×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Different bearing capacities point of view
3

Different bearing capacities point of view

Different bearing capacities point of view

(OP)
Hello Engineers,

Few years ago I was involved in a project which consisted in the construction of a 12-story building + 3 levels of basement (27 ft deep excavation).

The geology of the area is weathered coralline limestone (see picture attached).

Consultant A (the original geotech consultant) recommended an allowable bearing capacity (Qall) of 5000 psf, using the typical bearing capacity equations by Terzagui. This BC was recommended at the bottom of the excavation (27 ft below original surface).

Somehow someone on the client' side decided to get a second opinion with consultant B.

Consultant B recommended for the same building an allowable bearing capacity (Qall) of 8300 psf. He computed the bearing capacity using the typical BC equations like Consultant A however Consultant B added the overburden pressure at the bottom of the excavation. 5000 psf + 120 pcf x 27 ft ~ 8300 psf.

I understand that you may add the OB pressure (120 x 27 ~ 3300 psf) because there is a compensation at the time the excavation is performed, however, do you think it is correct to add up the full OB pressure?. I ask that because due to the weathered limestone material, cohesion plays a factor, so i don't think the full height of the OB (27 ft) would exert at the bottom of the excavation. Due to this, i can not tell what percentage of the OB would it be proper to consider for BC recommendations.

If the OB was clean sand, I would agree with Consultant B.

On other note, I found interesting that consultant B computed settlements considering a net foundation pressure (qn) of 5000 psf (local shear, Qall - OB). I understand that since he recommended a Qall of 8300 psf (considering OB) this should be the stress to be considered for settlement computations.

Please let me know your thoughts.

RE: Different bearing capacities point of view

I would not usually expect limestone to have a high cohesive value.

Other than that, it seems that one consultant may have calculated net bearing pressure and the other gross soil bearing and neither were specific as to which allowable they recommended.

I've never had any problem adding full weight of the depth of overburden removed to a net soil bearing capacity.

https://civilengineeringx.com/foundation/terzaghis...

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Different bearing capacities point of view

Quote (pelelo


... however, do you think it is correct to add up the full OB pressure?. I ask that because due to the weathered limestone material, cohesion plays a factor, so i don't think the full height of the OB (27 ft) would exert at the bottom of the excavation. Due to this, i can not tell what percentage of the OB would it be proper to consider for BC recommendations.)


It is hard to comment without knowing that the Consultant A allowable bearing capacity (Qall) of 5000 psf is if Gross or Net bearing capacity..

The following is excerpt for the bearing capacity FS. (from Principles of Foundation Engineering by BRAJA DAS )

My suggestion would be try to see the bearing capacity is gross or net and adjust it .





I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure..It is: Try to please everybody.

RE: Different bearing capacities point of view

1503-44 is right, its hard to know what they are referring to as they have not be specific.

The Terzaghi general bearing capacity (with Meyerhoff factors, but this is irrelevant) method give us ultimate bearing capacity (qu). To get allowable you divide it by a SF usually 3.



Nowhere in the Terzaghi method does it say to add the overburden stress on to make it gross. Consultant B is wrong IMO.

Regarding settlement calculations Consultant B is correct in only using the qallowable net.

If removed you removed 150kPa of overburden in an excavation and then constructed a foundation that applied 150kPa of pressure then the foundation will not settle settlement (this is only applicable to Mohr Coulomb soils which assume a linearly elastic soi).

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close