×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Tall sheet pile bulkhead w/ surcharge

Tall sheet pile bulkhead w/ surcharge

Tall sheet pile bulkhead w/ surcharge

(OP)
I've gone through a design for a sheet pile bulkhead for a barge docking facility using the Navy DM 7.02 manual and checking hand calcs with the Corps' CWALSHT program and have arrived at a proposed solution, but before finalizing things, I've got a few questions I'm hoping someone can provide some insight into.

Wall is 38' exposed height.  Existing soil is a medium dense sand.  I've been given the following geotechnical data for design:  Unit weight = 125 pcf, Buoyant unit weight = 63 pcf, friction (phi) = 35 deg, soil/wall friction (delta) = 20 deg (considerend on passive side only), FS applied to passive side = 2.0

Design criteria:  1000 psf surcharge or wheel load from loader (130 k/wheel spaced 15' apart - ignore rear wheel since load << front wheel load).  Top of wall at +18.0, Water on back side at +2.0, water on front side at 0.0.

Results:  With an anchor at +7, using the free earth method, an assumed corrosion reduction to section modulus of .0354 in (0.9mm) in fresh water, fb = 30 ksi (for Grade 50 sheets), E = and 30,000 ksi, I get an AZ36 (Sreduced = 63.65 in**3) to work after reducing the maximum moment using Rowe's method (reduction between .75 for loose soil and 0.46 for dense soil).  Min. penetration depth = 19 feet. Surcharge load controls over vehicle load.

Questions:
1.  Axial loading: There may be common occurrence of loads directly to the top of the wall (assume steel cap).  Navy DM 7.02 doesn't expressly say anything about axial loading of the sheet piles (that I could find).  I went to Corps EM 1110-2-2504.  The equations for combined axial and bending (eq 6-11) do not use a reduced moment.  What is the reason for not allowing Rowe's reduction?

2.  Tie rod design: I have seen on another project, a recommendation by the geotech to increase the working loads on the rods by 20 or 25%, to use mild steel rods to limit elastic elongation and to reduce corrosion effects seen in high-strength steel.  I can get the tie-backs to work with 150 ksi HS bars.  Do you see any reason not to use high-strength bars if I provide good corrosion protection?  Is the load increase a rule of thumb or is that in a code somewhere (I couldn't find it in DM 7.02).  PTI recommends a design load no greater than 0.6*spec. min. tensile strength (=0.6*150=90ksi) for prestressed anchors.  Yield is 0.8*SMTS (=120ksi).  Corps EM 1110-2-2504 says use ft=0.4fy, but I'm fairly sure this is just for mild steel. I've used the PTI recommendation before.  Is there any reason or code that differs on this?

Thanks.
tmojo

RE: Tall sheet pile bulkhead w/ surcharge

Be careful with tieback loading over long tern. One factor that must be considered is the effects of stress corrosion on highly stressed reinforcing bars.

William Tucker

RE: Tall sheet pile bulkhead w/ surcharge

Properly corrosion protected grade 150 threadbars and Grade 270 strand tendons are routinely used for tiedback sheet pile bulkheads.  I haven't seen in many years a bulkhead built with mild steel tieback or tie rod tendons.  Get a copy of PTI's Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors.  PTI calls for a maximum tenton working load of 0.6 x GUTS and a maximum testing load of 0.8 x GUTS.  I don't believe adding 20 to 25% more tieback force is standard, but it does add cost to the project.

I would guess that moment reduction was not used in the combined stress equation because the writer never even thought about it.  The geotech probably wrote the section on Rowes moment reduction while a structural guy probably wrote the combined stress section.  They probably never even consulted with each other and the question never arose.  I would use the moment I thought was correct.

The FHWA has several good manuals on anchored walls.  There is much good information on corrosion and protection of anchors.

RE: Tall sheet pile bulkhead w/ surcharge

tmojo:

Just a comment as I'm passing through to say very well written questions!  Lots of background infomation leading up to the questions to help responders.  

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources