Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

ACI 350 Load Factor for Earth Loads, H

Status
Not open for further replies.

StructuralPhil

Structural
Sep 23, 2022
3
Per ACI 350-06, the load factor H listed in the load combinations of Section 9.2.1 "shall be reduced to 0.6 where H reduces the effect of D, L, or F."

In the case of a cantilever retaining wall, would it be appropriate then to apply a 1.6 factor to the lateral earth pressure behind the wall but only a 0.6 factor to the weight of soil on the heel of the footing?
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

No, I do not think so.

What I think they are saying is then when you have 2 opposing loads acting simultaneously on a member, ACI wants you reduce the load that is 'helping out'.

For example, if you are designing a wall stem; and have active earth pressure pushing the stem one direction; and at the same time you have permanent passive pressure pushing back; then you need to reduce the passive pressure down to 60% of it's full value.

 
H is defined by IBC and ASCE 7 as the load due to Lateral earth pressures
I have always interpreted the weight of the soil mass as a DL which receives a reduced load factor for stability checks.



I'm making a thing: (It's no Kootware and it will probably break but it's alive!)
 
Celt83 - ACI 350 defines H as "loads due to weight and pressure of soil, water in soil, or other materials, or related internal moments and forces," so it seems like they're wrapping all earth/groundwater effects into that one factor rather than breaking it out like other codes do.
 
If the vertical pressure of soil or the vertical friction component of sloped backfilled is used to resist overturning, then I agree with @StructuralPhil these terms should have a 0.6 factor, whilst the loads causing the overturning would be higher as required.
 
I happen to be working on a similar loading and this snip is from ACI 350-20. It matches Celt83's interpertation.
Screenshot_-_Copy_i4toda.png
 
This commentary also implies that in the "06" code the interpretation from StructuralPhil is correct.
 
Thanks to all for the input.

GC_Hopi, sounds like there have been significant changes in ACI 350-20, time to upgrade [reading]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor