Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Boussinesq analysis
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: SEAOC Listservice <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Boussinesq analysis
- From: Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:45:32 -0500
Mike, Peck, Hansen & Thornburn, 2nd edition, has charts relating values of n (depth below crest of wall) to H*rho/q', where H is height of wall, rho is the pressure at depth n that a line load exerts on the wall, and q' is the line load set back from the back of the wall a distance, m*H. Reference is given to tests by Gerber (1929) and Spangler (1938). Spangler's "Soils Engineering," gives the formula for pressure due to a line (strip) load as: hsubl = 1.27*p*(x^2)*z/Rsub1^4 where, hsubl = horizontal unit pressure at any point on wall, in pounds per square foot p = applied strip load, in pounds per linear foot x = horizontal distance line load is from back of wall z = vertical distance from top of wall to point where horizontal pressure is to be calculated (Rsub1)^2 = x^2 + z^2 HTH A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural) Tucson, Arizona Michael Hemstad wrote: . > We are analyzing an existing foundation wall for . > lateral load based on a changed vertical load adjacent . > to it (we built up a pedestrian plaza with increased . > dead load and pedestrian live load where the street . > used to be). We used equations from the textbook by . > Das (Principles of Geotechnical Engineering) for strip . > load surcharge. They are the same in the 2nd Edition . > (eq 5.38) and 3rd Edition (eq. 10.81) and include a . > term involving q/H, where H is the wall height. . > We gave it to an EIT to check. When he pulled out his . > textbook (Das, 4th Ed.) the term in the equation . > (6.40) was q/pi. I tend to believe this one, because . > the units work out correctly. Since our wall is 26 . > feet tall, our original analysis was off by a factor . > of about 8. . > The only other textbook we have available (we're stuck . > in a satellite office), Bowles, does not deal with . > this topic. Can anyone confirm one or the other of . > these equations for us? . > Thanks. . > Mike Hemstad ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Prev by Subject: RE: Boussinesq analysis
- Next by Subject: RE: Boussinesq analysis
- Previous by thread: RE: Boussinesq analysis
- Next by thread: RE: Boussinesq analysis
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]