Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


Soil unit weight for retaining wall design

Soil unit weight for retaining wall design

Soil unit weight for retaining wall design


I have a question regarding retaining wall design, specifically what unit weight to use for a soil above the water table? I’ve seen many textbooks that say use the saturated unit weight for a soil above the water table, why is this the case? It it just a conservative estimate?

Thanks in advance!

RE: Soil unit weight for retaining wall design

You need to ask yourself how high the water could be in the future after the wall is built. The current water level is likely not to be the water table following construction of the wall.

Mike Lambert

RE: Soil unit weight for retaining wall design

to derive the horizontal earth pressure that acts on a retaining wall, you'd need to determine if the wall is free to rotate at the top (i.e., cantilever) or whether it's braced at the top (i.e., like a basement wall). For the former, you'd take the friction angle of the retained soil and use tan^2(45-phi/2), where phi is the friction angle. That will return some number typically in the 0.3 to 0.4 range. Knowing the coefficient of active earth pressure, you'd then multiply it by the soil's unit weight. If the wall cannot move, it's likely appropriate to use 0.5. Many folks use 1-sin(phi) for this value.

If there is water, use the buoyant unit weight against your coefficient, then add the full amount of hydrostatic pressure.


ípapß gordo ainÆt no madre flaca!

RE: Soil unit weight for retaining wall design

It all depends on "will the water table be up in the backfill?" In other words, "is the backfill always drained"? If you do not have some positive method of draining, I suppose the answer might be "yes". Then the unit weight, NOT THE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE FOR EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE, will be water at 62.4 plus submerged unit weight of soil, maybe 60 pcf, depending on how loose or dense it is. So for wall design then you use the 62.4 for water and the at rest submerged soil unit weight, maybe 30 for the soil, in p/sf/ft of depth, as the equivalent fluid lateral pressure. That is still DARN HIGH. Better design is keep it drained.

I missed your point I see. The design lateral earth pressure for design would be proportionately greater according to the difference in density from bone dry to damp.

RE: Soil unit weight for retaining wall design

As I have always seen it - the "bug" is in the "base" unit weight which is always a guess. Are you using 125 pcf or 120 pcf or 130 pcf as your "base" unit weight? The error imposed in this choice probably far outweighs whether you use Saturated unit weight or partially saturated unit weight - as noted by others, below the water table, you will have to use the bouyant unit weight (total less 62.4 pcf) and then add on the hydrostatic pressures. Keep the backfill drained.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


eBook - Rethink Your PLM
A lot has changed since the 90s. You don't surf the Web using dial-up anymore, so why are you still using a legacy PLM solution that's blocking your ability to innovate? To develop and launch products today, you need a flexible, cloud-based PLM, not a solution that's stuck in the past. Download Now
White Paper - Using Virtualization for IVI and AUTOSAR Consolidation on an ECU
Current approaches used to tackle the complexities of a vehicle’s electrical and electronics (E/E) architecture are both cost prohibitive and lacking in performance. Utilizing virtualization in automotive software architecture provides a better approach. This can be achieved by encapsulating different heterogeneous automotive platforms inside virtual machines running on the same hardware. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close