×
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

Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

(OP)
I have to design a concrete pit, with water table at ground level. I am a little confused at what is the actual design pressure I have to use:

Option A: Water pressure 62.4 psf and I ignore the soil weight?

Option B: Water Pressure 62.4 psf + Active effective pressure which I think is (115 pcf x ka=38 psf with ka=0.33) = 100.35 psf total equivalent fluid pressure?

Any opinions on this will be helpful. Option B seems overkill, but apparently that is what should be done...?

Thanks.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

(OP)
In my previous post I forgot to deduct the buoyancy from the active soil pressure, therefore it would be:

Option B: 62.4 psf + (115-62.4)x0.333 = 80 psf of equivalent fluid pressure

Can someone tell me if I am not doing this calculation correctly? Or if my assumptions are wrong?

Thanks.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

Now you have it.  The second post is correct.  But please avoid cross-posting in future.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

I have read this OP closer, and your answer is correct for active pressure.  But for a pit, you probably have more like at rest pressure, and probably not triangular loading.  Suggest you seek geotechnical advice.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

I would have to agree you take a close look at whether active or at-rest earth pressure is applicable.  It is not likely to make a huge difference as it would only relate to the bouyant weight of the soil.  Active earth pressure would be about 17 pcf and at rest would be about 26 pcf.  Add to that your water pressure.  So, it'd be about a 9 pcf difference.

There are two reasons why you may want to use at-rest earth pressure:  The pit may be so small that you won't get sufficient deflection at the top to fully mobilize the active state, or you may want to limit movement at the top to minimize the potenital for tension cracks on the concrete.  If it were my job, I'd use at-rest earth pressure.

f-d

p.s., Hokie66, what's cross-posting?

¡papá gordo ain't no madre flaca!

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

fattdad,

The site monitors frown on posting a question in more than one forum.  He posted this one in the "earth retention engineering" forum.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

(OP)
Yes, I wasn't sure in which forum people would pay attention to my question, which in fact applies to both.

ST

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

so fattdad for submerged pits/tanks etc. you would recomend at rest pressure? we always use active. Bit worried now. No geotech has mentioned this before.  

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

herewegothen
Your solution is correct.  You would use at rest pressure only under situations when (in addition) tie-back or struts are used to retain the earth
 

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

No, the active pressure requires that movement away from the soil is possible by the wall.  A pit is surrounded by the soil and can not move as required, use at rest pressure for the pit.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

herewegothen,

In my opinion, civilperson is correct and ashjun is incorrect.  In 30 years of design experience, I have never used or had advice to use active pressure for a pit like the one structurebeton described.  In the other forum, he said that the pit was 8' square, so very rigid.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

The pit is small (short wall lengths).  Even with using the highest earth pressure, the total amount of resteel will be relatively insignificant.  The true earth pressure is debatable considering arching, compaction, and unspecified construction sequence.  Design the walls to span horizontally from corner to corner.  Use at-rest pressure and be done with it.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

cook to PEinc. and civilperson.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

(OP)
Honestly, I have never seen a geotechnical report recommending "at rest" pressure for wall design. In fact the worst I have seen is a movement allowed design pressure of 40 psf and a rigid design pressure of 60 psf (for walls that are not allowed to move because of proximity of building).

However, I thought the requirement was more to design a "stiffer" wall so deflection is minimized, not the other way around. At rest pressure can be considerable...

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

accepted that the pit in question is very small but at what point do you switch to active pressure then? I have never seen any design guide etc use passive pressure for submerged tank/wall design. Although highways authority do require it, resulting in massive thick walls.  

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

BTW, how deep is your pit?  It makes a theoretical difference of about 0.5/0.33 - but if you are compacting behind the wall to any extent, even if you use active, you will have to bump it up for residual horizontal stresses induced due to compaction.  

Also, from Terzaghi, Peck and Mesri (article 45.4.2) ". . . if a retaining wall is proportional to withstand active earth pressure with a suitably conservative margin of safety with respect to sliding, overturning, and bearing capacity, the actual displacements of the wall will be less than those corresponding to the active state, and the pressures will exceed the active values.  . . . Nevertheless, if earth-pressure measuremetns were to be made on such a conservatively designed wall, the pressures would exceed the active values.  This apparent contradiction has led to confusion concerning the appropriate basis for design. Logically, design to resist acive earth pressures is appropriate with respect ot the external stability of the wall.  On the other hand, the structural design of the components of the wall, such as the stem or base slab of a cantilever wall or the reinforcement in a reinforced-soil wall, must take account of the larger pressures tha the wall must resist at displacements smaller than those corresponding to the active state." It goes on further to talk about the several factors that are not always separable.  Suggest any interested colleague read this section from TP&M.
   Don't see why your wall thickness increases considerably - all you have to do is throw in a bit more steel as dgilette suggested.  Your pit is so small - and it is assumed that you will build the walls - all four of them first, that at the least, the at-rest pressures act.  You should be worrying about how much you are going to compact the soil behind.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

with respect depending on how big your wall/tank is (assume high), there is only so much steel you can throw in before it becomes uneconomical not to increase size.

I would also comment on your compaction allowance by saying if you've designed your wall for earth pressure, surcharge loading plus water table. Is it then resonable to assume on top of that at the same time you apply a compaction load?

Another point i would consider is that if the pressure is 'temporarily' not enough to cause wall to deflect enough to mobilise active pressure, the higher passive pressure will cause deflection thereby in itself mobilising active state.

Despite above not openly disagreing with you, just playing devils advocate on this one and looking at it from other angle.

I suppose we are going a little off the OP question on a 8" pit now, so apologies.

Oh and thanks for the quote BigH, very interesting.  

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

herewegothen,

Just to make sure you are clear, at rest pressure is between active and passive.  Active requires deflection to reduce the pressure, passive requires deflection in the other direction to increase the pressure, and at rest is at rest.   

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

sorry, yes meant at rest not passive. Typing when working on other things, sorry.  

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

For a free wall it really doesn't matter if it is designed for active or at rest for overturning unless movement effects are an issue. For a pit the wall will need to be constrained at the top so the lid will fit and movement will be constrined by adjacent walls. Thus the walls should be designed for at rsst. Big H's point that wall movements may not be enough to devlop the reduced pressure so walls should be strucurally designed for at rest. For a 8 foot wall, I don't think you will find a significant differance.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

(OP)
The pit is buried 10'-6", and will have a slab on top of it.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

Quote:

so fattdad for submerged pits/tanks etc. you would recomend at rest pressure? we always use active. Bit worried now. No geotech has mentioned this before.

Interesting comments.  I happen to agree with everybody suggesting that you use the at-rest pressures and also happen to disagree with the notion that active earth pressures are appropriate.

Here's my perspective, which is likely to rehash some of what's been stated:  Active earth pressure for "retaining walls" requires about 1 inch of outboard movement at the top of a 10 ft tall wall.  I visualize a concrete pit as something that is cylindrical or tall-box-like in shape.  As such you either have compressional "hoop" stress or corner stresses that will hinder any rotational movement at the top of the pit.  If you design for active earth pressures and the pit experiences at-rest earth pressures, you will end up putting more stress on the steel reinforcement and run the risk of developing concrete cracks that fully penetrate the structure. That may lead to leaking or other distress (unlikely it would lead to failure; however). Considering that the difference between the submerged active and at-rest pressures is seemingly trivial (i.e., less than 10 pcf), you should plan on no movement at the top of the wall.

I once worked with a structural/geotechnical engineer that designed cantilevered retaining walls for at-rest pressures just so that there would be no movement.  Belts and suspenders, eh?

f-d   

¡papá gordo ain't no madre flaca!

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

(OP)
Can someone post the equation to calculate "At rest" lateral pressure from the Rankine theory or any other accepted practice?

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

The coefficient of earth pressure at rest is often taken as 0.5.  From Sowers: for loose sand and gravel, k0=0.6; for dense sand and gravel, k0=0.4.  Just use this factor instead of active or passive factor in the general equation.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

Structurebenton: the EFP of 40 psf is an active pressure and 60 psf is at rest for a granular soil with a unit weight of 120 psf, which is in general, slighly conservative.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

1-sin (phi)

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

1-sin Phi is the conventional "easy" guess for the coefficient of at-rest earth pressure.  There are limitations to this simplified approach for the case of sloping backfill for example.  At rest earth pressure can also be evaluated (again with some limitation) by using Ka*1.5.  I took this approach in my earth pressure class with Duncan and he agreed (i.e., I got a good grade).  You can quickly see that for a phi of 30 degrees,  Rankine Ka and 1-sin (phi) are different by this 1.5 factor.

f-d

¡papá gordo ain't no madre flaca!

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

Hokie66
I am surprised at the simple conclusion you have drawn in your post.  Please look at some of the research papers which cite active earth pressure actually measured to be lower than developed from the Rankine theory.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

sorry for the typo error; it should be "..which cite measured earth pressure to be less than that at rest"

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

ashjun,

I am sure there are occasions where measured earth pressure is less than assumed, maybe usually, but we normally design walls based on assumptions and recommendations, not measured pressure.  

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

There are many instances in granular soil that vertical or near vertical cuts can be made to fairly significant depths. At that moment in time, there is no lateral pressure generated. The reasons for this effect varry, but are almost always temporal. This is how many excavators get in trouble. Once a wedge does develop, it will generally produce a pressure coefficent of .4 to .6 reducing to .25 to .35 once the wedge has moved sufficently.
Measuring exsiting earth pressures gives us a better insight into the failure mechinsm of soil. However, or knowledge and confidence has not increased sufficently so that we may replace the exsiting methods with more agressive values.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

There are also more than a few cases where undersized retaining walls will happily stand up for 20 years but eventually they tilt or fail, presumably due to consolidation of poorly compacted backfill.
It must be very difficult to reliably measure long-term earth pressure.

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

apsix,

My theory is that the type failure you described is often caused by volume growth of the backfill rather than any fundamental change in the pressure characteristics.  This is especially true with cohesive backfill.  When the clay cracks during dry seasons, the cracks attract debris, and the backfill gradually grows laterally with each cycle.  

RE: Active Pressure Combined with Water Pressure

hokie66

You could well be right, the pressure due to swelling reactive clay would be considerable.

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