It gives a more, but not overly, conservative design result.
The fixed-earth method will give longer piles and a bit less anchor load. This fixity reduces the bending moment in the SSP. The fixed-earth method assumes that the wall is supported by the anchors and by a "fixed" reaction from the soil at the lower portion of the embedded length of the SSP. The calculations are simpler with the free-earth method. Calculate the embedment required for moment equilibrium about the anchor level and then increase the embedment by at least 20% as a safety factor. It assumes that the wall is supported by the anchors and the soil below the dredge line. Free-earth method gives a shorter pile length (add a safety factor), more bending moment, and a higher anchor load. SSP walls can be designed for either the free-earth or fixed-earth method. RE: Can sheet piles be Fixed AND free earth support? Wallap vs manual calculations PEinc (Geotechnical) 20 Apr 20 13:28 I thought Wallap would have optimised the force)Ģ) Why the net pressure changes from passive to active right at the bottom of the pile (even though the bending and deflection diagram shows free end) The only difference I can see is the Wallap reports a drop in passive pressure for some reason at the bottom of the pile.ġ) A manual calc can be less than the wallap report in terms of resistance required (i.e. When I manual calculate the design using free earth method, I also get a prop force 27% LESS than the Wallap prop force. However, the net pressure diagram shows the passive pressure changing to active right at the bottom of the pile – indicating fixed earth support. The bending moment and displacement diagrams indicate that it is free earth support. The design is a propped retaining sheet pile wall. I am using Wallap for the first time and have come across something strange. Hello – I was wondering if anyone could help me with the following problem:
0 kommentar(er)
