FACTOR OF SAFETY IN AS : EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES 1


 Shana Shields
 8 months ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 FACTOR OF SAFETY IN AS : EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES 1 Jocelin Wijaya 1 and Hossein Taiebat 2 1 Undergraduate Student and 2 Senior LectureSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales ABSTRACT Factor of safety is used to provide safety margin over the theoretical design capacity to allow for uncertainties in loading, material strength and design process. Design of earth retaining structures has traditionally been based on the overall factor of safety method. However, the current Australian Standard for Earth Retaining Structures, AS , is based on partial factors of safety method. In this paper, cantilever retaining walls and embedded sheet pile walls have been designed based on the recommendations of AS to examine the overall factor of safety inherent in the standard. Various wall heights and soil parameters are used in the designs. The overall factor of safety is then backcalculated for each wall based on its designed dimensions. The results of analysis are presented in the form of the overall factor of safety associated with the dimension of the walls and soil properties. The overall factor of safety of walls in cohesionless soils varies between 1.7 and 2.3; shorter walls have higher factor of safety. However, when the backfill soil has some cohesion, the overall factor of safety is generally higher than 2 and becomes more than 5 for soil cohesion greater than 30 kpa. For embedded sheet pile walls in cohesionless soils, the factor of safety remains constant for one particular type of soil, regardless of the height of the wall. The results of analyses of these walls in cohesionless soils also show that the factor of safety increases slightly as the friction angle of the soil increases. For the walls embedded in cohesive soils, the overall factor of safety is higher compared to those in cohesionless soils and this behavior is consistent with the one observed in cantilever retaining walls. INTRODUCTION There are always uncertainties in engineering design. In geotechnical engineering, the uncertainties may be due to variability in applied loads, soil parameters, design approximations such as resistance and action effects and construction tolerances (Meyerhof, 1994). Factor of safety is applied to account for these uncertainties and also to lead to designs in which both geometry and strength are adequate and compatible (Simpson, 2000). There are mainly three approaches in considering safety margins in geotechnical design. Two of them have been used in the design of retaining walls. They are the overall factor of safety method, which will be referred to here as traditional method, and the partial factors of safety method. The traditional method for the design of earth retaining structures ensures that the resisting forces or moments will be greater than the disturbing forces or moments. The ratio of the resisting reactions to the disturbing actions is called overall factor of safety. In this method the design values of loads and soil parameters are assumed to be the nominal values. It is also assumed that all soil parameters such as friction angle, unit weight and cohesion are spatially constant (Clausen et al, 2005). Higher factor of safety should be selected if more uncertainties are involved in the loads, soil parameters or construction quality control. In the partial factors of safety method, various factors are applied to increase the effect of disturbing actions (load factors) and to reduce the resistance of the soilstructure system (capacity reduction factors). Different reduction factors are applied to different soil properties such as cohesion, friction angle and density. 2 REQUIREMENT OF AS In this section the requirements of AS which are directly related to design will be outlined briefly. The standard requires that for each limit state design considered, the design effect (S*) must not exceed the design resistance (R*), or Φ nr* S* where Φ n is a factor that includes the importance of structure and varies between 0.9 and 1.1, R* is the design resistance which is calculated using the design strength parameters obtained by reducing the characteristic strength values of the soil with partial factors of safety, and S* is the design action effect obtained by increasing the nominal loads and disturbing action forces. 1 This paper was presented at the Sydney Chapter YGP night September Australian Geomechanics Vol 44 No 4 December
2 The requirement of AS for dead load (including soil self weight) is that a partial factor of 1.25 is to be applied when the load contributes to the disturbing action and a partial factor of 0.8 is to be applied when the load provides resistance. For live load a partial factor of 1.5 is to be applied. A minimum live load of q=5 kpa is specified by the standard that is applicable to the ground at the back of walls, if the ground is horizontal. The standard also recommends material strength reduction factors, Φ uc and Φ uφ, which are to be applied to the nominal cohesion, c, and friction angle, φ, of the soil to obtain the design strength parameters, c * and φ *. The design strength parameters will be: c * = Φ uc c and φ * = tan 1 (Φ uφ tan φ) The designed strength parameters are used to evaluate both active and passive lateral earth pressures. The strength reduction factors recommended by AS are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 for analyses performed under drained and undrained conditions. Drained conditions are assumed in all analyses performed in this study. Table 1: Strength reduction factors for soil behaving under drained conditions (based on peak values of c and φ ) Strength reduction factor Φ uφ Φ uc Soil or fill conditions Controlled fill Uncontrolled Class I Class II fill In situ material Table 2: Strength reduction factors for soils behaving under undrained conditions (based on c u and φ u) Strength reduction factor Φ uφ Φ uc Soil or fill conditions Controlled fill Uncontrolled Class I Class II fill In situ material 3 DESIGN METHODOLOGY This research is based on a series of analyses and designs of cantilever retaining walls as well as embedded sheet pile walls. The retaining walls were initially designed based on the partial factors of safety method and the requirements of AS The overall factors of safety of the designed structures were then back calculated and presented here. A unit weight of γ s=18 kn/m 3 was assumed for the soil, as it is the average unit weight for in situ or lightly compacted soil. In order to achieve consistency and for comparisons to be valid, the same unit weight was used in all calculations. The material in the stem and foundation of cantilever walls is assumed to have a unit weight of γ c=25 kn/m 3. The weight of the embedded walls was ignored in the analysis. The forces acting on the wall are typically determined using the Rankine s or Coulomb s theories of earth pressure. In this paper, Rankine s theory of earth pressure was used to determine the active and passive earth pressures. 3.1 CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL Design of retaining walls was performed based on overturning failure only. It was assumed that if sliding and bearing failures are predominant, they could be prevented by shear keys or by extending the foundation width in front of the wall. A general geometry of the retaining wall is shown in Figure 1. The wall has a height of H, a uniform thickness t, and a foundation width of B. The surface loading at the back of the wall, the unit weights of the soil and the wall, and the load factors for different loading components are also shown in Figure 1. The weights of the wall and the soil on top of the wall foundation provide resistance to overturning, and therefore are reduced. The weight of the soil away from the foundation and its overburden pressure which contribute to overturning of the wall are increased according to the requirements of AS For any wall height, H, the thickness of the wall, t, and the required width of the foundation, B, are the design outcomes. The thickness of the wall was estimated by considering the maximum shear stress in the concrete section of the wall and the requirements of AS : Concrete Structures. The compressive strength and the minimum reinforcement ratio of the concrete was assumed to be 32 MPa and 0.2%, respectively. The wall Australian Geomechanics Vol 44 No 4 December 2009
3 foundation should be sufficiently wide to prevent overturning failure. Therefore, the width of the foundation, B, was determined based on the equilibrium of moments around a rotation point at the toe of the wall foundation, point o in Figure 1, and the requirements of AS : M a  Φ nm p = 0 where M a is the overturning moment, M p is the restoring moment around point o, and Φ n is structural importance factor which was taken as 1 in all analyses. 1.5q =7.5kPa 1.5q =7.5kPa t 0.8γ s 1.25γ s H t o 0.8γ c B Figure 1: Cantilever retaining wall Figure 2: Distribution of stresses embedded wall A range of soil strength parameters, c and φ, was used in the design of the wall to estimate the overall factor of safety for different cases. The overall factor of safety of a designed wall, with known t, H and B, can be obtained using the nominal values of soil strength parameters, c and φ, and the nominal unit weight of the soil and wall, and an overburden pressure of 5 kpa on the ground L level at the back 3.2 EMBEDDED SHEET PILE WALL In this paper embedded sheet pile walls in cohesionless soils as well as cohesive soils were considered. The walls were assumed to be free earth support, so that no significant moment will be developed around the tip of the wall. The wall has a rotational failure mechanism around a point which is above the wall tip, point o in Figure 2. Active pressures form behind the wall above the rotation point and in front of the wall below the rotation point where the wall moves away from the soil mass during failure. Passive pressures form in front of the wall above the rotation point and behind the wall below the rotation point, where the wall moves toward the soil mass during failure. Figure 2 also shows the applied load on the ground level at the back of the wall and the different factors used to increase or decrease the unit weight of the soil at different locations. In general, the unit weight of the soil is increased if the soil contributes to the disturbing actions, and decreased if the soil contributes to the resisting reactions. In assessing the stability of embedded walls it is usually assumed that the active and passive earth pressures vary linearly with depth, which is a realistic assumption if the wall is rigid. In this study linear distribution of stresses, as shown in Figure 2, was assumed. For any wall height, H, the required depth of embedment, D, is the design outcome. Equations for the equilibrium of moments and horizontal forces can be formulated and solved simultaneously to obtain the depth of embedment, D, for the wall: M a  Φ nm p = 0 F a  Φ nf p = 0 where M a and F a are sum of the active moments and sum of the active horizontal forces, M p and F p are sum of the passive moments and sum of the passive horizontal forces developed in the front and back of the wall. The structural importance factor, Φ n, was taken as unity in all analyses. The design was performed for varying soil strength properties, φ (friction angle) and c (cohesion). The overall factor of safety of a designed wall, with known H and B, was obtained using the nominal values of soil strength parameter, φ, nominal unit weight of the soil, and an overburden pressure of 5 kpa on the ground level at the back of the wall. A trial and error procedure is used to evaluate the overall factor of safety for a designed wall, by varying the factor of safety until the equilibrium of moments and forces are both satisfied. 4 RESULTS 4.1 CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL Australian Geomechanics Vol 44 No 3 December
4 A series of analyses was performed to design the required foundation widths for walls of different heights in soils of varying strength parameters and the overall factor of safety of each designed wall was evaluated. Figure 3 shows variation of the overall factor of safety with wall height when a nominal friction angle of φ =30 is used while the cohesion of the soil varies from 0 to 40 kpa. The soil condition at the back of the wall was assumed to be of Class 1 fill according to AS The tensile active stresses developed close to the ground level at the back of walls in cohesive soils were ignored in the analyses. Figure 3 shows that the overall factor of safety of walls in cohesionless soil varies between 2.3, for walls height of 1 m, to 1.7 for a wall height of 10 m. However, the overall factor of safety is considerably larger for walls in cohesive soils. A wall with a height of 6 m in a soil with φ =30 o and c =20 kpa and designed based on AS has an overall factor of safety of 5.8. The main reason for the high value of the overall factor of safety in cohesive soil is the difference between the depth of tension crack obtained using the reduced value of cohesion, based on AS , and the depth of tension crack obtained using the nominal value of cohesion applicable in the calculation of the overall factor of safety. The overall factor of safety method gives a deeper tension crack compared to that obtained for the partial factors of safety method and the reduced cohesion. Figure 3: Effect of varying cohesion, c, on factor of safety of cantilever retaining walls in Class 1 fill soil. Figure 4 shows the overall factor of safety for walls in cohesionless soils (c =0) and different values of friction angle. It can be seen that the overall factor of safety varies between 2.3 for short walls to 1.65 for tall walls. It indicates that the overall factor of safety does not vary much when the soil is cohesionless. The overall factor of safety is marginally larger for soil with higher friction angles. Figure 4: Effect of varying friction angle, φ, on factor of safety of cantilever retaining walls in Class 1 fill soil. Figures 5 and 6 show the effect of different classes of soil, as defined by AS and given in tables 1 and 2, on the overall factor of safety of the walls. Both figures show that the overall factor of safety is higher for uncontrolled fill, compared to those of class 1 fill and class II fill. Figure 5: Effect of different soil classes on the overall factor of safety of walls in cohesive soils. Figure 6: Effect of different soil classes on the overall factor of safety of walls in cohesionless 4.2 EMBEDDED SHEET PILE WALL Figure 7 shows the effect of varying friction angle on the overall factor of safety of embedded sheet pile wall in cohesionless soil. The factor of safety varies from 2 to 2.5 for friction angle varying from 20 to 45. The overall factor of safety remains the same for a particular type of soil, regardless of the wall height. It also shows that soil with higher friction angle has higher factor of safety. Figure 7: Effect of varying friction angle, φ, on the overall factor of safety of embedded walls in cohesionless soil. Figure 8 shows the effect of varying cohesion on the overall factor of safety of embedded sheet pile walls in cohesive soils. The factor of safety varies from 2.2 and reaches generally to a large value, as large as 10. This result is consistent with the overall factor of safety obtained for the cantilever retaining walls in cohesive soils where the overall factor of safety is generally higher. Figure 8: Effect of varying cohesion, c, on the overall factor of safety of embedded walls 5 CONCLUSIONS In this paper, the overall factor of safety inherent in design of retaining walls based on AS was evaluated. Walls of different heights in different soils were designed based on the requirements of AS , and the overall factors of safety of the designed walls were evaluated. The results of this study show that the overall factor of safety of cantilever retaining walls varies from 1.7 to 2.3 for cohesionless soils. However, the overall factor of safety is considerably larger for walls in cohesive soils. Shorter walls have very large factor of safety, as large as 5.0 for a wall height of 4 m. For practical heights of cantilever walls, the factor of safety is well above Australian Geomechanics Vol 44 No 4 December 2009
5 For embedded sheet pile walls in cohesionless soil, the overall factor of safety increases from 2 to 2.5 when the friction angle increases from 20 to 45. The height of the wall does not have any influence on the factor of safety. Results also indicate that the overall factor of safety is much higher for walls in cohesive soils. The higher overall factor of safety is mainly due to different depths of tension crack obtained by the two methods, the overall factor of safety and the partial factors of safety. 6 REFERENCES Clausen, J., Hansson, S.O., Nillson, F.(2006) Generalizing the safety factor approach, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91, PP Committee BD 002, (2001) AS Concrete Structures, Standards Australia International. Committee CE032 (2002) AS Earth Retaining Structures, Standards Australia International. Meyerhof, D. G. G. (1994) Evolution of Safety Factors and Geotechnical Limit State Design, Technical University of Nova Scotia, Canada Simpson, B. (2000) Partial factors : where to apply them?, LS2000 : International Workshop on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering, ISSMGE, TC23, Melbourne. Australian Geomechanics Vol 44 No 3 December
Module 6 : Design of Retaining Structures. Lecture 27 : Cantilever sheet pile walls [ Section 27.1: Introduction ]
Lecture 27 : Cantilever sheet pile walls [ Section 27.1: Introduction ] Objectives In this section you will learn the following Introduction Lecture 27 : Cantilever sheet pile walls [ Section 27.1: Introduction
More informationREINFORCED CONCRETE. Reinforced Concrete Design. A Fundamental Approach  Fifth Edition. Walls are generally used to provide lateral support for:
HANDOUT REINFORCED CONCRETE Reinforced Concrete Design A Fundamental Approach  Fifth Edition RETAINING WALLS Fifth Edition A. J. Clark School of Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
More informationCE466.3 Modeling of Earth Structures. Contents
1 CE466.3 Modeling of Earth Structures Earth Retaining Structures Part One Contents Introduction Definition of key terms Lateral earth pressure Basic concepts Coulomb s earth pressure theory 2 Introduction
More informationWorked Example 2 (Version 1) Design of concrete cantilever retaining walls to resist earthquake loading for residential sites
Worked Example 2 (Version 1) Design of concrete cantilever retaining walls to resist earthquake loading for residential sites Worked example to accompany MBIE Guidance on the seismic design of retaining
More informationFoundation Design. p A. P D P L P u. q a. q g q net. q u. V c V u. w u
Foundation Design Notation: a = name for width dimension A = name for area b = width of retaining wall stem at base = width resisting shear stress b o = perimeter length for twoway shear in concrete footing
More informationModule 6 : Design of Retaining Structures. Lecture 28 : Anchored sheet pile walls [ Section 28.1 : Introduction ]
Lecture 28 : Anchored sheet pile walls [ Section 28.1 : Introduction ] Objectives In this section you will learn the following Introduction Lecture 28 : Anchored sheet pile walls [ Section 28.1 : Introduction
More informationDESIGN AND DETAILING OF RETAINING WALLS. Learning Outcomes:
DESIGN AND DETAILING OF RETAINING WALLS Learning Outcomes: After this class students will be able to do the complete design and detailing of different types of retaining walls. 1 RETAINING WALL GL2 Retaining
More informationStability of Retaining Cantilever Walls.
Stability of Retaining Cantilever Walls. Cantilever Walls 12/3/2010 Institution: Vocational Training Development Institute Course: Draughting and Building Technology Course Title: Theory and Design of
More informationODOT LRFD Foundations
Ohio Department of Transportation John R. Kasich, Governor Jerry Wray, Director ODOT LRFD Foundations Alexander Dettloff, P.E. Foundation Engineer Office of Geotechnical Engineering May 07, 2013 AASHTO
More informationDESIGN AND DETAILING OF RETAINING WALLS. Learning Outcomes:
DESIGN AND DETAILING OF RETAINING WALLS Learning Outcomes: After this present you will be able to do the complete design and detailing of different types of retaining walls. 1 Cantilever Retaining wall
More informationRetaining structures. Dr Andrew Bond. Director, Geocentrix Ltd Chairman TC250/SC7. Eurocodes: Background & Applications June 2013, Dublin
1314 June 2013, Dublin Dr Andrew Bond Retaining structures II design of Director, Geocentrix Ltd Chairman TC250/SC7 embedded walls Outline of talk Scope and contents Design situations and limit states
More informationDesign of Cantilever Retaining Wall with 4m Height
Design of Cantilever Retaining Wall with 4m Height Tamadher Abood 1, Hatem E.Younis Eldawi 2, Faeza R. Elnaji Abdulrahim 3 1, 2,3 Omar AlMukhtar University, Civil Engineering Department AL Quba Libya
More informationCommon Retaining Walls
Page 1 Common Back Fill Back Fill Stem Toe Heel Gravity or Semigravity Retaining wall Toe Footing Cantilever Retaining wall Heel Back Fill Back Fill Buttress Stem Stem Counterfort Toe Footing Heel Toe
More informationOptimization of Counterfort Retaining Walls
Fourth International Conference of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology 1214 May 2003 Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran Optimization of Counterfort Retaining Walls M. Ghazavi 1 and A. Heidarpour 2 1.Assistant
More informationINVESTIGATION OF THE ACCURACY OF EARTH PRESSURE VALUES OBTAINED USING RANKNE THEOREM
INVESTIGATION OF THE ACCURACY OF EARTH PRESSURE VALUES OBTAINED USING RANKNE THEOREM Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, ElMansoura University, Egypt ABSTRACT: The application of Rankine theorem
More informationDesign Examples for the Eurocode 7 Workshop
Design Examples for the Eurocode 7 Workshop T.L.L Orr Trinity College, Dublin University, Ireland The ten geotechnical design examples, prepared for the International Workshop on the Evaluation of Eurocode
More informationPipeline bridge crossing for mining trucks A geotechnical engineering design.
Pipeline bridge crossing for mining trucks A geotechnical engineering design. Bernard Shen Pells Sullivan Meynink, Sydney, Australia ABSTRACT The Donaldson open pit coal mine is located in Blackhill, New
More informationCh 4a Stress, Strain and Shearing
Ch. 4a  Stress, Strain, Shearing Page 1 Ch 4a Stress, Strain and Shearing Reading Assignment Ch. 4a Lecture Notes Sections 4.14.3 (Salgado) Other Materials Handout 4 Homework Assignment 3 Problems 413,
More informationDEM Simulation of the Seismic Response of Gravity Retaining Walls
6 th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering 14 November 2015 Christchurch, New Zealand DEM Simulation of the Seismic Response of Gravity Retaining Walls U. El Shamy 1, A. Patsevich
More informationSEISMIC STABILITY OF REINFORCED EARTH RETAINING WALLS A. Bracegirdle*
347 SEISMIC STABILITY OF REINFORCED EARTH RETAINING WALLS A. Bracegirdle* ABSTRACT: This paper describes a simplified seismic design approach proposed by the author(1979), based on limiting deformations.
More informationGEOSLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Sheet Pile Wall
1 Introduction Sheet Pile Wall Deep excavation on a level group usually results in a very low factor of safety, unless it is properly reinforced. The purpose of this example is to illustrate how the stability
More informationModule 7 (Lecture 24 to 28) RETAINING WALLS
Module 7 (Lecture 24 to 28) RETAINING WALLS Topics 24.1 INTRODUCTION 24.2 GRAVITY AND CANTILEVER WALLS 24.3 PROPORTIONING RETAINING WALLS 24.4 APPLICATION OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE THEORIES TO DESIGN 24.5
More informationReinforced Concrete Masonry Cantilever Retaining Walls Design and Construction Guide
Designed ad produced by TechMedia Publishing Pty Ltd +61 2 9477 7766 INSTRUCTIONS: Click photograph to enter For contact details, place cursor over CMAA Logo Concrete Masonry Association of Australia MA51
More informationCivil Engineering License Exam Review
Civil Engineering License Exam Review Geotechnical  Session 2 Old Dominion University Brian Crowder briancrowder@cox.net Geotechnical Engineering Technical Areas for Geotechnical Engineering Session 2
More informationInternational Society for Helical Foundations (ISHF)
QUICK DESIGN GUIDE For ScrewPiles and Helical Anchors in Soils Ver. 1.0 Prepared by Dr. Alan J. Lutenegger, P.E., F. ASCE for International Society for Helical Foundations (ISHF) Copyright 2015 (ISHF)
More informationGravity Retaining Wall
Elevation (m) GEOSLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada www.geoslope.com 1 Introduction Gravity Retaining Wall The difficulty with retaining walls is that they are often concrete or a similar
More informationSIL211 MEKANIKA TANAH, 3(23) DESIGN AND DETAILING OF RETAINING WALLS DR. IR. ERIZAL, MAGR.
SIL211 MEKANIKA TANAH, 3(23) DESIGN AND DETAILING OF RETAINING WALLS DR. IR. ERIZAL, MAGR. DEPARTEMEN TEKNIK SIPIL DAN LINGKUNGAN FAKULTAS TEKNOLOGI PERTANIAN IPB DESIGN AND DETAILING OF RETAINING WALLS
More informationEarth Pressure and Retaining Wall Basics for NonGeotechnical Engineers
PDHonline Course C155 (2 PDH) Earth Pressure and Retaining Wall Basics for NonGeotechnical Engineers Instructor: Richard P. Weber, P.E. 2012 PDH Online PDH Center 5272 Meadow Estates Drive Fairfax, VA
More informationSheet Pile Walls. 9.1 Introduction
9 Sheet Pile Walls 9.1 Introduction Connected or semiconnected sheet piles are often used to build continuous walls for waterfront structures that range from small waterfront pleasure boat launching facilities
More informationReinforced Soil Retaining WallsDesign and Construction
Lecture 31 Reinforced Soil Retaining WallsDesign and Construction Prof. G L Sivakumar Babu Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560012 Evolution of RSRW Classical gravity
More informationESR2113 Reissued August 1, 2011 This report is subject to renewal in two years.
ICCES Evaluation Report www.icces.org (800) 4236587 (562) 6990543 ESR2113 Reissued August 1, 2011 This report is subject to renewal in two years. A Subsidiary of the International Code Council DIVISION:
More informationPILE CAP DESIGN. A reinforced concrete slab or block which interconnects a group of piles and acts
PILE CAP DESIGN PILE CAP: A reinforced concrete slab or block which interconnects a group of piles and acts as a medium to transmit the load from wall or column to the Piles is called a Pile Cap. The
More informationANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE STEPPED CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE STEPPED CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL S.S Patil 1, A.A.R.Bagban 2 1 Professor and Head, Civil Engineering Department, Walchand Insitute of Technology, Solapur, Maharashtra,
More informationDESIGN OF STRUCTURES. Engr. Faizan Tahir
DESIGN OF STRUCTURES Engr. Faizan Tahir RETAINING WALLS Function of retaining wall Retaining walls are used to hold back masses of earth or other loose material where conditions make it impossible to let
More informationMeasurement of Shear Strength of Soil with Unconfined Compression Test
1 Measurement of Shear Strength of Soil with Unconfined Compression Test Shear Strength of Soil Shear strength of soil is the internal resistance of soil to shearing forces. Determination of the shear
More informationDevelopment of API Soil Models for Studying Soil Pile Interaction Analysis Using FBMultiPier
BSI Research Report June 2007 Development of API Soil Models for Studying Soil Pile Interaction Analysis Using FBMultiPier Investigators: Marc Hoit, Ph.D. Jae H. Chung, Ph.D. Scott J. Wasman, E.I. Henry
More informationtwenty six concrete construction: foundation design ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: FORM, BEHAVIOR, AND DESIGN DR. ANNE NICHOLS SPRING 2014
ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: FORM, BEHAVIOR, AND DESIGN DR. ANNE NICHOLS SPRING 2014 lecture twenty six concrete construction: www.tamu.edu foundation design Foundations 1 Foundation the engineered
More informationvulcanhammer.net This document downloaded from
This document downloaded from vulcanhammer.net since 1997, your source for engineering information for the deep foundation and marine construction industries, and the historical site for Vulcan Iron Works
More informationCRITICAL STUDY OF RCC BALANCING TANK
CRITICAL STUDY OF RCC BALANCING TANK 1 PRIYANKA DEEPAK HARKAL, 2 M. M. MAHAJAN 1 M. Tech. Student, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur 2 Professor, Visvesvaraya National Institute of
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. Page No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. DISCLAIMER... Ii 1. STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES... 1 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (FIGURE B.2, STEP 1)... 1 3. GENERAL LAYOUT AND GEOMETRY (FIGURE B.2, STEP 2)... 1 4. LOADS (FIGURE
More informationtwenty seven concrete construction: foundation design ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: FORM, BEHAVIOR, AND DESIGN HÜDAVERDİ TOZAN SPRING 2013 lecture
ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: FORM, BEHAVIOR, AND DESIGN HÜDAVERDİ TOZAN SPRING 2013 lecture twenty seven concrete construction: Bright Football Complex www.tamu.edu foundation design Foundations 1 Foundation
More informationEffect of Arching on Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient.
The 12 th International Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 16 October, 2008 Goa, India Effect of Arching on Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient.
More informationEPS Geofoam to Reduce Lateral Earth Pressure on Rigid Walls
International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering ICASGE 15 EPS Geofoam to Reduce Lateral Earth Pressure on Rigid Walls Salem A. Azzam Graduating Student, Civil Engineering
More informationCE6502 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING UNIT 1 SITE INVESTIGATION AND SELECTION OF FOUNDATION PART A 1. List the various methods of soil exploration techniques. 2. What is the scope of soil investigation? 3. What
More informationSeismic Design of Shallow Foundations
Shallow Foundations Page 1 Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations Reading Assignment Lecture Notes Other Materials Ch. 9 FHWA manual Foundations_vibrations.pdf Homework Assignment 10 1. The factored forces
More informationtwenty six concrete construction: foundation design Foundation Structural vs. Foundation Design Structural vs. Foundation Design
ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: FORM, BEHAVIOR, AND DESIGN DR. ANNE NICHOLS SRING 2014 lecture twenty six Foundation the engineered interface between the earth and the structure it supports that
More informationtwenty six concrete construction: foundation design Foundation Structural vs. Foundation Design Structural vs. Foundation Design
ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: FORM, BEHAVIOR, AND DESIGN DR. ANNE NICHOLS SRING 2013 lecture twenty six Foundation the engineered interface between the earth and the structure it supports that
More informationCantilever or Restrained Retaining Wall Design Calculations
Cantilever or Restrained Retaining Wall Design Calculations Organization: F.E.C. Project Name: Ex2 Basement Wall Design by: LAA Job #: 8437 Wall Type: Guest House Basement Date: 7/5/2016 Codes used: 2012
More information11 CHAPTER 11: FOOTINGS
CHAPTER ELEVEN FOOTINGS 1 11 CHAPTER 11: FOOTINGS 11.1 Footing Types Footings may be classified as deep or shallow. If depth of the footing is equal to or greater than its width, it is called deep footing,
More informationThe Pressure class is related to the long term strength or HDB of the pipe as follows;
Pressure class... The Pressure class is related to the long term strength or HDB of the pipe as follows; P C (HDB/FS)/(2t S /D E ) HDB = Hydrostatic Design Basis, kn/m² FS = Minimum factor of safety, 1.8
More informationSt.MARTIN S ENGINEERING COLLEGE Dhulapally, Secunderabad
St.MARTIN S ENGINEERING COLLEGE Dhulapally, Secunderabad500 014 Subject: FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Class: Civil III PART A (2 MARKS EACH) COMPULSURY QUESTION NUMBERED ONE UNITI 1 Define soil exploration.
More informationModule 7 (Lecture 26) RETAINING WALLS
Module 7 (Lecture 26) RETAINING WALLS Topics 1.1 COMMENTS RELATING TO STABILITY 1.2 DRAINAGE FROM THE BACKFILL OF THE RETAINING WALL 1.3 PROVISION OF JOINTS IN RETAININGWALL CONSTRUCTION 1.4 GRAVITY RETAININGWALL
More informationREINFORCED CONCRETE. Reinforced Concrete Design. A Fundamental Approach  Fifth Edition
CHAPTER REINFORCED CONCRETE Reinforced Concrete Design A Fundamental Approach  Fifth Edition FOOTINGS Fifth Edition A. J. Clark School of Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
More information6.1 Masonry Retaining Walls
6.1 Masonry Retaining Walls Introduction This section has been prepared to provide designers, local authorities and builders with some standard design details for reinforced concrete masonry retaining
More informationIf there is anything specific. GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF TERRA FORCE Ll3 RETAINING WALLS
If there is anything specific 1 GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF TERRA FORCE Ll3 RETAINING WALLS Page 1 GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF TERRAFORCE L13 RETAINING WALLS prepared for TERRAFORCE (PTY) LTD P O BOX 1453 CAPE TOWN
More informationReinforced Concrete Wall Design Basics. Mike O Shea, P.E.
Reinforced Concrete Wall Design Basics Mike O Shea, P.E. Structural Concrete Design Requirements American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318) which is referenced
More informationWorked Example 4 (Version 1) Design of a tiedback retaining wall to resist earthquake loading
Worked Example 4 (Version 1) Design of a tiedback retaining wall to resist earthquake loading Worked example to accompany MBIE Guidance on the seismic design of retaining structures for residential sites
More informationPDHonline Course S151A (1 PDH) Steel Sheet Piling. Instructor: Matthew Stuart, PE, SE. PDH Online PDH Center
PDHonline Course S151A (1 PDH) Steel Sheet Piling Instructor: Matthew Stuart, PE, SE 2012 PDH Online PDH Center 5272 Meadow Estates Drive Fairfax, VA 220306658 Phone & Fax: 7039880088 www.pdhonline.org
More information1. Calculation of soil bearing capacity:
1. Calculation of soil bearing capacity: Calculations for allowable bearing capacity of soil according to Terzaghi equation q ult =cncs c + q N q + 0.5 γ BN γ S γ Consider Depth of Foundation = 2.0 m From
More informationThere are many possible designs for concrete masonry fences and boundary walls. Two common arrangements are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Concrete Masonry Association Australia PO Box 370, P: 02 8448 5500 Artarmon F: 02 9411 3801 NSW 1570 www.cmaa.com.au Disclaimer: The Concrete Masonry Association of Australia Limited is a nonprofit organisation
More informationPractical Design to Eurocode 2
Practical Design to Eurocode 2 The webinar will start at 12.30 Course Outline Lecture Date Speaker Title 1 21 Sep Charles Goodchild Introduction, Background and Codes 2 28 Sep Charles Goodchild EC2 Background,
More informationFayoum University. Faculty of Engineering Department of Civil Engineering. Retaining Structures. Lecture No. (14): Cantilever Sheet Pile Walls
Fayoum University Faculty of Engineering Department of Civil Engineering CE 40: Part C Retaining Structures Lecture No. (14): Cantilever Sheet Pile Walls Dr.: Youssef Gomaa Youssef CE 406: Foundation Design
More informationRbq^fkfkd=t^ii=abpfdk
Rbq^fkfkd=t^ii=abpfdk MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING LECTURE VIII Dr. Jason E. Charalambides = = elt=albp=^=`^kqfibsbr= Rbq^fkfkd=t^ii=tlRh\ The main function of a cantilever
More informationSOLDIER PILE SYSTEMS
SOLDIER PILE SYSTEMS SOLDIER PILE SYSTEMS SOLDIER PILES Soldier piles of varying materials and sections are used, often in conjunction with some form of lagging to support soils as a continuous wall above
More informationGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ECG 503 LECTURE NOTE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RETAINING STRUCTURES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ECG 503 LECTURE NOTE 08 3.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RETAINING STRUCTURES LEARNING OUTCOMES Learning outcomes: At the end of this lecture/week the students would be able to: Able
More informationSeawalls, Revetments & Bulkheads
Seawalls, Revetments & Bulkheads Seawalls & Dikes massive structure primarily designed to resist wave action & prevent inland flooding from major storm events along high value coastal property key functional
More informationEarth pressure on cantilever walls at design retained heights
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering July Issue Pages ^ Paper Received // Accepted // Keywords: codes of practice and standards/ design methods and aids, retaining
More informationENCE 4610 Foundation Analysis and Design Shallow Foundations: Overview Terzaghi s Method of Bearing Capacity Estimation
ENCE 4610 Foundation Analysis and Design Shallow Foundations: Overview Terzaghi s Method of Bearing Capacity Estimation Types of Shallow Foundations Shallow foundations are usually placed within a depth
More information(Lecture 20 to 23) LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
Module 6 (Lecture 20 to 23) LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE Topics 20.1 INTRODUCTIO 20.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE AT REST 20.3 ACTIVE PRESSURE 20.4 RANKINE ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE 20.5 Example 20.6 RANKINE ACTIVE EARTH
More informationLATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE INTRODUCTION Soil is neither a solid nor a liquid, but it exhibits some of the characteristics of both. One of the characteristics similar to that of a liquid is its tendency to
More informationUsing Shear Strength Reduction Method for 2D and 3D Slope Stability Analysis. Thamer Yacoub, Ph.D. P.Eng. President, Rocscience Inc.
Using Shear Strength Reduction Method for 2D and 3D Slope Stability Analysis Thamer Yacoub, Ph.D. P.Eng. President, Rocscience Inc. Toronto, Canada Annual Kansas City Geotechnical Conference 2016 Outline
More informationRW01 Concrete Masonry Reinforced
RW01 Concrete Masonry Reinforced Cantilever Retaining Walls EDITION E3, May 2013 ISN 0 909407 56 8 CONTENTS DESIGN TALE INDEX PREVIOUS VIEW PREVIOUS PAGE NEXT PAGE INSTRUCTIONS Place cursor over symbols
More informationEN 19971 Eurocode 7. Section 10 Hydraulic Failure Section 11 Overall Stability Section 12 Embankments. Trevor L.L. Orr Trinity College Dublin Ireland
EN 1997 1: Sections 10, 11 and 12 Your logo Brussels, 1820 February 2008 Dissemination of information workshop 1 EN 19971 Eurocode 7 Section 10 Hydraulic Failure Section 11 Overall Stability Section
More informationDEVELOPMENT OF RELIABILITYBASED DESIGN FORMAT FOR ANCHORED SHEET PILE WALLS
DEVELOPMENT OF RELIABILITYBASED DESIN FORMAT FOR ANCHORED SHEET PILE WALLS by Hyung Bae Kim, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) Chief Researcher Highway Research Institute Korea Highway Corporation 2931 Kumtodong
More informationSOIL MECHANICS Exam #3: Shear Strength.
14.330 SOIL MECHANICS Exam #3: Shear Strength. Questions (2 Points Each  20 Points Total): 1. Write the equation for the MohrCoulomb Failure Criteria for effective stresses in soils and detail the variables.
More informationSOIL MECHANICS Exam #3: Shear Strength.
14.330 SOIL MECHANICS Exam #3: Shear Strength. Questions (2 Points Each  20 Points Total): 1. Write the equation for the MohrCoulomb Failure Criteria for effective stresses in soils and detail the variables.
More informationDesign basis and economic aspects of different types of retaining walls
Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), 32 (1) (2004) 1734 Design basis and economic aspects of different types of retaining walls A. J. Khan a and M. Sikder b a Department of Civil Engineering Bangladesh
More informationModule 2 : Theory of Earth Pressure and Bearing Capacity. Lecture 7 : Earth Pressure Theories [ Section 7.1 Rankine and Coulomb Theory ] Objectives
Objectives In this section you will learn the following Earth Pressure Theories Rankine's Earth Pressure Theory Active earth pressure Passive earth pressure Coulomb's Wedge Theory 7.1 Earth Pressure Theories
More informationImplications of Eurocode 7 for Geotechnical Design in Ireland
THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS OF IRELAND Implications of Eurocode 7 for Geotechnical Design in Ireland Trevor L.L. ORR, BA, BAI, MSc, PhD, EurIng Chartered Engineer and Senior Lecturer, Trinity College
More informationDRILLED DEEP FOUNDATIONS
GROUPS: ADVANTAGES Figure 142. Group vs. Single Shaft (FHWA NHI10016). Large overturning moments are most effectively resisted using groups of shafts. Higher axial capacities. May be cost effective
More informationExample 3.16 Design of a cantilever retaining wall (BS 8110)
Retaining walls Exaple 3.16 Design of a cantilever retaining wall (BS 8110) The cantilever retaining wall shown below is backfilled with granular aterial having a unit weight, ρ, of 19 kn 3 and an internal
More informationCE 6601 DESIGN OF RC AND BRICK MANSONRY STRUCTURE UNIT I RETAINING WALL Retaining wall Retains Earth when level difference exists between two surfaces A) Gravity wall (h
More informationDESIGN OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 7
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, Vol. XXX, No. 1 2, 2008 DESIGN OF DEEP EXCAVATIONS ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 7 ANNA SIEMIŃSKALEWANDOWSKA, MONIKA MITEWCZAJEWSKA Warsaw University of Technology, al. Armii
More informationSOIL MECHANICS LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
References: 1. Budhu, Muni, D. Soil Mechanics & Foundations. New York; John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2000. 2. Schroeder, W.L., Dickenson, S.E, Warrington, Don, C. Soils in Construction. Fifth Edition. Upper
More information4.2. Backfill Soil. Figure 4.4a Vibratory Drum Roller Compacting a Lift for T8.01
4.2. Backfill Soil The abutment wall backfill for tests T8.01 and T8.02 was composed of a sandy material referred to in the construction industry as sandequivalent 30 (SE30). The height of the fill
More informationGeotechnical Modeling and Capacity Assessment
Geotechnical Modeling and Capacity Assessment by Geoffrey R. Martin Chapter 6 : Geotechnical Modeling and Capacity Assessment Foundation Modeling (Evaluation Methods D and E) Equivalent linear stiffness
More informationWind Classification for FreeStanding Fences and Walls
Concrete Masonry Association Australia PO Box 370, P: 02 8448 5500 Artarmon F: 02 9411 3801 NSW 1570 www.cmaa.com.au Disclaimer: The Concrete Masonry Association of Australia Limited is a nonprofit organisation
More informationCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO FOUNDATIONS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO FOUNDATIONS The soil beneath structures responsible for carrying the loads is the FOUNDATION. The general misconception is that the structural element which transmits the load
More informationSubtitle. Theory. Pad Foundations according to EN
Subtitle Theory Pad Foundations according to EN 19971 2 All information in this document is subject to modification without prior notice. No part or this manual may be reproduced, stored in a database
More informationSEISMIC DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS: THE 2015 CANADIAN BUILDING CODE
10NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 2125, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska SEISMIC DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS: THE 2015 CANADIAN BUILDING CODE P.
More informationPile design options for shallow depths of liquefaction
September 2013 Pile design options for shallow depths of liquefaction Supplementary guidance to Guidance on repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquakes, December 2012. Simplified
More informationEngineers Australia The Civil and Structural Engineering Panel. Use of Limit State Design in Foundation Engineering (Patrick Wong 17 April 2012)
Engineers Australia The Civil and Structural Engineering Panel Use of Limit State Design in Foundation Engineering (Patrick Wong 17 April 2012) Presentation Outline 1. Working Stress Design Method 2. Limit
More informationLateral E arth Earth Pressures Erizal
Lateral Earth Pressures Erizal Contents Geotechnical applications K 0, active & passive states Rankine s earth pressure theory Design of retaining walls 2 Lateral Support In geotechnical engineering, it
More informationGABION WALLS DESIGN. Gabion Gravity Wall. Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Gabion Wall [Reinforced Soil Wall]
GABION WALLS DESIGN Gabion Gravity Wall Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Gabion Wall [Reinforced Soil Wall] Gabion Walls Installation Guide Foundation Foundation Requirements, which must be established
More informationEffects of rarely analyzed soil parameters for FEM analysis of embedded retaining structures
Effects of rarely analyzed soil parameters for FEM analysis of embedded retaining structures V. Józsa 1 Geotechnical Department, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary ABSTRACT Finite
More informationUse of arched cables for fixation of empty underground tanks against undergroundwaterinduced
Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), 36 () (008) 7986 Use of arched cables for fixation of empty underground tanks against undergroundwaterinduced floatation Ala a M. Darwish Department of Building &
More information