[6] Geotechnical analysis: procedure & calculations

The design of a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall includes two types of
calculations: sizing for (1) external stability and (2) internal stability. The general
calculation procedure, which is described by Koerner (1998), among others, is as follows:

A reinforcement length is assumed, which in turn determines the width of the wall (a
preliminary pullout analysis for a reinforcement level at wall mid-height may be
necessary for giving some idea of an average required reinforcement length).

The calculations for external stability (sliding, overturning, bearing capacity, general
stability) are performed to determine whether the assumed wall width is adequate; if not,
calculations are repeated to determine the minimum required wall width (and hence
reinforcement length).

A reinforcement vertical spacing is assumed. The calculations for internal stability-

tension failure are performed at each reinforcement level for the minimum required
length to determine the required tensional resistance and whether vertical spacing is
adequate. Hence, the results from tension analysis will guide the selection of the specific
reinforcement product. Calculations for internal stability-pullout failure are performed to
determine the required length at each elevation behind the wall.

For all the above calculations, it is necessary to determine first the earth pressures on the
wall. Depending on the emphasis of the course, the instructor can focus on
reinforcement-related calculations (internal stability) or retaining wall calculations
(external stability).
] analisis Geoteknik: Prosedur & perhitungan

Desain mekanis bumi stabil (MSE) dinding meliputi dua jenis perhitungan: sizing untuk
(1) stabilitas eksternal dan (2) stabilitas internal. Prosedur perhitungan umum, yang
digambarkan oleh Koerner (1998), antara lain, adalah sebagai berikut:

Panjang penguatan diasumsikan, yang pada gilirannya menentukan lebar dinding

(analisis penarikan awal untuk tingkat penguatan dinding pertengahan tinggi mungkin
diperlukan untuk memberikan beberapa ide panjang penguatan diperlukan rata-rata).

Perhitungan stabilitas eksternal (sliding, menjungkirbalikkan, dukung, stabilitas umum)

dilakukan untuk menentukan apakah lebar dinding diasumsikan memadai; jika tidak,
perhitungan diulang untuk menentukan minimum yang diperlukan lebar dinding (dan
karenanya panjang penguatan).

Sebuah penguatan jarak vertikal diasumsikan. Perhitungan untuk kegagalan stabilitas

tegangan internal yang dilakukan di setiap tingkat penguatan untuk minimum yang
diperlukan panjang untuk menentukan ketahanan tensional yang diperlukan dan apakah
jarak vertikal memadai. Oleh karena itu, hasil dari analisis ketegangan akan memandu

1
pemilihan produk penguatan tertentu. Perhitungan untuk kegagalan stabilitas penarikan
internal dilakukan untuk menentukan panjang yang dibutuhkan pada setiap elevasi di
balik dinding.

Untuk semua perhitungan di atas, maka perlu untuk menentukan pertama tekanan tanah
pada dinding. Tergantung pada penekanan tentu saja, instruktur dapat fokus pada
perhitungan terkait penguatan-(stabilitas internal) atau perhitungan dinding penahan
(stabilitas eksternal)

[6] Geotechnical analysis contents:

Calculation of earth pressures Page 2

External stability
Sliding Page 6
Overturning Page 7
Bearing capacity Page 8
Overall stability Page 9
External stability analyses: Summary Page 9

Internal stability
Tension analysis Page 10
Pullout analysis Page 13
Internal stability analyses: Summary Page 14

References Page 15

[6] isi analisis Geoteknik:

Perhitungan tekanan tanah Page 2

stabilitas eksternal
Sliding Page 6
Menjungkirbalikkan Page 7
Dukung Page 8
Secara keseluruhan stabilitas Page 9
stabilitas eksternal analisis: Ringkasan Page 9

stabilitas internal
analisis ketegangan Page 10
analisis penarikan Page 13

2
stabilitas internal analisis: Ringkasan Page 14

Referensi Page 15
Calculation of earth pressures & weights

Analyses were carried out for the cross section where the height of the MSE Wall is the
maximum (12.0m). An average slope inclination of i=12 from the top of the wall was
assumed for the embankment, since the embankment has a finite length. The solid body
considered, consisting of the wall facing and the reinforced mass, is shown on Figure 2. It
is a rectangle with dimensions 6.5m by 12m, tilted inwards at an angle of 5. Whereas
final reinforcement lengths vary along the height of the wall, wall width was assumed
equal to a representative length of Lo = 6.5 m.

Analisis dilakukan untuk penampang di mana ketinggian MSE Dinding adalah

maksimum (12.0m). Sebuah kemiringan lereng rata-rata i = 12 dari atas tembok itu
diasumsikan untuk tanggul, sejak tanggul memiliki panjang yang terbatas. Tubuh padat
dianggap, yang terdiri dari dinding yang menghadap dan massa diperkuat, ditunjukkan
pada Gambar 2. Ini adalah persegi panjang dengan dimensi 6,5 juta oleh 12m, miring ke
dalam pada sudut 5. Sedangkan panjang penguatan akhir bervariasi sepanjang
ketinggian dinding, lebar dinding diasumsikan sama dengan panjang perwakilan dari Lo
= 6,5 m.

3
 angle i=12

H1=2m

backfill
H2=5m

angle b=i=12
12m b

siltstone H3=7m

s
B=6.5m angle s=2 seq/3=26.7

angle =5
Figure 2. Hand sketch of the wall and the forces considered for the calculations of
external stability, including earth pressures (part of the calculations included in the
appendix of the project report).

The values for the parallel- and perpendicular-to-the-wall-base weight components are:

W1per = 1554 kN/m, W1par = 136 kN/m, W2per = 199 kN/m, W2par = 17 kN/m
The forces resulting from earth pressures and exerted on the back of the wall are as
follows:
PA1: the thrust of the backfill material over a height of H1+H2 (2m embankment +
5m backfill),
PA2+PA3: the thrust of siltstone over a height of H3=7m, and
PA4: the thrust of traffic load q = 20kN/m2, which is assumed to be transferred only
through the backfill material.

Gambar 2. Tangan sketsa dinding dan kekuatan dipertimbangkan untuk perhitungan

stabilitas eksternal, termasuk tekanan tanah (bagian dari perhitungan termasuk
dalam lampiran laporan proyek).

4
Nilai untuk paralel dan tegak lurus-to-the-dinding-dasar komponen berat badan adalah:

W1per = 1554 kN / m, W1par = 136 kN / m, W2per = 199 kN / m, W2par = 17 kN / m

Pasukan yang dihasilkan dari tekanan tanah dan diberikan pada bagian belakang dinding
adalah sebagai berikut:
PA1: dorong dari bahan urug lebih tinggi dari H1 + H2 (2m tanggul + 5m pengurukan),
PA2 + PA3: tekanan dari batulanau lebih tinggi dari H3 = 7m, dan
PA4: tekanan dari beban lalu lintas q = 20kn / m2, yang diasumsikan ditransfer hanya
melalui bahan urug.

Static case

One of the most basic steps in an analysis of a reinforced earth retaining wall is the
calculation of the lateral earth pressures. The two textbooks consulted with
sections on reinforced retaining structures (Das 1998; Koerner, 1998) provide
examples where lateral earth pressures are calculated for the assumption of a
smooth wall (Rankines theory). This conservative assumption is not realistic for a
reinforced earth wall, but simplifies the calculations of both the earth pressure
coefficients and the resulting forces, which act perpendicular to the wall back.
kasus statis

Salah satu langkah yang paling dasar dalam analisis dinding penahan tanah bertulang
adalah perhitungan tekanan tanah lateral. Kedua buku berkonsultasi dengan bagian pada
struktur penahan diperkuat (Das 1998; Koerner, 1998) memberikan contoh-contoh di
mana tekanan tanah lateral dihitung untuk asumsi dinding halus (teori Rankine ini).
Asumsi konservatif ini tidak realistis untuk dinding tanah bertulang, tetapi
menyederhanakan perhitungan dari kedua tekanan koefisien bumi dan kekuatan yang
dihasilkan, yang bertindak tegak lurus ke dinding belakang.
1) Calculation of backfill (b) earth pressures

Summary of assumptions
coefficient of active earth pressure calculated according to Coulombs theory for the
thrust of a cohesionless material against a rough wall (backfills cohesion was neglected)
backfill pressure is inclined at an angle equal to the slope for the top soil, b =12

The coefficient of active earth pressure for the backfill (PA1, PA4 in Figure 2) is calculated
as [e.g., Equation 11.10 in Kramer (1996)]:

Summary of assumptions
coefficient of active earth pressure calculated according to Coulombs theory for the
thrust of a cohesionless material against a rough wall (backfills cohesion was neglected)
backfill pressure is inclined at an angle equal to the slope for the top soil, b =12

5
The coefficient of active earth pressure for the backfill (PA1, PA4 in Figure 2) is calculated
as [e.g., Equation 11.10 in Kramer (1996)]:

cos2 ( b )
K Ab 2
sin( b b ) sin( b ) (1)
cos cos( b ) 1
2

cos( b ) cos( )
where:
b = 28
= 5 (inclination of wall from the vertical axis)
= i = 12 (assumed slope of soil on top of wall)

Note on assumption. Lateral earth thrusts PA1 and PA4 were assumed to be inclined at an
angle i (equal to the assumed slope for the embankment) from the normal to the back of
the wall, due to the presence of the embankment on top of the wall (Bowles, 1996, p.
599; Elias & Christopher, 1997). This assumption corresponds to a more conservative
analysis, since it results in a larger horizontal coefficient of lateral earth thrust acting on
the wall (compared to the usual assumption that the lateral earth pressure is inclined at
the angle of friction between the soil and the wall).
2) Calculation of siltstone (s) earth pressures

dimana:
b = 28
= 5 (kemiringan dinding dari sumbu vertikal)
= i = 12 (diasumsikan kemiringan tanah di atas dinding)

Catatan pada asumsi. tanah lateral menyodorkan PA1 dan PA4 diasumsikan cenderung
pada i sudut (sama dengan kemiringan diasumsikan untuk tanggul) dari normal ke
belakang dinding, karena kehadiran tanggul di atas dinding (Bowles, . 1996, p 599;
Elias & Christopher, 1997). Asumsi ini sesuai dengan analisis yang lebih konservatif,
karena itu menghasilkan koefisien horisontal yang lebih besar dari tanah lateral dorong
yang bekerja pada dinding (dibandingkan dengan asumsi biasa bahwa tekanan tanah
lateral cenderung pada sudut gesekan antara tanah dan dinding) .
2) Perhitungan batulanau (s) tekanan tanah

Summary of assumptions
coefficient of active earth pressure calculated according to Rankines theory
siltstone was treated as an equivalent frictional material with a friction angle of seq=40
(considering the Mohr circles for the siltstone and for this cohesionless equivalent
material, both materials exhibit the same shearing resistance for the stress level at the
wall base)
the embankment on top of the wall and the inclination of the wall towards the vertical
axis do not affect the lateral earth thrusts from the siltstone

6
 siltstone pressure is inclined at an angle s = 2seq/3 [a common estimate, see Bowles
(1996), p. 599, Example 11-1], despite smooth-wall assumption of Rankines theory

The coefficient of active earth pressure for the siltstone (P A2, PA3 in Figure 2) was
calculated as:

KAs=tan2(45-seq/2) (2)

Ringkasan asumsi
koefisien tekanan tanah aktif dihitung menurut teori Rankine ini
batulanau diperlakukan sebagai bahan gesekan setara dengan sudut gesekan seq = 40
(mengingat lingkaran Mohr untuk batulanau dan untuk ini kohesi bahan setara, kedua
bahan pameran tahanan geser yang sama untuk tingkat stres di dasar dinding)
tanggul di atas dinding dan kemiringan dinding terhadap sumbu vertikal tidak
mempengaruhi menyodorkan tanah lateral dari batulanau yang
Tekanan batulanau cenderung pada sudut s = 2seq / 3 [perkiraan umum, lihat Bowles
(1996), p. 599, Contoh 11-1], meskipun asumsi halus-dinding teori Rankine ini

Koefisien tekanan aktif bumi untuk batulanau yang (pa2, PA3 pada Gambar 2) dihitung
sebagai:

3) Calculations of forces acting on the wall

Summary of assumptions
The influence of the traffic load q was only considered through its corresponding thrust
(PA4), but neglected in the calculations of the forces that act perpendicular (and parallel)
to the wall base. This is a conservative approach recommended for live loads by Mitchell
and Villet (1987).
The passive earth pressure at the toe (see Figure 1) and the increased shear strength of
the sliding gabions (relatively to the shear strength of the sliding soil) were ignored.

Therefore, the lateral earth thrusts acting on the MSE wall are (results are presented in the
directions perpendicular and parallel to the base of the wall):

PA1 = KAb b (H1+H2)2 (backfill soil, PA1par = 167 kN/m, PA1per = 36 kN/m)
PA2 = KAs [b (H1+H2)] xH3 (siltstone, PA2par = 190 kN/m, PA2per = 96 kN/m)
PA3 = KAs s H32 (siltstone, PA3par = 114 kN/m, PA3per = 58 kN/m)
PA4 = KAb q (H1+H2)] (traffic load, PA4par = 48 kN/m, PA4per = 10 kN/m)

3) Perhitungan gaya yang bekerja pada dinding

Ringkasan asumsi
Pengaruh beban lalu lintas q hanya dianggap melalui dorong yang sesuai (PA4), tetapi
diabaikan dalam perhitungan kekuatan yang bertindak tegak lurus (dan sejajar) ke dasar

7
dinding. Ini adalah pendekatan konservatif dianjurkan untuk beban hidup oleh Mitchell
dan Villet (1987).
Tekanan tanah pasif di jari kaki (lihat Gambar 1) dan kekuatan geser meningkat dari
gabions geser (relatif terhadap kekuatan geser tanah geser) diabaikan.

Oleh karena itu, menyodorkan tanah lateral yang bekerja pada dinding MSE adalah (hasil
disajikan dalam arah tegak lurus dan sejajar dengan dasar dinding):

Seismic case

The active earth pressures for seismic stability were calculated with the Mononobe-
Okabe method, which considers additional pseudostatic horizontal and vertical forces,
with magnitudes related to the mass of the failing soil and pseudostatic accelerations
h=khg and v=kvg, thus introducing an additional angle in Coulombs equation:

= tan-1[kh/(1-kv)] (3)

[e.g., Equation 11.16 in Kramer (1996)]. The maximum seismic acceleration is expressed
as =kg. According to the Greek Seismic Code, for the Metsovo area, k = 0.16. The code
further specifies a coefficient qw=1.5 for a flexible structure such as a reinforced soil wall.
With this information, the coefficients of the Mononobe-Okabe method are as follows:
kh=k/qw =0.107 and kv= 0.3k =0.048.

kasus seismik

Tekanan bumi aktif untuk stabilitas seismik yang dihitung dengan metode Mononobe-
Okabe, yang menganggap gaya horisontal dan vertikal pseudostatik tambahan, dengan
besaran yang terkait dengan massa tanah dan pseudostatik percepatan gagal h = khg dan
v = KVG, sehingga memperkenalkan tambahan sudut dalam persamaan Coulomb:

= tan-1 [kh / (1-kv)] (3)

[Misalnya, Persamaan 11.16 di Kramer (1996)]. Percepatan gempa maksimum

dinyatakan sebagai = kg. Menurut Kode Seismic Yunani, untuk daerah Metsovo, k =
0,16. kode lanjut menetapkan qw koefisien = 1,5 untuk struktur yang fleksibel seperti
dinding tanah diperkuat. Dengan informasi ini, koefisien dari metode Mononobe-Okabe
adalah sebagai berikut: kh = k / qw = 0,107 dan kv = 0.3k = 0,048.

1) Coefficient of seismic earth pressure for backfill (b) (4)

cos 2 ( b )
K Ab 2
sin( b b ) sin( b )
cos cos cos( b ) 1
2

cos( b ) cos( )

8
2) Coefficient of seismic earth pressure for siltstone (s)

cos2 ( s )
K As 2
(5)
sin( s ) sin( s )
cos2 1
cos( )

where:
s = seq= 40
s = 2seq/3= 26.7 (soil to wall friction angle)

As in the static case, for siltstone it is assumed that = = 0. Introducing further

conservatism, it was also assumed that s = 0.

3) Calculation of forces

According to the Greek Seismic Code (EAK), in case of an earthquake the weight of the
wall is analyzed in a horizontal and a vertical component:
Menurut Kode Seismic Yunani (Eak), dalam kasus gempa bumi berat dinding dianalisis
dalam horizontal dan komponen vertikal:

W1H = W1kh = 166 kN/m

W1v = W1 (1-kv) = 1485 kN/m
W2H = W2kh = 21 kN/m
W2v = W2 (1-kv) = 190 kN/m
The seismic lateral earth thrusts acting on the MSE wall are:
PAE1 = KAEb b (H1+H2)2 (1-kv) PAE1par = 212 kN/m, PAE1per = 45 kN/m
PAE2 = KAEs [b (H1+H2)] H3 (1-kv) PAE2par = 229 kN/m, PAE2per = 115 kN/m
2
PAE3 = KAEs s H3 (1-kv) PAE3par = 138 kN/m, PAE3per = 69 kN/m
PAE4 = KAEb q (H1+H2)] (1-kv) (q = 10kPa for earthquake)
PAE4par = 30 kN/m, PAE4per = 6
kN/m
External stability
As mentioned, analyses were carried out for the cross section where the height of the
MSE Wall is the maximum (12.0m). The solid body considered, consisting of the wall
facing and the reinforced mass, is shown on Figure 2. It is a rectangle with dimensions
6.5m by 12m, tilted inwards at an angle of 5. Whereas final reinforcement lengths vary
along the height of the wall, wall width was assumed equal to a representative length of B
= Lo = 6.5 m.

9
Seperti disebutkan, analisis dilakukan untuk penampang di mana ketinggian MSE
Dinding adalah maksimum (12.0m). Tubuh padat dianggap, yang terdiri dari dinding
yang menghadap dan massa diperkuat, ditunjukkan pada Gambar 2. Ini adalah persegi
panjang dengan dimensi 6,5 juta oleh 12m, miring ke dalam pada sudut 5. Sedangkan
panjang penguatan akhir bervariasi sepanjang ketinggian dinding, lebar dinding
diasumsikan sama dengan panjang perwakilan dari B = Lo = 6,5 m.

Sliding
Static case

The calculated factor of safety for sliding along the wall base is

PR c B N tan sl
FSsl b 1. 5 (6)
PD Fsl
where the symbols in the above equation are as listed below:

PR: forces resisting sliding along the wall base

PD: forces driving sliding along the wall base
cb: cohesion of the backfill material
B: width of wall = 6.50m
N: the sum of the forces acting perpendicular to the wall base
sl: angle of friction along the wall base, assumed to be equal to 2b /3*
Fsl: the parallel-to-the-base component of the thrust on the back of the wall (PA1, PA2,
PA3, PA4) minus the same component of the wall weight (W1, W2).
di mana simbol-simbol dalam persamaan di atas adalah sebagai tercantum di bawah ini:

PR: Pasukan menolak meluncur sepanjang dasar dinding

PD: kekuatan pendorong meluncur sepanjang dasar dinding
cb: kohesi bahan pengurukan
B: lebar dinding = 6.50m
N: jumlah dari gaya yang bekerja tegak lurus ke dasar dinding
sl: sudut gesekan sepanjang dasar dinding, diasumsikan sama dengan 2b / 3 *
FSL: komponen paralel-to-the-dasar dorong di belakang dinding (PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4)
dikurangi komponen yang sama dari berat dinding (W1, W2).
*
Note on assumption

Das (1998) recommends a value equal to 2b/3, Koerner (1998) mentions that sl will be
smaller than b and considers it a given in a solved example, whereas Mitchell & Villet
(1987) recommend the lower friction angle of the two sliding surfaces.

Das (1998) menganjurkan nilai sama dengan 2b / 3, Koerner (1998) menyebutkan

bahwa sl akan lebih kecil dari b dan menganggap itu diberikan dalam contoh
dipecahkan, sedangkan Mitchell & Villet (1987) merekomendasikan sudut gesekan lebih
rendah dari dua permukaan geser.

10
 c b B [ W1 cos 5 o W2 cos 5 o (PA1 PA 4 ) sin b (PA 2 PA 3 ) sin s ] tan sl
F.S.sl
(PA1 PA 4 ) cos b (PA 2 PA 3 ) cos s ( W1 sin 5 o W2 sin 5 o )

F.S.sl = 1.89>1.50

Seismic case

c b B [( W1V W2 v ) cos 5o ( W1H W2 H ) cos 5o (PAE1 PAE 4 ) sin b ( PAE 2 PAE 3 ) sin s ] tan sl
F.S.EQ sl
( PAE1 PAE 4 ) cos b (PAE 2 PAE 3 ) cos s ( W1V W2 V ) sin 5o
F.S.EQsl = 1.05>1.00
Overturning
M resisting
F.S.overturning (7)
M overturning

Mresisting: sum of moments at the toe of the wall that contribute to its stability (from the
weight of the wall, the soil on the top of the wall and the vertical component of the active
earth pressure at the back of the wall)

Moverturning: sum of moments at the toe of the wall that tend to cause overturning (from the
horizontal component of the active earth pressure)

Mresisting: sum momen di ujung dinding yang berkontribusi terhadap stabilitas

(dari berat dinding, tanah di bagian atas dinding dan komponen vertikal dari
tekanan tanah aktif di belakang dinding)

Moverturning: sum momen di ujung dinding yang cenderung menyebabkan

menjungkirbalikkan (dari komponen horisontal dari tekanan tanah aktif)
Static case

H2 H3 B
M resisting [(PA1 PA 4 ) sin b (PA 2 PA 3 ) sin s ] B W1 sin 5 o W1 cos 5 o
2 2
W2 sin 5o (H 2 H 3 y) W2 cos 5o x

H1 H 2 H H H H2
M overturning PA1 cos b (H 3 ) PA 2 cos s 3 PA 3 cos s 3 PA 4 cos bs (H 3 1 )
3 2 3 2

where x: the horizontal distance of W2 from the toe of the wall

y: the vertical distance of W2 from the crest of the wall

F.S.over = 2.73>2.00

Seismic case

11
 H2 H3
M EQ resisting [(PAE1 PAE 4 ) sin b (PAE 2 PAE3 ) sin s ] B W1V sin 5 o
2

B
( W1H sin 5 o W1V cos 5 o ) W2 V sin 5 o (H 2 H 3 y) ( W2 V cos 5 o W2 H sin 5 o ) x
2

H1 H 2 H H H H2
M EQ over PAE1 cos b ( H 3 ) PAE 2 cos s 3 PAE 3 cos s 3 PAE 4 cos bs ( H 3 1 )
3 2 3 2
H2 H3
W1H cos 5 o W2 H cos 5 o ( H 2 H 3 y)
2

F.S.EQover = 1.73>1.50

Bearing capacity

The bearing capacity of rock was calculated from the Buisman-Terzaghi equation:

qult c N c Cc 1 D N q 0.5 B 2 N C (8)

Nc, Nq, N: bearing capacity factors (as a function of friction angle, )

Cc, C: shape factors
1, 2: unit weight of soil above and below foundation level
B: width of foundation (=length of reinforcement = 6.50m)
The 2nd term of the equation was ignored since D=0 (foundation depth).

The eccentricity of the foundation was calculated as follows:

B M resisting M overturning
e (9)
2 N

N: vertical force at the base of the wall

Mresisting, Moverturning are the same with the check against overturning (paragraph ii).

The vertical stress at the base (assuming a Meyerhof distribution) is:

N 6e
For e < B/6, v 1 (10)
B B

N
For e B/6, v (11)
B 2e

The factor of safety for bearing capacity is:

12
 qult
F .S .B.C . (12)
v

Static case

N ( PA1 PA 4 ) sin b ( PA 2 PA 3 ) sin s ( W1 W2 ) cos 5 o

F.S.B.C. = 3.40>2.00
Seismic case

N ( PA1 PA 4 ) sin b ( PA 2 PA 3 ) sin s ( W1V W2 V ) cos 5 o ( W1H W2 H ) sin 5 o

F.S.EQB.C. = 2.66>1.50
Overall stability

Overall stability was determined using rotational analyses using Bishops slope stability
analysis method. The calculations were done using the Slide v.5.0 computer software
from Rocscience, Toronto.

The MSE wall was considered as a rigid body with a width equal to the length of the
reinforcements. Failure surfaces were considered for outside the wall and also for inside
the wall, since there were changes in geogrids inside the wall.

It should be mentioned that for conservatism, the tensional strength of the geogrids was
considered as 50 kN/m (for the first five rows) and 130 kN/m for the rest (it is noted that
internal stability analyses indicated a maximum required strength of 113.3 kN/m, while
the final product chosen for the entire wall has a tensile strength of 150 kN/m).

secara keseluruhan stabilitas

Secara keseluruhan stabilitas ditentukan dengan menggunakan analisis rotasi

menggunakan metode analisis stabilitas lereng Bishop. Perhitungan dilakukan dengan
menggunakan "Slide v.5.0" perangkat lunak komputer dari Rocscience, Toronto.

MSE dinding dianggap sebagai benda tegar dengan lebar sama dengan panjang dari bala
bantuan. permukaan kegagalan yang dipertimbangkan untuk luar dinding dan juga untuk
di dalam dinding, karena ada perubahan geogrid dalam dinding.

Perlu disebutkan bahwa untuk konservatisme, kekuatan tensional dari geogrid dianggap
sebagai 50 kN / m (untuk lima baris pertama) dan 130 kN / m untuk sisanya (itu mencatat
bahwa stabilitas internal yang analisis menunjukkan maksimum kekuatan yang
diperlukan dari 113,3 kN / m, sedangkan produk akhir yang dipilih untuk seluruh dinding
memiliki kekuatan tarik 150 kN / m).

13
Summary of analyses for external stability

Table 4. Factors of safety, FS, from the calculations for external stability.

Static FS Seismic FS
Needed Actual Needed Actual
Sliding 1.5 1.89 1 1.05
Over- 2 2.73 1.5 1.73
turning
Bearing 3 5.29 2 2.66
capacity
Overall 3.51a 2.91a
1.4 1
stability* 1.41b 1.28b
* a
for surface failure beneath the toe wall
b
crossing the reinforcements

Internal stability
Tension analysis

The tensional strength of the reinforcement (expressed in kN/m) should be greater than
the tensional force per meter (FH) applied to it, which is calculated as follows:

Kekuatan tarik tulangan (dinyatakan dalam kN / m) harus lebih besar dari kekuatan
tensional per meter (FH) diterapkan untuk itu, yang dihitung sebagai berikut:

FH h S v / Rc (13)

where the symbols in Eq. 13 are as listed below:

h: horizontal stress at the reinforcement level
Sv: vertical spacing of reinforcements

14
 Rc: horizontal coverage ratio of reinforcements (equal to 1 for continuous placement of
the geogrid).

Static Case

The horizontal stress at the reinforcement level is calculated in reference to the vertical
stress v as:

h K A v , K A tan 2 (45 b / 2) , (14)

where KA is the active earth pressure coefficient. Note that Equation 14 is a simplified
version of the active coefficient of earth pressures, which assumes (i) no wall friction, (ii)
= 0 and (iii) < 10 (see Elias & Christopher, 1997, p. 115-116). [Note that if > 10, a
simplified form of the Coulomb equation is used (equation 38, p. 116 in Elias &
Christopher, 1997)].

di mana KA adalah koefisien tekanan tanah aktif. Perhatikan bahwa Persamaan 14 adalah
versi sederhana dari koefisien aktif tekanan tanah, yang mengasumsikan (i) tidak ada
gesekan dinding, (ii) = 0 dan (iii) <10 (lihat Elias & Christopher, 1997, hal. 115
-116). [Catatan bahwa jika > 10, bentuk sederhana dari persamaan Coulomb
digunakan (persamaan 38, 116 di Elias & Christopher, 1997 p.)].

The vertical stress is in turn calculated in reference to the sketch shown on Figure 3
(backfill).

reinforcement

h
b-5o

Figure 3. Forces acting on reinforced soil element next to backfill.

The forces acting on the reinforcement are:

PA1 = KAb b z22
PA4 = KAb q z2 (traffic load)
W1 = bLo( z2-H1)
W2 = same as in the external stability analysis, since it is constant for each level

where 0< z2 H1+H2 (for the backfill).

15
Note on assumption
It is worth noting that according to calculations in textbooks (e.g., Koerner, 1998) the
vertical stress at the reinforcement is simply: v = z+q. For the more conservative
approach followed herein, which takes into account that the vertical stress is greater than
the overburden pressure due to the eccentricity introduced by the lateral earth pressures
(Mitchell and Villet, 1987), v at each reinforcement level is calculated as:

Catatan pada asumsi

Perlu dicatat bahwa menurut perhitungan di buku teks (misalnya, Koerner, 1998) stres
vertikal di tulangan hanya: v = z + q. Untuk pendekatan yang lebih konservatif diikuti
di sini, yang memperhitungkan bahwa stres vertikal lebih besar dari tekanan overburden
karena eksentrisitas diperkenalkan oleh tekanan tanah lateral (Mitchell dan Villet, 1987),
v pada setiap tingkat penguatan dihitung sebagai:

v N R ( Lo 2e) (15)

where the symbols in Eq. 15 are as listed below:

NR: vertical force acting on the reinforcement (this is the sum of the vertical
components of forces shown on Figure 3)
Lo: length of reinforcement (= 6.5 m)
e: eccentricity, for e= Mv/NR, and Mv = moments over the vertical axis of symmetry of
the reinforcement.

di mana simbol-simbol dalam Pers. 15 adalah sebagai tercantum di bawah ini:

NR: gaya vertikal yang bekerja pada penguatan (ini adalah jumlah dari komponen
vertikal pasukan ditampilkan pada Gambar 3)
Lo: panjang penguatan (= 6,5 m)
e: eksentrisitas, untuk e = Mv / NR, dan Mv = momen atas sumbu vertikal simetri
penguat.

A similar analysis was performed for siltstone, for reinforcement levels below level z 3,
where H1+H2< z3 H1+H2+H3 and the forces acting on each reinforcement were (see
Figure 4):
A similar analysis was performed for siltstone, for reinforcement levels below level z 3,
where H1+H2< z3 H1+H2+H3 and the forces acting on each reinforcement were (see
Figure 4):

16
 s-5o

Figure 4. Forces acting on reinforced soil element next to siltstone.

PA2 = KAs [b (H1+H2)] z3

PA3 = KAs s (z3/2)2
W1 = bLo( z3+H2)
W2 = same as in the external stability analysis, since it is constant for each level

Seismic Case

The horizontal stress at the reinforcement level is calculated in reference to the vertical
stress v as:

h = v (16)

where KA is the dynamic active earth pressure coefficient from the Mononobe Okabe
Method. The vertical stress is in turn calculated in reference to the sketch shown on
Figure 5
.
mana KA adalah dinamis aktif koefisien tekanan tanah dari Mononobe - Cara Okabe.
Stres vertikal pada gilirannya dihitung mengacu pada sketsa yang ditunjukkan pada
Gambar 5.

17
 b-5o

Figure 5. Forces acting on reinforced soil element next to backfill (seismic case).

The seismic lateral earth thrusts acting on each reinforcement level are:
PAE1 = KAEb b z22 (1-kv) (backfill)
PAE2 = KAEs [b (H1+H2)] z3 (1-kv) (siltstone)
PAE3 = KAEs s z32 (1-kv) (siltstone)
PAE4 = KAEb q z2 (1-kv) (traffic load)

The weight of the wall is analyzed in a horizontal and a vertical component, similar to the
external stability analysis:
W1H = W1kh
W1v = W1 (1-kv)
W2H = W2kh
W2v = W2 (1-kv)

The vertical stress v at each reinforcement level is calculated using Eq. (15).

18
Pullout analysis

The minimum length of the reinforcement should be [Koerner, 1998, equation (3.4) and
example (3.10]:

FS P .O . h S v
Le (17)
2 Ci Z p tan b Rc

FSP.O. = 1.5 (factor of safety against pullout)

Ci = dimensionless interaction coefficient between reinforcement and soil (assumed to be
equal to 0.8)
b = friction angle of backfill
Rc = coverage ratio (=1)
Zp = overburden pressure = bZp
Le = length of embedment in the resisting zone

Note that in pullout analysis, the friction of the soil between the reinforcements is used in
order to calculate the length of the reinforcements. The soil between the reinforcements is
the same material with the backfill material, therefore we use b in equation (17).

The total length of each reinforcement required for internal stability is:

Ltot = Le + La (18)

where the length inside the active zone L a = H tan(45o b/2), H is the distance between
the base of the wall and the level of the reinforcement in question.

Static case

h is calculated from v as in tensional analysis for Lo = 6.5m.

Seismic case

h is calculated from v as in tensional analysis. In addition, the friction resistance is

multiplied in the seismic case by 0.8 (Elias & Christopher, 1997).

FSP.O. = 1,5 (faktor keamanan terhadap penarikan)

Ci = berdimensi koefisien interaksi antara tulangan dan tanah (diasumsikan sama dengan
0,8)
b = sudut geser dari pengurukan
Rc = coverage ratio (= 1)
Zp = overburden pressure = bZp
Le = panjang embedment di zona menolak

19
Perhatikan bahwa dalam analisis penarikan, gesekan dari tanah antara bala bantuan
digunakan untuk menghitung panjang bala bantuan. Tanah antara bala bantuan adalah
bahan yang sama dengan bahan urug, oleh karena itu kita gunakan b dalam persamaan
(17).

Total panjang masing-masing tulangan yang dibutuhkan untuk stabilitas internal:

LTOT = Le + La (18)

dimana panjang dalam zona aktif La = H tan (45o - b / 2), H adalah jarak antara pangkal
dinding dan tingkat penguatan yang bersangkutan.

kasus statis

h dihitung dari v seperti dalam analisis tensional untuk Lo = 6,5 juta.

Internal stability calculations and results

The calculations for internal stability were performed in an Excel spreadsheet because
they must be repeated for every reinforcement depth and until a suitable spacing Sv is
determined. The calculations for tensile failure under static conditions indicated that
reinforcement was necessary below an elevation of 6.5m from the top of the wall; above
that elevation the tensional strength of the wire mesh was adequate (see 5_Construction-
design considerations). The calculations for seismic stability in addition indicated the
need to place reinforcement every 0.5m below the elevation of 8.5m from the top of the
wall (for a total of six rows). The maximum tensile force was calculated at the elevation
of 8.5m from the top of the wall and was equal to 113.3kN/m. This requirement is met
with ParaGrid 150/15, which has a longitudinal tensile strength of 150kN/m.

Table 5 summarizes the results of the analyses for internal stability for the seismic case.
According to the results shown on this table, ParaGrid 100/15 would be adequate for
the reinforcements at 7.5, 10.5, 11 and 11.5m and ParaGrid 80/15 for the remaining
elevations, even without taking into account the contribution of the wire mesh. As a
result, the average factor of safety against tensile failure for the entire wall is above 1.5.
For ease of construction, the same reinforcement product was placed in all elevations.
The results of pullout analysis indicated that reinforcements were also needed close to the
top of wall (although not required from a tensional strength perspective).

Perhitungan untuk stabilitas internal yang dilakukan dalam sebuah spreadsheet Excel
karena mereka harus diulang untuk setiap kedalaman penguatan dan sampai jarak yang

20
cocok Sv ditentukan. Perhitungan untuk kegagalan tarik dalam kondisi statis
menunjukkan penguatan yang dibutuhkan di bawah ketinggian 6,5 juta dari atas dinding;
atas bahwa elevasi kekuatan tensional dari wire mesh memadai (lihat pertimbangan
5_Construction-desain). Perhitungan untuk stabilitas seismik selain menunjukkan
kebutuhan untuk menempatkan penguatan setiap 0.5m bawah ketinggian 8.5m dari atas
dinding (untuk total enam baris). Gaya tarik maksimum dihitung pada ketinggian 8.5m
dari atas dinding dan sama dengan 113.3kN / m. persyaratan ini dipenuhi dengan
ParaGrid 150/15, yang memiliki kekuatan tarik longitudinal 150kn / m.

Tabel 5 merangkum hasil analisis untuk stabilitas internal untuk kasus seismik. Menurut
hasil ditampilkan pada tabel ini, ParaGrid 100/15 akan cukup untuk bala bantuan 7,5,
10,5, 11 dan 11,5 juta dan ParaGrid 80/15 untuk ketinggian yang tersisa, bahkan tanpa
memperhitungkan kontribusi dari kawat jala. Akibatnya, faktor rata-rata keselamatan
terhadap kegagalan tarik untuk seluruh dinding di atas 1,5. Untuk kemudahan konstruksi,
produk penguatan yang sama ditempatkan di semua ketinggian. Hasil analisis
menunjukkan bahwa penarikan bala bantuan juga dibutuhkan dekat dengan puncak
dinding (meskipun tidak diperlukan dari perspektif kekuatan tensional).

Table 5. Summary of calculation results for internal stability (seismic case).

Reinforcement Total length Tensional
level from of reinforcement, strength
top of wall Ltot* required**
(m) (m) (kN/m)
0.5 8.5 16.3
1.5 8.5 22.6
2.5 8.5 28.5
3.5 8.5 37.5
4.5 8.5 47.5
5.5 6.5 64.1
6.5 6.5 78.4
7.5 6.5 94.7
8.5 6.5 113.3
9.0 6.5 61.9
9.5 5.0 67.5
10.0 5.0 73.6
10.5 5.0 80.4
11.0 5.0 87.8
11.5 5.0 96.0
*
From pullout analysis
**
From tension analysis, for Lo = 6.5m

References
Bowles, J.E. 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill.

21
Das, M.D. 1998. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 4 th Edition, PWS Publishing
Company.
Elias, V. & Christopher, B.R. 1997. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced
Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration Project No. 82. Publication No. FHWA-SA-96-071.
Koerner, R.M. 1998. Designing with Geosynthetics, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall.
Kramer, S.L. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall.
Mitchell, J. & Villet, W. 1987. Reinforcement of Earth Slopes and Embankments,
NCHRP Rep. No. 290, Transportation Research Board.

22