Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Contents
1.0 Abbreviations and indexes .............................................................................................. 2
1.1 Introduction: ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Design Model and Assumption;........................................................................................... 5
2.2 Design Verification Undrained Conditions ......................................................................... 7
2.2.1 ULS-1 - Soil bearing verification ................................................................................ 7
2.2.2 ULS-2; Sliding Resistance verification: ...................................................................... 9
2.2.3 ULS-3 Overturning Stability: ..................................................................................... 10
2.2.4 ULS-6; Internal stability verification .......................................................................... 12
2.2.4a Sliding Resistance verification .............................................................................. 12
2.2.4b Bering Capacity Verification; ............................................................................... 14
2.2.5 ULS-4 Global Stability Verification ........................................................................... 17
3.0 Designs verifications in drain condition ....................................................................... 19
3.1 Bearing Capacity verification; .................................................................................. 19
3.2 Overturning verification in drain condition .............................................................. 20
3.3 Rotational slips in drained condition......................................................................... 21
1
Mohammad Hanif
B Width
DA 1a Design Approach 1a
DA 1b Design Approach 1b
DA 2 Design Approach 2
F Factor of Safety
W Weight
Applied moment
2
Mohammad Hanif
, , Shape factors
Adhesion Factor
3
Mohammad Hanif
1.1 Introduction:
. The content of this report is slope stabilization along one side of the road, using Gabion box
(cages of steel mesh, rectangular in plan and elevations), filled with appropriate cobble and
sand, to form a building block of gravity structure, such that can resist against the soils
pressure behind it. The site schematics are given as following, Figure 1.
The design analysis standards and calculations in this report are according the Carigs
Soil Mechanic 8 th edition Chapter 11, Euro Code 7 EN 1997 and other acceptable
standards.
The design method for verification and appropriate functionality of gabion wall is the
ultimate limit state analysis (ULS), verifying the following issues, as instructed in the
assignment,
Soil Bearing; base pressure applied by the wall must not exceed the ultimate
bearing capacity of the supporting soil.
Sliding Resistance; sliding between the base of the wall and the underlying soil
due to the lateral earth pressure, herein considered active condition
Overturning stability; overturning of the wall due to horizontal earth pressure
forces when the retrained soil mass become unstable (active failure) should
satisfy the required conditions
Internal stability verification; for each layer of gabion a bearing capacity and
sliding resistance verification should be mad
Global Stability
4
Mohammad Hanif
q=20 kn/m
Excavated soil
For the design of this retaining wall, no variation in soil properties, water level, surcharge and
other effective parameters in space is assumed, so the section properties are considered
homogenous characteristic along the road side, meanwhile no any other structure that could
effects the design situation exist nearby the road , unless it have been considered.
' q Yd
Ys (kN/m) Yc (kN/m ) c' () cu (kPa)
() (kN/m (kN/m)
Description
19 23 34 0 20 0 17 90 100
In undrain condition the water table is considered on the surface
5
Mohammad Hanif
To verify all design conditions, the following ULS should be verified in both drain and
undrain condition
Design factors for different design approachs are used as of the following table
6
Mohammad Hanif
359.8
= = = 461.27 /
3
2 ( 2 ) 2 ( 1.11)
2
= (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 ) +
= 230 1.35 + (43.4 + 29.4) 0.56 = 359.8
1
= 2 + 2 = 0.5 (19 9.81) 0.28 25 1.35 + 0.28 1.5 20 3.5
2
= 72.8
1 1 0.56
= = = 0.28
1 + 1 + 0.56
399.8
= = = 1.11
359.8
= (1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 4 + 5 5 +
0 )
(23 2.5 + 34.5 2.25 + 46 2 + 57.5 1.75 + 69 1.5 + 72.8 0.56 3 72.8 0.83
1.67 1.35) = 399.8
3 514
= = = 1542/
1
100
= + = 5.14 + 0 = 514
1
Also for undrained conditions shear stress at failure ( ) is equal to undrained shear
strength ( ) , ( = ),
7
Mohammad Hanif
= bearing capacity factor (Skempton method as of the following figure 2.1.3) here
in = 5.14
Since the gabion has no stiff foundation, constant distribution pressure on foundation for a
length of 2 can be assumed.
> ( 6 = 0.5) the section is partially compressed
Calculation summary for other design approaches are in the following table 2.1.3
DA 1a Da 1b DA 2
Description Factored Factored Factored
Y Y Y
Value Value Value
Gk (kN) 230.00 1.35 310.50 1.00 230.00 1.35 310.50
Qk (kN) 10.98 1.50 16.46 1.30 14.27 1.50 16.46
Soil Thrust
24.32 1.35 32.83 1.00 24.32 1.35 32.83
SA*sin
Total load
359.79 268.59 359.79
(kN/m)
Cu (kPa) 100.00 1.00 100.00 1.40 71.43 1.00 100.00
qf (kPa) 514.00 1.00 514.00 1.40 367.14 1.00 514.00
Ed (kN/m) 461.27 1.00 461.27 1.00 345.23 1.00 462.46
Rd (kN/m) 1542.00 1.00 1542.00 1.10 1401.82 1.10 1401.82
Safety Factor (Rd/Ed)
3.3 4.1 3.0
8
Mohammad Hanif
Mrd
Nrd
<
.
Two verifications we perform in this stage one < and
cos 1
= = 0.62 100 3 = 185.8 > = 60.42/
= 1.16 = 0.62
185
= 0.28
= 0.5 2 + 2
= 0.5 0.28 (19 9.81) 25 1.35 + 0.28 20 3.5 1.5 1.5
= 72.8/
= = 60.42 /
1
= (. + (34)) 34
9
Mohammad Hanif
1
((230) 1.35 + 72.8 0.56)0.67 = 235.4
1
. 235.4
= 3.9 >
cos 1 60.42
Summary of calculation for other design approaches are in the following table 2.2.2
DA 1a DA 1b DA 2
Characteristic
Description Factored Factored Factored
value Y Y Y
Value Value Value
Gk (kN/m) 230.00 1.35 1.00 1.35
Qk (kN/m) 10.98 1.50 16.46 1.30 14.27 1.50 16.46
Soil Thrust
24.32 1.35 32.83 1.00 24.32 1.35 32.83
SA*sin
Total load
359.79 268.59 359.79
(kN/m)
Cu (kPa) 100.00 1.00 100.00 1.40 71.43 1.00 100.00
Ed (kN/m) 60.42 1.00 60.42 1.00 60.42 1.00 60.42
Rd=H (kN/m) 185.84 165.84 185.84
Rd (kN/m) 235.35 1.00 235.35 1.25 186.17 1.10 213.95
Safety Factor 3.08 2.74 3.08
Details of action force, horizontal and vertical component of soil force plus the force arm are
shown in figure 2.1.5
W1
W2
Sa Sinf '
W3
Sa Cosf '
W4
W5
1
= (1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 4 + 5 5 + )
1
= (23 2.5 + 34.5 2.25 + 46 2 + 57.5 1.75 + 69 1.5) + 72.8 0.56 3)
1
521.9
= ( )
521.9
>1 = 3.8
136.2
Height (m) 1 1 1 1 1
11
Mohammad Hanif
. Sa Cosf '
W1
cos 1
1
= ( + (34)) 34
.
1
((1 23) 1 + 1.3 0.56)0.67 = 16.1
1.1
. 15.9
= = 11.2 >
cos 1 1.44
= 0.5 2
= 0.5 0.28 9.2 4 + 20 1.5 0.28 Sa Sinf '
W1
= 13.6
Sa Cosf '
= . = cos(34) 1 = 13.6
0.82 1.35, = 15.2 W2
1
= ( + (34))
.
34
1
((2.5 23) 1 + 13.6 0.56)0.67 = 43.6
1
. 43.6
= = 2.9 >
cos 1 15.2
12
Mohammad Hanif
= 0.5 2
= 0.5 0.28 9.2 9 + 20 1.5
W1
2 = 28.38
Sa Sinf '
= . = cos(34) 1 =
W2
28.38 0.82 1.35, = 31.8 Sa Cosf '
1
= ( + (34))
. W3
34
1
((4.5 23) 1 + 28.38 0.56)0.67 = 85.56
1
. 85.56
= = 2.7 >
cos 1 31.8
Summary of calculation for different design approach is in the following table 2.1.4
Fifth
Description First Layer Second Layer Third Layer Fourth Layer
Layer
Height (m) 1 2 3 4 5
Wdith (m) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
SA 1.29 13.55 28.38 45.79 57.37
Ed (kN/m) 1.07 11.24 23.55 38.00 47.61
Rd (Kn/m) 15.89 44.09 85.56 141.26 209.02
DA 1a
Ed (kN) 1.44 15.18 31.80 51.30 64.28
Rd (kN) 15.89 44.09 85.56 141.26 209.02
Safety Factor 11.02 2.90 2.69 2.75 3.25
DA 1b
Ed (kN) 1.07 11.24 23.55 38.00 47.61
Rd (kN) 14.45 40.08 77.78 128.42 190.01
Safety Factor 13.53 3.56 3.30 3.38 3.99
DA 1b
Ed (kN) 1.44 15.18 31.80 51.30 64.28
Rd (kN) 12.71 35.27 68.45 113.01 167.21
Safety Factor 8.82 2.32 2.15 2.20 2.60
13
Mohammad Hanif
= (1 ) +
= (1 1 + 0 )
And the ultimate resistance of gabion can be calculated as following (assuming Cu=100kpa)
540
= = = 540
1
540
= = 3.2 > 1
160.05
Shear force in each gabion course can be calculated and compared to the ultimate shear
resistance of gabion
1
= [(. + . ) + ]
14
Mohammad Hanif
= 25 10 with the in 3
= 25 10 = 25 2.3 10 = 47.5
A is the area of interface and stands for the equivalent cohesion due to the wire mesh
1 1.01 0.0017
= [(23 1) + 1 ] = 23.23
1 1 1
And shear force on the gabion is
23.23
>1 = 15.9
1.46
= (1 + 2 ) +
= (1 1 + 2 2 + 0 )
(23 1.5 + 34.5 0.75 + 13.6 0.56 1.5 13.6 0.82 0.66 1.35)
= 61.86
61.63
= = = 0.67 , so the section is entirely compressed and
87.9
= = 0.75 0.67 = 0.08
2
And the ultimate stress can be calculated as follow
287.9
= 2 = 20.08 = 634.56 2
And the ultimate resistance of gabion can be calculated as following (assuming Cu=100kpa)
1.5 540
= = = 771
1
771
1 = = 1.2
634.56
15
Mohammad Hanif
Shear force in each gabion course can be calculated and compared to the ultimate shear
resistance of gabion
1
= [(. + . ) + ]
1 0.92 22
= [(52.5) + 1.5 ] = 67.2
1.1 1.1 1.1
= = 18.83 0.82 1.3 = 20.1
67.2
>1 = 3.34
20.1
Summary of calculation for the rest of layers are in the following table 2.1.4b
Description First Layer Second Layer Third Layer Fourth Layer Fifth Layer
Height (m) 1 2 3 4 5
Wdith (m) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
W (kN/m ) 23 34.5 46 57.5 69
SA 1.29 13.55 28.38 45.79 57.37
Nrd (kN) 23.72 65.81 127.70 210.84 311.96
W*B 11.5 25.875 46 71.875 103.5
Mrd (Kn*m) 11.74 61.63 114.99 182.57 265.24
Ed (kN) 160.05 634.56 861.97 1185.97 1504.11
e=Mrd/Nrd 0.37 0.69 0.67 0.64 0.63
Rd (kN) 514.00 771.00 1028.00 1285.00 1542.00
Rd/Ed 3.21 1.22 1.19 1.08 1.03
Local overturning calculation is in the following table 2.1.4.c, calculations are as of section
2.2.3
Description First Layer Second Layer Third Layer Fourth Layer Fifth Layer
Height (m) 1 2 3 4 5
Wdith (m) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
W (kN/m ) 23 34.5 46 57.5 69
SA 1.29 13.55 28.38 45.79 57.37
DA 1a
Rd = Mrd
12.22 65.09 202.77 356.26 549.62
(Kn*m)
Ed (kN*m) 0.48 10.12 31.80 68.40 107.13
16
Mohammad Hanif
Nevertheless, it is required to calculate the maximum depth that the soil can be stabilized
100
1 ( ) 1 ( 1 )
[ ]= [ ] = 26
0.2 1 1 19
1
17
Mohammad Hanif
The height of cutting is very high so we need to calculate the safety factors as of =
formula, for better understanding of the issue the following plot is drafted.
A B
C
w
In the above figure the cross sectional area ABCD is 39.35 m which consist of soil
and gabion the area of gabion is 10 m so the weight of soil is (39.35-10)*19*1.35=
752.8 kN and the weight of gabion is 10*23*1.35=310.5 kN , plus variable load
which is 3.5*20*1.5= 105 the total weight is w = 752.8+310.5+105 =1168 kN, the
distance between center of the circle surface and center of mass is 4.2m. so the total
= 1168 4.2 = 4905.6
For the DA1b we have the total weight w = 557.63 + 419.2+91=1067.83, and =
100
1067.83 4.2 = 4485 , and = = 71.43
1.4
And
100
1 ( ) 1 ( 1.4 )
[ ]= [ ] = 18.8
0.2 1 1 19
1
18
Mohammad Hanif
Bearing Capacity method is used, in which the bearing capacity is defined according to this
formula.
2 2 370
= = = 986.7 /
3
3 ( 2 ) 3 ( 1.25)
2
1
= + +
2
1 + 1 + sin(34)
= = 2.723.140.7 = 31.9
1 1 sin(34)
1 31.9 1
= = = 44
tan 0.7
= 2( 1) = 2(31.9 1)0.7 = 43
= 1, = 1, = 1
17 0
= 131.9(19.19 9.8)0 + 0.5 1143 + 116.25
1 1
= 365
(365)13
= = = 1096 /
1
462.6
= = = 1.25
370
19
Mohammad Hanif
= (1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 4 + 5 5 +
0 )
(23 2.5 + 34.5 2.25 + 46 2 + 57.5 1.75 + 69 1.5 + 106.8 0.56 3 106.8
0.83 1.67) = 462.6
1096
= = 1.1
986.7
And for the design approach 1b (DA 1b), we can use the same formula and procedure, the
only difference is applying different action and resistance factors as of table 2.1.2
= 277.6 /
(186.2)13
= = = 446.8 /
1.25
446.8
= = 1.6
277.6
1
= (1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 4 + 5 5 + )
1
= (23 2.5 + 34.5 2.25 + 46 2 + 57.5 1.75 + 69 1.5) + 106.8 0.56 3)
1
610.7
= ( )
610.7
>1 = 3.05
200
1
= (1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 4 + 5 5 + )
1
= (23 2.5 + 34.5 2.25 + 46 2 + 57.5 1.75 + 69 1.5) + 85 0.56 3)
1.25
459.2
= ( )
459.2
>1 = 3.9
118
1
= (1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 4 + 5 5 + )
1
= (23 2.5 + 34.5 2.25 + 46 2 + 57.5 1.75 + 69 1.5) + 106.8 0.56 3)
1.1
555.2
= ( )
555.2
>1 = 2.8
200
Other verification such as failure of wire mesh, sliding on course interfaces excluding
section 2.2.4a of this report, are considered out scope of this assignment, notwithstanding to
the above mentioned reason, there is sufficient details for calculation and verifications of
those items, so those verifications are considered as part of Gabion company provider, herein
assumed to be sufficient.
To perform this verification, The Fellenius (or Swidish) solution is used, calculating the
safety factor, considering the drained consolidated condition.
21
Mohammad Hanif
= cos
+ ( cos )
=
sin
Since it is drained consolidated condition, no excess pore water pressure exist, so the term
= 0 , as well as the c=0 so the terms = 0, rest of calculation is reported in the
tabular form.
A B
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
wi cos i wi sin i
SLICE hi (m) bi (m) i li (m)
(kN/m) (kN/m)
22