×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Engine-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Engine-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

(OP)
We have a 8m deep excavation in sandy soil, as per design we need to provide two levels of bracing. At top level (at 2m depth) we are using Deadman anchors. However, for 2nd level (waler is at 5m depth) our client is asking to install the H-beam in front of sheet piles so that load can be taken by the vertical H-beams. This is to safe the space inside excavation. We are not allowed to install the ground anchors. So now I have to do the Vertical beams calculation but I am unable to find any calculation related to this, can any body please help. I am attaching one schematic drawing for under standing. I need the calculation for H-Beam (blue color) in drawing.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Quote:

...I have to do the Vertical beams calculation but I am unable to find any calculation related to this...I need the calculation for H-Beam...We are not allowed to install the ground anchors.

Drawing is not attached.

If you omit both levels of support (at 2m and 5m depths), the sheeting is cantilevered out of the soil.

The H-Beam (HP) will either have to be welded to the sheeting and driven with it or driven separately from the sheeting. Both approaches have significant problems.

IMHO, forget the HP and see if heavier (higher moment of inertia) sheeting (say, PZ or AZ series) is available that is suitable for cantilever loading of 8+ meters without the HP. Also check to see if soil properties allow the higher (cantilever) loading. For cantilever loading, assume sheeting embedment will be at least 8 meters and the line of support for the sheeting will make the cantilevered length of sheeting greater than 8 meters (as determined by soil properties).

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Just to clarify, are you using an h-beam horizontally across the excavation as a prop or vertically in front of the sheet piles

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

(OP)
SlideRuleEra/geotechguy1, thanks for the reply drawings is attach. This design is as per our available sheet pile material. We can not spend more money to change our sheet piles, so most of the factors are unchangeable now except the H-beams. So kindly let me know if there is any thing you can share about the calculations.

Update. I used the approach in Das Foundation engineering book for the cantilever sheet piles without any backfill and apply on this h-beam but the moment is coming so high that I have to apply very big section at 1m spacing.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Large sections for 8m shoring is what I would expect. That's a no joke wall. Around here in my local soil conditions, cantilevered soldier piles are only good for around 4-4.5m before it starts to get extremely ridiculous for the concrete plug diameter versus spacing.

How long is the excavation?

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Khurram Shehzad I see the top wale (2m depth) can be used, sorry for assuming it could not.

The drawing shows excavation depth as 10m, but the original post states 8m. In either case, I don't believe the vertical HP used on undersized sheeting will be practical or safe. However, that is just my opinion. Maybe others have a way to make good use of a vertical HP.

What I would do (if heavier sheeting is not an option) is to forget about using the HP vertically. Instead see if using the HP horizontally as a third or even fourth elevation of wales (adjust elevation of all wale, including the 2m depth as required). This would lower stress in all wales, maybe allowing smaller members (perhaps increasing space in the excavation.) May or may not work, won't know unless you do the math.

One thing I would do for certain... the decision on what to do would be based on accurate assumptions and correct calculations. What a client "wanted" or I "thought" are worthless. People get killed if this type work is not done right... the first time.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Very inefficient design. The upper tier of tie rods will support very little load while the lower waler will support most of the load. The amount of passive resistance from the vertical H=Pile is insignificant compared to the passive resistance provided by the SSP. If possible, try to use a heavier, possibly deeper, SSP with the single tier of tie rods and deadmen. Also, the deadman should be back far enough that the wall's active zone and the deadman's passive zone do not overlap. Otherwise, you will have reduced passive resistance from the deadman.
If you really need a lower tier of bracing, consider inclined raker braces that bear on heel blocks.

www.PeirceEngineering.com

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

(OP)
Thanks all of you for your input. We do not have free space inside the excavation for horizontal or raker bracing that is why this vertical beam is under consideration. I am also attaching the image of the concept I am refereeing. Actually we have use this method in one previous excavation but just based on experience by our team.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Khurram Shehzad, good luck with that design! The sheet piling and the soldier beams would be pushing on the same soil for passive resistance. I am not sure how you will model that unless you assume that the sheet piling has no embedment (this simplifies the analysis) and the soldier beams have about 3 tiers of horizontal walers against the sheet piling. Without even considering any surcharge loads and using average granular soils and no ground water, I get very large soldier beams at 1m spacing. With 3 levels of bracing, the sheet pile size needs not be very large. I assumed a trapezoidal earth pressure on the sheet piling. You could reduce the soldier beam size if you assume a triangular loading on the sheet piling but with 3 levels of bracing and some pre-loading of the soldier beams and walers, I don't think triangular earth load is appropriate.

www.PeirceEngineering.com

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

(OP)
PEinc thanks, yes i also got very large beams with 1m spacing. We are pushing our client for any other bracing option then this. Thanks all of you for your time and help.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

My advice is to listen to PEinc.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Thank you, JedClampett.

Khurram Shehzad, read SlideRuleEra's first response. However, PZ and AZ sheet piling will not be strong enough. You could try designing a heavy-duty sheet pile combi-wall made of interlocking sheet piles with either interlocked WF beams or pipe piles. Essentilly, the "H-Pile" soldier beam that you are proposing would be interlocked into the single sheet pile wall.
Google "combi-wall" or go to https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS883U...

For a cantilevered combi-wall without any bracing, you could design for triangular earth pressure. You also have an unlimited selection of WF king pile sizes to interlock with the SSP.

Also, please confirm if the wall has an 8 or 10m exposed height - big difference!

www.PeirceEngineering.com

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Can your top anchorage take enough load to have a single bracing level? If so, you could run the vertical beams up to the top anchor rather than cantilevering them. That would effectively be a single anchorage combiwall.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

(OP)
PEinc, sorry by mistake it shows 10m, excavation is 8m deep. I am proposing them for a higher section but it will cost money, this proposal is under consideration.

steveh49, noted we can extend the beams to attach with the deadman, I will check the calculations.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Khurram - its not a case of "it will cost more money" as if it is a extra unnecessary additional cost that the client will moan about. Its a case of this is the minimum that is required to construct a safe excavation (with internal space as the client requested).

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

(OP)
EireChch, you are right, it is not the case of money only. We are also analyzing the available options. But cost is also a factor we can not ignore, we have to find a solution which will be safe and less costly. So if there is no other way than getting heavier section defiantly we will buy that. We have also asked our client to do step excavation so that excavation depth can be reduced. We have to be safe otherwise there are huge safety and financial consequences.

I am checking with you guys because I always find it very helpful and informative, this form always have some different ideas. Thanks for everyone help, I will post the final solution once decided by my company and client.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Quote (Khurram)

We are also analyzing the available options.
So if there is no other way than getting heavier section defiantly we will buy that.

As a Bridge Contractor, spending our own money (not a Client's), I quickly learned, first from my father then for myself:

Problems which can be solved with money are usually best solved that way.

In this case, spend the money. Otherwise you will slowly "throw away" far more (of your Client's) money in design & construction time / labor / equipment cost looking for the "perfect" answer, which may not exist.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

Old saying, "There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over."
In your case, I'd replace time with money.

RE: Sheet Pile Support by Vertical H-Beams

You can install another row of sheet piles behind the front row and connect the two with sheet piles to form square cells (like a cellular cofferdam). link for the design manual from USACE:
https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/handle/11...

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Engine-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Engine-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Engine-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Engine-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

Close Box

Join Engine-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Engine-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close