CF

IJCSIET--International Journal of Computer Science information and Engg.
, Technologies ISSN 2277-4408 || 01032016-010
DESIGN OF COUNTER FORT RETAINING WALLS

G JASMINE VINCENT, S VINEELA
ABSTRACT: the active soil stress state would be

developed because the narrow base
The counterfort wall is required
slab allows the wall to tilt. To control
to retain up to 18.5m of fill and
the displacement at top of the wall,
support the roof of the underground
the ground anchors are prestressed to
Future Cultural Space building. The
a set lock-off load and the wall is built
design solution comprises buttresses
with a 1 horizontal to 120 vertical
at 6 m centres supported on a narrow
rake into the backfill. A detailed
5.5 m wide base slab with pre stressed
discussion of the design aspects of the
ground anchors located at the top of
counterfort retaining wall is provided
the wall for global stability. The front
herein.
wall is continuous without movement
joints over approximately 155m 1 INTRODUCTION
length. The overall stability of the RETAINING WALLS
wall system is provided by a
combination of gravitational soil force
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
acting on the base slab and an
AND STABILITY OF RETAINING
additional capacity by the ground
WALLS
anchors. A three dimensional Plaxis
model was developed to assess the Soil is neither a solid nor a liquid, but
soil-structure interaction. Results it exhibits some of the characteristics
obtained from the soil-structure of both. One of the characteristics
interaction model demonstrated that similar to that of a liquid is its
IJCSIET-ISSUE6-VOLUME1-SERIES3 Page 1
IJCSIET--International Journal of Computer Science information and Engg., Technologies ISSN 2277-4408 || 01032016-010
tendency to exert a lateral pressure walls and anchored sheet pile walls,
against any object in contact. This also called ‘bulkheads’. Gravity walls
important property influences the depend on their weight for stability;
design of retaining walls, abutments, walls up to 2 m height are invariably
bulkheads, sheet pile walls, basement of this type. The other types of
walls and underground conduits retaining walls, as well as sheet-pile
which retain or support soil, and, as walls, are known as ‘flexible walls’.
such, is of very great significance. All these are shown in Fig. 13.1. R.C.
Retaining walls are constructed in Cantilever walls have a vertical or
various fields of civil engineering, inclined stem monolithic with a base
such as hydraulics and irrigation slab. These are considered suitable up
structures, highways, railways, to a height of 7.5 m. A vertical or
tunnels, mining and military inclined stem is used in counterfort
engineering. walls, supported by the base slab as
well as by counterforts with which it
1.1 TYPES OF EARTH-
is monolithic. Cantilever sheet pile
RETAINING STRUCTURES Earth-
walls are held in the ground by the
retaining structures may be broadly
passive resistance of the soil both in
classified as retaining walls and
front of and behind them. Anchored
sheetpile walls. Retaining walls may
sheet pile wall or bulkhead is fixed at
be further classified as: (i) Gravity
its base as a cantilever wall but
retaining walls —usually of masonry
supported by tierods near the top,
or mass concrete. (ii) Cantilever walls
sometimes using two rows of ties and
(iii) Counterfort walls usually of
properly anchored to a deadman.
reinforced concrete. (iv) Buttress
walls Sheet pile walls may be further 1.2 RETAINING WALLS
classified as cantilever sheet pile
A retaining wall is a structure the lateral pressures generated by

designed and constructed to resist the loose soils or, in some cases, water
lateral pressure of soil when there is a pressures.
desired change in ground elevation
FINAL DESIGN
that exceeds the angle of repose of the
At this stage, several design options
soil. The active pressure increases on
for the counterfort retaining wall were
the retaining wall proportionally from
investigated by the Aurecon design
zero at the upper grade level to a
team, taking into consideration the
maximum value at the lowest depth of
construction staging that was
the wall. The total pressure or thrust
beneficial to the design. These design
may be assumed to be acting through
options were then workshopped with
the centre of the triangular
the construction team to determine the
distribution pattern, one-third above
most economical design solution that
the base of the wall. Retaining walls
suited Bauderstone construction
serve to retain the lateral pressure of
techniques. The key challenge was to
soil. The basement wall is thus one
find a solution that is structurally
form of retaining wall. However, the
adequate to take the design loadings
term is most often used to refer to a
but flexible enough to allow soil
cantilever retaining wall, which is a
movement so that ‘active’ soil stress
freestanding structure without lateral
state would be mobilised behind the
support at its top.
wall to reduce the design loadings.
Typically retaining walls are Due to the anticipated complex soil-
cantilevered from a footing extending structure interaction through various
up beyond the grade on one side and construction stages, this interaction
retaining a higher level grade on the needed to be investigated thoroughly
opposite side. The walls must resist to provide the design team with
confidence that soil loadings had been Due to a narrow base (base slab width
adequately considered in the final to retained height ratio of 0.27), the
design. ground anchors were reintroduced at
The final design solution comprised every buttress to provide the required
an L-shaped base slab and wall additional stability capacities. The
section tied together by vertical ground anchors heads were located at
buttresses at 6m centres. The front a constant height of 2.0m below the
wall and the base slab thicknesses soffit of deck to maximise lever arm
remained unchanged from the two to the overturning point at the front
previous stages. However, the total toe, typically 16.75m. The ground
base slab width was significantly anchors were also inclined at 45
reduced to 5.5m with 1.0m front toe degrees to the horizontal axis. In this
and a 1.0m deep shear key in the heel arrangement, the anchor heads would
as seen in Figure 6. be inspect able and maintainable in
The extent of the buttresses from the the future if required.
front face of the wall reduced The narrow base slab width of 5.5m
significantly to a uniform 4.0m width, would be adequate to maintain the
including the front wall thicknesses. wall overturning and sliding stability
The buttresses are 550mm thick with for backfilling behind the wall to
a widened end flange of 1000mm reach a maximum height of 9.0m
width by 600mm depth. The uniform above the top of base slab. The
vertical buttresses simplified ground anchors would then be
formworks design significantly and installed and stressed to a pre-
reduced cycle time of construction determined lock-off load to provide
because all formwork would be the additional stability capacities.
reused. After the anchors have been installed,
backfilling is then continued to the
final design finish surface level. The When the height of the retaining wall
required construction sequence is exceeds about 6 m, the thickness of
noted on the drawings to this effect. the stem and, heel slab works out to
be sufficiently large and the design
becomes uneconomical. In such a
case counterforts having trapezoidal
section fixed at the base slab are
provided at intervals of 1.5 m to 3 m.
The counterforts support the heel slab
and the vertical stem.
The design principles for different
components of the wall are discussed
as under.
Design of Stem
The stem acts as a continuous slab
The final design with a narrow base spanning longitudinally over the
slab width overcame all challenges counterforts. Thehorizontal active soil
identified from various design pressure acts as the load on the slab.
development stages. The retaining Since the earth pressurevaries linearly
wall system would be flexible enough over the height of the stem, the slab
to mobilise the ‘active’ soil stress deflects away from the earth
state facebetween the counterforts and
DESIGN AND DETAILING OF hence the main steel is provided at the
COUNTERFORT RETAINING outer face ofthe stem and at the inner
WALL face near the supporting counterforts.
The bending momentin the stem is
maximum at the base and reduces
towards top. But the thickness ofthe upward soil reaction and isdesigned as
wall is kept constant and only the area a cantilever slab fixed at the front face
of steel is reduced. of the stem. Due to upward
If I is the clear distance between the soilpressure, the tension develops on
counterforts and p is the intensity of the earth face and the reinforcement is
soil providedon earth face along the length
pressure, the slab is designed for of the toe slab. In case the toe slab
bending moment as under: projection is largei.e. > b/3, front
Maximum +ve B.M= pl2/16 counterforts are provided above the
(occurring mid-way between toe slab (normally up to theground
counterforts) and level) and the slab is designed as a
Maximum -ve B.M= pl2/12 continuous horizontal slab
(occurring at inner face of spanningbetween the front
counterforts) counterforts.
The main reinforcement is provided Design of Heel Slab
horizontally along the length of the The heel slab is designed as a
wall. The tiesare provided continuous slab spanning over the
horizontally for the full value of counterforts, as inthe case of stem.
reaction to prevent slab separating The heel slab is subjected to
from counterforts. downward forces due to weight of
Design of Toe Slab soilplus self -weight of slab and an
The base width is approximately upward force due to soil reaction. The
taken equal to 0.6 H to 0.7 H, where net force actsdownward producing
H is the overallheight of the wall. The tension towards the earth face
projection of toe slab is approximately between the counterforts andnegative
taken between 1/3 to1/4 of base moment develops at the support
width. The toe slab is subjected to an provided by counterforts.
If p is the net downward force and I is counterforts are designed as a T-beam

the clear span between the of varying depth. The main steel
counterforts the provided
B.M. is given by: along the sloping face shall be
Maximum +ve B.M= pl2/16 (mid- anchored properly at both ends. The
way between counterforts towards depth of the
earth face) counterfort is measured perpendicular
Maximum -ve B.M. = pl2/12 to the sloping side.
(occurring at counterforts) In order that the counterfort and stem
should act as one unit, it is joined
Design of Counterforts firmly to thestem by providing ties in
Since the active earth pressure on the horizontal plane. The base is tied
stem acts outward and stem is with vertical ties toprevent its
considered to be tendency to separate out under the
fixed at counterforts, the counterforts action of net downward force.
are subjected to outward reaction Theprovision of ties ensures transfer
from the of forces to the counterforts. The net
stem. This produces tension along the forces actingon the different
outer sloping face of the counterforts. components of the counterforts,
The position of main steel and
inner face supporting the stem is in horizontaland vertical ties are
compression. Thus, the stem lies in schematically shown.
the DRAINAGE AND WATER-
compression zone with respect to the TIGHTNESS
bending of the counterforts and hence The following details were integrated
the into the overall design solution with
regard to water tightness, odour
control and build-up of water pressure odour penetration into the Future
from behind the wall. The quality of Cultural Space.
the fill material being all 30 plus
A GEOSHEET CS15F by Geo fabrics
material, coupled with the seepage
or approved equivalent was detailed
drainage layer design influenced the
to direct any water pressure from
final design solution adopted for the
building up behind the wall. The risk
design.
of water penetration through the wall
The wall thickness and percentage of
was more likely if there was a
reinforcement were the first line of
constant head of water build-up
defence with regard to water ingress,
behind the wall. In the case of the
crack control and odour ingress. The
counterfort wall, the only water
thickness of the wall (Lift 1) within
source that could result in water
the first 6 m was 750 mm. The water
build-up behind the wall was the
and odour penetration through a 750
seepage water through the Headland
mm thick wall was determined to be
Park hill. The Geo sheet was sized to
very low.
resist the soil pressures imposed on
A vapour membrane comprising a 2
the wall. At the seepage drainage
mm thick single layer polyethylene
layer interface, the Geo sheet and
membrane in accordance with
vapour membrane overlapped with
AS2870-2011 was detailed behind the
the GCL membrane to capture the
front wall slab. The vapour membrane
seepage water from behind the
would also increase the life of the
retaining wall and direct it to the
concrete on the back face of the wall
seepage drainage system. At each
which is not accessible for
change in thickness to the wall, the
maintenance and repair. This vapour
Geosheet and vapour membrane
membrane will also reduce the risk of
overlapped and a localised drainage temperature changes; vertical

layer was included expansion joints from the base to the
top of the wall may also be used.
These joints may be filled with
A retaining wall may be constructed
flexible joint fillers. In most cases,
with one or more of the following
horizontal reinforcing steel bars
joints:
running across the stem are
1. Construction joints (see Figure
continuous through all joints. The
8.14a) are vertical and horizontal
steel is greased to allow the concrete
joints that are placed between two
to expand.
successive pours of concrete. To
increase the shear at the joints, keys
Drainage from the Backfill
may be used. If keys are not used, the
As the result of rainfall or other wet
surface of the first pour is cleaned and
conditions, the backfill material for a
roughened before the next pour of
retaining wall may become saturated,
concrete.
thereby increasing the pressure on the
2. Contraction joints() are vertical
wall and perhaps creating an unstable
joints (grooves) placed in the face
condition. For this reason, adequate
of a wall (from the top of the base
drainage must be provided by means
slab to the top of the wall) that allow
of weep holes or perforated drainage
the concrete to shrink without
pipes. When provided, weep holes
noticeable harm. The grooves may be
should have a minimum diameter of
about6 to 8 mm wide and 12 to 16
about 0.1 m and be adequately spaced
mm deep.
3. Expansion joints() allow for the
expansion of concrete caused by
CONCLUSIONS
An efficient front wall slab build than the proposed design at the
with thickness varying from 750mm tender phase.
to 400mm in 6m lift sections a narrow It is important that soil-structure
base slab of 5.5m total width interaction is comprehensively
including a 1m wide front toe and a understood for the design of retaining
shear key in the heel. The base slab is wall systems, in which the lateral soil
750 thick. uniform vertical buttress of loading cannot be readily estimated.
4.0m depth including front wall For the case of the counterfort
thickness ground anchors comprising retaining wall discussed in this paper,
of 25x15.2mm diameter super grade the soil-structure interaction study
strands (minimum breaking load of provided a better understanding of the
250kN per strand) installed at a 45o soil behaviour leading to a more
inclination to the horizontal axis at efficient and cost-effective design
every buttress. The bond length for solution.
the ground anchors is 10.0m The
narrow base slab width allows the REFERENCES
wall to tilt so that an ‘active’ soil
stress state would be achieved to  Plaxis 3D 2013. Reference
reduce design loadings on the wall. Manual
The uniform vertical buttresses reduce
formwork and cycling time on the  Pells P.J.N., Mostyn G.N and
buttresses. These innovative design Walker B.F.(1998) Foundations
features enabled the design to achieve on Shale and Sandstone ,
great construction cost savings. The INDIAN Geomechanics
final design solution was estimated to Vol.33, pp 17-29
be approximately 27% cheaper to
 Road and Maritime Services

(2012) RMS Specification
D&C B114 – Ground Anchors
 IS:2720 (Part 9F) – Liquid limit
of Bentonite.
 Soil Mechanics and Foundation
by B.C.Punmia, Ashok Kumar
Jain and Arun Kumar Jain,
Laxmi, publications Pvt.Ltd.
New Delhi-16th Edition, 2005.
 Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engg. By K.R. Arora, Standard
Publishers and Distributors,
Delhi-5th Edition, 2010.
 Geotechnical Engineering by
C.Venkataramaiah, New Age
International (P) Limited
Publishers, New Delhi- 3rd
Edition, 2006.

CF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJCSIET--International Journal of Computer Science information and Engg.

, Technologies ISSN 2277-4408 || 01032016-010

DESIGN OF COUNTER FORT RETAINING WALLS

ABSTRACT: the active soil stress state would be

A retaining wall is a structure the lateral pressures generated by

If p is the net downward force and I is counterforts are designed as a T-beam

overlapped and a localised drainage temperature changes; vertical

 Road and Maritime Services

You might also like