You are on page 1of 21

Table of Contents

No

Title

1.0

Site Investigation (SI)

Deriving soil parameters

1.1.1

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

1.1.2

Soil cohesion (c)

Design appraisal

2.1

Rankine theory (cantilever wall)

2.2

Coulomb theory (cantilever & gravity walls)

Design calculation details

3.1

Given data and parameters

3.2

Soil parameters under and in front of the wall

3.3

Retaining wall dimension

3.4

Calculation of active force (horizontal & vertical)

Calculation of overturning moment, Mo & resisting moment, Mr

3.6

Factor of safety against sliding, FS

10

3.7

Factor of safety against soil bearing capacity failure, FS

11

3.8

Elastic settlement

13

Safe construction

15

CONSTRUCTION STAGE

16

5.0

Construction Cost and additional information

19

6.0

Appendix X

22

6.1

Appendix RC: Rankine theory calculation (cantilever)

30

6.2

Appendix CC: coulombs theory calculation (cantilever)

38

6.3

Appendix CG: coulombs theory calculation (gravity FS fail)

42

6.4

Appendix CE: coulombs theory calculation (gravity e fail)

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

Worse case at BH2

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

See Figure X1, X2 &

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

organic material as top soil and 4 m of sandy SILT (MHS), 3 m of gravelly

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

Figure 1: correction of N values using Microsoft Excel

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 (

The average 60=


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

cc: sandy CLAY

10 KN/2 (see Typical values of soil cohesion for different soils)

cohesion = 10 kN/2 .

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

cs: sandy SILT

of cohesion even though it is CLAY with specific weight of 16 KN/3 . For

cohesion for the first 1

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

m = 4 kN/2

the cohesion is between 4 kN/2 to 46 kN/2 the minimum value of 4


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

PI (%) Cu (VST) (kN/m2)


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

Figure 2: cohesion, c values for the first 21 m and the average c

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.

()

= 0.11 + 0.0037 (PI)

eqn. (12.29)

= effective overburden pressure


PI = plasticity index, in percent.
cu (design) = cu (VST)

eqn. (12.30)

= correction factor = 1.7 0.54 log(PI)

cavg.= 22 kN/2

cavg.= avg. (0.11 + 0.0037 (PI)) = 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

use Coulomb theory

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

Appendix T1 shows the

overturning moment. The wall couldnt resist the overturning moment so a

second trial

heavier wall was needed.

Appendix T2 shows the

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

All the dimension were

of safety of 2. The dimension need to be increase to meet the design criteria.

based on approximate

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

dimension from the

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

textbook see Figure X7

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

& X8

eccentricity exceed the limit

B
6

and a tension force exist at the hill when the

Appendix T3 shows the


third trial

soil cannot resist a tension force.

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

angle was chosen to be 20 to vertical and base width of 4.2 m.

3.0 Design
calculation
details

Design Calculations based on Coulomb Theory for gravity wall:


Data given:
q = 20 kN/m2

3.1 Given
data and
parameters

Soil1 Backfill soil1 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: sandy CLAY unit

2 = 16 kN/ m3

weight

sat.= 20 kN/ m3
N60 = 14 blows

Part 1.1.2 shows how

2=2060 + 20 = 20(14) + 20 =370

the cohesion was

cc: sandy CLAY cohesion = 10 kN/2 .

derived.

cs: sandy SILT cohesion for the first 1 m = 4 kN/2

6|P a ge

3.3
Retaining
wall
dimension

cavg.= 22 kN/2

Dimensions of gravity retaining wall :

Based on approximate

Base width = 0.7H = (0.7)(6) = 4.2 m

dimension (refer to

Base thickness = 0.12H = (0.12)(6)= 0.7 m

Figure X8 &X9)

Wall high = 6 0.7 = 5.3 m


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

Figure 3: the dimensions of the gravity retaining wall

7|P a ge

3.4
Calculation
of active
force
(horizontal
& vertical)

Coefficient of active earth pressure :


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+

= 0.79 < 1 then Ok

Ka = 0.79

Calculation of pressure : Active pressure:


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

due to the first 1.5 m


backfill where the soil
is unsaturated.

Pa soil1 h = 15.99cos(20 +22.4 ) = 11.82 kN/m

Pa soil 2: the active force


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

due to the saturated


backfill soil of 4.5 m

Pa soil 2 v = 81.51sin(20 +22.4 ) = 54.93 kN/m


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

Pa surcharge: the active


Pa surcharge = (qH'Ka) = (2060.79) = 94.8 kN/m
Pa surcharge v = 94.8sin(20o +22.4o) = 63.92 kN/m

force due to the


surcharge.

8|P a ge

Pa surcharge h = 94.8cos(20o +22.4o) = 70 kN/m

Pa water : the active force


due to the water

Pa water = (1/2wHw2) = (1/29.814.52) = 99.33 kN/m


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

Pa water h = 99.33cos(20o +22.4o) = 73.35 kN/m

force.

Pa h: horizontal active

Total Pa = 291.63 kN/m

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

Overturning moment, MO=horizontal active pressure(Ph) moment arm(Y)


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

moment due to the


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

Table 1: Calculation of overturning moment, Mo due to active force & MPv

9|P a ge

Factor of safety against Overturning:


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)

due to weight of the wall

point C

MPv= 608.18 kN.m/m

(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

vertical active forces

0.74.2=2.94

2.9424=70.56

2.1

148.17

(pva) = 476.99 kN/m

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

Table 2: Calculation of resisting moment, M due to weight force & Mr


FS(overturning) =

MR
M0

1163.44
469.73

2.48 > 2

ok

There is water table 1


m below the ground
level and it was
included in the passive

3.6 Factor of
safety
against
sliding, FS

factor of safety against sliding :


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

Pp 1: the passive force


for first 1 m of

Calculating the Passive pressure:

unsaturated CLAY in

Pp 1 = Kp 1 D2 + 2C'D

front of the wall


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

saturated sandy SILT


2

Pp water = (0.59.810.5 ) = 1.23 kN/m


in front of the wall
Total Passive Pressure = 37.65 kN/m

() (12)+22+

FS(sliding) =

215.5

FS(sliding) = 1.92 > 1.5


3.7 Factor of
safety
against soil
bearing
capacity
failure, FS

The desirable FS is 1.5

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

Ok

Factor of Safety against Bearing Capacity Failure :

e=2 -

4.2
2

1163.44 469.73
476.99

=0.64 m< 6 =

If the e exceed the limit


4.2
6

= 0.3 ok

there will be a tension


force at the hill when

Pressure on soil at Toe and Heel

the soil will not take a


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

the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil:


1

qu = c2Nc Fcd Fci + q Nq Fqd Fqi + 2 2 B N F Fi


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

D1: sandy CLAY


D2: 0.5 m of Saturated
sandy SILT

qsurcharge = 2 D1 + sub. D2 = (161) + (20 9.81) 0.5 = 21.1 kN/m


Calculation of bearing capacity factors.
Depth factor;

Fqd =1+ 2 tan 2 (1 - sin 2 )2 ( )


1.5

Fqd = 1+ 2 tan(37) (1- sin (37) )2 (4.2) = 1.085


1

11.085

Fcd = Fqd tan 2 = 1.085 - 55.63 tan 37 = 1.087


F d = 1
Inclination factor;

215.5

= tan1 ( ) = tan1 (476.99) = 24.31

12 | P a g e

Fci =Fqi = (1- 90)2 = (1

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

The desirable FS is 3.0

qu

q toe
931.37
217.40

= 4.28 3.0 Ok

Calculation for elastic settlement of the retaining wall:


For the center of the wall; = 4
L

m'= =

150
4.2

= 35.7

B' =4.2/2 = 2.1m


n' =

21
4.2
2

The vertical force is

= 10

meter length.

qo = 477/ (4.2) = 113.6 kN/m2


F1 = 0.74
F2= 0.15

(From Table 17.3 &17.4)

13 | P a g e

Is = F1+

12
1

F2 = 0.74+

120.3
10.3

: (refer to Figure X10

0.15 = 0.826

1.5

& X11)

4.2

If = with =0.3 & = 4.2 = 0.4 & = 150 = 0.028


by interpolation If = 0.97

(from table 17.5)


See Figure X12 in

Average modulus of elasticity for each layer thickness;


appendix X for E
2

Sandy Silt = 4 m, E=20kN/m

references
2

Gravelly Silt =3 m, E= 20 kN/m


Silt = 12.5 m, E=15 MN/m2

The settlement is less


Eavg =

Se=qo ( B')

(420)+(320)+(12.515)
19.5
1 2

= 16.8 MN/m
10.32

Is If = 113.6 (42.1) 16.81000 0.830.97= 0.042m

Se(rigid) 0.93 Se = 0.93 0.042 = 0.039m = 39 mm

than 50 mm which can


be accepted.
All equations used for
the elastic settlement
are from the textbook
page 515. And table
17.5

14 | P a g e

4.0 Safe construction


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 CONSTRUCTION STAGE.


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.

Figure 4: Survey team on action preparing the site.

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.

Figure 5: install sheet piles and excavate the area.

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

Figure 6: Formwork for preparing of concrete filling.

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.

Figure 7: Pouring concrete in the formwork.

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.

Figure 8: Curing the mix to prevent moisture loss and cracking

5.0 Construction Cost


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

Mobile Crane rent

Full time

440 per day

4000

Sheet piles rent

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

Site cleaning and disposal

500

500

Planting grass

362 m2

20

7240

Backfill soil (sand)

1200 m3

50

60000

Surveying engineer

Formwork rent (wood)

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