几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


 
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-09, 07:35 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 influence of counterforts in ret walls

influence of counterforts in ret walls
in a cantilevered concrete retaining wall what are some standard practices that any of you take for including the influence of either a 90 degree bend in the wall or a counterfort. i have typically used a 1 to 1 ratio but think that may be unconservative. i was wondering what other engineers do. thanks
find a job or post a job opening
the best way i have found to look at realistic behaviour of a retaining wall with frequent jogs (like a walk-out basement wall for a custom residence) is to model it in 3-d using finite element analysis, like in staadpro, risa 3-d, etc. if you have width-to-height aspect ratios less than 3, you will be surprised how much of the wall works in horizontal bending. we often place a single mat (for 8" and 10" walls) of reinforcing steel in the center of the wall thickness to work for all directions of bending, with added dowels at wall corners and into footings at strategic locations and spacings.
this all depends on the height and allowable bearing capacity. a rule of thumb is to have a base equal to 0.6 times the height of wall, but when you have low bearing capacity this rule does not work and this ratio might approach to unity.
i've done a brief finite analysis and was a bit confused on the results, what i'm looking for is a way to quickly and conservatively treat a bend/counterfort in a retaining wall. the situation i have now is a long 12' tall ret wall that has 10' long counterforts every 15', the wall has already been built and only has 3' footings, so clearly a simple analysis without including the counterforts says the wall is overturning and the eccentricity is beyond the footing width. if i assume the counterforts to help the overturning for a 1 to 1 ratio than the wall is ok, what do you guys think??
as long as the counterfort wall is properly connected to the retaining wall, you should be able to depend on it, its footing and the soil weight above its footing to resist overturning. i would just check overturning on a 15 foot section of wall, or put 15 feet of soil pressure on the counterfort section. it's hard to imagine that the wall would tear away from the counterfort in an overturning failure, although there may be substantial horizontal bending along the top sections of the wall between the counterforts. that's where i have seen problems in similar situations, especially when the reinforcing mat is on the earth side of the concrete.
an fea analysis is most helpful to see bending forces in wall elements and, if the footings are also modeled with springs (compression-only springs, spring constant = modulus of subgrade reaction), to see soil pressure distributions. stability for overturning is probably easier by free-body hand calculations.
does anyone else have experience with retaining wall fea modeling?
try:
moments and reactions for rectangular plates, u.s., bureau of reclamation, monogram 27, w.t. moody. should be able to find it on the web, formed the basis of,
pca, rectangular concrete tanks. try also;
bowles, foundation analysis and design,, 12-14 design of counterfort retaining walls.
don't find much finite difference work, but thats the analysis method utilised in the first two references.
oh yes, not mentioned in any of the above, if the counterforts and wall are poured as one, dry shrinkage between the two orthogonal elements can be a problem.
i have monogram 27, let me know how you make out. i'm only mildly in the computer age though.
yes, was just reviewing the post, soil foundation interaction is very nebulus and requires a great deal of conservatism. stability analysis critical to all the above. this is a pretty complex structural form. try to keep the heel big enough to maintain a fairly, and i say fairly again, unform contact pressure across the base of the footing. the connection condition of the wall to the footing, pinned or fixed, neither, re soil interaction requires a parametric study, and the involvement of the dirt guy to determine rotation characteristics of the wall and footing for the various contact pressures.
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
 


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
fire walls 9again0 huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 12:03 PM
do existing unreinf cmu walls need to follow tms 530 seismic huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 07:04 PM
clay tile walls huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 09:24 AM
buttress wall relative rigidity huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 05:57 PM
below grade masonry walls huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 03:22 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 05:08 AM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多