1.

RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

1.1. INTRODUCTION
A retaining wall is a structure used to support an excavated area or a lower area of at least
1.2 meters or more from an elevated part of the soil. It provides resistance against lateral
pressure caused by the soil. However, the retaining wall should be designed according to the
different failure modes.

The retaining wall was however designed using Tekla tedds software in accordance with
EN1997-1:2004 and the UK national annex. Parameters and variables were fed in to the
software and analysis was provided attached below in the Annex.

1.2. RETAINING WALL MODES OF FAILURE

a. Overturning: the retaining wall under overturning failure simply fails in bending.

b. Sliding: retaining wall that fails due to sliding often had non cohesive soils. The walls
move out ward with a passive failure of the soil in front of the foundation and active
failure of the soil behind the wall. Often a key is required beneath the foundation to
prevent sliding.

c. Bearing check: It has to be performed due to failure if the soil under the toe of the
foundation and a forward rotation of the wall.

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 1

 d. Over stress: It is usually caused by bending or shear.

e. General stability: this is a check on the slope failure, overall stability and base
stability.

1.3. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

1.3.1. Analytical geometry and variables
This describes the retaining wall details, soil properties, loading details and calculation of the
retaining wall geometry. These are not limited to stem height, toe length, depth of cover and
excavation, soil type, moisture density, frictional angle, permanent surcharge load, variable
surcharge load, effective height of the wall, area of wall base to mention but a few as
described in the annex.

The retaining wall variables or parts that make up a retaining wall as shown below.

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 2

Where:

H: height of the retaining wall

L: width of the base

D: thickness of the base

C: stem thickness at the bottom

T: stem thickness at the top

1.3.2. Approximate proportions of the retaining wall

Before designing, we needed to consider assumptions that we can make in terms of geometry
of the retaining wall that we were designing. It enabled in counterchecking our initial design
considerations should be according to at least the following geometric proportions.

Base width: L=2/3H

Thickness of the base: D=0.10H

Stem thickness at the bottom: C=0.1D

With of the toe: B=0.25L

Width of the toe: t=250mm (minimum)

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 3
Based on the above approximate geometric proportions we assumed the parameters in
accordance as shown in the annex of the software calculations.

1.3.3. Analytical modeling

Sketches of the retaining wall forces should be considered to properly distinguish the
different forces acting on our retaining wall. We have the forces due to soil pressure, due to
water and surcharge load to consider.

Considering the Figure above, the following equations are for the active pressures, Pa and
passive pressure Pp.

 Pa1=1/2 ɣKaH2 →eq. 1, where H is the height of retained soil

 Pa2=1/2 ɣHw2 →eq.2, where Hw is the height of the groundwater level
 Pa3=ωKah →eq.3, where h is the height of surcharge
The passive pressure, Pp would be:

 Pp=1/2 ɣkpHp2 →eq.4

Values of Coefficient of Pressure, ka and kp

According to Rankine and Coulomb Formula, the following are the equation in calculating
the coefficient of pressure:

Ka= (1-sin ф)/(1+sin ф)

Kp= (1+sin ф)/(1-sin ф)

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 4

1.3.4. Design approaches.
Eurocode 7 is based on the limit state design method explained in EN 1990, therefore this
limit state design method will be described together with the design approaches.

For the design of retaining structures, Eurocode 7 describes that the ultimate limit states GEO
and STR must be verified using one of the three design approaches where:

i. STR: internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural members

ii. GEO: failure or excessive deformation of the ground where the strengths of soil or
rock are significant in providing resistance
Design approach (DA) 1 has two combinations namely:

i. Combination 1 (DA 1-1): A1 + M1 + R1

ii. Combination 2 (DA 1-2): A2 + M2 + R1
In combination 1 the partial factors are applied to the actions, so the factor for A1 will be
greater than 1, in combination 2 the partial factors are applied to the material properties such
that the factor for M2 is greater than 1. Note that A1-A2 are the sets for the factors on actions
or effects on actions, M1-M2 are the sets for the factors on material properties and R1-R3 are
the sets for the factors on resistances. The underlined sets have a factor greater than 1.

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 5

1.3.5. Sliding check
The lateral force acting on the system tries to push the system in a direction away from the
retained soil. If the friction developed by the soil at the bottom of the base slab is not
sufficient, then the structure tends to slide.

The friction developed, depends on the self-weight and the weight of the retained soil.
Therefore, for safety against sliding, the ration of the frictional force to the lateral force
should be greater than 2.

RF/SF > 2.0

where:

a. RF: Resisting Force

b. SF: Sliding Force
However, if the system fails to achieve this value, the shear key can be provided at the base.
The passive pressure acting on the shear key will help to resist sliding.
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 6
1.3.6. Overturning check
The lateral pressure acting on the system tends to rotate the system about the toe. This
moment should be revisited by the self-weight of the system. The weight of the retained soil
also contributes to revisiting the overturning moment.

Therefore, for safety, the ratio of the resisting moment to the overturning should be more than
1.5.

RM/OM > 2.0

where:

a. RM: Righting Moment due to the weight of the retaining wall

b. OM: Overturning Moment due to lateral earth pressure
1.3.7. Bearing pressure check
The bearing pressure developed at the base of the system should be less than the bearing
capacity of the soil. If it exceeds, then the soil loses its capacity to hold the structure. The
bearing pressure should be completely compressive in nature, avoiding eccentricity.

The resultant force of the lateral and gravity loads should act within the core of the system
such that no tensile pressure is developed below the base.

Therefore, For the footing to be safe in soil pressure, the maximum soil pressure under
working load shall be less than the allowable soil bearing capacity.

1.3.8. Check stem design at the base of stem

The stem is free at the top end and fixed at the base. The lateral pressures make the stem to
bend away from the retained soil. Therefore, the stem is treated as a vertical cantilever and
designed for the maximum bending moment at the base because tension is developed in the
face near the retained soil.

Area of reinforcement is then calculated to determine the quantity of steel required in the
tension zones as vertical bars and the horizontal steel known as distribution bars. Therefore,
to satisfy the requirements for stem design, the following should be checked as seen in the
annex showing the calculations using teklatedds:

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 7

 i. Rectangular section in flexure. The area of reinforcement provided should be
greater than the area of reinforcement required
ii. Deflection control: the span to depth ration should be less than the deflection control
limit.
iii. Crack control: the maximum crack width should be less than the limiting crack
width.
iv. Rectangular section in shear: The design shear resistance should be greater than the
design shear force.
1.3.9. Check base design at toe
The effect of the weight of the soil above the toe slab will be less when compared to the
bearing pressure and hence the toe slab bends upward. Therefore, the toe slab is designed as a
cantilever slab. Since the slab bends upward, tension is developed on the bottom surface.
Hence the tension steel is provided at the bottom surface perpendicular to the stem.

Therefore, to satisfy the requirements for toe design, the following should be checked as seen
in the annex showing the calculations using teklatedds:

i. Rectangular section in flexure: The area of reinforcement provided should be

greater than the area of reinforcement required.
ii. Crack control: the maximum crack width should be less than the limiting crack
width.
iii. Rectangular section in shear: The design shear resistance should be greater than the
design shear force.
1.3.10. Check base design at heel
The heel is also considered as a cantilever slab. The heel is subjected to surcharge load, the
weight of the retained soil from the top and the soil bearing pressure from the bottom. Since
the structure is used to retain soil of larger depth, the effect of soil weight on the heel will be
more when compared to bearing pressure. Thus the heel bends downward. Therefore, tension
is developed on the top surface.

Therefore, the tension steel should be provided on the top in the direction perpendicular to the
stem. Distribution steel will be provided in the other direction. Therefore, to satisfy the
requirements for toe design, the following should be checked as seen in the annex showing
the calculations using teklatedds:

i. Rectangular section in flexure: The area of reinforcement provided should be

greater than the area of reinforcement required.

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 8

 ii. Crack control: the maximum crack width should be less than the limiting crack
width.
iii. Rectangular section in shear: The design shear resistance should be greater than the
design shear force.
iv. Secondary transverse reinforcement to the base: the area of reinforcement
provided should be greater than the area of reinforcement required

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 9

ANNEX

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 10

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 11
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 12
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 13
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 14
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 15
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 16
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 17
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 18
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 19
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 20
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 21
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 22
 2. PAVEMENT DESIGN

2.1. INTRODUCTION
The design of a concrete parking lot pavement entails selecting dimensions and other details
to provide a slab that will adequately carry the anticipated traffic on the subgrade, provide the
correct types of joints in the proper locations, channel and segregate traffic where needed,
incorporate required drainage features and lighting, and allow for efficient and economical
construction. The most important aspect of the structural design for pavement is selecting the
appropriate thickness. Excessive thickness can result in unjustifiable construction cost.
Inadequate thickness will result in unsatisfactory performance and expense, premature
maintenance, or replacement. Selection of the appropriate thickness requires careful
evaluation of soil conditions and traffic, as well as the selection of appropriate concrete
properties and design life.

Selecting the proper pavement thickness will result in a slab that supports the heaviest
anticipated loads by distributing the loads over the subgrade soil without inducing excessive
stress in the slab. Joints or cracks between joints produce discontinuities in the slab. Loads
crossing these discontinuities cause increased deflections and stresses in the slab and in the
subgrade below. Repeated deflections of a slab edge or joint and the resulting displacement
of the subgrade can eventually cause fatigue cracking in the slab and faulting at the joint.
Proper thickness provides adequate stiffness to minimize fatigue and joint faulting during the
design life of the pavement. Faulted joints or occasional cracks are probably not as
objectionable in a parking lot as on a street or highway because parking lot traffic moves
slowly.

Another inherent characteristic of concrete slabs that affects stresses is the differential
volume changes of upper and lower surfaces due to differences in moisture content and
temperature. Differential shrinkage or expansion can cause slab corners and edges to deflect
up or down relative to the slab center. The tendency for this warping or curling is decreased
by reducing the size of individual slabs or by increasing slab thickness. As a practical matter,
there is no benefit in building slabs less than 4 in. (100 mm) thick. Thinner slabs do not
significantly reduce construction costs, and because of their tendency to warp and curl, are
extremely vulnerable to inadvertent overloads and variations in subgrade support. The

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 23

detrimental effects of concrete thickness variations that result from typical surface
irregularities of the prepared subgrade are also magnified.

Methods used to select an appropriate concrete pavement thickness relate concrete stresses
and fatigue characteristics to the nature of the underlying subgrade, the strength of the
concrete, and the magnitude and location of pavement loadings. They have been developed
and refined using experimental and performance data as well as theoretical models. Such
methods have generally been intended for the design of street and highway pavements, but
are also useful for parking lot design.

2.2. CONSIDERATIONS FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN OF PARKING LOTS

2.2.1. Pavement stresses
Thickness design of pavement is intended to limit slab tensile stresses produced by vehicular
loading. Model studies, as well as full-scale accelerated traffic tests, have shown that
maximum tensile stresses in concrete pavement occur when vehicle wheels are close to a free
or unsupported edge of the pavement. Stresses resulting from wheel loadings applied near
interior joints are generally less severe due to load transfer across the joints. The critical
stress condition occurs when a wheel load is applied near the intersection of a joint and the
pavement edge. Because parking areas have relatively little area adjacent to free edges and
vehicle loads are applied mostly to interior slabs, pavements should be designed assuming
supported edges. At the outside edges or at entrances, integral curbs or thickened edge
sections can be used to decrease stresses. Thermal expansion and contraction of the pavement
and warping or curling caused by moisture and temperature differentials within the pavement
cause other stresses that are not addressed directly in thickness design. Proper jointing
reduces these stresses.

2.2.2. Traffic loads

A pavement will be subjected to varying, but predictable, vehicular loads throughout its
lifetime. To determine the pavement thickness, the designer needs to know the types of
vehicles that will use the pavement (such as passenger cars, light trucks, heavy trucks, and
school or commuter buses), the number of trips for each vehicle type, vehicular loads, and the
daily volume or total volume anticipated for the facility over the design life. The owner’s

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 24

projections of the type of traffic expected to use a facility, supplemented by traffic studies or
counts for similar facilities, should provide adequate design traffic estimates.

2.2.3. Subgrade support

The subgrade is the underlying surface of soil or existing pavement on which the parking lot
pavement is constructed. The ability of the subgrade soil to uniformly support the loads
applied to it through the pavement is extremely important and affects both the required
pavement thickness and the performance of the pavement. Uniform subgrade support is the
goal of site preparation. For example, a designer can require grading operations to blend soil
types to improve uniformity. Information on the engineering properties of the soil on a
particular project can be obtained from foundation investigations for buildings constructed at
the site or geotechnical investigations conducted for adjacent roads or buildings. It is
recommended, however, that actual soil conditions and subgrade properties be determined by
appropriate soils testing on the area to be paved.

The extent of the geotechnical investigation will be determined by the magnitude of the
project. A geotechnical investigation should include the identification and the properties of
in-place soils and their suitability for use as a subgrade. The soil should generally be
classified according to one of the standardized systems such as the Unified or AASHTO
systems. Soil properties, such as liquid and plastic limits, moisture-density relationships,
expansion characteristics, susceptibility to pumping, and susceptibility to frost action should
be determined by standard BS or AASHTO tests. The relative bearing capacity expressed in
terms of modulus of subgrade reaction k, CBR, resistance value R, or SSV should be
determined. For projects designed for light traffic loads only or where extensive soil testing is
impractical or economically unjustified considering the project scope, the selected value can
be estimated. Conservatism is advised in making such estimates. Table 3.1 shows ranges of
values for several types of soil (Portland Cement Association 1984a,b; American Concrete
Pavement Association 1982). The value used will be for the subgrade compacted to the
specified density. Fine-grained soils, such as clays or silts, are usually compacted to 95% of
maximum dry density using standard effort as determined by ASTM D698. A higher density
may sometimes be specified for heavier traffic pavements or for materials that are more
easily compacted and, alternatively, a maximum dry density using modified effort as
determined by ASTM D1557 may be specified, resulting in a higher soil unit weight.
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 25
It probably is not economical to use imported subbase material or to chemically treat the
subgrade for the sole purpose of increasing k values, though such measures are sometimes
used to improve the contractor’s working platform or to reduce subgrade susceptibility to
pumping and erosion. If a subbase or treated subgrade is used, the increased support it
provides should be considered in the thickness design. Table 3.2 is indicative of the effects of
subbases on k values (Portland Cement Association 1984a, b; Federal Aviation
Administration 1978). Note that increases in subbase thickness do not result in proportional k
value improvement. For example, for a subgrade having a k value of 100 psi/in. (27 MPa/m),
tripling the thickness of a 4 in. (100 mm) granular subbase to 12 in. (300 mm) results in an
increase of k value from 130 psi/in. (35 MPa/m) to only 190 psi/in. (51 MPa/m).

2.2.4. Concrete properties

Concrete mixtures for paving should be designed to produce the required flexural strength,
provide adequate durability, and have appropriate workability considering the placement and
finishing equipment to be used. Loads applied to concrete pavement produce both
compressive and flexural stresses in the slab; however, flexural stresses are more critical
because heavy loads will induce flexural stresses that may be a significant percentage of the
concrete flexural strength, whereas compressive stresses remain small in relation to the
compressive strength of the concrete. Consequently, flexural strength or modulus of rupture
(MOR) of the concrete is used in pavement design to determine the required thickness.

Flexural strength is determined by the MOR test in accordance with ASTM C78. The 28-day
strength is normally selected as the design strength for pavements, but this is conservative
because concrete usually continues to gain strength, and the pavement may not be placed in
service until after 28 days. While design of pavements is generally based on flexural strength
of concrete, compressive strength testing is typically used for quality control in the field, and
is preferred because it is less costly, with less testing-induced variability. The correlation
between compressive strength and flexural strength for a given concrete mixture is consistent
and should be understood. On projects designed for heavy traffic that are large enough to
economically benefit from refinement of the MOR value used in thickness design, a
correlation between flexural strength and compressive strength should be developed from
laboratory tests on the specific concrete mixture to be used. On other projects, especially
those that will accommodate little truck traffic or where the mixture of traffic loads may not
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 26
be well known, it may be more practical to assume an approximate, but conservative,
relationship between compressive strength fc′ and flexural strength MOR (refer to Eq. (3-1)
and (3-2)).

It is a generally accepted principle in concrete mixture proportioning that the coarse

aggregate type has a greater influence on the flexural strength than on the compressive
strengths as compared with smooth-textured and round- shaped coarse aggregates.
Goldbeck (1988) noted that the reason for higher margins of flexural strength associated with
rough-surfaced and angular-shaped aggregates is the enhanced mechanical bond between the
cementitious paste and the aggregates.

For concrete made with most smooth-textured, round- shaped aggregates, an approximate
relationship between specified c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h f c ′ and M O R c a n b e
expressed using the equations below

MOR (psi) = 10 fc′ (in.-lb units)

MOR (MPa) = 0.8 fc′ (SI units)

If no information is available to the designer about coarse aggregates to be used in project

concrete, the lower MOR assumptions are recommended as more conservative. Higher MOR
values (as produced by Eq. (3-2)) may be used if there is documentation or field experience
showing that these higher MOR values can be anticipated with the aggregates to be used,
and the resulting pavement section may be slightly thinner. Additional discussion of
approximations of MOR appears in various pavement design resources (Goeb 1989).

2.3. PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR DEAN’S PARKING LOT

2.3.1. Introduction
Thickness design for the concrete pavement was based on laboratory studies, load tests, and
surveys of pavement performance. Commonly used procedures include the AASHTO
method, which was developed from data obtained at the AASHO Road Test (Highway
Research Board 1962), and methods based on calculated stresses and fatigue resistance such
as the Portland Cement Association Design Procedure (Portland Cement Association 1984a,
b). Other methods have been used, such as the Brokaw Method (Brokaw 1973), which is
based on surveys of the performance of plain concrete pavements in use throughout the
FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 27
country. While most of these design methods were developed for analyzing and designing
pavements for streets and highways, the research behind them has included thin pavements,
and they can be used for parking lot design. The different design procedures generally give
similar thicknesses. Huang (2004), however, noted that the AASHTO method values are
unconservative for lightly-trafficked pavements like our parking lot, and produce less
reasonable results than Portland Cement Association methods.

Concrete pavements can be classified as plain or reinforced, depending on whether or not the
concrete contains distributed steel reinforcement. Plain pavements can be divided into those
with or without load-transfer devices at the joints. Those with load-transfer devices are
usually referred to as plain-doweled pavements. The aforementioned design methods can be
used for plain or reinforced pavements because the presence or lack of distributed steel
reinforcement has no useful effect on the load-carrying capacity or thickness. Joint design,
however, is affected by the presence of distributed reinforcement. The use of load-transfer
devices may sometimes enable pavement thickness to be reduced, but the devices are costly
and not normally used in light-duty pavements.

2.3.2. Pavement thickness selection

Tables A and B have been adopted to facilitate the selection of an appropriate pavement
thickness for the types of traffic and soil conditions encountered in the parking lot. Table A
lists four different traffic categories that range from passenger cars and light trucks to heavy
trucks. Table B gives recommended pavement thicknesses for large and small numbers of
trucks per day in four different traffic categories and six different categories of subgrade
support, ranging from very high to low. The high values of subgrade support can apply to
treated subbases or existing flexible pavement. The levels of subgrade support were related
to Table C, which lists the estimated support values for the most commonly occurring
subgrade soil types. The thicknesses shown are based on flexural strengths ranging from 500
to 650 psi (3.5 to 4.5 MPa) at 28 days, which correspond to compressive strengths between
approximately 3500 and 5000 psi (24 and 34 MPa) based on approximations for relating
compressive and flexural strength. Approximate cost comparisons indicate that the lower-
strength concrete can sometimes be justified in areas where freezing-and-thawing
resistance is not important. Changes in modulus of rupture, however, affect the required
concrete thickness and the capacity. A designer should determine whether it is more cost

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 28

effective to increase strength or thickness, taking into account the other benefits of high
strength such as improved durability. Table 3.4 can be used to assist the designer in this
determination

Table 2-1:Subgrade soil types and approximate support values (Portland Cement
Association ,1984; American Concrete Pavement Association, 1982)

According to our geotechnical investigations report , the existing subgrade material was
classified as Sandy Clay and with an average CBR value of 10 which puts our subgrade in
category 3 as highlighted in Table 1-1.

Table 2-2: Modulus of subgrade reaction k

Considering results from Table 1-1, a 4-inch (100mm) subbase was considered sufficient for
the existing subgrade as classified by Table 1-1.Table 2-3: Traffic categories

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 29

Considering classification in the table above, Category A was chosen for our parking lot
pavement design.

Table 2-4: 20-year design thickness recommendations

From the results of table 1-3, a 4.5 inch(115mm) thick concrete pavement slab was
recommended for our pavement. However , from the market research conducted by the team ,
we could only obtain a maximu of 80mm thick pavers for our pavement therefore a thickness
of 80mm was adopted instead of the recommended 115mm.

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 30

 Table 2-5: Summary of Pavement Design Parameters

Value Recommended thickness Adopted thickness

Parameter

Top slab 115mm 80mm

Base/Filter layer 30mm 30mm

Subbase 100mm 150mm

Total Thickness 245mm 260mm

2.4. OTHER PAVEMENT DESIGN FEATURES

2.4.1. Surface drainage
It is vital to establish grades that will ensure drainage of parking lots. The design and
construction should provide a parking area that is fast-draining, quick-drying, and puddle-
free. The drainage design plan should be coordinated with the jointing plan to avoid the
channeling of surface water along a joint. Where environmental conditions dictate, parking
lots can be designed to hold storm water for regulated release using pervious concrete. (ACI
522R)

2.4.2. Pavement slope

To prevent puddling of water, the minimum pavement slope used was 2% or 1/4 in./ft (6
mm/300 mm) wherever possible. Minimal slopes were used because a concrete surface
maintains its shape, provided that the subgrade support remains uniform. Minimal slopes can
reduce the amount of earthwork during construction and can result in greater spacing of
drainage inlets.

To prevent vehicles from dragging on the pavement, entrance slopes did not abruptly change
by more than 6% without the use of vertical curves. Driveways and the entrance were sloped
up to 6% as well as for areas where vehicles park.

Disabled accessible (handicapped) spaces were designed with a maximum slope of 2.5% in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 31

2.4.3. Curbs
Large parking lots require special features to control, channel, and segregate traffic; to keep
parked vehicles on the pavement; to collect runoff; and to provide spaces for landscaping.
These functions are usually fulfilled by edge curbs and islands formed by interior curbs.
Islands can be paved or landscaped.

Curbs on any parking lot confine traffic to the paved surfaces and can direct the flow of
runoff. Curbs can perform the function of confining the pavement structure. Preferably, curbs
are constructed monolithically with pavement slabs, but they can be constructed separately.
Curb and gutter sections are sometimes constructed first and then used as side forms for
paving parking slabs. When used with concrete pavement, monolithic curbs or curb and
gutter sections tied to the pavement with tie bars provide structural stiffness to the edges of
the pavement.

Curbs are constructed in many shapes, but the predominant types are mountable (roll type)
curbs and barrier (straight) curbs. Mountable curbs are preferred by many people for their
appearance, and they are easier to construct by the slipform method. Barrier curbs can also be
slip formed, but the process is easier if there is a slight batter to the exposed faces of the
curbs. A description of the most commonly used curb sections is found elsewhere. (Canadian
Portland Cement Association 1978)

Table 2-6: Table of contributing members

LUKWAGO ABUBAKER M 19/U/ECD /18192 /GV

VUCHIRI ANDREW OLOYA 19/U/ECD/20270/PD
OKWARE REMIGIO 18/U/ECD/9002/PD
OWOO RONALD 20/U/ECE/11937/PE
OJUKU CALVIN BRUNO 18/U/ECD/9030/PD

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 32

FINAL YEAR GROUP PROJECT REPORT 33