Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MJ Stockwell PDF

    Uploaded by

    Lucas Seña
    52 views4 pages

    Original Title

    MJ_Stockwell (1).pdf

    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    52 views4 pages

    MJ Stockwell PDF

    Uploaded by

    Lucas Seña

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4
    Determination of allowable bearing pressure under small structures : M. J. STOCKWELL* BE, CENG, MICE, (MEMBER) This paper describes procedure for assesting the allowable bearing pressure under small structures without the need for testing samples tn the laboratory, 1, INTRODUCTION _ 1h Preamble "THE object of this paper is to provide some practical guidance for a person with soil mechanies who wishes to establish the allowable design bearing pressure under a small structure, Hope- fully, the paper will also be useful to the busy prec tising engineer who requires a quick answer. The Material presented hasbeen gathered together fiom the Titerature and is intended to provide a simple approach to the problem using minimum equipment without the necessity for Jaboratory testing. A small structure is arbitrarily defined by the author as a one- or wo. storey building, although the methods discussed apply ‘equally well to foundations for other small siructures, stich as portal jrames and water towers etes Por heavier, more important structures, laboratory compression testing of undisturbed soil samples may be carried out to establish density, angle of intemal friction and cohesion values for the soil. Formula and aphs from the Heraturs (eg Terzaghi') an then 79 used! to calculate allowable bearing. pressures. While providing the most reliable assessment of allow able bearing pressure, this procedure is very time eon- suming, and, the author contends, quite unnecessary for most smal structures, — 1.2 Experionco and local knowledge For many building sites no foundation investigation is carried out other than the builder or local. body inspector examining the bottom of the foundation trench. His local. knowledge tells him whether the presence of soft underlying layers is unlikely—hence whether a settlement type failure is. prechided (refer type (¢), section 2). : Similarly the inspector will use his experionce to judge visually that the foundation suit is eapuble of Supporting the building without the. risk of a. shear failuce—(refer types (a) and (b), section 2). He often probes the ground with a bar or boot heel, and by this process js in fact categorising the soil into one Of the classifications of section 3.2. ‘These. methods of site cvaiuation are somewhat bewildering to the inexperienced person who, it is Suggested, would be beiter to fallow the more formal procedure of seetion 3. 2. FOUNDATION FAILURE Via CREP No. A? fuudations may Fal diss te any ub the Galluwthg cated: (a) Rapid local failure by shear of the veal su enginese, ty Council, : This napee wos fest received on 21 May 1976 and in reviead form on December 1976 132 fed experience in : the foundations—in this case the foundation will settle suddenly with an accompanied heaving of the surrounding soil. () Slow plastic (ie, shear) movements of under- lying soft strata resulting in gradual lateral displace ment of the soil from beneath the foundations, (c) Gradual settlement of the foundation caused by consolidation of underlying strata—the consolidation is caused by expulsion of air and water from the voids. Type (a) and (b) failures . The allowable: bearing pressures established by the methods described later, are intended to ensure against. failure types (a) und (b) above. If these allowable Pressures are used, settlement should generally be Within the following limits: (3) maximum sertlement of any one of a group of footings “= 25 mm; (ii) maxi mum differential settlement’ between footings —= 20mm, ‘These deflections ore regarded as the acceptable limits a moder building can withstand without distress. Type (e) failure: When underlying strata such as peat or soft clay are present, they are likely to consolidate as a result of an increase ‘in pressure, and the setilement can be calculated only after laboratory testing sail saniples to estabilsh co-ellicient of volume compressibility as de- scribed in the literauure.' er af. Tt is not intended to discuss consolidation here, other: than to suggest that the possibility should be assessed by: (i) examination of adjacent suuctures. for excessive settlement (soy greater than 25 mm): (ii) drilling boreholes to locate soft strata. For small structures borehole depth and Pressure Jimits on soft strata to reduce settlement ate \iseussed im Appenitx H 3. SITE INVESTIGATION ‘The following procedure is suggested. 3.4 Boreholes Drill boreholes to determine soil type and level of ater table, As kcussed in Append Ba bovaie pth of about 2 my will generally be sulficient below ‘most small strictures, . 3.2 Visual classification Carey ont a visual elaesifcation af the soils en- esunteve tr the faowing onal catpieg ake the tests listed: s (a) Clay and site: Class tz Very soft; core ( cetor) saes unider own war Class 2: Soft; consistency of saft putty: can be = twice diam- [New ZnaL AND ExcIWesRnea (32, 6) 15 June 1977 Fig (b) 688 (01 250m penton) —— 5 $- clthe Carry present 4m = 22 oman Bae, (W948 e1818 a Hips + per Sow with Seok Arabromete 41: Curve !—eorrelation of ¢ and Cbs. by equation 4, Curve 2—correlation of e and Cb. by Sesla.® Curve 3—supgesied correlation of © and Cabs for design, if Curve 4-—correlation of Cub. and qa jor desten. Pinched in half between fingers; shows heel- marks when walked on; 12mm: bur can be pushed in under moderate steady hand pressure, ¢ Class 3: Mediums consistency of fiem putty; can be imprinted with fingers; shows faint heel. marks when walked oft, Class 4: Stiff; not wet or sticky; difficult to mould in fingers; difficult to ‘imprint with fingers; does not show heelmarks when walked on; difficult (o remove with spade oF srafling tool, Class 5: Very stif; cannot be moulded or im- Printed with fingers; difficult to remove with wetted grafting tool, Class 6: Hard; difficult to excavate with pick, Sand Class 1: Uniform loose; easy to excavate with shovel; offers little resistance to 12 mm bar under steady hand pressure. Class 2: Uniform compact; well graded lopse; Properties between Classes 1 und 3 Class 3: Well wraded compact; difficult to ex- cavate with shovel; offers high resistance to 12mm bar under steady hand pressure Panetration results Carty out Seala penetrometer tests on the “raft” of soil pen immediately below the foundations—the Scala eirammeter arid its operation are described in Appendix A, ' iigt 4 4. EVALUATION OF RESULTS 41 Ganoral ‘om the Seal penetrometer results and the visual ideauions sf seats Tapas cut lid evaltaed free “where: /a-—= propostl allowable bearing pressure including 2 factor of safety of 3 against @ type (a) failure. If penetrometer tests reveal wesk layers below the surf ‘ace, then equation B.1 of Appendix B should be Yes" Zealanin Encinieraane (32, 6) 15 June 1977 used to check that the dispersed pressure: pd at the fower level does not exceed ga for the stratum st that level, A type (a) and (b) failure will hence. be avoided, 42 Clay and silt ‘The following definitions apply: A = depth of botiom of footing below ground (m) B= width of footing (m) qa = allowable beacing pressure (kPa) gm = modified allawable beating pressure (kPa) For isolated and strip footings ue value of qa can be modified for the following effects, (a) Depth of isolated and strip footin qm = ga (1 + H/4B), but not more than 15 ga ret The increase in ge is for the enhancing effect of soll confinement below ground level. (b)_Wiuth of isolated and strip footiny m= aa in all cases —ret, (6) Vibrational effects. (including earthquake): For clays in the Cass 4to 6 ange gim= 1.5 qa—rel. >. For silts, no increase is allowed, and if the sand content is high the reduction for sand should be used, 43 Sand The value of qa should be modified for the following effects: 44) Depth of isolated and strip footings: gmt = 94 (1+ H/B), but not more than 2a, re, A for cohesive soils the increase is for the confining effect of pressuce below ground () Width of isolated avtd strip footings: when B <1 0% B, tek, BI mgqmasga The reduction in gu for narrow footings is duc to a “knife edge” effect. “Tie author suggests that this effect can safely be ignored for buildings where a Noor slab is east no lithically with the strip footing due to. the compensating effect af the width of the Noor slab, (©) Saturated conditions: According to Terzaghi,* saturated condi tions beneath footings on sand cause appros mately double the settlement to occur Ie t water table is at depth 2, or greater, below the footing base. then dry’ conditions ‘can be assumed. However, of the water ean tee oe within depth B from the base then saturated conditions should be assumed to exist and the following reductions fide: when H/B € 1;qm= ga/2 HIB > Vames2qa/3 (A) Vibrational effects (including earthquake) gm == 0.15 gay, ref? 44 Seil classification 2 correlates qu with the soil classifications 1 correlation for clays has ben taken from refs, “and the author suggests that this correlating can be extended to silts. The more conservative values of ga from ref. * for conti been adopted, could he increased by a factor of 1.2/0.9 wous footings on clay have Values for sqnare footings on clay E; ma Ica or Sit | [at z Si a em per bin rath Sole Pinchot a Sele Legere Fig, 2: Correlation of e and qa for design. ‘The correlation for sands has been taken from cet. ® Gravels have not been included in this discussion as the small cone of the Scala penetrometer cannot pene- trate material with particle sizes geeater than sand grains. 45 Scala penetrometer ~ Curves 1, 2 and 3 on Fig. 1 show the cprrelation between C.b.r. and e, where: Cb.r, == California bearing ratio % at 2.5 am enetration e Sala penetrometer value in mm per blow. Curve 2 is tuken directly from Scilla’s soil tests in Viclorian roads covering range of soil subpages, including clays, silts and some sands. Curve I is plotted from the following theoretical relationship between e and C.b.t e 0.35/(C.b.r, — 0.88) The derivation of equation (4.4 A equation (4.1) is given in’Appendix Curve 3 is plotted midway between the experimental curve 2 and the theoretical curve 1 and it ig this curve that the author suggests for use in establishing 42. . Curve 4 on Fig. 1 correlates C.b.r. with qa. This curve lias been taken from Middlebrook ant Bertram" and was derived from the results of plate-bearing tests pressure taken at a deflection of 2.5mm Most foundation soils are capable of deforming at Teast ree times this defection (i.e, 7.5 mm) belore reaching yield point and generating the type (a) foundation failure of section 2. (Hence the factor of safety for qa against a type (a) failure is 3, as stated in section 4.1.) ‘The values of Cbs. versus ga given in ref." compare well with those given by ‘Cassa. grande? Direct correlation ‘of ga with Scala penetrometer readings ¢ is shown on Fig, 2. This curve lias been Lot hago cane Bimal Pat Fag Wh even to big. ("we (ypical cortelatian uf e versus yl iS derived as folloWs “ given ¢ reuul C.b.r. 0 mim/blow and using curve 3 .3 (point A on the eurve) ( then from this value of C.b.r. and using eurve 4 read ga 18 kPa (point A on the curve) Hence-e is correlated with ga and reploited to form the curve of e versus qa on Fig, 2. 5. CONCLUSIONS The author contends that the use of Fig. 2 in evaluating ga for small structures will give @ quick reliable result, Fig. 2 is based on curve 3 of Fig. 1, which has been ly positioned midvay between curves 1 and 2, The use of Fig. 2 should ideally give a factor of safety against foundation failure, types (a) and (b), of about 3, However, this figure will be modified, a3 (he real soit characteristics range between curves 1 ind 2, giving an actual ing between about 1.6 and 5.8. ven the lower figure of 1.6 should provide an adequate margin of safety against failure, thus errabling qi to be read from Fig. 2 with some measure of confidence for small structures. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author Uhanks the Christehurch deputy generat manager and city engineer for permission to publish this paper, Thanks are made to J. A. Ince of the city enginier’s department for his helpful comments, 7. REFERENCES *TERZAGHI, K. and PECK, Re BL (1960): Soi? Mectanies In Engincering bractie, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. (1984): Ciel Bacinevsing Cade vf Prartce Se $ NZS. C979): “Provisional enle op foundations for buildings”. NZS, 4208 P. SSCALA, A J. (1956)! °S ie of Mexible pavement design "using cane penetromelers", NZ. Engineering, Februsey. SPARCHER, J. V. and MEANS. R. E. (1968): Suil Mechaxies and Foundaions, Chatles ¥. Merrill, Columbus, Ohi. SMIDDLEMROORS, T. A. amd BERTRAM GF. (15 “Soil tests for tunways". Highway Research Roard. “Aninial Meetings Proceedings “DST (1961): Soil Atechaniee for Reel Emginecrs {er Alsietv'e Stationery Crs I onla ‘APPENDIX. A Scala penetrometer practice foe desen of id A.l Desceiption ‘The penetrometer designed by Sealat and discused in sec- tions 4 and 4 of this article ig shown in Fig. 3. Dy makiog ‘Up a Uuplicate 914 mm long shaft Tor use ss sn extensions [Nowy Zant ann Excinemine (32, 67 15 Jus 1977 Fig. 4 Scala penetrometer 6 the penetronieter ean be used for testing to about 1.8 m below round level, ‘The eato hardened cone is driven into the soil by successive blows of u 9.t kg hammer dropping 310 ma vert 4 steel aovil, A record of depih of pauetenton for Of the hammer is Kept by the operator as the con fhrough the soll strata under gested that one blow of the hammer Is used to “bed” the cone into the soil, and the zero point for depth snd ramos of blows is taken neglecting this fst Blow. A2 Derivation of equation (4.1) - From the principle of conservation of enetRy and avomentnen ft ean be shown thats fi Ra =0.4155/e-+ 0.386 — ret, « Where Rd = the dynamic resistance to penetration of a cone i kPa, 0.441 Cbs, — rel California beating ration at 2.5 mm pene- tration. Hence, eliminating Rd from the above equations we get: + 0.155/e ++ 0.386== 0.441 Ce, 7 which on re-arranging reduces to equation (4.1) + 0351/Chr. 088), APPENDIX B Borehole depth . The site investigation of section 3 necessitates borehole iting. : Boreholes should be entried to a depth at which the stress Imposed by the foundation ean be eared by ihe wot cise, at that level with an adcauate factor of safely nuaiasctae 'ypex (ay and () described in section 2. ‘The Mageldes this ‘stress depends, of course, on soll type, Hoeven te author suggests a sess of 10 nKe can be ‘suslnined most soll clays and"even some pes Ties the wenlee’ sik without esusing fature,

    You might also like