27 views

Uploaded by Phalgun Moturu

- The Analysis of the Stability of General Slip Surfaces
- Terzaghi si Hansen 24343261-Bearing-Capasity-Ofsoil
- piled raft foundation design
- Anchor Paper
- In Every Slope Opposing Forces Which Tend to Resist Movement
- Sieve Analysis
- Behaviour of Skew Footings Resting on Clayey and Sandy Soil
- Technical Details of Soil
- Soil 1
- Introduction to Triaxial Testing - Part 3
- Daya Dukung_Pondasi Dangkal
- 75857_19.pdf
- 2009110709114338
- !436f6e73696465726174696f6e73206f6e204c696d697473206f66204472656467696e672050726f636573736573.pdf
- Is 10430 - 2000 (Lined Canals)
- 2005_Raithel_GeofrontiersASCEAustin
- 10bt60106-Foundation Engineering 2
- 2_INA-04
- Soil Properties
- 2822

You are on page 1of 15

qc

q

N

=

=

=

1

0 353

1 0 353

10 66 25

0 228

tan

.

.

. tan

.

=

90

) (

2 1 1

i

Also

Equation (2.84):

q

u

= (48)(20.72)(1.257)(1.4)(0.228)

+ (0.6)(18) (10.66) (1.233) (1.155)(0.353)

+

1

2

(18)(0.6)(10.88)(0.8)(1)(0.353)

= 399.05 + 57.88 + 16.59 474 kN/m

2

yy

2.11 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS

ON ANISOTROPIC SOIL

Foundation on Sand (c = 0)

Most natural deposits of cohesionless soil have an inherent anisotropic

structure due to their nature of deposition in horizontal layers. Initial deposition

of the granular soil and subsequent compaction in the vertical direction causes

the soil particles to take a preferred orientation. For a granular soil of this type

Meyerhof suggested that, if the direction of application of deviator stress

makes an angle i with the direction of deposition of soil (Fig. 2.25), then the

soil friction angle 1 can be approximated in a form

(2.90)

where1

1

= soil friction angle with i = 0(

1

2

= soil friction angle with i = 90(

Figure 2.26 shows a continuous (strip) rough foundation on an anisotropic

sand deposit. The failure zone in the soil at ultimate load is also shown in the

figure. In the triangular zone (Zone 1) the soil friction angle will be 1 = 1

1

.

However, the magnitude of 1 will vary between the limits of 1

1

and 1

2

in Zone

2. In Zone 3 the effective friction angle of the soil will be equal to 1

2

.

Meyerhof [21] suggested that the ultimate bearing capacity of a continuous

foundation on an anisotropic sand could be calculated by assuming an equiva-

lent friction angle 1 = 1

eq

, or

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.25 Aniostropy in sand deposit

FIGURE 2.26 Continuous rough foundation on anisotropic sand deposit

eq

=

+

=

+ ( ) ( ) 2

3

2

3

1 2 1

n

where friction ratio =

2

n =

1

(2.91)

(2.92)

Once the equivalent friction angle is determined, the ultimate bearing capacity

for vertical loading conditions on the foundation can be expressed as

(neglecting the depth factors)

q

u

= q N

q(eq)

qs

+

1

2

B N

(eq)

s

(2.93)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.27 Variation of N

(eq)

[Eq. (2.93)]

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.28 Variation of N

q(eq)

[Eq. (2.93)]

where N

q(eq)

, N

(eq)

= equivalent bearing capacity factors corresponding to the

friction angle 1 = 1

eq

In most cases the value of 1

1

will be known. Figures 2.27 and 2.28

present the plots of N

q(eq)

and N

(eq)

in terms of n and 1

1

. Note that the soil

1999 by CRC Press LLC

]

]

]

,

,

(

,

\

,

(

j

+

]

]

]

,

,

(

,

\

,

(

j

+

L

B

BN

L

B

qN q

q u

4 . 0 1

2

1

tan 1

(eq) eq (eq)

b

a

c

c c

u i

uV uH

( )

( )( )

45

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j +

2

) (

uH uV

i c u

c c

N q

friction angle 1 = 1

eq

was used in Eqs. (2.66) and (2.72) to prepare the graphs.

So combining the relationships for shape factors (Table 2.5) given by DeBeer

[19]

(2.94)

Foundations on Saturated Clay (1 11 1 = 0 concept)

As in the case of sand discussed above, saturated clay deposits also exhibit

anisotropic undrained shear strength properties. Figures 2.29a and 2.29b show

the nature of variation of the undrained shear strength of clays, c

u

, with respect

to the direction of principal stress application [22]. Note that the undrained

shear strength plot shown in Fig. 2.29b is elliptical. However, the center of the

ellipse does not match the origin. The geometry of the ellipse leads to the

equation

(2.95)

where c

uV

= undrained shear strength with i = 0(

c

uH

= undrained shear strength with i = 90(

A continuous foundation on a saturated clay layer (1 = 0) whose

directional strength variation follows Eq. (2.95) is shown in Fig. 2.29c. The

failure surface in the soil at ultimate load is also shown in the figure. Note that,

in Zone I, the major principal stress direction is vertical. The direction of the

major principal stress is horizontal in Zone III; however, it gradually changes

from vertical to horizontal in Zone II. Using the stress characteristic solution,

Davis and Christian [22] determined the bearing capacity factor N

c(i)

for the

foundation. For a surface foundation

(2.96)

The variation of N

c(i)

with the ratio of a/b (Fig. 2.29b) is shown in Fig. 2.30.

Note that, when a = b, N

c(i)

becomes equal to N

c

= 5.14 [isotropic case; Eq.

(2.67)].

In many practical conditions, the magnitudes of c

uV

and c

uH

may be known,

but not the magnitude of c

u(i = 45()

. If such is the case, the magnitude of a/b [Eq.

(2.95)] cannot be determined. For such conditions, the following approximation

may be used

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.29 Bearing capacity of continuous foundation on anisotropic

saturated clay

14 . 5

2

9 . 0

=

uH uV

c u

c c

N q

(2.97)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.30 Variation of N

c(i)

with a/b based on the analysis of Davis and

Christian

qd qs q cd cs

i uH i uV

i c u

qN

c c

N q +

]

]

]

,

, +

2

) 90 ( ) 0 (

) (

qd qs f cd cs

uH uV

i c u

D

c c

N q +

(

(

,

\

,

,

(

j +

2

) (

The preceding equation, which was suggested by Davis and Christian [22], is

based on the undrained shear strength results of several clays. So, in general,

for a rectangular foundation with vertical loading condition

(2.98)

For 1 = 0 condition, N

q

= 1 and q = D

f

. So

(2.99)

The desired relationships for the shape and depth factors can be taken from

Table 2.5 and the magnitude of q

u

can be estimated.

Foundation on c1 11 1 Soil

The ultimate bearing capacity of a continuous shallow foundation supported

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.31 Anisotropic clay soilassumptions for bearing capacity evaluation

by anisotropic c1 soil was studied by Reddy and Srinivasan [23] using the

method of characteristics. According to this analysis the shear strength of a soil

can be given as

s = )tan1 + c

However, it is assumed that the soil is anisotropic only with respect to

cohesion. As mentioned previously in this section, the direction of the major

principal stress (with respect to the vertical) along a slip surface located below

the foundation changes. In anisotropic soils, this will induce a change in the

shearing resistance to the bearing capacity failure of the foundation. Reddy and

Srinivasan [23] assumed the directional variation of c at a given depth z below

the foundation as (Fig. 2.31a)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

K

c

c

V z

H z

=

( )

( )

c

V z

V z

l

c

l

c

=

=

=

=

( )

( )

0

0

where characteristic length =

c

i(z)

= c

H(z)

+ [c

V(z)

c

H(z)

]cos

2

i (2.100)

where c

i(z)

= cohesion at a depth z when the major principal stress is inclined

at an angle i to the vertical (Fig. 2.31b)

c

V(z)

= cohesion at depth z for i = 0(

c

H(z)

= cohesion at depth z for i = 90(

The preceding equation is of the form suggested by Casagrande and Carrillo

[24].

Figure 2.31b shows the nature of variation of c

i(z)

with i. The anisotropy

coefficient K is defined as the ratio of c

V(z)

to c

H(z)

.

(2.101)

In overconsolidated soils K is less than one and, for normally consolidated

soils the magnitude of K is greater than one.

For many consolidated soils, the cohesion increases linearly with depth

(Fig. 2.31c). Thus

c

V(z)

= c

V(z=0)

+ s (2.102)

where c

V(z)

, c

V(z=0)

= cohesion in the vertical direction (that is, i = 0) at depths

of z and z = 0, respectively

= the rate of variation with depth z

According to this analysis, the ultimate bearing capacity of a continuous foun-

dation may be given as

q

u

= c

V(z=0)

N

c(i)

+ qN

q(i)

+

1

2

BN

(i)

(2.103)

where N

c(i)

, N

q(i)

, N

(i)

= bearing capacity factors

q = D

f

This equation is similar to Terzaghis bearing capacity equation for continuous

foundations [Eq. (2.31)].

The bearing capacity factors are functions of the parameters

c

and K. The

term

c

can be defined as

(2.104)

(2.105)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.32 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factor, N

c(i1)

influence of K (

c

= 0)

Furthermore, N

c(i)

is also a function of the nondimensional width of the

foundation, B

B =

B

l

(2.106)

The variations of the bearing capacity factors with

c

, B, 1, and K

determined using the method of analysis by Reddy and Srinivasan [23] are

shown in Figs. 2.32 to 2.37. This study shows that the rupture surface in soil

at ultimate load extends to a smaller distance below the bottom of the founda-

tion for the case where the anisotropic coefficient K is greater than one. Also,

when K changes from one to two with = 0, the magnitude of N

c(i)

is reduced

by about 30% 40%.

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.33 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factor N

c(i

influence of K (

c

= 0.2)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.34 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factor, N

c(i1)

influence of K (

c

= 0.4)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.35 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factors, N

(i1)

and N

q(i1)

(

c

= 0)

EXAMPLE 2.3

Estimate the ultimate bearing capacity q

u

of a continuous foundation with the

following: B = 9 ft, c

V(z=0)

= 250 lb/ft

2

, = 25 lb/ft

2

/ft, D

f

= 3 ft, = 110 lb/ft

3

,

and 1 = 20(. Assume K = 2.

Solution From Eq. (2.105)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

Characteristic length,

Nondimensional width,

l

c

B

B

l

V z

= = =

= = =

= ( )

.

.

.

0

250

110

227

9

227

396

Also

FIGURE 2.36 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factors, N

(i1)

and N

q(i1)

influence of K (

c

= 0)

1999 by CRC Press LLC

FIGURE 2.37 Reddy and Srinivasans bearing capacity factors, N

(i1)

and N

q(i1)

influence of K (

c

= 0.2)

c

V z

l

c

=

= =

= ( )

( )( . )

.

0

25 2 27

250

0 227

Now, referring to Figs. 2.33, 2.34, 2.36, and 2.37, for 1 = 20(,

c

= 0.227, K

= 2, and B = 3.96 (by interpolation)

N

c(i)

14.5; N

q(i)

6, and N

(i)

4

1999 by CRC Press LLC

- The Analysis of the Stability of General Slip SurfacesUploaded byNshimiyimana Protogene
- Terzaghi si Hansen 24343261-Bearing-Capasity-OfsoilUploaded byOana Matei
- piled raft foundation designUploaded byMICHAEL TADESSE
- Anchor PaperUploaded byVeeresh Dambal
- In Every Slope Opposing Forces Which Tend to Resist MovementUploaded byBabay Ganz
- Sieve AnalysisUploaded byalijahromi94
- Behaviour of Skew Footings Resting on Clayey and Sandy SoilUploaded byShahzad Anwar
- Technical Details of SoilUploaded bykibzeam
- Soil 1Uploaded byElendu Emmanuel Chigozie
- Introduction to Triaxial Testing - Part 3Uploaded byUchaq Agaseh
- Daya Dukung_Pondasi DangkalUploaded byRaditya Purnamahadi
- 75857_19.pdfUploaded bykhamis
- 2009110709114338Uploaded byAdrian Tudor
- !436f6e73696465726174696f6e73206f6e204c696d697473206f66204472656467696e672050726f636573736573.pdfUploaded byLibardo
- Is 10430 - 2000 (Lined Canals)Uploaded bysatnam1979
- 2005_Raithel_GeofrontiersASCEAustinUploaded byKienNguyen
- 10bt60106-Foundation Engineering 2Uploaded bygowthami sirana balu
- 2_INA-04Uploaded byNona Sangram
- Soil PropertiesUploaded byharishsandeep
- 2822Uploaded byAbdelkader Gamal
- 12 - Narora Weir - RichardsUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Gambar Geotextile & Geo-membraneUploaded byanjas_ts
- Laboratory Evaluation and Modelling of Shear Strength of InfilledUploaded byGiri Wakshan
- Soil Mixing for Excavation SupportUploaded bySen Hu
- Diseño Pilares alumnosUploaded byHiran Richard Pizarro
- 2010 San Diego Small Strain StiffnessUploaded byFrabala19
- 9_dorador,L_some Considerations About Geotechnical Characterization on Soils With Oversize_2013Uploaded byJose
- 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights ReservedUploaded byMarcelo Protz
- 4. the Behaviour of Piles Driven in Clay, Clerk and MayerhofUploaded byRakesh7770
- 86584_03aUploaded byjorge

- The Design of Vibro Replacement (Priebe Teory)Uploaded bypaduco
- lesy2gl.pdfUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- STUDY ON DESIGN ASPECTS OF STONE COLUMNS.docxUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Experiment Unconfined CompressionUploaded byLon Odi
- Bearing Capacity of Interfering Footings (BM Das - Shallow Foundations)Uploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Olson-Paralel Seismic - Alat Ukur Kedalaman PondasiUploaded byKharisma Rahman Fadillah
- Time Rate of ConsolidationUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Full TextDesign of Embankments on Soft Soil Using GeosyntheticsUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Basudhar Et Al., CENEM, 2007 Cost EstimateUploaded bySushovan Dutta
- 2 Conic SectionUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- High Strain Dynamic Pile TestingUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- A Geo-Engineering Classification for Rocks and Rock MassesUploaded byAze
- 13_784Uploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Final TaubeUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Pile LiteratureUploaded bybhumi_29
- ApplicationFormUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Civil Conv iUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Design of Rectangular Combined Footing - Bowles (Foundation Analysis and Design)Uploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Soil Exploration and Boreholes (Murthy - Advanced Foundation Engineering)Uploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Design of Trapezoidal Footing - BowlesUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Design of Strap Footing - BowlesUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Fox Influence Factor (Bowles, JGE, ASCE, 1987)Uploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Eccentrically Loaded Footing (BM Das - Shallow Foundations)Uploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Numerical Limit Analysis Solutions for the Bearing Capacity Factor N GammaUploaded byrenos73
- 123106-9494-IJBAS-IJENSUploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Basudhar Et Al., EASEC, 2006Uploaded byPhalgun Moturu
- Concrete Shear WallUploaded byninyoarl
- Introductory SessionUploaded byPhalgun Moturu

- Motor Simulink1Uploaded bycezar_iasi
- Das & Okubo-Lie Groups and Lie Algebras for Physicists.pdfUploaded byAlfredo Echegollen Guzmán
- Hydraulics LaboratoryUploaded byBernard Palmer
- Paulownia tomentosa Steud. leaf powder as a low-cost natural biosorbent”Uploaded bybubilibubilic
- INVESTIGATION OF THE PLASTIFICATION BEHAVIOR OF POLYMERS IN HIGH-SPEED TWIN SCREW EXTRUDERSUploaded byReza Mansourieh
- Analytical Mechanics [2017]Uploaded byfluffa23
- (4) SolutionsUploaded byBeatriz G. Ablay
- astm d9763-02Uploaded byJorge Andres Prada Sanabria
- Key Frame RX Number FrameUploaded byhk,lk
- Nozzle Loads WRC 107 ver 1.1.pdfUploaded bypsaayo
- S Muthumeenal & DGB 1005.4381 DA 240 in Slingshot ModelUploaded byDilip G Banhatti
- WithUploaded byMuhammad Tariq
- Rock Mechanical PropertiesUploaded bysyed Shaiq
- Simplified Seismic Analysis of TowersUploaded byram
- CHEMARITHMOLEFMF.pptUploaded byPaul Jeremiah Serrano Narvaez
- High Speed Vlsi DesignUploaded byNarayana Swamy Ramaiah
- New Microsoft PowerPoint PresentationUploaded bydeshraj
- QDB-35.pdfUploaded byਤਨ੍ਹਾ ਰਾਜੀਵ ਮਾਯੂਸ
- GFE - WEEK 2 - PART 1 - 2018-05-28Uploaded byAdeelAbbas
- hw1Uploaded byAsli Yalcin Dayioglu
- G0509048055.pdfUploaded bytheijes
- Convention SummationUploaded byDavid Antonio Gomez
- EC6503-Transmission Lines and WaveguidesUploaded byAnonymous lt2LFZH
- 1172Uploaded bySantosh Raju
- ASTM D 792 – 08 Densidad PolímerosUploaded byDunia
- SiddhiUploaded bybya316
- Timing of Annual Output Calibration of Radiotherapy Linear AcceleratorsUploaded byPeertechz Publications Inc.
- Isrm Sinorock 2009 032Uploaded bypaolo paoli
- Viscosity Standards 1Uploaded byDaniel Matías
- Airflow in Ramjet InletsUploaded bySuzanne Matthews