FAILURE OF A PCC GRAVITY RETAINING WALL IN GOA, INDIA

ABSTRACT

The case study for this project involves a forensic study that was performed on a failed retaining wall.
What made this study interesting is that there were no designs, drawings or any details available that
provides insight to the properties of the wall and the site conditions. The authors had to do soil testing
analysis and reverse engineering to determine the original structure’s geometry and location before
any designing can be done. This paper describes the process of the investigation and reasons they
found for the failure of the retaining wall. A proposed design of a new retaining wall is provided to
compare with the original wall design.

Keywords: Retaining Wall Failure, Slope stability, Retaining Wall Stability, Gabions, Coulomb’s Active Earth Pressure

1. INTRODUCTION

The case study focusses on a retaining wall that have failed in a residential area on the side of a hill in
Ambaji-Fatorda, in the city of Margoa in India. The site was initially allocated as a quarry for the supply
of soil for road embankment projects which meant that the side of the hill was cut and excavated. As
the surrounding area was developed into residential space and the quarry became dormant, a
developer proposed that the quarry area be developed for residential use. A retaining wall was built to
retain a portion of the sloped soil; however, the retaining wall has failed. At the time of failure, the
cause of failure was not known. The case study describes a forensic investigation to determine the
cause of failure of the wall and it provides recommendations for future prevention of potential similar
causes of failure.

2. BACKGROUND

The site is located on the side of a hill which was partly excavated for the supply of soil for road
embankment projects. After excavation was ceased, the hill was left with a 30 metres high cut at a
length of 150 metres long. The retaining wall was constructed with concrete blocks which had
completely collapsed. The case study does not mention when the failure occurred but from the photos
presented of the deteriorated wall sections, it appears that some years passed before the study was
done. This can be seen in the two different satellite images as seen in photo 1 and photo 2. The area
has clearly been developed in some areas and vegetation is visible now where the site was clear
before. The investigators made use of land surveying to project the slope of the ground, collecting of
soil and concrete samples for laboratory testing, and still-photography to scale the size of the concrete
blocks for redrawing the wall sections used for the design.

Photo 1 Satellite image of site from case study Photo 2 Satellite image of site 2019
(Souza, Naik, & Savoikar, 2017) [Google maps]
3. RETAINING WALL GEOMETRY

Since the wall had completely collapsed, and the concrete blocks had broken and deteriorated, the
investigators found it challenging to accurately reconstruct the wall. From the on-site measurements
and scaled measurements from the photos taken, three different block sizes were established which
hailed the following wall section:

Fill

Figure 1. Typical section of reconstructed wall

The wall sections were placed on top of each other with no fixing mechanism joining the blocks
together and no anchorage mechanism to anchor the wall into the compacted fill behind the wall. The
wall is therefor clearly a gravity wall which resembles the functionality of a gabion wall. The strength of
the concrete was tested by extracting three sets of 150x150x150mm cubes from each section of the
wall. The cubes were tested for compressive strength as per the IS 456 -2000 code, which yielded the
following results:

Table 1. Compressive strength of the wall (Souza, Naik, & Savoikar, 2017)

Section Top Middle Toe Mean

Compressive 9.5 10 9 9.5

Strength N/mm²

4. SOIL CONDITIONS

The soil on site was tested as per the IS: SP:36(1)-1987 code to determine the composition of the soil
and to determine the values required for stability analysis. Visually, three colours were observed: red,
white and yellow. The soil was identified as lateritic rock or laterite. Laterite is described as an iron-
oxide rich soil which was derived from a diverse variety of rocks which deteriorated under sturdy
oxidizing and leaching conditions. This type of soil is porous and tends to contain clay minerals with a
low level of silica and is generally soft when freshly quarried but hardens on exposure. (The Editors of
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998)

Three samples for each colour of soil was collected at various areas of the site in order to achieve a
general result applicable to the whole site. Each sample was tested, and the average values obtained
are as follows:
 Table 2. General Soil Properties (Souza, Naik, & Savoikar, 2017)

Sample A (Red) B (Yellow) C (White) Mean

Specific Gravity Gs 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.6

Moisture Content w% 14.9 14.5 10.7 13.4

Compaction Test:

OMC % 16.5 18.2 15.6 16.7

MDD kN/m³ 14.8 15.2 17.5 16.7

Liquid Limit (%) 48 42 36 42

Plastic Limit (%) 28 25 27 26

Plasticity Index 20 17 9 16

Grain Size % G 14 26 17 19

S 52 56 45 51

M 22 10 31 21

C 12 8 7 9

The samples were also tested through a direct shear test to determine the shear strength parameters.
The direct shear test results are as follows:
Table 3. Shear Strength Parameters of Soil Behind Wall (Souza, Naik, & Savoikar, 2017)

Sample c (kPa) ɸ (°)

A 18.5 32

B 19 30

C 20.9 22

Mean 19.46 28
5. STABILITY ANALYSIS FROM CASE STUDY

5.1 Soil Stability

According to Souza et al (2017), slope stability analysis forms an important part of geotechnical
investigation when dealing with the failure of retaining walls. The authors performed the slope stability
analysis with the use of GeoStudios software and the Morgenstern-Price method of analysis. The pore
pressure was assumed to be passing below the wall. The parameters entered were the average
values obtained from the soil and concrete tests as tabled in table 1, 2 and 3. The material model used
in the analysis was the Mohr-Coulomb model and the values used for the concrete was c = 80 kPa, ɸ
= 50° and Ɣ = 25 kN/m³. The values used for the soil was c = 19.56, ɸ = 28° and Ɣ = 16.7 kN/m³.
(Souza, Naik, & Savoikar, 2017)

It should be noted that the soil value for c stated to be used does not correlate with the value obtained
in Table 3. The discrepancy is 0.1 kPa and may have had an influence on the results of the analysis,
however it is not known which value was entered as input to the software. The results published in the
case study will be assumed to be correct.

From the slope stability analysis, the following safety factors were obtained: (Souza, Naik, & Savoikar,
2017)

Table 4. Slope Stability Safety Factors

Slope Stability Scenario FOS Required FOS Fail/Pass

Vertical cut into soil 2.336 >1.5 Pass

Soil wall with retaining wall 3.820 >1.5 Pass

The analysis for both scenarios proved that the stability was above the permissible limit of 1.5,
however, the wall did fail which means that the cause of failure was not due to the soil and further
investigation was necessary.

5.2 Wall stability

The wall structure itself was analysed for stability in terms of sliding, overturning and bearing capacity.
The authors made use of Taylor’s formula for active earth pressure for analysing the forces on the wall
and to calculate the safety factors from the information gathered in table 1, 2 and 3. (Souza, Naik, &
Savoikar, 2017) The calculated safety factors are as follows:

Table 5. Factors of safety for the wall (Souza, Naik, & Savoikar, 2017)

Condition Overturning Sliding Bearing

Factor of safety 0.57 0.66 5.0

6. CAUSES OF FAILURE DISCUSSED

The authors argue that the wall was not designed and possibly constructed by following a rule-of-
thumb method to determine the size of the wall. Pre-cast blocks are easily cast in moulds and placed
with a light-crane or a back actor. The concrete blocks were not tied together to prevent slip. The mix
design for the concrete was also insufficient with the evidence in low compressive strength of the
concrete. The concrete blocks were recklessly cast with honeycombing and rubble found in almost all
the blocks. The blocks had smooth surfaces which did not create sufficient friction to between blocks
and no expansion joints were implemented to combat movement and other stresses.

Goa is a tropical area which receives heavy rainfall monsoons from June to September with gusty
winds. The average annual precipitation is 2709mm. (www.climate-data.org, 2019) Retaining walls
should therefor be designed accordingly and special attention should be made to deal with water
drainage behind the walls. The authors of the case study states that a build-up of hydrostatic pressure
behind the wall, due to a lack of drainage, activated the failure. (Souza, Naik, & Savoikar, 2017)

7. PROPOSED WALL

To accommodate drainage behind the wall a gabion retaining wall will be very effective in
performance, and relatively easy to construct on site as the average retaining height of the wall is +/-
2,7m. The failed retaining wall concrete blocks can be salvaged by crushing them to fill the gabion
baskets. However, the density is very low. For the purpose of this study, it will be assumed that the
gabions will be filled with crushed concrete which has a density of Ɣ=15kN/m³.

7.1 Background of gabion walls

Gabions are big steel wired cages which are filled with stone to form a rectangular block. The blocks
vary in size and are placed together to form a wall with the function of retaining soil. There are various
other uses for gabions such as channel linings, erosion protection at culverts, landscaping, etc.
Gabions are excellent for retaining soils in areas where the soil may be saturated and requires
extensive drainage measures. The high permeability allows for water to drain freely. The size and
shape of the stones inside the cages interlock with each other which creates stability. Gabion blocks
placed on top of each other has the same effect which allows the structure to act as one. Gabion
retaining walls are easily designed as gravity walls and Coulomb’s active pressure theory is used.
(British Standards Institution, 1994)

7.2 Design of gabion retaining wall

The design was done following the BS 8002:1994 code for earth retaining structures and according to
Farmer, et al. (2007)

Size of gabion blocks: Base size: = 0.7 ∗

= 2.24 (Next available size is 3m)

Three blocks will be stacked: G1 = 1x1

G2 = 1x2

G3 = 1x3

Figure 2. Section of new gabion wall

Soil forces:

²( )
Active thrust from Coulomb’s failure plane: = (∅"#) (∅$∈)
 = 0.77
( )[ ]²
(&$∅) (&$∈)

)*²+,
Active thrust: ( =  ( = 57.11 0/2
-

*
Effective height of active thrust: 3ℎ =  3ℎ = 12
5

Vertical and Horizontal components of Pa: (6 = ( 789∅  (6 = 26.8 0/2

(ℎ = <=7∅  (ℎ = 50.43 0/2

Mass of gabion section and centroid:

Centroid = 1.17m
W1 1x1x15 15 kN/m

W2 1x2x15 30 kN/m

W3 1x3x15 45 kN/m

cdedfg 90 kN/m

Forces due to the wall:

Check for overturning:

Overturning Moment: ?@ = (A ∗ 3ℎ  ?@ = 50.43 02

Moment of resistance: ?B = (C ∗ D6 + FG@GHI ∗ JK9LM=83  ?B = 167.7 02

OP
Factor of safety for overturning: N@ =  N@ = 3.3 > 2; PASS
OQ

Check for sliding:

Sum of forces perpendicular to sliding: 0 = FG@GHI + (C  0 = 116.8 0/2

Force resisting sliding: N = R0 with R = L 9∅  N = 62.1 0/2

Horizontal thrust: NG = ( <=7S  NG = 50.43 0/2

TU
Factor of safety for sliding: 9 =  9 = 1.23 > 1; Pass at SLS
TV

Check for bearing:

Ultimate bearing capacity of soil: WX = <0Y NYZ NY + W0[ N[Z N[ + \ ]

0) N)Z N)  WX = 452 0/2-
-

^ (OP OQ ) ^
Eccentricity of result on the base: K = −  K = 0.4952 < = 0.5
- ` b
 ` bi
Bearing pressure on base toe: hG@i = (1 + )  hG@i = 77.5 0/2-
^ ^

` bi
Bearing pressure on base heel: hAiiI = (1 − )  hAiiI = 0.4 0/2-
^ ^

[k
Factor of safety for bearing: Nj = where WoHp = WG@i  Nj = 5.83 > 3; Pass
[lmn

8. CONCLUSIONS

The proposed gabion section meets the requirements for overturning, sliding and bearing capacity.
The sizes of the gabion blocks are much larger than the original concrete blocks which shows that the
original wall was too small to begin with. The design for the gravity gabion wall is a simple process
which is easily optimized if the conditions requires so. The advantages that gabions provide, and the
ease of creating the gabion blocks on site should make this type of wall a very favourable wall in the
construction industry, however, it can be a time-consuming exercise which is not ideal for strained
construction programs. It has its advantages and disadvantages but the low environmental impact and
the general pleasing aesthetic that it provides must be considered first before choosing another type of
wall. In general, retaining walls are too often under designed and incorrectly constructed which leads
to failure and potential collapse. To quote Souza et al (2017): This case emphasizes the importance of
Geotechnical Engineering Design often ignored in common building practice. (Souza, Naik, &
Savoikar, 2017)

9. REFERENCES

(2019, 05 23). Retrieved from www.climate-data.org: https://en.climate-

data.org/asia/india/goa/margao-959541/

British Standards Institution. (1994). BS 8002. Code of practice for earth retaining structures. London:
BSI.

Das, B. M. (2008). Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. Toronto: Chris Carson.

Farmer, R., & Holmes, N. (2007). Designing with Gabions. Bristol: Enviromesh.

Hanif, M. (n.d.). Design_of_Gabion_Retaining_Structure_as_of_Euro_Code. Retrieved May 22, 2019,

from https://www.academia.edu/:
https://www.academia.edu/23490340/Design_of_Gabion_Retaining_Structure_as_of_Euro_C
ode

Souza, L., Naik, A., & Savoikar, P. (2017). Forensic Case Study of Retaining Wall Failure in Goa.
Guwahati: Indian Geotechnical Conference.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1998, July 20). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from
www.Brittannica.com: https://www.britannica.com/science/laterite