Caisson foundations subjected to lateral forces

This paper treats the analysis of a caisson foundation subjected to lateral loads and embedded in a multi-layered
soil with special emphasis on their use in transmission line structures. The method developed which is based on
the subgrade modulus concept, aside from being useful for the design of a caisson foundation for limited
displacements, can be used for determining the stiffness of a given foundation. A rational method of evaluating,
the foundation stiffness is very useful to the designer since he can then treat the superstructure and the
foundation as an entity rather than two separate entities and can thus optimize the total cost of the
structure/foundation system. Results from load tests on a prototype caisson in sand and clay, designed by this
method, indicate reasonably fair correlation with those predicted by the theoretical analysis.Teng, W.C.; Manuel,
F.S.Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on1435-1445July 1976
I Bgg Transactions 011 Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-95* no. 4, J ulyI August 1976
CAISSON FOUNDATIONS SUBJECTED TO LATEBAL FORCES
Dr. V. C. Teng
Senior Member
Presi dent
Teng and Assoeiates, I nc.
Engineers/Architects
Chicago, I l l i noi s
ABSTRACT
This paper treats the anal ysi s of a cai sson foun-
dati on subj ected to lateral loads and eabedded i n a
multi-layered s o l l with speci al emphasis on their use
i n transmi ssi on l i ne structures. The method developed
which is based on thesubgrade modulus concept, aside
from bei ng useful for the desi gn of a cai sson founda-
ti on for l i ml ted di spl acements, can be used for deter-
mi ni ng the sti ffness of a given foundation.
A rati onal method of evaluating. the foundation
sti f f ness is very useful to the designer since he can
then treat the superstructure and the foundation as an
enti ty rather than two separate entities and can thus
opti mi ze the total cost of the structure/foundati on
system.
Results from load tests on a prototype cai sson in
sand and clay, designed by this method, i ndi cate rea-
sonabl y fai r correl ati on wi th those predi cted by the
theoreti cal anal ysi s.
INTRODUCTION
Within thepast decade, drl l l ed cai ssons or pi ers
have been used successfully as foundati ons for trans-
mi ssi on l i ne structures where the foundati on l oads are
pri mari l y shear and/or bending. Properly designed
cai sson foundati ons subj ected to moderate to very
l arge l oads in excess of 150 kip (669 IcN) shear and
15000 kip-ft. (20400 k;N.m) moment have proven to --be
more economical than conventional foundations.
A dri l l ed cai sson has several advantages over
some of the more conventional types of foundations
e. g. pi l e or spread footi ng, among which are: (a) It
takes up a much smaller space - an advantage especi-
al l y when the ri ght of way is costl y or where the dis-
rupti on of traf f i c vl thi n the f oundati on area is to be
kept to a mi ni mum; (b) When ground conditions are
sui tabl e, a caisson foundation can be completed Cdrll-
l i ng and concreting) in a few hours; cc) It is adapta-
bl e to a f ai rl y wide range of soi l and loading condi-
ti ons; (e) Equipment f or drl l l i ng f ai rl y l arge diame-
ter cai ssons i s readi l y avai l abl e throughout the U.S.,
i s rel ati vel y qui et and may be used in close proximity
to structures that are sensitive to vi brati on; and
(e) It can readi l y be desi gned to provi de good resis-
tance to upl i f t or lateral displacement.
Distribution Committee of t he IEEE Power Engineering Soci ety for presentation at
Paper
F 76 082-8, recommended and approvedby t he IEEE Transmission and
the IEEE PES Winter Meeting &Tesla Symposi um, New York, N.Y., January 25-30,
1976. Manuscript submitted August 29, 1975; made available for printing Novem-
ber 3.1975.
Dr. F. S. Manuel
Supervi si ng Structural Engi neer
The design of cai ssons to resist lateral l oads
and bending has gradually evolved from the rule-of-
thumb methods, to the wre sophi sti cated methods cur-
rentl y employed. An excel l ent revi ew of avai l abl e
l i terature on the subj ect was presented by Davisson
and Prakashl. More recent developments were reviewed
by TengZ.
Test results on ful l y i nstrumented cai ssons sub-
j ected to lateral l oads were reported by Davisson and
Salley3 and by Reese and Welch4.
The purpose of this paper is to present a rela-
ti vel y si mpl e procedure for desi gni ng cai sson founda-
ti ons subj ected to lateral l oads i n mul ti -l ayered
soi l s. Factors affecti ng foundati on behavi or vlll be
discussed. The concept of uti l i zi ng the complete
i nteracti on of superstructure, foundation and sup-
porti ng soi l to opti mi ze the desi gn of the enti re
structure wi l l be i l l ustrated by an example. The re-
sul ts of l ateral load tests on a prototype cai sson
conducted by Teng and Associ ates under the di recti on
of W.C. Nei l l y of the Fl ori da Power and Light Company
wi l l be presented.
GWERAL ASSUMPTIONS
The method of anal ysi s wi l l be restri cted wi thi n
the framework of the following assumptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The lateral soi l stress (or the stress- strai n
rel ati onshi p) at a parti cul ar depth is a func-
ti on of the soi l property and the defl ecti on of
the foundati on at that poi nt;
The foundation is very ri gi d compared to the
surroundi ng soi l ;
The ef f ect of the base reacti on i s assumed to
be negl i gi bl e;
The soi l condi ti ons are not si gni fi cantl y al-
tered by the constructi on procedure; and
The concrete strength and the bond strength of
the rebars are not si gni fi cantl y affected by
constructi on.
FOUNDATION BEBAVIOR
The response of a ri gi d cai sson subj ected to
lateral l oads are i nfl uenced pri mari l y by (a) the ma-
terial properti es of the surroundi ng soi l (s) and the
foundati on; (b) the nature of the appl i ed l oads, and
(c) procedures used i n the constructi on of the foun-
dati on,
Soil-Foundation I nteraction
A commonly accepted method of i ncorporati ng the
1435
http://www.libsou.com
soil- foundation compatibility relations in the ana-
lysis of rigid or elastic caisson foundations is the
use of the subgrade modulus concept. The predicted
results using this concept in the analysis of rigid
foundations are in reasonable agreement with results
obtained from instrumented piles subjected to lateral
loads for a stress range within half of the ultimate
tesistance of the soil.
1. Concept of the Soil Modulus
Fig.1 (a) shows a structure with a caisson foun-
dation subjected to a force Q. Fig. 1 (b) shows the
displaced positions of the caisson centerline as Q
is increased. Fig. 1 (c) shows a plot of the soil
reaction p (force/unit length of caisson), and Fig.
1 (d) shows typical plots of p vs. y (the transverse
displacement of the caisson centerline) at different
depths. In Fig. 1 (e) , for low values of p, the p-y
relationship can be reasonably expressed by the tan-
gent modulus while for larger values of p, a secant
modulus would be more appropriate. The slope of the
tangent or the secant given by
k =ply (1)
Displaced Podtian I
A Displaced Posltlon 2
o Ms dac d Position 3
kIsD
0 Y
Soil Reaction
vs.
Displacement
(d 1
Typical Soil Reaction
vs.
Displacement
(e)
FIGURE 1- CAISSON SUBJ ECTED TO LATERAL LOAD
1436
will be called the subgrade modulus. If a reason-
able variation of k (as a function of the depth) is
assumed then the soil-foundation interaction can be
analyzed as a member in an elastic foundation.
An inspection of Fig. 1 (e) shows that, the sub-
grade modulus, whether tangent or secant modulus, is
a function of the depth. A commonly accepted varia-
tiodwith depth is as follows:
k, = K (z/L ) (2)
where k, is the subgrade modulus at depth 2, K is the
subgrade modulus at depth L, n=an empirical constant.
For preloaded clay several investigators consider a
value of n - 0 while for nonnally loaded clay and
sand the value for n is taken equal to unity. There-
fore
k, = K (3a)
for a caisson in clay and
k, = nhZ (3b)
for a caisson in sand, where nh is the constant of
horizontal subgrade reaction which is equal to K/L.
Values of K for claysland nh for sands6are as follows
TABLE I
Value of Subgrade Modulus K (kg/cm2>
qu (kg/cm2) Range of K Recornended K
1-2 33-65 49
2-4 65-98 98
>4 >130 196
TABLE I1
Reconanended Value of nh (kg/cm3)
Loose Medium Dense
m-Jr 0.22 0.67 1.80
Submerged 0.13 0.45 1.09
Using the recommended values of K and nh,gener-
ally yield results which often are on the conserva-
tive side.
Because of the nonlinear nature of the p - y
curve (Fig. le), assuming a constant value of K will
yield displacements that are grossly in error when p
is much greater than say 113 to 112 of its ultimate
value. It is therefore clear that in order to have
a w r e realistic understanding of the caisson-soil
response for the entire loading range that the non-
linear nature of the p - y curve must be taken into
account.
A method for predicting p-y curves has been sug-
gested by Reese and Welch4 but because of the paucity
of results from properly instrumented full-scale
tests on caissons subjected to lateral loads this
method remains to be validated further.
2. Criteria for Rigid Foundations
In view of assumption 2 the deflected configura-
tion of the caisson can be defined by two displace-
ment parameters. It is quite obvious that the as-
sumption remains valid only within a limited range
of LI D ratios and soil stiffnesses.
http://www.libsou.com
For a caisson embedded in an el ast i c medi um
wher e t he val ue of k i s const ant ( n=O) t he f ol l owi ng
cr i t er i on1 f or r i gi df t y has been suggest ed:
L/(EI/K)'I4 5 2 (4)
wher e E1 i s t he f l exur al r i gi di t y of t he cai sson.
For a cai sson embedded i n an el ast i c medi um
wher e k, vari es l i nearl y ( n = I) t he f ol l owi ng r i gi d-
i t y cri t eri on has been suggest ed:
L/ (EI / nh)l I 5 5 2 (5)
A cr i t er i on f or r i gi di t y of a cai sson embedded
i n a mul t i - l ayer ed medi um wher e k, i s const ant i n
each l ayer has been suggest ed by Di Gi oi a7 et al .
Except f or very smal l val ues of e/ L ( see Fi g. 1 (a))
usi ng a const ant val ue of K i n Eq. 4 f or mul t i - l ayer-
ed soi l does not i nt r oduce ver y si gni f i cant er r or s i n
t he resul t s.
The r i gi di t y cr i t er i on i s sat i sf i ed, i n gener al ,
when LI D< 8 except i n very poor soi l s.
Types of Lat eral Forces
Lat er al f or ces i nsof ar as t hei r ef f ect i n f ound-
at i on behavi or may be cl assi f i ed as ei t her st at i c
whi ch i ncl udes short - t i me and l ong- t i me l oadi ngs, or
r epet i t i ve. Loads wi t h ver y shor t dur at i on or ver y
smal l probabi l i t y of appl i cat i on woul d requi re smal l -
er over l oad f act or s. Regar dl ess of t he soi l t ype,
i n gener al , r epet i t i ve l oadi ng causes def l ect i ons t o
i ncrease progressi vel y whi ch woul d be i ndi cat i ve of
a r educt i on i n t he soi l modul us.
1. Repet i t i ve Loadi ng i n Gr anul ar Soi l s
Ful l - scal e t est of a dri l l ed cai sson i n sand by
Davi sson and Sal l ey4 i ndi cat es t hat 100 cycl es of
l oadi ng caused t he def l ect i on t o doubl e and t he bend-
i ng moment t o i ncrease up t o 50% of t he f i rst l oad
appl i cat i on ( or t he short - t i me st at i c l oadi ng) . Reese8
r epor t s t hat r epet i t i ve l oadi ng r educes t he soi l r e-
si st ance drast i cal l y i n shal l ow dept h. At t he ground
sur f ace, t he r esi st ance was r educed t o about 113 of
t he st at i c val ue. Bel ow a dept h of 3- 4 di amet ers,
t he soi l r esi st ance r emai ns al most t he same f or bot h
st at i c and cycl i c l oadi ngs.
2. Repet i t i ve Loadi ng i n Sof t Cl ay
Mat l ock9 report s t hat f or a pi l e i n sof t cl ay
subj ect ed t o several cycl es of a gi ven l at eral l oad,
t he soi l r esi st ance was f ound t o r educe t o zer o at
t he ground surf ace, and t o a f ract i on of i t s st at i c
resi st ance at great er dept hs. For l arge def l ect i ons
t her e i s a cont i nual and pr ogr essi ve det er i or at i on
i n r esi st ance as cycl i ng cont i nues, unt i l a mi ni mum
val ue i s r eached.
3. Repet i ve Loadi ng i n Har d Cl ays
Ther e i s a pauci t y of i nf or mat i on and/ or exper i -
ment al r esul t s on l oad def l ect i on char act er i st i cs of
f oundat i ons i n st i f f cl ays, hard cl ays and sof t rocks.
St i f f cl ays possess possi bl e f i ssures, and because of
t he f i ssur es, t hei r r esi st ance may det er i or at e r api d-
l y upon cycl i c l oadi ng.
4. Long- Ti me Loadi ng
Sust ai ned st at i c l oad on gr anul ar soi l shoul d
not i ncrease def l ect i on by a si gni f i cant amount . Long
t i me l oadi ng on cohesi ve soi l s, however, wi l l i ncrease
t he def l ect i on due t o consol i dat i on and cr eep. To
account f or t hese, t he r educt i on f act or s on soi l mod-
ul us have been suggest ed: For nor mal l y consol i dat ed
cl ays, r educe t he soi l modul us t o 116-113. For st i f f
and hard cl ays reduce t he soi l modul us t o 114- 112. I t
shoul d be poi nt ed out t hat t he val ues of K i n Tabl e I
are conservat i ve and can be presumed t o i ncl ude con-
sol i dat i on under l ong t i me l oadi ng.
I nf l uence of Const ruct i on Procedures
1. Gr anul ar Soi l s
For gr anul ar soi l s, casi ng or dri l l i ng f l ui d i s
of t en requi red t o prevent cavi ng of t he excavat ed
hol e, par t i cul ar l y when dr i l l i ng bel ow gr ound wat er
t abl e. General l y t he dri l l i ng operat i on has no i l l
ef f ect unl ess proper const ruct i on procedures are not
mai nt ai ned,
Test s by Reesel O i ndi cat e t hat usi ng bent oni t e
dri l l i ng mud has no si gni f i cant ef f ect on t he axi al
l oad capaci t y of dri l l ed cai ssons. I t may be i nf erred
t hat t he l at eral resi st ance of t he soi l is not al so
si gni f i cant l y af f ect ed. However , l i mi t ed exper i ence
has i ndi cat ed si gni f i cant reduct i on i n shear st rengt h
of cal careous sand.
2. Cohesi ve Soi l s
Cohesi ve soi l s near t he sur f ace of t he hol e may
change moi st ur e cont ent dur i ng const r uct i on. Fi el d
measur ement s i ndi cat ed moi st ur e i ncr eases r angi ng
f rom 1. 5 t o 9. 0%, and t he af f ect ed zone rangi ng f rom
1 to 2 i n. (2. 5 to 5. 0 cm) i n thi ckness.
Ther ef or e, i t is very i mport ant t o l i mi t t he t i me
f or dri l l i ng and f or concret e pl acement . I n normal
cases, dri l l i ng t i me can be kept i n t he range of 1 t o
1. 5 mi nut es f or each f oot (0. 3h) of dept h once t he
ri g i s set t o proceed. Longer t i me woul d be needed
f or great er dept hs. I f possi bl e, t he t i me l apse be-
t ween dri l l i ng and concret e pl acement be kept l ess
t han 112 hour. The engi neer shoul d make al l owance i n
hi s desi gn i f undue del ays are ant i ci pat ed.
3.
Al t hough dri l l i ng operat i ons do not af f ect t he
st r engt h char act er i st i cs of har d r ocks, sof t r ocks
can be af f ect ed i n si mi l ar manner as cohesi ve soi l s.
I f dri l l i ng mud f orms a cake- l i ke l ayer on t he rock
sur f ace, t hi s l ayer woul d cause addi t i onal movedent
when subj ect ed t o l at er al pr essur e.
DESI GN CONSI DERATI ONS
A f oundat i on subj ect ed t o l at eral l oadi ng must
be desi gned such t hat (1) t he soi l st r esses, wi l l not
exceed t hei r ul t i mat e val ues and (2) the f oundati on
movement wi l l not be excessi ve. The f oundat i on move-
ment i n t hi s cont ext consi st s of hori zont al di spl ace-
ment and rot at i on ( or t i l t i ngl of t he t op of t he f oun-
dat i on.
For st at i cal l y det er mi nat e st r uct ur es, smal l
f oundat i on movement s asi de f r om t hei r ef f ect s on t he
aest het i cs of t he st ruct ure are not usual l y obj ec-
t i onabl e si nce t he st resses i n t he superst ruct ure are
har dl y, i f at al l , af f ect ed. An except i on woul d be
t he case where a st ruct ure i s f ai rl y l i mber or one
whi ch suppor t s l ar ge ver t i cal l oads i n whi ch case t he
secondary st resses due t o t he so cal l ed P-A ef f ect
can no l onger be negl ect ed. I t i s common pract i ce
wi t h most ut i l i t y compani es t o desi gn f oundat i ons f or
t r ansmi ssi on l i ne st r uct ur es f or st r engt h at ul t i mat e
143 7
http://www.libsou.com
l oad onl y. Ot hers desi gn for bot h st rengt h at ul t i -
mat e l oad and di spl acement s at worki ng l oad.
Desi gn of Ri gi d Cai sson f or St rengt h
The ul t i mat e st r engt h of a l at er al l y l oaded r i -
gi d cai sson in a si ngl e l ayer soi l may be pr edi ct ed
usi ng t he soi l st ress di st ri but i on due t o Broms. 11* l 2
Fi gure 2 ( a) shows t he i ni t i al and t he di spl aced con-
f i gur at i on of a ri gi d cai sson wi t h embedded l engt h L
subj ect ed t o a t ransverse l oad Qu appl i ed at a di s-
t ance e above t he ground surf ace. Fi gure 2(b) shows
t he di st r i but i on of soi l pr essur e i n cohesi ve soi l
(cl ay). Fi g. 2 (c) shows the di stri buti on i n cohe-
si onl ess soi l . Denot i ng t he di amet er of t he cai sson
by D, t he undrai ned shear st rengt h of cl ay by C, t he
Ranki ne passi ve pressure coef f i ci ent of sand by Kp
and i t s ef f ect i ve uni t wei ght by G equi l i bri um con-
si derat i ons yei l d t he f ol l owi ng equat i on:
f or a cai sson i n cohesi ve soi l and
QU/ %Dk =0 . 5 (LI D+e/ D)
f or a cai sson i n granul ar soi l .
FI GURE 2- RI GI D CAI SSON AT ULTI MATE LOAD
Mat l ock9 suggest s a sl i ght l y di f f erent soi l re-
act i on di st ri but i on on t he upper port i on of a pi er i n
cohesi ve soi l at ul t i mat e l oad as shown i n Fi g. 2(d).
For desi gn, Qu ( l at er al l oad at ul t i mat e condi t i on)
i s gi ven and L i s requi red and vi ce versa f or anal y-
si s. Nomographs of Equat i ons ( 6a) and ( 6b) usi ng t he
di mensi onl ess par amet er s LI D, e/ Dand Qu/ CD2 f or
cai sson i n cohesi ve soi l and Qu/ %D3G f or cai sson i n
cohesi onl ess soi l can be readi l y const ruct ed. Shears
and bendi ng moment s f or t he desi gn of rei nf orci ng can
be cal cul at ed readi l y. An excel l ent monogr aph13 t ab-
ul at es val ues f or D, t he area of st eel rei nf orci ng,
t he embedment l engt h et c. f or di f f erent val ues of e,
t he ground l i ne moment and t he vari ous soi l parame-
t ers.
Desi gn of Ri gi d Cai sson f or Li mi t ed Di spl acement s
Fi gur e 3(a) shows a ri gi d cai sson embedded i n
mul t i - l ayered, soi l subj ect ed t o a t ransverse l oad Qg
and moment Q at t he grade l i ne. Denot e t he dept hs
t o t he t op and t o t he bot t om of l ayer i by zi and
zi +l respect i vel y, t he dept h coordi nat e by 2, t he
cor r espondi ng t r anver se di spl acement by y and t ake
t he or i gi n of coor di nat es as shown i n Fi g.3(b). Si nce
t he cai sson i s r i gi d, i t s di spl acement can be def i ned
I
(a) (b)
FI GURB 3- RI GI D CAISSON I N MULTI LAYERED- SOI L
by t he t ransverse di spl acement at ground l i ne yg and
t he angul ar di spl acement s as f ol l ows:
y =yg - z t an 8 (7)
The soi l r eact i on pi at l ayer i i s obt ai ned by i nt ro-
duci ng Eq. 3 and Eq. 7 i nto Eq. 1. Thi s l eads t o
when
when
i on
pi =K (yg - z t an s) (8a)
l ayer i i s cohesi ve ( cl ay) ; and
pi = nh z (yg - z t an s) (8b)
l ayer i is granul ar (sand).
The t ot al hor i zont al f or ce exer t ed by t he l ayer
t he cai sson i s:
Qi =f Zi +1 pi dz ( 94
zi
The moment K of Qi about t he gr ound l i ne i s:
Zi +l
K E f Zi @i d2 (9b)
Suppose t hat t he bot t om of t he cai sson i n t he
mt h lay&. Then equi l i br i um consi der at i ons f or t he
cai sson l ead t o:
m- 1 L
m-1 L
and Mg = Z + I pmzdz
i =l 'rn-1
Eq. 10 i s a syst em of t wo l i near equat i ons i n yg and
s in t erms of L, t he dept h zi , i = 1, 2, ... m- 1, t he
subgr ade modul us K f or t he di f f er ent cohesi ve l ayer s
and t he const ant of subgrade react i on nh f or t he di f -
f erent granul ar l ayers.
The requi red embedment L f or gi ven Q , M , soi l
propert i es and al l owabl e di spl acement s is obt ai ned by
assumi ng L and sol vi ng Eq. 10 f or yg and 8 . L i s i n-
1438
http://www.libsou.com
creased by increments until a value is obtained that
will satisfy the allowable displacement requirements.
Once the value of L is fixed, shear Q and bend-
ing moment M at any point along the caisson can be
calculated as follows:
Q Qg - J P h (1la)
M =Mg - Jpzdz (11b)
Computer Program for Caisson in Multi-Layered Soil
A computer program for the analysis of a rigid
caisson in multi-layered soil was developed by Teng 6
Associates, Inc. using the concepts and procedures
developed in this paper.
For given values of Qg, %, Yg, s and the rele-
vant soil parameters the program determines the mini-
mum embedment length required (to the nearest foot)
and the bending moments at different sections along
the axis of the caisson. It can also be used to de-
termine the displacements and the bending moments of
a caisson of given length subjected to given values
and ng. This
second feature is very useful
vestigating an existing caisson and for deter-
mining the stiffness (spring constant) of a given
foundation.
Foundation for Indeterminate Structures
sir%
For statically indeterminate structures, foun-
dation displacements do affect the stresses in the
superstructures. A ccmrmon assumption made in the
analysis of the superstructure is that the founda-
tions are unyielding. This support condition is sel-
dom, if ever, realized in practice.
A more realistic approach to the design of such
structures would be to analyze the system as a whole.
Various structural analysis programs permit the use
of elastic supports. The designer is thus confronted
with the problem of selecting suitable values for the
necessary spring constants to be used to model the
foundation. It is possible, by using the subgrade
modulus concept, to arrive at fairly realistic values
of the required spring constants.
With a capability to analyze the total structure
the designer can optimize the total cost of the su-
perstructure and the foundation by trying different
combinations. It should be pointed out that very
rigid or unyielding foundations are not only unecon-
omical but also for some structures are unnecessary.
DESI GN EXAMPLE
This example will illustrate the method develop-
ed in the paper to select a foundation for the hypo-
thetical structure shown in Fig. 4 (a). The analysis
of the trial foundations were all performed using the
caisson computer program mentioned. For the sake of
brevity, the actual design and selection of the cais-
son reinforcing, the choice of the caisson diameter
and other related details will not be discussed.
The superstructure and the foundation will be
analyzed as a system in which the foundation will be
replaced by equivalent springs. The model used in
the analysis is shown in Fig. 4 (b). Five different
analysis using STRESS (a computer program for linear
Model for Analysis
(b)
FIGURE 4- DESI GN EXAMPLE
Loose to
Medium Sand
N=IO.n,,=IO
Dense Sand
1 k' bf/f+2
201
Assumed Soil Profiie
(C 1
143 9
http://www.libsou.com
a
1 I 1 1 1 I 1 ,s
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 30
Stiffness [ kl bf /m) 94%
#I kbf 34.46kN WI klbf/in= 1.76kNl tm
FIGURE 5- EORIZONTAL REACTION VS. STIFFNESS
stress analysis of framed structures) were performed
using a different value of foundation stiffness (hor-
izontal spring constant) each time namely S - 24.65,
12.32, 6.16, 2.42 and 1283 all in klbflin (S =43.4,
21.7, 10.8, 4.26 and 2260 kN/cm). The last value re-
presents the spring constant for a very rigid (fixed)
support. A constant value of the vertical spring con-
stant S, = 2900 klbflin (5104 kN/cm) was used.
Fig. 5 shows the variation of the horizontal re-
action R with s. Table 111 shows the variation of
the forces in members a, b, c and d (see Fig. 4 6))
with S.
TABLE 111
Support Stiffness Vs. Member Force
Stiffness Member Force (klbf)**
klbf/in* a b C d
2.42 +113 -148 -18.7 +33.5
6.12 +116 -145 -21.7 +30.5
12.32 +118 -i43 -24.1 +28.1
24.65 +120 -141 -26.0 +26.2
1283. +123 -138 -29.0 +23.2
*1 klbflin = 1.79 kN/cm **1 klbf =4.46 k3
Once the R vs. S diagram is dravn,then the foun-
dations can be selected. The subsurface conditions
are s h m in Fig. 4 (c) along with the assmed values
of K and nh to use in the design.Four different cais-
son foundations were analyzed with embedment lengths
of 17, 15, 13 and 11 ft. (5.18, 4.57, 3.96 and 3.35m),
respectively using the caisson computer program. The
foundation stiffnesses obtained were 26.1, 20.3, 14.7
h 9.74 klbflin (45.9, 35.7, 25.9 and 17.1 kN/cm) re-
spectively. These values are plotted in Fig. 5. The
horizontal displacement a of a 'support is given by:
Dh =RI S (12)
The horizontal displacements of the right sup-
port for a 17 ft, 13 ft and 11 ft (5.18, 3.96 and
3.35~1) caisson are respectively 0.86, 1.5 and 2.2 in
tions of 22.4, 22.1 and 21.8 klbf (99.9, 98.6 and
(2.2, 3.8 and 5.6 cm) corresponding to support reac-
97.2 W).
The maximum bending moments for the caissons are
respectively 136, 119 and 107 klbf.ft (185, 162, and
146 kN.m). Inspection of Table I11 shows that the
change in member forces in the most highly stressed
members (members a and b) is small in going from very
rigid to very flexible support conditions. The change
in the forces for members c and d are more pronounced
but it can be concluded in this case, that the struc-
ture with the very flexible supports will sot sub-
stantially cost more than the one with very rigid
supports. However, the same cannot be said about the
foundations.
The 11 ft (3.35m) caisson would be the most
economical choice but the displacement of 2.2 in (5.6
cm) is excessive. The 13 ft (3.96m) caisson is a
better choice since the 1.5 in (3.8cm) displacement
may be considered reasonable. The final choice must
of course be also checked for uplift resistance.
FULL SCALE LOAD TEST
A series of tests on two drilled caisson founda-
tions designed by Teng 6 Associates, Inc. for the
Florida Power and Light Company's Andytown - Fort
Meyers 500 KV Transmission Line, were performed under
the supervision of Mr. W. C. Neilly in 1973. The
caisson foundations used in this project are designed
to support tubular steel H-frame tuvers under widely
varying soil conditions including alternating layers
of muck, loose sand, rock and clay. These caissons
are subjected to large shears and bending moments and
relatively small axial loads. Only the results for
the caisson at structqre No. 126 henceforth referred
to as No. 126 will be discussed.
A testing program was established to achieve the
following objectives:
1. Verify the engineering design assumptions with
respect to soil capacities and deflections un-
der load.
2. Determine the suitability of the contractor's
construction techniques.
The second objective will not be discussed in
this paper.
Test Procedure
A jacking caisson offset twenty feet (6.1Om)
from the test caisson was drilled and poured. The
test set up shown in Fig. 6 permits the simultaneous
application at the top of the test caisson of a bend-
ing moment, a lateral load and an uplift load.
The test loads consisting of three force compo-
nents applied to the caissons were chosen to simulate
both service and ultimate loads; the points of appli-
cation are shown in Fig. 7. The magnitudes of these
as well as the resultant moments and shears applied
to the caisson for each load case are listed in Table
IV .
TABLE IV
Test Loads - No. 126
Load Applied Loads (K)* Resultant Loads
Case F1 F2 F3 Moment (K-ft)** Shear (K)*
TL-1 15.0 14.0
-
300.0 14.0
TL-2 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 220.0 11.0
TL-3 55.5 60.0
-
1110.0 60.0
TL-4 -45.0 -44.0 -45.0 900.0 44.0
*1 K = 4.45 kN **1 K-ft = 1.36 kN.m
The displacements of the caisson were measured
1440
http://www.libsou.com
2d-Om
I
PLAN
w
DETAIL A
(C)
sixllm prp.
(dl
FIGURE 6- CAISSON TEST SET UP
I
2d (6.lOm)
1
FIGURE 7- LOADS APPLIED ON TEST CAISSON
1
Very S W Green Cky
FIGURE 8- SOIL PROFILE FOR NO. 126
by means of several dial gauges reading to 0.001 in.
(.025 mm) from which rotations and deflections at
grade could be calculated from simple geometrical
considerations. For each test, the test load was
applied in increments of 114 of the total load. Dial
gauge readings were recorded following each load in-
crement. After application of full load, the load
was released and rebound deflection was recorded.
Soil and Caisson Data
The location of No. 126 consists primarily of
layers of sand and clay with no rock. The subsurface
profile for No. 126 is shown in Figure 8.
The caisson had a 3.5 ft (1.07m) shaft and a
4.5 ft (1.37m) cap diameter. The embedded length was
29.5 ft (8.99m) and the projection above ground was
1.5 ft (0.46m). The vertical reinforcing for each
caisson consisted of 14 - i l l ASTM A615 grade 60 re-
inforcing bars.
Test Results
The basic data obtained from these tests are
deflections h and rotations 9 at the top of the cais-
son. Table V lists these results.
TABLE V
Test Results for No. 126
Test Load Test Load
No. Case h(in)* Q(DEG) No. Case h(in)* B(DEG)
1 TL-1 0.081 0.050 7 TL-3 0.964 0.594
2 TL-1 0.070 0.044 8 TL-1 0.149 0.106
3 TL-2 0.053 0.031 9 TL-1 0.133 0.102
4 TL-1 0.053 0.035 10 TL-4 0.847 0.401
5 TL-2 0.031 0.026 11 TL-2 0.098 0.067
6 TL-2 0.040 0.032 12 TL-2 0.057 0.055
* 1 in = 2.54 cm
The load-displacement curve for Test No. 7 (ul-
timate design load) is shown in Fi g. 9.
1441
http://www.libsou.com
Average deflection and rotation for each test
loading case were computed and compared to those pre-
dicted for the test loads by the design method and
assumptions discussed previously. These results are
included in Table VI. The predicted values of de-
flection and rotation showed a fairly good correla-
tion with measured values for the tests. Tlie differ-
ences are prhrily due to uncertainties involved in
estimating soil parameters used in the design method,
and the stiffening effect of the wide cap at the up-
per portion of the caisson. Even with these diffi-
culties in modeling, the results compare favorably
with the test.
@- I - WK
v4 T L 4
FIGURE 9- LOAD VS. DISPLACEMWT FOR NO. 126
TABLE VI
Comparison of Measured and Predicted Deflections
Struc. Load h(in)* Q(DEG) h(in)* Q(DEG)
Test Avg.Meas. Values Pred. Values
# 126 TL-1 0.097 0.067 0.307 0.072
TL-2 0.056 0.042 0.234 0.055
TL-3 0.964 0.594 1.234 0.289
TL-4 0.847 0.401 0.945 0.222
* 1 in - 2.54cm
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A method for the analysis and design of caisson
foundations in multi-layered soils and subjected to
lateral loads has been presented. The method of
analysis is applicable to caissons with small L/D
ratios which are, commn in foundations for trans-
mission line structures.
This method provides a simple procedure for de-
termining the horizontal stiffness of a given cais-
son foundation which is an important parameter to
consider in the analysis of structures on elastic
(in contrast to fixed) supports. Fixed support con-
ditions require more expensive foundations and are
seldom realized in practice.
The judicious use of published values of K and
nh would yield very reasonable results for caisson
deflections and rotations calculated by the method
used in this paper. Further research is definitely
needed on the influence of other factors on the hori-
zontal coefficient of subgrade reaction and predic-
tion of p-y curves for caissons in multi-layered
soils.
REFERENCES
(1) M. T. Davisson and S. Prakash, "A Review of Soil
Pole Behavior , "Bighway Research Board, Record
NO. 39, pp. 25-48, 1963.
(2) W. C. Teng, "Soil Stresses for Design of Drilled
Caisson Foundations Subjected to Lateral Forces"
Seminar Proceedings, Lateral Soil Pressures Gen-
erated by Pipes, Piles, Tunnels, Caissons,"Spon-
sered by ASCE Dayton Section, February, 1975.
(3) M. T. Davisson and J. R. Salley, "Lateral Load
Tests on Drilled Piers," ASTM STP 444, 1969.
(4) L. Reese and R. Welch, "Lateral Loading of Deep
Foundations in Stiff Clay," ASCE Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division," Vol. 101,
NO. GT7, July 1975, pp. 633-649.
(5) L. A. Palmer and J. B. Thompson,"The Earth Pres-
sure Along Embedded Length on Piles Subjected
to Lateral Thrust, "Proccedings, Second Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Volume V, 1948, p. 156.
(6) K. Terzaghi, "Evaluation of Coefficients of Sub-
grade Reaction, "Geotechnique 5, 1955, pp. 297-
326.
(7) A. M. MGioia et al, "A Multi-Layered/Pressure-
meter Approach to Laterally Loaded Rigid Caisson
Design", Seminar Proceedings, Lateral Soil Pres-
sures Generated by Pipes, Piles, Tunnels, Cais-
sons," Sponsored by ASCE Dayton Section, Febru-
ary, 1975.
(8) L. C. Reese et al, "Analysis of Laterally Loaded
Piles in Sand," presented at the 1974, Sixth
Annual Offshore Technology Conference held at
Houston, Texas.
(9) H. Matlock,"Correlations for Design of Laterally
Loaded Piles in Soft Clay," presented at the
1970, Second Annual Offshore Technology Confer-
ence.
(10) L. C. Reese et al, "Bored Piles Installed by
Slurry Displacement," 8th International Confer-
ence of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Moscow, 1973.
(11) B. B. Broms, "Lateral Resistance of Piles in
Cohesive Soils," ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Proceeding 3835,March
1974, pp. 27-63.
(12) B. B. Broms, "Lateral Resistance of Piles in
Cohesionless Soils," ASCE Journal of Soil Mech-
anics and Foundations Division, Proceeding 3909
May, 1964, pp. 123-156.
(13) "Tapered Steel Poles Caisson Foundation Design",
Prepared for the United States Steel by Teng d
Associates, Inc.
1442
http://www.libsou.com
Discussion
J. B. Fit& (New Orleans Public SeMce Inc., New Orleans, LA): The
authors' have made an excellent presentation in the limited space avail-
able of the state of the art of the design of deep drilled foundations for
electric transmission structures. Although the bulk of the paper is
the earth and the testing of a full size foundation for such movements,
devoted to the calculation of the movement of the loaded foundation in
the subject of ultimate strength of such foundations is touched upon
briefly and the observation is made, or implied, that it is common
practice in some utilities to design for ultimate strength only. The use
of ultimate strength as the sole criteria is defensible when the structure
is insensitive to foundation movement and when there is adequate
knowledge of the foundation behavior under load and of the meteoro-
logical conditions responsible for the load.
ultimate
pressure distribution for
a laterally loaded
pole
foundation in
In Figure 2(b) the authors' have shown the well known Broms
clay. The paper would have been more complete had they pointed out
the limitation in this pressure distribution. It is considerably in error for
low values of the L/D ratio, such as are common for pole foundations,
because of Broms replacement of the varying pressures near the ground
surface with the simplification of assuming zero pressure down to one
and one half diameters.
In Figure 2(d), they show a more realistic pressure distribution
which overcomes the limitation mentioned above for the Broms simpli-
fication. However, it too appears to be in error, and more dangerously
s o , since the value of pressure of 3CD at the ground surface was arrived
at by Matlock by a rather dubious procedure. He observed that the
ground surface lateral pressure for a flat plate would be 2CD and that for
a square pile would be 4CD because of the resistance to translation
afforded by adhesion of the clay to the sides. Hethen concluded that
for a cylindrical pile the appropriate value should be intermediate
between these or 3CD. Analysis suggests that the proper value is 2CD.
no mention is made of the applicability of the Broms ultimate pressure
Finally, although the paper deals with design in multilayered soils,
concepts to multilayered soils. The authors comments on this would be
a welcome inclusion in the closure to the paper.
Fig. 1. Schematic Diagram of Pressuremeter Apparatus
Manuscript received February 17,1976.
1. 00(
A. M. DiGioia, Jr., T. D. Donovan, and H. L. Davidson (CAI Consultants,
Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania): The authors are to be congratulated
for presenting valuable test data on the lateral load behavior of a prote
type caisson. As they noted, the s c ar c i t y of such data makes evaluation
of analytical models difficult.
Perhaps the most difficult problem in foundation design is the
selection of design parameters (strength and stiffness parameters) for
soil and/or rock. The authors have presented stiffness parameters (coef-
ficient of horizontal subgrade modulus) for cohesive and granular soils
in Tables I and 11. Although these parameters may be sufficiently
accurate for many applications, more accurate design parameters can be
been utilized in recent years to determine strength and stiffness
param-
obtained viain situ testing. In this regard
pressuremeter testing (2) has
eters for soil and rock. In practice, a pressuremeter test is performed by
inserting a radially expandable, cylindrical probe into a previously drill-
ed borehole at a preselected interval. The probe, shown schematically in
Fig. 1, is expanded incrementally against the sides of the borehole with
a combination of liquid and gas pressure. The expansion of the central
section of the probe approximates the conditions of plane strain, so
that the soil or rock deformation can beanalyzed as a two-dimensional
problem in a radial plane. The pressure increments are continued until
z
la
t
I
B
k-
n E I<
u-
0 -
5
0
failure of the soil or rock is reached. By plotting the pressure-volume
the modulus of deformation (ED) is obtained from the pseudo-elastic
(P-V) response of the soil or rock, a P-V curveis obtained from which
(linear) range of the material. The pressure at the upper limit of the
and the ultimate pressure sustained by the material at failure (Limit
pseudo-elastic range (Creep Pressure, Pf) is determined from this curve
Pressure, PL) is also determined. The pressuremeter is particularly use-
ful for developing the vertical distribution of design parameters to be
'used in predicting the lateral load response of caissons.
to be used at every pole site, it may be feasible to conduct selective tests
Although pressuremeter testing is likely to remain too expensive
in order to develop correlations between design parameters and, for
route. A study of this type was conducted in 1970 for a transmission
instance, soil consistency or rock hardness over the transmission line
line in western Pennsylvania; the results of which have been reported in
reference I and are briefly summarized herein. Pressuremeter tests were
rocks. Design parameters developed from these tests are shown in Figs.
conducted in cohesive fds, residual cohesive soils, and in sedimentary
2, 3 and 4.
Manuscript received February 17,1976.
Fig. 2. Modulus of Deformation as a Function of Soil
Consistency and Rock Hardness
As indicated in these figures, the rseults from the pressuremeter tests
were correlated with fundamentai subsurface data (visual classification
of the soil and rock strata, penetrometer reading, and penetration
resistance tests).
With the exception of the limit pressure in rock, the recommended
values for modulus of deformation, creep pressure, and limit pressure
shown in Fig. 2,3, and 4, respectively, were selected so as to represent a
best visual fit to the available data. As can be Seen in Fig. 4, only a few
limit pressure data points are available in rock, and most of these points
are minimums rather than actual limit pressures. For this reason, the
limit pressure curve in rock was arbitrarily assigned the same shape as
the creep pressure curve in rock, and the magnitude of the limit pressure
was set at approximately two times the creep pressure. The limit pres-
sure curve is thus shown as a dashed line and should be treated as a ten-
tative design curve rather than a measure of actual rock limit pressures.
1443
http://www.libsou.com
Fig. 3. Creep Pressure as a Function of Soil
Consistency and Rock Hardness
SOIL CoI oI S1E*cY I ROC* HARDNESS
Fig. 4. Limit Pressure as a Function of Soil
Consistency and Rock Hardness
Utilizing Eq. 1 and the results of the pressuremeter study (Fig. 2),
nominal subgrade modulus values, for the cohesive soil consistency
ranges shown in Table I of the authors paper, are presented in Table A
below.
TABLE A
Value of Subgrade Modulus K (kg/cm2
qu W m2 ) (Teng and Manuel) (Ressuremeter Study)
Recommended K Nominal K
1-2 49 50
2 4 98 100
>4 196 200
The recommended values of K, which were first proposed by Temghi
(4) in 1955, are in remarkable agreement with the results of the pres-
suremeter study.
In our opinion the multi-layered approach to the design of caissons
represents a physically meaningful and analytically tractable alternate
to approaches based on homogeneous subsurface profiles. Homogeneous
profiles are the exception rather than the rule. The multi-layered ap
proach was developed in Ref. 1 for a caisson embedded in soil andor
rock. A computer program developed .for the multi-layered model dis-
cussed in Ref. 1 was used by the writers to analyze the test caisson
presented by the authors. The clay was assigned a modulus of deforma-
tion of 1.2 ksi (based upon the previously discussed pressuremeter data)
while Schmertmanns(3) correlation between Standard Penetration Re-
sistance (blow count) and modulus of deformation was usedto assign a
value of ED =2.1 ksi to the sand. The predicted deflections at the top
of the caisson were approximately 12 percent less than the analytical
predictions of Teng and Manuel.
Regarding rigidity criteria, the authors suggest that if L / X 8 the
rigidity criteria win be satisfied except in very poor soils. However, the
rigidity criteria equations imply just the opposite, that is, for a given
caisson geometry the stiffer the soil the greater the deviation from rigid
behavior. This is particularly the case for caissons embedded in rock
since the modulus of deformation of the rock may approach that of the
concrete.
Finally, would the authors clarify the test data in their closure. Is
the deflection (h) measured from a fixeddatum or is it relative to the
most recent unloaded position of the caisson. It would also behelpful if
the authors were to provide the rebound deflection following each test.
Based upon a private communication with the authors, it is our under-
standing that considerable permanent set was observed following the
initial test for each load case, that is, considerable plastic deformation of
the soil occurred. Would the authors also comment on the relationship
between the test loads, the working loads of the caisson foundation,
and the ultimate capacity of the caisson foundation.
REFERENCES
DiCioia, A. M., J r., Donovan, T. D. and Cortese, F. J ., A Multi-
Layered/Ressuremeter Approach to Laterally Loaded Rigid Caisson
Design, presented at: Seminar on Lateral Pressures Related to
Ohio, February 1975.
Large Diameter Pipes, Files, Tunnels and Caissons, ASCE, Dayton,
Menard, L., Rules for the Calculation of Bearing Capacity and
Foundation Settlement Based on Pressuremeter Tests, Proceed-
ings, 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
t wn Engineering, Montreal, 1965, Vol. 2, pp. 295-299 (for the
English translation see TL 159, Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory, 1972).
Over Sand, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundatwm Divi-
Schmertmann, J . H., Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement
sion, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM3, May 1970, pp. 1011-1043.
Terzaghi, K., Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction,
Geotechnique, Vol. 5 , 1955, pp. 297-326.
authors have done, the soil stiffness must beexpressed in terms of the
In order to utilize a Winkler type spring model for the soil, as the
coeffkient of lateral subgrade reaction (K). Tenaghi (4) has proposed
a relationship between K and ED as follows:
(1)
K = B
1.35
W. C. Teng and F. S. Maimel: The authors are gratified with the interest
expressed in the discussion of the paper and hope that more papers on
the subjec$ of caissons subjected to lateral loads will be published in the
future.
Manuscript received Apnl5,1916.
1444
http://www.libsou.com
The authors wish to thank Messrs. DiGioia, Donovan and Davidson
for pointing out the incorrectly expressed rigidity criterion. The state-
ment should read as follows:
The rigidity criterion is satisfied, in general,
when L/D <8 except in very good soils or
especially in bed rock.
M m . DiGioia, Donovan and Davidson, aside from verifying the values
of K given in Table I, have extended considerably the usefulness of the
proposed method by publishing values of the modulus of deformation
(from which K can bereadily obtained by simple calculation) for various
rocks, determined by pressure meter studies. However, because of the
nature of a transmission line project, the use of the presure meter
method for determining subgrade moduli even for a few selected sites
may be difficult to justify.
opinion
and hope that an extensive study be undertaken to determine
In view of the scarcity of data for both K and nh it is the authors
accurately the in-situ values of the subgrade modulus for both cohesive
and granular soils. The results of such a study should be aimed to
develop the correlations between the subgrade moduli and the com-
monly used soil parameters such as unconfined compressive strength,
standard penetration count, relative density, etc.
For the sake of brevity, detailed information was omitted from
the presentation of the caisson test. Displacements (h and 8 ) shown in
Table V were measured relative to the most recent unloaded position of
the caisson. Table VI1 below shows the values of the rebound dh and dB
for the different tests. Rebound in this context is defined as the dis-
TABLE VI1
Rebound ofr No. 126
dh =rebound for h; dB =rebound for 0
Test Load Test Load
No. Case dh (in)* dB (DEG) No. Case dh (in)* dB (DEG)
2 TL-I 0.066 0.037 8 TL-1 0.151 0.109
1 TL-1 0.050 0.037 7 TL-3 0.768 0.456
..... . ~.
TL-2 0.032 0.025 9 TL-1 0.122 0.113
. ~~~
4 TL-1 0.050 0.046 10 TL-4 0.510 0.304
5 TL-2 0.028 0.034 11 TL-2 0.035 0.058
6 TL-2 0.040 0.031 12 TL-2 0.017 0.068
* 1 in. = 2.54 cm.
Note that the rebound m e was incorrectly shown in Fig. 9. It should intersect t he h axis
at h = 0.1%.
placement recovered subsequent to removal of the test load. It was
measured by taking readings of the three gages used for measuring h and
0 at one minute intervals after removal of the test load. The values
tabulated were those calculated from readings obtained after all three
gages did not register a change of more than 0.001 in. (.00254 cm.) for
at least one minute. The values of dh and dB are all absolute values.
The magnitudes of the test loads are given in Table IV. The
maximum bending moment induced on the caisson by test load TL-3
was approximately 11 per cent higher than the maximum moment
induced by the ultimate design loads. The ultimate capacity of the
foundation is governed either by the structural strength of the caisson
or by strength of the surrounding soil. Judging from the displacements
obtained, it is highly unlikely that test load TL-3, applied during Test
around the caisson. It is more probable that the maximum bending
No. 7, is anywhere close to the load that would cause failure of the eil
moment induced on the caisson by TL-3 was closeto the yield moment
of the caisson cross section.
The deffition of the working load of the foundation is a moot
point since it depends on many factors, among which are the magni-
Me, the type and the duration of the applied loads. The test caisson
was a prototype foundation for a tangent tubular H-frame structure,
hence the lateral loads on the actual foundation will be primarily due to
wind and less due to gravity. The matter of defining the w o r k load is
further complicated by the fact that the foundation is not elastic and
even at low stress levels some irrecoverable deformation on soil is
induced.
concerning the use of ultimate strength as the sole criterion for the
The authors are in complete agreement with Mr. Fitchs statement
design of the foundation.
The authors are quite aware that the use of Broms pressure dis-
tribbtion for caissons in cohesive soil could be in significant error for
small values of L/D. However, neglecting the contribution of the top
portion of the supporting medium can be justified considering that that
portion of the stratum is usually disturbed during construction and is
also subject to frost damage, erosion, shrinkage and weathering. The
question of whether the pressure near the surface is 0,2C or 3C is debat-
able. Indeed, it is conceivable that the pressure could be higher than
these values if the displacement at the top is sufficiently large.
tems, Assumption No. 1 is utilized. Under this assumption the ultimate
To extend the application of Broms method to multi-layer sys-
resistance of each layer is defined. The designer must determine the
point of rotation such that the applied forces together with the soil re-
sistance (active and passive) are in equilibrium. In such cases, however,
the simplified procedure of assuming a single concentrated force at the
bottom of the caisson in granular soil should not beused.
Finally, the authors would like to point out that Broms method
ignores the effect of base shear. In caissons subjected to large base
reaction, this method would undoubtedly yield a design on the conser-
vative side.
1445
http://www.libsou.com