Design and Performance of a Retaining Wall

887 Words2 Pages

Case Study: Design and performance of a 46m High MSE Wall

Location and Purpose for Retaining wall measurement
The Seattle – Tacoma International Airport (STIA) is located in SeaTac, Washington. This airport required an expansion because of the limitations to the distances between the existing runways due to the inclement weather conditions. So a third runway was constructed to the west of the two existing runways. The third runway embankment construction included the three MSE wall.
The following are the three MSE walls:
• Single tier 58ft high south MSE wall
• Vertical two-tier 85ft high north wall
• Vertical four-tier 150 ft high west MSE wall
In this study, the third runway was constructed on a significant volume of the compacted earth fill that was required to raise the grade to a maximum of about 165 ft to meet the level of the existing runway. The west MSE wall was constructed to avoid the relocation of the creek and a wetland enhancements were required elsewhere to compensate for the impacted wetland area. The west MSE wall which forms part of the western boundary of the third runway embankment. This wall construction required approximately 1,430 ft (436 m)long, four-tier MSE wall up to 150 ft (45.7m) tall. The total area of the wall face was approximately 130,200 ft2 (12,100 m2). The exposed height of the MSE wall is 137.5ft (41.9m). Prior to construction of the MSE wall the soil consisted of soft peat interlayered with loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy peat. Figure 1: Perspective aerial photo of the new third runway at STIA viewed from the northwest and showing the north and west MSE walls

Instrumentation and Measurements

The objective of the monitoring program was to evaluate the wall performance during a...

... middle of paper ...

... reinforcing strips in the upper three tiers have shown a decrease in strain at a distance of about 42.7 – 68.9 ft behind the toe of the wall. And an additional tensile strain reduction was also observed at a distance ranging from 95.1 – 104.9 ft behind the toe of the wall.
Conclusions:
1. Geotechnical instrumentation, including wall surveys, inclinometer installations with sondex settlement rings, piezometers, and strain gages on reinforcing strips, provided the design and construction team with the information required to verify performance of the wall relative to design as construction progressed.
2. Dense to very dense natural and compacted foundation soils had settled a maximum of 4inches or four-tenths of a percent of the wall height. By the comparison of the

Works Cited

http://www.hartcrowser.com/assets/instrumentation_and_performance_north_mse_wall.pdf

Open Document