Lecture-11 Retaining wall - Yavuz · PDF filePage 3 of 29 (ii) Counterfort Walls This type of...
Transcript of Lecture-11 Retaining wall - Yavuz · PDF filePage 3 of 29 (ii) Counterfort Walls This type of...
Page 1 of 29
Lecture Retaining Wall Week‐12 Retaining walls which provide lateral support to earth fill embankment or any other
form of material which they retain them in vertical position.
These walls are also usually required to resist a combination of earth and hydrostatic
loadings. The fundamental requirement is that the wall is capable of holding the
retained material in place without undue movement arising from deflection, over‐
turning or sliding.
Types of Retaining Wall Concrete retaining walls may be considered in terms of three basic categories:
(1) Gravity
(2) Counterfort and
(3) Cantilever
Within these groups many common variations exist, for example cantilever walls may
have additional supporting ties into the retained material.
The structural action of each type is fundamentally different, but the techniques used in
analysis, design and detailing are those normally used for concrete structures.
(i) Gravity Walls These are usually constructed of mass concrete, with reinforcement included in the
faces to restrict thermal and shrinkage cracking. As illustrated in Figure 1, reliance is
placed on self‐weight to satisfy stability requirements both in respect of overturning and
sliding.
It is generally taken as a requirement that under working conditions the resultant of
the self‐weight and overturning forces must lie within the middle third at the interface
of the base and soil. This ensures that uplift is avoided at this interface. Friction effects
which resist sliding are thus maintained across the entire base. Bending, shear, and
deflections of such walls are usually insignificant in view of the large effective depth of
Page 2 of 29
the section. Distribution steel to control thermal cracking is necessary, however, and
great care must be taken to reduce hydration temperatures by mix design, construction
procedure and curing techniques.
Figure 1: Gravity wall (iii) Cantilever Walls
These are designed as vertical cantilevers spanning from a large rigid base which often
relies on the weight of backfill on the base to provide stability. Two forms of this
construction are illustrated in Figure 2. In both cases, stability calculations follow similar
procedures to those for gravity walls to ensure‐ that the • resultant force lies within the
middle third of the base• and that overturning and sliding requirements are met.
Figure 2: Cantilever wall
Page 3 of 29
(ii) Counterfort Walls This type of construction will probably be used where the overall height of wall is too
large to be constructed economically either in mass concrete or as a cantilever.
The basis of design of counterfort walls is that the earth pressures act on a thin wall
which spans horizontally between the massive counterforts (Figure 3). These must be
sufficiently large to provide the necessary dead load for stability requirements, possibly
with the aid of the weight of backfill on an enlarged base. The counterforts must be
designed with reinforcement to act as cantilevers to resist the considerable bending
moments that are concentrated at these points.
The spacing of counterforts will be governed by the above factors, coupled with the
need to maintain a satisfactory span‐depth ratio on the wall slab, which must be
designed for bending as a continuous slab. The advantage of this form of construction is
that the volume of concrete involved is considerably reduced, thereby removing many
of the problems of large pours, and reducing the quantities of excavation. Balanced
against this must be considered the generally increased shuttering complication and the
probable need for increased reinforcement.
Figure 3: Counterfort Walls
Page 4 of 29
Analysis and Design
The design of retaining walls may be split into three fundamental stages:
(1) Stability analysis ‐ ultimate limit state,
(2) Bearing pressure analysis ‐ serviceability limit state, and
(3) Member design and detailing ‐ ultimate and serviceability Limit states.
(i) Stability Analysis
Under the action of the loads corresponding to the ultimate limit state, a retaining wall
must be stable in terms of resistance to overturning and sliding. This is demonstrated by
the simple case of a gravity wall as shown in Figure 4.
The critical conditions for stability are when a maximum horizontal force acts with a
minimum vertical load. To guard against a stability failure, it is usual to apply
conservative factors of safety to the force and loads. The values given in table 2.2 are
appropriate to strength calculations but a value of yf = 1.6 or higher should be used for
stability calculations.
Page 5 of 29
If this force is predominantly hydrostatic and well defined, a factor of 1.4 may be used.
A partial factor of safety of γf = 1.0 is usually applied to the dead load Gk.
For resistance to overturning, moments would normally be taken about the toe of the
base, point A on Figure 4, thus the requirement is that
1.0 Gk x ≥ γf Hk y (Eqn‐1)
Figure 4: Forces and pressures on a gravity wall
Resistance to sliding is provided by friction between the underside of the base and the
ground, and thus is also related to total self‐weight Gk. Resistance provided by the
passive earth pressure on the front face of the base may make some contribution, but
since this material is often backfilled against the face, this resistance cannot be
guaranteed and is usually ignored. Thus, if the coefficient of friction between base and
soil is µ, the total friction force will be given by µ. Gk for the length of wall of weight Gk;
and the requirement is that
1.0 µ.Gk ≥ yf Hk (Eqn‐2)
Where Hk is the horizontal force on this length of wall
If this criterion is not met, a heel beam may be used, and the force due to the passive
earth pressure over the face area of the heel may be included in resisting the sliding
Page 6 of 29
force. The partial load factor γf on the heel beam force should be taken as 1.0 to give the
worst condition. To ensure the proper action of a heel beam, the front face must be cast
directly against sound, undisturbed material, and it is important that this is not
overlooked during construction.
In considering cantilever walls, a considerable amount of backfill is often placed on top
of the base, and this is taken into account in the stability analysis. The forces acting in
this case are shown in Figure 5. In addition to Gk and Hk there is an additional vertical
load Vk due to the material above the base acting a distance q from the toe. The worst
condition for stability will be when this is at a minimum; therefore, a partial load factor
γf = 1.0 is appropriate. The stability requirements then become
1.0 Gk x + 1.0 Vk q ≥ γf Hk y for overturning (Eqn‐3)
µ (1.0 Gk + 1.0 Vk) ≥ γf Hk for sliding (Eqn‐4)
When a heel beam is provided the additional passive resistance of the earth must be
included in equation 4.
Stability analysis, as described here, will normally suffice. However, if there is doubt
about the foundation material in the region of the wall or the reliability of loading
values, it may be necessary to perform a full slip‐circle analysis, using techniques
common to soil mechanics, or to use increased factors of safety.
Page 7 of 29
Figure 5: Forces on a cantilever wall (ii) Bearing Pressure Analysis
As with foundations, the bearing pressures underneath retaining walls are assessed on
the basis of the serviceability limit state when determining the size of base that is
required. The analysis will be similar to the combined effects of an eccentric vertical
load, coupled with an overturning moment.
Considering a unit length of the cantilever wall (figure 5) the resultant moment about
the centroidal axis of the base is
)2
()2
( 321 qD
VxD
GyHM kfkfkf (Eqn‐ 5)
And the vertical load is
kfkf VGN 32 (Eqn‐ 6)
Where in the case of serviceability limit state the partial factor of safety are
Page 8 of 29
γf1 = γf2 = γf3 = 1.0 The distribution of bearing pressure will be as shown in the figure, provided the effective eccentricity lies within the “middle third” of the base, that is
6
D
N
M
The maximum bearing pressure is then given by
21
D
I
M
D
Np
Where I = D3 / 12. Therefore,
21
6
D
M
D
Np (Eqn‐ 7)
and
22
6
D
M
D
Np (Eqn‐ 8)
Earth pressure on retaining walls (a) Active soil pressure Active soil pressures are given for the two extreme cases of a Cohesionless soil such as sand and a cohesive soil such as clay (Fig. 12.2). General formulae are available for intermediate cases. The formulae given apply to drained soils and reference should be made to textbooks on soil mechanics for pressure where the water table rises behind the wall. The soil pressures given are those due to a level backfill. If there is a surcharge of w kN/m2 on the soil behind the wall, this is equivalent to an additional soil depth of z = w/γ where γ is the density in kilonewtons per cubic meter. The textbooks give solutions for cases where there is sloping backfill.
(i) Cohesionless soil, c = 0 (Fig. 12.2(a)) The pressure at any depth z is given by
Where γ is the soil density and Φ is the angle of internal friction. The force on the wall of height H1 is
Page 9 of 29
Fig. 12.2(a)
(ii) Cohesive soil, ϕ = 0 (Fig. 12.2(b)) The pressure at any depth z is given theoretically by P = γz − 2c where c is the cohesion at zero normal pressure. This expression gives negative values near the top of the wall. In practice, a value for the active earth pressure of not less than
is used. (c) Vertical pressure under the base The vertical pressure under the base is calculated for service loads. For a cantilever wall a 1 m length of wall with base width b is considered. Then Area A = b m2
Page 10 of 29
Modulus Z = b2/6 m3 If ΣM is the sum of the moments of all vertical forces ΣW about the centre of the base and of the active pressure on the wall then ΣM = ΣW(x−b/2) − P1H1/3 The passive pressure in front of the base has been neglected again. The maximum pressure is This should not exceed the safe bearing pressure on the soil.
Fig. 12.2(b)
Page 11 of 29
(d) Resistance to sliding (Fig. 12.2) The resistance of the wall to sliding is as follows. (i) Cohesionless soil The friction R between the base and the soil is ‐ μΣW
where μ is the coefficient of friction between the base and the soil (μ= tanΦ ). The passive earth pressure against the front of the wall from a depth H2 of soil is (ii) Cohesive soils The adhesion R between the base and the soil is βb where β is the adhesion in kilonewtons per square meter. The passive earth pressure is A nib can be added, as shown in Fig. 12.2, to increase the resistance to sliding through passive earth pressure. For the wall to be safe against sliding 1.4P1 < P2+R where P1 is the horizontal active earth pressure on the wall. (b) Wall stability Referring to Fig. 12.2 the vertical loads are made up of the weight of the wall and base and the weight of backfill on the base. Front fill on the outer base has been neglected. Surcharge would need to be included if present. If the centre of gravity of these loads is x from the toe of the wall, the stabilizing moment is ΣWx with a beneficial partial safety factory γf=1.0. The overturning moment due to the active earth pressure is 1.4P1H1/3 with an adverse partial safety factor γf=1.4. The stabilizing moment from passive earth pressure has been neglected. For the wall to satisfy the requirement of stability ΣWx ≥ 1.4 P1H1 / 3
Page 12 of 29
Design procedure
The steps in the design of a cantilever retaining wall are as follows.
1. Assume a breadth for the base. This is usually about 0.75 of the wall height. The preliminary thicknesses for the wall and base sections are chosen from experience. A nib is often required to increase resistance to sliding. 2. Calculate the horizontal earth pressure on the wall. Then considering all forces check stability against overturning and the vertical pressure under the base of the wall. Calculate the resistance to sliding and check that this is satisfactory. A partial safety factor of 1.4 is applied to the horizontal loads for the overturning and sliding check. The maximum vertical pressure is calculated using service loads and should not exceed the safe bearing pressure. 3. Reinforced concrete design for the wall is made for ultimate loads. The partial safety factors for the wall and earth pressure are each 1.4. Surcharge if present may be classed as either dead or imposed load depending on its nature. Referring to Fig. 12.3 the design consists of the following. (a) For the wall, calculate shear forces and moments caused by the horizontal earth pressure. Design the vertical moment steel for the inner face and check the shear stresses. Minimum secondary steel is provided in the horizontal direction for the inner face and both vertically and horizontally for the outer face. (b) The net moment due to earth pressure on the top and bottom faces of the inner footing causes tension in the top and reinforcement is designed for this position. (c) The moment due to earth pressure causes tension in the bottom face of the outer footing. The moment reinforcement is shown in Fig. 12.3.
Page 13 of 29
Fig. 12.3
Page 14 of 29
Example 1: Specification Design a cantilever retaining wall to support a bank of earth 3.5 m high. The top surface is horizontal behind the wall but it is subjected to a dead load surcharge of 15 kN/m2. The soil behind the wall is a well‐drained sand with the following properties:
Density γ=1800 kg/m3=17.6 kN/m3 angle of internal friction Φ=30° The material under the wall has a safe bearing pressure of 100 kN/m2. The coefficient of friction between the base and the soil is 0.5. Design the wall using grade 30 concrete and grade 460 reinforcement. Answer: (a) Wall stability The proposed arrangement of the wall is shown in Fig. 12.4. The wall and base thickness are assumed to be 200 mm. A nib has been added under the wall to assist in the prevention of sliding. Consider 1 m length of wall. The surcharge is equivalent to an additional height of 15/17.6=0.85 m. The total equivalent height of soil is 3.5+0.25+0.85=4.6 m The horizontal pressure at depth y from the top of the surcharge is 17.6y (1−0.5)/ (1+0.5) = 5.87y kN/m2 The horizontal pressure at the base is 5.87×4.6=27 kN/m2 The weight of wall, base and earth and the moments for stability calculations are given in Table 12.1. (i) Maximum soil pressure The base properties are Area, A=2.85 m2 Modulus, Z = 2.852/6 = 1.35 m3 The maximum soil pressure at A calculated for service load is The maximum soil pressure is satisfactory.
Page 15 of 29
(ii) Stability against overturning The stabilizing moment about the toe A of the wall for a partial safety factor γf = 1.0 is 59.34 + (181.08 × 1.425) = 317.4 kN m The overturning moment for a partial safety factor γf = 1.4 is 1.4 × 86.67 = 121.34 kN m The stability of the wall is adequate. (iii) Resistance to sliding The forces resisting sliding are the friction under the base and the passive resistance for a depth of earth of 850 mm to the top of the base: For the wall to be safe against sliding 128.69 > 1.4×59.98 = 83.97 kN The resistance to sliding is satisfactory. (iv) Overall comment The wall section is satisfactory. The maximum soil pressure under the base controls the design. (b) Structural design The structural design is made for ultimate loads. The partial safety factor for each pressure and surcharge is γf=1.4.
Page 16 of 29
Page 17 of 29
(i) Wall reinforcement The pressure at the base of the wall is 1.4×5.89×4.35 = 35.7 kN/m2 The pressure at the top of the wall is 1.4×4.99=6.99 kN/m2 Shear = (6.99×3.5) + (0.5×3.5×28.76)
= 24.47 + 50.33 = 74.8 kN Moment = (24.47×0.5×3.5) + (50.33×3.5/3)
= 101.51 kN m The cover is 40 mm; assume 20 mm diameter bars. Then Provide 16 mm diameter bars at 140 mm centers to give a steel area of 1435 mm2/m. Determine the depth y1 from the top where the 16 mm diameter bars can be reduced to a diameter of 12 mm. The depth y1 is given by the equation 64=6.99(y1
2)/2 + 1.4×5.87(y1) 3/6
or y1
3+2.55y12−46.73=0
Solve to give y1=2.92 m. Referring to the anchorage requirements in BS8110: Part 1, clause 3.12.9.1, bars are to extend an anchorage length beyond the theoretical change point. The anchorage length from Table 3.29 of the code for grade 30 concrete is (section 5.2.1) 37×16 = 595 mm
Page 18 of 29
Stop bars off at 2920−592 = 2328 mm, say 2000 mm from the top of the wall. The shear stress at the base of the wall is The design shear stress in concrete is The shear stress is satisfactory. The deflection need not be checked. For control of cracking the bar spacing must not exceed 3 times the effective depth, i.e. 600 or 750 mm. The spacing at the bars in the wall is 140 mm. This is less than the 160 mm clear spacing given in Table 3.30 of the code for crack control. For distribution steel provide the minimum area of 0.13% from Table 3.27 of the code: A = 0.13×1000×250/100 = 325 mm2/m Provide 10 mm diameter bars at 240 mm centers horizontally on the inner face. For crack control on the outer face provide 10 mm diameter bars at 240 mm centers each way. (iii) Inner footing Referring to Fig. 12.4 the shear and moment at the face of the wall are as follows: Provide 12 mm diameter bars at 120 mm centers to give 942 mm2/m.
Page 19 of 29
This is satisfactory. For the distribution steel, provide 10 mm bars at 240 mm centers. (iv) Outer Footing Referring to Fig. 12.4 the shear and moment at the face of the wall are as follows: Shear =1.4(72.41×0.8+11.36×0.8/2−17.1×0.8/2.85)
=1.4(57.93+4.54−4.8) =80.74 kN
Moment = 1.4[(57.93−4.8)0.4+4.54×2×0.8/3] =33.13 kN m
Note that the sum of the moments at the bottom of the wall and at the face of the wall for the inner and outer footing is approximately zero. Reinforcement from the wall will be anchored in the outer footing and will provide the moment steel here. The anchorage length required is 592 mm and this will be provided by the bend and a straight length of bar along the outer footing. The radius of the bend is determined to limit the bearing stress to a safe value. The permissible bearing stress inside the bend is where ab is the bar spacing, 140 mm. The internal radius of the bend is Make the radius of the bend 150 mm: This is satisfactory. See the wall design below. The distribution steel is 10 mm diameter bars at 240 mm centers. (v) Nib Referring to Fig. 12.4 the shear and moment in the nib are as follows: Shear = 1.4(13.2×0.6+31.68×0.6/2)
= 24.39 kN Moment = 1.4(7.9×0.3+9.5×0.4)
= 8.65 kN m The minimum reinforcement is 0.13% or 325 mm2/m.
Page 20 of 29
For crack control the maximum spacing is to be limited to 160 mm as specified in Table 3.30 of the code. Provide 10 mm diameter bars at 140 mm centers to lap onto the main wall steel. The distribution steel is 10 mm diameter bars at 240 mm centers. (v) Sketch of the wall reinforcement
A sketch of the wall with the reinforcement designed above is shown in Fig. 12.5. ☣
Fig. 12.5
Page 21 of 29
Example‐2 Design a T‐shaped cantilever retaining wall for retaining 5m high earth above the ground level. Specifications Unit weight of soil is γs15 kN/m
3 Angle of repose of soil is Φ = 30° Coefficient of friction at base μ = 0.5 Allowable bearing pressure of soil is qa = 150 kN/m
2 Grade of concrete = 35 MPa. Grade of steel = 460 MPa. Answer: i) Selection of retaining wall: Selection of retaining wall is proportioned as follows:
Depth of foundation
2
1
1
Sin
Sinq
s
a
= 2
301
301
15
150
Sin
Sin
= 1.11m Consider that the base of foundation is located at a depth of 1.2m below which soil is not subjected to seasonal volume changes caused by alternate wetting and drying. Therefore, Total height of wall ha, = 5+1.2 = 6.2m The selection of optimum dimensions of the retaining wall involves successive approximation. Reasonable dimensions are assumed based on approximate design and then various conditions of stability are checked. Necessary adjustments in cross‐sections are made to arrive at acceptable cross‐sectional dimensions and then the design and detailing for reinforcement are made, Base width of foundation based on safety against overturning
5.0
)31)(1(955.0
aa
khB
Where
Page 22 of 29
Sin
Sinka 1
1
3
1
301
301
Sin
Sin
as
a
h
q
2.21 =
2.6152.2
1501
= 0.266
Therefore
5.0
)266.031)(266.01(3
1
2.6955.0
B = 2.96m
Base width of foundation based on the consideration of safety against sliding,
B= )1(
707.0
aakh
= 3)266.01(5.0
12.6707.0
=3.98m
It will be economical to adopt base width of foundation on the consideration of safety against overturning and provide shear key for safety against sliding. Therefore, consider based width B = 3.25m width of toe slab α × B = 0.266 x 3.25 = 0.8645m Consider width of toe slab = 0.9m Width of the heel slab = 3.25 – 0.9 = 2.35m Consider thickness of the base slab = 0.07ha to 0.1ha = 0.07 × 6200 to 0.1 × 6200 = 434 to 620mm. A lower value of thickness of slab should be adopted when the height of retaining wall is large. Therefore, consider thickness of base slab equal to 450mm of the junction with the vertical wall it is reduced to 200mm of the free edges of toe and heel slabs. Consider gross d = 450mm of the base of wall which is reduced linearly to 200mm of the top ii) Stability Analysis: The checking for stability against overturning and sliding and foundation stability analysis is made as follows:
a) Stability against overturning and sliding:
Page 23 of 29
The stability against overturning and sliding are checked by neglecting earth on toe slab because the height of earth on toe slab is small which may not exist for some time during construction and may be eroded. This results in critical condition of stability. Factor of safety against overturning,
PA
WAa MgMomentOverturnin
MomentStabilityMF
,
,
Where, WAM = moment of vertical load about -A
PAM = moment of earth pressure about -A = Pa×ha/3 Where, Pa = 0.5.ka ×γs ×ha
2 = 0.5 × 0.334 × 6.22 = 96.1 kN. Therefore, Fa = 508.652 / 198.1 = 2.568 > 2 (hence it is safe) Factor of safety against sliding,
as PessureHorizontal
WcesisHorizontalF
,Pr
,tanRe
Where, W = total vertical load as computed in table-1 Fs = 0.5 × 257.564 / 96.1 = 1.34 < 1.55 (not safe) Hence it is unsafe (not safe) against sliding. It is considered to provide shear key to ensure that depth of shear key is 450mm below foundation slab as shown in fig. For the passive earth pressure the soil on the top of foundation slab is neglected because it may not exist for some times during construction and may be eroded.
pas PP
WF
Where, Pp = Passive earth pressure
= 0.5.kp ×γs ×hp2
Sin
Sink p 1
1
301
301
Sin
Sin
= 35.01
5.01
hp = (0.45+0.45) = 0.9m
Pp= 0.5×3 ×15 ×0.92 = 9.5 kN
Page 24 of 29
Therefore, 5.91.96
56.2575.0
sF = 1.65 > 1.55 (hence it is safe)
Table-1: Vertical load & Moment calculation
Loads (W‐kN) Distance from ‐A Moment about‐A
W1=0.20×5.75×25=28.75 kN X1=0.9+0.1 = 1.0m MA1= 28.75×1.0= 28.75kN‐m
W2 = 0.25×0.5×5.75×25=17.969kN
X2=0.9+0.2+0.25/3 = 1.183m
MA2= 17.969×1.183= 21.257kN‐m
W3 = 0.5×(0.2+0.45) ×0.9×25=7.313kN
X3=3
9.0
45.02.0
45.022.0
= 0.5077m
MA3= 7.313×0.507= 3.712kN‐m
W4 = 0.45×0.45×25=5.063kN X4=0.99+0.225 = 1.125m MA4= 5.063×1.125= 5.696kN‐m
W5 = 0.5× (0.2+0.45) ×1.85×25=155.844kN
X5=0.9+0.45+
3
95.1
45.02.0
2.0245.0
=
2.2m
MA5= 15.844×2.2= 34.856kN‐m
W6 = 0.25×0.5×5.75×15=10.781kN
X6=0.9+0.45‐0.25/3 = 1.266m
MA6= 10.781×1.266= 13.656kN‐m
W7 = 0.5× (5.75+6.0) ×1.95×15=171.844kN
X7=0.9+0.45+
3
95.1
0.675.5
0.6275.5
=
2.33m
MA7= 171.844×2.33= 400.723 kN‐m
W = 257.564 kN MWA = 508.652 kN‐m b) Foundation stability Analysis The foundation base should be under compression & the max upward soil press should be within it is permissible value. The soil pressure is determined as follows:
qmax., qmin. = )6
1(B
e
B
W =>
I
My
A
P =>
Z
M
A
W => )
1
61(
1
B
e
B
W
Where, e = 0.5B-(MWA-MPA)W = 0.5×3.25‐(508.65‐198.1)/257.56 = 0.42m < b/6 (3.25/6 = 0.54m) For unit length of retaining wall
qmax., qmin. = )25.3
42.061(
25.3
56.257 = 140.6 kN/m2 or 17.9 kN/m2 < 150 kN/m2
Page 25 of 29
Structural Design Vertical Wall Max ultimate moment, Mup = 1.5 (Pa1× ha1/3) Where, Pa1 = 0.5 × ka×γs× ha1
2 ha1 = 5+1.2‐0.45 = 5.75m Pa1 = 0.5 × 0.333×15× (5.75)
2 = 82.65 kN/m2 Therefore, Mup = 1.5 (82.65× 5.75/3) = 237.64 kN‐m/m Assume 20mm diameter bar used and cover 40mm. the effective depth of the base of the wall d = 450 – 40 – 10 = 400mm
2bdf
Mk
cu
= 049.0400100030
10636.2372
6
z = 0.94d = 376.6mm
zf
MA
ys 87.0 =
6.37646087.0
10636.237 6
=1576.72 mm2
Provide bar T20@200mm c/c with As (provided) == 1884mm2 Check The max. spacing, 3d = 3×400 = 1200mm or 450mm whichever is less. Hence, 200mm is ok. Consider that the theoretical point of curtailment is at a depth y from top where the area of steel required may be determined by As ∞ Moment of depth y- from top Mu.y Effective thickness of vertical slab of a depth y from top, dy Therefore, Asu /As = y3d / ha
3.dy Where, dy = effective depth of wall of a height y from top
Page 26 of 29
yh
dddd
a
tty
1
Here, dt = effective depth (thickness) of the top of the wall = 200 – 40 – 20/2 = 150mm
yd y
5750
150400150 = 150+0.0434y
y
y
0434.01505750
400
2
13
3
y3 – 10313.43 y × 103 – 35645.5 × 106 = 0 y = 4325 mm Distance of actual point of curtailment from the bottom of vertical wall = (5750 – 4325) + development length of bar [Development length of bar, ] Here fbu = 0.5 ×30 = 2.74 MPa
fbu× π×Φ×l = 0.87×fy× π×Φ2/4
74.24
1646087.0
l = 638mm
Therefore, 1425 + 638 = 2063 mm Consider that the alternate bars are curtailed at height of 2200mm from the bottom of the vertical wall and remaining bar are extend up to the top. For secondary reinforcement, vertical wall is divided in to two zone of equal height Secondary reinforcement of 0.12 percent of gross section area is provided in each zone based on their average thickness As = 0.0012×0.5×(450+(450+200)/2) ×1000 = 465mm2/m = 232.5 mm2/m on each face in horizontal direction Provide 8mm Φ @ 200mm c/c (As = 251mm2/m on each face in the horizontal direction up to the height 5720/2 = 2875mm Secondary reinforcement in the upper zone of the vertical wall As = 0.0012 ×0.5 (200+(450+200)/2×1000 = 315 mm2/m
Page 27 of 29
= 157.5 mm2/m on each face in the horizontal direction Provide 8mm Φ @ 300mm c/c (As = 168mm2/m on each face in the horizontal direction in the upper zone of the vertical wall Foundation Slab Downward pressure on heel slab = (W5 + W7) / 1.95 = (171.844+15.844)/1.95 = 96.25kN/m2 Downward pressure on toe slab = W3/0.9 = 7.313 / 0.9 = 8.126 kN/m2 Upward and downward pressure on the foundation slab Net pressure on the foundation slab Max. Ultimate bending moment on heel slab
= 1.5(4.73×1.952 / 2 + 0.5×(78.347- 4.73) ×1.95×2×1.95 / 3) = 153.45 kN-m Assume 12mm bar in the slab with cover 40mm effective depth
8.125 kN/m2 96.25 kN/m2
108.509kN/m2 17.93kN/m2
132.47kN/m2
78.347kN/m2
100.38kN/m2
4.73kN/m2
Page 28 of 29
d = 450 – 40 - 6 = 404mm
2bd
M=
2
6
4041950
10153
= 0.48
bd
As100= 0.13
As = 1090 mm2/m Provide 12mm Φ @ 100mm c/c Check The max. spacing 3d = 3×404 = 1212mm or 450mm whichever is less As = 1130mm2/m Max ultimate bending moment in toe slab Mu = 1.5 (100.38×0.92/2 + 0.5×(132.47 – 100.38) ×0.9×2×93) = 73.98 kN‐m Effective depth of the toe slab d = D – 40 – 6 = 404mm Ast = 540mm2/m Provide 12mm Φ @ 200mm c/c Check The max. spacing 3d = 3×404 = 1212mm or 450mm whichever is less As = 565mm2/m in heel & toe slab Secondary reinforcement for toe & heel slab Take 0.12% of gross sectional area As = 0.12 × 1000 × 450 / 100 = 540mm2/m Provide 12mm Φ @ 200mm c/c
Page 29 of 29
Shear key Max ultimate moment in shear key
mkNM u
1.445.02
3
9.0
2
9.01535.1 2
The moment in shear key is much less than the moment at the base of the vertical wall Therefore, extension of the reinforcement from the vertical wall into shear wkey shall be adequate Mu × shear force in shear key Vu = 1.5 × 3 × 0.9
2/2 = 27 kN
Shear stress = 067.04041000
100027
N/mm2
< vc = 0.71 MPa Hence, safe