Untitled

Embedded Retaining Wall Report
- Effective soil friction angle = 40 degrees

- Device measuring movement of retaining wall and force on retaining wall
- We measure delta (friction angle between RW & soil) = 21 degrees
- We fill up the container up to 25 cm of course grain sand (every layer of 5cm then we put iron oxide (black colour
powder) to enable us to identify the plane of shear failure during test
- Each layer we need to use a pneumatic hammer to force the loose sand into dense sand (sand contracts).
- After all 5 layers of 5cm of sand has been filled, we then have a Ko with 0 displacement and the “actual” height
of the sand is Ho = 24.2 cm
- Sand at bottom layer is subjected to the highest stress (since max depth) while sand at top layer is subjected to
lowest stress (least depth)
Passive;
- Apply load ACW on both handle cranks and look at shear plane failure, we take the values of the failure friction
angle for each plane of shear failure and take the average of it ; (35+33+33+28)/4 = 32.5 degrees
- After shearing we measure the height of the sheared sand to be H1 = 26.1cm
- Look at laptop graph – Ko at bottom layer and Kp at bottom layer … (also for top layer)
Active;
- We should technically empty the container and refill the sand again (as we did for the passive state) but due to
time constraint we just use release strength from the sand by using a pneumatic hammer.
- Measure initial height to be 26cm now after this.
- Therefore, the sand is now at another “Ko value different from Ko we initially prepared for passive state test)
- We then rotate the handle CW at similar rotation rate and look at the shear failure plane. We got the average of
the 4 shear planes (66+62+66+68)/4 =65.5 degrees = failure friction angle for active state
- We measure the height of the sheared sample to be 22.9 cm
This study source was downloaded by 100000826324966 from CourseHero.com on 03-22-2022 03:46:45 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/14492218/Embedded-Retaining-Wall-Report/
Name: Mun Jo Chan Student Number: 21302256
Title of experiment: Embedded Retaining Wall
Date experiment was performed: 17/3/2016
Group Number: 1-14 Name of Demonstrator: Doan Le
Introduction
The purpose of the experiment is to understand the concept of Rankine, Coulomb and Caquot & Kerisel theory on active
and passive lateral earth pressure coefficient via an experiment involving the failure of uniform dense coarse grained
sand by controlling the movement of the embedded retaining wall.
(a) Passive soil failure – Movement of retaining wall against the sand
(b) Active soil failure – Movement of retaining wall away from the sand
The retaining wall is an important geo-mechanic structure that is primarily used when dealing with un-even elevations of
soil surface and preventing landslide.
Experimental Procedure
Before initiating the passive and active failure soils’ test, the friction angle between the coarse sand & steel
plate interface (δ) was measured. The load & displacement values was adjusted to zero; students then took
turns laying a 5cm layer of coarse-grained sand up to an approximate height of 25cm and each layer had a
uniform distribution via a pneumatic hammer compaction before each layer was marked with iron-oxide to
allow a clear observation of the shear failure plane. Consequently, a student steered two load handles ACW at
a similar rotation rate thus pushing the retaining wall against the soil until the failure plane was noted & the
test ceases. This concludes the passive soil failure test. Due to time constraint the sheared soil from the
passive test is re-compacted in preparation for the active test. The handle is now rotated CW at a similar
rotation rate to drive retaining wall away from the soil until the failure plane is observed. This then concludes
the active soil failure test and measurements of the failure friction angle and height of the sheared soil sample
were taken at the end of each tests.
Results
δ = 21 degrees
'
Effective friction angle φ = 40 degrees
Bulk unit weight = 17kN/m^3
H0 = Height of sand before passive and active test (i.e. In-situ condition of soil)
H1 = Height of sand at passive and active failure state after shearing
'
φF = Failure friction angle (Calculated as the average of 4 layers failure friction angle)
F1 = Force at top layer F2 = Force at bottom layer
u = Pore Water Pressure = 0 (Drained Test)
Passive Test:
H0 = 24.2 cm H1 = 26.1cm
'
φ F = (35 + 33 + 33 + 28)/4 = 32.5 degrees
Active Test:
H0 = 26 cm H1 = 22.9cm
φ'F = (66 + 62+ 66 + 68)/4 = 65.5 degrees
 Passive & Active Table values are located at the end of the report which are used to plot the graph
Discussion
1. From the Passive & Active soil failure graph plotted, there is a maximum constant total horizontal force
reached during the passive test and a minimum constant total horizontal force throughout the active
test. These results conforms with our theory whereby a soil’s lowest stress state is in its active stress
state (soil movement away from the retaining wall) and achieves its highest stress state in its passive
stress state (soil movement against retaining wall).
Furthermore the preparation of the active and passive test were slightly different such that the
experiment results may be questionable and occurs due to time constraint. During the preparation of
the passive test, all steps outlined in the experimental procedures were followed accordingly unlike the
preparation of the active test whereby the soil is re-used from the passive soil failure analysis rather
than setting up a new sample and emulate the steps again.
Consequently there are two in-situ earth lateral pressure values; each value taken before the
commencement of the passive and active test. K0, A > K0,P is expected as at the end of the passive
test/start of the active test, the soil was re-used thus the uniform dense sand is subjected to high
values of total horizontal force giving it a high effective horizontal pressure ( ) and therefore a high
K0,A value.
2. Experiment results  KA = 0.193

Rankine’s Theory  KA = 0.217
Coulomb’s Method  KA = 0. 233
All three KA values are of similar order of magnitude and the theoretical values of K A between Rankine
and Coulomb’s Method is very close. However, the Rankine theory isn’t an appropriate and applicable
theory for our experiment as it comprises of two important assumptions:
(a) Horizontal Ground Surface
This is a reasonable assumption in our experiment as the Retaining Wall wasn’t inclined at any angle
(b) δ = 0 (Zero retaining wall friction)
This is an unreasonable assumption as we have tested at the beginning before the active and passive
test and measured δ to be 21 degrees.
Therefore, even though the KA value from Rankine is close to our experimental KA but the assumptions
isn’t in line with the actual experiment conditions. Ultimately we would find that the value of
KA,EXP < KA,RANKINE and KP,EXP > KP,RANKINE .
In contrast, the Coulomb’s method is applicable as it takes into account of the existence of wall friction
which will result in an increase in active horizontal effective stress thus its KA value is close to but
slightly higher than the experiment value.
3. Caquot & Kerisel charts  KA = 0.20  KP = 10
The predicted active and passive lateral earth pressure coefficients of Caquot and Kerisel is extremely
similar to those obtained via experiment thus making it the most suitable method to back-up our
experimental outcomes.
4. In vast of the theoretical analysis we have approximate that the failure surfaces are straight lines which
is not entirely accurate but it’s a reasonable assumption to be made and also reduces the complexity in
our calculations. The actual observed failure surface results in a curvature formation, i.e. a slight
deviation from being a straight line as can be seen in the image taken below.
Passive Failure Surface
Active Failure Surface (failure plane at right side)
Summary
 It is important to understand our assumptions made are in line with the theory we apply instead of
applying any theory as this will back-up our experimental results and avoid any wrong understanding of
the theory
 The Rankine theory is inappropriate for majority of the cases in retaining wall structures unless the wall
surface is build off from a completely smooth material that has approximately nil roughness but is
nonetheless an easy theory to apply and understand
 Time constraint should never be a factor in experiments (in this case it was for the active state) in
reality as this will result in a doubtful experimental outcome and all efforts are in vain
 The Caquot & Kerisel charts is the approved method to confirm the results of our experiment while the
Coulomb’s method assumes a straight-line failure plane which isn’t true.
 A machine should be used to rotate the two handles with the same amount of force and at the same
rotating speed to reduce uncertainties in our result.
Appendices:
Passive Test
Passive Test
Time Top Load F1 Displacement
(msec) (kN) Bottom Load F2 (kN) (mm) Total Load (kN) = Ft = F1 +F2
2626.509 0.020664 0.092945 0 0.113609
2626.609 0.028761 0.09524 -0.000995 0.124001
2626.709 0.051659 0.10442 -0.015918 0.156079
2626.809 0.065063 0.108436 -0.06417 0.173499
2626.909 0.072044 0.141426 -0.099489 0.21347
2627.009 0.072881 0.181588 -0.124361 0.254469
2627.109 0.078745 0.215439 -0.116402 0.294184
2722.209 0.177596 0.847412 -21.746764 1.025008
2722.309 0.185694 0.847126 -21.764672 1.03282
2722.409 0.206358 0.839954 -21.787555 1.046312
2722.509 0.196306 0.847699 -21.828345 1.044005
2722.609 0.185415 0.85401 -21.835807 1.039425
2722.709 0.173408 0.837372 -21.842771 1.01078
2722.809 0.173129 0.830487 -21.846751 1.003616
2722.909 0.195468 0.832208 -21.867146 1.027676
2723.009 0.199377 0.833356 -21.909926 1.032733
2723.109 0.197143 0.841675 -21.945245 1.038818
2723.209 0.192396 0.834503 -21.970614 1.026899
2723.309 0.197423 0.840528 -22.001953 1.037951
2723.409 0.203287 0.835364 -22.023841 1.038651
2723.509 0.216132 0.806103 -22.070103 1.022235
2723.609 0.220879 0.801226 -22.090996 1.022105
2723.709 0.203566 0.848273 -22.116365 1.051839
2723.809 0.193792 0.842823 -22.120345 1.036615
2723.909 0.217249 0.81557 -22.133278 1.032819
2724.009 0.221996 0.810406 -22.200433 1.032402
Active test
Active Test
Time Top Load F1 Displacement
(msec) (kN) Bottom Load F2 (kN) (mm) Total Load (kN) = Ft = F1 +F2
2953.504 0.052497 0.284001 0 0.336498
2953.604 0.056685 0.287443 0.00199 0.344128
2953.704 0.050542 0.282279 0.004975 0.332821
2953.804 0.05501 0.285722 -0.001989 0.340732
2953.904 0.04775 0.279984 -1E-06 0.327734
2954.004 0.051659 0.284001 -0.001989 0.33566
2985.404 -0.002793 0.017499 4.571015 0.014706
2985.504 -0.003072 0.017786 4.604344 0.014714
2985.604 -0.001955 0.021228 4.644637 0.019273
2985.704 -0.001396 0.023236 4.683935 0.02184
2985.804 0.000279 0.025818 4.727213 0.026097
2985.904 -0.006144 0.02008 4.775962 0.013936
2986.004 -0.003072 0.022375 4.821727 0.019303
2986.104 -0.000559 0.023523 4.867989 0.022964
2986.204 -0.005027 0.018933 4.927683 0.013906
2986.304 0.002234 0.026105 4.980909 0.028339
2986.404 0.000558 0.022375 5.047567 0.022933
2986.504 -0.002234 0.018359 5.112732 0.016125
2986.604 -0.000279 0.019507 5.177399 0.019228
2986.704 -0.002793 0.017499 5.226149 0.014706
2986.804 -0.002234 0.018072 5.278381 0.015838
2986.904 -0.004468 0.010901 5.341556 0.006433
2987.004 0.000279 0.012622 5.39926 0.012901
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Embedded Retaining Wall Report

- Effective soil friction angle = 40 degrees

2. Experiment results  KA = 0.193

3. Caquot & Kerisel charts  KA = 0.20  KP = 10

Active Failure Surface (failure plane at right side)

You might also like