‘Shallow Foundation | 109. ‘The value of Nig is found from equations (4.26) and (4.27) by iteration with different values of m. A value of P,. is obtained considering the equilibrium of mass j/e with only cohesion forces. Value of Prog is given by Eq. 4.28; Prep = 26 (Bp) Ha (4.28) pe ‘Taking the moments about the centre of the log spiral gives 2e \Kpe sin’ay cos 6 ere oem sin 6 % 1, [exp 2(n — ch ~ 0.) tan 4] {exp [2(% — a ~ 04) tan 4] ~ 1} (4.29) The value of passive earth pressure Prag is obtained by way of an iterative procedure used by Prakash and Saran (1971). The partial resistance provided by soil mass on the left side of the footing (not shown in Fig. 4.12) is found by assumption of a strength mobilization factor m such that On = tan (mm tam @); Gq = me (4.30) Thus, sin? a's 608 (by) mere 4 ~ ) t y 431 C.) fexp [2(n — a’, ~ ors) tan (¢,)) (4.31) B sin * To Sin (i + Om) K'jg and K’pg are obtained replacing by @,, and D by D’ (= mei(yz)) in Eq. 4.16. of, and o’p are then obtained using Eqs. 4.20 and 4.21 by putting g, in place of @ and Kye and K’pg in places of Ky and Kps. Finally 0, 0’, a’, and a’, are obtained using Eqs. 4.23 @) to () by putting g,, in place of @ and a’, and ap in places of ot, and ctp * r, [exp 2(n — a’, ~ as) tan (,,)) Case 2: Noe factor (i.e., ¢ = Refer Fig. 413b Proge = Kr Ha (4.32) ‘Taking the moment of the forces due to surcharge only acting on wedge bedj about b, the resultant passive force is (= Ayare ” cos @ =0) % exp [2% ~ a ~ a3) tan 6] x (c0s"0 + Kpp sin?) 4.33)110 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Equilibration of the forces in the vertical and horizontal directions (Fig. 4.13a) gives for vertical forces Ppq 605 (Oty ~ ) + Prag C08 (Ct ~ On) Ne ae (434) and for horizontal forces yg Sit. (Cty ~ 9) ~ Pg Sit (Cty — no - |‘ 4) = Png Sin (Oo = On) 435 eA, a8 ‘The mobilized passive earth pressure P,. is obtained by substituting ar’, a's in place of a, 4, in Eq, 4.33. Further in the equation r,, @ and Ks will be replaced by r',, ,, and K’pg. The solution for Ng is found from Eqs. 4.34 and 4.35 by iteration using various values of m. Case 3: Nye factor (i.e., ¢ = q = 0) In deriving the expression of N.¢ and Ng, it was assumed that passive earth pressures P,.g and Ppgp at H/2 and Py: and Pye at bc/2. In this case the increment of the Rankine passive force AP, due to the Seismic loading acting at H,/2 (Fig. 4.13) is AP aye = Pris — Pave (4,36) where, 1 Pre = WE a Kye 4.37) 1 Q Pps EP Ky = 3 tg tan? (5 +4) 4.38) If the moment of all the forces on the wedge bjfe about O is taken Pry + Ay + AGO + Hef3) = = AW Ly + (1 = AWals ~ APpyp (+ Hal2) + Pry (9 * 24/3) (4.39) where, Tarp 2 ie }y G09 w= (bax H,) 1 (4.400) 1, and L, are the vertical and the horizontal distances respectively between points O and G and Z, is the horizontal distance between points O and S. L, is the perpendicular distance of Py from O. y is the perpendicular distance of j from 0. If the forces are summed vertically, and from qyeB = 1/2 YB*Nye AP py COS (chy — 0) + Py €08 (Oy ~ %,)1 H, Ne a -a-4 FZ (4.41) where, H, Similar Ny The va iteration, points alo Budhu » Compu 25%, 30°, Table 4.52Shallow Foundation | 111 2) gives for Bing, sin oy where, Hy = Besin y= FG ayy elAAD) (434) Similarly, if the forces are summed horizontally x 2LPyy Sin (0) ~ 0) — Py Si (Oy ~ Ol HL, aay ‘em A, 3 (443) ++G35) The value of Py is obtained in the same way a5 Pye and Pyy- The factor Nys is found by iteration, with different values of m and evaluation of Nye having centre of log-spiral at different Place of a, points along the line Bf or its extension (Fig. 4.134) until the minimum value is obtained. eae ie Budhu and Al-Karni (1993) suggested that value of mobilization factor m may be taken as 7 ‘a0 Neat (844) sssures Prog Computations of seismic bearing capacity factors N.s, Nyp and Nye were done for the @ = 20°, foes 25°, 30°, 35° and 40° for 4, varying from 0,00 to 0.40. Their values are given as below: Table 4.5a_ Seismic bearing capacity factor Ne (Budhu and ALKami, 1993) (4.36) 137) 438) + 2H,/3) 139) 40a) (4406) ats O and G dis 3e of _ al)112 | Foundations and Retaining Structures acity factor Nyc (Budhu and AlKami, 1993) Table 4.8¢ Seismic bearin Al-Karni (1993) also mentioned that the values of seismic bearing capacity factors may be taken approximately as given below: (4.45a) 4.456) (4.450) (4.463) a-Ajer (4.46b) ey= (1-28 Ader 1.460) B,= 43 Al +? 447A) (AAT) BATE) ‘The generalized seismic bearing capacity equation may be written as (Al-Karni, 1993): Gus = Ness.dee, + GNysS,fbye, + U2 YBN gsydye, where, @ Nis, Nas and Nys are static bearing capacity factors and may be obtained as below (Vesic, 1993): 48) Ngs= oF" tania + $/2) 4.490) Nos= Ws 1) cot § (4.496) Ngs= 2(N,s + 1) tan @ elA9C) GS, 8, Gi) 4,, 4, (iv) 605 4.25 R wale capacity + considere the last unsymme and of is angle of i factor les0.009 ors may be (45a) (4.456) ASC) (4.46) (4.466) AAG) 44a) (AAT) (4.470) » 1993): 4.48) low (Vesic, cone ABa) 4496) -(4ABC) Shallow Foundation | 113 Gi) 5,, 5, and S, are shape factors (Vesic, 1993): ss Sy B S,=1+F tang 4.50) N, =14—828 Sale T --(4.506) B 1-047 - 4.500) (iii) d,, d, and d, are depth factors (Vesic, 1993): d,=1+2 tan > (1 - sin $y K A451) d.=1+04K (4.51b) d= 1 for all ; Dy Dy =F est DD, Ke tnt (2) forget (4.520) Gv) eg @, and ey ae seismic factors given in Eq. 446. 4.2.5 Rangwala, Saran and Mukerjee (2011) Method Rangwala, Saran and Mukerjee (2011) developed an analysis for getting the seismic bearing capacity considering the rupture surface as shown in Fig. 4.14, One sided rupture surface is, considered in the direction of horizontal seismic force. Zones ABE and BDF ate respectively the elastic and passive zones. These are bounded with radial shear zone BED. Zone ABE is ‘unsymmetrical triangle zone defined by wedge angles ct, and cy. Procedure of obtaining 0 and of is discussed later. On the other side the soil is considered partially mobilized having angle of internal friction @,, = tan”! (m tan 9), and cohesion c,, = mc where m is mobilization factor less than unity. Fig. 4.14 Rupture surface assumed for analysis, ‘The analysis has been done considering three different cases separately, assuming that the principle of superposition holds good, (j) considering the weight of the soil only, (ii) considering only surcharge and (ii) considering cohesive forces only.114 | Foundations and Retaining Structures (i) Geometry of Failure Surface The various sides of the failure surface are expressed in terms of footing width B, angle of internal friction @, and wedge angles 0., and 0, by considering the sine rules for triangle ABE and properties of log spiral. From the geometry of the triangle ABE, BE___AE ___AB Sin 0, ~ sin a ~ sin (a * a) G50) BE = Initial radius of the log spiral for failure surface sin “BX Gate) (4.536) Initial radius of the log spiral for mobilized surface px i *Bx Saray (4.530) BD=r, e% where, 3, =F 24.534) AGH r, 80% where, y= E on (4.53e) _ a) _ no ) >= m0 on(8+8} 10 a0 om a BH = HF = BD sin (f + 4, Ad = (4.538), (ii) Bearing Capacity Expression The bearing capacity expression is then developed by considering the equilibrium of elastic wedge ABE. The forces acting on the wedge include earth pressures P, and P,, on sides BE and AE respectively, and force acting due to seismic accelerations in horizontal and vertical direction (Fig. 4.150). Neglecting the weight of soil and cohesion for wedge ABE, footing equilibrium gives, Ql ~ A) = Pog 008 (0; ~ 9) + Py C08 (02 ~ Op) + Csin a, + C,, sin oy 4.54) where, Pye = Pye + Pegg + Plog a0d Ppp = Ping + Pegg + Pres (4.55) Force Pye represents the passive resistance due to the weight of soil mass EDFB. The force Phy consists of forces Bis and Px ie. the passive force due to weight in static case and the dynamic decrement in passive pressure due to seismic loading, The point of application of Pig is located at 1/3 « BE from point E, while that of Pra, is located at 0.5:BE from point E. Therefore, the point of application of Pye is located at x,BE from £, x,can be obtained by Eq. 4.56). Bog * UB — Prag * U2 pr (4.56) Bays — Pras YY» angle of ingle ABE (4.538) (4.536) (4.530) (4.534) 4 530) oa 3) (4.532) of elastic «sides BE ad vertical , footing G54) 1455) The force case and lication of ap E. stained by 56) ‘Shallow Foundation | 115. (@) Passe tianguar wedge atzA {) Cental taste one Fig. 4.15 (a) Passive triangular wedge; (b) Log-spiral transition zone; (c) Central elastic zone. Force Pye represents the passive resistance due to surcharge acting on BF. The force Prop compound of forces Pig and Pap ie., the passive force due to weight in static case and dynamic decrement'in the passive pressure due to seismic loading. The point of application of Pig is located at 0.5:BE from point E, while that of Pi4s is located at BE from point E, Therefore, the point of application of P%,_ is located at x,BE from E, can be obtained by Eq. 457). Plas % MD — Py ¥ 23 (4.51)116 | Foundations and Retaining Structures The passive resistance due to cohesion, both for static and seismic forces, act at 0.5:BE, hence the analysis is done combining both for static and seismic cases. The force Pye is the passive resistance offered by the weight of mobilised part of surface and its point of application is located at xpyBE from E; xq, can be obtained by Eq, 4.56 replacing the forces Ps and Pry by Bis and Piyyp and distance BE by AE. The force Pigg, is the passive resistance offered by th surcharge lod acting on the mobilised part of surface and its point of application is located at xp BE from E; xp, can be obtained by Eq. 4.57 replacing the forces Pras and Pay by Pras and Pagan and distance BE by AE. The force Pr, is the passive resstanoe due t cohesion in the mised part of the surface and is point of application is located at 0.5:BE from E. Thus the value of the bearing capacity may be calculated using Eq. 4.54, Qy 1 A) = Ere + Page + Free) €08 (04 - ©) + (Pine + Page + Pcs) £08 (0 — Om) (4.58) By introducing non-dimensional quantities, 27 & Prt Mem Tay [ge oO) * EE eos Oy | (4.598) , ie (= PE cos (ch, - q) + al cos (04, — eo} (4.596) Fo Poa Fe cos (4, - + G Be cos (04 ~ gn) +S sin ay + S sin ay 2.590) ‘The expression (4.58) may be written as, Q, = B Neg + Nyx + 0.SBYN yg) 4.60) where, Nip Nye and Ng are termed seismic bearing capacity factors. These quantities are dimensionless and depend on @, 4, and A,. 4.2.6 Computation of Earth Pressures (i) Components Piye, Poqe, and Pee Passive earth pressures Pre, Pye, and Pg are determined by considering the equilibrium of the soil masses BEDH and HDF. The forces, considered in determination of passive earth pressure, are enumerated in the following and shown in Fig. 4.15a and Fig. 4.15b. 1. W, Weight of the soil mass HFD acts vertically downward at the centre of gravity of soil mass BEDH. 2. Wy-Ay Vertical inertial force due to the weight of the soil mass HFD considered acting upward at the centre of gravity of soil mass HED.tat O.S-BE, surface and 6 replacing Prep, is the face and its placing the the passive pplication is Gn) 4.58) (4.59) 44.59) ine} (4.590), (4.60) antities are equilibrium assive earth £ gravity of ered acting Shallow Foundation | 117 Wy-Ay, Horizontal inertial force due to the weight of the soil mass HFD considered acting, left to right, at the distance “HD from D. . Wz, Weight of the soil mass BHD acts vertically downward at the centre of gravity of soil mass BHD. 5. Wy-Ay, Vertical inertial force due to the weight of the soil mass BHD considered acting upward at the centre of gravity of soil mass BHD. W,,Ay, Horizontal inertial force due to the weight of the soil mass BHD considered acting, left to right, at the distance %HD from D. Ws, Weight of the soil mass BED acts vertically downward at the centre of gravity of soil mass BED. . WarA,, Vertical inertial force due to the weight of the soil mass BED considered acting upward at the centre of gravity of soil mass BED. 1. Ws.Ay, Horizontal inertial force due to the weight of the soil mass BED considered acting left to right. ). Surcharge intensity acting on BH. The intensity of surcharge q = yDy where 'y is the density of soil and D, the depth of footing, acts uniformly distributed over BH. 4.BH( - A,) and q.BH.A, Inertial forces due to uniformly distributed surcharge acting over BH. Cohesive force C, acting along are DE and line DF. . Passive earth pressure Ppyg due to weight of soil FHD (Fig. 4.15b) acts horizontally at height x,HD from the point D. |. Passive earth pressure Pygs due to surcharge on HF (Fig. 4.15b) acts horizontally at @ height x,HD from the point D. 5. Passive earth pressure yep due to cohesion on DF (Fig. 4.15b) acts horizontally at a height 0.54HD from the point D. 5. Passive earth pressure Pf, acting on face BE (Fig. 4.15b) acts, at x_,BE from E, at an angle @ anticlockwise with normal at that point. Passive earth pressures Pi, acting on face BE (Fig. 4.15b) acts, at x,,'BE from E, at an angle g anticlockwise with normal at that point. . Passive earth pressure PB’, acting on face BE (Fig. 4.15b) acts, at 0.S:BE from E, at an angle @ anticlockwise with normal at that point. ). Resultant R of normal and frictional forces on the wedge HDF (Fig. 4.15c) acting, at the point of of line DF, at an angle @ with the normal at the point of application. ). Resultant R’ of normal and frictional forces on the wedge BEDH (Fig. 4.15b), passes through the centre of the log-spiral, since it makes an angle @ with the normal at the point of application.118 | Foundations and Retaining Structures ‘The passive earth pressures, Pye, Biz, and Play, are determined by taking the moments of all the forces about the centre of the log-spiral (ic., at the edge of footing). The moment of the force R’ gets eliminated, since it passes through the centre of the log spiral. ‘The analysis has been carried out in three separa = 0, (ii) Due to surcharge only ie, c= y=0 and Case-wise analysis is give in subsequent subsections. =0) Case 1: Due to weight only (q = Determination of Ps From the equilibrium condition of wedge HDF, as shown in Fig. 4.16) EH = 0 = R 00s (Ri ~ 9/2) = Py, EV = 0 => R sin (w/4 ~ 6/2) = Pps = Wi 00t (Ri4 ~ $2) W,= 05 yr & cos (n/4 + /2) sin (n/4 + $/2) = 0.25 yr? 2 ™° sin (w/2 + 6) Determination of Pyyda From the equilibrium condition of wedge HDF, as shown in Fig. 4.16 (b) EH = 0 = RY 005 (Rid ~ G12) = Pope + Wy * Ay ~ Pont EV = 0 = R’ sin (m4 ~ 9/2)= 7 (1-4) Pyyaa= Wy (Ay cot (rid — 4/2) + Ay) Determination of Ps cases: (i) Due to weight only ic. i) Due to cohesion only ie, y= q = 0. 4.61) (4.62) ‘The moment of forces on wedge BEDH about point B, as shown in Fig. 4.16 (), are listed in Table 4.6, for static loads. EM= 0 My, The force Pfs works out t0 be, = Rs _ 1 (Moye e sara lB) e+ where; I= sin off; = cos of f- Putting a=3-tan6, 3 tan 1 nolo sin 0 a= [e* @ sin 8, ~ cos 8) + 1] 5 = [2° cos 0 dO = {gi Le (a 008 8 + sin 8) ~ a] 3 i+ and T= F5 cos & sin (m/4 + O/2) (4.63) =(:64a) 4.640) (4.644)moments of moment of at only ie, (461) 2) 4.62) are listed in (4.63) 648) (4.640) 640) (4.644) Shallow Foundation | 119. (6) Log- spiral transiton zone; ‘talc case (c) Central elastic wedge, static case (0 Central elastic wedge, seismic case Fig. 4.16 Forces acting on different zones of failure surface, for weight only case, in static and seismic loading conditions120 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Determination of Pras ‘The moment of forces on wedge BEDH about point B, as shown in Figure 4.17 (@), are listed in Table 47, for seismic loads. IM=0=9M, = M, Fa Table 4.7. The moments of forces acting on wedge BEDH in seismic case, due to weight only Sst vies, Gas (4,+4yne (E-2) y= AL + Ayl’ = Uy (A, sin 0% + A, cos 01) cons (24+ 4s un Fae iy, ~ Miy,, + Moy, ~My, * Mp, + Mey — My, chub The force Pras Works out to be, (5 0c, +86,+26) “BR 6 cos @ = fy (A, 008 ~ Ay sin 0) a3) and J, fy and J are as given in Eqs. 4.64(b), (©) and (A) respectively. Determination of Pry and its point of application The force Pyye can be determined by subtracting Pry, from Pry, ie Fine Fos ~ Fra 4.65) (4.668) (4.67) The location of point of application force Pf. is x, BE from E, x, obtained by Bq. 4.56 and works out as, 1 [20 + J) - QC, + 8G, + 3G) 30 + J) — GC, + BC, +30) (4.68) Case2: D Determinatio From the « and Determinatio; From the equ4), are listed (4.65) (4.660) 44)] 4.666) (4.660) ~ 67) Eq. 4.56 and (4.68) Shallow Foundation | 121 Case 2: Due to surcharge only (y= Determination of Pys From the equilibrium condition of wedge HDF, as shown in Fig. 4.17 (a) BH= 0 Rsin(E +9) = Pus 9 and EV=0= Roos (4+) = qHF pg = arb sin (E +2) an (E+ 2) Determination of Pyyaa From the equilibrium condition of wedge HDF, as shown in Fig. 4.17 (b) EH = 0-9 Rsin(¥ +9) = Pyyyy —Pygs + HRA EV=0=9 Roos (+2) = qHR, Paar, 9 in (+8) [tan Determination of Pas ‘The moment of forces on wedge BEDH about point B, as shown in Fig. 4.17 (©), are listed in Table 4.8, for static loads. EM=0=3 My = Mogg + My The force Pfs works out to be, Pas _ jr) 1+ sing 5-3) Ge one (G0) Table 4,8 Moments of forces acting on wedge BEDH in static case, due to surcharge only (4.69) Determination of Praia ‘The moment of forces on wedge BEDH about point 8, as shown in Fig. 4.17 (4), are listed in Table 4.9 below, for seismic loads. EM= 0 My = My + My + My ~My122 | Foundations and Retaning Structures The fore Table 4.9 (b) Tiangular passive zone; ‘static case seismic case A, Determinat. (6) Lop-spla anion zone; The ve tai case atta) bf The loca Bq. 457 an é Prat ae Case 3: 1 Determinan a From the e Log-siatansllon zone; n Ove Semicese Fig. 418 @) osee ™ Deter “nati (6) Cenval elaste wedge, (9 Contra laste wedge: The nomen static wedge elec cate Barta Fig. 4.17 Forces acting on different zones of failure surface, for surcharge only case, in static and seismic loading conditionsin static and Shallow Foundation | 123 The force Pragg works out to be, Pe Ped _ 1 (Fo) 25,09 Be a) Table 4.9 Moments of forces acting on wedge BEDH in seismic case, due to surcharge only 8) (5A, +24, tan (wid — 9/2) 471) Determination of Pye The force Pfye can be determined by subtracting Pay, ftom Pr ie Pye Ps ~ Peas an) “The location of point of application force Py. is at x, BE from E, x, can be obtained by Eq. 4.57 and works out as, 2 [3-5 4, ~2 dy tan (wi4 ~ 9/2) "3 | 9254,-2 4 tan WA 9) G2) Case 3: Due to cohesion only (y= q = 0) Determination of Pres From the equilibrium of moment of forces acting on edge HDF about point D, as shown in Fig. 418 @) 1 ® EM=0=2 5 HDX Prop =e pr - HD 00s (%-$) Pog = cB ® cos (: 8) ° (474) nk Determination of Prag ‘The moment of forces on wedge BEDH about point B, as shown in Fig. 4.18 (b), are listed in Table 4.10 below, for static loads. EM=0= My =M, hex + Me124 | Foundations and Retaining Structures cr F (b) Log-spiral transition zone (6) Cental elastic wedge Fig. 4.18 Forces acting on different zones of failure surface, for cohesion only case, in static and seismic loading conditions ‘The fore: Table 4.10 (ii) Compo The values « obtained by changing the Determinat The v. -ge: the central ¢ Case 1: D Refers Fig where, A= Taking me Pag 608 ‘Sub .utin (=) 8Shallow Foundation | 125 The force Piz works out to be, = (Bag eon + sin 0 (415) Table 4.10 The moments of forces acting on wedge BEDH in static case, due to surcharge only (ii) Components Prine, Phage, and Pryce The values of passive ‘anh pressures Pris, Phas, and Pf. at a mobilization factor m can be obtained by substituting the angle of internal friction 9 by @,» ¢ by cy, and 7, by rj and inter- changing the wedge angles 0 and a in Eqs. 4.61 to 4.75. Determination of Wedge Angles o., and oy ‘The wedge angles «1 and a are obtained satisfying all the three equilibrium conditions for the central elastic wedge. Solution for this is given in this section for all three cases. Case 1: Due to weight only (q = c= 0) Referring Fig. 4.19 (@), from the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of the system. EH=0 = Qy Ay = Pry aes LV = 0 = Oy (l ~ A) = Pre C08 (04, — @) + Pry COS (0 ~ Pn) ae m+) in(@ 9 =). (4.76) 4.77) Taking moments about the point 4, Pye C05 Oy ° (1 ~ %yy_) AE + Py C08 @ [ey » BE + AB cos (04, + 04)] + Phe sin @ [AE sin (+ 04] = 0, (1-4) 05 AB ...4.78) Substituting values Pye from Eq. 4.76 and AE and BE from Eq. 4.53 (1 = xq) Sin (0 ~ 9 — 2) sin C4 C08. Oy + Sin (Oy ~ Gy + 2) - €08 @ sin ct, + sin 04 cos (04 + a — @)J 15 cos A sin (64 + o) sin (ct + 0 ~ 9 ~ Op) 479) in static and126 | Foundations and Retaining Structures (@) Case 1 Weight only (6) Case 2 Surcharge only Fig. 4.19 Central elastic wedge ‘The value of wedge angle a, and 0 has been obtained iteratively, satisfying both the Eqs. 4.76 and 4.79, using a computer programme. Case 2: Due to surcharge only (y= = 0) Referring Fig. 4.19 (b), from the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of the system EH = 0 => Oy Ay = Prog Sit (0 ~ ) ~ Page SiN (lo ~ Pm) EV=0= Oy (1-4) = Frye €08 (0 ~ 0) + Pgs £08 (0 ~ Om) o Pop = Pop ee (4.80) ‘Taking moments about the point A, Qyq (1 = A) = Pye 008 (04 — 9) + Page 08 (Ot ~ Oy) Pegg €08 Qy «(I = Xqy) AE + Prop £08 @ [x5 ~ BE + AE c0s (04 + 01) + Poop sin @ [AE sin (ch; + 04)] = Quy (1 4,) 0.5 AB ...4.81) Substituting values Pj.¢ from Eq. 4.80 and AE and BE from Eq, 4.53 in Eq, 4.81, (1 ~ 2g) sin (0 ~ @ — 2) sin 4 COS Oy, + sin (dt ~ @y + 2) La, - cos @ sin oy + sin cy cos (4 + O ~ @) 15 cos 2 sin (0 + 03) sin (oy + 0 - 9 - O,) (482) However, in this case x, and x) does not depend on the wedge angle or, and due to this Eq, 4.82 is simplified and the wedge angle c:, works out as, 0 = tan! eae (4.83) A= x, 008 @ COS (q — 2) ~ sin th COS (Py ~ 2) sin (ch ~ 0) = 0.5 08 A COs Oh; ‘C08 (0 ~ © ~ Op) + (1 = Xp) 608 py, Sit ch, sin (0, — @ - A) + (4.84a) The vah The wedg. programme Case 3: Referring 1 Substitw: Nd From Eq "ve = sin ( cB Taking © P’ cos +P,Shallow Foundation | 127 B= sin a 005 (9 + Oy — 04 — 2) ~ x 608 9 sity ~ 2) = 0.5 cos A sin (205 ~ © ~ %) (4.840) C= (1 Xyq) 605 Gy, Sin ch sin (ct, ~ 9-2) — sin 04, sin (p,~ 2) €05 (0 — = 0.5 cos 2, sin ot sin (04 ~ ~ O,) 4.846) ‘The value of wedge angle 0 for different values of a, can be obtained using Eq. 4.83. ‘The wedge angle cj is obtained iteratively, satisfying the Eqs. 4.80, using a computer programme. Case 3: Due to cohesion only (y= q = 0) g both the Referring Fig. 4.19 (©), from the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of the system DH = 0 = Oye Ay = Poe Sit (4 ~ 9) ~ Pre Si (Op ~ Pn) ~ Fy C08 Oy + Cy 74 COS Op Substituting Q,. = oB x N, Pre N, Ay= sin (0 ~ o- = * sin (ts ~ 05) ~ (3) c0s «4 ) sn (8) oa waa (4.80) : EV=0 = Oye (1 #A,) = Pre 608 (Cty ~ 9) + Pye 608 (8 ~ Px) + orp sin Oy + ep 74 sin } Pre Pre ry N, (#4) = FE cos (@ = 9) + ZR sin (a 9) + (8) sin B ...A81) +mx (2) sin of, (4.86) a From Eqs. 4.85 and 4.86 Pre Pre +m-9) EE sin ( ~ 9-1) ~ HE sin (0, ~ on 2) + (B) c08 (a - 2) (82) due to this 05 (+2) = 0 ...487) Taking moments about the point A 4.83) Pog ©08 Py » 12 15 + Phos cos @ LI/2 rq + 15 cos (oy + Of)! + Prog Sin. Lr sin (y+ 05) + cg rp sin (+ 02)) = Qoy (LA) 2B ..G.88) + G.84a)128 | Foundations and Retaining Structures P. [sin c 08 (04 + op ~ @)] ~ FF Ksin a €05 (04 + 4 ~ ake + (=m) sin 0 sin ay = 0.4.89) ‘The value of wedge angles of, and ct, has been obtained iteratively, satisfying both the Eqs. 487 and 4.89, using a computer programme. (iii) Computation Procedure ‘The following steps indicate the manner, in which computations are made for a given value of angle of internal friction, @ and horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient 4,. The value of A, is taken as % Ay, (1S:1893(Part-1)-2002) 1. A particular value of mobilization factor m is assumed. 2. Assume the value of wedge angles 0 and ot, for Case 1 and Case 3, while Assume angle cr; and obtain the values of of, from Eq, 4.83 for Case 2. 3, For one set of wedge angles o and @, the values of passive earth pressures Pjs/YB” and Piygh(B?; PlaglgB and PzyplQB; PyagicB and Pzop{cB were determined for three different cases. 4, Check for the equilibrium in each case using corresponding given expressions. Find the wedge angles of and 0, satisfying equilibrium conditions iteratively. 5, Steps 2-4 are repeated for different value of mobilization factor m. The passive pressures for maximum value of m satisfying all the equilibrium conditions, EH = 0; EV = and EM = 0 is adopted. ‘The maximum value of m is chosen because, for failure, the soil must develop maximum possible resistance compatible with stability. (iv) Static Bearing Capacity Factors Static bearing capacity factors are obtained by putting 4, = 4, = %= 0 and a = a = 9, in the above given expressions of seismic bearing capacity factors. The expressions for static bearing capacity factors are as given below: _IstJs 8 cos’@ where, J, and Js are obtained by putting 4, to 4.56 @. "8 90) = 0 and a, = oy = 9 in Eqs. 4.64 (@) aon 92) 1 ¢ Ns- ang 491) Neg = (Ngs ~ 1) cot & 4.92) As the expression of Njs (Eq. 4.90) is complicated to solve, a regression analysis, from the calculated data, has been done in order to simplify this expression. Error in regression analysis is observed not exceeding +2%, for >'5°. The simplified expression is given below. ‘The val Table 4.11 (¥) Seism From the seismic be determine The val obtained { condition « Table 4. for~= 30 the , ssiv factors, Ny factor, SF,0. ..4.89) oth the Eqs. given value “he value of ile Assume res PY od for three ssions Find ve pressures 0; EY = 0; pm mum +a, = @, in as for static (4.90) 3gs. 4.64 (@) 490), (92) sis, from the sior alysis, slow. ‘Shallow Foundation | 129 Ny = 05 (e880?) — 1) 4.93) ‘The values of bearing capacity factors are given in Table 4.11. Table 4.11 Static bearing capacity factors (v) Seismic Bearing Capacity Factors From the given procedure, using a computer code developed in MATLAB, values of seismic bearing capacity factors corresponding to each of the three considered cases were determined. ‘The values of seismic bearing capacity factors given in this section refers to the value obtained for the maximum value of mobilisation factor, m, for which all the equilibrium condition does satisfy, as explained earlier. Table 4.12 summarises results of the analysis done for Case 1, ie., ‘Weight only (¢ = q = 0), for @ = 30°. The table gives the values of mobilisation factor, m, the wedge angles, o, and 04, the passive pressures as non-dimensional quantities, Pgh? and PyghVB°, bearing capacity factors, Nye, and ratio of seismic bearing capacity factor to its static counterpart termed seismic factor, SF, (© NyglN), for different values of horizontal seismic acceleration coefficients ‘Table 4.12 Summary of results for Case 1 weight only, @ = 30°. Table 4.13 summarises results of the analysis done for Case 2, ie, surcharge only (y = 0), for @ = 30°, The table gives the values of mobilisation factor, m, the wedge angles, of, and Gj the passive pressures as non-dimensional quantities, Pjap/9B and Fy,p/gB bearing capacity factors, Njg, and ratio of seismic beating capacity factor to its static counterpart termed seismic factor, SF, (= NyplN,q) for different values of horizontal seismic acceleration coefficients.130 | Foundations and Retaining Structures ‘Table 4.14 summarises results of the analysis done for Case 3, ie., cohesion only (y= q = 0), for @ = 30°. The table gives the values of mobilisation factor, m, the wedge angles, a and 1, the passive pressures as non-dimensional quantities, P’.p/cB and Py../cB, bearing capacity factors, Nz, and ratio of seismic bearing capacity factor to its static counterpart termed seismic factor, SF. © N.xiN,9, for different values of horizontal seismic acceleration coefficients. Table 4.14 Summary of results for Case 3 cohesion only, = 30°. The parametric analysis has been performed to get the variation of seismic factors with the angle of internal friction and horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient. It should be noted that the vertical seismic acceleration coefficient is taken as two-thirds of the horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient, as stated earlier. In all the cases, for any values of angle of internal friction the seismic factor decreases with an increase in the seismic acceleration coefficient. Moreover, the seismic factors were observed to be decreasing with an increase in the angle of ‘A regression analysis has been carried out for the seismic factors from the results of this parametric study, which gives error of the range +5%. The expressions determined are as given below: ‘SR, = 6998 a0 (4.94) SF,= 4" and a, = 5 (an @)* (4.95) SF,=e*% and a, = 4.45 (tan 9)® 4.96)les, 0 and ‘ng capacity aed seismic “cients ors with the = noted that ital seismic of internal coefficient. ‘he angle of sults of this mer viven (4.94) (4.95) +496) Shallow Foundation | 131 "4.3 DETERMINATION OF THE CRITICAL ACCELERATION, Ac ‘The critical acceleration, A, is the acceleration at which the footing will start to move and at which the ultimate seismic bearing capacity q,- reduced to allowable static bearing capacity, or, Gos = us AA STA) or Bm ae ASTD) where, qus= Cas + Ags + V2 YBNys 498) due = Nog + Nye + V2 WBN ye (4.99) ‘The critical acceleration can be found by solving Eq. (4.97b) numerically after the substitution of dug and gue from Eqs. (498) and (4.99). The critical acceleration (4,) depends on F, Ane D, crpB, and D4/YB. In the case of surface footings (ie, DB = 0), for higher values of chy the effect of A, on the critical acceleration was found negligible. In the case of DyiB = 1, the effect of A, is significant for lower values of D. However, when D > 30, the effect becomes negligible. Usually a factor of safety of 3.0 (ie., F = 30) is used to obtain allowable static pearing capacity. The numerical solution of Eq, (4.976) gives the value of critical acceleration as shown in Fig. 4.20 for D = 0 and cfyB = 0. Some typical average values of critical acceleration for static factor of safety of 3.0 are given in Table 4.15, Cita! acceeration (A) 2 Safety fetor (F) Fig. 4.20 Critical acceleration versus safety factor for D = 0 and c/yB = 0132 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 4 SEISMIC SETTLEMENT A footing will slide when applied seismic acceleration, 4, is more than critical acceleration, A., Figure 4.21 shows the proposed sliding block model, assuming plane strain condition, with all the participating driving and resisting forces. When the applied acceleration (4,) is greater than the critical acceleration (4,), the driving forces (Fp) which act parallel to the sliding plane ac is, Fp L where, L is the footing length. The resisting force F, which acts in the opposite direction of Fri, 1 = A)QB + 14) sin 04 + Ay (QB + W,) cos oy (4.100) Fe_ pap apy B80 eB sin oy Pret Pog * Pod * Silay + 05) 8° * Sin + 0 (= 4y@B + 1) (ox e- in os) + cB sin ty - Grr ‘] tan 101) (©) Directions ofthe diving and resisting forces Fig 4.21. Sliding block mechanism By si Addit} where, 6 plane (at Since where, v Jog ( (19/9). B Je sic Putting Substit From E By addieleration, ion, with is greater ing plane (4.100) ‘ection of (4101) rds saute enti Shallow Foundation | 133 By simplifying equation (4.101) Jha eg tty +t) | aa08+m9 (o0 eB sin 01, tn 6+ Fre Fo) 4.102) Additional resisting forces develop on the sides of the sliding block given by: F, = Qo, tan 4) A 4.103) where, 6, is the normal stress acting on the sides of the sliding block, and A is the area of plane (abc) under the effect of 6, and equal, 1 op Sit sin fy ; A=9% ante) 4104) Since the problem is considered a plane strain problem, 6, is calculated as, 6, =v, +) (4105) where, v is the Poisson’s ratio. The value of v for sand is in the range of 0.3 to 0.4 for cyclic loading (Lambe and Whitman, 1965). A value of v equal to.0.37 has been used by Budhu (1979). By substituting 6, and , in Eq. (4.105), 9, is equal, 037 a-4) Sere +k) ‘The side friction forces are then, 106) 04 (1-4) B+ HD+ Ky) tan 45.4107) Putting, A u BxL Substituting of Eq. (4.104) in Eq. (4.109), % is equal to, B sin dy sin Oh <” San @ Fa) 4.109) From Eqs. (4.107) and 4.108), Fs = 074 x (=A) GB + W,) (1 + Ky) tan By adding Eq, (4.110) and Eq. (4.102), Fy becomes, An 7, sin «| tan 6 Fr_ EA Cpe + Pyg + Pog) + le ~ ANGB + Ey) (es Oy meB si. ot sin (04 + 03) +074 x 1 — ANQB + W) (E+ Ky) tan 11)134 | Foundations and Retaining Structures From Newton's law of motion, the acceleration of the active wedge (abc) relative to plane surfaces (b¢) is a m, oor + Fae Fo-Fr (4.112) where, x is the relative displacement measured down the slope (ab). Substituting for Fi, and Fry in the equation (4.112), we get, te) sin on + (Ae — tan 0) cos a ~ A 7, sin on + (Tg, = a0 - Ay eee 0.74 1+ (4.113) ~ GG Fond ANB Hy OM HU + Kas) tan (G13) where, (Pye + Pyy + Poy) ee (A114) (= AGB + 4) and P,, and Pj, can be calculated from Eqs. (4.29) and (4.33). Solving Eqs. (441) and (4.43), Pry is equal to, "bres =f tc meng Ld 05 (Gh = 4) + Cy cos (0% — Om) GIS) where, __ sin (a = #) — 4y 005 (04 - ee) C= in =) * Ay 605 5 - 6) hs An Ay ca.1168) Zin Gy ~ Oy) = Ay 005 (Oe — Gy) ae ‘The block will start moving when the applied acceleration exceeds the critical acceleration (4) Gee Fig. 4.21). The solution of Eq, (4.113) will depend on the variation of 4, with time above the critical acceleration (4,). Sarma (1975) investigated the effect of different types of functions on the calculated displacement by using the sliding block model. These functions ‘are triangular, rectangular, and sinusoidal, In the comparison with field data, Sarma (1975) found that the rectangular acceleration function gives a good approximation of the sliding block displacement when the ratio AJA, is smaller than 0.5. For simplicity, the variation of 4, with time may be assumed as a rectangular variation as shown in Fig. 4.22. By integrating Eq. (4.113) with time and after applying the boundary conditions, O%=0 a Ox=0 the displacement of the block along the side ac within time t is, 44.1 1 The ae -gge Ca ult If car Fin De: Ea Cal Val Sut blo Cal ce Out 6 the Prop abShallow Foundation | 135 ve to plane Assumed actoraton ial acoveraton G12) J for Fp and Time ADD Vas acceleration with tim oo Fig, 4.22 Variation of acceleration with time dx Ay Ay ict mod nos (rg me) one (414) ‘mcB sin ct, 1 = AL Sa P RN ANGE EH) ~ OM HC Kastan AIT) id (4.43), A eS 4.4.1 Design Procedure for Calculating Seismic Settlement ‘The suggested procedures of calculating seismic settlement are as ‘follows: 45) 1, Calculate the allowable static bearing capacity at the desired safety factor, and also the 15) ultimate seismic bearing capacity. 2. If the calculated allowable static bearing capacity is less than the seismic bearing capacity, then the seismic settlement will be zero. If not, the following procedure should ot 168) be followed 3, Find the critical acceleration (4,) as explained in Section 4.3. 4, Determine the angles ot, of; and 0 from Eq. (4.23), Ky from Eq, (4.16), and m from (4.1166) Eq. (4.44) 5, Calculate Pye, Pyy and Py, from Eqs. (4.29), (4.33), and (4.115) respectively. ee ie 6. Value of e may be taken as 0.143. aaa of 7. Compute time for half cycle. ase functions 8. Substitute ‘1’ in Eq, (4.117) to get x, where x is the relative displacement of the sliding Sarma (1975) block in the direction of the slip plane. sliding block 9, Calculate the seismic vertical displacement for a half cycle as, an of Ay, with 8, =x sin -4.118) ns, “4.5 COMMENTS Out of the three methods presented here for estimating seismic bearing capacity, method proposed by Budhu and Al-Karni (1993) seems more reasonable as based on realistic rupture136 | Foundations and Retaining Structures surface. Further in this method all the three conditions of equilibrium (2V = 0, ZH = 0 and s EM = 0) are satisfied. They have also given a systematic procedure to obtain the seismic settlement and critical acceleration. Therefore, the method proposed by Budhu and Al-Karni (1993) may be adopted in practice for design. Gi) Example 4.1 A rectangular footing of size 1.5 m x 3.0 m is provided at the depth of 1.0 m below the ground surface. The soil properties are: 10 kN/m?, @ = 30° and y= 17.5 kN/m? Determine: () Safe static bearing capacity, (i) Ultimate seismic bearing capacity for horizontal and vertical accelerations as 0.3 g and 0.2 g respectively and (iii) Seismic settlement Solution @ Ng= 9 tan? (E+ 2) ean? (E432) = 184 Nes= (Nas ~ 1) cot $ = (18.4 ~ 1) cot 30 = 301 Ny = 2 (gs + 1) tan § = 2 (184 + 1) tan 30 = 22.4 a=1428 =1435 S 1+ F tan 9 = 1435 tan 30 = 129 Therefore, E = 1 +2 tan 30 (1 ~ sin 30)? « 0,667 = 1 30 (1 — sin 30) 0.667 19 ii d= 1404 K=1+4 x 0.667 = 1.27 a= Gs Nes 8. de + ANys 5y dy + U2 YBNys by dy = 10 x 30. * 1.30 x 1.27 + 175 x 10 x 184 x 1.29 x 119 + 12x ITS * 15x 224 « 08 x 10 dus = 496.95 + 494.30 + 235.20 = 1226.45 kN/m?Shallow Founeation | 137 Safe static bearing capacity, das 2H = 0 and a the seismic 102645 and Al-Karni as=—3g = 409 KNim? [using F.0.S = 3] 5 (x _o © &- :) rian 30 gin (E30) = (£-2)-snm = 0.5 Hayy + Dy= 05 * 371 + 1.0 = 2.85 m 10 for horizontal ment c D- R717 B= 43 Att?) = 43 x 030° = LOL 534)? _ 53 x03! -"y-02 ~ 186 = 0.2) x eM = 0.168 eqn Ae (1-23 Ade = (1 = 23 * 0.2) x 2” = 0.0436 dus = 496.95 X 0,364 +'494.30 0.168 + 235.20 x 0.0436 due = 214.19 Kim? ~ 274 kim? Seismic safety factor against seismic bearing capacity failure fur _ 214 _ 9.67 Fie Gas ~ 409 Because Fig < 10, there will be seismic setlements. 10 . . gid gg = 0381, D = 020, 4, = 0.20, 661, FOS = 3.0 & Gi) DjB= Determination of critical acceleration A) @ Ay= Od, A, = % * 0.1 = 0.067 B= 43 Ad = 43 x 0.1! +? = 0.271 53 A x O42 he 53X01! _ 9 a5g138 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 94" 9 xo Br= Ta, ~ T= 0067 * 9667 eh = 97 = 0.763 1 — Ae = (1 - 0.067) x £9358 = 0,652 1 ~ 213 A)e™®r = (1 — 2/3 x 0,067) xe? = 0.490 196.95 * 0.763 + 494,30 x 0.652 + 235.20 x 0.490 = 816.7 KN/m* © Ay= 02, A, = % * 0.2 = 0.133 Bo= 4.3 AGT? = 4.3 x 0,21 +920 — 9.693 5.3 4)? 1-4, 22 10133 7 0.886 94 oan 0133 ene 0.537 €,= (1 — Aer = (1 = 0.133) x e886 = 9357 ey= (1 ~ 23 Ade = (1 — 2/3 « 0.133) x 197 = 0.156 us = 496.95 * 0.537 + 494.30 x 0.357 + 235.20 x 0.156 = 479.51 kNim? = 1.767 os Ay ua (kN) 010" a e670 ~ 020 479.51 0.30 27419 —— Because gs = 409 kN/m?, For dus = das» critical acceleration, 4, = 0.23 (By interpolation) 03 02 ary ass tang = 4492) e550 = 0,24, sin’ 41 7 2p eo oe *(F2z) ee i) “0375 (aataysi a i nt iis Shallow Foundation | 139 2x 0.2 *\T-02 —sr s1F2 x0. sin?30 +1 (aay + 0530 | * rexel ) tan 30 4 x 0.2 4x 0375" \ + ABE 1 ( 1-4, 08°30 1.667 + 0.2885 + (0.2885 + 1.6677 + 0.25 + 0.577 - 0.75 — 1 = 1.9555 + 1.7032 = 0.252, 3.659; therefore Kg = 0.252 and Kpg = 3.659 2 tanh tan = ——7 1 —Kyp + Wl — Kap) + tanh 2x 0375 tan = ———————, 1 — 0.252 + (i — 0.2527 + 4 x 0.375 - 075, © 0748 + 0.5595 + 0.5625 = 0415; therefore 1, = 22.54" 2) tan 30 - 2 tan tan p= ———— Kpg- 1+ \Kpe — I + 4 tanh 075. 22 = 0.1383 3,659 — 1 + 1.659 — 1)? + 0.5625 == Baa = 3146140 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 30 ° ~~ 787 = 22.13 _ B sino _ 1.5 x sin 37.46 a) 0s 30 = 1053 m % 7, [exp 2(m — a4 — a5) tan 6) cA + Gap (PR (ea, ~ a) tan 4} — 1) en 2 0N0- 1254-87 2x10 ae 3787 995 x tan 30 . ax uo—as-87), Us, (OBO) = 18,062 x 3.3232 + 21.06 x (3.3232 - 1) 1.82 + 48.93 = 110.75 kN/n. -A)ar. cos % (608° + Kipp sin?o) (= 02) « 175 x 1.053 * cos 30 % (cos°37.87 + 3.659 x sin®37.87) = 5657 * (0.6132 + 1.379) = 112.70 kNim B sing sin _ 15 x sin cos @ cos 30 m= tan” (m tan 4) = tan" (0,24 x tan 30) = 7: sin (@ ~ 4) ~ Ay cos (% - 4) ‘sin (02 — Qq) + 4y COS (Ot ~ ,) sin (82.54 ~ 30) ~ 0.3 x cos (82.54 ~ 30) ~ Sin @746 ~ 75) + 03 x cos G746— 79) x exp [2 (m ~ a ~ 03) tan 6] x 3.3232 qe = 0.7934 ~ 0.1825 _ 0.4933 + 0.2609 = 08104 H, BA, Ay © 2 sin (@ = 0,) + A; 608 (0 ~ ON) 1.0445 x 17.5 x 1.5 x 0.3 x 0,2 2 [sin 37.46 — 7.9) + 0.3 = cos (37.46 — 79) 1.645, _ “Fx ©4933 + 0.2609) ~ 1.0906Dean 30 iioosnicinb i iiopoueas Shallow Foundation | 141 1 - 4,)H,)\ ( yB? + CH) (1), 605 (0 ~ ) 08 (0 ~ ) + Cy cos (4% ~ O,) a= OS) (s xs is A J+ 1.0906 cos (37.46 ~ 7.9) 08 (82.54 ~ 30) + 08104 * cos G746 ~ 79) 79.95 + 1.087 _ 81.037 1.6087 + 0.7049 ~ 1.3136 Assuming e = 0.143 and f= 2 eps (Rectangular function), T=05 8 and = 72 = 0.5/2 = 0.258 (224 x 0156 + 1.69 kNim. 9 que = 274.19 KNim?; que = 342.74 KN/m? , 1-02 y, = Sit. Sin oy _ 175 x 1.5? sin 82.54 sin 37.46 4D ~~ cos 2 cos 30 = 1371 KNim (Pye + Py + Py) y= Cot Fon * Poo - ANG B+ Wa (110.75 + 112.70 + 61.69) _ 985.14 “(0642.74 * 15 + 1371) ~ 422.26 B sin oy sind __1.5 x sin 82.54 x sin 37.46 2L sin (@ + 0,) ~ 2% 30 x sin (2.54 + 37.46) 174 = 0.6753 Ay wo) soone (ety endear mcB sin ot, ~ Sin ¥ GN ~ ANGR+ )~ 03 i (1-235 tan 30) sin 3046+ 0.24 « 10 x 1.5 x sin 82.54 0s (30) * 422.26 = 0.74 x (0.1741) * (1 + 0.252) tan 30 0.74 x (1+ Kyg) tan 03 = tan 30) cos 37.46 2 ~ 0.6753 ~ = 0.74 ~ 0.1606 — 0.6753 — 0.00976 ~ 0.09313 = (- 0.199 981 x 0,143? « Px 1000 2 9.96 * 0.25 = 1.2475 mm * 0.199 = 19.96 #°, therefore14a | Foundations and Retaining Structures Time taken to complete 40 cycles = 20 s Displacement after 20 s Example 4.2 Determine the seismic bearing capacity for the footing mentioned in Example 4.1 by Richards et al. (1993) and Rangwala et al. (2011) method. Solution (@ Using Richards et al. (1993) Method: for static case 8 = @/2 = 30/2 = 15° and 2 = 0, k cos'( 2) {$e cx heos +1 {r+ PORTED _ cos"(30) - {sin GO ¥ 15) sin GO) |? cos 5 {1 + EOE OO . 07s 0.966 {1 + 03667 2 Fa £0s"(@) : @ {1-2 ts ® “os cos (6) 075 15 oe 4.9768 0.966 {1 ~ 0.366}? 0.1507 G+ tan?) + tan 6 cot 9) - tan @ T+ tan Gian p+ cot 9) ‘\@ + tan® 30)(1 + tan 15 cot 30) - tan 30 | T+ tan 15 * (fan 30 + cot 30) Pas= @ + tan? { = 30 + tan . -1 (0.819) 30+ an Pe} = 30 + 26.83 = 56.83° _ Kes _ 4.9768 _ Nes= R57 03014 ~ Nyg= tan pgs (Nys ~ 1) = tan 56.83 (16.51 ~ 1) = 23.73 Nes= (Nags — 1) cot 6 = cot 30 * (16.51 ~ 1) = 26.86 16.51Shallow Foundation | 143 ‘The shape factors and depth factors are taken same as in Example 4.1 das = ONes Se de + Ny 5, dy + U2 YBN Sy = 10 * 26.86 x 1.30 x 1.27 + I75 x 1.0 x 16.51 x 1.29 x 119 ontioned in 412 x ITS 15 x 23.73 x 08 * LO gus = 443.46 + 443.53 + 249.48 = 1136.47 kN/m? Safe static bearing capacity, das _ 1136.47 Gas=— 3.5 = 37882 kN/m? Seismic Bearing Capacity tan b= Ah = OF 2 0375; 2 = 2055" in he TI 4, 1-02 ~ 99% - cos*(o — 4) Kam eos @ 29 {1+ POZO IAG=D eel cos © +A) . os"(30 ~ 20.55) G0 + 15) sin (30 — 20.55) |* eo €055 es s+ 2055 fs + EOLA | 0.973 0973 = B= ag 7 088 07618 {1 + 0.3777)? 1.446 ke cost(o = 2) re % =) 0s 2 60s (8 +2) {1 Paes dan “0 me) a » } =—_993_. 0.7618 {1 - 0.3777}? a= p— A= 30 ~ 20.55 = 9.45° att v [Aeon a 6 9 athe | Pas = ‘an T+ tan @ + Dflan a+ eat 0) os «tent [YEE BEDASIE th (5 = 20.5) oot 945) — tn 948 eee T + tan (15 © 2055) (an 9.45 + cot 9.45) s+ (2 9.45 + 21.81 1.26" Kee New144 | Foundations and Retaining Structures tan Pye (Nop ~ 1) = tan 31.26 x (4.90 ~ 1) = 237 = (Ngg — 1) cot @ = cot 30 x (4.90 — 1) = 6.76 Nog Se de + INgg Sq dy + V2 YBNyg Sy dy = 10 x 6:76 x 1.30 x 1.27 + ITS * 10 x 49 x 1.29 * 119 +12 x ITS x 15 x 237 x 08 x 10 = MIL61 + 131.63 + 24.88 = 268.12 KNim? (ii) Rangwala et al, (2011) Method ono (se Nae ge is TT sin 1 sin 30 Nes= (gs — 1) cot 6 = 22.42 ~ 1) cot 30 = 37:10 Nyg= 0.5 (€F 7 099 — 1) = 0.5 (8 #9 * #9 _ 1) = 28.96 dus = Nes 8- de + GNgs Sy dy + V2 YBN yy Sy dy = 10 x 3710 * 13 x 127 + 175 * 10 x 22.42 1.29 « LI + 1/2 ITS x 5 x 28.96 x 08 * 1.0 = 612.52 + 602.29 + 304.08 = 1518.89 kN/m? Safe static bearing capacity, qus aus 3882 50629 1? Seismic Bearing Capacity Ay 703, A, = % ¥ 03 = 02 a, = 5 (tang) = 5 x (tan 30)* = 3.9265 a, = 4.45 (tan 9) = 4,45 x (tan 30)°° = 3.148 ‘an 30 = 22.42 994 an 2 66994 * 0375 _ 9.973 39265 «03 308 3.4803. 9,399 12.52 x 0.389 + 602.29 x 0.308 + 304.08 x 0.073 = 238.27 + 185.50 + 21.29 = 445.06 kN/m? Seismic safety factor against seismic bearing capacity failure Juz _ 445.06 “das ~ 306.29 ~ 88 Fp Summ. ‘State | Seis Gee It may (1993) anc obtained t investigat higher. Ki author the of seismic REFERE| Al-Karni, soil”, Bu .M. Camby Budhu, M pp. 18 ch WE Londo Das, BM. Elsevi Dewaikar, ‘mecha Dormieux, ASCE Hansen, J. Institu 1S 1893-( provis Kn ett, sound: 26, Iss Kumar, J. “soterppm Shallow Foundation | 145 Summary “AiKarni (1889) Richards etal. (1988) Rangwala etal. (2011) ‘Static Bearing Capacity (kN?) 1226 1136 1519 Seismic Bearing Capacty (kN/m?) = 03, A, = 02) 214 268 445 It may be noted that values of static and seismic bearing capacities obtained by Al-Karni (1993) and Richards et al. (1993) methods are almost same. Value of static bearing capacity obtained by Rangwala et al, (2011) method is about 1.25 times the value obtained by other two investigators. Seismic bearing capacity value obtained by Rangwala et al. (2011) is significantly higher. Keeping this in view more work is needed in this direction. In the opinion of the author there is a need for the development of an experimental set-up for obtaining the values of seismic bearing capacity. It will help in validation of the existing analytical analyses. REFERENCES ‘ALKari, A. A. (1993), “Seismic settlement and bearing capacity of shallow footings in cohesionless soil’, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Arizona, USA. Budhu, M., (1979), “Simple shear deformation of sands”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Budhu, M, and AlKarni, A. A. (1993), “Seismic bearing capacity of soils", Geotechnique, 43(1), pp. 181-187, Chen, WE. (1975), “Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity", Elsevier S London, Das, BM. (1987), “Theoretical Foundation Engineering”, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 47 Dewaikar, DM. and Mohapatro, B.G. (2003), “Computation of bearing capacity factor N, ~ Terzaghi ‘mechanism’, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 123-128 Dormieux, L. and Pecker, A. (1995), “Seismic bearing capacity of foundation on cohesionless soil’, 'ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 3, pp. 300-308. Hansen, J.B. (1970), “A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity”, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin 28 Is 1893-(Partsl) (2002), “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Part-I: General provisions and buildings”, BIS New Delhi. Knappett, LA. Haigh, S.K., Madabhushi, $.P.G. (2006), “Mechanisms of failure for shallow foundations under earthquake loading”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 26, Issues 2-4, pp. 91-102. . Kumar, J. and Rao, ViB.KM. (2002), “Seismic bearing capacity factors for spread foundations”, ‘Geotechnique, 522), pp. 79-88. tific Publishing Company,146 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Kumar, J.and Rao, V.B.K.M. 2003), Seismic bearing capacity of foundations on slopes, Geotechnique, 53@), pp. 347-361 Kumar, J. (2003), “N, for rough strip footing using the method of characteristics”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40@), pp. 669-674, Lambe, T. W,, and Whitman, R. V., (1968), Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Meyerhof, G. G. (1951), “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations", Geotechnique, 2(4), pp. 301-332. Paolucci, R. and Pecker, A. (1997), “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundation on dry soil’ Soils and Foundation, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 95-105, Pecker, A. (1996), “Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations", 11" WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico. Prakash S. and Saran S, (1971), “Bearing Capacity of Eccentrically Loaded Footings", Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM-1, pp. 95-117. Prandtl, L. (1921), “Uber die eindringungstestigkeit plastisher baustoffe und diefestigkeit von schneiden”, Zeitschrift Fir Angewandt Mathematik Und Mechanik,{(I), 15-30 (in German). Rangwala, H. M,, Saran, S. and Mukerjee, 8. 2011), “Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings adjacent to a stable slope", Ph.D. Research proposal report, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee. Richards, R., Elms, D. G. and Budhu, M, (1990a), “Dynamic fluidization of soils", ASCE, J. Geotech, Engg. Div., 116, No. 5, 740-759, Richards, R., Elms, D. G. and Budhu, M, (1990b). “Soil fluidization and foundation behavior”. Proc. 2nd Int. Conj: Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Rolla, MO. 1, 719-723. Richards, R., Elms, D.G, and Budhu, M. (1993), “Seismic bearing capacity and settlements of foundations", ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 4, pp. 662-674 Saran, 8. (1970), “Fundamental fallacy in analysis of bearing capacity of soi”, J. Inst. of Engineers, Calcutta, India Sarma, SK. and Iossifelis, LS. (1990), “Seismic bearing capacity factors for shallow strip footings”, Geotechnique, 40(2), pp. 265-273. Shafiee, A. H. and Jahanandish, M. 2010), “Seismic bearing capacity factors for strip footings”, Proc. '* National Congress on Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Tran, Soubra, A. H. (1997). “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings in seismic conditions.” Proc., Instn, Civ. Engrs., Geotech. Engrg., London, 125(4), 230-241, Soubra, A. H. (1999), “Upper bound solutions for bearing capacity of foundations”, ASCE, J. Geotech. Geoenviron, Eng., 125(1), pp. 59-69. ‘Terzaghi, K. L. (1943), “Theoretical Soil Mechanics”, Wiley, New York. Vesic, A. S. (1973) “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.” J, Soil Mech. and Found. Div, 99(1), 45-73, PRACTIC 1 By seis seis 3. Ske of the De: setttechnique, » Canadian 1 York. ve, 24), pp. a dry soil”, Acapulco, ‘ournal Soi tigkeit von 3erman), ‘ip footings LC ch. vvior”, Proc. Dynamics, ements of “674, ingineers, » footings”, ings”, Proc. shad, Iran, conditions.” I.Geotech. and Found. Shallow Foundation | 147 PRACTICE PROBLEMS 1. Explain the term “Seismic Bearing Capacity”. Describe the salient features of obtaining seismic bearing capacity by Richards et al. (1993) method. 2. Explain the procedure of obtaining critical acceleration. What is the condition for zero seismic settlement? 3, Sketch the rupture surface taken by Budhu and Al-Karni (1993) for carrying out analysis: of seismic bearing capacity. How are wedge angles obtained? 4, Derive expressions of seismic settlement. 5. A rectangular footing of size 1.0 m 2.0 m is provided at the depth of 0.75 m below the ground surface. The soil properties are: c= 12 KNim?, @ = 28° and 7 = 18 KNim™ Determine: (i) safe static bearing capacity, (i) ultimate seismic bearing capacity for horizontal and vertical accelerations as 0.36 g and 0.24 g respectively and (ili) seismic settlement.Pile Foundation Bat GENERALS rs Piles are relatively long and slender members used to transfer loads through weak soil or water to deeper soil or rock strata having a high bearing capacity. Piles and pile foundations have been used since prehistoric times. When a pile passes through the poor material and its tip penetrates a small distance into a stratum of good bearing capacity, itis called a bearing pile. When a pile is installed in deep stratum of limited supporting ability and the pile develops its carrying capacity by friction on its sides, itis called friction pile. Many times, the load carrying capacity of a pile results from the combination of point resistance and skin friction, The introduction of piles in a soil stratum makes the system stiff. Due to this both natural frequency and amplitudes of motion are affected. In all vibration problems, resonance needs to be avoided. Therefore, the natural frequency of the structure-soil-pile system is required for analysis and design. In this chapter, the natural frequency of soil-pile system, dynamic analysis and the design of pile against the earthquake loading have been discussed. "SINGLE ILE UNDER VERTICAL VIBRATION A pile subjected to sinusoidally varying dynamic force is shown in Fig, 5.1. FeF,sinot Fig. 5.1 Pile-soil system { ei nis Barkan the system Fig. 5.2 In this + pile. K, is cyclic vert Sq, is mad load and it 4 val of the pile Maxwel shown in } Fig. 5.3 W The sol where, 1 abo in the systsoil or water lations have | and its tip rea pile. develops its vad carrying m, sot tural Foundation | 149 Barkan (1962) proposed single degree of freedom model as shown in Fig. 5.2 for analyzing the system shown in Fig, 5.1. F,sin at o ca Fig. 5.2 Mathematical model for the system shown in Fig. 5.1 (after Barkan, 1962) In this model, m represents the mass of the structure above the ground, mass of pile cap and pile. K, is the stiffness of soil-pile system. Barkan (1962) suggested determination of K, from cyclic vertical pile load test, From the data of this test, a plot of load P and elastic settlement Siz is made as in cyclic plate load test. This plot is usually a straight line upto the working toad and its slope gives the value of K,, ie., PB Kee (Sl) ‘The value of K, depends on soil properties and pile characteristics. The natural frequency of the pile in vertical is then given by: 1 (Ke Sz * 39g Vi 5.2) ‘Maxwell et al. (1969) proposed the mathematical model as shown in Fig. 5.3 for the system shown in Fig, 5.1 Fig. 5.3 Mathematical model for the system shown in Fig. 5.1 (after Maxwell et al., 1969) The solution for such as system is as given below: a 63) *K, ma?) + (co") “ where, A, = amplitude, and damping coefficient. ‘The above solution differs from Barkan’s solution since Maxwell et al., considered damping in the system.150 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Novak (1974, 1977) and Sheta and Novak (1982) have suggested a method for obtaining stiffness and damping of the soil-pile system. In this method, the soil has been assumed as composed of a set of independent infinitesimally thin horizontal layers of infinite extent. This concept could be thought of as a generalized Winkler material that possesses inertia and dissipates energy. Using the above concept, Novak and Sharnouby (1983) have developed the following solutions of getting the stiffness and damping constant of single pile subjected to vertical vibration: Ey A Fr, Sut (SA) Ey A Cy I Soa 63) where, K,,~ stiffness of single pile, Ezy= modulus of elasticity of pile material, area of cross-section of pile, equivalent radius of ple, Ge shear wave velocity = Te G, = shear modulus of soil, ‘mass density of soil, Cp = damping constant for single pile, and embedded length of pile. fu and fy ate the parameters which depend on (i) type of pile whether end bearing or friction, (ji) pile slenderness (Li,), (ii) £,/G, ratio and (iv) variation G, with depth. Considering these factors, Novak and Shamouby (1983) have developed charts as shown in Figs, 54 and 55. Knowing the values of K,, and C,, response of the pile can be obtained. 5.3. SINGLE PILE SUBJECTED TO LATERAL VIBRATIONS A reasonably practical solution for soil-pile interaction under dynamic loads has been proposed by Chandrasekaran (1974). This analysis is based on the following assumptions: 1. The pile is divided into a convenient number of segments and mass of each segment is concentrated at its centre (Fig. 5.6). 2. The soil is considered a linear Winkler’s spring. The soil reaction is separated into discrete parts at the centre of the masses in Fig. 5.6. The soil modulus variation is considered both linearly varying with depth and constant with depth (Fig. 57) 3. A fraction of the mass of the superstructure is concentrated at the pile top as M, 4, ‘The system is one dimensional. Fig. 5.4 EL ncot obtaining assumed as inite extent. ‘inertia and ing solutions vibration: A) (55) | bearing or Considering ‘igs. 54 and en proposed ach segment paratod into var on is 51), pas M, 010. —— 0.08) Pile Foundation | 151 0.06} 250. Parameters, homogeneous soil 0.02) 0.19; 1 0.0 0.08) Parameters, f, parabolic sol profile [+ EL-Sharnouby, 1983) 20 40 Pie slenderess, Lt, Fig. 5.4 Stiffness and damping factors for fixed tip vertically vibrating piles (Novak and152 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 02, 0.10|- 0.08) 0.06 Ge Parameters, f, homogeneous soil 0.04 0.02) ate 2500 + 10,090-— 0.08) 0.08) 0.04 Parameters, f, parabolic sol profile 0.02] Pll slondemess, Ur Fig, 5.5 stiffness and damping parameters of vertical response of floating piles (Novak El-Sharnouby, 1983) pe ples ( and | i { | | Fig. 5.6. Pile st So pil or com at the t For determi using si ssi assumed value generate the tr: quantities, eith points define t! ‘the natural frec 25 for homogeneous soil profile and Lir, > 30 for parabolic soil profile (after Novak and El-Sharouby (1983) sites 2500 02098-00429 00119 0.00s1 02182 -Ooe4s on2a7 0.0154 1000 0.3741 -0.0668 0.0236 «0.0123 0.2598 0.0085 0.0579 0.0306 500 O44tt -0.0829 0.0305 00210 0.2059 0.1987 0.0989 0.0514 250 0.8186 0.1281 0.0650 0.0958 03299 -0.1786 0.856 0.0864 aa 1an00 0x27 pam G007 OOteaOeRe 00358 GOTT 0.0060 “02204 cement ail deflections 56) for the computed *Fixeditransating head Novak (1974) developed solutions for obtaining lateral stiffness and damping constants G.16) for single pile with soil modulus constant with depth in three modes of vibration, namely, (@ Translation alone, (i) Rotation alone, and (jii) Coupled translation and rotation. Novak and El-Sharnouby (1983) extended these solutions considering parabolic variation of soil shear GT) modulus. The solutions can be summarised in the following equations: ‘e prssure ‘Translational stiffness and damping constants: Fol tt ie. free Ky fa (5.18) xctual pile ” a Ely Cy = Ta fa (5.19) ry,160 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Rotational stiffness and damping constants: E, I, Ky ha (8.20) ” Eyl, C= fe (5.21) 7% Coupled vibration stiffness and damping constants: Eyly <0 Tha 622) Eyl, Cap = 5 Sg 6.23) "0% ‘moment of inertia of pile cross-section, Young's modulus of pile, shear wave velocity in soil, longitudinal wave velocity in pile, equivalent radius of pile, and f= constants (Table 5.3). 4 GROUP ACTION UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING Piles are generally installed in groups. The stiffness and damping of pile groups should be evaluated from considerations of group action. The extent of group action depends on the ratio of spacing to diameter of piles. The smaller the spacing, larger the group action. In this section, the stiffness and damping coefficient of the pile groups are presented based on analytical solutions. 5.4.1 Vertical Vibration Novak and Grigg (1976) recommended that deflection factors of Poutus (1968) for group action of statically loaded piles based on elastic analysis may be used to a pile group undergoing steady-state vertical vibration. Therefore, stifiness of a pile group K,, may be obtained as below: 3K, (5.24) Fig. 5.11 « The equ Equation in vertical cap results Novak ¢ geometric « are added t (Kp and di6.20) (5.21) 6.22) (5.23) ss should be ands on the 9 action. In 2d based on. yroup action undergoing obtained as (6.24) Pile Foundation | 161 where, n= mumber of piles, and 1, = axial displacement interaction factor for a typical reference pile in the group relative to itself and to all other piles in the group, assuming the reference pile and other carry the same load (Fig. 5.11). 109, 02 | aa on 00 args Fig. 5.11 a as a function of pile length and spacing (After Poulus, 1968) ‘The equivalent geometric damping ratio for the group is given by xe, E Cp y= (5.25) $e Equations (5.24) and (5.25) can be used directly to compute the response of the pile group in vertical vibrations when pile cap is not in contact with the ground. Embedment of the pile cap results in increase of the stiffness and damping values of the group. ‘Novak and Beredugo (1972) have developed expressions for calculating stiffness and geometric damping constants for embedded footings that can be applied to pile caps. These are added to the stiffness and damping value obtained in Eqs. (6.24) and (5.25). The stiffness (K,) and damping (C,) values due to side friction of the pile cap is expressed as: Ky= G, DS, (5.26) Cy Drge SG, By A527) where, D = depth of embedment of the cap, Toe = equivalent radius of pile cap, G,= shear modulus of backfill soil, p, = mass density of backfill soil, and 5, and 3,, are constants and are 2.70 and 6.70 respectively.162 | Foundations and Retaining Structures ‘Then, total stiffness and damping constants for the group will be: (Kg = Keg + Key (5.28) (ds = Ge + Cy (5.29) Novak (1974) computed vertical response of a machine and its foundations. The foundation consisted of a rectangular block of concrete 4.8 m x 3 m x 2.4 m high. It was considered both embedded 0.6 m into soil and having no embedment. It was supported on 10.7 m long, fixed- top timber piles in a medium stiff clay. The machine weight was 10 tonnes. The response of the pile foundation with varying frequency is shown in Fig. 5.12 for four cases. ab os A te le i q 5 i 2 ~ 30, = 0.40 and (E,/G,) = 2375, we get ‘fy = 0.0024, fy, = 0.2576, figs = -0.0296 ‘fa = 00091, fay = 0.2109, faga = -0.0524 ‘Values of coefficient for = 0.5 are almost same as for = 0.4, The difference between the two values may be neglected. Ent _ 874 x 10! Ky= 9 fa = O33 1 028 x 0.0024 = 1.34 x 10° KN/m172 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Eyl, 108 Pe p= oe % 0.0091 = 0.155 x 10? kN-s/m rv, 0.25? x 82.02 L x 108 Kaye ey = SEO 5 02576 = 9 x 108 Km E, J pie, _ 874x108 _ x Ty, Sea = gay * 0:2109 = 0.225 10? KN-sim 8.74 x 10% 4 K, asa * -0.0296 = -4.14 x 10° kNirad ad 0.25? El, a ‘bly 874 x 10% . x Cope = Fev, Lett = 9.95 % Ba,93 * “0.0524 = ~0.223 x 10° KN-s Eyl, x10! Kr aete 874 x 10 (226% 10" 2G (1+ WL 2 12 « 18 « + 04) * 10° Therefore, pile behaves as a flexible pile. Considering pile No. 1 as reference pile Pie No. Si B % 7 0100 o 7.00 2 2.50 o 0.58 3 353 “ 4 250 90° Ky .31 x 10* KN/m Ly Cem Fe = Se = 0.267 « 10 tain 18.84 x 1.27 {ZS5981 _ 9.29 2* 10 From Table 5.4 for a, = 0.29 and = 04, Sy = 4.1 and 3, = 10.6. Therefore, Ky= G, DS, = 1.2 * 104 x 0.75 x 4.1 = 3.69 = 10¢ KNim Cy= Dre Sq VG, = 0.75 * 1.27 x 10.6 x V2 10° x 175981 .48 * 10° KNim (K)g= 2.31 + 3.69) x 104 = 6.0 x 104 kN/im bra Fors Fron'm. 281 Pile Foundation | 173, (Cg = 0.267 + 1.48) * 10° = 1.75 * 10° KN/m Kyg= EKyy + Kay 87 + Key 22 ~ 2, Ko) x, = 0.625 for all piles Kg 4 9 x 10! + 22.3725 x 10 x 4 x 0.625" + 4 x 1.34 « 10° x 0S? -2* 05 x 4 x C414 x 104) = (36 + 34.96 + 1.34 + 16.56) x 10* = 88.86 x 10° KN/m =f 2 Cyg= ECty + Cop ¥ + Cyy Ze - 2Z, Copp) = 4x 0.224 « 10° + 1.98 x 10° x 4 x 0.625? + 4 x 0155 * 10° x 0.522 x 0.5 x 4 x (0.223 * 10°) = (0.9 + 3.09 + 0.155 + 0.892) « 10° = 5.03 x 10° KN/m For rocking vibration 25 3 us ) = 1284 m = 0.586 = 25 and Spp = 1.8 From Table 5.4, 5, = 4.1, Sy = 10.6, and Sy < 8) (2 .(%\ = Ky= 6,2, D «5, + 6,72 0|(&) + (2) -8 Fe) Be = 1.2 x 104 x 1.284 « O75 x 2.5 + 12 x 108 x 1.284 0.586 | (_0.5 x 95] x ors [ S8e 4 (D5) — 0.586 x 955] «4 69 x 10* + 6.03 x 10° x (0.1144 + 0.1525 — 0.2289) 92 « 10* KN-m oo= AF [Be 5) +) ~ 5] 5} = 0.586 x 1.284 |2* 0 108 0.586" {is + jose = 0.511 x 10° kN-sim (Ky = (88.86 + 3.92) x 10% = 92.78 x 10* KN-m (Cy = 6.03 + 0.511) x 10° = 5.54 10° KN-s-m P os ~ 0.586 4] x 106174 | Foundations and Retaining Structures (Cody 2 Kp = 2.60% 10" * 1100981 = 5.19 * 10° KN-som Code = 2 YReM = 2 92.78 © 10* * 50104.88/9.81 = 13767 * 10 KN-s-m 175 «10° PBAI - 0337 rear 5.54 * 10° Ge" Tar67 x 18 IR. _ [60x 10" x 981 On Va gg =2313 nds > a, = 53510 (ads? ogg = At = 278 10" = 9.81 = Vii ~V~ S010 = 1347 radis => wy = 181.44 (rads)? ‘Undamped natural frequencies in coupled rocking and sliding are given by: of, = 3. [(e2 +o) + (OR * Of) —4r of, 0 = 0.04 ~ ye x * x = yr pay; [695.10 + 181.44) + 35.10 + 181.44)? — 4 x 0254» 53510» 181.44] = 267791 rad/s and 142.72 radis, @) = 51.75 radis, Wy, = 11.95 rads Get Oho 4 Ee Ep Ou Op] ee Oey |? we llo-oltse see] at OO OO oP]? +4 fe 2 oj, -0h + 222 os, -w} | % 0.337 * 0,04 * 23.13 « 1347 . [frees ras? [52510 + 18s 0254 0.254 S250 1844p 0254 2313 « 18.84 1347 x 18:84 aye +4 {0337 PERSE (8144 ~ 354.94) + 004 BT TBS (53519 _ 35494)] | = 5047 » 10° F [M8 + KKB) +08 C+ 6,29)" el a eee a mM, Ao «5 | 1271709 « 9.81) x 18.84? + 92.78 x 108 x 60 x 10x 5.8]! + 18.84 (6.54 x 10° + 1.75 x 10° x 5.832? 1100/9.81 * 12717.09/9.81 x 5.047 x 10° RE, _2Eb Barkan, D. Chandraset ‘serix 18144] =| a} vw} ]” Pile Foundation | 175 6 (6.285 « 10 + 1.5 « 10%}! ©7336 « 10" _ 16.741 «10° ©7336 «10 gg = Fabs Whe +48, oF? " My Ao? _ 6 * 583 * 23.13 x Q31F + 4 * 0337 * 18,847)? ~ (an709981) «5047105 225.76 * 10° © 654.23 10° = 39375 x 10°% rad M, Lapa? + CE One OF 4a M, Ao : 32.82 x 5.83 x [(23.13 + @ « 0337 x 23.13 « 18.847" (12717.091981) * 5.047 10° = 228.2 « 10° m 16.78 * 10° © 654.23 x 10° = 178.5 x 10% m M, (Oi — OF + CE. Oe OFT Ane Mi, Ao? jo.g2 (2313? — 18.84%) + (2 « 0337 * 23.3 x 18847)" © G2717.09981) 5.047 = 10° 11,306 10° 654.23 10° = 17.281 « 10 rad Ag + gg = 28.2. + 178.5) x 10% m (89.375 + 17.281) * 10~ 067 « 10 m 66 * 10° rad Agta REFERENCES Barkan, D. D. (1962), “Dynamics of bases and foundation”, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. Chandrasekaran, V. (1974), “Analysis of pile foundation under static and dynamic loads", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Roorkee, India.176 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Davisson, M. T. and Gill, H. L, (1963), “Laterally loaded piles in a layered soil system’, J, Soil Mech. and Found. Div, ASCE, 89 (M3), pp. 63-94 Maxwell, A. A., Fry, Z. B, and Poplin J. K. (1969), “Vibratory loading of pile foundation”, ASTM, Special Technical Publication, No. 444, pp. 338-361. Novak, M. (1974), “Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles", Can. Geotech. 1, 11(, pp. 574-598 Novak, M. (1977), “Vertical vibration of floating piles", J. Eng. Mech, Div., 103(EM-1), pp. 153- 168. Novak, M. and Beredurgo, ¥. O. (1972), “Vertical vibration of embedded piles’, J. Soil mech. and Found. Div, 98(SM-12), pp. 153-168 Novak, M., and El-Sharnouby, B. (1983), “Stiffness and damping constents of single piles”, J Geotech. Div, ASCE, 109 (GT-1), pp. 961-974 Novak, M., and Grigg, RF. (1976), “Dynamic experiments with small pile Foundations”, J. Geotech. Div, ASCE, 13 (GT-4), pp. 372-395. Prakash, S. and Chandrasekaran, V. (1977), “Free vibration characteristics of piles”, Proc. 9" ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 2, pp. 333-336 Prakash, S. and Chandrasekaran, V, (1980), “Analysis of piles in clay against earthquake”, Preprint No. 80-109, ASCE, Convention and Exposition, Portland, OR, Reese, L. C., and Matlock, H. (1956), “Non-dimensional solution for laterally loaded piles with soil ‘modulus assumed proportional to depth”, Proc. 8" Texas Conf, Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., pp. I-4 Saran, S. 2006), “Analysis and Design of substructures” 2 Edition, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sheta, M. and Novak, M. (1982), “Vertical vibration of pile groups", (GT-4), pp. 570-550, PRACTICE PROBLEMS 1. Describe the salient features of analyzing a pile group subjected to vertical vibrations. 2. Describe the procedure of studying the response of a single pile under lateral vibrations 3. A reciprocating machine supported on a pile foundation and vibrating at speed of 191 1pm generates Maximum vertical unbalanced force = 32 kN Maximum horizontal unbalanced force = 24 kN The horizontal force was acting at a height of 0.5 m from the top of the pile cap (5 m x 4.5 m x 2.0 m thick). It was decided to use 16 piles of 12.0 m length and 0.6 m diameter. The soil atthe site is over-consolidated clay having shear modulus (G) ‘as 2.5 x 10* kN/m?. Considering suitable arrangement of piles, determine the natural frequencies and amplitude of the system. Geotech. Div., ASCE, 108 Well 6.1 IN Bridges ar of @ count relief and important distress. Well for abi. toc due to ear that earthe substructu soi’ he : the design in past ca generally y earthquake The ass structure i studied by behaviour, linear sub; In order ti assumptio loadings a ver Ise and ultimsa’, J. Soil a’, ASTM, ». 574-598. », pp. 153- mech. and piles”, J. I, Geotech. Proc. 9 °, Preprint sw soil und. Eng, ishing Co. ASCE, 108 » vertical er lateral ed of 191 pile cap ongth and sdalus (G) rer ral Well Foundation 6.1 INTRODUCTION Bridges are regarded as important civil infrastructures and life line of transportation network of a country. Their safety in earthquakes is vital because of post-earthquake importance in relief and rescue operations. The design of bridge foundations and their safety is rather more important under seismic conditions as these cannot be inspected and repaired in the event of distress. ‘Well foundations are commonly employed for river bridges in India. This is because of their ability to carry safely the heavy vertical loads along with horizontal forces and moments arising due to earthquake, hydrodynamic pressures, water current pressure, etc. It is well recognized that earthquakes generate large magnitude of horizontal forces in the superstructure and the substructure which are ultimately transmitted through well foundations to the side and base soil, The safety of well foundations is of concern and a good deal of attention is given in the design for estimation of earthquake forces. Review of performance of bridge foundations in past earthquakes suggest that well/caisson foundations according to current practice have ‘generally performed well during moderate earthquakes with few cases of collapse under severe ‘earthquakes (Thakkar et al., 2010). The assessment of load carrying capacity of well foundation constitutes a complex soil- structure interaction problem. The problem of design-analysis of well foundations has been studied by design engineers, researchers and scientists through field experience, seismic behaviour, model and prototype tests and analytical investigations. As a result clastic or linear subgrade modulus approach and plastic approach has been developed (IRC-45, 1972) In order to further rationalize the existing design procedures it is necessary to examine the assumptions of analytical procedures and performance of well foundations under design loadings and earthquake generated forces. The rational design requires realistic estimation of ‘vertical settlement, rotation of wel, soil pressures on the side and base of the well at working and ultimate loads (Thakkar et al, 2010). BEHAVIOUR OF WELL IN PAST EARTHQUAKES ‘The description presented in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 has been taken from Thakkar et al., 2010.178 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 6.2.1 Tilting and Settlement of Foundation In case of well foundations, large magnitudes of horizontal forces are developed during the earthquake, firstly, due to inertia effect of the superstructure and substructure and secondly, due to hydrodynamic forces on the substructure, These forces are transmitted to soil on sides and base through the well foundation. The embedment depth, soil stiffness properties on the side and base of the well foundation control the stiffness of the foundation system during an earthquake. If the base of the well rests on stiff soil, less sinking and tilting is expected to occur. However, the displacements and rotation of well foundation could be large in earthquakes if the reliance is placed on skin friction. This is because in case of an earthquake, gaps are created between the soil and foundation towards the direction of deep scour which decreases the frictional resistance. Tilting phenomenon of well foundation towards the direction of scour has also been observed after the earthquake. 6.2.2 Settlement and Displacement due to Soil Liquefaction The liquefaction of soil at the river bed during an earthquake often results large settlement and displacement of well foundation, The damages to the Banyu highway bridge Fig. 6.1, in the Kanto earthquake and the Showa-Ohashi highway bridge in the Nijgata earthquake of 1964 are examples of such behaviour. The Banyu bridge had 57 spans of reinforced concrete T-girder bridge with 11 m span length (Okamoto, 1973). The abutments at both banks and six piers from the left bank had been completed while 42 caissons (length 3.6 m) for pier foundations had been emplaced and many of them were already sunk. It has been observed that the well foundations which had been placed or sunk all showed severe tilting, upheaval or shifting and were scattered over the river bed (Fig. 6.1). This indicates that ground motion had been severe at the surface layer, with soil at the river bed showing liquefaction. It has been noticed that the sandy soil at the surface sometimes liquefy under an earthquake and it is desirable to take well foundation deeper to avoid the failure due to liquefaction of the surrounding soil. Fig. 6.1 Damage to well foundation of Banyu highway bridge under construction (Okamoto, 1973) 6.2.3 Se With extren piers which istrict had 12 to 20m the tops me bridge struc the damage This indicat to large vib: 6.2.4 Cr If the found: the foundatic of the Banyt highway bric spans at the falling. all o crack and the top to a seismic forex unable to res Sm.” gen top anu smal middle or lor Fig. 6.2. Crac 6.2.5 Dar (De The damage t There > * tibduring the 1 secondly, sil on sides ties on the during an xpected to arthquakes 2, gaps are ‘decreases on of scour lement and 641, im the of 1964 are te Peder 4 si. piers ‘oundations at the well sifting and een “ere oticed that ble to take vil 0, 1973) Wel Foundation | 179 6.2.3 Seismic Behaviour under Severe Earthquake Motion With extremely severe earthquake motion, settlement and shifting sometimes occur even with piers which are deeply embedded. The piers of the Yoshinogawa railway bridge in the Shikoku district had well foundations 21 m long with each well estimated to have been embedded 12 to 20 m in the ground (Okamoto, 1973), but even then, in the Nankai earthquake of 1946, the tops moved in the direction orthogonal to the bridge axis and the three-span continuous bridge structure suffered heavy damage being bent a maximum of 296 mm, The reason for the damage is that the foundations of the bridge did not extend to the bearing layer of soil This indicates that even ground at great depths loses some bearing capacity when subjected to large vibratory forces. 6.2.4 Cracking of Well Foundations If the foundation structure does not have sufficient moment resistance then it can crack even if the foundation is very deep with large bearing capacity. An example of this type is the damage of the Banyu-Gawa railway bridge which is located slightly downstream from the Banyu-Gawa highway bridge (Okamoto, 1973). Figure 6.2 is an illustration of such a case, Except for four spans at the end on the east abutment, which moved 150 to 300 mm eastward but escaped falling, all of the remaining 24 spans fell. All of the piers, except for several on the east side, cracked and damaged at the columns or at foundation wells. Cracking of wells extended from the top to a depth of approximately 5m. The cracking is assumed to have been occurred by seismic forces acting on the girders and piers being transmitted to the wells, the wells being unable to resist the bending moment due to the soil at the river liquefying to a depth of about 5 m, In general, bending moments due to this type of seismic action are large only near the top and small at the middle and bottom sections. Therefore, there are no cracks formed in the middle or lower portions of the well. East West Q tom 29m 9 109m 200m ‘Seale (vertical ‘eal (horizontal) Fig. 6.2. Cracks in welt foundations of Banyu railway bridge (Okamoto, 1973) 6.2.5 Damage of Well Foundation in Cachar Earthquake (December 31, 1984) ‘The damage to pier and well was observed in Sonai bridge due to Cachar earthquake (M= 5.6). There was tilting of piers due to unequal settlement of soil below the well. The well cap was180 | Foundations and Retaining Structures also observed to be cracked under piers. A 20 mm crack was also observed to be extended in the well steining 6.2.6 Tilting of Caissons due to Liquefaction of Soil In 1991, Costa Rica Earthquake a lot of damages occurred in caisson foundations. It has been observed that all the steel caissons (2.1 m diameter) (Priestley et al., 1991) which supports the. Rio Bananito rail bridge have been rotated towards the river at the top, opening the gap between the caissons and support blocks (Fig. 6.3a and 6.31). The two downstream caissons rotated ‘more than the upstream caissons, and lost the support blocks behind the caissons (Fig. 6.30), tilting the bridge downstream. Observation of the area around the bridge showed the sign of liquefaction to a considerable distance behind the river bank in terms of sand boils and ground fissures paralleling the river bank indicating spreading of the ground towards the river. Fig. 6.3 Rio Bananito rail bridge: (a) cast iron calssons rotated inwards, but was still in contact with support block (south abutment), (b) caissons rotated inwards with support blocks fallen behind (north abutment) and (c) partial collapse; truss leaning downstream towards west (Priestley et al, 1991) In case of Rio Matina rail bridge, the caissons supporting the main trusses were tilted (Priestley et al., 1991) toward the river by as much as 5 degrees in Costa Rica earthquake Fig. 6.4), This tilting displaced the caisson tops toward the river by as much as 1.2 m, which sheared the bolts anchoring the trusses to the caissons. The tilting was caused because of lateral pressures generated by the spreading of the soil. Soil liquefaction and related ground deformations and lateral pressures were primary causes of the extensive damage and failure of bridges. Fig. 6.4 Rio Matina rail bridge: Tilting of a caisson (Priestley et al., 1991) 6.2.7 C There are a 21, 1999, 4 failures occ 6.2.8 C In 26th De which have the caisson 6.3 MI 6.3.1 B The basic « @ Est asp Gi) Ens disy 6.277 S The seismi @ Dy: fou (i Sei wel i) AL (ix) Cor mo dur 62> E Following @ Sei sys the: aprextended has been pports the p between ns rotated Fig. 630, be sign of id ground iver. ontact with ‘hind (north 119 were tilted earthquake 2m, which because of ted ground and failure Well Foundation | 181 6.2.7. Caisson Damage in Taiwan Earthquake of September 21, 1999 ‘There are also examples of caisson failure in Taiwan earthquake which occurred in September 21, 1999. A lot of bridges have been damaged due to the strong earthquake shaking. Shear failures occurred in caisson foundation of the bridge 6.2.8 Caisson Damage in Sumatra Earthquake of December 26, 2004 In 26th December 2004, Great Sumatra earthquake failure of foundation occurred in eaissons which have been rotated out of the loose sandy soil. Also, there was evidence of scour around the caissons, which contributed to the failure (Edwards, 2006). 613° METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC FORCES 6.3.1" Basic Design Process ‘The basic design process for seismic design includes the following steps: (j) Estimating the forces and displacements: In case of earthquakes the most challenging aspect relates to the estimation of forces and displacements. ii) Ensure that the foundations has the capacity to accommodate the forces and displacements. 6.3.2 Seismic Demand on Foundation ‘The seismic demand on foundation due to earthquake depends on following: () Dynamic characteristics of substructure and foundation which in turn depends on foundation’s stiffness. ii) Seismic demand may also to some extent depends on mathematical model of the pier, well and soil, (iii) A linear response spectrum analysis using initial stiffness, considering elastic behaviour ‘may predict unrealistically high foundation forces. Gv) Considering the variation of soil stiffness properties and assumptions in foundation modelling, sensitivity analysis is required to determine bounds of seismic demands during an earthquake. 6.3.3 Estimation of Seismic Forces Following methods are available for estimation of seismic forces: () Seismic coefficient method: ‘The equivalent static approach can be used for pier-véll system to estimate the moments and shear forces at the level of scour. These forces are then used for checking the design of foundation by elastic method and ultimate load approach.182 | Foundations and Retaining Structures (ii) Dynamic analysis using beam model: In case of tall piers on deep well foundations and weak | it is necessary to consider dynamic behaviour, that is, dynamic characteristics of pier= ‘on good hi well-soil system. The most common approach is to employ a beam model in which Oe the pier and well are represented by a lumped mass model and soil foundations is ‘The ma Suitably replaced by linear and rotational soil springs. The effect of radiation damping site. Such : is considered by evaluating equivalent viscous damping. be made in (ii) Dynamic analysis using finite element model: More sophisticated mathematical being er model of pier-well-foundation soil is possible through finite element modelling, Axisymmetric finite element analysis can be employed for well foundation as wells are | Table 6.1 often cylindrical structures. A harmonic analysis is possible for horizontal earthquake | motion in which only one harmonic is adequate to describe the effect rationally. There are two methodologies possible: (@) Direct method, and (b) Substructure method. * Direet method: In the direct method, a significant part of the soil around the structure is modelled by finite elements. The free-field motion is applied at the base of the mathematical model. The number of dynamic degrees of freedom in the soil region is high requiring large computer storage and significant running time. Infinite extent of the soil is required to be modelled by some energy dissipating boundaries. Fin Substructure method: In the substructure method, the substructure and soil are as tteated as two substructures, The unbounded soil is analysed first as a dynamic subsystem, The force-displacement relationship at the common nodes which are in contact with the structure is determined. These dynamic stiffness coefficients of the soil can be physically interpreted as a generalized spring, a spring dashpot system. The structure supported on spring-dashpot system is analysed for a loading where, which depends upon free-field motion. The substructure method allows the complex d. soil-structure interaction problem to be broken into more manageable parts which can be more easily handled. The influence of important parameters of soil on the structural response can be studied. In this chapter, analysis and design of well foundation by the seismic coefficient method have been discussed, | The mez = 7 When th 6.4” DEPTH OF WELL FOUNDATION | computed f A well foundation shall be taken down to a level sufficient to secure firm from consideration 4 The max of scour, settlement and overall stability Ina In erodible strata, the grip below the deepest scour line should not be less than 1/3 the Gi) Ate ‘maximum scour depth (D). The grip length should be adequate against lateral stability. : Gi) Ate In inerodible strata, wells shall be taken to the foundation level and shall be evenly seated : Gv) Ate all around the periphery on sound rock (ie, devoid of fissures, cavities, weathered zone, likely Atr extent of erosion, etc:) by providing adequate embedment. In some cases, small patches of soil cfoundations ics of pier- in which. ndations is mn damping athematical modelling. 1s wells are earthquake tally, There sthod. around the lied at the dom in the tning time. dissipating ~ nd soil are a dynamic which are ‘oefF~ients, ag 6. .pot ra loading xe complex arts which soil on the int method asideration an Ws the ity. nly seated one “kely hes. soil Well Foundation | 183 and weak material continues for a considerable depth while 80% to 90% of the well is resting ‘on good hard rock. In such case it may not be necessary to insist on sinking the well further to make it rest on rock on its entire area. ‘The maximum scour depth should be measured by soundings in the vicinity of the bridge site, Such soundings are best done during or immediately after a flood. Due allowance should ‘be made in the observed values for additional scour that may occur due to the design discharge being greater than the flood discharge for which the scour was observed, and also due to increased velocity due to obstruction to flow caused by the ‘construction of bridges Table 6.1 Silt factor Dice Deere Very tne sit Fine sit tedium sit 050 - Goarse sand 078 <= Finpbol send 10 Heavy sand b eee ‘The mean depth of scour, dyy, below HFL may be calculated from the following equation: D2\ 34 (z) (6.1) 4, Ky mean depth of scour below HFL; m, discharge in m°/s per m.width, obtained as the total design discharge divided by the effective linear waterway, jit factor for a representative sample of bed material (Table 6.1) .76 dy, and weighted mean diameter, mm. 4, When the constricted linear waterway L is less than the regime width WY, the value of dy ‘computed from Eq, 6.1 is to be increased by multiplying the same by the factor ry. ‘The maximum depth of scour D is to be taken as below: () In a straight reach 127 doy (i) At a moderate bend 1.50 doy ‘At a severe bend 175 doy (iv) Ata right angled bend 2.00 dy (¥) At noses of piers 2.00 doy184 | Foundations and Retaining Structures It may be noted that Eq. 6.1 gives the scour depth in alluvial river bed condition, Melville (1997) presented an integrated approach for computing the scour depth around piers and abutments. According to him local scour is a time dependent process. The temporal maximum scour depth (for a given set of conditions) is termed the equilibrium depth of scour. At equilibrium the local scour depth of bridge foundation is described by: 4, = Kye Ky Ky Ky Ky. Ke 62) where, K® are the factors accounting for the various influences on scour depth. In Eq.6.2. various terms are as given below: d, = maximum scour depth below river bed level, K = depth size, K,, for piers and Ky, for abutments, K; = factor accounting flow intensity, K, = factor accounting sediment size, K, = factor accounting shape of pier/abutment, Ke = factor accounting pier/abutment alignment, and Ke = channel geometry. Ky and d, have the dimension of length, while the other K* are dimensionless. Melville (1997) gave the procedure to get the values of K°, For more details his paper may be referred. In general, this equation gives the less value of maximum scour depth obtained by Eq. 6.1, but it is more realistic. 6.5 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE For cohesionless (Sandy) soils, the Indian Standards (IS: 3955-1967) recommends the following equation to estimate the allowable bearing pressure of a well foundation: ANB + 16 (100 + )D, 3) a allowable bearing pressure, kg/m?, N= corrected standard penetration resistance value, smaller dimension of well cross-section, m, and depth of foundation below scour level, m. In case of cohesive soils, undisturbed samples need be obtained to ascertain the shear and consolidation characteristics of the deposit. The ultimate bearing capacity of a well foundation can be determined considering the well as shallow foundation of width B, and depth of foundation D,(using consolidation test data (Saran, 2010). The settlement of the well foundation can be obtained using Terzaghi’s equation of one dimensional theory of consolidation (using consolidation test data (Saran, 2010) The allowable bearing pressure of a well resting on the rock strata can be obtained by evaluating the crushing strength of rock cores collected from the field. However, there is a possibility 0 the core san bed rock she specification be adopted. (Table 6.2) Schists and Hard shalet ‘Soft shales ~ Sot im tol While desig: @ Dead @i). Live Gia, pa (iv) Winc (v) Hori: (vi) Long or th (vii) Buoy (viii) Cent: (ix) Seisn The descr 6.6.1 De The ¢ loc the weight 0 6.6.2 Liv Livel sar cannot be et have been reion. Melville ad piers and cal maximum of scour. At (6.2) b. In Bq62. less. Melville y be ~ ferred. d by ~4 6.1, the following (6.3) the shear and cll foundation and pth of ell foundation idation (using 2 obt-ined by ver, ate is a Wel Foundation | 185 possibility of fissures, faults and joints in the rock bed which cannot be easily detected from the core samples. Teng (1962) has suggested that the allowable bearing pressure of a well on bed rock should not exceed the crushing strength of concrete seal. As per Indian Road Congress specifications (IRC-78-1983), normally allowable bearing pressure exceeding 2 MPa shall not bbe adopted. Further, the following values of allowable bearing pressures have been suggested (Table 6.2) Allowable bearing pressure in rock While designing the foundation of a bridge, the following loads and forces are considered: (@ Dead load i) Live load (ii) Impact load (jv) Wind load (W) Horizontal forces due to water currents (vi) Longitudinal forces caused by tractive efforts of vehicles or by braking of vehicles and/ or those caused by restraint to movement of free bearings. (vii) Buoyancy (viii) Centrifugal force (ix) Seismic force ‘The description of these loads and forces based on IRC:6-2010 are given below: 6.6.1 Dead Load ‘The dead load carried by a foundation member consists of its own weight and the portions of the weight of superstructure and substructure supported by the member. 6.6.2 Live Load Live loads are transient in nature and caused by vehicles which pass over the bridge. These loads cannot be estimated precisely. However, hypothetical loadings which are reasonably realistic have been recommended for design. The loadings are divided into four categories:186 | Foundations and Retaining Structures @) class AA loading, (®) class A loading, (© class B loading and @ class 70 R loading. (i) Class AA loading The IRC class AA loading is based on heavy military vehicles likely to run on certain routes. It is to be adopted for bridges within municipal limits in certain existing industrial areas, certain specified highways, etc. It is the usual practice to design the structures on national and state highways, for class AA loading. It is also desirable that the structures designed for class AA. loadings should be checked for class A loading because under certain conditions, it is likely to get heavier stresses under class A loading. iE Carrageway width —-> See bie sot 38 0 55| 03 ‘2000, Over 65) 12 Fig. 6.5. IRC class AA-loading (Tracked Vehicle) In class AA loading, the following two types of vehicles are specified: (@ Tracked vehicle (b) Wheeled vehicle. Figure 6,5 shows the tracked vehicle. It consists of a packed load of 700 KN which is equally distributed over two tracks of 0.85 m width. The length of vehicle is 720 m and out to out distance between the tracks is 2.90 m. Figure 6.6 shows the wheeled vehicle. The maximum load for single axle is 200 kN and for double axles at 1.2 m centre, it is 400 KN. The maximum wheel load is 62.5 KN. After considering the vehicle likely to cross the bridge, the choice is made either for tracked vehicle or wheeled vehicle. It is to be assumed for the design purpose that no other live load covers any part of the carriageway of the bridge, when a train of tracked or wheeled vehicle is passing over it. The nose-to-tail spacing between the two successive vehicles should not be less than 90 m and the minimum clearance between the road surface of the kerb and the outer edge of the wheel or track should be as shown in Fig. 6.5. Fi, 6.6 (4 Cle The IRC likely tc F not Figui specific assumes parallel of bridg The 1 other liv vehicles wheels « (iii) Cle Tt comp a iow bridges (iv) Cla T isa Thus loaroutes. It s, certain and state class AA is likely is equally out to out WN and for ‘or tracked + liy’ “pad ed vouicle uld not be { the outer Well Foundation | 187 Carriage way width ee | reer || S15 625 G2597.5KN Fig. 6.6 IRC class AA-loading (wheeled vehicte) (ii) Class A loading ‘The IRC class A loading is based on the heaviest type of commercial vehicle which is considered likely to run on Indian roads. Hence, all important permanent road bridges and culverts, which are not covered up by class AA loading, are to be designed for class A loading. Figure 6.7 shows the train for class A loading. It consists of an engine and two bogies. The specified axle loads with specified distances are also shown in Fig. 6.7. The axle loads are assumed to act simultaneously so as to cause maximum stresses. The train is assumed to move parallel to the length of the bridge. No other live load is to occupy any part of the carriageway of bridge when the standard train is crossing the bridge The nose-to-tail spacing between two successive trains shall not be less than 18.5 m. No other live load shall cover any part of the carriageway when a train of vehicles (or train of vehicles in multilane bridge) is crossing the bridge. The ground contact area for the different wheels and the minimum specified clearances are also shown in Fig. 6.7. (iii) Class B loading It comprises a wheel load train similar to that of class A loading but with smaller axle loads as shown in Fig. 67. This loading is intended to be adopted for temporary structures, timber bridges and bridges in specified areas. (iv) Class 70 R loading ‘This is an additional loading which is sometimes specified for use in place of class AA loading, This loading consists of a tracked vehicle of 700 KN or a wheeled vehicle of the total load of188 | Foundations and Retaining Structures. 48500 min,,, 6200 _, 4900 ; , 4900, 18500 min, ' Woh tbe 44 Aéalosa : 8 se fi gg28s8 lass A q 5 eess sss Glass 8 Class A one Brain of vices _ ‘axie | Contact width u toad i 8 w a eae ' v4 | 250 | 500 es | 200 | 380 a | 150 | 300 7 zr | 150 | 200 ie | 15 | 75 Pid fg i i, gh lbe LE aot i mei eB ariage | ° way with m | om | om Fig. 6 5510 15| 075 |o4 w 12) owt 15 | 015 | 12 loading Fig. 6.7. IRC class Aand B loadings 1000 KN. The tracked vehicle is similar to that of class AA except that the contact length of the tracks is 4.57 m, the nose-to-tail length of the vehicle is 7.92. m and the specified minimum spacing between successive vehicles is 30 m. The wheeled vehicle is 15.22 m long and has seven axles with loads totalling to 1000 KN. In addition, the effects on the bridge components due to a bogie loading of 400 KN are also to be checked. The dimensions of the class 70 RWel Foundation | 189 | i760 H i a al 4 30.000 min é Carriage c way width | minimum 4 ‘SSDKN S50KN 381055 | 03 on over 55 | 12 (@) Tracked vehicle ‘otal load 1000 i910], 396011520) 219011970), 3050 _ 11979 | tied re) 80 120 120 170 170 170 170 KN Load train ——— um =a on ‘oe ns) Tyre se Estee anxsio Bogie loasing Wee! spacing {(b) Wheeled vehicle Fig. 6.8. Class IRC 7OR loading loading vehicles are shown in Fig. 6.8. The specified spacing between the vehicles is measured from the rearmost point of ground contact of the leading vehicle to the forwardmost point of ground contact of the following vehicle in case of tracked vehicles; for wheeled vehicles, it is measured from the centre of the rearmost wheel of the leading vehicle to the centre of the first axle of the following vehicle. angtirof sinimum, The carriageway live load combination shall be considered for the design as given in and has Table 63. sports, 81K190 | Foundations and Retaining Structures The footways and floors of bridge, which are accessible only to pedestrians and animals, are to be designed for a live load of 4 kN/m?. Where crowd loads are likely to occur, such as ‘on bridges located near pilgrimage towns, the intensity of footway loading shall be taken as 5 kNim’, Table 6.3 Live load combination Kerbs, 0.6 m or more in width, shall be designed for the above loads, and for a local lateral force of 7.5 KN per metre, applied horizontally at the top of the kerb. If kerb is less than 0.6 m, no live load shall be applied in addition to the lateral load specified above. The standard loads are to be arranged in such a manner as to produce the maximum reaction on the abutment or pier under consideration for design. 6.6.3 Impact Load The stresses developed due to fast moving heavy vehicles over uneven surfaces are known as stresses due to impact. The provision made in the design of bridge for impact is expressed as a fraction of the live load. Such a fraction is termed impact factor, J, For class A or class B loading for spans between 3 m and 45 m I= A (for RCC bridges) (64a) 9 I= FEET z_ (lor steel bridges) (6.46) For spans less than 3 m, the impact factor is 0.5 for RCC bridges and 0.545 for steel bridges. ‘When the span exceeds 45 m, the impact factor is taken as 0.088 for RCC bridges and 0.154 for steel bridges. arches, tk Full in at Tere appropria wa (i) Fo. Gi) Fo.aimals, such as ken as own as ssed as ot steel 40554 Well Foundation | 191 For IRC class AA or 70 R loading (@ For spans less than 9 m (@) For tracked vehicle 25% for spans up to 5 m linearly reducing to 10% for spans fom (b) For wheeled vehicle 25% (i) For spans of 9 m and more {e) For wacked vehicle For RG bridges, 10% up to span of 40 m and in accordance with Fig. 69 for spans exceeding 40 m. For sleel bridges, 10% for all spans. (0) For wheeled vehicle For RC bridges, 25% for spans up to 12 m and in accordance with Fig. 69 for spans exceeding 12 m, For steel bridges, 25% for ‘spans up to 23 m and as in Fig. for spans exceeding 23 m. ‘The span length to be considered in the above computations is determined as below: ( Simply supported, continous or arch spans - the effective span on which the load is placed. (Gi) Bridges having cantilever arm without suspended span ~ 0.75 of effective cantilever arm for loads on the cantilever arm and effective span between supports for loads on the main span. When there is a filling of not less than 0.6 m inching the road crust as in spandrel filled arches, the impact allowance may be taken as half that computed by the above procedure. Full impact allowance should be made for design of bearings. But for computing the pressure at different levels of the substructure, a reduced impact allowance is made by multiplying the appropriate impact fraction by a factor as below: (@ At the bottom of bed block 05 (i) For the top 3 m ofthe substructure below the bed block 0.5 decreasing uniformly to zer0 (ii) For portion of substructure more than 3 m below the bed block 0.0 ROC fridges ° ttt E10 AS 20 2540-35 4045055 GO ‘Span Lm Fig. 6.9 Impact factor192 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 6.6.4 Wind Load ‘The transverse wind force Fr (in N) acts horizontally on the exposed area of the bridge structure. It is computed using the Eq. 6.5 given below. Fr = Prd GLp (6.5) where P, = hourly mean wind pressure in N/m? (Table 6.4), wverage height in metres of exposed surface above the mean retarding surface (ground or bed or water level), ¥, = hourly mean speed of wind in m/s at height H, P, = horizontal wind pressure in N/m” at height H, A, = solid exposed area of bridge structure in m?, G = gust factor, = 200 for highway bridges having span < 150 m, and Cy = drag coefficient depending on the geometric shape of the pier/well in plan (Table 6.5). Table 6.4 Hourly mean wind speed and wind pressure 1. For rectangular piers with rounded comers with radius r, the value of Cp derived from Table shall be multiplied by (1-1.5 r/t) or 0.5, whichever is greater. 2. For a pier with triangular nosing, Cp shall be derived as for the rectangle encompassing, the outer edges of pier. 3, For pier tapering with height, C, shall be derived for each of the unit heights into which the support has been subdivided. Mean values of ¢ and 6 for each unit height shall be used to evaluate 1/4, The overall pier height and mean breadth of each unit height shall be used to evaluate height/breadth, 4, After construction of superstructure Cp shall be derived for height to breadth ratio of 40. comet aWel Foundation | 193 Table 6.5 Drag coefficients Cp for piers and wells in plan li to Woch, 1 shall be. ight shall vdth io194 | Foundations and Retaining Structures ‘The transverse wind load per unit exposed frontal area of the live load is computed using Eq, 6.5 except that Cp = 1.2. The exposed frontal area of the live load shall be the entire length of the superstructure seen in elevation in the direction of wind or any part of that length producing critical response, multiplied by a height of 3.0 m above the roadway surface. The longitudinal wind load on the live load shall be taken 25 per cent of transverse wind load as calculated above. Both loads shall be applied simultaneously acting at 1.5 m above the roadway. The bridges will not be considered to be carrying any live load when the wind velocity at the deck level exceeds 36 mis. 6.6.5 Horizontal Forces due to Water Currents Any part of a road bridge which may be submerged in running water should be designed to sustain safely the horizontal pressure due to the force of the water current. On piers parallel to the direction of the water current, the intensity of pressure shall be calculated from the following equation: 52 KV? 66) ie where, p= intensity of pressure due to the water current, in KN/m?, ¥ = velocity of the current at the point where the pressure intensity is being calculated, in metres per second, and K =a constant having different values for different shapes, Table 6.6 In case of the water current striking the piers at an angle, for calculating the pressure due to the components of velocity perpendicular to the pier, constant K shall be taken as 1 in all ‘cases except in the case of circular piers where the constant shall be taken as 0.66. For calculating the pressure on the pier, angle 0 that the current makes with the axis of the pier should be taken into account. The pier should then be designed for variation of current angle between 20° + 6°. Thus the pressure along the axis of the pier and transverse to it will respectively be given by P; = 0.52 KV? cos*(20° + 0°) .A6.7a) P, = 0.52 KV? sin?(20° + 6°) 7b) ‘The value of V7 in Egs. (6.6) and (6.7) and shall be assumed to vary linearly from zero at the scour depth to the square of maximum velocity at the free surface of water. The maximum velocity shall be assumed to be ~/2 times the maximum mean velocity of the current. 6.6.6 Longitudinal Forces Longitudinal forces are caused in road bridges due to any one or more of the following: Table 6.¢ Ese Squa leu Pies being Piors Piers than Piers Plors La 2 3.F t _Braki ‘5 (sing. 20% of 1 single la of elo (ii) Mut As in The fi and 1.2 reaction For a stiff sup) the two ShWel Foundation | 195 ted using Table 6.6 Value of constant K for pressure intensity due to water currents he entire rat length ed ‘Gircular pore or pers wih semicrular ends arse wind Piers wih tiangular cut and ease waters, the angle incuded between the face above the being 30° or loss 050 Piers wih triangular cut and ease wators, tho angle included between the faces being more than 30" but less than 60? 95010 0.70, ‘locity at a) Piers with tianguar cut and ease waters, the angle Incwded between te faces more than 60° but less then 90" 070 t9 0.90 Pers with cul and ease waters of equlatral arc of ces 048 Piers with ar ofthe cut and 9380 waters inersection at 90° 04s signed to 1. ‘Tractive effort caused through acceleration of the driving wheels; + shall be 2. Braking effect due to application of brakes to the wheels; and 3, Frictional resistance offered to the movement of free bearings due to change of « temperature or any, other cause se) Braking effect is invariably greater than the tractive effort. It is computed as follows: (i Single-tane or two-lane bridge -aleulated, 20% of the first train load plus 10% of the loads in succeeding trains ot parts thereof on any Single lane only. Ifthe entire first train isnot onthe full span, the braking fore is taken as 20% 3 of the loads actually on the span. No impact allowance is included for this computation. sssure due (i) Multi-lane bridge EL [As in (@) above for the first two lanes plus 5% of the loads on the lanes in excess of two. xis ofthe ‘The force due to braking effect shall be assumed to act along a line parallel to the roadway en and 1.2 m above it. While transferring the force to the bearings, the change in the vertical eaten reaction at the bearings should be taken into account, For a simply supported span with fixed and free bearings (other than elastomeric type) on stiff supports, horizontal forces at the bearing level in the longitudinal direction is greater of the two values given below: So. Fired bearing Free boorhg 4, 7 R-w aR) wR) 4 2 Beumery HAR where, F,= apoled horizontal force, Ry = reaction at the free end due to dead load, R= reaction at the free end due to live toad, and : I= coaficlent of fiction at the movable bearing wine196 | Foundations and Retaining Structures ‘The value of j shall be assumed to have the following value: () For steal roller bearings 003) (For concrete roller bearings 0.08 Gi) For sing bearings {a} Steel on cast iron or steel on steo! 050 (©) Grey cast iron on grey cast iron (Mecharite) 040 (6) Concrete over concrete with bitumen layer in between 0.60 (@) Teflon on stainless stool 0.05 In case of simply supported small spans up to 10 metres resting on unyielding supports and where no bearings are provided, horizontal force in the longitudinal direction at the bearing level shall be Fy2 ot UR, whichever is greater For a simply supported span sitting on identical elastomeric bearings at each end resting on unyielding supports. Forces at each end where, shear rating of the elastomer bearings, and 4j,= movement of deck above bearing, other than that due to applied forces. ‘The substructure and foundation shall also be designed for 10 per cent variation in movement of the span on either side. For continuous bridge with one fixed bearing and other free bearings. Fixed Bearing Free Bearing Case! GR ~ ul) 4ve and F; acting in +ve direction (@) WF, > 20k Fy~ WR + wl) (©) WF, < 2k wR, Fo Tem Case tl (WR ~ uL) +e and Fy acing in ~ve direction (e) HF, > 2a Fy~ WR + wh) (0) Fy < Zak WR, Fs Team, * WR Hh) + WR uly whichever is greater. Ins tractiv 6.6.7 Foray should The0.03) 0.08 050 040 0.60 0.05 rts and bearing sting on overt Well Foundation | 197 where, 1, oF rg = number of free bearings to the left or Fight of fxed bearings, respectively, IAL oF uF = the total horizontal force developed at the free bearings to the left or right of the fixed beating respectively, and 1¢ et horizontal foe developed at any one ofthe free bearings considered to the left or right ‘of the fixed bearings, In seismic areas, the fixed bearing shall also be checked for full seismic force and braking/ tractive force. 6.6.7 Centrifugal Force For a road bridge located on a curve, effects of centrifugal forces due to movement of vehicles should be taken into account. The centrifugal force is given by Eq. 6.8 eR G TR (6.8) where, C= centrifugal force in KN acting normal to the traffic (a) at the point of action of the wheel loads or (b) uniformly distributed over every metre length on which the uniformly distributed loads act, W = live load (@) in kN for wheel loads and (b) in kN/m for uniformly distributed live load, V = design speed in km/hour, and R= radius of curvature in metres. ‘The centrifugal force is assumed to act at a height of 1.2 m above the level of the carriagews The force is not increased for impact effect. 6.6.8 Buoyancy The effect of buoyancy is considered in the design of a bridge, only if the strata of soil are permeable or in other words, if bridge foundations are resting on homogeneous and impermeable strata of soil, no provision is made for buoyancy in the design of bridge. Following points are taken into consideration for the computation of the buoyancy force. (@ The effects of buoyancy are to be considered in the design of an abutment in case of a submersible bridge. In such a case, it is assumed that the filling behind the abutment is washed away or removed by scouring action. (b) For the design of submerged masonry or concrete structure, the buoyancy effect through pores is limited to the extent of 15 per cent of full buoyancy effect. (© If the member under consideration displaces water only, the reduction in weight due to ‘buoyancy for that member is taken equal to the volume of the displaced water.196 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 6.6.9 Seismic Force ‘The following points have to be considered for the computation of seismic forces: 1. Parts of the structure embedded in the soil below scour level need not be considered to produce any seismic forces. Vertical seismic coefficient, 4, is taken two-thirds of the horizontal seismic coefficient, 4, 3. The seismic force due to live load shall not be considered when acting in the direction of traffic, but shall be considered in the direction perpendicular to the traffic. Further both horizontal and vertical seismic forces shall be calculated using 20% of live load (excluding impact factor). It is based on the assumption that only 20% of the live load is present over the bridge at the time of earthquake 4, For design of foundation, the seismic loads should be taken as 1.25 times the forces transmitted to it by substructure, so as to provide sufficient margin to cover the possible higher forces transmitted by the substructure arising out of its over strength. 5. In loose sands and poorly graded sands with little or no fines, the vibrations due to earthquake may cause liquefaction, or excessive total and differential settlements. Founding bridges on such sands should be avoided unless approximate methods of compaction or stabilization are adopted. Alternatively, the foundations should be taken deeper below the liquefiable layers, to firm strata. 6. The depth of the scour under seismic condition to be considered for design shall be 0.9 times the maximum scour depth, 6.6.10 Hydrodynamic Force For submerged proportions of the pier, the hydrodynamic force Fyy, assumed to act in a horizontal direction corresponding to that of earthquake motion, is given by Eq. 6.9, Fy = CWA, (6.98) where, C=a coefficient from Table 6.7 depending on the ratio of height of submerged portion of pier (H) to the radius (a) of the enveloping cylinder as in Fig. 610, Ay, = horizontal seismic coefficient, and W = the weight of the enveloping cylinder (Fig. 6.10) For submerged superstructure of submersible bridges, the hydrodynamic pressure is determined from Eq. 6.10. P=85 A, Vy (6.96) where, p= hydrodynamic pressure in kN/m?, Ay = horizontal seismic coefficient, H= height of water surface from the level of deepest scour in m, and y= depth the section below the water surface in m. : bbe Sinai Table 6.1 Fig 6.10 6.7 1 6.01 The stab on its sid the incre of the we elastic st: Indian and relati resistance soils. The under de: bbe n2cess shu al be approach (i Elast As ptiv The folloasidered seismic lirection Further ive load ive load ¢ forces possible ons due Jements, thods.of bet a Ube 09 act in a (69a) bmerged 6.10, sssure is ey Well Foundation | 199 Table 6.7 Values of C in Equation 6.9a 19. 0.390 20 : 0575 30 0975. 40 0.730 N77 ~4y Fig 6.10. Enveloping cytinder for some typical cases of piers 6.7 LATERAL STABILITY, OF WELL FOUNDATION 6.7.1 General ‘The stability of a well under the action of lateral loads depends on the resistance of the soil on ils sides and the base. For a given vertical load, the deformation of the soil increases with the increase in the lateral load and, therefore, the resistances offered by the sides and base of the well also change. The behaviour of the well at ultimate failure is different from at the elastic stage. Indian Road Congress on the basis of observed behaviour of models of well foundations ‘and related research work formulated the recommendations (IRC: 45-1972) for estimating the resistances of soil below the maximum scour level for design of well foundation in cohesionless soils, The standard suggests the elastic theory to estimate the pressures at the sides and the base ‘under design loads, but to determine the actual factor of safety against shear failure, it will be necessary to calculate the ultimate soil resistance. Therefore, the design of well foundation should be checked by both: (i) elastic theory, and (ji) ultimate resistance approach. Both the approaches have been included in IRC 45-1972. (i) Elastic theory method Assumptions ‘The following assumptions are made in deriving the equations based on elastic theory:200 | Foundations and Retaining Structures (@ The soil surrounding the well and below the base is perfectly elastic, homogeneous and follows Hooke’s Law. il) Under design working loads, the lateral deflections are so small that the unit soil reaction P increases linearly with increasing lateral deflection z as expressed by p = Kyz, where Ky is the coefficient horizontal subgrade reaction at the base. ‘The coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction increases linearly with depth in the case of cohesionless soils (Gv) The well is assumed to be a rigid body subjected to an external unidirectional horizontal force H and a moment My at scour level. Method of calculation Step 1 Having determined the minimum grip length as explained in Sec. 6.4, calculate applied loads and moments as: W =Total downward load consisting of dead load, live load etc., as acting on the base of well Total lateral load applied above the scour level. Total external moment applied at the base of well due to eccentricity of live load, lateral loads, tilts and shift, etc. Step 2 Using the dimensions of the well, calculate the following geometrical properties: Jp=Moment of inertia of base section in the plane of bending, that is, about an axis perpendicular to the direction of horizontal force causing moment. (p= 7/64 * BY for a circular well) loment of inertia of the vertical projected rectangle of the well below scour level H M (6.10) iameter of circular well, or width of base parallel to the direction of the horizontal force, L = projected width of well in contact with soil offering passive resistance 0.9 B for a circular well, the factor 0.9 being the shape factor. This factor is 10 for side of a rectangular or square well, D,= depth of well below scour level, that is, grip, 'm = ratio of horizontal sub-grade modulus to vertical sub-grade modulus at base level of well = Ky/Ky The value of m may be taken as 1.0 in most cases, unless determined by tests coefficient of friction between the well sides and the soil (= tan 8), where 8 is the angle of wall friction taken as 2/3 but not more than 22.5°, where ® is the angle of internal friction of the soil on the sides, and © = (BRD) for circular well and [B/(2D)) for rectangular well. Step 3 frictiona backwan where, of the pl Step 4 at the to where, ar“actis by ~oule shape of surface, If the step 5 Jess thansneous and oil reaction Ge, where in the case horizontal , calculate he base of >ad, lateral pertes: at an axis eve, (6.10) horizontal factor is base level ves, less sre 6 is the s the angle Well Foundation | 201 Step 3 Check that the point of rotation of the well lies at the base by ensuring that the frictional force at the base is sufficient to restrain the movement of the well forward or backward. That is, a> Mas upy-w (11a) n 0, 12, no tension (6.146) where, ‘maximum and minimum base pressures respectively, total horizontal reaction from the side = Mir, area of base section of well, diameter or width of well in the plane of bending, and qq allowable bearing pressure202 | Foundations and Retaining Structures eet I Lett |) fiw Deflection Pressure role dlstribution atside Prossure distribution ‘at base Fig, 6.11 illustrating the analysis of well by elastic theory Derivation of equations used in elastic theory (@) Total deflection at depth ‘y’ from scour level (Fig. 6.11) =O,-y8 Horizontal soil reaction » o.=K, "Dy Ky or, 9-5 where, Ky = mKy Total horizontal soil reaction P= {y/o, La, = ky 8 5 WiOD— ao (D,— 8 ©,-»0 or, wh () Le | | | | © Ce | ve 4 si @F 4 ° 7 oT : aq * > MieWell Foundation | 203 2mKy 0 Ty or, P Dy (6.15) where, LD} bay (6.16) (b) Let Mp be the moment ‘of P about base level 2 M,= [o,0)-9 Ly Ky OL | amy [row | Mp= By 8 Iy (6.7) i (© Consider the soil reaction acting at the base. | Vertical deflection at distance (x + x,) = @ +2)0 { 0,= Ke +x98 M,=] 9,dAx a = Kyo) (+x) xdA “aa = Kyo [0 x? dd + Ky xe gn dA Since origin is at the c.g. of base. pat | f xa4=0 | in | and ‘| Pa Jedd in (6.18) @ For equilibrium, EA or H+ Bu (7 — WP) =P | H+ Bu 1 > 17 Baw’ (6.19) ° 1 Baw’ ae (© Taking moment about base M= Mg + Mp+ wPaDy (6.20) where, a aD,= distance from the axis passing the cg. of base at which the resultant vertical | frictional force on side acts normal to the direction of horizontal force,204 | Foundations and Retaining Structures = B?2 for rectangular wells, and = 0.318 times diameter for circular wells. Substituting equations (6.18), (6.17) and (6.15), we get M= K,Bly + mK Bly + Wo2mK Oly, or, Ky Ip + ml, (+ 2a) MII= Kp where, I= Jy + miy{l + 2y'0) Equations can be written as H+ Bu pats bur 1+ Bup’ The value of B lies between the range, B<1or>-1. Thus , M @ FHS BW aw > or, n> Mas up)—pw i OM @ 7 A> WW + pw! nx Ma pyy+ ww () The vertical reaction is given by 6,= KP (+x) ot, = W-WP=Jo,dd= Ko) &+x) dd or, = K,Ox,A (since [xd = 0) (6.246) (6.21) (6.22) (6.23) \ (6.24a) or, or, or, or, or, Usir (@ Con The at a or, or, Left or, Gi) Ultime For checkin by suitable by appropri are deveribe Step. © as follows: @ ui @ ui Giiy Li(6.21) (6.22) (6.23) | (6.24) (6.240) Well Foundation | 205 or, or, or, or, on, Using Bq. 621 we get — Tu? MB oA a MB 6 (6.25a) (6.256) (g) Condition of stability: ‘The maximum soil reaction from the sides cannot exceed the maximum passive pressure at any depth provided the soil remains in an elastic state. Thus, at any depth y, 6.4 w Ke Kd ES) omy O-)* WK Kd Ke om O-NF Kp Kd Left hand side is maximum at y = 0 or, mK,O* ¥(Kp- Ka) mM: mM sy Kp Ky) (626) Ultimate resistance approach For checking the ultimate load capacity of the well foundation, the applied loads are magnified by suitable load factors for various load combinations and the ultimate resistance is reduced by appropriate under-strength factors and then the two are compared. The steps to be taken are described below: Step 2 Compute the applied loads W,, H, and M, for various ultimate load combinations as follows: @ uD, @ 11D, + 161, Gi) 11D, + B+ 14@, + We + ED206 | Foundations and Retaining Structures (iv) 11D, + B+ LAW, + Ep + W, of E) () LID, + B+ 1250, + W, + Ep + W, or where, = dead load, 1, = live load, B= buoyancy, W.= water current force, E, = earth pressure force, W, = wind load, and Ey, = earthquake load. The forces and loads will be considered contributions to W,, H, and M, as the case may be. In the ultimate resistance case, the point of rotation is assumed to occur at 0.2D, above the base of the well. The moment M, is to be computed about this point instead of the base. Moments due to shifts and tilts are to be included in the moment, M,. Step 2 Check for maximum average pressure at base. Way We Get (6.27) the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil below the base of the well, and ultimate vertical load acting at the base. If this condition is not satisfied increase the well diameter. Step 3 Compute the ultimate moment of resistance of the base section M, = OW,B tan ® where, Q = a constant depending on the shape of well and ratio Dy/B as given in Table 6.8 Table 6.8 Values of constant Q 030 s 050 056 et ‘Step 4 Compute the ultimate moment of resistance on the well sides. This has two parts, ‘one due to passive resistance and the other due to frictional resistance. M, = 0.10 y (Kp - Kp) D? L (6.28) My= O18 y (Kp ~ K,) D? LB sin 3 for rectangular wells (6.292) M;= O11 y (Kp — K,) DP B sin 8 for circular wells (6.296) Step 5 where 0. Derivat (a) Base The base of ruptur square w with its ¢ in the Fiy Fig. 6.12 1m, WB, vib @ Reeta axis (Fig Due tce case may 3.2, above of the base. Table 6.8. 038 964 two parts, 28) (6.298) 10.290) Well Foundation | 207 Step 5 Check the applied ultimate moment with the total ultimate moment of resistance. M, $0.7 (My + M, + Mj) (6.30) where 0.7 is the strength reduction factor. Derivation of equations used in ultimate resistance approach (@ Base resisting moment (M,) ‘The base resisting moment is the moment of the frictional fore mobilized along the surface of rupture which is assumed to be cylindrical passing through the comers of the base for a square well, For circular wells, the surface of rupture corresponds to that of a part of sphere with its centre at the point of rotation and passing through the periphery of the base as shown in the Fig. 6.12a. Scour vel Point of fe 5, il 1 eo Applied load W/B es HHH torunt wit oe. 8 k 8 tl i iit rina tn re thet tt Aittorent et 3 ) Fig. 6.12 Nusrating computation of base resting moment If MF, is the total load modified by appropriate load factor, the load per unit width will be WB, which will also be equal to the upward pressure as shown in Fig. 6.12a. (H Rectangular base: Consider the small are of length Rao: at an angle 0 from the vertical axis (Fig. 6.120). Its horizontal component = Rdot cos 0 Vertical force on the element = Rd. cos 0 WIB Due to this vertical force the normal force developed at the element is 6F, (Fig. 6.126) where, ar, We ra “Fr Rela. c0s 01 cos o We F Reos'a. dot208 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Total normal force F, is given by, CHR Hy costo. do a WR =F © + sin 6 cos 6) (631) Moment of resistance of the base about the point of rotation is M, =F, tan OR = Fyw-R Substituting the value of & in Eq, 6.31 we get on simplification 1(,, PA) no WB g (1+ 7] fan (6.32) os, Ms= W, BuO (6.33) where, (634) DB It may be noted that Q depends on n and D/B ratio. (i) Circular base: A multiplication factor of 0.6 is to be applied for the above expression of -M, in order to account for the surface of rupture being part of a sphere. For both cases substituting the value ‘n’ equal to 0.2 for the point of rotation in Eq. 6.34, the values of Q for different values of D/B are obtained as given in Table 6.8 (8) Side resisting moment(M,) Figure 6.13 shows the ultimate soil pressure distribution at the front and back faces of the well. The point of rotation is assumed at 0.2D, above the base. Le, yD, (Kp-K) = X= BC, BF = ¥, poe Fig. 6.13, From t or, From t From J Momet GEC. Say Substit or ak (© Fricti Due to th back face mat direction6.31) (6.32) (6.33) (6.34) rression of Eg. 6.34, ves of the Wet Foundation | 209 YOAKe Ky), YD Kp~ Ki Ae Ka). YO(Ke— Ki) Fig. 6.13 Illustrating the computation of side soil resisting moment From triangles GEF and OEH D, _Dy- 02D, X+¥- Y or, a. oo, (6.388) From triangles ABC and AIE Dy Dy- Dy x77 6356) From Eqs. (635 a) and (6.35 b), we get Di = DB (6350) ‘Moment of side resistance about GEC. is the algebraic sum of moments of triangles ABC and = 0.096 D? X ‘Say, = 01 DPX Substituting for X, -M, = O.ly D/ (K, — Kp) per unit length of well; or for a length of L, -M, = O.ly D? (K, ~ KL. (6.36) (© Friction resisting moment (Mj) Due to the passive pressure of soil as shown in Fig. 6.13, the frictional forces on the front and back faces of the well will be acting in the vertical direction and will also produce resisting moment ‘M;.. In this analysis, the effect of the active earth pressure perpendicular to the direction of applied forces is neglected.210 | Foundations and Retaining Structures The vertical pressure due to friction at any level is sin 6 times the pressure at that level, where 8 is the angle of wall friction, The friction force/unit width = (AAOE + ABOG) sin & Pressure at = 2By Dy (Kp- Ky) Area of triangle AOE = 23y Dy (Kp ~ Ky) (O8Dy2 = 0.8/3 D? (Kp — Ky) Area of triangle BOG = 0.2D/2D; (Kp ~ Kp) = OW? Kp-K) Total friction force/unit width = (8 + oa] yD? (Kp Kj sin 8 1.137 D? (Kp ~ K,) sin 8 ‘Moment about the centre of rotation (@ In case of rectangular wells of width B and length L LD ; Ma“SP DP Kp KB sin 81 = 0.183 y (Kp — K LBD? sin 8 Say = 0.180 y (Kp — K)LBD/ sin & (6.37) ii) In case of circular wells Lever arm = Bin ‘Therefore, 1, 2 Es M4 1D? (Kp Kp BL sin Since L = 0.9 B in case of circular well My My= 0.105 y (Kp ~ K,) BD? sin 8 Say M;= ON Kp ~ K,) BD? sin & 38) 8 CONCLUDING REMARKS: The behaviour of existing bridges during earthquakes has shown a susceptibility of substructures to damage due to cracking, settlement or collapse. Design and analysis of substructures should therefore be made using rational methods of dynamic analysis for earthquake motion. IS 1893- 1982 also specifies that bridges with spans more than 120 m and substructures taller than 30 m situated in zones IV and V should be designed on the basis of the modal method of dynamic ‘analysis. Such an analysis and design would lead to safe performance during earthquakes, Dynamic a motion che soil struct. coefficient ‘The sub on firm str substructus and dampi significant and founds characteris appropriat: analysis. fe substructu: ‘Thakkar (1 in well for Example cantilever Formati Lad lev HFL. Level 0 Level 0 Width « Length Main 51 Suspenc Cantiles Loading Footpat 1 dw Footpat Maxim Average Lad kc Allowalthat level, 137) (6.38) structures ‘es should IS 1893- ham + dynamic ‘thquakes. Well Foundation | 211 Dynamic analysis enables determination of design forces and displacements considering ground motion characteristics, dynamic characteristics of structure, hydrodynamic water pressure and soil structure interaction. It is not possible to include all these factors in the equivalent seismic coefficient approach (Thakkar and Chakrabarty, 1982). ‘The substructures of major bridges are generally founded on deep well foundations resting ‘on firm stratum, The wells are embedded in soil of varying stiffness. The dynamic response of substructure to earthquake motion depends on stiffness and mass distribution of substructure ‘and damping in substructure and foundation. The stiffness of embedded well foundation has significant rote on the dynamic response of structure. The dynamic analysis of bridge substructure and foundation enables computation of shears, moments and displacements in the structure. The characteristics of ground motion, properties of structure and soil structure interaction must be appropriately considered in the dynamic analysis of structure. The information from dynamic analysis forms the basis for earthquake resistant design of foundation, Seismic response of substructure of bridges and aqueducts founded on alluvial soils has been studied by Arya and ‘Thakkar (1983) and Thakkar (1991). The wells are massive and behave like loads and moment in well foundation becomes available from side soil and base soil (Thakkar 1992). ‘ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE Example 6.1 Check the lateral stability of a well foundation provided for a balanced cantilever bridge for the following data Formation level of bridge = 580.00 m Bed level 562.50 m HEL. = 573.50 m Level of bearing pins 51545 m Level of the base of the bearing 515.20 m Width of bearing 500 mm Length of outer edges of the bearings 40m Main span =30m Suspended span ism Cantilever span 75m Loading IRC class A loading Footpath load = 2 kN? Road width =8m Footpath width 15m Maximum design discharge = 6000 m’isee ‘Average velocity of flow 15 misee Dead load of main span = 4500 kN Allowable soil pressure = 450 KNim*Gtatic case)212 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Area of elevation = 150 m? Depth of centre of area of elevation above road level = 175 m Lacey's silt factor =10 is located in a seismic area @ Depth of foundation Effective linear waterway, L= 48 0 = 4.8 ¥6000 = 371.8 m Discharge per metre width, _ 6000 Ps" 318 = 16.14 m°isec/m Normal scour depth, pap a= 134[?!] D=2d=2%86 = 172m Grip length = D/3 = 17.2/3 = $73 m Depth of the base of foundation below HFL. 22.93 m, say 23 m Maximum scour depth, i Preliminary dimensions of pier and we (@ Top dimensions of pier Width = Bearing width + clearance on either side = 050 +2 «0.25 = 10 m Length = Length between the outer edges of bearings + 10 m + semicircles on either side (nose) =40+10+10 = 60m, (©) Dimensions of pier cap Assuming 200 mm projections beyond the edge of the top of pier, then Width = 1.0+2%*02=14m © Bot @ Din Adc D Cro Tris (iii) Load @ De Fro Fro Fro Tot: &) Lin Res by _ mul add FigWell Foundation | 213, Length = 5.0 + 14= 64m Thickness = 0.8 m (assumed) (© Bottom dimensions of pier Height of pier = $75.20 ~ $62.50 - 0.8 = 19 m Batter of the sides = 1 in 12 Width = 1.0 + 2 (11.9/12) = 3.0 m (@pprox.) Length = 5.0 + 2 x (119/12) + 3.0 = 10.0 m (approx) (@ Dimensions of well Adopt a circular well for foundation with a single dredge hole. 10.0 m Internal diameter = 7.0 m External diameter ‘Thickness of steining = 1.5 m ‘Thickness of well cap = 1.2 m RL of base of foundation = 573.50 ~ 23 .0 = $50.50 m Depth of foundation below bed level = 562.50 ~ $50.50 = 12.0 m Height of well = 12.0 - 1.2 = 108 m Cross-section of pier cap, pier at top and bottom, and to the well are shown in Fig 6.14. ‘Trial dimensions and various reduced levels (RL) are shown in Fig. 6.15. (il) Load ealeulations (@ Dead load From main span (30 m) = 4500 kN From suspended span (15 m) = “30° = 2250 knw From cantilever span (75 m) = 452° = 1125 kaw ‘Total dead load reaction on a pier, E (Fig. 6.16) __ 4500 , 2250 = 1500 , 250 + 1195 = 4500 kN (®) Live load Reaction on the pier having rocker bearing (say at location E, Fig. 6.16) is obtained by drawing the influence line diagram. The magnitude of reaction is obtained by ‘multiplying the ordinates of influence line diagram with the loads of IRC class A and adding together. Considering two train of vehicles passing simultaneously as shown in Fig. 6.17, live load reaction.214 | Foundations and Retaining Structures >t — k-—s0m——] +—s0m—+) (2) Pier cap (0) Pier top 30m -——1m +4 100m (owl sing Fig. 6.14 Plan dimensions of various components of substructures 107, U8 363) = [er 12s (22 + BB) + 1 x 125 (1 +383) + 08 2, 29, 6B 3, 125 (22 Fast Bayt Hes) +27 125 (22 = [50.625 + 280.44 + 249,33 + 4.41] x 2 = 584.805 x 2 kN 169.6 KN ay 1170 KN It will act at an eccentricity of (4.0 - 0.15 - 2.3 ~ 0.6), i. 0.95 m from the centre of Fig. 6.15. ( Rea ‘tw © Imp Forthe centre of Wet Foundation | 218 ‘Wind force on LL—> 581.50, Longitudinal forco—> 881.20 aa ot seas fram Tewetoep rset c q scour ie 90 topm ism 70m sx 5 J. Bottom plug | sam Base of woll Fig. 6.15 Components of substructure with reduced levels and other dimensions Reaction due to footpath loading = U2 « 52.5 «1.25 x 2 = 66 KN It will act at an eccentricity of 4.75 m from the centre of the pier (Fig. 6.17) (© Impact load For IRC class A loading on RC bridges r= +L216 | Foundations and Retaining Structures ao Oo ¢ po Hy haweontet 3.0m or sont — on ag at 200 tam Fig. 6.16 Influence line diagram for computing live load reaction & (oad way) Fig. 6.17 Placement of live load on roadway for eccentricity calculation IF for main span = 455, = 0125 IF for suspended span = <45-, = 0.214 IF for cantilever span = 2. = 0.333 +7: ‘Average IF = 0.224 Impact load for design of pier cap = 1170 x 0,224 = 262 KN Impact load reduces to zero at a depth 3.0 m below the top of pier cap. (@ Wind forces (@ On dead load Height of centre of area in elevation above HFL = 580.00 ~ 1.75 ~ $73.50 = 4.75 m 0.464 kNim?™ 464 * 150 * 2.0 * 1.5 = 208.80 kN From Table 6.4, ‘Transverse wind force= (i) Vel a)Well Foundation | 217 Longitudinal wind force, Fy= 0.50 x 208.80 = 104.40 kN Upward or downward vertical wind force, Fy= 0464 x (8% 3M x 20 * 15 = 334.08 kN Gi) On live load ‘Transverse wind force on live load = 0464 x 399 x 30 * 2.0 x 1.2 = 133.30 KN Longitudinal wind force on live load = 025 x 13330 3.32 KN Point of application of wind force on live load = 15 m above the road surface, ic, at RL 581.50 m (© Water current forces As per IRC:6-2010, in seismic case depth of maximum scour shall be considered as 0.9 (maximum scour depth, D) below HEFL ie, 09 x 17.2 = 15.48 m say 15.5 m ‘Water pressure = 0.52 KV? ‘Velocity component at the face of pier (@ Along the pier axis = V cos (20 + 8) i) Transverse to the pier axis = V sin 20 + €) So, maximum water pressure () Along the pier axis 52 x 0.66 (2 x 1.5 cos 207° 36 KNim? (ii) Transverse to pier axis = 0.52 x 15 (E x 1.5 sin 20) 141 KN/m? Refer Fig. 6.18 Force due to water current (@ Along the pier axis = 2111 KN 136 +049 x2. 1 136 + 049 It will act at (i) Transverse to pier axis,218 | Foundations and Retaining Structures : 0.41 un? ey F—1S6HNE By 573.50 " 0.18 kNint Base of pier @ eam Deepest scouting © Fig. 6.18 Pressure diagrams due to water-current forces: (a) cosine components, (b) sine component jl O41 +015 x2 11 1t will act at °F SASS Bt = 4065 m below HEL Force due to water current on well along the pier axis 2049 6 x x 62x10 = 15.19 kN This acts at 11 + $2 = 13.07 m below HFL. o Force due to water current on the well transverse to pier axis 01s SB x 62« 10 = 4.65 KN acting at 13.07 m below HFL. + @ Dead weight of substructure above scour level @ Weight of pier cap = [5.0 * 14 x 0.8 + w/4 x 14? x 0.8] x 25 = 1171 kN (ii) Area of pier at top = 5.0 * 1.0 + m/4 (1.0) = 5.79 m? Area of pier at bottom = 3.0 x 70 + n/4 (3.0)? = 28.1 m? Height of pier =119m Weigh of ie SBA cg = 3831 KN,‘Well Foundation | 219 ii) Weight of well cap = niA(lOP x 1.2 x 25 355 KN, (iv) Weight of well steining = wid(0? — 7?) x 5.0 x 25 005 KN. (W) Weight of sand fill = nid(I? x 6.0) x 18 3462 KN, (g) Buoyancy Width of pier at HEL = 10+ 2x OR = 115 m Length of pier at HFL = 4.025 m without noses Area of pier at HFL. = LIS x 4.025 + w/4(1.15)? ts, (b) sine = 495 a Area of pier at bottom = 28.1 m* Height of pier submerged below HFL = 110 m Submerged volume of piet = 952281 4 11 = 1817 m? Volume of well cap = ni x 10? x 1.2 = 9424 m? . Volume of well above scour level = wit x 10? x (6.2 ~ 1.2) = 392.5 m? Buoyancy on pier, well cap & well = 10 x (181.7 + 94.24 + 392.5) = 66844 KN (1) Longitudinal forces ( On first train of vehicles = 0.2 27x 2+ 114 x 2 + 68 x 4) = 1108 KN On second train of vehicles 1 for main span = 0.107 x 2+ 114 x 2 + 68) = 35.0 KN I for cantilever span = 0.1(68 * 2) = 13.6 KN 3 ‘otal longitudinal force = 110.8 + 35.0 + 13.6 = 1594 KN It will act at a height of 1.2 m above roadway. RL of the point of application = 580 + 1.2 = $81.2 m Lever arm of longitudinal force with respect to the centre of bearing pins = 581.2 — 57545 = 5.75 m Increase in reaction due to this force on rocker bearing ecrease in reaction on roller (or free) bearing (159.4 x 5.75)/30 = 31 KN220 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Loadings on the free bearings: © Dead load = 4500 kN Live load (27x 4+ 11d x 2 + 68 x 4] x 2- 1170 = 46 kN ‘Impact load = 46 0.224 = 10.3 KN iy Foot path reaction «= 2 x 52.5 - 66 = 39 KN Net vertical load on free bearing = 4500 + 46 + 103 + 39-31 (wit) Coefficient of friction at roller bearing, = 0.03 H R= 003 x 4565 = 137 KN. O ya Longitudinal force on fixed or rocker bearing will be (1594 - 137 = 22.4 KN) or Alo: [59.4/2) + 137 = 2167 KN] whichever is more, ie, 216.7 KN say 218 kN at RL 575.45 m @ Seismic force across the traffic Ay = 0.15, A, = 213% A, = 2/3*0.15 = 0.10 (Assumed) ( On dead load of superstructure 4500 * 0.5 = 675 KN (Horizontal) at RL $78.25 m 4500 0.10 = +450 KN (Vertical) Gi) On tive toad ‘Total live load considered on the bridge for computing wind force X27 +2 x 114 +4 x 68 = 608 kN As per IRC: 6 ~ 2010, seismic forces will be computed only on 20% of total live load ie,, on 0.2 * 608 = 121.60 kN 121.60 x 0.15 = 18.20 KN (Horizontal) at RL 581.50 m BE 121.60 x 0.10 = 12.16 kN (Vertical) ont (iii) On pier cap ead 171 x O15 = 175.6 KN (Horizontal) at RL 574.80 m Heig TIL x 0.10 = 4117.10 KN (Vertical) oad Ther (Gv) On pier 3831 % 015 = 574.65 kN (Horizontal) It will act at RL (674.40 ~ (2 x 3 + 1.0/3 + 1.0) x (11.9/3)) = 5675 m “twi 3831 * 0.10 = + 383.10 (Vertical)46 KN 2.4 KN) or KN at RL f total live Well Foundation | 221 () On well cap 2355 x 0.15 = 353.3 kN (Horizontal) at RL 561.90 2355 x 0.10 = + 235.5 KN (Vertical) (vi) On well steining above scour line 150.8 KN (Horizontal) at RL 558.80 m 500.5 KN (Vertical) (vii) On sand filling above scour line 3462 x 0.15 = 519.3 KN (Horizontal) at RL 558.80 m 3462 x 0.10 = 346.2 KN (Vertical) () Hydrodynamic pressures Along the traffic (Fig. 6.19) Envsloping finders. Ditecton of seismic force Fig. 6.19. Radii of enveloping cylinder for computing hydrodynamic forces On pier: Radius of enveloping cylinder, a = (8.1/2) = 405 m Height of submerged portion of pier, H/= 11.0 m From Table 67, for Hla = 11/4,05 = 2.72, C = 0.644 Therefore, Fy, = C-Ay- W = 0.644 * 0.15 * mx 4,05? x 11 x 10 = 547.50 KN 2% 30+ 115 , 30+ 115 It will act at RL = 562.50 + 4 = 632 = 568.82 m222 | Foundations and Retaining Structures. On well: Radius of enveloping cylinder, a = 5.0m Height of submerged portion of well, = 6.2 From Table 6.7, for Hla = (6.2/5) = 1.24, C = 0.446 (taken minimum) Fy = 0.446 x 0.15 * 1 5.07 x 6.2 * 10 = 325.60 KN. It will act at RL = 956.30 + 3.1 = 559.40 m Across traffic (Fig. 6.19) On pier: a= 2.1 m, H= 110 m, Hla = (11/221) = 5.23, C = 0.75 (Table 67) Fy = 0.75 * O15 x mx QI) x 11 x 10 = 171.36 KN It will act at RL of 568.82 m On well: Fizy = 206.65 KN at RL 559.40 (&) Seismic force in the direction of traffic Seismic force will not be considered on live load, Horizontal seismic force on dead load of superstructure = (125 * 675 = 844) KN at RL 578.25 ‘Moment at the bearing level = 844 (578.25 ~ 575.45) = 2363 kNm Increase in reaction on pier = (2363/30) = 79 KN Net reaction on roller end = 4500 + 39 ~ 79 + 1.25 x 450 = $022.50 kN BR = 0.03 x 5022.50 = 150.7 kN Longitudinal force at bearing level = (844/2) + 150.7 = 572.70 kN Table 6.9 Combination of forces at scour level (R.L. 556.30)Wel Foundation | 223 “Impact load reduces the zero at a depth 3.0 m below the top of pir cap. Therefore, it wil not be considered in the design of well foundation. Apter assuming the factor 1.25 Seismic load, water at HFL, scour depth = 0:9 D In this case forces and moments due to wind sball not be considered. Case | Seismic force along the traffic. In this case live load and braking load will not be considered. V= 4500 + 66 + 15824 — 6685 + 2032.4 x 1.25 = 137050 + 2540.5, = 16245.5 KN, 11164.5 KN Hy. LAL + 1511 + 17.36 + 325.6 = 533.18 KN My = 313.5 + 265 + 624 + 21453 + 100936 = 3795.56 KNm Hy = 18:72 + 4.65 + 572.10 + 1.25 (175.6 + 57465 + 3533 + 750.8 + 519.3) + 547.50 + 325.60 = 4436.20 KN Mg, = 234.94 + 19.2 + 10967.21 + 1.25 (248.6 + 6436.08 + 1978.48 + 1877 + 1298.25) + 6854.7 + 1009.36 = 3763.40 kN224 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Therefore, A= YH, = VBR + EDO» 4468.13 kN M~ (iB, WB, = \S7O55E = BA = 378042 eX Case Il Seismic force across the traffic V= 16245.50 or 1164.50 + 1170 + 12.16 = 17427.66 KN or 12322.34 KN Hy, = 533.18 + 843,75 + 1.25 (175.6 + 574.65 + 353.3 + 750.8 + 519.3) + 18.20 x 1.25 = 4367.0 KN. 1M, = 3795.56 + 1111.50 + 18520.31 + 1,25 (248.6 + 643608 + 1978.48 + 1877 + 1298) + 458.64 x 1.25 = 425484 kNm Hy = 218.00 + 18.72 + 4.65 + $47.50 + 325,60 = 1114.5 kN M,,= 41747 + 23494 + 19.20 + 6854.70 + 100936 = 12292.9 kNm Therefore, H= ih, + HB, = VB6P + 1114S = 4506.97 KN M= M+ ad, = ansa8? + IF = 4408802 Km Summary case ve Ht) ‘an T 102855 468.13 37824 22 ‘1045 " 1742786 450697 4200.62 1200234 From the above, Case II seems to be more critical, and therefore discussed further. Therefore, the well foundation is checked for the following combination of loads at scour level. v 17428 KN; H = 4507 KN and M-= 44289 kNm Weight of the well steining below scour level = miA (10 ~ P) x (558.00 — $50.50) x 25 = 7506.56 KN Weight of the sand fill below scour level m4 x (P) x 4.0 x 18 = 2769.46 KN Weight of concrete plug = /4 x (7) x 35 x 23 = 2958.37 kN Therefore, total weight upto the base of foundation Asst @ Ther HencNm ther. ads at scour ok Well Foundation | 225 @ Ww ITA28 + 7506.56 + 2769.48 + 2958.37 = 3062.4 KN say 30663 KN H= 4507 kN Moment at the base of well M= 44289 + 4507 x 58 + 30663 * 0.15 Diameter of well, B= 100m Length of well, 1= 0.9 B= qe tan 35° = 07; p’ = tan 17.5° = 0315 ‘y= 10 KNim®; Kp = 7.35, Ky = 0.246, Dp= 7.5 m 75029.05 kNm m Assume 10 Gi) Ip = 1/64, BY = n/64.10* = 490.62 m* Iy= (LDP y2 = @ * 7.5°V12 = 316.40 m* a= Bi(nDp = 10K x 7.5) = 0425 I= Ig+ mly (1 * 20’) = 490.62 + 1.0 x 316.40 (1 +2 x 0.315 x 0.425) = 891.24 m* Gin pe 9s, 1S ly “2 “10 x 31640 Mes apy wx w= PE (1 + 07 « 0.315) — 07 = 30663 = 8663.4 — 21464.1 = 12801 KN May) +n w= BEANS = 07 0315) + 0.7 * 30663 = 5533.13 + 214641 = 26997.23 KN a= 4so7> Mas ypy- nx © n= 4so7 (Kp ~ K,)226 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Unsafe. Increase the external diameter of the well from 10.0 m to 10.5 m @® or 315 x 75029.05 10.57 785 = 362.13 + 417.87 = 780 kNim* 8 M, (Hence, safe] REFERENCES ‘Arya, AS. and Sharda, S.C. (1974), “Lateral load resistance of well foundations”, 1S" Annual General Meeting of the Indian National Group of IABSE. ‘Arya, AS. and Sharda, S.C. and Prakash, S. 1982), “Lateral load analysis of well foundation Considering non-linear behaviour of cohesionless soils’, Journal of Indian Road Congress. Sept. ‘Arya, AS. and Thakkar, S.K., (1983), “Seismie response of bridges and aqueducts founded in alluvial oils”, Int, Workshop on soil structure interaction, Vol. I, University of Roorkee. Chakrabarty LB (1967), ‘Effect of Embedment on Dynamic Response of Substructures of Bridges ME, Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, 1979. Chowdhary RLN, (1967, “Design of well foundations for eccentric loads”, Journal of Indian National Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, Oct, pp 413: Edwards, C. 2006), “Thailand lifelines after the December 2004 Great Sumatra Earthquake and ‘indian Ocean Tsunami, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 22, No. S3, pp. 641-659. IRC: 6.2000, “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section Il, Loads ‘and Stresses. IRC: 45-1972, “Recommendations for Estimating the Resistance of Soil Below the Maximum Scour “Level in the Design of Well Foundations of Bridges", Indian Road Congress, New Delhi.228 | Foundations and Retaining Structures IRC: 78-2000, “Standard Specification and Code of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section VIT- Foundations and Substructure. IRC: 3955-1967, “Indian Standard Code of Practice of Design and Construction of Well Foundations”, LS, New Delhi. IS: 1893-1982, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi, 1975, Melville, BW. (1997), “Pier and Abutment Scour : Integrated Approach”, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, A.S.C.B. Vol. 123, No. 2, pp. 125-136, Okamoto, S. (1973), Introduction to Earthquake Engineering, University of Tokyo Press, Japan. Priestley, J. M,, Singh, J. P, Youd, L., and Rollins, K. M. (1991), “Bridges”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 7, pp. 59-91. Saran S. (2010), “Analysis and Design of Substructures ~ Limit State Design’, Oxford & IBH, New Delhi. Sarma, G., Thakkar, S.K. and Arya, A.S., (1985), “Elastic lateral load analysis of well foundation in cohesionless soils’, Proc. of Second Int. Conf. on computer aided analysis and design in Civil Engg, Jan., University of Roorkee, Roorkee. ‘Teng, Wyne, C. (1962), Foundation Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Thakkar, S.K. (1991), Seismic behavior of bridges considering soil structure interaction, Second, Int, Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missauri, U.S.A. ‘Thakkar, S.K., (1992) Bridge foundation soil foundation interaction, All India Workshop on Bridge R & D 92, Institution of Engineers (India), Lucknow Centre. ‘Thakkar, S.K, and Chakrabarty IB, (1982), ‘Effect of embedment on earthquake response of bridge structures’. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), Vol. 63, C13, pp. 113-120, Thakkar, SK., Singh, Y, Ghosh, G., 2010), Behaviour of well foundations under earthquake generated forces, International Conf. at CRRI, New Delhi ‘Verma, S. (1966), Design of well foundation for eccentric loads, Journal of Indian National Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, Oct, pp. 413. PRACTICE PROBLEMS 1. Describe the procedure of obtaining the following for the design’of substructures of @ bridge: @ Live load reaction (®) Longitudinal forces © Water current forces @ Wind forces © Seismic forces 2. Explain the “elastic theory” and ultimate resistance approaches for checking the lateral stability of a well. 3. ct forction VII- undations”, Institution, Hydraulic Japan, “2 Spectra, IBH, New indation in min Civil ter “on, ering and ‘on Bridge 2 of enidge arthquake tal Society tures of a he! al eves e Wel Foundation | 229, 3. Check the lateral stability of a well foundation provided for a balanced cantilever bridge for the following data: Formation level of bridge Bed level HEL Level of bearing pins Level of the base of the bearing Width of bearing Length of outer edges of bearings Main span Suspended span Cantilever span Loading Footpath load Road width Footpath width Maximum design discharge Average velocity of flow Dead load of main span Allowable soil pressure ‘Area of elevation Depth of centre of area of elevation above road level Lacey's silt factor Bridge is located in a seismic area with 4, = 380.00 m 362.50-m 513.50 m 515.45 m 575.20 m 450 mm 40 m 25m sm 75m IRC class AA loading 4 kNim? Dm 15m = 3500 m’isec 2.0 misec 4000 KN. = 500 kNim*(staticcase) = 175 m? =20m 10 = 0.10Rigid Retaining Wall 7:4 OVERVIEW” Retaining walls are structures used to provide stability for or other material where conditions disallow the mass to assume its natural slope. These are commonly used to hold back or support soil banks, coal or ore piles, and water. They differ from other type of retaining structures because they do not require external bracing for stability. For this reason, retaining walls have been widely used for a variety of purposes. On the basis of method of achieving stability, retaining walls are classified into the following types: gravity wall, semi-gravity wall, cantilever wall and basement wall. Retaining walls are long structures. The usual design procedure to analyze a section of one unit in length except in counterforts or buttresses where a section that extends centre-to-centre distance between counterforts or buttresses is considered. The height of the soil to be retained usually vary along the length of the wall, and with homogeneous backfill and foundation ‘conditions the most severe design loading occurs where the height is greatest. The wall sections required for this crucial location is usually adopted for adjacent locations also, Earthquakes cause permanent deformation of retaining structures. In some cases, these deformations are very small; in others significant damages were observed. In this chapter, the procedure of designing the gravity type retaining wall during earthquake has been discussed. The basic requirements of the design are: () the wall should be safe against sliding; overturning and base failure and (i) the seismic displacement of the wall should be within permissible limits. The methodology discussed herein may be extended for other types of rigid walls mentioned in the second paragraph of this section. “COMMON PROPORTIONING ‘OF GRAVITY RETAINING WALI The design of a retaining wall proceeds with selection of tentative dimensions, which are then analyzed for stability and displacement requirements and are revised if necessary. Gravity walls, generally, are trapezoidal-shaped. The base and other dimensions should be such that the resultant of the forces lies within the middle one-third of the base. The top width of the wall should not be made less than 200 mm for the proper placement of the material. The base wide Projection pressure, modificati due to wat This will : earth press ‘would mal The wal discussed 7.3.1 § ‘The factor where, Horizoconditions ‘or support structures walls have following jon of one eto-ventre ver ined foundation all sections ases, these zarthquake afe against should be other types sh are then shor "4 be 2 top width, aerial. The igi Retaining Wal | 231 base width ranges generally from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the height of the wall. Small projections of the base both beyond the face and back of the wall are provided to reduce the pressure. The trial section is shown in Fig. 7. +4200 mm IMiniur| batter 148, 4 ry 591mm Dy ql Fito o Hs osteo7H | Fig. 7-1. Tentative section fora gravity wall. /:3° STABILITY ANALYSIS 'OF GRAVITY WALLS © ‘The forces on a gravity wall are customarily taken per unit length. A gravity wall is acted upon by the forces as shown in Fig. 7.2, The backfill material is considered as c-@ soil. W,, represents the weight of the wall acting at its centre of gravity. Values of static active earth pressures and dynamic increments may be obtained as explained in Sections 3.2 to 3.3 and 3.6 (Fig. 7.2a). If the backfill soil is fully submerged, earth pressure will be computed as per the modifications suggested in Section 3.4. For the analysis and design of walls, in this case, forces due to water pressure (= ¥4 7,, H°) will also be considered in addition to active earth pressures. ‘This will act in the horizontal direction at a height of H/3 from base wall (Fig. 7.2b). Passive earth pressures developed on the other side of the wall are usually neglected. This assumption would make the analysis little on the safe side. ‘The wall is checked for structural stability and foundation stability. The procedure has been discussed considering fully submerged backfill (Fig. 7.2b). 7.3.1 Structural Stability The factor of safety against sliding, F, is given by _ Horizontal resistance Fe Frorizontal force a) where, Horizontal resistance = jt (total vertical force) +c, B 12) tan 6, 0.5 ¢ to 0.75 ¢,232 | Foundations and Retaining Structures The sti Therefore, 2 at HE os, és where, L L ® 7 temay Fig, 7.2 Forces acting on a gravity retaining wall having (a) dry backfill and (b) fully submerged be obtaine backfill The fac ¢_ unit adhesion between wall material and base soil, for granul: ‘5= angle of friction between wall material and base soil, In the ¢= unit cohesion of base soil, and Son age B= base width of wall rem The value of 8 may be taken as % of @ of base soil in case itis dry or moist. For submerged using Eqs. base soil, 8 = % of @ of base soil. and 319. { Therefore, des ed HOP y + Bis) + eB A 03) 7.3.2 4 where, A retainin Wyy= weight of retaining wall, ec scott Péy™ vertical component of static earth pressure and dynamic increments, aaa (Cada + Padua Pada Poa + Pay» sin (a+ 8) eel Piy= horizontal component of static earth pressure and dynamic increments, and ‘and Agrav = Pada + Pagan ~ Paola + Paya * Pagal - 008 (0. + 8), and An ana Py force due to water pressure obliquely } ‘The safety factor against sliding should be at least 1.5 for cohesionless backfill, 1.75 for sided plas cohesive-frictional backfill and 2.0 for cohesive backfill. fae ea ‘The factor of safety against overturning, F, is given by: onal Stabilizing moment WD ¥ Os. °~ Overturning moment The ffect(yo) “a ly submerged 'r submerged 73) ats, nents, and ll, 175 for (74) Rigid Retaining Wall | 233 The stabilizing and overturning moments are determined about point 4 (Fig 7.2b). Therefore, Wry x Fe" BoD, (7.58) oF, 2 Wy x, + Dy > (7.56) where, d= [ear + (Pada Codi Can) + Caan cs + 8) 06 Dam [Payor a+ (Palin ~ Paden + Paylabes + Pega %2] sin + y (7.66) It may be noted that the above expressions will give different values of F,. Value of F, may bbe obtained using both Eqs. 7.5a and 7.5b and lesser of the two to be adopted for design. The factors of safety against overturning usually adopted are 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0 respectively for granular, cohesive-frictional and cohesive soils. In the case when the backfill soil is partly submerged, firstly static earth pressures are computed considering two cases separately i. (i) due to backfill soil only and (ii) due to surcharge only. Their points of application from the base of the wall are also obtained. Dynamic increments in the above two cases along with their points of application area then obtained using Eqs. 3.13 to 3.18. This has already been illustrated in Example 3.1(ii) with Figs. 3.18 ‘and 3.19, Structural stability of the retaining wall may then be checked as per the procedure described above. 7.3.2 Foundation Stability ‘A retaining wall must also be proportioned to have sufficient factor of safety against failure of foundation soil. In general, foundation of retaining wall is subjected to a vertical load, a horizontal force and a moment. Therefore, the resultant force amounts to an eccentric inclined load. In such a case, it is important to obtain safe bearing capacity of soil, settlement, tilt and horizontal displacement of the foundation of the wall. The work of Agrawal (1986) and Saran and Agrawal (1981) summarized below may be used for this purpose. ‘An analytical solution for calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of a long eccentrically- obliquely loaded footing using limit equilibrium approach has been developed assuming one sided plastic failure of the soil towards the horizontal component of the inclined load. The resistance mobilized on this side is full passive and on the other side is partial. This one sided failure towards the horizontal component of the inclined load has been evidenced in the model tests. The results have been plotted in terms of bearing capacity factors N,N, and N, (Figs. 73 to 7.14) for different e/B ratio (eccentricity/width ratio) and load inclination (). The effect of loss of contact width with excessive eccentricity has been accounted for while234 | Foundations and Retaining Structures evaluating these bearing capacity factors. Hence, no further allowance on this account is necessary. The results have been verified by limit analysis and model tests. The safe bearing capacity, g, may be computed using the following equatio 1 - 5 = BIEN. + Dy Ny ry + V2 YBN) where, B= width of the footing, = unit cohesion, init weight of soil, Dy= depth of the foundation, F= factor of safety, and TT) (78a) (786) Equation (77) is similar to Terzaghi equation (1943) for centrally loaded footing. The bearing capacity factors in this equation depends, in addition to the angle of internal friction of soil (@), on the e/B ratio and angle of inclination of the load with vertical (). 40 00 oa 02 03 ‘Angle of int d 020408080 Load inclination () = 0° N-Values 6.36 3.69 1.68 080 700 eB 9= 20 $= 90" p40" 29.45 168.16 1774 101.35 933 5776 400 25.50 120 Weight factor (M) Fig. 7.3. Ny versus @ for different e/B at i = 0° Tao 160 780 74 Fig. 7.5 |Fig Retaining Wall | 235 account is any fe bearing 3s ATI) L 3 Load inciation () = 10° vas i. sear gear ar 4 502 1925 8094 i 254 1099 48.53 425 ‘500 2890, % 20] 4g 234 17.70 (78a) g 15 (186) xe bearing 1 on wil a 80802 Weight facor() 7.4. N,versus @ for different e/8 at f= 10° | 40) [Angle of internal ction (), degrees 8 Cy 0 Wight factor (N) w Fig. 7.5. N, versus @ for different e/B at {= 20°236 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 3% o=30° b= 40" é 00 1.80 23.05 = Ot 0.90 15.21 { 3 2 ows 9a 3 os fa 38 a | : od 0% —o 70 Wht aor | Here Fig. 7.6 N, versus @ for different e/B at {= 30° 40 3 . | Boal | : ceaeeeees S25 i Nipralues Zod a 9-00 3 7482280 i 8271571 | Et) 3.62 11.50, 1 : ae Te | 310 | 2 | 010 803040808070 G0 ‘Surcharge factor (N) Fig. 7.7. Nq versus 9 for different e/B at { = 0° Fig. 7.9Rigid Retaining Wall | 237 8 & 3 Load retain () = 10° = Nlues 3 cl g=20" gna" g=40" oo 499 fast 48.09 of 358 1075 ase 2 210 (745875 03 oo ae 1740 ‘Angle of internal 0 2 ‘Surcharge factor(N) Fig. 7.8 N, versus @ for different e/B at J = 10° “0 i 20 | 3 Load inna () = 20° 5 > Nsaes 2 018 | p=a0" bdo" oo 43a of 731 aT s $2 488185, 3 9 03 310 10.89 | 2 ‘| | ! | 3 0 10 20 30 % Surcharge factor (N,) Fig. 7.9. N, versus @ for different e/B at i= 20°238 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 218 00 o4 02 03 ‘Angle of internal trieton (@), degrees 0 10 Load inclination i) = 30" N,values 6. 3. 2 1 20 wg 25 524 50 56 ‘Surcharge factor (N,) Fig. 7.10 N, versus for different e/B at # = 30 & 8 8s ‘Angle of internal friction (6), degrees 3S 8 % =40° 1937 4.08 942 6.15 Load inctination (7) = 0° Nevalues @=20" 1771 1229 845 5.65 = 30° 97.24 25.66 18.60 12.00 10 20-30 4060-60-70 Cohesion factor (N,) Fig. 7.11 N, versus © for different e/B at i= 0° 808000 Fig. 7.12 Fig 713i 11.38 8.0 651 421 Fig. 7.12. N, versus @ for different e/6 at f= 10° g=20" 203040 ‘Cohesion factor (N) Load inetination () = 10° values. 0=30° 22.40 1731 1258 778 + i =o i Lond etnaton = Is en i oe yc eae iH oo ose ras 2 O41 11.86 29.25 A Ne Be eee Q a canon er Fig. 7.13 N; versus @ for different e/B at {= 20° Rigid Retaining Wall | 239240 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 40 3 5 9 ‘Load inclination 2 ‘o=30" e Newaues z e8 }=9 gn4oe 3 001185 a8 i 0; ‘350 base z 02850 tae 5 03a ‘a0 2 102086 Cohesion factor (N) Fig. 7.14 N, versus @ for different e/B at i = 30° It is proposed to use the charts of bearing capacity factors when @ 2 36° (ie., considering general shear failure). For local shear failure (ie. < 28°), the bearing capacity factors are evaluated for reduced value of angle of internal friction, @”, where y= tan 2/3 tan 9) (79a) For intermediate value of 9, interpolation may be done in the conventional way. The cohesion ¢ may also be replaced by ” given by: =e (79) 7.3.3 Settlement and Tilt Settlement of a centrally loaded footing (e/B = 0°, i= 0°) is estimated on the basis, of the plate {oad test (1S:1888) or standard penetration test (1S:2131). An identical approach for determining the settlement and tilt of an eccentrically-obliquely loaded footing from a standard plate load test or standard penetration test has been proposed. An eccentrically-obliquely loaded footing settles as shown in Fig. 7.16 in which S, and S, represent respectively the settlements of the point under load and the edge of the footing, Maximum settlement (S,) occurs at the edge of the footing. If ‘is the tilt of the footing, then Sy, is given by the following equation 547 5.+ (Be) sine (710) Fig. 7.15 Fi. .16 Two-di state, Tw Tr dir Tectangul:onsidering actors are A198) + cohesion (1.96) C the plate termining plate load 5, ard Sy 2 fag. ting, then 710) 19) 19 a & ction Reduction factor A 40, w Fig. 7.15 Correction factors for position of water table Fig. 7.16 llustrating the method for maximum settlement, 5, ‘Two-dimensional and three-dimensional model tests were conducted on dry sand in dense state, Two-dimensional tests were conducted on a strip footing of size 100 mm x 600 mm. Three-dimensional tests were conducted on a square footing (200 mm x 200 mm) and @ rectangular footing (200 mm * 400 mm).242 | Foundations and Retaining Structures The stip footing was tested at the surface as well as ata depth equal to 0.5 B. The square footing and rectangular footing were tested at the surface only. All the footings were tested for eB ratios equal to 0, 0.1, 02 and 0.3 and load inclinations i equal to 0°, 5° 10° and 20° Each test was repeated twice to ensure reproducibility of the test resulls, Jn the model tests $, # and Hp (horizontal displacement) were measured, was computed With the help of equation (7.10). From model tests on footings subjected to’ central vertical loads (@/B = 0, i= 0°), values of S, were also measured, Plots of S/S, e/B and Sp/Syy eB for different load inclinations (2) 0°, 5°, 10°, 15° and 20° were obtained, Unique curves: were obtained for the relationship between SUS, and eB, Sy/S, and elB for different load inclination, Which is independent of factor of safety and size of the footing. The average relationships are Fepresented by the following simple expressions: 5s, Sin Ao + A, CIB) + 4, (By ay Where, doy 4; and A, are constants which depend on the value of (i) ratio, The equations for Constants dq, 4, and. 4, were obtained by plotting them against i/p ratios and using the method least square following expressions were derived Ay = 1 ~ 0.56 (i/p) — 0.82 Woy (712), A, =~ 3.51 + 147 (ig) + 5.67 (iio)? (7.13) A, = 474 ~ 1.38 (ip) ~ 12.45 (ig)? (7.14) 5, 7 Fo +B (eB) as) here By and B, are the constants which depend on the value of ratio of i/. The equations for Bp and B, were obtained by plotting them against i/p ratio and using the method of least Square following expressions were obtained for constants By and By 0.48 (il) ~ 0.82 (il)? (7.16) 1,80 + 0.94 (ig) + 1.63 (i/o)? (TIT) j{ iniy be noted that S,, $, and S, belong to the same factor of safety. Correlations (711) and (7.15) were found independent to the type of the sol, size and shape of footing. Itis evident from equations (7.11) and (715) that the values of $, and S, could be obtained if os known which can be predicted from Eqn, (7.18) in ease of sand by conducting the plate load test (Saran, 2006) S¢_[B; [Bp + 300 \pP 5, [B, | B+ 300 etlement of centrally loaded footing of width B,in mm jp = settlement of centrally loaded plate of width B, in mm, Alternat test data: where, the 7.3.4 H From Figuy Thus se obliquely 1 penetration Eq. (77). The con by an Exar “74 Di The design has ined disp._eme: @ Riel Gi) Son Gi Soh (iv, Nad () Sarhhe square ere tested > and 20°. computed al vertical 5ylSyy eB ves were clination, ships are (7) ations for e method (7.12) 413) (4) 718) «quations | of least (7.16) IT) ns (7.11) obtained che plate od) Rigid Retaining Wall | 243 Alternatively settlement 5, may be obtained by the following expression using penetration test data 5, = q044 Nr’) 019) where, q= pressure intensity on the actual footing, and N= corrected value of standard penetration resistance. In case of clay, settlement may be obtained using Eq. (7.20), Ce Hy Po + Ap Tre, M80 py (7.20) So where, 5, = consolidation settlement = S,, C, = compression index obtained from consolidation test or = LL = liquid limit, H, = thickness of clay layer, P, ~ initial overburden pressure, and ‘Ap =increase in stress at the centre of clay layer due to overburden pressure on the footing, 1009 (LL ~ 10%), 7.3.4 Horizontal Displacement From Figure 7.16, horizontal displacement (Fp) may be obtained using Eq. (7.21) Hp = S, sini (7.21) ‘Thus settlement, tilt and horizontal displacement of a footing subjected to eccentrically- obliquely load can be predicted using the data of conventional plate load test, standard penetration test and consolidation test. The safe bearing capacity can be determined using Eq. 77). ‘The complete methodology of using above correlations and equations has been illustrated by an Example 7.1 for lucid understanding. SPLACEMENT ANALYSI The design of a retaining wall based on allowable displacement under dynamic condition hhas gained importance in recent years. There are very few methods available to compute displacements of rigid retaining walls during earthquake. These are (@ Richard-Elms model based on Newmark’s approach (i Sotation in pure translation Gii) Sotution in pure rotation (iv) Nadim-Whitman model (W) Saran-Reddy-Viladkar model244 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 7.4.1 Richard-Elms Model ‘Newmark (1965) proposed a basic procedure for evaluating the potential deformation that would be experienced by an embankment dam shaken by an earthquake by considering the sliding block-on-a-plane mode as shown in Fig. (7.17 a). In this important development, it was envisaged that slope failure would be initiated and movements would begin to occur if the inertial forces on the potential sliding mass were reversed. Thus by computing an acceleration at which the inertial forces become sufficiently high to cause yielding to begin, and integrating the effective acceleration on the sliding mass in excess of this yield acceleration as a function Velocity 5 g é Failure stress a Sian © Fig. 7.17 (a) Forces on sliding block (b) Integration of effective acceleration time history to determine velocity and displacement (c) Rigid plastic stress strain behaviour of a material of time (Fig. 7.17 evaluated. This analysis is Though this methe Richard and Elms a method for desig wall inertia effect. A gravity retain earthquake. In this We= Ay Ay= dam Fig. 7.18 Forces on Summing ~ > for At sliding.1 deformation that by considering the levelopment, it was xin to occur if the ing an acceleration sin, and integrating ation as a function history to determine Aig Retaining Wal | 245 of time (Fig. 7.17b) velocities and ultimately the displacements of the sliding mass could be evaluated. This analysis is based essentially upon the rigid plastic behaviour of materials Fig. (7.17 o) ‘Though this method was developed for sliding analysis of an earth dam, it has been used by Richard and Elms (1979) to compute the displacements of retaining walls. They have proposed ‘a method for design of gravity retaining walls based on limiting displacement considering the wall inertia effect. The procedure developed by them is described below. ‘A gravity retaining wall is shown in Fig. 7.18, along with the forces acting on it during an earthquake. In this figure various terms used are: W,, = weight of the retaining wall, horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients, Caan = dynamic active earth pressure, ‘= inclination of wall face with vertical, ‘8 = angle of wall friction, 95= soil-wall friction angle at the base of the wall, N= vertical component of the reaction at the base of the wall, and T= horizontal component of the reaction at the base of the wall. Fig. 7.18 Forces on a gravity wall Summing the forces in the vertical and horizontal directions, we get N= W,, #4, H+ Cdayn Sin (0+ 8) (122) T= Ay Wy + (Pda 008 (0+ 8) (123) At sliding, T= N tan (1.24)246 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Solving Eqs. (7.22), (7.23), and (7.24), we get (Paap [eos (c+ 8) — sin (0+ 8) tan 6, Pha keer ICRA 025) (2a) and, A, Putting 4, = as + A) tan 2, the Eq. (7.25) can be written as = Pian Ce (7.26) jpn E+ 8) ~ sin (0 +8) tn a) (= A) (an 0 — tan 9) For, static condition, the weight the wall 17 is given by: W= Pu (0.28) cos (6 + 8) ~ sin (o1 + 8) tan gy where, C= SET (729) 7 ‘an $y (729) Py tan dom __tan (7.30) Wo (Pia (1 A) (tan gy ~ tan 2) Substituting, = Ratio of total earth pressures in dynamic and Pian sate eases = Gy” (731) A= factor = — 32 and = Wall inera tor = Hg ey ORD in Bq. (730), = FpF;= w F,, is factor of safety applied to the weight of the wall to take into account the effect of soil pressure and wall inertia, Figure 7.19 shows a plot of F;, F, and F,, for various values of 4,. From this figure for F, = 1.5, the value 4, works out to be 0.18. However, if the wall inertial factor is considered, the critical horizontal acceleration corresponding to F,, = 1.5 is equal to 0.105. Therefore, if a wall is designed such that W,, = 1.5 W, the wall will start to move laterally at a value of 4, = 0.105. Hence, for no lateral movement, the weight of the wall has to be increased by a considerable amount over the static condition, which may prove to be uneconomical. Keeping this in view, the actual design is carried for some lateral displacement of wall Richards and Elms (1979) have given a design procedure based on a limited allowable wall movement, rather than on the assumption that the wall will not move at all. Such procedure is as follows: (@ Decide upon an acceptable maximum displacement, d. ii) Determine the design value of Ayg from Eq, (7.33) [Franklind and Chang, 1977] | i Fig. 7.19. Variation where, A, = ace d=ma Gi) Using yy 4 value of A, Gv) Apply a suit There are three 1 L. The soil is : displacemen’ very large d 2. The phvsical are mons 3. The displace(1.25) (1.26) 27) (728) (729) (730) (731) = (732) account the effect of 'y for various values However, if the wall ading to F,, = 15 is he wall will start to xe weight of the wall aich may prove to be lateral displacement miteu Allowable wall all. Such procedure 1Chuug, 1977] Rigid Retaining Wall | 247 Fig. 7.19. Variation of F;, Fj and Fy with A, (Richards and Elms, 1979) 544, J Anam An ( 7 (733) where, acceleration coefficient from earthquake record, and d= maximum displacement in mm ii) Using 4, determine the required wall weight, 17, by substituting it in Eq. (7.25). The value of A, may be taken as % Ay. (iv) Apply a suitable factor of safety, say 1.5, to Wy. ‘There are three limitations to Richard-Elms analysis (Prakash, 1981). These are: 1. The soil is assumed to be a rigid plastic material. The walls do undergo reasonable displacements before the limiting equilibrium conditions (active) develop and experience very large displacements before the passive conditions develop. 2. The physical properties of the system and its geometry (particularly its natural period) are not considered. 3. The displacement computed by this method is in sliding only.248 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 7.4.2 Solution in Pure Translation ‘A method for computation of displacement in translation only, of rigid retaining wall under dynamic loads had been developed by Nandakumaran (1973). ‘The force-displacement relationships considered in this analysis are shown in Fig. 7.20. Figure 7.20a shows the variation of earth pressure with displacement, In Fig. 7.20b, variation of base resistance with displacement is given. The net force away from the fill is the difference of active earth pressure P, and the base resistance, Ray (Fig. 7.20c). The net force towards the fill is the sum of the passive earth pressure, Pp and the base resistance, Rgp (Fig. 7.20c). The resulting bilinear force-displacement relationship is shown in Fig. 7.20d and is characterized by the following parameters: (@ Slope of force displacement relationship on the active and passive sides as K, and K, respectively, where Ky = K i) Yield displacement, Z,. Earth | pressure ) Displacement @ GlRee Pa) (Pa-PT A Displacement @ (c) Resultant of ‘P” and B.F. versus displacement; (d) Simplified bilinear force-displacement diagram; (e) Computation of base resistance For the resistance of the base, it is assumed that a column of soil of height (B/2) tan @ provides all of the resistance in a passive case (Fig. 7.20e), B being the width of the wall base. ‘The mathemati the system for di: soils system, (3) y motion, Fig. 7.21 Mathem The vibrating vibrating with the and found that fc ‘measured natural of soil of the Ran Yield dicen relationships. The ground m period. The eqr me where, For ease in co (Biggs, 1963) to b can be divided b, becomes constanttaining wall under town in Fig. 7.20. ig. 7.20b, variation ill is the difference t force towards the p (Fig. 7.20c). The id is characterized tides as K, and K, ver: _isplacement; ‘placement diagram; height (B/2) tan @ wi of the wall fig Retaining Wal | 249 ‘The mathematical model is shown in Fig. 7.21. The parameters that are needed to define the system for displacement analysis are: (1) the mass of system, m, (2) period of the wall- soils system, (3) yield displacement, (4) damping in the system, and (5) parameters of ground ‘motion, Leys vein ot zex-y tee Fig. 7.21 Mathematical model considered for the analysis (Nandkumaran, 1973) ‘The vibrating mass of the system consists of the mass of the wall and that of the soil vibrating with the wall. Nandakumaran (1973) conducted vibratory tests on translating walls ‘and found that for the purposes of matching the computed frequency of the wall with the ‘measured natural frequency, the soil mass participating in the vibrations is 0.8 times the mass of soil of the Rankine failure wedge. Yield displacement for a given wall can be determined by considering the force-displacement relationships. The ground motion is considered to be a sinusoidal motion of definite magnitude and period. ‘The equation of motion can be written in the following form (Fig. 7.21): mi + Cle — 3) + K@e-y)=0 (7348) mi + Ci +Kz=-my (7346) 24 Inge +niz= 5 (7340) where, -y 134d) 1? = K/m, where K has been defined as the stiffness on the tension side, and &= Damping ratio = —S— (735) 2 Km For ease in computations, all the three equations obtained by linear acceleration method (Biggs, 1963) to be satisfied at each instant of time or at the end of each time interval selected, can be divided by Z, the relative displacement on the tension side at which the resistance becomes constant (yield displacement) to obtain the following relations: Vat = Vat Ve 1 Oy 1 +2) (1.36) Warr Vat 5 Waor +20) 031) Weer = In NOW, tWK-Z, y+ D (7.38)250 | Foundations and Retaining Structures where, y= 2 039) Zs 2 740) Zz, a (al) ‘With these relationships the analysis is performed for the range of the variable listed in Table 7.1. Table 71_Rango of variables considerd in displacement analysis in translaton To study the response characteristics of the system, two cases were considered; one in which plastic deformation does not take place and the other in which it does. Figure 7.22 shows the response of the elastic system. It is evident from this figure that steady state conditions are attained in about 6 cycles and also that displacements on the tension side are larger than those (on compression side. The response of the system wherein slips take place has been plotted in Fig. 7.23. This shows that even when plastic deformations occur, a sort of steady state is achieved in the sense that slip per cycle becomes a constant after about 6 cycles. 12 i = i 4 2,=200mm 4 y=20 12 Damping = 10% Fig. 7.22 Response of an elastic system with different stiffness of tension and compression sides (Nandakumaran, 1973) Fig. 7.23 Disp Figure 7.24 period of the and n = 2 for uniform peak Any proble: 1. Detern 2. Select 3, Detern olac 4. Compt This metho ( definite pre has been form’ the force displ of the wall ha 7.4.3, Sole ‘A method of ¢ dynamic load assumptions: @ kit not afl ii) The «: consta Gi) “ew(7.39) (740) (TAN) iable listed in Saae one in which 22 shows the conditions are ger **an those ¥ be. plotted steady state is pression sides i Book 221mm Sic 7 Damping = 10% i 5 5 = 9 Time (5) = él oe Fig. 7.23 Displacement versus time (Nandakumaran, 1973), Figure 724 shows typical set of results in the form of slip per cycle versus the natural period of the wall in second for the yield displacement Z, = 5.0 mm and 10.0 mm, & = 10% ‘nd n = 2 for different ground motions. The ground motion is considered to be an equivelant ‘uniform peak acceleration of well defined cycles. ‘Any problem can be solved with the following steps: 1. Determine the natural period of the wall using the following equation T= 2 fe (742) 2. Select the suitable values of yield displacement 3, Determine the slip per cycle from Fig. 7.24 or similar other plots corresponding to yield displacement, the natural period of the wall and the ground motion considered. 4, Compute the total slip during the ground motion. ‘This method of analysis is better than the one proposed by Richards and Elms (1979) in that: ( definite procedure for determining the natural period of the soil-wall system in translation has been formulated, and (i) physical behaviour of the retaining wall is considered in developing. the force displacement relationships. The method, however, suffers from the fact that the tilting of the wall has not been considered. 7.4.3 Solution in Pure Rotation 'A method of analysis for computing the rotational displacement of rigid retaining walls under dynamic loads has been presented by Prakash et al, (1981) and it is based on the following assumptions: () Rocking vibrations are independent of sliding vibrations and the rocking stiffness is not affected by sliding of the wall i) The earthquake motion may be considered an equivalent sinusoidal motion having constant peak acceleration. . (ii) The wall may be assumed to rotate about the heel.252 | Foundations and Retaining Structures wa a ba ah SF ea denis} EB ell “| —o Natural period, $ Fig. 7.24 Natural period versus stip per cycle (Nandakumaran, 1973) Gv) Soil stiffness for rotational displacement of the wall away from the backfill may be computed corresponding to average displacement for development of fully active conditions. () Soil stiffness for rotational displacement of the wall towards the backfill may be computed corresponding to average displacement for development of fully passive conditions. (vi) The stiffness values computed in (iv) and (y) remain unchanged during the phases of wall rotation towards and away from backfill respectively. (vii) Soil participating in vibrations may be neglected. ‘The mathematical model based upon these simplifying assumptions is shown in Fig. 7.25a. Figure 7.25b shows the scheme for calculation of side resistance corresponding to active and passive conditions. If fully active conditions are assumed to develop at a displacement of 0.25% of height of wall, then soil stiffness KX in the active state is given by Kyl Ky ih Po~Pa =-=2 2 43) © average displacement & a) 100 Similarly if fully passive conditions are assumed to develop at 2.5% of the wall height, soil stiffness K, in passive state may be computed as: Fig. 7.25 (a) spring stiffnes where, ‘The rotatic given by in which Cy base about ar and @, and @ The aatioe pare p backfill may of fully active okf.. may be fully passive the phases of in Fig, 725a. to active and ment of 0.25% all height, soil Fig Retaining Wall | 253 25H 25H, N00 “00 Displacement © Fig. 7.25. (a) Mathematical model for rotation of rigid retaining walls, (b) Scheme for computation of spring stiffnesses (after Prakash et al., 1981) bp, Wh Kot ~—Pe-Po__ = 2 *2~ ‘erage displacement 25 wad) 100 where, ‘P,= active earth pressure, Pp= passive earth pressure, Po = earth pressure at rest, K,= coefficient of active earth pressure, Kp= coefficient of passive earth pressure, and K, = coefficient of earth pressure at rest. ‘The rotational resistances of the base, in active and passive states (Mp, and Mgp) may be given by Mra = Co1 9 Mpp = Col Op in which C, is coefficient of elastic non-uniform compression, J is moment of inertia of the ‘base about an axis through the heel of the wall and perpendicular to the plane of and @, and @p are angles of rotation away and towards the backfill. ‘The equations of motion for rotation of wall away and towards the backfill are: KP Moo 94 + (Cyl - 5} O4= MO 0.462) K, # and Myo dp + (cr - ) ‘p= M@__ respectively. .(TA6D)254 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Since the stiffness K, and Ky are different the period of the wall for the two conditions i.e,, towards the backfill and away from the backfill would be different. This would result in different values of g, and @p for each half cycle of motion and net rotational displacement ‘of (4 ~ 9») for one cycle of ground motion, The maximum displacement of the wall for any umber of cycles may be computed as: or (741) ~ OH where, n= number of equivalent uniform cycles of ground motion, and H= height of wall. Based on the above, a parametric study was made considering the range of variables listed in Table 7.2 Table 7.2 Range of the variable considered in displacement analysis in rotation It was observed that the contribution of rotational displacement may be significant. The contribution of rotational displacement using the above approach was compared with the sliding displacement for a 3 m high wall with backfill having angle of internal friction, @, equal to 36°, period of ground motion equal to 0.3 s, horizontal seismic coefficient equal to 0.25 and Cy ‘equal to 3 = 10* KN/m’. The total slip in 15 cycles due to sliding was 213 mm. Displacement of top of wall due to rotation found by this analysis was 147 mm. ‘This illustrates that the rotational displacement may not be’negligible and an attempt should be made to account for it. The displacement analysis for rotational displacement is highly simplified. Nevertheless it shows explicitly that in some cases neglecting rotational displacement ‘may seriously underestimate the total displacement, In actual practice it may be essential to account for combined effects of rocking and sliding that will affect the overall response of the system. 7.4.4 Nadim-Whitman Analysis ‘The Richard-Elms model assumes a constant value of wall acceleration (4, g) when slippage is taking place. But once the backfill beings to slip, compatibility of the movement requires the backfill to have a vertical acceleration, thus causing change in the wall acceleration. Zarrabi (1979) considered the equilibrium of the wall and the backfill wedge separately and satisfied the continuity requirements at failure surfaces as shown in Fig. 7.26a. An iterative Wiese Fig. 7.26 (@ finite elemen (Zarrabi, 197° procedure w plane, the 4: horizontal inclination 0 Generally computed w by Lai (197 than Richard to Zar i pt failure rane Both Rict material. He: more of less const, HeRigid Retaining Wall | 255 wo conditions vould result in displacement . wall for any 4 a OAT) 3 | ‘ariables listed | @ /—Contact element with O,= 1 8 iNimim, Co. ‘Sip element with'G, = 1E 8 kNimin, —— Nai omnes nga Tee tzemin saith Y Cy=tE5kNimin ‘Scale ,= Normal stiness of sip elements C= Shear sitiness of sip elements gnificant. The - vith) sliding 1, ©, equal to Fig. 7.26 (a) Force resolution of wall and soil wedge in Zarrabi’s model (b) Retaining wall and its eo asteaale! finite element idealization (c) Effect of ground motion amplification on permanent wall displacement ‘ : (arrabi, 1979) Displacement procedure was developed for computing the instantaneous values of the inclination of failure attempt should plane, the dynamic active earth pressure and the acceleration of the wall, given the input of nent is highly horizontal and vertical ground accelerations. The horizontal acceleration of the wall and the | displacement inclination of failure plane in the backfill are not constant in Zarrabi’s model. ve essential to Generally, displacements computed with Zarrabis model are slightly lower than those esponse of the compiited with the Richard-Elms model. Dynamic tests on model retaining walls performed by Lai (1979) show that Zarrabi’s model predicts the movement of the wall more accurately than Richard-Elms model. Lai also observed a single rupture plane in the backfill in contrast . to Zarrabi prediction. Later on, Zarrabi model was modified to have a constant inclination of pe eens failure plane in the backfill. ; at requires the Both Richard-Elms and Zarrabi’s models assume a rigid-plastic behaviour of the backfill ation. ‘material. Hence the input ground acceleration is constant throughout the backfill. But due to separstely and ‘more or less elastic behaviour of soil at stress level below failure the input acceleration is not 1 A _deritive constant. Hence, amplification of motion cannot be taken into account in these models.256 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Nadim and Whitman (1983) used a two-dimensional plane-strain finite element model for ‘computing permanent displacements taking into account the ground motion amplification. The slip element at the base of the wall has been assigned a very large value of normal stiffness, thus restraining the wall from vertical and rotational movements relative to its base. Thus, the wall undergoes only translational movements. In their paper, the results of finite element mesh used by them are shown in Fig. 7.26 b. To understand the effect of ground motion amplification, ‘typical results are shown in Fig, 7.26 c. In this figure, R is the ratio of permanent displacement from the FE model to the permanent displacement from rigid-plastic (Richard-Elms or Zarrabi’s) ‘model. f; is the fundamental frequency of wall and / is the frequency of ground motion. It can be seen that effect of amplification of motion on displacement is greater when fif, is greater than 0.3. The FE model predicts zero permanent displacement at high frequency, because in the analysis only three cycles of base motion are considered during which steady state conditions cannot be achieved, However, it can be said that large values of fif, are not of great practical interest because displacements are very small. Nadim and Whitman (1983) suggested the following simple procedure for taking into account the effects of ground motion amplification in the seismic design: (@ Evaluate the fundamental frequency f; of the backfill for the design earthquake using one-dimensional amplification theory by using the following equation y fa (7.48) where, H= height of retaining wall in m, and V, = peak velocity of earthquake in m/s. Also estimate the ground motion frequency, f Gi) IE /Wf is less than 0.25, neglect the amplification of ground motion. If f /f, is in the vicinity of 0.5, increase the peak acceleration, 4 and the peak velocity, V of the design earthquake by 25-30%. If fif, is between 0.7 and 1, increase A and V by 50%. Obtain Ay as Ale iii) Use the value of 4,, from the previous step in the Eq, (7.33) given by Richard-Eims ‘model for getting Ay. for known value of the displacement. (iv) The value of 4,, estimated in step (iii) is used as the value of horizontal seismic coefficient in the Mononobe-Okabe analysis to calculate the lateral thrust for which the wall is designed, The value of vertical seismic coefficient may be taken as % Ane. 7.4.5 Saran, Reddy and Viladkar Model Saran et al. (1985) have chosen the mathematical model in such way that it results translation and rotation simultaneously and therefore it has two degrees of freedom. In practice, cross-section of the rigid retaining wall varies to a great extent. A reasonable approximation is, therefore, made by lumping the mass of the rigid retaining wall at its centre of gravity. The backfill soil is replaced by closely spaced independent elastic springs shown in Fig. 727. Fig. 7.27 Me To deter depends on t clays, but re variation k = below > ba wall moving range of 1h i Table 73 Ri Denst Tn the cas: as a triangul the height of to be simply convenient 1 values at varnt model for ification. The mal stiffness, ase. Thus, the slement mesh amplification, displacement sor Zarrabi's) notion. It can ‘if, is greater vecause in the ite conditions ‘reat practical ‘uggested the amplification hhquake using 48) * ff, is im the of the design 50%, Obtain Richard-Elms ontal seismic for which the 35% Ang tst lation ‘A reasonable {at its centre rin "shown Dynamic, Dynamic active passive Fig. 7.27 Mathematical model for displacement analysis under dynamic condition To determine the spring constants soil modulus values have been used. The soil modulus depends on the type of the soil. It varies linearly with depth in sands and normally consolidated clays, but remains constant with depth in case of overconsolidated clays. For linear form of variation k = nj, h, where 7), is the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction and h is the depth below the backfill soil surface. Value of 1), also depends on the type of movement namely, (9 wall moving away from backfill (active) an (i) wall moving towards backfill (passive). Probable range of 1), in cohesionless soils is given in Table 7:3 Table 7.3 Range of values of modulus of subgrade reactions m), In the case of soil modulus varying linearly with depth, the soil reaction is assumed to act sa triangular loading intensity. Treating this load to be acting on a beam of length equal to the height of the retaining wall, the reactions at different points are evaluated treating this beam to be simply supported at the spring points. For a retaining wall of height H, divided into a convenient number of equal segments of height Af, the reactions hence, the spring constants values at various division points would be as under, bog OH? (7498) ky = Ny (AAP ATA9B) ky = ny, (OH? (7490) k= @— Dm OW (749A) £,=4Gn—4n, (by (7496)258 | Foundations and Retaining Structures where k; and k, are the spring constants at the topmost and bottommost points, k, the spring ‘constant at any division point ‘7’ In case of soil modulus constant with depth, the soil reaction is assumed to act as uniformly distributed loading intensity. Treating this uniformly distributed load to be acting on a beam of length equal to the height of retaining wall, the reactions at different points are evaluated treating this beam to be simply supported at these points. The spring constants would be as ‘under, For the topmost spring, k= ka (7.508) For the intermediate spring, k= k() (7.508) For the bottommost spring, k= 4k OH 50¢) The method is based on the following assumptions: 1. The earthquake motion may be considered an equivalent sinusoidal motion with uniform peak acceleration and the total displacement is equal to the residual displacement per cycle multiplied by the number of cycles. 2. Soil stffnesses (or spring constants) for displacement of wall towards the backfill and away from the backfill are different 3. Soil participating in vibration, damping of soil and base friction are neglected. Assumptions 1 and 2 are usually made in such analysis while assumption 3 needs justification. Itis difficult to determine analytically the soil mass that would participate in vibrations along with the wall when it undergoes translational and rotational motions simultaneously. Neglecting this mass, the method gives higher displacements and the solution is conservative, However, the ‘mass of vibrating soil can be determined by carefully conducted experiments. For the case of pure translation, Nandakumaran (1973) had conducted experiments to determine the vibrating soil mass and concluded that it can be taken equal to 0.8 times the mass of Rankine’s wedge. By adopting similar technique, the soil mass vibrating along with rigid retaining wall under combined rotational and translational motions can be obtained. Then it is added to the mass of the wall lumped at its centre of gravity and the analysis can be carried out without any change. In soils, it is customary to consider values of damping such as 15% or 20% of eritical in view of larger energy absorption compared to other engineering structural materials. In the present analysis however, energy absorption in the form of plastic displacement of the wall has been considered. Therefore, smaller damping values would be appropriate. Neglecting even this smaller damping, the displacement of the wall by this method will be more than the actual displacement. The dis alluvial de the walls soil, retai retaining analysis v Howev. base frict displace To stuc plastic de do occur Analysis using dA Jb- where, Lettin; Esk, the spring as uniformly gon a beam are evaluated would be as (7.508) (7.506) (7.50) with -niform lace...ent per backfill and ion 3 needs rations along y. Neglecting However, the F the case of the vibrating sine’s wedge. 3 wall under to the mass without any of enttical in vrials. In the the wall has ing even this nth actual Rigid Retaining Wall | 259 ‘The displacement of retaining wall is greatly influenced by base friction. In case of walls in alluvial deposits and at the waterfront, translational motion is predominant. In some other cases, the walls may have predominant rotational motion, But in general for any type of foundation Soil, retaining wall possesses translational and rotational motions simultaneously. For rigid retaining walls, the stability is mainly due to its gravity, hence neglecting base frietion, the ‘analysis will lead to an overestimation of the displacement. However, refinement of the model by including vibrating soil mass, damping of soil and base friction is needed so that the analysis can predict displacement close to the actual displacement. ‘To study the response characteristics of the system, two cases are considered, one in which plastic deformations do not occur (elastic system) and the other in which plastic deformations do occur (plastic system). “Analysis of an elastic system-active condition: The equations of motion of the retaining wall, using d’Alembert’s principle can be written in general terms as follows: ky be + (HB) - @— 1) AW] = Fy sin or (7.51) Mi+ Jb +E ke + (A -H) - GY) AMO -F) - GD) AN] = 0 (7.52) ‘where, M= mass of retaining wall, ‘J= polar mass moment of inertia of the wall about the axis of rotation, ‘= frequency of the excitation foree, H = height of retaining wall, height of centre of gravity of wall from its base, translatory displacement, and = rotational displacement Letting: ea rE (7.53) 5i7% (54) Zk 6- an M . (055) x ky (HW) - and ” 7 =e (7.56)260 | Foundations and Retaining Structures ‘The equations of motion of the rigid retaining wall can thus be written as, E+ ax=b0 +a, sin or 0.51) d+c0-(4)s (758) where, J= Mr’, r being radius of gyration and ‘b’ can be called the coupling coefficient because if b = 0, the two equations become independent of each other. ‘The solutions of Eqs. (7.57) and (7.58) can be written as x= Xsin of (759) B sin ar (7.60) where, X and B are arbitrary constants. Substituting Eqs. (7.59) and (7.60) in Eqs. (7.57) and (7.58), we get Ca? + AX = b B+ ay A761) b A ae 0) Cot + of (a)* (182) Solving Eqs. (7.61) and (7.62), we get 4 x= > 7 (1.63) Few (7.64) @-0}) ¢-0) 5 Hence, the solution becomes x = sin of (765) B ©) e 7 sin o (7.66) @-o)C-o 5 Therefore, the displacement of the top of the rigid retaining wall is given by: Xop =x + (HF) 0 (1610) _{[@-0 7-2 ui) or, Sw" | G@oatecehe wr} vm! (1676) Natural Frequencies: Under free vibration conditions, the equations of motion are E+ ar = 50 (7.68) ‘The solu where, 4 a Eqs. (7.6 From the Passive con by n. Hence The solut Analysis of displ: ent as:(251) (7.58) sient because A759) (7.60) (761) (7.62) (7.63) 164) (7.65) (7.66) (7.678) (7.676) 7.68) Rigid Retaining Wal | 261 6+ 00 (3) (7.69) ‘The solutions of Eqs. (7.68) and (7.69) can be written as x= A sin Of (770) 0=B sin of any where, A and B are arbitrary constants. Eqs. (7.68) and (7.79) becomes C0; + ad = BB wAT72) co; +o8=(5)4 03) From these we get, A774) (7.75) Equating wt-@+Qa+ ( (076) And solving we get, 1 oh = 7 @+ 9-4 Passive condition: The ratio of stifnesses on the compression and tension sides is denoted by n. Hence, in the passive condition, the values of a, b and c change and can be given by: a=n@, 079) nb), eu(7.80) Oy A781) ‘The solution for this condition is similar to active condition described above. Analysis of an elastic system-plastic condition: Assume that Z, and @, are the yield displacements occurring simultaneously in all springs, the equation of motion can be written as262 | Foundations and Retaining Structures 4 02, = BO, + a, sin of (082) ; 2 8+ 00,=(5)z, 783) Integrating the above equations twice, we get 2 a, sin ot a (184) 4 e 0=(5 4-6) 5+ cree, (785) Let f, be the time after which displacement of the top of the wall (y,,.) becomes greater than the yield displacement (y,) and plastic system starts. Let x,, ,, 0,,0, be the values corresponding to time 4, and can be calculated by using the equations developed for elastic system, The following boundary condition can be applied to evaluate the constants of integration: @ the --(7.86a) @) t=Q2=%, (1.866) Gi) += 1,6 = 6, (7.860) (iv) t= 1,,0=6, (7.864) Therefore, we have a=" (1878) 8,0, (7876) a, sin ot, y= 3, — (08, ~ a2) 1, + SAE (788) ¢ i. 1, + (8 sin (789) = x= Se te + (66, ~ a AI: am He Fete + (08, — a) 5 + 789) G=6- (5 a (790) C= 0+ (5 Bp (7.91) Displacement of the top of rigid retaining wall is given by: Sop =x ~ (H-H)0 (7.92) Passive condition: The ratio of stifnesses on the compression and tension sides is denoted by rn. Hence, in the passive condition, the values of a, b and c change and can be given by: a=n@q (793) nq (7.94) c=n@, (798) The solution is similar to the above procedure for active condition except the values of Z, and @,. In compression side (passive condition), the displacements for achieving yield condition « considered. 74.6 S ‘The author is obtained (ie, R= getting the and shear Convent @ Un ® © © Gi) Un © ) © A gravit on it durin IF * an wall, wen Fig. 7.28(782) (783) (784) (0.85) ‘greater than nrresponding system. The ion: (1862) (7866) (7.860) (7.864) (I8T8) (0876) (788) (789) (290) (091) (192) s denoted by iver (093) (194) (795) he vautes of sieving yield igi Retaining Wal | 263 ‘condition are very large, hence in most of the cases plastic system for passive case is not considered. 7.4.6 Saran’s Method ‘The author modified the Richards-Elms method. In this method the weight of the retaining wall js obtained for a given factor of safety against sliding instead of the retaining wall at sliding (ie, F,= 1) and then applying the factor of safety to it. Saran has also given the procedure of getting the weight of the retaining wall having adequate factor of safety against overturning ‘and shear failure of the soil, thus providing the complete solution. Conventionally a rigid retaining wall should satisfy the following criteria; (i) Under static case (@ Factor of safety against sliding, Fs > 1.5 (b) Factor of safety against sliding, Fs > 1.75 (©) Maximum base pressure, Gnax < allowable soil pressure, d, (i) Under seismic case (@ Factor of safety against sliding, Fs > 1.25 (b) Factor of safety against sliding, Fs 2 15 (©) Maximum base pressure, Jnyx $ 1.25 times the allowable soil pressure, dg ‘A gravity wall retaining cohesionless backfill is shown in Fig, 7.28, along with forces acting on it during an earthquake. JEN and 7 represent vertical and horizontal components of the reaction at the base of the wall, then Phan (Padact Pada Pada Pads Fig. 7.28 Forces on the wall due to selsmic forces264 | Foundations and Retaining Structures ‘Summing the forces in the vertical and horizontal directions, we get N= W, +A, Wy + (Pyayn sin (0c + 8) T= Ay Wy * (Padayy COS (+ 8) Factor of safety against sliding, F,=Ntan 6/7 Solving Eqs. (7.96),(7.97), and (7.98), we ‘get Pdam UF, 608 (ce + 8) — sin (& + 8) tan 05] . @=4) tan FA, Putting 4, = (1 + A,) tan A, the Eq. (7.99) can be written as Pain UF, 608 (4 + 8) ~ sin (& + 8) tan 64] 6 (#4) tan o,—F, tan 0 For, static condition, the weight of the wall W is given by: a (Pads LF, cos (0 + 8) - sin (@ + 8) tan os) tan 6, Let Y, be the unit weight of the wall material, then, Refer Fig. 7.28 B= b, + by + by tana w, JH Im (U2 by + by + U2 by) H foaled bs laoned tees 5, ( +2) ta (5,+5,42)] i i tn(p +m +b a) iH 2b} + 3 BF + BF + 6b,b, + 3bjbs + 3dyb, 30; ¥ 2b, + b,) Hi, H Ft bt 5 by El i i = tn (3 ++ doy) (+ 3b, +b) H ‘wh 3(b, + 2b, + By) (xia 8 tan) =) (8 ena) + Ca (B~ 4 tan ct) + Pay (3-7 tan «) aa Pan (7.100) (7.101) (7.102) (7.103) (7.104) (7.105) ana* Factor of Fe Solving 1 w= In static It may be Assuming obtai(0.96) (797) (7.98) (799) (7.100) (7.101) (7.102) (7103) (7.104) 7108) Cada + Cada + Cad * Cada 5 tna Cam Factor of safety against overturning, F, (LE AY y Fyy ~ Pada Si (0+ 8) Kya Solving Eq, (7.107) for Wy. we get Padayn [Fo £08 (0t + 8) Figg ~ Si. (0 + 8) pa] We (LA) Ey — Fy Ay Ptyn In static case, [adn (8 -% tan @) + ap (B= 220 «] “pe Pde hoe [Cada E+ Cada] rs a We [Fo 08 (1 + 8) hipyy — sin (01 + 8) p5] (Pee For shear failure: Net moment about point A, Myer = (1 Ay) Wey By + PDiyy Sit (C+ 8) pg ~ Wee At ~ Paaim £08 (06+ 8) Fgns Total vertical load on the base of the wall, V= (LA) Wy + Pda sin (0+ 8) Therefore, B_ Moet ee 2 ve (1+ $2) s attowable sol pressure, 1254, v4 ~£) 20 fo 0 tension emton Rigid Retaining Wall | 265 (7106) (7407) (7.108) (7.110) (711) (7412) (713) 7314) (7158) (TASB) It may be noted that b, = H tan a. A suitable value of By (= 0.5 m to 1 m) may be assumed, ‘Assuming trial values of b, Eqs. (7.102) and (7.107) are solved till the desired value of F, is obtained.1266 | Foundations and Retaining Structures In this case two values of W,, are obtained satisfying factor of safety against sliding (F,) and overturning (F,) requirements. A higher value of MF, is taken for the further analysis i, checking against shear failure of soil. This may be done satisfying Eqs. (7.115a) and (7.115b) or using procedure given in Sec. 7:3. Richards and Elms (1979) recommendations as described in Sec. 74.1 may be adopted for designing the wall for a limited allowable displacement. Since, in this method the value of the acceleration coefficient is significantly reduced it is recommended that factors of safety against sliding and overturning may be used as adopted in static case. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES Example 7.1 Design a solid gravity wall to retain a 4.0 m embankment. The backfill soil is dry cohesionless having y= 19 KN/m* and @ = 33° and slopes 15° to the horizontal. Angle of wall friction may be taken as 20°. Base soil properties are also same as of backfill and coefficient of base friction is 0.6. The wall is located in a seismic region having 4, = 0.08 and 4, = 0.04, Standard penetration tests were done at the site upto a depth of 10.0 m, and average corrected value of NV was evaluated as 15. Permissible values of settlement, tit and horizontal displacement are respectively 25 mm, 1° and 20 mm. Solution The trial section is as shown in Fig. 7.29 Fig. 7.29 Trial section of the wall By Mon byRigid Retaining Wall | 267 sli analysis 2 y= 19 kNim? and (71156) o= 3B a= tant 22. = 2656° adopted for a value of the ins afety against by Mononobe and Okabe (1992), the dynamic active earth pressure coefficient is given by . eo (#4) cos? @ ==) a P A Cos 2 cos’a: cos (8 + 0 + 2) 2a i] backfill soil cos (a — f) cos (G+ a+ A). ontal. Angle backfill and 4 = 0.08 and ‘and average 4 horizontal ) = 439° (1 0.04) cos? (33 — 26.56 - 4.39) cos 4.39 cos?26.56 cos (20 + 26.56 + 4.39) »({—_ +. r 1 sin @3 +20) sin @3— 15-439) * | cos @6.56 — 15) cos 20 + 26.56 + 4.39) p= 0.858 Taking -ve sign 4 = tan? (—*— nw (5) Pe awe 0.04) cos? (33 ~ 26.56 ~ 4.76) 4 “cos 4.76 c0s°26.56 cos (20 + 26.56 + 4.76) 7 r 1 ‘sin (33 + 20) sin (33 — 15 - 4.39) s cos (26.56 — 15) cos (20 + 26.56 + 4.76) C4= 0.804 ‘Adopt higher value of C, ie. 0.858 ‘Dynamic earth pressure 1 Pada = 3 HPCs Jie 19 « 0958 $= 203.77 kN268 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Static earth pressure coefficient K, = 280-9) | 1 P 4° costa. cos (8 + a) 14 [2s e—o } cos (Gf) eos (© + 0) _ ___608°33 — 26.56) x 1 P 608°26.56 cos (20 + 26.56) a sin (33 + 20) sin (33 — 15) 3 0s (26.56 — 15) cos (20 + 26.56) K,= 0.696 Static earth pressure Coda 5 PK, = 3 19 + 0696 « $= 165.40 kN Dynamic increment Pada = Pada ~ Pador = 203.77 - 165.42 = 38,35 kNim Pep acts at W/3 from the base and (Py), at h/2 ftom the base of wall qH cos a Cadan= cos (aa 8.0 x 5.0 x cos 26.56 x 0s (26.25 — 15) * 9858 = 36.52 x 0.858 = 31.33 kN/m 8.0 x 500 x cos 26.56 Cada os Q625 ~ 15) 3.42 KNim Pagar = Pagan — Pager = 31.33 — 25.42 = 5.91 kNim Cage acts at h/2 = 5/2 = 2.5 m from the base and (P,,)y, at 2/3 h = (2/3) x $0 = 3.33 m from the base of wall. Weight of retaining wall and its foundation = Weight of HKE + Weight of HGIE + Weight of GID + Weight of ABCF = 23 x 12x OS x 44 + 23 x 06 x44 + 1/2 x (23 x 2.2 x 44) +23 x 4.1 x 06 = 2530 + 60.72 + 111.32 + 56.58 = 253.92 kNim Horizontal component of (P4,)n, ~ 203.77 cos 46.56 = 140.11 KNin Vertical component of (P,)yq = 203.77 sin 46.56 = 147.95 kNim Horizontal component of (P4,)jjq = 31.33 cos 46.56 = 21.54 kNim * 0.696 = 36.52 x 0,696 sgt siete Vertical ¢ Safety fac Stabilizin; Stabilizing Overturns Sal fac Foundatior Net mome Total verti Eccentricit33 m 41x 06 Vertical component of (Pj_)jy, = 31.33 sin 46.56 = 22.75 kNim (253.92 + 147.95 + 22.75) * 0.6 (40a + 21.45) = 1.576 © 1.5 safe) Stabilizing moment due to weight of wall about point A (Fig. 7.29), 5.30 x (0.5 + 2/3 x 0.5) + 60-72 x (1,0 + 0.3) + 11132 * (16 + 2.2/3) + 56.58 * 4.1/2 1.08 + 78.94 + 259.97 + 115,99 = 47598 kNmin Stabilizing moment due to vertical component of earth pressures about point 4, = [1654 (4.1 — 0.3 ~ 1.07 tan 26.56) + 8.35 +254) x Gl - 03 = 19 tan 26.56) + 5.1 x (4.1 — 0.3 ~ 2.73 tan 26,56)] sin 46.56 [540.05 + 181.70 + 14.39] sin 46.56 = 534.51 KNm/n. Safety factor against sliding = Overturning moment about point 4, = 165.4 * 5/3 + 8.35 + 2541) x 2.5 + 591 x 10/3] cos 46.56 (275.10 + 159.40 + 19:70] cos 46.56 312.72 KNmim Safety factor against overturning _ 478.98 + 534.51 _ = TD 323. 1S safe) Foundation stability ‘Net moment about point A = 457.64 + $34.51 — 312.72 = 697.77 kNm/m ‘Total vertical load = 253.92 + 147.95 + 22.75 Eccentricity of vertical load, Inclination of resultant load with vertical, -1 (Total horizontal load ) = tan! [ + 21.54) TTotal vertical toad) ~ “" 24.62 i= tan 20.85° = 20° 1 a= 2 YBN, + 1D, Nd As @ is 33°, the values of bearing capacity factors have to be determined by interpolation considering local shear and general shear failures.270 | Foundations and Retaining Structures For local shear failure where, = m = tan (2/3 tan 28°) = 19.5° of g KNin For @ = 19.5%, e/B = 0.1 and i = 20.85% N, = 1.0, N, = 3.5 (Figs. 7.5 and 79) lfv= settlement 9 = 385, e/B = 0.1 and i = 20.85%; N, = 26.0, N, = 170 (Figs. 7.5 and 79) 480 Ett N,= 10+ pon (3° ~ 19.5%) = 19.24 Using m : i= 208 0-35 ay. agg N,= 35+ GROSS G3" — 19.59) = 13.35 a. = Gy [2 * 19 x 44 x 19.24 + 19 x 10 « 13.35] = iy (749.40 + 253.65] = 334.35 kein? B _ 253.92 + 14795 + 22.75 _ 424.62 eae 4 41 = 103.56 kNim? (< 334,35 KN/m?, safe) Safety factor available against shear failure = 749.40 + 253.65 _ - ew a56 8 Ultimate pressure intensity for the case eB=i=0 . For = 195°; N, = 6.36, N, = 745 (Figs. 73 and 77) @ = 38°; N, = 145.00, N, = 67.00 (Figs. 73 and 77) 145.00 ~ 636 5. . y= 636 + ME90~ 636 30 _ 1955) = 7993 Horizont 3° - 195°) = 50.90 1 Example ; Guy = 5% 19 * 4 x 7893 + 19 x 1.0 x 50.90 G=1) w = 4041.14 Nim? Determit Pressure on the footing subjected to central vertical load, for same FOS, ie., 968, case with : 4041.14 2 30175 = ALI 417.50 NI ges ~ 475 vertical ace From Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974), pressure (g, kN/m?) may be expressed as foundation below: test worked q = 044N-S168, xpressed as A ei eh eo ea sisi: Rigid Retaining Wall | 271 where, N'= Standard penetration resistance value, = settlement, mm for the pressure intensity of q kNin’ If N= 15 and q = 417.50 kNim’, then S works out as 63.26 mm. This is the value of the settlement when the footing of width 4.1 m is subjected to a uniform pressure intensity of 417.50 KNim”, ie., it is S,. Using non-dimensional correlations for settlement ‘S,’, Eqs. (7.11) to (7.17) 1 = 20.85%, i/g = 20.85/33 = 0.632; e/B = 0.1 0.56 (0.632) — 0.82 (0.632)° = 0.318 Ay= 3.51 + 147 (0.632) + 5.67 (0.632) = -0.316 Ay = 4.14 ~ 1.38 (0.632) — 12.45 (0.632)' = -1.105 s, J — 0318 — 0.316 (0.1) ~ 1.105 (ly = 0.275 S,= 0.275 63.26 = 1742 mm By = 1 — 0.48 (0.632) — 0.82 (0.632)? = 0.369 1.80 + 0.94 (0.632) + 1.63 (0.632) = -0.555 = 0369 ~ 0.555 (0.1) = 0.3135 03135 x 63.26 = 19.83 mm (< 25 mm, safe) 1983 ~ 1742 = 2.41 mm 241 A007 — 407 0.08" 1°, safe) Horizontal displacement of the footing = S,tan i= 17.42 tan 20.85 = 6.63 mm (< 20 mm, safe) = 0.00147 Example 7.2 _A retaining wall 8 m high inclined 25° with vertical retains an inclined backfill (= 15°) with the following properties: y= ITS kNim’, @ = 35° and 8 = 23.3%. Determine the weight of retaining wall in the following cases: ( ‘case with zero displacement and (ii) Seismic case considering 5 mm, 12.5 mm, 25 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm and 100 mm cases respectively. For seismic cases consider horizontal and vertical acceleration coefficient as 0.15 and 0.10 respectively. Allowable soil pressure (g,) at foundation depth, obtained by performing conventional plate load test and standard penetration test worked out as 250 KN/m?,272 | Foundations and Retaining Structures Solution Oo (@) Using the concept of factor of safety against sliding, F, ta (@ Static case oft bey Keeping, 4, = 4, = 2 = 0 in Eq (3.3), the value of the active earth pressure coefficient (K_) works out as 0.6391 for @ = 35°, 8 = 233°, o. = 25° and i = 15°, ‘Therefore, | Cadu= $F Ky = x 175 x 8 x 0639 (Paug= 357.91 KNim Considering the value of internal friction of base soil (9,) equal to 35°, Eqs. (7.28) and (7.29) give: 1 357.91 [1.5 cos (25 + 23.3) ~ sin (25 + 233) tan 35] . ‘tan 35 = 242.82 KNim Gi) Seismic case for zero displacement For A, = 0.15 and 4, = 0.1, Eq. (3.3) gives Cy = 0.873 for (~ A,) and 0.977 for (+ A,) Therefore, Cedon™ 5 * 17S * 8 = 0873 = 488.97 kNim for ( A,) Cgdan™ 5 * 17S % 8 0977 = 54734 KNim_ for (+ 4,) Equations 7.25 and 7.26 give, 15 cos 25 + 23.3) — sin (25 + 23.3) tan 35 C= (#00 tan 35-15% 015 = 11724 for © A) and 0.8713 for (+ 4,) We = Pda Cus 488.97 x 1.1724 = 573.27 kNim for (- A,) 547.34 x 0.8713 = 476.89 kNim for (+ 4,) (ii) Seismic case considering allowable displacement 4 Considering maximum displacements as 5 mm, 12.5 mm, 25 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm and 100 mm, firstly values of 4,, are computed using Eq. (7.33). Values of A,g are taken equal to 2/3 A, The values of W,, were then obtained using Eq. (7.25) as | illustrated above keeping F, = 1.5. The results are summarized in Tables 7.4 (a) & (b). Values of W,/7 are listed in the last column of Tables 7.4 (a) and (b). Figure 730 shows the plot of IV,/W versus d/H (%) for both (~) A, and (+) 4, cases. It can be seen that Fig. 7.30Rigid Retaining Wall | 273 (A, case gives higher values of WV,/H: Further the ratio of H,/W reduces from 2.361 to 1.602 if the wall is designed for 5 mm allowable displacement (0.0625% of height of the wall). The decrease in weight of the wall is faster upto di ratio equal to 0.2%, beyond this the decrease is marginal. Therefore, it will be economical to design for + coefficient some allowable displacement recommended by the designer. ‘Table 7.4(a) Values of weight of retaining wall for (+ A,) keeping F, = 1.5 5. (7.28) and rece ae 1005 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 + Of Ag atHratio 4}. (7.25) as " i@e0. Fig. 7.30 Weight ratio versus d/H ratio for F,= 1.5 73° “hows e seed that274 | Foundations and Retaining Structures () Using the concept of factor of safety against overturning, F, For the sake of comparison, values of Ware also obtained for the factor of safety against overturning, F, equal to 1.5. Because the solution of the problem needs trial, it has been solved using a computer program. Firstly, a trial value of by is assumed. Weight Wis then computed using Eq, (7.102). Using Eqs. (7,103) to (7.107), corresponding value of factor of safety against overturning (F,) is computed. Proceeding in this manner, values of F, were computed for different values of by. Values of F, so obtained are listed in Tables (7.5) and (7.6), for static and seismic cases respectively. @ Static case Table 7.5 Showing detalls of computation (Seismic case for zero displacement Table 7.6 Showing details of computation for F, in seismic case It can be seen from Table 7.5, that in static case even for b, = 0, F,, works out as 1.73. However in seismic case (Table 7.6), value of b, is required as 0.6832 m to have F, = 1.5. Further (214, case is more critical. Total base width of the wall becomes 4.914'm and the weight of wall works out as 476.40 kNim. It may be noted that for satisfying the condition (factor of safety against sliding, F, = 1.5), ()4, case governed and WY, worked ‘out as 573.27 kN/m.Rigid Retaining Wall | 275 (ii) Seismic case considering allowable displacement ifety against Seismic case considering allowable displacement has been solved in similar way as been solved described for factor of safety against sliding ie., by revising the acceleration coefficient 2 computed A, using Eq, (7.33). Tables 7.7 (@) and (b) give the values of 5, B and W,, corresponding vfety against to F, = 1.5 and 1.75 respectively, for different values of allowable displacement. omputed for 5), for static Table 7.7(a) Details of computation in seismic case, for F, = 1.50 WA OA 7.7(p) Details of computation in seismic case, for Fe. HA, It is evident from these tables that, when the wall is designed for an allowable displacement, (*)4, case governs. Figure 7.31 shows the plots of W,/1V versus d/FT ratio for F, = 15 and 175, Itis evident from this figure that the ratio of 17/17 decreases at a faster rate when d/H ratio is less than or equal to 0.3%, Beyond it, decrease is marginal. In the case of F, = 1.5, Wy reduces from 476.38 KN/m to 417.33 kN/m when allowable displacement is increased from 0 to 100 mm, For F, = 1.75, the decrease is from 516.51 ‘Nim to 443.56 kN/m. Some typical results are summarized in Table 78. It is evident form this table that if the wall is designed say for 50 mm displacement the weight of wall is required 453.24 kN/m to satisfy F, = 15 and F, = 1.75 condition. For zero displacement W,, works out 573.27 kN/m (Table 7.8).