Mohammad Hanif

Contents
1.0 Abbreviations and indexes .............................................................................................. 2
1.1 Introduction: ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Design Model and Assumption;........................................................................................... 5
2.2 Design Verification Undrained Conditions ......................................................................... 7
2.2.1 ULS-1 - Soil bearing verification ................................................................................ 7
2.2.2 ULS-2; Sliding Resistance verification: ...................................................................... 9
2.2.3 ULS-3 Overturning Stability: ..................................................................................... 10
2.2.4 ULS-6; Internal stability verification .......................................................................... 12
2.2.4a Sliding Resistance verification .............................................................................. 12
2.2.4b Bering Capacity Verification; ............................................................................... 14
2.2.5 ULS-4 Global Stability Verification ........................................................................... 17
3.0 Designs verifications in drain condition ....................................................................... 19
3.1 Bearing Capacity verification; .................................................................................. 19
3.2 Overturning verification in drain condition .............................................................. 20
3.3 Rotational slips in drained condition......................................................................... 21

1
Mohammad Hanif

1.0 Abbreviations and indexes

A Area

B Width

cu Undrained Shear Strength of Soil

d Distance from center of mass to the center of slips surface

DA 1a Design Approach 1a

DA 1b Design Approach 1b

DA 2 Design Approach 2

e Eccentricity of applied vertical force

F Factor of Safety

H Horizontal force (also H=height in calculation of active soil thrust)

SLS Serviceability limit state (Design)

ULS Ultimate limit state (Design)

W Weight

Yd Unit weight of dry soils

z depth or height (m)

𝛾𝑐 Unit Weight of Coble and sand that fill the gabion

𝛾𝑠 Saturated Unit Weight of Soil

ø′ Internal angle of friction or angle of shearing resistance

𝐸𝑑 Design action or applied force

𝐾𝑎 Coefficient of active soil thrust

𝐿𝑎 Length of arc of slip surface

𝑀𝐴 Moment action (global Stability)

𝑀𝑅 Moment resisting (global stability)

𝑀𝑟𝑑 Applied moment

𝑁𝑐 Bearing capacity factor

𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑢𝑛𝑓 Permanent uniform action

2
Mohammad Hanif

𝑁𝑟𝑑 Vertical applied force

𝑅𝑑 Design resistance of the system

𝑆𝐴 Active soil trust

𝑇𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑚 Shear force in gabion course

𝑐′ Cohesion intercept or cohesion strength of soil

𝑞𝑓 Soil bearing capacity

𝑠𝑞 , 𝑠𝑐 , 𝑠𝛾 Shape factors

𝜃𝑝 Train failure plan of soils angle

𝜎𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum applied ultimate stress

𝜎𝑞 Surcharge pressure surrounding the footing

β Angle of Surface inclination behind the wall

ξ Angle of vertical inclination of wall

ξ Inclination angle of wall

Rb Partial resistance factor for base

Rh Partial resistance factor for sliding

𝑞 Surcharge due to traffic load

𝑟 Radius of circular slip surface from point O (global stability)

𝛼 Adhesion Factor

𝛽 The soil surface inclination angle

𝛿 The reaction angle against the soil

3
Mohammad Hanif

1.1 Introduction:
. The content of this report is slope stabilization along one side of the road, using Gabion box
(cages of steel mesh, rectangular in plan and elevations), filled with appropriate cobble and
sand, to form a building block of gravity structure, such that can resist against the soils
pressure behind it. The site schematics are given as following, Figure 1.

Figure 1.1 schematic (Latitudinal cross section) of road to be stabilized

As it is observable the height of slope is around 6m which is to be stabilized with gabion,

considering the economic viability of the project and critical design condition, it is used
5 layers of gabion with different width and height of 1m for each layer, along the road as
long as necessary.

The design analysis standards and calculations in this report are according the Carigs
Soil Mechanic 8 th edition Chapter 11, Euro Code 7 “EN 1997” and other acceptable
standards.

The design method for verification and appropriate functionality of gabion wall is the
ultimate limit state analysis (ULS), verifying the following issues, as instructed in the
assignment,

 Soil Bearing; base pressure applied by the wall must not exceed the ultimate
bearing capacity of the supporting soil.
 Sliding Resistance; sliding between the base of the wall and the underlying soil
due to the lateral earth pressure, herein considered active condition
 Overturning stability; overturning of the wall due to horizontal earth pressure
forces when the retrained soil mass become unstable (active failure) should
satisfy the required conditions
 Internal stability verification; for each layer of gabion a bearing capacity and
sliding resistance verification should be mad
 Global Stability

4
Mohammad Hanif

2.1 Design Model and Assumption;

Some parameters for the design of this assignment is not given, so those parameters
are tentative values, to represent a closer case to real situation, these parameters are include
the surcharge pressure, drainage size along the road, soils type, angle of shearing resistance,
water table, cohesion strength of soils and unit weight of soils. Some other conditions such
as active or passive condition of the soil and retaining wall is understandable from the site
schematic, herein assumed an active condition which the major principle total stress and
effective stress are vertical as well as the horizontal displacement exist due to the earth
pressure behind the gabion wall. At the ultimate limit state failure will occur with the retained
soil under active conditions as the wall move toward the excavation. The portion of soils
which pressurize any retaining wall surface is given in the following figure 2.1.1

q=20 kn/m²

Active soil Zone

Excavated soil

Figure 2.1.1 General and specific pressurized zone

For the design of this retaining wall, no variation in soil properties, water level, surcharge and
other effective parameters in space is assumed, so the section properties are considered
homogenous characteristic along the road side, meanwhile no any other structure that could
effects the design situation exist nearby the road , unless it have been considered.

Design characteristic of materials are considered as of the following table 2.1.1

ø' q Yd
Ys (kN/m³) Yc (kN/m³ ) c' β ξ (ᵒ) cu (kPa)
(ᵒ) (kN/m² (kN/m³)
Description
19 23 34 0 20 0 17 90 100
In undrain condition the water table is considered on the surface

5
Mohammad Hanif

To verify all design conditions, the following ULS should be verified in both drain and
undrain condition

Design factors for different design approachs are used as of the following table

Table 2.1.2 partial factors for design

DA1a DA1b DA2

 1.35 1 1.35 Permanent Action
 1.5 1.3 1.5 Variable Actions
 =  1 1 1 Soil
 cu =  1 1.4 1 Undrained Shear Strenght
Rh =  1 1 1.1 Sliding Resistance
Rb =  1 1.25 1 (base)

6
Mohammad Hanif

2.2 Design Verification Undrained Conditions

For the case of undrain condition we need to verify that 𝐸𝑑 < 𝑅𝑑 in these calculations DA1a
explained with details, while other design approaches are calculated in excel sheets.

2.2.1 ULS-1 - Soil bearing verification

The maximum contact pressure transferred from the gabion wall to the ground should
be compared with ultimate bearing capacity of soil. This issue depends on the type of gabion
foundation also, which for this case it is considered a non-stiff footing (the gabion is not
place on top of concrete), the main viability of this type of footing for this assignment is
higher economic visibility of the project, and detailed calculation is performed for DA1a.

Design action per linear meter of wall is as follow

𝑁𝑟𝑑 359.8
𝐸𝑑 = = = 461.27 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝐵 3
2 ∗ ( 2 − 𝑒) 2 ∗ ( − 1.11)
2
𝑁𝑟𝑑 = (𝑊1 + 𝑊2 + 𝑊3 + 𝑊4 + 𝑊5 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜃 ′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖
= 230 ∗ 1.35 + (43.4 + 29.4) ∗ 0.56 = 359.8 𝑘𝑁
1 𝛾𝑠
𝑆𝐴 = 𝐾 𝑧 2 + 𝐾𝑎 𝐺𝑘 𝛾𝐴2 = 0.5 ∗ (19 − 9.81) ∗ 0.28 ∗ 25 ∗ 1.35 + 0.28 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 20 ∗ 3.5
2 𝛾𝛾 𝑎
= 72.8𝑘𝑁

1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛∅′ 1 − 0.56
𝐾𝑎 = = = 0.28
1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛∅′ 1 + 0.56
𝑀𝑟𝑑 399.8
𝑒= = = 1.11𝑚 𝑠𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑
𝑁𝑟𝑑 359.8

𝑀𝑟𝑑 = (𝑊1 ∗ 𝑏𝑤1 + 𝑊2 ∗ 𝑏𝑤2 + 𝑊3 ∗ 𝑏𝑤3 + 𝑊4 ∗ 𝑏𝑤4 + 𝑊5 ∗ 𝑏𝑤5 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 − 𝑆𝐴

∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠0 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

(23 ∗ 2.5 + 34.5 ∗ 2.25 + 46 ∗ 2 + 57.5 ∗ 1.75 + 69 ∗ 1.5 + 72.8 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 3 − 72.8 ∗ 0.83
∗ 1.67 ∗ 1.35) = 399.8𝑘𝑛 ∗ 𝑚

𝐴 ∗ 𝑞𝑓 3 ∗ 514
𝑅𝑑 = = = 1542𝑘𝑁/𝑚
γ𝑅𝑏 1

𝑐𝑢 100
𝑞𝑓 = 𝑠𝑐 ∗ 𝑁𝑐 ∗ + 𝜎𝑞 = 5.14 ∗ + 0 = 514 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝛾𝑐𝑢 1

𝑞𝑓 = soil bearing capacity , 𝜎𝑞 = surcharge pressure surrounding the footing (𝜎𝑞 = 0, )

Also for undrained conditions shear stress at failure (𝜏𝑓 ) is equal to undrained shear
strength (𝑐𝑢 ) , (𝜏𝑓 = 𝑐𝑢 ),

7
Mohammad Hanif

𝑠𝑐 = 1 + 0.2 𝐵⁄𝐿 is shape factor herein it is equal to 1 (since the length gabion is
𝐵
much larger than the width of foundation = 0)
𝐿

𝑁𝑐 = bearing capacity factor (Skempton method as of the following figure 2.1.3) here
in 𝑁𝑐 = 5.14

Figure 2.3.1 bearing capacity factor coefficient

Since the gabion has no stiff foundation, constant distribution pressure on foundation for a
length of 2𝑢 can be assumed.

Also we need to distinguish if the section is partially compressed or entirely compressed, by

using the following criterion.
𝐵 3
𝑒 ≤ ( 6 = 6 = 0.5) the section is entirely compressed

𝐵
𝑒 > ( 6 = 0.5) the section is partially compressed

Calculation summary for other design approaches are in the following table 2.1.3

DA 1a Da 1b DA 2
Description Factored Factored Factored
Y Y Y
Value Value Value
Gk (kN) 230.00 1.35 310.50 1.00 230.00 1.35 310.50
Qk (kN) 10.98 1.50 16.46 1.30 14.27 1.50 16.46
Soil Thrust
24.32 1.35 32.83 1.00 24.32 1.35 32.83
SA*sin ø’
Total load
359.79 268.59 359.79
(kN/m)
Cu (kPa) 100.00 1.00 100.00 1.40 71.43 1.00 100.00
qf (kPa) 514.00 1.00 514.00 1.40 367.14 1.00 514.00
Ed (kN/m) 461.27 1.00 461.27 1.00 345.23 1.00 462.46
Rd (kN/m) 1542.00 1.00 1542.00 1.10 1401.82 1.10 1401.82
Safety Factor (Rd/Ed)
3.3 4.1 3.0

8
Mohammad Hanif

Mrd

Nrd

Figure 2.1.4 position of acting force, moment and eccentricity

2.2.2 ULS-2; Sliding Resistance verification:

DA1a is solved with details and formula, others are solved using excel sheets

𝐸𝑑 < 𝑅𝑑
𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗𝑡𝑔 𝜑′
Two verifications we perform in this stage one 𝐻 < 𝐻𝑢𝑙𝑡 and ≥ 𝛾𝑅
𝑆𝐴 ∗cos 𝜑′∗𝛾𝐺1

𝑘𝑁
𝐻𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝛼 𝑐𝑢 𝐵 = 0.62 ∗ 100 ∗ 3 = 185.8 > 𝐻 = 60.42𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝑚
𝑐𝑢
𝛼 = 1.16 − = 0.62
185
𝐾𝑎 = 0.28

𝑆𝐴 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠 ∗ 𝐻 2 + 𝐾𝑎 𝐺𝑘 𝛾𝐴2
= 0.5 ∗ 0.28 ∗ (19 − 9.81) ∗ 25 ∗ 1.35 + 0.28 ∗ 20 ∗ 3.5 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 1.5
= 72.8𝑘𝑁/𝑚

𝐸𝑑 = 𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑢𝑛𝑓 ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 = 𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos(34) ∗ 𝛾𝐺1 = 72.8 ∗ 0.83 = 60.42𝑘𝑁/𝑚

→ 𝑠𝑜 𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐻 = 𝐸𝑑 = 60.42 𝑘𝑁/𝑚

1
𝑅𝑑 = (𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛 (34)) ∗ 𝑡𝑔 34°
𝛾𝑅

9
Mohammad Hanif

1
→ ((230) ∗ 1.35 + 72.8 ∗ 0.56)0.67 = 235.4 𝐾𝑛
1
𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑢𝑛𝑓 ∗ 𝑡𝑔 𝜑′ 235.4
≥ 𝛾𝑅 → = 3.9 > 𝛾𝑅
𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos 𝜑′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺1 60.42

Summary of calculation for other design approaches are in the following table 2.2.2

DA 1a DA 1b DA 2
Characteristic
Description Factored Factored Factored
value Y Y Y
Value Value Value
Gk (kN/m) 230.00 1.35 1.00 1.35
Qk (kN/m) 10.98 1.50 16.46 1.30 14.27 1.50 16.46
Soil Thrust
24.32 1.35 32.83 1.00 24.32 1.35 32.83
SA*sin
Total load
359.79 268.59 359.79
(kN/m)
Cu (kPa) 100.00 1.00 100.00 1.40 71.43 1.00 100.00
Ed (kN/m) 60.42 1.00 60.42 1.00 60.42 1.00 60.42
Rd=H (kN/m) 185.84 165.84 185.84
Rd (kN/m) 235.35 1.00 235.35 1.25 186.17 1.10 213.95
Safety Factor 3.08 2.74 3.08

2.2.3 ULS-3 Overturning Stability:

To verify the overturning stability of the gabion wall, and make sure that the soil
behind gabion wall is not causing collapse force, it is assumed the gabion wall as rigid body,
with no sliding occurrence between layers, nor partial breakdown. The acting forces are the
weight of gabion wall and vertical component of soil effect behind the wall which have
stabilizing effect detailed calculating carried out for DA1a

Details of action force, horizontal and vertical component of soil force plus the force arm are
shown in figure 2.1.5

W1

W2

Sa Sinf '
W3

Sa Cosf '
W4

W5

Figure 2.1.5 details of moment arms and force contribution on moments

10
Mohammad Hanif

The stabilizing moment is calculated as follow

1
𝑅𝑑 = (𝑊1 ∗ 𝑏𝑤1 + 𝑊2 ∗ 𝑏𝑤2 + 𝑊3 ∗ 𝑏𝑤3 + 𝑊4 ∗ 𝑏𝑤4 + 𝑊5 ∗ 𝑏𝑤5 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 )
𝛾𝑅

1
= (23 ∗ 2.5 + 34.5 ∗ 2.25 + 46 ∗ 2 + 57.5 ∗ 1.75 + 69 ∗ 1.5) + 72.8 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 3)
1
𝑅𝑑 → 521.9 𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

𝐸𝑑 = (𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

72.8 ∗ 0.83 ∗ 1.67 ∗ 1.35 = 136.2𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

𝑁𝑟𝑑 521.9
>1 → = 3.8
𝐸𝑑 136.2

Summary of calculations are in the following table 2.2.3

First Second Fifth Soil Thurst

Description Third Layer Fourth Layer
Layer Layer Layer SA

Height (m) 1 1 1 1 1

Wdith (m) 72.82

1 1.5 2 2.5 3
W (kN/m³ )
23 34.5 46 57.5 69
Wt (kN/m³ )
230
Mrd (Kn*m)
57.50 77.63 92.00 100.63 103.50 122.30
Mrd (Kn*m) 521.85
DA 1a Da 1b DA 2
Factored Factored Factored
Y Y Y
Value Value Value
Rd = Mrd
1.00 521.85 1.10 474.41 1.10 474.41
(Kn*m)

Ed (kN*m) 1.35 136.23 1.00 100.91 1.35 136.23

Safety Factor 3.83 4.70 3.48

11
Mohammad Hanif

2.2.4 ULS-6; Internal stability verification

This gabion wall is consist of five layer, the internal stability verification should
verify that these layers are not collapsing, neither sliding, nor the bearing capacity of down
layers are less than required, and all these conditions meets for each layers. Starting from top
layer we verify one by one. Since the gabion wall is not rigid materials, the hypothesis of
constant distribution of load is assumed for 2u distance. Meantime two

2.2.4a Sliding Resistance verification

 For this first layer:
Sa Sinf '

𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝑡𝑔 𝜑′ Sa Cosf '

≥ 𝛾𝑅 W1
𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos 𝜑′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺1

𝑆𝐴 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠 ∗ 𝐻 2 = 0.5 ∗ 0.28 ∗ 9.2 ∗ 1 = 1.3 𝐾𝑛

𝐸𝑑 = 𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑢𝑛𝑓 ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 = 𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos(34) ∗ 𝛾𝐺1 = 1.3 ∗ 0.82 ∗ 1.3, 𝐸𝑑 = 1.44 𝐾𝑛

1
𝑅𝑑 = (𝑁 ∗ 𝛾 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛 (34)) ∗ 𝑡𝑔 34°
𝛾𝑅 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝐺𝑖
1
→ ((1 ∗ 23) ∗ 1 + 1.3 ∗ 0.56)0.67 = 16.1 𝑘𝑁
1.1
𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝑡𝑔 𝜑′ 15.9
≥= = 11.2 > 𝛾𝑅
𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos 𝜑′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺1 1.44

 For second layer:

𝑆𝐴 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠 ∗ 𝐻 2
= 0.5 ∗ 0.28 ∗ 9.2 ∗ 4 + 20 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 0.28 Sa Sinf '
W1
= 13.6 𝑘𝑁
Sa Cosf '
𝐸𝑑 = 𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑢𝑛𝑓 ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 = 𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos(34) ∗ 𝛾𝐺1 = 13.6 ∗
0.82 ∗ 1.35, 𝐸𝑑 = 15.2 𝐾𝑛 W2

1
𝑅𝑑 = (𝑁 ∗ 𝛾 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛 (34))
𝛾𝑅 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝐺𝑖
∗ 𝑡𝑔 34°

1
→ ((2.5 ∗ 23) ∗ 1 + 13.6 ∗ 0.56)0.67 = 43.6 𝑘𝑁
1
𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝑡𝑔 𝜑′ 43.6
≥= = 2.9 > 𝛾𝑅
𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos 𝜑′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺1 15.2

12
Mohammad Hanif

 For Third Layer:

𝑆𝐴 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠 ∗ 𝐻 2
= 0.5 ∗ 0.28 ∗ 9.2 ∗ 9 + 20 ∗ 1.5
W1
∗ 2 = 28.38 𝑘𝑁
Sa Sinf '
𝐸𝑑 = 𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑢𝑛𝑓 ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 = 𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos(34) ∗ 𝛾𝐺1 =
W2
28.38 ∗ 0.82 ∗ 1.35, 𝐸𝑑 = 31.8 𝑘𝑁 Sa Cosf '

1
𝑅𝑑 = (𝑁 ∗ 𝛾 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛 (34))
𝛾𝑅 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 𝐺𝑖 W3

∗ 𝑡𝑔 34°

1
→ ((4.5 ∗ 23) ∗ 1 + 28.38 ∗ 0.56)0.67 = 85.56 𝑘𝑁
1
𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝑡𝑔 𝜑′ 85.56
≥= = 2.7 > 𝛾𝑅
𝑆𝐴 ∗ cos 𝜑′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺1 31.8

Summary of calculation for different design approach is in the following table 2.1.4

Fifth
Description First Layer Second Layer Third Layer Fourth Layer
Layer
Height (m) 1 2 3 4 5
Wdith (m) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
SA 1.29 13.55 28.38 45.79 57.37
Ed (kN/m) 1.07 11.24 23.55 38.00 47.61
Rd (Kn/m) 15.89 44.09 85.56 141.26 209.02
DA 1a
Ed (kN) 1.44 15.18 31.80 51.30 64.28
Rd (kN) 15.89 44.09 85.56 141.26 209.02
Safety Factor 11.02 2.90 2.69 2.75 3.25
DA 1b
Ed (kN) 1.07 11.24 23.55 38.00 47.61
Rd (kN) 14.45 40.08 77.78 128.42 190.01
Safety Factor 13.53 3.56 3.30 3.38 3.99
DA 1b
Ed (kN) 1.44 15.18 31.80 51.30 64.28
Rd (kN) 12.71 35.27 68.45 113.01 167.21
Safety Factor 8.82 2.32 2.15 2.20 2.60

13
Mohammad Hanif

2.2.4b Bering Capacity Verification;

 For first layer:

The resultant vertical design load is:

𝑁𝑟𝑑 = (𝑊1 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

𝑆𝐴 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠 ∗ 𝐻 2 = 0.5 ∗ 028 ∗ 9.2 ∗ 1 = 1.3 𝐾𝑛

→ 1 ∗ 23 ∗ 1.35 + 1.3 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 1.35 → 𝑁𝑟𝑑 = 32 𝑘𝑁

Also the resultant of moment acting on the foundation of gabion is:

𝑀𝑟𝑑 = (𝑊1 ∗ 𝑏𝑤1 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 − 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠0 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

(23 ∗ 0.5 + 1.3 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 1 − 1.3 ∗ 0.83 ∗ 0.33 ∗ 1.35) → 𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 11.74 𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚
𝑀𝑟𝑑 11.74
𝑒= = = 0.37 𝑚 , so the section is entirely compressed and
𝑁𝑟𝑑 32
𝐵
𝑢=− 𝑒 = 0.5 − 0.37 = 0.13𝑚
2
And the ultimate stress can be calculated as follow
2∗𝑁 2∗32
𝜎𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 3∗𝑢𝑟𝑑 = 3∗0.13 = 160.05 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2

And the ultimate resistance of gabion can be calculated as following (assuming Cu=100kpa)

𝑞𝑓 = 5.4 ∗ 100 = 540 𝐾𝑃𝑎

𝑞𝑓 540
𝑞𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑚 = = = 540 𝐾𝑃𝑎
𝛾𝑅 1

𝑞𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑚 540
= = 3.2 > 1
𝜎𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 160.05

Shear force in each gabion course can be calculated and compared to the ultimate shear
resistance of gabion

1 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 ∗ 𝑐𝑔
𝑇𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑚 = [(𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 + 𝑁𝑣𝑎𝑟.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝛾𝑄𝑖 ) + ∗𝐴 ]
𝛾𝑅 𝛾∅ 𝛾𝑐

𝑐𝑔 = 0.03𝑃𝑢 − 0.05 the value is also available in the following table

14
Mohammad Hanif

𝜑 ∗ = 25 ∗ 𝛾𝑔𝑎𝑏 − 10° with the 𝛾𝑔𝑎𝑏 in 𝑇⁄𝑚3

𝜑 ∗ = 25 ∗ 𝛾𝑔𝑎𝑏 − 10° = 25 ∗ 2.3 − 10 = 47.5°

A is the area of interface and 𝑐𝑔 stands for the equivalent cohesion due to the wire mesh

1 1.01 0.0017
𝑇𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑚 = [(23 ∗ 1) + ∗ 1 ] = 23.23 𝑘𝑁
1 1 1
And shear force on the gabion is

𝑇𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑏 = 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 = 1.3 ∗ 0.83 ∗ 1.35 = 1.46 𝐾𝑛

𝑇𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑚 23.23
>1 → = 15.9
𝑇𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑏 1.46

 For the second layer

The resultant vertical design load is:

𝑁𝑟𝑑 = (𝑊1 + 𝑊2 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

𝑆𝐴 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐾𝑎 ∗ 𝛾𝑠 ∗ 𝐻 2 = 0.5 ∗ 0.28 ∗ 9.2 ∗ 4 + 20 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 0.28 = 13.6 𝑘𝑁

→ 2.5 ∗ 23 ∗ 1.35 + 13.6 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 1.35 → 𝑁𝑟𝑑 = 87.9 𝑘𝑁

Also the resultant of moment acting on the foundation of gabion is:

𝑀𝑟𝑑 = (𝑊1 ∗ 𝑏𝑤1 + 𝑊2 ∗ 𝑏𝑤2 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 − 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠0 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

(23 ∗ 1.5 + 34.5 ∗ 0.75 + 13.6 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 1.5 − 13.6 ∗ 0.82 ∗ 0.66 ∗ 1.35)

→ 𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 61.86 𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚
𝑀𝑟𝑑 61.63
𝑒= = = 0.67 𝑚 , so the section is entirely compressed and
𝑁𝑟𝑑 87.9
𝐵
𝑢=− 𝑒 = 0.75 − 0.67 = 0.08 𝑚
2
And the ultimate stress can be calculated as follow
𝑁𝑟𝑑 2∗87.9
𝜎𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2∗𝑢 = 2∗0.08 = 634.56 𝐾𝑛⁄𝑚2

And the ultimate resistance of gabion can be calculated as following (assuming Cu=100kpa)

𝑞𝑓 = 5.4 ∗ 𝛾𝑔𝑎𝑏 = 5.4 ∗ 100 = 540 𝐾𝑃𝑎

𝑞𝑓 1.5 ∗ 540
𝑞𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑚 = = = 771𝐾𝑃𝑎
𝛾𝑅 1

𝑞𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑚 771
≥1 →= = 1.2
𝜎𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 634.56

15
Mohammad Hanif

Shear force in each gabion course can be calculated and compared to the ultimate shear
resistance of gabion

1 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑 ∗ 𝑐𝑔
𝑇𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑚 = [(𝑁𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 + 𝑁𝑣𝑎𝑟.𝑓𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝛾𝑄𝑖 ) + ∗𝐴 ]
𝛾𝑅 𝛾∅ 𝛾𝑐

1 0.92 22
𝑇𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑚 = [(52.5) + ∗ 1.5 ] = 67.2 𝐾𝑛
1.1 1.1 1.1
𝑇𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑏 = 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 = 18.83 ∗ 0.82 ∗ 1.3 = 20.1 𝐾𝑛

𝑇𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑚 67.2
>1 → = 3.34
𝑇𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑏 20.1

Summary of calculation for the rest of layers are in the following table 2.1.4b

Description First Layer Second Layer Third Layer Fourth Layer Fifth Layer
Height (m) 1 2 3 4 5
Wdith (m) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
W (kN/m³ ) 23 34.5 46 57.5 69
SA 1.29 13.55 28.38 45.79 57.37
Nrd (kN) 23.72 65.81 127.70 210.84 311.96
W*B 11.5 25.875 46 71.875 103.5
Mrd (Kn*m) 11.74 61.63 114.99 182.57 265.24
Ed (kN) 160.05 634.56 861.97 1185.97 1504.11
e=Mrd/Nrd 0.37 0.69 0.67 0.64 0.63
Rd (kN) 514.00 771.00 1028.00 1285.00 1542.00
Rd/Ed 3.21 1.22 1.19 1.08 1.03
Local overturning calculation is in the following table 2.1.4.c, calculations are as of section
2.2.3

Description First Layer Second Layer Third Layer Fourth Layer Fifth Layer
Height (m) 1 2 3 4 5
Wdith (m) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
W (kN/m³ ) 23 34.5 46 57.5 69
SA 1.29 13.55 28.38 45.79 57.37
DA 1a
Rd = Mrd
12.22 65.09 202.77 356.26 549.62
(Kn*m)
Ed (kN*m) 0.48 10.12 31.80 68.40 107.13

Safety Factor 25.43 6.43 6.38 5.21 5.13

DA 1b
Rd = Mrd
12.22 52.07 162.21 285.01 417.18
(Kn*m)
Ed (kN*m) 0.36 7.50 23.55 50.67 79.35
Safety Factor 34.33 6.95 6.89 5.62 5.26

16
Mohammad Hanif

2.2.5 ULS-4 Global Stability Verification

To calculate the global stability of Gabion wall, it has been consider a circular failure surface
(because it is considered homogenous isotropic soil) and verify the rotational slips, since this
condition is after construction, only moment equilibrium will be considered in the analysis

𝑀𝑅 ≥ 𝑀𝐴

𝑀𝑅 = 𝑐𝑢 𝐿𝑎 𝑟

𝑟 = radius of circular slip surface from point O

𝐿𝑎 = length of arc of slip surface 𝐿𝑎 = 𝑟∅

𝑐𝑢 = undrained shear strength

𝑀𝐴 = 𝑊 𝑑

Nevertheless, it is required to calculate the maximum depth that the soil can be stabilized

𝑐𝑢 100
1 (𝛾𝑐𝑢 ) 1 ( 1 )
ℎ≤ [ ]= [ ] = 26𝑚
𝑁𝑠 𝛾𝑅𝑟 𝛾𝐴 𝛾 0.2 1 ∗ 1 19
𝛾𝛾 1

Figure 2.2.5 value of 𝑁𝑠 and β

Which as of this one 𝑁𝑠 = 0.2 for β = 52ᵒ

17
Mohammad Hanif

𝑀
The height of cutting is very high so we need to calculate the safety factors as of 𝐹 = 𝑀𝑅
𝐴
formula, for better understanding of the issue the following plot is drafted.

A B

C
w

In the above figure the cross sectional area ABCD is 39.35 m² which consist of soil
and gabion the area of gabion is 10 m² so the weight of soil is (39.35-10)*19*1.35=
752.8 kN and the weight of gabion is 10*23*1.35=310.5 kN , plus variable load
which is 3.5*20*1.5= 105 the total weight is w = 752.8+310.5+105 =1168 kN, the
distance between center of the circle surface and center of mass is 4.2m. so the total
𝑀𝐴 = 1168 ∗ 4.2 = 4905.6 𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

And 𝐿𝑎 = 14.44m the length of curve and r = 10.47

𝑀𝑅 𝑐𝑢 𝐿𝑎 𝑟 100 ∗ 10.47 ∗ 14.4

𝐹= = = = 3.08
𝑀𝐴 𝑊𝑑 4.2 ∗ 1168

For the DA1b we have the total weight w = 557.63 + 419.2+91=1067.83, and 𝑀𝐴 =
100
1067.83 ∗ 4.2 = 4485 𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚 , and 𝑐𝑢 = = 71.43
1.4

𝑀𝑅 𝑐𝑢 𝐿𝑎 𝑟 71.43 ∗ 10.47 ∗ 14.4

𝐹= = = = 2.4
𝑀𝐴 𝑊𝑑 4.2 ∗ 1067.83

And
𝑐𝑢 100
1 (𝛾𝑐𝑢 ) 1 ( 1.4 )
ℎ≤ [ ]= [ ] = 18.8𝑚
𝑁𝑠 𝛾𝑅𝑟 𝛾𝐴 𝛾 0.2 1 ∗ 1 19
𝛾𝛾 1
18
Mohammad Hanif

3.0 Designs verifications in drain condition

In case of drain condition soil, it is required to verify bearing capacity and overturning
stability, unlike the undrain condition, global stability failure is not most likely to occur,
while the soil is fully saturated, and the same reason is for sliding, since in undrain condition
the angle of shearing resistance is 0, while in case of drain condition the soil usually have
greater than 25ᵒ angle of shearing resistance, herein this value is 34ᵒ considered.

3.1 Bearing Capacity verification;

Likewise the first part, herein the drain condition, it is performed the detailed
calculation for DA 1a, and report the summary of design for DA1b.

It is required to verify that 𝐸𝑑 < 𝑅𝑑

Bearing Capacity method is used, in which the bearing capacity is defined according to this
formula.

2 ∗ 𝑁𝑟𝑑 2 ∗ 370
𝐸𝑑 = = = 986.7 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝐵 3
3 ∗ ( 2 − 𝑒) 3 ∗ ( − 1.25)
2
1
𝑞𝑓 = 𝑠𝑞 𝑁𝑞 𝜎𝑞′ + 𝛾𝐵𝑠𝛾 𝑁𝛾 + 𝑠𝑠 𝑁𝑐 𝑐 ′
2
1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃′ 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃′ 1 + sin(34)
𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 = 2.723.14∗0.7 = 31.9
1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃′ 1 − sin(34)

𝑁𝑞 − 1 31.9 − 1
𝑁𝑐 = = = 44
tan 𝜃′ 0.7

𝑁𝛾 = 2(𝑁𝑞 − 1)𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 ′ = 2(31.9 − 1)0.7 = 43

𝑠𝑞 = 1, 𝑠𝑐 = 1, 𝑠𝛾 = 1

17 0
𝑞𝑓 = 1𝑥31.9(19.19 − 9.8)0 + 0.5𝑥 𝑥1𝑥1𝑥43 + 1𝑥16.25𝑥
1 1
= 365 →

𝑞𝑓 𝑥𝐴 (365)𝑥1𝑥3
𝑅𝑑 = = = 1096 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝛾𝑟 1

𝑁𝑅𝑑 = (𝑊1 + 𝑊2 + 𝑊3 + 𝑊4 + 𝑊5 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜃 ′ ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖 = 230 ∗ 1.35 + 106.8 ∗ 0.56

= 370 𝑘𝑁
1 𝛾𝑠
𝑆𝐴 = 𝐾 𝑧 2 + 𝐾𝑎 𝐺𝑘 𝛾𝐴2 = 0.5 ∗ (17) ∗ 0.28 ∗ 25 ∗ 1.35 + 0.28 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 20 ∗ 3.5 = 106.8𝑘𝑁
2 𝛾𝛾 𝑎

𝑀𝑟𝑑 462.6
𝑒= = = 1.25𝑚 𝑠𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑
𝑁𝑟𝑑 370

19
Mohammad Hanif

𝑀𝑟𝑑 = (𝑊1 ∗ 𝑏𝑤1 + 𝑊2 ∗ 𝑏𝑤2 + 𝑊3 ∗ 𝑏𝑤3 + 𝑊4 ∗ 𝑏𝑤4 + 𝑊5 ∗ 𝑏𝑤5 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 − 𝑆𝐴

∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠0 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

(23 ∗ 2.5 + 34.5 ∗ 2.25 + 46 ∗ 2 + 57.5 ∗ 1.75 + 69 ∗ 1.5 + 106.8 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 3 − 106.8
∗ 0.83 ∗ 1.67) = 462.6𝑘𝑛 ∗ 𝑚

𝑅𝑑 1096
= = 1.1
𝐸𝑑 986.7

And for the design approach 1b (DA 1b), we can use the same formula and procedure, the
only difference is applying different action and resistance factors as of table 2.1.2

𝐸𝑑 = 277.6 𝑘𝑁/𝑚

𝑞𝑓 𝑥𝐴 (186.2)𝑥1𝑥3
𝑅𝑑 = = = 446.8 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝛾𝑟 1.25

𝑅𝑑 446.8
= = 1.6
𝐸𝑑 277.6

3.2 Overturning verification in drain condition

The stabilizing moment is calculated as follow

1
𝑅𝑑 = (𝑊1 ∗ 𝑏𝑤1 + 𝑊2 ∗ 𝑏𝑤2 + 𝑊3 ∗ 𝑏𝑤3 + 𝑊4 ∗ 𝑏𝑤4 + 𝑊5 ∗ 𝑏𝑤5 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 )
𝛾𝑅

1
= (23 ∗ 2.5 + 34.5 ∗ 2.25 + 46 ∗ 2 + 57.5 ∗ 1.75 + 69 ∗ 1.5) + 106.8 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 3)
1
𝑅𝑑 → 610.7 𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

𝐸𝑑 = (𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

1068 ∗ 0.83 ∗ 1.67 ∗ 1.35 = 200𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

𝑁𝑟𝑑 610.7
>1 → = 3.05
𝐸𝑑 200

Similarly for the DA1b,

1
𝑅𝑑 = (𝑊1 ∗ 𝑏𝑤1 + 𝑊2 ∗ 𝑏𝑤2 + 𝑊3 ∗ 𝑏𝑤3 + 𝑊4 ∗ 𝑏𝑤4 + 𝑊5 ∗ 𝑏𝑤5 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 )
𝛾𝑅

1
= (23 ∗ 2.5 + 34.5 ∗ 2.25 + 46 ∗ 2 + 57.5 ∗ 1.75 + 69 ∗ 1.5) + 85 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 3)
1.25
𝑅𝑑 → 459.2 𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

𝐸𝑑 = (𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

85 ∗ 0.83 ∗ 1.67 = 118𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

20
Mohammad Hanif

𝑁𝑟𝑑 459.2
>1 → = 3.9
𝐸𝑑 118

And for the DA2

1
𝑅𝑑 = (𝑊1 ∗ 𝑏𝑤1 + 𝑊2 ∗ 𝑏𝑤2 + 𝑊3 ∗ 𝑏𝑤3 + 𝑊4 ∗ 𝑏𝑤4 + 𝑊5 ∗ 𝑏𝑤5 + 𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 )
𝛾𝑅

1
= (23 ∗ 2.5 + 34.5 ∗ 2.25 + 46 ∗ 2 + 57.5 ∗ 1.75 + 69 ∗ 1.5) + 106.8 ∗ 0.56 ∗ 3)
1.1
𝑅𝑑 → 555.2 𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

𝐸𝑑 = (𝑆𝐴 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝜑 ′ ∗ 𝑏𝑠𝑣 ) ∗ 𝛾𝐺𝑖

1068 ∗ 0.83 ∗ 1.67 ∗ 1.35 = 200𝑘𝑁 ∗ 𝑚

𝑁𝑟𝑑 555.2
>1 → = 2.8
𝐸𝑑 200

Other verification such as failure of wire mesh, sliding on course interfaces excluding
section 2.2.4a of this report, are considered out scope of this assignment, notwithstanding to
the above mentioned reason, there is sufficient details for calculation and verifications of
those items, so those verifications are considered as part of Gabion company provider, herein
assumed to be sufficient.

3.3 Rotational slips in drained condition

In this condition similar to the undrained condition the potential failure surface is the same,
except the soil mass is divided by vertical planes into a series of slice. As of the following
reference figure.

To perform this verification, The Fellenius (or Swidish) solution is used, calculating the
safety factor, considering the drained consolidated condition.
21
Mohammad Hanif

𝑁𝑖 = 𝑊𝑖 cos 𝛼𝑖 − 𝑢𝑖 𝑙𝑖

𝑐 ′𝐿𝑎 + 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′ ∑(𝑊𝑖 cos 𝛼𝑖 − 𝑢𝑖 𝑙𝑖 )

𝐹=
∑ 𝑊𝑖 sin 𝛼𝑖

Since it is drained consolidated condition, no excess pore water pressure exist, so the term
𝑢𝑖 𝑙𝑖 = 0 , as well as the c’=0 so the terms 𝑐 ′𝐿𝑎 = 0, rest of calculation is reported in the
tabular form.

A B

W1

W2

W3

W4
W5

Figure 3.3.1 parameters of slice surface

Table 3.3.1 summary of calculation for each slice and overall

wi cos αi wi sin αi
SLICE hi (m) bi (m) αi li (m)
(kN/m) (kN/m)

1 1.46 1.45 54 2.82 21.13 29.15109

2 3.27 2 40 2.76 85.16 71.1552

3 4.76 2 26 2.3 145.66 71.2096
4 5.2 2 11 3.1 225.40 33.592
5 0.9 3.1 -6 3.4 -46.96 4.98015
Total 430.39 210.09
Safety Factor 1.37
𝑡𝑎𝑛34 ∑(430.9)
𝐹= = 1.37
∑ 210.9

22