Coulomb Passive pressure on soldier pile walls.
Coulomb Passive pressure on soldier pile walls.
(OP)
I've recently designed some soldier pile/ concrete sleeper retaining walls using Brom's method.
Using Coulombs equation for passive pressure and allowing for a wall friction angle of 0.5*Phi gives a much higher kp value than Rankine's.
Based on a previous topic Here
I gathered allowing for wall friction is okay as long as it is done in moderation.
Using above method gives a kp of around 4.2 for a phi = 30. These parameters give a pier depth of around 2.1m for a wall height of 2.0m with 1.6m pier spacing.
I was hoping to get some advice on the depth of the footing from those experienced in soldier pile walls.
Any advice/ recommended resources is greatly appreciated.
Using Coulombs equation for passive pressure and allowing for a wall friction angle of 0.5*Phi gives a much higher kp value than Rankine's.
Based on a previous topic Here
I gathered allowing for wall friction is okay as long as it is done in moderation.
Using above method gives a kp of around 4.2 for a phi = 30. These parameters give a pier depth of around 2.1m for a wall height of 2.0m with 1.6m pier spacing.
I was hoping to get some advice on the depth of the footing from those experienced in soldier pile walls.
Any advice/ recommended resources is greatly appreciated.
RE: Coulomb Passive pressure on soldier pile walls.
f-d
ípapß gordo ainÆt no madre flaca!
RE: Coulomb Passive pressure on soldier pile walls.
www.PeirceEngineering.com
RE: Coulomb Passive pressure on soldier pile walls.
RE: Coulomb Passive pressure on soldier pile walls.
RE: Coulomb Passive pressure on soldier pile walls.
To quickly respond;
F-D
Does Cp just stand for arching in pile?
I do allow for this but I use 0.08*phi and limit it to 3. I dont normally apply arching to kp though, rather as an effective width when balancing moments
@DanMcGrew
these sizes are pretty inline with what I get. Generally the only time I start to get very small footings in in soils with large friction angles (35-40)
Which may be because Brom's theory is not appropriate for design on in rock.
Cheers guys