International Conference on Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering, MUET, Pakistan (23 th – 25th Nov, 2017)

PARAMETRIC OPTIMIZATION OF REINFORCED

CONCRETE CANTILEVER RETAINING WALLS
Muhammad Hamad1, Junaid Ahmad1, Munirullah Shah1, Muhammad Ali Khan1
Bashir Alam2, and Muhammad Adil3
1
Researcher, 2Professor, 3Asstt. Professor.
Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Pakistan

Correspondence should be addressed to Muhammad Hamad; muhammadhamad1994@gmail.com.

Abstract: Selection of a type of Reinforced Retaining wall is a challenge as poor consideration of type may result in an
uneconomical solution. Prior research has been performed using different complicated techniques (like Swarm
Intelligence Technique, Target Reliability Method, Harmony Search Based Algorithms and etc.) focusing on the
optimization of a particular type of a retaining wall by varying its structural and geotechnical design parameters.
This research, on the other hand, takes into account three types of cantilever retaining walls classified on the basis of
stem shape as stepped, tapered and rectangular or uniform. A combined evaluation for an optimized design based on
simple parametric comparison has been reported in this paper. Computer-based design tools have been developed
and cost being compared for selection of the optimum using a variety of different parameters of Retaining Wall
design. All typical failure modes including overturning, sliding of the wall; bearing capacity check below the footing;
eccentricity check; and shear/moment demands on the stem, heel, toe, and key were considered.
Tapered stem retaining wall was found to be the most economical among stepped stem retaining wall and
uniform stem retaining wall under specified conditions, as it passed all the necessary failure modes and yet provided
an adequate margin over the other types of retaining walls, in terms of material’s volume. Although, all three types of
walls were exposed to same backfills having same geotechnical properties, and thus all the walls had the same height.
As Retaining walls are long structures thus costs are very high, a small saving in unit length can economize the whole
project several folds.
Keywords: Cantilever, Optimization, Retaining Wall, Reinforced Concrete, Stem shape

I. INTRODUCTION

The underlying principle behind all structural design is the attempt to create a safe and economical configuration of the
structure and its elements to sustain applied loads. This constitutes the practice of iteration to refine the design. The
structural design follows a model of repetitive design and best pick selection. A model based on experience and
knowledge of the forces is determined and analyzed; this model is either further refined or re-imagined to better aid in
another attempt at solving the problem. This is a long and repetitive task which requires very precise calculations and
must be performed by an experienced designer. This is an expensive and time-consuming task.

Design Changes are the second influential factors for time extension in construction projects in Pakistan. The first Being
Law and Order Situation.[1]As the law and order situation is unique to Pakistan and a few countries, Design Changes
becomes the most prevalent Influential factor causing delays in construction projects.“Change Order “was identified as
the most common cause of delay identified by all the parties and about 70% of the projects experienced time overruns.
[2]The most important and highly ranked consultant related delay causes in the construction industry of Pakistan are
changes in drawings, inadequate consultant experience, preparation and approval of drawings, inaccurate site
investigation, contract management, and slow response and inspection. [3]

There is an immense need for IT strategy plan which can improve the current practices in the construction industry of
Pakistan. [4]In the modern world where computer technology has reached such a potential that the most daunting task
which humans faced a few decades ago can be solved with the click of a button, the most amazing feats of science and
engineering have been accomplished with the help of the amazing potential of computing in the modern age. The barrier
to entry in this modern realm is the knowledge of programming and basic computer engineering. Due to lack of
International Conference on Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering, MUET, Pakistan (23 th – 25th Nov, 2017)

enhancements in our technology and computer usage, we often overdesign our structures with high values of safety
factors, hence an uneconomical design is the result.

The issue of cost optimization is solvable when we have a tool readily available, to check the cost of constructing
different designs just by pushing a few buttons. One such problem is selection of cantilever retaining wall among its
various types, i.e. uniform stem cantilever retaining wall, stepped stem cantilever retaining wall, and tapered stem
cantilever retaining wall. All of these have different shape of their stems and provide different safety factors when
exposed to the same set of loadings and geotechnical properties of backfills. This paper demonstrates the developing of a
tool for the design of the cantilever earth retaining wall and solves the mystery of selecting the most optimized structure
under the given circumstances.

Previously, the optimization of retaining wall has been performed using complicated techniques such as Heuristic
Optimization Algorithms, [5]hybrid harmony search algorithms, [6] swarm intelligence techniques,[7] etc. focusing on
the geometrical properties of a retaining wall, and the optimizing a specialized case of a certain retaining wall. This
research, on the other hand, takes into account three different types of cantilever retaining wall and collectively evaluates
them to suggest the optimized retaining structure, in terms of concrete volume, the weight of steel used and ultimately the
bulk cost of the materials used in its construction.

The remaining problem is that embarking on a task to automate a manually solvable problem requires an initial
investment of time and a professional with the knowledge of how to accomplish the task. There are two possible reasons
why this process is not implemented already in Pakistan. One is the lack of knowledge about this process and the benefits
of it. The second being the lack of willingness to let go of old processes and lack of confidence in the newer ones.

OBJECTIVE
The analyses and design of Earth Retaining Structures are usually accomplished by following a set line of processes
which can be automated, our task in this research is to attempt to provide a solution for automation of the design, and
suggest the optimized design of retaining structures.

II. MATERIALS & METHODS

The parametric optimization of the cantilever retaining walls was done with the help of automated excel sheets. The brief
procedure of developing these tools is as under.
The tool was developed in this general approach.
● Research into the Topic.
● Design method analysis.
● Reproduction of the design tasks in Microsoft Excel.
● Verifying the Validity of the design.

The first step of the process is to understand the need for the construction of these structures, we used a mix of resources
including but not limited to books, video lectures and articles about the structures to better understand their need.
The next logical step in this sequence is to understand the limit states and see how failure is possible in the structure, this
gives a better idea of how to make a safe yet economical design. As the limit states for each structure vary, they are given
in separate sheets in our output program. Following that mindset, they are also given a separate mention in this document
as well.
After finding out the possible failure patterns of the structures the next step is to compute all the forces causing and
resisting the specific type of failure. This is the analysis step. Now that the forces are identified the elements which cause
a change in these forces are tabulated and the effect of changing them is noted. Proportionality is determined.

Now going in reverse, the excel sheet is prepared by first specifying the elements which cause a change in the forces,
then the forces which may or may not cause failure. All the failure patterns are checked to see if any of the specified
failure patterns occur, following this using code guidelines, the RC design of the structure is done.
International Conference on Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering, MUET, Pakistan (23 th – 25th Nov, 2017)

Figure 1: Methodology

A. Failure Modes
a) Overturning

Figure 2: Overturning Failure

Factor of Safety = Resisting Moment / Overturning Moment

𝐹𝑂𝑆 = ∑𝑀𝑅/ ∑𝑀𝑜
∑𝑀𝑅 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
∑𝑀𝑜 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

b) Sliding
“Factor of safety against sliding of retaining wall must be satisfied under the acceptable range”

Figure 3: Sliding Failure

𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 = 𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 / 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒

𝐹𝑂𝑆 = ∑𝑉𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛿 + 𝑃𝑝 / ∑𝐻
International Conference on Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering, MUET, Pakistan (23 th – 25th Nov, 2017)

∑𝑉 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠

𝛿 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
𝑃𝑝 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒
∑𝐻 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠

c) Soil Uplift
“There must be no tension in the soil. The Minimum Soil Pressure must be a positive number.”

Figure 4: Soil Uplift

The ratio of eccentricity and sixth of Base width must be less than one.

𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 / (𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ / 6) ≤ 1

𝑒/(𝐵𝑤/6) ≤ 1
𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝐵𝑤 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ

d) Bearing Capacity
“Allowable soil bearing pressure exerted by retaining wall must not be exceeding the foundation bearing capacity”

𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 = 𝐹𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 / 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑙

𝐹𝑂𝑆 = 𝑄𝑎/𝑃(𝑚𝑎𝑥)
𝑄𝑎 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐹𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑃(𝑚𝑎𝑥) 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑙

B. Structural Integrity:
The Structure must withstand the pressure applied on it. In this regard, the two most important considerations are
Flexural Capacity and Shear Capacity. The checks must be satisfied for the following segments.
● Stem
● Heel
● Toe

This process followed the following steps:

International Conference on Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering, MUET, Pakistan (23 th – 25th Nov, 2017)

Figure 5 Design Steps

C. Parametric optimization

Three different scenarios were created and all three types of cantilever retaining walls were designed using the developed
tool. Design situations for the three scenarios are as below.

1. A 13ft high retaining wall with a backfill unit weight of 120pcf. The concrete compressive strength is 4000psi and
rebar strength is 60000psi. The surcharge load on the active backfill is 400psf while the passive backfill height is 2ft.
The span of the wall is 10ft.
2. A 20ft high retaining wall with a backfill unit weight of 120pcf. The concrete compressive strength is 4000 psi and
rebar strength is 60000psi. The surcharge load on the active backfill is 400psf while the passive backfill height is 3ft.
The span of the wall is 30ft.
3. A 25ft high retaining wall with a backfill unit weight of 120pcf. The surcharge load on the active backfill is 200 psf.
The Passive backfill height is 5ft. Concrete strength is 4000psi while rebar strength is 60,000psi. The span of the
wall is 50ft.

It should be noted that the soil conditions, i.e. unit weights, lateral earth pressure coefficients for active and passive soils,
bearing capacity of soil, steel unit cost, concrete unit cost were kept constant while applying the aforementioned
conditions
International Conference on Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering, MUET, Pakistan (23 th – 25th Nov, 2017)

III. RESULTS

The cost estimations for the three conditions, as stated above, have been performed and the results have been tabulated as
shown under.

Bulk
Concrete Total Steel Total
S. Retaining Unit rate Unit Rate Material
Volume cost Weight Cost
No. wall type (PKR/100cft) (PKR/Ton) Cost
(100Cft) (PKR) (ton) (PKR)
(PKR)

Uniform 1.85 31750.5 58738 0.43 50000 21429 80167

1 Stepped 2.30 31750.5 73026 0.34 50000 17007 90033
Tapered 2.18 31750.5 69057 0.38 50000 19025 88082
Uniform 14.59 31750.5 463160 6.08 50000 303789 766949
2 Stepped 13.35 31750.5 423869 7.39 50000 369510 793379
Tapered 12.15 31750.5 385769 6.04 50000 302110 687878
Uniform 41.38 31750.5 1313677 7.70 50000 384936 1698613
3 Stepped 39.75 31750.5 1262082 10.40 50000 520123 1782205
Tapered 36.31 31750.5 1152940 7.61 50000 380672 1533612
Table 1: Cost comparison for the three types of retaining walls.

2000000
Rs 17,82,205
Rs 16,98,613
1800000
Rs 15,33,612
1600000

1400000
Cost in PKR

1200000
For 13 ft. height of wall
1000000
Rs 7,66,949 Rs 7,93,379 For 20 ft. height of wall
800000 Rs 6,87,878
For 25 ft. height of wall
600000

400000

200000 Rs 80,167 Rs 90,033 Rs 88,082

0
uniform stepped tapered
Type of walls

Figure 6: the Bulk material cost of the three types of retaining walls for increasing heights.
International Conference on Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering, MUET, Pakistan (23 th – 25th Nov, 2017)

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The combined evaluation of the three types of cantilever earth retaining walls viz. uniform, tapered and stepped stem
cantilever retaining wall, for the cost of concrete and the total weight of steel used manifested the following conclusions.
1. Uniform stem retaining wall worked better at lower heights of the stem, compared to the stepped and tapered stem,
in terms of concrete volume, and steel weight.
2. Stepped stem cost 12.31% more, and tapered stem cost 9.87% higher compared to uniform stem retaining wall, at
small heights of the wall.
3. The pattern reversed for greater heights of retaining walls, i.e. for larger heights tapered stem retaining wall cost
much lower than the other types, in terms of total concrete cost, total steel cost and consequently the bulk cost of the
retaining wall.
4. Cost of uniform stem retaining wall was found to be 11.49% more and stepped stem retaining wall 15.34% higher
than the tapered stem retaining wall. The pattern continued to be the same for greater heights of retaining wall,
although a slight decrease in the % difference was observed, i.e., for uniform stem retaining wall the surplus % of
cost compared to the most economical retaining wall (tapered) was found to drop its value from 11.49 to 10.46 %
when height of wall was increased from 20 ft. to 25 ft.
5. For stepped stem retaining wall the surplus % compared to the most economical retaining wall (tapered) showed an
increase from 15.34 to 16.21% when the height of the wall was increased from 20 ft. to 25 ft. showing the ineptness
of the stepped stem retaining wall for large heights.

Lessons learnt:
Through rigorous testing, the failure pattern and the analysis of all the forces are accurate with only slight deviations
from other applications. This procedure provides the designer with a quick way to glance at third-party designs which
can help to make sure the resultant structure is stable and economical. Moreover, quick changes to the design are now
more accessible, this may reduce the load design changes brings upon a construction project as it can help reduce the
expensive and time-consuming workload of precise and tiresome calculations required to analyze and design an earth
retaining structure.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

This research was planned in a modular format; it was engineered to be a stepping stone towards solving more complex
problems in the future. The research can easily be used to create a similar body of work for the analysis of Water
Retaining Structure. It can be used with slight modifications to create solutions to problems related to Dams, Reservoirs,
and Barrages etc. It can also be used for further work in Earth Retaining Structures studies like Abutments and sheet pile
walls. More work is still possible in the Retaining Structure as a costing mechanism and more streamlined design and
analysis which recommends the dimensions of the wall can be added. This may take more time but it is a worthy research
to invest time in.

APPENDIX
The detailed version of the tool, which serves as the sole base for this research can be viewed on our personal website:
https://psolutionsdot.wordpress.com/, where it is freely available in the ‘PDF’ format under the titles: RC design of
Uniform Stem Retaining wall, RC design of Stepped Stem Retaining wall, & RC design of tapered Stem Retaining wall,
according to ACI Code.

REFERENCES

[1] S. S. S. Gardezi, I. A. Manarvi, and S. J. S. Gardezi, “Time extension factors in construction industry of
Pakistan,” Procedia Eng., vol. 77, pp. 196–204, 2014.
[2] S. A. Assaf and S. Al-Hejji, “Causes of delay in large construction projects,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 24, no. 4,
pp. 349–357, 2006.
[3] M. Haseeb, Xinhai-Lu, A. Bibi, Maloof-ud-Dyian, and W. Rabbani, “Problems of Projects and Effects of Delays
International Conference on Sustainable Development in Civil Engineering, MUET, Pakistan (23 th – 25th Nov, 2017)

in the Construction Industry of Pakistan,” Aust. J. Bus. Manag. Res., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 41–50, 2011.
[4] Z. A. Memon, N. A. Memon, and A. H. Chohan, “The Use of Information Technology Techniques in the
Construction Industry of Pakistan,” vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 271–280, 2012.
[5] Y. Pei and Y. Xia, “Design of Reinforced Cantilever Retaining Walls using Heuristic Optimization Algorithms,”
Procedia Earth Planet. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2011, pp. 32–36, 2012.
[6] F. Molina-Moreno, T. García-Segura, J. V. Martí, and V. Yepes, “Optimization of buttressed earth-retaining
walls using hybrid harmony search algorithms,” Eng. Struct., vol. 134, pp. 205–216, 2017.
[7] A. H. Gandomi, A. R. Kashani, D. A. Roke, and M. Mousavi, “Optimization of retaining wall design using recent
swarm intelligence techniques,” Eng. Struct., vol. 103, pp. 72–84, 2015.