Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining

walls subjected to lateral earth pressure

K. Senthil*, M. A. Iqbal and Amit Kumar
Three-dimensional (3D) finite element simulations have been performed in order to study the
response of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls subjected to lateral earth pressure using
ABAQUS/Standard. Four retaining walls with different geometrical configurations were analyzed
including three cantilever and one counterfort wall. The results thus obtained were compared, and
the mechanics involved in the behavior of the retaining wall was discussed. The lateral displacement,
vertical settlement, and stresses developed in each component of the retaining wall were studied and
compared with the other walls. The choice of the retaining wall based on the economic analysis was
also discussed and compared.
Keywords: Retaining wall, Reduced height counterfort, Lateral earth pressure, Economic analysis

*Corresponding author, email urssenthil85@yahoo.co.in; abuovdce@iitr.ernet.in

to 4 months. The measured static earth pressure was

compared with the results of finite element analysis. The
computed results were found to be insensitive to density
and youngs modulus, however were very sensitive to the
Poissons ratio. Bhatia and Bakeer (1989) reproduced
numerically the experimental results of Matsuo et al.
(1978) and found that the predicted earth pressure is
significantly affected by the size of the element as well as
the boundary conditions employed.
Green et al. (2008) and Green and Ebeling (2003) conducted two-dimensional (2D) non-linear explicit dynamic
analysis to determine the response of 6?1-m high cantilever
concrete wall against earthquake motion. At very low
accelerations, the induced pressures obtained by fast
Lagrangian analysis of continua (FLAC) were found to
be in agreement with those predicted by the Mononobe
Okabe approach. However, as the accelerations increased
to those expected in the region, the induced pressures were
found to be larger. The reason for the same was attributed
to the relative flexibility of the structural block and nonmonolithic motion of the driving soil wedge. The permanent relative displacement of the wall was in accord with
those predicted using the Newmark sliding block approach.
Chugh (2005) conducted finite element analysis for a
model of cantilever wall and prototype counterfort wall
using FLAC 2D and 3D. The discretization of the wall
into finite-difference grid affected the natural frequency of
free vibrations; the grid size effects were more pronounced
for vibratory response in the transverse direction than in
the axial direction. The numerical results of natural
frequency were found to be in agreement with those of
the known analytical solutions.
Liu et al. (2006) conducted two-dimensional finite
element analysis on 5-m high reinforced concrete wall in
order to obtain the relationship between displacement and

2014 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd

Received 13 April 2013; accepted 21 June 2013
DOI 10.1179/1938636213Z.00000000075

International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering

Introduction
The retaining walls are generally used to retain, either
earth or water in a vertical position at locations where an
abrupt change in ground level either exists or arises
because of transportation facilities, underground structures, and storage tanks. In general, the failure of the
retaining walls occurs because of sliding, overturning, and
loss of bearing capacity. There are some important factors
responsible for the failure of retaining walls such as
excessive earth pressure, reduced resistance against sliding,
and unbalanced inertial force. As such there is no
methodology to identify the progressive effect of these
factors on the retaining wall. However, the finite element
technique has emerged as an important tool to predict
such problems.
Clough and Duncan (1971) computed the response of
6?0-m high gravity retaining wall placed on 6?0-m deep
sand foundation experimented earlier by Terzaghi (1934).
The analysis was performed using one-dimensional
elements to simulate the interface between the wall and
the backfill. The minimum active and maximum passive
pressures were found to be in good agreement with the
results of the classical earth pressure theory, whereas the
amount of movement required to reach the full active and
full passive conditions was found to be in good agreement
with the results of Terzaghi (1934).
Matsuo et al. (1978) conducted experiments on 10-m
high concrete wall retaining the silty sand and slag. The
earth pressure on the wall was continuously measured up

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,

Roorkee 247667, India

2014

VOL

NO

167

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

maximum plastic strain distribution of the backfill under

varying friction angles (d50, 12?5, 17?5, and 25u). The
deformed profile of backfill analyzed by ABAQUS and
slip failure surface analyzed by Coulombs theory were
compared. The distance of failure position obtained from
the numerical analysis was found to be smaller compared
to Coulombs theory. The effect of wall friction angle on
deformed profile was found to be insignificant.
Yoo and Kim (2008) carried out full-scale load test on a
5-m high two-tier (3z2 m) geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining wall subjected to an incremental surcharge load of maximum value 348 kN. Despite the fact
that there was no provision for the surcharge load in the
design, the maximum displacement was found to be
insignificant; 1?7 mm in the upper and 0?5 mm in the
lower tier, while the maximum reinforcement strain was
0?1%. Three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulations
carried out on ABAQUS finite element code predicted
the ultimate load carrying capacity and the allowable
bearing pressure to be approximately 420 and 220 kPa,
respectively.
Nisha et al. (2011) estimated the earth pressure
distribution behind a cantilever retaining wall using
PLAXIS finite element code. The behavior of soil was
considered to be elastoplastic with MohrCoulomb failure
criterion whereas that of the concrete, linear elastic. The
results of the active pressure were found to be close to the
classical earth pressure theories proposed by Rankine and
Coloumb. The size and location of the shear key was also
varied. The factor of safety against sliding was found to be
higher when the shear key was located under the heel. The
factor of safety increased from 2 to 7 by increasing the size
of the shear key from 0?5 to 2 m.
Salman et al. (2011) estimated the earth pressure
distribution behind a 20-m high retaining wall employing
the two-dimensional finite element code, CRISP. The
results showed oscillations in the values of earth pressure
as a result of the application of line loads. These
oscillations in the upper half of the wall were found to
increase with the increasing load and decrease with the
decreasing vicinity of the load. In the lower half of the
wall, the lateral earth pressure was close to the linear
distribution with the maximum value at the base.
The lateral earth pressure vanished when the distance of
the line load becomes greater than 0?6 times the depth of
the wall.
The studies available in the literature describe the effect
of the lateral earth pressure on the gravity, diaphragm,
and cantilever retaining walls. However, the studies on
the counterfort retaining walls are rather few. Further,
most of the available numerical studies are based on
the plain concrete walls. The influence of reinforcement in
the retaining wall is rarely studied through numerical
simulations.
The present study describes the behavior of the
cantilever and counterfort-reinforced concrete walls
retaining a compacted clay backfill and supported on
dense foundation soils. The height of the cantilever wall
was varied as 5?5, 6?5, and 8?5 m. The size effect of the
heel and toe was also investigated. The height of counterfort in the counterfort wall was varied to study its effect on

168

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

the overall behavior of the wall. The 3D numerical

simulations were carried out using ABAQUS/standard
finite element code. The results thus obtained for the
cantilever as well as counterfort retaining walls have been
discussed and compared. The behavior of each element of
the wall i.e. stem, heel, toe, counterfort, and the shear key
was studied in detail, and the influence thereon the overall
behavior of the wall was discussed. Among the cantilever
walls, the maximum horizontal and vertical displacement
was found to be 12?7 mm (at the top of the stem) and
61?2 mm (at the toe free edge), respectively in 8?5-m high
wall with less toemore heel configuration. The same was
found to be 15?96 mm (at the top of the stem) and
67?44 mm (beneath the stem), respectively in case of the
reduced height counterfort retaining wall that is almost
double to that of the full height counterfort wall. Based on
the total quantity of steel and concrete consumed, the cost
analysis of the walls was also carried out. It was found
that among the cantilever walls, the one with the lowest
height, 5?5 m, is most economical. On the other hand, the
counterfort wall with reduced height of counterfort was
found to be more economical compared to the one with
full height of counterfort.

Design of retaining wall based on the

Working Stress Method
The design of the cantilever as well as counterfort
retaining walls has been carried out using Working
Stress Method. The retaining walls were manually
designed for stability and section adequacy. The grade of
concrete considered in this study is M30 and that of steel is
Fe500. In the grade of concrete, M represents mix and
30 represents the compressive strength of 150-mm cube
of concrete in newton per millimeter square, after 28 days
of curing. In the grade of steel, Fe indicates ferrous and
500 represents yield strength in newton per millimeter
square. The surcharge load was 1 T m22.
The clear cover to stem and the base slab was kept 40
and 60 mm, respectively whereas that of the shear key and
counterfort 30 mm. The active and passive lateral earth
pressure coefficients of soil were obtained as 0?33 and 3,
respectively corresponding to the angle of repose 30u. The
factor of safety against all the stability criteria was
considered as 1?5. The top of the backfill was considered
as leveled 300 mm below the top face of the wall. The final
dimensions of each component of the retaining walls
adopted as per the design are shown in Table 1.
The cantilever walls studied herein were designated as
C1, C2, and C3 based on their free height, 5?5, 6?5, and
8?5 m, respectively, please see Fig. 1ac for the geometric
and reinforcement detail. The designation was further
classified as A for less toemore heel and B for less heel
more toe configuration. The cantilever retaining walls
consist of a vertical stem and a base slab comprising heel
and toe. These three components (stem, heel, and toe)
though act as a single unit, deform in a distinct manner to
resist the earth pressure. The stem acts as a vertical
cantilever under the lateral earth pressure and the heel slab
as a horizontal cantilever under the weight of retained
earth. The stability of the wall is maintained essentially by

NO

14?4
4?5
4?5
0?9
0?925
0?961?0
0?35
9?5
14?4
4?5
4?5
0?9
0?925
0?961?0
0?35
12?3
10?4
4?4
2?2
1?05
1?05
0?661?0

10?4
2?2
4?4
1?05
1?05
0?661?0

8?2
3?5
1?0
0?95
0?8
0?661?0

7?2
4?0
1?5
0?85
0?75
0?660?8

7?2
1?5
4?0
0?85
0?75
0?660?8

8?2
1?0
3?5
0?95
0?8
0?661?0

12?5
12?5
8?5
8?5
6?5
6?5
5?5
5?5

Free height of retaining wall

above ground level/m
Overall height of retaining wall/m
Toe width/m
Heel width/m
Thickness of base slab near to stem/m
Thickness of stem near to base slab/m
Size of shear key (length6height)/m
Counterfort thickness/m
Height of counterfort/m

Less toemore Less heelmore Less toemore Less heelmore Less toemore Less heelmore Full height
Reduced height
heel (C1A)
toe (C1B)
heel (C2A)
toe (C2B)
heel (C3A)
toe (C3B)
counterfort (CR1) counterfort (CR2)
Description

C1

Table 1 Detailed dimensions of retaining wall

C2

C3

CR

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

the weight of the earth on heel slab and self-weight of

concrete. The toe slab acts as a cantilever under the action
of the resulting upward soil pressure.
The total free height of the counterfort walls studied
herein was 12?5 m; however, they were differentiated
based on the height of the counterfort as 12?3 and 9?5 m,
designated as CR1 and CR2, respectively (see Fig. 2a and
b). The retaining walls beyond 8 m height are generally
designed as counterfort walls in order to reduce the
bending moments and thus the thickness of the sections.
Each panel of the stem and the heel slab of a counterfort
wall is considered as a two-way slab fixed on three sides
and free on one side. However, the toe slab is designed as a
cantilever wall. The counterforts are designed as T-beams
with the depth of section increasing linearly from top to
bottom and considered as a vertical cantilever fixed at
base.
Both the cantilever and counterfort walls were provided
with a shear key because of their inadequate resistance
against sliding. The shear key is provided in an undisturbed soil to mobilize the required factor of safety against
sliding and to provide considerable passive resistance. As a
result, an anti-clockwise moment develops at the joint of
base slab and the shear key causing the bending of the
latter toward the heel. Therefore, the tensile stresses
develop at the toe side of the key and compressive stresses
at the heel side. However, the reinforcement in shear key is
provided both at the toe and heel face (Figs. 1 and 2).

Finite element modeling

The finite element model of the retaining walls was made
using ABAQUS/CAE. The dimensions of the retaining
walls and reinforcement were modeled identical to that
obtained from the design (Figs. 1 and 2). Different views
of the typical finite element model of cantilever wall are
shown in Fig. 3ae. The length of the wall considered was
15 m, almost three times its width. The detailed finite
element model for counterfort walls is shown in Figs. 4
and 5 for CR1 and CR2, respectively. CR2 is a reduced
counterfort wall wherein the height of counterfort was
restricted to 9?5 m in contrast to that of the 12?3 m
counterfort height considered in CR1. The length of the
counterfort retaining wall was modeled 17?1 m, with five
bays and six counterforts along the length at a clear
spacing of 3 m. The depth of soil below the base slab was
calculated based on the stress distribution beneath the
base slab obtained from the Boussinesq equation
sy ~

q
p(azsin a)

(1)

where sy is the stress in the vertical direction (see Fig. 3), q

is the soil pressure at the center of the base obtained from
the design calculations (163 kN m22), a is the angle
between the footing edge and its center [a5tan21(B/
10?8)516u] where B is half the width of base slab. At a
depth of 10?8 m, the stress distribution was found to be
15 kN m22 which is quite low compared to its intensity at
the base of the wall, 163 kN m22. The depth of 10?8 m
was thus considered appropriate to model the soil mass,
based on which the width of the soil mass was also

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

169

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

1 Reinforcement details of a C1A, b C2A, and c C3B retaining wall

assumed to be equivalent to 10 m from the edge of the toe

as well as heel (see Fig. 6).
The concrete was modeled as 3D deformable body and
the reinforcement as 3D truss. The interaction between
concrete and steel was modeled using the tie constraint
option available in ABAQUS/CAE wherein the concrete
was assumed as host region and the steel as embedded
region. The degree of freedom of the steel was governed
by the nearest concrete node. The contact between the
concrete and the adjoining soil was defined using general
contact algorithm considering the concrete as first and the
soil as second surface. A coefficient of friction of 0?4 was
defined between the concrete and the soil. The soil
boundary was restrained with respect to all the degree of
freedom. The concrete was meshed using eight-node
linear hexahedral reduced integration brick elements
(C3D8R) and reinforced with two-node linear truss
element. The size of element was carefully chosen based

170

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

on the mesh convergence studied for both concrete and

the reinforcement.
For cantilever retaining wall (C1A), the size of concrete
element was varied as 16161, 0?660?660?6, 0?460?46
0?4, 0?3560?3560?35, 0?2560?2560?25, and 0?156
0?1560?15 m and that of the corresponding reinforcing
steel element as 1, 0?6, 0?4, 0?35, 0?25, and 0?15 m. The
results thus obtained in terms of displacement and stresses
were found to converge at an element size 0?256
0?2560?25 m, giving a total number of 9360 elements of
concrete and 22 194 elements of reinforcement (see
Table 2). Thus, the size of element adopted was 0?256
0?2560?25 m for concrete and 0?25 m for reinforcement
for all the simulations of cantilever wall.
The mesh convergence was also studied for counterfort
retaining walls with full height (CR1) and reduced height
(CR2) counterforts. For full height counterfort, the size
of concrete element was varied as 16161, 0?86

NO

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

2 Reinforcement details of CR1 retaining wall at a wall section and b counterfort section

0?860?8, 0?6560?6560?65, 0?6260?6260?62, and

0?4860?4860?48 m and the corresponding steel element
as 1, 0?8, 0?65, 0?52, and 0?42 m. The mesh convergence
in this case was achieved at the element size 0?48 60?48
60?48 m for concrete and 0?42 m for steel (see Table 3).

Thus, the same size of element was adopted for this

retaining wall.
For the wall with reduced height counterfort, the element
size of concrete varied as 16161, 0?660?660?6, 0?526
0?5260?52, and 0?4660?4660?46 m and that of the

3 Finite element model of C1A cantilever retaining wall: a XY plane; b XZ plane; c YZ plane; d three-dimensional (3D) model
of retaining wall; e 3D model of reinforcement

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

171

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

6 Finite element model of soilwall system of earth pressure

4 Finite element model of CR1: full height counterfort

retaining wall

corresponding element of steel as 1, 0?6, 0?52, and 0?46 m.

The convergence of the results was achieved at the element
size 0?4660?4660?46 m (see Table 4). Therefore, the same
element size was chosen for carrying out the numerical
simulations.
The results of the mesh convergence study for the
cantilever and counterfort retaining walls are also shown
in Fig. 7a and b for the maximum displacement at the
stem top and maximum shear stress developed in the wall,

respectively. The displacement was found to decrease and

the stress increase, with the reduction in the size of the
element. It was further noticed that the mesh convergence
for the stresses was achieved at a more refined mesh
configuration compared to displacement. The soil was also
discretized into eight-node linear hexahedral reduced
integration brick elements (C3D8R) of 16161 m uniform size throughout its volume (see Fig. 6).

Application of loads
The active and the passive pressures assigned to the
retaining wall along with the body force are highlighted in
Fig. 8. The numerical values of the active and passive
pressures were computed using simple mathematical
expressions that are function of the height of the wall
(see Table 5). The self-weight of soil and concrete was
assigned as gravitational body force.
The Public Work Research Institute of Ministry of
Construction of Japan (1975) studied the pressure
distribution of cohesive and sandy soils. The distribution
of the earth pressure caused by cohesive soil was found to
be triangular whereas that of the sandy soil and gravel,
almost trapezoid. Thus, the point of application of
resultant force was found to be located at (0?350?5)H,
where H is the height of the wall. However, Clough and
Duncan (1971), Green et al. (2008), and Green and
Ebeling (2003) found that the distribution of lateral earth
pressure acting on the heel and wall sections was
triangular in shape, and the resultant force was acting at
one-third of the height of the wall above the base.
Therefore, in the present study also a triangular pressure
distribution has been considered with its resultant at H/3
from the base.

Material modeling

5 Finite element model of CR2: reduced height counterfort

retaining wall

172

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

The material behavior of steel, concrete, and soil was

considered linear elastic in the present study.
p For M30 grade
concrete, the elastic modulus (E~4700 f c ) was obtained
as per the guideline of ACI 318, density was considered
2400 kg m23, and Poissons ratio 0?17 (see Table 6). The
reinforcing steel was also assigned the modulus of elasticity
(261011 N m22), density (7850 kg m23), and Poissons
ratio (0?3). The characteristic strength of steel reinforcement

NO

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

7 Mesh convergence study: Variation of a displacement (at stem top) and b stresses with the element size

Table 2 Finite element results of C1A cantilever wall using mesh convergence study
Description
Steel

Size of element/m
No. of elements
(B31)
Concrete Size of element/m
No. of elements
(C3D8R)
Total number of
elements in the wall
Maximum displacement
at stem top/mm
Maximum shear
stresses/N mm22

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

1
6206

0?6
9567

0?4
13 952

0?35
16 203

0?25
22 194

0?15
37 272

16161
225

0?660?660?6
550

0?460?460?4
2584

0?3560?3560?35
3268

0?2560?2560?25
9360

0?1560?1560?15
35 100

6431

10 117

16 536

19 471

31 554

72 372

54?74

54?68

53?48

53?47

53?40

53?45

0?202

0?247

0?499

0?637

0?704

0?728

Table 3 Finite element results of CR1 wall using mesh convergence study
Description

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Steel

1
14 775
16161
1104
15 879
38?14
0?980

0?8
14 775
0?860?860?8
1566
16 341
38?24
1?066

0?65
14 775
0?6560?6560?65
2646
17 421
38?29
1?20

0?52
28 088
0?6260?6260?62
2840
30 928
38?30
1?23

0?42
34 299
0?4860?4860?48
6504
40 803
38?31
1?24

Size of element/m
No. of elements (B31)
Concrete
Size of element/m
No. of elements (C3D8R)
Total number of elements in the wall
Maximum displacement at stem top/mm
Maximum shear stress/N mm22

Table 4 Finite element results of CR2 wall using mesh convergence study
Description

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Steel

1
9345
16161
970
10 315
76?25
1?760

0?6
15 117
0?660?660?6
3732
18 849
69?08
1?700

0?52
17 319
0?5260?5260?52
4908
22 227
69?06
2?038

0?46
19 583
0?4660?4660?46
6360
25 943
69?08
2?157

Size of element/m
No. of elements (B31)
Concrete
Size of element/m
No. of elements (C3D8R)
Total number of elements in the wall
Maximum displacement at stem top/mm
Maximum shear stress/N mm22

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

173

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

counterfort wall with two different sizes of counterforts

was also studied. The results thus obtained in terms of
displacement in different components of the wall and
stresses developed therein were presented and discussed.
The unit of the displacement contours was meter,
whereas that of the stress contours was newton per meter
square. The coordinate system shown in Fig. 3 represents
the positive direction for the displacement. The tension is
represented by positive sign, whereas compression by
negative sign. The horizontal as well as vertical displacements of the stem have been found to increase with an
increase in the height of the cantilever wall (Table 7).
Moreover, the displacement for less toemore heel (A)
configuration was found to be higher compared to less
heelmore toe (B) configuration (see Fig. 9).
The maximum horizontal displacement at the stem top
was found to be 6?17, 10?58, and 12?7 mm for C1A, C2A,
and C3A, respectively and 1?51, 3?87, and 9?06 mm for
C1B, C2B, and C3B, respectively. The horizontal displacement at the bottom of stem was comparatively low,
and the difference between the A- and B-configurations
was insignificant. The horizontal deformation contours of
the cantilever wall are plotted in Fig. 10. It was observed
that for A-configuration, the deformation of the key is
decreasing marginally with an increase in the height of the
wall (see Fig. 10ac). It may be because of the fact that
with an increase in the height of the wall, the anticlockwise couple acting at the bottom of the stem is
increasing and hence reducing the displacement of the
shear key. However, the opposite behavior was observed
in case of B-configuration of the wall because of lack of
sufficient heel width.
The vertical downward displacement of the cantilever
retaining wall was significantly higher than the horizontal
displacement (Table 7). It was found to increase with an
increase in the height of the wall. However, at the heel free
edge for A-configuration, the vertical displacement was

8 Typical details of the body forces and horizontal component of earth pressure

was considered as 500 MPa. For soil properties, modulus

of elasticity (0?36108 N m22), density (1835 kg m23),
and Poissons ratio (0?34) were also defined.

Results and discussion

Three-dimensional finite element analysis has been carried
out in order to study the effect of lateral earth pressure on the
flexible retaining walls. The deformation behavior of the
different components of the retaining wall such as base slab,
stem, counterfort, and shear key was studied. Three cantilever
walls of heights 5?5, 6?5, and 8?5 m were studied with less
heelmore toe and less toemore heel configurations. The

Table 5 Analytical expressions for active and passive pressure distribution on wall
Active pressure

Passive pressure

Description

Base slab configuration

Wall

Shear key

Wall

Shear key

C1

Less toemore heel (C1A)

Less heelmore toe (C1B)
Less toemore heel (C2A)
Less heelmore toe (C2B)
Less toemore heel (C3A)
Less heelmore toe (C3B)
Full height counterfort (CR1)
Reduced height counterfort (CR2)

26116yz38 837

26116y24893

255 050yz46 793

255 050y246 793

26116yz44 341

26116y25810

255 050yz41 287

255 050y252 298

26116yz55 349

26116y26422

255 050yz46 793

255 050y257 803

26116yz82 413

26116y25657

255 050yz53 673

255 050y250 921

C2
C3
CR

Table 6 Material parameters for the nite element model

Elastic constant

174

S. no.

Description

Density/kg m23

Youngs modulus/N m22

Poissons ratio

1
2
3

Concrete
Steel reinforcement
Soil

2400
7850
1835

0?2461011
2?061011
0?306108

0?17
0?30
0?34

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

9 Horizontal displacement at the top and bottom of the

stem

found to increase from C1 to C2 and thereafter it

decreased for C3 (see Fig. 11).
The reason behind the same is attributed to the base
slab thickness that is higher (1050 mm) in case of C3
retaining wall as compared to C1 and C2 walls (850 and
950 mm, respectively). However for B-configuration walls,
the vertical displacement at heel free edge was found to
increase consistently with the increase in the height of the
wall because of the low heel width. In general, the vertical
displacement for A-configuration walls was found to be
11 Vertical displacement of cantilever retaining wall

10 Horizontal displacement contour of cantilever retaining wall (meter): a C1A wall: less toemore heel; b C2A wall: less
toemore heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f C3B
wall: less heelmore toe
Table 7 Relative displacement of cantilever retaining wall
Horizontal displacement/mm

Vertical displacement/mm

Stem

Free edge of base slab

Base slab configuration

Top

Base

Beneath the stem

Toe

Heel

C1A
C2A
C3A
C1B
C2B
C3B

6?17
10?58
12?70
1?51
3?87
9?06

1?44
3?05
4?52
1?07
1?75
4?15

52?84
57?52
58?56
52?21
53?03
55 93

53?39
58?96
61?20
43?51
48?25
52 96

50?08
53?19
50?63
52?21
53?98
55?04

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

175

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

12 Vertical displacement contour of cantilever retaining wall (meter): a C1A wall: less toemore heel; b C2A wall: less toe
more heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f C3B wall:
less heelmore toe

higher than that of the B-configuration walls except at the

heel free edge (see Fig. 12). For A-configuration walls, the
displacement was found to be maximum at the toe free
edge whereas for B-configuration, at the heel free edge.
The stresses developed in concrete (normal to stem
surface) of the cantilever retaining walls have been plotted
in Fig. 13. The maximum compression has been found to
develop near the joint of stem and toe slab, whereas the
maximum tension near the joint of shear key and toe slab,
in order to avoid the toppling of the stem. In general, both
the compressive and tensile stresses were found to increase

with an increase in the height of the wall. However, both

the tensile and compressive stresses were found to reduce
slightly for C2A wall because of the lesser width of toe slab
available in this wall (1 m) as compared to that of C1A
(1?5 m) and C3A (2?2 m) walls. The stresses in the Bconfiguration walls were in general found to be higher
than the A-configuration walls because of the large width
of toe slab available earlier.
The stresses in the vertical direction were found to be
maximum at the base of the stem (see Fig. 14). The tensile
stresses in the vertical direction were found to be

13 Normal stresses in horizontal direction of the cantilever retaining wall (N m22) (newton per meter square): a C1A wall:
less toemore heel; b C2A wall: less toemore heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e
C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f C3B wall: less heelmore toe

176

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

14 Normal stress in vertical direction of the cantilever retaining wall (N m22): a C1A wall: less toemore heel; b C2A wall:
less toemore heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f
C3B wall: less heelmore toe

maximum at the heel face of stem, whereas the compressive stresses at the toe face of stem. The stresses were
predicted higher in B-configuration walls, and these were
also found to be influenced by the free height as well as
thickness of the stem.
The axial stresses developed in the reinforcement of the
cantilever walls are shown in Fig. 15. The tensile stresses
were found to be maximum at the joint of toe and shear key
as well as joint of stem and heel. The compressive stresses
on the other hand were found to be maximum at the joint of

stem and toe. The tension and compression behavior was

therefore in agreement with that of the concrete (Fig. 13).
However, the predicted intensity of stresses in concrete was
significantly lesser as compared to that in the steel
reinforcement, leading to the conclusion that the section
is under reinforced. The maximum tensile and compressive
stresses in concrete were found to be 3?1 and 4?2 MPa,
respectively in C3B wall. However in the reinforcement, the
maximum tensile and compressive stresses found in C2B
wall were of the order of 34?4 and 50?4 MPa, respectively.

15 Stresses in the reinforcement of cantilever retaining wall (N m22): a C1A wall: less toemore heel; b C2A wall: less toe
more heel; c C3A wall: less toemore heel; d C1B wall: less heelmore toe; e C2B wall: less heelmore toe; f C3B wall:
less heelmore toe

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

177

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

16 Horizontal and vertical displacement of counterfort retaining wall (meter): a CR1 wall: horizontal displacement; b CR2
wall: horizontal displacement; c CR1 wall: vertical displacement; d CR2 wall: vertical displacement

In general, the intensity of stresses in reinforcement was

found to be significantly higher in B-configuration walls
because of the larger toe width available in this case.
The horizontal and vertical displacement of the counterfort retaining walls is presented in Table 8. As expected,
the displacement of CR2 (reduced counterfort wall) was
found to be higher compared to CR1 (full counterfort
wall). The maximum horizontal displacement in CR2 wall
was found to be 70 and 174% higher at the top and bottom

of the stem, respectively because of 22?7% reduction

(2?8 m) in the height of counterfort. The vertical displacement under the stem as well as the free edge of toe and heel
was found to be almost 100% higher in case of CR2 wall as
compared to that of CR1wall (Table 8).
The contour plots of the displacement shown in Fig. 16
describe that the maximum horizontal displacement in
CR2 wall is not exactly at the top of stem but near the
joint of stem and counterfort. The free height of 4 m in

Table 8 Relative displacement of counterfort retaining wall

Horizontal displacement/mm

Vertical displacement/mm

Stem

178

Free edge of base slab

Base slab configuration

Top

Base

Beneath the stem

Toe

Heel

CR1
CR2

9?42
15?96

2?71
7?45

34?65
67?44

28?02
55?88

31?34
62?63

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

17 Normal stresses in horizontal direction of the counterfort retaining wall (N m22): a CR1 counterfort wall; b CR2 counterfort wall

case of CR2 wall was found to deflect toward the earth

side to a maximum of 5?40 mm at the top. The pattern of
the vertical displacement, however, was found to be same
in CR1 and CR2 except the fact that the magnitude was
higher in the later.
The contour plots of the normal stresses in the
horizontal direction are shown in Fig. 17a and b for the
counterfort walls. The maximum compression was found
at the junction of toe and stem, whereas the maximum
tension at the junction of toe and shear key, in the same
manner as noticed in the cantilever walls. However, the
magnitude of stresses in counterfort walls was found to be
higher particularly in CR2 wall. The normal stresses in the
vertical direction are plotted in Fig. 18a and b. The tensile
stresses were seen to be high at the top joint of stem and

the counterfort, whereas the compressive stresses at the

joint of stem and toe. In CR2 wall, high tension and
compression is seen to develop at the front and rear face of
the stem at the top joint of the counterfort. This is because
of the fact that the portion of stem above this joint is
acting as cantilever.
The tensile stresses in the reinforcement of the counterfort walls shown in Fig. 19 were found to be maximum at
the bottom of the toe slab. On the other hand, the
compressive stresses were found to be maximum at the
top of the toe slab, being under compression. These
stresses were found to be in agreement to those developed
in cantilever walls (Fig. 15). The compressive stress was
also found to be high at both the faces of the shear key
for CR1, however, only at the heel side of the shear key

18 Normal stresses in vertical direction of the counterfort retaining wall (N m22): a CR1 counterfort wall; b CR2 counterfort
wall

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

179

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

19 Stresses on reinforcement of counterfort retaining wall (N m22): a CR1 counterfort wall; b CR2 counterfort wall

for CR2. However in the cantilever walls, such high

stresses were not seen in the shear key reinforcement. As
compared to CR1 wall, the stresses in CR2 were found to
be 63 and 47% higher in tension and compression,
respectively.
The economy is also an important concern of the
structural design in addition to the stability of the
structure. Therefore in the present study, the cost analysis
of all the retaining walls was also carried out to obtain the
most economical section among the cantilever and
counterfort walls (Table 9). The cost of concrete and
reinforcement was worked out to be $84 (Rs 4700)/cubic
meter and $930 (Rs 52 000)/t, respectively based on the
survey of the local market.
The volume of each material was calculated in the
retaining walls, and the total cost was evaluated. The labor
and the formwork charges, however, were not included in
the analysis. The total material cost of the retaining wall
was found to be the highest for CR1 wall followed by C3,
CR2, C2, and C1, respectively (see Fig. 20). Thus, C3 wall
was found to be 45 and 90% costlier compared to C2 and
C1 walls, respectively. Moreover, it was also found to be
0?7% costlier than the reduced height counterfort wall
(CR2), in spite of the fact that the height of CR2 was 4 m

higher than C3 wall. CR1 wall on the other hand was

found to be 7% costlier than CR2.

Conclusion
The present numerical study describes the behavior of the
cantilever and counterfort walls subjected to lateral earth
pressure. The influence of the stem height, base slab width,
and height of the counterfort was studied. The results thus
obtained led to the following conclusions.
The displacements and stresses in the cantilever wall
were found to increase with an increase in its height. The
maximum horizontal displacement was found to be higher
in A-configuration (less toemore heel), whereas the
maximum stresses in B-configuration (less heelmore
toe) walls. The maximum compression (in concrete as
well as reinforcement) has been found to develop near the
joint of stem and toe, whereas maximum tension, near the
joints of stem and heel as well as shear key and toe.
The maximum horizontal displacement in CR2 (reduced
height counterfort) wall was found to be 70 and 174%
higher at the top and bottom of the stem, respectively than
that of the CR1 wall because of 2?8 m (22?7%) reduction
in the height of counterfort. The vertical displacement

Table 9 Economic analysis of different retaining walls

Description

Volume of
concrete/m3

Volume of
steel/m3

Cost of concrete

Cost of steel

C1
C2
C3
CR1
CR2

127
165
231
255
235

1?02
1?34
2?96
2?19
2?30

USD
USD
USD
USD
USD

USD 745
USD 975
USD 2160
USD 1600
USD 1675

10
13
19
21
19

660
850
390
400
725

(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs

596 900)
775 500)
1 085 700)
1 198 500)
1 104 500)

USD: United States dollar; INR: Indian national rupee.

180

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs

Total cost
41 630)
54 690)
120 820)
89 390)
93 880)

USD
USD
USD
USD
USD

11
14
21
23
21

405
825
550
000
400

(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs
(Rs

638 530)
830 190)
1 206 520)
1 287 890)
1 198 380)

Senthil et al.

Behavior of cantilever and counterfort retaining walls

References

20 Economic analysis of the cantilever and counterfort

retaining wall

under the stem as well as the free edge of toe and heel was
found to be almost 100% higher.
The maximum compression in concrete as well as reinforcement of the counterfort walls was found to be at the
junction of toe and stem, whereas maximum tension, at
the junction of toe and shear key. However, the magnitude
of the stresses was found to be higher in CR2 wall.
In all the retaining walls studied herein, the predicted
intensity of stresses in concrete was significantly lesser as
compared to that in the steel, leading to the conclusion
that the section is under reinforced.
The C3 wall was found to be 45 and 90% costlier than C2
and C1 walls, respectively, and 0?7% costlier than the reduced
height counterfort wall, CR2. It should be noticed that the
height of CR2 is 4 m higher than C3 wall. On the other hand,
CR1 wall was found to be 7% costlier than CR2.

ACI Committee 318. 1999. Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318M-11) and commentary, Detroit, American Concrete Institute.
Bhatia, S. K. and Bakeer, R. M. 1989. Use of the finite element method in
modeling a static earth pressure problem, Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Geomech., 13, 207213.
Chugh, A. K. 2005. A counterfort versus a cantilever retaining wall a
seismic equivalence, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Geomech., 29, 897917.
Clough, G. W. and Duncan, J. M. 1971. Finite element analyses of
retaining wall behavior, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97, 16571673.
Green, R. A. and Ebeling, R. M. 2003. Modeling the dynamic response of
cantilever earth-retaining walls using FLAC. Numerical modeling in
geomechanics, Proc. 3rd International FLAC Symposium, Canada,
Balkema, Lisse, 333341.
Green, R. A., Olgun, C. G. and Cameron, W. I. 2008. Response and
modeling of cantilever retaining walls subjected to seismic motions,
Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng., 23, 309322.
Liu, N.-H., Chen, J.-W. and Liou, J.-Y. 2006. The deformed profile of the
horizontal backfill in active state, Int. Symp. Geohazards
Mitigation, Tainan, Taiwan, 174179.
Matsuo, M., Kenmochi, S. and Yagi, H. 1978. Experimental study on
earth pressure of retaining wall by field test, Jpn. Soc. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng., 18, (3), 2741.
Nisha, S., Shivashankar, R. and Ravi Shankar, A. U. 2011. Role of shear
keys in cantilever retaining wall, Proc. Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Kochi, Indian Geotechnical Society, 627630.
Public Work Research Institute of Ministry of Construction of Japan. 1975.
Large scale model tests of a retaining wall, Research Data, No. 994.
Salman, F. A., Fattah, M. Y., Shirazi, S. M. and Mahrez, A. 2011.
Comparative study on earth pressure distribution behind retaining
wall subjected to line loads, Sci. Res. Essays, 6, (11), 22512267.
Terzaghi, K. 1934. Large retaining wall tests, Eng. News Rec., 112, 136140.
Yoo, C. and Kim, C. 2008. Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic
reinforced segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load: fullscale load test and 3D finite element analysis, Geotext.
Geomembranes, 26, 460472.

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

2014

VOL

NO

181