Paper No. 574 REVIEW OF DESIGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS BIN. Sinna* & Harior Sincu** ABSTRACT Earth retaining structure is often encountered in highway projects such as bill wads, where embankment i to be constructed within a restricted right of sway and for slope retaining, ec. Technologically, mainly there are two ways to retain earth orto maintain different level of earth fil on either sie of a ‘rvcture. Oe is retaining wall andthe other i reinforced earth wall. The relaning wall canbe of several types depending on their structural system, such fs cantilever counter fort and gravity walls, Further, it can be made from diferent materials, such as, RCC, masonry, gabions tc. Similarly reinforced ‘arth wall ea be of hard face panel (RCC, Stel, Wood, et) oF sof fice (geo-extile wrapped around) Aso the tensile element canbe of diferent types Such as, geo-rid,geo-stip and steel strip with different system of anchorages, such a, tng-eroove steel loop & toggle br, see gs and nu-bol ‘an be adopted. Retaining wall and reinforce earth wall ar to be safe i extemal stability, which comprises of assigned factors of safety against sliding, overturning, val stability incase of retaining wall is ensured by adequate strength (against bending moment, shear force, te) of structural elements obtained as pe standard design procedure applicable to RCC or masonry structure asthe case may be teal stability of reinforced earth wall comprises of strength of tensile clement and pul ou resistance offered by back fil soil, anchorage srenzth atthe face panel ct. The face panel generally made of RCC is designed for shear and bending as anormal RCC element bearing and in global circular slip failure. The The ‘The retaining wall and einfored earth wall in seismic zones are required to withstand seismic forces, such as, inertia frees on structural clements and dynamic increments on earth pressure components. The Paper is aimed to bring complete design aspects at one place so a to avoid refering to many text books oF publications. The analysis is presented in tabular forms, which i concise and clear. Annexure cover detailed design (of Retaining wall and RE wall) based on assumed parameters which will be handy for design 1 INTRODUCTION Earth Retaining Structures are required to retain different level of earth fill. This is often encountered at site of work. Earth Retaining Structures can be placed in various categories on the basis of their structural features, material used, situation under which the structure is to be placed, etc. Few examples are Retaining wall, Reinforced Earth Wall, Bulkhead, ete. Retaining wall can be gravity, cantilever and counter- fort/buttress type, material can be RCC or masonry (stone/brick/P.C.C). Reinforced Earth Wall also serves similar purpose but the design and construction ‘methodology are different compared to normal retaining walls. Walls can be created by crates filled with stone, etc. forming gabions placed one above another having tapering width decreasing towards the top. This is a gravity type wall. There are few other types serving similar purpose but having different methodology, which are Bulk head formed by sheet piles with or without anchor. This has been kept outside the scope of the Paper due to different design criteria as well as length restrictions. Fundamentally any retaining structure including earth retaining structure are required to have external stability, ‘which comprises of sliding, overturning and bearing pressure and are required to be designed to have certain factor of safety against these behavior. The structures are also required 10, have intemal stability, which comprises of structural strength of various members/elements. The external stability is, covered by Limit Equilibrium Analysis, where the restoring forces are compared with disturbing forces and their ratio, provides the Factor of Safety (FoS). The bearing pressure is obtained due to resultant forces at the base and compared to, the safe bearing capacity of the ground / base soil. The structural strength is obtained, based on type of ‘material used and permissible stresses in bending, shear, etc. and standard method of analysis applicable to such determinate/indeterminate structures. Retaining Walls are required to be designed for earthquake forces also. The IS Code provides for calculating such forces in the form of dynamic increments for seismic effect on earth pressure. The seismic inertia force and its direction (horizontal as well as vertical) on structural components are based on. seismic co-efficient and weight of components and are ** DM, ICT Pvt. Ld., A-9, Green Park, New Delhi — 110016 Consultant, ICT Pvt. Ltd.A-9, Green Park, New Delhi ~ 110016 Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011190) Sina & Sinct on taken as per standard practice. However, no inertia effect is taken on weight of back fill. The Reinforced Earth Wall although serves similar purpose, Tike, retaining wall, but the design philosophy is somewhat different. The wall structure comprises of face panel, tensile element, anchorage system. Its internal stability depends on the strength of anchorage system pull out resistance of the tensile element and its tensile strength and structural strength of the face panel. The external stability, however, is somehow similar to simple retaining wall and should be safe against sliding, overturning and bearing pressure. R.E. wall is also designed to withstand seismic forces. The seismic inertia force is considered ‘on part of the reinforced backfill soil volume (refer Annexure-III) as per seismic acceleration in horizontal direction. The acceleration in vertical direction in case of RE wall (unlike retaining wall) is neglected. The dynamic increment on the retained backfill (beyond reinforced backfill) is considered, like, retaining wall, however only 50 per cent is taken in thi se, as this is not expected to peak along with inertia force simultaneously. The global stability of the wall is to be checked in addition to the three extemal stability aspects. This has not been in practice in the past may be due to the tedious method of analysis. This has now been made easy after use of computer in practice. In particular where the ground soil is weak even at some depth below ground, the global stability must be checked, Earth Retaining Wall is a simple structure and has been designed and constructed since ancient days. However, there are few items, which require special attention, such as, earth pressure in normal condition as well as dynamic increment due to earthquake. The backfill may have inclined slope, horizontal slope with uniform live load, a concentrated load, broken slope, etc. In addition, there are several methods for calculating earth pressure ‘mathematical (Coulomb's, Rankine) as well as graphical (Culman’s, Rebhan’s, Engesser’s). The suitability of theory and method of analysis for specific cases are covered in the Paper. For Reinforced Earth Wall, in particular the tensile element and ancl anchorage, the load factor, material factor and factor of safety against various expected failures are considered. So far there is no code developed in India, either by BIS or IRC and design, etc. are being based on BS: 8006:1995' or Publication No.FHWA-NHI-00-043), Further, the BS Code does not cover seismic forces, therefore Publication No. FHWA-NHI-00-043? is only adopted for seismic conditions. ‘The external stability also covers global slip failure. This is a vast subject by itself, as much as number of theories are available, their selection/applicability in particular situation are to be judged. The Paper covers these aspects in brief and describes their application.The reference to software package SLOPE/W"” and relevant papers by BN. Sinha"®"*"5are given in the Paper. The Paper would serve as a guide for design of different, type of earth retaining structures, besides giving Comparative advantages for selecting a particular form. of structure, In our view these have not been covered in any Code or text book at any one place. The Paper covers the concept behind the design of various types of walls. Various Earth Pressure theories including graphical methods have been explained’**"*, Dynamic increments to account for earthquake forces are dealt in detail. At the end, design of various types of typical walls has been given in Annexure for use by practicing engineers. 2 EARTH PRESSURE THEORIES Earth can exert a minimum pressure known as active earth, pressure and a maximum passive pressure, depending on condition of soil, it may exert pressure in between two, values, which is termed as pressure at rest. The magnitude will depend on properties of soil mainly cohesion, angle of internal friction and unit weight. To evaluate pressure of soil, there are several theories. The oldest is Coulomb’s'* ‘which is still valid and in use which considers equilibrium, of a wedge bound by wall face, free top and a failure line, by which earth pressure component is obtained, Rankine'* theory was developed around 100 years after, Coulomb's, it also considers a similar triangular soil mass in which every element is on the verge of failure. There are graphical methods, which also considers similar Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011REVIEW OF DESIGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS 191 failure wedge, however the pressure is obtained by drawing force polygon. Some of the important graphical methods are Culmann’s, Rebhann’s and Engesser’s. The Basic principles and theory, however, are what have been given by Coulomb and Rankine, Broad features of these methods are given here in Fig. 1, which shows typical wall section. The interested users may refer to text books dealing with these theories and graphical solutions**"* 2.1 Mathematical Equations for Different Situations The co-efficient of active earth pressure is obtained by following formula: 1. For vertical walls (face batter less than 8 degree) and horizontal back slope a oe ae / Back Fig. | Wall Section Showing Features Where, ® = Angle of intemal friction, = Earth slope angle, 5= Wall friction angle, N=Normal, a=Wall batter angle (Horizontal), ¥ = a — 6, h = wall height, h'= wall height till heel base. K, = tan? (45 -%) 2. _ For vertical wall and inclined back-slope: Eq. 1 cosh — for Paar coh Bt lohan Eq.2 3. Forinclined wall and inclined back-slope with wall friction angle: sina d)eos8 PaceoteioeD) Yain(e= Bsn (FB) Eq. snasnta—8)(1+ 2.2 Graphical Solutions for Active Earth Pressure Active Earth Pressure = 4.3834 x Scale = 438.94 kNim? Where,Scale = 1 unit= 100 kN Fig 2 Culmann’s Graphical Method Active Earth Pressure = Area x 7 = 466.9488 kN/m? Fig. 3 Rebhann's Graphical Method ‘Active Earth Pressure =461.x Scale = 460.65 kN Scale = t unt = 100 4 Fig. 4 Engesser's Graphical Method Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011192 ‘Sina & Since oN 2.3 Comparison of Earth Pressure Value by Different Methods The parameters considered are h = 10 m, a =80°, y=KNim', 8 =18.43°, 6=20°, ¥=a—5 =60°, b= 30°. The ‘Active Earth Pressure is obtained by different methods for these parameters as given in Table. It is seen that these tally quite close. In other words, any of the solutions will give similar results and can be adopted as per convenience however, for an irregular earth slope or broken back slope, graphical method may be easier. ‘Table 1 Earth Pressure by Different Methods Coulomb's Rankine’s Culmann’s Rabhann's Engesser’s Pa 219 35K74 BBS 46595 460.65 Peg) 37424 M034. NANA NA Ps ma41 NIA NANA Vy 21606 2.4 Design of Retaining Wall in Seismic Zones IRC Code provides that no earthquake forces are to be taken on the part of the structure embedded below, natural ground (IRC:6-2007 Clause 219.6). Therefore, earthquake inertia forces are considered on the part of structure above natural ground. Also no inertia forces are to be taken on the weight of soil. The inertia forces, however, shall be taken to act on the center of gravity of concrete mass in the horizontal and vertical direction and shall be considered to give worst effect for the design. The earth pressure during the earthquake is affected and the Code IS:1893-1984", Para-8 provides method for calculating dynamic increment for its magnitude and point and line ofaction, are considered in the design for the worst effect. This dynamic increment shall act during earthquake and shall be in addition to static earth pressure. The formula (equation) given in the Code is basically based on Coulomb’s theory, which is given in Eq, 4. The dynamic increment shall be obtained by calculating, earth pressure as per co-efficient C, given by Eq. 4 and deducting static earth pressure based on the coefficient, which is obtained by putting ah, ay, 2 = 0 in Eq. 4 and calculating pressure by the same formula. The increment shall act at half height in same horizontal direction as static, arth pressure, For live load surcharge the magnitude shall bbe obtained as usual on the basis of difference in the two arth pressure coefficients. The dynamic increment due to surcharge will act at 2/3" height above base and also act in horizontal direction, 3. DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL ‘The most common is cantilever type retaining wall. Before taking up internal stability and design of components the external stability is to be satisfied. Retaining walls are required to withstand seismic forces also and designed accordingly. 3.1 External Stability ‘This comprises of sliding, overturning, bearing, and global slip. Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 shows various forces on wall in static and seismic condition, respectively. Table 2, Table 3 & Table 4 shows stability analysis under different conditions and load cases including formula for obtaining factor of safety. The global slip is a cumbersome process and analysis is outside the scope of the Paper. 32 Internal Stability Comprising Design of ‘Components of the Structure Design of Stem: The earth pressure and dynamic inerement shall be obtained by Eq. 3 & Eq. 4. Moment at stem base due to horizontal component of earth pressure is obtained and section designed as per usual R.C.C structure as per provisions in “Plain and Reinforced Concrete Vol. II” by Dr. Jai Krishna and Dr. O.P. Jain‘ (refer Annexure - 1). Design of Heel: The net moment obtained due to downward loads of earth fill, self-weight of heel, live load surcharge and from this, moment due to base pressure in the opposite direction is deducted and designed as usual. The net moment is downward. Eq.4 Where, a, = horizontal seismic coefficient, «, = vertical seismic coefficient and A= and other parameter: are as given in Fig. 1. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011REVIEW OF DESIGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING Seismic ErrecTs 193 Table 2 Stability Factors for Different Load Cases, Normal Condition Case 1X0 ce Case II (Live Load Surcharge Case III (Live Load Item Description Live Load on Backfill) Surcharge beyond heel Surcharge) IF Total Horizontal Force Ai Fife ith yy Total Verical Force ri Wa rh Total Clockwise moment - Total =M M,- Mey (M, + My) - (Mp, + Mrz) M, (Mp; + Mrz) anticlockwise moment : wav nit a) mA ies =F (+h) G+ FOS, Total Clockwise moment My My + Mau My vor Total anticlockwise moment Mri (Mpy + Mp2) (Mer + Mp2) x Net moment (XM) (My — Mri) My Ma — Mri— Mrz (My — Mrr — Mrz) Total Vertical Force EV % +a 7; : ar rar Vy 6 atBase Fey "Note; ~ My denotes moment due to foree V about point A similarly, MFI is moment due to FI and MFIdue to FI’ (seismic part of the force FI) wer PETTY cnn s DATA TY on <7 a BN \\ = Yo} ‘he a be — hy Fy=(112)(C,-K 7h? “ FAz12(C Kn rea a ese eee eee ee eG Fig 5 Wall Seton & Forces (Normal Condon Fig 6 Wall Wit Seismic Frcs Design of Toe: The moment due to upward base pressure _ weight of any earth above toe (due to depth of toe below ‘on toe about junction with stem and deducting there from ground) is neglected. This is because the earth on this side the downward moment due to self-weight of toe, provide may be dug for laying services during the service life of the net moment for design of toe. It may be noted that wall and neglecting the same is on safer side. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011194 ‘Sinsta & SINGH ON 3.3. Design of Retaining Wall with Inclined Back Slope ‘The analysis is nearly the same as for wall with horizontal back slope with the difference that the earth pressure calculation is based on Rankine equation Eq. 2 and dynamic increment as per Eq. 4 for inclined back slope. The horizontal and vertical components of earth pressure are taken in the analysis. The effective height of earth fill for earth pressure is considered as h’ i.e. height of fill vertically at the end of heel as indicated in Fig. 1. All other aspects of analysis and design are similar to the wall with horizontal back slope. The structural design of stem, heel and toe are exactly the same. Typical design of wall with inclined back slope is given in Annexure -II. 4 REINFORCED EARTH WALL. 4.1 General R.E, wall is an earth retaining structure generally made of solid face panels placed one above other in nearly vertical alignment in desired pattern, where each panel is attached toa horizontal tensile element held by friction within the earth back fill. The face panel can be made as soft panels by simply folding tensile element around earth layer. The height of wall can be made of several such layers. The solid face panels are generally of R.C.C. but can be made of other materials, such as, steel, wood, etc. The friction ties (tensile element) could be made of steel-strip ‘or geo-synthetic materials in form of geo-grids/geo-strips. The tensile element is tied with face panels through some kind of anchorage specially made for the purpose, which holds the panel in position against the earth pressure from the fill at the back. The pressure on the face panel is counter acted by the friction force generated in between back fill and friction ties. The length of any such friction ties will depend on amount of earth pressure on face panels which in tum will depend on size of panel and its depth below top of back fill. The pressure will also depend on surcharge over the fill as in case of any other arth retaining structure, The three basic elements of a R.E. wall are face panels, anchorage and friction element. Generally 15 cm to 18 cm thick RCC panel with nominal reinforcement for a panel size 1 x 1.2 mis sufficient.The anchorage is provided through galvanized steel loops cast in to panel in which friction ties are held through toggle bars between two, such loops and geo-grid strip wrapped around such toggle bar. Where stee! strips tensile elements are used, the same, is held by bolt and nuts passing through holes provided in the steel strips at anchorage end and fasten to a lug, secured by embedment in to face panel. In case of geo- grid (in a mat form) one end of the mat is held between, the face panels in the tongue and groove joint provided in the face panels and frictional resistance which develops between the tongue and groove joint of the face panels, provide anchorage. Each face panel is held in position individually by the friction ties and there is no transfer of load vertically to panel below. Just to keep the panels in some desired, alignment, they are provided with tongue — grove or steel bar connectors, which are not structural components for, any stability requirements. The face panels are of different, pattern including modular type and can be chosen as per, one’s liking, however, they do not affect the methodology of design. The external stability of a RE. wall is checked just as a R.C.C. retaining wall. The full height of wall including, embedment below ground having base width equal to length of friction ties is considered a solid block, which is subjected to earth pressure by earth beyond friction ties, besides the self-weight of block with surcharge, etc. and, structural stability checked for sliding at base, overturning, about toe, bearing pressure at base and global slip through, ground soil and earth fill beyond friction ties. The slip circle is not considered to pass through the reinforced soil block, where it requires to rupture the friction ties, as any such circle, when, force generated by friction ties, are taken, will give larger factor of safety compared to a circle which pass just outside the block. The minimum, factor of safety is obtained by several trials and checked, for required FoS. The Code BS: 8006-1995" is followed for design of R.E. walls. This is based on ultimate strength of structure and various load factors, material factors, serviceability, condition as given in this Code. The BS Code does not, Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011110z s9quia0qs0qor99 ‘ssax8u03 speoy UEIpU xp Jo fewno Table 3 Stability Factors for Different Load Cases. (Seismic, Vertical Acceleration Downwards) tem Description ‘Cine (No Live Lond Surcharge) ‘Cre Live Load Sercharg on Baki) ‘Cave I Live Load Surcharge Beyond Het =F To Horna ere Fitav +h Fehva vier oFy Fit hettFr oF; ze Total Vera Fore veoh, Vitetite Veal a TeRL eS Ome Ma Fis Meal Me M+ MON Md le + Mat Mt Mt MA M+ MOP (Ms + Mi Moy + Mot MOM re ee Ma Fes Mate Ms) Md Ms Mot Mar + Mert MOREY (MG MFO My + Mi + Mar + Mort MOM ov, WEA + aK) HU testotan wor tanh) Bee =F rah +A) RF REE TFA tht RR pose, _Tal Clockwise moment 4. Mask) Me} MasVi+ Mas My + Mat °° Fotataniockwse moment Wnt Mas, + Ne Tian Wis Mass + Mad en) Wa Fit Masks + Mat Mead . Netmoment (EM) (M yt Mau) (Mrs + Mayl+ Myx) (Me + Maas + Max) = (Mia + Mrs + Mani + Mn+ Min) (Ma Masti) (Mrs + Mrs + MayYs+Myt Mrs) ‘oa eral Force 7 Vi ech ata) Ve at Fresca sy, ase @ Table 4 Stability Factors for Different Load Cases (Seismic, Vertical Acceleration Upwards) ew Deion ‘Cave (Wo Live Lond Surcharge) ‘Cove Live Lond Surcharge on Back) ‘Coe (Live Land Surcharge Beyond Heel EF Toul Horan Fee Ptah +R FoF ate Fe Fost ati FoF zr Taal Vera Force vat veanen ras Sa RA OEM M+ Man) + Ms) My) (Ma By * Me My Mr A) MoM Ys 6 My Mest Moy * Mer Maat) oxy, HEM eat) w= ates a) iV =e) FOS. oF ean Tet htant hee) Gr hs ant heR rose, _Teallackwise moment M% Mat Mas Me ** palantdackwise moment ManI¥ Mp + Was, + Mrz WaT FM + B+ Magl * Me= MD WaT FM + M+ Mal, + Wat Mad x Netmoment EM) My=(MasK+ Mrs + MALY Mn) Met Mu (Westi+ Mon+ Mn+ MeaZit Mint Mis) Mo= (MG. Mov Mr Man Mos + Mes) “alerted Force SV Veh ah Preset Water ad(, 46 se a5) SLO OINSIIS ONIGATDN] SRILLIMUG ONINIVLAY HLA SORIA 40 SHANGADONA NOISIC| 40 NATATY Sol110z s9quio20q-zaqor99 ‘ssoxZuoD speoy TEIPU yp Jo TeUANOE ayn copes sussof sq Baxumnv0 pur Runs sur.o8 sr ez=1 a a Ee “4 nS eee Gust +fusw ot te amssaig Bumag su9408 SL » past ast + ust ‘ast +4st We Cyst sky Gast+fusy fi ten o4 coerati z Gast eeuso ysttyst sissy . Town's Ty ountast+ sp tetrso4 Ey +£tyer)-(2 (2x, +fy - (2%, ay Byer +Eust)-E Leysr «£ust)-Eust +2ust) He '” ‘UST + 4st 4g usitast aSleyst ag ieee seers ee = 9p02) $661:9008 :S€ 40d sv suopeULquIOy peor] UaLaYIC 104 sIs OY, ‘UBISOp [BIMIINNS JO PoUPoU 1019") Peo] OF YMAWIOS ‘areduios Kos 28041 pURISTALA OF Aya SH TEA up YOK ‘uoremts 1810 aptaoud sayjo%o1 paropisuos s40r99} soy IIV “Tle LM payeroosse speoy Jo suoNEUIqIOD snoLTEA 40} S10}985 Peo} [ered 10} saprroad soupy a] “OI “Kiazos Jo 10903 [ore GuowoaroyMIar YPIM [Hos Jo YONIEATUL Jo} 40109) “peo] aut] (peoy 9ysen 82) poy aay ‘peo| peap Jeusoixe ‘[euATeU Jo Ysam yun oy pardde oq 0} s10100) peo} “Iuatao.0;uar tos aH] IPuANs jeoyeM or pardde 2q 01 siojoRy urey199 sayisads 9p0 SE PULL, “«£+0-00 “IHN-VMHA PUP ,S661-9008'SE “TIE yee paoioyuiar Jo Uisap arp Joy sourjapma/apoo ows axe axoup “AI[eOISe ET Anqnig jouagy VTP adorg ae [RIUOZIIOH Ts TEAL WIAET parsojujy Jo usiseq — TF “WZ UeUp a1OU WA JO SITY 40} posn ua0q aavy asaup ‘iaAaAoy ‘waar you st pardope 2q lueo ffea “AaB yor 0} dn yysroy oy, ;punos axoge wt ¢ wetp 21014 14104 10} sadeay aq 01 pres pue couezeadde juvseojd o1our v opraosd soyziny Key, (punoss) [los EIS SEL, uorepunay Jayos AJaanejas v Uo pooejd oq ued snip PUE ‘amssaid aseq ssaj woxo 07 pasoddns st sjjea Surureiax AoTPO 0} pareduios se syBtay sures 405 [Tem “AA SUL “surat Areyaqidord yons 10} suorstaoad pxepurys ou are a19tp) Se sey OS payoay9 0q route Ajjvor asoyy “suorstaosd yans wo kjax [uo wea ouO ouay wy ay Aq paqysosap pur pepraoad se sjust9]> yoro Jo sonsuaoeseys yiFuaNs oy) UO KueduIoD ay Jo sjonposd ay) wo spuadop Airiqeis euro Uy amonns atp Jo wed Aniqers jeuserxe oxp Kysejnonzed asodund yons sof uaK]9 oy) axp Aq ponoadde pue payooyo are [fea “gy Suipiaoud wy ‘ap 49 poniuigns uisap auf, “pouiod siyp Suuznp jes au Jo Aiajes ainsua pur ureutent 0} pasmbas ox pue [pea -4°¥ Jo 931] 2014108 oxp Sup pourad oaquerens wmusTUT v apiaoid osje ayy, HOM UoHE||EIsUE oy Butsiazodns puv uSisop 10} ABojopoyjour ‘san uoouy ‘soReIoyoUe ‘sjaued a0vj s0j a[qisuodsas axe Koyy ‘sen uono1y Siurkyddns sunry oyp Jo want Arerayidoud v si yea“ OWL “soa1oy oItuSias YptM UBISAp sapiroud Yor <€F0-00-THN-VMHa ON woneorgnd sod se pouaisap ‘ale paiapisuod aq 0} parmnbas axe s9ou0y oTUustos 9404s SOUI0Z oILUSIOS UT S][eM AU, “aUOZ STLUSTas Ut UBISap 12A00 NO HON! 577 VINIS 961REVIEW oF Di IGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS arta RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS 197 Table 5 shows stability analysis for the three combinations of loads. BS code does not provide for seismic analysis. 4.2.2. Static Analysis by FHWA-NH1-00-043 FHWA-NHI-00-043" provides method of analysis for reinforced earth wall considering as a block and standard earth pressure formulae for retained earth and method of checking stability against- sliding, bearing and overturning just as for a normal retaining wall with appropriate factor of safety against all such items. In this system no partial factor is used, however, for the effective width at base similar base length (L-2e) is used as in BS Code. The external stability is checked on the same lines, as a normal retaining wall and Table furnishing stability analysis (Table 2) for retaining wall may be referred, The Annexure further clarifies the matter. 4.2.3 Seismic Analysis ofRE Wall by FHWA-NH1-00-043 The guidelines provide for seismic analysis of RE wall As reinforced earth wall is more flexible compared to a relatively rigid R.C.C retaining wall the horizontal acceleration during seismic condition is considered on part of reinforced volume of earth and vertical acceleration is, neglected. Also only 50 per cent of dynamic increment ‘on the earth pressure of retained fill is considered. No dynamic increment on earth pressure due to live load surcharge is considered unlike normal retaining wall. Salient features of seismic analysis are as under. Bh Fig. 7 External Forces on Wall (Horizontal Backfill) seen / et noe TROT Ts) — ahead 490-04 (t+ y Bae Where, B= earth slope, see Fig. 1), o= soil friction angle. =, a= wall slope Peak horizontal acceleration is selected based on the seismic zone (design earthquake) given as A, Acceleration co-efficient. 1. Maximum acceleration developed in the wall is ‘obtained from equation 145-A)A Eq. 5 Where, A = maximum ground acceleration co-efficient Am = maximum wall acceleration co-efficient I Horizontal inertia force on block of soil mass (shaded area in Fig, 7) P, and incremental thrust ‘due to retained fillP,, are obtained by the following formulae: Py = 0.5 Amx yx BP Eq.6 Pip =AK px HP Eq.7 AK ,, is obtained by calculating K,, by putting b =0 from the Eq. (8) deducting there from values of K ,, by putting, Band A both zero in Eq. 8 Both these forces are horizontal and added to the horizontal static forces. Full inertia force on the part of reinforced soil and only 50 per cent of dynamic thrust, due to earth pressure by retained fill are considered for stability analysis. Fig. 7 shows the stati and dynamic forces for horizontal backfill. Fig. 8 External Forces on Wall (Inclined Backfill) In case of sloping backfill the inertia force and dynamic earth pressure increment are obtained on the basis of increased height of H,, determined as follows. Fig. 8 shows force diagram for seismic condition, Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011198 ‘Smnnia & SINGH ON 4 tnBOSH ‘O5tanB a K,, shall be obtained as difference of values of K,, by Eq. 8 and value of K.,, obtained byputting A= 0 in Eq. 8 Force shall be obtained by the following formulae: P, Eq. 10 P,=0.54,7,H,H, Eq. 11 P,,= 0.125 A, ,H; tan B Eq. 12 P,, = 0.5 y,H, 4 K,_ (Sloping backfill) Eq. 13 Where P, is the inertia force caused by acceleration of the reinforced backfill and P,, is the inertia force caused by acceleration of sloping soil surcharge above the reinforced backfill where width of mass contributing to P,, is equal 10 0.5 H, The analysis is completed by obtaining sliding, overturning and bearing stability of wall considering all forces such as F,, P,,, and 50 per cent of P,, and weight of reinforced soil block as detailed for static/ dynamic analysis of normal retaining wall. Inclined slope is not supposed to have live load surcharge and will need no consideration. 4.3. Internal Stability In the BS 8006:1995 Code the Internal Stability analysis has been given adopting Ultimate Limit State with factored loads, partial load factors applied to, soil parameters, materials, reinforcements, economic considerations, etc. Also this Code does not cover seismic conditions. This Code has not been used in the Paper for the design. The Publication No FHWA-NHI-00-043 gives Internal Stability analysis for static as well as seismic conditions. The analysis is based on elastic method of structural designs. The software MSEW (3.0), based on this publication, is available for complete analysis and design ‘which are used by most of the designers. The Publication FHWA-NHI-00-043 has been followed in the Paper for the design. Internal failure can occur mainly in two ways. a) Failure by excessive elongation or breakage of tensile element b) Failure by pull-out of tensile element The following steps are needed for analyzing internal stability - 1 Sel ion of type of reinforcement 2. Location of critical failure surface 3. Maximum tensile foree at each reinforcement level, static and dynamic 4. Maximum tensile force at the connection to the facing Pull-out capacity at each reinforcement level Based on research and experiments the critical failure surface has been established to depend on type of reinforcements whether the same is extensible or inextensible. Fig. 9(a) & (b) shows these two cases giving, relevant details. The maximum tensile forces T,,, in the element occurs along the line shown in Fig.9 (a) & 9(b). The anchorage and strength (shear and bending) of the face panel are also required to withstand the forces to which these are subjected to from the earth pressure of the back fill. The failure of tensile element by rupture can take place at the maximum tensile stress point and solely is a function of its tensile strength. The tensile force is a function of earth pressure due to self-weight of earth above the element and other super imposed loads, may be live or dead load, and coefficient of earth pressure. The pull out resistance depends on the embedment length of tensile element beyond the failure line (effective length), the inter face friction coefficient and the vertical loads (resultant pressure. of all loads above the level of element). The first, step is evaluation of 7, in the tensile element at particular level. Then the strength of the element after allowing for various reduction factors is checked whether the same can, safely withstand T,_. Then the pullout resistance of th tensile element in the resistant zone is evaluated to chec! Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011Review oF DESIGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS 199) whether the element can withstand 7, without getting pulled out. The FoS is also evaluated against strength of reinforcement as well as pullout resistance. Thus internal stability of the wall at this level of reinforcement is ensured. Similar checking is done at levels of all the tensile elements to ensure safety of the R.E wall. These steps are mentioned in Para 4.3.1, 4.3.2 & 4.3.3. 4.3.1 Calculation of Maximum Tensile Forces in the Reinforcement Layers Ateach reinforcement level the horizontal stress 6,, along the potential failure line from the weight of the reinforced fill y, Z (Z = elevation of reinforcement) plus uniform surcharge load q is obtained as: 6, Eq. 15 Where, o, = y, Z + q, K, = Active Earth Pressure Coefficient. The horizontal stress is multiplied by the area of the wall affecting the reinforcement known as tributary area A, and this leads to T., Togeg= OA, Eq. 16 ‘Note: In case of extensible reinforcement represented by Fig 9. (b) the active pressure co-efficient for reinforced fill is considered to be the same at all levels of reinforcement and equal to normal K, value ie, K, =K,, In case of inextensible reinforcement represented by Fig 9a), however, K, is considered to vary from top of fill up to a depth of 6 m and then becomes constant. In respect of metal strip falling in the category of inextensible reinforcement, the K/ K, ratio varies from 1.7 at top to 1.2 at 6 m depth and becomes ‘constant at further lower level. The values of K, for different type ‘of reinforcement are given in the FHWA-NHI-00-0430 and shall be considered accordingly. 43.2 Internal Stability With Respect to Rupture (Breakage of Reinforcement) The allowable reinforcement strength is obtained from its ultimate strength after allowing for various reduction factors and applying a factor of safety. For wall to be safe against rupture of reinforcement the allowable strength is required to be more than 7... at the level of the reinforcement then Tuitimate 1.5. maximum reinforcement tension, C=2 for strip, grid and sheet type reinforcement. a= scale correction factor. F*= Pullout resistance factor R,=Coverage ratio Z, = Overburden pressure, including distributed dead load surcharge, neglecting live load (traffic load) L., = Length of embedment in the resistantzone. Ifthe criterion is not satisfied forall reinforcement layers, the reinforcement length has to be increased and/ or reinforcement with a greater pullout resistance per unit ‘width must be used, or the vertical spacing may be reduced which would reduce 7,,.. The total length of reinforcement, £, required for internal stability is determined from. L=L,+L, Eq. 19 Where, L, is obtained based on the relationship as drawn from the Fig. 9 For RE wall with extensible reinforcement, vertical face and horizontal backfill: (45-9) Eq. 20 1H ~2)tan’ Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011200 ‘Sinnta & SINGH ON Where, Z is the depth to the reinforcement level, For walls with inextensible reinforcement from the base up to H/2: 1,-0.6 (HZ) For upper half of wall L, = 0.31. Eq. 21 43.4 Internal Stability UnderSeismic Condition Seismic force induces an inertial force P, acting horizontally, in addition to the existing static forces. This force causes dynamic incremental resulting in increase in the maximum tensile forces T,,, in the reinforcements. It is assumed that the maximum tensile force line shown in Fig, 9(a) & 9(b) does not change during seismic condition. ‘The dynamic increment acts on the weight of full wedge (backfill in the active zone) shown hatched in Fig 9(a) & ‘9(b) and this total incremental inertia force P, is distributed among the different reinforcements proportionally (7) to their “resistant area” (L,) per unit wall width basis. — Fig. 9 (a) Location of Potential Failure Line in Inextensible Reinforcement Fig. 9 (b) Location of Potential Failure Line in Extensible Reinforcement This dynamic induced T,, is added to static 7, in particular reinforcement to get the total tensile force (7,,,.)in that reinforcement. This T,,,, is considered for the internal stability with respect to breakage and pull ut ofthe reinforcement in seismic condition considering seismic factor of safety of 75 per cent of the minimum allowable static factor of safety. The following procedure is followed. 1) — Calculate maximum acceleration in the wall and the force P, per unit width acting above the base: P,=A,W, Eq, 22 A,= (145-4) A Where, H, is the weight of the active zone (Shaded area in Figs. 9(a) & 9(b)), 4 is the maximum ground acceleration coefficient and 4, is maximum wall acceleration, coefficient 2) Calculate the dynamic increment T,,, directly induced by the inertia force Pin the reinforcements by distributing P, in the different reinforcements proportionally to their “resistant area” (L,) on a load per unit wall width basis. This leads to: tet "EE be ‘The multiplier of P, in Eq. 23 is the resistant length of the reinforcement at level i divided by the sum of the resistant length for all reinforcement levels. Tna Bq. 23 3) _T,,, for static condition is already explained. 4) The maximum T,,., is a ee Eq. 24 For steel reinforcement stability is calculated as Trotat (0.75) > Trotat (0.75) Eq.25 ta For geo-synthetic reinforcement rupture, the reinforcement must be designed to resist the static and dynamic components of the load as follows: For the static component: SrsRe 0.75 RF FS 12 Tmax Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011REVIEW oF Desi PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING SEISMIC EFFECTS 201 For dynamic component, where the load is applied for a short time, creep reduction is not required and therefore, SreRe Ere ee md * 0.75 FS RFDRFip Eq. 27 ‘Therefore, ultimate strength of geo-synthetic reinforcement required is Ta St 8, Eq, 28 Where S,, is the reinforcement strength per unit width needed to resist the static component of load and 5, the reinforcement strength needed to resist the dynamic or transient component of load. For pullout under seismic loading, for all reinforcements, the friction coefficient F* should be reduced to 80 per cent of the static value leading to: FeRe__ C(O8F*) Thott S075 FSpq ~ OTEK IS! UR E429 5 DESIGN EXAMPLES a) Annexure I (a) ~ Design of Retaining wall with horizontal backfill. b) Annexure I (b) Drawings showing cross-sectional and reinforcement details of retaining wall with horizontal back-slope. c) Annexure II ~ Design of Retaining wall with inclined backfill. @) Annexure If (a) ~ Design of RE. Wall with horizontal backfill (geo-grid as reinforcing material) e) Annexure III (b) — Design of R.E Wall with horizontal backfill (steel strips as reinforcing material) f) Annexure IV ~ Design of R.E. Wall with inclined backfill, The design of R.E wall has been carried out in hand zalculations following FHWA-NHI-00-043, The design f RE wall has been carried out by using the software SEW (3.0) by ADMA Engineering Inc. U.S.A". The ‘nd calculations have been compared with the output of MSEW (3.0) and observed that the external stability calculations providing factor of safeties against sliding, overturning and bearing tally. However, the internal stability differs little which is insignificant, 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Retaining wall as well as R.E wall required to be designed for seismic forces, 2, Earth pressure due to backfill with horizontal slope, inclined slope, live load surcharge, etc. can be obtained mathematically as well as graphically. These give close results 3. Coulomb's equation for earth pressure on stem can be used but this equation can’t be used for external stability analysis. 4, Forstability of retaining structure with horizontal back fill and inclined backfill, Rankine equations being simple and convenient can be used Coulomb's equation being cumbersome need not to be used. 5. The retaining structure is required to be safe in external stability as well as intemal stability. The external stability for retaining wall as well as reinforced earth wall comprises of over turning, sliding and bearing besides global slip can occur. The wall is required to have assigned factor of safety against these, However, the internal stability is quite different in cases of retaining wall from that of reinforced earth wall. In case of retaining wall the ster, heel and toe are to be designed for structural strength. In case of R.E Wall the reinforcing element is required to be safe in pullout as well as its tensile strength for which BS:8006 Code for static condition and FHWA for seismic condition should be used. 6. The dynamic increment on the earth pressure during the earthquake is to be considered for retaining wall as well as R.E wall in addition to static components, However in case of R.E wall only 50 per cent of dynamic thrust is considered as per FHWA. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011202 Smina & SINGH ON 7. The global slip circle analysis is an independent and tedious method and kept outside the scope of the Paper. However, software package SLOPE/W"” by GEO-SLOPE International can be used, 8. The Design of R.E walls has also been done with the help of software MSEW (3.0) and comparison made with analysis in hand calculations. These tally closely and can be used for R.E wall designs. AKNOWLEDGEMENT We are thankful to ICT Pvt. Ltd. A-8, Green Park, New Delhi-110016, for using its appliances to bring this paper tothe present shape. They are grateful to Shri A.D. Narain, President 1.C.T for his help in going through the Paper and giving suggestions for improvements. They are also thankful to Mr. Dinesh for formatting and typing. REFERENCES 1. British Standard Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soil and Other Fills, BS:8006:1995, 2. Gulhati, Shashi K. and Datta, Manoj, Geotechnical Engineering, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, 2005. ae FWHA ~ NHI - 00 — 043 Published by U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, March 2001 4, IRC Codes: Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section II, IRC: 6-207. 5. _ IRC Codes: Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section III, IRC:21-2000, 10. ML 13. 16. IRC Codes: Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section VII, Foundation and Substructure, IRC:78-2000. IS: 1983-1984, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Forth revision Jai Krishna and Jain, O.P,, “Plain and Reinforced Conerete”, Volume I, Nem Chand & Bros., Roorkee (U.P.) 1966. Kaniraj, Shenbaga. R, 1988 “Design Aids in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering”. Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi. Krahn,John. 2004 “Slope Stability Analysis, SLOPE/W” by GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. Canada, MSEW Version 3.0 Software by ADAMA Engineering, Inc.33 The Horseshoe Newark, Delaware 19711-2066, USA, 1998-2011. Murthy, V.N.S. 2001 “Principles of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering”. UBS Publishers, New Delhi, Fifth edition. Sinha, B.N.,“Reinforced Earth Wall—-Considerations for Design”. ING-IABSE Journal Vol. 39 No.1, New Delhi, April 2009. Sinha, B. N, “Advance Method of Slope ~ Stability Analysis for Earth Embankment with Seismic and Water Forces”, 12 International Conference of IACMAG, Goa, India, October 2008. Sinha, B. N, “Advance Methods of Slope- Stability Analysis for Economical Design of Earth Embankment” Journal of the IRC Vol 68-3, 2007. ‘Terzaghi Karl,“Theoretical Soil Mechanics”, John Wiley and Sons, ING. Tenth Printing, 1962. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011TREVIEW OF DESIGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING Seismic ErrecTs 203 Annexure I (a) DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL WITH HORIZONTAL BACKFILL Fig. 1 Silent Features 1 PARAMETERS S.B.C Soil = 250.00kN/m? 1.1 Wall Geometry Friction angle (Soil-Conerete) (6) = 20.00° Height above ground (H) 8.00m Base Friction coefficient (1) = 00 De Cee 1.2.2 Structural Materials Stem top thickness (st) 050m Stem batter Toe (Sb) = 040m Cos oh Cnet) e Rey Stem batter Heel (Sb,) = 0.70 Cees ~ aa ‘Toe Width (7) So AES Density of Concrete(y,) = 25.00kN/m3 Heel Width (11) = 5.0m 1.3. Seismic Parameters Tip Thickness (it) 030m a ’ Thickness () 100m Zone Factor (Z) 036 Game) - e004 Damping Percentage = 5% 1.2 Material Property Average Response acceleration coefficient S,/ +.2.1 Soil Properties Response reduction factor = gle of Internal Friction(®) = 30° Importance factor = 1.00 alk density - soil (y,) 20.00KN/m? Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011204 ‘Sina & SINGH ON 2, EXTERNAL STABILITY 21 Static Analysis es Tm Fig. 2 Breaking of Loads into Wedges Table 1 Forees & Moments (Fig. 2) ‘Wedge No. Weight (KN) C.G from Tue (m)_ Moment (kNm) ‘Table 2 Forces & Moments (Imposed Loads) 1 1368 625 855.00 (Wy 1532.93 M 8755.45 ‘Table 3 Earth Pressure & Moments (Fig. 3) ForceNo, Forse C-G from Moment (KN) Toe(m) (km) F 1 333.33 3.33 11 7 Kay,H? 2 Kars Fy=qiKeH 80.00 5.00 400.00 F=(FyFi) 413.33 M 1511.11 ‘Table 4 Stability for Different Load Cases (Static) L 112.50 3.15 354.38 2 7875 3.63 286.13, 3 45.00 277 124.50 4 28.00 330) 92.40 5 43.75, 571 252.29 6 21.88 167 3646 7 68.25 455) 31054 8 63.00 3.87 243.60 9 900.007 6.60) 5940.00 10 35.00 7.43 260.17 1396.13 7900.45 Rankine Earth Pressure Coefficient — cash — (ear corFo asp + feosip = cos® 0.3333, sede ead Fig, 3 Earth Pressures on Wall case ms nore tte Backs) ‘Total Horizontal Force 41333 xv ‘Total Vertical Force 1532.93 1396.13 Total Clockwise 724434 6389.34 uM Anticlockwise Moment FOS aun one 18s 1.68 >is iF FOSi1 _toulClockwlsemoment_ 579,523 229. Totalanicocovisemoment mM 4m 458 * iv By 4018-003 Lis F ° sos Tous oe x e as ‘ 0476 0.687 18 TF Toe 25425 220 15 FOSor _TotalClckwisemoment > 1.125 — TotalAnticlockwisemoment oS 2 x aM 4.09 3.88 5 3.1 Design of Stem ae 4 0.456 0.670. To obtain earth pressure on stem where earth is in direct contact, wall friction angle 6 is considered hence vee a ane Coulomb's active earth pressure coefficient is used, <250Kx1.5 116.39 84.51 thus sintla #) asnta a (1+ 1S2{bH Bam =H) = 0.3306 senna 0 (1 TA) Re C,, = 0.4290, C,, = 0.3695 Adopt maximum value C, = 0.4290 ila | Fig. 5 Earth Pressures Increments on Wall (Seismic) By putting 2 0, a= 85.6" in C,, 3296 4. Internal Stability — In case of R.C.C. retaining wall the internal stability comprises of structural design of stem, heel and toe based on methods for design of R.C.C structures given below. Table 10 Elastic Design Parameters Item Normal Seismic m 10.00 10.00 2 Ge (N/mm) 10.00 13.00 x, (N/mm?) 240.00 320.00 N 0.2941 0.2889 j 0.9020 0.9020 Fig. 6 Earth Pressure on Stem K 1.3264 1.6970 Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011Review or DESIGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EarTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING Seismic Errects 207 ‘Table 12 Stem Forces, Moments & Checks Table 13 Design of Heel Tae Snie Tan es 1 — ee Y= Area Ve=hea aa Fm pharh | 24374 2 scan? between Pr Pas "825 hetwoen PpPpge 7314? cos(5+ 99-0) 53.066 Van Von = Forces cua 65.00 ‘LWeights ‘LWeights (6+ 90-2) 910 (9410454 119625 si04s+ 113625 Forces “7(up-to hl)) “7(upeto A) FoF +P; 308.74 Ref. Fig 2. Ref. Fig 2. sre [20109 os s y 2399 y s0876 us ae ff Moment y 51297 Mane ‘Moment ae ea liars f+ Fi0.5(h+ a Be os (2, —by)+Fi0.67 os th+th—my) [1653.05 Preis [™_ im 5 Drowns mm) = IBS i aus on 957 987 Pron Aras Requied 2001 u an sens iss “owed eee (mm) unt), il errecroe 4462 Ae eppectne 4462 Ae | ms SuessMa/ Mean, 0.16 p_ MtanBs 026! Required M 3023 M 3698 ae i ates wom == a nd Provides 7) Aarrecne | 3778 Fal deyecive | 3776 (mm?) | ‘Safe in All Respects: Safe in All Respects Stew Mad rants, + Pen — ‘Mlowel Mean(G, +62) 012 p_ Mean ious Table 14 Design of Toe Quay 5 —| 021 a —| os ier eniaaesiaelel eae te State sie Remarks Safe Al Respoct Safin All Respect apse aaa aN lag 3.2 Design of Heel/Toe Vana = EWeights n= SWeights (Fig2.- 9+10+ $063 (Fig2.- 94104 4063 — ‘S+7 up-to AD 5+ 7up-to Al) uso rar Moment my 490 Bana Pre me oe Drs em ° Wee om) o32 RB AuReguiret ™ 2196) 4 8 (Provided mm") —Geef ezyective 4462 el Geprective 4462 t ‘Stress Max! Man, 02 Mean 030" 4 Allowed Fo" 7 t (Winn) bd 031 bd au Remarks _SafeimAllRespects_Sfe in All Respects ».§£ _ Z (239) Pa (169) Seismic Condition Fig. 7 Base Pressure Distribution Drawing showing reinforcement details and cross- sectional details is given in Annexure I (b) Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011208 SINHA. ‘& SINGH ON Annexure I (b) CROSS-SECTIONAL & REINFORCEMENT DETAILS OF RETAINING WALL eaRTH FH ‘TWoicas cROss secTIon OF : ace TéBLr 1 SECTIONAL DETALS oo _[ PATO] eq er (oun ooo [acolo 00 e0|e-s roo] arse [ea rae aa Oa TSS SORES [25mm ang 260mm oe nese 6a ome ae SBT Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011ReviEW oF DEsiGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING SEIsMic ErrEcTs 209 DESIGN OF RETAL 1. PARAMETERS 1.1 Wall Geometry Height above ground (i) = 800m Depth below G.L (d) = 2.00.m, Stem top thickness (st) = 1.00. m Stem batter Toe (sb) = 0.80 m Stem batter Heel (S2,) = 1.00. m Toe Width (7) = 250m. Heel Width (1) = 6.00m Tip Thickness (st) = 070m Thickness (b,) = 170m Earth Slope (f) = 18.43°C Allother parameters and salient features are same as given in Annexure I (Fig. 1) 2 Stability Analysis 2.1 Static Analysis Fig. 2 Earth Pressures on Wall Annexure IT iG WALL WITH INCLINED BACKSLOPE Table 1 Wedge No. | Weight (KN) | C.G from Toe (m) | Moment (kNm) 1 207.5 38. 788.50 2 103.75 463 480.71 3 $3.00 3.03) 251.77 4 70.00 3.90 273.00 3 75 730 547.50 6 31.25 1.67 52.08 ii 197.75 565 1117.29 8 83.00 497 41223, 9 996.00 830 8266.80 10 60.00 930 558,00 1 120.00 9.30 111600 2 40.00 830 332.00 B 3.333 497 16.556 ¥ 2070.58 MY, 14212.43, 5 3986 ty <8 EE Table 2 Earth Pressure & Moments (Fig. 3) Fig. 1 Breaking of Loads into Wedges Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011 Fore C.Gfrom Toe Moment Force No. (x) ™ (kim) Fe=pkah® 60638 Na Nia Die 575.26 4ul 2364.96 Fey 191.75 11.30 2166.81210 Sinta & SINGH ON Table 3 Stability Check (Static) Tem Description Values EF “Total Horizontal Force (0638 Ey Total Vertical Force 2262.34 otal Clockwise - Antilockwise ot Moment 1401429 FOS dns ia 2 a & Le Fig. 3 Load- Wedges & Seismic Coefficients FOSor —_ Total Clockwise moment foc 938° cz (a) an EM ay = tan 1.19° x e oo a) me eer vosiye FoF earth pressure at xx in Fig. 4 5 =O" & a= 90° — wv 12314 C,, (forA,) = 0.7510, C,, (for A,) = 0.7549 ean Fz Adopt maximum value C, = 0.7549 1s | Toraldnctclockwisemoment | 34g | 337 | oH Si iv 526 530 ae) 039 035 Base asta | 248.73 Pressure { 2.0 | (Moment of 7, | ~ = 0.2827 (20.x 9.5 + 39) = 64.74 kN/m? one Where, Z = Elevation of Reinforcement Tributary Area = Average Spacing S, XR, Table 9 Bearing Check (Seismic) ——— s, Item Description AtBae | ~~ T.A (Tributary Area) DFEN) Seer Be 561.7 a ra a =0.5 + 0.5 x (1.0-0.5) x 1 = 0.75 Vertical Force ze e LVN) eae 1792.5 | Maximum Tensile Force T= ¢,,x TA Clockwise — Anti- Tp, = 64.74 x 0.15 = 48.56 kN/m Clockwise moment This is less than 7,,,..,, therefore safe. ZMENM) | (Moment of Vigeae | 478°? ome Moment of F , Pas Ps) Length in active zone i =M bo TD X(m) Tv 2.44 tan(45 + 5) eal B ay | er 0Stan (45+ 34/2)=0.27 m ae ? tan prt? tan (45 531.7 kN Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011Review oF DrsiGn PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING Seismic ErFects 215 ole Tk ws LET OTT: HTL SS SHES SOS EOL SLO st 06 aes eee SO OLS SOL st 006 as 6k = SO EDSCHTL: CTBT: SLO SO SOL SL ss ws 969 OED ELS TSC STH Ss SOS ars ar EO TOSCIHL:SC LTE HE STL SO ST SLL ams ss EO LTO WEMLS TSC (LE CLECSET,«SSORTS SLL Ws OS ODS SO LoL STE sl sO BOE SL sd sh | OHO SSHLLTSCCi®SCSwEC BTS SORE SLD aes he EOSCE'IZ_—S“iHT:SCCSH HTS: SSO SE SLs ws GE ODseTOCLET:C“(tLESRHCST:SCiCSHL SC StHE SL aes o9E 90S ESET ZC re SL ost ws HE == STO.seSCsRBST CECE SITS RETO SH SL ams TE OTOL“ HHS OTT SLY SLs ams LOE HTOSITOSCHOHTSHLE OHS OMT, ST: SOUS SLE ws 6D: ET LTS SL ast TOSCODSCSCTCR:CtiCRY HD TTT SOS SL as 9 ETO.SCiéOSCi«‘émEEC(“‘té‘COCCL SCS! es Sk ost as Ist ETOSsCOSCCLESE:Ss wD HHE OID SLOT ast eO OES sere sets Suewoy (St 1 7 a aD T 7 a VL 7 wT OH ‘SaU07 JUEIS|SAY PUe AANDY Ul sy)BUaT] puE s9od04 JuaWadUEIAY jUDWIaIJOJUIIY ATGEIS [EUAAVUT T] GEL, 3 2 3 3 2 5 3 3 3 a2 ao s 5 ] 3 : e gf eB eae 4 a4 = me og R eT Ss az 2 Re Ege 7 s <5 gs ia ee Ia Sef z ia = 8 spe eon a Re gs sig wi 8 sls 4g 3 = 3 BR Bes 5 3 S 83 18 ($285 E22 (p2e B22 ¢ ST RESiea EBs 2a e sS2 ,f2yks EES WR EEST Spee we eas ee Be SE Feet g * @ eo &Fle Pes Avdtls Psa se % a 2 82483 El | Bese |} | BBS se 7 SB ig & mR BeBe IE Re eS aces ae ee g Ina 328 lo INAS Be SEs an § N BR eB N N Be S 3 26 42 33F 2 4 2278 * fF ZEBBR Fernie 2g $2 $ €l xs $$ FEEL ’ Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011Review or Desion Procepures oF Various Earri RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING Seismic EFFECTS 215 66 16 ria as erL BEL orl wes sho SUS FOL SLO SL 0s6 as 6 SOO OTL ut oy be so 9 st 006 as 6k ShO EOL BT OS SLO so S61 sl oss amg 969 OLDEST STE STH LTT so ew SL oo as aro OOS Ist 6 STL so zse st ose ws oss OOM LE LE so o8z SL oo as os OD STOLL STSCI so soe SL os9 ws wr sco OS SSHLLT ep ore BOT so vee st 009 ames ite TOTOSCET'IZ’=C“‘“‘«é‘i TSHR so s9e st oss as ETO TOLTSC( (CLES WT SV'OL so e6e st wos ws 6 TO OSCE: Ws fT IZ SO rer st ost 6 args FE STOOCASTCOECC'S STC ost st oor 8 as ore HO Ico oFlzSE tS wT SO sur st ose t ws we HO 0 © OST LE OSS TS esz™SS 0 0s si oe 9 ans lez 90 Ico Ese ves st osz s as z= eTO.C«COSC*«CdZE:C*C*«‘i CSCC eM £95 st oz t as fT gOSC(itCié«éLEECtCi‘THC(it« StS res. st ost € ars Ist eo OTDSssLE'SE IPL HE SO 19 SL ot z aS 0g't ceo oro tts, ash Leste O49 SL oso. L SEU (d) SH 1 1 1 i ia T L 7 "2 (tH ONS ‘SOUOZ, JUEYSISOY PUR OAV UI SuPTUN] pur soo104 QuoUDBUTIAY juoUIDDIOIUIOY ATGHS WUIIUT TT ATRL jf ob 8 ae 3 3 3 I eB o Ee. 24 3 Bae: ea¢f a4 3 Ro ES RT ES as z Se Ragas 3 2 78 68 ae 2 ae f s ao 238 Ss +2 3 eee 8 oe as sig uf sis 3a 3 % a 3 oe (38 ss BEF efx BBS os fe 23 gi ketsse— be aeas a fg alt 5 Fs > js fF = wor 58 at Bale Seas HS ig 2234 ea £22 yeriel | GgrtHe (Zsa 2 es 2 232+ 84 (2 BBB TEE BSS Ss sa i S 2 ig BO 2 Pye |& PPOs eS igede 3 2 je ge Ee |B RG es = og atTeutg $n 55 BB wn gages 325, 02 Jf 2% €232 % 2 2238 Eemdectsd efee28 $ $ eee i Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011Review oF Desion PROCEDURES oF Various Earti RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING SEISMIC Ervecrs 217 Table 1 Variation of Earth Pressure and Pullout Resistance Factor With Height Height(m) —_K, F a a N 1, Ly 7, __FS Pullout 05003393 (06TS TTS 23 030 720 359 197 100083930675 743 1337 24 0.60 6.90 Bat 2.06 15003330675 709276 2 0.90 6.60 329 25 2000339306757 121s 24 120 630 34 226 250 033930675 AL 1154 29 150 6.00 2.99 238 3.00 033830675 6DT——«093 30 1.80 570 284 Bi 35003393067 STS 1032 33 2.10 5.40 2.69 26 4000339308753 974 35 240 5:10 256 2.83 45003510 OTS S23 94.1 34 2.70 4.80 239 292 50003628 0.895504 908 34 3.00 450 224 303 550 03786 (1006 a8 870 32 3.00 450 224 316 60003864 «L116 460 828 3 3.00 450 332 65003981227 781 30 3.00 450 3.52 700 040991337406 TBA 30 3.00 450 376 75004217 aa8 37S 6r6 3 3.00 450 224 407 8000483515342 616 33 3.00 450 446 850048531669 307 553 37 3.0 450 497 900 04ST LTT TO 485 45 3.00 450 567 95004688 «1890280 414 73 3.00 430 6.65 Ylei 99.00 Note: Embedment length in resistant zone in static condition L., and in seismic condition L_, are not given in Table. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011218 ‘Smntia & SINGH ON Annexure IV DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL WITH INCLINED BACKFILL = Leveling Pad Reinforcements OY Fig. 1 Silent Features 18.43° Earth Slope (f) = Other parameters are given for R.E. wall with horizontal backfill in Annexure III (a). 1 Stability Analysis (Static) Earth Pressure Coefficient is given by [cot B= cor ® Ke cop SOV ee 5 + eos? B — cos? > Table 3 Stability Check (Static) AtBase ‘At Reinf. Level LF 522.9 309.6 Sa 1871.8 1782.4 FOS yon. LS 1.876 1887 FoS, > 2.0 361 NIA Table 4 Bearing Check (Static) At Base Table 1 Earth Pressure Coefficient Ttem Description Retained 9 Foundation’ FEN) Horizontal Force F 522.9 03826 NA zreN) Vertical ForceY + Vx is718 =H+Lianp=125 en a Clockwise ~ Anti-Clockwise Table 2 Vertical & Horizontal Forces LT M(kNm) moment (Moment of V2, 5640.9 Moment of F Arba Earth 7 GLA) Xm zM 301 40S(HoH Ly reas om xv Pressure B 582.9 537.2 =e z Gi 5229 503.6 ered - 3105. a wee Nin?) I=. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011Review oF DESIGN PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES INCLUDING Seismic Errects 219 An pHaH = 131.5 kN = 0.125 Amy, HZtanB = 13.15 kN =P, +P, = 144.7 kN ‘Table 5 Stability Check (Seismic) ae Item Deseription AtBase “Rei Fig, 2 External Forces on Wall (Inclined back-il) evel 1 Stability Analysis (Seismic) SFE Horizontal For 791.40 724.8 F=F+ Passes Po For structure with inclined back slope the inertia foree§ —$$$$_____________ (P,,) and dynamic thrust (P,,) shall be based on aheight 5 (kv) perce ee 1903.1 1810.6 H, near the back of the wail determined as follows: diced Clockwise ~ Anti- os Htang Hy = H+ PSH EOE - 12.00m Clockwise moment T=05tan im W B EMM Nomentothe ne 43854 NIA Fig. 2 shows all forces acting on a typical R.E. Wall for Moment of F, Par Pi) inclined backfill condition 7 “Where, The inertia force (P,,) on the reinforced soil volume, the pos... BE 1333 1348 inertia forces (P,.) on the soil in triangular portion above aa peg reinforced soil and P,, the dynamic incremental thrust en pfoc Reuter are obtained as explained in the Paper and obtained as Clockwise/Anti- flows: Fosnnmne CEASHEMIMEA yy yy AK.,, is obtained as difference of values of K.,, by Eqn. Moment of) given and the value of K.,’ is obtained by same Eq. by putting 2=0 X(m) ue 241 NA AK ,,= 0.5023 ~ 0.3614 = 0.1409 < 1 em Sox 1340 NIA Pag = 5 AKas YH? = 197.7 KN 2 Pressure v Vertical Forces (kin) 415.77 NIA Pygy = Pup Sin B = 62.52 KN Internal Design- Internal Design is same as given Horizontal Forces in Annexure III (a) with Geogrid & III (b) with Metal Papy = Pg cosp = 187.56 kN Sr Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, October-December 2011