×
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.

Students Click Here

Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

(OP)
Happy Tuesday everyone.

I know this question has been asked alot, but I would like to ask add my voice to the confused crowd.

Is there any paper or reference that proves that Rowe's reduction should never be used on soldier piles with one level of supports and only be used on sheet piles?

I understand the reduction theory is empirical based on sheet piles tests but is it meanly based on flexibility of the system or we don't have enough data to say for sure?

If anyone has any successful example where it was used on soldier piles, I would greatly appreciate that.

Thanks,

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

All of the references I have discuss Rowe's moment reduction being developed for and used for anchored, sheet pile bulkheads designed by the free earth method. I have never seen it used with soldier beam walls.

www.PeirceEngineering.com

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

Agree with PEinc. Although, if you assume no fixity where the soldier pile extends into the ground, it would make sense that the bending moment and deflection in the pile will be less than what calculations would predict. But I have never seen any research done on this.

DaveAtkins

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

(OP)
PEinc and DaveAtkins: Thank you!

This is a purely theoretical question, but wouldn't be beneficial if there is also research on the reduction moment for the soldier piles? The system seems to me like it's more flexible than sheet piles and it would result in more economical sections if the free earth moments would also be reduced.

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

(OP)
Another question, is the use of friction on the back of temporary soldier pile lagging walls to calculate the pressures common?

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

If you are referring to taking advantage of wall friction, I do not believe it is common. However, it seems like something that could be rationalized. For the active soil wedge to move outward, it would need to slide downward along the lagging.

DaveAtkins

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

(OP)
Thank you!

I have some drawings of existing shoring with very light pile sections. Under the normal rankine (no friction with the wall), the sections seem to be under designed.
I thought maybe the designer used Rowe's reduction factors but I gathered from my research that it is not used unless it's a sheet wall.
So i am just assuming it used a friction.

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

Wall friction is very real think that is really overlooked to often in my opinion. For sheet piles, piled walls I think it should be considered. Check C760 the UK document for embedded retaining walls. It is one of the best publications on the matter.

For lagging walls I am not so sure on using friction. If there is ability for the lagging to move downwards then your friction is lost. I dont really think lagging should be capable of moving downards if designed properly. Solider pile and lagging wall are less common in UK so PEinc is your man on this subject.

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

Quote (EireChch)

If there is ability for the lagging to move downwards then your friction is lost.

Good point.

DaveAtkins

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

I have designed thousands of SSP and soldier beam walls, both temporary and permanent, cantilevered, braced, and anchored. Unless specifically not allowed for a project or by an owner agency, I always use wall friction with Coulomb earth pressure coefficients. I have never had a problem. The key to success is to never load up simultaneously on too many load or moment reducing design "tricks." Many design manuals and texts mention some ways to lower the earth pressure or use temporary overstresses. These include things like designing the SSP or soldier beams for 80% of the empirical earth pressure envelope, using Coulomb vs. Rankine, varying the allowable percentage of steel yield stress, and using Rowe's Moment Reduction. If you use too many of these "tricks" simultaneously, the odds are good that you will have a problem. BUT, the big question is, how many are too much?

www.PeirceEngineering.com

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

EireChch, lagging moves forward because the soil pushes it forward or a braced or tiedback soldier beam pushes back against the lagging causing the lagging to bulge, which looks like forward lagging movement. In either case there is strong contact, and therefore friction, between the soil and the lagging. I don't see how friction would be lost.

www.PeirceEngineering.com

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

(OP)
@PEinc/ @ EireChch: Thank you for the insights.

I never considered friction before in design and I also never considered any increase in allowable yield for steel. I always end up with higher pile sections than my peers.

for now, I will introduce these two options to my design in order to get closer to pile sections that I know work in the field but I can't make them work on paper with conservative approaches.

RE: Rowe's moment reduction for soldier piles

HanStrulo, just make sure you have references available so that, when the reviewer questions you, you have backup.

www.PeirceEngineering.com

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! Already a Member? Login



News


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