DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL
RENCANAAN
REHABILITATION PERKERASAN
OF ROAD CHRISTO RAI, JALAN
DILI TIMOR LESTE
1. INTRODUCTION
Project : Rehabilitation Of Road Christo Rai, Dili Timor Leste
Location : Dili, Timor Leste
2. TYPE OF RETAINING WALL
Gravity walls are the simplest type of retaining wall, and more attention has been paid
to their design tha to the design of other types of walls. Gravity walls design
procedures, however, are commonly adapted as part of the design of cantilever walls
and composite wall systems. Gravity walls are customarily designed by one of two
approaches : a seismic pressure-based approach or a permanent displacement-based
approach. Although the gravity wall design procedures are oriented toward prevention
of sliding failure, the possibility of overturning due to bearing failure of the soil
beneath the base of a will must also be considered in design.
3. DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Slope stability analysis is used in a wide variety of geotechnical engineering
problems, including, but not limited to, the following :
Determination of stable cut and fill slopes ;
Assessment of overall stability of retaining walls, including global and
compound stability (includes permanent systems and temporary shoring
systems).
B. The Gravity Wall design doesn’t happen of shear strength in each the wall.
C. The Criteria Design of gravity wall :
1. Width plat B takeable = 0,5 untill 0,7 H
2. Width on top section a > 0,3 untill H/12
3. Foot thickness d = (H/8 – H/6)
4. Foot Width I1, I2 = (0,5 – 1)d d is foot thickness
Report of Retaining Wall Page 1
D. SEISMIC STABILITY DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL
Although the methods of analysis described in the preceding section provide
useful information on the seismic loads that act on retaining walls is more closely
related to the permanent deformations that occur during earth-quakes. While large
permanent deformations may be acceptable for some walls, others may be
considered to have failed at much smaller deformations. Analyses that predict
permanent wall deformations may provide a more useful indication of retaining
wall performance.
The Magnitude of the seismic earth pressure acting on an earth-retaining
structure in part depend on :
The relative stiffness of structures
The associated soil mass
The amount of wall movement which will secure during earthquakes depends
mainly on the foundation flexity and the wall flexibility. Active seismic pressure
in dry cohesionless soil :
The total force on wall due to static and earthquake active earth pressure due to
dry cohesionless soils is :
(Total Force) : PAE = ½ . γd . H2 x KAE………………………….1
Static Loading : PAS = ½ . γd . H2 x KA……………………….2
: PAE = PAS + ∆PAE……………………………3
Where : ∆PAE = W x αg or ∆PAE = PAE - PAS
cos 2 ( )
K AE 2
...........4
sin( ) sin( )
cos cos 2 cos( ) 1
cos( ) cos( )
Report of Retaining Wall Page 2
E. LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM STABILITY
Whether long-term or short-term stability is in view, and which will control the
stability of the slope, will affect the selection of soil and rock shear strength
parameters used as input in the analysis. For short-term stability analysis,
undrained shear strength parameters should be obtained. Short-term conditions
apply for rapid loadings and for cases where construction is completed rapidly
(e.g. rapid raise of embankments, cutting of slopes, etc). For long-term
stability analysis, drained shear strength parameters should be obtained. Long-
term conditions imply that the pore pressure due to the loading have dissipated
and the equilibrium pore pressures have been reached.
a. General : Long-term stability computations are performed for conditions that
will exist a sufficient length of time after construction for steady-state seepage
or hydrostatic conditions to develop. Stability computations are performed
using shear strengths expressed in terms of effective stresses, with pore
pressures appropriate for the long-term condition.
b. Shear strength properties : By definition, all soils are fully drained in the long-
term condition, regardless of their permeability. Long-term conditions are
analyzed using drained strengths expressed in terms of effective stress
parameters (c' and ø').
4. METHOD
Design of Retaining Wall Method is used Rankine Method. In analysis lateral
pressure will do by assumption :
A. The Soil is on plastic balance position.
B. The cohesion of earth-works is 0 (c = 0).
C. Friction between wall and earthworks to seed.
Mononobe-Okabe Method
Okabe (1926) and Mononobe (1929) developed the basis of a pseudostatic
analysis of seismic earth pressures on retaining wall structures that has become
popularly known as the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method. The M-O method is a
direct extension of the static Coulumb theory to pseudostatic conditions.In a M-O
Report of Retaining Wall Page 3
analysis, pseudostatic accelerations are applied to a Coulumb active (or passive)
wedge. The pseudostatic soil thrust is then obtained from force equilibrium of the
wedge.
Richards-Elms Method
Richards and Elms (1979) proposed a method for the seismic design of gravity
walls based on allowable permanent wall displacement. The method estimates
permanent displacement in a manner analogous to the Newmark sliding block
procedure developed originally for evaluation of seismic slope stability.
Application of the Richards-Elms method requires evaluation of the yield
acceleration for the wall-backfill system. When the active wedge is subjected to
acceleration acting toward the backfill, the resulting inertial forces will act away
from the backfill. The level of acceleration that is just large enough to cause the
wall to slide on its base in the yield acceleration. When the acceleration is equal
to the yield acceleration, horizontal, and vertical equilibrium requires that
T = Fh + (PAE)h………………………….5
N = W + (PAE)v …………………………5
Substituting T = N tan øb, Fh = ayW/g, (PAE)h = PAE cos (δ+θ), and (PAE)v = PAE
sin (δ+θ), the yield acceleration can be computed as
P cos( ) PAE sin( )
a y tan b AE g ………… 6
W
Richards and Elms recommended that PAE be calculated using the M-O method
(since the M-O method requires that a be known, the solution of equation (6) must
be obtained iteratively). Using the results of sliding block analyses in the same
manner as Newmark (1965) and Franklin and Chang (1977), Richards and Elms
proposed the following expression for permanent block displacement :
v 2 max a 3 max ay
d perm 0,087 ..................6
a y4 a max 0,3
Where : vmax is the peak ground velocity ; amax is the peak ground acceleration,
and ay the yield acceleration for the wall-backfill system.
Report of Retaining Wall Page 4
5. DATA DESIGN
Tabel 1. Soil Data
No. γb (kN/m3) γd (kN/m3) c (kg/cm2) Ø
1 1,741 1,519 0,0896 0
2 1,723 1,509 0,0466 0
3 1,745 1,544 0,0672 0
4 1,744 1,494 0,0672 0
5 1,732 1,451 0,1165 0
6. CALCULATION THE RETAINING WALL
5.1 Calculation Stability of Retaining Wall (Type : Gravity Wall)
a. Dimension Of Retaining Wall
Width plat B takeable = 0,55 H = 0,55 x 9,5 = 5,2 m
Width on top section 0,5
Foot thickness d = (H/8 – H/6)
Foot Width I1, I2 = (0,5 – 1)d d is foot thickness
Report of Retaining Wall Page 5
b. Strain Active and Passive Analysis
1. γrock = 2,5 ton/Cu. M
Ø = 0°
c1 = 0,46 ton/Sq. M
2. Calsulation of Strain active and Passive Rankine Method.
a. Strain Active (Pa)
Soil used for a soil stockpile and the cohesion is 0.466 ton/Sq. M, then
the active earth pressure can be calculated by the equation :
1
Pa x 1 xH 2 xKa 2cH Ka
2
Where :
Ka = tan2 (45 – ø/2)
= tan2 (45 – (0/2)
=1
Then :
1
Pa x2,5 x9 2 x1 2.0,46.9 1 92,97ton
2
b. Strain Passive
Soil in front of the retaining wall that cohesion, c = 0.46 ton/Sq. M,
the passive earth pressure can be calculated by the equation :
1
Pp x 2 xD 2 xKp 2cD Kp
2
When :
Kp = tan2 (45 + ø/2)
= tan2 (45 + 0/2)
=1
Then :
1
Pp x2,5 x12 x1 2.0,46.1 1 1,58ton
2
c. Calculate the vertical force and moment of foot foundation
Report of Retaining Wall Page 6
The width of foundation (WF) = 5,2 M, then the moment due gravity
the retaining wall are :
Area
0,5 5,2
A= x9 25,65m 2
2
Weight (W)
WFxHxD 5,2 x9 x1
x rock x2,5 58,5ton
2 2
Sleeves (Z)
H 9
3m
3 3
Moment (ton.m) = W . h = 58,5 x 3 = 175,5 ton.m
Tabel 2. Momen Calculated
NO AREA (m2) Weight (ton) Sleeves (m) Moment (ton.m)
1 25,65 58,5 3 175,5
Moment Due to Lateral Load Calculation
Lateral pressure that counts is the moment due to the horizontal force
horizontal active pressure (Pah) = Pa cos (θ) = (92,97) x cos (ø / 3) =
92,97 tons. The pressure was calculated for each 1 meter long retaining
wall run (L).
In order to get the number of moments:
d. Moment due Lateral load Calculation
Lateral Strain counts is the moment due to the active horizontal force
(Pah) = Pa cos (θ) = (92,97) x cos (ø/3) = 92,97 ton. The Pressure was
calculated for each1 meter long retaining wall run (L).
In order to get the number of moments :
∑Mg = Ph . Z1
Where :
Z1 = (H/3) = 9/3 = 3 meter
Then :
∑Mg = Ph . Z1
Report of Retaining Wall Page 7
= 92,97 x 3
= 278,91 ton.m
e. Calculation of Stability the Retaining Wall
Where :
∑Mw = 175,5 ton.m
∑Mg = 278,91 ton.m
Safety factor from the overturning (Fs overturning) can be calculated
by the equation :
Fg
Mw 175,5 0,63 1,0 ; NOT OK Use Strengtener
Mg 278,91
Active Earth Pressure Conditions
DATA : ø = 0° ; θ = 0° ; δ = 10 ; PA = 92,97 ton/m ; KA = 1.
1. First, estimate the static active thrust on the wall. Because the wall is not
smooth (δ>0), Coulumb theory should be used. From Equations (4)
KA= 1
K 0
Ψ = tan 1 h tan 1 9,2
1 k v 1 0
and
cos 2 (0 0 0)
K AE 2
1,015
sin(10 0) sin(0 0 0)
cos 0 cos 2 0 cos(10 0 0) 1
cos(10 0 0) cos(0 0)
and
(Total Force) : PAE = ½ . γd . H2 x KAE = ½ . 2,5 . 92 x 1,015 = 102,77 ton/m
The dynamic component of the total thrust is
∆PAE = PAE - PA = 102,77 ton/m – 92,97 ton/m = 9,8 ton/m
Permanent Displacement
1. Estimate the permanent displacement of the gravity wall shown below
produced by Gilory No.2 (soil) motion (Steven L. Kramer,1996).
Report of Retaining Wall Page 8
c=0,46 ;
ø=0;
γ = 2,5 ton/Cu.m ;
δ = 10
Assuming a trial pseudostatic acceleration of 0,10 g , ψ = 5,7°
The Weight of the wall section is :
WFxHxD 5,2 x9 x1
x rock x2,5 58,5ton
2 2
And
cos 2 (0 0 0)
K AE 2
1,015
sin(10 0) sin(0 0 0)
cos 0 cos 2 0 cos(10 0 0) 1
cos(10 0 0) cos(0 0)
and
(Total Force) : PAE = ½ . γd . H2 x KAE = ½ . 2,5 . 92 x 1,015 = 102,77 ton/m
And
P cos( ) PAE sin( )
a y tan b AE g
W
102,77 cos(10 0) 102,77 sin(10 0)
a y tan 0 g 0,42 g
58,5
Because the computed yield acceleration (0,42g) is inconsistent with the
assumed pseudostatic acceleration (0,10 g), another iteration is required. For next
iteration, assume that pseudostatic acceleration is 0,30 g. then ψ = 17° (Steven L.
Khaimer, 1996).
Report of Retaining Wall Page 9
cos 2 (0 0 17)
K AE 2
0,46
sin(10 0) sin(17)
cos 17 cos 2 0 cos(10 0 17) 1
cos(10 0 17) cos(0 0)
And
PAE = ½ . γd . H2 x KAE = ½ . 2,5 . 92 x 0,46 = 46,575 ton/m
And
46,575 cos(10 0) 46,575 sin(10 0)
a y tan 0 g 0,65 g
58,5
Now, the computed yield acceleration is fairly close to the assumed pseudostatic
acceleration using equation 6 : vmax = 39,2 cm/sec2 Newmark 1965
39,2cm / sec 2 x(0,65 gx981cm / sec 2 / g )
d permanent 0,087 3,41cm OK
0,65 gx981cm / sec 2 / g
So to minimize the overturning and seismic stability in Long and short term
condition and to be safely the alternative is used geograde uniaxial installation
with the shear strength 9 kN/m every 1 meter and installation of sheet pile
breakwater at H / 3 in front of the Retaining wall.
Figure 2. Instalation Geotextile in the retaining wall
Report of Retaining Wall Page 10
Figure 3. Detail of Geotextile instalation on the retaining wall
Report of Retaining Wall Page 11
