Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1992

    Uploaded by

    mahto
    36 views16 pages
    1992

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1992

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    36 views16 pages

    1992

    Uploaded by

    mahto
    1992

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 16
    IRC 1 48.1972 ‘OR ESTIMATING THE RESISTANCE OF SOIL BELOW .. THE MAXIMUM SCOUR LEVEL i IN THE DESIGN OF WELL FOUNDATIONS OF BRIDGES THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS 1992 | | i THE RESISTANCE OF SOIL BELOW THE MAXIMUM SCOUR LEVEL IN THE DESIGN OF WELL FOUNDATIONS OF BRIDGES Published by THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS Jamnagar House, Shahjahan Road New Dethi-11 1992 Price Rs. 1200 (plus Postage & Packing) IRC: 45—1972 First Published : October, 1972 Reprinted : March, 1984 Reprinted : July, 1987 Reprinted : March, 1992 (Rights of Publication and of Translation are reserved) Printed at Sagar Printers & Publishers, New Delhi-110003 (500—March, 1992) IRC : 48-1972 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTIMATING THE RESISTANCE ‘OF SOIL BELOW THE MAXIMUM SCOUR LEVEL J) THE DESIGN OF WELL FOUNDATIONS OF BRID! 1, INTRODUCTION 1.1. The draft recommendations for estimating the resistance of soil below the maximum scour level in the design of well founda- tions of bridges were finalised by a Subcommittee consisting of the following personnel at their mecting held on the Ist March 1971, 1. Shri Be Balwant Rao = Convenor 2. Shei S. Seetharaman = Member-Secretary Members 3. Shri SB. Josh 7. Shei N. 8. Ramaswamy 4. Dr. RK-Katth 8. Dr. K. 8. Sankaran 'S. M. Kaul 9. Shri Shitala Sharan oo harley ay Ge 2 ee HL. Shri T. N. Subba Rao This draft was approved by the Bridses Committee in their ‘meetings held on the 17th November, 1971 and 14th April, 1972. It was later approved by the Executive Committee in their mecting held on the 26th and 27th April, 1972 and by the Council in their 78th meeting held in Nainital on the 10th July, 1972. 1.2. The recommendations given in this Standard lave been formulated on the basis of the observed behaviour of models cf well foundations and also the work done ty many workers in ‘The basic assumptions are given in Appendices. 1.3. ‘These studies have indicated that : () sharing of the moment between sides and base is eontie rnuously changing with the increase in deformation of the soil : and Gi) the mecianies of sharing of the moment between the sides and the base is entirely different for the initial stages of Toading of a well as compared to its ultimate failure 1.4, Elastic theory method gives the soil pressures at the side and the base under design loads, but to determine the actual factor of ‘safety against failure, it will be necessary to calculate the ultimate soil resistance. Therefore, the design of well foundations shall be checked by both these methods, 2. SCOPE 2.1. The procedure given is applicable to the design of wull foundations of bridges resting on non-cohesive soil like sand and surrounded by the same soil below maximum scour level. The provisions of these recommendations will not apply if the depth of embedment is less than 0.5 times the width of foundation in the direction of lateral forces. 3. PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING THE SOIL RESISTANCE The resistance of the soil surrounding the well foundation shall bbe checked : (@ for calculation of base pressures by the elastic theory with the use of subgrade moduli ; and i by computing the ultimate soil resistance with appropriate factor of safety. 4, METHOD OF CALCULATION I. Elastic Theory (vide Annexure 1) ‘Step 1: Determine the values of W, Hand M under combina- tion of normal loads without wind and seismic loads assuming the minimum grip length below maximum scour level as required under IRC: $1970" where W = total downward load acting at the base of well, including the self weight of well. —F Sanda Spescations and God of Prasve for Road Bdge, Seton une SERBS IRC ; 45-1972 H_ = external horizontal force acting on the well at scour level total applied external moment about the base of well, including those due to tilts and shifts. Step 2: Compute Ip and Ty and I; where Ton tet mly(1 $2) Ta — moment of inertia of base abou th: axis normal to direction of horizontal forces passing through ils ce. Ty = moment of inertia ofthe projected ares in elevation of the soil mass offering resistance = 3” ; where L_ = projected width of the soil mass offering resistance multiplied by appropriate value of shape factor. Note: The value of shape factor for circular wells shall be taken as 0.9. For square or rectangular wells where the resultant horizontal force acts parallel to a principal axis, the shape factor shall be unity and where the forces are inclined to the principal axis, 4 suitable shape factor shall be based on experimental results, D_ = depth of well below scour level. m = KylK: Ratio of horizontal to vertical cvefficient fof subgrade reaction at base. In the absence of values for Ku and K determined by field tests m shall generally be assumed as unity. p’ = coefficient of friction between sides and the soi tan 5, where 3 is the angle of wall friction between well and soil. IRC: 451972 IRC : 45-1972 where o, and = maximum and minimum base pressure respectively. of B 3p (oF rectangular well diameter for circular well | ‘A. = area of the base of well. =D B = width of the base of well in the direction of forces Step 3: Ensure the following : and moments. H> M4 ae) — nW | P= Mr Step 6: Check % £0, is ©, > allowable bearing capacity of soil. no tension and H< = eat) + eW where on | Step 7: If-any of the conditions in Steps 3, 4 and 6 or all do be not satisfy, redesign the well accordingly. 7 coefficient of friction between the base and the sol. It shall be taken as tan $. Step 8: Repeat the same steps for combination with wind and with seismic ease separately. $= angle of internal friction of soil. IL. ULTIMATE RESISTANCE METHOD (Vide Annexure 2) Step 1: Check that W/A > 7/2 W = total downward load acting at the base of well, —K,), find out the grip required by putting the including the” self weight’ of well, enhanced by @ y (Kr — Ka) suitable load factor given vide Step 6. Step 4: Check the elastic state ee where ‘A. = area of the base of well. 7 = density of the soil (submerged density to be taken ‘when under water or below water table). @, = ultimate bearing capacity of the soil below the base of well. Ke & Ky = passive cnd act've pressure coefficients to’ be, ccleu- ‘Step 2: Calevlate the base resisting moment Ms at the plane laied using Couk mb’s theory, assuming *8 ', the angle of wall friction between well and soil equal to $4 of rotation by the following formula : but limited to a value of 224°. : My = QWBtan¢ Caleutaze : B= width in case of square and rectangular wel b= Woe? a MB parle to ietin oF free jiameter 4 - IRC : 4s—1972 Q = 2 constant as given in Table 1 below for square oF Tectangular base. A shape factor of 0.6 is to be multiplied for wells with circular base. $ = angle of internal friction of soil. Tame 1 eee DB os 10 Ss Q ost ots SDs wt Note: The values of Q for intermediate D/B values in the above range may be linearly interpolated. Ms = 0.107 D* (Kr — Ky) L where 7 = density of soil (eubmerged density to be taken for soils undet weter or below water table) Projecied width of the soil mass offering resistance. In case of circular wells, it shall be 0.9 diameter to account for the shape, L D = depth of grip below maximum scour level. Ky, Ka = passive and active pressure ecefficient to be calculated using Coulomb's theory assuming “3” angle of wall friction between well and soil equal to 3 ¢ but limited to a value of 224°, Step 3: Calculate the resisting moment due to friction at front ‘and beck faces (Mr) about the plane of rotation by following formule : (D For rectangular well Mr = 0.18 y (Ke — Kq) LB.D* sind IRC : 45-1972 i) for circular well Mr = 0.11 y (Ke ~ Ka) BEDE sin 3 Step 4; The total resistance moment M, about the plane of rotation shall be Me 7 (My + Ms + Mac Step 5: Check M, ¢ M where M_ = total applied external moment about the plane of rotation, viz., located at 0.2D above the base, taking appropriate load factors as per combinations given below : 11D o 11D +B +: 1.4(We + Ep + Wor S) @ LID + 1.6L @ LID + B+ 1.4(L+ We + Es) 4) LID +B +1.25(L + We + Ep + WorS) (. (5) dead lond L_ = live load including braking, etc. B= buoyancy We = water current force Ep = earth pressure W = wind force $= seismic force Note (i): For horizontal force due to frictional resistance of bearing due to dead and five lords, appropriate factors shall be taken. But effect of deformation due to temperature, shrinkage and creep ‘may be neglected for normal structures. 7 IRC : 45--1972 + Moment due to shift and tilt of wells and piers and if any, shall also be considered about the plane of rotation, ‘Step 6: If the conditions in Steps 1 and 5 are not satisfied, redesign the well. ELASTIC THEORY METHOD (Annexure 1) 1. INTRODUCTION The following assumptions are made in deriving the equations based on elastic theory (@ The soil surrounding the well aiid below the base is perfectly elastic, homogenous and follows Hooke's Law. Under design working loads, the lateral deflections are so small that the unit soil reaction **p" increases Tinearly with increasing lateral deflection “z"" as expressed by p= Kuz where Ky is the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction at the base. ‘The coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction increases linearly with depth in the case of cohesionless soils. iv) The well is assumed to be a rigid body subjected to an ‘external unidirectional horizontal force H and a moment Mo at scour level. 2, SYMBOLS A= area of base of the well. B= width of the base parallel to the direction of the ‘external horizontal force. D —_= depth of well below scour level. 8 H Ww IRC : 45-1972 = external horizontal force acting on the well at scour level. = moment of inertia of the base about an axis passing through C.G. and perpendicular to horizontal resultant force. “= moment of inertia about the horizontal axis passing through the C.G. of the projected area in elevation of the soil mass offering resistance = a + coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction at the base. = coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction at the base, = active and passive pressure coefficients for cohesion- less soils as per Coulomb's theory, = projected width of the soil mass offering resisianes. A shape factor of 0.9 may be applied for circular wells. Kx *K fficient of subgrade reactions at the base. + Le., ratio of the horizontal to the vertical co- = total applied external moment al the base = (Mo + H.D) = moment of the external forces at scour level. = moment of P about the base. = resisting moment at the base, = horizontal soil reaction. = coefficient of friction between the base and the soil. = coefficient of friction between sides and the soil. = density of soil (submerged density to be used when under water) = angle of internal friction of soil. 9 ARC ; 45-1972 3 = angle of friction between the sides of well and soit taken equal to 3 ¢ limited to a value of 224°, © = Angular rotation of the well a5 a rigid body. o, horizontal soil reaction a1 cepth y from scour level. %y = vertical soil reaction at distance X from C.G. of base. 4% = maximum and minimum base pressures. LD = distance from the axis passing the C.G. of base at which the resultant vertical frictional foree on side acts normal to the direction of horizontal force == B/2 in case of rectangular wells or, 0.318 diameter in circular wells. 3. EQUATIONS FOR BASE PRESSURES Tn the most general case, the centre of rotation can be above the base at C,, at the base C, or below the base at Cy. It can be easily visualised that the base moves’ towards the centre cf rotacion, if the latter lies above the base so that the horizontal frictional foree at the base acts in the direction of H. If the point of rotation lies below the base by a similar argument, it is seen that horizontal frictional foros at base must be in the opposite sense to H. ‘The maximum frictional force which can develop at the base is» W. At any parti- cular instant only a fraction of it would be acting. Tet it be denoted by BuW Where B is a factor always less than one. It is, therefore, clear that before movement takes place 8 must be between I and —1 respectively so that we can write that for point of rotation at the base B must bé between the limits —1 to 1. Im the particular case of heavy wells met with in actual practice, the point of rotation shall bbe assumed to be at the base. Let the well rotate about a point C at a horizontal distance Xe from the centre of the well shown in Fig. 1 P- = total horizontal soil reaction from the sides. Mp = resisting moment at the base. 0 IRC; 45—1972 HT eKo-ye hk 8 PRESSURE soe 1D | Fig: 1 The total deflection at depth “y" from scour lovel =@-yo Horizontal soil reaction =o, = Ky x & x D-yo m&B-¥ (Dy) Total horizontal soil reaction acting on the sides of the well > P= fiend, u IRC : 45-1972 IRC : 461972 As the reference coordinates are at C.G. of base SRAA= Oand ne fXFGA whence =nkel Ms = Koly o For equilibiiuni % H 0 Putting 42" = 1, H4+Bu(W—p'P)=P 2mK oly or H+: BuW=P(I + Bap) pa mapek o Hew, o Let Mp_ be the moment of P about base level TP ‘Taking moments about base Mr = [7 D—Nay.L Mo + H.D=Mp+ Mp + p'PlD > or M =Mp+Mp+yPtD (5) Ek yD — yea amp sr - may Substituting equations (1), (2) and (3) w M=Keoln- mKoly+ p't.2mKoly Jy my (1 + 2p! ~ gE for sr awyidy a Ko: M/fly-! my (14: 2p/ef)) M _"K8 bps -% © =mKol, ® where 1 = Iy +m ly (I + 2pet) Now consider the soil reaction acting at the base. Vertical From equation (4) deflection at distance (X + Xe) from centre of rotation ~ (Xe ++ X)0 See ¢ Ha BeW po 2mKoWy/D os 2m a, KK + XO T¥ Baw’ “e M D4 My fry SAX Ko fO% 1 20XUA aM vee r= Be 0 aon +82. t M4 Bu’) = Ko f xa 4 Kox, fxn Be 7 WA being a function of X IRC : 45-1972 m Equation (7) is sutisied only it P= a Wt aw M or H> Mat yyy — aw : ¥ (Kr — Ka) (aty = LHS. is maximum) or mK@ + ¥ (Ke — Ka) or mM » y (Kp — Ka) Gi) The maximum soil pressure at base “ 7," shall not exceed allowable pressure on soi, similarly the minimum soil pressure “7,” shall not be less than 0, j.e., no tension, ULTIMATE SOIL RESISTANCE METHOD (Annexure 2) 1. INTRODUCTION The clastic theory described in Annexure 1 approximately determines the stresses in the soil mass but does not indicate the safety against ultimate failuré of the foundation. For this it will be neces: sary to know the mode of failure of well foundations, 15 IRC : 451972 2. OBSERVED FAILURE OF THE WELL FOUNDATION, UNDER ULTIMATE CONDITIONS The pattern of failure of the soil mass under the application of transverse forees to large and small depths of embedment is depicted in Fig. 2. Fig.2 ‘The soil around the base in cither case slides over a circular cylindrical path with centre of rotation somewhere above the base. The plastic flow at the side follows the usual concept as in the case of rigid bulkhead at faiture. Failure has been observed to occur at about 3° rotation of the well in case of non-cohesive soils. 3. QUANTUM OF RESISTANCE ‘The observed variation of the total ultimate resistance of the soil russ, i¢., both at the buse and the sides under varying direct loads is given in Fig. 3. This study indicates that the total resisting moment increases with the increase in the ratio of the direct load to the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil up to 0.5 to 0.7, Afler that it reduces. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure that the bearing pressure adopted has a factor of safety of two or more on ultimate bearing capacity of the soil ealculated by any rational formula, 16 a ee IRC : 41972 Migom | | = aT | 3 . 7 Reape ‘3 o Tots IX | Fi AIS rae Ps |b=25cm 7 t Ad estat is DESSERT 20 8rer BIGE OE OT OF OF 1 7A Fie 4. POINT OF ROTATION AT FAILURE (@ Movement of the point of rotation on the vertical axis (a) Effect of geometry and horizontal loads ‘The geometry of the foundation, viz., the ratio of the width of foundation to the depth of embedment in the soil and the magnitude of the horizontal loads have no effect in shifting the point of rotation along the vertical axis as could be seen from Fig. 4. : a 8) iat > 0) ee - Foundations of differentwidths oy ” . ib.3 em so 19 ¥5 =o ze soe Position ofthe centre of rotation as 3 function of relative depth Fig 4 7 Inc : 61972 (b) Effect of direct loads ‘The point of rotation has a relation to the ratio of the super- imposed vertical loads to the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil ag seen from Fig. 5, where x : + ackual vertical pressure actin OY yy Sie Peach copacly = Fig.S ‘The actual variation is confined to a narrow range between 0.75 ‘and 0 8 times the depth of embedment below the scour level. Taking into account normally expected vertical loads on well foundations, fa fixed value of 0.2 times depth above the base of the foundation has been adopted for working out the soil resistance. i) Shift of the point of rotation along the horizontal axis ‘The point of rotation undergoes a change in the horizontal direction. depending upon the geometry of the foundation and the fextent of deformation of the foundation, Under ultimate conditions the magnitude of horizoatal shift of the point as function of D/B ratio is given in Fig. 6. ‘This shift in position of the point of rotation in the horizontal direction will cause variation in the share of the moments between the sides and the base. 18 IRC : 48. 1972 Foundations of difterent widths *B=20cm oS S8:30c0m on 08 Ves om lessor eso 06 Position of the centre of rotation as a function of relative denth Fig. 6 Note: For the purpose of this analysis the shift of the point of rotation along the horizontal axis has been ignored, in view of other related indeterminate factors. 5. METHOD OF CALCULATION 5.1, Base Resisting Moment (Ms) ‘The base resisting moment is the moment of the frictional force mobilised along the sufface of ruptare which is assumed to be cylindrical passing through the. corners of the base for a square vill ‘as shown in Fig. 7. For circular wells, the surface of rupture corres- ponds to that of a part of sphere with its centre at the point of rotation and passing through the periphery of the base. If W is the total vertical load augmented by appropriate lord factors given in sup-para 5.5 below, the load per unit width will ‘be W/B, which will also'be equal to the upward pressure as shown in Fig. 8 (@ For a rectangular base Consider the small afc of length Rdet, at an angle of ot from the vertical axis, 9 | TRC: 45—-1972 a + il on 4 ht scour LeveL POINT OF ROTATION Fie.7 Applied load W/B VET EGE YF forunit wich & e B Fn ya Ise pressure BEATERS ED vopteranc wan IRC : 45-1972 Its horizontal component = R. thal. 608 i. Vertical force at the element Ruled cos of WiB Due to this vertical force the normal force developed at rhe element is 8 Fa whore 8 Fass W Red af. 08 af 08 ob WR oocea d apr costal dele = WR o Fan 2f Shs cost det e 2WR ¢ (1+ cos 20h) |= ° = BY ot snt. oo ee eee a pO | wf iad ran Gal tt [9 spt eF at ‘Moment of resistance of the base about the point of rotation Mya: Fa tan ¢R od (i) For a circular base ‘A multiplication factor of 0.6 is to be applied for the above expression of My in order to account for the surface of rupture being part of a sphere. For both cases substituting the value “n™ ‘equal to 0.2D for the polnt of rotation in forms (I) above, the busd resistance ean ‘be simplified and expressed in terms of B. My = QWBtang ~~ TRC : 45-1972 where B= width in the case of square and rectangular wells parallel to the direction of forces and diameter for circular wells. Q <4 constant, which depends upon the shape of well as well as the D/B ratio, Its values are given in Table 2 below for square or rectangular wells, A. shape factor of 0.6 is to be multiplied for wells with circular base. Tans 2 BETTS @ oa assis Note : The values oF Q for intermediate D/B values in the above range may be linearly interpolated, 5.2. Side Resisting Moment (M,) The ultimate soil pressure distribution ut the front and back faces of the well foundation is indicated in Fig. 9. >: eee = YOLK Ka) HAT D(Kpr Kay] Fig. 9 2 WRC: 45-1972 _,. The point of rotation is located at 0.2D above the base. The side resistance moment will then bé-calculated as follows : Let, yD (Kp — Ky) = =BC; BF=Y From ADEF ae XIV D_ sD,-D oo Be De © From A's ABC and CEF De D—Dy kaw cay. ho Equating (1) and (2) SD.—D _D-D, y or 6D, = 2D: where D, 18D ~ @) Moment of side resistance about ‘O” is the algebrai of Cee is the algebraic moments of = 4px. R44 2x2 Xe thy > = 13/135 xD = 0.09604 Sey = 0.1D*X Substituting for X ‘Mz = 0.1 yD* (Kp — Ky) per unit width of well ; Fora width of L, Ma = 0.1 »D* (Kp — Ky). 23 IRC: 45-1972 5.3. Resisting moment due to friction on front and back faces (Me) Due to the passive pressure of soil as shown in Fig. 9, the ional forces on the front and back faces of well will be acting in the vertical direction and will also produce resisting moment ‘Mr’ For the purpose of this code, the effect of the active earth pressure perpendicular to the directions of applied forces is neglected. ‘The resisting moment ‘Mf is calculated as follows : ‘The vertical pressure due to friction at any level is sin 8 times. the pressure at that level where & is the angle of wall friction, Total friction force/unit’ width -~ (4 AOE + A BOD) sin D, = DS pressure at E 2 pE-K) Area of AAQE~ 2 yDUr— Ky). SP = SE Dek Area of 4 BOD = 92P yp (Kp—Ka) = 0.1 yD! Ke- Ka) Total friction force/unit width ‘Moment about centre of rotation @ incase of rectangular wells for width L LID ID pt (Ke —Ky). Fain dx = G5 yD) Ke— Ka). B sina .183 y (Ke — Ka) L.B.D*. sin 8 say 0.180 y (Ke —K,) LBD* sin 3 Py TRC : 45-1972 Gi) Tn case of circular wells Lever arm = Therefore Mem 3! yD* Ke — Ka). Ba sin 8 Since L += 0.9 B in case of circular well Mew 23 Kp—Ky. BEDE sine == 0.105 y (Ke — Ka) BED! sin 8, say Olly (Kp— Ky) BEDE sin 8. SA, Total resisting moment of sll Total resisting moment of soil Mrs given by My = (My + My + MO 5.5. Factor of safety A svitable safety factor has to be ensured taking into account the probable variation of different loads and their combinations. The variation of strength characteristic of the soil should so be accounted for in calculating the resisting moment given by the shove expression. Putting it mathematically 2% Yi (applied load or moment) = A (aol resisting moment) ~~ where joad factor for a particular load strength factor for the resistance of soil. The passive resistance of the soil depends on the angle of internal friction for variation of which a reduction factor of 1.25 may be applied. Further to take into account the special nature of risk of failure of foundation, which is most: important part of the bridge, another reduction factor of 1.15 may be applied. Hence the total coefficient applicable to the Right Hand Side of the above expres- sion (1) will come to 0.7. As regards the Left Hand Side of the expression, the variation of loads is described below : IRC : 451972 () Dead load: The dead load being more or less a permanent oad, a factor 1.1 would be sufficient for the variations in densities of materials and computational errors, ete. (ii) Live toad: Considering the effect of variation in IRC load= ing met with in bridges, it is adequate to adopt a factor of 1.6 for probable overloading with the combination of dead load only and 1.4 with other combinations except with wind or seismic. With either wind or scismic due to reduced probability of occurrence of maximum live load, a factor of 1.25 is considered adequate. ii) Braking force, ete. : ‘These longitudinal loads will cor- sespond to the coefficient adopted for live load. Notes: (1) The forces due to characteristic imposed deformations should be added, e.g., the horizontal load due to frictional resistance of the bearings may include the increase in dead and live load. (2) For normal structures imposed temperature deformations of climatic origin and deformations due to creep and shrinkage can generally be neglected for ths ultimate analysis. However, for statically indeterminate structures, the forces due to above causes should be considered. Similarly, the forces due to settlement of support have also to be taken into consideration, (iv) Water current force: Due to possible error of 20 per cent in estimating the velocity, a factor of 1.4 may be adopted. (9) Buoyancy: The effect of buoyancy in reducing the density of submerged masses is more or less a constant and can be taken as unity. (vi) Wind or selsmic forces: When the bridge is not covered by live load, a factor of 1.4 is considered adequate for wind or seismic forces, Due to less probability of combination with maximum live load, a reduced factor of 1.25 is adequate. (vii) Earth pressure oa abutments: To account for increased ‘earth pressure resulting from either the density of soil being higher or 26 IRC: 45-1972 the angle of internal friction being lower than determined by tests for varlous reasons, a factor of 1.4 is consid tion of earth pressure, iceman Accordingly, the following combinatic pet wing combinations of load factors are iD LID + B+ 14(We +E + Wor S) LID + 1.6L, LID +B+14(L+ We +Ep) LID + B+ 125(L4 We +Ep + Wor) D dead load L__ = live load including braking, ete, B= buoyancy We = water current force Ep earth pressure W =wind force S = seismic force (iii) Tile and shift: In the computati i 1 sputation of applied moments, effets of moments due to tilt and shift of wells, if any, about the plane of rotation shall also be considered. . 6._ Ta order to ensure the factor of safety for ultimate resistan according to above concept, the otal resistance moment (Mt) aac by strength factor should be not less than the total applied moment (M) about the point of rotation for the appropriate eombinatws ol applied loads enhanced by the factors given above, ie. to say 0.7 (My + My-+ Mp

    You might also like