Annexure-1
EARTHCON SYSTEMS (I) Pvt. Ltd.
D40, Okhla Phase 1, Delhi 110 020
e-mail: info@[Link]
web: [Link]
Recommendation for Gap
Slab and Approach Slab
Technical Note 1
Rev. 0
13th May’2020
Rajiv Goel
48
Recommendation for Gap Slab and Approach Slab
Whenever the abutment pier is designed with pile foundations, it is customary to place closing
wall behind the pile cap. This creates a gap between the closing wall and the dirt wall. A gap
slab is invariably provided to bridge this gap. This gap can vary from 1m to 5m.
Some structural engineers are using a bank seat to support this gap slab on one side and the
approach slab on the other. This bank seat sits about a meter behind the closing wall. The
concept seems to be an extension of the bank seat used in true abutments wherein a bridge
span is supported on RS walls.
The bank seat crates problem in construction because it interferes with the soil reinforcing
elements of both long walls and closing wall. So, this practically renders this scheme
unworkable. However, the practice is going on without realizing how it should be
implemented in the field.
The other disadvantage of the bank seat is that it creates a line load over the reinforced fill
1 of 5
close to the closing wall. Let us admit that the closing walls and the adjoining long walls in the
immediate vicinity are not designed as per the true abutment design procedures of RS walls
and are designed using uniform dead load surcharge ONLY.
Page
49
At times it has been noticed that after the construction of RS walls is completed, the
structures team mobilizes to construct the bank seat, gap slab and approach slab etc. The
structures team cuts open the RS wall embankment and creates space for construction of
back seat by removing the soil along with soil reinforcing elements! In one instance, even the
long wall panels were cut to construct bank seat as per the dwgs.
2 of 5
Page
50
It is obvious that the use of bank seat in the present form is not a good arrangement. It is
proposed to make Gap Slab and Approach Slab monolithic and with this we can eliminate the
bank seat and achieve a uniform load distribution as well.
3 of 5
Page
51
52
Page
4 of 5
53
Page
5 of 5
EARTHCON SYSTEMS (I) Pvt. Ltd.
D40, Okhla Phase 1, Delhi 110 020
e-mail: info@[Link]
web: [Link]
Recommendation for
Construction of Crash
Barrier and Approach Slab
Near VUP/ LVUP
Technical Note 2
Rev. 0
20th May’2020
Rajiv Goel
54
Recommendation for Construction of Crash Barrier
and Approach Slab Near VUP/ LVUP
Near the VUPs, and as a matter of fact for any box type structure, there is no closing RS wall.
The box wall is designed and used to support the earth pressure from the earth fill. The RS
walls are constructed in the longitudinal direction only.
As the construction of box type structure precedes the RS walls’ construction, a couple of
issues are faced later while constructing longitudinal direction RS walls, as listed below:
i. The corbel/ bracket is cast matching the outside face of the box and interferes with
the RS wall fascia placement. Most of the times the fascia panel is cut shabbily at
site to suit corbel profile.
ii. The approach slab is cast-in-situ and tends to rest on the RS wall panels.
iii. The outer profile of the crash barriers placed beyond the approach slab does not
match with the outer profile of the crash barrier cast over the approach slab. This
results in aesthetics being compromised. (Refer Pictures 1 to 4)
Picture 1: The Approach Slab (AS) is cast-in-situ with Crash Barrier (CB) to be
cast in second stage, the corbel/ bracket to support the approach slab is very
1 of 5
much visible and the RS wall fascia panels are cut to match its profile
Page
55
Picture 2: The AS is
cast-in-situ with CB to
be cast in second stage.
The AS is clearly resting
on RS wall panels, the
corbel is also visible,
please notice the profile
of CB already placed
beyond the AS and it is
clear that the profile of
the CB to be cast over
AS will not match with
this profile
Picture 3: Relatively better detailing compared to
above, corbel still visible and a small piece of in-situ
CB is still at variance with its neighbours
Picture 4: The AS is cast-in-
situ with CB to be cast in
second stage. The AS is
clearly resting on RS wall
panels, the corbel is also
visible, please notice the
profile of CB already
placed beyond the AS and
it is clear that the profile of
the CB to be cast over AS
will not match with this
profile. It is very much
2 of 5
obvious by now that the
corbel is a major issue
while placing the fascia,
panels or blocks
Page
56
Two areas of concern can be identified as:
i. The corbel/ bracket is visible from outside and interferes with fascia placement
ii. The profile of CB cast over the AS is at variance to the CB profile on its either ends
i.e. towards the VUP and towards the approach side as well
It is proposed to improve the above detail as suggested below: (refer images 1 to 4)
i. The corbel for supporting the approach slab is cast 500mm short of the outer edge.
ii. Precast crash barriers are placed over RS walls leaving a gap of 325mm from the
box face. It is not possible to place crash barrier right next to the edge of box
because the friction slab shall foul with the corbel inside.
iii. The crash barrier in the gap thus left between the box face and precast crash
barrier (about 300mm) is cast monolithic with the box walls. The outer profile of
this crash barrier is same as that for the precast crash barrier.
iv. This 300mm long piece of crash barrier is also monolithic with the crash barrier
cast over the box unit. Thus, if the total width of box including the walls’ thickness
is 8m, the length of the crash barrier is 8.6m, which is monolithic with box.
Some of the advantages of the above proposed scheme are as listed below:
i. The corbel is not visible from outside. Thus, the fascia panel can be placed neatly
abutting the box face.
ii. The outer profile of the crash barrier is uniform over the entire length of RS walls.
iii. The problem of approach slab getting rested on the RS wall fascia is eliminated.
Alternately the corbel can be eliminated altogether as shown in the Sketch 1.
Sketch 1: Alternate
detailing to eliminate
corbel. The RS wall facia
can be placed without any
interference of corbel. The
CB over the box shall be for
full width of box i.e.
including the box walls’
thicknesses. The width of
the AS shall be overall width
3 of 5
of carriageway less 500m
on either end. The CB over
RS wall shall have uniform
Page
profile.
57
Image 1: Isometric view of the proposed arrangement, the crash barrier over the VUP is
extended by 300mm on either end beyond the VUP walls. The precast crash barrier is
placed over the RS walls’ fascia beyond this. The corbel is not visible from outside
4 of 5
Page
Image 2: Isometric view of the proposed arrangement, enlarged
58
Image 3: Isometric view of the proposed arrangement from inside. The crash barrier
over the VUP is extended by 300mm on either end beyond the VUP walls. This extended
piece of CB is monolithic with VUP walls and the CB over it.
5 of 5
Image 4: Close up from outside and inside. Please note the corbel is 500mm short of the
outer face. Also, the outer profile of the CB (300mm long) is same as that of the precast
Page
crash barrier placed next to it. This will ensure seamless integration of two types of CBs.
59