Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mitchell Method

    Uploaded by

    Jack Leaman
    279 views8 pages
    Mitchell Method

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mitchell Method

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    279 views8 pages

    Mitchell Method

    Uploaded by

    Jack Leaman
    Mitchell Method

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    Fifth International Conference on Expansive Solls, Adelaide, South Australia, 21-23 May 1984 A Simple Method of Design of Shallow Footings on Expansive Soil P.W. MITCHELL, Geotechnical Consultant. Pak-Poy & Kneebone Ply. Lid, Adelaide, South Australia of actual conditions encountered in practice. | method of design of shallow footings on expansive soil Le presented, based on a simplification Equations are developed to permit’ the bending moment. and Stiftness to be determines for either centre or edge heave Aoparsnetive stusy for centre heave 18 given, and a comparison is made with the behaviour of a heavily loaded residential raft footing that undorwont ‘The routine design of a shallow footing on expans Sve s0i1 2 sevally based on the interaction of a oaded footing superimposed on an initially distor~ ted soil surface. Design methods include those of BRAD (1968), Lytton (1977), Males (1976), Swinburne (lottend 1981), Prz-Hray (ray 1980) and’mitchell (579), te complexity of these methods varies Exoq a siaple Beam-on-moond analysis to comple Finite element computer analysis of @ stiffened slab. Several comparative studies ang’ reviews (es. pldgeon 1960, Holland 1981, Mivchell 1982) have indicated @ variation in the ansvers obtained by feach method. the author (Mitchell 1983) has shown that the differences in the design methods appear to be more a result of differences in the input parameters of each method, than the complexity of the method used for the actual interaction analysis. ‘this assumes nore importance when it is scknowled~ ged that any method, despite its comploxity, could ot. wholly anticipate the conditions under sctual Held situations. Complicating factors include those of tree effects, fissures, leaking services, dzainage pattems, soil variation ete, Consoquen— y, simplification of actual conditions is necessary or reutine design. one sinple design method 1s presented in this paper Tense been successfully used by the author for the routine desicn of shallow stiffened footings of Structures on expansive soil for at least five years. In particular, it can be conveniently used to exanine the effect of the various paranctars ingiuencing the problem, ana it is show in this eper to reasonably aodel the behaviour of & “tailed” footing under field conditions. DEVELOPMENT OF A SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS ‘the complex analysis of a footing system interact ing with a aistorted soil surfoce can be simplified by reducing many of the variables involved, without Necessarily resulting in @ significant loss of scouracy. 2.1. Geomaery ‘The geometry of the structure can be reduced into rectangular dimensions of length (1) ana breadth(s) for complex shapes, the plan of the structure can be divided Into overlapping rectangles. 159 A variety of structural loading pattems will occur in practice. “However, this complexity can be reduced by Ginplifying the loads into perimeter line loads (#) and centre Line loads (=) and aisteibuted loads (w) 2.3 Shape of soi surface Depending on the conditions occurring at the perime- ter of the structure, a variety of shapes of the Snitially distorted soil surface will occur. In the commonly used design methods, similar convex shapes fare adopted for the sovcalled "centre-heave” oF hogsing mode of distortion (Fig. 1e)- For “edge heave" of sagging moge however, there is consider ble variation anong the methods, with sone methods opting concave shape (Eig. 18) while others Adopt an ixregular convex shape (Fig. 1c.) 7 oN Fe to. CENTRE WEAVE eee Figure 1b. EDGE HEAVE ae Figure 1c. EDGE HEAVE For a maximim soil swell of ¥, the shapes in Figures da to te can be represented by the Lytton, equation (Lytton 1977) as follows: 1 =(BP oe eee” ‘she exponent @ in equation (1) has been found to have a major influence on the footing design (Pidgeon 1980, Holland 1961). The author (titehell, 1979,1984) has found from analytical solutions of the Steady state Diffusion Equation, that m con be approxinated by 1.5L/a, where a is the depth of soil suction change 2.4. Soll stiftness ‘the goit can be modetied by elastic parancters such ‘95 Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio. the simplest nodel, however, ie the Winkler apring in terms of @ constant spring stiffness (k) by equation (2), of) In equation (2), 5 {8 the footing displacement and yis the soll movement. 2.5 Permissible peflection ‘the permissible deflection (A) of the footing is Getined as the maximum footing deflection that will still guarantee a satisfactory level of serviceabi- ity of the structure, This has usually been enps— Fically detorained fom the observed behaviour of Structures, so that the allowable deflection ratios (0/1) of structures are of the order of 0.0005 for solid brick, 0.0013 for articulated brick, 0.002 for brick veneer, 0,003) for articul tod beick veneer, and 0.005 for tinber framed and lad house (eg. ‘Pidgeon 1990). 2.6 Structural Analysis ‘The simplest structural analysis és that of @ bean onnound. Despite this simplification, a beam-on= found will still model the footing syscem deformed in cylindriesl bending, waich isa condition £xe- goontly encountered in practice. For the purposes of determining the soil pressures ‘acting on the footing aa Lt interacts with the soil, et the approximate shape footing (convex for centre heave and concave for edge heave) be defined by an equation similar in type to that representing the Soil movenone. xetting the exponent of this equa tion be ty and, ar the maxinum allowable differen tial displacement of the footing is 4, then the footing deformatién (5) i: aa(B)* 0 guation (3) Will not define’ the exact seftectad Shape of the footing as it laphien the bending Sonene is sero at x'='0 for 2" nowwr, cheer Elona ona distorted cett indicate that eiuetion (3) lovely describes the nensuced pattern of defiec= Elona (Caneron 1577) and seassrenents of deflected Floor slabs (iytton € Heyer 1971) inaleate a bebe our approxinatea by Sguation (2) with gored) If the footing is in equilibrium, and has lost contact with the soil over a certain lensth of Footing, then throe simultaneous equations are established (a) The superstructure loads must ‘equal the #0i1 forces over the length of footing in contact with the soil (b)The bending moment ue to the external loads and soil forces must equal to the bending moment corresponding to the curvature of the footing (clAt any point of Sntarsection betwen the soil profile and the footing profile, the soil displacement equals the footing displaconont. ‘Te three equations can be used to dotermine the Gistribution of soll forces along the footing length, thereby enabling the determination of the pending moment to permit s footing design. ‘The two cases, that of hogging condition (centre heave) and sagsing condition (edge heave) will be Suamined in the following sections: 3. EME CENTRE WEAVE conpETEoN Figure 2 shows @ footing interacting with an expan- sive soil so as to be distorted inta contre heave, She soil will be in contact with the footing over a central portion of the footing defined by a pars eter C, the support ratio, which is taken as the Fetio of he Length of the footing in contact wien the soil to the total length of the footing. lor — sot patie Fig.2: Footing-soil interaction for Centre Heave. ‘the hondary conditions are at x= 0, $= 0 and 6° = oy at x = C1/2, the equations for § ond 3" derived for the range OcnCl/2 equal é and 6 for the range CL/2<%° 1/2; and atx *l/2, = S. ‘The three uiknowne that mist be solved in the snsly- is are (a) the amount of footing settlement 6, at X= 0 (b) the support ratio ¢ and (c) the para? meter t defining the deflected shape of the footing. ‘The author (hitchell 1964) has solved these unknowns by tneagrating the beam equation for the boundary conditions of the problem. ‘The results are show fn appendie A by equations A.1 to AT. ‘ro illustrate the use of the equations in Appendix Ay consider a problem with paraneters L = 12m, B's im, W= 10KN/m, T= Oy Y= 6.5kPa, Y= 75am, 32 aim, w= 5 and k= 1000 KPa/a. Uniform pressure ie = 8.17KPa, ‘Tey tel. 744, from eg. (2.2) 758. Br6 9223.6 Wm /n 3 10*1084,2 kot-n from 09-(A.5) at 223 ‘om og. (96) From eginT) at 13 -Ted=assuned i ence t=1.7444, 0.756 fron (al) S22. dm, Since h=1084.2 em? fm sequized stiffens £1=90,250 kten’/m. i 4 Equations (8.3) and (A.4) give the bending moment, equation (2) gives the oil reaction, equation (1) | gives the soil movenent and equation (3) gives the footing dispiacenent, which when added to 5, gives: the total footing movensnt hom in Table 1, The seoults Se 160 smote 1: SuARY OP RESULTS OF CONTRE MEAWE EinWOLE Distance fom von wn ‘controline| Moment Pree Sofi Heave oe oe ° (ems) toms = res xeo 15.6 ° na na wee na ° ns ns xen co oe ne a Peery 0.8 5.8 wa 10.3 xr 4e 16.7 26 3 ° 1-60 ° 75.0 2.2 ° 4.0 mE EnoE weave coxornze quations (8.8) and (9.6) give the bending moment, Pigure 3 shows a footing interacting with an expan five S011 go a8 to be distorted into edge heave Attention is restricted in this paper to the distor ted soil surface being » concave shape, althoush a Shape shown in figure Je. could also be considered. then the soil is in a concave shape, the soil will be in contact with the footing over the portion at the edges of the footing defined by the Support ratio (C). the boundary conditions are at x0, G20, and 6°20; at x > (1-Ci1/2 the equations for f and 6°, derived for 0

    You might also like