Elevated T-Shaped Counterfort Retaining Wall

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Traditional counterfort retaining wall systems require deep slot cuts and high labor costs due to the placement of L-shaped counterfort members at horizontal joint elevations, leading to excessive load on foundation soils and increased material costs, while also necessitating temporary erection braces for full-height panels, which restrict site access.

Innovation Solution

The use of elevated T-shaped counterfort members with a counterfort beam extending into the backfill, coupled to a face joint member via a threadbar, reduces the depth of slot cuts and minimizes soil loading, allowing upper tiers to be placed directly above lower tiers without excessive load transfer, thereby reducing labor and material costs.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Strength

If L-shaped counterfort members are placed at horizontal joint elevations, then structural support is provided, but deep slot cuts are required and labor costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestructural supportVSAvoidlabor costs

Core Design Contradiction:

StrengthVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The patent inverts the traditional L-shaped counterfort configuration to a T-shaped counterfort where the vertical stem extends above the horizontal joint elevation instead of being embedded at the joint level. This inversion eliminates the need for deep slot cuts while maintaining structural support functionality, as the T-shaped counterfort can be supported by shallower embedment in the wall panel and face joint member assembly.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent adds vertical dimensionality by extending the counterfort stem above the horizontal joint elevation, creating a three-dimensional T-shaped structure rather than a two-dimensional L-shaped configuration. This dimensional change allows the counterfort to achieve structural support with reduced embedment depth, thereby reducing excavation requirements and labor costs.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

2Strength

If L-shaped counterfort members are used, then structural integrity is maintained, but excavation depth and material requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestructural integrityVSAvoidmaterial requirements

Core Design Contradiction:

StrengthVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

By inverting the counterfort geometry from L-shaped to T-shaped with the stem extending upward, the patent reduces the embedment portion that requires excavation and material placement. The vertical stem above the joint elevation provides structural functionality without requiring proportional increases in embedded material, thus reducing overall material requirements while maintaining integrity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

Solution Approach 2:

The T-shaped counterfort is segmented into a vertical stem portion extending above the joint elevation and a horizontal base portion embedded in the wall structure. This segmentation allows the upper stem to provide structural support without requiring the entire structure to be deeply embedded, thereby reducing total material requirements compared to the traditional L-shaped configuration.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

3Stability of the object's composition

If full-height panels are used with traditional counterfort placement, then wall continuity is achieved, but temporary erection braces are required restricting site access

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvewall continuityVSAvoidsite access

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The inverted T-shaped counterfort configuration with the stem extending above the joint elevation provides additional structural support that enables the use of full-height panels without temporary braces. The elevated stem acts as an additional support point that stabilizes the panel assembly during construction, eliminating the need for erection braces and improving site access.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

4Force

If counterforts are placed at horizontal joint elevations, then load transfer between tiers is achieved, but excessive load is imposed on foundation soils

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveload transferVSAvoidsoil loading

Core Design Contradiction:

ForceVSStress or pressure

Solution Approach 1:

By extending the counterfort stem vertically above the horizontal joint elevation, the patent creates a longer moment arm for load transfer. This dimensional extension allows the counterfort to transfer lateral loads from the wall panels more efficiently to the foundation, reducing the concentrated vertical surcharge pressure on the soil while maintaining effective load transfer capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Data Source

PatentUS10087598B1Counterfort retaining wall

Publication Date: 2018.10.02 INSIDE BET LLC

AI summary

A counterfort retaining wall system includes a plurality of wall panels and a face joint member positioned between a first wall panel and a second wall panel. The face joint member is partially positioned on a first side of the wall panels and extending between the wall panels through to a second side of the wall panels. The system further includes a counterfort beam coupled at a first end to the face joint member and including a counterfort web and a counterfort flange. The counterfort beam extends away from the wall panels and is configured to extend into a backfill behind the plurality of wall panels. The counterfort beam is coupled to the face joint member such that a bottom surface of the counterfort flange is above a bottom edge of the face joint member.