Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • 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!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Donate Today!

Do you enjoy these
technical forums?
Donate Today! Click Here

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

JrStructuralEng (Structural)
21 Jul 09 13:14
I'm looking for average unit weights (guidelines) for typical soils.

i.e. saturated and unsaturated unit weight of sand, silt, clay
Teguci (Structural)
21 Jul 09 15:20
If the Geotech doesn't tell me, I use 120 pcf - fairly conservative for non-gravel soils.

However, the unit weights are all over the spectrum so an actual insitu test is best.
JrStructuralEng (Structural)
21 Jul 09 15:32
I have dense compacted saturated sand.  I need an conservative estimate of weight.  I believe 22kN/m^3 should be conservative.  Any conflicting thoughts?
hokie66 (Structural)
21 Jul 09 18:03
22 is conservative.  I think 20 kN/m^3 is conservative enough.  I normally use 19.
msquared48 (Structural)
21 Jul 09 19:06
Speak English!

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

palmahouse (Geotechnical)
21 Jul 09 19:19
One thing you need to consider is using bounyant unit weight if you are dealing with a saturated sand, and depending on what type of analysis you are doing.  One example of when you need to use a bouyant weight is if you are calculating vertical stress on a footings in sand under water (like for a bridge abutment)in order to calculate base friction.

A reasonable bouyant unit weight for sand is 70 pcf.
rowingengineer (Structural)
21 Jul 09 19:26
Mineral Sand Ore and Ilmenite can weigh up to 2.7t/cu.m Just some food for thought.  

When in doubt, just take the next small step.
 

BigH (Geotechnical)
22 Jul 09 8:40
Msquared48 - they are!  I think you want "American"!! 10 kPa about 60 pcf (within about 3%).  I hate it when they start using kg/m3 instead of kN/m3 for unit weights . . .
swearingen (Civil/Environmental)
22 Jul 09 9:24
I always rememebered it as 28 dynes/tablespoon...

pipe

 


If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS

http://www.eng-tips.com/supportus.cfm

dik (Structural)
22 Jul 09 13:05
Mike:

C a n   I   t a l k   s l o w l y,  t o o?

Dik
JrStructuralEng (Structural)
22 Jul 09 18:34
thanks rowing eng.  That is helpful
Bagman2524 (Structural)
23 Jul 09 9:19
I think most soils range in the 100 pcf to 120 pcf range.  This isn't too much less than concrete which is typically 150 pcf.
StructuralEd (Structural)
23 Jul 09 19:41
Saturated = adding water pressure or weight too, no?
Wouldn't drainage be a good idea?
dgillette (Geotechnical)
24 Jul 09 11:28
Expand Bagman's range a bit: Total unit weight can be 90 (aeolian silt with low water content) to 135 pcf (saturated compacted broadly graded fill).

How can you talk about "conservative" unit weights without stating the application?  If it's active pressure on a retaining wall, higher is more conservative.  If it's for footing bearing capacity, lower is more conservative.
spats (Structural)
24 Jul 09 11:58
All you metric guys are confusing the heck out of me. Unit weight is mass/unit volume, or kg/m^3. A newton is a measure of force, not mass. What's up?
dgillette (Geotechnical)
24 Jul 09 12:27
Strictly speaking, unit weight has units of force/(length^3).  Therefore, lb/ft^3 or, kN/m^3.  Unit mass would be kg/m^3 or slugs/ft^3.  Calculation of static forces and stresses is often easier with unit weight, since you don't need to multiply by 32.2 or 9.81.

Mention slugs to anyone, even U.S. engineers, and you are bound to get a bunch of blank looks.  Slugs/ft^3 is most likely to be interpreted as how many slimy little creatures are in the garden.
dik (Structural)
24 Jul 09 12:53
For SI stuff... density is usually defined as mass / cu (whatever), and the correct reference for soil in this application should be kg/m^3. It is often shown in reports (possibly incorrectly) as kN/m^3 with the idea that the weight of soil is a force and not a mass.

The Imperial confusion steps in when people use pounds (force) synonomously with pounds (mass). Dgillette is correct when he refers to Imperial mass as 'slugs' This is pounds (force) divided by g (32.2 approx) to convert it to a mass.

Dik
civilperson (Structural)
24 Jul 09 12:53
Range in natural soils in my experience, 78 pcf to 147 pcf, with the majority under 110 pcf.
dgillette (Geotechnical)
24 Jul 09 12:56
147?  Wow!  What was it?
civilperson (Structural)
24 Jul 09 12:59
Taconite tailings, (Minnesota) and basaltic rock, (Niagra Falls, Ontario).

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!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close