Angle of Friction or Repose??
Angle of Friction or Repose??
(OP)
Has anyone ever seen the book by Marcel & Andrew Reimbert "Retaining Walls" 1974 Trans Tech Publication copyright in Germany. The book totally invalidates,disputes and debunks theories by Rankines and Coulombs "Granular" earth pressure formulas, active and passive pressures. With many experiments in it they claim Rankine and Coulomb pressures are too high!! Their lab exhaustive basis relies on the angle of repose of the material more than the internal friction angle. According to them the maximum ratio passive to active ratio is less than 3 with a friction angle less than 45 degrees. Any takers on this one.





RE: Angle of Friction or Repose??
If a structure is designed using many of the "old ways" (Rankine & Coulomb in this case), it will still "work". It is just overdesigned - certainly not desireable for a "high-dollar" project, but just fine for something like an industrial sump or a residential basement.
www.SlideRuleEra.net
RE: Angle of Friction or Repose??
RE: Angle of Friction or Repose??
RE: Angle of Friction or Repose??
I stumpled across the Reimberts name again in a concrete design "silo" book by Fintel published by Van Nostrand. In it, Reimbert disputes the widely accepted "Janssen" soil arching formula with their own formula. I am beginning to wonder if their middle name is "precise"?.
RE: Angle of Friction or Repose??