Figure 1
Strutted diaphragm wall.
Table 1
Partial factors of safety applied on loads.
| CODE | Standard/limit state case | Loads | Water Pressure | Active E.P. | Passive E.P. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent | Variable | |||||||
| Favourable | Unfavourable | Favourable | Unfavourable | |||||
| Europe | D1 A | 1 | 1.35 | - | 1.5 | 1 | - | 1 |
| D1 B | 1 | 1 | - | 1.3 | 1 | - | 1 | |
| D2 | 1 | 1.35 | - | 1.5 | 1 | - | 1.4 | |
| D3 | 1 | 1.35 | - | 1.5 | 1 | - | 1 | |
| Australia | Strength | 1.5 | - | 1 | 1.25 | 0.8 | ||
| Stability | 1.5 | - | 1 | 1.25 | 0.8 | |||
| Serviceability | 0.7 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| USA | AASHTO | 1.5–0.7 | 1.75 | 1 | 1.35–1 | 0.75 | ||
| India | Serviceability | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Collapse | 1.5 | - | 1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | |||
| Britain | D1 A | 1 | 1.35 | - | 1.5 | 1 | - | 1 |
| D1 B | 1 | 1 | - | 1.3 | 1 | - | 1 | |
| Canada | CHBDC | - | - | - | - | 1.1-0.9 | 1.25–0.8 | 0.75 |
Table 2
Partial factors of safety applied on material parameters.
| CODE | Standard/limit state case | Cohesion (C) | Angle of internal friction (φ) | Wall specific weight (w) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe | D1 A | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| D1 B | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1 | |
| D2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| D3 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1 | |
| Australia | Strength | 0.7 | 0.85 | 1.25 |
| Stability | - | - | 0.8 | |
| Serviceability | 0.85 | 1 | 1 | |
| USA | AASHTO | - | - | 1.25–0.9 |
| India | Serviceability | - | - | 1 |
| Collapse | - | - | 1.5 | |
| Britain | D1 A | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| D1 B | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1 | |
| Canada | CHBDC | - | - | 1.2–0.9 |
Table 3
Factored values of material properties.
| CODE | Standard/limit state case | C (kN/m2) | ϕ (deg.) | w (kN/m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe | D1 A | 10 | 27 | 20 |
| D1 B | 8 | 22.17 | 20 | |
| D2 | 10 | 27 | 20 | |
| D3 | 8 | 22.17 | 20 | |
| Australia | Strength | 7 | 23.42 | 25 |
| Stability | 10 | 27 | 16 | |
| Serviceability | 8.5 | 27 | 20 | |
| USA | AASHTO | 10 | 27 | 25 |
| India | Serviceability | 10 | 27 | 20 |
| Collapse | 10 | 27 | 30 | |
| Britain | D1 A | 10 | 27 | 20 |
| D1 B | 8 | 22.17 | 20 | |
| Canada | CHBDC | 10 | 27 | 24 |
Table 4
Factored values applied for calculating loads and resistances.
| CODE | Standard/limit state case | Surcharge (kN/m2) | γgw (kN/m2) | Active E.P (kN/m2) | Passive E.P (kN/m2) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent | Variable | γsat | γusat | γsat | γusat | |||
| Europe | D1 A | 13.5 | 75 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 |
| D1 B | 10 | 65 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | |
| D2 | 13.5 | 75 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 14.29 | 13.57 | |
| D3 | 13.5 | 75 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | |
| Australia | Strength | 15 | 50 | 10 | 25 | 23.75 | 16 | 15.2 |
| Stability | 15 | 50 | 10 | 25 | 23.75 | 16 | 15.2 | |
| Serviceability | 7 | 50 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | |
| USA | AASHTO | 15 | 87.5 | 10 | 27 | 25.65 | 15 | 14.25 |
| India | Serviceability | 10 | 50 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 |
| Collapse | 15 | 50 | 10 | 24 | 22.8 | 24 | 22.8 | |
| Britain | D1 A | 13.5 | 75 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 |
| D1 B | 10 | 65 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | |
Table 5
Results of analysis with EC7.
| Case | Hmax (mm) | B.Mmax (kNm) | S.Fmax (kN) | T(kN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 A | 4.41 | 226.41 | 140.58 | 151.2 |
| D1 B | 11.52 | 297.06 | 180.1 | 231.1 |
| D2 | 8.86 | 163.83 | 201.2 | 146.2 |
Figure 2
Maximum shear force developed on wall panel as per EC 7(D1 B).
Figure 3
Maximum lateral deflection of diaphragm wall panel as per EC 7(D1 B).
Figure 4
Maximum bending moment developed on wall panel as per EC 7(D1 B).
Table 6
Results of analysis using Australian codes.
| Case/Limit state | Hmax (mm) | B.Mmax (kNm) | S.Fmax (kN) | T (kN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strength | 31.5 | 334 | 220 | 331 |
| Stability | 23.5 | 315 | 79.57 | 229 |
| Serviceability | 8.18 | 195.16 | 127.43 | 164.4 |
Table 7
Results of analysis with Indian codes.
| Case/Limit state | Hmax (mm) | B.Mmax (kNm) | S.Fmax (kN) | T (kN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serviceability | 8.13 | 188.28 | 112.67 | 132.3 |
| Collapse | 10.68 | 241.4 | 152.11 | 185.8 |
Table 8
Results of analysis with American code.
| Case | Hmax (mm) | B.Mmax (kNm) | S.Fmax (kN) | T (kN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AASHTO | 13.32 | 276.15 | 152.92 | 176.1 |
Table 9
Results of analysis with Canadian codes.
| Case | Hmax (mm) | B.Mmax (kNm) | S.Fmax (kN) | T (kN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | 14.98 | 232.3 | 142.31 | 179.4 |
Table 10
Results of analysis with British standards.
| Case | Hmax (mm) | B.Mmax (kNm) | S.Fmax (kN) | T(kN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 A | 4.41 | 226.41 | 140.58 | 151.2 |
| D1 B | 11.52 | 297 | 180.1 | 231.1 |
Figure 5
Representation of variations in Hmax.
Figure 6
Representation of variations in B.Mmax, S.Fmax and T.
Table 11
Relative percentage increase of parameters.
| Case | % variation in H | % variation in BM max | % variationin SF max | % variation in Strut Force (T) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC- D1 A | 0.00 | 38.20 | 24.55 | 14.13 |
| EC- D1 B | 161.22 | 81.29 | 59.32 | 74.68 |
| EC- D2 | 100.91 | 0.00 | 77.88 | 10.51 |
| AUS | 85.49 | 19.12 | 12.98 | 24.26 |
| USA | 202.04 | 68.56 | 35.41 | 33.11 |
| IND-S | 84.35 | 14.92 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| IND-C | 142.18 | 47.35 | 34.70 | 40.44 |
| CAN | 239.68 | 41.79 | 26.08 | 35.60 |
Figure 7
Comparison of percentage variation in B.Mmax and Hmax.
Figure 8
Comparison of percentage variation in SFmax.
Figure 9
Comparison of percentage variation in T