Scribd
Upload
218 views

9 Designers Guide To en 1997 1 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design General Rules

EC7_design Guide

Uploaded by

Peteris Skels
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
218 views

9 Designers Guide To en 1997 1 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design General Rules

EC7_design Guide

Uploaded by

Peteris Skels
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6
CHAPTER 6, SPREAD FOUNDATIONS ‘Table 6.4. ULS structural design results for the three Design Approaches Pad dimension, My Design Approach Vo kN) Bim) (KN vim) DAL ‘Combination | 470 185 59 ‘Combination 2 361 185 Not relevant DA2 470 195 39 DA3 470 215 89 Example 6.2: ULS design of spread foundation for a tower Introduction ‘This is an example of footing design by the direct method and using the sample ULS analysis given in Annex D. The ULS bearing capacity calculations are performed for persistent and transient design situations using the three Design Approaches. The checking of the serviceability limit state should be done by calculating the settlement and the rocking of the footing; these calculations are, however, not presented in this example. Description of the problem ‘The footing shown in Fig. 6.10 carries a tall, ntweight structure which significant variable, horizontal loading, for example a windmill or chimney. A moment results from the horizontal load which is applied to the structure at a point 10 m above the top of the square pad footing. The footing is 2 m deep, and rests on a dry, medium-dense critical state (constant volume) value of the angle of shearing resistance is. 2%, ‘The characteristic values of the permanent and variable actions and the points where they act on the structure are shown in the figure. A low characteristic value for the concrete ‘weight density is selected, as the permanent weight would appear to be favourable. ‘ <— 9, = 0010 po0m | 6, «6004 2m | ae 248 in? ‘Ground properties: y= 20 Kin® Fig. 6.10, Geometry, actions and ground properties for the example of a tll, lightweight structure 8B DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1997-1 Clause 6.5.3(10) 94 Table 6.5. Characteristic and design values of actions for the different Design Approaches (weight of the footing not included), The recommended values of partial factors in Table A.3 are used DAL DA-I Combination 1, DA-2,DA-3: Combination 2: setAl set A2 i Venn Yotmort Characersce wee value of action Part Design Partal Design Paral Design Action ny Symbol factor oad factor load) factor load Permanent Verte ve (135 B10 6.0 Variable Vertical % 1S 08 o 13 0 Horzontal 1 1S 450s 4501380 ‘The partial factors and design values of the actions are indicated in Table 6.5 for DA-1, DA-2and DA-3. As it is not known in advance if the vertical action G, , and the weight of the footing are favourable or unfavourable to the bearing resistance, two values for 7 in s,, = 1.28; Combination 1 —set MI, 7, = 1.0) and Table A.5 (set R/.4, = 1.0). For all cases analysed in this example the basic requirement V,, to R/A’. The recommended resistance Factor value of 14 is used, as indicated in set R2 of Table A.5. Values used in the calculations are shown in ‘Table 6.7. Discussion. When performing the second calculation (ic. by calculating the eccentricity of the actions, the inclination factors, and hence R,, using characteristic values of actions), the resulting force lies outside the middle two-thirds of the foundation (¢ = 2.08 m > B/3 = 1.6). The foundation will lose contact with the ground over more than half its width under the service loads. It is common practice (although not required by EN 1997-1) to put some limit on the eccentricity under characteristic values of actions. For instance, should it be required that less than half the foundation loses contact with the soil, the foundation should be at least 6.24 m wide. Sliding resistance The angle of shearing resistance at constant volume, i. is used when checking sliding resistance. The passive resistance in front of the foundation is neglected in this example. In the first calculation, where the actions are factored at their source, the CaS¢“Visogan clearly governs the design. The recommended value is used for the partial resistance factor 7p, in set R2 of Table A.5. The design value of the sliding resistance is given by R, 1.0 x (1564 + 600) x tan 30°/L.4 = 1136 KN a = (Vy tan Py Man H, = 1.8 x 300 = 450 kN ‘The design is satisfactory since Hy < Ry. y In the second calculation, where the effects of uctions are factored, Ry y = (Vi tan a, ign = (1129 + 600) x tan 30°71 = 907 KN Hy = oll = 18 x 300 = 450 KN ‘Again, the design is satisfactory since Hy < Ry, Design Approach 3 Vertical bearing resistance ‘A square footing of dimensions 5.7m x 5.7m (characteristic value of its. weight Gu, = 1592KN) is checked for DA-3. The design values of the actions, the ground parameters, the bearing capacity factors, the shape factors and inclination factors are summarized in Table 6.8. It is necessary to consider the permanent vertical actions both as Vines’ 000 85 "Veoasi’s The recommended values of the partial factors for material properties and resistances are taken from Tables A.4 (set M2, = 1.28) and A.5 (set R3, ig, = 1.0). CHAPTER 6. SPREAD FOUNDATIONS Table 6.7. Calculations for DA-2, R, being calculated using design values of actions (columns | and 2) and R, being calculated using characteristic values of actions (column 3) Calculation 2 (factoring effects of actions: R calculated Calculation I (factoring actions at their Using characteristic source: R calculated using design values of values of actions actions) DA") Design value of Visco Vic Footing size BL.) 5.65 x 5.65 5.65 x 5.65, 480 x 480 Gv KN) 1564 2112 Gone = 1129 Gn) 600 io Ve = Gant 6. (KN) 2164 wn Hg(KN) 450 450 M.=H, x 12m (kN'm) $400 5400 ae) 0.208 0.154 HWM, = 0.173 c= MAI, om) 250 1.85 = MW, = 208 Bi =2x 62-e) ( oss 1.95 064 = BL Om) 367 N04 3.05 BLE 0.12 035 0.13 0) 35 35 35 (ha) ° ° ° (kim?) 20 20 20 4 Pa) 40 “0 40 33.30 3330 33.30 4523 62 45.23 Not elevane Not relevant Not relevant rey 1.069 {189 soc = 108 a0 0.96 030 2. = 096 sca) Not relevane Not relevant Not relevant me 189 175 1.98 ha) 064 073 gy = 070 nO ost 0.627 i= 058 fine) [Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant RIA (4a) OU s aad (L176 E ATRIA (006 + L6Iy/L4 =753 =1178 = 833 RA(KN) 2763 13005 2540 RV) 127 445 109 VM (kPa) 707 265 760 Sliding resistance ‘The angle of shearing resistance at constant volume, (is used when checking sliding resistance. The recommended strength factor value = 1.28 in set M2 in Table Ad is applied to y,... The passive resistance in front of the foundation is neglected in this example. The case *Visuasx’ Clearly governs the design. For the square footing of dimensions 5.7 m x 5.7 m, the design value of the sliding resistance is given by Rica = Co sac €4 5,07, en = nO % 2192 X tam 30%/1.25)/1.0 = 1022 KN Hy = oH = LS x 300 = 450 kN ‘The design is satisfactory since Hy < Ry. 7 DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1997-1 Clouse 6.5.4 8 Table 6.8, Calculations for DA-3 Design value of Voorn Vetoes Footing size BL (m) 57x57 57x57 Goes KN) 1592 2149 GN) 600 810 V4 (KN) 2192 2959 1K) 450 450 IM, = H, x [2m (kN m) 5400 5400 0.205 0.152 246 1.83 o77 205 44i 1168 04 036 23 13 kPa) ° ° 3 (kN!) 20 20 (kPa) 40 40 Nya 17.00 17.00 Nae 17.96 17:36 Nea) ‘Not relevant Not relevane ec) 1.07 Lie S20 0.96 089 Nor relevant Not relevant 88 74 0.65 075 052 064 Not relevant Not relevant 470 + 68 = 539 602 +210 = 812 2325 9483 1.06 3.20 Vala (kPa) 500 253 Eccentricity of the load Forall three Design Approaches it appears that, for the large eccentricity that acts in this example, a small increase in applied horizontal force to the structure (and hence an increase in moment) would lead to overturning of the foundation. It is vital to dimension the footing to cater for this and any other unforeseen situation. In all three Design Approaches, stability is strongly adversely affected by very small decreases (of a few centimetres) of the size of the footing. EN 1997-1 therefore requires that, where the design load passes outside of the middle two-thirds of the footing, an allowance must be made for construction tolerances. This will typically require that dimensions B” and L be increased by 0.1 m. ULS due to soil deformations As the design action is highly eccentric and the structure is tall,the second-order effects of rotation of the foundation should be checked; as a consequence of rocking, the vertical load also becomes eccentric. The eccentricity under design values of the vertical load has to be combined with the eccentricity due to the horizontal load. If the combined eccentricity becomes significant, the ULS check of bearing resistance must be repeated for the increased eccentricity.

You might also like