Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Boussinesq analysis

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I think according to Bowles, wasn't there some errors in Spanglers testing?
I think he did not test compacted fill and the wrong poisson ratio was used
in the analysis. What year is the Peck reference?

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Turk [mailto:73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:46 PM
To: SEAOC Listservice
Subject: Boussinesq analysis


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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********