International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research

Volume 3 Issue 1 September 2015 ISSN: 2347-1697
International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research

Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort
Retaining Walls For Construction Site
Paper ID IJIFR/ V3/ E1/ 011 Page No. 61-75 Civil
Subject Area
Engineering
Key Words Retaining Wall, Counter-Fort, Base Pressure, Active Earth Pressure, Passive
Earth Pressure
M.E. (Structure) Student,

Department Of Civil Engineering
Rupa B. Patil 1
Rajarshi Shahu College of Engineering
Tathawade, Pune-Maharashtra, India
Assistant Professor
Department Of Civil Engineering
G. R. Patil 2
Rajarshi Shahu College of Engineering
Tathawade, Pune-Maharashtra, India
Abstract
A retaining wall is a structure designed and constructed to resist the lateral pressure
of soil when there is a desired change in ground elevation that exceeds the angle of
repose of the soil. The most important consideration in proper design and installation
of retaining walls is to recognize and counteract the tendency of the retained
material to move down slope due to gravity. This creates lateral earth pressure
behind the wall which depends on the angle of internal friction () and the cohesive
strength (c) of the retained material, as well as the direction and magnitude of
movement the retaining structure undergoes. In many cases we have to come across
the retaining wall of 7m, 8m, 9m height. So we will consider these heights for non-
cohesive soil conditions for different spacing of counter-forts. We studied, by
changing the spacing of counter-forts what will be the change in thickness of stem as
well as heel slab, what is the optimum spacing of the counter-forts, what is the effect
of changing spacing of counter-forts on bending moments, and plotted a graph of
optimum spacing of counter-forts vs height of wall. The data presented here in
following sections clearly indicates that changing spacing of counter-forts for
retaining wall results in, reduction of spacing of counter forts will result in reduction
in bending moments in heel slab and stem wall, reduction of spacing of counter forts
will result in reduction in thickness of heel slab and stem wall. It is also observed that
for 1m, 1.5m, 2m, 3m, 3.5m, 4m spacing of counter-forts the concrete and steel
quantities per meter length of retaining wall is more than at 2.5m spacing. So
optimum spacing of counter-forts for 7m, 8m, 9m height retaining wall is observed to
be 2.5m.
www.ijifr.com
Published Online On: 11/09/2015 61
ISSN: 2347-1697
International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research (IJIFR)
Volume - 3, Issue - 1, September 2015
25th Edition, Page No.:61-75
1. Introduction
1.1 General
A soil mass is stable when the slope of the surface of the soil mass is flatter than the safe slope. At
some locations where the space is limited, it is not possible to provide flat slope and the soil is to be
retained at a slope steeper than the surface one. In such cases, a retaining structure is required to
provide lateral support to the soil mass. Retaining walls are relatively rigid walls used for
supporting the soil mass laterally so that the soil can be retained at different levels on the two sides.
Generally, the soil masses are vertical or nearly vertical behind the retaining structure. Thus, a
retaining wall maintains the soil at different elevations on its either side. In the absence of a
retaining wall, the soil on the higher side would have a tendency to slide and may not remain stable.
As the supply of level building sites diminishes, the need to create level building plat forms for
industrial construction sites will increase. Also, on many developed sites there is often a need to
level the front and/or back yards to fully utilize the space for carports, gardens, and other industrial
requirements. Thus, our paper is been cleared with the design of a counter fort retaining wall to
such industrial boundaries. In many cases we have to come across the retaining wall of height 7m,
8m, 9m height. So we will consider these heights for different soil conditions for different spacing
of counter forts.
1.2 Counter-Fort Retaining Wall:
Counter fort walls are cantilever walls strengthened with counter forts monolithic with the back of
the wall slab and base slab. The counter-forts act as tension stiffeners and connect the wall slab and
the base to reduce the bending and shearing stresses. To reduce the bending moments in vertical
walls of great height, counter forts are used, spaced at distances from each other equal to or slightly
larger than one-half of the height Counter forts are used for high walls with heights greater than 8 to
12 m.
1.3 Objectives of the study:
After having literature review and having on field experience it found necessary to study by
changing the spacing of counter-forts what will be the change in thickness of stem as well as heel
slab, what is the optimum spacing of the counter-forts, what is the effect of changing spacing of
counter-forts on bending moments, and plotted a graph of optimum spacing of counter-forts vs
height of wall for 7m, 8m ,9m height retaining walls. In the proposed investigation we are going to
design counter fort retaining walls of height 7m, 8m ,9m for the spacing of counter forts from 1m to
4m for non-cohesive soil condition and soil bearing capacity 25T/Sq.m. And we are going to study
the variation of bending moment in stem wall and heel slab for the different spacing of counter
forts. This study will provide the ready reference to consultants as well as students for basic size
and bending moments for the specified heights and soil conditions.
2. Modelling And Analysis Of Retaining Wall

2.1 Problem Description:
In many cases we have to come across the retaining wall of 7m, 8m, 9m height. So we will consider
these heights for non-cohesive soil conditions for different spacing of counter forts.
By changing the spacing of counter-forts what will be the change in thickness of stem as
well as heel slab.
To study the optimum spacing of the counter-forts.
To prepare a graph of spacing of counter-forts vs bending moments
To prepare a graph of optimum spacing of counter-forts vs height of wall
Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

Walls For Construction Site 62
ISSN: 2347-1697
2.2 Analysis of counter-fort retaining wall by using excel programme:
Counter fort retaining wall 7 m height

Height of retaining wall, H = 7m
Grade of concrete, = 25 N/
Grade of steel, = 500 N/
R = 3.32 From design constant sheet
K= 0.46 From design constant sheet
SBC of soil, P = 25 T/
SBC of soil, P = 250 KN/
SBC of soil, P = 0.25 N/
Density of soil, = 0.000018 N/
Density of soil, = 18 KN/
Angle of internal friction, =
= 0.50, 1- = 0.50, 1+ = 1.50
= = 0.334, = 0.111
= 13.89
Minimum depth of foundation required, = = 1.545 m
Depth of foundation provided = 1.5 m
So, over all height of wall = 8.5 m
Unit weight of concrete = 24000 N/
A) Preliminary dimensions of wall component
i) Base width
B=0.6*H = 4.2 m (a)
B=0.7*H = 4.9 m (b)
So, B = 4.9 m (maximum of a and b)
Assume, B = 5.5 m
ii) Toe projection
Toe projection = C*B
C = 1 -( )
W1
C = 0.0981
COUNTER
So, toe projection = C*B = 0.5 m FORT H
Assume, toe projection = 0.75 m W3
iii) Clear spacing of counter-forts (l),

1.5m
l=3.5( )
W2
= 0.389, so ( ) = 0.79 D A
l = 2.7634 m
So, assume clear spacing of counter-forts (l) = 2.5 m
iv) Thickness of base slab
Assumed thickness of base slab = 0.3 m

ISSN: 2347-1697
B) Design of stem wall

h = Height of stem wall = 8.2m
Pressure intensity at base = h( ) = 49.23KN/
Maximum working moment, M = 25.64 KN-m
Factored moment, = 38.46 KN-m, x = 38461068.09 N-mm
Consider 1000 mm (b) width of stem slab.
Effective depth required for balanced section is (d) =
d= = 105.585 mm
Clear cover assumed 35 mm
Diameter of bar used is 16 mm
Assuming an under reinforced section and to provide a suitable thickness to resist shear at base of
stem, adopt an overall thickness of stem wall required = 148.5847322 mm ~ 150 mm constant up to
the top.
Over all depth of section is (D) = 0.15 m
So, effective depth of section is (d) = 99 mm ~ 100 mm
IS:456-2000, clause G-1.1,
The reinforcements in the stem are computed using the relation,
= 0.87 d* +
By solving we get the quadratic equation,
( ) bd + =0
500 - 2500000 + 2210406212 = 0

=
a = 500, 2a = 1000
b = -2500000, so -(b) = 2500000
c = 2210406212, 4ac = 4.42081E+12
-4ac = 1.82919E+12
= 1352474.612
First root = 1147.525388
Second root = 3852.474612
Or second way to calculate area of steel is,
= ( ( ))1000d
= 1148.342806
( > .hence safe. )
.= bD
In % Grade Of Steel
0.12 FE 415 & FE500
0.15 FE 250
= 180
Using 16 mm dia. Bars,

ISSN: 2347-1697
Spacing ( S ) of bars = 175.16 mm

So, provide 16 mm bars at 175 mm C/C
= 1149.388 ( > . hence safe. )
( > . hence safe. )
Distribution bars
Using 10mm dia. Bars,
= 261.905 ( > . Hence safe. )
C) Check for stability of wall
1) Check against over turning
Consider 1m length of retaining wall
Height of stem wall = 8.2 m
Base width (B) = 5.5 m
Heel Projection (b') = 4.6 m
Depth of soil on toe projection (h) = 1.2 m
Toe projection = C*B = 0.75m
Sr. No. Description Of Load Magnitude Of Distance Of C.G. Moment @ A
Load In (KN) From `A' In (M) In (KN-M)
1 Weight of stem wall (W1) 29.52 4.675 138.01
2 Weight of base slab (W2) 39.60 2.750 108.90
3 Weight of earth fill over heel 943.00 2.300 2198.90
slab (W3)
Total 1012.12 2415.81
Horizontal earth pressure on the full height of the retaining wall tending to overturn the wall.
= w
= = 0.334
= 216.883 N acting at H/3 from A where, = 2.8333 m
Over turning moment = = 614.502 N-m
Stabilizing moment = = 2415.806 N-m
Factor of safety against overturning = = 3.931
Which is greater than 2, hence ok.
2) Check for sliding
Horizontal earth pressure on the full height of the retaining wall tending to slide the wall.
= w
= 216.883 N
Total force opposing sliding = x W= 0.58 W = 587.03 N
Factor of safety against sliding= = 2.71
Which is greater than 1.5, hence ok?
D) Maximum and Minimum pressure at the base
The distance of point of application of the resultant from point A is,

ISSN: 2347-1697
z= , z = 2.994 m
Eccentricity (e) = z- b/2 = 0.244 m
But, b/6 = 0.917 m
So, e < b/6
Maximum and minimum pressure at the base are given by,
=184.022
H*e =1.708, = 0.311
= ( ) = 241.174 KN/
Maximum intensity of soil pressure at base is less than SBC hence ,safe.
= ( ) = 126.87 KN/
Pressure diagram at the base
c b A
D
241.174 126.87 KN/

225.5867858
KN/ 2
KN/m H'
j
i
E f g
Pressure at line cf at toe projection is = 225.59 KN/
E) Design of toe slab

Moment in toe slab
Sr. No. Description Of Load Magnitude Of Distance Of C.G. Moment @ C
Load In (KN) From `C' In (M) In (Knm)
1 Upward pressure 'cdif ' 169.190 0.375 63.45
2 Upward pressure 'efi ' 5.845 0.45 2.63
Total 66.08
3 Deduct self weight of toe 5.400 0.375 2.03
slab
4 Deduct weight of soil 16.200 0.375 6.08
above toe slab
Total 8.10
Maximum working moment in toe slab = M = 57.98 KN-m
Factored moment = = 86.96 KN-m, x = 86964849.90 N-m
Consider 1000 mm (b) width of toe slab.
d= = 158.77 mm

ISSN: 2347-1697
Over all depth required =199.77 mm ~ 200 mm

Over all depth of the section assumed is (D) = 0.3 m
Assumed thickness is greater than required hence ,safe
Effective depth of the section is (d) = 253 mm ~ 255 mm
IS:456-2000, clause G-1.1
= 0.87( ) d[ ]
( ) bd + =0
500 - 6375000 + 4997979880 = 0

=
a = 500, 2a = 1000
b = - 6375000, so -(b) = 6375000
c = + 4997979880, 4ac = 9.99596E+12
-4ac = 3.06447E+13
= 5535762.39
First root = 839.238
= ( ( ))1000d
= 839.689
( > .hence safe. )
.= bD
in % Grade of steel
0.12 FE 415 & FE500
0.15 FE 250
= 360
= 870.33 ( > . hence safe. )
( > . hence safe. )
Distribution bars
= 392.857 ( > . hence safe. )
E) Design of heel slab
Consider 1000 mm wide strip of heel slab.
Near end 'A' upward soil pressure = 126.87 KN/

ISSN: 2347-1697
Weight of soil on strip = 147.6 KN/

Self weight of strip = 7.2 KN/
Total downward load on heel slab = 154.8 KN/
Net downward pressure = 27.930 KN/
Spacing of counter fort (l) = 2.5 m
Maximum working moment in heel slab = M =14.54688138 KN-m
Factored moment, = 21.82 KN-m, x = 21820322.07 N-mm
Consider 1000 mm (b) width of stem slab.
d= = 79.528 mm
Over all depth required = 119.53 mm ~120
Assumed thickness is greater than required, hence ,Safe
IS:456-2000, clause G-1.1
= 0.87( ) d[ ]
( ) bd + =0
500 - 6375000 + 1254041498 = 0

=
a = 500, 2a = 1000
b = - 6375000, so -(b) = 6375000
c = 1254041498, 4ac = 2.50808E+12
-4ac = 3.81325E+13
-4ac = 6175155.221
First root, = 199.845
Second root, = 12550.155
= ( ( ))1000d
= 199.95
.= bD
in % Grade of steel
0.12 FE 415 & FE500
0.15 FE 250
= 360
Spacing (S) of bars = 392.96 mm

ISSN: 2347-1697

= 392.857 ( > . hence safe. )
( > . hence safe. )
Distribution bars
= 392.857 ( > . hence safe. )
E) Design of counter fort
Thickness provided at the top = 300 mm
Thickness of counter-fort= 300 mm
Centre to centre spacing of counter-fort (l) = 2.5 m
Maximum working moment in counter-fort is,
M=
= = 0.334,
Maximum working moment in counter-fort is, M = 1379.265 KN-m
Factored moment = = 2068.897775 KN-m, x = 2068897775 N-mm
Consider 300 mm (b) width of counter-fort.
d= = 1413.837 mm
Over all depth required = 1454.837 mm ~1455 mm
Assumed thickness is greater than required, hence ,Safe
IS:456-2000, clause G-1.1
= 0.87( ) d* +
( ) bd + =0
500 - 10575000 + 35670651289 = 0

=
a = 500, 2a = 1000
b = - 10575000, so -(b) = 10575000
c = 35670651289, 4ac = 7.13413E+13
-4ac = 4.04893E+13
-4ac = 6363122.066
First root = 4211.88
As per IS:456-2000, clause 26.5.1.1

ISSN: 2347-1697
.=
= 719.1
= 4211.88
( > .hence safe. )
Dia. of bar in mm No. of bars Total area
25 6 2943.75
25 3 1471.875
= 4415.625 ( > . Hence safe. ) .
3 Extract Sheets
Table 3.1 Thickness of stem wall in (m)
Clear spacing of the Thickness of stem wall in
counter-fort (l) in (m) (m)
7m 8m 9m
1.0 0.150 0.150 0.150
1.5 0.150 0.150 0.150
2.0 0.150 0.150 0.150
2.5 0.150 0.175 0.175
3.0 0.175 0.200 0.200
3.5 0.200 0.200 0.225
4.0 0.225 0.225 0.300
Table 3.2 Thickness of base slab in (m)

Clear spacing of the
counter-fort (l) in (m) Thickness of base slab in (m)
7m 8m 9m
1.0 0.15 0.15 0.15
1.5 0.15 0.15 0.15
2.0 0.15 0.15 0.15
2.5 0.20 0.30 0.35
3.0 0.25 0.35 0.45
3.5 0.30 0.40 0.45
4.0 0.30 0.40 0.50
Table 3.3 Thickness of counter-fort in (m)

Clear spacing of the Thickness of the counter forts
counter forts (l) in (m) in (m)
7M 8M 9M
1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3
1.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
2.0 0.3 0.3 0.3
2.5 0.3 0.4 0.4
3.0 0.4 0.4 0.4
3.5 0.4 0.4 0.5
4.0 0.5 0.5 0.5

ISSN: 2347-1697
Table 3.4: Concrete quantity in Cu.m per meter length

Spacing of counter Concrete qty. in Cu.m per meter
forts in meter length
7m 8m 9m
1.0 9.4 10.41 12.50
1.5 7.5 8.50 10.25
2.0 6.6 7.60 9.00
2.5 5.7 7.30 8.80
3.0 5.8 7.40 8.90
3.5 6.4 7.40 9.70
4.0 6.4 7.30 9.50
Table 3.5 Steel quantity in Cu.m per meter length

Spacing of Counter forts in Steel qty. In Kg per meter
meter length
7m 8m 9m
1.0 795 801 806
1.5 736 746 756
2.0 707 732 757
2.5 750 730 755
3.0 773 780 790
3.5 801 800 818
4.0 817 825 830
4 Results And Discussion
4.1 Thickness of stem wall in m vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m

0.35
0.3
Thickness of stem wall in (m)
0.25
0.2
7M
0.15 8M
9M
0.1
0.05
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Clear spacing of the counter-fort(l) in (m)
Figure 1- Thickness of stem wall in m vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m

ISSN: 2347-1697
4.2 Thickness of base slab in m vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m
0.6
0.5 THICKNESS OF
Thickness of base slab in (m)
BASE SLAB IN
(m) 7M
0.4
THICKNESS OF
0.3 BASE SLAB IN
(m) 8M
0.2
THICKNESS OF
BASE SLAB IN
0.1 (m) 9M
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Spacing of counter-forts in (m)
Figure 2- Thickness of base slab in m vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m
4.3 Thickness of counter-fort in (m) vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m
0.6
0.5
Thickness of the counter forts in (m)
Thickness of the
counter forts in
0.4 (m) for 7M
0.3
Thickness of the
counter forts in
0.2 (m) for 8M
0.1
Thickness of the
counter forts in
0.0 (m) for 9M
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Clear spacing of the counter forts (l) in (m)
` Figure 3- Thickness of counter-fort in m vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m

ISSN: 2347-1697
4.4 Concrete quantity in Cu.m per meter length vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m -
35
Concrete quantity in Cu.m per meter length
30 CONCRETE QTY. IN
CU.m PER METER
25 LENGTH 9M
20
CONCRETE QTY. IN
CU.m PER METER
15
LENGTH 8M
10
CONCRETE QTY. IN
5 CU.m PER METER
LENGTH 7M
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Spacing of Counter forts in meter
Figure 4: Concrete quantity in Cu.m per meter length vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m
4.5 Steel quantity in Cu.m per meter length vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m
840
Steel qty. in Kg per meter length
820
800
780
760
740 7m
8m
720
9m
700
680
660
640
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Spacing of counter forts in meter
Figure 5- Steel quantity in Cu.m per meter length vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m
5 Conclusion
I. Thus the data presented here in above sections clearly indicates that changing spacing of
counter-forts for retaining wall results in,
II. From extract sheet it is observed that for 7m height retaining wall bending moment in stem
wall increases from 4.1 KN-m for 1m c/c spacing of counter-forts to 65.64 KN-m for 4m

ISSN: 2347-1697
c/c spacing of counter-forts. Also bending moment in heel slab increases from 2.3 KN-m
for 1m c/c spacing of counter-forts to 37 KN-m for 4m c/c spacing of counter-forts.
III. For 8m height retaining wall bending moment in stem wall increases from 4.60 KN-m for
1m c/c spacing of counter-forts to 80.05 KN-m for 4m c/c spacing of counter-forts. Also
bending moment in heel slab increases from 3.50 KN-m for 1m c/c spacing of counter-forts
to 55.00 KN-m for 4m c/c spacing of counter-forts.
IV. For 9m height retaining wall bending moment in stem wall increases from 5.00 KN-m for
1m c/c spacing of counter-forts to 80.05 KN-m for 4m c/c spacing of counter-forts. Also
bending moment in heel slab increases from 3.60 KN-m for 1m c/c spacing of counter-forts
to 56.80 KN-m for 4m c/c spacing of counter-forts.
V. From graph 4.1 it is observed that for 7m, 8m, and 9m height of retaining walls for 1m,
1.5m and 2.0m spacing of counter-forts the thickness of stem wall required is minimum
thickness 150mm. As the spacing of counter-forts increases the thickness of stem wall
increases to 175mm to 300 mm for 3.0m 3.5m and 4.0m spacing of counter-forts.
VI. From graph 4.2 it is observed that for 7m, 8m, and 9m height of retaining walls for 1m,
1.5m and 2.0m spacing of counter-forts the thickness of stem wall required is minimum
thickness 150mm. As the spacing of counter-forts increases the thickness of stem wall
increases to 175mm for 3.0m spacing 200mm for 3.5m spacing and 300mm for 4.0m
spacing of counter-forts.
VII. It is also observed that for 1m,1.5m, 2m, spacing of counter-forts the no. of counter-forts
are more for the same length of retaining wall due to which concrete and steel quantities are
more than it is for 2.5m spacing of counter-forts. For 3m, 3.5m, 4m spacing of counter-forts
the basic dimensions and steel requirements are more due to which concrete and steel
quantities per meter length of retaining wall is more than at 2.5m spacing. So 2.5m. clear
spacing is the optimum spacing of counter-fort for 7m, 8m, and 9m height of retaining wall
VIII. (5) From graph 4.3 it is observed that for 7m, 8m, and 9m height of retaining walls for 1m,
1.5m and 2.0m spacing of counter-forts the thickness of counter-fort required is 300mm. As
the spacing of counter-forts increases the thickness of counter-fort increases to 500mm.
IX. From table 4.6 it is observed that for 7m height of retaining wall if tapered section of stem
wall is provided then we can save concrete quantity up to 1.5 to 2.5 Cu.m per meter length
of retaining wall. Similarly this is true for 8m and 9m height of retaining walls.
6 References
[1] Kenny Luu1, Ken ONeil2, Weimin Deng3, Design of the Counterfort Retaining Wall on the
Barangaroo Headland Park Project, Sydney.
[2] M. Ghazavi and V. Salvati, Sensitivity analysis and design of reinforced concrete cantilever
retaining walls using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm.
[3] Patil S. M. Wagh and Prof. K. S. Wagh, Reduction in construction material:effect of the provision
of the loft behind the cantilever retaining wall
[4] J. Khana and M. Sikderb,Design basis and economic aspects of different types of retaining walls.
[5] S.N. Moghaddas Tafreshi and T. Nouri, Seismic stability of reinforced retaining wall.
[6] .Lohith Reddy, Y.Naga Harish and K.N.S Pavan Kumar Varma Analysis and design of retaining
wall of Ganges valley school
[7] Siripuram Anusha, R.Sabitharaj and M. Balakoteshwari Design of retaining wall for a minor
bridge.
[8] Dr. B.C. Punmia, Ashok Kumar Jain and Arun Kumar Jain (2007.) Limit State design of
reinforced concrete Laxmi Publications (P) LTD, New Delhi.
[9] Gopal Ranjan, and Rao, A.S.R. (2000). Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics, 2 nd Edition, New Age
International (P) Ltd. Publishers, New Delhi

ISSN: 2347-1697
[10] IS 456:2000 COP Plain And Reinforced Concrete.

[11] K.R. Aror (2003). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 6th Edition, Standard Publishers
Distributors, Delhi.
[12] Basudhar, P.K., and Madhav, M.R. (1980), Simplified Passive Earth Pressure Analysis Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, April, GT4, 470-474.
[13] Choudhury, D. and Singh, S. (2006)a; "New approach for estimation of static and seismic active
earth pressure", Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Springer, Netherlands, 24(1), 117-127
[14] Das, B.M. (2002). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 5th Edition, Thomson Brooks/Cole.
[15]Murthy, V.N.S. (2002). Principles of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 5th Edition, UBS
Publishers Distributors Ltd., New Delhi


International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 3 Issue 1 September 2015 ISSN: 2347-1697

International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research

M.E. (Structure) Student,

2. Modelling And Analysis Of Retaining Wall

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

2.2 Analysis of counter-fort retaining wall by using excel programme:

Counter fort retaining wall 7 m height

iii) Clear spacing of counter-forts (l),

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

B) Design of stem wall

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

Spacing ( S ) of bars = 175.16 mm

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

241.174 126.87 KN/

Pressure at line cf at toe projection is = 225.59 KN/

E) Design of toe slab

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

Over all depth required =199.77 mm ~ 200 mm

500 - 6375000 + 4997979880 = 0

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

Weight of soil on strip = 147.6 KN/

500 - 6375000 + 1254041498 = 0

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

So, provide 10 mm bars at 200 mm C/C

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

Table 3.2 Thickness of base slab in (m)

Table 3.3 Thickness of counter-fort in (m)

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

Table 3.4: Concrete quantity in Cu.m per meter length

Table 3.5 Steel quantity in Cu.m per meter length

4 Results And Discussion

4.1 Thickness of stem wall in m vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

4.2 Thickness of base slab in m vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m

4.3 Thickness of counter-fort in (m) vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m

` Figure 3- Thickness of counter-fort in m vs clear spacing of counter-fort in m

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

[10] IS 456:2000 COP Plain And Reinforced Concrete.

Rupa B. Patil, G. R. Patil:: Design And Detailing Of Counter-Fort Retaining

You might also like