SLOPE STABILITY AND RETAINING

WALLS

Submitted to

Dr. Bassel Seif El Dine

Submitted by:

Hawraa Al Fakih

JANUARY 1, 2023
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. SLOPE STABILITY & SAFETY FACTOR:............................................................................................................ 2
2.1. THE CHART METHOD: .................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2. BISHOP’S SIMPLIFIED METHOD OF SLICES: ................................................................................................................... 4
2.3. FINDING SLOPE HEIGHT: .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.4. CHANGING SLOPE ANGLE: ........................................................................................................................................... 6
3. RETAINING WALLS: ............................................................................................................................................ 7
3.1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF A RETAINING WALL: ............................................................................................................ 7
3.2. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL FORCES ON THE WALL: .................................................................................................. 7
3.3. SLIDING STABILITY: .................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.4. OVERTURNING STABILITY: .......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.5. STRESS DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE FOOTING: .............................................................................................................. 9
3.6. CHECKING PUNCHING STABILITY: ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.7. STEEL REINFORCEMENT IN THE WALL: ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.8. INTRODUCING A WATER TABLE: ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.8.1. Finding the horizontal and vertical forces: ..................................................................................................... 12
3.8.2. Safety factor against overturning .................................................................................................................... 13
3.8.3. Safety factor against sliding ............................................................................................................................ 13
3.9. BEARING CAPACITY UNDER THE BUILDING FOUNDATION: ......................................................................................... 13
4. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
5. ANNEX: ................................................................................................................................................................... 16

1
 1. Introduction
Slope stability and retaining walls play crucial roles in various civil engineering projects, ensuring
the safety and stability of slopes and providing structural support to prevent the movement of soil
and rock masses. These elements are vital in both natural and man-made landscapes, including road
and railway construction, mining operations, urban developments, and environmental restoration
projects. By mitigating potential slope failures and controlling erosion, slope stability analysis and
the implementation of retaining walls contribute to the overall resilience and longevity of
infrastructure.

The stability of slopes is influenced by numerous factors such as geology, soil properties,
groundwater conditions, topography, and external forces. The interaction of these factors can result
in slope instability, leading to landslides, soil erosion, and potential damage to nearby structures or
infrastructure. Therefore, it is essential to assess and manage slope stability risks through
comprehensive analysis and design techniques.

Retaining walls, on the other hand, serve as engineered structures designed to resist lateral soil pressure
and provide stability to slopes or excavations. These walls are commonly used to support vertical or
near-vertical grade changes, retaining soil masses and preventing them from collapsing or sliding
down. Retaining walls are constructed using various materials, including concrete, masonry, steel, or
geosynthetic materials, and their design considers factors such as the soil type, height of the wall,
surcharge loads, and the required level of safety.

The objectives of this report is to use the forth chapter in our course to analyze a given slope, find the
factor of safety and understand the factors influencing slope stability; and the 3rd course to design a
retaining wall and study it’s stability against sliding, overbearing and punching, under different
conditions, such as before and after introducing a water table.

2. Slope stability & safety factor:

Slope stability assessment is a fundamental step in evaluating landslide hazard and for the safe design of
structures and infrastructures

The object of study in the first part is a slope of angle β degrees located over a deep excavation (depth H=5m)
in a clay deposit. The rock is located at a depth of H1 (m). The soil density is γ=19.5 KN/m3, the soil cohesion
c=40KPa and the internal friction angle is 𝜑=0˚.

The safety factor of slopes is a measure used in geotechnical engineering to assess the stability of natural or
man-made slopes. It represents the ratio between the resisting forces (shear strength) and the driving forces
(gravity and external loads) acting on a slope.

𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠

The safety factor is defined as: 𝐹𝑠 = =
𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠

2
 There are many methods by which the safety factor can be calculated, each having its own advantages and
disadvantages.

The resisting forces are the shear strength of the soil or rock materials present in the slope. They include
cohesive forces (such as from clay) and frictional forces (such as from sandy or rocky materials). The shear
strength depends on factors like soil properties, cohesion, internal friction angle, and effective stress.
The driving forces are the gravitational forces acting on the slope due to the weight of the soil or rock mass
above the failure plane, as well as any additional external loads or forces applied to the slope. These driving
forces tend to induce slope failure and instability.

By calculating the safety factor, engineers can assess the stability of a slope. A safety factor greater than 1
indicates that the resisting forces are greater than the driving forces, suggesting that the slope is stable.
Conversely, a safety factor less than 1 indicates that the driving forces exceed the resisting forces, implying that
the slope is potentially unstable and may experience slope failure.

It is important to note that the safety factor is a simplified representation of slope stability and should be used
in conjunction with other geotechnical analyses and considerations to fully evaluate slope stability.
Various methods, such as Bishop's method of slices, are employed to calculate the safety factor and assess slope
stability based on the specific conditions and parameters of the slope.

We are required to calculate the safety factor of this slope using two methods; the chart method and Bishop’s
simplified method.

2.1. The chart method:

The stability of slopes can be analyzed quickly using the stability charts shown (charts 1 & 2). Although the
charts assume simple slopes and uniform soil conditions, they can undoubtedly obtain reasonably accurate
answers for most complex problems if irregular slopes were approximated by simple ones of known shapes.

The given soil is said to be purely coherent since 𝜑=0˚.

The methodology for calculating Fs is as follows:

𝐻1 12
1. Calculate depth factor 𝑛𝑑 = 𝐻
= 5
= 2.4
2. Using Taylor’s chart specific for cases where 𝜑 = 0˚ and 𝛽 < 53˚ , the value of the stability number
corresponding to β = 50˚ & depth factor 𝑛𝑑 = 2.4 is: 𝑁 ≅ 5.65
𝛾 𝐻𝑐 𝑐𝑁𝑠 40×5.65
3. Using the relation 𝑁𝑠 = 𝑐
; we find that 𝐻𝑐 = 𝛾
= 19.5
= 11.5897
𝐻𝑐 11.5897
4. We can finally say that 𝐹𝑠 = 𝐻
= 5
= 2.318

3
2.2. Bishop’s simplified method of slices:

Bishop's simplified method of slope stability, also known as Bishop's method of slices, is a widely used
approach for analyzing the stability of slopes in geotechnical engineering. It simplifies the analysis by
dividing the slope mass into a series of vertical slices and assessing the equilibrium and forces acting on
each slice.

The factor of safety for each slice is calculated using the determined resisting forces and driving forces.
The overall factor of safety is calculated by the equation:

1 (𝑊𝑖 − 𝑢𝑖 . 𝑙𝑖 )𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑𝑖 + 𝑐𝑖 . 𝑙𝑖
𝐹𝑠 = .∑ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑𝑖
∑ 𝑊𝑖 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼𝑖 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼𝑖 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼𝑖 .
𝐹𝑠

But since the soil is purely cohesive, meaning 𝜑=0˚; the

equation can be simplified into the following form:
1 𝑐𝑖 . 𝑙𝑖
𝐹𝑠 = .∑
∑ 𝑊𝑖 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼𝑖 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼𝑖
Draw the critical surface, and divide the area into slices of
vertical sides; as shown in the figure, the width and average
length of the sides of each slice is calculated, as well as the
angle of the base with the horizontal. These values are then Figure 1- slice info
introduced into an excel worksheet and the safety factor is
calculated.

Figure 2- The critical circle and vertical sliced used for Bishop's method

4
Slice Width bi li weight alpha(in cos sin W.sin ci.li/cos
number degrees
)
1 1.8627 2.86113 103.923824 65.136 0.42046 0.90730 94.29096 272.1867
6 8
2 2 5.4317 211.8363 52.11 0.61414 0.78919 167.1794 353.7717
7 1
3 2 7.5632 294.9648 42.039 0.74268 0.66963 197.5191 407.3413
9 6
4 2 9.1036 355.0404 33.426 0.83459 0.55086 195.5774 436.3107
8
5 2 10.2327 399.0753 25.619 0.90168 0.43238 172.5541 453.9347
9 5
6 2 11.0372 430.4508 18.302 0.94941 0.31402 135.1726 465.0108
5 6
7 2 11.5644 451.0116 11.289 0.98065 0.19575 88.28907 471.7024
2 8
8 2.155 10.5399 442.912948 4.115 0.99742 0.07175 31.7828 422.6857
2 9
9 2 8.0596 314.3244 2.997 0.99863 0.05228 16.43403 322.8255
2 4
10 2 6.6437 259.1043 9.819 0.98535 0.17053 44.18668 269.6987
1 6
11 2 6.1717 240.6963 16.786 0.95739 0.28879 69.51258 257.8552
8
12 2 5.4362 212.0118 24.025 0.91336 0.40713 86.31747 238.0727
8 5
13 2 4.3751 170.6289 31.707 0.85074 0.52557 89.67839 205.7063
7 6
14 3.7555 2.4352 178.335175 44.646 0.71146 0.70272 125.3205 136.9124
2 4

summation 11.8580 6.07797 1513.815 4714.015

3 5
Table 1-table of info of every slice in the Bishop method

4714.015
From this method, the safety factor is found to be: 𝐹𝑠 = 1513.815 = 3.114

2.3. Finding slope height:

Supposing we want to make an artificial slope of angle β=50˚ and height H for a safety factor equal to 2,
given that the soil has a cohesion c = 40 KPa, and friction angle 𝜑 = 0˚; we will start by assuming H and

5
 finding safety factor, then increasing or decreasing according to the result, until we find H that
corresponds best to F=2.
Since we already know that for H=5, Fs= 2.318 (from part [2.1])

 For the first iteration, we will increase slope height to 6 meters;

In this case, 𝑛𝑑 = 2 ⟹ 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑡 , 𝑤𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑁𝑠 ≅ 5.6
𝑐𝑁𝑠 𝐻𝑐
⟹ 𝐻𝑐 = = 11.487 ⟹ 𝐹𝑠 = = 1.915
𝛾 𝐻

 For the second iteration, we will choose a value 5 < 𝐻 < 6, closer to 6, say H=5.7
⟹ 𝑛𝑑 = 2.11 ⟹ 𝑁𝑠 = 5.63 ⟹ 𝐻𝑐 = 11.55 ⟹ 𝐹𝑠 = 2.02

From these iterations we can approximate the value of slope height H that best corresponds to a safety factor
of 2 as: 5.7 𝑚 < 𝐻 < 6 𝑚 , or we can say 𝐻 ≅ 5.7

2.4. Changing slope angle:

For the next part, we will be using Taylor’s charts to find the safety factor for a soil of the same
characteristics having a:
 slope of angle β = 30˚ < 53˚
The methodology for solving this part is the same as part 1-b; using chart 1;
𝛾 𝐻𝑐
for β = 30˚ & nd= 2.4 ⟹ 𝑁𝑠 = = 5.74 ⟹ 𝐻𝑐 = 11.774
𝑐
𝐻𝑐
⟹ 𝐹𝑠 = = 2.35487
𝐻
This value appears to be more than that of part a) where β = 50˚.
We can say that since β < 53˚, the failure surface is passing below the toe (like the critical circle
used in Bishop’s method when β=50˚)

 slope of angle β = 55˚ > 53˚

𝛾𝐻
Using chart 2 and knowing ϕ = 0˚, 𝑁𝑠 = 𝑐 𝑐 = 5.45
𝐻𝑐
⟹ 𝐻𝑐 = 11.1795 ⟹ 𝐹𝑠 = = 2.2358
𝐻

This value appears to be less than that of part [2.1] where β = 50.
In this case, since β > 53˚, we can say that the failure surface is a toe circle.
This indicates that decreasing the slope angle increases the factor of safety of slopes nearly linearly, while
decreasing slope height increases the factor of safety at different rates.

6
3. RETAINING WALLS:
A retaining wall is a structure designed to resist the lateral pressure exerted by soil or other materials to prevent
the erosion or collapse of a slope or an excavated area. It is typically constructed vertically or with a slight
backward inclination to retain soil or other materials and provide stability to the surrounding land.

3.1. Preliminary design of a retaining wall:

To design a retaining wall, it is required to draw a
preliminary design of the desired retaining wall.

3.2. Horizontal and Vertical forces on the wall:

The main purpose of retaining wall construction is to

retain soil; that is why soil lateral earth pressure is a
major concern in the design. Sliding soil wedge
theory is the basis for most of the theories by which
lateral earth pressure is computed.
For this type of retaining wall, we assume that the soil aver the
footing and under the embankment is part of the wall system, in Figure 2- Design of retaining wall
this way, the active earth pressure can be calculated over the
imaginary vertical surface using Rankine’s relationship:
1−𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 1−𝑠𝑖𝑛0˚ 1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
𝐾𝑎 = 1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
= 1+𝑠𝑖𝑛0˚
=1 𝐾𝑝 = 1−𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
=1

Horizontal forces:
 Active earth pressures:
 From surcharge q=20 KN/m2 :
Using the classic formula of stress distribution;
𝑎 = 𝑥𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 = 2 tan(0˚) = 0
𝜑
𝑏 = 𝑥𝑡𝑎𝑛 (45˚ − ) = 2𝑚
2
2
𝜑
𝐾𝑎𝑞 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛 (45˚ + ) = 1
2
1
𝐹1 = 𝐹𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 + 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 = 𝐾𝑎𝑞 . 𝑞. 𝑏 + 𝐾𝑎𝑞 . 𝑞. (ℎ − 𝑏)
2
= 0.5 × 20 × 2 + 20 × 4 = 20 + 80 = 100

1 1
 From earth fill: 𝐹2 = 2 𝐾𝑎 𝛾ℎ2 = 2 × 19.5 × 62 = 351
 From cohesion: 𝐹3 = −2𝑐√𝐾𝑎 × ℎ = −2 × 40√1 × 6 = −480

Active sum: 𝐹𝑎 = 𝐹1 + 𝐹2 + 𝐹3 = 100 + 351 − 480 = −29 KN

7
 Since the sum of active forces is negative, this means that the forces pushing the wall out are weaker than
the resisting forces which keep it in place. We can therefore say that this retaining wall is stable against
sliding.

 Passive earth pressure:

1 2 1
 From earth fill: 𝐹4 = 2 𝐾𝑝 𝛾ℎ′ = 2 × 19.5 × 1 = −9.75
 From cohesion: 𝐹5 = 2𝑐√𝐾𝑝 × ℎ′ = 2 × 40 × √1 × 1 = −80

Passive sum: 𝐹𝑝 = 𝐹4 + 𝐹5 = −9.75 − 80 = −89.75 KN

 Total sum of horizontal forces: 𝐹𝐻 = 𝐹𝑎 + 𝐹𝑝 = −29 − 89.75 = −118.75

The sum of horizontal forces further proves that the retaining wall designed is stable and safe against sliding.

Vertical forces:

 Weight of retaining wall:

 𝑤𝑤𝑒𝑏_𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 = ℎ. 𝑏. 𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑎 = 5.5 × 0.3 × 25 = 41.25
1
 𝑤𝑤𝑒𝑏_𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 = 0.5. ℎ. 𝑏. 𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑎 = 2 × 5.5 × 0.3 × 25 = 20.625
 𝑤𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 = ℎ. 𝑏. 𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑎 = 4 × 0.5 × 25 = 50
 Soil weight over footing:
 𝑤𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 = ℎ. 𝑏. 𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑎 = 5.5 × 2.4 × 19.5 = 257.4
 𝑤𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 = ℎ. 𝑏. 𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑎 = 0.5 × 1.1 × 19.5 = 10.725
 Surcharge q; 𝑤𝑞 = 20 × 0.4 = 8

Sum of vertical forces: 𝐹𝑉 = 381.125 𝐾𝑁/𝑚

Figure 3- forces acting on retaining wall

8
3.3. Sliding stability:

𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 140

= = = = 1.96 > 1.5 ⟹ 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
∑ ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 ∑ 𝐹𝐻 118.75

3.4. Overturning stability:

Nature Force (KN) Arm (m) Moment(+anticlockwise) Sum

Horizontal Forces
Surcharge_triangle 20 4.67 -93.4
Surcharge_rectangle 80 2 -160
Soil pressure_back 351 2 -702
∑ 𝑀𝐻 = 527.85
Cohesion_active 480 3 1440
Soil pressure _front 9.75 1/3 3.25
Cohesion_passive 80 0.5 40
Vertical forces
surcharge 8 3.8 30.4
Soil weight_backside 257.4 2.8 720.72
Soil weight_frontside 10.725 0.55 5.9
∑ 𝑀𝑉 = 904.59
Web_rectangle 41.25 1.45 68.06
Web_triangle 20.625 1.2 19.66
Footing 47.5 1.9 90.25
Table 2- table of values of forces, perpendicular distances, and moments

∑ 𝑀𝑉 833.125
Safety factor against overturning = ∑ = = 1.71 > 1.5 ⟹ 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑀𝐻 527.85

3.5. Stress distribution under the footing:

Let qmin and qmax be the minimum and maximum pressures on the base.

We will first find the eccentricity:

𝐵 ∑ 𝑀𝑉 − ∑ 𝑀𝐻
𝑒0 = − = 0.56
2 ∑ 𝐹𝑉
𝑀𝑉 6𝑒0
Use the following equation to find 𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (1 − )
𝐵 𝐵

𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 36.18 ; 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 416.11

The pressure distribution under the base:

Figure 4- stress distribution under the footing

9
3.6. Checking punching stability:
Punching stability refers to the safety factor of the bearing capacity of soil under the foundation. We first
need to find the bearing capacity of the soil:
1
𝑞𝑙 = 𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝑖𝛾 + 𝑐𝑁𝑐 𝑖𝑐 + 𝑞0 𝑁𝑞 𝑖𝑞
2
 Since ϕ=0, Nγ=0 , Nc=5.14 , Nq=1;
𝐹𝑎 −𝐹𝑝 2
 𝑖𝑐 = 𝑖𝑞 = [1 − 𝑎𝑟𝑐 tan ( )] = 0.83
𝐹𝑉
 𝑞0 = 𝛾𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 × ℎ′ = 19.5 × 1 = 19.5
 We also have a cohesion c = 40 KPa
⟹ 𝑞𝑙 = 40 × 5.14 × 0.83 + 19.5 × 0.083 = 186.833

Next find allowable stress qa using the equation:

3𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑞𝑎 = = 321.13
4
Finally, use the following relation to find the factor of safety F:

𝑞𝑙 − 𝑞0 𝑞𝑙 − 𝑞0
𝑞𝑎 = + 𝑞0 ⟹ 𝐹= = 0.5 < 1.5
𝐹 𝑞𝑎 − 𝑞0

 When the eccentricity of a retaining wall is high, we can reduce it by adding a pressure relief shelf. The
lateral earth pressure and shelf weight are consider for maintaining stability of the retaining wall.
Pressure relief shelf is provided on the backfill side of the retaining wall to decrease the overall lateral
earth pressure and increase the overall stability of the retaining wall. A pressure relief shelf is a
horizontal platform provided at the stem of a retaining wall which achieved economic design.

Figure 5- Cantilever retaining wall with shelf Figure 6- Reinforcing steel diagram in a cantilever retaining
wall

10
3.7. Steel reinforcement in the wall:

Steel reinforcement of a cantilever retaining wall is calculated over 3 parts, the stem, the heel and the toe. In
the stem, the main steel is placed to the heel side whereas temperature and shrinkage steel -which is designed
to resist shrinkage stresses- is placed to the toe side.

In the heel, the steel is placed on the upper side, and is continued with temperature steel in the toe side.
Whereas in the toe, main steel is placed on the lower part and continued with temperature steel.

A minimum of 50 mm concrete coverage is required to protect the steel from corrosion.

When constructing the retaining wall, it is not practical to directly place the vertical steel of large heights,
because of that, the stem steel is placed in 2 parts, which are later welded before pouring the concrete. The
higher the slicing of bars, the shorter the overlapping distance since moment decrease the higher you go in
the stem. It is also advisable that the vertical steel bars not be welded at the same heights (alternate slicing).

The following values were taken as an approximate measure for steel bars used;

Number of
Number Volum
Length units in Spacing Diameter Area
unit of units in e
m cross m mm mm2
15m m3
section
3.9+0.15
= - 0.3 1/0.3=50 25 490.87 0.099
Main steel_left
4.05
5 - 0.3 50 18 254.87 0.064
Stem 1+0.1=1.
vertical - 0.3 50 14 153.4 0.0084
1
steel_right
5.4 - 0.3 50 14 153.4 0.041
Distribution
15 20 - - 18 254.47 0.076
steel
4-
Main steel 0.05x2= - 0.15 100 25 490.87 0.1914
Base 3.9
Distribution
15 16 - - 18 254.87 0.061
steel
Table 3- Table of approximate dimensions of steel bars used in 15 meters of retaining wall

Volume of
part Area m2 Length m Total Volume m3
concrete m3
Stem 5.5x0.3(1.5)=2.475
15 67.125 Vtotal-Vsteel=66.5842
base 4x0.5=2
Table 4- Table of approximate amount of concrete used

Knowing that the density of steel is 7850 KG/m3; amount of steel used in this project is:

∑ 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 × 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0.5408 × 7850 = 4245.28 𝐾𝑔 = 4.24528 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠

11
 The price of steel comes at 880$/tonne; which means that the price of steel for this projects is around
3735.85$ per 15 meters along the slope.

The price of concrete in retaining walls is given by table 5, using it we can find the total price of concrete:

𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 = 66.5842 × 147 = 9787.88$

Item Price ( $ )
Concrete 85
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 9787.88 + 3735.85 = 13523.73$
Manpower 57
Waste 5
Total price 147 $
Table 5- price of 1 m3 of concrete

3.8. Introducing a water table:

Supposing there is a water table 1 meter below the natural ground level. In this case we shall recalculate all
horizontal and vertical forces and moments, to find the safety factors and check the wall’s stability:

3.8.1. Finding the horizontal and vertical forces:

 lateral earth pressure on partially submerged water:
1
𝐹1 = 𝐾𝑎 𝛾. 12 = 9.75
2
𝐹2 = 𝐾𝑎 𝛾 × 1 × 5 = 97.5
1
𝐹3 = 𝐾𝑎 𝛾 ′ × 52 = 118.75
2
1
 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒: 𝐹𝑤 = 2 𝛾𝑤 . 52 = 125

Figure 7- Forces on a retaining wall with partially submerged backfill

12
 Nature Force Arm Moment Sum
Horizontal forces
Earth pressure_1 9.75 5.5 -53.625
Earth pressure_2 97.5 2.5 -243.75
Earth pressure_3 118.75 1.67 -120.42
Push from water 125 1.67 -208.75
∑ 𝑀𝐻
Surcharge_triangle 20 4.67 -93.4
Surcharge_rectangle 80 2 -160 = 602.43
Cohesion_active -480 3 1440
Soil_passive -4.75 0.5 2.375
Cohesion_passive -80 0.5 40
Vertical forces
surcharge 8 3.8 30.4
Soil weight_backside 257.4 2.8 720.72
Soil weight_frontside 10.725 0.55 5.9
Web_rectangle 41.25 1.45 68.06
Web_triangle 20.625 1.2 19.66 ∑ 𝑀𝑉 =841.59
Footing 47.5 1.9 90.25
Water_rectangle -0.5x10x4=-20 2 -40
-0.5x1x10x4
Water_triangle 2.67 -53.4
=-20
Table 6- table of values of forces, perpendicular distances and moments in the case with water table

From the table; ∑ 𝐹𝐻 = − 113.75 and ∑ 𝐹𝑉 =345.5

As previously done, we will use the same equations to find the factors of safety against sliding and
overturning
∑𝑀 841.59
3.8.2. Safety factor against overturning = ∑ 𝑀𝑉 = 602.43 = 1.3 < 1.5
𝐻

𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 40×4

3.8.3. Safety factor against sliding = ∑ ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠
= ∑ 𝐹𝐻
= = 1.406 < 1.5
113.75

3.9. Bearing capacity under the building foundation:

Raft or Mat foundations are used where other shallow or pile foundations are not suitable. It is also
recommended in situations where the bearing capacity of the soil is inadequate, the load of the structure is
to be distributed over a large area. A raft foundation consists of a reinforced concrete slab or T-beam slab
placed over the entire area of the structure. In this type, the whole basement floor slab acts as the foundation.
The total load of the structure is spread evenly over the entire area of the structure.

Assume the foundation of the building is a raft foundation = 8 x 15 m2.

1
Using Terzaghi’s equation for ultimate bearing capacity: 𝑞𝑢 = 2 𝐵𝛾𝑁𝛾 + 𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞0 𝑁𝑞
 Since ϕ=0, Nγ=0 , Nc=5.14 , Nq=1;
 𝑞0 = 𝛾𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 × 𝐷 = 19.5 × 1 = 19.5, 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐷 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
 Cohesion of soil c = 40 KPa
⟹ 𝑞𝑢 = 40 × 5.14 + 19.5 × 1 = 225.1 𝐾𝑁/𝑚2

13
 Soil Type Safe Bearing Capacity Value (kPa)
Soft clay < 75
Firm clay 75-100
Loose gravel < 200
Dense gravel 200-600
Table 7- Typical soil bearing capacity values

Clay is a very fine grained soil, and is very cohesive. Sand and gravel are course grained soils, having little
cohesiveness and often called granular.
Since the cohesiveness of the given soil is high (c=40KPa), then it is most likely closer to being clay than a coarse
soil like gravel. According to table 7, a safe bearing capacity for clays and loose gravel is less than 200, less than
the ultimate bearing capacity calculated.

14
4. References
Dr, O. A., n.d. Reinforced Concrete: Retaining walls, s.l.: s.n.

Huidrom, S. & Deb, R., 2022. Analysis and Design of Cantilever Retaining Wall with and without Pressure Relief
Shelf. s.l., s.n., p. 10.

king saud university, n.d. Lateral Earth Pressure, s.l.: s.n.

Kumar, A., n.d. RCC Retaining wall quantity estimation 3 steps, s.l.: s.n.

seifElDine, D. B., n.d. Poussée et Butée, s.l.: s.n.

seifElDine, D. B., n.d. Slope Stability, s.l.: s.n.

Serhal, D. H., 2019-2020. Spécifications et Métrés, s.l.: s.n.

15
5. Annex:

Chart 1- Taylor's stability chart for undrained clays with 𝜑𝑢 =0˚

Chart 2

16