Geosynthetics and Reinforced Soil Structures

Prof. K. Rajagopal
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras

Lecture - 11
Design Codes for Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls

Hello students, very good morning to all of you. The previous lectures, we have
been discussing about the different types of retaining walls and their advantages, and
now let us continue the discussion in this lecture.

(Refer Slide Time: 00:29)

And see what are all the design methods that are available. Just a brief outline of today’s
lecture, different standards for the reinforced soil retaining walls. And then what are the
materials that are required for constructing these walls, and then the fundamentals of
their pressures, and then the stability analysis of the reinforced soil retaining walls.
(Refer Slide Time: 00:55)

There are very large varieties of design methods that are available, and two most popular
ones at least as far as the practice of reinforced soil structures in India is concerned; one
is the BS 8006, that is the British standard 8006. The title of this is the
strengthened reinforced soils and other fills the British code of practice first published
in 1995 and significantly updated in the year 2006.

And the other one is the Federal Highway Administration Guidelines and the
mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes design and
construction guidelines, this was published in 2001 and frequently updated. Then, the
one design code that is especially suitable for design of the reinforced retaining
walls using modular blocks is the segmental retaining walls.

This was prepared by National Concrete Masonry Association in USA in 2009 the
latest version is 2009, the earlier versions they have been publishing this right from
1993, and this particular one is only meant for retaining walls built using segmental
block walls. And then the more recent update, the Federal Highway Administration is
the NCHRP report and the seismic analysis and design of retaining walls buried
structures slopes and embankments, this was published in the year 2008.
(Refer Slide Time: 02:47)

This is actually, the most two popular ones are the BS code, that is the BS 8006 and the
other one is the FHWA design code, and some of the features in the BS code is that, it
is based on the limit state approach. That is we look at all the limiting stresses and
limiting loads and we look at the load factors, which are invariably linked to the
reliability of the designs and so on.

And the BS code is quite extensive and it covers both the polymeric and metallic
reinforcements and it is meant for design of retaining walls, steep slopes, and also
the anchored earth walls, because these are the anchored earth, as you have seen earlier
these are with reinforcement layer attached with an anchor at the end so that we can
mobilize higher tensile forces in the reinforcement layers and unfortunately although
this design code is quite extensive it does not discuss the aspects related to the seismic
analysis, that is one of the major limitation of this code, whereas the Federal Highway
Administration Code is based on factor of safety approach that is very similar to the
designs that we normally follow for design of as per the IS codes. So, we are very
familiar with the factor of safety approach and it covers both metallic and polymeric
reinforcements materials, reinforced anchored earth, so if you want to calculate the
passive forces and other things we have to refer to the BS code.

And in terms of the soil requirements the FHWA code is slightly a bit more tolerant,
for the percentage of fines that we can allow and the seismic design is also included. So
we
 can, if you have any design along with the seismic activities we can use the FHWA
and invariably, because not all the aspects of the reinforced soils are covered in any
single code we try to interchange. At least those which are not covered by one particular
design code, we try to follow the approach given by the other design codes and we
need to combine some of these, and the other design codes that are equally elaborate
are the French codes and then the German codes.

(Refer Slide Time: 05:38)

Well, these are some of the major differences between the British standard BS 8006 and
the Federal Highway Administration Design code FHWA; one is the limit state design and
the other is the lumped factor of safety approach. And in the BS code we do not do check
for overturning and eccentricity, that is typically when we design the retaining walls,
as you may recall from your geotechnical engineering courses, we do check for the
overturning of the retaining wall, and we also check for the eccentricity in the in the
way the vertical load is distributed at the base of the retaining wall, and those aspects
are not checked in the British code. Whereas in the Federal Highway Administration
code, we check for overturning effect and also the eccentricity, and because of this, the
resulting vertical pressure calculations are very highly simplified in the British code, we
just look at the vertical stress as the Ɣ z plus the applied uniform surcharge that is Ɣ z +
ws or q which remains constant.
Whereas in the Federal Highway Administration code the vertical pressures are
calculated as per the Meyerhoff’s approach, it is assumed that the vertical loads are
distributed only over a base width equal to b minus 2 e, where e is the eccentricity. And
here since we use L for the length of the reinforcement, and instead of using the b, we
use the length of the reinforced block itself as the base width.

And the vertical stress is calculated as R v that is the total load applied per unit length in
the perpendicular direction to the plane of analysis divided by L minus 2 e, where L is
the length of the reinforced block and e is the eccentricity, and we will see how to apply
this bit later on when we do the calculations.

(Refer Slide Time: 08:07)

And the soil gradation requirements are listed here, on the left hand side the British code,
on the right hand side the American code Federal Highway Administration, and as we
have seen earlier we prefer to use highly granular soil because only this granular soils,
they have very good interaction with the reinforcement and we have seen theoretically
that when the friction angle Φ is greater than 0, the amount of mobilized reinforcement
forces are much higher and because of that all the design codes they recommend using
highly granular soils.

In the BS code, the requirements are like this, that if you look at the bottom end of
the requirements the 600 microns, that is 0.6 millimeters it allows 0 to 25 percent. And
then 63 microns is only up to 0 to 12 percent, that is in the BS code they do not use
the 75
microns size as the standard in the Indian code and American codes, they go up to 63
microns. And the percentage fines they allow is only 12 percent, whereas the Federal
Highway Administration is essential at the top of, the gradation requirements are more
or less the same.

But at the bottom if you see 0.425 millimeters that is 425 microns up to 60 percent fines
are allowed and the 75 microns size we allow up to 0 to 15 percent fines, finer than 75
microns, and the plasticity index that is allowed is less than 6 percent in both the BS
code and also the American code.

(Refer Slide Time: 10:19)

Well, along with the gradation requirements, all the design codes, they also
recommend some other properties that is the electrochemical properties of the soils. The
reason why the electrochemical properties are also recommended is that most of the
resistant the corrosion of for the metallic reinforcements is because of the
electrochemical nature of the soils.

And especially this is very critical when we use steel reinforcement, the resistivity of the
soil should be greater than 3000 ohm centimeter, and as we already know, the clay
soil, they have very low resistance, they can allow the electrical currents to pass
through because of their the charge that is there on the surfaces. Whereas, the granular
soils like sand, they have very high resistance, the pH should be in the range of 5
to 10, the chlorides content should be less than 100 ppm, and the sulphates contents
should be less
than 200 ppm, and organic content should be less than 1 percent, and the plasticity index
as we discussed earlier should be less than 6 percent.

And the same limits, when we use polymeric type reinforcement the for the polyester
the pH is should be in the range of 3 to 9 and the polyolefin, that is the polypropylene or
the high density polyethylene the pH should be greater than 3 is actually the
electrochemical requirements are more stringent when we use metallic reinforcement,
whereas when it comes to the polymeric reinforcements we do not need to be, so
stringent because the plastics they do not interact with the soil directly or indirectly.

(Refer Slide Time: 12:23)

Well what are the suitable types of backfills apart from these requirements? Let us look
at some other requirements. The soil should be granular, so that it has good
permeability and if it is granular, it has lesser corrosive effect on reinforcement, mainly
because it has, does not have too much of electrochemical properties that will
adversely affect the materials that we put in. And the, if the soil is highly granular it
provides for a good drainage, and it minimizes the hydrostatic pressures on the retaining
structures.

And as we know the lateral at the pressures by considering hydrostatic pressures, we find
that they are very, very high because the lateral at the pressure are constant for the soils
is very low of the order of one third to about may be one half whereas, for water it
is one because of the hydrostatic pressures. And the reason why we recommend the
soils with
a very low plasticity index value is that the volume changes that a soil undergoes,
because of the changes in the moisture contents, they can be directly related to the PI.

That is the plasticity index, because the PI is also dependent on the fines content, and we
should not allow too much of both expansive t y p e of volumetric strains that is the
volume increase or contractive shrinkage. Both could be a disaster or the service,
serviceability of the structure, may not be satisfied, if there are too much of volume
changes, because if there is volume expansion the entire facing panels, they get
pushed out. And then the surface may heave up and if there are too many contract too
much of shrinkage cracks that happen, there may be some settlements and both should
not be allowed.

And the way we put a check on this type of deformations is by controlling the
plasticity index, and the, although we recommend that the soil should be granular, it
should not have too many large size particles mainly because it becomes difficult
compact and we may not be able to achieve very good compaction in terms of the
proctor densities. And also the installation damage of the geosynthetics may be very
high, if you have very large size particles that we have seen earlier that the installation
damage factors are usually less or low for soils like sands and other things are sills
whereas, for railway ballast these installation damage factors are much higher.

(Refer Slide Time: 15:48)

And when it comes to design we need to use appropriate shear strength properties and
what properties do we use for the design of the retaining walls, the codes, they
recommend that we use the shear strength properties from the direct shear test, mainly,
because the stress state behind the retained walls is very similar to the stress state that
exists in the direct shear box test, where, in both the cases the strain of the soil along
the length of retaining retaining wall is negligible, and the same way in the case of
direct shear box test, because of the rigid nature of the box the strain in the outer plane
direction is negligible or 0 whereas, there is a shear strain in the direction of the
loading. And the, we know that there are two types of friction angles, one is the
peak friction angle corresponding to the peak of the stress strain curve, and the
other one the constant volume of friction angle at very large strains.

And the codes recommend the usage of the peak friction angle, mainly because the
amount of deformations that we require for mobilizing the active forces are very small,
and because of the provision of reinforcement, the lateral deformations are not very
high. But, then when you expect very large deformations say for example if you are
using a the reinforcement materials that are very flexible in that case the lateral strains
may be high or in some cases where we build our structure on extremely soft
foundation soil that may lead to large vertical and lateral deformations, we need to use
constant volume friction angles.

And what do we do with the cohesion, because out shear strength properties it
consist, they consist of cohesion and the friction angle, and cohesion is usually
neglected as it gives us some additional factor of safety in our designs. Unless the soil is
such that it has very large cohesion and that can be relied upon we should not use the
cohesion in our design calculations.
(Refer Slide Time: 18:34)

When we use a steel reinforcement we should expect some corrosion to take place and
the effect of corrosion is the loss of thickness of the material that is available, and all
the design codes their recommend certain loss in the surface thickness. As the time
elapses, and a brief extract from the BS code BS 8006 is reproduced here, for different
grades of steel.

It is actually B stands for un galvanized steel and the G is with the galvanized steel and S
is stainless steel, and then there are two exposure conditions that are given that is for the
land based structures which are not directly in contact with the water. And then those
structures which are in contact with water, like for example, we may build some
retaining walls as lake front structures or as river front structures and depending on the
exposure conditions.

And then the depending on the type of treatment that is given to the steel or to the metal
we have these sacrificial thicknesses, and this thickness should, this reduction in the
thickness should be applied on all the exposed faces, not just on one face. Say for
example, for 120 year service life for a galvanized steel it is recommended that we
reduce the thickness by 0.75 millimeters on each surface, say for example, if you have a
6 mm thick steel strip, the thickness reduction is 6 minus 2 times 0.75, that is in the
thickness direction.
And then let us say that the steel strip is 50 mm wide initially and we should apply the
reduction in the width on both the sides, so 50 minus 1.5, it becomes 48.5. And the
same reductions in the case of water exposure is 1 and as you notice for short design
lives the British code recommends that you can use un galvanized steel, that is with an
index of B. Whereas for the design lives 70 years or more it recommends that we
have to use galvanization, and the galvanization usually it should be of the order of
about 85 microns on the surface.

Then for design lives in between the codes says that we can use a linear interpolation
between the two design lives that are given, and if you expect more aggressive
environmental conditions, then we cannot directly use these tables, but we need to use
some site specific analysis. Like for example, if our structure is exposed to marine
environment like sea water or ocean breeze, then the corrosion rate could be much higher
and we need to consider those extreme events for our calculations.

(Refer Slide Time: 22:21)

Then what are the lateral earth pressures that we need to consider, as we know we always
consider only the active lateral earth pressures, because these are the ones that act on the
structure when the structure moves away from the backfill. And these pressures are
developed even at very low strains, and the pressures although we in general, we say
that we use lateral active lateral pressures, but sometimes our structure itself may not
deform adequately.
Especially, in the case of very tall structures our pressures may be influenced more by
the compaction stresses, because in all these retaining structures we try to achieve a
compaction level of more than 95 or 98 percent maximum dry density. And because of
that we may have very large locked in stresses, and the codes they say that if you have a
very tall structure the lateral earth pressures at the top of the wall may be more closer to
k not, that is the k not is the lateral earth pressure addressed rather than to k a.

And so we need to consider the different scenarios of the type of compaction and the
height of the wall, and then whether the wall is allowed to expand laterally or not,
while deciding the amount of lateral earth pressures that we apply. The actually, the
reason for the different earth pressure scenarios is that all are soil structures are
constructed incrementally, we go layer by layer and because of this, the top of the
wall may not deform.

Although, we assume that there is a rotation but because we are constructing the soil
layers the bottom of the structure is subjected to more number of layers of compaction,
and it may deform, i t may have chance to deform laterally or gradually as the
structures height is increasing. Whereas, at the top, it may not have a chance to expand
laterally, because the soil compaction does not go beyond the top of the wall. And
because of this, the deformations at the top are very small, and because of that the
lateral earth pressure constant is more closer to k0 rather than k a.

(Refer Slide Time: 25:36)

Actually this I can illustrate in a very simple manner, see for a normal case we
assume that the wall the wall rotates like this, and there is sufficient deformation in
the soil for the earth pressures to reduce to active earth pressure.

(Refer Slide Time: 26:14)

But, the actual deformation of the walls may be more similar to this because at the top
the lateral deformation that takes place maybe very small as compared to the bottom.
And so, our earth pressures maybe more similar to k0t at the top, then k a at the
bottom actually this we will consider when we do the design calculations.

(Refer Slide Time: 27:23)

 And typically we use the Rankine’s earth pressures theory for calculating the lateral
earth pressures and the overturning moments, and we know that the active earth

pressure co- efficient is . And this sigma x, that is, the lateral active earth

pressure is k a Ɣ z minus 2 c square root k a plus k a q Ka*Ɣz – 2c + Ka*q,

where our the self-weight stress, because of the unit weight is increasing in a
triangular manner, linear increasing with the depth.

And at the bottom the maximum lateral earth pressure is k a times ƔH, where H is the
height of the retaining wall, and the effect of constant uniform surcharge pressure q is
constant with depth k a q, whereas, the self-weight has a triangular pressure distribution,
the surcharge has a rectangular type distribution. And if you see this formula for active
lateral earth pressure, the formula is Ka *Ɣz – 2c + Ka*q.

So, if you see the effect of the cohesion, the effect of cohesion is to reduce the lateral
earth pressures, and so normally we neglect c, so that we consider higher lateral earth
pressures for the design purpose. And because of that we have an additional factor of
safety over and above whatever we aim for through the design calculations, triangular
pressure distribution acts at a height of H/3 from the base, whereas, this rectangular
earth pressure distribution acts at a height of H/2.

So, our p the lateral force is ½*Ka* ƔH2 + Ka*q*H and the overturning moment is
this triangular force multiplied by H/3 and this rectangular force multiplied by H/2.
So it comes out as 1/6 * Ka*ƔH3 + ½ * Ka*q*H2 , and this is the overturning moment
and whatever retaining wall that we design it should be able to support, this much of
lateral thrust that is acting on the wall and then the overturning moment.
(Refer Slide Time: 309)

Well sometimes the above formula is for a horizontal backfill, but many times we may
have an inclined backfill and the Rankine’s theory is, gives a very simple
formula, wherein k a is given in terms of the slope angle β. And here this slope
angle β should be less than friction angle Φ, because i f β is greater than Φ becomes
the, we know that the slope becomes unstable because it is more than the friction
angle of the soil.

So, the k a is Ka = , and actually this formula is directly

derived by assuming that the forces are in the direction of the slope. We can directly
get this is from the Moh r’ s circle and our resultant force is assumed to act at an
angle of β to the horizontal. So, the horizontal component that we consider for design,
that is the P a, the P times Cos β that is ½ * Ɣ H*Cos β .
(Refer Slide Time: 314)

And then you can also consider a more generic case of a retaining wall like this, wherein
the this face is not vertical, but its inclined at some angle α and let us say that the
backfill slope is inclined at a β, at an angle of β. And then the back surface of the
retaining wall need not be smooth, in the Rankine’s theory is assumed that the shear
stresses that are generated, along this, the backfill soil to the retaining wall phase
is smooth and because of that there are no shear stresses developed.

Whereas, in the Coulomb’s theory it is a bit more general and Coulomb assume that
there could be some friction that is developed along the height of the retaining wall. And
the generalized formula for that is given like this Ka is sin2 (α + Φ), this entire thing
divided by sin2 α sin (α - δ) that multiplied by this whole bracket to the square,
actually the square is missing here in this equation.

And β is the, in this equation is the back slope angle α is the angle at the back face
at the retaining wall, when α is 90 degrees this back phase is vertical and Φ is the friction
angle of the soil. And δ is the interface friction angle between the wall and the
backfill soil, and the effect of the wall friction is always to reduce the active lateral
earth pressures.
(Refer Slide Time: 33:57)

Let me just list out some typical Ka values as a function of δ. Here, I have listed the
influence of a δ in the Ka, for a typical friction angle of 30 degrees with a vertical
wall and horizontal backfill slope. And when δ is 0 the Ka is one third that is the

simple Rankine’s formula that is that is equal to 0.333 and let us see the effect

of δ on the Ka as it gradually increases.

So, when the δ is increased to five degrees the Ka falls down to 0.319 and when it
increases to 10, it has reduced 0.308 and when the δ is increased to 20 degrees the Ka is
0.279 and the effect of the δ is always to reduce the e a r t h pressures as we have
seen. And in the case, in order to get more conservative results, is always a good
design practice to reduce, to neglect the effect of δ on the earth pressures, because
by neglecting δ we get a higher Ka for design purposes as we have seen there.
(Refer Slide Time: 36:23)

Well for design purposes we need to consider very large number of loads that act on the
structure, the two of these loads we have seen earlier, one is the self-weight of the
loads self-weight of the of the soil, that is a triangular distribution of the of the earth
pressures. And then the uniform loads, because of the live load that acts on the
structure, it is either because of the point loads or uniform surcharge.

The point load could happen when we have a bridge abutment sitting directly on top of
the retaining wall, and the bridge abutment will have some roller support. And the load
that is transferred into that supportive it will act like a point load, then we could have a
horizontal load that is transferred from the crash barrier. It is when there is any impact of
the vehicles on the crash barrier during an accident, there will be some lateral thrust
and that load gets transferred into the retaining wall.

Then there could also be the horizontal loads due to breaking forces on the bridge
abutment especially on highway bridges or on the railway bridges, the traction
forces could be very high. Then apart from these we need to also consider seismic loads
that act because of the earthquake excitations.
(Refer Slide Time: 382)

Well, let us look at the design process now, and there are two different calculations that
we do for the design of the reinforced soil retaining walls, one is the external
stability calculation, and then the other one is the internal stability calculation. And there
are four different steps that we do under the external stability calculations, one is to
check for the stability against lateral sliding and the other one is to check for stability
against overturning. And then the stability against bearing capacity failure or the
settlements and then the slip circle failure or the overall failure mechanism.

And usually these calculations, the external stability calculations, they fix the length
of the reinforcement in this reinforced soil retaining wall, and as we have seen earlier
the parameters that are to be designed are the length of the retaining walls, and then the
vertical spacing and then the strength of the reinforcement layers and so on. And the
length of the retaining walls is obtained by doing this external stability calculations
and for the purpose of the external stability calculations, we treat the entire
reinforced block as a homogenous block, as a rigid block, as a monolithic block, for
the purpose of design calculations.
(Refer Slide Time: 391)

Well the, let us look at retaining walls something like this, and here we have a soil
of certain height and with number of reinforcement layers, and it is acted upon by
lateral force that comes from the from the backfill. And when this force acts let us
see what happens, the tendency is, of the lateral forces is to push this wall outwards
like this as shown here and during this process, we have some resistance forces
developed along the base.

And this failure mechanism is one of the failure mechanism that we also considered in
the case of the reinforced concrete walls, and this fixes the amount of mass that we
need to have in the reinforced soil block so that there is an adequate resistance that is
developed at the base to counter act the forces that are acting on this reinforcement
block.
(Refer Slide Time: 405)

The other one is the overturning effect the block should be wide enough that the
overturning forces that act on the block are lesser than the counter acting moments, and
in, this failure mechanism is checked at the Federal Highway Administration code and
other design codes. Whereas, the BS code does not recommend the checking for this
and the same way, the Japanese code also does not talk about the overturning, because
the Japanese code and the British code they treat this as a flexible soil structure where
the entire structure may not overturn.

Whereas, the American codes they consider this as an entire rigid block and there could
be some overturning and the self-weight of the reinforced block is so designed that there
is an adequate fact of safety against overturning.
(Refer Slide Time: 42:04)

Well, the other possibility is the bearing capacity failure or the settlement excessive
settlements and we need to check for the bearing capacity of the foundation soil and also
the settlements of the foundation soil. And the settlements that we have under the
because of the construction should be within reasonable limits, so that the serviceability
of the structure is not impaired, and at the same time, there should be adequate factor
of safety against bearing capacity failure.

(Refer Slide Time: 42:45)

And the other type of failure mechanism is the slip circle failure mechanism and the slip
circle i n variably forms behind the reinforced the soil block. And this is a very
critical failure criterion, especially when we have the structure built on extremely soft
soils, where we can have a deep seated type failure or when our structure is built on a
steep slope something like this.

(Refer Slide Time: 43:33)

Let us say that we build our retaining wall on an extremely soft soil, there could be a
possibility for the formation of the slip circle through the soft foundation soil. And that
has to be checked apart from the earlier 3 conditions like the lateral sliding or
overturning, the bearing capacity failure.
(Refer Slide Time: 44:39)

And another case where from this type of failure could be critical is, let us say we build a
very high retaining wall on a on a slope, we need to consider the possibility of slip circle
directly forming either through the reinforced block or behind the reinforced block and
cutting through the slope like this. And so in such cases this failure mechanism may
govern the design rather than the lateral sliding or overturning or the bearing capacity
type failures.

(Refer Slide Time: 45:36)

All these failure conditions, they are very well described in the BS coding and the BS
code through the different load combinations, and the BS code it gives three different
load combinations A,B and C. And they assign some factors that we need to consider for
achieving different critical conditions, and these combinations are given separately for
normal reinforced s oil retaining walls, where there is no external loading at the top.
And another case, where we have a reinforced retaining wall that is directly supporting a
bridge abutment.

See in load combination A, a factor of 1.5 is applied on the mass of the reinforce soil
body and then the mass of the backfill on top of reinforced soil wall also is applied with
a factor of 1.5 Then the earth pressure that is coming from the backfill is also
applied with a factor of safety of 1.5 and so on in the traffic load. And then,
whereas in the, and is actually in the combination A applies a factor of 1.5 on all the
loads that we have and it creates very critical conditions.

(Refer Slide Time: 47:08)

Basically, this combination A, it considers maximum possible values of all the loads
and this generates the maximum reinforcement forces, that we have and then the
maximum foundation bearing pressures. And this is basically to link up the
reinforcement layers and then the factor of safety against the foundation bearing
failure, and it also checks for reinforcement against pull-out.
(Refer Slide Time: 470)

In some load cases whereas in the other cases the combination B maybe more
predominant whereas, in combination B we increase the forces that are acting while
reducing the resistance forces. See in the combination in load combination B we apply a
factor of one and the mass of the soil within the reinforced body and mass of the backfill,
directly resting on top of the reinforced body reinforced soil we apply a factor of one.

Whereas we apply a factor of 1.5 and the pressures that are acting behind the
reinforced block that is the backfill, then the traffic load directly applied on the
reinforced block, we do not consider. So, our Fq is 0 and whereas, the traffic load that
is acting on the backfill soil, it is multiplied with a factor of 1.5 and this combination B
is very critical for lateral sliding and overturning.
(Refer Slide Time: 482)

And is actually this combination B causes maximum overturning moment while the mass
that is resisting these forces is minimum, and it dictates the reinforcement requirement
for pull-out and sliding along the base. And it is actually it is a very critical case for the
length of the reinforced block to resist the forces that are acting on the block.

(Refer Slide Time: 49:31)

Then the combination C is actually all the self-weight forces they are applied with a
factor of one, and we do not consider any external loading due to surcharge.
(Refer Slide Time: 491)

And this is actually, this combination C we consider only the dead loads without
any partial load factors, and this combination C is used for calculating the foundation
settlement, and for generating the tension forces within the reinforcement layers during
the serviceability limit state.

(Refer Slide Time: 50:15)

It is actually in all these cases we consider extreme events, the combination C is for a
limit load whereas, we can think of combination C for serviceability limit state. That is
within the working stress levels and we need to do some more calculations that we will
look at in the next lectures.

Thank you.