225 views

Uploaded by Monjit Gogoi

retaining wall

save

- Counterfort Retaing Wall-Original
- ACI 318 08 Design of Retaining Wall With Counterfort Rev1
- retaining wall
- Strap Footing Design Spreadsheet.xlsx
- rc pipe
- Design of Culvert.
- Counterfort Retaining Wall B.C. Punamia 05-Feb-2012
- Comparative Study of Cantilever and Counter Fort Retaining Wall-46768
- Combined Strap Footing
- Blast Resistant Design of Rc Structures
- RETAINING WALL.pdf
- RC_cantilever retaining wall_final.xls
- Retaining Counterfort Wall Design
- Footing With Strap Beam
- Retaining wall counterfort.pdf
- Construction
- Column Design
- Strengthening Design of Concrete Beams by Adition of Steel Plates
- Design of Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall
- Hartford Civic Center Collapse Summary
- A City Civic Center ( unfinish)
- CE 632 Retaining Wall Design Part-1 PPT
- Retaining Wall Excel Sheet
- Column Spreadsheet
- Basics of Retaining Wall Design By Hugh Brooks
- Retaining Wall
- snow load basics
- wind load calculation
- Standard Plans For Highway Bridges_Concrete Slab Bridges
- Geometric design of Railways
- SKR 1269
- Slab Culvert 2m Model (1)
- Pier Drawing
- SKR 1269.pdf
- Bridges.ppt
- protection at slopes.pdf
- Standard Data Book for Roads
- plan of Gate
- Annex 1 Presentation Base-Seal
- 2__CBR
- MORTH Bridge Super Structure Standards.pdf
- SOR 2015-16
- MORTH Bridge Super Structure Standards
- Bbs
- Staircase design
- Column Design 165
- DSR14
- IRC-67-2001 road signs.pdf
- Curved+Beam+by+B.C.+Punmia
- DESIGN OF R.C.C OVER HEAD TANK.pdf
- Grain Size Graph
- sm20
- Score Sheet
- estimate for boundary wall
- Intze++Water+Tank++Based+on+K.+Raju
- Cantiliver Retaing Wall
- 40178132 Earthquake Design in STAAD PRO
- Two Pile Group

You are on page 1of 14

Safe Bearing Capacity of Soil, qa = 5. Co efficient of friction, µ= 0.5 6. concrete, M= 25 7. Foundation Depth = 1.50 8. Nominal Cover = 75 Fe = 415

7

m = = 0.866 0.577

KN/m3 Sin φ = 0.5 Cos φ tan φ 150 KN/m2

m mm

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

326 0.407 0.574 0.176 0.309 0.404 0.643 0.292 0.906 0.384 0.306 0.966 0.428 1.192 1.951 0.819 0.924 0.921 0.839 1.276 0.866 0.422 0.707 0.577 0.766 0.573 0.732 2.259 0.358 0.268 0.707 0.000 1.940 0.Degree 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 sin 0.500 0.423 tan 0.906 cos 0.145 .424 0.344 0.927 0.287 0.643 0.766 0.364 0.174 0.466 0.500 0.325 0.961 0.866 0.445 0.342 0.934 0.985 0.700 0.946 0.956 0.375 0.391 0.819 0.

06h = = 0.5 x X = 4.Sinφ 1 + Sinφ 1 + Sinφ 1 .51 m 0.84 m to 4.45 m ii Thickness of Heel Slab Provide thickness of Heel Slab iii Thickness of Toe Slab Provide thickness of Toe Slab iv Thickness of Stem Slab Provide thickness of Stem Slab at base Provide thickness of Stem Slab at top of the wall = ≈ 0.3 m = 0.05h = ≈ 0. X = (√(Ca/3) x h = = √(.425 m Provide thickness of counterforts = 0.05h = 0. interconnecting the stem with the heel Slab Spacing of Counterforts ≈ one third to half of 'h' = 1/3 h to 1/2 h = 2.5 16 KN/m3 150 KN/m2 Earth Pressure Co-efficient.333333 0 Cp 2 Preliminary Proportions = = 3 i The (triangular Shaped) counterforts are provided on the rear side of the wall.68 m 0.5 m 30 0. h = f µ g q = = = = 8. For such a condition.55 m 0.5 2. Ca = 1 .70 m 0.1 Given Data.83 m = 1.33333/3) x 8.08h = ≈ . it is assumed that the reaction R at the Base of footing is in line with the front face of the Stem.80 Assuming a triangular base pressure distribution.425 m v For an economical proportioning of the length L of the base slab.45 m 0.Sinφ = 0. L = length of the base Slab Provide length of the base slab m m .25 m Provide Spacing between = 3 m counterforts Thickness of counterforts ≈ 0.245 L = 4.

70 = = = = = w = 322 60.3x (8.000 761.007 21.5-.5-.558 KN-m 0.570 R L (1-6e/L) > < 0 qa = Safe OK 2 150 KN/m 2 41.890 Kn-m (per m length of wall) iii Line of action of resultant of vertical forces with respect to the heel can be located by applying statics.667 KN ii Overturning moment.8 Mw = moment (KN-m) 402.100 133.25x (8.368 4 Soil Pressures at Footing Base i Resultant vertical reaction R = ii Distance of R from Heel Lr iii Eccentricity e = = 457.663 iv Stabilising Moment (about toe) Mr = = W (L-Xw) 1436.40 OK (per m length of wall) (per m length of wall) Xw m (FS)overturning = = 2.25 2.7845 KN/m .00x0.4 3.45) W2 = 25 x 0.38 9.45 W5 = 25 x1.45) W3 = (25-16) x 0.925 44.94 KN (Mw+Mo)/R 2.42 1.5x0.500 160. 2) Force (KN) W1 = 16 x 2.02379 KN/m 2 149.5x0.5 35 457.80) OK resultant lies Well inside the midddle third of the base => => 6e/L qmin = = = = 0. considering 1 length of the wall (fig.3 Stability against overturning i Forces due to active Pressure (per m length of the wall) Pa = Ca x g xh2/2 = 192.65 2.45) W4 = 25 x3.5-.7x (8.9 Mr Mo > W = = Lr-L/2 0.856 m < (L/6) = (0.532 Distance of Resultant Vertical force from Heel = Mw/W = 1.06 31.94 distance from heel (m) 1.456 = 1. Mo = = Pa x h/3 545.

923 = = = = MPa 25 2x415 0.4. iii (F.02x2/3 = 351.√(1 .42 KN/m Mu ≈ 1.27 % 1666 mm 2 = 0. Pa = 192.4 tan(φ0) = 2.617) Vu ≈ = 227.5x2.2 + 0.50 ii The Net upword presure varies from 132.4 The net pressure acting upward are obtained by reducing the uniformly distributed self weight of the toe Slab from the gross pressure at the base.9 x (F + Pp) Pa = 1.S)sliding 0.667 KN F ii Resisting force (ignoring Passive pressure).891 KN 2 2 at 2.54 KN-m Vu v Nominal Shear Stress τc = bd MPa = 0. the design shear force (at d = 617 mm from the face of stem) and the design moment at the face of the stem are given by 1.3-87)x0.9 x F Pa (per m length of wall) = µR 228.5.27 % (1 .5 Stability against Sliding i Sliding Force.0 KN/m2 as Shown in fig. KN/m2 Self Weight loading = 17.40 m from Toe as shown in fig.268 % 0.4 Safe Against Sliding 6 Design of Toe Slab i The loads considered for the design of the toe slab are shown in fig. (Pt)required 100 Pt Pt Mu bd2 0.598 x R/fck)) < 0.3+87)/2 x (2-0.3 + 2.369 For τc = 0.369 MPa the required Pt vi R = = => => Therefore => (Ast)reqd.07 < 1.3 KN/m2 to 87.4 iii Assuming a Clear Cover of 75 mm and bar dia.27 required for Shear .5 x( (87x22/2)+(132.89 m Pp = Cpge(h2 -h1 )/2 = 165.84 > 1. d = 617 mm iv Applying a load fector of 1.5 x (132.97 KN = > Pa = = 1. 3 => (FS)sliding = 0. 16 mm effective depth.4 Unsafe against Sliding Hence a Shear key needs to be provided to generate the balance force through passive Resistance Providing a Shear Key 400 mm X 300 mm h2 = 1.

-ve = 91.45) = 128.using 16 mm bars. spacing required = 121 mm using 20 mm bars. varing between 41. * Distribution Steel Provide 10 φ bars @ 200 mm c/c spacing for the transverse reinforcement. d = 367 mm Considering 1 m wide strip near the free edge of the heel fig.03 KnN/m 2 The net pressure acts downwards. The bars should extend by atleast a distance Ld = 752 mm beyond the front face of the stem.19 KN/m 2 Applying a load fector of 1. l = 3.5-0.5. 4 * Design of Heel slab for continuous beam action Assuming a Clear Cover of 75 mm and 16 mm Bars.√(1 . 7 Design of Heel Slab i The loads (net pressures) considered for the design of the Heel slab are as shown in fig. Mu.35 KN/m 2 Therefore the average loading on the strip is 86.285 KN/m Effective Span.26% (1 . mid span moment may be taken as.80 KN/m b) Heel Slab @ 25 x 0. spacing required = 189 mm Provide 16 φ bars @ 120 mm C/C Spacing at the bottom of the toe Slab.249 KnN/m as shown in fig.399 MPa 0. Negative moment occuring in the heel slab at the counterfourt location is given by.05 KN/m 2 * * KN/m2 and 2 99.25 140. Wu = 129. on both sides.+ve = Wul2/16 ≈ 0.907 MPa 25 2x415 0. Mu.138 KN/m Max. 4.367 m Max.4.604 KN/m Design Shear Force Vu = Wu x (Clear Span/2 . 5 2 73. Effective Depth.75 x Mu.d) = 146.479 KN/m Design of top Reinforcement (for -ve moments) at the counterforts Vu * Nominal Shear Stress tv = bd MPa = 0.-ve = Wul2/12 The intensity of pressure at a distance of 1 m from the free edge is = 122. The distributed loading acting downward on the heel slab is given by 2 a) Overbarden @ 16 x (8.33 % required for shear 0.598 x R/fck)) < 0.399 for * tc = Mu bd2 0.33 % With M 25 concrete required pt = R = = => (Pt)required 100 Therefore Ast = Uising = = 2 1193 mm / m 16 mm Spacing required = 12 mm Spacing required = (required at 1m from the free edge) 168 mm 95 mm .45 => = w= 11.

0x1.Minimum Ast = 0.5 to be carried by cantilever action with fixity at the face of the stem. only minimum rft.√(1 .d = 355 mm (for 12 mm bars) Applying a load factor of 1.4.680 = 25 (1 . and introduce additional 12 mm bars in between two adjecent bars at the counterforts near the free edge over a distance of app.0 m. the max moment intensity may be taken as two times the average value. = 209 mm OK * Provide 12 mm bars @ 200 mm c/c Spacing at the top of the Heel Slab throughout.598 x R/fck)) 2x415 = 0. * Design of Bottom Reinforcement (for +ve moment) at mid -Span of heel slab R ≈ = (Pt)required 100 0.25 The intensity of load at a distance of 1.25)x1.77-41.25x1.5/3)+(79. 1 m. KN/m2 The intensity of loading at the face of the stem = 41.75 x R (required for (-) ve moment) MPa 0. KN/m2 Mmax => = 45.5.598 x R/fck)) mm2/m mm c/c Spacing mm2/m = Therefore Ast = Provide 12 12 bars @ bars @ < Minimum Ast = 540 at the top of the Heel Slab throughout . Mu R = bd2 0.M due to loading on the triangular portion = from the face of the stem is 79. rft.073 KN/m This moment is distributed non uniformly across the width of 3.12 % bd mm2 / m mm2 / m = 540 < 1193 At a distance beyound 1 m from the free edge.4.10% 360 210 180 mm (1 . Need to be provided Spaceing of 12 mm bars required for min. For design purpose.77 KN/m2 (½ x3.50 m Total B.5) x [(41.19% 2 mm /m Therefore Ast = 714 > Minimum Ast = 540 Spaceing of 12 mm Spacing required = 158 mm * Provide 12 mm bars @ 150 mm C/C Spacing at the bottom of the heel slab throughout Distribution Steel Provide 12 mm bars @ 200 C/C Spacing => mm /m 2 * Design of Heel Slab for Cantilever action Cosidering a triangular loading on the heel slab Fig.√(1 .360 MPa = => (Pt)required 100 = 25 2x415 0.5/(2x3)] 2 = 68.382 Effective depth.

15) OK Design of (front face) reinforcement for +ve moment in the mid span of Stem The minimum reinforcement requirment will govern the design on both faces.000792 ( 550 ) > 381 mm /m 2 = Check for shear at base tv MPa < 0. => = 381 Minimum Ast = 0.d) = 65.598 x R/fck)) => = 100 2x415 mm2/m (Ast)reqd.√(1 . = 2 (Linearly varing to zero at the top) at base 3.28 Mpa (Pt)required 25 (1 .74 KNm/m Design Shear force Vu = Wu x (clearspan/2 .99 KNm/m Max.* Design of Vertical Stem Height of Stem above base. Mu. Since Mu.12 100 660 = = ( 1000 ) mm /m Vu bd 0.-ve = Wul2/12 = 64.688 KN/m Design of (rear face) reinforcement for -ve moments at the counterforts Mu R = 2 bd = 0.4.93 KN/m Applya load factor of 1. +ve moment occuring in the stem at the counterfort location is given by.05 m Intensity of Earth Pressure at the base of the Stem is Pa = Ca ɣe h = 42.48 m Max.+ve = Wul2/16 = 48.29 MPa (for minimum pt = 0.00 m * Design of Stem for continuous Beam Action At Base Assuming a clear cover of 50 mm and 20 f effective depth.5 2 Wu = 64. spacing required = 172 mm 12 mm bars (horizental) @ 170 mm C/C Spacing on both faces of the stem (upto one . -ve Using Provide 12 mm bars. d = (550 50 20 ) = 480 mm and effective Span l = 3 + 0.+ve < Mu.third height above base) .137 2 bars = 0. h = 8. -ve moment occuring in the stem at the counterfort location is given by.40 KN/m Clearing spacing between counterfourts.48 = 3. Mu.

spacing required = 282 mm Provide 12 mm bars(horizental) @ 250 mm C/C Spacing on both faces f of the stem (in the Upper one third Height) * Design of Stem for Cantilever action Considering the triangular loading on the stem (fig.77 R = = => (Pt)required 100 (Ast)reqd.240 = = = 0.-ve = Wul /12 = 41. spacing required = 226 mm bars(horizental) @ 200 mm C/C Spacing on both faces of the stem (in the middle one third Height) At two third heights above base 0.000673 mm2/m 281 ( 1000 ) ( 417 ) => Minimum Using Provide > mm2/m mm2/m 281 bars.4.598 x R/fck)) 2x415 0.At one third height above base depth of Stem at one third portion. Ast = ( 1000 ) ( 334 ) 100 mm2/m = 401 Using 12 mm f bars.√(1 .93 KN/m .12 100 501 f f 2 417 mm MPa 25 (1 . I = 3.12 Min. d = Effective Span.50 m from the base of the stem is = 2 34. Ast = = 12 mm 12 mm KNm/m Mu bd 0.93 KN/m The intensity of horizental pressure at a distance 1.417 m 2 Mu. 6) to be carried by Cantilever action about the face of the Stem as follows 2 The intensity of horizental pressure at the base of the stem = 42.

.

.

02 149. 2 : Calculations of Soil Pressures 300 mm Neglected GL 2000 h1 = 1200 h2 300 Pp 2400 400 Shear Key Cageh Fig.00 m Pa W5 2000 550 W4 2800 450 Cageh h/3 L= 4800 Fig. 1 : Forces on Retaing Wall with preliminary proportions W = 457.94 KN Xw = 1663 m Mo = 2000 545. 3 : Design of Shear Key .300 2500 GL 7000 W1 W2 GL 1500 700 W3 8500 Counterforts @ Spacing 3.78KN/m2 KN/m2 W=R e = 456 Lr =2856 L/2 =2400 L = 4800 Fig.890 41.

02 149.466 98. 5 : Loading consideration for simplified analysis of Heel slab .03 Stem Stem 450 Counterfort 45 TOE SLAB TOE SLAB Heel Slab 3000 Heel Slab 45 Counterfort 450 1500 1000 2250 2000 550 2250 2000 550 (a) Cantilever action (a) continuous beam action Fig.05 41.35 99.77 73.03 132.249 Fig.2000 550 2250 17.97 41.801 99.78 104.25 79.50 140.28 86. 4 : Net soil pressure acting on base slab 41.

93 KN/m2 1500 450 Heel Slab 2 42. 6 : Loading consideration for simplified analysis of Stem .Stem Counterfort h= 8050 34.93 KN/m 3000 450 450 Fig.

- Counterfort Retaing Wall-OriginalUploaded byharishsandeep
- ACI 318 08 Design of Retaining Wall With Counterfort Rev1Uploaded byKING ENG
- retaining wallUploaded byjoni_joan
- Strap Footing Design Spreadsheet.xlsxUploaded byzubairmeer
- rc pipeUploaded byhutuguo
- Design of Culvert.Uploaded byAnonymous nwByj9L
- Counterfort Retaining Wall B.C. Punamia 05-Feb-2012Uploaded byLokesh Sharma
- Comparative Study of Cantilever and Counter Fort Retaining Wall-46768Uploaded byEditor IJAERD
- Combined Strap FootingUploaded byNoman Khan
- Blast Resistant Design of Rc StructuresUploaded byBalaji Srinivasan
- RETAINING WALL.pdfUploaded byArnav Anuj Kasar
- RC_cantilever retaining wall_final.xlsUploaded bymegget
- Retaining Counterfort Wall DesignUploaded byGoutam Chakraborty
- Footing With Strap BeamUploaded byvladementor
- Retaining wall counterfort.pdfUploaded bySilver Olguín Camacho
- ConstructionUploaded byAiman Hilmi Aiman Hilmi
- Column DesignUploaded byVinayak Potdar
- Strengthening Design of Concrete Beams by Adition of Steel PlatesUploaded bygparrat
- Design of Concrete Cantilever Retaining WallUploaded byhendra_5
- Hartford Civic Center Collapse SummaryUploaded byDean Wong
- A City Civic Center ( unfinish)Uploaded byNiko Villapando
- CE 632 Retaining Wall Design Part-1 PPTUploaded byrodjendan
- Retaining Wall Excel SheetUploaded byfordesign
- Column SpreadsheetUploaded byprabhat_iitd
- Basics of Retaining Wall Design By Hugh BrooksUploaded byNanescu Liliana
- Retaining WallUploaded byrasikamal
- snow load basicsUploaded bysamir_ssh7151
- wind load calculationUploaded byIgnatius Samraj
- Standard Plans For Highway Bridges_Concrete Slab BridgesUploaded byV Venkata Narayana
- Geometric design of RailwaysUploaded byPadma Shahi

- SKR 1269Uploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Slab Culvert 2m Model (1)Uploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Pier DrawingUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- SKR 1269.pdfUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Bridges.pptUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- protection at slopes.pdfUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Standard Data Book for RoadsUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- plan of GateUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Annex 1 Presentation Base-SealUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- 2__CBRUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- MORTH Bridge Super Structure Standards.pdfUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- SOR 2015-16Uploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- MORTH Bridge Super Structure StandardsUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- BbsUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Staircase designUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Column Design 165Uploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- DSR14Uploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- IRC-67-2001 road signs.pdfUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Curved+Beam+by+B.C.+PunmiaUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- DESIGN OF R.C.C OVER HEAD TANK.pdfUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Grain Size GraphUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- sm20Uploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Score SheetUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- estimate for boundary wallUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Intze++Water+Tank++Based+on+K.+RajuUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Cantiliver Retaing WallUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- 40178132 Earthquake Design in STAAD PROUploaded byMonjit Gogoi
- Two Pile GroupUploaded byMonjit Gogoi