## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

DENIS H. CAMILLERI dhcamill@maltanet.net BICC – CPD 22/04/05

**The Development of Foundation limit State Design
**

Before World War II codes of practice for foundation engineering were used only in a small number of countries. In 1956 Brinch Hansen used for the first time the words “limit design” in a geotechnical context. Brinch linked the limit design concept closely to the concept of partial safety factors, and he introduced these two concepts in Danish foundation of engineering practice.

**Basis Behind Eurocode 7
**

The Limit state concept is today widely accepted as a basis for codes of practice in structural engineering. From the very beginning of the work on the Eurocodes it was a foregone conclusion that the Eurocodes should be written in the limit state design format and that partial factors of safety should be used. Consequently it was decided that also those parts of the Eurocodes which will be dealing with geotechnical aspects of design should be written in the limit state format with the use of partial factors of safety

loose or compressible soil. loose fill or sloping ground. Areas with no or very low earthquake hazard GC2 Moderate Ground conditions and properties can be determined from routine investigations and tests. to excavations or piling Surroundings Negligible risk of damage to or from neighbouring structures or services and negligible risk for life High risk of damage to neighbouring structures or services .Geotechnical Categories & Geotechnical Risk Higher Categories satisfied by greater attention to the quality of the geotechnical investigations and the design Table 1-Geotechnical Categories related to geotechnical hazard and vulnerability levels Factors to be considered Geotechnical hazards /vulnerability /risk Ground conditions Geotechnical Categories GC1 Low Known from comparable experience to be straightforward. GC3 High Unusual or exceptionally difficult ground conditions requiring non-routine investigations and tests. Not involving soft. Areas of high earthquake hazard Regional seismicity Moderate earthquake hazard where seismic design code (EC8 Part V) may be used Possible risk of damage to neighbouring structures or services due. for example.

design bearing pressures based on experience or published presumed bearing pressures.g. Stability of deformation calculations may not be necessary Simple 1 & 2 storey structures and agricultural buildings having maximum design column load of 250kN and maximum design wall load of 100kN/m Retaining walls and excavation supports where ground level difference does not exceed 2m GC2 Experienced qualified person – Civil Engineer Routine calculations for stability and deformations based on design procedures in EC7 GC3 Experienced geotechnical specialist More sophisticated analyses Examples of structures Conventional: Spread and pile foundations Walls and other retaining structures Bridge piers and abutments Embankments and earthworks Very large buildings Large bridges Deep excavations Embankments on soft ground Tunnels in soft or highly permeable ground .) Geotechnical Categories GC1 Expertise required Design procedures Person with appropriate comparable experience Prescriptive measures and simplified design procedures e.Table 1 (cont.

50 1.95 0 1.00 1.50 1.00 Case C2 (EQU) 1.00 0 1.30 1.00 1.00 0 1.50 0.35 1.Partial factors for ultimate limit states in persistent and transient situations Parameter Partial load factors (γF ) Permanent unfavourable action Variable unfvaourable action Permanent fvourable action Variable favourable action Accidental action γG γQ γG γQ γA Factor Case A (UPL) 1.20 1.00 0 1.00 Case C3 (HYD) 1.00 1.00 Values in red are partial factors either given or implied in ENV version of EC7 Values in green are partial not in the ENV that may be in the EN version .Ultimate Limite State (ULS) partial factors (persistant & transiet situations) Table 2.00 Case C (GEO) 1.35 1.00 Case B (STR) 1.00 0 1.

00 1.40 1.00 Case C3 (HYD) 1.Table 2 (Cont.) Parameter Partial material factors (γm ) Tan φ’ Effective cohesion c’ Undrained shear strength cu Compressive strength qu Pressuremeter limit pressure plim CPT resistance Unit weight of ground γ γtanφ’ tanφ γc’ γcu γqu γplim γCPT γg Factor Case A (UPL) 1.40 1.00 1.00 Case C (GEO) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Values in red are partial factors either given or implied in ENV version of EC7 Values in green are partial not in the ENV that may be in the EN version .30 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.25 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.40 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.40 1.00 Case C2 (EQU) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.40 1.10 1.00 Case B (STR) 1.00 1.40 1.

00 1.30 Case B (STR) 1.60 1.40 1.) Parameter Partial resistance factors (γR ) Bearing resistance Sliding resistance Earth resistance Pile base resistance γRV γrS γRe γb γs γt γst γA Factor Case A (UPL) -* -* -* -* -* -* 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Case C (GEO) 1.30 1.30 1.00 1.00 Pile shaft resistance Total pile resistance Pile Tensile resistance Anchor pull-out resistance Values in red are partial factors either given or implied in ENV version of EC7 Values in green are partial not in the ENV that may be in the EN version * Partial factors that are not relevant for Case A .50 Case C2 (EQU) 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.30 1.Table 2 (Cont.40 1.30 1.20 Case C3 (HYD) 1.00 1.

and towards the upper bound.1 to 0.3 to 1 1 to 2 Dwelling Insignificant Very slight Slight Slight to moderate Moderate Moderate to severe Severe to very severe Very severe to dangerous Commercial or public Insignificant Very slight Slight Slight to moderate Moderate Moderate to severe Moderate to severe Severe to dangerous Industrial Insignificant Insignificant Very slight Very slight Effect on structure and building use None none Aesthetic only Accelerated weathering to external features Serviceability of the building will be affected. stability may also be at risk Increasing risk of structure becoming dangerous 2 to 5 5 to 15 15 to 25 >25 Slight Moderate Moderate to severe Severe to dangerous .3 0.1 0.Serviceability Limit State Calculations (SLS) Table 3 – Serviceability limits Degree of damage Crack width mm > 0.

LIMIT STATE DESIGN – CHARACTERISTIC VALUE & DESIGN STRENGTH CHARACTERISTIC STRENGTH OF A MATERIAL is the strength below which not more than 5% (or 1 in 20) samples will fail. CHARACTERISTIC STRENGTH = MEAN VALUE – 1.64 X Standard Deviation DESIGN STRENGTH = CHARACTERISTIC STRENGTH MATERIAL FACTOR OF SAFETY fu γm .

2 42.5 47.7N/mm2 . The following crushing strengths in N/mm2 were obtained: 44.1 39.0 γm 1.9 – (1.0 N/mm2 Design strength = 40.3 42.6 47.7 = 448.5 = 26.EXAMPLE: Ten concrete cubes were prepared and tested by crushing in compression at 28 days.9 = 44.7 43.64 X 2.8 49.0 = 40.9N/mm2 Mean strength xm 10 Standard deviation = √[(x-xm)2/(n-1)] = √(80/0) = 2.7 45.3 46.98N/mm2 Characteristic strength = 44.98) = 40.

35°.05 – 0.30 – 0. 34. 33. 37°.5°.BICC BUILDING INDUSTRY CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL Ref Calculations Project Job ref: FOUNDATION CPD COURSE Part of Structure CHARACTERISTIC VALUE DETERMINATION Drawing Ref: Done by: DHC Date: 05/02 Output The Characteristic Value of the angle of shearing resistance ∅’K is required for a 10m depth of ground consisting of sand for which the following ∅’K values were determined from 10 traxial tests: 33°. 33.10 .50 0.20 – 0.20 – 0. 37.36. as only a small portion of the total volume involved in a design situation is tested. it is not possible to rely on Normal Distribution.5°. given by XK = Xm [ l-tV ] = Xm .40 cu 0.30 mv 0.5°.40 0. for soil properties. For a small sample size the Student t value for a 95% confidence level may be used to determine that XK value.70 0.5°.01 – 0.5°. 32.15 0.5° To find the 95% confidence level.0°. 31.tσ √n √n Some typical values of V for different soil properties given by Soil Property Range of typical Recommended V V values Value if limited Test results available 0.40 0 γ (unit weight) 0.10 tanφ’ c’ 0.

26 = 33.057 Student t for a 95% confidence level with 10 test results ∅’K = 34.8° ∅’c = arc tan (tan ∅’K ) / 1.25 for Case C in Table 2 = 27.97° Coeff of variation V = 0.97 X 2.4° With a Standard Deviation σ = 1.26 / √10 = 2.4 .0° The Design Value XD = Xk/γm Applying the γm = 1.BICC BUILDING INDUSTRY CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL Project Job ref: FOUNDATION CPD COURSE Part of Structure CHARACTERISTIC & DESIGN VALUE DETERMINATION Drawing Ref: Done by: DHC Output Ref Calculations Average angle of shearing resistance ∅’AV = 34.25 .1.

The t values are given in Table 4 .

the base resistance qB per unit area Shallow foundation qB = 5cu + γsD Deep foundation qB = 9cu + γsD For the general soil type use the EC7 Brinch-Hansen equation. .Basic Cohesive Soil Founding Pressures Shallow Foundation occurs when founding depth (D) is less than width (B) D/B < 1 or when d<3m (may not be applicable for rafts) For undrained conditions.

.

.

Cassar A&CE. The plasticity index (PI) is thus given by PI = LL – PL = 47% . Maltese clays may be described as stiff to very stiff in its natural state. from various insitu tests carried out using SPT and laboratory tests on recovered samples. with a lower limit of 50 and an upper limit of 200. having an average C value of 100KN/m2. with the liquid limit (LL) at 70% (Bonello 1988). A.MALTESE CLAYS CHARACTERISTICS Referring to Mr. Also the plastic limit (PL) of clay is given at 23%.

. usually showing cracks on drying.MALTESE CLAYS CHARACTERISTICS continued From the Casagrande plasticity chart this is classified as an inorganic clay of high plasticity. From BS 8004 table 1. whilst very stiff clays have values varying from 300 to 600 KN/m2. stiff clays have a presumed alloweable bearing value of 150 to 300KN/m2. For a PL at 23% and a high clay content. the shrinkage and swelling potential of Maltese clays is classified at high.

5 3 41 Maximum burial depth: Blue clay: c 400m London Clay: c500m Source: Saviour Scerri .Blue Clay Formation Mineralogic Composition Clay type Blue Clay London clay Water Content (%) 36.5 24.geologist .0 Undrained shear str kPa 137 Liquid limit % 78 Placticity limit % 31 Illite % 13.0 345 89 32 31.0 Kaolinite Chlorite % % 30 0 Smectite % 57 29.

00 5.20 8.49 1.44 1.43 1.50 Moisture Content 36 33 33 34 32 33 30 33 LL PL PI LI Soil Class Bulk Weight 1.92 1.15 CV 0.44 1.40 1.90 1.11 CV 0.90 1.12 CV 0.91 1.95 1.16 CV 0.07 CH 0.50 5.Blue Clay – Geotechnical characteristics Sample Depth m 4.00 8.45 1.80 1.92 1.50 1.15 CV Source: Saviour Scerri -geologist .91 1.00 5.91 Cu – Dry Lateral Weight Press KN/m2 1.13 CV 0.16 CV 0.46 80 170 104 176 20 110 20 110 243 251 266 334 285 305 415 342 77 71 74 74 72 76 69 74 29 26 25 28 27 27 27 26 48 45 49 46 45 49 42 48 0.45 1.

Blue Clay Formation • • • • Blue Clay has a high clay content Shrinkage due to desiccation is high and may reach 3m in depth Deep cracks are produced Clay loses all its cohesion Subsequent saturation produces clay slips Source: Saviour Scerri .geologist .

care must be taken to ensure superstructure loads are applied as soon as possible Foundations are to be placed at a sufficient distance from trees.5H. For trees such as the poplar.9m is suggested When constructing foundations in very dry weather. foundation depth of 0. foundations should be placed at a distance away of 0. oak. being the mature tree height. willow and eucalyptus the distance should be doubled to H .Preparing A Clay Founding Layer In order to eliminate seasonal ground movement (heave or shrinkage) a min. To reduce above damage due to subsidence or heave. elm.

.

.

.

The raft and fully compacted fill tend to act compositely in resisting the heave forces. The upper part of the pile shaft in the clay desiccation zone should be sleeved to reduce uplift selling forces Heaving pressures in clays may be up to 200KN/m2 . For protection against the possibility of future tree planting producing damaging ground movement the bored pile foundation is more suitable.0m in depth. Heave movement is reduced by removing the most desiccated clay layer.Constructing a Raft Foundation Raft foundations should be placed on fully compacted draining infill separated by a polythene sheet not exceeding 1.

.

.

Indirect Design Methods This is the traditional method used in most countries. Although EC7 does not provide provision for this method. In this method calculations are carried out at characteristic stress levels (CP 2004 – table 1 enclosed) with unfactored load and ground parameters. it is expected to be included in the revised version. Foundations on rock applicable to this method. although Annex G of EC7 gives presumed bearing resistances dependant on the rocks compressive strength and discontinuity spacing. .

Foundation Settlement EC7 – Appendix F Adjusted elasticity method s= pBf/Em (cohesive & non-cohesive) p is elastic bearing pressure linearly distributed f is the settlement coefficient? Em is the soil modulus of elasticity Appendix H outlines structural deformation & foundation movement .

Brick buildings total settlement quoted at 75-100mm. total given at 50mm and differential at 30mm.ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENTS & ROTATIONS For normal structures with isolated foundations total settlements up to 50mm acceptable. Angular distortion of 1/300 also quoted. For sand. A max relative rotation of 1/500 acceptable for most structures. given in EC7. deflection on clay given at 75mm (sand 50mm). . Isolated foundations max. Other sources’ max raft total settlement of clay up to 125mm with differential settlements of 45mm acceptable.

- Building Structures - From Concepts to Design
- Understanding Structural Concepts
- Which Foundation and Why
- Top Tips for IStructE Exam
- Structural Engg Design in Practice - Project Design Examples - Roger Westbrook, Derek Walker
- Labone Office Complex Structural Design Report Rev.01
- Design Concepts & Structural Scheme Multi Storey Bldg
- ISTRUCTE helping guide
- Details for Istructe CM exam
- Arup - Structural Scheme Design Guide 2006
- IStructE Manual for Geotechnical Design - Contents List
- ARUP Worked Example
- Structural Design Manual
- CM Exam My Experience Bharat Khatri
- Structural Design Notes
- Istructe Cm Exam Tutorial
- CC Tall Buildings Guide
- P028 Industrial Lattice Frame Building
- Steel Structures - Practical Design Studies (Third Edition)
- Foundation istructe CM examination
- Understanding Structural Analysis
- IStructE Technical Reports
- STRUCTURAL SCHEME DESIGN GUIDE BY ARUP
- Cm Prep Kirsten 2011
- Design of Structural Connections
- Structural Engineering Design Practice Examples) -Roger Westbrook - Part 2
- CCIP Concrete Building Scheme
- Tata Steel Designers Manual
- General Connection in Steel Structures
- StructuralModellingManual_Arup.pdf

- April 2013 MWD Power Point
- As 3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments
- Tetra Tech Facilities Construction, LLC, A.S.B.C.A. (2016)
- Preliminary Study of Sinking in Beverly Hills New Haven
- In re 2015 Application for Permit to Enter Land for Surveys and Examination, No. 20150311 (N.D. Aug. 18, 2016)
- Bearing Capacity of Rectangular Footing Supported on Geogrid Reinforced Silty Sand
- tmp204
- tmpAE4D
- Stabilisation of Black cotton Soils by Using Groundnut Shell Ash
- As 5100.3-2004 Bridge Design Foundations and Soil Supporting Structures
- Forensic Investigation of Courthouse Square
- Countess Wear to Bridge Road, Devon
- tmp5B28
- As 1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations
- Stop & Shop Horsehill
- The Philberds, Ascot Road, Holyport, Berkshire
- High Street Windsor
- Prison Site Report
- tmp431F
- Effect of Relative Compaction on Shear Strength Parameters of Black Cotton Soil using Direct Shear Test
- Dynamic Bus Facility, Chatham, Medway, Kent
- tmpC583
- Experimental Investigations of Chemical and Geotechnical Properties of Fly Ash Mixed Black Cotton Soil
- As 2159-2009 Piling - Design and Installation

- Staad Pro Indroduction
- TATA Product Range 10_Update[1]
- Details for Istructe CM exam
- Foundation istructe CM examination
- Concrete BS8110 istructe CM examination
- Steel Construction - Education Sector
- Common Shape Codes
- Steel Notes 01
- Yahoo! Finance Spreadsheet
- Initial Sizing of Beams
- Structural Analysis Handout
- epc-uae
- Properties of Concrete for Use in Eurocode 2
- CM Exam Course in Dubai
- Piling
- STAAD EXAMPLE

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading