Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bowles Capcar

    Uploaded by

    tomashdz
    4 views10 pages
    Documento referencia para el cálculo de la capacidad de carga de cimentaciones superficiales

    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
    Documento referencia para el cálculo de la capacidad de carga de cimentaciones superficiales

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views10 pages

    Bowles Capcar

    Uploaded by

    tomashdz
    Documento referencia para el cálculo de la capacidad de carga de cimentaciones superficiales

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    IEAKING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS 215 (©) Moke’ circle for (a) and fora $< sil. of the problem, and then in the next section look at several of the more popular bearing- capacity methods. For Fig. 4-1a and a 6 = 0 soil we may obtain an approximate lower-bound solution for a nit width strip ofa footing B X L(+ =) asin the following ‘When the foundation pushes into the ground, stress block I tothe left of vertical line OY has principal sresses as shown. The push into the ground, however, displaces the soil onthe right side of the line OY laterally, resulting in the major principal stress on block 2 being, horizontal as shown. ‘These block stresses can be shown on the Moht’s circles of Fig. 4-Le. ‘When the two blocks are adjacent to each other atthe vertical line OY, it is evident that (4) = 03 but with a principal stress rotation of 90° between blocks. From Chap. 2 “ ora (45+ 3) > (254) 182-9 on Seg ons 44 002 Ftay z cunt. gan cram ag wetsene ee 216 220 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ‘The Terzaghi Bearing-Capacity Equation ‘One of the early sets of bearing-capacity equations was proposed by Terzaghi (1943) shown in Table 4-1. These equations are similar to Eq. (&) derived in the previous. but Terzaghi used shape factors noted when the limitations of the equation were di ‘Terzaghi’s equations were produced from a slightly modified bearing-capacity theory TABLE 44 Bearing-capacity equations by the several authors indicated ‘Tezaghi (1943). See Gin = Nese +N, + OSYBN yy Ny = a ead For. strip ound square n= 13 E etd 06 08 “Meyethof(1963).* Soe Table 6-3 for shape, depth, and inclination factors. Vertical oad: gay ™ EN.Sde + ONehady + OSYB'N yy Inclined toad: guy = eNaduic + BNedyi + O.5yB’Nydy jy n= entaeis 8) arated Ny = (Ny = Dtan f Hansen (1970) See Table 45 for shape, dep, and other factors Genera gun = Nesdletcbe + ANeheaty * OSYBNyS daly yb when. ono we Gan = SMM 45, 4d BD 1, = same as Meyerbo above 1N, = same as Meyethof above Ny = LSM, — tan Vesig (1973, 1975).* Soe Table 4-5 for shape, depth, and other factors. Use Hansen's equations above 1g = sume as Meyerhof above LN. = same as Meyerhof above Ny = 20+ Dang “these methods requ ial proces waa desig bse dimensions sac wih # and leah are nodes comput Ste, dept an fn ito 180 Se 6 when <1 BEARING CAPACETY OF FOUNDATIONS 221 n= 6 o Figure 4-3 (a) Shallow foundation with rough base defined. Terzaghi and Hansen equations of Table 4-1 Shear along ed: (®) general footings interaction for bearing-eapacity equations fr strip footing—eft ‘erzagh (1943), Hansen (1970), and igh side Meyesbof (1951). ‘oped by Prandtl (ca. 1920) from using the theory of plasticity to analyze the punching of 4 rigid base into a softer (soil) material. Similar to Eq. (4), the basic equation was for the ‘ase in which a unit width from a long strip produced a plane strain case, all shape factors 4; = 1.00, but the N; factors were computed differently. Terzaghi used a= ¢ in Figs. 4-2 and 4-3 whereas most other theories use the a = 45 + 4/2 shown. We see in Table 4-1 that TTerzaghi only used shape factors with the cohesion (s.) and base (5,) terms. The Terzaghi bearing-capacity equation is developed, as was Eq. (&), by summing vertical forces on the wedge bac of Fig. 4-3. The difference in N factors results from the assumption of the log Spiral arcad and exit wedge cde of Fig 4-3. This makes a very substantial difference in how , is computed, which in turn gives the different N; values. The shear slip Tines shown on Fig. 4-3 qualitatively illustrate stress trajectories in the plastic zone beneath the footing as the ultimate bearing pressure is developed. “Terzaghi’s bearing-capacity equations were intended for “shallow” foundations where D=B 222 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESTON TABLE 42 TABLE 43 Bearing-capacity factors for the Shape, depth, and inclination factors for ‘Terzaghi equations the Meyerho bearing-capacity equations Values of Ny for # of 0, 34, and 8° are original of Table 4-1 “Terma values and sed ack-compute Kpy ——rrrr———rvrv Frcs Value dee Ne mA * 5 ae Shape a= 1+02K,2 Same cis reel ene 40. ode limarenibar: 147 "1 (Lips galletas 186 eset an eens a 250 Soe) Bs ste SOs ates es Ono 302s 7 a 6 38S 35 S78 Ata 820 4957813 M10 4 131733 2980 Inclination 4825832879 Rv so 475 4ISA S000 oe 15 > 1 [See Tezaph (194, p 127) ‘ i Where ky = mS asin Fig 42 (= sng of sultant R mead rom vr m SNe ie = Oallg = LO. BID = previously defined so that the shear resistance along cd of Fig. 4-3a could be neglected. Table 4-1 lists ‘Terzaghi equation and the method for computing the several N, factors and the two factors sj. Table 4-2 is a short table of N factors produced from a computer program edited for illustration and for rapid use by the reader. Terzaghi never explained very how he obtained the Kj» used to compute the bearing-capacity factor N,. He did, hos give a small-scale curve of ¢ versus Ny and three specific values of Ny at d = 0, 34, 48° as shown on Table 4-2. The author took additional points from this curve and us computer to back-compute Ky to obtain a table of best-fit values from which the ta values of Ny shown in Table 4-2 could be computed from the equation for N shown in 4-1. Inspection of Table 4-4 indicates that the Meyethof Nya Values are fairly close for angles of ¢ > 40°. Other approximations for N, include the following: 2N, + Dtand Vesi¢ (1973) -1(Nq = 1)tan 3 Spangler and Handy (1982) ‘The Ny value has the widest suggested range of values of any of the bearing-capacity factors. A literature search reveals 38=Ny= 192 ford = 40° In this textbook values from Tables 4-2 and 4-4 give a range from about 79 to 109. Recently Kumbhojkar (1993) presented a series of values of Ny with the claim they better representations of the Terzaghi values than those of Table 4-2. An inspection of BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS 223 Ny values shows the following: “Terzaghi’ Bolton and Lau Kumbhojkar Table 42 as) (1993) (1993) (this text) ed 25 2 36 4780 638 6507 780.1 "See Terragh (1943). Fig. 38 and page 128. Fortunately the Ny term does not make a significant contribution to the computed bearing ‘capacity, so any of the values from Tables 4-2 or 4-4 can be used (or perhaps an average). Bolton and Lau (1993) produced new Ny and N; values for strip and circular footings for both smooth and rough ground interfacings. Their N, values for either smooth or rough. sirips are litte different from the Hansen values for rough strips. The N, values for circular footings range to more than two times the strip values. The Ny values for rough footings compare well with the Vesié values in Table 4-4. Since the Table 4-4 values have shape 5; ‘and depth d; factors to be applied, it appears that these “new” values offer little advantage ‘and are certainly more difficult to compute (see comparison with Terzaghi values in preceding table). 's Bearing-Capacity Equation “Meyerhof (1951, 1963) proposed a bearing-capacity equation similar to that of Terzaghi ‘but included a shape factor s, with the depth term N,. He also included depth factors dj and TABLE 44 Bearing-capacity factors for the Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesié bearing- capacity equations [Note that N and N, are the same forall three methods; subscripts identify author for Ny ew Ny Nv Nran Nv Nelo 2eanebtt — sind? 10 0000 0.195) 0.000) Live tles cs 0242 0.146 25 04 0296 0241 Fool oMmeyy 0339 0294 GAP Bg? tag 0431 Osis 107688 osi4 o3it UR ged Sista 0533 0.308 4 109 0570 0.299 tea S187 0610 0289 32 2s 20 0683 0276 294 8 Sagging, 0.698 0.262 7 00 aaa 0746, 0287 48956168 0797 0231 1 DA 938 0852 0214 1347 2005 2623 L007 oan 31RS 56748717 Lis O13 Destin when 6+ ‘Slay iterences i above able can be obtained using rogram BEARING EXE on disks depending oncom pcr enc and whether or not has Routing oi, 224 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN inclination factors i, (both noted in discussion of Eq. ()] for cases where the footing load inclined from the vertical. These additions produce equations of the general form shown, ‘Table 4-1, with select N factors computed in Table 4-4. Program BEARING is provided disk for other Ni values. Meyerhof obtained his V factors by making trials of the zone abl’ with arc ad’ of 4-3b, which include an approximation for shear along line cd of Fig. 4-3a. The shay and inclination factors in Table 4-3 are from Meyerhof (1963) and are somewhat di from his 1951 values. The shape factors do not greatly differ from those given by Te except for the addition of sy- Observing that the shear effect along line ed of Fig. 4-3a still being somewhat ignored, Meyerhof proposed depth factors dj. He also proposed using the inclination factors of Table 4-3 to reduce the bearing capaci ‘when the load resultant was inclined from the vertical by the angle 8. When the i, factoris used, it should be self-evident that it does not apply when ¢ = 0°, since a base slip ‘occur with this term—even if there is base cohesion for the term. Also, the i; factors all 1.0 ifthe angle @ = 0. Up to a depth of D ~ B in Fig. 4-3a, the Meyerhof qui is not greatly different from ‘Terzaghi value, The difference becomes more pronounced at larger D/B ratios. Hansen’s Bearing-Capacity Method Hansen (1970) proposed the general bearing-capacity case and NV factor equations in Table 4-1. This equation is readily seen to be a further extension of the earlier hof (1951) work. Hansen's shape, depth, and other factors making up the general capacity equation are given in Table 4-5. These represent revisions and extensions from lier proposals in 1957 and 1961. The extensions include base factors for situations in the footing is tilted from the horizontal b; and for the possibilty of a slope i of the supporting the footing to give ground factors g,. Table 4-4 gives selected N values for Hansen equations together with computation aids for the more dificult shape and depth tor terms. Use program BEARING for intermediate N; factors, because interpolatio recommended, especially for = 35°. ‘Any ofthe equations given in Table 4 not subscripted with a V may be used as (limitations and restrictions are noted in the table). The equations shown in this table inclination factors i; will be considered in additional detail in Sec. 4-6. ‘Note that when the base is tilted, V and H are perpendicular and parallel, respectively the base, compared with when itis horizontal as shown in the sketch with Table 4-5. For a footing on a slope both the Hansen and Vesié g; factors can be used to reduce ( increase, depending on the direction of H) the bearing capacity using N factors as given ‘Table 4-4. Section 4-9 considers an alternative method for obtaining the bearing capacity footings on a slope. "The Hansen equation implicitly allows any D/B and thus can be used for both (Footings) and deep (piles, drilled caissons) bases. Inspection of the GN, term suggests great increase in que with great depth. To place modest limits on this, Hansen used D = 14042 a: B Blt t= 12nd ~snd?2 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS 225 aD 14 04tant 1+ 2tang( ~ sing)? tan de >1 ald D B. 4 ‘These expressions give a discontinuity at D/B = 1; however, note the use of = and >. For 6 = 0 (giving d) we have eR gate iae es siya hoo 0 040 042 O44 055 059 061 0462 Showa computes 039 ‘We can see that use of tan~! D/B for D/B > | controls the increase in d. and dy that are in Jine with observations that gay appears to approach a limiting value at some depth ratio D/B, where this value of D is often termed the critical depth. This limitation on quy will be further ‘considered in Chap. 16 on piles. Bearing-Capacity Equations ‘The Vesié (1973, 1975) procedure is essentially the same as the method of Hansen (1961) with select changes. The NV and Ng terms are those of Hansen but Nis slightly different (see Table 4-4), There are also differences in the i, bj, and g, terms as in Table 4-5. The ‘esié equation is somewhat easier to use than Hansen's because Hansen uses the i terms in computing shape factors s, whereas Vesié does not (refer to Examples 4-6 and 4-7 following). Equations to Use There are few full-scale footing tests reported in the literature (where one usually goes 10 find substantiating data). The reason is that, as previously noted, they are very expensive to do and the cost is difficult to justify except as pure research (using a government grant) ‘or fora precise determination for an important project—usually on the basis of settlement ‘control, Few clients are willing to underwrite the costs of a full-scale footing load test when the bearing capacity can be obtained—often using empirical SPT or CPT data directly—to a sufficient precision for most projects. Table 4-6 is a summary of eight load tests where the footings are somewhat larger than ‘models and the soil data are determined as accurately as possible. The soil parameters and ‘ai (in kg/cm?) are from Milovié (1965). The several methods used in this text {and the Balla (1961) method used in the frst edition, which is a subroutine in supplemental computer pro- gram B-31 noted on your diskette] have been recomputed using plane strain adjustments ‘where L/B > 1. Comparing the computed qt 10 the measured values indicates none of the several theories/methods has a significant advantage over any other in terms of a best predic~ tion. The use of dp instead of dy when L/B > | did improve the computed qyx forall except the Balla method. ‘Since the soil wedge beneath round and square bases is much closer toa triaxial than plane strain state, the adjustment of dy to dps is recommended only when L/B > 2. ‘pox Bogs ws mgs 0 fe 2 = A spe pate Gu ‘a yom ga “vonage 29x a1 90,00 aT BD Eom = 1 4pm oe por 4.961) wang ny 200 ana 9 < 857 w now PP QUAD EEE 0.< 1H Ip 0 1. NDS IO *L 00 m8 ae 7m Ses emrive4 somso-0 [eeeee Sra al Saar wozeammbo 104 2¢-p ayes, 29S “suontenbs (9z61) wosuEH, aif 404 S1O}>RY 95eq PUL ‘puNoss “uopeUTPU Jo a14RT, 45 VE rsa Se (#4290 = HR ow) ai? noge pouyen ous pounc+t~"P sao ide ‘wasuey] 40) Ajuo g = p uay) suopenba Aypedeo-Burs09q a ‘UasUEY ayy ONL UI asn 40} S40}>") INdap pure adeys, 2 STAN Cmxaseias (291 01970) vorsgpe amy ="2 (ea any) ta =/¥ 5.9505) wos pum 250g “suLIa) JO UuoReayHUaP! 40) Y>}>YS OF J9J94 PUE AKO[2q sa}0U 29g, ssuopenbs

    You might also like