EPS Protection For Building Stability Report PDF

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS & PROTECTION PILE
of
EPS Building Site
At
Bhaisepati, Lalitpur
Submitted By
GS G.S. Soil & Materials Engineers (P) Ltd

Sinamangal, Gairigaun, Kathmandu, Nepal
P.O. Box 20716, Email: gsgroup.jain@gmail.com
Web: www.gsconsortium.com
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
June, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
SOIL BODY .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
INFLUENCE OF WATER ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Ground water table .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Ground water table including suction .............................................................................................................. 4
3. Coefficient of pore pressure ru ........................................................................................................................ 4
4. Pore pressure values....................................................................................................................................... 5
SURCHARGE ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
EARTHQUAKE EFFECT ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Coefficient of vertical earthquake Kv ....................................................................................................................... 6
Factor of horizontal acceleration Kh ........................................................................................................................ 6
ANALYSIS OF SLOPE STABILITY ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF LIMIT STATES / FACTOR OF SAFETY ............... 6
Analysis process ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Computation of limit equilibrium ............................................................................................................................. 7
CHANGING INCLINATION OF DIVIDING PLANES ................................................................................................... 10
FOLIATION ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
FELLENIUS / PETTERSON ......................................................................................................................................... 11
BISHOP ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11
SPENCER .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
OPTIMIZATION OF CIRCULAR SLIP SURFACE ...................................................................................................... 11
REMEDIAL MEASURES OF SLOPE STABILITY .......................................................................................................... 12
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
MODIFICATION/CHANGE OF SLOPE GEOMETRY.................................................................................................. 12
CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER [DRAINAGE] ...................................................................................................... 12
RETAINING STRUCTURES .................................................................................................................................... 12
INTERNAL SLOPE REINFORCEMENT TO INCREASE THE INTERNAL FRICTION AND LENGTH OF FAILURE PLANE
FOR STABILITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
BASIC PHILOSOPHY OF CALCULATION OF THESE LOADS ....................................................................................... 13
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE ................................................................................................................................... 13
CALCULATION SURCHARGE LAODS DUE TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS ................................................................... 14
FORMULAE USED AND LOAD CALCULATION FOR ANALYSIS ARE AS FOLLOWS ...................................................... 15
OUTPUT SUMMARY OF THE CRITICAL FIVE SECTIONS ............................................................................................ 16
SUMMARY OF THE OUTPUT OF THE SLOPE STABILTY ANALYSIS CONSIDERING BUILDING SURCHARGE ........ 16
SUMMARY OF THE OUTPUT OF THE SLOPE STABILTY ANALYSIS CONSIDERING BUILDING SURCHARGE AND
PROTECTION PILES .............................................................................................................................................. 16
DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................................................... 16
1. FROM THE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 16
2. FROM SURCHARGE CALCULATION FOR PROTECTION PILES ......................................................................... 17
ANNEXURE-1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
 SITE SURVEY DATA ...................................................................................................................................... 19
 SURCHARGE LOADS FROM THE ONGOING ADDITIONAL BLOCKS OF EPS BUILDING ................................ 19
ANNEXURE-2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
 CALCULATION INPUT & OUTPUT SUMMARY OF THE SLOPE STAILITY ANALYSIS ...................................... 20
1
 CALCULATION OF SURCHARGE OF THE UPCOMING BUILDING @ A~B, C~D & E ........................................ 20
 DESIGN OF THE PROTECTION PILES @ A~B, C~D & E ................................................................................. 20
 PILE CAP BEAM DESIGN ............................................................................................................................... 20
ANNEXURE-3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
 DESIGN DRAWINGS OF PROTECTION PILES, ITS LAYOUT, AND FIVE CRITICAL SECTIONS ........................ 21
2
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The scope of the study under this SOW is the slope behind the back yard of ongoing EPS building construction
located Bhaisepati, Lalitpur. Near to the adjacent of the slope at backyard, the upcoming building needs to be
protected from the Goreto bato dipping downwards in a slope terrain. For which the slope stability of the existing
slope under existing condition and in earthquake condition before and after the building surcharge load on the slope
needs to be analyzed with factor of safety of the slip failure plane. In order to analyze the existing slope, we have
done the detail topographic survey of the entire building area where the upcoming building needs to be constructed
along with the entire stretch up to the base of the slope where this influence occurs so that we can identify the possible
critical slope near to the ongoing additional block of EPS building. After the analyzing the topographic map of the site,
we have identified critical 5 sections which runs beneath the upcoming building footing and has the critical slope angle
and stretch of slope for possible failure plane. The analysis of each of the critical sections namely, Section A, B, C,D
and E has been done in two stages of construction. Namely
1. Frist one the evaluation of the critical failure slope on existing condition without any earthquake and building
surcharge effect in consideration.
2. The second one is the evaluation of the critical failure slope on existing condition using Earthquake effect in
order find out the slope vulnerability under major seismic event.
3. The third one is the evaluation of the critical failure slope under the building surcharge load with applying the
restriction to identify the critical failure slip plane starting beneath the footing surcharge and end up to the
base of the slope and
4. The last Fourth one is the possible remedial measures to prevent the slope failure occurring beneath the
footing level up to the base of slope. As a part of remedial measures, we have implemented two different
solutions for the slope stability measures.
a. One is to use the RCC bored pile with sufficient size, spacing and length to protect the building
surcharge force beneath the failure plane as well as preventing the slope failure propagation beneath
the foundation.
The slope stability problem is solved in a two dimensional environment. The soil in a slope body can be found below
the ground water table, water can also exceed the slope ground, which can be either partially or completely flooded.
The slope can be loaded by a surcharge of a general shape either on the ground or inside the soil body. The analysis
allows for including the effect of anchors expected to support the slope. An earthquake can also be accounted for in
the analysis.
Two types of approaches to the stability analysis are implemented in the program – classical analysis according to
the factor of safety and the analysis following the theory of limit states.
The slip surface can be modeled in two different ways. Either as a circular one, then the user may choose either from
the Fellenius/Petterson, Bishop or Spencer method, or as a polygonal one, in which case the program exploits the
Sarma or Spencer method.
SOIL BODY
The soil body is formed by a layered profile. An arbitrary number of layers can be used. Each layer is defined by its
geometry and material. The material of a layer is usually represented by a soil with specified properties. The geostatic
stress in a soil body is determined during the analysis.
A layer can be specified also as a rigid body. Such layer then represents bedrock or a sheeting wall. The slip surface
can never pass through the rigid body.
3
INFLUENCE OF WATER
Ground water can be assigned to the slope plane section using one of the four options:
1. Ground water table

The ground water table is specified as a polygon. It can be arbitrarily curved, placed totally within the soil
body or introduced partially above the ground surface.
When using the circular slip surface, the water influence is accounted for through the pore pressure acting
within a soil and reducing its shear bearing capacity. The pore pressure is considered as the hydrostatic
pressure. Assuming inclined slip surface, the pore pressure is determined by taking into account the actual
shape of phreatic line. Below the ground water table, the analysis proceeds using the unit weight of saturated
soil γsat and uplift pressure; above the ground water table the analysis assumes the inputted unit weight of
soil γ. The shear forces along the slip surface are provided by:
𝑇 = (𝑁 − 𝑈)𝑡𝑔𝜑 − 𝑐𝑑
where: T - shear force along slip surface segment
N - normal force along slip surface segment
U - pore pressure resultant along slip surface segment
φ - angle of internal friction
c - cohesion
d - length of slip surface segment
When selecting the polygonal slip surface, the unit weight of soil under water ϒsu is considered and the
corresponding equations of equilibrium are modified by adding the flow pressure J written as:
𝐽 = 𝐴𝛾𝑤 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝛼
where: A - block area
ϒw - unit weight of water
α - inclination of section along given block
2. Ground water table including suction

Suction table can be introduced above the inputted ground water table. A negative value of pore pressure U
is then assumed with the region separated by the two tables. Suction increases as negative hydrostatic
pressure from the ground water table towards the suction table.
3. Coefficient of pore pressure ru

The coefficient of pore pressure ru represents the ratio between the pore pressure and hydrostatic pressure
in a soil body. The inputted unit weight of soil γ is used within the entire slope regardless of the magnitudes
of inputted coefficients ru.
The values of ru are introduced with the help of isolines connecting points with the same value of r u. Linear
interpolation is assumed to obtain intermediate values. Computation of shear forces is then influenced in the
following way:
𝑇 = (𝑁 − 𝐺𝑟𝑢 )𝑡𝑔𝜑 − 𝑐𝑑
where: T - shear force along slip surface segment
N - normal force along slip surface segment
G - resultant of geostatic stress along slip surface segment
4
φ - angle of internal friction
c - cohesion
d - length of slip surface segment
4. Pore pressure values
Ground water can be introduced directly through the pore pressure values with the plane section of a soil
body.
The inputted unit weight of soil γ is used within the entire slope regardless of the magnitudes of inputted pore
pressure values.
The pore pressure values are introduced with the help of isolines connecting points with the same value of
pore pressure. Linear interpolation is assumed to obtain intermediate values. The magnitudes of resultants
of pore pressure are then derived from the values of pore pressure obtained in specific points within the slope
plane section.
SURCHARGE
The slope stability analysis takes into account even the surcharge caused by neighboring structures. The surcharge
can be introduced either as a concentrated force or distributed load acting either on the ground surface or inside the
soil body.
Since it is usually assumed that the surcharge is caused by the weight of objects found on the slope body, the vertical
component of surcharge having the direction of weight is added to the weight of blocks (slices). It means that if the
earthquake effects are included this component is also multiplied by the factor of horizontal acceleration or vertical
earthquake. The components that do not act in the direction of weight are assumed in equations of equilibrium written
for a given block (slice) as weightless thus do not contribute to inertia effects of the earthquake.
The surcharge is always considered in the analysis with respect to one meter run. Providing the surcharge, essentially
acting over the area b x l, is introduced as a concentrated force it is transformed before running the analysis into a
surface loading spread up to a depth of slip surface along the slope 2:1 as displayed in figure.
The analysis then proceeds with the resultant of surface load p having the value:
𝑃
𝑝=
(𝑏 + ℎ𝑠 )𝑙
EARTHQUAKE EFFECT
The program allows for computing the earthquake effects with the help of two variables – factor of horizontal
acceleration Kh or the coefficient of vertical earthquake Kv.
5
Coefficient of vertical earthquake Kv
The coefficient of vertical earthquake either increases (Kv > 0) or decreases (Kv < 0) the unit weight of a soil, water in
a soil and surcharge by multiplying the respective values by 1+Kv. It is worth to note that the coefficient Kv may receive
both positive and negative value and in case of sufficiently large coefficient of horizontal acceleration the slope
relieves (Kv < 0) is more unfavorable than the surcharge. In our case, Kv = 0 has been assumed in calculation.
Factor of horizontal acceleration Kh

In a general case the computation is carried out assuming a zero value of the factor Kh. This constant, however, can
be exploited to simulate the effect of earthquake by setting a non-zero value. This value represents a ratio between
horizontal and gravity accelerations. Increasing the factor Kh results in a corresponding decrease of the factor of
safety FS.
The coefficient of horizontal acceleration introduces into the analysis an additional horizontal force acting in the center
of gravity of a respective slice with the magnitude Kh*Wi, where Wi is the slice overall weight including the gravity
component of the slope surcharge.
The following table lists the values of the factor Kh that correspond to different degrees of earthquake based on M-C-
S scale.
M-C-S degree Horizontal acceleration Factor of horizontal acceleration

(MSK-64) [m/s2] Kh [ in terms of g]
1 0,0 0.0
2 0.0025 0.00025
3 0.005 0.0005
4 0.001 0.0001
5 0.025 0,.0025
6 0.050 0.005
7 0.100 0.010
8 0.250 0.025
9 0.500 0.050
10 1.000 0.100
11 3.200 0.320 has been assumed in Calculation
12
ANALYSIS OF SLOPE STABILITY ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF LIMIT
STATES / FACTOR OF SAFETY
The verification analysis can be carried out according to the theory of limit states:
𝛾𝑆 𝑀𝑟𝑒𝑠 > 𝑀𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟
where: Movr - overturning moment

γs - coefficient of overall stability of structure
6
Mres - resisting moment
Soil parameters (angle of internal friction, cohesion) are in this case reduced using the design coefficients
introduced in the frame "Settings". The value of utilization Vu is calculated and then compared with the value of
100%. The value of utilization is given by:
1
𝑉𝑢 = <1
𝐹𝑆𝛾𝑠
where: FS - factor of slope stability computed with reduced soil parameters

γs - coefficient of overall stability of structure
The second option offers the verification analysis using the factor of safety:
𝑀𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝐹𝑆 = < 𝑆𝐵
𝑀𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟
where: Movr - overturning moment

Mres - resisting moment
SB - factor of safety for overturning
FS - factor of safety for overturning
Analysis process
Computation of limit equilibrium
The computation of limit equilibrium requires the solution of 6n-1 unknowns, where n stands for the number of slices
dividing the soil region above the potential slip surface. These are:
E - forces developed between slices

N - normal forces acting on slip surface
T - shear forces acting on a slip surface
X - shear forces developed between slices
z - locations of points of applications of forces
li - locations of points of applications of forces
k - factor of horizontal acceleration
The Spencer method is a general method of slices developed on the basis of limit equilibrium. It requires satisfying
equilibrium of forces and moments acting on individual slices. The slices are created by dividing the soil above the
slip surface by planes, which in general may have different inclinations. Forces acting on individual slices are
displayed in figure.
7
Each slice assumes contribution due to the following forces:
slice weight, including surcharge having the character of weight including the influence of the coefficient
Wi -
of vertical earthquake
horizontal inertia force representing the effect of earthquake, k is the factor of horizontal acceleration
k.Wi -
during earthquake
Ni - normal force on the slip surface
Ti - shear force on the slip surface
Ei
- forces exerted by neighboring slices, they are inclined from horizontal plane by angle δ
,Ei+1
Fxi
- other horizontal and vertical forces acting on slice
Fyii
Mli - moment of forces Fxi ,Fyi rotating about point M, which is the center of the i–th segment of slip surface
Ui - pore pressure resultant on the i–th segment of slip surface
The following assumptions are introduced in the Spencer method to calculate the limit equilibrium of forces and
moment on individual slices:
 dividing planes between slices are always vertical
 the line of action of weight of slice Wi passes through the centre of the i–th segment of slip surface
represented by point M
 the normal force Ni is acting in the center of the i–th segment of slip surface, at point
 inclination of forces Ei acting between blocks is constant for all slices and equals to δ, only at slip surface
end points is δ=0
The solution adopts the following expressions:
8
Equation (1) represents the relationship between effective and total value of the normal force acting on the slip
surface. Equation (2) corresponds to the Mohr-Coulomb condition representing the relation between the normal and
shear forces on a given segment of the slip surface. Equation (3) represents the force equation of equilibrium in the
direction normal to the i–th segment of the slip surface, whereas Equation (4) represents equilibrium along the i–th
segment of the slip surface. FS is the factor of safety, which is used to reduce the soil parameters. Equation (5)
corresponds to the moment equation of equilibrium about point M, where yG is the vertical coordinate of the point of
application of the weight of slice and yM is the vertical coordinate of point M. Modifying equations (3) and (4) provides
the following recursion formula:
This formula allows us to calculate for given values of δ and FS all forces acting between blocks. This solution
assumes that at the slip surface origin the value of E is known equal to E 1=0.
Additional recursion formula follows from the moment equation of equilibrium (5) as:
9
This formula allows us to calculate for a given value of all arms z of forces acting between blocks, knowing the value
on the left at the slip surface origin, where z1=0.
The factor of safety FS is determined by employing the following iteration process:
1. The initial value of δ is set to zero δ = 0.

2. The factor of safety FS for a given value of δ follows from Equation (6), while assuming the value of En+1 = 0
at the end of the slip surface.
3. The value of δ is provided by equation (7) using the values of E determined in the previous step with the
requirement of having the moment on the last slice equal to zero. Equation (7) does not provide the value of
zn+1 as it is equal to zero. For this value the moment equation of equilibrium (5) must be satisfied.
4. Steps 2 and 3 are then repeated until the value of δ does not change.
Influence of water is introduced in the program with the help of stream pressure instead of pore pressure. The way of
introducing water in the analysis is described hereafter:
For the process of iteration to be stable it is necessary to avoid instable solutions. Such instabilities occur at points
where division by zero in expressions (6) and (7) takes place. In equation (7), division by zero is encountered for δ =
π/2 or δ = -π/2. Therefore, the value of angle δ must be found in the interval (-π/2;π/2).
Division by zero in expression (6) appears when:
Therefore, the value of FSmax being the maximal value of FS satisfying equation (8) is found first. The iteration then
starts from the value of FS “just” right from FSmax and all values of FS entering the iteration process are larger than
FSmax.
CHANGING INCLINATION OF DIVIDING PLANES

It is evident from figure that the planes dividing individual slices do not have to be vertical and not even mutually
parallel. In the first stage of analysis when the optimization procedure moves points along the slip surface assumes
vertical alignment of dividing planes. To arrive at even smaller value of the slope stability it is possible to change the
mutual alignment of dividing planes. This process is again performed in several runs with limited value of rotation
step and this step is again reduced in the course of optimization. This stage of optimization is terminated once the
rotation step drops below the value of 1o and no change of rotation occurred during the last optimization run.
FOLIATION
Soils can be introduced with foliation. It means that along an angle specified in terms of a certain interval, which in
turn is introduced as one of the soil parameters <Starting Slope; End Slope> the soil experiences significantly different
(usually worth) parameters (c a φ).
If the slope of a slip surface segment or the slope of interface between blocks is assumed within the interval <Starting
Slope; End Slope>, the analysis proceeds with the modified parameters of c and φ.
10
FELLENIUS / PETTERSON
The simplest method of slices assumes only the overall moment equation of equilibrium written with respect to the
center of the slip surface. The shear and normal forces between slices Xi and Ei are neglected. The factor of safety
FS follows directly from the following expression:
where: ui - pore pressure within slice

ci, φi - effective values of soil parameters
Wi - slice weight
Ni - normal force on the segment of slip surface
αi - inclination of the segment of slip surface
li - length of the segment of slip surface
BISHOP
The simplified Bishop assumes zero forces between slices Xi. The method is based on satisfying the moment equation
of equilibrium and the vertical force equation of equilibrium.
The factor of safety FS is found through a successive iteration of the following expression:
where: ui - pore pressure within slice

ci, φi - effective values of soil parameters
Wi - slice weight
αi - inclination of the segment of slip surface
li - length of the segment of slip surface
SPENCER
This method assumes non-zero forces between slices. The resultants of shear and normal forces acting between
slices have constant inclinations. The Spencer method is a rigorous method in a sense that it satisfies all three
equations of equilibrium – the force equations of equilibrium in the horizontal and vertical directions and the moment
equation of equilibrium. The factor of safety FS is found through the iteration of inclination of forces acting between
slices and the factor of safety FS. Further details can be found in section describing the analysis of polygonal slip
surface.
OPTIMIZATION OF CIRCULAR SLIP SURFACE

The goal of the optimization process is to locate a slip surface with the smallest factor of slope stability FS. The
circular slip surface is specified in terms of 3 points: two points on the ground surface and one inside the soil body.
Each point on the surface has one degree of freedom while the internal point has two degrees of freedom. The slip
11
surface is defined in terms of four independent parameters. Searching for such a set of parameters that yields the
most critical results requires sensitivity analysis resulting in a matrix of changes of parameters that allows for fast and
reliable optimization procedure. The slip surface that gives the smallest factor of slope stability is taken as the critical
one.
This approach usually succeeds in finding the critical slip surface without encountering the problem of falling into a
local minimum during iteration. It therefore appears as a suitable starting point when optimizing general slip surfaces
such as the polygonal slip surface.
The optimization process can be restricted by various constraints. This becomes advantageous especially if we wish
the searched slip surface to pass through a certain region or to bypass this region. Optimization constrains are
specified as a set of segments in a soil body. The optimized slip surface is then forced to bypass these segments
during optimization.
REMEDIAL MEASURES OF SLOPE STABILITY

INTRODUCTION
For long-term slope stability, there are several techniques/methods such as construction of retaining walls (cantilever
type, gravity type, and earth reinforced type), protect surface by rock (soil) nail and shotcrete, regrading (reducing) of
slopes, construct avalanche shed over roads, use of anchored sheet pile or bored pile wall for deep seated slides,
vegetation or bioengineering, make proper drainage system, and other slope stabilization (physical or chemical)
methods etc. However, the recommendation of protection system & design for slope stability will be defined after
analyzing the soil type and its mechanical properties and actual modelling of the topography in 2D/3D software to
identify the failure pattern with or without ground water, static and in dynamic condition. After identifying the failure
pattern, the most suitable and nearest appropriate remedial measures or techniques/methods for long-term slope
stability in future can be recommended.
MODIFICATION/CHANGE OF SLOPE GEOMETRY

1. Removing material from area driving the landslide (with possible substitution by lightweight fill)
2. Adding material to area maintaining stability (counterweight berm or fill)
3. Reducing general slope angle
CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER [DRAINAGE]
1. Surface drains to divert water from flowing onto slide area (collecting ditches and pipes)
2. Shallow or deep trench drains filled with free-draining Geo-membrane materials (coarse granular fills and
Geosynthetics)
3. Buttress counterforts of coarse-grained materials (hydrological effect)
4. Vertical (small-diameter) boreholes, pumped or self-draining
5. Vertical (large-diameter) wells with gravity draining
6. Sub-horizontal or sub-vertical boreholes
7. Drainage tunnels, galleries or adits
8. Vacuum dewatering
9. Drainage by siphoning
10. Electro-osmotic dewatering
11. Vegetation planting (hydrological effect)
RETAINING STRUCTURES
1. Gravity-retaining walls
2. Crib-block walls
3. Gabion walls
12
4. Passive piles, piers and caissons
5. Cast-in-situ reinforced concrete walls
6. Reinforced earth-retaining structures with Geo-strip/sheet- polymer/Geo- reinforcement elements
7. Buttress counterforts of coarse-grained material (mechanical effect)
8. Retention nets for rock slope faces
9. Rock fall attenuation or stopping systems (rock trap ditches, benches, fences and walls)
10. Protective rock/concrete blocks against erosion
11. RCC bored Anchor Piles. This has been considered in all of the Five Section for Slope stability
measures provided beneath the footings.
INTERNAL SLOPE REINFORCEMENT TO INCREASE THE INTERNAL FRICTION AND

LENGTH OF FAILURE PLANE FOR STABILITY
1. Rock bolts
2. Micropiles
3. Soil nailing
4. Soil Anchors.
5. Grouting
6. Stone or lime/cement columns
7. Heat treatment
8. Freezing
9. Electro-osmotic anchors
10. Vegetation planting (root strength mechanical effect)
BASIC PHILOSOPHY OF CALCULATION OF THESE LOADS

ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE
The Active Earth pressure is calculated using Coulomb’s theory. According to Coulomb’s theory, active earth pressure
is given by the following formula:
where: σz - vertical geostatic stress

cef - effective cohesion of soil
Ka - coefficient of active earth pressure
Kae - coefficient of active earth pressure due to cohesion
The coefficient of active earth pressure Ka is given by:
The coefficient of active earth pressure Kac is given by:
for:
13
for:
CALCULATION SURCHARGE LAODS DUE TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS
Basic rule for vertical strip loading q acting parallel with structure on the ground surface along an infinitely long strip
the trapezoidal increment of active earth pressure applied to the Protection Pile over a given segment h is assumed
– see figure below.
The general equation for determining the pressure at distance h below the ground line is
14
Point loads from a concrete Footing of adjacent building to Protection piles is considered when the building is adjacent
to the excavation
We have used all the above mentioned formulae for Point loading during calculation of the surcharge load on
Protection Piles. The detail soil parameters assumed and input in the calculation and their graphical interpretation of
the result are attached in Annexure.
FORMULAE USED AND LOAD CALCULATION FOR ANALYSIS ARE AS FOLLOWS

 Active earth pressure calculation - Coulomb Theory of active Earth Pressure.
 Surcharge load Calculation- Boussinesq equation for Strip/Point load has been used for Calculation of Surcharge.
 Embedment length has been checked as per IS2911 and Protection pile has been designed of two different embedment
length for each zones.
15
The details of the inputs of Five critical sections for calculation of slope failure plane, their corresponding details of the outputs
and corresponding remedial measures has been attached in the Annexure of this report.
OUTPUT SUMMARY OF THE CRITICAL FIVE SECTIONS

The output of the analysis of each of the critical sections namely, Section A, B,C, D and E has been done in five
different stages of construction. Namely
1. The output of the critical failure slope on existing condition without any earthquake and building surcharge
effect in consideration.
2. The output of the critical failure slope on existing condition using Earthquake effect in order find out the slope
vulnerability under major seismic event.
3. The output of the critical failure slope under the building surcharge load with applying the restriction to identify
the critical failure slip plane starting beneath the footing surcharge and end up to the base of the slope.
4. The output of critical failure slope with earthquake effect under the building surcharge load with applying the
restriction to identify the critical failure slip plane starting beneath the footing surcharge and end up to the
base of the slope and
5. The last one is the output of the possible remedial measures implemented in order to prevent the slope failure
occurring beneath the footing level up to the base of slope.
SUMMARY OF THE OUTPUT OF THE SLOPE STABILTY ANALYSIS CONSIDERING BUILDING SURCHARGE
Slope Stability Analysis in Static Existing Condition Slope Stability Analysis in Earthquake Existing Condition
Section
Circular Slip Surface Circular Slip Surface
No
Bishop method Fellenius /Petterson Spencer Bishop method Fellenius /Petterson Spencer
C-C 2.34 2.30 2.33 1.160 1.190 1.300
D-D 1.39 1.10 1.27 1.190 1.09 1.26
E-E 1.60 1.39 1.64 0.90 0.95 0.90
SUMMARY OF THE OUTPUT OF THE SLOPE STABILTY ANALYSIS CONSIDERING BUILDING SURCHARGE
AND PROTECTION PILES
Slope Stability Analysis in Static Slope Stability Analysis in
Existing Condition Earthquake Existing Condition
Section
Circular Slip Surface Remarks
No
Bishop Fellenius Bishop Fellenius Spencer
Spencer
method /Petterson method /Petterson method
C-C 2.380 2.260 2.390 1.78 1.620 1.760 Ø700mm-15m long @ 1m C/C
D-D 2.740 2.560 2.690 2.47 1.52 1.950 Ø700mm-15m long @ 1m C/C
E-E 2.60 2.69 2.640 2.47 1.63 2.140 Ø700mm-15m long @ 1m C/C
DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION

1. FROM THE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
After analyzing the output of slope stability analysis done for critical seven sections on five different conditions, the outcomes of
the slope stability analysis are the factor of safety of the slip surface considered under the five different conditions which has
been elaborately mentioned on the output summary of the critical seven sections.
The standard user procedure for any slope to be acceptable is if the factor of safety [FOS] came out to be equal or greater than
1.50 it implies that the resisting forces [ which in general existing soil condition is gravity loads] is 1.5 times greater than the
sliding forces on the considered section analysis. If any slip failure defined or optimization calculation shows the FOS value
greater than 1.5, that particular slip plane is considered to be acceptable in the stages of conditions which has been mentioned
16
in previous section. If FOS of any Slope analysis came out to be less than 1.5, it is considered to be unacceptable for any time
of further construction usage of that particular slope.
Similarly, if the FOS came less than 1.0, it clearly implies that the resisting force is less than sliding forces considered for the
particular slip surface. If the slip surface has been calculated in iterative algorithm for optimized result to calculate FOS under
above mentioned stages and FOS came less than 1.0, then that particular section slope is considered to be unstable and
vulnerable to collapse in the slip failure plane calculated under that stage conditions.
Based on this concept, the anchor piles have been introduced with sufficient length and diameters in all five critical section to
evaluate the FOS of the slip failure plane FOS greater than acceptable criteria [which is FOS=1.5]. The comparison table of
outputs in previous section has clearly mentioned the possible remedial measures in order to protect the upcoming building. It
shows that enough numbers of RCC bored piles of Ø700mm and length not smaller than 15m needs to be put beneath each of
the footings so that the load can be transferred to the stable soil layers.
2. FROM SURCHARGE CALCULATION FOR PROTECTION PILES

The Maximum Earth pressure located at 7m due to Active Earth for protection piles and Surcharge effect at Section
C. All the pressure calculated has been shown summarized below in Tabular format.
SUMMARY OF LOAD CALCULATIONS

Active
S. Depth Surcharge Load from Mat Total Pressure on Existing Pile
Remarks
No. E. P. σae
[m] [kN/m2] [kN/m2] [kN/m2]
1 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 Section A ~B
Section A ~B
2 1.0 6.179 0.000 6.179
Section A ~B
3 2.0 12.359 0.000 12.359
Section A ~B
4 3.0 18.538 69.516 88.054
Section A ~B
5 4.0 24.718 114.767 139.485
Section A ~B
6 5.0 30.897 131.922 162.819
Section A ~B
7 6.0 37.087 135.096 172.173
8 7.0 43.256 131.340 174.596 Section A ~B
Section C ~D
9 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000
Section C ~D
10 1.0 6.179 0.000 6.179
Section C ~D
11 2.0 12.359 0.000 12.359
Section C ~D
12 3.0 18.538 104.074 122.613
Section C ~D
13 4.0 24.718 146.039 170.757
Section C ~D
14 5.0 30.897 154.262 185.159
Section C ~D
15 6.0 37.087 150.761 187.838
Section C ~D
16 7.0 43.256 142.223 159.525
Section E
17 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000
Section E
18 1.0 6.179 0.000 6.179
Section E
19 2.0 12.359 0.000 12.359
Section E
20 3.0 18.538 16.561 35.099
Section E
21 4.0 24.718 34.156 58.874
Section E
22 5.0 30.897 49.000 79.898
17
Section E
23 6.0 37.087 60.460 97.537
Section E
24 7.0 43.256 68.497 111.753
Lateral Point Load of Forces and its application
Fhorizontal Point of Application from base of Excavation Remarks

Description of loads
[kN/m] Z [m]
Point load due to Active 151.40 2.357 Section A ~B
pressure
Point load due to 73.853 2.039 Section A ~B
Surcharge Pressure
Point load due to Active 151.40 2.357 Section C ~D

pressure
Point load due to 89.464 2.155 Section C ~D
Surcharge Pressure
Point load due to Active 151.40 2.357 Section E

pressure
Point load due to 27.775 1.771 Section E
Surcharge Pressure
 The above presented data shows that total surcharge pressure on existing pile up to 7m.
 The Maximum pressure from Soil at 6m for Section D is 187.838 kN/m2 .
 The total moment due to Cantilever action on Protection Piles acting at base [-7m] from GL is 577.094 KN-m taking
consideration of 1.0m spacing and Maximum shear of 240.86 KN.
 All Piles, Pile cap and Protection wall are M20. Similarly, all Rebar’s are Fe500 grade.
 After RCC design of the Protection Pile, the pile size came up to Φ700mm 15m long @ 1000mm c/c spacing is
required.
 The recommended Longitudinal Bars after calculation is 8Nos-Φ25mm [Throughout the length] and 8Nos -Φ25mm
[4m above considered surcharge effect and 3.5m below the considered surcharge effect line] for Ø700mm pile.
The detail information is presented in drawings attached in Annexure.
 The Most Critical Shear bars required is Φ8mm @ 175mm c/c helicap stirrups throughout the length of Protection
Piles.
 The Pile Cap of 700mm [W] x 400mm [ D] is required with reinforcement 7Nos-Φ16mm [Top/Bottom] through bars
with Φ8mm -4LS @ 175mm c/c.
 The summary of the Protection Piles and sheet pile calculation has been presented below in tabular format.
18
ANNEXURE-1
 SITE SURVEY DATA
 SURCHARGE LOADS FROM THE ONGOING ADDITIONAL BLOCKS OF
EPS BUILDING
19
Sn Station BS IS FS RL Remarks
1 BM 1.47 100 TBM at the petti of existing bldg
2 A1 2.55 98.92 RW Top
3 A2 2.65 98.82 Edge of road
4 A3 4.03 97.44 Edge of raft
5 B1 2.87 98.6 RW Top
6 B2 4.77 96.7 RW Bottom
7 B3 4.03 97.44 Edge of raft
8 C1 3.36 98.11 RW Top
9 C2 4.03 97.44 Raft
10 D1 4.57 96.9 RW Top
11 D2 4.03 97.44 Raft
12 E1 5 96.47 RW Top
13 E2 4.03 97.44 Raft
14 0.26 4.76 96.71 Station Change
15 B4 0.84 96.13 Edge of road
16 B5 1.66 95.31 Slope
17 C3 1.96 95.01 RW Bottom
18 C4 3.01 93.96 Edge of road
19 C5 4 92.97 Slope
20 D3 4.29 92.68 RW Bottom
21 D4 4.38 92.59 Edge of Road
22 D5 4.92 92.05 Slope
23 E3 4.72 92.25 RW Bottom
24 E4 4.7 92.27 Road
25 E5 7 89.97 Road
26 E6 7 89.97 Edge of road
27 E7 8 88.97 Slope
EPS BUILDING FOOTING REACTIONS
Qu=
Node L/C Fx, KN Fy, KN Fz, KN Mx, KNm My, KNm Mz, KNm Footing Fy/Footing Unfacored
Area, m2 Area, KN/m2 Qu
TOTAL 11 1.5(DL+LL) 0.001 38547.404 -0.001 31.679 1.710 86.264 301.6466 127.790 85.193
TOTAL 12 1.2(DL+LL+RSPX) 2983.365 35470.855 259.080 728.226 137.353 8554.874 301.6466 117.591 97.992
TOTAL 13 1.2(DL+LL-RSPX) -2983.366 26204.997 -259.078 -677.542 -134.614 -8416.850 301.6466 86.873 72.394
TOTAL 14 1.2(DL+LL-RSPX) -451.543 24172.741 -3056.561 -8296.253 -188.551 -1225.951 301.6466 80.136 66.780
TOTAL 15 1.5(DL+RSPX) 3729.208 27076.928 323.851 895.962 171.534 10656.211 301.6466 89.764 59.842
TOTAL 16 1.5(DL-RSPX) -3729.208 26137.495 -323.850 -852.569 -167.650 -10533.997 301.6466 86.649 57.766
TOTAL 17 1.5(DL+RSPX) 564.427 40260.134 3820.698 10428.031 239.729 1692.033 301.6466 133.468 88.979
TOTAL 18 1.5(DL+RSPX) -564.427 23597.176 -3820.698 -10375.959 -235.069 -1545.378 301.6466 78.228 52.152
TOTAL 19 0.9DL+1.5RSPX 3729.207 24948.351 323.848 894.227 171.381 10651.323 301.6466 82.707 68.923
TOTAL 20 0.9DL-1.5RSPX -3729.207 13366.035 -323.848 -862.983 -168.582 -10563.330 301.6466 44.310 36.925
TOTAL 21 0.9DL+1.5RSPY 564.428 27488.671 3820.701 10417.615 238.798 1662.699 301.6466 91.129 75.941
TOTAL 22 0.9DL-1.5RSPY -564.427 10825.714 -3820.698 -10386.373 -236.001 -1574.709 301.6466 35.889 29.907
TOTAL 23 FOOTING 0.001 24294.775 -0.002 19.655 1.288 54.440 301.6466 80.541 80.541
TOTAL 24 LPM 0.002 23290.765 0.000 19.445 1.344 53.275 301.6466 77.212 77.212
ANNEXURE-2
 CALCULATION INPUT & OUTPUT SUMMARY OF THE SLOPE STAILITY
ANALYSIS
 CALCULATION OF SURCHARGE OF THE UPCOMING BUILDING @ A~B,
C~D & E
 DESIGN OF THE PROTECTION PILES @ A~B, C~D & E
 PILE CAP BEAM DESIGN
20
EVAUATION OF EXISTING CONDITION BEFORE
PROTECION PILE INSTALLED
EPS BUILDING
I
Slope stabilty analysis
Project
Task : EPS BUILDING
Part : I
Description : PROTECTION STRUCTURES
User : PSR
Date : 5/30/2019
Analysis type : in effective parameters
Interface
Numbe Coordinates of interface points [m]
Interface location
r x z x z x z
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 3.80 2.04

3.80 5.14 4.80 5.14 11.75 4.47
11.75 3.47 29.76 3.47
2
3.80 2.04 3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99

29.76 0.99
0.00 -3.00 29.76 -3.00
Soil parameters - effective stress state

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00
2 Soil-2 30.00 5.00 20.00
Soil parameters - uplift

Numbe Name Pattern sat s n
1
[Geo 5 - Slope stability (demoversion) | version 5.9.14.0 | Copyright (c) FINE Ltd. 2009 | www.finesoftware.eu]
EPS BUILDING
I
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
2 Soil-2 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
Unit weight :  = 20.00 kN/m3
Angle of internal friction : ef = 30.00 °
Cohesion of soil : cef = 5.00 kPa
Saturated unit weight : sat = 20.00 kN/m3
Soil-2
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00
Assigning and surfaces

Numbe Coordinates of surface points [m] Assigned
Surface position
r x z x z soil
3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99
SMW
4.80 5.14 3.80 5.14
3.80 2.04
1
29.76 0.99 29.76 3.47

Soil-1
11.75 3.47 11.75 4.47
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
2
29.76 -3.00 29.76 0.99

Soil-1
6.16 0.99 3.80 0.99
3.80 2.04 1.00 0.99
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
2
EPS BUILDING
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00
Soil-2
29.76 -8.00 29.76 -3.00
Surcharge
/ / / / Slope Magnitude
Numbe
Type z [m] / x1 x [m] / z1 l [m] / x2 b [m] / z2
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 3.47 x = 11.75 l = 18.01 0.00 85.19 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
Water
Water type : No water
Tensile crack
Tensile crack not inputted.
Earthquake
Earthquake not included.
Analysis settings
Analysis settings : Standard
Analysis type : Safety factor
Safety factor : 1.50
Results (Stage of construction 1)

Analysis 1
Circular slip surface
Slip surface parameters
x= 2.18 [m] 1 = -5.95 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 20.66 [m] 2 = 34.06 [°]
Radius : R= 20.75 [m]
Analysis of the slip surface without optimization.
Slope stability verification (all methods)
Bishop : FS = 2.35 > 1.50 ACCEPTABLE
Fellenius / Petterson : FS = 2.28 > 1.50 ACCEPTABLE
Spencer : FS = 2.35 > 1.50 ACCEPTABLE
Name : Analysis-Bishop-before PP-Static condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
Description : Analysis-Bishop-before PP-Static condition
3
EPS BUILDING
I
[2.18; 20.66]
85.19
5.14
[13.80; 3.47] 3.00
0.00
[0.03; 0.02]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
29.76
Name : Analysis-Fellenous/Petterson-before PP-static condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
4
EPS BUILDING
I
[2.18; 20.66]
85.19
5.14
[13.80; 3.47] 3.00
0.00
[0.03; 0.02]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
29.76
Name : Analysis-Spencer -Static beffore PP condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

Description : Analysis-Spencer -Static beffore PP condition
5
EPS BUILDING
I
[2.18; 20.66]
85.19
5.14
[13.80; 3.47] 3.00
0.00
[0.03; 0.02]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
29.76
6
EPS BUILDING
I
Project
Task : EPS BUILDING
Part : I
User : PSR
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 3.80 2.04

3.80 5.14 4.80 5.14 11.75 4.47
11.75 3.47 29.76 3.47
2
3.80 2.04 3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99

29.76 0.99
0.00 -3.00 29.76 -3.00

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00
2 Soil-2 30.00 5.00 20.00

1
[Geo 5 - Slope stability | version 5.9.14.0 | Copyright (c) FINE Ltd. 2009 | www.finesoftware.eu]
EPS BUILDING
I
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
2 Soil-2 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
Soil-2
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99
SMW
4.80 5.14 3.80 5.14
3.80 2.04
1
29.76 0.99 29.76 3.47

Soil-1
11.75 3.47 11.75 4.47
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
2
29.76 -3.00 29.76 0.99

Soil-1
6.16 0.99 3.80 0.99
3.80 2.04 1.00 0.99
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
2
EPS BUILDING
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00
Soil-2
29.76 -8.00 29.76 -3.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 3.47 x = 11.75 l = 18.01 0.00 97.99 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL+RSPX
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Horizontal seismic coefficient : Kh = 0.32
Vertical seismic coefficient : Kv = 0.00
Analysis settings

Analysis 1
x= 3.53 [m] 1 = -3.99 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 50.23 [m] 2 = 21.68 [°]
Radius : R= 50.32 [m]
Spencer : FS = 1.22 < 1.50 NOT ACCEPTABLE
Name : Fellues-Petterson-Analysis Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
Description : Fellues-Petterson-Analysis-EQ Condition
3
[3.53; 50.23]
EPS BUILDING
I
97.99
5.14
0.00
0.32
-5.00
-8.00
Name : Section-C Bishop Analysis Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
97.99
Description : Section-C Bishop Analysis-Optimization-EQ condition
5.14
[22.12; 3.47]
0.00
[0.03; 0.03]
0.32
-5.00
-8.00
Name : Spencer method-Analysis Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

97.99
Description : Spencer method-Analysis-EQ Condition
5.14
0.00
0.32
-5.00
-8.00
4
Project
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
0.00 0.00 8.41 4.54 11.56 4.63
11.56 8.85 12.52 9.01 14.81 9.39
14.81 8.39 38.27 8.39
1
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
11.56 4.63 11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

38.27 4.00
0.00 -3.00 38.27 -3.00

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

Numbe sat s n
Name Pattern
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
1
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
38.27 4.00 38.27 8.39
Soil-1
14.81 8.39 14.81 9.39
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
1
11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

SMW
12.52 9.01 11.56 8.85
11.56 4.63
2
38.27 -3.00 38.27 4.00

Soil-1
13.74 4.00 11.56 4.00
11.56 4.63 8.41 4.54
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00

Soil-1
38.27 -8.00 38.27 -3.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 8.39 x = 14.81 l = 23.46 0.00 85.19 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
2
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

Analysis 1
x= 2.08 [m] 1 = -4.60 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 19.95 [m] 2 = 54.17 [°]
Radius : R= 19.75 [m]
Bishop : FS = 1.23 < 1.50 NOT ACCEPTABLE
Fellenius / Petterson : FS = 1.13 < 1.50 NOT ACCEPTABLE
Name : Analysis-Bishop-Static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
Description : Analysis-Bishop-Static Condition
3
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
Name : Analysis-Fellenous/Petterson-Static Condition 38.27

Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
Description : Analysis-Fellenous/Petterson-Static Condition
4
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
38.27
Name : Analysis-Spencer-Static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
Description : Analysis-Spencer-Static Condition
5
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
38.27
6
Project
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
0.00 0.00 8.41 4.54 11.56 4.63
11.56 8.85 12.52 9.01 14.81 9.39
14.81 8.39 38.27 8.39
1
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
11.56 4.63 11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

38.27 4.00
0.00 -3.00 38.27 -3.00

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

Numbe sat s n
Name Pattern
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
1
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
38.27 4.00 38.27 8.39
Soil-1
14.81 8.39 14.81 9.39
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
1
11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

SMW
12.52 9.01 11.56 8.85
11.56 4.63
2
38.27 -3.00 38.27 4.00

Soil-1
13.74 4.00 11.56 4.00
11.56 4.63 8.41 4.54
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00

Soil-1
38.27 -8.00 38.27 -3.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 8.39 x = 14.81 l = 23.46 0.00 97.99 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
2
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

Analysis 1
x= -0.39 [m] 1 = 1.76 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 28.73 [m] 2 = 44.43 [°]
Radius : R= 28.48 [m]
3
[-0.39; 28.73]
97.99
9.39
[19.55; 8.39] 8.00
4.00
0.00
[0.48; 0.26]
0.32 -4.00
-8.00
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
24.00
28.00
32.00
36.00
38.27
Name : Analysis-Fellenous/Petterson-Static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

4
[-0.39; 28.73]
97.99
9.39
[19.55; 8.39]
5.00
0.00
[0.48; 0.26]
0.32
-5.00
-8.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
38.27

5
[-0.39; 28.73]
97.99
9.39
[19.55; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.48; 0.26]
-3.00
0.32
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
38.27
6
EPS Building
I
Project
Task : EPS Building
Part : I
Description : Stability Analysis
User : PSR
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
0.00 -1.35 1.00 -0.35 6.00 -0.35
6.13 0.24 6.50 1.95 9.00 1.93
9.00 7.12 10.04 7.02 19.05 6.15
1
19.05 5.15 37.39 5.15
10.04 7.02 12.54 0.24
9.00 0.24 9.00 1.93
6.13 0.24 9.00 0.24 12.54 0.24

37.39 0.24
0.00 -3.00 37.39 -3.00

Name ef cef 
Numbe
Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1
EPS Building
I
Name ef cef 
Numbe
Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

Numbe sat s n
Name Pattern
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
12.54 0.24 10.04 7.02
SMW
9.00 7.12 9.00 1.93
9.00 0.24
1
37.39 0.24 37.39 5.15

Soil-1
19.05 5.15 19.05 6.15
10.04 7.02 12.54 0.24
2
9.00 0.24 9.00 1.93

Soil-1
6.50 1.95 6.13 0.24
2
EPS Building
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
37.39 -3.00 37.39 0.24
Soil-1
12.54 0.24 9.00 0.24
6.13 0.24 6.00 -0.35
4
1.00 -0.35 0.00 -1.35
0.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00

Soil-1
37.39 -8.00 37.39 -3.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 5.15 x = 19.05 l = 18.34 0.00 85.19 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

Analysis 1
x= 4.14 [m] 1 = -8.95 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 24.61 [m] 2 = 42.10 [°]
Radius : R= 26.22 [m]
Name : Bishop Analysis Method-Static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
Description : Bishop Analysis Method-Static Condition
3
EPS Building
I
[4.14; 24.61]
85.19
7.12
5.00
[21.72; 5.16]
0.00
[0.06; -1.29]
-5.00
-8.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Name : Fellenus/Petterson Analysis method-Static Condition 37.39 Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

Description : Fellenus/Petterson Analysis method-Static Condition
[4.14; 24.61]
85.19
7.12
5.00
[21.72; 5.16]
0.00
[0.06; -1.29]
-5.00
-8.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
37.39
Name : Spencer Analysis method-Static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

Description : Spencer Analysis method-Static Condition
4
EPS Building
I
[4.14; 24.61]
85.19
7.12
5.00
[21.72; 5.16]
0.00
[0.06; -1.29]
-5.00
-8.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
37.39
5
EPS Building
I
Project
Task : EPS Building
Part : I
User : PSR
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
-10.00 -11.35 -5.00 -6.35 -1.65 -3.00
0.00 -1.35 1.00 -0.35 6.00 -0.35
6.13 0.24 6.50 1.95 9.00 1.93
1
9.00 7.12 10.04 7.02 19.05 6.15
19.05 5.15 37.39 5.15
10.04 7.02 12.54 0.24
9.00 0.24 9.00 1.93
6.13 0.24 9.00 0.24 12.54 0.24

37.39 0.24
-1.65 -3.00 0.00 -3.00 37.39 -3.00

Name ef cef 
Numbe
Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1
EPS Building
I
Name ef cef 
Numbe
Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

Numbe sat s n
Name Pattern
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
12.54 0.24 10.04 7.02
SMW
9.00 7.12 9.00 1.93
9.00 0.24
1
37.39 0.24 37.39 5.15

Soil-1
19.05 5.15 19.05 6.15
10.04 7.02 12.54 0.24
2
2
EPS Building
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
9.00 0.24 9.00 1.93
Soil-1
6.50 1.95 6.13 0.24
0.00 -3.00 37.39 -3.00

Soil-1
37.39 0.24 12.54 0.24
9.00 0.24 6.13 0.24
4 6.00 -0.35 1.00 -0.35
0.00 -1.35 -1.65 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 -1.65 -3.00

Soil-1
-5.00 -6.35 -10.00 -11.35
-10.00 -16.35 37.39 -16.35
5 37.39 -3.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 5.15 x = 19.05 l = 18.34 0.00 97.99 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL+RSPX
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

Analysis 1
3
EPS Building
I

x= -16.28 [m] 1 = 9.39 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 29.35 [m] 2 = 55.66 [°]
Radius : R= 40.87 [m]
[-16.28; 29.35]
97.99
1 7.12
[17.47; 6.30]
4.00
0.00
-4.00
-8.00
[-9.61; -10.97] -12.00

0.32
-16.35
-10.00
-8.00
-4.00
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
24.00
28.00
32.00
36.00
37.39
Name : Fellenus/Petterson Analysis method-Static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

4
EPS Building
I
[-16.28; 29.35]
97.99
1
7.12
[17.47; 6.30]
0.00
-7.00
[-9.61; -10.97]
0.32 -14.00
-16.35
0.00
7.00
-10.00
-7.00
14.00
21.00
28.00
35.00
Name : Spencer Analysis method-Static Condition 37.39 Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
[-16.28; 29.35]
97.99
1
7.12
[17.47; 6.30]
0.00
-6.00
[-9.61; -10.97] -12.00

0.32
-16.35
-10.00
-6.00
0.00
6.00
12.00
18.00
24.00
30.00
37.39
5
EVAUATION OF EXISTING CONDITION AFTER PROTECION
PILE INSTALLED
EPS BUILDING
I
Project
Task : EPS BUILDING
Part : I
User : PSR
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 3.80 2.04

3.80 5.14 4.80 5.14 11.75 4.47
11.75 3.47 29.76 3.47
2
3.80 2.04 3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99

29.76 0.99
0.00 -3.00 29.76 -3.00

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00
2 Soil-2 30.00 5.00 20.00

1
EPS BUILDING
I
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
2 Soil-2 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
Soil-2
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99
SMW
4.80 5.14 3.80 5.14
3.80 2.04
1
29.76 0.99 29.76 3.47

Soil-1
11.75 3.47 11.75 4.47
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
2
29.76 -3.00 29.76 0.99

Soil-1
6.16 0.99 3.80 0.99
3.80 2.04 1.00 0.99
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
2
EPS BUILDING
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00
Soil-2
29.76 -8.00 29.76 -3.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 3.47 x = 11.75 l = 18.01 0.00 85.19 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

Analysis 1
x= 3.64 [m] 1 = -12.95 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 15.63 [m] 2 = 40.45 [°]
Radius : R= 15.98 [m]
Name : Analysis-Bishop -before PP-static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
Description : Analysis-Bishop -before PP-static Condition
3
EPS BUILDING
I
85.19
5.14
3.00
0.00
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
29.76
Name : Analysis-Fellenous/Petterson -before PP-static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

Description : Analysis-Fellenous/Petterson -before PP-static Condition
4
EPS BUILDING
I
85.19
5.14
3.00
0.00
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
29.76
Name : Analysis-Spencer -before PP-static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

Description : Analysis-Spencer -before PP-static Condition
5
EPS BUILDING
I
85.19
5.14
3.00
0.00
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
29.76
6
EPS BUILDING
I
Project
Task : EPS BUILDING
Part : I
User : PSR
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
-1.00 -0.99 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99

3.80 2.04 3.80 5.14 4.80 5.14
11.75 4.47 11.75 3.47 29.76 3.47
2
3.80 2.04 3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99

29.76 0.99
-1.00 -3.00 0.00 -3.00 29.76 -3.00

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00
2 Soil-2 30.00 5.00 20.00

1
EPS BUILDING
I
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
2 Soil-2 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
Soil-2
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99
SMW
4.80 5.14 3.80 5.14
3.80 2.04
1
29.76 0.99 29.76 3.47

Soil-1
11.75 3.47 11.75 4.47
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
2
0.00 -3.00 29.76 -3.00

Soil-1
29.76 0.99 6.16 0.99
3.80 0.99 3.80 2.04
3
1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00
-1.00 -0.99 -1.00 -3.00
2
EPS BUILDING
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
0.00 -3.00 -1.00 -3.00
Soil-2
-1.00 -8.00 29.76 -8.00
29.76 -3.00
4
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 3.47 x = 11.75 l = 18.01 0.00 97.99 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL+RSPX
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

Analysis 1 (stage 1)
x= 3.53 [m] 1 = -3.99 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 50.23 [m] 2 = 21.68 [°]
Radius : R= 50.32 [m]
Specified slip surface.
Slope stability verification (Spencer)
Analysis was not performed.
3
[3.53; 50.23]
EPS BUILDING
I
97.99
5.14
0.00
0.32 -5.00
-8.00
Name : Section-C Bishop Analysis Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

Description : Section-C Bishop Analysis-Optimization-EQ condition97.99
5.14
[22.12; 3.47]
0.00
[0.03; 0.03]
0.32 -5.00
-8.00
Name : Spencer method-Analysis Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

97.99
Description : Spencer method-Analysis-EQ Condition
5.14
0.00
0.32 -5.00
-8.00
Input data (Stage of construction 2)

Surface position
r x z x z soil
3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99
SMW
4.80 5.14 3.80 5.14
3.80 2.04
1
4
EPS BUILDING
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
29.76 0.99 29.76 3.47
Soil-1
11.75 3.47 11.75 4.47
4.80 5.14 6.16 0.99
2
0.00 -3.00 29.76 -3.00

Soil-1
29.76 0.99 6.16 0.99
3.80 0.99 3.80 2.04
3
1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00
-1.00 -0.99 -1.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 -1.00 -3.00

Soil-2
-1.00 -8.00 29.76 -8.00
29.76 -3.00
4
Anchors
Elastic
Length and slope Anchor Diamete Break
Anchor Origin modulu Active Force
/ coordinates spacing r / area force
Numbe s
r in
post-str l [m] / x  [°] / z d [mm] / Fc [kN]
new x [m] z [m] b [m] E [MPa] compre F [kN]
essed [m] [m] A [mm2]
ss.
=
1 Yes 6.46 4.98 l = 15.00 1.00 d= No 400.00
90.00
Surcharge
Surcharge / / / / Slope Magnitude
Numbe
r new change  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 No No strip z = 3.47 x = 11.75 l = 18.01 0.00 97.99 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL+RSPX
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings
5
EPS BUILDING
I

x= 11.18 [m] 1 = -33.00 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 17.77 [m] 2 = 50.26 [°]
Radius : R= 22.37 [m]
6
Project
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
0.00 0.00 8.41 4.54 11.56 4.63
11.56 8.85 12.52 9.01 14.81 9.39
14.81 8.39 38.27 8.39
1
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
11.56 4.63 11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

38.27 4.00
0.00 -3.00 38.27 -3.00

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

Numbe sat s n
Name Pattern
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
1
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
38.27 4.00 38.27 8.39
Soil-1
14.81 8.39 14.81 9.39
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
1
11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

SMW
12.52 9.01 11.56 8.85
11.56 4.63
2
38.27 -3.00 38.27 4.00

Soil-1
13.74 4.00 11.56 4.00
11.56 4.63 8.41 4.54
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00

Soil-1
38.27 -8.00 38.27 -3.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 8.39 x = 14.81 l = 23.46 0.00 85.19 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
2
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

x= 2.08 [m] 1 = -4.60 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 19.95 [m] 2 = 54.17 [°]
Radius : R= 19.75 [m]
3
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00

4
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
38.27
5
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
38.27

Surface position
r x z x z soil
38.27 4.00 38.27 8.39
Soil-1
14.81 8.39 14.81 9.39
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
1
11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

SMW
12.52 9.01 11.56 8.85
11.56 4.63
2
6
Surface position
r x z x z soil
38.27 -3.00 38.27 4.00
Soil-1
13.74 4.00 11.56 4.00
11.56 4.63 8.41 4.54
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00

Soil-1
38.27 -8.00 38.27 -3.00
Anchors
Elastic
Numbe s
r in
ss.
=
1 Yes 13.74 9.21 l = 15.00 1.00 d= No 400.00
90.00
Surcharge
Numbe
[m] [m] [m] [m]
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

x= 4.00 [m] 1 = -3.61 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 48.61 [m] 2 = 33.42 [°]
7
Radius : R= 48.19 [m]
8
Project
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
0.00 0.00 8.41 4.54 11.56 4.63
11.56 8.85 12.52 9.01 14.81 9.39
14.81 8.39 38.27 8.39
1
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
11.56 4.63 11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

38.27 4.00
0.00 -3.00 38.27 -3.00

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

Numbe sat s n
Name Pattern
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
1
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
38.27 4.00 38.27 8.39
Soil-1
14.81 8.39 14.81 9.39
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
1
11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

SMW
12.52 9.01 11.56 8.85
11.56 4.63
2
38.27 -3.00 38.27 4.00

Soil-1
13.74 4.00 11.56 4.00
11.56 4.63 8.41 4.54
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00

Soil-1
38.27 -8.00 38.27 -3.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 8.39 x = 14.81 l = 23.46 0.00 85.19 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
2
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

x= 2.08 [m] 1 = -4.60 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 19.95 [m] 2 = 54.17 [°]
Radius : R= 19.75 [m]
3
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00

4
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
38.27
5
[2.08; 19.95]
85.19
9.39
[18.09; 8.39]
6.00
3.00
0.00
[0.50; 0.26]
-3.00
-6.00
-8.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
38.27

Surface position
r x z x z soil
38.27 4.00 38.27 8.39
Soil-1
14.81 8.39 14.81 9.39
12.52 9.01 13.74 4.00
1
11.56 4.00 13.74 4.00

SMW
12.52 9.01 11.56 8.85
11.56 4.63
2
6
Surface position
r x z x z soil
38.27 -3.00 38.27 4.00
Soil-1
13.74 4.00 11.56 4.00
11.56 4.63 8.41 4.54
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00

Soil-1
38.27 -8.00 38.27 -3.00
Anchors
Elastic
Numbe s
r in
ss.
=
1 Yes 14.04 9.26 l = 15.00 0.10 d= No 500.00
90.00
Surcharge
Numbe
[m] [m] [m] [m]
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

7
x= 13.82 [m] 1 = -25.99 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 28.31 [m] 2 = 50.75 [°]
Radius : R= 31.48 [m]
8
EPS Building
I
Project
Task : EPS Building
Part : I
User : PSR
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
0.00 -1.35 1.00 -0.35 6.00 -0.35
6.13 0.24 6.50 1.95 9.00 1.93
9.00 7.12 10.04 7.02 19.05 6.15
1
19.05 5.15 37.39 5.15
10.04 7.02 12.54 0.24
9.00 0.24 9.00 1.93
6.13 0.24 9.00 0.24 12.54 0.24

37.39 0.24
0.00 -3.00 37.39 -3.00

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1
EPS Building
I
Numbe ef cef 

Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

Numbe sat s n
Name Pattern
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
12.54 0.24 10.04 7.02
SMW
9.00 7.12 9.00 1.93
9.00 0.24
1
37.39 0.24 37.39 5.15

Soil-1
19.05 5.15 19.05 6.15
10.04 7.02 12.54 0.24
2
9.00 0.24 9.00 1.93

Soil-1
6.50 1.95 6.13 0.24
2
EPS Building
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
37.39 -3.00 37.39 0.24
Soil-1
12.54 0.24 9.00 0.24
6.13 0.24 6.00 -0.35
4
1.00 -0.35 0.00 -1.35
0.00 -3.00
0.00 -3.00 0.00 -8.00

Soil-1
37.39 -8.00 37.39 -3.00
Anchors
Length and slope / Anchor Diameter / Elastic Break
Origin Active Force
coordinates spacing area modulus force
Numbe
in
r l [m] / x  [°] / z d [mm] / A Fc [kN]
x [m] z [m] b [m] E [MPa] compre F [kN]
[m] [m] [mm2]
ss.
1 12.84 6.75 l = 12.00  = 90.00 1.00 d= No 400.00
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 5.15 x = 19.05 l = 18.34 0.00 85.19 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL
Water
Tensile crack
Earthquake
Analysis settings

Analysis 1
x= 4.14 [m] 1 = -8.95 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 24.61 [m] 2 = 42.10 [°]
Radius : R= 26.22 [m]
3
EPS Building
I

[4.14; 24.61]
85.19
7.12
5.00
[21.72; 5.16]
0.00
[0.06; -1.29]
-5.00
-8.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
37.39

4
EPS Building
I
[4.14; 24.61]
85.19
7.12
5.00
[21.72; 5.16]
0.00
[0.06; -1.29]
-5.00
-8.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Name : Spencer Analysis method-Static Condition 37.39 Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

[4.14; 24.61]
85.19
7.12
5.00
[21.72; 5.16]
0.00
[0.06; -1.29]
-5.00
-8.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
37.39
5
EPS Building
I
Project
Task : EPS Building
Part : I
User : PSR
Date : 5/30/2019
Interface
Interface location
r x z x z x z
-1.00 -2.35 0.00 -1.35 1.00 -0.35
6.00 -0.35 6.13 0.22 6.13 0.24
6.50 1.95 8.99 1.92 9.00 1.92
1 9.00 1.93 9.00 7.12 10.04 7.02
10.06 7.01 12.82 6.75 13.42 6.69
19.05 6.15 19.05 5.15 37.39 5.15
10.06 7.01 12.54 0.22 12.82 -0.55
12.82 0.24 12.82 6.75
13.42 0.22 13.42 6.69
9.00 1.92 9.00 0.22
1
EPS Building
I

Interface location
r x z x z x z
12.82 0.24 12.82 -0.55 12.82 -8.32
13.42 -8.32 13.42 0.22
9.00 0.22 12.54 0.22

Numbe ef cef 
Name Pattern
r [°] [kPa] [kN/m3]
1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

Numbe sat s n
Name Pattern
r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]
1 Soil-1 20.00
Soil parameters
Soil-1
Rigid bodies
Numbe 
Name Sample
r [kN/m3]
1 SMW 24.00
2 RCC-Pile 24.00

Surface position
r x z x z soil
2
EPS Building
I

Surface position
r x z x z soil
12.54 0.22 10.06 7.01
SMW
10.04 7.02 9.00 7.12
9.00 1.93 9.00 1.92
9.00 0.22
1
12.82 0.24 12.82 6.75

Soil-1
10.06 7.01 12.54 0.22
12.82 -0.55
12.82 -0.55 12.82 -8.32

RCC-Pile
13.42 -8.32 13.42 0.22
13.42 6.69 12.82 6.75
3 12.82 0.24
9.00 0.22 9.00 1.92

Soil-1
8.99 1.92 6.50 1.95
6.13 0.24 6.13 0.22
6.00 -0.35 1.00 -0.35
0.00 -1.35 -1.00 -2.35
-1.00 -13.32 37.39 -13.32
4
37.39 5.15 19.05 5.15
19.05 6.15 13.42 6.69
13.42 0.22 13.42 -8.32
12.82 -8.32 12.82 -0.55
12.54 0.22
Surcharge
Numbe
r  [°] q, q1, f, F q2 unit
[m] [m] [m] [m]
1 strip z = 5.15 x = 19.05 l = 18.34 0.00 97.99 kN/m2
Surcharges
Numbe
Name
r
1 DL+LL+RSPX
Water
Tensile crack
3
EPS Building
I
Earthquake
Analysis settings

Analysis 1
x= 14.98 [m] 1 = -53.86 [°]
Center : Angles :
z= 9.33 [m] 2 = 77.77 [°]
Radius : R= 19.76 [m]
Spencer : The solution has not been found.
4
EPS Building
I
97.99
[14.98; 9.33]
7.12
1
6.00
[34.29; 5.14]
3.00
0.00
[-0.98; -2.32] -3.00
-6.00
0.32
-9.00
-12.00
-13.32
-1.00
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00
21.00
24.00
27.00
30.00
33.00
36.00
37.39

5
EPS Building
I
97.99
[14.98; 9.33]
1 7.12
[34.29; 5.14] 4.00
0.00
[-0.98; -2.32]
-4.00
0.32 -8.00
-12.00
-13.32
-1.00
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
24.00
28.00
32.00
36.00
37.39
Name : Spencer Analysis method-Static Condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1
97.99
[14.98; 9.33]
1 7.12
[34.29; 5.14] 4.00
0.00
[-0.98; -2.32]
-4.00
0.32 -8.00
-12.00
-13.32
-1.00
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
24.00
28.00
32.00
36.00
37.39
6
SUMMARY OF PROTECTION SYSTEM DESIGN
Nos Fact
of or Clea
Dept
Floor Depth of r
Proxi h of Fact Longitudinal Rebar Stirrups Pile Cap Beam Size 700 (W) x400(D)
s of Saf Cov
mity Surc Bore Grad or of
Consi Footi Spaci Lengt ety er Design Design Rebar Rebar
distan harg d e of Design Safe
dered ng of ng of h of in from Shear Axial % in % in
ZONE ce of e Pile, Conc Moment, ty in
for adjac Piles,, Pile, Roo Mai Force, Force, Dredge Thro
Surch effect Ø, rete, KNm RCC
surch ent mm m t n KN KN line bars
arge, consi mm fck, desi Thr Thr Extr Ext
arge buildi Em Bars Spa
m dere gn o o a ra
from ng, m bed (mm Ø, cin
d, m bars bar bars bar Long bars Stirrups
buildi men ) mm g,
Ø, s, Ø, s
ng t mm
mm Nos mm Nos
A&B 1.75 5.0 2.13 7.00 700 1000 15.00 1.05 50 M20 532.827 225.25 17.958 1.05 25 7 25 5 10 175 7-Ø16mm (T/B) Ø10mm -4LS@175mm O.C. 1.53% 0.89%
C&D 1.07 5.0 2.13 7.00 700 1000 15.00 1.05 50 M20 577.094 240.86 17.958 1.05 25 8 25 8 10 175 7-Ø16mm (T/B) Ø10mm -4LS@175mm O.C. 2.04% 1.02%
E 6.51 5.0 2.13 7.00 700 1000 15.00 1.05 50 M20 426.350 179.17 17.958 1.05 25 7 20 7 10 175 7-Ø16mm (T/B) Ø10mm -4LS@175mm O.C. 1.46% 0.89%
CANTILEVER DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR PROTECTION PILE
GL GL
h=depth of Excavation
Ps
Pa
Base of Excavation hs hs
Base of Excavation
=As perr Embedment length As per IS2911
Mp= Moment on RCC Bored Pile

due to surcharge and Soil point where, Ps= Point Surcharge load from adjacent building
with FOS adopted = 1.25~1.5
load at base of Excavation Pa= Active Earth Pressure

hs= distance of Point Surcharge load from base of Excavation
length of Micropile
ha= distance of Point load due to Active earth pressure.

Mp= Ps x hs + Pa x ha Cantilever Moment Formulae
RCC BORED PILE Axial load on pile

RCC BORED PILE Pu = [S x tw+∏/4 x Ø²+S x b x D] x ϒc
where = S = Spacing of Piles
tw = Protection wall thickness
b = width of Top Cap beam of Pile
D = depth of Top Cap beam of Pile
Ø = Diameter of Micropiles
STAGE-I :- SURCHARGE CALCULATION @ SECTION A & B
A Input Data :-
Height of Protection pile from Top ground level to Top (h1) = Assume 0.000 m
Height of Protection pile from Formation Level to Top ground level (h2) = 7.000 m
Height of Protection pile from Formation Level (h3)= h2= 8.0 = 8.000 m
Stiffnes factor in normally loaded clays = = 3.662 m
Embedment length required for Short rigid Pile in Normal clay = d0 7.325 m
Total Length of Protection pile required = H1 =h2+d0 14.325 m
Total height of Protection pile provided, H = h1+h2+h3 = 15.000 m
Factor of Safety for Root penetration depth = H/H1 1.05
Height for holding soil mass= 7.000 m
Grade of Concrete, fck = M20
3
Subgrade Modulus of Soil As per IS 2911 Loose Sand ηb= 400 KN/m
Critical N-Value from Bore logs for root penetration/Embed length= 5 Assumed N-Value of soil
Soil Type = Granular Soil Condition = Submerged
Diameter of Protection pile (ØD) = 0.700 m
Top down wall thickness, tw= 0.000 m
Spacing of Protection pile, S,m = 1.000 m
Surcharge load from adjacent building Considered = Yes
Length of adjacent Building ┴r to the Protection pile Array, L, m = 21.646 m
Breadth of adjacent Building // to the Protection pile Array, B,m = 18.346 m
Number of Floors of adjacent Building, nf = 5.000 Nos
2
Total Footing Area, At = 893.514 m
Total Number of Columns, Tc= 0.000 Nos
dist. of Protection pile to Nearest Coln or pt. load of adj. bldg d1 ,m= 1.752 m
depth of Footing of adjacent bldg from Existing Ground Level d2,m = 2.130 m
Unit weight of soil (ϒs) = 18.933 KN/m
3
Φ = internal friction angle of soil 28.000 º
Assumed Soil
Parameters
Cohesion of soil C = 5.000 KN/m
2
back fill of soil inclination, β = 0.000 º

Friction coefficient between Soil and Structure, μ = 0.500
Frinction angle between soil and structure, δ = 26.565 º
Back face inclination of Protection pile, α = 90.000 º
2
Building Plinth Area, Ab = L x B = 21.646 m x 18.346 m 397.118 m
2
Most Critical Mat Pressure from Building-1.5{DL+RSPX] Load Case 133.468 KN/m
Additional surcharge from vehicle Parking 0.000 KN/m
2
Surcharge load, q,KN/m2 on base of Mat= 2

133.47 KN/m at distance of 1.752 m
0.000 0.00
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0
0.000 -1.00
0.000 -2.00
69.516 -3.00
114.767 -4.00
131.922 -5.00
DEPTH, M
135.096 -6.00
SURCHARGE LOAD DUE TO MAT FOUNDATION

131.340 -7.00
124.056 -8.00
115.076 -9.00
105.471 -10.00
95.883 -11.00
KN/M2
Line of Action of Surcharge Load due to adjacent building considered upto 7m below GL from
Top of Stone masonry wall to bottom of slope
𝐴1 𝑋1 + 𝐴2 𝑋2 + 𝐴3 𝑋3 + 𝐴4 𝑋4 + 𝐴5 𝑋5 + ⋯ . . +𝐴𝑛 𝑋𝑛 hs= 2.039 m from
𝑋ത = 𝑛 bottom of
σ1 𝐴𝑛
𝐴1 = 0.000 KN/m 𝑋1 = 6.500 m Excavation
𝐴2 = 0.000 KN/m 𝑋2 = 5.500 m depth or
𝐴3 = 34.758 KN/m 𝑋3 = 4.500 m dredge line
𝐴4 = 92.142 KN/m 𝑋4 = 3.500 m
𝐴5 = 123.345 KN/m 𝑋5 = 2.500 m
𝐴6 = 133.509 KN/m 𝑋6 = 1.500 m
𝐴7 = 133.218 KN/m 𝑋7 = 0.500 m
Ps= 𝐴𝑛 = 73.853 KN/m
L1 1
𝐴1 = 𝐿1 𝑎
a 2
1
L2 𝐴2 = 𝐿2 (𝑎 + 𝑏)
2
b
L3 1
c 𝐴𝑛 = 𝐿𝑛 (𝑏 + 𝑐)
2
L4/3
1
𝐴4 = 𝐿4 (1.0 ・𝑐)
L4 2
(L4=16.23m-8.23m=8m)
Sketches of Point load Calculation from Surcharge Pressure

STAGE- I:- ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE CALCULATION-@ SECTION A & B
A Geometry Data :-
Height of Protection Pile from Ground level to Top (h1) = 0.000 m
Height of Protection Pile from Foundation Level to Top ground level (h2) = 7.000 m
Total height of Protection Pile, H = h1+h2+h3 = 7.000 m
distance from base of Excavation to the point of action of active earth pressure (h4)= 2.333 m
Spacing of Protection Pile = 1.000 m
3
Unit weight of soil (ϒ) = 18.933 KN/m
Φ = angle betn resultant force and normal to failure plane/friction angle of soil 28.000 º
Assumed Soil
Parameters
Cohesion of soil at base C'2 5.000 KN/m3
Frictional coefficient μ = 0.500
Maximum Existing back slope of Existing Ground with horizontal = α = 0.000 º
Angle between back face of Protection Pile with horizontal = β 90.000 º
Angle of friction betn the soil & wall = δ = betn ⅟₂φ to ⅔φ 0.50 14.000 º
CALCULATION OF ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE
Excavation Side Passive Earth Pressure Protected Side Net Pa Earth Pressure Calculation
Z, m Pa Z, m Pa AEP -Ex AEP-P Net EP
0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
1 1.00 -1.00 0.000 1 1.00 -1.00 3.09 3.09 0.00 6.18 6.179
2 2.00 -2.00 0.000 2 2.00 -2.00 12.36 12.36 0.00 12.36 12.359
3 3.00 -3.00 0.000 4 3.00 -3.00 27.81 27.81 0.00 18.54 18.538
4 4.00 -4.00 0.000 5 4.00 -4.00 49.44 49.44 0.00 24.72 24.718
5 5.00 -5.00 0.000 5 5.00 -5.00 77.24 77.24 0.00 30.90 30.897
6 6.00 -6.00 0.000 6 6.00 -6.00 111.23 111.23 0.00 37.08 37.077
7 7.00 -7.00 0.000 7 7.00 -7.00 151.40 151.40 0.00 43.26 43.256
8 7.00 -7.00 0.000 8 7.00 -7.00 151.40 151.40 0.00 43.26 14.831
9 8.00 -8.00 -3.090 9 8.00 -8.00 197.74 194.65 -6.18 49.44 17.302
10 9.00 -9.00 -12.359 10 9.00 -9.00 250.27 237.91 -12.36 55.61 17.302
11 10.00 -10.00 -27.807 11 10.00 -10.00 308.97 281.16 -18.54 61.79 17.302
12 11.00 -11.00 -49.436 12 11.00 -11.00 373.86 324.42 -24.72 67.97 17.302
13 12.00 -12.00 -77.243 13 12.00 -12.00 444.92 367.68 -30.90 74.15 17.302
14 13.00 -13.00 -111.230 14 13.00 -13.00 522.16 410.93 -37.08 80.33 17.302
15 14.00 -14.00 -151.396 15 14.00 -14.00 605.59 454.19 -43.26 86.51 17.302
16 15.00 -15.00 -197.742 15 15.00 -15.00 695.19 497.45 -49.44 92.69 17.302
Coulomb's theory of active earth pressure coeff. At wall at static condition (KA) =
𝑆𝑖𝑛2 ∅ + 𝛽
𝐾𝑎 = 2
0.326
sin ∅ + 𝛿 sin ∅ − 𝛼
𝑆𝑖𝑛2 𝛽𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝛽−𝛿 1+
sin 𝛽 + 𝛿 sin 𝛼 − 𝛽
Equivalent AEP, Ø700/1000= 0.7000 = 24.718 KN/m 17.302 #REF!
Active earth pressure at wall in Static Condition = 151.396 KN/m
Line of Action of Earth Pressure considered upto 7m below GL from Top of Stone masonry wall
𝐴1 𝑋1 + 𝐴2 𝑋2 + 𝐴3 𝑋3 + 𝐴4 𝑋4 + 𝐴5 𝑋5 + ⋯ . +𝐴𝑛 𝑋𝑛 ha= 2.357 m from

𝑋ത =
σ𝑛1 𝐴𝑛 bottom of
𝐴1 = 3.090 KN/m 𝑋1 = 6.50 m Protection
𝐴2 = 9.269 KN/m 𝑋2 = 5.50 m Pile
𝐴3 = 15.449 KN/m 𝑋3 = 4.50 m
𝐴4 = 21.628 KN/m 𝑋4 = 3.50 m
𝐴5 = 27.807 KN/m 𝑋5 = 2.50 m
𝐴6 = 33.987 KN/m 𝑋6 = 1.50 m
𝐴7 = 40.166 KN/m 𝑋7 = 0.50 m
Pa= 𝐴𝑛 = 151.40 KN/m Average Pressure
𝐴𝑛
1
L1 𝐴1 = 𝐿1 𝑎
a 2
1
L2 𝐴2 = 𝐿2 (𝑎 + 𝑏)
b 2
1
L3 𝐴3 = 𝐿3 (𝑏 + 𝑐)
c 2
Sketches of Point load Calculation from Active Earth Pressure of Soil
Excavation Side AEP Protected Side AEP

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
-60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0.00 -1.00 -1.00 6.179
0.00 -2.00 -2.00 12.359
0.00 -3.00 -3.00 18.538
0.00 -4.00 -4.00 24.718
0.00 -5.00 -5.00 30.897
0.00 -6.00 -6.00 37.077
0.00 -7.00 -7.00 43.256
-6.18 -8.00 -8.00 49.436
-12.36 -9.00 -9.00 55.615
-18.54 -10.00 -10.00 61.794
-24.72 -11.00 -11.00 67.974
-30.90 -12.00 -12.00 74.153
-37.08 -13.00 -13.00 80.333
-43.26 -14.00 -14.00 86.512
-49.44 -15.00 -15.00 92.692

Net EP Diagram Combined Pressure
0.00 0.000
0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000
Diagram
-1.00 6.179 0.00 0.000
0.000 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000
-2.00 12.359
-3.00 18.538 -1.00 6.179
-4.00 24.718
-2.00 12.359
-5.00 30.897
-6.00 37.077
-3.00 88.054
-7.00 14.831 43.256
-8.00 17.302 -4.00 139.485
-9.00 17.302
-5.00 162.819
-10.00 17.302
-11.00 17.302
-6.00 172.173
-12.00 17.302
-13.00 17.302 -7.00 146.170

174.596
-14.00 17.302
-15.00 17.302 -8.00 141.358
Combined Pressure
Depth Soil-ActiveSurcharge Combined -9.00 132.378
m kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2
0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
-1.00 6.179 0.000 6.179 -10.00 122.773
-2.00 12.359 0.000 12.359
-3.00 18.538 69.516 88.054
-4.00 24.718 114.767 139.485 -11.00 113.185
-5.00 30.897 131.922 162.819
-6.00 37.077 135.096 172.173
-7.00 43.256 131.340 174.596 -12.00 103.993
-7.00 14.831 131.340 146.170
-8.00 17.302 124.056 141.358
-9.00 17.302 115.076 132.378 -13.00 95.406
-10.00 17.302 105.471 122.773
-11.00 17.302 95.883 113.185
-12.00 17.302 86.691 103.993 -14.00 87.521
-13.00 17.302 78.103 95.406
-14.00 17.302 70.219 87.521
-15.00 80.369
-15.00 17.302 63.066 80.369
STAGE-II:- RCC DESIGN OF PROTECTION PILE @ SECTION A & B
Design of column is done as per IS 456-2000
Protection Pile Spacing @ 1000 mm c/c
Section properties Ø 700 mm
Protection Wall thickness = tw= 0 mm
Length of Cantilever Part of Protection Pile 7m
Total Length of Protection pile 15 m
Breadth of Pile Cap beam on Top= b= 0.700 m
Depth of Pile Cap beam on Top = D= 0.400 m
Factor of Safety FOS 1.050
Point load due to Surcharge from adjacent building, Psurcharge = 73.853 KN From Calculation of Surcharge
Point load due to Active Earth Pressure from Soil, Psoil = 151.396 KN From Calculation of Active Eath Pre.
Line of action of Surcharge from Adjacent building, XSur= 2.039 m
Line of action of Active Earth pressure from Soil, XAEP= 2.357 m
Total moment on Piles due to surcharge and Active Earth Pressure 532.827 KN-m Mp= Ps x hs + Pa x ha
Axial load on Protection Piles, Pu = 1.05*[S x tw x h2+∏/4 x Ø²+S x b x D]x ϒc 17.958 KN
Circular section Diameter of Protection Pile, Ød 700 mm
Cover, c 50 mm
2
Characteristic strength of Concrete 20 N/mm
2
Yield stress of Steel 500 N/mm
3
Unit weight of Concrete, ϒc= 24.5 KN/m
c/D = c/Ød 0.071
Detiled design IS 456 Main Reinforcement Remarks
Critical combination Code Clause
Axial N1 end 1 17.958 KN
Major M end 1 532.827 KNm
Minor M end 1 0.000 KNm
Torson for Bending 0.000 KNm
Max Shear force 225.249 KN
Torson for Max Shear force 0.000 KNm
Shear force for max Torsion combination 0.000 KN
Max Torsonal moment 33.787 KNm
Factored Axial force due to 25mm Setttlement 0.000
Factored Moment due to 25mm Settlement 0.000
Max Axial N1 end 1 including settlement, Pu 17.96
Max Major M end 1 including settlement 532.83
Column Type Slender Compression member 21.4 Short Column 25.1.2
Unsupport length of column 15 m
Minimum eccentrictiy along major axis 2.67 mm
Minimum eccentrictiy along minor axis 2.67 mm
Moment due to minimum eccentricity Major 0.05 KNm
Moment due to minimum eccentricity minor 0.05 KNm
Additional moment Mαx= Pu*D*(lex/D)2/2000 2.89 KNm 39.7.1
Additional moment Mαx= Pu*b*(ley/b)2/2000 2.89 KNm 39.7.1
Pub,x 26.937 KN
Pub,y 0.000 KN
Puz 5619.52 KN
Reduction factor for slenderness moment are as calculated below:
Kr=(Puz-Pu)/(Puz-Pubx) 1.00 Kr=(Puz-Pu)/(Puz-Puby) 1.00
Design moment is calculated by using appropriate combination of following
a. Slenderness Ratio b. minimum eccentricity of moment c. Applied moments
Design Mx 535.76 KNm 39.7.1
Design My 2.92 KNm 39.7.1
Percentage of Steel Equally distributed 1.531 %
p% / fck 0.077
Pux / fck*D2 0.002
Refering the chart SP: 16 Lower limit c/D 0.050 Upper limit c/D0.100
Lower limit Chart no 59 Upp. Limit Chart 60
3
Lower limit Mxu / fck*D Up. lim Mxu/fck*D3
0.085 0.075
Lower limit Mux= Upper limit Mux=
583.1 514.5 KNm
for c/D= 0.0714 Mux1= 553.7 KNm
Lower limit Muy= Upper limit Muy=
514.5 514.5 KNm
for c/D= 0.071 Muy1= 514.5 KNm
Puz=0.45*fck*Ac+0.75*fy*Asc 5619.52 KN 39.6
Pux/Puz = Puy/Puz 0.003
α 1.0000 39.6
(Mxu/Mxu1) + (Myu/ Myu1)α
α
0.973 OK for biaxial moment 39.6
α
(Mxu/Mxu1) 0.968
Extra stressed level due to Muy 1.0059
minimum allowable spacing of bar 50 mm
Actual spacing of bar 314 mm
Maximum allowable spacing of bar 300 mm 26.5.3.1 g
Provided Number and Dia Through bar Ф = 25 No. = 6
Provided Number and Dia Extra bar Ф = 25 No. = 6
2
Actual Area of steel 5890.49 mm
Maximum allowable percentage of steel 4% 26.5.3.1 a
Actual percentage of main steel 1.531 OK
Detailed IS 456 Transverse Reinforcement
Distance between compressive bar and restrained bar in minor axis > 3.12.7.2
Dia of lateral ties 10 mm
Number of leg 2
2
Shear stress, including Torsion 0.689 N/mm
2 2
Shear Strength of the section, 0.564 N/mm < 0.689 N/mm
Transeverse reinforcement is required Svreq 784.85 mm
provide Sv 175.000 mm
2
nominal reinforcement = Asv=Tu*Sv/(b1*d1*0.87*fy)+Vu/(2.5*d1*0.87*fy) 37.757 mm
Provide Stirrups of 2 Legged, dia. 10 mm @ 175 mm c/c
Provide in Endspan 2 Legged, dia. 10 mm @ 175 mm c/c
STAGE-I :- SURCHARGE CALCULATION @ SECTION C & D
A Input Data :-
3
Critical N-Value from Bore logs for root penetration/Embed length= 5 From bore log 1 & 2
3
Assumed Soil
Parameters
2

2
2
2

0.000 0.00
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0
0.000 -1.00
0.000 -2.00
104.074 -3.00
146.039 -4.00
154.262 -5.00
DEPTH, M
150.761 -6.00
142.223 -7.00
131.424 -8.00
119.822 -9.00
108.257 -10.00
97.219 -11.00
KN/M2
σ1 𝐴𝑛
𝐴2 = 0.000 KN/m 𝑋2 = 5.500 m depth or
𝐴4 = 125.057 KN/m 𝑋4 = 3.500 m
𝐴5 = 150.150 KN/m 𝑋5 = 2.500 m
𝐴6 = 152.511 KN/m 𝑋6 = 1.500 m
𝐴7 = 146.492 KN/m 𝑋7 = 0.500 m
Ps= 𝐴𝑛 = 89.464 KN/m
L1 1
𝐴1 = 𝐿1 𝑎
a 2
1
L2 𝐴2 = 𝐿2 (𝑎 + 𝑏)
2
b
L3 1
2
L4/3
1
𝐴4 = 𝐿4 (1.0 ・𝑐)
L4 2
(L4=16.23m-8.23m=8m)

STAGE- I:- ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE CALCULATION-@ SECTION C & D
A Geometry Data :-
3
Φ = angle betn resultant force and normal to failure plane/friction angle of soil º
Assumed Soil
28.000
Parameters
0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
1 1.00 -1.00 0.000 1 1.00 -1.00 3.09 3.09 0.00 6.18 6.179
2 2.00 -2.00 0.000 2 2.00 -2.00 12.36 12.36 0.00 12.36 12.359
3 3.00 -3.00 0.000 4 3.00 -3.00 27.81 27.81 0.00 18.54 18.538
4 4.00 -4.00 0.000 5 4.00 -4.00 49.44 49.44 0.00 24.72 24.718
5 5.00 -5.00 0.000 5 5.00 -5.00 77.24 77.24 0.00 30.90 30.897
6 6.00 -6.00 0.000 6 6.00 -6.00 111.23 111.23 0.00 37.08 37.077
7 7.00 -7.00 0.000 7 7.00 -7.00 151.40 151.40 0.00 43.26 43.256
8 7.00 -7.00 0.000 8 7.00 -7.00 151.40 151.40 0.00 43.26 17.302
9 8.00 -8.00 -3.090 9 8.00 -8.00 197.74 194.65 -6.18 49.44 17.302
10 9.00 -9.00 -12.359 10 9.00 -9.00 250.27 237.91 -12.36 55.61 17.302
11 10.00 -10.00 -27.807 11 10.00 -10.00 308.97 281.16 -18.54 61.79 17.302
12 11.00 -11.00 -49.436 12 11.00 -11.00 373.86 324.42 -24.72 67.97 17.302
13 12.00 -12.00 -77.243 13 12.00 -12.00 444.92 367.68 -30.90 74.15 17.302
14 13.00 -13.00 -111.230 14 13.00 -13.00 522.16 410.93 -37.08 80.33 17.302
15 14.00 -14.00 -151.396 15 14.00 -14.00 605.59 454.19 -43.26 86.51 17.302
16 15.00 -15.00 -197.742 15 15.00 -15.00 695.19 497.45 -49.44 92.69 17.302
𝐾𝑎 = 2
0.326

𝑋ത =
𝐴2 = 9.269 KN/m 𝑋2 = 5.50 m Pile
𝐴3 = 15.449 KN/m 𝑋3 = 4.50 m
𝐴4 = 21.628 KN/m 𝑋4 = 3.50 m
𝐴5 = 27.807 KN/m 𝑋5 = 2.50 m
𝐴6 = 33.987 KN/m 𝑋6 = 1.50 m
𝐴7 = 40.166 KN/m 𝑋7 = 0.50 m
1
L1 𝐴1 = 𝐿1 𝑎
a 2
1
L2 𝐴2 = 𝐿2 (𝑎 + 𝑏)
b 2
1
L3 𝐴3 = 𝐿3 (𝑏 + 𝑐)
c 2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
-60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0.00 -1.00 -1.00 6.179
0.00 -2.00 -2.00 12.359
0.00 -3.00 -3.00 18.538
0.00 -4.00 -4.00 24.718
0.00 -5.00 -5.00 30.897
0.00 -6.00 -6.00 37.077
0.00 -7.00 -7.00 43.256
-6.18 -8.00 -8.00 49.436
-12.36 -9.00 -9.00 55.615
-18.54 -10.00 -10.00 61.794
-24.72 -11.00 -11.00 67.974
-30.90 -12.00 -12.00 74.153
-37.08 -13.00 -13.00 80.333
-43.26 -14.00 -14.00 86.512
-49.44 -15.00 -15.00 92.692

0.00
0.000
0.000
10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000
Diagram
-1.00 6.179 0.00 0.000
0.000 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000
-2.00 12.359
-3.00 18.538 -1.00 6.179
-4.00 24.718
-2.00 12.359
-5.00 30.897
-6.00 37.077
-3.00 122.613
-7.00 17.302 43.256
-8.00 17.302
-4.00 170.757
-9.00 17.302
-10.00 17.302 -5.00 185.159

-11.00 17.302
-12.00 17.302 -6.00 187.838
-13.00 17.302
-7.00 159.525
185.479
-14.00 17.302
-15.00 17.302
-8.00 148.727
Combined Pressure
m kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2
0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
-1.00 6.179 0.000 6.179 -10.00 125.560
-2.00 12.359 0.000 12.359
-3.00 18.538 104.074 122.613
-4.00 24.718 146.039 170.757 -11.00 114.521
-5.00 30.897 154.262 185.159
-6.00 37.077 150.761 187.838
-7.00 43.256 142.223 185.479 -12.00 104.272
-7.00 17.302 142.223 159.525
-8.00 17.302 131.424 148.727
-9.00 17.302 119.822 137.124 -13.00 94.931
-10.00 17.302 108.257 125.560
-11.00 17.302 97.219 114.521
-12.00 17.302 86.970 104.272 -14.00 86.522
-13.00 17.302 77.628 94.931
-14.00 17.302 69.220 86.522
-15.00 79.019
-15.00 17.302 61.717 79.019
STAGE-II:- RCC DESIGN OF PROTECTION PILE @ SECTION C & D
Cover, c 50 mm
2
2
3
c/D = c/Ød 0.071
Pub,x 26.937 KN
Pub,y 0.000 KN
Puz 6338.16 KN
p% / fck 0.102
Pux / fck*D2 0.002
Refering the chart SP: 16 Lower limit c/D 0.050 Upper limit c/D0.100
3
Lower limit Mxu / fck*D Up. lim Mxu/fck*D3
0.110 0.100
754.6 686 KNm
for c/D= 0.0714 Mux1= 725.2 KNm
Lower limit Muy= Upper
686 limit Muy= 686 KNm
for c/D= 0.071 Muy1= 686 KNm
α 1.0000 39.6
α
α
(Mxu/Mxu1) 0.800
2
Number of leg 2
2
2 2
Shear Strength of the section, 0.627 N/mm < 0.736 N/mm
Transeverse reinforcement is required Svreq 893.28 mm
2
STAGE-I :- SURCHARGE CALCULATION @ SECTION E
A Input Data :-
3
Critical N-Value from Bore logs for root penetration/Embed length= 5 From bore log 1 & 2
3
Assumed Soil
Parameters
2

2
2
2

0.000 0.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
0.000 -1.00
0.000 -2.00
16.561 -3.00
34.156 -4.00
49.000 -5.00
DEPTH, M
60.460 -6.00
68.497 -7.00
73.452 -8.00
75.841 -9.00
76.214 -10.00
75.073 -11.00
KN/M2
σ1 𝐴𝑛
𝐴2 = 0.000 KN/m 𝑋2 = 5.500 m depth or
𝐴4 = 25.358 KN/m 𝑋4 = 3.500 m
𝐴5 = 41.578 KN/m 𝑋5 = 2.500 m
𝐴6 = 54.730 KN/m 𝑋6 = 1.500 m
𝐴7 = 64.479 KN/m 𝑋7 = 0.500 m
Ps= 𝐴𝑛 = 27.775 KN/m
L1 1
𝐴1 = 𝐿1 𝑎
a 2
1
L2 𝐴2 = 𝐿2 (𝑎 + 𝑏)
2
b
L3 1
2
L4/3
1
𝐴4 = 𝐿4 (1.0 ・𝑐)
L4 2
(L4=16.23m-8.23m=8m)

STAGE- I:- ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE CALCULATION-@ SECTION E
A Geometry Data :-
3
Φ = angle betn resultant force and normal to failure plane/friction angle of soil º
Assumed Soil
28.000
Parameters
0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
1 1.00 -1.00 0.000 1 1.00 -1.00 3.09 3.09 0.00 6.18 6.179
2 2.00 -2.00 0.000 2 2.00 -2.00 12.36 12.36 0.00 12.36 12.359
3 3.00 -3.00 0.000 4 3.00 -3.00 27.81 27.81 0.00 18.54 18.538
4 4.00 -4.00 0.000 5 4.00 -4.00 49.44 49.44 0.00 24.72 24.718
5 5.00 -5.00 0.000 5 5.00 -5.00 77.24 77.24 0.00 30.90 30.897
6 6.00 -6.00 0.000 6 6.00 -6.00 111.23 111.23 0.00 37.08 37.077
7 7.00 -7.00 0.000 7 7.00 -7.00 151.40 151.40 0.00 43.26 43.256
8 7.00 -7.00 0.000 8 7.00 -7.00 151.40 151.40 0.00 43.26 17.302
9 8.00 -8.00 -3.090 9 8.00 -8.00 197.74 194.65 -6.18 49.44 17.302
10 9.00 -9.00 -12.359 10 9.00 -9.00 250.27 237.91 -12.36 55.61 17.302
11 10.00 -10.00 -27.807 11 10.00 -10.00 308.97 281.16 -18.54 61.79 17.302
12 11.00 -11.00 -49.436 12 11.00 -11.00 373.86 324.42 -24.72 67.97 17.302
13 12.00 -12.00 -77.243 13 12.00 -12.00 444.92 367.68 -30.90 74.15 17.302
14 13.00 -13.00 -111.230 14 13.00 -13.00 522.16 410.93 -37.08 80.33 17.302
15 14.00 -14.00 -151.396 15 14.00 -14.00 605.59 454.19 -43.26 86.51 17.302
16 15.00 -15.00 -197.742 15 15.00 -15.00 695.19 497.45 -49.44 92.69 17.302
𝐾𝑎 = 2
0.326

𝑋ത =
𝐴2 = 9.269 KN/m 𝑋2 = 5.50 m Pile
𝐴3 = 15.449 KN/m 𝑋3 = 4.50 m
𝐴4 = 21.628 KN/m 𝑋4 = 3.50 m
𝐴5 = 27.807 KN/m 𝑋5 = 2.50 m
𝐴6 = 33.987 KN/m 𝑋6 = 1.50 m
𝐴7 = 40.166 KN/m 𝑋7 = 0.50 m
1
L1 𝐴1 = 𝐿1 𝑎
a 2
1
L2 𝐴2 = 𝐿2 (𝑎 + 𝑏)
b 2
1
L3 𝐴3 = 𝐿3 (𝑏 + 𝑐)
c 2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
-60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0.00 -1.00 -1.00 6.179
0.00 -2.00 -2.00 12.359
0.00 -3.00 -3.00 18.538
0.00 -4.00 -4.00 24.718
0.00 -5.00 -5.00 30.897
0.00 -6.00 -6.00 37.077
0.00 -7.00 -7.00 43.256
-6.18 -8.00 -8.00 49.436
-12.36 -9.00 -9.00 55.615
-18.54 -10.00 -10.00 61.794
-24.72 -11.00 -11.00 67.974
-30.90 -12.00 -12.00 74.153
-37.08 -13.00 -13.00 80.333
-43.26 -14.00 -14.00 86.512
-49.44 -15.00 -15.00 92.692

0.00
0.000
0.000
10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000
Diagram
-1.00 6.179 0.00 0.000
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000120.000
-2.00 12.359
-3.00 18.538 -1.00 6.179
-4.00 24.718
-2.00 12.359
-5.00 30.897
-6.00 37.077
-3.00 35.099
-7.00 17.302 43.256
-8.00 17.302
-4.00 58.874
-9.00 17.302
-10.00 17.302 -5.00 79.898

-11.00 17.302
-12.00 17.302 -6.00 97.537
-13.00 17.302
-7.00 85.799 111.753
-14.00 17.302
-15.00 17.302
-8.00 90.754
Combined Pressure
m kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2
0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
-1.00 6.179 0.000 6.179 -10.00 93.516
-2.00 12.359 0.000 12.359
-3.00 18.538 16.561 35.099
-4.00 24.718 34.156 58.874 -11.00 92.376
-5.00 30.897 49.000 79.898
-6.00 37.077 60.460 97.537
-7.00 43.256 68.497 111.753 -12.00 90.150
-7.00 17.302 68.497 85.799
-8.00 17.302 73.452 90.754
-9.00 17.302 75.841 93.144 -13.00 87.188
-10.00 17.302 76.214 93.516
-11.00 17.302 75.073 92.376
-12.00 17.302 72.848 90.150 -14.00 83.762
-13.00 17.302 69.886 87.188
-14.00 17.302 66.459 83.762
-15.00 80.079
-15.00 17.302 62.777 80.079
STAGE-II:- RCC DESIGN OF PROTECTION PILE @ SECTION E
Cover, c 50 mm
2
2
3
c/D = c/Ød 0.071
Pub,x 26.937 KN
Pub,y 0.000 KN
Puz 5526.10 KN
p% / fck 0.073
Pux / fck*D2 0.002
Refering the chart SP: 16 Lower limit c/D 0.050 Upper limit c/D 0.100
3 3
Lower limit Mxu / fck*D Up. lim Mxu/fck*D
0.080 0.070
548.8 480.2 KNm
for c/D= 0.0714 Mux1= 519.4 KNm
Lower limit Muy= Upper limit Muy=
480.2 480.2 KNm
for c/D= 0.071 Muy1= 480.2 KNm
α 1.0000 39.6
α
α
(Mxu/Mxu1) 0.827
2
Number of leg 2
2
2 2
Shear Strength of the section, 0.555 N/mm > 0.546 N/mm
Transeverse reinforcement is required Svreq -10468.74 mm
2
PILE CAP BEAM CALCULATION FOR MOST CRITICALSECTION @ D
Output:
Note : DRS = Doubly Reinforced Section, SRS = Singly Reinforced Section, NA = Not Applicable
2
Rqd. tensile Steel Reinforecement, Ast 1120.00 mm
Provide 16 Ф bar 5.57 Nos. Say 7.00 Nos.
2
Rqd. Compressive Steel Reinforecement, Asc 1120.00 mm
Provide 16 Ф bar 5.57 Nos. Say 7.00 Nos.
Stirrups Provided:
Provide Ф bar Spacing
8 175.00 mm @ C/C Leg = 4
Crack Width Calculation:
Stress in tensile reinforced level fsb 1411.63 N/mm2
Spacing of reinforcement S 94.000 mm
acr = ((S / 2)^2+d'^2)^0.5 - Dia /2 = 74.662 mm
Ɛ1b = [fs*((a' - xu) / [(d-xu)*2*10 ^5] 0.0098335
Ɛ2b= bt*(a'-xu)*(D-xu) / [600000*Ast*(d - xu)] 0.0003497
Ɛmb = Ɛ1b-Ɛ2b 0.0094838
Wcrb = 3*acr*Ɛm/ [1+2*(acr - Cmin) / (D - xu)] 1.7632717
Stress in tensile reinforced level fst -30.377 N/mm2
Ɛ1t= fs*(a' - (-D)) / [(d- (-D))*2*10 ^5] -0.0001660
Ɛ2t= bt*(a'-(-D))*(D-(-D)) / [600000*Ast*(d - (-D))] 0.0009107
Ɛmt = Ɛ1t-Ɛ2t -0.0010767
Wcrt = 3*acr x Ɛm / [1+2*(acr - Cmin) / (D - (-D))] -0.2271692
Wcr =Wcrb+Wcrt 1.5361024 < 0.2
INPUT DATA:- Governing Load Case For Design 0
INPUT DATA:- Axial force, Torsion Moments, Bending moments and Shear force:
Design Shear force, Fy, Critical Zone 2 Data 72.26 KN
Design Torsional Moment for shear Tu=Mx 57.71 KNm, Consider 10% of Muz
Moment M'uz Critical Zone 2 data 577.09 KNm
Design Torsional Moment for moment Tu=Mx 57.71 KNm, Consider 10% of Muz
Axial Force, Fx Critical Zone 2 Data 51.034 KN C
Bending in another direction Muy 0 KNm
INPUT DATA:- Material Properties :
Characteristic Strength of concrete, fck 20.00 N/mm2
Grade of Steel, fy 500.00 N/mm2
INPUT DATA:- Material Properties and Dimensions of Beam:
Thickness of flange, Df 0.00 mm
Total Depth of T- Beam, D 400.00 mm
Width of Flange, bf 700.00 mm
Width of web in compression fibre, bcw 700.00 mm
Width of web in tension, btw' 700.00 mm
Layer of bar in tension zone 1.00
Cover, C 50.00 mm
Stirrups of Design purpose 10.00 mm
Dia of bar for design purpose 16.00 mm
Spacer for vertical spacing 25.00 mm
Calculations of required Design Moments, Shear forces:
Resultant Moment of ( Muy and Muz') = M''uz 577.09 KNm
Design Moment Mu 630.44 KNm
Design shear force Vu 204.17 KN
Calculations of required Section properties:
Width of web in reiforcement level in tension, btw 700.00 mm
Width of Web, Average btw 700.00 mm
Effective Depth , d (Calculated) 332.00 mm
Width of small portion in the flange, bs 0.000 mm
Centroid of Section from Compression fibre Cc 200.000 mm
Centoid of section from tension fibre Ct 200.000 mm
Df/d (Calculated) 0.000
RESULT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIFFERENT CONDITIONS:

1. Condition: If Neutral Axis lies in the flange? GO TO 2 (C)
Muf, lim= 0.36*fck*bf*Df*(d-0.416*Df) 0.00 KNm DRS-NA
Test : Muf,lim > Mu for Neutral in flange -630.439 KNm DRS-NA
Neutral Axis lies in the Flange? NO DRS-NA
For Mu or Mu,lim Area of Steel, Ast 0.00 mm2 DRS-NA
For Tension Area of Steel, Ast2 0.00 mm2 DRS-NA
for BM+Tension, total rqd. Steel, Ast 0.00 mm2 DRS-NA
Neutral Axis Ratio, Xu/d 0.00000 DRS-NA
Neutral Axis, Xu 0.000 mm DRS-NA
Due to Mu Compressive strain Ɛcc 0.00000 DRS-NA
Total Strain due to (Mu+Fx) Ɛcct 0.00012 < 0.0035 DRS-NA
for BM+compression, TrialTotal Rqd. Steel, Ast 10455.000 mm2 DRS-NA
Due To Fx, Additional compressive stress fsc 29.41 N/mm2 DRS-NA
Additional compressive stress fcc 1.053 N/mm2 DRS-NA
Pu 591.196 KN DRS-NA
Hit and trial, Extra Comprssve strain due to P, Ɛcc 0.00012170 NA DRS-NA
Test : Fx-Pu =0 0.000000 DRS-NA
2
for BM+compression, Extra Increased area Ast 0.000 mm DRS-NA
2
Required Ast 10455.000 mm DRS-NA
2. Condition: If Neutral Axis lies in the web
Neutral Axis lies in the Web YES
Neutral axis depth ratio α = Xu,max/d 0.4560
Maximum Neutral Axis for balanced design Xu,max 151.40 mm
yf,max 22.71 mm
Compressive force for straight portion, C1 405.15 KN
Compressive force fo rParabolic portion, C2 360.13 KN
Compressive force Trap. Web, Cu = C1+C2 765.28 KN
Compressive force for Flange portion, C3 0.00 KN
Compressive force for Small Flange portion, C4 0.00 KN
Total Compressive force, C 765.28 KN
Moment of C1 about Neutral Axis, Integration I1 48195.47 KNmm
Moment C2 about Neutral Axis Integration I2 19472.92 KNmm
Moment f Cu about neutral axis Integration Iu 67668.39 KNmm
CG of Cu from Neutral axis ,Y 88.423 mm
CG of Cu from Extreme Compression fibre X 62.978 mm
For average web only X/d 0.18969
CG C from
Capacity Extremeweb
if average Compression
+flange Muw,fibre
lim= X 62.978 mm
0.36*fck*bw*Xu,max*(d-0.416*Xu,max) + 0.446*fck*(bf- 205.87 KNm
Capacity Mu, lim (Only for trapezodal Web) 205.88 KNm
Capacity Mu, lim (trapezodal Web + Flange) 205.88 KNm
Test, Mu > Mu,lim (Doubly or Singly), Mu - Mu,lim= 424.56 KNm DRS
for average web Lever Arm z= jd 269.017 mm
for (Trap. Web+ Flange) Lever Arm z= jd 269.022 mm
2
For avg. web +flange balanced section Ast,max 1759.264 mm
2
For (web +Flange) balanced section Ast,max 1759.264 mm
a= - 0.14976*fck*bw - 0.0050175*fck*(bf - bw) -0.002097 DRS-NA
b= 0.36*fck*bw*d + 0.00669*fck*(bf - bw) 1.67328 DRS-NA
c= 0.2899*fck*Df*(bf - bw)*(d-0.325*Df)-Mu -205.877 DRS-NA
Neutral Axis Xu=(-b+√(b -4*a*c))/2*a
2
151.980 mm DRS-NA
yf=0.15*xu+0.65*Df 22.797 mm DRS-NA
Lever Arm z = jd 268.776 DRS-NA
2
For Df/d > 0.2 Ast 1760.876 mm DRS-NA
2 (A) IF Df/d > 0.2 DRS-NA GO TO 2 (C)

Hit and Trial α = Xu/d 0.300000 DRS-NA
α is chosen to make Test : C = T 0.00000 DRS-NA
Neutral Axis for balanced design Xu 99.60 mm DRS-NA
yf,max 14.94 mm DRS-NA
Compressive force for straight portion, C1 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Compressive force fo rParabolic portion, C2 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Compressive force Trap.Web, Cu = C1+C2 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Compressive force for Flange portion, C3 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Compressive force for Small Flange portion, C4 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Total Compressive force, C 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Moment of C1 about Neutral Axis, Integration I1 0.00 KNmm DRS-NA
Moment C2 about Neutral Axis Integration I2 0.00 KNmm DRS-NA
Moment f Cu about neutral axis Integration Iu 0.00 KNmm DRS-NA
CG of Cu from Neutral axis ,Y 0.000 mm DRS-NA
CG of Cu from Extreme Comprssion fibre X 0.000 mm DRS-NA
For average web only X/d 0.00000 DRS-NA
CG C from
average webExtreme
+flange Compression
Muw= 0.36*fck*bfibre X *(d-
w*Xu,max 0.000 mm DRS-NA
0.416*Xu,max) + 0.446*fck*(bf-bw)*yf*(d-0.5*yf,max) 0.00 KNm DRS-NA
Mu(Only for trapezodal Web) 0.00 KNm DRS-NA
Mu,lim (trapezodal Web + Flange) 0.00 KNm DRS-NA
Test, Mu > Mu,lim (Doubly or Singly), Mu - Mu,lim= 0.00 KNm DRS-NA
for average web Lever Arm z= jd 0.000 mm DRS-NA
for (Trap. Web+ Flange) Lever Arm z= jd 0.000 mm DRS-NA
2
For avg. web +flange balanced section Ast,max 0.000 mm DRS-NA
2
For (web +Flange) balanced section Ast,max 0.00 mm DRS-NA
2
For Tension Area of Steel, Ast2 0.00 mm DRS-NA
2
for BM+Tension, total rqd. Steel, Ast 0.00 mm DRS-NA
Force of Tension, T 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Neutral Axis, Xu 0.00 mm DRS-NA
Total Strain due to (Mu+P) Ɛcct 0.00002 < 0.0035 DRS-NA
2
for BM+compression, TrialTotal Rqd. Steel, Ast 1300.000 mm DRS-NA
2
Due To Fx, Additional compressive stress fsc 4.68 N/mm DRS-NA
2
Additional compressive stress fcc 0.172 N/mm DRS-NA
Pu 54.027 KN DRS-NA
Hit and trial, Extra Comprssve strain due to P, Ɛcc 0.00001938 YES DRS-NA
2
Extra Increased area 0.000 mm DRS-NA
Required Singly reinforced Ast 1300.000 mm2 DRS-NA
a= - 0.14976*fck*bw - 0.0050175*fck*(bf - bw) -0.002097 DRS-NA
b= 0.36*fck*bw*d + 0.00669*fck*(bf - bw) 1.67328 DRS-NA
Neutral Axis Xu=(-b+√(b2-4*a*c))/2*a #NUM! mm DRS-NA
yf=0.15*xu+0.65*Df #NUM! mm DRS-NA
Lever Arm z = jd #NUM! DRS-NA
For Df/d > 0.2 Ast #NUM! mm2 DRS-NA
2 (B) IF Df/d < = 0.2 DRS-NA GO TO 2 (C)

Hit and Trial α = Xu/d 0.2500 DRS-NA
α is chosen to make Test : C - T = 0 -16.9976 DRS-NA
Neutral Axis for balanced design Xu 83.00 mm DRS-NA
yf 12.45 mm DRS-NA
Compressive force for straight portion, C1 222.11 KN DRS-NA
Compressive force fo rParabolic portion, C2 197.43 KN DRS-NA
Compressive force Trap.Web, Cu = C1+C2 419.54 KN DRS-NA
Compressive force for Flange portion, C3 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Compressive force for Small Flange portion, C4 0.00 KN DRS-NA
Total Compressive force, C 419.54 KN DRS-NA
Moment of C1 about Neutral Axis, Integration I1 14484.61 KNmm DRS-NA
Moment C2 about Neutral Axis Integration I2 5852.37 KNmm DRS-NA
Moment f Cu about neutral axis Integration Iu 20336.98 KNmm DRS-NA
CG of Cu from Neutral axis ,Y 48.475 mm DRS-NA
CG of Cu from Extreme Comprssion fibre X 34.525 mm DRS-NA
For average web only X/d 0.1039916 DRS-NA
CG C from
average webExtreme
+flange Compression
Muw = 0.36*fck*b fibre Xmax
w*Xu,max*(d- 34.525 mm DRS-NA
0.416*Xu,max) + 0.446*fck*(bf-bw)*yf*(d-0.5*yf,max) 124.44 KNm DRS-NA
Mu (Only for trapezodal Web) 124.80 KNm DRS-NA
Mu,lim (trapezodal Web + Flange) 124.80 KNm DRS-NA
Test, Mu > Mu,lim (Doubly or Singly), Mu - Mu,lim= -505.64 KNm DRS-NA
for average web Lever Arm z= jd 297.472 mm DRS-NA
for (Trap. Web+ Flange) Lever Arm z= jd 297.475 mm DRS-NA
For avg. web +flange balanced section Ast 961.655 mm2 DRS-NA
For (web +Flange) balanced section Ast 964.454 mm2 DRS-NA
For Tension Area of Steel, Ast2 0.00 mm2 DRS-NA
for BM+Tension, total rqd. Steel, Ast 964.45 mm2 DRS-NA
Force of Tension, T 2119.30 KN DRS-NA
Neutral Axis, Xu 83.000 DRS-NA
Total Strain due to (Mu+P) Ɛcct 0.00206 < 0.0035 DRS-NA
for BM+compression, TrialTotal Rqd. Steel, Ast 3000.000 mm2 DRS-NA
Due To Fx, Additional compressive stress fsc 33.60 N/mm2 DRS-NA
Additional compressive stress fcc 1.197 N/mm2 DRS-NA
Pu 432.339 KN DRS-NA
Hit and trial, Extra Comprssve strain due to P, Ɛcc 0.00013902 DRS-NA DRS-NA
Extra Increased area 0.000 mm2 DRS-NA
Required Singly reinforced Ast 3000.000 mm2 DRS-NA
a= -0.14976*fck*bw -0.002096640 DRS-NA
b= 0.36*fck*bw*d 1.67328000 DRS-NA
Neutral Axis Xu=(-b+√(b2-4*a*c))/2*a #NUM! DRS-NA
Lever Arm z = jd #NUM! DRS-NA
2
For Df/d < 0.2 Ast #NUM! mm DRS-NA
2 (C) Condition: Doubly Reinforced Section YES

Number of Layer of Comression bar 1.00 No.
Dia of Main reinforcement in compression 16 mm
Spacer for Vertical spacing 25 mm
Dia of Stirrups 10.00 mm
Clear cover, C 50.00 mm
Charactertistics strength of Concrete fck 20.00 N/mm2
Yield stress of steel fy 500.00 N/mm2
Helping calculation, d'' 41.00 mm
Effective depth from in compression side d' 68.00 mm
Effective depth at tension side d 332.00 mm
Neutral Axis depth ration Xu,max/d 0.479
Neutral Axis Depth Xu.max 159.06 mmm
Compression level strain Ɛsc Or Ɛcc 0.00200
Compressive level stress of steel fsc 373.521 N/mm2
Compressive level stress of concrete fcc=446*fck*(Ԑcc-250*Ԑcc^2) 8.920 N/mm2
2
Area of compressive stress Asc 4410.817 mm
2
for Asc, Area of tension steel Ast2 3696.982 mm
2
For DRS Total Area of tension steel Ast 5456.246 mm
2
for Tension, Area of Steel, Ast3 0.00 mm
2
for BM+Tension, total rqd. Steel, Ast 5456.25 mm
Neutral Axis, Xu 159.064 mm
Due to Mu Compressive strain Ɛcc 0.00368
Total Strain due to (Mu+P) Ɛcct 0.00380 < 0.0035 OK
2
for BM+compression, TrialTotal Rqd. Steel, Ast 1120.000 mm
2
Due To Fx, Additional compressive stress fsc 28.79 N/mm
2
Additional compressive stress fcc 1.031 N/mm
Pu 319.820 KN
Hit and trial, Extra Comprssve strain due to P, Ɛcc 0.00011915 YES
Test : Fx-Pu =0 -268.786407
2
Extra Increased area -4336.246 mm
2
Required Double reinforced Ast 1120.000 mm
Check for Shear force

Design Shear force 204.17 KN
Shear stress 0.879 N/mm2
Percentage of tension steel, pt 0.606 %
Percentage of compressive steel, pc 0.606 %
Percentage of tension and compressive steel, pt 3.603 %
α=0.8*fck/6.89*pt 0.645
tc = 0.85*SQRT(0.8*fck)*(SQRT(1+5*α)-1)/6*α 0.927 N/mm2

Permissible shear stress,
1.00 x 0.927 = 0.927
K´tc =
> 0.879 Not OK
Shear Reinforcement is required.
Dia of of Vertical Stirrups 8.00 mm
Number of leg 4.00
2
Planned area to Provide Asv 201.06 mm
Required spacing of stirrups Svreqd. -2552.594 mm
Plan to Provide, spacing of stirrups Sv 175.000
2
Minimum required Asv 0.4*b*Sv/0.87*fy 112.6437 mm
Ф 5.9880 mm
Rqd. Stirrups Ф 8.00 Leg 4.000 175.00 mm C/C
ANNEXURE-3
 DESIGN DRAWINGS OF PROTECTION PILES, ITS LAYOUT, AND FIVE
CRITICAL SECTIONS
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F F
Bishop-Static-FOS-2.34
Fellenous/Petterson-Static-FOS-2.30
Spencer-Static-FOS-2.33
E E
4.15
18.01 5.59 2.36
6.44
3.96
D D
SECTION-C-EXISTING CONDITION-EVALUATION IN STATIC CONDITION
C C
4.852
B B
6.44
23.46 1.07 2.18
A A
SECTION-D-EXISTING CONDITION-EVALUATION IN STATIC CONDITION
Sheet Number
NOTES :
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE MILLIMETER.
PROJECT : DRAWING TITLE : EPS BUILDING Scale :-1: 50
Date :-
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
EVALUATION OF EXISTING SLOPE EVALUATION @ SECTION C & D
G. S. Soil and materials Engineers Pvt. ltd.
6/9/2019
Drawn By:-
S1.01
P.O. Box 20716, Email: gsgroup.jain@gmail.com PSR Sheet
Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F F
E E
4.15
18.01 5.59 2.36
6.44
3.96
D D
SECTION-C-EXISTING CONDITION-EVALUATION IN EARTHQUAKE [Kh =0.32g] CONDITION

C C
B B
4.852
6.44
23.46 1.07 2.18
A A
SECTION-D-EXISTING CONDITION-EVALUATION IN EARTHQUAKE [Kh=0.32g] CONDITION
Sheet Number
NOTES :
Date :-
6/9/2019
Drawn By:-
S1.02
Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F
Bishop-Static-FOS-1.6 F
6.885
E
9.47
18.34 6.512 3.538
D D
SECTION-E-EXISTING CONDITION-EVALUATION IN STATIC CONDITION

C
C
B B
6.885
9.47
18.34 6.512 3.538
A A
SECTION-E-EXISTING CONDITION-EVALUATION IN EARTHQUAKE [Kh=0.32g] CONDITION

Sheet Number
NOTES :
Date :-
EVALUATION OF EXISTING SLOPE EVALUATION @ SECTION E
6/9/2019
Drawn By:-
S1.03
Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F F
4.15
E E
6.44 18.01 5.59 2.36
3.96
13
D D
SECTION-C-AFTER PROTECTION PILE INTRODUCTION CONDITION-EVALUATION IN STATIC CONDITION

C C
B B
4.852
6.44
23.46 1.07 2.18

13
A A
SECTION-D-AFTER PROTECTION PILE INTRODUCTION CONDITION -EVALUATION IN STATIC CONDITION

Sheet Number
NOTES :
Date :-
6/9/2019
Drawn By:-
S1.04
Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F
Bishop-Static-FOS-1.78 F
4.15
E E
18.01 5.59 2.36
SECTION-C-AFTER PROTECTION PILE

6.44
INTRODUCTION CONDITION-EVALUATION IN
3.96
13
EARTHQUAKE [Kh=0.32g] CONDITION
D D
C
C
4.852
SECTION-D-AFTER PROTECTION PILE
6.44
B
23.46 1.07 2.18
INTRODUCTION CONDITION -EVALUATION IN B
EARTHQUAKE [Kh=0.32g] CONDITION

15.07
A A
Sheet Number
NOTES :
Date :-
6/9/2019
Drawn By:-
S1.05
Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F F
E
Spencer-Static-FOS-2.64 E
6.885
3.96
18.34 6.512 3.538
D D
SECTION-E-AFTER
18.07
PROTECTION PILE
INTRODUCTION
CONDITION -EVALUATION
C IN STATIC CONDITION C
B B
A A
Sheet Number
NOTES :
Date :-
6/9/2019
Drawn By:-
S1.06
Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F F
E E
6.885
D D
3.96
18.34 6.512 3.538
18.07
SECTION-E-AFTER PROTECTION
PILE INTRODUCTION CONDITION
C
C
-EVALUATION IN EARTHQUAKE
[Kh=0.32g] CONDITION
B B
A A
Sheet Number
NOTES :
Date :-
6/9/2019
Drawn By:-
S1.07
Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F F
D
A B
C
4.905
E E
18.34 10.202
0.353
E E
0.092
6.512
0
Under
23
.
46
D Construction D
12.849
18
Bldg
.0
1
21.646
21.646
17.982
all
nW
tai
C C
Re
1.
07
3.
02
5.
5.151
7.
95
71
8
1.
00
0
a to
B
12.727
1.752
1.969
to
B
3.45
3.45
r e D
Go C
A A
A B
Sheet Number
NOTES :
PROJECT : DRAWING TITLE : EPS BUILDING Scale :-1: 43.5
Date :-
PROTECTION PILES
6/9/2019
S1.08
LAYOUT OF PROTECTION PILE Sinamangal, Gairigaun, Kathmandu, Nepal
P.O. Box 20716, Email: gsgroup.jain@gmail.com
Drawn By:-
PSR Sheet
Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F F
E E
.....
D D
7Nos-Ø16mm
700mm
A1.01
400mm
C C
7Nos-Ø16mm
Ø8mm-4LS @ 175mm C/C
PILE CAP DETAIL B

B
.....
A A
..... ..... A1.01
Sheet Number
NOTES : PROJECT : DRAWING TITLE : SARAWOGI COMPLEX
Scale :-1: 50, 16, 10
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE MILLIMETER. Date :-

PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR BASEMENT
TYPICAL DETAIL OF G. S. Soil and materials Engineers Pvt. ltd.
6/9/2019
Drawn By:-
S1.09
mm c/c Web: www.gsconsortium.com

Design By:-
Cell 9851118335, Off, 00977-01-4112078
SKJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

EPS Protection For Building Stability Report PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EPS Protection For Building Stability Report PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS & PROTECTION PILE

GS G.S. Soil & Materials Engineers (P) Ltd

1. Ground water table

2. Ground water table including suction

3. Coefficient of pore pressure ru

Factor of horizontal acceleration Kh

M-C-S degree Horizontal acceleration Factor of horizontal acceleration

𝛾𝑆 𝑀𝑟𝑒𝑠 > 𝑀𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟

where: Movr - overturning moment

where: FS - factor of slope stability computed with reduced soil parameters

where: Movr - overturning moment

E - forces developed between slices

The solution adopts the following expressions:

1. The initial value of δ is set to zero δ = 0.

CHANGING INCLINATION OF DIVIDING PLANES

where: ui - pore pressure within slice

where: ui - pore pressure within slice

OPTIMIZATION OF CIRCULAR SLIP SURFACE

REMEDIAL MEASURES OF SLOPE STABILITY

MODIFICATION/CHANGE OF SLOPE GEOMETRY

INTERNAL SLOPE REINFORCEMENT TO INCREASE THE INTERNAL FRICTION AND

BASIC PHILOSOPHY OF CALCULATION OF THESE LOADS

where: σz - vertical geostatic stress

The coefficient of active earth pressure Kac is given by:

CALCULATION SURCHARGE LAODS DUE TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS

FORMULAE USED AND LOAD CALCULATION FOR ANALYSIS ARE AS FOLLOWS

OUTPUT SUMMARY OF THE CRITICAL FIVE SECTIONS

DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION

2. FROM SURCHARGE CALCULATION FOR PROTECTION PILES

SUMMARY OF LOAD CALCULATIONS

Lateral Point Load of Forces and its application

Fhorizontal Point of Application from base of Excavation Remarks

Point load due to Active 151.40 2.357 Section C ~D

Point load due to Active 151.40 2.357 Section E

Slope stabilty analysis

0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 3.80 2.04

3.80 2.04 3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99

0.00 -3.00 29.76 -3.00

Soil parameters - effective stress state

1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

2 Soil-2 30.00 5.00 20.00

Soil parameters - uplift

r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]

Assigning and surfaces

29.76 0.99 29.76 3.47

29.76 -3.00 29.76 0.99

Numbe Coordinates of surface points [m] Assigned

Results (Stage of construction 1)

[13.80; 3.47] 3.00

Name : Analysis-Fellenous/Petterson-before PP-static condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

[13.80; 3.47] 3.00

Name : Analysis-Spencer -Static beffore PP condition Stage - analysis : 1 - 1

[13.80; 3.47] 3.00

Slope stabilty analysis

0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 3.80 2.04

3.80 2.04 3.80 0.99 6.16 0.99

0.00 -3.00 29.76 -3.00

Soil parameters - effective stress state

1 Soil-1 30.00 5.00 20.00

2 Soil-2 30.00 5.00 20.00

Soil parameters - uplift

r [kN/m3] [kN/m3] [–]

Assigning and surfaces