×
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

Questions on Assumptions of Wall Friction Angle for Kp

Questions on Assumptions of Wall Friction Angle for Kp

Questions on Assumptions of Wall Friction Angle for Kp

(OP)
I am having trouble figuring out how to calculate Kp when designing heel blocks that resist raker loads (a heel block is a concrete block that supports rakers, primarily through passive resistance) .  What assumptions are usually made about the wall friction angle when computing Kp?  Is the assumed wall friction angle effected by the angle of the force acting on the heel block?  Assuming that the earth is on the left of the heel block, is the passive force acting on the back face of the heel block rotated clockwise or counterclockwise to the normal to the back face of the heel block?  How does the inclination of the back face of the heel block effect the wall friction angle?

I am using Figure 5 on page 7.2-66 of the DM 7.2 US Navy Design Manual to find Kp.  This graph appears to be more conservative than Figure 8 on page 7.2-69 of DM 7.2.  There is a note on Figure 8 that Kp values are unconservative for wall friction angle/phi angle > 1/3, so Figure 5 may have been adjusted to account for this fact.  The first edition of the Foundation Engineering Handbook on page 426 states that it is common to take wall friction angle/phi angle = 2/3 when computing the passive pressure in front of sheet pile walls.  

Thank you for your responses.

RE: Questions on Assumptions of Wall Friction Angle for Kp

EricinNJ,

Don't make your life complicated. Use Figure 2 instead (Rankine) which assumes delta=0. I usually assume phi=28 deg for a cohesive soil, unless it's unusually moist (closer to the LL than the PL). Note that you should also probably take credit for any sliding friction in addition to passive pressure. See page 7.2-63 for friction factors.

Notwithstanding the above, you should probably be consistent with the design approach mandated (if any) for your project.

Jeff

RE: Questions on Assumptions of Wall Friction Angle for Kp

(OP)
The Rankine Method would be applicable to a cantilevered retaining wall, but for mass concrete, such as a gravity retaining wall or a heel block, the Coulomb Method is generally recommended.  Also, wall friction considerably increases the passive resistance, hence my interest in properly estimating the angle of wall friction.

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