i. Spread Footing ii. Raft Foundation iii. Compensated Foundation b) Deep Foundation which is further classified into i.

Pile Foundation ii. Caissons Foundation 3) Design Procedure of foundations Step-1: Given Data Factored load on column Pu in KN Size of column, l x b in mm SBC of Soil in KN/sq.m Self weight of footing = 10% of Pu Step-2: Area of footing = Total Load/S.B.C Provide a suitable size of footing L x B Step-3: Net upward pressure intensity, Pu/area of footing. Step-4: Design for flexure Critical section occurs at the face of column l = (L l)/2 Mutr =wl2/2 Step-5: Depth of footing d = [(Mu/(2.76x1000))]1/2 Step-6: Calculation of area of steel, Mu = 0.87fyAst(d-0.42xu)

Step-7: Check for One-way shear Critical shear force occurs at a distance ofd from face of the column Nominal shear stress, Tu = v/bd for 0.15% of steel from IS456:2000, Table-19 Permissible shear stress If Tc>Tv footing is safe in shear. The maximum load that can be sustained by shallow foundation elements due to the bearing capacity is a function of the cohesion and friction angle of bearing soils as well as the width B and shape of the foundation. The net bearing capacity per unit area, qu, of a long footing is expressed as:

where (alpha)f= 1.0 for strip footings and 1.3 for circular and square footings cu= Un-drained shear strength of soil (sigma) vo = effective vertical shear stress in soil at level of bottom of footing (beta)f = 0.5 for strip footings, 0.4 for square footings, and 0.6 for circular footings gamma =unit weight of soil B=width of footing for square and rectangular footings and radius of footing for circular footings Nc, Nq, N=bearing-capacity factors, functions of angle of internal friction (phi)

For undrained (rapid) loading of cohesive soils, phi=0 thus equation reduced to qu= N c cu where Nc=(alpha)fNc Assumptions made 1) The equation is based on an infinitely long strip footing. 2) The soils to be homogeneous throughout the stressed zone. The value of correction factors can be had from the table below

Eccentric loading The bearing value for foundation design is impacted by the Eccentric loading. We assume the footing to be rigid and the bearing pressure vary linearly . Points to ponder For the case where only a portion of the footing is bearing, the maximum pressure may be approximated by trial and error. For all cases of sustained eccentric loading, the maximum (edge) pressures should not exceed the shear strength of the soil and also the factor of safety should be at least 1.5 (preferably 2.0) against overturning.

What are the components-in-contributing-the-bearing-capacityof-shallow-foundation

(ii) Self-weight of soils The self-weight of soils contribute to the bearing capacity and is represented by 0.5rBNr (r=density of soils). (iii) Shear strength The shear strength of soils contributes to the bearing capacity and is represented by cNc. This question is taken from book named A Closer Look at Prevailing Civil Engineering Practice What, Why and How by Vincent T. H. CHU.

How are landslides triggered by rainfall?

After rainfall, groundwater pressure is built up and this elevates the ground water table. The water inside the pores of soil reduces the effective stress of soils. Since shear strength of soils is represented by the following relations: Shear strength = cohesion + effective stress x tan0 where 0 is the friction angle of soils

Hence, the presence of water causes a reduction of shear strength of soils and this may lead to landslide. On the other hand, the rainfall creates immediate instability by causing erosion of slop surface and results in shallow slope failure by infiltration. In addition, the rain may penetrate slope surface openings and forms flow paths. As a result, this may weaken the ground. This question is taken from book named A Self Learning Manual Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.

How does pressure distribution vary under rigid and flexible footings?
For thick and rigid footings, the pressure distribution under the footings is normally assumed to be linear. If uniform and symmetrical loadings are exerted on the footings, the bearing pressure is uniformly distributed. However, if unsymmetrical loads are encountered, then a trapezoidal shape of bearing reaction would result. For flexible footings on weak and compressible soils, the bearing pressures under footing would not be linear. As such, a detailed investigation of soil pressures is required in order to determine the bending moment and shear forces of the structure. This question is taken from book named A Self Learning Manual Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.

Toe Capacity Load

In case of piles being driven in cohesive soils, the ultimate load is alculated by using the followinf formula Qbu=Abq=AbNccu where Ab = End bearing area of pile q= bearing capacity of soil Nt =bearing capacity factor cu= Un-drained shear strength of soil within zone 1 pile diameter above and 2 diameters below pile tip The value of Nc varies from 8-12 but normally we take the value to by 9 For Cohesionless soils In case of cohesionless soils, the toe resistance q is calculated as q=NNq (sigma)vo<=qt

For Piles driven in Sand ql=0.5Nq tan(phi) where phi= friction angle of the bearing soils below the critical depth.

What is the difference between pad foundation, strip foundation and raft foundation?
Shallow foundation is commonly accepted as foundation with founding level less than 3m from ground surface. In case surface loads or surface conditions could still affect the bearing capacity, the foundation which sits on it is called shallow foundation. Pad foundation refers to the foundation which is intended for sustaining concentrated loads from a single point load such as structural columns.

Strip foundation is used to support a line of loads such as load-bearing walls. For instance, closely-spaced columns render the use of pad foundation inappropriate and strip foundation may be a better alternative. Raft foundation consists of a concrete slab which extends over the entire loaded area so that loads from entire structure are spread over a large area leading to a reduction of the stress of foundation soils is reduced. Moreover, raft foundation serves to avoid differential settlement which otherwise would occur if pad or strip foundation is adopted. This question is taken from book named A Closer Look at Prevailing Civil Engineering Practice What, Why and How by Vincent T. H. CHU.

What is the purpose of pedestals?

Posted in Steelworks | Email This Post

When structural steelworks are connected to the foundation, pedestals are normally designed to carry loads from metal columns through the ground surface to the footings which are located below the ground surface. With the installation of pedestals, it is the pedestals, instead of metals, which come into contact with soils. The purpose of the provision of pedestals is to avoid the direct contact of metal columns with soils which may cause possible metal corrosion by soils. The soils around the pedestals should be properly compacted to provide sufficient lateral resistance to prevent buckling of pedestals

This question is taken from book named A Self Learning Manual Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.

What is the purpose of setting minimum amount of longitudinal steel areas for columns?
Posted in Concrete Engineering, Steelworks | Email This Post

In some design codes it specifies that the area of longitudinal steel reinforcement should be not less than a certain percentage of the sectional area of column. Firstly, the limitation of steel ratio for columns helps to guard against potential failure in tension. Tension may be induced in columns during the design life of the concrete structures. For instance, tension is induced in columns in case there is uneven settlement of the building foundation, or upper floors above the column are totally unloaded while the floors below the column are severely loaded. Secondly, owing to the effect of creep and shrinkage, there will be a redistribution of loads between concrete and steel reinforcement. Consequently, the steel reinforcement may yield easily in case a lower limit of steel area is not established. In addition, test results showed that columns with too low a steel ratio would render the equation below inapplicable which is used for the design of columns: N=0.67fcuAc+fyAs

Effect Of Eccentricity On Analysis and Design Of Isolated Footings

Posted in Project Reports, Research Papers | Email This Post

PAPER ON EFFECT OF ECCENTRICITY ON ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF ISOLATED FOOTINGS (A CASE STUDY OF Jammu and Kashmir) Note Right click on images and click view image to see actual size of image ABSTRACT Footings are often subjected to moments from columns in addition to the axial loads. The presence of certain amount of eccentricity of loading in the footing induces moment on footing. A careful consideration has to be given to the presence of eccentricity, while performing the analysis and design of such footings, as an increase in eccentricity beyond certain limit renders a considerable area of footing ineffective to resist the stresses due to development of tension. Under these circumstances, the conventional flexural equation becomes inapplicable, thereby imparting more complexity in the analysis.

In this Thesis an attempt has been made to understand the behaviour of footings subjected to Uniaxial and biaxial eccentricity. Two cases of uniaxial eccentricity are considered, Case I with column placed away from centre of footing, load being concentric with the column and Case II with column at centre of footing and load placed at certain eccentricity. For each case three conditions of eccentricity are considered ie e=0, eL/6. Complete analysis has been performed using Limit State Method for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m which are prevalent in the region under consideration. For biaxial cases two eccentricity conditions with eL/6 and SBC = 100 KN/Sq m have been analyzed. The analysis of footing subjected to biaxial eccentricity was carried out manually and as per charts and tables prevalent in literature. A comparative study was conducted for both cases with reference to the design parameters and permissible values. The effect of eccentricity on quantity, cost and various other parameters were studied. The analysis was also carried out using SAP 2000 Software for both Uniaxial and Biaxial Cases. The results obtained manually and by the use of software have been compared and difference analyzed. A computer program was developed for Analysis and Design of footing for Uniaxial and Biaxial cases in M.S. Excel to reduce the iterative work and to save time. It was observed that there is a remarkable increase in quantity of concrete and steel when the loads are eccentric, the increasing factor being more in case of column placed away from the centre of footing as compared to the column placed at centre of footing. The results also highlight that the foundations become highly uneconomical if the geotechnical investigation reveals incorrect values of safe bearing capacities. 1.0 GENERAL The foundation structure is designated as substructure as it is placed below the ground level and the superstructure is placed on the top of it. The elements of the superstructure transfer the loads and moments to its adjacent element below it and finally all loads and moments come to the foundation structure, which in turn, transfers them to the underlying soil or rock strata. Thus, the foundation structure effectively supports the superstructure. However, all types of soil get compressed significantly and cause the structure to settle. Accordingly, the major requirements of the design of foundation structures are the two as given below (Clause 34.1 of IS 456 2000): 1. Foundation structures should be able to sustain the applied loads, moments, forces and induced reactions without exceeding the safe bearing capacity of the soil. 2. The settlement of the structure should be as uniform as possible and it should be within the tolerable limits. It is well known from the structural analysis that differential settlement of supports causes additional moments in statically indeterminate structures. Therefore, avoiding the differential settlement is considered as more important than maintaining uniform overall settlement of the structure.

In addition to the two major requirements mentioned above, the foundation structure should provide adequate safety for maintaining the stability of structure due to either overturning and/or sliding (Clause 20 of IS 456 2000). It is to be noted that this part of the structure is constructed at the first stage before other components (columns / beams etc.) are taken up. So, in a project, foundation design and details are completed before designs of other components are undertaken. However, it is worth mentioning that the design of foundation structures is somewhat different from the design of other elements of superstructure due to the reasons given below. Therefore, foundation structures need special attention of the designers. 1. Foundation structures undergo soil-structure interaction. Therefore, the behaviour of foundation structures depends on the properties of structural materials and soil. 2. Accurate estimations of all types of loads, moments and forces are needed for the present as well as for future expansion, if applicable. It is very important as the foundation structure, once completed, is difficult to strengthen in future. 3. Foundation structures, though remain underground involving very little architectural aesthetics, have to be housed within the property line which may cause additional forces and moments due to the eccentricity of foundation. 4. Foundation structures are in direct contact with the soil and may be affected due to harmful chemicals and minerals present in the soil and fluctuations of water table when it is very near to the foundation. Moreover, periodic inspection and maintenance are practically impossible for the foundation structures. 5. Foundation structures, while constructing, may affect the adjoining structure forming cracks to total collapse, particularly during the driving of piles etc. 2.0 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW 1. In case of footings subjected to eccentric loading the design is more cumbersome, because the procedure of finding the reduced effective width and area of footing subjected to an eccentric load is time consuming. 2. Initially the eccentricity of the applied load needs to be calculated. It can be determined from the vertical load and the moment data available, but the basic purpose of design is to calculate the dimensions of the footing. The reduced effective dimension cannot be found directly. 3. Effective dimensions of the footing may be calculated by using the equation B = B -2eb and L = L-2eL Where B = A/L eb, eL = Eccentricities along width and length respectively 4. Method for calculating effective dimensions of eccentrically loaded footing using various derived formulae has been devised based on applicability of the combined direct stress and Flexural Formula that is the entire area must be in full compression for the application of the formula to be valid.

5. The dimensions of the footing may be calculated as 12 times the eccentricity of the given moments, Mx and My with the value of load. The maximum and minimum stresses are developed at the critical corners while the stresses at the other pair of diagonally opposite corners are equalized. This method can also be named as the 12 times eccentricity method of solution. This method is applicable when there are no space limitations on the dimensions a and b. 6. The maximum stresses in a rectangular footing subjected to vertical load eccentric about both the axis can be determined through a series of approximations based on Newton Raphson Method. It can be used for conventional calculations and may be programmed for high speed computing. 7. The standard bending equation q = P/A + P.ex. x /Iy + P.ey. y /Ix stands good for small eccentricities, when the footing area is in full compression, but it fails for bigger eccentricities when a part of the footing area does not stand fully on the soil. 8. The pressure settlement and pressure tilt characteristics of eccentrically obliquely loaded footings can be predicted using hyperbolic stress strain curve for soils. 9. Determination of bearing capacity of eccentrically obliquely loaded footing having rough base using concept of one sided failure can be analyzed in two parts:a) Bearing capacity of footing subjected to eccentric vertical load b) Bearing capacity of footing subjected to central oblique load 10. The applicability of the combined direct stress and flexure formula, i.e., the whole footing area must be in full compression for the application of the formula to be valid. This condition is made possible by setting one corner of the rectangular footing with zero pressure and the diagonally opposite corner with the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. By algebraic manipulations, the footing dimensions a and b are derived as functions of the vertical load, P, the maximum allowable bearing pressure fa, and the moments, Mx and My. 11. Minimum dimensions for the footing of eccentrically loaded foundations with different shapes in plan, can be determined by graphoanalytic means. It is based on the functional relationship of static and structural parameters (vertical forces, moments of forces, shape of the foundations footing, etc.), expressed in relative amounts, and can take into account the action of several combinations of loads in the calculation. 12. The complication of solving three simultaneous non linear equations for serviceability limit state analysis of biaxial bending can be avoided in all cases for which the following conditions are satisfied:I) The cross section is not prestressed. II) The axial load is equal to zero. III) The active concrete compression zone is triangular or trapezoidal. IV) Shrinkage is neglected. 13 The coefficient of variability of only the angle of internal friction of soil has a significant effect on the failure probability of a eccentrically loaded footing.

14. In an eccentrically loaded footing various combinations of breadth and length offer themselves as solutions to the foundation problems within the ground pressures allowed. Where possible, an engineer should prefer a square footing to one that is long and narrow. 15. The tilt of footing increases with an increase in the eccentricity and the bearing capacity reduces considerably. Therefore, footing sizes increase and make the design uneconomical. Footing subjected to uniaxial eccentric loads can be designed for no or negligible tilt by giving the footing an angle shape. The depth of footing projection will depend upon the eccentricity width ratio. 2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS 1. The studies carried out do not highlight the cases of Uniaxial Bending for various locations of the column with respect to the centre of footing. 2. The studies do not show a comparison of maximum soil pressure developed under eccentrically loaded footing as calculated by various methods for J&K region. 3. Analysis of eccentrically loaded footings using a software and comparison of results with the analytical solutions is missing. 4. No evaluation has been done for the effect of eccentricity on quantities, cost and other parameters for data pertaining to J&K. 5. Finite Element Modeling and analysis of footing with uniaxial and biaxial bending cases has not been carried out for the study area under consideration. 2.2 IMPORTANCE OF STUDY 1. The study will provide a comprehensive comparison of various parameters like area of footing, upward soil pressure, depth of footing, maximum bending moment etc for different eccentricity cases and various safe bearing capacities as prevalent in J&K. 2. It will highlight the effect of eccentricity on quantity and cost of concrete and steel with respect to the safe bearing capacities of soil in various regions. 3. Comparative graphs generated from this study can be helpful to the designers for the region under consideration. 4. The study will also provide graphical comparison of safe bearing capacities v/s gross, net and utilized areas of footing. 5. For the various safe bearing capacities of the study area, this study shall highlight the variation in maximum soil pressure developed as calculated by manual methods and using software. 6. The study will provide conclusions which will be helpful for the designers of the region to understand the effect of eccentricity on area of footing, net upward pressure, maximum bending moment, cost of footing etc. 2.3 SCOPE OF THE WORK 1. The thesis shall emphasize on the effect of eccentricity on various parameters related to Analysis and Design of Footing wrt the geotechnical data for J & K. 2. It will also deal with the determination and comparison of Maximum Soil Pressure under eccentrically loaded footing by various methods including analysis using SAP-2000. 3. The thesis shall also contain programs developed on M. S. Excel for analyzing uniaxial and biaxial bending cases. 4. A comparative study for both the cases shall be provided with reference to the design

parameters and permissible values. 5. The study will also provide graphical comparison of safe bearing capacities v/s gross, net and utilized areas of footing. 6. The thesis shall also include a study on the effect of eccentricity on quantities, cost and other parameters. 2.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE WORK The main objective of the thesis is to analyze and design the isolated footings for different cases involving uniaxial and Biaxial Bending. The analysis and design shall be carried out manually and with software. Comparative study shall be carried out for the generated results and evaluation of eccentricity on quantities, cost and other parameters worked out. Detailed objectives of the work are listed below:1. Analysis and Design of Isolated Footing with Uniaxial Bending using M. S. Excel Program: i. When Column is placed at center of Footing ie e = 0 ii. When Column is placed away from the center of Footing with eccentricity e<= L/6 iii. When Column is placed away from the center of Footing with eccentricity e >L/6 iv. When Column is placed at center of Footing with eccentricity e <= L/6 v. When Column is placed at center of Footing with eccentricity e > L/6 2. Analysis and Design of Isolated Footing with Biaxial Bending using M. S. Excel Program: i. When Column is placed at center of Footing with eccentricity e <= L/6 ii. When Column is placed at center of Footing with eccentricity e > L/6 3. Finite Element Method Modeling and analysis of Footing with uniaxial and biaxial bending using SAP 2000 4. Determination of maximum soil pressure by manual calculation, by SAP-2000 and as per tables and charts prevalent in the literature 5. Comparative Study of generated results 6. Evaluation of effect of eccentricity on quantities, cost and other parameters. 7. Conclusions and Discussions 8. Limitations 3.0 METHODOLOGY Following Methodology has been adopted for the thesis work: 1. Study of various conditions which a footing has to satisfy while held in static equilibrium. 2. Identification of various cases of Uniaxial and Biaxial bending for analysis. 3. Identification of various Load & Safe Bearing Capacity Cases. 4. Use of Trial and Error solutions. 5. Use of charts and tables as prevalent in literature. 6. Development of Flowchart for determining preliminary size of footing subjected to vertical loads and moments. 7. Development of M. S. Excel Program for Design of footing. 8. Designing and detailing for each case. 9. Generation of Finite Element Method Model. 10. Carrying out F.E.M. Analysis.

11. Parametric study for different column positions, different Safe Bearing Pressures and varying eccentricity. 12. Study of effect of eccentricity on area of footing, concrete quantity, steel quantity, cost of concrete, cost of steel and percentage increase in overall cost. 3.1 Following Load Cases and Safe Bearing Capacities have been considered for design of isolated footings:Based on the soil exploration report and various possible cases of Uniaxial and biaxial eccentricity cases as given in 3.1.2, following cases have been listed which shall be studied in this thesis. These cases include a combination of various values of safe bearing capacities and eccentricity ranging from 0 to greater than L/6. The cases shall be analyzed for two column positions ie Column at centre and column away from the centre of footing. For a comparison between the cases, load magnitude has been kept constant.

TABLE:-3.1 LOAD CASES

4.0 ABSTRACT OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

4.1 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN FOR CASES I TO XX The analysis and design of footings for different cases are summarized below:-

The above summary reveals that there is a remarkable increase in the dimensions and area of tension reinforcement required by the footing as the eccentricity increases from 0 to >L/6. Further for the same concentrated load and eccentricity condition, the dimensions required are more for lower safe bearing capacities. A comparative study of all the design features has been provided in chapter 6. 5.0 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS 5.1 Graphical comparison of Manual and SAP-2000 Pressures The variation of pressure as calculated manually and as obtained by SAP-2000is shown in chart 5.1below. Initially the pressure values are almost matching with each other but with an increase in length the manual calculations differ from the software calculations. The manual results are higher as compared to the software results.

Chart No 5.1 Pressure Variations for Uniaxial Case, e < L/6 5.2 Graphical comparison of Manual and SAP-2000 Pressures The variation of pressure as calculated manually and as obtained by SAP-2000is shown in chart5.2.. Initially the pressure values calculated manually are lower than that obtained by SAP 2000.But with an increase in length the manual calculations are higher as compared to the

software results.

5.3 Graphical comparison of SAP-2000 Pressures at different sections. The variation of pressure calculated at five cross sections from one end to another is shown in chart 5.3. The pressure values are low at 0 length point and rise almost linearly towards the other end of footing. Moreover the pressure values also vary along the width of footing. Pressure values are higher at A line and go on reducing towards E line.

Chart No 5.3 Pressure Variations for Biaxial Case, e < L/6 5.4 Graphical comparison of SAP-2000 Pressures at different sections. The variation of pressure calculated at five cross sections from one end to another is shown in chart 5.4. The pressure values are low at 0 length point and rise almost linearly towards the other end of footing. Moreover the pressure values also vary along the width of footing. Pressure

values are higher at A line and go on reducing towards E line.

6.0 RESULTS 6.1 GRAPHICAL COMPARISON OF ECCENTRICITY Vs COST WITH COLUMN AT e FROM CENTRE. The variation of cost of footing with respect to the increase in eccentricity for different safe bearing capacity of soil is shown below. The curve shows that there is a slight increase in the cost of footing from eccentricity zero to less than L/6 beyond which there is a sharp increase in the footing cost when eccentricity increases to greater than L/6.

CHART 6.1 Eccentricity V/s Cost for Column at e from centre, SBC = 40, 50, 65, 100 KN/Sqm 6.2 GRAPHICAL COMPARISON OF ECCENTRICITY Vs COST WITH COLUMN AT CENTRE. The variation of cost of footing with respect to the increase in eccentricity for different safe bearing capacity of soil is shown in Chart 6.2. The curve shows that there is a slight increase in the cost of footing from eccentricity zero to less than L/6 beyond which there is a sharp increase

in the footing cost when eccentricity increases to greater than L/6.

6.3 GRAPHICAL COMPARISON OF ECCENTRICITY Vs AREA WITH COLUMN AT e FROM CENTRE. The variation of area of footing with respect to the increase in eccentricity for different safe bearing capacity of soil is given in Chart 6.3. The curve shows that there is a slight increase in the area of footing from eccentricity zero to less than L/6 beyond which there is a sharp increase

in the footing area when eccentricity increases to greater than L/6.

6.4 GRAPHICAL COMPARISON OF ECCENTRICITY Vs AREA WITH COLUMN AT e FROM CENTRE. A graphical comparison of Gross, Net and unutilized area of footing for different safe bearing capacities of soil is shown in Chart. It can be seen that the unutilized area is more for higher safe bearing capacities than lower ones.

CHART 6.4 Gross / Net / Unutilized Area V/s Cost SBC = 40, 50, 65, 100 KN/Sq m 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Following conclusions are drawn based on the cases considered in previous chapters:7.1 Uniaxial Eccentricity:7.1.1 Effect of Eccentricity on Area of Footing 1. With e = 227 mm (eL/6), the % increase in the area of footing over and above the case with e = 0 is around 104.14%, 95.77%, 114.6% and 132.5% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively. 7.1.2 Effect of Eccentricity on Net Upward Pressure 1. With e = 227 mm (eL/6), the % increase in net upward pressure over and above the case with e = 0 is around 4.43%, 8.9%, 4.86% and 4.45% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively. 7.1.3 Effect of Eccentricity on Maximum Bending Moment 7.1.3.1 Column placed at e away from centre of footing 1. With e = 227 mm (eL/6), the % increase in maximum bending moment over and above the case with e = 0 is around 355.56%, 498.5%, 562.04% and 747.04% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively ie bending moment is increasing by 5.03 to 8.47 times.

7.1.3.2 Column placed at centre of footing 1. With e = 230 mm (eL/6), the % increase in maximum bending moment over and above the case with e = 0 is around 128%, 168.14%, 177.5% 219.82% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively ie bending moment is increasing by 2.7 to 3.2 times. Thus by placing the column at centre of footing, the bending moment is reduced by 0.4 to 0.67 times for e=230 mm and by 2.75 to 5.27 times for e= 910 mm. 7.1.4 Effect of Eccentricity on Quantity of Concrete 7.1.4.1 Column placed at e away from centre of footing 1. With e = 227 mm (eL/6), the % increase in quantity of concrete over and above the case with e = 0 is around 244.69%, 291.2%, 324.55% and 418.7% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively ie quantity of concrete is increasing by 3.45 to 5.18 times. 7.1.4.2 Column placed at centre of footing 1. With e = 230 mm (eL/6), the % increase in quantity of concrete over and above the case with e = 0 is around 144.24%, 179.4%, 189.25% and 234.55% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively ie quantity of concrete is increasing by 2.44 to 3.34 times. Thus by placing the column at centre of footing, the quantity of concrete is reduced by 15% for e=230 mm and by 100.45% to 184.15 % for e=910 mm. 7.1.5 Effect of Eccentricity on Quantity of Steel 7.1.5.1 Column placed at e away from centre of footing 1. With e = 250 mm (eL/6), the % increase in quantity of steel over and above the case with e = 0 is around 132.8%, 234.72%, 256.21% and 342.31% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively ie quantity of steel is increasing by 2.33 to 4.42 times. 7.1.5.2 Column placed at centre of footing 1. With e = 250 mm (eL/6), the % increase in quantity of steel over and above the case with e = 0 is around 37%, 143.1%, 144.65% and 172.03 % for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively ie quantity of steel is increasing by 1.84 to 2.72 times. Thus by placing the column at centre of footing, the quantity of steel is reduced by 0% to 17 % for e=230 mm and by 57% to 95.8 % for e=910 mm. 7.1.6 Effect of Eccentricity on Cost of Footing 7.1.6.1 Column placed at e away from centre of footing 1. With e = 227 mm (eL/6), the % increase in cost of footing over and above the case with e = 0 is around 205.3%, 275%, 304.58% and 395.2% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively.

7.1.6.2 Column placed at centre of footing 1. With e = 230 mm (eL/6), the % increase in cost of footing over and above the case with e = 0 is around 122.92%, 169.3%, 176.22% and 215.32% for SBC = 40, 50, 65 and 100 KN/Sq m respectively. Thus by placing the column at centre of footing is more economical as the increase in cost is around 13.78 to 15.31 % in case of e = 230 mm and around 82.38 to 180 % in case of e = 910 mm over and above when column is placed at e away from the centre of footing. 7.2 Biaxial Eccentricity:1. It is observed that a small amount of biaxial eccentricity (0.73 m) which falls in the category of e > L/6 results in huge soil pressure 192.64 KN/Sq m which is approximately 2 times the safe bearing capacity of soil. 2. The manual procedure is quite rigorous and iterative in nature and takes a lot of time to arrive at the maximum soil pressure under the footing. The procedure can be simplified by using the standard charts and graphs prevalent in literature. 7.3 Comparison of Maximum Soil Pressure calculated by various methods 7.3.1 Uniaxial Case The results obtained by hand calculations, as per chart given by Teng and as per table given by Fintel are in close confirmity. The variation is around 10 %. But the SAP-2000 results show a variation of 18 % which are lower than hand calculations. 7.3.2 Biaxial Case The results obtained by hand calculations, as per chart given by Teng and as per table given by Fintel are in close vicinity. The variation is less than 6 %. But the SAP-2000 results show a variation of 26 % which are lower than other methods. 7.4 DISCUSSION Thus the presence of eccentricity needs a careful consideration while designing the foundation of any structure. The presence of small eccentricity not only results in development of enormous compressive stress at one end which are much more than the safe bearing capacity of soil, but it also develops tensile stresses in the footing which ultimately renders a part of the footing area ineffective due to reduction in effective length and width of footing, thereby further aggravating the maximum soil pressure. This results in failure of the soil under the footing, tilting and failure of footings and ultimately failure of structure. Also the placement of column plays an important role in economy. Placing the column at centre of footing is more economical as the increase in cost is around 13.78% to 15.31 % in case of e L/6 over and above when column is placed at e away from the centre of footing. 7.5 LIMITATIONS & FUTURE SCOPE 1. Analysis with/without tension/uplift at base. 2. Effect of depth and over-burden weight of soil. 3. Differences between footings for braced and un-braced frames/columns. 4. Effects of ground-beams to assist in resisting moments due to eccentricity.

REFERENCES 1 Brendum T and Nielsen Concrete Sections under Biaxial Bending- Journal of Structural Engineering, No 10, October 1987. 2 Davies G and Mayfield B Choosing Plan Dimension for an Eccentrically Loaded Footing Slab- American Concrete Institute Journal, Vol 69, No 5 1972. 3 Gurfinkel G, Analysis of Footing subjected to Biaxial Bending- Journal of Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 96, No ST6, June 1970. 4 Higleter W. H and Anders J. C, Dimensioning of Footings subjected to Eccentric LoadsJournal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol III, No 5, May 1985 5 Holmberg A, Discussion on Dimensioning Footings subjected to Eccentric Loads- Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 14, June 1987 6 Irles R and Irles F, Explicit stresses under Rectangular Footings- Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 120, No 2, February 1994. 7 Jarquio R and Jarquio V, Design of Footing Area with Biaxial Bending- Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 109, No 10, October 1983. 8 Mahiyar H and Patel A. N Analysis of Angle shaped footing under eccentric loading, Journal of Geotech and Geoenvironment Engg. Volume 126, Issue 12, pp. 1151-1156 (December 2000) 9 Prakash S, Saran S and Sharan U.N, Footings and Consecutive Laws- Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 110, No 10, October 1984. 10 Plevkov V. S and Polishchuk A. I Assigning Dimensions of the Footing of Eccentrically Loaded Foundations- Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Publisher:SPRINGER, New York, Vol 30, No 05, September 1993. 11 Saran S and Agarwal R.K, Eccentrically Obliquely Loaded Footing- Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 115, No 11, November 1989. 12 Saran S. and Agarwal R.K, Bearing Capacity of Eccentrically Obliquely Loaded FootingJournal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 117, No 11, November 1991. 13 Smith J. P, Pardo and Bobet A , Behavior of Rigid Footings on Gravel under Axial Load and Moment Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engg, Volume 133, Issue 10, October 2007. 14 Soubra A. H. Reliability based Analysis and Design of Eccentrically Loaded FootingsJournal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 336, No 49- 2009. 15 Wilson K. E. Bearing Pressure for Rectangular Footings with Biaxial Uplift, Journal of Bridge Engg. Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 27-33 (February 1997) 16 Bowles J.E, Foundation Analysis and Design, Mc Graw Hill Book Company, New York, London, Mexico, Sydney, Tokyo. 17 Fintel M, Handbook of Concrete Engineering, C.B.S Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi. 18 Jain A.K, Limit State Design, 19 Kurian N.P, Design of Foundation Systems, Narosas Publishing House, New Delhi. 20 Teng W.C, Foundation Design, Prentice Hall of India (Pvt) Ltd, New Delhi. 21 Tomlinson M. J, Foundation Design and Construction, Longman Singapore Publishers Ltd, Singapore. 22 I.S 456 2000, Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete. 23 I.S 6403 1981, Code of Practice for Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation.

We at engineeringcivil.com are thankful to Sir Sajad Ahmed Khan, Lecturer I Department of Civil Engineering Government Polytechnic, Leh Ladakh and Dr Hemant Sood, Associate Professor NITTTR, Chandigarh for submitting this research paper to us. We hope this will be of great use to many civil engineering students around the world.

Design of Substructure Bridge with Different Codes and Analysis the Data for Settlement and Bearing Capacity Manually and by Using Plaxiz 3D Program of Finite Elements
Posted in Project Reports, Research Papers | Email This Post

Abstract This paper discussed the design of substructure of bridge subjected to load of train with using two codes, the first code is AASHTO code and the second is the Chinese Code. This study focuses on the substructure of the bridge design and the design manually with the two codes. By the design of the Bridge using the codes above, we found that Chinese Code is more safely that the number of reinforcement bars more in the pile cap and pile. Settlement of the bridge also is calculated by using the data collected from the project site, the vertical ultimate bearing capacity of pile group and the dynamic action of the train loads, by this study it can be concluded all the above are safe values. Another analysis by using the three-dimensional Plaxis program of finite elements and many parameters calculated, the value of the maximum vertical displacement was near from the calculated value which gives another checking for the design and maintain the safe conditions for the Bridge. 1. Introduction Many of codes used in the world for design the bridges and many of countries have special codes for design depending on the specialty of that country and the nature, environmental conditions, effect of earth quakes etc. In the United States Bridge Engineers use AASHTOs standard Specification for Highway Bridges and, in similar fashion or trends, German bridge engineer utilize the DIN standard and British use the BS 5400 code. In general, countries like German and United Kingdom which have developed and maintained major highway systems for a great many years possess their own national bridge standards. The AASHTO Standard Specification, however, have been accepted by many countries as the general code by which bridges should be designed. In this paper, the design of a bridge by using two codes the AASHTO and Chinese codes. The AASHTO Code for design bridges named American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials. In China there are many codes for design about 81 codes for design for all the majors in the civil engineering with serial numbers of standard, the code used for this study is (The Chinese National Standard (CNS, 2002)) [4], Building Foundation Design Code (GB50007-2002). The Chinese Codes for design bridges focusing on the rail-way design like: - Fundamental Code for Design on Railway Bridge and Culvert (TB10002.1-2005). - Code for Design of Steel Structure of Railway Bridge (TB10002.2-2005). - Code for Design on Reinforced and Pre-stressed Concrete Structure of Railway Bridge and Culvert (TB10002.3-2005). - Code for Design on Concrete and Block Masonry Structure of Railway Bridge and Culvert (TB10002.4-2005). - Code for Design on Subsoil and Foundation of Railway Bridge and Culvert (TB10002.5-2005). - Standard for Constructional Quality Acceptance of Railway Bridge and Culvert Engineering (TB10415-2003). 2. Research Significance This paper is to make a comparison between two or more codes in different countries to show the differences and similarities and advantages and disadvantages also for checking the design by the analysis and find the suitability of using the structure according to the design. 3. Design with Two Codes By using the manually procedure steps of calculating the design of the bridge through the data provided from a project and applying the standards loading as following: Design load: dead-weight of the 32 meter simply supported beam is 7862.88kN. Secondary-dead load is 3.792MN. Lateral swaying force of train, seismic force and the other horizontal load are taken into consideration, so 12% of the vertical load is considered as horizontal load in the calculation. Total horizontal load = 0.12 (7862.88 + 3792) = 1398.585kN Total vertical dead load = 7862.88 + 3792 = 11654.88kN Live load from the superstructure according to Chinese Code: Maximum = 220kN Minimum = 92.0kN

By taking the same dimensions and loading but using the two codes above, it can be shown in Table 1, the design with the two codes is different in some parts of the bridge and similar in the other, that the safety of Chinese Code is more than of AASHTO Code. Table 1: Comparison of design bridge by using two codes (similarities and differences) Footing design Dimensions Number of piles with depth = 62.7m 25 bars #9 (2.8cm) in the bottom mats Pile cap design 21 bars #9 (2.8cm) in the top mats 16 bars #8 (2.5cm) in the bottom Pile design AASHTO Code (56)m, thickness = 1.5m 4-bored piles with Dia. = 1m, Chinese Code (56)m, thickness = 1.5m 4-bored piles with Dia. =1m, with depth = 62.7m Number of bars = 29 bars (2.8cm) in each direction in the bottom mats Number of bars = 25 bars (2.8cm) in each direction in the top mats Number of bars = 20 bars (2.5cm) in each direction in the bottom Number of bars = 29 bars (2.8cm) in each direction in the top

24 bars #8 (2.5cm) in the top

4. Settlement calculation and discussion 4.1 Settlement calculation The settlement calculated of the Bridge due to the effect of loading by using the data provided from the soil investigations and testing in addition to the provided information from the design as following: The dimension of the pile cap: (length = 6m, width = 5m, thickness = 1.5m) as shown in Fig. 1 The applied pressure: 100kPa, 200kPa, 300kPa, 400kPa, 600kPa, 800kPa, 1000kPa The depth of the piles: 62.7m (according to the soil investigations reaching to the strong layer) Effective depth for piles = 2/3 (62.7) = 41.8m (the depth of calculation of effective stresses) The stress increase at the middle of each soil layer by the load Qg calculated in the following

formula:

Table 2: Properties of the soil for all the depths of the layers

The model of the pile and pile caps of the designed bridge is shown in Fig. 2 Therefore, the /\S cis calculated for each layer of soil and each load as shown in table 2, and draw the relation between load and settlement curve as shown in Fig. 1.

As shown from Table 3 and Fig. 1 that the maximum value for the settlement equal to about 13.546mm at pressure 100kPa and this value within the permissible limit for the settlement compared with allowable settlement Skempton and McDonald (1956) limitations for maximum settlement and maximum angular distortion that means the foundation is safe and can bear the loading of the structure. Table 3: The values of the pressure, load and settlement (AASHTOO) P(kPa) 0 100 200 300 400 600 800 1000 Load (kN) 0 3570 7140 10710 14280 21420 28560 35700 Settlement (mm) 0 1.267 2.576 3.907 5.256 7.999 10.773 13.546

4.2 Settlement Calculation in Chinese Code The settlement of the pile group can be calculated from the following formula:

As shown from Table 4 and Fig. 2 that the maximum value for the settlement equal to about 11.973mm at pressure 1600kPa and this value within the permissible limit for the settlement compared with allowable settlement in the Chinese Code which equal to 15-20mm. 5. Vertical Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Pile Group In order to determine the vertical ultimate bearing capacity of the pile group, a large uniform pressure was applied to the top of the pile. In the calculation, a pressure of 1000kPa was imposed, which is equivalent to a resultant force of 30000kN (561000). The calculation gives the load versus settlement curve for the mid-point on the long side of the upper pile cap, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows that there is an obvious turning point on the load-settlement curve. Before that turning point, the load-settlement curve is approximately linear. After the turning point, the settlement increases abruptly as the load increases, indicating a divergent trend, and the final settlement cannot approach to a stabilized value. The Chinese Standard specifies key points for a single pile load test (CNS, 2002), which includes taking the load corresponding to the beginning of the steep drop on the measured load-settlement curve as the single pile bearing capacity. Applying this specification to the results of the numerical analysis on the pile group, the vertical ultimate bearing capacity of the pile group can be taken from the beginning of the steep drop on the calculated load-settlement curve. From Figure 2, it can obtain the load corresponding to the steep drop point to be 1000kPa, which is converted to a resultant force of 30000kN, i.e., the vertical ultimate bearing capacity of the pile group and this value is larger than the total vertical loads.

We can calculate the ultimate load-bearing capacity of group piles from the following formula:

Therefore the value of the ultimate load-bearing capacity of group piles more than the applied load, indicating the bearing capacity of the pile group is sufficient. For the Chinese code we can also use the following formula for a single pile.

Table 5: Comparison of bridge design by using two codes (similarities and differences)
Final settlement calculation for pressure = 1000kPa Bearing capacity for group piles 13.546mm (Eq. 2) 7.483mm (Eq. 3)

3455.8kN (Eq. 4)

47601.6kN (Eq. 5)

6. Action of Train Loading The Railway has a design for speed of 350 km/h. The dynamic load of the high-speed train is transmitted to the bridge pier through rail track, track tie plates, and base plates and is transmitted to pile cap and pile foundation. To simplify the calculation, the load on the bottom of the track tie plates is assumed to act directly on the top of the pile cap and a pseudo-static method is used, which is considered conservative. The dynamic stress amplitude on the bottom of the track tie plates can be calculated as follows:

For the passenger cars used on the Rail Passenger Dedicated Line, P = 17 tons and V = 350 km/h. Using Eq. (7), the dynamic stress amplitude can be calculated to be 90kPa. Since the train load is dynamic, a dynamic magnification factor of 10 was selected in the pseudostatic analysis, which is considered conservative. Therefore, the pressure acting on the top of the pile cap is 900kPa. The above pressure (900kPa) is equivalent to load of (90056 = 27000kN) is only 78% of the calculated ultimate bearing capacity of the pile group (34500.8kN). Therefore, it indicates that the train load is relatively small. The maximum settlement of the pile cap can be shown in Fig. 2 to be 12 mm, which satisfies the requirement of normal operation of a high-speed rail. 7. Analysis with Plaxis 3D Program for Finite Element Another analysis is to check the model shown in Fig. 3 and calculating many parameters by using the Plaxis program for three dimensional analyses for finite elements. The analysis of the program depends on the same of soil investigations information and parameters of the soil strength. In the finite element analysis, the Mohr-Coulomb model with undrained conditions is used to simulate the constitutive relationship for the soil material and the linear elastic nonporous material model was used for the piles and pile cap of reinforced concrete structure. 7.1 Construct Modes for the Model 1- The gravity is applied to the original configuration, simulating the initial stress field. 2- Construction is started from drilling holes until completion of the superstructure. During construction, consolidation occurs in soils and settlement of the pile group is calculated. , reset displacement to zero. 3- Construct of the pile cap. 4- A greater load is applied to find the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile group, reset

displacement to zero. The load applied in the model is the same of that using for the previous design and analysis. The results of the numerical analysis are shown in Figures from 4 to 11. The displacement value can be shown in Fig. 4, 5, 6 and 7 that the maximum value for displacement equal to -1.88 mm, the minus sign refers to the direction of the displacement to down, when compared this value with maximum value maintained from manual calculation shown in Figs. 1 and 2 is relatively little value that in the considerations for the numerical analysis more be accepted. Another values are maintained from the numerical calculations like incremental displacement, total Cartesian strain, incremental Cartesian strain, Cartesian total stress and pore water pressure, all these calculations are reasonable. Fig. 11 shows the indication for active stress of the soil; therefore, these values of the pore pressure are relatively small and during the time of the consolidation of the structure will not increase the final value of the consolidation settlement. 8. Conclusion - The design of a Bridge or any other structure with more than one code gives a difference in the design due to the nature of the country that using this code. - In this paper it can be seen the more safety with design in the Chinese code than the AASHTO code that the second code do not take the effect of the earthquake in the design. - The settlement calculated for this study satisfies the requirement of normal operation of a high speed rail. - The bearing capacity of the pile group is sufficient. - The bridge also satisfies the requirement of normal operation of a high-speed rail. - The analysis with 3D Plaxis program gives accepted results with that of calculated analysis by using equation 6, which provide more check for the design of the bridge and gives more agreement and suitability for the design. References: 1. AASHTO (1998), AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary US Units, second edition, Washington, DC. 2. Braja M. Das, Principles of Foundation Engineering, Sixth Edition. 3. British Standard 5400, University of Sheffield, 16 December 2002, Uncontrolled Copy, (c) BSI 4. The Chinese National Standard (CNS, 2002). Building foundation design code (GB500072002), China Building Industry Press, Beijing (in Chinese). 5. Wan Ikram Wajdee b; Wan Ahmad Kamal, Comparison of bridge design in Malaysia between American codes and British codes, University Technology Malaysia MAC , 2005. 6. Skempton, A. W.; McDonald, D. M. (1956). The allowable Settlement of Buildings, Proceeding of Institute of Civil Engineers, Vol. 5, Part III, p. 727.

We at engineeringcivil.com are thankful to Sir Hussein for submitting this research paper to us. We hope this will be of great use to many civil engineering students around the world.

What is arching effect in soils?

Posted in Soil Engineering | Email This Post

Arching occurs when there is a difference of the stiffness between the installed structure and the surrounding soil. If the structure is stiffer than the soil then load arches onto the structure. Otherwise, if the structure is less stiff than the soil then load arches away from the structure. For instance, if part of a rigid support of soil mass yields, the adjoining particles move with respect to the remainder of the soil mass. This movement is resisted by shearing stresses which reduce the pressure on the yielding portion of the support while increasing the pressure on the adjacent rigid zones. This phenomenon is called the arching effect.

The principle of soil arching can be easily illustrated by buried pipes. If a rigid pipe is installed in soils, soil columns on both sides of the rigid pipe are more compressive than the soil columns on top of the rigid pipe because of the higher stiffness of rigid pipes when compared with soils. As such, soil columns on both sides tend to settle more than the soils on top of the rigid pipe and this differential settlement causes a downward shear force acting along the sides of soil columns on top of the rigid pipe. As such, the load on the rigid pipes becomes larger than the sole weight of soil columns on its top. Similarly, if a flexible pipe is adopted instead, the above phenomenon shall be reversed.

How do fixed and pinned connections between piles and pile caps affect the load carrying capacity of piles?
The type of connection between piles and pile caps affects the load carrying capacity of pile groups. The fixity of pile head into pile cap, instead of pinning into pile cap, enhances higher lateral stiffness of the pile groups. For instance, for the same deflections, a cap with fixed connected piles can sustain far more loads than that of pinned connected piles. To satisfy the criterion of fixed connection, the minimum embedded length of piles into pile caps should be at least two times the diameter of piles. Moreover, the fixed connection of piles at pile caps allows significant bending moment to be transmitted through the connections when compared with pinned connections.

How should the piles be arranged in a pile cap to reduce bending moment induced in piles?
Posted in Piles Engineering | Email This Post

Consider that piles are designed to intersect at a single common point in a pile cap. The resultant reactions would pass through the point of intersection in the pile cap. This type of arrangement does not involve any bending moment induced if the horizontal loads pass through this point. However, in real life situation, the piling system is expected to resist a combination of vertical loads, horizontal loads and bending moment. To counteract bending moment, the pile cap about the point of intersection is rotated so that significant amount of bending moment is induced in piles and pure axial forces in piles can hardly generate a counteracting moment based on one single intersection point.

However, if the piles are arranged in such a way that there are at least two separated points of intersection in the pile cap, the amount of flexural stresses induced in piles is significantly reduced.

What are the meanings of the mathematical terms in failure criteria pile load test?
Posted in Piles Engineering | Email This Post

Load tests are conducted to verify the design assumptions and parameters such as pile friction in soils and sock socket capacity. There are various failure criteria in current construction industry to determine ultimate load resistance of piles in pile load test. For instance in 90% criterion of Brinch Hansen, it is based on the laboratory measured stress-strain relations of soils and a point is identified in which soil fails. This essentially aims at looking for the ultimate bearing capacity and hence the ultimate loads. In fact, this is not intended originally for piles. For some failure criteria, it does not target at finding out the ultimate pile capacity. Instead, it looks for the process for onset of soil yielding at the base of pile toe an allows for controlled displacement. For example, one of these criteria is reproduced as follows: Criterion for maximum movement = (PL/AE + d/120 + 4) mm where P is the load, L is pile length, A is the area of pile and d is pile diameter. This failure criterion was developed based on small diameter driven piles. The term PL/AE refers to elastic shortening of piles. For end-bearing piles, this term is acceptable for usage. However, for friction piles this may not truly simulate the actual shortenings of piles because frictional forces along the pile also come into play. The term (d/120 + 4) represents the amount of soil movement which triggers the yielding of soil beneath pile toe.

What are the considerations in determining whether casings should be left in for minipiles?
Contrary to most of pile design, the design of min-piles are controlled by internal capacity instead of external carrying capacity due to their small cross-sectional area. There are mainly two reasons to account for designing mini-piles as friction piles: (i) Due to its high slenderness ratio, a pile of 200mm diameter with 5m long has a shaft area of 100 times greater than cross-sectional area. Therefore, the shaft friction mobilized should be greater than end resistance. (ii) Settlements of 10%-20% of pile diameter are necessary to mobilize full end bearing capacity, compared with 0.5%-1% of pile diameter to develop maximum shaft resistance. Left-in casings for mini-piles have the following advantages: (i) Improve resistance to corrosion of main bars; (ii) Provide additional restraint against lateral buckling; (iii) Improve the grout quality by preventing intrusion of groundwater during concreting; (iv) Prevent occurrence of necking during lifting up of casings during concreting.

Axial Load Capacity of Single Pile

Posted in Piles Engineering | Email This Post

To calculate Axial Load capacity of a single pile, we should first understand how the pile behaves and what are the resistances offered by it. Basically we have a shaft resistance Qsu and a Toe resistance Qbu. The total pile capacity is calculated by summing up these two, i.e. Pile capacity Qu is the sum of the shaft resistance Qsu and toe resistances Qbu.

The allowable load Qa is calculated by using this equation Qa=(Qsu)/F1+(Qbu)/F2 where F, F1, and F2 are safety factors having the value in between 2-3 for permanent structures.