how can I start with calculations of bearing capacity ? I have atached a draft of the assigment and some ideas.
ROCK AND SOILS 2012 – Project Work Preliminary Information – locations of boreholes and trench pits EXCERPTS from Sheard, M. J. and Bowman, G. M. (1996). Soils, Stratigraphy and Engineering Geology of Near Surface Materials of the Adelaide Plains. Dept. Mines and Energy, Report Book 94/9, Volumes 1, 2 and 3, Adelaide (available on CD from PIRSA). Fig. 2 Generalized regional geological plan and location of cross-section X-X (Fig. 3) Fig. 49 Diagrammatic cross-section across the Adelaide Coastal Plain and lower Alluvial Plain, indicating sediment relationships Symbols and Diagrams used in AURECON Borelogs RAIL CROSSING BH112 - C South Road End BH06 South Rd End: Trench Pit TP10 South Rd End: Trench Pit TP10 SOUTH RD – BARKER INLET BH129 SOUTH RD – BARKER INLET BH131 1. TITLE: Consolidation, C Rock & Soils 2012 Supervisor: Robert L. Smith/Mizanur Rahman 1.1 Introduction (Scope) Your group is required to make estimates of consolidation settlement under the centre of embankments with and without measures to counteract the consolidation. The consolidation will proceed as construction proceeds. 1.2. Constraints Loads or pressures: The embankment will consist of good quality fill having a unit weight of 21 kN/m3. A surcharge pressure of 20 kPa at the top of the embankment may be assumed. Embankment height: 4.5 to 8.5 m Design settlement requirements: a) 50 mm of primary settlement post construction b) 50 mm of creep over 10 years 1.3. Geotechnical data The site is located midway along the Northern Connector route near a proposed overpass for rail freight. A deep borehole was made at this site (Aurecon borelog BH112) and samples have been taken of the soft layer for testing as required. 2. TITLE: Slope Stability Design of Embankments, S Rock & Soils 2012 Supervisors: Kirsty Beecham/ Don Cameron 2.1 Introduction (Scope) Your group is required to design embankments over a range of embankment heights and ground conditions. Safe batter angles are to be recommended for ranges of different heights. 2.2. Constraints Embankment height and width: the width is 16m of sealed surface (allow for shoulders) and the height ranges from 4.5 to 8.5 m. A working platform of 0.8 m thickness is to be provided at the base of the embankment, i.e. an 8.5 m high embankment consists of 7.7 m of fill and 0.8 m of working platform. The road material may be assumed to be 0.75 m thick. Loads or pressures: The embankment will consist of good quality fill having a unit weight of 20 kN/m3. The working platform will consist of clean granular material. A surcharge pressure of 20 kPa at the top of the embankment may be assumed. Design approach: Bishop’s simplified method (program GALENA) is to be applied. Design checks should be made for an earthquake acceleration of 0.12g and for a tension crack 1 m deep. Factor of Safety: 1.45 (no earthquake) and 1.3 with earthquake 2.3. Geotechnical data The embankments are to be located near the South Rd interchange and so borelogs for BH129, 131 and 006 (Aurecon) are appropriate for assessing the properties of the foundation soils. TP10 is also applicable. Typical test data for embankment material Stratum Unit weight (kN/m3) cu (kPa) u () c (kPa) () Fill 20 10 33 0 36 Working Platform 21 0 36 0 38 Road material 23 10 38 0 40 3. TITLE: Retaining Wall Design for Embankments, R Rock & Soils 2012 Supervisors: Kirsty Beecham/ Don Cameron 3.1 Introduction (Scope) Your group is required to design retaining walls over a range of embankment heights and ground conditions. 3.2. Constraints Retained height: 3.5 to 5.5 m. Loads or pressures: The backfill will consist of well-draining fill having a unit weight of 19.5 kN/m3. A surcharge pressure of 15 kPa at the top of the retaining wall may be assumed. Design approach: A factor of safety approach may be adopted provided checks on limit state approach are made (apply a mobilization factor on shear strength of 1.2). Either gravity walls or cantilevered (embedded) walls may be considered. All stability considerations must be assessed, including bearing capacity of the retaining wall footing, but excluding slope stability and structural integrity of walls. Designs must consider a water table lying 1 m below the retained ground level. 3.3. Geotechnical data The embankments which may be retained are to be located near the South Rd interchange and so borelogs for BH129, 131 and 006 (Aurecon) are appropriate for assessing the properties of the foundation soils. TP10 is also applicable. Backfill materials for gravity walls: Stratum Unit weight (kN/m3) c (kPa) () Granular backfill, Quarry Rubble (dense) 19.5 5 40 Sand backfill (medium dense) 19.0 3 36 4. TITLE: Allowable Bearing Capacity of Spread Footings, ABC1 and ABC2 Rock & Soils 2012 Supervisor ABC1: Robert Smith/ Mizanur Rahman Supervisor ABC2: ---------/ Don Cameron 4.1 Introduction (Scope) Purpose: Your group is required to design spread footings to take proposed loads for the columns of a building and to negate potential elastic settlements. Task: A study is to be undertaken of shallow footing systems, which should include geotechnical calculations of bearing capacity and immediate settlement. Potential foundation options should be designed for short term (undrained) and long term (drained) loading. The report should discuss the suitability of shallow foundations and whether other foundation types would be more appropriate. 4.2 Constraints Loads or pressures : The following loads are all safe working loads (SWL): External columns Internal columns Vertical (Compression) = 2500 kN Vertical (Compression) = 1800 kN Lateral = 200 kN Lateral = 100 kN Factor of Safety: 3 for shallow foundation systems on the ultimate net bearing capacity. Maximum allowable differential immediate settlement: Measured either along the perimeter or from the perimeter to the centre of the building: 15 mm 4.3 Geotechnical data Borelogs ABC1: The borelog for BH112 shall apply ABC2: Borelogs for BH129, 131 and 006 (Aurecon) are appropriate for assessing the properties of the foundation soils. 5. TITLE: Design of Piles for Bridge Supports, P1 Rock & Soils 2012 Supervisor P1a: Robert Smith/ Mizanur Rahman Supervisor P1b: ----- / Don Cameron 5.1 Introduction (Scope) Purpose: Your group is required to design pile footings to take proposed loads for the support of bridges and overpasses and to meet maximum allowable elastic settlements. Task: choose a single pile type or group of piles which meets the design requirements and which is suitable for construction on the site. Downdrag may need to be countered. 5.2 Constraints Vertical Loads Utlimate vertical load, S* = 7 to 9 MN Deformation Maximum allowable settlement of the pile head shall be 15 mm. 5.3 Geotechnical data Borelogs P1a: The borelog for BH112 shall apply P1b: Borelogs for BH129, 131 and 006 (Aurecon) are appropriate for assessing the properties of the foundation soils. 6. TITLE: Design of Piles for a Building, P2 Rock & Soils 2012 Supervisor: Robert Smith/ Mizanur Rahman 6.1 Introduction (Scope) Purpose: Your group is required to design pile footings to take proposed loads for the support of building column loads and to meet maximum allowable elastic settlements. Task: choose a single pile type or group of piles which meets the design requirements and which is suitable for construction on the site. Downdrag may need to be countered. 6.2 Constraints Vertical Loads Ultimate vertical load, S* = 5 to 6 MN Lateral load Check the capacity of your design pile to take a horizontal force of X kN aft ground level. Deformation Maximum allowable settlement of the pile head shall be 10 mm. 6.3 Geotechnical data Borelogs The borelog for BH112 shall apply CIVE 3008 – Rock & Soils 6 week Project Project Report – due Friday Week 13 (20%) Student Names: Key components of this assignment Mark Comment by marker Report Structure / 3 · Executive summary; 1 page · Table of contents · Introduction · Summary of data used · Design approach · Summary · Appendices of data and calculations Report Style / 3 · Adherence to “Report Writing Style Guide” · Referencing style · Data – clearly presented? · Quality of Figures and Tables · Appendices – appropriately used? General presentation criteria / 3 · Clarity of expression · Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation · Readability for the client · Logical and well reasoned design Quality of interpretation of data (field/lab/pc) / 5 · Poor (1 marks) · Average (3 marks) · Very good (4 marks) Level of understanding / 5 · No insightful analysis (0 marks) · Average analysis (2 marks) · Excellent analysis (4 marks) · Acknowledgement of weaknesses/ possible improvements (1 mark) Draft preparation / 2