×
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

Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

(OP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_earth_pressure

When I use the following values, the Kp coefficient a whopping 46!!!
pheta = 5
beta = 20
phi = 30
delta = 15

When using some other combinations, the Kp value can reach in excess of 100!  Is the Coulomb's passive pressure equation flawed?
 

RE: Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

Roughly the first case you describe, the kp value should be about 6 to 6.5 (see Bowles, see Fang).  Fang, for logrithmic surface, for phi = 30, the kp value ranges from 3 to slightly above 6.  Did you happen to use excel where the angles have to be put in as radians instead of degrees?   

RE: Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

(OP)
How did you get 6 to 6.5? I did it in both excel and confirmed it by hand a few times and the same answer. I converted the degrees to radians when I did it in excel.

I also tried the Coulomb's equation in a different written differently (Civil Engineering Reference Manual 10th Edition by Lindeberg) and I still got the same answer.

RE: Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

First off, the equation given in the wikipedia is not the normal one that I have seen for Coulomb.  See Bowles 6th edition, equation 11-6 (page 596)for example.  I normally wouldn't "calculate" the value - I'd go to a table.  For the value of 6 to 6.5, I went to Fang, Figure 6.9 at 30 deg to get a typical value of 6 for level backfill (log-spiral). As the wikipedia doesn't well define the terms (a sketch showing the terms would help) I used phi30, delta 16, Slope behind increasing at 5deg - you get 6.6.  So 6 to 6.5 seems to be in the right ballpark.  Do a check on other sources for the formula as well - most use a sin^2(alpha - phi).  In Bowles table, the minimum value of kp is 1.914 (phi = 26deg, delta = 0, slope behind wall decreasing at 10deg, vertical wall) to an extreme of 87 (phi = 42deg, delta = 22deg; vertical wall and slope increasing at 15deg.   

RE: Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

More proof Wikipedia is a failed experiment??

RE: Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

Typically the angle of the back of the wall is measured from horiz. not vert. As Big H said, the equations don't look familiar. (there are a couple variations of the equations out there, but they all look fairly similiar and yield similar results) For the numbers you gave with a positive 20 deg backfill, 85 deg backslope to the wall, phi =30 and wall frition = 15deg, I got Kp = 11.4, using log sprial charts I got Kp = 11.9
Bottom line is you get what you pay for and wikipdia is worth its price.

RE: Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

I used the equation out of Pile Buck's Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual.  I used Phi = 30 degrees; wall friction = 15 degrees; slope behind wall = 20 degrees; slope below wall = 5 degrees.  Kp = 6.310

RE: Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

(OP)
I also used the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, which is written differently than the one on Wikipedia, but got the same result of 46.

Very strange.

RE: Coulomb's passive pressure equation may be flawed

When I gave my previous answer, I assumed that the slope in front of the wall was an upward +5 degree slope.  The original post just said 5 degrees.  If the slope is a downward slope (-5 degrees), my Kp reduces to 3.961.

In Bowles' 1968 book, his table give Kp = 4.976 for phi = 30, beta = +20, delta = 15, a flat ground surface in front of the wall base, and a vertical wall.  Therefore, if the ground slopes downward at 5 degrees, his Kp should be less than 4.976.  Bowles' table does not list Kp for the downward slope.

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