This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
General The construction of the railway link along a 20° slope requires the provision of a 1 km long and 12m wide track. This flat surface will be provided through a 4.5m excavation supported by one row of anchorages 2m below the existing ground level. A cross section of the retaining system at its permanent state is shown on figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Cross section of the retaining system.
1.1 Site specification and constraints Site located near an urban area which sits at the top of the hill. Track located on a 20° slope. Shallow river runs along the bottom-end of the slope. Mature deciduous trees at 10m centres. 2. Limit states criteria 2.1 Ultimate Limit State criteria (ULS) In accordance to EN 1997-1:2004 section 184.108.40.206 and 9.2 the structure shall be verified that the following limit states are not exceeded: EQU, STR, GEO, UPL and HYD. 2.2 Serviceability Limit State criteria (SLS) In accordance to En 1997-1:2004 section 9.2 the structure should be checked against: Water leakage should be avoided at all times.
Maximum allowable wall deflection 3. It is assumed to be parallel to the ground surface. Subsurface and Groundwater conditions Soil profile conditions were obtained from the briefing of the project. This method is preferred when using sheet piles. Stages of the top-down construction .5m depth Figure 2. The ground conditions comprise of weathered glacial till overlying glacial till. The groundwater profile is hydrostatic and the phreatic surface is known to fluctuate seasonally. There is no drainage on the slope. The excavation to the formation level will be delivered in 4 stages as shown in figure 2 below: Stage 1: Insert wall and apply surcharge of 10kpa outside the wall Stage 2: Dewater and excavate to 3m depth Stage 3: Insert anchorage at 2 m depth from ground surface Stage 4: Dewater and excavate to 4. Construction sequence and wall type: 4. A summary of the results is show on table 1 below: Table 1. Geotechnical Parameters φ’ (°degrees) C’ (kPa) CU’ (kPa) γsat (kN/m3) EU (MN/m2) v’ Ko Weathered Glacial Till 25 5 50 18 Glacial Till 28 5~10 50+10z 20 4.1 Construction sequence A top down construction sequence was decided. Maximum allowable surface settlement 25mm.
Figure 3-Net pressure diagram (R. therefore.F. the most preferable wall selected for the design is a 20mm thickness steel sheet pile wall. 5.2 Wall type selection In accordance to the option analysis1 carried out. The partial factors were derived from EN 1997-1 Table A3. The net pore water pressure it is assumed to be as shown in the figure 3 below with the maximum net pressure given by the equation . The ULS design stratigraphy is shown in figure 3. The EN1997-1:2004 Appendix B states that checks are required for two sets of factors in two separate sets of calculations (Combination 1.e. This groundwater level will only apply to ULS calculations.4. It is recommended by the current British practice considering the groundwater level at the absence of drainage to be given by: dW = H/4 for H<4m and dW=1m for H>4m (H being the retained height of the wall). The soil parameters used in the design are shown in table 2 below. (With reference to figure 3) 6. the seepage pressure at any depth is given by the equation . glacial till). . 2004) Steady seepage it is assumed in the calculations. Design parameters Design Approach 1 will be adopted in the ULS calculations. A4. Design stratigraphy and water table The first meter of weathered glacial till was ignored in the design and the strength of the soil was considered of that below (i.Craig. Combination 2).
5m.3 x 105 kNm2 / m Combination 1 28 5~10 50+10z 20 Glacial Till Combination 2 23 (5~10)/1.3 and table C. For a supported wall ΔΗ should be equal to 10% between the lower support and the excavation level also limited to 0.5m.4 6.3 3.2. For a cantilever wall ΔH should be equal to 10% of the wall height limited to a maximum of 0.44 0. ULS parameters Geotechnical Parameters φ’ (°degrees) C’ (kPa) CU’ (kPa) γsat (kN/m3) v’ Ko 6.2 Unplanned excavation The variation between design values of the geometry and the actual field values is taken into account in the ULS calculations by lowering the level of resisting soil by ΔH.3 which are relevant for inclined surfaces.25 (50+10z)/1.5 6.4 Wall friction/Coefficient of Earth pressures In accordance to EN 1997-1:2004 section 9. Coefficients of earth pressures Combination 1 Combination 2 Active (Ka) 0.5. 6. Wall EI = 200 x 0. Table 3.1.3 Surcharge For wall retaining heights of more than 3m a minimum surface surcharge of 10kPa should be applied. (Section type : AZ 44-700N ) I=0.60 +ΔH (m) 3.1 Wall flexural stiffness As provided by the manufacturer.001157 = 2. Table 4.001157 m4/m (second moment of area of section) Elastic modulus of steel 200GPa. The coefficients for Earth pressures (see table 4) were derived from Eurocode 7 Annex C table C.Table 2.1 a design wall interface of δ = KφCV (where K=2/3 for a sheet pile wall). Depth of Unplanned excavations Initial Depth (m) Stage 2 3 Stage 3 3 Stage 4 4.1 ≈5 .
9 kN/m 413.1 kN/m -1642 kNm/m + 230.1 Table 3 Appendix B .B.C.4. 525.5.4. the calculations performed and shown in Appendix A-D indicate a required wall height of 9m. shear forces.5. . bending moments in the SLS Using the assumptions stated below and partial factors of unity. The governing stage of design is shown to be the permanent state of the structure (i.The results obtained using hand calculations were also checked with Oasys software FREW.1 Table 3 Appendix B .2 Table 7 Appendix A .B.4.12 4.Passive 7.2 kN/m 559 kN/m 443.4.B. hence the coefficients of earth pressures match the ones used in DA1-C1.1 Table 3 Appendix C .A summary of the results is shown in the table below.24 Determination of wall geometry.B.shear forces and anchorage loads were calculated and shown in Appendix A-D.1 Table 3 Appendix A .4. The water table is not present Max 1st Prop Force Max 2nd Prop Force Max wall shear Force Max Negative Bending moment Max Positive Bending moment 292.B.4.4.2 Table 7 Appendix C .A.C.5.B.A summary of the results is shown in the table below Assumptions: No unplanned excavation is assumed 10kPa minimum surcharge on the surface of the retained soil Characteristic values of soil strength are used.4.the wall bending moments.e.52 kNm/m Appendix B . stage 4) in drained conditions.4.56 kN/m .A.1 Table 3 Determination of wall geometry. bending moments in the ULS Using limit equilibrium analysis.5 kNm/m Appendix B .5.2 Table 7 BASAL and HYDRAULIC HEAVE PERFORMED ONLY FOR STAGES 2 AND 4 BECAUSE STAGE 3 IS NOT GOING TO BE CRITICAL IN THE CASE OF STAGE 2 BEING CONFIRMED.6 kN/m 279.2 Table 7 Appendix B .4.2993 kNm/m + 843. Max 1st Prop Force Max 2nd Prop Force Max wall shear Force Max Negative Bending moment Max Positive Bending moment 8.5.2 Table 7 Appendix B . (Kp) 6. shear forces.
The movements because of wall installation are given in an empirical formula (CIRIA C580.2) as: (0.Appendix A shows a graphical output of the analysis. 3. 11.05 x 4.page 50.25 mm (<25 mm SLS criterion satisfied) 9. Wall/ ground Displacements -The horizontal movements of the wall were calculated using Oasys FREW. Ground water level in the retained ground is unchanged Results: Construction stage (Figure 2): Cantilever wall (Stage 2 of construction) Anchored wall (Stage 4 of construction) Degree of Utilization (%) 14 32 *Note: Since stage 2 of construction is verified for HYD stage 3 is not necessary to be verified since the geometry of the structure is the same. Failure width by boiling is equivalent to half of penetration length of the wall.25 mm Total ground surface movement = 20 + 2.00225 =2. a pseudo-finite element analysis software which uses the SLS values of BM and SF calculated in section 8 along with the soil parameters and particularly modulus of elasticity of the soil(Eu section 3 table 1) and wall flexural stiffness EI (section 6.table 2.5)/100 =0.9. Horizontal displacement of wall at permanent state = 20 mm (ref) -The ground movements were simply calculated as the sum of the horizontal displacement calculated above and the total ground movements due to the installation of the wall. Hydraulic heave Simple hydraulic heave calculations were performed with the use of Terzaghi’s method under the following assumptions: (The calculations can be seen in appendix E) Assumptions: 1.25 =22. Neglecting head loss in the retained ground above excavation bottom.05 x H) / 100 =( 0. 2. Basal heave Basal heave was examined using moment equilibrium methods under the following assumptions : (The calculations can be seen in appendix D) Assumptions: 1.1). Assuming a circular sliding surface about the excavation bottom .
Construction stage (Figure 2): Cantilever wall (Stage 2 of construction) Anchored wall (Stage 4 of construction) Degree of Utilization (%) 31 64 *Note: Since stage 2 of construction is verified for Basal Heave stage 3 is not necessary to be verified since the geometry of the structure remains the same but with the addition of an anchor which makes it even safer. One layered soil (Cu = 50 kPa weakest soil). 3. Vertical shear resistance along the retained ground shallower than the excavation level not considered.2. .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.