Jatnika 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. - Earth Environ. Sci. 1169 012016

IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- On the sensitivity of the Mohr-Coulomb
Analysis and evaluation study of retaining wall ductile fracture criterion in the mixed
stress-strain space on varying hardening
structures in a building project in South Jakarta curve approximations
T Komischke and P Hora
- Influence of geotextile type on strength

To cite this article: Raihan Alifandika Jatnika and I Gede Mahardika Susila 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth and failure behavior of geotextiles
Environ. Sci. 1169 012016 reinforced desert sand based on Mohr-
Coulomb criterion
G Y Feng, X Y Wang, D T Zhang et al.
- Experimental study of shear band

formation: Bifurcation and localization
View the article online for updates and enhancements. T. B. Nguyen and A. Amon
This content was downloaded from IP address 36.79.72.155 on 26/02/2024 at 00:36

The 6th International Conference on Eco Engineering Development 2022 (ICEED 2022) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1169 (2023) 012016 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1169/1/012016
Analysis and evaluation study of retaining wall structures in a

building project in South Jakarta
Raihan Alifandika Jatnika1, I Gede Mahardika Susila1

1
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Bina Nusantara University,
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
Corresponding author: i.gede@binus.ac.id
Abstract. Retaining wall type contiguous pile is a structure that serves to hold and stabilize the
soil in certain soil conditions. Retaining walls can be deformed by various factors. This research
on retaining walls compares the deformation results between the actual data, the finite element
method with the Mohr – Coulomb, Soft Soil and Hardening Soil parameters, and find the safety
factor based on SNI Geotechnical 8460:2017. The result of this research is that the deformation
value of Mohr – Coulomb modelling is closer than the actual value in the field, followed by the
modelling of Soft Soil & Hardening Soil, Soft Soil & Mohr-Coulomb, and Hardening Soil. This
difference occurs because there are differences in the correlation approach and the type of
undrained type used. It was found that the Mohr – Coulomb parameter is better than the other
parameters with a deformation result of 24.5 mm with a safety factor of 1.675 which is close to
the actual data.
Keywords: retaining wall, deformation, contiguous pile
1. Introduction
Retaining wall is a construction that functions to hold loose or natural soil, prevent soil collapse and
withstand certain disturbances such as earthquakes, vibrations, water and others. Retained soil will
provide an active push on the wall so that the structure tends to deform. Retaining walls can be said to
be safe from these disturbances, if the retaining walls have been calculated and meet the safety factor.
This type of retaining wall contiguous pile is a retaining wall construction used to withstand lateral
pressure of active soil and groundwater in the basement construction work of a building. The contiguous
pile used has a height of 17 m with a width of 0.8 m for the secondary pile type, while for the primary
pile type it has a height of 17 m with a diameter of 0.6 m [1].
On retaining wall design, one important aspect is the calculation of deformation, because the
deformation of the retaining wall greatly affects the strength of the retaining wall itself. This study
focuses on knowing the strength of the retaining wall during construction by evaluating and analyzing
the calculation of soil deformation against the wall. Excavation protection analysis in this study was
carried out using the finite element method. In doing modelling with the finite element method, it is
intended to implement the field implementation phase into the working phase of the modelling program
and it is hoped that the implementation in the field is as close as possible to the program. An inclinometer
is a construction tool that serves to analyze the lateral movement of the soil or retaining walls [2].
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
This research will be studied further with several descriptions put forward, namely Analyzing the
value of deformation and safety factor using the finite element method and comparing the results of
calculating the deformation value with the finite element method with the results of the inclinometer
test. The main purpose of this study is to determine the value of deformation and safety factor on the
contiguous pile using the finite element method and to find out the results of the comparison of the
calculation of the deformation value using the finite element method with the results of the inclinometer
test.
2. Literature review
2.1. Retaining wall

Retaining Wall is a structure that serves to hold and hold the soil in certain soil conditions. These
structures can generally be found in basements, plateaus, riverbanks and coastlines. If the soil condition
is disturbed due to certain things, then the disturbance to the soil can be caused by various human
activities and natural conditions, such as machines that produce vibrations, groundwater and others that
can reduce the properties and mechanical properties of the soil parameters, therefore Reinforcement
system dug hole is very necessary [1]. This type of retaining wall contiguous pile is a retaining wall
construction which is a development of the pile foundation. used to withstand the lateral pressure of
active soil and groundwater in the basement construction work of a building. Contiguous pile is shaped
like a tightly arranged pile consisting of a primary pile and a secondary pile. The contiguous pile used
has a height of 17m with a width of 0.8m for the secondary pile type, while for the primary pile type it
has a height of 17m with a diameter of 0.6m.
2.2. Earth pressure

Earth pressure plays an important role in strengthening the retaining wall. This is because if the soil
pressure is greater than the strength of the retaining wall, it will collapse and cause structural failure.
The material and type of retaining wall used will also be an important factor in the success of the plan.
To calculate the stability of the retaining wall, it is necessary to calculate the pressure on the retaining
wall [2]. Lateral earth pressure is the compressive force behind the retaining wall and is used to design
retaining walls and other structures to ensure complete failure will not occur [3]. Lateral earth pressure
can also be interpreted as the force caused by the impact of the soil impulse which is influenced by
changes in the location of the retaining wall and the properties of the soil. Lateral earth pressure is an
important design parameter in several foundation engineering problems.
2.3. Retaining wall stability

The soil pressure and the forces acting on the retaining wall greatly affect the stability of the retaining
wall itself, in general compression or the use of materials in retaining wall construction which means
providing reinforcement to the soil mass, enlarging the embankment behind the retaining wall [2]. Soil
movement is the movement of soil down the dug hole by the soil mass due to disturbance of soil stability
or slope assistance. The definition above shows that the moving soil mass can be a soil mass, rock mass
or a mixture of soil and rock masses in the excavation.
To provide sufficient strength against horizontal shear, the base of the retaining wall shall be at least
1m below the ground surface. For permanent walls, the strength must be stable without the presence of
passive retaining structures at the foot of the wall. If the above strength requirements are not sufficient,
a shear lock can be added under the foot of the foundation or pile to resist the shear [2]. Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE), MSE is made of several elements of materials intended for reinforcement and
soil improvement using steel strips or polymeric grid materials, geotextiles that are strong enough to
withstand the tension and load of the material on it.
2
2.4. Finite element method

The finite element method is a computer application program based on the 2D finite element method
which is specially designed to analyze the deformation and stability of various geotechnical applications,
such as soil capacity. In the modelling it is possible to perform staged construction analysis. Staged
construction is very useful in analyzing excavation, earth filling or anchoring during the construction of
geotechnical structures. The main outputs in the finite element calculation are displacement at the nodal
point and stress at the stress point. In addition, the stresses and moments acting on the structural elements
can be known so that the effective dimensions of these elements can be determined. The basic law of
the finite element method is Hooke's law of linear elasticity, isotropic, for example, can be considered
the simplest stress-strain relationship. Because it only involves two input parameters, namely Young's
modulus, elastic modulus, and Poisson's ratio.
In doing modelling with the finite element method, it is intended to implement the field
implementation phase into the working phase of the modelling program, and it is hoped that the
implementation in the field is as close as possible to the program. Therefore, the results given by the
program can be considered to represent the actual situation that occurs in the program. Although in the
use of the program many experiments and validations are carried out, it is possible that it will be error
free. Simulation of geotechnical problems with the finite element method itself implicitly results in
unavoidable numerical modelling and errors. Therefore, it is necessary to make accurate estimates of
real-world situations, depending on user experience in modelling problems such as understanding soil
models, limitations of soil models, determining model parameters, and the ability to realize computer
results.
2.5. Inclinometer
Based on SNI 3404:2008 [4] Inclinometer is a construction tool that serves to analyze the lateral
movement of soil or retaining walls. For example, on land that has a great potential for landslides or on
soil located on the walls of tunnels, dams, and others. Globally, an inclinometer or slope gauge is a tool
used to measure lateral deformation. Therefore, this tool is also often used in measuring speed and
measuring the magnitude of movement on the ground. After the measurement is complete, the
measurement results can be used as location information or critical points due to ground movement that
will be displayed on the monitor screen.
3. Research methodology
In this study, there are stages to be carried out, the first stage is to identify the problems that occur,
namely analyzing the shape of the modelling deformation with the parameters Mohr – Coulomb, Soft
Soil & Hardening Soil, Soft Soil & Mohr-Coulomb, Hardening Soil. The results of these calculations
will be compared with the actual data. Because in general calculations using the Finite Element method
have different results from the actual results, therefore the modelling is varied with the Mohr – Coulomb,
Soft Soil & Hardening Soil, Soft Soil & Mohr-Coulomb, Hardening Soil parameters.
Then do a literature study or literature review. Literature studies were obtained from previous
research journals related to the research to be discussed. The next stage is data processing, the data in
question is from the N-SPT data. From these data, we can find out the deformation value and safety
factor, the method that will be used is the finite element method, from this method we can also find out
the deformation value and the contiguous pile safety factor. Furthermore, using manual calculations,
from this method can also get the value of the deformation and safety factor of the contiguous pile.
In this study only focused on finding the value of the deformation and safety factor of the contiguous
pile by comparing the finite element method, manual calculations and the actual results of the
inclinometer test. In the two calculations above, we will certainly get the results of the deformation
values and safety factors that are different from the actual results, from here it can be seen which
calculations are close to the actual results in the field, namely the inclinometer test. The results of the
analysis obtained will draw conclusions and also suggestions that can be given for further research.
3
The results of the analysis to be carried out were obtained from the N-SPT value and the inclinometer
test. From the results of the analysis get the value of the deformation and risk safety factor in each
calculation, then can show manual calculations to determine the safety factor or the value of the
inclinometer test. In designing retaining walls, geotechnical investigation data from the soil is very
necessary. From these data we can estimate the soil parameters needed to analyze a retaining wall. In
this case, the correlation of soil parameters with the N-SPT test at the test location is used.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Mohr Coulomb modelling analysis

At the Drilling Log BH-04, there are 4 types of soil, named Clayey Silt, Silty Clay, Silty Sand and Sand.
Each type of soil has a different value of E' and N-SPT value. So that in the calculations on the finite
element method program the N-SPT data on each layer but with the same soil type is averaged so that
it only becomes 9-layer and uses an Undrained type C modelling analysis. Due to the groundwater level
on the retaining wall at an elevation of ± 8 m.
To determine the design soil parameters, it can be done by correlating the N-SPT data. At point BH-
04 the test results can be seen in the table below and soil data is used to determine soil parameters. Soil
parameters needed to find the value of deformation and tensile capacity are Undrained Shear Strength
(Cu) for Undrained and Effective Shear Strength (cˈ) for Drained, Soil Elasticity Modulus (Eu) for
Undrained and Effective Soil Elasticity Modulus (Eˈ) for Drained, Soil Fill Weight (γ), Inner Shear
Angle (ɸ) for Undrained and Effective Internal Shear Angle (ɸˈ) for Drained, and Poisson's Number (ʋ).
Table 1 shows the results of the N-SPT test.
Table 1. N-SPT results

Elevation Type of Soil N-SPT
1 - 1.45 Clayey Silt 2
1.45 - 3.45 6
Silty Clay
3.45 - 5.45 7
5.45 - 7.45 Clayey Silt 1
7.45 - 9.45 Silty Clay 2
9.45 - 11.45 3
Silty Clay
11.45 - 13.45 5
13.45 - 15.45 4
15.45 - 17.45 20
Clayey Silt
17.45 - 19.45 19
19.45 - 21.28 50
21.28 - 23.25 50
Silty Sand
23.25 - 25.21 50
25.21 - 27.25 50
27.25 - 29.20 Sand 50
29.20 - 31.25 50
31.25 - 33.37 Clayey Silt 50
33.37 - 36.45 21
36.45 - 37.45 24
Silty Clay
37.45 - 38.95 17
38.45 - 40.45 21
To determine the value of deformation and tensile capacity of the foundation, finite element
modelling is used, namely direct foundation modelling without going through the construction process.
The pile parameter is listed in Table 2.
4
Table 2. Contiguous pile parameter

Parameter
Drainage Type Non-Porous
γ Concrete 24 kN/m³
Modulus Young 29725410 kN/m²
Poisson’s Number 0.15
Rinter 0.55
After obtaining the types of soil, the data obtained in each layer is used as an average and is further
classified into 9 layers. Soil data is entered into the finite element method program by making a profile
of each soil and also the thickness of each layer as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Soil parameter

N- γunsat γsat E' cu c'  '
Layer Soil Type Symbol
SPT (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (deg)
1 Clayey Silt 2 MH 11.5 12.5 4640 17.4 3.48 - 19
6 -
2 Silty Clay CH 13.5 14.5 15080 56.55 11.31 29
7 -
3 Clayey Silt 1 MH 11.5 12.5 2320 8.7 1.74 - 17
2
4 Silty Clay 3 CH 12.5 13.5 7733.333 29 5.8 35.67 24
5
4
20
5 Clayey Silt MH 14.625 15.625 53940 202.275 40.455 39.38 45
19
50
50
6 Silty Sand SM 21 22 116000 435 87 43.5 50
50
50
7 Sand 50 GW 21 22 116000 435 87 43.5 50
50
8 Clayey Silt 50 MH 17.5 18.5 116000 435 87 43.5 50
21
24
9 Silty Clay CH 17 18 48140 180.525 36.105 39.5 43
17
21
4.2. Deformation analysis

Retaining wall modelling is done by replacing the soil material in the geometry modelling with concrete
material on the left of the model. The inserted concrete has a width of 0,4 meters because it uses a
diameter of 800 with a depth of 40.5 meters as shown in Figure 1. The soil is entered into the finite
element method according to the correlation in Table 3 by making a profile of each soil and also the
distance of the soil. The model is illustrated in Figure 1.
5
Figure 1. Initial modelling of finite element method
After modelling the retaining wall and the load is applied, the Mesh Generate process is carried out
to divide the elements in the so calculation can be carried out. This process is shown in Figure 2 and the
analysis is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 2. Calculation of finite element method Figure 3. Deformation result
4.3. Comparison of deformation values with inclinometer test results

Once the modelling calculations with the finite element method is done, the deformation value can be
modelled. The model is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Total deformation
Based on actual data from the IC-01 inclinometer test (January 17, 2022) on the B Axis, it shows that
the deformation that occurs is 13.63 mm. This can be seen on the outermost green line which indicates
the result on the final reading of the inclinometer test. The result of the deformation value when
modelling with the Finite Element method is 0.00245 or 24.5mm. This is slightly different from the
results of the inclinometer test because the soil conditions in the field and the finite element method
modelling will be slightly different because they go through the correlation process. The comparison of
both tests is listed in Table 4.
6
Table 4. Inclinometer and modelling comparison results

Mohr - Coulomb
Information Deformation Safety Factor
Inclinometer 13.63 mm 1,5
Finite Element 24.5 mm 1,675
4.4. Mohr – Coulomb safety factor analysis

For the value of the safety factor based on SNI Geotechnical 8460:2017 article 7.5.1 [5], namely, the
stability analysis of the dug hole must consider the live load and dead load according to the needs of the
dug hole and embankment hole. Surcharge load is stated at 10 kN/m2
Figure 5. Safety Factor Results
4.5. Soft and hard soil modelling analysis

To analyze the deformation and safety factor of this retaining wall, a drilling log on BH-04 is used. At
the point of drilling log BH-04 has 2 types of soil, namely: Clayey Silt and Silty Clay with different N-
SPT values and different correlation values. Therefore, the data obtained in each layer but with the same
soil type is made on average so that it only becomes 5-layer because the soft soil in the drilling log is
only found in the top layer. To calculate the soft soil modelling, Mohr Coulomb and Hardening Soil
modelling is also required and using an elevation limit of 19,45 for Soft Soil with a combination of Mohr
Coulomb and Hardening Soil while for soft soil analysis using undrained type A modelling. The use of
undrained type A for soil layers above 8 m while for under 8 m drained type A is used.
To determine the design soil parameters, it can be done by correlating the N-SPT data. At point BH-
04 the test results can be seen in the table below and soil data is used to determine soil parameters. Soil
parameters needed to find the value of deformation and tensile capacity are Compression Index (Cc)
and Development Index (Cs), Soil Density (γ), Effective Internal Shear Angle (ɸˈ), modified
compression index (λ*) and modified swelling index. (К*), and Effective Shear Strength (cˈ). After
getting the types of soil, the data obtained for each layer but with the same soil type is used as an average
so that it only becomes 5 layers and will be collaborated with Mohr Coulomb and Hardening Soil
modelling. Soil is entered into the finite element method program by making a profile of each soil and
also the distance of the soil.
7
Table 5. Soft soil parameter

c' γunsat γsat
Elevation Soil Type N-SPT Cc Cs ' λ* К*
(kN/m2) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)
1 Clayey Silt 2 0.9 0.014 19 0.022 0.004 3.78 11.5 12.5
6
2 Silty Clay 0.12 0.012 29 0.018 0.004 7.56 13.5 14.5
7
3 Clayey Silt 1 0.9 0.014 17 0.02 0.004 2.52 11.5 12.5
2
4 Silty Clay 3 0.13 0.013 24 0.018 0.004 42 12.5 13.5
5
4
5 Clayey Silt 20 0.64 0.064 45 0.0897 0.018 18.06 13.6 14.6
19
Table 6. Hard soil parameter

E50ref Eoedref Eurref γ unsat γ sat c'
Layer Soil Type N-SPT m '
2 2 2 3 3
kN/m kN/m kN/m (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (kN/m2)
1 Clayey Silt 2 18080.6 18080.6 54241.7 1 11.5 12.5 3.48 19
6
2 Silty Clay 4339.33 4339.33 13018 1 13.5 14.5 11.31 29
7
3 Clayey Silt 1 19613.9 19613.9 58841.7 1 11.5 12.5 1.74 17
2
4 Silty Clay 3 22110.2 22110.2 66330.6 1 12.5 13.5 5.8 24
5
4
20
5 Clayey Silt 10297.9 10297.9 30893.6 1 202.275 203.275 40.455 45
19
50
50
6 Silty Sand 12611.7 12611.7 37835 1 21 22 87 50
50
50
7 Sand 50 25223.3 25223.3 75670 0.5 21 22 87 50
50
8 Clayey Silt 50 12611.7 12611.7 37835 1 17.5 18.5 87 50
21
24
9 Silty Clay 2085.33 2085.33 6256 1 17 18 36.105 43
17
21
4.6. Soft and hard soil safety factor analysis

For the value of the safety factor based on SNI Geotechnical 8460:2017 article 7.5.1 [5], namely, the
stability analysis of the dug hole must consider the live load and dead load according to the needs of the
dug hole and embankment hole. The surcharge load is stated at 10 kN/m2.
8
Figure 6. Soft soil safety factor results Figure 7. Hard soil safety factor results
4.7. Comparison of deformation values with inclinometer test results

After performing the modelling calculations with the finite element method, the deformation value is
obtained. For the value of the safety factor based on SNI Geotechnical 8460:2017 article 7.5.1 [5],
namely, the stability analysis of the dug hole must consider the live load and dead load according to the
needs of the dug hole and embankment hole. The surcharge load is stated at 10 kN/m2.
Table 7. Actual comparison results with finite element method

Soft Soil & Mohr – Coulomb
Information Deformation Safety Factor
Inclinometer 13.63 mm 1.5
Finite Element 37.52 mm 1.682
Soft Soil & Hardening Soil
5. Conclusions
From the results of the above analysis using the finite element method accompanied by 4 types of
modelling, it can be concluded that:
a. In Mohr Coulomb modelling using the finite element method, the deformation value is 24.5 mm
with a safety factor of 1.675. However, these results are different from the actual results where
the deformation value is 13.65 mm. This can occur by several factors ranging from the
correlation approach, differences in soil conditions, due to the modelling of the finite element
method it is assumed to be a perfect pile. Although different, the results still meet the
requirements based on SNI Geotechnical 8460:2017, so they can find the minimum value of the
retaining wall safety factor.
b. In the modelling of Soft Soil & Mohr Coulomb and Soft Soil & Hardening Soil using the finite
element method, the deformation values obtained are 33.54 mm and 27.45 with a safety factor
of 1.682. However, these results are different from the actual results where the deformation
value is 13.65 mm. This can occur by several factors ranging from the correlation approach,
differences in soil conditions, due to the modelling of the finite element method it is assumed
to be a perfect pile. Although different, the results still meet the requirements based on SNI
Geotechnical 8460:2017, so they can find the minimum value of the retaining wall safety factor.
c. In the Hardening Soil modelling using the finite element method, the deformation value is 28.81
mm, and the safety factor is 1.7. However, these results are different from the actual results
where the deformation value is 13.65 mm. This can be caused by several factors, starting from
the correlation approach, differences in soil conditions, because the finite element modelling
method is assumed to be a perfect pile. Based on SNI Geotechnical 8460:2017, the pile is still
said to be safe because it is not less than the SNI limit.
9
d. Based on the results of the comparison analysis above, it can be concluded that the deformation
value of the Mohr-Coulomb model is closer to the actual value in the field, followed by the
modelling of Soft Soil & Hardening Soil, Soft Soil & Mohr-Coulomb, and Hardening Soil.
Meanwhile, for the safety factor, it was found that the results of manual calculations were
greater in value than Mohr-Coulomb, Soft Soil & Hardening Soil, Soft Soil & Mohr-Coulomb,
and Hardening Soil.
References
[1] M. Kalalo, J. H. Ticoh, and A. T. Mandagi, “Analisis Stabilitas Dinding Penahan Tanah (Studi
Kasus: Sekitar Areal PT. Trakindo, Desa Maumbi, Kabupaten Minahasa Utara),” J. Sipil Statik,
vol. 5, no. 5, 2017.
[2] P. Hadibroto, “Evaluasi Perhitungan Retaining Wall Sebagai Struktur Penahan Tanah Basement
Apertement Sky View Setia Budi,” 2019, [Online]. Available:
http://repository.uma.ac.id/handle/123456789/11312.
[3] S. P. Agusty, T. A. Pramesti, R. Karlinasari, and A. Rochim, “Analisis Perbandingan Koefisien
Tanah Lateral Menggunakan Metode Perhitungan manual (Numerik) Dan Metode Elemen
Hingga (Plaxis),” Pros. Konstelasi Ilm. Mhs. Unissula Klaster Eng., 2020.
[4] Badan Standarisasi Indonesia, Tata cara pemasangan inklinometer dan pemantauan pergerakan
horisontal tanah, SNI 3404:2008, 2008.
[5] Badan Standarisasi Indonesia, Persyaratan perancangan geoteknik, SNI 8460:2017, 2017.
[6] Godavarthi, V.R., Mallavalli, D., Peddi, R., Katragadda, N., 2011, Contiguous Pile Wall as a
Deep Excavation Supporting System, Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies
10(19):144-160.
[7] R.E. Terzariol, M.E. Zeballos & C. Gerbaudo, 2011, Contiguos Pile Wall in Clayed Silt and
Sandy Silt Soils, Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference.
[8] Elizabeth Eu-Mee Chong, and Dominic Ek-Leong Ong, 2020, Data-Driven Field Observational
Method of a Contiguous Bored Pile Wall System Affected by Accidental Groundwater
Drawdown, Geosciences 2020, 10, 268.
10

Jatnika 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. - Earth Environ. Sci. 1169 012016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jatnika 2023 IOP Conf. Ser. - Earth Environ. Sci. 1169 012016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Influence of geotextile type on strength

- Experimental study of shear band

This content was downloaded from IP address 36.79.72.155 on 26/02/2024 at 00:36

Analysis and evaluation study of retaining wall structures in a

Raihan Alifandika Jatnika1, I Gede Mahardika Susila1

Corresponding author: i.gede@binus.ac.id

Keywords: retaining wall, deformation, contiguous pile

2.1. Retaining wall

2.2. Earth pressure

2.3. Retaining wall stability

2.4. Finite element method

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Mohr Coulomb modelling analysis

Table 1. N-SPT results

Table 2. Contiguous pile parameter

Table 3. Soil parameter

4.2. Deformation analysis

Figure 1. Initial modelling of finite element method

Figure 2. Calculation of finite element method Figure 3. Deformation result

4.3. Comparison of deformation values with inclinometer test results

Figure 4. Total deformation

Table 4. Inclinometer and modelling comparison results

4.4. Mohr – Coulomb safety factor analysis

Figure 5. Safety Factor Results

4.5. Soft and hard soil modelling analysis

Table 5. Soft soil parameter

Table 6. Hard soil parameter

4.6. Soft and hard soil safety factor analysis

4.7. Comparison of deformation values with inclinometer test results

Table 7. Actual comparison results with finite element method

You might also like