International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Computational Optimization and Comparative Structural Analysis of Cantilever Retaining Walls: A Dual-Code Approach Integrating IS 456:2000 and Eurocode 2 Mahima Chandrawat1, Dr. Umesh Pendharkar2 1M.Tech Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P.) 2Principal, Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain (M.P.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - The structural design and stability assessment of
more segmented approach by applying partial safety factors to distinct permanent and variable actions. This fundamental methodological shift creates noticeable discrepancies in both the geometric dimensions and the reinforcement density required for a standard 3.0 m wall height.
cantilever retaining walls represent a critical intersection of geo-technical and structural engineering, heavily influenced by regional regulatory frameworks. This research provides a comprehensive comparative investigation between the Indian Standard (IS 456:2000) and the European Standard (Eurocode 2/EN 1992) for a wall height of 3.0 meters. Utilizing an analytical spreadsheet-based methodology, the performance is bench marked against key stability indicators, including factor of safety (FOS) against lateral sliding and overturning moments.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW The structural design and stability assessment of cantilever retaining walls have been subjects of extensive global research, with a significant focus on the comparative efficiency of international building codes. A prominent study by Kumar and Yadav (2022) performed a comparative evaluation between ACI 318 and IS 456, establishing that Indian standards maintain a higher degree of conservatism regarding the reinforcement density of stem and base slab components. This safety philosophy was further analyzed by Basheer (2017), who observed that while the evolution from working stress to limit state design has optimized material utilization, the inherent safety margins in Indian standards remain broader than those prescribed by European frameworks.
The analysis reveals that the IS 456 framework yields a highly conservative safety margin for overturning (FOS 5.75), whereas sliding stability emerges as the governing design constraint (FOS 1.38), necessitating the integration of a shear key for compliance. In contrast, the limit state philosophy of Eurocode 2, characterized by its nuanced application of partial safety factors for actions and materials, demonstrates a more optimized structural response. The findings suggest that the European approach offers significant potential for material economy and structural optimization in small-to-medium scale infrastructure projects.
The influence of soil-structure interaction and geo-technical parameters, such as the angle of internal friction and surcharge loading, was investigated by Tiwari and Gupta (2021) and Reddy and Rao (2018). Their research identifies lateral sliding as the primary governing stability constraint for walls under 6 meters—a conclusion that is consistent with the analytical results obtained in this study. Furthermore, Patel and Solanki (2019) conducted a direct comparative analysis between IS 456 and Eurocodes, concluding that the integration of partial safety factors in Eurocode 2 (EN 1992) facilitates a more tailored and resource-efficient design compared to the global safety factor methodology of IS 456.
Key Words: Cantilever Retaining Wall, IS 456:2000, Eurocode 2, Stability Analysis, Partial Safety Factors, Structural Optimisation
1. INTRODUCTION The structural integrity of earth-retaining systems is a cornerstone of civil infrastructure, necessitating adherence to stringent design codes. Among the various configurations, cantilever retaining walls are preferred for moderate heights—typically up to 6 meters—due to their balanced material efficiency and construction feasibility. Historically, the design of these structures relied on deterministic working stress methods; however, contemporary engineering has transitioned toward a limit state philosophy to better account for uncertainties in loading and material behavior.
The theoretical foundation for the earth pressure calculations in this analysis is anchored in the established works of Punmia et al. (2015) and Bansal (2017), which provide the requisite framework for determining active pressure coefficients and stability ratios. Additionally, to navigate the methodological complexities of Eurocode 2, the decoding framework proposed by Bond and Harris (2008) was utilized to accurately apply partial safety factors for permanent and variable actions.
In the Indian context, the design framework is primarily regulated by IS 456:2000, which utilizes global safety factors to ensure stability against lateral forces. Conversely, the European standard, Eurocode 2 (EN 1992), introduces a
© 2026, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 8.315
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3842