Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~- V
" r-. _ . .J..
[I' ,-. . . ~\
[:: ·,-·,WORKS
1[1 .·.·····.111 CDP 702/0
• • _. _" __ 0" _____ _
. Feb 1990
~•.
Tl, ~Gl::1\7tU
2 1 FEB 1997
.-tOLME~ -':ONSULrtNG
GROuP liMITED
CHRISTCHURCH
RETAINING WALL
_/
DESIGN-NOTES
,.
i
I: .........
_ - - ---- . -
-.
II
1,
(
]1
Works and Development Services Corporation (NZ) Ltd
.J.
I i
i' )
\ t
I
... j j
1'[
r';
r" ~'
r'
r~
r~
I~'
J'.
f'
f'
[I
['
i."
1(
r::
[
J-:
I:'
!\
1:
I
j
[ ,
I:
[:
I: RETAINING WALL
[
DESIGN NOTES
I:
L-
I,
[ :
[
[ :
FOR WORKS INTERNAL USE ONLY
I:
!
I
I This document and its contents is the property of
Works and Development Services Corporation (NZ) Ltd.
Any unauthorised employment or reproduction, in full or part is forbidden
!
© Works and Development Services Corporation (NZ) Ltd, 1990
[~
I Prepared by ;
Consultancy Services - Civil Engineering
CDP 702/D
Works and Development Services Corporation (NZ) Ltd Feb 1990
I WelliIlgton, New Zealand
I
\1
[-;
r
f~
L
[-
r-
[:
t:
l
L
l~ I
I:
[,
I.
I.
L
l_.
[-
t !
1
i '
I .'
J
PREFACE
['
The aim of these notes on Retaining Wall design is to provide the
designers within WORKS, guidance on design methods, bringing together the
commonly used charts. The revisions in this edition generally incorporate
up to date design methods, and include major revisions to the section on
Earthquake Earth Pressures and Design. A brief new section on the design
of sheet retaining structures is also included.
The section on Earthquake Earth Pressures was prepared by Dr John Wood of
Phillips and Wood Limited, Lower Hutt and has been incorporated into this
document.
This revised document was prepared by the Special Project Office of Works
Consu ltaney Servi ces, We 11 i ngton, with useful comments from other
divisions of Works Consultancy Services and the Geotechnical Control
Office in Hong Kong.
[
['
Special Projects Office
January 1990
[-~
[~
I Ii
\'
I
,~
l~
"[-~'
r'
l'
[ ,
[~
I,
I~
I:
l :'
l.
l
l.
I
I
)' I ! I
I
I: 1
r-: CONTENTS
[~ Page
CONTENTS 1
[:
LIST OF FIGURES 5
[ ,
LIST OF TABLES 9
[-~
SYMBOLS 10
L SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope 15
[ 1.2 Definitions and Symbols 15
1.3 Design Principles 15
1 1.3.1 Free Standing Retaining Walls
1.3.2 Other Retaining Structures
Load Cases
[: 1.4
1.4.1 Basic Loadings
16
1.4.2 Other Considerations
1:
SECTION 2 - SOIL PROPERTIES
[ 2.1 Genera 1 18
2.2 Selection and Use of Backfill 18
2.3 Dens ity 19
[ 2.4 Effective Stress and Pore Pressures 19
2.5 Shearing Strength 21
2.6 Base Friction 23
2.7 Wall Friction
I: 2.8
2.9
Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson1s Ratio
Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
24
26
28
2.10 Swelling and Softening of Clays 29
[ 2.11 Permeability 30
2.12 Liquefaction 30
[ ~
\'
2 ,-
Page I-~
r: Page
l
l
I'
4
I
Page [1
r~
8.3 Stem Design 76
8.3.1 Stem Loading
8.3.2 Lower Section of Counterfort Wall Stem l"
8.3.3 Horizontal Moments in Counterfprt Wall Stem
8.4 Heel Slab Design 77
8.4.1 Loading l- :
--8.4.2 Heel Slabs for Counterfort Walls-
8.5
8.6
Counterfort Design
Key Design
78
78
l:
8.7 Control of Cracking 79
r='
SECTION 9 - SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CRIB WALLS
9.1
9.2
General
Design Loading
80
80
l:
9.3 . Foundation Depth 80
9.4
9.5
9.6
Drainage
Multiple Depth Walls
Walls Curved in Plan
80
81 ·r:
81
10.4
10.3.3 Effects of Anchor Inclination
Cantilevered Walls 85
L
References 86
l
Figures ,l
,[,
l_~
l
l_
i l
5
LIST OF FIGURES
I
6
(D) $ = 35 °
38 Mononobe - Okabe active earthquake earth pressure increments for
non-vertical walls; Wall Slope = -14°; Sloping Backfill; & = 2$/3
62
Cut-off positions of main tensile steel in counterfort
Crib wall design curves, normal loading, ~ = 30°, 40°
L
63 Crib wall design curves, earthquake loading, ~ = 30°, 40° r:
64 Pressures on typical crib wall
65 Braced Excavation Pressure Distributions 1:
1_ ,
1:
J'
J:
J,
-1.
J
'T
J'
if
9
\
,.~ ....
LIST OF TABLES
3. Typical Friction Angles and Adhesion Values for Bases Without Keys
[;
7. Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction (Vertical)
l. 8. Permeabilities of Soils
['
9. Movement of Wall Necessary to Produce Active Pressures
[.
L
L
L:
[
!'
r-, :
\
, "
-, ",
,~
, 1:',:::
t' "
r,',
r ~
~.':
f ,"
r:
L
t'
t,
L '
l,';
L'
[I
I
[' 10
\
t- SYMBOLS
1-'
AI effective area of base
l~ 8 base width
81 effective base width
1-' Co seismic response function (for a 150 year return period)
C(T) horizontal earthquake coefficient (period T)
L C(O) horizontal earthquake coefficient (period T = 0)
hw piezometric head
I. hydraulic gradient
i c , i q , iy foundation load inclination factors
l~
.'.\. '.
.
11
\
, .,.
toefficient of earth pressure at rest
coefficient of active earth pressure
r
. r-· .
.°
coefficient of active earthquake earth pressure (KA+llKAE) 1
Pw water pressure
[' _.
p(z) earth pressure at depth z below ground surface
I: IIp(z)
Q
earthquake pressure increment at depth z below surface
total load I.:
[~ . QL line load
Qp point load
[-~
q pressure on base or surcharge load intensity
qa allowable soil bearing pressure
[:
qd flow rate through drain
[' qult ultimate soil bearing pressure
qu unconfined compressive strength
[: R risk factor (seismic design)
r: R,RA,Rp,Rw,etc
RQD
resultant forces
rock quality designation
Sc,Sq,sY,
scL, scB, SqL,
foundation shape correction factors
r,"
SqB, sYL, SyB foundation shape correction factors for inclined loading
f '
T tangential force along a failure surface
U resultant force due to pore water pressures
u pore water pressure
V vertical component of resultant of loading on the base ~[','
Va peak ground velocity (seismic)
W weight of soil wedge used in calculation of earth r',
pressures
Wb weight of backfill over heel of wall (' ",
Ww weight of wall
r'l '
Wt total weight of wall, soil above toe and soil above heel " "
I f1 increment
r' &
&b
angle of wall friction (anti-clockwise positive)
angle of base friction
l~ 8 angle = tan~l C(O)
L L shear stress
angle of shearing resistance in terms of total stress
~
I>
I'
I:
L
[-
l_
1
\
I'
.. '
1::'"
1
~:
[':
1::
r::'
[',
I"
I'· ';:
I,
L
l'
I ".
l',
I. . .
i' \
Section 1
f' '",'
!-'
[;
[ INTRODUCTION
r' .
['
[-'
, .
l~
: .
[
[
r-: .
l:
L
L
l
l~
l~
l'
I ..
"
\ r·: .
'':,.": -
I""
[' '
!~'.
t'"
[-':
."'
[.<
... .
r[.. pi;·
.'. ",
['
[L ':".~,
:;~:~~'J
IJ~.:
l t •• ,.
--j'
I: :
I':
I
L .. '
L'
L.~
L;
L:·.
~ '.
1 "
15
\
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
[' Engi neeri ng judgement must always be used when applyi ng the
theories and.methods given in these notes and strict notice must
be taken of the limitations of the various assumptions.
Special retaining systems such as reinforced earth and soil
na i 1i ng are beyond the scope of these notes, and reference
should be made to specialist literature.
1.2 DEFINITIONS AND SYMBOLS
Throughout these notes, static earth pressure means the pressure
exerted by the earth due to gravity forces. Earthquake earth
pressure means the combined static and dynamic earth pressure
which acts during or because of an earthquake.
A list of symbols used, with their meanings, is included in the
front of these notes.
1.3 DESIGN PRINCIPLES
1.3.1 Free Standing Retaining Walls
In the design of free standing retaining walls, the following
aspects need to be investigated:
(a) the stability of the soil around the wall;
(b) the stability of the retaining wall itself; and
(c) the structural strength of the wall.
For these walls it is usual to assume that some outward movement
of the wall takes place so that the lateral earth pressure from
1_
\
16 I"·
the retained soil is a minimum (active condition) for both
stat i c and earthquake 1oadi ngs. However, the des i gner shou1 d I. . ~
check that the required movement can take place and that it does
not' affect the serviceability or appearance of the wall or cause
damage to nearby structures or services. If the deformation
that is required to reduce the earth pressure to the active case
is not available due to the rigid nature of the structure or
foundation, either the wall must be designed to withstand a
higher pressure or some change made to the structure or
foundation. If cohesive backfill is used, the large
displacements necessary for the active condition means that the
lateral earth pressure will almost always be higher than the
active value. . -
I'.
, :,
I:
I. •·
I' \ 17
1-'
For normal loading, static earth pressure and pressure due to
surcharge should be derived in terms of effective stress unless
['
r'
--
[~
[
I:
l:
l.
[ -
I,
I._-
I.
[ :,
\
I
I:" .
. ~.
I~. '.,'
r;'~
l~ "
l: "
l
I
l.··.
l_,
I>,'-j'
L.
[,
Section 2
SOIL PROPERTIES
1.
1.
18
2.1 GENERAL
In advance of the design, tests should preferably be carried out
[' on the proposed backfill material and natural ground behind and
under an earth retaining structure. It is good practice to make
further soil tests on the material exposed after excavation.
For all walls ___ higher than 6 m, especially those with sloIJing
backfill, the soil properties of the natural ground and backfill
should be estimated from tests on samples of the materials
involved. For less important walls, an estimation of the soil
properties may be made from previous tests on similar materials.
However, a careful visual examination of the material, particu-
[ larly that at the proposed foundation level, should be made with
the help of identification tests to ensure that the assumed
material type is correct.
2.2 SELECTION AND USE OF BACKFILL
The ideal backfill is a free draining granular material of high
[: shearing strength. However, the final choice of material should
be based on the costs and ava 11 ability balanced against the
desired properties.
[ I n general the use of cohesive backfi 11 sis not recorrmended.
Clays are subject to seasonal variations, swelling (see section
2.10), and deterioration which all lead to an increase in
[-, pressure on a wall. They are difficult to consolidate and long
term settl ement probl ems are considerably greater than with
cohesionless materials. For cohesive backfills, special
[ , attention must be paid to the provision of drainage to prevent
the build-up of water pressure.
The wall deflection required to produce the active state in
cohesive materials may be up to 10 times greater than that for
cohesionless materials. This, together with the fact that the
former generally have lower values of shearing strength, means
that the amount of shearing strength mobilised for any given
wall movement is considerably lower for cohesive materials than
for cohesionless materials. The corresponding active earth
L pressure for a particular wall movement will therefore be higher
if cohesive soil is used for backfill.
L
l.
l
\ ~ 20
l. Material
Unit Weight
Dry, Yd
[~ - (kN/ml)
Clean gravel or rock -
r' loose
dense, poorly graded
dense, well graded
16 - 17
18 - 20
20 - 21
19 - 20
20 - 22
L~
l.
r
21
-
I
23
$1 $ (degrees)
Material (deg rees) (saturated)
BASE FRICTION
2.6
Typical values of friction angle (ob) and adhesion (Cb) for
L
calculating the shearing resistance between a concrete base and
the foundation material are given in Table 3. These values may r-
be used, for low walls in the absence of specific test data. If
a base key is used the failure plane will generally be through
the foundation soil and therefore the shearing resistance is
that of the soil (ob = $1 and cb = c l ). L
\<)) - 1<:
I,
L
J
L
L
t.
I
J' 24
r'
Mass concrete on the following foundation
material -
[ Clean sound rock 35
Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures,
coarse sand 29-31
[ Clean fine to medium sand, silty medium
to coarse sand, silty or clayey
gravel 24-29
Clean fine sand, silty or clayey fine
to medium sand 19-24
Fine sandy silt, non-plastic silt 17-19
Very stiff and hard residual or
preconsolidated clay 22-26
Medium stiff and stiff clay and silty
clay 17-19
L Formed concrete on the following
foundation material -
l' Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, well
graded rockfill with spalls 22-26
Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture,
l. ' single size hard rockfill
Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with
17-22
silt or clay 17
l. Fine sandy silt, non-plastic silt 14
Soft clay and clayey silt 10 to 35
l~ Stiff and hard clay and clayey silt 35 to 60
-,
\
I'
25
I:
L
26
Proportion of
Maximum Wall
Friction Developed
[ Structure Type
Loose Dense
27 I
jointed rock and results are not directly applicable to problems I~
of static load problems.
For all soils the elastic modulus increases with increasing
consolidation pressure, Pc. For loose sand, Es approximately
equals 100 Pc. A range of values for the modulus of elasticity
in compression for common selected soils is given in Table 5.
Poi sson s ratio, v, is very important in stress ori ented
I
Soil Es (MPa)
[:
Very soft clay
Soft clay
Medium clay
2
5
15
-
-
-
15
25
50
I'
Hard cl ay 50 - 100
Sandy clay 25 - 250
Si lty sand 7 - 20
Silt 2 - 20 -
Loose sand 10 - 25
Dense sand 50 - 80
Loose sand and gravel 50 - 145
Dense sand and gravel 95 - 190
Loess 15 - 60
Sandstone 6,900 - 20,600
Limestone 13,800 - 41,300
Basalt 48,200 - 89,500
,L
1
J:
1.
...
:1
J
i
f 28
Soil v
.,
r: .... " .
'Si 1t 0.3-0.35
r
"',"'"\'
" ~ Sand
-
dense 0.2-0.4
.'.' ..
loose to medium dense
(void ratio 0.4 - 0.7)
1-' coarse 0.15
fine 0.25
[ Rock 0.1-0.4
Loess 0.1 - 0.3
I'
2.9 COEFFICIENT OF SUBGRADE REACTION
L In the design of footings and wall foundations, the simpl ified
concept of subgrade reaction is often used to determine founda-
tion settlement. This concept is based on the assumption that
f, the settlement, p, of any element of a loaded area is entirely
independent of the load on the adjoining elements. It is
further assumed that the ratio
l. Ks = gp
I> between the foundation pressure q on the element and the
corresponding settlement p is a constant, Ks. The foundation
pressure, q, is called the subgrade reaction and the coefficient
l~ Ks is known as the coeffi c; ent of subg rade react ion.
Representative values of Ks for foundation design are given in
Table 7. Allowance should be made for errors in this
L approximation by applying a suitable factor of safety, see
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) •
.L,
'L'
i
L
T
['I
29 I
f--~
TABLE 7: COEFFICIENT OF SUBGRADE REACTION (VERTICAL)
Ks
I
Soil Type (kPa/rrm)
I
Dense gravel and gravelly soil s
(no clay fines) >SO
I:
Dense sand and sandy soils including -
I_
•...!
'-...:..-
-,
I
I
~
30
..
f
·~l''''·· , Soil Type Coefflcient of Permeability
k(m/s)
2.12 LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction is the process which causes saturated cohesionless
soi 1s to lose strength or sti ffness duri ng earthquake ground
L, motion. The process is associated with densification of soil
grains, with a corresponding build-up in pore water pressure and
hence a reduction in effective stress and shear strength.
Liquefaction of saturated backfill material and/or foundation
soils has been responsible for a large number of documented wall
failures (e.g. Quay wall failure in Puerto Montt during 1960
Chilean earthquake).
The 1iquefaction potential of a wall site and the backfill
material used behind the wall must be considered. In the
extreme case liquefaction may lead to an increase in lateral
soil pressures acting on the wall or a decrease in those
resisting failure.
31
I,
1
.L
L
I
L
Section 3
I
1-'
l~-:
r-
f:
~-
L
I'
1_ :
L
l- :
I
I:
L
l_
l_ .
l
l
32
[ ' (1979) or Henry (1986), for the plotting of stresses and use of
the system). With this system, the shearingsJ;rength of the
soiTat various effective normal stresses gives an envelope of
the possible combinations of shear and normal stress. When the
maximum sheari ng strength is fully mobil i sed along a surface
within a soil mass, a failure condition known as a state of
plastic (or limiting) equilibrium is reached.
[' Where the combinations of shear and normal stress within a soil
mass all lie below the limiting envelope, the soil can be
considered to be in a state of elastic equilibrium, see Terzaghi
L and Peck (1967). A special condition of elastic equilibrium is
the lat-restl state, where the soil is prevented from expanding
or compressing laterally with changes in the vertical stress.
Any lateral strain in the soil alters its horizontal stress
condition. Depending on the strain involved, the final
horizontal stress can lie anywhere between two limiting
(failure) conditions, known as the active and passive failure
states.
3.2 AMOUNT AND TYPE OF WALL MOVEMENT
The earth pressure which acts on an earth retaining structure is
strongly dependent on the lateral deformations which occur in
[: the s 0 i 1 • Hen ce , un 1e sst he de forma t ion con di t ion s can be
estimated with reasonable accuracy, rational prediction of the
magnitude and distribution of earth pressure in the structure is
not possible.
[ .
For no movement of a retaining wall system, at-rest earth
pressures (or pressures due to compaction) act on the wall.
[ When a wall moves outward, the shearing strength of the retained
soil resists the corresponding outward movement of the soil and
reduces the earth pressures on the wall. The earth pressure
calculated for the active state is the absolute minimum value.
When the wall movement is towards the retained soil the shearing
strength of the soil resists the corresponding soil movement and
increases the earth pressure on the wall. The earth pressure
(or resistance) calculated for the passive state is the maximum
value that can be developed.
I.
33
r 34
for e ~ ~
f-:
Where V is the vertical component of resultant of loading on
the base
e is the eccentricity of the load on the base
L,B are the length and breadth of the base respectively
I~ 3.3
3.3.1
LIMITING EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS
The Rankine Earth Pressure Theory
[ ,
l~
37
I,
39
L
!
i l
40
@
Zc = KA y'iTY
Where KA is the coefficient of active earth pressure,
Y is the'bulk unit weight,
p is the effective surface line loading imposed by
the compactor
(b) The depth, hc, below which active pressure due to the weight
of the overlying soil exceeds the compaction induced
pressure is obtained from:
AND DESIGN
f.--
~
•
rL_,
~-,
L~
I.
[,
l_~
I:
I'
42
4.1 BACKGROUND
4.1.1 Wall Categories
The, behaviour of wall structures during earthquakes can be
broadly classified into three categories related to the maximum
strain condition that develops in the soil near the wall. The
soi 1 may remain essentially elasti<:, respond in a significantly
nonlinear manner or become fully plastic. The rigidity of the
wall and its foundations will have a strong influence on the
type of soil condition that develops.
Flexible structures, such as cantilever walls, displacel
suffi ci ently under gravity backfill loads to produce a fully I
plastic strain condition in most soils.
For rigid walls, such as gravity walls, basement walls, and
other walls on rigid foundations, including piles or rock, thel
soil behaviour may be essentially elastic under combined
earthquake and gravity loads.
4.1.2 Soil-Structure Interaction
Basement walls in buildings and abutment walls that are
monol ithic or rigidly connected to bridge superstructures are
often subjected to displacements relative to the soil mass
because of the dynami c di spl acement response of the structure
during an earthquake. These types of walls may be subjected to
a complex interaction of dynamic soil pressures arising from
both the displacement response of the structure and earthquake
elastic waves in the soil.
It is usual to simplify the complex problem of interaction of
earthquake elastic waves with wall structures by assuming that
the earthquake ground motions are equivalent to dynamic inertia
forces acting in the backfill mass. Dynamic pressures on the
wall can be estimated by analysing the wall and backfill
l, modelled as an elastic continuum or failure wedge and subjected
to gravity and horizontal body forces.
I,
l~
I
u"
43
f
,
[ "
,,
'--
I
45 [
4.2 DESIGN SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS
For free standing walls it may be assumed that the wall/soil
system has a short fundamental period of vibration and that the
inertia loads can be approximated by using the zero period
(T = 0) ordinate [C(O)] on the design response spectrum (or peak
ground acceleration). Where walls form integral parts of other
structures, such as bridges and buildings, the appropriate
design coefficient for estimating the wall displacements should [
be obtained from the periods of vibration of the structure and
the design response spectrum.
[:
Seismic coefficients based on the response spectra given in
DZ 4203: 1989, (Standards Association of New Zealand, 1989), are
recomnended for wall des i gn. The hori zonta 1 earthquake
coefficient at period, T, in DZ 4203 is C(T) and is given by:
[
C(T) = Co R Z ~o/ [
Where Co is the response function for a r15n) year return peri od
earthquake and has a value of a.P for zero period.
Thus C(O) = 0.4 RZ
Z is a zone factor given in Figure 21.
R is a risk factor which may, vary from 1.3 to 0.8 as
t'
defined below.
R = 1.0
Major retaining walls supporting important
structures, developed property or services and
where failure would have serious consequences such
as cutting vital communication services and loss of
life. Walls forming part of the earthquake
resisting structure of bridges, major buildings or
other important structures.
R = 0.8
Wa 11 s other than as descri bed for R = 1. a with
heights greater than 4 m for level- backfills, or
3 m with significant backfill slope.
I:
A risk factor greater than 1.0, as defined in DZ 4203 Table
3.2.1, may be used for walls that form part of the earthquake L
resisting structure of buildings classified in Categories I to
III.
'. ,[
46
l:
l_
47
48
~ ,
The effect of s 1opl ng backfill can be obtained in. a s imil ar
. manner to the rigid wall case.
"iI
4.5.3 F1 ex 1b1e Wa 11
r~ /~O~
"-. Where the outward movement of the top o~ the wall under gravity
and earthquake pressures exceeds O.5%H, an active pressure
r'
'-'.
state may be assumed and the pressures obtained from the Coulomb
slid; ng wedge theory or the -Mononobe-Okabe_ fonnulae. In these
methods, an additional force equal to the seismic coefficient
times the weight of the soil wedge is included in the analysis.
l-'
The MO equations were originally derived for a cohesionless soil
for both active and passive conditions and for both vertical and
horizontal earthquake forces. Vertical accelerat10ns do not
f-' produce significant increases in the horizontal pressures and
for most walls vertical earthquake effects may be neglected.
I I
the base of the wall.
and Matsuo, 1929).
Thi sis the assumption made in the
original development of the theory by Mononobe-Okabe (Mononobe
.
'.i,
I:
49
r-I
Ap(z) = AKAE Y Z
•r
where:
Ap(z) = the earthquake pressure increment at depth z below
the top of the wall.
• ['
AKAE
KAE
= KAE - KA
= MO active pressure coefficient
I [:
(total gravity + earthquake component)
KA = Active earth pressure coefficient I r:
The earthquake increment of wall force ;s given by:
I. l:
APAE = 0.5 AKAE Y HZ
•r
,[
A useful approximate expression for estimating the earthquake
force increment for cohesionless soil with a horizontal backfill
surface and friction angle of 30° to 35° is:
APAE = 0.5 C(O) y HZ \
For some cases, the weight of the wall may be small in relation
to the weight of the soil wedge and the wall inertia force may
be neglected.
To estimate the threshold acceleration it is usually necessary
to know the passive resistance for any soil in front of the wall
toe. The earthquake increment of passive pressure and the total
passive pressure coefficient for gravity forces plus soil
inertia forces are plotted in charts A and B of Figure 41. Both
plots were evaluated using the MO equations for a cohesionless
soil, vertical wall face and horizontal backfill. The passive
pressure coeffi ci ent-Ts very sens it i ve to the assumpti on made
r
regarding the wall friction and the passive pressure
coefficients shown are for a conservative assumption of zero
wall friction. Note that in the passive pressure case, the
L
earthquake increment reduces the static gravity load passive
resistance when the soil inertia force is assumed to be acting
ina direction away from the wall. (Negative' values are plotted
in Chart A of Figure 41 to indicate this reduction).
4.5.5 Forced Wall
Where the wall is part of a larger structure such as a building
or bridge, it may be forced to vibrate with amplitudes governed
by the inertia loads on the structure. The total earthquake
pressure increment can be estimated by combining the component
of earth pressure due to inertia forces in the soil (usually
based on a rigid wall assumption) with pressures resulting from
L
the wall displacement amplitudes against the soil.
Figure 42 shows the earth pressure components caused by l~
rotational and translational displacements of the wall against
th~ backfill soil. The flexibility of the wall will have an
influence on this component ,of pressure but a reasonable t,
estimate can be made for most walls by combining the results
from the simple rotational and translational deformations shown
in Figure 42. For more compl~x wall geometries, an acceptable
estimate for the pressure against a forced wall may be made by l
modelling the soil as a system of linear Winkler springs.
An upper 1imit to the combined static and forced wall pressure
:r '
at any depth is given by the soil passive pressure distribution.
4.5.6 Water Pressures
Increases in pore water pressures resulting from earthquake
inertia effects need to be considered in the analysis of wall
pressures. For some backfill and foundation soils it may also
be necessary to allow for pressure increases due to the effects
of liquefaction of the soil, see section 2.12.
The increase in pressure due to inertia loads on any water can
be taken into account by applying the seismic coefficient to the
total weight of soil and water in the failure wedge.
52
r·
", ,:,
The hydrodynami c pressure from any water in front of the wall
(e.g. quay walls) may often act in the same direction as the
earth pressure increment and should be considered in both
stabil ity and wall strength analyses. The critical case for
overa 11 stabi 1ity of the wall wi 11 occur when the hydrodynami c
water pressure reduces the static water pressure in front of the
wall and is in phase with the active earth pressure increment on
the wall. It may a1 so be necessary to consider the case when
the hydrodynamic pressure increases the static water pressure
and is in phase with the passive earth pressure increment. That
[ ,
is, when the inertia loads in the water and soil are directed
towards the backfill. Although it is unlikely that this
direction will be critical, in some circumstances it may be
necessary to consider the loads from this case in the structural
design of the wall.
Hydrodynami c pressures can be estimated usi ng the Westergaard
(1933) theory. From the solution given by Werner and Sundquist
(1949) for a relatively shallow long reservoir, the dynamic
water pressure force is given by:
Pw = 0.58 C(O) Yw h2
Where h = depth of water
The dynamic water pressure force acts at a height of about 0.4 h
above the base.
Further information on the effects of the length of the
reservoir and fluid resonance can be obtained from Werner and
Sundquist (1949) and Chopra (1967).
53
.[-'
. ,
d
U
[
54
r~
f·"
failure of the anchor rather than failure of the wall face or
connections between the ties and the wall face or anchor. The
[' probable variation in the soil parameters and frictional
res i stance between the wall components and the soi 1 shoul d be
considered in determining the permanent displacement threshold
accelerations and failure modes.
~ When investigating the stability of a tied wall, the forces on
the face and ties may be ,estimated using the active wedge
[ failure criterion. The "passive" failure modes of the toe and
the anchor system should also be~considered (Anderson et al,
1983). Failure by a wedge through the anchor and toe, as shown
in Figure 44, or by a slip circle, may be possible under
[ earthquake loading. In these failure modes, the horizontal
earthquake force corresponding to the peak ground acceleration
should be appl ied to the wedge or weight of soil within the
f"
,
-.
,.,';,i,':
-
; circular slip.
4.6.4 Basement Walls
L The earthquake pressures that develop on basement wall s wi 11
generally consist of components from the inertia forces in the
soil and pressures resulting from the wall displacement against
L the soil.
In most cases the pressures from the soil inertia loads may be
taken as the rigid wall pressures giVen in section 4.5.1, but
r: allowance may be made for reducti ons because of wall
flexibility.
[ The component of earthquake pressure from the movement of the
wall relative to the soil may be estimated from the forced wall
solutions given in section 4.5.5. Where the basement is founded
r: on rock or very firm soils, the relative movement of the wall
against the soil may be small and the resulting pre~sure
component small in relation to the soil inertia force increment
[~ for rigid wa 11 s. When pil es are used or the structure is
founded on soft soils, the relative movements may be quite large
and the resulting pressure components may dominate the total
earthquake pressures on the wall. A 1imiting value of full
t passive pressure for combined gravity and forced wall components
may occur where the basement walls are used to provide lateral
resistance against the earthquake base shear forces of the
[ -: structure supported by the basement. On flexible foundations,
the response of the structure may be affected by the stiffness
of the soil surrounding the basement. In this case, it may be
L_: necessary to investigate the response of the building using
Winkler springs to model the soil. Spring stiffnesses may be
estimated from the typical values of coefficient of subgrade
reaction for vertical loads given in section 2.9 and from the
l forced wall solutions given in section 4.5.5. The effect of
non-linear soil behaviour on the pressures on translated and
rotated walls can be obtained from the finite element results of
l Wood (1985).
l_
~
55
f'
56
'~
Ps = Gravity pressure component.
PL = Load from superstructure.
~x = Displacement of superstructure.
The magnitude and direction to be assumed for some of these
forces depends on whether the wall is being displaced against
the backfi 11 or away from the backfi 11. The movement against
the backfill is usually the criti ca 1 . case for the backwa 11
design and movement away from the-backfill is usually critical
for the design of the abutment foundations. Particular
consideration of the force component directions may be required
for the design of clearances, joints, bearings and linkages.
,
.'."'[ ,.
. For movement away from the backfill, ~PE may be estimated from
,
the details given in sections 4.5.1 to 4.5.3 making due
","-.
allowance for wall flexibility. When the displacement is
against the backfi 11, rigid wall pressures may be assumed for
·r: estimating ~PE.
PF may be estimated from the forced wall solutions given in
[-' section 4.5.5. For translational deformation PF is given by:
PF = 0.6 Es a ~x
depend on the re 1at i ve magn itude of. the forces and also on
whether the connection is load limiting or rigid. In view of
the complexity, for this case the individual force components
should be combined using the algebraic sum.
(ii) Significant Interaction
When the bridge response is significantly influenced by the
interaction with the abutment soil it is difficult to account
for the dynamic effects in a simple analysis procedure. The
critical loading on the abutments and lateral load resisting
elements-can usually be obtained by considering thefwo cases of
in-phase and out-of-phase earthquake soil inert~a pressure
components as shown in diagrams (C) and (0) of Figures 45.
When the dynamic components of earth pressure are out of phase
at either abutment (diagram (C) of Figure 45) it may be assumed
that the structure does not move relative to the foundation and
is subjected to rigid wall pressures on each abutment wall.
That is, the total pressures on the walls are the sum of the at-
rest static pressure and the rigid wall earthquake component
from the soil inertia loads. This assumption may overestimate
L
the earthquake pressure components on very short bridges where
it is unlikely that out-of-phase accelerations will occur.
Because of the influence of the soil properties and the
r
frequency content of the i ncomi ng waves on the phase
relationships, it is difficult to make more precise predictions
of the effect of the bridge length on the pressures.
When the dynamic components of pressure from the soil inertia
loads are in phase at either abutment (diagram (0) of Figure 45)
the bridge will displace relative to the foundation, generating
forced wall dynamic pressures that are dependent on the overall
displacement response of the bridge. The analysis procedures
for this case are similar to those discussed in section 4.6.4
for basement walls.
Peak ground acceleration should be used to calculate the wall
earthquake pressure component from the soil inertia loads.
These components have upper limits of rigid wall values. On the
abutment moving away from the soil, the component may be reduced
by taking into account the wall flexibility. A lower limit for
this component is the MO earthquake active pressure increment.
The dynami c pressure components on the abutments due to the
I.
relative displacement of the bridge can be estimated by
computing the period of vibration taking into account the
abutment soil stiffness. The displacement response can then be
estimated from the design response spectrum and the overall
ductility factor. For relatively rigid structures, a
satisfactory estimate of the displacement can be obtained by
using the peak ground acceleration to obtain the inertia load on
the bridge.
The ml nlmum 1imi ti ng value of Ps + PF on the abutment movi ng
L
.,
away from the soil is the active static pressure. The maximum
~!
58
~,
[
l~
[
[
[
'. I:
I~
"f'
t
I.-
[
L
>
T,
.. -
I:
.[:
... f.
.[ :
.: '.
•L....;/'
:,1 :
['i[
U
-[ i'
I
(
[~
Section 5
EFFECT OF SURCHARGES
r"
r
f'
r~
L
~
I
['
r~ ·
L~ .
- ,
L:
~-
d:
:. j
I:
,,[
.,
I
" [
(
i4;J :
~~ ~
..
59
l j
Alternatively, when the line load is small in comparison with
the act; ve earth pressure, the effect of the 1i ne load on its
own can be determi ned by the method gi ven in secti on (A) of
l, Figure 48. This is based on stresses in an elastic medium
modified by experiment. The pressures thus determined are
superimposed on those due to active earth pressure and other
effects.
l,
'l ,
60
POINT LOADS 1:
~.•
.[
[.
L
Section 6
f'
r-'
EFFECTS OF WATER
[
f-:
L:
I'
l-'
I'
[~
I.
f'
f_:
I
[
L.
. f.
I
I,
",
, r-
r-
I'
[-
f-
[~
~~-
t
I.
l~
[-
I:
I
I:
I
f: 61
6.1 GENERAL
The presence of water behind a wall has a marked effect on the
pressures app 1i ed to the wall. When the phrea ti c surface
intersects the wall, a hydrostatic pressure is exerted against
the wall, together with uplift pressures along the base of the
wall. Even when there is no water in-d-irect contact with the
wa 11, such as when adequate drainage is provided, there is an
[' increased pressure on the wall due to the increased earth
pressure (section 6.2). The effect of water behind the wall is
significant; the total force may be more than double that
applied for dry backfill. Many recorded wall failures can be
attributed to the presence of water.
The height to which water can rise in the backfill, and the
seepage pressures, are both of prime concern. To determine
these the ground water conditions must be establ i shed. These
may be best derived from the observation of ground water
conditions prior to construction. However, possible changes to
the existing groundwater regime due to the construction of the
retaining structure should also be considered.
The effect of leakage from services can be Significant. This
leakage contributes substantially to both perched and main
groundwater tables.
Where inadequate drainage is provided behind a retaining
structure, there may be a damming effect which would result in
raising groundwater levels locally and in the general area.
Such a rise may adversely affect the stability of slopes and
retaining walls. Effective drainage measures should always be
provided in such cases. In the absence of such measures or
where drainage may be impractical such as behind sheet retaining
structures, design should allow for appropriate water pressures.
6.2 STATIC WATER LEVEL
Where part or all of the soil behind a wall is submerged below a
stati c water 1evel, the earth pressure is changed due to the
f, hydrostatic pore pressures set up in the soil. The water itself
also exerts lateral pressure on the wall equal to the depth
below the water table times the unit weight of water, see
section (A) of Figure 49.
When a soil is submerged, its effective unit weight is reduced
I, to Y' = Ysat - Yw. The lateral earth pressure should, in this
case, be calculated using Y' in equations or charts. The method
of analysis is illustrated by the static pressure distributions
on Figure 43. Alternatively, in graphical procedures such as
f :
the trial wedge method, all forces acting on the soil wedge,
including the hydrostatic normal uplift pressure on the failure
plane and the lateral hydrostatic pressure, may be included in
:t_ the trial wedge procedure. This is illustrated in Figure 14.
62
I' Water pressures must be incl uded in the forces acting on the
wall unless adequate drainage is provided. For walls less than
2 m high, drainage material is usually only provided on the back
I' face of the wall, with weep holes to relieve water pressure, see
Figure 50. In these circumstances it may be desirable or more
economic to design for hydrostatic water pressure.
600 11m 50
300 11m 25
150 11m 8 1.J
:'
75 11m a
Material surrounding a perforated subsoil drain pipe must have a I,
085 size greater than the diameter of the pipe perforations.
6.7 GEOTEXTILES ,l
In some cases, it may be possible to use man-made fibrous woven
and non-woven fabri cs, known as geotext i 1es, to protect the
drainage facilities.
L
,~j
r'
i
65
[
f~
r
['
l:
t,
1
I:
I:
.!
I..
,I :
·0
I
1 !
~j
[ ,
i
r~
, ...
r'
l
Section 7
['
f
r' - STABIUTY OF RETAINING WALLS
~~
~-'
f-~
[
l-:
L
[
l
l:
\.
I:
\,
l,
l,
I
f'
f'
r
r
r:
. r'
L
L
r·
l:'
!: :
I:
\#•. ·4
L
[
•...i
'I
iJ
r-
; 66
r 7.1 GENERAL
~.~
The st.ability of a free standing retaining structure and the
soil contained by it, is determined by computing factors of
safety or 'stability factors' which may be defined in general
[ terms as:
_ Moments or forces aiding stability
Fs - Moments or forces causing instability
L: Factors of safety should be calculated for the following
separate modes of failure:
L (a) ,Sliding of the wall outwards from the retained soil.
(b) Overturning of the retaining wall about its toe.
[:
(c) Foundation bearing failure.
[ (d) Slip circle failur~ in th~ surrounding soil.
The forces that produce overturning and sliding also produce the
[, foundation bearing pressures and therefore (a) and (b) above are
interrelated with foundation bearing failure in most soils.
Generally bearing capacity is critical for counterfort walls on
T' soil foundations. Overturning stability is often critical for
wa 11 s on strong founda t i on rna teri a1s such as rock 0 r when the
base of the wall is small eg, crib walls.
-[
68
r~
cribwalls and other walls for which the base and upper portion
are usually separate units, the factor of safety of the upper
portions should also be calculated.
Nc = (N q - 1)cot~
Ny = 1.5 (N q - 1) tan~
Where sc*, dc*, ic*, bc* and gc* are the factors to take account
of the shape of the footing, the depth of the base, the
inclination of the load, the inclination of the base and the
inclination of the ground respectively. The factors can be
derived as follows:
sc* = 0.2 BIL
dc* = 0.4 D/B if D ~ B [
= 0.4 tan- 1 DIB if 0 ) B
i c* = 0.5 - 0.5/ H
B'L'S u
t.
bc* . = n° 114r (for n = 0, bc* = 0) ''"
gc* = 13°/147° (for a = 0, gc* = 0)
:[
w
.,~I
72
B' = B - 2eb
Fs (bearing)
V
where q = AT for a rectangular footing
V
or q = B' for a continu'ous strip footing
When a foundation carries an eccentric inclined load, an
estimate of the ultimate bearing capacity may be obtained by
combining the methods given in sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2.
7.4.3 Miscellaneous Foundation Conditions
t, In addition to the foundation conditions specified above,
bearing capacity can be influenced by shallow water tables,
layering of soils, and the proximity of slopes. Methods are
l, available to calculate bearing capacity in these circumstances
and reference should be made to Bowles (1982).
7.4.4 Foundations on Rock
Foundations on continuous rock seldom present problems since the
rock is stronger than most foundation materials. Structural
defects and discontinuities, or the compressibility of the rock
mass below the foundation, usually control the allowable bearing
pressure.
73
Note:
(1) Use allowable pressure or unconfined compressive strength of
intact rock, whichever is less.
(2) RQD is for rock in the zone of influence of the foundation.
For infilled joints deformation will be larger, and estimates of ~l
the joint infill compressibility may be required. The effect of
joint infilling on allowable bearing pressure for a limited
range of joint spacing and thickness is given in the Canadian
Foundation Manual (Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1978).
[ 74
I,
1
~
r~
r'
f:
[:
r-'
L
L
f:
[
r.
[:
l
I
[.
L
[
[- ..
j
\
Section 8
I~
f'
1-- STRUCTURAL DESIGN
L
L
f.
[:
r-
I:
I. .
I.
I.
I:
I,
L,
I,
1
-- ---- ---
I
[-,
[~
[-'
I"
r-
~~
-
L
L
r'
I.
I:
I
L
I
I
I
l
L
I
I
75
8.1 GENERAL
8.1.1 Codes
"~' Reinforced concrete design shall be in accordance with
NZS 3101:1982 'Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete
Structures' (Standards Associati on of New Zealand, 1982).
f'
8.1.2- Limit State Design
[: When 1imit state design methods are used for proportioning a
structural section, the design loads shall be computed so that
the capacity of the section shall not be less than:
u = 1.35 (DL + 1.35 EP + W); or
U = 1.00 (kDL + EQ + 1.35 W»
Where DL = dead load of the structural element
EP = static earth pressure acting on the element
(including the effects of any surcharge loads)
EQ = earthquake earth pressure acting on the element
U = ultimate load
W = hydrostatic water pressure
k = 1.3 or 0.8 whichever is more severe, to allow for
vertical acceleration
When strength limit state design is used, a serviceability check
l' on crack widths at working loads shall be made to ensure that
the limits given in clause 4.4.2.3 of NZS 3101 are not exceeded.
Ferguson (1958), gives an example of limit state design of a
cantilever retaining wall.
8.1.3 Cover to Reinforcement
l: be given to the cover of
Particular attention shall
reinforcement in both the design detailing and during
[. '
construction.
l,
8.1.4 Selection of Wall Type
For walls up to 7.5 m high where crib walling is not suitable, a
cantilever wall will usually be found to be the most economical.
[, For higher walls an investigation should be made for the
relative economies of using a counterfort or cantilever wall.
This should take into account unit costs for formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete, and not just "all in" cost per
cubic metre of final wall. Counterfbrt walls should have
approximately a 9 m bay length (varied to suit architectural
finish, etc) with three counterforts per bay. The position of
I.
76
wLs2
+ve M = 22 (horizontal steel)
wLs2
-ve M = 25 (vertical steel)
il
i
77
l'
+ve M = 16 (horizontal steel)
L,
1_
78
['
(b) If the resultant lies outside the middle third:
. r-
2 V
Pmax = 3 (B72 - e) L
I--
8.4.2 Heel Slabs for Counterfort Walls
The heel slab for counterfort walls should be designed as a slab
spanning in two directions if a key is included at the rear. I.
The design bending moments may be obtained from tables in Bowles
(1982). , r--
Alternatively, the heel slab can be dwided into four or five
strips, of approximate width 1 to 1.5 m spanning between
counterforts. The outermost stri p i ncl udi ng the key can be t-
designed as an L-beam for bending, its breadth equal to the
strip width. The width of the key strip resisting shear should
be assumed as the maximum width of the key plus half the
thickness of the heel slab. Bending moments may be calculated
r-
as in section 8.3.3.
Each strip should be designed for the average load occurring.
The critical section is at the face of the counterforts. This
l
shear will usually govern the heel thickness.
[:
The heel slab should also be considered as strips spanning at
right angles to that mentioned above, ie, between stem line and
key strip. Simple assumptions can be made as to end fixity of
these strips and an approximate amount of reinforcing provided. I~
COUNTERFORT DESIGN
Vertical steel in the counterfort is required to carry the net
tensile load from each strip of the heel slab. The main moment
reinforcement for the wall is usually concentrated at the back
of the counterfort. Where it joins the heel slab, the above
steel should be considered as taking only that load occurring on
the outermost strip incorporating the key, as defined in section
8.4.2 above.
Horizontal steel in the counterfort is required to carry the net
load on each horizontal strip of stem.
Cut-off positions for the matn tensile steel in the counterforts
is shown in Figure 61.
8.6 KEY DESIGN
In general the depth to width ratio of the key should be approx-
imately one. It is difficult to predict the force that will act
l:
on the key. An approximate design horizontal load on the key
is: L
l
[
r ' 79
!
I
[ ,
I:
I'
Section 9
L" !
L'
l'
l
80
9.1 GENERAL
A considerable amount of literature is available;from Cribwall
Unit Manufacturers (eg, Hume, rCB, Cement Products) and also
Portland Cement Association on the design of crib walls.
However, care must be exercised in the interpretation of this
data. Cri b wall s must be checked for stabil ity in accordance
with section 7. Figures 6-2-and 63 may be used as an aid in
determining the maximum height for different wall thicknesses.
The crib units and wall construction should be in accordance
with the current WORKS standard specification for this work, see
CD 209:1988 (WORKS, 1988).
9.2 DESIGN LOADING
[ ,
The pressures acting on a typical crib wall are shown in Figure
64. These pressures are calculated by the methods of section 3.
Cribwalls are often used for low walls of low importance,
[ therefore earthquake 1oadi ng wi 11 usually not be appl i ed. If
earthquake loading needs to be included the methods of section 4
should be used and the crib wall should be considered as a
dynamic active wall.
I, 9.3 FOUNDATION DEPTH
t:
['
'r'
r:
[
t
.i,
, ,
I
[:
1
Section 10
10.1 GENERAL
Walls which have uniform cross-section with depth are considered
in this chapter. These include flexible sheet structures, such
as sheet piled and soldier piled ·walls, and more rigid walls,
including diaphragm and caisson walls.
The earth pressure which acts on an earth supporting structure
--is strongly dependent on the amount of late-ral deformation which
occurs in the soil. For flexible sheet walls, the determination
of deformations, and hence the earth pressures, is not simple,
because the yield of one part of a flexible wall throws pressure
on to the more rigid parts. Hence, the pressures in the
-[ !
vicinity of the supports are higher than in the unsupported
;:L_, , areas, and the loads on i ndi vidua 1 supports vary dependi ng on
the stiffness characteristics of the supports themselves.
Therefore it may be necessary to design a stiff wall to resist
[' at rest pressures.
Deformation of the ground adjacent to excavations may cause
[- ,
breakage of water carrying services. In situations where large
flows may result, the prudent designer will allow for the water
table being at the ground surface when calculating loads to be
t: 10.2
retained.
STRUTTED EXCAVATIONS
Strutted sheet piling is often used to provide temporary support
for the sides of deep excavations. The sheet piles are usually
driven first with support struts being installed as the
excavation proceeds. The final deformations of the wall are
highly dependent on the construction sequence and detailing.
The CIRIA Report 97 on Trenchi ng Practi ce (I rvi ne and Smith,
1983) gives guidance to safe practice in the design and use of
temporary support for trenches not deeper than 6 m.
Failure of a strutted wall often results from the initial
fa i 1ure of one of the struts, resulti ng in the progress i ve
failure of the whole system. The forces in identical struts in
I: any particular support system may differ widely because they
depend on such factors as the way in which the struts are
preloaded and the time between excavation and installation of
struts. Loads in similar struts in any set of observations have
L been found to vary from the average value by up to + 60% (Lambe
et al, 1970). -
l,
where the terms are defined in Figure 66. Where Fs is less than
2 substantial deformations may occur with consequent loss of [
ground, and the probability of failure exists. Figure 66 also
shoWSCi chart from Janbu et al (1956), from which the Stabi 1ity
Number (Nb) can be obtained.
Where soft clay extends to considerable depth below the
excavation, the effect of increased sheeting stiffness, or
L
J
l
""0,,,,', l
",\1-,
I
t
,:'" '
84
r:
depth, is minimal. However, driving the sheeting into a hard
r~ stratum before commencing the excavation can appreciably reduce
the deformations.
f'
I
Control of the groundwater may be necessary to, prevent piping or
heave associated with groundwater flow. This may be achieved by
wellpoint dewatering for large excavations. For further details
on dewatering, see Cedergren (1975).
It may be necessary to carefully consider the settlements caused
by the excavation in the vicinity which may cause significant
damage to nearby structures and services. Figure 67 gives an
--indication of the settlement which could resu-lt from strutted
excavations, but the settlements are highly dependent on the
construction sequence and detailing.
10.3 ANCHORED FLEXIBLE WALLS
10.3.1 Walls Anchored Near the Top
The deformation of an anchored sheet pile wall depends on the
L relative stiffness of the pile/soil system. For a relatively
rigid system, such as a heavy pile section in a loose sand, the
earth pressure distribution corresponds closely to the
triangular active and passive conditions. The toe of the pile
is assumed pinned, and the free earth support design method as
outlined by Clayton and Milititski (1986), Cornfield (1975), or
Teng (1962) is appropriate.
As the stiffness of the system decreases the pressure di stri-
bution alters in such a way as to reduce the bending moment in
I' the pile. As a consequence, the sheet pile section used may be
reduced as compared with an infinitely stiff wall. Rowe's
Theory of Moment Reduction (1952, 1955, 1957) takes this effect
into account; it is summarised by Clayton and Milititski (1986),
[: and Teng (1962).
10.3.2 Multiple Anchored Walls
The multiple-anchored system of wall support results in the
reta i ni ng structure bei ng progressi vely fi xed. Consequently,
the lateral deformations are limited to such an extent that
failure within the retained soil is unlikely. The earth
pressure which finally acts on the wall depends on the relative
stiffness of the wall to the soil, the anchor spacing, the
anchor yield and the prestress locked into the anchors at
installation.
The earth pressure distribution has been shown to be similar to
I: that obtained for internally braced excavations. A rectangular
pressure envelope s imil ar to that adopted by Peck as shown in
Figure 65, is appropriate. The earth pressure coefficient may
be taken as KA' However, it is common to use a va 1ue between
KA and Ko, such as (KA + Ko)l2, in an attempt to control
surface movements.
l,
I:
85
[.
[,
i I,
1
-I
86
REFERENCES
l,
r
87
88
I"
James, ELand Jack, B J (1974). A Design Study of Diaphragm Walls,
f' Proceedi ngs of the Conference on' Di aphragm Wall s and Anchorages, London,
pp 41-49.
Prakash, S and Saran S (1966). Static and Dynamic Earth Pressures Behind
Retaining Walls. Proc 3rd Symposium on Earthquake Engineerlng, University
of Roorkee, India, Vol 1, pp 277-288.
Prakash, Sand Nandakumaran, P (1979). Earth Pressures During
Earthquakes. Proc. second US NatiQnal Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Stanford University.
Rankilor, P R. (1981). Membranes in Ground Engineering, Wiley,
Chichester, 1981.
Rowe, P Wand Peaker, K (1965). Passive Earth Pressure Measurements.
Geotechnique, _Vol. 15. pp 57-78. London.
Saran, S and Prakash, A (1970). Seismic Pressure Distribution in Earth
Retaining Walls. Proc. Third European Symposium on Earthquake
Engineering, Sofia.
Scott, R F (1963). Principles of Soil Mechanics. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.
Seed, H B, and Whitman, R V (1970). Design of Earth Retaining Structures [ ,
L
l:
1
H
--1"1
90
,-
1-:
I:
L
r'
[
I~
I
L
I, :
~:
l
I
I,
L
I~
I,:
I;
I'
,--- 1-,--
IT 'f!' '.~ ~ '~-':-l ---,-; :---,-
NOTES
Virtual Back..----../
of Wall ~
....'..
.
'
~
~ ~.~
Earth
:.:~:; Pressure
:·......·. ~;i Distribution
." ~.
i
PAY 1 PAH
: :t
:lLt H
it-' Componenfs of PA
::,00';
HI
3
,~ \ I J Pia ne of Sliding
i .
I [.
I
I
I r~:
I H
!90~<p
.[ :
Q(.A H
3
[-'
A
FAILURE PLANES FOR
RANKINE'S ACTIVE STATE [
PRESSURE ON VERT
PLANE A-AI
I,
The fol lowing equations require that the earth pressure
the backfi II.
~cts at the slope of
L!
ACTIVE PRESSURE
PA = KA Y
H2
"2 L.
(cos w - Icos 2 w - cos 2 P
KA = cos w cos w + Icos 2 w - cos 2 ~) 1.
= s~n <90 0
- sin cp
where sin E
sIn
w with 0<
~
E
L
For w = 0 KA = + sin ~
PASSIVE PRESSURE
1
H2
Pp = Kp Y T J:
(cos w + Icos 2 w - cos 2 p)
Kp = cos w cos w _ Icos 2 w - cos 2 ~ .[ ,
~ "
Note the angle between the fai lure planes for the passive pressure case is J-,
90 0 + ~.
For w = 0 Kp = + sin p
- sin ~
.[ ,
FIGURE 2. 1~
il
[.
f ' RANKINE ACTI VE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
,: FOR COHESIONLESS
BACKFILL.
(c~o)
SOIL WITH UNIFORM SLOPING
r.
PRESSURES . ON A VERTICAL PLANE.
~
1_'
- .- .!- - j- - ~- -!- -r--t-t--r-I
['
-~
[ 0·80
-+-H-J-I--I-HH-
L
[, 0·70
l.
[ ,
I'
[
t: 0·40
l~ . 0·30
L
~: 0·20
[- BACKFILL SLOPE WO
RANKINE EARTH PRESSURE
SOIL WITH COHESION
HORIZONTAL GROUND SURFACE
AI Tension zone
neglected
I
---------
:A" KA 'Y (:z - Z 0 )
<l> I
45 _/2 145-<1>/2 H
PA
-.-!---..IIIIIt--''t---
ACTIVE PRESSURE
PA = t KA Y (H - r 0 ) 2
PASSIVE PRESSURE
PP = t Kp Y H2 + 2 cH ~ .1 :
K =1 + sin <p
p 1 - sin <p
.l "
un i t pressure at depth .z be low top of wa II, P = Kp Y z. + 2C~ .l
NOTE: The angle between the fai lure planes for: the passive case is 90° + <p.
l_
FIGURE 4 j.
il'
l
COULOMB EARTH PRESSURE
COHESIONLESS SOIL
CONSTANT BACKFILL SLOPE
plane
surface
H
\ .
'[ A
FAILURE WEDGE FOR
'I' ACTIVE STATE ACTIVE PRESSURE ON
, BACK OF WALL.
[ The fol lowing equations give only an 'approximate' solution for the earth
pressure when static equilibrium is not fully satisfied. The departure
from an 'exact' solution is usually very sma) I for the active pressure case
but passive resistance may be dangerously overestimated.
ACT! VE PRESSURE
cos 2 ( -/3)
KA = cos2 /3 cos (0:r13)(1 + in(4)+O) sin(cp-w) 2
cos(o+/3) cos(w-/3)
cot (aA- w) = -tan (~+o+/3-w) + sec (~+o+13-w) ~cos (/3+0) sin (CP+o)
cos (/3-w) sin (~-w)
PASSIVE PRESSURE
cos 2 ( +13)
Kp = cos 2 /3 cos (0+/3)[1 _ In 4>-0) sin(p+w) 2
cos(o+/3) cos(w-/3)
f30 , .'
--1/ --1 - -r-r--r-r-.
- -17 --", - _++-+-+-1 t'
~_.-,--+
- --t-t-+-+--I
--l
(;J0
: r'
0·9
1-'
H [C'
0·8
[
0-7 L__
,[
L.
-!-~H-t-+t-I-H-t-H--H-H-t-
I.
L~
0·4
J.
'I'
'J _ ,
0·3
I FIGURE 6
~.--..------.-
COULOMB ACTIVE EARTH [JriESSURE COEFFI.C I E NTS
FOR COHESIONLESS SOIL WITH UNIFORM
SLOPI r~G 8ACI<FI LL. -r- t- t- --l 'r.
H-+-l -+-l-+-li I .f-~
I-H--H--+-+--il
-RD
¢ :: ( S -- 2/3 c/))
t 1-++-1-1-, +-+-, I I =A
0·9
H-+-f-HIIJ' r-
f-!-
1
o-~r-ti,1 t=
I-+-I--H i-f-H-f- I-
t=' --
I --j- f-j,- 1-
0·8
- 1/I II ~II--:=
1_
'-.:
.... H-f+-t-+-IH-HII-
r~~~~l~++~~~~I
H HH++~H++~-H-rr+h~HII-
0·7"
10 20 30
"
FIGURE 7
I
COULOMB ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFI.C IE NTS
I
FOR COHESIONLESS SOIL WITH UNIFOHM
r~
SLOPING BACKFILL.
l~'
¢ = 35 0
0'9
I:
-J
I
0,8
t'
H lC~
0-7 .
l~'
L
[
l~.
l~:
I
j:
0·3
r:
L
J
0·1 J
-20 -"-10 ,0 10 20 30 40
BACKFI LL SLOPE U) 0
FIGURE 8
l'
i.,I' .
I
t-_~'-
l~
¢ ==
I I
I-+-+-+--I--H
-
It--+-I----l- -
-H-++-I--t-t--H- -j-
If Err -t:
t-- I--
0·8
['
[ 0-7
[:
0·6
f-'·
[
0·5
r.
r-'
r'
I. 0·3
I'
1_:
I'
I~
.L
I_
I
I
r TRIAL WEDGE METHOD
COHESIONLESS SOIL
IRREGULAR GROUN 0 SURFACE
[
l' \
\
.,[""',
~ ,- - .' '
,
\
P \ ,
-p- -+-\ I
;' ~o
Pp
~\
--~
~~--- ~A
----. , W
~~ R
FORCES ACTING ON
WEDGE FOR ACTI V E
A , Rp
FORCE TRIANGLE
ACTIVE (FULL LINES)
--. A
______'
--
'
PASSIVE (DOTTE D)
AN D PASSIVE STATES
I: NOTES
4. See clauses 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 for the direction of the earth pressure.
1 6. The trial wedge method may al'so be used for a level or constantly
Il sloping ground surface, in which case it should yield the same result
as that given by Rankine's or Coulomb's equations, whichever is
applicable.
l_:
FIGURE II.
TRIAL WEDGE METHOD
COHESION LESS SOIL
cULMANN'S CONSTRUCTION
(FOR STATI C EARTH
PRESSURE ONLY)
[
[:
PROCEDURE
:.11
FIGURE 12
I: -,
, TRIAL WEDGE METHOD SOIL WITH
COHESION IRREGULAR GROUND SURFACE
surface on which
pressure is
calculated, ~I
........,,.....-....!.-----("
Dept h of
Tension zone 't!-.
z: = 2c tan(45°+~)
o 'Y 2
[
--
~
FORCE POLYGON FOR
TYPICAL WEDGE.
R
COMBINATION OF
FORCE POLYGONS
TO OBTAIN MAX. PA
NOTES VcXL
1. The above example ·shows 'Rankine's conditions but the same principle
appl ies for Coulomb's conditions. (Adhesion on the back of the wall is
ignored) .
; l_, 5. The trial wedge method may be used for a level or constantly sloping
ground surface.
r .
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ f:
/'
/
A A
r:
TRIAL FAILURE WEDGES PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
ON A-B
,r
.I~
PAl
,'" 01
\
\
\
\ WI
~ \
\
.
,L
\
\
\
.r :
TRIAL WEDGE I
[
/
/ x
Q Itl Pw
L
/
I ~WII:I h
PAZ
.,.1 .
~14 X ~
\
X \ \
HI \ \ R'Z
• y.-~ I.
W"" \ WII1 \
/:' U I "'I
~
\ \
~.L ,
.@ ~
/~~',', ell ~[
ON LAYER I ON LAYER 2
U2 Rz
TRIAL WEDGE II
~L
I
J
1 ~
NOTE. U 1 and U2 are the resultant porewater pressures
on the failure wedges. FIGURE 14 J
r 8
I
PROCEDURE
~
point on rne ground surface located at a ~istance
HI equal to 211' from 6.
A
i) RANKIN::
S=uJ
I
1___----t!...--SLOPING VlRTUAL BACK
I-1OVES WITH WALL---i-t-.A Cf' WALL
J
I
COULOMB METHODS
,l FIGURE \5
l'
F I ~ /lXWm:-.
_.-.!rm7:7A\\---7.71T/..X~\'(~IA~"T-I----=--;;;;> t:2 Tens ion c rock in
lil\v)A\\ -- 0 soil with cohesion.
F___ ------T -
-------
E
~"7:l:
.0,
... ~;.~
~
~,.:
POINT OF APPLICATION
r:
I OF RESULTANT PRESSURE
[~ AND PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
surcharge
f'
20
/j yo
/1/ hi
3
~I PA
Pressure 'I. hi
surface 2'
hi
Y hi
A A
TRIAL WEDGES PRESSURE ON A-8
Use when the ground surface is very i rregu I ar or when a non-un i form
surcharge is carried.
PROCEDURE
1. Subdivide the line A-4 into about 4 equal parts hI (belo~ the depth ~o
of tension cracking).
[ , FIGURE 17
~ -(). '1 -0. (j -0.5 -0.4 - 0.3 -0.2 -(). 1 -0.0
10
1--'----::---1-=_978
. - -- .962 .9 l 16 .929 .912 .1:391:3 .881 .H6/1
REDLICTION FACTOR, R, 15 .%1 .934 .907 .8811.854 .830 .803 .TiS
01: Kp I-:-Ol~ V t\l-{ lOllS
20 .93Q .901 .8b2 .A24 .?A? .752 .716 .678
RAIIUS OF- 6/¢ ...-------t---:-:- - - - ---:-1-'--.--::--+-----1'-----1
I - - - - - - -.91:~
~S - - - -.8(iO
- r - -.80S. - _ ...'1St)
_. _ _.711
_ _. '_'.uuG___ '.620
_ _ 1- .5'74__
30 .H78 .Bll .74u .ti86
I - - - - - - / - - - - - t - - - - t - . - - . - ... ----. .627 .574
.-. ___ .520 _467
_-----'--
.8Jb .752 .1l'74 .603 .536 ~~7._5 .417 .Ju2
r
35
1-'---_. - .783- -.118:2
~I---_____
. 5q~ _') 1L ...llJ() .. 17S
"' __ '_______ . J I u . __..2G~
._____ . __
.718 .()no .500 ./114.JYJ .276 .n1 .174
[.
['
I'
I-
Z
UJ
u
u:
LL
UJ
a
u
[:
~/P:-O,9
·
)£
<:
UJ
a:
:J
V1
V1
UJ
a: [.
a.
UJ
>
I-
~
LL
[.
0
I-
Z
UJ
U
u:
LL
UJ
0
U
If,
.f
ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE, DEGREES (Caquot & Kerisel, 1948)
10
9 !---
~'.f--
..........
l.5·-1l/;
/
----\~/
/
/
V V
L~" 0/
~/,/.
/
V V
1L
~ LFAllURE :Z
[ I
I ..........
l,
l_, EARTH PRESSUR'E 'COEFFICIENTS - SLOPING 'WALL FIG URE 13
I
q=57kN/m LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE rho kN/m2
U11 10 10 20 30 40 50 CRITICAL DEPTHS AND EARTH PRESSURE VALUES
0.5
N
U COMPACTING I-4ACHmE DEPTH
Ze Iml
EARTH PRESSURE
fS"ho 1-4A~.1 kN I m2 1 [,
10.2 t SMOOTH WHEEL ROLLER 0.5~ 20.0
E 1.0
"
I'
*3.3i VIBRATORY ROLLER 0·52 19.0
N
~ 1.5
*'.4 t VIBRATORY ROLLER 0.35 12.5
a.. , 400, kg VIBRATORY PLATE 0.45 16.0
UI
c j~hO= KAfS"y COMPACTOR
2.0 (EARTH PRESSURE
DUE TO WEIGHT OF 120 kg VI BRA TORY PLATE 0.32 11.5
\ BACKFILL) . COMPAcTOO
<rho MAX = 20 kNlm 2
'I~ ] HOTE. DIAGRAM DRAWN FOO 10;2\ SMOOTH WHEEL ROLLER
ON FILL, <t>' = 30·, r = 18kN/m J
* EFFECTIVE WEIGHT OF VIBRATORY ROLLERS ASSUMED TO BE
TWICE TOTAt:. STATIC WEIGHT.
N N
..J
~
UI
~ cr'hm: J ~f ..J
..J ..J
,,:!
_ _ cr'h'= 2pKA ..J
U.
7IZ
u::
..J
~ -._cr'h .. ~AlSZ
i.i:
~
..J
- RESUlTANT PRESSURE
DISTRIBUTION ['
UI
en
:I:
Ifhm: foP IZ>Zc I
...0-
I:
:I:
tUI FOR Z>h~CI'"h=KAIZ
c W
C
~
..J
..J
i.i:
\ u
.c: Ze = K J~
A'Jf¥
3:
0
\ WHERE P = EQUIVALENT LINE LOAD OOE TO
ROLLER. FOR VIBRATORY ROLLERS
:g Cl'.~
..J
"hm= Jt CALCULATE P USING AN
EQUIVALENT WEIGHT EaUAL TO
:I: DEADWEIGHT OF ROLLER PLUS
~
a.. CENTRIFUGAL FORCE INDUCED
UI
c
.
C1'h:KAl'h
BY ROLLER VIBRATING
I-4ECHANISI-l •
[
HORIZONTAL EARTH PRESSURE
tel SHOWS PROPOSED DESIGN PRESSURE
DIAGRAM.
(8.) COMPACTION PRESSUR ES - DESIGN DATA (INGOLD, 1979)
f'
!
J'
Slewarl Island
r'
I'
[--
t'
[
[
((0) Ww
or NW w----+--+------, l'
[
[:
l;
where, N.g = Threshold
acceleration for L.
outward movement
L:
[
['
L,
l
l_~:
8T ABILITY ANAL Y818 OF RETAINING WALL FIGURE 22 I_I
UNDER EARTHQUAKE LOADING
r
1
r~ 0-0 .-----------~--__,
f' 0'2
r' I
......... 0·4
J'i.J
t: - depth below
l~' Poissons ratio, v=0'2 retained ground
0-6 surface. (see B
below).
r' O·S
[
0·50 0·75 ',00 "25 1-50
r. ~
L
A. Earth Pressure Distribution on Smooth Rigid Wall ( eq-)
r: for different Poisson's Ratios of the Soil.
['
f >
P(t:) =l5e(0)~H
[~
,
r, '
l
[~
.....
-+-
..cxE
OJ
4-
C
OJ [
.- d OJ
OJ ::J L.
..c
OJ
0- u
..cc
t·- [:
.~ d OJ
-+- OJ L.
U ::J
~
4-OOJ
W
L.
4- L.
~
a.
l'
l_
L
l:
[.
l~
l
L
l:
L
1:
EQUIVALENT WALL HEIGHT .FOR ESTIMATING
EARTHQUAKE EARTH PRESSURES FOR WALL WITH FIGURE 24 ~:
SLOPING BACKFILL
~I
! I
:r--
,I
.~
I~
.l. LPE
~ . H
------
H
2
[" P(~l=0-75C(O)oH
[
A. Stiff Wall
[
[
[-'
~ ,
[.
!--:
H 6.PAE =~ LKAE '6H 2
[ where 6K AE = KAE -KA
1_,
[- ~
I,.
EARTHQUAKE INCREMENT OF EARTH PRESSURE FIGURE 25
[ .
STIFF AND FLEXIBLE WALLS
I
MONONOBE-OKABE EARTHQUAKE
EARTH PRESSURE
COHESIONLESS SOIL
CONSTANT BACKFILL
........
'.,
..... !
A
FAI LURE PLAN E FOR ACTIVE EARTHQUAKE
EARTHQUAKE LOADING PRESSURE ON A-B
cot (aAE-w) = -tan (~+o+S-w) + sec (~+a+S-w) y cos (S+a+e) sin (~+o)
cos (S-w) sin (~-8-w)
NOTES
r~
[' ,
2.4 -,-----~---___.---___r--_.____,--__,__,
2.3+-----~----+------+--~~--~~
2.2 +----~----_+---_+---_t_~--_+_~
2+-------+----_+------+---.r-~-_7~__j
1.9 +-----+-----+-----+---r-~-_f_-_
1. 7 +-----+-----+-------;-----:;------'--f---___/_'
[~ r-.
2.
1.6 -t-----+-----i-----+-r------"7'--------:r---i
1.5 +-----+-----+----~<----T-t--~__j
u
" 1.4 +-----+----_+_--~r__;_-_;>r_r_---r-_r_--T-;
w
~ 1.3-t-----r---_+_-~r-_T-~-~r-~~~
y:
1.1-!------c----~--'7""'----7-___:::~---:..-.---:;~,-£--'--
1+------+--~-_+_~--=~_=~-=~,-£----~
0.8 -+--=----=--==---=---=--~=---~=::;...~--------t---
[ O. 7
0.6
-i-----:==--'O:=--:::;,;.--==----=::>---=:=--:""=------7-------;---~
-+---====-~~=----+----+---~----
0.5 -+-----+-----+-----+---~----
[, 0.4 +-----+-----'--+----+---~-----j
o 0.2 0.4
I.
t'
I.
l~
L
1
7
I
I
3 : -,! [-
tI
:
2.5
'/
~ I I
I
- ,
r..
0
0
.....,
"'- 2
/ 11 j
I
[----,,'
, -
:
w
<t:
y
<l ./
V / f:, I
1.5
~
__7 I:
0.5
- - -!.----
l'
0 I
0 0.2 0.4
·l
EARTHQU.A.KE ACCELERATION COEFF. C(O) f_:,
0.5 -+-----+----+-----t-------t------1
o+-----+----+-----t---------t------1
o 0.2 0.4
/1
,I
Sloping Backfill
SOIL FRICTION. ¢= 30
0
; WALL FRICTION, &" ¢
f~ 4~-----~------~~----.-.r--_.-.------.
3.5 + - - - - - + - - + - - - - - I - - _ + _ - - - t - - - - - l - - - - 4 - _ _ t _ - - - _ _ j
l~
3+---~r-__+----+-_+_---.r__j---~-__t_---~
.[
2.5 - l - - - - I - " - - - - - l - - - - . t - - - _ + _ - - - - f - - _ I I _ _ - - - j - - - t - - - - - - - - j
[' 2-l--------l~~----_+_~--_I~~--_+_-----_I
. [ ,
[' 1+---~~=----_+_---~~=----_+_----~
·C O~I-------+-----,I-------r----~-----~
o 0.2 0.4
EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION COEFF. C(O)
[ >
Sloping Backfill
SOIL FRICTION.¢= 35
0
WALL FRICTlON) 8: ¢
[ 4.------,,----r.---~_.---_.-._---_._.
;
r:
2.5 +----/--------+----.'----_+_---/------+---f---1---I------1
I>
I. 2T-----~r----~----~~----~-----~
1.5 -+--:7""'--------l--:~--_+_~.,£------j__:~--__t_---------j
I:
[~ 0.5 - t - - - - - i - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - l - - - - - - - t - - - - - - i
[-- . O-t-----i-----t---------l------t-------i
o 0.2 0.4
1:
f"
r:
r~
Sloping Backfill
SOIL FRICTION, ¢= 40°; . WALL FRICTION, o=-¢
4~------~----~~----~1~~--~--~----~-' r:
I
3.5 -l----------l-------+___+-----+--+-----+----+-----f-----..;
,"
3-l----------+---~+-___+----~--+__--+_--_+_--~--___..;
L
2.5 +--------+----f-~__+--_f_----i__+_----_+__+_------!
I'
2+-------~------~~--~-ri__----~~----~~
1.5 --L-~----_+___y<C------+~------~----____=_..-'f"o----------I
L
t
0.5 - 1 - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - 1
r
O+-------~------__+------+__------_+_------~ -l :
o 0.2 0.4
~[:
r 2.4-
2.3
Horizontal Backfill
WALL FRICTION, & = Z/o¢
1. 2.2
2.1
2
L 1.9
1.8
1" ""
a
1.7
1.6
'-'" 1.5
()
l-' "-
w
<{
:,::
1.4
1..3
<l 1.2
L 1.1
0.9
[, O.B
0.7
0.6
I, 0.5
0.4
0 0.2 O.4. .
'.'
[
~,
I:
l~
1_ .
l~
1__.
I.
MONONOBE-OKABE ACTIVE EARTHQUAKE
FIGURE 31
I: EARTH PRESSURE INCREMENTS FOR
VERTICAL WALLS
I
[A] Sloping Backfill
SOIL FRICTION, ¢= 20°; WALL FRICllON} b=- 2/3 tp
4-
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5
I I
J I I
3
I
I
2.5
!/
;} I I
"..,
0
'--'
u
, "'- 2
/ J J
I
V J
w /
~
~
<l
1.5
~
~
0.5
-
I
I
---
o I I I
o 0.2 0.4
EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION CCEf"r. C(O)
Sloping Backfill
[ill SOIL FRICTION, ¢= 25°; WALL FKICllON, !)~ 2.hP
4-
1 I I
I I I I
I I
3.5 I I I
3
/ I
I
I
I I
I
7
l I
I
I
I
r
I
2.5 -I
"..,
0
'--'
u
"'- 2 / ) )
w
~
~
<l
1.5
V V /
./
~ J_~[7 ~
0.5
-
-
---- - ~
o I
o 0.2 0.4
I: 4~------~------~~----'-1I----'--'--------'
3.5 -I--------I-+-----+--+-----+---+-----t---I"--------I
L
r
[~
3+-----~_+----~r-+_----+-_r----~~------~
2.5 -I-----/---__I_-----/----+_---+---+-----I---t---------I
2~~----__I_--~----+_--~-~---/---~-----____l
:[~
1.5 +-------:"...c--+------~+-------:~------~___7_------1
[~
L 0.5
[, 0
0 0.2 0,.1
L 3
2.5
,......
1_ c 0
'-J
0
""-w 2
[: ~
~
<l
1.5
r :
I~ 0.5 -G;;2E====±==I~-L-~
[: o+-------+--------+------~-----~-----~
o 0.2 0,4
[~
EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION COEFF. C(O)
[:
l"
t'
t '!
t-'
3.5
3
r
2.5
L
r"\
u
0
......
""-
w
2 l'
r
4:
::s::
<1
1.5
l'
[:
0+1------~------_4------~------~------~
o 0.2 0.4 [:
EARTHCLJAXE ACCELERATION COEFF. C(O)
[~
"[
~[:
-L
,1.
MONONOBE-OKABE ACTIVE EARTHQUAKE
EARTH PRESSURE INCREMENTS FOR FIGURE 34 ~t,
VERTICAL WALLS
F\
~~ \
r:
["
r~
f'
Horizontal Backfill, Wall Slope -14 0
f' 2
WALL FRICTION
1.9
1.8
r'
("".,1;,I,:'r'.
1.7
1.6
[ 1.5
1.4
,[ r,
1.3
1.2
0 1.1
'-'
u
[~ "- 1
w
<{ 0.9
~
<l 0.8
t' 0.7
0.6
0.5
[-' 0.4
0.3
0.2
l_: 0.1
0
0 0.2
l:
0.4
l
l.
,t~
l~
l
MONONOBE-OKABE ACTIVE EARTHQUAKE
EARTH PRESSURE INCREMENTS FOR FIGURE 35
f. NON- VERTICAL WALLS
0
I 1 I
I I I
3.5
I 1 I "l~
I I I
3
2.5
i I
I
I
I r
r.
'0
v
/ ij I
I r'
;
0
""- 2
w
<
~
<J
/ / ~ ,
1.5
V
~ ~ ['
~
-
0.5
r~
o
o 0.2
I I
0.4
L
[ill
EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION COEFF. C(O)
0
,[
Sloping Backfill, Wall Slope .:..- -14
SOIL FRICTION, 1>=0 25·; WALL FRICllON, ~,.. Z/.=. ¢
4
I I I I , ,r :
1 I .I I
3.5
I
I
I T T l:
3 I I I
~O/
1
II
I
I
1
I
L
2.5
1
J ~
I
r.
0
v
0 .., } I L
""- L
W
<
~
<l
1.5
/ / V j/ ) l
V
~~ ~
0.5
---- I ~
[
[
o
o 0.2 0.4
L
MONONOBE-OKABE ACTIVE EARTHQUAKE
EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION COEFF. C(O)
l
EARTH PRESSURE INCREMENTS FOR FIGURE 36
NON':" VERTICAL WALLS L
:-1 0
.1. 3.5
3
{:
2.5
[- ,...,
a
'-"
0
"- 2
w
[' .q:
~
<l
1.5
t:
r. 0.5
·L . 0
0 0.2 0.4
[ill
0
3.5 I
1- :
Ii
[-~ 3
I
2.5
[ ,...,
,
a
'-"
0
"- 2
w
l~ ~
~
<l
1.5
l'
[.
1_: O+I------~------~------~------~------~
o 0.2 0.4
I
Jt~ •
r-',
l
l~
I~
IT]
0
'"
0
'-J
0
2.5
r
"- 2
w
<{ l_,
Y:
<1
1.5
L
r:
O+-------+-------+-------~------~----~
L'
o 0.2 0.4
~l '
~~ -';
,t,
~J,
.... :1
~L
,l
MONONOBE-OKABE ACTIVE EARTHQUAKE
EARTH PRESSURE INCREMENTS FOR
NON- VERTICAL WALLS
FIGURE 38 :f
if
'f
if'
SOIL WITH OR WITHOUT COHESION
:I'
IRREGULAR GROUND SURFACE
:I~ 2
7"AW/.
..
"[ .", .~
.: ....
:, ,0
::'..~
":.
" "
'.
','
'0, ...
C(O)W
.:;' ;:,
:: :.
[ ~:~. :":
,:' :.
'I:
'[ "-
FORCES ACTING ON
l: TRI AL WEDGES FOR
EARTHQUAKE'
r' LOADING.
[ FORCE POLYGON
FOR TYPICAL
W WEDGE
I.
(:
c(O)W COMBINATION OF I
~
FORCE POLYGONS
l TO OBTAIN MAX.
PAE.
NOTES
l_, 1. The above example is drawn for Rankine's conditions but the principle
appl ies also for Coulomb's conditions.
FIGURE 39
FORCE ON WALL
L.
[I
I~
,:
,:
l.
l'
---
1.7
I ,
1.6
1.5
I
f\ I I [
1.4 1\ i I I
I 1
..
""
1..
Q)
E
1.3
1.2
1.1
"\'\ I
1
! 1
I
I
I
II
['
\. I I
'"
.....
0
(J
1
0.9 I \1 I I 1 L
~ 0.8
~ 1 I
z
w
J! 0.7 "- I
L
""', I
w
(J
0.6
1
:5
a. 1 I 1
0.5
(J)
a I ""-
0.4 "'- 1
'f'
~ I I
0.3 1 I
--- ----+- - -
..........
1 I
0.2
0.1 I
1
1
! -,
[ :
0 I I I
0.2 0.4
L
l_:
l
DISPLACEABLE WALL - WALL DISPLACEMENTS
FIGURE 40 ,f
FROM SLIDING BLOCK THEORY
1\
r -1.2
-1.3
r
-1.4
----- ----
~o I
-1.5
_ c5°
-1.6
-t----
------
-1,7
l' -1.8
~O" I ~
r.
"""'" ~
0
'-/
u
-1.9
- ."'5
0
~~I
f' "-
w
0..
Y:
-2
-2,1
40" I
~
~~~
\
<l -2,2
-2,3 I \ I ~
l: -2:'4
..c..c:..,o I ----r----~ I
I
I
-2:5 I I I "
I I I
[ -2:6
-2.7 I I I
"I
-2~a
I I I
I I I
L -2,9
-3 I
I I j
o 0.2 0.4
[' EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION COEFF. C(O)
L 5.5
5
r-'
4.5
[' 4
. 40°
w
0.. 3.5
Y:
t: <J
3
[~ 2.5
2
L_.
1.5
1_,
o 0.2 0.4
1_. EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION COEFF. CeO)
I
[A) ROTATED WALL
i:
H
H
H
3
-L--_IU_JJ ~'"!------.. - --- -~
t P(i:)= 1· 2 Es ~
A1111]J1
{1J {1J L
L+-;:J
u d U1
.!; 3 U1
{1J
d'4-L
waD.
+-
C {1J
{1J >
E
{1J
+=
U
ClJ
L.
L {1J ::J
u '4-..c. U1
C '4- +- U1
.- {1J L {1J
O'4-d L
W O {1JD.
[ :
L
{1J
{1J
C
..0 d
d D.
+-
L. {1J
{1J L
4-
::J
d ~
3:
[:
l"
I'
.1:
I. ...c
r'
~ ,
l~
.r:
From
-l:
MO
Equotions
-[
[
C(o)W - + - - - 1 Ir----Tie anchor
/ L
/ w [
/ ~
/
-
Assumed PQSSlve
fQilure surfQce
/ [
/
/ ,l.
" ..
From
MO EquQ tions l:
1:
~'
[
[ [A] LOAD UHITING CONNECTION lliJ _RIG. :. iOO---,-CO,",-NN,--,E:.::..C;..;..IfO::..;.N~T-=-O
;.' --=B.:..;.:RI.=..;DG=,
C
TO BRIDGe: SUF5iSTRUCTURE SUPERSTRUCTURE
f"
[~,
[-.
r' ~A~~~~r-
PsI
fl P;:: \
____________~
L t~=----,-,
"V'//~,""v//~
I:
I: >W-<''W#'"'''' \
">'//.<"""//A
AP E1 APE2
. PI
L. PSl--1
PS2
PF:2.
\
L ~//A"o///A~
1
SURCHARGE AIDS
STABILITY UNIFORM SURCHARGE
I
I I
I
~ VIRTUAL BACK ~ VIRTUAL BACK
I OF WALL I OF WALL
I I
I
LOADING I. LOADING 2.
CRITICAL FOR BEARING PRESSURES CRITICAL FOR STABILITY.
AND WALL REINFORCEMENT.
l __
~
--I' r-: II :-l
~
/~
d'x
~
/~ 6'/
9 X
~
?"~ 9 <;)
Ii';< (./
ANALYSIS SAME AS FOR STANDARD CASE, UNTIL TRIAL WEDGE INCLUDES LINE LOAD.
THE LINE LOAD ADDED. TO THE INDIVIDUAL TRIAL WEDGE WEIGHTS INCREASES THE VALUE
OF P "
A
FIGURE 47
I
,-,
'~ ,I.........
l~ ~ - - -L
1- . .-I. . . J
m::0'61~--" ~
,~
::>-. - -- ..... - - - -..........
.-."
I
o· 2
.........
FiJ
II
C 0· AT
m=0'7~ Vi \ ~ ~/ ,-:
l.L..
0
~I ~m::10'5 1
;' } I
wO' 6 ~. l.
3 1---!---+_-l7/~t;-'v-1'-f-'/-t1_-+-I 0 ~4 . ';0 H I ~ m ~ (~p) R
/
§ / /~I
0-8
-- /
0·5
/
/
~I I 0·7· 48H
. 56 H
0'6', - 52. H tr-
1/--
"0'4
0·5
0·6
·78 '59H
·60 ·54H
·46 ·48H
/ "[
/J
0·2 0'4 0·6 0·8 '·0 '·5
VALUE OF Po (J::!...)
[
QL
X=mH JQL
•
\
FOG( m ~ 0.4 [
'1 ~//f:::
IIi.JC H 0.20n
11
PQ (QL) = <O.16+n 2 )2 .1:
H --L- -10. Po
r-
I+-
R PQ = 0.55QL
.I~
For m > 0.4
PRESSURES FROM
" 'II
1. 28m 2 n For m ~ 0.4 L
LINE LOAD QL P Q(Ji..) - ---::2';"=~-:::-
2
QL - (m + n )2
~ -
0.64QL
_~g = (m 2 + 1)
PA = I<Al' ~
,·0
h
0.8 I 1,./ I
l
~
"?; 0·6 / / // '
Z ~ =30°
!
H hw L
PA
PA I (no water) o 0'4171IY=19-7 kN/m33
Pw ~ "(= 9·8 kN/m
~ 0.2 SUB
~ hw 0:::.
3" o ___ L-~_ _~~
rr . '-rw ='YW (2 - hr~
I~-L
0·6 1·4
~
-;-
N
:r:
-t-
-~
0-5
0-4
/
tI ll.<t
+
,;::
0.1
'·3
"~ 0-3 n.<t
HI I~;~:1I 'j{ ]I" / 0,/
0 0-2 / 0
rft3
l-
V l-
e:! 0·1 / e:!
n: 1·2
n: V
o /'
90 80 70 60 50 40 25 30 35 40
ANGLE o(A ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION ~
POREWATER PRESSURE. ON
IMPERVIOUS PLANE AT ANGLE o(A VARIATION OF U WITH INCREASE OF WALL FORCE
d. A IS ANGLE
OF ANY ANGLE (f:A FOR VARIOUS ANGLES ~
FAILURE PLANE BEING
CONSIDERED []] SEEPAGE PRESSURE FOR DRAINED WALLS FIGURE 45
0-5"... LAYER OF FILTER MATERIAL [' ',
01<. GEOTE..XTILE DRAINAGE"., ME.Me,RAN~
%
0·0"...
75h"'11"1" MIN. DIA. W£EP
HOLES AT 3t'n
CENTRES. WHERE \A' IS LESS THAN
IAI O'0h"1, FILTER MATERIAL
CAN BE OMITTED
IMPERVIOUS BACKFILL
BELOW WEEPHOLE
HESSIAN BAGS (EX15TIN6 SOIL)
FILLED WITH
O'03 m ?J OF
COARSE AGGREGATE
Li
DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR LOW WALLS
['
l'
~- CONSTRUCTION
BATTER
DRAINAGE MATERIAL
." ...
"0 '.,
GRANULAR BACKFILL / 10'6"",
'.. '.
MATERIAL (FREE i.' :.:: • /
DRAINAGE) .... :::
......
.' ':;. " :
: 1: '.:
..... !.
CONSTRUCTION BATTER
75 ......... Min. Dia. WEEPHOLEC~'i'~
AT 3...... CENTRES TO
SUIT ARCHITECTURAL
0'5"", NOM. LAYER OF FILTER
FINISH.
MATERIAL OR.. A DESIGNED
GEOTE.XTIL£.. DRAI~A6E. ME.MBRANE..
HESSIAN BAGS FILLED HOLE THROUGH TO 5UIT !)ITE. CONDITIONS
WITH O'O~rn~ OF COUNTERFORT WHERE
COARSE AGGRE GATE TOP SURFACE OF ORIGINAL GROUND
HEEL IS LEVEL
DRAINAGE MATERIAL
\\\ ..!
I -.l
\\\
\\\\.\
\\\ \'
80 1\\'\\\'
. \ ,\' I I
L\ _1
r- I
J
IJ
il'l
I
(9
70 I
I I '-\ l'1l'1.\ ~
w II
s: !
r
\I I \,,4
~' 1\ 1\
\.
C'\
[.J..
I n
~
60
>-
CD
II
I
I
I
I
I
, II \
~
\
1\
I I J LJ 1'-.
0::: I , I I
w 50
\
I I I I I
Z I 1\ \ l\l l',. I I
I I I
l.L
!-- 40
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
.i
1
~
.i
\j
"-
.\. \.1
L
I
..Lt
I
I
1. I
1
['
z I I _\. I\,
w ! I 1 1 1\ \\ \ \. '\ I 1
0
a:: 30
w
I
1
1
I
1 I
1
I
I I
1
I
'{
!\
1
\
I\. \.1
I'
'\1 , ' I
'\ I
1
;
1
I
1
I
I
I
1 I f
['
J. l!1 I I .1 _"I. .1 I i I .1
a.. 1 1 1 I I\. 1'\ _1'> 1 I I 1
,,
i 1 I JI I I .1
I , I 1 1\ -'"'\I " .11 1 I
20 I 'I 1 Dol I I
I II I I b I '0 I Illlr III!) Lli I
I I 6 ~ 1 '-~ 1"- ~ 1 I
I I 1 i"'1. 1
10 I ",I I .1 I.J. .1-, 1'-, I
I 1 1 \ \. 1,\ 1
-" r-, '1'- ~
1 ~
..l
t::: ~
.1-.
I ..l
"
-"" I~ ......
J
000
o cx) <D
00
o;tfQ
o
C\J
o co
GRAIN
<.D
SIZE MILLIMETERS
- CO
o 0
<.0 o;t ~
00 o
C\J -
69
co
00
<D
0 L
COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY
FOR CLEAN COARSE- GRAINED
10-4r-----.-----------------------~
o
EFFECT OF FINES ON PERMEABILITY
DRAINAGE MATERIAL.
CURVE k, m/sec
I.
aJ
CI1
,
E
.:E
10-5Hr~---+------4_------~----~----_4
2
3'7",10- 1
2:~ x 10-1
l.
~ TYPE OF FINES MIXED WITH
>- COARSE GRAINED MATERIAL 3 2:51<10-2.
!-- 10-b~~~~~__ ----~ 4 ~xl0--4
~ FINES
5 1 )(,10- 4
m
<t 6 1I< 10-Z.
w
~ 10-7r---~~--~~-=~--+_----_r----~ 7 5·2.><.10-;3
a:::
w 8 ~·5,.;10-~
0. 9 1·1 ... ~0-.3
1_.
10 4x10- 4
~ 10-8r------r~~--~----~------F=--~~
!--
II 1 ><.10-4 -
z
W
o I O-~ r-----t----f'o.---'O"'C---t-----f------i
I..L. PERMEABILITY OF
I..L.
W DRAINAGE MATERIALS
o
o 10- 10 L--_ _- - '_ _ _ _--'-_ _ _- ' -_ _ _ _ _.l.---'==---.J
o 5 10 15 20 25
PERCENT BY WEIGHT PASSING
No. 200 SIEVE FIGURE 52
(after- U5. Department oHhe. Navy I r~5z.)
I
;
I TYPE
~
OF LOAD DIAGRAM STABI LI TY CRITERIA
,!
WALL
I· d. )
Fs ( sling S + Pp_
= __
GRAVITY
PH
~ ~ 1.5 (static loading)
or ~ 1.2 (earthquake loading)
OVERTURNING
BEARING PRESSURE
l' CANTI-
assuming Pp =0
For. soi I foundation material, d
LEVER should be within middle third of
l >
Pp
the base (static loading) or
middle half (earthquake loading).
For a rock foundation, d should be
l, SOIL PRES SUR E.
within middle half for both static
and earthquake loading.
Fs (bearing) ~ 3.0 (static loading)
l, or ~ 2.0 (earthquake loading).
~ee section 7.4 for calculation of
factor of safety for bearing.
Wt = total weight of the wal I in-
COUNTER c Iud i ng so i I on toe p I us so i I
- FORT. above heel (for canti lever and
L counterfort wal Is only)
Pv = vertical component of PA
.l . PH = horizontal component of PA
Rw = resultant of Wt and PA
p" =, e.FFE.C.T'V~ ve:.~T'C.AL
OF p" .. p" - VB
C,O ....n:>oNe.M,-
r
!
I ~
~ 200~-~--~~--~~--~~~~7~/
160 f---+---+----f---+---f---I---I---jf--.l~1
J~ 120~--+---~-I---+--~--~-I--!~J/~jl
1001----~--~~--+__~--1----_I_-111J_7_J7~
80f--~-~-f--+--+-+---,---~"n-7~
[ ___
~ 60~ __I--~_ _'~-+___~_f-_ _.~V~1
; 40f--~--~-+--+--+--+-_/~~~+f;!~.--~
f' ~ 30f--~~--+-_f---~~I~~i~/--4--~
'[-~
~
E 20f--~--+--+--+-~~--41.~~4--4--~
Vl
~ -~,
~ 16~-~~~~~N.~c~d~~~~
~ 12~--+---+-~~-1--4'~~+---~--~-~
g 10~--+---~~/+--+--AV-+/-+---~--~--~
L V /11
ga. 8f--~V~~-+--4/~-~-+--+--4--~
~AI /
[~~
~ 6/ 7'Vj
ro 4f---f---+-~~~-4--4--4--4-~
/ ~y~--~~---~--~
[: /V/
[, 2 V II
11/i
o 5 10
/
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
[ Angle of shearing resis1ance, '" { degrees}
[ ,
[,
L
L
[
[
i BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS FIGURE 55
(
-I
v
I Ground surface
D ( not greater I
H than B ) I
I
~
1-< )0-\
B Equivalent horizontal basef-~--- B
ex /
Eccentricity with
respect to centroid
Inclined load L
Eccentricity applied V !-O(-~I of founda tion
vertical load ....;r' • ,
,l'
, -
B'=B-2e x
~,--------)o--
I~- B'~
,L
1\\I\\II\\\\III\\IIII\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~
1-< \pressure distribution
. I on equivalent base
V
Point of application I \ ~ = BIX LI
of resultant vertical --- ~ \-o(..!.·~-+-I ~
force V ~. \ I ~
Centroid of ~
foundation
-----1 -1'I -dr____
I
1.8
...:- 1. 61----+-----+--"7'--+------+----1
-
o
u
o
4-
(l)
0-
o 1.4 1-------1----;--+------:
.c
(J)
sc ~ 1
1. 2 1----T-+------:;>-4-----::b--=----b~=----=I
tI)>--
...:-
o
g
0+-
O. 8 f------+---""-.:--_+_--_t_~___=_--t
[
'<-
(l)
0-
o
.c
(J) Q6~----+----+------t-~---t-----~
l_
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Breadth/length, BIL
Approximate values for the shape factor for centrally-applied vertical loading
l:
Shape factors for inclined loading then become
ScB = 1 +O. 2icB B '/L',
The shape factors s...,o and S...,L must not be less than O.n .
. l_
I
BRINCH HANSEN BEARING CAPACITY FORMULA FIGURE 57
- SHAPE FACTORS
I i
[-'I
l~:
4.0.------r-----y----r------, ['
5.67
['
3.5 l - - - - + - - - + - - - - v - - - - - - j
['
. 3.0 l - - - - + - - - - Y - - - - t - - - - - - j
3.59 8
II
['
CO
~
o
.........
['
g 2 .51----+---.L---:~--t---__j
C)
,...
0
'+-
-
...c:
n..
Q)
2.56
'+-
en
Q)
-:::J
I'
o 2. 0 .'--I--k--~-+--::;_;:;_:;;-t---__j ~
"'~-+--~-J 2.04 l:
L~::'-+----:~11.
l----jfllh4~~i=.:j=2~0~0*=~ 1.65
70
I'
1.5 =0-10 0 1.58
l:
5 10
Depth Jbreadth, DJ B
15 20
I,
[,
l:
d-y = 1
!:
l_ ;
!:
I:
BRINCH HANSEN BEARING CAPACITY FORMULA
- DEPTH FACTORS
FIGURE 58 I i
/.
I.
j~
i
r
I
.~
~
o
r~ U
-- o
c
o
- o
[' c
u
c
r:
l~ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H/B'L'c + Vtan cp
~[
0.8t---'&:---t---t----1r-----t---l
L' .~
~ 0.6
U
l" o
'+-
c
·2o O.4f----:+--~--r----_t_-__j
r' c
u
c
o.2t----:+----t---->rk---_t_-__j
['
°O~-~--~~~~~~-~
0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0
l.~. H/V + B'L'c cot cp
1.0 .----,-----,---~-.--___,
I:
o.81-~--l---+--+----t----I
[~
E 0.6 f---\\\-+---+--t------t---j
L u
.....o
c
o
~ 0.4 f----1~--+--t----t---j
L c
u
c
0.21----t---\--'"rl---t----:+----i
[.,
OL---J---~--~----~--~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
I
l H/V + B'L'c cot cp
I
(after Tomlinson, 1987)
J.
I
BRINCH HANSEN BEARING CAPACITY FORMULA
- LOAD INCLINATION FACTORS FIGURE '59
"\
TOE MOMENT EFFECT ON HEEL
The toe support moment produces a
loading on the heel. If it is
assumed that no moment is trans-
mitted into the stem, an equivaient
parabol ic heel loading is as shown
below, with the maximum ordinate
given by
Id Pt = 2.4 MT/a 2
LOADING FROM
TOE MOMENT
ASSUMED FOUNDATION
BEARI NG PRESSURES
p
max
RESULTANT LOADING ON
HEEL (May be fully positive)
+VE
-VE
FIGURE 60
)
i
I'
['
~
[ , /y ANCHORAGE LENGTH
l~
ASSUMED 45°
~ \ .
L
A = Point of maximum moment (maximum al lowablestress in al I main tensi Ie
[ re info rcement) .
The 'cut off' position for some of the bars of the main tensi Ie reinforcement
L is to be the greater of:
0
[. (a) Anchorage length past the assumed 45 crackline from A.
r: 'jd' can be taken as the perpendicular distance from the centroid of the
steel to the midpoint of the stem slab.
l_:
l,
L.
'CUT OFF' POSITIONS OF MAIN TENSILE
l STEEL IN COUNTERFORT
L FIGURE cOf
TRIPLE WALL
DOUBLE WALL
'!
SINGLE WALL
,">
J )
12
Fs (overturning I = 2.0 min.
E
8
• -.J
-.J
<{
~
LL 6
0
f-
:c
~
w
:c I.
(
Ii ,'/
)
w
n-
o
-.J
U)
2
f----t--\---t---r---, .. -
o 5 10 15 20 25
BACKFILL SLOPE w (degrees)
~
['
e
[' 10,------,
Assumptions: Soil properties : ¢' c=O, ~=19·SkN/m3
WQII properties: S= ¢, W =1S·SkN/m 3
l. 9~------+-------~ WQII slope : ~=-14° (4 in 1)
WQter tQble below bQse of wall.
Live load surcharge equal to
t' 8~------~~-----+-------' 0·6m of soil included.
~: F (sliding)=1-Smin.
F (overturning)= 2·0min.
[ Seismic Coefficient ((0)= 0'2 _
6~------~~----~~----~r-------. - - - - ¢'::40°
[ - - - - - - ¢'= 30 0
5
t: E
'-
...J
...J
<t
3 4
[: LL
a
_Hz.?
-
f-
:r:
L:J
~--
3
--
! ['
lL..J
:r: ---HI'
l~
lL..J
Cl..
a...J
Vl
2
-- --
l~
~,
5 10 15 20 25
l~ BACKFILL SLOPE WO (degrees)
\
/32 (-14 0
)
GR~'I
TWo
~-------+\I~~~A~~' .~
. -.. P2
81 i ding surface -I!liIJi!ff/ ~ / \ P, FORCE ' POLYGON TO OBTAIN P
A
4 NOTES
H2 HI
1. PI and P2 are calculated by
Coulomb's equations using
/ appropriate values for SI and S2 -
figures l 5 to 8 may be used.
/" 2. PA is the resultant of P and P in
./'" P2 1
both magnitude and direcrion. 2
3. PA acts through the intersection of
0=2/3 ~ . the I ines of action of PI and P .
2
'* 0·6
0·3 m for single
m min. for
walls
double
and tripl e walls.
r-- ,..----,
:--] ----, ,----, ---'
r--' ~
o. b o
'No' ,,..~ f / I - y - - ~({""IMfl
-~~~ 0'25H
-...I / f----~-""1_~_
I
I
I
/
I
H
H ----?' / H
I jPH
I
I
-9-----i F
~ A·
I '\
~~~~/,;+-I
I
/
/ FAILURE
SURFACE
I A
r: DEFLECTED POSITION
EXCAVATION EXCAVATION
[ IN SAND IN CLAY
L
The above apparent pressure diagrams may be used for determining the strut
[: loads in braced excavations.
EXCAVATION IN S~~D
EXCAVATION IN CLAY
[. Area abcd is the pressure distribution. The shape of this diagram and
the magnitude of the pressures depend on the value of the stabi I ity
n umbe r (N:;l
[.
N,s =.QJ:L
c
I,
2< Ns ~ 5 5< Ns <10 10<N s < 20 20<N s
A '25H 0 0 0
f'
q q
s
NbC
F (base) = - -
oH+q
I
[' ,
H.
STRENGTH a=THE SOIL F~OM BASE
LEVEL TO A DEPTH
THE BASE
a=
0.25 H BELOW I"
Nb= STABILITY FACTOR
r:
L= EXCAVATIOO LENGTH
[
l:
l
10 r----.-----.-----r----.-----.----.-----r----~----~--~ J:
9 l:
Z
.0
0::
~
8
SQUARE OR
CIRCLE ~ =1 l~
o
~
~
LL
>-
7 l,
.....
:J
en
;:f
(f)
6 I,
5
STABILITY FACTOR FOR VARlaJS
GEOMETRIES OF CUT l:
'O~----~----~----L----J2----~----~3-----L----~4----~--~5 L
H
B
(After Janbu et at, 1956 ) l:
[,
a
..::
,.,.
r----- CLAY, AVERAGE TO ~
x lone
1.0
:>
'-<l
Sand dnd 50Ft tl) hard clay cJvcrage
vlOrkman!=hip
c
~
ZonE.' I I
-
"j) al Vc-ry s0ft to soft clay
!..'"J
1J LilT'ited dr.pth of clay below
~
rc botton; of cxca·"Citi'Jn.
:J
~ . 2) Significant depth of cl<lY
.-2 belo\'; bottom of e:,cavation
but Nb< :J. 14.
( b) SETTLEMENT DATA
bi S(!ttlc'n1('nts dffE-cted by
construction difficulties.
[ atter 0' Rourke et aI, 1976 J
Note ZUII" I II
May be u sed for approx i mat e
Ver'y soft to sort clay to a
guidance only for residual .soils, si5]nificant d0.pth bplow bottom of
excavation and \\ith N I» 5.14',
oH
whC'("(:' Nt ) "cb
--
l' simPlifiedT
- Struts
--
\ ,
settlcmp.nt
\ I
profi I e
l: \
~
base heave
. 1--___ '7T.'~'7'T_; ~ flexible side supports
[ :'
[ "
I:
I';
1:
l'
I':
L
I:'
[:
r:
I,
.I,
.L
J:
J,
.l: i
.L I
;I I