Pecks apparent pressure envelop
Pecks apparent pressure envelop
(OP)
Hi all
I have a question regarding pressure envelop for strutted sheet piling .
I have always been calculating strutted forces and sheet pile moments using the triangular Rankine envelop. For strut design, I simply perform structural analysis based on the triangular envelop and design the struts from all layer to as if the heaviest loaded strut.
Now my question is, is this method acceptable structurally? From my understanding, my method is only more conservative than the pecks envelop because my method doesn't consider pressure redistribution among the struts and thus my calculated strut load is deemed to be more overestomated. Is my understanding correct? Or is there a deeper reason to use the pecks envelop?
Thank you
I have a question regarding pressure envelop for strutted sheet piling .
I have always been calculating strutted forces and sheet pile moments using the triangular Rankine envelop. For strut design, I simply perform structural analysis based on the triangular envelop and design the struts from all layer to as if the heaviest loaded strut.
Now my question is, is this method acceptable structurally? From my understanding, my method is only more conservative than the pecks envelop because my method doesn't consider pressure redistribution among the struts and thus my calculated strut load is deemed to be more overestomated. Is my understanding correct? Or is there a deeper reason to use the pecks envelop?
Thank you





RE: Pecks apparent pressure envelop
RE: Pecks apparent pressure envelop
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41023(337)...
RE: Pecks apparent pressure envelop
Beyond that? You get to decide.
f-d
ípapß gordo ainÆt no madre flaca!
RE: Pecks apparent pressure envelop
Because you:
I assume the most heavily loaded struts are at the lowest elevation. If so, IMHO, that is conservative.
For what it is worth, I'll pass on a detail I learned from my father. He worked in bridge construction. From the 1930's to 70's he designed/constructed/used numerous deep temporary cofferdams and braced excavations.
Which ever pressure distribution is used, always include wales and/or struts at the top of the sheet pile. Do not cantilever loaded sheet pile above the top wale/struts. Loads at this top elevation are light, but by including support at the top, loading on the second and lower levels are more stable.
www.SlideRuleEra.net
www.VacuumTubeEra.net
RE: Pecks apparent pressure envelop
The Terzaghi-Peck-Mersi book terms this distribution "apparent earth pressure" (we all just say "Peck" method). The Tschebotarioff method is similar.
PEinc should comment here.
RE: Pecks apparent pressure envelop
While empirical pressure distributions were developed using an assumed support hinge at subgrade (no computers back in those days!), for a braced or tiedback SSP wall, the envelopes do not usually show how to address and apply the active earth pressures below subgrade. Treat the soils above subgrade and behind the wall as an overburden surcharge to get the driving pressures behind the embedded SSP toe.
www.PeirceEngineering.com
RE: Pecks apparent pressure envelop
As a side note, the previous example showing an additional prop at ground level is in my opinion unnecessary, but that would be based on allowable deflection and bending capacity of sheet. If you have a stiff enough sheet there is no reason to add a prop at ground level 'just because' as this is not standard practice (anymore). I wouldn't say the top levels are significantly more loaded than rankine suggests either. Sorry to jump in on something which was pretty well answered, just my two pence worth.
Oh and technically if you have a multiple frame design you should ideally be using sophisticated software (finite element)