8.3.
3 Contiguous and secant bored pile walls
Contiguous bored pile walls
This type of wall is constructed from a single or double row of piles placed beside each other. Alternate
piles are cast first and the intermediate piles are then installed. The construction technique allows gaps
to be left between piles which can permit an inflow of water in granular conditions. The secant bored pile
wall offers a watertight alternative.
Secant bored pile walls
The construction technique is similar to that of the contiguous bored pile wall, except that the alternate
piles are drilled at a closer spacing. Then, while the concrete is still green, the intermediate holes are
drilled along a slightly offset line so that the holes cut into the first piles. These holes are then concreted
to create a watertight continuous wall.
8.4 Failure modes of retaining structures
Retaining structures are designed such that when constructed they will remain stable and support the
ground that they are retaining. To enable the design to proceed, an understanding of the potential failure
modes of the structure must be known. Common modes of failure, and how they are assessed using
Eurocode 7, have been illustrated in Fig. 5.8. Additional examples of how different retaining structures
might fail when considering: (i) their overall stability, (ii) failure of their foundation and (iii) their failure by
rotation (embedded walls) are illustrated in Figures 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7.
Fig. 8.5 Examples of limit modes for overall stability of retaining structure (based on Fig 9.1, EN 1997-1:2004).
Fig. 8.6 Examples of limit modes for foundation failures of gravity walls (based on Fig 9.2, EN 1997-1:2004).
226 Smith’s Elements of Soil Mechanics
The traditional approach for the design of retaining structures involved establishing the ratio of the
restoring moment (or force) to the disturbing moment (or force) and declaring this ratio as a factor of
safety, for any of the situations illustrated in Figures 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7. This factor had to be high enough
to allow for any uncertainties in the soil parameters used in the analysis, and the approach was generally
referred to as the factor of safety or gross pressure approach. Example 8.2 illustrates the use of this
method for a cantilever retaining wall. The limit state design approach set out in Eurocode 7 is of course
now used instead.
8.5 Design of gravity retaining walls
8.5.1 Limit states
The following limit states should be considered:
(1) Overturning (Figs. 5.8a and 5.8b). For a wall to be stable the resultant thrust must be within the base.
Most walls are so designed that the thrust is within the middle third of the base.
(2) Bearing failure of the soil beneath the structure (Fig. 5.8c). The overturning moment from the earth’s
thrust causes high bearing pressures at the toe of the wall. These values must be kept within safe
limits – usually not more than one-third of the supporting soil’s ultimate bearing capacity.
(3) Forward sliding (Fig. 5.8d). Caused by insufficient base friction or lack of passive resistance in front of
the wall.
(4) Slip of the surrounding soil (Fig. 5.8e). This effect can occur in cohesive soils and can be analysed as
for a slope stability problem.
(5) Structural failure caused by faulty design, poor workmanship, deterioration of materials, etc. (Fig. 5.8f).
(6) Excessive deformation of the wall or ground such that, adjacent structures or services reach their
ultimate limit state.
(7) Unfavourable seepage effects and the adequacy of any drainage system provided.
Fig. 8.7 Examples of limit modes for rotational failures of embedded walls (based on Fig 9.3, EN 1997-1:2004).
Retaining Structures 227
8.5.2 Bearing pressures on soil
The resultant of the forces due to the pressure of the soil retained and the weight of the wall subject the
foundation to both direct and bending effects.
Let R be the resultant force on the foundation, per unit length, and let R v be its vertical component
(Fig. 8.8a). Considering unit length of wall:
Section modulus of foundation
B
=
2
6
Maximum pressure on base Direct pressure = +pressure due to bending
R
B
Re
B
R
B
e
B
= v+ v= v+
_
_ ___
_
_ ___
6
1
6
2
Minimum pressure on base
R
B
e
B
= v−
_
_ ___
_
_ ___
1
6
The formulae only applies when Rv is within the middle third; when Rv is on the middle third (Fig. 8.8b),
then:
e
B
=
6
_ Maximum pressure = =
R
B
Minimum pressure 2 v
,0
If the resultant R lies outside the middle third (Fig. 8.8c) the formulae become:
Maximum pressure
R
x
Minimum pressure = v =
2
3
;0
8.5.3 Base resistance to sliding
Granular soils and drained clays
The base resistance to sliding is equal to Rv tan δ where δ is the angle of friction between the base of the
wall and its supporting soil, and Rv is the vertical reaction on the wall base. In limit state design, the sliding
Fig. 8.8 Bearing pressures due to a retaining wall foundation.
228 Smith’s Elements of Soil Mechanics
limit state will be satisfied if the base resistance to sliding is greater than, or equal to, R h, the horizontal
component of the resultant force acting on the base. In the factor of safety approach, the ratio (R v tan δ)/
Rh is determined to establish the factor of safety against sliding. It is common practice to take the passive
resistance from any soil in front of a gravity wall as equal to zero, since this soil will be small in depth and
in a disturbed state following construction of the wall.
(In the case of a drained clay any value of effective cohesion, c′w will be so small that it is best ignored).
Undrained clays
The adhesion between the supporting soil and the base of a gravity or reinforced concrete wall can be
taken as equal to the value cw used in the determination of the active pressure values and based on the
value of cu:
Resistance to sliding = cw×Area of base of wall
8.5.4 Earth pressure coefficients
During the design of retaining walls it is often appropriate to use Rankine’s K a and Kp, such as in the case
of cantilever gravity walls (see Example 8.2). However, when Rankine’s conditions do not apply (e.g. where
friction exists between wall and soil), Annex C of EN1997-1:2004 provides guidance and a set of charts
that may be used to determine the horizontal components of K a and Kp for a given δ/φ′ ratio (the corrigendum
to EN1997-1:2004, published in 2009, or the UK National Annex to EN1997-1:2004 should be
used as the original EN1997-1:2004, contained some published errors). Charts for both horizontal and
inclined retained surfaces are given, and the chart to determine the horizontal component of K a for a
horizontal ground surface behind the wall is redrawn in Fig. 8.9. The data on the charts are based on the
work of Kerisel and Absi (1990), see Section 7.6.3.
Fig. 8.9 Coefficients Ka (horizontal component) for horizontal retained surface (based on Fig. C.1.1 in
EN1997-1:2004).
0.1
