Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
(OP)
I'm trying estimate the min dry unit weight of a cohesionless backfill we will be using. I am in need of this value to estimate (Ko)for a wall with compacted backfill. I have:
Max Dry Density
D85
D30
Cu
D60
D15
D10
Classification
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Max Dry Density
D85
D30
Cu
D60
D15
D10
Classification
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks





RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
I hope that you won't put the following on your drawing:
"Backfill to consist of sand to sand and gravel with a unit weight of 18kN/m3 having a "delta" of 15degrees and a phi of 33 degrees" - then specify 98% MDD Modified Proctor!
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
As an aside though, I'm not sure how knowing the minimum unit weight will help you estimate earth pressures coefficients. Earth pressure coefficients are more dependent on friction angle than unit weights. For example, two different soils with different minimum units weights can possible have the same, or very similar earth pressure coefficients if they have a similar friction angle.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
I'm going to conditionally disagree with MRM and UcfSE. Since the effective friction angle is closely tied to the soil's density, one cannot separate the two. There is no such thing as "the" angle of internal friction. So the earth pressure coefficients are affected by the soil density...
While I understand jakeh76's question, I, too find it hard to see a practical application of this information. Please describe your problem in detail, jakeh76. Perhaps we can help you yet -
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
Ko=(1-sin(phi))+(((dry unit weight/min. unit weight in loosest state)-1)*5.5)
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
I see why you’re looking for minimum density now. I've never seen the equation form you show, but I think it's similar to one that provides an additional term onto the Ko=(1-sin(phi) term, which involves the OCR. The Ko of a compacted sand, at shallow depths, will usually be greater than simply (1-sin(phi)) due to the overconsolidation effect. This is assuming we are talking at rest. It appears that your equation provides a different way to estimate Ko of a soil that has been compacted, or one that has an OCR greater than unity. I still stand by my original recommendation and that is to run a minimum density test using ASTM D4254 (check on that # to be certain). The results of that test can be expressed in terms of dry density or moist density if required if you know the moisture content you're dealing with.
Since Focht3 has conditionally disagreed with what I said, I'll take a stab at explaining myself and clarifying what I said. I’m up for a challenge, I guess! Besides, it’s been a while since I was involved in a discussion! I think something just came out wrong when I said what I said, or the lines got cross somehow.
I think the problem with my original post was that instead of saying, "earth pressure coefficients are more dependent on friction angle than unit weights," I should have said, "earth pressure coefficients are more DIRECTLY dependant on friction angle than unit weights." And by “directly dependant” what I really mean is that “the unit weight is one of many variables required to arrive at a friction angle estimate for use in theoretical earth pressure relationships.” It is true that unit weights influence friction angle and earth pressures, but here’s why I think it’s confusing when you start talking about unit weight as a basis for earth pressures, or any other soil parameter. Here are three things to consider and probably none of them are new to us…
Soil density (unit weight, take your pick) alone explains nothing about the soil strength or compressibility characteristics of a soil. Two different soils can be at the same in place density, yet have different soil characteristics. This is because the soil characteristics depend on many other variables than simply "density." Example, “that soil has an in place density of 15kN/m^3.” Is that good? What are the friction angle, compressibility, and permeability? (Please note: I’ll catch myself now and state that friction angle itself is also dependant of type of failure, strain rate, plane strain vs. triax conditions, etc. before anyone else does!)
Relative density is a step forward toward providing a basis for soil characteristics and earth pressure estimated. If we know relative density, then at least we know where the soil's density falls between the min and max theoretical densities, right? However, talking about earth pressure with respect to relative density, solely, is also erroneous since, again, friction angle is dependent on many things-relative density being only one of them. What other things? Gradation, particle shape, mineral composition, etc. We know that.
When we break it down, simplify it, and just talk about friction angle (say drained friction angle for argument sake) we have taken a giant step forward in expressing a soil characteristic that can be used to solve theoretical problems, like estimating the earth pressure coefficients. A friction angle of 35 degrees, is a friction angle of 35 degrees regardless of the in-place density. It no longer matters. We’ve temporarily removed the “middleman” (intermediate variables required to develop the friction angle) in order to use a more direct parameter to solve the problem. The friction angle now represents the consideration of numerous variables involved in developing the friction angle parameter for use. That’s all I meant.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
Well done. Your previous post didn't quite "sound like you" - if you know what I mean. Hence my "conditional disagreement." I guess that I could have done a ,"What he meant to say was...", but I didn't have time. Been very busy lately. (Yeah!)
jakeh76:
I have a copy of Das' book - will look at that section later today. If I see anything that deserves a comment, I'll post it.
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
The points made on the factors affecting the ka (or ko) value are valid. I would suggest that the difference is that the at-rest ko value (before wall tilts) is from the OCR as MRM states. Sure, but, again, for the active - or at-rest - earth pressures (the loads), the height is obviously much more important than whether the unit weight is 18 or 19kN/m3, or (phi) is 33 or 35 - don't think any of us would use phi = 40 even if we densified a lot. The difference between k (active) of 0.3 to even 0.35 is, say 15%, but the diffence of H=7 to H=9 is 81/49; a 60% increase.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
As far as ka and ko go, I'm not sure what kind of wall we're talking about either. Ka may be the more appropriate coefficient to use-depending on the situation and whether the wall is allowed to deflect to the point of creating active conditions without lots of damage to the wall. It seems like choice of coefficient comes down to allowable deflection (and failure load) of the wall; if some movement is tolerable and won’t hurt the overall integrity of the structure, design using ka. If the structure is very sensitive, design for ko conditions (which would result in a "beefier" wall design, and would lower the chance for distress if movement is not allowed). Although, not much lateral movement is really necessary to reduce the pressure a great deal…in fact that movement required probably reduces quite a bit as the fill gets more compact too.
I think geotechs will continue to be the biggest reason clients or structural engineer claim their wall design is too conservative no matter how we justify our reasoning!! Sometimes I wonder if we should even fight it anymore! Ha ha!
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
gr
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
I want to make sure I understand you correctly; Assuming good drainage conditions, etc, the amount a wall of "normal" or "typical" height would need to move laterally in order to develop active conditions, would not generally cause undue stress to the wall itself (excessive cracking, high internal structural stress, etc.) or damage to buildings or structures near the top of the wall as a result of the movement? This is good practical info to know. In your experience, have there been any instances where the wall was tied in with an especially sensitive structure of some kind and you had to design for very little lateral deflection? In those cases did you use Ko instead of Ka, or something in between the two, maybe? Just curious.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
My copies of Das' books don't have that on page 384. What's the section heading?
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
Problems arise when one wants to estimate actual pressures existing behind the wall or when elemets of the wall are designed with very small factors of safety and the whole wall with a large factor of safety
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
One also has to be aware of any elements connected to, or affected by, the wall. Particularly when dealing with braced or anchored walls. In these circumstances, movement compatibility is the key issue, so the wall can still "fail" when it hasn't cracked -
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
The basic idea is to develop realistic unfactored values of passive, at rest and active earth pressure at various points along the profile of the structure. NAVFAC DM-7 contains approximate displacement values (as a function of wall height) of the movement needed to achieve fully active and fully passive soil pressures. I normally use a parabolic curve (similar to Matlock's soft clay p-y curve criteria) to model the transition from passive to at rest, and at rest to active. Using this approach, you can see the effects of using various tie-back types, anchor levels, etc. in a very consistent manner - using expected performance as your final design standard. This is also a great way to model the construction sequence.
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
This doesn't happen in construction; as backfill is placed from the bottom, the wall deflects and Ka results. As more backfill is placed, it is compacted against the deflected wall, which then must deflect some more, but as the wall is required to deflect more, the reinforcement is more thoroughly mobilized and begins to resist movement more, so the pressure is somewhat greater than Ka, but still less than Ko. As the backfill is installed, the pressure grows closer and closer to the Ko value, but likely never quite reaching it. This would make the actual pressure envelope nonlinear.
When the wall movement is restrained by tiebacks or by sttel strips as in the case of RECO walls, the K value can actually be greater than Ko.
D. Bruce Nothdurft, MSCE, PE, PG, M.ASCE, etc, etc,...
Principal Engineer/Geologist
Atlantic Geoscience & Engineering
Charlotte, NC
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
Absolutely correct. Very few engineers (regardless of flavor) seem to understand this.
In a similar vein, what pressure (KP, K0, KA) would you use for the following: A bulkhead is constructed in a port facility. Mudline is at El. -22' MSL, sheet piling driven to about -45'. Cast iron tie rods installed to dead men anchors (pipe pile A-frames) and adjusted for "final" length. Then a "beach sand" (typical angle of internal friction of about 32°) is hydraulically placed behind the bulkhead...
The designer assumed that the sand fill would achieve fully active pressures. They did - when the bulkhead failed!
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
D. Bruce Nothdurft, MSCE, PE, PG, M.ASCE, etc, etc,...
Principal Engineer/Geologist
Atlantic Geoscience & Engineering
Charlotte, NC
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
So, in the end, judgment does prevail - strengths are tempered, unit weights a bit lower, likely k values are the "book" value of ka but perhaps we should be a bit higher in the value.
As in my first comment, we should hope that structural engineers don't write on the drawings something like: The backfill material is to bave . . . (including the adhesion factor). The specifier should indicate which soil he wants to use (fine to medium sand, sand and gravel, etc., and then give a juddged proper level of compaction to meet his design requirements - for few of us would ever do direct shear tests, adhesion tests, etc. on a backfill material for "most" jobs.
RE: Estimating Min. Dry unit weight
BigH is right - a little conservatism is warranted. The small additional cost of the extra steel and concrete is well worth every penny. Inadequate basement walls are damn hard - and expensive - to fix.
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.