Butterfield, R.

(2012)

Geotechnique Letters 2, 2528 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geolett.12.00001

On dimensioning the base of a traditional retaining wall

R. BUTTERFIELD*
When conventional retaining walls fail, they usually do so either by being transported bodily within a
landslide of the material they are retaining or by a local failure of their foundation, particularly if it is a
rigid base at shallow depth. The purpose of this letter is to present a rational way of determining the
optimum geometry of such a base for a specific wall height and relevant soil parameters using a
three-dimensional interaction diagram for a rigid base buried at shallow depth. The optimisation
procedure required is novel because the loads acting on the base are a function of their dimensions.
Furthermore, if the soil strength is scaled down, as in a limit state design, the lateral load on the wall
is increased whilst the load capacity of the base is decreased. The analysis presented provides a
simple means of exploring the consequences of complex interactions of this kind. The methodology
developed is independent of the method by which the resultant base loads (V, H, M/B) are decided
and the analytical form of the failure locus.
KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; design; failure; footings/foundations; retaining walls; soil/structure interaction
ICE Publishing: all rights reserved

although they will still be expressible as algebraic functions

of (h, a, b, d) and the soil properties.

INTRODUCTION
Figure 1 shows an idealisation of a common form of
retaining wall and the forces acting upon it. In the
following analysis the wall is represented by the bold
outline shown so that, for simplicity only, self-weight forces
can be ignored. The objective is to determine values for the
base dimensions (a, b, d), herein called optimal, for which
the wall is on the point of failure under the applied loads.
The breadth of the footing B 5 (a + b) and the depth of any
downstand D 5 dB.
The wall, of height h, is subjected to resultant design
loads (V, H, M/B). The load capacity of a shallow, rigid
foundation subject to such force resultants is therefore
central to the analysis. For illustration, simple, but
plausible, values are used for the forces (calculated per
unit length of wall). With unit soil weight c, these are as
follows.

THE LOAD CAPACITY OF RIGID BASES

An interaction diagram is a failure locus in the present
case a closed three-dimensional (3D) surface in (V, H, M/B)
space such that load points lying within the surface define
admissible loads, those lying on it identify a failure state
and load points plotting outside it cannot be supported.
Such diagrams are now a well-established means of
identifying the load capacity of rigid pad foundations.
For a surface strip footing, the failure loci in (V, H) and
(V, M/B) planes can be represented satisfactorily by simple,
geometrically similar parabolas (Butterfield & Ticof, 1979)
such as

V 5 cah; the weight of the rectangular block of soil

overlying section a of B.
N H 5 Kach2/2; the conventional value of active earth
pressure acting at h/3 above the surface of the base.
N M 5 Hh/3 Vb/2; the moment contributions of V and H
about an axis through the point shown on the centreline
of the surface of the base.
Since the supporting soil is confined by both the
downstand D and the backfill, it is assumed that the load
capacity of the base will be enhanced to that of a shallowdepth, rigid, buried footing with cross-section B6D; in
practice, the protrusion of the downstand below the
concrete base will usually be small.
If a more elaborate assessment of the forces developed
were to be used to calculate (V, H, M/B) (by including the
actual weight of the wall and its base, more precise values
of the active earth pressures and water pressures acting on
them), their values may differ from those used here,

8(H=V max )~8r(1{r)t

(1a)

11(M=BV max )~8r(1{r)t

(1b)

in which t 5 0?5 and r 5 V/Vmax where Vmax is the vertical

centreline load capacity of the surface strip. Although more
recent research has elaborated these expressions, they are
probably precise enough for everyday practical use.
The corresponding 3D locus in (V, H, M/B) has been
established as a cigar-shaped surface with slightly rotated
elliptic cross-sections in (H, M/B) planes (Butterfield &
Gottardi, 1994)
(8H=V max )2 z2b(88HM=BV 2max )z
(11M=BV max )2 {8rt(1{r)2 ~0

(2)

in which b 5 0?22 radians is the rotation and the positive

sign on this term locates the quadrant, the weaker one (see
Fig. 4 below), in which (H, M/B) points have to plot when
M, calculated conventionally (i.e. clockwise in Fig. 1), is
taken to be positive. The rotation of the ellipse can be
eliminated by setting b 5 0.
Butterfield (2006) proposed an extension of this model to
include burial depths of at least 0d1 in which, with d 5
B/D, the following assumptions apply.

Manuscript received 1 February 2012; first decision 15 March

2012; accepted 30 March 2012.
Published online at www.geotechniqueletters.com on 9 May
2012.
*School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of
Southampton, Southampton, UK

25

Butterfield

26

0.5

f=6

H = V(0.569)

0.4

V
H

H/V *

0.3

a/2

f=7

0.2

H = V(0.500)

0.1

f=8

h/3
0
D = dB

B
a

Fig. 1. Loading on and dimensions of a typical retaining wall

(a) The vertical centreline failure load becomes V* 5

Vmax(2d + 1) (i.e. for d 5 {0, 0?5, 1?0}, V* 5 {1, 2,
3}Vmax, values that are almost identical to those widely
used).
(b) The horizontal load capacity of the buried footing,
when V 5 0, is the conventional lateral passive
resistance, equal to KpcD2/2.
(c) The failure loci in the (H, V) plane remain parabolic
but their peak H values increase with d according to H*
5 V*/f with f 5 (8 2 2d) (i.e. for d 5 {0, 0?5, 1?0}, f 5
{8, 7, 6}). These values are in line with f < 7 from a
numerical analysis of a pad with d 5 0?5 (Gottardi
et al., 2005) and more conservative than f < 8 2 4d
deduced by Butterfield & Ticof (1979) from tests using
brass-rod analogue material, which generated failure
loci much like those shown in Fig. 3.
(d) The failure loci in the (V, M/B) plane are assumed to be
geometrically similar to those in the (H, V) plane while
maintaining the scaling (8/11) of the two parabolas
established for the surface footing, d 5 0, case.
Although this is a reasonable assumption there is, as
yet, no experimental evidence supporting it. Figure 4
shows elliptical cross-sections of the yield locus, with
calculated load points at failure superimposed: the M/B
components are seen to be very small. Figure 2 is an
exemplar of such an (H, V) failure locus, which
necessarily extends (by mV*) beyond the coordinate
origin at O to an alternative origin O9, in relation to
which V9 5 V + mV*, V*9 5 V*(1 + m), whereas (H, M)
are unchanged by the transformation.
When referred to O9, the defining parabolic equations
corresponding to equations (1a) and (1b) become
V */f = V *t/4

-1

d=0
V *0
1
V/V *

d = 0.5

V *0.5

V *1

Fig. 3. Details of a set of failure loci for D/B 5 {0, 0?5, 1?0}

8(H=V  )~8r(1{r)t

(3a)

11(M=BV  )~8r(1{r)t

(3b)

in which
r~V=V  ~

VzmV 
V  (1zm)

The equation for the failure locus of a buried footing

(Butterfield, 2006), analogous to equation (2), is then
(8H=V  )2 z2b(88HM=B(V  )2 )z

(4)

(11M=BV  )2 {8rt(1{r)2 ~0

From assumption (c), H*5V*/f5V*9t9/4 using equation

(3a), whence, substituting for f, V*/(822d)5V*(1+m)t9/4,
from which
m~2=(4{d)t{1

(5)

As a consequence of assumptions (a)(d), t9 becomes a

function of d, and is the positive root of equation (6), as
shown in Butterfield (2006)

0.1

0.05

H/V 0

-0.05

-0.1

tan-1(t )
O O
mV *

d = 1.0

H = V(0.538)

( V, V )
V*
V *

Fig. 2. Notation for a buried footing

-0.08

-0.04

0.04

0.08

M/BV

Fig. 4. Cross-sections of the 3D locus showing load points at

failure for case (i) (solid) and case (ii) (open)

On dimensioning the base of a traditional retaining wall

2(4{d)(t)2 {4tz

d2
~0
1z2d

(6)

Figure 3 shows a set of (V/V*, H/V*) buried-footing

failure loci for d 5 {0, 0?5, 1?0}. Using this information,
together with equation (4), the equation for the 3D failure
locus can be expressed (using a computer package such as
Mathematica) in terms of the unknown quantities (a, b, d)
embedded in (V9, V*9, m, t9).
It is important to appreciate that an expression
corresponding to equation (4), formulated in terms of (a,
b, d, h), can be deduced for any (V, H, M/B) failure locus
that can be expressed algebraically. Therefore, the solution
process presented below does not depend on the specific
algebraic form chosen to represent the locus.
OPTIMISING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE RETAINING
WALL BASE
The following section demonstrates how this methodology
can be used to deduce optimum base dimensions for a
retaining wall typified in Fig. 1. By optimum, we mean a
set of values for (a, b, d) that will generate a (V, H, M/B)
load point lying on the surface of the 3D failure locus while
minimising some function of (a, b, d) for example, the
minimum total length of the base (B + D) 5 (a + b)(1 + d).
This is a classical minimisation problem for which
computer packages are available. Mathematica contains such
a procedure called Minimize, a command line for which is
Minimizeazb1zd ,fcigar~~0,
a1 a a2, b1 b b2, d1 d d2g,fa,b,d g
This reads find the values of (a, b, d) that minimise (B +
D) whilst satisfying cigar 5 0 where cigar represents the
yield function, equation (4), expressed in terms of (a, b, d)
within the specified ranges of a1 # a # a2 , b1 # b # b2, d1
# d # d2.
If, for example, the strength of the retained material is
scaled down, thereby increasing the active pressure on the
wall while simultaneously reducing the passive resistance of
the downstand, then the process generates a limit state
design for the base.
Consider, as an illustrative example, a wall with h 5 8 m,
retaining material with an effective c 5 18 kN/m3 and Q9 5
30u. If tan Q9 is scaled down by a partial factor of 1?3, say,
the value of Q9 to be used in a limit state calculation
becomes 25u.
Table 1 shows the output obtained for six cases, in each
of which a different function of (a, b, d ) was minimised
using the above procedure. The solutions for cases (i) to (vi)
in Table 1 refer to the following.
(i)
(ii)

Minimising (B + D),with d 5 0; providing B 5

6?16 m for the idealised optimum surface footing.
Minimising (B + D), with a reduced arbitrarily to
4 m; now B 5 5?94 m but (B + D) 5 6?69 m since a
downstand D 5 0?75 m is needed.

27

Minimising (B + 1?5D), also with a reduced to 4 m.

This can be thought of as a minimum cost example
in which the cost per metre of the downstand is
assumed to be 1?5 times that of a surface pad. D
decreases to zero again and, although (B + D)
increases to 6?78 m, it is a less expensive solution
than (ii).
(iv) If a were to be reduced further, say to 3 m (perhaps
due to construction constraints), B 5 9 m but (B +
D), at 10?4 m, increases dramatically due to the large
values of b 5 6 m and the downstand D 5 1?4 m,
although the D/B ratio is little different in cases (ii)
and (iv).
In practice, d will not be zero; the solid base will always
have a finite thickness, with D/B 5 d 5 0?1 for example. In
cases (v) and (vi), this solid base condition has been
imposed, leading to
(iii)

(v) a reduced, minimum value for B 5 5?80 m with D 5

0?58 m when Q9 5 25u, providing limit state design
solution.
(vi) the much smaller value of B 5 4?45 m (with D 5
0?45 m) at which the wall base would fail were the full
soil strength Q9 5 30u to be mobilised.
Figure 4 shows a cross-section of the 3D failure locus
located at V/V*9 5 0?32 (case (i) in Table 1, d 5 0) on
which the associated (H/V*9, M/BV*9) values are plotted
(solid point) lying on the ellipse close to the M/BV*9 5 O
line. Comparable data for case (ii) at V/V*9 5 0?21 lies
(open point) nearer the origin O9 and therefore on a smaller
ellipse. In both cases, the value of the H/V*9 load is seen to
be critical and the M/BV*9 contribution is very small, as
reflected in the low eccentricity ratios of the resultant load
on the base, e/B 5 (0?05, 0?02).

CONCLUDING REMARKS
This letter presents an extension of the interaction
diagram philosophy for pad foundations beyond that of
a simple, rigid, surface strip footing to a case in which the
footing may not only be buried at shallow depth but also,
and more importantly, the loads acting on it are functions
of its dimensions (as in the base of a retaining wall).
Determination of an optimum set of dimensions for the
footing (i.e. those that minimise either its extent or its
cost) then becomes analogous to the determination of
minimum cost functions in linear programming for
which computer packages exist. Solution examples using
such a package suggest that it may be a practically useful
tool in limit state design as well as having interesting
heuristic possibilities. In particular, it introduces a
methodology for exploring, in a convenient manner, the
consequences of different assumptions about soil properties, loading regimes, wall geometry and their influence
on both limit state design and wallbase dimensions at
failure.

Table 1. Output for six cases in each of which a different function of (a, b, d) was minimised
Case
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)

Function (a, b, d) to be minimised

(a
(a
(a
(a
(a
(a

+
+
+
+
+
+

b)(1 + d), Q95 25u

b)(1 + d), a 5 4
b)(1 + 1?5d), a 5 4
b)(1 + d), a 5 3
b), d 5 0?1, Q95 25u
b), d 5 0?1, Q95 30u

a: m

b: m

B: m

D: m

5?08
4?00
4?00
3?00
4?86
3?91

1?08
1?94
2?78
6?00
0?94
0?54

0?00
0?14
0?00
0?15
0?10
0?10

6?16
5?94
6?78
9?00
5?80
4?45

0?00
0?75
0?00
1?40
0?58
0?45

28

Butterfield

REFERENCES
Butterfield, R. (2006). On shallow pad foundations for four-legged
platforms. Soils and Found. 46, No. 4, 427435.
Butterfield, R. & Gottardi, G. (1994). A complete threedimensional failure envelope for shallow footings on sand.
Geotechnique 44, No. 1, 181184.

Butterfield, R. & Ticof, J. (1979). The use of physical models in

design. Proc. 7th Euro. Conf. Soil Mech., Brighton 4, 7.28, 259
261.
Gottardi, G., Govoni, L. & Butterfield, R. (2005). Yield loci by
swipe testing. Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore
Geotech, Perth, pp. 469475.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to

the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will
be forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if
considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be
published as a discussion.