Design of shallow foundations

© All Rights Reserved

10 views

Design of shallow foundations

© All Rights Reserved

- Strength of Materials
- Info Rock subgrade Reaction
- NASA Articel - User-Defined Material Model for Thermo-Mechanical Progressive Failure Analysis
- Paper Pronto3D
- Calendar
- Elasticity 2
- Stress Verification Manual v4
- Simulation of Strength Difference in Elasto-plasticity for Adhesive Materials
- SOM NOL_km&ar
- MOM Assignment I
- Kennedy Skinner Moore 2004 E-1-01 No Dig 11pp
- FEA Tutorials LS8
- Lifting Lug calc
- Wheelchair Manual Final
- Lecture Plan and Schedule TOE
- Gassman 1951
- ELASTICITY
- Index 2006 Engineering-123456QWE
- Stress Analysis From Overcoring Data
- appmath03

You are on page 1of 79

4.

_______________4

__

5. R.,.rt Ooto

7. "u'horl II

April 1983

It.''O'''''''1I O, n' .otion

ROllo,t No.

10. Work Unit No.

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, Texas 77843

12. Spon.o,ing "goncy Nomo and Add, ...

1-

8.

------------------------~

Transportation Planning Division

P. O. Box 5051

Austin, Texas 78763

1S. Supplementary Not ..

__

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _' _ _ _ _ _ _

____________

__

- FHWA/TX-84;/03 +340-1

September 1982

I nt erl'm - April

1983

14. Sttonlorin, ..... ncy C040

--------~--------.------------------~------------------------~

Research Study Title: The Pressuremeter and the Design of Highway Related

Foundations.

16_ "ba"oct

In this report, a detailed description is made of the established procedures to design shallow foundations on the basis of preboring pressuremeter tests.

Both the bearing capacity and settlement calculations are outlined in the form

of step-by-step procedures. Design examples are given and solved. An indication

of the precision of the methods is presented by comparing the predicted behavior

to the measured behavior for over 50 case histories.

Design, Clay, Sand, Rock

19

to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port RO'yal

I

Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

J

21. No. 01

p....

22. Price

~~__cl~a~s_s~if~l='e~d~___________ ~~__u_n_c_la~s_s_i_f_i_ed____________~__7_9____~__________~1

Form DOT F 1700.7 CI.UI

by

Research Study 2-5-83-340

Sponsored by

State Department of Highways and Public Transportation

In cooperation with the

U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, Texas

April 1983

SUMMARY

In this report, a detailed description is made of the established

procedures to design shallow foundations on the basis of preboring

pressuremeter tests.

The bearing capacity equation is:

q

where q

= kp

* + q0

. Le

PL~

of influence of the foundation and qQ is the vertical total pressure at

the foundation level prior to construction.

of soil, and the shape of the foundation.

1978, and Bustamante and Gianeselli in 1982.

The three charts are presented and used to solve several example

problems.

the Menard-Gambin method gives higher values and that the Baquelin-Jezequel-Shields method gives values which are slightly higher than the

values obtained with the Menard-Gambin method.

The settlement equation is:

S

2 1 0 . . - 0.. 1

q. Bo' (Ad ~) + 9" E q Ac B

d

.

B

c

o

="9 E

iii

obtained from preboring pressuremeter tests performed within several

foundation widths

AC

the foundation level.

The two terms of the settlement equations correspond to two distinct components:

component).

the settlement due to shearing stresses is larger than the settlement

due to the hydr?static compression.

The above settJement equation applies when the ratio of the

foundation width to the thickness of the bearing stratum is small.

This

equation is modified when the ratio is large and in this case the

pressuremeter settlement analysis should be complemented by a consolidation test analysis.

The above bearing capacity and settlement rules are evaluated ?y

presenting the results of comparisons between predicted andmeasured.

behavior for over 50 case histories.

performance of quality pressuremeter tests by trained

professionals.

, iv

IMPLEMENTATION SETTLEMENT

.

_ .

o-~

-~_

for the design of shallow foundations.

of a new piece of equipment:

a preboring pressuremeter.

These methods

parallel with current methods for a period of time until a final decision can be made as to their implementation.

:".,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful for the continued support and encouragement of Mr. George Odom of the Texas State Department of Highways and

Public Transportation.

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who .

are responsible for the opinions, findings, and conclusions presented

herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or

policies of the Federal Highway Administration, or the State Department

of Highways and Public Transportation. This report does not constitute

a standard, a specification, or a regulation.

vi

..

"

. -.:" .

TABLE OFCONTENTS

PRESSUREMETER DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Page

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . . .

iii

1.

INTRODUCTION...

2.

BEARING CAPACITY

2.1

Theoretical Background

Capac~ty

Factor, K

3.

2.4 Calculating PLe'

12

12

12

Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

13

Footings Near Excavations .

14.

SETTLEMENT.. . .

16

3.1

Menard Method.

16

3.1.1

16

Theoretical Background.

18

21

22

22

22

Ground Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

vii

......

Page

4.

5.

Pressuremeter Moduli . . . . . . . . .

25

28

30

32

34

37

39

41

Example 3

44

Example 4

(Menard Method) . . . . . . . . . . .

50

Example 5

54

Example 6

57

....

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

....

~.

59

65

.~

-.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Pressuremeter Bearing Capacity Method for

Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shields Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chart of Figure 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

Bearing Capacity Chart of Figure 5 . . . . . . .

11

. ...

Function of Tan S . .

15

Rheological Factor, a

19

10

19

11

20

12

Factor Distribution . . . . . . .

27

13

60

14

(Very Small Settlement) . . . . . . .

15

16

17

. . . . . . ..

61

(Moderate Settlement) . . . . . . .

62

(large Settlement) . . . . . . . . .

63

by the B.G. Method and Measured by Menard . . . . . .

64

ix

BEARING CAPACITY

k

p

(sphere)

= -p"'---r(c-y""'l~in-d'-e-r)

L

PL*

PL

qp

qp

*

= k PLe

qsafe

+ qo

= k P~e/3

+ qo

*

where PLe

qo

He =

PI*_1.

n

~

t.Z

-*PLe

qp

qp

x

~ i .

'J." 'f.

...

~~

..

..~

= undrained soil shear strength

.

= actual depth of embedment of the foundation

= width

v

5

Cu

of the foundation

..

xi

SETTLEMENT

Su = rapid, undrained settlement

Sc = consolidation settlement = sT - Su

ST

n

n

Ek

= average

L __1__ where Ek

1 Ei

Settlement with a thin, soft layer at depth:

= s

+ Sll

Sll

= settlement

= (

(l

Esoft

where

~crv

and bottom of soft layer

= rheological factor

E = pressuremeter modulus

(l

n

S

L

1

(li

Pi

E.

1

~Z.

= layer number,

xii

.. ".

~.

2

e = "3

(F-f)

~vi

= thickness of each layer

ai

~zi

Ed = pressuremeter modulus within zone of deviatoric

S

tensor influence

_1_

Ed

E.1

= 1 (L +. 1

4

E1

0.85E 2

+ _1_ +

1

+

1

)

E3/6 2.5E 6/ 8 2.5E 9/ 16

influence

Ec

q

= net footing bearing pressure (qnet)

Bo

= reference

Ad

c

..

= spherical shape factor'

= rheological

width

= 2 ft

or 60 cm

'

factor

o

=0s + 0d

where:

xiii

likewise:

Ed

= deviatoric

's

= Young's Modulus

= Poisson's Ratio

G = Shear Modulus

y

K =.Bulk Modulus

xiv

strain component

CHAPTER 1. - INTRODUCTION

The established procedures to design shallow foundations on the

basis of preboring pressuremeter tests are presented in detail in this

report.

of the methods presented are evaluated by comparing predicted and measured behavior of shallow foundations for over 50 case histories.

Fin-

It must be emphasized that one of the critical elements for the

successful prediction of shallow foundation behavior using these design

rules is the performance of quality pressuremeter tests.

Such quality

2.1

Theoretical Background

Figures 1 and 2 show the analogy between the pressuremeter limit

If

the penetration

cavity, then the ultimate bearing capacity of that footing is given by

the limit pressure to the expansion of a spherical cavity (PL sphere).

The pressuremeter test on the other hand is associated with the expansion of a cylindrical cavity and leads to a limit pressure (PLCylinder).

expressed as the pressuremeter bearing capacity factor, k:

PL (sphere)

k =-----

(1) .

PL(cylinder)

This theoretical bearing capacity factor can be evaluated using plasticity theory; such values of k vary from 1.4 to 2.4 (6).

However, the k

2.2 Methods for Funding the Bearinq Capacity Factor, k

At present there are three methods available to find the bearing

capacity factor for shallow foundations.

These are:

p .

L

.,

Theoretically

f S = ap*L

k = I. 4 To 2.4

From Load Test Data

Method forFou~dattons

6c .

u

,

Soi I

I I III

Soil

1/11/111111

111/111.11/11111111/1//111/1111

=

6 Cu

Part Of Bearing

Capacity

Due To Vertical Resistance Only = 2cu

Part Of Bearing Capacity Due

To Latera I Resistance Only

= 4cu

Where C u :. Undrained Shear Strength

q = k PLe

6c u

= kx

FIGURE 2:

4c u --~

...

-k=1.5

Lateral Soil Support

(Ref. 10, Fig. 3), charts by Baguelin, Jezeguel, and Shields (B.J.S., Ref.

1, Fig. 4), and a chart developed after Bustamante and Gianselli (B.G.,

Ref. 3, Fi g. 5).

Figure 5 was obtained from the early part of the B.G. chart for

piles.

circular footings.

The Menard, the B.J.S., and the B.G. charts relate the bearing

capacity factor to -a relavtive depth for various soil classifications.

These charts can

hand1~

The Menard and B.G. charts use similar soil classification tables

to distinguish between design curves (Figures 6 and 7).

Both charts

of the foundation (He) to the radius of the foundation R.

For non

cir~

the width B of the foundation.

The B.J.S. charts express k as a function of the depth to width

ratio He

{Figure 4}.

single soil classification and gives different curves for different soil

strengths (p * ).

of k.

points on the chart; for rectangular footings the interpolation parameter is ~ where L is the length of the foundation.

k

3~----~------~-----+------4---~~----~

CIRCULAR OR

SQUARE FOOT I NG

2R

L

.Yo

..

--

S-

+>

U

to

u..

....~

U

to

0...

to

U

en

....

t:

_..

co,eoof1 1.

co,eQOf1111.~

t -_ _~~~---+-II!::.---___-=i~==---+--::::ao"-~co'eQor'll1L

S-

STRIP FOOTING

2R =0

L

teoOrY'II

'to

QJ

co

0.8

=I

cot8Q;ryl

Radius of Foundation

' if

FIr,UP.E 3:

Menard (Reference 10)

He

R

I

83,540

~--f62,660

3r---+---+---1-~~---+--~

3~--+---+---~~~---4----~--+--

ROUND

ROUND

S-

o

+..l

u

n:s

LL.

83,540=

--

I-----I-F-+--t-

c

.,....

c

.,....

62,660

__ 20,880I

p.

10440..

,

I

STRIP

u

n:s

0..

n:s

u

en

S-

S-

c:a

2r---~~4---~--~~~~--+----

.,....

u

n:s

0..

n:s

u

en

pi

._--t-10,440

pi

.,....

~-- 20,880 =

~ 0.8

c:a

0.8

CLAY

SILT

(pi in pst)

(pI in pst)

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1234567

Width of Foundation

' 11

123

Width of ~Foundation

' B

Baguelin, Jezeguel, Shields

Method (Reference 1)

.

'"

ROCK

5

8

..

"

S-'"

+J

ttl

LL.

~

.,...

u

ttl

0ttl

U

ROUND

or 1 /

V- V

ttl

Q)

al

I

,0.8

./

- --

jV

....

10.:140V

t

."

20,890

/- ~

",.-

I-

-J--

-125,300

~

.,...

U

ttl

0ttl

U

_41770

r,/

U

ttl

LL.

I....- f-4I,770' f . V

L..-

L,..-

so

+J 4

Ol

00

SQUARE

" .

s::

.,...

s-

I

125,300

l-- V

STRIP

Ol

s::

.,...

8,350

s-

ttl

Q)

al

pt.

(p; In pst)

,

2

.6

10

,

II

12

13

Width of Foundation

' 13

(pi In pst)

012345678

Width of Foundation

' If

FIGURE 4: (Continued)

3~----~----~------~----~------+---

__~

- - - Circular or Square

- Strip

~ 2~-----+--~---+----~-+-------r------~-------

.,....

----

CAT. I

..

O~~--~~--~--~~--~--~~--~--~~

,4

Radi us of Foundation' R

For Bustamante and Gianeselli

(Reference 3)

9

-.'-.'

He

LIMIT PRESSURE

SOIL TYPE

(psf)

oo-

25000

Clay

15000

Si It

CATEGORY

37500 - 84000

25000 - 63000

Compact Sil t

II

8000 - 17000

Compressible Sand

21000 - 63000

21000 - 42000

83500 - 209000

Rock

62500 - 125000

III

lIlA

Fiqure 6: Soil Categories for Use with Menard Bearing Capacity Chart of

Figure 3 (Reference 10)

10

LIMIT PRESSURE

SOIL TYPE

(psf)

15000

Soft Clay

17000

15000

21 - 42,000

25 - 63,000

31 - 84,000

21 - 52,000

Weathered Chalk

52 - 84,000

Weathered Rock

63,000

Fragmented Chalk

94,000

52,000

94,000

Fragmented Rock

Figure 7.

CATEGORY

Capacity Chart of Figure 5 (Reference 3)

11

The B.J.S. and Menard charts give similar k values; the B.G. chart

gives consistently lower values.

2.3 Bearing Capacity Equation

The ultimate bearing capacity, qp is:

. (2).

where

k

PL*

= net

limit pressure

= PL

- Poh'

pte

qu

= total stress overburden pressure at foundation level.

* x P* x . x PLn

*

PL1

L2

(3).

where PL1' . . . , PLn are the net limit pressures obtained from tests

performed within the (+) 1.SB to (-) 1.SB zone near the foundation level.

See examples 3 and 4.

2.5 Calculating He' the Egui'va 1ent Depth of Embedment

He

n

= L

6z.1

*

PLi

-r

(4) .

PLe

12

* are the limit pressures obtained from tests between the ground

where PLi

~zi

See examples

3 and 4.

2.6 Obtaining k, the Pressuremeter Bearing Capacity Factor

The relative embedment depih is H IR for the Men~rd and the B.G.

e

diamet~r

or the width of

the footing.

The soil category is determined from Figures 6 and 7 for Menard

and B.G. method, respectively; B.J.S. has separate charts for different

soils.

the case of a square footing and the case of a strip footing; the interpolating parameter is S/L.

2.7 Calculating

qp~qsafe'

and qnet

+q ,

o

(5) .

(6) .

qnet

- qsafe -

- kPLe

3

(7) .

0 - --

13

.. : .....

Excavations

It is sometimes necessary or practical to set footings near slopes

or excavations.

duced to allow for the reduced lateral confinement in the soil below the

footing.

Menard (IO) proposes a reduction factor (u) related to the tangent

of the angle

e between

the excavation, or the angle of the slope on which the footinq rests.

The definition of

e and

q' p

= uq

the reduction factor.

0.67.

14

e should

not exceed

I I

OF A FOOTING AS A FUNCTION OF 10/3

~

0.9

0.8

19/3.

f\

\

!\

f'

r-...

~

0.4

...... ......

.....

i""'-

0.3

o

r/'//

\~

0.5

- to

li

a

13)

0.6

t--

2R

0.7

0.2

'

~'.,,:.:

'..,....

, ",'.,.

-I- t-

,.,

-i-

I-

--...

.....

-- - - - -

-I- I- 1-

1.5

:-l-I -

-- -- I-

1- - I - i - -I- -1-

0.1

o

o

0.5

2.5

safe range

FIGURE 8:

FOOTING AS A FUNCTION OF TAN 8 (Reference 10)

15

1913

CHAPTER 3. - SETTLEMENT

3.1

Menard Method

3.1.1

Theoretical Background

an undrained or no volume

u

settlement sT'

(E', v', G) where: E is Young's modulus, v is Poisson's ratio, and G

is the shear modulus.

The stress tensor (0) at any point within the loaded mass of soil

can be decomposed into its spherical component (os), and deviatoric component (od ) :

(8) .

Os

3 KES

2GE d

E

l+v

(9) .

ES

3{1-2v}

Ed

(10) .

where

K = Bulk Modulus,

Ed = Deviatoric Strain Tensor.

ES

expressed in effective stress or total stress.

16

Therefore:

O'du

O'du

= 2G

0'1

= 2G I

O'd

(11) .

Since,

u Ed

(12) .

and,

d

Ed

(13)

then,

G

= GI = G.

(14) .

elastic half space:

'!'" I-vi qB

sT= 8" -G-

(15) .

and,

_

1T

Su - '8

1-0.5 qB

G

(16)'

(17)

(18).

than Sc and therefore represent 75% of the total settlement sT;

this

shows that when the width of the foundation is small compared to the

depth of the compressible layer (most common case for shallow footings)

,the undrained settlement is the major portion of the final settlement.

The above discussion of the settlement problem is the backbone of

17

s =29Ed

+ 9~

q Ac B

(19) .

I

spherical

settlement

deviatoric

settlement

where

s = footing settlement,

Ed

deviatoric tensor,

B = reference width of 2 ft. or 60 cm.,

o

B = footing width,

Ad = shape factor for deviatoric term (Figure 10),

A = shape factor for spherical term (Figure 10),

c

q

a ~

E=

c . pressuremeter modulus within the zone of influence of the

spherical tensor.

This equation is an elasticity equation

wh~ch

take into account the real soil behavior, in particular the footing scale

effect Ba and the magnitude of the pressuremeter modulus.

This equation

3.1.2 Calculating the Layer Moduli

The soil below the foundation level is divided into a series of

elementary layers B/2 thick (Fig. 11.).

18

~-

Peat

Cl ay

Soil Type

a.

E/pt

Overconsolidated

Normally

consolidated

for

all

values

Weathered

and/or

remou 1ded

Si It

E/p*

a.

E/pt

,>16

>14

. 9-16 2/3

7-9

a.

FIGURE 9:

a.

E/pt

2/3 >12

E/pt

1/2

1/2

1/2

Extreme 1y

fractured

Rock

Sand and

Grave 1

Sand

Other

= 1/3

a.

Rheological Factor

= 1.2

>10

1/3

6-10

1/4

1/3

(Reference 1)

2.0

1.5

1.0 OL.---'--12--I3-.....I.4-...I..5-..L...6-..L...7-..L...8-9.L-.-~10

LIB

Shape Factors Ac' Ad" (Reference 1)

19

1/4

Slightly fractured

or extremely

weathered

a. = 2/3

25------------~--~~------~-----

FIGURE 10:

a.

I

2

3

4

5

S

7

S

9

10

II

\

12

13

14

15

IS

12R

Pi

III(

2R

3R

4R

5R

SR

7R

SR

9R

lOR

II R

12R'

13R

14R

ISR

ISR

EI

E2

E

3/4/5

ES/7/8

E9/IS

the Settlement Analysis

20

Ek

2:_1_,

(20).

1 Ei

where

, = PMT moduli

E.

within kth

layer and

This process is repeated for all layers (1 through 16); if no PMT data is

available beyond a certain depth z the moduli of the layers deeper than

z are assumed to be equal to the deepest measured modulus.

See Example 3.

According to the theory of elasticity the spherical part of the

strain tensor (c s ) decreases rapidly with depth (1); on the contrary, the

magnitude of the deviatoric part of the strain tensor (Ed) is significant

even at large depth.

footing; the formula.which gives the equivalent distortion modulus Ed

is based on an assumed reasonable Ed strain distribution (2):

1

+ 1

)'

2.5 E6/ 7/ 8 2.5 E9/ 16 ,

(21)

ample,

21

".

For ex-

3.1.4

Obtaining~a

and A

The parameters a, Ad' and Ac are obtained from Figures 9 and 10.

The determination of a is made by assessing the soil type and estimating

the state of consolidation through the use of the

shape factors

AC

ratio~

*

E/PL'

The

See

Examples 1, 2, and 3.

Ca1~ulating

3.1.5

the Settlement

the bearing pressure is taken to be the net safe pressure:

(7)

3.1.6 The Special Case of a Thin Soft Layer at Depth

In this case the settlement is (1):

= s

(22)

Sll

modulus of the soft layer (E soft ) is the same as the modulus of the

soil immediately above the soft layer (E hard ) ; and s .. is the compression of the soft layer alone.

22

Sl

Sll

2

ct

(Ad _B_)ct + grq

Ac Band

- 9Ed q Bo

Bo

c

= ct ( E 1

Ehard

soft

(19 )

IJcr v H.

(23)

IJcr v is the average increase in vertical stress in the soft layer and H is

the thickness of the soft layer.

The settlement

S"

is calculated using

See Example 5.

3.1 .7 The Speci a1 Case of a Thi n Soft Layer Close to the Ground Surface

If the raft or the embankment rests on a soft layer which is thinner

than B/2, the settlement of .the soft layer is calculated as (1):

n

E

",,'

(24)

D

A

u.

..,

.::..:....;.-.-=-...=..;;..

E.

I.

ucr' IJZ.,

,

function of the safety factor, F.

13

F-l

by the foundation, IJcrvi is the average increase in vertical pressure in

the ith layer computed by elastic theory, cti is the rheological factor

for the i!h layer, Ei is the pressuremeter modulus for the ith layer, 'and

IJ zi is the thickness of the ith layer.

The coefficient 13 tends to take into account the increase in compressibility beyond the preconsolidation pressure and is explained as

23

--------------

follows:

1.

s is a consolidation settlement,

2.

be close to or smaller than the preconsolidation pressure, and

S is 1 in this case.

3.

likely to exceed the preconsolidation pressure and S increases

accordingly.

See Example 6.

24

-.-.:..

3.2 Settlement

of shallow footings on sands (11, 12 ).

theory of elasticity.

layers within the depth of influence is calculated.

Schmertmann recommended that the soil modulus be obtained from the

co'ne penetrometer te'st' (CPT) by a correlation to the CPT point resis":

tance.

Although Schmertmann

made no mention of it, it appears to be logical to use the pressuremeter modulus profile in connection with this method.

However, the

be appropriate for Schmertmann's method.

Encouraging

The Schmertmann-pressuremeter method is described in detail below:

I .

(~ ~z.)

E.

(26)

where:

Cl = Correction factor to take into account beneficial effect ~f

embedment

, depth

Cl

= 1-0.5 POVp(l)

C < 1

l

P~v (1) = effective vertical stress at foundation

0.5

<

C2

25:

C2

t

AP

<:

1 yrs

P~v

construction

Izi = average influence factor for the'i th layer

n

factor proposed by Schmertmann.

I zmax ' expressed as:

I zmax

= 0.5

+ 0.1

J~[l

vp

where:

0'vp

E. = pressuremeter modulus of the ith layer

1

=

1

Figure 12. Interpolations must be made for rectangular footings.

26

FOR SQUARE AND STRIP FOOTINGS

8/2

(I zp >max=O.5+0.1'ns:;;-

V~

pressure

28

38

(j

~p

=effective

stress

at peak Izp

before construction 48

z

Figure 12:

the Influence Factor Distribution.

27

detailed steps of the Pressuremeter Design Method for shallow foundations.

Example 1:

Menard, B.J.S., and B.G. methods demonstrated.

Example 2:

Menard, B.J.S., and B.G. methods demonstrated.

Example 3:

Menard,

Example 4:

Menard method.

Example 5:

silt layer at depth.

Example 6.

surface.

28

EXAMPLE PROBLEM I:

RECTANGULAR FOOTING ON CLAY

.L

= 13 ft.

B =6 f t.

5 ft.

1.5ft.

= 115

Ib.lft. 3

_-::!!sz:-__GWT

__

...

18 ft.

PL=

32,800 psf

P~= 30,700psf

E = 230,000 psf

29

EXAMPLE 1a.

Bearing Capacity

qsafe

= 3k P*L = qo

he

B

R = "2

= 3.0 ft

= h = 5.0 ft

From Fig. 6

Soil Category II

From Fig. 3

k(strip)

= 1.20

k(square)

Interpolating

qsafe

= 1.46/3

= 1.76

ft

= 15516

Settlement

s =

9-E-~-

qnet Bo [Ad B:

~.

,-I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~I

+

I

9~ c qnet '-c

deviatoric

settlement

spherical

settlement

qnet

= qsafe - qo = 15516

E/PL

L/B

7; From Fig. 9

+ a

10

- 575

= 14941 psf

= 0.5

Ad

30

psf

2

1

14941 x2.

s=9230,000x

[1.58 62.00JO.5

J

0.5

9x230,000

x

s = .063 + .026 = .089 ft

therefore, use qall

= .082

.089

>

sall = .082 ft

x 15516 14296 psf

i.;

31

EXAMPLE lb.

Bearing Capacity

qL

= k P*L= q0

= Ec

Ed

He

= h = 5.0

ft

D = He = 5.0 ft

= 2B = 3.0 ft

PL* = 30700 psf

= 1. 7

D/B

for P*L

= 83540

psf

= 2.66,

for P~

= 2088~

psf

= 2.36,

for PL*

= 30700

psf

= 2.41

then

= 1.54

.J

qsafe

= 1.~4

qnet

= 19853

x 30700 + (115 x 5)

= 20428

psf

psf

Settlement

s =

9~d

qnet Bo

~d

B: ]Cl +

Cl

A B

9E

. c qnet c

32

.. ".

= 0.5

2

1

6.0 0.5 0.5

1

+ -9- 230,000 x

s = "9 230,000 x 19853 x 2.0 x (1.58 x 2.0)

19853 x 1.22 x 6.0

s

= .082

+ .035

= .117

ft

>

sa'l

= .082

.117 x 20428

33

. -.-.:-

ft

= 14317

psf

EXAMPLE 1c.

Bearing Capacity

Ed = Ec

From Fig. 7, hard silty clay

B

R = 2"

= 3.0

He

ft

From Fig. 5:

k(square)

Interpolating: k(f

qsafe

= 1304

qnet

= 10643 psf

soil category 2

B

[=

= 1.7

'T

k(strip)

h = He = 5.0 ft

0.5

= 1.0

= 1.09

= 0.46} = 1.04

x 30700 + (115 x 5)

= 11218 psf

Settlement

= 0.5

+ ~c

34

= 1.22

and

~d

= 1.58

2

1

s = 9

230,000

6.00.5

.

+0.5

x

9 x 230,000

s = .045 + .034

= .079 ft

therefore, pa11

>

sall

= .082 ft

35

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2:

RECTANGULAR FOOTING ON SAND.

=13 ft.

B = 6 ft.

5ft.

= 115 Ib Ift. 3

1.5 ft.

very dense sand and gravel

18ft.

P = 56,400 psf

L

P~=

36

54,300.psf

EXAMPLE 2a.

Bearing Capacity

Ed

From Fig. 6

R

-+-

= Ec (homogenous soil)

He

= h = 5.0 ft

tlt

= '2B = 3.0 ft

1.7

rB =. 0.46

k(square)

B

interpolating k(r

= 2.33

= 0.46) = 1.80

qsafe = 1.80

3 x 54300 + (115 x 5) = 33155 psf

qnet

Settlement

deviatoric

component

E ~ 12; then from Fig. 9:

PL

..

spherical

component

a

= 0.33

37

0 33

32580

6 0 0.33

2 32580

x

2.

0

x

(1.

58

2.'

0

)

+

-'9x

9 689,000

689,000 x

1.22 x 6.0

therefore, use Pall

<

qsafe

sall = .082 ft

=

33155 psf

38

Bearing Capacity

Ed

= Ec

D = He = 5.0 ft

~ = ~:~ = 0.83

PL*

= 54300

PL*

then for PL*

= 2.64

= 41770 psf

= 2.55

= 54300

= 2.56

Interpolating with ~ = 0.46

psf

= 1.43

k = 1.95

qsafe = 1.95

3 x 54300 + (115 x 5) = 35870 psf

.,~

qnet

= 35295 psf

Settlement.

E/PL

= 0.33

+ ~d:

= 1.58 and

39

~c

= 1.22

2 35295

6.0 0.33 0.33 35295

s = 9" 689,000 x 2.0 x(1.58 2.0)

+ -9- 689,000 x 1.22 x 6.0

= .038

<

+ .014

= .052 ft

= qsafe

40

~ 35870 psf

EXAMPLE 2e.

.Beari Q9 Capacity

He

= h = 5.0 ft

Ed

= Ec

B_

~ = 1.7

[ - 0.46

From Fig. 5:

k(square)

= 1.21

k(strip)

k (~

Interpolating:

qsafe

= 1.16

3

1.11

= 0.46) = 1.16

x 54300 + (115 x 5)

= 21571

psf

= 20996 psf

qnet

Settlement

= 9E qnet Bo ( Ad -B-)

a.

doe

E/PL

+ a.

s

a.

9E qnet \ B

2 20996

= 9 689,000

= 0.33

Ad

6.0 0.33

41

0.33

20996

-g-- 689,000

x 1.22 x 6.0

s

<

42

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3:

STRIP 'FOOTING ON SAND

Pl (pst)

L = 33 ft.

B= 7 ft.

E(psf)

Yt

10

15

50,100

451,000

39,700

. 343,000

35,500

326,000

33,400

299,000

.

37,400

372,000

.. 52,200

428,000

83,600

585,000

20

25

= 124 pef

5ft.

l--.l

silty

sand

3.5 ft.

.~

61,600

524,000

62,700

520,000

66,800

622,000

7.

83,500

693,000

30

z(ft,}

z (ft.l

43

Bearing Capacity

qL = k pte + qo

where

pt i =

ptl

[~ PL

= (50100

x 39700)1/2

= 44600

pt3 = 37400

pte

= (44600 x

35700 x 37400)1/3

= 38600

n

He = _1_ I: (pt. x z.):: equivalent embedment depth where 1 - n are

pte 1

I

1

layers within the actual depth of embedment

1

Determination of k, (Menard)

From Fig. 6, silty sand

B

7.0 0 21

r = 33.0 =

he

R

From Fig. 3:

k(strip)

= 1.11

k(square)

= 1.58

k(r

qsafe

= 1.~0

soil category 1

= 6.5 =

3.5

1.9

= 0.21) = 1.30

qnet

= 16727 psf

Determination of k, (B.J.S.)

B _

Q

5.0 = 0 71

B = 7.0

.

"[ - 0.21

square footing

for PL*

= 41770;

for PL*

= 20890; k = 2.0

*

then, for PLe

= 2.4

= 38600; k = 2.34

for PL*

= 41770;

for PL*

k = 1.10

Interpolating with ~

qsafe

qnet

= 1353 x 38600

8350;

= 38600;

= 0.21

+ (124 x 5)

= 1.35

= 1.31

= 1.53

= 20306 psf

= 19686 psf

Determination of k, (B.G.)

He

= 6.5 ft

~ = 6.5 = 1 9

R

3.5

.

45

L = 0.21

From Fig. 5:

k(square)

k(strip)

B

k(r

qsafe

1.11

1.0

= 0.21) = 1.02

= 1.02

3 x 38600

+ (124

x 5) = 13744 psf

Settlement

where Ec

= harmonic

Ed

= weighted

Ec

3

1

1

1

Ic - 343,000 + 326,000 + 299,000

Ec

= 321,632

psf

E2

= 299,000

1

+ 372,000

E2

= 331,529

psf

=-~3_=

E3/ 4/ 5

428,000

E /!/5

3

= 503,842

585,006

524,000

psf

46

3

1

1

1

~E6--/~7/--8 = 520,000 + 622,000 + 693,000

= 603,161

E6/ 7/ 8

psf

modulus increases with depth.

4

1

1

1

+ 10.85){331,529) + 503,842 + (2.5){603,161) +

= 321,632

Ed

{2.5){603,161

= 401,250 psf

Ed

Note:

..

relative importance of the depth to the soil layers in question.

_d_

*

P

401,250 '" 10

38600

Le

From Fig. 9

E

_c_

*

P

= 321,632

38600

Le

From Fig. 9

L

ad

= 0.33

'" 8

ac

= 0.33

33

6"=-,-=4.7

From Fig. 10

2

16727

7.0 0.33 0.33 16727

s = 9" = 401,250 (2.0) (2.09 2.0)

+ -9- 321,632 (1.38) (7.0)

s

= .036

+ .018

= .054

ft

47

2 19686

7.0 )0.33

0.33 19686

+ --9-- 321,632 (1.38) (7.0)

2 13124

7.0 0.33 0.33 13124

401,250 (2.0) (2.09 2.0 )

+ --9-- 321,632 (1.38) (7.0)

=9

48

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4:

RECTANGULAR FOOTING ON LAYERED SOIL

PL (pst)

L = 40 ft.

B = 16 ft.

E{psf)

33,500

246 10002:

'7

10

20

30

40

50

Yt = 102 pcf

qo =612 psf

- -6.0ft.

l

26,800

290,000

37,900

446,000

37,900

357,000

37,900

603,000

40,200

893,000

40,200

781,000

31,250

536,000

42,400

781,000

40,200

826,000

46,900

1,562,000

37,900

1,228,000

49,100

1,339,000

51,300

1,562,000

51,300

1,674,000

67,000

1,897,000

8ft. = 8/2

!

2

cloy

and marl

It

z {ftl

.J ! !! *

z (ttl

49

marl

EXAMPLE 4.

Bearing Capacity

where:

* = (PLl

* x PL2

* x P* ) 3"

PLe

L3

*

PU"=

33500 psf

* = (26800 x 37900 x

PL2

37900)~

* = 33415 psf

PL2

* = (37900 x 40200) k2

PL3

* = 39033 psf

PL3

1

j

1 n

He = --:jC

PLe 1

He = 5.77 ft

From Fig. 6

Soil Category II

16

R

8.00

.

[ = 40 = 0.40

From Fig 3

k(square)

= 1.32

k(strip)

1.00

50

qsafe

= 13129

qnet

= 0.40) = 1.13

psf

Settlement

Ec

= harmonic

3 _

1

1

1

~ - 290,000 + 446,000 + 357,000

Ec

= 353,292

psf

E1

= Ec = 353,292 psf

2 _

1

1

~ - 603,000 + 893,000

E2

= 719,892

8

E3/ 4/ 5

psf

_

1

+.1

1

1

1

- 781,000 536,000 + 781,000 + 826,000 + 1,562,000 +

1

1,228,000

E3/4/5

2

~

E6

= 943,539

1

= 1,674,000

= 1,778,537

1,339,000

psf

+

1,562,000

1,897,000

psf

51

6

is available. This assumption is conservative if the modulus continues to increase with depth.

4 _

1 1 1

5),...,.(~1:....,7r=78=-,-=53=7~) +

( 2.5)( 1,778,537)

Ed = 669,523 psf

~

*

PLe

34855

'

ad

= 1.0

*

34855

'

PLe

Ad

= 1.82

and Ac

= 1.25

(

16 )1. O. 0.67 34855

2 34855

659,523 (2.0) 1.82 2.0

+ --9-- 353,292 (1.25)(16)

=9

= .337

+ .147

= .484

ft

Pall

= .484

.082 x

Pall

52

13741

2328 psf

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5:

STRIP FOOTING WITH SOFT LAYER AT DEPTH

P~ (psf)

L = 33 ft.

B 6.5 ft.

E(psf)

Yt

50,100

451,000

39,700

343,000

35,500

326,000

40,200

299,000

10

41,800

372,000

52,200

428,000

15

=124 pef

5 ft.

I~

I

I

sond

3.25 ft.

14.75 ft.

58,500

5850

soft

silt

20

silty

52,400

5640

layer

5

20.75

6

62.700

520,000

66,800

622.000

83,500

693,000

25

30

~

z(ft')

It

z(ft.}

53

EXAMPLE 5.

Bearing Capacity

Estimate=

-+

.!!=~=02

L 33.0

.

-+

Soil Category 2

=

i:~5

1.54

= 1.06

k(5quare)

k(strip)

1.02

Assume that PLe

conservatively false.)

*

PLe

= (5850

x 5640) k2

= 5744 p5f

qnet

= 2592 psf

= 1972 p5f

Settlement

Here:

5T

= 5'

2

+ 511

B

CY.

~ q

nAB

o

54

(This is

,\,,:0

s"

...: j ... : .

= a (- I-I- ) IIp H

Ec

Em

Now

..

consid~r

= .054 ft

2

1

+ 52400

Ec

= 58500

Ec

= 55282 psf

Note:

c

layers in question.

From Boussinesq theory and Newmarkls chart, the vertical stresses at

the upper and lower surfaces of the soft layer have changed by:

z

= 14.75

ft

llcr v

= 0.24

= 20.75 ft

llcr v

= 0.17 qnet

qnet

= 473 psf

ft = 335 psf

(llov) at 20.75

Average IIp

= (473

+ 335)/2

= 404 pst

s" = a (

- I-I- ) IIp H

Ec Em

E

Pt = ~~~~2_ ~

s" = 0.5

(55~82

= 0.5

- 401:250-)(404){20.75 - 14.75)

= 0.018 1

thus, sT = 0.054 1 + 0.018 1 ~

s"

0.0721

55

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6:

MAT FOUNDATION ON A SOFT LAYER

CLOSE TO GROUND SURFACE

B = 160

p~ (pst)

E (pst)

1.5

-----

3.5

-----

1.5 ft.1

5000

45,100

3970

34,200

5.5

---

7.5

- -

3550

3760

tt.

--

loose

silt

Yt

= 124 pet

32,600

---

29,900

9.5 - + - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 . 5 ft.

10

shale

20

z(ftl

z (ftl

56

EXAMPLE 6.

Bearing Capacity

Estimate qsafe

= 31

Since ~e ~ 0

* + qo

k PLe

= 0.8

Assume that the silt layer controls bearing capacity; then let:

qsafe

qnet

*

PLe

= average

*

PLe

= (~ x 0.8 x 4035)

+ (124 x 1.5)

= 1262 psf

= 1076 psf

Settlement

For a wide foundation underlain by a soft layer (i.e. relatively

thin, soft

layer~

= fh a ()

z B~)

F

o

E z)

P()

z dz

= rn ex.I Bi

1

Ei

p.

~z.

1

E

~ ~

9, From Fig. 9

= 0.5

PL

F = safety factor =

k p*

qnet

57

4035

(0.8) 1076

thus, B(F)

Assume that

~pv

3.0

3.0

foundation.

Then:

= 0.124

ft

58

It has been shown in 3.1.1 that when the width of the footing (8) is

.small compared to the depth of the deposit (H), the major part of the

settlement is induced by the deviatoric tensor (very little consolidation

settlement).

with the cases where the width of the foundation (B) is large compared

to the thickness of the compressible layer (H); in this case the major

part of the settlement is due to consolidation (Figure 13).

As a re-

recommended when HIB is large (2 or more); otherwise the pressuremeter

approach must be complemented by conventional consolidation tests.

Numerous comparisons of predicted versus measured settlement have

been made with the pressuremeter approach (1); they are presented in

Figures 14 through 16.

Experimental evidence for the bearing capacity factor k (shallow

foundation) can be found in references 6, 7, 8, and 1.

The experimental

Figure 17 shows the design bearing capacity curves for the B.G. method and the actual data points found through experiment by Menard (1).

In the investigation by Menard, the ultimate bearing capacity was considered to be the pressure at a footing penetration of 1.6 inches.

The design curves shown on Figure 17 are the design curves of Bustamante and Gianeselli (Figure 7).

59

li1

B

60

LO

of

-c:

Q)

~O.

of

Q)

C/)

"0

Q)

of

o 0.25

~sf

"0

Q)

\,.,

a.

O~------~------~--

0.25

0.50

____ ____

~

0.75

1.0

Measured Settlement, em

Legend

o Clay

o Sand

t::. Sil t

* Other

FIGURE 14:

e Embankment

sf Strip Footing

r Raft

f Individual Footing

(Very Small Settlement)

61

IO~----~----~----~----~__~

E 8

u

..rc:

Q)

E

..! 6

fbcl

-..

CD

en

"C

.! 4

.2

"C

Q)

d:

2

4

Measured

10

Settlement, em

o Cloy

[J

Sand,

Silt

Other

e

sf

r

f

Embankment

Strip Footing

Raft

Individual Footing

(Moderate Settlement)

62

.... .."

'

-: .'

..

,'.-.

150

E

o

..

~ 100

E

G)

=

G)

en

-...

"'C

G)

oe

o

."'C

G)

0.

50

100

150

Measured Settlement, em

~gend

o Clay

oSand

t:. Silt

.Other

e Embankment

sf Stri p Footing

r Raft

f Individual Footing

(Large Settlement)

63

200

........;

.....

":':.;

......

;.'.

....

3r-----+-----~-----+----~------~-----

o Silt

Sand

Circular or Square

~_ _-+-_ _ _+-_ _--.-_S_tri P . , . . - - - - f - - - c

CI

CI

CI

CI

2r-----~----~~----;-----~------~------

..

..

CAT. I

o------~--~~--~----~--~--~--~~~--

-HeR

Predicted by the B.G. Method and Measured

by Menard (References 1, 6, 7, 8),

64

REFERENCES

1.

2.

and Foundation Engineeringll, Trans-tech Publication, Rockport, Mass.,

1978.

Briaud, J.-L., liThe Pressuremeter: Application to Pavement Design ll ,

Ph.D. Dissertation Civil Engineering Department, University of Ottawa,

Canada.

3.

Bustamante, M., and Gianeselli, L., Portance Reel1e et Portance Calculee des Pieux Isoles,'Sollicit

Verticalement ll , Revue Francaise

de Geotechnigue, No. 16, August, 1981.

4.

the Pressuremeter Test,1I presented at the Transportation Research

Board Meeting, Washington, January 1983.

5.

Nouvelles", Sols - Soils No.1, 1962.

6.

des Resu1tats des Essais Pressiometriques Sols - Soils No.5. 1963.

ll

,'

des Resultats des Essais Pressiometriques: Resultats Experlmentaux

et Conc1usions", Sols - Soils No.6, 1963.

8.

des Fondations Superficiel1es ll , Sols - Soils No. 10, Septembre, 1964.

9.

Menard, L., IILe Tassement des Fondations et 1es Techniques Pressiometri ques II , Anna 1es ITBTP, Pari s, Supplement No. 288, Decembre, 1971.

10. Menard, L., liThe Menard Pressuremeter: Interpretation .and Application of Pressuremeter Test Results to Foundation Design General

Memorandum, Sols - Soils, No. 26, 1975.

ll

11. Schmertman, J. H., IIStati c Cone to Compute Stati c Settl ement over

Sand," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

Division of ASCE, Vol. 96, 5M3, 1970.

12. Schmertman, J. H., "Improved Strain Influence Factor Diagram,"

Technical Note, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering Division of ASCE, Vol. 104, No. BT8, August 1978.

65

- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byPavan Kishore
- Info Rock subgrade ReactionUploaded byIngeniero Estructural
- NASA Articel - User-Defined Material Model for Thermo-Mechanical Progressive Failure AnalysisUploaded byAmd Mhmd
- Paper Pronto3DUploaded byAdamD
- CalendarUploaded bycezar007
- Elasticity 2Uploaded byLogeswaran Raji
- Stress Verification Manual v4Uploaded byyudhatebe
- Simulation of Strength Difference in Elasto-plasticity for Adhesive MaterialsUploaded byesatec
- SOM NOL_km&arUploaded byMohanraj Kulandasamy
- MOM Assignment IUploaded byAll_reg
- Kennedy Skinner Moore 2004 E-1-01 No Dig 11ppUploaded byCele Adu-wusu
- FEA Tutorials LS8Uploaded byTran Tien Dung
- Lifting Lug calcUploaded bydharwin
- Wheelchair Manual FinalUploaded byMaJo0oDe
- Lecture Plan and Schedule TOEUploaded byRon Jacob
- Gassman 1951Uploaded byKristian Torres
- ELASTICITYUploaded byPaul James Thadhani
- Index 2006 Engineering-123456QWEUploaded byJeeva Sk
- Stress Analysis From Overcoring DataUploaded byHiden Machaca Huancollo
- appmath03Uploaded byMina W. Sayed
- A Numerical Study of the Transverse Modulus of WoodUploaded bynovoovon
- 56 16 CHR BoussinesqUploaded byFábio Souza
- NL_1_13.pdfUploaded byShama
- Part 01 Theory (446 - 457)Uploaded byAshish Yadav
- Influence of Continuous Rainfall On surrounding rock-initial support systemUploaded byCamilo Jaramillo
- Chapter3 Fundamental ConceptsUploaded byaikatanbiswas
- Analysis of the Unstressed Lattice Spacing, d0, For the Determination of the Residual Stress in a Friction Stir Welded Plate of an Age-hardenable Aluminum AlloyUploaded byamlanjgec
- pipe.docxUploaded byBalderas Rosas Wilibaldo
- intro to femUploaded byRavi Malik
- EP06 Young¡¯s modulus.pdfUploaded byKw Chan

- Buckling 03Uploaded bythanzawtun1981
- Reinforced Elastomeric Bearing Table Type BUploaded byAy Ch
- Effective Width of Gusset Plate With Single or Double Bolts in TeUploaded byAjazuddin Mohammed
- NS2015.033Uploaded bypaul505
- 1.5011504Uploaded byAy Ch
- 3211833315Uploaded byAy Ch
- Specifications for Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete, Mortar & GroutUploaded byAy Ch
- Concrete - Complementary Singapore Standard to SS en 206-1 Part 2Uploaded byAy Ch
- IJETT-V48P274Uploaded byAy Ch
- 1492842551_Madhu_Priya_4Uploaded byAy Ch
- H03_2Uploaded byTriple B Reddy
- The Dynamic Principles of Machine Foundations and GroundUploaded byAy Ch
- TG Foundation 316Uploaded byDeepu Pillai
- Dynamic Analysis of Turbo-generator MachineUploaded bytsunami
- 2Uploaded bydongheep811
- Characterization of Dynamic Soil-Pile Interaction by Random VibraUploaded byAy Ch
- TH-051Uploaded byAy Ch
- TH-041Uploaded byAy Ch
- TH-031Uploaded byAy Ch
- TH-021Uploaded byAy Ch
- TH-011Uploaded byAy Ch
- Hydration 011Uploaded byAy Ch
- Two-way Interface Between Thermal Solid Elements and Structural Beam and Shell Elements (GetGo)Uploaded byAy Ch
- Design of Pile Foundations Following Eurocode 7Uploaded by정진교

- reservoir drive mechanisms.pdfUploaded byWassef MB
- 2.3.5 Residential Foundations 0Uploaded byAniculaesi Mircea
- invest-myanmar.pdfUploaded byThe Myanmar Times
- Myths and Legends of ChinaUploaded byAjo Philip
- tle35100906.1Uploaded bydanjohhn
- Stress Measuremeants From Oriented Core in AustraliaUploaded byedsondiazuni
- rip rap for slope protectionUploaded byC_C_8717
- ABH 1600Uploaded byLilibeThCuzcaNo
- a-z gemstones.pdfUploaded bydnskhiem
- The Geology of Media - The Atlantic.pdfUploaded byMargotPavan
- 54196bb80cf203f155ade87f.pdfUploaded byGökay Yıldız
- Open Ditches DesignUploaded byEdgardo Rabina
- 44Uploaded byBob Andrews
- Datums and Projections NOS GIS 2Uploaded byralph_p12851
- 179767883 Yacimiento Tipo SkarnUploaded bywilfredo villalta castro
- 55444_08- Source Rock EvaluationUploaded byJose Prima Boang Manalu
- Structure and Composition of the EarthUploaded bygengkapak
- Astronomy Tests!Uploaded bylp_blackout
- The Real Price of GoldUploaded byMadhan Er
- 1-s2.0-S1877705813007698-mainUploaded byAnonymous D5s00DdU
- European Seismic Hazard MapUploaded by23r309ty34g
- Ground Improvement 166-3 - Ground Improvement Efficiency and Back-Analysis of SettlementsUploaded byAdrian Iorgulescu
- Seismic InterferometryUploaded byEdward Lingchen Zhu
- Characterization History MatchingUploaded byMohammad Iqbal Mahamad Amir
- Life and Death in a Late Cretaceous Dune Field, Nemegt Basin, MongoliaUploaded bynoaraptor
- Cvng 2009 (Soils II) 2013Uploaded byJeromeHeadley
- Screening Soil Quality Indicators for Rice Based Cropping SystemUploaded byNIRMALENDU BASAK
- Advanced Downhole Fluid AnalysisUploaded byLok Bahadur Rana
- Use of Site Won Chalk for EarthworksUploaded byhugojameswood
- bbm%3A978-3-8274-2724-3%2F1Uploaded byArturo Osorio