×
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

Embedded Walls - Passive Increase for Close Spacing

Embedded Walls - Passive Increase for Close Spacing

Embedded Walls - Passive Increase for Close Spacing

(OP)
Can you / would you / should you increase the passive pressure to account for the "surcharge" soil load when you have embedded walls which are facing eachother with a close spacing (i.e. 2 cantilever walls bracing opposite sides of an excavation)?

See here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65240332/Eng-T...

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Embedded Walls - Passive Increase for Close Spacing

The "surcharge" should not be looked at providing additional passive resistance since it may be removed in the future. The surcharge influence line & the passive failure plane should not overlap. See attached comments.

Also look at DM 7.02 manual for checks on piping, basal heave and rotational failure.

http://www.soilstructure.com/

RE: Embedded Walls - Passive Increase for Close Spacing

(OP)
FE - thanks for the comments and I should have said "assuming that piping, basal heave and rotational failure checks are all "OK"".

I was think of a situation where this is temporary shoring and either a case where there are no braces or before braces are installed and you have 2 cantilevered walls. Lets also assume that the soil on one side is not going to be removed (maybe its a case where the shoring will be left in place. It seems that the closer the walls are together, the greater the contribution of the soil being retained on the opposite side will have. I mean it seems that there has to be some benefit to this soil as it would add weight to the passive soil wedge (assuming that it is on top of the passive soil wedge). However maybe there is no good way to quantify it.

Thanks again.

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Embedded Walls - Passive Increase for Close Spacing

I think you could count on it, but you are 'double' loading the passive soil at the base. I have never had the situation so have not given it a lot of thought, but it seems like once you start overlapping passive from different directions you should reduce your values in some way. For lack of a better term I envision a potential to 'buckle' the soil.

RE: Embedded Walls - Passive Increase for Close Spacing

(OP)
Yeah I would agree that doubling the loading could be trouble some. As for the buckling, that's where I was thinking the piping and basal heave checks would come into play.

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Embedded Walls - Passive Increase for Close Spacing

Design two separate sheeting walls, unless thare are identical loading conditions. Don't count on extra passive resistance. If there is an unbalanced hydrostatic pressure, check for boiling. Check for heave if you have soft soil.

www.PeirceEngineering.com

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