NCHRP LRFD Design Specifications for Shallow Foundations TRB AFS30 Committee Meeting January 26, 2011
|
|
- Teresa Wells
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Geotechnical Engineering Research Laboratory Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Massachusetts Lowell. NCHRP LRFD Design Specifications for Shallow Foundations TRB AFS3 Committee Meeting January 26, 211 The lecture is based on NCHRP Report 651 LRFD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS FOR HIGHWAY STRUCTURES Samuel G. Paikowsky, Mary C. Canniff, Kerstin Lesny, Aloys Kisse, Shailendra Amatya, and Robert Muganga Geosciences Testing & Research, Inc. N. Chelmsford, MA USA
2 OBJECTIVES NCHRP RESEARCH PROJECT Develop and Calibrate Procedures and Modify AASHTO s Section 1 (Foundations) Specifications for the Strength Limit State Design of Bridge Shallow Foundations. For NCHRP Research Report 651, Google NCHRP 651 2
3 Task 1: Design & Construction Practices Questionnaire - Establishing design methods, construction practices, design cases, and loads Developed and distributed to 161 State Highway Officials, TRB Representatives, and State and FHWA bridge engineers. Obtained responses from 39 states and 1 Canadian Province Previous relevant information was obtained via a questionnaire circulated in 24 for the research project NCHRP AASHTO LRFD Specifications for the Serviceability in the Design of Bridge Foundation 3
4 Design & Construction Practices - Questionnaire Foundation Alternatives Results on distribution of bridge foundation usage from our previous questionnaires conducted in 1999 and 24, and the current questionnaire (over the past 3 years, 24-26): shallow foundations driven piles drilled foundations 1999/24 14%/17% 75%/62% 11%/21% current 17% 59% 24% The average use changes significantly across the country. The use of shallow foundations in the Northeast exceeds by far all other regions of the USA, ranging from 4% in NY, NJ and ME, to 67% in CT. Other heavy users are TN (63%), WA (3%), NV (25%) and ID (2%). In contrast, out of the 39 responding states, six states do not use shallow foundations for bridges at all, and additional eight states use shallow foundations in 5% or less of the highway bridge foundations. In summary, 55.8% of the shallow foundations are built on rock (average of piers and abutments) with additional 16.8% on IGM, hence 72.6% of the foundations are build on rock or cemented soils and only 27.4% are built on soils of which 24.2% on granular soils and 3.2% on clay or silt. 4
5 TASK 2: DATABASES UML-GTR ShalFound7 Database 549 cases built in ACCESS platform, 415 cases are suitable for ULS. UML-GTR RockFound7 Capacity Database 122 Cases of load tests to failure including 61 rock sockets, 33 shallow foundations on rock surface, 28 shallow foundations below surface ShalFound7 Divided into vertical centric and eccentric, and inclined cases RockFound7 All vertical centric, shallow and drilled shafts 5
6 Database Overview UML-GTR ShalFound7 Foundation type Plate load tests B 1m Small footings 1 < B 3m Large footings 3 < B 6m Rafts & Mats B > 6m Predominant Soil Type Country Total Sand Gravel Cohesive Mix Others Germany Others Total Note: Mixed are cases with alternating layers of sand or gravel and clay or silt Others are cases with either unknown soil types or with other granular materials like loamy Scoria 1m 3.3ft Large foundations are often not loaded to ULS failure (SLS controls) 6
7 TASK 3: BC Shallow Foundations on Soil - OUTLINE 1. BC of Shallow foundations BC Factors BC modification Factors 2. Determination of ULS from case histories ULS and Modes of Failure Overview Modes of Failure 3. Failure (Ultimate Load) Criteria Minimum slope criteria (Vesić, 1963) Limited settlement criterion of.1b (Vesić, 1975) Log-log plot of load-settlement curve (DeBeer, 1967) Two-slope criterion Selection of failure criteria (representative values and minimum slope) Examples in soil & rock 4. Uncertainty Evaluation BC of Centric Vertically Loaded Footing on Granular Soils Database overview Calculated BC missing soil parameters and equations used for BC calculations 5. Calibration 6. Summary and Conclusions 7
8 Recommended Failure Criterion Minimum Slope Failure Load Criterion, Vesic (1963) Failure load interpreted were for 196 cases using each of the proposed methods Representative Failure Load defined as the mean value of all the failure loads interpreted using each criterion Mean of the ratio was.98 and Failure Loads for most cases could be interpreted using Minimum Slope criterion the criterion was chosen as the standard BC interpretation method 8
9 Bias of Estimated BC Cases with Vertical Centric Loading Vertical Centric Loading n = 173; mean bias = 1.59, COV =.291 Natural soil conditions ( f from SPT-N counts) n = 14; no. of sites = 8 mean = 1. COV =.329 Controlled soil conditions (D r 35%) n = 159; no. of sites = 7 mean = 1.64 COV =.267 B > 1.m n = 6 no. of sites = 3 mean = 1.1 COV = < B 1.m n = 8 no. of sites = 7 mean =.99 COV =.47 B.1m n = 138 no. of sites = 5 mean = 1.67 COV = < B 1.m n = 21 no. of sites = 3 mean = 1.48 COV =.391 Figure 6 Summary of bias (measured over calculated BC) for vertical centric loading cases (Database I);.1m = 3.94in; 1m = 3.28ft. 9
10 Number of observations Frequency using Minimum Slope criterion (Vesic, 1963) (ksf) Bias of Estimated BC Cases with Vertical Centric Loading Vertical-centric loading n = 173 mean = 1.59 COV =.291 lognormal distribution normal distribution.2.1 Interpreted bearing capacity, qu,meas Vertical-centric loading Data (n = 173) Data best fit line No bias line Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Calcualted bearing capacity, q u,calc (Vesic, 1975 and modified AASHTO) (ksf) Figure 61. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated bearing capacity for all cases of vertical centrically loaded shallow foundations. 1
11 Number of observations Frequency Bias of Estimated BC using Minimum Slope criterion (Vesic, 1963) (ksf) Cases with Vertical Centric Loading 4 Controlled soil conditions n = 159 mean = 1.64 COV = lognormal distribution normal distribution Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Calcualted bearing capacity, q u,calc (Vesic, 1975 and modified AASHTO) (ksf) Figure 62. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated bearing capacity for vertical centrically loaded shallow foundations on controlled soil conditions. Interpreted bearing capacity, qu,meas Controlled soil conditions Data (n = 159) Data best fit line No bias line 11
12 Number of observations Frequency using Minimum Slope criterion (Vesic, 1963) (ksf) Bias of Estimated BC Cases with Vertical Centric Loading Natural soil conditions n = 14 mean = 1. COV =.329 normal distribution lognormal distribution Interpreted bearing capacity, qu,meas 1 1 Natural soil conditions Data (n = 14) Data best fit line No bias line Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Calcualted bearing capacity, q u,calc (Vesic, 1975 and modified AASHTO) (ksf) Figure 63. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated bearing capacity for vertical centrically loaded shallow foundations on natural soil conditions. 12
13 Bias Bias versus Footing Width B (ft) Mean bias BC (n = 172) s.d. (x) no. of cases in each interval 95% confidence interval for f (n = 135) 95% confidence interval for f (n = 37) (5) (9) (2) (3) (4) 1.5 (4) (5) (1) 1.5 (34) (1) (17) (3) (1) (2) Footing width, B (m) Figure 1. Variation of the bias in bearing resistance versus footing size for cases under vertical-centric loadings: f 43 and f <
14 q u / (.5 B s ) Uncertainty in N N from load tests; n = 125 N (Vesic, 1973) N = exp(.39 f ) (R 2 =.666) friction angle, f (deg) Comparison of bearing capacity factor calculated based on test results; N = q u / (.5 B s ) from 125 tests carried out in controlled soil conditions (tests by Perau, 1995) and N proposed by Vesic (1973) in the range of soil friction angle of 42 and 46 14
15 Uncertainty in N N = [q u / (.5 B s )] / NVesic load test data; n = 125 = exp(.25 f 8.655) (R 2 =.351) Friction Angle, f (deg) Figure 93. The ratio ( N ) between the back-calculated B.C. factor N based on experimental data to that proposed by Vesić versus soil friction angle. 15
16 Bias Uncertainty in N Data BC bias (n = 131) Bearing Capacity (BC) bias, N bias, Friction Angle, f (deg) Figure 94. The ratio between measured and calculated bearing capacity (bias ) compared to the bias in the B.C. factor N ( N ) versus the soil s friction angle for footings under vertical-centric loadings. 16
17 Bias Uncertainty in B.C Mean bias,bc (n = 172) 1 s.d. (x) no. of cases in each interval BC =.38exp(.372 f ) (R 2 =.2) % confidence interval (2) (4) (2) (3) (12) (3) (9) (2) 1. (3) (4) (4) (14).5 (2) Friction angle f (deg) Figure 13. Bearing resistance bias vs. average soil friction angle (taken f.5) including 95% confidence interval for all cases under vertical-centric loading. 17
18 Final Resistance Factors Controlled Conditions Table 66 Recommended resistance factors for shallow foundations on granular soils placed under controlled conditions Soil friction angle f Vertical-centric or -eccentric Loading conditions Inclined-centric Inclined-eccentric Positive Negative Notes: 1) f determined by laboratory testing 2) compacted controlled fill or improved ground are assumed to extend below the base of the footing to a distance to at least two (2.) times the width of the foundation (B). If the fill is less than 2B thick, but overlays a material equal or better in strength than the fill itself, then the recommendation stands. If not, then the strength of the weaker material within a distance of 2B below the footing; prevails. 3) The resistance factors were evaluated for a target reliability T =
19 Final Resistance Factors Natural Conditions Table 67 Recommended resistance factors for shallow foundations on natural deposited granular soil conditions Loading conditions Soil friction angle f Vertical-centric or -eccentric Inclined-centric Inclined-eccentric Positive Negative Notes: 1) f determined from Standard Penetration Test results 2) granular material is assumed to extend below the base of the footing at least two (2.) times the width of the foundation. 3) The resistance factors were evaluated for a target reliability T =
20 Intermediate Conclusions and Summary It was found that for the footings of larger sizes (B>3m (9.9ft)), the load tests were not carried out to the failure load Biases for the tests in Natural Soil Condition and Controlled Soil Conditions were analyzed separately For the footing sizes in similar ranges (.1m < B 1.m), the scatter of bias was larger for footings on/in natural soil conditions The majority of the relevant data refers to small size foundations (B 3.3ft (1.m)) on controlled compacted material. Many of the highway shallow foundations on soils are built on compacted materials and hence, the statistical data of the uncertainty can be used for that purpose There appears to be a trend of increase in bias with the footing size within the range of footing sizes available for testing (which seems to conform with the observation made by Vesic (1969)) 2
21 ULS of Inclined Loading x 2 F 1 M1 M2 F 1 M 2 x 2 D D M 1 F2 M3 F 2 M 3 F 3 F 3 b 2 L x 3 x 3 B b 3 x 1 x 1 g f (a) Loading convention F 1 F 1 F F 1 1,const. = const. F 3 arctan e = const M 2 increasing F 3 (b) Radial load path (c) Step-like load path Figure 4.7. Loading convention and load paths used during tests Figure 64. Loading convention and load paths used during tests. 21
22 Vertical displacement, u 1 (mm) u 1 (in) Horizontal displacement, u 3 (mm) u 3 (in) ULS of Inclined Loading Vertical load, F 1, F 1 (kn) Horizontal load, F 3 (kn) MoD2.1 = MoD2.2 = 8 MoD2.3 = MoD2.1 = 3 MoD2.2 = MoD2.3 = 14 MoA2.1 = F F 1 (kips) F 3 (kips).2 Figure 65. Load displacements curves for model tests conducted by Montrasio (1994) with varying load inclination: (a) vertical load vs. vertical displacement and (b) horizontal load vs. horizontal displacement. 22
23 Number of observations Frequency using Minimum Slope criterion (Vesic, 1963) (ksf) Bias of Estimated BC Cases with Vertical-Eccentric Loading (using B) Vertical-eccentric loading n = 43 mean = 1.83 COV =.351 lognormal distribution normal distribution Interpreted bearing capacity, qu,meas Vertical-eccentric loading Data (n = 43) Data best fit line No bias line Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Calcualted bearing capacity, q u,calc (Vesic, 1975 and modified AASHTO) (ksf) Figure 66. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated bearing capacity for all cases of vertical eccentrically loaded shallow foundations..1 23
24 Bias Bias of Estimated BC Cases with Vertical-Eccentric Loading 3. n = 43 (4) (7) (2) (11) Mean bias, BC 1 s.d. (x) no. of cases in each interval BC = exp( f ) (R 2 =.1) 95% confidence interval (6) (9) (4) Friction angle f (deg) Figure 15. Bearing resistance bias versus soil friction angle for cases under vertical-eccentric loadings; seven cases for f = 35 (all from a single site) have been ignored for obtaining the best fit line. 24
25 Number of observations Frequency 12 8 using Minimum Slope criterion (Vesic, 1963) (ksf) Bias of Estimated BC Cases with Inclined-Centric Loading 4 Inclined-centric loading n = 39 mean = 1.43 COV =.295 lognormal distribution normal distribution Interpreted bearing capacity, qu,meas Inclined-centric loading Data (n = 39) Data best fit line No bias line Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Calcualted bearing capacity, q u,calc (Vesic, 1975 and modified AASHTO) (ksf) Figure 67. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated bearing capacity for all cases of inclined centric loaded shallow foundations. 25
26 Number of observations Frequency using Minimum Slope criterion (Vesic, 1963) (ksf) Bias of Estimated BC Cases with Inclined-Eccentric Loading Inclined-eccentric loading n = 29 mean = 2.43 COV =.58 lognormal distribution normal distribution Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Calcualted bearing capacity, q u,calc (Vesic, 1975 and modified AASHTO) (ksf) Figure 68. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated bearing capacity for all cases of inclined eccentrically loaded shallow foundations. Interpreted bearing capacity, qu,meas Inclined-eccentric loading Data (n = 29) Data best fit line No bias line 26
27 Loading Directions for Inclined-Eccentric Loadings F 1 e 3 b Moment acting 3 in direction opposite to the lateral 3 loading negative b e 3 F 1 F 3 F 3 eccentricity Moment acting 3in the same direction as the lateral 3 loading positive eccentricity (a) along footing width b b F F M 2 1 F M F F 1 e 2 b b e 2 F 1 F 2 Moment acting 2 in direction opposite to the lateral 2 loading negative F 2 eccentricity Moment acting 2 in the same direction as the lateral 2 loading positive eccentricity b b F 1 F 1 M 3 M 3 (b) along footing length + - F + 2 F + 2 Figure 69. Loading directions for the case of inclined-eccentric loadings: (a) along footing width and (b) along footing length 27
28 Number of observations Frequency using Minimum Slope criterion (Vesic, 1963) (ksf) Bias of Estimated BC Cases with Inclined-Eccentric Loading Inclined-eccentric loading Negative eccentricity n = 7 mean = 3.43 COV =.523 lognormal distribution normal distribution Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Calcualted bearing capacity, q u,calc (Vesic, 1975 and modified AASHTO) (ksf) Figure 71. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated bearing capacity for all cases of inclined eccentrically loaded shallow foundations under negative eccentricity. Interpreted bearing capacity, qu,meas Inclined-eccentric loading Negative eccentricity Data (n = 7) Data best fit line No bias line 28
29 Final Resistance Factors Natural Conditions Table 67 Recommended resistance factors for shallow foundations on natural deposited granular soil conditions Loading conditions Soil friction angle f Vertical-centric or -eccentric Inclined-centric Inclined-eccentric Positive Negative Notes: 1) f determined from Standard Penetration Test results 2) granular material is assumed to extend below the base of the footing at least two (2.) times the width of the foundation. 3) The resistance factors were evaluated for a target reliability T =
30 Conceptual Design Influence of Serviceability s based on Serviceability Limit States Developed as a part of Project NCHRP Bias = measured load / calculated load for a given settlement For reliability index = 1.28 (p f factors taken as unity Bias of LL = 1.15, COV QL =.2 Bias of DL = 1.5, COV QD =.1 = 1%), and load Method AASHTO Range of Settlement (inch) Resistance Factor Efficiency Factor /. < < <
31 Conceptual Design Granular Soils Example 2 NCHRP Report 651: Known Load and Settlement Central Pier of a bridge in Billerica (Rangeway Rd over Rte.3) (B-12-25) Design (factored) load is kips for ultimate limit state and 275kips for service limit state (unfactored) Allowable settlement 1.5inches 31
32 Factored ultimate limit state and unfactored service limit state (MN) Factored ultimate limit state and unfactored service limit state (ksf) Factored ultimate limit state and unfactored service limit state (MPa) Factored ultimate limit stat unfactored service limit state.75 Conceptual Design Granular Soils.5 Factored Resistances (ksf) Effective footing width, B (ft) Strength LS, C2 load Strength LS, C7 load Strength LS AASHTO, 27) Service LS AASHTO (27) Service LS Schmertmann (1978) Service LS Hough (1959) Service I loading Strength I, C2 loading Strength I, C7 loading Effective footing width, B (m) Effective footing width, B (m) Effective footing width, B (ft) 15 Strength LS, C2 load Figure H-6 Variation of factored bearing resistance for Strength-I and Strength LS, C7 load unfactored resistance for Service-I limit state with effective footing width for Strength LS AASHTO, 27) 1 Example 2 (NCHRP Report Service LS 651) AASHTO (27) Service LS Schmertmann (1978) Service LS Hough (1959) 32
33 Factored ultimate limit state and unfactored service limit state (kips) Factored ultimate limit state and unfactored service limit state (kips) Factored ultimate limit state and unfactored service limit state (MN) F un Service LS Hough (1959) Conceptual Service Design I loading Granular Soils Factored Resistances (kips) Service LS Schmertmann (1978) Strength I, C2 loading Strength I, C7 loading Effective footing width, B (m) Effective footing width, B (ft) Strength Limit State loading 3688kips (phi=.45) B = 8.9ft (B =7.9ft+2x.5) Service Limit state of 275kips B=4.5ft (B =3.5+2x.5) Effective footing width, B (ft) Figure H-6 cont. Variation of factored bearing resistance for Strength-I and unfactored resistance for Service-I limit state with effective footing width for Example 2 (NCHRP Report 651) Effective footing width, B (ft) Strength LS, C2 load Strength LS, C7 load Strength LS AASHTO, 27) Service LS AASHTO (27) Service LS Schmertmann (1978) Service LS Hough (1959) Service I loading Strength I, C2 loading Strength I, C7 loading Effective footing width, B (m)
34 Intermediate Conclusions The Strength Limit State governs the footing dimensions in this design example with a requirement for B=8.9ft vs. B=4.5ft for the service limit state The bridge was designed with B=13.1ft most likely due to the differences in design procedures (especially settlement) 34
35 Task 3: BC Shallow Foundations on Rock - OUTLINE 1. Broad Objectives 2. Database UML/GTR RockFound7 3. Rock Classification and Properties 4. Methods of Analyses Selected for Establishing the Uncertainty in B.C. of Foundations on Rock 5. Calibration evaluation of resistance factors 6. Summary and Conclusions 35
36 2. DATABASE UML/GTR RockFound 7 Comprised of 122 foundation case histories of load tests in/on rock and IGM s. The database has 61 footings cases (28 cases D>, 33 cases D=) and 61 rock socket cases for which the base behavior (load and displacement) under loading was monitored. 89 of the 122 cases were used for the uncertainty determination of the settlement of foundations on rock. 36
37 Hirany and Kulhawy (1988) Failure criterion Hirany and Kulhawy (1988) proposed the L1-L2 method for interpreting the "failure" load or "ultimate" capacity of foundations from loaddisplacement curves. The unique peak or asymptote value in the curves is taken as the measured or interpreted capacity (QL2=qL2). For 79 cases ql2 could be evaluated, 43 cases are based on reported failure load. 37
38 Carter and Kulhawy (1988) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock Using the limit-equilibrium approach, Carter and Kulhawy (1988) developed a lower bound to the B.C. for strip and circular footings on jointed rock masses presented below. q ult m s qu (2) 38
39 Interpreted Foundation Capacity q L2 (ksf) Carter and Kulhawy (1988) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock 1 1 q L2 = q ult ).619 (n = 119; R 2 =.921) q L2 = q ult ).6 (Revised) (n = 119; R 2 =.917) q L2 = q ult Footings cases 61 Rock Socket cases 119 All cases with revised equation Carter and Kulhawy (1988) Bearing Capacity q ult (ksf) Relationship between Carter and Kulhawy (1988) calculated bearing capacity (q ult ) using two variations (equations 82a and 82b) and the interpreted bearing capacity (q L2 ). 39
40 Carter and Kulhawy (1988) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock Table 69 Calibrated resistance factors for different datasets of resistance bias obtained using Carter and Kulhawy s (1988) method Dataset No. of cases Bias Resistance factor ( T = 3) Mean COV MCS Recommended All cases RMR RMR < RMR < RMR <
41 Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock The lower bound is represented by the following Equation: in which q N ult tan q u N (3) (4) Goodman (1989) developed the B.C. Equation 5 for footings resting on orthogonal vertical joints each spaced distance s in which lateral stress transfer is nil. q ult q u N 1 N 1 S B N 1 N 1 (5) 41
42 Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock Summary of the statistics for the Ratio of Measured to Calculated B.C. using Goodman s (1989) Method Cases n No. of Sites Mean of Bias m Standard Deviation s COV All Foundations All rock sockets All footings Sub-categorization suggests that if more details of rock measurements are available, the uncertainty is reduced Rock Socket cases with measured discontinuity spacing had a COV l = Rock Socket cases with measured discontinuity spacing and friction angle had a COV l =
43 Interpreted Foundation Capacity q L2 (ksf) Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock 1 1 q L2 = 2.16 q ult ).868 (n = 119; R 2 =.897) q L2 = q ult Footings cases 61 Rock Socket cases Goodman (1989) Bearing Capacity q ult (ksf) Figure 78. Relationship between Goodman s (1989) calculated bearing capacity (q ult ) and the interpreted bearing capacity (q L2 ). 43
44 Number of observations Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock Frequency Number of observations Frequency Rock-sockets and Footing cases Goodman (1989) mean = 1.35 COV = Foundation cases on Fractured Rocks Goodman (1989) mean = 1.24 COV = lognormal distribution normal distribution lognormal distribution normal distribution Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Bias, q u,meas / q u,calc Figure 79. Distribution of the ratio of the interpreted bearing capacity (q L2 ) to the bearing capacity (q ult ) calculated using Goodman s (1989) method for the rock sockets and footings in database UML-GTR RockFound7. Figure 8. Distribution of the ratio of the interpreted bearing capacity (q L2 ) to the bearing capacity (q ult ) calculated using Goodman s (1989) method for foundations on fractured rock in database UML-GTR RockFound7 44
45 Standard normal quantile Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock 4 = 1.35 COV = B.C. using Goodman (1989) All data Total data (n = 119) Normal distribution Lognormal distribution Bias Figure 113. Comparison of the unfiltered bias for BC calculated using Goodman (1989) method for all data and the theoretical normal and lognormal distributions. 45
46 Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock Table 68 Calibrated resistance factors for different datasets of resistance bias obtained using Goodman s (1989) method Dataset No. of cases Bias Resistance factor ( T = 3) Mean COV MCS Recommended All data Measured friction angle f Measured spacing s Measured friction angle f and s
47 Calibration of Resistance Factors Table 7 Recommended resistance factors for foundations in/on rock based on T = 3. (p f =.135%) Method of Analysis Equation Application Efficiency Factor / (%) Carter and Kulhawy (1988) Goodman (1989) ult q q m s For fractured rocks: For non-fractured rocks: u qult qu N 1 s qult qu N N 1 B 1 ( N 1) N 1 All RMR RMR < RMR < RMR < All Measured f Measured s Measured s and f
48
49 Bias Resistance factor, Uncertainty in B.C % confidence interval for 2.5 Resistance factor based on database (x) no. of cases in each interval Recommended f for Controlled soil conditions (3) Recommended f for Natural soil conditions (2) (3) (4) (12) (4) (14) (3) (9) (2) (2) (4) (2) n = Friction angle f (deg).2. Figure 14. Recommended resistance factors for soil friction angles (taken f.5) between 3 and 46, with comparisons to 95% confidence interval and resistance factors obtained for the cases in the database; the bubble size represents the number of data cases in each subset. 49
50 Carter and Kulhawy (1988) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock Table 38 Summary of the statistics for the ratio of measured (q L2 ) to calculated bearing capacity (q ult ) of rock sockets and footings on rock using Carter and Kulhawy (1988) method No. of Cases n m Sites s COV All rock sockets All rock sockets on fractured rock All rock sockets on non-fractured rock Rock sockets on non-fractured rock with measured discontinuity spacing (s') Rock sockets on non-fractured rock with s' based on AASHTO (27) All footings All footings onfractured rock All footings onnon-fractured rock Footings on non-fractured rock with measured discontinuity spacing (s') Footings on non-fractured rock with s' based on AASHTO (27) n = number of case histories m = mean of biases s = standard deviation COV = coefficient of variation Calculated capacity based on equation (82a) 5
51 Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock Table 4 Summary of the statistics for the ratio of measured (q L2 ) to calculated bearing capacity (q ult ) of rock sockets and footings on rock using Goodman (1989) method Cases n No. of Sites m s COV All Measured discontinuity spacing (s') and friction angle ( f ) Measured discontinuity spacing (s') Measured friction angle ( f ) Fractured Fractured with measured friction angle ( f ) Non-fractured Non-fractured with measured s' and measured f Non-fractured with measured discontinuity spacing (s') Non-fractured with measured friction angle ( f ) Spacing s' and f, both based on AASHTO (27) Discontinuity spacing (s') based on AASHTO (27) Friction angle ( f ) based on AASHTO (27) n = number of case histories m = mean of biases s = standard deviation COV = coefficient of variation 51
NCHRP LRFD DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. Final Report September 2009 APPENDIX G BIAS CALCULATION EXAMPLES
NCHRP 4-3 LRFD DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Final Report September 009 APPENDIX G BIAS CALCULATION EXAMPLES Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research
More informationReliability Analysis for the ULS of Shallow Foundations Advanced Foundation Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Research Laboratory Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Massachusetts Lowell. Reliability Analysis for the ULS of Shallow Foundations The lecture is based
More informationLRFD Calibration and Implementation of Strength and Serviceability Limit States Review of Research and Lessons Learned
Safety Concepts and Calibration of Partial Factors in European and North American Codes of Practice LRFD Calibration and Implementation of Strength and Serviceability Limit States Review of Research and
More informationDeveloping a Resistance Factor for Mn/DOT s Pile Driving Formula
2009-37 Developing a Resistance Factor for Mn/DOT s Pile Driving Formula Take the steps... Research...Knowledge...Innovative Solutions! Transportation Research Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report
More informationCalibration of Resistance Factors for Drilled Shafts for the 2010 FHWA Design Method
Calibration of Resistance Factors for Drilled Shafts for the 21 FHWA Design Method Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E. Qiming Chen, Ph.D., P.E. Md Nafiul Haque, MS Feb 2, 213 213 Louisiana Transportation
More informationIn-class Exercise. Problem: Select load factors for the Strength I and Service I Limit States for the. Loading Diagram for Student Exercise
In-class Exercise Problem: Select load factors for the Strength I and Service I Limit States for the problem illustrated below. Loading Diagram for Student Exercise For this exercise, complete the following
More informationLRFD Application in Driven Piles (Recent Development in Pavement & Geotech at LTRC)
LRFD Application in Driven Piles (Recent Development in Pavement & Geotech at LTRC) 2007 Louisiana Transportation Engineering Conference February 12, 2007 Sungmin Sean Yoon, Ph. D., P.E. and Murad Abu-Farsakh,
More informationLRFD Calibration of Axially-Loaded Concrete Piles Driven into Louisiana Soils
LRFD Calibration of Axially-Loaded Concrete Piles Driven into Louisiana Soils Louisiana Transportation Conference February 10, 2009 Sungmin Sean Yoon, Ph. D., P.E. (Presenter) Murad Abu-Farsakh, Ph. D.,
More informationReliability of Settlement Analysis for Shallow Foundations
Geotechnical Engineering Research Laboratory University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA USA Reliability of Settlement Analysis for Shallow Foundations 14.533 ADVANCED FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Fall 2013 Samuel
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 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 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 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 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 informationLRFD GEOTECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION
LRFD GEOTECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION Ching-Nien Tsai, P.E. LADOTD Pavement and Geotechnical Services In Conjunction with LTRC WHY LRFD FHWA deadline - October 2007 LRFD is a better method Risk is quantified
More informationTHE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS BASED ON LRFD FOR JAPANESE HIGHWAYS
THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS BASED ON LRFD FOR JAPANESE HIGHWAYS Hideaki Nishida 1,Toshiaki Nanazawa 2, Masahiro Shirato 3, Tetsuya Kohno 4, and Mitsuaki Kitaura 5 Abstract One of the motivations
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 informationCalibration of Resistance Factor for Design of Pile Foundations Considering Feasibility Robustness
Calibration of Resistance Factor for Design of Pile Foundations Considering Feasibility Robustness Hsein Juang Glenn Professor of Civil Engineering Clemson University 1 2 Outline of Presentation Background
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 informationEffect of Correlation Structure Model on Geotechnical Reliabilitybased Serviceability Limit State Simulations
Effect of Correlation Structure Model on Geotechnical Reliabilitybased Serviceability Limit State Simulations Jonathan C. Huffman Senior Project Engineer and Graduate Student, Foundation Engineering, Inc.
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 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 informationLesson 25. Static Pile Load Testing, O-cell, and Statnamic. Reference Manual Chapter 18
Lesson 25 Static Pile Load Testing, O-cell, and Statnamic Reference Manual Chapter 18 STATIC LOAD TESTING Most accurate method to determine static pile capacity Perform at design or construction stage
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 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 informationCPT Guide 5 th Edition. CPT Applications - Deep Foundations. Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. Dr. Peter K. Robertson Webinar # /2/2013
Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. Site Investigation Experts CPT Applications - Deep Foundations Dr. Peter K. Robertson Webinar #6 2013 CPT Guide 5 th Edition Robertson & Cabal (Robertson) 5 th Edition 2012
More informationModule 9 : Foundation on rocks
LECTURE 32 9.3 BEARING CAPCITY contd... 9.3.2 Safe bearing pressure There are different methods are available to determine the safe bearing pressure on rocks. However, the applicability of different methods
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 informationDesign of Reinforced Soil Walls By Lrfd Approach
IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) ISSN: 2278-1684, PP: 16-26 www.iosrjournals.org Design of Reinforced Soil Walls By Lrfd Approach A.D. Maskar 1, N.T. Suryawanshi 2 1 Assistant
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 informationSeminar Worked examples on Bridge Design with Eurocodes
1 EU-Russia Regulatory Dialogue: Construction Sector Subgroup Seminar Worked examples on Bridge Design with Eurocodes St-Petersburg, 17-18 April 2013 Organized and supported by European Commission DG Joint
More informationAN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Nasim Adami for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering presented on October 28, 213. Title: Development of an ACIP Pile-Specific Load-Displacement Model. Abstract
More informationSpread footing settlement and rotation analysis
Engineering manual No. 10 Updated: 05/2018 Spread footing settlement and rotation analysis Program: File: Spread footing Demo_manual_10.gpa This engineering manual describes how the analysis of settlement
More informationA Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia
LRFD for Settlement Analyses of Shallow Foundations and Embankments ------ Developed Resistance Factors for Consolidation Settlement Analyses A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at
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 informationDetermination of base and shaft resistance factors for reliability based design of piles
Determination of base and shaft resistance factors for reliability based design of piles X-Y Bian, X-Y Chen, H-L Lu, J-J Zheng This paper aims to propose a procedure for calculating separately the resistance
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 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 informationFHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/5. Final Report. Dongwook Kim Rodrigo Salgado
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/5 Final Report LIMIT STATES AND LOAD AND RESISTANCE DESIGN OF SLOPES AND RETAINING STRUCTURES Dongwook Kim Rodrigo Salgado January 2009 INDOT Research TECHNICAL Summary Technology Transfer
More informationPECivilExam.com. Copyright 2015 Pecivilexam.com all rights reserved- E-Book Geotechnical Depth Exam: 80 problems
PECivilExam.com PE Civil Exam 80- Geotechnical Questions & Answers (pdf Format) For Depth Exam (Evening Session) PE Civil Depth Exam (Evening Session): This practice exam contains 80- Geotechnical questions,
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 informationLOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) FOR DRIVEN PILES BASED ON DYNAMIC METHODS WITH ASSESSMENT OF SKIN AND TIP RESISTANCE FROM PDA SIGNALS
LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) FOR DRIVEN PILES BASED ON DYNAMIC METHODS WITH ASSESSMENT OF SKIN AND TIP RESISTANCE FROM PDA SIGNALS By ARIEL PEREZ PEREZ A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
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 informationULTIMATE LIMIT STATE RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF AUGERED CAST-IN-PLACE PILES CONSIDERING LOWER- BOUND CAPACITIES
Canadian Geotechnical Journal ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OF AUGERED CAST-IN-PLACE PILES CONSIDERING LOWER- BOUND CAPACITIES Journal: Canadian Geotechnical Journal Manuscript ID cgj-2016-0145.r1
More informationUse of RMR to Improve Determination of the Bearing Resistance of Rock
Creating Value Delivering Solutions Use of RMR to Improve Determination of the Bearing Resistance of Rock Scott Zang, P.E. Michael Baker Jr., Inc. ASD Design Q v allowable is a presumptive allowable bearing
More informationModule 9 : Foundation on rocks. Content
FOUNDATION ON ROCKS Content 9.1 INTRODUCTION 9.2 FOUNDATION TYPES ON ROCKS 9.3 BEARING CAPCITY- SHALLOW FOUNDATION 9.3.1 Ultimate bearing capacity 9.3.2 Safe bearing pressure 9.3.3 Estimation of bearing
More information3-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 informationDevelopment of Preliminary Load and Resistance Factor Design of Drilled Shafts in Iowa
InTrans Project Reports Institute for Transportation 10-2014 Development of Preliminary Load and Factor Design of Drilled Shafts in Iowa Kam W. Ng Iowa State University Sri Sritharan Iowa State University,
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 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 informationNeutral Plane Method for Drag Force of Deep Foundations and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Neutral Plane Method for Drag Force of Deep Foundations and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Timothy C. Siegel, P.E., G.E., D.GE Dan Brown and Associates, PC, Knoxville, Tennessee USA Rich
More informationCanadian Geotechnical Journal. Statistics of Model Factors in Reliability-Based Design of Axially Loaded Driven Piles in Sand
Statistics of Model Factors in Reliability-Based Design of Axially Loaded Driven Piles in Sand Journal: Manuscript ID cgj-2017-0542.r1 Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the Author: 22-Feb-2018
More informationJune 9, R. D. Cook, P.Eng. Soils Engineer Special Services Western Region PUBLIC WORKS CANADA WESTERN REGION REPORT ON
PUBLIC WORKS CANADA WESTERN REGION REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MARTIN RIVER BRIDGE MILE 306.7 MACKENZIE HIGHWAY Submitted by : R. D. Cook, P.Eng. Soils Engineer Special Services Western
More informationCivil Engineering, Surveying and Environmental Consulting WASP0059.ltr.JLS.Mich Ave Bridge Geotech.docx
2365 Haggerty Road South * Canton, Michigan 48188 P: 734-397-3100 * F: 734-397-3131 * www.manniksmithgroup.com August 29, 2012 Mr. Richard Kent Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission 2330 Platt
More informationAdditional Pile Design Considerations
Additional Pile Design Considerations PDCA 2015 Professor Driven Pile Institute Patrick Hannigan GRL Engineers, Inc. What Are Additional Pile Design Considerations? Time Dependent Soil Strength Changes
More informationTECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE 1. Report No. FHWA/LA.9/449 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in the LRFD Design of Driven
More informationTower Cranes & Foundations The Interface & CIRIA C654 Stuart Marchand C.Eng. FICE FIStructE Director Wentworth House Partnership
Tower Cranes & Foundations The Interface & CIRIA C654 Stuart Marchand C.Eng. FICE FIStructE Director Wentworth House Partnership EXAMPLES OF TOWER CRANE FOUNDATION TYPES Rail mounted Pad Base Piled Base
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 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 informationPerformance Based Design of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts
Performance Based Design of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts Prepared by: Robert Y. Liang Haijian Fan Prepared for: The Ohio Department of Transportation, Office of Statewide Planning & Research State Job
More informationSlope Stability Model of the Questa Rock Pile Phase 2
2 Proceedings Tailings and Mine Waste 2011 Slope Stability Model of the Questa Rock Pile Phase 2 Murray Fredlund SoilVision Systems Ltd., Saskatoon, Canada Haihua Lu SoilVision Systems Ltd., Saskatoon,
More informationDrilled Shaft Foundations in Limestone. Dan Brown, P.E., Ph.D. Dan Brown and Associates
Drilled Shaft Foundations in Limestone Dan Brown, P.E., Ph.D. Dan Brown and Associates Foundation Engineering How we teach our students Fundamental understanding of soil and rock behavior (good!) Focus
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 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 informationvulcanhammer.info the website about Vulcan Iron Works Inc. and the pile driving equipment it manufactured Terms and Conditions of Use:
this document downloaded from vulcanhammer.info the website about Vulcan Iron Works Inc. and the pile driving equipment it manufactured Terms and Conditions of Use: All of the information, data and computer
More informationTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD. Static and Seismic Design of Piles for Downdrag. Thursday, October 4, :00-3:30 PM ET
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Static and Seismic Design of Piles for Downdrag Thursday, October 4, 2018 2:00-3:30 PM ET The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and requirements of the Registered
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 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 informationTransmission Line Design Structures & Foundations TADP 549
Transmission Line Design Structures & Foundations TADP 549 Steel Poles - Direct Embedment Foundations - Point of Fixity Presentation 6.3 Dr. Prasad Yenumula Transmission & Distribution Program Reference
More informationUse of Ultra-High Performance Concrete in Geotechnical and Substructure Applications
Use of Ultra-High Performance Concrete in Geotechnical and Substructure Applications i PI: Muhannad Suleiman Co-PI: Sri Sritharan Graduate Research Assistant: Thomas L. Vande Voort January 13, 29 IOWA
More informationOVERVIEW REVIEW OF FOUNDATIONS & SOILS ENG.
Soil Borings. 14.485 CAPSTONE DESIGN OVERVIEW REVIEW OF 14.431 FOUNDATIONS & SOILS ENG. Geotechnical Report (not covered). Bearing Pressure Calculations. Settlement Calculations. Lateral Earth Pressure
More informationPiles and Pile Foundations
Piles and Pile Foundations Carlo Viggiani, Alessandro Mandolini and Gianpiero Russo * j \ Spon Press an imprint of Taylor & Francis LONDON AND NEWYORK Contents List of illustrations Introduction PART I
More informationGEOTECHNICAL CRITERION FOR SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE OF HORIZONTALLY-LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Abstract GEOTECHNICAL CITEION FO SEVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE OF HOIZONTALLY-LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS Masahiro Shirato 1, Shoichi Nakatani 2, Kenji Matsui 3, and Takashi Nakaura 4 This paper presents a first
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 informationASD and LRFD Methods Codes and Economics of Dynamic Testing ASTM D4945
ASD and LRFD Methods Codes and Economics of Dynamic Testing ASTM D4945 Load Testing. Static Load Testing ASTM D1143 Deadload Testing React. Piles/Anchors Static Load Tests are the standard Costly: Need
More informationMeasurement of effective stress shear strength of rock
Measurement of effective stress shear strength of rock R. A. Failmezger, P.E., F. ASCE In-Situ Soil Testing, L.C., Lancaster, Virginia USA D. J. White, Ph. D., P.E. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA
More informationAnalysis of a single pile settlement
Engineering manual No. 14 Updated: 06/2018 Analysis of a single pile settlement Program: Pile File: Demo_manual_14.gpi The objective of this engineering manual is to explain the application of the GEO
More informationModule 6 Lecture 37 Evaluation of Soil Settlement - 3 Topics
Module 6 Lecture 37 Evaluation of Soil Settlement - 3 Topics 1.2.4 Settlement Prediction in by Empirical Correlation 1.2.5 Calculation of Immediate Settlement in Granular Soil Using Simplified Strain Influence
More informationEffects of Slope Stability Evaluation on Highway Bridge Design
Effects of Slope Stability Evaluation on Highway Bridge Design Shanzhi Shu, PhD PE KCI Technologies INC Les C. Banas, PE Kiewit Infrastructure Engineers Samuel D. Palmer, PE Terracon Consultants Inc. Introduction
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 informationSeismic Pushover Analysis Using AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design
Seismic Pushover Analysis Using AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design Elmer E. Marx, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Michael Keever, California Department
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 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 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 informationREGRESSION ANALYSIS OF SHORT TERM TIME-SETTLEMENT RESPONSE OF SOFT CLAYEY SOIL AT CONSTANT LOADING CONDITION
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 10, October 2018, pp. 182 1840, Article ID: IJCIET_09_10_182 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?jtype=ijciet&vtype=9&itype=10
More informationReliability Analysis of Anchored and Cantilevered Flexible Retaining Structures
LSD2003: International Workshop on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering Practice Phoon, Honjo & Gilbert (eds) 2003 World Scientific Publishing Company Reliability Analysis of Anchored and Cantilevered
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 informationRELIABILITY MODELS FOR COMBINATIONS OF EXTREME EVENTS
17 CHAPTER 2 RELIABILITY MODELS FOR COMBINATIONS OF EXTREME EVENTS This chapter describes the models used to perform the reliability analysis of bridges subjected to extreme load events and their combinations.
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 informationInfluence of Relative Compaction on Passive Resistance of Abutments with Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wingwalls
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2010-08-11 Influence of Relative Compaction on Passive Resistance of Abutments with Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wingwalls
More informationS E C T I O N 1 2 P R O D U C T S E L E C T I O N G U I D E - H E L I C A L S C R E W P I L E F O U N D A T I O N S
1. P R O D U C T S E L E C T I O N G U I D E - H E L I C A L S C R E W P I L E F O U N D A T I O N S Helical foundation pile includes a lead and extension(s). The lead section is made of a central steel
More informationLoad and Resistance Factor Design Considering Design Robustness: R-LRFD
Load and Resistance Factor Design Considering Design Robustness: R-LRFD Hsein Juang, PhD, PE, F.ASCE Glenn Professor Glenn Department of Civil Engineering Clemson University 1 Outline 1. Background (Robust
More informationUse of Recharge Impulse Technology in Deep Foundations Set-up Wafi Bouassida1, a, Essaieb Hamdi1, b, Mounir Bouassida1, c and Youri Kharine2, d
Advances in Engineering Research (AER), volume 102 Second International Conference on Mechanics, Materials and Structural Engineering (ICMMSE 2017) Use of Recharge Impulse Technology in Deep Foundations
More informationADVANCED SOIL MECHANICS FINAL EXAM (TAKE HOME):DUE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 6PM.
14.531 ADVANCED SOIL MECHANICS FINAL EXAM (TAKE HOME):DUE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2013 @ 6PM. Problem #1. Field load tests on strip footings yielded the test data provided below in Figure 1 and Table 1
More informationHarmonized European standards for construction in Egypt
Harmonized European standards for construction in Egypt EN 1998 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance Jean-Armand Calgaro Chairman of CEN/TC250 Organised with the support of the Egyptian Organization
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 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 informationIN SITU TESTING TECHNOLOGY FOR FOUNDATION & EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING. Wesley Spang, Ph.D., P.E. AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc.
IN SITU TESTING TECHNOLOGY FOR FOUNDATION & EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING Wesley Spang, Ph.D., P.E. AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. Portland, Oregon In situ testing of soil, which essentially consists of evaluating
More informationHaulage Drift Stability Analysis- A Sensitivity Approach
Haulage Drift Stability Analysis- A Sensitivity Approach W. Abdellah University of Assiut, Assiut, Egypt ABSTRACT Haulage drifts are the primary access to the mining blocks of an ore body in a multi-level
More informationINTELLIGENT COMPUTING FOR MODELING AXIAL CAPACITY OF PILE FOUNDATIONS
INTELLIGENT COMPUTING FOR MODELING AXIAL CAPACITY OF PILE FOUNDATIONS Mohamed A. Shahin BSc, MSc, PhD, MIEAust, MASCE Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of Technology,
More information