Elevated T-Shaped Counterforts for Retaining Wall Slot Depth Reduction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Traditional retaining wall systems require deeper slot cuts and higher labor costs due to the placement of L-shaped counterfort members at horizontal joint elevations, which increases material and labor expenses, and imposes excessive loads on foundation soils, necessitating wider bases or additional foundation enhancements to prevent soil bearing capacity exceedance.

Innovation Solution

The use of elevated T-shaped counterforts above horizontal joint elevations reduces slot cut depths and labor costs, allowing upper tiers to be placed directly above lower tiers without excessive load transfer, utilizing smaller profile counterfort members that minimize soil loading and require shallower slot cuts, thereby reducing excavation and installation time.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Stability of the object's composition

If L-shaped counterfort members are placed at horizontal joint elevations, then structural stability is improved, but slot cut depth and labor costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestructural stabilityVSAvoidslot cut depth and labor costs

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent inverts the conventional placement approach by positioning T-shaped counterfort members above horizontal joint elevations rather than at the joints themselves. This inversion allows the counterforts to extend downward to provide stability while avoiding the need for deep slot cuts at joint locations, thereby reducing both excavation depth and labor costs while maintaining structural stability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

2Strength

If L-shaped counterfort members are used, then structural support is improved, but material and labor expenses increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestructural supportVSAvoidmaterial and labor expenses

Core Design Contradiction:

StrengthVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the counterfort structure into T-shaped members that are positioned above horizontal joints and extend downward. This segmentation allows for standardized, pre-fabricated components that are easier to manufacture and install compared to traditional L-shaped members, reducing both material costs and labor expenses while maintaining the necessary structural support.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the geometric parameters of the counterfort members from L-shaped to T-shaped configuration. This parameter change optimizes the structural efficiency-to-cost ratio by providing adequate support with smaller profile members that require less material and are easier to handle and install, thereby reducing overall manufacturing and installation expenses.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Stability of the object's composition

If counterfort members are placed at horizontal joint elevations, then structural integrity is improved, but soil bearing capacity is exceeded

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestructural integrityVSAvoidsoil loading

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSForce

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transitions from two-dimensional L-shaped counterforts placed at joint elevations to three-dimensional T-shaped counterforts positioned above joints and extending vertically downward. This dimensional change allows the counterforts to distribute loads more effectively through the soil profile, reducing concentrated loading on the foundation soil while maintaining structural integrity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

4Stability of the object's composition

If deeper slot cuts are made for counterfort placement, then structural stability is improved, but excavation time and costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestructural stabilityVSAvoidexcavation and installation time

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent employs preliminary action by positioning the T-shaped counterfort members above the horizontal joint elevations before final assembly. This allows for shallower preliminary slot cuts to be made, and the counterforts are then extended downward to achieve the required stability, significantly reducing the depth and time of initial excavation while maintaining structural requirements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS10337164B2Threadbar connections for wall systems

Publication Date: 2019.07.02 INSIDE BET LLC

AI summary

A wall system includes a face joint member including a web and a flange. The wall system further includes a counterfort beam coupled to the face joint member. The counterfort beam is coupled to the face joint member by a connecting threadbar that extends through the counterfort beam and into the face joint member. The connecting threadbar includes an inner metal threaded bar and an outer protective sleeve. The inner metal threaded bar is configured to rotate relative to the outer protective sleeve.