Project Report

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................
1.1 Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Walls ............................................................. 3
1.2 Non-Gravity Cantilevered Walls ...................................................................... 4
1.3 General Design Principles ................................................................................ 4
1.4 Objective and scope of the work: ...................................................................... 5
2. GRAVITY WALLS............................................................................................... 6
2.1 Stability............................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Gravity Wall Design using GINT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental

Software............................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Verification of complete wall ......................................................................... 13
3. CANTILEVER WALL ........................................................................................ 14
3.1 Proportioning ................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Elements Design ............................................................................................ 15
3.3 Stability.......................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Cantilever Retaining Wall Design using STAAD etc ...................................... 19
4. GABION WALLS ............................................................................................... 27
4.1 Forces acting on the wall ................................................................................ 27
4.2 Stability of Gabion Wall ................................................................................. 29
4.3 Gabion Gravity Wall Design using GINT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental

Software............................................................................................................... 31
4.5 Verification of construction joint ( Block No.: 2) ............................................ 35
5. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALL ............................................ 36
5.1 Structural Dimensions .................................................................................... 37
1
5.2 External Stability ............................................................................................ 38
5.3 Overall Stability ............................................................................................. 40
5.4 Reinforcement Design .................................................................................... 42
5.5 Design Life .................................................................................................... 42
5.6 Geo-Synthetic ................................................................................................ 42
5.7 Design of Face Elements ................................................................................ 43
5.8 MSE Design using G-iNT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental software..... 44
5.10 Verification of construction joint (Block No.: 0) ........................................... 47
6. INTEGRATED RETAINING WALL .................................................................. 50
6.1 Analysis using STAAD Pro V8i ..................................................................... 51
6.2 Design of Mat Foundation .............................................................................. 57
6.3 SAFE Analysis & Design ............................................................................... 65
7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 77
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Retaining walls shall be designed to withstand lateral earth and water pressures, the
effects of surcharge loads, the self-weight of the wall and in special cases, earthquake
loads in accordance with the general principles specified in this section. Retaining
walls shall be designed for a service life based on consideration of the potential long-
term effects of material deterioration on each of the material components comprising
the wall. Permanent retaining walls should be designed for a minimum service life of
50 years. Temporary retaining walls should be designed for a minimum service life of
5 years. The quality of in-service performance is an important consideration in the
design of permanent retaining walls. Permanent walls shall be designed to retain an
aesthetically pleasing appearance, and be essentially maintenance free throughout
their design service life. Retaining walls can also help protect against erosion on
susceptible sites. Concrete retaining walls provide a durable solution that is required
of a structure in contact with soil and exposed to constant wetting and drying.
Retaining walls are generally classified as gravity, semi-gravity (or conventional),
non-gravity cantilevered, and anchored. Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist
lateral loads through dead weight of the wall. The gravity wall type includes rigid
gravity walls, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, and prefabricated modular
gravity walls. Semi-gravity walls are similar to gravity walls, except they rely on their
structural components to mobilize the dead weight of backfill to derive their capacity
to resist lateral loads. Non gravity walls rely on structural components of the wall
partially embedded in foundation material to mobilize passive resistance to resist
lateral loads.
1.1 Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Walls

Rigid gravity walls may be constructed of stone masonry, unreinforced concrete, or
reinforced concrete. These walls can be used in both cut and fill applications. They
have relatively narrow base widths. They are generally not used when deep
foundations are required. They are most economical at low wall heights. Semi-gravity
cantilever, counter fort and buttress walls are constructed of reinforced concrete. They
can be used in both cut and fill applications. They have relatively narrow base widths.
3
They can be supported by both shallow and deep foundations. The position of the wall
stem relative to the footing can be varied to accommodate right-of-way constraints.
These walls can support sound walls, sign structures, and other highway features.
They can accommodate drainage structures and utilities and span existing drainage
structures and load sensitive utilities. They are most economical at low to medium
wall heights. Due to the rigidity of rigid gravity walls and semi-gravity walls they
should only be used where their foundations can be designed to limit total and
differential settlements to acceptable values.
1.2 Non-Gravity Cantilevered Walls

Non-gravity cantilevered walls are constructed of vertical structural members
consisting of partially embedded soldier piles or continuous sheet piles. Soldier piles
may be constructed with driven steel piles, treated timber, precast concrete or steel
piles placed in drilled holes and backfilled with concrete or cast-in-place reinforced
concrete. Continuous sheet piles may be constructed with driven precast prestressed
concrete sheet piles or steel sheet piles. Soldier piles are faced with either treated
timber, reinforced shotcrete, reinforced cast-inplace concrete, precast concrete or
metal elements. This type wall is suitable for both cut and fill applications but is most
suitable for cut applications. Because of the narrow base width of this type wall it is
suitable for situations with tight space constraints or right-of-way constraints. This
type wall depends on passive resistance of the foundation material and the moment
resisting capacity of the vertical structural members for stability, therefore its
maximum height is limited by the competence of the foundation material and the
moment resisting capacity of the vertical structural members.
1.3 General Design Principles

Soil restrained by a vertical or near-vertical retaining wall exerts a lateral pressure
against the wall. This pressure tends to cause sliding and rotation of the wall which
must therefore be designed to resist these forces over the intended design life.
Drainage is an important aspect of any retaining-wall project. Water must not be
allowed to build up behind the wall. Retaining walls are designed to resist earth
4
pressures exerted by only the weight of soil retained. These are much less than the
hydrostatic pressure exerted by water trapped behind the wall.
The following parameters influence the design of the retaining wall:
 Wall height
 Soil type
 Sloping land below and/or above the retaining wall.
 Loads above and behind the retaining wall.
All the retaining walls must satisfy the following checks:

 Safety against overturning
 Safety against sliding
 Safe Bearing Capacity
 Slope stability
1.4 Objective and scope of the work:

Aim of this work is to analyze and design various retaining walls including Integrated
Retaining structure where earth pressure is transferred to the base foundation of the
superstructure. The Integrated retaining wall is designed as a two way slab with
horizontal beams projected from the structure acting as columns for the slab, which
give support to the slab and help in transferring earth pressure to the structure and
ultimately to the foundation. Integrated retaining structures are economical in
situation when structure is very close to the soil cut and land availability is limited.
Mat foundation is designed as base for the structure providing support and taking up
all the loads and undergoing uniform settlement.
5
2. GRAVITY WALLS
Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist lateral soil loads through a combination of
dead weight and sliding resistance. Gravity walls can be further subdivided into rigid
gravity walls, prefabricated modular gravity walls and mechanically stabilized earth
(MSE) gravity walls.
Rigid gravity walls consist of a solid mass of concrete or mortared rubble and they
use the weight of the wall itself to resist lateral loads. Prefabricated modular gravity
walls consist of interlocking soil or rock-filled concrete, steel, or wire modules or bins
(such as gabions). The combined weight resists the lateral loads from the soil. MSE
gravity walls use strips, bars, or mats of steel or polymeric reinforcement to reinforce
the soil and create a reinforced soil block behind the face. The reinforced soil block
then acts as a unit and resists the lateral soil loads through the dead weight of the
reinforced mass. MSE walls may be constructed as fill walls, with fill and
reinforcement placed in alternate layers to create a reinforced mass, or reinforcement
may be drilled into an existing soil/rock mass using grouted anchor technology to
create a reinforced soil mass (soil nail walls).
Figure2.2.1 Gravity wall
6
Gravity walls depends upon bulk weight for stability, as opposed to a cantilever
retaining wall fixed to a foundation. The design of a gravity wall of concrete or
bonded stone involves six basic steps:
1. Calculate the dead load of the wall including all components and any
superimposed or axial load, plus tributary earth weight over the base.
2. Based upon (1) compute the resisting moment about the front edge of the base.
3. Determine the lateral soil pressure and its line of action. The coulomb formula
should be used because it includes backfill slopes, batter of the wall, and soil
friction angle at wall interface. If the backfill is sloped, you can use a vertical
component of the active pressure, which is assumed to act vertically at the
back edge of the wall footing. The line of action for the resultant lateral force
is assumed to be the wall friction angle plus the inclination angle of the wall
batter.
4. Check the stability by computing overturning moment, resisting moment (per
above), and determine factor of safety (1.5 minimum).
5. Check for sliding coefficient friction is generally 0.25 to 0.45. If soil is clay,
cohesion would control.
6. Verify that little or no flexural tension exit in the wall. Check at several
locations by calculating the section modulus of the wall and lateral moment at
each selected height.
2.1 Stability
A retaining wall may fail in any of the following ways:
• It may overturn about its toe.
• It may slide along its base.
• It may fail due to the loss of bearing capacity of the soil supporting the base.
• It may undergo deep-seated shear failure.
• It may go through excessive settlement.
7
2.1.1. Overturning
Figure shows the forces acting on a cantilever based on the assumption that the
Rankine active pressure is acting along a vertical plane through the heel of the
structure. PP is the Rankine passive pressure
PP =0.5KPɣD2 + 2c 𝐾D
The factor of safety against overturning about the toe may be expressed as
∑MR
FS (overturning) =
∑MO
Where ∑MO= the sum of moments of forces tending to overturn about the toe and
∑MR = the sum of the moments of forces tending to resist overturning about the toe.
The overturning moment is
∑MO = PH (H‟/3)
Where PH = PAcosα
To calculate the resisting moment, the weight of the soil above the heel and the
weight of the concrete contribute to the resisting moment. Note that the force P V also
contributes to the resisting moment. PV is the vertical component of the active force.
The moment of the force about the toe is
MV = PVB = PA sin αB
The usual minimum desirable value of the factor of safety with respect to overturning
is 2 to 3.
8
2.1.2. Sliding
The factor of safety against sliding may be expressed by the equation
∑ FR
FSSLIDING =
∑F S
Where ∑ FR = Sum of horizontal resisting forces and ∑ FS = Sum of horizontal

driving forces
∑𝑽𝒕𝒂𝒏𝜹′ +𝑩𝒄𝑨+𝑷𝑷
FSSLIDING = 𝑷𝑨 𝑪𝑶𝑺𝜶
A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding is generally required. If the desired
value of is not achieved, increase the width of the base slab or use a key to the base
slab. Another possible way to increase the value of FS SLIDING is to consider reducing
the value of PA.
2.1.3. Bearing Capacity
The vertical pressure transmitted to the soil by the base slab of the retaining wall
should be checked against the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. Note that and are
the maximum and the minimum pressures occurring at the ends of the toe and heel
sections, respectively. The magnitudes of qTOE and qHEEL can be determined in the
following manner:
The sum of the vertical forces acting on the base slab is ∑V and the horizontal force
PH is PAcosα Let
R= ∑V +PH
be the resultant force. The net moment of these forces about the toe is
MNET = ∑MR - ∑Mo
9
Let the line of action of the resultant R intersect the base slab at an arbitrary point say
E .Then the distance
M NET
CE = 𝑋 - ∑V
Hence, the eccentricity of the resultant R may be expressed as
B
e = 2 − CE
The pressure distribution under the base slab may be determined by using simple
principles from the mechanics of materials. First, we have
∑V MNET y
q= ±
A I
Where I = moment of inertia per unit length of the base section and A= area of the
cross section.
When the value of the eccentricity e becomes greater than B/6, qMIN becomes
negative. Thus, there will be some tensile stress at the end of the heel section. This
stress is not desirable because the tensile strength of soil is very small. If the analysis
of a design shows e > B/6 then the design should be re-proportioned and redone.
2.2 Gravity Wall Design using GINT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental

Software
Given data (Refer to Cross Section)
Wall Height……………………….. 6.00m

Surcharge………………………….20kn/m2
Backfill slope angle……………….. 0 deg
Back Face slope angle……………..-6 deg
10
Soil friction angle………………….30 deg
Soil density……………………….. 20KN/m3
Soil bearing pressure……………... 210MPa
Cohesion of soil……………………5 KP
Angle of friction struc-soil…………10 deg
Horizontal seismic coefficient…….. 0.05
Figure2.2.2 Dimensions of Gravity wall
11
Figure 0.3 Gravity wall in GINT
Gravity Walls Analysis
12
2.3 Verification of complete wall
Check for overturning stability

Resisting moment Mres = 802.43 kNm/m
Overturning moment Movr = 326.12 kNm/m
Safety factor = 2.46 > 1.50
Wall for overturning is satisfactory.
Check for slip

Resisting horizontal force Hres = 204.64 kN/m
Active horizontal force Hact = 129.76 kN/m
Wall for slip is satisfactory.
Forces acting at the centre of footing bottom

Overall moment M = 183.3 kNm/m
Normal force N = 329.39 kN/m
Shear force Q = 129.76 kN/m
Bearing capacity of foundation soil check

Eccentricity verification
Max. eccentricity of normal force E = 556.5 mm
Maximum allowable eccentricity EALW = 1321.7 mm
Eccentricity is satisfactory.
Footing bottom bearing capacity verification

Max. stress at footing bottom s = 113.9 kPa
Bearing capacity of foundation soil Rd = 210 kPa
Bearing capacity of foundation soil is satisfactory.
Overall verification - Bearing capacity of foundation soil is satisfactory.
13
3. CANTILEVER WALL
The cantilever wall is the most common type of retaining structure and is generally
economical for height up to about 8 m. The structure consists of a vertical stem and a
base slab, made up of two distinct regions, viz., a heel slab and a toe slab. All three
components behave as one-way cantilever slabs. The stem acts as a vertical cantilever
under the lateral earth pressure ; the „heel slab„ acts as a (horizontal) cantilever under
the action of the weight of the reinforced earth (minus soil pressure acting upward
from below); and „toe slab‟ also act as cantilever under the action of resulting soil
pressure (acting upward). The detailing of reinforcement (on the flexural tension
faces) is accordingly. The stability of the wall is maintained essentially by the weight
of the earth on the heel slab plus the self-weight of the structure.
Figure3.0.1 Cantilever wall
3.1 Proportioning
For the preliminary calculations, the thickness of base slab may be taken as about 8
per cent of the height of the wall plus surcharge (if any); it should not be less than
14
300mm. the base of thickness of the vertical stem may be taken as slightly more than
that of the base slab. For economy, the thickness may be trapped linearly to a
minimum value (but not less than 150 mm) at the top of the wall; the front face of the
stem is maintained vertical. If the length of the heel slab and/or toe slab is excessive,
it will be economical to provide a tapered slab.
With the above preliminary proportions, the stability check and determination of the
soil pressure (at the base) may be performed. It may be noted that the changes in
thickness of base slab and stem if required at the design stage, will be marginal and
will not affect significantly either the stability analysis or calculated (gross) soil
pressure below the slab.
3.2 Elements Design

The three elements of the retaining wall, viz., stem, toe slab and heel slab have to be
designed as cantilever slabs to resist the factored moment and shear forces. For this a
load factor of 1.5 is to be used.
In case of the toe slab, net pressure is obtained by deducting the weight of the
concrete in the toe slab from the upward acting gross soil pressure. The net loading
acts upward (as in case usual footings) and the flexural reinforcement have to be
provided at the bottom of base slab. The critical section for moment is at front face of
stem, while the critical section for shear force is at a distance d from the face of the
stem. A clear cover of 75 mm may be provided in the base slabs.
In the case of the heel slab, the pressure acting downward, due to the weight of
reinforced earth (plus surcharge if any), as well as the concrete in the heel slab,
exceed the gross soil pressures acting upward. Hence, the net loading act downward,
and the flexural reinforcement has to be provided at the top of the heel slab. The
critical section for moment is at the rear face of the stem base.
In the case of the stem (vertical cantilever), the critical section for shear may be taken
d from the face of the support (top of base slab), while the critical section for moment
should be taken at the face of support. For main bars in the stem, a clear cover of 50
15
mm may be provided. Usually, shear is not a critical design consideration in the stem
(unlike the base slab). The flexural reinforcement is provided near the rear face of the
stem, and may be curtailed in the stages for economy.
Temperature and shrinkage reinforcement (Ast min =0.12 per cent of gross area) should
be provided transverse to the main reinforcement. Nominal vertical and horizontal
reinforcement should also be provided near the front face which is exposed.
3.3 Stability
A retaining wall may fail in any of the following ways:
• It may overturn about its toe.
• It may slide along its base.
• It may fail due to the loss of bearing capacity of the soil supporting the base.
• It may undergo deep-seated shear failure.
• It may go through excessive settlement.
3.3.1. Overturning
The forces acting on a cantilever are based on the assumption that the Rankine active
pressure is acting along a vertical plane through the heel of the structure. P P is the
Rankine passive pressure
PP =0.5KPɣD2 + 2c 𝐾D
The factor of safety against overturning about the toe may be expressed as
∑MR
FS (overturning) =
∑MO
Where ∑MO= the sum of moments of forces tending to overturn about the toe and
∑MR = the sum of the moments of forces tending to resist overturning about the toe.
16
∑MO = PH(H‟/3)
Where PH = PA cosα
To calculate the resisting moment, the weight of the soil above the heel and the
weight of the concrete contribute to the resisting moment. Note that the force P V also
contributes to the resisting moment. PV is the vertical component of the active force.
The moment of the force about the toe is
MV = PVB = PA sin αB
The usual minimum desirable value of the factor of safety with respect to overturning
is 2 to 3.
3.3.2. Sliding
The factor of safety against sliding may be expressed by the equation
∑ FR
FSSLIDING =
∑F S
Where ∑ FR = Sum of horizontal resisting forces and ∑ FS = Sum of horizontal

driving forces
∑Vtan δ′ +Bc A +P P
FSSLIDING =
P A COS α
A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding is generally required. If the desired
value of is not achieved, increase the width of the base slab or use a key to the base
slab. Another possible way to increase the value of FS SLIDING is to consider reducing
the value of PA.
17
3.3.3. Bearing capacity
The vertical pressure transmitted to the soil by the base slab of the retaining wall
should be checked against the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. Note that and are
the maximum and the minimum pressures occurring at the ends of the toe and heel
sections, respectively. The magnitudes of qTOE and qHEEL can be determined in the
following manner:
The sum of the vertical forces acting on the base slab is ∑V and the horizontal force
PH is PA cosα. Let
R= ∑V +PH
be the resultant force. The net moment of these forces about the toe is
MNET = ∑MR - ∑Mo
Let the line of action of the resultant R intersect the base slab at an arbitrary point say
E .Then the distance
M NET
CE = 𝑋 -
∑V
Hence, the eccentricity of the resultant R may be expressed as
B
e= − 𝐶𝐸
2
The pressure distribution under the base slab may be determined by using simple
principles from the mechanics of materials. First, we have
∑𝑉 𝑀𝑁𝐸𝑇 𝑦
𝑞= ±
𝐴 𝐼
18
Where I = moment of inertia per unit length of the base section and A= area of the
cross section.
When the value of the eccentricity e becomes greater than B/6, qMIN becomes
negative. Thus, there will be some tensile stress at the end of the heel section. This
stress is not desirable because the tensile strength of soil is very small. If the analysis
of a design shows e > B/6 then the design should be re-proportioned and redone.
3.4 Cantilever Retaining Wall Design using STAAD etc
Design Parameters
Height of Retaining wall (H) = 7150.000 mm
Thickness of base (TB) = 850.000 mm
Thickness of stem at top (TST) = 600.000 mm
Unit weight of concrete (γC)= 26.923 kN/m3
Unit weight of soil on Heel slab (γS) = 21.539 kN/m3
Angle of internal friction for soil on heel (ɸA) = 30.0 0
Surcharge Pressure (Ps) = 0.020 N/m2
Coefficient of friction between soil and base slab (μ) = 0.500
Characteristic strength of concrete (fck) = 20 N/sq.mm
Characteristic strength of steel (fy) = 415 N/sq.mm
Load Factor (k) = 1.500
Clear Cover to main reinforcement (Cc) = 50.000 mm
19
Minimum percentage of reinforcement (PTMIN) = 0.120 %
Diameter of main reinforcement in heel slab (ɸ1) = 16.000 mm
Diameter of main reinforcement in Toe slab (ɸ2) = 16.000 mm
Diameter of main reinforcement in stem (ɸ3) = 16.000 mm
Diameter of distribution reinforcement in Heel slab (ɸd1) = 12.000 mm
Diameter of distribution reinforcement in Toe slab (ɸd2) = 12.000 mm
Diameter of distribution reinforcement in Stem (ɸd3) = 12.000 mm
Minimum allowable spacing (Smin) = 50.000 m
Maximum allowable spacing (Smax) = 250.000 m
Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure (Ka) = 0.333
Ratio of Toe slab width to Base width (α) = 0.240
Stability Check
Base width of Retaining wall (B) = 5000.000 mm
Thickness of stem at bottom (TSB) = 1100.000 mm
Width of Toe slab (BT) = α x B = 1200.000 mm
Width of Heel slab (BH) = B - BT - TSB = 2700.000 mm
Total Active Earth Force on Retaining wall = 183.519 N
Total Lateral Force due to Surcharge = 47.667 N
Net moment due to horizontal component of earth pressure (MH) = 607794.751 N mm
Net moment due to vertical component of earth pressure (M V) = 0.000 N mm
Total Weight (W) = 722.895 N
20
Total Moment about Toe (M) = 1541547.501 N mm
Overturning Moment (MO) = 607794.751 N mm
Restoring Moment (MR) = 2149342.252 N mm
Eccentricity from toe end (XA) = 2132.464 mm
Eccentricity from centre (e) = B/2 - XA = 367.536 mm
e ≤ B/6 . So Tension doesn't occur. Hence OK
Factor of safety against overturning (FO) = MR/MO= 3.536
So it is safe against overturning. Hence OK.
Factor of safety against sliding (FSL) = 1.563
FSL> 1.5 So it is safe against sliding.
Pressure Distribution:
Maximum Bearing Pressure (PMAX) = 208.345 kN/sq.m
Minimum Bearing Pressure (PMIN) = 80.813 kN/sq.m
Design of Heel Slab
Moment about face of stem (MHC) = 272680.762 N mm
Shear at face of stem (VHC) = 170.996 N
Factored Moment (MHCU) = K x MHC = 409021.144 N mm
Factored shear (VHCU) = K x VHC = 256.493 N
ɸ1
Effective depth of Heel slab (dH) = TB – CC - = 792.000 mm
2
Limiting moment (MULIM) = 1730790.988 N mm
21
MULIM>MHCU so a single reinforced section would suffice. Hence OK.
Area of steel required in Heel (AST1) = 1488.429 sq.mm
C/S area of main steel bar (A ɸ1) = ∏ x ɸ1 2 /4.0 = 201.143 sq.mm
Spacing of main reinforcement required (S1 REQUIRED) = b x A ɸ1 /AST1 = 101.587 mm
Spacing of main reinforcement provided (S1 provided) minimum (3 x dH, 450,SMAX,

S1REQUIRED)= 100.000 mm
Area of steel provided in Heel (AST1_PROV) = b x A ɸ1 /S1 = 2011.429 sq.mm
Percentage of steel provided (PT) = 100 x AST_PROV /(b x dH) = 0.254 %
Distribution steel area in Heel (ASTD1) = PTMIN x b x dH/100 = 0.950 sq.mm
C/S area of distribution steel bar (A ɸd1) = ∏x ɸd1 2 /4.0 = 113.143 mm
Spacing of distribution steel required (SD1 required) = b x A ɸd1 /ASTD1 = 119.048 mm
Spacing of distribution steel provided (SD1 provided) minimum(450,5 x

dH,Sd1required) = 115.000 mm
Developed shear stress (τhc,dev) = VHCU/(b x dH) = 0.324 N/sq.mm
Maximum allowable Shear stress (τc,max) = 2.800 N/sq.mm
τhc,dev<τc,maxSo the section provided is OK.
Shear strength (τc1) = 0.362 N/sq.mm
Developed Shear stress (τhc,dev) is less than allowable Shear stress ( τc,1 ) Hence OK
Design of Toe Slab

Moment about face of stem (MTC) = 126185.293 N mm
Shear at face of stem (VTC) = 204.187 N
Factored Moment (MTCU) = k x MTC = 189277.939 N mm
22
Factored Shear (VTCU) = k x VTC = 306.281 N
Effective depth of toe slab (dT) = TB – CC - ɸ2 /2 = 792.000 mm
Limiting moment (MU,LIM) = 1730790.988 N mm
MU,LIM>MTCU So a singly reinforced section would suffice. Hence OK.
Area of steel required in Toe (AST2) = 673.818 sq.mm
C/S area of main steel bar (A ɸ2 ) = πx ɸ2 2 /4.0 = 201.143 sq.mm
Spacing of main reinforcement required (S2 required) = b x A ɸ2 /AST2 = 84.656 mm
Spacing of main reinforcement provided (S2 provided) minimum (3 x dT, 450, SMAX,
S2REQD) = 80.000
Area of steel provided in Toe (AST2PROV) = b x A ɸ2 /S2 = 2514.286 sq.mm
Percentage of steel provided (PT) = 100 x AST2_PROV/ (b x dT) = 0.317 %
Distribution steel area in Toe (AST2D) = PT,MIN x b x dT/100 = 0.950 sq.mm
C/S area of distribution steel bar (A ɸd2 ) =πx ɸd2 2 /4.0 = 113.143 sq.mm
Spacing of distribution steel required (Sd2 required) = b x A ɸd2 /ASTD2 = 119.048 mm
Spacing of distribution steel provided (SD2 provided) minimum (5 x dT,450,SD2,REQD)

= 115.000 mm
Developed shear stress (τtc,dev) = VTCU/(b x dT) = 0.387 N/sq.mm
Maximum allowable Shear stress (τc,max) = 2.800 N/sq.mm
τtc,dev<τc,maxSo the section provided is OK.
Shear strength ( τc2 ) = 0.397 N/sq.mm
Developed Shear stress ( τtc,dev) is less than allowable Shear stress ( τc,2 ) Hence OK.
23
Design of Stem
Moment about base of stem (MSC) = 431504.992 N mm
Shear at stem base (VSC) = 184.479 N
Factored moment (MSCU) = k x MSC = 647257.488 N mm
Factored Shear (VSCU) = k x VSC = 276.718 N
Effective depth of stem (dS) = TSB – CC - ɸ3 /2 = 1042.000 mm
Limiting moment (MU,LIM) = 2995916.467 N mm
MU,LIM>MSCU. So a single reinforced section would be sufficient. Hence OK.
Area of main steel required in stem (AST3) = 1783.815 sq.mm
C/S area of main steel bar (A ɸ3) =πx ɸ3 2 /4.0 = 201.143 mm
Spacing of main reinforcement required (S3 required) = b x A ɸ3 /Ast3 = 112.760 mm
Spacing of main reinforcement provided (S3 provided) minimum (3 x dS, 450, SMAX,
S3REQD) = 110.000 mm
Area of steel provided in stem (AST3_PROV) = b x A ɸ3 /S3 = 1828.571 sq.mm
Percentage of steel provided (PTS) = 100 x AST3_PROV/ (b x dS) = 0.175 %
Distribution steel area in stem (ASTD3) = PTMIN x b x dS/100 = 0.950 sq.mm
C/S area of distribution steel bar (A ɸd3) =πx ɸd3 2 /4.0 = 113.143 sq.mm
Spacing of distribution steel required (SD3 required) = b x A ɸd3 /ASTD3 = 119.048 mm
Spacing of distribution steel provided (SD3 provided) minimum (5 x dS, 450,

SD3REQUIRED) = 115.000 mm
Developed shear stress ( τsc,dev) = VSCU/(b x ds) = 0.266 N/sq.mm
Maximum allowable Shear stress ( τc,max) = 2.800 N/sq.mm
τsc,dev<τc,max .So the section provided is OK.
24
Table 3.1 Dimensions and Forces in Cantilever
Table 3.2 Reinforcement details
25
Figure 3.2 Reinforcement in Cantilever wall
26
4. GABION WALLS
Gabion Walls are generally analyzed as gravity retaining walls. Gabion walls may be
stepped on either the front or the back (soil side).The design of both types is based on
the same principles. Design begins with the selection of trail dimensions for a typical
vertical cross section through the wall.
Four main steps must then be followed:
1. Determine the forces acting on the wall.

2. Check that resisting moment exceeds the overturning moment by a suitable safety
factor.
3. Check that sliding resistance exceeds the active horizontal force by a suitable safety
factor.
4. Check that the resultant force falls within the middle third of the wall‟s base and
the maximum bearing pressure is within the allowable limit.
These steps are repeated iteratively until a suitable design that meets all criteria is
achieved. The wall stability must be checked at the base and at each course. When
required, flat layers of welded wire mesh (Anchor Mesh) are specified as soil
reinforcement to secure the gabion wall into the backfill.
4.1 Forces acting on the wall
As shown in figure below, the main forces acting on gabion walls are the vertical
forces from the weight of the gabions and the lateral earth pressure acting on the back
face. These forces are used in the main design principles. If other forces are
27
encountered, such as vehicular loads or seismic loads, they must also be included in
the analysis.
The weight of a unit length of wall is simply the product of the wall cross section and
the density of the gabion fill (Wg).The lateral earth pressure is usually calculated by
the Coulomb equation. Although based on granular material, it is conservative for
cohesive material. According to Coulomb theory, the total active force of the
triangular pressure distribution acting on the wall is
K a γH
Pa =
2
Where ws is the soil density, H is the wall height, and Kais the coefficient of active
soil pressure. If a uniformly distributed surcharge pressure (q) is present on top of the
backfill surface, it may be treated as an equivalent layer of soil that creates a uniform
pressure over the entire height of the wall. Equation 1 is modified to:
γH 2
Pa = K a ( + qH)
2
The pressure coefficient is 𝐾𝑎 given by:
cos 2 (ɸ−β)
Ka = sin ɸ+δ sin ⁡
(ɸ−α)
cos 2 β cos δ+β [1+ cos δ+β cos ⁡
(α−β)
]
Where:
α = slope angle of backfill surface
β = acute angle of back face slope with vertical
δ= angle of wall friction
ɸ= angle of internal friction of soil
The horizontal component of Pa is:
28
Ph = Pa cosα
The vertical component of Pa is usually neglected in design because it reduces the

overturning moment and increases the sliding resistance.
4.2 Stability of Gabion Wall

Stability of Gabion Wall is checked same as other retaining walls that is, checking
against sliding, overturning and bearing capacity of soil.
4.2.1. Overturning
The active soil pressure forces tend to overturn the wall, and this must be properly
balanced by the resisting moment developed from the weight of the wall and other
forces. Using basic principles of statics, moments are taken about the toe of the wall
to check overturning. This check may be expressed as
Mr ≥ FOS × Mo
Where MR is the resisting moment, Mo is the overturning moment, and SFO is the
safety factor against overturning (typically 1.5). Each moment is obtained by
summing the products of each appropriate force times its perpendicular distance the
toe of the wall.
Neglecting wall friction, the active earth force acts normal to the slope of the back
face at a distance H/3 above the base. When a surcharge is present, the distance of the
total active force above the toe becomes
H(H + 3q/WS )
Da = + Bsinβ
3(H + 2q/WS )
29
Mo = Da × Ph
The weight of the gabion wall (Wg) acts vertically through the centroid of its cross
sectional area. The horizontal distance to this point from the toe of the wall may be
obtained from the statically moment of wall areas. The moments of areas about the
toe are taken and then divided by the total area. The resisting moment is the sum of
the products of vertical forces or weights per unit length (W) and their distance (d)
from the toe of the wall.
4.2.2. Sliding
The tendency of the active earth pressure to cause the wall to slide horizontally must
be opposed by the frictional resistance at the base of the wall. This may be expressed
as
µ × Wv ≥ 1.5Ph
Where µ is the coefficient of the sliding friction (tan of angle of friction of soil), WV is
the sum of the vertical forces (Wg in this case) and SF S is the safety factor against
sliding (typically 1.5).
4.2.3. Bearing pressure
First check to determine if the resultant vertical force lies within the middle third of
the base. If B denotes the width of the base, the eccentricity e, of the vertical force
from the mid -width of the base is
B M r −M o
e = −
2 Wv
For the resultant force to lie in the middle third:
30
−B / 6 ≤ e ≤ B / 6
The maximum pressure under the base P, is then

Wv 6e
P = (1 + )
B B
The maximum pressure must not exceed the allowable soil bearing pressure Pb:
P ≤ Pb
4.3 Gabion Gravity Wall Design using GINT-Geotechnical and Geo-

Environmental Software
Given data
Wall Height……………………….. 6.00m

Surcharge………………………….20kn/m2
Backfill slope angle……………….. 0 deg
Back Face slope angle……………..-6 deg
Soil friction angle………………….30 deg
Soil density……………………….. 20KN/m3
Soil bearing pressure……………... 210MPa
Cohesion of soil……………………5 KP
Angle of friction struc-soil…………10 deg
Horizontal seismic coefficient…….. 0.05
Gabion fill density…………………19KN/m3
31
Figure4.4.1 Cross section of Gabion wall
Figure 4.2 Gabion wall in GINT
32
Figure 4.3 Dimensions of Gabion wall
33

Resisting moment MRES = 989.26 kNm/m
Overturning moment MOVR = 282.57 kNm/m
Check for slip

Resisting horizontal force HRES = 273.91 kN/m
Active horizontal force HACT = 88.58 kN/m

Overall check - WALL is satisfactory.
Bearing capacity of foundation soil check

Eccentricity verification
Max. eccentricity of normal force E = 419.2 mm
Maximum allowable eccentricity EALW = 1320 mm
Eccentricity of the normal force is satisfactory.
Footing bottom bearing capacity verification

Max. stress at footing bottom s = 141.4 kPa
Bearing capacity of foundation soil Rd = 210 kPa
Bearing capacity of foundation soil is satisfactory
Overall verification - bearing capacity of foundation soil is satisfactory.
34
4.5 Verification of construction joint ( Block No.: 2)

Resisting moment MRES = 424.01 kNm/m
Overturning moment MOVR = 84.74 kNm/m
Joint for overturning stability is satisfactory.
Check for slip

Resisting horizontal force HRES = 141.49 kN/m
Active horizontal force HACT = 37.28 kN/m
Joint for slip is satisfactory.

Maximum pressure on the bottom block = 88.5 kPa
Average value of pressure on face = 40.81 kPa
Shear force transmitted by friction = 93.38 kN/m
Bearing capacity against transverse pressure:

Joint bearing capacity = 40 kN/m
Computed stress-state = 20.29 kN/m
Transverse pressure check is satisfactory.
Joint between blocks check:

Mesh material bearing capacity = 40 kN/m
Computed stress-state = 20.29 kN/m
Joint between blocks is satisfactory.
35
5. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALL
One of most versatile technologies developed in the soil mechanics over the recent
years is reinforced earth. It is used in a number of situations to produce an efficient
and cheap structure which can be constructed with semi-skilled labours. The art of
stabilizing earth bunds by brushwood, bamboo, straw and other similar materials was
practiced all over the world from ancient times. It was quickly accepted over the
world wide basis for retaining walls, bridge abutments and many other projects. A
proper understanding of principle involved and knowledge of the available materials
as the reinforcement are necessary for its successful application. The basic simplicity,
the large economic benefits and the possibility of producing innovative structural
concepts have all contributed to the present rapid growth of reinforced earth all over
the world.
The remarkable features of mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) are the following:
 Strength - It can resist significant earth pressure and seismic force

 Flexibility - It adapts to substandard foundation soils and large settlements.
(This is one of its main advantages over rigid walls.)
 Construction - It can be easily constructed untrained labour.
 Low cost - Costs are low.
 Aesthetic factors - It has good appearance as the facing can be made of
attractive designs.
MSE walls shall be designed for external stability of the wall system as well as
internal stability of the reinforced soil mass behind the facing. MSE wall system
design requires knowledge of short and long-term properties of the materials used as
soil reinforcement as well as the soil mechanics which govern MSE wall behavior.
Structural design of the wall facing may also be required.
36
Figure5.5.1 Mechanically Stabilised Earth
5.1 Structural Dimensions

MSE walls shall be dimensioned to ensure that the minimum factors of safety
required for sliding and overturning stability are satisfied as well as the eccentricity of
the base reaction not exceeding the maximum allowed. In addition, the minimum
factors of safety for foundation bearing capacity and soil reinforcement pullout
resistance shall be satisfied, as well as overall stability requirements.
The soil reinforcement length shall be calculated based on external and internal
stability considerations. Soil reinforcement length shall be as a minimum 70 percent
of the wall height H and not less than 8 feet. The soil reinforcement length shall be
uniform throughout the entire height of the wall, unless substantiating evidence
indicates that variation in length is satisfactory or additional length is required locally
to resist concentrated loads. External loads such as surcharges may increase the
37
minimum soil reinforcement length. Greater soil reinforcement lengths may also be
required for walls founded on soft soil sites and to satisfy global stability requirement.
The minimum embedment depth of the bottom of the reinforced soil mass shall be
based on bearing capacity, settlement and stability requirements, also the effects of
frost heave, scour, and proximity to slopes, erosion, and the potential future
excavation in front of the wall shall be considered. In addition to general bearing
capacity, settlement, and stability considerations, the minimum embedment required
shall consider the potential for local bearing capacity failure under the leveling pad or
footing due to higher vertical stresses transmitted by the facing. The minimum
embedment depth shall be 2 feet or 0.1H, whichever is greater. The lowest level of
soil reinforcement shall be located a minimum of 0.5 feet below the level of the
finished grade in front of the wall.
5.2 External Stability

The length of soil reinforcement for MSE walls shall be determined to ensure stability
against failure modes by satisfying the following stability criteria:
Sliding – Factor of safety FS SL ≥ 1.5

Overturning – Factor of safety FSOT ≥ 1.5
Maximum eccentricity of the resultant force acting on the base of wall eMAX ≤ L/6
Bearing capacity - Factor of safety, FS ≥1.0.
Stability determinations shall be made assuming the reinforced soil mass and facing to
be a coherent gravity mass. The design lateral earth pressure acting on the pressure
surface at the end of the soil reinforcement shall be determined using the friction
angle and unit weight of the retained soil. For battered walls with an inclined pressure
surface, Coulomb’s theory may be used assuming the wall friction angle δ equals β or
B. For standardized wall designs a friction angle equal to 34 degrees may be assumed
for the retained soil and 30 degrees for the foundation soil. When groundwater levels
may exist within the reinforced soil mass and/or retained soil, they shall be considered
in stability determinations. The resistance due to passive lateral earth pressure in front
38
of an MSE wall shall be neglected in sliding and overturning stability determinations.
The determinations the weight and dimensions of the facing elements are typically
ignored, although they may be included.
5.2.1. Sliding
The factor of safety against sliding FSSL shall be determined by summing the
horizontal resisting forces of the wall and dividing that sum by the summation of
driving forces acting on the wall. The horizontal resisting forces typically only consist
of the normal force acting on the base of the wall times the coefficient of sliding
resistance. The normal force acting on the base consists of the weight of the
reinforced soil mass, surcharge loads acting on the top of the reinforced soil mass, and
the vertical component of the design lateral pressure acting on the pressure surface.
The coefficient of sliding resistance used to calculate the frictional resistance at the
base of the wall shall be the minimum of the following determinations:
Tan ø at the base of the wall, where ø is the friction angle of the reinforced soil or the
foundation soil, whichever is the least.
Tan r if continuous or near continuous soil reinforcement layers are used wherer is the
soil to reinforcement interface angle for the bottom of the lowest soil reinforcement
layer. If site specific data for Tanr is not available, use 0.67 Tan ø for the coefficient
of sliding resistance.
The summation of driving forces acting on the wall typically consists of the horizontal
component of the design lateral pressure acting on the pressure surface.
5.2.2. Overturning
The factor of safety against overturning, FSOT, shall be determined by summing the
resisting moments about the toe of the wall and dividing that sum by the summation
of the driving moments about the toe of the wall. The lower front corner of the
reinforced soil mass is typically assumed as the toe of the wall. The resisting moments
are typically provided by the weight of the reinforced soil mass, surcharge loads
39
acting on the top of the reinforced soil mass, and the tangential component of the
design lateral pressure acting on the pressure surface. The driving moment is typically
provided by the horizontal component of the design lateral pressure acting on the
pressure surface. The eccentricity of the location of the resultant force acting on the
base of the wall shall be determined and compared with the maximum allowable
eccentricity.
5.2.3. Bearing capacity

Allowable bearing capacities for MSE walls shall be determined using a minimum
factor of safety of 1.0. The width of the footing for determining the ultimate bearing
capacity shall be considered to be the length of the soil reinforcement at the
foundation level. Bearing pressures shall be computed using the Meyerhof
distribution, which considers a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective
base width B' = L-2e. When the value force is negative B' = L. Where soft soils are
present or if on sloping ground, the difference in bearing stress determined for the
wall reinforced soil zone relative to the local bearing stress beneath the facing
elements shall be considered when evaluating bearing capacity. This is especially
important where concrete wall facings are used due to their weight. Furthermore,
differential settlements between the facing elements and the reinforced soil zone of
the wall due to concentrated bearing stresses from the facing weight on soft soil could
create concentrated stresses at the connection between the facing elements and the
wall soil reinforcement. In both cases, the levelling, pad shall be embedded
adequately to meet bearing capacity and settlement requirements or dimensioned and
designed to keep bearing stresses beneath the levelling pad and the remainder of the
wall as uniform as possible.
5.3 Overall Stability

Overall stability analyses shall be performed. Additionally for MSE walls with
complex geometrics, compound failure surfaces which pass through a portion of the
reinforced soil mass shall be analyzed, especially where the wall is located on sloping
40
or soft ground where overall stability is marginal. The long-term strength of those
levels of soil reinforcement extending beyond a failure surface should be considered
as restoring forces in the limit equilibrium slope stability analysis. The slope stability
check can be done using Bishop‟s Method of stability analysis.
5.3.1. Internal Stability

Internal stability design is dependent on the soil reinforcement extensibility and
material type. In general, inextensible soil reinforcement consists of metallic strips,
bar mats or welded wire mats, whereas extensible soil reinforcement consists of geo-
textiles or geo-grids. Internal stability failure modes include soil reinforcement
rupture (ultimate limit state), soil reinforcement pullout (ultimate limit state), and
excessive elongation under the design load (serviceability limit state). The
serviceability limit state is not evaluated in current practice for internal stability
design. Internal stability is determined by equating the tensile load applied to the soil
reinforcement to the allowable tension for the soil reinforcement, the allowable
tension being governed by soil reinforcement rupture and pullout. The load in the soil
reinforcement is determined at two critical locations, i.e. at the zone of maximum
stress and at the connection with the wall face, to assess the internal stability of the
wall system. Potential for soil reinforcement rupture and pullout are evaluated at the
zone of maximum stress. The zone of maximum stress is assumed to be located at the
boundary between the active zone and the resistant zone. Potential for soil
reinforcement rupture and connection failure are evaluated at the connection of the
soil reinforcement to the wall facing. For the determination of the horizontal forces
and pullout resistance within the reinforced soil mass for permanent or temporary
MSE walls, a friction angle of 34° may be assumed for the reinforced soil mass.
Backfill for the reinforced soil mass shall consist of material free from organic
material and substantially free of shale or other soft, poor durability particles and shall
not contain slag aggregate or recycled materials such as glass, shredded tires, Portland
cement concrete rubble, asphaltic concrete rubble.
41
5.4 Reinforcement Design
The strength of the soil reinforcement needed for internal stability to resist the
maximum load applied throughout the design life of the wall shall be determined at
every level within the wall height. Therefore, for the maximum load at each level of
reinforcement
TMAX ≤ TA
Where T Ais the long-term allowable strength of the soil reinforcement associated with
the tributary area AT used in determining Tmax. The difference in the environment
occurring immediately behind the wall face relative to the environment within the
reinforced backfill zone and its effect on the long-term durability of the soil
reinforcement/connection shall be considered when determining TAsince To equals
TMAX.
5.5 Design Life

Soil reinforcement including connections to the facing in MSE walls shall be designed
to have a corrosion resistance/durability to ensure a minimum design service life. For
permanent walls with steel soil reinforcement, a design service life of 50 years is a
minimum. For permanent walls with geo-synthetic soil reinforcement, a design
service life of 75 years is a minimum. The greater design service life for geo-synthetic
soil reinforcement is due to the large influence creep has on the long-term strength of
geo-synthetic soil reinforcement. For temporary walls, a design service life of 5 years
is a minimum.
5.6 Geo-Synthetic
The durability of geo-synthetic reinforcements is influenced by environmental factors
such as time, temperature, chemical factors). Microbiological attack may also affect
certain polymers, though in general most of the polymers used for carrying load in
soil reinforcement applications are not affected by this. The effects of these factors on
product durability are dependent on the polymer type used (i.e. resin type, grade,
additives, and manufacturing process) and the macrostructure of the reinforcement.
42
Not all of these factors will have a significant effect on all geo-synthetic products.
Therefore, the response of geo-synthetic reinforcements to these long-term
environmental factors is product specific.
Wall application limits and soil aggressiveness are specifically described as follows:
1) Structure Application Issues: Applications for which the consequences of poor

performance or failure are severe consist of walls which support important structures,
critical utilities, or other facilities for which the consequences of poor performance
would be severe. In such applications, a single default reduction factor shall not be
used for design.
2) Determination of Soil Aggressiveness: Soil shall be considered aggressive when

any one of the following conditions exist: the maximum soil particle size is greater
than 0.75 inch, pH of the soil is less than 4.5 or greater than 9.0, the design
temperature at the all site is greater than 85°F and the soil organic content for material
finer than the No.10 sieve is greater than one-percent.
The allowable tensile load for geo-synthetic reinforcement is determined as follows:
TAL
TA =
FS
Where T AL is the long-term reinforcement strength and FS is a global safety factor
which accounts for uncertainties in structure geometry, fill properties, externally

applied loads, the potential for local overstress due to load non-uniformities, and
uncertainties in long-term reinforcement strength. For permanent walls, FSof 1.5 shall
be used.
5.7 Design of Face Elements

Facing elements shall be designed to resist the horizontal forces specified. In addition
to these horizontal forces, the facing elements shall also be designed to resist potential
compaction stresses occurring near the wall face during erection of the wall. The
facing element shall be designed such that they do not deflect laterally or bulge
beyond acceptable limits.. The basic design factored load shall be a distributed
horizontal load acting on the entire back face of the face element the resultant of
43
which is equal 1.8 times the sum of the TAvalues of the soil reinforcement connected
to the face element. The location of the resultant of this distributed load shall be at the
location of the resultant of the TA, values of the same soil reinforcement. Top of wall
facing elements which support a traffic barrier support slab shall be designed for a
horizontal line load acting at the top rear of the facing elements This load is to be
considered a factored load, and does not need to be combined with the basic design
factored load. Loads from any appurtenances attached to the facing elements shall be
considered.
5.8 MSE Design using G-iNT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental software
Given Data
Wall Height………………………......6.00m
Surcharge………………………….....20kn/m2
Backfill slope angle………………......0 deg
Back Face slope angle……………….-6 deg
Soil friction angle…………………....30 deg
Soil density…………………………..20KN/m3
Soil bearing pressure……………........210MPa
Cohesion of soil……………………...5 KPa
Angle of friction struc-soil…………...10 deg
Horizontal seismic coefficient…….....0.05
Block material density……………….24kN/m3
Reinforcement Length…………….....6.00m
Type of Reinforcement………………MIRAGRID 22XT
44
Figure 5.2 Dimensions of MSE wall
45
Figure 5.3 MSE wall in GINT
Figure 5.4 Slope Stability in GINT
46

Resisting moment
MRES = 4058.3 kNm/m
Overturning moment
MOVR = 789.75 kNm/m
Check for slip

Resisting horizontal force
HRES = 613.04 kN/m
Active horizontal force
HACT = 248.2 kN/m
Forces acting at the centre of footing

bottom
Overall moment
M = -2482 kNm/m
Normal force
N = 1048.8 kN/m
Shear force
Q = 248.2 kN/m
Overall check - Wall is satisfactory.
5.10 Verification of construction joint (Block No.: 0)
Resisting moment
MRES = 1777 kNm/m
Overturning moment
MOVR = 364.4 kNm/m
Joint for overturning stability is satisfactory.
Check for slip
Resisting horizontal force

HRES = 667.8 kN/m
47
Active horizontal force
HACT = 149.2 kN/m
Joint for slip is satisfactory.
Forces acting at the centre of footing
Overall moment M
= -1388 kNm/m
Normal force
N = 98.67 kN/m
Shear force
Q = -460.4 kN/m
Check for bearing capacity of Geo-Reinforcement No. 1
Check for tensile strength
Tensile Strength RT = 73.04 kN/m
Geo-reinforcement force FX = 11.35 kN/m
Factor of Safety = 6.43 > 1.50
Geo-reinforcement for tensile strength is satisfactory.
Check for pull out resistance
Pull out resistance TP = 676.19 kN/m
Geo-Reinforcement force FX = 11.35 kN/m
Factor of safety = 59.58 > 1.50
Geo-reinforcement for pull out resistance is satisfactory.
Slip Surface Parameters
Center S = (- 1.82; -6.54)
Radius r = 14.89 m
48
Angle α1 = -31.87
Angle α2 = 63.93
Slope Stability Check (Bishop’s Slip Circle Method)
FS= 1.60> 1.50
Slope stability is satisfactory.
49
6. INTEGRATED RETAINING WALL
Generally distance between a superstructure and retaining wall is found to be around

6 to 7 m. In cases where the soil cut is very close to the superstructure, Integrated
Retaining walls have been proved very useful. Integrated Retaining wall is a type of
Retaining wall which resists the soil backfill and transfers the load of the backfill to
the superstructure through the beams and subsequently to the foundation of the
superstructure. Hence weight of the superstructure is made to resist the active earth
pressure exerted by the soil mass. The retaining wall is designed as a vertical slab.
Integrated retaining walls have been found very useful in hilly regions like Mangalore
where the terrain is undulating and uneven. At such places, construction of integrated
retaining structure proves to be very economical. Deficiency of land and eventually
high land cost is one major factor which leads to the construction of Integrated
Structures.
As the supply of level building sites diminishes, the need to create level building
platforms for house construction on sloping sites will increase. Also, on many
developed sites there is often a need to level the front and/or back yards to fully utilise
the space for carports, gardens, plays and entertainment areas. Cut-and-fill is a
common method of achieving level areas but if a batter is used between the level
areas so created, a maximum usable area of level ground will not be achieved.
Furthermore, on some sites suitable fill may have to be imported and on others spoil
disposed of, both of which will add to the cost. The alternative is to use retaining
walls. Apart from retaining the soil, retaining walls can also help protect against
erosion on susceptible sites. The requirements of a functional retaining wall include:
structural stability, durability against the exposed environment, and provision of
drainage. Appearance will also usually be important.
Concrete retaining walls provide a durable solution that is required of a structure in
contact with soil and exposed to constant wetting and drying. The wide range of
available options ensures that a suitable solution can be found for any situation.
50
Integrated retaining wall is a type of wall in which a vertical slab is erected which
helps in retaining the natural soil and this slab is connected to the superstructure using
secondary beams which rest on the primary beams of the superstructure thus enabling
the transfer of earth pressure forces from the backfill to the foundation through the
beams and columns of the structure.
The Integrated Retaining Wall is analysed using STAAD Pro V8i. The support
reactions from the analysis are used to do the design using SAFE 12.0. The retaining
wall which is designed as a vertical slab is done using STAAD etc 4.0.
6.1 Analysis using STAAD Pro V8i

Steps in Modeling and Analysis
The steps of modelling and analysis for six-storey integrated building are listed
below:
1. Create a new structure

2. Add nodes and beams
3. Define material properties
4. Define section properties and assign to members
5. Define supports and assign to nodes
6. Define loads and assign to nodes and/or members
7. Define type of analysis
8. Choose post-analysis print commands
9. Analyse the structure
10. Study the results
51
6.1.1. Modelling Using Graphical User Interference (GUI)
Figure 6.1 3D Model of building
52
6.1.2. Create and Assign Supports
Mode: Modelling  General  Support
Figure 6.2 Assigning Supports
6.1.3. Define and Assign Section Properties

Mode: Modeling General Property
Figure 6.3 Section Properties
53
6.1.4. Loads and Load Combinations
Mode: Modeling  General  Load
Figure 6.4 Earthquake Load Definitions
Figure 6.5 Load Combinations
54
6.1.5. Post Analysis Print commands:
Mode: Modelling  Analysis / Print  Post-Print
Figure 6.6 Post Analysis Command
6.1.6. ANALYSIS
55
6.1.7. RESULTS
Figure 6.7 Report after analysis
Results- Support Reactions
56
6.2 Design of Mat Foundation
A shallow single foundation unit that supports all columns & walls of a structure or
parts of a structure may be called raft foundation. A raft foundation is also called as
mat foundation. They are usually provided for multi-story buildings, overhead water
tanks, chimneys. A raft foundation becomes unavoidable in submerged structure, in
some multi-story structures with basement and in retaining walls. The raft foundation
is usually designed as a flat slab.
Figure 6.8 Mat foundation
Foundation engineering often consider mats when dealing with any of the following
conditions:
1. The structural loads are so high or the soil conditions so poor that spread
footings would be exceptionally large. As a general rule of thumb if spread footings
would cover more than about one-third of the building footprint area a mat or some
type of deep foundation will probability be more economical.
2. The soil is very erratic & prone to excessive differential settlements. The
structural continuity & flexural strength of a mat will bridge over these irregularities.
The same is true of mats on highly expansive soils to prone to differential heaves.
3. The structural loads are erratic, and thus increase the likelihood of excessive
differential settlement. Again, the structural continuity and flexural strength of the
mat will absorb these irregularities.
4. Lateral loads are not uniformly distributed through the structure and thus may
cause differential horizontal movement in spread footing or pile caps. The continuity
of a mat will resist such movements.
57
5. The uplift loads are larger than spread footings can accommodate. The greater
weight and continuity of a mat may provide sufficient resistance.
6. The bottom of the structure is located below the ground table, so
waterproofing is an important concern. Because mats are monolithic, they are much
easier to waterproof. The weight of the mat also helps resist hydrostatic uplift forces
from the groundwater.
Mat Foundation shown above directly supported over soil and it is designed as a slab
using the software SAFE which uses the Finite Element Method. Similar to elevated
slabs, base mats and footings can be drawn using slab objects. The shell element in
SAFE incorporates shear deformation, therefore handling slabs that have a large
depth-to-span ratio, as is often the case with foundations. Working in 3-D allows for
the accurate representation of stiffness and loading from walls and columns, including
overturning moments. Any number of soil properties may be defined, so that the sub-
grade modulus can vary throughout the foundation. An explicit nonlinear process to
model no tension, (uplift) in the soil springs is available.
6.2.1. Finite Element Method

Mat foundations are designed with the aid of a computer using the finite element
method (FEM). This method divides the mat into hundreds or perhaps thousands of
elements. Each element has certain defined dimensions, a specified stiffness and
strength (which may be defined in terms of concrete and steel properties) and is
connected to the adjacent elements in a specified way. The mat elements are
connected to the ground through a series of “springs,” which are defined using the
coefficient of sub-grade reaction. Typically, one spring is located at each corner of
each element. The loads on the mat include the externally applied column loads,
applied line loads, applied area loads, and the weight of the mat itself. These loads
press the mat downward and this downward movement is resisted by the soil
“springs.” These opposing forces along with the stiffness of the mat can be evaluated
simultaneously using matrix algebra which allows us to compute the stresses, strains,
58
and distortions in the mat. If the results of the analysis are not acceptable, the design
is modified accordingly and reanalyzed. This type of finite element analysis does not
consider the stiffness of the superstructure. In other words, it assumes the
superstructure is perfectly flexible and offers no resistance to deformations in the mat.
This is conservative. The finite element analysis can be extended to include the
superstructure, the mat, and the underlying soil in a single three-dimensional finite
element method. This method would, in principle, be a more accurate model of the
soil structure system, and thus may produce a more economical design.
6.2.2. Nonlinear Analysis for Uplift

SAFE has an option to request that a nonlinear load case be used to consider soil
supports as providing compression only. This capability can be extremely useful for
analyzing basements and footings. If the nonlinear uplift analysis type is specified for
a load case, nonlinear gap elements are automatically activated in the soil support
springs. The gap elements can transfer only compressive loads, hence capturing any
uplift behaviour. This analysis type requires that any loads acting in combination be
added together in the load case, and not in combinations.
6.2.3. Slab Design

Similar to conventional design, the SAFE slab design procedure involves defining sets
of strips in two mutually perpendicular directions. The locations of the strips are
usually governed by the locations of the slab supports. The moments for a particular
strip are recovered from the analysis and a flexural design is completed based on the
limit state of collapse (IS 456-2000) for reinforced concrete as described in the
following sections.
6.2.4. Design for Flexure
SAFE designs the slab on a strip-by-strip basis. The moments used for the design of
the slab elements are the nodal reactive moments, which are obtained by multiplying
59
the slab element stiffness matrices by the element nodal displacement vectors. Those
moments will always be in static equilibrium with the applied loads, irrespective of
the refinement of the finite element mesh. The design of the slab reinforcement for a
particular strip is performed at specific locations along the length of the strip. Those
locations correspond to the element boundaries. Controlling reinforcement is
computed on either side of the element boundaries. The slab flexural design procedure
for each load combination involves the following:
 Determine factored moments for each slab strip.

 Design flexural reinforcement for the strip.
These two steps, described in the subsections that follow, are repeated for every load
combination. The maximum reinforcement calculated for the top and bottom of the
slab within each design strip, along with the corresponding controlling load
combination, is obtained and reported.
6.2.5. Determine Factored Moments for the Strip
For each element within the design strip, for each load combination, the program
calculates the nodal reactive moments. The nodal moments are then added to get the
strip moments.
6.2.6. Slab Punching Shear Check
The distribution of stresses close to concentrated loads or reaction points in reinforced

and pre-stressed concrete slabs is quite complex. Punching shear is one particular
failure mode recognized by design codes for which an elastic plate bending analysis
may not provide adequate stress distribution. Most codes use empirical methods based
on experimental verification to check against punching shear failures. SAFE
60
automates this check for common geometries. If the check results in a punching shear
ratio greater than unity (i.e., punching failure), SAFE will design punching shear
reinforcement. The SAFE procedure for the punching shear check carried out for each
column, for each design combination is as follows:
 Locate the critical section around the column or point load. SAFE reports
whether it assumed the column to be an interior, edge, or corner column. This
determination is based on whether the slab is present within 10 times the slab
thickness along the column edges. A column is classified as a corner column
when two slab edges are found within 10 times the slab thickness. A column
with only one slab edge within 10 times the slab thickness is classified as an
edge column, and a column is classified as interior when no slab edges are
found within 10 times the slab thickness. For single footings, this
determination is based on the minimum area of the critical section.
 Check that each slab element in the area enclosed between the face of the
column and the critical section for punching shear has the same slab property
label. If this is not the case, the minimum slab thickness within the punching
shear perimeter is used.
 Use the net shear to check punching shear if a point load or column (call it
load/column A) is within the critical section for punching shear for another
point load or column (call it load/column B).
 Calculate punching shear based on net forces in the slab when line objects
(beams, walls, or releases) frame into a column.
 Calculate the reactive force and moments at the column for the combination.
The shear and moment values used in the punching shear check are reduced by
the load (or reaction) that is included within the boundaries of the punching
shear critical section.
61
 Calculate the distribution of shear stress around the critical section.
 Obtain the shear capacity of the critical section.
 Compare the shear stress distribution with the shear capacity. The comparison
is reported as a ratio for the worst combination. A value above 1.0 indicates
failure.
The punching shear is checked on a critical section at a distance of d/2 from the face
of the support (IS 31.6.1). For rectangular columns and concentrated loads, the critical
area is taken as a rectangular area with the sides parallel to the sides of the columns or
the point loads (IS 31.6.1).
6.2.7. Transfer of Unbalanced Moment

The fraction of unbalanced moment transferred by flexure is taken to be αMu and the
fraction of unbalanced moment transferred by eccentricity of shear is taken to be (1
−α) Mu (IS 31.6.2.2), where:
& a1 is the width of the critical section measured in the direction
of the span and a2 is the width of the critical section measured in
the direction perpendicular to the span.
6.2.8. Determine Concrete Capacity
The concrete punching shear factored strength is taken as:
βc = ratio of the minimum to the maximum dimensions of

the support section.
62
6.2.9. Determine Maximum Shear Stress
Given the punching shear force and the fractions of moments transferred by
eccentricity of shear about the two axes, the shear stress is computed assuming linear
variation along the perimeter of the critical section.
6.2.10. Determine Capacity Ratio
The ratio of the maximum shear stress and the concrete punching shear stress capacity
is reported as the punching shear capacity ratio by SAFE. If this ratio exceeds 1.0,
punching shear reinforcement is designed as described in the following section.
6.2.11. Design Punching Shear Reinforcement
The use of shear studs as shear reinforcement in slabs is permitted. The algorithm for
designing the required punching shear reinforcement is used when the punching shear
capacity ratio exceeds unity. The Critical Section for Punching Shear and Transfer of
Unbalanced Moment as described in the earlier sections remain unchanged. The
design of punching shear reinforcement is completed as described in the subsections
that follow.
6.2.12. Determine Concrete Shear Capacity
The concrete punching shear stress capacity of a section with punching shear
reinforcement is as previously determined, but limited to:
63
If Vu exceeds the maximum permitted value of Vmax, the concrete section should be
increased in size.
6.2.13. Determine Reinforcement Diameter, Height, and Spacing
The punching shear reinforcement is most effective when the anchorage is close to the
top and bottom surfaces of the slab. The cover of anchors should not be less than the
minimum cover specified in IS 26.4 plus half of the diameter of the flexural
reinforcement. When specifying shear studs, the distance, so, between the column
face and the first peripheral line of shear studs should not be smaller than 0.5d. The
spacing between adjacent shear studs, g, at the first peripheral line of studs shall not
exceed 2d. The limits of so and the spacing, s, between the peripheral lines are
specified as:
64
6.3 SAFE Analysis & Design
Model Definition
Figure 6.9 Finite element model
65
6.3.1. SAFE Inputs
Material Properties - Concrete
Slab Properties - Solid Slabs
Column Properties - Rectangular
Soil Properties
Slab Property Assignments
Load patterns
66
Load Assignments - Surface Loads
Load Assignments - Point Loads
Load Cases
67
Figure 6.10 Deformed shape
68
This section provides design information for beams, strips, and punching checks.
Design Preferences– Rebar Cover – Slabs
Cover Top Cover Bot Bar Size Inner PTCGS PTCGS PTCGS Slab Type
Layer Top Bot Ext Bot Int
m m m M M
0.015000 0.015000 18 B 0.025000 0.040 0.025 Two Way
Design Preferences - Rebar Cover – Beams
Cover Top Cover Bot Bar Size F Bar Size S PTCG Top PTCGS
Bot
m m M M
0.040000 0.040000 28 12 0.050000 0.050000
Concrete Slab Design Summary- Flexural and Shear Data
69
Concrete Slab Design Summary - Flexural and Shear Data
6.3.2. DESIGN
70
Table 31: Concrete Slab Design Summary 01 - Flexural And Shear Data, Part 1 of 2
Strip SpanID Location FTopCombo FTopMomen FTopArea FBotCombo FBotMomen
t t
kN-m m2 kN-m
CSA1 Span 1 Start COMB2 0.0000 0.030618 COMB2 1020.6840
CSA1 Span 1 Middle COMB2 -167.9574 0.029905 COMB2 1094.5335
CSA1 Span 1 End COMB2 -285.6372 0.030352 COMB2 1080.7434
CSA2 Span 1 Start COMB2 -3.8404 0.024816 COMB2 1027.1583
CSA2 Span 1 Middle COMB2 0.0000 0.053946 COMB2 2626.4924
CSA3 Span 1 Middle COMB2 0.0000 0.007992 COMB2 47.3911
CSA4 Span 1 Start COMB2 -163.5567 0.002705 COMB2 0.0000
CSB1 Span 1 Start COMB2 -27.9563 0.025220 COMB2 1235.3172
CSB1 Span 1 Middle COMB2 0.0000 0.056427 COMB2 1192.9544
CSB1 Span 1 End COMB2 -104.2774 0.036949 COMB2 665.3679
CSB3 Span 1 Middle COMB2 -234.7720 0.027358 COMB2 1241.1315
MSA1 Span 1 Start COMB2 0.0000 0.011182 COMB2 613.2448
MSA1 Span 1 Middle COMB2 -396.3456 0.008193 COMB2 542.3070
MSA1 Span 1 End COMB2 -1826.6802 0.003606 COMB2 0.0000
MSA2 Span 1 Start COMB2 0.0000 0.041524 COMB2 2587.2568
MSA3 Span 1 Start COMB2 -15.3291 0.022356 COMB2 379.6111
MSA4 Span 1 Start COMB2 -46.2148 0.014662 COMB2 430.9658
MSB1 Span 1 Start COMB2 -120.3953 0.006415 COMB2 319.4638
MSB1 Span 1 Middle COMB2 -15.9365 0.006811 COMB2 227.5764
MSB1 Span 1 End COMB2 -377.6985 0.002278 COMB2 8.0114
MSB2 Span 1 Middle COMB2 0.0000 0.014848 COMB2 1664.5434
MSB3 Span 1 Start COMB2 0.0000 0.005919 COMB2 1101.5409
MSB3 Span 1 Middle COMB2 0.0000 0.005582 COMB2 1258.8567
71
Concrete Slab Design - Punching Shear Data
6.3.3. IS 456-2000 Concrete Strip Design (COLUMN STRIP A EX)
Geometric Properties Material Properties
Combination = Overall Envelope Concrete Comp. Strength = 30000 kN/m2

Strip Label = CSA1 Concrete Modulus = 26667312.34 kN/m2
Length = 27 m Longitudinal Rebar Yield = 400000 kN/m2
Distance to Top Rebar Center = 0.024m
Distance to Bot Rebar Center = 0.024 m
72
73
6.3.4. IS 456-2000 Concrete Strip Design (MIDDLE STRIP A EX)
Combination = Overall Envelope Concrete Comp. Strength = 30000

Strip Label = MSA1 kN/m2
Length = 27 m Concrete Modulus = 26667312.34
Distance to Top Rebar Center = 0.024 kN/m2
m Longitudinal Rebar Yield = 400000
Distance to Bot Rebar Center = 0.024 kN/m2
m
74
75
6.3.5. IS 456-2000 Concrete Strip Design (COLUMN STRIP B EX)

Strip Label = CSB1 kN/m2
m
76
6.3.6. IS 456-2000 Concrete Strip Design (MIDDLE STRIP B EX)

Strip Label = MSB1 kN/m2
77
78
6.3.7. IS 456-2000 Punching Shear (EX Column)
Geometric Properties Column Punching Check
Combination = 1 Avg. Eff. Slab Thickness = 1.467 m

Point Label = 5 Eff. Punching Perimeter = 5.8672 m
Column Shape = Rectangular Cover = 0.033 m
Column Location = Corner Conc. Comp. Strength = 30000 kN/m2
Global X-Coordinate = 0 m Reinforcement Ratio = 0.0000
Global Y-Coordinate = 0 m Section Inertia I22 = 8.487798 m4
Section Inertia I33 = 8.487798 m4
Section Inertia I23 = -4.629593 m4
Shear Force = -1415.477 kN
Moment Mu2 = -31.4368 kN-m
Moment Mu3= 947.1151 kN-m
Max Design Shear Stress = 350.46 kN/m2
Conc. Shear Stress Capacity = 1369.31
kN/m2
Punching Shear Ratio = 0.26
Figure 6.11 Exterior column
79
6.3.8. IS 456-2000 Punching Shear Check & Design (EX)
Geometric Properties Column Punching Check
Combination = 1 Avg. Eff. Slab Thickness = 1.467 m

Point Label = 76 Eff. Punching Perimeter = 7.468 m
Column Shape = Rectangular Cover = 0.033 m
Column Location = Interior Conc. Comp. Strength = 30000 kN/m2
Global X-Coordinate = 0 m Reinforcement Ratio = 0.0000
Global Y-Coordinate = 4.25 m Section Inertia I22 = 7.346999 m4
Section Inertia I33 = 7.346999 m4
Section Inertia I23 = 0 m4
Shear Force = -3384.095 kN
Moment Mu2 = 142.5064 kN-m
Moment Mu3= 804.6317 kN-m
Max Design Shear Stress = 429.24
kN/m2
Conc. Shear Stress Capacity = 1369.31
kN/m2
Punching Shear Ratio = 0.31
6.12 Interior Coloum
80
RESULTS OF SAFE ANALYSIS:-
Figure 6.13 Displacements for ultimate load combination (m)
Figure 6.14 Soil pressures for ultimate load combination (kn/m2)

Figure 6.15 Resultant stresses on the slab for ultimate load combination
Figure 6.16 Stresses in top face for ultimate load comb (kN/m2)
Figure 6.17 Slab stresses in mid face for ultimate load comb slab
Figure 6.18 Slab stresses in bottom face for ultimate load comb
Figure 6.19 Bending moment along both the strips (kn-m)
Figure 6.20 Shear forces along both the strips (kn)

Figure 6.21 Flexural reinforcement (top & bottom) for ultimate comb
Figure 6.22Shear reinforcement for slab (stirrups)
Figure 6.23 Punching shear ratios

7. CONCLUSION
For the given condition of superstructure where it is situated very close to the soil cut,
different types of retaining walls have been analyzed and designed using various
approaches.
As gravity wall does not contain any reinforcement, it cannot sustain higher loads. It
resists the loads by virtue of its own weight. Therefore, for soil cuts of high levels,
generally more than 5 m, and these walls are not preferred. In problem analyzed in the
report, where height of soil cut is 6.1 m, gravity wall does not satisfy stability
conditions. Moreover gravity wall does not perform well during earthquake and is
unable to resist forces produced due to the earthquake. Also, use of gravity wall in
soil cuts of such height becomes uneconomical.
Cantilever wall, unlike gravity wall, resists lateral loads not only by its own weight
but also by the reinforcement provided in it, which improves its performance against
large lateral forces. In our problem it has been found performing satisfactorily,
satisfying all the stability checks and resisting lateral loads applied by the backfill as
well as due to the earthquake. The wall has been analyzed and designed using GINT
software and reinforcement has been provided accordingly so as to resist and transfer
loads.
Gabion walls are rectangular containers fabricated of thick galvanized wire which are
filled with stone and stacked on one another usually in tiers that step back with the
slope rather than vertically. Gabion wall has been analyzed and designed using GINT
software and is performing satisfactorily, satisfying all stability checks. Generally, the
height for which these walls are designed varies from 4.5 to 7m, satisfying the criteria
in the problem.
Mechanically stabilized earth is a soil constructed with artificial reinforcing, the

reinforcing materials can vary but include steel and geosynthetic, which are placed in
layers of the backfill to achieve an integral soil mass that decreases overturning and
horizontal sliding.. In the given problem, checks for overturning and slope stability
have been satisfied marginally by MSE walls, the analysis being carried out using
GINT software.
Retaining walls mentioned above have a major drawback when it comes to the
availability of space between the structure and the soil cut. Integrated wall designed
integrally with the structure has been found transferring the lateral forces effectively
to the foundation of the superstructure, occupying minimal space. Integrated structure
designed as a two way slab using STAAD ETC. is found safe against all the forces.
Finally, all the loads including the earth pressures have been transferred to the
foundation of the structure which in this case is mat foundation. It has been analyzed
and designed using SAFE software. Mat foundation is preferred here so as to avoid
any differential settlement of the structure and to account for the low strength of the
subsoil. Mat foundation has been found to satisfy the three critical checks namely, one
way shear, punching shear and flexure.
REFERENCES
1. Brooks, Huge (2010) “ Basics of Retaining Walls Design” 8th Edition , HBA
Publications
2. Gabion Design Walls, Modular Gabion Systems, A division of C.E. Shephard
Company,www.gabions.net
3. Bridge Design Specifications, August 2004
4. Concrete Retaining Walls(2008), Cement Concrete and Aggregate Australia
5. Gupta, Sharat Chandra(1997) “Raft Foundation-Design and Analysis with
Practical Approach”, New Age International(P) Limited
6. SAFE Manuals (2009),Computers and Structures Inc
7. 88009750-Raft-Foundation-Analysis-and-Design-Example (1)
8. Das, Braja, “Principles of Foundation Engineering
9. Vankavelaar P., Leshchinsky Dov, Inspection Guidelines for construction and
post-construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth wall, University of
Delaware
10. Paul D. Passe, P.E., CPM state geotechnical engineer Tallahassee, Florida,
Mechanically Stabilised Earth Handbook
11. Hugh Brooks, “Basics of Retaining wall Design”
12. Concrete Retaining wall by CCAA(Cement, Concrete and Aggregates
Australia)
13. Caltrans, Bridge Design Specification
14. WS DOT Design manual M22-01
15. Design guidelines for retaining walls by GEO Products, LLC
16. IS 456:2000 Plain and reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi
17. IS 2950 (Part 1)-1981, Code of practice for Design and Construction of Raft
Foundation

Project Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Project Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................

1.1 Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Walls ............................................................. 3

1.2 Non-Gravity Cantilevered Walls ...................................................................... 4

1.3 General Design Principles ................................................................................ 4

1.4 Objective and scope of the work: ...................................................................... 5

2.2 Gravity Wall Design using GINT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental

2.3 Verification of complete wall ......................................................................... 13

3. CANTILEVER WALL ........................................................................................ 14

3.1 Proportioning ................................................................................................. 14

3.2 Elements Design ............................................................................................ 15

3.4 Cantilever Retaining Wall Design using STAAD etc ...................................... 19

4. GABION WALLS ............................................................................................... 27

4.1 Forces acting on the wall ................................................................................ 27

4.2 Stability of Gabion Wall ................................................................................. 29

4.3 Gabion Gravity Wall Design using GINT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental

4.4 Verification of complete wall ......................................................................... 34

4.5 Verification of construction joint ( Block No.: 2) ............................................ 35

5. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALL ............................................ 36

5.1 Structural Dimensions .................................................................................... 37

5.3 Overall Stability ............................................................................................. 40

5.4 Reinforcement Design .................................................................................... 42

5.5 Design Life .................................................................................................... 42

5.6 Geo-Synthetic ................................................................................................ 42

5.7 Design of Face Elements ................................................................................ 43

5.8 MSE Design using G-iNT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental software..... 44

5.9 Verification of complete wall ......................................................................... 47

5.10 Verification of construction joint (Block No.: 0) ........................................... 47

6. INTEGRATED RETAINING WALL .................................................................. 50

6.1 Analysis using STAAD Pro V8i ..................................................................... 51

6.2 Design of Mat Foundation .............................................................................. 57

6.3 SAFE Analysis & Design ............................................................................... 65

1.1 Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Walls

1.2 Non-Gravity Cantilevered Walls

1.3 General Design Principles

All the retaining walls must satisfy the following checks:

1.4 Objective and scope of the work:

Figure2.2.1 Gravity wall

The overturning moment is

The moment of the force about the toe is

Where ∑ FR = Sum of horizontal resisting forces and ∑ FS = Sum of horizontal

2.1.3. Bearing Capacity

MNET = ∑MR - ∑Mo

Hence, the eccentricity of the resultant R may be expressed as

2.2 Gravity Wall Design using GINT-Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental

Given data (Refer to Cross Section)

Wall Height……………………….. 6.00m

Figure2.2.2 Dimensions of Gravity wall

Gravity Walls Analysis

Check for overturning stability

Wall for overturning is satisfactory.

Check for slip

Wall for slip is satisfactory.

Forces acting at the centre of footing bottom

Bearing capacity of foundation soil check

Footing bottom bearing capacity verification

Bearing capacity of foundation soil is satisfactory.

Overall verification - Bearing capacity of foundation soil is satisfactory.

Figure3.0.1 Cantilever wall

3.2 Elements Design

The moment of the force about the toe is

Where ∑ FR = Sum of horizontal resisting forces and ∑ FS = Sum of horizontal

MNET = ∑MR - ∑Mo

Hence, the eccentricity of the resultant R may be expressed as