12 views

Uploaded by jeams_lead7020

- 1) Deep Foundations
- Geotechnical Engineering a Practical Problem Solving Approachabc - Nagaratnam Sivakugan
- Contiguous Pile Wall as a Deep Excavation Supporting System
- FORMWORK (CE152P)
- Structural Behaviour of Composite Slabs
- Mivan Alu Form System
- CRSI notes.pdf
- Plaxis Bulletin (s)
- 3d printing concrete
- k Hosh Nevis
- BMTPC Compendium ET Sept2018 3rdEdition
- BS EN 14620-3-2006 Part 3 Concrete Components
- Final Draft
- La Farge AGILIA Final
- mivan
- Assignment Retaining Wall_Question
- 2014_GEOT2006_GeotechnicalEngineeringII_April 2014.pdf
- 15 Concreting
- 2013-01-FP_II
- Construction of Rajive Gandhi Urja Bhawan, Ongc Energy Center & Corporate Office

You are on page 1of 21

No

Title

1.0

1.1.1

Angle of fiction for the original ground in front of the wall (2)

1.1.2

Design appraisal

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.6

10

3.7

11

3.8

Elastic settlement

13

Safe construction

15

CONSTRUCTION STAGE

16

5.0

19

6.0

Appendix X

22

6.1

30

6.2

38

6.3

42

6.4

46

1.1

2.0

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.1

Page

1|P a ge

Items

Description

Comment

The soil profile shows the variation of the layers where the majority of the soil

1.0 Site

Investigation

is granule soil especially SILT (Figure X4). The worst case as it can be seen

(SI)

from the SI is at borehole 2 (BH2) where the water table is one meter bellow

the ground surface. The number of blows at BH2 shows that the soil layers are

softer and looser than the soil layers at BH1 and BH3 (Figure X2). Taking

X3 (Appendix X)

into consideration the first 5B depth there will be three similar layers and the

top layer. The layers as can be seen from the soil profile are sandy CLAY with

1.1 Deriving

soil

parameters

Depth: 5B = 21 m

SILT (MVG) and 12.5 m of very stiff SILT (MH) with high plasticity.

See Figure X4

The number of blows N was corrected in the table using Microsoft Excel.

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13.5

15

16.5

18

19.5

21

(kN/m2)

18

20.38

30.57

40.76

50.95

61.14

71.33

81.52

91.71

101.9

122.28

137.565

152.85

168.135

183.42

198.705

213.99

CN

2.305

2.166

1.769

1.532

1.37

1.251

1.158

1.083

1.021

0.969

0.884

0.834

0.791

0.754

0.722

0.694

0.669

Nf

11

8

10

9

8

8

10

9

11

10

18

16

19

19

22

22

22

N 60

25

17

18

14

11

10

12

10

11

10

16

13

15

14

16

15

15

Avg. N60= 14

Avg. 2= 37

2

42.36067977

38.43908891

38.97366596

36.73320053

34.83239697

34.14213562

35.49193338

34.14213562

34.83239697

34.14213562

37.88854382

36.1245155

37.32050808

36.73320053

37.88854382

37.32050808

37.32050808

14.23529412

N60 = CNNf

2|P a ge

1.1.1 Angle

of fiction for

the original

ground in

front of the

wall (2)

1.1.2 Soil

cohesion (c)

CN = 9.78 (

25+17+18+14+11+10+12+10+11+10+16+13+15+14+16+15+15

17

= 14

N60(Avg.)= 14

(equation 12.20)

2= 20 60 + 20 = 730

Textbook

The cohesion for the first layer sandy CLAY (cc) was taken to be minimum of

cohesion = 10 kN/2 .

because the firs layer have organic material so it is expected to have low value

the other layers where silt is majority with some sand and gravel the range of

m = 4 kN/2

KN/2 was taken for the one meter of the sandy SILT (cs) and saturated

specific weight of 20 KN/3 . Using Microsoft Excel the average value of the

cohesion was calculated based on the firs 21 m or 5B. (see Figure 2)

3|P a ge

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13.5

15

16.5

18

19.5

21

(kN/m2)

18

20.38

30.57

40.76

50.95

61.14

71.33

81.52

91.71

101.9

122.28

137.565

152.85

168.135

183.42

198.705

213.99

40

4.644

40

5.25804

40

7.88706

40

10.51608

40

13.1451

40

15.77412

40

18.40314

40

21.03216

40

23.66118

40

26.2902

40

31.54824

40

35.49177

40

39.4353

40

43.37883

40

47.32236

40

51.26589

40

55.20942

Cu (design) (kN/m2)

3.877218036

4.389872421

6.584808631

8.779744842

10.97468105

13.16961726

15.36455347

17.55948968

19.75442589

21.9493621

26.33923453

29.63163884

32.92404316

36.21644747

39.50885179

42.8012561

46.09366042

Avg. Cu (design) (kN/m2)=

High Plasticity

PI = 40 %

(See Figure X5 in

appendix X).

22.11287681 kN/m2

As the table shows the cohesion of the first layer of silt is c s= 4 and by using

eqn. (12.29) from the text book the average cohesion was calculated.

()

eqn. (12.29)

PI = plasticity index, in percent.

cu (design) = cu (VST)

eqn. (12.30)

cavg.= 22 kN/2

The range of PI as high to very high is from 40 % to 60 % the minimum value

of 40 % was consider since the layers are not purely SILT.

4|P a ge

2.0 Design

appraisal

Two different theories were used to design the wall for overturning and

sliding namely Rankine and Coulomb. Then the soil bearing capacity and

2.1 Rankine

theory

(cantilever

wall)

settlement were checked. Also two different retaining wall Gravity &

Cantilever - were design for comparison and selection.

= 0.8 = 22.4

The available materials for construction are rough which will cause friction

between the wall and the backfill soil with an angle of 0.8 . This make

Appendix R shows

2.2 Coulomb

theory

Coulomb theory more accurate and practical.

(cantilever

& gravity

Using Trial and error method by Microsoft Excel (See Figure X6) the

walls)

appropriate design was a Gravity wall based on Coulomb theory.

Rankine calculation

The first trial was using a cantilever wall to minimize the cost but it fall due to

second trial

The second trial was a gravity wall where the inclination angle was 10 to

first trial

vertical. This wall resist the overturning moment but it didnt meet the factor

based on approximate

The third trial was to increase the dimension where the weight will be increase

also. This help to resist the overturning moment with more than two as factor

of safety and more than 1.5 factor of safety for sliding. However the

& X8

B

6

third trial

5|P a ge

The forth trial was success and meet all the needed factors of safety for the

See dimension in

overturning moment, sliding and bearing capacity. In this trial the incline

Figure X9

3.0 Design

calculation

details

Data given:

q = 20 kN/m2

3.1 Given

data and

parameters

Unit weight of backfill, 1= 18 kN/ m3

Saturate unit weight of backfill, sat.= 20 kN/ m3

Inclination of the backfill slope, = 20

Backfill cohesion, c=0

Backfill friction angle, =280

Wall-backfill friction angle, = 0.81=22.40

Unit weight of concrete, C=24 KN/ m3

3.2 soil

parameters

under and in

front of the

wall

H = 6 m

Soil2 parameters under the retaining wall:

2 = 16 kN/ m3

weight

sat.= 20 kN/ m3

N60 = 14 blows

derived.

6|P a ge

3.3

Retaining

wall

dimension

cavg.= 22 kN/2

Based on approximate

dimension (refer to

Figure X8 &X9)

Width of toe = 0.12H = (0.12)(6)= 0.7 m

Width of heel = 0.12H =(0.12)(6) = 0.7 m

7|P a ge

3.4

Calculation

of active

force

(horizontal

& vertical)

For = 28 , = 20

Ka =

, =22.4o , = 20o

2 ()

(+)sin() 2

]

cos(+)cos()

2 (+)[1+

2 (2820)

(22.4+28)sin(2820) 2

]

cos(22.4+20)cos(2020)

2 20 (22.4+20)[1+

Ka = 0.79

Pa soil 1: the active force

Pa soil 1 = (1/2H'2 Ka) = (1/2181.520.79) = 15.99 kN/m

Pa soil1 v = 15.99sin(20o +22.4o) = 10.78 kN/m

backfill where the soil

is unsaturated.

Pa soil 2 = (1/2HsubsubKa) = (1/24.52(20 9.81)0.79) = 81.51 kN/m

backfill soil of 4.5 m

depth

Pa soil 2 h = 81.51 cos(20o +22.4o) = 60.19 kN/m

Pa surcharge = (qH'Ka) = (2060.79) = 94.8 kN/m

Pa surcharge v = 94.8sin(20o +22.4o) = 63.92 kN/m

surcharge.

8|P a ge

due to the water

Pa water v = 99.33sin(20o +22.4o) = 66.97 kN/m

Pa v: vertical active

force.

Pa h: horizontal active

force.

Total Pa v = 196.56 kN/m

Total Pa h = 215.51 kN/m

MPv: resisting

3.5

Calculation

of

overturning

moment, Mo

& resisting

moment, Mr

due to

active force

MPv= vertical active pressure(Pv) moment arm(X)

vertical active forces.

Soil no

Pa

Pv

MPv

Ph

Mo

Soil 1

15.99

10.78

2.129

22.95

11.82

59.11

Soil 2

81.50

54.93

3.327

182.77

60.23

1.5

90.35

Surcharge

94.8

63.89

2.813

179.73

70.05

210.17

Water

99.32

66.94

3.327

222.73

73.4

1.5

110.1

291.6

196.54

-------

608.18

215.5

----

469.73

9|P a ge

The following table can now be prepared to calculate the resisting moment

concrete = 24 kN/m3

Section

Area

Weight/unit

Moment

Moment

M: resisting moment

No

(m2)

length (kN/m)

arm from

(kN.m/m)

point C

(m)

Mr=1163.44 kN.m/m

5.30.4= 2.12

2.1224=50.88

1.59

80.74

V = Pv + total

0.55.30.687=1.82

1.8224=43.68

1.16

50.59

0.74.2=2.94

2.9424=70.56

2.1

148.17

0.51.8135.3=4.8

4.824=115.2

2.39

275.73

Pv=196.54

M = 555.23

The desirable FS is

V=476.99

Mr =MPv

equal to 2

+M = 1163.44

FS(overturning) =

MR

M0

1163.44

469.73

2.48 > 2

ok

m below the ground

level and it was

included in the passive

3.6 Factor of

safety

against

sliding, FS

Kp=

pressure equation.

2 (+)

Kp = 1.151 >

()sin(+) 2

]

cos()cos()

2 ()[1

2 (37+20)

(3722.4)sin(37+20)

2 20 (22.420)[1cos(22.420)cos(2020)]2

=1.151

10 | P a g e

for first 1 m of

unsaturated CLAY in

Pp 1 = Kp 1 D2 + 2C'D

Pp 1 =(1.1511612)+ (201(1.151)1) = 30.66 kN/m

Pp 2: the passive force

for first 0.5 m of

Pp 2 = (1.151(20 9.81)0.5 )+ (24(1.51)0.5) = 5.76 kN/m

2

2

in front of the wall

Total Passive Pressure = 37.65 kN/m

() (12)+22+

FS(sliding) =

215.5

3.7 Factor of

safety

against soil

bearing

capacity

failure, FS

(476.99) (37)+(4.24)+37.65

Ok

e=2 -

4.2

2

1163.44 469.73

476.99

=0.64 m< 6 =

4.2

6

= 0.3 ok

force at the hill when

qtoe /heel =

qtoe =

(1+

(1

) =

tension force.

467.99

4.2

(1+

6(0.64)

4.2

) = 214.4 kN/m2

qtoe:Maximum pressure

qhell: Min. pressure

qhell =

(1-

) =

467.99

4.2

(1-

6(0.64)

4.2

) = 9.73 kN/m2

Case 1 textbook

11 | P a g e

1

for = 37o ; Nc= 55.63, Nq= 42.92, N= 66.19 also,

2 = submerged

Nc, Nq, N are from

Table 16.2 textbook

Fcs=Fqs=F=1

because it is continues

Fcs=Fqs=F=1

basement

2 = submerged = 20 9.81 = 10.19 kN/m

B'= B 2e = 4.2 - 20.64 = 2.92 m

D2: 0.5 m of Saturated

sandy SILT

Calculation of bearing capacity factors.

Depth factor;

1.5

1

11.085

F d = 1

Inclination factor;

215.5

12 | P a g e

F = (1- )2 = (1-

24.31 2

)

90

24.31 2

) =

37

= 0.53

0.117

qu = (2255.631.0870.53)+(21.142.921.0850.53) +(

10.192.9266.1910.117) = 1339.64 kN/m2

Qult = qu A = 1339.64 (2.921) = 3911.75 kN

Qult

qu = L =

3911.75

4.21

FS ( Bearing Capacity)

FS(Bearing Capacity)=

3.8 Elastic

settlement

= 931.37 kN/m2

qu

q toe

931.37

217.40

= 4.28 3.0 Ok

For the center of the wall; = 4

L

m'= =

150

4.2

= 35.7

n' =

21

4.2

2

= 10

meter length.

F1 = 0.74

F2= 0.15

13 | P a g e

Is = F1+

12

1

F2 = 0.74+

120.3

10.3

0.15 = 0.826

1.5

& X11)

4.2

by interpolation If = 0.97

See Figure X12 in

appendix X for E

2

references

2

Silt = 12.5 m, E=15 MN/m2

Eavg =

Se=qo ( B')

(420)+(320)+(12.515)

19.5

1 2

= 16.8 MN/m

10.32

be accepted.

All equations used for

the elastic settlement

are from the textbook

page 515. And table

17.5

14 | P a g e

Retaining wall project

Earthwork

Survey

work

Benchmarking

measurement

Leveling

Workers and

equipments

Assign Workers

Order

equipment &

Materials

Excavation

Construction

Concrete

Formwork

Site preparing

sheet piling

Start Excavation

Order Concrete

Install Formwork

Concrete

pouring

Concrete curing

Uninstall

Formwork

15 | P a g e

4.1.1 Survey work:

In surveying the landscape for the retaining wall construction is about levelling layout

and the ground surface is levelled, and benchmarking the measurements from the

drawings to the field to prepare for excavation work.

4.1.2 Earthwork:

In this stage the contractor assign workers on the site with their assignments on the site

and ordering the equipment and material, then cleaning the site and remove existing

plants topsoil and other debris that maybe in the way of the excavation work for

preparing the land for excavation before that sheet piles must be in place at desirable

16 | P a g e

depth before excavating the land or it will cause soil failure excavation will be about

depth of 1.5 m and breadth of 4.2 m with 150 m long.

4.1.3 Constructing:

After the excavation finish the formwork are installed in the shape of Earth Gravity

Retaining Wall while that the concrete ordered for 1753 m3 of concrete, after that filling

the concrete in the formwork with vibration machine to fill in the gabs and let out the air

voids.

17 | P a g e

After filling the concrete in the formwork starts curing the concrete to prevent cracking

and loss in moisture for 3-7 days, why this time? Because Concrete which is moist cured

for 7 days is about stronger than uncured concrete.

18 | P a g e

To have fast curing is suggested to use waxy super cure layer this will prevent any loss in

moisture and this material can be painted after 24 hours. Then remove formwork and

install waterproofing and drainage system along the wall, after that finish the wall as

desired. After that back filling the active area of the wall with the desired soil which is

sandy soil.

The table below shows the approximate cost for the construction of the gravity retaining

wall.

19 | P a g e

Item Description

Time

Quantity

(Days)

Price per

Cost

unit

(RM)

(RM)

2

500

4000*

General Workers

Full time

30

65 per day

39000

General contractor

Full time

97 per day

1940

Full time

4000

Full time

461 m2

50

23450

Disposal Lorry

500

8000

Excavation work

945m3

90

85050

Full time

1752m3

45

78840

Concrete Mix

1752m3

184

322552

500

500

Planting grass

362 m2

20

7240

1200 m3

50

60000

Surveying engineer

Total Cost

634572

* For the surveying engineer first survey will happen before anything and second day will

be after excavation to insure the ground levelling and if the excavation is based on the

drawing measurements. However they will do two more days for checking the formwork

and levelling of formwork and two days will be included in the project time but another

to days will the beginning and the final survey. The project period is 3 months if

everything going as planed but in case of delay it will take 4 months to 6 months.

20 | P a g e

Additional information

While designing the retaining wall and beside the factors of safety of the design, the cost

is also a major concern. Using Microsoft Excel (refer to Figure X6) we came out with the

optimal retaining wall design. Here are some technics that were used for the optimal

design:

The inclination of the wall on the backfill side was increase to 20 to the vertical.

This technic will help to increase the vertical pressure of the backfill soil to

stabilize the wall.

Using minimum allowable size which meet all the design criteria to reduce the

concrete volume during construction.

Using Microsoft Excel for automatic calculation of the factors of safety which

were close to the minimum desirable FS to avoid any additional cost.

21 | P a g e

- 1) Deep FoundationsUploaded bymehtabhumikaa
- Geotechnical Engineering a Practical Problem Solving Approachabc - Nagaratnam SivakuganUploaded byDaniel Escobar
- Contiguous Pile Wall as a Deep Excavation Supporting SystemUploaded byLuis Zhan
- FORMWORK (CE152P)Uploaded byCharles Kendrick Cardenas
- Structural Behaviour of Composite SlabsUploaded by_at_to_
- Mivan Alu Form SystemUploaded byAnoop Nimkande
- CRSI notes.pdfUploaded byRajha Rajeswaran
- Plaxis Bulletin (s)Uploaded byGEOMAHESH
- 3d printing concreteUploaded byShantanu Bhattacherjee
- k Hosh NevisUploaded byMario Ravr
- BMTPC Compendium ET Sept2018 3rdEditionUploaded byRaghu Ram
- BS EN 14620-3-2006 Part 3 Concrete ComponentsUploaded bysepasian
- Final DraftUploaded byegsamit
- La Farge AGILIA FinalUploaded byAlmario Sagun
- mivanUploaded byDipak Kale
- Assignment Retaining Wall_QuestionUploaded bybadrul
- 2014_GEOT2006_GeotechnicalEngineeringII_April 2014.pdfUploaded byShivaun Seecharan
- 15 ConcretingUploaded byAkhilesh Kumar
- 2013-01-FP_IIUploaded byBobaru Marius
- Construction of Rajive Gandhi Urja Bhawan, Ongc Energy Center & Corporate OfficeUploaded byDevendra Sharma
- Phase2 Developers Tip - Advanced Mesh RegionsUploaded byMarcos Ma
- 12.docUploaded bypandyatushar
- Chapter 16Uploaded byChandana Alli
- Bill of Quantity.docxUploaded bynatasya zainal
- Sheet PilesUploaded byBryan Almodovar
- OPTEMIZACION DE MUROS DE CONTRAFUERTE.pdfUploaded byHeber Guillen
- Resume PrathimaUploaded bySaikrishna Gazula
- Retaining Wall StandardsUploaded bysowjich
- Module 2Uploaded byRajnish Anand
- sir-------Uploaded bybasum mat

- Assignment 1Uploaded byjeams_lead7020
- Foundation SlideUploaded byjeams_lead7020
- Cost EstimationUploaded byjeams_lead7020
- 1- EXPERIMENT 8 - Los Angeles Abrasion test.docxUploaded byjeams_lead7020
- Assignment GISUploaded byjeams_lead7020
- Lab Report Ring and Ball, Skid TestUploaded byjeams_lead7020
- ConclusionUploaded byjeams_lead7020

- System DesignUploaded bydonakomeah
- Arup Journal 1 2012Uploaded byvisvisvisvis
- HP C7000 Quick Virtual Connect Configuration GuideUploaded bypcoffey2240
- 7117 Implementing Strong User Authentication With Windows Hello for Business TCSUploaded byJilani Shaik
- Elasto-Deck 5001 HT TDSUploaded byspinalfarm
- User-Manual-V5824G-20170505Uploaded byKnoppix Debian
- LLM_User_Guide_10_2Uploaded byseenuyarasi
- Installation and Commissioning Forms - Eclipse TerminalUploaded byRutoh Duncan
- bcc-egd2005Uploaded byHari Singh
- EstidamaUploaded bysopnanair
- Estobond PCA - Data Sheet - 130702Uploaded byZainul Faizien Haza
- al aqsaUploaded byarrishabh
- Ceiling FinishesUploaded bystenkchai
- Waste Plastic Modified BituminUploaded byMd.imthiyaz
- KBASE_CDB_ShadingDevicesUploaded byianyan
- Everything CurlUploaded byTiago
- Signa HDx 1.5T G Mecanicas (1)Uploaded byIng. Arturo Preciado
- Temario Curso AriesoGEO LTEUploaded byeduardo2307
- What is Gabion? Its Types, ApplicationsUploaded bySirimilla Mehar
- Bottom Slab Method StatementUploaded byfehmi-fjr4696
- 4.12 Microwave Link (Sdh & Pdh)Uploaded bybbiswajit88ece
- Unix Quiz2Uploaded byAswathamon Rajagopal
- ReadmeUploaded byFabricio da Silva
- U8484S HPE Bladesystems Fast TrackUploaded byChua Hian Koon
- OSI LayersUploaded byAdeel Ahmad
- Brutalism Exposed: Photography and the Zoom WaveUploaded byKaty Browse
- Mobile Cloud Computing In BusinessUploaded byMandy Diaz
- Unit Testing PHP Apps With PHPUnitUploaded byNguyên Lệ
- IQSK Issue 27Uploaded byRustono R
- Introduction to Multiaxis ToolpathsUploaded byEnrique