N.Som & S.C.Das
Short Description
Geotechnical Book...
Description
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
N.N. SOM • S.C. DAS
Copyrighted material
Theory and Practice of
Foundation Design
T h.1e
On e
Copyrighted material
Theory and Practice of
Foundation Design
N.N. SOM Prof.ssor of Civil EnginHall o1 India Private limited., New Delhi. All tigh!S resetved. No part ol tNs bOOk may be reproduced il 8frJ fonn, by mimeograph or any other meens, vNiout permission h writing from the J)l.C)Iistwtr.
ISB,..._I1203·2191)..1 The export l"ighls ot this book are vested solely with the publiShet.
Thh'd Printing
June, 2006
Published by Asoke K. Gh0$h. PrenticeHall ot India PMte Umited. M97, COnnaught Circus, New Oelhl1 10001 and Printed by Jay Print Pack Private Limited, New Oelhi110015.
Copyrighted material
To
Professor NOEL E. SIMONS and Indian Geotechnical Society
Copyrighted material
Contents Prtau I
SOIL AS AN ENGINEERING MATERIAL 1
I I
Introduction
I 2
N amrc of Soil
1.3
Th~ phase
1.3. 1 1.3.2
2
System J
Defiojcjons 4 Weight/Volume Relationships
1.4
Index Propenies of Soil 4 1.4.1 Plasticity Chan 6
S 1.6
Soil C lass jfication
1
4
7
Relative Density of Granular Soil 8 I. 7 Some Special Soil Types 9 1.8 Groundwater /0 1.8.1 Types of Waterbearing Formations 10 I 82 Ojy jsjon of Subsurface Water I I 1.9 Engineering Properties of Soil /2 1.9.1 Permeability /2 1.9.2 The Principle of Effective Stress JJ 1.9.3 Porepressure in Soil due to Applied Lood 1.9.4 Shear Strength of Soils /7 1.9.5 COM(')Iidation 21 1.9.6 Properties of Soil 26 1.10 Soil Deposits of India 29 Rel~renceJ 30 2
SITE INVESTIGATION
/6
3253
12
2.1
Jotmductjon
2.2 2.3
Information Extracted from Site Investigation 32 Stages of Site Investigation 3.1 2.3.1 Reconnaissance Study 33 Boring (Detailed Soil Investigation) 34
2.4
I3I
J4
2 4 1
Trial Pirs
2.4.2
Wash Boring
J4 Ytl
Copyrighted material
YIU • Ctmteuu
2.6
2.4.3 Auger Boring 35 2.4.4 Rotary Drilling 36 2.4.5 Percussion Drilling 36 2 4 6 Srahiljz;)tjon of Boreholes l6 Sampling 37 2.5. 1 Sampling from Trial Pils 37 2.5.2 Sampling· from Boreholes 37 2.5.3 Preservation of Samples 39 Testing of Soil 40
27
Field Iesrs
2.5
2.8
41
2.7.1 2. 7.2 2.7.3
Standard Penetration Test > 4(Y
Fig. 1.8 Notmal Colc:ulla ~
Copyrighted material
10 • Theory and Praclice of Foundation DeJ·ign Expamive soils are found in many pans of India, Africa, and the middleeast. The black cotton soils of India and Africa are lhe most common types of expansive clays. These soils have high expansive potential because of the predominant presence of montmorillonite minerals. They are apparently stiff when dry but undergo swelling when saturated with water. e.g .• due to seasonal fluctuation of ground water table. The Atterberg limits along with the percentage of solid particles less than 0.001 mrn is taken as criteria for identification and classification of the expansive soils. Table 1.4 gives the classification of expansive clays. Table 1.4 Classification of expansive clays
IJ,
of Panicl~s
f*rllum
Jndu r~sl Data Pkulicily ind0
Fig. 2.15 Vane shear test arrangement
At failure. the shear strength of the soil is related to the applied torque by the relationship 2
T
= 1 • le~gth and diameter • area ratio (iii) Method of advancing sampler • pushing or driving (iv) Schedule of sampling • disturbed • undisturbed • regular interval; if irregular, why?
(v) Dot< of sampling • when collected • when sent to laboratory
Not much care is always taken in collecting samples 'at regular intervals of depth or at changes of strata' as is generally specified. Figure 3.4 iUustrates a case where samples were required to he collected at depths of 3 m, 6 m. 9 m, 12 m, 15 m, 18 m and 21 m but those from 6 m, 15 m and 18 m depths were not actual.ly collected. As a consequence. there were some depths of soil for which no soil properties were available. The report should also clearly indicate whether samples have slipped while lifting. 0
G.l. 3m
6m .J
.;
9m
~
.!l
t
~ Joj.21 m
0
Sanc>les not oolleded
lo f     2 • m
Fig. 3.4 Colledloo ol undisturbed samples.
Testing Laboratory testS on disturt>edl\lndisturbed samples are done for the purpose of classification of strata and also for detennination of their engineering properties. The schedule or tests s hould he drawn up with care, reflecting the soil type, and the narure of problem to he solved. This should beuer be done in consultatjon with the de...igner to avoid a random choice of the l)'pe of test from the schedule of tests given in the bill of quantities. figure 3.S gives a schedule of tests on samples from different strata of normal CaJcutta deposit. 11le types of
Copyrighled material
Soil Dai/J and IRs!gn Para,..ttrs • 59 ScnodultoiiHit
+.; • • • •0 •0 0
Arm..., day
•
18
•0 •
0
Soft lilY cloy
8.~1
•
S..ndy lilt w(th el e)l
Bind«
B.H· 2
0
•
0
Arm dly
0
24
v
T
w
LL Pl.
I
0 0
0 0
0 0
6.0 6.5 11.0 13.5 18.0 19.5 2..25 ... 75
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
7.50
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
:1.5
0
12
(ml

DenM
10.0 12.5 15.0 11.5
21.0
0 0
GS .ae uc 0 0
T t\JU)
c
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0

conlent
uc •
u..
Unc::onlhld Uquld~
Pl • P1Mic limit GS • Grein tim 0 0
0
T • Tl1ulol (Wl
c•
Coneolctdon
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
Flg.U ollobcllobyiMit.
tests should be so chosen ., to give lhe properties of all lhe strata relevant for design. One should avoid going for unconfined compressioo test in a predomlnandy silty soil. Similllt'ly. oon.'IOiidation teSt$ are required for cohesive strata only. For sandy strata. one has to rely more on rield tc5U. such as SPT. Even undisturbed samplu in sand do nor provide much help. Soli proftle
Soil profiles should be drawn through a number or boreholes, if not through all of them. to give the subsoil stratification along a chosen alignment. Such soil profiles dsown for a number of carefully chosen alignments give a comprehensive picture of the variation of soil strata, throughout the site. Plotting separately for individual boreholes does 001 cive lhe true • picture ar a &,lance. Therefore. the best way is to pl01 lhe soil profile on a desired alignment with nespeet to the vanation of N value with dep
6 8.5
76 S8 62
28 26 30
48
30
38 36 42 37
no. I
z 3
4
10.5 14.0
N (Biowt/30 cOl)
4.2
26
4
4.0
4.5 4.9
O.te of Sllmpling;: OS 04 16
c.,
:! c
 
"••
..
~
NOfmal stress
Fig.
u
uu
triuial teot Mohfs cirdes.
Copyrighted material
Soil Data and
D~sig,
Parameurs
t
63
Efftctiv~ str~ss JHlramd~rs: The effective stress parameters are required for analysis of long term s tability when all the excess pore pressures developed during const·ruction ha ve dissipated. However. in ca~ of granular soils. effective stress parameters are to be used even for shortterm stability because me high permeability of lhe soil generally ensures that all the excess porepressures get dissipated during construction itself. The effective shear parameters of a soil arc determined from consolidated drained triaxial test or the consolidated undrained rriaxial test with porepressure measurement. TI1e latter is particularly useful in problems of stage constnJction of embankment where stability of me embankment is to be investigated for undrained loading afte r each stage of construct.i on (Gangopadhyay and Som. 1974). The porepressure parameter A is aloo required for such an analysis. For purtiaiJy saturated soils and for soils with high silt content where partial drainage may occur even during load applicaajon, the total suess parameters of soil (c. and ; .,) may have to be evaluated for stability nnnlysis.
Consolidation: Consolidation tests are often done for pre..detennined pressure ranges without any reference to the depth of the samples. In panicular. if the Si'mple is derived from deeper strata or it appears overconsolidated. the virgin compression curve has to be determined by loading the sample to sufficiently high pressures for es~blishing the field compression curve. Only men is it possible to determine if n soil is normally consolidated or preconsolidated. In the latter case. the Ct' value in the overconsolidation range and the preconsolidation press ure are important in selecting the design parameters. Moreover. calculating the m., value for different srrcss ranges from the laboratory curve may not represent the field behaviour correctly because of sampling disturbances. h would be more appropriate to obtain the virgin curves from the test datausing Schmcrtm:mn's procedure. as shown in Fig. 3.9. 1.0
0.8
8 e
"~
·~Po
" ''
~
,p,
~
r...."\fiet
0.6
'"' Lab
0.4 0.1
: p, • 0.9(kglcm')
0.5 1.0 p~cmz)
~ ~
5.0 10 20
. ~' J!2. :••• .•
"'
• •• 0. 1
0.5 t .O
' ""
tO 20
p(l F~.
5 . 11.3
5.24 Stress In a lh,...tayer system (after Jones 1962).
Multilayer Systems
The problem of multilayer system involves immense complexjty and to dace no analytical solution is available for anything consisting of more than three layers. Vesic (1963) has 5uggestcd an approximate method of c:alc:ulating the elastic settlement of a foundation on a multilayered medium assuming Boussinesq stress distribution but using the proper elastic modulus for the respective layers. His chans and method of calculation are shown in Fig. 5.25.
··
•
<
Oia 2b
 ...w,._ , w
La~r
z
;;
n
... Settlement due to dW,. = W,o 
la)'tf' n
1  ,.
Wn • 1
= 2qb"""'E,;'"""(/,. 1n .. 1) =
4/
2qb~
Totll
w0 =wn=2qb~
"·
. I Gopyngnteo n atena
Fig. 5.25 Approximate method of calculating set1tement In miAiilayer elastic syseemt (after Yeti I and 14% fo~ h, tb > 2 . An analogous expression was first proposed by Palmer and Barber ( 1940) to reduce a twolayer system to an equivalent homogeneous medium which yielded deflections very close to Burmister's twolayer analysis.
5 .11.4 Nonhomogeneous Medlum The problem of lhe nonhomogeneous soil medium whose modulus of elasticity varie.~ as a continuous function of depth has received only IH:nited attention so far. Korenev (1957).
Sherman (1959), Golecki (1959). Hruban (1959). and Lekhnitskii (1962) have studied particular problems of nonhomogeneity. but no comprehensive
~eory
had been presented
until Gibson developed the theory (Gibson 1967. 196&) of stresse.• and displacements in a nonhomogeneous. isotropic elastic haJf.space subjected to strip or axially symmetric loading
normal to its place boundary, Fig. 5.26.
_jq~·!]·!]f!]·~r~~'!:'!ai..._. • I i I I I
A
G{l) = G{O) + mz ~ = G(O)
m
•• '
'' l
..
G{z) • G{O) G{z) • mz jj•oo fJ= 0
Fig. 526 ~· elastic medium {  Glbooo 1967, 1968).
A semiinfinite incompressible medium whose mcxlulus of e lasticity increases with
depth from zero at the surfa.:e (i.e. p = 0), behaves as a Winkler spring model. In other words , the surface settlement of a. uniformly loaded area on such a medium is direclly proportional to the applied pressure and iodependent of the dimensions of the load.
Copyrighted material
Str~ss
Di.ttribution
i11
Soils + 101
The distribution of stresses in a semiinfinite medium is not significantly affected by this type of nonhomogeneity. Figure 5.27 shows the streSS distribution for {Ji b = 0.1 and 10. Indeed. the two limiting cases {Ji b = 0 and {Ji b = "' give exac:dy the same stresses while in the intermediate range 0 < f31b < co, both the ven ical and horizontal stresses te nd to be a little higher than the corres ponding stresses for the homogeneous medium. though the difference is never greater than 10%. However, over most of the range (0 < /Jib < 0.5 and S < fJI b < co). the discrepancy is less than 5%. This observation is true of ven ical and horizontal stresses due to both axisymmetric and strip loadings, as depicted in Fig. 5.28. !!L a,. q. q . 1h 2b
s._, Clrde
dia 2b
0.2 0.4
..;, 2
.(,;.
,,
/
/
I
f f
3
I
1.0
~ <
0 1
o.e
0.6
I I
4
'
,
'
_• _ _ Sir\? Clrde, BouS$1nesq
I
°• Citde 'ftlb Strip
I
5
= 0.1
I
8 I
1
I
I
8
f'u.
5.27 Vertical e.trass benealh centre of foundations: nonhomogeneous medium (Som 1968).
(al Circle dla 2b
1.0
1.0
(b)
Sir\?
width
•
• • •
1
•• • • •••
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
!!.. q
2
0.4
0.4
•l b
0.2
0.2
•
• •• •• 0
4
8
fllb
1 8 1 4 .,. (ftlb)
.•
2b
![ 1
•
•• • •
• ••
2
•
• • •
zl 4 8 181 4 fllb . ,. (~/b)
0
I . I vOfJytlgn.co ma ena
Fff!J. 5.28 Effed of noohomogenei ty on the vertical stresses beneath centre of foundation&.(Som 1968).
102 • Theory and Practice of Foundation Design Ex s., and sr are empirical s hape faclors. d,. d,. and d 7 are empirical depth factors. i,.. ;,, and iy are empirical inclination factors. The recommendations of Hansen for Nr and N, are identicaJ 10 those of Meyerhof. and are the result of those of Prandll (1921) and Reissner (1924). These are : N, = (N•  l)cot 9 N• = (e"'"•)tan 2 (45°+ ~12) N7
:
(6.14)
I.S(N•  I) tan 9
6 .2 .6 VesJc's method l'be failure surface considered by Vcsic is similar to that of Tcrzaghi's with the exception that the zone I below the footing is in active Rankine state. with inclined faces of the wedge at (45° + 4JI2) to the horizonml. The bearing capacity equation is the same as Eq, (6.13). The factors N, and N• are identical to those of Meycrhof and Hansen. N.,. given by Vesic, is a simplified form of that given by Caq1 ll and Kerisal (1948), N 7 = 2(N• + l )tan
~
(6.15)
For shape, depth and inclination factors, the reader may refer to Vesic ( 1973). 1.$. 6403(1981 ) incorporates the results of Hansen, Vesic, and Meyerhofs analyses and gives the same fonn of equation as Eq. (6.13). The corresponding shape factors, depth fac1ors, and inclinmion facrors are dealt wilh in Chapter 8 (see Seetion 8.2).
6.3 LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE Local shenr failure may develop for foocings on loose sand or soft cohesive soil, where lo..rge senJemem is required for mobilization of full shearing resis.1ance of soil. Wi1bin permissible limil of se1d cment, lhe shear strength parameters mobilized along the failure surface are c,., and 4J,,. Terzaghi proposed thai for local shear failure. and ¢"' s hould be used in the
c,,
Copyrighted material
Staring Capacity of Shallow Foundntions • 127 bearing capacity equation and factors N; . N,j, and instead of ; . Terzaghi empirically suggested lhat
NT shouJd be detennined on the basis of,..
; ., : (213)\1 and c., = (2/3)c Thus, lhe bearing capacity equation for local shear fail ure becomes, q4 = (213)cN; + qNq + O.SyBN;
where N,.'. Nq'• and Fig. 6.9.
NY are
bearing c.apacity factors for local shear failure depicted in
40
' '
Nq
...
30
N, .....
120
,N..
'
' ' '
I
N'
/
'N'r
~~ \
'
,'f
\ \
N,
.
= ....•N,=260 • =..o· N,= 180
\ ..\~
10 0 70
(6.16)
~
60
!50
40
30
20
10
I
0 5.7 1.0
Fig. U
20
40
60
llO
100
Nr
Toaaglll's beaotng cac>adl)' falute tor geno = 1 + 0.2 x 2/1.4 x 1.732 = 1.5 Copyrighted material
136
t
11reory a11d Practice of Fomulntio, Dtm'g11 d, = d 1 = 1 + 0.1D1 tan (45° + frl) = 1 + 0.35/1.4 = 1.25
i,
= ;, = (1
 a/90)1 = 0.79
iy = 0.44
W' = 0.5 Hem:e.
q..,: ( 10
30.J X J.l4 0.79) + (0.5 X 18 X
X X
J.5 1.4
0.79) + (18 X 2 X (18.38  1) X J.l4 22.37 X 0.72 X 1.25 X 0A4 X 0.5)
X X
X
J.25
X
= 406.6 + 704.4 + 55.8 =1166.8 kN. (q..J..t. = 1166.813 = 388.9
2!
380 kN/ml
Hence, safe load = 380 x 1.4 x 2 = 1064
2!
1060 kN
Esample 6.4 Wbat will be lbe safe load in Example 6.3 if undrained condition prevails? Take c. = 30 kN/m2, 0, N, 5.14, N, =I, and N1 : 0.
;,. =
=
St>iuJU>II
: 30
X
5.14
X
1.14
X
1.5
X
0.79
= 208.3 kN/m2 kN!m 2
(q ..J..r, = 208.313 = 69.4
2! 70
Safe load : 70
= 196 kN
X
1.4
X
2
2! 200 kN
Brinch Hansen. 1. (1961). A General FomJUla For Bearing Capacity, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulle.tin No. 11 . Copenhage.n. Brinch Hansen. 1. (1970). A Revised and Extended Fomru/a for Bearing Copaciry. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin No. 28, Copenhagen. Davis and Brooker (1973), The Effect of Increasing Strength with Depth on the Bearing Capacity of Clays, Geottchnique, Vol. 23. pp. 551.563. D'Appolonia. D.J. and T.W. Lambe (1970). Method of Predicting Initial Settlement, Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundarwn Division. ASCE. Vol. 96. pp. 523544. IS 6403 ( 1981). Codt of Practice for Dettnninarion of Bearing Capaciry of Shallow Foundations. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. Meyerhof. G.G. ( 1951), The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations. Geottchnique, Vol. 2. pp. 301 332.
Copyrighted material
Btaring Capacity of Shallow Foundations • 137 Peck, R.B., W.E. Hansen, and W.H. Thombum (1962). Foundation Engineering, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons. New York. Prandtl, L (1921). Uber die Endvingungs Festingkite von Schneiden, 'kirsclrrift fur Angebandrt Mathtmatik and Mechanik, Vol. I, No. I , pp. 1522. Reissner (1924). Zuns Erdd,.,ckproblem. Proc. Fint Int. Congress on Applied Mechanics. Dept. pp. 295311. Skempton. A.W. (1951), The Btaring Capacity of Clays. Building Research Congress, England. Terzaghi. K. (1951),
7l~eoretical
Soil Mtchanics. John Wiley, New York.
Vesic, A.S. (1973). Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations, Journal of Soil Mtchanics and Foundation Division ASCE, Vol. 99, No. S M I, pp. 4573. Vesic, A.S. (1975), Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations. · Chapter 3 of Foundation Englnetrlng Handbook. Van Nootrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Copyrighted material
Settlement Analysis
7.1
INTRODUCTION
Foundacions on soft clay are liable to undergo excessive settlement and prediction of this settlement is an imponant aspect of foundu. i..,.,
6 • t.o,. 1

t.u.,
(7.9)
So during consolidation. the element follows the effective wess palh BD while it would have moved from 8 10 C had the total StresS remained unehansed. A&r full consotidation. lherefon:. the stresSes are:
a;,. • t.o.
}
0"'¥ • K. p + (t.o.,  6)
(7. 10)
• K. p+ 6o61 An ideal seulement analysis should take into account !he complete pauem of suesses an element of soil will be subjected to in the field. In order to determine the relevant venical sltlins, laboratory tests should be performed under Identical suess conditions and an
integration or all such venica.l strains beneath a loaded area would give the settlement of the foundation (Lambe 1964, Davis and Poulos 1967).
The methods most widely used in pracclcc. however. are the ones based on the oedometer test. Figure 7.6 summarizes all these melhods indicating lhe effective stresspaths associated with each of them. In plotting the stre..·palh AF in Fig. 7 .6, it has been assumed that an undisturbed sample when subjected 10 the Insitu vcnical stress also restores the insitu horizontal stress so lhat subsequent stresspath for loading sUirts from lhe point A .
.... MlhJd I 2 3 •
Fljj. 7.1 ..._
....
....
~
Streuo~~th
AF
AS, M' AS. EF AS, 80 ...,
ln'c>llod ..............
146 • Tlreory and Practice of Foundatiotl Design Method I, described by Skempton and McDonald (1955) as the conventional method, was first proposed by Tcrzaghi (1929) and later used by Taylor (1948). It a.,gumes that all settlement occurs from onedimensional compression and that the excess porepressure is equal to lhe increase in verticaJ sttess. Therefore. the corresponding stresspath is ~Method 2 recognizes that the soil undergoes shear deformation during undrained loading (path AB). and this causes the immediate seulement, but still assumes that the excess porepressure, which should be a function of the induced shear stress~ is equal to the vertical stress increment. Consolidation settlement. therefore. occurs along the stress path AF. This inconsistency in Method 2 has been overcome by Skempton and Bjerrum (1957) in Method 3. Here. the immediare settlement is a function of the stress path AB whiJe the consolidation settlement occurs along the path EF. The latter. therefore. is only a part of the total strain along the path AF depending on the magnitude of the excess porepressure set up during loading. While the method of $kempton and Bjerrum introduces for the first time, the concept of strcss,.path in settJement analysis, the as."umption ls still implicit that during consolidation all strain is onedimensional ·which requires the horizontal stresses to adjust accordingly. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the field stresspath 80 and the path EF used in the analysis. The condition of no lateral strain may be approximately true in cases like that of a loaded area which is very large compared to the thickness of the clay layer. But in the majority of field problems. this condition may be far from ltue. Moreover. while computing the immediate settlement. Method 3 obviously accepts that the clay undergoes lateral dcfonnation during loading (with constant volume, there would he no set~ement otherwise) but th.is is neglected in estimating the consolidation seulement. Consequently, of course. the effect of the horizontal stress is completely ignored except in determining the e xcess porewater pressure.
7 .2.1 Stresses During Loading and Consolidation in the Field It is evident that during load application in the field. most of the defonnation takes place under condition of no volume change, implying a value of Poisson's ratio of the soil equal to 0.5. As the excess porepressures dissipate. Poisson' s ratio also decreases and finally drops to its fully drained value. It is known that for an isotropic homogeneous e lastic medium. the venicaJ stresses are independent of the elastic parameters and are. therefore. unlikely to be significantly affected by this decrease in Poisson's ratio. On che other hand. Poisson's ratio has a considerable influence on the horizontal stresses even for the Boussinesq case beneath the centte of a uniform circular load. Therefore, it is clear that the problem of consolidation in the field is very much interlinked with the problem of stress distribution, whose rigorous analytical treatment is extremely complex. An approximate analysis may he made on the assumption that the horiwntal stress at the e nd of consolidation will be the same as the Boussinesq stresses for the appropriate value of Poisson's ratio. If we consider an element of clay at a certain depth where. during load appliealion, 60'., and 60'111 are rhe increase in vertical and horizontal stre.'\.Ses respectively lhen, at the end Or consolidation. the venica1 stress will still remain unchanged but lhe horizontal stres.~ will have decreased to the new vaJue 6a111 due to the reduction of Poisson's ratio.
Copyrighted material
S~ttl~m~nl
Analysis • 147
So. the changes in effective stress during consolidation an: given as
[6u,l, =
Horizontal:
11.u
6
(7 .11 )
Vertkal:
where
6 = 6u, 1  6a.,.
The ratiO of the effective stress changes during consolidation, K' is then given by K'
=
[Au,J.: • I  .!.._
[Aa,l,
(7.12)
6u
Now. for the Boussinesq problem, the general expressions for stresses beneath the centre of a uniform circular load (dlameter 2b and load intensity. q) are (Wu 1966), u _
'  q
[I _
(tlb)
3 ]
(I + t 2/b2 ) 311 (7.13) 3
a = !l.[(l + 2v) _ 2(1 + v)(tlb) + (t/1>) ] ' 2 (I+ z2 /l?) (I + z3/b3 ) 311
which can be more conveniently written as,
u, = q(l  '1')
u, = ~((I + 2v) 2(1 +
V)'l
+ '1'1
(7. 14)
where. (7.15) Using these expressions,
Aa, = (u, ),. 111 = q(l  11'>
6a,, = (u,),. 112 = ~ [2 3'1 + 11'1
(7.16)
6u., = (u,), . .. = ~[(I+ 2v') ~ 2(1 + v') '1 + 11'1 Combining Eqs. (7.13) to (7. 16). we have
K' _ I _ [ I  2v ] I + IJ{l + 1J)(3A  I)
(7 .17)
Eq. (7 .17) can then be used co determine the mt.io of the stress increase during consolidation at any depth beneath the centre or a uniform circular load.
Copyrighted material
148 • Theory and Practice of Foundat;o,
7.2.2
Desig~t
In1luence of Stresspath on the Drained Deformation of Clay
It has been shown in the foregoing that the stress changes thai occur in the field during consolidation are primarily dependent on the drained Poisson's ratio and the pore pressure parameter A of the soil. Therefore. it is of considerable practical significance to study the influence of scresspath, such as BD (sec Fig. 7.5) on che axial and volumetric strain ·during consolidation. Expcriment·a J investigation with undisturbed London clay (Som. 1968). normally consolidaced KaoliniiC (Das and Som e1 al., 1975) and undisturbed Calcuna clay (Guha, 1979) show lhol lhe stress incrcmcnc mtio during consolidation has importanl effccc on the deformation characteristks of the soil. Two things need to be considered here: (a) the influence of stress incremenl mtio on lhe volumetric strain of the soil and (b) the influence of stress increment ratio on the strain ratio (that is, axial strain/ volumetric Slnlin) of the soil. There is conflicting evidence on the effect of s tress ratio on the volumetric compressibility of clay. Some investigators have found that the volumetric compressibility is independent of the stress increment ratio and can be expressed as function of vertical effective stress only (Som. 1968). This means !hat !he results of onedimensional consolidation ccsts would be applicable irrespective of the changes in lateral pressure during consolidation. Others hove found that the volumetric compressibility is not independent of the lateral pressure and can be$1 be expressed as functions of mean effective stress during consolidation (Dos, 1975). It seems chat the appropriate relationship has to be determined for the particular soil under investigation. The major effect of lateral stresses during consolidation is, however. manifested in the axial strain associated with volumetric defonnation. Figure 7.7 shows some typical results of stresspath controlled triaxial tests on different clays. The results are plotted as relationships between the stress increment ratio. K' and the strain ratio, A during consolidation or drained deformation. It is to be noted that one~dimensional consolidation implies a strain ratio, A= L.O nnd that occurs at a pank,ular stress increment ratio only. For any other. stress ratio. the strain ratio would also the difference and assumption of one...cJimensional strain (i.e. £ 11£., :: 1.0) would lead to significant error in settlement analysis. 4.0
3.2
2.4 1.6
1 Undistu'bed Calcufta day 2 Sedimented bolinite
\
3 UndisiUrbed London clay Observed
\
    · Theoretical (""Isotropic elastcity}
"z
~
0.8
"~~ 
.
0.0
0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 K' = Aa'.,IIJ.a ' 1 Fig. 7.7 Strain ratio, .t versus stress increment ratio. K· for draln~~~~!iq'£Xf 0.0
0.2
material
Seulemem Analysis • 149 The relationships shown in Fig. 7.7 can best be determined from stress controlled triaxiaJ tests. However, Som (1968), Simons and Som (1969) have demonstrated that this relat.ions hip can also be established cheoreHcally from considerarion of aniso1ropic elas1icicy as:
e,
I  2~\/,K' £, = (I  2v)) + 21)(1  vj  Vz)K'
(7.18)
where. v '1 = effect of one horizontal strain in the other horizontal scrain; v'2 = effect of horizontal strain on vertic.al strain; v'1 = effect of vertical strain on horizontal strain; Jf = ratio of venical drained dcformatjon modulus to the horizontal drained defoTITUition modulus. Equation (7.18) can also be expressed as I  2~V,K' £, = (I  2v))[K'/K0  1) 2~V,K' £1
(7.19)
The parameters v'3 and rJVi can be detennined from two tests with different values of K' and measuring £ 1/e., in each case. The most convenient values of·K' to choose are u and 1.0. that is, !hose from lhe standard drained compression test and lhe isotropic consolidation test.
7 .2 .3
Settlement Analyala by Stre..path Method
The methods of settlement analysis in current use have been described earlier. These methods have given satisfactory results in many field problems, particularly where lhe condition of zero lateral strain is satisfied. However, more often !han not appreciable lateral deformation occurs in lhe field and lhe currently used methods of settlement analysis become inadequate to predict lhe seulemenL A method of settlement prediction by the stresspath method has, therefore. been introduced for lhe case of axisymmetric loading (Simons and Som, 1969. Som et al., 1975).
Immediate oettlemeat The common practice in estimating lhe immediate (elastic) settlement of foundat ion on clay is to assume the soil to be a homogeneous, isotropic. clastic medium. thus, permitting the application of Boussincsq analysis. However, in practice, the elastic modulus~ E of tt:e soil varies with depth as a consequence not only of the inherent non·homogeneity of the soil but also of varying applied stress levels at different depths. Stress strain relationship of soft clay is essentially nonlinear and the deformation modulus varies considerably with the stress level. While it is possible to make theoretical analysis of undrained deformation using the finite clement technique and taking the nonlinear stress versus strain behaviour of the soil into consideration, they are nor yet available in readily usable form. A ~il"ple expression for immediate settlement following the stresspath method may be given as,
Copyrighted material
150 • Theory and Pmctice of Foundation Design
_ 'JAa,  aa.
p, 
(1.20)
e(z)
0
where C.a\. and L\a11 are the increase in toral vertical and horizontal stresses at any depth re.•pectively and E{z) is the corresponding deforrru~tion modulus, taking due account of the vertical and horizontal effective stresses prior to and at the end of loading. It has been shown by many investigators that the stresses in the subsoil due to a foundation loadjng are not significantly dependent upon the variation of E (Huang 1968. Som 1968). Therefore. in the absence of more rigorous analysis. the Boussinesq stresses may be used in evaluating the settlement by Eq. (7.21), the integration being done numerically by dividing the compressible stratum into a number of layers and taking the appropriate value of E for the layer into account.
Conaolldatlon aetUement In the conventional method. the consolidation settlement is given by,
p,
•
J
=
(m,), a a, dz
(7.21)
0
where (m,) 1 is the coefficient of volume compressibility determined from standard consolidation test and C.a: is the increase of vertical pressure at the centre of layer. Following the Skempton and Bjerrum (1957) method, the settlement is,
p, = J.1
'J(m, ) !!.a, dz 1
(7.22)
0
where J.1, the porepressure corTOCtion factor, is a function of the soil type and tbe geometry of the foundation, (refer Fig. 7.4). For the stresspath method. the settlement is given by,
p; =
•
J
).(m,)3 l!.udz
(7.23)
0
= ).p, where, tJ.u
= increase of porewater pressure under undrained loading which dissipates
during the consolidation. (m,h = coefficient of volume compressibility for threedimensional strain. A = the ratio of venicaJ strain to volumetric strain which is a function of the stress increment ratio during consolidation. If Eq. (7.23) is to be applied in seulement analysis, K' during consolidation needs to be known in order to determine the value of A. Aceurate determination of K' for actual foundation may be difficult becau,s e it depends on many factors such as Poisson' s ratio,
Copyrighted material
Seltlement Analysis + 151 pore pressure parameter A. stressstrain relationshjp of the soil. and so on. As an approximation, however, its value can be determined from Eq. (7.17), for a footing of diameter 2a. According to Eq. (7. 17),
K _ I _[ I  2v ] I + IJ(l + q)(JA  I) where,
)t/2
1]= < ( 1 +•' Q
a'
v = Poisson's ratio A = Skempton's porepressure parameter Knowing the value of K', A. can be obtained from experimental relationships as shown in Fig. 7.7. The value of (m,):, should, of cour>e, be obtained from appropriate stresspath test, bu~ for practieal purposes, can be determined from properly conducted oedometer test. Then, (m.)) may be taken as approximately equal to (m,) 1, the oedometer compressibility in terms of venical effective stress. It may be noted here that evaluation of the K versus A relationship for any problem requires determination of Poisson's ratio and porepressure parameter, A of the soil. But for most soils, Poisson's ratio varies between 0.1 and 0.3 and porepressure parameter, A between 0 and I. Accordingly, K varies within a narrow range of 0.60.9 and A in the range 0 ..50.8. It would, therefore, be convenient to select a value of l within this range for most practical problems (Som, 1968).
7 .S
RATE OF SETTLEMENT
The rate of settlement of foundations on clay is generally determined from Tenaghi's theory of onedimensional consolidation although tield..:onsolidation is often threedimensional (See O!apter I. Section 1.9.5). According to this, the excess porepressure at any point at depth t within a soil mass after a time from load application, is governed by the equation
C lflu = 8u
'8:' where~
8t
(7.24)
u is the excess pore·pressure and
C" coefficient of consolidation. The degree of consolidation at any time, 1 (defined as the percentage dissipation of porepressure) may be obraincd by solving Eq. (7.24) for appropriate boundary conditions. Table 7.2 gives the relationship between time· factor, T, = C,JIH 2 and degree of consoHdation, U for different boundary conditions.
Copyrighted material
1S2 •
Tlr~ory
and Practice of Foundalion Design Tablt' 7.2
U versus T~ relationship (T~ • C~t!H 1)
U%
(u,Ju,) • 0
o.s
1.0
s.o
T,
0 20 40
0 0.01 Cl.ll
o.os
0.049
0.64
0 0.014 0.081 0.19S 0.460
0 0.01
0.17 0.3 1 0.58
0 0.031 0.1 26 0.237 0.567
60
0.39
80 100
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
0
O. ISS 0.420
For double drainage (any distribution of pressure, that is, u 11u: :;:; any value). take H = 112 times thickness of cJay and T,. values fo r (u 1/ui) = I.
7 .4
FOUNDATION ON SAND
Foundations on sand do not present the !>arne degree of problem with regard to settlement as foundations on c;:lay. Firstly, except for loose sand. settlemen t is usually small and secondly. because of high permcabilily the settlement is usually over during the period of construction. In this case. there is no time dependent settlement similar to the consolidation settlement in clayey soils. although large foundations may undergo minor settlement caused by fluctuations of load due to wind, machinery vibrations. and storage loads. Prediction of settlement of foundations on sand is, by and lange. empirical although elastic theory has sometimes been used. The common methods used for this purpose are:
7 .4 . 1
Elastic Theory
The problem is similar to calculation of immediate settlement of foundations on clay as given in Eq . (7.3). For a homogeneous. isotropic, e lastic medium
6 = q.B (I  v) 2 /
E
(7.25)
P
where the different terms have the same meaning as in Eq. (7 .3). However. it is to be
considered thac because of volume change during load application, Poisson's rutio. v can no longer be taken as 0.5. The value of E and v should be determined from tbe laboratory triaxial tests for the appropriate relative dens icy and confining pressure. The Poisson's ratio normally varies between 0. 15 for coarse sand to 0.3 for fine to silty sand. The value of E can also be determined from the standard penetration resistance or the soil (refer Otaptcr 2. Table 2.7). Elastic theory. however, gives only a very approximate estimate of settlement, because the assumption of homogeneity would be far from renlity.
7 .4 .2
Semiempirical Method ()3ulsman, 1948)
Buisman (1 948) has given on empirical method or es timating the senlement of foundations on sand by numerical integration of the strains occ urring in different strata. as s hown in fig. 7.8. Accordingly.
Copyrighted material
Settlemtnt
log 10
Pu + l!.p dz p.,
r l l ! ~)'Of
1
La)'llf
2
(7 .26)
l ! !
¢ ¢
Po • dl>
~
Layer 4
• 153
Net foundation pressure, q,
~
layer 3
llrr*num
75 Flg. 8.15
S e  ol ~ 
lkAklilg. Booton (Co_.,.,. 
Life 
FacO.wn. 1942~
In the high Paddington projec~ a thirty fourstorey building wu built on overconsolidated London clay by providins 1 18 m basement which reduced the foundation pressure to 100 kN/m 2 while the gross pressure remained 425 kN/m2• This is depicted through Fig. 8.16. The conslNerion of • box type foundation provides extra stiffness to !he sbUeture which reduces the chance of exce51ive diffe,.,ntial settlement (Skempton. 1955).
N
l
~.....
8
e
*
~
i ~
Pan Plan
~
0~
Fll Brown Lonc:lon clay
1• ~m
·• •
I~
·20 """"' (grooal

....,_, day
$3 m WIXIIn1ch end ruding bed
6$ m 'ThlnM land Flg. 1.16 8uoyoncy ...~ 
for High
Poctdiov... PYojocl (Sbmplon.
1956).
edrr"
a
180 • Theory and Practice of Fouudatio11 Dts1'g11 Glossop ( 1972) indicated two types of floating foundations dep ending on whether floatation is required to reduce the settlement or to prevent shear fai lure of the s ubsoil. In either case. the net fou ndation pres.\ure should be reduced to such an extent that the design criteria with respect 10 both. shear failure of the soil and seu.lemen1. are satisfied. Increased rigidity of fou ndation may be achieved with a buoyancy rofl by providing a cellular construction below the ground. The s uperstructul'e and the cellular rofl provided for the Cossipore Power Station, Calcuua is an exceJient example of a near floating foundation on soft normal Calcutlll deposit. It is shown in Fig. 8.17.
Boiler house .AIIutar tllf'l 70 m x 100m
6mJ
~lDI
Turt:line house
F=
"
!
100 ."" f.o~~ .
~ o.sm
.
rom
Fig. 8.17 Celular raft founda!lon for Cosslpore " "  Sta!lon, calcutta (Skempton,
1 955~
When the height of a building varies, it is possible to combine rafts under the heavier part with footings under the lighter pan of the building. A good example of this is fou nd in the Thomas Edison Building, Sao Paulo, refer Fig. 8.18, where a reinforced concrete mat with foundation girders connecting all columns was provided under the twenty oncst·o rey section of the building while s pread footi ngs were provided for the tenstorey block. The maximum settlement at the end of construction was only 15 mm (Rios and P. Silva, 1948). 21
10
Depth (m)
4.9m
~~:j~ .,::==::&!
5
~"':!"'::"! 10
Fig. 8.18 Combined raft and fooling foundalion for Thomas Edison Building, Sao Paulo (Rios and P. Silva, 1948).
Copyrighted material
Footi11gs a11d Raft Oesig11 + 181
8.3.5 Basement Raft Buoyancy raft foundation can be conveniently used to provide basements for multistorey buildings in sofl clay. This gives add.ilional floor space to a building but requires no additional ground covernge. Depending on the depth of foundation multiple basements mBy be accommodated. Figure 8.19 depicts Albany telephone building in New York which was founded on a 7 m deep buoyancy raft with two basement floors. The subsoil consis1ed of sensitive plastic clay. But the net foundation pressure of 40 kN/m2 restricted the senJement the building to only 60 mm (Casagrande 1932. Glossop 1972).
or
...
Property
Building line
Chase few
mm Part< street
cable vault
Approx. 7 m
1
Mud
lOOm
mat
.
Fig. 1!1.19 t.1urtiple basement for AJ)any telephone building (Giossop, 1972}.
Analysis of buoyancy ran foundation in normal Calcutta soil g.ives some interesting observations. For a typkal 10 m x 20 m raft. the net foundation pressure is to be rcstricled to 40 kN/m 2 to keep the senlement within the permissible limit of 125 mm (IS 1904: 1966). According.ly, the depth of foundation for different gross foundation pressures can be calculated. Table 8.2 gives the relevant data. II is clear that one, two, or three levels or basement may be provided within the depth of foundalion to restrict the net foundation press ure to 40 kN/m2 for eight. twelve, and sixteenstorey buildings respectively. That means, four upper s toreys can be buill for e::ach basement floor for buildings beyond four s10rcys high. Tabl ~
8.2 Depth or b3~ment in normal Calcu n:~ soil
4.0
qiWf • q,_ 
ro,
;;; q.,_  i .SD1
q~
No. of
(tlm'l
s1orqs
40
..
No. of basem~nl
10.0
3.3
4.1
8
16.0
6.6
41
12
2
22.0
10.0
4.0
16
3
jiDOrs
Copyrighted material
182 • Titeory and Practice of Foundation Df'.sign
Structural Design of Raft Foundation
8 .3 .6
A ro.n foundation can be structurally designed in the same way as the reinforced concrete floors of a framed building. However. in a foundation raft, the floor is inverted so that its dead weight can be subtracted from the upward soil reaction.
(a) Rigid method Raft foundations are mostly designed by the rigid method. This assumes the raft to be fully rigid and ensure.~ that the deflection of the raft does not affect the soil contact pressure. Also, the contact pressure is assumed to be distributed on a plane surface and the raf1 is so proponjoned lhat the line of action of the resultant forces coincides with the centroid of the contact pressure (Teng. 1972). This assumption appears reasonably valid when sufficient rigidity is imparted on the raft by the action of the interconnected beams and columns. or cellular raft or flat slab construction as the case may be. Structural design of the raft is similar to that of an inverted slab subjected to upward reaction of the ground with support condition to be obtained for the appropriate design. To facilitate the design of raft by the conventional rigid method, Hetenyi (1946) has given an approximate criterion for detennining the validity of the 'rigid' assumption. For relatively unifonn column load and uniform column spacing. the raft may be considered rigid if the column spacing is less than 1.75/A.. where .t is defined as the characteristic coefficient given by (8.12) where.
Ks
= coefficient of subgrade reaction {pressure required
to cause unit displacement), b = width of a strip of raft between centres of adjacent bays, £(' = modulus of ela.sticity of concrete, and I = moment of incnia of the strip of width b. (b) Ewtlc method
In the simplified elastic method, lhe soil is assumed to consist of infinite number of clastic springs each ac.ting independently. The Winkler model is (."Onsidcrcd valid. The springs are assumed to be able to resist both tension and compression while the soil defonnation is considered proportional to the pressure . The elastic constant of the springs is determined by the coefficient of subgrade re,aclion or the soil (defined as the unit pressure required to produce unit settlement). The analysis is carried out following the concept of beam on elastic foundation , the rigorous analysis for which was done by Hetenyi (1946). The raft is considered a.s a plate and the column loads arc distributed in the surrounding areas in the zone of influence. The bending moment and shear force are calculated for each column point and the data are superimposed to obtain the moment and shear for the raft foundation. American Concrete Institute has recommended a procedure for design (ACI 1966, 1988). Computer programs are now available to Cil.rty out the comple~ ma h~Yi~~~~8uli\tffit 1
· rnr
Footings and Raft Design • 183
practical use. Finite element fonnulation can also be used to work out a computer program. Given the scope of this book. the details are not discussed here. Example 8.1
An isolated column in a building frame. with a column grid of 3.5 m X 3.5 m carries a superimposed load of 450 kN. The subsoil condition is shown in Fig. 8.20. Design a suitable square footing for the column. 450kN
Depth (m)
0
Fl
1
1 Oesk:leated bt'Owr'!isl'l grey silty day
2
r= c.,
18 kNim3
= 40 k~; Ccl(1 + So)
4
=0.05
II Grey silty day
r = 18 kNfm' c., = 25 kNffnZ C,/(1 • sol = 0.16
12Ill 8tul$h silty with kankar grey
day
r• 19 kNtm' c., = 60 kNfml; CcJ(1 • So} = 0 .10
16
Fig. 8.20 Subsoil condition for Example 8.1.
Given superimposed load = 450 kN Take footing size
=2 m x 2 m 450 2 q..,=2 x2 = 112.5 kN/m
Place foundation below fill and at depth of G.W.T. i.e.
v,= 2m Solution (a) Bearing capociry
N,
= 5(t + 0.2
~)(1 + 0.2 ~)
= 7.2 Failure surface lies in Slnllum I. Hence, take c, = 40 kN/m2.
Copyrighted material
184 • Theory alld Practice of Foundan'orr De.sigtr Cohesive soil:
Qu11(n)
= c.,N~ : 40
X
7.2
= 288 kN/m••
~. r.
288 112.5 = 2 '56 > 2 ' 5
(b) Immediate settlement
q. = 11 2.5 kN/m2 B=2m
v = 0.5 IP.o
H log p., + flp Po
Two layers (I and If) are involved in the pressure influence zone.
At
A: Po = 19 x 1.0 + 9 x 1.0 = 28 kN/m•' flp [for Z/8 = 1.6/2.5
At
B: Po
= 19 x
1.0 + 9 x 2.0 + 8 x 1.5
flp (for Z18
...
~
= 0.4] = 0.85 x 65 = 55.2 kN/m·'
= 004 .
=49 kN/m2
= 3.512.5 = 1.4) = 0.42 x 65 = 27.3 kN/m 2 x
21
og
28 + SS.2
D
0 IS
+ .
x
21 •
49 + 27.3 49
= O.Q38 + 0.058 m = 0.096 m Depth correction
= 0. 95
Rigidity correction = 0.8 (lnrerconnected strip provides rigidity to the foundation)
Porepressure correction. J1 = 0.75
(Major contribution to settlement comes from strata I and II. Hence. J1 correction for N.C. clay is considered.) ..
(p,)""' = 0.95 x 0.8 x 0.75 x 0.096 = 0.055 m = 55 mm
..
Total setdement. p1
= 17 + SS = 72
mm < 75 mm
Example 8.3 A column carrying a superimposed load of 1500 kN is to be founded in a medium sand as
shown in Fig. 8.22. Design a suitable isolated footing.
Copyrighted material
188 • Theory and Practice of Foundation Design 1SOO kN
N {Biow>/30 em)
Depth (m)
o~ ~~~~~~~r;
18kNim3
2 ¥,.,,..,
,. . ."'.
I

i
5m
Fig. 8.22 Example 8.3.
Nu., = 15
Average N value,
f =
34° (Eq. (2.5))
N, = 30 N1 = 41
Q... = 1500 lcN/m2
Assume footing size = 2.5 m • 2.5 m
.
qftll!f.=
"
_1500 • _ = 240 kN/m' 2 5 25
Solution (a) Bearing capaciry
•• = 1.2; s, =0.8; dq =d, = 1.15; ;, = ;, = 1.0
q,.(n) = q(N,  l)sqd,i, + 0 .5yBN1s1 d1 i1
= (J8
K
2(30 I)
K
1.2
K
1.15
K
1.0) + (0.5
X
9
X
2.5
X
41
X
0,8
X
1.15
X
1.0)
= 1440 + 424 2 = 1864 kN/m
Fs =
1864 = 7.8 > 2.5 240
(b) Settlement
Considering single layer of 5 m depth
S
=
2
·~·
fl log Pn + l!.p
Po
Copyrighted material
Footings ami Rafi Design • 189
p. = 18 l!.p
E
X
2 + 9
X
2.5 = 58.5 kN/m2
= (for 718 = 1.0) = 0.35 x 240 = 84 kN/m2 = 39 + 4.5 x IS = 1065 kg/cm 2 = 10,650 kN/m2 (refer Eq. (2.6))
6 =
2.3 X 58.5 I 58.5 + 84 5 og 58.5 x 10,650
=0 .024 m = 24 mm EXample 8.4 Three columns in a building frame spaced 4 m apart carry vertical superimposed loads of 500 kN, 720 kN and 600 kN. Design suitable isolated footings for the columns for equal settlement. Subsoil condition is shown in Fig. 8.23. Depth (m)
o ~RI ~,.~t7 s 7k~Nhn~,
•  ~I Medium day r• 18 kNim, c;. = 40 kNhn'
m~ = 0.0005 m'lkN
s~11 SUff Clay r=
19 kNim1
c;.. 90 """"' 0.0003 m21kN
10=....::;=:.:.::..=m.. •
Fig. 8.23 Subsoil condition (&le 8. .4).
Solution Approximate q.,,(n) of slr.ltum I
= cll/Nt: = 40 X 6.0 = 240 kN/m2 qo~,(n)
. = 240 25
,
= 96 kN/m (for Fs = 2.5)
Choosing approximate fOOting size accordingly and carrying out detailed analysis. Column A Take footing size = 2.2 m x 2.2 m Area
= 4.84
m2
500 2 q..,. = = 103.3 kN/m 4. 84
Copyrighted material
190 • Titeory and Practice of Foundation Design (n) Bearing copaciry
Failure surface in layer 1: Take c. = 40 I (b) but < (b) + (c) P• exists below dl" At base,
M, = ![!rD'(N. ;.) cH'(JN, ;;)]B ~ B 2
+
+
Po
(10.35)
For (a) < (b)
Then net P. is trapezoidal. At base, (10.36)
10. 10 WELL SINKING The sinking or a well foundation is done by excavating the soil within the dredged hole. This can be done manually or by mechanical dredger. A mechanical dredger consistS or prongs with hard steel teeth which are pushed into the soil. When the dredger is pulled up, the prongs c lose to form a bucket full of excavated soil. The mechanical dredger should be adapced to suit the soil condition. With increasing depth of well during well sinking, the friction on the sides of the well increases. If the weight of the steining is not adequate to overcome the friction, suitable kentledge may be placed on a platform 10 i!ICffiiSO the load on the steining. Air and water jets are also used to minimize friction. Compressed air is used when well sinking is done below water level to counter the water pressure inside the well. Example 10.1 A bridge 120 m long. is to be constructed over a river having Q..... = 2418 mlts, HFL = 81.17 m; LWL = 73.00 m and existing bed level = 72.00 m. The subsoil consists of
Copyrighted material
284 • TIJ~ory and Practict' of Foundation Design loose silty sand layer (N.,... = 10). 3.5 m thick. underlain by a thick stmtum of medium to coarse sand (NciJn = 24). .De1ermine the founding level and allowable bearing cap:LCity of a 4.5 m diameter nbutment well. The weighted mean diameter of the bed material upto relevant depth is 0.275 mm. and pennissiblc settlement is 45 mm. Solution
m = 0.275 mm Silt factor.
f = 1.76..{,;; = 0.923
· q = D.1sc harge ·mtenslty.
24 18 =  20.15 m3/s/m 12 0
. ( ~' ) '" = 1.34 ((20._ 15)' ) '" = 10.17 m Nonnal scour depth. d = 1.34 0 923 Ml>J< (12.678)3 J = 840.574 m 12
X
12
p' = 13n
47.43 m4
o= tan 20" = 0.364
Jl = 13n ; = tan 33• = 0.649 B
5.5
a = lTD = 3.14 x 12.678 = m = K,
K,
0 38 .I
= 1
I = 18 + ml, ( I + 2 f./a)
= 47.43 + I
X
840.574 ( I + 2
X
0.364
X
0.138)
= 972.45 m'
Step 3
r =
D(_l_) = 2
ml,
(12.678 )( 972.45 ) = 7 _33 2 I x 840.574
M 48,680 ;:(I + jJjJ' ) fiW = _ ( I + 0.649 X 0.364)  0.649 7 33 8210  8950 740 kN < H
=
, + pW = M( lJJJJ) r
=
X
13,790
X
13,790
=
48,680 _ (I  0.649 X 0.364) + 0.649 7 33 5072.3 + 8950.7 14,023 kN > H
=
Step 4 mM
1
=
I x 48,680
_ 972 45
=
so; r, (Kp K.l = 9.2 x
with seismic. 1.25r'(Kp  K.) Step
= 1.25 x
64.7
7.035 = 64.7
= 80.88' > 50
s W  f./p±MB A 21 : 13,790  0.364 24.42 = 465.8 ± 137.7
X
6641 :1: 48,680 X 5.5 2 X 972.45
= 603.5. 328.1 kN/m2 < 800 kN/m2• Hence, it is acceptable. Method based on IRC: 45 (Uitilllllte)
Copyrighted material
Hidden page
Well Foundations • 291
Applied moment = 2439.6(24.603  0.2 x 12.678) (Point of rotation 0.20 above base) = 53.830 kNm < 68,500 kNm. Therefore. accepted. Example 10.4 For the bridge considered in Example 10.3. check the adequacy of the abutment well whose elevation and nature of earth pressure diagrams have been shown in Fig. 10.12
,.ll,
J:
\ f hinge
tor bulb fotmatlon
in underteamed
d
~=Mles.
(anor Tomlinson. 1994)
d
!L
A
'AT :
/ control Swelling.
CNS layer
Katti (1979) proposed the use of a cOheaivenon·swelling (CNS) layer to reduce the effect of swelling. A clay soil of adequate thickness having nonswelling clay minerals, is placed on the subgradc and the foundations arc placed on this layer. The optimum thickness of the CNS layer is to be detennined from large scale tests. The method has been used in canal lining works, as shown in Fig.. 11.7 but its use in foundations is still limiled.
Ac:tlWt zone
Fig. 11.7 Use of CNS layer In canal llninQ.
Copyrighted material
302 • The0')1 and Practice of Foundation Design
Chemical Stabilization Attempts have been made to control the swelling potential of expansive soil by limeslurry or limc·flynsh injection. Such injection is done through pressure grouting technique on a close grid around the foundation to cover the entire foundation on:n. Bu1 the method is expensive and has not been widely used. However, lime slurry injection has been used to stabilize foundations on expansive soil after occurrence of distress.
11.4.3
Measures to Withstand Settlement
Tile foundation may be made sufficienlly rigid by providing interconnected beams and band lintel to withstand the effects of differential movement on the structure. Stiffened mat foundations (Lytton. 1972) have also been adopted to counter the effect of diffe.rential ground movement. Premlatha (2002) carried out a study on the use of stiffened mat for low rise structures in Chennai, based on evaluation of heave of the soil. A three dimensional soil structure interactive analysis was done 10 suit the loading. climate. and environmental c.onditions of Chennai. However. these methods are rather expensive and have not been widely used for low to medium structures. Design of building fou ndation in expansive soil needs careful evaluation of the swelling potential of the soil in terms of the mineralogy. Attcrbcrg Limits. and the swelling pressure. Mineralogy and Atterberg limits indicate the ne(.essity or otherwise of special design. Only swelling pressure gives a true understanding of the magnitude of the swelling potential. In particular. light structures are more vulnerable to distress because the bearing pressure is often less than the swelling pressure and the foundation is prone 10 uplift forces. For a minimum depth of foundation of 2 m with the bottom of the trench filled with sand, a broken stone is ofren used to minimize the effect of swelling RCC plinth beams. Band lintel also helps 10 withstand the effect or swelling. Underreamed piles and s urcharge loading seem to be the most suitable methods of countering the effect of s welling. In addition, good surface drainage and impervious paving around the s ite help 10 prevent wa1er percolation in the soil.
Chen. F.H. ( 1988). Foundations on Expansive Soils. Elsevier. Ams·tcrdam. Gibbs. H.J. and \V.G. Holtz (1956), £ugl11eeri"g PropuHt!s of Expa11sive Clays. Transactions ASCE, New York. Vol. 121, pp. 641663. Paper No. 28 14, Discussion. pp. 664777. IS 2720 (Port lll1980), M•llsureme~lr of Swelling Prusure of Soil.ll Bailer wen graded baclrnll ..
75mmto2mm
0
..
Fig. 12.16 Stone ¢01vmn lnstallalion by ramming methOd.
Copyrighted material
"
Ground Improvement Techniques • 317 under given energy of compaction. Sometimes the mixtures of stone aggregate and sand,. generally in proponion of 2:1, are used as ba.:kfill material. It is observed that sand is utilized mainly in filling the voids in gravel skeleton. Gravel backfill of aggregate size 7S mm to 2 mm is generally rccommonded. The gravel should be well graded and preferably angular shaped for good interlock. The main purpose of compaction is to rearrange the stone particles so that very good interlocking between panicles is obtail:'led to give high angle of intemal friction. Too muc.h ram.ming, however, crushes the aggregate. For a given compaction energy, greater weight and smaller drop of the rammer give better results.
Comparison of cODStnlctiOD teclml.qaea All the inslllllation techniques for stone columns in soft clay are selfadjusting in tlie sense that enlargement of the column during ramming or vibration occurs depending on the soil consistency. figure 12.17 shows the range of soil suitable for such a treatment by stone columns.
4
10
20
Fig. 12.17 Range
o(
40 60
d
140 20Q
suitable fr ~ by..,. columns.
Rammed stone columns have been used extensively in lndia. They are found to be quite suitable for all k.i nds of soil (Datye 1982). Nayak (1982) has suggested that the angle of internal friction, ;· may be as high as 45° for compacted granular fi ll in rammed stone column. whereas for vibrofl.oted stone column 4/ ranges between 38°42°. It is also to be noted that in vibrofloted s tone column, the top about I m deep does not get properly compacted for lack of ~nflnement near the surface, whereas in practice this portion of the s tone column is required to take greater Joad intensity. ln case of rammed stone column, proper compaction can be achieved even for this length because of lateral confinement of the
Copyrighted material
318 • 17teory and Practice of FoundDtion Design casing pipe. Willi vibrollot, lbere is no harm in using high energy of compaction. Ralhc:r, it reoulu in larger diameter of the stone column and better compaction of aggregate to give higher value of angle of internal friction. Net effect of this is to increase the loed carrying capacity of the stone column. But for rammed stone column, such high compaction energy may crush the aggregates, resulting in lower value of ;• and lower capacity of the stone columns. In general, however, vibroflotation needs skilled labour and better quality control while the installation of rammed stone columns needs greater manpower. (hoerall, rammed stone column appears to be more economical although it is a very slow process compared to vibroflotation. Dnlp pdaclplea
The deaign of stone column fOIIIIdMion involves the .......,.,nt of (i) diameter of stone column.
(ii) depth of stone colwm, and (iii) spacing of stone column.
D.,er of 110M colamn: For a particular driving method, vibroDotation oc rammed stone column, the diamecer of the finished stone column depends on the strength and consistency of the soil, the energy of compaction In rammed column, and diameter of poker with fins of the vibrollot. The softer the soil, greater is the diameter of the pile because compaction of the aggregate pushes the stone into the surrounding soil. The diameter of pile installed by vibroOot varies from 0.6 m in stiff clay to 1.1 m in very soft clay. Rao and Ranjan (1985) reported that using the rammed ~eth of stone c:oiiUflll: The stone column is l..Wled below a foundation upto the deplh of 10ft ConJP1'0'5ible stnlta within the zone of lnnuence In the subsoil. In addition to carrying verucal load, stone c:olumns function as dtalnqe peth to di"'ipale excess ~ WOJU p....
~ ~ /20']""
< + f) ,  1 .oe[Jl'(il
ei)J"'
+ (fl  f)
.•
•
d
O>l R. . rtqular ..._,.,..,,
(a) Square ·  •
Fig. 12.21 Spac:ing ol atone cok.wnno.
Analysis of granular pile foundations for triangular grid of piles show that s ignificant reduction in settlement occutS only if the spacing of stone column is close (sld S 4) and the piles are insulled to fuU depth of consolidating layer. However, too close a spacing (sld s 2) is not feasible from construction point of view. Thus. a stone column spaci'ng {s/d) of 2.~ is adopted for mQSt practical problems. Also it has been recognized that closer sp:~Cing is preferred under isolated footing than beneath large rafts (Greenwood. 1970).
LoU CU'f7IDC capacity of I.Dd1Yldu.l etoae columna A stone column is subjected to a sttess condition much alike that imposed in the standard triaxial '"t as shown in fig. 12.22. A vertical stress, phys>Cil   y Orainsiz.c d1mlbution. 1
Onmular nn. l81 Granular soil
Honeycombed suvcture, 1
LS. code 2Ml lrnmcdi... ldll
View more...
Comments