Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

4.c .


StructuraZ CZO?j Products , Ltd., Potters Bar, Herts , Great Britain


This papel' considers the uZtimate load design and con-
struction of a 4m high reinforced brickwork retaining Der Beitrag behandelt den Standsicherheitsnachweis
wall . und die Konstruktion einer 4 m hohen Stützmauer in
bewehrtem Mauerwerk .
The brickwork wall , built on a reinforced concrete
base, is held to the base by reinforced concrete Die Ziegelwand wurde auf einem Stah lbetonfun dament
pockets incorporated in the tension side of the wall . errichtet und wird mit diesem du.rch eine Stahlbeton -
The thickness of the wall is 440mm at the base re - tasche , di e sich auf der Zugseite der Wand bef inékt,
ducing in two s tep s to 215mm at t he top o verbunden . Die Dicke der Wand ist 440 mm am Fuss und
wird in zwei Stufen auf 215 mm an ékr Oberkannte ver-
The~ong term lateral deflection of the finished wall mindert .
is being measured.
Es wi r d die Langzeithorizontalverschiebung ék r f erti-
gen Wand gemessen .


Ce document a trait au calcul de la charge de rupture Deze mededeling behandelt de berekening volgens de
et à la construction d 'un mur de soutenement de 4 m br eukmethode en de bouw van een 4 m hoge grondkeer-
de haut en maçonneri e armée . muur in gewapend metselwerk .

Le mur en maçonner ie , construit sur une fondation en De muur, gebouwd op een betonbasis, wordt gehouden
béton armé, est fixé à celle- ci par des ancrage s en door balken in gewapend beton, die ingebouwd zijn in
béton armé incorporés dans le côté tendu du mur . de trekzijde van de muur . De muurdikte is 440 mm aan
L' épaisseur du mur est de 44 0 mm à la base, s e rédui - de voet en reduceer t zich in twee trappen t ot 215 mm
sant en deux gradins jusqu ' à 215 ~n au sommet . aan de top o

On mesure la fleche latérale à long terme du mur ter- De zijdelingse buiging na lange periode werd gemeten .
miné .
4.c. 5-1

INTRODUCTIDN both mortar and concrete.

4m high pocket reinforced brickwork retaining wall
been designed by Structural Clay Products Limited 1:~:3 cement:lime: sand mix by vo lume .
one of its member c ompanies. Very few, if any,
wall s have been built i n Britain but the y have Concrete
use d in the United States 1 • It is hoped this
le wi ll help to encourage further use of rein - Concrete characteristic strengths of 25 MPa were
brickwork in Britain. (Figs. 1, 2 & 3). specified for both base and wall pockets.

term deflection of the pres ent wall is being Reinforc eme nt

and some of the results are give n .
Hot rolled high yield steel was us ed with the ex-
ception of the starter bars which were high yield
POCKET WALLS square twisted.

The design of the wall described herein was based on FORCES ACTING ON RETAINING WALL
~ rica n practice 1 ,2 Pocket walls can be considered
to be equivalent to reinforced concret e T beams where
the flange of t he beams is replaced by brickwork. The Lateral pressure on wall
apace between the concrete webs is filled in with
brickwork resulting in a uniform wall thickness. This An estimate of the lateral load applied to the re-
allows the concrete web or pocket to be easily cast, taining wall was based on Rankine's method.
increases the shear strength at the concrete-brickwork
interface and increases the strength of the brickwork The embankment to be retained consisted of tipped
panel spannin g between the pockets. material containing clay, shale and sand. To en-
sure a self draining and more stable backfill , the
lhe concrete webs or pockets have usually been spaced soil behind the wall was replaced by hardcore con-
at 1.22 m intervals but in the present design they sisting main l y of reject bricks. , The angle of inter-
vary from 1 .375 m and 1.575 m in the central section naI friction was assumed to be 35° giving a co-
Df the wall to 2 m in the sloping portion . The spacing efficient of active pressure of 0.27. The backfi ll
i 5 dependent on was horizontal but a 500 kg/m 2 su perimposed load was
assumed which included the weight of a conveyor
i) the ability of the brickwork to resist the system .
lateral load and transfer it to the reinforced
concrete pockets without needing any reinforce- Foundat ions
ment apart from some nominal steel . The brick-
work will derive muc h of its lateral strength Two conditions were checked - sliding and soi l
by arching between the concrete pockets. pressure.

ii) the magnitude of the anchorage stresses i n the Terzaghi & Peck 2 recommend a minimum factor of safety
bars holding the wall to the reinforced concrete against sliding of 1.5. For a wall resting on silt
bas e or clay they also recommend the footing is cast on to
a well compacted layer of sand and graveI. In this
iii ) the amount of steel that can reasonably be case a 500 mm layer of hardcore was used. The co-
accommodated in the pocket, although the width efficient of friction between this layer and the soil
can be varied. The present wall was designed is assumed to be 0.35. Only this frictio n was taken
to have pockets with a clear width of 235 mm into account in resisting sliding. Passive resistance
but with indentations every other course to exerted by the soil in front of the wa ll and on the
give a good key between the concrete and the key beneath the base will increase the safety factor
brickwork. but was not considered to be very reliable.

It has been standard practice to insert nomina l hori- The allowable soil pressu re was assumed to be 80 kPa.
zontal steel in the brickwork mortar joints as a pre- As settlement of the infill mate rial on which the
caution ayainst cracking due to temperature and wall was pla ced was po ssible , c are was taken to ensure
shrinkage . While this is necessary for concrete it that the resultant of the forces acting on the wall
is not considered necessary for brickwork - any ex- was near t he centre of the ba se.
cessive movement due to temperature or moisture ex-
pansion should be taken up by movement joints. Never-
the-less in the present wa ll nominal steel was in- DESIGN DF BRICKWORK
serted towards the back of the 215 mm thick section
only but as a trial left out altogether over one of
the 1.38 m spans . This span has shown no signs of The wa ll was designed as a cantilever using ultimate
trouble. load theory based on the limit state princip I es pre-
sented in CP 110 (4).

MATERIAL Partial safety factors

A partial safety factor of 2 was applied to the ' load

Bricks for the design of the reinforced brickwork compared
to 1.6 for the reinforced concrete base. A highe r
A 215 x 102.5 x 65 mm wirecut, perforated brick was value was taken for the brickwork beca use the oon-
used . The bricks were of Special Quality which implies tractor did not have any experience with reinforced
frost resistance and low salt contento The average brickwork nor would there be much supervi sion o
compressive strength was 64 MPa.
The partial safety factor adopted for mate rial
Cement stresses were yms = 1.15 for steel and ymm = 1 .5 for
both concrete and brickwork. The factor fo r brickwork
A sul phate resisting Portland cement was used for may be better at 2 or more but has little influenceon
4 . c.5-2

the present designo Bond and anchorage

Flexura l design of wal l Bond and ancho rage ca1culations were based on stresses
obtained from CP 110 .
The ultimate load design for the reinforced brickwork
used the Whitney un i form compressive stress b lock . Shear

A characteristic shear st r ess of 0 . 4 MPa was assumed .

This va1ue is expected to be conservati ve for can-
ti 1ever wa11s with the bri cks 1aid flat in the usual
man ner 6 • The design shear stress becomes 0 . 27 MPa
if a partia1 safety fact or of 1 . 5 is us ed . The ca1-
cu1ated shear stress based on effective depth was
0 . 2 MPa at the bottom of the wa11 .

The sh ea r stresses at the interface of the concrete

pockets and the brickwork were below 0 . 1 MPa .


Rein forced concrete base

s t re ss IfY / yms
0. 85 fmkllllllllllll Before casting the base a 1ayer of concrete blinding
yrmn was placed on to a 0 . 5 m thick 1ayer of we11 compacted
hardcore . Wooden shuttering was used for the sides of
0.85 f mk xb fl-'~----:----tj ~ the base . The use of a safety factor of 2 for loads
yrmn z d _x / 2 ~ yms was justified beca use the starter bars were inadver-
tently placed 60 mm too far forward .
x ( d/ 2

Wall co nstructio n commenced tw o days after the base

was cast o The initial 1ine of the wa11 was defined
The design equations become : by th e raised section of th e base whi1e gu ide posts
at t he ends of the wa11 and where the wa11 began to
Mu = fy As z < 0 . 32 dec rease in heigh t ensured that the face of the wa 11
was plumb and coursing correct . Eng li sh bond - a1ter-
nate courses of headers and stretchers - was used .
The positions of the concrete pockets were determined
z = d(1-0 . 59 fy As ymm ) by the starter bars but there was a ten den cy for th e
fmk bd yms pockets to ' wander ' when wa11 height passed the top
of the starter bars. Apart from the starter bars ,
Notatio n : the r einforceme nt in the pockets was i nserted after the
wa11 was finished. Boards were p1aced across the
As area of tensile steel pockets and t he co ncret e was cast and vibrated in
t hree 1i fts , corresponding to the different wa 11 t hick -
b width of section
nesses . The back of the wa11 was the n painted with
d effecti ve depth two coats of bitumen .
fmk characteristic compressive strength of
Backfi ll
maso nry
fy characteristic yield strength of steel The major portion of the backfi1 1 was hardcore spread
in layers . The top of the fill was covered with
z lever arm
ea rth . A sing1e 1ayer of bricks was placed next to
yms, ymm part i al safety factors fo r materiaIs the wa11 to protect the bitumen .

Rei nforcement in wall pockets
Two of the three brick1ayers were se l f-employed and
At the base, the wall thickness is 440 mm giving an time to them was mo re imp ortant than quali ty. Bat-
effective depth of approximately 375 mm (50 mm con- ching bo xes were recommended but not used . Instead
crete cover to steel) . the mortar mix was based on one bag of cement,
equiva1ent to 7 shove1s , to 2 1 s hove l s of a 1ime-sand
Taking a brickwork characteris t ic strengt h of 18 MPa mix o
(from the draft brickwork code (5)) , a 1 . 5m width of
wal l , resisting a design moment of 160 kNm , requires Therefore it is not surprlslng that on1y ha1f the mor-
the fol l owing percentage of steel : tar achieved the specified cube strength of 11 MPa at
28 day s , the lowest being 6 MPa .
Asl bd 0 . 21%
Much more money shou1d be spent in Bri tain i nto ways
of improving workmanship and contractors specia 1ising
or As
in structural brickwork with bricklayers on their per-
manent staff shou1d be encouraged .
Three x 25 mm squa r e twist ed bars were provided
( 1470 mm 2 ) .

For other le ve Is of the wa l l the required steel area

was found graphica lly . On the same graph of moment
VS . height of wall, curves can be draw n giving the re-
quired stee1 area for a given thickness and heigh t of
4.c.5 - 3


lat e r al deflection Df the wall is being monitored 1. C. R. ABEL & M.R. COCHRAN. A reinforced bricK
a t heodolite placed on a specially prepared con- ma son r y retaining wall with reinforcement in
base situated 15 m away from the side Df the wall . pocKets . SIBMAC Proceedings , The Bri tish Ceramic
Df s i ght Df the theodolite passes app r oxi - Re s earch Association, StoKe-on - Trent 1971.
200 mm in front Df the wall on to the apex Df
f Df a distant house. A steel rule placed at 2. BRICK & TILE SER VIC E I NC. RBM retaining waÚs.
ang les to the wa ll measured the distance Df the Gre e ns bo ro , N. C. U. S .A .
from t he line Df sight .
3. K. TERZAGHI & R. B. PECK. Soil Mechanics in
overall defle ction of the l,all measured at three . Engineering Practice . J. Wiley & Sons, New York
v8l s a l ong the l ength Df the wall is shown in Fig. 1967 .
It shows the deflection 20 and 517 days after in-
llin g. Note that the central section which is more 4. BRITISH STANDARDS I NSTITUT ION . CP 11 0 :1 972. The
ly loaded deflects mosto structu r a l us e of concre t e.

fig ure 5 shows the deflection over the height Df the 5. IBIO. Oraft st a ndard BLCP/29: 19 74 . The structural
l/a11 1. 37 m away from the centre pocKet. There is a use of maso nry - Part 1:Unreinforce d masonry .
s light reverse curvature, not a typical cantilever
curve as may be expected. p, liKely cause is restraint 6. STRUCTURAL CLAY PRO DUCTS LIMI TEO. SCP 10 . Re-
by t he more lightly loaded sections Df the wall. The in forced b rickwork cant i lever wa l ls. To be
cu rves a l so show there is some sliding movement Df published .
ng ~ pro x imately Ô mm over 517 days but this could also
~te d be du e to movement of the theodolite base.
, of
js Figu re 6 shows a plot of wa ll deflections versus time.
lh e di fference between the bottom and top leveI de-
f lecti ons gives an indication Df wall angular movement
due to wall deformation and tilting. The graph shO\,s
t he angular movement has almost stopped after 517 days.
On t he other hand the overall movement as shovm by
t he t op leveI deflection is still increasing although
at a decreasing rate . At 517 days the top deflection
was about 24 mm Df vJhich approximately ô mm is sliding






Fig. 1 Completed 1JaZl

4 . c . 5-4




Har d c ore f ,l
1500 k g/ m 3
0 =35 °


1 o
_ 5000 1. 000

Fi qur e 3 PLAN & E LEVATION

4 . c . S-S

20 20 mm
517 day s c

20 da ys
- - - - - --- -
+ . . . - - "'--
+=---",, :==L ---
-~ -=- _
10 mm Oi
_ . ._
.-_- _ _ C)..---o - - - 4 -.." ---,:t --
- - -_ -<>-- _ _ "--

- a.-- -


_ _ ><---


__ x--

-x-- - - .,.- - - "--- -

6 7 8


Pocke t Numbers


20 517 days

Pocket no.
+ 4
x 5
20 o 6




no. I.
6 100 200 300 400 500 days
10 20mm