ANNEXURE Ill & ~ TYPICAL CALCULATIONS ol 2 I BEARING CAPACITY ESTIMATION: > > F 7 = DESIGN Cone Resigtanea,ig jt PebyeCohesion ¢, ke} oH YS fod > a - =e ° = 2 Fu - - > 7 2 2 5 el ae Suty [fe Bekele C= 20 kes} 4 a char 4, _ es) (7 A . 6 . > fi ‘ |ecpavales 6 2 3 Crqstaldt a ane) 2 6 : | \ . > | 2 > + = 5 (a DESIGN () PESIGN SePT Gy DEsian COHESION _ BoRe-LOG, Nee VAWE ° > 2 — -3 > > (A)... Footing size :1 x1 m square “5 RE : ‘Depth of footing : De= 1.50 m. > pth iB . ‘4 => For a depth equal to footing width below foundation level, average - cohesion = C = 20 kN/m?. 2 > Ultimate bearing capacity qu = CNeSe deic :js ica ence - as ‘ wi sii 5 was Where; C = average cohesion = 20 kN/m? Ne= bearing capacity factor = 5.14 S. = shape factor,= 1.30 de = depth factor =1+0.2xD/BxYN6 =140.2x15 /10x (1) = 130 ic = inclindation factor = 1.00 therefore qu = CNe Se deie 20 x 5.14 x 1.30 x 1.30 x 1.00 ql 4 173 KN/m? Safe bearing capacity quete = qu/F.O.S = 173/30 = 57.9 kN/m2 ii) ___ Settlement consideration: ! Settlement = S = H.C: log 0 @o+ Ay) a 1+ Po 3 . = Compression index = 0.286 From consolidation test results C. = 0.286; € = 0.776. thickness of compressible layer equal to 2 times footing width. = 2x1=20m &o = void ratio = 0.776 al IVUUDOUODUVUEEUUEUUUUUUUUUYEEUUU UY BUYVUY Pp = 25 x 10 = 25 KN/m? Op = 58 x12/22= 14.5kN/m? therefore S = HC log 10 (Pa+ 4 p) Ite, Po 2.0 x 0.286 (25 + 14.5) ———— log wo ——— = 0.639 m (63.99 mm) < 75 mm, allowable 140.776 25 Hence , safe bearing capacity = 57.9 KN/m2. Footing width = B= 3.0 m Footing depth = Dr= 150m For a depth equal to footing width below foundation level, average cohesion = C = 20 KN/m?, Now, qu= CNeSe deie & = 1.30 de =14+02x15 /3x(1)=1.10 ig = 1.0 Therefore ultimate bearing capacity qu = 20 x 5.14 x 1.30x 1.10 = 147 KN/m? therefore safe bearing capacity que * qu/F.O.S = 147/3.0 = 49 KN/m?» > > > DI 5 > 3 > ie 5 ) 5 > > ii Settlement consideration: Settlement S = HC, log ie (P+ Op) tes Po H=75-15=6.0m Po= 4.5 x 10 = 45 kKN/m? 2.25 kKN/m? Therefore Op = 49x e therefore S= HG log io (Po+ Ap) 1teo Pe = 0.101 m (101 mm) > 75mm, allowable. Allowing a permissible settlement of 75 mm. 6 x 0.286 (45+ Op) 735x103 = ——~—-—- logo — 140.776 45 > Qp=88kN/m Pressure intensity at footing level; gs = 8.8 x 67/3? =35.2KN/m? Net soil pressure for permissible settlement of 75mm = 35 KN/m? Hence, considering both ultimate capacity and settlement consideration, safe bearing capacity = qaseTYPICAL CALCULATIONS M. DETERMINATION OF PILE CAPACITY : DRIVEN CAST-IN-SITU PILES. A) Vertical Capacity: }o lo Pile Type = Driven cast-in-situ 5 TRC Sas Pile Diameter = 450 mm. Dole esse b Sy Cha i Pile length = 27.00 m. “ol cab kent bared Sore The downdrag due to layer (1) = K Pn tan 8 Ac Mel) east y, 204 Cx bp hea = 2x (1x 10) x tan 28x (wx 0.45x2) oO) A ee” ad 30,06 KN. | KAY) Te stant The downdrag due to layer (2)= aC Ay fe yj ¢ = 0.7x20x(nx0.45 x2) 7 4“ 77] si i = 39.58 kN. V7 cue Y. Ultimate frictional resistance of layer (3) 5 oa Vey Z = 1wokups = aa V/7 a = 0.7 x30 x (2x 0.45 x3) V7 24.01% . ce gt] SEFY Sean 89 kN. Pfs: Bag } Ultimate frictional resistance of layer (4) ] DESIGN BoRt-Lo, = (aC+ KPp.tan $) Ay = (0.4x5+2x94.5 x tan22) x (x 0.45 x7) = TIBABKN. + Ultimate frictional resistance of layer (5) = & C As. 0.4 x 100 x ( 2x 0.45 x 10) = 565 KN.u BUUGUBLEEG VBUUEULBLEGUG' Unit skin friction of layer (6) = KPp. tan 6 fs 2.x 229.5 x tan 32 286.8 KN/m? Limiting the unit skin friction of sandy layer to 95.7 KN/m? ( Refer API Code, ~~ Table:6.4.3-1) Ulimate frictional resistance of layer (6) = fs. As = 95.7 x(nx 045 x3) = 405.8 kN. : The pile shall be rest on soft disintegrated rock. For an average N=100; Shear strength of soft disintegrated rock = C = 700 KN/m? ( Refer Cole and Stroud, 1977) Therefore allowable pressure on base of the pile = 3 C qo=3 x 700 : = 2100 KN/m? Therefore allowable load on pile tip = qa x n/4 D? = 2100 xx/4 x 0.45? = 333.9KN. Total ultimate frictional resistance = 89 + 775 + 565 + 405 = 1834kN 1 Deducting for Negative drag - (30 +39) Net ultimate frictional resistance o 1765 KN.u BUUUUULE GOUUBUBLLBOUOUG? BUU VvUGUG J BUUU Safe frictional resistance = 1765/2.5 (with FOS = 2.5) = 706 kN ‘Total safe resistance of pile = Quie = Qu + Qr = 333.9 +706 = 1089.9 kN. (104 #) B. UPLIFT. CAPACITY Total ultimate frictional resistances = 89 +775 +565 + 405 = 1834 kN. Safe frictional resistance = 1834/ 3.0 ( witht F.OS. = 3.0) = 611 kN. ‘Therefore uplift capacity of pile = 611 KN. (61.1) © HORIZONTAL CAPACITY: Relative stiffness factor R = [Ei /k] ¥ (Refer Tomlinson , MJ) Page, 224 E = Youngs modulus of pile = 5700 V fck ; in N/mm2 4 5700 x V 25 28500 N/mm? ie 28.5 x 106 kKN/m? ioment of inertia of pile = 1/64 x 0.454 = 0.002012 EI = 28.5 x 106 x 0,002012 = 57367 kN-m2, K. = Horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction E.Bi )m2 = 130]- Ep Ip (cn?) Where Es = Elastic Modulus of soil = 5000 kPa{ u 5 H = poisson’s ratio = 0.30 (Refer Bowles, J.F) Page -948 2 =) c 5000 x 0.455 }1712 5000 2 = 1.30 |- > (27364) (1- 0.32) > > = 4466.5 KN/m? oO therefore R fz % =189m > 4466 ~~ 3 ‘The length of pile ép = 27.0 m > 4R = 4 x 1.89 = 7.56 m . Hence the pile is a long pile. 5 > - ' Moment of Resistance of pile: > 2 Adopting 1 % of steel: 2 For p/fck = 0.04; d’/D = 0.10 ; Mu/fck D3 = 0.04 (Refer SP : 16) > Chart No.56 => Mu=0.04 x fek D> ce) 3 a 0.04 x 25 x 4503 2 = 91.1 x 106 N.mm (91.1 kN.m) x for Mu 9: = 33.33; e/b= =14 (Refer Tomlinson, MJ) > CuB2 30 x 0.452 Cu B? Fig No.6.29 > a) Therefore => Hy = 14 x Cy B2 = = 14x30x 0.452 2 2 = 8 kN. 2 ) > 2 _ uie) o VUUUGEUDUUGUOGCES BUUGUUUUUE Jb bdddGud “2 2 i) 5 ‘Therefore safe Horizontal load H safe= _Hy FO. (with FOS. = 2.5) 1 34 KN (3.4 t) As per deflection criteria: Yq. R3 Deflectiony = -- El Where H = applied load is KN; Yh deflection co-efficient for free loaded pile; R Relative stiffness factor is m; and El = Rigidity modulus of pile is kKN-m? 34x 145 x 1.89 eo = 0.0058 m (5.8 mm) >5 mm, allowable. Limiting the lateral deflection to 5 mm; Ys - EL H, allowable - Yn oS 5 x 109 x 57367 1.45 x 1.899 = 29.3KN. Therefore, allowable Horizontal capacity = 29.3 kN. /GBUEBDUUBUGCUBYEEBLEUULESEEUUBUULUL YD GUGUY > Ut, A) ‘TYPICAL CALCULATIONS DETERMINATION OF PILE CAPACITY : BORED CAST-IN-SITU PILES Vertical Capacity: Pile Type ~ Bored castin-situ Pile Diameter = 450 mum Pile length = 27.50 m; including 0.50 m socketing into soft rock. The downdrag due to layer (1) = K Pp tan 8 As = 15x (1x10) x tan 28x (xx 0.45x2) 225kN. ; ‘The downdrag due to layer (2) = a C As = 05x20x(nx0.45 x2) = 28.27 KN. Ultimate frictional resistance of layer (3) = aCAs 0 0.5 x30 x (mx 0.45 x 3) = 63.6KN. Ultimate frictional resistance of layer (4) = (aC +KPp.tan 8) As = OAx5 + 1.5 x 945 x tan22) x (mx 0.45 x7) 4 586.5 KN. Ultimate frictional resistance of layer (5) = a C As. 04 x 100 x ( 0.45 x 10) = 565 KN,oO Unit skin frictional resistance of layer (6) = KPp. tan 1.5 x 229.5 x tan 32 215 KN / m? Limiting ultimate unit skin friction fs to 57 KN/m? Ulimate frictional resistance of layer (6) =f. Ay = 57x (xx045x3) = 24.7 kN, The pile shall be rest on rock and a minimum of 0.50 m socketing in to soft rock is recommended, For an average N=100; Shear strength of soft rock = C = 700 kN/m? (Refer Cole and Stroud, 1977) Therefore allowable pressure on base of the pile = 3C qo= 3x 700 VUEYUDYEBEUUUECBYEEBULEUUBLLEEELYE = 2100 KN/m? Therefore allowable load on pile tip = qa x x/4 D? ¥ 2100 x n/4 x 0.452 333.9 KN. Allowable skin friction = f, = 10% of allowable base pressure. Jb = 01x 2100 UO = 210 kN/m? 7)VYUGEUEUEOUEESUUUULELELULY G J > 3 Allowable frictional resistance of socketed pile = 210 x (x 0.45 x 0.5) / = 48KN , > Total ultimate frictional resistance = 63.6 + 586.5 + 565 + 241 = 1456kN = (225 + 28,27) Deducting for Negative skin friction net ultimate frictional resistance a Total Safe frictional resistance = 1405/2.5 + 148 ( with FO.S=25) = TIOKN. Total safe resistance of pile = Qrafe = Qu + Qe = 333.94 710 1044 KN. (1041) B. UPLIFT CAPACITY Total ultimate frictional resistances of layers = 1456 kN. Safe frictional resistance due to socketing = 148 kN. Safe uplift capacity = 1456/3 + 148 ( with FOS. =3.0) = 633 KN, (63.3 #) €. HORIZONTAL CAPACITY: ‘The procedure is same as that for driven pile therefore, safe horizontal capacity = Hee = 29.3 KN. J! 3 > 2 i 3 > > > > 2 2 > or) SELBY oe yOu” ,UERUBGULULUY “DNAMICS OF BASES IAND FOUNDATIONS | D. D. BARKAN eee wr \ Bl ; NSLATED FROM THE Russian by L. DrasevsKa bi IANSLATION EDITED by G. P. TscuendtartorF 2 Oy i 7 WeGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC. ae NewYork Sen Francisco Toronto London | et AQed2 Oo Oo LAST PROPERTIES OF SOK » Be Properties of soils are necessary on the construction site; Sometimes fp teve investigations cannot be carried out. Therefore it often happens | that designers of. machinery foundations assume tentative values of the yeficients of elastic uniform compression selected on the basis of dav Brcued from tests performed on similar soils at other construction sites. ! : Tanz 1-7. Suumany oF Av peace Vaues or ran Conrrictens oF Biasric Usirons Comenzssion ey or Dirrensar Sots Ostatnio vnpen Vanvive Conorrr0ns Tentative value Sarena foundation bases, Description of soit ermiasble | niform types of tests Tegfem® "| pression | (D = dynam ex kg/om! | w static) ray plastic silty elay with Bh rood and organic sit 10 pS stturated silty clay Ec with sond...,, 1.8, 1.0, 0.5(8; D) 18 8.0, 4.0, 2.0 (S; D) pi Dense silty clay with some Hp ted (above ground-water Be level). : Uptos 8.9 (D) Medium moist sand. . 2 1.5(D) ‘Dry sand with gravel 2 0.25 (D) i saturated sand. 28 11.6 (D) fedium sand 25 8.75 (D) Gray fine dense saturated a en a 25 3.4 upto 15 (Ss; D) with natural moisture botent, 3 4.9 (0.81, 1.4, 2.0, 4.0 (S;D) Ht Toessinl soit 3 4.7 [90 (e foundation for . compreaor) (D) Table 1-7 gives a number of values of the coefficient of elastic uniform pression cy established by special tests carried out under the super> on of the author. ‘These tests dealt with foundations having several ise areas built on various soils, . The values of the coefficient of elastic uniform compression, obtained pia tssting foundations with base areas smaller than 10 mi ulated by means of Ea. (2-15) for an area of 10m ge From the data of Table I-7, the author compiled Table mative values of c for four types of sol This table is included in the official Instructions jor the Design and struction of Machinery Foundations, r Ve BUEUOUVOKFKUGUESEL' VUELUYDUDEUU! BLU2 2 2 PUUDULBLBL GwoBbUUUbYs t { essed) VBUEUVUVOVOUBEVEYLUE SV 30 DYNAMICS OF BASES AND FOUNDATIONS ‘Taos F8, Recomuxoxo Desion Vavues op zmz Coerriciesr or Easrie ‘Unwonu Cowrasstion a Sg OAs? AREA= TONE ae Pennie : "Se fadone_| oes em soi group sey ear | Sitio so i ud ony | mpratn gfe? kei Weak soils (clays and sity clays with sand, in a plastic atate; clayey and silty sands; also soils of eategories IT and TIE with laminae of organic silt and of peat) u plastic Limit; sand). : Tt | Strong sols (clays and gity clays with ‘and, of hard conssteacy; gravels tnd gravelly sends; loess and Joessial soils). sf 3.55, 5-10 Iv [Rocks ‘greater than 5 | greater than 10 1-3. Coefficient of Elastic Nonuniform Compression of Soil cy Let us consider the bending of a flexible rectangular plate with sides of length 2a and 2b acted upon by the moment if, which bends the plate with respect to the yaxis (Fig. I-18). Using the equations for settlement at any point produced by stresses in an element of plate area situated at a certain distance from the point, and apply- ing the method of superposition of settlements induced by several loads, D. B. Polshin’® derived an equation for the slope angle g of the deflected plate at any point of its surface and at points along the straight line x = 0. Since the plate is assumed to be absolutely flexible, the slope angle of the deflected plate at points along] this straight line depends on the y coordinate. Polshin gives the following expression for the angle ¢ depending on the! value of y: Fig. E18, Induced tilting of & loaded plate causes VETER +) Verirtet a — yn V@=WTE 4) gy +- yn Vea rt] oon oe eo) = K[le+9) 10 where Kerat yas ma box tepbe veyed oq ute pur vo: SEY gh AN 40) eunteece u 52-49 pwonp0s 6g 02 wey 4a} S24 43H senve.s 42 voyas09 sofen arn on “eae =" Sei = ™e Wy 10g 12 4 (Pu OG an gues 44g + On % Aud s =" ’ a tnueso soa (83 W309} 6usHoites Jo uojaonsiwues spur eu, seuepurag vejpur uo peseg pouren “s4°c worTg 78 arse sees oe ‘STORY COTES T ETERT, seyo> Uy e114 30 O48 eAyeouoo aya snoysnosin uo} segs freer #u 40 Z2ueae;Au09 vo Bu; pueden 4033") vosaonpey = 30MODULUS OF DEFORMATION Es (kg! cin?) —e Fig 500 400 300 200 100 2 3 45 7 10 No VALUE —e B.°RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPT (N) COMPRESSIBILITY MODULUS FoR COHESIVE SOIL AND re Wereen uyrase> ‘ison oud UAO UF ‘eae vo eaea PROL JO seamnu of Teujaewos anny few porney ma ueepeque Jo widuey sop, woven co esta) saecie non “aUeNegane 2 auyed aus five pa}ewe woe puy eased om 14 waduesie avr vodn A{es 01 9 ezeRUIoue nosDitticutt to beesk agdinat solid object ith hemmee Broken against solid object with hammer Broken in hand by hitting with bammer Broken by leaning No penetration Scratch Connot be scratched with kote Con just be scratched ‘with kai seratehed with knite.Con Just be seratehed with thumb-neil Scratched with Sheor Approx. Strengihy Flrengih: nN consistency Grade kus? value 40000 /- Strong A 20000 | Moderately 600 strong 8 re000 | 000 | 5000 = 400 © 000 Moderately week 2000 paul ° Weak vo00 |- Ee 800 | J, , 100 soi! * Herd of F 80 very weak son ey Very slit 200 “0 sunt wool a9 80 sol Fiem 10 wl ee coll cole woh very coil Geol. Sec. Working Party Report (1970) and CP 2004 (1972) except that the Sesignation hard tor soil matecia's hag been given a separate leentity which is. gnategous to very W vitor materials clossitiasie as rock fon sainple with with nite thumb- neil heminer Broken by hand ‘Penetration to ‘bout 2mm with nile Ecsily broken by hand Penetration to bout Sam with knite Penetrated by thumb= nail ced to about 1Smm koite Indented by thumb Penetrated by thumb with effort Easily penetrated by thump NB. Grades ond shear strengths tor rock refer to intect specimens: The tt yolue however, is on Insily test end inckides some cHect of discontinuities. For Cohesive soils the correlation tween Hvclues and in situ Sirength agsured fe that given ty siioud (1974) lor cleys of low plasticity Fig.5.2.SCALE OF STRENGTHS & N VALUES FOR WEAK ROCKS (after Cole and Stroud, 1977): 2 lb ke SNXOU ¥V3M UOI SHIA NF SHISNIULS “JO i es mt ae “ 1S wu da wai E me (omumrog on) Sas . a neia AC any # Namaaay amswomvary | cog 4{$334930) $'NOILIIY3 TWNYZINI 30 319NV 7 97.77 27 07 OC 196 YE. ZE Of at “ 1, | | . as He 7 z - Zo 2B. ° 2s ad 22 - 2 22 af ga Fe op wo 4. Gases 3a ; i 285 : gs R= ke - -| j Bs } % of 5 z v ’ = z a a a 2 9 & ele nm R an) . 2 z fe IS} g & § fale a 7 = |a\8 ie fh sb tS ss Ty Ly pg oils © 7 WBGT- Sor9t STNOUVaLaNSe GUVONWLS wisgg xo BNIVA-N, | 0S: Ov POE: : 02. ‘ ol 002 o 3° oa F - {009 OOL oos : CBRE HE FH np ps0g res OA xePuTadg atiini pus ezantyos Aq. (ataze9 ut) fmeanqonsjg BupreouyIuG ro} UOTIMPTZGeAUT Tog teosn0g” @ (ALIMIGISS3YdNOD 40 SNINGOW) u9/ 8453 + RX