BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. Mode of Failure Characteristics Typical Soils
|
|
- Erica Heath
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CHAPTER 3 Prepared by: Dr. Farouk Majeed Muhauwiss Civil Engineering Department College of Engineering Tikrit University EARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 3. MODES OF FAILURE Failure is defined as mobilizing the full value of soil shear strength accompanied with excessive settlements. For shallow foundations it depends on soil type, particularly its compressibility, and type of loading. Modes of failure in soil at ultimate load are of three types; these are (see Fig..5): Mode of Failure Characteristics Typical Soils. General Shear failure Well defined continuous slip surface up to ground level, Heaving occurs on both sides with final collapse and tilting on one side, Failure is sudden and catastrophic, Ultimate value is peak value. Low compressibility soils Very dense sands, Saturated clays (NC and OC), Undrained shear (fast loading).. local Shear failure (Transition) Well defined slip surfaces only below the foundation, discontinuous either side, Large vertical displacements reuired before slip surfaces appear at ground level, Some heaving occurs on both sides with no tilting and no catastrophic failure, No peak value, ultimate value not defined. Moderate compressibility soils Medium dense sands, 3. Punching Shear failure Well defined slip surfaces only below the foundation, non either side, Large vertical displacements produced by soil compressibility, No heaving, no tilting or catastrophic failure, no ultimate value. High compressibility soils Very loose sands, Partially saturated clays, NC clay in drained shear (very slow loading), Peats. Fig. (3.): Modes of failure.
2 3. EARING CAPACITY CLASSIFICATION (According to column loads) Gross earing Capacity ( gross ): It is the total unit pressure at the base of footing which the soil can take up. P G.S. D f. D f D o t gross total pressure at the base of footing P footing / area.of. footing. where P footing p.( column.load ) + own wt. of footing + own wt. of earth fill over the footing. gross (P + s.d o..l + c.t..l)/. L gross P + s.d o + c.t....(3.).l Ultimate earing Capacity ( ult. ): It is the maximum unit pressure or the maximum gross pressure that a soil can stand without shear failure. Allowable earing Capacity ( all. ): It is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a reasonable factor of safety. all. ult. F.S (3.) Net Ultimate earing Capacity: It is the ultimate bearing capacity minus the vertical pressure that is produced on horizontal plain at level of the base of the foundation by an adjacent surcharge. ult. net ult. Df (3.3) 57
3 Net Allowable earing Capacity ( ): It is the net safe bearing capacity or the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a reasonable factor of safety. Approximate: Exact: all. net all. ult. net F.S ult. D F.S f all. net (3.4) ult. net D f (3.5) F.S 3.3 FACTOR OF SAFETY IN DESIGN OF FOUNDATION The general values of safety factor used in design of footings are.5 to 3.0, however, the choice of factor of safety (F.S.) depends on many factors such as:. the variation of shear strength of soil,. magnitude of damages, 3. reliability of soil data such as uncertainties in predicting the ult., 4. changes in soil properties due to construction operations, 5. relative cost of increasing or decreasing F.S., and 6. the importance of the structure, differential settlements and soil strata underneath the structure. 3.4 EARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS Three reuirements must be satisfied in determining bearing capacity of soil. These are: () Adeuate depth; the foundation must be deep enough with respect to environmental effects; such as: frost penetration, seasonal volume changes in the soil, to exclude the possibility of erosion and undermining of the supporting soil by water and wind currents, and to minimize the possibility of damage by construction operations, 58
4 () Tolerable settlements, the bearing capacity must be low enough to ensure that both total and differential settlements of all foundations under the planned structure are within the allowable values, (3) Safety against failure, this failure is of two kinds: the structural failure of the foundation; which may be occur if the foundation itself is not properly designed to sustain the imposed stresses, and the bearing capacity failure of the supporting soils. 3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING EARING CAPACITY type of soil (cohesive or cohesionless). physical features of the foundation; such as size, depth, shape, type, and rigidity. amount of total and differential settlement that the structure can stand. physical properties of soil; such as density and shear strength parameters. water table condition. original stresses. 3.6 METHODS OF DETERMINING EARING CAPACITY (a) earing Capacity Tables The bearing capacity values can be found from certain tables presented in building codes, soil mechanics and foundation books; such as that shown in Table (3.). They are based on experience and can be only used for preliminary design of light and small buildings as a helpful indication; however, they should be followed by the essential laboratory and field soil tests. Table (3.) neglects the effect of: (i) underlying strata, (ii) size, shape and depth of footings, (iii) type of the structures supported by the footings, (iv) there is no specification of the physical properties of the soil in uestion, and (v) assumes that the ground water table level is at foundation level or with depth less than width of footing. Therefore, if water table rises above the foundation level, the hydrostatic water pressure force which affects the base of foundation should be taken into consideration. 59
5 Table (3.): earing capacity values according to building codes. Soil type Description earing pressure (kg/cm ) Notes Rocks. bed rocks.. sedimentary layer rock (hard shale, sand stone, siltstone). 3. shest or erdwas. 4. soft rocks Unless they are affected by water. Cohesionless soil. well compacted sand or sand mixed with gravel.. sand, loose and well graded or loose mixed sand and gravel. 3. compacted sand, well graded. 4. well graded loose sand. Dry submerged Footing width.0 ms. Cohesive soil. very stiff clay. stiff clay 3. medium-stiff clay 4. low stiff clay 5. soft clay 6. very soft clay 7. silt soil up to It is subjected to settlement due to consolidation (b) Field Load Test This test is fully explained in (chapter ). (c) earing Capacity Euations Several bearing capacity euations were developed for the case of general shear failure by many researchers as presented in Table (3.); see Tables (3.3, 3.4 and 3.5) for related factors. 60
6 Table (3.): earing capacity euations by the several authors indicated. Terzaghi (see Table 3.3 for typical values for K P values) φ π [ 0. 75π. ( )].tan φ 80 ult. cnc.sc + N N. S e tan φ k P N ; N c (N ). cot φ ; N ( ) cos ( 45 + φ/ ) cos φ ( φ + 33) where a close approximation of k P 3.tan Strip circular suare rectangular S c (+ 0.3 / L) S (- 0. / L) Meyerhof (see Table 3.4 for shape, depth, and inclination factors) Vertical load: Inclined load: ult. c.nc.sc.dc +.N.S.d N.S. d ult. c.nc.d c.ic +.N.d.i N.d. i N π.tan φ e tan ( 45 + φ / ) ; Nc (N ). cot φ ; N (N ).tan(. 4φ) Hansen (see Table 3.5 for shape, depth, and inclination factors) N For.. φ > 0 : ult. cncscdcicgcbc + NSdigb NSdigb For.. φ 0 : 5. 4S ( + S + d i b g ) π.tan φ e tan ( 45 + φ / ult. u c c c c c + ); Nc (N ). cot φ ; N. 5(N ). tan φ Vesic (see Table 3.5 for shape, depth, and inclination factors) Use Hansen's euations above N π.tan φ e tan ( 45 + φ / ) ; Nc (N ). cot φ ; N (N + ). tan φ All the bearing capacity euations above are based on general shear failure in soil. 6
7 Note: Due to scale effects, N and then the ultimate bearing capacity decreases with increase in size of foundation. Therefore, owle's (996) suggested that for ( > m), with any bearing capacity euation of Table (3.), the term ( 0.5.N Sd ) must be multiplied by a reduction factor: r 0. 5log ; i.e., 0.5.N Sd r (m) r π + Table (3.3): earing capacity factors for Terzaghi's euation. φ,..deg N c N N K P Table (3.4): Shape, depth and inclination factors for Meyerhof's euation. For Shape Factors Depth Factors Inclination Factors D Any φ Sc + 0..K P d. K f c + 0 α P i L c i 90 D φ 0 S S + 0..KP d d. K f α + 0 P L i φ φ 0 S S. 0 d d. 0 i 0 Where: K P tan ( 45 + φ/ ) R α angle of resultant measured from vertical without a sign. α, L, D f width, length, and depth of footing. Note:- When φ triaxial is used for plan strain, adjust φ as: φps (. 0. ) φtriaxial L 6
8 63
9 3.7 WHICH EQUATIONS TO USE? Of the bearing capacity euations previously discussed, the most widely used euations are Meyerhof's and Hansen's. While Vesic's euation has not been much used (but is the suggested method in the American Petroleum Institute, RPA Manual, 984). Use Terzaghi Meyerhof, Hansen, Vesic Table (3.6) : Which euations to use. est for Very cohesive soils where D/ or for a uick estimate of ult. to compare with other methods, Somewhat simpler than Meyerhof's, Hansen's or Vesic's euations; which need to compute the shape, depth, inclination, base and ground factors, Suitable for a concentrically loaded horizontal footing, Not applicable for columns with moment or tilted forces, More conservative than other methods. Any situation which applies depending on user preference with a particular method. Hansen, Vesic When base is tilted; when footing is on a slope or when D/ >. 3.8 EFFECT OF SOIL COMPRESSIILITY (local shear failure). For clays sheared in drained conditions, Terzaghi (943) suggested that the shear strength parameters c and φ should be reduced as: * φ c * 0.67c and φ tan ( 0.67 tan )......(3.6). For loose and medium dense sands (when D r ), Vesic (975) proposed: where * φ tan ( Dr 0.75Dr )tanφ (3.7) D is the relative density of the sand, recorded as a fraction. r Note: For dense sands ( D r > ) the strength parameters need not be reduced, since the general shear mode of failure is likely to apply. 64
10 EARING CAPACITY EXAMPLES () Example (): Determine the allowable bearing capacity of a strip footing shown below using Terzaghi and Hansen Euations if c 0, φ 30, D f.0m,.0m, soil 9 kn/m 3, the water table is at ground surface, and SF3. Solution: (a) y Terzaghi's euation: ult. cn c.s c + N +...N. S Shape factors: from table (3.), for strip footing S c S. 0 earing capacity factors: from table (3.3), for φ 30, N.5,..N (9-9.8) x(9-9.8)9.7x.0 97 kn/m ult. all. 97/3 99 kn/m (b) y Hansen's euation: for.. φ > 0 : ult. cn cscdcic gcbc + N Sd i g b N Since c 0, any factors with subscript c do not need computing. Also, all S d i g b g i..and.. b factors are.0; with these factors identified the Hansen's euation simplifies to: ult. NSd N S d From table (3.5): for... φ 34..use.. φ ps φtr,. use. φ.5 7 for L/ >..use.. φ ps.5φtr 7 ps φtr use. φ.5φ 7,.5 x ,. ps tr i 65
11 earing capacity factors: from table (3.4), for φ 8, N 4.7,..N 0. 9 Shape factors: from table (3.5), S S.0, Depth factors: from table (3.5), d + tanφ( sinφ ) D d +.tan 8( sin 8 ).9,, and d. 0.0 (9-9.8)4.7x x(9-9.8)0.9x kn/m ult. all / kn/m Example (): A footing load test produced the following data: D f 0.5m, 0.5m, L.0m, soil 9. 3 kn/m3, φ tr 4. 5, c 0, P ult. ( measured ) 863.kN, ult. ( measured ) 863 / 0.5x 863 kn/m. Reuired: compute ult. by Hansen's and Meyerhof's euations and compare computed with measured values. Solution: (a) y Hansen's euation: Since c 0, and all g i..and.. bi factors are.0; the Hansen's euation simplifies to: ult. NSd N S d From table (3.5): L/ /0.5 4 >..use.. φ ps.5φtr 7,.5 x take... φ 47 earing capacity factors: from table (3.) N π.tanφ e..tan ( 45 + φ / ), N.5( N ) tanφ for φ 47 : N 87., N
12 Shape factors: from table (3.5), S + tanφ + tan 47.7, S L.0 L.0 Depth factors: from table (3.5), d D tanφ( sinφ ), d + tan 47( sin 47 ). 55, d (9.3)87.x.7x x0.5(9.3)99.5x0.9x kn/m ult. versus 863 kn/m measured. (b) y Meyerhof's euation: From table (3.) for vertical load with c 0: From table (3.4): φ (. 0. φ L earing capacity factors: from table (3.) N ult. NSd N S d ps ) tr, ( ) , take... φ 46 π.tanφ e..tan ( 45 + φ / ), N ( N )tan(.4φ ) for φ 46 : N 58. 5, N Shape factors: from table (3.4) 0.5 K p tan ( 45 + φ / ) 6.3, S S + 0..K p + 0.( 6.3 ). 5 L.0 Depth factors: from table (3.4) D 0.5 K p.47, d d K p + 0.(.47 ) ult. 0.5(9.3)58.5x.5x x0.5(9.3)38.7x.5x kn/m versus 863 kn/m measured oth Hansen's and Meyerhof's es. give over-estimated ult. compared with measured. 67
13 Example (3): A.0x.0m footing has the geometry and load as shown below. Is the footing Solution: adeuate with a SF3.0?. We can use either Hansen's, or Meyerhof's or Vesic's euations. An arbitrary choice is Hansen's method. P 600 kn H 00 kn m Check sliding stability: H P η 0 D 0.3m 7.5 kn/m 3 φ 5 ; c 5 kn/m use δ φ; C a c and A x f 4m H. A C + V tanδ 4x tan 5 80 > 00 kn (O.K. for sliding) max f a earing capacity y Hansen's euation: with..inclination.. factors..all..s i.0 ult. cn c.d c.i c.b c + N.d.i.b + earing capacity factors from table (3.): 0.5..N.d.i. b N c π.tanφ ( N ).cot φ, N e..tan ( 45 + φ / ), N.5( N ) tanφ for φ 5 : N c 0. 7, N 0. 7, N 6. 8 Depth factors from table (3.5): for D 0.3m, and m, D/ 0.3/0.5 <.0 (shallow footing) D D d c (0.5 ).06, d + tanφ ( sinφ ) + 0.3( 0.5). 05, d.0 68
14 Inclination factors from table (3.5): 0.5H 5 0.5x00 5 i ( ) ( ) V + A.c.cot φ x5x cot 5 i f ( i ) 0.5 i , ( N ) 0.7 c 0.5, (0.7 η / 450 )H 5 (0.7 0 / 450 )00 5 for.. η > 0 : i ( ) ( ) V + A.c.cot φ x5x cot 5 f The base factors for.. η 0 (0.75..radians ) from table (3.5): η 0 b c 0.93, ( η tanφ ) ( ( 0.75 )tan 5 ) b e e (.7η tanφ ) (.7( 0.75 )tan 5 ) 0.85, b e e ult. 5(0.7)(.06)(0.47)(0.93) + 0.3(7.5)(0.7)(.05)(0.5)(0.85) all. all. 304 / kn/m all. f + 0.5(7.5)(.0)(6.8)()(0.40)(0.80) 304 kn/m P. A 0.3(4) 405. kn < 600 kn (the given load), m is not adeuate and, therefore it must be increased and P all. recomputed and checked. 3.9 FOOTINGS WITH INCLINED OR ECCENTRIC LOADS INCLINED LOAD: If a footing is subjected to an inclined load (see Fig.3.7), the inclined load Q can be resolved into vertical and horizontal components. The vertical component Qv can then be used for bearing capacity analysis in the same manner as described previously (Table 3.). After the bearing capacity has been computed by the normal procedure, it must be corrected by an R i factor using Fig.(3.7) as:.x. R (3.8) ult.( inclined..load ) ult.( vertical..load ) i 69
15 (b) b) Inclinedd foundatioon (a) horiizontal fou undation Figure (3.7): Incllined load reduction factors. I Importan nt Notes: Reemember that t in this case, Meyyerhof's beearing capaacity euattion for incclined loadd (fr from Table 3.) can be b used dirrectly: ult.( inclined...(3.9)) i..load ) cn c d c i c + N d i N d i. Thhe footings stability with regarrd to the innclined loaad's horizoontal compponent alsoo m be checked by caalculating the must t factor of safety against a slidding as folllows: Fs( slididding ) H max m (3.0)) H w where: H the inclineed load's horizontal h c component t, H maxx. the. ma ax imum.ressisting. force A f.c a + σ tan δ. for ( c φ ) soills; or H maxx. A f.c a. for thhe undrainned case inn clay ( φ u 0 ); or 70
16 H max. σ tanδ. for a sand and the drained case in clay ( c 0 ). A f effective..area.l C adhesion α. a C u where... α.0... for.soft.to.medium.clays.; and. α for.stiff.clays. σ the net vertical effective load v f f Q v D f. ; or σ ( Q D. ) u. A (if the water table lies above foundation level) δ the skin friction angle, which can be taken as eual to (φ ),and u the pore water pressure at foundation level. ECCENTRIC LOAD: Eccentric load result from loads applied somewhere other than the footing's centroid or from applied moments, such as those resulting at the base of a tall column from wind loads or earthuakes on the structure. To provide adeuate SF ( against.lifting ) of the footing edge, it is recommended that the eccentricity ( e / 6 ). Footings with eccentric loads may be analyzed for bearing capacity by two methods: () the concept of useful width and () application of reduction factors. () Concept of Useful Width: In this method, only that part of the footing that is symmetrical with regard to the load is used to determine bearing capacity by the usual method, with the remainder of the footing being ignored. First, computes eccentricity and adjusted dimensions: M y M x ex ; L L ex ; e y V V ; e y ; A f A. L 7
17 Second, calculates ult. from Meyerhof's, or Hansen's, or Vesic's euations (Table 3.) using in the (.. N ) term and or/and L in computing the shape factors and not in computing depth factors. () Application of Reduction Factors: First, computes bearing capacity by the normal procedure (using euations of Table 3.), assuming that the load is applied at the centroid of the footing. Then, the computed value is corrected for eccentricity by a reduction factor ( R e ) obtained from Figure (3.8) or from Meyerhof's reduction euations as: Re Re - (e/).....for..cohesive..soil /..(3.) - (e/)...for.cohesionless.soil ult.( eccentric ) ult.( concentric ). x.r e (3.) Figure( (3.8): Eccentric load reduction factors. 7
18 EARING CAPACITY EXAMPLES () Footings with inclined or eccentric loads Example (4): A suare footing of.5x.5m is subjected to an inclined load as shown in figure below. What is the factor of safety against bearing capacity (use Terzaghi's euation). G.S. α kn Solution: y Terzaghi's euation: ult. cn c.s c + N +...N. S Shape factors: from table (3.) for suare footing S c.3; S 0. 8, c u / 80 kpa earing capacity factors: from table (3.3) for φ u 0 : N c 5.7,..N.0,..N 0 ult.( vertical.load ) 80(5.7)(.3)+0(.5)(.0) + 0.5(.5)(0)(0)(0.8) 6.8 kn/m From Fig.(3.7) with α 30 and cohesive soil, the reduction factor for inclined load is (0.4) kn/m ult.( inclined.load ) Q v Q.cos (0.866) kn Qult (.5 )(.5 ) Factor of safety (against bearing capacity failure) Qv Check for sliding: Q h Q.sin (0.5) 90 kn H A.C + σ tanδ (.5)(.5)(80) + (80)(cos30)(tan0)80 kn max. f a D f.5m 0 kn/m 3 4 m.5m W.T. H max. 80 Factor of safety (against sliding). 0 (O.K.) Qh 90 u 60 kpa 73
19 Example (5): A.5x.5m suare footing is subjected to eccentric load as shown below. What is the safety factor against bearing capacity failure (use Terzaghi's euation): (a) y the concept of useful width, and (b) Using Meyerhof's reduction factors. P 330 kn G.s..m Centerline of footing 0 kn/m 3 u 90 kn/m e x 0.8.5m.5m e x 0.8.5m Solution: () Using concept of useful width: from Terzaghi's euation: ult. cnc.s c + N +...N. S Shape factors: from table (3.) for suare footing S c.3; S 0. 8, c / 95 kpa earing capacity factors: from table (3.3) for φ u 0 : N c 5.7,N.0,N 0 The useful width is: ex.5 (0.8 ).4m.5-(0.8).4m.5m ult. 95(5.7)(.3)+0(.)(.0) + 0.5(.4)(0)(0)(0.8) kn/m Qult (.4 )(.5 ) Factor of safety (against bearing capacity failure) Qv 330 u 74
20 () Using Meyerhof's reduction factors: In this case, ult. is computed based on the actual width:.5m from Terzaghi's euation: ult..3cnc + N N ult.( concentric.load ).3(95)(5.7) +0(.)(.0) + 0.4(.5)(0)(0) kn/m For eccentric load from figure (3.8): e 0.8 with Eccentricity ratio x 0. ; and cohesive soil R e ult.( eccentric.load ) (0.76) kn/m Qult (.5 )(.5 ) Factor of safety (against bearing capacity failure) Qv 330 Example (6): A suare footing of.8x.8m is loaded with axial load of 780 kn and subjected to M x 67 kn-m and M y 60. kn-m moments. Undrained triaxial tests of unsaturated soil samples give φ 36 and c 9. 4 kn/m. If D f.8m, the water table is at 6m below the G.S. and 8. kn/m 3, what is the allowable soil pressure if SF3.0 using (a) Hansen bearing capacity and (b) Meyerhof's reduction factors. Solution: e y 0.5m ; e x 0.09m e y.8 (0.5 ).5m ; L L ex.8 (0.09 ).6m (a) Using Hansen's euation: ( with...all...i i,gi..and...b i..factors...are...0 ) ult. cn c.s c.d c + N.S.d N earing capacity factors from table (3.):.S. d N c π.tanφ ( N ).cot φ, N e..tan ( 45 + φ / ), N.5( N ) tanφ 75
21 for φ 36 : N c 50. 6, N 37. 8, N 40 Shape factors from table (3.5): S N , S tan tan N L + φ L.6 c c.5 S L.6 Depth factors from table (3.5): for D.8m, and.8m, D/.0 (shallow footing) D d c (.0 ).4, D d + tanφ( sinφ ) + tan 36( sin 36 ) (.0 ).46 ult. 9.4(50.6)(.69)(.4) +.8(8.)(37.7)(.673)(.46) all / kn/m + 0.5(8.)(.5)(40)(0.69)() kn/m, d. 0 Actual soil pressure ( act. ) 780/(.5)(.6) < (O.K.) (b) Using Meyerhof's reduction: e 0.09 e x / 0.5 y / Rex ( ) ( ) 0.78 ; Rey ( ) ( ) 0. 7 L.8.8 Recompute ult. as for a centrally loaded footing, since the depth factors are unchanged. The revised Shape factors from table (3.5) are: S N ; S + tanφ + tan N L L.8 c c.8 S L.8 ult. cn c.s c.d c + N.S.d N.S. d 76
22 ult. 9.4(50.6)(.75)(.4) +.8(8.)(37.7)(.73)(.46) + 0.5(8.)(.8)(40)(0.60)() kn/m / kn/m all.centrally.loaded.footing all.eccentric.loaded..footing all.centrally.loaded.footing ( R ex )( R ey ) (0.78)(0.7) kn/m (very high) Actual soil pressure ( act. ) 780/(.8)(.8) < (O.K.) 3.0 EFFECT OF WATER TALE ON EARING CAPACITY Generally the submergence of soils will cause loss of all apparent cohesion, coming from capillary stresses or from weak cementation bonds. At the same time, the effective unit weight of submerged soils will be reduced to about one-half the weight of the same soils above the water table. Thus, through submergence, all the three terms of the bearing capacity (.C.) euations may be considerably reduced. Therefore, it is essential that the.c. analysis be made assuming the highest possible groundwater level at the particular location for the expected life time of the structure. Case (): m G.S. W.T. Case (5) D f W.T. W.T. d w W.T. W.T. Case (4) Case (3) Case () Case () If the water table (W.T.) lies at or more below the foundation base; no W.T. effect. D D 77
23 Case (): (from Ref.;Foundation Engg. Hanbook): if the water table (W.T.) lies within the depth (d w <) ; (i.e., between the base and the depth ), use av. in the term.. N as: av. + ( d w / )( m ).....(from Meyerhof) (from Ref.;Foundation Analysis and Design): if the water table (W.T.) lies within the wedge zone { H 0.5.tan( 45 + φ / ) }; use av. in the term.. N as: d w av. ( H d w ). wet + ( H d w ).(from,owles) H H where: H 0.5.tan( 45 + φ / ). submerged unit weight ( sat. w ), d w depth to W.T. below the base of footing, m wet moist or wet unit weight of soil in depth ( d w), and Snice in many cases of practical purposes, the term.. N can be ignored for conservative results, it is recommended for this case to use.. N instead of av. ( < av.( from..meyerhof ) < av. ( from..owles )) in the term Case (3): if d w 0 ; the water table (W.T.) lies at the base of the foundation; use Case (4): if the water table (W.T.) lies above the base of the foundation; use: t.d( above.. W.T.) +. D( below.. W.T.) and in.. N term. 78
24 Case (5): if the water table (W.T.) lies at ground surface (G.S.); use:.d f and in.. N term. Note: All the preceding considerations are based on the assumption that the seepage forces acting on soil skeleton are negligible. The seepage force adds a component to the body forces caused by gravity. This component acting in the direction of stream lines is eual to ( i. w ), where i is the hydraulic gradient causing seepage. Example (7): A (.x4.)m rectangular footing is placed at a depth of ( D f m) below the G.S. in Solution: clay soil with φ u 0, 8 kn/m 3, which can be applied under the following conditions: (a) W.T. at base of footing with sat 0 kn/m3, (b) W.T. at 0.5m below the surface and sat 0 kn/m3, C u kn/m. Find the allowable maximum load (c) If the applied load is 400kN and the W.T. at the surface what will be the factor of safety of the footing against.c. failure. Q all.? L/ 4./. 3.5 < 5 rectangular footing, D/ / <.0 shallow footing; therefore Terzaghi's euation is suitable. y Terzaghi's euation: G.S. D f.0m ult. cn c.s c + N +.m...n. S Shape factors: from table (3.), for rectangular footing S c (+ 0.3 ); S ( 0. ) L L earing capacity factors: from table (3.3), for φ 0, N c 5. 7, N.0,..N 0 8 kn/m 3 u 0 c kn/m φ 79
25 (a) for W.T. at base of footing: ult. ()(5.7) (+0.30 all / kn/m. ) +.0(8)() 4. Q all (.x4.) kn (b) for W.T. at 0.5m below the surface: (.)(0-0)(0)(-0.0 ) kn/m 4. t.d( above.. W.T.) +. D( below.. W.T.) D 0.5 and D 0. 5 ; 8(0.5 ) + ( 0 0 )(0.5 ) 4 kn/m ult. ()(5.7) (+0.30 all / kn/m. ) +.0(4)() 4. Q all (.x4.) 5.49 kn (.)(0-0)(0)(-0.0 ) kn/m 4. (c) If the applied load is 400kN and the W.T. at the surface what will be the factor of safety of the footing against.c. failure?. Q all. 400 kn; all. 400/(.(4.) kn/m ; D f. ()(0-0)0 kn/m ult. ()(5.7) ( ) + 0() + 0.5(.)(0-0)(0)(-0.0 ) 46.4 kn/m SF ult. all
26 3. earing Capacity For Footings On Layered Soils Stratified soil deposits are of common occurrence. It was found that when a footing is placed on stratified soils and the thickness of the top stratum form the base of the footing ( d or H ) is less than the depth of penetration [ H crit. 0.5 tan( 45 + φ / )]; in this case the rupture zone will extend into the lower layer (s) depending on their thickness and therefore reuire some modification of ultimate bearing capacity ( ult.). Several solutions have been proposed to estimate the bearing capacity of footings on layered soils, however, they are limited for the following three general cases: Case (): Footing on layered clays (all φ 0): (a) Top layer stronger than lower layer (C C / C ). (b) Top layer weaker than lower layer (C C / C > ) ). For clays in undrained condition ( φ u 0), the undrainedd shear strength ( S u or c u ) can be determined from unconfined compressive ( u ) tests. So that assuming a circular slip surface of the soil shear failure pattern, may give reasonably reliable results (see figure (3.9)). Figure (3.9): Footings on layered clays. 8
27 The first situation occurs when the footing is placed on a stiff clay or dense sand stratum followed by a relatively soft normally consolidated clay. The failure in this case is basically a punching failure. While, the second situation is often found when the footing is placed on a relatively thin layer of soft clay overlying stiff clay or rock. The failure in this case occurs, at least in part by lateral plastic flow (see Fig.(3.0)). G.S. G.S. φ Soft layer c, H φ Stiff layer c, H φ Stiff layer c, φ Soft layer c, Hansen Euation (Ref., owles's ook, 996) For both cases (a and b), the ultimate bearing capacity is calculated from Table (3.) for (φ 0) as: ult. Su Nc( + Sc + dc ic bc gc ) (3.5) If the inclination, base and ground effects are neglected, then euation (3.5) will be:- where: 996): S u and (a) Figure (3.0): Typical two-layer soil profiles. ult. Su Nc( + Sc + dc ) (3.6) Nc can be calculated by the following method (From owles's ook, In this method, S u is calculated as an average value C avg. depending on the depth of penetration ( H crit. 0.5tan( 45 + φ / ), while N c 5.4. So that, euation (3.6) is written as: ult. 5.4Cavg. ( + Sc + dc ) (3.6b) (b) 8
28 where: S u C avg. S c 0. ; L C H + C [Hcrit - H] ; Hcrit Df d c 0.4 for Df ; and D dc 0.4 tan for (D >) Case (): Footing on layered c φ soils as in Fig.(3.): (a) Top layer stronger than lower layer (C /C ). (b) Top layer weaker than lower layer (C /C > ). Figure (3.8) shows a foundation of any shape resting on an upper layer having strength parameters c, φ and underlain by a lower layer with c, φ. G.S. D f H or d d, φ c,, c, φ Layer () Layer () Figure ( 3.): Footing on layered c φ soils. Hansen Euation (Ref., owles's ook, 996) () Compute Hcrit. 0.5tan( 45 + φ / ) using φ for the top layer. () If H crit. > H compute the modified values of c andφ as: Hc + ( H crit. H )c c* ; H crit. Note: A possible alternative for φ* Hφ + ( H H crit. crit. H ) φ c φ soils with a number of thin layers is to use average values of c andφ in bearing capacity euations of Table (3.) as: 83
29 c H ch... cnh c n av. ; H i φ av. tan H tanφ + H tanφ Hi (3) Use Hansen's euation from Table (3.) for ult. with c * and φ * as: ult. c* NcScdcic gcbc + NSdi gb H n tanφ N S d i g b...(3.7) If the effects of inclination, ground and base factors are neglected, then euation (3.7) will takes the form: where: ult. c* NcScdc + NSd N S d (3.8) earing capacity factors: from table (3.) N π.tanφ* e tan ( 45 + φ * / ), Nc ( N )cotφ *, N.5( N )tanφ * N Shape factors from table (3.6): Sc +, S + tanφ *, Nc L L Depth factors: from table (3.6) d c + 0.4k, d + tan φ * ( sin φ*) k, d. 0 S 0.4 n L where: D k for Df D or k tan ( radian ) for Df > Case (3): Footing in layered sand and clay soils: (a) Sand overlying clay. Hansen Euation (Ref., owles's ook, 996) (b) Clay overlying sand. () Compute Hcrit. 0.5tan( 45 + φ / ) using φ for the top layer. () If H crit. > H, for both cases; sand overlying clay or clay overlying sand, estimate ult. as follows: ult. b p.pv.k.tanφ + + A s f p.d A f c t...(3.9) where: t, b ultimate bearing capacities of footing with respect to top and bottom soils, 84
30 for φ > 0 (sand or clay) t c N c S c d c + D N S d N f S d (3.9a) b c N c S c d c + ( D + H )N S d N f S d.....(3.9b) for φ u 0 (clay in undrained condition) t 5.4Su(+ Sc + dc ) + D f (3.9c) 5.4S ( + S + d ) + ( D H ) (3.9d) b u c c f + Hansen's bearing capacity factors from table (3.) with ( φ φi ) : N π.tanφ e tan ( 45 + φ / ), Nc ( N )cotφ, N.5( N ) tanφ Shape factors from table (3.5): Depth factors from table (3.5): N Sc +, S + tanφ, Nc L L S 0.4 d c + 0.4k, d + tanφ( sinφ ) k, d. 0 L where: D k for Df D or k tan ( radian ) for p total perimeter for punching (+L) or π. D (diameter), Df > P v total vertical pressure from footing base to lower soil computed as: d 0 h.dh + d d + D f. d K s lateral earth pressure coefficient, which may range from tan ( 45 ± φ / ) or use K o sinφ, tan φ coefficient of friction between Pv Ks and perimeter shear zone wall, pd c cohesion on perimeter as a force, A f area of footing. (3) Otherwise, if ( H / ) crit. ( H / ),then ult. is estimated as the bearing capacity of the first soil layer whether it is sand or clay. 85
31 EARING CAPACITY EXAMPLES (3) Example (8): (footing on layered clay) Footings on layered soils Prepared by: Dr. Farouk Majeed Muhauwiss Civil Engineering Department College of Engineering Tikrit University A rectangular footing of 3.0x6.0m is to be placed on a two-layer clay deposit as shown in figure below. Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity. G.S. P Clay () Clay () H.5m 3m c S u.83m.m 5 kpa c S u 77 kpa φ 0 Solution: H crit. 0.5 tan( 45 + φ / ) 0.5(3) tan45.5m >.m the critical depth penetrated into the nd. layer of soil. For case(); clay on clay layers using Hansen's euation: From owles's ook, 996: where: S u C avg. ult. 5.4.C avg. ( + Sc + dc ) + C H + C [Hcrit - H] Hcrit 77(.) + 5 (.5 -.) S c 0. / L 0.( 3 / 6 ) 0.; for Df / : d c 0.4D / 0.4(.83 / 3 ) 0. 4 ult. 5.4(84.093)( )+.83(7.6 ) kpa 86
32 Example (9): (footing on sand overlying clay) A.0x.0m suare footing is to be placed on sand overlying clay as shown in figure below. Estimate the allowable bearing capacity of soil?. P G.S. W.T. Sand Clay m x m H.88m S u.50m c 0 kpa φ m / 75 kpa u Solution: Hcrit. 0.5tan( 45 + φ / ) 0.5( )tan( / ). 88m > 0.6m the critical depth H crit. > H penetrated into the nd. layer of soil. For case (3); sand overlying clay using Hansen's euation: ult. b + p.pv.k A s f.tanφ + p.d A f c t where: for sand layer: t D N S d N f S d Hansen's bearing capacity factors from Table (3.) with ( φ 34 ) : tan34 N e π tan ( / ) 9.4, N.5( 9.4 )tan Shape factors from Table (3.5): S + tanφ. 67, S L L 87
33 Depth factors from Table (3.5): D f.5 d + tanφ ( sinφ ) + tan34( sin34)., d.0 t 7.5(.5)(9.4)(.67)(.)+ 0.5()7.5)(8.7)(0.6)(.0) 8.5 kpa for clay layer: S c ; L b 5.4Su ( + Sc + dc ) + for Df > : D f dc 0.4 tan 0.4 tan ( ) 0. 3 S d ; b 5.4(75)( )+(.5+0.6)(7.5) 6 kpa Now, obtain the punching contribution: P v d d D f d (.5 )(0.6 ) 8. 6 kn/m 0 h.dh + d K o sinφ sin , ( + )(8.6 )(0.44 )tan34 ( + )(0.6 )(0 ) ult kpa < x x ult. 8.5 kpa all. 633 / 3 kpa 88
34 Example (0): (footing on c φ soils) Check the adeuacy of the rectangular footing.5x.0m shown in figure below against shear failure (use F.S. 3.0), w 0 kn/m 3. P 300 kn parameter Soil () Soil () Soil (3) Gs e c (kpa) φ Soil () Soil () Soil (3) G.S. 0.8m W.T..5 x m 0.4m 0.5m Solution: G s..70(0 ) w d 5 kn/m 3 + e ( G s + e ) w ( )0 sat + e kn/m 3 G s..65(0 ) w d 8.7 kn/m 3 + e ( )0 sat 9.45 kn/m H crit. 0.5 tan( 45 + φ / ) 0.5(.5) tan m > 0.50m the critical depth penetrated into the soil layer (3). Since soils () and (3) are of clay layers, therefore; by using Hansen's euation: From owles's ook, 996: ult. 5.4Cavg. ( + Sc + dc ) + 89
35 where: C avg. C H + C [Hcrit - H] Hcrit S c 0. / L 0.(.5 / ) 0.5; 60(0.5) + 80 ( ) for Df / d c 0.4D / 0.4(. /.5 ) 0. 3 ult. 5.4(66.67)( )+0.8(5)+0.4(9.45-0) 59.5 kpa 59.5 all ( net ) kpa applied 00 kpa < all ( net ) kpa (O.K.).5x Check for sueezing: For no sueezing of soil beneath the footing: ( ult. > 4c + ) 4c + 4(60)+ 0.8(5)+0.4(9.45-0) kpa < 59.5 kpa (O.K.) 3. Skempton's earing Capacity Euation Footings on Clay and Plastic Silts: From Terzaghi's euation, the ultimate bearing capacity is: ult. cn c.s c + N +...N. S......(3.) For saturated clay and plastic silts: ( φ u 0 and N c 5.7,N.0,.and.N 0 ), For strip footing: S c S. 0 ult. cnc (3.30) ult. all. and all all. 3.( net ) all.( net ) ult. cn cn c + c + ( ).....(3.30a)
36 where: N c bearing capacity factor obtained from figure D f footing and. ( ) is a small value can be neglected. 3 (3.) depending on shape of (τ) C φ Soil S Cu + σ. tan φ for c φ soil: σ for UCT: or φ u 0 ; all.( net ) σ 3 σ u andσ 3 0; tan ( 45 + φ / ) + c tan( 45 + φ / then u c tan( 45 c u and euation (3.30a) will be: + φ / N c u (3.30b) 6 ) ) C u C u σ 3 0 (τ) σ 3 0 θ σ u Pure Cohesive Soil u S Cu, φu 0 σ u (σ) (σ) D f From figure (3.) for 0: N c 6. for suare or circular footings; 5.4 for strip or continuous footings If N c 6. 0, then: al l.( net ) u......(3.3) See figure (3.3) for net allowable soil pressure for footings on clay and plastic silt. N c Figure (3.): N c bearing capacity factor for Footings on clay under φ 0 conditions (After Skempton, 95). N c (net) Suare and circular / L Continuous / L 0 D f / N c (strip) ( + 0. ) or L Net allowable Soil pressure (kg/ cm ) D f / D f / 4 D f / 4 6 D f / 0.5 D f / Unconfined compressive strength (kg/ cm ) Figure (3.3): Net allowable soil pressure for footings on clay and plastic silt, determined for a factor of safety of 3 against bearing capacity failure ( φ 0 conditions). Chart values are for strip footings (/L 0); and for other types of footings multiply values by (+ 0./L). N c (net) N c(suare) ( ) L 9 8 0
37 Example (): (footing on clay) Determine the size of the suare footing shown in figure below. If Q 000 kn G.S. u 00 kpa and F.S. 3.0? m? 0.4m kn/m3 kn/m3 soil 0 conc. 4 Solution: Assume 3.5m, ult. cnc + D / / then from figure (3.): N c (7.3) + (0) 405 kpa 405 ult. 0(.6 ) 4(0.4 ) 93.4 kpa 3 3 all.( net ) Area000/ m ; for suare footing: take 3.5m, and < 3.5m D / / then from figure (3.5): N c 7. 5 ult. cnc + 50(7.5) + (0) 45 kpa 45 ult. 0(.6 ) 4(0.4 ) kpa 3 3 all.( net ) Area000/ m ; use x (3.5 x 3.5)m m (O.K.) Example (): (footing on clay) For the suare footing shown in figure below. If u 380 kpa and F.S. 3.0, determine all. and D f (min.) which gives the maximum effect on all.?. Q G.S. D f? 0.9x0.9m u 380 kn/m 9
38 Solution: From Skempton's euation: For strip footing: all.( net ) cn 3 c cn For suare footing: c all.( net ) x. 3 From Skempton's figure (3.) at D f / 4 and /L (suare footing): N c (9) all.(net) 570 kpa and D 3 f 4(0.9) 3.6m Rafts on Clay: Q Total.load( D.L. + L.L.) If b > all. use pile or floating foundations. A area From Skempton's euation, the ultimate bearing capacity (for strip footing) is: ult. cnc (3.30) ult.( net ) cnc, cn c all.( net ) or F.S. F.S. cnc all.( net ) Net soil pressure b D f. Notes: cn F.S. c (3.3) Df. b () If b D f. (i.e., F.S. ) the raft is said to be fully compensated foundation (in this case, the weight of foundation (D.L.+ L.L.) the weight of excavated soil). () If b > D f. (i.e., F.S. certain. value ) the raft is said to be partially compensated foundation such as the case of storage tanks. 93
39 Example (3): (raft on clay) Determine the F.S. for the raft shown in figure for the following depths: D f m,m, and 3m?. Solution: G.S. Q kn F.S. b cnc Df. For D f m: D f 0 x 0 m soil 8 kn/m3 u 00 kn/m From figure (3.) D f / /0 0. and / L 0: 0 Nc strip 5.4 and N crec tan gular Nc strip ( + 0. / L ) 5.4 (+ 0. ) cn (00 / ) ( 5.94 ) F.S. c 3. 6 b Df (8 ) 0x0 For D f m: From figure (3.) D f / /0 0. and / L 0 : 0 Nc strip 5.5 and N crec tan gular 5.5 (+ 0. ) cn (00 / ) (6.05 ) F.S. c 4. 7 b Df (8 ) 0x0 For D f 3m: From figure (3.) D f / 3/0 0.3 and / L 0: 0 Nc strip 5.7 and N crec tan gular 5.7 (+ 0. ) cn (00 / )6.7 50(6.7 ) F.S. c 6. 8 b Df (8 ) 0x0 94
40 3.3 Design Charts for Footings on Sand and Nonplastic Silt Notes: From Terzaghi's euation, the ultimate bearing capacity is: ult. cnc.s c + N +...N. S (3.) For sand ( c 0 ) and for strip footing ( S c S. 0 ), then, E.(3.) will be: ult. N +.. N (3.33) ult.( net ) ult.( net ) ult.( net ) N +..N D f..n +..N D f. D f. D f. ( N ) +..N ( N ) +. N D f. all.( net ) ( N ) +.N (3.34) F.S. () the allowable bearing capacity shown by (E.3.34) is derived from the frictional resistance due to: (i) the weight of the sand below the footing level; and (ii) the weight of the surrounding surcharge or backfill. () the ult. of a footing on sand depends on: (a) width of the footing, (b) depth of the surcharge surrounding the footing, (c) angle of internal friction, φ (d) relative density of the sand, D r (e) standard penetration resistance, N-value and (f) water table position. D f 95
41 (3) the wider the footing, the greater ult. /unit area. However, for a given settlement S i such as ( inch or 5mm), the soil pressure is greater for a footing of intermediate width b than for a large footing with a width footing with width a (see figure 3.4a). c or for a narrow D f (4) for constant and a given settlement on sand, there is an actual relationship between all. and represented by (solid line) (see figure 3.4b). However, as basis for design a substitute relation (dashed lines) can be used as shown in (figure 3.4c). The error for footings of usual dimensions is less than ± 0%. The position of the broken line efg is differs for different sands. Q Q Q3 a b (a) Footings of different widths. Soil Pressure, c Settlement, Si d Given c a b Settlement Narrow footing Wide footing Intermediate footing (b) Load-settlement curves for footings of increasing widths. Soil pressure, e b a c g f d Width of footing, (c) Variation of soil pressure with for given settlement, Si. Figure (3.4): Footings on sand. 96
42 (5) the design charts for proportioning shallow footings on sand and nonplastic silts are shown in Figures (3.5, 3.6 and 3.7). D f / D f / D f / Net soil pressure (kg/ cm ) N 50 N 40 N 30 N 0 N 5 N 0 N N 50 N 50 5 N 40 N 40 4 N 30 N 30 3 N 0 N 0 N 5 N 5 N 0 N 0 N 5 N Width of footing,, (m) Fig.(3.5): Design charts for proportioning shallow footings on sand. Correction factor C N Effective vertical overburden ressure (kn/ m ) Fig.(3.6): Relationship between bearing capacity factors and φ. Fig.(3.7): Chart for correction of N-values in sand for overburden pressure. 97
43 Limitations of using charts (3.5, 3.6 and 3.7): These charts are for strip footing, while for other types of footings multiply all. by (+ 0. /L). The charts are derived for shallow footings ( D f / ); 00 Ib/ft 3 ; settlement.0 (inch); F.S..0; no water table (far below the footing); and corrected N-values. N-values must be corrected for: (i) overburden pressure effect using figure (3.7) or the following formulas: 0 CN 0.77 log or Po (Tsf ) 000 CN 0.77 log Po ( kpa ) If p o < 0.5(Tsf ) or < 5( kpa ), (no need for overburden pressure correction). (ii) and water table effect: C w D w + D f D f W.T. D w G.S. N Example (4): (footing on sand) Determine the gross bearing capacity and the expected settlement of the rectangular footing shown in figure below. If N avg. (not corrected) and the depth for correction 6m?. Q G.S. Solution: P o 0.75(6) + 5.5(6-9.8) 44.5 kpa >5 kpa 0.75m 0.75x.5m W.T. 6 kn/m 3 98
44 CN 0.77 log 0.77 log.66 Po ( kpa ) 44.5 C D w + D w f 0.75 N corr. (.66)(0.75) 0.8 (use N 0) From figure (3.5) for footings on sand: at D f / and 0.75m (.5ft) and N 0 for strip footing:.( Tsf )x kpa all.( net ) for rectangular footing: all x (+0./L) kpa.( net ) D (6) kpa gross all.( net ) + f And the maximum settlement is not more than ( inch or 5mm). Example (5): (bearing capacity from field tests) SPT results from a soil boring located adjacent to a planned foundation for a proposed warehouse are shown below. If spread footings for the project are to be found (.m) below surface grade, what foundation size should be provided to support (800 kn) column load? Assume that 5mm settlement is tolerable, W.T. encountered at (7.5m). P800 kn SPT sample depth N (m) Solution: field Find σ o at each depth and correct 7.5m G.S. D f.m W.T.? N field values. Assume.4 m 7 kn/m 3 0 kn/m 3 99
45 At depth below the base of footing (.+.4) 3.6m; ( ) / 3 0 N avg. For 0, and D f / 0.5; all.. T/ft 3.3 kpa from Fig.(3.5). N avg. SPT sample depth (m) N field σ o (kn/m ) σ o (T/ft ) C N (Fig.3.7) N C N. N field P 800 Say.5 m, all., L 3.0m.x.L 3.3X.5 Rafts on Sand:, use (.5 x 3.5)m footing. For allowable settlement (inch) and differential settlement >3/4 (inch) provided that D f ( 8 ft ).or.(.4m )min. the allowable net soil pressure is given by: G.S. Q D f Raft foundation D w W.T. D f D w N Sand If S ( N ) C all. all.( net ) w.. for5 N (3.35) 9.0( N ) C w and S all. ; then all.( net ).0 0.N( Tsf ) 3.3N( kpa ) 9 00
46 Q and gross all.( net ) + D f. Area where: D f. Dw + ( D f Dw )( w ) + ( D f Dw ) w C w D w (correction for water table) + D f N SPT number (corrected for both W.T. and overburden pressure). Hint: A raft-supported building with a basement extending below water table is acted on by hydroustatic uplift pressure or buoyancy eual to ( D f Dw ) w per unit area. Example (6): (raft on sand) Determine the maximum soil pressure that should be allowed at the base of the raft shown in figure below If N avg. (corrected) 9?. G.S. Q D f 3m 9 mx5m W.T. Solution: 9 m Very fine sand 5.7 kn/m 3 ; N avg. 9 blow/30cm Rock For raft on sand: all.( net ) 3.3N( kpa ) 3.3(9) kpa Dw 3 Correction for water table: Cw D f (0.65 ) kpa all.( net ) The surcharge D f. 3(5.7) 47. kpa and gross all.( net ) + D f kpa 0
47 3.4 earing Capacity of Footings on Slopes If footings are on slopes, their bearing capacities are less than if the footings were on level ground. In fact, bearing capacity of a footing is inversely proportional to ground slope. Meyerhof's Method: In this method, the ultimate bearing capacity of footings on slopes is computed using the following euations: ( ult. ) continuous. footing.on.slope cnc +.. N ( where: Notes: ) ult. c.or.s. footing.on.slope ( ult (3.36) ) continuous. footing.on.slope ( ( ult. ) ) c.or.s. footing.on.level.ground ult. continuous. footing.on.level.ground..(3.37) N c and N are bearing capacity factors for footings on or adjacent to a slope; determined from figure (3.8), c or s footing denotes either circular or suare footing, and ( ult. ) of footing on level ground is calculated from Terzaghi's euation. () A φ triaxial should not be adjusted to φ ps, since the slope edge distorts the failure pattern such that plane-strain conditions may not develop except for large ratios. b / () For footings on or adjacent to a slope, the overall slope stability should be checked for the footing load using a slope-stability program or other methods such as method of slices by ishop's. 0
48 (a) on face of slope. earing capacity factor, earing capacity factor, Distance of foundation from edge of slope b/ (for Ns 0) or b/h (for Ns > 0). Distance of foundation from edge of slope, b/ (b) on top of slope. Figure (3.8): bearing capacity factors for continuous footing (after Meyerhof). 03
49 EARING CAPACITY EXAMPLES (4) Footings on slopes Prepared by: Dr. Farouk Majeed Muhauwiss Civil Engineering Department College of Engineering Tikrit University Example (7): (footing on top of a slope) A bearing wall for a building is to be located close to a slope as shown in figure. The ground water table is located at a great depth. Determine the allowable bearing capacity by Meyerhof's method using F.S. 3?. Q.5m G.S. 6.m.0m D f.0m Solution: ( ult. ) continuous. footing.on.slope cnc +.. N (3.36) b.5 D f.0 From figure (3.8-b): with φ 30, β 30,. 5, and. 0 (use the.0.0 dashed line) N 40 ( ult. ) continuous. footing.on.slope (0 )Nc + (9.5)(.0)(40) 390 kn/m 390 / 3 30 kn/m. all. 30 Cohesionless Soil 9.5 kn/m 3, c 0, φ 30 Example (8): (footing on face of a slope) Same conditions as example (6), except that a.0m-by.0m suare footing is to be constructed on the slope (use Meyerhof's method). D f.0m 30.0mx.0m Cohesionless Soil 9.5 kn/m 3, c 0, φ 30 04
50 Solution: ( ) ult. c.or.s. footing.on.slope ( ult. ) continuous. footing.on.slope ( ( ult. ) ) c.or.s. footing.on.level.ground ult. continuous. footing.on.level.ground..(3.37) ( ult. ) continuous. footing.on.slope (0 )Nc + (9.5)(.0)(5) 43.75kN/m ( ult. ) of suare or strip footing on level ground is calculated from Terzaghi's euation: ult. cnc Sc + N +...N. S earing capacity factors from table (3.3): for φ 30 ; N 37.,..N.5,..N 9. 7 c Shape factors table (3.): for suare footing S c. 3, S 0. 8 ; strip footing S c S. 0 ( ult ) (9.5)(.5) + 0.5(.0)(9.5)(9.7)(0.8) 59.4 kn/m. suare. footing.on.level.ground ( ult ) (9.5)(.5) + 0.5(.0)(9.5)(9.7)(.0) kn/m. continuous. footing.on.level.ground 59.4 ( ult.) suare.footing.on. slope kn/m and ( all. ) suare.footing.on. slope 76 kn/m 3 Example (9): (footing on top of a slope) A shallow continuous footing in clay is to be located close to a slope as shown in figure. The ground water table is located at a great depth. Determine the gross allowable bearing capacity using F.S. 4 Q 0.8m G.S. 6.m.m D f.m 30 Clay Soil 7.5 kn/m 3, c50kn/m, φ 0 05
51 Solution: Since <H assume the stability number N s 0 and for purely cohesive soil, φ 0 ( ult. ) continuous. footing.on.slope cn c b 0. 8 From figure (3.8-b) for cohesive soil: with φ 30, N s 0, 0. 67, and. D f..0 (use the dashed line) N c 6.3. kn/m ( ult. ) continuous. footing.on. slope ( 50 )(6.3 ) / kn/m. all. 3.5 Foundation on Rock It is common to use the building code values for the allowable bearing capacity of rocks (see Table 3.8). However, there are several significant parameters which should be taken into consideration together with the recommended code value; such as site geology, rock type and uality (as RQD). Usually, the shear strength parameters c and φ of rocks are obtained from high Pressure Triaxial Tests. However, for most rocks φ 45 except for limestone or shale φ ( ) can be used. Similarly in most cases we could estimate c 5 MPa with a conservative value. Table (3.8): Allowable contact pressure all. of jointed rock. RQD % all. (T/ft ) all. (kn/m ) Quality Excelent Very good Good Medium Poor Very poor.0 (T/ft ) (kn/m ) 06
52 Notes: () If all.( tabulated ) > u ( unconfined..compressive..strength ) of intact rock sample, then take. all. u () The settlement of the foundation should not exceed (0.5 inch) or (.7mm) even for large loaded area. (3) If the upper part of rock within a depth of about /4 is of lower uality, then its RQD value should be used or that part of rock should be removed. Any of the bearing capacity euations from Table (3.) with specified shape factors can be used to obtain ult. of rocks, but with bearing capacity factors for sound rock proposed by ( Stagg and Zienkiewicz, 968) as: Nc tan ( 45 + φ / ), N tan ( 45 + φ / ), N N + Then, ult. must be reduced on the basis of RQD as: ult. ult. ( RQD ) ult. ( RQD ) and all. F.S. where: F.S.safety factor dependent on RQD. It is common to use F.S. from (6-0) with the higher values for RQD less than about Rock Quality Designation (RQD): It is an index used by engineers to measure the uality of a rock mass and computed from recovered core samples as: lengths..of..int act..pieces..of..core 00mm RQD > length..of..core..advance 07
3-BEARING CAPACITY OF SOILS
3-BEARING CAPACITY OF SOILS INTRODUCTION The soil must be capable of carrying the loads from any engineered structure placed upon it without a shear failure and with the resulting settlements being tolerable
More informationThe Bearing Capacity of Soils. Dr Omar Al Hattamleh
The Bearing Capacity of Soils Dr Omar Al Hattamleh Example of Bearing Capacity Failure Omar Play the move of bearing Capacity failure The Philippine one Transcona Grain Silos Failure - Canada The Bearing
More informationFoundation Engineering Prof. Dr N.K. Samadhiya Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Foundation Engineering Prof. Dr N.K. Samadhiya Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Module 01 Lecture - 03 Shallow Foundation So, in the last lecture, we discussed the
More informationFoundations with D f equal to 3 to 4 times the width may be defined as shallow foundations. TWO MAIN CHARACTERISTICS ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY
oundation Analysis oundations with D f eual to 3 to 4 times the width may be defined as shallow foundations. TWO MAI CHARACTERISTICS o Safe against overall shear failure o Cannot undergo excessive displacement,
More informationChapter (3) Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
Chapter (3) Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Introduction To perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have two main characteristics: 1. They have to be safe against overall shear
More informationBEARING CAPACITY SHALLOW AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS
BEARING CAPACITY SHALLOW AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS CONTENTS: 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 2.1 Design criteria 2.2 Spreading load 2.3 Types of foundations 2.4 Ground failure modes 2.5 Definitions
More informationReinforced Soil Structures Reinforced Soil Walls. Prof K. Rajagopal Department of Civil Engineering IIT Madras, Chennai
Geosynthetics and Reinforced Soil Structures Reinforced Soil Walls continued Prof K. Rajagopal Department of Civil Engineering IIT Madras, Chennai e-mail: gopalkr@iitm.ac.inac in Outline of the Lecture
More informationChapter (11) Pile Foundations
Chapter (11) Introduction Piles are structural members that are made of steel, concrete, or timber. They are used to build pile foundations (classified as deep foundations) which cost more than shallow
More informationChapter (4) Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations (Special Cases)
Chapter (4) Ultimate earing Capacity of Shallow Foundations (Special Cases) Ultimate.C. of Shallow Foundations (Special Cases) Introduction The ultimate bearing capacity theories discussed in Chapter 3
More informationSHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL
Soil Failure Criteria SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL Knowledge about the shear strength of soil important for the analysis of: Bearing capacity of foundations, Slope stability, Lateral pressure on retaining structures,
More informationChapter 4. Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations. Omitted parts: Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.13 Examples 4.8, 4.9, 4.
Chapter 4 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Omitted parts: Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.13 Examples 4.8, 4.9, 4.12 Pages 191-194 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations To perform satisfactorily,
More informationwater proofing will relatively long time fully completed) be provided 10 storey building (15x25m) original GWT position 1 sat = 20 kn/m 3
P1 Question: An excavation will be made for a ten storey 15x25 m building. Temporary support of earth pressure and water pressure will be made by deep secant cantilever pile wall. The gross pressure due
More informationD1. A normally consolidated clay has the following void ratio e versus effective stress σ relationship obtained in an oedometer test.
(d) COMPRESSIBILITY AND CONSOLIDATION D1. A normally consolidated clay has the following void ratio e versus effective stress σ relationship obtained in an oedometer test. (a) Plot the e - σ curve. (b)
More informationChapter 6 Bearing Capacity
Chapter 6 Bearing Capacity 6-1. Scope This chapter provides guidance for the determination of the ultimate and allowable bearing stress values for foundations on rock. The chapter is subdivided into four
More informationEN Eurocode 7. Section 3 Geotechnical Data Section 6 Spread Foundations. Trevor L.L. Orr Trinity College Dublin Ireland.
EN 1997 1: Sections 3 and 6 Your logo Brussels, 18-20 February 2008 Dissemination of information workshop 1 EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7 Section 3 Geotechnical Data Section 6 Spread Foundations Trevor L.L. Orr
More informationCHAPTER 8 CALCULATION THEORY
CHAPTER 8 CALCULATION THEORY. Volume 2 CHAPTER 8 CALCULATION THEORY Detailed in this chapter: the theories behind the program the equations and methods that are use to perform the analyses. CONTENTS CHAPTER
More informationINTI COLLEGE MALAYSIA
EGC373 (F) / Page 1 of 5 INTI COLLEGE MALAYSIA UK DEGREE TRANSFER PROGRAMME INTI ADELAIDE TRANSFER PROGRAMME EGC 373: FOUNDATION ENGINEERING FINAL EXAMINATION : AUGUST 00 SESSION This paper consists of
More informationvulcanhammer.net This document downloaded from
This document downloaded from vulcanhammer.net since 1997, your source for engineering information for the deep foundation and marine construction industries, and the historical site for Vulcan Iron Works
More informationChapter 5 Shear Strength of Soil
Page 5 Chapter 5 Shear Strength of Soil. The internal resistance per unit area that the soil mass can offer to resist failure and sliding along any plane inside it is called (a) strength (b) shear strength
More informationINTRODUCTION TO STATIC ANALYSIS PDPI 2013
INTRODUCTION TO STATIC ANALYSIS PDPI 2013 What is Pile Capacity? When we load a pile until IT Fails what is IT Strength Considerations Two Failure Modes 1. Pile structural failure controlled by allowable
More informationBearing Capacity Of Shallow Foundation
Bearing Capacity Of Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity Of Shallow Foundation * A foundation is required for distributing the loads of the superstructure on a large area. * The foundation should be designed
More informationTheory of Shear Strength
MAJ 1013 ADVANCED SOIL MECHANICS Theory of Shear Strength Prepared by, Dr. Hetty 1 Strength of different materials Steel Concrete Soil Tensile strength Compressive strength Shear strength Complex behavior
More informationFoundation Engineering Prof. Dr. N. K. Samadhiya Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Foundation Engineering Prof. Dr. N. K. Samadhiya Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Module - 01 Lecture - 01 Shallow Foundation (Refer Slide Time: 00:19) Good morning.
More informationIntroduction to Soil Mechanics
Introduction to Soil Mechanics Sela Sode and Colin Jones WILEY Blackwell Contents Preface Dedication and Acknowledgments List of Symbols Soil Structure 1.1 Volume relationships 1.1.1 Voids ratio (e) 1.1.2
More informationCHAPTER 12 SHALLOW FOUNDATION I: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 12.1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 12 SHALLOW FOUNDATION I: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 12.1 INTRODUCTION It is the customary practice to regard a foundation as shallow if the depth of the foundation is less than or equal to the width
More information8.1. What is meant by the shear strength of soils? Solution 8.1 Shear strength of a soil is its internal resistance to shearing stresses.
8.1. What is meant by the shear strength of soils? Solution 8.1 Shear strength of a soil is its internal resistance to shearing stresses. 8.2. Some soils show a peak shear strength. Why and what type(s)
More informationHKIE-GD Workshop on Foundation Engineering 7 May Shallow Foundations. Dr Limin Zhang Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
HKIE-GD Workshop on Foundation Engineering 7 May 2011 Shallow Foundations Dr Limin Zhang Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 1 Outline Summary of design requirements Load eccentricity Bearing
More information(Refer Slide Time: 01:15)
Soil Mechanics Prof. B.V.S. Viswanathan Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Lecture 56 Stability analysis of slopes II Welcome to lecture two on stability analysis of
More informationDeep Foundations 2. Load Capacity of a Single Pile
Deep Foundations 2 Load Capacity of a Single Pile All calculations of pile capacity are approximate because it is almost impossible to account for the variability of soil types and the differences in the
More informationAdvanced Foundation Engineering
2013 Advanced Foundation Engineering Prof.T.G. Sitharam Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore CHAPTER 2: Shallow Foundations 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Requirements of a Good Foundation 2.1.2 Basic Definitions:
More informationA Comparative Study on Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations in Sand from N and /
DOI 10.1007/s40030-017-0246-7 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION A Comparative Study on Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations in Sand from N and / V. A. Sakleshpur 1 C. N. V. Satyanarayana Reddy 1 Received: 9 January
More informationShear Strength of Soils
Shear Strength of Soils STRESSES IN A SOIL ELEMENT t s v Analyze Effective Stresses (s ) Load carried by Soil t Where: s H t t s H s = t f = s v = s H = t = s v Stresses in a Soil Element after Figure
More informationChapter (6) Geometric Design of Shallow Foundations
Chapter (6) Geometric Design of Shallow Foundations Introduction As we stated in Chapter 3, foundations are considered to be shallow if if [D (3 4)B]. Shallow foundations have several advantages: minimum
More informationTechnical Supplement 14Q. Abutment Design for Small Bridges. (210 VI NEH, August 2007)
Technical Supplement 14Q (10 VI NEH, August 007) Issued August 007 Cover photo: Design of abutments for small bridges reuires geotechnical analysis. Advisory Note Techniues and approaches contained in
More informationTopics. Module 3 Lecture 10 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY NPTEL ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING-I
Topics Module 3 Lecture 10 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 1.1 THE GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION Bearing Capacity Factors General Comments 1.2 EFFECT OF SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY 1.3 ECCENTRICALLY
More informationTheory of Shear Strength
SKAA 1713 SOIL MECHANICS Theory of Shear Strength Prepared by, Dr. Hetty 1 SOIL STRENGTH DEFINITION Shear strength of a soil is the maximum internal resistance to applied shearing forces The maximum or
More informationThis document downloaded from vulcanhammer.net vulcanhammer.info Chet Aero Marine
This document downloaded from vulcanhammer.net vulcanhammer.info Chet Aero Marine Don t forget to visit our companion site http://www.vulcanhammer.org Use subject to the terms and conditions of the respective
More informationQUESTION BANK DEPARTMENT: CIVIL SUBJECT CODE / Name: CE 2251 / SOIL MECHANICS SEMESTER: IV UNIT 1- INTRODUCTION PART - A (2 marks) 1. Distinguish between Residual and Transported soil. (AUC May/June 2012)
More informationLaboratory Testing Total & Effective Stress Analysis
SKAA 1713 SOIL MECHANICS Laboratory Testing Total & Effective Stress Analysis Prepared by: Dr. Hetty Mohr Coulomb failure criterion with Mohr circle of stress 2 ' 2 ' ' ' 3 ' 1 ' 3 ' 1 Cot Sin c ' ' 2
More informationEARTH PRESSURES ON RETAINING STRUCTURES
12-1 12. EARTH PRESSURES ON RETAINING STRUCTURES 12.1 Active Pressure and Passive Pressure When a sudden change in level of the ground surface is to be provided for some purpose a retaining structure is
More informationChapter (5) Allowable Bearing Capacity and Settlement
Chapter (5) Allowable Bearing Capacity and Settlement Introduction As we discussed previously in Chapter 3, foundations should be designed for both shear failure and allowable settlement. So the allowable
More informationChapter 7: Settlement of Shallow Foundations
Chapter 7: Settlement of Shallow Foundations Introduction The settlement of a shallow foundation can be divided into two major categories: (a) elastic, or immediate settlement and (b) consolidation settlement.
More informationClass Principles of Foundation Engineering CEE430/530
Class Principles of Foundation Engineering CEE430/530 1-1 General Information Lecturer: Scott A. Barnhill, P.E. Lecture Time: Thursday, 7:10 pm to 9:50 pm Classroom: Kaufmann, Room 224 Office Hour: I have
More informationTable 3. Empirical Coefficients for BS 8002 equation. A (degrees) Rounded Sub-angular. 2 Angular. B (degrees) Uniform Moderate grading.
Hatanaka and Uchida (1996); ' 20N 20 12N 20 ' 45 A lower bound for the above equation is given as; 12N 15 ' 45 Table 3. Empirical Coefficients for BS 8002 equation A Angularity 1) A (degrees) Rounded 0
More informationSlope Stability. loader
Slope Stability Slope Stability loader Lower San Fernando Dam Failure, 1971 Outlines Introduction Definition of key terms Some types of slope failure Some causes of slope failure Shear Strength of Soils
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE TITLE PAGE DECLARATION DEDIDATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE TITLE PAGE DECLARATION DEDIDATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT ABSTRAK TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLE LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF SYMBOLS LIST OF APENDICES i ii iii iv v
More informationChapter 12 Subsurface Exploration
Page 12 1 Chapter 12 Subsurface Exploration 1. The process of identifying the layers of deposits that underlie a proposed structure and their physical characteristics is generally referred to as (a) subsurface
More informationTriaxial Shear Test. o The most reliable method now available for determination of shear strength parameters.
TOPICS Introduction Components of Shear Strength of Soils Normal and Shear Stresses on a Plane Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion Laboratory Shear Strength Testing Direct Shear Test Triaxial Compression Test
More informationGeotechnical Properties of Soil
Geotechnical Properties of Soil 1 Soil Texture Particle size, shape and size distribution Coarse-textured (Gravel, Sand) Fine-textured (Silt, Clay) Visibility by the naked eye (0.05 mm is the approximate
More informationProf. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
19 Module 5: Lecture -1 on Stability of Slopes Contents Stability analysis of a slope and finding critical slip surface; Sudden Draw down condition, effective stress and total stress analysis; Seismic
More informationTable of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering 1.1 Geotechnical Engineering 1.2 The Unique Nature of Soil and Rock Materials
Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering 1.1 Geotechnical Engineering 1.2 The Unique Nature of Soil and Rock Materials 1.3 Scope of This Book 1.4 Historical Development of Geotechnical
More informationYOUR HW MUST BE STAPLED YOU MUST USE A PENCIL (no pens)
Spring 2008 CIVE 462 HOMEWORK #1 1. Print out the syllabus. Read it. Write the grade percentages in the first page of your notes. 2. Go back to your 301 notes, internet, etc. and find the engineering definition
More informationBoreholes. Implementation. Boring. Boreholes may be excavated by one of these methods: 1. Auger Boring 2. Wash Boring 3.
Implementation Boreholes 1. Auger Boring 2. Wash Boring 3. Rotary Drilling Boring Boreholes may be excavated by one of these methods: 4. Percussion Drilling The right choice of method depends on: Ground
More information(C) Global Journal of Engineering Science and Research Management
GEOTECHNCIAL ASSESSMENT OF PART OF PORT HARCOURT, NIGER DELTA FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Warmate Tamunonengiyeofori Geostrat International Services Limited, www.geostratinternational.com. *Correspondence
More informationPRINCIPLES OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
PRINCIPLES OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Fourth Edition BRAJA M. DAS California State University, Sacramento I(T)P Boston Albany Bonn Cincinnati London Madrid Melbourne Mexico City New York Paris San Francisco
More informationAxially Loaded Piles
Axially Loaded Piles 1 t- Curve Method using Finite Element Analysis The stress-strain relationship for an axially loaded pile can be described through three loading mechanisms: axial deformation in the
More informationDESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF RETAINING WALLS
CHAPTER 8 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF RETAINING WALLS 8. INTRODUCTION Retaining walls are structures used to provide stability for earth or other materials at their natural slopes. In general, they are used
More informationGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ECG 503 LECTURE NOTE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RETAINING STRUCTURES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ECG 503 LECTURE NOTE 07 3.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RETAINING STRUCTURES LEARNING OUTCOMES Learning outcomes: At the end of this lecture/week the students would be able to: Understand
More informationCh 4a Stress, Strain and Shearing
Ch. 4a - Stress, Strain, Shearing Page 1 Ch 4a Stress, Strain and Shearing Reading Assignment Ch. 4a Lecture Notes Sections 4.1-4.3 (Salgado) Other Materials Handout 4 Homework Assignment 3 Problems 4-13,
More informationLATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
. INTRODUCTION Retaining structures commonly used in foundation engineering, such as retaining walls, basement walls and bulkheads to support almost vertical slopes of earth masses. Proper design and construction
More information2017 Soil Mechanics II and Exercises Final Exam. 2017/7/26 (Wed) 10:00-12:00 Kyotsu 4 Lecture room
2017 Soil Mechanics II and Exercises Final Exam 2017/7/26 (Wed) 10:00-12:00 Kyotsu 4 Lecture room Attention: The exam consists of five questions for which you are provided with five answer sheets. Write
More informationObjectives. In this section you will learn the following. Development of Bearing Capacity Theory. Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory
Objectives In this section you will learn the following Development of Bearing Capacity Theory Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory Assumptions in Terzaghi s Bearing Capacity Theory. Meyerhof's Bearing Capacity
More informationChapter (12) Instructor : Dr. Jehad Hamad
Chapter (12) Instructor : Dr. Jehad Hamad 2017-2016 Chapter Outlines Shear strength in soils Direct shear test Unconfined Compression Test Tri-axial Test Shear Strength The strength of a material is the
More informationINTERPRETATION OF UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF UNSATURATED SOILS IN TERMS OF STRESS STATE VARIABLES
INTERPRETATION OF UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF UNSATURATED SOILS IN TERMS OF STRESS STATE VARIABLES S. K. Vanapalli and D.G. Fredlund Department of Civil Engineering University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
More informationVALLIAMMAI ENGINEERING COLLEGE
VALLIAMMAI ENGINEERING COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING SUBJECT CODE : CE6405 YEAR : II SUBJECT NAME : SOIL MECHANICS SEM : IV QUESTION BANK (As per Anna University 2013 regulation) UNIT 1- SOIL
More informationSOIL SHEAR STRENGTH. Prepared by: Dr. Hetty Muhammad Azril Fauziah Kassim Norafida
SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH Prepared by: Dr. Hetty Muhammad Azril Fauziah Kassim Norafida What is shear strength Shear strength of a soil is the maximum internal resistance to applied shearing forces Why it is
More informationSHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL
SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL Necessity of studying Shear Strength of soils : Soil failure usually occurs in the form of shearing along internal surface within the soil. Shear Strength: Thus, structural strength
More informationInstructor : Dr. Jehad Hamad. Chapter (7)
Instructor : Dr. Jehad Hamad Chapter (7) 2017-2016 Soil Properties Physical Properties Mechanical Properties Gradation and Structure Compressibility Soil-Water Relationships Shear Strength Bearing Capacity
More informationSOIL MECHANICS: palgrave. Principles and Practice. Graham Barnes. macmiiian THIRD EDITION
SOIL MECHANICS: Principles and Practice THIRD EDITION Graham Barnes palgrave macmiiian 'running Contents Preface xii Fine soil 19 List of symbols xiv Mass structure 21 Note on units xix Degree of weathering
More informationCE 442 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SESSIONAL II
CE 442 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SESSIONAL II Department of Civil Engineering Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology December, 2017 Preface The substructure or foundation is the part of a structure
More informationDesign of RC Retaining Walls
Lecture - 09 Design of RC Retaining Walls By: Prof Dr. Qaisar Ali Civil Engineering Department UET Peshawar www.drqaisarali.com 1 Topics Retaining Walls Terms Related to Retaining Walls Types of Retaining
More informationSHEET PILE WALLS. Mehdi Mokhberi Islamic Azad University
SHEET PILE WALLS Mehdi Mokhberi Islamic Azad University Lateral Support In geotechnical engineering, it is often necessary to prevent lateral soil movements. Tie rod Anchor Sheet pile Cantilever retaining
More informationLiquefaction and Foundations
Liquefaction and Foundations Amit Prashant Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar Short Course on Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings 26 30 November, 2012 What is Liquefaction? Liquefaction
More informationJ. Paul Guyer, P.E., R.A.
J. Paul Guyer, P.E., R.A. Paul Guyer is a registered mechanical engineer, civil engineer, fire protection engineer and architect with over 35 years experience in the design of buildings and related infrastructure.
More informationA. V T = 1 B. Ms = 1 C. Vs = 1 D. Vv = 1
Geology and Soil Mechanics 55401 /1A (2002-2003) Mark the best answer on the multiple choice answer sheet. 1. Soil mechanics is the application of hydraulics, geology and mechanics to problems relating
More informationGeology and Soil Mechanics /1A ( ) Mark the best answer on the multiple choice answer sheet.
Geology and Soil Mechanics 55401 /1A (2003-2004) Mark the best answer on the multiple choice answer sheet. 1. Soil mechanics is the application of hydraulics, geology and mechanics to problems relating
More informationSmith s Elements of Soil Mechanics
SEOA01 28/04/2006 01:55PM Page i Smith s Elements of Soil Mechanics Eighth Edition Ian Smith Napier University, Edinburgh SEOA01 28/04/2006 01:55PM Page ii Ian Smith 2006 G. N. Smith 1968, 1971, 1974,
More informationAPPENDIX F CORRELATION EQUATIONS. F 1 In-Situ Tests
APPENDIX F 1 APPENDIX F CORRELATION EQUATIONS F 1 In-Situ Tests 1. SPT (1) Sand (Hatanaka and Uchida, 1996), = effective vertical stress = effective friction angle = atmosphere pressure (Shmertmann, 1975)
More informationEngineeringmanuals. Part2
Engineeringmanuals Part2 Engineering manuals for GEO5 programs Part 2 Chapter 1-12, refer to Engineering Manual Part 1 Chapter 13. Pile Foundations Introduction... 2 Chapter 14. Analysis of vertical load-bearing
More informationGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR STATIC TEST FACILITY FOR PROPELLANTS AT BDL, IBRAHIMPATNAM. Graphics Designers, M/s Architecture & Engineering 859, Banjara Avenue, Consultancy
More informationAssociate Professor. Tel:
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IIT DELHI Dr. Suresh Bhalla Associate Professor Tel: 2659-1040 Email: Sbhalla@civil.iitd.ac.in FOUNDATIONS Geotechnical Engineer Structural Engineer Location and depth criteria
More informationNCHRP LRFD Design Specifications for Shallow Foundations TRB AFS30 Committee Meeting January 26, 2011
Geotechnical Engineering Research Laboratory Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Massachusetts Lowell. NCHRP 24-31 LRFD Design Specifications for Shallow Foundations TRB AFS3 Committee
More informationGeotechnical Subsoil Investigation for the Design of Water Tank Foundation
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 3, March 2014 1 Geotechnical Subsoil Investigation for the Design of Water Tank Foundation * Ngerebara Owajiokiche Dago, **
More informationNew Approach for Evaluating the Bearing Capacity of Sandy Soil to Strip Shallow Foundation
International Journal of Advanced Materials Research Vol. 2,. 2, 2016, pp. 13-21 http://www.aiscience.org/journal/ijamr ISSN: 2381-6805 (Print); ISSN: 2381-6813 (Online) New Approach for Evaluating the
More informationRAMWALL DESIGN METHODOLOGY
RAMWALL DESIGN METHODOLOGY Submitted by:. June 005 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Page. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS & ABBREVIATIONS 1 3 DESIGN METHODOLOGY / THEORY 3.1 General 3. Internal Analysis 4 3.3 External
More informationFOUNDATION ENGINEERING UNIT V
FOUNDATION ENGINEERING UNIT V RETAINING WALLS Plastic equilibrium in soils active and passive states Rankine s theory cohesion less and cohesive soil - Coloumb s wedge theory condition for critical failure
More informationH.1 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES (DATA PACKAGE)
DRAFT ONONDAGA LAKE CAPPING AND DREDGE AREA AND DEPTH INITIAL DESIGN SUBMITTAL H.1 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES (DATA PACKAGE) Parsons P:\Honeywell -SYR\444576 2008 Capping\09
More informationStructure, Member Design - Geotechnics Piles XX
E N G I N E E R S Consulting Engineers jxxx 1 Material Properties Characteristic strength of concrete, f cu ( 60N/mm 2 ; HSC ) 40 N/mm 2 OK Yield strength of longitudinal steel, f y 460 N/mm 2 Yield strength
More informationPiles Capacity Reference Manual
Piles Capacity Reference Manual hetge hetge geotechnics on the go Piles Capacity Reference Manual January 3, 2013 Version: PC-1.3.130103 hetge LLC Moscow Virginia Istanbul E info@hetge.com W www.hetge.com
More informationGeotechnical Indications Of Eastern Bypass Area In Port Harcourt, Niger Delta
Geotechnical Indications Of Eastern Bypass Area In Port Harcourt, Niger Delta Warmate Tamunonengiyeofori Geostrat International Services Limited, Rivers State, Nigeria www.geostratinternational.com info@geostratinternational.com,
More informationSession 3. Calculation Models. EQU, UPL and HYD. Design of Pile Foundations
1 Session 3 Calculation Models EQU, UPL and HYD Design of Pile Foundations (Killiney Bay) 2 SLS and Settlement Calculations (Dalkey Island) Summary of ULS Designs Undrained width (m) Drained width (m)
More information1.5 STRESS-PATH METHOD OF SETTLEMENT CALCULATION 1.5 STRESS-PATH METHOD OF SETTLEMENT CALCULATION
Module 6 Lecture 40 Evaluation of Soil Settlement - 6 Topics 1.5 STRESS-PATH METHOD OF SETTLEMENT CALCULATION 1.5.1 Definition of Stress Path 1.5. Stress and Strain Path for Consolidated Undrained Undrained
More informationPrincipal Symbols. f. Skin friction G Shear modulus. Cu Coefficient of uniformity Cc Coefficient of curvature
Principal Symbols A, a Area A Air content A, A Pore pre.ssure coefficients a' Modified shear strength parameter (effective stress) a Dial gauge reading in oedometer test B Width of footing B, B Pore pressure
More informationPractical Design to Eurocode 2. The webinar will start at 12.30
Practical Design to Eurocode 2 The webinar will start at 12.30 Course Outline Lecture Date Speaker Title 1 21 Sep Jenny Burridge Introduction, Background and Codes 2 28 Sep Charles Goodchild EC2 Background,
More informationProf. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
56 Module 4: Lecture 7 on Stress-strain relationship and Shear strength of soils Contents Stress state, Mohr s circle analysis and Pole, Principal stressspace, Stress pathsin p-q space; Mohr-Coulomb failure
More informationCPT Data Interpretation Theory Manual
CPT Data Interpretation Theory Manual 2016 Rocscience Inc. Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 3 2 Soil Parameter Interpretation... 5 3 Soil Profiling... 11 3.1 Non-Normalized SBT Charts... 11 3.2 Normalized
More informationSHEAR STRENGTH I YULVI ZAIKA
SHEAR STRENGTH I YULVI ZAIKA MATERI Keruntuhan mohr coulomb, stress paths, kuat geser tanah non kohesif dan kohesif, evaluasi kuat geser di lapangan, tegangan normal dan tegangan geser pada sebuah bidang
More informationFUNDAMENTALS SOIL MECHANICS. Isao Ishibashi Hemanta Hazarika. >C\ CRC Press J Taylor & Francis Group. Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
SOIL MECHANICS FUNDAMENTALS Isao Ishibashi Hemanta Hazarika >C\ CRC Press J Taylor & Francis Group Boca Raton London New York CRC Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
More informationSupplementary Problems for Chapter 7
Supplementary Problems for Chapter 7 Problem 7.1 consolidation test has been carried out on a standard 19 mm thick clay sample. The oedometer s deflection gauge indicated 1.66 mm, just before the removal
More informationSoil Mechanics Prof. B.V.S. Viswanathan Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Lecture 51 Earth Pressure Theories II
Soil Mechanics Prof. B.V.S. Viswanathan Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Lecture 51 Earth Pressure Theories II Welcome to lecture number two on earth pressure theories.
More information