This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Otherwise we can extend base raft suitably to get extra wt from soil back fill. 2 In plan c-c, one beam does not rest on tunnel wall. 3 Is raft designed for uplift? 4 Is cantilever more economical than counterfort? BHEL were thinking of counterfort -as we have already discussed. Some editing reg section designations may be done.
Compliance The FS for given GWT =6m will be 1.7 For GWT at FGL, FS=1.2 & 1.35 including equipment /M/c weight. But it will be not economical because the soil friction if considered will be still safe. Extension of base raft will result in extra cost and addition will be only submerged weight of soil. May please be corrected as same is modelled to be resting on the wall. The upward soil reaction is more severe than the uplift. Hence uplift is taken care. Geometry of the structure is such that the counter fort is found to be uneconomical. Irregular geometry offer counter effect on the walls. Please list out the doubts and corrections to be incorporated. The design document (formatted) will be made available shortly.