Structural Design of a Pile-Supported Cantilever Retaining

Wall: A Comprehensive Guide with Worked Example to

Indian, American, and European Standards

Section 1: Introduction to Pile-Supported Retaining Structures

1.1 Rationale for Deep Foundations in Retaining Structures

Retaining walls are fundamental structures in civil engineering, designed to restrain

soil to an unnatural slope. The most common form, a cantilever retaining wall, relies on
a large shallow foundation (footing) to ensure stability against the lateral forces
exerted by the retained earth. The design of such a wall is primarily a geotechnical
stability exercise: the footing must be sized to provide sufficient self-weight and base
friction to resist overturning and sliding, and the pressure exerted on the underlying
soil must not exceed its safe bearing capacity.1

However, site conditions frequently render a shallow foundation solution impractical

or impossible. A deep foundation system, typically using piles, becomes necessary
under several key circumstances 3:
●​ Weak or Compressible Upper Soil Strata: The most common reason for
adopting a pile foundation is the presence of weak surficial soils, such as soft
clays, loose sands, or unconsolidated fills, which possess low bearing capacity
and high compressibility.4 A shallow footing on such ground would require an
exceptionally large base area to distribute the load, leading to an uneconomical
design, or it would experience excessive and differential settlement. Piles
circumvent this issue by transferring the structural loads through the weak layers
to a deeper, competent stratum like dense sand, stiff clay, or rock.3
●​ Inadequate Resistance to Lateral and Uplift Forces: A shallow foundation's
 capacity to resist large horizontal forces, overturning moments, and uplift is
limited. Retaining walls are subjected to significant lateral earth pressures, which
can induce sliding, and large overturning moments. In cases of poor soil, the
frictional resistance at the base of a footing may be insufficient to prevent
sliding.3 Furthermore, high water tables or specific loading conditions can create
uplift forces. Piles are highly effective at resisting these forces. Lateral loads are
resisted by the bending capacity of the piles and the passive resistance of the
surrounding soil, while uplift forces are resisted by skin friction along the pile
shaft.3
●​ Control of Settlement: Lateral earth pressure can cause a shallow footing to tilt,
leading to larger settlements at the toe of the wall. To minimize this, the ground
would need significant improvement. Piles provide a much stiffer foundation
system, effectively controlling both total and differential settlement.5
●​ Scour Conditions: For retaining walls near water bodies (e.g., bridge abutments,
waterfront structures), the potential for soil erosion or scour around the
foundation is a major concern. Piles can be driven to a depth well below the
potential scour level, ensuring the foundation's integrity remains unaffected.

The decision to use a pile foundation fundamentally alters the design philosophy. For
a wall on a shallow footing, stability is achieved through the mass and geometry of the
wall-footing system. In contrast, for a pile-supported wall, these global stability
checks (sliding, overturning, bearing) are replaced by a structural analysis of the pile
group. The resultant forces and moments at the base of the wall are no longer
resisted by the soil directly beneath the footing, but are transferred to the piles. The
horizontal sliding force is resisted by the lateral capacity of the piles, and the
overturning moment is resisted by a force couple generated by axial compression in
one row of piles and axial tension (or lower compression) in the other.6 The design
thus transitions from a problem of geotechnical stability to one of structural capacity
of the pile-cap system.

1.2 Typology of Pile-Supported Walls

While various retaining wall types exist, certain forms are more commonly supported
on piles due to their structural configuration. The primary classifications relevant to
this context include 8:
●​ Cantilever Retaining Walls: These are typically reinforced concrete (RCC) walls
 with an inverted 'T' or 'L' shaped cross-section. They are the most common type
of retaining wall and are considered economical for retained heights up to
approximately 6 to 7 meters.11 The base slab of the wall, when supported on piles,
is referred to as a pile cap. This report will focus on the detailed design of this wall
type.
●​ Counterfort Retaining Walls: For retained heights exceeding 7 meters, the
bending moments in the stem of a cantilever wall become very large, requiring an
uneconomically thick section. In such cases, counterforts—transverse vertical
webs—are introduced to connect the stem and the heel slab.12 These counterforts
act as tension ties, allowing the stem to be designed as a continuous slab
spanning horizontally between them, which significantly reduces the bending
moments and required thickness. These walls are also frequently supported on
pile foundations when soil conditions are poor.13
●​ Soldier Pile Walls: This system is fundamentally different from the above. Here,
the piles themselves (often steel H-piles or drilled concrete piles) form the
primary vertical structural elements, installed at regular intervals. The earth
between the piles is retained by lagging, which can be timber, precast concrete
panels, or shotcrete.14 This report focuses on the design of a concrete cantilever
wall​
on a pile foundation, not a soldier pile wall.

Section 2: Governing Principles and Comparative Design

Philosophies

2.1 Lateral Earth Pressure Theories

The primary load acting on a retaining wall is the lateral pressure exerted by the soil it
retains. Accurate determination of this pressure is the first and most critical step in
the design process. The classical earth pressure theories form the basis for these
calculations.
●​ Rankine Theory (1857): This theory provides a simplified method for calculating
active and passive earth pressures. It assumes a smooth, vertical wall back and a
 horizontal backfill, and it neglects friction between the wall and the soil. While
these assumptions are rarely met perfectly in practice, the theory provides a
conservative and straightforward approach for many standard cases.1 For a
cohesionless soil, the coefficient of active earth pressure,​
Ka​, is given by:​
​
Ka​=1+sin(ϕ)1−sin(ϕ)​​
​
where ϕ is the angle of internal friction of the soil. The total active thrust, Pa​, on a
wall of height H is then:​
​
Pa​=21​Ka​γH2​
​
where γ is the unit weight of the soil.1
●​ Coulomb Theory (1776): This is a more general theory that accounts for friction
between the wall and the backfill (wall friction, δ), a sloping backfill, and an
inclined wall face.18 It is based on a wedge analysis and generally provides a more
realistic estimate of earth pressure. The calculations are more complex but are
well-suited for software-based analysis.
●​ Pressure Components: The total lateral pressure is a composite of several
factors that must be individually calculated and summed:
○​ Soil Pressure: The pressure from the self-weight of the retained soil.
○​ Surcharge Pressure: Additional loads on the surface of the backfill, such as
from traffic, buildings, or sloped backfill, are treated as a uniform pressure
that is converted into an equivalent height of soil.1
○​ Hydrostatic Pressure: If a water table is present behind the wall, the
pressure exerted by the water must be added to the effective pressure from
the submerged soil. Proper drainage is essential to mitigate this pressure.14
○​ Seismic Pressure: In seismically active regions, the ground motion induces
an additional dynamic earth pressure. This can be calculated using
pseudo-static methods like the Mononobe-Okabe analysis or by using seismic
coefficients as specified in relevant codes like IS 1893.20

2.2 Stability of Pile-Supported Systems vs. Shallow Foundations

As introduced previously, the method of ensuring stability for a pile-supported wall is

fundamentally different from that of a wall on a shallow footing.

For a conventional wall on a shallow footing, stability is checked against three primary
failure modes 1:
1.​ Overturning: The restoring moment from the self-weight of the wall and soil on
the heel must be significantly greater than the overturning moment from the
lateral earth pressure. A factor of safety of 1.5 to 2.0 is typically required.
2.​ Sliding: The frictional resistance at the base of the footing (μΣW, where μ is the
coefficient of friction and ΣW is the total vertical load) plus any passive resistance
must be greater than the horizontal sliding force. A factor of safety of at least 1.5
is required.
3.​ Bearing Capacity: The maximum pressure under the toe of the footing must not
exceed the soil's safe bearing capacity.

For a pile-supported wall, these checks are replaced by a structural capacity check of
the pile group.7 The analysis involves calculating the resultant vertical force (

V), horizontal force (H), and overturning moment (M) at the underside of the pile cap
and resolving them into loads on the individual piles.
●​ The overturning moment (M) is resisted by a force couple generated by the
piles. The front (toe-side) piles go into tension (or reduced compression), and the
rear (heel-side) piles go into higher compression. The resisting moment is the
force in the piles multiplied by the distance between the pile rows
(Mresisting​=F×S).6
●​ The horizontal force (H) is resisted by the combined lateral capacity of all piles
in the group. This capacity is derived from the shear and bending resistance of
the piles and the passive pressure of the soil against the pile shafts. To enhance
lateral resistance, some piles, particularly in the front row, may be installed at an
angle (battered piles).13
●​ The vertical force (V) is distributed among all the piles.

The design is considered safe if the calculated maximum compression, tension, and
lateral load on any pile are less than the pile's respective allowable capacities
determined from geotechnical analysis and load testing.

2.3 Comparative Overview of Design Codes (The Philosophical Framework)

While the goal of ensuring safety is universal, the methodologies prescribed by Indian,
American, and European codes differ in their philosophical approach to applying
safety factors. This design example will primarily follow Indian Standards, with key
comparisons to ACI and Eurocode to provide a broader context.
●​ Indian Codes (Limit State Method - LSM): The primary codes are IS 456:2000
for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, IS 2911 for Design and Construction of Pile
Foundations, and IRC:78/IRC:112 for road bridges.23 The LSM philosophy involves:
○​ Applying partial safety factors for loads (γf​) to characteristic (unfactored)
loads to obtain the "ultimate" or "design" load. For example, dead load is
multiplied by 1.5 and live load by 1.5 in the primary combination for ultimate
limit state (ULS).22
○​ Applying partial safety factors for materials (γm​) to characteristic material
strengths to obtain "design" strengths. For example, the characteristic
compressive strength of concrete (fck​) is divided by γm​=1.5 to get the design
strength.24
●​ American Codes (Load and Resistance Factor Design - LRFD): The main
codes are ACI 318-14 for Structural Concrete, ASCE 7 for Minimum Design Loads,
and the International Building Code (IBC).16 The LRFD approach is conceptually
very similar to LSM:
○​ Loads are multiplied by load factors (e.g., 1.2 for Dead Load, 1.6 for Live
Load) to determine the required strength (e.g., Mu​,Vu​).
○​ Nominal material strengths are reduced by strength reduction factors (or
resistance factors, ϕ) to determine the design strength (e.g., ϕMn​,ϕVn​). For
example, ϕ is 0.90 for flexure and typically 0.75 for shear.1
●​ European Codes (Eurocode 7 for Geotechnical Design & Eurocode 2 for
Concrete Design): The Eurocode system employs a more complex and
comprehensive partial factor approach.27 A key distinction, particularly for
retaining structures, is the use of different​
Design Approaches (DA) in Eurocode 7 (Geotechnical Design). For example, DA1
has two combinations:
○​ Combination 1 (DA1-C1): Applies partial factors primarily to actions (loads),
similar to IS and ACI.
○​ Combination 2 (DA1-C2): Applies partial factors to ground properties (e.g.,
dividing tan(ϕ) by a factor γϕ​of 1.25) and resistances, with load factors
generally set to 1.0.28

This difference is profound. While IS and ACI codes calculate earth pressure based on
characteristic soil properties and then factor the resulting load, Eurocode's DA1-C2
approach calculates a higher, "design" earth pressure from the outset by using
factored-down (more conservative) soil strength parameters. This can lead to
fundamentally different results and demonstrates a more integrated approach to
geotechnical and structural safety, which is a crucial distinction for an engineer
working across different regulatory environments.

Section 3: Reference Design Example: Problem Statement and

Initial Sizing

This section establishes the basis for a complete, step-by-step worked design
example of a pile-supported cantilever retaining wall. All calculations will be
performed in metric (SI) units.

3.1 Design Brief

A reinforced concrete cantilever retaining wall is required to retain 6.0 meters of earth.
The backfill behind the wall is level and carries a uniform live load surcharge of 15 kPa.
The site is located in India, in a region corresponding to Seismic Zone IV. A
geotechnical investigation has revealed that the upper soil strata have poor bearing
capacity, mandating the use of a pile foundation. Bored cast-in-situ concrete piles are
proposed.

3.2 Material and Geotechnical Properties

All design parameters are centralized in the table below for clarity and traceability.
The values are based on standard practice and typical geotechnical
recommendations.

Table 3.1: Design Parameters and Material Properties

Parameter Symbol Value Units Source/Referenc

 e

GEOMETRY

Retained Height Hstem​ 6.0 m Design Brief

(above pile cap)

Surcharge Load q 15 kPa Design Brief

(Live Load)

MATERIALS

Concrete Grade M35 - - Assumed

(Stem & Pile
Cap)

Characteristic fck​ 35 MPa IS 456:2000

Compressive
Strength

Steel Grade Fe500 - - Assumed

(HYSD)

Characteristic fy​ 500 MPa IS 456:2000

Yield Strength

Unit Weight of γc​ 25 kN/m³ IS 456:2000

Concrete

GEOTECHNICA
L - BACKFILL
SOIL

Soil Type - Granular - Geotechnical

Report

Unit Weight γs​ 18 kN/m³ Geotechnical

Report

Angle of Internal ϕ 30 degrees Geotechnical

Friction Report
GEOTECHNICA
L-
FOUNDATION

Soil-Concrete μ 0.5 - Assumed (for

Friction context only)
Coefficient

PILING DATA

Pile Type - Bored - Design Brief

Cast-in-situ

Pile Diameter D 600 mm Assumed

Allowable Axial Pc,allow​ 1000 kN Geotechnical

Compression Report

Allowable Axial Pt,allow​ 200 kN Geotechnical

Tension (Uplift) Report

Allowable Hallow​ 50 kN Geotechnical

Lateral Load Report

SEISMIC
PARAMETERS
(IS 1893)

Seismic Zone - IV - Design Brief

Zone Factor Z 0.24 - IS 1893:2016,

Table 3

Importance I 1.2 - IS 1893:2016,

Factor (Major Table 8
Bridge)

Response R 2.0 - IS 1893:2016,

Reduction Table 9 (RCC
Factor Wall)
3.3 Preliminary Sizing of Wall and Pile Cap

Before detailed analysis, initial dimensions for the wall components are estimated
based on established heuristics and practical considerations.1 These dimensions will
be verified and refined during the design process.
●​ Stem Thickness:
○​ A common rule of thumb is a base thickness of approximately H/12.
○​ Base thickness = 6000/12=500 mm.
○​ A minimum top thickness of 300 mm is practical for construction.
○​ Adopt: Tapering stem, 500 mm thick at the base and 300 mm at the top.
●​ Pile Cap (Base Slab) Dimensions:
○​ Thickness (Dcap​): A thickness of H/10 to H/12 is a starting point, giving
500-600 mm. However, pile cap thickness is often governed by shear
capacity and the required anchorage length for pile reinforcement. IS 2911
recommends a minimum thickness of 500 mm, which may be increased to
provide rigidity.23
○​ Adopt: Pile cap thickness = 800 mm. This provides ample depth for shear
resistance and reinforcement anchorage.
○​ Width (Bcap​): A width of 0.5H to 0.7H is typical for cantilever walls. This
gives a range of 3.0 m to 4.2 m. The final width will depend on the required
spacing of the pile rows.
○​ Pile Layout: A two-row layout is assumed to effectively resist the overturning
moment. The minimum center-to-center spacing for friction piles is 3.0D.4
○​ Pile Spacing = 3.0×600 mm=1800 mm.
○​ Let's assume a spacing of 2.0 m between the front and back pile rows. To
provide adequate edge distance (typically 150 mm minimum overhang beyond
the outer pile face 23), the pile cap width can be estimated.
○​ Toe projection: Let's place the front pile row 0.75 m from the front face of the
stem.
○​ Heel projection: The rear pile row will be 2.0 m behind the front row.
○​ Total Width Bcap​= (Toe edge dist) + (Dist to front pile) + (Dist between rows)
+ (Heel edge dist) ≈0.5 m+2.0 m+1.0 m=3.5 m.
○​ Adopt: Pile cap width = 3.5 m, with a toe of 1.0 m and a heel of 2.0 m from the
front face of the stem.
●​ Initial Geometry Summary:
 ○​ Total Height (Htotal​) = Hstem​+Dcap​=6.0+0.8=6.8 m.
○​ Stem: 500 mm thick at base, 300 mm at top.
○​ Pile Cap: 3.5 m wide, 0.8 m thick.
○​ Toe: 1.0 m.
○​ Heel: 2.0 m.

Section 4: Analysis of Loads and Forces on the Pile Group

This section details the calculation of all forces acting on the retaining structure and
their resolution into axial and lateral loads on the supporting piles. The analysis is
performed for a 1-meter strip of the wall.

4.1 Calculation of Vertical Loads (per meter length)

The total vertical load (ΣW) is the sum of the weights of the concrete components and
the soil resting on the heel slab.
1.​ Weight of Stem (Wstem​):​
The stem has a trapezoidal cross-section.
○​ Area of stem = 2(0.3+0.5)​×6.0=2.4 m2
○​ Wstem​=Area×γc​=2.4×25=60.0 kN/m
2.​ Weight of Pile Cap (Wcap​):
○​ Area of pile cap = 3.5×0.8=2.8 m2
○​ Wcap​=Area×γc​=2.8×25=70.0 kN/m
3.​ Weight of Soil on Heel (Wsoil​):
○​ Area of soil on heel = 2.0×6.0=12.0 m2
○​ Wsoil​=Area×γs​=12.0×18=216.0 kN/m
4.​ Weight from Surcharge on Heel (Wsur​):
○​ Wsur​=q×Heel width=15×2.0=30.0 kN/m

Total Characteristic Vertical Loads:

●​ Dead Load (ΣWDL​) = Wstem​+Wcap​+Wsoil​=60.0+70.0+216.0=346.0 kN/m
●​ Live Load (ΣWLL​) = Wsur​=30.0 kN/m
4.2 Calculation of Horizontal Forces and Overturning Moments

Forces and moments are calculated about the centroid of the pile group. Assuming
the two pile rows are spaced 2.0 m apart and are centered within the 3.5 m wide cap
for symmetry, the centroid is at the midpoint between the rows. Let's place the front
row at 0.75 m from the toe and the back row at 2.75 m from the toe. The centroid is at
(0.75+2.75)/2=1.75 m from the toe.
1.​ Active Earth Pressure (Static):
○​ Using Rankine's theory for ϕ=30∘:​
Ka​=1+sin(30∘)1−sin(30∘)​=1+0.51−0.5​=0.333
○​ Pressure from soil:​
Pa,soil​=21​Ka​γs​Htotal2​=0.5×0.333×18×(6.8)2=138.7 kN/m​
This force acts at Htotal​/3=6.8/3=2.27 m from the base.
○​ Pressure from surcharge:​
Pa,sur​=Ka​qHtotal​=0.333×15×6.8=34.0 kN/m​
This force acts at Htotal​/2=6.8/2=3.4 m from the base.
2.​ Seismic Earth Pressure (Pseudo-static):
○​ As per IS 1893, the horizontal seismic coefficient Ah​is:​
Ah​=2Z​RI​=20.24​2.01.2​=0.072
○​ The dynamic increment in earth pressure can be approximated. For this
example, we use the Mononobe-Okabe method simplified. The total active
earth pressure coefficient during an earthquake, Kae​, is calculated. For a level
backfill and vertical wall, this increases the active pressure. A common
simplification is to apply the horizontal acceleration to the soil wedge. The
dynamic thrust, ΔPae​, acts at a higher point (approx. 0.6H) than the static
thrust.
○​ A simplified approach adds a uniformly distributed dynamic pressure. Let's
calculate the total seismic force. The total horizontal force (static + seismic) is
calculated using seismic coefficients.
○​ Total horizontal seismic force Pae​≈1.25×Pa,soil​=1.25×138.7=173.4 kN/m. This is
a simplified estimation for the example. A full M-O analysis would be
performed in a detailed design.
3.​ Calculate Moments about Pile Group Centroid:​
The centroid is 1.75 m from the toe.
○​ Moments from Vertical Loads:
 ■​ Wstem​: Acts at 1.0+0.5/2=1.25 m from toe. Lever arm = 1.75−1.25=0.5 m
(destabilizing). Mstem​=60.0×0.5=30.0 kNm/m.
■​ Wcap​: Acts at 3.5/2=1.75 m from toe. Lever arm = 0. Mcap​=0.
■​ Wsoil​: Acts at 1.0+0.5+2.0/2=2.5 m from toe. Lever arm = 2.5−1.75=0.75 m
(stabilizing). Msoil​=216.0×0.75=162.0 kNm/m.
■​ Wsur​: Acts at the same location as Wsoil​. Lever arm = 0.75 m (stabilizing).
Msur​=30.0×0.75=22.5 kNm/m.
○​ Overturning Moments from Horizontal Loads:
■​ MOT,soil​=Pa,soil​×(Htotal​/3)=138.7×2.27=314.8 kNm/m.
■​ MOT,sur​=Pa,sur​×(Htotal​/2)=34.0×3.4=115.6 kNm/m.
4.​ Load Combinations (as per IS Codes):​
We will analyze a primary ULS combination: 1.5 (DL + LL) for static conditions and
1.2 (DL + LL + EQ) for seismic.
○​ Case 1: 1.5 (DL + LL) - Static
■​ Ultimate Vertical Load Vu​=1.5(346.0+30.0)=564.0 kN/m.
■​ Ultimate Horizontal Load Hu​=1.5(138.7+34.0)=259.1 kN/m.
■​ Net Ultimate Moment Mu​=1.5×(MOT,soil​+MOT,sur​+Mstem​−Msoil​−Msur​)​
Mu​=1.5×(314.8+115.6+30.0−162.0−22.5)=1.5×275.9=413.9 kNm/m.
○​ Case 2: 1.2 (DL + LL + EQ) - Seismic
■​ Ultimate Vertical Load Vu​=1.2(346.0+30.0)=451.2 kN/m.
■​ Ultimate Horizontal Load Hu​=1.2(Pae​+Pa,sur​)=1.2(173.4+34.0)=248.9 kN/m.
■​ Ultimate Moment Mu​: (Recalculating with seismic forces and lever arms) -
for brevity, we will proceed with the static case for the detailed design
example. The process would be identical.

4.3 Resolution of Forces onto Individual Piles

Assuming a longitudinal pile spacing of 3.0 m, the forces per pile are calculated for a
3.0 m tributary length of the wall. There are two piles in this length (one front, one
back).
●​ Forces per 3m strip (Static Case):
○​ Vu,total​=564.0×3.0=1692 kN
○​ Hu,total​=259.1×3.0=777.3 kN
○​ Mu,total​=413.9×3.0=1241.7 kNm

The load on each pile (Pi​) is found using the formula for combined axial and bending effects
on the pile group:

Pi​=nV​±∑xi2​M⋅xi​​

Where:
●​ V=1692 kN
●​ M=1241.7 kNm
●​ n=2 piles (in the transverse direction for the 3m strip)
●​ xi​= distance from pile to centroid = 1.0 m for both front and back piles.
●​ ∑xi2​=(1.0)2+(−1.0)2=2.0 m2
●​ Load on Back Pile (Compression):​
Pback​=21692​+2.01241.7×1.0​=846+620.9=1466.9 kN
●​ Load on Front Pile (Tension/Compression):​
Pfront​=21692​−2.01241.7×1.0​=846−620.9=225.1 kN (Compression)
●​ Lateral Load per Pile:​
Hpile​=nHu,total​​=2777.3​=388.7 kN

Pile Capacity Check:

●​ Max Compression: 1466.9 kN. The allowable capacity is 1000 kN. Factored
capacity (1.5×Pallow​) may be used for ULS check in some methodologies, but
comparing ultimate load to allowable capacity shows a significant overstress. The
design must be revised. Possible revisions include increasing pile capacity,
increasing the number of piles (e.g., 3 rows or closer longitudinal spacing), or
increasing the lever arm (spacing between rows).
●​ For this example, let's assume the pile capacity was specified as an ultimate
capacity of 1500 kN. In that case, 1466.9 kN < 1500 kN, so the pile is SAFE in
compression.
●​ Max Tension: No tension develops in this case. The front pile is in compression
(225.1 kN).
●​ Max Lateral Load: 388.7 kN. This is far greater than the allowable lateral capacity
of 50 kN. This would require using battered piles to resist the lateral load through
axial compression/tension.

This iterative process is fundamental to foundation design. The initial assumptions

must be checked, and the design revised until all components are safe. For the
remainder of this example, we will proceed assuming a revised pile layout or capacity
has made the pile loads acceptable, to demonstrate the subsequent design steps.
4.4 Comparative Code Note

A brief comparison illustrates the differences in resulting forces.

Code Load Factored Factored Resulting Pile

Philosophy Combination Moment (kNm) Vertical (kN) Loads (kN)
Example

IS 456 (LSM) 1.5 (DL + LL + 413.9 564.0 P_back = 1466.9

Earth) (C)

ACI 318 (LRFD) 1.2D + 1.6L + ~390 ~463 (Calculation

1.6H would follow)

EC7 (DA1-C2) 1.0G + 1.3Q + (Calculated with (Calculation (Calculation

1.35E factored ϕ) would follow) would follow)

The table highlights that not only do the load factors differ, but the loads they apply to
also differ (e.g., ACI factors earth pressure 'H' separately). Eurocode's approach of
factoring soil properties would change the initial Pa​value itself, leading to a different
starting point for the entire analysis. This demonstrates the importance of adhering
strictly to one consistent code philosophy throughout a design.

Section 5: Structural Design of Wall Components (as per IS 456)

Assuming the pile loads have been found acceptable after revision, the structural
components of the wall are now designed for the ultimate moments and shears
calculated.

5.1 Stem Design

The stem is designed as a vertical cantilever fixed at the pile cap, subjected to the
factored lateral earth pressure.
●​ Maximum Bending Moment at base of stem (Mu,stem​) =
1.5×[61​Ka​γs​Hstem3​+21​Ka​qHstem2​]​
Mu,stem​=1.5×[61​(0.333)(18)(6.0)3+21​(0.333)(15)(6.0)2]=1.5×[215.8+90.0]=458.7
kNm/m.
●​ Effective depth at base, d=500−75 (cover)−bar/2≈415 mm.

Flexural Design:
Using IS 456:2000, Annex G:
bd2Mu​​=1000×4152458.7×106​=2.66
From SP:16, for M35 concrete and Fe500 steel, for this value, the required percentage of steel
(pt​) is found.
●​ pt​=0.897%
●​ Area of steel required, Ast​=100pt​​×b×d=1000.897​×1000×415=3723 mm2/m
●​ Provide: 25mm diameter bars @ 125 mm c/c (Ast,prov​=3927 mm2/m) on the back
face (tension face).

Reinforcement Curtailment:
The bending moment reduces with height. 50% of the reinforcement can be curtailed where
the moment is half the maximum. This occurs at a height h where h3≈Hstem3​/2, so
h≈0.79Hstem​≈4.75 m from the top. Alternate bars can be curtailed at a height of
6.0−4.75=1.25 m from the base, plus the required development length.22
Shear Design:
●​ Maximum Shear Force at base, Vu​=1.5×[21​Ka​γs​Hstem2​+Ka​qHstem​]​
Vu​=1.5×[21​(0.333)(18)(6.0)2+(0.333)(15)(6.0)]=1.5×[108.0+30.0]=207.0 kN/m.
●​ Nominal Shear Stress, τv​=bdVu​​=1000×415207.0×103​=0.50 MPa.
●​ From IS 456, Table 19, for pt​=0.897% and M35 concrete, the design shear strength
τc​≈0.61 MPa.
●​ Since τv​<τc​, no shear reinforcement is required. The section is safe in shear.

Distribution/Temperature Steel:
Provide minimum horizontal reinforcement of 0.12% of the gross area on both faces.
●​ Ast,dist​=0.0012×1000×(2500+300​)=480 mm2/m.
●​ Provide: 10mm diameter bars @ 150 mm c/c on both faces horizontally.

5.2 Pile Cap Design

The pile cap is a thick, rigid slab that distributes the stem load to the piles and resists
the upward reactions from them. It must be designed for bending and shear in both
transverse and longitudinal directions.

Transverse Direction (Cantilever Action):

●​ Heel Slab Design: The heel slab cantilevers from the back face of the stem and is
subjected to downward forces (self-weight, soil weight, surcharge) and an
upward reaction from the back pile row. The net load causes a moment that
creates tension at the top of the slab.
●​ Toe Slab Design: The toe slab cantilevers from the front face of the stem. It is
subjected to a downward self-weight and an upward reaction from the front pile
row. The net load causes a moment that creates tension at the bottom of the slab.

The design proceeds by calculating the net factored moment at the face of the stem
for both the heel and toe and providing reinforcement accordingly.29

Longitudinal Direction (Continuous Beam Action):

The pile cap acts as a continuous beam spanning between the piles in the longitudinal
direction, supporting the line load from the wall stem.7
●​ The analysis can be done using moment coefficients for continuous beams from
IS 456, Table 12, assuming the stem load is a uniformly distributed load.
●​ Reinforcement is designed for the maximum positive and negative moments and
placed as top and bottom mats in the longitudinal direction.

Shear Design:
●​ One-Way Shear: This is checked at a distance d from the face of the stem for
the transverse cantilever action, and at the face of the piles for the longitudinal
beam action. The shear stress τv​must be less than τc​.23
●​ Two-Way (Punching) Shear: This is a critical check. The pile cap must be able to
resist the concentrated upward reaction from the pile without it "punching"
through. The check is performed on a critical perimeter at a distance of d/2 from
the face of the pile, as per IS 456, Clause 31.6. The nominal shear stress must not
exceed ks​τc​, where ks​=(0.5+βc​) but not greater than 1.

The thickness of the pile cap (800 mm) is typically governed by these shear checks,
particularly punching shear. It is generally preferable to have a thick enough cap to
resist shear without requiring shear reinforcement, which is complex to detail in a slab.
Section 6: Structural Design of the Pile (as per IS 2911)

6.1 Pile Structural Capacity Check

Each pile is designed as a short column subjected to combined axial load and
bending. The maximum design loads are taken from the pile group analysis.
●​ Maximum Factored Axial Load: Pu​=1466.9 kN (from Sec 4.3, assuming revised
capacity)
●​ Maximum Factored Moment: The lateral load on the pile (Hpile​) induces a
moment. This moment is calculated based on soil-structure interaction principles,
often simplified by assuming a depth to fixity, Lf​, below which the pile is fixed.
Methods for finding Lf​and the resulting maximum moment Mf​are given in IS 2911
(Part 1/Sec 2).30 For this example, let's assume the analysis yields a maximum
factored moment of​
Mu​=150 kNm.

Interaction Check:
The pile's adequacy is checked using an interaction chart from SP:16.
●​ Parameters for the chart:
○​ fck​D2Pu​​=35×60021466.9×103​=0.116
○​ fck​D3Mu​​=35×6003150×106​=0.020
●​ Using these values on the relevant chart in SP:16 (for circular columns), we can
find the required reinforcement ratio p/fck​.

6.2 Pile Reinforcement Design

●​ From the interaction chart, a value for p/fck​is read, which allows calculation of
the required percentage of longitudinal steel, pt​.
●​ Minimum Reinforcement: As per IS 2911, the minimum longitudinal
reinforcement for piles shall be 0.4% of the cross-sectional area.4
○​ Ast,min​=0.004×4π​×(600)2=1131 mm2
●​ The calculated required steel must be greater than or equal to this minimum. Let's
 say the chart requires pt​=0.6%.
○​ Ast,req​=0.006×4π​×(600)2=1696 mm2
●​ Provide: 6 bars of 20mm diameter (Ast,prov​=1885 mm2). This satisfies the
requirement. IS 2911 specifies a minimum of 6 bars for a circular pile.4
●​ Lateral Ties (Spirals):​
The pile must have lateral ties to confine the concrete core and prevent buckling
of the longitudinal bars.
○​ Diameter: Minimum 8 mm.4
○​ Spacing/Pitch: Not less than 150 mm.4 The pitch is also governed by IS 456
requirements for spiral reinforcement to ensure adequate confinement.
○​ Provide: 8mm diameter spiral at a pitch of 125 mm c/c.

Table 6.1: Pile Load and Capacity Summary

Pile Max Allowabl Max Allowabl Max Allowabl Status

Location Design e Design e Design e Lateral
Compre Compre Tension Tension Lateral (kN)
ssion ssion (kN) (kN) (kN)
(kN) (kN)

Back 1466.9 1500 N/A 300 388.7 (Require REVISE

Row (Ultimat (Ultimat s
e) e) Batterin
g)

Front 225.1 1500 0 300 388.7 (Require REVISE

Row (Ultimat (Ultimat s
e) e) Batterin
g)

This final summary table clearly indicates that while the axial loads might be
manageable with a higher capacity pile, the lateral load requires a specific design
intervention like battered piles. This is the final output of the analysis phase that
informs the final design decisions.

Section 7: Reinforcement Detailing and Conceptual Drawings

7.1 Detailing Philosophy

Translating the calculated steel areas into buildable reinforcement details is a critical
step governed by codes like IS 456 and IS 2911. Proper detailing ensures that forces
are transferred effectively between steel and concrete and that the structure behaves
as designed.
●​ Nominal Cover: A clear cover of 75 mm is provided for foundation elements in
contact with earth, such as the bottom and sides of the pile cap.23 For the stem, a
cover of 50 mm may be appropriate depending on exposure conditions.
●​ Development Length (Ld​): All reinforcement must be anchored sufficiently to
develop its full strength. The main vertical bars from the stem must be extended
into the pile cap for a full development length to ensure a monolithic connection.
●​ Pile Anchorage: The longitudinal bars from the piles must be extended into the
pile cap for their full development length in compression to transfer the load
effectively.23 IS 2911 also specifies a minimum embedment of the pile itself into the
cap, typically 50-100 mm.23
●​ Lap Splices: Where bars need to be joined (e.g., in long piles), lap splices must
be of sufficient length as per IS 456 and should be staggered.

7.2 Conceptual Drawings

The following drawings would be produced to communicate the complete design.

Figure 7.1: Foundation Plan

This plan view would show:
●​ The overall dimensions of the pile cap (3.5 m x length of wall).
●​ The layout of piles, with center-to-center dimensions in both longitudinal and
transverse directions. Each pile would be numbered.
●​ The top and bottom reinforcement mats for the pile cap, specifying bar diameter
and spacing in both directions (e.g., "T20@150 T&B EW" - 20mm bars at 150mm
spacing, Top and Bottom, Each Way).

Figure 7.2: Wall Cross-Section

This is the master drawing of the design, showing:
●​ The complete profile of the wall, with all dimensions (stem height, thickness taper,
cap width and thickness, toe/heel dimensions).
●​ Main vertical reinforcement in the stem (e.g., T25@125 c/c) on the rear face, with
curtailment points marked.
●​ Horizontal distribution steel in the stem (e.g., T10@150 c/c) on both faces.
●​ Top and bottom reinforcement mats in the pile cap, clearly showing their position.
●​ The anchorage of the stem's vertical bars into the pile cap, bent into the heel slab.
●​ The pile embedment into the cap and the anchorage of the pile's longitudinal
bars into the cap.

Figure 7.3: Wall Elevation

This drawing shows the wall as viewed from the front, primarily to illustrate:
●​ The curtailment pattern of the main vertical reinforcement (e.g., "Alternate bars
curtailed at EL +X.X m").
●​ The spacing of horizontal distribution bars.

Figure 7.4: Typical Pile Reinforcement Details

This detail focuses on a single pile, showing:
●​ The arrangement of longitudinal bars (e.g., 6-T20).
●​ The spiral reinforcement details (e.g., T8 spiral @ 125 pitch).
●​ Lap splice details if required.
●​ The top of the pile showing the extension of bars for anchorage into the pile cap.

7.3 Bar Bending Schedule

A sample bar bending schedule would be provided, listing each unique bar mark, its
shape code (as per IS 2502), diameter, length of each segment, total length, and
number required, facilitating fabrication.

Section 8: Concluding Remarks and Practical Recommendations

8.1 Summary of Final Design

The final design, after necessary iterations, would specify a 6.0 m high cantilever
retaining wall with a 0.8 m thick and 3.5 m wide pile cap, supported on two rows of
600 mm diameter bored cast-in-situ piles. The front row of piles would need to be
battered to resist the high lateral seismic loads. The primary reinforcement would
consist of 25mm bars in the stem and 20mm bars in the pile cap, with 20mm
longitudinal bars in the piles.

8.2 Critical Construction Considerations

A successful retaining structure relies as much on proper construction as it does on

accurate design. The following practical aspects are critical:
●​ Drainage: This is the single most important factor for the long-term performance
of any retaining wall. An effective drainage system, including weep holes through
the stem, a continuous vertical layer of granular backfill (or a geocomposite drain)
against the back face of the wall, and a perforated pipe at the base to collect and
discharge water, is non-negotiable. Failure to control hydrostatic pressure is a
leading cause of retaining wall failures.12
●​ Pile Installation Tolerances: The design assumes piles are installed at their
precise locations. However, construction tolerances are unavoidable. Standard
codes specify permissible limits for positional shift (e.g., 75 mm) and verticality or
tilt (e.g., 1 in 150).32 The as-built pile locations must be surveyed before the pile
cap is constructed. If tolerances are exceeded, the pile group analysis must be
re-run with the actual locations to check for overstress in any pile. This
re-verification is a crucial quality assurance step.
●​ Backfilling and Compaction: The backfill material should be of good quality
(granular, free-draining) and placed in controlled layers (e.g., 150-200 mm thick).
Each layer must be compacted to the specified density. Care must be taken to
avoid using heavy compaction equipment close to the wall, which could induce
excessive lateral pressures before the concrete has gained its full strength.
●​ Construction Sequence: A logical construction sequence must be followed. This
typically involves excavation to the underside of the pile cap, installation of piles,
breaking the piles to the correct cut-off level, construction of the pile cap,
construction of the stem, and finally, staged backfilling.
Works cited

1.​ Worked Example: Retaining Wall Design - The Structural World, accessed July 14,
2025, https://www.thestructuralworld.com/2019/03/04/design-of-retaining-wall/
2.​ Retaining Wall Sliding Calculation Example | SkyCiv Engineering, accessed July 14,
2025,
https://skyciv.com/docs/skyciv-retaining-wall/articles/retaining-wall-sliding-calcul
ation-example/
3.​ DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS - Transportation Research Board, accessed July
14, 2025, https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_42.pdf
4.​ PILE FOUNDATION DESIGN AS PER IS 2911--2010 The pile code consists of four
parts. They are Part 1:Concrete piles Part 2 - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM
OF INDIA, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.sefindia.org/forum/download.php?id=10975
5.​ IIT CE 632 Retaining Wall Design Part-1 Handout PDF - Scribd, accessed July 14,
2025,
https://es.scribd.com/document/326467669/IIT-CE-632-Retaining-Wall-Design-Pa
rt-1-Handout-pdf
6.​ www.sefindia.org :: View topic - Pile Foundation for Retaining wall Support -
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18190
7.​ Retaining Walls Supported on Piles: A Design Overview | ASDIP Software,
accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.asdipsoft.com/retaining-walls-supported-on-piles-a-design-overvie
w/
8.​ IS 14458 (Part 1): Retaining Wall for Hill Area - CracIndia, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.cracindia.in/admin/uploads/IS-14458---1.pdf
9.​ Indian Standard RETAINING WALL FOR HILL AREA - GUIDELINES - Humanitarian
Library |, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2020/06/BIS%20retaining%
20wall.pdf
10.​IS 14458-1 (1998): Guidelines for retaining wall for hill area, Part 1, accessed July
14, 2025, https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.14458.1.1998.pdf
11.​ (PDF) DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF RETAINING WALL - ResearchGate, accessed
July 14, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358459814_DESIGN_AND_ANALYSIS_O
F_RETAINING_WALL
12.​Optimal design of reinforced concrete retaining avails , - STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.sefindia.org/forum/files/retaining_wall_130.pdf
13.​Counterfort Retaining Wall on Piles Using ASDIP RETAIN | ASDIP, accessed July 14,
2025, https://www.asdipsoft.com/counterfort-retaining-wall-on-piles/
14.​Essential Guide: Basic Rules of Permanent Retaining Wall Design, accessed July
14, 2025,
https://www.schnabel.com/basic-rules-of-permanent-retaining-wall-design/
15.​Chapter 11.2 Earth Retaining Systems - Caltrans, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/engineering/documents/bridge-d
esign-practices/202210bdpchapter112earthretainingsystemsa11y.pdf
16.​Retaining Wall Design to American Standards: Structural Considerations -
ClearCalcs, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.clearcalcs.com/blog/retaining-wall-design-us
17.​24 Design of Retaining Wall, accessed July 14, 2025,
http://elearn.psgcas.ac.in/nptel/courses/video/105105039/lec24.pdf
18.​Basics of Retaining Wall Design 10 Edition - Earth Retention modules, accessed
July 14, 2025, https://retainpro.com/pdf/basicslookinside.pdf
19.​Cantilever Retaining Wall Example (Metric) - ASDIP, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.asdipsoft.com/cantilever-retaining-wall-example-metric/
20.​Retaining Wall On Pile Foundation | PDF - Scribd, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.scribd.com/document/464791032/Retaining-wall-on-pile-foundation
21.​CHAPTER 18 SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS - 2018 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
(IBC), accessed July 14, 2025,
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/ibc2018/chapter-18-soils-and-foundations
22.​design and detailing of retaining walls - Civil Engineering Portal, accessed July 14,
2025, https://www.engineeringcivil.com/wp-content/uploads/5615/5615.pdf
23.​PILE CAP DESIGN, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.sefindia.org/forum/download.php?id=9036
24.​IS 456 (2000): Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice, accessed July
14, 2025, https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.456.2000.pdf
25.​Pile Foundation Design As Per IRC Code (New) IRC 112 | PDF | Stress (Mechanics) |
Strength Of Materials - Scribd, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.scribd.com/document/577851069/Pile-Foundation-Design-as-Per-IR
C-Code-New-IRC-112
26.​Reinforced Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall Analysis and Design (ACI 318-14) -
StructurePoint, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://structurepoint.org/publication/pdf/Reinforced-Concrete-Cantilever-Retain
ing-Wall-Analysis-and-Design-ACI-318-14-v10.pdf
27.​Retaining Wall With Piles | PDF | Civil Engineering | Building ..., accessed July 14,
2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/336084955/Retaining-Wall-With-Piles
28.​Retaining Wall With Piles | PDF - Scribd, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.scribd.com/document/405726461/Retaining-Wall-With-Piles
29.​Cantilever Retaining Wall Example | PDF - Scribd, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305173760/Cantilever-Retaining-Wall-Example
30.​Design of Bored Piles Is 2911-Part 1sec2 | PDF - Scribd, accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.scribd.com/doc/256742636/Design-of-Bored-Piles-is-2911-Part-1Sec
2
31.​Cantilever Retaining Wall: Design, Uses & Reinforcement - UltraTech Cement,
accessed July 14, 2025,
https://www.ultratechcement.com/for-homebuilders/home-building-explained-si
ngle/descriptive-articles/cantilever-retaining-wall
32.​Sda-02-Dd-02 - Pile & Pile Cap - Sheet-1 - R0 | PDF - Scribd, accessed July 14,
2025,
https://www.scribd.com/document/501026430/SDA-02-DD-02-PILE-PILE-CAP-S
HEET-1-R0