Blum Theory - Sheet Piles
Blum Theory - Sheet Piles
(OP)
A computer program we would like to use for sheet pile design is based upon the "Blum theory". I am looking for more info on Blum's theory, so we can check out the program. Thus far I have found short references to him, but no details regarding his theory. Can anyone give us a reference or two for where we can find this info. It would be greatly appreciated.
TAC
TAC





RE: Blum Theory - Sheet Piles
published by Pile Buck of Jupiter Florida. Their website is www.pilebuck.com. The book does a great job of explaining all the basic aspects of sheeting design. If you are doing this work you should have this reference.
RE: Blum Theory - Sheet Piles
RE: Blum Theory - Sheet Piles
I also was interested in the Blum Theory - Thanks
RE: Blum Theory - Sheet Piles
RE: Blum Theory - Sheet Piles
Unfortunately all of my pre-1988 BHP data on their 'non-structural' sections went to the great archive in the sky. However, I would hope that you could still get some useful stuff from BHP-Billiton and/or Onesteel if you persist.
The following is from a brochure which I received ages ago from Steelcon P/L, whose address at the time was 21 Wisdom Road, greenwich, NSW 2065.
The SP75 was a typical U-shaped pile, similar to Larssen. I don't have info on the material properties, but you shouldn't go far wrong if you assume Grade 250. If the material strength looks critical, you could always test a sample or two.
Properties of the fully interlocked and uncorroded wall were Ixx 194*10^6 mm^4/m, Zxx 1560*10^3 mm^3/m.
Depending on the ground through which the piles were driven, I would advise some caution in assuming the fully interlocked values (unless you can see at site that the sheets were welded together in pairs before driving).
Original properties of the single pile sections were
area 9480 mm^2, Ixx 26.6*10^6 mm^4, Zx 273*10^3 mm^3 to clutch, 513 to face of wall, radius of gyration 53 mm.
The finished wall was 248 mm overall deep, with clutches at 391 mm c/c. Remaining dimensions are (a) too difficult to describe without a sketch and (b) probably not much value to you anyway.
I hope that this helps.