ENCE 4610 Foundation Analysis and Design



Similar documents
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FORMULAS. A handy reference for use in geotechnical analysis and design

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

load on the soil. For this article s examples, load bearing values given by the following table will be assumed.

product manual HS-4210 HS-4210_MAN_09.08 Digital Static Cone Penetrometer

CE 366 SETTLEMENT (Problems & Solutions)

c. Borehole Shear Test (BST): BST is performed according to the instructions published by Handy Geotechnical Instruments, Inc.

Dynamic Load Testing of Helical Piles

Geotechnical Measurements and Explorations Prof. Nihar Ranjan Patra Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

How To Model A Shallow Foundation

APPENDIX G SETTLEMENT

FOUNDATION DESIGN. Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples

Eurocode 7 - Geotechnical design - Part 2 Ground investigation and testing

COMPENDIUM OF INDIAN STANDARDS ON SOIL ENGINEERING PART 2

Geotechnical Investigation Reports and Foundation Recommendations - Scope for Improvement - Examples

Improvement in physical properties for ground treated with rapid impact compaction

Period #16: Soil Compressibility and Consolidation (II)

Ingeniería y Georiesgos Ingeniería Geotécnica Car 19 a Nº of 204 ; TEL : igr@ingeoriesgos.com

KWANG SING ENGINEERING PTE LTD

FINAL REPORT ON SOIL INVESTIGATION

INDIRECT METHODS SOUNDING OR PENETRATION TESTS. Dr. K. M. Kouzer, Associate Professor in Civil Engineering, GEC Kozhikode

Geotechnical Investigation Test Report

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE OF A 5-STOREY BUILDING: DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADJACENT BUILDING OR BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS?

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION BRIDGE STRUCTURE REPORT

How To Design A Foundation

Engineered, Time-Tested Foundation Repairs for Settlement in Residential and Light Commercial Structures. The Leading Edge.

A study on the Effect of Distorted Sampler Shoe on Standard Penetration Test Result in Cohesionless soil

SPECIFICATION FOR DYNAMIC CONSOLIDATION / DYNAMIC REPLACEMENT

Numerical Analysis of Texas Cone Penetration Test

SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRECAST MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SYSTEM (revised 11/5/13)

FUNDAMENTALS OF CONSOLIDATION

Washington ,

BRIDGE RESTORATION AND LANDSLIDE CORRECTION USING STRUCTURAL PIER AND GRADE BEAM

How To Prepare A Geotechnical Study For A Trunk Sewer Project In Lincoln, Nebraska

PART TWO GEOSYNTHETIC SOIL REINFORCEMENT. Martin Street Improvements, Fredonia, Wisconsin; Keystone Compac Hewnstone

An Automatic Kunzelstab Penetration Test

When to Use Immediate Settlement in Settle 3D

Module 5 (Lectures 17 to 19) MAT FOUNDATIONS

CHAPTER 9 LONG TERM MONITORING AT THE ROUTE 351 BRIDGE

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

Soils, Foundations & Moisture Control

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 3, No 3, 2013

COSMOS 2012: Earthquakes in Action COSMOS 2012

System. Stability. Security. Integrity. 150 Helical Anchor

SECTION 55 PIPE FOR STORM DRAINS AND CULVERTS (FAA D-701)

Liner system design for tailings impoundments and heap leach pads

TECHNICAL Summary. TRB Subject Code:62-7 Soil Foundation Subgrades February 2003 Publication No.: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/30, SPR-2362

CONSTANT HEAD AND FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST

SNC-Lavalin Inc. Montcalm Wastewater Pumping Station Upgrades - Geotechnical Report. October 2011

Module 1 : Site Exploration and Geotechnical Investigation. Lecture 4 : In-situ tests [ Section 4.1: Penetrometer Tests ] Objectives

Soil Mechanics. Soil Mechanics

Micropiles Reduce Costs and Schedule for Merchant RR Bridge Rehabilitation

EVALUATION OF TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER TEST TO PREDICT UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF CLAYS HARIHARAN VASUDEVAN

A Ground Improvement Update from TerraSystems

Gasketed PVC Sewer Pipe Durable, Flexible, Reliable Waterworks Products

Anirudhan I.V. Geotechnical Solutions, Chennai

Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update

A LABORATORY STUDY ON EFFECT OF TEST CONDITIONS ON SUBGRADE STRENGTH

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

Site Investigation. Some unsung heroes of Civil Engineering. buried right under your feet. 4. Need good knowledge of the soil conditions

Strength Determination of "Tooth-Paste" Like Sand and Gravel Washing Fines Using DMT

Instrumentations, Pile Group Load Testing, and Data Analysis Part II: Design & Analysis of Lateral Load Test. Murad Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.

4.3 Results Drained Conditions Undrained Conditions References Data Files Undrained Analysis of

SOIL MECHANICS Assignment #4: Soil Permeability.

Abstract. Keywords. Pouya Salari 1, Gholam Reza Lashkaripour 2*, Mohammad Ghafoori 2. * lashkaripour@um.ac.ir

DESIGN OF PILES AND PILE GROUPS CONSIDERING CAPACITY, SETTLEMENT, AND NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION

NJ Interception Drainage

GOOD NEWS BUT NOT ALWAYS

A case study of large screw pile groups behaviour

How to Design and Build a Fence/G traverse Bridge or Graffiti Project

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Lesson 08

BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT RESPONSE OF RAFT FOUNDATION ON SAND USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST METHOD

Figure A-1. Figure A-2. continued on next page... HPM-1. Grout Reservoir. Neat Cement Grout (Very Flowable) Extension Displacement Plate

Geological and Geotechnical Investigations for Structure

Impacts of Tunnelling on Ground and Groundwater and Control Measures Part 1: Estimation Methods

NOTE: FOR PROJECTS REQUIRING CONTRACTOR MIX DESIGN, THE DESIGN PROCEDURES ARE SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT.

Ohio Department of Transportation Division of Production Management Office of Geotechnical Engineering. Geotechnical Bulletin PLAN SUBGRADES

INTRODUCTION TO SOIL MODULI. Jean-Louis BRIAUD 1

ENGINEERED FOUNDATIONS. Department of Public Works Jeff Hill, PE

Area No. 8 Test Pit No. 191

PILE FOUNDATIONS FM 5-134

STRUCTURES Excavation and backfill for structures should conform to the topic EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL.

1.0 INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF WORK EXECUTION OF FIELD WORK LABORATORY TESTS FINDINGS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 9

Specification Guidelines: Allan Block Modular Retaining Wall Systems

Consolidation and Settlement Analysis

PAPAMOA EAST URBAN DEVELOPMENT PART 1 AREA LIQUEFACTION HAZARD REVIEW Technical Report

Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Tom Lunne Peter K. Robertson John J.M. Powell

CPTic_CSM8. A spreadsheet tool for identifying soil types and layering from CPTU data using the I c method. USER S MANUAL. J. A.

Use of a Reinforced Jet Grout Excavation Support System for a Major Sewer Line Repair

Module 1 : Site Exploration and Geotechnical Investigation. Lecture 5 : Geophysical Exploration [ Section 5.1 : Methods of Geophysical Exploration ]

Drained and Undrained Conditions. Undrained and Drained Shear Strength

Equivalent CPT Method for Calculating Shallow Foundation Settlements in the Piedmont Residual Soils Based on the DMT Constrained Modulus Approach.

Investigation of Foundation Failure. Step 1 - Data Collection. Investigation Steps

vulcanhammer.net This document downloaded from

Advanced Foundation Engineering SHORT & LONG TERM SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. S. G. Paikowsky

Comprehensive Design Example 2: Foundations for Bulk Storage Facility

The AASHO Road Test site (which eventually became part of I-80) at Ottawa, Illinois, was typical of northern climates (see Table 1).

VERTICAL STRESS INCREASES IN SOIL TYPES OF LOADING. Point Loads (P) Line Loads (q/unit length) Examples: - Posts. Examples: - Railroad track

Transcription:

This image cannot currently be displayed. ENCE 4610 Foundation Analysis and Design Shallow Foundations Total and Differential Settlement Schmertmann s Method

This image cannot currently be displayed. Strength Requirements Geotechnical Strength Requirements Design to prevent failure by soil shear failure Geotechnical strength for shear failure is referred to as the bearing capacity of the soil Analysis usually performed by ASD analysis; LRFD becoming more common Structural Strength Requirements Design to avoid structural failure of foundation components Similar to other structural analyses Most common strength requirement: avoid bearing capacity failure

This image cannot currently be displayed. This image cannot currently be displayed. Serviceability Considerations Most common issue in serviceability: settlement

Types of Settlement Definitions of Settlement o Absolute settlement, usually associated with uniform/total settlement o Angular distortion settlement, usually associated with differential settlement (ratio of settlement to distance between foundations and structures)

Factors to Determine Acceptable Settlement Connections with existing structures Utility Lines Total settlement of permanent facilities can harm or sever connections to outside utilities such as water, natural gas, and sewer lines. Water and sewer lines may leak contributing to localised wetting of the soil profile and aggravating differential displacement. Leaking gas from breaks caused by settlement can lead to explosions. Surface Drainage Access Aesthetics Material of structure (steel, concrete) Usage Requirements Settlement of bridges/overpasses vs. settlement of embankments, the bump in the bridge

This image cannot currently be displayed. This image cannot currently be displayed. This image cannot currently be displayed. Typical Values of Acceptable Settlement

Example of Settlement Calculations Given Steel framed office building, 20' column spacing Supported on spread footings founded on clayey soil Find Allowable total settlement Allowable differential settlement Solution Typical total settlement specification = 4 (Frames structure) Use δ = 1/500 (Steel and concrete frame); δ du = (1/500)(20') = 0.04' = 0.5

Schmertmann s Method: Procedure and Example Find o Settlement in inches at the end of construction o Settlement in inches one (1) year after the end of construction Given o o o 6 x 24 footing, shown below 2 ksf applied bearing pressure Soil Profile and foundation depth as shown below Note that N1 60 are corrected for both overburden and hammer efficiency

Schmertmann s Method Step 1: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram, Compute I zb at Surface Strain influence diagrams for square and continuous foundations are shown at the right Compute L f /B f (Equivalent Footing) o Uniform loading, so L f /B f = L/B = 24/6 = 4 o For L/B = 1, I z z= 0 = 0.1 o For L/B = 10, I z z= 0 = 0.2 o By linear interpolation, for L/B = 4, I z z= 0 = 0.133

Schmertmann s Method Step 2: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram, Compute Maximum Depth of Influence Compute D I o Uniform loading, so L f /B f = L/B = 24/6 = 4 o For L/B = 1, D I = 2B f o For L/B = 10, D I = 4B f o By linear interpolation, for L/B = 4, D I = 8B f /3 o For B = 6, D I = (8)(6)/(3) = 16

Schmertmann s Method Step 3: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram, Determine Depth of Peak Strain Influence Factor Compute D IP o Uniform loading, so L f /B f = L/B = 24/6 = 4 o For L/B = 1, D IP = B f /2 o For L/B = 10, D IP = B f o By linear interpolation, for L/B = 4, D IP = 2B f /3 o For B = 6, D IP = (2)(6)/(3) = 4 o Alternate: D IP = D I /4

Schmertmann s Method Step 4: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram, Determine Peak Strain Influence Factor Compute I ZP o D IP = (2)(6)/(3) = 4 o This is 4 below the foundation; since the foundation is 3 below the surface, the depth of the peak strain influence factor is 3 + 4 = 7 below the soil surface (important for effective stress computations) o I ZP =0.5 + 0.1(Δp/p op ) 0.5 o Increase in stress at depth of footing Δp = 2 ksf (3 )(0.115 kcf) = 1.655 ksf o p op = (3)(0.115) + (3)(0.125) + (1)(120) = 0.840 ksf o I ZP = 0.5 + 0.1(1.665/0.840) 0.5 = 0.64

Schmertman s Method Step 5: Draw the Strain Influence Diagram Layer Boundaries are SOLID Helpful Guidelines: o o o o The depth of the peak value of the strain influence is fixed. To aid in the computation, develop the layering such that one of the layer boundaries occurs at this depth even though it requires that an actual soil layer be sub-divided. Limit the top layer as well as the layer immediately below the peak value of influence factor, I zp, to 2/3B f or less to adequately represent the variation of the influence factor within D IP. Limit maximum layer thickness to 10 ft (3 m) or less. Match the layer boundary with the subsurface profile layering. Layer Mid-Points are DASHED

Schmertmann s Method Step 6: Determine the Values of Elastic Modulus Estimate from SPT Value o Layer 1: Sandy Silt, E s = 4(N1 60 ) = (4)(25) = 100 tsf = 200 ksf o Layer 2: Coarse Sand, E s = 10(N1 60 ) = (10)(30) = 300 tsf = 600 ksf o Layer 3: Coarse Sand, E s = 10(N1 60 ) = (10)(30) = 300 tsf = 600 ksf o Layer 4: Sandy Gravel, E s = 12(N1 60 ) = (12)(68) = 816 tsf = 1632 ksf Values computed in this fashion must be corrected by a factor X

Schmertmann s Method Step 6: Determine the Values of Elastic Modulus Modulus of Elasticity Correction Factor X o X = 1.25 for L f /B f = 1 o X = 1.75 for L f /B f >10 o By linear interpolation, for L f /B f = 4, X = 1.42 Corrected Values of E s o 1: (100)(1.42) = 142 tsf o 2: (300)(1.42) = 426 tsf o 3: (300)(1.42) = 426 tsf o 4: (816)(1.42) = 1159 tsf

Schmertmann s Method Step 7: Compute Basic Total Settlement Basic Formula for Schmertmann s Method o We first concentrate on computing the summation, which will represent the settlement divided by the applied bearing pressure S i ΔH = C C Δp 1 2 i = H c n i= 1 I z XE s ΔH i

Schmertmann s Method Step 8: Determine Embedment and Creep Factors Embedment Factor Creep Factor C 1 C 1 po = 1 0.5 Δp 3' 115 pcf = 1 0.5 1655 pcf = 0.896 t years C2 = 1+ 0.2log10 0.1 For end of construction, C 2 At end of = 1 one year, C 2 = 1+ 0.2log 10 1 0.1 = 1.2

Schmertmann s Method Step 9: Determine Settlement at End of Construction Step 10: Determine Settlement at End of One Year End of Construction S i End of One Year S i S i n = C1C 2Δp i= 1 = (0.896)(1)(1.655 ksf )(0.1760 in/tsf )(1 tsf/ 2 ksf ) S i S i = 0.130" n = C1C 2Δp i= 1 = 0.156" ΔH = (0.896)(1.2)(1.655 ksf )(0.1760 in/tsf )(1 tsf/ 2 ksf ) S i i ΔH i

Chart for Interpolated Values

Settlement vs. Bearing Capacity (Shear Failure)

Bearing Capacity Charts Example

Comments on Bearing Capacity Chart Example

Lightly Loaded Footings and Presumptive Bearing Pressures The use of presumptive bearing capacities for shallow foundations bearing in soils is not recommended for final design of shallow foundations for transportation structures, especially bridges. Guesses about the geology and nature of a site and the application of a presumptive value from generalizations in codes or in the technical literature are not a substitute for an adequate site-specific subsurface investigation and laboratory testing program. As an exception, presumptive bearing values are sometimes used for the preliminary evaluation of shallow foundation feasibility and estimation of footing dimensions for preliminary constructability or cost evaluations. Lightly loaded footings are those which meet the following criteria: o o Square, circular, or rectangular footings subjected to vertical loads less than 200 kn (45 kips) Continuous footings subjected to vertical loads less than 60 kn/m (4 kips/ft) Include typical one and two-story wood frame buildings and other similar structures A conservative approach; normally easier in these cases to design a conservative structure than to perform the analysis

Presumptive Bearing Pressures Sands Allowable Bearing Pressure Tons Per sq ft Type of Bearing Material Consistency In Place Range Recommended Value for Use Well graded mixture of fine and coarsegrained soil: glacial till, hardpan, boulder clayvery compact 8 to 12 10.0 (GW-GC, GC, SC) Gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, boulder gravel mixtures (SW, SP, SW, SP) Coarse to medium sand, sand with little gravel (SW, SP) Fine to medium sand, silty or clayey medium to coarse sand (SW, SM, SC) Very compact 6 to 10 7.0 Medium to compact 4 to 7 5.0 Loose 2 to 6 3.0 Very compact 4 to 6 4.0 Medium to compact 2 to 4 3.0 Loose 1 to 3 1.5 Very compact 3 to 5 3.0 Medium to compact 2 to 4 2.5 Loose 1 to 2 1.5

Presumptive Bearing Pressures Clays and Silts Type of Bearing Material Homogeneous inorganic clay, sandy or silty clay (CL, CH) Inorganic silt, sandy or clayey silt, varved silt-clay-fine Sand Consistency In Place Allowable Bearing Pressure Tons Per sq ft Range Recommended Value for Use Very stiff to hard 3 to 6 4.0 Medium to stiff 1 to 3 2.0 Soft.5 to 1 0.5 Very stiff to hard 2 to 4 3.0 Medium to stiff 1 to 3 1.5 Soft.5 to 1 0.5

Presumptive Bearing Pressures Notes o o o o Compacted fill, placed with control of moisture, density, and lift thickness, has allowable bearing pressure of equivalent natural soil. Allowable bearing pressure on compressible fine grained soils is generally limited by considerations of overall settlement of structure. Allowable bearing pressure on organic soils or uncompacted fills is determined by investigation of individual case. If tabulated recommended value for rock exceeds unconfined compressive strength of intact specimen, allowable pressures equals unconfined compressive strength.

Questions?