DOCSLIB.ORG

The Bearing Capacity Evaluations of a Spread Footing on Single Thick Stratum Or Two-Layered Cohesive Soils

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Bearing Capacity Evaluations of a Spread Footing on Single Thick Stratum Or Two-Layered Cohesive Soils Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article The Bearing Capacity Evaluations of a Spread Footing on Single Thick Stratum or Two-Layered Cohesive Soils Chao-Ming Chi * and Zheng-Shan Lin Department of Civil Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung 4072, Taiwan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +886-4-2451-7250 (ext. 3120) Received: 6 September 2020; Accepted: 24 October 2020; Published: 29 October 2020 Abstract: Nowadays many countries plan to increase the percentages of renewable energies by developing offshore wind power. Due to the large sizes of offshore foundations, such as spudcan footings of jack-up barges or pile anchors of wind turbines, the affected soil depth range caused by the foundation under loading can be relatively deep, so the affected range may include a single thick layer or stratified soils. This paper utilizes limit analysis and FLAC numerical simulation to investigate the bearing capacity of a footing on single thick stratum or two-layered cohesive soils. Under nature deposition condition, the undrained shear strength of most cohesive soil approximately increases linearly as the depth increases. The closed-form upper bound solutions of fully rough or fully smooth footings on thick cohesive soils are provided, for the purpose of fast evaluations in practical engineering, and the outcomes are within the results from the FLAC simulation and slip circle method. The problems of punch-through shear failure or soil squeezing could be critical for two-layered soils under some conditions, and the associated bearing factors and the failure mechanisms from different methods are demonstrated and discussed in the article. Keywords: offshore wind power; jack-up barges; bearing capacity of foundations; cohesive soil squeezing; punch-through shear failure; FLAC numerical simulation 1. Introduction The ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations on a homogeneous and isotropic soil layer is generally estimated by using Terzaghi’s [1] expression. The exact solution of the bearing capacity factor, Nc = p + 2, for perfectly rough surface footing resting on homogeneous and isotropic undrained cohesive soils is proposed by Prandtl [2] and for perfectly smooth footing is estimated by Hill [3]. However, in reality, the undrained shear strength profile of cohesive soils usually does not satisfy the homogeneous and isotropic conditions. Under nature deposition conditions, the strength profile of cohesive soils might vary with depth. For example, the self-weight of the soil causes a decrease in void ratio with depth, and this decrease often causes an approximately linear increase in strength with depth, particularly in normally-consolidated clays (Figure1)[4,5]. There are several on-going offshore wind farm constructions in Taiwan Strait. The in-situ soil conditions of Taiwan offshore wind farm locations are complicated, and it is common that the affected soil depth range caused by the foundation contains different soil types strata, such as clay, silt or sand layers. Because the silty soils exhibit the undrained behavior during shear, they could be regarded as cohesive soils in the analysis of foundation bearing capacity [6]. Brown and Meyerhof [7], Merifield et al. [8], J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853; doi:10.3390/jmse8110853 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 2 of 19 and SNAME [9] indicate that there are at least three basically different foundation failure mechanisms that should be considered in layered cohesive soils: (I) General shear failure occurs if the soil strengths of the following layers do not vary significantly; (II) Squeezing should be considered if the footing is placed on a soft cohesive soil layer overlying a strong layer; (III) Punch-through failure must be of particular note if the footing is placed on a strong layer that overlies a weak layer. To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings resting on non-homogeneous cohesive soils, Reddy and Srinivasan [10], Brown and Meyerhof [7], Davis and Booker [11], Chen [12], and Merifield et al. [8] developed different analysis models and methods. Davis and Booker [11] provided the exact solutions of bearing capacity of foundations on cohesive soils with the undrained shear strength increasing with the depth (Figure1) based on the method of characteristics. Brown and Meyerhof [7] proposed semi-empirical bearing capacity factors for layered clay by conducting a series of model tests. Merifield et al. [8] applied numerical limit analysis to evaluate the bearing capacity for layered clay and Reddy and Srinivasan [10] and Chen [12] calculated upper bound solutions assuming a simple circular failure surface (Figure2). The plastic collapse load of the foundations can be solved by the upper bound method or the lower bound method, and the upper bound method is much easier to apply than the lower bound method and widely used. To study the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing on the surface of a cohesive soil with strength increasing with depth and stratified cohesive soils, this paper applies the upper bound method and FLAC numerical simulation. The geometric (top layer thickness H and footing width B) and soil strength (top layer undrained shear strength Su,top and bottom layer undrained shear strength Su,bot) parameters used in FLAC analysis cover most of the possible ranges. Brown and Meyerhof [7], Meyerhof and Hanna [13], and Merifield et al. [8] indicate the bearing capacity of a foundation on two-layered cohesive soils is the function of the normalized layer thickness (H/B) and strength ratio (Su,bot/Su,top). Furthermore, the bearing capacity is not affected by subsequent layers for a weaker layer overlying a stronger layer system (Su,bot > Su,top) when H/B ≥ 0.7, or stronger layer overlying softer layer system (Su,bot < Su,top) when H/B ≥ 3.0 according to the laboratory testing study by Brown and Meyerhof [7]. In summary, the properties applied in FLAC numerical simulation, 0.125 ≤ H/B ≤ 2.0 and 0.2 ≤ Su,bot/Su,top ≤ 2.0, cover most problems of practical interest. Figure 1. Soil profile of the strength increasing with depth linearly. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 3 of 19 Figure 2. Two-layered cohesive soil strength profile. 2. Background Reddy and Srinivasan [10] and Chen [12] employed the slip circle method (Figure3) to compute the ultimate bearing capacity (qult) of a strip footing on two-layered cohesive soils by Equation (1) r 2 qult ( B ) Nc = = r × (2q + 2nq1) (1) Su,top ( B )sinq − 0.5 where B is width of foundation, r is the radius of the slip circle, q is an angle, n is the relative strength and could be given by S n = u,bot − 1 (2) Su,top and q1 could be expressed as H q = cos−1 cosq + (3) 1 r where H is the distance from the bottom of the footing to the interface of the two cohesive soil layers. Figure 3. Sketch of failure surface of two-layered slip circle method (modified from [10]). For a least upper bound value of Equation (1) corresponding to the circle, the following conditions must be satisfied 8 ¶Nc <> = 0 ¶q (4) ¶N :> c = 0 ¶r J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 853 4 of 19 The bearing capacity factors, Nc, of layered cohesive soils could be computed by Equations (1) and (4), and the values of Nc with various normalized layered thicknesses (H/B) and the relative strength (n) are given in Figure4a. It can be seen from this figure that if H/B remains a constant value, the value of Nc increases as the relative strength (n) increases until reaching a critical relative strength (ncritical). For example, the critical relative strength is 0.07 for H/B = 0.5 and the Nc value would be a plateau value after n ≥ ncritical. On the other hand, the critical relative strength decreases as H/B increases. When H/B is 0.66, the critical relative strength is 0.0 or Su,bot/Su,top = 1.0 and the plateau value of Nc is 5.52. It can be inferred that the bearing capacity would not be affected by the subsequent layer after n ≥ ncritical. Additionally, the value of Nc for the n < 0 side should be less or equal to 5.52, the bearing factor of the foundation on the top stronger layer, and it decreases to 5.52 for the n > 0 side once the normalized layered thickness is greater than 0.66. Therefore, all the curves in Figure4a should be bounded and the corrected results are shown in Figure4b. It can be further seen in this figure that the foundation failure mechanism changes with varying n value. For instance, as n value increases for H/B = 0.25, it could be inferred that the foundation failure mode transfers from punch-through shear failure, general shear failure, to squeezing while the value of Nc reaches the plateau value (7.97). (a) Nc Uncorrected (b) Nc Corrected Figure 4. Bearing capacity factor Nc of various relative strength and normalized layered thickness for strip footings. Considering only single cohesive stratum with undrained shear strength varying linearly with depth (Figure1) can be given by Su = Su0 + kz (5) the expression for Nc is shown as the following equation r 2 qult ( B ) kB r Nc = = r × 2q + 2 × × (sinq − qcosq) (6) Su0 ( B )sinq − 0.5 Su0 B where Su0 is the soil strength at the surface, and k is the rate of increase in undrained strength with depth. 3. Numerical Verification and Comparison to Traditional Limit Analysis This paper applies the upper bound method and FLAC numerical simulation to analyze the ultimate bearing capacity of a rigid strip footing resting on: (I) a cohesive soil layer with increasing undrained shear J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cone Penetration Test for Bearing Capacity Estimation
    The 2nd Join Conference of Utsunomiya University and Universitas Padjadjaran, Nov.24,2017 CONE PENETRATION TEST FOR BEARING CAPACITY ESTIMATION AND SOIL PROFILING, CASE STUDY: CONVEYOR BELT CONSTRUCTION IN A COAL MINING CONCESSION AREA IN LOA DURI, EAST KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA Ilham PRASETYA*1, Yuni FAIZAH*1, R. Irvan SOPHIAN1, Febri HIRNAWAN1 1Faculty of Geological Engineering, Universitas Padjadjaran Jln. Raya Bandung-Sumedang Km. 21, 45363, Jatinangor, Sumedang, Jawa Barat, Indonesia *Corresponding Authors: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Cone Penetration Test (CPT) has been recognized as one of the most extensively used in situ tests. A series of empirical correlations developed over many years allow bearing capacity of a soil layer to be calculated directly from CPT’s data. Moreover, the ratio between end resistance of the cone and side friction of the sleeve has been prove to be useful in identifying the type of penetrated soils. The study was conducted in a coal mining concession area in Loa Duri, east Kalimantan, Indonesia. In this study the Begemann Friction Cone Mechanical Type Penetrometer with maximum push 2 capacity of 250 kg/cm was used to determine bearing layers for foundation of the conveyor belt at six different locations. The friction ratio (Rf) is used to classify the type of soils, and allowable bearing capacity of the bearing layers are calculated using Schmertmann method (1956) and LCPC method (1982). The result shows that the bearing layers in study area comprise of sands, and clay- sand mixture and silt. The allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundations range between 6-16 kg/cm2 whereas that of pile foundations are around 16-23 kg/cm2.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Applications of the Cone Penetration Test
    PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE CONE PENETRATION TEST A Manual On Interpretation Of Seismic Piezocone Test Data For Geotechnical Design Geotechnical Research Group Department of Civil Engineering The University of British Columbia Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. I LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................................VII LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................X LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................. XVI 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Scope......................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Site Characterization...............................................................................1-2 1.2.1 Logging Methods....................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Specific Test Methods ............................................................... 1-3 1.2.3 Ideal Procedure for Conducting Subsurface Investigation......... 1-3 1.2.4 Cone Penetrometer is an INDEX TOOL.................................... 1-3 1.3 General Description of CPTU .................................................................1-4 2 EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Axial Capacity of Piles Founded in Permafrost
    AXIAL CAPACITY OF PILES FOUNDED IN PERMAFORST: A CASE STUDY ON THE APPLICABILITY OF MODERN PILE DESIGN IN REMOTE MONGOLIA Kyle L. Scarr 1 and Robert L. Mokwa 2, Ph.D., P.E. 1Graduate Student – Montana State University, Department of Civil Engineering, Project Engineer – Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc. Bozeman, MT, [email protected] 2Associate Professor – Montana State University, Department of Civil Engineering, [email protected] ABSTRACT A review of the most current and accepted practices in design of piles in permafrost is examined. Key input parameters necessary for the design of piles in permafrost are described with an emphasis on the characteristics of the permafrost itself. Regionally available resources and databases on permafrost characteristics are discussed along with the need for continued research, data collection, and data assimilation. A case study describing a bridge crossing over a large river at a remote permafrost site in Mongolia is presented. A unique aspect of the project involves the application of modern pile design procedures at this remote northern region in which primitive construction techniques are used to install timber piles during the winter though a frozen active layer. INTRODUCTION The objective of this project was to examine current practices in design and installation of piles in permafrost. The practice of designing and installing structural foundations in permafrost is not a new concept; however, the in-depth knowledge, understanding, and available data required for design in permafrost has only recently sprouted to the forefront of the engineering profession. Speculation for the recent increase in resources available to the engineering community includes the need to provide safer and more economical structures to support cold region activities such as developing roads, commercial structures, residential buildings, and military and mining support structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Bearing Capacity Factors for Shallow Foundations Subject to Combined Lateral and Axial Loading
    Bearing Capacity Factors for Shallow Foundations Subject to Combined Lateral and Axial Loading FDOT Contract No. BDV31-977-66 FDOT Project Manager: Larry Jones Principal Investigator: Scott Wasman, Ph.D. Co-Principal Investigator: Michael McVay, Ph.D. Research Assistant: Stephen Crawford PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1)Introduction 2)Background 3)Objectives 4)Research Tasks 5)Research Conclusions 6)Recommendations 7)Project Benefits 8)Future Research INTRODUCTION Numerous structures have been built on shallow foundations subjected to combined axial and lateral loads (MSEW, Cast in place walls, etc.). In general, there isn’t a consensus among state practitioners as to if and how combined axial/lateral loads should be included in predictions of bearing capacity. BACKGROUND 1) AASHTO Specifications (10.6.3.1.2) make allowance for load inclination • Meyerhof (1953), Brinch Hansen (1970), and Vesić (1973) are considered • Based on small scale experiments • Derived for footings without embedment 2) AASHTO commentary (C10.6.3.1.2a) suggest inclination factors may be overly conservative • Footing embedment (Df) = B or greater • Footing with modest embedment may omit load inclination factors 3) FHWA GEC No.6 indicates load inclination factors can be omitted if lateral and vertical load checked against their respective resistances 4) Resistance factors included in the AASHTO code were derived for vertical loads • Applicability to combined lateral/axial loads are currently unknown • Up to 75% reduction in Nominal Bearing Resistance computed with AASHTO load
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Riprap Revetment HEC 11 Metric Version
    Design of Riprap Revetment HEC 11 Metric Version Welcome to HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment. Table of Contents Preface Tech Doc U.S. - SI Conversions DISCLAIMER: During the editing of this manual for conversion to an electronic format, the intent has been to convert the publication to the metric system while keeping the document as close to the original as possible. The document has undergone editorial update during the conversion process. Archived Table of Contents for HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment (Metric) List of Figures List of Tables List of Charts & Forms List of Equations Cover Page : HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment (Metric) Chapter 1 : HEC 11 Introduction 1.1 Scope 1.2 Recognition of Erosion Potential 1.3 Erosion Mechanisms and Riprap Failure Modes Chapter 2 : HEC 11 Revetment Types 2.1 Riprap 2.1.1 Rock Riprap 2.1.2 Rubble Riprap 2.2 Wire-Enclosed Rock 2.3 Pre-Cast Concrete Block 2.4 Grouted Rock 2.5 Paved Lining Chapter 3 : HEC 11 Design Concepts 3.1 Design Discharge 3.2 Flow Types 3.3 Section Geometry 3.4 Flow in Channel Bends 3.5 Flow Resistance 3.6 Extent of Protection 3.6.1 Longitudinal Extent 3.6.2 Vertical Extent 3.6.2.1 Design Height 3.6.2.2 Toe Depth Chapter 4 : HEC 11 Design Guidelines for Rock Riprap 4.1 Rock Size Archived 4.1.1 Particle Erosion 4.1.1.1 Design Relationship 4.1.1.2 Application 4.1.2 Wave Erosion 4.1.3 Ice Damage 4.2 Rock Gradation 4.3 Layer Thickness 4.4 Filter Design 4.4.1 Granular Filters 4.4.2 Fabric Filters 4.5 Material Quality 4.6 Edge Treatment 4.7 Construction Chapter 5 : HEC 11 Rock
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Rock Masses Subjected to Seismic and Seepage Loads
    sustainability Article Assessment of the Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Rock Masses Subjected to Seismic and Seepage Loads Rubén Galindo 1,* , Ana Alencar 1, Nihat Sinan Isik 2 and Claudio Olalla Marañón 1 1 Departamento de Ingeniería y Morfología del Terreno, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (A.A.); [email protected] (C.O.M.) 2 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Gazi University, 06560 Ankara, Turkey; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 October 2020; Accepted: 30 November 2020; Published: 2 December 2020 Abstract: It is usual to adopt the seismic force acting as an additional body force, employing the pseudo-static hypothesis, when considering earthquakes in the estimation of the bearing capacity of foundations. A similar approach in seepage studies can be applied for the pore pressure’s consideration as an external force. In the present study, the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on rock masses considering the presence of the pseudo-static load was developed by applying an analytical solution for the Modified Hoek and Brown failure criterion. Calculations were performed adopting various inclinations of the load and the slope on the edge of the foundation, as well as different values of the vertical and horizontal components of the pseudo-static load. The results are presented in the form of charts to allow an affordable and immediate practical application for footing problems in the event of seismic loads or seepages. Finally, and to validate the analytical solution presented, a numerical study was developed applying the finite difference method to estimate the bearing capacity of a shallow foundation on a rock mass considering the presence of an additional horizontal force that could be caused by an earthquake or a seepage.
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Riprap Revetment
    , 1-) r-) P .A) C? F Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 11 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Publication Na FHWA-lP-89-016 Administration March 1989 Design of Riprap Revetment Research, Development, and-T"echnology Turner-Fairbank Highwayffesewch Center 6300 Gec rg3#own Pike McLean, V'wffiniae=-2296 WATER RESOURCES ' RESEARCH LABORATORY J OFFICIAL FILE COPY Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-IP-89-016 HEC-11 4, Title and Subtitle S. Report Dote March 1989 DESIGN OF RIPRAP REVETMENT 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7, Aurhorrs) Scott A. Brown, Eric S. Clyde 9, Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Sutron Corporation 3D9C0033 2190 Fox Mill Road 11. Contract or Grant No. Herndon, VA 22071 DTFH61-85-C-00123 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Office of Implementation, HRT-10 Final Report Federal Highway Administration Mar. 1986 - Sept. 1988 6200 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project Manager: Thomas Krylowski Technical Assistants: Philip L. Thompson, Dennis L. Richards, J. Sterling Jones 16. Abstract This revised version of Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 11 (HEC-11), represents major revisions to the earlier (1967) edition of HEC-11. Recent research findings and revised design procedures have been incorporated. The manual has been expanded into a comprehensive design publication. The revised manual includes discussions on recognizing erosion potential, erosion mechanisms and riprap failure modes, riprap types including rock riprap, rubble riprap, gabions, preformed blocks, grouted rock, and paved linings.
    [Show full text]
  • Bases and Foundations on Frozen Soil National Academy of Sciences
    HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD Special Report 58 Bases and Foundations on Frozen Soil by N.A. TSYTOVICH A Translation from the Russian RESEARCH National Academy of Sciences- 8 National Research Council publication 804 HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD Officers and Members of the Executive Committee 1960 OFFICERS PYKE JOHNSON, Chairman W. A. BUGGE, First Vice Chairman R. R. BARTELSMEYER, Second Vice Chairman FRED BURGGRAF, Director ELMER M. WARD, Assistant Director Executive Committee BERTRAM D. TALLAMY, Federal Highway Administrator, Bureau of Public Roads (ex officio) A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary, American Association of State Highway Officials (ex officio) LOUIS JORDAN, Executive Secretary, Division of Engineering and Industrial Research, National Research Council (ex officio) C. H. SCHOLER, Applied Mechanics Department, Kansas State College (ex officio, Past Cliairman 1958) HARMER E. DAVIS, Director, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Uni• versity of California (ex officio, Past Chairman 1959) R. R. BARTELSMEYER, Chief Highway Engineer, Illinois Division of Highways J. E. BUCHANAN, President, The Asphalt Institute W. A. BUGGE, Director of Highways, Washington State Highway Commission MASON A. BUTCHER, County Manager, Montgomery County, Md. A. B. CORNTHWAITE, Testing Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways C. D. CuRTiss, Special Assistant to the Executive Vice President, American Road Builders' Association DUKE W. DUNBAR, Attorney General of Colorado H. S. FAIRBANK, Consultant, Baltimore, Md. PYKE JOHNSON, Consultant, Automotive Safety Foundation G. DONALD KENNEDY, President, Portland Cement Association BURTON W. MARSH, Director, Traffic Engineering and Safety Department, American Automobile Association GLENN C. RICHARDS, Commissioner, Detroit Department of Public Works WILBUR S. SMITH, Wilbur Smith and Associates, New Haven, Conn. REX M. WHITTON, Chief Engineer, Missouri State Highway Department K.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Modelling of Time Dependent Pore Pressure Response Induced by Helical Pile Installation
    NUMERICAL MODELLING OF TIME DEPENDENT PORE PRESSURE RESPONSE INDUCED BY HELICAL PILE INSTALLATION by ALEXANDER M. VYAZMENSKY Diploma Specialist in Civil Engineering (B.Hons. equivalent) St. Petersburg State University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 1997 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Civil Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February 2005 © Alexander M. Vyazmensky, 2005 Abstract. ABSTRACT. The purposes of this research are to apply numerical modelling to prediction of the pore water pressure response induced by helical pile installation into fine-grained soil and to gain better understanding of the pore pressure behaviour observed during the field study of helical pile - soil interaction, performed at the Colebrook test site at Surrey, B.C. by Weech (2002). The critical state NorSand soil model coupled with the Biot formulation were chosen to represent the behaviour of saturated fine-grained soil. Their finite element implementation into NorSandBiot code was adopted as a modelling framework. Thorough verification of the finite element implementation of NorSandBiot code was conducted. Within the NorSandBiot code framework a special procedure for modelling helical pile installation in 1-D using a cylindrical cavity analogy was developed. A comprehensive parametric study of the NorSandBiot code was conducted. It was found that computed pore water pressure response is very sensitive to variation of the soil OCR and its hydraulic conductivity kr. Helical pile installation was modelled in two stages. At the first stage expansion of a single cavity, corresponding to the helical pile shaft, was analysed and on the second stage additional cavity expansion/contraction cycles, representing the helices, were added.
    [Show full text]
  • Load Testing Handbook (Including Pile Testing Datasheets)
    this document downloaded from Terms and Conditions of Use: All of the information, data and computer software (“information”) presented on this web site is for general vulcanhammer.net information only. While every effort will be made to insure its accuracy, this information should not be used or relied on Since 1997, your complete for any specific application without independent, competent online resource for professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by a licensed professional. Anyone information geotecnical making use of this information does so at his or her own risk and assumes any and all liability resulting from such use. engineering and deep The entire risk as to quality or usability of the information contained within is with the reader. In no event will this web foundations: page or webmaster be held liable, nor does this web page or its webmaster provide insurance against liability, for The Wave Equation Page for any damages including lost profits, lost savings or any other incidental or consequential damages arising from Piling the use or inability to use the information contained within. Online books on all aspects of This site is not an official site of Prentice-Hall, soil mechanics, foundations and Pile Buck, the University of Tennessee at marine construction Chattanooga, or Vulcan Foundation Equipment. All references to sources of software, equipment, parts, service Free general engineering and or repairs do not constitute an geotechnical software endorsement. And much more..
    [Show full text]
  • Standard and Specifications for Riprap Slope Protection
    STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR RIPRAP SLOPE PROTECTION Quality – Stone for riprap should be hard, durable field or quarry materials. They should be angular and not subject to breaking down when exposed to water or weathering. The specific gravity should be at least 2.5. Size – The sizes of stones used for riprap protection are determined by purpose and specific site conditions: 1. Slope Stabilization – Riprap stone for slope stabilization not subject to flowing water or wave action should be sized for the proposed grade. The gradient of the slope to be stabilized should be less than the natural angle of repose of the stone selected. Angles of repose of riprap stones may be estimated from Figure 5B.26. Definition Riprap used for surface stabilization of slopes does A layer of stone designed to protect and stabilize areas not add significant resistance to sliding or slope subject to erosion. failure and should not be considered a retaining wall. Slopes approaching 1.5:1 may require special stability Purpose analysis. The inherent stability of the soil must be satisfactory before riprap is used for surface To protect the soil surface from erosive forces and/or stabilization. improve the stability of soil slopes that are subject to seepage or have poor soil structure. 2. Outlet Protection – Design criteria for sizing stone and determining dimensions of riprap aprons are Conditions Where Practice Applies presented in Standards and Specifications for Rock Outlet Protection. Riprap is used for cut and fill slopes subject to seepage, erosion, or weathering, particularly where conditions 3. Streambank Protection – Design criteria for sizing prohibit the establishment of vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of Aashto Lrfd Specifications: Bearing Capacity and Settlement Calculations for Shallow Foundations of Bridges and Walls
    GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 14-26 IMPLEMENTATION OF AASHTO LRFD SPECIFICATIONS: BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS OF BRIDGES AND WALLS OFFICE OF RESEARCH 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2532 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No.: 2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.: FHWA-GA-16-1426 4. Title and Subtitle: 5. Report Date: Geotechnical LFRD Calculations of Settlement 9 August 2016 and Bearing Capacity of GDOT Shallow Bridge 6. Performing Organization Code: Foundations and Retaining Walls 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No.: Shehab S. Agaiby and Paul W. Mayne GDOT 14-26 (GTRC 2006Y13) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 10. Work Unit No.: Georgia Tech Research Corporation 505 Tenth Street, N.W. 11. Contract or Grant No.: Atlanta, GA 30332-0402 RP14-26/00135290 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: 13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Georgia Department of Transportation Final Report: April 2015 - June 2016 Office of Materials & Research 15 Kennedy Drive 14. Sponsoring Agency Code: Forest Park, GA 30297-2534 15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract: The AASHTO codes for Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD) regarding shallow bridge foundations and walls have been implemented into a set of spreadsheet algorithms to facilitate the calculations of bearing capacity and footing settlements on natural soils in the State of Georgia. Specifically, the approach applies to soils exhibiting drained behavior during loading, including clean to silty and clayey sands and granular soils of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and residual silty sands to sandy silts of the Appalachian Piedmont and Blue Ridge geologies.
    [Show full text]