : 1951 and of unity for those made with BS 8002 : 1994.
4. ANALYSIS
In order to investigate the relative foundation widths using the
CP2 : 1951 and BS 8002 : 1994 procedures, calculations were
first made to determine 9FB and 9FS , the values of angle of
friction corresponding to the required factor of safety for the
bearing capacity and sliding stability conditions. The following
cases were treated (see definition diagram, Fig. 3)
(a) height, H ¼ 5.5m; foundation width, B ¼ 3.25m; depth of
foundation, D ¼ 0m, 0.5m, 1.0m; slope of backfill,
¼ 08,
12.58, 258 (nine cases)
(b) height, H ¼ 7.0m: foundation width, B ¼ 3.75m; depth of
foundation, D ¼ 0m, 0.5m, 1.0m; slope of backfill,
¼ 08,
12.58, 258 (nine cases).
The backfill was assumed to have identical geotechnical
properties to those of the foundation soil. A unit weight of
19 kN/m3 was employed for the foundation soil and backfill,
and 24 kN/m2 for the reinforced concrete. The reinforced
concrete section was taken as being 0.75 m thick throughout.
The foundation soil and retained backfill were assumed dry
The angles of friction 9FB and 9FS were determined using a
spreadsheet prepared for the purpose. Initially, graphs were
plotted of the calculated factor of safety against bearing
capacity failure, FB , and sliding stability failure, FS , against
angle of friction, 9, for each case. Values of 9FB and 9FS that
corresponded to the required factors of safety were read off the
graphs and were subsequently checked by direct calculation.
With 9FB and 9FS calculated, the percentage difference between
the foundation base width designed using bearing capacity
theory and the CP2 : 1951 and BS 8002 : 1994 procedures was
investigated. The percentage difference, ˜BC , expressed in
terms of the effective foundation width, B9, is
B9CP
B9BS
22 ˜BC ¼ (%)
B9CP
Using equation (20), it can be readily shown that this is
equivalent to
2(eBS
eCP )
23 ˜BC ¼ (%)
B
2eCP
where the symbols have the significance already introduced,
and the subscripts refer to the respective code of practice. The
percentage difference expressed by equation (23) was then

Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls Trenter 33

 obtained by employing the soil strengths 9FB already
calculated and the theory set out in Section 3.
Finally, the percentage difference in foundation widths
predicted using sliding stability theory for the procedures
summarised in the two codes was investigated. It was assumed
that foundation base width would be proportional to tan 9FS
and that the percentage difference in foundation width would
be
tan 9FS(CP)
tan 9FS(BS)
24 ˜FS ¼
tan 9FS(CP)
This assumption is considered reasonable, as foundation width
depends upon the tan 9FS mobilised, which itself depends upon
the nature of the factor of safety adopted. However, direct
proportionality will not occur where passive forces are
involved. As these forces were always small in the cases
examined, it is unlikely that they would make much difference
to the outcome.
5. DISCUSSION
Figure 4 illustrates the variation in eccentricity, e, with backfill
slope,
, for the two walls examined. In both cases, eccentricity
is smallest for the CP2 : 1951 procedure. For both codes,
eccentricity increases as foundation depth, D, and backfill slope
increase. The resultant disturbing force always fell within the
middle third for CP2 : 1951, but fell outside the middle third for
two cases employing BS 8002 : 1994: they were the 5.5 m and
7 m high walls, founded at 1 m depth and retaining backfill
sloping at 258. These designs would not be admissible adopting
the current BS 8002 : 1994 code, although they would have
been with CP2 : 1951. In this respect, the approach of BS
8002 : 1994 may be considered significantly more conservative.
In Fig. 5, graphs are plotted of ˜BC against slope of backfill.
The BS 8002 : 1994 procedure is always the more conservative,
0·8
e ⫽ B/6
0·6
Eccentricity e: m
D ⫽ 1·0
0·4
0·2
0 0
0 12·5
Slope of backfill, β: degrees
(a)
Fig. 4. Variation of eccentricity, e, with slope of backfill,
, for two L-shaped retaining walls: (a) H ¼ 5.5 m, B ¼ 3.25 m; (b) H ¼
7.0 m, B ¼ 3.75 m
34 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls
producing the narrower effective foundation widths for the
conditions examined. It will be seen that ˜BC is minimum for
horizontal backfill and for D ¼ 0, and increases as backfill
slope and foundation depth increase. For these conditions,
eccentricity also increases and, as already noted, application of
the partial factor M to tan 9 in BS 8002 : 1994 affects not only
the magnitude but also the line of action of the disturbing
forces. This has consequences for the inclination factor and
hence bearing capacity. However, the differences in ˜BC are
not large, being only about 10% for the steepest sloping
backfill (258). There was little significant difference in the
results for the two wall geometries investigated.
The percentage difference in foundation widths, ˜FS , predicted
on the basis of sliding stability theory was found to be small,
usually less than about 5%, and is probably well within the
error surrounding the selection of soil properties for most
retaining wall construction.
Earth pressure coefficients were read off the graphs given in
Annex A of BS 8002 : 1994. Some inaccuracy is inevitable
using such a method, and individual results may be in error.
However, it is considered that the trends exhibited by the
analysis are reliable.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Methods of selecting factors of safety appropriate to Codes of
Practice CP2 : 1951 and BS 8002 : 1994 were applied to the
calculation of the foundation base widths for two L-shaped
cantilever retaining walls founded on and retaining dry
cohesionless soil. Foundations were at three different depths, and
the backfill sloped at three different angles to the horizontal.
With both codes, bearing capacity theory produced the largest
foundation base for the conditions studied, and hence
foundations would normally be dimensioned using it. Because
of the way in which factor of safety is defined, the CP2 : 1951
BS 8002:1994 0·8
CP2:1951
e ⫽ B/6
D ⫽ 0·5
D ⫽ 1·0
0·6 D ⫽ 1·0
Eccentricity e: m
D ⫽ 1·0 D⫽0
D ⫽ 0·5 D ⫽ 0·5
D⫽0
D ⫽ 0·5 0·4
D⫽0
D⫽0
0·2
25 0 12·5 25
Slope of backfill, β: degrees
(b)
Trenter
 12·0 12·0

Difference in effective foundation width, ∆BC: %

Difference in effective foundation width, ∆BC: %

10·0 D ⫽ 1·0 D ⫽ 1·0
10·0

8·0 8·0 D ⫽ 0·5

D ⫽ 0·5

6·0 6·0 D⫽0

D⫽0

4·0 4·0

2·0 2·0

0 0
0 12·5 25 0 12·5 25
Slope of backfill, β: degrees Slope of backfill, β: degrees
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Difference in effective foundation width ˜BC (%) for two L-shaped retaining walls: (a) H ¼ 5.5 m, B ¼ 3.25 m; (b) H ¼ 7.0 m,
B ¼ 3.75 m

approach produced a smaller (more economic) foundation base 1951, Civil Engineering Code of Practice No. 2 (CP2).
width than the corresponding BS 8002 : 1994, although the 3. CARDER D. R. A Comparison of Embedded and Conventional
difference was significant only for more steeply sloping Retaining Wall Design Using Eurocode 7 and Existing UK
backfills and deeper foundations. However, the use of BS Design Methods. Transport Research Laboratory,
8002 : 1994 produced designs with unacceptably large Crowthorne, 1998, TRL Report 320.
eccentricities (e . B/6) in two of the cases studied: these 4. HIGHWAYS AGENCY. Backfilled Retaining Walls and Bridge
designs would have been admissible adopting CP2 : 1951 Abutments. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges,
procedures. Volume 2, Section 1. Highways Agency, London, 1987,
BD30/87.
Only a small difference between the foundation widths was 5. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Eurocode 7. Geotechnical
predicted on the basis of sliding stability theory for the two Design: Part 1. British Standards Institution, Milton
codes investigated. Keynes, 1995, DD ENV 1997-1.
6. TERZAGHI,1943.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7. CLAYTON C. R. I., MILITITSKY J. and WOODS R. I. Earth
The author is grateful to Mr K. R. Smyth Osbourne for reading Pressures and Earth Retaining Structures. Blackie
through the manuscript and for making several helpful Academic and Professional, London, 1993.
comments and suggestions. 8. KERISEL J. and ABSE E. Active and Passive Earth Pressure
Tables, 3rd edn. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1990.
REFERENCES 9. SIMPSON B. and DRISCOLL R. Eurocode 7: A Commentary.
1. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Code of Practice for Earth Building Research Establishment, Garston, 1998,
Retaining Structures. British Standards Institution, Milton Construction Research Communications.
Keynes, 1994, BS 8002. 10. BRINCH HANSEN J. A revised and extended formula for
2. INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. Earth Retaining bearing capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute Bulletin,
Structures. Institution of Structural Engineers, London, 1970, 28.

Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 1 July 2004: email: mary.henderson@ice.org.uk;
fax: þ44 (0)20 7799 1325; or post to Mary Henderson, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1–7 Great George Street,
London SW1P 3AA.

Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue 1 Design of cantilever retaining walls Trenter 35