Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Qult New Salgado

    Uploaded by

    Jose Luis Dominguez
    10 views7 pages

    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
    10 views7 pages

    Qult New Salgado

    Uploaded by

    Jose Luis Dominguez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    cn. ER 10 Shallow Foundations: Limit Bearing Capacity RMR = 7 for rock with $0 = g, < 100 MPa +8 for RQD in the 25-50% range +8 for discontinuity spacing in the 0.06-0.2 range +25 for slightly weathered walls +10 (water to be accounted for in analysis) +0 (joint orientation to be accounted for in analysis) =58 We can assume the effect of water to be negligible and the joint orientation (horizontal) p be neutral. Entering Table 7-6 with an RMR = 58 and the rock description we have, the est match would be a fine-grained igneous rock with fair quality rock mass, leading to i. m = 1.395 s = 0.00293 absence of any surcharge, qy = 0, and Eq. (10.59) reduces to 9. = ave +/S+} ging in the values of g,, m, and s, we find iw. = 800. 0093 { 1 + (34+ i} = 26.7 MPa (0.00293 10 9 Chapter Summary Concepts and Equations g Capacity Equation bearing capacity equation gives the value of the limit unit bearing capacity g,, of € footing, which, multiplied by the plan area of the footing, gives the limit bearing city or limit load capacity or limit resistance Q,,, of the footing load. Qy, is the load ‘Will cause the foundation to plunge into the ground. This means that when the load on a dation (including its own weight and the weight of any backfill) is increased gradually the limit bearing capacity, the foundation first undergoes moderate settlement; then, it €S by large amounts for small additional load increments as the limit bearing capacity is roached. For this to happen, the foundation element must push aside a mass of soil by Ag a mechanism that may or may not reach the ground surface. When it does reach the d surface, itis referred to as general shear; otherwise, if the mechanism is not fully reloped, itis conventionally known as local shear or punching shear, depending on the Mt of the slip mechanism. The sources of resistance to formation of the slip mechanism are the soil self-weight, of the soil above the base of the footing and any cohesive shear strength that may ‘The Engineering of Foundations be present. The three terms of the bearing capacity equation correspond to the three of bearing capacity. The general bearing capacity equation is written as or. = (Sei BB)EN. + (SqAsigbyhq)40N, + 0.5 (sy,i,b,8,) YBN, (10,33) ‘The unit bearing capacity gy, isa gross unit bearing capacity. When multipted by the footing plan area, it yields the load capacity available atthe base of the foundation; it muy be sufficient to carry the load on the foundation in addition to the foundation Self-weight and the weight of any backfill on top of the foundation. When the weight of the foundation on backfill is subtracted from Qyy = A qu and the result again divided by the plan area of the footing, we obtain the net limit unit bearing capacity q{, which is the capacity net of the requirements to support the foundation and backfill and is thus the capacity available to support loads from the superstructure. Sources directly Calculation of Bearing Capacity in Clays Bearing capacity in clays is calculated assuming that loads are applied rapidly compared ith the drainage rate of clays and that the short term is the critical loading condition, Load. ing therefore takes place under undrained conditions, and the footing fails in the general shear mode. The bearing capacity equation for a clay deposit with strength 9, increasing linearly with depth z at a rate p = ds./dz is tu = Foals + a). + qo (10.30) where p = rate of increase of the undrained shear strength s, with depth, F (which is equal to 1 when p = 0 throughout the depth of influence for the foundation) is a correction factor that is given in Fig. 10-15, and s,p is the undrained shear strength of the clay at depth z; = 0 (right at the level of the base of the foundation). Making p = 0 in Eq. (10.30) leads to the traditional bearing capacity equation for @ soil with uniform strength s, = sy throughout: do. = SAAS dayisy + qo (10.24) ‘The bearing capacity factor of 5.14 in Eq. (10.24) results from taking the limit of N. = (N= Ico & (0.1), as & approaches zero. The shape, depth, and load inclination factors are p B 23 D = ak a ei 4 (10.31) sa 1+ OF Be us} +ey exp( 0.353( = (which reduces to Eq, (10.22) when p = 0; C, and C, are given in Table 10-3); a (102) wal 13 Q d,=1+ or 2 1028) CHAPTER 10 Shallow Foundations: Limit Bearing Capacity tion of Bearing Capacity in Sands tion (10.33), with c = 0, is directly used to calculate bearing capacity in sands. Bearing ty in sands is calculated assuming drained conditions. The terms in the bearing capac- gems: (10.6) N, = (Nq = 1) tan (1.320) (10.13) Shape factors are given in Table 10-6. Depth factors are given Table 10-7. Load stion, base inclination, and ground inclination factors are given in Table 10-8. ‘Because, in realistic foundation design problems, the friction angle for use in the bear- ity equation is not given, a procedure is needed to determine it. Equation (10.34) ‘used for this purpose. It gives the value of the mean effective stress that is represen- ‘of the bearing capacity problem for use in Eqs. (5.16) and (5.8) for calculating the Eccentricity d applied off center generates a (theoretical) contact stress distribution on the footing se that is planar but not uniform. If the eccentricity is large, this plane cuts across the ge of the footing base, meaning that portion of the footing will not be in contact with the ‘This will not happen, and the entire base will be subjected to compressive stresses only, oad lies within a central area of the footing base known as the kern. For two-way ity, the kern is a rhombus defined by joining with straight lines the four points ed by (+B/6, 1/6) with respect to the center of the footing. For one-way eccentricity, slice the footing in three equal rectangles with width B/3 in the direction normal to the entricity, the kern is the middle rectangle, the so-called middle third of the footing, ‘We account for a load eccentricity (as long as it is not greater than about B/3) by using 1s effective plan area for the footing such that the load is centered with respect to ea. This means the effective dimensions B,,, and L.y, are used in equations instead of footing dimensions B and L. These effective widths are defined as: Bay = B- 2ep 0.53) Ly (10.54) ‘Quantity represented US units ST units Foundation width ft m Base inclination factor for c term of unitless unitless bearing capacity equation Effective footing dimension fi m Nominal footing dimension ft m Base inclination factor for the g unitless unitless term of bearing capacity equation Base inclination factor for y term of unitless bearing capacity equation (continued) 424 The Engineering of Foundations Brinch Hansen (1970) recommended a different set of expressions for the depth factor: D D 1+04— for —< = AZ fore 1 a (10.21 D D ) 1+0. "= for => 4 tan 3 mS 1 Salgado et al. (2004), based on the results of rigorous limit analysis, proposed the following expressions for the shape and depth factors: 2 (10.22) dy = 1+ oan 2 (10.23) Table 10-3 Regression constants inEq. where C, and C, are functions of B/L given in Table 10-3, sor tC + (10.22) for the shape factor The fact that a sound analysis of the bearing capacity BIL Gi G__problem shows the shape factor s,, to depend on D/B high- ‘T(ircle) ———<0.163.-————0.210_lights the deficiency of the traditionally made assumption that 1 (square) 0.125 0.219 shape and depth factors are independent. Assuming indepen- 0.50 0.156 0.173 dence of the shape and depth factors produces conservative 0.33 0.159 0.137 results in practical problems. Figure 10-11 shows that the . re ie shape factor of Eq. (10.19) leads to an overprediction of the ——___—____ = bearing capacity of square or circular footings on the surface of the soil deposit. The same equation, however, leads to underprediction of the bearing capacity as soon as D/B is allowed to take even small positive values; this underprediction increases with increasing D/B and becomes substantial for values of D/B that are common in practice. Figure 10-12 shows the depth factors of Eqs. (10.20), (10.21), and (10.23) plotted together. It is clear that, of the traditional expressions for the depth factor Brinch Hansen's expression would be more appropriate for low values of D/B, and Meyerhof’s, for higher values of D/B. It can be seen that Meyerhof's depth factors are generally conservative within the range of depths (D/B = 0 — 2.5) for which they were defined, underpredicting the exact depth factors by as much as 9% for 0 < D/B <2 and overpredicting them slightly for 2 < D/B < 2.5. Brinch Hanse? tends to be unconservative for D/B > 0.5. 4 An additional correction factor is necessary if the load acting on the footing #§ inclined, in which case its horizontal component is denoted by Q,, and its verti component, by Q,. Two separate checks are required: one with respect {© capacity, in which the vertical component Q, of the load is compared with a PTOP* erly reduced vertical load capacity, and one in which the horizontal load is O™ Pared with the sliding resistance at the base of the footing. The presence Of Tt horizontal load has a negative impact on the vertical bearing capacity of the f ing because it induces additional shearing. The greater the Q,/Q, ratio is. the CHAPTER 10 Shallow Foundations: Limit Bearing Capacity 437 Figure 10-16 A foundation of arbitrary shape with inclined base under the most general an conditions, embedded D into the soil, subjected to inclined loading, and supported by sloping ground, 2, < os lan view of footing nt of the load must point upward because the only reason to incline a footing to make the footing absorb the applied load in a direction that is closer to per- dicular to the base of the footing; note also that it would not make sense to line the footing past the point at which the resultant load is perpendicular to the of the footing. uation (10.1) can be generalized for the case shown in Fig. 10-16 by multi- each term by suitable shape, depth, load inclination, base inclination, and inclination factors (denoted respectively by the letter s, d, i, b, and g with ripts indicating whether they apply to the c, gy, or y term of the bearing ty equation) a. = (Sdib.g.)ENe + (8.Ayigb,8,)I0Nq + 2(5,4,i,b,,)yBN, (10.32) sands, c = 0, and the equation reduces to Gu. = (SeAeigbyBa)4ONg + 3(S yd yiyby8y) YBN, (10.33) es 10-6, 10-7, and 10-8 contain the expressions more commonly used for 18 capacity correction factors. They are due to Meyerhof (1963), Brinch en (1970), and Vesic (1973). The tables also contain the expressions of Lyamin 6) for the shape and depth factors; these expressions provide nearly exact (for $ = y) because they are based on results obtained using limit analy- tically rigorous method of calculating bearing capacity of foundations. Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1973) have the same expressions for the ‘4nd depth factors, with the difference that the values used for B and L should ‘Nominal footing dimensions in the Vesic (1973) equations, but should be the tive dimensions B,y and Ly in the Brinch Hansen (1970) equations. The dimensions were defined by Meyerhof (1953) as the dimensions of a rec- Portion of the foundation with center coinciding with the point of applica- the load. It follows that the effective dimensions are equal to ‘The Engineering of Foundations Table 10-6 Commonly used expressions for shape factors® Meyerhof (1963 a sz it oun Brinch Hansen (1970)° 143 sind Vesic (1973) B B 1+ fund 047 = 06 Lyamin et al. (2006)° D\ 0583-00078 7 B\ 1-0150/8) s) @) * Use nominal values of B, L for Vesic factors and effective values of B, L for Brinch Hansen and Lyamin et al. factors, © [Vis the flow number, given by Eq, (4.25). * Brinch-Hansen (1970) s, derived from s, through Eq. (10.57). © ¢ measured in degrees. Sq = 1 + (0.09524 — L)( 5, = 1+ (0.03456 — Loony Table 10-7 Commonly used expressions for depth factors* ‘Meyerhof (1963)” 4, =1+01vw 2 Brinch Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973) D/B <1 1+ 2tano(1 ~ sing? D/B > 1 « D dy = 1+ 2tand (1 ~ sin 6)? tan! 5 Lyamin et al. (2006) j ‘D\-o d, = 1 + (0.004406 + 0356)(2) eS ie tis TE oe i ee * Use nominal values of B and L for Vesic factors and effective values of B and L for Brinch Hansen and Lyamin etal. factors * Nis the flow number, given by Eq, (4.25). Brinch Hansen (1970) d, derived from d, through Eq. (10.58). CHAPTER 10. Shallow Foundations: Limit Bearing Capacity 439 40-8 Commonly used load, base, and ground inclination factors ee nero aul inclination” : Meyerhof (1963) Qu y ! —_ Brinch Hansen (1970) i __ 050, _)* 070 _)* iy mf (1 Pees) *| by ams| (1 - peas) | Vesie (1973) = tee" = a wo mml(t-avaeewg) 9] semal(s arame) “| inclination Brinch Hansen (1970) +b, = exp(—0.035ay, tan &) by = exp(—0.047ay tan b) Vesic (1973)° = (; suns (yen ey? ral) oP ) bel xP ) d inclination Brinch Hansen (1970) Bq = (1 — 0.5 tanay)® 8, = (1-05 tana,)® Vesic (1973)° 8 = (1 = tana)? gy = (I~ tana)? ‘are calculated from Eqs. (10.38) through (10.40) forthe Vesic factors; these values may also be used for the Brinch Hansen $f they fall in2

    You might also like