Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Retaining wall footing resultant CBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I hope not - EFP should be what is appropriate for driving soil pressure based on the structure's ability to move. I often use at-rest pressure, such as for rigid box structures, walls supported at the top, or liquid-containing structures where walls are typically more rigid.
 
Bill Sherman
CH2M HILL / DEN
720-286-2792
 


From: Michel Blangy [mailto:mblangy(--nospam--at)satco-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:48 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Retaining wall footing resultant CBC

Can someone cite a reference establishing EFP as soil density * Ka (active) and NOT soil density * ko (at-rest)?
 
Thanks,
 
Michel
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hemstad [mailto:mhemstad(--nospam--at)mbjeng.com]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 7:34 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Retaining wall footing resultant CBC

I agree with Steve.  When I design retaining walls, I put At-rest pressure on the back face.  Remember that the wall has to move slightly to engage the soil skeleton enough to apply only Active-level forces.  In my mind, the next time it rains, the soil settles and applies at-rest level force.  Then, if the wall can move again, the soil skeleton is re-mobilized and we're back to active pressure.