Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls-Design and Construction

Similar documents
Formation level = m. Foundation level = m. Height of the wall above the Ground Level = 7.42 m

computed using Equation 3-18 by setting the 2nd term equal to 0 and K A equal to K o and using the pressure distribution as shown in Figure 3-23.

Verdura 40/60 Retaining Wall Feasibility Design and Response to Plan Review Comments from City of Lake Forest

Verdura 40/60 Retaining Wall Feasibility Design and Response to Plan Review Comments from City of Lake Forest

For a cantilever pile wall shown in Figure 1, assess the performance of the system and answer the following questions.

REPORT GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BLOCK-7 SUB-STATION SY NO-225, NEAR RAYACHERLU VILLAGE

INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING (Autonomous) Dundigal, Hyderabad CIVIL ENGINEERING TUTORIAL QUESTION BANK

REPORT GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BLOCK-1 SUB-STATION SY NO-44, NEAR KYATAGANACHERLU VILLAGE

CENGRS GEOTECHNICA PVT. LTD. Job No Sheet No. 1

Pushover analysis with ZSOIL taking soil into account. Stéphane Commend GeoMod Ing. SA, Lausanne

INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING (Autonomous) Dundigal, Hyderabad

Tension Cracks. Topics Covered. Tension crack boundaries Tension crack depth Query slice data Thrust line Sensitivity analysis.

Displacement-based calculation method on soil-pile interaction of PHC pipe-piles

UNIT-I SOIL EXPLORATION

2 Available: 1390/08/02 Date of returning: 1390/08/17 1. A suction cup is used to support a plate of weight as shown in below Figure. For the conditio

Hatch cover securing and tightness

LAMINATED POLES. engineered to solve problems. Coastal Douglas-fir. Field Raked and Tangent Poles

[Barve, 4(7): July, 2015] ISSN: (I2OR), Publication Impact Factor: 3.785

m v = 1.04 x 10-4 m 2 /kn, C v = 1.29 x 10-2 cm 2 /min

Mechanical Stabilisation for Permanent Roads

RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT, STATIC AND DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Application of pushover analysis in estimating seismic demands for large-span spatial structure

SOIL ANCHORS ETSAB/UPC J.Llorens - ETSAB/UPC PASSIVE ANCHORS - ANTECEDENTS

APPENDIX G SCA BASIN CALCULATIONS

DESIGN OF AXIALLY LOADED STEPPED FOOTING DATA :- SBC of soil =200 KN /m 2 Concrete Mix =M20 Steel Grade = Fe 415 Clear cover of bottom slab =50 mm

Behavior of Square Footing Resting on Reinforced Sand Subjected to Static Load

CIVL473 Fundamentals of Steel Design

Typical factors of safety for bearing capacity calculation in different situations


3. Types of foundation

ATT-66/96, DENSITY TEST, ASBC CONTROL STRIP METHOD

TZ WEDGE ANCHOR FOR CRACKED AND UNCRACKED CONCRETE

Module 7 Lecture 1. Swelling and Collapse Behavior

CHAPTER 5: VACUUM TEST WITH VERTICAL DRAINS

APPLICATION OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS ON EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PREDICATION OF COMPLEX LARGE-SPAN STEEL STRUCTURES

SUPPORTING NOTES FOR THE EVALUATION OF UNBOUND ROAD BASE AND SUB-BASE AGGREGATES

This document downloaded from vulcanhammer.net vulcanhammer.info Chet Aero Marine

On the Use of Pickets and Flukes as Snow Anchors

Vertical Uplift Capacity of a Group of Equally Spaced Helical Screw Anchors in Sand

TECHNICAL CIRCULAR. Circular No: S-P 32/13 Revision: 1 Page: 1 of 7 Date:

Non-Linear Seismic Analysis of Multi-Storey Building

Introduction of world construction methods and trends. Franz-Werner Gerressen, Head of Method Development, Tokyo,

A Wind-Tunnel Study of a Cubic Rooftop AC Unit on a Low Building

ITEM 400 STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL

SUBPART C - STRUCTURE

Research on Shear Test methods of bonded steel bolts

Predicting Failure Modes of Snow Anchors

Swedge 6.0. Now with a Basal Failure Plane and Bench Design. Basal plane, improved water pressure distribution, and more

Ancholt Bolt Design With Tension and Shear Using Anchor Reinforcement

SOIL IMPROVEMENT BY VACUUM PRELOADING FOR A POWER PLANT PROJECT IN VIETNAM

Grading Plan - Drawing No. C-2 - Project Revision 1 dated January 30, 2018.

The Adequacy of Pushover Analysis to Evaluate Vulnerability of Masonry Infilled Steel Frames Subjected to Bi-Directional Earthquake Loading

Irrigation &Hydraulics Department lb / ft to kg/lit.

V-H-M Yield Surface describing Soil Structure Interaction of Sub-sea Structures and Wind Turbines on Caisson Foundations in Soft Clays

Department of Civil & Geological Engineering GEOE Engineering Geology

Application of Expansive Soil Geotechnical Procedures

17J Third Edition, January 2008 Specification for Unbonded Flexible Pipe

Dynamic response of composite caissonpiles

Ship Stability. Ch. 8 Curves of Stability and Stability Criteria. Spring Myung-Il Roh

Session 1. Pushover Analysis of a Torsionally Eccentric Cellular Abutment. Date 11/03/ PM 4 PM Eastern Time

Comparison and Sensitivity Investigations of a CALM and SALM Type Mooring System for Wave Energy Converters

PUSH PIER SYSTEMS STABILITY. SECURITY. INTEGRITY. Push Pier Systems PN #MBPPT

Pushover Analysis of Water Tank Staging

CHEMICAL. Straight cut rod is provided in the materials listed below and includes nuts / washers.

KM/ Stainless steel air bellows Single acting Ø 220 to 400 mm

REVETMENTS. Purposes and Operational Constraints. Purposes Erosion control o o. Revetment Design 4/5/2016. CE A676 Coastal Engineering

DVS Technical Codes an Bulletins

Hilti, Inc South 122 nd East Avenue Tulsa, OK

Learn more at

Influence of Fly Ash Content on Compaction Characteristics of Fly Ash Clay Mixture

JAR-23 Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, and Commuter Category Aeroplanes \ Issued 11 March 1994 \ Section 1- Requirements \ Subpart C - Structure \ General

BIOREACTOR LANDFILLS: GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF STABILITY EVALUATION

Applying Hooke s Law to Multiple Bungee Cords. Introduction

Stability of Pipeline and details of Anchor blocks

TYPES OF FOUNDATION. Superstructure. Substructure. Foundation

Yasuyuki Hirose 1. Abstract

RS:RACING EVOV - The Performance Leader. Sizes Luff Boom/cm Base Battens Cams Ideal Mast Top Finishing Code

WEDGE-ALL Wedge Anchors

Reinforcement with Anchors

PhysicsAndMathsTutor.com

SPECIFICATION FOR REPEATED LOAD TRIAXIAL (RLT) TESTING FOR PAVEMENT MATERIALS

5. A bead slides on a curved wire, starting from rest at point A in the figure below. If the wire is frictionless, find each of the following.

HCMTCB MATERIALS SAMPLING & TESTING PERFORMANCE CHECKLIST

FLUID MECHANICS Time: 1 hour (ECE-301) Max. Marks :30

Mechanical Anchoring Systems HDA Undercut Anchor Product description. HDA-P Undercut Anchor Pre-Set Type

Homework of chapter (3)

Journal of Civil & Environmental

SHAKING TABLE TESTS AND EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSES ON THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF WEDGED CAISSONS

. In an elevator accelerating upward (A) both the elevator accelerating upward (B) the first is equations are valid

Behavior of Dry Dense Sand-Foundation System Acted upon by Impact Loads

STABILITY OF MULTIHULLS Author: Jean Sans

Study to Establish Relations for the Relative Strength of API 650 Cone Roof Roof-to-Shell and Shell-to- Bottom Joints

Submerged Slope with Excess Pore- Water Pressure

DYNAMIC CRUSH TEST ON HYDROGEN PRESSURIZED CYLINDER

Pressuremeters in Geotechnical Design

Snow load on structures: case studies on cableway masts and measures against snow gliding

FLEXIBLE AND RELIABLE ANCHORING

1. Air is blown through a pipe AB at a rate of 15 litre per minute. The cross-sectional area of broad

Wave Load Pattern Definition

Now with. Covers. Grade Level Box BULK FEATURES TESTING CRITERIA TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Transcription:

Lecture 32 Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls-Design and Construction Prof. G L Sivakumar Babu Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560012

Example calculation An 8 m high wall is to be built using sand fill and polymer-grid reinforcement. The sand has =30 0, = 18 kn/m 3 and is to be used for the wall and the backfill. A surcharge loading of 15 kpa is to be allowed for, and the maximum safe bearing pressure for the foundation soil is 300 kpa. Two grids of different design strength are available: grid A at 20 kn/m and grid B at 40 kn/m (both have a bond coefficient f b of 0.9). The fill will be compacted in layers 250 mm thick.

External stability (sliding) K a = (1 sin 30 0 ) / (1+ sin 30 0 ) = 0.333 = f b tan = 0.9 tan (30) 0.5. For a factor of safety against sliding of 2.0, the minimum length of layers is: L L min F S K ab H 2 μ 2x0.3338 188 215 20.5 188 15 Therefore adopt a length of 6m. w w H H 2w w S S 5.83m.

External stability (Overturning) Overturning moments about the toe = Restoring moments about the toe = Factor of safety against overturning = ( k ab ( k ab b H 6 3 HL 2 ( b 2 3( k ab ) w H 3w wsh 2 wsl ( 2 H w s s ) 2 2 )(H / ) ) L) 2 FS 3(18x8 15) 0.333(18x8 45)(8/ 4.26 2 6) 2

Bearing pressure Using trapezoidal distribution, v max = (18 8 + 15) + 0.333 (18 8 + 45) (8/6) 2 = 159 + 112 = 271 kpa. (< 300 kpa) Check that contact stresses at the base of reinforced zone are compressive everywhere (i.e. no tension): vmin = 159 112 = 47 kpa. (> 0)

T = h S V = K v S V v = (z + w S ) + K a (z + 3w S ) (z / L) 2 T i = 0.333 [(18z + 15) + 0.333 (18z + 45) (z/6) 2 ] S V Sv max 0.333 P d 18z 15 0.33318z 45z 6 2

Two different grids that are available the use of above equation results in the values presented in the Table. Maximum spacing of geogrids, (S v ) max z (m) Grid A (P d =20 kn/m) Grid B (P d =40 kn/m) 0.5 2.46 4.93 1.0 1.73 3.46 1.5 1.29 2.58 2.0 1.00 2.00 2.5 0.79 1.59 3.0 0.64 1.28 3.5 0.52 1.05 4.0 0.43 0.86 4.5 0.36 0.72 5.0 0.30 0.60 5.5 0.26 0.51 6.0 0.22 0.44 6.5 0.19 0.37 7.0 0.16 0.32 7.5 0.14 0.28 8.0 0.12 0.24

Spacing versus depth plot for grids A and B Maximum vertical spacing (m) Depth below top of wall (m) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 Grid 'A' (20 kn/m) Grid 'B' (40 kn/m)

Wedge stability check Select trial wedges at depths, 1 to 8 m below the top of the wall and calculate the total required force T. Carry out check with and without surcharge w s. For critical wedge angle = (45 0 - ' w /2 = 30 0 for a wedge of height h, the total tension force T is given by T h tan 30 2 tan 0 18h 30 0 215 30 0 3h 2 5h For a reinforcing layer at depth z below the top of the wall, the pullout resistance is given by P P = 2 [L (h z) tan ] (z +w s ) 0.9 tan 30 0 /2.

The factor 2 in the numerator denotes the upper and lower surfaces on either side of the geogrid and factor 2 in the denominator refers to the factor of safety. P P = 2 [6 (h z) tan 30 0 ] (18z + 15) 0.9 tan 30 0 / 2. For each reinforcement intersected, the available force is taken as the lesser of the pullout resistance P P and the design tensile strength P d. For all wedges and both load cases, available force is greater than required force, T. A suitable reinforcement layout is arrived at based on the above considering the thickness of compaction lifts.

Calculation of mobilizing and resisting forces for wedge stability Force to be resisted Wedge T (kn/m) Depth (m) w s = 0 w s = 15 kpa Grids Involved Design Tensile force, P d (kn/m) Pullout resistance P p (kn/m) Available force (kn/m) (minimum of P d & P p ) w s = 0 w s = 15 w s = 0 w s = 15 kpa kpa 1 8 3 2A 40 42 16 40 16 2 22 12 4A 80 141 80 80 80 3 42 27 6A 120 318 213 120 120 4 68 48 9A 180 732 548 180 180 5 100 75 13A 260 1495 1189 260 260 6 138 108 15A+2B 380 2538 2092 380 380 7 182 147 15A+6B 540 3905 3301 540 540 8 232 192 15A+10 B 700 5639 4859 700 700

Reinforcement Layout (8 0.25) tan 30 o = 4.47 m (6 4.47) = 1.53 m 4 m 3 m 2 m 1 m 0.25 m 1.25 m 2.25 m P d = 20 kn/m @ 0.5 m c/c. 5 m 6 m 7 m 8 m 3.25 m 4.25 m P d = 20 kn/m @ 0.25 m c/c. 5.25 m L = 6 m 6.25 m 7.25 m 7.75 m P d = 40 kn/m @ 0.25 m c/c.

Provisions of FHWA Stress transfer mechanisms; Friction, passive resistance Mode of reinforcement action: Tension is the common mode, Shear and bending in stiff reinforcements are also useful Pull out tests are useful to assess the performance

Provisions of FHWA Recommended minimum factors of safety with respect to External failure modes Sliding F.S >= 1.5 (MSEW); 1.3 (RSS) Eccentricity e, at Base <= L/6 in soil, L/4 in rock Bearing Capacity F.S. >= 2.5 Deep Seated Stability F.S >=1.3 Compound Stability F.S. >= 1.4 Seismic Stability F.S. >= 75% of static F.S.

Recommended minimum factors of safety with respect to internal failure modes Pullout Resistance Internal Stability for RSS Allowable Tensile Strength (a) For steel strip reinforcement (b) For steel grid reinforcementpanels F.S. >= 1.5 (MSEW and RSS) F.S >= 1.3 0.55 Fy 0.48 Fy (connected to concrete Panels or blocks) A number of reduction factors considering damage, environmental conditions, long terms strength requirements etc. (total factor = 7)

Empirical curve for estimating probable anticipated lateral displacement during construction for MSE walls

Recommended backfill requirements for MSE & RSS construction U.S Sieve Size % Passing For MSE Walls (PI less than 6) 102 mm 100 0.425 mm 0-60 0.075 mm 0-15 Cu 4 For RS slopes For MSE Walls (PI less than 20) 20mm 100 4.76mm 100-20 0.425mm 0-60 0.075mm 0-50

Recommended backfill requirements for MSE & RSS construction The material shall be free of shale or other soft, weak particles, organic matter etc Light compaction shall be used close to the wall proximity, Good backfill in terms of friction and drainage (crushed stone) may be used in the backfill next to wall facings. Backfill compaction should be based on 95% density and ± 2% of optimum M.C. (AASHTO T 99: Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg Rammer and a 305-mm drop. Peak shear strength parameters, a minimum friction angle of 34 o shall be adopted.

Recommended limits of electrochemical properties for backfills when using steel reinforcement Property Criteria Test Method Resistivity >3000 ohm-cm AASHTO ph >5<10 AASHTO Chlorides <100 PPM AASHTO Sulfates <200 PPM AASHTO Organic Content 1% max AASHTO Corrosion rates and allowances specified in codes shall be followed.

Retained fill Engineering properties of retained fill, position of water table need to be evaluated. These properties are required for global stability evaluation.

Stability under earthquake conditions During an earthquake, the retained fill exerts a dynamic horizontal thrust, P AE, on the MSE wall in addition to the static thrust. The reinforced soil mass is also subjected to a horizontal inertia force P IR = M A m, where M is the mass of the active portion of the reinforced wall section assumed at a base width of 0.5H, and A m is the maximum horizontal acceleration in the reinforced soil wall. Force P AE can be evaluated by the pseudo-static Mononobe-Okabe analysis and added to the static forces acting on the wall (weight, surcharge, and static thrust). The dynamic stability with respect to external stability is then evaluated. Allowable minimum dynamic safety factors are assumed as 75 percent of the static safety

Seismic external stability of a MSE wall under level backfill condition

Select a horizontal ground acceleration (A) based on design earthquake Calculate maximum acceleration (A m ) developed in the wall using A m =(1.45-A)A Calculate the horizontal inertial force (P IR ) and the seismic thrust (P AE ) using P IR = 0.5 A m γ r H 2 P AE = 0.375 A m γ f H 2 Add to static force acting on the structure, 50% of the seismic thrust P AE and the full inertial; force as both forces do not act simultaneously

Location of potential failure surface for internal stability design of MSE walls

Location of potential failure surface for internal stability design of MSE walls for extensible reinforcement

Distribution of stress from concentrated vertical load P v for internal and external stability calculations.

Distribution of stresses from concentrated horizontal loads for external stability.

Distribution of stresses from concentrated horizontal loads for internal stability.

Additional horizontal stress due to earthquake needs to be calculated and tensile force needs to be evaluated. Connection strength issues need to be properly addressed.

Concluding remarks Reinforced retaining walls have evolved as viable technique and contributed to infrastructure in terms of speed, ease of construction, economy, aesthetics etc. It is a technology that needs to be understood well in terms of its response, construction features etc. Failures of RE walls have also been noted in a few places due to lack of understanding of behavour of RE walls. FWHA, NCMA guidelines need to be studied in detail for seismic stability and deformation issues.

THANK YOU THANK YOU