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!

*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.

Jobs

Timber pole retaining wall

Timber pole retaining wall

(OP)
Hi, I am designing a timber pole retaining wall. I stuck at what retained height I have to apply the earthquake loads.
The other query is whether I have to use 100% live load surcharge or less.
If you have any references for these queries, it is much appreciated. Thanks.

RE: Timber pole retaining wall

There are some newer conflicting theories on the point of application of seismic loads on retaining walls. See AASHTO LRFD 2015-16 for discussion.

AASHTO now just calculates a total load (Pae from Mononobe-Okabe) and applies it at 1/3 of the design height with some discussion that it may be between 1/3 and 1/2 of the design height. The older AASHTO code broke the loads into static and dynamic components and applied at different locations.

There has also been some conflicts with the application of live load and how much. For years, live load was ignored when doing a seismic retaining wall analysis per AASHTO with current AASHTO LRFD suggesting that a partial load factor of 0.50 may be appropriate vs. the 1.75 load factor used in the static analysis. It is accounted for in some manner this way.

If I had to make a guess, I would apply the earthquake load, if separate from static loads, at 1/2 of the retained height and then make a judgement call of whether to include live load or not. It really has more to do with which code or design procedures one is following.


RE: Timber pole retaining wall

For non-tranportation walls, I've been using Los Angeles' residential guideline. NZ has some good docs too. I suspect that the flexibility inherent in a timber system would change things a bit. I know of no reference for that however.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Timber pole retaining wall

If the surcharge is from a building, I would say include it with the seismic load.

If the surcharge is from traffic, I would say not to include it with the seismic load.

It depends on whether or not the surcharge is permanent.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Timber pole retaining wall

(OP)
Thanks Doctormo, I do not have your ref. AASHTO LRFD 2015-16 yet, but I am using Ko instead of a classic Mononobe-Okabe and using DPae= 0.75a.g.h2 (Wood & Elm, 1990)
While surcharge/live load is applied 50%.
Thanks KootK, now I have a guidance to use 6ft (1.83m) retained height to start applying the seismic loads.
Thanks msquared48, I agree to apply 100% for building and zero for traffic.
Thanks all for your suggestions.

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


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