I had imagined that there would be a few notable position papers on an alternative approach given AS4678's non-existent guidance.
To be honest, I was surprised that there wasn't very much guidance on this. To check that you don't get very large changes in the magnitude or distribution of the design forces due to differences in soil-structure interaction. An additional check with factored down soil resistances or "worst credible" parameters (with no additional factor on the output) is probably a good idea too. So it would seem that perhaps a good way to go is adopting something similar to the older CIRIA C580 approach, with a working load analysis adopting "moderately conservative" parameters with and factor of 1.5 on the bending/shears forces (as opposed to 1.35). I'm not so familiar with AS5100.3, but from what I have seen, I believe you also carry out your analysis based on working loads and then factor by 1.5. I am familiar with the approach in CIRIA C760 and would hazard a guess that the EC7-DA1C1 described there would give you reasonably similar (but lower) design forces then if you were to adopt Retrograde's suggested AS1170 with a factor of 1.5. Thank you Henryzau and Retrograde both for your responses. RE: Australia - Embedded retaining wall design HENRYZAU (Geotechnical) 11 Dec 18 21:54 BS8002, either EC7 compliant or an older version) that specifically addresses these types of walls? Adopt the bridge code? Use AS2159? Or something entirely different.Ĭheers. Is there any general consensus on this? Do you just make AS4678 "work" for embedded walls? Do you adopt a recognised international standard (e.g. Though, this is not stated in plain English.
#WALLAP RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS CODE#
Furthermore, Figure 1.1 would indicate that embedded retaining walls aren't really covered and that the code is primarily for gravity walls.
But after limited investigation, I could only find a single reference to "embedded pile" walls under Appendix E1 and the guidance here was to follow the recommendations of AS2159 for laterally loaded piles. For example, deep basement excavations (multi-propped/anchored/etc), rather than for embedded walls on government infrastructure projects (that I presume would use the bridge code).Ī cursory examination would seem to imply that AS4678 should be the default standard. I'm primarily interested for the design of secant/diaphragm walls on commercial projects. I am interested in understanding what codes engineers typically adopt in Australia to design embedded retaining walls.